Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 969

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

Route 202/35
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York



Final Environmental Impact Statement


Volume 1





Prepared by

TRC Engineers, Inc.
Hawthorne, New York

TRC Project No. 165213




Date Submitted: July 14, 2014
Date Accepted:
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-2

Proposed Action:
Proposed Costco Wholesale
NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York
Tax Lots: Section 26.18 Block 1, Lots 17, 18 and 19
Section 26.19 Block 1, Lot 1

Lead Agency:
Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown
Yorktown Community and Cultural Center
1974 Commerce Street, Room 222
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Contact: J ohn Tegeder, Director of Planning
Telephone No. (914) 962-6565

Applicant/Project Sponsor
Retail Store Construction Company (RSCC).
500 Old Country Road
Garden City, New York
Contact: Wilbur Breslin
Telephone No. (516) 741-7400

FEIS Preparation and Coordination
TRC Engineers, Inc.
7 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, New York 10532
Contact: Thomas Holmes
(914) 592-4040 ext 264

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-3

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The following consultants contributed to the preparation of this report:

Site Engineering
TRC Engineers, Inc.
7 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, NY 10532
(914) 592-4040

Land Use, Visual and Fiscal/Socioeconomic
Ferrandino & Associates Inc.
3 West Main Street, Suite 214
Elmsford, NY 10523-2414
(914) 345-5820

Traffic Engineering
J ohn Collins Engineering
11 Bradhurst Avenue
Hawthorne, NY 10532
(914) 347-7500

Wetlands and Natural Resources
Evans Associates Environmental Consultants
205 Amity Road
Bethany, CT 06524
(203) 393-0690

Water Resources (Thermal and Pollutant Loading Analysis)
Henningson, Durham & Richardson
Architecture and Engineering, P.C.
in association with HDR Engineering, Inc.
One Blue Hill Plaza
PO Box 1509
Pearl River, NY 10965
845-735-8300

Air Quality and Noise
TRC Environmental
1200 Wall Street West, 2nd Floor
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
(201) 933-5541



Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-4

Environmental Management and Regulatory Compliance
EcolSciences, Inc.
75 Fleetwood Drive Suite 250
Rockaway, NJ 07866
(973) 366-9500

Cultural Resources
Historical Perspectives
7 Peters Lane
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-7654

Geotechnical Engineering
Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C.
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, New York 10953
(845) 534-5959

Legal Services
Al Capellini, Esq.
1767 Front Street
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-3311

Legal Services
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue - 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022-1994
(212) 421-2150
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-5

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Involved Agencies

Town of Yorktown
Planning Board
363 Underhill Ave,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-5722

Town of Yorktown
Town Board
363 Underhill Ave,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-5722

Town of Yorktown
Zoning Board of Appeals
363 Underhill Ave,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-5722

Westchester County Health Department
Assistant Commissioner of Health
25 Moore Ave.
Mt. Kisco, New York 10549
Contact: Paul Kutzy, P.E.
(914) 864-7333

Westchester County Health Department
Petroleum Bulk Storage Section
145 Huguenot Street
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Contact: Barbara McDonald
(914) 813-5000

Westchester County Board of Legislators
148 Martine Ave, 8
th
Floor
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 995-2800
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-6

Involved Agencies

New York City Department of Environmental Protection
465 Columbus Avenue
Valhalla, New York 10595
Contact: Mary Galasso
Contact: Cynthia Garcia
914-773-4440

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 3 Sub-Office
100 Hillside Ave, Suite 1W
White Plains, New York 10603
Contact: Todd Ghiosay
(914) 428-2505

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3
Environmental Permits
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York 12561
Contact: Adam Peterson
(845) 256-3000

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources
New York Natural Heritage Program
625 Broadway, 5
th
Floor
Albany, New York 12233-4757
Contact: Tara Salerno
518-402-8935

New York State Department of Transportation Region 8
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Contact: William Gorton, P.E.
(845) 575-6040
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-7

Interested Agencies

City of Peekskill
Pamela Beach, City Clerk
840 Main Street
Peekskill, NY 10566

Town of Cortlandt
J oann Dyckman, Town Clerk
1 Heady Street
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Town of Yorktown
Planning Department
Yorktown Community & Cultural Center
1974 Commerce Street,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-6565

Town of Yorktown
Building Department
363 Underhill Ave,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-5722 ext. 229

Town of Yorktown
Town Engineer
363 Underhill Ave,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
(914) 962-5722 ext. 218

Town of Yorktown Environmental Conservation Board
Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)
363 Underhill Avenue,
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities
270 North Avenue,
New Rochelle, NY 10801
(914) 813-5400
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York

C-8

Interested Agencies

Westchester County Health Department
Assistant Commissioner of Health
25 Moore Ave.
Mt. Kisco, New York 10549
Contact: Paul Kutzy, P.E.
(914) 864-7360

Westchester County Planning Commissioner Edward Buroughs
Westchester County Planning Board Susan Konig, Chair
148 Martine Avenue, Room 432
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 995-4400

Westchester County Legal Department
Westchester County Budget Department
148 Martine Ave,
White Plains, NY 10601

