HomeMy WebLinkAboutCross Island Ferry Services DEIS 1997
..
..
III
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Application of
.
..
Cross Sound Ferry Services. Inc.
.
..
Orient Point, Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
..
..
...
..
..
..
..
Prepared by:
..
..
Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.
Environmental Planning and Development Consultants
36 Nugent Street; P.O. Box 1201
Southampton, New York 11969-1201
(516) 283-5958
..
..
..
..
'OM
Date Prepared:
October, 1997
C"-"-'" .......~.. -.,
l\u)J. ~ ilJJ ~l~)l
, ULI .! OCT I 5 1997 t L...l
i \ .
L ,~
L .'\~
..:.cL.._..j
__L' 0" .-___.. .
..
..
..
Date Submitted:
October, 1997
..
..
..
-
INTER;5CIENCE
..
..
...._-"""""""'--
~"--;,_.----.....,-,....<,......."~,"-",,,,".....<,~"_.~.,^,.,..
..
..
!Ill
.
-
.
-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Application of
Cross Sound. Ferry Services, Inc.
Orient Point, Town of South old
Suffolk County, New York
-
ill
-
.
.
.
Prepared For:
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
c/o Esseks, Hefter & Angel
108 East Main Street
Riverhead, New York
-
-
.
!III
Prepared by:
Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc.
Environmental Planning and Development Consultants
36 Nugent Street; P.O. Box 1201
Southampton, New York 11969-1201
(516) 283-5958
.
-
II
-
Contributing Consultants:
Timothy Rumph; Araiys Design, L.A., P.C.
Jeremy Hatch, Ph.D.
David Bernstein, Ph.D.
Michael Bruno, Ph.D.
Eric Lamont, Ph.D.
Dunn Engineering Associates
John Raynor, P.E. & L.S., P.C.
-
-
-
-
..
-
Lead Agency:
The Southold Town PlanninS Board
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chamnan
Southold Town Hall
Main Road, Southold 11971
(516) 765-1938
..
..
..
..
Date Prepared:
October, 1997
Date Submitted:
October, 1997
..
-
..
-
..
INTER:SCIENCE
..
..
..
.
..
.
I. INTRODUCTION.
..
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared as part of the application
for approval to ultimately construct a 155 car stone surface parking lot. The 2.4 acre project site
is located at Orient Point in the Town of Southold and is currently vacant, containing mostly
low-growing disturbance species.
.
..
..
-
This document has been prepared by Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc. at the request of the
applicant. Many facts and figures discussed within this document were generated by
Inter-Science using plans and drawings prepared by the Office of John 1. Raynor, P.E. & L.S.,
P.C., Water Mill, New York.
..
..
..
The purpose of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Part 617, is
to:
..
lOll
..
"...incorporate the consideration of environmental
factors into the existing planning, review and
decision making process of state, regional and local
government agencies at the earliest possible time."
(617.1)
..
.
..
..
.
During the course of the proposed action's review, a regulatory agency may request the
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The purpose of a Draft EIS
is as follows:
..
..
-
..
. IdentifY the natural site conditions;
. IdentifY and document anticipated impacts from the construction and use of the
proposed action;
. IdentifY mitigative measures which can be, or have been, incorporated into the
proposed design; and
. Investigate alternatives to the proposed action.
-
..
..
..
-
In summary, the role of a Draft EIS is to discuss the existing site condition, identifY potential
environmental impacts, offer mitigative measures and discuss alternatives to reduce the identified
impacts.
..
-
..
-
-
-
..
-
..
4!0
-
.
-
.
A scoping session was held between the Town and the applicant to determine the issues
considered to be significant. Accordingly, this Draft EIS focuses on the issues identified by the
Town as being important to the site and surrounding area. The following are the principal issues
discussed within this document:
-
.
.
1. Existing Conditions and Anticipated Environmental Impacts To:
.
.
. Geological Features;
. Water Resources;
. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology;
. Air Resources;
. Transportation;
. Land Use and Zoning;
. Community Services;
. Visual Resources;
. Historic and Pre-historic Resources; and,
. Sound Levels.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
2. Mitigation Measures.
-
.
3. Adverse Impacts that Can Not Be Avoided.
-
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
.
-
.
* * *
-
-
-
The information contained in this document represents a comprehensive analysis of the proposed
site plan and is intended to provide the various regulatory agencies with the necessary information
to make informed decisions. This Draft EIS was prepared in a manner that it addresses all of the
previously discussed concerns of the site, while also meeting the purposes and requirements of the
New York State Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ii
-
-
-
...
..
..
..
Definitions and Kev Terms.
...
To assist the reader, the following is a listing and explanation of several key terms that are frequently
used throughout this document.
..
...
Pronosed Action - The original proposal submitted by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. to both the
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board: The construction of a 155 car
parking area occupying only the existing vacant easternmost parcel (the "Trust" Parcel, SCTM 1000-
15-9-3.5) controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. and owned by John Peter Wronowski, New
London, CT.
.
...
..
-
..
Proposed Site Plan - The drawing which represents the "Proposed Action", as defined in this section
and represented on the drawing titled "Proposed Site Plan for the Properties of Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc.", prepared on July 18,1997, last revised on September 17,1997 and prepared by John
1. Raynor, P.E., 1.S. & P.C., Water Mill, New York.
-
..
-
Proiect Site - The project site occupies only the land ofthe Trust Parcel (SCTM 1000-15-9-3.5; 2.47
acres) .
..
..
Terminal Parcel - The 1.4 acre parcel controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., currently
occupied by the terminal building and staging area (SCTM 1000-15-9-11.1).
...
...
West Parcel - The 1.2 acre, westernmost parcel controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.,
which is currently occupied by a 2.5 story frame single family residence and is used as an approved
overflow parking area (SCTM 1000-15-9-10.1).
..
-
-
Snack Bar Parcel - The 1.46 acre parcel controlled by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. (owned by
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., New London, CT), which currently functions as a 235 (maximum)
car parking area and houses Cross Sounds' operational snack bar (SCTM 1000-15-9-15.1).
-
...
-
Trust Parcel - The 2.47 acre easternmost parcel owned by Adam C. Wronowski and Adam C.
Wronowski as Custodian for Jessica Wronowski under the Connecticut UGMA (SCTM 1000-15-9-
3.5).
...
...
..
Cross Sound Facilitv - The combined land area of all 4 parcels controlled by Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc., and including the segment of State Route 25 which lies between the Terminal Parcel
and the Snack Bar Parcel.
...
..
Cross Sound Site - Same as "Cross Sound Facility" defined above.
...
... Cross Sound - The abbreviated term for the formal name of the project sponsor - "Cross Sound
Ferry Services, Inc.
-
...
-
III
...
...
...
I!l:
-
..
..
..
CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INe.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
..
Paee
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
..
.
DEFINITIONS & KEY TERMS ............................................................ iii
..
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . .
.. .IV
..
SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
..
..
1. Brief description of the action. ........................................................ I
2. Significant, adverse and beneficial impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I
3. Mitigation measures proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Alternatives considered. ............................................................. 3
5. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, status, funding). ................................. 4
..
..
-
L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
..
..
A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS. .......................................... 5
1. Backgr01111d and History of the Cross Sound Facility. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Public Need for the Project and Municipality Objectives ..................................7
3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor ..................................... ...............8
4. Benefits of the Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........9
..
-
..
-
B. PROJECT LOCATION. ...................................................... ....... 10
1. Geographic Site Boundaries. ........................................................10
2. Description of Existing Site Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Description of Existing Zoning. ...................................................... II
4. Radius Map. ..................................................................... II
-
-
-
C. PROJECT DESIGN AND LAYOUT. ................................................... II
1. Total Site Area. ................................................................... II
2. Existing and Proposed Site Coverage Quantities. ........................................12
3. Existing and Proposed Structures. ................................................... .12
4. Existing and Proposed Parking. ..................................................... .13
5. Existing and Proposed Recharge. ............................................. ....... .13
6. Existing and Proposed Sanitary Disposal. ............................................. .14
7. Existing and Proposed Water Supply. ................................................. 14
8. Existing and Proposed Lighting and Landscaping. ........................................15
9. Existing and Proposed Utilities. ...................................................... 16
-
-
..
-
..
..
-
D. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Proposed Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
a) Anticipated period of construction. .................................................16
b) Schedule of construction activities. ...... .........................................16
2. Proposed Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
..
-
E. AGENCIES AND APPROVALS. ...
..17
..
-
IV
-
-
-
..
..
..
.
Page
II. EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED ENVffiONMENTAL CONDmON.
..
1. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING OPERATIONS. .........
.....19
..
..
2. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITION AND
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS. .....................................
.............. 22
..
NATURAL RESOURCES.
..
..
A. GEOLOGY: EXISTING CONDITION ..................................................22
1. Subsurface. ..................................................................... 22
a) Composition and thickness .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
2. Surface. ........................................................................ 23
a) Soil types ............................. ..................................... 23
b) Soil characteristicslIimitations ...................................................24
c) Distribution of soil types. ....................................................... 26
d) Identification of dune, tidal marsh or special feature soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ....... .27
-
..
..
-
..
..
(A) GEOLOGY: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
1. Subsurface....................................................................... 28
2. Surface.......................................................................... 28
3. Topography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
..
..
-
B WATER RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDITION........................................ 30
1. Groundwater .................................................................... 30
a) Location and description of aquifers and recharge areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Depth of water table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. ........................... 31
. Seasonal variations. .......................................................... 31
. Groundwater-swface water inter-relationship. ..................................... 31
. Discharge to surface water. ..................................... . . . . . . . . .. 32
. Tidal fluctuation. ............................................................ 32
. Groundwater quality. ......................................... ................ 32
. Direction of water flow. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
b) Identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater. ..........................36
. Location of existing wells. ...................,................................. 36
. Public/private water supply and use ............................................. 36
. Agricultural uses. ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
c) Groundvvater/water managernent regulations. ....................................... .37
Long Island Regional Planning Board 208 Study.. ................................. 37
. Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Areas Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
. Long Island Segment of Nationwide Urban Runo:IIProgram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
2. Surface Water .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
a) Identification of nearby surface waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Water quality and salinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
. Water characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
b) PeconicBayEstuaryDesignation. ................................................45
3. Drainage. ....................................................................... 46
. Existiog Draioage Patterns On-SiteIProximity & Identification of Draioage Swales and
Natural Collection Areas ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Floodiog. ....................................................... .. . . . . . .
. Identification and limitations of on-site flood zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... 46
....46
46
..
.
..
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
..
..
..
-
..
-
..
-
v
..
..
-
-
.
Pa2e
..
(B) WATER RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. ...................................... .47
I. Impact of the project on groundwater quality. ..........................................47
2. Effect of on-site runoff. ............................................. ...............48
3. Effect of the potential increase in erosion potential on
adjacent water resources. .......................................................... 49
-
-
-
-
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: EXISTING CONDITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
I. Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
a) Vegetativespeciesfoundontheprojectsite. ........................................50
b) Site Vegetation Analysis. ....................................................... 50
c) NYS Natural Heritage Program. ..................................................51
d) Vegetative species listed as rare. .................................................51
e) Unique marine flora located adjacent to the project site. ...............................52
2. Wildlife ........................................................................ 52
a) Wildlife inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
b) Natural Heritage Program. ...................................................... 54
c) Designated Wildlife Species. ..................................................... 54
d) Habitat requirements for listed species .............................................54
3. Wetlands.. ...................................................................... 55
a) Description of existing wetlands. .................................................55
b) Wetlands delineation and jurisdiction. ............................................. 55
c) Function of existing proximity wetlands. ...........................................55
-
..
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
(C) TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
I. Vegetation....................................................................... 55
a) Impact on existing vegetation located on-site/proximity. ............................... 55
2. Wildlife ........................................................................ 56
a) Impact on existing wildlife located on-site/proximity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Wetlands ....................................................................... 56
a) Impact on existing wetlands located on-site/proximity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
..
-
-
-
-
D. A1RRESOURCES:EXISTINGCONDITION ............................................57
I. Meteorological Conditions. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2. Ambient Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3. Air Quality Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... 57
-
-
-
(0) AIR RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. .................
..57
-
HUMAN RESOURCES.
-
-
A. TRANSPORTATION: EXISTING CONDITION &
(A) ANTICIPATED IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
..
..
B. LAND USE AND ZONING: EXISTING CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
I. Existing land use and zoning. ........................................................ 60
a) Existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
b) Existing zoning of the project site and surrounding area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
c) Current ownership of the project site and adjacent parcels, relating ownership,
use and zoning to finther land use trends and open space. ..............................61
d) Existing non-conforming uses on the project site. .................................,.., 63
..
..
-
-
-
..
VI
-
-
...
-
.
Page
-
2. Conformance of the proposed action to existing land use plans. .............................63
a) The Local Waterfront Revitalization Project (L WRP) and State Coastal Management Program. . 63
b) Peconic Bay Estuary Program. .................................................... 75
c) Critical Environmental Area Designation. ...........................................79
d) Orient Landmark Designation. .................................................... 80
.
-
.
-
(8) LAND USE AND ZONING: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
I. Impact on land use. ............................................................... 82
2. Impact on zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3. Impact on existing land use plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
a) Impacts to the State CoastaIZoneManagementProgram. ...... .........................84
b) Impacts to the Peconic Bay Estuary Program. ............... .................. ....84
c) Impacts to Critical Environmental Area Designation. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....................84
d) Impacts to Orient Landmark Designation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...........................85
-
-
-
-
...
C. COMMUNITY SERVICES: EXISTING CONDITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
I. InventOlY of nearby educational facilities. ....................................... .....86
2. History of police service in connection with Cross Sounds operation. ........................ 86
3. Fire protection within Orient community. ..............................................86
4. Inventory of recreational facilities within Orient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
5. Inventory of public utilities at the project site and in thevicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
.
-
-
-
(C) COMMUNITY SERVICES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
I. Anticipated impact on nearby educationalfacilities. ......................................88
2. Anticipated actions anticipated impact on police service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3. Anticipated impact on fire protection. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4. Anticipated impact on existing nearby recreational facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5. Anticipated impact on local public utilities. ............................................91
...
.
-
...
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
-
-
A. VISUAL RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDITION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
I. Description of the physical character of the community. ...................................92
2. Description of the site from nearby roadways and surface waters. .................. . . .93
-
-
(A) VISUAL RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. .......................................93
I. Visual impact on the character of community from the proposed action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2. Visual impact on community from the proposed lighting. .................................93
3. Visual assessment of the proposed site from Route 25 and Gardiner's Bay. ................... 94
-
-
-
B. HISTORICIPRE-HISTORIC RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDITION. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... 94
I. Inventory/description of historic areas and/or structures located on or
in the proximity of the project site. .................................................... 94
2. Stage I archaeological survey~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ................... 95
-
-
-
(8) HISTORICIPRE-HISTORIC RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
I. Impact on historic structures/areas identified on the State Register. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2. Impact on historic structures/areas identified on the National Register. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3. Impact on historic structures/areas identified by the Town and/or County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4. Impact on historic structures/areas identified by the Society for the
Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. ............................................... 96
...
-
-
-
-
Vll
-
-
.
-
.
Page
-
C. NOISE RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDITION. ......................................... 97
I. Existing ambient sound levels on site and at property line of nearest receptor. ................. 97
.
(C) NOISE RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT. .............................. ...97
-
.
OTHER RESOURCESAND IMPACTS.
-
-
A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. ........................................................... 98
B. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS. .......................................... . . . . .99
C. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. ................ 100
D EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. .......101
-
-
-
ill. MmGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
...
NATURAL RESOURCES.
-
A. GEOLOGy......................................................................... 102
I. Subsurface....................................................................... 102
a) Use of excavated material for land reclamation. .......................................102
2. Surface.......................................................................... 102
a) Use of stockpiled topsoil for restoration and landscaping. ............................... 102
b) Protection of dune and beach formation . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
c) Soil erosion control plan. ......................................................... 103
3. Topography...................................................................... 103
a) Steep slope protection. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
-
-
...
-
.
-
-
B. WATER RESOURCES ............................................................... 103
I. Groundwater...................................................................... 103
a) Wastewater and stormwater control plan. ............................................ 103
b) Permeability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
c) Non-disturbance/non-fertilization areas. ............................................. 104
d) Management of oiVgrease from parked vehicles and traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
2. Surface water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
a) Soil erosion control techniques. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
b) Stormwatercontrol system. ...........................,........................... 104
c) Wetlands setbacks and covenants. ..................................................104
d) Dune and beach setbacks. ........................................................ 105
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY. ............................................105
I. Vegetation/wildlife ................................................................ 105
a) Approach to site clearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
b) Preservation of portion of site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
c) Use of native speciesforlandscaping. .............................................. .105
d)Preservationofnaturalbabitat.................................................... .105
e) Linkages to other sites and habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
f) Preservation of wetlands. ......................................................... 106
-
-
...
-
-
D. NOISE RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Buffers and barriers .......................... ...................
.............106
................ .106
-
-
-
Vlll
-
~.._',.'''''''''''~_''' ....0..... _~._,~,~._"...~....._._."_..~,~,..,,.._..~.,.., "~,,,~,_,__,.,,_ .-.
..
..
..
.
Page
..
HUMAN RESOURCES.
..
A. TRANSPORTATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
..
B. LAND USE AND ZONING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
\. Existing land use and zoning. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
a) DesignprojecllO comply with existing land use plans. ..................................108
b) Facility design with respect to surrounding land use. ......................... ..108
..
..
..
-
C. COMMUNITY SERVICES. ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
\. Police/Fire Protection/Safety. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
a) Emergency protection of project site and surrounding area. .............................. 109
b) Transportation of school children. ................................................. .109
2. Utilities......................................................................... 110
a) Below grade utility installation. ................................................... .110
b) Water saving teclmiques/devices. .................................................. 110
c)Energy-savingteclmiques/devices.................................................. 110
..
..
..
..
..
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
..
A. VISUAL RESOURCES. ................................................ .....110
\. Use of buffers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2. Minimal road surface area and land disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
3. Use of mushroom lighting on poles less than 14 feet inheighl. ...................... ....... .111
4. Use of native landscape species for screening purposes. ................................... III
..
..
..
..
B. HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ................................. ....... .112
\. Preservation of portion of site for archaeological research. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
-
-
IV. ADVERSE ENVffiONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE
AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED.. ..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
..
-
V. ALTERNATIVES.
OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 116
A. ALTERNATIVEPARKINGLOTLOCATIONS. ..........................................117
B. ALTERNATIVE PARKING LOT SIZE. ................................................. 118
C. ALTERNATIVE PARKING LOT DESIGN. ........................................ ...118
D. ALTERNATIVE USE OF RESIDENTIAL LOT. ........................... ............119
E. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE. ........................................................119
..
..
..
-
..
VI. REFERENCES AND CONTACTS. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
..
..
-
VII. APPENDICES (submitted under seoarate Inter-Science cover).
\. CONSULTANTS REPORTS. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. A-I
. "Coastal Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Project'; Dr. Michael Bruno, Ph.D. &
Dr. KellyL. Rankin, Ph.D. ...................................................... .......... A-I
"Final Vegetation Report on Cross Sound Ferry Project at Orient Point"; Dr. Eric Lamont. Ph.D. . . . . . . .. A-38
"Wildlife Inventory and Analysis Cross Sound Ferry Project; Dr. Jeremy Hatch, Ph. D. ...... ......... A-52
-
..
..
-
ix
..
-
-
..
..
.
Page
-
VII. APPENDICES. (cont.)
. "Air Quality Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion"; Dunn Engineering
"Visual Resource Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry "; Tim Rumph, L.A., P. C.; Araiys Design .
. "Stage I Archival Search and Archeological Survey of the Cross Sound Ferry Property ";
Dr. David J. Bernstein, Ph.D. & Daria E. Merwin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-107
"Noise Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion"; Dwm Engineering. . . . A-ISO
. "Traffic Impact Studyfor Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion ",Dunn Engineering ...... *
A-61
A-7S
..
-
.
-
2. SITE DATA.........................................................................
A-164
..
3. PERMITS, PERMIT INFORMATION ........................................................... A.177
-
4. LETTERS .................................................................................. A-233
..
-
5. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, REFERENCES, QUOTED MATERIAL,
SEQRADOCUMENTATION..................... .....................
..................... A.253
..
* Submitted under separate Dunn Engineering cover.
-
..
-
..
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
x
-
..
..
..
..
SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
...
..
1. Brief DescriDtion oftbe ProDosed Action.
Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc. seeks approval to construct a 155 car, stone surfaced, parking area
on a 2.4 acre vacant parcel currently occupied by mostly low growing disturbance species of
vegetation. The project site is zoned R-80 (Residential Low Density A) by the Town of Southold.
The proposed parking area will be used in association with the adjacent existing vehicular and
passenger carrier service owned and operated by Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc. The total capacity
of existing on-site parking controlled by Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc. is 309 vehicles. Following
the construction of the proposed action, the total on-site parking capacity would be raised to 464
vehicles. The following list outlines the basic schedule of the proposed construction:
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
1. Placement of a project limiting fence to define the project area.
2. Clear and grade the site as per the proposed plans.
3. Installation of the proposed drainage structures to control water run-off.
4. Extension of below-grade electric lines to accommodate the proposed lighting scheme.
5. Spread base course of the proposed stone parking surface.
6. Installation of the proposed lighting.
7. Installation ofthe proposed landscaping.
8. Spread top course of the proposed stone parking surface.
..
..
..
..
..
..
2. Sil!nificant. Adverse and Beneficial ImDacts.
Periods of parking saturation or near saturation have occurred at the Cross Sound facility during
isolated instances over the past several years. Instances of saturation or near saturation have not yet
resulted in the inability of Cross Sound Feny Services, Inc. to accommodate the demands of the inter-
state traveler wishing to utilize their service. Provided that the transportation demand continues to
increase, and in order to accommodate the demands of the inter-state traveler, it is evident that a
public need exists and a public benefit gained with the development of the project site into a parking
facility.
...
..
..
..
...
..
With respect to the existing features located on the project site, the following table outlines the basic
on-site changes pursuant to the proposed construction:
...
..
..
Existinll
Total Land Area of the Project Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .... . . . . ... .. 2.47 acres
Interior Exposed Soil Areas, Natural Vegetation & Planted Landscaping ...... 62,230 s.f.
Gravel Parking and Drainage ............................................. 0 s.f.
Dirt Driveway .................................................... 12,575 sJ.
Buildings, Structures, Walkways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 s.f.
Beach, Dredge Spoil ............................................... 33,050 s.f.
Prooosed
2.47 acres
15,410 s.f.
55,150 s.f.
360 s.f.
o s.f.
36,935 s.f.
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
..
'!It
,'" '~-'-""""-""-'~""---'.~-""-'"'""<""~'--"~'_'~-'"-"_'_"'-~-"
-
-
.
.
In addition to the research conducted by Inter-Science, several outside consultants were retained to
study the relationship of the existing site to the proposed action. The following text summarizes the
conclusions of Inter-Science and the outside consultants with respect to the anticipated impact of the
proposed action:
.
-
-
COASTAL GEOLOGIC FEATURES (Dr. Michael Bruno. Ph.D. and Dr. Kellv Rankin Ph.D.)
The proposed action will not extend onto the fronting beach, neighboring dunes and/or into any littoral zone.
Consequently, the proposed parking area will have no impact on the fronting beach, dunes, tidal wetlands and/or
existing offshore coastal processes.
.
-
-
-
SITE VEGETATION (Dr. Eric Lamont. Ph.D.)
The site is dominated by non-native disturbance species possessing minimal habitat value. There is no unique flora
occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site that will be negatively impacted by the proposed action.
-
-
SITE WILDLIFE (Dr. Jeremv 1. Hatch. Ph.D.)
No evidence was found that the proposed action would have adverse effects on any designated species of wildlife
or designated habitat. In its present state, the project site is not a significant wildlife area.
-
-
ARCHAEOLOGIC RESOURCES (Dr. David Bernstein. Ph.D.)
Surface inspection and subsurface testing revealed negative results. No impacts are anticipated to (I)
structures/areas identified on the State Register, (2) structures/areas identified on the National Register, (3) historic
structures identified by the Town and/or County and (4) structures/areas identified by the Society for the
Preservation of Long Island Antiquities.
-
-
iIlI
-
NOISE/SOUND LEVELS (Dunn Engineering)
Receptors were placed on the project site to document the existing level of sound. It is estimated that the use of
the proposed parking area would result in an increase in sound on the order of 3 dBA at maximum. It is widely
accepted that a change of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to the human ear.
.
-
-
AIR OUALITY (Dunn Enlrineering)
The air quality in the vicinity of the project site is better than most of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Suffolk County is designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and a non-attainment area for ozone.
No contravention of the National Air Quality Standards for CO is expected with the use of the proposed action.
Furthermore, ferry trips reduce vehicle miles traveled, resulting in lower ozone production. Consequently, there
is expected to be no significant impact on air quality in the study area with the use of the proposed action.
-
-
-
-
TRAFFIC GENERA nON (Dunn Engineering)
Dunn Engineering conducted a detailed traffic study for the Orient area which included analysis of (I) actual traffic
counts, (2) projected traffic counts, (3) comparison of traffic counts to NYSDOT estimated growth trends, (4)
existing and projected Cross Sound ridership data and (5) existing and projected accident statistics. The subject
study, titled "Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion", is bound under
separate Dunn Engineering cover. .
-
-
-
-
LAND USE PLANS AND STUDIES (Inter-Science Research Associates. Inc.)
The regulations and objectives of several land use plans were analyzed with respect to how the proposed action
relates to the selected plans respective recommendations and conclusions. Based upon this research, it was
concluded that the proposed action either conforms to, or will have no impact on the goals/objectives of (I) the
State Coastal Management Program, (2) the Peconic Bay Estuary Program, (3) Critical Environmental Area
Designation and/or (4) Orient Landmark Designation.
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
III
..
III
.
VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT (Tim Rumoh. L.A.. P.C.: Araivs Design)
Using a standardized methodology employed by Federal Highway Administration to assess the existing and
proposed visual quality of the site/surrounding area, it is believed that the visual character of the area will change
slightly with the construction and use of the proposed parking area. However, with respect to the condition of the
existing site and the placement of the proposed landscaping, it expected that the visual quality of the area will not
change significantly.
..
..
III
...
COMMUNITY SERVICES (Ioter-Science Research Associates. Inc.)
In an effort to obtain a local assessment of the proposed parking areas impact on existing community services,
letters of inquiry were submitted to the following individuals: (I) Charles Woznik, Superintendent, Oysterponds
Public School; (2) Ken Reeves, Recreation Supervisor, Southold Recreation Department; (3) Jim McMahon,
Director, Southold Conununity Development Office; (4) Ed Loper, Chief, Orient Fire Department and (5) Joseph
Conway, Chief, Southold Police Department Based upon the responses to these letters and in-house investigation,
it was concluded that the proposed parking area will have no significant impact on community services.
..
III
..
..
..
3. Miti!mtion Measures ProDosed.
The following are the main mitigation measures proposed in association with the construction and
use of the subject parking area:
..
..
..
. Use of Excavated Material for Land Reclamation;
. Use of Stockpiled Topsoil for Restoration and Landscaping;
. Protection of Dune, Beach and Wetlands;
. Implementation of a Soil Erosion Control Plan;
. Protection of Steep Slopes;
. Implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan;
. Implementation of Soil Erosion Control Techniques;
. Conformance to Natural Resource Setbacks;
. Use of Native Species for Landscaping;
. Use of a Permeable Parking Surface;
. Placement of Landscaping on the Perimeter of the Project Site, Establishment of Buffers;
. Use of 14' Tall Mushroom Light Fixtures with Bafl1es to Direct Light Downward;
. Installation of Below-Grade Electric Service;
. Use of Temporary (2 growing season) Irrigation;
. Prohibition of the Use of Fertilizers.
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
...
..
...
..
...
4. Alternatives Considered.
The following alternatives were included in the Towns' Scoping Outline and are discussed in detail
in the "Alternatives" Section of this Draft EIS:
..
..
. Alternative Parking Lot Location;
. Alternative Parking Lot Size;
. Alternative Parking Lot Design;
. Alternative Use as Residential Lot; and the
. No Action Alternative.
..
..
..
..
3
..
...
...
..
~_"'~_""__''"'''~~''''~.'''='<'.w~_."'~W"..,.__"",...,_,._..,
101
.
101
.
5. Matters to be Decided.
A chart (titled: "Table of Jurisdiction for Regulatory Agencies and Interested Parties Included in
the Towns' ScopingOutline"), located at the end of the "Description of the Proposed Action" section
of this Draft EIS, lists all of the regulatory agencies and interested parties which were included in the
Towns' Scoping Outline. The subject chart discusses each regulatory agency/interested party in
terms of their jurisdictional claim over the proposed action. In short, under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the regulatory agencies which appear to presently have valid
jurisdictional claims over the proposed action include (1) The Southold Planning Board, (2) The
Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, and, (3) The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
101
.
101
.
101
III
III
III
-
III
-
III
III
.
III
.
...
-
-
-
-
III
-
-
-
III
-
III
-
OIl
-
4
-
III
-
..
.
..
.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE PROPOSED
CONSOLIDATED ACTION.
..
.
A. PROJECT PURPOSE. NEED AND BENEFITS.
-
-
1. Backl!round and History of the Cross Sound Facilitv.
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has operated the Federally licenced Orient Point passenger and
vehicular carrier service since 1975, when it was purchased from the New London Freight Lines.
Records indicate that marine shipping and passenger service has existed at this site since the late
1700's. Vehicular carrier service to New London, CT began in the early 1930s. Interest in vehicular
carrier service was slow at first, however, by 1948, demand had risen. In response, two new vessels
were purchased and the number ofmps rose to six per day in an effort to meet the apparent demand.
Due to continuing increase in demand, New London Freight Lines increased service from two vessels
to three while also increasing the number of trips to nine a day. Demand has continued to steadily
rise over the years, as has the number of vessels and the number of trips needed per day. Currently
Cross Sound Ferry Services operates 2 to 6 boats year-round and makes approximately 8 to 25
round-trips per day between Orient Point, NY and New London, CT, depending on demand.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As the demand for service increased over the past 50 years, so has the need to satisfy Cross Sound's
federal law obligation to accommodate the growing number of passengers, vehicles and freight.
Based upon a review of historic aerial photographs of the terminal site and surrounding area, it
appears that from 1955 to 1969 parking was primarily limited to the shoulders of Route 25 and
portions of what are now known as the Snack Bar and Terminal Parcels. Both the main section of
the snack bar building and the small shack (located just to the north of the boat ramp) existed as far
back as 1955 and were used in association with the carrier operation. The 1955 air photo appears
to indicate that much of the area consisted of agriculture. The aerial also appears to indicate the
routine dredging of the bay bottom near the boat loading ramp. It is uncertain where the dredge spoil
was placed at that time.
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
To meet demand, a larger ramp was constructed between 1969 - 1978 (directly adjacent to the
original ramp) to accommodate larger vessels. By 1978, the parking areas on the Terminal and Snack
Bar Parcels appeared to occupy large areas. A mobile home was placed on the Snack Bar Parcel
sometime between 1969 and 1978. Based upon the placement offences and cleared vegetation
visible in the 1978 air photo, attempts to organize parking were being made on the Snack Bar and
Terminal Parcels.
-
-
-
-
-
The mid- 1980s represented the time period when the most sweeping changes occurred to the Cross
Sound properties. From 1984 through 1985, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., received local
approvals from the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and the Building
Department for the construction of a two story terminal and large asphalt vehicular staging area
encompassing the entire property now appropriately referred to as the Terminal Parcel (resulting in
the demolition of the farmhouse located immediately west of the loading ramp). The 1988 air photo
shows that almost all of the area occupied by the Snack Bar Parcel was used for parking and that the
Trust Parcel was no longer being farmed. Furthermore, the air photo reveals a large dredge spoil
-
-
.
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
...
~
00
00
0\
........
I:
-
-
-
-
x
'""
~
--
:\""". '
'"'" '
....
'""'~, .
'.
/~
III
!,
~
.,
'..-
o'
00
r--
C\
....
"
""
.,
iol',)
::r
,
L
. fl.
. ,...
_.-
--
I') ~
e
'3'
\1 t~
11 ~
)l~~.~ :,1,
. ~-;
~/r.,
'j
I
"d'
11
p
~
,I
~
~
"
II!!:! t',. ~ll. '"
'"'" 'II
."
"
II ~-,
ro;
-
- -
....
....;
'"
...
,
, '
",
'<
"""'~ '" ".
,
...........
;
'....
...
,
,1:/ t
. ,.
l ,/~,' / i/'
-' . r - -'
j / ".'
/J'
It
"
.....
/
/'l,
"
I <!"..
."ill ,-, ,
~r 't.., " ,of'.;1
. If '~'/' l' :
" "~ ,f ,/
7.11 .r .-
{r/' III
61.:/r,-i' J ,I,
'it' /'
;;"t;if~t;/ "
~7{/
, ,
r.-.~
,.,
"
,
,/~
,~
"
....
,
~
'~
~~
,-s:,.
"
.... ...
....,
ii
.
It
t
I
I
~
I
I
/
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
disposal area located at the southern tip of the Snack Bar Parcel, thus indicating that the vessel slip
had recently undergone maintenance dredging. As is currently the case, the spoil is evidently
stockpiled at this location, then trucked to Orient Beach State Park for beach nourishment and
erosion protection purposes.
In May, 1995, approximately ten years after Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. constructed their new
terminal and staging area, they received approval from the Town Planning Board and County Health
Department to build a 69 car gravel overflow parking area to the west of the terminal building on the
lot now commonly referred to as the West Parcel. The 1996 air photo shows that approximately 75%
of the West Parcel was cleared for the construction of the subject parking area. The existing
residence located on the southern tip of the parcel was not disturbed by the subject construction and
remains on the site today. The air photo also shows the apparent use of the Trust Parcel as a dredge
spoil disposal site resulting in the loss of approximately 50% of the parcels grassy/shrubland
vegetation. Most of the spoil stockpiled on the site is trucked to Orient Beach State Park for beach
nourishment and erosion protection purposes. Permits allowing this dredging to occur and the spoil
to be stockpiled are contained in the appendix of this document.
