Documents

document 61 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: 3-5522-00352 00005 FW - LWRP Historic Hudson Valley Van Cortland Manor Article 24... Memo WAC -Van Cortlandt Manor -NYS DEC

280 East Broad Street, Suite 200 TEL: 585.232.5135 Rochester, NY 14604 www.bergmannpc.com VIA EMAIL February 4, 2022 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation – Region 3 Attn: Tracey O’Malley 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, New York 12561 Re: NYSDEC Application ID: 3-5522-00352/00005 Response to Notice of Incomplete Application Historic Hudson Valley Van Cortlandt Manor Restoration Project Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County, New York Dear Ms. O’Malley, Please find below an updated description of the work proposed as part of the Van Cortland Manor Restoration Project (“Project”), as well as a response to the Notice of Incomplete Application for this Project dated November 17, 2021. Since the original submission of an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit application on August 11, 2021, activities and details of the proposed work have been adjusted slightly. Below, please find an updated Project description, as well as updated calculations on the impacts to the NYSDEC regulated 100-ft adjacent area. Proposed work within the NYSDEC regulated 100-ft adjacent area will now be comprised of 0.33-acres of permanent impacts and 1.04-acres of temporary impacts. No impacts to the NYSDEC FWW are proposed. Permanent impacts to the adjacent area will involve installation of concrete pads and stabilized granite paving over previously disturbed areas, along with minor earthwork in the form of grading. Temporary impacts within the adjacent area will include disturbance related to resurfacing of existing intrusions located within the 100-ft adjacent area in the form of paved walkways, trenching for utility line installation and temporary disturbances as a result of construction and landscaping activities. Selective tree trimming and cutting (0.08-acres) is now proposed for this Project within the NYSDEC regulated 100-ft adjacent area. It has been determined that utility line installation within the adjacent area will require selective tree branch trimming to ensure the proper machinery can be used. Selective tree branches will be trimmed within the adjacent area only where the utility line will be installed (Please refer to Attachment A, Project Drawings- Sheet N003). It should be noted that utility line installation is proposed directly adjacent to previously installed utility lines already running through the regulated 100-ft adjacent area. As such, required trenching will be occurring within a previously disturbed portion of the 100-ft adjacent area. Additionally, due to the historic nature of the Van Cortlandt Manor, Historic Landscapes LLC (“Historic Landscapes”) was retained as a landscaping partner for the Project. In an effort to address the historic landscape character of Van Cortlandt Manor, Historic Landscapes is proposing the removal of seven (7) trees within the regulated 100-ft adjacent area. Historic Landscapes’ decision for the proposed removal and replacement employs principals for stewardship of cultural resources of Van Cortlandt Manor, a National Historic Landmark property, including protection of contributing elements and renewal of the landscape character for future visitors. Multiple factors were considered when Historic Landscape was determining what trees to propose removing, and in turn what trees to replace those trees with. Refer to Attachment B for a detailed explanation for Historic Landscapes regarding the proposed trees to be cut. All tree trimming and cutting will be done in a way to ensure no discharge occurs within the NYSDEC FWW. PAGE 2 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA Refer to Attachment A for a detailed plan of all proposed work. Construction on the Project is anticipated to begin in 2022 with work anticipated to conclude August of 2023. Below please find updated tables showing the revised impacts proposed to the NYSDEC regulated 100-ft adjacent area. Please note that regulated 100-ft adjacent area disturbances calculations shown on sheets N003 and N004 in Attachment A have been separated by impacts proposed for each sheet. REVISED Table 1 Proposed Impacts Resource ID Area of Temporary Impacts (sq. ft./ac.) Area of Permanent Impacts (sq. ft./ac.) Wetland 1 (NYSDEC H-3) 0.00 0.00 Wetland 1 Adjacent Area 45,400/1.04 14,500/0.33 REVISED Table 2 Proposed Impacts by Activity Type Disturbance Description Total Area of Permanent Impacts (sq. ft./ac.) Concrete Pads 4,000 / 0.09 Stabilized Granite Paving 7,500 / 0.17 Earthwork (Fill) 3,000 / 0.07 Total 14,500 / 0.33 Disturbance Description Area of Temporary Impacts (sq. ft./ac.) Roadway Resurfacing 15,750 / 0.36 Utility Installation (Trenching) 10,000 / 0.23 General Landscaping 12,750 / 0.29 Tree Cutting/Trimming 3,400 / 0.08 Earthwork (Cut) 3,500 / 0.8 Total 45,400 / 1.04 PAGE 3 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA Provided below is a formal written response to the comments received in your Notice of Incomplete Application (NOIA) dated, November 17, 2021, in which you asked for additional items regarding the Van Cortlandt Manor Restoration Project Application. 1. Original Comment – Justification and Permit Issuance Standards – The Applicant must demonstrate how the proposed disturbances to the adjacent area of a NYS freshwater wetland H-3, Class 1, meet the permit issuance standards as identified in Part 663.5. Please address the following: · Identify the compatibility of each under 663.4; · Address standards for permit issuance; · Show that disturbances have been avoided and minimized; · Discuss alternatives (reduce size, footprint, relocate, reorient: and · Provide justification for the chosen alternatives. Response: While the proposed Project design has avoided and minimized regulated impacts to the maximum extent practicable, it still requires minimal regulated 100-ft adjacent area impacts. As previously described, the majority the proposed work involves improvements to existing structures or minor construction in previously disturbed and already utilized areas within the Project area. Please find below a weighting standards analysis for all proposed disturbances to the NYSDEC regulated 100-ft adjacent area within the Project area. The proposed impacts were analyzed using the Levels of Compatibility established by the NYSDEC. Table 3 below demonstrates the Project’s impacts and their compatibility with the rules and regulations of Article 24. Table 3 Project Impact Compatibility Impact Type Resource Impacted NYSDEC Compatibility1 Concrete Pads – Permanent Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Grass Paver Installation – Permanent Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Earthwork (Fill) – Permanent Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Roadway Resurfacing – Temporary Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Underground Utility Installation – Temporary Adjacent Area Usually Incompatible Construction Activities Disturbance – Temporary Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Tree Cutting / Trimming – Temporary Adjacent Area Usually Compatible / Letter of Permission Required Earthwork (Cut) – Temporary Adjacent Area Usually Compatible Notes: 1. As listed in 6 CRR-NY 663.4 (https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I4ece0792cd1711dda432a117e6e0f345?viewType=FullText&originationContext=docume nttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) As demonstrated above in Table 3, the proposed impacts are generally considered “usually compatible,” as they are associated with expanding or substantially modifying existing functional structures or facilities PAGE 4 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA (Procedure and Compatibility by Area Activities #14). These activities involve disturbances related to the rehabilitation of existing functional structures (roadway resurfacing, construction activities disturbance, earthwork) along with expansions to functional structures (concrete pads and grass paver installation) to be placed in an area utilized annually for “The Blaze” event that occurs at Van Cortlandt Manor. Annual activities in preparation of The Blaze includes installation of gravel and various displays/installations, tent pitching and