Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Sale of Plum Island Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2012Public Sale of Plum Island, New York 7, Environmental Impact Statement July 13, 2012 Draft - A U T. C oMw.u.+l C1 WL FISH & WUMLEMSEIMCE J�\'QED STgT�S In cooperation with: < W o .41t P 01 2 Q 2 S*rL.'A&' -.70 Ia "&*,. I•{ a Ocf• July 17, 2012 Heather Lanza, Director Town of Southold Planning Department Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Dear Ms. Lanza: GSA New England Region J 1,11' 1 3 2012' The U.S. General Services Administration and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security acting as Joint Lead Agencies; along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Two and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Northeast Region as Cooperating Agencies, have completed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Public Sale of Plum Island, New York in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enclosed is a copy of the DEIS for your review and comment. An official notice of the report's availability will be published on July 20, 2012, in the Federal Register. This publication will start the 60 -day NEPA comment period. Two public meetings will be scheduled ' r, one occurring in the Town of Southhold, New York and the other in Old aybrook, Connecticut. Information about the meetings will be published in local meds outlets and online at www.plumislandny.com prior to the public m eting dates. Copies of the DEIS are being sent to other app opriate federal, state, and local agencies as well as the interested public. In addion, an electronic copy of the DEIS is available online for review and retrieval at =0m 'I mislandny.com. If you wish to receive additional copies of the DEIS, or ifeon from your office would like to discuss this project further, please contact Mr. John ugan, Project Manager, Office of Real Property Utilization & Disposal, New EnglandrXy Bion, at 617.565.5709 or john.dugan@gsa.gov. Sincerely, V-1 0w G Glenn C. R t ndo Regional Commissioner Public Buildings Service "i JL U.S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are acting together as Joint Lead Agencies to perform the environmental impact analyses presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Additionally, as documented in a Memorandum of Agreement dated February 17, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are "cooperating agencies" (as that term is defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1501.6) with the Joint Lead Agencies for the preparation of the EIS. The EIS complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) for the federal government's decision of selling the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) located on Plum Island, New York. The EIS presents a review of the potential for effects on the human and the natural environments related to the decision to sell the same. The Executive Summary provides a concise overview of the subject matter contained in the EIS and notes corresponding sections of the EIS where more detailed information on any given topic can be found. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The following parcels of land support the PIADC's mission and constitute the property that will • be sold: an island, known as "Plum Island," situated in Long Island Sound, New York, containing approximately 840 acres of land, and a support facility known as the "Orient Point Facility" containing approximately 9.5 acres of land with a nearby small parcel of land containing a substation, both of which are situated in Orient Point, New York. The above- described parcels of land are collectively referred to as the "Property" in this Executive Summary and are shown on Figure ES -1. Plum Island and the Orient Point Facility are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town of Southold (Town) in Suffolk County, New York. Plum Island is situated approximately 1.5 miles off the northeast tip of Orient Point, Long Island, New York. The Property is improved with roughly 50 buildings containing a total of approximately 559,579 square feet. Plum Island contains 47 of the 50 buildings, including a 55,000 -square -foot administrative building, a 190,500 -square -foot laboratory, and various support buildings. The Orient Point Facility is improved with a 2,890 -square -foot administrative building, a supply warehouse, and a 780 -square -foot guard post. The Property is also improved with approximately 8 miles of road infrastructure, harbor facilities, and an approximately 200 -space parking lot at the Orient Point Facility. BACKGROUND Portions of Plum Island have been in federal ownership since 1826 and have been used for varying purposes since that time. At one point, Plum Island served to support an active military facility known as "Fort Terry," and later was used for military research purposes. In 1954, the . U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established PIADC. In 2003, the Property was transferred to DHS, which currently oversees the safety and security of the Property while ES -1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Jul} 1-1, 2012 �arwPYymOY PBVPu. rmPw..Vnm Ei6�� 0.nw.bn�s o�rwc.s•wan..nEsn.. n.Po�suoc s...aw.,� es.��s..a ro P P.,,,a..s. PevP.., �. � or.e...rsP .nr a....a Eis. :+oa �iem�: it Rhode Connecticut Island Site Location Long Island New York PIUm 1lQI1aOd .nl Long Island Sound 25', •SWI \ • - " Orient Point Legend Support Facility —State Highway Local Road Minor Road � Park -'ent iSesd MetA Dark �.L 015 QS �MAes We Ba Figure ES -1 Location Map Prep :Date BRP o2n6111 Source ESRI Data & Maps 9.3 StreetMap North America CMckeG+Date JAB 02/16117 Figure ES -1: Plum Island Location Map FS -2 9 0 is Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • USDA continues to use PIADC for its research purposes. Though partially renovated in the mid- 1990s, PIADC is nearing the end of its lifecycle and becoming increasingly more costly to maintain. In addition, PIADC operates as a biosafety level 3 facility, which no longer meets agency needs. Pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9, "Defense of United States Agriculture and Food," dated January 30, 2004, DHS proposed to augment the United States' existing foreign animal disease research capabilities through construction and operation of a National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) that would meet the requirements of a biosafety level 4 facility. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY In September 2008, the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the sale of the Property if DHS made the decision to locate NBAF to a site other than Plum Island, New York. Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009; Public Law 110-329 (Act) mandates: "should the Secretary of Homeland Security determine that the National Bio and Agro -defense facility be located at a site other than Plum Island, New York, the Secretary shall liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of General Services to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements." • In January of 2009, DHS determined that the research and laboratory work performed on Plum Island would be moved to a new site in Manhattan, Kansas. That decision by DHS resulted in the need to sell the Property. It is the anticipated sale of the Property that creates the need for the EIS. • At current projections, and subject to the availability of funds, construction of NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas, is estimated to be completed in 2019; at that time, the mission at PIADC will begin transitioning to the new facility, with the goal of completion by 2021. Between the January 2009 date of DHS's decision until the time of PIADC mission cessation, an interim period for DHS operations will occur (Interim Period). During the Interim Period, DHS will continue to budget for costs associated with maintaining and sustaining critical mission operations on Plum Island while also fulfilling its regulatory compliance requirements to support PIADC operations. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA. An EIS was selected for this project because the required process of preparing the draft and final EIS provides for the highest level of analysis of the effects associated with the sale of the Property and the greatest opportunity for input by interested parties. It evaluates the potential short- and long-term impacts to communities, public health, and the natural environment resulting from the sale of the Property, and also identifies measures to mitigate those impacts where appropriate. ES -3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York PROJECT ALTERNATIVES July 13, 2012 The EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an Action Alternative, which are briefly described below. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative described in the EIS is based on the premise that the Property would not be sold after PIADC is relocated, and accordingly, the Property would remain in federal ownership. Although GSA is directed by the Act to sell the Property at public sale, NEPA requires consideration and analysis of a No Action Alternative, as described in Section 1502.14(d) of the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality. After the PIADC mission is transitioned to Manhattan, Kansas, the Property would be placed in a "mothball" status with reduced funding for maintenance purposes. In the short term, because of the "mothball" status of the Property and insufficient funds for maintenance, the buildings, infrastructure, and transportation assets that supported the PIADC mission would cease to function at present levels and instead would function in a minimum capacity. Any future decisions would be driven by the financial and operational needs of the federal government. Action Alternative The Action Alternative is the sale of the Property by public sale, which is the outcome directed by the Act. The EIS examines the Action Alternative through an analysis of four practicable • reuse options. The EIS also examines potential ways to mitigate any adverse impacts that might result from these possible reuse scenarios. In developing the possible reuse scenarios under the Action Alternative, the Joint Lead Agencies sought input from federal, state, county, and local governments, including a number of meetings with the Town of Southold Planning Board. In an effort to better understand potential development areas of the Property in light of its physical and environmental characteristics, and likely regulatory restrictions, the Joint Lead Agencies developed the map attached as Figure ES -2. This map highlights the portions of the Property with minimal known restrictions for building development along with the estimated acreage for each such portion. The four reuse options considered are adaptive reuse, low-density zoning, higher -density zoning, and conservation/preservation, which were developed for comparison purposes only. These reuse options are further described below: Reuse Option 1: Under the adaptive reuse option, the existing buildings, infrastructure, and transportation assets would be adapted for other purposes and continue to function at current or similar levels. Reuse Option 2: The low-density zoning option is based upon a land use and zoning scheme similar to that of neighboring Fishers Island, New York. This option would accommodate approximately 90 residential units, including the required support infrastructure. • ES -4 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York ! ! July 13, 2012 ad Pohl Parol ,-uN6 ISLAND SOUND I 300 4 2 3 j ATLANTIC OCEAN 1 f r Source. Suffolk County color digital ortholmagery 120071 y obtained from Now York State GIS Clearinghouse .,t,, PafCN athttplrwwwnysgrs.state nyus e. 5 Parcels to 65 9 acres O 9.0 acres Q2 12 3 acres ® 4 0 acres 03 133 9 acres PLUM GUT Parcels shown have been determined surtable for development with kmrted resirlcbons based on federal. state. and local law—vregulatrons �e Figure ES -2 d Potential Development Parcels PreperedlDete BRP 02/11/11 CheckedfDate JB 02M 1111 Figure ES -2: Plum Island Potential Development Parcels ES -5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Reuse Option 3: The high-density zoning option is based upon the highest density • permitted by the Town's zoning regulations. This option would accommodate approximately 750 residential units and supporting infrastructure Reuse Option 4: The primary function of the conservation/preservation option would be to protect, manage, and enhance the natural and cultural resources on the Property should the Property be purchased for conservation or preservation purposes. An evaluation of this reuse option was included in response to comments received during the EIS public scoping period (March — June 2010). While the actual reuse of the Property is unknown, the future reuse of the Property once it leaves federal ownership will be subject to local zoning, permitting requirements of state regulatory authorities, and review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Joint Lead Agencies will comply with required federal laws that may ultimately necessitate restricting the Property in some manner (e.g., limits and conditions on the future use of formerly contaminated property), but the Joint Lead Agencies cannot restrict the Property beyond the requirements of such laws. Any additional restrictions that may be placed on the Property would occur only after the Property has left federal ownership. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section provides a brief description of the affected environment associated with twelve resource categories, followed by an evaluation of the extent of potential direct and indirect impacts on each resource. Further detail into the analysis for the conclusions presented in this Executive Summary, including definitions of the impact thresholds, can be found in the EIS. Table ES -1 at the end of this section provides a comparison of the proposed impacts associated with each alternative. Land Use and Visual Resources Plum Island and the Orient Point Facility presently support the PIADC mission. The Orient Point Facility contains three mission support buildings, a harbor docking facility, and a parking lot. The smaller parcel contains a small transfer station, which supplies electricity and telecommunications to Plum Island via underwater cables. The overall visual quality of the Orient Point Facility is urban/industrial. Plum Island contains buildings and infrastructure to support the PIADC mission (i.e., a large laboratory building and support buildings, industrial facilities, warehouse buildings, and roads) as well as other structures constructed for the support of prior uses on Plum Island (i.e., buildings and structures associated with the former Fort Terry and the Plum Island Light Station), which are not presently utilized or are underutilized. Plum Island also contains undeveloped areas (i.e., upland forests, freshwater wetlands, and beach/dune systems). Consequently, the developed portion of Plum Island appears industrial, while the overall visual quality of Plum Island is rural. Under the No Action Alternative, the presently utilized buildings and structures would be vacated, but the visual quality of the Property would remain unchanged. Under Reuse Option 1, the visual quality of the Property would likely be negligibly impacted as land use may remain • generally consistent with the existing condition, with some slight changes from infrastructure ES -6 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • changes or building renovations. Changes to land use and the visual quality of Plum Island could be impacted to a minor to moderate extent in Reuse Option 2, while impacts to the Orient Point Facility could be negligible. Under Reuse Option 3, the primary visual quality would change from rural to residential, and, as a result of high-density development, the visual quality of the Property may be moderately impacted. Impacts under Reuse Options 2 and 3, however, could be mitigated through architecture and landscaping that blended into the existing unity of Plum Island or, in the case of the Orient Point Facility, with the nearby village character. The visual quality of Plum Island would remain rural under Reuse Option 4. Infrastructure and Utilities Plum Island contains infrastructure and utilities to support the PIADC mission, including potable water well fields and a water distribution system, a sewage treatment plant, a power distribution system with both above -ground and underground lines, fuel storage tanks, an emergency power plant, and electrical substations. In the short term, implementation of the No Action Alternative could slightly reduce the existing infrastructure capacity on the Property due to reduction in services under a mothball status. Under Reuse Option 1, however, existing infrastructure and utilities could be reused with limited changes. Minor improvements and upgrades to infrastructure and utilities would be required to implement under Reuse Options 2 and 3. In particular, modifications to the existing water distribution, wastewater collection, and electricity distribution systems would be required to accommodate seasonal use demands. In light of the higher density development under Reuse Option 3, additional connections to such systems could be required. Under Reuse Option 4, there is the potential for the removal and/or decommissioning in place of some existing infrastructure on Plum Island and Orient Point. Air Quality This section of the EIS evaluates both the climate and air quality of the Property. The Long Island area climate, including Plum Island and the Orient Point Facility, is classified as "temperate -humid -continental" and characterized by four defined seasons. With respect to air quality, the EIS evaluates existing air emission sources and existing air quality at the Property. Suffolk County is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 (air pollutant particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less). Vehicles used to support PIADC constitute mobile air emission sources at Plum Island. Additional mobile sources include the government transport ferries and other marine traffic in the surrounding waters. Combustion sources on Plum Island permitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) consist of three incinerators, three generators, and three steam boilers. Mobile and stationary air emission sources currently operating at the Orient Point Facility consist of light-duty trucks and automobiles and building space heating and comfort cooling. There are no industrial operations that require air quality permitting by NYSDEC at the Orient Point Facility. Air quality under the No Action Alternative and Reuse Option 4 could be beneficially impacted because of a reduction in air emission sources. Impacts under Reuse Option 2 may also be • beneficial in light of the limited seasonal use of the low-density residential development. ES -7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Impacts to air quality under Reuse Option 1 could be negligible in light of the adaptive reuse under this option. Even with the increase in density under Reuse Option 3, there may be no impact to air quality on Plum Island and a minor impact to the Orient Point Facility. Any air quality impacts that may arise from construction and demolition under Reuse Options 2 and 3 could be mitigated through the use of best management practices (BMPs). Noise PIADC is the primary source of man-made noise at Plum Island. Noise sources on Plum Island include light vehicle traffic, maintenance machinery, generators, a wastewater treatment facility, fuel oil transfer pumps, and the heating/cooling system. Additional noise sources located adjacent to or near Plum Island include navigational beacons, maritime waterway traffic, an occasional helicopter, and the daily ferry traffic to and from Plum Island. A baseline noise -level survey has not been conducted; however, it is expected that the undeveloped portions of Plum Island would have noise levels to be rural in nature, while the developed portions would have noise levels to be comparable to a normal suburban level. At the Orient Point Facility, the ferry serving Plum Island's transportation needs is one of several marine -related facilities located along the Orient Point coastline. Noise sources at the Orient Point Property include light vehicle traffic, maintenance machinery, generators, the heating/cooling system, and ferry boat traffic. Noise sources associated with the Property may be reduced under the No Action Alternative and Reuse Option 4. Under Reuse Option 1, noise levels could remain generally the same as the present level. Although noise levels under Reuse Option 3 would be expected to be higher than those under Reuse Option 2 during seasonal peak occupancy, impacts to noise levels under both options would be expected to be minor. Any impacts to noise in connection with construction and/or demolition under Reuse Options 2 and 3 could be mitigated through the use of BMPs. Geology and Soils The topography of Plum Island is hilly, with low beach ridges <10 feet in altitude in the south- southeast to hills in the north and eastern end of the island ranging from 40 to 85 feet in altitude, with a maximum elevation of 101 feet at the water tower. Approximately 54 acres of freshwater wetland are situated in the western end of the island. The geology of Plum Island and Orient Point Facility consists of unconsolidated glacial sediments that were deposited during the Wisconsin stage of the late Pleistocene Laurentide ice sheet. These sediments are generally course -grained terminal moraine deposits on the north side and the east end, outwash fans of stratified sand and gravel in the south-central, and beach dune deposits in the southwestern parts of Plum Island. The glacial deposits are underlain by unconsolidated Cretaceous -age coastal plain sediments. Surface soil types distributed on Plum Island are predominantly sands and sandy loams with occasional boulder and cobble zones. Dune sands are present in the southern/southwesternmost corner of Plum Island. The glacial sediments overlie Precambrian -age crystalline bedrock over 600 feet below the surface. The same geologic processes and glacial sediment deposition that resulted in the formation of Plum Island were also responsible for the creation of Long Island's North Fork, including the • ES -8 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 PIADC Orient Point Facility. Overlying the glacial deposits at the Orient Point Facility are anthropogenic soils characterized as unconsolidated dredge spoils. Impacts to geologic resources or soils would not be expected under the No Action Alternative, Reuse Option 1, and Reuse Option 4, and any changes to geologic resources or soils under Reuse Options 2 and 3 would be expected to be negligible. Any impacts related to erosion and sedimentation from activities on the Property, however, could be mitigated by the use of BMPs. In light of higher -density development under Reuse Option 3, mitigation measures could be enhanced with the use of additional controls related to such items as stormwater management and water conservation. Water Resources The EIS examines the following water resources: surface water, stormwater, groundwater, flood zones, and the coastal zone. Surface Water Plum Island is surrounded by Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, and Block Island Sound, and the Orient Point Facility abuts Gardiners Bay. Waste water from PIADC is treated through the facility's waste water treatment plant on Plum Island and discharged under permit to the Plum Island Harbor. Neither Plum Island nor the Orient Point Facility contains rivers or streams that discharge to Long Island Sound. aStormwater Stormwater from paved areas of the Plum Island Harbor and the main compound is collected in stormwater drains that discharge to either the Plum Island Harbor or Long Island Sound, respectively. Storm drains at the former Fort Terry complex discharge via storm drains to Gardiners Bay. The Orient Point parking area contains two "trench -drain" systems that collect water that passes through two oil/water separators before discharge to the Orient Point Facility harbor. Groundwater Groundwater on Plum Island occurs within the sand and gravel of the Upper Pleistocene Glacial Deposits. The shallow sole -source aquifer extends from land surface at the wetlands to an approximate depth of 100 feet in the center of the island. The freshwater aquifer underlying Plum Island is separated from the aquifer underlying Long Island by Plum Gut. As such, the unconfined aquifer is recharged solely by infiltration of precipitation, which averages approximately 45 inches per year. The shallow aquifer underlying the Orient Point Facility is part of the larger aquifer that underlies Long Island. Flood Zones Plum Island is divided into three flood zone categories: Zone AE (i.e., I00 -year flood zone), • Zone X (i.e., 500 -year flood zone), and Zone VE (i.e., coastal flood zone with velocity hazard). ES -9 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The Orient Point Facility is divided into two flood zone categories: Zone AE and Zone VE. The • larger of the two Orient Point Facility parcels is predominantly designated as "Zone AE," with a small strip of land designated as "Zone VE" along the shorefront. The entire smaller parcel of the Orient Point Facility is designated as "Zone VE." Coastal Zone Both Plum Island and the Orient Point Facility are located in New York's Long Island Region Coastal Area. Plum Island also impacts the Connecticut Coastal Zone. Consequently, as the conveyance of the Property nears and the GSA is able to reasonably anticipate how the Property will be used, a Federal Consistency Determination will be filed with the New York State Division of Coastal Resources and Connecticut's Office of Long Island Sound Programs. The Federal Consistency Determination will analyze how the conveyance will be consistent with the enforceable policies of the New York State Coastal Management Program and the Connecticut Coastal Management Act. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no adverse impact to water resources. An adaptive reuse under Reuse Option 1 would also be expected not to impact water resources. In light of increased activity associated with low-density and high-density development, Reuse Options 2 and 3 could create minor to moderate impacts to water resources. Impacts to the coastal zone will be evaluated during the Federal Consistency Determination analysis. Impacts to other water resources could be mitigated through the use of BMPs and the establishment of controls (e.g., stormwater management systems). Biological Resources • Under this section, the EIS analyzes the natural environment on the Property, including existing wetlands resources, plant species, and wildlife species (Figure ES -3). Plum Island and the Orient Point Facility are located in the Coastal Lowland Ecozone of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province (Ecozone). Characteristic natural communities of the Ecozone include marine intertidal gravel/sand beach and marine rocky intertidal, maritime beach, beach dune, maritime shrubland, maritime forest, coastal plain pond, coastal hardwood forests, and freshwater wetlands. Additionally, a number of federally protected species are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the Property, including piping plover (Charadrius melodus), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), five species of sea turtles, sandplain gerardia (Agalinis acuta), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and small whorled pogonia (Isolria medeoloides). The EIS was able to develop baseline information regarding these resources from a number of sources, including academic and independent research as well as federal agency consultation. Analyzed against both the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative (the sale of the Property under four potential reuse options), the EIS determined that there would be negligible impacts to existing biological resources under the No Action Alternative, as well as under Reuse Options 1 and 4. Under Reuse Option 2 (minor to moderate impacts) and Reuse Option 3 (moderate impacts), however, the EIS recommends that areas of conservation and/or restoration be established on the Property where necessary after transfer of title has occurred. All reuse options avoid development in or near wetland areas. As previously noted, the reuse options • ES -10 • • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 HrcAriYY�OfMtirwiB6�i RYwlb�4 Orlrru�➢tl Pil lYilri MM V9F PaePaa�MlBrfYn �roOlV rlbtRii di�w�lw+fS ew�Bx�svnsi Apr e�rawYr]RI]tlM ii_i Legend BeacluDune Freshwater Wetland Oldfield+Developed Upland Forest Impacted Upland Forest Unimpacted =Potential Development Parcels NYSDEC freshwater Wetlands Marne+Estuanne community includes beach and rocky shore habitat that borders the Island e Sao 600 �Feit Sources. Figure ES -3 NYSDEC, Now York State Regulatory Ffeshwatef Wetlands Vegetative Land Cover for Suffolk County, http/lCUGiR.Mannlib.comell edu. Vegetative land cover developed by MACTEC. based on and NYSDEC Wetlands RW&*&D*e BRP O0iM12 field observations made during site visits conducted in 2010 Che ke;100*. JBOW=12 Figure ES -3: Plum Island Vegetative Land Cover and NYSDEC Wetlands ES -11 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 discussed in the EIS are a selection of potential reuse options, are speculative, and are discussed • to compare one reuse option to another. Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to record, evaluate, preserve, and plan for management of significant resources that are included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NHRP is a list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects that their actions have on significant resources, and to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian tribes, and members of the public and consider their views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions. To identify known archaeological and historically significant resources, database searches were conducted on the Internet; at the Suffolk County Historical Society, the Town of Southampton, and the New York Historical Society; and among historical records and maps located at Plum Island. In addition, an Archaeological Resources Predictive Model (Predictive Model) report associated with PIADC was prepared by GSA in 2010 as a part of the EIS process. The Predictive Model identified areas where there may be a greater likelihood of encountering archaeological resources based on historic data review and historic and current features such as wetlands and floodplains. Through consultation with the New York SHPO, a number of resources located on Plum Island • have been identified as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. Those resources include the Plum Island Lighthouse, which was nominated and listed in February 2011. The Joint Lead Agencies also sought input from a number of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers as required by Section 106 of the NHPA; however, no responses were received at the time of EIS publication. The analysis conducted for the EIS determined that the impacts to existing significant resources would be negligible under the No Action Alternative. DHS, however, must still protect and preserve significant archaeological, historical, and cultural resources pursuant to Section 110 of the NHPA. Under all reuse options analyzed under the Action Alternative, the EIS recommends that mitigation may be necessary in accordance with Section 106 by including covenants in the deed to protect archaeological and historic resources. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice In regard to the potential for general effects on socioeconomic conditions in Suffolk County, New York, and Middlesex and New London Counties, Connecticut, (study area) the analysis considered a number of parameters to analyze, including: • Population trends • Household income • Age • Education • • Economic conditions ES -12 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Each of these parameters was then evaluated to determine the impact that the No Action and Action Alternatives would have on each and how those impacts could affect social programs, including: • Recreation • Public schooling • Law enforcement • Fire protection • Medical facilities It was found that under the No Action Alternative, there would be a minor impact to socioeconomic conditions within the study area for Plum Island. There would be a negligible impact for the Orient Point Facility because the short-term loss in jobs would likely be negated by potential for job creation if the federal government decided to utilize the Property for other purposes. For Reuse Option 1, the EIS determined that the Action Alternative would have no impact on the study area while having a negligible impact under Reuse Option 2, because the number of jobs would likely not change from current conditions. Additionally, there would likely be a beneficial impact on the study area under Reuse Option 3 given the number of construction jobs and increase in tax base that could potentially be introduced under this high- density zoning option. Conversely, a minor impact to the study area can be expected for Reuse Option 4 due to the fact that a conservation reuse of the Property would likely involve very few full-time employees. • In all of the reuse options under the Action Alternative, the EIS determined that socioeconomic impacts may be most noticeable during seasonal peak occupancy, likely during the spring and summer months, because of the likely increase in visitors to the study area. In order to mitigate against any impact on socioeconomic conditions, communities within the study area would need to levy taxes, develop fees, or find other funding to account for additional costs that may affect a number of social programs. Analysis of the alternatives to confirm that they fulfill the objective of environmental justice required that none of the potential effects from the No Action Alternative or any of the four reuse options had potential to cause a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations or low income populations. Required by Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations," the environmental justice analysis involved identifying whether minority or low income populations were present in the study area and the extent to which they may experience disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental impacts from any of the alternatives. The first part of the analysis was to determine whether the minority or low income characteristics of the population of the study area counties met the federal guidelines for determining whether a minority or low income population may be of concern. It was found that the minority portion of the population did not exceed the guideline of 50 percent and was not meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population. It was also found that the portion of the population living below the poverty level did not exceed the guideline of 25 percent in the ES -13 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 study area. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that minority or low income populations i would be disproportionately impacted simply because of the nature of the population in the study area. Furthermore, the analysis found that there were no characteristics of the minority or low income populations in the study area that would cause them to receive a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact from any of the four alternatives, regardless of their relative proportion of the population in the study area. Traffic and Transportation Currently, restricted access ferry service to Plum Island is available for employees, contractors, and visitors to PIADC from Orient Point, New York, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. For analysis of traffic and transportation, the EIS reviewed and verified current regional traffic and transportation data and identified the roadway infrastructure network to include local roads, highways, and marine traffic. These baseline figures were used to determine the current level of service (LOS) to the Property, which was then used to determine the potential impacts from the Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative and Reuse Options 1 and 4, there would likely be no degradation of LOS for any of the roadway infrastructure within the Orient Point area, nor a typical two-lane roadway on Plum Island itself. Since the likely effects of the Action Alternative on the existing traffic patterns are considered insignificant, no mitigation measures are anticipated or required. Of the four options, Reuse Options 2 and 3 could see the highest increase in traffic; however, even under these options, traffic conditions could continue to function within an acceptable LOS, and impacts would be minor. Traffic patterns under these options may be different from existing traffic patterns, based upon seasonal and weekend use of residences on the Property, and minor adjustments in lanes, signage, and traffic signals may need to be made. Existing Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Waste Contamination This section of the EIS explores the nature of existing hazardous, toxic, or radiological waste contamination present on the Property. In collaboration with NYSDEC, efforts have been made by USDA and DHS to characterize the environmental condition of the Property, culminating with an Environmental Gap Analysis to collect and catalogue these characterization efforts to date. These efforts were conducted to ensure compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the New York State regulated underground storage tank (UST) program. All 87 sites identified at PIADC identified as having been used to manage RCRA wastes have been closed with the concurrence from NYSDEC. Forty-nine CERCLA sites have been identified. Twenty-five of the 49 CERCLA sites have been determined to require No Further Action by NYSDEC. For the remaining sites, DHS is continuing its ongoing voluntary program of site investigation and remediation with NYSDEC oversight. Additionally, there are four USTs currently in use on Plum Island and two USTs at Orient Point. All six USTs were installed in 1994 and 1995 and are in compliance with current regulations. Under the Action Alternative, • ES -14 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 the federal government has an obligation under CERCLA to protect human health and the environmental by certifying the environmental condition of the Property prior to transfer of title. Waste Management This section of the EIS describes the existing waste management infrastructure and the construction and operation impacts on waste management. Information on the affected environment and waste management impacts that would vary by alternative was primarily derived from site visits and other information gathered by the EIS preparation team, along with publicly available information from municipal, state, and federal regulatory and environmental websites and databases. Waste is handled and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Under the No Action Alternative, animal and other laboratory waste would no longer be generated upon the closure of PIADC; therefore, no impacts can be identified. Additionally, under Reuse Option 4, it is envisioned that a conservation reuse would have a beneficial impact, meaning that little to no waste would be generated from the Property; therefore, no mitigation is recommended. Concerning Reuse Options 1, 2, and 3, although no impacts are expected, minor mitigation measures may need to be put in place by a new owner to lessen waste generation impacts, including recycling programs, water conservation, and wastewater reuse. SUMMARY • This Executive Summary briefly describes the potential effects on the human and natural environment related to the sale of the Property. Table ES -1 highlights the relationship between each resource category and the corresponding impacts under the No Action Alternative and each reuse option under the Action Alternative. • ES -l5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Table ES -1: Comparison of Environmental Impacts from Alternatives Reuse Option 2 1 Reuse Option 31 Reuse Option 4 July 13, 2012 ES -16 is 0 0 No Action Reuse Option I Low -Density High -Density Conse - ation or Option Alternative 'Adaptive Reuse Zoning Zoning Preservation Comments Study Area PI OP PI OP PI OP PI OP PI OP Land Use and Visual 0 0 -1 -1 -2 to -3 -1 -3 -3 +1 0 Visual resources could be impaired by increased Resources development of Plum Island Infrastructure and -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 Increased development would require upgrades to utility Utilities and infrastructure connections to Plum Island Development would likely reduce emissions from Plum Air Quality +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 0 -2 +1 +1 Island and increase emissions from transportation to Plum Island at Orient Point Noise +l +1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 +1 +1 Development would likely result in noise levels typical of a suburban environment Geology and Soils 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 Development would likely impact recognized geologic resources such as surficial groundwater Water Resources 0 0 0 0 -2 to -3 0 -3 -1 +l +1 Development could increase impacts to water resources Development would likely increase impacts by habitat Biological +1 0 0 0 -2 to -3 0 -3 0 +1 +1 loss, habitat fragmentation, and increased human Resources activities Development could impact areas of high probability for Cultural Resources 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 0 0 0 potential prehistoric resources Socioeconomics and Development would likely increase state and local tax Environmental -2 -1 0 0 -1 -1 +1 +1 -2 -2 revenue and affect employment and income through Justice business and residential development Traffic and Development would likely increase transportation needs, Transportation 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 0 but would remain within acceptable limits (LOS) Existing Hazards, Toxic, or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Development would not adversely impact or Radiological Waste significantly improve existing contamination Contamination Waste Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 Waste generated by increased development could be handled by existing structures and procedures Legend PI - Plum Island := 0 - No Impact -2- Minor Impact +1 - Beneficial Impact OP - Orient Point -I - Negligible -3 - Moderate Impact Impact ; ES -16 is 0 0 • L r • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................ES-1 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................... 1-1 I.I. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Background.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3. Purpose and Need for Action............................................................................... 1-5 1.4. National Environmental Policy Act..................................................................... 1-6 1.5. Public Involvement.............................................................................................. 1-7 1.6. Regulatory Framework........................................................................................ 1-8 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ................. 2-1 2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership ........................................ 2-3 2.3. Federal Government Action Alternative — Sale of the Property .......................... 2-3 3.4.1. Methodology..........................................................................................3-15 2.3.1. Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure .................. 2-6 3.4.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 2.3.2. Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) ................ 2-7 3.4.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-18 2.3.3. Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and 3.5. Noise.................................................................................................................. Supporting Infrastructure)........................................................................ 2-7 3.5.1. Methodology..........................................................................................3-25 2.3.4. Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation.......................................... 2-8 2.4. Summary of Environmental Impacts................................................................... 2-9 2.4.1. Summary of Environmental Impacts by Resource .................................. 2-9 2.4.2. Mitigation Measures................................................................................ 2-9 2.5. Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................... 2-19 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ............................................. 3-1 3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Land Use and Visual Resources.......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1. Methodology............................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2. Affected Environment.............................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3. Consequences...........................................................................................3-4 3.3. Infrastructure/Utilities.......................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1. Methodology............................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.2. Affected Environment.............................................................................. 3-8 3.3.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-12 3.4. Air Quality......................................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.1. Methodology..........................................................................................3-15 3.4.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-16 3.4.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-18 3.5. Noise.................................................................................................................. 3-25 3.5.1. Methodology..........................................................................................3-25 3.5.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-25 3.5.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-27 3.6. Geology and Soils..............................................................................................3-28 3.6.1. Methodology.......................................................................................... 3-28 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 4 5 6 July 13, 2012 LIST OF PREPARERS REFERENCES .................. 91 ........................ 5-1 ......... 6-1 0 L 3.6.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-29 3.6.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-33 3.7. Water Resources................................................................................................ 3-36 3.7.1. Methodology.......................................................................................... 3-36 3.7.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-37 3.7.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-45 3.8. Biological Resources......................................................................................... 3-57 3.8.1. Methodology..........................................................................................3-57 3.8.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-59 3.8.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-79 3.9. Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 3-89 3.9.1. Methodology.......................................................................................... 3-89 3.9.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-90 3.9.3. Consequences.........................................................................................3-95 3.10. Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice............................................................. 3-97 3.10.1. Methodology.......................................................................................... 3-97 3.10.2. Affected Environment............................................................................ 3-99 3.10.3. Consequences.......................................................................................3-115 3.11. Traffic and Transportation............................................................................... 3-132 3.11.1. Methodology, Regulatory Background and Traffic Analysis Parameters............................................................................................ 3-132 3.11.2. Affected Environment.......................................................................... 3-134 3.11.3. Consequences....................................................................................... 3-137 3.12. Existing Hazardous, Toxic, or Radiological Waste Contamination ................ 3-141 3.12.1. Methodology........................................................................................ 3-141 3.12.2. Affected Environment.......................................................................... 3-142 3.12.3. Consequences....................................................................................... 3-147 3.13. Waste Management.......................................................................................... 3-150 3.13.1. Methodology........................................................................................3-150 3.13.2. Affected Environment.......................................................................... 3-150 3.13.3. Consequences.......................................................................................3-152 LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED............................................................................. 4-1 LIST OF PREPARERS REFERENCES .................. 91 ........................ 5-1 ......... 6-1 0 L • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: The List of Addressees Invited to Participate in the Scoping Meetings July 13, 2012 Appendix B: Additional Details Regarding Each of the Laws, Regulations, and Policies of the Regulatory Framework and Their Applicability to This EIS Appendix C: Copies of the Coordination Letters and Responses Appendix D: Traffic Calculations and Assumptions Appendix E: Summary of the Current Regulatory Status of each of the 49 CERCLA Sites 11M Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 LIST OF TABLES 0 • iv Page Table 2.4-1: Comparison of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation for Alternatives...... 2-10 Table 2.4-2: Comparison of Mitigation for Alternatives................................................... 2-16 Table 3.5-1: USEPA Standard Levels for Various Community Types ............................. 3-26 Table 3.5-2: Common Decibel Readings for Common Noise Sources ............................. 3-27 Table 3.8-1: List of Breeding Bird Species Observed on Plum Island .............................. 3-70 Table 3.8-2: Summary of Audubon Society 2007 Plum Island Bird Surveys ................... 3-73 Table 3.10-1: Study Area Compound Annual Growth Rate, 2000 — 2009 ........................ 3-102 Table 3.10-2: Study Area Age Profile, 2006-2008 Average ............................................. 3-102 Table 3.10-3: Study Area Educational Attainment, 2006-2008 Average .......................... 3-103 Table 3.10-4: Study Area Income Profile, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars)............................................................................................... 3-103 Table 3.10-5: Study Area Income Profile (2008 dollars) .................................................. 3-104 Table 3.10-6: Study Area Ethnic Composition, 2000 ........................................................ 3-105 Table 3.10-7: Study Area Poverty Rate, 2000................................................................... 3-105 Table 3.10-8: Study Area Journey -to -Work Patterns, 2000 .............................................. 3-107 Table 3.10-9: Study Area Major Employers...................................................................... 3-110 Table 3.10-10: Study Area Housing Units by Occupancy, 2006-2008 Average ................. 3-111 Table 3.10-11: Study Area Housing Units by Structure Type, 2006-2008 Average........... 3-112 Table 3.10-12: Study Area Median Housing Values, 2006-2008 Average (inflation- Table 3.10-13: adjusted to 2008 dollars).............................................................................3-112 Study Area Median Rent, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars)............................................................................................... 3-112 Table 3.10-14: No Action — Long -Term Annual Economic Impacts — No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 3-116 Table 3.10-15: Reuse Option 2 — Short -Term Economic Impacts — Low -Density Zoning Option (90 Residential Units)......................................................... 3-119 Table 3.10-16: Reuse Option 2 — Long -Term Economic Impacts — Low -Density Zoning Option (90 Residential Units)......................................................... 3-121 Table 3.10-17: Potential Plum Island Tax Rate................................................................... 3-122 Table 3.10-18: Potential Plum Island Residential Property Tax Rate ................................. 3-122 Table 3.10-19: Reuse Option 3 — Short -Term Economic Impacts — High -Density Zoning Option (750 Residential Units) ....................................................... 3-125 Table 3.10-20: Reuse Option 3 — Long -Term Economic Impacts — High -Density Zoning Option (750 Residential Units) ....................................................... 3-127 Table 3.10-21: Orient Point Tax Rates................................................................................ 3-128 Table 3.10-22: Reuse Option 4 — Long -Term Annual Economic Impacts — Conservation/Preservation Option.............................................................. 3-131 Table 3.11-1: Regulatory Criteria for Roadway Segment Analysis .................................. 3-133 Table 3.11-2: Existing Conditions Analysis; Orient Point ................................................ 3-138 • iv • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York LIST OF FIGURES July 13, 2012 Page Figure 1.2-1: Plum Island Location Map.............................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1.2-2: Plum Island Aerial Photography..................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2.3-1: Plum Island Potential Development Parcels ................................................... 2-4 Figure 3.6-1: Plum Island Geology — End Moraines.......................................................... 3-30 Figure 3.6-2: Plum Island Soils.......................................................................................... 3-32 Figure 3.7-1: Plum Island Floodplains................................................................................ 3-40 Figure 3.7-2: Plum Island Coastal Zones............................................................................ 3-42 Figure 3.7-3: Plum Island Bathymetry................................................................................ 3-43 Figure 3.8-1: Plum Island Vegetative Land Cover.............................................................3-60 Figure 3.8-2: NWI Wetlands on Plum Island..................................................................... 3-64 Figure 3.8-3: NYSDEC Wetlands on Plum Island............................................................. 3-65 Figure 3.9-1: Archaeological and Historical Sites on Plum Island ..................................... 3-93 Figure 3.10-1: Plum Island Socioeconomic Study Area ..................................................... 3-100 Figure 3.10-2: Population Trends for the Plum Island Study Area (19 80 — 2009) ............. 3-101 Figure 3.10-3: Unemployment Rate in the Plum Island Study Area, 2000 - 2009 ............. 3-106 Figure 3.10-4: Plum Island Study Area Employment by Industry, 2001-2008 .................. 3-108 Figure 3.10-5: Suffolk County, New York Employment by Industry, 2001-2008 ............ 3-108 Figure 3.10-6: Middlesex County, Connecticut Employment by Industry, 2000-2008 ..... 3-109 Figure 3.10-7: New London County, Connecticut Employment by Industry, 2001- 2008............................................................................................................. 3-109 Figure 3.11-1: Traffic Patterns in the Vicinity of Plum Island...........................................3-135 Figure 3.11-2: Ferry Routes in the Vicinity of Plum Island ............................................... 3-136 Figure 3.12-1: Plum Island CERCLA Environmental Sites ............................................... 3-144 v Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 ACRONYMS • AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ACS American Community Survey Act Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009; Public Law (Pub. L.) 110-329 AHA U.S. Animal Health Association AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AOPC Area of Potential Concern AQCRs Air Quality Control Regions ARS Agricultural Research Service AST Aboveground Storage Tank BACT Best Available Control Technology BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BHP Boiler Horsepower bls Below Land Surface BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BMPs Best Management Practices BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BSL Biosafety Level CAA Clean Air Act CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate CCMA Connecticut Coastal Management Act CDEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon Monoxide CR County Route CSDACAA Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB Decibel dBa A -weighted Decibel DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DHS Department of Homeland Security DO Dissolved Oxygen is Vi Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELIH Eastern Long Island Hospital EO Executive Order EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act ERC Emission Reduction Credits ESA Endangered Species Act OF Degrees Fahrenheit FAD Foreign Animal Disease FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration FHWA Federal Highway Authority FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMD Foot -and -Mouth Disease (Hoof -and -Mouth Disease) FPPA Farmland Protection and Policy Act FPS Federal Protective Service FR Federal Register FSSI Field Support Services, Inc. FWA Fish and Wildlife Act FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FY Fiscal Year GAP Gap Analysis Program gpd Gallons per Day . gpy Gallons per Year GSA General Services Administration HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HERC Healthcare Environmental Resource Center HPO Historic Preservation Office HPRCC High Plains Regional Climate Center HRS Hazard Ranking System HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive IBA Important Bird Areas IBC International Building Code IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning Modeling System kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate lb/day Pounds per Day lb/hr Pounds per Hour LB Limited Business LBP Lead -Based Paint Ldn Day Night Averages Vii Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 LIPA Long Island Power Authority LISRCMP Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program LISS Long Island Sound Study LISSI Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative LOS Level of Service LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (Town of Southold, New York) MACT Maximum Available Control Technology MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MFCMA Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act mg/m3 Milligrams per Cubic Meter MIG, Inc. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. MII Marine II MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MOA Memorandum of Agreement MPA Marine Protected Area MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area mW Megawatt µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter N/A Not Applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAICS North American Industry Classification System • NAS National Academy of Sciences NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NABCC National Agricultural Biosecurity Center Consortium NBAF National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility NCDC National Climate Data Center NDP National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility Design Partnership NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFAS North Fork Audubon Society NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIH National Institutes of Health NISC National Invasive Species Council NLCD National Land Cover Database NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO Nitric Oxide NOZ Nitrogen Dioxide NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSWMA National Solid Waste Management Association 0 vui Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • NWI National Wetlands Inventory NYCRR New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations NYECL New York Environmental Conservation Law NYSDEC New York Department of Environmental Conservation NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program NYS New York State NYSDCR New York State Division of Coastal Resources NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation O&M Operation and Maintenance 03 Ozone OEW Ordnance and Explosive Waste OSPD Old Saybrook Town Police Department Pb Lead PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCS Permit Compliance System PIADC Plum Island Animal Disease Center PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) POTW Publically Owned Treatment Works PPA Pollution Prevention Act . ppm Parts per Million Property Plum Island, the Orient Point parcels, related personal property, and transportation assets associated with Plum Island Pub. L. Public Law R-80 Residential Low-density Districts, Two -acre Minimum R-120 Residential Low-density Districts, Three -acre Minimum RACT Reasonable Available Control Technology RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Condition RMW Regulated Medical Waste ROD Record of Decision RR Resort Residential SCDHS Suffolk County Department of Health Services SCDP Suffolk County Department of Parks SCG Suffolk County Government SCPD Suffolk County Police Department SCWA Suffolk County Water Authority SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SEQR State Environmental Quality Review (New York) SERCC Southeast Regional Climate Center SFD Southold Fire Department SHPO State Historic Preservation Office ix Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 SIP State Implementation Plan 40 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPCC Spill, Prevention, Countermeasure and Control Plan SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (New York) SR State Route SUV Sport Utility Vehicle SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TADDACS Targeted Advanced Development and Disease Assessment Core Services TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load tpy Tons per Year TRA Threat Risk Assessment TRI Toxic Release Inventory TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSS Total Suspended Solids USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCEN U.S. Census USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEISA U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service • USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geologic Survey UST Underground Storage Tank UXO Unexploded Ordinance VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VSV Vesicular Stomatitis Virus WMA Waste Management Area WTSI World Technical Services, Inc. WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant x go Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 0 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presents a detailed study that analyzes the impacts of the Proposed Action on the natural and human environment. The EIS analysis is contained in Chapters 1 through 3, which are described below. Chapters 4 through 6 provide a list of agencies consulted, a list of preparers, and references used to prepare the EIS. Appendices A through E contain additional supporting information related to the NEPA process or used during EIS preparation. Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action This chapter provides information regarding the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action; describes the sale of Plum Island, the Orient Point parcels, related personal property, and transportation assets associated with the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC), collectively referred to as "the Property"; and provides historical background on the Property. Also included are descriptions of the General Services Administration's (GSA) and Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) responsibilities and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 process and public involvement. Chapter 2: Description for the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives Chapter 2 describes the Proposed Action, which is to sell the Property as directed by Congress. It also describes the No Action Alternative, which is based on the premise that the Property would not be sold and would be retained in the federal inventory. This chapter concludes with a description of the process used to identify the Preferred Alternative, which would be selected from the two considered alternatives: the Action Alternative (sale of the Property) and the No Action Alternative (retain in federal ownership). Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Consequences Chapter 3 provides a description of the baseline conditions (the affected environment) associated with each resource category that would be potentially impacted, followed by the direct and indirect effects (the consequences) on each resource for each alternative. Each major resource section provides an analysis for each resource category. The methodology used to conduct the analysis is described, followed by a resource evaluation for each alternative. This chapter forms the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives. The discussion includes the identification of cumulative impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments, and the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity that may occur should the Proposed Action be implemented. Discussion of potential impacts on the human environment presented in the EIS focuses on those with potential for significance, while impacts that would not have a potential for significant impact will only be discussed briefly. 1.1. INTRODUCTION The GSA and the DHS (Joint Lead Agencies) are acting together to perform the environmental impact analyses presented in this EIS. This EIS presents a review of the potential for effects on 1-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 the human and the natural environments related to the legislation requiring the sale of an 840 - acre island in the State of New York, known as Plum Island; an associated 9.5 -acre support facility (two parcels) located nearby at Orient Point, New York; and other real property associated with PIADC. A list of all real and related personal property and transportation assets will be made available during the sale process. A site location map is provided as Figure 1.2-1. Under NEPA, the purpose of the EIS is to present an analysis of the effects associated with the anticipated sale of the Property. An EIS was selected to allow for the highest level of analysis and the greatest opportunity for input by interested parties. This EIS contains an evaluation of the potential for short and long term impacts to communities, public health, and the natural environment for the sale and to offer procedures for impact mitigation, where appropriate. 1.2. BACKGROUND Plum Island, consisting of approximately 840 acres, is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town of Southold (Town) in Suffolk County, New York, and is located approximately 1.5 miles off the northeast tip of Orient Point, Long Island, New York. Plum Island has been in federal ownership since 1901 and was used at various times for defense of the surrounding harbor, an active militaryfacility Fort Terry), research.""' 3 y ( y), and for military research. ' ' In 1954, the U.S. Army Plum Island Facility was officially turned over to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in response to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).' On July 1, 1954, the USDA established the PIADC research facility for FMD." PIADC includes buildings, industrial facilities and equipment, roadways, utilities, a water treatment plant, and specialized facilities. Additional assets on the Property include natural undeveloped land, the Plum Island Light Station constructed in 1869, and buildings and structures associated with the former Fort Terry. DHS also maintains a 9.5 -acre facility to support PIADC at Orient Point, New York, which includes buildings, utilities, and ferry docking facilities (Figure 1.2-2). USDA activities at PIADC are carried out by scientists and veterinarians in the Department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).' PIADC operates as a biosafety level -3 (BSL -3) facility, which conducts research involving large agricultural animals and foreign and emerging pathogens that may cause serious consequences in livestock, but are not harmful to humans because protective measures are available.' Some of Cella, A. 2004. An overview of Plum Island: History, research and effects on Long Island. Long Island Historical Journal 16, 2 nos. 1 and 2 (Fall 2003/Spring 2004): 176-181. http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/1951/43871/l/LIHJ2004.pdf. U.S. Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1956. The Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory. Miscellaneous Publication No. 730. Washington, D.C.: Animal Disease and Parasite Research Branch. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadcl 577/ml/l/. 3 U.S. Animal Health Association (AHA). 2003. U.S. Animal Health Association Newsletter 30 (4). http://www.usaha.org/news/newsletter/USAHA-Newsletter-Oct2003.pdf. Cella, An overview of Plum Island. 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm"modecode=l9-40-00-00 (accessed July 20, 2010). 6 Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2010. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/editorial_0902.shtm (accessed July 20, 2010). 1-2 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 201 Figure 1.2-1: Plum Island Location Map 1-3 Rhode Connecticut Island L_— Sits .0 Location (1 Long Island Newyork Plum Island Long Island Sound n Pui ♦ ♦ Y " OrientPoint Legend Support Facility -° State Highway L-1 Road Minor Road ' Park orient Bee Park os r wn Figure 1.2-1 i Location Map Prepared/Date 8RP (72118!11 Soumo. ESRI Dal. 8 Maps 9.3 Stre Wap N-th America Checked/Date JAB 011/1611 Figure 1.2-1: Plum Island Location Map 1-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Orient Point Parcel LONG ISLAND SOUND R' Plum Island ATLANTIC OCEAN J ertt Point Parcel J \ Legend '\ ---Approximate Property L. ^,e Figure 1.2-2 Aerial Photography PreparedlDate 'BRP02116,11 Chec,04,Da, JB 02/16,11 Figure 1.2-2: Plum Island Aerial Photography 1-4 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 athe principal diseases currently studied at PIADC are FMD, classical swine fever, and vesicular stomatitis virus. In addition, PIADC research includes more than 40 foreign animal diseases (FADs), such as hog cholera and African swine fever.$ One of the missions of PIADC is to develop technologies to help mitigate the risks of catastrophic economic losses caused by FAD agents accidentally or deliberately introduced into the United States. In 2003, the Property was transferred to DHS, which currently operates the Targeted Advanced Development and Disease Assessment Core Services (TADDACS) research units, and oversees the safety and security of Plum Island. The USDA continues to operate ARS and APHIS at Plum Island. The DHS, in cooperation with the USDA, operates the PIADC. "DHS is charged with the responsibility and has the national stewardship mandate for detecting, preventing, protecting against, and responding to terrorist attacks within the United States. These responsibilities, as applied to the defense of animal agriculture, are shared with the USDA and require a coordinated strategy to adequately protect the Nation against threats to animal agriculture. Consultations between DHS and USDA on a coordinated agricultural research strategy, as called for in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9), "Defense of United States Agriculture and Food," dated January 30, 2004, revealed a capability gap that must be filled by an integrated research, development, test, and evaluation infrastructure for combating agricultural and public health threats. Accordingly, to bridge the capability gap and to comply with HSPD-9, DHS proposed to build the [National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF)] ... an integrated research, development, test, and evaluation facility."' Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has coordinated with DHS to monitor and protect threatened and endangered species on Plum Island, including the piping plover and roseate tern. USFWS has also participated in Audubon New York's Important Bird Area program on the North Fork of Long Island, which includes Plum Island. 1.3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009; Public Law (Pub. L.) 110-329 (Act) mandates: "should the Secretary of Homeland Security determine that the National Bio and Agro -defense facility be located at a site other than Plum Island, New York, the Secretary shall liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of Cella, An overview Plum Island. 8 Dugan, I.J. 2002. Bioterrorism fears revive waning interest in agricultural disease lab on Plum Island. New York Times, January 8, 2002. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2009- NBAF ROD. Federal Register 74, no. 11 (January 16, 2009). http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-914.htm. 1-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 General Services to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements [Proposed Action]." Though partially renovated in the mid-1990s, PIADC, built in the 1950s, is nearing the end of its lifecycle and becoming increasingly more costly to maintain." In addition, though PIADC is a BSL -3 facility, it does not contain the necessary BSL facilities to meet the NBAF research requirements of a BSL -4 facility. A BSL -4 facility must contain appropriate security measures for handling exotic pathogens that pose a high risk of life-threatening disease in animals and humans through the aerosol route and for which there is no known vaccine or thera 11 g therapy." After a review of the capacity and availability of other BSL -3 and BSL -4 facilities in the U.S. and other countries, DHS determined that a new NBAF would be needed. In December 2008, DHS published a final EIS with an evaluation of six alternative NBAF sites, plus an option of not developing the NBAF (NBAF EIS). 12 In a Record of Decision (ROD) dated January 16, 2009, DHS determined that the research and laboratory work performed on Plum Island would be moved to a location in Kansas. At current projections, and subject to the availability of funds, construction of NBAF in Manhattan, Kansas, is estimated to be completed in 2019; at that time, the mission at PIADC will begin transitioning to the new facility, with the goal of completion by 2021. Between the January 2009 date of DHS's decision until the time of PIADC mission cessation, an interim period for DHS operations will occur (Interim Period). During the Interim Period, DHS will continue to budget for costs associated with maintaining and sustaining critical mission operations on Plum Island while also fulfilling its regulatory compliance requirements to support PIADC operations. This determination to move PIADC from Plum Island commenced the mandated sale process and the need for this EIS. 1.4. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT This EIS was prepared to comply with NEPA regulations required for federal actions. The EIS also follows the guidelines established under the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). CEQ has the responsibility to ensure that federal agencies meet their obligations under NEPA. The purpose of the EIS is to present an assessment of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and alternatives. As documented in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated February 17, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and USFWS are "cooperating agencies" (as that term is defined in 40 CFR 1501.6) with the Joint Lead Agencies for the 10 11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/editorial 0902.shtm. U.S. Animal Health Association (AHA), U.S. Animal Health Association newsletter. 12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2008. National Bio and Ago -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/gc_1187734676776.shtm#1. 1-6 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 preparation of the EIS. USEPA and USFWS are referred to as the Cooperating Agencies in this EIS. 1.5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The purpose of the scoping process is to provide information on the Proposed Action and solicit input from interested parties. Scoping also assisted the Joint Lead Agencies in developing the EIS by identifying important issues and alternatives related to the sale. During the scoping period, individuals, organizations, and agencies were given 45 days to submit oral or written comments regarding the sale. The Joint Lead Agencies initiated public scoping, in compliance with NEPA, with publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (FR) on March 18, 2010. Public notices were published in two New York newspapers. Public notices were published in the May 6 and May 13, 2010, issues of the Suffolk Times (Times Review) and the May 9 and May 16, 2010, issues of Newsday. Public notices were also published in two Connecticut newspapers. Public notices were published in the May 6 and May 13, 2010, issues of the Harbor News (Shore Publishing) and the May 9 and May 16, 2010, issues of the Shoreline Times (New Haven Register). These public notices were complemented by posting announcements on GSA's Real Property Utilization & Disposal homepage (www.propertydisposal.gsa.gov), the Joint Lead Agencies' project website (www.plumislandny.com), and the Town's website (www.southoldtown.northfork.net). In addition to these websites, a public announcement was displayed on the Town's cable access Channel 28 a week prior to the scoping meetings. Approximately 154 invitations were mailed and 156 invitations emailed to specific agencies and individuals to attend the scoping meetings. The list of addressees invited to participate in the scoping meetings is included in Appendix A. In addition to NOI publication, the Joint Lead Agencies sent letters to government agencies, including the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), USEPA, USFWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), state officials from New York and Connecticut, federal and state -recognized Native American tribes, county and town officials, and other federal, state, and local agencies. Public scoping meetings were held on May 19, 2010, at the Old Saybrook Middle School Auditorium in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, and on May 20, 2010, at the Greenport Public School Gymnasium in Greenport, New York. Thirty people attended the scoping meeting held in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, and 56 people attended the meeting held in Greenport, New York. Both scoping meetings began with an opportunity for the public to view relevant materials, obtain fact sheets and forms, and to interact informally with representatives of the Joint Lead Agencies. This was followed by a presentation concerning the purpose and need for the sale, the NEPA process, and a description of the Proposed Action. Attendees were also provided with handouts on frequently asked questions, general information, and illustrations of the Property. The presentation was followed by an opportunity for public questions and comments on the sale. A court reporter was present at both meetings. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report provides documentation of the scoping meetings, comments from agencies and 1-7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 the public, and responses from the Joint Lead Agencies.13 In addition to the formal New York , and Connecticut scoping meetings, the Joint Lead Agencies arranged for informational meetings and tours of Plum Island and the PIADC facility for several interested organizations in 2010. These groups included: • Connecticut Citizens Advisory Board • Pine Barrens Research Forum • Connecticut Fund for the Environment • U.S. Lighthouse Association • Old Saybrook Rotary Club and several other New York Rotary groups • Harbor One Club • Women's Club of Old Saybrook • Association of University Women • Town of Southold Planning Board • New York SHPO • Nassau County Economic Development Corporation As a result of the scoping process, the Joint Lead Agencies added a new reuse option to those considered as a part of the sale alternative. This reuse option was for the Property to be used for conservation/preservation of natural resources. Following the publication of the draft EIS, a 60 -day comment period will be initiated. During the comment period for the draft EIS, additional public meetings will be scheduled to provide opportunity for public input. Comments will also be accepted by mail, fax, or email. The comments will be incorporated into the final EIS. Once the final EIS is released, there will be an additional 30 -day period prior to the issuance of a ROD. 1.6. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK This EIS has been prepared in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations and policies applicable to the proposed and alternative actions. Significant federal, state, and local regulations and Executive Orders (EOs) applicable to the sale are listed below. Federal: 13 • Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (CSDACAA) (Pub. L. 110-329, September 30, 2009) • National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S. Code [USC] § 4321, et seq.) • Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) • Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) (Pub. L. 102- 426, October 19, 1992) General Services Administration (GSA). 2010. Draft environmental impact statement scoping report, public sale of Plum Island, Plum Island, New York. Boston. www.plumislandny.com. 0 1-8 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC § 9601) • Superfund Implementation (EO 12580 and EO 13016) • Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC § 2601-2692) • Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act (EPCRA) (42 USC § 11004-11049) • Federal Compliance with Right -to -Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (EO 12856) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC § 6901, et seq.) • Pollution Prevention Act (42 USC § 13101, et seq.) • Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088) • Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC § 7401, et seq.) • Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1251, et seq.) • Floodplains (EO 11988) • Wetlands (EO 11990) • Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC § 1431 et seq.) • • Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 97-348, October 18, 1982) • Estuary Protection Act (16 USC § 1221 et seq.) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) (15 USC § 1531, et seq.) • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC § 661 et seq.) • Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 USC § 668-668c) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC § 703 et seq.) • Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186) • Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC § 1801 et seq.) • Recreational Fisheries (EO 12962) • Marine Protected Areas (EO 13158) • Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC § 1361 et seq.) 0 • Invasive Species (EO 13112) • Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation (EO 13352) • Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514) • Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management (EO 13123) 1-9 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York State Local July 13, 2012 • Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental • Management (EO 13148) • Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition (EO 13 10 1) • Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (EO 13423) • Environmental Justice (EO 12898 and EO 13045) • National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC § 470, et seq.) • American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) (Pub. L. 95-341, August 11, 1978) • Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO 13175) • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Pub. L. 101-601, November 16, 1990) • State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) (New York Environmental Conservation Law [N.Y. ECL] § 8-0101, et seq. and 6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations [NYCRR] 617) • Marine Fisheries (N.Y. ECL § 13-0301, et seq.) • State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.Y. ECL § 17-0801, et seq.) • Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) (6 NYCRR 613-614) • Wetlands (6 NYCRR 660-665) • Environmental Quality Review (Town of Southold Code § 130) • Floodplains (Town of Southold Code § 111 and 148) • Waterfront Consistency Review (Town of Southold Code § 268) • Underground Storage Tanks (Suffolk County Sanitary Code Articles 12 and 17) • Wetlands (Town of Southold Code § 275) • Zoning (Town of Southold Code § 280) Other documentation • Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative — Plum Island is a Long Island Sound Stewardship Site, being within the Plum, Little, and Great Gull Islands Stewardship Area. It is one of 33 Inaugural Stewardship Areas around Long is 1-10 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Island Sound recognized by the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program Policy Committee for its significant ecological and recreational value. These authorities are addressed in various sections throughout this EIS when relevant to particular environmental resources and conditions. Additional details regarding each of the laws, regulations, and policies of the regulatory framework and their applicability to this EIS are provided in Appendix B. • 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1-12 • • • N N Q m L A Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 S2 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2.1. INTRODUCTION Congress, in Section 540 of the Act, unambiguously requires that Plum Island and all its related personal property and transportation assets be sold through a "public sale" (see 40 USC § 545[a] for the requirements for such a disposition). Procedures and guidelines for the sale will be based on GSA real property utilization and disposal practice. Although there is no option provided by Congress for any action other than a disposal by public sale, the NEPA analysis for this action, includes an analysis of a No Action Alternative as required under 40 CFR 1502.14(d). Even without the explicit congressional direction in this case, the prohibition (found at CFR 102-75.10 and 40 USC § 524) against funding properties that no longer have a mission -related need would require the disposal of this Property. The sole Action Alternative (the sale of the Property by public sale ordered by Congress), which is the outcome directed by the Act, is examined in this EIS by an analysis of four practicable reuse options, and potential ways to mitigate any adverse impacts that might result from these possible reuse scenarios. While the actual reuse of the Property is unknown at this time, once the Property leaves federal ownership, any reuse proposal would be subject to the review and approval of state regulatory authorities, most notably under the New York SEQR program, which, unlike NEPA, requires selection of the alternative that is the most protective, and requires instituting mitigation measures. Finally, the Joint Lead Agencies will comply with required federal laws that may • ultimately necessitate restricting the Property in some other manner (e.g., if there is a solid or hazardous waste cleanup remedy instituted that federal or state law requires restrictions being placed on the use of the Property), but the Joint Lead Agencies cannot restrict the Property beyond the requirements of such laws. Any additional restrictions that may be placed on the Property would occur only after the Property has left federal ownership, and would be the result of effects of state or local laws. This EIS will consider a No Action Alternative and an Action Alternative that contains four potential reuse options. The No Action Alternative is based on the premise that the Property would not be sold after PIADC relocation and would remain under DHS ownership. The Action Alternative is the sale of the Property. To supplement the NEPA analysis, the Action Alternative includes a reasonable range of potential reuse options. The four potential reuse options are for the purposes of analysis only and are not meant to represent or imply that a certain use and/or development plan would be approved. GSA has no ability to determine whether and to what extent local laws and regulations, including, without limitation, those of the Code of the Town of Southold, would allow for and ultimately provide for the approval of any specific site plan. The Joint Lead Agencies have worked with the Cooperating Agencies, state agencies, and the Town to identify potential reuse options under a public sale alternative. These potential reuse options were developed to provide a mechanism under which potential environmental impacts from future use of the Property can be evaluated and compared. Because the Joint Lead Agencies have no authority to regulate future land uses under the Action Alternative, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and • socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. When the 2-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to other applicable federal, , local, and state environmental protection requirements and land use regulations. After the sale, future reuse of the Property would be subject to review and approval under the New York SEQR program, as prescribed by 6 NYCRR 617 and Environmental Conservation Law, Sections 3-0301(l)(b), 3-0301(2)(m), and 8-0113. Future development of Plum Island would require SEQR coordination and compliance, because any development would require a discretionary permitting decision by local and state agencies. Issuance of a construction permit by the local planning commission, or issuance of a water withdrawal permit from the State, would trigger the SEQR process. Agencies cannot issue permits or approvals, authorize financial support, or provide financial support without completion of SEQR. Once SEQR is triggered, a sequential review process is initiated. Any actions that are likely to have an adverse impact to the environment would undergo a review process, including preparation of an EAF to determine whether an EIS is required, as well as coordination with other agencies. Similar to the federal NEPA process, the SEQR process includes agency coordination, scoping, and a public review and comment period. . The SEQR process would address specific impacts and appropriate mitigation for proposed land reuse and projects that are unknown at the time of the preparation of this federal EIS. The SEQR statutes indicate that an approved federal EIS cannot be substituted for a SEQR EIS, so additional studies related to project -specific impacts would be required in the future. SEQR requires that an environmental review must be conducted when a state or local agency in New York makes a discretionary decision regarding approval of a project. Most projects or • activities proposed by a state agency or unit of local government (including zoning changes, adoption of comprehensive plans, or changes in local laws or codes) and discretionary approvals (including site plan approvals, construction permits, or variances) from a New York State (NYS) agency or unit of local government require an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by SEQR. SEQR is designed to promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment; enhance human and community resources; and enrich the understanding of ecological systems and natural, human, and community resources important to the people of the state. Elements that must be considered under SEQR include, but are not limited to, natural resources (land, air, water, flora, and fauna), noise, cultural resources (archaeology and history), aesthetics, population patterns, community character, and human health. The Town is considering zoning for the Property that would take effect once the Property leaves federal ownership. Although the zoning regulations may not be complete until after the EIS process is completed, the Planning Director has advised that the Town plans to consider a new zoning district that would balance the following criteria: • Jobs for Town residents; • Orient hamlet quality of life; and • Preservation of natural and historic resources. 0 2-2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • The Town's intent is to create a zoning district that would allow research facilities in the current footprint of the existing laboratory and associated infrastructure, including renewable energy research and production and the high-quality jobs those include, while balancing the amount of traffic and other adverse impacts to Orient hamlet, the main access point to Plum Island. The district would also identify and protect historic and natural resources, including the Plum Island Light Station, Fort Terry, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat. 14 The Town may not determine the zoning requirements prior to the completion of the EIS; however, the Town may have zoning established prior to the sale of the Property. 2.2. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE — RETAIN IN FEDERAL OWNERSHIP The No Action Alternative is based on the premise that the Property would not be sold after PIADC is relocated and accordingly, the Property would remain in federal ownership. Although GSA is directed by the Act to sell the Property at public sale, NEPA requires consideration and analysis of a No Action Alternative, as described in Section 1502.14(d) of the implementing regulations of the CEQ. After the PIADC mission is transitioned to Manhattan, Kansas, the Property would be placed in a "mothball" status with reduced funding for maintenance. In the short term, because of insufficient funds for maintenance, the buildings, infrastructure, and transportation assets that supported the PIADC mission would cease to function at present levels and instead would function in a minimum capacity operating only those systems that would be required at certain • times (i.e., electrical, potable water, etc.). Any future decisions would be driven by the financial and operational needs of the federal government. 2.3. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION ALTERNATIVE — SALE OF THE PROPERTY The Action Alternative will analyze the impacts of the sale of the Property by GSA through public sale. In conjunction with the Action Alternative and for the purpose of considering and analyzing potential impacts that could result from the Property's reuse after its sale, four Property reuse options have been identified and evaluated. The reuse options considered are adaptive reuse, low-density zoning, higher -density zoning, and conservation/preservation (Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4). Ultimate reuse of the Property would be under the jurisdiction of the Town and subject to SEQR. The reuse options discussed in the EIS are a selection of potential reuse options, are speculative, and are discussed to compare one reuse option to another. The actual reuse will not be known until after the Property is sold and leaves federal ownership. Maximum build -out for the low-density and high-density zoning options (Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3) is based upon a plan shown in Figure 2.3-1, created solely for purposes of this EIS, which illustrates potential development parcels on the Property (Potential Development Parcels). For the purposes of this EIS, certain developed portions of Plum Island near the coastline, including the existing marina area, were not included in the Potential Development Parcels because zoning • 14 Town of Southold. 2010. Undated letter from H. Lanza, Planning Director, Town of Southold, New York, to J. Kelly, General Services Administration (received on August 13, 2010). 2-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York SONG %SLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN July 13, 2012 r am POIM Source. from County color GIS orthormaous (2007) Parcel obtavled from New York State GIS Geanngtause at htlp:NAVW nysgis state try. US Parcels Q1 65.9 acres ® 9 0 acres © 17 3 ar—A ® 4 n affP.S © 133 9 acres PLUM GUT Parcels shown have been determined surtabte for development with limited restrictions based on federal, state, and local lawslregulations o aao cac �cEer Figure 2.3-1 BRP OiJ11J11 Potential Development Parcels rEs )WA JB07J11n1 Figure 2.3-1: Plum Island Potential Development Parcels 2-4 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 and environmental laws may restrict additional development. Any decision to develop these areas would be the decision of a future owner after complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. The build -out assumes that all lots are connected to the existing water and sewer system, allowing for minimal lot sizes for each zoning category under the existing Town of Southold Code. Development under the Action Alternative options would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including those being considered by the Town as a part of a new zoning district. Once Plum Island is sold, applicable zoning requirements would need to be met by the future owner. Currently, there are no deed restrictions or conservation easements associated with the Property, but deed restrictions and conservation easements could be incorporated after the sale. Potential deed restrictions may include additional setbacks from wetlands or shoreline areas used by protected species, subdivision restrictions, height restrictions on structures, and other related limitations on development. Any necessary restrictions would be based on sound science to protect wildlife and their habitats, water quality, or similar ecological attributes of the Property. Conservation easements that could restrict certain activities (e.g., recreational use or commercial activities that may disturb listed species) may also be considered. A general suitability analysis was conducted to aid in assessing alternatives for the potential reuse of Plum Island. Physical, environmental, and regulatory attributes were inventoried and overlaid to determine land that was most suitable for a wide range of development, including but not limited to, industrial, commercial, or residential uses. The physical, environmental, and regulatory attributes that were assessed included: • • Freshwater and tidal wetland buffers and adjacent areas (federal, state, and local) • Coastal Barrier Resource System areas • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) layers • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Freshwater Wetlands and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) • Utilities • Slopes • Known potential historic and cultural sites and environmental sites • Elevation model and contours In preparing a general suitability analysis to determine the Potential Development Parcels on Plum Island, each of the above attributes or combination of attributes was overlaid to create a single composite map (Figure 2.3-1). The resultant map illustrates lands with minimal known restrictions for building development, along with approximate estimates of associated acreage. In general, the southern third of Plum Island has a wide variety of physical, environmental and regulatory constraints to development. These constraints include a large concentration of • freshwater wetlands as well as shoreline and jurisdictional buffers up to 300 feet wide. Buffers 2-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 were created around USFWS NWI wetlands and NYSDEC wetlands, FEMA -designated • floodplain areas, New York coastal zone non -disturbance buffers and tidal areas, known prehistoric and historic sites, and CERCLA environmental sites. The southern third of Plum Island is also within a flood hazard area designated by FEMA for potential inundation. The narrow northern neck of Plum Island has limited potential for development due to regulatory setbacks. Water and sewer utility systems are located on the central portion of Plum Island. Plum Island water service is supplied from freshwater wells, and the recharge areas or wellhead protection zones occupy a large portion of land in the north -central area of Plum Island. The central portion of Plum Island also houses a functioning wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which impacts reuse in this area. The general suitability analysis indicates that approximately 195 acres of land on Plum Island are suitable for development. The developable land is found in the center of Plum Island, including the land associated with the former Fort Terry. The balance of the suitable land is located around the existing PIADC building complex, stretching southeast toward the Plum Island Light Station. 2.3.1. Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Adaptive reuse is the process of adapting existing structures and associated real property for purposes other than those originally intended. When the original purpose of a structure changes or is no longer required, future owners have the opportunity to change the primary function of the structure while retaining some of the existing architectural details. Adaptive reuse can • preserve the overall character of Property or setting, while accommodating a new use. This process is viewed by many as an alternative "green" view for development. Rather than demolishing old inefficient structures and building new ones with new materials, adaptive reuse is an environmentally conscious way to redevelop property. Under the adaptive reuse option, existing facilities at Plum Island could be utilized for scientific, commercial or industrial purposes outside of federal ownership. Existing buildings, infrastructure, utilities, and other development on Plum Island could be utilized and/or refurbished by the new owner, while undeveloped open space would likely remain relatively unchanged. The PIADC facilities could be adapted with modifications to accommodate a new function with minimal or no expansion. The buildings at the former Fort Terry could also be renovated. The ferry service and the associated Orient Point facilities could be used to support Plum Island and its operations. Examples of potential reuse options for Plum Island include a private sector laboratory, an academic research facility, or a business complex with a commercial component. During the adaptive reuse planning process, select areas outside of the proposed adaptive reuse area could be identified and set aside for conservation or preservation purposes. As previously noted, this reuse option was developed for analysis purposes only. Any future reuse or other development on Plum Island after sale out of federal ownership would be subject to environmental review under the New York SEQR program and by other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction over the reuse and redevelopment. These reviews would most • 2-6 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 is likely be completed before any development is allowed. The action of the Joint Lead Agencies is to sell the Property, and the Joint Lead Agencies have no control of potential reuse of the Property once sold. 2.3.2. Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) The low-density reuse option is based upon the land use and zoning scheme similar to Fishers Island, New York, which is located approximately 8.75 miles northeast of Plum Island. Under this option, Plum Island would be zoned by the Town as a mixture of Residential Low-density Districts, Two -acre Minimum (R-80) and Three -acre Minimum (R-120) (Town of Southold Code § 280-12, et seq.), and Limited Business (LB) (Town of Southold Code § 280-40, et seq.). Minimum lot sizes under these zoning requirements are 80,000 square feet (1.84 acres) for R-80 and LB zoning, and 120,000 square feet (2.76 acres) for R-120 zoning. Development calculations for this option feature residential densities at less than one unit per every two acres. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land, this option could accommodate approximately 90 residential units, including the required support infrastructure (roads, utility easements, and other services). This number of units would be supported by the existing water and wastewater capacity on Plum Island. Most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals, resulting in seasonal variability of demand on infrastructure and impacts on Island resources. The greatest peak occupancy would likely be during summer months and on weekends, with occupancy during mid -week and off-season months being significantly less. Development under this option would be subject to applicable is federal, state, and local requirements. The balance of Plum Island, approximately 640 acres, could be set aside for conservation or preservation purposes. The Orient Point facility and a portion of Plum Island could be zoned Marine II (MII) to allow the ferry service to Plum Island (Town of Southold Code § 280-54, et seq.). Zoning at Orient Point is categorized as Marine I, which would limit the range of water -dependent and water - related uses (Town of Southold Code § 280-51, et seq.). The Orient Point Ferry Terminal would remain in use in this option without change to its current land use. Similar to Reuse Option 1, after the proposed plans are established, select areas outside of the proposed low-density residential area could be identified and set aside for conservation or preservation purposes. As noted in Reuse Option 1, the reuse options were developed for analysis purposes only. This action is to sell the Property, and the Joint Lead Agencies have no control of potential reuse of Plum Island. Any future reuse would be subject to environmental review under the New York SEQR program. 2.3.3. Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) The high-density reuse option is based upon the highest allowable density from the Town zoning regulations. Under this option, Plum Island would be zoned by the Town as Resort Residential District (RR) (Town of Southold Code § 280-34, et seq.) and General Business (B) (Town of • Southold Code § 280-47, et seq.). Orient Point and a portion of Plum Island would be zoned MII 2-7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 to allow the ferry service to Plum Island (Town of Southold Code § 280-54, et seq.), as in the • low-density zoning option. A small area of Orient Point would also be zoned RR to accommodate higher -density redevelopment of a portion of the ferry terminal. Minimum lot size under the RR zoning requirement is 12,000 square feet (0.28 acre) for a single-family home, while hotels require a minimum of 4,000 square feet of lot area per unit (e.g., a 100 -unit hotel would require a minimum lot of approximately 9.2 acres). Minimum lot size under the B zoning requirement is 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre). Development calculations for this option are based upon resort residential densities with up to four units per acre. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land, this option could yield approximately 750 residential units, including the required support infrastructure (roads, utility easements, and other services). Most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals, resulting in seasonal variability of demand on infrastructure and impacts on Plum Island resources. The greatest peak occupancy would likely be during summer months and on weekends, with occupancy during mid -week and off-season months being significantly less. This number of units could be supported by the existing water and wastewater capacity on Plum Island, with upgrades to the existing infrastructure for periods of peak occupancy where necessary. The balance of Plum Island, approximately 640 acres, could be set aside for conservation or preservation purposes. The Orient Point facility would remain in use in this option, but higher -density redevelopment of a portion of the site is included. Up to 20 residential units could be planned on a portion of the ferry terminal site consistent with the preferred architectural character within the Town. Water and sewer infrastructure at the ferry terminal would need to be upgraded to accommodate residential or hotel development. Similar to Reuse Option 1, after the proposed plans are established, select areas outside of the proposed high-density residential area could be identified and set aside for conservation or preservation purposes. As noted in Reuse Option 1, the reuse options were developed for analysis purposes only. This action is to sell the Property, and the Joint Lead Agencies have no control of potential reuse of Plum Island. Any future reuse would be subject to environmental review under the New York SEQR program. 2.3.4. Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation This option was developed in response to agency and public suggestions received during the EIS public scoping period (March through June 2010), stating that Plum Island would be well-suited for natural resource and cultural resource conservation/preservation. Under this option, existing facilities on Plum Island may be removed or converted to for education or interpretation. Existing transportation services may be terminated or retrofitted to provide access to Plum Island for maintenance, security, habitat management, or recreational and educational activities. Plum Island would likely be owned and maintained by a public or private conservation entity that would manage Plum Island to protect, maintain, and enhance significant natural and cultural resources. Educational or recreational facilities and opportunities could be developed while • 2-8 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • ensuring protection of existing and future natural resource values. Public access may be limited seasonally or geographically. As noted in Reuse Option 1, the reuse options were developed for analysis purposes only. This action is to sell the Property, and the Joint Lead Agencies have no control of potential reuse of Plum Island. Any future reuse would be subject to environmental review under the New York SEQR program. 2.4. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section describes the evaluation process and presents a comparison of the effects of the reuse options on the various resources in a tabular format. The comparison also includes other site-specific information that may be of interest to decision makers and the general public. 2.4.1. Summary of Environmental Impacts by Resource Table 2.4-1 presents a comparison of potential environmental impacts. A more detailed analysis of environmental impacts is provided in Chapter 3. Environmental effects categories were applied to each resource for each reuse option under the Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative to provide a subjective comparison. 2.4.2. Mitigation Measures • Where potential impacts to a resource may be expected under the four reuse options described for the Action Alternative, mitigation measures have been developed that could be implemented to reduce potential impacts. A summary of the mitigation measures is presented in Table 2.4-2. Mitigation measures associated with future reuse of the Property are not within the direct control of the Joint Lead Agencies. Implementation of mitigation measures under the Action Alternative would be the responsibility of the future owner(s). Mitigation measures may be identified as part of project -specific land use or environmental reviews required for compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. It is likely that mitigation measures would be included as a part of development plans; the proposed mitigation measures described here are included to illustrate what could reasonably be done during implementation under the proposed Action Alternative options to minimize adverse affects associated with reuse of the Property. Additionally, permits required from applicable local, state, or federal agencies related to the future reuse of the Property may incorporate some of the measures described in this EIS. As a result, this EIS can be viewed as a reference document to aid in assessing the order of magnitude of effects that the future reuse of the Property might have, as well as the strategies for mitigating the adverse effects associated with the Property's reuse. • As previously noted, the reuse options were developed for analysis purposes only. Any future reuse or other development on Plum Island after sale out of federal ownership could be subject to environmental review process under NEPA, the New York SEQR program, and other federal, state, and local agencies. The action of the Joint Lead Agencies is to sell the Property, and the Joint Lead Agencies have no control of potential reuse of Plum Island. 2-9 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Table 2.4-1: Comparison of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation for Alternatives July 13, 2012 Study Area No Action Alternative Reuse Option 1 Adaptive Reuse Reuse Option 2 Low -Density Zoning Reuse Option 3 High -Density Zoning Reuse Option 4 Conservation or Preservation Comments The No Action Reuse Option I would Reuse Option 2 would likely have minor to moderate impacts Reuse Option 3 would likely Reuse Option 4 would Alternative would likely have negligible to Plum Island and negligible have moderate impacts to Plum likely have beneficial Visual resources Land Use and likely have no impacts to Plum impacts to Plum impacts to Orient Point. For . Island and Orient Point Mitigation would be the same as impacts to Plum Island could be impaired Visual Resources Island or Orient Island and Orient Point. No mitigation mitigation, architecture and landscaping of the development Reuse Option 2, with additional and no impacts to Orient Point. No by increased development of Point. No mitigation would be Would be would be designed to blend into blending of any Orient Point development with the nearby mitigation would be the Island. recommended. recommended. the existing visual unity of the village character. recommended. area. Reuse Option 1 would likely have negligible The No Action impacts to Plum Island and Orient Reuse Option 2 would likely have minor impacts to Plum Reuse Option 3 would likely Increased Alternative would Point. Minor changes Island and negligible impacts to have minor impacts to Plum Reuse Option 4 would development likely have minor would likely be Orient Point. Modifications to Island and Orient Point. likely have moderate would likely Infrastructure and impacts to Plum Island and expected when adapting the existing the existing water distribution, Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 2, with additional impacts to Plum Island require upgrades Utilities negligible impacts buildings; however, wastewater collection, and electricity distribution systems connections required for the and Orient Point. No mitigation would be to utility and infrastructure to Orient Point. No the existing could be required as mitigation higher -density development on recommended. connections to mitigation would be distribution lines to accommodate seasonal peak plum Island and development at Plum Island. recommended. would likely not be demands. Orient Point. affected. No other mitigation would be recommended. • 2-10 0 0 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York is • July 13, 2012 Study Area No Action Alternative Reuse Option 1': Adaptive Reuse Reuse Option 2 Low-Density Zoning Reuse Option 3 High -Density Zoning Reuse Option 4 Conservation or Preservation Comments The No Action Alternative would Reuse Option 1 would Development likely have likely have negligible Reuse Option 2 would likely would likely beneficial impacts impacts to Plum have beneficial impacts to Plum Reuse Option 3 would likely Reuse Option 4 would reduce emissions to Plum Island and Island and Orient Island and Orient Point. have no impacts to Plum Island likely have beneficial from Plum Island Orient Point. Dust Point. Mitigation for Mitigation would be the same as and minor impacts to Orient impacts to Plum Island and increase Air Quality and particulate this alternative would the No Action Alternative, with Point. Mitigation would be the and Orient Point. emissions from matter from be the same as the No air quality BMPs applicable to same as Reuse Option 2, with Mitigation would be the transportation decommissioning Action Alternative, demolition and new construction. additional application on Plum same as the No Action during peak and demolition with BMPs applicable Vehicle emissions highest during Island and at Orient Point. Alternative. seasons to Plum would likely be to impact reduction seasonal peak occupancy. Island and at mitigated through for building Orient Point. Best Management modification. Practices (BMPs). The No Action Alternative would Reuse Option I would likely have likely have negligible Reuse Option 2 would likely beneficial impacts to Plum Island and impacts to Plum have minor impacts to Plum Island and Orient Point. Reuse Option 3 would likely Reuse Option 4 would Development Orient Point. Noise Island and Orient Mitigation would likely be the have minor impacts to Plum likely have beneficial would likely result from point. Mitigation for same as the No Action Island and Orient Point. impacts to Plum Island in noise levels Noise decommissioning this alternative would Alternative, with noise BMPs Mitigation would be the same as and Orient Point. typical of a and demolition be the same as the No applicable to demolition and new Reuse Option 2, with additional Mitigation would be the suburban would be mitigated Action Alternative, construction. Noise impacts application on Plum Island and same as the No Action environment. through BMPs and with BMPs applicable would likely be most noticeable at Orient Point. Alternative. the time of day that to noise reduction for during seasonal peak occupancy. building modification. activities are conducted. 2-11 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Study Area No Action Alternative Reuse Option 1 Adaptive Reuse Reuse Option 2: Low -Density Zoning Reuse Option 3 High -Density Zonin_g Reuse Option 4 Conservation or Preservation Comments Reuse Option 3 would likely The No Action have negligible impacts to Plum Alternative would Reuse Option 1 would Reuse Option 2 would likely Island and Orient Point. Reuse Option 4 would likely have no likely have no impacts have negligible impacts to Plum Mitigation would likely be the likely have no impacts Development impacts to Plum to Plum Island or Island and no impacts to Orient same as Reuse Option 2, with to Plum Island or would likely Geology and Island or Orient Orient Point. Point. Mitigation would be the additional application on Plum Orient Point. impact recognized Soils Point. Erosion and Mitigation for this same as the No Action Island and at Orient Point. Mitigation would the geologic resources sedimentation from alternative would be Alternative, with additional Controls would likely be ton same as the No Action such as surficial activities would be the same as the No application for new construction established, such as water Alternative. groundwater. mitigated through Action Alternative. on Plum Island. conservation, permeable BMPs. pavements, and stormwater management. Reuse Option 2 would likely Reuse Option 3 would likely The No Action have minor moderate impactsd have moderate impacts to Plum Alternative would Reuse Option 1 would Plum Islandand no impacts to n Island and negligible impacts to Reuse Option 4 would likely have no likely have no impacts O Point. Stormwater from O Orient Point. Mitigation would likely have beneficial Development Water Resources impacts to Plum to Plum Island or development would mitigated be the same as Reuse Option 2, impacts to Plum Island could increase Island or Orient Orient Point. No c through BMPs and local, state, with additional application on and Orient Point. No impacts to water Point. No mitigation would be and federal requirements plum Island and at Orient Point. mitigation would be resources. mitigation would be recommended. a accommodate seasonal peak Controls would likely be recommended. recommended. demands. established for a hydrologically sustainable aquifer. 2-12 0 0 0 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • 0 July 13, 2012 Study Area No Action Alternative Reuse Option is Adaptive Reuse Reuse Option 2 Low -Density Zoning Reuse Option 3 High -Density Zoning Reuse Option 4 Conservation or Preservation Comments Reuse Option 2 would likely have minor to moderate impacts to Plum Island and no impacts to The No Action Orient Point. Areas of Alternative would conservation and/or restoration Reuse Option 3 would likely Development likely have Reuse Option 1 would on Plum Island would likely be have moderate impacts to Plum Reuse Option 4 would would likely beneficial impacts likely have no impacts established to serve as mitigation Island and no impacts to Orient likely have beneficial increase impacts Biological to Plum Island and to Plum Island or measures, or credits would likely Point. Mitigation would be the impacts to Plum Island by habitat loss, Resources impacts to Orient Point. No be purchased from a habitat same as Reuse Option 2, with and Orient Point. No habitat O Orient Point. No mitigation would be bank. Though wetlands are additional application on Plum mitigation would be fragmentation, and mitigation would be recommended. avoided in the reuse options, any Island and at Orient Point. recommended. increased human recommended. impacts would likely be subject activities. to compensatory mitigation. The potential for human disturbance would likely be highest during seasonal peak occupancy. Reuse Option I would likely have no impacts The No Action to Plum Island or Reuse Option 4 would Alternative would Orient Point. BMPs Reuse Option 2 would likely Reuse Option 3 would likely likely have no impacts Deed covenants likely have no would include have minor impacts to Plum have minor impacts to Plum to Plum Island or would minimize Cultural impacts to Plum covenants to protect Island and no impacts to Orient Island and no impacts to Orient Orient Point. any adverse effects Resources Island or Orient eligible archaeological point. Mitigation would be the Point. Mitigation would be the Mitigation would be the on eligible cultural Point. No and historic cultural same as Reuse Option 1. same as Reuse Option 1. same as Reuse Option resources. mitigation would be resources that will be I recommended. included in the deed transferring title out of federal ownership. 2-13 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Stud Area No Action Alternative Reuse Option 1 Adaptive Reuse' Reuse Option 2 ' Low -Deni, Zoning Reuse Option 3 High -Density Zoning Reuse Option 4 Conservation or Preservation Comments Reuse Option 1 would The No Action likely have no impacts Development Alternative would to Plum Island or Reuse Option 2 would likely Reuse Option 4 would would likely likely have minor Orient Point. Local have negligible impacts to Plum Reuse Option 3 would likely likely have minor increase state and Socioeconomics impacts to Plum governments could Island and Orient Point. have beneficial impacts to Plum impacts to Plum Island local tax revenue and Island and levy taxes and Mitigation would likely be the Island and Orient Point. and Orient Point. and affect Environmental negligible impacts develop fees to same as Reuse Option 1. Mitigation would be the same as Mitigation would be the employment and Justice to Orient Point. No mitigate additional Socioeconomic impacts would Reuse Option 1. same as Reuse Option income through mitigation would be costs for life safety likely be most noticeable during 1' business and recommended. services and, if seasonal peak occupancy. residential applicable, public development. schools. Reuse Option 2 would likely The No Action have negligible impacts to Plum Development Alternative would Reuse Option 1 would n Orient Establishment n new lanes or Reuse Option 3 would likely Reuse Option 4 would would likely likely have no likely have no impacts roads, and traffic signals and have minor impacts to Plum likely have no impacts increase Traffic and impacts to Plum to Plum Island or controls, would likely mitigate Island and Orient Point. to Plum Island and transportation Transportation Island or Orient Orient Point. No increased traffic on Plum Island Mitigation would be the same as Orient Point. No needs, but would Point. No mitigation would be and at Orient Point to meet Reuse Option 2. mitigation would be likely remain mitigation would be recommended. appropriate level of service recommended. within acceptable recommended. (LOS) to accommodate seasonal limits (LOS). peak demands. 2-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Existing Hazards, Toxic, or Radiological Waste Contamination Waste Management The No Action Alternative would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. DHS would complete remaining CERCLA program closure and cleanup operations in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory standards subject to the availability of funds. The No Action Alternative would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. No mitigation would be recommended. Reuse Option 1 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. A CERCLA covenant would be included in the deed transferring title out of federal ownership warranting all actions taken to protect human health and the environment have been taken. Reuse Option 1 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. BMPs to reduce waste generation could include solid waste recycling, water conservation, and waste water reuse. Reuse Option 2 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 1. Reuse Option 2 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 1, to accommodate seasonal peak demands. 2-15 Reuse Option 3 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 1. Reuse Option 3 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 1, to accommodate seasonal peak demands. July 13, 2012 Reuse Option 4 would likely have no impacts to Plum Island and Orient Point. Mitigation would be the same as Reuse Option 1. Reuse Option 4 would likely have beneficial impacts to Plum Island and Orient Point. No mitigation would be recommended. The federal government would retain ultimate responsibility to confirm that cleanup meets the standards of protecting human health and the environment. Waste generated by increased development could be handled by existing structures and procedures. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Mitigation measures for the Action Alternative include: Table 2.4-2: Comparison of Mitigation for Alternatives July 13, 2012 2-16 0 • • Reuse Option 1 Reuse Option 2 Reuse Option 3 Reuse Option 4 Study Area No Action Alternative Adaptive Reuse Low -Density Zoning High -Density Zoning Conservation/Preservation Design architecture and Same as Reuse Option 2, Land Use and Visual No mitigation No mitigation landscaping of the development to blend into with additional blending of any Orient Point No mitigation recommended Resources recommended recommended the existing Visual Unity development with the of Plum Island nearby village character Minor addition Modifications to the Same as Reuse Option 2, connections would be existing water distributionwastewater, with additional Infrastructure and No mitigation expected when adapting the existing buildings, collection, and electricity connections required for the higher density No mitigation recommended Utilities recommended however the existing distribution systems development on Plum distribution lines would would be required to accommodate seasonal Island and development at not be affected peak demands Orient Point Same as the No Action Dust and particulate Same as the No Action Alternative, with air Same as Reuse Option 2, matter from Alternative, with BMPs quality BMPs applicable with additional Same as the No Action Air Quality decommissioning and applicable to impact to demolition and new application on Plum Alternative demolition would be reduction for building construction. Vehicle Island and at Orient Point mitigated through BMPs modification emissions highest during seasonal peak occupancy. Same as the No Action Noise from Same as the No Action Alternative, with noise decommissioning and Alternative, with BMPs BMPs applicable to Same as Reuse Option 2, Noise demolition would be applicable to noise demolition and new with additional Same as the No Action mitigated through BMPs reduction for building construction. Noise application on Plum Alternative and the time of day that modification impacts most noticeable Island and at Orient Point activities are conducted during seasonal peak occupancy. 2-16 0 • • 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July |3,20|2 Reuse Option'l Reuse Option 2 Reuse Option 3 Reuse, Option 4 Study'Area NoXetion"Alternative'' 'Adaptive"Reuse Low -Density Zoning High -Density -Zoning -Conservation/Preservation Same as Reuse Option 2, with additional Erosion and Same as the No Action application on Plum sedimentation from Same as the No Action Alternative, with Island and at Orient Point. Same as the No Action Geology and Soils activities would be Alternative additional application for Establish controls, such Alternative mitigated through BNIPs new construction on Plum water conservation, Island permeable pavements, and stormwater management Stormwater from Same as Reuse Option 2, development would be with additional No mitigation No mitigation mitigated through BMPs application on Plum Water Resources recommended recommended and local, state, and Island and at Orient Point. No mitigation recommended federal requirements to Establish controls, for a accommodate seasonal hydrologically sustainable peak demands aquifer Establish areas of conservation and/or restoration on Plum Island, or purchase credits from a habitat bank. Same as Reuse Option 2, Biological Resources No mitigation No mitigation Though wetlands are avoided in the reuse with additional No mitigation recommended recommended recommended application on Plum options, any impacts Island and at Orient Point would be subject to compensatory mitigation. Potential for human disturbance highest during seasonal peak occupancy. Develop covenants to protect identified No mitigation archaeological and Cultural Resources recommended historic cultural resources Same as Reuse Option I Same as Reuse Option I Same as Reuse Option I that would be included in the deed transferring title out of federal ownership Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 2-18 0 0 0 Reuse Option 1 Reuse Option 2 Reuse Option 3 Reuse Option 4 Study Area No Action Alternative Adaptive Reuse Low-mDensity Zoning High-Densit Zoning Conservation/Preservation Levy taxes and develop Same as Reuse Option 1. Socioeconomics and No mitigation fees to mitigate additionalSocioeconomic impacts Environmental Justice recommended costs for life safety most noticeable during Same as Reuse Option 1 Same as Reuse Option 1 services and, if seasonal peak occupancy. applicable, public schools Establish new lanes or roads, and traffic signals and controls, to mitigate Traffic and No mitigation No mitigation for increased traffic on Same as Reuse Option 2 No mitigation recommended Transportation recommended recommended Plum Island and at Orient Point to meet appropriate LOS to accommodate seasonal peak demands DHS is currently completing remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations in compliance Existing Hazards, Toxic, with federal, state, and Same as the No Action Same as the No Action Same as the No Action Same as the No Action or Radiological Waste local regulatory standards. Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Contamination Actions could include hazardous waste testing and remediation prior to sale and, as necessary, during facility decommissioning. Mitigation measures to No mitigation lessen waste generation impacts could include Same as Reuse Option 1, Same as Reuse Option 1, Waste Management recommended solid waste recycling, to accommodate seasonal to accommodate seasonal No mitigation recommended water conservation, and peak demands peak demands wastewater reuse. 2-18 0 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • 2.5. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • • July 13, 2012 Under NEPA, agencies must identify a Preferred Alternative for consideration and public review in the EIS (40 CFR 1502.14). The Preferred Alternative is the alternative that the agency believes would best meet the purpose and need of the proposed project, giving consideration to environmental, economic, security, technical, and other factors. The Preferred Alternative considered in this EIS is the Action Alternative, which is the sale of the Property out of federal ownership. 2-19 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 2-20 0 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Is 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES 3.1. INTRODUCTION This EIS evaluates the potential environmental consequences that could result from implementation of the reuse options under the Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. In preparing this EIS, the Joint Lead Agencies analyzed and considered public scoping comments received during the 60 -day public scoping period (Section 1.5). This chapter provides a description of the existing conditions (the affected environment) associated with each resource category, followed by the potential direct and indirect effects (the consequences) on each resource. Each major resource section (Sections 3.2 to 3.13) provides an analysis for each resource category. The methodology used to conduct the analysis is described, followed by a resource evaluation for each alternative. A "sliding -scale" approach was the basis for the level of analysis of potential environmental effects in this EIS. This approach implements the CEQ's regulations for applying NEPA and its instruction that federal agencies preparing an EIS "focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives" (40 CFR 1502.1), and that impacts be discussed "in proportion to their significance" (40 CFR 1502.2[b]). Certain aspects of the two alternatives considered have a greater potential for creating environmental effects than others. Therefore, they are discussed in greater detail than those aspects that have little potential for effect. In implementing this • approach for the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative, the Joint Lead Agencies adhered to CEQ's guidelines for determining significance as presented in 40 CFR 1508.27. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) distinguish between direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place as the action. Indirect effects (also referred to as "secondary impacts") are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the action that occur later in time or at some distance from the direct impacts. The cumulative impact analysis included potential impacts resulting from other activities not related to the sale that, in combination with the sale, could impact areas of concern. Cumulative impacts are those that result from the incremental impact of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. No indirect or cumulative impacts are expected to result from the sale of the Property itself. However, future reuse of Plum Island could result in indirect or cumulative impacts at some point after the sale. When identified, potential cumulative or indirect impacts associated with a specific reuse option are noted in the consequences sections. Any future reuse or other development on Plum Island after sale out of federal ownership would be subject to environmental review under the New York SEQR program, which includes consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts. Additionally, because the sale of the Property is not anticipated to occur for at least eight years, any indirect and cumulative impacts are purely speculative at this time. No significant development projects were identified in the vicinity of Plum Island or Orient Point that would be implemented within the timeframe of the sale. Potential residential, commercial, or industrial developments in the future could include new residential subdivisions, new major retail shopping areas, new businesses or industries, new marinas, harbor dredging projects, or significant land transfers. The federal government intends to sell Little Gull Island, an 3-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 approximately 1 -acre island and lighthouse located approximately 3 miles northeast of Plum Island. Indirect or cumulative impacts related to the sale of Little Gull Island associated with Plum Island are not expected. 3.2. LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.2.1. Methodology Several sources were consulted to determine the most likely potential land reuse options, based on physical characteristics of the Property. These include the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), local land use maps, technical reports, aerial photography, and site visits. Local zoning ordinances and regulations were also reviewed. Potential changes in land use were identified for each site alternative. Effects were identified based on changes in land use acreages and determinations of compatibility among land uses reasonably anticipated to occur. The methodology used to assess visual resources and impacts generally conforms to a visual management system developed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).15 "Visual Quality" is described as the visual patterns created by the combination of rural or natural character landscapes and industrial and man-made features. There are three criteria for evaluating Visual Quality: vividness, integrity, and unity. "Vividness" can be defined as the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. "Integrity" is the visual collection of the natural and man-made landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. "Visual Unity" can be described as the degree of visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. Levels of visual impact were • documented as low, moderate, or high. Low levels impact one of the three visual criteria, moderate levels impact two of the criteria, and high levels impact all three criteria. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Nearby populations or visitors would not be impacted, or changes in land use and/or visual resources would be below or at the level of detection. Any impacts would be short-term. Nearby populations or visitors would not likely be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative. Minor: Adverse and beneficial changes in land use and/or visual resources would be detectable, although the changes would be slight. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative, but the impacts would be slight. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial changes in land use and/or visual resources would be readily apparent. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative and would likely be able to express opinions regarding the changes. 15 Bacon, Warren R. 1979. The Visual Management System of the Forest Service, USDA. In: Elsner, Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon, Technical Coordinators. 1979. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource (Incline Village, Nev., April 23-25, 1979). Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- . 35. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn. 3-2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Major: Adverse and beneficial changes in land use and/or visual resources would be readily apparent and have important consequences. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative and would likely express strong opinions regarding the changes. 3.2.2. Affected Environment Plum Island Plum Island, approximately 840 acres, is located 12 miles southwest of New London, Connecticut, and 1.5 miles off the northeast tip of Long Island, New York (i.e., Orient Point). Plum Gut separates Plum Island and Orient Point. Plum Island has its own potable well water, water treatment plant, wastewater treatment facility, emergency power generators, fuel storage areas, and electrical substation. A Long Island Power Authority underwater electric cable supplies electrical power to Plum Island. These facilities support PIADC, the only functioning facility on Plum Island. PIADC occupies a small campus in the southwest corner of Plum Island. The campus includes a large laboratory building and a few outbuildings on approximately 20 acres overlooking Long Island Sound, as well as a ferry terminal and warehouse buildings on approximately 15 acres overlooking Plum Gut. Additional non-functioning remnant land uses include an assortment of buildings associated with the cantonment area of old Fort Terry and scattered vacant buildings/batteries associated with former military operations. The former Fort Terry cantonment area and parade ground occupy approximately 30 acres near the north -central section of Plum Island and overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. • Developed and/or maintained areas comprise approximately 170 acres on Plum Island. This includes the PIADC facility, other structures on Plum Island, infrastructure and associated easements, roads, parking lots, lawns, and other maintained areas. Undeveloped areas included within the potential reuse options on Plum Island include approximately 437 acres of upland forests (approximately 241 acres that have been subject to significant historical disturbance and approximately 196 acres that have remained relatively undisturbed). Undeveloped areas that would not be subject to development under the reuse options include approximately 96 acres of freshwater wetlands and approximately 101 acres of beach/dune systems. Section 3.8 provides additional information regarding specific land cover types on Plum Island. On Orient Point, the entire ferry facility is developed. Overall, Visual Quality of the Plum Island landscape is classified as rural (large, isolated, open areas with a low population density) in character. The topography is slightly hilly, generally sloping to the south-southwest. The landscape integrity and Visual Unity are high; because the site is isolated, the landscape is free from encroaching elements, and the development on Plum Island is minimized. The Vividness of Plum Island is developed as a notable visual feature of Long Island Sound, along with the Plum Island Light Station, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on February 11, 2011. The Plum Island Light Station sits on a prominent point overlooking the passage between Plum Gut and Long Island Sound. There are few sensitive viewers (persons who would be notably affected by changes to aesthetics or viewsheds) to Plum Island or PIADC. The only on-site viewers are the employees of PIADC and occasional visitors. The structures that constitute PIADC are mainly visible by marine 3-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 travelers, including ferry passengers and recreational boaters. Motorists, pedestrians, and ! residents at Orient Point, at least 1.5 miles away, also have views of Plum Island, but at this distance, PIADC is indistinct. Any structure higher than a two-story building would increasingly affect the viewshed proportional to its increasing height. Orient Point The Orient Point property is a 9.5 -acre support facility that comprises two parcels: one small parcel located on the tip of Orient Point, and one larger parcel located on the southern shore of Orient Point, north of Orient Beach State Park (Figure 1.1-1). The smaller parcel contains a small building that is a transfer station for the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), which supplies electrical power to Plum Island from Orient Point through two underwater electric cables. The larger parcel supports the government ferry facilities that provide access to Plum Island, and consists of three support buildings, a small harbor docking facility, and a parking lot. Approximately 75 percent of the land cover for the Orient Point support facility is impervious (paved asphalt), while the remaining land cover is evenly split between landscaped areas and natural scrub -covered beach areas. The Visual Quality of the Orient Point support facility is classified as urban/industrial in character. The small parcel is surrounded by Orient Point County Park. Vividness and Visual Unity are low, as the ferry facility is bordered by Main Road to the north, another ferry service facility to the east, Gardiners Bay to the south, and a marina to the west. The visual integrity of Orient Point is low because of the urban/industrial land use, but the visual impact of development is high because of its visible location adjacent to Main Road and prominent • location on the waterfront. 3.2.3. Consequences 3.2.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership Plum Island Under this alternative, the Property would remain in federal ownership, and existing building facilities would remain vacant without changes to land use. The rural quality of Plum Island would remain and the integrity of the existing landscape would be maintained. Visual resources such as Plum Island itself and the historic Plum Island Light Station would remain without impact. The Visual Quality would be unchanged. Orient Point Under this alternative, Orient Point remains in use as a ferry terminal but with greatly reduced operations. The existing Visual Quality of Orient Point would remain low, without impacts to land use and visual resources. 1] 3-4 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 0 3.2.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.2.3.2.1 Reuse Option I — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Plum Island In Reuse Option 1, the existing buildings and facilities would be reused to support a new research facility. Land use would remain generally consistent with the existing condition, with some slight changes from infrastructure additions or building renovation. Overall land use acreages would not change. The rural quality of Plum Island's existing visual resources would remain unimpacted. The integrity of the existing landscape would not change. The landscape of Plum Island and the historic Plum Island Light Station would maintain their notable qualities and would be free from encroachment. Visual Quality would remain unchanged. Sensitive viewers would include the new research employees, occasional visitors and marine travelers. Impacts to land use and visual resources would be negligible. Orient Point Under Reuse Option 1, Orient Point remains in use as a ferry terminal. Land use would remain generally consistent with the existing condition, with some slight changes from infrastructure additions or building renovation. Overall land use acreages would not change. The existing Visual Quality of Orient Point would remain low. Impacts to land use and visual resources would be negligible. • 3.2.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Plum Island In Reuse Option 2, Plum Island could be redeveloped to support low density residential and mixed use development. This option could support up to 90 single family residential units (expected to be mostly second homes and rentals) developed on approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land. The balance of Plum Island, approximately 640 acres, would be set aside for conservation purposes (Chapter 2). Land use within the 195 acres would change to low-density residential. This could result in the development of approximately 147 acres of forested uplands (approximately 34% of the total forested upland area on Plum Island) to low-density residential. The development of these areas would result in minor to moderate adverse changes to land use on Plum Island. The rural quality of the visual resources would be moderately impacted. It is anticipated that man-made features would blend into the existing landscape or be buffered from view by the remaining undeveloped and preserved Island acreage. It is expected that very little change would be needed to Plum Island's existing infrastructure to accommodate low density residential development. However, it is expected that the Vividness of the landscape would be impacted as existing undeveloped is converted to low-density residential development. Due to the small size of Plum Island any new development would likely be visible from locations on Plum Island as well as from the water. Residential development would have a minor impact on the integrity of . the existing landscape as the majority of the development would occur under Reuse Option 2 in 3-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 the center of Plum Island. Development would be easily seen from the undeveloped portions of Plum Island and therefore represents a visual encroachment. The Visual Unity of Plum Island would also be moderately impacted as the proposed development under this option would interrupt the visual harmony of the landscape and potentially disrupt currently unimpeded views across Plum Island. On-site development would also have a minor to moderate impact on Visual Quality. Residential development would be easily visible to viewers at multiple locations on Plum Island and would disrupt natural scenic views across Plum Island. There are few off -Island viewers other than marine travelers and boaters. However, there would also be a minor impact to these viewers as residential development punctuates Plum Island horizon and would be visible from the water. Orient Point Under Reuse Option 2, Orient Point would remain in use as a ferry terminal. Land use would remain generally consistent with the existing condition, with some slight changes from infrastructure additions or building renovation. Overall land use acreage would not change. The existing Visual Quality of Orient Point would remain low. Impacts to land use and visual resources would be negligible. 3.2.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Plum Island is In Reuse Option 3, Plum Island could be redeveloped to support high-density residential (expected to be mostly second homes and rentals) and mixed use development. In this option, up to 750 residential units and expansion of existing infrastructure (roads and utilities) to support the new development would be developed on 195 acres of unrestricted land. The balance of Plum Island, approximately 640 acres, would be set aside for conservation purposes (Chapter 2). Land use within the 195 acres would be converted to high-density residential. The basic footprint of the disturbed area would generally be the same as for Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, but development would be much more intensive within the footprint. This could result in the conversion of approximately 147 acres of forested uplands (approximately 34% of the total forested upland area on Plum Island) to high-density residential. The conversion of these areas would result in minor to moderate adverse changes to land use on Plum Island. The rural quality of the visual resources would be highly impacted. It is anticipated that the proposed density of the man-made features would visually impact the remaining undeveloped and preserved Island acreage. It is expected that high-density development would result in multi -story development. It is expected that the Vividness of the landscape would be impacted as currently undeveloped land is converted to residential use. Due to the small size of Plum Island any new development in currently undeveloped areas would likely be visible from locations on Plum Island as well as from the water. The integrity of the existing landscape would be moderately impacted by residential development as the majority of the development would occur under Reuse Option 3 in the center of Plum Island. Development would be easily • 3-6 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 seen from the undeveloped portions of Plum Island and therefore represents a visual encroachment. The Visual Unity of Plum Island would also be moderately impacted as the proposed development under this option would interrupt the visual harmony of the landscape and disrupt views across Plum Island. Viewer sensitivity would also be moderately impacted by on-site development. Multi -story residential development in the center of Plum Island and would be easily visible to viewers on Plum Island and would disrupt natural scenic views across Plum Island. There are few off -Island viewers other than marine travelers and boaters. However, there would also be a moderate impact to these viewers as multi -story residential development punctuates Plum Island horizon, breaks the views of the natural landscape and would be visible from the water. Orient Point In Reuse Option 3, Orient Point could be developed to include the addition of up to 20 residential units. The Ferry terminal would also remain in operation with a potential for seasonally increased operations. Land use changes would be negligible, as a small portion of the existing terminal would be converted to high-density residential. The existing Visual Quality of Orient Point is low but could potentially be enhanced with the addition of residential development. The character of proposed residential development could be designed to match the nearby village character and reduce the amount of asphalt parking visible from the adjacent roadways. The visual impact of development under this option is moderate due to the prominent and visible location of Orient Point. 3.2.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Plum Island Under Reuse Option 4, existing facilities could be removed or modified to offer educational or interpretive opportunities and regularly scheduled transportation services terminated by the new Property owner. Plum Island would be maintained as a natural environment with protection and enhancement to the natural and cultural resources. Approximately 40 to 50 acres of land currently developed for commercial/research use could be converted to natural forests or scrub - shrub areas. Under this option, the Visual Quality would change from rural to unique and distinctive. The natural landscape would be allowed to dominate Plum Island and the rocky coastline, tree cover, dunes and historic Plum Island Light Station would be the only features visible from the water. The Visual Quality would be low as the only viewers would be nearby boaters with limited exposure to Plum Island. There would be a beneficial impact to land use and visual resources. Orient Point Under Reuse Option 4, ferry services would remain but with significantly reduced operations. Land use would remain generally consistent with the existing condition, with some slight changes from infrastructure additions or building renovation. Overall land use acreages would not be affected. The Visual Quality of Orient Point would remain low. There would be no impacts to land use and visual resources. 3-7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 3.3. INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES 3.3.1. Methodology To describe the existing and future infrastructure and utilities related to each alternative, information was obtained on the existing infrastructure at the Property. This information was evaluated to assess how the existing infrastructure would be able to support the proposed alternatives and what additional upgrades might be required by a future owner. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Operations, long-term management, and sustainability of infrastructure/utilities would not be impacted, or the impact would be at or below the lower levels of detection. Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be detectable but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable effect on operations, long-term management, or sustainability of infrastructure/utilities. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of infrastructure/utilities in a manner noticeable to the public. Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of • infrastructure/utilities in a manner noticeable to the public, and would be markedly different from existing operations. 3.3.2. Affected Environment Plum Island contains a number of infrastructure features and utilities to serve PIADC, including Plum Island's two potable water well fields, a sewage treatment plant, an emergency power plant, and electrical substations. The day-to-day operation and maintenance (O&M) of PIADC is currently administered and performed by a private contractor, World Technical Services, Inc. (WTSI). WTSI is responsible for the operations of various self-contained utilities at PIADC.16 Plum Island Potable Water Supply Potable water is supplied to Plum Island from 2 potable water well fields consisting of 14 functioning wells in a sole source aquifer. Ten wells are in the shallow well field, with an average well depth of 30 feet. These wells are located near the existing facility well pump house, where potable water treatment is conducted. Four potable water wells are in the deep well field, with an average depth of approximately 60 feet. These wells are located at the base of the Harbor Hill End Moraine. The wells are situated northwest of the former pump house facility 16 C. Wenderoth, Research Facility Operations Manager, DHS, personal communication with Charles H. Lyman, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), August 13, 2010. 3-8 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 used by the military during its occupation of Plum Island. Safe yield for the aquifer is estimated to range from 150,000 to 200,000 gallons per day (gpd).17 The existing water tower has a usable volume of 200,000 gallons." The potable water system is permitted by NYSDEC and currently operates in compliance with permit requirements. The PIADC potable water system is operated by operators licensed and inspected annually by the NYSDEC/Suffolk County Department of Health (SCDHS). Backflow prevention inspections/reports are provided to SCDHS annually, and a water tower cathodic protection inspection is also conducted annually.19 Excess potable water not immediately available for use or distribution is stored in a 200,000 -gallon water tower. An assessment of the PIADC aquifer, designated "sole source" per Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 and regulated by USEPA, was conducted in 2000 to provide updated information regarding the condition and quality of Plum Island's potable water resources. The study recommended a "water budget"—the maximum amount of groundwater that may be sustainably withdrawn without adversely impacting water quality or availability— that ranges from 55 million to 75 million gallons per year (gpy), or approximately 150,000 to 200,000 gpd. The 2006 annual water report submitted to NYSDEC indicated annual water production of 17,412,000 gpy, or average production of 47,704 gpd. In addition, the designation of the Plum Island aquifer also requires USEPA to review all proposed projects within the designated area that receive federal financial assistance. There are a total of 39 hydrants on Plum Island, of which 11 fire hydrants and one lawn hydrant are inactive. The inactive fire hydrants are located on the east end of Plum Island and near Building 257, and the inactive lawn hydrant is located in the harbor area. Electricity LIPA, serving a territory of approximately 1,377 square miles with total power availability of 5,357 megawatts (mW), is the electrical utility responsible for providing power to PIADC .20 LIPA supplies electrical power to Plum Island from Orient Point. A single 13.2 -kilovolt (kV) aerial line serves two underwater electric cables to Plum Island from the transfer station at Orient Point. The historical peak demand on the electrical service is 2.3 mW. The current distribution isolation switches are positioned to operate the bulk of the existing facilities on one underwater service cable. The two underwater electric cables to Plum Island can each supply the 2.3 -mW load at a voltage drop of the estimated 2.5 -mile conductor length, but only one electrical line is used at any given time.z1 17 18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. ]bid. 19 K. Klotzer, unpublished summary of PIADC air, wastewater, and potable water permits prepared August 30, 2007. 20 Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). 2004. Energy plan 2004-2013 technical report. 21 National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility Design Partnership (NDP). 2008. Site characterization study. M Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Annual electrical usage at PIADC, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and based on records from 2009, indicates 11,148,000 kWh for the year. The peak demand at PIADC for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 was 2445.6 kWh .22 Power distribution on Plum Island includes both aboveground power lines and buried power lines. There are two below -ground power lines running from the switch on Plum Island to Building 100/101, one of which is active and the other inactive. The power lines that serve the dock area and Building 100/101 are below ground, while the active aboveground lines run out to the eastern end of Plum Island from a pole located near the intersection of the main road and the road to Building 100/101. The aboveground power line ends at the old Fort Terry buildings, which are currently being used as the Motor Pool (Building 38) and Plum Island Fire Station (Building 13). Fuel Storage Tanks No. 2 diesel is the primary fuel source for the PIADC facility. Fuel oil is stored in underground storage tanks (USTs) and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). The maximum storage capacities of the USTs and ASTs are 10,500 and 642,467 gallons, respectively. Fuel oil is used in the boilers for facility heating and the generators for facility backup power, and the incinerators for animal carcass disposal. The PIADC facility's annual fuel oil usage is reported to range from 634,880 gpy (FY 2006 fuel acquisition report) to approximately 900,000 gpy.23 Sanitary Sewage All wastewater from PIADC is subject to treatment prior to discharge in accordance with the operating and wastewater discharge permit requirements of the State of New York. Wastewater sources at PIADC are organized under the two general source categories of Research Waste and Non -research Waste and are described with regard to source and treatment below. Research wastes include wastewaters generated by laboratory sinks and drains, restroom facilities, and animal handling/holding areas within the BSL -3 areas of Building 101. The liquid research wastes (sewage) are conveyed from Building 101 via underground piping and enter Building 102 for pretreatment through grinding units for size classification, then into a series of holding tanks for mixing and heating at various temperatures and residence times under continuous flow or batch conditions. This portion of the research waste pretreatment system is collectively referred to as the "heat exchanger treatment system." From the heat exchanger treatment system, the fluids are sent to one of two "retention tube rooms," which houses 3,500 linear feet of piping. The pretreated effluents pass through this lengthy system to dissipate heat before being combined with non -research waste for secondary and tertiary treatment in the central WWTP. Non -research waste includes all pretreated sewage from the research facility (discussed above), as well as sink, drain, and sewage wastes from the non -research support facilities on Plum Island. 22 C. Wenderoth, Research Facility Operations Manager, DHS, personal communication with Charles H. Lyman, MACTEC, August 13, 2010. 23 Telephone call from L. Bedsole, Dial Cordy, to K. Klotzer, Environmental Specialist, PIADC, February 29, 2008. 3-10 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The largest contributor of wastes from non -research facilities is Building 100, which contains most of the employees and administrative/support functions of the PIADC facility. All combined, non -research waste is treated in the central WWTP located several hundred feet southeast of the main PIADC laboratory. The existing WWTP was built in 1995, with a major upgrade completed in 2004.24 The WWTP is a State -permitted tertiary treatment facility that has a maximum permitted capacity of 60,000 gpd. According to the PIADC Research Needs and Corrective Action Project Prioritization Study dated January 27, 2006, the PIADC WWTP is currently capable of treating up to 80,000 gpd.25 The facility has, therefore, requested a discharge permit modification, increasing the permitted capacity to 80,000 gpd.26 The WWTP currently operates in compliance with permit requirements of New York's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). Steam and Chilled Water The existing boiler plant at PIADC came on line in 2005 and has three equally sized low -sulfur, fuel -oil -powered boilers to provide steam for heating and decontamination procedures. The boilers have a total installed capacity of 1,500 boiler horsepower (BHP) (51,750 pounds per hour [lb/hr]). The facility routinely operates one boiler 8,760 hours per year, and the remaining two units each operate approximately 4,380 hours per year. The average rated emissions for these boilers are as follows: particulates, 0.23 lb/hr; carbon monoxide, 0.57 lb/hr; sulfur oxide, 8.10 lb/hr; and volatile organics, 0.06 lb/hr. Permit -required stack testing was conducted in February and April 2011, and emissions were in compliance with permit requirements. The existing chilled water plant has a total installed capacity of 1,700 tons. Orient Point Potable Water Supply Potable water is supplied to the Orient Point support facility from a private well located in the northeast corner of the Property. The well supplies potable water to the office building (Building 1) and warehouse (Building 3) located on the Property. 27 Electricity Electricity is supplied to the Orient Point support facility by LIPA. Overhead power lines provide connection to the LIPA grid. Annual electrical usage at the Orient Point support facility, measured in kWh and based on records from FY 2009, indicated 108,029 kWh for the year.28 24 National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility Design Partnership (NDP), Site characterization study. 25 Ibid. 26 Telephone call from L. Bedsole, Dial Cordy, to K. Klotzer, Environmental Specialist, PIADC, February 29, 2008. 27 C. Wenderoth, Research Facility Operations Manager, DHS, personal communication with Charles H. Lyman, MACTEC, April 14, 2010. 28 it C. Wenderoth, Research Facility Operations Manager, DHS, personal communication with Charles H. Lyman, MACTEC, August 13, 2010. 3-11 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Fuel Storage Tanks July 13, 2012 No. 2 heating oil is the only fuel used at the Orient Point support facility. The oil is used in the boilers for facility heating. Heating oil is stored on-site in two 1,000 -gallon, fiberglass, double - walled USTs, and one 500 -gallon AST with steel secondary containment. The 500 -gallon AST is located inside Building 2. In addition to heating oil storage, the ferries are fueled at the docking facilities on the Property. Sanitary Sewage The sanitary waste generated at the Orient Point support facility, Administration Building (Building 1), is piped to a septic tank located approximately 45 feet east of the building, which connects to a leaching pit located south of the septic tank. The sanitary wastes generated in the receiving warehouse (Building 3) discharge to a cesspool located approximately 100 feet east of Building 3. The cesspool and septic tank on the Property are periodically pumped out by a licensed local contractor.29 3.3.3. Consequences To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the four potential reuse options, effects on infrastructure resulting from implementation of the options are defined and assessed. Impacts to infrastructure from each of the four potential reuse options would vary depending upon the option implemented. In this section, impacts to infrastructure are defined 19 and evaluated. 0 3.3.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of this alternative could slightly reduce the existing infrastructure capacity on Plum Island. All of the existing buildings on Plum Island currently in use would likely be decommissioned. The existing infrastructure including potable water supply, water treatment, and water distribution, power transmission, communication lines, and sanitary sewer lines and the wastewater treatment plant would remain in place in a "mothballed" status. The water use, waste water generated, electricity, and fuel use would be greatly reduced. The need for steam and chilled water would likely be eliminated based on decommissioning of the existing laboratory. Based on the reduction of capacity and the "mothballed" status, changes to infrastructure on Plum Island would be minor. The Orient Point support facility would likely provide the same functions with reduced use, resulting in minimal changes to the existing infrastructure. Existing structures would be decommissioned as described for Plum Island. The No Action Alternative would result in negligible changes to infrastructure capacity at Orient Point. 29 Ibid. 3-12 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 9 3.3.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.3.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Implementation of Reuse Option I would have negligible impacts to the existing infrastructure on Plum Island. The future owner/developer would be required to utilize the existing infrastructure and buildings on Plum Island with limited changes. The current water use on Plum Island is approximately 50,000 gpd. The existing potable water system on Plum Island is permitted by NYSDEC and currently operates in compliance with permit requirements. To continue to operate the system, a new permit would need to be issued to the new owner, or the existing permit would need to be transferred with property ownership, and compliance with permit requirements maintained. The waste water treatment plant is permitted by the State as a tertiary treatment facility with a maximum permitted capacity of 80,000 gpd. As with the potable water permit, the wastewater treatment permit would also be transferred with property ownership. Waste water volumes associated with adaptive reuse of Plum Island would be required to be maintained below the maximum permitted capacity to continue operation under this permit and utilize the existing WWTP, or new upgrades and a new permit would be required. Reuse Option 1 would have negligible impacts to the existing electrical and communications infrastructure. Minor changes would be expected when adapting the existing buildings for reuse; however, the existing underwater electrical cables, switches, and buried distribution lines would not be affected. The existing fuel storage and piping on Plum Island would likely remain unchanged as would the existing boiler plant and chilled water plant. Adaptive reuse of the property would have negligible impacts to the existing infrastructure at the Orient Point support facility. The ferry operations at this facility currently supporting Plum Island would be maintained if Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure is implemented. Similar to Plum Island, the existing structures and infrastructure would be utilized with minimal changes. 3.3.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Implementation of Reuse Option 2 would result in minor changes to the existing infrastructure. Residential development on Plum Island would utilize the existing potable water supply and distribution system, wastewater treatment facility, and power supply. Low-density development would be limited by the existing potable water capacity and waste water treatment capacity. In this option, the existing buildings, fuel line and bulk oil storage tanks would be removed. Modifications to the existing water distribution, wastewater collection, and electricity distribution systems would be required to accommodate residential development on Plum Island, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. Changes to the existing infrastructure would include expansion of these systems as needed to support low-density development. To continue to operate the potable water system, a new permit would need to be issued to the new owner, or the existing permit would need to be transferred with property ownership, and compliance with permit requirements maintained. Additional water distribution lines to connect to the existing potable water and wastewater lines would be required should Reuse Option 2 be implemented. The electrical transmission lines and switches currently supplying power to Plum Island would 3-13 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 remain unchanged; however, additional power lines would be required to distribute electrical power to individual residences. Existing electricity, water, and wastewater resources would be expected to support low-density development (see Sections 3.7 and 3.13, respectively). Minor improvements and upgrades to Island infrastructure and utilities would be expected. Implementation of Reuse Option 2 would result in negligible impacts to the existing infrastructure at the Orient Point support facility. The ferry service would be maintained in some capacity to support residential development on Plum Island. The existing structures and infrastructure would be utilized with minimal changes. 3.3.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Implementation of Reuse Option 3 would have minor impacts as described in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. Reuse Option 3 would require additional connections to the existing water and wastewater lines and additional connections to the electrical distribution system. To continue to operate the potable water system, a new permit would need to be issued to the new owner, or the existing permit would need to be transferred with property ownership, and compliance with permit requirements maintained. As under Reuse Option 2, existing electricity, water, and wastewater resources would be expected to support high-density development (see Sections 3.7 and 3.13, respectively). Minor improvements and upgrades to Island infrastructure and utilities would be expected, especially to support seasonal peak occupancy. Implementation of Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning would result in minor impacts to infrastructure at the Orient Point facility to support high-density development. Existing electricity, water and wastewater resources would be expected to support high-density development, but expected use of the latter two approaches the current resource capacities (see Sections 3.7 and 3.13 respectively). The ferry service would be maintained to support residential development on Plum Island. Negligible indirect effects would be expected associated with new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support high-density zoning, as well as other new development in the project area, as additional infrastructure and utility connections for these facilities could be required. 3.3.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Implementation of Reuse Option 4 could result in the removal and or decommissioning in place of some existing infrastructure on Plum Island. Aboveground utilities (i.e., electrical lines) would be removed and below ground utilities (i.e., water distribution lines, wastewater lines, electrical and communication lines) would be abandoned in place. All of the existing fuel storage tanks would be removed, as would any buried or above ground distribution lines, according to NYSDEC standards and criteria, and with USEPA oversight as needed. The existing water supply wells and monitoring wells could also be abandoned per State regulations if no longer needed, to remove conduits for future groundwater contamination. If a potable water system would be maintained, a new permit would need to be issued to the new owner, or the existing permit would need to be transferred with property ownership, and compliance with 3-14 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 41 permit requirements maintained. If no longer needed, the wastewater treatment plant could be demolished and the polishing pond enhanced to provide additional wetland functions and values. Removing infrastructure and utilities would result in a moderate adverse impact. Some of the infrastructure and buildings could be removed from the Orient Point support facility. As with Plum Island, fuel storage tanks, associated piping, and wells would be abandoned per State regulations, and with USEPA oversight, as needed. The large paved area at the facility would be removed as a part of demolition activities at the facility. This area could be restored to natural conditions through planting tree, shrub and grass species common to the area. In addition, some of the bulkheads and pilings in the harbor area could be removed and restored to more natural conditions. Removing infrastructure and utilities would result in a moderate adverse impact. 3.4. AIR QUALITY Under the federal CAA, all sources of air pollution must be evaluated for the nature and magnitude of their air emissions to ensure the health and safety of humans and the environment. 3.4.1. Methodology To describe existing and future air quality impacts related to each alternative, information was obtained on climate, existing air quality, and existing air emissions from Plum Island. This information was evaluated to assess how each of the alternatives would affect air quality in the a vicinity of Plum Island. Air quality impacts were classified as either direct or indirect. Direct air quality impacts result from emissions generated by stationary sources at a potential development site, such as emissions from fuel burned at a site for industrial applications or domestic heating systems. Indirect air quality impacts result from emissions from off-site stationary sources and mobile sources generated by the potential development site, such as supplier or end user industries. Information on specific air quality standards and regulations is included in Appendix B. Because the Action Alternative is the sale of the property, the physical sale would have no impact on air quality. After a sale occurs, subsequent development may impact air quality, but development options are speculative at this time. The following analysis assumes that future activities under a reuse option would be subject to and compliant with appropriate requirements for air quality control, such as air quality permits. In 2010, CEQ provided a draft guidance memorandum for federal agencies to consider whether analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from proposed actions may provide meaningful information to decision makers and the public as a part of the NEPA process. Specifically, if a proposed action would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide -equivalent greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis, or if long- term greenhouse gas emissions could be significant, agencies should consider the potential for impacts. Because none of the current potential reuse options are expected to produce significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, no additional consideration of greenhouse gas emissions is included in this EIS. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: 3-15 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Negligible: Air quality would not be impacted, or the impacts on air quality would be below or at the lower levels of detection. Any impact on air quality would be slight and would return to normal shortly after project implementation activities. Minor: Adverse impacts on air quality would be measurable, although the changes would be small and short-term, and the impacts would be localized, temporary, and limited to sensitive resources. For adverse impacts, no air quality mitigation measures would be necessary. Moderate: Adverse impacts on air quality would be measurable and would have noticeable benefits or consequences, although the impact would be relatively local. For adverse impacts, all air quality standards would still be met. There would be short-term exposure to sensitive resources. Air quality mitigation measures would be necessary, and the measures would likely be successful. Major: Changes in air quality would be measurable, would have substantial consequences, and would be noticed regionally. For adverse impacts, there would be possible violations of state and federal air quality standards, and/or prolonged exposure to sensitive receptors. Air quality mitigation measures would be necessary, and the success of the measures could not be guaranteed. 3.4.2. Affected Environment Plum Island Climate and Severe Weather • The Long Island area climate, including Plum Island, is classified as "temperate -humid - continental" and characterized by four defined seasons. The Atlantic Ocean brings afternoon sea breezes that temper the heat in the warmer months and that routinely limit the frequency and severity of thunderstorms. Long Island has warm, humid summers and cold winters. Wintertime temperatures at Plum Island are warmer than those in inland areas, and mainland snowstorms may fall as island rain. However, in winter months more intense storms called "nor'easters" can produce blizzard conditions with snowfalls of 1 to 2 feet and near -hurricane -force winds." The mean temperature for Suffolk County ranges from 32.4° Fahrenheit (°F) in winter to 71.97 in summer. The highest temperature recorded at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) since 1949 has been 100.5°F, and the lowest temperature recorded was -23.0°F.31 Average rainfall for Suffolk County is approximately 42 inches per year, and snowfall averages approximately 27 inches per year (www.longisland.com). Regional wind patterns are dominated by westerly winds, primarily northwest in the winter and southwest in the summer.32 Plum Island is also subject to infrequent hurricanes that manage to reach the north Atlantic Ocean. Notable 30 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). 2008. Weather and climate data for Suffolk County, New York. www.bnl.gov/weather. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 3-16 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 hurricanes affected the Plum Island area in 1938, 1944, 1954, 1955, and 1960.33 Climate changes will continue to affect temperatures, precipitation, storm intensities, sea level rise, and storm surges. Air Quality Suffolk County is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM2,5. The nonattainment status is based on air quality monitoring conducted at monitoring stations located on Long Island and other densely populated areas of the county to the west (e.g., New York City). Plum Island's relatively remote location coupled with Plum Island's proposed lack of industry or dense traffic patterns under the proposed alternatives would not cause Plum Island to have a measurable impact on the nonattainment status of the county. Suffolk County is in compliance with the NAAQS for the other pollutants. Mobile and stationary air emission sources currently operating on Plum Island may influence local air quality. Mobile air pollution sources include cars, trucks, boats, and other vehicles. Stationary air pollution sources are non-moving facilities such as power generation facilities or industrial facilities. A NYSDEC Air Permit (ID 1-4738-00028/00030, expires October 20, 2013) is required for all PIADC facility air emission sources, which currently include generators, boilers, and three incinerators. Mobile air emission sources at Plum Island are vehicles used to support the current PIADC. These mobile sources include automobiles, light trucks, and a small number of diesel -powered vehicles. Additional mobile sources include the government transport ferries and other marine traffic transiting the surrounding waters. PIADC has NYSDEC permitted combustion sources at the facility that consist of three incinerators, three generators, and three steam boilers. These units have a permitted potential to emit approximately 21 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and 41 tons per year of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Air pollutants also include particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Generators PIADC currently has three 1,820 kW generators that can be used as emergency backup power. Permit -required stack testing was conducted in February and April 2011, and emissions were in compliance with permit requirements. Boilers PIADC currently uses three low -sulfur, fuel -oil -powered boilers to provide steam for heating and decontamination procedures. The facility routinely operates one boiler 8,760 hours per year, and the remaining two units each operate approximately 4,380 hours per year.34 The average rated emissions for these boilers are particulates, 0.23 lb/hr; carbon monoxide, 0.57 lb/hr; sulfur oxide, 8.10 Ib/hr; and volatile organics, 0.06 lb/hr. 33 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2011. Hurricane History. Washington, DC. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml 34 K. Klotzer, Environmental Specialist, PIADC, April 1, 2008. 3-17 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Incinerators July 13, 2012 • PIADC currently operates three 19.1 MMBtu/hr incinerators, fueled by No. 2 fuel oil. Current operational data (January 2010 through August 2011) indicate that the incineration process occurs on average 78 days per year, with an average burn time of 12 hours per day (approximately 950 hours per year). The average weight of incinerated carcasses and feed and bedding waste is approximately 205,000 pounds per year. Permit -required stack testing was conducted in February and April 2011, and emissions were in compliance with permit requirements. Orient Point Climate and Severe Weather The climate and severe weather of Orient Point are the same as those of Plum Island, New York, as they are separated by only 1.5 miles. Climate and weather for the area are discussed in the Plum Island section. Air Quality Mobile and stationary air emission sources currently operating at Orient Point consist of light- duty trucks and automobiles and building space heating and comfort cooling. There are no industrial operations that require air quality permitting by NYSDEC. There are no backup power generators at the Orient Point facility, although a potential backup generator has been proposed for the warehouse/garage. 3.4.3. Consequences Any impact to air quality around the PIADC and that of the surrounding area would be dependent on decisions made by a future landowner. The potential impacts to local and regional air quality resulting from the No Action and Action Alternatives are presented in the following sections. 3.4.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in the Property remaining in federal ownership with the facilities on the Property being decommissioned, existing transportation services terminated, and access to Plum Island limited to required maintenance and/or security activities only. Discontinuation of current activities and operations at the PIADC would likely result in an improvement in local and regional air quality. The No Action Alternative would have a positive impact on the non -attainment status of Suffolk County. • 3-18 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 0 Plum Island Stationary Sources Deactivation of the PIADC mission would likely result in the decommissioning and discontinued use of the existing NYSDEC permitted combustion sources at the facility. Air emissions from the existing wastewater treatment plant would also be eliminated. Mobile Sources Mobile sources associated with the operations at the Property would no longer be used under this alternative. Security and maintenance operations may utilize fewer gasoline -powered light vehicles or diesel -powered trucks. The two government-owned ferries, one originating from Orient Point, New York and one from Old Saybrook, Connecticut are used to transport more than 300 employees, contractors, automobiles and large trucks carrying construction materials and other goods to Plum Island, would no longer be required. These ferries are scheduled to make up to 10,400 trips annually between Plum Island and the two mainland ferry terminals. With decommissioning of the PIADC, nearly all facility associated ferry services would be discontinued. However, with continued maintenance and security activities at the Property, vehicle ferry service would still need to be maintained but at a much reduced schedule. Orient Point Stationary Sources Orient Point does not have any NYSDEC permitted air quality sources. The administration building, warehouse/garage, truck terminal, and guard booth are not a significant source of air pollutants. Deactivation of the PIADC mission on Plum Island would vacate these structures and reduce air emissions at Orient Point. Mobile Sources Air emissions resulting from automobiles and trucks traveling to and from Plum Island would be reduced with the decommissioning of the PIADC. Air emissions emanating from security and essential maintenance activities would still persist. Impact to local and regional air quality due to these mobile sources would be minimal as more than 300 current employees from PIADC would now be commuting to a new place of employment. Orient Point serves as one of the two ferry terminals servicing Plum Island. Deactivation of the PIADC mission on Plum Island would most likely result in the discontinuation of up to 3,200 ferry trips per year to and from Old Saybrook, Connecticut and significantly reduce the over 7,200 scheduled ferry trips per year to and from Orient Point, New York. 3-19 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 3.4.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property is 3.4.3.2.1 Reuse Option I — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Implementation of Reuse Option 1 could result in the existing facilities at Plum Island being utilized for scientific, commercial, or industrial purposes. Existing buildings, infrastructure, utilities and other development on Plum Island would be utilized and/or refurbished while undeveloped open space would remain relatively unchanged. These activities would result in short term combustion and fugitive dust emissions from construction equipment and activities. This option would not be anticipated to have an impact to the non -attainment status of Suffolk County as equipment and services emitting air pollutants would not significantly increase or decrease. Impacts would be negligible. However, the federal action would require a General Conformity Applicability analysis under Section 176(c)(4) under the CAA. Plum Island Stationary Sources Reuse Option 1 would likely include the continued use and operation of the existing air pollutant generating equipment at PIADC. It is assumed this would include the continued use of the existing NYSDEC permitted sources consisting of three 19.1 MMBtu/hr incinerators, three 1,820 kW emergency backup power generators, and three steam boilers. Each of these stationary sources would have to be re -permitted with the NYSDEC by the entity acquiring the specific piece of equipment before acquisition of the unit(s). Air emissions from the existing wastewater treatment plant would be expected to remain unchanged. This option should not result in an increase or decrease in air emissions and therefore should have a negligible impact on local or regional air quality. Mobile Sources The type and extent of mobile equipment used under Reuse Option 1 may be different than that used presently at the Property. Air emissions resulting from mobile sources should increase in both the short term and long as a result of initial construction and renovation activities and due to the additional use of personal, corporate and commercial automobiles and trucks that would now be allowed on Plum Island. The existing government ferry services between Plum Island and Orient Point, New York and Old Saybrook, Connecticut would be replaced by a commercial ferry service. The ferries would transport employees, contractors, automobiles and large trucks to and from Plum Island. The current ferry schedule runs from approximately 6:00 a.m. to midnight on weekdays with a reduced weekend and holiday schedule. It is assumed that the approximate current 10,400 trips annually between Plum Island and the two mainland terminals would remain unchanged. Is 3-20 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 ie Orient Point r Stationary Sources The administration building, warehouse/garage, truck terminal, and guard booth at Orient Point would be reused for similar purposes and remain an insignificant source of air pollutants. Adaptive reuse of the Orient Point structures would not have an impact on local or regional air quality. Mobile Sources Air emissions resulting from automobiles and trucks traveling to and from Plum Island would not change under Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure. Impact on regional air quality due to employee traffic would be negligible as the number of employees and truck traffic would be similar following completion of the structural renovations to the PIADC facility. Orient Point would continue to serve as one of the two ferry terminals servicing Plum Island. Adaptive reuse of the PIADC on Plum Island should not affect the approximately 3,200 ferry trips per year to and from Old Saybrook, Connecticut or the 7,200 scheduled ferry trips per year from Orient Point, New York. 3.4.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Under Reuse Option 2, the existing PIADC structures and facilities could be demolished and replaced by low-density residential housing. More than 300 PIADC employees would be replaced by people living in approximately 90 residential units. Most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals. The redevelopment of Plum Island under this option may have a beneficial impact to local or regional air quality with reduced air emissions. Plum Island Stationary Sources Under Reuse Option 2, existing PIADC buildings and structures to be demolished and the currently permitted fuel burning boilers, incinerators, and emergency generators would likely cease operation and be removed from service. Under this option, up to 90 residential units would utilize oil fired domestic heating which would represent the main source of air pollutants from stationary sources. However, as most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals, not much heating oil would be combusted annually. Residential heating units are exempt from permitting by NYSDEC and would burn less fuel oil than the currently permitted equipment. Air emissions from the existing wastewater treatment plant would likely remain unchanged. Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning should result in an overall decrease in air pollutant emissions from Plum Island stationary sources and a slight improvement in local and regional air quality. 3-21 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Mobile Sources July 13, 2012 The type and extent of mobile equipment used under Reuse Option 2 may be different than that used presently at the Property. Air emissions resulting from mobile sources would increase in the short term resulting from demolition and construction activities. Long-term air emissions are anticipated to remain the same as the limited residential and commercial vehicles would now replace the existing employee shuttle service. The existing 3,200 trips made by the government ferry service between Plum Island and Old Saybrook, Connecticut would be assumed to be discontinued. A commercial ferry would transport residential and commercial automobiles and trucks to and from Plum Island. It is anticipated that the approximate current 7,200 trips annually between Plum Island and the Orient Point terminal would remain unchanged but that the trip schedule may be modified based on seasonal peak occupancy. Reuse Option 2 should result in an overall decrease in air pollutant emissions from Plum Island stationary sources and a positive impact to the local and regional air quality. Orient Point Stationary Sources s The administration building, warehouse/garage, truck terminal, and guard booth at Orient Point would be zoned to match the current facility land use. Reuse Option 2 would have no effect on the current air pollutant emissions from Orient Point and no effect on local and regional air 41 quality. Mobile Sources Local air quality attributed to automobiles and trucks traveling to and from Plum Island may initially increase due to demolition and construction activities on Plum Island but should decrease in the long term. Impact on regional air quality should result in better air quality as a result of elimination of the Old Saybrook ferry service and the reduced automobile and truck traffic. Orient Point would continue to serve as the ferry terminal for the only service to Plum Island. Reuse Option 2 for Plum Island would not affect the approximately 7,200 scheduled ferry trips per year to Plum Island, but eliminate approximately 3,200 ferry trips per year from Old Saybrook, Connecticut. This option should result in an overall decrease in air pollutant emissions from Orient Point mobile sources and a positive impact to the local and regional air quality. 3.4.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Under Reuse Option 3, the existing PIADC structures and facilities could be demolished and replaced with high-density residential housing and commercial businesses. More than 300 PIADC employees would be replaced by people living in approximately 750 residential/holiday 3-22 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 10 units. Most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals. The redevelopment of Plum Island under this option may have no impact to local or regional air quality because of the reduction in stationary sources. This option would involve a slightly larger scope of construction and land development operations than those in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. Plum Island Stationary Sources Under Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning, existing buildings and structures would be demolished and the currently permitted boilers, incinerators, and emergency generators would cease operation and be removed from service. Under this option, up to 750 residential units would be built on Plum Island along with the required supporting infrastructure including roads, utilities and other services. These residential units would utilize oil fired domestic heating which would represent the main source of air pollutants from stationary sources. However, as most of these units would be expected to be second homes and rentals, not much heating oil would be combusted annually. Residential heating units are exempt from permitting by the NYDEP. Air emissions from the existing wastewater treatment plant should remain unchanged from current levels. This option should result in an overall decrease in stationary source air pollutants from Plum Island and a slight improvement in local and regional air quality. Is Mobile Sources The type and extent of mobile equipment used under Reuse Option 3 may be different than that used presently at the Property. Air emissions resulting from mobile sources would likely increase in the short term resulting from demolition, construction and renovation activities. Long term air emissions would be anticipated to increase as residential, tourist and commercial vehicles would replace the existing employee shuttle service. The existing government ferry service between Plum Island and Old Saybrook, Connecticut would likely be contracted with a commercial company, and ferry services would likely run more frequently during summer months with limited service during other seasons. The ferry service between Plum Island and Orient Point, New York would remain in place and also contracted to a commercial company. The ferry would transport residential and commercial automobiles and trucks to and from Plum Island. It is anticipated that the current 7,200 trips annually between Plum Island and the Orient Point terminal would likely increase. Reuse Option 3 would result in an overall increase in air emissions and a slight increase in local and regional air quality resulting from the additional vehicles making their way to and from Plum Island, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. The reduced stationary sources and increased mobile sources would likely offset one another. No overall impact would be expected. 3-23 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Orient Point Stationary Sources The administration building, warehouse/garage, truck terminal, and guard booth at Orient Point would be rezoned for continued use as a support facility, and for the development of approximately 20 high-density housing units. Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning would not contribute to air pollutants emanating from stationary sources. Mobile Sources Local air quality attributed to the increased number of automobiles, trucks and ferry services to and from Plum Island would most likely result as a minor impact to local and regional air quality. Orient Point would continue to serve as the main ferry terminal for services to Plum Island. A ferry service also currently runs between Orient Point and New London, Connecticut. It is assumed that this ferry service would also increase as a result of the increase tourist and residential traffic to Plum Island. Reuse Option 3 would result in increased automobile, truck and ferry services. 3.4.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Implementation of Reuse Option 4 would not adversely impact and could potentially improve air quality on Plum Island. ir Plum Island Stationary Sources Decommissioning of the PIADC facility would result in discontinued use of existing NYSDEC permitted sources. Air emissions from the existing wastewater treatment plant could also be eliminated if the plant were decommissioned. Mobile Sources Mobile sources associated with the operations at the Property would be significantly reduced once the facility is decommissioned. This would include discontinuing the use of 32 gasoline - powered light vehicles, 3 diesel -powered buses, 3 diesel -powered fire/rescue vehicles, 11 pieces of diesel -powered heavy equipment, and 3 propane -fueled forklifts. Some mobile sources would be expected to be introduced under Reuse Option 4 but would not be expected to exceed current source emissions. The two government-owned ferries running from Orient Point, New York and Old Saybrook, Connecticut would likely be terminated. With the implementation of conservation and preservation measures on Plum Island and the reduction in regularly scheduled ferry service, the air emissions associated with these ferry services would be significantly reduced. 3-24 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 An improvement in air quality would be expected at Plum Island under Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation. Orient Point Stationary Sources Deactivation of the PIADC mission on Plum Island would vacate existing structures but not improve the air quality at Orient Point. Mobile Sources Local and regional air quality would improve under Reuse Option 4 due to the elimination of air emissions from employee vehicles, agricultural trucks, and regularly scheduled ferry services associated with PIADC. Decommissioning of the PIADC facility would discontinue scheduled ferry trips from Orient Point, New York. 3.5. Nom 3.5.1. Methodology To describe the existing and future acoustic environments of each alternative, data were obtained from available noise studies, records, and information pertaining to noise producing sources, and supplemented by observations from site visits. These data were evaluated to assess potential audible effects from construction and operation of the proposed alternatives. Baseline noise levels and construction noise levels were determined by comparing proposed activities to standard noise levels obtained during literature review. Operational noise levels were determined relative to those currently experienced at PIADC. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: There would be no introduction of artificial noise from the alternative, or effects to soundscapes would be at or below the lower levels of detection. Minor: Introduction of artificial noise would occur at localized sites. The effect would be readily detectable, but would not adversely affect nearby populations. Moderate: A widespread introduction of noise would be readily detectable and would adversely affect nearby populations. Major: A long-term, widespread introduction of noise would occur that would adversely affect nearby populations and may be overly disruptive to noise -sensitive populations. 3.5.2. Affected Environment Plum Island PIADC is the primary source of man-made noises at Plum Island. Noise sources at the current research facility include light vehicle traffic, maintenance machinery, generators, wastewater 3-25 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 treatment, fuel oil transfer pumps, and the heating/cooling system. Additional noise sources 49 located adjacent to or near Plum Island include navigational beacons, maritime waterway traffic, and the daily ferry traffic to and from Plum Island. Plum Island has a helipad that is used approximately six times per year for brief periods, and helicopter noise would be noticeable during these times. A baseline noise -level survey has not been conducted; however, it is expected that the undeveloped portions of Plum Island would have noise levels typical of a rural environment, while the developed portions would have noise levels comparable to a typical suburban environment. There are no specific noise standards that would apply to the area; however, USEPA has identified the following levels as typical for various types of communities (Table 3.5-1).35 The values presented in the table are expressed as day night averages (Ldn) in A -weighted decibels (dBa), which express the sound's relative loudness in air as perceived by the human ear. Table 3.5-1: USEPA Standard Levels for Various Community Types Community Day Night Average Ldn — dBa Rural 35 to 50 Quiet Suburb 50 Normal Suburb 55 Urban Residential 60 Noisy Urban 65 Very Noisy Urban 70 For comparison purposes to the levels shown, Table 3.5-2 provides some typical values for common noise sources. Plum Island currently has no high -decibel noise sources with the exception of noise associated with the ferry docking facility, and there are no noise -sensitive receptors within close proximity of PIADC. The impacts of any potential changes in noise at Plum Island would, however, rest on the specific activities that would occur on Plum Island after the sale. Specific noise sources, such as the use of private helicopters, would be evaluated during the SEQR process and would require appropriate analysis and approval from local, state, and federal agencies. Orient Point At Orient Point, the Plum Island ferry facility is one of several marine -related facilities located along the Orient Point coastline. Noise sources at the ferry facility include light vehicle traffic, maintenance machinery, generators, the heating/cooling system, and ferry boat traffic. Additional noise sources located adjacent to or near the facility include traffic along Highway 25, the Cross Sound Ferry Service Terminal to the east, a private marina facility to the west, navigational beacons, maritime waterway traffic, and other daily ferry traffic. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would include several residences on the north side of Highway 35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report 550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C. 3-26 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 3.5-2: Common Decibel Readings for Common Noise Sources 25. Also, the Orient Point parcel is located near Orient Beach State Park, with the park entrance located several hundred feet west of the Orient Point parcel. 3.5.3. Consequences 3.5.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership Under the No Action Alternative, the PIADC mission would be deactivated. Therefore, the noise sources associated with the operation (light vehicle traffic, infrequent helipad use, maintenance machinery, generators, wastewater treatment, fuel oil transfer pumps, and the heating/cooling system) and their impact would be eliminated. This alternative would therefore reduce noise and have a beneficial impact at Plum Island and Orient Point. 3.5.3.2 Action Alternative —Sale of the Property 3.5.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1 —Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Under Reuse Option 1, existing facilities at Plum Island could be utilized for scientific, commercial or industrial purposes. Existing buildings, infrastructure, utilities, and other development on Plum Island would be utilized and/or refurbished by the new owner, while undeveloped open space would remain relatively unchanged. The PIADC facilities could be adapted with modifications to accommodate a new function with minimal or no expansion. By utilizing an adaptive reuse technique, it is expected that the impact to noise would be generally neutral in nature as significant modifi cations that would involve new noise sources would require 3-27 Chain Saw Diesel Locomotive at 50 Ft Heavy Truck at 50 R. Motorcycle Power Lawnmower Subway (including screech noise) Pleasure Motorboat Train Passenger Autornobile at 50 Ft Home Shop Tools 25. Also, the Orient Point parcel is located near Orient Beach State Park, with the park entrance located several hundred feet west of the Orient Point parcel. 3.5.3. Consequences 3.5.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership Under the No Action Alternative, the PIADC mission would be deactivated. Therefore, the noise sources associated with the operation (light vehicle traffic, infrequent helipad use, maintenance machinery, generators, wastewater treatment, fuel oil transfer pumps, and the heating/cooling system) and their impact would be eliminated. This alternative would therefore reduce noise and have a beneficial impact at Plum Island and Orient Point. 3.5.3.2 Action Alternative —Sale of the Property 3.5.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1 —Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Under Reuse Option 1, existing facilities at Plum Island could be utilized for scientific, commercial or industrial purposes. Existing buildings, infrastructure, utilities, and other development on Plum Island would be utilized and/or refurbished by the new owner, while undeveloped open space would remain relatively unchanged. The PIADC facilities could be adapted with modifications to accommodate a new function with minimal or no expansion. By utilizing an adaptive reuse technique, it is expected that the impact to noise would be generally neutral in nature as significant modifi cations that would involve new noise sources would require 3-27 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 significant modifications to infrastructure. Of course, the final impact would be contingent upon the type of noise sources involved in the adaptive reuse. If determined necessary, mitigation measures (abatement, ordinance, or other) could be utilize to reduce the potential impact from the noise; however, impacts would likely be negligible. 3.5.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Under Reuse Option 2, the area would be given low-density zoning, which would feature residential densities at less than one unit per 2 acres which could accommodate approximately 90 residential units, including the required support infrastructure (roads, utility easements, and other services). This option would result in noise associated with a typical suburban environment around 50 decibels (dB) (see Table 3.5-1). This would be primarily due to vehicle traffic which based on the number of residences would not be in high volume even during seasonal peak occupancy. Impacts would be minor. 3.5.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Under Reuse Option 3, Plum Island would be expected to be similar to a suburban environment in nature as with the low density zoning with typical noise near 50 dB, but slightly louder than conditions under Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning because of the increase in vehicle traffic and numbers of residences. Impacts would be more than Reuse Option 2, especially during seasonal peak occupancy, but would still be minor. 3.5.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Under Reuse Option 4, existing facilities on Plum Island may be removed; existing transportation services terminated or reduced; and access to Plum Island limited to interpretive/educational use, required maintenance, and/or security activities. Some active or passive public visitation or recreation facilities could be created using existing infrastructure, and general public access would be limited. Under this option, noise would be generally limited to the natural background conditions, and impacts would be positive. 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.6.1. Methodology Geology and soils data were obtained from multiple sources, including Open -file Reports from the USGS, the USGS Hydrogeologic Atlas, USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps, site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, and preliminary geotechnical reports. Soils and seismic information were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) and USGS, respectively. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Geology and soils would not be impacted, or the impacts would be below or at the lower levels of detection. Any impact on geology/soil characteristics rates would be slight and would return to normal shortly after project implementation activities. 3-28 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts on geology or soils would be detectable, but likely short- term. Impacts on geology/soil characteristics would be small. If mitigation were needed to offset adverse impacts, it would be relatively simple to implement and would likely be successful. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial impacts on geology/soil characteristics would be readily apparent and long-term, and result in a change to the geology/soil character over a relatively wide area. Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts on geology/soil characteristics would be readily apparent and long-term and would substantially change the character over a large area. Mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts would be needed and extensive. 3.6.2. Affected Environment The surficial geology of the Plum Island and Orient Point project area is the result of the Late Wisconsinan Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered approximately 5 million square miles, including all of New England, New York, Long Island (including Orient Point), and Plum Island .36 The geology of Orient Point is equivalent to and contiguous with that of Plum Island, representing the southwestern extension of the same end moraine glacial deposits (Figure 3.6-1). The glacial deposits that cap the project area are dominated by coarse sand and gravel that extend to several hundred feet below land surface (bls), although layers and lenses of clay may be locally present. • As the continental glacier melted and retreated northward, large pro -glacial lakes were created behind the Roanoke -Charlestown End Moraine. Present-day Long Island Sound was the location of former Lake Connecticut, a large pro -glacial lake. Bathymetry gradually deepens offshore to more than 100 meters in a depression in the straights between Plum Island and Orient Point in a feature referred to as "Plum Gut." Sand waves are present on a shoal north of Plum Island and in several smaller areas around the basin. Submerged recessional moraines have been identified by Uchupi et al.37 on the north side of Plum Island in Long Island Sound. Unconsolidated Cretaceous sedimentary units underlie the glacial deposits on Plum Island and Orient Point and rest on south -dipping Precambrian crystalline metamorphic rocks. Plum Island Topographic data indicate that Plum Island is slightly hilly, with surface topography falling toward the south-southwest. The geology of Plum Island consists of late Pleistocene unconsolidated glacial sediments that were laid down during previous continental glaciations. 36 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. Surficial geology of the sea floor in Long Island Sound offshore of Plum Island, New York. USGS Open -File Report 2010-1005. K.Y. McMullen, L.J. Poppe, W.W. Danforth, D.S. Blackwood, J.D. Schaer, A.J. Ostapenko, K.A. Glomb, and E.F. Doran. Woods Hole, MA: USGS, Coastal and Marine Geology Program. Norfolk, VA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH), Office of Coast Survey. Norfolk, VA: NOAA, Marine Operations Center—Atlantic. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 37 • Uchupi, E., N. Driscoll, R.D. Ballard, and S.T. Bolmer. 2001. Drainage of late Wisconsin glacial lakes and the morphology and late Quaternary stratigraphy of the New Jersey — southern New England continental shelf and slope. Marine Geology, vol. 172. 3-29 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Connecticut Fishers Island t LONG ISLAND SOUND ♦♦♦♦ PLUM GUT". ATLANTIC OCEAN alsr\Plum Island Parcels GARDINERS BAY 4fw3roQR)ate BRP 02711/41 C"-cx vDale JB 0.1111011 Gardiners Island, NY source Uchupl etal., 2001 Figure 3.6-1: Plum Island Geology — End Moraines 3-30 July 13, 2012 Rhode Island La Legend =Approximate Roanoke Point -Charlestown End Moraine Line ■ ■ Approximate Submerged End Moraine �Mles A Figure 3.6-1 Plum Island Geology - End Moraines Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Dominating the geology and resulting land relief of Plum Island are coarse -grain end moraine deposits that were left behind by a retreating glacier approximately 18,000 years ago. This end moraine line is referred to as the "Roanoke Point -Charlestown End Moraine Line" (Figure 3.6-1).38 The sedimentary units of Plum Island that underlie the unconsolidated glacial deposits are unconsolidated Cretaceous -age coastal plain sediments. From youngest to oldest, these sediments constitute the Monmouth Group, Magothy Formation, and Raritan Formation. These sediment groups comprise, from youngest to oldest, Monmouth greensand, which is a clayey, glauconitic unit similar in hydraulic character to the Raritan confining unit, and fine clayey sands, medium to coarse sand, and gravel." Surface soil types distributed on Plum Island are predominantly sands and sandy loams with occasional boulder and cobble zones (Figure 3.6-2). Dune sands are present in the southern/southwesternmost corner of Plum Island. A geomorphic feature representing beach dune strands and back lagoonal facies mucks is present in the south-central portion of Plum Island. This geomorphic feature is easily identifiable on aerial photography as an area of east - west -trending striations and elongate depressional interstitial muck -filled wetlands, and is typical of prograding beach strand -back dune -back -beach lagoon depositional environments. Farmland classification identifies soils as prime farmland, farmland of statewide or local importance, or unique farmland. These soils may be best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, or other crop production. The potential reuse options should not require review under the Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA) for potential impacts to farmland soils, because the Property would be transferred out of federal ownership, and future non-federal actions would not generally be regulated under the FPPA. Approximately 29 percent of the soils on Plum Island are categorized as prime farmland soils, and approximately 17 percent are categorized as farmland soils of statewide importance. Orient Point The historical geology of Orient Point is equivalent and contiguous with that of Plum Island. Essentially, the same geologic processes and glacial sediment deposition that resulted in the formation of Plum Island were also responsible for the creation of the subsurface strata underlying Orient Point and the eastern end of Long Island. Soils within the project area of Orient Point are characterized as unconsolidated dredge spoils. Soil types are referred by NRCS as "Fd — fill land, dredge material." None of the soils within the Orient Point parcels are categorized as prime farmland soils or statewide important farmland soils. 38 Ibid. 39 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. Ground water atlas of the United States, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont. HA 730-M. P.G. Olcott. 3-31 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York j0dent Polnt Parch l LONG ISLAND SOUND ReC Re8 Ha8 Re8 H&A - RPE HaC CpE ReBEs ReC RhB HaC PIC HaC CpE CPECpE Bye PIC BflA CpE BgB HaB PIC CpE BgBCpEBgB CUB Gp HaB RIC" PIC RdC HaB CpE HaA RdB B98 RdC RdC CpE RdA PICBgB W Mu CPE BgB BgA Fs HaA RdB Bd RdB F5 1,,/ HaB PsA Ra HaB BgB CUB BgB CUB lulu De Bd W Fd De Br De PLUM GUT Source Sods data from $oil Survey Georaphic (SSURGO) Database for Sullolk Courtly New York (http )rSoil Data 1P,t,par.d/D.t. BRP 02/11/11 Mart rues usda gov CheckedDate J802111111 July 13, 2012 ReC PIC CpE MfC PSA Ma PsB BgB PsARd6 RdB RdC CpE _- RdC ktc unn - ,. ,nn ue11c Bc ATLANTIC OCEAN HaA enI Polr Parcel 0 150 300 Feel Figure 3.6-2: Plum Island Soils �w Legend 0 Doo 1600 Feel Figure 3.6-2 Soils Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Seismic Hazard July 13, 2012 The relative seismic hazard was evaluated based on historical seismicity and USGS seismic hazard map coverage.40 The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project maps depict predicted peak (ground) acceleration from earthquakes in units of percent "g" (force of acceleration relative to that of the Earth's gravity) for a given probability of exceedance. For this analysis, the Property is considered to be within an area with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., an annual chance of occurrence of approximately 1 in 2,500). The USGS estimated return time for 4.75-, 5.0-, and 6.5 -magnitude earthquakes at a fixed distance of 31 miles exceeds 1,500 years for the Plum Island, New York, area.' Site geologic stability was evaluated based on seismic soil classes defined in the 2008 International Building Code (IBC). There are five seismic soil classes. Class A, which is a "hard rock" profile, is the "best" in terms of limiting ground motions on a structure. Class E soils are susceptible to liquefaction, where saturated "soft soil" ground can sometimes take on the characteristics of a fluid, resulting in the loss of strength, sudden settlement, or lateral movement. The western end of Long Island, including the Orient Point Parcel and Plum Island are comprised of unconsolidated and unlithified gravel and sand of glacial origin resting on crystalline rock that is several hundred feet below the surface. The Property is considered to have a seismic soil classification of D (soft to medium clays, sand, and gravel). 3.6.3. Consequences 41, To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the proposed reuse options, effects on geology and soils resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. The impact to geology and soils would be dependent on which potential reuse option is ultimately developed. The magnitude would vary depending upon the anticipated activities for a particular Action/No Action Alternative. 3.6.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not adversely impact or improve geological resources. Changes to geological resources associated with decommissioning of the PIADC may be beneficial. Plum Island No noticeable changes to geologic resources or soils would occur from implementing the No Action Alternative. 40 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Earthquake hazards program. Washington, DC. http://earthquake,usgs.govihazard,/products/conterminous/2008/maps/. 41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement 3-33 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Orient Point July 13, 2012 • No noticeable changes to geologic resources or soils in either a short-term or long-term sense for the facility at Orient Point would be expected by implementing the No Action Alternative for Plum Island. 3.6.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.6.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1— Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Implementation of Reuse Option I would not adversely impact or improve geological resources. Modifications to accommodate a new facility function would require no or minimal expansion to the existing structures on Plum Island and the Orient Point support facility. Existing buildings would remain in their current location and encompass their current extent; additional development would not be allowed to occur under this option. Existing buildings would be reused with interior renovations. Any modifications to existing buildings and or infrastructure and future activities conducted on Plum Island would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. Plum Island No short-term or long-term changes to geological resources would be expected from implementing Reuse Option 1. The current level and extent of development and activities on Plum Island would not significantly change. Construction activities and maintenance associated with Reuse Option 1 would not affect geological resources or soils on Plum Island and any accidental or incidental impacts would be negligible in a regional context. Orient Point The use for the ferry facility at Orient Point would essentially be unchanged. It is expected that the docking facilities would be reused for civilian and commercial use. Therefore, impacts to geological resources and soils would be unchanged. 3.6.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 —Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Plum Island No short-term or long-term changes to geological resources or soils would be expected from implementing Reuse Option 2. Low-density development areas are shown in Figure 2.3-1. The conversion of currently forested lands to residential areas could increase the potential for soil erosion. The shrink -swell capacity of the soils would not be expected to require any special foundation construction techniques. These adverse impacts are expected to be negligible. C7 3-34 CG 9 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Orient Point July 13, 2012 Implementation of Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning on Plum Island would not adversely impact or improve geological resources or soils at Orient Point. 3.6.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Plum Island Similar to Reuse Option 2, Reuse Option 3 would not be expected to impact to geological resources or soils on Plum Island. The conversion of currently forested lands to residential areas could increase the potential for soil erosion, and because the development density is higher, the potential for soil erosion is slightly more than Reuse Option 2, but still negligible. These adverse impacts are expected to be negligible. Orient Point Implementation of Reuse Option 3 on Plum Island would have no impacts to geological resources and negligible impacts to soils at Orient Point. Additional development at Orient Point could slightly increase the risk of soil erosion. These adverse impacts are expected to be negligible. 3.6.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Implementation of Reuse Option 4 would not adversely impact geological resources or soils. Conservation or preservation of Plum Island would eliminate or greatly reduce impacts from human activities. Plum Island No impacts to geologic resources or soils on Plum Island would be expected from Reuse Option 4. Orient Point No impacts to geologic resources or soils at Orient Point would be expected from Reuse Option 4. 3-35 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 3.7. WATER RESOURCES July 13, 2012 To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the potential reuse options, effects on water resources resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. Impacts to water resources from alternative implementation would vary depending upon the intensity and duration of anticipated activities included in the potential reuse options. In this section, intensity and duration of alternative activities and associated impacts to water resources are defined and evaluated. 3.7.1. Methodology Water resources at Plum Island were evaluated using existing data from local, state, and federal sources. Supplementary studies (e.g., NBAF EIS and Phase I Environmental Site Assessments) were assessed to enhance the understanding of the influences on water resources provided by existing data. Sources of data and the methodologies used to assess each of the water resources associated with the Property are described below. Surface waters associated with the Property were researched to determine whether they meet State -designated uses and standards. Pollutant -specific total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of the surrounding surface waters were identified along with surface water discharges generated on Plum Island. Surface waters on Plum Island are comprised of wetland areas, and are discussed in Section 3.8. Local zoning regulations impose restrictions on development, including requiring that new construction be built above base flood elevations. Floodplain databases from FEMA were consulted to determine potential flood zone locations, types, and potential effects on Plum Island .4' Local zoning regulations, specifically Chapter 111 ("Coastal Erosion Hazard Area") and Chapter 148 ("Flood Damage Prevention") of the Town, regulate development in flood zones delineated on FEMA FIRMs. Also, the New York State Coastal Atlas was consulted. In addition to delineating the state's Coastal Area Boundary, the New York State Coastal Atlas identifies Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. The state coastal policies for Long Island Sound are set forth in the "Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program" and the Town has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRP) to address its specific local issues and concerns within the coastal zone. The Town's LWRP is codified in Chapter 268 of the Town Code. The LWRP is incorporated into the NYS Coastal Management Program, which is established under the authority of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management. In an effort to complement the established authorities and policies set forth above, water resource impacts were evaluated based on anticipated changes (or lack of change) in impervious surface, 42 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood insurance rate maps (various panels), Suffolk County, New York. www.msc.fema.gov. 3-36 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 runoff characteristics, waste water treatment plant (WWTP) discharge, and landscape alterations of the two Action Alternatives and associated potential reuse options. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Impacts would not be detectable. For adverse impacts, water quality parameters would be well below all water quality standards for the designated use of the water. Both quality and quantity of flows would be within historical conditions. No measurable or perceptible changes in wetland size, integrity, or continuity would occur. Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be measurable, but water quality parameters would be well within all water quality standards for the designated use. Both quality and quantity of flows would be within the range of historical conditions. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial impacts on water quality would be readily apparent, but water quality parameters would be within all water quality standards for the designated use. Water quality or flows would be outside historical baseline on a limited time and space basis. For adverse impacts, mitigation would be necessary to offset adverse impacts. Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts on water quality would be readily measurable. For adverse impacts, some quality parameters would periodically be approached, equaled, or exceeded. Flows would be outside the range of historical conditions, and could include flow cessation or flooding. Extensive mitigation measures would be necessary. 40 3.7.2. Affected Environment Plum Island Surface Water Plum Island is surrounded by Long Island Sound, the receiving waters for treated stormwater and wastewater effluents from PIADC and the remaining areas of Plum Island. Plum Island contains no streams or rivers that discharge to Long Island Sound. Covering approximately 1,300 square miles, Long Island Sound is an estuary of the Atlantic Ocean that is supplied by nine drainage basins, encompassing 16,000 square miles in size, and includes most of the land area of Connecticut and portions of New York (including New York City), Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the Canadian province of Quebec. Stormwater Stormwater collection, conveyance, and management are limited on Plum Island. The need for stormwater controls on Plum Island are minimal because of the low, flat, coastal topography; the minimal cover of impervious surface; and the high permeability of soils, which consist of glacial deposits dominated by sand and gravel. There is less than 15 acres of impervious surface on Plum Island, including buildings and roads. Potential runoff from Plum Island is estimated to be 15 percent of annual precipitation,43 or the equivalent of approximately 420,000 gpd. This total 43 3 Entech. 2002. CERCLA program report for Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Volume I: Introductory materials and waste management area (WMA) findings. Suffolk County, NY. 3-37 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 volume is approximately 10 times greater than the daily discharge of the WWTP; however, concentrations of the various constituents, including biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and nitrogen, are generally less in surface runoff compared to WWTP discharge. The NBAF EIS documented early permits with the State of New York held by PIADC, recording as many as 20 individual outfalls discharging stormwater into Long Island Sound. No outfalls to internal areas of Plum Island were identified in the NBAF EIS. In early 2007, it was determined that most of these discharge points were no longer functional. NYSDEC granted a revised version of the PIADC SPDES permit (Permit No. NY0008117) for the seven operational stormwater discharge points. Seven additional stormwater conveyance systems, located in the East End, were also addressed in the 2007 review. These systems (Outfall Nos. 016 to 022) were likely installed by the U.S. Army, and are now considered inoperable, because they are now filled with soil and gravel from the deteriorating roadbed. The outfalls of these historical systems have not been located, but presumably empty into Long Island Sound. Groundwater The sand and gravel capping Plum Island are saturated with a freshwater lens rising from 4441 100 feet bls to near the surface. Subsurface soil borings conducted as a part of an Environmental Site Assessment in 2007 indicated groundwater levels ranging from 13.8 feet bls to 18.5 feet bls. Plum Island's soils are generally described as topsoil and fill consisting of brown sand and silt from 0 to 3.5 feet bls, subsoil consisting of medium to fine sand from 2 feet bls to 5 feet bls, and glacial outwash consisting of coarse to fine sand from 5 feet bls to 25 feet bls .46 The Plum Island aquifer is located in Segment 12 of the USGS Ground Water Atlas of the United States. However, Plum Gut separates the Plum Island freshwater aquifer from the rest of the Long Island surficial aquifer system. As such, the separation causes the recharge area from Plum Island aquifer to be limited to the surface of Plum Island. Plum Island and Eastern Long Island average 45 inches of precipitation per year, and this precipitation is the primary recharge source for the Plum Island freshwater aquifer. The aquifer is recharged by precipitation that infiltrates through the permeable soils of Plum Island. Potential recharge water loss due to runoff is estimated as 15 percent of the annual precipitation .4' As a surficial aquifer system, the groundwater of Plum Island is found in an unconfined aquifer that extends approximately 100 feet bls. This groundwater resource occurs in the sand and gravel of the Upper Pleistocene glacial deposits at a depth of 0 feet (surface 44 Crandell, H.C. 1962. Geology and groundwater resources of Plum Island, Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey 45 Water -Supply Paper 1539-X. 35 pp. Terracon. 2007. Phase I environmental site assessment — proposed National Bio- and Agro -Defense Facility, Plum Island, 46 Greenport Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Prepared for Perkins & Will. Atlanta. Ibid. 47 Entech, CERCLA program report. 3-38 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • expression in wetland areas) to 100 feet bls. A 2007 groundwater study 48 estimated a sustainable safe groundwater usage yield at 150,000 to 200,000 gpd. The surficial aquifer of Orient Point is connected to a larger surficial aquifer system that underlies Long Island. The major water yielding units of Eastern Long Island are the Cretaceous Magothy Formation and the Lloyd Sand Member of the Raritan Formation .4' Also, like Plum Island, shallow groundwater resources occur in the sands and gravels of the Upper Pleistocene glacial deposits laid down by outwash during glacial retreating events. There are 65 to 120 trillion gallons of water stored in the underground aquifers, according to the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). The majority of the 60 billion gallons of water per year served to customers in Suffolk County comes from the upper aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer .50 The recharge area for the aquifer consists of the entire Long Island area, and according to SCWA, the annual precipitation in Suffolk County alone is more than 400 billion gallons. The percentage loss of potential recharge water due to runoff is unknown. Floodplains Based on 2009 FEMA data, Plum Island is divided into three FEMA flood zone categories: Zone AE (i. e., 100 -year flood zone), Zone X (i. e., 500 -year flood zone), and Zone VE (i. e., coastal flood zone with velocity hazard). A map of special flood hazard areas is included as Figure 3.7-1. The southeastern portion of Plum Island contains a large area that is designated as Zone AE. Smaller areas in the north and northeast portions of Plum Island are also designated as Zone AE. Plum Island's flood areas also include a narrow perimeter that is designated as Zone • VE along the beachfront and the base of the bluffs. As mention previously, local zoning regulations of the Town regulate development within Special Flood Hazard Areas (i.e., Zone AE and Zone VE), and would require a permit from the Town. The remaining areas of Plum Island, including the PIADC facility, are designated as Zone X, and are considered to have minimal hazard potential within the 100 -year floodplain. Any structures within Zone X could be flooded by a severe and concentrated rainfall event coupled with inadequate stormwater conveyance and management. Coastal Zones Plum Island and Orient Point are located in the Long Island Region Coastal Area .5' New York's Long Island Sound coast encompasses 304 miles of shoreline in Westchester, Bronx, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties. The Long Island Sound coastal area extends from the 48 BMT Entech, Inc. 2007. After action report: Investigation and remedial actions at Area of Potential Concern (AOPC) 5 and 8. 49 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Contract No. 53-3K06-4-0300. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Ground water atlas of the United States. 50 Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). 2010. Suffolk County 2010 annual drinking water quality report. http://www.scwa.com/SCWA — AW QR. pdf. 51 That portion of New York State coastal waters and adjacent shorelands as defined in Article 42 of the Executive Law which is located within the boundaries of the Town of Southold, as shown on the coastal area map on file in the office of the Secretary of State and as delineated in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). In Southold this area is inclusive of the entire Town. (Town of Southold Code, Chapter 268-3) fG= Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York LONG ISLAND SOUND July 13, 2012 ATLANTIC OCEAN •., PareN Source FEMA DFIRM data - National Flood Hazard Layer. January. 2010, http:rrwww.msc Tema gov is Legend ., �Shorellne (FEMA) — - -Approximate Property Line Coastal Transect Line Coastal Barrier Resources System Areas 1%Annual Chance Floodplain Boundary r - Spacial Flood Hazard Areas Subject to Inundation by the 1% Annual Chance Flooding L1Potentral Development Parcels 0 we 1.606 Fee! Figure 3.7-1 Floodplains Figure 3.7-1: Plum Island Floodplains 3-40 0 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Connecticut border, near the Rhode Island border, to Orient Point and across the waters to include Fishers Island, New York. A map of the coastal zone surrounding Plum Island and Orient Point is included as Figure 3.7-2. The waters surrounding Plum Island are influenced by Plum Island's geologic past as a formed spine and sandy plane created by moraine deposits. A map (nautical chart) of Plum Island is included as Figure 3.7-3. Sandy plane remnants can be found to the south and southeast of the tip of Long Island. One shallow shelf 20 feet deep extends southeast approximately 3,000 feet off of the eastern portion of Plum Island before dropping to 30 to 50 feet in depth. The waters to the south and east of Orient Point, similar to the waters southeast of Plum Island, deepen more gradually, compared to the other area waters. The remaining waters around Plum Island, particularly those along Plum Gut, drop more sharply, to depths upward of 70 feet within 300 feet of the shore. Plum Gut, the mile -wide body of water that separates Plum Island from Orient Point, is a narrow, deep slough that reaches depths of nearly 200 feet on the eastern side of Plum Gut. Plum Gut sharply shallows from northeast to southwest because of the rocky outcrops that constitute the various shoals that are collectively known as "Oyster Ponds Reef" Deep pockets are present at both ends of Plum Gut, reaching depths of 330 feet off the northwest and 130 feet off the southeast end of Plum Gut. A similar feature, The Race, is located northeast of Plum Island, and is larger than Plum Gut. The section of The Race northeast of Plum Island is known as the "Sluice Way." Unlike Plum Gut, the Sluice Way reaches depths of only 50 feet, as shoals extend off the northeast tip of Plum Island between Plum Island and Great Gull Island, forming the Bedford Reef and rocky shoals, including Old Silas Rock and Middle Shoal Rock. Average tide ranges for the Plum Island and Orient Point areas are approximately 2.6 feet, with spring tide ranges extending to more than 3.1 feet. During the change of tides, the waters rushing in and out of Long Island Sound, to and from the Atlantic Ocean, can produce strong currents in Plum Gut. Because of the Venturi effect caused by the narrow waterway, currents often run as high as 4 to 5 knots. The shoals in Plum Gut, aside from being a danger to ships, can produce waves as high as 6 feet as tidal waters pass over shallow areas such as Middle Ground and Midway Shoal. As the major ocean surface currents in the region are deflected from the Long Island region by landmasses to the north and south, the predominant currents in the area are tidally driven. Waters to the north and south of Orient Point and Plum Island largely run northeast and southwest along the coasts of the land masses during ebb and flood, respectively. These currents have maximum flow rates of 2 to 3 knots along the north coast, and 1 to 2 knots along the south coast. The waters in Plum Gut largely run southeast and northwest between Orient Point and Plum Island during ebb and flood, respectively. As mentioned previously, these currents are stronger than the currents that run along the coast, and can have maximum flow rates that exceed 5 knots through Plum Gut during peak ebb or flow. Orient Point Surface Water Orient Point is the easternmost point on the North Fork of Long Island, and is bordered by Long Island Sound on three sides. Neither of the two Orient Point parcels have streams or rivers that discharge to the Sound. Based on USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, the larger parcel has a limited area designated as tidal wetland along the shore, while the entire area of the 3-41 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Figure 3.7-2: Plum Island Coastal Zones 3-42 n2 Source Coastal zones created by MACTEC. based on Ch. 275 setbacks July 13, 2012 6 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 14 - 1 153 186 J 75 , f 7b 144 / j 3� 68 ,mss' 35 35 43 132 133 139 148 / / {/B L Pitx 50 ,'t 39 148 138 102r 81 J" �3 13 25 G0 41 35 Q o0 i �r �68 ... M , Ea *•. 141 93 57 a �p ..:..o .. ?' ..•Fo0' srl4q.• 142 n . .,::...trl..._.. 18 270 134 61 33 211 e:. gs•,. 75 .r 21 29 187 SJ 186 / M 57 �, + . i . !i4 #.,:.'15 114 136 198 2a Plum World is U.S. Gov® r. a 29 �S " a x ' 1 18 26 29 113 1 �: / 292 Y 254 property and is dosed to itis p 1'c ?,)R, 2 • .t • 14 TAW 9 t 3 .. 6 11 14 "l 26 22b / f ( Fort Terry 7 12 �J 21 SY 133 183 J� :,, ... •,. �l,.i 1 r� i p ' Q 13 - Rh 07 323 191 11 1 .�'► ♦ 1 32 g 12 z t s 27 29 132 ! % f 73 +; %its `�' 'l 10 6. , ' 13 17 :*;' 21 29 281 279 192 / A � 3A /y/5 Q 8 i � 18 2C 30 3 187 \\,203 336 / RR4r \2. 7 113 R 124 i 1 / WU1033 -�9 8 {�Pk_wn 1 Rk -.+l N W ,' 34 127 -1� ( 124 O? /f i r... O • yA 20 24 35 y� 33 10 134 180- 185 Ata MIkyiddle 8 pi rP Priv ut Hbr Ic 1 22 ���' 37 3E 1 34 e 1104 teras (J <91 �/ Ground �,`Y Dole•� �" B'f34 4 W Or 110 111 90. 80 'RCA;r 76� 37 R i, 15` '�Y', a4 ' 35 �f 38 34 37 ' (see ojlf 4r/yE , + 67 oc Q _ 29. PIN alds3 M 69 h to Al 100 82 119 4 ' .. - ._ 49 rj8 7 rn Arn 66 33 44 X25+ 0Ci 190 13 3 _._._,� 52 _ — — rRy 73 74 tZ 53� 42 a•°�_s 94 96 S� 74 87 - > n d 14 r 22 GR"h& % 164 �l 78 93 63 :41 rrK ~ 53 ' M te' P e ORIENT � Fs (2+1) 083 188 rAY + 83 69 s k'n$a54t17M D"p I ,�'T 31 `` gQ 1 + r FR, AS 33 V 26 30 O�' F oQo `' 16 hB9/ _�_ 126 19 133 �, 1 O1 e" t P 16- 3 — �.NOAA Raster Navigational Chan 013209 23 44 ��40 "Block Island Sound and Gardiners Bay' '2' 12 39 — 125th edition, April 2007) obtained from ant F t8ft 15 43 50 1 38 56 7 hnp:?Av charts -noaa-gov Priv 40 — 6C _ ink o 11 25 35 S 56 G 45' �• \. Nkter Deplhs are in Feel F R ton 15 so -' B'3'���p GRN 58 M 58 57 _`51 B -1. \'k oil 25 32 41 49 \ r"14 q1 o IRM zsa A fl 7 ft rep99 ®Feel ,, 12 °� 144 a3 22 52 58 Figure 3.7.3 in M 58 Bathymetry 16 25 • G k E Figure 3.7-3: Plum Island Bathymetry 3-43 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 smaller parcel is designated as a marine intertidal wetland on the NWI map. No freshwater surface waters are located on the Orient Point parcels. The surface waters are not currently used as a water source. Stormwater The larger parcel on Orient Point that encompasses the ferry support facility and docks has two small stormwater control systems. One system services the parking area north of the boat basin and the area to the south of Building 1. The second system services the area to the west of the boat basin and the area surrounding Buildings 2 and 3. The stormwater conveyance systems consist of trench drains located in the areas surfaced with concrete and asphalt, which are connected with underground piping. Site sheet flow travels across the open areas of the developed potions of the site to the two drainage systems. The flow of each system is directed to an oil/water separator before being discharged to the boat basin in Long Island Sound. The small parcel, located at the tip of Orient Point, does not have a stormwater control system. Similar to Plum Island, the low coastal topography and the high permeability of soils reduce the need for a stormwater conveyance system. Groundwater Unlike the Plum Island aquifer, the surficial aquifer of Orient Point is connected to the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system, which underlies all of Long Island in Segment 12 of the USGS Ground Water Atlas of the United States. The major water yielding units are the Magothy Formation and the Lloyd Sand Member of the Raritan Formation.52 Like Plum Island, these groundwater resources occur in the sand and gravel of the Upper Pleistocene glacial deposits. The recharge area for the aquifer consists of the entire Long Island area; however, the recharge area for the onsite well is undefined. The percentage loss of recharge water due to runoff and streams in the county is unknown. Floodplains Based on 2009 FEMA data, Orient Point is divided into two FEMA flood zone categories: Zone AE (i.e., 100 -year flood zone) and Zone VE (i.e., coastal flood zone with velocity hazard). The larger of the two Orient Point parcels is predominantly designated as Zone AE, with a small strip of land designated as Zone VE along the shorefront. The entire smaller parcel at Orient Point is designated as Zone VE. As mention previously, local zoning regulations of the Town regulate development within Special Flood Hazard Areas (i.e., Zone AE and Zone VE), and would require a permit from the Town. Coastal Zones Coastal zones for the local region, including Orient Point, are addressed under the Plum Island coastal zones subsection within this section. 52 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Ground water atlas of the United States. 3-44 r Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 0 3.7.3. Consequences July 13, 2012 The respective federal action under the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of the Property pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA (16 USC § 1456). Under the Action Alternative, the conveyance will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program (LISRCMP). In addition, the impacts of the conveyance that affect the Connecticut coastal zone will be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (COMA). 3.7.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impacts on water resources. The Property would be decommissioned, and access to Plum Island would be limited to required maintenance and/or security activities. Minor improvements would potentially be seen in Long Island Sound due to the reduced discharge of WWTP effluent, concurrent with the reduced human activity on Plum Island. Plum Island Surface Water The decommissioning of Plum Island facilities would reduce the volume of waste water discharged to Long Island Sound. Based on available data, the WWTP discharges 1.4 pounds per day (lb/day) of BOD and 2.2 lb/day of TSS at a flow rate of approximately 46,000 gpd. Assuming that current activities are halted and human access is limited to only the required maintenance and/or security activities, WWTP operation would likely be reduced by at least 50 percent, thus reducing the daily loads of BOD and TSS to less than 0.7 and 1.1 pounds, respectively. The reduction of WWTP discharge would likely represent minor improvements in Long Island Sound surface water quality, which would assist in the implementation of the TMDLs applied to the Sound. Impacts to freshwater habitats on Plum Island are currently avoided to best extent practicable, and no future development within these environments is proposed under the No Action Alternative. Reduced ferry services to and from Plum Island may provide benefits to the waters of Long Island Sound as a result of reduced boat traffic through localized decreases in turbidity and other pollutants associated with boat traffic. However, these benefits would likely be negligible due to the relative scale of existing water resources and boat traffic in Long Island Sound compared with the surface water resources currently affected by the ferry services supporting PIADC. Stormwater The decommissioning of Plum Island facilities would potentially reduce the amount of impervious cover on Plum Island, which would continue to lessen over time as the remaining impervious cover deteriorates. Reduced impervious surface would reduce the amount of stormwater discharging to Long Island Sound. Stormwater often carries with it a significant IS amount of organic matter, which when discharged represents a source of BOD and nitrogen to the receiving water. Because Long Island Sound is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO), a 3-45 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 reduction in stormwater runoff would represent a minor improvement in DO and nitrogen 40 concentrations within the Sound. Stormwater runoff generated annually is equivalent to approximately 420,000 gpd. A reduction of impervious surface, however minimal, would allow for a reduction in the total volume of runoff generated and would increase the potential for physical and biological attenuation of constituents within the runoff, including BOD and nitrogen. Groundwater The decommissioning of Plum Island facilities would reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the Plum Island Aquifer. However, improvements to groundwater resources would be negligible as the current usage of groundwater remains within the sustainable yield of 150,000 to 200,000 gpd for the aquifer. Floodplains The decommissioning of Plum Island could have an improvement on floodplains. The removal of structures currently existing within the floodplains, should that occur, would allow areas to return to their natural state that are currently developed. However, these benefits would likely be negligible due to the relative scale of the existing developed areas compared with the undeveloped floodplain resources on Plum Island. Coastal Zones The No Action Alternative, including the decommissioning of Plum Island, would require a Is consistency determination or possibly a negative determination under the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA (a negative determination is a determination by a federal agency that a proposed activity will not have any coastal effects). Orient Point Surface Water Surface water resources could potentially benefit from implementation of the No Action Alternative based on a reduction in boat traffic from reduced ferry service to Plum Island. However, these benefits would likely be negligible based on the presence of a private marina and public ferry service adjacent to the Orient Point support facility. In addition, treated waste water is not currently discharged to Long Island Sound at the Orient Point facilities. The decommissioning of the support facilities at Orient Point would not significantly improve surface water resources at the Orient Point support facilities. Stormwater The decommissioning of Orient Point facilities would reduce the amount of impervious cover at the Orient Point, which would lessen over time as the remaining cover deteriorates. Stormwater runoff improvement would be negligible, as the current stormwater system appropriately collects and conveys water to an oil/water separator before it is discharged to Long Island Sound. is 3-46 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • Groundwater July 13, 2012 The decommissioning of the support facilities at Orient Point would reduce groundwater usage for potable water, but would not significantly improve the groundwater resources of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System compared with the 60 billion gallons of water per year served to customers in Suffolk County. Floodplains Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not adversely impact or significantly improve floodplain resources. The floodplains of Orient Point would remain unchanged from their current condition, and would not significantly change with the decommissioning of the support facilities. Coastal Zones The No Action Alternative, including the decommissioning of Plum Island, would likely require a negative determination under the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. 3.7.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.7.3.2.1 Reuse Option I — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure . Implementation of Reuse Option 1 would have a negligible impact on water resources. Modifications to accommodate a new function would likely require no or minimal expansion or change to the existing structures. In addition, activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding water resource protection. Plum Island Surface Water Reuse Option 1 would not adversely impact surface water resources; WWTP discharges to Long Island Sound would not significantly differ from the current levels produced by the operation of the PIADC facilities. Discharges from the existing waste water treatment plant would continue to be regulated under the NYSDEC SPDES program, and the current operating permit. Impacts to freshwater habitats on Plum Island are currently avoided to best extent practicable, and no future development within these environments is proposed under this option. The ferry services to and from Plum Island would be maintained to provide access to Plum Island, with no significant changes in boat traffic volume. No significant short-term or long-term changes to surface water resources would be expected from implementation of this option. Stormwater Reuse Option 1 would not adversely impact stormwater runoff. The amount of impervious cover, and current stormwater volume, would not be significantly changed with the redevelopment and reuse of existing structures, as they would remain in their current location • and encompass their current extent. 3-47 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Groundwater July 13, 2012 Under Reuse Option 1, groundwater resources would not be adversely impacted, as usage would not significantly change from current withdrawals, which are within the sustainable yield for the Plum Island Aquifer of 150,000 to 200,000 gpd. Floodplain Reuse Option 1 would not adversely impact the floodplains of Plum Island. Reuse would be limited to the current facilities locations, would not include development that could adversely impact floodplains, and would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding floodplain protection. Coastal Zones Conveyance for adaptive reuse of Plum Island will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of the Property pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. In addition, the impacts of the conveyance that affect the Connecticut coastal zone will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of the CCMA. Orient Point Surface Water No significant short -teen or long-term changes to surface water resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure. No change in the current level and extent of development and activities at the Orient Point support facilities would be expected. Stormwater No significant short-term or long-term changes to stormwater resources would be expected from implementation of this option. Stormwater runoff would not be adversely impacted, as the nature of the facilities at Orient Point would not change in capacity or extent. Groundwater No significant short-term or long-term changes to groundwater resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 1. Withdrawals would not significantly change with the reuse of the support facilities at Orient Point, as their current function or extent would remain. Floodplain • • No significant short-term or long-term changes to floodplains would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 1. The facilities at Orient Point would not change from their current function or extent. is 3-48 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Coastal Zones 3.7.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Conveyance for adaptive reuse of Orient Point will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of Orient Point pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 2 would have minor to moderate impacts to water resources as compared with the No Action Alternative, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. Low-density development in areas shown in Figure 2.3-1 would impact water resources; however, impacts to water resources and receiving waters could be avoided and or mitigated through development restrictions imposed by existing local, state, and federal regulations. Plum Island Surface Water The redevelopment of Plum Island under the Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning could increase the amount of waste water discharged to Long Island Sound. Overall impacts would be minor to moderate as the development of a maximum of 90 residential units would be supported • by the existing waste water treatment plant and discharges would be regulated under the existing NYSDEC SPDES program permit. If average daily discharge were to increase relative to existing conditions, there would be minor adverse impacts to Long Island Sound, as WWTP effluent, although regulated, still represents a source of BOD, nutrients, and pathogens. If full low-density residential development were to cause the current WWTP to operate near its 80,000- gpd capacity, and treatment performance were to remain similar to existing, daily loading of BOD and TSS would increase to approximately 2.8 and 4.4 pounds, respectively. Nitrogen loading would also increase, contributing to the impairment of Long Island Sound. Although this is would be a significant increase relative to existing discharge, it does not represent a significant increase in the total daily loading to Long Island Sound. A new or modified permit would be required to operate the WWTP at capacities exceeding its currently permitted capacity. The Potential Development Parcels avoid development in freshwater resource areas including ponds and wetlands and their regulatory buffers, and would not be expected to directly impact these water resources. The Potential Development Parcels do overlap existing upland forest. Because upland forests provide a degree of natural filtration and storage capacity, development of upland forest areas could increase water flow to downstream receiving waters, including wetlands and ponds located on Plum Island. Because the assimilation capacity of these downstream surface waters is not known, impacts cannot be directly assessed, although potential for surface water degradation could be minor. Long Island Sound would not be significantly impacted because Reuse Option 2 would not significantly change activities, such as ferry traffic, that could potentially affect surface water resources. 3-49 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Stormwater July 13, 2012 The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 2 would increase the amount of impervious cover and runoff. There is less than 15 acres of impervious surface on Plum Island. Assuming full, low-density (2 -acre lot size) development of the 195 acres deemed suitable for development (Figure 2.3-1), the total amount of impervious surface would increase to approximately 25 acres .5' This would result in the total impervious surface cover of Plum Island increasing from 1.5 percent to 3 percent. Increased loading to Long Island Sound would be the result of a slight increase in runoff generated and a slight decrease in the ability of the remaining pervious surface to attenuate, physically and biologically, the various constituents within the runoff, including BOD and nitrogen. Stormwater could be impacted short-term during construction and development, but would be avoided and or mitigated through temporary runoff/erosion controls and BMPs imposed by existing local, state, and federal regulations. The long-term impacts would be minor to moderate, as residential development brings with it an increased probability of contaminated runoff through the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and landscape alterations. Also, any development of existing upland forests would represent a decrease in rain and runoff assimilation capacity, thus increasing the magnitude of stormwater impact relative to the No Action Alternative. Increased contaminant loadings to downstream water bodies would be addressed through the development of permanent stormwater controls on Plum Island that would be subject to federal, state, and local stormwater regulations. If implemented properly, stormwater controls would help decrease the contaminant loadings to Long Island Sound. Groundwater Under Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, groundwater usage would decrease; water usage under the option would remain within the 150,000 to 200,000 gpd sustainable yield of the Plum Island Aquifer. Assuming the U.S Census Bureau statistic of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit with 90 dwelling units would equate to 233 persons potentially living on Plum Island during the peak vacation season, which would be less than the current population of 300. Considering the factor of 100 gallons per day of drinking water use per person, this would result in pumping of 23,300 gallons per day. Impacts to groundwater resources would be negligible. Floodplains Reuse Option 2 would not adversely impact the floodplains of Plum Island. The Potential Development Parcels avoid development in floodplains, and are limited to the lands with minimal known restrictions (Figure 2.3-1). Coastal Zones Conveyance for adaptive reuse of Plum Island will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of the Property pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent is 53 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds, second edition. Technical Release 55. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division. 40 3-50 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. In addition, the impacts of the conveyance that affect the Connecticut coastal zone will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of the CCMA. Orient Point Surface Water No significant short-term or long-term changes to surface water resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 2. The rezoning of the Plum Island support facilities at Orient Point would not adversely impact surface water resources because the facilities would not change from their current function or extent. Stormwater No significant short-term or long-term changes to stormwater resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. Stormwater runoff would not be adversely impacted, as the nature of the facilities at Orient Point would not change in capacity or extent. Groundwater No significant short-term or long-term changes to groundwater resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. Withdrawals would not Is significantly change with the reuse of the support facilities at Orient Point, as their current function or extent would remain. Floodplains No significant short-term or long-term changes to floodplains would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 2. The facilities at Orient Point would not change from their current function or extent. Coastal Zones No significant short-term or long-term changes to the coastal zone would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 2; however, the conveyance out of federal ownership will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of Orient Point pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. 3.7.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 would have moderate impacts on water resources, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. High-density development in areas • shown in Figure 2.3-1 could impact terrestrial resources; however, impacts to water resources 3-51 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 could be avoided and or mitigated through development restrictions imposed by applicable local, i state, and federal regulations. This option would involve a slightly larger scope of construction and land development operations than those in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. Negligible indirect impacts could be expected as a result of new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support high-density zoning as additional runoff could be generated from these facilities. Also, additional boating use as a result of development could increase the potential for water quality impacts. Plum Island Surface Water The redevelopment of Plum Island under the Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning would increase the amount of waste water discharged to Long Island Sound. Overall impacts would be moderate because the development of up to 750 residential units would need to be accompanied by either an upgrade of the existing WWTP or a larger capacity WWTP. Assuming similar treatment performance to the current WWTP, an increase in total capacity would increase the total loading of BOD and associated nutrients to Long Island Sound. Following the estimation of the increase in total BOD and TSS loading resulting from the low-density development of 90 residential units in Section 3.7.3.2.2, high-density development of 750 residential units would result in an approximately eightfold increase in loading from Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, or a total of 22.4 lb/day of BOD and 35.2 lb/day of TSS discharged to Long Island Sound. Although this represents a small impact relative to the total daily loading of Long Island Sound, it will increase the DO impairment of the Sound and cause pronounced local reductions in DO near the WWTP discharge. The Potential Development Parcels avoid the development in freshwater resource areas including ponds and wetlands and their regulatory buffers, and would not be expected to directly impact these surface water resources. The Potential Development Parcels do overlap existing upland forest. Because upland forests provide a degree of natural filtration and storage capacity, development of upland forest areas could increase water flow to downstream receiving waters, including wetlands and ponds located on Plum Island. Because the assimilation capacity of these downstream surface waters is not known, impacts cannot be directly assessed, although potential for surface water degradation could be minor to moderate. Long Island sound surface waters would not be expected to be impacted because Reuse Option 3 would not significantly change activities, such as ferry traffic, that affect surface water resources. Stormwater The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 could increase the amount of impervious cover and runoff. There is less than 15 acres of impervious surface on Plum Island. Assuming full, high-density (0.25 -acre lot size) development of the 195 acres deemed suitable for development (Figure 2.3-1), the total amount of impervious surface would increase to approximately 74 acres .54 This results in the total impervious surface cover of Plum Island S4 •U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. 3-52 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • increasing from 1.5 percent to 9 percent. The combination of the significant increase in impervious surface cover and concurrent decrease in the amount of pervious surface available to attenuate, physically and biologically, the various constituents within the runoff, including BOD and nitrogen, will result in a significant increase in the volume of runoff generated compared to existing conditions. However, concentrations of the various constituents (BOD and nitrogen) within the stormwater will still be less than those in the WWTP effluent. Stormwater could be impacted short-term during construction and development, but would be avoided and or mitigated through temporary runoff/erosion controls and BMPs imposed by existing local, state, and federal regulations. The long-term impacts would be minor to moderate, as residential and commercial development brings with it a high probability of contaminated runoff through the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and landscape alterations. Also, any development of existing upland forests would represent a decrease in rain and runoff assimilation capacity, thus increasing the magnitude of stormwater impact relative to the No Action Alternative. Increased contaminant loadings to downstream water bodies would be addressed through the development of permanent stormwater controls on Plum Island that would be subject to federal, state, and local stormwater regulations. If implemented properly, stormwater controls would help decrease the contaminant loadings to Long Island Sound. However, depending upon the degree of development and the available land for stormwater treatment, the probability of discharging poorly treated stormwater to Long Island Sound, especially during periods of heavy rainfall, increases with the amount of impervious surface and associated runoff. • Groundwater Implementation of Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning on Plum Island could result in minor to moderate impacts to fresh groundwater resources (i.e., drinking water) on Plum Island. Increases in impervious surface areas could result in increased runoff and less recharge to the shallow fresh water table. Assuming the U.S Census Bureau statistic of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit with 750 dwelling units would equate to 1,943 persons potentially living on Plum Island during the peak vacation season, which would be 6.5 times the current population of 300. Considering the factor of 100 gallons per day of drinking water use per person, this would likely result in pumping of 194,000 gallons per day, approaching the upper range of the sustainable capacity of the aquifer. Previous studies" have determined that the maximum sustainable pumping from the fresh groundwater lens is 150,000 to 200,000 gpd. Additional studies could be required to ensure that the groundwater resources are able to support this level of development, and water conservation measures may be required to maintain an adequate water supply. Additionally, recharge to the aquifer could be reduced from increases in impervious surface area and resulting runoff of stormwater and reduced fresh water recharge to the aquifer. Mitigation, including the utilization of U.S. Green Building Council LEED certified building practices, such as permeable pavement for roads, parking lots, driveways and underground 055 BMT Entech, Inc., After action report. 3-53 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 stormwater management practices, could be implemented to maintain aquifer recharge capability • under Reuse Option 3. Floodplains Reuse Option 3 would not adversely impact the floodplains of Plum Island. The Potential Development Parcels avoid development in floodplains, and are limited to the lands with minimal known restrictions (Figure 2.3-1). Coastal Zones Conveyance for high-density redevelopment of Plum Island will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of the Property pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. In addition, the impacts of the conveyance that affect the Connecticut coastal zone will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the policies of the CCMA. Orient Point Surface Water No significant short-term or long-term changes to surface water resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning. The rezoning and redevelopment of the Plum Island support facilities at Orient Point would require water and sewer infrastructure upgrades to accommodate residential units, but development would subject to federal, state, and local water quality standards. Stormwater The rezoning and redevelopment of the Plum Island support facilities at Orient Point could increase impervious cover and runoff. Stormwater could be impacted short-term during construction and development, but would be avoided and or mitigated through temporary runoff/erosion controls and BMPs imposed by existing local, state, and federal regulations. The long-term impacts would be negligible, as the development of permanent stormwater controls would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local stormwater regulations. Groundwater Under Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning, groundwater usage for potable water would increase and would require upgrading of the current infrastructure. However, development would not significantly impact the groundwater resources of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System compared with the 60 billion gallons of water per year served to customers in Suffolk County. L-1 3-54 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York is Floodplains July 13, 2012 Reuse Option 3 would not adversely impact the floodplains at Orient Point. Development under this option, as contemplated for the purposes of this EIS, would be limited to the lands with minimal known restrictions (Figure 2.3-1), and would not include development that would adversely impact floodplains. Coastal Zones No significant short-term or long-term changes to the coastal zone would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 3; however, the conveyance out of federal ownership will be analyzed for its reasonably foreseeable effect on the water use and natural resources of Orient Point pursuant to the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. This action will be analyzed for consistency, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the LWRP and the LISRCMP. 3.7.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Implementation of Reuse Option 4 would not adversely impact and could potentially improve upon water resources on Plum Island. Conserving Plum Island, through conversion to a wildlife conservation or preservation area for example, could reduce and or eliminate impacts to water resources from human activities. . Plum Island Surface Water Benefits of a minor nature to freshwater and marine surfaces waters may be associated with Reuse Option 4. Reduction of ferry services and resulting reduction in boat traffic could provide benefits to marine resources through localized decreases in turbidity and other pollutants associated with boat traffic. Improvements would be minimal based on the relative scale of existing marine resources and boat traffic in Long Island Sound compared with the surface water resources currently affected by the ferry services supporting PIADC. This option would also reduce or eliminate waste water discharges to Long Island Sound. This would represent a minor improvement to water quality within the Sound because current WWTP discharge contributes 1.4 lb/day and 2.2 lb/day of BOD and TSS, respectively, along with an unknown quantity of nitrogen. Existing wetlands and inland surface waters would also benefit from reduced stormwater runoff and reduced habitat fragmentation. Establishing natural connections between wetlands and their associated uplands eliminates direct stormwater and pollutant loadings generated from impervious surfaces and allows wetlands and ponds to develop a more natural hydrologic and nutrient cycle, providing increased habitat to wildlife and improvements in quality of runoff and groundwater recharge. Stormwater Reuse Option 4 could reduce the amount of impervious cover on Plum Island, which would continue to lessen over time as the remaining cover deteriorates. Stormwater runoff improvement would be minor, as current stormwater generation represents minor loadings of organic matter to 3-55 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Long Island Sound, which causes further impairment of DO and nitrogen concentrations. • Decreasing the amount of impervious surface and increasing the amount of natural habitat, including upland, wetland and open water, will both reduce the amount of runoff generated and improve the quality of any remaining runoff generated through natural physical and biological filtration mechanisms. Groundwater Reuse Option 4 would reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the Plum Island aquifer. However, improvements to groundwater resources would be negligible, as the current usage of groundwater remains within the 150,000 to 200,000 gpd sustainable yield of the Plum Island Aquifer. Floodplains Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation could have an improvement on floodplains. The removal of structures currently existing within the floodplains would allow areas to return to their natural state that are currently developed. However, these benefits would likely be marginal to negligible due to the relative scale of the existing developed areas compared with the undeveloped floodplain resources on Plum Island. Coastal Zones Reuse Option 4 would likely require a consistency determination or possibly a negative determination under the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. 0 Orient Point Surface Water Freshwater resources do not exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore no impacts would be expected under Reuse Option 4. Minor changes in marine surface waters may be associated with this option. As with Plum Island, the decommissioning or reduction of the ferry services and Plum Island terminal could increase the water quality; however, improvements would be likely be minimal based on the relative scale of resources, and the continuation of marina activities and public ferry services adjacent to the Orient Point parcel. Stormwater Reuse Option 4 would reduce the amount of impervious cover at the Orient Point through facility decommissioning, which would continue to lessen over time as remaining cover deteriorates. Stormwater runoff improvement would be negligible, as the current stormwater system appropriately collects and conveys water to an oil/water separator before being discharged to Long Island Sound. 3-56 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • Groundwater July 13, 2012 The decommissioning of the support facilities at Orient Point would reduce groundwater usage for potable water, but would not significantly improve the groundwater resources of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System compared with the 60 billion gallons of water per year served to customers in Suffolk County. Floodplains Implementation of Reuse Option 4 would not adversely impact or significantly improve floodplain resources. The floodplains of Orient Point would remain unchanged from their current condition, and would not significantly change with the decommissioning of the support facilities. Coastal Zones Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation would likely require a consistency determination or possibly a negative determination under the Federal Consistency provisions of the CZMA. 3.8. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.8.1. Methodology The ecological context of the Property was established by characterizing the natural vegetation • of the region based on review of regional natural community guides and other pertinent literature from the New York National Heritage Program.56 Site-specific plant community descriptions are based primarily on observations made during a two-day habitat survey of the Property conducted on September 13 and 14, 2010, and visits to the Property conducted in support of the Environmental Gap Analysis Report.57 In addition, known occurrences of rare or significant natural communities near the Property were identified through review of state Natural Heritage Program data. Vegetation effects were assessed based on the type and quality of the affected communities and the extent of impacts. Plant community composition and quality were used to predict wildlife use of on-site habitats. Additional resources that were used to evaluate wildlife resources included state Gap Analysis Program (GAP) documents and distribution maps,58 state wildlife action plans, species lists from adjacent nature preserves, and other relevant literature resources. Effects on wildlife were then evaluated based on the quality and rarity of the affected habitat and the extent of impacts. 56 New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2007. Natural heritage report on rare species and ecological communities. Submitted to BMT Entech for potential upgrades at Plum Island Animal Disease Center. 57 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2010. Environmental data gap analysis report, Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Prepared for General Services Administration. 58 Smith, C.R., S.D. DeGloria, M.E. Richmond, S.K. Gregory, M. Laba, S.D. Smith, J.L. Braden, E.H. Fegraus, E.A. Hill, D.E. Ogurcak, and J.T. Weber. 2001. The New York gap analysis project final report. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 3-57 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Federally listed species are protected under the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S. Code [USC] . 1531-1543), which requires federal agencies to ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the "continued existence" of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat designated as critical to their existence. Site-specific plant community descriptions were used to evaluate the potential for on-site occurrences of state and federally listed threatened and endangered species. Additional resources that were used to evaluate potential occurrences of threatened and endangered species included review of state Natural Heritage Program databases, review of USFWS and Natural Heritage Program county species lists, and direct correspondence with the USFWS and state Natural Heritage Programs." Copies of the coordination letters and responses received are included in Appendix C. In addition, information on avian species using the site was obtained from the North Fork Audubon Society. Effects were evaluated based on known occurrences of listed species and the presence of potential habitat at the sites. Site visits by qualified professionals and analysis of NWI, county soil survey maps, and NYSDEC mapped and regulated wetlands were used to evaluate potential on-site occurrences of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands. The wetlands mapped by the NYSDEC also include "wetland check zones," areas that have been delineated by the state that would require an on-site survey for wetlands and site-specific wetland delineation. In addition, a wetland delineation was conducted on a small portion of the Property in support of the NBAF-EIS,60 and a site-specific vernal pool survey was undertaken as a part of this EIS, the results of which are presented below." The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Individual plants may occasionally be impacted, but measurable or perceptible changes in vegetation community size, integrity, or continuity would not occur. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and their habitats would not be impacted, or the impacts would be at or below the level of detection and would not be measurable or of perceptible consequence to wildlife populations. Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife would be measurable or perceptible, but would be localized within a small area. For adverse impacts, the viability of the vegetation community and wildlife populations would not be impacted and the community, if left alone, would recover. Moderate: For adverse and beneficial impacts, a change would occur to the native vegetation community or wildlife populations over a relatively large area that would be readily measurable in terms of abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality. Mitigation measures to offset/minimize adverse impacts would be necessary. 1] 59 New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2010. Response letter providing results of NYNHP review of Natural Heritage Database, August 12, 2010. 60 Lang, B. 2007. Plum Island, Suffolk County, New York — freshwater and saltwater wetland delineation, p.22. Prepared for JGI Eastern, Inc., Rocky Hill, CT. B. Laing Associates. 61 •MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), Environmental data gap analysis report. 3-58 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts on vegetation communities or wildlife populations would be readily apparent and would substantially change vegetative community types over a large area, inside and outside the development area. Extensive mitigation would be necessary to offset adverse impacts. 3.8.2. Affected Environment Plum Island and Orient Point are located in the Coastal Lowland Ecozone of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province.62 Characteristic natural communities of the Coastal Lowland Ecozone include marine intertidal gravel/sand beach and marine rocky intertidal, maritime beach, maritime dune, maritime shrubland, maritime forest, coastal plain pond, coastal hardwood forests, and freshwater wetlands. Figure 3.8-1 shows the general vegetative land cover on Plum Island. Beach/dune systems comprise approximately 101 acres, upland forests that have been subject to significant historical disturbance comprise approximately 241 acres, upland forests that have remained relatively undisturbed comprise approximately 196 acres, freshwater wetlands comprise approximately 96 acres, and developed and/or maintained areas comprise approximately 170 acres. Natural communities on Plum Island have been heavily impacted by human activities. These included livestock grazing, establishment of a coastal artillery fort (i.e., Fort Terry 1879 - 1948), historical artillery batteries, and development of PIADC, including numerous structures, trenches, borrow pits, utility corridors, and other mowed or disturbed areas across Plum Island. Natural vegetation on Plum Island is influenced by maritime processes that include high winds, Is salt spray, overwash, and dune formation and shifting. Plum Island contains characteristic maritime communities that include beach, dune, and maritime shrub/forest. Additional communities include an extensive complex of freshwater herbaceous/shrub wetland communities on the southwestern portion of Plum Island, and coastal hardwood forests on elevated moraine deposits that are protected from ocean salt spray and overwash. The back side of Plum Island on Long Island Sound is actively eroding, resulting in vertical bluffs that are adjoined by unvegetated beaches consisting of sand and glacial till (gravel, cobble, and boulder). Consequently, Plum Island lacks tidal marshes and salt shrub communities that are characteristic of barrier Islands and other moraine Islands in Long Island Sound. Marine/Estuarine Communities Marine intertidal gravel/sand beach is a community washed by rough, high-energy waves, with sand or gravel substrates that are well -drained at low tide. These areas are subject to high fluctuations in salinity and moisture .61 Plum Island includes approximately 2.3 miles of marine intertidal sand and gravel beach habitat. The remaining shore line of Plum Island is dominated by marine rocky intertidal habitat. The area landward of the beach and rocky shore habitats is actively eroding along most of Plum Island. The erosion occurring along the shore is a direct 62 Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero, eds. 2002. Ecological communities of New York State, second edition, a revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York State (draft for review). Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Natural • Heritage Program. 63 Edinger et al., Ecological communities of New York State. 3-59 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Ogow�Y.P YPBv'M+n YWW�w W.NEx9M4:. J 6t pytYJprl LONG ISLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN Legend Beach Dune Freshwater Wetland Oldfield/Developed Upland Forest Impacted PLUM GUT Upland Forest Unimpacted Potential Development Parcels Marine�Estuarine community includes _ beach and rocky shore habitat that borders the Island- 0 SIX 1 too eer Source: Vegetative land cover developed by MACTEC. Figure 3.8-1 based on field obw"aborls made during site visits Vegetative Land Cover PreCared10a4. BRP 02/11111 conducted In 2010 gMdnAlD�le: JB 0?J1 t/t 1 Figure 3.8-1: Plum Island Vegetative Land Cover 3-60 0 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • result of the local tides, currents, and storms and is not attributable nor a result of current or historic activities conducted on Plum Island. These habitats lack rooted vascular vegetation due to the dynamic nature of the environment. However, these communities provide critical habitat for marine and terrestrial invertebrates, which in turn provide a significant food source for migratory shorebirds and bats. Beach/Dune Communities Maritime beaches, maritime dunes, maritime bluffs, maritime shrublands, maritime heathlands, and maritime forests are often found in association with each other forming a complex of habitat types in the Coastal Lowland Ecozone.64 The beach/dune communities on Plum Island exist in the southwestern end of Plum Island. This area is recognized as maritime dune habitat by the State of New York and is currently ranked as S3 or significant habitat. The State considers this habitat type to have high ecological and conservation value. This area also includes known breeding grounds for several protected avian species, including the endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus), threatened northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus), which is a species of special concern. In addition, one rare plant species is known to occur in this area, seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum)." The southwestern portion of Plum Island is a complex of communities and includes maritime beach, maritime dune, maritime shrub, and maritime forest communities. This habitat transitions into the freshwater wetland complex that exists in the south-central and southwestern portion of Plum Island. The seaward boundary of this community is marine intertidal sand and gravel beach, the landward boundary of this community is defined by a 4 wheel drive road, a former narrow gage railroad bed, which marks a transition to the central freshwater wetland complex. The habitat in this area is dominated by a mix of grass and shrub vegetation, but also included pockets of forest dominated habitat. In addition, there are portions of this habitat that have been impacted by activities on Plum Island, including the area around Building 257. The herbaceous species observed in the area included beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata), primrose (Oenothera spp.), black grass (Juncus gerardi), panic grass (Panicum sp.), red top (Agrostis alba), aster (Aster sp.), slender -leaved goldenrod (Solidago tenuifolia), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and phragmites (Phragmites communis). The shrub species observed in the area included bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), green briar (Smilax spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), raspberry (Rubus spp.), beach rose and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), ink berry (Ilex glabra), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia). The tree species observed in the area included eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple, (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and weeping willow (Salix babylonica). 64 Ibid. • 65 New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), Response letter. 3-61 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Upland Forested and Old Field Communities July 13, 2012 Areas that are protected from coastal processes contain a number of deciduous coastal forest communities that are dominated by various combinations of hardwood species.66 The upland forest communities on Plum Island were categorized in the field into two distinct forest types, undisturbed and disturbed. Undisturbed upland forest included those areas that do not appear to have been significantly impacted by activities on Plum Island and or occur in areas that are relatively protected from the prevailing winds and storms. Disturbed upland forests include areas that were likely impacted by past activities on Plum Island and or occur in areas that are regularly exposed to prevailing winds and storms. Forested areas along the exposed northern shoreline were categorized as disturbed because these habitat types are exposed to natural disturbances that limit these areas from developing into late successional stage forests observed in other areas on Plum Island. The elements that differentiate the two forest types included tree height, dominant tree species, understory vegetation composition and density, as well as landscape position. The undisturbed forest generally occurs in two areas on Plum Island, the south side of the terminal moraine that runs approximately east/west along the north side of Plum Island and the upland forest located to the west of the water treatment plant. The upland forest is characterized as a typical late successional stage forest with a well developed understory of shrubs and saplings. The trees in these areas ranged from approximately 20 to 80 feet high. The understory is moderately dense but does include some open areas. The understory is dominated by green briars and bittersweet (Celastrus obiclatus). The tree species observed in this upland forest community include red maple, Norway maple (Acer platanoides), red oak (Quercus sp.), hickory (Carya ovate), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvannica), white oak (Quercus alba), and tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica). The understory included the following shrub species green briar, raspberry, poison ivy, bittersweet, highbush blueberry, arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), and Virginia creeper. The herbaceous layer is sparsely vegetated, species observed included pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculate), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), lily of the valley (Convallaria majalis) and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). The majority of forested habitat that exists on Plum Island appears to be disturbed. Disturbed forests occur in areas that were formerly cleared and maintained and or occur on the north -facing slopes. These areas are discernable from undisturbed forest based on the tree species present, tree height, and the composition of the understory vegetation. The trees in this upland forest type were notably stunted and included a higher number of black cherry (Prunus serotina) trees and pine trees, including red pine (Pinus resinosa) and eastern red cedar. The tree species observed in these forested areas included the aforementioned species as well as Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and tree of heaven (Alianthus altissima). The shrub species that were observed in the understory of the impacted forests included poison ivy, bittersweet, multiflora rose, Virginia creeper, green briar, chinaberry (Melia azedarach) and raspberry. The herbaceous species observed included grape fern (Botrychium dissectum), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), goldenrod, sedge (Juncus sp.), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), steeplebush (Spirea tomentosa), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), knapweed (Centaurea nigra), round headed bush clover (Lespedisa capitata) and jimsonweed (Datura stramonium). 66 Edinger et al., Ecological communities of New York State. 3-62 r� U • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 . The open areas within the Coastal Lowland Ecozone are dominated by successional old field community. These areas do not include the maintained lawn areas around buildings and roads. The old field community on Plum Island is limited to the parade grounds associated with Fort Terry and the managed lawn areas adjacent to roads and buildings. These areas remain open (i.e., without significant tree or shrub growth) through periodic mowing. The grassed areas along roads are more intensely managed than the large field that includes the former parade grounds. The grassed areas are likely mowed weekly during the growing season while the parade ground field is likely mowed annually. These areas are dominated by forbs and grasses, including goldenrods, asters, milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), redtop (Agrostis alba), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and switch grass (Panicum sp.). Freshwater Wetland Communities The southern portion of Plum Island contains a large freshwater wetland complex. The wetland complex, as well as the other freshwater wetlands on Plum Island, has been mapped by USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI),67 and by the State of New York (NYSDEC)," as shown in Figures 3.8-2, and 3.8-3, respectively. The State of New York mapped approximately 92.2 acres of freshwater wetlands and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has mapped approximately 80.5 acres of freshwater wetlands on Plum Island. There is some overlap between the NYSDEC and NWI mapped wetlands; however, based on site visits and reviews of aerial photographs, the NWI wetlands appear to be more accurate and representative of the freshwater wetlands on Plum Island. In addition, there are two wetland areas that have been mapped by the State (designated • by the labels PL -7 and PL -8 on Figure 3.8-3) that do not appear to be wetland based on a review of the areas during site visits to Plum Island. The surface water features on Plum Island consist of various types of freshwater wetlands, Including unconsolidated bottom, aquatic bed, tidal, vernal pool, emergent and forested wetland areas. The freshwater wetland complex in the southern end of Plum Island includes open water, emergent marsh, and scrub -shrub dominated wetlands. Common hydrophytic herbaceous species observed in the wetlands include cattails (Typha spp.), sedges, and rushes. The dominant shrub species observed in the wetland included include button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), high bush blueberry, sweet pepper bush, and multiflora rose. The trees observed bordering the wetland complex include red maple and tupelo. Plum Island lacks tidal salt marsh communities that are characteristic of other islands in Long Sound. A small 0.5 -acre coastal plain pond exists in a kettle -hole depression in the western end of the Property southeast of the Plum Island Light Station. This feature has been mapped by both the State of New York and NWI; however, the NWI mapped wetland appears to more accurately delineate the actual wetland boundary based on review of aerial photographs and site reconnaissance. The pond is ringed with the hydrophyte water willow (Decodon verticilatus). There is an abrupt distinct boundary between the wetland/pond edge and bordering upland habitat, as defined by the sloping banks of the kettle depression. 67 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps. http:// www.fws.gov/wetlands/data. 68 40 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2010. New York State Regulatory Freshwater Wetlands for Suffolk County, http://CUGIR.Mannlib.comell.edu. 3-63 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Point Parcel LONG ISLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN PLUM GUT Source Wetlands data from U S. Fish and VNIdlde Service. National Wetland Inventory (NW1)Maps . e—Uat2G2n+., http,Uv v.hvsgov7wetlandsldata. ent Point Parcel L Figure 3.8-2: NWI Wetlands on Plum Island July 13, 2012 Legend National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands. M_ • -I Freshwater Emergent Wetland - (PEM) dn•Freshwater Forosted;Shrub Wetland - (PFOISS) Q Freshwater Pond - (PUB) Estuarine and Manne Wetland - (E2)W) Estuarine and Manne Deepwater - (EI/Ml) L7-110otentlal Development Parcels free Figure 3.8-2 NWI Wetlands • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 LONG ISLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN `ter .I t Legend NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlards MPotorrtol D.vclop—.t %..Iu PLUM GUT 800 {c ennrmlsiii�-. Figure 3.8-3 Source. NYSDEC, New York State Regulatory Freshwater Wetlands for Suffolk County. NYSDEC Wetlands Prewredr4rte BRP o7n v11 http uCJGIR.Mannkb.cornell.edu. GneckeaWfe JB 0?Jt 1r1t Figure 3.8-3: NYSDEC Wetlands on Plum Island 3-65 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Vernal Pool Communities July 13, 2012 A site-specific vernal pool survey was undertaken in 2010, the results of which are presented in the Vernal Pool Survey Report,69 and are summarized below. The vernal pool survey was conducted in spring 2010 to evaluate spring breeding amphibians that may occur on Plum Island. An initial site reconnaissance was conducted on March 16, followed by two additional site visits to revisit previously identified potential vernal pools. Based on a review of the habitat requirements for the winter breeding tiger salamander, it was determined that this species is unlikely to occur on Plum Island, because pine barren habitat where these salamanders are found does not exist on Plum Island. In addition, during the spring vernal pool survey, no tiger salamander larvae were found. None of the topographically low areas observed on Plum Island supported vernal pool habitat. In addition, none of the mapped wetlands appear to be providing amphibian breeding habitat; however, these areas would be regulated as freshwater wetlands. No vernal pools were observed in the surveyed forested uplands. Evidence of amphibian breeding activity (i.e., spermataphores and frog or salamander egg masses) was not observed in any of the areas investigated. Several isolated wetland areas that contained ponded water at the time of the survey did contain facultative vernal pool invertebrates, including fingernail clams, freshwater snails, and invertebrates (i.e., isopods, caddisflies, and mosquito larvae). Orient Point Natural Communities The approximately 9 -acre parcel located at Orient Point is surrounded by development Cross Sound Ferry terminal is located to the east, Gardiner Bay to the south, a marina to the west and residential properties to the north. The Property is mostly developed and includes two warehouse facilities, an office building, and parking lot, and lacks undeveloped terrestrial habitat or freshwater resources. Marine resources include maritime beach and maritime dune ecological communities that occur in the southern part of the parcel on either side of the harbor inlet. Seaward of the beach/dune communities is a small area (approximately 800 linear feet) of marine intertidal sand and gravel beach. Rare and Significant Natural Communities A request was sent to NYNHP to search their database for rare threatened and endangered species and significant natural habitats or natural communities that may occur on or near Plum Island and the Orient Point support facility. The results of the inquiry were included in a letter from the NYNHP, dated August 12, 2010. The NYNHP indicated that the Property is located adjacent to a designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Plum Gut). The letter also indicated that a portion of Plum Island is designated as Maritime Dune community, which is recognized by the state as a significant natural habitat. The only sensitive or state threatened is • 69 •MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2010. Vernal pool survey report: Plum Island Animal Disease Center. 3-66 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • plant species listed in the NYNHP letter was seabeach knotweed, which is known to occur in this habitat on Plum Island (Appendix C).70 A 2010 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities by NYNHP was submitted to AMEC in a letter dated August 13, 2010, and included in Appendix C. The NYNHP describes the maritime dune community as a low dune field with scattered blowouts and patches of low shrubby vegetation. The letter further indicates that many non-native species are present along old roads within the dunes; however, the community is described as a fairly large occurrence that is in good condition. The report also noted that no wet interdunal swales were seen; however, surveys conducted by AMEC did identify areas within the dune community that did appear to be interdunal swales in the southeastern corner of Plum Island .71 In addition, a recent paper by Eric Lamont (New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York) and Richard Stalter (St. Johns University, Jamaica, New York), titled "Historical and Extant Rare, Protected, and Noteworthy Plants of Plum Island, New York," and dated December 15, 2010, identified 40 species of rare, protected, and noteworthy vascular plants as historically and or currently existing on Plum Island. A survey for rare, exploitable, endangered, or threatened plant species was not conducted in support of the EIS. Aquatic Resources Freshwater aquatic habitats on Plum Island consist of permanently flooded areas within the complex of freshwater wetlands on the southernmost portion of Plum Island. These small ponds • are shallow, groundwater -fed water bodies that occupy shallow depressions in the outwash plain of terminal moraine deposits. These freshwater aquatic habitats as well as the marine habitat surrounding Plum Island provide habitat for a large and diverse number of aquatic and semi - aquatic wildlife. Fishes that are characteristic of permanently flooded coastal plain depressions include chain pickerel (Esox niger), banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), and eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea).72 Small minnows have been observed in ponded water (i.e., freshwater wetlands) on Plum Island; however, no formal fish surveys have been conducted in these freshwater habitats. Turtle species that have been observed on Plum Island in freshwater habitats included the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta picta). The results of the vernal pool survey and other site surveys suggest that limited amphibian species are present on Plum Island. No amphibians were observed during multiple site visits to Plum Island. Frogs and tadpoles were not observed during the numerous site visits conducted to Plum Island .13 Other than the vernal pool survey, no other herpetological surveys have been conducted on Plum Island. 70 New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), Response letter. 