To accommodate the increase in demand for services and to maintain an acceptable level of service
on the auto carrying vessels, in mid-July, 1995, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. began operation of
the Sea Jet, a 400 seat passenger- only ferry. The following outline represents the major milestones
that have occurred with respect to the use of the Sea Jet at Orient:
. July 14. 1995: Without notice, the Town Planning Board finds that the operation of
the Sea Jet by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. is an "intensity of use" and passes a
resolution that Cross Sound must submit a revised site plan for town review and
approval.
. July 18. 1995: Honorable Patrick Henry denies request of the Town of South old
seeking temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. Justice directs parties to
resolve the matter.
. November 7. 1995: Application submitted to the Building Inspector by Cross Sound
Ferry Services, Inc. to establish parking on the Trust Parcel.
. November 27. 1995: Notice of Disapproval issued by Building Inspector regarding
November 7 application. Notice indicates that approvals will have to be obtained
from the ZBA (variance) and Planning Board (site plan approval) for the action as
indicated in the November 7 application.
. December 8. 1995: Variance Application submitted to the Southold Zoning Board of
Appeals by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
. December 26. 1995: Southold ZBA returns the variance application to Cross Sound.
. April 11. 1996: Site Plan Application and related material submitted to the Planning
Board by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. to create new parking on the Trust Parcel
and an increase in the number of existing available parking spaces on the snack bar
parcel.
. May 1. 1996: Variance application re-submitted to the ZBA by Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. June 28. 1996: At request of Planning Board, applicant re-submits modified site plan
and related material.
. July 29. 1996: At request of Planning Board, the applicant, as a courtesy, submits an
overall integrated concept plan involving all four of the applicants individual parcels.
. Julv 30. 1996: The Planning Board passes a resolution classifying the subject action
as a Type One, pursuant to SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act).
. September 9. 1996: A draft Positive Declaration is prepared by the Towns'
environmental consultant, Charles Voorhis and Associates.
. September 16. 1996: The Planning Board issues the following two resolutions: (1)
Planning Board will be the lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA and (2) the
Planning Board issues a Positive Declaration on the Integrated Site Plan thus
requiring the preparation of a Draft EIS.
. October 16. 1996: Article 78 proceeding filed against the Town Planning Board by
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. claiming that the SEQRA Positive Declaration was
arbitrary and capricious.
. October 21. 1996: Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. submits a project sponsor draft
scoping outline to the Planning Board pursuant to Section 617.8 of the State SEQRA
Regulations.
. October 29 & November 15. 1996: Town sends out own version of scoping outline
'to permitting agencies and interested parties and requests comments/suggestions.
. December 4. 1996: Public scoping meeting held at Town HaIl.
. December 10. 1996: Submission ofIetter to the Planning Board by Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc, claiming that the Scoping Outline contains an inappropriate number of
issues to address.
. December 16. 1996: Scoping Outline adopted by the Town Planning Board.
. January 15. 1997: Article 78 proceeding filed against the Town Planning Board by
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. claiming that the adopted Scoping Outline was
arbitrary and capricious.
· May 28. 1997: Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) files a mandamus
proceeding against the Town claiming that the Town is not enforcing zoning and
environmental laws.
· Seotember 11. 1997: Honorable John 1. Dunn dismisses SCSR's proceeding.
2. Public Need for the Proiect and MuniciDalitv Obiectives.
If growth trends in transportation demand on Long Island continue, as has been indicated over the
past several decades by (1) an increase in the number of registered vehicles, (2) residential and
commercial development on the North Fork and all of Long Island, and, (3) state and federal DOT
studies, the potential exists for parking saturation at the Cross Sound facility during peak periods of
operation and use.
If parking facilities reach capacity, thereby becoming saturated, and arriving vehicles are prohibited
to park, the traveler will seek alternatives, namely: (1) purchase an auto ticket and take the vehicle
to New London where ample parking exists, (2) park in nearby, non-facility areas (which may either
7
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be permitted or non-permitted), or, (3) utilize other means of island egress (ie. train, airplane,
highway bridge).
Periods of parking saturation or near saturation have occurred during isolated instances over the past
several years. Fortunately, however, the demands of the traveler have been accommodated during
these instances by two means, namely: (1) Additional parking lot attendants have been added to
coordinate and organize parking and traffic flow in order to provide sufficient parking capacity, and,
(2) travelers (on their own accord) have utilized the shoulder of State Route 25 near the Cross Sound
Terminal. These instances of saturation and/or near saturation have not yet resulted in the inability
of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. to accommodate the demands of the traveler wishing to utilize
their services.
Although existing parking resources operate below the saturation level for approximately 350 days
of the year, the increase in transportation demand will likely result in a higher yearly rate of
saturation. Accordingly, a real public need exists for the development of the Trust Parcel for parking
facilities, in order to accommodate the increasing demands of the traveler.
3. Obiectives of the Proiect SDonsor.
The project sponsor wishes to accomplish two general objectives with respect to the proposed
project. First, in developing the Trust Parcel, the sponsor is complying with the directives of Justice
Henry in working with the Town to address the perceived parking space inadequacy and overflow
to surrounding areas. Second, the sponsor is taking measures to better accommodate travelers during
isolated periods of peak use and to maintain its existing level of service into the future with respect
to the ongoing growth/demand for transportation services.
With respect to non-project related general objectives, the sponsor plans to maintain and improve its
existing level of service for the foreseeable future in effort to coincide with the level of demand.
Short term (1 to 5 years) plans include maintaining the continued operation of the John H., Cape
Henlopen, New London and Sea Jet. Maintenance to these vessels includes regularly scheduled dry
dockings, Coast Guard inspection, sandblasting, painting, cabin re-fits and mechanical overhauls. The
Caribbean will remain available on a stand-by basis for unscheduled use during peak periods, and as
temporary replacement vessel when the other vessels are out of service for repair. Plans are in place
to install a computer aided navigation system on the Sea Jet in the Fall of 1997. Additionally, the
Orient Point terminal building will be remodeled to match the New London terminal building
(remodeled in the spring of 1996).
Also on the short term plan, the North Star will be replaced due to its inadequate cabin and passenger
accommodations, its inconvenient drive-on/back off stern loading configuration, and the aging
condition of its superstructure and machinery. Ideally the replacement vessel will have capacities,
accommodations and dimensions in line with those of the New London in order to be suitable and
effective for the Cross Sound operation. A key feature is that the replacement vessel be capable of
bow and stern vehicle loading to allow for greater driver convenience and safety. Recent contact with
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
brokerages indicates that there are no existing vessels available in the United States that meet the
desired requirements. New construction is not being considered because the cost is prohibitive with
respect to the potential returns on the vessel. Foreign flagged vessel availability is being explored,
although the possibility of a successful search is limited due to federal documentation laws, which
may require an act of Congress.
As an improvement to the existing level of service, first class cabins will be added to the John H. and
the Cape Henlopen. It is foreseen that first class service will include access to cabin amenities and
priority loading/unloading.
4. Benefits of the Action.
The action provides direct future benefits to the traveling public in response to their demand. The
action also benefits the community by minimizing the potential of long term parking along the
shoulder of State Route 25, thus resulting in a safer, less obtrusive use of the immediate area.
Furthermore, considering that 90"10 of South old Town residents surveyed use Cross Sound's service,
the benefits of using the parking area will be shared by a majority of the Town's population.
Dunn Engineering Associates prepared the following transportation-related text with respect to how
the proposed action will provide benefits to tr~veling public:
The Cross Sound Ferry Service provides a critical link in Long Island's transportation
infrastructure. It provides a transportation connection between the eastern tip of Long Island
and New England for autos, trucks, freight, buses and walk-on passengers. Passenger and
freight service at Orient began in the 1700's and in 1923 auto trasport commenced operation.
In the last forty years service has been expanded to meet increasing demand and the importance
of the service to Long Island's transportation system has grown. The service allows Long
Islanders to reach destinations in New England, particularly eastern New England locations such
as Boston, Providence and Maine without traversing the congested highways of Nassau County,
New York City and southern Connecticut From an average trip origin in Central Suffolk
County this can save a 70 mile trip into New York City on Long Island and a 70 mile trip along
the southern Connecticut shoreline saving an average of 140 vehicle miles per trip.
The elirnination of the unnecessary travel to the west serves several national and regional goals.
First it helps reduce congestion in Nassau County, New York City, Westchester and southern
Connecticut where congestion is a severe problem. By reducing congestion in these areas there
is a reduction in carbon monoxide production from these highways. The New York City area
has experienced non-attainment of carbon monoxide for both State and Federal Air Quality
Standards because of the traffic density and extreme congestion while Suffolk County air
quality, as it relates to carbon monoxide, has been better than the required standards and
continues to improve.
The one air quality standard that all of Suffolk County, as well as the entire New York
Metropolitan Area and southern Connecticut fails to meet, are the Ozone Standards. Ozone is
a regional issue that is being addressed by Federal and State agencies and one of the major
thrusts of these efforts is to reduce total vehicle miles traveled within the non-attainment area.
Cross Sound's service eliminates an average of 140 miles per vehicle carried. With over
9
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
330,000 trucks and autos carried by Cross Sound in 1996, a decrease of 46 million vehicle miles
traveled per year is achieved. This should be recognized as a major contribution to the
improvement of ozone levels within the region. It should be further recognized that while the
measming standard used is vehicle miles traveled, that the real aim is to reduce the number and
time auto engines run and are generating pollutants. A trip into the congested NYC area takes
longer because of the congestion, increasing the hours of operation to cover a specified distance.
In addition to the autoItruck transport Cross Sound Ferry Services transport significant numbers
of walk-on passengers who arrive and depart Orient either by public transportation, dropped off
by someone in an automobile, or pmK their vehicle at Orient The great majority of these walk-
on passengers continue their journey on the Connecticut side by bus or train.
In New London a transportation hub exists incorporating Amtrack train facilities, and regional
and local bus service. So, for the great majority of walk-on passengers, not only is the
roundabout trip to New York City by auto eliminated but also mass transportation is
predominately used on the Connecticut side further reducing regional vehicle miles traveled.
Much of Federal and State Transportation planning is aimed at getting people out of the
automobile and into mass transportation as a means to reduce vehicle miles traveled in non-
attainment regious. The Cross Sound service continues to fulfIll the goal but requires additional
parking facilities at Orient to allow growth in the transportation of walk-on passengers.
B. PROJECT LOCATION.
1. Geol!raohic Site Boundaries.
The Cross Sound facility consists of four parcels of land located at the terminus of State Route 25
in the Hamlet of Orient in the Town of Southold, New York. One parcel, the Trust Parcel, is the
subject of Cross Sound's current proposal. State Route 25, a public right of way, actually runs
through the existing Cross Sound operation, terminating at the water, essentially bisecting the facility
into the two western lots (the Western Parcel and the Terminal Parcel) and the two eastern lots (the
Snack Bar Parcel and the Trust Parcel). As shown on the enclosed air photo (1996), the project site
(the Trust Parcel) is bounded by residential development to the north, bay beach to the south, vacant
cleared land to the east and the Cross Sound Snack Bar Parcel to the west.
2. Descriotion of Exist in I! Site Access.
Vehicular access into the Trust Parcel is currently provided by a narrow dirt road which begins near
the Terminal Parcel, at the point where State Road 25 takes a 90 degree turn south towards Gardiners
Bay. The dirt road runs east-west until it reaches the northwestern comer of the Trust Parcel, where
it enters the site and proceeds along the western and southern property lines, until it exits the site in
the southeastern comer. This dirt road is a right of way for an existing single family residence
(currently vacant and owned by Suffolk County) and a small utility powershed, both of which are
located near the tip of Orient Point.
10
-
-
-
-
-
.
o R I E N T
HARBOR
"0
..,
o
'-.
(11
(")
~
Long '&aeh PI
u'<f
t"'
o
(")
~
~
o
::s
3:
~
'0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LONG
ISLAND
SOUND
PETTYS BIGHT
ORIENT BEACH STATE PARI<
~
GAltPl
N E It S
-
-
4~
...ff'.'
.........-
. - .
Ori.nt Pf.
PROJEC T SITE
13A'l
-
-
I
I
1~
I cl
I 2
. ,~
:'j ~ I
I
~
.
.
I A
I e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "
-
I
I
I
I
I
or,...
<S>
, "'~~'''''' ~~\.
.... ~ Ft. ......)
". -, ,\ .; '/
I '\/
, "
',. ".. ':>. '.1 \
...... .I, ,
/~ '
~"'~."'"
,/ ~(): ' \~ ~ ')
/ . '\'" ,,',
. ,/ "u ,....
." /' .,....... ...~,
, .....~' II...
':l~ \ tr:;.? .~"'o,.
~. ,,' ,,' (),,0.
.. " .. ,
'4-""'/\' .:~
'b". .0,. ~\) p'.. .
~ '" /\,.... ,
'!. " It
.-,. ..... \
,0" "
., ~'~;:';"\ .I.
<~i; ~ ~~
(/. _\. :~f
\ /-""
\.~' """
.
..~
~',
Mr
Detail-Project Location Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Access by foot onto the Trust Parcel can be obtained from almost any direction, with no route being
any more favored than the other.
3. DescriDtion of Existin!! Zonin!!.
The project site, the Trust Parcel, is situated on the western edge of a large block ofland currently
zoned "R-80" (Residential Low Density A) by the Town of Southold. Accordingly, all of the adjacent
parcels ofland, except the project sites' adjacent western parcel, are also zoned "R-80". The adjacent
western parcel (the Snack Bar Parcel) is part of a five parcel block ofland which is currently zoned
MIl (Marine II) and includes the following uses (from west to east): (1) Orient by the Sea Restaurant
and Marina, (2) Plum Island Ferry Terminal, (3) Cross Sound Overflow Parking (West Parcel), (4)
Cross Sound Terminal and Staging Area (Terminal Parcel) and (5) Cross Sound Snack Bar and
Parking (Snack Bar Parcel). With the exception of the project sites western property line, Route 25
serves the primary zoning boundary between the MIl District and the residential districts (R -80 & R-
40) located to the west and north of the project site.
4. Radius MaD.
A map showing the land use of all properties located east of the Orient Causeway is contained in the
Land Use and Zoning Section of this document.
C. PROJECT DESIGN AND LAYOUT.
1. Total Site Area.
The area of the project site, the Trust Parcel, is 2.47 acres. Whereas, the total area for the entire
Cross Sound Facility is 6.53 acres (excluding State Route 25). The construction of the proposed
action will allow no room for additional future parking areas to be developed on the Trust Parcel.
The following chart outlines all of the parcels controlled by Cross Sound Ferry with respect to
acreage and use:
Acrea!!e Existing Use Anticipated Future Use
West Parcel . . . . . . .. 1.2 acres ... Overflow Long- Tenn Parlcing Area. . . . . . . . . . . .. Unchanged
Terminal Parcel....... 1.4 acres... Terminal Building, Vehicular Staging Area ...... Unchanged
Snack Bar Parcel . . . . .. 1.46 acres .. Snack Bar, Long- Tenn Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Unchanged
Trust Parcel........... 2.47 acres.. Vacant, Right of Way for Residential ..... Long-TennParking,Rightof
Driveway, Dredge Spoil Disposal Site Way for Residential
Driveway, Dredge Spoil
Disposal Site
11
411:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Existinl!: and Pro Dosed Site Coveral!:e Ouantities.
As determined from the site plan, the following table provides coverage information for the proposed
action.
Proposed Action:
Existinl!:
Total Land Area of Site ........................................... 2.47 acres
Interior Exposed Soil Areas, Natural Vegetation, Planted Landscaping ..... 62,230 s.f.
Gravel Parking and Drainage ........................................... 0 sJ.
Dirt Driveway .................................................. 12,575 s.f.
BuildingslStructuresIWalkways ......................................... 0 s.f.
Beach, Dredge Spoil Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33,050 sJ.
ProDosed
2.47 acres
15,410 s.f.
55,150 s.f
360 s.f
Os.f
36,935 s.f.
3. Existinl!: and ProDosed Structures.
The Trust Parcel is vacant and does not contain any structures. The Snack Bar Parcel contains a
2,200 s.f * frame building currently used as a small scale take out restaurant, featuring convenience
type food such as hamburgers, hot dogs, cold sandwiches, frozen yogurt and coffee. A 820 s.f *
covered patio, having several picnic benches, is attached to the southeastern comer of the snack bar
structure and is used primarily around lunchtime in the summer. The Terminal Parcel contains a
2,370 sq. ft. * 2 story structure used for ticketing, restrooms, administration and passenger lobby.
The West Parcel contains a 1,140 s.f* 2.5 story frame residence. Located off-site, near the terminus
of State Route 25 are two loading ramps used for accessing Cross Sound vessels and a 435 s.f. *
wooden shack used for storage.
No new structures or modifications to existing structures are proposed or desired with respect to the
proposed action.
* Approximate size of footprint as scaled from site plan.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Existin!!: and Pro Dosed Parkin!!:.
With the exception of the existing vehicular staging area, all of Cross Sounds' existing parking areas
are surfaced with a combination ofIoose stone and dirt. The following charts provide an overview
of the vehicular parking capacity for Cross Sounds' existing and proposed parking:
Existin!!: On-Site Facility Parkin!!:
West Parcel: The West Parcel has approval from the Town to park 69 vehicles.
Trust Parcel: The Trust Parcel is vacant and is not used for parking.
Snack Bar Parcel: The Snack Bar Parcel has been used for miscellaneous parking for
many years. Based upon air photo analysis and on-site field inspection, the Snack Bar
Parcel has a current capacity of approximately 235 vehicles (parked with the assistance
of parking attendants).
Terminal Parcel: The Terminal Parcel has approval for a 156 car staging area located
south of the terminal building and a 5 car parking area (short term only) located just north
of the building.
TOTAL EXISTING ON-SITE FACILITY PARKING: 309*
*
The Tenninal Parcel's staging area should not be considered as part of the facility's parking since these spaces
are for the primary purpose of loading the vessels with vehicles.
Parkin!!: for the ProDosed Action:
West Parcel: No change from existing (69 cars).
Trust Parcel: 155 parking spaces (from 0 parked cars)
Snack Bar Parcel: No change from existing (235 cars).
Terminal Parcel: No change from existing.
TOTAL ON-SITE FACILITY PARKING FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION: 464*
.
The TenninalParcel's staging area should not be considered as part of the facility's parking since these spaces
are for the primary purpose of loading the vessels with vehicles.
5. Existin!!: and Pro Dosed Recharl!:e.
The existing facility has been approved to use a combination of the following two methods of
stormwater recharge: (1) the natural filtration of stormwater through existing loose stone surfacing
and landscaped areas and (2) the re-direction of stormwater runoff towards and into gravel lined
french drainage basins. The proposed action will be surfaced with loose stone, be surrounded by
landscaped areas and employ the use of a centrally located french drainage basin to control runoff and
increase the potential of stormwater recharge. Consequently, the proposed action will employ the
same methods of stormwater recharge as previously approved for the existing Cross Sound facility.
Drainage calculations, prepared by the office ofJohn 1. Raynor, P.E., L.S. & P.C., are contained in
the appendix of this document.
13
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. Existinl!: and Pro Dosed Sanitary DisDosal.
The existing facility uses standard below grade sanitary disposal structures. No improvements are
proposed to the existing on-site sanitary systems. The enclosed site plans show the location of the
facilities existing sanitary systems. As detennined by the office of John 1. Raynor, P.E., L.S. & P.C.,
the following charts provide an outline of the existing sanitary system components and capacity for
the terminal parcel and the snack bar parcel:
Terminal Parcel
Sanitary System Components. . . . . . .. 12 Leaching Pools (each 10' DIA x 5' deep);
I 5000 GAL Septic Tank (10' DIA x 6' liquid depth)
Capacity of Existing Sanitary System .. 2,500 GAL/day
Snack Bar Parcel
Sanitary System Components. . . . . . .. 5 Leaching Pools (10' DIA x 2' deep);
I 900 GAL Septic Tank
Capacity of Existing Sanitary System .. 450 GAL/day
7. Existinl!: and ProDosed Water SUDDlv.
The existing facility uses well water for all such necessary and applicable operations (except drinking
in the tenninal building) associated with the establishment (restrooms, snack bar, etc). The location
of the existing functional wells are shown on the enclosed survey and described as follows:
Snack Bar Parcel -One well; located to the north of the snack bar structure; 2 pumps
located in the partial basement of structure; 5 gpm pumpage
capacity for each pump.
Terminal Parcel- Two wells, both located to the north of the terminal building; One
well for toilets and one well for sinks and outside supply; 2 pumps
located in Terminal Building; 5 gpm pumpage capacity for each
pump.
No additional wells or water related fixtures (ie. sinks, toilets, spigots, etc) are proposed in
association with the proposed action.
With respect to the quality of the well water, on May 6, 1997, the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services obtained water samples from the sink faucet in the administrative office of the
Terminal Building and kitchen faucet in the Snack Bar. The testing of the water samples
demonstrated that at the time of sampling, the Snack Bar's water met the NYS Department of Health
recommended drinking water standards for the parameters tested. However, the water from the
Terminal Building contains a volatile inorganic compound which exceeded Health Department
standards. To comply with Health Department regulations, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.
provides bottled water to their patrons and posts signage indicating that the water emanating from
the sink faucets is not potable (Health Department letters located in Appendix).
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. Existinl! and Pro Dosed Lil!htinl! and LandscaDinl!.
The studies on flora and fauna contained in the appendix of this document conclude that the Trust
Parcel does not contain noteworthy landscaping or natural vegetation of significant aesthetic or
habitat importance. The air photos and site plans show that the tallest existing vegetation is generally
located along the northern and western perimeter of the consolidated project site. As indicated on
the proposed landscape plan, most of the tall existing perimeter vegetation will remain undisturbed
(especially along the sites northern property line). As taken from the Landscape Narrative (located
in the appendix), prepared by Tim Rumph, Landscape Architect, Araiys Design, the following text
discusses the proposed landscape strategy:
"The proposed landscape treatment for the project has been developed to address community needs
as well as those of the project sponsors. The existing plant material will be analyzed to determine the
appropriateness of the species with any non-native shrub and vine species being removed for the
installation of the proposed plants. To reduce the visual impact, native plant material has been selected
to provide harmony with the surrounding area. Buffer plantings on the periphery of the project will
be added to the existing plant material to serve as a visual barrier between the neighbors and the
parking area. The use of landscaped islands within the proposed l'roject soften the views of the site.
The utilization of native plant material will add to the diversity oJ the wildlife habitat while reducing
the needforextensive maintenance and care."
"As with other projects of this size, the maintenance of the plant material and the landscape may
become burdensome. The proposed use of organic compost as a soil amendment and mulch will
provide continuous nutrients for the plant material, increasing the survivability of the new !'lantings.
Irrigation will be providedfor the first two growing seasons in the form of "drip irrigation' to further
insure the transition of the plants from the nursery to the project site. It is the design intent to emulate
the existing native habitat as closely as possible while providing a growth-inducing environmentfor
the proposed plant material. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
With respect to the existing lighting located on or in the vicinity of the project, the following table
is offered:
Lil!htinl! Owned and Maintained bv LILCO:
Ouantity
7
I
Wattage
250 W (309 W Total)
70 W (1008 W Total)
~
High Pressure Sodium (liPS) Flood Lights (27,500 Lumens)
HPS Aerial Lamps (6,400 Lumens)
Lil!htinl! Owned and Maintained bv Cross Sound Ferrv:
Ouantity
1
1
2
2
5
3
4
22
Wattal;!e
250W
300W
400W
250W
lOOW
lOOW
175W
lOOW
~
BPS
Quartz Halide
BPS
BPS
BPS
BPS
Metal Halide
Incandescent Lights
Location
Wood Shack
Wood Shack
Pole by Snack Bar
Snack Bar (N & S Sides)
Tenninal Building (2 N Side, 2 S Side, 1 W Side)
renninal Building (Above Doors)
Poles Near Vehicular Ramps
Pedestrian Ramp
Based upon these tables, it is evident that the project site does not contain any existing lighting.
IS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Upon referring to the proposed landscape plans and as quoted from the report titled "Visual Resource
Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry" (contained in the appendix of this document), prepared by Tim
Rumph, Landscape Architect, Araiys Design, it becomes understood that the following lighting
scheme is anticipated for the proposed action:
"The proposed project includes the placement oflight standards within the proposed parking
area Jor security and safety. The~i ht standartls will be a maximum of 14 Jeet tall with single
fixmres arranged to provide a su dent amount ofli ht for pedestrian safety. The roposed
light fixture will have baffles w ich will direct the ~ght downward and keep any /fght from
spilling on the neighboringproperties." (Tim Rumph, Landscape Architect; "Visual Resource
Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry'')
Based upon the landscape plan, eleven 175W metal halide light fixtures are proposed, each with
approximately 15,000 LUMENS.
9. Existin2 and Proposed Utilities.
Fuel for the Snack Bar's heating, hot water and cooking is provided by below-grade natural gas lines.
The Snack Bar's electric service is provided by standard above ground power lines suspended by tall
poles located along State Route 25 (poles and lines terminate near the passenger and vehicular
loading ramps). Both the Terminal Building and the house located on the West Parcel are serviced
by underground electric lines emanating from a pole located on Route 25. Heat and hot water for
the Terminal Building is provided by a 1000 gallon underground oil tank located on the north side
of the subject structure.
Proposed modifications to utilities will be limited to the extension of electric service to the proposed
parking area on the Trust Parcel so that the lighting scheme may be implemented.
D. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
1. Prooosed Construction.
a) Anticioated Period of Construction.
It is reasonable to assume that the period of construction for the proposed action will take
approximately 2 to 3 months to complete upon commencement.
b) Schedule of Construction Activities.
Upon receiving approval from all applicable regulatory agencies, the first course of action will be the
placement ofa project limiting fence (silt fencing and haybales) to ensure that disturbance is limited
to only the permitted area. Following the installation of the project limiting fence, the site will be
cleared and re-graded according the approved plans. Installation of the french drains will occur
almost simultaneously with the proposed clearing and re-grading. Following the site work, electric
lines can be extended and a base course for the parking surface can be spread. Landscaping,
16
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
installation of lighting and the placement of the upper crushed stone parking surface will be final
actions prior to completion of the action as currently proposed.
Given that the on-site studies concluded that the site does not provide habitat for significant wildlife
or contain noteworthy species of vegetation, the timing of the proposed construction is not
considered to be dependent on existing flora or fauna.
2. Pro Dosed ODeration.
The parking area will not be formally opened or closed by gates or any other access controlling
device. It is expected that the bulk of the cars using the lot will enter in the early morning, remain
in the lot all day, and exit in the evening. Maintenance of the parking area is expected to be minimal
and will be conducted on an as-needed basis. The use of the parking area is not expected to
significantly affect the need for maintenance on any other aspect of the existing operation.
E. AGENCIES AND APPROVALS.
The chart located on the following page lists all of the regulatory agencies and interested parties
which were included in the Towns Scoping Outline and discusses each entity in terms of their
jurisdiction or permitting authority over the proposed action.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF JURISDICTION
for Regulatory Agencies and Interested Parties
Included in the Towns' Scoping Outline
Referral by Lead
Agency
Permitting
Agency
....:'-.:....,........y...:...:.....:.-.:...-.,..,..,.'...,-'_.,........:.....:.....:.....
.....$Uir....... L............ b.......ilMtt.....~.>..~........l.\li. #......... t. f.......... Referral by Lead
.. . ....... ................. ... Agency
."."....""...".".".",.,...... ,.
...-,-..,.,-.-.-.'.-,-...-,.........,-.....-.'.-,-...-,..'....'.-...'...'............
..."......"..................................
......~.r~o...~......_. llli...................J~.......e.....P!i..............?T. >.......... Referral by Lead
.. .. .... ... . ........ ........ Agency
...,,,..,....,, ,.., "....., ,.
,.,-,..,--,..............."."............".,
...-.-.---.-.............................................
.............----.............--.....--.---.----. .
1II.!~li~
...-.-...-.......-.-.......'..,........,....-.'.'..-.........
..........."..............."............".".,
.._---.----------,.-.-.---,..,.......".
...................................................
....................................
IlItilllii
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Permitting
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Agency
Referral by Lead
Yes
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Yes Variance Submitted 12/1l195 Pending
Re-submitted
5/1/%
Undetermined Undetermined Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Yes Tidal Wetlands Not Submitted at Not Applicable
Permit this Time
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Undetermined Undetennined Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
No Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
18
@t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II. EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
1. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING OPERATIONS.
Cross Sound Feny operates a federally-licensed carrier service which transports vehicles, passengers
and freight to and from New London, Connecticut. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement has
been prepared in response to a proposal for the construction of a parking area on the eastern lot,
known as the Trust Parcel. In order to understand the proposed project, it is important to
comprehend the company's history as well as its daily operations.
History.
Cross Sound Feny has been owned by the applicant since 1975 when it was purchased from the New
London Freight Lines. Carrier service to New London, Connecticut has been operated from this site
since at least the early 1930's and the site has serviced marine transportation since at least 1797.
Maps on file at the Suffolk County Historical Museum in Riverhead, NY show a dock named "Point
Dock" at this location in 1797, "Steamboat Wharf' in Atlas of 1893 and 1896, and "Point Dock" in
a 1909 "Map ofa Section of Suffolk County, L.I.". Newspaper clippings on file at the museum,
dated July 15th, 1948 and August 26,1948, refer to the addition of two new ferries, the "Orient" and
the "Gay Head". The Orient was a 204' vessel capable of accommodating 68 autos and 300
passengers, and the Gay Head was a 203' vessel of unstated capacity. At that time, the ferries were
making six (6) runs daily, between Orient Point and New London (En-Consultants, 1984). Later, a
third feny ("The Plum Island"), a boat similar to the "Gay Head" and the "Orient" was added. This
brought the total number of vessels to three (3), making nine (9) runs daily.
Currently, Cross Sound owns or controls four (4) parcels ofland in association with their service,
the West Parcel, Terminal Parce~ Snack Bar Parcel and Trust Parcel. In 1984-85, as the demand for
their water-carrier service grew, Cross Sound Ferry requested and received approval from the Town
of Southold for the terminal structure and staging area which is currently found upon the Terminal
Parcel. The Terminal building also received approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services in September of 1985. In 1994-1995, Cross Sound proposed and received approval for
overflow parking on the West Parcel which also contains a two (2) story frame house. This parcel
is zoned M-Il and received approval from the Town of Southold in March 30, 1995 and approval
from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services on May 15, 1995. A more detailed
description of the most recent improvements to the Cross Sound Facility is discussed under the
Description of the Proposed Action portion of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Existing Ooeration.
Cross Sound Feny operates a daily water carrier service for passengers, vehicles and freight between
Orient Point, Town of Southold, Long Island and New London, Connecticut. The facility is open
every day of the year with the exception of December 25th. Vehicles and passengers must purchase
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tickets in advance of boarding the vessel. Reservations are not required for vehicles however, they
are recommended due to the limited space on each vessel. Cross Sound Ferry owns six vessels which
are listed and described below:
DESCRIPTION Cape John H. New North Caribbean Sea Jet
Henlopen London Star
Length Overall 327 240 210 168 128 122
(ft)
Beam (ft) 55 60 44 42 38 60
Draft (ft) 10 10 10 9 7 5
Speed (Knots) 12.5 13 15 11 13 30
Date Built 1941 1989 1979 1968 1972 1989
Horsepower 3000 3000 2400 1800 1440 5000
Car Capacity 90 120 45 35 22 0
Passenger Cap. 900 1000 300 300 130 400
As shown above, five (5) of the carrier vessels transport both passengers and vehicles. The Sea Jet,
which began operation in July, 1995, provides passenger-only service between Orient Point and New
London, Connecticut. The John H. is the most commonly used vessel followed by the New London.
The John H. and the New London are used on a daily basis. The Cape Henlopen and the North Star
are used during the busier times of service. The Caribbean Ferry is used only on days of peak demand
during the months of July and August or as a replacement vessel.
The number of departures from Orient Point varies according to public demand, which is dependent
upon the season, day of the week and holidays. Vessels for the carrier service depart 8 - 25 round
trips daily from Orient Point. Departures become more frequent during the summer months (May -
Aug.), especially on the weekends. A breakdown of the departures on the busiest days of the year,
July 4th weekend and Labor Day for the 1997 season, is as follows: Cape Henlopen - 4, John H. -
4, New London - 4, North Star - 4, Caribbean - 3, and Sea Jet - 6. The Sea Jet runs from May to
November and makes 4 - 6 round trips daily.
On an annual basis, the carrier service transports approximately 300,000 vehicles and 950,000
passengers between Orient Point and New London, Connecticut based upon 1996 statistics. A
majority of the passengers are the drivers/occupants of the boarded automobiles crossing Long Island
Sound.
20
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cross Sound Ferry employs between 130 to 210 people associated with the Orient Point to New
London carrier service. This number varies seasonally, with an increase in employees during the
summer months. The vessels themselves require a crew of approximately 100 workers during the
busiest season. This number decreases during the winter months, as daily service is reduced to only
the John H. and the New London. Sea Jet service is suspended during the winter months (December
- April).