nightly pedestrian foot traffic. The placement of the concrete pads and stabilized granite pavers will be on previously disturbed areas and will act as an expansion to previously functional structures in place for The Blaze. The proposed tree cutting and trimming falls under the “Cutting but not elimination or destruction of vegetation, such that the functions and benefits of the wetland are not affected,” which requires is usually compatible/ requires a letter of approval. This cutting and trimming falls under this activity, as it will only involve selective trimming of branches and removal of trees within the adjacent area. No elimination of vegetation or fill within the wetland will occur as a result of the trimming. Attachment B provides more insight as to why the tree cutting is being proposed, as well as why the proposed replacement planting will fit better with the historic nature of Van Cortlandt Manor. One proposed disturbance, the utility line installation, is considered “usually incompatible” with the regulations of Article 24. However, as described in the Standards for Issuance of Permits, a permit may be issued if the proposed activity meets each of the following weighting standards: The Project proposed impacts to the regulated adjacent area of (1) NYSDEC Class 1 FWW. The following compatibility test is relevant for the proposed impact: 1. Would be compatible with preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, and 2. Would result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland, and 3. Would be compatible with public health and welfare. The proposed Project would be compatible with preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, as the proposed utility line installation is temporary in nature and would occur only within previously disturbed portions of the regulated 100-ft adjacent area within an existing utility corridor. Utility installation trenching will only occur in areas where previous trenching occurred to install existing utility lines. Additionally, the tree trimming that is proposed to accommodate the trenching is likely similar to the tree trimming activities conducted for the previous utility installation. As shown on the Project Drawings (Attachment A), the proposed trenching will have no effect on the NYSDEC FWW. The minimal impacts associated with this Project are not expected to result in the loss of function of the impacted resources. The impacts proposed to the regulated adjacent area are the minimum necessary to accomplish the goals of the Project and involve the above mentioned disturbances, which allow for upgrades to previously disturbed areas that will allow for a more historically accurate and user friendly experience at the Van Cortlandt Manor. For these reasons, we believe that the Project benefits outweigh the impacts to the adjacent area associated with it. As demonstrated in the Alternatives Analysis presented in the submitted JPA, the Project design is the most practicable alternative for meeting the Project’s purpose and need while minimizing and avoiding impacts to regulated natural resources. Additionally, since the submission of the original JPA impacts to the adjacent area have been further reduced in an effort to minimize disturbances to the maximum extent practicable. PAGE 5 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA 2. Original Comment – Plans – The plans included in the application submission consisted of the following sheets: C141, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan – I; C142, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan – II; and C143, Sediment and Erosion Control Plan – III. Plan Sheet C141 included a table of disturbance activities and areas within the regulated 100-foot adjacent area. · Please provide plans that show existing conditions , as well as proposed conditions, grading, stabilization or disturbed areas and revegetation, as well as details and methods related to the list of disturbance activities listed in the table on sheet C141. Response: Please refer to Attachment A for Project Drawings showing updated proposed work, along with existing conditions, grading, stabilization and details and methods as requested. 3. Original Comment – Threatened and Endangered Species: As you are aware, we have determined that the site is located within close proximity to a documented bald eagle nest and wintering area. The principal bald eagle- related concern at this site is for potential impacts to wintering eagles, since the nest site is farther away from the project location. The edge of the wintering area is essentially adjacent to the southwest side of the project property. Application materials state that the applicant is in communication with the Department’s Bureau of Wildlife regarding information needed for the Department to further review potential project impacts. As outlined in previous correspondence, if work is proposed during the winter season, the Department would need information on the proposed activities and equipment to be used, and a comparison of expected noise levels to ambient noise levels at the site. For analysis purposes, the wetland across Route 9 from the project property could be used as the point of reference for wintering eagles. In addition, please note that to preserve eagle habitat, DEC recommends that no tree removal occur within 200 feet of a shoreline, no white pines be removed within 300 feet of a shoreline, and no white pines larger than 25 inches DBH be removed at any location within eagle habitat. Please advise as to the status of the above requested noise related information. Please be aware that this information is required as part of the complete application. Response: Coordination with the NYSDEC Region 3 has been ongoing throughout the permitting process of this Project. On January 26, 2022 Bergmann submitted a noise analysis of the Van Cortlandt Manor in respect to Bald Eagles. It was determined that the proposed work would have an ”‘unnoticed or tolerable’ effect on bald eagles utilizing the wintering habitat area.” A response from DEC regarding this analysis is pending. This memo has been included as Attachment C to this NOIA as well. 4. Original Comment - State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR): Application materials state that the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Water Control Commission determined this action was a Type 1 action and circulated for SEQR Lead Agency for the coordinated review. Please provide the SEQR Lead Agency coordination letter distributed to NYSDEC. The Negative Declaration Resolution was provided with the application. Please provide the Negative Declaration and the supporting documents, including but not necessarily limited to Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Environmental Assessment Forms. Response: Please refer to Attachment D for the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II and III for the Project along with the Negative Declaration Resolution issued by the Water Control Commission of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson. PAGE 6 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA 5. Original Comment - State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) – Please submit the impact determination from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. We have reviewed the statewide inventory of archeological and historic resources maintained by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). These records indicate that the project is located within an area considered to be sensitive with regard to archaeological resources. Pursuant to section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law (New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980), the application is not complete until the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has made a determination whether: (a) Any historic, architectural, archeological or cultural resources present in the project impact area are significant (listed on or eligible for listing on the State or national Register of Historic Places); and (b) The project may have any impacts on such significant resources. Response: Please Refer to Attachment E for a response from NYSOPRHP received on May 17, 2021, agreeing with New York State Department of Transportation’s determination that the Project will have “No Adverse Effect on historic or archeological resources”. 