71 Ibid. 72 Edinger et al., Ecological communities of New York State. • 73 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), Vernal pool survey report. W&A Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Plum Island is surrounded by the estuarine/marine waters of Long Island Sound, Plum Gut, • Block Island Sound, and Gardiners Bay. Fish typical of the nearshore zone of the Atlantic Ocean include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoorita tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), tautog (Tautoga onitis), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), northern kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis), spot (Leiostomas xanthurus), American sandlance (Ammodytes americanus), and silversides (Menidia menidia). Surf clams (Spisula solidissima) are abundant in nearshore benthic habitats. Marine sea turtles that occur in the nearshore zone during migration include Atlantic (Kemp's) ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. All five sea turtles are federally listed under the ESA. The nearshore zone provides year-round habitat for harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), gray seals (Halichoerus grypus), and harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus). Other frequently occurring marine mammals include the finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus), minke whale (B. acutorostrata), and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Additional commonly occurring marine mammals include the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), white -sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchusacutus), striped dolphin (Stenella coerulealba), and pilot whale (Globicephala melaena)." New York State Division of Coastal Resources (NYSDCR) has designated Plum Gut (the area of open water between Plum Island and Orient Point) as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Plum Gut is a deep channel covering an area of approximately 500 acres. Plum Gut • provides important foraging habitat for significant concentrations of fishes that include striped bass, bluefish, tautog, summer flounder, and scup (Stenotomus chrysops). Consequently, Plum Gut is an important recreational and commercial fishing resource. Plum Gut is one of two major passage corridors for striped bass, which move into Long Island Sound during the spring and fall migrations to and from their spawning grounds. Plum Gut is also considered a major corridor for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during the spring as they return to their spawning grounds in the Connecticut and Pawcatuck Rivers. Plum Gut also provides important habitat for marine mammals, particularly bottlenosed dolphin, harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and harbor seal. Sea turtles, especially juvenile Atlantic ridley and loggerhead sea turtles, also use Plum Gut .75 In addition to coastal consistency review, projects that affect designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats are subject to review under Policy 7 of the New York State Coastal Policies. Policy 7 prohibits activities that "destroy or significantly impair" the viability of significant habitats. The area encompassing Orient Point, Plum Gut, and Plum Island is an important foraging and breeding area for wading birds, waterfowl and shorebirds, and has been designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Audubon New York. The Orient Point -Plum Island IBA is an important waterfowl wintering area for Canada geese, American black ducks, mallards, 74 Ibid. 7s •New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEQ, Endangered species fact sheets, 2010. 3-68 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 . canvasbacks, scaup, long-tailed ducks, scoters, buffleheads, common goldeneyes, and red - breasted mergansers.76 The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (as amended through 1997) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. The definition of "take" is "to harass, hunt, capture, or kill; or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal." In addition to the species mentioned above, marine mammals that may occur in deepwater estuarine or marine habitats in New York include the harp seal (Phoca vitulina), hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), white -beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), sperm whale (Physeter catodon), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).77 Harbor seals are known to haul -out (leave the water) on the southeastern shoreline of Plum Island for resting and sunning. Terrestrial Wildlife Orient Point, Plum Gut, and Plum Island are known to provide important bird habitat, and as many as 130 bird species have been identified on Plum Island. The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State documents the distribution of breeding birds in the state.78 The breeding species observed in the atlas survey blocks that include Plum Island and surrounding area (i.e., Blocks 7256D and 7356C) are summarized and presented in Table 3.8-1. Additional data • regarding breeding birds were collected for designation of the area as an IBA. These data include breeding data over multiple years for the following species: oyster catchers (Haematopus palliates), piping plovers (Charadrius melodus), common terns (Sterna hirundo), and least terns (Sternula antillarum). Additional data used in the designation of the IBA included results from the 1995 NYSDEC Long Island Colonial Waterbird and Piping Plover Survey.79 These data are also included in Table 3.8-1. The North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS) has conducted several surveys on Plum Island, including summer, winter, and spring bird surveys in 2007.80 A total of 72 bird species were sighted on Plum Island. Results included 11 confirmed breeding species and six probable breeders (Table 3.8-2). In addition to these bird surveys NFAS has been collecting information on osprey and piping plover breeding activity through nest monitoring programs since 2006. 76 North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS). 2007. Plum Island breeding bird survey. http://www.northforkaudubon.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=PIBreeding6-27-07&Section=IBAs. 77 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008. Endangered species fact sheets, New York. www.dec.ny.gov/23.html. 78 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008. The second atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Edited by K.J. McGowan and K. Corwin. Cornell University Press. 79 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Long Island colonial water bird and piping • 80 plover survey. North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS), Plum Island breeding bird survey. OrM Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 3.8-1: List of Breeding Bird Species Observed on Plum Island • Common Name . Scientific Nene Behavior Code Date NY legal Status Level of Concern American Black Duck Anas rubripes P2 6/7/2002 Game Species Highest American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos D2 5/28/2004 Game Species American Goldfinch Spinus tristis P2 6/30/2004 Protected American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus NY 6/23/2005 Protected Highest American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla T2 6/23/2005 Protected American Robin Turdus migratorius NE 5/28/2004 Protected Bank Swallow Riparia riparia P2 6/7/2002 Protected Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica P2 6/7/2002 Protected Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica ON 5/28/2004 Protected Black -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus S2 5/28/2004 Protected Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus T2 6/23/2005 Protected Black -crowned Night- Heron Nycticorax nycticorax N2 5/28/2004 Protected Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata T2 6/23/2005 Protected Brown -headed Cowbird Molothrus ater P2 6/30/2003 Protected Canada Goose Branta canadensis NE 5/28/2004 Game Species High Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus T2 6/23/2005 Protected Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum P2 6/30/2004 Protected Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica X1 6/23/2005 Protected High Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota P2 6/30/2003 Protected Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula P2 6/7/2002 Protected Common Tern Sterna hirundo P2 6/7/2002 Threatened Moderate Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas DD 6/23/2005 Protected Double -crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus X1 6/30/2003 Protected Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus P2 6/7/2002 Protected Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X1 6/23/2005 Protected Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus DD 6/23/2005 Protected High European Starling Sturnus vulgaris ON 6/30/2004 Unprotected Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla T2 6/1/2004 Protected Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis FY 6/23/2005 Protected Moderate 3-70 • • • • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Cooimon Name Scientific Name ' Behavior Code Date NX Legal Status. Level of Cofitero Great Black -backed Gull Larus marinus NE 5/28/2004 Protected Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X1 6/1/2004 Protected Great Egret Ardea alba P2 6/30/2003 Protected Herring Gull Larus argentatus P2 5/28/2004 Protected House Sparrow Passer domesticus P2 6/7/2002 Unprotected House Wren Troglodytes aedon ON 6/30/2004 Protected Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea X1 6/23/2005 Protected Killdeer Charadrius vociferus NE 5/28/2004 Protected Moderate Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea NE 6//2001 Protected Moderate Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis P2 6/23/2005 Protected Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus X1 6/23/2005 Protected High Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus FY 6/23/2005 Threatened Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos T2 6/23/2005 Protected Northern Rough -winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis P2 5/28/2004 Protected Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius T2 6/23/2005 Protected Osprey Pandion haliaetus NE 6/7/2002 Protected -Special Concern Piping Plover Charadrius melodus NE 6/7/2002 Endangered Highest Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis ON 6/1/2004 Protected Red -winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus FY 6/23/2005 Protected Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii X1 6/30/2003 Endangered Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia FY 6/23/2005 Protected Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius P2 6/7/2002 Protected Moderate Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius P2 5/28/2004 Protected Moderate Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor P2 6/30/2004 Protected Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura X1 5/28/2004 Protected Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii T2 6/30/2004 Protected High Wood Duck Aix sponsa P2 5/28/2004 Game Species Moderate Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia D2 5/28/2004 Protected 3-71 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Notes: • Data downloaded on February 9, 2011 from the Breeding Bird Database provided by USFWS. List includes Species Breeding in Atlas Block 7256D & 7356C. Possible Breeding (PO) X Species observed in possible nesting habitat, but no other indication of breeding noted; singing male(s) present (or breeding calls heard) in breeding season. Probable Breeding (PR) S Singing male present (or breeding calls heard). P Pair observed in suitable habitat in breeding season. T Bird (or pair) apparently holding territory. In addition to territorial singing, chasing of other individuals of same species often marks a territory. D Courtship and display, agitated behavior or anxiety calls from adults suggesting probable presence nearby of a nest or young; well-developed brood -patch or cloacal protuberance on trapped adult. Includes copulation. N Visiting probable nest site. Nest building by wrens and woodpeckers. Wrens may build many nests. Woodpeckers, although they usually drill only one nest cavity, also drill holes just for roosting. B Nest building or excavation of a nest hole. Confirmed Breeding (CO) DD Distraction display or injury -feigning. Agitated behavior and/or anxiety calls are Probable -D. UN Used nest found. Caution: These must be carefully identified if they are to be counted as evidence. Some nests (e.g., Baltimore oriole) are persistent and very characteristic. Most are difficult to identify correctly. FE Female with egg in the oviduct (by bird bander). . FL Recently fledged young (including downy young of precocious species - waterfowl, shorebirds). This code should be used with caution for species such as blackbirds and swallows, which may move some distance soon after fledging. Recently fledged passerines are still dependent on their parents and are fed by them. ON Adult(s) entering or leaving nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nest. NOT generally used for open nesting birds. It should be used for hole nesters only when a bird enters a hole and remains inside, makes a change -over at a hole, or leaves a hole after having been inside for some time. If you simply see a bird fly into or out of a bush or tree, and do not find a nest, the correct code would be Probable -N. FS Adult carrying fecal sac. FY Adult(s) with food for young. Some birds (gulls, terns, and raptors) continue to feed their young long after they are fledged, and even after they have moved considerable distances. Also, some birds (e.g., terns) may carry food over long distances to their young in a neighboring block. Be especially careful on the edge of a block. Care should be taken to avoid confusion with courtship feeding (Probable -D). NE Identifiable nest and eggs, bird setting on nest or egg, identifiable eggshells found beneath nest, or identifiable dead nestling(s). If you find a cowbird egg in a nest, it is NE for Cowbird, and NE for the identified nest's owner. NY Nest with young. If you find a young cowbird with other young, it is NY for cowbird and NY for identified nest owner. • 3-72 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Table 3.8-2: Summary of Audubon Society 2007 Plum Island Bird Surveys • • Scientific Name Common Name Confirmed Breeders Pandion haliaetus Osprey Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Branta canadensis Canada goose Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Troglodytes aedon House wren Riparia riparia Bank swallow Phalacrocorax auritus Double -crested cormorant Somateria mollissima Common eider Turdus migratorius American robin Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler Probable Breeders Agelaius phoeniceus Red -winged blackbird Carduelis tristis American goldfinch Molothrus ater Brown -headed cowbird Vireo griseus White -eyed vireo Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing Observed Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Accipiter cooperii Coopers hawk Buteo platypterus Broad -winged hawk B. lineatus Red -shouldered hawk B. jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk A. gentilis Northern goshawk Falco sparverius Kestrel Charadrius vociferous Killdear Larus argentatus Herring gull L. marinus Greater black -backed gull Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker Vireo olivaceus Red -eyed vireo Parus atricapillus Black -capped chickadee Parus hudsonicus Tufted titmouse Gavia immer Common loon Podiceps auritus Horned grebe Anas strepera Gadwall Bucephalal clangula I Common goldeneye 3-73 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Scientific Name Common Name Anas acuta Pintail Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser Aythya marila Greater scaup Mergus serrator Red -breasted merganser Melanitta nigra Black scoter M. perspicillata Surf scoter M. fusca White -winged scoter Alca torda Razorbill Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow Passerculus sanwichensis Ipswich sparrow Junco hyemalis Slate -colored junco Morus bassanus Northern gannet Melospiza georgianan Swamp sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis White -throated sparrow Philohela minor Woodcock L. hyperboreus Glaucous gull L. Philadelphia Bonaparte gull Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis A. Penelope Eurasian widgeon A. americana American widgeon Calidris alba Sanderling Source: Reproduced from Audubon New York81'82, USFWS, and NBAF83 The results of the 2010 survey indicated that of the 19 nest platforms on Plum Island, 8 were active, 9 had no nest or activity, and 2 were damaged .81 Herons, egrets, and ibises are also known to nest near the freshwater wetlands on the southern portion of Plum Island. The NYNHP conducts great egret nesting surveys once every three years, and the past three surveys have documented an average of eight pairs on Plum Island.85 Roseate terns (Sterna dougallii dougallii) and common terns (S. hirundo) from the nearby Gull Island colony frequently forage within Plum Gut, and these species use the rocky shoreline of southern Plum Island as resting habitat during feeding periods. Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) have 81 82 North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS), Plum Island breeding bird survey. 83 Audubon New York, North Fork Audubon Society Plum Island bird surveys. 84 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. Audubon New York. 2010. North Fork Audubon Society Plum Island bird surveys and associated data. North Fork Audubon as Society (NFAS). http://www.northforkaudubon.org. New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), Natural heritage report. 3-74 • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 is nested on Plum Island in the past, and Plum Island supports a large breeding population of Canada geese. Mammals that are known to occur on Plum Island include raccoon (Procyon lotor); muskrat (Ondratra zibethicus); and small mammals, including white-footed mouse (Percomyscus leucopus) and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Bat species known to occur in New York that could potentially occur on Plum Island include the Northern bat (Myotis septentirionalis), little brown bat (M. lucifugus), Indiana bat (M. sodalist), Eastern pipistrella (Perimyotis subflavus), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). The old buildings and batteries, as well as forests, fields, and wetland habitat, on Plum Island would provide shelter and forage habitat for bats. As a standard safety procedure, measures to control the white-tailed deer population are conducted annually, though none have been found on Plum Island since 2004.86 Reptiles that are known to occur on Plum Island include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), eastern painted turtles, and snapping turtle. Snakes that are common in the Coastal Lowlands Ecozone include the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and northern brown snake (Storeria dekayi dekayi). Potential habitats for all of these species are present on Plum Island; however, very few snakes have been observed on Plum Island. Non -vernal pool dependant herpetofauna observed on Plum Island included an eastern box turtle, which was observed in an upland area between the large wetland complex in the south-central • part of Plum Island and the main road on Plum Island. The turtle was observed in an area of scrub shrub vegetation. The shell of an eastern box turtle was also found in a wooded area west of the water treatment plant. A garter snake was observed by Mark Terry, Principal Planner with the Town, during his site walkover on April 29, 2010. The snake was observed on the east end of Plum Island, crossing the main road that bisects Plum Island. No formal herpetofauna surveys are known to have been conducted on Plum Island. Threatened and Endangered Species The USFWS reviews federal actions that may result in negative effects on federally listed terrestrial plants and animals and freshwater aquatic organisms. Under Section 7, federal agencies must consult with USFWS when any action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. This process usually begins as informal consultation in the early stages of project planning. USFWS jurisdiction over sea turtles is limited to nesting habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over federally listed sea turtles in the water, as well as listed marine mammals, saltwater fishes, and other marine species. Marine mammals are also protected under the MMPA. Additional animal species that are listed by the state as endangered or threatened and plant species that are listed by the state as endangered, threatened, rare, or vulnerable to exploitation are afforded protection under the Environmental Conservation Law of New York (Sections 11-0535 and 9-1503) and 6 NYCRR Parts 182 and 193. Federally listed 86 0 Tom Dwyer, DHS, personal communication with Charles H. Lyman, MACTEC, April 13, 2010. 3-75 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 species that are likely to occur in Suffolk County include the piping plover, roseate tern, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), five species of sea turtles, and three species of plants. The NYSDEC compiles lists of state protected species by town. Federally Listed Species Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Piping plovers breed on dry sandy beaches, often near dunes in areas with little or no beach grass. Piping plovers begin to arrive at their breeding grounds in early March. Nests consist of shallow scrapes that are sometimes lined with pebbles and/or shells. They are usually placed well above the high -tide mark on open, generally grassless sand beaches or dredged spoil areas. An average clutch of four eggs is laid during May and June. Incubation takes 25-31 days, and the young leave the nest shortly after hatching and fledge in approximately 28-35 days. Piping plovers depart for their wintering areas by early September. The presence of a piping plover nest was confirmed on the northern portion of Plum Island in 2002.87 In addition, data collected in support of the IBA designation showed that piping plover nests have been documented on Plum Island from 1993 to 2010, except in 1999 and 2008.88 One pair of piping plovers bred on the island in 2011, fledging one chick .89 Piping plovers are susceptible to human disturbance, which is a detriment to their breeding success, feeding success, and chick survival. Excessive disturbance may cause parents to desert their nests, causing exposure of the eggs to predators, heat, and human traffic. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) • A marine coastal species, the roseate tern breeds on salt marsh islands and beaches with sparse vegetation. Roseate terns arrive on the breeding grounds between late April and early May and begin nesting one month later. In New York, roseate terns are always found nesting with common terns. One of the largest colonies of roseate terns in the Northeast is located on nearby Great Gull Island. Adults forage in the nearshore waters surrounding Plum Island and bring fledglings to the shores of Plum Island to loaf and forage in Plum Gut. The nest is a depression in sand, shell, or gravel and may be lined with bits of grass and other debris. Nests are usually located in dense grass clumps. Eggs are incubated for approximately 23 days, and the young fledge in 22-29 days. Roseate terns depart for their wintering areas in late summer. Based on behavioral observations, the roseate tern was identified as a possible breeder on Plum Island in 2003.90 Roseate Terns are susceptible to human disturbance; their habit of nesting in protected sites under vegetation or other objects makes them vulnerable to vegetational changes in breeding areas. The increased presence of humans has contributed to higher predation rates. 87 88 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Endangered species fact sheets, 2008. National Audubon Society. 2011. Site report for Orient Point and Plum Island Important Bird Area (IBA). http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteld=782. 89 90 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). March 16, 2012, correspondence. •New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Endangered species fact sheets. 3-76 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) July 13, 2012 The shortnose sturgeon is anadramous, migrating from salt water to spawn in fresh water. Shortnose sturgeon spawn in the Hudson River from April to May. Adult sturgeon migrate upriver from their mid -Hudson River overwintering areas to freshwater spawning sites north of Coxsackie. In New York State, the shortnose sturgeon is only found in the lower portion of the Hudson River from the southern tip of Manhattan upriver to the federal dam at Troy." Atlantic Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) The Atlantic hawksbill rarely occurs in New York. Preferred habitat consists of warm, coastal shoal water less than 50 feet deep with abundant submerged vegetation. Coral reefs, lagoons, inlets, and bays are ideal habitats. Nesting occurs on isolated beaches in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.92 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) In the Atlantic Ocean, green sea turtles are found from Massachusetts south to Florida. They inhabit shallow waters such as shoals and lagoons with submerged vegetation. Inlets, bays, and estuaries are preferred habitats. Nesting occurs in all subtropical to tropical oceans of the world between 35° north and south latitude, in waters that remain above 68°F during the coldest months.93 0 Atlantic (Kemp's) Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Juvenile Kemp's ridleys inhabit the Atlantic Coast from Florida to Canada, possibly following the warm Gulf Stream. Preferred habitats include sheltered areas along the coastline such as large estuaries, bays, and lagoons. Nesting grounds are restricted to a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Long Island waters have been identified as critical habitat for immature Kemp's ridleys, providing important habitat for development during the early stages of life (2-5 years).94 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Leatherback sea turtles are the most pelagic of the sea turtles. In the North Atlantic Ocean, leatherback sea turtles are found regularly off the coast of New England and in Long Island, New York, waters. Nesting occurs on the islands of St. Croix, Vieques, and Culebra and on the mid- Atlantic coast of Florida. Recent isolated nestings have been recorded along the southeastern Atlantic coast from Georgia to North Carolina 95 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. • 95 Ibid. WFIFI Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) July 13, 2012 In the western Atlantic, loggerheads occur from Canada south to Argentina. Loggerheads inhabit warm waters on continental shelves and areas among islands. Estuaries, coastal streams, and salt marshes are preferred habitats. In the western Atlantic, loggerheads nest along the southeastern coast of the United States, with 90 percent of nests occurring in Florida.96 Sandplain Gerardia (Agalinis acuta) Six of the 12 known extant populations occur in coastal grassland natural communities on Long Island. The endangered status of this species is attributed primarily to loss of habitat from development and encroachment by invasive exotic competitors.97 Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Seabeach Amaranth is found on sandy beaches of the Atlantic coast, where it grows on shifting sands between dunes and the high -tide mark. Habitat degradation is attributed to the construction of beach stabilization structures that inhibit the natural movement of sand.98 Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Small whorled pogonia occurs in dry to mesic deciduous or deciduous -coniferous forests, generally in forests with an open understory. Small whorled pogonia was historically known from Central and Eastern New York and Long Island. The NYNHP ranks this species as historical, which indicates that the species has not been seen in New York in at least 20-30 99 years. State -Listed Species The state -listed species that are known to occur on Plum Island include piping plover, common loon (Gavia immer), common tern, roseate tern, osprey, Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red - shoulder hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp -shinned hawk (A. striatus), Northern goshawk (A. gentilis), and peregrine falcon (Falco pererinus). The common loon, osprey, red -shoulder hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, and Northern goshawk are all species of special concern. The Northern harrier and common tern are listed as a threatened species and the roseate tern, piping plover, and peregrine falcon are listed as endangered species. The osprey and Northern harrier are known breeders on Plum Island the remaining birds have been observed foraging on or near Plum Island (i.e., in the waters off of Plum Island). State -listed endangered and threatened plants that have been reported from Plum Island include hop sedge (Cyperus lupulinus var. lupulinus), coastal sedge (C. polystachyos var. texensis), and • 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 •Young, S.M. 2007. New York rare plant status lists. Albany, NY: New York Natural Heritage Program. 3-78 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 spring ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes vernalis). Seabeach knotweed is also known to occur on Plum Island, based on the information provided by the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program. 3.8.3. Consequences To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the potential reuse options, effects on biological resources resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. As previously noted, the reuse options discussed in the EIS are a selection of potential reuse options, are speculative, and are discussed to compare one reuse option to another. Impacts to biological resources from alternative implementation would vary depending upon the intensity and duration of anticipated activities included in the potential reuse options. In this section, intensity and duration of alternative activities and associated impacts to biological resources are defined and evaluated. 3.8.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not adversely impact or improve biological resources. Changes to biological resources associated with decommissioning of the PIADC and mothballing the existing facilities with the federal government remaining in control of security are expected to have long-term beneficial impacts. Plum Island Terrestrial Resources Negligible short-term adverse impacts to terrestrial vegetation and community ecology from decommissioning, maintenance, and security activities would be expected. However, this alternative would also likely result in long-term beneficial effects from reduced human activity on Plum Island. The reduced activity on Plum Island would lead to reduced disturbance to wildlife from human intrusion; therefore, changes to terrestrial resources would be negligible. Undisturbed areas on Plum Island would continue to be allowed to progress through natural successional stages. Invasive plant species would continue to be prevalent on Plum Island. Wildlife, such as small mammals and birds would continue to be allowed to flourish on Plum Island, and extirpation of deer would cease. Construction activities associated with decommissioning and maintenance would pose low risk to wildlife populations on Plum Island and any accidental or incidental impacts would be negligible in a regional context. Population viability would not be threatened, and there would be no measurable long-term effect on population numbers or distribution over a species' range of occurrence. Freshwater and Marine Resources No short-term or long-term changes in the marine environment surrounding Plum Island would be associated with decommissioning, maintenance, and security activities. Changes to freshwater aquatic communities would not be expected under the No Action Alternative — Retain in federal ownership. Reduced ferry services to and from Plum Island may provide benefits to the marine environment as a result of reduced boat traffic through localized decreases in turbidity, noise, and vibration. However, these benefits would likely be negligible due to the 3-79 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 relative scale of existing marine resources compared with the marine resource currently affected by the ferry services. Impacts to freshwater habitats on Plum Island are currently avoided to best extent practicable, and no future development within these environments is proposed under the No Action Alternative. Current discharges from the existing waste water treatment plant are regulated under the NYSDEC SPDES program. Threatened and Endangered Species Changes to habitats on Plum Island that are known to support rare, threatened and endangered species would not be expected under the No Action Alternative. State and federally listed species tend to occur in areas of Plum Island that are currently afforded protection based on being listed rare and or significant habitat, wetland habitat or occur within undevelopable flood zones. Therefore it is unlikely that these species would be impacted by the proposed alternative. In addition the reduction in marine traffic (i.e., reduced ferry service to and from Plum Island) would lower the risk of boat strikes to threatened and endangered marine species such as sea turtles. However, the reduction of risk would be negligible based upon the proportion of traffic in Plum Gut and Long Island Sound associated with Plum Island -Orient Point. BMPs would serve to protect protected species during any construction activities, should activities occur in habitats used by rare, threatened and endangered species. Orient Point Terrestrial Resources No naturally occurring terrestrial resources exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no effect. Freshwater and Marine Resources No freshwater resources exist on the Orient Point support facility. Marine resources could potentially benefit from the No Action Alternative based on a reduction in boat traffic from reduced ferry service to Plum Island. However, these benefits would likely be negligible based on the limited use of the marine environment at the facility and the presence of a private marina and public ferry service adjacent to the Orient Point support facility. Threatened and Endangered Species Terrestrial rare, threatened, and endangered species do not occur on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in any impacts. The reduction in marine traffic at Orient Point could reduce the risk of boat strikes to marine species. However, the reduction of risk would be negligible based upon the proportion of traffic associated with Plum Island -Orient Point and the marina and public ferry traffic adjacent to the Orient Point parcel. • 3-80 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 3.8.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.8.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1— Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Implementation of Reuse Option 1 would not adversely impact or improve biological resources. Modifications to accommodate a new facility function would require no or minimal expansion to the existing structures on Plum Island and the Orient Point support facility. Existing buildings would remain in their current location and encompass their current extent; additional development outside of currently developed areas would not occur under this option. Existing buildings would be reused with interior renovations. Any modifications to existing buildings and or infrastructure and future activities conducted on Plum Island would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. Plum Island Terrestrial Resources No short-term or long-term changes to terrestrial habitats or community ecology would be expected from implementing Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure. The current level and extent of development and activities on Plum Island would not noticeably change. Existing roads and landscaped areas would continue to be maintained. The introduction or spread of invasive species would be limited by implementation of BMPs to mitigate impacts from construction equipment and/or to revegetate disturbed areas. In addition, an invasive species/wildlife management plan could be developed as a part of this option to mitigate invasive is species and enhance the existing habitats on Plum Island. Wildlife such as small mammals and birds would continue to be allowed to flourish on Plum Island. The occasional deer that swim to Plum Island would no longer be extirpated. Construction activities associated with Reuse Option 1 and maintenance would pose limited risk to wildlife populations on Plum Island and any accidental or incidental impacts would be negligible in a regional context. Public beach access would be determined under the appropriate New York State Coastal Policies (Policy 19 and 20) and Town of Southold regulations (which both consider protection of fragile coastal resources). Population viability is not expected to be threatened, and there would be no measurable long-term effect on population numbers or distribution over a species' range of occurrence. Freshwater and Marine Resources No short-term or long-term changes to freshwater or marine resources would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option I. No change in the current level and extent of development and activities on Plum Island would be expected. Threatened and Endangered Species No changes to rare, threatened and endangered species, including critical habitats, would be expected from implementation of Reuse Option 1. Conditions that affect threatened and endangered species would not change from their current state. Implementation of BMPs would serve to protect protected species during any future construction activities. The aforementioned 3-81 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 invasive species/wildlife management plan would include threatened and endangered species management, to enhance the existing habitats on Plum Island for these species. The plan would also support formal designation of areas on Plum Island for conservation and preservation where these species are currently and or potentially could occur on Plum Island. Orient Point Terrestrial Resources No naturally occurring terrestrial resources exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, implementation of Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Exiting Infrastructure would have no adverse effects. Freshwater and Marine Resources There are no freshwater resources on the Orient Point support facility property. No impacts to marine resources would be expected from modification and reuse because the current level and extent of development and activities would not significantly change. Threatened and Endangered Species No changes to terrestrial, marine, or aquatic resources, including critical habitats, would be expected from and Reuse Option 1. As such, the conditions that affect threatened and endangered species would not change from their current state. 3.8.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 2 may have a minor to moderate adverse impact on biological resources, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. Low-density development in areas shown in Figure 2.3-1 could impact terrestrial resources based on loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, and increased human activity. Impacts to freshwater and marine resources would be avoided and or mitigated through development restrictions imposed by existing local, state, and federal regulations. Rare, threatened, and endangered species may be impacted by loss of terrestrial habitat. Plum Island Terrestrial Resources Redevelopment of Plum Island could have minor to moderate short-term and long-term impacts to terrestrial resources. The development parcels shown in Figure 2.3-1 include areas on Plum Island that are undeveloped upland forested habitat. Development of Parcel 1 in Figure 2.3-1 could impact a small section of currently undisturbed upland forest and sections of currently disturbed upland forest, while the remaining area of the parcel has already been developed. Development of the two smallest areas, Parcels 2 and 4, could also impact small sections of currently undisturbed and disturbed upland forest. However, development of Parcel 3 could impact portions of currently undisturbed upland forests. Though a large portion of Parcel 3 is open field or has already been developed (e.g., Fort Terry), the majority of Parcel 3 consists of 0 3-82 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 upland forests, which constitute a large portion of this cover type on Plum Island. In contrast, beach and dune communities would not be expected to be impacted by the development of the parcels. However, potential human encroachment of Plum Island beaches may increase, which could result in disturbance of existing species. Upland development in close proximity to coastal areas could result in indirect effects to shorebirds and beach native plant populations. Recreational beach access and shoreline protection and access projects could decrease the existing amount of natural, undisturbed beach habitat or prevent habitats from functioning in a natural manner. Once property use would be known, future development would be subject to the New York SEQR process. Public beach access and shoreline protection and access projects would be determined and evaluated under the appropriate New York State Coastal Policies (Policy 19 and 20) and Town of Southold regulations (which both consider protection of fragile coastal resources). Minor to moderate indirect effects would be expected associated with human encroachment on beaches and other undeveloped areas, new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support low-density zoning, and other new development in the project area. Development of the parcels on Plum Island could result in a decrease in terrestrial resources through direct loss, habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss. Initial development would likely require the removal of vegetation, which would later be replaced by landscaping or natural re- establishment where structures are not present. However, the extent and composition of the replaced terrestrial vegetation, and thereby the terrestrial community ecology, would not be expected to be entirely consistent with pre-existing conditions. Consequently, changes in vegetation composition and cover type could increase habitat fragmentation on Plum Island. The development of the parcels would likely reduce the available habitat on Plum Island, and the connectivity between the remaining habitable areas. Creation of lawns and roads would create habitat changes that would potentially affect Plum Island's ability to sustain existing plant and animal species. Habitat loss would directly reduce the resources available to terrestrial organisms, and thereby the number of organisms Plum Island is capable of supporting. The introduction or spread of invasive species would be limited by implementation of BMPs to mitigate impacts from construction equipment and/or to revegetate disturbed areas. Terrestrial organisms most affected by habitat reduction would include upland forest -dwelling species such as birds, eastern box turtles and raccoons. Predominantly shore -dwelling species such as osprey that utilize upland resources for portions of their life cycle (i.e., nesting) could also be affected. Species that do not utilize upland habitats, such as plovers and sanderlings, would not be expected to be affected by redevelopment. Wildlife such as small mammals and birds could be displaced or killed during construction as a result of noise, vehicle traffic, or high levels of human activity. The number of animals impacted directly by construction activities would be negligible in the Long Island Sound area. Population viability would not be threatened and there would be no measurable long-term effect on population numbers or distribution over a species' range of occurrence. 3-83 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Freshwater and Marine Resources July 13, 2012 0 No changes to freshwater and marine resources would be expected from Reuse Option 2 — Low- density Zoning. The Potential Development Parcels avoid development in freshwater resource areas including ponds and wetlands and their regulatory buffers and would not be expected to impact these resources. Marine resources would not be expected to be impacted because this option would not significantly change activities, such as ferry traffic, that affect marine resources. In addition, no piers or docks would be permitted, and no expansion of the existing harbor area would be allowed. A permit would be required from the Town and the Army Corps of Engineers should future development on Plum Island impact wetlands. In addition, impacts to adjacent areas and/or upland buffers would also trigger the need for a permit from the Town. Threatened and Endangered Species No adverse changes to habitats utilized by federally listed threatened and endangered species would occur under Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, with the exception of upland habitats that may have the potential to support small whorled pogonia. However, potential impacts to this species are not expected as its occurrence on Plum Island is unlikely, and the species has not been observed in New York State in at least 20 years. Any future development on Plum Island would be subject to SEQR compliance and other local, state, and federal laws regarding protected species. Low-density development within areas shown on Figure 2.3-1 may affect state -listed species that utilize terrestrial habitats that occur within proposed development areas. Species that utilize upland forest habitats could potentially be impacted, such as nesting osprey and the Northern harrier that are known to forage and nest on Plum Island. Other state -listed wildlife species that potentially utilize these habitats include the red -shoulder hawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, Northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon. State -listed plants that may occur in the proposed development areas include hop sedge, coastal sedge, and spring ladies' -tresses. Development would be subject to SEQR compliance and local, state, and federal laws regarding protected species. Implementation of BMPs would serve to protect protected species during any construction activities. In order to mitigate for habitat loss, an invasive species/wildlife management plan would be developed and implemented to provide guidance on enhancing the remaining undisturbed habitat on Plum Island. In addition, the plan would also include guidance for landscaping within the proposed development areas. The plan would also support formal designation of areas on Plum Island for conservation and preservation. Orient Point Terrestrial Resources No naturally occurring terrestrial resources exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, no adverse impacts would be expected under Reuse Option 2. The current level and extent of development and activities would not significantly change at Orient Point. • 3-84 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 0 Freshwater and Marine Resources July 13, 2012 No freshwater resources exist on the Orient Point support facility. In addition, no changes to marine resources would be expected from Reuse Option 2, which would not significantly change activities that affect marine resources. Threatened and Endangered Species No changes to terrestrial, marine, or aquatic resources, including critical habitats, would be expected under Reuse Option 2. As such, the conditions at Orient Point that affect threatened and endangered species would not change from their current state. 3.8.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 may have a moderate impact on biological resources, especially during seasonal peak occupancy. High-density development in areas shown in Figure 2.3-1 could impact terrestrial resources, based on loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, and increased human activity. Impacts to freshwater and marine resources would be avoided and/or mitigated through existing local, state, and federal regulations. Rare, threatened and endangered species may be impacted by loss of terrestrial habitat. This option would involve a slightly larger scope of construction and land development operations than those in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, but within the same general 0 footprint as Reuse Option 2. Plum Island Terrestrial Resources The composition of terrestrial resources is discussed under Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning in Section 3.8.3.3. The development of the parcels on Plum Island could decrease terrestrial resources through direct loss, habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss. Construction impacts would be similar to those under Reuse Option 2. However, under Reuse Option 3, High- density Zoning, the extent of available habitat for terrestrial vegetation replacement and regrowth after construction would be reduced, resulting in a moderate adverse impact to terrestrial resources. The development of the same parcels under Reuse Option 3 would likely reduce the available habitat and the connectivity between the remaining habitable areas to a greater degree than low-density development. Habitat loss would directly reduce the resources available to terrestrial organisms, and thereby the number of organisms Plum Island is capable of supporting. The introduction or spread of invasive species would be limited by implementation of BMPs to mitigate impacts from construction equipment and/or to revegetate disturbed areas. Potential human encroachment of Plum Island beaches may increase, which could result in disturbance of existing species. Upland development in close proximity to coastal areas could result in indirect effects to shorebirds and beach native plant populations. Recreational beach access and shoreline protection and access projects could decrease the existing amount of natural, undisturbed beach habitat or prevent habitats from functioning in a natural manner. Once property use would be known, future development would be subject to the New York SEQR process. Public beach access and shoreline protection and access projects would be determined 3-85 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 and evaluated under the appropriate New York State Coastal Policies (Policy 19 and 20) and 40 Town of Southold regulations (which both consider protection of fragile coastal resources). Minor to moderate indirect effects would be expected associated with human encroachment on beaches and other undeveloped areas, new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support high-density zoning, and other new development in the project area. Terrestrial organisms most affected by habitat reduction would include upland forest -dwelling species such as birds, eastern box turtles, and raccoons. Predominantly shore -dwelling species that utilize upland resources could also be affected. Species that do not utilize upland resources would not be expected to be affected by redevelopment. Wildlife, such as small mammals and birds, could be displaced or killed during construction as a result of noise, vehicle traffic, or high levels of human activity. The number of animals impacted directly by construction activities would be negligible in a regional context. Population viability would not be threatened and there would be no measurable long-term effect on population numbers or distribution over a species' range of occurrence. Freshwater and Marine Resources Negligible to minor adverse changes to freshwater and marine resources would be expected from Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning. The Potential Development Parcels avoid the development in freshwater resource areas including ponds and wetlands and their regulatory buffers, and would not be expected to impact these resources. Marine resources could be impacted because this option may slightly increase ferry traffic, which could affect marine resources. In addition, no piers and or docks would be permitted, and no expansion of the existing harbor area would be allowed. A permit would be required from the Town and the Army Corps of Engineers should future development on Plum Island impact wetlands. In addition, impacts to adjacent areas and/or upland buffers would also trigger the need for a permit from the Town. Threatened and Endangered Species No changes to terrestrial habitats utilized by federally listed threatened and endangered species would occur with redevelopment, with the exception of upland habitats that may have the potential to support small whorled pogonia. However, as mentioned previously, the potential habitat is limited, and the species has not been seen in New York State in at least 20 years. In addition, development would be subject to local, state, and federal laws regarding protected species. Negligible to minor impacts to federally listed marine threatened and endangered species may occur as a result of increases in marine activities. Potentially impacted species include shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic hawksbill sea turtles, green sea turtles, Kemp's ridley sea turtles, leatherback sea turtles, and loggerhead sea turtles. High-density development within areas shown on Figure 2.3-1 may affect state -listed species that utilize terrestrial habitats. Species that utilize upland forest habitats, such as nesting osprey and the Northern harrier that are known to forage and nest on Plum Island, could potentially be impacted. Other state -listed wildlife species that potentially utilize these habitats include the red - shoulder hawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, Northern goshawk, and peregrine falcon. 3-86 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 State -listed plants that may occur in the proposed development areas include hop sedge, coastal sedge, and spring ladies' -tresses. However, development would be subject to local, state, and federal laws regarding protected species. Implementation of BMPs would serve to protect protected species during any construction activities. In order to mitigate for habitat loss, an invasive species/wildlife management plan would be developed and implemented to provide guidance on enhancing the remaining undisturbed habitat on Plum Island. In addition, the plan would also include guidance for landscaping within the proposed development areas. The plan would also support formal designation of areas on Plum Island for conservation and preservation. Orient Point Terrestrial Resources No naturally occurring terrestrial resources exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, no impacts would be expected under Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning. The current level and extent of development and activities would not significantly change at Orient Point. Freshwater and Marine Resources No freshwater resources exist on the Orient Point support facility. In addition, no impacts to marine resources would be expected from Reuse Option 3, which would not significantly change 40 activities that affect marine resources. Threatened and Endangered Species No impacts to terrestrial, marine, or aquatic resources, including critical habitats, would be expected under Reuse Option 3. As such, the conditions at Orient Point that affect threatened and endangered species would not change from their current state. 3.8.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Implementation of Reuse Option 4 would benefit biological resources on Plum Island. Conservation or preservation of all or most of Plum Island would eliminate or greatly reduce impacts to biological resources from human activities. In addition, preservation and management by a conservation entity would allow opportunities for future studies and management of the property for rare, threatened and endangered species. This option would also allow existing habitats to continue through their natural successional stages and allow wildlife that utilize Plum Island to avoid being disturbed by humans. Plum Island Terrestrial Resources Beneficial changes to the existing habitats on Plum Island would occur under Reuse Option 4. Reduced human activity on Plum Island would diminish habitat fragmentation and reduce disturbance to species from human intrusion; however, because the current level of activity and 3-87 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 development is low and existing habitat fragmentation is minimal, terrestrial resource changes would be negligible. Invasive plant species control would likely be implemented, allowing for the establishment of native plant communities in areas that are now overgrown with invasives. If construction is required, the introduction or spread of invasive species would be limited by implementation of BMPs to mitigate impacts from construction equipment and/or to revegetate disturbed areas. Once property use would be known, future development would be subject to the New York SEQR process. Public beach access would be determined under the appropriate New York State Coastal Policies (Policy 19 and 20) and Town of Southold regulations (which both consider protection of fragile coastal resources). Freshwater and Marine Resources Benefits of a minor nature to freshwater and marine resources may be associated with Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation. Reduction of ferry services and resulting reduction in boat traffic could provide benefits to marine resources through localized decreases in turbidity, noise, and vibration. Improvements would be minimal based on the relative scale of existing marine resources compared with the marine resource currently affected by ferry services. Threatened and Endangered Species Beneficial impacts to rare, threatened and endangered species or their habitats would be expected under Reuse Option 4. Conservation/preservation covenants on Plum Island would provide long-term protection of preferred habitat used by protected species. Also, the reduction of marine traffic to Plum Island could reduce the risk of boat strikes to threatened and endangered marine species such as sea turtles. However, the degree of risk reduction would likely be negligible based upon the proportion of traffic in Plum Gut and Long Island Sound associated with Plum Island -Orient Point. Implementation of BMPs would serve to protect protected species during any construction activities. As a part of Reuse Option 4, a restoration plan could be developed and implemented. The plan could include an invasive species/wildlife management plan to focus on enhancing existing habitats. The plan could also include restoration of significant wetlands areas and areas known to support threatened and endangered species that have been impacted by activities on Plum Island. Some restoration opportunities that exist on Plum Island include elimination of beach/dune enrichment activities and restoration of wetland habitat including restoring wetland functions and values of the polishing pond after decommissioning of the WWTP. Orient Point Terrestrial Resources No naturally occurring terrestrial resources exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, no impacts would be expected under Reuse Option 4. Freshwater and Marine Resources Freshwater resources do not exist on the Orient Point support facility; therefore, no impacts would be expected under Reuse Option 4. Negligible to minor beneficial impacts to marine 3-88 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • resources may be associated with this option. As with Plum Island, the decommissioning of the ferry services and Plum Island terminal could increase the amount of available marine habitat; however, improvements would be likely be minimal based on the relative scale of resources, and the continuation of marina activities and public ferry services adjacent to the Orient Point parcel. Threatened and Endangered Species No changes to terrestrial critical habitats or terrestrial threatened and endangered species would be expected under Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation. The reduction of marine traffic at Orient Point could reduce the risk of boat strikes to marine species. However, the reduction of risk would be negligible based upon the proportion of traffic associated with Plum Island -Orient Point relative to the marina and public ferry traffic adjacent to the Orient Point parcel. 3.9. CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.9.1. Methodology The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to record, evaluate, preserve, and plan for management of resources that are included in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is a list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to identify and assess the effects that their actions have on historic properties and consult with the New York SHPO, Indian Tribes, . and members of the public, and consider their views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions. To identify known archaeological and historically significant resources at the Property, database searches were conducted on the internet, at the Suffolk County Historical Society, the Town of Southampton, the New York Historical Society, and among historical records and maps located at the PIADC. In addition, an Archaeological Resources Predictive Model (Predictive Model) report associated with PIADC was prepared for GSA in 2010. The Predictive Model identified areas where there may be a greater likelihood of encountering archaeological resources based on historic data review and historic and current features such as wetlands and floodplains, which can be seen in Figure 3.9-1 below. Additional historic preservation laws and EOs that are applicable to the conveyance of the Property may include the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990, AIRFA of 1978, EO 13007: Indian Sacred Sites, and EO 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment. In consultation with the SHPO, the Joint Lead Agencies identified Native American Indian tribes whose ancestral lands could be affected by the sale of Plum Island. Letters were sent to each of the contacts, describing the proposed project. Copies of the coordination letters and responses received are included in Appendix C. • The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: 3-89 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Negligible: The impact would be at the lowest level of detection or barely perceptible and not • measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Minor: The impact would not affect the character -defining features of a historic resource listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Moderate: The impact would alter a character -defining feature(s) of the historic resource but would not diminish the integrity of the resource to the extent that its National Register eligibility would be jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Major: The impact would alter a character -defining feature(s) of the historic resource, diminishing the integrity of the resource to the extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed on the National Register. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. 3.9.2. Affected Environment Based on surveys, studies and plans completed in 1998 and 2003 and through consultation with the SHPO, a number of resources located on Plum Island have been identified as potentially eligible for listing on the NRNP. Those resources include the Plum Island Lighthouse, which was nominated and listed in February 2011. A Phase I archaeological survey over an approximately 24 -acre parcel on Plum Island was conducted as part of the evaluation for the • proposed NBAF facilities and no significant resources were identified. The Joint Lead Agencies are currently updating both the 1998 survey and the 2003 Preservation Plan in consultation with the SHPO. The Joint Lead Agencies will continue to comply with applicable requirements of the NHPA until that process is completed. This process may extend beyond the completion of the NEPA analysis. Background The information presented in this section is a compilation from numerous articles and reports: An Overview of Plum Island: History, Research and Effects on Long Island; 100 The Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory; 101 United States Animal Health Association Newsletter, 102 About Plum Island Animal Disease Center; 103 Historical Resources Survey of Plum Island, NY, 104 and Historic Preservation Plan for Plum Island, NY. 105 100 Cella, Alexandra. 2003. An Overview of Plum Island: History, Research and Effects on Long Island. Long Island Historical 101Journal, Vol. 16, Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 176-181 United States Agricultural Research Service. 1956. Miscellaneous Publication No. 730: The Plum Island Animal Disease ioz Laboratory. Animal Disease and Parasite Research Branch: Washington, D.C. United States Animal Health Association. 2003. United States Animal Health Association Newsletter, Vol. 30, No. 4. 103 Accessed July, 20, 2010. http://www.usaha.org/news/newsletter/USAHA-Newsletter-Oct2003.pdf Department of Homeland Security. 2010. About Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Accessed July, 20, 2010. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/editorial-0902.shtm 3-90 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 SThough no known prehistoric resources have been identified on Plum Island to date; however, extending back 10,000 years and up to the 17th century, the Long Island area was inhabited by numerous small groups of Algonquins. These groups shared a language and culture throughout the Middle Atlantic region and what is now New England. They chiseled clam shells and whelk to make wampum, the currency of eastern natives and, in the 17th century, adopted as money by colonists. Plum Island was probably first seen by European explorers in 1614 when Adrian Block, an Englishman with the Dutch West India Company, first charted the area. Originally known as the Isle of Patmos, explorers later renamed Plum Island for the native beach plums that grow along the shores; a Dutch map from around 1640 shows the name "Pruym Eyelant" (Plum Island). The first white resident to the area was Lion Gardiner, who settled in 1639 on Long Island between the north and south forks. Orient is the eastern -most hamlet in the Town on Long Island's North Fork. The hamlet was originally settled by five families given a land grant by the King of England in the 1600s, and their names King, Terry, Latham, Tuthill and Vail still exist in local families. Plum Island's first recorded individual owner of Plum Island was Samuel Wyllys, son of the Governor of Connecticut, who purchased Plum Island from Wyandanch, the ruling Indian chieftain of Long Island, in 1669 for a coat, a barrel of biscuits, 100 muxes (iron drills used to make wampum beads from shells), and fish hooks. The first white residents on Plum Island were probably the families of Joseph Beebe and Isaac Schellinx (or Schellinger), who built homes there prior to 1717. Joseph Beeb owned the western portion of Plum Island, while Schellinx owned the east. Plum Island was to be divided into two farms for most of its subsequent history. Richard Jerome acquired the western portion of Plum Island by 1833; however, Jerome had owned portions of the western half as early as 1826, when he sold 3 acres to the U.S. Government to build a lighthouse. The lighthouse in 1847 consisted of a white tower 50 feet from the keeper's house that had a "burnished copper reflector" and burned sperm oil (whale oil), while the current Plum Island Light Station was built in 1869. A map of Plum Island dated 1858 shows two houses on Plum Island in addition to the lighthouse. One house is indicated as Richard Jerome's, and the other as Alvin Mallory's; the residences are situated on the western and eastern portions of Plum Island, respectively. In an 1873 map the residence that had been used by Mallory appears to be gone, replaced to the east by the residence of Robert Clark. In the late nineteenth century, a two-story private clubhouse was built on a bluff overlooking the boat harbor by members of the Smokepipe Club of Hartford, Connecticut with the permission of Richard Jerome's son, suggesting that the clubhouse was built prior to 1883. The eastern farm was smaller and passed through a series of hands until the late nineteenth century, when all but the 3 -acre parcel that contained the Plum Island Light Station was acquired by Abram Hewett in 1890. 104 Hefner, R.J. 1998. Historic resources survey, Plum Island, New York. Submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plum Island Research Services Center, Plum Island, New York. East Hampton, NY. 105 FPM Group. 2003. Historic preservation plan for Plum Island, New York. Prepared in association with GAI Consultants, • Monroeville, PA. Submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plum Island Research Services Center, Plum Island, New York. Ronkonkoma, NY. 3-91 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 In 1897, the U.S. War Department purchased 150 acres of Plum Island from Abram Hewett to • establish a military post to protect the surrounding harbor and coast from naval attack during the Spanish-American War. The War Department purchased the remainder of Plum Island in 1901 and the artillery post was further developed into Fort Terry. Plum Island's Fort Terry was active during World War I, was declared surplus property after the war, and was put under the control of personnel at Fort H.G. Wright, located on Fishers Island. Fort Terry was reactivated in 1941 during World War II and used as an army training camp, and replenished submarines and patrolling ships with supplies. Following the war, the Fort was again declared surplus in 1948 and put under the control of Fort H.G. Wright. On April 25, 1952, Fort Terry was transferred to the U.S. Army Chemical Corps, which had been planning an animal research facility on Plum Island since 1951. From 1952 to 1954, 18 Fort Terry buildings where renovated to accommodate research. After the completion of the all the construction work, on May 26, 1954, the U.S. Army Plum Island Facility was officially deactivated, without ever having been used as the new laboratory facilities, and turned over to the USDA in response to outbreaks of FMD. There were nine FMD outbreaks in the U.S. beginning in 1870, and continuing until eradication in 1929; however, FMD outbreaks in Mexico in 1946 and Canada in 1952 persuaded Congress to authorize a facility in the U.S. capable of studying diseases of this nature. Plum Island was turned over to the USDA on July 1, 1954 to establish a research facility for foot-and-mouth disease, the PIADC. PIADC includes buildings, industrial facilities and equipment, roadways, utilities, specialized facilities, easements, and rights of way. A cemetery that contains an unknown number of unmarked graves has been identified based on • historic Army maps of Plum Island, located near the existing sewage treatment facility, and is overgrown with vegetation, based on a site visit in 2010. The single headstone known to be present on Plum Island is marked with the inscription "Col. Thomas Gardiner 1724-1786 Son of John Gardiner of Narragansett." The marker is located in a small, natural bowl -shaped depression on the south side of the moraine immediately west of the current laboratory buildings (Figure 3.9-1). Potentially Significant Prehistoric Archaeological Resources In a limited survey of Plum Island (24 acres), no prehistoric archaeological resources were identified. 116 As described in the Predictive Model, the previous discovery of a mammoth skeleton on the west end of Plum Island indicates that the island could contain prehistoric remains that range in age from Paleo-Indian to the time of European contact. In addition, numerous prehistoric archaeological sites are known to be present on the rest of Long 106 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact • statement. 3-92 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York LONG ISLAND SOUND R. C1ltrke R. Jerome Col. Thomas Gwdkwr edit" PLUM GUT is • July 13, 2012 A. Mallory 11958 MW1 ATLANTIC OCEAN Source. Archaeoiog.cai Resources Predictive Model - PIADC MACTEC Engineering and Consuming, Inc BRP 0211&11 February 2011 i'. JB 02116111 Legend ®Fort Terry Era High Probability Sites = Prehistoric High Probability Zones -Shoreline (FEMA) =Potenttal Development Parcels ni, va Figure 3.9-1 Archaeological and Historic Sites Figure 3.9-1: Archaeological and Historical Sites on Plum Island 3-93 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 107 108 Island, ' and such resources may also be present on Plum Island. Figure 3.9-1 developed from • the Archaeological Resources Predictive Model shows areas with high potential for prehistoric resources on Plum Island. Potential prehistoric remains on Plum Island would most likely be concentrated along the north edge of Plum Island proximate to Long Island Sound, along the west edge of Plum Island adjacent to Plum Gut, and within 200 meters of freshwater sources elsewhere on Plum Island. The northern edge of Plum Island, inland for approximately 200 meters, is more likely to contain prehistoric resources than the southern margins, as it is expected that the Long Island Sound would have been a much richer and more varied source of food than the Atlantic Ocean. It is also more sheltered, and a better place for longer-term settlement. The same factors that make the northern edge of Plum Island more attractive than the southern edge worked to favor the western over the eastern end of Plum Island. Availability of potable water is a powerful factor dictating settlement and land use in a maritime environment such as Plum Island, and the areas of greatest prehistoric use were probably those areas with easy access to potable surface water and to the northern and/or western shores. It is also more likely that prehistoric settlement concentrated on the higher, flatter areas to the east and north of the floodplain. Potentially Significant Historic Archaeological Resources Potentially significant historic archaeological resources on Plum Island have been identified from historic maps and reflect the actual locations of resources as they can best be determined from those maps: • the 3 -acre Plum Island Light Station complex on the west end of Plum Island; is • the harbor area on the west end of Plum Island; • the bluff edge overlooking the harbor on the west end to a distance of 100 m inland from the edge of the bluff, • the cemetery and the area within 200 m of the cemetery; • the Jerome, Mallory, and Clark farmsteads as shown on historic maps; and • the Fort Terry complex. Architectural Resources The Plum Island Light Station is listed on the NRNP. Other structures that may be eligible for listing on the NRHP include: • Battery Floyd and Battery Eldridge (i.e., Battery Construction No. 217); • Shelter Search Light 13 and Shelter Search Light 14; and 107 Suffolk County Archaeological Association. 1979. The history and archaeology of the Montauk Indians, Vol. III. Stony Brook, NY. los •Truex, J.E. 1982. The second coastal archaeology reader: 1900 to the present, Vol. V. Stony Brook, NY: Suffolk County Archaeological Association. 3-94 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • • Fort Terry complex. The potentially significant prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and the architectural resources, both eligible for and listed on the NRHP are all hereinafter referred to as "Historic Resources." 3.9.3. Consequences 3.9.3.1 No Action Alternative — Retain in Federal Ownership The No Action Alternative would not adversely impact Historic Resources, as the high probability zones for archeological resources are limited to undeveloped and undisturbed areas that would not be affected by the decommissioning process, and the structures that would be decommissioned are not Historic Resources. 3.9.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property Any future development on the Property would be subject to applicable state and federal regulations, including the NHPA. The Joint Lead Agencies and the SHPO may develop deed covenants for certain resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRNP, in order to preserve the distinctive materials, features and spaces that make them eligible for inclusion in the NRNP. 3.9.3.3 Reuse Option I —Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure • Historic Resources that are eligible for listing or listed on the NRHP would be subject to the deed covenants and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Prehistoric Resources Reuse Option 1 would not impact potentially significant prehistoric archaeological resources, because the high probability zones for these resources are limited to undeveloped and undisturbed areas. Historic Resources Historic Resources that are eligible for listing or listed on the NRHP would be subject to the deed covenants and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 3.9.3.4 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 2 could impact Historic Resources. Prehistoric Resources The redevelopment of Plum Island could impact prehistoric resources, if any, because redevelopment of portions of Potential Development Parcels 1 and 3 could have an impact on a segment of the high probability zone for prehistoric resources shown on Figure 3.9-1. The 3-95 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 development of the remaining parcels would not impact high probability areas for prehistoric • resources. Historic Resources The redevelopment of Plum Island could impact historic archaeological resources. The redevelopment of portions of the Potential Development Parcels 3 and 4 could impact the Fort Terry complex. In addition, the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 1 could impact the approximated site of the Gardiner headstone, the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 2 could impact the approximated site of the former Jerome farmstead, and the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 3 could impact the approximated sites of the former Mallory and Clarke farmsteads. The impacts to architectural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be negligible, as redevelopment or removal would be subject to deed restrictions as well as federal, state, and local regulations that preserve the distinctive materials, features and spaces that make them eligible for inclusion in the NRNP. 3.9.3.4.1 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 could impact Historic Resources. Prehistoric Resources • The redevelopment of Plum Island could impact prehistoric resources, if any, because redevelopment of portions of Potential Development Parcels 1 and 3 could have an impact on a segment of the high probability zone for prehistoric resources shown on Figure 3.9-1. The development of the remaining parcels would not impact high probability areas for prehistoric resources. Historic Resources The redevelopment of Plum Island could impact historic archaeological resources. The redevelopment of portions of the Potential Development Parcels 3 and 4 could impact the Fort Terry complex. In addition, the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 1 could impact the approximated site of the Gardiner headstone, the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 2 could impact the approximated site of the former Jerome farmstead, and the redevelopment of the Potential Development Parcel 3 could impact the approximated sites of the former Mallory and Clarke farmsteads. The impacts to architectural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be negligible, as redevelopment or removal would be subject to deed restrictions as well as federal, state, and local regulations that preserve the distinctive materials, features and spaces that make them eligible for inclusion in the NRNP. Ll 3-96 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • 3.9.3.5 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Reuse Option 4 would not likely adversely impact Historic Resources. Prehistoric Resources The conservation of Plum Island would not likely impact potential prehistoric resources, as the high probability zones for these resources are limited to undeveloped and undisturbed areas that would not be affected by any changes to existing structures. Historic Resources The impacts to historic archeological and architectural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be negligible, as any changes would be subject to deed restrictions as well as federal, state, and local regulations that preserve the distinctive materials, features and spaces that make them eligible for inclusion in the NRNP. 3.10. SOCIOECONOMICS/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The socioeconomic study area for this EIS includes one county in New York State (Suffolk County) and two counties in the State of Connecticut (Middlesex and New London). Since the PIADC employs residents from the above-mentioned counties, this section will summarize socioeconomic and environmental justice baseline conditions that could be affected by the • Action and No Action Alternatives. 3.10.1. Methodology The methodology for assessing potential socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts from the sale begins with identifying a study area. The socioeconomic and environmental justice study area represents the location where workers of PIADC live and commute to. This study area was determined based on an analysis of the commuting patterns to and from the PIADC on a county level. Information on commuting patterns was obtained largely from journey -to -work data contained in U.S. Census statistics describing daily commuting patterns to and from a given location. These data were used to define the affected environment by considering any county that constituted approximately 5 percent or more of the worker flows into the PIADC as comprising the study area. The socioeconomic impacts analysis first focuses on descriptive parameters of the affected human environment, including demographics, environmental justice, economic, and social assets of a community. Demographics focus on population trends, age, income, and education. Environmental justice considers segments of the community that constitute minority and low income populations. Economic characteristics provide information on the labor market and local employment base. Housing and quality of life measures such as access to schools, health care, and police and fire protection are also influenced by socioeconomic factors. Various analysis tools were used to examine and present the descriptive parameters. For example, school -aged children and the elderly are sensitive population groups that have additional needs and require • additional services. Therefore, populations under 18 years of age and above 65 years of age are 3-97 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 highlighted in the environment analyses portion of this report. In addition to the most recent • information available from the U.S. Census (including the American Community Survey [ACS] 2006-2008 three year estimate data), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sources, information from the NBAF EIS, 2008 has been used to support the baseline information. The socioeconomic impacts analysis then focuses on the anticipated impacts of the PIADC on the local community. This section will describe and estimate potential consequences from decommissioning the PIADC and varying development options on the descriptive parameters. These include anticipated changes in employment opportunities, labor income, population changes, housing demand, as well as anticipated changes in the quality of life as measured by the expected change in the demand for general public services. Impact Analysis for Planning Modeling System (IMPLAN) was used to estimate the economic effects on the Plum Island socioeconomic study area. IMPLAN is a widely used economic impact assessment model system developed and provided by Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG, Inc.). IMPLAN is a "regional accounts" model that identifies the relationships between hundreds of economic sectors for an identified region. Specifically, IMPLAN identifies all the industries that a specific industry purchases its inputs from, and all the industries or sectors to which it sells its outputs. County -specific industry and economic data for Suffolk, Middlesex, and New London counties were obtained from the MIG Inc., and used for this analysis. IMPLAN's inter -industry relationships are based on national production coefficients and can be fine-tuned to better reflect local production practices where necessary. • The inter -industry linkages and consumer spending patterns vary from region to region. Therefore, the outputs of the impact analysis such as the potential amount of labor employed and income for each option varied according to the type of industries employed and their inter- industry linkages. IMPLAN estimates the total economic effects arising from the proposed action as well as its alternative actions by accounting for direct, indirect, and induced effects of the anticipated investment. The total economic impact includes the following changes in income and employment: Direct impacts are the employment and income directly supported by the industry in question (e.g., hotel operations) • Indirect impacts are the employment and income generated by industries (e.g., ferry boat service) that support the subject industry (e.g., hotel operations). Induced impacts are the employment and income generated as a result of household expenditures supported by income from the industry in question (e.g., spending of labor income from the hotel operations). Together, the total sum of direct, indirect, and induced impacts constitute the multiplier effect, which is defined as the ratio between the total estimated impact and the direct economic impact. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: • 3-98 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Negligible: Little or no noticeable change in economic activity, employment and income levels, or population migration or immigration. Minor: Local changes in economic activity, employment and income levels, or population migration or immigration. Moderate: Regional changes in overall economic activity, employment and income levels, or population migration or immigration. Major: Widespread, significant changes in overall economic activity, employment and income levels, or population migration or immigration. 3.10.2. Affected Environment As discussed above in the methodology, the Plum Island socioeconomic study area was determined primarily based on journey -to -work information for the workers of PIADC, as obtained from the U.S. Census. The study area is shown in Figure 3.10-1. Demographics According to U.S. Census 2009 estimates, there were 1,951,007 people living in the study area with an ethnic makeup of 85.5 percent White (80.6 percent Non -Hispanic White), 6.5 percent Black or African American, 0.4 percent American Indian and Native Alaskan, 2.3 percent Asian, • 0 percent Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 5.3 percent from other ethnic groups. Hispanics of any ethnicity made up 9.1 percent of the population. According to the 2006-2008 ACS, the population in the study area was spread out with 24.2 percent people under the age of 18, 9.0 percent from 18 to 24, 34.8 percent from 25 to 49, 19.0 percent from 50 to 64, and 12.9 percent who were 65 years of age or older. The median, as well as largest, age group was 35 to 49 years. According to the ACS, the majority of the population comprises high school graduates (31.1 percent). The next largest groups in terms of level of educational attainment were those with some college but no degree (18.0 percent), or those with bachelor's degrees (17.6 percent). The median income for a household in the study area was $75, 273, and the per capita income was $34,978 (2006-2008 average in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars). Approximately 5.9 percent of the population was below the poverty line according to the 2000 census. According to the BEA, 1,072,509 people were employed in the study area in 2008, and the ACS recorded a total of 1,381,643 housing units with 648,682 or 47.0 percent of those units being occupied. ACS average household size data was used to estimate the study area's average household size to be 2.64 (U.S. Census 2006-2008 ACS). Population • In 2009, the total estimated population of Suffolk County, New York was 1,518,475 persons, 266,830 persons in New London County, Connecticut, and 165,702 persons in Middlesex 3-99 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 i 1 r ~ 1 >< Wndham Columbia` ' ,� 1 �� Tolland ! ♦ s 1 Hartford ♦ Wit/"' •' utchfield New London Dutchess � �i Middl sex i� New Haven , r i , •••% Putnam • •. •„� ,� 1 Project Boundary 'Fairfield Westchester • Rockland Legend Town of Southold, NY n `l; / Town of Old Sayorook, CT Bmnx� 14�. Plum island, NY ` r Nassau C3 NOAction Alternative (Plum Island She) r, Socioeconomics industry N?w Yorkstudy Areacounties • Queens I % Agricultural Industry J 'V ) �yStudyArea Counties t„r t 44 ♦' 1 1 Counties Kings 1 ; / 6 3 0 6 12 8 24 Connecticut ♦rRichmond , fes' I t� Miles 0 New York Figure 3.10-1: Plum Island Socioeconomic Study Area Source: NBAF Final EIS citing the U.S. Census 2000 SF1 Data County, Connecticut. The total estimated population increased by 299,350 persons between 1980 and 2009. Overall, population in the three counties increased between 1980 and 2009 by 18.1 percent, with an 18.2 percent increase in Suffolk County, 28.4 percent increase in Middlesex County, and 11.9 percent increase in New London County (Figure 3.10-2). Both Suffolk County and Middlesex County grew faster than their associated states over the same period (New York increased by 11.3 percent and Connecticut increased by 13.2 percent from 1980 to 2009). The total population of the study area increased each decade after 1980 and was largely influenced by the growing population in Suffolk County. Factors influencing the observed population trend in Suffolk County include suburban development (particularly in western Suffolk County, with 3-100 .7 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • workers commuting to New York City) and the location of major institutions in the county such as the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I" Population Estimates, 1980-2009 1,600,000 1,-400,000 1,'_00,000 c 1,000,000 --- 800.000 a. a 600,000 - 400,000 200,000 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Suffolk Co. 111iddlesel Co. New London Co. Figure 3.10-2: Population Trends for the Plum Island Study Area (1980 — 2009) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Table 3.10-1 summarizes the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the study area (0.69 percent) as well as for New York (0.31 percent) and Connecticut (0.34 percent) from 2000 to 2009. Between 2000 and 2009, the population of the study area grew approximately twice as fast as New York and Connecticut annually. Suffolk County and New London County grew at approximately the same pace, which was more than double the annual growth of their respective states. New London County's annual growth was similar to Connecticut's. The Town grew the fastest of the study area. Plum Island has no residential population. Although separated by approximately 1 mile of waterway, the nearest residential population is located on Orient Point, which is the easternmost coast of North Fork, Long Island, in the Town. For this analysis, the Town in Suffolk County is considered the area affected the most by the sale because of its close proximity to Plum Island."' "9 • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. no Ibid. 3-101 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 3.10-1: Study Area Compound Annual Growth Rate, 2000 - 2009 Region Population 2000 2009 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) Percent* 2000-2009 Town of Southold 20,599 22,631 1.05 Suffolk County 1,419,369 1,518,475 0.75 Middlesex County 155,071 165,702 0.74 New London County 259,088 266,830 0.33 Study Area 1,833,528 1,951,007 0.69 New York 18,998,044 19,541,453 0.31 Connecticut 3,411,726 3,518,288 0.34 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Population Estimates, Census 2000 *The CAGR is a simplified estimate that measures the growth of the population as if it had grown at a steady single rate on an annually compounded basis. Age • The most recent U.S. Census data for population ages of the study area, obtained from the 2006 - 2008 ACS, is summarized in Table 3.10-2. Nearly 24.2 percent of the study area population was under 18 years of age, and 12.9 percent was aged 65 years and older. The population of Suffolk County under 18 years of age was the largest in the study area (24.7 percent), and its population aged 65 years and older was the smallest in the study area (12.8 percent). The proportion of the • population under 18 years of age and 65 years and older were similar for Middlesex County (22.0 percent and 14.1 percent respectively) and New London County (23.0 percent and 13.2 percent respectively). The proportion of the Suffolk County population estimated to be under 18 years of age was greater than in New York (22.6 percent) and Connecticut (22.9 percent). The proportion of the population of Suffolk County estimated to be 65 years of age and older was smaller than in New York (13.4 percent) and Connecticut (13.8 percent). Table 3.10-2: Study Area Age Profile, 2006-2008 Average Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS 3-102 • Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London County Study Area Number I Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 5 years 556 2.5 94,189 6.2 8,827 5.4 15,826 6.0 118,842 6.1 5 to 5 years 1,287 5.9 100,810 6.7 10,152 6.2 15,458 5.8 126,420 6.5 10 to 14 years 1,354 6.2 108,152 7.2 10,321 6.3 18,599 7.0 137,072 7.1 15 to 17 years 889 4.1 69,120 4.6 6,744 4.1 11,175 4.2 87,039 4.5 18 to 24 years 1,131 5.2 137,190 9.1 13,694 8.4 23,711 8.9 174,595 9.0 25 to 34 years 1,265 5.8 162,362 10.7 17,457 10.6 33,622 12.7 213,441 11.0 35 to 49 years 4,498 20.5 358,235 23.7 40,229 24.5 64,114 24.2 462,578 23.8 50 to 64 years 4,983 22.7 287,628 19.0 33,402 20.4 47,899 18.0 368,929 19.0 65 years and above 5,976 27.2 193,030 12.8 23,090 14.1 34,985 13.2 251,105 12.9 Total 21,939 100.0 1,510,716 100.0 163,916 100.0 265,389 100.0 1,940,021 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS 3-102 • • • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Education July 13, 2012 The most recent educational attainment data for the study area was obtained from the U.S. Census 2006 - 2008 ACS and is summarized in Table 3.10-3. This table shows that 10.7 percent of the study area's population at 25 years of age and older did not graduate from high school, 49.1 percent of the study area population graduated from high school or had some college education, 8.6 percent had an associate's degree and 31.6 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher level of education. The proportion of residents that did not graduate from high school in the study area was smaller than in New York (15.3 percent) and Connecticut (11.4 percent). The study area proportion of residents with a bachelor's degree or higher level of education was also smaller than that of in New York (32.4 percent) and Connecticut (35.6 percent). Table 3.10-3: Study Area Educational Attainment, 2006-2008 Average Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Income According to the U.S. Census 2006 - 2008 ACS, the median household incomes adjusted to 2008 dollars ranged from $65,580 in New London County to $84,767 in Suffolk County as shown in Table 3.10-4. The study area's estimated median household income of $75,273 was above the median household income for New York ($54,659) and Connecticut ($67,034). Per capita income across the study area had less variation and was lowest in New London County at $32,279, in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars. The study area was estimated to have a per capita income of $34,978, higher than that in New York ($30,645), but lower than Connecticut's ($35,747). Table 3.10-4: Study Area Income Profile, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London County Study Area 75,471 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than Ninth Grade 1,025 6.1 42,993 4.3 3,076 2.7 8,288 4.5 54,357 4.2 9th to 12th Grade 755 4.5 65,855 6.6 6,871 6.0 11,768 6.4 84,494 6.5 Hgh School Graduate 4,642 27.6 313,134 31.3 32,004 28.0 59,320 32.4 404,458 31.1 Some College, No Degree 1 2,476 14.7 177,661 17.7 20,901 18.3 34,779 19.0 233,341 18.0 Associate Degree 1,476 8.8 88,033 8.8 9,174 8.0 14,774 8.1 111,981 8.6 Bachelor's Degree 3,607 21.5 175,270 17.5 1 23,388 20.5 29,986 16.4 228,644 17.6 Graduate or Professional Degree 2,834 16.9 138,309 13.8 18,764 16.4 24,299 13.3 181,372 14.0 Total 16,815 100.0 1 1,001255 1 100.0 1 114,178 100.0 1 183,214 100.0 1,298,647 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Income According to the U.S. Census 2006 - 2008 ACS, the median household incomes adjusted to 2008 dollars ranged from $65,580 in New London County to $84,767 in Suffolk County as shown in Table 3.10-4. The study area's estimated median household income of $75,273 was above the median household income for New York ($54,659) and Connecticut ($67,034). Per capita income across the study area had less variation and was lowest in New London County at $32,279, in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars. The study area was estimated to have a per capita income of $34,978, higher than that in New York ($30,645), but lower than Connecticut's ($35,747). Table 3.10-4: Study Area Income Profile, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold SuffolkCounty Middlese;T County New London County Study Area Income US Dollars Median Household Income 70,646 84,767 75,471 65,580 75,273 Per Capita Income 39,052 35,140 37,515 32,279 1 34,978 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Total labor income for each county in the study area was obtained from BLS, as also shown in Table 3.10-5. Labor income was $31,020 billion for Suffolk County, $3,480 billion for 3-103 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Middlesex County, and $6,114 billion for New London County. The total labor income for the • study area was $40,615 billion for 2008.111 Table 3.10-5: Study Area Income Profile (2008 dollars) Middlesex New London Suffolk County County County Study Area Total Labor Income (in US Dollars thousands) 31.020.453 3.480.179 1 6.114.231 40.614.863 Environmental Justice Environmental justice considers sensitive minority and low income populations in the community to determine whether the proposed action and its alternatives may have a disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effect on those populations. Environmental justice analysis is conducted in compliance with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Based on guidance from the CEQ, minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the area exceeds 50 percent, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.' 12 Low income populations are defined as those below the federal poverty thresholds identified using statistical poverty • thresholds from the U.S. Census. USEPA identifies a low income community as an area with a significantly greater population of low income families than a statistical reference area."' For the purposes of the socioeconomics analysis reflected in this EIS, low income populations are defined as an area where the population exceeds the 25 percent poverty level, or if isolated pockets of large low income populations are present. Ethnicity and poverty rates reflected in this EIS were obtained from the U.S. Census 2000. In 2000, persons of Hispanic origin constituted the largest percentage minority group in the study area (9.1 percent), which was smaller than in New York (15.1 percent) and the United States (12.5 percent), but greater than the percentage of Hispanic population in Connecticut (6.5 percent). African Americans constituted 6.5 percent of the study area, a smaller proportion than in New York (15.9 percent), Connecticut (8.6 percent), and the United States (12.2 percent). Overall, the proportion of minorities in the study area (19.5 percent) was smaller than in the United States (30.1 percent), New York (38.0 percent), and Connecticut (22.5 percent). Ethnic compositions are summarized in Table 3.10-6. The study area is below the CEQ threshold of 50 percent for minority populations. 111 Wages include bonuses, stock options, profit distributions, the cash value of meals and lodging, tips and other gratuities, and, 112 in some States, employer contributions to certain deferred compensation plans such as 401(k) plans. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. 113 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Final guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns in . EPA's NEPA compliance analysis. 3-104 C • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Table 3.10-6: Study Area Ethnic Composition, 2000 July 13, 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 3.10-7 summarizes the poverty rates within the study area. Middlesex County had the lowest proportion of persons living below poverty in the study area, and New London County contained the highest proportion of persons living below the poverty line. The percentage of persons living below poverty in the study area was 5.9 percent, substantially smaller than the poverty rate in New York (14.59 percent) and Connecticut (8.0 percent). The poverty rates in all three counties and the study area are below the CEQ threshold of 25 percent for low income populations. Table 3.10-7: Study Area Poverty Rate, 2000 Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London County Study Area Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White Alone 5,271 96.5 11200,755 84.6 141,555 91.3 225,406 87 1,567,716 85.5 Non -Hispanic White 5,203 95.2 11118,405 78.8 138,979 89.6 219,542 84.7 1,476,926 80.6 Hispanic White 68 1.2 82,350 5.8 2,576 1.7 5,864 2.3 90,790 5 Non -White Alone 194 3.6 218,614 15.4 13,516 8.7 33,682 13 265,812 14.5 American Alone 51 0.9 98,553 6.9 6,856 4.4 13,703 1 5.3 119,112 6.5 Native Alaskan Alone 7 0.1 3,807 0.3 269 0.2 2,487 1 6,563 0.4 Asian Alone 11 0.2 34,711 2.5 2,419 1.6 5,075 2 42,205 2.3 Other Pacific Islander 1 0 484 0 58 0 151 0.1 693 0 Other 124 2.3 1 81,059 5.7 3,914 2.5 12,266 4.7 97,239 5.3 Total 5,465 100 1 1,419,369 100 155,071 100 259,088 100 1,8339528 100 Hispanic Population Total 148 2.7 149,411 10.5 4,649 3 13,236 5.1 167,296 9.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Table 3.10-7 summarizes the poverty rates within the study area. Middlesex County had the lowest proportion of persons living below poverty in the study area, and New London County contained the highest proportion of persons living below the poverty line. The percentage of persons living below poverty in the study area was 5.9 percent, substantially smaller than the poverty rate in New York (14.59 percent) and Connecticut (8.0 percent). The poverty rates in all three counties and the study area are below the CEQ threshold of 25 percent for low income populations. Table 3.10-7: Study Area Poverty Rate, 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Economic Conditions Employment Labor force and unemployment data was obtained from the BLS for years 2000 through 2009. In general, the civilian labor force in the study area grew from 952,839 persons in 2000 to 1,041,751 persons in 2009, an increase of 8.5 percent over 10 years, which was larger than the growth rate for New York (5.5 percent) and Connecticut (8.1 percent) during the same period. The unemployment rate in the three counties within the study area generally mirrored that of New York and Connecticut across the 10 years - gradually rising between 2000 and 2003, followed by a gradual fall between 2003 and 2007, and a steep rise between 2007 and 2009 3-105 New London Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County C unty Study Area Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Population For Whom Poverty Status is 5,465 100 1,393,546 100 149,529 100 247,198 100 1,790,273 100 Determined opulalion With Income in 1999 Below Poverty 115 2.1 83,171 6 6,911 4.6 15,780 6.4 105,862 5.9 Level Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Economic Conditions Employment Labor force and unemployment data was obtained from the BLS for years 2000 through 2009. In general, the civilian labor force in the study area grew from 952,839 persons in 2000 to 1,041,751 persons in 2009, an increase of 8.5 percent over 10 years, which was larger than the growth rate for New York (5.5 percent) and Connecticut (8.1 percent) during the same period. The unemployment rate in the three counties within the study area generally mirrored that of New York and Connecticut across the 10 years - gradually rising between 2000 and 2003, followed by a gradual fall between 2003 and 2007, and a steep rise between 2007 and 2009 3-105 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 (Figure 3.10-3). Individually, each county had an unemployment rate that was lower than their respective states. 