Each year, Cross Sound contributes to a number of community and charitable organizations within
the Town of South old and throughout Long Island. These organizations include: the Suffolk County
Special Olympics, the Boy Scouts of America, the Orient Fire Department and Ladies Auxiliary, the
Orient Community Activities, the Oysterponds School District in Orient, and the Southold Town Fire
Chiefs' Council. Cross Sound organizes an annual Fireworks Benefit Cruise along with other special
fundraising cruises that assist local organizations and causes. As an example of the use of monies
generated from these cruises, Cross Sound donated the necessary funds to construct a school crossing
traffic control system on Route 25 in Orient for the Oysterponds School District. Including in-kind
donations, direct donations and fund raised through its benefit cruises, Cross Sound contributes
approximately $50,000 a year to various community organizations and charitable groups in Southold
and throughout Long Island. A more complete listing of the organizations to which Cross Sound
contributes is included in the Appendix of this document.
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANTICIPATED IMPACTS.
NATURAL RESOURCES.
A. GEOLOGY: EXISTING CONDmON.
Information regarding the surface geology of the site was taken in large part from the Suffolk County
Soil Survey prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, 1975. Additional information
regarding conditions present on or near the site are discussed in the Coastal Engineering Analysis of
the Cross Sound Ferry Project prepared by Michael S. Bruno, Ph.D., P.E. and Kelly L. Rankin,
Ph.D.. (July, 1997) and included in the Consultants Section of this document. Information regarding
the subsurface geology was obtained through a test hole performed by McDonald GeoScience on July
7, 1997. A description of the subsurface soils, surface soils and topography of the Trust property are
detailed below.
1. Subsurface.
a) Como osition and Thickness.
For the purpose of investigating the composition and thickness of the subsurface material which
underlies the subject property, a test hole was installed by McDonald GeoScience on July 7, 1997.
This test hole boring was installed with an auger, extending to a depth offourteen (14) feet.
The boring location is shown on the Proposed Site Plan and the information is as follows:
TEST HOLE
Approximate Surface Elevation: 10.33'
Brown Silty Loam
l'
Pale Brown Loamy Silt
3.5'
Brown Fine to Coarse
Sand
7.8'
The above information, with regard to the height of the groundwater at approximately 2.53 feet, is
consistent with the expected height of the water table for this area. The subsurface layers as
described above are consistent with the general subsurface layers which are included under the Haven
22
'!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Series Soils description in the Suffolk County Soil Survey (USDA, 1975). The Haven series, which
makes up most of the project site, is described in more detail under the surface soils section of this
document. As for the Beaches soil type, which is located along the southern border of this property,
its subsurface components in terms of sand grain size is described in more detail in the Coastal
Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Project prepared by Bruno and Rankin (July 1997;
included in the Consultant Section) and described under the surface soils section of this document.
2. Surface.
a). Soil Tvnes
The surface soil types for the Trust Parcel are indicative of the soil types for this area of Long Island,
especially in regard to its proximity to Gardiners Bay. The subject property primarily consists of one
general soil association, the Haven-Riverhead Association as shown on the General Soils Map
circulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and included with this
document. The Haven-Riverhead Association is characterized with deep, nearly level to gently
sloping, well-drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains. It
should be noted that the terms for texture refers to the surface layer in the major soil in the
aforementioned association (USDA, 1975).
The soil associations shown on the General Soils Map are meant to be a general guide and should not
be used in the planning of a specific site. Within each association there may be several different types
of soils, as are present upon the Trust parcel. The Soil Analysis Map prepared by Inter-Science
Research Associates, Inc. is included with this document. Soils found upon the subject site were
originally identified using the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Cornell
Agricultural Experiment Station (USDA, 1975).
Below is a listing of the three (3) soil types found on-site:
MAP SYMBOL
MApPING UNIT
Be.............................. .
Fd ...............................
HaA .............................
Beaches
Fill land, dredge material
Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
It appears from the soils map that the soil type with the largest area on the Trust Parcel is Haven
loam, 0 to 2 %. Fill land consisting of dredged material is located in a small amount along the
western portion of the property. The southern edge of the property consists of Beaches.
23
U. S. DEPARTMENT 0' AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
COItNfJ.L UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL p;~tR1MENT STATION
GENERAL SOIL MAP
SUFFOLK COUNTY. NEW YORK
72.10'
I
~i!i'
_:,ilft PLUM ISLANO_
-Orient POint us: /-41.10'
./
"a.
\$\~
\.;o"~
a.
SOV"
/
I
/
/
GARDlNERS
BA}'
GREAr
~ON1C SA Y
r,- .....
I
l.
II
lJ
Hal s.,..
'VI..! .^ y
;oeJt ~ - Southampton S..Ch
.......- -40'50'
I
oce.a~
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS'
m=- C._.II!l,III""...lfli....'..IHII1..C......lI 0..,. ,.mlll, .n...1....1, mi...4..
~ ..n....,...li, c_c, ,,,',"4.M ....,...1, _.If ItldUfd "i1. _111."111.
_ Ht...."'.IflI...h..4........I...l 0.." _" '-"I'.....', .1","" ..1....1"14,
_ ...4I\11llo1.Chl'.li '1'14 1II1111.,...ly _-.. 'u''''" ..II. 111......11 ,ltlM
iT"1 P,,,,,,,,,II.c_ .....1111... rtllhlt"'" hlll'l 0..,. .........1, 4..i0oi4.11'-'"
L-.:.-I 1tl..1nli..1I.......1....
_ RIYt""".P~I\.C"'"' ....C...'..1 PM,. _Iy ""'It....... .1.,."". ..II.
41111lH.1lll ..,...lftl, "i_. ........., c.... fI"-"... __If ...,_
. ,1I1.lfIrilt.whtrftww..h,,,..
_ 0- '-"'I.Ti4Il_h.a..ch.. ........... "'" __I. '...1......,...,. .....ht.
of ,he ~III r..ch.M ._h....
_lrw..h1I11"~....)et'..1 0....._1,....'''''.''.'''"''''...11...
"~.I,..lI.._._i~...h Il'ltuIWI.h.......
_ ......u........ftolflht.....4.....,'..1 0.... _I, ...,.1" 1."",1, .1"'flI. ..II
41111114" ~I, well""'. .........', __.. t..-4 "" _llIfIlot.IIt\ll'14
.III.II'I_IM.
__ MlMtulr.. ..114, .,...."'.~I"""'"' ........1..' 0.... ,..,""'.... hill,; _...'""
~..if'II4.1_""'''IlI'III.ell,.._I'''
_ ......u...,....,.ulo. ...., ".,.....""'...... ....ct..lllll PM,. ,.U"".M hn".
'..c..,h.I, ......111.,....,.,.1., ..II.."," ....11.111"'4. _1--.......
I. c....of..''"4 ..u. 11'1 _....
T"""'ii"l P1,...,.h.("," ...."'111'1. _I, ""'I.... _u""flIl 0.... ."...1..1.,
L....:.:.J41111l14,'.'..of..._41t41.1Il""'",h'......
. T..... "I"... .urIb. Ie,.. \n _,_ .lil. II IIChe..eehll...
c-.....,,1I
SOURCE: U.S.D.A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL ANALYSIS MAP
SCALE: 1:100
E Fd - Fill Land, Dredged Material
fBiJ;j HaA - Haven Loam
o Bc - Beaches
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) Soil CharacteristicslLimitations
The soil types mentioned above are described below in more detail with a discussion of the each series
in which the soils are classified.
BEACHES.
Beaches are made up of sandy, gravelly or cobbly areas between water at mean sea level and dunes
or escarpments. Slope is nearly level in most areas but it is as much as 15 percent in some places on
the Atlantic shore. In most places beaches on the bays are sandy, but varying amounts of gravel are
mixed with the sand (USDA, 1975).
Beach areas are not suited to farming. Measures should be taken to control erosion to keep the beach
wide enough to protect the nearby dunes or uplands (USDA, 1975).
FILL LAND, DREDGED MATERIAL.
Fill land, dredged material is made up of areas that have been filled with material from hydraulic or
mechanical dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to widen or deepen boat channels
in salt water; however, some dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into tidal
marshes. Most of the dredged material is pumped onto tidal marshes. Smaller amounts are placed
on beaches and dunes. (USDA, 1975).
The practice generally is to dike an area by using on-site material. The dredgings are then pumped
into the diked area and allowed to settle. Excess water drains back into the bay. After the water
drains off, heterogeneous deposits of sand, grave~ and sea shells remain. In many places a dark-gray
silty mud remains. Protective dunes have been built with clean sand and gravel dredging in some
places, and in such places a few naturally formed dunes are included in mapping (USDA, 1975).
Fill land, dredged material, is not suited to farming. Areas are satisfactory for building sites where
the fill is adequate and if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal marshes are removed prior
to filling.. Areas where the fill is placed on marshes containing thick organic layers are likely to be
unstable and need onsite investigation before building on them (USDA, 1975).
Droughtiness, low fertility, and high salt content severely limit the establishment oflawn and other
landscaping plantings. Cesspools do not function properly where the groundwater is at a shallow
depth (USDA, 1975).
HAVEN SERIES.
The Haven series consists of deep, well-drained, medium-textured soils that formed
in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. Haven soils have
high to moderate available moisture capacity. Reaction is strongly acid throughout.
Natural fertility is low. The response of crops to lime and fertilizer is good. Internal
drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid
or very rapid in the substratum. The root zone is 25 to 35 inches thick (USDA,
1975).
24
"'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In a representative profile of cultivated areas, the surface layer is mixed with the
material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and a plow layer of brown, mable
loam to a depth of about 19 inches. The lower part, to a depth of 28 inches, is
yellowish brown, mable gravelly loam. The substratum, to a depth of 55 inches, is
yellowish-brown to brownish-yellow loose sand and gravel (USDA, 1975).
HAVEN LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (HaA). This soil has the profile described
as representative of the series. It is mostly nearly level and generally is on outwash
plains. Some of these areas are slightly undulating. The hazard of erosion is slight
on this Haven soil. Primary management concerns are keeping the soil from crusting
after rain, maintaining tilth, and reducing the plowpan (USDA, 1975).
This soil is used extensively for crops, and it is well suited to all crops commonly
grown in the county. Potatoes are the main crop, but cauliflower, cabbage, corn,
onion and sod crops are also grown. Because of the nearly level slope and ease of
excavation, most areas of this soil in the western part of the county are being used for
housing developments and industrial parks (USDA, 1975).
According to the Suffolk County Soil Survey, Haven Loam has a capability
classification of! -1. Soils found within this class and unit have few limitations that
restrict their use. The project site had been used in years past for the production of
agricultural products. However, from historic aerial photographs of the property
(included in this document), it appears that this property has not been actively farmed
since the late 1980's.
In terms of the limitations of the above-mentioned soil types, the Suffolk County Soil
Survey has prepared a table showing the degrees and nature of these limitations for
planning purposes. The following table provides information on limitations for
streets/parking lots and landscaping.
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIMITATIONS OF ON-SITE SOILS FOR TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING
fil,I.'l::.:
Be
Severe: high water
Variable
Sli ht
Severe: high water
Severe: sandy surface layer
Fd
BaA
Sli ht
(USDA, 1975)
The above table shows that Haven Loam (HaA) has only slight limitations with respect to the project,
specifically, the parking lot and the landscaping. Since, as described in the following section, the
Trust parcel consists almost of entirely of this soil type, the site is generally well suited for the above
listed uses.
c) Distribution of Soil Tvnes.
As discussed in the above sections, the Trust Parcel is composed of three soil types, (1) Beaches, (2)
FilllandlDredged material and (3) Haven loam, 0 to 2% slopes. As shown on the soil map, Haven
loam is present in a majority of the project site, Fill land, Dredged material is present along the
western portion and the Beaches soil type is present along the southern edge of the parcel. The
amount and percentage of each of the three (3) soil types is listed below:
TABLE OF SOIL DISTRIBUTION~
Be
2,878
936
104,034
107848
2.7
0.9
96.4
100
Fd
BaA
T I.
· Approximate figures interpolated from the Suffolk County Soil
Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975
d) Identification of Dune. Tidal Marsh or Snecial Feature Soils.
Michael Bruno, Ph.D., P.E. and Kelly Rankin, Ph.D. of the Davidson Laboratory - Stevens Institute
of Technology were retained to provide information regarding any dune, tidal marsh or special feature
soils which may exist upon the Trust Parcel. Their findings are discussed in the report titled "Coastal
Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Project, Orient, Long Island, New York" which is
26
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
included as part of the Consultant Section of this document. A summary of the existing conditions
as described in the BrunolRankin report is included in the following text.
The existing conditions description begins with a discussion on the Physical and Oceanographic
features. The property, located on Gardiners Bay, is sheltered from extreme wave action with the
exception of the east-northeast to east-southeast directions. An analysis of the wind-wave climate
at the site was performed and the results are included in the study (Bruno & Rankin, 1997).
The beach fronting the project site is extremely coarse-grained and consists of two distinct berms, one
just landward of the mean high tide line and one seaward of the temporary dredge spoil disposal
stockpile area. Seven (7) samples of the surface and sub-surface (approximately 5 inches below the
surface) sediments were taken on July 19, 1997. In summary, the surface sediments in the beach area
from approximately mean low water to the temporary dredge spoil disposal stockpile area can be
characterized as coarse sand to fine gravel. The subsurface sediments in the intertidal zone can be
characterized as medium sand; the remaining subsurface sediments are similar to the surface
sediments and can be characterized as coarse sand to fine gravel (Bruno & Rankin, 1997).
In the Historical Overview of the property, the study discusses the densely vegetated dune on the
Suffolk County property to the east of the site. The vacant land immediately east of the property,
owned now or formerly by Douglas Morris is characterized by a sparsely vegetated dune area backed
by a grass lawn. The site itself does not support the growth present on the Suffolk County property
or the Morris property, most likely due to the edge effects (explained in the report) and the use of
what would be a natural location for a dune system as a temporary storage area for dredge spoils.
The report continues on to mention that the project area is situated north of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area. Tidal wetlands are located off-site, south of the project site (Bruno & Rankin, 1997).
3. Tonol!ranhv
The basic topography which characteriZes the northern portion of the Trust Parcel is primarily the
result of the geologic deposits during the Pleistocene Era. In summary, the project site is the product
of the second major advance of the Wisconsin Glacier. This advance terminated to the north of the
project at what is known as the Harbor Hill moraine. The meltwater from the glacier formed outwash
deposits south of the morainal deposits. These geologic formations are generally characterized by
gently sloping land, as is generally found on the northern portion of the property.
In 1955, as shown on the aerial photograph included with this document, this parcel had been used
for agricultural purposes. This use appears to have continued through the later part of the 1980's (see
1988 aerial photograph) when the property was left fallow. The agricultural use probably contributes
to the gentle slopes which currently are characteristic to the majority of the project site.
Topographic elevations on the site range from four (4) feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to
approximately 18.7 feet AMSL. The slope analysis map prepared by John 1. Raynor, P.E. & L.S. is
included on the following page.
27
"
"
I...,JL,,}
...,.";'....",
,....,
o
o
o
. _~;.::___,,"e:!Jr:~:~l.: ~
:;::-_:';:j:~MA;r..:~:::~~:::~:~~:~ r~'--'
(
-x-xf.~'
',.. I
;; I
;: I.
I
I ,,"
A -',
.,_......." I
,
I
I
<& 0
" }.'...
'; ,;0(
",
'..:
\
,..-
,...' ,
"" i:'(
;1;' h
;. r
"i,
:\\". '..
I"j \
>1/ ...... \.$.
!i
! 61 III \
, III CI ~ ".,
i\ \ -, ",':;.':'.' i:'" ':\
" ~',~' ,)
-,'~' , . .' , ,,0,
',I
I'..
\'\
}
" ' " , '.', "'-.)--;",,;,. I
..', X....,,-
-:~:,: :';~(\I~;~~\~\;
"
;~~~~~:?;;~
'<li
LEGEND:
SLOPESO-l0% I I
SLOPES1~k+ l""'~
~((;,~":>
,,~~O ):
~~~
o
.
PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 10. 1997
.1. JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. 6: L.S.. P.C.
CIVIL EtIIDEEAI
.....- SITE Pl...\ttiEAI
......m.o ..... P.O. lOX 720
MATER MIU,. N.Y. '"'78 << IUI) 728-7800
SLOPE
ANALYSIS
MAP
SCALE: 1. - 100'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Generally, as described above, the area can be described as having gentle slopes with the majority of
the area (85.9% or 2.127 acres) consisting of slopes less than 10%. There are three small areas in
the northern portion of the Project Site, totaling 1,000 sq. ft., which contain slopes greater than 10%.
These mounds appear to be relatively recent deposits of soil and are not thought to be natural
topographic features of the Project Site. Along the southern edge of the project area, is an area of
approximately 3,700 sq. ft. which consist of slopes greater than 10%. This formation is part of the
Beach area which extends off-site and is described in more detail in the Coastal Engineering Analysis
of the Cross Sound Ferry Project prepared by Bruno and Rankin (1997).
The slopes located in the Temporary Dredge Spoil Disposal Stock Pile Area were not included in the
slope analysis. In an effort to keep a channel clear for the boats which travel to and from this point,
Cross Sound dredges and stores the spoil in this designated area. Approximately, four (4) times a
year the State carts away the material to dispose along the Orient Point State Park causeway.
Because of this activity, the slopes in the southern portion of the Trust Parcel can vary at any given
time which is why this location was not included in the slopes analysis.
(A) GEOLOGY: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
1. Subsurface.
It is anticipated that the proposed project will not result in any impact to the subsurface geological
layers which underlie this site. The on-site changes will occur on the surface layers and only will
reflect an elevation change of I foot or less in most areas. The material for the parking lot surface
will be permeable so precipitation will be able to pass into the subsurface layer. In the event of heavy
rains, runoff will be directed into a centrally located drainage trench.
2. Surface.
As discussed in the existing conditions section, the parcel consists mostly of Haven Loam surface
soils. The entire project will be situated on this soil type with the exception of the Fill Land which
is present in a small amount along the western property line. The Beaches area will not be impacted
by the proposed project as this soil type is situated seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line and
outside of the project area.
As discussed in the subsurface section of the document, the changes in slope will be minor with
elevation changes ranging from 0' to It. The grade changes were designed to follow the natural slope
of the land. After the land is graded, the parking lot will be constructed featuring a permeable surface
to allow precipitation to drain as naturally as possible.
28
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The impact to the Haven Loam surface soil is that approximately 55,150 sq. ft. will be covered with
gravel in association with the creation of the parking and drainage area. The remainder of the area
will be landscaped with native plantings.
The impacts of the proposed project on the beach formations, are discussed within the Coastal
Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Services prepared by Michael Bruno, Ph.D., P.E. &
Kelly Rankin, Ph.D. (July, 1997). Since the project will not extend to the beach or into what would
be a natural location for a dune system, it is not anticipated any impact on the physical characteristics
and dynamics of the beach area will occur. There is no dune fronting the project site because the
natural dune area has been utilized as a temporary stockpile area for spoils resulting from dredging.
There is no anticipated impact to the sparsely vegetated dune region immediately east of the project
site. This region has already been impacted by edge effects associated with the dirt road and grass
lawn landward of the dune area and serves as a transition area between the project site and the
maturely vegetated dune system far removed, east of the project site (Bruno & Rankin, 1997).
There will be no impact to the offshore, littoral zone because the project site does not extend the
beach. It is not anticipated that any impact will occur to the physical characteristics and dynamics
of the coastal shoals, bars and mudflats located in the littoral zone seaward of the project site.
3. TODol!raDhv.
As described under the surface and subsurface discussion of the impacts of the Proposed Action, the
entire area located north of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Limit Line will be regraded. However,
the changes in these elevations will in most cases be one (1) foot or less. A vast majority of the
slopes on-site (greater than 10"10) are located to the south of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Limit
Line and are therefore, outside of the Project Area. Consequently, it is foreseen that the Proposed
Action will not adversely affect the topography of the site.
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. WATER RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDffiON.
1. Groundwater.
This segment of the DEIS will discuss the current conditions of the groundwater associated with the
Trust Parcel. A description of the underlying aquifers (Hydrogeology), depth of water table and
other information will be discussed in this section.
a) Location and Description of Aquifers and Rechal1!e Areas.
The sole source of Long Island's water for public consumption, agricultural purposes and industrial
purposes comes from the groundwater reservoir. The groundwater reservoir system of Suffolk
County is composed of hydrogeologic units that include lenses and layers of clay, silt, sand and
gravel. These units make up the aquifers, the water source, as well as the confining layers which
separate the aquifers. In accordance with the Jensen and Soren (1974) Hydrogeologic Section G to
G' (see following page) which is the nearest cross-section to the project site, the aquifers which lie
below from land surface downward include the Upper Glacial aquifer and the Lloyd aquifer. The
cross-section shows the presence of the Magothy aquifer beneath Long Island, however, its northern
limit seems to be located south of the project site. The major confining layer is Raritan Clay.
Beneath the Lloyd aquifer, approximately 500 feet below sea level, lies bedrock. The Upper Glacial
aquifer (Water Table aquifer) is the main source of potable water for this area (Jensen & Soren,
1974).
A more detailed look at the Hydrogeology underlying the site is shown on the maps located on the
following pages:
. Surficial Geolo2V Map: The surficial geology of the project area.
. Bedrock Map: The configuration of the bedrock surface (between 500 and 600 feet
below sea level).
. Lloyd Aquifer Map: The altitude of the top of the Lloyd Aquifer (between 400 and
500 feet below sea level).
. Raritan Cay Map: The altitude of the top of Raritan Clay (between 400 feet and the
northern limit of the confining layer).
. Mal!othy Map: The altitude of the top of the Magothy Aquifer (project site located
north of the northern limit of the aquifer).
For a further look at the geologic and hydrogeologic units which are present beneath Long Island,
a table follows entitled Hydrogeologic Unit and Stratigraphy. This provides a comprehensive
discussion of the underlying hydrogeologic units as well as providing a description of their water
bearing/confining properties. (Major water bearing units are shaded).
30
!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
<;
;;j
"
a
"
h
<;
G"'"
200' t::
SEA "'"
LEVEL
I
I
I
I
1.200' -
I
1600'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------------------
--=-~;.-
Magothy aquifer ---~~--= - .~- ////
------~ --~.~- . ./.' //
_---Raf\Wnc\a'l ~-- ";
~~f ' ////
.....-...... d a(\\J\le ///
- -- \Jo~ /////
; / / Bedrock
,.J;;..,-"" -..' /.//' '...
all////
////// .
400'
800' -.
HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTION
~
c
1>
.
E
<l
c
~
~
~
c
Q
GAR DINERS BA Y
Upper glacial aquifer
EXPLANATION
GEOLOGIC CONTACT ~ Solid lone
where approximately known;
dashed line where inferred
VERTICAL EX/\tiGERA1ION ABOUT X 20
HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTIONS
~
::;
a
'"
o ::::
_.~c <-
~ ';;: "'"
IOq: .....:J
~:2:-J to-)
o-CI) .....
~~- r..
ll)'-~ '...IG'
IE::,;:; 200'
0.., v
I-Q., .....:J SEA
________ LEV E L
400'
800'
1200'
1600'
ADAPTED FROM JENSEN & SOREN (1974)
-
.
-
-
~"<:~..
Sl'('~r
r-. .___
\.
"w..
-----.l
'-----.-
)>
o
)>
'"'C
-l
[Tl
o
"Tl
;0
,...,
'-'
~
';;i~..-,flo'-
'-
[Tl
Z
:r.
[Tl
Z
?:o
:r.
,...,
'-'
;0
[Tl
Z
'C
-.J
+-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:~. ,if
, j f
.__-~1)
~"'"
'.
",.
I...",
'0
~"'"
:'./"
'f....,
",
".'"
"
"1,.,
'/'/
"1"",
~,
"1/
""-'11
"""
'"
I,..,
DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
SHORE. BEACH. AND SALT-MARSH DEPOSITS
AND ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDIFFERENTIATED
HARBOR HILL GROUND MORAINE
IIARBOR HILL TERMINAL MORAINE
RONKONKOMA GROUND MORAINE
RONKONKOMA TERMINAL MORAINE
OUTWASH DEPOSITS, UNDIFFERENTIATED
TILL DEPOSITS. UNDIFFERENTIATED
MANNETTO GRA VEL
Contact
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sl:<:~~_
l --,
-~p I \
~ - 1/,<:" \..
-- '---"
,~ \
11 ) .o~, \.
_~'YOf?;(" ___ 10't ...., ~~:' _' C?:/
~""'-~~ ,<::::::---j '\) '\ \>,S
_J ___ \_.____ IfJI
10'1 ...__ _,,\
. -- ----""
JOff
SOil
"'I
""
c
.-.
".'(1
CORRELATION OF MAP UNITS
Holocene
':'::'.36
"...
D_ QUA TERNAR Y ;.;-:.
Pleislocene
Pliocene(?)
TERTlARY(?)
-
-
VJ
c:
;0
"Tl
)>
n
)>
r
Cl
[Tl
o
r
""
'-'
,...,
-'
/
-<
~
)>
'"'C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"" ~,'
'.,
~ ,
) ii::
J
~
0
:t;) I,
,
BEDROCK MAP
~ I !
1 '
t{
..'
'. .
"
JI/\
... :
I
I '
ADAPTED FROM JENSEN & SOREN (1974)
I
II
.
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LLOYD AQUIFER MAP
, ,
\
i
.
~
.
~
l~ :: CI'; ...
'1.# I J
<?I/
I
.f~
I
~I"
I"
~
" r
J I, i
.
J
I l-"
!
h{':.\
",... '.
'. ,
'-.: ,'t:I'.
~b.;" .,.
t,
,
~
,
.'
$
---1 '
f/ I
:II I"
/ ~ ^
,J i
! j'
^
I ·
ADAPTED FROM JENSEN & SOREN (1974)
I
I RARITAN CLAY MAP
I I"
f ,/
I 'fi'
I" I
I ~, 0
a/~'::!.
r fj
Ji~
<<,~ .
<<'"
I 0'<<
fl
I / J
I I
I ;
I I
I J
J
I ,0 I
I II:) I.
I
J
I I
Cl J
J I
I
~.f
I I I
c I '
I
I ADAPTED FROM JENSEN & SOREN (1974)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Y MAP
MAGOTH
~.
-'it.s &,
ii 8:J.5,
o
z
~~
n
:,
,
if
j
I
II
"
.
I
, .
J\
i
f
lli, '
J\ \
...l~\"
v t;f "
.
\<,"
Vi,
I
!
l
u.
li!!J\
/\
l ~ \
I
,
}
I
I
,.
,.
"'/
l
II
.
ADAPTED FROM
1'1.....
1
,
I' -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
I
I
I
r'
I
f
1
t
Hydrogeologic Units and Stratigraphy
'I .. ti~::jri~~11 !'~Jil1i I
l~j" J. Hd.n.'li',~llllf ,li~.ff.!.lt' .,1. ~11:j[.. IIi
.1 fJ It II ...""" f I "',It,d"", I
i fit I \1,.:;r.".J t mii.11JI."il,.".".\t I
11 h ',JII1.!'::. Ul :.:1.::...". I...U.:....! i'
III 1IIImllllll.! l!fl!~I~.:Jlb.~I.f,]i~,ii.!. ii
." H". J t ~.t"'/ ,} ...'."".... ~1.'1 .... ':""." J 1
III i!lll~jli Iii ~~ll~ II
hi ifuHiJi.I:~i }t)JilfillfIiii~ If
I 'I" r f i i iJ' t hf.~:.! , f:::..I.lIl.II".'. li.'1 J I
' J It, J, I' h'i' ,'tit.,:'!'@: i I
1 It i ',~ J f If d f.,.,.:.;~.i f H i .'....~l....:.J.li.l... "...~i;.1i I
'I J~I hll'h.lt1!.'!.lht~!:.ilUfll:~i II
. fIn Rt 1""1 ih"',~,,, nt""""" t
, .".,.",.,.,.,.",., 5 ,.,.".,. .""'"''X''''''''''' .
:. ..~:~~:::::::::::.:!:::::j:::;:!:::!!iij!!!iir.~~ :~~~~~:::y'...::. ..,:~If:
IH
I"
111
fll
ill f I
III i1 I.' .'1' I. Ii
1 I Iii '!{' ~111 11 11
tfl! d'l flJ'j Jill Ii ,I i
ill HII lIA. nIt iJ .1
ll& IU' h'j' u.II..{ II"
II' hI! fl~ t lflt 1 I
1.1 ~JI' 11,1' lot:,!l 11
HI IIH ,wI n" JT hi
JIll lIt! jlm HIHlh }H
1111 ! ! !
11
J 1 I
I
J
llii It I )11
.1.1
.....
--
,.............~ .."
'*....IO~
t I -
J J
AWHWU't'no
-...
: ~ !
,I
& 1J~, )1
j Iff
J
&
j J j
J )
I
j
\ID''''
''''''.N!
-
--
I I
.nolOW.&.llltO
Adapted from Jenson and Soren (1974)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DeDth of Water Table.
According to the test hole data provided by McDonald GeoScience, the water table below the subject
property is situated at a depth of7.8 feet. Using the test hole data, located in the Subsurface Geology
section of this document, the elevation of groundwater is computed to be 2.53 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL).
Seasonal Variations.
In areas where hydrologic conditions are natural or nearly so, as are expected on-site, water table
levels may fluctuate several feet during a year. Groundwater levels are generally highest in early
spring and lowest in late autumn. These conditions reflect greater recharge, resulting from low
evapotranspiration or precipitation from late autumn to early spring, and less recharge, resulting from
high evapotranspiration from early spring to late autumn. Under natural conditions, long-term
average annual groundwater discharge should be balanced by recharge, and the hydrologic system
would be in equilibrium (Jensen & SoreD, 1974).
Groundwater-Surface Water Inter-RelationshiD.
Groundwater for Long Island is a reservoir of freshwater which occurs in the hydrogeologic units
which are descnbed under the aquifer section of this document. The freshwater floats on top of the
saltwater owing to the density difference between the two bodies. The relationship between
freshwater and saltwater underneath Long Island is commonly described by the Ghyben-Herzberg
relationship - which basically states that for every 1 ft. of freshwater above sea level there will be 40
ft. of freshwater below sea level (1:40 ratio) (prince, 1986).
The boundaries of the groundwater reservoir are the water table, the fresh-salt water interface and
the bedrock surface. Groundwater, as shown on the figure on the following page moves horizontally
to the south from the groundwater divide toward the ocean. The contact between the fresh and salty
groundwater is not sharp but rather gradational. The zone of mixed groundwater (part fresh and part
salty) is known as the zone of diffusion. A diagram of the movement of the freshwater and the salt
water within the zone of diffusion is shown on the figure on the following page. Freshwater moving
toward the ocean generally moves horizontally until is reaches the zone of diffusion where is begins
to move upward toward the discharge zone. Presumably, salty groundwater moves landward and
mixes with the freshwater that is moving upward and seaward. This in turn, causes a flow of salty
surface water from the ocean into the body of salty groundwater. This cyclic flow of salty water is
a natural feature that occurs in most if not all fresh groundwater reservoirs that are hydraulically
connected with the ocean (Cohen et al., 1968).
There are cases where human activity affects the natural equilibrium of the groundwater/salt water
relationship. Wells which are situated near the shoreline may experience an action known as
upconing. In these cases, gradients are established which may cause the flow of salt water toward
the well causing chloride contamination of the well water.
31
-
-
'T1
..,
'"
rr>
::r
R:<
CIl
Ql
'<
Cl
..,
o
c:
::;
0-
~
Ql
Cb
..,
-
::;
-
'"
..,
....,
Ql
'"
",
-
-
North
A
1--
I~' -
I ----..
.
'~
--
~
........
! Not to scale
-
--
....
-
-
~ 'If q~\-"~- - r
f""f.: i
f'. ' A'
( ',~. I t._ r_ 1
( ,.., , .j' . '.- .
\ ......... <,..-',A. ..--,'" -
. ~&-'_"..,iI-' .--
A'
-
-
-
B "..-
-b
?-
~"'..r'l,....
Ilfill"l 1.1....-.11"111.."1......-1'011$ A-A' and 8-8',
~-
J/
,.
~~~-
~
I So
'"
-~..
-,..
:'-;<.,
..
FIGURE 2. Generahl"ll hfmnr1"ri.", Iwlw....n rr~<;h ,m.l
sally ground ....dlef. i'lmlllilluri'll rfIO"f'ln,'nl 01 wOJ!..r
along the south ShOff' ollollf,l<.la'lll.
South
A'
J
"es'
"Her
!
<
,
'-'-
I
I
_.1
I I
~\'\J
.".
.. .......'....--
-
/
I
I
-
..:,,'~
,,':';';\"''',
~:'?\::::.':.I
....
....:..:.
.'
....
......
""
""'-
.....
..
",....,.......J
FIGURE 3 Movement of water In and near the zone of
diffusion, which separates fresh ground water from
salty ground water.(Adapted from Cooper, 1964, fig. 2.)
-
-
-
-
-
PLATI. 7H
GFNERAI Rrt A nONS BETWEEN
FRESH AND SALI Y GROUND WATER
ON LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK,
UNDrR NA I URAL CONDITIONS
North
II
South
A'
.
,
o
.
o
s
t
o
,
~~
:-it'i1
10v..1
~',~ ."JiQ...-..;: . "'."
t;i ,... l~ surl,ace ~.(.;:l
-'/at~1 'all'
'I I I
j
..
i -..
~
1/':
'"
...:::.).::.:.::.:....
'. :
; "...... '....
,,';;:':1;;\;!1
...,.
,;.'
:::,
-:::::.,.
.:.::";:::.
;5@;t.: ..
.....
.'- .... ....;::::;.
.' . :~::.::.~::~'-'~\,~::,,: :':=":.\:.'.
..... H::'" -.....
> ~:~).::.~~~;? .:\'itr::'-'
FIGURE 4 r...nN;llllf'd hour1l1M;fO<; h"'WI'f'tl 're~h and
salty ground water, "m1 h.:ltllr.lllHvv"rT~nl 01 wilteron
IhfO' fork.. of flll..h'rn Lon!:: 1<;I..nt!.
-
-
z
~
~
-<
o
;.
:::
~
i!