6. Original Comment - Uniform Procedures: Please also be advised that pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 621.4j, this is considered a UPA major project. Once the Department considers the application complete, a 15-day public notice period is required. You as the applicant will be responsible for publishing the Notice of Complete Application in the official newspaper of the town in which the project will occur. Any comments received must be addressed before a final permit decision is made. Response: The permittee understands. 7. Original Comment - Compliance with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (GP-0-15-002): Compliance with this SPDES General Permit is required for construction projects involving the disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more of land within the NYC Department of Environmental Protection East of Hudson Watershed or for proposed disturbance of 1 acre or more of land outside the NYC DEP Watershed. For construction permits, if this site is within an MS4 area (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System), the stormwater plan must be reviewed and accepted by the municipality and the MS-4 Acceptance Form must be submitted to the Department. If the site is not within an MS4 area and other DEC permits are required, please contact the regional Division of Environmental Permits. Response: The permittee is aware of the need for coverage under the permit. A SWPPP and NOI have been prepared with plans to obtain all necessary reviews and permits required. These documents are available for their review if need be. PAGE 7 / 7 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. HISTROIC HUDSON VALLEY VAN CORTLANDT MANOR RESTORATION PROJECT NYSDEC RESPONSE TO NOIA We hope that we have adequately addressed all comments from your email, and that the application can be deemed complete. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 567-318-1547 or by email at rkozak@bergmannpc.com should you have any questions. Rita Kozak Ecological Project Leader, BERGMANN Attachment A: Project Drawings Attachment B: Heritage Landscapes Tree Removal Justification Attachment C: Noise Analysis Memo Attachment D: FEAF Parts I, II & III Attachment E: NYSOPRHP Determination of No Adverse Effect Letter Attachment F: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Cc Richard Torres (Historic Hudson Valley) Ray Darling, Jake Hill (Bergmann – Albany, NY) Angela Schimizzi (Division of Marine Resources) Susan Booth-Binczik (Bureau of Wildlife) NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. Attachment A Project Drawings E T E T T E E E E E E E E E E E E E E P AC JB VanCortlandt Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random FALSE LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE E E E AC JB VanCortlandt Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random FALSE LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE 2/2/2022 4:40 PM ANSI D 22x34 www.bergmannpc.com 2 Winners Circle Suite 102 Albany, NY 12205-1121 10107.00 12/20/2021 Project Manager Designer Reviewer Discipline Lead Drawing Number Date Issued Project Number Sheet Name Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C Note: Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209. 100% ADP SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date Revised Description HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY 525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY RESTORATION OF VA CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE PIN 8760.11 639 BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS, NY HERITAGE LANDSCAPES LL CHARLOTTE, VT | NORWALK, CT 802.425.4330 | 203.852.9966 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS of Z:\Projects\Croton-on-Hudson\010107.00 CROTON-ON-HUDSON-VAN CORTLANDT MANOR\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\NOIA Sheets\NOIA Existing.dwg G. URSPRUNG, PE P. HOLSBERGER R. DARLING, PE N001 NOIA EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS I R. DARLING, PE E E E E AC JB E E AC JB 2/2/2022 4:40 PM ANSI D 22x34 www.bergmannpc.com 2 Winners Circle Suite 102 Albany, NY 12205-1121 10107.00 12/20/2021 Project Manager Designer Reviewer Discipline Lead Drawing Number Date Issued Project Number Sheet Name Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C Note: Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209. 100% ADP SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date Revised Description HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY 525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY RESTORATION OF VA CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE PIN 8760.11 639 BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS, NY HERITAGE LANDSCAPES LL CHARLOTTE, VT | NORWALK, CT 802.425.4330 | 203.852.9966 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS of Z:\Projects\Croton-on-Hudson\010107.00 CROTON-ON-HUDSON-VAN CORTLANDT MANOR\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\NOIA Sheets\NOIA Existing.dwg G. URSPRUNG, PE P. HOLSBERGER R. DARLING, PE N002 NOIA EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS I R. DARLING, PE E T E T T E E E E E E E E E E E E E E AC JB VanCortlandt Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random FALSE LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE Random VanCortlandt LTD Landscape, Tree, Deciduous FALSE 2/2/2022 4:40 PM ANSI D 22x34 www.bergmannpc.com 2 Winners Circle Suite 102 Albany, NY 12205-1121 10107.00 12/20/2021 Project Manager Designer Reviewer Discipline Lead Drawing Number Date Issued Project Number Sheet Name Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C Note: Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209. 100% ADP SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date Revised Description HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY 525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY RESTORATION OF VA CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE PIN 8760.11 639 BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS, NY HERITAGE LANDSCAPES LL CHARLOTTE, VT | NORWALK, CT 802.425.4330 | 203.852.9966 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS of Z:\Projects\Croton-on-Hudson\010107.00 CROTON-ON-HUDSON-VAN CORTLANDT MANOR\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\NOIA Sheets\NOIA Proposed.dwg G. URSPRUNG, PE P. HOLSBERGER R. DARLING, PE N003 NOIA PROPOSED CONDITIONS I WETLAND TYPE WETLAND AREA (SF / AC) AREA OF IMPACT 100' DEC ADJACENT AREA ADJACENT AREA OF IMPACT TEMPORARY PERMANENT TEMPORARY PERMANENT BERGMANN WETLAND 1 (NYSDEC H-3) 617,613 SF / 12.72 AC 59,900 SF / 1.38 AC 45,400 SF / 1.04 AC 14,500 SF / 0.33 AC WETLAND ADJACENT AREA FILL CHART DESCRIPTION VOLUME (CY) EARTHWORK (FILL) CONCRETE PADS GRANITE PAVING WETLAND ADJACENT AREA DISTURBANCE - N001, N003 DISTURBANCE DESCRIPTION AREA OF IMPACT DISTURBANCE TYPE SF. AC CONCRETE PADS 0.09 PERMANENT STABILIZED GRANITE PAVING 0.17 PERMANENT EARTHWORK (FILL) 0.06 PERMANENT ROADWAY RESURFACING 0.07 TEMPORARY UTILITY INSTALLATION (TRENCHING) 0.09 TEMPORARY EARTHWORK (CUT) 0.06 TEMPORARY TREE TRIMMING 0.02 TEMPORARY TOTAL PERMANENT 0.32 TOTAL TEMPORARY 0.24 OVERALL 0.56 R. DARLING, PE E E E E AC JB 2/2/2022 4:40 PM ANSI D 22x34 www.bergmannpc.com 2 Winners Circle Suite 102 Albany, NY 12205-1121 10107.00 12/20/2021 Project Manager Designer Reviewer Discipline Lead Drawing Number Date Issued Project Number Sheet Name Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C Note: Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209. 100% ADP SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date Revised Description HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY 525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY RESTORATION OF VA CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE PIN 8760.11 639 BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS, NY HERITAGE LANDSCAPES LL CHARLOTTE, VT | NORWALK, CT 802.425.4330 | 203.852.9966 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS of Z:\Projects\Croton-on-Hudson\010107.00 CROTON-ON-HUDSON-VAN CORTLANDT MANOR\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\NOIA Sheets\NOIA Proposed.dwg G. URSPRUNG, PE P. HOLSBERGER R. DARLING, PE N004 NOIA PROPOSED CONDITIONS II WETLAND ADJACENT AREA DISTURBANCE - N002, N004 DISTURBANCE DESCRIPTION AREA OF IMPACT DISTURBANCE TYPE SF. AC LONG WALK EXPANSION 0.01 PERMANENT EARTHWORK (FILL) 0.01 PERMANENT ROADWAY RESURFACING 0.29 TEMPORARY UTILITY INSTALLATION (TRENCHING) 0.14 TEMPORARY GENERAL LANDSCAPING 0.29 TEMPORARY TREE CUTTING/TRIMMING 0.06 TEMPORARY EARTHWORK (CUT) 0.02 TEMPORARY TOTAL PERMANENT 0.01 TOTAL TEMPORARY 0.80 OVERALL 0.81 R. DARLING, PE 2/2/2022 4:40 PM ANSI D 22x34 www.bergmannpc.com 2 Winners Circle Suite 102 Albany, NY 12205-1121 10107.00 12/20/2021 Project Manager Designer Reviewer Discipline Lead Drawing Number Date Issued Project Number Sheet Name Copyright © Bergmann Associates, Architects, Engineers, Landscape Architects & Surveyors, D.P.C Note: Unauthorized alteration or addition to this drawing is a violation of the New York State Education Law Article 145, Section 7209. 