10 '_000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Suffolk Co. Middlesex Co. New London Co. Study Area Nety York Connecticut Figure 3.10-3: Unemployment Rate in the Plum Island Study Area, 2000 - 2009 Source: BLS The most recent commuting data for the study area was obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census. All three counties have the majority of their labor forces commuting to work within county borders (Table 3.10-8). Middlesex County had slightly more than half of its labor force working in Middlesex and approximately 24 percent working in neighboring Hartford County, which is home to the city of Hartford, the capital of Connecticut. Approximately 83 percent of New London County residents work in the county with a small fraction working in Hartford County (5.5 percent) and Middlesex County (3.8 percent). Approximately three-quarters of Suffolk County residents work in Suffolk County, with another 14 percent commuting daily to neighboring Nassau County for work. Another measure of employment is the count of actual jobs. The following employment base analysis uses the count of actual jobs in ascertaining the relative importance and proportion of various industrial sectors present in the study area using the latest BEA employment information (2001-2008). 3-106 • n U • C • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Table 3.10-8: Study Area Journey -to -Work Patterns, 2000 July 13, 2012 Residence County Workplace County Number of Workers Percent Suffolk, NY Suffolk, NY 491,836 73.4 Nassau, NY 90,930 13.6 New York, NY 41,121 6.1 Queens, NY 25,159 3.8 Kings, NY 10,586 1.6 All other areas 10,774 1.6 Middlesex, CT Middlesex, CT 41,641 51.6 Hartford, CT 19,225 23.8 New Haven, CT 12,833 15.9 New London, CT 3,878 4.8 Fairfield, CT 1,161 1.4 All other areas 1,977 2.4 New London, CT New London, CT 107,232 82.8 Hartford, CT 7,093 5.5 Middlesex, CT 4,909 3.8 Windham, CT 3,181 2.5 New Haven, CT 1,638 1.3 All other areas 5,500 4.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County -to -County Worker Flow Files Information regarding employment by industry for the study area followed by each individual county is illustrated in Figures 3.10-4 to 3.10-7. In 2008, the number of jobs in the study area was 11 ,072,509. Suffolk County contributed to more than 75.6 percent of the total jobs (810,022 14 jobs ).New London accounted for 16.5 percent of the jobs (177,164 jobs), and Middlesex accounted for 9.3 percent of the jobs (99,854 jobs). In 2008, services (41.4 percent) constituted the largest percentage of jobs. The three largest service industries were health care and social services (11.6 percent), professional and technical services (7.3 percent), and accommodation and food services (5.6 percent). Another large source of employment for the study area included government and government enterprises. Government enterprises cover a majority of their operating costs by selling goods and services similar to private sector firms. Example of government enterprises include government-owned and -operated transportation services (such as the ferry services), postal, electric utility, sewer and sanitation services, gas and water supply, and post exchanges. The government and government enterprises data also captures all transportation to and from Plum Island. Government-owned and contractor -operated ferries connect Orient Point to the study area Island location and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Access is restricted to the employees, contractors, and visitors of the current facility. 114 In 2008, the number of jobs in the transportation and utilities industries was not available due to non -disclosure concerns. 3-107 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 500,000 450,000 400,000 +, 350,000 300,000 c 250,000 200,000 W 150.000 100,000 50,000 0 Trends in Total Employment by Industry, Study Area, 2000-2008 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 July 13, 2012 Farm and Ag. Services Mining Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Utilities Trade FIRE. Services Govenlnlent Figure 3.10-4: Plum Island Study Area Employment by Industry, 2001-2008 Source: Regional Economic Information System, BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 E 0 200,000 W 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Trends in Total Employment by Industry, Suffolk, NY, 2000-2008 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fano and Ag. Services Mining* —Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Utilities* Trade F.I.R.E. Services Govennuent Figure 3.10-5: Suffolk County, New York Employment by Industry, 2001-2008 Source: Regional Economic Information System, BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce *Some data for Mining, Trans. & Utilities are unavailable due to non -disclosure of confidential information. 3-108 • 11 • • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 45,000 40,000 35,000 d 30.000 '_5,000 30,000 w" 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Trends in Total Employment by Industry, Middlesex, CT, 2000-2008 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 20OR July 13, 2012 Fann and Ag. Seivices Alining* Construction Manufacturing Trans. & Utilities Trade F.I.R.E. Services Goveninient Figure 3.10-6: Middlesex County, Connecticut Employment by Industry, 2000-2008 Source: Regional Economic Information System, BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce *Some data for Mining are unavailable due to non -disclosure of confidential information Trends in Total Employment by Industry, New London, CT, 2000-2008 70,000 60,000 L ----- 50,000 40,000 0 30,000 r w I 20,000 - 10,000 - --- ---- Farm and Ag. Services nlinirig* Construction Alanufacturing Trans. & Utilities Trade --w—F.I.R.E. Services 0 Government 2001 2002 2001 2004 2005 20061 2007 200R Figure 3.10-7: New London County, Connecticut Employment by Industry, 2001-2008 Source: Regional Economic Information System, BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce *Some data for Mining are unavailable due to non -disclosure of confidential information Additional information on the major employers in the study area for Connecticut was obtained from the Connecticut Business News Journal. 115 Information on major employers for Suffolk County was obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, which pools some 115 Connecticut Business News Journal. 2009. http://www.conntact.com/. 3-109 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 employer data with the adjacent Nassau County. The major employers for the study area are • summarized in Table 3.10-9. North Shore Health System, which is a network of 14 hospitals spread over Suffolk and Nassau Counties and other health care providers, such as the Winthrop Health System and Stony Brook University Hospital, were among the leading employers in Suffolk County.' 16 Similarly, Middlesex Hospital is a leading firm in Middlesex County. 11' Table 3.10-9: Study Area Major Employers Suffolk County (NY)* Middlesex and New London Counties (CT) North Shore Health System Middlesex Hospital Diocese of Rockville Center Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Wauldbaums supermarkets Wesleyan University North Fork Bank Connecticut College Long Island Railroad Chemtura Corp. Cablevision Systems Winthrop Health System Home Depot Pathmark supermarkets King Kullen supermarkets Key Span Long Island University Stony Brook University Hospital United Parcel Service Brookhaven National Laboratory Newsday Estee Lauder Computer Associates Source: Connecticut Business News Journal (2009) & Suffolk County Department of Planning (2005) * This includes some firms with operations in adjacent Nassau County. During the scoping process for the NBAF EIS, I" public concern regarding the possible impacts from PIADC operations on agricultural production — particularly animal production — was raised. In response to the public's concern, a summary of the NBAF EIS119 agriculture industry baseline analysis follows. DHS and IMPLAN data on the study area was used to describe the importance of the agricultural industry to the local economy for the year 2006. "[The] agricultural industry generally constituted less than 1 percent of employment both in terms of total jobs supported and • 116 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid. • 119 Ibid. 3-110 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • in terms of total compensation paid in all three counties together and individually. The only exception is in New London County where it supports 1.3 percent of total jobs in the county."12o Total agriculture production, which includes intermediate and final consumption of agricultural products, was $454 million with animal production accounting for $65 million of the total with a very small portion the livestock coming from the study area.121 • Housing The most recent housing information for the study area was obtained from the U.S. Census 2006- 2008 ACS. The number of housing units in the study area that were occupied was estimated to be 88.5 percent for the three-year average, and 11.5 percent were estimated to be vacant (Table 3.10-10). The proportion of vacant units in the study area was estimated to be slightly larger than in New York (10.5 percent) and Connecticut (7.8 percent). According to the 2008 NBAF EIS, the majority of vacant units in the study area were used for seasonal and recreational use. 122 New London County was estimated to have the highest proportion of renter -occupied housing units. The percentage of owner -occupied housing units in the study area (70.4 percent) was estimated to be greater than in New York (55.6 percent) and Connecticut (69.5 percent). Table 3.10-10: Study Area Housing Units by Occupancy, 2006-2008 Average Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS For the 2006-2008 three-year average, the single-family detached house was the predominant form of housing in the study area and constituted 565,881 units (77.2 percent) (Table 3.10-11). The majority of housing units in buildings with more than 10 units were located in the Middlesex County. The 2006-2008 three-year average median housing value for the study area was estimated to be $341,633 in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars, which is higher than the median housing value for both New York ($311,700) and Connecticut ($305,111) (Table 3.10-12). The Town was estimated to have the highest median housing value ($576,400), and New London County was estimated to have the lowest median housing value ($269,800). 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. 3-111 Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London County Study Area Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Occupied Housing Units 8,920 59.6 478,920 46.8 66,077 47.8 103,685 47.1 648,682 47.0 Owner -Occupied HousinUnits 7,609 50.8 393,874 38.5 49,423 35.8 72,545 33.0 515,842 37.3 Renter -Occupied HousinUnits 1,311 8.8 85,046 8.3 16,654 12.0 31,140 14.1 132,840 9.6 Vacant Housing Units 6,054 40.4 65,430 6.4 6,066 4.4 12,783 5.8 84,279 6.1 Total 14,974 100.0 1,023,270 100.0 138,220 100.0 220,153 100.0 1,381,643 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS For the 2006-2008 three-year average, the single-family detached house was the predominant form of housing in the study area and constituted 565,881 units (77.2 percent) (Table 3.10-11). The majority of housing units in buildings with more than 10 units were located in the Middlesex County. The 2006-2008 three-year average median housing value for the study area was estimated to be $341,633 in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars, which is higher than the median housing value for both New York ($311,700) and Connecticut ($305,111) (Table 3.10-12). The Town was estimated to have the highest median housing value ($576,400), and New London County was estimated to have the lowest median housing value ($269,800). 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid. 122 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. 3-111 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 3.10-11: Study Area Housing Units by Structure Type, 2006-2008 Average . Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Table 3.10-12: Study Area Median Housing Values, 2006-2008 Average (inflation- adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London Countyl Study Area US Dollars Median Value 1 576,400 442,600 312,500 269,800 1 341,633 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS The 2006-2008 three-year average for median rent is summarized in Table 3.10-13. Suffolk County had the highest median rent, and New London County had the lowest median rent. The three-year average median rent in the Town, estimated to be $961, was higher than the estimated median rents for New York ($824) and Connecticut ($804). Table 3.10-13: Study Area Median Rent, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold I Suffolk County Middlesex County I New London Countyl Study Area US Dollars Median Rent 961 1,265 802 807 958 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Community Social Assets Community social assets include man-made or natural resources of a region that contribute to the well-being of its residents (i.e., the quality of life in the community). The relative importance of these attributes to a person's quality of life is subjective. For the purposes of this study, the quality of life of the study area includes recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities. • 3-112 Town of Southold Suffolk ounty Middlesex County New London County Study Area Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1, Detached 13,551 90.5 439,251 80.7 51,549 71.5 75,081 64.5 565,881 77.2 1, Attached 218 1.5 24,056 4.4 2,623 3.6 4,134 3.5 30,813 4.2 2 365 2.4 19,548 3.6 3,415 4.7 10,407 8.9 33,370 4.6 3 or 4 132 0.9 11,219 2.1 3,447 4.8 8,408 7.2 23,074 3.1 5 to 9 288 1.9 12,524 2.3 3,364 4.7 1 6,165 5.3 22,053 3.0 10 to 19 94 0.6 17,070 3.1 2,183 3.0 3,144 2.7 22,397 3.1 20+ 273 1.8 15,536 2.9 4,742 6.6 6,314 5.4 26,592 3.6 Mobile Home 53 0.4 5,140 0.9 820 1.1 2,777 2.4 8,737 1.2 Other 0 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0 38 0.0 44 0.0 Total 1 14,974 100.0 1 544,350 100.0 72,143 100.0 116,468 100.0 732,961 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Table 3.10-12: Study Area Median Housing Values, 2006-2008 Average (inflation- adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold Suffolk County Middlesex County New London Countyl Study Area US Dollars Median Value 1 576,400 442,600 312,500 269,800 1 341,633 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS The 2006-2008 three-year average for median rent is summarized in Table 3.10-13. Suffolk County had the highest median rent, and New London County had the lowest median rent. The three-year average median rent in the Town, estimated to be $961, was higher than the estimated median rents for New York ($824) and Connecticut ($804). Table 3.10-13: Study Area Median Rent, 2006-2008 Average (inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars) Town of Southold I Suffolk County Middlesex County I New London Countyl Study Area US Dollars Median Rent 961 1,265 802 807 958 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS Community Social Assets Community social assets include man-made or natural resources of a region that contribute to the well-being of its residents (i.e., the quality of life in the community). The relative importance of these attributes to a person's quality of life is subjective. For the purposes of this study, the quality of life of the study area includes recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities. • 3-112 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 0 Recreation July 13, 2012 The Suffolk County Parks Department (SCDP) manages more than 46,000 acres of park land. Suffolk County recreational resources include numerous parks inland, on beaches, and on islands. Large county parks in eastern Suffolk County include: • Cedar Point County Park, East Hampton — 607 acres. Features include recreational fishing, hiking, picnicking, camping, playground, rowboat rentals, bicycling, saltwater fishing, scuba diving, and hunting. • Cupsogue Beach County Park, Westhampton — 296 acres. Features include swimming and camping. • Indian Island County Park, Riverhead — 275 acres. Features include hiking, picnicking, camping, fishing, an activity field, and a playground."' • Orient Beach State Park, Orient — 363 acres. Features include fishing, swimming, hiking, biking, and picnicking. 124 There are also numerous parks and entertainment venues located throughout New London and Middlesex counties that offer additional recreational activities in the study area. Additionally, Plum Gut serves as a popular recreational fishing area for local fishermen. . Public Schools There are no residents of Plum Island, nor is Plum Island part of any school district. School districts nearest to Plum Island on the mainland include the Oysterponds Union Free School District in Orient Point, Suffolk County, and the New London School District in New London County. Providing education for students through Grade 6, the Oysterponds Union Free School District had a total enrollment of 104 students and an average class size of 16 during the 2008-2009 school year. 12' The New London School District consists of seven schools, serving students from pre -kindergarten to Grade 12. The district's total enrollment during the 2009-2010 school year was 3,000, with average class sizes ranging from 22 in kindergarten to 22.5 in Grade 5. The average class size for high school was 19.8 .126 123 Suffolk County Department of Parks (SCDP). 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/departments/parks.aspx. 124 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (NYS Parks). 2011. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/I 06/details.aspx. 125 New York State Department of Education. 2009. http://www.nysed.gov/. 126 Connecticut State Department of Education. 2010. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp. 3-113 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Law Enforcement July 13, 2012 The Federal Protective Service (FPS) provides full-time law enforcement on the Property, as well as contract security. FPS personnel verify contractors' and visitors' backgrounds before these individuals are allowed onto the Property. Also included in the study area was the east end of Suffolk County, which is served by numerous local police departments, including the Town Police Department, the Greenport Police Department, and the East Hampton Police Department. Local police departments are supported by services available through the Suffolk County Police Department, which includes the following specialized units: • The Emergency Services Section, which handles accidents, rescue operations, and hazardous materials. The Marine Bureau patrols the waters surrounding Suffolk County and includes 83 officers and maintains extensive marine search and rescue capabilities. 127 Likewise, New London County receives similar services from the New London Police 128 129 Department and the local Old Saybrook Town Police Department. Fire Protection • The Town Fire Department is a volunteer fire department with 189 volunteer members, two fire • stations, and 20 support vehicles. It receives approximately 600 calls per year."' The Suffolk County Department of Emergency Management and the Suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services coordinate responses to fire and other emergencies in the county."' Fire protection services are also provided to the study area by the New London and Middlesex County fire departments. The Plum Island Fire Department provides primary fire protection to Plum Island and PIADC. The Plum Island Fire Department participates in a mutual aid plan to provide assistance and protection for all Suffolk County communities (including Plum Island) in case of fire, medical emergencies, and other emergencies. Medical Facilities The closest hospital to the Property is the Eastern Long Island Hospital (ELIH) in the Village of Greenport, approximately 15 miles from Plum Island. ELIH is a 90 -bed facility. The Emergency Department was expanded in 2005 to include nine beds. 112 Large regional hospitals in the area 127 Suffolk County Police Department. 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/police/. 128 129 New London Police Department. 2010. http://www.ci.new-london.ct.us/content/27/619/default.aspx. 130 Old Saybrook Police Department. 2010. http://www.oldsaybrookct.org/Pages/O]dSaybrookCT—Police/index. Southold Fire Department. 2010. http://www.southoldfd.com/. 131 Suffolk County Government. 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/. 132 Eastern Long Island Hospital (ELIH). 2010. hap://www.elih.org/. 40 3-114 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 include the University Hospital at Stony Brook. The study area is also served by Lawrence and Memorial Hospital and Middlesex Hospital. 3.10.3. Consequences To evaluate impact to the property resulting from activities associated with the potential reuse options, socioeconomic effects resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. These socioeconomic impacts from alternative implementation would vary depending upon the intensity and duration of anticipated activities included in the potential reuse options. This section defines and evaluates the intensity and duration of alternative activities and associated impacts to the socioeconomics in terms of employment and income, population and housing, and community social assets (quality of life). 3.10.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not significantly impact the socioeconomics of the study area. Socioeconomic changes associated with decommissioning of the PIADC, maintaining the existing facilities in mothballed status, and securing the property would be negligible to minor. Employment and Income In maintaining ownership of the property under the No Action Alternative, the federal government would be financially negatively impacted due to the loss of potential proceeds from the sale of the property and having to bear the ongoing cost of protecting and maintaining the Property. Employment, personal income, and local and state tax revenue impacts would be partially offset by the facility maintenance and security employees that would continue to provided required maintenance and/or security activities. Although existing transportation services would no longer be operated by DHS under the No Action Alternative, maintenance and/or security personnel would still need continued access and hence, transportation to the property. The existing transportation facilities and services could switch ownership to another federal agency or be absorbed by the operating public ferry service adjacent to the Orient Point facility. The frequency of demand for ferry service to the property would likely decrease from the smaller workforce. The proposed maintenance and/or security activities on Plum Island would have a small incremental benefit on the local economy. Payroll expenditures for labor on the property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the continued maintenance and/or security activities would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. Either the number of employees or the operational cost to continue the maintenance and/or security activities are needed to estimate these economic effects. However, a precise statement of the numbers of maintenance and security employees or the operational costs required for the continued maintenance and/or security activities is not available. Therefore, the number of employees required to perform the continued maintenance and/or security activities is assumed to be 1/5 of PIADC's current operations and maintenance and security staff. This is equivalent . to approximately 30 contracted maintenance employees and 10 federal security employees. 3-115 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The economic benefits from continued maintenance and/or security activities would extend until the federal government makes future decisions about changing the land use. Direct employment (Table 3.10-14) refers to the actual maintenance and/or security jobs on the property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the maintenance and/or security employment. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-14: No Action — Long -Term Annual Economic Impacts — No Action Alternative Note: In 2010 dollars Based on the assumption of the number of employees, the estimated impact for continued maintenance and/or security activities would directly support 30 maintenance and 10 security employees, and generate a total of 57 jobs including the 40 direct jobs required for maintenance and/or security activities. 0 The estimated income generated during the maintenance and/or security activities for the Property is $3.8 million dollars. This corresponds to 0.0 1 % of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The continued maintenance and/or security activities for the Property would also generate additional taxes estimated at $900,000, of which $400,000 is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. Population and Housing The 40 maintenance and/or security workers are assumed to work and live within the study area, based on the census journey -to -work data (discussed in Section 3.10.2.2.1). A majority of the 260 PIADC employees not involved with the continued maintenance and/or security of the Property could relocate to the NBAF. Assuming the U.S. Census 2006-2008 ACS average household size for the study area of 2.64 (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1), this would represent a population decrease of 687. In total, the population of the study area could decrease by 687 as a result of the No Action Alternative. This population decrease is 0.04% of the 2009 study area population, which is negligible relative to the study area's annual population growth of 0.69% compounded annually (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1.1). 3-116 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 This minor decrease in population is not expected to significantly impact housing demand in the study area. The housing market would be able to meet the increased demand from the study area's annual population growth, which would not be significantly impacted from the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no significant effects on housing availability or prices are anticipated to occur. Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) There would be no significant changes in the population of the study area under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated on the availability of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, and medical facilities. Fire protection in the study area includes the Plum Island Fire Department participating in a mutual aid plan to provide assistance and protection for all Suffolk County communities. The Plum Island Fire Department would no longer exist; therefore, the mutual aid plan would have to be adjusted to accommodate all Suffolk County communities without the participated of the Plum Island Fire Department. 3.10.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.10.3.2.1 Reuse Option I — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Implementation of Reuse Option 1 would not adversely impact or significantly improve the socioeconomics of the study area. DHS would sell the Property to another party. Modifications to accommodate a new facility function would require no or minimal expansion to the existing structures on Plum Island and the Orient Point facility. Existing buildings would remain in their current location; additional development would not be allowed to occur under this option. Existing buildings would be reused with interior renovations. Any modifications to existing buildings and or infrastructure and future activities conducted on Plum Island would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. No socioeconomic impacts are expected. Employment and Income Staffing size and operation costs for the new facility function under Reuse Option 1 are anticipated to be similar to PIADC's current staff size and operation costs. Modifications to accommodate the new facility function are estimated to be made to Plum Island, but these improvements are not anticipated to significantly change the facilities current level of economic activity in terms of employment and income with the local economy. Should the Property be sold to a private owner, the Property would no -longer be in tax-exempt status, and the local municipalities could receive additional tax revenues. Population and Housing The population in the study area is not anticipated to change from Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure; therefore, no effects on housing availability or prices would occur. fBIN Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) July 13, 2012 There would be no significant changes in the population of the study area under Reuse Option 1. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated for the provision and hence, availability, of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities. 3.10.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 2 could likely have negligible effects on the socioeconomics of the study area. Low-density development in areas shown in Figure 2.3-1 would provide employment and income from the development of residential units (and possible limited business activities), and provide state and local tax revenue from the residential development. The 195 acres of restricted land could accommodate approximately 90 residential units and support infrastructure that would be sustained by Plum Island's existing water and wastewater capacity. There would be two phases of socioeconomic impact: 1) a construction phase that would cause short-term effects, and 2) a continued operation and maintenance phase that would have long- term effects. These new 90 residential units would increase the population and housing on Plum Island. Population impacts would be expected to be greatest in the summer months and on weekends, when seasonal residents are occupying Plum Island. Community social assets are not anticipated to have significant impacts by the increased population and housing on Plum Island. Short -Term Employment and Income The relocation of the PIADC mission to the NBAF could cause the study area to lose additional revenue from PIADC spending, and the local municipalities to lose additional state and local tax revenues from the approximately 300 staff previously employed by the PIADC. However, employment, personal income, and local and state tax revenue impacts could be partially offset by the long-term effects of the new residential units proposed under Reuse Option 2. Under this option, there would be development of 90 residential units (and possible limited business). The proposed development would have a short-term, small incremental benefit on the local economy during the construction phase. The proposed development would also have a long-term small incremental benefit on the local economy from the continued operation and maintenance phase, which is discussed in more detail in the Long -Term Employment and Income section of this option. Payroll expenditures for labor on the Property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the construction phase would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. L J Either the number of employees or total cost for the construction phase is needed to estimate these short-term economic effects. However, a precise statement of the numbers of employees or costs for the construction phase required to build the residential units on Plum Island is not available. In addition, county and local town development planners did not provide estimates of the number of employees or costs required to construct this low-density development. Therefore, construction cost estimates were obtained from a similar GSA project involving the is 3-118 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 idisposal of an island in New York, the 1998 Governors Island Disposition Final EIS, and extrapolated for this Plum Island EIS. The Governors Island Disposition Final EIS Reuse Option estimated that the cost of constructing 1,076 new residential units is $195 million to implement (90 percent for construction expenditures and 10 percent for design costs), without accounting for land and financing costs.133 This resulted in a construction cost per residential unit ratio of $181,227 per unit in 1998 dollars. After adjusting the construction cost per unit ratio to 2010 dollars using the Office of Management and Budget's Gross Domestic Product and Deflators data, the ratio is $234,944 per unit. 134 Using this ratio, the proposed 90 residential units are estimated to cost approximately $21.1 million (in 2010 dollars) to construct, of which 90 percent ($19.0 million) would be for construction expenditures and 10 percent ($2.1 million) would be for design type costs. The North American Classification System has several industries for design services, but IMPLAN rolls them up into a single industry called architectural, engineering, and related services. The economic benefits during the construction phase of the proposed 90 residential units for Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning on Plum Island are shown in Table 3.10-15. Direct employment refers to the construction and design jobs on the Property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the construction and design expenditures. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-15: Reuse Option 2 — Short -Term Economic Impacts — Low -Density Zoning 0 Option (90 Residential Units) Note: In 2010 dollars Based on the assumption of construction costs, the construction of the proposed residential units (and possible limited business) would, over the short-term construction phase, directly support 140 job years"' of employment with an associated total employment of 217 job years. The effect of this construction work would be short-term and only last for the duration of the construction work. 133 Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc. 1998. Governors Island disposition — final environmental impact statement. 134 Office of Management and Budget. 2010. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html. 135 Job years includes both full time and part-time employment and can occur over multiple years rather than full time equivalent employment. 3-119 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The estimated short-term income generated during the construction phase is $12.3 million dollars. This corresponds to 0.03% of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The construction phase would also generate additional short-term taxes estimated at $2.8 million, of which $1.5 million is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. Short -Term Population and Housing The majority of construction workers would come from the study area or commute from the adjacent counties; therefore, construction -related employment from Reuse Option 2 — Low- density Zoning is not estimated to result in an increase in the study area population. Any population change during construction would be for a small percentage of the total construction period employment and be temporary. Since construction of the residential units (and possible limited business) is not anticipated to effect the population of the study area during the construction phase of Reuse Option 2, no effects on housing availability or prices are also anticipated during the construction phase. Short -Term Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) As stated above, there would be no anticipated change to the population of the study area under Reuse Option 2 during the construction phase. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated for the provision and hence, availability, of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities during the construction phase. 0 Long -Term Employment and Income As stated in the Short -Term Employment and Income section above, there would be development of 90 residential units (and possible limited business) under Reuse Option 2. The proposed development would have a long-term, small incremental benefit on the local economy from the continued operation and maintenance phase; for example, employees for maintenance of the residential units (and possible limited business) and marina, as well as employees for community social services, such as the waste water treatment facility and fire protection services. Payroll expenditures for labor on the Property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the continued operation and maintenance phase activities would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. Either the number of employees or costs for the operations and maintenance phase are needed to estimate these long-term economic effects. However, a precise statement of the numbers of employees or costs for the operations and maintenance phase required for the new residential units on Plum Island is not available. In addition, county and local town development planners did not provide estimates of the number of employees or costs required to operate and maintain the low-density development. Therefore, similar to the construction costs discussed in the section above, the operation and maintenance employment estimates were obtained from the Governors Island Disposition final EIS and extrapolated for this EIS. 3-120 i Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The Governors Island Disposition Final EIS Reuse Option estimates the total number of operation and maintenance employees needed for the 1,076 new residential units is 805 employees. 116 This results in an operation and maintenance per residential unit ratio of 0.75 employees per unit. Using this ratio, the proposed 90 residential units are estimated to require approximately 67 employees to operate and maintain the low-density development. The analysis further assumes nearly half of the 67 employees (33 employees) would provide operation services, such as wastewater treatment and fire protection services. The remaining 34 employees would provide maintenance services such as maintenance of the residential units. The economic benefits during the construction phase of the proposed 90 residential units for Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning on Plum Island are shown in Table 3.10-16. Direct employment refers to the operation and maintenance jobs on the Property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the operation and maintenance employment. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-16: Reuse Option 2 — Long -Term Economic Impacts — Low -Density Zoning Option (90 Residential Units) Note: In 2010 dollars Based on the assumptions of the required operation and maintenance employment, operation and maintenance of the proposed residential units (and possible limited business) on Plum Island would, over the long-term operation and maintenance phase, directly support 67 jobs annually with an associated total employment of 113 jobs annually. The effects of these operation and maintenance activities would be long-term. The estimated long-term income generated from the continued operation and maintenance phase is $7.1 million dollars annually (in 2010 dollars). This corresponds to nearly 0.02% of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The operation and maintenance phase would also generate additional long-term taxes estimated at $1.7 million annually, of which $900 thousand is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. In addition, Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning could place a site on the tax rolls which currently generates no residential property tax revenue. This option is based on the land use and 136 Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., Governors Island disposition. 3-121 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 zoning scheme of Fishers Island, New York. Fishers Island is used as a basis for estimating the tax revenue for Plum Island under this option because it has the most similar traits to Plum Island in terms of its geography and demographics. Under this option, Plum Island would have the following valuation and tax rate, as shown in Table 3.10-17.137 Table 3.10-17: Potential Plum Island Tax Rate Districts Valuation ($) Tax Rate Fishers Island Fire 8,339,062 42.739 Fishers Island Ferry 8,339,062 89.939 Fishers Island Garbage 8,339,062 45.803 Fishers Island Library 8,368,562 4.780 Fishers Island School 8,368,502 347.069 Taking into account the taxes owed per person to the town, county, and state, the tax rate for each Fishers Island real property owner, as provided by the Town Tax Assessor's Office, and is shown in Table 3.10-18.138 Table 3.10-18: Potential Plum Island Residential Property Tax Rate Per Person Tax Rate Town of Southold 244.38 MTA Payroll Tax 0.671 NYSRPTL 2.152 Suffolk County 16.537 FI School District 347.069 FI Library District 28.693 FI Fire District 4.78 FI Ferry District 89.939 FI Garbage District 45.802 Total Tax Rate 780.023 According to the Town Tax Assessor's Office, the total taxes paid per person are the assessed value of their real property divided by $1,000, and multiplied by the total tax rate, as follows: Assessed value ($) - 1,000 x 780.023 A 2009 estimation of the median real property value of a residential unit on Fishers Island is $602,413, adjusted to 2010 dollars. 139140 According to Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, an 137 Town of Southold Tax Assessor's Office. 2010. http://southoldtown.northfork.net/assessors.htm. 138 Ibid. 139 City-Data.com. 2010. http://Nvww.city-data.com/city. 140 Office of Management and Budget, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy 10/hist.html. 3-122 i ' S Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 V Of estimated 90 residential units would be accommodated by Plum Island. Hence, the estimated total residential property tax revenue for Plum Island would be: ($602,413 - 1,000 x 780.023) x 90 = $42,290,624 in 2010 dollars Q� ` Furthermore, Fishers Island also receives financial assistance from the State of New York for its school district. The Town Tax Assessor's Office estimated the 2010 State Aid to be $270,004. While it is uncertain if Plum Island would have a school district under Reuse Option 2, it can be expected that Plum Island would receive a similar amount of State Aid if it does. Long -Term Population and Housing The 67 operations and maintenance workers are assumed to work and live within the study area based on the census journey -to -work data (discussed in Section 3.10.2.2.1). In addition, the new 90 residential units would help the study area meet its continuing demand for housing. These 67 operations and maintenance workers and 90 new residential units would partially offset the population loss resulting from the 300 PIADC employees that could relocate to the NBAF. Assuming the U.S. Census 2006-2008 ACS average household size for the study area of 2.64 (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1), this would represent a long-term population decrease of 378 from Reuse Option 2. In total, the population of the study area is anticipated to decrease by 378 as a result of Reuse Option 2. This population decrease is 0.02% of the 2009 study area population, which is negligible relative to the study area's annual population growth of 0.69% compounded annually (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1.1). However, these new residential units on Plum Island would help meet the continued demand for housing in the study area, which has low vacancy rates. This minor decrease in population is not expected to significantly impact housing demand in the study area. The housing market would be able to meet the increased demand from the study area's annual population growth, which would not be significantly impacted from Reuse Option 2. Therefore, no significant effects on housing availability or prices are anticipated to occur. Long -Term Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) As stated above, there would be no significant changes in the population of the study area under Reuse Option 2 during the operations and maintenance phase. In addition, the community social assets that were provided for PIADC activities are anticipated to be available for the new Island residents. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated for the provision and hence, availability, of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities during the operations and maintenance phase. 3.10.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) The redevelopment of Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 may result in a positive socioeconomic impact to the study area. This option would involve a slightly larger scope of construction and land development operations than those in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning. High-density 3-123 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 development in areas shown in Figure 2.3-1 could affect employment and income from the i development of a resort residential district and general business, and provide state and local tax revenue from the residential and business development. The 195 acres of restricted land could accommodate approximately 750 residential units and support infrastructure that would be sustained by Plum Island's existing water and wastewater capacity, with upgrades to the existing infrastructure where necessary. The Orient Point facility would continue to provide ferry service to Plum Island. In addition, up to 20 residential units could be built on the ferry terminal site. Water and wastewater infrastructure would need to be upgraded to accommodate the Orient Point facility site residential development. There would be two phases of socioeconomic impact: 1) a construction phase that would cause short-term effects, and 2) a continued operation and maintenance phase that would have long- term effects. These new 750 residential units on Plum Island and 20 residential units on the ferry terminal site would slightly increase the population and housing in the study area. Population impacts would be expected to be greatest in the summer months and on weekends, when seasonal residents are occupying Plum Island. Community social assets would likely be impacted by the increased demand from the increased population and housing on Plum Island and the Orient Point facility site. However, the community social asset impacts are anticipated to be negligible. Short -Term Employment and Income The relocation of the PIADC mission to the NBAF could cause the study area to lose additional revenue from PIADC spending, and the local municipalities to lose additional state and local tax revenues from the approximately 300 staff previously employed by the PIADC. However, employment, personal income, and local and state tax revenue impacts could be partially offset by the short-term effects of the construction of the new residential units proposed under Reuse Option 3. Under this option, there would be development of 750 residential units on Plum Island and 20 residential units on the Orient Point facility site. The proposed development would have a short-term, small incremental benefit on the local economy during the construction phase. The proposed development would also have a long-term small incremental benefit on the local economy from the continued operation and maintenance phase that is discussed in more detail in the Long -Term Employment and Income section of this option. Payroll expenditures for labor on the Property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the construction phase would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. Either the number of employees or total cost for the construction phase is needed to estimate these short-term economic effects. However, like Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, a precise statement of the numbers of employees or costs for the construction phase required to build the residential units on Plum Island is not available. In addition, county and local town development planners did not provide estimates of the number of employees or costs required to construct this low-density development. Therefore, construction costs and the operation and maintenance employment estimates were obtained from the 1998 Governors Island Disposition Final EIS and extrapolated for this Plum Island EIS. 41 3-124 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The Governors Island Disposition Final EIS Maximum Development Option estimated that the cost of constructing 4,452 new residential units is $754 million to implement (90 percent for construction expenditures and 10 percent for design costs), without accounting for land and financing costs.141 This resulted in a construction cost per residential unit ratio of $169,362 per unit in 1998 dollars. After adjusting the construction cost per unit ratio to 2010 dollars using the Office of Management and Budget's Gross Domestic Product and Deflators data, the ratio is $219,562 per unit. 141 Using this ratio, the proposed 770 residential units (750 for Plum Island and 20 for Orient Point facility site) are estimated to cost approximately $169.0 million (in 2010 dollars) to construct, of which 90 percent ($152.1 million) would be for construction expenditures and 10 percent ($16.9 million) would be for design type costs. The North American Classification System has several industries for design services, but IMPLAN rolls them up into a single industry called architectural, engineering, and related services. The economic benefits during the construction phase of the proposed 770 residential units for Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning are shown in Table 3.10-19. Direct employment refers to the construction and design jobs on the property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the construction and design expenditures. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-19: Reuse Option 3 — Short -Term Economic Impacts — High -Density Zoning Option (750 Residential Units) Construction Total Construction Jobs ob ears 1,126 ' Impacts Total Employment Oobs ears 1,735 Total Labor Income Impact $ millions 98.5 Federal, State, and Local Tax ($ millions) 22.6 State and Local Tax ($ millions) 12.3 Note: In 2010 dollars Based on the assumption of construction costs, the construction of the proposed residential units and general business would, over the short-term construction phase, directly support 1,126 job years 141ofconstruction and design employment with an associated total employment of 1,735 job years. The effect of this construction work would be short-term and only last for the duration of the construction work. The estimated short-term income generated during the construction phase is $98.5 million dollars. This corresponds to 0.25% of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The construction phase would also generate additional short-term 141 142 Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., Governors Island disposition. 143 Office of Management and Budget, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fyIO/hist.html. 41 Job years includes both full time and part-time employment and can occur over multiple years rather than full time equivalent employment. 3-125 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 taxes estimated at $22.6 million, of which $12.3 million is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. Short -Term Population and Housing During the construction phase, the majority of construction workers would come from the study area or commute from the adjacent counties; therefore, construction -related employment from Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning is not anticipated to result in an increase in the study area population. Any population change during construction would be for a small percentage of the total construction period employment and be temporary. The proposed 20 new residential units on the ferry terminal site would not be ready for occupation during the construction phase of this option. Since construction of the residential units and general business is not anticipated to effect the population of the study area during the construction phase of Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, no effects on housing availability or prices are anticipated during the construction phase. Short -Term Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) As stated above, there would be no anticipated change to the population of the study area under the Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning during the construction phase. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated for the provision and hence, availability, of community social assets such as recreation facilities, ferry service, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities during the construction phase. Long -Term Employment and Income As stated in the Short -Term Employment and Income section of this option, there would be development of 770 residential units and general business under the Reuse Option 3 — High- density Zoning. The proposed development would have a long-term, small incremental benefit on the local economy from the continued operation and maintenance phase. For example, employees for maintenance of the residential units, general business, and marina as well as employees for community social services, such as the waste water treatment facility and fire protection services. Payroll expenditures for labor on the Property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the continued operation and maintenance phase activities would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. Either the number of employees or costs for the operations and maintenance phase are needed to estimate these long-term economic effects. However, a precise statement of the numbers of employees or costs for the operations and maintenance phase required for the new residential units on Plum Island and Orient Point facility site is not available. In addition, county and local town development planners did not provide estimates of the number of employees or costs required to operate and maintain the high-density development. Therefore, similar to the construction costs discussed in the section above, operation and maintenance employment estimates were obtained from the Governors Island Disposition final EIS and extrapolated for this EIS. ID 3-126 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The Governors Island Disposition final EIS Maximum Development Option estimated the total number of operation and maintenance employees needed for the 4,452 new residential units is 1,594 employees. 144 This results in an operation and maintenance per residential unit ratio of nearly 0.36 employees per unit. Using this ratio, the proposed 770 residential units are estimated to require approximately 276 employees to operate and maintain the high-density development. The analysis further assumes half of the 276 employees (138 employees) would provide operation services, such as wastewater treatment, law enforcement, and fire protection services. The other 138 employees would provide maintenance services such as maintenance of the residential units and general business. The economic benefits during the operation and maintenance phase of the proposed 770 residential units for Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning on Plum Island and Orient Point are shown in Table 3.10-20. Direct employment refers to the operation and maintenance jobs on the Property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the operation and maintenance employment. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-20: Reuse Option 3 — Long -Term Economic Impacts — High -Density Zoning Option (750 Residential Units) Operation and Maintenance of the Residential Units Total Operation and Maintenance Jobs (job) 276 Impacts Total Employment (jobs) 467 Total Labor Income Impact ($ millions) 29.4 Federal, State, and Local Tax ($ millions) 7.1 State and Local Tax ($ millions) 3.8 Note: In 2010 dollars Potential residential tax effects from the proposed 20 new residential units on the Orient Point facility site could be separated out, and are discussed here. Reuse Option 3 could place a site on the tax rolls which currently generates no residential property tax revenue from the Orient Point facility site. Table 3.10-21 shows the following tax rates for Orient real property owners that could apply to the potential 20 new residential units planned on the Orient Point facility site under Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning. The tax rates for Orient real property owners were obtained from the Town Tax Assessor's Office. 141 144 Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., Governors Island disposition. 145 Town of Southold Tax Assessor's Office, http://southoldtown.northfork.net/assessors.htm. 3-127 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Table 3.10-21: Orient Point Tax Rates Per Person Tax Rate Town of Southold 244.38 MTA Payroll Tax 0.671 NYSRPTL 2.152 Suffolk County 16.537 Orient School District 364.993 Orient Library District 28.693 Orient Fire District 65.451 Orient -E. Marion Park District 2.619 Orient Mosquito District 10.683 Orient Waste Water District 0.045 Orient Solid Waste District 20.61 July 13, 2012 n Based on the assumptions of the required operation and maintenance employment, operation and maintenance of the proposed residential units and general business on the Property would, over the long-term operation and maintenance phase, directly support 276 jobs annually with an associated total employment of 467 jobs annually in the study area. The effects of these operation and maintenance activities would be long-term. is The estimated long-term income generated from the continued operation and maintenance phase is $29.4 million dollars annually (in 2010 dollars). This corresponds to nearly 0.07% of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The operation and maintenance phase would also generate additional long-term taxes estimated at $7.1 million annually, of which $3.8 million is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. In addition, Reuse Option 3 could place a site on the tax rolls which currently generates no residential property tax revenue. This option would have a similar tax rate to that of Fishers Island, as already described in Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, but with a significantly higher number of residential units on Plum Island. In using the tax rate and median valuation of real property on Fishers Island under Reuse Option 2, the tax levy for Plum Island under Reuse Option 3 is estimated as follows: Estimated total tax revenue: ($602,413 - 1,000 x 780.023) x 750 = $352,421,863. s 3-128 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 The 2009 median real property value of a residential unit on the Orient Point facility site is estimated to be $627,284, adjusted to 2010 dollars, 146,14' Hence, the estimated total tax revenue for the Orient Point facility site is: ($627,284 - 1,000 x 756.834) x 20 = $9,494,998 Long -Term Population and Housing The 276 operations and maintenance workers are assumed to work and live within the study area based on the census journey -to -work data (discussed in Section 3.10.2.2.1). In addition, the new 770 residential units would help the study area meet its continuing demand for housing. These 276 operations and maintenance workers and 770 new residential units would more than offset the population loss resulting from the 300 PIADC employees that could relocate to the NBAF. Assuming the U.S. Census 2006-2008 ACS average household size for the study area of 2.64 (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1), this would represent a long-term population increase of approximately 1,241 from Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning. In total, the population of the study area is anticipated to increase by 1,241 as a result of Reuse Option 3. This population increase is 0.06% of the 2009 study area population, which is negligible relative to the study area's annual population growth of 0.69% compounded annually (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1.1). However, these new residential units on Plum Island would help meet the continued demand for housing in a study area, which has low vacancy rates. 40 This small increase in population is not expected to significantly impact housing demand in the study area. The housing market would be able to meet the increased demand from the study area's annual population growth, which would not be significantly impacted from Reuse Option 3. Therefore, no significant effects on housing availability or prices are anticipated to occur. Long -Term Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) As stated above, there would be no significant changes in the population of the study area under Reuse Option 3 during the operations and maintenance phase. Nonetheless, the new residential units and general business on Plum Island are expected to place new demands on the community social assets in the study area. However, most of this new demand would likely be accommodated by upgraded or expanded community social asset components when necessary. In addition, the continued growth of the study area would require expansion of the community social assets, regardless of whether Reuse Option 3 is selected. In comparison to existing trends, the additional population locating on Plum Island as a result of Reuse Option 3 is anticipated to have a negligible effect on the provision and hence, availability, of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, fire protection services, and medical facilities during the operations and maintenance phase. 146 City -Datacom, http://www.city-data.com/city. 147 is Office of Management and Budget, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.htm]. 3-129 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 3.10.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation July 13, 2012 Implementation of the Reuse Option 4 would have negligible to minor adverse impacts to the socioeconomics of the study area. Existing facilities could be removed or modified to offer educational or interpretive opportunities and regularly scheduled transportation services terminated by the new property owner. DHS would likely sell the Property to a public or private conservation entity that would manage Plum Island. Socioeconomic changes associated with conservation/preservation activities and securing the property would be negligible. Employment and Income The relocation of the PIADC mission to the NBAF could cause the study area economy to lose additional revenue from PIADC spending and the local municipalities to lose additional state and local tax revenues from the approximately 300 staff previously employed by the PIADC. However, employment, personal income, and local and state tax revenue impacts could be partially offset by the conservation/preservation and security employees that would manage Plum Island to protect, maintain, and enhance the significant natural and cultural resources. 0 The proposed conservation/preservation management and security activities on Plum Island would have a small incremental benefit on the local economy. Payroll expenditures for labor on the Property and offsite, and related spending by supply firms and employees to satisfy the conservation/preservation management and security activities would result in purchases in the study area, generating local revenue. Either the number of employees or the operational cost to continue the maintenance and/or 4B security activities are needed to estimate these economic effects. However, a precise statement of the numbers of maintenance and security employees or the operational costs required for the continued maintenance and/or security activities is not available. Therefore, the number of employees required to perform the conservation/preservation management and security activities is assumed to be 1/10 of PIADC's current operations and maintenance and security staff. This is equivalent to approximately 15 conservation/preservation management employees and 5 security employees. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categorizes conservation/preservation activities as either U.S. industry 813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations (private agencies) or 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs (government agencies). The NAICS classification of security services is NAICS 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services. Under Reuse Option 4, the largest socioeconomic change in the study area would occur under the NAICS conservation/preservation industry classification that has the lowest total economic benefit, because it would have the smallest offsetting effect of the approximately 300 PIADC employees relocating out of the study area. Therefore, this analysis uses the NAICS 813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations industry for the 15 conservation/preservation, because this NAICS industry has the smallest total economic impact to the study area. 3-130 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 isThe economic benefits from the proposed conservation/preservation management and security activities on Plum Island are shown in Table 3.10-22. Direct employment refers to the actual maintenance and/or security jobs on the Property only, while total economic employment includes direct employment and all other employment generated as a result of the multiplier effect from the maintenance and/or security employment. Some examples of this are food and drink establishments, wholesale trade, and retail trade. Table 3.10-22: Reuse Option 4 — Long -Term Annual Economic Impacts — Conservation/Preservation Option Operations Jobs Maintaining and/or Protecting the Property obs 20 Impacts Total Employment 'obs 27 Total Labor Income Impact $ millions 1.4 Federal, State, and Local Tax $ millions 0.3 State and Local Tax ($ millions) 0.1 Note: In 2010 dollars Based on the assumption of the number of employees, the estimated impact for continued maintenance and/or security activities would directly support 15 conservation/preservation and 5 security employees, and generate a total of 27 jobs including the 20 direct jobs required for conservation/preservation and security activities. The estimated income generated during the maintenance and/or security activities for the Property is $1.4 million dollars. This corresponds to 0.004% of all estimated 2008 labor income (adjusted to 2010 dollars) in the three -county study area. The continued maintenance and/or security activities for the Property would also generate additional taxes estimated at nearly $300,000 dollars, of which about $130,000 is estimated to be collected through state and local taxes that should flow to the local governments. Population and Housing The 20 conservation/preservation and security workers are assumed to work and live within the study area, based on the census journey -to -work data (discussed in Section 3.10.2.2.1). The 300 PIADC employees could relocate to the NBAF. Assuming the U.S. Census 2006-2008 ACS average household size for the study area of 2.64 (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1), this would represent a population decrease of 792. In total, the population of the study area would decrease by 792 as a result of Reuse Option 4. This population decrease is 0.04% of the 2009 study area population, which is negligible relative to the study area's annual population growth of 0.69% compounded annually (discussed in Section 3.10.2.1.1). This minor decrease in population is not expected to significantly impact housing demand in the study area. The housing market would be able to meet the increased demand from the study 3-131 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 area's annual population growth, which would not be significantly impacted from Reuse Option is 4 — Conservation/Preservation. Therefore, no significant effects on housing availability or prices are anticipated to occur. Community Social Assets (Quality of Life) As stated above, there would be no significant changes in the population of the study area under Reuse Option 4. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated on the availability of community social assets such as recreation facilities, public schools, law enforcement, and medical facilities. Fire protection in the study area includes the Plum Island Fire Department participating in a mutual aid plan to provide assistance and protection for all Suffolk County communities. The Plum Island Fire Department would no longer exist; therefore, the mutual aid plan would have to be adjusted to accommodate all Suffolk County communities without the participation of the Plum Island Fire Department. 3.11. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 3.11.1. Methodology, Regulatory Background and Traffic Analysis Parameters The general methodology for the inclusion of traffic and transportation analysis involved the review and verification of current regional traffic and transportation data and identification of the roadway infrastructure network. Regulatory conditions for traffic analysis are generally dictated by overall transportation industry standards as published by the Federal Highway Authority (FHWA) and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). These organizations serve as oversight agencies ensuring the respective regional, state and local jurisdictions follow the appropriate guidelines and parameters. For traffic analysis parameters, delays are generally considered the leading indicators of traffic flow and operations; the shorter the delay, the better the roadway segment flows and the intersection operates. Federal regulations do not dictate specific levels of operation or minimum delays. It is primarily the local jurisdiction's judgment, supported by the analyst's qualitative calculations, that establishes the best options. For the purposes of this analysis, transportation facilities are divided into two categories of flow: uninterrupted and interrupted. Uninterrupted facilities include an interstate highway with no fixed elements such as traffic signals or stop signs. Interrupted facilities such as conventional city streets and county roads have access points, intersections and stop conditions. Roadway networks comprise various types of classified and functionally characteristic facilities, including freeways and interstates, major and minor arterials and various sizes of collector and local roads. Each also is classified as urban or rural. The roadway network within the affected environment is considered an interrupted facility and a collector/local road network. Capacity analysis is a set of procedures for estimating the traffic carrying ability of roadway facilities over a range of defined operational conditions. Capacity is used to express the maximum hourly rate at which vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a given point under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. 3-132 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 isLevel of Service (LOS) is a measure of quality of operational conditions within a traffic stream based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and the ratio of facility volume to capacity (v/c). Six LOSs from A (best) to F (worst), define each type of transportation facility. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions. Most analysis, design or planning efforts typically use service flow rates at LOS C or D to ensure acceptable operating service for facility users. LOS E generally is considered unacceptable for planning purposes unless there are extenuating circumstances or attaining a higher LOS is not feasible or extremely costly. For LOS F, it is difficult to predict flow due to stop -and -start conditions. • 40 Generally, traffic analyses are calculated during the peak hours, both AM and PM, which tend to slightly vary, but overall represent the respective rush hours. This type of analysis is for the most severe traffic situations and would represent the longest delays. Oftentimes, as is the case for this transportation analysis, much of the traffic generated is over the course of the entire day, and other than the commuting workers, not isolated to a specific duration. The resulting calculations therefore represent the most severe traffic restrictions. For roadway segments similar to the study area, Table 3.11-1 represents the controlling criteria: Table 3.11-1: Regulatory Criteria for Roadway Segment Analysis LOS v/c Description A 0.03 Free Flow B 0.13 Reasonably Free Flow C 0.28 Stable Flow D 0.43 Approaching Unstable Flow E 0.90 Unstable Flow F >1.0 Forced or Broken Flow Roadway transportation conditions are evaluated using capacity estimates that depend on several factors. These factors include the number of lanes, the width of the lanes, roadway gradients, the location of lateral obstructions, the percentage of truck and bus volumes, other physical characteristics and the condition of the roadway network. Queuing refers to the traffic backup that occurs as a result of vehicle delays. Traffic volumes generally are reported as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). This is the total number of vehicles per day averaged over the entire year. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Nearby populations or visitors would not be impacted, or changes in traffic and transportation would be below or at the level of detection. Any impacts would be short-term. Minor: Adverse and beneficial changes in traffic and transportation would be detectable, although the changes would be slight. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative, but the impacts would be slight. 3-133 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Moderate: Adverse and beneficial changes in traffic and transportation would be readily , apparent. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative and would likely be able to express opinions regarding the changes. Major: Adverse and beneficial changes in traffic and transportation would be readily apparent and have significant consequences. Nearby populations or visitors would be aware of the impacts associated with the alternative and would likely express strong opinions regarding the changes. 3.11.2. Affected Environment Highways, Roads, and Marine Transportation Primary access points to Plum Island include Long Island, New York, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Restricted access ferry service to Plum Island is available from Orient Point, New York, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. From Long Island, New York, the Long Island Expressway (Interstate 495) provides a high- volume east -west artery from New York City to communities on Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties). East of the terminus of I-495 at the Town of Riverhead, traffic destined for the North Fork of Long Island from the west is serviced by NYS Route 25 and County Route (CR) 48, two-lane highways that represent the primary collector road systems for the area. Routes 25 and 48 traverse the Town west to east, eventually merging into Route 25 and reaching Orient Point where restricted ferry service is available to Plum Island from the Plum Island ferry terminal (Figure 3.11-1). Most PIADC staff commute from Orient Point to Plum Island between 6:30 AM and 8:00 AM and return from Plum Island to Orient Point between 3:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Traffic has increased steadily in the North Fork area, averaging 38 percent from 1993 to 2006 for an annual increase of 2.9 percent per year based on New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) data. Although the increase in traffic results in decreasing mobility and increasing congestion at times and may result in significant congestion in the future, current analysis of traffic volumes indicates that there are currently no major congestion issues. Cross Sound Ferry Services operates ferry service from Orient Point, on Long Island, to New London, Connecticut, for cars, trucks, and passengers (Figure 3.11-2). In addition, Sea Jet Service is available for passengers only. The North Ferry Company operates year-round ferry service from Shelter Island to Greenport for cars, trucks, and passengers. The Plum Island Ferry at Old Saybrook is a restricted ferry service operating from the Old Saybrook dock to Plum Island for the transport of PIADC employees only. Plum Island ferry transportation services from the Old Saybrook dock do not include the transportation of heavy and/or bulk materials. For transportation of these items from Connecticut, ferries must depart from New London (or other ports) on commercial ferries, as PIADC has no freight loading or transport capabilities at its docking facility at Old Saybrook. Transportation from these alternate ports requires more than one hour each way completing the passage of heavy/bulk loads. Ferry access to Plum Island is restricted and limited to employees, contractors, and visitors of PIADC. Transportation on Plum Island is essentially restricted to government-owned vehicles; however, contractor- and privately owned vehicles are occasionally allowed on Plum Island by 3-134 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York r4 YN • � � Bern o \ Gad, Shelter Island Heights Dering Harbor PrepeieNDare BRP0J11r1' Cobbetts Choc 11.,, JB 11f 1/11 Ones! Ha'n Long Island sound Orient ftl Parcel m at > king Ito Onent Beach State Parts July 13, 2012 Plum Island Orient Point Parcel �J Legend Annual Average Daily Traffic Black Islono : 0.2000 2001 -5000 _— 5001 - 15000 Traffic Data obtained from New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Data Viewer at vn nysdot.govrtdv i-00 ]BO �� ceei Figure 3.11-1 Traffic Patterns Figure 3.11-1: Traffic Patterns in the Vicinity of Plum Island 3-135 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York /G /0 /moo c` /QO. `LONG ISLAND SOUND /r 010\1. / t. / oib 6„ oo4 ' Plh� o t A/ \O� �d \�d �a \ \ \ PLUM C 1 / onent Point Par Parcel / Legend ent POint � \�na � Ferry Route Parcel% QWm Roads �e�\P01n�`O QPIADC Buildings —Shoreline (FEMA) _ •� Approximate Property Line July 13, 2012 1250 2,500 �� Fea1 Figure 3.11-2 Source: USGS 1:250,000 scale digital topographic map Ferry Routes FreparedlOate BRP �2/76n1 obla,ned from http:/fwamlesb.usgs.gov CheckeNData JB 0?/18/11 Figure 3.11-2: Ferry Routes in the Vicinity of Plum Island 3-136 9 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 special permission. All employees and visitors to PIADC use the government-owned and contractor -operated marine transportation to and from Plum Island. The government ferries depart daily from Orient Point, New York, and Old Saybrook, Connecticut. There are 216 parking spaces (including 7 handicapped spaces) at the Orient Point facility. Docking or landing of private marine vessels is prohibited unless specifically authorized by PIADC's security department. Non-governmental marine access is exclusively restricted to landings of cargo and equipment (e.g., construction materials and heavy construction vehicles) that PIADC's marine fleet cannot safely or effectively transport. The Long Island public ferry facilities are located in Orient Point. The Plum Island ferry terminal is located adjacent to the public ferry terminal of Cross Sound Ferry Services. Orient Point is the closest land mass to Plum Island and affords the best and most expedient means for transporting people and heavy and/or bulk materials to/from Plum Island. Transit times between the terminals at Orient Point and Plum Island's Plum Gut Harbor are approximately 20 to 30 minutes depending on sea conditions. From Connecticut, I-95 is the major high-volume highway serving through traffic and the communities of the Connecticut coast, including Middlesex and New London Counties. From I- 95, access to Plum Island is from the Old Saybrook Dock in the Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. The Old Saybrook Dock is located approximately 2 miles south of the intersection of Highway 95 and State Road (SR) 9. Several transportation routes, including U.S. Highway 1 and State Highway 154, are available from I-95 to the PIADC's docking facilities. These routes are largely limited to two-way, multi -lane light commercial streets. Is Existing Conditions Analysis The traffic conditions on Plum Island were not analyzed due to the severely restrained traffic volumes and the low number of vehicles permitted on Plum Island. Existing two-lane roadways are adequate to address the traffic conditions on Plum Island. Table 3.11-2 reflects the traffic analysis of SR 25, a two-lane road on Orient Point, based on NYSDOT available traffic data. For the purposes of this analysis, only land-based, vehicular traffic was studied. Marine -based transportation was not reviewed. Table 3.11-2 indicates that all directions of traffic flow of the roadways on Orient Point have high LOS ratings of A or B, well above the service flow rates of C and D that are typically used in facility and infrastructure design. This illustrates that the ratio of the current traffic volume compared to the current roadway facility capacity is low, and that the area facilities are capable of handling a heavier traffic flow volume without compromising common industry design goals. 3.11.3. Consequences Affected Environment/Existing Conditions Traffic projections and any traffic analyses for Plum Island are somewhat constrained due to the nature of the existing conditions and the severe limitation of vehicular traffic on Plum Island."' For any of the potential reuse options under the Action Alternative, this condition would continue to be a limiting constraint and traffic conditions would not deteriorate significantly. The 148 Traffic calculations and assumptions are included in Appendix E 3-137 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 3.11-2: Existing Conditions Analysis; Orient Point 0 Road Name NYDOT # From To Direction v/c (2008) LOS (2008) NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 NB 0.25 B NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 SB 0.24 B NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd EB 0.15 B NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd WB 0.15 B NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 EB 0.14 B NY 25 9070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 WB 0.13 B 900C #070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 NB 0.01 A 900C #070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 SB 0.01 A additional constraint of Plum Island traffic is the secure nature of Plum Island and the extreme limitations to vehicular activity. Traffic conditions on the mainland, Orient Sound area, can and would grow; however, the only appreciable option where traffic would be of any significance is Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning, and even under that option, the existing traffic infrastructure would be able to support the anticipated growth. The rate of oil barge traffic to Plum Island may vary from the existing rate, but it is not known at this time whether the rate would increase or decrease. The actual rate of oil barge traffic will be dependent on the nature of the proposed development, which fuel alternatives the developer will choose to implement, and the extent to which the developed facilities will be subjected to year- round use. The increase in barges carrying trucks and construction materials to Plum Island will have temporary, short-term impacts. Whether the barged trucks/construction materials originate in New London, Connecticut, or in Orient Point, New York, will depend upon the availability and cost of the actual construction materials used. Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts Additional traffic generated by any of the potential reuse options would result in minimal to modest growth depending on the respective option. The additional traffic numbers developed are expected to be worst case/maximum amounts of additional traffic volumes based on the historical growth rates and the trip generation developed based on the specific potential reuse option. The estimated additional trips generated due to the proposed reuse option development were applied to the existing traffic data to develop the Year 2008 information, which was then subsequently used for the traffic circulation analysis. The historical growth rate of 2.9% for the mainland, Orient Point area, was used. This is a very aggressive growth rate which is probably unrealistic and very unlikely to be maintained due the existing and projected zoning uses and limitations on this section of the mainland. It is predominantly a rural area without any dense centers and would likely remain that way throughout the study period. A summary of the additional traffic generated under the respective potential reuse options is shown on the tables in Appendix D. The respective roadway section analyses are also shown on those tables. The additional traffic loads do not present any degradation of traffic service levels for the study period, Year 2025. Any traffic effects to the local roadway network will be insignificant, defined for this analysis as maintaining the current LOS. 3-138 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 3.11.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership July 13, 2012 Under this alternative, the roadway infrastructure network within the study area would continue to operate under conditions similar to existing with no appreciable traffic effects or degradation of LOS. 3.11.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.11.3.2.1 Reuse Option I —Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Examples of potential reuse options for Plum Island could include a private sector laboratory, an academic research facility, or a business complex with a commercial component for Island tourists, or others. Adaptive reuse would use the existing facility so that every option would have similar gross floor areas. The existing PIADC was coded as a research and development center (Code 760) based on the trip generation codes provided in ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition Volume 3. The total trips are estimated to be 424 ADT. Under Reuse Option 1, there is no degradation of LOS for any of the roadway infrastructure within the Orient Point area, nor a typical 2 lane roadway on Plum Island itself. Since the effects of the sale on the existing traffic patterns are insignificant, no mitigation measures are anticipated or required. Routine roadway maintenance and improvements by the governing agencies, Town, County, and State would suffice. There would be no detrimental is cumulative effects from a transportation perspective since there are no other planned roadway improvement projects designated in the study area. • 3.11.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Development calculations and trip generation for Reuse Option 2 feature residential densities at less than one unit per 2 acres. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land and a residential density of approximately 1 unit per 2 acres, this option could accommodate approximately 90 residential units, including the required support infrastructure. Therefore, Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning would generate a total trip of 675 ADT. This level of proposed development represents minimal, controlled growth and would have negligible impacts to current or projected LOS. However, the traffic patterns under this option could be different from existing traffic patterns based on seasonal and weekend use of residences on Plum Island. The predicted peak 675 ADT might occur on busy summer weekends, with traffic during the week and during off-season months being significantly less. Since the effects of the sale on the existing traffic patterns are insignificant, no mitigation measures are anticipated or required. Routine roadway maintenance and improvements by the governing agencies, Town, County, and State would suffice. There would be no detrimental cumulative effects from a transportation perspective since there are no other planned roadway improvement projects designated in the study area. 3-139 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 3.11.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Reuse Option 3 would be the most intensive and growth -oriented as far as traffic and trip generation. This type of zoning could also include some level of mixed use on Plum Island such as small boutique and coffee shops, convenience stores, and potentially small restaurants. Development calculations for Reuse Option 3 are based upon resort residential densities with up to four units per acre. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land and a residential density of approximately 4 units per acre, this option could yield approximately 750 residential units, including the required support infrastructure. Therefore, this option can generate up to 5625 ADT, total trip traffic. Reuse Option 3 could increase traffic the most severely of the four options under the Action Alternative; however, even under this option, traffic conditions would continue to function within acceptable LOS, and impacts would be minor. However, the traffic patterns under this option could be different from existing traffic patterns based on seasonal and weekend use of residences on Plum Island. The predicted peak 5,625 ADT might occur on busy summer weekends, with traffic during the week and during off-season months being significantly less. Since the effects of the sale on the existing traffic patterns are insignificant, no mitigation measures are anticipated or required. Routine roadway maintenance and improvements by the governing agencies, Town, County, and State would suffice. There would be no detrimental cumulative effects from a transportation perspective since there are no other planned roadway 10 improvement projects designated in the study area. Negligible indirect impacts would be expected associated with traffic generated by new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support high-density zoning, as well as other new development in the project area. 3.11.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Under Reuse Option 4, some existing facilities on Plum Island may be removed and existing transportation services terminated or severely reduced, with limited active and/or passive public visitation or recreation facilities allowed. The general public access would be restricted. Occasional trips would be allowed for educational/interpretive visits, maintenance, and/or security activities. Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation is anticipated to generate 5 trips daily and would have no detrimental impacts to the existing roadway infrastructure or operating conditions. Since the effects of the sale on the existing traffic patterns are insignificant, no mitigation measures are anticipated or required. Routine roadway maintenance and improvements by the governing agencies, Town, County, and State would suffice. There would be no detrimental cumulative effects from a transportation perspective since there are no other planned roadway improvement projects designated in the study area. 17A 3-140 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 is 3.12. EXISTING HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, OR RADIOLOGICAL WASTE CONTAMINATION 3.12.1. Methodology This section presents a discussion of existing hazardous, toxic, or radiological waste (HTRW) contamination. The information in this section is derived from a review of existing DHS - provided documents. The documents contain information relative to past site investigations and environmental remediation activities conducted at the Property. These activities were conducted in association with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), CERCLA, and the state -regulated underground storage tank program. RCRA addresses the management of municipal and industrial solid waste (i.e., non -hazardous waste) and provides a system for managing hazardous waste. The goals of RCRA are to: (1) protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, (2) conserve energy and natural resources, (3) reduce the amount of waste generated, and (4) ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. RCRA applies to hazardous waste (Subtitle C of 40 CFR 261), solid wastes (Subtitle D), and USTs (Subtitle I). Its scope includes waste generators and transporters, and facilities engaged in the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous and solid waste. Under CERCLA, contaminated sites are included on the National Priorities List (NPL). Eligibility for inclusion on the NPL, commonly referred to as "Superfund" is determined by . available data from investigations and a site's score on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). In 1996, after detailed investigations of suspected and known waste disposal sites on Plum Island, USEPA determined that PIADC's score on the HRS was not sufficient for inclusion on the NPL. This determination did not relieve PIADC of its obligation to remediate contaminated sites or from compliance with New York State's cleanup regulations. Therefore, PIADC voluntarily moved forward with the investigation and remediation of numerous sites in concert with the NYSDEC's and SCDHS's recommendations for each of the PIADC sites. Because the program was initiated with the intent of inclusion under CERCLA, the program continued to be known as the "CERCLA program," even though PIADC was not an NPL site. • Underground storage tanks (USTs) on the Property are regulated by NYSDEC. UST regulations include Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17, Title 10 and regulation 6 NYCRR Parts 612-614. The following analysis assumes that any future activities under any of the potential reuse options will be subject to and compliant with appropriate requirements for control of hazardous substances, such as waste site assessment and implementation of institutional and/or engineering controls. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Operations, long-term management, and sustainability of HTRW conditions would not be impacted, or the impact would be at or below the lower levels of detection. 3-141 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be detectable but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable effect on operations, long-term management, or sustainability of HTRW conditions. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of HTRW conditions in a manner noticeable to the public. Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of HTRW conditions in a manner noticeable to the public, and would be markedly different from existing operations. 3.12.2. Affected Environment Plum Island began operation as a Department of the Army site in 1879 (Fort Terry) and operated in that capacity until it was declared Army surplus in 1948. It served as a U.S. Army Chemical Corps facility until 1954 when ownership was transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ARS to develop and maintain a diagnostic capability for exotic animal diseases foreign to the United States, and to conduct research on the prevention and control of these diseases. Many former military fortifications found on Plum Island were used in the initial decades of PIADC's operation as animal holding facilities. Later, the military batteries were used to store surplus materials. PIADC remained under ARS control until June 2003 when it was transferred to DHS. A management -imposed "nothing leaves Plum Island" policy that was instituted at the outset of PIADC's establishment meant that all waste streams and their residuals . generated on Plum Island remained there and could not be transported off Plum Island for further treatment and/or disposal. The purpose of the policy was to ensure that waste removal processes would not be responsible for allowing biological agents under study to escape the confines of Plum Island. This policy encompassed all materials and objects used, consumed, and discarded at PIADC, including wastes generated by diagnostic and research activities. Items that could be burned were incinerated in one of several incineration units. Non -burnable materials (metal, glass, and ceramics) and items too large to be incinerated were chemically and/or thermally decontaminated and disposed on -island, usually buried in trenches or pits. In 1991, ARS approved a new biological safety plan that modified safety procedures pertaining to waste handling and disposal practices. This plan permitted the removal of most solid waste streams after appropriate decontamination protocols were performed. Some waste streams were subsequently transferred from Plum Island to permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities on the mainland. In recent years, cleanup and removal actions have occurred at multiple sites where wastes were historically disposed. These actions were coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local authorities responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable environmental and public health regulations, including RCRA and CERCLA.149 149 Tetra Tech, Inc. 2008. Final environmental impact statement, National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility. Prepared for U.S. • Department of Homeland Security. 3-142 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 RCRA Pursuant to a 1994 Compliance Order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 2 under RCRA, PIADC was required to assess 87 sites to determine if their operational and hazardous waste compliance history suggested they had been used for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal. The 87 sites included 72 buildings, five incinerators, and ten former military batteries. PIADC was further required to develop and implement a Closure Plan in accordance with RCRA Interim Status regulations at sites where hazardous waste had been managed. After the initial site investigations and assessments, regulatory oversight was transferred to NYSDEC and SCDHS regulators. The first phase of the assessment found that 53 of the 87 sites had not been associated with hazardous waste management. Thirteen of the 34 remaining sites were eligible for "administrative closure," that is, no further actions or investigations were required for them to be considered closed in accordance with RCRA. The 21 remaining sites requiring further action (i.e., screening, contamination removal, and remediation) comprised individual buildings and structures having a broad range of historical use at Plum Island. Extensive media sampling in and around each of the 21 buildings/structures was performed. As a result, no further action was required at 3 of the 21 sites. Remedial and removal actions were taken to achieve RCRA closure at the remaining 18 sites including one military battery (Battery Engineers). All RCRA sites identified at PIADC as having been used to manage RCRA wastes have been closed with certification from the NYSDEC.150 151 . CERCLA Under CERCLA, investigations were undertaken at PIADC to evaluate the nature and extent of environmental impacts from waste disposal activities that had historically occurred on Plum Island and to determine if Plum Island was eligible for placement on the NPL. A September 2002 CERCLA Program report describes the results of initial CERCLA investigations undertaken at PIADC. These investigations of potential waste disposal areas encompassed 49 sites: 21 Waste Management Areas (WMAs), 15 additional Areas of Potential Concern (AOPCs), ten historical Army batteries, and three Army support structures known or suspected to have been used for storage and/or disposal of potentially hazardous materials. The 21 WMAs and 15 AOPCs were identified during an intensive historical aerial photography study completed in 1999 by BMT Entech, Inc. to identify possible historical waste dumping areas by searching for surficial disturbances, ground scarring, and/or possible disposal trenches. Stereoscopic examination of 14 individual years of photography covering the years 1938 to 1993 was conducted. Following a subsequent Army buildings survey, 10 former Army batteries and three Army support structures were added to the program. 112 The locations of the 49 sites investigated during the CERCLA program are shown on Figure 3.12-1. 150 Ibid. 151 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), Environmental data gap analysis report. 152 Ibid. 3-143 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Note AOPClWMA outlines are taken from Figure 10 2 of the mareNDate BRP (01&n September 2002 PIADC CERCLA Program Report by ENTECH, Inc. CheckedtDate J8021t&lI Figure 3.12-1: Plum Island CERCLA Environmental Sites July 13, 2012 3-144 0 0 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 . Seven WMAs (WMAs 3, 9, 12, 18, 21, 23, and 25) and two AOPCs (AOPCs 15 and 17) not depicted on Figure 3.12-1 are not included in the PIADC CERCLA program's 49 sites. The nine sites had been identified in during a 1996 Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation but were not carried into CERCLA program with approval from the regulators, because the sites were 153 154 determined to be relatively innocuous, as documented in the CERCLA Program Report. Regulator -approved work plans were developed in support of the site investigation and were implemented during a field program conducted in 1999. The CERCLA Program Report describes the results of the initial CERCLA investigations undertaken at the 49 sites. The site investigations involved the collection of more than 1,000 media and quality assurance/quality control samples that were analyzed for volatile and semivolatile compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals. Screening of the risks posed by Plum Island contamination to possible targets and receptors suggested that the site should not be placed on the NPL. Findings from the site investigations resulted in specific recommendations for the 49 individual sites; the recommendations were discussed and documented during an on -Island meeting attended by NYSDEC, SCDHS, and PIADC representatives on May 8, 2001. At the meeting several sites were determined to require no further action. Other sites were determined to require post -meeting investigations; the first phase of these investigations occurred in 2002.155 Groundwater sampling and analysis conducted during the site investigations indicated that . relatively low contaminant concentrations were present. In no instances were volatile organic compounds detected above federal drinking water standards (i.e., Maximum Contaminant Levels). Naphthalene, a semi -volatile organic compound, was detected in groundwater behind Building 101, near a known area of fuel oil contamination. No pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected. Calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium concentrations reported in samples collected from coastal monitoring wells were indicative of saline groundwater conditions. Concentrations of other inorganics detected in groundwater were marginal and likely within the range of natural background variability."' A summary of the current regulatory status of each of the 49 CERCLA sites is presented in Appendix E. Approximately half (25 sites) of the 49 sites were assigned No Further Action (NFA) in May 2001 based on the investigation findings. For the other 24 sites, NYSDEC recommended that additional studies and/or site remediation be undertaken before NFA status could be considered. At certain sites (of the 24), the additional studies and/or site remediation recommended by NYSDEC were subsequently completed. For the remaining sites, DHS is continuing its ongoing program of site investigation and remediation. In its most recent 153 Entech, CERCLA program report. 154 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), Environmental data gap analysis report. 155 Ibid. 156 19 BMT Entech, Inc. 2002. CERCLA program report for Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Contract No. 43-3K15-1-0006. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture. 3-145 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 communication with DHS, 157 the NYSDEC outlined some remaining actions needed to be • undertaken prior to the sale of the Property to insure that any remaining environmental issues are adequately characterized. The site summary in Appendix E incorporates this most recent communication with NYSDEC. In its April 30, 2010 correspondence to DHS, the NYSDEC outlined remaining actions that need to be undertaken relative to the ongoing CERCLA program to insure that any outstanding issues are adequately addressed. The DHS is currently completing remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory standards. PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS The 2007 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Terracon presents information relating to PIADC's fuel storage and distribution system and secondary containment systems. PIADC uses No. 2 fuel oil for heating, hot water, emergency power, and incineration. It also uses gasoline for vehicles; diesel for heavy machinery and ferries; and, used oil for heating the warehouse. In total, Plum Island stores approximately 650,000 gallons of petroleum products. The majority of this total is fuel oil that is stored in three 210,000 -gallon ASTs that are filled from a fuel barge that docks at the Plum Island harbor and pumps fuel through a permitted aboveground pipeline. PIADC received approximately 200,000 gallons of fuel oil by barge during each of the four or five deliveries per year. There are four USTs currently in use on Plum Island; two of the tanks store No. 2 fuel oil, one . tank stores diesel fuel, and one tank stores gasoline. There are two No 2 fuel oil USTs at Orient Point used for building heating. All six USTs are of fiberglass, double-wall construction and were installed in 1994 and 1995. The tanks are in compliance with current regulations and inspected weekly by PIADC personnel and annually by the NYSDEC .151 The March 1995 Closure Report for Petroleum Storage Tanks by STV Sanders and Thomas documents the closure, excavation, and removal of a total of 34 USTs and three ASTs located on Plum Island and at the Orient Point ferry terminal. The three ASTs and 27 of the USTs were removed and closed out with no environmental impacts identified, based on determinations by the SCDHS. A SCDHS representative was on-site when each of the tanks was closed, excavated, and removed. Seven of the USTs that were excavated and removed were determined by the SCDHS representative to have had releases or overfills resulting in petroleum - contaminated soil. These seven USTs sites (i.e., excavations) were referred to the NYSDEC for assessment and determination of future monitoring and cleanup strategies. Spill numbers were designated for the seven USTs located in three areas as follows: • Tanks #8, 9, and 51 — Plum Island Dock Area (Spill No. 92-01281) • Tank #18 — West Incinerator of Building 101 (Spill No. 94-11562) 157 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2010. Letter response to GSA request for information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. 158 •MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC), Environmental data gap analysis report. 3-146 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Tank #1-0, 2-0, and 4-0 — Ferry Terminal, Orient Point, New York (Spill No. 94-07091). A review of the NYSDEC online spills tracking database indicates that the spill numbers associated with the seven USTs have been closed, indicating that these spills have been remediated (http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8437.html). The December 1995 Addendum I to the Closure Report addresses the closure of three 1,000 - gallon USTs at Battery Stoneman and two 500 -gallon USTs at Battery Steele. These USTs were pumped empty of petroleum, cleaned, and closed in place. A non-compressible foam slurry was used to seal the tanks. In addition, one 10,000 -gallon UST at Battery 217 was excavated and removed. NYSDEC and SCDHS representatives on-site during the tank closure process indicated that there was negligible environmental impact from the tanks. Therefore, the sites were closed out, and no further action was required. The July 1998 Addendum II to the Closure Report addresses the removal of seven 50,000 -gallon ASTs from the Plum Island Harbor Area; the closure of one 28,000 -gallon UST next to Building 257; and, one 8,000 -gallon UST south of Building 102. The USTs were closed in place by either filling with a concrete slurry mix or filling with sand and concrete. There are two NYSDEC spill numbers (No. 95-12713 and 96-00355) currently open for the light non -aqueous phase liquid petroleum spill being remediated north of Building 101. An oil recovery system, installed in 2000, is in place and is recovering free product from this spill area. The combined recovery of fuel oil from vacuum enhanced fuel recovery and the automated recovery system is 9,648 gallons • of fuel oil as of June 2011.159 3.12.3. Consequences To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the proposed alternatives, effects on existing HTRW contamination resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. Impacts to existing HTRW contamination from alternative implementation would vary depending upon the intensity and duration of anticipated activities included in the alternative. In this section, intensity and duration of alternative activities and associated impacts to existing HTRW contamination are defined and evaluated. 3.12.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership The No Action Alternative would have no impacts to Plum Island or Orient Point. DHS would complete remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations in compliance with federal, state, and local regulatory standards subject to the availability of funds. 3.12.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.12.3.2.1 Reuse Option 1 — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure The DHS is currently completing remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory standards. Upon 0 159 Ibid. 3-147 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 implementation of Reuse Option 1, existing buildings could remain in their current location and encompass their current extent; additional development would not be allowed to occur. Existing buildings could be reused with interior renovations. Because remaining environmental remediation areas on Plum Island are in locations away from current land use, anticipated actions to be conducted by the DHS at these areas are not expected to impact adaptive reuse activities. Where necessary, mitigation measures to lessen impacts to activities associated with Reuse Option 1 by HTRW remediation could include scheduling of hazardous waste testing and remediation prior to sale of the Property and, as necessary, during facility decommissioning and building renovation to accommodate adaptive reuse activities. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h), the federal government is required to state in the deed that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken, and that any additional remedial actions found necessary after the sale date shall be conducted by the United States. 3.12.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Upon implementation of Reuse Option 2, an estimated 90 residential units could be developed on Plum Island. The locations of the CERCLA program sites relative to the Potential Development Parcels presented in Section 2.3 are shown in Figure 3.12-1. Ten CERCLA sites (or portions thereof) appear to be located within the Potential Development Parcels (Figure 3.12-1). Of the ten CERCLA sites: • one site is an existing landfill (i.e., WMA 26) that was investigated during the CERCLA • program and for which NYSDEC has requested that an institutional control such as a deed restriction be placed to prohibit residential development • for three sites (i.e., WMA 6, WMA 13, and AOPC 6) where excavation and off-site disposal of regulated medical waste (RMW) has been undertaken, NYSDEC requested in its April 30, 2010 correspondence to DHS that any remaining necessary remediation measures be identified and evaluated at the remaining six sites (i.e., WMA 5, WMA 28, AOPC 3, AOPC 4, AOPC 9, and AOPC 16), NYSDEC has indicated that no further action is needed as a result of its review of the findings from the CERCLA site investigations The DHS is currently completing remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations as part of its ongoing activities to achieve compliance with federal, state, and local regulatory standards. Anticipated activities to be conducted by the DHS at environmental remediation areas on Plum Island located within a residential development area could inhibit development plans for areas at and near the ten CERCLA sites located in the Potential Development Parcels. Where necessary, mitigation measures to lessen impacts to Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning from existing contamination within the development area include: Is 3-148 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • the contents of the existing landfill WMA 26 could be excavated and removed to allow residential development or, alternately, institutional controls could be implemented to prohibit residential development at that location an assessment of environmental conditions at WMA 6, WMA 13, and AOPC 6, including sampling and analysis if needed, could be undertaken along with any remaining remediation measures deemed by NYSDEC to be necessary • an assessment of construction worker risk, a Health and Safety Plan to include a strategy to manage risks to construction workers, and a Soil Management Plan would be completed prior to implementation of construction activities associated with residential development Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h), the federal government is required to state in the deed that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken, and that any additional remedial actions resulting from the federal government's use of the Property after the transfer date shall be conducted by the United States. 3.12.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Upon implementation of Reuse Option 3, an estimated 750 residential units could be developed. • Consequences derived from implementation of this option (i.e., impacts to development posed by the ten CERCLA sites within the Potential Development Parcels) would be similar to those presented for Reuse Option 2 — Low-density Zoning, except that the consequences could, in general, be more acute because of the larger development footprint. Similarly, mitigation measures to lessen impacts to Reuse Option 3 — High-density Zoning from existing contamination within the development area are identical to those identified for Reuse Option 2. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h), the federal government is required to state in the deed that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken, and that any additional remedial actions resulting from the federal government's use of the Property after the transfer date shall be conducted by the United States. 3.12.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation The DHS is currently completing remaining CERCLA program closure and clean-up operations in compliance with federal, state, and local regulatory standards. Upon implementation of Reuse Option 4, activities on Plum Island and Orient Point would be limited to those conducted by private conservation entity maintenance and security personnel who would manage the Property to protect, maintain, and enhance significant natural and cultural resources. Anticipated actions to be conducted at environmental remediation areas on Plum Island would be coordinated with activities associated with conservation/preservation. Any conflicts between the two efforts could likely be resolved with minimal effort; as a result, anticipated activities at the environmental remediation areas would not be expected to impact conservation/preservation activities. However, if necessary, mitigation measures to lessen impacts to activities associated with Reuse 3-149 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Option 4 by HTRW remediation could include scheduling of hazardous waste testing and • remediation prior to sale and, as necessary, during facility decommissioning to accommodate activities associated with conservation/preservation. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(h), the federal government is required to state in the deed that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken, and that any additional remedial actions resulting from the federal government's use of the Property after the sale date shall be conducted by the United States. 3.13. WASTE MANAGEMENT 3.13.1. Methodology This section describes the existing waste management infrastructure and the construction and operation impacts on waste management. Information on the affected environment and waste management impacts that would vary by alternative was primarily derived from: • site visits and other information gathered by the EIS preparation team • publicly available information from municipal, state, and federal regulatory and environmental websites and databases. The following analysis assumes that any future activities under any of the potential reuse options will be subject to and compliant with appropriate requirements for waste • management, such as wastewater discharge permits. The terms of potential impacts are described as follows: Negligible: Operations, long-term management, and sustainability of waste handling would not be impacted, or the impact would be at or below the lower levels of detection. Minor: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be detectable but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable effect on operations, long-term management, or sustainability of waste handling. Moderate: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of waste handling in a manner noticeable to the public. Major: Adverse and beneficial impacts would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial change to operations, long-term management, or sustainability of waste handling in a manner noticeable to the public, and would be markedly different from existing operations. 3.13.2. Affected Environment Wastewater generated at PIADC is separated into two categories with regard to source and treatment: Research Waste and Non -Research Waste. Research wastes include wastewaters • 3-150 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • generated by laboratory sinks and drains, restroom facilities, and animal handling/holding areas within Building 101. Liquid wastes are conveyed from Building 101 via underground piping and enter Building 102 for pretreatment through grinding units for size classification, then into a series of holding tanks for mixing and heating at various temperatures and residence times under continuous flow or batch conditions. This portion of the research waste pretreatment system is collectively referred to as the "Heat Exchanger Treatment System." From here the fluids are sent to one of two "Retention Tube Rooms" that house approximately 3,500 feet of piping. The pretreated effluent passes through this system to dissipate heat before being combined with non - research waste for secondary and tertiary treatment in the central wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Plum Island has a central WWTP that is owned, operated, and maintained by DHS, and that discharges treated non -research wastes to Long Island Sound. Non -research waste includes all pretreated sewage from the research facility, as well as sink, drain, and sewage wastes from the non -research support facilities on Plum Island. Combined, the waste is treated in the central WWTP, located southeast of the main PIADC laboratory in the south-central portion of Plum Island. The existing WWTP was built in 1995 and was upgraded in 2004. The upgraded WWTP is a tertiary treatment facility with a maximum permitted capacity of 80,000 gpd. The WWTP currently operates in compliance with New York SPDES Permit No. NY0008117, which defines maximum daily loadings and concentrations of various constituents, including BOD, TSS, coliforms (total and fecal), pH, chlorine, oil and grease, and several organic compounds. Nitrogen concentrations are not monitored; however, WWTP discharges, although treated, still contain various nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus. Based on a review of Plum Island 40 WWTP monthly discharge data from November 2004 through June 2006, average daily discharges of BOD and TSS were 1.4 pounds and 2.2 pounds, respectively, well below the permitted daily allowance of 22.47 pounds for BOD and TSS .160 Based on the same data, average daily flow from the WWTP was 46,000 gpd. Non -research wastewater includes pre-treated sewage from the research facility as well as sink, drain, and sewage wastes from the non -research support facilities on Plum Island. The largest contributor of wastes from non -research facilities is Building 100, which contains the majority of the employees and administrative/support functions at PIADC. Combined non -research waste and pre-treated research waste is then treated in the central WWTP located several hundred feet southeast of the research laboratory. The wastewater treatment plant is a tertiary treatment facility that includes chemical treatment and irradiation (with ultraviolet light) to enhance disinfection of the effluent. Treated wastewater passes through man-made engineered wetlands specifically designed to further treat the effluent prior to its discharge from an outfall into Plum Gut Harbor. The wastewater treatment plant is currently permitted to treat 80,000 gpd. Long Island Sound is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). A TMDL report completed in 2000 for Long Island Sound is designed to ensure the attainment of water quality standards for DO. The TMDL is based upon nitrogen loadings, because nitrogen is the limiting nutrient controlling 160 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Permit Compliance System (PCS) database in Envirofacts. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs/search.html. 3-151 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 algal blooms and subsequent DO reductions. Based on the TMDL report, the daily load of nitrogen to Long Island Sound was 275 tons. 161 However, nitrogen does not represent the only cause of DO impairment of Long Island Sound. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), TSS, and phosphorus can reduce DO concentrations through enhanced biological activity and are components of the surface water discharges generated on Plum Island. Solid wastes generated during research activities in the PIADC laboratory are either treated or decontaminated. Wastes that are medical in origin and that have come into contact with infectious material are managed as RMW. The RMW is treated in a method called "autoclaving," during which wastes are sterilized by contact with high-pressure saturated steam. Non-RMW wastes generated in the laboratory are autoclaved or decontaminated using an airlock washdown or other approved decontamination method. Residuals from these treatment activities are transported to appropriately permitted off-site disposal facilities. Many conventional solid waste materials, including cardboard, paper, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, glass, and books/magazines, are sent to a permitted recycling facility. 162 Solid waste will likely continue to be transported to a permitted landfill on Long Island. The actual content and volume of the solid waste to be transported will be determined post -sale depending on the buyer's land use implementation. 3.13.3. Consequences To evaluate impacts to the Property resulting from activities associated with the proposed reuse options, effects on waste management resulting from implementation of the alternatives are defined and assessed. Impacts to waste management from alternative implementation would vary depending upon the intensity and duration of anticipated activities included in the potential reuse option. In this section, intensity and duration of alternative activities and associated impacts to waste management are defined and evaluated. 3.13.3.1 No Action Alternative —Retain in Federal Ownership Upon implementation of the No Action Alternative, the PIADC and the existing central wastewater treatment plant and its ancillary structures would likely be decommissioned. Activities on Plum Island and Orient Point would be limited to those conducted by maintenance and security personnel. The limited amounts of wastewater and solid wastes generated by these activities could be collected and contained in portable units and transported to offsite disposal facilities. Significant detrimental impacts to waste management are not expected as a result of the No Action Alternative. 161 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). 2000. A total maximum daily load analysis to achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in 162 Long Island Sound. Prepared in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Long Island Sound Study. Tetra Tech, Inc., Final environmental impact statement. • 3-152 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 9 3.13.3.2 Action Alternative — Sale of the Property 3.13.3.2.1 Reuse Option I — Adaptive Reuse of Existing Infrastructure Upon implementation of Reuse Option 1, the PIADC and the existing central wastewater treatment plant and its ancillary structures would likely be retained and continue to be used in the current manner. Existing buildings could remain in their current location and encompass their current extent; additional development could not be allowed to occur. Existing buildings could be reused with interior renovations. Modifications to existing buildings and or infrastructure and future activities conducted on Plum Island would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations. Wastewater flows for Reuse Option 1 would likely be similar to existing flows, resulting in the need for little or no treatment plant expansion. Solid wastes generated by this option could be collected and transported offsite to disposal facilities similar to the current handling of these materials. Mitigation measures to lessen waste generation impacts posed by activities associated with this option could include solid waste recycling, water conservation, and wastewater reuse. Significant detrimental impacts to waste management are not expected as a result of this option. 3.13.3.2.2 Reuse Option 2 — Low -Density Zoning (90 Residential Units) Upon implementation of Reuse Option 2, the PIADC and the existing central wastewater treatment plant and its ancillary structures could be retained and continue to be used in the 40 current manner. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land on Plum Island and a residential density of approximately 1 unit per 2 acres, Reuse Option 2 is estimated to accommodate approximately 90 residential units. These units could be supported by the existing wastewater capacity on Plum Island. Assuming a per unit wastewater discharge of 100 gpd, the resulting estimated wastewater flow would be approximately 9,000 gpd, considerably less than the currently permitted wastewater flow of 80,000 gpd during seasonal peak occupancy. Approximately 4.25 tons of solid waste per week would be expected to be generated. These wastes could be collected and transported offsite to disposal facilities similar to the current handling of these materials. Wastewater and solid waste generated from the new land use activity at the Orient Point facility could be treated, recycled, and/or disposed in the same manner as is currently employed. Mitigation measures to lessen waste generation impacts posed by activities associated with Reuse Option 2 could include solid waste recycling, water conservation, and wastewater reuse. Significant detrimental impacts to waste management are not expected as a result of this option. 3.13.3.2.3 Reuse Option 3 — High -Density Zoning (750 Residential Units and Supporting Infrastructure) Upon implementation of Reuse Option 3, the PIADC and the existing central wastewater treatment plant and its ancillary structures could be retained and continue to be used in the • current manner. 3-153 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land on Plum Island and a • residential density of approximately 1 unit per 2 acres, Reuse Option 3 is estimated to accommodate approximately 750 residential units. These units could be supported by the existing wastewater capacity on Plum Island. Assuming a per unit wastewater discharge of 100 gpd, the resulting estimated wastewater flow would be approximately 75,000 gpd during seasonal peak occupancy, less than the currently permitted wastewater flow, but approaching the 80,000 gpd permitted capacity. Approximately 35 tons of solid waste per week would be expected to be generated. These wastes could be collected and transported offsite to recycling or disposal facilities similar to the current handling of these materials. Wastewater and solid waste generated from the new land use activity at the Orient Point facility could be treated, recycled, and/or disposed in the same manner as is currently employed. Significant detrimental impacts to waste management are not expected as a result of Reuse Option 3. Negligible indirect impacts would be expected associated with waste generated by new facilities (stores, restaurants, gas stations) that might be developed to support high-density zoning, as well as other new development in the project area. Mitigation measures to lessen waste generation impacts posed by activities associated with Reuse Option 3 could include solid waste recycling, water conservation, and wastewater reuse. 3.13.3.2.4 Reuse Option 4 — Conservation/Preservation Upon implementation of Reuse Option 4, the PIADC and the existing central wastewater treatment plant and its ancillary structures could be decommissioned and possibly removed. Activities on Plum Island and Orient Point would likely be limited to those conducted by educational/interpretive visitors, private conservation entity maintenance, and security personnel who would manage Plum Island to protect, maintain, and enhance significant natural and cultural resources. The limited amounts of wastewater and solid wastes generated by this activity could be collected and contained in portable units and transported to offsite disposal facilities. A positive impact to waste management realized under this option would be a likely reduction in waste generation and in the corresponding need for waste management services. • 3-154 u m All Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • 4 LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (cooperating agency) Environmental Protection Agency (cooperating agency) Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Emergency Management Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — National Marine Fisheries Service State of New York New York State Department of Health New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets New York State Historic Preservation Office State of Connecticut Connecticut Department of Agriculture Village of Greenport Town of Southold Town of Old Saybrook Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Environment and Energy Suffolk County Planning Department Cayuga Nation Delaware Nation of Oklahoma Mohawk Nation Oneida Indian Nation Onondanga Nation Seneca -Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca Nation of Indians Shinnecock Indian Nation St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians Tuscarora Nation Unkechaug Nation • 4-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 4-2 • • • Ll • 0 LO N a - cu Al Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • 5 LIST OF PREPARERS Mark Stelmack, PE AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Principal Engineer Ann Shortelle, PhD AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Principal Scientist Pat Garrow, RPA AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Principal Cultural Resources Scientist Josh Jenkins, PG AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Geologist Ron Huffman, AICP, ASLA AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Principal Landscape Architect Dan Lovingood, PG • AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Geologist Andy Keeley, PE AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Engineer Gerald Mueller, CHMM AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Engineer George Obaranec, PE AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Engineer Jonathan Bourdeau, PWS AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Scientist Charles Lyman, CWS AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Senior Scientist 5-1 July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York Paul Haywood AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Staff Scientist Sam Arden AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Staff Engineer Eric Hurley Economist Booz Allen Hamilton Bob Hardy Technical Editor AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Michael Christian Senior Word Processor AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 5-2 July 13, 2012 • • • • A • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • 6 REFERENCES AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). 2010a. Environmental data gap analysis report, Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Prepared for General Services Administration. 2010b. Vernal pool survey report: Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Anon. 1879. Long Islander. 2010. Plum Island, East End lighthouses. http://www.eastendlighthouses.org/plum.htm. Audubon New York. 2010. North Fork Audubon Society Plum Island bird surveys and associated data. North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS). http://www.northforkaudubon.org. Bacon, W.R. 1979. The visual management system of the Forest Service, USDA. Quoted in G.H. Elsner and R.C. Smardon, Technical Coordinators. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, Incline Village, NV, April 23-25. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-35. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn. Beer, F.W. 1873. Atlas of Long Island, New York. New York: Beers, Comstock, and Cline. BMT Entech, Inc. 2002. CERCLA program report for Plum Island Animal Disease Center. • Contract No. 43-3K15-1-0006. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture. . 2007. After action report: Investigation and remedial actions at Area of Potential Concern (AOPC) 5 and 8. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Contract No. 53-3K06-4-0300. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). 2008. Weather and climate data for Suffolk County, New York. www.bnl.gov/weather. Case, J.W. 1884. Southold town records copied and explanatory notes. 2 vols. New York: Towns of Southold and Riverhead. Cella, A. 2004. An overview of Plum Island: History, research and effects on Long Island. Long Island Historical Journal 16, nos. 1 and 2 (Fall 2003/Spring 2004): 176-181. http://dspace. sunyconnect. suny.edu/bitstream/ 1951 /43 871 / 1 /LIHJ2004.pdf. Chace, J., Jr. 1858. Map of Suffolk County, L.I. from actual surveys. Philadelphia: John Douglass. City-Data.com. 2010. http://www.city-data.com/city. Connecticut Business News Journal. 2009. http://www.conntact.com/. Connecticut State Department of Education. 2010. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp. 6-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the • National Environmental Policy Act. Crandell, H.C. 1962. Geology and groundwater resources of Plum Island, Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 1539-X. 35 pp. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2009. NBAF ROD. Federal Register 74, no. 11 (January 16, 2009). http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-914.htm. 2010. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/editorial-0902.shtm (accessed July 20, 2010). Dugan, I.J. 2002. Bioterrorism fears revive waning interest in agricultural disease lab on Plum Island. New York Times, January 8, 2002. Eastern Long Island Hospital (ELIH). 2010. http://www.elih.org/. Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero, eds. 2002. Ecological communities of New York State, second edition, a revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's ecological communities of New York State (draft for review). Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Natural Heritage Program. Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc. 1998. Governors Island disposition — final environmental impact statement. • Entech. 2002. CERCLA program report for Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Volume L• Introductory materials and waste management area (WMA) findings. Suffolk County, NY. Essex, H.C.A. 1908. Plum Island 50 years ago. Traveler Watchman September 3, 1908. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood insurance rate maps (various panels), Suffolk County, New York. www.msc.fema.gov. FPM Group. 2003. Historic preservation plan for Plum Island, New York. Prepared in association with GAI Consultants, Monroeville, PA. Submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plum Island Research Services Center, Plum Island, New York. Ronkonkoma, NY. General Services Administration (GSA). 2010. Draft environmental impact statement scoping report, public sale of Plum Island, Plum Island, New York. Boston. www.plumislandny.com. Hefner, R.J. 1998. Historic resources survey, Plum Island, New York. Submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plum Island Research Services Center, Plum Island, New York. East Hampton, NY. Lambert, B. 1998. Closely guarded secrets: Some islands you can't get to visit. New York Times, May 17, 1998. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/17/nyregion/closely-guarded-secrets-some- islands-you-can-t-get-to-visit.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3. • 6-2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Lang, B. 2007. Plum Island, Suffolk County, New York — freshwater and saltwater wetland delineation, p.22. Prepared for JGI Eastern, Inc., Rocky Hill, CT. B. Laing Associates. Long Island Exchange. 2010. Long Island, Suffolk County. http://www.longislandexchange.com/suffolk-countyl.html (accessed July 20, 2010). Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). 2004. Energy plan 2004-2013 technical report. Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative (LISS). 2001. Sound health 2001: Status and trends in the health of Long Island Sound. http://longislandsoundstudy.net/2001/12/sound-health-2001- status-and-trends-in-the-health-of-long- i sland-sound/. Long Island Traveler. 1894. Obituary of William H. Clark. October 12, 1894. National Audubon Society. 2011. Site report for Orient Point and Plum Island Important Bird Area (IBA). http://iba.audubon.org/iba/profileReport.do?siteld=782. National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/gc_l 187734676776.shtm. National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility Design Partnership (NDP). 2008. Site characterization study. • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2011. Hurricane History. Washington, DC. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml. • National Weather Service (NWS). 2010. National Weather Service climate information. http://www.nws.gov/climate/. New London Police Department. 2010. http://www.ci.new- london.ct.us/content/27/619/default.aspx. New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2007. Natural heritage report on rare species and ecological communities. Submitted to BMT Entech for potential upgrades at Plum Island Animal Disease Center. . 2010. Response letter providing results of NYNHP review of Natural Heritage Database, August 12, 2010. New York State Department of Education. 2009. http://www.nysed.gov/. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1995. Long Island colonial water bird and piping plover survey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008a. Endangered species fact sheets, New York. www.dec.ny.gov/23.html. 6-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008b. The second 40 atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Edited by K.J. McGowan and K. Corwin. Cornell University Press. 2010a. Endangered species fact sheets, New York. www.dec.ny.gov/animals/277.html. 2010b. Letter response to GSA request for information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. 2010c. New York State Regulatory Freshwater Wetlands for Suffolk County. http://CUGIR.Mannlib.comell.edu. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). 2000. A total maximum daily load analysis to achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen in Long Island Sound. Prepared in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Long Island Sound Study. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (NYS Parks). 2011. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/I 06/details.aspx. Newsday. 2004. 1775: Revolutionary War's first amphibious skirmish takes place on Plum Island. December 15, 2004. North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS). 2007. Plum Island breeding bird survey. • http://www.northforkaudubon.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=PlBreeding6-27- 07&Section=IBAs. 2010. North Fork Audubon Society Plum Island bird surveys and associated data. http://www.northforkaudubon.org. Office of Management and Budget. 2010. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fyI0/hist.html. Old Saybrook Police Department. 2010. http://www.oldsaybrookct.org/Pages/OldSaybrookCT—Police/index. Smith, C.R., S.D. DeGloria, M.E. Richmond, S.K. Gregory, M. Laba, S.D. Smith, J.L. Braden, E.H. Fegraus, E.A. Hill, D.E. Ogurcak, and J.T. Weber. 2001. The New York gap analysis project final report. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Southold Fire Department. 2010. http://www.southoldfd.com/. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. 1979. The history and archaeology of the Montauk Indians, Vol. III. Stony Brook, NY. Suffolk County Department of Parks (SCDP). 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/departments/parks.aspx. • 6-4 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • Suffolk County Department of Planning. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/departments/planning.aspx. Suffolk County Government. 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/. Suffolk County Police Department. 2010. http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/police/. Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA). 2010. Suffolk County 2010 annual drinking water quality report. http://www.scwa.com/SCWA—AWQR.pdf. Terracon. 2007. Phase I environmental site assessment — proposed National Bio- and Agro - Defense Facility, Plum Island, Greenport Village, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Prepared for Perkins & Will. Atlanta. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2008. Final environmental impact statement, National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility. Prepared for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Thompson, B.F. 1962. History of Long Island, vol. I1. (Orig. pub. 1918 by R.H. Dodd). Town of Southold. 2010. Undated letter from H. Lanza, Planning Director, Town of Southold, New York, to J. Kelly, General Services Administration (received on August 13, 2010). Town of Southold Tax Assessor's Office. 2010. http://southoldtown.northfork.net/assessors.htm. • Truex, J.E. 1982. The second coastal archaeology reader: 1900 to the present, Vol. V. Stony Brook, NY: Suffolk County Archaeological Association. 0 Uchupi, E., N. Driscoll, R.D. Ballard, and S.T. Bolmer. 2001. Drainage of late Wisconsin glacial lakes and the morphology and late Quaternary stratigraphy of the New Jersey — southern New England continental shelf and slope. Marine Geology, vol. 172. U.S. Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1956. The Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory. Miscellaneous Publication No. 730. Washington, D.C.: Animal Disease and Parasite Research Branch. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadcl577/ml/l/. U.S. Animal Health Association (AHA). 2003. U.S. Animal Health Association Newsletter 30 (4). http://www.usaha.org/news/newsletter/USAHA-Newsletter-Oct2003.pdf. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). http://www.bea.gov/. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). http://www.bls.gov/. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. http://www.census.gov. U.S. Coast Survey. 1883. Eastern Long Island map. Copy on file at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Plum Island, NY. 6-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds, second . edition. Technical Release 55. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division. 2010. http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site—main.htm?modecode=l9-40-00-00 (accessed July 20, 2010). U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2008. National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility final environmental impact statement. http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/gc—1 187734676776.shtm# 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Final guidance for incorporating environmental justice concerns in EPA's NEPA compliance analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Permit Compliance System (PCS) database in Envirofacts. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/pcs/search.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. Ground water atlas of the United States, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont. HA 730-M. P.G. Olcott. 2001. Development of a 2001 national land cover database for the United States. Sioux Falls, SD. 2008. Earthquake hazards program. Washington, DC. • http://earthquake.usgs. gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/maps/. 2010. Surficial geology of the sea floor in Long Island Sound offshore of Plum Island, New York. USGS Open -File Report 2010-1005. K.Y. McMullen, L.J. Poppe, W.W. Danforth, D.S. Blackwood, J.D. Schaer, A.J. Ostapenko, K.A. Glomb, and E.F. Doran. Woods Hole, MA: USGS, Coastal and Marine Geology Program. Norfolk, VA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coast Survey. Norfolk, VA: NOAA, Marine Operations Center—Atlantic. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. U.S. Government. 1840. U.S. Government Census: Suffolk County New York. . 1850. U.S. Government Census: Suffolk County New York. 1860. U.S. Government Census: Suffolk County New York. . 1870. U.S. Government Census: Suffolk County New York. 1880a. U.S. Government Census, Nonpopulation Census: Suffolk County New York. 1880b. U.S. Government Census: Suffolk County New York. • 6-6 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 • 1926. Post and reservation map Fort Terry New York. Copy on file at Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Plum Island, NY. Young, S.M. 2007. New York rare plant status lists. Albany, NY: New York Natural Heritage Program. • • 6-7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 6-8 • • • • 0 1 x _0 c CL CL El Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • APPENDIX A THE LIST OF ADDRESSEES INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCOPING MEETINGS • • July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK July 13, 2012 • • C • . 0 Scoping Report Mailing List EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, NY am Vncent M Claps 450 Snug Harbor Road Greenport NY 11944 dmclaps@aol.com Carlisle E Cochran, Jr. Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department NAACP - New London Branch P.O. Box 987 NY New London CT 06320 Franklin Web Editor New York Times 620 Eighth Avenue New York NY 10018 webeditor@,yt,mes.com Calton 877 N Bay Avenue Massapequa Fairweather -Brown Design Associates, Inc. 205 Bay Avenue Greenport NY 11944 Cook William S Essex CT 06426 P.O. Box 122 Riverhead NY 11901 24 Maple Avenue Essex CT 06426 Natural Resources Conservation Service Riverhead Service Center 423 Griffing Avenue Riverhead NY 11901-3011 Office of Congresswoman Hillary Rodham Clinton 155 Pinelawn Road Suite 250 Norm Joseph NY Abiuso, Jr. President Remember-911.US P.O. Box 251 C Miller Place NY 11764-0251 5 Cary Street Ravena Randy A Albrecht, PhD Ms. Mount Sinai School of Medicine Department of Microbiology, Box 1124 One Gustave L Levy Place New York NY 10029 randy.aibrsort@mssm.edu The Honorable Marc S Alessi Assemblyman New York State Assembly Building A, Suite 5 6144 Route 25A Wading River NY 11792 alessim@asasmbly.stata.ny.us 11944 Chris Dr. Anastos Schenker, Inc. Corp IT 150 Albany Avenue Brookhaven National Laboratory Freeport NY 11520 chns.anastos@schenker.com Ms. Carol Nancy Ash Preservation Officer Preservation Empire State Plaza Agency Building 1 Albany NY 12238 nlesnick@mmcast.net Joseph P Alamo P.O. Bax 870 Oakville Shelter Island NY 11964 Adelaide Mmmiheresa Czerwonka Austin P.O. Box 1195 P.O. Box 502 NY East Marion NY 11939 Eileen Nancy State Senator Aylward Legislative Office Building, Room 3700 Hartford 14395 Main Bayview Road 06106-1591 Southold NY 11971 nih—k1141@aol.com Dairies, MD Wiliam New York State Department of Health Aylward Albany NY 14395 Main Bayview Road Southold NY 11971 The Honorable Michael Balboni Deputy Secretary for Public Safety New York Office of Homeland Security Executive Chamber State Capitol Room 229 Albany NY 12226 Justin Bade 109 Fanwood On- Old Saybrook CT 06475 Jose Banera, DVM, PhD The McConnell Group 2 Colonial Lane Old Saybrook CT 06475 Dr. Larry DACVPM Director Plum Island Animal Disease Center P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 Larry.Banett@dhs.gov Perry Baumann #19 Oyster Point 5th Street Greenport NY 11944 thefiyingbufalo@yahoo.com Gordon E Baylis 37 Calebs Way Greenport NY 11944-2148 Victoria Bayonato 1520 Founders Path Southold NY 11971 C.S. Benfield 50 Blue Madin Drive Southold NY 11971 BillBleyer Newsday 235 Pinelawn Road Melville NY 11747 leyer@oewsday.co bill.bm Richard Blumenthal Attorney General, Slate of Connecticut State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street Hartford CT 06106 Peter Bond HS Center Director Brookhaven National Laboratory P.O. Box 500 Upton NY 11973-5000 bond@bnl.gov Anna May Bone 57 Landing Lane Port Jefferson NY 11777 Edward C Booth 17235 Sound—Avenue Southold NY 11971 Wthol@aol.com Kathleen Bower P.O. Box 1322 Southold NY 11971 Ruth Ann Bramson Box 46 East Manon NY 11939 rulhann@eastmanon.com Ms. Bonnie Jo Brautigam Research Grant Development Specialist Health Empire Slate Plaza, Coming Tower, Rm C-345 P.O. Box 509 Albany NY 12201-0509 b autig@wadsworth.org Victor Brown 64 Sound Road Greenport NY 11944 Michael Buchanan 355 Winthrop Avenue New Haven CT 06511 .masler@sneLnet Charles Bumble, III FSSI 14 Sound Road Greenport NY 11944 e,Irahr um@yahoo.com Thomas W Burke Reporter Tmes/Review Newspapers 1661 Old Country Road #373 Rivemead NY 11901 lwburke2@aol.com Mr. Bradley Bums Trustee Village of Greenport 172 Central Avenue Greenport NY 11944 bbbmcb@optonline.net Barbara Butterworth P.O. Box 507 Cutchogue NY 11935 buttergill@mac.com Jerry Calls Retired Veterinary Virologist P.O. Box 537 Southold NY 11971 jcallis@hamplons.mm T.R. Carmody 81 Coulter Street, Und 15 Old Saybrook CT 06475 M, Katie Carpenter Trustee Fishers Island Conservancy 262 C.P.W. New York NY 10024 Katie@bahatiproductions.com; km@aal.mm Paul E Charozuk 2005 Pine Neck Road Southold NY 11971 Vctooa Charczuk 2005 Pine Neck Road Southold NY 11971 Patricia Chanes 56 Ripley Hill Road Westbrook CT 06498 PChades@westbmokctschmis.org Barry T Charles 265 Peck Place Southold NY 11971 Praveen Chaudhari Director Brookhaven National Laboratory 40 Brookhaven Avenue P.O. Bax 5000 Upton NY 11973-5000 chaudhan@bnl.gov Dr. Humayun J M.S. Commissioner Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabm Drive East Hauppauge NY 11788 Humayun.Chaudhry@suffolkcountyny.gov Sal Chillemi 170 Araca Road Babylon NY 11702 salvat m.chillemi@dhs.gov Ken A Christ Orient Association k.chnst@rcn.com am Vncent M Claps 450 Snug Harbor Road Greenport NY 11944 dmclaps@aol.com Carlisle E Cochran, Jr. Chief of Police Town of Southold Police Department P.O. Box 911 Pemnic NY 11958 Chielcochmn@town.scuthold.ny.us Franklin Coghano Orient Point NY Mrs. C. Calton 877 N Bay Avenue Massapequa NY 11758 Bill Cook 24 Maple Avenue Essex CT 06426 Virginia Cook 24 Maple Avenue Essex CT 06426 Ms. Res, Cooper Ragional Director Office of Congresswoman Hillary Rodham Clinton 155 Pinelawn Road Suite 250 Norm Melville NY 11747 resi moper@cliMon.senate.gov Stephen C Coye Ravena Grange 1457 5 Cary Street Ravena NY 12143-1601 stevec1578@cs.mm Ms. Janet Cozier Director Acton Public L,bmry 60 Old Boston Post Road Old Saybrook CT 06475-2214 Kathleen R Crowley P.O. Box 194 Greenport NY 11944 Dr. Carl Czajkowski Director, Homeland Security Activities Brookhaven National Laboratory P.O. Box 5000 Upton NY 11973-5000 cjc@bnl.gov Nancy Czarzasty 11 Fanwood Avenue Old Saybrook CT 06475 nlesnick@mmcast.net Marsha Czarzasty 7 Avalon Avenue Oakville CT 06779 lacmbc@sbcglobal.net Adelaide M Czerwonka P.O. Box 1195 East Quogue NY 11942 The Honorable Eileen Daily State Senator Connecticut State Senate Legislative Office Building, Room 3700 Hartford CT 06106-1591 Daily@senatedems.ct.gov Richard F Dairies, MD Commissioner New York State Department of Health Corning Tawe,, Empire State Plaza Albany NY 12237 am a N Scoping Report Mailing List IS for the Sale o/ Plum Island, NY 0 NEM 0 40 •Tl�:••t. N '9:.,"-.�'-p •;. a,kik. ,. -s r CDtia. :, ';Distill;•:�, sr ,I..�. .CI .SIpW..ry ..'•�,�, Jahn R D'Amato P.O. Box 1832 Shelter Island NV 11964-1832 JRDAMATO@optonline rel J Dannemann 230 Horse Pond Road Mad,son CT 06443 jdannemann@sbcglobal.mA Caryn B Davis Caryn B Davis Photography P.O. Box 583 Chester CT 06412 caryn@cbdphotography.com Mary DeCamp 300 Meadow Court, #33 Southold NY 11971 Mr. Robert DeLuca President Group for the East End P.O. Box 569 Bridgehampton NV 11932-0569 bdeluw@eastendenv,mnment.org Marie Domenic, 330 Oldfield Court Mattituck NY 11952 i,mcomm@aol.com Mary D Dorman, Esq. 134 West 26th Street, Suite 902 New York NY 10001 unselors@mindspring.com Richard Dressler Old Lyme CT Drezigndcd@aol.com Susan Dnsmll Legislative Aide to Senator Stillman Office of Senator Stillman Legislative Office Building Room 3600 Hartford CT 06106-1591 su8.dnscollQcga.ci.gov Hernando Duque 21 Ledge Road Old Saybrook CT 6475 Patricia Dzenkowski 595 Custer Avenue Southold NY 11971 Nancy F Egan 32H rb.rH,IIs DHve Pad Jefferson NV 11777 AS,— E,sen P.O. Box 176 Onent NV 11957 ela.naltison@y.h-..mn Carol Eisenberg Newsday 235 Rnelawn Road Melville NV 11747 Connie Ellis Community Enrichment Manager Peconic Landing 1500 Brecknock Road, Suite A Greenport NV 11944-3116 cellisQpeconiclaMing.com Dr. Mitchell Erickson HS Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security Environmental Measurements Laboratory 201 Vanck Street, 5th Floor New York NV 10014 Encksan@eml.doe.gov Julia Erlich P.O. Box 214 Orient NV 11957 The Honorable Len Fasane Slate Senator, 34th Dlstnct Connecticut State Senate State Capitol _ 3400 Hartford CT 06106 Len.Fasano@cga.d.gov Robed L Feger President North Fork Environmental Council 12700 Main Road M.Uduck NV 11952 Jane Finalborgo Special Projects Director Office of Congressman Timothy Bishop 167 Hampton Road Southampton NV 11968 jane.finalbofgo@mail.house.gov Mr. Martin Flatley ptoWEcubve Officer Caxe Town of Southold Police Department P.O. Box 911 Pecomc NV 11958 mfiatlay@town.southold.ny.us Karon Floyd 18 Sandpiper Lane Groton CT 06340 kfloyd3@yahoo.com Mr. Bill Fonda Cibzen Participation Specialist NY Slate Depamnent of Environmental Conservation Public Affairs Office SUNY, Building 40 Stony Brook NY 11790-2356 bmfonda@gw.dec.slate.ny.us Roger M Fransson 3137 E Main Street, D31 Waterbury CT 06705 Fansson3137@oorncast.net Mary Furmanskl 5870 College Hill Road Vernon Center NV 13477 Eileen Gallagher 1575 Minnehaha Boulevard Southold NY 11971 Ms. Came Meek Gallagher Commissioner Suffolk County Department of Environment and Energy H Lee Dennison Building, 12th Floor 100 Veterans Highway Hauppauge NV 11788 Camemeek.gallagherQsuffolkcounlyny.gov Mary Gardener OAA USDA PIADC Orient Point NY 11957 mary.gardener@am.usda.gov Michael Gardner Deputy Director Emergency Services Did Saybrook Office of Emergency Management 225 Main Street Old Saybrook CT 06475-1741 mgardner@town.old-saybrook.ct.us Kris Garland U.S. Department of Homeland Security Plum Island Animal Disease Center 40550 RL 25 Orient Point NY 11957 kdstin,.gmIand@—oc,alea.dhs.gov Mr. Stanley Gee Commissioner New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road Albany NV 12205 Victors Germaise 345 Bunny Lane New Suffolk NY 11956-0045 vgennaise@oplonl'ms.net Bob Ghosio, Jr. Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold NV 11971 Frank J Giaroo Pecomc Landing 14 Osprey Lane Greenport NY 11944-3109 Mr. John R Gibb Director New York State Emergency Management Office 1220 Washington Avenue Suite 101, Building 22 Albany NV 12226-2251 postmaster@semo.state.ny.us The Honorable Marilyn Giuliano Stale Representative Connecticut Hausa of Representatives Legistlatwe Office Building, Room 4200 Hartford CT 06106 Mr. Mordechay G—ni CEO Vigilant Security Services LLC 19 Bridge Street, Suite 9 Glen Cove NY 11542 vigilantnyc@yahoo.cum Eric Goldstein Natural Resources Defense Council Public Education 40 West 20th Street New York NY 10011 egoldslein@nrd—g Mr. Pete Grannis Commissioner Conservation Commissioners Office 625 Broadway Albany NV 12233-0001 Gwendolyn Green 10 North Fulton Avenue Mt. Vernon NV 10550 Dr. Janet L Greger Vice Provost for Strategic Planning University of Connecticut Wilbur Cross Building 233 Glenbrook Road, Unit 4183 Stons CT 06269-4183 janet.greger@ucodri Georgianne D Gregg 2015 Yennecott Drive Southold NY 11971 Diane E Gregory 735 Wat—aw Drive Scuthcld NY 11971 dagmar1118@acl.mm First Selectman Timothy C Griswold First Selectman Town of Old Lyme Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall 52 Lyme Street Old Lyme CT 06371 selectmansoffice@oldlyrd - t.gov Karl Grossman P.O. Box 1680 Sag Harbor NY 11963 Rosemary Haigh Long Island NV W.H. Hamilton 59 Chickadee Lane Greenport NY 11944 Jan Hanover 615 East Gillette Drive East Manon NY 11939 lanhanover@optonline.net Bruce Harper 175 Ferry Road #6 Old Saybrook CT 06475 Richard Hart 1900 Westphalia Avenue Matti duck NY 11952 Bruce Hasnas 300 Meadow Court, #33 Southold NY 11971 Nancy Healey 55075 Rt 25, Unit 50 Southold NV 11971 David Heiman P.O. Box 932 Shelter Island NY 11964 dd eiman@optonline.net Mr. Gene Homey Det. Sgt. Old Saybrook Police Department 225 Main Street Old Saybrook CT 06475 eheiney@town.old-saybroak.m.us Lawrence Heiserer 66 FairHarbor Drive Patchogue NV 11772 Glen A Hemstock 99 Thompson Boulevard Greenport NY 11944 Came Hofer, NP, BSN, MS Nurse Practitioner at PIADC PIADC 49 Woodland Done Southampton NY 11968 phofer@optonline.net Ruth Hoffman 705 Carrington Road Cutchogue NY 11935 Lori Hollander 22 Sound Road Greenport NV 11944 Lod Hollinger NY Mr. Patrick Hooker Commissioner New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets 10B Airline Drive Albany NY 12235 Anne Hopkins P.O. Box 82 Onent NV 11957 a.s.hopkins@alt.net Anne Hopkins Onent Association ashopkins@optimum.net 0 NEM 0 40 0 0 0 Scoping Report Mailing List EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, NY P Nem'. rkU'iii1W.... ,.,s• Em : •&E ma... .. ,. ..: \-i:: .. Dr. James A 22", House 29745 Man Road Cutchogue NY 11935 jahouse@optonline.net Ms. Loren Hroncich Administrative Assistant U.S. Department of Homeland Security Plum Island Animal Disease Center P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 Loran.Hroncich@assooiates.dhs.gov Dr. George Hudler NEPDN Director 334 Plant Science Ithaca NY 27539 Betty Ann Hughes New York Environmental Conservation Perils 625 Broadway Albany NY 12233-1750 Ray Huntington 985 West Creek Avenue Cutchogue NY 11935-2455 huntira@aol.mm John P Huntley, DVM Slate Veterinarian Naw York Department of Agriculture 8 Markets Division of Animal Industry 10 B Airline Drive Albany NY 12235 john.huntley@agmktatate.ny.us Bill Hurtle Microbiologist 630 3rd Street Greenport NY 11944 bhunte@hotmad.00m Robin Imandl East Manon Community Association P.O. Box 625 East Marion NY 11939 eastmanonassoc@greenlight.biz Phyllis Ir-ade Stony amok NY pironside@aol.com Yvonne Isaac Vice PresidenVOperatlons Full Spectrum 104 W. 124th Street New York NY 10027 ynsaac@fultspectfumny.cdm Mr. Thomas A Isles, AICP Director Suffolk County Planning Department 100 Veterans Memorial Hwy, H. Lee Dennison Bid, P. O. Box 6100 Hauppauge NY 11788-0099 planning@suffolkmuntyny.gov Roosavelt Jackson Maintenance Worker FSSI Plum Island 5550 Route 48 Matbtuck NY 11952 Barbara Jackson Southold NY Robert W Jester 314 Champlin Placa Greenport NY 11944 bob.jester@riverhead.net Wilfred Joseph Arbor View House BBB P.O. Box 226 East Marion NY 11939 northforksales@opt—turie.net Amy Juchatz Toxicologist Suffolk County Department of Environment and Energy 2nd Floor Dennison Building 100 Veterans Highway Hauppauge NY 11788 amy.juchah@co.suffotk.ny.us Margaret Karis 255 Thomton Street Hamden CT 06517 smlk@att.net Se[h Kaufman 220 Fifth Street Greenport NY 11944 The Honorable Randy King Chairman Shinnecm* Indian Nation P.O. Box 5006 Southampton NY 11969 Fred Krupp President Environmental Defense National Headquarters 257 Park Avenue South New York NY 10010 members@ed.org Albert J Krupski, Jr. Councilman Town of Southold Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Lauren Kmszeski P.O. Box 1411 Southold NY 11971 Charles M LaCour Transportation Manager FSSI 15 Bayview Avenue Stonington CT 06378 chazlacour@yahoo.com Thomas Lambert 4715 Pequash Avenue Cutchogue NY 11935 Jennifer Landes Reporter The East Hampton Star P.O. Box 5002 East Hampton NY 11937 jlandes@ehstar.com Michael LaRocco 3500 Grand Avenue Maftituck NY 11952 Beth Lautner, DVM, MS HS Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 beth.lautner@dhs.gov The Honorable Kenneth P Lavelle State Senator New York State Senate 325 Middle Country Road, Suite 4 Selden NY 11784 Cynthia Lawrence 3235 Paulding Avenue Bronx NY 10469 Dr. Don Lein USAHA, Immediate Past President Comet$ University Animal Health Diagnostic Center P.O. Box 5786 Ilham NY 14852-5786 dhI10@cmell.edu Jacquelyn LePre FSSI P.O. Box 143 East Manor, NY 11939 faithfully4@hotmail.com Mr. Steve Levy Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Office of the County Executive P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge NY 11788-0099 munty.executive@suffolkmuntyny.gov MaryAnn Liberatore Orient Association maryannlib85@aol.com Eleanor M Lingo Co-Chairan Town of Southold Anti -Bias Task Force P.O. Box 244 Southold NY 11971-0244 Mary Jane Lis, DVM State Veterinarian Connecticut Department of Agriculture Bureau of Regulations and Inspections 165 Capitol Avenue, Room G -8A Hartford CT 06106 mary.hs@poatate.ct.us Phyllis Lombard 55 Pinewood Road Culchogue NY 11935 Meichelle Macgregor 111-113 Montague Street 6D Brooklyn NY 11201 oddsandendings@yahoo.com John H Macomber, Jr. Greenport NY Joy Maniscalm 33 Canton Avenue Pod Washington NY 11050 Hannah Masterson 2015 Madison Lane P.O. Box 1025 Metlituck NY 11952 Robert Maus 450 Clearview Road Southold NY 11971 Tm McDaniel P.O. Box 1781 Southold NY 11971 N MCDeret 1105 Greenway W Orient NY 11957 MLDeret Family Orient Point NY tooth_fairyl@msn.mm Wallace A McGahan 1400 W Creek Avenue Cutchogue NY 11935 William McGintee Supervisors Office 159 Panligo Road East Hampton NY 11937 l yan@town.east-hampton.ny.us Jack McGreevy Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council 800 Summit Dnve Mafiituck NY 11952 Ms. Honore Mcllvain Librarian Plum Island Animal Disease Center Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 honore.molvain@dhs.gov Michael T McIntosh USDA, APHIS 95 Hunters Trail Madison CT 06443 michael.t.mcintash@aphls.usda.gov Richard McIntosh 11 Birch Nianlic CT 06357 mcintm@msn.com Julie McOuain 441 E. 12M Street, 5B Naw York NY 10009 jmp"ed,a@aol.com Bernice Melly P.O. Box 617 Southold NY 11971 Rebecca Memll Madison CT Rjm857@aol.com Samia Melwally Plum Island Animal Disease Center P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 Susan A Mihalik 62 Egret Lane Greenport NY 11944-3104 Jeanne Miller Region 1 Public Affairs Office SUNY, Building 40 Stony Brook NY 11790-2356 jxmiller@gw.decatate.ny.us Christopher Mitchell 393-4 Route 156 Lyme CT 06371 cwlmitchell@sbcglobal.net Aphrodite MoMalvo Citizen Participation Specialist Region 1 SUNY at Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook NY 11790 onlal@gw.dec.slate.ny.us Lauren Montes Regional Director Office of Congresswoman Hillary Rodham Clinton 155 Pinelawn Road Suite 25014 Melville NY 11747 laurm_monles@Ginton.senate.gov Mary D Moore 145 Sterling Street Greenport NY 11944 Mary Moms 350 Soundview Drive Orient NY 11957 jeromecline@aol.com Arvin W Murch East Haven CT afvinmuroh@sbcglobal.net Anne E Murray North Fork Environmental Council 300 Southern Boulevard East Marion NY 11939 Em d -f W r1 ..1 CD CD cn E CD 0 b crC c HI Ly ,5. z (D "t Scoping Report Mailing List EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, NY om 0 0 0 ifflav t cJa!r1711u . �`, k,f „eA'' ,._. A0,1610l, .a;". Ms. Grace Musumea Chief, Environmental Review Section U.S. Environmental Protecron Agency, Region 2 Environmental Review Section 290 Broadway, 25th Floor New York NY 10007-1866 musumec,grace@epa.gov Dave Naleski 1245 Boiseau Avenue Southold NY 11971 Matthew Nemschick 370 Village Lane Matfituck NY 11952 Melanie Norden 1550 McCann Lane Greenport NY 11944 nordenl@opOnline.net Richard A Nome, 930 Holden Avenue C.tchogue NY 11935 _ The Honorable David Nyce Mayor Mayor, Village of Greenport 236 3rd Street Greenport NY 11944 david@davidnycefumiture.corn Debbie O'Kane 2000 Greenway East Orient NY 11957 Linda Data Administrative Assistant FSSI 805 Greenway W Orient NY 11957 tripleoats@pptonIms.net Mr. Thomas M O'Brien 500 Jennings Road Southold NY 11971 Vincent M Orlando Councilman Town of Southold Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 First Selectman Michael Pace First Selectman Town of Old Saybrook 302 Main Street Old Saybrook CT 06475-1741 mpace@town.old-saybm,k.ct.us Mr. Vincent A Palmer Pesticide Conant Specialist III Conservation SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook NY 11790-3409 vapalmer@gw.dec.state.ny.us Mr. Steve Papa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Field Once 3 Old Bart. Road Brookhaven NY 11719 Rita Papazian 19 Whitewood Road Killingworth CT 06419 Randy mons Conservation Finance 8 Policy Advisor The Nature Conservancy on Long Island PO Box 5125 142 State Rout, 114 East Hampton NY 11937 rparsons@tnc.org Ellen C Patemo 1850 Vanston Road Culchogue NY 11935 xenamo@optonline.not The Honorable Devi tl A Paterson Governor of New York Governor of New York Stale Capitol Albany NY 12224 Martin H Pearl 935 Southern Cross Road Culchogue NY 11935 Bob Peruasepe Chief Operating Officer Audubon Society 700 Broadway New York NY 10003 Maria Picwne 2 Tudor Court East Old Saybrook CT 06475 Melia Pisano 19 Lakeview Circle Niantic CT 06357 mpisa88@yahaa.com Beth Polge FPPA Project Specialist Natural Resources Conservation Service The Gallenes of Syracuse 441 S. Salina Street, Suite 354 Syracuse NY 13202-2450 Mr. Philip Phalli Commissioner Department of Agriculture Connecticut Department of Agriculture 165 Capital Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Joseph Puzio HDR, 711 Westchester Avenue White Plains NY 10604 Paul and! Judy O.arty FSSI 1000 9th Street, Apt. B-15 Greenport NY 11944 pcguarty(poptonline.net Franklin A Rathbun 454 Noank- Ledyard Road Mystic CT 06355 Diana Ravitch Southold NY 11971 GardenD@aol.com Jeffry Raynes 3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York NY 10016-5997 Matthew Rayner Project Manager FSSI P.O. Box 2091 Greenport NY 11944 malthew.haynes@associatesdhsgov Loren Rench Admin Assistant to Center Director PIADC (DHS-SAIC) P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 loren.mich@ass ciat—chs.gov The Honorable M. Jodi Rell Governor of Connecticut Govemor of Connecticut State Capitol 210 Capitol Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Govemor.Rell@po.stale.ct.us Jennifer Retzek 887th Avenue #2 Brooklyn NY 11217 James A Richter Engineer Town of Southdd P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Iamie.nchter@tovm.so,dhmd.ny.us Ronald Richter Chant Pant NY rnchter28@aol.com Elizabeth Rieder USDA -ARS 328 Dennison Road Westbrook CT 06498 Christina Rizzo Reporter Suffolk Life Newspapers 460 Eastwood Drive Cutchogue NY 11935 cnzzo@suffolklife.com Mr. David W Roberge Director of Emergency Management Town of Old Lyme Old Lyme Memorial Town Hall 52 Lyme Street Old Lyme CT 06371 S.D. Robins, Jr. Peconic Landing 117 Thompson Boulevard Greenport NY 11944 Janice Robinson P.O. Box 46 Orient NY 11957 Dottie Roeler 53 Landing Lane Port Jefferson NY 11777 The Honorable Edward P Romaine Legislator, 1st District Suffolk County Legislature 423 Gnffing Avenue, Suite 2 Riverhead NY 11901 Edward.Romaine@suffolkcountyny.gov Clementine J Rasa 823 Linnei Street Greenport NY 11944 Helen Rosenblum Captain Shelter Island Red Crass Ambulance Volunteer 12 Manwaring Road, Alt. 114 Shelter [stand NY 11964 elilawl@earthlink.net Thomas J Roslak 765 Track Avenue Cutchogue NY 11935 Betty Rowe Orient Association emowe@optonlms—t William P Ruland Councilman Town of Southold Southold Town Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Mr. Scott A Russell Tom Supervisor Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971-0959 awIt.russell@town.southold.ny.us Marian S.I.M. P.O. Box 61 Southold NY 11971 Bill Sawicki Preparedness Coordinator Town of Southold Police Department P.O. Box 911 Pewnic NY 11958 bsawicki@town.swthold.ny.us Joseph H Sawyers 36 Caleb's Way Greenport NY 11944 Otto E Schmid P.O. Box 961 Southold NY 11971 Ken Schneider 1005 Mason Dnve Cutchogu, NY 11935 lamman@reallygoodfoods.com Jay Schneiderman Suffolk County Legislature 75 Washington Street P.O. Box 1827 Sag Harbor NY 11963 Jay.Schneiderman@-IfolkcounNny.gov Edward Schneyer Director of Emergency Preparedness Suffolk County Fire Rescue 8 Emergency Services Emergency Management Office P.O. Box 127 Yaphank NY 11980 edward.schneyeh@suffolkcountyny.gov Gwynn Schroeder P.O. Box 59 Cutchogue NY 11935 Valane M Scopaz P.O. Box 1655 Southold NY 11971 vmsplanning@optonime.net Peter Scully Regional Director Region 1 SUNY at Stony Brook 50 Circle Road Stony Brook NY 11790 paswlly@gw.dec.state.ny.us John M Searing Deputy Commissioner Suffolk County Fire Rescue and Emergency Services P.O. Box 127 Yaphank NY 11980 john.seanng@suffolkcountyny.g.v Patrice and Brian Self.rs 11 Fanwve Crain Old Saybrook CT 06475 bself999@aol.com Sharon M Seligman Assistant Attorney General - Environment Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street Hartford CT 06106 sharon.seligman@po.state.cLus Scott Sherman 215 Noyac Path Water Mill NY 11976 Inthepresenl@gmail.com Sandra Sinclair P.O. Box 489 Orient NY 11957 Ms. Margaret Smith Attorney Shinnecock Nation P.O. Box 959 Southampton NY 11969-0959 om 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scoping Report Mailing List EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, NY Y Pliacx cite l�rai ` lattiffi ' +M01, North Fork Audobm, res9I ..G : : ' � E - ' I14 Jason MattiWck Smith Pmsray Corporation East Manon Community Association 159 Charles Coleman Boulevard East Marion Pawing NY 12564 54895 Route 25 PO Box 1792 Southold NY 11971 Oysterponds Historical Society PO Box 70 P.O. Boz247 NY11957 Brdgehampton NY 11932-0247 chrstnechew@maccom; cchewsmth@yahoocom Chnstne C Smith P.O. Boz 74 Orient NY 11957 lansmllh@aplonl'ne net Jane Virginia Smith Soullas Chef/Chief Steward Plum Island FSSI 30 Fairview Circle Middle Island NV 11953 gscullas Michael Spero Director, Emergency Services Old Saybrook Office of Emergency Management 225 Main Street Old Saybrook CT 06475-1741 tovyn.om mspera@own.old-saybrook.ct.us Lieutenant Stillman State Senator, 20th District Connecticut State Senate Legislative Once Building, Room 3600 Hartford CT 06106-1591 Stillman@senatedems.d.gov The Honorable Andrea Ronald W Surpronant P.O. Box 717 Miller Place NV 11764 The Honorable Fred W Thiele, Jr. 2nd Assembly District New York State Assembly 2302 Main Street Box 3062 Bndgehamptan NY 11932 thielef@assembly.state.ny.us Mr. James Thomas Commissioner and Homeland Security 25 Sigoumey Street, 6th Floor Hartford CT 06106-5042 Leighann J Thomas Assistant to the Commissioner Suffolk County Department of Environment and Energy Suffolk County Executive's Office Floor Hauppauge NY 11788 Leighann.thomas@suffolkcountyny.gov Barb Thompson 144 Central Avenue Greenport NY 11944 Patricia M Toner 14 Maureen Drive Mt. Sinai NY 11766 mnerpc@aol.com Robert Tranter Regional Environmental Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 26 Federal Plaza, Suite 1337 New York NV 10278-0002 mbert.tmnter@dhs.gov Dominick Tringali 34 Doherty Avenue Elmont NY 11003-2413 Dominick S Tnngah, Sr. 24 Doherty Avenue Elmont NY 11003 Richard A Valentine, PE President & CEO Advantage Engineering Technologies, PLLC P.O. Box 1042 Ballston Lake NY 12019-1042 nchard.valentine2@vemmn.net Robes VanBourgondien Chairperson Town of Southold Southold Agricultural Advisory Committee P.O. Box 1179 Southoltl NY 11971 Mary Von Eiff 1320 Kenneys Road Southold NY 11971 Jim Von Ends 25 Seaside Avenue Hampton Bays NV 11946 Mary Wada P.O. Box 5 Greenport NY 11944 The Honorable Harry B Wallace Chief Unkechaug Nation 207 Poospanak Lane Mastic NY 11950 hwalt@aol.com Kristen Walsh Regional Director Office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 155 Pinelawn Road, Suite 250 Melville NY 11747 knsten_walsh@clinton.senate.gov Chnsline Walls 45805 Main Road Southold NV 11971 Edward Webb President Oyster Pond School Board of Education c/o Webb P.O. Box 194 Orient NY 11957 tedwebbt@optonline.net 60 Sutton Place South, 4101N New York NY 10022 alan.wells@bdlingerwells.com; lwells6l@aol.com Josephine Wells Wands tt PIADC P.O. Box 848 Greenport NY 11944 Joe Williams Commissioner Suffolk Co Dept. Fire, Rescue & Emergency Service Yaphank Avenue Vaphank NV 11980 lae.willlams@suffdkcountyny.gov John E Willson 446-16 Main Sheet 1115 Arrowhead Lane Old Saybrook Pemnic CT NV 06475 11958 Ilw'illsm@sboglobal.net susanfromduluM@gmail.com Susan Paler A Woods Young Board Member East End Lighthouse Association 2700 Bay Avenue Maltiluck NY 11952 yuriyoung@optonline.net Charles Zeh1I 1905 Oaklawn Avenue Southold NY 11971 North Fork Chamber of Commerce PO Box 1415 Sou ho NV 11971 Info@northforkchamber.org Orient Fire District 23300 Main Road Orient NY 11957 Orient School District North Fork Audobm, into@nmthforkaudoban.arg North Fork Environmental Council PO Box 799 MattiWck NY 11952 East Manon Community Association PO Box 625 East Marion NV 11939 board@emoa.us Group for Me East End 54895 Route 25 PO Box 1792 Southold NY 11971 Oysterponds Historical Society PO Box 70 Orient NY11957 Ms. Stephanie Lamster Brandt Endangered Species Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 290 Bro<_ •„.ay New York NV 10007-1866 Lamstm.Stephanie@epamaii.epa.gov 6t7F �J THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plumb Island, New York A-6 July 13, 2012 • x c a a E4 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL DETAILS REGARDING EACH OF THE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES OF THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THIS EIS July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK July 13, 2012 • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 40 APPENDIX B FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS Federal, state, and local regulations and Executive Orders (EOs) applicable to the Proposed Action are addressed in various sections throughout this EIS when relevant to particular environmental resources and conditions. The full text of the laws, regulations, and EOs is available on the U.S. Government's official website at http://www.firstgov.gov. Federal Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 110-329, September 30, 2009) The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act (CSDACAA) of 2009 directs the Secretary of DHS to "liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the General Services to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements." National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] § 4321, et seq.) NEPA requires that federal agencies conduct an environmental impact analysis before taking an action that has the potential to significantly impact the human environment. The environmental planning process must use site-specific data, consider interdisciplinary aspects of the project, consider reasonable alternatives, and involve the public, among other requirements. Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500-1508) NEPA is implemented through regulations of the CEQ. CEQ published NEPA regulations in 1978 and added to them in 1981 with a guidance document titled Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ NEPA Regulations. CEQ requires each federal agency to implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to agency decision makers and the public (40 CFR 1500.2). CEQ includes regulations and guidance on proper planning and timing, document preparation and commenting, decision making, and public involvement. Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (Pub. L. 102-426, October 19, 1992) The Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) amends Section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This law requires a transferring agency to provide a covenant, when transferring a parcel identified as contaminated, that all response actions or corrective actions "found to be necessary" would be undertaken by the United States. The deed for 0 B-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 such parcels must also provide a right of access to perform all additional response actions that would be necessary, as appropriate. 40 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601) CERCLA, commonly known as "Superfund," created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The law authorizes two kinds of response actions: short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response, and long-term remedial response actions, which permanently and significantly reduce the dangers of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the USEPA National Priorities List (NPL). Superfund Implementation (EO 12580 and EO 13016) EO 12580, Superfund Implementation, and EO 13016, Amendment to Executive Order 12580, are the implementing EOs for CERCLA. As such, the EOs delegate certain CERCLA authorities and responsibilities to USEPA and other federal agencies. Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601-2692) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted to "regulate commerce and protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and necessary use restrictions on certain chemical substances." Unlike most of the existing environmental 41 laws, TSCA regulates not only the end products of manufacturing or processing activities, but also provides regulation for the manufacture of substances not yet developed, the permitted use of these chemicals, and the allowed manufacturing quantities. TSCA requires manufacturers to test substances, to submit reports, and to maintain records on their health and environmental effects. Substances regulated under TSCA include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos. Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -know Act (42 U.S.C. § 11004-11049) The Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 encourages and supports emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels, and requires that facilities provide the public and local governments with information concerning potential chemical hazards present in their communities. EPCRA requires a facility to document, notify, and report information regarding the chemicals that are used. EPCRA also establishes the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), an inventory of routine toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities. B-2 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 ! Federal Compliance with Right -to -know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (EO 12856) EO 12856, Federal Compliance with Right -to -know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, requires all federal facilities to comply "with the maximum extent practicable without compromising national security" with the EPCRA, and with the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) tracks waste from "cradle -to - grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste governed by the USEPA. RCRA also guides the management of nonhazardous solid wastes, and addresses issues that could result from underground storage tanks (USTs) storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. § 13101, et seq.) The PPA of 1990 establishes a national policy of pollution control, including pollution prevention and reduction at the source, environmentally safe recycling or treatment, and disposal or release of pollutants. The facility owner/operator is responsible for compliance. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088) EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, requires all federal agencies to be in compliance with environmental laws and fully cooperate with USEPA, state, interstate, and local agencies to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq.) The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, provides for protection and enhancement of the Nation's air resources. Localized impacts on air quality may be experienced during construction or equipment operation. The owner/operator would be responsible for acquiring and adhering to air permits, as required by federal, state, and local regulations; therefore, the facility would remain compliant with state and local air quality requirements. USEPA has published final rules on general conformity (40 CFR Part 51 in FR, November 30`h , 1993) that apply to federal actions in areas designated "nonattainment" for the criteria pollutants under the CAA. USEPA has identified several types of federal actions in which conformity of such actions can be presumed (Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93, FR, November 301h, 1993, Supplementary Information J, p. 63229). Additional information is given in the "Air Quality Regulatory Framework" section below. Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.) The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, regulates discharges to the waters of the United States. Compliance with applicable provisions of the CWA would be 10 B-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 accomplished by coordination with the appropriate resource agencies; submittal of permit applications, if required; and response to agency review. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States. The acquiring entity would have to coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) if regulated dredge or fill activities occur. Point sources of pollution would have to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Impacts to tidal waters, streams, and wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA, as amended. "Waters of the U.S." include wetlands and other water bodies such as streams, rivers, lakes, and tidal waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (33 CFR 328.3), and the USEPA (40 CFR 230.3) define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In accordance with this definition, areas classified as wetlands must possess the following three diagnostic characteristics: a predominance of hydrophytes vegetation, hydria soils, and wetland hydrology. Floodplains (EO 11988) EO 11988 directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. Specific directives identified in EO 11988 to achieve this goal include evaluation of the following considerations: the practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments, risks of the action, impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, support of incompatible floodplain development, measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values impacted by the project, and provision of opportunities for early and adequate public review of proposed floodplain encroachments. The "base floodplain" is defined as the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a 1 percent chance of being exceeded in any given year (i.e., a "100 -year" event), while "encroachment" is defined as an action within the limits of the base floodplain. Wetlands (EO 11990) EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands on federal property. Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.) In 1972, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act established a national program to encourage coastal states to develop and implement Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs). Both Connecticut and New York have developed CZMPs and programs that are federally approved under CZM. Section 307 of CZM 1972, as amended, requires federal agencies proposing activities within or outside the coastal zone that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone to ensure that those activities are B-4 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 conducted in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state coastal management programs. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 97-348, October 18, 1982) The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), as amended, is designed to meet three objectives: 1) minimize the loss of human life by discouraging development in high-risk areas vulnerable to storm surges and hurricane winds; 2) reduce wasteful expenditure of federal resources; and 3) protect the natural resources associated with undeveloped coastal barriers. CBRA designates various undeveloped coastal barriers, which are illustrated by a set of maps adopted by law. These designated areas are made ineligible for both direct and indirect federal expenditures and financial assistance, which are believed to encourage development of fragile, high-risk, and ecologically sensitive coastal barriers. Estuary Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq.) The Estuary Protection Act highlights the values of estuaries and the need to conserve their natural resources. Estuaries, their natural resources, and their importance for commercial and industrial development have been considered in evaluating alternative courses of action in this DEIS. Endangered Species Act (15 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.) The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that actions authorized by a federal agency not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the USFWS concerning endangered and threatened species under its jurisdiction. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.) Section 10 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) directs federal agencies to consult with USFWS, the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and state agencies before authorizing alterations to water bodies. The purpose of the FWCA is to ensure that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration, and that it is coordinated with other features of water resource programs. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668-668c) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." The BGEPA provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or 0 B-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects birds that migrate with the changing seasons. This protection covers the bird, the bird's nests, and its eggs from hunting, killing, possession, selling, or buying, unless otherwise permitted by regulations. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186) EO 13186 supports the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities, and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. Further, its intent is to restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds, and prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, and to ensure that environmental analyses of federal actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. ) The 1996 Magnuson -Stevens Act requires cooperation among NMFS, fishers, and federal and state agencies to protect, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The designation and conservation of EFH seek to minimize adverse effects on habitat caused by fishing and non -fishing activities. Recreational Fisheries (EO 12962) EO 12962 directs federal agencies in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (FWA) of 1956, the FWCA, NEPA, and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), and other pertinent statutes, and to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. This DEIS has considered the goals of this EO, and the proposed sale is not expected to have disproportionately high or adverse effects on recreational fisheries. Marine Protected Areas (EO 13158) EO 13158 is designed to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This DEIS has noted the location of MPAs in considering alternative courses of action for the proposed sale. The Proposed Action would avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources within designated MPAs. B-6 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 is Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 1361 etseq.) The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. This action is coordinated with the NMFS and the USFWS to determine whether any marine mammals under their respective jurisdictions may be affected by the project. Invasive Species (EO 13112) EO 13112 was signed establishing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC). The EO required that a Council of Departments dealing with invasive species be created. The council was designed to ensure that federal programs and activities to prevent and control invasive species are coordinated, effective, and efficient. NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination of federal invasive species actions, and works with other federal and non-federal groups to address invasive species issues at the national level. Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation (EO 13352) EO 13352 establishes that the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the USEPA implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation, with an emphasis on appropriate inclusion of local participation in federal decision making, in accordance with their respective agency missions, policies, and regulations. Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514) EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, requires federal agencies to provide leadership so as to protect and enhance the quality of the environment, to ensure expedience and transparency in all dealings, and to perform internal reviews to ensure consistency with NEPA. Environmental Justice (EO 12898 and EO 13045) All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Pursuant to EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, federal agencies are directed, as appropriate and consistent with the agency's mission, to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. Agencies are encouraged to participate in implementation of the EO by ensuring that their policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks. IV B-7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 State National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, sets forth policies and procedures regarding historic properties, which are defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on such properties and to consult with the SHPO and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) to determine whether they are eligible for the NRNP. American Indian Religious Freedom Act (Pub. L. 95-341, August 11, 1978) The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) requires consultation with the Indian tribes that may be affected by the Proposed Action to ensure that the action does not interfere with their rights to traditional religious practices. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO 13175) EO 13175 sets forth guidelines for all federal agencies to: 1) establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications; 2) strengthen the U.S. Government -to - government relationships with Indian tribes; and 3) reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes. Coordination and consultation with the Indian Tribal Governments with an interest in the study area signify compliance. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Pub. L. 101-601, November 16, 1990) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding to return Native American cultural items and human remains to their respective peoples. Cultural items include funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. In addition, it authorizes a program of federal grants to assist in the repatriation process. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (New York Environmental Conservation Law [NYECL] § 17-0801, et seq.) This is a state program that has been approved by the USEPA for the control of wastewater and stormwater discharges in accordance with the CWA. Under New York State law, the program is known as the "State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)" and is broader in scope than that required by the CWA in that it controls point source discharges to groundwater as well as surface waters. B-8 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 isUnderground Storage Tanks (6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] 613-614) Local The NYSDEC UST regulations focus on tanks with capacities greater than 1,100 gallons. Wetlands (6 NYCRR 660-665) At the state level, NYSDEC regulates freshwater and tidal wetlands; however, New York State regulations are administered at the local level through local bylaws and regulations. Floodplains (Town of Southold Code § 111 and 148) Local zoning regulations, specifically Chapter 111 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) and Chapter 148 (Flood Damage Prevention), of the Town of Southold, New York, regulate development in flood zones delineated on FEMA FIRM. Waterfront Consistency Review (Town of Southold Code § 268) The Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) is a comprehensive land and water use plan for its natural, public, working waterfront, and developed waterfront resources. The Southold LWRP provides a comprehensive framework within which critical waterfront issues can be addressed and planned and waterfront improvement projects pursued and implemented. Underground Storage Tanks (Suffolk County Sanitary Code Articles 12 and 17) The Suffolk County Department of Health Services UST regulations focus on tanks with capacities greater than 1,100 gallons. Wetlands (Town of Southold Code § 275) New York State regulations are administered at the local level through local bylaws and regulations. The Town of Southold regulates activities in Chapter 275 (Wetlands & Shoreline) for wetlands and vernal pools, as well as wetland buffer areas and adjacent areas of freshwater and tidal wetlands, respectively. Other Documentation Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative The Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative (LISSI) is a document produced by the LISSI Work Group that identifies key areas in the Long Island Sound watershed that reflect regional differentiation, a variety of ecosystems and natural habitats, and public access to the water. The inaugural 33 stewardship sites for LISSI were signed into adoption by the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) Policy Committee, including USEPA Regions I and II, NYSDEC, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). Plum Island is designated as one of these inaugural areas, and is 41 B-9 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 described as an, "exemplary colonial water bird habitat, including sites that are [of] national — if not international — significance [and is] identified by the USFWS as a Significant Coastal Habitat." LISSI is a voluntary program that attempts to preserve native plant and animal communities and unique habitat types, improve recreation and public access opportun ties, protect threatened and endangered species in their natural habitats, preserve sites that are important for long-term scientific research and education, and promote efforts to plan for multiple land uses. Air QualitRegulatory Framework Ambient Air Quality Standards USEPA has promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for each of the following six major criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide. Air pollution monitors are used to evaluate ambient air contaminant concentrations. The data generated from these networks are evaluated in terms of meeting or exceeding the established primary and secondary criteria pollutant NAAQS. If a monitoring site persistently exceeds the USEPA-set NAAQS, then the region may be classified as nonattainment for that specific pollutant. Individual states are free to adopt standards more stringent than the Federal NAAQS. NYSDEC has established Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for New York that are listed in Part 257, "Air Quality Standards," of the NYSDEC regulations. In some cases, the New York AAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (Table 1-1). Table 1-1: National and New York AAQS Pollutant Averaging New York AAQS /m) NAAQS /m3) Period Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Sulfur Dioxide 3 -hour 1,300 750 N/A 1,300 24-hour 365 260 365 N/A Annual 80 N/A 80 N/A Particulate Matter 24-hour 150 150 150 150 (PMS o) Annual 50 50 50 50 Particulate Matter 24-hour 35 35 35 35 (PM2s) Annual 15 15 15 15 Carbon 1 -hour 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Monoxide 8 -hour 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ozone 1 -hour 120 120 N/A N/A 8 -hour N/A N/A 120 120 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100 100 100 100 Lead Quarterly N/A N/A 1.5 1.5 µg/m3=Micrograms per cubic meter. N/A=Not applicable. B-10 it Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York IsNew York State Implementation Plans July 13, 2012 The CAA requires that each state develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to provide the regulatory framework to implement the CAA and how it plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The New York State SIP adopted the NAAQS and New York AAQS. Attainment of the AAQS is required under the CAA, and each state has a prescribed amount of time in which to bring non-compliant areas into compliance. New York State is divided into nine Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs), based on geographic location. NYSDEC operates a network of ambient air quality monitoring stations located throughout the state in each of the AQCRs to evaluate the attainment status of each region with respect to the respective AAQS. Suffolk County is in the New York- Northern New Jersey -Long Island AQCR. Suffolk County Nonattainment In accordance with the NAAQS that USEPA has developed, Suffolk County has been designated as being in nonattainment for PM2.5 and moderate nonattainment for the 8 - hour ozone standard. The pollutants currently monitored in the New York -Northern New Jersey -Long Island AQCR include respirable PM, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, and lead. A summary of the characteristics of these pollutants follows. Greenhouse Gases In 2010, CEQ provided a draft guidance memorandum for Federal agencies to consider, in scoping their NEPA analyses, whether analysis of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from proposed actions may provide meaningful information to decision makers and the public. Specifically, if a proposed action would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide -equivalent greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis, or if long-term greenhouse gas emissions could be significant, agencies should consider the potential for impacts. Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio and PM2.5) PM is a class of air pollutants that includes airborne particles of a wide range of sizes and chemical composition and can exist as either a liquid droplet (aerosols) or solids suspended in the atmosphere. PM is emitted into the atmosphere from a wide variety of sources, including both natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources include salt particles resulting from evaporation of sea spray, windborne pollen, molds, bacteria, particles eroded from beaches, soil and rock, and particles from forest fires. Major anthropogenic sources include combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., power generation, vehicular exhaust, boilers, engines, and home heating), construction activities, agricultural activities, and wood burning fireplaces. Respirable PM includes both particles that are less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio) and "fine" particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Both PM10 and PM2.5 can affect human respiratory functions and are a cause of concern. PM2.5 is of particular concern in that these smaller particles have the ability to penetrate and remain in the deepest passages of the lungs. Gasoline -powered vehicles (such as passenger automobiles and sport utility vehicles [SUVs]) produce relatively small quantities of Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 respirable particulates, but diesel -powered vehicles, especially heavy trucks and buses, emit significant amounts of respirable particulates. 0 Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless gas that is produced primarily from the incomplete combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. In the region of this project, the majority of carbon monoxide emissions comes from motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide concentrations can vary greatly over relatively short distances, and elevated concentrations are usually limited to locations near crowded intersections and along heavily traveled and congested roadways. Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone Nitrogen oxides are produced when fuels are burned at high temperatures. Although there are a number of individual compounds that are considered to be nitrogen oxides, only the compounds nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are released by motor vehicles into the atmosphere in significant quantities. Nitrogen oxides are of concern because of their role in the formation of photochemical oxidants, commonly referred to as "ozone." Ozone is formed through a series of chemical reactions that occur in the presence of sunlight. Because these chemical reactions are slow and occur as the pollutant is diffusing downwind, the resulting elevated ozone levels are often found many miles from the sources of the precursor pollutants. The effects of nitrogen oxide emissions from sources are therefore generally examined on a regional basis. The change in regional mobile source emissions of nitrogen oxide is directly related to the type of vehicles, the total number of vehicle trips, and the vehicle miles traveled through the local metropolitan area. Lead Lead emissions are associated with industrial sources and motor vehicles that use gasoline containing lead additives. Most U.S. vehicles available since 1975 and all vehicles available after 1980 are designed to use unleaded fuel. As these newer vehicles replaced the older ones, motor -vehicle -related lead emissions decreased, and, as a result, ambient concentrations of lead have declined significantly. Air Quality Permitting NYSDEC has developed a list of exempt and trivial activities (6 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations [NYCRR] Subpart 201-3) that would in themselves not require air quality permitting if they were the only source present at a facility. An emission inventory defines whether an air quality permit would be required. The level of air quality permitting required would depend on the magnitude of potential air emissions. If potential emissions from a source exceed 100 tons per year (tpy) of any criteria pollutant, 10 tpy of a single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tpy of the combination of all HAPS, the source is classified as major and require Title V permitting. Depending on the magnitude and nature of source emissions, air pollution control measures may include implementation of lowest achievable emission rates (LAERs), reasonable available B-12 0 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 control technology (RACT), maximum available control technology (MACT), or best available control technology (BACT). The projected emissions would be used to determine the impact to the NAAQS. The USEPA Screen3 model is an air contaminant concentration evaluation tool. This cursory computer model is used to determine the potential of a point source to exceed the NAAQS at site -specified distances. The screening format for each action alternative is developed with equivalent terrain features, facility/stack characteristics, and meteorology assumptions. The Island facility under a different action alternative and use may need to apply for emission reduction credits (ERCs) and have pollutant -specific offsets, depending on the potential implications of various alternatives. The significance level and offset ratio for the pollutants are presented in Tables 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4. Table 1-2: NYSDEC Significant Impacts for Nonattainment Areas Air Contaminant Significant Air Quality Impact ppm Weight/Volume PM10 Calendar year 1.0 /m 24-hour 5.0 /m Carbon monoxide 8 -hour 0.45 0.5 m /m 1 -hour 1.8 2.0 mg/m-' mg/m3=Milligrams per cubic meter. ppm=Parts per million. Table 1-3: Ozone Nonattainment Area and Transport Region Classification for Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Area/Contaminant Classification Major Facility Size Threshold t Significant Source Project Threshold (tpy) Significant Net Emission Increase Threshold t Offset Ratio Marginal, or Moderate, or Ozone Transport Region VOC 50 40 40 1.15:1 or more Nitrogen oxide 100 40 40 1.15:1 or more Severe VOC 25 2.5 More than 25 1.3:1 or more Nitrogen oxide 25 2.5 More than 25 1.3:1 or more VOC=Volatile organic compound. B-13 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Table 1-4: Nonattainment Area Classification for PM -10 and Carbon Monoxide Area/Contaminant Classification Major Facility Size Threshold Significant Source Project Significant Net Emission Offset Ratio (tpy) Threshold (tpy) Increase Threshold (tpy) Moderate PM10 100 15 15 1:1 or more Carbon monoxide 50 100 100 1:1 or more a • N x c a� a n. ON Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • APPENDIX C COPIES OF THE COORDINATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES • July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK July 13, 2012 • • • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 New York State Historic Preservation Office ATTN: Ruth Pierpont Peebles Island Resource Center PO Box 189 Waterford, NY 12188-0189 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms. Pierpont: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with is the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095AC, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing . U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-1 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which AD directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the New York State Historic Preservation Office. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the New York State Historic Preservation Office will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD- ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-2 July 13, 2012 • (91 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.younaberg(a-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, X) )is Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-3 July 13, 2012 0 GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ATTN: Betty Ann Hughes Chief - SEQR and Training Unit Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12233-1750 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms Hughes: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 40 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-4 July 13, 2012 • in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. PA Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-5 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(@ sa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj I%%*% Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map lb • 3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-6 July 13, 2012 s GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ATTN: Robert Ewing Pollution Prevention Director and Programs 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1750 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Ewing: . The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration is Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-7 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which 40 directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects . of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-8 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(5gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj )it Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map 3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-9 July 13, 2012 GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Ms. Julie Crocker NOAA/NMFS Protected Resources Division 55 Great Republic Dr Gloucester, MA 01903 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms Crocker: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with • the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration • Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-10 July 13, 2012 • Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the NOAA/NMFS. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the NOAA/NMFS will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-11 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg 40 via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg@gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj it Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map • • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-12 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Natural Resources Conservation Service Riverhead Service Center 423 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Sir or Madam: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with . the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration isThomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-13 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which 40 directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects • of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Natural Resources Conservation Service will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD- ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. It 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-14 July 13, 2012 • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(agsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj Is Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-15 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Sir or Madam: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to 41dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration • Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-16 July 13, 2012 . Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). C7 The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-17 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(a-)_gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, N It Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map 40 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-18 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Cayuga Nation Mr. Daniel Hill PO Box 116 Akron, NY 14001 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Hill: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with • the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-19 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which • directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects • of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Cayuga Nation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Cayuga Nation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-20 July 13, 2012 • • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(c)asa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, X) )IV Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-21 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Ms. Tamara Francis, NAGPRA Director Delaware Nation of Oklahoma PO Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms. Francis: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to 40 dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-22 July 13, 2012 S Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). C7 The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-23 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg • via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail Phil.youngberg(ZD sa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj Its Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map • r � U Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-24 July 13, 2012 GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs Via Box 336 Rooseveltown, NY 13683 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Sir or Madam: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to • dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095AC, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which • U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-25 July 13, 2012 directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing , the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you • respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-26 July 13, 2012 • • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngbergAma.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, X) It Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-27 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Oneida Indian Nation Mr. Jesse Bergevin, Historian 1256 Union Street PO Box 662 Oneida, NY 13421-0662 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Bergevin: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with • the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration • Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-28 July 13, 2012 • Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Oneida Indian Nation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Oneida Indian Nation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-29 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail Phil.youngbergCaDgsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ftj JV444" Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map is 3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-30 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Onondanga Nation Mr. Anthony Gonyea RR #1, Route 11 A Box 319B via: Nedrow, NY 13120 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Gonyea: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with • the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration • Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-31 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which • directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects • of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Onondanga Nation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Onondanga Nation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-32 July 13, 2012 • • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberga-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, A j I" Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map 3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-33 July 13, 2012 GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Seneca -Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Chief LeRoy Howard R2301 E. Steve Owens Boulevard Miami, OK 74355 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Chief Howard: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to S dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration • Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-34 July 13, 2012 • Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act'), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State • Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Seneca -Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. • In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Seneca -Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-35 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg . via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(ED sa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj '� Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map 0 is Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-36 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Seneca Nation of Indians Kathleen Mitchell, THPO 467 Center Street Salamanca, NY 14779 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms. Mitchell: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with • the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-37 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you is respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Seneca Nation of Indians. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Seneca Nation of Indians will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. EJ N Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-38 July 13, 2012 • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail Phil.youngbera(M-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ftj JV944%4" Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-39 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Shinnecock Indian Nation Tribal Office Randy King, Chairperson PO Box 5006 Southampton, NY 11969 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. King: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-40 July 13, 2012 • Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act'), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Shinnecock Indian Nation Tribal Office. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Shinnecock Indian Nation Tribal Office will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-41 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail Phil.youngberga-asa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, A i I" Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-42 July 13, 2012 lJ GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Arnold Printup, Jr., THPO 412 State Route 37 Akwesasne, NY 13655 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Printup: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with is the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre Island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing . U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-43 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. N Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-44 July 13, 2012 • If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(M-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ftj it Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-45 July 13, 2012 GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians Sherry White, THPO PO Box 70 N8754 MoNeConNuck Road Bowler, WI 54416 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Ms. White: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095AC, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-46 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-47 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg is via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(a)psa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, fu I%* Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map • 0 3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-48 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians Chief Roger Hill 7027 Meadville Road Basom, NY 14013 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Chief Hill: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration is Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-49 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-50 July 13, 2012 • 49 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(M-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj 71 Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-51 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Tuscarora Nation Office Chief Leo Henry 2006 Mt. Hope Road Lewiston, NY 14092 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Chief Henry: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-52 July 13, 2012 • Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Tuscarora Nation Office. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Tuscarora Nation Office will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-53 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg Is via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(a)gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aj 71V Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map P� Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-54 July 13, 2012 • GSA New England Region March 30, 2010 Unkechaug Nation Chief Harry B. Wallace 207 Poospansk Lane Mastic, NY 11950 Subject: Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Chief Wallace: The General Services Administration (GSA) is acting as agent and working with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Joint Lead Agency to dispose of Plum Island, New York, an 840 -acre island off the North Fork of Long Island, and an ancillary support facility at Orient Point, New York. The property disposal will be conducted through a competitive public sale. GSA published a Notice of Intent to proceed with the EIS on March 18, 2010 in the Federal Register. At this time, we invite you to provide any comments on the proposed action or the alternatives that will be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared for the action, as described below. The EIS will be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as implemented by GSA Order PBS P 1095.4C, GSA. DHS will act as a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. The purpose of this proposed action is to examine the effects associated with the anticipated sale of Plum Island, New York and its support facility at Orient Point, New York including all real and related personal property and transportation assets (the "Property," Figure 1). The need for this proposed action is mandated in Section 540 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing U. S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-55 July 13, 2012 Appropriations Act of 2009; United States Public Law 110-329 (the "Act"), which Is directs the Secretary of the DHS to liquidate the Plum Island asset by directing the Administrator of the GSA to sell through public sale all real and related personal property and transportation assets which support Plum Island operations, subject to such terms and conditions as necessary to protect government interests and meet program requirements. The Act mandates the sale as a result of the determination by DHS to construct and operate a new National Bio and Agro -Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from the PIADC to the NBAF (Record of Decision dated 1/16/2009). The EIS will address the potential impacts to the environment of two alternatives: sale of the Property (the "Action Alternative"), and continued Federal ownership (the "No -Action Alternative"). The Action Alternative will be further refined into a series of reasonably foreseeable land use options. Because the federal government has no authority to regulate future land uses, a precise statement of the specific land use -related environmental and socioeconomic effects that could result from reuse would be largely speculative. In response to the lack of certainty concerning future reuse of the Property, the EIS will identify reasonable land use options that could result upon the sale of the Property. When the Property leaves federal ownership, proposed uses would be subject to local and state environmental and land use regulation, including the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order that potential environmental effects of the project may be fully evaluated and considered, GSA is requesting that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relative to the interests of the Unkechaug Nation. In accordance with NEPA requirements, we are eliciting your comments and invite you to review the project. We request you reply by April 30, 2010 with your initial comments so that we may ensure that important resources are fully considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. Please reply to: Mr. Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager, c/o Mr. John Dugan, General Services Administration (GSA), 10 Causeway Street, Room 925, Boston, MA 02222. Furthermore, GSA will be hosting a public scoping meeting in the Town of Southold, New York in May, 2010. Details will be published two weeks in advance of the scoping meeting and the Unkechaug Nation will be invited to attend and provide additional comments at that time. A copy of the forthcoming draft EIS will be prepared and will be sent to you in CD-ROM format for comment. The EIS will also be made available on the internet. C] 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-56 July 13, 2012 i If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Phil Youngberg via FAX at 617-565-5720 or e-mail phil.youngberg(a)-gsa.gov. We would also be available to arrange a meeting with you at your convenience to discuss this project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, F&A Is Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Buildings Service Attachments: Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-57 July 13, 2012 Haywood, Paul From: Jenkins, Josh , Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:07 AM To: Bourdeau, Jonathan; Bales, Nancy Subject: FW: Tim Bishop Scoping Meeting Remarks From: Schneider, Jon [mailto:Jon.Schneider@mail.house.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:03 AM To: Jenkins, Josh Subject: Tim Bishop Scoping Meeting Remarks Statement of Congressman Tim Bishop Plum Island Scoping Meeting May 20, 2010 I would like to thank the General Services Agency and the Department of Homeland Security for holding tonight's scoping meeting, Greenport High School for serving as host. I also thank everyone from this community who have come tonight to share their thoughts on the future of Plum Island. I apologize that because of votes tonight, I cannot be there in person. The process involved with the sale of Plum Island and the construction of the National Bio- and Agro -defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kansas could be given as Exhibit A in why so many people are skeptical about government. Given our nation's mounting budget deficits and the need to balance our spending priorities, many have questioned the wisdom of spending over $650 million of taxpayer dollars to create a massive new research facility that would duplicate many of the functions currently served by Plum Island and other existing facilities. I believe that there are more cost-effective solutions than the NBAF to meet the nation's agro-defense research needs, including continuing efforts to modernize existing facilities around the country. Under the previous administration, the Department of Homeland Security assured members of Congress that the sale of Plum Island would come close to covering the costs of closure, transfer and construction of NBAF. However, the evidence suggests that is just flat wrong. As a point of reference for a reasonable expectation of what Plum Island might sell for — Robins Island, a 435 - acre island also within the jurisdiction of Southold Town, like Plum Island — sold for $11 million in 1993 and had no clean up or decommissioning requirements. Given property value increases over the past seventeen years, recent estimates place the current value of Plum Island's 840 acres in the range of $50 to $80 million. This is assuming there is an interested buyer who wants to lay out tens of millions to buy an island which even Hannibal Lecter turned his nose up at, zoning which will likely be drastically altered by the Town of Southold, and the prospect of not being able to construct anything or realize any return on investment for at least a decade. And, by the way, that is before we even scratch the surface of decommissioning the Animal Disease Center and clean up whatever mess the federal government has made at this highly toxic and hazardous site. In short, if someone thinks this sale will net the federal government dime one, forget about an island, I've got a bridge to sell you. 1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-58 July 13, 2012 is A $50-80 million sale does not pay for a $650 million project. Not in Long Island, not in Kansas, not even in Washington. 4bTonight, I believe you will hear a lot of good ideas from the community about Plum Island's future. I agree with those who say the island would be an ideal location for a National Refuge. Ironically, its isolation and unique federal presence has preserved much of Plum Island. This goal would not be at odds with a limited presence on the existing developed site, such as an alternative energy research facility. a I will leave it to others to spell out alternatives more clearly, because my single-minded immediate focus is to do the one sane thing, and keep the current research facility on the island and block the unnecessary NBAF. Without any funding in place to build NBAF, the Department of Homeland Security has never adequately answered questions raised by a 2009 Government Accountability Office report, which concluded that a Foot - and -Mouth disease outbreak on Plum Island would have a $31 million economic impact, while the same event would have a $1 billion impact in Kansas. Here is a direct quote from that report: "Given the significant limitations in DHS's analyses that we found, the conclusion that FMD work can be conducted as safely on the mainland as on Plum Island is not supported." Before we cross a point of no return, I want everyone to open their eyes and look at what we're doing here. We have not begun decommissioning Plum Island, we have not laid a single brick or appropriated a single dollar to construct NBAF. Rather than pour hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars down a sinkhole in Kansas and open the Pandora's Box of decommissioning Plum Island, we should abandon NBAF and make use of existing facilities that continue to serve this nation well. Again, thank you for holding this hearing tonight and listening to the voices of our community. Jon Schneider Deputy Chief of Staff/District Director Office of Congressman Tim Bishop (NY -01) (631) 696-6500 www. house.gov/timbishop Sign up or Congressman Bishop's e -newsletter z Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-59 July 13, 2012 A STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT oF TRANSPORTATION STATFE OMCIE BUILDING 250 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE. N.Y, 11788-5518 SUSIMAL CHAKRASORtl. PF- % REG OVAL DRECTOP May 27, 2010 Mr. Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager Public Building Services U.S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Bldg. 10 Causeway St, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 Dear Mr. Youngberg: STANLEY GEE: AcrtN4 CommiSSaONER TAG # 10-0142 CAG # 10-007482 EIS i*or the sale of Plum Island On behalf of the New York, State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), thank you for inviting the NN'SDOT to participate in the Public Scoping Meeting for the preparation of an EIS regarding the sale of Plum Island. A member of my staff represented the NYSDOT at the meeting held in Greenport, NY on May 20, 2010, and we look forwarding to continuing out involvement as this process moves forward. Very truly yours, 4 "js 1 Wayne R. Ugolik Director, Regional Planning and Program Management Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-60 July 13, 2012 G 49 0 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 0 - STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING THOMAS A. ISLES, A.I.C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Mr. Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager, Public Buildings Service U.S. General Services Administration Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 RE: Proposed Sale of Plum Island, New York National Frivironmenval Policy Act (NEPA) Initial Comments May 28, 2010 49 Dear Mr. Youngberg: These initial comments are provided in response to the -Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement-forthe Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. We offer the following comments: 41 o All alternatives should be evaluated based upon their potential impact to water quality, shellfish and finfish resources in both the Peconic and Gardiners Bays, o Suffolk County owns the underwater lands to the south of Plum Island. Specitically,N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law § 13-0302 (1) provides the following. Underwater lands ceded to County of Suffolk. All the right, title and interest in which the people of the state of New York have in and to the lands under water of Gardiner's and Peconic Bays in the County of Suffolk, except underwater lands within one thousand feet of the high watermark is hereby ceded to such county, for the purposes of shellfish cultivation, to be managed and controlled by such county, provided that such land shall revert to the state when they shall cease to be used for shellfish cultivation. For the purposes of this section, the term "Gardiner's and Peconic Bays" shall mean the waters of Gardiner's and Peconic Bays and the tributaries thereof between the westerly shore of Great Pcconic Bay and an easterly line running from the most easterly point of Plum Island to Goff Point at the entrance of Nepeague Harbor. LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P. O. Box 6100 Phone! (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788.C)099 Fax: (631) 8534044 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-61 July 13, 2012 0 Letter to Mr. Phil Youngberg May 28. 2010 Page 2 Given this interest, Sulllk County is potentially an involves!, decision-making agency. Accordingly, we request copies of all documents generated as a result of the NEPA process. * In accordance with your correspondence dated April 28, 2€710, we request a meeting with the Government Services Administration ((SSA) in order to discuss the proposed sale of Plum Island and its associated ramifications. * Consideration should he given to the inclusion of an additional alternative involving, the preservation of the island for open space purposes. * The EIS should analyze all potential impacts associated with soil and groundwater contaminationlquality and any potential impactsassociatedwith future development/use of the property. ri The EIS should include analysis of potential` economic impacts to the local economy from the standpoint of local job elimination and the discontinuance of expenditures on local goods and services associated with the operation and maintenance of the site. Enclosed please find also a copy of a summary which describes the County's ongoing Shellfish Aquaculture Lease program along with a copy of N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law F 13-0302. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these initial comments in connection with the bequest for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. Sincerely, i t Th IIi. Isles, A.1.C.P. Di ctor TAI.bd Enclosures (2) cc: Daniel Gulixio, Deputy Director, S.C. Department of Planning DeWitt S. Davies, Chief Environmental Analyst, S.C. Department of Planning James. Bagg, Chief Environmental Analyst, S.C. Department of Planning Lauretta lZ Fischer, Principal Environmental Analyst, S.C. Department of Planning Michael Mule, Senior Planner, S.C. Department of Planning; LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P, o. BOX 6100 Phane: (631) 553-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 1178&0099 Fax: (631) 853.4044 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-62 July 13, 2012 Westlaw. SMcKinney's ECL § 13-0302 Page 1 L, Effective: September 14, 2004 Mckinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated Currentness Environmental Conservation Law (Refs & Annos) ,Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws (Refs & Annos) '14 Article 13. Marine and Coastal Resources (Refs & Annos) 'N Title 3. Marine Fisheries (Refs & Annos) —► § 13-0302. Lands underwater of Gardiner's and Peconic bays 1. Underwater lands ceded to county of Suffolk. All the right, title and interest in which the people of the state of New York have in and to the lands under water of Gardiner's and Peconic bays in the county of Suffolk, except un- derwater lands within one thousand feet of the high water mark is hereby ceded to such county, for the purposes of shellfish cultivation, to be managed and controlled by such county, provided that such lands shall revert to the state when they shall cease to be used for shellfish cultivation. For the purposes of this section, the term "Gardiner's and Peconic bays" shall mean the waters of Gardiner's and Peconic bays and the tributaries thereof between the westerly shore of Great Peconic bay and an easterly line running from the most easterly point of Plum island to Goff point at the entrance of Napeague harbor. 2. Ratification. The grant of lands under the waters of Gardiner's and Peconic bays, by the commissioners of shell fisheries, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 385 of the laws of 1884, as amended, subsequently held and used by the grantees, heirs, successors, and assigns on which all taxes and assessments have been paid, are hereby ratified and confirmed. Any underwater lands in Gardiner's and Peconic Bays previously granted that revert or es- cheat to the state or are subject to tax deed by the county of Suffolk shall be available to the county for leasing pur- suant to this section. All other lands under such waters, which pursuant to such chapters, have escheated or reverted to the state, are hereby ceded to Suffolk county for the purposes of the cultivation of shellfish, subject to existing valid grants and easements; provided however, that nothing in this section shall interfere with the right of the com- missioner of general services to grant lands and easements under water to owners of adjacent uplands, pursuant to the provisions of the public lands law, or of the legislature to make such grants without regard to upland ownership, and to grant franchises to utilities, municipalities and governmental, educational, or scientific bodies for cables, out- falls, ecological studies, and experimentation with controlled marine life. 3. Leases. Suffolk county may lease lands under water ceded to it by the state for the purpose of shellfish cultivation. Provided if no such leases have been executed by December thirty-first, two thousand ten, such authority to lease pursuant to this section shall terminate. a. Leases may be issued only within areas designated as shellfish cultivation zones on a map or maps to be prepared and approved by the county of Suffolk. b. No lease shall be granted except upon written application on forms furnished by the county of Suffolk, and prop- erly executed and signed by the applicant. c. Before a lease is approved, notice shall be provided for at least two months by posting such notice at the bureau of marine resources in the department, the office of the county clerk, and the office of the town clerk in which all or any part of the lands to be leased are located. Such notice shall also be published in the official newspaper of the county. The notice shall include the name of the lessee, the boundaries of the lease, and the area of the lease. A copy of the proposed lease shall be available for public inspection and copying in the office of the county clerk. © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-63 July 13, 2012 McKinney's ECL § 13-0302 Page 2 4. Establishment of shellfish cultivation zones. Before leasing or using the lands hereby ceded to it, the county of Suffolk shall cause an accurate survey to be made of such lands, and a map or maps to be prepared therefrom. Such map or maps shall establish shellfish cultivation zones within Gardiner's and Peconic bays. Such map or maps shall be approved by local law. After such map or maps have been adopted, the county shall have the authority to issue leases for shellfish cultivation within the shellfish cultivation zones, as provided herein. Such map or maps shall be updated by the county of Suffolk every five years. a. Underwater lands within one thousand feet of the high water mark shall not be included in a shellfish cultivation zone. b. Underwater lands where bay scallops are produced regularly and harvested on a commercial basis shall not be included in a shellfish cultivation zone. c. Underwater lands where there is an indicated presence of shellfish in sufficient quantity and quality and so located as to support significant hand raking and/or tonging harvesting shall not be included in a shellfish cultivation zone. d. Underwater lands where the leasing will result in a significant reduction of established commercial finfish or crus- tacean fisheries shall not be included in a shellfish cultivation zone. 5. Regulations. The county shall, by local law, before leasing any such underwater lands, adopt regulations govern- ing: a. applications for leases; b. notices to be given; c. the form and terms of leases; d. standards for the approval or denial of leases; e. administration of leases; f. the transfer or renewal of leases; g. marking grounds and testing; h. fees; i. recording of leases; j. bonds; and k. such other matters as are appropriate to the leasing program. 6. Department authority. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section: a. any person engaging in the cultivation or harvesting of shellfish in a shellfish cultivation zone pursuant to this 2009 Thomson ReuterslWest. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-64 July 13, 2012 is e P-, McKinney's ECL § 13-0302 section shall obtain a permit in accordance with section 13-0316 of this title; and Page 3 b. the department shall regulate and control the use of certain types of vessels and equipment for harvesting shell- fish, requirements for reseeding, the right to enter upon such leased lands for reseeding or making shellfish popula- tion surveys, and enforce all other applicable state laws relating to said underwater lands. 7. Duties of the county clerk. Leases issued pursuant to this section shall be recorded in the office of the county clerk in the manner and form to be determined by local law as provided in subdivision five of this section. 8. Summary proceedings. Upon the failure of a lessee to pay the rental on any date due under the terms of the lease or upon revocation as provided for by local law pursuant to subdivision five of this section, the county may, after written notice to the lessee declare the lease cancelled as of the date set forth in such notice, and may immediately thereafter evict the lessee from such lands. The provisions of article seven of the real property actions and proceed- ings law shall apply and govern the procedure in such case. 9. Disposition of fees and rents. All fees and rents received shall be deposited into the general fund of the county. However, in the alternative, nothing shall prohibit the county of Suffolk, by local law, from establishing a special fund for the promotion of aquaculture where such fees and rents shall be deposited. CREDIT(S) (Added L.2004, c. 425, § 3, eff. Sept. 14, 2004.) 0 HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2006 Main Volume L.2004, c. 425 legislation L.2004, c. 425, §§ 1, 2, 4, provide: "§ 1. Legislative findings. Pursuant to chapter 385 of the laws of 1884, as amended, and chapter 990 of the laws of 1969, the legislature ceded to the county of Suffolk the underwater lands of Gardiner's and Peconic bays as de- scribed in such chapters and provided for a statutory framework whereby the business of cultivating shellfish could be managed and regulated. Chapter 990 of the laws of 1969 gave the county of Suffolk the right to lease such un- derwater lands to persons engaged in shellfish cultivation. Such chapter also ratified and confirmed the title to un- derwater land grants pursuant to chapter 385 of the laws of 1884, as amended, in which taxes had been paid. "After more than thirty years, the county of Suffolk still has not undertaken a leasing program to persons cultivating shellfish as was intended by chapter 990 of the laws of 1969. Such a program has not been established in spite of the fact that the potential economic benefits from promoting aquaculture to the county of Suffolk and the state of New York are substantial. "A leasing program has not been enacted by the county of Suffolk because a shellfish cultivation program as permit- ted by the provisions of chapter 990 of the laws of 1969 would be too costly and cumbersome to implement. The failure to undertake an aquaculture leasing program for these underwater lands in Gardiner's and Peconic bays has resulted in adverse economic impacts and the loss of economic opportunity for the region. "The county of Suffolk has worked diligently to study ways to foster shellfish cultivation in Gardiner's and Peconic © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-65 July 13, 2012 McKinney's ECL § 13-0302 Page 4 is bays. By Resolution 487-2001, Suffolk county established a fourteen member Suffolk county aquaculture commit- tee. In June 2002 such committee issued a report entitled "Policy Guidance for Suffolk County on Shellfish Cultiva- tion in Peconic and Gardiner's Bays". Such report made recommendations on policy issues relating to the lease of underwater lands for the cultivation of shellfish. "Based upon such report, Suffolk county approved Resolution 1229-2002 which directed the county's agencies to prepare a more specific survey plan for shellfish cultivation leasing in Peconic and Gardiner's bays. Such report was completed in April 2003. Such report, prepared by the county addresses policy issues related to shellfish cultivation, and identified several changes to state law, specifically chapter 990 of the laws of 1969, which would be required to implement a successful shellfish cultivation leasing program. Suffolk county, by Scnse Resolution 39-2003 re- quested that the state make such legislative amendments. In addition, in July 2001, the Nature Conservancy of Long Island formed the Peconic Bay Aquaculture Advisory Committee to study and make recommendations with regard to the numerous issues involved in establishing a viable and environmentally sustainable aquaculture program in the Peconic region. This advisory committee identified eighteen specific recommendations for the aquaculture program. Those recommendations are incorporated as part of the the findings of this act. Such recommendations will be criti- cal to the success of the county's shellfish cultivation leasing program. "It is the purpose of this act to amend the existing law regarding the leasing of underwater lands in Gardiner's and Peconic bays in order to foster the establishment and obtain the economic benefits of a shellfish cultivation leasing program consistent with established conservation principles. It is also the purpose of this act to ratify, confirm, and clarify the rights to cultivate shellfish underwater land grants issued under previous statutes. "§ 4. Effect of other laws. Any provision of chapter 385 of the laws of 1884, as amended, or any other general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, this act shall be controlling, but all other provisions of such laws, spe- cific, general, or special, not inconsistent herewith shall remain in full force and effect." is "§ 2. Chapter 990 of the laws of 1969, relating to ceding lands under water of Gardiner's and Peconic bays to Suf- folk County and to the management of such lands for the cultivation of shellfish, is REPEALED." McKinney's E. C. L. § 13-0302, NY ENVIR CONSER § 13-0302 Current through L.2009, chapters I to 14, 16, 17 and 50 to 56. Copr (c) 2009 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-66 July 13, 2012 0 'W4%X SW" 1A suft& camty Contents: Introefuction Suffolk County's I Role in shegrah Aquwukw SUFFOLK COUNTY SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE LEASE PROGRAM U IN PECONIC BAY AND GARDINERS BAY Introduction Suffolk County (County) has adopted a shellfish aquaculture ]ease program (Lease Pro- gram) pursuant to Resolution No. 646-2009 that provides secure access to publicly owned underwater lands in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay, New York for the purpose of shell- fish cultivation, The Lease Program has been designed to fulfill the requirements set forth in New York State Environmental Conservation Law §13-0302 by establishing a frame- work for the leasing of underwater lands that minimizes environmental impacts and user conflicts while supporting the growth of the shellfish aquaculture industry. The development of the Least Program was a formidable undertaking that required the M Neafor a 2 collective knowledge and input from commercial fishermen, shellfish farmers, regulatory Shel&h agencies, organizations, businesses and other parties familiar with the Peconic Estuary. Aquiculture ,Uaw Obtaining this knowledge was facilitated by the participation of the Aquaculture Lease progm)" Program Advisory Committee (ALPAQ over a four year period. rho Lease 2 Pmgram Suffolk County's Role in Shellfish Aquaculture Historically, the County had certain authorities pertaining to shellfish cultivation in Pe- Shelyuh 3 Cultivation conic Bay and Gardiners Bay under New York State law, and was actively engaged in the zone administration of a program that issued grants of underwater lands for private oyster farm- ing. Pursuant to New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) §13-0302 and Lease Pam 3 as authorized under the Laws of New York 2004, Chapter 425 (2004 Leasing Law), the We&fte State of New York ceded underwater lands in Peconic and Gardiners Says seaward of the 1,000 foot high water mark to Suffolk County for the purpose of shellfish cultivation, The 2004 Leasing Law contains provisions that eliminate onerous requirements, but also adds shelp$h 4 culmwdon Zone safeguards to assure that the legitimate concerns of all bay user groups were considered Map during development of the Lease Program. Requirements set forth in the 2004 Leasing Law to reduce the impacts of the Lease Program include restrictions specifying where leases cannot be located. Such arm defined by the 2004 Leasing Low are as follaws: Summary of the 6 Low APPIkation "underwater lands where bay scallops are produced regularly and harvested on a Process commercial basis" "underwater lands where there is an indicated presence of shellfish in sufficient Lease Program 7 quantity and quality and so located as to support significant hand raking and/or longing harvesting" —underwater lands where the leasing will result in a significant reduction of estab- lished commercial finfish or crustacean fisheries," Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-67 July 13, 2012 The Need for a Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program The Lease Program has been developed to provide a mechanism that allows shellfish aquaculturists, to continue and expand is the cultivation of shellfish. The cultivation of the common oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) has been and still is an important part of the maritime tradition in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. Presently, shellfish aquaculture activities are conducted in these bays on private underwater land grants (oyster grants) and Tempo- rary Marine Area Use Assignments (TMAUAs) administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Con- servation (NYSDEC). The Lease Program supports the continuation of these existing shellfish aquaculture operations, and also encourages moderate growth of the shellfish industry by providing individuals with an opportunity to obtain access to underwater lands. It also provides further stability and security to existing and future shellfish aquaculture operations by issuing 10 -year leases. The Lease Program is expected to expand the marine -based economy and create related job oppor- tunities, The Lease Program The County's authority is limited to the conveyance of underwater land for shellfish cultivation, and does not extend to the regulation of this activity. As such, the County controls: the location of shellfish farms through issuance of leases on underwater land within an adopted Shellfish Cultivation Zone; and the extent and intensity of aquaculture use through limits on lease size and number. However, lease applicants must still obtain all necessary regulatory permits from rele- vant government agencies for conducting off bottom or on -bottom shellfish culture activities on their leases, In patticu- lar, a shellfish culture permit must be obtained from NYSDEC. The dual functions of the County and NYSDEC will help to ensure that the Lease Program is carried out in accordance with proper environmental mitigation measures to protect marine resources and activities in Peconic and Gardiners Bays. The Lease Program replaces the existing, ad hoc system of providing access to marine resources for shellfish cultivation with a modem approach that assures certainty in terms of its administration, accountability on the part of lessees, and 40 equity among the diverse users of Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay, The County has adopted Lease Program regulations governing: applications for leases; notices to be given, the form and term of leases; standards for the approval or denial of leases: administration of leases: the transfer or renewal of leases; recording of teases; and other matters that are appropriate to the Lease Program. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-68 July 13, 2012 11 I Shellfish Cultivation Zone The Shellfish Cultivation Zone map (see pages 4 and 5) shows the area within which shellfish leases can be issued. The Shellfish Cultivation Zone meets all criteria in the 2004 Leasing Law, This 29,969 -acre zone includes NrYSDEC TMAUA locations; private oyster grants; and other contiguous areas where the impacts/conflicts of shellfish aquaculture activities on environmental resourcessocjo-eccmomic concerns will be minimal. Leases for new shellfish farinswill con- sist of 5- or 10 -acre parcels, New shellfish aquaculture leases are limited to a total of 60 additional acres per year, for a maximum of 300 acres during the first five years of the program, and a total of 600 acres by the tenth year of program implementation. Including those participants that will be given the opportunity to grandfather into the program, the maxi- mum area that could be potentially [eased during the first 10 years of program implementation is 3,173.5 acres. This ac- counts for less than 2.9% of the 110,000 acres of underwater land area subject to the County's shellfish leasing authority. The program also provides municipalities, researchers, and not-for-profit entities with the opportunity to obtain non- commercial shellfish cultivation leases for experimental, educational, and resource restoration purposes, The Lease Program will be implemented in a way that will allow for program adjustments to mitigate any unforeseen impacts. The Shellfish Cultivation Zone will be reviewed every five years and amended, as necessary. The Lease Pro- gram is subject to review during the second 5 -year period of implementation to establish program components after 10 years, This review will be based on an environmental assessment, which will include, but is not limited to: data on envi- ronmental conditions of the bays; results of the Lease Program to date: needidemand for additional lease space; and town, public and industry input. Lease Program Website The County's Shellfish Aquaculture Lea3c Program website has been maintained since the initiation of the work on the specification of wh- nical aspects of the program since June 2005. Complete records of all ALPAC meetings (notices, agendas, meeting summaries, presentations); consultant work task draft reports and associated maps; and all final program reports and related documentation are accessible on this web- site. The website will be used to post announcements of events and dates and in general, keep the public informed of all meetings and ac- tions that are taken during the public notice and lease site review proc- ess, and subsequent execution of lease agreements between Suffolk County and shellfish farmers. The program website address is listed below. _4-ILIqLLd� ture Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-69 July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-70 July 13, 2012 0 • s • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-71 July 13, 2012 Summary of the Lease Application Process Existing TMAUAs in the Shellfish Cultivation Zone must be converted into County leases in accordance with the provi- sions outlined in the Suffolk County Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program. A private oyster grant holder can apply for a lease on his/her grant" or a portion thereof; if the owner can document a prior historical or current use of the grant for shellfish aquaculture involving species other than oysters. If a grant has had no permitted aquaculture activity involving species other than oysters for the 10 -year period between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008, it will be considered "fallow" and may only enter the Lease Program in a limited, phased process. Leases will not be issued on oyster grants with a title conflict until all such conflicts are resolved and documentation/proof of same has been submitted to the County. In addition, the Lease Program allows for future growth of the industry by providing additional use of underwa- ter land for aquaculture on up to 540 acres over the first 10 years of the program. A summary of the leasing process follows: Lease Program Participants: Holders ofTMAUAs; private oyster grant owners; applicants for new leases subject to annual acreage cap limit (50 acres ler year for the first 10 years of the program); and applicants for non-commercial leases (municipalities, researchers, etc.). Pre -Application Meeting: All prospective lease applicants are required to attend a mandatory pre -application meeting with the Suffolk County Department of Planning prior to submitting their applications. Submission and Review of Application. All lease program participants must submit an application to the Department of Planning during the application period established by the County. Lease applicants, other than private oyster grant owners, must identify a preferred lease site location and two alternative lease sites. The Department will review all completed applications received, and make a determination on applicant eligibility. Number of Leases Permitted: Each applicant will be limited to two leases; separate applications are required for each lease. Second applications for new leases will only be considered when acreage is available and the annual acreage cap limit has not been met. 1 0 Public Notice: The Department of Planning will issue a public notice on all proposed lease sites, The public, regulatory agencies and municipalities will have 60 days to submit written comments on proposed lease sites to the Depart- ment in response to this public notice, All comments received will be summarized and submitted to the Aquaculture Lease Board. Aquaculture Lease Board: The County Aquaculture Lease Board will conduct a public meeting after the public notice period, at which all potential lease sites in a given application cycle will be presented for consideration from a regional perspective. The public will be given the opportunity to make comments on all potential lease sites at this meeting. Subse- quent to this meeting, the Lease Board will convene and make a determination on those lease sites that will be available for teasing, those lease sites that will be conditionally eligible, and those lease sites that will be elimi- nated from further consideration. 11 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-72 July 13, 2012 0 Preparation of Lease: The Department of Planning will then process lease applications, and lease documents will be prepared in conjunction with the Department of Law for execution, including a certified survey of the lease site. For conditionally eligible lease sites, the applicant must conduct a benthic survey to objectively determine the population density of hard clams on the lease site. If the survey documents a hard clam density of 10 or more legal sized hard clams per square meter, the site in question cannot be leased. Fees,, For an initial lease, applicants must submit a lease application fee of $100. An application fee is also required when applying for a lease renewal. expansion of acreage, relocation of the lease (if not required by a govern- mental entity), and lease subletting or assignment. An annual lease rental fee of $200 plus S5 per acre is required at the beginning of each year during the 10 -year lease on public land. For private grant land owners, the lease rental fee would be $200 per year during the 10 -year lease. A complete description of all aspects of the County's Shellfish Aquaculture Lease Program is contained within the "Lease Program Management Plan" document (available on the Program's website). This document also contains all administrative and procedural requirements that must be addressed by prospective lease applicants. Lease Program Benefits The County secures ownership title to approximately 100,000 acres of underwater land in Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. The County retains its authority to designate locations in these bays for the conduct of com- patible shellfish aquaculture activities in the future. Private investment in shellfish aquaculture businesses increases and shellfish farms are established at secure locations that do not pose conflicts with commercial fishermen and other bay users. This, in turn, expands the marine -based economy of Suffolk County and creates jobs that contribute to the quality of life and sense of place in East End communities. The production of large numbers of oysters, hard clams and bay scallops in dense populations on shellfish farms augments the spawning potential of native shellfish populations. Increased numbers of filter feeding bivalves on shelift farms exerts a positive influence on water quality by helping to control nutrient cycling, which in turn contributes to the prevention of noxious plankton blooms, such as brown tide. These and other ecosystem services associated with shellfish farms are provided on a sustainable basis at little to no cost to the general public. Leasing is institutionalized as a Suffolk County government responsibility and function, The Least Pro- gram is implemented using administrative mechanisms that provide for continuing input from Towns of Southold, Riverhead, Southampton, Shelter Island and East Hampton and consideration of local interests, 'Plum Island, New York C-73 July 13, 2012 • Steve Levy Suffolk County Executive PROGRAM DEVELOPNIM Suffolk County Department of Plauning PO BOX 6100 flauppauge, NY 11788-" (631')853-5191 CONSIJ I- TA N'T Cashin Associates, P.C. I Hauppeop, Ncw York AQUACULTURE LEASE PRO RAM ADVISORY COMMITTrE Suffolk County Department of Planning New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Thomas A. Isles, AICD, Chairman Vacant De"Alitt S. Davies, PhD (Alternate) Debra A. Barnes (Alternate) Suffolk Count), Executive Designee Carrie Meek Gallagher Camilo Salazar (Alternate) -Suffolk County legislature Environment, Planning & Agriculture Committee Hon. Jay H. Schneiderman Suffolk Count), Department of Health Services Martin Trent Kimberly, Paulsen (Alternate) Suffolk County Department of Public Works Gilbert Aridersort, PE Robert H, Whelan, PE (Alternate) Town ofEast Hampton John Aldred Town of Shelter Island Victor Bethge School of urine & Atmospheric kiences, Stony Brook University David 0. Conover, PhD William M, Wise (Alternate) The .Nature Conservancy Wayne L. Grothe East Hampton Town Barymen'sAssociation, Inc, Stuart Heath I Arnold Leo (Alternate) • Town of Riverhead Lt. David Lessard Town of Southold James McMahon Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk Counri, Gregg Rivara Christopher F. Smith (Alternate) East End Marine Farmers Association Karen Rivam I Sew York Sea Grant Institute Cornelia G. Schienk Town of Southampton (Joint appointment) Hon. Jon S. Semlear Hon. Edward J. Warner, Jr. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-74 July 13, 2012 0 June 1, 2010 Phil Youngberg Environmental Manager General Services Administration 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 Dear Mr. Youngberg: �a A Jodi Reil VIVMNOR SIATE -A- CC�%NrCMCUT I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is being prepared by the United States General Service Administration (GSA) related to the potential future sale of Plum Island, New York, 'Me existing Ilium Island facility is located less than ten miles off of Connecticut's coast and is is a relatively short distance from many population centers, both in Connecticut and New York. Plum Island is also located in Long Island Sound, one of the most important cmwinc habitats in the entire country. Over the last two decades, the states of Connecticut and New York have invested billions of dollars to protect and preserve the natural resources of the Sound. For nearly 60 years, the federal government has operated the Plum Island Animal Disease Center on the island. Prior to the opening of this important research facility, the US Army operated and maintained Fort Terry on the island as part of the nation's coastal defense system. While both uses of the island have played important toles in ensuring the safety, eurity and well-being of the citizens of the United States, the mission of Fort Terry has long been over and the mission of the research facility is scheduled to conclude by'2201 S. Recognizing that the nation was in need of a new agricultural research facility, the Departments of Homeland Security and Agriculture initiated a process to select a site for the construction of the National Biological and Agricultural Defense Facility. Following the selection of Manhattan, Kansas, as the site for the new research facility, the US Congress, through Public Law 110-3' .19, directed GSA to sell Plum Island. Although the new facility is not expected to be fully operational until 2018, GSA has started the process to sell the island and this scopi ng process and the drafting of an ITIS is the first step toward the potential sale of Plum Island. EXEC UTWE CHAMSE5 * STCAPITOL CITOL 210 CAP) -,OL AVEI XOM CONNECTtCUT 06106 TEL (860) 566-4640 - VAX (660)524.7396 - WNW C T GOV GOVERNOR RFiAQC.-r GOV Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-75 July 13, 2012 I understand that such a process can sometimes be lengthy and I can appreciate the desire to is move expeditiously, however, there appear to be far too many unknowns that both limit the state's ability to provide comments through this scoping process and forestall an accurate and complete assessment of the impacts and consequences the sale of Plum Island will have on the residents of Connecticut and our region's natural resources. One of my primary concerns is the limited information presently available to fully understand the implications of the potential sale of Plum Island. The lack of specific information — such as the disease agents and vaccines currently stored, buried and studied on the island along with the overall environmental condition of the research facility, the land surrounding the complex and Fort Terry — contribute to general concerns the state of Connecticut and, most importantly, the public have related to this sale. In July 2008, the Department of Homeland Security enlisted the services of Booz Allen Hamilton to prepare a study to consider potential locations for the nation's new biological and agricultural defense facility. As part of this study, Homeland Security outlined, in a broad sense, issues that would need to be addressed if the Plum Island facility was to close. This study also alludes to the transition of functions from Plum Island to another, yet to be constructed facility. Once the site in Kansas was chosen for the National Biological and Agricultural Defense Facility in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security should have initiated a process to develop a plan to transition functional capabilities and operational capacity to the new laboratory. A transition plan of this nature would have articulated the federal government's 40 approach for appropriately ceasing laboratory operations on the island and for dealing with the aftermath of decades of research. Specifically, the transition plan should account for: identification of the disease agents and vaccines studied and used in the laboratories; a comprehensive assessment of the environmental condition of the entire island along with consideration of clean-up strategies; options for the disposal of materials from both the research facility and remnants from past military activities; consideration of methods and routes for transporting active agents to the new facility and moving waste materials to disposal sites; and consideration of future uses for the island. Due to the absence of a transition plan, we are faced with many unknowns concerning the future of Plum Island. The development of such a plan would have helped to inform affected parties prior to the preparation of an EIS. This sequencing would have contributed to a more comprehensive assessment and understanding of the issues associated with the future sale of Plum Island. Instead of proceeding in a logistical fashion that would have allowed for the full vetting of the many unknowns, the GSA and Homeland Security have essentially flipped the entire sequence of federal actions by proceeding with the sale of Plum Island without providing all the information necessary for state and local governments, as well as the public, to evaluate and weigh in on such critical issues as the physical condition of the island, the conditions of its sale and the plans to remove and transport active agents and/or waste materials off of the island. • 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-76 July 13, 2012 s However, since there may be little formal opportunity to comment on the future disposition of Plum Island, I offer the following specific comments that should be considered in developing the draft EIS: The Plum Island site has been used for animal disease research for almost 60 years, first under the auspices of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps, then the U.S. Department of Agriculture and currently the Department of Homeland Security. Due to the nature of the activities which have been carried on at the site, the site remediation and waste disposal aspects of preparing this property for sale are the most important issues requiring analysis in this forthcoming EIS. Site and Facility Remediation The Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) Facility Closure and Transition Study Final Report, July 2008, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security by Booz Allen Hamilton states on page 4 that, "Although Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) actions have been performed to address the majority of site-specific environmental hazards, the structures themselves may contain asbestos, lead, and potentially other hazards that would likely require abatement." On-going remediation work was also referred to at the May 19 GSA scoping public meeting in Old Saybrook, Connecticut. However, no specific information is given in the 2008 Booz Allen Hamilton report • concerning the nature of the contamination occurring at the site or the extent of any clean-up efforts already completed, currently underway or planned. Furthermore, EPA's Superfund Site Information System lists the only CERCLA action at Plum Island as Preliminary Assessments conducted in 1988 and 1994 and a Facility Site Inspection Review undertaken in 2003. The site was then archived on the SSI listing. There is no evidence of any removal action having been taken to date under CERCLA. • Animal -related disease research has been conducted at Plum Island for many years. It is within the realm of possibility that residual contamination from such research could impact Connecticut or New York if such material is not handled properly. If boaters in Long Island Sound visit the island and encounter residual contamination, they could bring it back to Connecticut or Long Island. Similarly, while wildlife currently may be discouraged or prohibited from using the island, this will not always be the case. Thus, the clean-up, disposal, and/or containment of waste and contaminated materials, such as infectious residue from Foot and Mouth testing and other animal -related diseases, needs to be carried out to a degree and in a manner that future wildlife using the island cannot contact and transport any such disease. Marine mammals, sea turtles and especially shorebirds would be potential carriers for cross -LIS transport of any disease. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-77 July 13, 2012 For these reasons of potential animal and human exposure to contamination remaining in the facilities or otherwise on the site of the Animal Disease Center, it is essential that the EIS discuss the characterization of the site for hazards and contamination, including specific buildings involved and their historic uses, and then discuss remediation which has occurred to date and the location, nature, volumes and concentrations of contaminants in the areas still to be remediated. Plum Island also served as a defense installation for many years. As such, the potential for environmental contamination exists related to the military activities at both Fort Terry and in the vicinity of the research facility, including potentially long forgotten munitions. The EIS that is being prepared should also provide information on the extent of contamination, remediation strategies and disposal options. Finally, the EIS will need to discuss the disposal of the removed materials including the method of removal, the destination for the removed materials, and the method of transport. It is recognized that for some of these issues, particularly those regarding disposal, alternative courses of action, as opposed to a specific finalized plan, such as identifying the disposal or treatment location, may be the necessary basis for discussion in the EIS. However, remediation and disposal issues must be covered in a sufficient level of detail and rigor to provide assurances to the public that potential hazards at the Plum Island facility have been recognized and evaluated and will be handled in such manner as to eliminate any threat to public health or wildlife, or to other resources. To the extent that demolition materials or contaminated soils or other remediation by- products may be removed from Plum Island by water though Long Island Sound, the EIS should provide quantification of the number of barges or other vessels involved and should address any potential impacts this transport activity may have on commercial or recreational navigation, water quality and aquaculture in the Sound. In addition, identification of the potential sites (i.e., ports and harbors) sea -going vessels might utilize in transporting materials off of Plum Island should be included in the EIS. Security Plum Island today and potentially into the future poses a number of security challenges. These challenges could diminish over time once the new laboratory is constructed and operations cease on the island. However, the security concerns associated with the future disposition of the island are real and should be incorporated and explored in developing the EIS. In particular, the EIS should outline the measures that will be in place to prevent the spread of disease to livestock and poultry during the transporting of active agents from the island. The EIS should identify the strategies that will be employed to assure foreign animal disease agents, such as Foot and Mouth Disease virus, will be protected from terrorists. In the consideration of disposal options, the EIS should consider security ramifications associated with disposing of materials on site — especially disease agents — and what protections will be in place to ensure such disposal sites are not disturbed. • 4 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-78 July 13, 2012 iIn addition, until remediation and transition activities are completed security will need to be maintained to deny intentional or unintentional access to the island by unauthorized persons for their own safety. Further, the new owner(s) should be required to provide security for the island as a condition of sale — ensuring that whatever remains on the island is not disturbed. Shorebird Resources of Plum Island Plum Island is one of 33 Long Island Sound Stewardship Areas designated pursuant to the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2005. The purpose of the Stewardship Act is to identify, protect, and enhance upland sites possessing significant ecological, educational, open space, public access or recreational value within the Long Island Sound ecosystem. Plum Island is recognized for the significant ecological value of its colonial waterbird habitat (it hosts the second largest breeding population of roseate terns in North America) and its small, rocky islets dominated by grassy and herbaceous vegetation. Plum Island has also been identified by Audubon New York as one of 136 designated Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the state of New York. At -risk species using Plum Island include piping plover, common tern and least tern. Species congregations of interest include common and roseate tern. The site also meets the criterion for winter waterfowl congregation. Over the years, Plum Island has supported between one and eight pairs of piping plovers annually and two to 108 pairs of least terns. Piping plovers are a Connecticut and federally listed threatened species; least terns are also listed as a threatened species in Connecticut. Both of these species make up a regional population that does not recognize state boundaries and uses Connecticut's and Long Island's shoreline, as well as surrounding islands, to nest. So it is possible that the piping plovers and least terns that have nested on Plum Island may also have nested in Connecticut. Neither of these species is banded, so it is difficult to say this with certainty. Both of these species are nesting in the area from March to August and are usually nesting together on a sandy beach habitat. The EIS should identify the specific areas on Plum Island that are used as nesting habitat, and such areas should be protected during the nesting season from equipment used in demolition or remediation. The sandy beach areas used by these species should be protected from contamination and not be used as staging areas for any contaminated materials that are to be transported. Fisheries Sisnificance of Plum Island and Vicinity Many species of finfish found in Long Island Sound undergo seasonal migrations along the Atlantic coast. The area between Orient Point and Fishers Island Sound, which encompasses Plum Island, is the primary migratory corridor for these species. This area is also an important feeding area for finfish, and the varied bathymetry and bottom supports populations of a number of resident species. As a result, the area is one of the most productive recreational and commercial fishing places in LIS and Block Island Sound. Connecticut anglers fish for all of the five most popular recreational species found in Long Island Sound: bluefish, striped bass, scup, blackfish and summer flounder. Charter boat and is party boat operators also take their clients to this area for quality fishing experiences. 5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-79 July 13, 2012 In addition to finfish, the area is currently the most productive commercial lobster fishing area in Long Island Sound. Following the LIS lobster dieoff in 1999, eastern LIS accounts for about sixty -percent of Connecticut's 2009 lobster landings. In that year, eastern LIS lobster landings amounted to over 461,000 pounds with a dock side value of about $1.98 million. Though economic data specific to Long Island Sound or the Plum Island area is not available, economic analysis from NOAA (20 10) indicates that for Connecticut as a whole, Connecticut 2008 commercial fishing industry (from LIS and offshore) accounted for 4,416 jobs, about $126 million in income and about $236 million in sales. Similarly, NOAA analysis for recreational fisheries indicates that in 2008, Connecticut marine recreational fishing accounted for about $693 million in durable equipment expenditures and about $50 million. on expenditures on fishing trips. Due to the importance of this area to Connecticut's commercial and recreational fishers, it is important that any cleanup operations minimize interference with commercial and recreational fishing activities and eliminate the possibility of contaminated runoff or groundwater entering the marine environment. Any materials on Plum Island that could contaminate the aquatic environment must be adequately contained while remediation efforts proceed and must be completely removed. Sea Turtle Resources Connecticut and New York have four species of sea turtles that visit Long Island Sound but do not nest or lay eggs here. These consist of two Connecticut and federally endangered species, leatherback and Atlantic Ridley turtles, and the two Connecticut and federally threatened species, loggerhead and Atlantic green turtles. While traditionally thought of as tropical animals, sea turtles do frequent the northern temperate latitudes, including Long Island Sound, during the summer months. The northeast may also be development habitat for juvenile loggerheads and Atlantic Ridleys. However, overall the life history of sea turtles is poorly understood, especially for the early development stages of their lives. As with fisheries, it is important that any residual materials from disease research on Plum Island that could contaminate the aquatic environment be completely removed to avoid contact with and transport by sea turtles. Similarly, seals that use Plum Island and the small rocky islets off its coast travel the Sound and are frequently spotted along Connecticut's shoreline. These species contribute to the diversity of Connecticut's wildlife community and would be subject to the same concerns cited above for sea turtles. Is 6 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-80 July 13, 2012 • Connecticut Coastal Management Act Considerations ,According to the scoping meeting briefing paper, "Supporting information states that proposed future uses would be subject to ...state environmental ... approvals and regulations." It should be recognized in the EIS that this would include adherence to the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (COMA) and all relevant policies thereof. While Plum Island is located within the New York portion of Long Island Sound, its proximity to Connecticut state waters and its existing maritime connection to the Connecticut shoreline communities demonstrate its influence on this state's coastal zone. Consequently, when GSA elects to proceed with the Plum Island sale, it shall be considered by the Connecticut Office of Long Island Sound Programs to be a Federal activity subject to Federal consistency review under Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Subpart C of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 930, and Section II Part VII(c) of the State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Relative to this, Connecticut's Federal Consistency List, approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAA-OCRM) lists the disposal of land pursuant to the Property Act (40 USC 101) as amended, by the GSA as subject to Federal consistency review. The CCMA contains a number of policies pertinent to this action. The EIS will need to evaluate the remediation and disposal of the Plum Island property for consistency with these policies. The following policies, in particular, from the CCMA would apply to the proposed action. • Adverse Impacts Policy prohibits: Degrading water quality through the significant introduction into either coastal waters or groundwater supplies of suspended solids, nutrients, toxics, heavy metals or pathogens... Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) section 22a - 93(15)(A) Coastal Resource Policies declare that: " the pollution of the waters of the state is inimical to the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state, is a public nuisance and is harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life... [CGS section 22a-422, as referenced by CGS section 22a -92(a)(2)] and require the management of"...estuarine embayments so as to insure that coastal uses proceed in a manner that assures sustained biological productivity, the maintenance of healthy marine populations..."[CGS section 22a-92(c)(2)(A)]. Coastal Use Policies require minimization of "...the risk of oil and chemical spills at port facilities" [CGS section 22a-92(b)(1)(C)], as well as "...safe and sanitary disposal of toxic or hazardous wastes..."[CGS 22a -220(a)]. Pertinent to these policies, I am concerned that the numerous documented living resources could be adversely affected if remediation conducted in association with the sale of Plum Island is not carried out in the most prudent and environmentally sound manner. Sources of concern include, but are not limited to, insufficient site management practices during deconstruction and the potential discharge of petroleum products from barges or other vessels employed during remediation activities that may transit or berth in Connecticut waters. Adverse impacts to living resources and habitats can also be expected to result from the development of the island subsequent to its sale. 7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-81 July 13, 2012 The CCMA also includes policies mandating the preservation of water -dependent uses, • defined as "...uses and facilities which require direct access to, or location in, marine or tidal waters."[CGS section 22a-93(16)] There presently exists an established water -dependent use related to the operation of Plum Island, i.e., the maritime transportation service that ferries site workers from Old Saybrook to Plum Island. Although that service does not presently benefit the general public, the state is interested in preserving that use, if appropriate, relative to the future use of the island. Abandonment of that water -dependent use would be inconsistent with the CCMA. Disposal (Sale) of Plum Island Property The scoping notice discusses the limitation upon the EIS process arising from the uncertainty as to the ultimate ownership and reuse of Plum Island and the ferry terminal and support facility on Orient Point. Current requirements for disposal, as contained in Section 540 of Public Law 110-329, appear to require the sale of the property as opposed to allowing for its transfer to another Federal agency or to the State of New York for conservation or recreation purposes. However, given the habitat value of the island, its designation as a Long Island Sound Stewardship Area and an Important Bird Area, the undeveloped nature of the majority of the island, and the limitations on access to the site, conservation of the island as a wildlife preserve or as a park supporting low intensity recreation would be appropriate and desirable uses for this property. In point of fact, the Long Island Sound Stewardship Act is equivalent federal statutory authority to that authorizing the sale of Plum Island. To sell the entire island without significant conservation restrictions would violate both the letter and the spirit of both the Stewardship Act and the National Estuary Program, through which the Long . Island Sound Study was established. However, if the property is to be sold, the EIS should thoroughly document the disposal process and should discuss alternative frameworks for the disposal. For instance, the simplest process from an administrative perspective would be to sell the island in its entirety to a single purchaser. However, this would limit the pool of potential purchasers and would likely price Plum Island out of the reach of entities who would want to acquire it for conservation purposes. Connecticut strongly advocates that the EIS should evaluate the disposal of the Plum Island property in a fashion allowing for the acquisition of portions of the island with the greatest conservation value via separate transactions. In particular, under this scenario, I would advise offering for private sale only the portion(s) of the island presently developed and occupied (approximately 10%), while preserving the remaining, undeveloped acreage as natural habitat. This may allow conservation organizations or state or local governmental entities, individually or collectively, to purchase specific areas of the island which support the highest concentration of shorebird nesting activity, marine mammal use or sea turtle visitation at prices that would be more affordable than the purchase of the island as a whole. The identification and selection of the areas of Plum Island that would be the most appropriate for such separate sale(s) should be discussed in the EIS, preferably in specific terms, but at least in a conceptual fashion with an agency commitment to provide for such options. • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-82 July 13, 2012 • In the event that preservation of the entire undeveloped portion of the island is not feasible, the EIS should also evaluate appropriate conservation easements for the portions of Plum. Island most heavily used by piping plovers, least terns, roseate terns and other appropriate species, as well as habitats of endangered or threatened plants. Such restrictions could apply to any portion of the island which would potentially be subject to development after disposal. The potential need for two additional types of re -use restrictions should also be discussed in the EIS. If the remediation of the site results in any areas of contaminated soil being capped as a protective measure to prevent exposure to humans or wildlife from hazardous materials left in place, restrictions on the development of these areas would likely be required. Also, any restrictions arising from the preservation of historic resources at Fort Terry should be detailed in the EIS. In addition to land use restrictions, the EIS should evaluate the potential impacts associated with the future development of the island in terms of the need for expanded utility service and increased boat traffic. These types of activities could impact resources on the island and in the waters offshore, such as sensitive shellfish beds that could potentially be impacted by the installation of new electrical lines. Schedule for EIS Development The scoping notice sets out a very ambitious timeframe for the development of the EIS, with a draft EIS available for review this summer. Based on past experience, this timeframe is • likely to be unrealistic even were all the constituent pieces of the EIS available from previous studies. However, items such as the development of a site remediation plan and an assessment of the flora and fauna of the island, particularly the delineation of areas which are used for shorebird nesting or for other seasonal functions, will likely prove to require a longer timeframe to develop. The recent project timeframe presented at the scoping meetings stated that the Plum Island Animal Disease Center would remain open until 2018 (the earliest date that the new lab in Manhattan, Kansas could be ready). This should remove any time pressure which may have led to the formulation of such a compressed timeframe for EIS development. The accuracy of the EIS could be called into question with such a rushed schedule, and most certainly the thoroughness of the document will be affected. In addition, GSA's ability to consider and incorporate any input received through the public scoping process on such short notice is questionable. I urge GSA to take the time necessary to develop an EIS which properly addresses site resources, remediation needs and methodology, and alternatives for property disposal. • Conclusion As evidenced by the length of this response, there are many open questions concerning the future disposition of Plum Island. While I respect the process that has been initiated, I feel the sequence of events associated with this federal action contributes to the many unknowns that remain concerning this property. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-83 July 13, 2012 As we all know, this property and the operations that are conducted there present unique challenges and this sale cannot be treated or handled in a routine manner. I believe GSA should proceed at a cautious, but reasonable pace in determining the future of this island. I also view this process as a great opportunity — a chance to fully explore the future and full potential of Plum Island as a natural asset worth preserving. While I understand that Congress has called for the sale of this island, I believe we should use the process initiated by GSA as an opportunity to highlight the tremendous natural resources on and around this island and work toward a creative approach to preserve these resources while dealing with the island's research legacy in an appropriate manner. Thank you, again, for this opportunity to comment on the behalf of the state of Connecticut and its citizens. My office stands prepared to assist with any clarification or provide further details, if necessary. Please contact Matthew Fritz of my staff at (860) 524-7309 if you have questions or wish to follow up on the comments we have submitted. Sincerely, M. Jodi kell Governor cc: John Dugan, GSA I 10 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-84 July 13, 2012 • • • 0 AM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I Boston, Massachusetts REGION 2 New York, New York Office of itie Regional A(imintstratots June 2, 2010 Mr, Phil Youngberg. Environmental Manager c/o Mr. John Dugan General Services Administration (GSA) 10 Causeway Strect Roorn 925 Bosion, MA 02222 Dear Mr. Youngberg: This letter is in regard to the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by the General Services Administration to analy-.,c and address issues that may be identified on the sale oftbc 840 acre Plum Island, New York. The U.S. Department (if Homeland Security (DI IS), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), operates the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) on the island, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2W,) mandates the sale of the Island as a result of the determination by DI IS to construct and operate a new facility in Manhattan, Kansas and move its operations from Pluto Island. On September 28. 2006. the En-vironmental Protection Agency joined the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in designating the Plum and Gull Islands Complex one of thirty-three inaugural Long Island Sound Stewardship Areas (enclosure 1). The areas were identified through the Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Initiative (bttp:/IlongislaMsound.-,tudy.net/issues- act ions/stewardshipO. The designation highlighted the areas of Long Island Sound with the richest recreational and ecological resources, and established a goal of raising awareness of the threats to these resources and facilitating on -the -ground stewardship actions through coordinateii resource planning. Later in 2006, Congress. passed the Long Is" Sound Stewardship Act (P1,. 10()-359), which underscored the importance of protecting and pr :m ing critical habitat areas along our shorelines. Plum Island was cited as a Stewardship Area because of its exemplary colonial waterbird habitat. Its undeveloped and diversely vegetated shoreline supports, the second largest breeding rwpulation of roseate tcrn:, a federally endangeml species, and several hundred Comnw,)n Terns. a NYS threatened species. Audubon New York has designated Plum Island as an Important Hird Area. To better document bird usage, surveys were conducted over the past three years, during the breeding. winter. and migration seasons. More than I W bird species have been documented on Plum Island and adjacent coastal waters. In 2009, seven active Osprey nests and an active Bank Swallow colony, a bird species on the decline in New York, .vcrc noted, Piping Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-85 July 13, 2012 Plovers, a federally threatened species, use the shoreline habitat for breeding and foraging, In addition, the US. Fish and Wildlife Service highlighted Plum Island in a 1991 report as a significant coastal habitat (Final Report of'tht, Mortheavi Coavral Areae Study., Sign�flvant Coastal Hahitatv qf Southern New England and Portions qI'Long lsfand a*u', York). We believe that the EIS fbr Plunn Island should further evaluate the ecological importance of this property through an inventory and assessment of its natural resource values and ecologica I functiom and analyze opportunities rot balanced and appropriate public uses. Any potential contamination threats to public health and the environment associated with the existing disease research facility should also be evaluated along with appropriate remediation or removal actions. We recommend that the EIS include as an alternative the permanent protection of the entire undeveloped portion of the property, while allowing the developed portion to be said to the highest bidder for appropriate future commercial or other development uses consistent with conservation and stewardship goals for Long Island Sound. We would also expect the EIS to address air and water quality impacts of the development and conservation alternatives under consideration including the potential for wetland impacts and the need for drinking water and wastewater facilities associated with future development that may occur. More over, any development alternative considered for the facility should consider the potential to implement green coo-truction and operations principles as outlined in enclosure 2. If the potential for development on the island is un in the El S should consider a range of-potcritial development scenarios and associated environmental impacts and mitigation opportunities for each scenario. In addition, public access to Plum Island should be provided by reserving some form of public access rights from the associated Orient Point nine and one half acre parcel that currently includes building& utilities, and ferry docking facilities that support the Plum Island research facility. This overall approach would support the public interest noted in the designation of Plum Island as an inaugural Long Island Sound Stewardship Area, We believe that the future of Plum Island must he decided with due consideration to the full spectrum of public interest, including existing federal and state conservation policies, and interests. We request the opportunity to review a draft of the EIS scope before it is finalized and are willing to discuss our comments at your convenience as necessary. Bryo nd this, we would welcome the opportunity to serve as cooperating agency on development ofthe EIS. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss our concerns, please contact his. Grace Musumcci, Chief of EPA Region 2's Environmental Review Section, at 212-637-3738. #'4417 J It A. Enck, Regional Administrator H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator Regi A 'c�j on 2 EPA Nmv England MMIMM 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-86 July 13, 2012 • RESOLUTION OF `HE LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDY POLICY CC11Vl14 MEE CONCERNING LONG ISLAND SOUND S'I WARDSI IP Wcol,,, gLong Island Sound is recogni as a. National treasure of great uiuml, environmental, ecological, and economic importance; and erg, a highly urbaniz+ecl estu rry, the Lang Island Sound ecosystem is under stress #"rare both sustain human u� wel I as emerging global. and >~egional envir+�nmerttal conditions; and ras, the a' omprehensitl�tanageme t Plan for Lang We land Sound callsfc)rcridentify areae of land and vatclr of o>atstanding or a empiacy scientific, educational, or biological value for protection, management or acquisition; and ms, at the direction of the Policy Cormnittee under the LangIsland We (: 2003Agrent,theLongIslandSoundStudy Management orxtmitt has v�orked to identify keyarm in the Lang Island Sound watershed that reflect regional differentiation, a variety of ecosystems and significant natural habitats found in the Sound, and public aces to this magnificent body of water, NOW THEREFORE BE rT RESOLM TuAT, the Long Island Sound Study Policy Committee, assembled in Rye, New York on September 28, 2006,. hereby endorses the work of the Management Committee in recommending thirty --three inaugural Stewardship areas, and hereby adapts them as part of the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative. i Robert W. Varney* Regional AdZ94 strafar US Enviro rental Protection Agency New Eno, and Region A Alan J. Steinbmt Regional .Atdministrat • CJS Environmental Protection Agency Ret#on U Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York "onnecticut Department of Environmental Protection Denise M. Sheelratt, Cotrtmissiorier New York Mate Department of Environmental Conservation C-87 July 13, 2012 EPA Region 2 • Green Project Recommendations and Resources EPA strongly encourages that the concepts outlined below be considered by those receiving federal grant assistance for water, wastewater, stormwater, or water quality protection projects, In this regard, project sponsors are encouraged to use local and/or recycled materials; to recycle materials generated onsite; to utilize low -emissions technologies and fuels; and to incorporate renewable - energy (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, biogas and biomass) and energy. -efficient and environmentally sustainable technology in project design, construction, and operation. Utilize Clean Diesel Technology ht# :!\,,,ww.e a. cvlota !d'aesell Diesel controls, cleaner fuel, and cleaner construction practices can be utilized for bath ors -.road and off-road equipment used for transportation, excavation, and other construction activities. Particular consideration should be given to the fallowing concepts:: 1) Strategies and technologies to reduce unnecessary idling, including auxiliary power units, the use of electric equipment, and establishing and enforcing limits on idling. time. 2) The use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel in non -road applications. 3) The use of add-on control technologies like diesel oxidation catalysts and particulate filters, repowering, or newer, cleaner diesel equipment. lotto.//��°���v.rnass. aov/dep/nir/dicsllconrctro�df 4) Contract specifications can be used to require contractors to use advanced pollution controls and clean fuels. h ;//www e a. civ/diene-Voonstructio�oilll; ct-lg g,h i ,. A model specification is available online at h#tp:i/wN%~ ,northeastdiesel..orglpdf!NI C- Constroction-Contract-S ec clfi. • Use Alternative and Renewable Energy The U.S. Department of Energy's "men Power Network" (GPN) provides information and markets that can be used to supply alternative generated electricity. The fallowing link identifies several suppliers of renewable energy, httD:/',ins .eere.ener car! reen ovA,,er±MingJ2uy_ing oower.shtml Incorporate onsite energy generation and energy efficient equipment upgrades into projects at drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities Promote the use of captured biogas in combined heat and power systems and/or renewable energy (wind, solar, etc,) to generate energy for use onsite as well as upgrades to more energy efficient equipment (pumps, motors, etc.). lot#�;!!ww�Fgavf���t�rzEra.�tr�rcture!la�tterrt�ana�rnent ei;ter�•�1 Utilize Energy Star/Multi-media building and land design practices Consideration should be given to Including building practices which have multi -media benefits, including energy efficiency, water conservation, and healthy indoor air quality. Apply building rating systems and toads, such as Energy Star, energy Star Indoor Air Package, and Fater Sense for building construction, lett ;//w -vw.e ser sty, gN_, ndex.cfrn?c-business.bus tildes and 11M://wNvw.uSabc.oral C. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-88 July 13, 2012 0 Implement Water Efficiency Water efficiency can make infrastructure systems more sustainable by reducing the quantity of water treated and distributed through the water supply system, and subsequently by the wastewater treatment and disposal systems. EPA is promoting water use practices that increase efficiency, eliminate waste, and conserve water resources, resulting in a decreased burden on our water resources. The WaterSense program, bq:,INN-�Y-e A�.gqv/%yatcrsense, promotes the market for water -efficient products through the use of WaterSense-labeled products and the use of contractors certified through a WaterSense-labeled program. Water supply utilities can also decrease the burden on water and wastewater treatment systems by reducing the amount of drinking water lost from their leaking water distribution pipes. Additional details on the Sustainable Infi-astructure Initiative can be found at ateti n frastructure. Source Management for Stormwater Runoff Green infrastructure and low impact development approaches can reduce, capture, and treat stormwater runoff at its source. Site-specific practices, such as green roofs, downspout disconnections, rain harvesting/gardens, planter boxes, and porous pavements are designed to mimic natural hydrologic functions and decrease the amount of impervious area and stormwater runoff. Preserving and recreating natural landscape features can create functional and appealing site drainage that treats storm water as a resource rather than a waste product. and leninfmst'ructure/technolo,-,-v�.cfni Encourage cost-efficient, environmentally -friendly landscaping EPA's GreenScapes program provides cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for landscaping. Designed to help preserve natural resources and prevent waste and pollution, GreenScapes encourages companies, government agencies, other entities, and homeowners to make holistic decisions regarding waste generation and disposal and the associated impacts on land, water, air, and energy use. littp://"t%kw.eta .Lov/os,.v/consene,'rrr/cre�is/index.ftn tke recycled materials in highway and construction projects. Many industrial and construction byproducts are suitable and available for use in road or infrastructure construction. littn://vA%w.epA,Lov/oswYconsene/rrr/imt/inde.<.htm Use of these materials can save money and reduce environmental impact. The Recycled Materials Resource Center has user guidelines and specifications for recycled material, h 11W.P tools/uguid l nes/index.a-,r- Safely Reuse and/or Recycle Project -related Debris and Waste The Federal Green Construction Guide for Specters includes a construction waste management specification. httl2://%-ww.wbdg.org/design/greensl2tc.Aih� Utilize environmentally preferable purchasing Promote markets for environmentally preferable products by referencing EPA's multi -attribute Environmentally Preferable Purchasing guidance. httr)://www.efo)a.IL).ov/e , 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-89 July 13, 2012 „lune 10, 20 10 Mill Youngberg C/O John Dugan General Services Administration 10 Causeway Street Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 Dear -Mr, Youngbcmv 0 I am writing to provide comment on the proposed sale of the 840 -acre Plum Island and the 9 acre Orient Point facility. 0 'nic federal government bad decided to upgrade its animal disease research center frotil a Bio -Safety Level 3 laboratory to a Level 4. While the center will be relocated from Plurn Island to Manhattan, Kansas, no Rinds have been allocated for the construction of this new facility. There is also no timeframe for decommissioning Plum Island, I question the purpose and timing of the two public scoping sessions held o the sale. In my opinion- the process is premature. Before discussing the sale of Plum Island, GSA. and the Department of Homeland Security should be proposing a plan or -=,-cdiation of at.), and all -contaminates on the island. Since 1954, the Department of Agriculture, and more recently the Department of I lomeland Security, has studied highly contagious diseases on Plum Island. A complete, independent environment survey needs to be undertaken and uncompromised remediation plan developed. The sale of this property should not be discussed until any and all environmental issues are remediated. As a federal property, Plum Island is now exempt from local land use requirements. once the property is sold to private owners, Southold Town land use and zoning codes would apply- It is my understanding that the GSA has not had any discussion with tile town regarding planning, zoning or site plan issues, How can GSA offer Plum Island for sale without providing potential buyers with infonilation about permissible land uses? s-,PWFING a. VENOE FUIVERHEAT),NY t1401 PHONE i631) 652 •3200 1 FAX t6311852-3203 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-90 July 13, 2012 Recently, the federal government spent almost S50 million in upgrading the facilities on Plurn Island. Is there a plan for the fixed assets on the island? Will any of the existing structures be demolished or gutted'? What buildings will remain'? Are any of the fixed assets critical to national security? Will those that are be removed or destroyed? Can any of the fixed assets be reused at the planned Kansas facility'? What is the cost of the preparing the island for sale? Will the GSA establish pre -qualifications for potential buyers of this sensitive facility! I find it odd that the federal government, given its investunent in the property and the timely and costly rernediation process, has not considered a "no action" option. This would allow Plum Island to remain in federal hands and hopefully be used by other federal agencies or remain as a nature preserve. At this time there are tot) many unanswered questions,, most cat" which are critical to the future of the island and Southold Town, I urge the federal government to reconsider the salc of Plum Island until all questions are thoroughly ans%kered. Sincerely, P - 4XX4.zl Edward P. Romaine Suffolk County Legislator, First District •CC: Senator Charles Schumer Senator Kristin Gillibrand Congressman Timothy Bishop Southold Supervisor Scott Russell .7 EPR, knio Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-91 July 13, 2012 U> t*ttaM � WILVLO—t: Uttited :Srtates Devartment of the Inten' 4,b FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 3817 Luker Ruad Cortland, NY 13045 EMEMEMI Mr. Phil Youagb M, EaviromentaJ Manager 00 Jotm Dugan P.01 This is in refOeoce to, the. General Services Administration's (GSA) Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepat an Environmental Impact Statement (ETS) for the sale of Plum hsland, New York (KY), and an ancillary facility at Orient Point, NY, published in Federal Register (FR) Vol. 75, No. 52 on Thursday, March 18, 20 10, pursuant to the requirements of the National Environatcrital Policy Act (NEPA) of 1%9, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). As noted in the FR, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) Witt act ani a Joint Lead Agency in ongoing consultation with the GSA for the NEPA and associated regulatory compliance activities. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-92 July 13, 2012 • We understand that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regions I and Il have provided comments on the proposed action in a letter to the GSA dated June 2. 