'"
~
~
o
!;
n
~
~
n
o
3
3
~.
~
o
~
CO
=-
~
5'
0>
N
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dischar2e to Surface Water.
In connection with the above discussion on the groundwater-surface water inter-relationship, the
discharge of freshwater into the surface waters of Gardiners Bay moves south and then upward when
it reaches the zone of diffusion. The water continues to move upward, mixing with the salt water
until it reaches the discharge zone near the edge of the property. There are no other methods of
discharge of groundwater to surface waters on the Project Site.
Tidal Fluctuation.
It has been postulated that the tidal cycle may influence the height of the water table for properties
which are situated close to tidal surface waters. In order to assess the influence of the tide on the
height of the water table, two (2) monitoring wells were installed on the project site by McDonald
GeoScience on July 31, 1997. The position of these monitoring wells, one in the northern section
of the property and one in the southern portion of the property, are noted on the Proposed Action
Site Plan. The well was monitored over a ten (10) hour period by Inter-Science Research Associates,
Inc. on August 4, 1997. The monitoring well to the north showed little to no fluctuation with 1.08"
difference during the ten (10) hour period. The monitoring well to the south showed a slight increase
but still negligible variation within the tidal cycle at 2.75". It is therefore concluded that the tidal
cycle has little to no significant influence on the groundwater of the subject parcel.
Groundwater Oualitv.
According to the Long Island Regional Planning Board 208 Study, the eastern end of Long Island
has unique groundwater conditions. Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen
concentration in wells located in agricultural areas that are above six (6) milligrams per liter.
However, most of the residential areas still have good water quality and overall domestic wells on
the North Fork almost all have nitrate-nitrogen levels ofless then three (3) milligrams. High chloride
concentrations have been found in a few areas on the North Fork, including Orient, near the shoreline.
The quality of the ground water immediately beneath the site is unknown. However, the Terminal
Parcel and the Snack Bar Parcel, which are part of the Cross Sound Ferry operation, use wells which
are tested by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, once a year. The following tables
illustrate the general results from the SCDHS Water Analysis for the Terminal and Snack Bar Parcels
for May 6, 1997:
32
.,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Analysis - Snack Bar Supply Well.
Total Coliform absent
SI;>ecific Conductivity 386
pH 6.2
Nitrate 8.2
Nitrite <0.02
Free Ammonia 0.09
Chloride 65
Sulfate 32
Iron <0.10
Manganese 0.022
Copper 140
Sodium 36.8
Zinc <50
Cadmium <1
Lead <I
Barium 54.6
Chloroform <0.5
1,1,1 trichloroethane 0.5
absent
umbos/cm (NL)
10.0 ppm
1.0 ppm
ppm (NL)
250 ppm
250 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
1,1 dichloroethene
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
NL = no limit
+ Moderate restricted sodium diet should not exceed 270 ppm.
+ Severely restricted sodium diet should not exceed 20 ppm.
# Lead and Copper Action Levels (AL) when treatment should be considered.
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
AL - Action Level
<0.5
1,300 ppb (AL#)
ppm(NL+)
5,000 ppb
5 ppb
15 ppb (AL#)
2,000 ppb
100 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Analysis - Terminal Office Sink Supply
Well.
Total Coliform absent
Specific Conductivity 382
pH 6.3
Nitrate 4.6
Nitrite <0.02
Free Ammonia <0.02
Chloride 83
Sulfate 22
Iron <0.10
Manganese 0.004
Copper 500
Sodium 34.2
Zinc <50.0
Cadmium <1
Lead <1
Chloroform <0.5
Barium 42.5
I, 1, 1 trichloroethane 11
absent
umhos/cm (NL)
10.0 ppm
1.0 ppm
ppm (NL)
250 ppm
250 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
1,300 ppb (AL#)
ppm (NL+)
5,000 ppb
5 ppb
15 ppb (AL#)
100 ppb
2,000 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
1, 1 dichloroethene
ppm = parts per million
ppb = parts per billion
NL = no limit
+ Moderate restricted sodium diet should not exceed 270 ppm.
+ Severely restricted sodium diet should not exceed 20 ppm.
# Lead and Copper Action Levels (AL) when treatment should be considered.
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
AL = Action Level
0.9
34
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The prior tables include only a synopsis of the water quality results from the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services. For a complete listing of the water quality data from 1997 for the
Snack Bar Parcel and the Terminal Parcels, see the Appendix of this document.
As shown in the Snack Bar Parcel table of results, the groundwater quality meets the New York State
Department of Health recommended drinking water standards for the parameters tested. This is
confirmed in a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) Bureau of
Drinking Water dated June 18, 1997 (See Appendix). To accompany this letter of conformance, the
SCDHS also issued a Waiver From Requirements of Mandatory Disinfection for the Snack Bar parcel
on June 18, 1997. This waiver which is valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance was granted
pursuant to Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code (Appendix).
The groundwater quality data for the Terminal parcel results are listed above. All the microbiological
and inorganic chemical parameters tested were within established NYSHD drinking water standards
with the exception of 1, 1, 1 trichloroethane, a volatile organic compound (VOC) which was recorded
at 11 ppb, exceeding the 5 ppb drinking water standard (See letter in Appendix). Volatile organic
compounds such as the one found in the Terminal water supply, have been known to be found in
cleaning solvents, degreasing agents and certain compounds such as pesticides. As a result of the
presence of this compound in the Terminal water supply, an alternative source of drinking water is
used for this building. Signs are conspicuously posted at all entrances of the building. Bottled water
is made available. Bagged ice is used where ice is consumed. This facility has been issued a Waiver
from Requirements of Mandatory Disinfection from the SCDHS. Identical to the Snack Bar Parcel
waiver and dated June 20, 1997, it states that this non-community public water supply is not required
to implement mandatory disinfection. This waiver is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance and
is included as part of the Appendix.
Direction of Water Flow.
Groundwater moves from three major drainage subareas toward discharge at or near the shore within
Suffolk County. These subareas are (1) the mainland area of the county from Nassau County
boundary to a point near the Brookhaven National Laboratory, (2) the north fork, from the
Brookhaven National Laboratory to Orient Point, and (3) the south fork, from the Brookhaven
National Laboratory to Montauk Point. The groundwater divides of these subareas form a "Y" -
shaped pattern that approximately coincides with the major surface water drainage divides. The arms
of the Y radiates from the general area of the Brookhaven National Laboratory through the centers
of the north and the south forks. On the north fork, groundwater north of the divide moves northward
to Long Island Sound. Groundwater south of the divide moves southward toward Peconic and
Gardiners Bays and Block Island Sound (Jensen and Soren, 1974).
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) Identification of Present Uses and Level of Use of Groundwater.
The Trust parcel currently has no use for groundwater. There are no wells present upon the property
and no sanitary systems associated with any structures. The parcels to the west which comprise the
Cross Sound Ferry operation do use groundwater in their day to day activities. More detailed
information on the present uses and level of use of groundwater is included within this section.
Location of Existine Wells.
The Trust Parcel is a vacant lot which has no wells or other improvements on-site. The three (3) other
lots which compose the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. facility, (the Terminal Parcel, the Snack Bar
Parcel and the West Parcel), all contain wells.
According to the approved site plans for the Terminal Parcel, there are two wells which supply the
Terminal building, located north of the structure and at least 100 feet away from the sanitary system
located on-site. One well is for the toilets and one is for sinks and outside supply. Two (2) pumps
located in Terminal Buildings operate at 5 gpm for each pump. The Snack Bar Parcel has one (1)
well which supplies this structure with water. The well is located in the western portion of the site,
greater than ISO' feet from the sanitary system. Two (2) pumps in the partial basement of the
structure also operate at 5 gpm per pump.
PubIicIPrivate Water Suoolv and Use.
As described above, the Cross Sound Ferry facility is supplied with water from private wells located
on the Terminal and Snack Bar Parcels. There is no public water available anywhere in the Orient
Point area.
The Terminal Parcel uses well water for sanitary needs. Well water is not used for a potable water
supply due to the elevated levels of a Volatile Organic Compound which is found in the water supply.
Bottle water is used for consumer and employee consumption. The sanitary system for the Terminal
Parcel is described below:
Terminal Parcel Sanitary System
5,000 gal. (Two Day Flow) Septic Tank
12 Leaching Pools (10' diameter x 5' deep)
2,500 gal/day capacity.
The Snack Bar Parcel uses groundwater for restaurant and sanitary needs. As required by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, the Snack Bar has a grease trap which is part of the waste
treatment system. Well water for this facility can be consumed by the general public and employees.
The sanitary system for the Snack Bar Parcel is described below:
Snack Bar Parcel Sanitary System
900 gal. Septic Tank
5 Leaching Pools (10' diameter x 2' deep)
450 gal/day capacity.
36
'l!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A!!ricultural Uses.
There is no existing agricultural activity upon the Trust parcel nor on the Cross Sound Ferry lands
to the west. As described in the history portion of this document, the Trust Parcel had been used as
recently as the mid-1980's for the production of agricultural products. According to the aerial
photographs which are included in this document, this use ceased on the Trust Parcel during the later
part of that decade and has not been used as such, since. Therefore, the groundwater beneath the
property is not currently being used for agricultural purposes.
c) GroundwaterlWater Mana!!ement Re!!ulations.
In light of increased human activity and its projected affect upon Long Island's groundwater supplies,
many government agencies have developed management plans which regulate the use of groundwater
in critical areas. These reports include (1) the Long Island Regional Planning Board 208 Study, (2)
the Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan and (3) the Nationwide
Urban Run-off Program (NURP) study prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board
(December, 1982). These 3 water management studies are discussed below:
Lon!! Island Re!!ional Plannin!! Board 208 Studv (1978).
The LIRPB 208 Study or the Long Island Comprehensive Water Treatment Management Plan was
developed so that waste management considerations would have more of a role in determining
rational patterns of development and thereby protecting the enviromnent of Long Island. In order
to do this, this study developed Groundwater Management Zones based upon the existing hydrology
of the water table at the time. The project site, as well as the entire North Fork, is designated as
Groundwater Management Zone IV (LIRPB, 1978).
According to the LIRPB 208 Study, the Aquifer underlying the North Fork is of marginal water
quality due to high nitrate - nitrogen concentrations, mainly in areas underlying farms. There is also
the potential for saltwater intrusion if pumping patterns are not carefully managed. This is due to the
large adjacent saltwater bodies to the north and the south (LIRPB, 1978).
Although groundwater within this zone shows definite signs of contamination, the residential area still
has good quality water with most wells having nitrate - nitrogen concentrations of less than 3
milligrams per liter. Based on assessments of the groundwater development potential in this area,
there appears to be sufficient available groundwater, ifpumpage is properly developed and managed
(LIRPB, 1978).
Lon!! Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992).
The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGP A) plan was developed
to identifY largely undeveloped or sparsely developed geographic areas of Long Island that provide
recharge to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. The SGP A Advisory Committee (SGP AAC)
adopted nine (9) Special Groundwater Protection Areas which are classified as critical areas of
enviromnental concern (LIRPB, 1992).
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Neither the Trust parcel or the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. Facility is located within a Special
Groundwater Protection Area as determined by the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The
SGP AAC has designated a 2,900 acre corridor in Southold extending from the east side of Matti tuck
Island to Southold hamlet in the vicinity of County Route 48 and the Long Island Railroad. The
subject property is located 10+ miles to the east of the Southold SGP A area (LIRPB, 1992).
Lon2 Island Se2ment of the Nationwide Urban RunolTPro2ram (December. 1992).
The LI Segment of the Nationwide Urban RunoffPrograrn (NURP) was a follow up report to the
Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study). This 208 Study had
reached the conclusion that stormwater runoff is generally the single most significant source of
pollution affecting fresh surface waters and the nearshore marine environment.
Five areas were chosen for the NURP study based upon the variety of land use types. The Laurel
Hollow study appears to be the land use which compares the best to the project site and the
surrounding residential area given that they are both low density residential development areas. The
findings of the study with respect to the comparative quality of stormwater runoff are presented in
the table located on the following page:
38
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Water Quality Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff
- Laurel Hollow Study Area -
Parameter
Concentration
Specific Conductance (J.tmhos) ....................... 60.0
Oxygen Demand, Biochemical (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0
pH (units) ........................................ 7.0
Nitrogen, Dissolved (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0
Nitrogen, Organic Dissolved (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.44
Nitrogen, Ammonia Dissolved (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.075
Nitrogen, Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/l) ..................... 0.44
Phosphate, Ortho Dissolved (mg/l) .................... 0.18
Phosphorus, Ortho Dissolved (mg/l) .................. 0.055
Carbon, Organic Dissolved (mg/l) ...................... 5.8
Carbon, Organic Suspended (mg/l) ..................... 6.9
Cyanide, Total (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.02
Hardness, (mg/l as CaCOz) .......................... 14.5
Calcium, Dissolved (mg/l) ............................ 4.3
Magnesium, Dissolved (mg/l) ......................... 0.8
Sodium, Dissolved (mg/l as Na) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3
Potassium, Dissolved (mg/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.6
Chloride (mg/l as Cl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1
Sulfate, Dissolved (mg/l) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5
Fluoride, Dissolved (ug/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.1
Arsenic, Dissolved (ug/l) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5
Arsenic, Total (ug/l) ................................ 1.0
Cadmium, Dissolved (ug/l) ........................... 0.0
Cadmium, Suspended (ug/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0
Cadmium, Total Recoverable (ug/l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0
Chromium, Total (ug/l) ............................. 13.0
Lead, Total Recoverable (ug/l) ....................... 19.0
Coliform, Confirmed (MPN*) ....................... 4,300
Coliform, Fecal (MPN*) ............................. 930
Streptococci, Fecal (MPN*) ........................ 2,400
*MPN = Most Probable Number, Organisms/I 00 mls. Sample
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based upon the NURP study, the Long Island Regional Planning Board made the following findings
and conclusions with regard to stormwater pollutants which were identified at the Laurel Hollow
Study Area:
FINDING: Stormwater runoff concentrations of most of the organic
chemical constituents for which analyses were performed were
generally low (Section 2.5.2.1) In most cases they fell within the
permissible range for potable water; however, there were two (2)
notable exceptions:
Median lead concentrations in stormwater runoff samples collected at
the recharge basin draining a major highway consistently exceeded the
drinking water standard;
Chloride concentrations generally increased by two orders of
magnitude during the winter months.
CONCLUSION: In general, with the exception oflead and chloride,
the construction of inorganic chemical measured in stormwater runoff
do not have the potential to adversely effect groundwater quality.
FINDING: In most instances, where there is an influx oflead into a
recharge basin, there is considerable attenuation favor the stormwater
runoff reaches the water table. The influx of chromium was generally
smaller than that oflead. There was little or no removal of chloride
as the stormwater runoff moved through the unsaturated zone beneath
the recharge basin. Owing to the low nitrogen levels in the
stormwater runoff; compared to background levels in groundwater on
Long Island, it was impossible to determine the degree of nitrogen
removal (Section 2.5.2.4).
CONCLUSION: Infiltration through the soil is an effective
mechanism for reducing lead, and probably chromium, from runoff on
Long Island. Although the NURP findings concerning chromium
were inconclusive, data from an industrial spill in Farmingdale
indicates attenuation. Chloride is not attenuated. The effect of
infiltration on nitrogen is undetermined.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINDING: The number of coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator
bacteria in stormwater ranges from 1.6 x 106 MPN to 8.9 x 1010 MPN
per acre, per inch of precipitation. Except in a few cases, these
bacteria were not detected in the groundwater beneath the recharge
basins studied. Where they were present, they were found at or near
analytical detection limits (Section 2.5.2.3).
CONaUSION: Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria
are removed from stormwater runoff as it infiltrates through soil.
FINDING: Median values of total recoverable lead in runoff samples
ranged from 275 ug/l at the Plainview recharge basin, which drains a
major highway, to 19 uglm1 at the Laurel Hollow recharge basin,
which drains a low density residential area containing only minor
roadways.
CONCLUSION: Lead concentrations in runoff entering a recharge
basin appear to be directly related to the extent of characteristics of
the road network and the control of both stream runoff and overland
runoff. To control one without the other would yield little benefit.
In the report Effect of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Groundwater Beneath Recharge Basins on Long
Island, New York, Ku & Simmons (1986) which reported on the same monitoring sites and results
which were discussed in the NURP report, it was found that:
"Concentrations of most measured constituents in individual stormwater samples
were within Federal and State drinking water standards. The few exceptions are
related to specific land uses and seasonal effects. Lead was present in highway
runoff in concentrations up to 3,300 micrograms per liter (ug//), and chloride was
found in parking lot runoff in concentrations up to 1,100 milligrams per liter (mg//)
during winter, when salt is used for deicing. "
The load of heavy metals was largely removed during movement through the
unsaturated zone, but chloride was not removed Total nitrogen was commonly
found in greater concentrations in groundwater than in stormwater; this is attributed
to seepage from cesspools and septic tanks and to the use of lawn fertilizers. "
"The median rmmber of indicator bacteria in stormwater runoff ranged from 1 {f to
1010 MPN/l-ml (most probable number per 1000 milliliter). Fecal coliforms and
fecal streptococci increased by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude during the warm season.
Total coliform concentrations showed no significant seasonal differences. "
41
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Low density residential and non-residential (highway and parking lot) areas
contributed the fewest bacteria to stormwater; medium density residential and strip
commercial areas contributed the most. No bacteria were detected in the
groundwater beneath any of the recharge basins. "
The summary findings stated:
"The use of recharge basins to dispose of storm water runoff does not appear to
have significant adverse effects on groundwater quality in terms of chemical and
microbiological stormwater constituents studied"
The NURP study offers several general recommendations which will minimize/mitigate the impacts
of stormwater runoff pollutant loads on groundwater and surface water, as listed below:
. Continue to use recharge basins wherever feasible for the disposal of stormwater and the
replenishment of groundwater.
. Avoid maintenance practices that would interfere with the natural revegetation of basins by
grasses and shrubs.
. Use "ecological recharge basins" only where their aesthetic value justifies additional cost.
. Consider the use of in-line storage leaching drainage systems, or components thereof, as a
substitute for recharge basins in areas, other than parking lots, where maintenance will be
assured and where the value of the lands for development purposes is greater than the cost
of installing and maintained the underground system. Storage leaching drainage systems
should also be considered for use where the installation of recharge basins is not feasible.
. Prevent illegal discharges to drainage systems or recharge basins. Such discharges, which
often result from improper storage or deliberate dumping of chemicals, must be controlled
at the source.
. Preclude any additional direct discharge of stormwater runoff into surface water, using all
available means for detention and/or recharge to reduce bacterial loads.
2. Surface Water.
a) Identification of Nearbv Surface Waters.
The Trust parcel fronts on Gardiners Bay which is a saltwater body connected to the Atlantic Ocean.
Other saltwater bodies near and connected to Gardiners Bay include Plum Gut, Long Island Sound,
and Orient Harbor. There are no freshwater surface waters within the immediate vicinity of the
project area.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The aforementioned surrounding bodies of water are classified by the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation as follows:
Gardiners Bay
Plum Gut
Long Island Sound
Hallocks Bay
Orient Harbor
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA - Best usage are shellfishing for market purposes,
primary and secondary contact recreation, and fishing.
These waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and
survival.
The above information regarding the NYSDEC Surface Waters Classification was obtained from the
1996 Priority Water Bodies List produced by the NYSDEC and released February 1997.
Water Oualitv/Salinitv.
Information regarding the surface water quality and salinity of the water bodies which border the
project site is readily available primarily due to the importance of shellfisheries in this area. The
Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Office of Ecology - Bureau of Marine Resources
(BMR) collect data on the quality of surface waters in this area. This information has been gathered
for inclusion in the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) which was developed by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. A more detailed discussion on the Peconic Estuary
Program is included under the Land Use and Zoning portion of this document.
Information regarding surface water quality for Orient Harbor, Gardiners Bay - West, Gardiners Bay -
North and Plum Gut sampling areas compares well with the project site's surface waters. A map of
the sampling points and the 1996 results are located on the following pages.
43
..
-
-
-
-
#lEP-ADDITlONAL MONnCMING STATIONS
l.fO. PECON/C RIVER ......... +
:120. MEETINGHOUSE CIIEfK ......... +
Ult - EAST CREB 1
762 - CUTCHOCUE HARBOIl ..
lea - EAST CREEK 2 ..
1114. NOIfrH SEA HARIlOR
las - HOC NECK SAY"
", - GOOSE CItEH
197 - TOWN CREEK'"
1M - SOUTHOW &4.Y
li1J.. HASHAMOMVCK POND
m - G/fEENPOItr HAIl.OIl
712 - HAUOCKS &4Y'"
717 - GARDINfltS SAY SOUTH
124 - WEST NECK HAR~R....
116 - SAG HARBOIl
127. SAG HARIK>> COVE'"
131- NORTHWEST CUff'"
13.2 - THRH MILE HA.llB01lA
133 - ACABONAC HNlI10ll ..
134 - NAPEAGUf IfARBOIf ...
13S - LACE MONTAUK'"
13. - GAID/NEIIS Il4Y NOIfl'H
,..., - MA/0ItS HA'BOII^
,... - CORNELIUS POINT ..
'6'. ROB"""S l5l..AND fAST (AHROX.)'"
081 - HOC NECIt &0' WfST (API"IH:)X.) ~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SUffOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH SERVICES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OFFICE OF ECOLOGY
I
.
I
,
.~
... SAMPLED WRrU} O1HEIt NEW STATIONS
ARE SAMPlfD .~wtfnY
... - 'NCWDES TSS SAMPlES (SUIlFAC~
u. -lNCWOf,$ 1SS SAMI'lES
ISU/lMCE & IIC1TTOMJ
+ .. EA.RlY A.M AND PM SAMPUNG
APlll- SEI'1EM.EI
.P
~A
. '-\J ..._ -;';, 'rJ ~I
139
"138
'~1,~0' I" ",
"117
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM (PEP)
ROUTINE MARINE SURFACE W4TER MONITORING PROGRAM
-
-
-
-
-
1',1 i-
PlE-EXlsrING srATIONS
lSAMPUD WHKlYJ
170.. FUNDEItS &ty +......
130.. GIlEAT PECON1C BAY.......
tiS - tUTLE PfCONJC lAY A"-
n4.. P,AIlADISE PO/NT
tiS - ORIENT HARBOR
n6 _ GARD/NERS aAY WEST"''''
11. _ NOITHWESr HAlla' H
n9 - WEST NECK BAY"''''
1n. NOYACK &ty
12:1. COECLES HARBOIl A
+ - fARLY .AM A.ND PM SAMPLING
APlUL. SEl'TfMBEIt
.. . INCLUDES TSS SA.MPUS (SU.fACfj
...... . INCWDES 1SS SAMPLES
(SURFACE & BanOAl)
NO SCALE
TIk'~~O'7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Characteristics and Uses.
Gardiners Bay, upon which the property fronts, is bordered by three land forms: Orient Point to the
north, Shelter Island to the west and East Hampton to south. To the east, Gardiners Bay opens up
into the Atlantic Ocean. The depths of Gardiners Bay, near the project site, are characteristically
shallow with the exception of the immediate area used by Cross Sound Ferry Services and the
neighboring marinas which mllintain the appropriate depths for the ingress and egress of vessels. The
soundings for this area are shown on the portion of the Soundings Map found on the following page
(NOAA, 1990). As one can see, the portion of the Gardiners Bay immediately adjacent to the Cross
Sound operation is dredged and maintained to navigable depths. The nearby marina and Plum Island
Facility are also dredged to create navigable depths.
According to the Southold Town Trustees, there are many uses for Gardiners Bay, most of which are
either recreational or commercial. Uses include commercial fishing and shellfishing in the waters of
Gardiners Bay or the nearby waters of Orient Harbor or Hallocks Bay. Other recreational uses
include swimming from the public beaches, boating, recreational fishing and the charter fishing. There
areapproximately ten (10) charter boats which operate out of Orient Point during the summer
months. There are no public beaches adjacent to the Cross Sound facility, however, the Orient Beach
State Park is situated nearby and offers many public recreational attactions (NFPC, 1997).
b) Peconic Bav Estuary Desienation
In 1993, the National Estuary Program (NEP) which was established by the federal Water Quality
Act of 1987, accepted the Peconic Estuary as one of 21 nationally significant estuaries and with this
adopted the Peconic Bay Estuary Program (pEP). The specific goals of the PEP are as follows:
"To protect and improve the Peconic Estuary system of water quality to ensure a
healthy and diverse marine community.
To preserve and enhance the integrity of the ecosystems and natural resources
present in the study area so that:
i. Optimal fish and wildlife habitat and diversity of species can be
ensured, and
ii. Conservation and wise management of the consumable, renewable
natural resources of the bay are promoted and enhanced
To optimize opportunities for water-dependence recreation.
To promote, to the maximum practicable extent, the social and economic benefits
which have been associated with the Peconic Estuary system.
To minimize health risks from human consumption of shellfish and finfish.
To promote, to the maximum extent possible, public awareness and involvement in
estuarine management issues. "
45
tit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
"'
101 102
99
113 95
brS
go ~
109 95 107
105 ~ 104
92
119
106
"'
99 .02
,. 11'
(@)"I_J 53
21 31
39
3G
43
40
.
41 49
35 43
29 39
".. 44
25
0
3. 42
44
112
69
34
tIl
o
c:
::s
Q.
_.
::s
(JQ
'"
w )"
~~
41
23
41
31
3::
'"
'0
,.
39
26
-
-
-
-
32
44
50 3. 56 11 6!
45 ...
55 , 48~
56 N S. S1 SO
41
51 S. 60
4f
N sa
41
.. SO SO
41
46 41
4S 44 4
I'
43
..
43 41 31
.. 34
..
41 3. .. 34
,p
-
-
z
o
)>
)>
'"
'"
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The closest PEP Federally Supported DemonstrationJImplementation Project to the Trust Parcel is
the Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) Project located at Long Beach Bay in Orient. This
project involves the filling in of existing mosquito ditches in order to restore the water table and
improve the marsh habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. An added benefit from this project, may
be the improvement of water quality in this area. The Trust Parcel is located near the edge of the
Peconic Bay Estuary, greater than one (1) mile from the Open Marsh Water Management area.
3. Draina2e.
a) Existin2 Draina2e Patterns On-SitelProximitv & Identification of Draina2e Swales and
Natural Collection Areas.
As shown on the existing Drainage Patterns Map prepared by John J. Raynor, P.E. & L. S. on
September 10, 1997, stormwater runoff for the Trust Parcel generally moves from east-to-west into
the Snack Bar Parcel. The exception is that stormwater runoff in the southern portion of the Trust
Parcel flows overland, northeast, into Gardiners Bay. The drainage patterns shown on the map on
the following page were developed from the current topography of the Trust Parcel. The map
indicates that there are no natural collection areas or drainage swales on the project site.
4. Floodin2.
Identification and limitations of on-site flood zones.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Trust parcel may be subject
to flooding (as shown on the Flood Rate Insurance Map located on the following page). The four
(4) zone designations which are found on-site are listed below:
V8 (EL. 12) 32,769 30.4
A7 (EL. 10) 16,382 15.2
A7 (EL. 9) 41,818 38.7
Zone B 16,919 15.7
46
'\[:], \ 0 i,u. ,',
, . \ ~'
" r"; , :'
. ..~?t\,'~~~:~
:~\~, c:J:::5
:G~
: :I\,:~I:":," ';~':-:-:::"::;i;i~:"
.,'/(_""" .A,iff',
'. ~......t"'" .
~ ::'..... ''''''"'""1 .-.... (;,F
,1 ;,
\ 1\. c'-- ..".,.f'
,J\ ,<;,,1./1 T,hii'S T ~i
: ':\ "'\~') ~l "
: l:~;;lI PARCEL'
:7' \~!I / ('
, " '.
. \' .\
:: \'S\.~ ! ~
" \ W\' ',1
\ . \-'
, ...,."'.... \\" re' \. -
'",,/ \. ' " '
~j . C>'/y1
! L, ' !
( \ . i
\./' '
~ I "/.,,."
::)~~~r~~J~;!
, ~:"""""':"'~:i)>>J
.5Z;tl, /1
l '~. -~ '~I~J! ;~,;'
\ .. \ '~ ,t~;~r:J'
, 1 "..::;j~
/.J ~ ~ SPOIL " -,,:=:::::,~;:;::~:~;~~:~::
( DISPOSAL STrx:K PILE ARB(" ,,,,~;::"'...-"
-'" NOT .DI'" 1n:7J IN ANAL'i$Z!:t,;;:- ',/ .--
" ';;~
1.1 '-;"""""
::: ~ /'-~~ . ..
; . . . . . .
~.: :,~::;;~~~':i1'"
,}j~~~ ,o'
",._,~,.~..-F'''''--..-''''
-""- /
MAP SHOWING
EXISTING
DRAINAGE PATTERNS
YL"J
.
. ._ <,'er,+~7~~~~lt..: ~
~~;':~.~:::J4AJ:t~r::::::::::::, ' '<.
-e--.- .
'i'~
"'. .I/..'!':.' ,. :":'.:---
, \ ,( .......' '
I"-. I:;. r
'-. \: '.\:
, \ "\ \ '\ \
-"\'" "'\ .
'" .\ .,
\ ~ " 1,
~\ \ \ \ ',\ ' ~"
\,1 }.f. '
\ ' \.~,.~ ~.
" ',;; ,
~~ ':; "C'.~f).
\ \ ': ': :. aiv/-f
: J;,:;::"'> ,,,' \ '. ';, '. \J"BAR"
// 'ii ( '''-." '" " 'i,l, \~ ':':""PARCE.
:;"..{ ",'~
":, , J' \\\';": \0
.I', ,I'~
, \ I ',T.'
\\\',: '~. ~ .~
m\ i,\ ~.
,,' "'... \ \ ': ~ ~ ~\
r )\ l \, \ \ \ \ '
,$ c> III \, .,
. e e ". \, \. \ \\
"w\t~W)v ',S\
, ' ~.~ \ \
~(S\t li~\
, " , ' , " " ;: ", I ",..
, " ,,',', i.::' ....~.._.. I
\rii'~:CX',\\:
(\
o
I
I
I
I
\
'\\
"-
\,
I \
\ '
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
)f""'~
jl \
1-1'.' \
I \,
\
I r \
I \ I
I
,
,
I
\
-~-,~..,.;
.
"--'<1(~
LEGEND:
DIRECTION OF OVERLAND STORMWATER
RUNOFF SHOWN THUS:
~~~'?:>
,,~~o~
o
PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 10. 1997 .
.JOHN .J. RAYNOR. P.E. & L.S.. P.C.
CIVIL ENi1frEEM
aIlE ............
SCALE: l' = 100'
IIlIlY!YOAll
......1E1Jl_
OYER MILL. N.Y. 111178
P.D. lOX 720
( ISi5) 72&-7800
(
)
//
..
o
f
r,;.-
"
;'
I
i
I
("',,-,
, ,
"~/ /
f
,
/"
o
<O~~
I
/
MAIN
:P
o
b
TABLE OF AREAS:
ZONE VB: 32. 769 SF+/-
ZONE A7 (10): 16.3B2 SF +/-
ZONE A7 (9): 41. BiB SF +/-
ZONE B: 16. 919 SF +/-
AREAS PERTAIN TO "TRUST" PARCEL ONLY.
NOTE:
FLOOO INSURANCE RA TE LIlES ItERE ENLARGED
FROII THE FIRN NAP. PANEL 46 OF' 120. PREPARED
BY THE FEDERAL ENERSENCY NANA6EJtENr AGENCY.
REVISED. A/J6/JST 16. 1993. .
PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 10. 1997
I- JOHN J. RAYNOR, P.E. & L.S., P.C.
CIYIL _DEERS
........... lITE ...........
.....IELD ..... P.O. BOX 710
MATER MILL.. N. Y. UI78 ( 811) 72&-7IlOO
ZotE B
ZONE A7
(EL 9)
"TRUST"
PARCEL
ZONE A7
(EL 10)
ZONE VB
(EL 12)
~((;,~~
\:> ~~\)}:
~~~
MAP SHOWING
FLOOD ZONES
SCALE: 1. = 100"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Flood Zones found on-site are explained below:
V8 (EL. 12) - Areas of 1 00 - year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevation is twelve (12) feet and the flood hazard
factor is eight (8).
A7 (EL. 10) -Areas of 100 - year flood; baseflood elevation is ten
(10) feet and the flood hazard factor is seven (7).
A 7 (EL. 9) - Areas of 100 - year flood; base flood elevation is nine
(9) feet and the flood hazard factor is seven (7).
ZoneB -Areas between limits of the 100 - year flood and 500 - year
flood; or certain areas subject to 100 - year flooding with average
depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area
is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the
base flood. (Medium shading).
(B) WATER RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
This section will discuss the projected impact of the proposal upon the water resources which exist
underlying and immediately surrounding the site. This discussion will include the anticipated impact
upon the site in terms of groundwater quality, surface water quality, on-site run-off, sanitary waste
and erosion potential.
1. ImDact ofthe Droiect on 2roundwater Qualitv.
As described under the Project Description section of this document, the proposal consists of the
construction of a parking lot upon the Trust Parcel. The lot will consist of parking spaces and means
of ingress and egress from the property. Permeable material will be used for construction, so
precipitation will permeate into the subsurface layers. In the cases of extreme rainfall, run-off within
the parking lot will be directed into a centrally located drainage trench. The remaining area which
is not parking lot will either be kept in its natural state or landscaped with indigenous species. The
proposed plantings will be covered with compost which will provide nourishment for the plantings
for their first growing year. The compost to be used will be organic and should not be expected to
significantly leach contaminates into the groundwater.
47
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based upon the proposed improvements to the project site, it is anticipated that no adverse impact
will occur to the groundwater underlying the project site. The following are the reasons it is expected
that the proposed project will have little to no effect on the quality of groundwater beneath the site:
. The entire site will remain permeable so recharge to groundwater will not be
affected.