100% ADP SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Date Revised Description HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY 525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY RESTORATION OF VA CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE PIN 8760.11 639 BEDFORD ROAD POCANTICO HILLS, NY HERITAGE LANDSCAPES LL CHARLOTTE, VT | NORWALK, CT 802.425.4330 | 203.852.9966 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS of Z:\Projects\Croton-on-Hudson\010107.00 CROTON-ON-HUDSON-VAN CORTLANDT MANOR\4.0 Dwgs\4.1 Civil\Sheets\NOIA Sheets\NOIA Details.dwg G. URSPRUNG, PE P. HOLSBERGER R. DARLING, PE N005 NOIA DETAILS I R. DARLING, PE CONCRETE JOINT DETAILS N.T.S. C DITCH UNDISTURBED EARTH GRASS SWALE DETAIL N.T.S. 1.0' 4" TOPSOIL 2.0' 2.0' 2.0' CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL N.T.S. COMPACTED SUBGRADE STIFF BRISTLE-BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC 6" SUBBASE COURSE, TYPE 2 ITEM 304.12 5" 4,000 PSI CONCRETE (ITEM 608.0101) 1' - 6" MIN 8" 24" MIN #5@12" OC W/ 90 DEG STD HOOK (3) #5 CONT AROUND PERIMETER 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES FINISHED GRADE 3" CLR TYP 4' MIN 12" MIN UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL CLASS HP CONCRETE, ITEM 555.09 CONTROL JOINTS AT 12' O/C BOTH WAYS SUBBASE COURSE, TYPE 2 ITEM 304.12 CONCRETE PAD DETAIL (FOR PADS SHOWN ON C102) N.T.S. NOTE: 1. PAD THICKNESS: PADS 1 THRU 5: 5" PAD A: 6" VARIES - SEE NOTE 1 1' - 6" MIN 8" 24" MIN #5@12" OC W/ 90 DEG STD HOOK (3) #5 CONT AROUND PERIMETER 3" CLR TYP 2' 12" MIN UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL CLASS HP CONCRETE, ITEM 555.09 CONTROL JOINTS AT 12' O/C BOTH WAYS SUBBASE COURSE, TYPE 2 ITEM 304.12 CONCRETE PAD DETAIL N.T.S. NOTE: 1. PAD THICKNESS: DUMPSTER/BIKE PAD: 5" GENERATOR/ SWITCH: 6" 3/4" CHAMFER ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES FINISHED GRADE (VARIES - SEE PLANS) VARIES - SEE NOTE 1 JOINT BLOW-UP DETAIL ’ CONTROL JOINT YARD HYDRANT, ITEM 663.13010039 N.T.S. 2'-4" 5'-0" MIN. YARD HOSE BIB W/ LOCK FINISH GRADE 1" GALVANIZED 90° ELBOW 1" POLYETHYLENE TUBING CLASS 200 DRAIN HOLE 1" GALVANIZED PIPE 1 CUBIC FT. OF #2 BROKEN STONE 1'X1'6" THICK CONCRETE PAD ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION N.T.S. NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. Attachment B Heritage Landscapes Tree Removal Justification Heritage Landscapes LLC Preservation Landscape Architects & Planners www.heritagelandscapes.c om 501 Lake Road Charlotte, VT 05445 802.425.4330 34 Wall Street Norwalk, CT 06850 203.852.9966 DATE: 28 January 2022 TO: Ray Darling Jr., Bergmann PC Paul Holsberger, Bergmann PC FROM: Peter Viteretto, Heritage Landscapes LLC Collin Sitz, Heritage Landscapes LLC COPY: Patricia O’Donnell, Heritage Landscapes LLC RE: Tree Removal and Replacements in the Wetland Adjacent Area PROJECT: Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance, PIN 8760.11 Restoration of the Van Cortlandt Manor entrance addresses the historic landscape character as part of the project work that involves removing and replacing trees to restore the property's historic character within the wetland adjacent area. Drawing Sheets N001 and N002 illustrate the extent of tree removals in this area that are part of the project to restore the Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance landscape. Decisions for removal and replacement employ principles for stewardship of valued cultural resources of this National Historic Landmark property, including protection of contributing elements and renewal of the landscape character for future visitors. Factors to be considered are the condition and health of the trees, the potential for hazard, host for disease vectors/infestations, reduction of loss and damage to historic structures, and replacement of aged trees to ensure the landscape represents historic landscape character for the next generation. Following is the list of trees and stumps identified for removal and replacement in the wetland adjacent area. Sheet N001 Rp Robinia pseudoacacia – Black Locust 30” cal. Stump The stump of the former black locust is being removed and a black locust is being planted in that location Ap Acer platanoides – Norway Maple 14” cal. The Norway maple, designated invasive species, has self-seeded and will be removed and replaced with a river birch (Betula nigra) and lilacs (Syringa vulgaris) to reflect the historic planting which has been lost over time. Van Cortlandt Manor Memorandum, 28 January 2022, Page 2 Heritage Landscapes LLC Preservation Landscape Architects & Planners Sheet N002 Sa Salix alba – White Willow (n/a cal.) Stump. The stump of the white willow will be removed allowing more room for the remaining trees to develop. The tree was not historic and does not need to be replaced in kind. Ma Morris alba – White Mulberry 8” cal. The white mulberry has self –seeded directly at the top of the retaining wall posing a future hazard. The tree is not historic and will be removed leaving more room for the remaining serviceberry and historic hemlock trees to develop. Fa Fraxinus alba White Ash 36” cal. The decision to remove this Ash is based on the inevitability that this ash will be affected by the Emerald Ash Borer that will result in loss of the tree within 3 years of being infected, becoming a hazard. Based on the certainty that a replacement ash will become infected, it will instead be replaced by a Tulip tree. The adjacent sugar maple and Himalayan crabapple are being retained. Up Ulmus pumila Chinese Elm 3” cal. The Chinese elm is a self-sown tree which is not in keeping with the historic character. This small tree is being removed to avoid disfiguring the growth habit of the overhead eastern hemlock and remove a seed source as this tree has an invasive tendency. Ps Pinus strobus, Eastern White Pine, (2) 22” cal. The eastern white pines are maturing and have lost a majority of their lower branches. Pines are generally soft wooded and prone to breakage during storms. For this reason, they are considered a hazard in being so close to the historic Administration Building. They are being removed and replaced with younger white pines that can be better managed. Replanting pines is keeping within the historic character. On the next page is a chart identifying plant materials that will be planted within the wetland adjacent area as part of the Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Restoration: Van Cortlandt Manor Memorandum, 28 January 2022, Page 3 Heritage Landscapes LLC Preservation Landscape Architects & Planners NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. Attachment C Noise Analysis Memo 280 East Broad Street, Suite 200 TEL: 585.232.5135 Rochester, NY 14604 www.bergmannpc.com MEMO BERGMANN HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN To: Richard Torres, Historic Hudson Valley From: Ken Avery, P.E. Date: January 26, 2022 Re: Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance PIN 8760.11, DEC Permit #: 3-5522-00352/00005 Tree Removal Construction Assessment – Noise Analysis 1.1 INTRODUCTION In support of the restoration of the Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance project, Bergmann performed a noise analysis to assess the potential noise effects from tree removal operations that are anticipated to occur during the wintering season in proximity to bald eagle wintering habitat. The nearest bald eagle wintering habitat area has been identified by the NYSDEC as including the wetland area to the west of US Route 9 and east of a train station as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Project Location