2010, swessing the ecological and recreational value of Plum Island as the driving force for nominating it as one of thirty -thee Long Island Sound Stewardship Areas. We recognize and support their rote as admitistrators of the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay National .Estuary Programs and Wieve their input and recommendations daring the public and agency scoping period should be given serious consideration. Plum. Island is an 840 -acre island located about 12 miles southwest of New London, Connecticut, and L5 ruiles from the northeastern tip of Long Island, NY; It is located at the,eastern end of Long Island Sound and is bounded on its southern shore by the Peconic Bay, both of which are designated as National Estuaries by the EPA, It is also located in the Atlwrdc Coast Flyway, a corridor along the eastern North American through which millions of bit& migrate twice a year to their breeding and wintering grounds to points north and south, Both Plum Gut and The Pact serve as major migratory pathways for various tinfish species. Environmental Re ouMes Plum Island has been manipulate by man for hundreds of years, culminating in development: and infra utucture that supports its current use as the plum :Island Animal Di se Center. However, the majority of the 843 -acre Plum bland, with its more than seven, miles of coastline, . is undeveloped and still contains regionally -significant coastal, upland, wetland and nearshore habits. it is surrounded by the extremely productive estuarinelmarrirne waters of Long Island Sound, Plum Gut, Block Island Sound, and Gardiners Bay. • Over the last three seasons from 2007 to 2010, the Service has observed that the nearshote amine provides winter habitat for harbor seals Whoca viiulirnu) and gray els (Halichoerus gryPLLO. Harbor seals are known to haul -out (leave the water) can the southeastern shoreline of Plum Island for resting and sunning, ether maria warmmals that are known to occur in waters off Plum Island include the funback whale (Balaenoptera physalus), ininke whale (.8, acut'orostratd), and humpback whale (Megapnera novneangfiae), as well as the common dolphin (Delphinus d€lp is), bottlenose dolphin (rur sops trurcatus), white -skied dolphin ( ggenorhvnchc acutu ). seri dolphin (Stenella coerulealba), and pilot whale (Globicephalamelaena) as discussed in Edinger et at (2002). Limited surveys in various habitat types around the island by the North ForkA:udubod Society chapter have resulted in observation of 80 species of migratory birds,coin prised of bay ducks, sea dudes, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors. The southern shores contain sandy beach backed by low-lying dunes that transition to grassland and shrubland. It is in this sandy beach habitat that the Federally -listed piping plover has been observed breeding, based on surveys conducted by the Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conwirvation with assistance frcern Audubon NY over the last several years, Although not well documented, it is suspected that Plana Island is an important migratorg� stopover area for this species as it migrates front its southern wintering grounds into ?yew England and the Atlantic Canadian Maritime Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-93 July 13, 2012 iU,t'-It'"'r-`kaLt) 3)+eU Ut )-i`M t, WtLVL 1P -t Provinces, 1w B' presence of piping A i pest was confumeti on i t i , with s4bOquent nestingocturring Mi 2009 and s. This same habitato?siupports several pars of ii i Fea, sspecies iaii concern. ,` i to • i :� i i ♦ t i er: t i a i i i � . ,, � t t ii MA t IY ♦ `t r t e: ! • i'ax. i� t' a♦a } .t! i i r ..ii � p ii i•i Ir"ri. �l". r � ti • 6 Tqi ♦ ! f t $ i i t 4 i h e t iia i i i ii r: ♦. • i" r i i>i t ti alt ti i i.% •' �1 i_....3 i ! i.' t i !!". r • i i ! rw � t ! i t i f Gwen land 17% Grassland 15% Herbaceous wetland 14% •-i_=' s r Scrub land St'a - Open; water a(NationaltandCover Dataset 2001, as refirenced in Departnent of Homeland Security 2008) the i Vilcuife Service a4 91 H . 0 - Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-94 July 13, 2012 • ILl- :: i lt!:� N 1L -)H & WiLLLILIFE P.04 Audubon NY s Orient Paint and Plum Island Complex Important Bird Area (Burger and Liner 2005); l*hg Island Sound (LIS) National Estuary, Program "Plum, Little, and'Great Gull Islands Stewardship Area"; and Plum Gut Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (New York State Department of Mate Division of Coastal Resources 2005). Tbe Orient Point - Islands Significant CoasW Habitat Complex identified by,the Service mulersceres its high value for nesting colonies of piping plover and least tern (&srna antillatum) and colonial wading bird rookeries of black -crowned night -hexon (Nycticorax nycticorax) and great egret (Caswrodius albus). Beaches and sand ridges in the Orient Point area contain populations of at least three regionally -rare plant species and historical records for several others: Scotch lavage (Ligusficum sccalhicum), slender knotweed (Polygonum tenue), and seabeach knot -weed (Palygonum gfaucurn), The latter is also found on Plum Island, Of special sigttifcance in this same area are stands of an unusual type of maritime reel ceXW (Jun perus 1 irginiuntr) forest in which the individual trees are low -growing (3-6 feet in height) and circular in form, many of which are quite old, Tboshallow waters are especially significant as wintering waterfowl concemr0ion areas, These waters contain substantias winter populations of scoter (Melanittax spp.), giet= and lesser scaup • ya mama and A a,,ittis), Ameriew black duck (Ano rubripes), common golden+eye (Bucephalu clangula), bufflehead (Rucephala albevla), red -breasted merganser(Mergtts ser�ator), long, -tailed duck (Clangula hyerruhlis), canvasback ( yta ya valisineria), mallard (Arras platyr-lhyrrchvs). and Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Osprey (Pandie n halicaetus) nest and feed in the: marshes on Plum Islami. • R t� studies indicate tt t the•waters of Gardiners Bay, the Peconic Bay , apd.other° bodies of war in this -general area may serve as important summer feeding and m#seiy, areas for juvenile Dam p's ricfley sea turtles (Lepld©c etys kempYt), one of the rarest sea turtles and a Federally - listed endangered species, and for other Federally -protected sea turtle species. These waters are also important feeding areas for common and roseate terns breeding on Great gull Island. The deep turbulent waters and sallow shoals of Plum Gut (the area of opera water between plum Island and.Olrient Point) provide significant and diverse habitat for marine fishes of special emphasis in the region, including large concentrations of striped bass ( orone saxatilis), bluefish (Pomalomus saltatrix), tautog (Toutoga onitis), summer flounder (,Partrlieht'hys dentatus), and $cup (. tenotomus chrysvps), and are regionally important recreational fishing areas. Plurn Gut is one of two primary migration corridors for striped bass as they move into Long island Sound in spring to their breeding grounds and return to southern wintering areas during the fall. Plum Gut is thought to be the major migration corridor for Atlantic salmon ( 'alma salar) returning to the Connecticut and Paweatuck Rivers in the early spring. Fi 'ly, the service's Long island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (C.ornplex) includes ten management units across Long Island, withWertheim National Wildlife Refuge as its headquarters, The. Complex was established to conserve, manage, and where, appropriate, restore Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-95 July 13, 2012 VW -4.L U� r - VX" Z� tai JLULIF-t Sincerely, 6� David A. StilWell Fi'etd Supervisor !*M MY. and J.M. Liner. 2005hWttantB1rdAreasqf New York, Audubon New V66c, NY. Department of Homeland Security- 2008. National Bio and AM -Defense Facifity — Final Environmental Impact Statement Vol. H, Appendices A -H. Edinger, G1, DJ. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.Gx Howard, D.M. Htmt, and A.M, Ojivwo (editoro. 2002.; Ecological Communitiesof New York State. Secood Edbm A Tevisod and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's EcologicA Communities of-Nt�� York State. (Draft for rqviewl. New York Natural ligrit4ge Program, New York State Departmemt of Environmenud Consmation, Albany, NY New York Static Department of State Division of Coastal Resources, 2005, hrtp:l/i,vww,ny-swaterfronts.com/waterfront—natumi—na,rratives-UP. U& Fish NW Wildlife 9 Mice, 1991. Northeast Coastal Arcas Study: Significant Coastal Hobttais of Southem New E4and and Portions of Long island, NY cotfl FWS, Stan nfotd, CT (- Harrison) FWS, wu, RI (S. Marino) FWS, LR4WRC, Shirley, NY (M. Williams) R P. OC -17 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-96 July TIAW 2P, 05 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTIM, ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION March 31, 2010 Mr. James Biederman, Esq., Program Expert Public Buildings Service Real Property Disposal Division (9PRF- 10) 400 15th St, SW Auburn, WA 98001 Re- Sale of Plum Island, New York Dear Mr, Biederman, It has come to the attention of this Oil -ice that the General Services Administration (GSA) is considering the possible sale of Plum Island, New York for redevelopment or other purposes following the intended relocation of the animal disease research facilities presently operated there. While Plum Island is located within the New York segment of Long Island Sound. its proximity to Connecticut state waters and its existing maritime connection to Connecticut shoreline communities demonstrate its influence on this state's coastal rune. Consequently, I would like to take this opportunity to affirm that if and when the GSA elects to proceed with such a sale, it shall be considered by this Office to be a Federal activity subject to Federal consistency review under Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, Subpart C of 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 930, and Section 11, Part VII(c) of the State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. • Specifically, in accordance with the Federal consistency regulations, GSA must prepare and submit to this Office a Federal Consistency Determination identifying reasonably foreseeable direct and/or indirect effects on Connecticut's coastal resources and uses. Connecticut's designated coastal resources and uses are enumerated in the Connecticut Coastal Management Act at I tt D: C ga. ct.. gov/2 00 5 /pu h4044.htm and in the enclosed Reference Guide to Coastal Policies and Definitions. The following link will direct you to Connecticut's Federal consistency application form and instructions http.//N%,ww et.Me Icffp. 852&--d-ek 4v GID --1622. /view - 744i As you consider future actions at Plum Island as they may affect Connecticut's coastal zone, please contact Tom Ouellette of this Office at 860-424-3612 or tom.ouellettel'a- ct. ov if you have any questions about Connecticut's Federal consistency review procedures. Thank you. Sincerely, Brian P. Thompson, Director Office of Long Island Sound Programs Encl. cc: Betsey C. Wingfield, CT DEP Allison Castellan, NOAA/OCRM (Niraod on %,cyclzd f�qwi � ,9 Elm Strvo * Hanford.CT (KNI06A127 bVww,mgw 4(4,11 Ars Equal Qprwanih Efnfdf Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-97 July 13, 2012 SW*ridge-Munsee ThbaOCutolk fteseivation Offia P0. !{ IF♦ i9 X 70 O 4 5W6 COMPANY NAME s Site visit by Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Archeological survey, phase 1 Literature/record search including colored maps Pictures of site 5HPO report Project dries not appear to endanger archaeological sites of interest to theStockbridge- Mun see Tribe. but of area • Has site been previously disturbed? Yes No If yes, to what extent and when Will the proposed action adversely affect properties listed, or eligible for, listing on i -,archaeological objects of significance to a Tribe including graves, funerary traditional cultural properties} Yes No Should project inadvertently uncover a Native American site, even after an archaeological survey or if there is a change to the project, we ask that you halt all construction and notify the Stockbridge-Munseeb-• Tribal-4'� Sher � • Officer U 'BAASIfoNhe Sale of Plum Island, New York C-98 & T" 2 0 AH I MEN t OF CONIMFTVA ,-Tarr! ; �� L, L-P NW'Onal"%'eivov n" Admr PhaIl'caEar, berg Enviroriniental 10anager c (1 t„ fats Dugpri t,,,S Ocneral Services Administration fhomx�, 11 O'N`eill, Jr. Federal Building R, Causc%vay Street, Room 295 Boe ,ton. Massachusetts 02222 sic , Sak: ot'I'lurn kland, Orient Point, NY Dcax-Mr, )'oun_gbcTg, Flits is in response to your letter dated March 30. -1010 regarding the US General Set -vice's Administration'-, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed competitive public sale ofillurn Island., Nc%k York as well as ancillary support faeility= at Orient point. Nex), York. Plum Island is an 840 -acre island of fthe North Fork of Long Island. Your letter Wcl LICSICd COITIRICTItS on the proposed action or the alteniatj\ es that will be considered in an EAS that is being prepared 16r the action. The ITIS will address the potential impacts to thc 01% 11,011371clit 06�No alternafixes: sale of the property tilic-action alternative"I and continued Federjlonership, flic action alternati-, c %v ill be further refined into a series ofreasonably f4esccablc land use options, Several species listed by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NN*S) under the Endangcj ed Species Ai:t (ESA) of 1973, as amended, occur scasonaliv in the waters surrounding Plum Islond. Without more information on the potential USCS of the property it is difficult to predict what effects the sale of the property may have on these species. Intormation on these listed sp,.•Ocs as well as marnic inarrinials and candidate species is provided belt,", Lled sln'( 1("V ' 1-isted sca turtles arc also found seasonally in the w Iters off O'Nevv York with the most abundant being the I-W-crally threatened loggerhead (Caretta varetia) followed by the federally cridangcred Kemp's ridley (Ixpidacheh,,e ketnp;), Federally endangered lewherback Ocrowcho'vs coriacea) and green (Chelonta ttw4kis'i sea turtles also occur seasonally in Neck - fork ivaters These species are knovvii to occur in Long Island Sound tri the vicinity of Plum Island, lypicall.v between May and November. Federal I) endangered Northern right whales (E-ubalacita glacialis) and humpback whales. Ojcsziqic -'a oovaeewgliao are found scasonaltv in the water,.,- off'of 'N'eik York. I'm whales 1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-99 July 13, 2012 t Ba!aenupiet-a plvsahis) may also he present near the project site. Sei (Ralaenoplei-a borealis) and Sperm (11h ' V'Ster macrocephatus) whales are also seasonally present off the coast of New Fork but are typically found in deeper oftshore waters, Large whales are rare visitors to Long Island Sound and are more often lbund in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean off the southern coast of Long Island, Candidate Species Candidate species are those petitioned species that are actively being considered for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA, as well as those species for which NMFS has initiated an FSA status review that it has announced in !be Eederal Register. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxvrinchas oxw-inchus) occur in the Hudson River as well as in the coastal watersol'Ncw York, including the Last River and Long Island Sound, In 2006, NMFS initiated a status review for Atlantic sturgeon to determine if listing as threatened or endangered under the ESik is warranted. The Status Revic-%, Report was published on February 23. 2007, NAWS is currently considering the information presented in the Status Review Report to determine ifany listing action pursuant to the ESA is warranted at this time. Ifilisdetermined that listing is warranted. a final rule listing the species could be publisbedwithin a year tiorn the date of publication of the proposed rule. Currently, NMFS expects to publish a finding as to whaher any listing action is appropriate by the Fall of 2010. Asa candidate species, Atlantic sturgeon receive no substantive or procedural protection under the ESA; however, NMFS recommends that project proponents consider implementing conservation actions to limit the pi:)tential for adverse ef(ects on Atlantic sturgeon from any proposed project. Please not that once a species is proposed for listing the conference provisions of the ESA apply (see 50 CFR 402JO). As the listing status for this species may change, NMFS recommends that GSA obtain ulxlated,itatus in,lbi-mation from NIMFS prior to the completion of the EIS. ,11at-me Ahwunahv Several species of marine mammals are common residents or occasional visitors to the waters off A New York iDCluding gray seals, harbor seals, and harbor porpoise. All marine mammals receive protection under the Marine Marninal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, as amended. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in U, S. waters and by U.S, citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U,S. N.MFS may issue permits under MMPA Section 104 {,lf) L).S,C. 1374) to persons that authorize the taking of specific species ofiriaritic manimals, Severalmarine niarninah, are likely to occur in the project area. The potential for etTects to marine mammals depends on the proposed use of the property, Additional inlZirmation regarding the MMPA permitting process may be obtained from NMFS' Office of Protected Resources Permits - Conservation, & Education Division (301-713-2289), Infortriation on the MMPA permitting process can also be found online at: littj2s:i'lai)Dsnmfs.nota.i.,ovi'guestionnaire,,_questionnair4l,*.cfm. Sec lion 7, Consultation As noted above, without additional infestation on the proposed use ofthe property it is difficult to deterintric how the sale of the property may aftect fish populations, marine mammals and sea turtles. Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESX, each Federal a- C-eneyis required to insure that any I - 0 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-100 July 13, 2012 0 action they authorize, fund Or Carry Out is not likely toicopardize tile continuvd vxistence of any endangered or threatened species. If GSA deterillines that the proposed sale may affect listed species, a section 7 consultation would be necessary. Should you have any questions regarding these comments or about the section 7 process, please contact Julie; Crocker ofm�- staff at (9'78)282-8480 or Julie.CrockcE2���. Rusanowskv- FNER4 EC, Crocker. F/NER3 It Its Codc SLt: 71 Minx at asm'st11K L' 6S 0, Plum Is la I Id IN y K"Is T NIA'11�2010 11)1�0r' Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-101 Sincerely. Mary A� Colligan Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources July 13, 2012 Haywood, Paul From: Jenkins, Josh Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:41 PM To: Bourdeau, Jonathan Cc: Bales, Nancy Subject: FW: "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island" From: phiI.youngberg@gsa.gov [mailto:phil.youngberg@gsa.gov] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:32 PM To: john.kelly@gsa.gov; john.dugan@gsa.gov; Stelmack, Mark; Jenkins, Josh Cc: carol.chirico@gsa.gov Subject: Fw: "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island" ----- Forwarded by Philip B. Youngberg/4P/R04/GSA/GOV on 04/26/2010 03:25 PM ----- To "Jason Ross"<JRoss(d-)delawarenation.com>@GSAEXTERNAL Philip B. Young berg/4P/R04/GSA/GOV cc 04/26/2010 03:24 PM Subject Re: "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island"Link Thank you. I will have the appropriate people at GSA contact you. Phil Youngberg 404-562-0787 office 404-433-8393 cell "Jason Ross" <JRosslai)delawarenation.com> 04/26/2010 03:05 PM Ir Hello Mr. Youngberg, To <phil.voungberg aC)gsa.aov> cc Subject "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island" 1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-102 July 13, 2012 • is The Delaware Nation has received correspondence regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale isof Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. The Cultural Preservation Director, Ms. Tamara Francis has reviewed the packet provided to us from GSA and has determined that this is in the Delaware Nation's area of interest. The Lenape people were aboriginal to this area in New York. • 0 The Delaware Nation will be a consulting party on this project and we look forward to hearing back from you regarding the project. Thank you again for consulting with the Delaware Nation, Jason Ross Museum/Section 106 Assistant Cultural Preservation Department The Delaware Nation P.O. Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005 PH# 405) 247-2448 FAX# 405) 247-8905 www.delawarenation.com 2 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-103 July 13, 2012 0 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 SUNY @ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 Phone: (631) 444-0403 • Fax: (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.ny.aov April 30, 2010 Phil Yougberg, Environmental Manager c/o John Dugan US General Services Administration (GSA) 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 i table 1W Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner RE: Response to your Request for Information for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York Dear Mr. Youngberg: Thank you for offering the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) the opportunity to provide input early in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process on potential impacts of the proposed sale of Plum Island. DEC has numerous regulatory and resource management authorities, responsibilities and interests on Plum Island which directly affect both the current use and any future uses. This letter will identify the various DEC programs with involvement on the island, and where possible, describe any particular concerns associated with the redevelopment. It will also outline any outstanding or unresolved issues related to the current animal disease research center use which must be resolved before the existing facility is closed and the property is sold. Please note that our comments, particularly on future uses and their impacts, should be considered preliminary as no specific redevelopment proposals or alternatives have been presented to date. For this reason, and the fact that New York State has been delegated the authority to administer several federal environmental regulatory, programs directly involved with the current and future activities on the island, we request to participate in the development of the scope of issues for the environmental impact statement (EIS). Environmental Quality Programs Most of DEC's Environmental Quality divisions (Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, Division of Water, Division of Air Resources, Division of Environmental Remediation) regulate aspects of the existing operation at Plum Island, as well as the, existing facility's closure and, depending on the specific proposals put forth for redevelopment, may be involved with the future uses of the island. DEC's Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, has been closely involved in the Regulated Medical Waste (RMW)permitting of the exit autoclaves, the proposed RMW permitting of Building 102 (Wastewater Biological Decontamination) and Building 101 (RMW Incinerators); the closure of multiple buildings on Plum Island under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the current regulatory oversight` under RMW and RCRA regulations. years of stewardship 1970-2010 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-104 July 13, 2012 Phil Yougberg April 30, 2010 Page 2 Our Division of Environmental Remediation has been involved with the investigation of specific sites on the island suspected of containing regulated wastes, which identified Waste Management Areas (WMAs) and Areas of Potential Concern (AOPCs). The following WMAs and AOPCs which were known to have contained treated RMW were excavated, with a report generated in December 2007: WMA 1 WMA 10/11 WMA 13 AOPC 10* AOPC 13 AOPC 6 WMA 6 WMA4/AOPC 11 *The following comments are excerpted from the referenced report: WMA10/11: This area, known as Stony Fields, includes stone and gravel with some 10% RMW which could not be segregated. It was mentioned it would be prudent to install one or more monitoring wells between the site and PIADC's two existing well fields. These wells would serve to ensure that the stony waste repository or the low is levels of residual contamination observed in the former landfill soils do not lead to future groundwater contamination. The wells could be sampled annually to ensure protection of the island's sole source potable aquifer. AOPC 10: Low-level PCB exceedance observed in one 1999 groundwater sample might warrant consideration of a targeted sampling initiative to determine with certainty whether this compound is present in this environmental media. It is not known whether this target sampling was conducted. The EIS for the sale of Plum Island must evaluate these potential sources of contamination, describe any necessary remediation measures, and examine how potential adverse impacts from future disturbance should best be mitigated. 2. Any landfills existing on the island which have not been completely remediated must be surveyed and a deed restriction placed on these locations. 3. There were outstanding issues with regard to groundwater during the RCRA closure. The closure certification addressed specific buildings, but did not include the groundwater. This issue must be addressed island -wide. 4. Permits issued to the facility include closure requirements for the specific areas under the permit. All closure activities must be completed prior to closure/transfer of the island. 5. Building 257: A draft closure plan for the Building 257 and incinerator was provided in January 1996. To date, this building has not undergone any closure activities. All closure • activities must be completed prior to closure/transfer of the island. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-105 July 13, 2012 Phil Yougberg is April 30, 2010 Page 3 The Plum Island facility maintains a current, valid Major Oil Storage Facility License. This oil storage facility will have to be closed and properly decommissioned in conformance with all applicable regulations before the island is sold and redeveloped. It should also be noted that here is an on-going groundwater remediation project underway behind Building 101 associated with a fuel oil spill reported in 1995 and some other past fuel oil spills. While the petroleum product recovery continues, the effectiveness of the current remediation system has begun to decline significantly. The operator recently completed a supplemental subsurface investigation to determine an alternative remediation method to complete the clean up. This remedial action will have to be completed to DEC's satisfaction before the area can be redeveloped. The island's wastewater treatment plant is regulated by DEC pursuant to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. In order to be in compliance with the plant's SPDES permit and associated regulations, the current and future owner of the island must ensure that an appropriately trained and certified operator is present at the facility at all times, including during and after the sale of the island. Operation of the wastewater treatment plant may be suspended, and the plant placed in inactive service status, if the owner first requests and obtains the required approval from the Department. Please also be advised that NYSDEC has established a policy which provides instructions to staff for reviewing an environmental impact statement when it includes a discussion of energy use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The policy provides guidance as to methods to assess and mitigate the impacts of energy use or GHG emissions when reviewing an EIS. Please see the attached web link to the DEC Policy and contact information for staff in NYSDEC's Central Office who can provided additional information on this issue. Natural Resource Programs Depending upon the location and type of projects proposed, the future redevelopment of the island can also be expected to fall under several additional Department jurisdictions, including Articles 24 and 25 of New York State's Environmental Conservation Law, known as the Freshwater Wetlands Act and the Tidal Wetlands Act, respectively. As such, any regulated activities proposed within the jurisdiction of these laws would be subject to the development restrictions and standards of permit issuance provided in the implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 663.5 (Freshwater Wetlands) and 6 NYCRR Part 661.6 (Tidal Wetlands). Accordingly, the scope of issues for the EIS should require an analysis of the impacts of the full potential build -out of the island under existing Town of Southold zoning on the following resources or areas of concern: - Significant fish and wildlife habitats on and in the vicinity of Plum Island, including federal and state designated Coastal Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitats and Natural Heritage Program -listed habitat assemblages (see below), endangered / threatened / special concern species of animals or plants, all wetland areas (tidal and freshwater), important bird habitat, essential fish habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation. Please see the attached web links to the applicable Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Descriptions, and an excerpt from the New York Natural Heritage Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-106 July 13, 2012 Phil Yougberg April 30, 2010 Page 4 Program's description of the maritime dune community which exists in the southeastern portion of the island. Particular attention should be paid to the identification of activities likely to cause adverse resource impacts contained therein. A map of Plum Island showing the locations of significant eel grass beds known to DEC is also attached for your information. - Any EIS prepared for the transfer and/or redevelopment of Plum Island must demonstrate that the proposed action is consistent with New York State's Coastal Policies as detailed and refined in the Town of Southold's approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). - An analysis of water -quality -related issues associated with the redevelopment. For example, discharge of pollutants, excess nutrient discharge, increases in impervious surface coverage, capacity to manage and treat stormwater runoff, sewage treatment capacity and handling options. The effects of possible surface -water -quality -related changes and their effects on shellfish beds, eel grass beds, native fishery resources and aquaculture. This should also include the identification and analysis of impacts to groundwater and the aquifer. - An analysis of transportation -related infrastructure and use, including needed marina facilities, private docks, ferry facilities, bridge/s and the use of cars and ferries. Identify and discuss the impacts to natural resources from the construction of the identified transportation infrastructure as well as its use. Examples: dredging associated with new or expanded marina or ferry facilities, the • construction of a bridge/s and the related impacts of increased automobile use on the island (air pollution, petroleum pollution, etc.). s - Identify and analyze use conflicts which may develop as a result of the redevelopment. What effects will new or expanded ferry routes have on the existing uses of the area surrounding Plum Island, such as commercial and recreational fishing, wild fish resources, shellfish resources and aquaculture? Plum Gut, The Race and nearby waters are prized as recreational fishing areas. How would the development of more transportation infrastructure or new energy infrastructure (underwater cables, generation turbines, etc.) affect the traditional uses of the waters around the island? - What will be the natural resource impacts from energy-related infrastructure, such as underwater cables, turbines, or wind mills? How will the demand for energy from the new development be met? - How will the impacts of sea level rise be addressed in redevelopment plans? - Describe and analyze how the closure and presumed dismantling of the current research laboratory use will impact the natural resources of the island and surrounding waters identified above. - Identify and discuss a range of reuse alternatives which includes: the sale or other transfer of ownership of the island to another public entity or land preservation organization for conservation purposes, the establishment of deeded easements over portions of the island to protect important natural resources, and the no action alternative. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-107 July 13, 2012 Phil Yougberg April 30, 2010 Page 5 The following additional specific Issues of concern have also been identified by our staff: • The following species, which are listed as threatened or endangered by New York State, have been documented to occur on Plum Island. Any proposed redevelopment of Plum Island must evaluate potential adverse impacts to these species: Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)- listed as NYS Threatened —Plum Island is a probable breeding site. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)- listed as NYS Endangered and US Endangered/Threatened - Plum Island is a probable breeding site. • Plum Island is an historical breeding site for the Great Egret (Ardea albus) and Snowy Egret (Egrets thula), both protected species in New York State. • There are a number of NYS regulated freshwater wetlands on the island (FVWV#'s PL -1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). Any proposed redevelopment of Plum Island must evaluate potential adverse impacts to these wetlands. • The existing sanitary treatment lagoon for the lab overflows into regulated freshwater • wetlands. The EIS for the sale of Plum Island should indicate whether this lagoon will be utilized in future development, and if the lagoon will not be utilized, the EIS should describe how the site will be remediated. It should also be noted that an area of archeological sensitively has been identified in the central portion of Plum Island. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 14.09 of the New York State Historic Preservation Act, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is tasked with ensuring that effects or impacts on archeological sites are considered and avoidance or mitigation measures are developed during the project planning process. Any proposed redevelopment of Plum Island will likely necessitate review by the staff of the SHPO Archeology Unit to determine whether or not the project site falls within a known area of archeological sensitivity. If development is proposed within an area of archeological sensitivity, the project must be further evaluated to determine the extent of any potential impact(s), and to identify measures to be taken to avoid or mitigate such impacts. Thank you for soliciting our comments on the development of the scope for the DEIS. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 631-444-0403 or slaicher(aD_gw.dec.state. nv.us. Very truly yours, Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst Attachments Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-108 July 13, 2012 • Link to DEC Policy on the Review of an EIS with Respect to Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration pdf/eisghgpolicy. pdf NYSDEC's Central Office contacts for technical assistance on the assessment of GHG's in the EIS process: Division of Air Mark Lanzaframe Environmental Engineer I Division of Air Resources Phone: 518-402-8403 mrlanzaf(a)gw.dec. state. ny. us Office of Climate Change John Marschilok Environmental Engineer II Office of Climate Change Phone: 518-402-8448 ixmarsch@)(iw. dec. state. ny. us Links to the Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat Descriptions for Plum Gut and The Race: • New York Natural Heritage Program Habitat Description of Plum Island Maritime Dune Community The maritime dune community is located at the southeastern end of the island. This dune community is fairly large, in good condition, disturbed by old roads, and mostly encircled by roads. According to the New York Heritage Program, "Any development effort that disrupts connectivity between the open ocean and the maritime dune system should be avoided (e.g., a road running parallel to the beach between the beach and dunes). This community is best protected as part of a large beach, dune, salt marsh complex. Development should avoid fragmentation of such systems to allow dynamic ecological processes (overwash, erosion, and migration) to continue. Connectivity to brackish and freshwater tidal communities, upland beaches and dunes, and to shallow offshore communities should be maintained. Connectivity between these habitats is important not only for nutrient flow and seed dispersal, but also for animals that move between them seasonally. Similarly, fragmentation of linear dune systems should be avoided. Bisecting trails, roads, and developments allow exotic species to invade, potentially increase 'edge species' (such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes), and disrupt physical dune processes." Thus, any proposal to redevelop Plum Island must evaluate potential adverse impacts to the maritime dune community. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-109 July 13, 2012 http://nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/sig hab/Longlsland/Plum Gut.pd http://nyswaterfronts.com/downloads/pdfs/sig hab/Longlsland/The Race pdf • New York Natural Heritage Program Habitat Description of Plum Island Maritime Dune Community The maritime dune community is located at the southeastern end of the island. This dune community is fairly large, in good condition, disturbed by old roads, and mostly encircled by roads. According to the New York Heritage Program, "Any development effort that disrupts connectivity between the open ocean and the maritime dune system should be avoided (e.g., a road running parallel to the beach between the beach and dunes). This community is best protected as part of a large beach, dune, salt marsh complex. Development should avoid fragmentation of such systems to allow dynamic ecological processes (overwash, erosion, and migration) to continue. Connectivity to brackish and freshwater tidal communities, upland beaches and dunes, and to shallow offshore communities should be maintained. Connectivity between these habitats is important not only for nutrient flow and seed dispersal, but also for animals that move between them seasonally. Similarly, fragmentation of linear dune systems should be avoided. Bisecting trails, roads, and developments allow exotic species to invade, potentially increase 'edge species' (such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes), and disrupt physical dune processes." Thus, any proposal to redevelop Plum Island must evaluate potential adverse impacts to the maritime dune community. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-109 July 13, 2012 2006 USFWS Eelgrass Survey Legend = 2006 USFWS Eelgrass Survey Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-110 July 13, 2012 • • is 71— A David Paterson WW swt Governor New York State Office of Parks, Carol Ash Recreation and Historic Preservation Cornrnissloner Historic Preeenation Field Services - Peebles Island, PO Box ISO, Waterford, New York 121880189 518-237-8643 www,nysparks.com May 6, 2010 W Phil Youngberg, Environmental Manager c/o Mr. John Dugan General Services Administration (GSA) 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 Boston, MA 02222 Re: GSA Sale of Plum Island Orient Point, Suffolk County IOPRO2105 Dear Mr. Youngberg: Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the proposed sale of Plum Island. We are reviewing the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to, Histotic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8). We offer the following comments: 1. The Light Station on Plum Island is listed in the New York State Register of Historic Places, Using both the Historic Structure Report for the Plum Island Light Station and the Historic Preservation Plan for Plum Island, New York, prepared by FPM/GAI in 2003, we understand there are a number of other structures which are eligible for listing in the registers: a. Plum Island Lighthouse Complex b. Batteries Floyd and Eldridge, Battery Construction No. 217 c. Shelter Searchlights 13 and 14 2. Based on our review of previously submitted material, it does not appear that the potential for significant archaeological deposits to be present on Plum Island has been addressed. Please contact Douglas Mackey at extension 3291 if you have any questions regarding this issue. An Equal OpWunky EmployerlAffirrnathe Action Agency Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-111 July 13, 2012 3: Therefore, SHPO recommends that any action to remove Plum Island from Federal ownership • should include covenant or other language mandating consultation with the SHPO regarding possible effects to historic and cultural resources as well as to archaeological deposits for any future ground disturbing activities. We understand there is a public meeting scheduled in the near future as a member of the SHPO staff should be present. Please contact me at 518-237-8643 (ext 3287) or by email at elizabeth.martinnoprh .sp tate.ny.us should you have any questions. Refer to the project (PR) number above when corresponding about the project. Sincerely, Elizabeth Martin Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator Via email only LJ • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-112 July 13, 2012 • June 22, 2010 GSA New England Region Ms. Elizabeth Martin Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189 Waterford, NY 12188 'Re: Sale of Plum Island, NY Suffolk County SHPO Project No.: 10PRO2105 Dear Ms. Martin, Thank you for your letter dated May 6, 2010 regarding the proposed sale of Plum Island, NY. Your office identified three sets of structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (collectively, the "Eligible Structures"), they include: 1) Plum Island Lighthouse Complex; 2) Batteries Floyd and Eldridge, Battery Construction No. 217; 3) Shelter Searchlights 13 and 14. • Furthermore, your office recommended that, "...any action to remove Plum Island from federal ownership should include covenant or other language mandating consultation with SHPO regarding possible effects to historic and cultural resources as well as to archaeological deposits for any future ground disturbing activities." The General Services Administration (GSA) accepts this recommendation and pursuant to GSA's obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, so amended, and in particular 36 CFR Part 800, GSA has determined that this disposal action will have no adverse effect on the Eligible Structures. The attached covenants, which mandate consultation with your office regarding possible effects on historic and cultural resources, will be included in the deed transferring title out of federal ownership. In regards to the Plum Island Lighthouse and associated structures, the Department of Homeland Security is currently preparing a nomination package and will forward this to your office upon completion. On the topic of significant archaeological deposits, GSA will be preparing a predictive model during the Environmental Impact Statement to identify areas where potentially significant archaeological deposits may be present. If any areas are identified that may encompass significant archaeological deposits, GSA will consult with you to develop a covenant to be included in the deed that will protect the potential archaeological resource. Finally, on March 30, 2010, GSA sent early coordination letters to fourteen Native American tribes prior to initiating the NEPA scoping process. We received one response, an email from the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma requesting that they be a consulting party, We have attached that email for your review and request your assistance in determining how to best facilitate that consultation under Section 106. U.S. General Services Administration Thomas R O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston. MA 02222 www.gsa.gov Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-113 July 13, 2012 If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at 617.565.8094 or john.kelly@gsa.gov. Sincerely, 4 n . elly, Director Real Property Utilization X& Disposal Public Buildings Service Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-114 July 13, 2012 • PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COVENANT POR PLUM ISLAND DEED Grantee shall maintain and preserve the Property in accordance with the recommended approaches in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, 9995, Standards for Preservation (technical Preservation Services for Historic Buildings, National. Park Service) in order to preserve and enhance the distinctive materials, features and spaces that make the Property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. When rehabilitation is the appropriate treatment, Grantee shall rehabilitate the Property in accordance with the recommended approaches in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, 9995, Standards for Rehabilitation (Technical Preservation Services for Historic Buildings, National Park Service). Rehabilitation is appropriate when repair and replacement of deteriorated features is necessary or when alteration or additions to the property are planned. 3. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Property shall be preserved. 4, Plans of proposed rehabilitation, construction, alteration or replacement of distinctive materials, features, finishes or spaces which would affect the appearance or structural integrity of the Property shall be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer ("SHPO") for consistency with in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995. • 5. Archaeological resources shall be protected and preserved in place. All projects involving ground -disturbing activity shall be reviewed by the SHPO. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures must be undertaken with the express prior written permission of the SHPO. 6. The SHPO shall be permitted at all times to inspect the Property in order to ascertain if the above conditions are being observed. • 7. In the event that the Property, or any associated historic artifact associated with the Property ceases to be maintained in compliance with the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this section, in addition to any remedy now or hereafter provided by law, the SHPO may; following reasonable notice to Grantee, institute suit to enjoin said violation or to require restoration of the Property. 8. The covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein shall be inserted by the Grantee verbatim or by express reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of either the fee simple title or any other lesser estate in the Property. 9. The Grantee agrees that the SHPO may, at its discretion, without prior notice to the Grantee, convey and assign all or part of its rights and responsibilities contained herein to a third party. 10, The failure of the SHPO to exercise any right or remedy granted under this instrument shall not have the effect of waiving or limiting the exercise of any other right or remedy or the use of such right or remedy at any other time. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-115 July 13, 2012 11. The covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Historic Preservation Covenant shall constitute a binding servitudeuponthe Property and shall be deemed to run with the land. 12. The above covenants shall be binding in perpetuity; however, the SHPO may, for good cause, modify, suspend, or cancel any or all of the covenants upon written application of the Grantee. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-116 July 13, 2012 • • 0 Philip B. Youngberg14PfR041GSA/G0V 04/2612010 03:24 PM To "Jason Ross"<JRoss@delawarenation.com>@GSAEXTERNAL cc Subject Re. "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island" Thank you. I will have the appropriate people at GSA contact you. Phil Youngberg 404-562-0787 office 404-433-8393 cell "Jason Ross" <JRoss@delawarenation.aom> 04126/2010 03:05 PM To <phil.youngberg@gsa-goV> cc Subject "Enviro Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island" Hello Mr. Youngberg, TheDelaware Nation has received correspondence regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sale of Plum Island, Orient Point, New York. The Cultural Preservation Director, Ms. Tamara Francis has reviewed.the packet provided to us from GSA and has determined that this -is in the Delaware Nation's area of interest. The Lenape people were aboriginal to this area in New York.. The Delaware Nation will be a consulting party on this project and we look forward to hearing Back fro n you regarding the project. /;hank you again for consulting with the Delaware Nation, Jason Ross Museum/Section 106 Assistant Cultural Preservation Department The Delaware Nation P.O. Box 825 Anadarko, OK 73005 PH# 405) 247-2448 FAX# 405) 247-8905 www.delawarenation.com Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-117 July 13, 2012 0 New YORK STATE New York State. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services • Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 www.nysparks.com November 1, 2010' Mr. John E. Kelly, Director Real Property Utilization & Disposal General Services Administration (GSA) 10 Causeway Street, Room 925 f Boston, MA 02222 Re: GSA Sale of Plum Island . 'Orient Point, Suffolk County 10PR02105 . Dear Mr. Kelly: David Paterson Governor Carol -Ash ' Commissioner Through Mr. Ian Rosenblum of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS}, we are in receipt of . your letter dated June 22, 2010, which never arrived here at the New York State Historic Preservation Office- (SHPO). We offer our apologies for the delay in responding to your queries. We concur with the GSA's determination that the proposed sale of Plum Island, New. York, will have No ,Adverse Wect on -the historic and cultural resources provided the proposed historic preservation'covenant submitted with your letter is included in the deed upon transfer out of federal ownership. One of the conditions included in the covenanris the inspection of the property by the SHPO.. Virginia Bartos, Douglas Mackey and I would very much like to visit Plum Island prior to the de -accessioning of the property to assess the historic and cultural resources not included in the proposed National Register nomination. Would you kindly let me know about scheduling such a ,visit? In addition, you requested our assistance with Section 106 consultation and the Native American tribes. We recommend you provide the tribal representatives from the Delaware Nation with the. same materials you sent to the SHPO with a request for comments. According to Douglas Mackey (the SETO archaeology unit), both the Lenape and Shinnecock people -have connections to Long Island, however, the Shinnecock Nation, federally recognized in 2010, is more likely to have inhabited the eastern end of the land mass according to their response to SHFO queries. As I do not have a list of the tribes contacted, we do recommend notification'of the Shinnecock Nation if An Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action Agency Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-118 .I July 13, 2012 f !; • the have not been notified already: Randy King, Chairperson, Shinnecock Nation Tribal Office Post Office Box 5006, Southampton, NY, 11969. We look forward to ongoing consultation as the sale process continues. Please contact me at 518- 237-8643 (ext 3287) or by email at-elizabeth.mardn@opLh .2. state.gy.us should you have any questions. Refer to the project (PR) number above when corresponding about the project. Sincerely, Elizabeth Martin Historic Sites. Restoration Coordinator Cc: Ian Rosenblum, Acting Chief Administrative Officer, USDHS, Science & Technology Directorate Via email only Draft EIS'for the Sale of Plum Island, New York C-119 July 13, 201.2 lr�di�tt N�tlo� fCii ��b� Gc�u�tat�c�n Ptarpase5 C�ii��t' abowndarynhopkamomwit Me acocent fo lan Nation(s). ('1 N O Dobware Indian Nation Haudermaunee Stwift Qcawxis`ttee on Burial Rules Regulations Orelda In3n Nation 4Eoekiuid Uatru ufuly Band of A9 Moan Indian PrWw.d by #t. N4. Yok SWa 1HNAeak Psnmesva 00- En a H. yew cierany Ra ►yizrd 9nsgarr NaMons State Recogr z�Indfan a he indhm Nelms efNow Yotk SWo w • .7 0 X C Q Q 2 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York APPENDIX D TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK July 13, 2012 • • • Plum Island is located off the eastern point of Long Island, New York. To get to the Employer's facilities, employees take either a 20 -minute ferry boat ride from Orient Point, Long island, or a 45 -minute ride from Old Saybrook, Connecticut. The Employer furnishes the transportation from both locations. From PIADC website, there are about 60 research professionals on island. They all rely on ferry on and off the island. That counts for 60 inbound trips and 60 outbound trips per day. Assuming facility security and maintain person as 30, that is another 30 inbound trips and 30 outbound trips daily. In addition, visitors and delivery trucks could be estimated as another 40 inbound trips and 40 outbound trips per day. Finally, ferry operation will count for 5 inbound trips and 5 outbound trips In total, under existing conditions, there are 135 inbound trips in the morning and 135 outbound trips in the afternoon. The total trips are 270 ADT. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-1 July 13, 2012 Under No Action Alternate, Facilty will be not in use any more but still need securtiy and maintain personnel on island on regular base. Assuming 20 in total for security guard, maintain and ferry operation persons, the new daily trips will be 20 inbounds in the monring and 20 outbounds in the afternoon. The total trips are 40 ADT �ft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York 0 July 13, 2012 0 0 0 Traffic Assignment Assumptions Assumption #1: Among all traffic generated by Plum Island under existing conditions, no action option, adaptive reuse option, and conservation/preservation option, 95-100% are through ferry transport on/off the island. Among all traffic generated by Plum Island under low-density zoning and high-density zoning 60% are through ferry transport on/off the island; 40% are internal traffic within the island. Assumption #2: Among all traffic on and off Plum Island through ferry, 50% from/to Orient Point, New York; 50% from/to Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-3 July 13, 2012 Examples of potential reuse options for Plum Island include a private sector laboratory, an academic research facility, or a business complex with a commercial component for Island tourists, among others. Adaptive reuse will use the existing facility so that every option will have same gross floor area. Private sector laboratory and aacademic research facility have similar land use feature as existing PIADC, coded as 760 per ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition Volume 3. While business complex has a relatively different land use feature. ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition Volume 3. Trip Generation Land Use Code 760 Research and Development Center 770 Business Park Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily 1.24 1.08 8.11 1.43 1.29 12.76 Trip Generation Ratio AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily 1.15 1.19 1.57 Therefore, adaptive reuse under business park option will generate 1.57 times trips per day comparing the existing PIADC facility. The total trips will be 270x1.57 = 424 ADT. 16ft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York � July 13, 2012 Development calculations for this option feature residential densities at less than one unit per 2 acres. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land and a residential density of approximately 1 unit per 2 acres, this option could accommodate approximately 90 residential units, including the required support infrastructure. ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition Volume 2. Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs Average Vehile Trip Ends Dwelling Units Trip Generation Land Use Code AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily 270 Residential Planned unit Development (PUD) 0.51 0.62 7.50 46 56 675 Therefore, low-density zoing option will generate a total trip of 675 ADT. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-5 July 13, 2012 Development calculations for this option are based upon resort residential densities with up to four units per acre. Based on the availability of approximately 195 acres of unrestricted land and a residential density of approximately 4 units per acre, this option could yield approximately 750 residential units, including the required support infrastructure. ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition Volume 2. Trip Generation Land Use Code 270 Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs Average Vehile Trip Ends Dwelling Units AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily AM PEAK PM PEAK Daily 0.51 0.62 7.50 383 465 5625 Therefore, high-density zoing option will generate a total trip of 5625 ADT. a EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 201.2 0 0 0 Under this option, existing facilities on this Island may be removed, existing trasnportation servies terminated, and no active or passive public visitaion or recreation facilites would be created, and general public access would be limited. Occational trips would be limited to required maintenance and/or security activities. This Conservation/Preservation option will approximately generate 5 trips daily. Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-7 July 13, 2012 Map Map Page 1 of 1 AADT 0-2000 2001 - 5000 -^°5001 - 15000 15001 - 50000 -"50001 - 300000 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-8 July 13, 2012 http://gis.dot.ny.gov/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLayoutTemplates/defauit.htm 1/6/2011 • • • Road Name NY DOT # From To Direction AADT Existing 2025 No 2025 Adaptive 2025 Low- 2025 High- 2008 Action Reuse density Zoning density Zoning 2025 Conservation - Preservation NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 2 -way 7479 11960 12141 12142 13627 11945 NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd 2 -way 4179 6595 6776 6777 1 8262 1 6580 NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 2 -way 3631 5704 5885 5886 7371 5689 900C #070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 2 -way 220 358 378 378 526 358 Plum Island Typ. 2 -lane Rd Within Island 2 -way 14 2 21 270 2250 0 Road Name NY DOT # From To Direction Peak Hour VPH Existing 2025 No 2025 Adaptive 2025 Low 2025 High- 2008 Action Reuse density Zoning density Zoning 2025 Conservation - Preservation NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 NB 378 580 611 587 709 571 NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 SB 368 1 564 595 570 693 555 NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd EB 206 300 331 307 430 292 NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd WB 205 299 330 305 428 290 NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 EB 195 282 313 289 412 274 NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 WB 173 247 278 253 376 238 900C 1#070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 NB 15 24 28 26 38 24 900C 1#070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 SB 15 24 28 26 38 24 Plum Island Typ. 2 -lane Rd Within Island One-way 4 2 10 20 169 1 Road Name NY DOT # From To Direction Volume to Capacity Ratio v/c 2025 High- Existing 2025 No 2025 Adaptive 2025 Low - 2008 Action Reuse density Zoning density Zoning 2025 Conservation - Preservation NY 25 #070052 1 RT 114 CR 48 NB 0.25 0.38 0.40 0.38 0.46 0.37 NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 SB 0.24 1 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.45 0.36 NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd EB 0.15 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.21 NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd WB 0.15 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.21 NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 EB 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.30 0.20 NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 WB 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.17 900C #070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 NB 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 900C 1#070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 SB 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 Plum Island Typ. 2 -lane Rd Within Island One-way 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-9 July 13, 2012 Road Name NY DOT# From To Direction 0.13 C Level of Service (LOS) D 0.43 2025 High- Existing 2025 No 2025 Adaptive 2025 Low - 2008 Action Reuse density Zoning density Zoning 2025 Conservation - Preservation NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 NB C D D D E D NY 25 #070052 RT 114 CR 48 SB C D D D E D NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd EB C C C C D C NY 25 #070296 CR 48 Narrow River Rd WB C C C C D C NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 EB C C C C D C NY 25 #070295 Narrow River Rd Orient Pt End 25 WB B C C C C C 900C#070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 NB A A A A A A 900C #070940 Orient Park Rd NY 25 SB A A A A A A Plum Island Typ. 2 -lane Rd Within Island One-way A A A A B A Level of Service V/C Ratio A 0.03 B 0.13 C 0.28 D 0.43 E 0.90 F - Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-10 July 13, 2012 is 0 • 0 0 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Highway / Direction of Travel 900C NB Agency or Company MACTEC From/To SH 1902 ORIENT PARK RD - Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT NY25 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070940 nal sis Year 2008 Input Data ------------- -----ShoulderWldth ft 1- Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain F Level r Rolling Length mi Up/down �- Lane width h - Lane width It Shoulder width 11:Grade -------------------- --- Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90% No -passing zone 100 9iaw NorthArrow % Trucks and Buses, PT 19% Segment length, Lt mi % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Analysis direction vol., Vd 15veh/h Access points/ mi 25 Opposing direction vol., Vo 15veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.883 0.883 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v (pc/h) vi=V /(PHF*fHv* fG) 19 19 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Observed volume 3, Vf veh/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vf/ fHv) 38.8 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-ft_S fA) 38.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 2.4 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -f' 36.1 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 17 17 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 8.3 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 41.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 49.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 B Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.01 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 4 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 15 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 0.1 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawlspeeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-11 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2kAA.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Highway/ Direction of Travel 900C NB Agency or Company MACTEC From/To SH 1902 ORIENT PARK RD - Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT NY25 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070940 nal sis Year 2025 Input Data ------------ ------Shoulder width ft F Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain F Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down �- Lane width at Lane width 1t Shoulder width tt ------------------------- Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90% No -passing zone 100 Show NorthArrmx % Trucks and Buses, PT 19% Segment length, !� mi % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Analysis direction vol., Vd 25veh/h Access points/ mi 25 Opposing direction vol., Vo 25veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(Er 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.883 0.883 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHV* fG) 31 31 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume 3, Vt veh/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vf1fHV) 38.8 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 38.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 2.4 milh Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 35.9 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Anal sis Direction d O osin Direction(o) Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factorl, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF"fHV* fG) 28 28 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 11.3 dj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 41.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 52.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 B Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.02 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.251c(V/PHF) 7 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 25 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) Tr15= VMT15/ATS 0.2 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawlspeeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-12 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2kAA.tmp 8/4/2010 • • 0 • �J Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel 900C SB From/To SH 1902 ORIENT PARK RD - NY25 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070940 Analysis Year 2008 Input Data ------------ ------------ -----Shoulder width 1t r Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain i� Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90% No -passing zone 100 Slow North Arrow % Trucks and Buses, PT 19% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 Lane width #t Lane width it Shoulder width tt ----------- -------- - - - - -- Segment length, Lt tali Analysis direction vol., Vd 15veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 15veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.883 0.883 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v(pclh) vi=Vi/(PHF'fHV* fG) 19 19 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, Vt vehlh Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vr/ fHV) 38.8 mi/h djustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 2.4 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLS (Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-ft_S fA) 38.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 36.1 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Anal sis Direction d O osin Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF`fHV' fG) 17 17 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 8.3 Adj. for no -passing zone, fp(%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 41.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 49.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 B Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.01 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 4 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V"Lt 15 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 0.1 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-13 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k9l.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel 900C SB From/To SH 1902 ORIENT PARK RD - NY25 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070940 Analysis Year 2025 fnput Data -------------------------- ----- Shoulderwidtiiti r Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain r Level F Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90% No -passing zone 100 Sham North Arrow % Trucks and Buses, PT 19% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 �- Lane width ft �- Lane width It width it ----------- - - - - - - - �- 5egm erit length, 4 mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 25veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 25veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv=1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.883 0.883 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow ratez, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 31 31 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, V veh/h fdj. Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/ fHv) 38.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnp (Exhibit 20-19) 2.4 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 45.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width, f�S(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFS, (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 38.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 35.9 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v(pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF*fHv fG) 28 28 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 11.3 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 41.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 52.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 B Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V / 1,700 0.02 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25L,(V/PHF) 7 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 25 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 0.2 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-14 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k91.tmp 8/4/2010 is is • • • • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC" Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010."r Analysis Time Period AADT / Direction of Travel NY 25 NB From/To RT 114 --> CR 48 -d NYDOT STA 070052 nal sis Year 2008 Input Data h4uldervul'.dth - - -.-.- #t. - - - - - - - - - - - -[Shoulder r Class I highway it° Class II highway Terrain Level Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 Sh. North k,DW % Trucks and Buses, PT 23% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 30 �-- Lane width 1t Lane width It width ft ------------------------ Segment length, It m1 Analysis direction vol., Vd 378veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 368veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposin Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.956 0.956 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rateZ, vi(pc/h) vi=V/(PHF*fHV* fG) 430 418 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, V veh/h fAdj. Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/ fHV) 42.5 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 2.6 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 50.0 mi/h 3 Adj. for lane width and shoulder width, ft_s(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 7.5 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps-fA) 42.5 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 33.3 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER_1)) 0.978 0.978 Grade adjustment factor', fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate 2, v(pc/h) vi V/(PHF*fHV* fG) 420 409 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 64.8 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 26.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 90.8 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V / 1,700 0.25 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT,s (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 205 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 756 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 6.2 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-15 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k5D.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 NB From/To RT 114 --> CR 48 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070052 JAnalysis Year 2025 Input Data ------------ ----- -----ShouldeTvaidth ix r Class I highway l� Class II highway Terrain r Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 9imx North Aware % Trucks and Buses, PT 23% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 30 �-- Lane width #t Lane width 1t Shoulder width 1t ----------- --------- - -- Segment length,. Lt mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 615veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 598veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.978 0.978 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) v=V/(PHF*fHv* fG) 684 665 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHv) 42.5 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 1.6 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 50.0 mi/h 3 dj. for lane width and shoulder width, fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 7.5 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps-fA) 42.5 mi/h verage travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 30.4 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 1.000 1.000 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi V /(PHF*fHv* fG) 668 650 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"d b) 79.1 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 16.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 95.0 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.40 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 334 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60=V*Lt 1230 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 11.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-16 July 13, 2012 f le://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2kBE.tmp 8/4/2010 171 L] • 0 11 0 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information 191te Information Analyst MACTECHighway Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT / Direction of Travel NY 25 SB From/To RT 114 --> CR 48 unsdiction NYDOT STA 070052 nal sis Year 2008 Input Data ----------- -- Sltaulderwidth-----tt F Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain r Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 % Trucks and Buses, P 19% Shaw North Arrow T % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 30 - Lane width fit Lane width ft Shoulder width ft ----------- -------- - - - - -- Segment length, Lt mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 368veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 378veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/(1+PT(ET1)+PR(ER1)) 0.963 0.963 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v (pc/h) v V /(PHF*fHv* fG) 415 426 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume 3, Vt veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/ fHv) 42.5 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 2.6 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 50.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 ft_S(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h dj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 7.5 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLS-fA) 42.5 mi/h verage travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 33.4 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Anal sis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factor', fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v (pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 408 419 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 64.9 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 25.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 90.5 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.24 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 200 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 736 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TTts VMT15/ATS 6.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS20007M Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-17 July 13, 2012 file:X:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k32.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 SB From/To RT 114 --> CR 48 Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070052 Analysis Year 2025 Input Data -- - - - - - - - - - Shoulder width - - - -- ft r Class I highway F Class II highway F Level F Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 % Trucks and Buses, P 19% Show North Arrow T % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 30 Lane width ft t-ShDulder Lane width ft width h ----------------------- Segment length,. 4 mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 598veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 615veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.981 0.981 Grade adjustment factor 1, f (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v(pc/h) vi V/(PHF*fHV* fG) 662 681 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume 3, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/fHV) 42.5 mi/h djustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 1.6 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 50.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 7.5 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLS-fl) 42.5 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 30.5 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 1.000 1.000 Grade adjustment factor', fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vl(pc/h) v=V/(PHF*fHv* fG) 650 668 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 79.3 dj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 15.4 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 94.6 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V / 1,700 0.39 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 325 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 1196 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 10.6 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-18 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k32.tmp 8/4/2010 • • • • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 EB From/To NARROW RIVER RD -ORIENT PT END Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070295 Analysis Year 2008 Input Data -----Shoulder width ft�- ------------[ShouldeT F Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain F Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 Show North Arrow % Trucks and Buses, PT 20% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 Laine width 1t -= Lane width h width h ------------------------ Segment length, 4 m1 Analysis direction vol., Vd 195veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 173veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.877 0.877 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow ratez, v(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 242 214 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume', Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vt/ fHv) 53.8 mi/h djustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 4.0 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 f �s (Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points', fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 46.2 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Anal sis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.980 0.980 Grade adjustment factors, f (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate 2, v (pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 216 192 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 37.6 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 35.7 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 73.2 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.14 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.25L1(V/PHF) 106 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 390 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 2.3 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawlspeeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4 ld Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-19 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k86.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC y Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 EB NARROW RIVER RD -ORIENT PT From/To END Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070295 Analysis Year 2025 Input Data -------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -Shoulderruidth ft�-- r Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain F Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor,PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 5hmv North Arrow % Trucks and Buses, PT 20% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 - Lane width It Lane width t# Shoulderwidth tt ------------------------- Segment length, Lt mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 317veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 281veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.962 0.962 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow ratez, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHv* fG) 358 318 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vi fHv) 53.8 mi/h djustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 3.3 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h 3 dj. for lane width and shoulder width, fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h dj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 45.2 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Anal is Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHv 1 / (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.980 0.980 Grade adjustment factorl, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF*fHV* fG) 351 312 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 63.8 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 27.8 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 91.5 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V / 1,700 0.21 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 172 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 634 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 3.8 Notes 1. If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-20 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k86.tmp 8/4/2010 • is • • I] • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 WB Agency or Company MACTEC From/To NARROW RIVER RD -ORIENT PT Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT END Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070295 nal sis Year 2008 Input Data ------------ ------------Shoulder width-----tt r Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain 1✓ Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down �- Lane width h Lane width #t Shoulder width tt ------------------------ Peak -hour factor,PHF 0.92% 14 No -passing zone 100 Show NnrtliArrnw % Trucks and Buses, PT 21 % Segment length, Lt -- mi % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Analysis direction vol., Vd 173veh/h Access points/ mi 25 Opposing direction vol.. Vo 195veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.872 0.872 Grade adjustment factor 1, f (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF"fHv' fG) 216 243 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFS 60.0 mi/h FM Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,' f�S(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h 3 Observed volume3, Vf veh/h Adj. for access points', fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHv) 53.8 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 3.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 46.4 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER-1)) 0.979 0.979 Grade adjustment factor, f (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow ratez, v(pc/h) vi=Vi/(PHF'fHv` fG) 192 216 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 40.0 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 34.8 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 74.8 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.13 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15= 0.2511(V/PHF) 94 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V'Lt 346 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 2.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or v0) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawlspeeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-21 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k91.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway /Direction of Travel NY 25 WB NARROW RIVER RD -ORIENT PT From/To END Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070295 nal sis Year 2025 Input Data ------------ ---------- - - - - -Shoulder width f# r Class I highway r Class II highway Terrain r Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 NarthArran % Trucks and Buses, PT 21 % % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 �- Lane width h Lane width #t Shoulder width tt --------------------- - - -- Segment length, It mi9iaw Analysis direction vol., Vd 281veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 317veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.960 0.960 Grade adjustment factor 1, f (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v (pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF*fHV* fG) 318 359 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, V veh/h fAdj. Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHV) 53.8 mi/h djustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 3.0 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLs fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 45.5 milh Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.979 0.979 Grade adjustment factor, f (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v (pc/h) v=Vi/(PHF*fHV* fG) 312 352 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 61.1 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 24.9 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 85.9 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V / 1,700 0.19 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.251t(V/PHF) 153 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Li 562 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15= VMT15/ATS 3.4 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawlspeeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-22 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2kC4.tmp 8/4/2010 • • • 0 • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 EB From/To CR 48- NARROW RIVER RD Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070296 Analysis Year 2008 Input Data ------------- ----- Shoulderwidth ft"�- F Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain r Level F Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 Show Horth Arrow % Trucks and Buses , PT 20 % % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 Lane width it Lane width 1t Shoulderwidth ft ------------ -------- - -- -- Segment length, Lt m1 Analysis direction vol., Vd 206veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 205veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/(1+PT(ET1)+PR(ER1)) 0.877 0.877 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi=V/(PHF*fHV* fG) 255 254 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, Vf veh/h speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHV) 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 3.7 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h Adj. for lane width and shoulder width,3 f�S(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h j. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Adj. Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLS-fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS400776v -fn 46.1 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.980 0.980 Grade adjustment factor', fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rateZ, vi(pc/h) v V /(PHF*fHv* fG) 228 227 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-ea"db) 46.2 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 34.0 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f n 80.2 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.15 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 112 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 412 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 2.4 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG= 1.0 2. If vi(vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-23 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k5D.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 EB From/To CR 48- NARROW RIVER RD Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070296 nal sis Year 2025 Input Data -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- Shouiderwntdth # r Class I highway Class II highway Terrain r Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 9taw NorthlUraw % Trucks and Buses, PT 20% % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 4- Lane width 1t -= Lane width it Shoulder width h ----------- -------------- Segment length, 4 Mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 335veh/h Opposing direction vol., VO 333veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.962 0.962 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) v =V /(PHF*fHv* fG) 379 376 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, Vt veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(Vd fHv) 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fop (Exhibit 20-19) 2.9 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h 3 Adj. for lane width and shoulder width, fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h dj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLS fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 45.0 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.980 0.980 Grade adjustment factorl, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi V/(PHF*fHv* fG) 371 369 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavd b) 63.8 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 23.6 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 87.4 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V 11,700 0.22 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lt(V/PHF) 182 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 670 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 4.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-24 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2kCl.tmp 8/4/2010 • • • • Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 WB From/To CR 48- NARROW RIVER RD Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070296 Analysis Year 2008 Input Data ----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Shoulder width r Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain l Level F Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 9iaw North Arrow% Trucks and Buses, PT 21 % % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 Lane width ft -= Lane width ft Shoulder width ft ----------- ---------==--- Segment length, Lt mi Analysis direction vol., Vd 205veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 206veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.7 1.7 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHV 1/(1+PT(ET'1)+PR(ER1)) 0.872 0.872 Grade adjustment factor 1, fG (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, vi(pc/h) vi V/(PHF*fHV* fG) 256 257 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM mi/h Observed volume3, V f veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHV) 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 3.7 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h 3 Adj. for lane width and shoulder width, fLS(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h dj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fps fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 46.1 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHV fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.979 0.979 Grade adjustment factor, fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) v V /(PHF*fHV* fG) 228 229 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 46.6 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 33.8 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 80.4 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 D Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.15 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25L,(V/PHF) 111 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V*Lt 410 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 2.4 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) -1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-25 July 13, 2012 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k5D.tmp 8/4/2010 Directional Page 1 of 1 DIRECTIONAL TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SEGMENT WORKSHEET General Information Site Information Analyst MACTEC Agency or Company MACTEC Date Performed 8/4/2010 Analysis Time Period AADT Highway / Direction of Travel NY 25 WB From/To CR 48- NARROW RIVER RD Jurisdiction NYDOT STA 070296 Analysis Year 2025 Input Data ------------ ----- ----- Shoulder width fit Class I highway F Class II highway Terrain F Level r Rolling Grade Length mi Up/down Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92% No -passing zone 100 Show NnrihArraw % Trucks and Buses, PT 21 % % Recreational vehicles, PR 4% Access points/ mi 25 �- Lane width ft -= Lane width it Shoulder width h ----------- --------- V--- Segment length, Lt m1 Analysis direction vol., Vd 333veh/h Opposing direction vol., Vo 335veh/h Average Travel Speed Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-15) 1.2 1.2 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-9 or 20-17) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor,fHV fHv 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.960 0.960 Grade adjustment factor 1, f(, (Exhibit 20-7 or 20-13) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) vl=Vi/(PHF'fHV' V 377 379 Free -Flow Speed from Field Measurement Estimated Free -Flow Speed Field Measured speed3, SFM rni/h Observed volume3, Vf veh/h Free-flow speed, FFSd FFS=SFM+0.00776(V� fHV) 53.8 mi/h Adjustment for no -passing zones, fnP (Exhibit 20-19) 2.9 mi/h Base free-flow speed3, BFFSFM 60.0 mi/h 3 Adj. for lane width and shoulder width, f�S(Exh 20-5) 0.0 mi/h Adj. for access points3, fA (Exhibit 20-5) 6.3 mi/h Free-flow speed, FFSd (FSS=BFFS-fLS-fA) 53.8 mi/h Average travel speed, ATS ATS=FFS-0.00776v -fn 45.0 mi/h Percent Time -Spent -Following Analysis Direction d Opposing Direction o Passenger -car equivalents for trucks, ET(Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.1 1.1 Passenger -car equivalents for RVs, ER (Exhibit 20-10 or 20-16) 1.0 1.0 Heavy -vehicle adjustment factor, fHv fHV 1/ (1+ PT(ET 1)+PR(ER 1)) 0.979 0.979 Grade adjustment factor', fG (Exhibit 20-8 or 20-14) 1.00 1.00 Directional flow rate2, v,(pc/h) v =V /(PHF'fHV` fG) 370 372 Base percent time-spent-following4, BPTSF(%) BPTSF=100(1-eavdb) 63.6 Adj. for no -passing zone, fn (%) (Exhibit. 20-20) 23.4 Percent time -spent -following, PTSF(%) PTSF=BPTSF+f np 87.0 Level of Service and Other Performance Measures Level of service, LOS Exhibit 20-3 or 20-4 E Volume to capacity ratio v/c v/c=V /1,700 0.22 Peak 15 -min veh-miles of travel,VMT15 (veh- mi)VMT15 0.25Lr(V/PHF) 181 Peak -hour vehicle -miles of travel, VMT60(veh- mi) VMT60 V`Lt 666 Peak 15 -min total travel time, TT15(veh-h) TT15 VMT15/ATS 4.0 Notes 1.If the highway is extended segment (level) or rolling terrain, fG=1.0 2. If v (vd or vo) >=1,700 pc/h, terminate analysis --the LOS is F. 3. For the analysis direction only. 4. Exhibit 20-21 provides factors a and b. 5. Use alternative Equation 20-14 if some trucks operate at crawl speeds on a specific downgrade. HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York D-26 file://C:\Documents and Settings\pzhang\Local Settings\Temp\s2k5D.tmp Version 4.1d July 13, 2012 8/4/2010 11 • • W x c a� a a 2 • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York • APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT REGULATORY STATUS OF EACH OF THE 49 CERCLA SITES 0 • July 13, 2012 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK July 13, 2012 • • • • rI Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York APPENDIX E CERCLA SITE SUMMARY TABLE July 13, 2012 E-1 Environmental Site Actions Remaining Related Site Designation Activities Conducted Regulatory Status to be Taken Documentation NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 2 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 5 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 14 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 17 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, WMA 19 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 20 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 22 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA WMA 28 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 1 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 2 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 3 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 7 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. E-1 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 E-2 • • C7 Environmental Site Actions Remaining Related Site Designation Activities Conducted Regulatory Status to be Taken Documentation NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 9 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 12 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. NFA determination PIADC CERCLA AOPC 16 Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. meeting. September 2002. Fort Terry Batteries: Battery Bradford Battery Daliba Battery Dimmick NFA determination PIADC CERCLA Battery Eldridge Site Investigation was made at May 8, None Program Report, Battery Floyd 1999 2001 regulatory ENTECH, Inc. Battery Greble meeting. September 2002. Battery Kelly Battery Steele Battery Stoneman Battery 217 PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided After Action Re ort: P WMA 1 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its April 30, 2010, None Investigation -By - regulated medical letter. Excavation of Treated waste was completed Regulated Medical in 2000. Waste Landfills, BMT Entech,Inc. December 2007. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided P After Action Report: WMA 4/AOPC 11 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its None Investigation -By - treated regulated April 30, 2010, Excavation of Treated medical waste letter. Regulated Medical was completed in Waste Landfills, 2006/2007. BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. E-2 • • C7 • r� J • Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 E-3 Environmental Site Actions Remaining Related Site Designation Activities Conducted Regulatory Status to be Taken Documentation PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided After Action Re ort: P WMA 6 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its April 30, 2010, None Investigation -By - regulated medical letter. Excavation of Treated waste was completed Regulated Medical in 2007. Waste Landfills, BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. Direction is provided PIADC CERCLA WMA 7/8 Site Investigation by NYSDEC in its Landfill survey and Program Report, 1999 April 30, 2010, land use restriction ENTECH, Inc. letter. September 2002. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, ENTECH, Inc. Site Investigation September 2002. 1999 Install sentry After Action Excavation and off- Direction is provided groundwater Report: P WMA 10/11 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its monitoring wells nvesti ation-B Investigation-By- g y regulated regulated medical April 30, 2010, between the site and Excavation of waste was completed letter. PIADC's two Treated Regulated in 2000/2001. existing well fields Medical Waste Landfills, BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction provided After Action Report: WMA 13 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its None Investigation -By - regulated medical April 30, 2010, Excavation of Treated waste was completed letter. Regulated Medical in 2001. Waste Landfills, BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. Direction is provided PIADC CERCLA WMA 15 Site Investigation by NYSDEC in its Landfill survey and Program Report, 1999 April 30, 2010, land use restriction ENTECH, Inc. letter. September 2002. Direction is provided PIADC CERCLA WMA 16 Site Investigation by NYSDEC in its Landfill survey and Program Report, 1999 April 30, 2010, land use restriction ENTECH, Inc. letter. September 2002. Direction is provided PIADC CERCLA WMA 24 Site Investigation by NYSDEC in its Landfill survey and Program Report, ENTECH, Inc. 1999 April 30, 2010, land use restriction letter. September 2002. Direction is provided PIADC CERCLA Site Investigation by NYSDEC in its Landfill survey and Program Report, WMA 26/27 1999 April 30, 2010, land use restriction ENTECH, Inc. letter. September 2002. E-3 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 E-4 • 0 Environmental Site Actions Remaining Related Site Designation Activities Conducted Regulatory Status to be Taken Documentation Based on PIADC CERCLA AOPC 4 Site Investigation information None Program Report, 1999 received in the ENTECH, Inc. September 30, September 2002. 2010 letter from NYSDEC,AOPC 4 has been addressed to the satisfaction of NYSDEC PIADC CERCLA Program Report, ENTECH, Inc. September 2002. Site Investigation After Action 1999 NFA determination Report: AOPC 5 Soil cover was made in AAR Report. None Investigation and completed in Remedial Actions at 2006. Area of Potential Concern (AOPC) 5 and 8. September 2007. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided After Action Report: AOPC 6 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its None Investigation -By - treated regulated April 30, 2010, Excavation of Treated medical waste was letter. Regulated Medical completed in Waste Landfills, 2006. BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Test pitting was After Action AOPC 8 completed in July NFA determination None Report: p 2005 with no made in AAR Re p ort. Investigation and evidence of solid Remedial Actions at waste disposal. Area of Potential Concern (AOPC) 5 and 8. September 2007. E-4 • 0 • C7 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 E-5 Environmental Site Actions Remaining Related Site Designation Activities Conducted Regulatory Status to be Taken Documentation PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation Soil and groundwater ENTECH, Inc. 1999 sampling will be September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided conducted to assist in After Action Report: AOPC 10 site disposal of by NYSDEC in its April 30, 2010, determining whether Investigation -By - regulated medical PCBs are present near Excavation of Treated waste was completed letter. the 1999 groundwater Regulated Medical in 2000. sample. Waste Landfills, BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. PIADC CERCLA Program Report, Site Investigation ENTECH, Inc. 1999 September 2002. Excavation and off- Direction is provided by NYSDEC in its After Action Report: AOPC 13 site disposal of April 30, 2010, None Investigation -By - treated regulated letter. Excavation of Treated medical waste was Regulated Medical. completed in 2000. Waste Landfills, BMT Entech, Inc. December 2007. Based on PIADC CERCLA Site Investigation information None Program Report, AOPC 14 1999 received in the ENTECH, Inc. September 30, September 2002. 20 10 letter from YSDEC,AOPC 14 has been addressed to the satisfaction of NYSDEC Based on information received in the PIADC CERCLA Bomb -Proof Site Investigation September 30, None Program Report, Switchroom 1999 2010 letter from ENTECH, Inc. NYSDEC, the September 2002. Bomb -Proof Switchroom has been addressed to the satisfaction of NYSDEC E-5 Draft EIS for the Sale of Plum Island, New York July 13, 2012 Site Designation Environmental Site Activities Conducted Regulatory Status Actions Remaining to be Taken Related Documentation Based on Site Investigation information 1999 received in the September 30, PIADC CERCLA 2010 letter from Program Report, Mining Casemate NYSDEC, the None ENTECH, Inc. Mining Casemate September 2002. has been addressed to the satisfaction of NYSDEC PIADC CERCLA Based on Program Report, information ENTECH, Inc. received in the September 2002. September 30, 2010 letter from Searchlight No. 11 Site Investigation NYSDEC, the None 1999 Searchlight No. 11 has been addressed to the satisfaction of NYSDEC E-6 is • rI