. Organic compost for the plantings will be used only for the first year and do
not contain any additives which could cause contamination of the
groundwater.
. Current groundwater results for the Snack Bar Parcel indicate good quality.
As for the impact of the Proposed Action on the sanitary system flow, the parking lot will not cause
an increased use of the existing sanitary systems situated on the Terminal or Snack Bar parcels. As
discussed in the Public Need for the Proposed Action section of this document, the proposed 155
space parking lot is proposed to accommodate the existing levels of peak demand for the Cross
Sound service. If the oarking facility is not approved. it is exoected that the volume of the ridership
will not measurablv change - just the method in which they are able to travel to New London, CT.
It is expected that during peak periods when the existing parking facility is full, some patrons would
attempt to park along the shoulders of State Road 25. Others would opt to take their vehicles across
to New London CT, where they would either continue their trip, or utilize the parking garage on that
side.
The proposed 155 space parking lot is proposed to fill existing levels of peak demand. Therefore,
if the proposed parking lot is approved, it will not cause any measurable increase in ridership, and
thus will not cause any measurable change in the sanitary flow for the Cross Sound Ferry facility.
2. Effect of the on-site runoff.
As shown in the drainage section of this document, currently the general movement of overland
stormwater runoff moves from east to west. Runoff in the southern portion of the property moves
toward Gardiners Bay. With the implementation of this project, surface water runoff will be
contained on-site within the drainage units shown on the Proposed Site Plan.
Based upon the following, there appears to be no impact to the water quality of Gardiners Bay with
the implementation of the Proposed Action:
. Runoff will only occur in great storm events because the property will remain
permeable after the parking lot is constructed.
. No runoff from the Project Area will drain into Gardiners Bay.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ The National Urban Runoff Study (NURP) has documented that a majority of the
contaminants in runoff from parking lots can be attenuated through filtration through
soils.
+ Water quality sampling on Snack Bar Parcel provides first-hand proof of no
significant impact of parking on drinking water quality.
3. Effect of the Dotential increase in erosion Dotential on adiacent water resources.
There will not be an increase of erosion potential as a result of the implementation of the Proposed
Action. The current topography in the Project Area will be regraded to provide a level surface for
the parking of vehicles. The vegetated area along the north portion of the property and along the east
property line will remain primarily intact. The remainder of the property north of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line will be landscaped with indigenous species as shown on the Landscape Plan prepared
by Araiys Design and included within this document. With respect to the primarily flat site, the
proposed drainage plan, the proposed permiable parking surface and the landscaping proposed, there
will be no increase in erosion potential and no runoff from the Project Area will reach Gardiners Bay.
49
'It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC ECOLOGY: EXISTING CONDmONS
1. Vel!:etation.
The following section discussing existing vegetation located on the Project Site is based upon the
report titled "Final Vegetation Report on Cross Sound Ferry Project at Orient Point" prepared by
Eric Lamont, Ph.D. (September, 1997). Dr. Lamont's report is based upon: 1) approximately sixteen
(16) hours of field work at the proposed development site and adjacent lands during July to
September, 1997 and 2) a literature search ofrare plants and rare ecological communities reported
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The purpose of the Vegetation
Report was to identifY potential environmental sensitivity on site, from a purely botanical point of
view.
a) Vel!:etative Suedes Found on Proiect Site.
According to the Vegetation Report for the Cross Sound Ferry Project, the habitat found on the
project site can be classified as successional old field. The area is dominated by a large number of
non-native plant species interspersed with a fewer number of native species. Sixty-nine (69) species
of vascular plants were identified from the site during July to September, 1997. Of these species,
forty-four (44) are non-native species. Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and mugwort (Artemisia
vulgaris) form extensive stands. Native species include goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and asters (Aster
spp.) (Lamont, 1997). A complete listing of the all the species observed on-site is included in the
appendix of the Vegetation Report prepared by Dr. Lamont and included in the Consultant section
of this document (Lamont, 1997).
b) Site Vel!:etation Analvsis.
As mentioned earlier, the project site is classified as successional old field. The area is dominated
by a large number of non-native plant species interspersed with a minor number of native species.
Sixty -nine species were identified on-site. Of these species, 44 (64%) are non-native species. This
large number of observed plant species is characteristic of land undergoing the early stages of
ecological succession. Successional fields are relatively short lived and they naturally succeed into
shrubland communities which in turn can succeed into woodland or forest communities (Lamont,
1997).
No rare plant species were observed at the proposed development site (Lamont, 1997).
Successional fields are utilized by some species of birds and small manunals as (I) nesting sites, (2)
a source offood, and (3) protection from predators. Conversely, predators such as hawks, owls, and
red fox prey upon small birds and manunals occurring in successional fields (Lamont, 1997).
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) New York State Natural Herital!e Prol!ram.
New York Natural Heritage Program reports eleven (11) species of rare plants from the vicinity of
Orient Point (the following list is arranged in alphabetical order by genus, followed by common name,
followed by the habitat supporting each species):
Agrimonia rostellata Woodland Agrimony moist rich woods
Angelica lucida Coastal Angelica beaches & rocks along coast
Carex hormathodes Marsh Straw Sedge salt marshes
Eleocharis fallax Creeping Spikerush fresh & brackish swamps
Ligusticum scothicum Scotch Lovage sandy or rocky shores
Onosmodium virinianum Virginia False Gromwell dry woods & barrens
Polygonum glaucum Seabeach Knotweed sandy or rocky beaches
Polygonum tenue Slender Knotweed dry, chiefly acid soils
Rumex maritimus var. Golden Dock shorelines
fueginus
Sagina decumbens Small-flowered Pearlwort sandy soils and in waste places
Sesuvium maritimum Sea Purslane damp coastal sands
A more detailed discussion of the above NYS Natural Heritage Program identified species is included
in the Vegetation Report prepared by Dr. Eric Lamont, Ph. 0.(1997).
d) Vel!etative Suecies Listed as Rare.
As mentioned earlier in this section, no rare plant species were observed at the proposed development
site. New York Natural Heritage Program reports that eleven (11) species of rare plants exist in the
vicinity of Orient Point (discussed in more detail in the above section and in the Vegetation Report
prepared by Dr. Lamont). According to the Vegetation Report, the most significant of these species
is Seabeach Knotweed (polygonum glaucum) - which commonly occurs on sandy or rocky beaches.
The disturbed successional field on site does not provide suitable habitat for Seabeach Knotweed.
Seabeach knotweed occurs along the rocky beaches at Orient Beach State Park and also at Orient
Point proper. Dr. Lamont did not observe any plants along the rocky beach adjacent to the proposed
development site but noted that suitable habitat is available in the rocky beaches adjacent to the site
for the plant to colonize (Lamont, 1997).
51
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Uniaue Marine Flora located adiacent to the Proiect Site.
There is no unique marine flora located adjacent to the Project Site. The only two (2) marine
flowering plant species occurring in the shallow waters of eastern Long Island bays are eelgrass
(Zostera marina var. stenophylla) and widgeon-grass (Ruppia maritima). Neither species occurs in
waters within the immediate vicinity of the Cross Sound facility. Marine eelgrass meadows are
communities of subtidal aquatic beds occurring in quiet waters below the lowest tide level. The
marine waters adjacent to the ferry dock are too turbulent to support an eelgrass meadow (Lamont,
1997).
Characteristic algae occurring in the studied marine ecosystem include sea lettuce (UIva lactuca),
Enteromorpha spp., Polysiphonia spp., and Cladophora gracilis (Lamont, 1997).
2. Wildlife.
The investigation into the wildlife which currently uses or is expected to use the Trust Parcel was
performed by Dr. Jeremy Hatch, Ph.D. a biologist at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. The
report which was prepared is titled Cross Sound Ferry, Orient Point: Wildlife and is included in its
entirety in the Consultant Section of this document. A summary of the findings of Dr. Hatch's report
is included below:
a) Wildlife Inventorv.
In order to observe the wildlife found on-site, Dr. Jeremy Hatch visited the Trust Parcel on the 27th
and 28th of July, 1997. It was immediately apparent to Dr. Hatch that the project site is not in a
natural state, is bounded on all sides by severely modified habitats and shows little prospect of
significant wildlife (Hatch, 1997).
Sllecies Observed at Site:
Birds*
Barn Swallow
American Crow
Gray Catbird
European Starling
American Goldfinch
Song Sparrow
House Sparrow
Hinmdo rustica
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Dumetella caro/inesis
Sturnus vulgaris
Carduelis tristis
Melospiza melodia
Passer domesticus
Status
M
R
MB
R
R
RB
R
M = Migrant (present in breeding season).
R = Resident.
B = Probably nesting at the site (others listed probably nested nearby).
* The list includes those species observed feeding or resting; but excludes remote sightings
of species unaffected by the proposed development, such as Cormorants, Mallards).
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mammals
White-tailed Deer
Rabbit
Cat
Revtiles and Amvhibians
None recorded.
Odocoileus virgin/anus
Sylvilagus Sp.
Felis catus. possibly feral, likely predator
Additional Species EXDected:
Numerous additional birds are likely to occur in small numbers, especially during migration, but the
area does not constitute a significant resource for transients (Hatch, 1997). Species which could
eventually occur at the project site in small numbers during the breeding season if the site were left
untouched and successional changes in the vegetation continued, include the following:
House Finch
Common Grackle
Rufous-sided Towhee
Northern Cardinal
Common Yellowthroat
Northern Mockingbird
American Robin
Tufted Titmouse
Black-capped Chickadee
Tree Swallow
Eastern Kingbird
Mourning Dove
Carpodacus mexicanus
Quiscalus quiscula
Pipilo erthrophthalmus
Cardinalis cardinalis
GeotWpis trichas
Mimus polyglottos
Turdus migratorius
Parus bicolor
Parus atricapillus
Tachycineta bicolor
Tyrannus tyrannus
Zenaida macroura
Status
R
M
M
R
M
R
M
R
R
M
M
R
None of the above are listed species, or otherwise, are notably rare on Long Island (Hatch, 1997).
o
53
t!k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
During the fall and winter, the site, in its present stage of vegetation, would be likely to be visited
by several other species, including the following, some of which would be seen more reliably in the
County Park.
White-throated Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Tree Sparrow
Zonotrichia albicollis
Passerculus sandwichensis
Spizella pusilla
Spizella arborea
Other mammals that probably occur on the site are several rodents, including:
White-footed Mouse
Meadow Mole
Peromyscus leucopus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
b) Natural Herital!e Prol!ram..
Information about wildlife requested and received from the files of the New York Natural Heritage
Program included only 2 bird species, but also noted that the site is near to a designated habitat. This
area, refered to as Plum Gut, is designated a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and is part
of the State's Coastal Management Program (CMP). Plum Gut is located about 2.4 km or 1.5 miles
from the project site. More information regarding this area is included under the Designated Habitats
section of Dr. Hatch's Wildlife Report (Hatch, 1997).
c) Desil!nated Wildlife Soecies.
No designated species (endangered, threatened, or special concern) were identified on the site.
Designated bird species that occur in the area include 2 beach-nesting birds and the Osprey (Pandion
ha/iaetus, status Threatened), however none have been reported nesting near the project site (Hatch,
1997). More information regarding beach-nesting species such as Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus,
status Endangered) and Least Tern (Sterna antillarum, status Endangered, is included in the Cross
Sound Ferry, Orient Point: Wildlife Report prepared by Dr. Jeremy Hatch (1997) (Hatch, 1997).
d) Habitat Requirements of Listed Soecies.
The most suitable breeding conditions for beach-nesting species include isolated beaches free of
predators. In addition, Piping Plovers need immediate (walking) access to extensive inter-tidal areas
offine sand. The shore located adjacent to the project site meets none of these requirements. Thus,
any increased activity resulting from development will not affect populations of plovers or terns
(Hatch, 1997).
Ospreys require nesting sites within convenient range of fishing areas. Ospreys nest on bare trees or
purposely-built nest-poles. The availability of suitable nest sites can limit populations. No ospreys
nest on or near the project site, and prospective locations for constructing nest-poles are not in short
supply in the area (Hatch, 1997).
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Wetlands.
a) DescriDtion of Existinl! Wetlands.
There are no existing freshwater or tidal wetlands located specifically on the Project Site. As
described in Coastal Engineering Analysis of the project site, prepared by Bruno & Rankin (1997),
to the southeast of the property, exists Gardiner's Bay, whose Mean High Water line marks the edge
of tidal wetlands. Discussion of this area is detailed in the afore-mentioned report.
b) Wetlands Delineation and Jurisdiction.
Regarding the intertidal zone located off-site, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) considers Mean High Water to be the wetlands boundary in the case of
beach tidal wetIands. The NYSDEC has jurisdiction from the tidal wetlands boundary up to 300 feet
unless the elevation of the natural grade is greater then ten (10) feet. The proposed project does
appear to fall within the NYSDEC jurisdiction. However, the project will meet the recommended
setback of 100 feet for all proposed components.
As for the Town of Southold, the Trustees have jurisdiction from 75 feet from the wetlands line
which is also considered the Mean High Water mark. As the project will be located greater than 200
feet from the Mean High Water mark, the project is clearly outside the Town Trustees wetlands
jurisdiction.
As noted on the Proposed Site Plan, a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) Boundary runs through
the property, roughly parallel to the beach. This boundary is established by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation to prevent construction of structures which could
potentially harm the marine environment. In conformance to the DEC's CEHA Regulations, the
Proposed Project will be located entirely landward of the subject boundary.
c) Function of Existinl! Proximity Wetlands.
The primary fimction of the Tidal Wetlands (which are located off-site) is to provide marine habitat
for the flora, fauna and algae species which are found within these waters. Secondary fimctions of
these waters include transportation and recreation for the general population.
(C) TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC ECOLOGY: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
1. Vel!etation.
a) ImDact on Existinl! Vel!etation Located On-SiteJProximitv.
As discussed under the Description of the Proposed Action portion of this document, the project
consists of the installation of a parking lot and landscaping with native species. Most vegetation
situated in the northwest portion of the property will remain as well as the vegetation along the
northeast portion of the property. Only non-native shrubs, vines and grasses will be removed from
these areas to make room for indigenous plantings.
55
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A majority of the vegetation found on-site is non-native and the successional habitat which will be
cleared is the most common habitat found on Long Island. Therefore, it is believed that the overall
existing flora and fauna populations found on-site and in the surrounding area will not be significantly
impacted by the Proposed Action.
Since no rare plant species were found on-site or within the immediate vicinity of the site, there will
be no impact to rare species populations. The upper beach, located above the high tide mark and
below the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, will not be impacted by the Proposed Action, therefore, it
will not affect the suitable habitat which may be capable of supporting future populations of Seabeach
Knotweed.
2. Wildlife.
a) Imoact on Existinl! Wildlife Located On-SitelProximitv.
As part of the Cross Sound Ferry, Orient Point: Wildlife Report, prepared by Jeremy Hatch, Ph.D.
(1997), an assessment of the potential impacts on the wildlife was included. With respect to the
propsed action, Dr. Hatch predicts that impacts on wildlife will be minimal. Feeding and/or breeding
habitat for a few common birds and mammals will be eliminated, but no designated species will be
affected. In addition, no impact is expected to occur within the Plum Gut designated habitat because
the proposed work will not alter water movements in the area, and no increases in vessel traffic are
proposed (Hatch, 1997).
3. Wetlands.
a) Imoact on Existinl! Wetlands Located On-siteIProximitv.
As stated within the existing conditions section of this document, there are no wetlands located on
project site. South of the property is Gardiners Bay, where the wetland's edge is considered to be
the Mean High Water mark. This area will be protected by a number of mitigation measures which
are discussed in the Mitigation Section of this DEIS. Therefore, there are no foreseen impacts from
the Proposed Project on the wetlands located in the vicinity of the site.
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. AIR RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDmON.
1. Meteorolol!:ical Conditions.
Dunn Engineering prepared an Air Quality Study for the Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot
Expansion (1997) which discusses the Meteorological Conditions of the Project Site. Quite generally,
there are two (2) effects on the climate caused by Orient Point's proximity to large bodies of water.
The first effect on local meteorology is the stiffbreezes off the water for the vast majority of the time
due to the unsheltered nature of the coastline. The second, is the moderation of temperature due to
the surrounding water. Both of these effects tend to minimize impacts on air quality (Dunn, 1997).
2. Ambient Air Oualitv.
As discussed in the Air Quality Study prepared by Dunn Engineering (1997), the location of the
proposed project is within the New Jersey/New York! Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control
Region. Suffolk County is designated as an attainment areafor carbon monoxide (CO) but a non-
attainment area for ozone (Dunn, 1997). More information concerning the ambient air quality of this
area is addressed in the Air Quality Study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates (1997) (Dunn,
1997).
3. Air Oualitv Standards.
As required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) have been established for the following six major "criteria" pollutants: carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulates, sulfur oxides, and lead. These standards, along with
the corresponding New York State standards, are included in Table 1 of the Air Quality Study
prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates and discussed in more detail within the text of this
document (Dunn, 1997).
(D) AIR RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
As discussed in the Anticipated Impacts section of the Air Quality Report prepared by Dunn
Engineering Associates, there is expected to be no significant impact on air quality in the study area
from the proposed action. Traffic increases are expected to be negligible and several factors act to
mitigate CO production. In addition, the lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to the use of Cross
Sound's vehicular carrier service, decreases the production of ozone (Dunn, 1997).
57
tlt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HUMAN RESOURCES
A. TRANSPORTATION: EXISTING CONDmON & (A) ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
The following brief narrative has been taken from the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound
Ferry Parking Lot Expansion prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates. This narrative generally
explains the existing transportation situation on-site and any anticipated impacts which may result
from the Proposed Action.
The Cross Sound Ferry Service provides a critical link in Long Island's transportation
network. It provides a transportation connection between the eastern tip of Long
Island and New England for autos, trucks, freight, buses and walk-on passengers.
Currently, the carrier service operates five combination auto, freight and passenger
vessels, the largest having a capacity of 120 cars and 1,000 passengers, and one that
services exclusively passengers and has a maximum capacity of 400.
The passenger-only vessel, the Sea-Jet, started trips in 1995 in response to growing
public demand for service. The high speed service offered a new option to walk-on
passengers who would have otherwise traveled on the auto vessels. As the bulk of
the walk-on passengers who had used the larger auto carrying vessels could now use
the high speed vessel (which arrives and departs port closer to arrivals and departures
of the smaller auto carrying vessels), Cross Sound has been able to distribute its traffic
more evenly throughout the day and provide faster turn-around time than the auto
carrying vessels.
The passenger and freight service was initiated in the 1700's with the advent of auto
transport service in 1923. The service has become increasingly popular. Dunn
Engineering reports in their study that auto carrying and walk-on passenger service
has increased over the past 6 years.
Increased public demand for service has caused some problems within the vicinity of
the T erminaI at Orient at certain peak usage times during July and August because
inadequate parking is available to accommodate demand of the walk-on ridership.
During the months of June and September ridership is down so there is plenty of
excess capacity in the existing parking lots. For the most part, the existing parking
accommodated the existing 1997 ridership because of parking management techniques
implemented by Cross Sound to maximize use of the available parking. By using the
parking management techniques, Cross Sound is showing its concern to provide
adequate parking so that travelers will not park along Route 25 or at other places in
the surrounding area.
With the addition of the 155 parking spaces, currently expected levels of peak summer
demand of walk-on ridership will continue to be accommodated on site.
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Currently, the time periods of maximum walk-on passenger usage is the 10:00 A.M.
departure and the 7:40 P.M. arrival. The additional 155 parking spaces are designed
to accommodate peak demand from such walk-on passengers. These passengers
generally return to Orient late on the same day. Based upon the projected growth rate
in passengers and projecting that to the total ridership of the first three (3) vessels
leaving Orient, Dunn Engineering Associates assumed that all the growth would occur
on the first and third vessels out as the second currently runs almost at capacity during
peak season. However, as parking is always available for the first departure, the
growth that could be associated with time is not project related. It was projected that
the return of these passengers would also be spread out on the earlier and the later of
the three return trips to Orient. Dunn Engineering assumed the 7:40 P.M. runs at
capacity so it is not affected. The projected impacts are expected only to occur on
limited days during that period when peak travel occurs.
Dunn Engineering Associates reported that there have been relatively steady increases
in Cross Sound's vehicle and passenger traffic over the years, which appear to be
related to the growth in population and travel in the areas served. Dunn Engineering
found no cause and effect relationship between the availability of high-speed
passenger service and the number of passengers carried by Cross Sound. (passenger
traffic actually decreases in 1996 from 1995 levels). The magnitude of change in
traffic levels related to the development of the additional parking spaces to allow
growth in the walk-on passenger service is difficult to differentiate from the changes
attributable to the normal growth of traffic. The change attributable to the project in
the western analysis segment was determined to be negligible because the traffic
already on the highway serving the adjacent community is high. In the central and
eastern segments where community traffic is lighter, the increase in traffic that could
be attributable to the project is more recognizable, although it results in no poorer
levels of service than are currently encountered in the western segment of the study
area.
More detail regarding the existing conditions and anticipated impacts in terms of transportation and
the project site can be found in the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot
Expansion prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates.
59
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. LAND USE AND ZONING: EXISTING CONDmON.
1. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING.
a) Existin2 Land Use of the Proiect Site and the Surroundin2 Area.
The existing land use on and in the vicinity of the Cross Sound property is represented on the Land
Use Map located on the following page. This map was prepared in 1997 by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services for use in the Peconic Estuary Program. Although this map is still
considered to be in draft form, it is believed that its accuracy and detail is sufficient for its
inclusion/discussion in the Cross Sound Ferry DE/S. The entire methodology and history behind the
extensive collection of data leading up to the Health Departments issuance of the enclosed map has
been provided by the County and is included in the Appendix of this document.
The land use map reveals the following 7 general land use categories within a half mile radius of the
project site:
. Low Density Residential;
. Medium Density Residential;
. Open Space - Recreational;
. Vacant Land;
. Transportation;
. Commercial; and
. Utilities.
If the half mile radius was slightly extended (approximately 400'), "Agriculture" could be added to
the above list. All 13 general land use categories shown on the map (including the 7 noted above)
are defined into individual property types/uses in the Appendix of this document.
As the Land Use Map indicates, the Cross Sound Facility is made up of the following land uses:
West Parcel . . . . . . . . . . Low Density Residential;
Terminal Parcel. . . . . . . Transportation;
Snack Bar Parcel . . . . . . Transportation;
Trust Parcel. . . . . . . . . . Vacant.
The above listed land uses for the Cross Sound Facility are not surprising, except for perhaps the
West Parcel. The West Parcel contains a single family residence as well as an approved 69 car
overflow parking area for walk-on passengers. Given that the residence is considered a more
significant structure than the overflow parking area with respect to construction and longevity, the
West Parcel was designated "Residential" rather than "Transportation".
60
---
J - ,
IV)
w
u
>
a:
w
V)
J:
I~
Ie(
w
J:
"-
10
L-
'z
Iw
.:2:
I~
I~
c
>-
~
z
~
0
u
~
...J
0
"-
"-
~
V)
I
>-
III)
I
C
w
a:
e(
0-
w
a:
0-
I
I
a.
'"
::2:
... ~---.........,
- - ........-
-- ----"-----
0,}
'"
:J
"'0
C
('0
....l
,
. , I
. ~ .
, :
.
., ; I
; .. ; :
.. ., ..
..
" ; . I
" .. . : .
" .. .-
z . . :
. .
w ., .
" .. : . .
. . .
. . " . . . ;
. ;
~ . " . . . . . I
u .' .' , . .
;. . . .. ; < .
.. .. u
. . . . . . . . u . . u
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As indicated on the Land Use Map, the project site lies adiacent to the following land uses:
To the East .... 1 Vacant residential lot;
To the North ... 1 Occupied low density residential lot, 2 Occupied medium density
residential lots; Utilities (LILCO parcel);
To the West. . . . Transportation (existing Cross Sound parking area and Snack Bar);
To the South . . . Trustee owned beach and underwater land.
b) Existin!! Zonin!! ofthe Project Site and Surroundin!! Area.
As indicated on the enclosed "Zoning Map", the project site is situated on the western edge of a large
block ofland currently zoned "R-80" (Residential Low Density A). Accordingly, all of the adjacent
parcels ofland, except the project sites' adjacent western parce~ are also zoned "R-80". The adjacent
western parcel (the "Snack Bar Parcel") is part of five parcel block ofland currently zoned Mil
(Marine II). With the exception of the project sites' western property line, Route 25 serves as the
primary zoning boundary between the MlI District and the residential districts (R-80 & R-40) located
to the west and north of the project site.
c) Current Ownershio of the Project Site and Adjacent Parcels. relatin!! Ownershio. Use
and Zonin!! to Further Land Use Trends and Ooen Soace.
As shown on the Map titled "Adjacent Properties", the project site is surrounded by 6 adjacent
parcels ofland. The following individually discusses each of these parcels in terms of ownership, size,
current land use, zoning and anticipated future land use.
SCTM 1000-15-9-3.5 (Proiect Site)
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Adam C. Wronowski and Adam C. Wronowski as Custodian
for Jessica Wronowski under the Connecticut UGMA
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.47 Acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Vacant
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Ferry Related Parking
SCTM 1000-15-9-3.6
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Douglas Morris; Laurel Hollow, New York
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.38 Acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Vacant
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Single Family Residence
61
'"
Q..
os
~
bI)
=
.-
=
o
N
"
~
iii
~
~
"
'0
i>.
.,.....'i.---'
<
..
oii
/--. .,
\
\
\
- \
'- ':.\",
\'''-''
.'':;'', "-
. . ".<~
"
.'
l'
_/1
:*---
~""'\J.'
"
",'\
,,~
.~
~,
~1~~''''''' _.
~ '-0"
/ - (~~
i ~
a:
o
o
C\l
i
Ll:
~ '
J' I
,\,
;/ l /
"
-h_"
i I
.---- -
."
~.
...-;::.,.
o
co
j .,
.--/ -0:
"
,
'.
h
,
','\ .
-'''',
\
-', ,-l
.
.
.
.
..
8
.
;r
\
\
\
\
\
I;
:e
"
"
0'
~'
~
..
.
.
~
-------------------
- - --
---------------
,....
'""
~
=
(';
..,
'"
::r
-.
"0
s::
~
"0
SCTM# 1000-15-9-5
.SCTM# 1000-15-9-4_3
SCTM# 1000-15-9-4_2
SCTM# 1000-15-9-3_4
~ SCTM# 1000-15-9-3.6
. SCTM# 1000-15-9-3_5 (Project Site)
Beachfront
SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCTM 1000-15-9-3.4
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Douglas and WF Morris; Laurel Hollow, New York
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.98 Acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Single Family Residence
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
SCTM 1000-15-9-4.2
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Betsy Latham; Orient, New York
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .5 Acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Single Family Residential
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
SCTM 1000-15-9-4.3
Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. William G. Wysocki; Orient, New York
Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .92 Acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Single Family Residential
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
SCTM 1000-15-9-5
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Long Island Lighting Company
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Less than .5 acres
Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R-80 (Residential Low Density)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Utility
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
SCTM 1000-15-9-15.1
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc; New London, Ct.
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.46 Acres
Zoning................... MII(MarineII)
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Snack Bar and Ferry Parking
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
Beachfront
Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Southold Town Trustees; Southold, New York
Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Undefined
Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Undefined
Current Lane Use. . . . . . . . . .. Public Recreation/Open Space
Anticipated Future Land Use .. Same
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d) Existinl! Non-Conforminl! Uses On The Proiect Site.
The project site is currently vacant and is not used for any purpose other than (1) the storage of
dredge spoil in the southern tip of the property and (2) the use of an existing dirt road as an access
right of way for a residence and utility/navigation beacon located approximately 1,600 1.f. and 2,400
1.f., respectively, east of the project site. Given that the site is vacant and that the storage of dredge
spoil at the site has received approval from the necessary regulatory agencies and that the dirt road
is a legal right of way, there are no existing non-conforming uses presently occurring on, or occupied
by, the project site.
2. CONFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO EXISTING LAND USE PLANS.
There are a number of land use plans/studies that have been prepared which contain land use
recommendations for the project site and/or the surrounding area. The Southold Town Planning
Board has recommended that the following four land use plans/studies be reviewed in an effort to
provide for a proper understanding of the proposed projects relationship to the surrounding area:
. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Project (LWRP) and State Coastal
Management Program.
. The Peconic Bay Estuary Program.
. Critical Environmental Area Designation.
. Orient Landmark Designation.
The following text will introduce each of these plans/studies and provide analysis on how the
proposed project relates to their respective recommendations or conclusions.
a) The Local Waterfront Revitalization Proiect (LWRP) and State Coastal Manal!ement
Prol!ram.
The NYS Coastal Zone Management Program was indirectly born out of the 1972 Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA). This Act mandated that all coastal states establish a long range
plan in regard to their coastal resources.
In 1982, in response to the federal directive, New York State approved the Coastal Zone
Management Program (CZMP). The CZMP established a series of 44 coastal policies that every
waterfront application must address. Under the U.S. Department of Commerce Regulations (15
CPR 930.57), an applicant proposing to construct within the States designated coastal area must
demonstrate that the subject action is consistent with the 44 individual coastal policies.
To assist the applicant, New York State and the federal government developed a "coastal policy
assessment form". The assessment form requires that the applicant address all 44 of the coastal
policies with respect to the proposed action. Upon its completion, the form is included as part of
the formal application and submitted to the NYS Department of State (NYSDOS) for appropriate
reVIew.
63
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Given that the purpose of the "coastal assessment form" is to highlight a proposed actions
conformity or non-conformity to the Coastal Zone Management Program, it seems reasonable to use
this form to determine the proposed parking areas relationship to the NYS program. Consequently,
a completed coastal policy assessment form (official title ofform: Federal Consistency Assessment
Form) is located in the appendix of this document.
The fonowing text is written in the format dictated by the policy assessment form, located in the
appendix of this document. The form is designed to highlight any action, or part thereof, that might
be in conflict with anyone or several of the state's 44 coastal policies. As indicated on the form,
if any of the questions in Section C are answered "Yes", further discussion must be provided by the
applicant regarding the policies in question. In accordance with the forms' directions, the fonowing
text offers additional information by initialIy identifYing the specific policies in question, and then
providing corresponding information regarding the proposed actions relationship to the identified
policies.
ITEM l(a): "WILL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY RESULT IN A LARGE PHYSICAL
CHANGE TO A SITE WITHIN THE COASTAL AREA WmCR WILL REQUIRE THE
PREPARATION OF AN ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT?" (policies 11,22,
25,32, 37, 38, 41 & 43)
Coastal Policy 11: Coastal Policy 11 ensures that buildings and other structures wiD be
sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and to
prevent the endangerment of human lives from flooding and erosion.
Proposed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 11:
The proposed parking area lies outside of the designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The project
site lies largely in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone A7 - a zone given to areas subject to
inundation by the 100 year flood with a base flood elevation of7 feet. A small portion of the site
(the north-east corner) lies in FEMA Zone B, which is defined as an area of only moderate or
minimal risk of flood damage.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 11:
The Coastal Engineer for the project has concluded that since the proposed parking lot will have a
minimum elevation of8 feet (base flood is 7 feet), the subject action is not at high risk of flooding.
Furthermore, since the proposed parking area will be setback approximately 180 l.f. from the MHW
line, wen beyond the existing fronting beach and neighboring dunes, the Coastal Engineer has
concluded that beach and dune should not incur any impact from the construction and use of the
proposed parking area.
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coastal Policy 22: Coastal Policy 22 states that development, when located adjacent to the
shore, will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is
compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities,
and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development.
Prollosed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 22:
The project site contains over 230 I.f. of waterfront along Gardiners Bay.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 22:
Construction of the proposed parking area will not result in any blockage or reduction of public
access to the waterfront or beach. In fact, the parking area will most likely encourage individuals
to visit the fronting beach by providing a more convenient access route to the waterfront.
The State Coastal Policies, classifY parking areas as a water dependent use provided that the parking
area act as a support facility for the primary water dependent use. Given that the carrier operation
is unquestionably a water dependent use and is used as a catalyst for water-related recreation, the
proposed parking area would be consistent with Coastal Policy 22 provided that demand for the
support facility can be established.
The demand for the parking area is apparent by the number of cars that have periodically parked on
the shoulders of State Route 25 during past periods of peak operation. With respect to the location
of the project site (adjacent to a legal existing parking area for the ferry) and the fact that (1) the
proposed parking area will utilize eleven 14' tall downward focused 175W metal halide light fixtures
installed along the perimeter of the parking area and within the parking islands, (2) be surrounded
by native landscaping, (3) serve a water-dependent use (ie. all of the operational Cross Sound
vessels), and (4) increase recreational opportunities, the proposed parking area should be determined
consistent with the objectives of Coastal Policy 22.
Coastal Policy 25:
Coastal Policy 25 encourages protection, restoration and/or
enhancement of natural and man made resources which have not been
identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to
the overaU scenic quality of the coastal area.
Prooosed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 25:
The proposed site plan will result in changes to the existing scenic quality of the area.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policv 25:
The subject parcel has not been identified as having statewide scenic significance by the NYS
Department of State. Regardless, with respect to existing nearby residences and the influx of
individuals who can view the site from the terminal, it could be argued that the project site does has
local scenic value. Based upon air photos, the site was used for the propagation of agricultural crops
as early as 1938 and as late as 1970. Furthermore, the southernmost portion of the site has been a
routine and approved (by the DEe) disposal area for dredge spoil. Consequently, the site should
65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
not be viewed as pristine or undisturbed. In fact. over the years. the a~cultural and spoil activiry
have resulted in more disturbance to the site than what is expected to occur from the construction
of the proposed parking area. The current project site is characterized by a significant amount of
disturbance vegetation and large area of exposed soil. The site plan proposes to remove most of the
foreign vegetative species and revegetate with native indigenous plant material. Lighting will be
comprised of eleven 175W metal halide 14' taillight fixtures installed along the perimeter of the
parking area and within the parking islands. The proposed gravel parking area will be approximately
55,000 s.t: in area. However, based upon comparing the proposed site plan with the 1996 air photo
of the subject property, it is important to note that the crushed stone parking area will only be
approximately 30,000 s.t: larger than the on-site unvegetated exposed soil area. Consequently, with
respect to the sites history and its existing condition, the proposed site plan could be considered an
enhancement and should be determined consistent with Coastal Policy 25.