Map 1.1.1 Environmental Setting Noise can be described as unwanted sound. Three characteristics of noise have been identified as being important when quantifying noise, whether in regard to humans or other animal species: • Intensity • Frequency • The time-varying characteristics of the noise PAGE 2 / 5 BERGMANN HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN RESTORATION OF VAN CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE TREE REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT – NOISE Although the human response to noise is different from animal response to noise, for the purposes of this study the standards used pertain to the human response to noise. This is thought to be a reasonable way to perform this assessment. Intensity is a measure of the magnitude or energy of the sound and is directly related to pressure level. The human ear is capable of sensing a wide range of pressure levels. Pressure levels are expressed in terms of a logarithmic scale with units called decibels (dB). As the intensity of a noise increases, it is often subjectively judged to be more annoying. A 10-decibel increase in sound levels is typically judged by the listener to be twice as loud as the original sound. Conversely, a 10-decibel reduction is typically perceived as half as loud. An increase in sound levels of 3 decibels is considered to be the smallest change to the A-weighted sound level that people, without specifically listening for a change, can notice. An increase in sound levels of 5 decibels is perceptible and tolerable by humans as noted in Table B of Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (NYSDEC, 2001) and other references, and reproduced as Table 1 below. Table 1 - Human Reaction to Increase in Sound Pressure Level Increase in Sound Pressure Level (dB) Human Reaction* Under 5 Unnoticed to tolerable 5 – 10 Intrusive 10 – 15 Very noticeable 15 – 20 Objectionable Over 20 Very objectionable to intolerable Reference: Down and Stocks, 1978 *For purposes of this review, based on the above, a noise impact will be considered as an increase in noise levels of more than 5 dB above ambient levels. It is necessary to use a method of measure that will account for the time-varying nature of sound when studying environmental noise. The equivalent sound pressure level (Leq) is defined as the continuous steady sound level that would have the same total A-weighted sound energy as the real fluctuating sound measured over a given period of time. As a result, the three characteristics of noise combine to form a single descriptor (Leq in dB(A)) that helps to evaluate human response to noise. To understand the existing noise environment, a line source acoustical model, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Transportation Noise Model 2.5 (TNM 2.5), was created within the project area. The project area is adjacent to US Route 9 and a train station. It was assumed that US Route 9 would be the dominant noise source in the project area. The Metro North train station is located approximately 800 ft to the west of the wintering habitat area, however the noise will have a smaller contribution than US Route 9. The traffic, volumes and classifications that were taken from the NYSDOT Traffic Data viewer, along with posted speeds were utilized in the TNM 2.5 model to determine the background noise levels. 1.1.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Action (Construction Noise Analysis) To evaluate potential noise levels as a result of construction activities for the site development that are planned for the wintering season, an analysis using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), developed by the FHWA, was performed for the Project. RCNM uses reference noise levels for construction equipment, utilization percentages and expected maximum sound level (Lmax) values. PAGE 3 / 5 BERGMANN HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN RESTORATION OF VAN CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE TREE REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT – NOISE For this analysis it was assumed that the tree removal operations would be the only construction related activity occurring during the wintering season, and that only one specific tree cutting operation would be occurring at a given time, (cutting down one tree at a time). A list of the construction equipment that that’s assumed to be used in this specific operation with the percent usage and reference noise level is provided in Table 2. It was also assumed that the wood chipper is a tow behind piece of equipment that would be stationary on South Riverside Avenue versus going in to the tree cutting area, for tree removal locations south of South Riverside Avenue.1 . Table 2 - Construction Equipment Reference Noise Levels Construction Equipment Usage (%) Reference Noise Levels Noise Level (dB(A)) Tree Removal Operations Chainsaw (in operation) Dump Truck Back Hoe Wood Chipper Note: Reference noise levels at 50 feet are obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model or NYSDEC Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. Receivers were placed throughout the bald eagle wintering area, in three rows, equidistant from US Route 9, to estimate the pattern of noise propagation from tree removal operations. RCNM requires a distance be provided from the receiver to each piece of construction equipment. The tree cutting locations within the tree cutting area are specific to each receiver, the distance was set to the closest location within the area to that receiver, making it unique to each receiver. Due to the uniqueness of the receivers for the study, receivers are placed at 5-ft above the ground to represent a human ear and at 30-ft above the ground to represent an eagle in a tree or in the air looking for prey within the wetland area. Hourly equivalent noise levels (Leq) at receivers are calculated using equipment Lmax values, utilization percentages from Table 2, and a few reference distances from tree cutting operations to the receivers as shown in Figure 2. 1 This represents a worst-case scenario for purposes of this study. For implementation of the tree cutting, the wood chipper may be used at the location of the tree cutting, but other locations would be farther away from the eagle wintering area. PAGE 4 / 5 BERGMANN HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN RESTORATION OF VAN CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE TREE REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT – NOISE Figure 2 Receiver Location Baseline noise levels, taken from the existing condition TNM results, are compared with the results from RCNM, the results can be seen in Table 3 and Table 4 representing receivers at 5-ft and 30-ft respectfully. Table 3 Summary of Noise Levels at 5-ft Above Ground Receiver Site Receiver Distance from Route 9 (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from tree cutting (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Combined Noise Level (dBA) Noise Level Increase (dBA) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 PAGE 5 / 5 BERGMANN HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN RESTORATION OF VAN CORTLANDT MANOR ENTRANCE TREE REMOVAL CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT – NOISE Table 4 Summary of Noise Levels at 30-ft Above Ground Receiver Site Receiver Distance from Route 9 (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Distance from tree cutting (feet) Noise Levels (dBA) Combined Noise Level (dBA) Noise Level Increase (dBA) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Depending on where the construction operations are occurring, the proximity of receivers to the construction operations, and the proximity to US Route 9, noise level increases from 0 to 2 dBA were calculated within the bald eagle wintering habitat area. Based on Table B of Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts (NYSDEC, 2001) included here as Table 1, a 0 to 5 dBA sound level increase is considered “unnoticed to tolerable” and a 5 to 10 dBA sound level increase is considered “intrusive”. With this analysis it is confirmed that US Route 9 would still be the dominant noise source within the bald eagle wintering habitat area during the planned winter construction. Bergmann’s previous field monitoring of avian responses to noise (e.g., bald eagles, peregrine falcons) both species have been observed to be generally tolerant of moderate sound pressure level increases (dB). Therefore, it is determined that the tree removal operations would have an “unnoticed to tolerable” effect on the bald eagles utilizing the wintering habitat area. NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. Attachment D FEAF Parts I, II & III Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1is accurate and complete. Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): E-Mail: State: Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): E-Mail: State: E-Mail: State: FEAF 2019 Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Road Project, South Riverside Avenue (CR 305) South Riverside Avenue (CR 305) from ShopRite Plaza South Entrance to Old Albany Post Road (see Supplemental Information) See Supplemental Information Historic Hudson Valley 914-366-6900 639 Bedford Road Pocantico Hills NY Richard J. Torres (Director of Buildings, Grounds and Security) 914-366-6900 rtorres@hudsonvalley.org B. Government Approvals B. Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? • If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. • If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No would be located? b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway; Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes 9 No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?     See Supplemental Information    See Supplemental Information  See Supplemental Information        Remediation Sites: 546031  C.3. Zoning a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? If Yes, i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________ C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________ b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________ d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? If Yes, i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________ 9 Yes 9 No _____ months _____ _____ month _____ year e. Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? • Total number of phases anticipated • Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) • Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year • Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________  RA-40, One Family Residence zoning classification to the east of South Riverside Ave C-2, General Commercial zoning classification to the west of South Riverside Ave   Croton-Harmon School District Croton-on-Hudson Police, Westchester County Sheriff and NYS Police Croton-on-Hudson Fire Department, Croton-on-Hudson Emergency Medical Services The closest park to the project site is the Croton Point Park (<1 mile) 46.9 5.6 46.9    April Sept The general nature of the proposed actions are primarily transportation and historic preservation (addition of car charging spots, utility improvements, road resurfacing, landscaping ) f. Does the project include new residential uses? g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? If Yes, i. Total number of structures ___________ ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________ ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify: iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete): a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________ ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? • Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________ • Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________ iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________     Concrete pads, sidewalks,utility construction 200+/- CY 2 years Existing earth material to be used on the property where needed, or hauled offsite to an approved disposal site.  0.3 0.3  Existing earth material to be used on the property where needed, or hauled offsite to an approved disposal site.  Proposed actions will only be done in adjacent area of a NYS Wetland H-3 ii. iii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? iv. Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? If Yes: • acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________ • expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________ • purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ • proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________ • if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________ v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? If Yes: i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? If Yes: • Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________ • Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? • Is the project site in the existing district? • Is expansion of the district needed? • Do existing lines serve the project site? iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ • Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________ iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? • Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________ • Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________ • Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________ v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? If Yes: i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day ii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? If Yes: • Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________ • Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________ • Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? • Is the project site in the existing district? • Is expansion of the district needed? There is an adjacent area of wetlands within the project area.      9 Yes 9 No • Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? • Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? If Yes: • Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? If Yes: • Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________ • Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________ • What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________ v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? If Yes: i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? _____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface) _____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? • If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ • Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? iv. Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation) g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, 9 Yes 9 No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate: • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 26,000 845,000   0.35 46.9 There will be no new point-sources. New non-point sources will include stormwater runoff from the addition of impervious areas such as the new sidewalks and improvements to the long walk. The stormwater runoff will be directed to an existing on-site water quality treatment area (sedimentation basin), and new stormwater management facilities, if needed (Long Walk).    Landscaping and road paving equipment during construction None None  h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, 9 Yes 9 No landfills, composting facilities)? If Yes: i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): † Randomly between hours of __________ to ________. ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________ iii. iv. v. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? Yes No 9 Yes 9 No vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No for energy? If Yes: i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation? l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. • Monday - Friday: _________________________ • Monday - Friday: ____________________________ • Saturday: ________________________________ • Saturday: ___________________________________ • Sunday: _________________________________ • Sunday: ____________________________________ • Holidays: ________________________________ • Holidays: ___________________________________ If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:    7am-5pm Hours vary depending on visitors m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, 9 Yes 9 No operation, or both? If yes: i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: ii. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? n. W th ill prop e os actio ed hav n e outd ligh oor ting? If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: ii. Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year) q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, 9 Yes 9 No insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: • Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) • Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: • Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ • Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: • Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ • Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________  Noise will be produced from heavy machinery when needed during construction. Construction activities will most likely occur between 7am and 5pm.   New security lighting will be installed within the site and will meet 'dark sky' standards.      s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: • ________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or • ________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years t. Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No waste? If Yes: i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site. b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Current Acreage Acreage After Project Completion Change (Acres +/-) • Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces • Forested • Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) • Agricultural (includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) • Surface water features (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) • Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) • Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill) • Other Describe: _______________________________ ________________________________________        Historic The eastern side of the project site includes a gravel/grass parking field surrounded with shrubs/trees. The western side include the manor buildings and gardens. To the southeast of the site is the Croton River and to the northwest is forested area and a shopping plaza. 0.9 1.0 +0.1 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.0 -0.1 1.2 1.2 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? If Yes: • Dam height: • Dam length: • Surface area: • Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________ iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: • If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No Remediation database? Check all that apply: ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):         Hudson River PCB's- Superfund Site  360010, 546031 546031- Hudson River PCB Sediments: Phase 1 dredging commenced in May 2009, and was completed in October 2009. Construction work for Phase 2 of the remedial project started in 2011, and was completed in 2016. Dredging was completed in fall 2015; habitat reconstruction was completed in 2016. Facility decommissioning was performed in 2016. 360010- Harmon Railroad Yard- Waste Water Area: Remediation is complete. Project is in Site Management. v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? • If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________ • Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________ • Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________ • Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________ • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? • Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________% c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information: • Streams: • Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________ • Wetlands: • Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________ v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No waterbodies? If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i. Is the project site in a designated Floo dway? j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? k. Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? If Yes:  >6.6  KnC- Knickerbocker fine sandy loam 30.4 Uc- Udorthents, wet substratum 35.7 HnC- Hinckly loamy sand 16.8 3.5          Federal Waters, NYS Wetland NYS Wetland (acres):44.1 H-3  Name - Pollutants - Uses:Hudson River (Class SB), portion – Priority Organics – Fish Consumption     Principal Aquifer, Primary Aquifer m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________ iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: • Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres • Gain or loss (indicate + or -): o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No special concern? q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________ b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________ c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No Natural Landmark? If Yes: ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes: If Yes: i. If Yes: Hawks Rabbits Songbirds Deer Squirrels  Tidal River 74248.64  Bald Eagle Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon in Hudson River which will not be affected by project  Bald Eagle, New England Bulrush, Water Pigmyweed, and Spongy-Leaved Arrowhead  Hudson and Croton River used for fishing. The proposed action will not affect that use.    Hudson River & Croton Point Park Exceptional or unique character Agency: Westchester County, Date:1-31-90  525 S RIVERSIDE AVENUE CROTON-ON-HUDSON WESTCHESTER, NY Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Road Project SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 Supplemental Information March 1, 2021 A. Project Applicant/Sponsor Information Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The project is a Locally Administered Federal Aid project that involves providing renovations to the National Historic Landmark Van Cortlandt Manor (VCM) for the not-for-profit education organization, Historic Hudson Valley (HHV). HHV interprets and promotes historic landmarks of national significance in the Hudson Valley for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. The purpose of this project is to provide for a more appropriate and compatible entrance to the historic Van Cortlandt Manor site that is safe and enhances the experience of visitors to the property. Project objectives include: (1) Remove modern intrusions from the National Historic Landmark portion of the property. (2) Restore the landscape to its state prior to the construction of old US Route 9. (3) Enhance visitor access by strengthening the site’s identity and making the site more welcoming. (4) Enhance the visitor’s experience and understanding of the site and the history it represents. (5) Improve site safety and security to protect historic resources and visitors. Preliminary inquiry was made to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated February 11, 2019. The SHPO replied in a letter dated May 20, 2019 under the project number of 19PRO2857. Copies of these letters are attached under Correspondence as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. Please note that the project has been refined since that submission. The following is a brief description of the current project: Outside of National Historic Landmark Boundary: South Riverside Avenue: · Extend ADA compliant concrete sidewalks and provide crosswalk and security lighting. · Improve the existing site entrance signs and security entrance gate. · Install bike racks. Former Drive-in Parcel: · Improve existing entrance gate to the parcel from the ShopRite parking lot. Within the National Historic Landmark Boundary: · Provide concrete pads for visitor reception courtyard tent area, which includes utilities (water, sanitary sewer, electrical, data). · Provide electric vehicle charging stations. · Resurface existing concrete road with micro-surface treatment. · Replace existing Long Walk brick pavers with a wider ADA accessible walkway, along with ‘dark sky’ compliant site lighting. · Clean up existing brush and plantings, restore stone retaining walls and other landscape features, and provide drainage improvements as required along driveways and walkways. Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Road Project SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 Supplemental Information March 1, 2021 · Install electric and data for site lighting and security cameras. · Trim/remove select trees to protect historic buildings. · Replace roofing systems at the Visitor Accommodation Building and the Office Building. Agency and Approval(s) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a. Croton-on-Hudson Water Control Commission Wetlands Activities Permit & SEQR Compliance Spring 2021 b. Croton-on-Hudson Village Engineer’s Office Building Permit Spring 2022 Tree Removal Application Spring 2022 Water/Sewer Connection Application Spring 2022 Excavation or Fill Permit Spring 2022 c. State agencies NYSDEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit Spring 2022 NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement Fall 2021 NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification Fall 2021 NYSDEC Article 24- Freshwater Wetlands Permit Fall 2021 d. Federal agencies Funding approval from Federal Highway Association Winter 2021 Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Road Project SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 Supplemental Information March 1, 2021 E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site h. Figure 1: Location of Taconic State Parkway (NYS Scenic Byway) relative to project site ANDREW M. CUOMO ERIK KULLESEID Governor Acting Commissioner May 20, 2019 Mr. Mark Daley Associate Director of Development Historic Hudson Valley 639 Bedford Road Pocantico Hills, NY 10591 Re: FHWA Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance 525 S. Riverside Avenue, Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County, NY 19PR02857 Dear Mr. Daley: Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the provided documentation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include other 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 (NY Environmental Conservation Law Article 8). We note that Van Cortlandt Manor is a National Historic Landmark. We have reviewed the project description and supporting documentation that was provided to our office on April 25th, 2019. We understand that the project will include site improvements and the construction of new support structures. Based on our review, we offer the following preliminary comments: 1. Our office has no archaeological concerns with the proposed work 2. The restorative approach of the project, as outlined in your letter—including removal of unsympathetic site features and alterations and the siting of new structures away from the historic core—seems appropriate. We would need architectural plans illustrating the new structures in order to provide more detailed comments. 3. Please provide the names and contact information of the FHWA and/or NYS DOT project contact people for this undertaking. Formal consultation with our office should be initiated by the federal or state agency involved, and please note that the Area of Potential Effect for purposes of Section 106 review may differ from the present project area. We would appreciate if the requested information could be provided via our Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) at https://cris.parks.ny.gov/ on the CRIS site, you can log in as a guest and choose "submit" at the very top menu. Next choose "submit new information for an existing project". You will need this project number and your e-mail address. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (518) 268-2182. Olivia Brazee Historic Site Restoration Coordinator olivia.brazee@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only New York Division Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building 11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719 Albany, NY 12207 January 4, 2021 518-431-4127 Fax: 518-431-4121 New York.FHWA@dot.gov In Reply Refer To: HPD-NY Kathleen Wolfanger Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator New York State Department of Transportation, Region 8 4 Burnett Boulevard Poughkeepsie, NY 12063 Subject: PIN 8760.11 - Section 106 and Section 4(f) Consultation Restoration of Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County Dear Ms. Wolfanger: Please reference your letter dated November 23, 2020 requesting our review and concurrence that the requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 and 23 CFR Part 774 have been met for the subject project. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) applied the criteria of effect in accordance with Section 800.5(b) of 36 CFR Part 800 and concluded that the undertaking will result in No Adverse Effect on historic resources on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (NR) of Historic Places. On November 20, 2020, the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided an opinion that based on their review of the submitted information the project will have No Adverse Effect upon historic resources. On November 30, 2020, the National Park Service (NPS) was contacted regarding the subject project’s proposed work, which is located on the Van Cortlandt Manor site and is a National Historic Landmark (NHL). The NPS did not provide a response within the 30 days they are allotted under current consultation procedures, resulting in their concurrence. We have reviewed the information provided and have determined that this project will have No Adverse Effect on the Van Cortlandt Manor site, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The requirements of 36 CFR Part 800 have been met for this project. Your November 23 letter also requested our concurrence that the requirements of 23 CFR 774 have been met for the subject project. NYSDOT applied the de minimis impact criteria to the historic Section 4(f) resource. SHPO and NPS have been informed of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) intent to make a Section 4(f) de minimis use finding as a result of their concurrence with the No Adverse Effect determination. The proposed use of the Section 4(f) property for the subject project is considered minor and will not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities that qualify for protection under Section 4(f). We have determined that the project will have a Section 4(f) de minimis use on the NR- and NHL-listed Van Cortlandt Manor site. The requirements of 23 CFR Part 774 have been met for this project. During our review of the proposed scope of work for the subject project, FHWA noted several items that are ineligible for Federal-aid. Federal participation is limited to work related to the project’s transportation purpose and need within the publicly-owned right-of- way. The work associated with the proposed concrete pads for visitor reception courtyard area, “Long Walk” brick pavers and lighting, landscaping, electric and data installation, Visitor Accommodation Building and Office Building roof systems replacement, site entrance signs and security gate, barn/workshop maintenance facility, and Starlight Drive-in entrance gate do not appear to be eligible for Federal-aid. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (518) 431-8855. Jared A. Gross, P.E. Area Engineer cc: M. Lynch, Division Director, NYSHPO (19PR02857) C. Turton, Community Planner, NPS O. Trocard, Local Projects Unit, NYSDOT Region 8 M. Zamierowski, Local Projects Unit, NYSDOT, Region 8 B. Repetti, Environmental Specialist, NYSDOT, Region 8 NATIONAL FIRM. STRONG LOCAL CONNECTIONS. Attachment E NYSOPRHP Determination of No Adverse Effect Letter Division for Historic Preservation P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 • (518) 237-8643 • parks.ny.gov ANDREW M. CUOMO ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner May 17, 2021 Kathleen Wolfanger Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator NYS Dept. of Transportation 4 Burnett Blvd. Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Re: FHWA Van Cortlandt Manor Entrance 525 S. Riverside Avenue, Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County, NY 19PR02857 Dear Ms. Wolfanger: Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the provided documentation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include other 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 understand that there have been revisions proposed to the scope of work for the entrance to the the Van Cortlandt Manor, which is a National Historic Landmark. Our office has reviewed the the April 26, 2021 letter outlining the proposed updates. Based upon our review, the NYSHPO concurs with the NYSDOT finding that the existing determination of No Adverse Effect on historic or archaeological resources remains valid and appropriate. If you have any questions, I am best reached by email. Derek Rohde Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: derek.rohde@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only