Coastal Policy 32: Coastal Policy 32 encourages the use of alternative or innovative
sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of
conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the
existing tax base of these communities.
Prooosed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 32:
The proposed action is simply the construction of a parking area (to be used by patrons), thus the
action does not propose the installation of a sanitary system. The existing terminal and snack bar,
each located on separate lots, do utilize conventional below grade sanitary systems. Given that
proposed action is not located in a small community where the costs associated with conventional
sanitary facilities are unreasonably high, alternative sanitary systems are not warranted and thus
Coastal Policy 32 does not apply to the proposed project.
Coastal Policy 37: Coastal Policy 37 encourages that best management practices be
utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients,
organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policv 37:
The proposed parking area could result in an increase in the volume of run-off in comparison to the
existing site condition if not properly designed.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 37:
The proposed drainage plan, prepared by John J. Raynor, P.E., L.S. & P.C., in association with the
proposed drainage calculations, demonstrate that the anticipated water run-off for the proposed
parking area will be sufficiently controlled through the installation of gravel lined french drains.
66
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coastal Policy 38: Coastal Policy 38 establishes that the quality and quantity of surface
water and groundwater will be conserved and protected, particularly
where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of the water
supply.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policv 38:
All of Long Island's groundwater supply has been designated a primary source aquifer.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 38:
The proposed parking area will not require any water usage (in comparison to the construction of
a single family residence, which the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services has determined uses
300 gallons per day). The installation of a graveVpermeable parking area, including drainage control
as designed by the project engineer, is not expected to impact the sole-source water supply. This
is demonstrated by both the findings of the National Urban Runoff Study (which found that the
percolation of stormwater through soil attenuates most contaminants found in the stormwater), as
well as the on-site water quality testing undertaken by the Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
on the Snack Bar Parcel, which found that even after use of the site for commercial development
(take out food service restaurant) and parking (up to 235 vehicles), the water supply below the site
still met County Drinking Water Standards.
Coastal Policy 41: Coastal Policy 41 states that any land use or development in the coastal
area will not cause the National or State air quality standards to be
violated.
Proposed Actions Relationshil) to Coastal Policv 41:
The proposed parking area will be constructed inside the NYS designated coastal area.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 41:
Based upon analysis and anticipated projections conducted by Dunn Engineering, the existing and
proposed air quality of the site/surrounding area is well within acceptable air quality standards.
Coastal Policy 43: Coastal Policy 43 states that land use and development in the coastal
area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of acid rain
precursors: nitrates and sulfates.
Proposed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policv 43:
The proposed parking area will be constructed inside the NYS designated coastal area.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 41:
The construction and use of the proposed parking area will not result in any increase or decrease the
generation on acid rain. The vehicles which could use the proposed parking area would be in service
on other matters if the parking area was not constructed.
67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ITEM l(b): "WILL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY RESULT IN A PHYSICAL
ALTERATION OF MORE THAN TWO ACRES OF LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE,
LAND UNDER WATER OR COASTAL WATERS?" (policies 2,11,12,20,28,35,44)
Coastal Policy 2: The objective of Coastal Policy 2 is to facilitate the siting of water
dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters.
ProDosed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 2:
The project site contains over 230 I.f. ofwaternont along Gardiners Bay.
How the ProDosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 2:
As taken from Policy 2, "Explanation of Policy" Section of the State Coastal Policies, the proposed
action is indeed classified as a water dependent use:
"The following uses and facilities are considered water dependent:
11. Support facilities which are necessary for the successfUl functioning of permitted
water dependent uses (for example lJarkinf! lots. snack bars, first aid stations,
short-term storage facilities). "
Given that the Cross Sound operation is unquestionably a water dependent use, NYS has determined
that parking be classified as a water dependent as well. Furthering the argument that the proposed
parking area is a water dependent use is the fact that vessel operations include acting as a courier
across the Long IsIaod Sound. For instance, individuals can park at the site, drop off a package on
the boat and return back to their car, knowing that the package will be delivered on the other side
of the Sound to a waiting individual.
The "Explanation of Policy" Section also provides guidelines to ensure that the water dependent use
is appropriate for the site. Guideline #4 of the subject section applies to the project site and deserves
some discussion.
Guideline 4: "Compatibility with adjacent uses and the protection of other coastal
resources - Water Dependent uses should be located so that they enhance, or at least do not
detract from, the surrounding community. Consideration should also be given to such
factors as the protection of nearby residential areas from odors, noise and traffic.
Affirmative approaches should also be employed so that water dependent uses and adjacent
uses can serve to complement one another. Water dependent uses must also be sited so as
to avoid adverse impacts on the significant coastal resource. "
The proposed action's effect on air quality, sound and traffic is discussed in detail in separate
sections of this document. These subject sections conclude that sound, air quality and traffic will
not significantly increase or degrade beyond the existing ambient levels. However, it is
recommended that the reader refer to these sections for more information on these subjects. The
proposed project has been designed so that it does not significantly detract from the surrounding
community on either environmental or aesthetic criteria. The current project site is characterized
by a significant amount of disturbance vegetation and large areas of exposed soil. The site plan
68
"'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proposes to remove all of the foreign vegetative species and revegetate with native indigenous plant
material. Lighting will be comprised of eleven 14' taillight fixtures with 175W metal halide bulbs
installed along the perimeter of the parking area and within the parking islands. The proposed gravel
parking area will be approximately 55,000 S.L in area. However, based upon comparing the
proposed site plan with the 1996 air photo of the subject property, it is important to note that the
crushed stone parking area will only be approximately 30,000 S.L larger than the on-site unvegetated
exposed soil area. Consequently, with respect to the sites present condition, the proposed site plan
should be considered an appropriate water-dependent use for the existing site.
Interestingly, if the project site were developed in accordance to local zoning (ie. the construction
of a single family residence), such an action could be considered not water dependent and thus
would be viewed as being inconsistent with the objectives of Coastal Policy 2.
Coastal Policy 11: Coastal Policy 11 ensures that buildings and other structures wiD be
sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and to
prevent the endangerment of human lives from flooding and erosion.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 11:
This policy is addressed in the beginning of this section.
Coastal Policy 12: Coastal Policy 12 ensures that activities or development in the coastal
area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural
protective features including beaches dunes, barrier islands and bluffs.
Proposed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 12:
The project site does not contain the natural protective features referenced in Coastal Policy 12, such
as beaches, dunes and bluffs. However, the site does lie adiacent to a beach and it does contain a
large mound of sandy and stony fill which was created by Cross Sound during the routine dredging
of the boat slip (dredging of the slip is necessary to keep the facility in operation). Furthermore, the
site lies close enough to a landform similar to a barrier island (on which Orient State Park occupies)
to warrant further discussion of these particular protective features.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 12:
The following text discusses the relationship between the proposed action and the natural protective
features found on or near the project site:
Beach.
The parking area will not extend into the beach area. In fact, the parking area is proposed to
be setback over 180' from the approximate MHW line of the fronting beach. The separation
of the beach to the parking area allowed the Coastal Engineer for the project to conclude that
the proposed action will not have any impact on the fronting or adjacent beaches.
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dune.
The sandy dune-like feature located on the southern tip of the site is actually a temporary
stockpile area for spoi1 generated from the periodic dredging of the Cross Sound docking areas.
Approximately 3,600 cubic yards of spoil is routinely dredged inlaround the docking areas,
pumped onto the project site for storage and then even1ually trucked to Orient Beach State Park
for use as beach fill. The Coastal Engineer has identified a small natural dunal region to the
east of the project site which he concludes will remain undisturbed from the construction and
use of the proposed action.
Barrier Island.
Orient Beach State Park approximately occupies a 4.1 mile long (approximate) spit ofland
bounded by Gardiners Bay, Orient Harbor and Hallocks Bay. The land form is approximately
2,000' at its widest and 500' at its narrowest location. Use of the site is primarily recreational.
Improvements to the site include pm:king areas, grills, a snack bar, bicycle rentals, etc. Access
to the park is from Route 25, approximately I, I 00 I.f. west of the project site. Most of the
parks amenities are located on the western end of the sand spit, approximately 2 miles from
the project site. Due to the nature of the proposed action (a parking area located upland from
the fronting beach) and the great distance between the project site and park, The Coastal
Engineer has concluded that the proposed action will have no effect on the adjacent coastal
processes that have created/shaped the barrier island-like land mass.
Coastal Policy 20: Coastal Policy 20 states that access to the publicly owned foreshore and
to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the waters edge that
are publicly owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a
manner compatible with adjoining uses.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 20:
The project site lies adjacent to public access for the publicly owned beach and foreshore.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policv 20:
Construction of the proposed parking area will not result in any blockage or reduction of public
access to the waterfront or beach. In fact, the parking area will most likely provide individuals with
a more convenient access route to the waterfront
Coastal Policy 28: Coastal Policy 28 ensures that ice management practices shall not
interfere with the production of hydroelectric power, damage
significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, or increase shoreline
erosion or flooding.
Prooosed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 28:
Cross Sound does not need to implement ice management practices, therefore Coastal Policy 28
does not apply to the site/proposed action.
70
'!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
Coastal Policy 35: Coastal Policy 35 states that dredging and dredge spoil disposal in
coastal waters wiD be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State
dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and
wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features,
important agricultural lands, and wetlands.
Prooosed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 35:
Cross Sound is dependent on the periodical dredging of the boat docking sites and nearshore area.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 35:
The periodic dredging of the boat docking sites and nearshore area is an action that has received
approval from New York State. New York State reviewed the subject dredging application with
respect to the existing natural resources including fish and wildlife habitats, wetlands, scenic
resources, natural protective features, etc., and then subsequently issued the pennit.
Coastal Policy 44: The objective of Coastal Policy 44 is to preserve and protect tidal and
freshwater wetlands and to assure the benefits derived from these
areas.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 44:
The proposed parking area will be built entirely on upland property and will not extend onto the
beach. However, as per the NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Maps, the project site does lie in the proximity
of several classifications of tidal wetlands located offshore.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policv 44:
The Coastal Geologists' report contained in back of this document concluded that the proposed
parking area will not result in any impacts to existing tidal wetlands.
Coastal Policy 1: Coastal Policy One promotes the restoration, revitalization, and
redevelopment of deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for
commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible
uses.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policv 1:
The proposed action involves the redevelopment of a previously disturbed site located within the
designated NYS Coastal Area.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policv 1:
The current project site is characterized by a significant amount of disturbance vegetation and large
areas of exposed soil. The site plan proposes to remove all of the foreign vegetative species and
revegetate with native indigenous plant material. Lighting will be comprised of eleven 14' taillight
fixtures with 175W metal halide bulbs installed along the perimeter of the parking area and within
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the parking islands. The proposed gravel parking area will be approximately 55,000 s.f in area.
However, based upon a comparison between the 1996 air photo and the site plan, the proposed
loose stone parking area will only be approximately 30,000 s.f larger than the on-site unvegetated
exposed soil area. With respect to the existing condition of the site and given that the proposed site
plan area will most likely provide individuals with a more convenient, organized and aesthetic access
route to the waterfront, the proposed action should be detennined consistent with the objective of
Coastal Policy One.
ITEM 2(b): "WlLL THE PROPOSED ACITVITY AFFECT OR BE LOCATED IN, ON, OR
ADJACENT TO, A FEDERALLY DESIGNATED FLOOD AND/OR STATE DESIGNATED
EROSION HAZARD AREA?" (policies 11, 12 & 17).
Coastal Policy 11: Coastal Policy 11 ensures that buildings and other structures will be
sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and to
prevent the endangerment of human lives from flooding and erosion.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 11:
This policy was addressed under #1(a), located earlier in this section.
Coastal Policy 12: Coastal Policy 12 ensures that activities or development in the coastal
area wiD be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural
protective features including beaches dunes, barrier islands and blulTs.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 12:
This policy was addressed under #1 (b), located earlier in this section.
Coastal Policy 17: Coastal Policy 17 states that non-structural measures to minimize
damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion
shall be used whenever possible.
Prooosed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 17:
Portions of the subject property lie within the designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and within
the 100 year flood zone.
How the Proposed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 17:
Nothing structural is proposed with respect to coastal flooding andlor coastal erosion.
72
"!t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ITEM 2(f): ''WILL THE PROPOSED ACI'IVITY AFFECT OR BE LOCATED IN, ON, OR
ADJACENT TO A BEACH, DUNE OR BARRIER ISLAND?" (Coastal Policy 12)
Coastal Policy 12: Coastal Policy 12 ensures that activities or development in the coastal
area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural
protective features including beaches dunes, barrier islands and bluffs.
Proposed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 12:
This policy was addressed under #1 (b), located earlier in this section.
ITEM 2(h): "WILL THE PROPOSED ACTMTY AFFECT OR BE LOCATED IN, ON OR
ADJACENT TO, A STATE, COUNTY OR LOCAL PARK?" (Coastal Policies 19,20)
Coastal Policy 19: Coastal Policy 19 states protect, maintain and increase the level and
types of access to public water-related recreation resources and
facilities.
Prooosed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policv 19:
The project site contains, and lies adjacent to, various forms of waterfront access.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policy 19:
Construction of the proposed parking area will not result in any blockage or reduction of public
access to the waterfront or beach. In fact, the parking area will most likely encourage individuals
to visit the fronting beach by providing a more convenient access route to the waterfront.
Upon referring to the land use map contained within this document, it becomes apparent that the
State and County Parklands are located over 1,100 I.f. and 100 I.f., respectively, from the project
site. Consequently, with respect to (1) the distance between the proposed parking area and the
parkland, and (2) the parking areas 180' (approximate) proposed setback from the mean high water
line, the coastal engineer for the project has concluded that the proposed parking area will have
virtually no effect on the coastal processes which occur on or adjacent to these parks.
Coastal Policy 20: Coastal Policy 20 states that access to the publicly owned foreshore and
to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the waters edge that
are publicly owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a
manner compatible with adjoining uses.
Proposed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 20:
This policy was addressed under # 1 (b), located earlier in this section.
73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ITEM 3(a): "WILL THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY REQUIRE A WATERFRONT SITE?"
(Coastal Policies 2, 21, 22)
Coastal Policy 2: The objective of Coastal Policy 2 is to facilitate the siting of water
dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters.
Prooosed Actions Relationship to Coastal Policy 2:
This policy was addressed under # 1 (b), located earlier in this section.
Coastal Policy 21: Coastal Policy 21 states that water dependent and water enhanced
recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority
over non-water related uses along the coast.
Prooosed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 21:
The parking area is proposed to be located along the coast.
How the Prooosed Action is Consistent or Inconsistent with Coastal Policv 21:
The State Coastal Policies classifY parking areas as a water dependent use provided that the parking
area act as a support facility for a water dependent use.
Given that the operation of the Cross Sound fleet is unquestionably a water dependent use and also
function as a catalyst for water-related recreation, the coastal policies indicate that the proposed
parking area would be classified as a water dependent use as well and, as such, the proposed action
would be judged consistent with the objective of Coastal Policy 21. Furthering the argument that
the parking area is a water dependent use is the fact that operations include acting as a courier across
the Long Island Sound. For instance, individuals can park at the site, drop off a package on the boat
and return back to their car, knowing that the package will be delivered on the other side of the
Sound to a waiting individual.
Interestingly, if the project site were developed in accordance to local zoning - the construction of
a single family residence (an action that is not considered water dependent), such an action would
likely be viewed as being inconsistent with the objectives of Coastal Policy 21.
Coastal Policy 22: Coastal Policy 22 states that development, when located adjacent to the
shore, will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is
compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities,
and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development.
Proposed Actions Relationshio to Coastal Policy 22:
This policy was addressed under #1 (a), located earlier in this section.
74
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary/Conclusion Regarding The Proposed Actions Relationship to the State Coastal
Management Program.
As a result of on-site field investigation, in-house analysis and an understanding of the local coastal
processes occurring in the vicinity of the site, it is believed that the construction and use of the
proposed parking area will not cause any significant negative impact to the fronting waterbody,
coastline, local wetlands and/or existing land use. Hence, the proposed construction and use of the
subject parking area should be determined consistent with the goals and objectives of the New York
State Coastal Zone Management Program.
b) Peconic Bav Estuary Prol!:ram.
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1987 as
a means to protect and preserve nationally significant estuaries which were/are considered threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse. In 1988, Congress added the Peconic Estuary system to the
NEP priority list. In 1991 and 1992, The NYSDEC and the SCDHS collaboratively submitted
information to the USEP A nominating the Peconic Bay Estuary for the NEP. In September, 1992,
the Peconic Estuary was accepted into the NEP, making the estuary one of only 21 areas in the NEP
at that time. As ofJune 1, 1996,28 estuaries have been accepted into the NEP.
From December, 1993 through 1995, The Peconic Estuary Program - Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) was developed by committees from the USEP A, the NYSDEC, the
SCDHS, local government representatives and interested citizens. In November, 1995, the
preliminary draft CCMP was released for comment. Based upon literature provided by the office
of the Peconic Estuary Program, a revised or "Interim" CCMP is expected to be released during the
summer of 1997. It is projected that the CCMP will be finalized by the summer of 1998 and then
submitted to the EP A administrator for approval.
Using the time-line provided by the Office of The Peconic Estuary Program, the CCMP, as it now
stands, is still being developed and refined. The CCMP has not been approved or adopted by the
EP A, consequently, it is not an enforceable or officially recognized land use plan. However, despite
its somewhat nebulous state, it is not premature to discuss the objectives of the Peconic Estuary
Program (pEP) with respect to the proposed parking area.
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The literature provided by the Office of the Peconic Estuary Program indicates the following series
of specific goals and objectives for the program:
"a) To protect and improve the Peconic Estuary system water quality to ensure a
healthy and diverse marine community.
b) To preserve and enhance the integrity of the ecosystems and natural resources
present in the study area so that:
i) Optimal fish and wildlife habitat and diversity of species can be ensured, and
ii) Conservation and wise management of the consumable, renewable natural
resources of the bay are promoted and enhanced
c) To optimize opportunities for water-dependent recreation.
d) To promote, to the maximum practical extent, the social and economic benefits
which have been associated with the Peconic Bay Estuary system.
e) To minimize health risks from human consumption of shellfish and finfish.
j) To promote, to the maximum extent possible, public awareness and involvement
in estuarine management issues. "
The following text offers additional information on the proposed actions relationship to the Peconic
Estuary Program (pEP) by initially identifying the specific goals/objectives quoted above, and then
providing corresponding text with respect to the identified goaVobjective.
PEP GoaVObiective: "To protect and improve the Peconic Estuary system water quality to ensure
a healthy and diverse marine community."
ResDonse.
The proposed parking area will be set back approximately 180 l.f. from the mean high water line.
With respect to the parking areas inland location, the Coastal Engineer for the proposed project
concluded that the parking area will not have any impact on the fronting beach or neighboring dune
(report located in the Appendix of this document). Drainage for the site will be designed so that any
and all runoff will be directed away from the beach and dune areas. The drainage plan must be
approved by the Town Engineer prior to site construction. Consequently, with respect to the
location and design of the proposed parking area, no impacts to the Peconic Estuaries water quality
are anticipated.
76
!!l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PEP Goal/Obiective: "To preserve and enhance the integrity of the ecosystems and natural
resources present in the study area so that:
i) Optimal fish and wildlife habitat and diversity of species can be ensured, and
ii) Conservation and wise management of the consumable, renewable natural resources of
the bay are promoted and enhanced"
Response.
The construction and use of the proposed parking area will not significantly effect local fish and
wildlife habitats or any other consumable, renewable natural resource of the bay for the following
main reasons:
. The proposed parking area will be set back approximately 180 I.f. from the mean
high water line.
. The Coastal Engineer for the proposed project concluded that the parking area will
not have any impact on the fronting beach or neighboring dune.
. The Botanist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site does
not possess plants species of great habitat importance.
· The Biologist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site is not
a habitat which lends itself to be used by unique, special or diverse wildlife species.
. Drainage for the site will be designed so that any and all runoff will be directed away
from the beach and dune areas. To ensure adequacy, the drainage plan must be
approved by the Town Engineer prior to site construction.
PEP Goal/Obiective: "To optimize opportunities for water-dependent recreation."
Response.
Construction of the proposed parking area will not result in any blockage or reduction of public
access to the waterfront or beach. In fact, the parking area will most likely encourage individuals
to visit the fronting beach by providing convenient aCcess to the waterfront. Given that the
operation of the Cross Sound fleet is unquestionably a water dependent use and is used as a catalyst
for water-related recreation, the proposed parking area would be consistent with this particular
objective.
Interestingly, if the project site were developed in accordance to local zoning - the construction of
a single family residence (an action that is not considered water dependent), such an action would
be viewed as inconsistent with the stated goal/objective.
77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PEP Goal/Obiective: "To promote, to the maximum practical extent, the social and economic
benefits which have been associated with the Peconic Bay Estuary system. "
Response:
A vehicular/passenger service has been carrying goods and individuals to and from Orient Point for
over half a century. The success and longevity of the service act as a testament the social and
economic benefits that it provides.
PEP Goal/Obiective: "To minimize health risks from human consumption of shellfish and finfish ".
Response: The construction and use of the proposed parking area will not significantly effect local
shellfish, finfish, terrestrial wildlife species or any other consumable, renewable natural resource of
the bay for the following main reasons:
o The proposed parking area will be set back approximately 180 l.f. from the mean
high water line.
o The Coastal Engineer for the proposed project concluded that the parking area will
not have any impact on the fronting beach or neighboring dune.
o The Botanist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site does
not possess plants species of great habitat importance.
o The Biologist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site is not
a habitat which lends itself to use by unique, special or diverse wildlife species.
o Drainage for the site will be designed so that any and all runoff will be directed away
from the beach and dune areas. To ensure adequacy, the drainage plan must be
approved by the Town Engineer prior to site construction.
PEP Goal/Obiective: "To promote, to the maximum extent possible, public awareness and
ilTVolvement in estuarine management issues."
ResDonse.
It should be noted the Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. contributes with either in-kind donations
or cash contributions to a number of organizations who are active in public awareness and/or
involved in estuarine management issues, including Ducks Unlimited, Okeanos Ocean Research
Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and the East End Seaport Museum and Marine Foundation
(see appendices for complete listing). Assistance provided to these organizations is part of Cross
Sound Ferry Services, Inc. contribution to public awareness on environmental issues.
78
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Critical Environmental Area Desil!nation.
6 NYCRR Part 617.2 G> defines a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as a "specific geographic
area designated by a state or local agency, having exceptional or unique environmental
characteristicS'. In 1986, Suffolk County designated land located to the north and east of the ferry
site as a Critical Environmental Area. In specific, Article 37, Section C-37-7 of the Suffolk County
Charter reads as follows:
"C37-7. Designation of critical environmental areas {Added 6-23-1987 by L.L. No. 24-
1987}
A. The following lands within the County of Suffolk, as more particularly described below,
are hereby designated as critical environmental areas pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. 4(j):
(1) Those lands contemplated for acquisition by the County of Suffolk pursuant to its open
space acquisition program created via Resolution No. 762-1986. "
Furthermore, as indicated in the following passage from the same section as quoted above, in 1988,
the Suffolk County Legislature designated all land located immediately within 500 ft. of the shoreline
as a CEA:
"(9) The bays east of the mouth of the Peconic River to and including Block Island Sound,
the land beneath the bays and all land immediately within five hundred (500) feet of the
shoreline of the bays, and/or its tributaries. "
With respect to items (1) and (9) quoted above, the enclosed Map titled "CEA Location" documents
the location of the existing CEA's on or near the project site.
The nearby County property was designated a CEA largely in part due to the Suffolk County Open
Space Acquisition Program. The lands within 500 ft of the shoreline were designated as a CEA
mainly because of the potential impacts resulting from runoff, sewage effluent and/or erosion on the
adjacent bay/estuary areas.
The proposed parking area would be located over 100 I.f. from the County-owned CEA land. It is
believed that this separation would be sufficient to prevent any physical disturbance to the County
property generated by the construction and use of the proposed parking area. However, the CEA
land that runs along the coastline and includes a large percentage of the project site deserves to be
addressed more closely. Given that runoff, sewage effluent and erosion have be identified by the
County as potential threats within this specific CEA area, each of these issues will be discussed
separately below:
Stormwater Runoff - The proposed parking area will utilize a drainage system similar
to the other parking lots in the vicinity. Stormwater will be directed towards french
drains and drywells. However, since it is proposed that the parking area be
79
'"
:t.l
....
~
~ '"
w -
~. c:: 0..
~ :t.l '"
~ E ~
.:( c::
;; 0
:: .... ~
~ > LLl
E
~ c:: U
e LLl ---
.>
~
w '"
;; u
u
:E -
.-
w ....
" U
~
~
~
~
'"
.~
~
0
D
ffiffi I " U
f
\l
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
composed of a loose blue stone surface, it is anticipated that most rainwater will
permeate almost immediately through the surface, significantly reducing the need for
below-ground drainage structures. During unique periods of intense or lengthy
rainfall, the stormwater control structures (ie. the french drains and drywells) will
collect and store the runoff generated on the site for eventual groundwater re-charge.
It should be noted that to ensure adequacy, the proposed drainage plan must meet
with the approval of the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Sewlll!e Effluent - The proposed parking area does not include a restroom or similar
facilities. Ferry patrons who park in the proposed parking area would use the
restroorns located in the existing snack bar or ferry terminal. Given that each of
these existing restrooms possess conventional below grade sanitary systems which
received approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, it is
reasonable to conclude that sewage effluent will continue to be properly disposed of.
Erosion - The proposed parking area is located outside of the designated Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area. Since the project does not extend into the fronting beach or
neighboring dune system, the Coastal Engineer's report located in the appendix of
this document concluded that no negative impacts to the beach or dune are
anticipated.
With respect to the discussion noted above, it is believed that the proposed action will have no
significant effect on the County-owned CEA land located to the east and north of the project site.
Furthermore, despite that the site will be significantly changed from its existing state, the on-site
CEA land located along the coastline will continue to function as a buffer and remain an important
safeguard against any threat to the Bay.
d) Orient Landmark Desil!nation.
The Town of Sou tho Ids Landmark Preservation Commission was created by the Town Board on
January 1, 1983. Chapter 56.2 of the Town Code indicates that the pUl:pose of the Landmark
Preservation Commission is as follows:
Un. assist Southold Town and owners of places, sites, buildings and structures in
order to conserve, protect and preserve such places, sites, structures and buildings,
thereby preserving the unique character of Southold Town, which will substantially
improve property and commercial values in the town and make its hamlets even
better places in which to live. "
80
'!It
-
-
0
M
.
"
~ e c..
~
VI ~ ..
lE 2
N -'"
....
-
..
E
-0
<:
..
--l
'"
N
"0 ~
"
"0 0
~ ..
~
> :J!
. i
f-
M
"- "
.
u
"
. .
"0 ~
.~ = eo
. 0 N
'" J: .
" "0 "
~ E 2
E :; ~
"0 ~
.~ :;: ~
Vl >
ai ~
0
" f-
.
"'
;; N
Z "
<XI
"
.
~
=
0
J:
.
"'
f-
.to <D
0> N
J: . . . .
" ~ ~ ~
e = = =
<D 0 0 0
" ~ J: J: J:
~
lE ~ ~ .
0>
. " 0>.
"' = ~
'" Vl 0 ;;
" >-
"
" 0 ..
. "
"0
"
....
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 56.5 of the Town Code indicates that the Commissions duties are to:
"1. Encourage preservation of landmarks through education. 2. Promote and
encourage historic awareness and judicious concern for designated landmarks. "
For a structure, site or object to be designated a town landmark, at least one of the following three
criteria must be met:
1. The structure, building or object is architecturally unique.
2. A site where an historic event took place.
3. A building or site associated with an historic personage.
As indicated in the "Tawn of Southold Register of Designated Landmarks (1983-1996)", 54
siteslstructureslbuildings have received "landmark" status from the Town. As shown on the
enclosed "Landmark Map" 12 of these landmarks are located in Orient (4 of which are milestone
monuments set along Route 25). The following table is indexed in association with the enclosed
map and provides information regarding the relationship between the designated landmarks and the
project site:
Reference Number
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
Landmark Name
Shaw House
Terry-Mulford House
Terrywold
Village House
Webb House
High-Theil House
Gideon Youngs House
Nathan B. Seidman
Residence
Milestone 26
Milestone 28
Milestone 29
Milestone 30
Location
1970 Village Lane
30675 Main Road
36505 Main Road
1555 Village Lane
1440 Village Lane
22135 Main Road
1725 Village Lane
29215 Main Road
Distance to Proiect Site
Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 2 Miles
Approx. 1 Mile
.Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 2.5 Miles
Approx. 4 Miles
Approx. 2 Miles
Approx. 1 Mile
On-Site
East of Orient Causeway
Near Fork in Road
West of Greenway East St.
Orient Point Ferry Terminal
As per the above chart, with the exception of the milestones, the closest Town designated historic
landmark is approximately 1 mile from the project site. This distance of separation is considered
great enough to safely conclude that the construction and use of the project site itself will have no
impact on any of these local landmarks. As for the milestones, the Terminal Parcel underwent
extensive changes in the mid-1980's without any damage to the milestone located on the Snack Bar
Parcel. Accordingly, given that the proposed action does not include the Snack Bar Parcel, it would
be reasonable to conclude that Milestone 30 will not incur any damage from the construction of the
proposed parking area.
Please note that the impacts on the local community (which include the above mentioned landmarks)
from vecWes en-route to/from the project site is discussed in the "Transportation" section of this
document.
81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(B) LAND USE AND ZONING: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
1. ImDact on Land Use.
The construction and use of the proposed parking area will result in the addition of one more parcel
to an existing "block" 00 parcels currently classified as "Transportation" on the enclosed Land Use
Map. Since all 5 parcels located between the project site and Orient State Park contain existing
large parking areas, the proposed parking area should not be considered inconsistent with the local
current land use. Consequently, the proposals impact on land use is condidered minimal.
2. ImDact on ZoniDl!.
Cross-Sound Feny Services, Inc. & Mr. Adam Wronowski seek zoning approval from the Town of
Southold to allow for the usage of Trust parcel for parking as part of the operation of the existing
water carrier service. A request was made to the Building Department to allow the usage of the site
for parking. On November 7, 1995, the Building Department issued a Notice of Disapproval, which
states the reason for the disapproval as follows:
"Under Article xrv Section 100-250 any change in use or intensity of use will
require site plan approval by the Planning Board Under Section 100-191A
reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements for uses which do not
fall within listed categories shall be determined by the Planning Board upon
consideration of all factors. Section 100-254B(4) of the Town Code empowers the
Planning Board to vary or waive parking requirements as part of site plan review
process.
"Regarding Tax Map Parcel SClM # 1000-15-9-15.1 an approval by Planning
Board of site plan is required This Department is not in a position to accept
applicants statement as evidence of pre-existing parking use.
"Under Article III Section 100-31A the proposed parking spaces are not a
permitted use in the R-80 district. Under Article XIX Section 100-19 1H proposed
parking spaces for ferry terminal are not located on the same lot as the use to which
they are accessory, nor within 200ft. walking distance of such lot - Action required
by Zoning Board of Appeals. "
As required, on December 8, 1995 an application was filed on behalf of Cross-Sound Ferry Services,
Inc. and Mr. Adam Wronowski seeking an appeal from the November 7, 1995 letter (quoted above)
from the Building Department of the Town of South old. The December 8th request cited that:
"An appeal is sought from the Notice of Disapproval dated November 27, 1995
since the Building Inspector either ignored a request for relief, misinterpreted the
applicable Zoning Code provisions or acknowledged that certain requests for relief
required action by the Zoning Board of Appeals, LE., special exception requests,
variation of parking stall dimensions and the public utility use variance request. "
82
'!l
------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The application goes on further seeking either a variance to the specifically listed provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, or an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and Special Exception requests.
The reason for the request is further listed as follows:
"Supreme Court .Justice Patrick Henry denied the Town of Southolds request for a
temporary retraining order and injunctive relief, he advised the parties to resolve
their differences by making appropriate administrative applications. The instant
application provides appropriate relief in that it allows for a more realistic size for
parking spaces for low turnover parking facilities to accommodate the ferry
operation, in keeping with authoritative manuals of traffic engineering published
by the Institute of transportation Engineers. Furthermore, it allows for parking on
a currently vacant residentially zoned lot adjacent to the ferry operation, with
minimal intrusion into the Community, while alleviating perceived traffic
congestion. Additionally, the appeals requests a Court-recognized 'Public Utility
Use Variance' ifnecessary."
The powers and duties of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the consideration of a variance are
outlined in Section 100-272B of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
"B. Variances: Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in
the way of carrying out the strict letter of these regulations, the Board of Appeals
shall have the power to vary or modify the application of such regulations so that
the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and
substantial justice done. ..
Section 100-2720 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the powers and duties of an interpretation
request as follows:
"D. Interpretations: on appeal from an order, decision or determination of an
administrative officer or on request of any town officer, board or agency, to decide
any of the following:
"(1) Determine the meaning of any provision in this chapter or of any
condition or requirement specified or made under the provisions of this
chapter.
(2) Determine the exact location of any district boundary shown on the
Zoning Map. ..
With respect to the above quoted passage, the evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action as
it relates to the zoning on this site will be conducted by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals during
the course of the review of the application currently pending before them and therefore can not be
discussed in this DEIS.
83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Impact on Existinl!: Land Use Plans.
The impacts to the (a) State Coastal Zone Management Program, (b) Peconic Bay Estuary Program,
( c ) Critical Environmental Designation and (d) Orient Landmark Designation, are discussed
individually below:
a) Impacts to the State Coastal Zone Manal!:ement Prol!:ram.
As a result of on-site field investigation, in-house analysis and an understanding of the local
coastal processes occurring in the vicinity of the site, it is believed that the construction and
use of the proposed parking area will not cause any significant negative impact to the
fronting waterbody, coastline, local wetlands and/or existing land use. Hence, the proposed
construction and use of the subject parking area should be determined consistent with the
goals and objectives of the New York State Coastal Zone Management Program.
b) Impacts to the Peconic Bav Estuary Prol!:ram (PEP),
The existing condition section for the Peconic Bay Estuary Program analyzes the proposed
action with respect to the individual PEP goals and objectives. Based upon this analysis and
the conclusions provided below, it appears that the proposed action should not be considered
a threat to the goals/objectives of the Peconic Estuary Program:
o The proposed parking area will be set back approximately 180 I.f. from the mean
high water line.
o The Coastal Engineer for the proposed project concluded that the parking area will
not have any impact on the fronting beach, neighboring dune or tidal wetland.
o The Botanist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site does
not possess plant species of great habitat importance.
o The Biologist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site is not
a habitat which lends itself to be used by unique, special or diverse wildlife species.
Furthermore, the Biologist found no evidence that the proposed parking area would
have adverse effects on any species of wildlife or designated habitat.
c) Impacts to Critical Environmental Area Desil!:nation.
The Botanist for the proposed project concluded that the existing project site does not
possess plant species of great habitat importance. Furthermore the Biologist for the
proposed project issued the following findings statement:
"The conclusions can be briefly summarized' no evidence was found that
the proposed development would have adverse effects on any designated
species of wildlife or designated habitat. In its present state the project
site is not a significant wildlife area."
Based upon the lack of significant on-site plant and wildlife species it is believed that the
construction and operation of the proposed parking area will have no impact on the
surrounding region designated as a critical environmental area. Furthermore, the proposed
actions method of handling stormwater and sewage effiuent is consistent with propper
84
'!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mitigation techniques. Consequently, with respect to the discussion noted above and in the
exisiting condition section of this document, it is believed that the proposed action will have
no significant effect on the County-owned CEA land located to the east and north of the
project site. Furthermore, despite that the site will be significantly changed from its existing
state, the on-site CEA land located along the coastline will continue to function as a buffer
and remain an important safeguard against any threat to the Bay.
d) Impacts to Orient Landmark Desil!nation.
As per landmark chart located in the existing condition portion of this section, with the
exception of the Route 25 milestones, the closest Town designated historic landmark is
approximately 1 mile from the project site. This distance of separation is considered great
enough to safely conclude that the construction and use of the project site itself will have no
impact on any of these local landmarks. As for the milestones, the Terminal Parcel
underwent extensive changes in the mid-1980's without any damage to the milestone located
on the Snack Bar Parcel. Accordingly, given that the proposed action does not include the
Snack Bar Parcel, it would be reasonable to conclude that Milestone 30 will not incur any
damage from the construction of the proposed parking area.
Please note that the impacts from vechles en-route to/from the project site is discussed in the
"Transportation" section of this document.
85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. COMMUNITY SERVICES: EXISTING CONDmON.
1. Inventorv of Nearbv Educational Facilities.
Only one school is located in the Hamlet of Orient. The Oysterponds Public School is located just
to the east of the hamlet center, north of the intersection of Main Road and Tabor Road. The school
encompasses grades kindergarten through six and has approximately 130 students on roughly 11
acres ofIand.
2. Ristorv of Police Service in Connection with the Cross Sound's Ooeration.
Police Protection for all of Orient is provided by the Southold Town Police Department. The
Headquarters of the Town Police is located on the Main Road in the Hamlet of Peconic,
approximately 24 miles from the Cross Sound Ferry Service's property. Based upon written
communication with Joseph Conway, Chief of the Southold Police (letter contained in appendix), the
Police Department has responded to 323 calls for service at the Cross Sound Facility over the past
5 years. Chief Conway indicated that the police services considered most necessary as a result of the
on-going operation of the Cross Sound facility include traffic and parking control. In association with
traffic and parking contro~ ChiefConwav confirmed that the Southold Town Police do have the right
to issue j:larking violations to j:latrons who have illegally parked on the shoulders of Route 25.
3. Fire Protection within the Orient Community.
The Hamlet of Orient is served by an all-volunteer fire department. The Orient Fire House is located
opposite of the Oysterponds Public School, on the southeastern comer of the intersection on Main
Road and Tabor Road, approximately 4 miles from the project site. Based upon written
communication with Ed Loper, Chief of the Orient Fire Department (letter contained in Appendix),
the Fire Department and EMS have had to respond to the following approximate number of calls for
service at the Cross Sound Facility:
1993 ............1 ambulance call;
1994 ............ 4 ambulance calls;
1995 ............ No calls;
1996 ............ 7 ambulance calls;
1997 (to date) ..... 5 ambulance calls; 2 automatic fire alarms to the ferry tenninal
and snack bar.
Chief Loper indicated that most the ambulance calls were/are in response to individuals who become
sick or injured while on the Cross Sound vessels..llot from accidents occurring on the Cross Sound
property. In response to inquiry, Chief Loper indicated that, to the best of his knowledge, Cross
Sound "has never been cited or warned against any activity or practice by the Fire Department. "
86
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Invento" of Recreational Facilities within Orient.
The Hamlet of Orient possesses significant acreage held in the public domain, such as NYSDEC
wetlands, Suffolk County property and NYS land. However, not all of the land which is held in the
public domain is readily accessible for recreation purposes. Land is frequently purchased for open
space and ecologic purposes than for active recreational objectives. The following list of properties
represents the most actively used sites (public and private) in Orient, where outdoor recreation is
considered a primary objective: Truman Beach, Orient Point County Parkland, Orient Point State
Park, Orient by the Sea Marina, Narrow River Marina, Orient Yacht Club, Oysterponds Historical
Society gardens and open space, Orient School playground and fields. The Orient Point County
Parkland and the Orient Point State Park are the closest of the inventoried recreational facilities with
respect to the project site (located approximately 100 l.f. and 1,100 l.f., respectively from the Cross
Sound Ferry Property).
5. Invento" of Public Utilities at the Proiect Site and in the Vicinitv.
The Snack Bar Parcel, West Parcel and the Terminal Parcel are all serviced from overhead LILCO
electric and NYNEX telephone lines running along State Route 25. The Snack Bar Parcel is also
serviced by an underground LILCO gas line. Public water from the Suffolk County Water Authority
is not available at the project site or anywhere in the Hamlet of Orient. No Utilities have been
extended onto the project site at this time.
( C ) COMMUNITY SERVICES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT
In an effort to obtain a local assessment of the proposed parking area's impact on the existing
community services, letters of inquiry were submitted to the following individuals in August, 1997:
. Charles Woznick, Superintendent, Oysterponds Public School;
. Ken Reeves, Recreation Supervisor, Southold Town Recreation Department;
. Jim McMahon, Director, Southold Town Community Development Office;
. Ed Loper, Orient Fire Chief;
· Joseph Conway, Chief, Southold Town Police Department.
The letters of inquiry were followed up in September, 1997, by telephone calls and written
transmittals. All of the correspondence to the above referenced individuals, along with their
responses, are enclosed in the appendix of this document.
Please note that this section only discusses the impacts on communitv services associated with the
construction and on-site use of the proposed 155 car oarking area. Imoacts from vehicles en-route
to/from the Cross Sound facility. including the proposed parking area. is discussed in the
"Transoortation" section of this document.
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Anticioated Imoact on Nearbv Educational Facilities.
Due to the large distance between the Cross Sound Facility and the Oysterponds Public School, it is
believed that the construction and on-site use of the proposed action will not have any impact on the
subject school. This belief was confirmed upon asking Mr. Charles Woznick, Superintendent,
Oysterponds Public School, the following three questions:
. "In your opinion, would the constnJction and use of an additional J 50 car parking
area at the ferry site contribute to an increase in use of any of the inventoried
educational facilities?"
. "In your opinion, would the constnJction and use of an additional J 50 car parking
area at the ferry site result in a reduction of quality at the inventoried educational
facilities? "
· "In your opinion, would the constnJction and use of an additional J 50 car parking
area at the ferry site create an unsafe environment at the inventoried educational
facilities? "
Mr. Charles Woznick, Superintendent, Oysterponds Public School, responded "No" to each of the
above questions.
2. Anticioated Imoact on Police Service.
Most parking lots in the Town of South old do not require significant amount of Police attention. The
parking lots that do appear to warrant routine police patrols are either associated with a late night
shopping center or lie adjacent to popular beach/recreation areas. Historically, the Cross Sound
parking areas have not generated a need for a significant amount of police attention. Consequently,
it is believed that the construction and use of the proposed action will have no impact on the existing
level of police protection at Orient. As indicated in the following roster of questions and answers,
this assessment was confirmed via written communication with Chief Joseph Conway, Chief of the
Southold Town Police Force.
Question.
"If the entire ferry operation never existed, would less police service be necessary/provided to
the residents of Orient? "
ReSDonse from Chief ConwaY: "If the ferry never existed the need for Police services in
Orient would not change. "
Question.
"In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional J 50 car parking area at the
ferry site cut down on the number of cars parked on the shoulder of Route 25?"
Resoonse from Chief Conwav: "An increase in off road parking should reduce the number
of cars parked on route 25. "
88
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ouestion.
"In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional 150 car parking area at the
ferry site contribute to an increase in crime at Orient or result in the need for more police
service in the Orient Area?"
Resoonse from Chief Conwav: "150 cars should not increase the crime level at Orient Point,
nor increase the need for Police service. "
3. Anticinated Imnact on Fire Protection.
Similar to police service (discussed above), parking lots in the Town of Southold do not usually
require fire protection services. Consequently, it is believed that the construction and use of proposed
155 car parking area will not result in any impact to the existing level of fire protection service at
Orient. In an effort to confirm this assessment and to provide additional local insight on this issue,
the following three questions were directed, via mail, at Chief Edward Loper, Chief of the Orient Fire
Department:
Question.
"lfthe entire ferry operation never existed, would fewer Fire Department services be
necessary/provided to the residents of Orient? "
ResDonse from Chief LoDer:
"No. Fire Department services would remain the same."
Question.
"In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional 150 car parking area at the
ferry site contribute to an increase in fire hazard potential?"
ResDonse from Chief loDer:
"In. my opinion, the construction and use of a 150 car
parking area would not greatly contribute an increase in fire
hazard potential. It would be better than cars parked
randomly around the ferry site - which limits access by
emergency vehicles. "
Question.
"In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional 150 car parking area at the
ferry site result in the need for more Fire Department service in the Orient area or threaten the
existing level of service to the degree that residents would no longer be receiving sufficient
protection from the Fire Department?"
Resoonse from Chief LoDer:
"In my opinion, the construction and use of a 150 car
parking lot would not result in the need for more Fire
Department services. It would also not threaten the existing
level of service offired to the residents of the Orient Fire
District. "
89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chief Loper did express the following two concerns about the proposed project and the existing
Cross Sound Facility:
"In my opinion. the only concern the Orient Fire Dept. has regarding an additional J 50 car
parking lot is the following. "
. "Would need adequate emergency vehicle access for fire and EJ.1S apparatus"
. "In the unfortunate event of afire - there is a lack of water sources available at the ferry
terminal site (example - the ferry has no fire hydrant or fire well system). "
In response to the concerns identified by Chief Loper, the proposed site plan contains 22' wide access
areas and it is believed that the project sponsor will have no objection to the installation of a fire well
on the Terminal Parcel.
4. AnticiDated {mDact on Existinl! Nearbv Recreational Facilities.
The construction and use of an additional IS 5 car parking area at the Cross Sound facility will not
appreciably impact any of Orient's recreational facilities. Those who use the parking area are
traveling to New England - not the Orient area. Even if a few additional individuals per day use the
local facilities while awaiting departure or arrival of their vesse~ this potential increase in use is not
expected to be noticeable or be considered a threat to the recreational facilities existing quality. To
provide additional local insight on this issue, the following two questions were directed, via mail, at
Ken Reeves, Southold Town Recreation Supervisor, and Jim McMahon, Director, Southold Town
Community Development:
Ouestions:
. "In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional J 50 car parking area at the ferry
site significantly contribute to an increase in use of any of the inventoried parks/recreation
facilities?"
. "In your opinion, would the construction and use of an additional J 50 car parking area at the ferry
site result in any reduction in the quality of the inventoried parkland and recreational facilities?"
Written responses were received from both Mr. Reeves and Mr. McMahon. Mr Reeves' letter of
response stated the following
ResDonse (Ken Reeves):
"I respectfUlly decline to answer your questionnaire for two reasons. First, I live in East
Patchogue and am not all that familiar with the local area. Second, I feel that since I work
for the Town of Southold as the recreation supervisor, it poses somewhat of a conflict of
interest. "
90
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Whereas, the following was stated in Mr. McMahons' letter of response:
Resnonse (Jim McMahon):
"The Town of Southold does not own, operate or manage any of the park or recreation
facilities you have identified, therefore, I can not assess the impact of the ferry on the use or
quality of those facilities. ..
5. Anticinated Imnact on Local Pnblic Utilities.
The construction and use of the proposed parking area will not require disturbing any of the existing
public utilities. Furthermore, the installation of the proposed lighting scheme is not expected to result
in the need to upgrade the existing available electric service. Consequently, no impacts to local public
utilities is expected.
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will discuss the existing visual, historic and
noise resources and the potential impact of the Proposed Action on each resource. Accordingly,
these resources are described in greater detail below:
A. VISUAL RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDmON.
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will discuss the existing visual resources
which currently characterize the Project Site and the surrounding area. The information presented
in this section is based upon the Visual Resource Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry, Orient, New
York prepared by Araiys Design (1997) which is included as part of the Consultant Section of this
Draft EIS. A visual impact can be defined as the degree of change in visual resources and viewers
responses to those resources caused by a development project. The results of the visual assessment
as prepared by Araiys Design are briefly discussed in the following sections.
1. Description of the Phvsical Character of the Community
The general visual environment of the project site and the surrounding area can be described as being
generally flat, non-wooded terrain interrupted by water and shoreline vegetation, interspersed with
local highway structures, residential, agricultural and commercial uses. The Project Site has been
disturbed in recent years. Tall existing vegetation is located along the sites east and north boundaries.
The color and texture of the site/surrounding is frequently interrupted by the existing parking areas,
buildings, docks, residential structures and commercial structures located near the site. The most
dominant visual intrusion in the landscape is the existing ferry operation with its parking lots,
buildings and docks (Araiys Design, 1997).
The overall visual quality of the surrounding area can be described as low to medium. The vividness
of the area is medium to high as a result of the combination of Gardiners Bay and the existing
vegetation. However, the intactness and unity are diminished by the number of man-made structures.
Intactness is defined as the integrity of visual order in the natural and man-built landscape, and the
extent to which the landscape is free from visual encroachment. Unity is the degree to which the
visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity
refers to the compositional harmony or inter-compatibility between landscape elements. More key
concepts and details regarding the sites visual assessement are discussed in the Visual Resource
Assessment prepared by Araiys Design (Araiys Design, 1997) located in the Appendix of this Draft
EIS.
92
"'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Description of Site from Nearbv Roadwavs and Surface Waters.
According to the Visual Resources Assessment prepared by Araiys Design (1997), there are two main
views of the proposed site which have been determined to be significant: the visual impact from (1)
the existing road (Route 25) and (2) Gardiner's Bay (Araiys Design, 1997).
Route 25
The site is one parcel removed from Route 25. The physical roadway ends at the terminal structure.
An existing parking lot and commercial building separate the proposed site from the roadway. A
residential driveway extends easterly from Route 25 and becomes the northerly border of the site.
Because of the existence of tall evergreen and deciduous vegetation along the project sites northern
border, and with respect to the proposed landscape enhancement of the existing northern buffer with
native, indigenous plant material, the degree of unity and intactness will be increased (Araiys Design,
1997) with the proposed action.
Gardiner's Bay
The site fronts on Gardiner's Bay and is clearly visible from boaters traveling in a generally east-west
direction. The view will be a distant with the duration of the view relative to the speed of the
watercraft. Because of the proposed maritime planting scheme to be included along with the
proposed parking field, the project will increase the degree of unity and intactness (Araiys Design,
1997) .
(A) VISUAL RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
1. Visual Impact on the Character of the Community from the Proposed Action.
As stated in the above sections, the area surrounding the Project Site consists of residential,
commercial, governmental and agricultural uses. On the northerly boundary, three (3) existing
residences are buffered by existing tall evergreen and deciduous vegetation. This buffer area
establishes the visual unity an intactness of the area. The proposed buffer on the northern border of
the project area will increase that degree of unity and intactness of the surrounding area. Due to the
commercial uses located to the west of the project site, and with respect to the existing non-native
vegetation on the site, the introduction of the large planted islands near the western border of the
subject site will provide an increase in the unity and intactness from the travelers viewpoint (Araiys
Design, 1997).
2. Visual Impact on Community from the Proposed Li2htin2.
There is a need for lighting at the Cross Sound Ferry Facility for the security of the property and the
safety of the persons utilizing the facility. Accordingly, the Proposed Action includes the placement
of light standards within the proposed parking area for security and safety. The light standards will
be a maximum of 14 feet tall with single fixtures arranged to provide a sufficient amount of light for
pedestrian safety. The proposed light fixtures will have light shields which will direct light downward
to keep it from spilling onto neighboring properties (Araiys Design, 1997).
93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Visual Assessment of the Prooosed Site from Route 25 and Gardiner's Bav.
Route 25
As previously described, with respect to views from roadways, the project site is separated from
Route 25 by a commercial building and a parking lot. The intactness and unity of the view are
disturbed by the presence of these man-made structures. The addition of of the proposed landscaping
will increase the intactness and unity of this view (Araiys Design, 1997).
Traveling on the residential driveway, located along the northern border of the project site, lies
extensive tall non-native and indigenous vegetation which provides a buffer between the three
residences located to the north and the project site. The proposed addition of more landscaped native
plantings in this area will increase the degree of unity and intactness of the surrounding area (Araiys
Design, 1997).
Gardiners Bay
The visual impact from Gardiner's Bay has the potential for being significant because of the
recreational nature of the bay. The proposed introduction ofmaritimelupland vegetation between the
project site and the water will increase the degree of unity and intactness thereby reducing the visual
impact of the project (Araiys Design, 1997).
B. mSTORlC/PRE-mSTORlC RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDmON.
The HistoriclPre-Historic Resources which characterize this site and the surrounding area are
described in the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological Survey of the Cross Sound Ferry
Property prepared by David 1. Bernstein, Ph.D. and Daria E. Merwin (August, 1997). An overview
of this report is included in this section, whereas the entire report can be reviewed in the Consultant
Section of this document.
1. InventorvlDescriotion of Historic Areas and/or Structures Located on or in the Proximity
ofthe Proiect Site.
As described in the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological Survey of the Cross Sound Ferry
Property prepared by Bernstein and Merwin, no prehistoric archaeological sites within one mile of
the project area were documented in the files of the Suffolk County Archaeological Association, the
Institute for Long Island Archaeology, the New York State Museum or the State Historic
Preservation Office in Albany. One unstudied historic period archaeological site is located
immediately across Main Road - the site of the Orient Point Inn and Revolutionary Fort
(#AI0310.0007). This structure may have been built as early as 1672 but it was demolished in 1985
and was never the object of a formal archaeological investigation (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
The site files of the state Historic Preservation Office, the Town of Southold Register of Designated
Landmarks, and the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities document three (3)
inventoried properties within the vicinity of the project area, including the Orient Point Ferry complex
94
'!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(#AI0310.001040), the eighteenth century mile marker on the grounds of the Cross Sound Feny
Services, Inc. property ("30 M SuffC.H.," #AI0310.001039), and "Point Farm" (#AI031O.001041).
No other structures of historical interest were discovered within a mile radius of the Project Site
(Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
2. Stal!:e I Archaeolol!:V Survey.
The Stage I Archaeology Survey as performed by Bernstein and Merwin, 1997, involves two (2)
stages, an archival search (Stage IA) and archaeological survey (Stage m). The archival search
involves the assessment of the natural history of the property as well as the cultural history. This
search discusses the existing environmental setting, the prehistoric period and the historic period of
the Project Site and its surrounding area. The most pertinent information comes from the historic
research which discusses the history of Point Farm and the history of the ship service which began
in the nineteenth century between Orient Point and New London and other southern New England
ports (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
The archaeological research for the Project Site involved a two (2) phase survey, the first phase
involving a surface reconnaissancelinspection and the second phase entailing subsurface testing. An
initial surface reconnaissance was conducted on May 19, 1997. Despite fair to good visibility, no
prehistoric or historic artifacts or cultural features were identified in the project area. Photographs
showing current field conditions are included in the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological
Survey (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997) located in the appendix of this Draft EIS.
The second phase of the field survey consisted of the excavation of 15 shovel test pits (STPs)
designed to detect the presence of cultural remains beneath the ground surface. The position of each
of the shovel test pits are shown on a map which is included in the Bernstein & Merwin Report
(1997). Disturbed and plow zone soil horizons were encountered in all STPs excavated on the
Project Site. No cultural material other than recent trash (bottle glass, Styrofoam cups) was
recovered during subsurface testing. A more detailed description of the shovel test pits is found in
the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological Survey of the Cross Sound Feny Property prepared
by Bernstein & Merwin (1997) (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
In summary, no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were identified during the archaeological
investigation of the Cross Sound Ferry property at Orient Point. Therefore, no further archaeological
testing was recommended (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(B) mSTORICIPRE-mSTORIC RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
1. Imoact on Historic Structures/Areas Identified on the State Re!!:ister.
Surface inspection and subsurface testing in the area of the project site indicate that there are no
artifacts or features within the project area associated with the Orient Point Inn archaeological site
(#AI0310.0007), the Orient Ferry Complex (#A1031O.001039) [mile marker] and
(#AI0310.001040), or with Point Farm (#AI0310.001041) (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
Additionally, in terms of historical/architectural resources, the planned project will have minimal
visual impact. The area of proposed impact is currently an open lot bounded along the northwest and
northeast sides by dense vegetation, along the southeast side by a dredged spoil pile, and along the
southwest by a dirt road abutting the present parking area. There will be no impact to structures
associated with the Cross Sound Facility, including the late eighteenth century mile marker and ferry
terminal buildings. Because nearly all of the existing vegetation in the northern section of the project
area will be maintained, there will be little visual impact to the houses on the north side of the dirt
extension of Main Road, including Point Farm (Bernstein & Merwin, 1997).
2. Imoact on Historic Structures/Areas Identified on the National Re!!:ister.
According to the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological Survey of the Cross Sound Ferry
Property prepared by Dr. David Bernstein & Daria Merwin, there will be no impact on areas
identified on the Natural Register.
3. Imoact on Historic Structures/Areas Identified bv the Town and/or County.
According to the Stage I Archival Search and Archaeological Survey of the Cross Sound Ferry
Property prepared by Dr. David Bernstein & Daria Merwin, there will be no impact on areas
identified by the Town and/or County.
4. Imoact on Historic Structures/Areas Identified bv the Society for the Preservation of Lon!!:
Island Antiquities.
Refer to #1, above.
%
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. NOISE RESOURCES: EXISTING CONDmON.
1. Existinl! Ambient Sound Levels On-Site and at ProDertv Line of Nearest ReceDtor.
The Noise Impact Study for Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion, prepared by Dunn
Engineering, discusses the existing ambient sound levels on-site and at the property line of the nearest
receptor. In order to establish ambient noise levels, noise readings were performed in the vicinity of
the two sensitive receptors in the study area, identified as the two residences located on the north side
of Route 25, opposite the subject property. The noise level results are included in Table A of the
Dunn Engineering Noise Impact Study located in the Consultant/Appendix Section of this document
(Dunn, 1997).
(C) NOISE RESOURCES: ANTICIPATED IMPACT.
It is estimated that the use of the proposed parking area would result in an increase in sound on the
order of3 dBA at maximum. It is widely accepted that a change of3 dBA is barely perceptible to
the human ear. A more detailed analysis is included in the Dunn Report which is part of the
Consultant/appendix Section of this document.
97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OTHER RESOURCES AND IMPACTS.
The following discussion provides information as requested for the following sections of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement:
. Cumulative Impacts.
. Growth Inducing Aspects.
. Irreversible & Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.
. Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources.
Part 617.9(b)(5)(iii) of the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act describes the information
required to be submitted in a Draft ErS, as it relates to these sections, as follows:
''A statement and evaluation of the potential significant adverse environmental impacts at
a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood of their
occurrence. The draft EIS should identifY and discuss the following onlv where auulicable
and simificant: " (Emphasis Added)
"('a J reasonably related short-term and long-term impacts, cumulative impacts and
other associates environmental impacts;
('b J those adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately
mitigated if the proposed action is implemented;
('C J any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources that
would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented;
('dJ any growth inducing aspects of the proposed action;"
The following sections address the information requested by the Town of Southold in the context of
the requirements of SEQR.
A. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
"Cumulative" is described in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981) as
the "Increasing or enlarging by successive addition", or "Acquired by or resulting from
accumulation" .
98
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The construction of the proposed 155 vehicle parking surface on the 2.47 acre Trust Parcel will cause
an increase in the availability of parking in this area. As noted under the section titled "Project
Design and Layout", parking exists at the Cross Sound facility as follows:
Trust Parcel:
Snack Bar Parcel:
o
235
5 Spaces, 156 in Staging Area
69
155
235
Terminal Parcel:
5 Spaces, 156 in Staging Area
69
West Parcel:
Based upon these values, the installation of the proposed parking will cause an increase in parking
from 309 existing parking spaces to 464 parking spaces on the site (an increase of33% over the
existing spaces available). The 156 car staging area will remain the same with the implementation of
the proposed project.
If the application for parking is approved, the utilization of the 2.47 acre Trust parcel for parking
represents an increase in overall land area of approximately 38%, or an increase from 4.06 acres to
6.53 acres with respect to the entire Cross Sound Facility.
On the 2.47 acre Trust parcel, the construction of this parking area will create 55,150 sq. ft. of
gravel-surfaced parking areas with subsurface drainage (approximately 50"10 of the 2.47 acre site).
When added to the existing parking on the Snack Bar, Terminal and West parcels, this 155 car
parking lot will cause an increase in overall parking surfaces available for short and long term parking.
The discussion of traffic impacts to S.R 25 from the installation of this 155 car parking lot in context
with the existing traffic at the facility is discussed in the Dunn Engineering Associates Traffic Impact
Analysis, and therefore need not be further discussed here.
B. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS.
In November 1992, the New York State Department ofEnviromnental Conservation published the
"SEQRHandbook", a guide on the use of the Part 617, the State SEQR regulations. In discussing
Growth Inducing Aspects of a proposed project, the SEQR Handbook states:
"The growth inducement section of an EIS should describe where applicable and significant,
the likelihood that the proposed action may "trigger" fUrther development by:
.
attracting significant increases in local population by creating or relocating
employment aiui the supportjQcilities that may be necessary to serve the population
(stores, public services, etc.), or
increasing the develof,ment potential (the extension of roads, sewers, water main,
utilities for example). '
.
99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The subj ect application does not cause any increase in development potential, as there will be no
increase in the capacity of off-site infrastructure (e.g. no extension or widening of roads is possible
by this project sponsor, nor will there be any extension of utilities not already available to the
surrounding community, etc.).
The construction of the 155 car parking lot on the Trust Parcel is in response to the need for
additional parking to accommodate growth in demand for interstate water carrier service. The
submission of the application to the Town of Southold is in compliance with the directives of Justice
Henry, who urged the applicant to work with the Town to address the perceived parking space
inadequacy of the area. It is expected that the construction of this facility will better accommodate
the interstate travelers during the peak usage and maintain the existing level of service into the future
in anticipation of the ongoing growth and demand for inter-state water carrier services, while
relieving stress on Route 25 by making it unnecessary for patrons to park on its shoulder.
It is el\Pected that ree:ardless of the aporoval of this aoolication. the patrons of this inter-state water
carrier will continue to arrive at the site. Their parking options will differ - - either they will be
required to purchase an auto ticket and that the vehicle to New London, CT where ample parking is
available in a multi-level parking garage, or park in nearby, off-site areas with may be either permitted
or not pennitted. Their level of convenience of travel will change if parking is not readily available,
as will the cost of traveling across the Sound to Connecticut (either by payment of vehicle tickets to
travel to Connecticut, or through parking fines for illegal parking).
As such, it is expected that the approval of this project will not have any growth-inducing aspects.
C. IRREVERSmLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.
In general terms, the evaluation of the potential for a project to cause the irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources is measured against the destruction of some resource during the
construction and occupation of the subject property by the proposed use. This can often be measured
in the evaluation of resources lost, such as: soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, use of energy,
commitment of building materials, etc..
The development of the 2.47 acre trust property is not expected to cause any irreversible nor
irretrievable commitment of resources of the area. The various consultants reported that there are
not expected to be any significant impacts to the conditions on-site:
. As reported by Dr. Eric Lamont no special or unique species of vegetation can
be currently found on this site - - the site is dominated by a large number of
non-native plant species interspersed with a fewer number of native species.
. As reported by Dr. Jeremy Hatch, the site consists of severely modified
habitat, and shows little prospect of significant wildlife.
100
""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. As reported by Dr. David Bernstein, no areas of archaeological concern were
identified on the site.
While approval of the proposed action would commit the project sponsor to the installation of a
gravel-surface parking area, drainage system as currently proposed, placement oflandscaping around
the periphery of the site, installation of lighting, etc., none of these changes are considered as
irretrievable impacts.
D. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES.
The creation of an additional 155 vehicle parking lot on the 2.47 acre Trust parcel is expected to
cause an overall reduction in the use of energy resources on a more regional scale, as it will promote
the utilization of public transportation services available at the New London, Connecticut port.
[While public parking is readily available in New London (a multi-stOlY parking garage), only
limited public transportation services venture to Orient Point, the terminus of State Road 25.
Currently, the only public service available at Orient Point is the Tanger Trolley service, which
takes passengers to and from the Tanger outlet Mall, in Riverbead, New York. As currently
operating, this trolley service - set up on a trial basis - appears to have limited ridership.
Passengers using this service park either on the New London side of the fcny operation or at the
Tanger Outlet Mall in Riverbead, thus having no impact on the parking situation in Orient
Point.]
The ability for the ridership of the Cross Sound Ferry to be available to public transportation
opportunities is considered a positive impact. Whether the passengers use the railroad (Amtrak),
public bus services and private bus services in New London, each mode of travel allows for the
conservation of energy on a more regional scale. If the proposed parking were not available, it is
likely that travelers would either drive west, to go around Long Island Sound or take their vehicle
across the Ferry and continue to their destination. Thus, it is expected that energy sources would be
consumed by this additional travel.
101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. MmGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
NATURAL RESOURCES.
A. GEOLOGY.
1. Subsurface
a) Use of Excavated Material for Land Reclamation
As described in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this document, the parking area
will be regraded to provide for a level and safe parking surface. During this phase of construction,
a temporary pile of topsoil may be generated. As a mitigation measure, any excavated material which
remains will be used for land reclamation.
2. Surface
a) Use of Stockpiled Topsoil for Restoration and Landscapin2.
As discussed above, the construction of the parking area may result in the stockpiling of topsoil. This
topsoil will be used for landscaping/restoration purposes throughout the site.
b) Protection of Dune and Beach Formation.
Included in the Coastal Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Project prepared by Michael
Bruno, Ph.D., P.E. and Kelly L. Rankin, Ph.D. (1997), is a list of mitigation measures to minimize
the impacts of the proposed project on the coastal features in the vicinity of the site. These mitigation
measures are listed below:
1. The parking area will be located landward of the existing dirt road that borders the seaward
edge of the project site. Measures will be taken to assure that vehicles are prohibited access
to the temporary dredge spoil area that lies immediately seaward of the dirt road.
2. During the construction, the temporary dredge spoil disposal stockpile area will be utilized
as a temporary barrier to minimize runoff and sediment transport from the project site to the
beach area. In particular, care will be taken to avoid intense storm water flow toward the
beach during the construction process. This is to ensure that stormwater flows laden with
sediment does not erode or cause degradation to the beach face or adjacent dune regions.
3. The project has been designed to ensure that any and all run-off from the completed parking
area will be directed away form the beach and dune areas.
4. New dune vegetation is proposed along the seaward boundary of the project site. (please
refer to the Landscape Plan prepared by Araiys Design dated August 18, 1997.)
102
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Soil Erosion Control Plan.
In addition to the mitigation measures listed in the above section which will assist in controlling
erosion during construction, silt fencing and staked haybales will also be installed. It is proposed that
before the start of construction, a row of staked haybaleslsilt fencing will be installed along the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Line to restrict the movement ofloose sediment. The stockpiled topsoil
which will be excavated from the site will be temporarily stored in an area north of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line. When not in use, this temporary topsoil stockpile will be covered with
protective material to prevent the movement of sediment from the area.
3. Tonol!ranhv.
a) Steen Slone Protection.
There are no areas of steep slopes on the Project Site with the exception of the Temporary Dredge
Spoil Disposal Stock Pile Area. Since this Stock Pile Area lies seaward of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line, no disturbance will occur in this area as result of the constuction of the proposed
parking area. Accordingly, no construction will occur in areas of steep slopes. The text located in
the Surface Mitigation Measures section descnbes the actions which will be taken to protect the area
seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line.
B. WATER RESOURCES.
1. Groundwater.
a) Wastewater and Stormwater Control Plan.
As shown on the Proposed Site Plan, the proposed parking lot will have drainage components capable
of accommodating stormwater runoff. Drainage units are shown on the plan in the two (2) proposed
parking islands. The drainage computations are included in the Appendix of the document. The
proposed drainage plan will more than accommodate the precipitation which will occur on-site
because the entire property will remain permeable. This aspect of the proposed action is discussed
further in the next section of this document.
b) Permeabilitv.
Given that the proposed parking area will consist of a loose stone surface, the entire property will
remain permeable. The remaining on-site area will continue to be unsurfaced and feature either
existing vegetation or newly planted native species.
103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Non-DisturbanceINon-Fertilization Areas.
As shown on the Proposed Site Plan, there will be no disturbance south of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line as a result of the Proposed Action (with the exception of the proposed planting of native
species). There will be no fertilization below the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. In terms of the
fertilization of the proposed indiginous plantings to be located around the perimeter of the parking
area, the Landscape Architect is proposing to use a natural compost mixed SO/50 with the existing
soil.
d) Manal!ement of OiVGrease From Parked Vehicles and Traffic.
With the construction of a parking lot, a small number of parked vehicles may leak petroleum
products andlor anti-freeze onto and into the existing surface soils. The movement of surface runoff
should direct most of the subject substance into the proposed drainage trenches. The National Urban
Runoff Program Study (NURPS) has documented that a majority of contaminants found in parking
lot runoff can be attenuated through the filtration of soils. This assessment is supported by the fact
that the groundwater quality beneath the Snack Bar Parcel has been tested to be acceptable.
Therefore, beside the drainage controls which are currently proposed, there are no additional
mitigation measures proposed at this time.
2. Surface Water.
a) Soil Erosion Control Techniaues.
As discussed previously, soil erosion control techniques will be used during proposed construction
and operation in an effort to avoid siltation. Examples of such techniques include: installation of
haybaleslsilt fencing and restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas around the perimeter of the
proposed parking area.
b) Stormwater Control System.
The proposed Stormwater Control System is discussed under the Groundwater Mitigation Measures
portion of this document.
c) Wetlands Setbacks and Covenants.
As previously discussed, the wetlands setbacks required by the Town of Southold and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation are met/exceeded by the Proposed Project. The
wetlands setback for the NYSDEC is 100 feet for structures and the proposed project will be located
more than 200 feet from the Mean High Water mark (the NYSDEC wetland boundary in this case).
Likewise, the Town of South old wetlands setback of75 feet is met by the Proposed Action. The
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates the portion of the project site
located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) boundary. Since the proposed parking
area will be situated entirety landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, the proposed project is
in conformance to CEHA regulations.
At this time, there are no proposals for imposing covenants on the property because the proposed
construction appears to meet regulatory agency standards.
104
'!It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d) Dune and Beach Setbacks
According to the Coastal Engineering Analysis of the Cross Sound Ferry Project by Michael Bruno
Ph.D. and Kelly Rankin, Ph.D. (1997), there are no naturally occurring dune areas on the project site
or immediately fronting the site. Therefore, there are no setbacks to be met with respect to dunes.
As for the beach area, the Proposed Action will be located greater than 100 feet from the natural
beach area. With this distance, the beach area will be protected from the construction associated with
Proposed Action.
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC ECOLOGY.
1. Vel!etation/Wildlife.
a) ADDroach to Site Clearinl!
As shown on the Landscaping Plan prepared by Araiys Design (1997), clearing will be restricted to
only the areas occupied by the proposed parking area. Most of the tall existing vegetation located
along the northern and eastern borders of the property could remain. However, in the Final
Vegetation Report prepared by Eric Lamont, Ph.D.(1997), it is recommended that the non-native,
dying, woody vegetation in these areas be removed and replanted with native vegetation. For the
purposes of screening, only the non-native shrubs will be removed. Native vegetation and tall non-
native species will be retained for the vegetation buffer in addition to the native plantings which are
proposed.
b) Preservation of a Portion of the Site.
The area located directly south of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line will not be affected by the
implementation of the Proposed Project. The only disturbance to occur within this area will be the
planting of native plant species and it's periodic and permitted use for the stockpiling of sand and
gravel from the dredging of the boatslip.
c) Use of Native SDedes for LandscaDinl!.
As discussed io the Description of the Proposed Action portion of this document, the Project Site will
be landscaped with only native species. The species to be used were recommended by Eric Lamont,
Ph.D. and are included in the Final Vegetation Report on Cross Sound Ferry Project (1997) which
is included as part of the ConsultantJappendix Section of this document.
d) Preservation of Natural Habitat.
According to the Final Vegetative Report on Cross Sound Ferry Project by Eric Lamont, Ph.D.,
successional old field habitat is the classification of the project site. Dr. Lamont indicates that old
field habitat is the most common habitat in New York State. The proposed action will result in the
elimination of most of the site's old field habitat.
105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Linkal!es to Other Site and Habitats.
As stated in the Wildlife Report prepared by Jeremy Hatch, Ph.D. (1997), the project site is bounded
on all sides by severely modified habitats. To the southwest is a parking lot; to the southeast is the
Temporary Dredge Spoil Disposal Stock Pile Area; to the northeast is a line of non-native conifers
and non-native grass; to the northwest, across the driveway are houses surrounded by garden/yards
(Hatch, 1997). Accordingly, there are no valuable habitats to link the Project Site to - with the
exception of the adjacent beach area located to the south of the site, which will remain undisturbed
and in its existing state.
t) Preservation of Wetlands.
As stated before in this document, there are no wetlands on the Project Site. The tidal wetlands
located to the south of the property, in Gardiners Bay, will be protected through the following
mitigation measures during the construction of the Proposed Action:
. Permeable surface of project site will remain to facilitate the drainage of
precipitation and prevent surface runoff.
. Drainage trenches will be installed in the event of heavy precipitation to capture
surface runoff.
. Setbacks from surface waters will be maintained.
. Landscaping will utilize native species only.
D. NOISE RESOURCES.
1. ButTers and Barriers.
As discussed in the Noise Impact Study for the Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion
prepared by Dunn Engineering (1997), there will be no measurable increase in noise from the
proposed parking lot or the anticipated traffic associated with the use of the proposed parking area.
Therefore, with respect to sound generation, no mitigation measures are being proposed at this time
(Dunn, 1997).
As for the construction of the parking lot itself, it is anticipated that the activity will create a short-
term level of noise. The following mitigation measures will be utilized during the period of
construction in an effort to keep noise impacts at a minimum:
· Construction equipment at the site will be required by contract specifications to have efficient
intake and exhaust mullers on internal combustion engines. Through the use of efficient
mullers, noise levels will be kept to a minimum during the clearing and grading phases of
construction which are usually the periods of highest sound (Dunn, 1997).
. Construction activity will be limited to daytime hours by contract specifications (Dunn, 1997).
106
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Shields or other physical barriers, such as berms of earth or soil stockpiles, will be used to
restrict the transmission of noise (Dunn, 1997).
. The erection of soundproof housing or enclosures will also be utilized for noise producing
machinery, particularly for situations where generators and/or compressors are operated for
prolonged time periods (Dunn, 1997).
HUMAN RESOURCES
A. TRANSPORTATION.
The adopted Scoping Outline suggests an evaluation of the following, in terms of mitigation to the
proposed action:
. Efficient and safe internal circulation pattern;
. Traffic management of cars on Route 25 to and from ferry terminal; and
. Safe access to project site with respect to projected traffic flow.
Dunn Engineering Associates has evaluated the existing and future traffic levels associated with the
proposed action, as it relates to the safety of travelers and patrons of the site, and included in their
findings the following recommendations for mitigation:
Mitigation includes:
. Installation of two pedestrian cross-walks in east-to-west direction across
Route 25 to ensure pedestrian safety.
. Creation of an organized parking lot design, as illustrated on the site plan by
John 1. Raynor, P.E., L.S., P.C. provides for vehicular safety when on-site.
Traffic arriving at the Orient site occurs intermittently, primarilly just prior or following the
arrival/departure of vessels. The normal operation of off-loading passengers and leaving the parking
area is expected to create intermittent gaps in the traffic along Route 25, thus preventing conditions
of inaccessibility to the roadway system from neighboring properties.
107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. LAND USE AND ZONING.
1. Existine Land Use and Zonine
a) Desien Proiect to Comnlv with Existine Land Use Plans.
As discussed in the Land Use and Zoning Existing Conditions and Impacts sections of this document,
the Proposed Action has been designed to conform to the land use plans which were included in the
adopted Scoping Outline. These land use plans are listed below:
. The Local Waterfront Revitalization Project (LWRP) and State Coastal Management
Program;
. Peconic Bay Estuary Program;
· Critical Environmental Area Designation;
. Orient Landmark Designation.
More details regarding the association of the Proposed Project to the above listed Land Use Plans
is included in the Land Use section of this document.
b) Facility Desien with Resnect to Surroundine Land Use.
The Proposed Project has been designed to cause the least impact to the visual resources of the
surrounding environment and the general character of the area. The following mitigation measures
are included as part of the proposed action:
+ The project includes the use of significant landscape buffer areas on the periphery of the site
between the adjoining properties.
+ The creation of landscape islands within the parking area soften and filter the view of the
parked cars from within the facility (Araiys Design, 1997).
+ The use of crushed stone as the paving surface will more closely mimic the texture and color
of the shoreline.
+ The parking area as shown is the minimal amount necessary for proper use and safety,
allowing for the minima1 amount ofland disturbance while providing for the greatest amount
oflandscape buffers and islands possible (Araiys Design, 1997).
+ The lighting proposed for the parking area will be at a maximum of 14' tall with single fixtures
arranged to provide a sufficient amount of light for pedestrian safety. The proposed light
fixtures will have baffles which will direct light downward and keep any light from spilling
onto the neighboring properties.
+ The use of native, indigenous plant material throughout the site will provide similar texture
and color as the surrounding landscape.
The above mitigation measures will decrease the impact of the Proposed Action on the surrounding
landscape. A more detailed discussion of these mitigation measures and the visual resources of the
site is included later in this section.
108
I!!l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. COMMUNITY SERVICES.
1. PolicelFire Protection/Safety
a) Emen!encv Protection ofProiect Site and Surroundinl! Area.
Fire Protection.
Under the Anticipated Impact on Fire Protection section of this document, it was indicated that the
construction and use of the Trust Parcel as a parking area will not result in any impact to the existing
level of fire protection service at Orient. This assessment was derived from correspondence from
Chief Ed Loper Jr. of the Orient Fire Department in response to questions from Inter-Science
Research Associates, Inc. (See Appendix). Chief Loper expressed two concerns which have led to
the inclusion of the following 2 additional mitigation measures:
1. Emergency Vehicle access for Fire and EMS vehicles will be provided.
2. Chief Loper addressed the need for fire emergency water resources on-site. The applicant
will accept any reasonable fire safety measure which is requested by the Town of Southold.
Police Service.
As discussed under the Anticipated Impact on Police Service section of this document, it was
concluded that the construction and use of the proposed action will have no impact on the existing
level of Police Protection at Orient. This assessment is based upon a statement from Joseph Conway,
Chief of the Southold Town Police Force who said, "150 cars should not increase the crime level at
Orient Point, nor increase the need for Police service." The entire correspondence from Chief Joseph
Conway dated September 10, 1997 in response to the communication from Inter-Science Research
Associates, Inc. is located in the Appendix of this document.
Based upon the above, no mitigation measures are proposed at this time.
b) Transportation of School Children.
It is believed that the construction and use of the proposed action will not have any impact on the
Oysterponds Public School. This assessment is based upon correspondence from Mr. Charles
Woznick, Superintendent, Oysterponds Public School, who indicated that the construction and use
of an additional 150 car parking area at the site would not create an unsafe enviromnent at the
inventoried educational facility. This statement was made in response to correspondence from Inter-
Science Research Associates, Inc. The entire response is included in the Appendix of this document.
Based upon the above, no mitigation measures are proposed at this time.
109
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Utilities.
a) Below Grade Utility Installation.
The only pennanent utilites proposed for the construction and use of the parking area is the extension
of electric service for the lighting fixtures. As a mitigation measure, electric lines for the lights will
be installed below grade.
b) Water SavinI! TechnioueslDevices.
There will be no permanent water use on the subject property associated with the installation of the
parking area. However, the Landscape Architect is proposing temporary irrigation for two (2)
growing seasons. This irrigation will be used to insure the success of the native planting on the
project site. The temporary irrigation system will be removed after the second growing season is
completed.
c) EnerI!V-Savinl! TechnioueslDevices.
This mitigation measure is not applicable to the Proposed Action.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
A. VISUAL RESOURCES.
1. Use of Buffers.
As stated in the Visual Resources Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry prepared by Araiys Design
(1997), there will be a number of site locations where landscaping will be added to create buffers and
to mitigate the visual impact of the parking area. These measures include the following:
a. The project includes the installation oflandscaping on the periphery of the site, between the
adjoining property and the subject parking area, to increase the unity and intactness of the
view from the sites exterior.
b. The creation oflandscape islands within the proposed parking area to soften and filter views
of parked cars. (Araiys Design, 1997).
110
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Minimal Road Surface Area and Land Distnrbance.
The Proposed Action will use the Minimal Road Surface Area while creating the least amount of land
disturbance as safely possible. The mitigation measures which will be taken to this regard are listed
below and come from the Visual Resources Assessment for Cross Sound Ferry prepared by Araiys
Design (1997).
a. The use of crushed stone as the paving surface will more closely mimic the texture and color
of the shoreline; thereby further increasing the degree of unity and intactness of the views of
the project site.
b. The parking area as shown is the minimal amount necessary for proper use and safety,
allowing for the minimal amount of land disturbance while providing for the greatest amount
oflandscape buffers and islands possible (Araiys Design, 1997).
3. Use of Mushroom Lil!htinl! on Poles.
The lighting proposed for the parking area will be at a maximum of 14' tall with single fixtures
arranged to provide a sufficient amount of light for pedestrian safety. The proposed light fixtures will
have ba1llesllight shields which will direct the light downward and keep any light from spilling onto
neighboring properties. (Details of the type of lighting to be used in included in the appendix of the
Visual Resources Assessment document). The use of pedestrian style light standards and light fixtures
will allow low level of lighting, while providing adequate safety for pedestrians, without
encroachment into the surrounding community (Araiys Design, 1997).
4. Use of Native Landscaue Suecies for Screeninl! Purnoses.
As discussed under the Use of Buffers Section of this document, the proposed project will utilize
buffer areas to minimize the visual impact of the proposed parking lot. It is the intention of the
Landscape Architect to use native, indigenous plant material throughout the site which will provide
similar texture and color as the surrounding landscape. This single action should increase the degree
of unity and intactness between the Project Site and the surrounding landscape (Araiys Design, 1997).
A listing of native plant species to be used at the site is included in the Final Vegetation Report on
the Cross Sound Ferry Project prepared by botanist, Eric Lamont, Ph.D. (located in the
Consultant/appendix Section of this document).
111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. mSTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
1. Preservation of Portion of Site for Archaeolol!ical Research.
No prehistoric or historic cultural remains were identified on the project site during the archaeological
survey. No additional testing was recommended (Bernstein and Merwin, 1997). With respect to the
negative findings, there is no need to preserve a portion of the site for archaeological research. No
mitigation measures will be necessary in terms of archaeological preservation.
112
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE A VOIDED IF THE
PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED.
The following will discuss the potential adverse environmental effected which are considered not to
be avoided with the implementation of the proposed 155 car parking lot on the 2.47 acre Trust
Parcel. In Environmental Impact Review in New York. by Gerrard, Ruzow and Weinberg (Matthew
Bender & Co., 1997) the discussion regarding unavoidable adverse impacts is described as follows:
"Unavoidable adverse impacts may be defined as those adverse impacts which
remain after the application of all mitigation measures. It is these unavoidable
adverse impacts that must be balanced against the proposed action's benefits when
SEQRfindings are made. " (pg. 5-165)
The Scoping Session held by the Town of Southold for the preparation of this Draft EIS identified
ten (10) specific topics ofconcem, which have been addressed in this Draft EIS. Of these ten topics,
eight (8) have been determined to have no adverse environmental affect. These are as follows:
. Surface and Subsurface Geology - while site grading is proposed for the
implementation of the proposed 155 car parking lot, no substantive changes to
the surface or subsurface geology is expected.
. Water Resources - no significant changes in the groundwater conditions
underlying the project site are foreseen. With the exception of landscape
irrigation for the first two growing seasons, no water is to be withdrawn as a
result of this application, and rainwater is expected to infiltrate the ground,
through either the pervious gravel surface, or the gravel-filled french drain
system.
. Terrestrial Ecology (Flora and Fauna) - Dr. Eric Lamont and Dr. Jeremy
Hatch who were retained to evaluate the site for flora and fauna have reported
that the implementation of the plan is not expected to result in any significant
adverse effects on either botanical species or wildlife found in the area.
. Air Resources - Dunn Engineering Associates has reported the anticipated
traffic increase is considered minor when compared to the existing conditions of
the area, and that the local conditions will mitigate impacts. They report that
there will be no contravention of national standards, and that the utilization of the
ferry will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, thus resulting in lower
ozone production.
113
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Noise - Dunn Engineering Associates has reported that a slight increase in noise
levels due to parking lot activity could be expected, assuming worst-case
conditions. The increase was estimated to be on the order of 3 dBA or less,
which is reported to be barely perceptible. Short-term noise impact from the
construction equipment necessary for the implementation of the proposed plan
is expected however it is considered temporary in nature.
. Land Use and Zoning - The proposed action is determined to be consistent with
the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and the State Coastal Management
Program. The Peconic Estuary Program is incomplete, and although discussed
in this document, the project's conformance or non-conformance cannot be
definitively assessed. The project will not impact the Critical Environmental
Area (CEA) designated lands. The project will have no impact on the Orient
Landmark Designation. The determination about the project's affect on zoning
is to be determined by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals during the review of
the application that is currently pending.
. Community Services - Letters from the Orient Fire Chief, Town Police Chief
and Orient School Superintendent have all indicated that the proposed parking
lot will not cause any adverse impact.
. Historic and Prehistoric Resources - Dr. David Bernstein, Archaeologist, who
was retained to evaluate the site for historic or pre-historic resources, has
reported that no such resources exist on-site. Accordingly, there will be no
adverse impacts with the implementation of the proposed plan.
Only two (2) issues are considered unavoidable impacts from the implementation of this project: (1)
the change in the visual nature of the site; and (2) impacts to transportation. These are discussed in
more detail below.
Chanl!e in Visual Resources.
With the implementation of the proposed plan, there will be a change in the visual nature of the site.
The character of the site will change from an open "field" which contains a dirt driveway and a
temporary dredge spoil stockpile area at the southern end, to an organized parking lot (see aerial
photograph contained in Section entitled ''Background and History". Specific changes to the site will
include:
. Installation ofberms and the planting of screening landscape materials around the
periphery of the project site, as illustrated on the conceptual landscape plan
prepared by Araiys Design, Landscape Architects.
114
1!t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Installation of lighting stanchions (14' high) with shielded lights (to prevent light
from spilling onto adjacent sites) to provide safety and security for the patrons
of the ferry tenninal. These lights will only operate during periods of use of the
parking lot.
. Installation of proposed permeable stone parking surface and gravel-filled french
drain drainage structures to control stormwater runoff.
. Seasonal, on demand utilization of the site as a parking field by patrons of the
Cross Sound Ferry operation.
Imoacts to Transoortation.
Dunn Engineering Associates has completed the traffic impact analysis for the proposed action. In
general, they have found that the proposed 155 space parking lot will provide parking for the existing
and future growth of the passenger-only ridership. In considering adverse environmental affects that
cannot be avoided, Dunn Engineering Associates has found that the travel to and from the site by
patrons using the proposed 155 space parking lot will likely result in a minor increase in traffic several
hours of the day on peak travel days during the summer.
This anticipated minor increase in traffic should be measured against two factors:
1. The increase in the level of traffic due to off-site (completely unrelated) growth in
the Orient area; and
2. The overall regional environmental benefits accrued by encouraging the use of
public transportation.
For more details, the reader is referred to the Dunn Engineering Associates Traffic Imoact Studv for
Proposed Cross Sound Ferry Parking Lot Expansion. prepared as part of this SEQR analysis.
115
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V. ALTERNATIVES.
Overview.
The following alternatives were included in the Scoping Outline, prepared and adopted by the
Southold Planning Board:
. Alternative Parking Lot Location;
. Alternative Parking Lot Size;
. Alternative Parking Lot Design;
. Alternative Use as Residential Lot; and
. No-Action Alternative.
With the inclusion of the above listed alternatives in the adopted Scoping Outline, the Planning Board
expects the project sponsor to address each of the listed alternatives. Consistent with the SEORA
re~ations. the oroiect sponsor here focuses on "the ranf!e of reasonable alternatives to the action
which are feasible. considerinf! the obiectives and caoabilities of the Droiect $ponsor'
(617.9(b)(5)(v)), and in particular:.
"a de,cription and evaluation of the range 0 rel130nable alternative. to the action that are fel13ible.
considerin the ob 'ective. and ca abilities 0 the ro 'ect. onsor. The de.cription and evaluation of
each alternative .hould be at a level of detail .ufficientto permit a comparative l13.e33ment of the
alternative. discus.ed The range of alternative. must include the no action alternative. The no action
alternative discussion .hould evaluate the adver.e or beneficial.ite change. that are li~ly to occur in
the rel13onab/y fore.eeable fUture, in the absence of the proposed action. The range of alternative. may
also include, l13 appropriate, alternative:
(a) .ite.;
(b) technology;
(c) .cale or magnitude;
(d) de.ign;
(e) timing;
(f) use; and
(g) type. of action.
For private project.ponso73, any alternative for which no di.cretionary approvals are needed may be
described Site alternatives mav be limited to name's owned bv. or under Do/ion to. a Drivate nroiect
.ponsor: .. (emphasis added)
The Town Planning Board requested a conceptual integrated site drawing, illustrating all four parcels
(West, Terminal, Snack Bar and Trust Parcels), as a potential alternative design plan for the purposes
of this SEQR evaluation. To comply with their request, without detailed evaluation and study, the
project sponsor submitted an integrated conceptual drawing. It should be noted that the project
sponsor does not believe this to be a viable alternative for the following reasons:
+ The Integrated Site Drawing illustrates the abandonment of a portion of Route 25
from the State Highway system, and subsequently, incorporates this road segment into
the Cross Sound parking and circulation system. Given that the project sponsors have
no control over the present or future ownership of this segment of State Route 25,
they can not realistically consider any site design that involves the abandonment or
acquisition of this portion of roadway.
116
l!l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. The Integrated Site Drawing illustrates the relocation of the existing snack bar to a
location that is adjacent to, and possibly interfering with, the standby staging area
located inunediately adjacent to the shoreline of Gardiners Bay. Furthermore,
portions of the relocated snack bar would be sited seaward of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area Boundary.
. The Integrated Site Drawing results in the e1imination of the existing two-story frame
structure located on the western parcel.
. It is believed that the Integrated Site Drawing would require a much more substantial
undertaking, both in the approval process and project implementation (site
reconfiguration, acquisition and merger of parcels, site regrading, structure demolition
and relocation, paving, roadwork, etc.). Such an action would be beyond the scope,
capability and objectives of the project sponsor at this time.
For the foregoing reasons, the Integrated Site Drawing is not considered a viable alternative.
In accordance to the quoted SEQRA passage located at the beginning of this section, the following
text will discuss each of the 5 alternatives as selected by the Town Planning Board and included in
their adopted Scoping Outline.
A. Alternative Parkin!!: Lot Location.
The use of off-site parking is an approach that is already being employed. A passenger trolley,
originating from the Tanger Outlet Mall parking lot in Riverhead, makes 2 daily round trips to and
from the Cross Sound facility. The trolley has been operational since July 2, 1997 and will continue
until November 30, 1997. Based upon observation and despite promotion (advertisement enclosed
in Appendix) ridership on the trolley is quite low.
Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. has also engaged in discussion with representatives from the Long
Island Railroad in an attempt to coordinate train and bus transportation to and from the Cross Sound
facility. Based upon correspondence from the Town of South old Planning Board File (letter enclosed
in Appendix), the idea was to promote trains running into Lake Ronkonkoma and coordinate bus
transportation to and from the train station parking area. Although not completely dismissed, the idea
never developed past the initial discussion since the LIRR and Cross Sound could not find a way to
implement the service in an economically feasible manner.
With respect to Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. purchasing a parcel ofland in a more centralized
town location for the purpose of developing an off-site parking and bussing operation, it should be
noted that their are no provisions in the Southold Town Zoning Code for the establishment of a
parking area as a primary use in any of the existing zoning districts. Consequently, a parking lot, used
to bus passengers to and from the Cross Sound facility, would be a prohibited use under the Town
Zoning Code.
117
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The SEQRA regulations provide that "site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under
option to, a private project sponsor'. Other than the four parcels located at the tenninus of State
Route 25, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. does not currently own or control any other land on Long
Island. The project sponsor does not know of, or possess, any genuine feasible alternative sites for
the proposed parking area and for that reason and in light of requirements of SEQRA, an alternative
parking lot location can not be considered a viable alternative.
B. Alternative Parkio2 Lot Size.
The proposed action will a110w 155 cars to park on the project site. Based upon analysis conducted
by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., a sma11er parking area on the subject site would result in project
that is not economica11y fellSlble. Consequently, a parking lot sma11er than currently proposed is not
considered a reasonable alternative since it does not meet the objectives of'" project sponsor.
The project sponsor will consider an alternative that includes a more coordinated use of the Snack
B!U" Parcel. In specific, the alternative parking area would include the area of the Snack Bar Parcel
as well as the Trust Parcel. It is believed that the Town possesses at least one drawing/sketch
prepared by the applicant/project sponsor that shows a more coordinated attempt at parking. The
applicant/project sponsor is willing to prepare a formal site plan alternative that shows urganized
parking on both the Snack Bar and Trust Parcels. It is likely that this alternative would include a
special section for valet or assisted parking,
C. Alternative Parkin2 Lot Desilm.
The proposed design for the parking area represents the maximum number of spaces while honoring
existing easemeots, rights of way, coastal erosion hazard area regulations and applicable property line
setbacks. A change in the proposed design would most likely result in fewer parking spaces. Based
upon analysis conducted by Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc" a parking area with less than 155
spaces would result in a project that does not respond to the existing peak demand for service.
Consequently, a parking lot with a modified design that possesses fewer parking spaces than currently
proposed, does not meet the objectives or capability of the project sponsor.
The project sponsor will consider an alternative that includes a more coordinated use of the Snack
Bar Parcel. In specific, the alternative parking area would include the area of the Snack Bar Parcel
as well as the Trust Parcel. It is believed that the Town possesses at least one drawing prepared by
the applicant/project sponsor that shows a more coordinated attempt at parking. The
applicant/project sponsor is willing to prepare a formal site plan alternative that shows organized
parking on both the Snack Bar and Trust Parcels, It is likely that this alternative would include a
special section for valet or assisted parking.
118
l!l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D. Alternative Use as Residential Lot.
For comparison purposes, a concept drawing showing residential development on the project site has
been prepared and is included in this document. The drawing represents the maximum coverage
allowed under existing zoning regulations (20%) and possesses the following design features:
. A 2.5 story residence with a 6,385 s.f. footprint;
· A garage with a 1,875 s.f. footprint;
. A 300 s.f. pool house;
. A 200 s.f. tennis pavilion;
. A regulation size tennis court (7,200 s.f.);
. An 800 s.f. pool;
. A hot tub;
. A 4,800 s.f. deck/patio; and
. 10,000 s.f. of driveway/parking area.
It must be stressed that the residential plan is not considered a feasible alternative since it does not
meet the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. The plan was prepared for discussion and
comparative purposes only.
E. No-Action Alternative.
The "no-action" alternative would leave the site in its present state. The implementation of this
alternative would effectively eliminate all Qntions for any development on this site (ie. residential,
commercial, etc.), regardless of the owner, and would also eliminate any/all potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed project.
Although the "no-action" alternative provides the "ultimate option" with respect to avoiding impacts
to vegetation and wildlife, the "no-action" alternative will not reduce the number of vehicles that
arrive at the Cross Sound Facility or change the level of existing traffic en-route to/from the facility.
If the "no-action" alternative was selected, it would be reasonable to assume that the existing Cross
Sound parking areas would reach saturation more quickly and more frequently than if the proposed
parking area was constructed. Consequently, it would be reasonable to believe that there would be
a greater potential for ferry patrons to use the shoulders of State Route 25 for parking purposes if
the proposed parking area was not constructed.
The Project Sponsor has no interest in the "no-action" alternative. However, if the "no-action"
alternative was selected by the Town of Southold, the Town must provide reasonable compensation
to the Sponsor/owner for not permitting the Sponsor/owner with the realization of their legal
property rights.
119
~ 'L
/1\. ~
I 1.."00".
, ',-=-
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
!J
-
-
-
-
-
-
Residential Alternative
(For nt.cu..loD Purpo._ Only.)
l~"'"
-,",
Cross Sound Ferry
Services, Inc.
SItuate
Orient
TO'WD Df 8outbold
SUffolk County. If... York
Scale: 1- _ 100'
PJoBcllred For:.
era.. Sound Ferry Sen:lce., Inc.
c/o Enelu. HeftDer A: Ana.1
P.O. BCd: 27g
108 Earl Main strest.
RI:nrh",.d, Ntnr York 11901
Pnlnared By:
Inter-Science Huearch u.octatn, Inc.
E!l:rironmental Plann.lna; & De9e1opment Conllllltanb
38 Nq:ent street
Southamptcm.. Ntnr York 11080-1201
Date PJ"Il!tJlll'ed'
Janulll'J' 1.... HI87
Sit.!! Dllla'
SCTl( No.: lOO-lft-9-S.0D6
Acreqe: 2....98
Zone: R-Be
Zont"_ Reauirl!ltn:!DU'
Mill. Lot Sin:
ICn. Lot ltldth:
__ Lol ~
Front Yard:
Sid. Yard.:
Tot. Sid. Yard;
Reu Yard.:
)l1n. LI:n.bl" Floor Area:
M.u. Lot COTer...:
""". mq. Hoq,bl:
VaL # of St.ori..:
80,000 ..r.
110'
260'
80'
20'
",,'
7.'
81S0 ..f.
20"
3.'
2 1/2 IJtorl..
~~rT StrucluMtll'
Muat. be located in the rear yBl"d aDd 20'
from aD property llnn; ImOllpt for waterfront
property. accenory Btructurn may 1M
located In the front yard. but mun meet
front fVd. ntbacka.
NOTE: All st.rocturea mu.t. ba nt.back a mlnlmum
ot 100 feet from the hlIh ....ter Una.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
bUzaat..s. ~11DD '"
..... -
-....
-
.
\
.
I;>
..
~
~
ill
~
"<
I
I
"NOTE: PropoMd Site Development Repnmmbl 20" Lot Cover...
-~~"t':11"~_.
mn~-- --
_ao..._
.._w..--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES.
Cohen, Philip, O.L. Franke and B. L. Foxworthy. "An Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources".
(1968: United States Geological Survey). State of New York.
Decker, Cynthia 1. Decker. "Draft Peconic Estuarv Program - Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan". (1997: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-
Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources). 42 pages.
En-Consultants, Inc. ''Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Ferry Terminal Facilities".
1984.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program. Baltimore,
Maryland.
Gerrard, Ruzow and Weinberg. "Environmental ImDact Review in New York". Matthew Bender
and Co., 1997.
Jensen, H.M. and 1. Soren. "Hvdrogeology of Suffolk County. Long Island. New York". (1974:
U.S. Geological Survey). Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-501.
Ku and Simmons. "Effect of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Groundwater Beneath Recharge
Basins on Long Island. New York"; USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 85-40088;
1986
Long Island Regional Planning Board. "The Lang Island Comprehensive SDecial Groundwater
Protection Areas Plan". (1992: Long Island Regional Planning Board).
Long Island Regional Planning Board. "The Lam!: Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan". (July 1978: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board). 2 Volumes.
Long Island Regional Planning Board. "Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program". (December 1982: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board). 133 pages.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Soundings in Feet - Lang Island". (1990:
U.S. Department of Commerce - East Coast). 16th Ed.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Priority Water Bodies List (1996).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. "SEORA Handbook". November,
1992.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 6NYCRRPart 617.
120
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 6NYCRR Part 661.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 6NYCRR Part 663.
New York State Department of State. "State of New York Coastal Mana8ement ProlZram and
Final Environmental Impact Statement". August, 1982. Albany, New York.
North Fork Promotion Council. "The North Fork Directory", 1997.
Prince, Keith R.. Ground-Water Assessment of the Montauk Area, Long Island, New York.
U.S. Geological Survey: 1986. 103 pages.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology. Peconic Estuary Program.
"Preliminarv Comorehensive Conservation and Mana8ement Plan". Working Draft, November 8,
1995.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology. Peconic Estuary Program.
"Prollfam Office Status Report". June, 1997.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology. Peconic Estuary Program.
"ProlZram BacklZround". June 1, 1996.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology. Peconic Estuary Program.
Water Quality Data for the Orient Harbor/Gardiners Bay/Orient Point Area. July, 1997.
Suffolk County Department of Planning. Peconic Estuary Program. "Draft Peconic Estuarv
Prol!ram Existine; Land Use Inventory". January, 1997.
Town of South old. Code of the Town of South old, New York.
Town of Southold Landmark Preservation Commission. "Town of Southold Rel!ister of
Desilznated Landmarks 1983 - 1996".
United Stated Department of Agriculture. "Soil Survey of Suffolk County. New York". April
1975. Soil Conservation Services in Cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station.
1 0 1 pages.
121
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTER:SCIENCE