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 3
Environmental Remediation
21 South Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York 12561
Contact: Ed Moore
(845) 256-3137

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Field Services Bureau, Peebles Island
P.O. Box 189,
Waterford, New York 12188-0189
Contact: Ken Markunas
(518) 237-8643

United States Army Corps of Engineers NY District
26 Federal Plaza,
New York, NY 10278-0090
Contact: Col. J ohn R. Boule II Commander

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility
Final Environmental Impact Statement


Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION

Part A. Introduction to FEIS
1. Project SEQRA Chronology
2. Organization of this FEIS
3. Definitions
Part B. Comments and Responses
1. Organization of Comments and Responses
2. FEIS Subjects

II. FEIS Executive Summary

I. Description of Proposed Action
II. Site Plan and Off-Site Changes
III. Summary of Responses to Comments on DEIS

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Site Plan Site Plan
II. Description of Proposed Action
III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
III.B Visual Character
III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology
III.D Hazardous Materials
III.E Flora and Fauna
III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
III.G Stormwater Management
III.H Utilities
III.I Use and Conservation of Energy Green Technology
III.J Solid Waste
III.K Fiscal Impact Analysis
III.L Parking
III.M Air Quality
III.N Noise
III.O Building Demolition and Construction
III.P Community Facilities and Services
III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts
III.R Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources
IV. Alternatives
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


ii
VI. Other SEQRA Required Chapters
General Miscellaneous Legal Comments Regarding Segmentation,
Cumulative Impact Assessment, Procedure, or Need for
Supplemental EIS

VII. APPENDICES

Appendix A Written Public Comment Documents
Appendix B Public Hearing Transcripts
Appendix C Correspondence
Appendix D - Natural Resources
Appendix E - Stormwater Management
Appendix F Socioeconomics
Appendix G Traffic
Appendix H Parking
Appendix I Alternate Onsite Wastewater Disposal
Appendix J Drawings (See Separate List of Drawings)
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


iii
LIST OF FEIS RESPONSE TABLES


Table No. Table Name

Site Plan Table 1 DEIS / FEIS Site Land Area Comparison (Section Site Plan)
Table III.G-A1 Peak Discharge Volume Comparison Table for Project
Table III.G A2 Offsite (Rte 202/35) Improvement Stormwater RRv/WQv Treatment
Table III.G A3 Daily Average Stream Temperature (Summer Period)
Table III.G A4 Pollutant Loading Comparison Table to Wetland A
Table III.G A5 Pollutant Loading Comparison Table Entire Costco Site
Table III.G A6 Peak Discharge Rate Comparison Table
Table III.G A7 Summary of Offsite Drainage Conditions (Contributing to Route 202/35 &
Old Crompond Road Right-of-Way)
Table III.G A8 Wetland A Water Balance
Max Peak Discharge Runoff Rate Comparison Table (8.25 in Rainfall)
(III.G)
Table III.K.1 Untitled (Traffic Volumes)
Graph III.L.A Parking Demand vs. Building Area
Graph III.L.B Parking Demand vs. Building Area
Table III.L.C Parking Demand Summary
Table III.L.B Holiday Shopping Season Peak Day Parking Summary FEIS Parking
Utilization Study
Table III.L.A Holiday Shopping Season Peak Daily Parking Summary FEIS Parking
Utilization Study
Bike Parking Racks at Other Costco Locations (III.L)
Table IV.7a Traffic Generation With and Without the Fueling Station (IV)
Table VI.1a List of Existing Properties Adjacent to Project Improvements (VI)
Table VI.1b Land Constraints Summary (VI)
Table VI.1c Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth (VI)
Table VI.1d Traffic Summary of Impacts from Potential Growth (VI)
Table VI.2 Summary of Potential Impact to School District (VI)



Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


iv
LIST OF FEIS RESPONSE EXHIBITS


Section Site Plan
FEIS Executive Summary Exhibit 1 DEIS Site Plan
FEIS Executive Summary Exhibit 2 FEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1 DEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2 FEIS Site Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 3 FEIS Grading Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 4 Offsite Sanitary Sewer and Gas Main Extension Plan
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 5 Conceptual Offsite Rte 202/35 Improvements
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2b-1 Building Elevation and Sign Detail
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2b-2 - Gas Station Elevations
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c TSP 300 & 500 Sign Restricted Zone
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d Bike Parking Plan
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (1) Fuel Truck Route
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (10) Secondary Entrance Modifications
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (12) Fueling Facility Large Van Circulation
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j Section- Taconic State Parkway Overpass
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 3 Pedestrian Access (Sidewalk)
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (1) Embankment Plan
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (2) Construction on Steep Slopes Map
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a (3) Existing Slopes 25% Within Wetland A Buffer
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c Typical Westerly Embankment Section
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 9 Fueling Facility Plan

Section II
FEIS Exhibit II.7 Vegetated Area
FEIS Exhibit II.10 Snow Removal/Stockpiling Plan

Section III.A
III.A-1 Existing Land Use in Study Area
ODL-1 Other Area Development Site Locations

Section III.B
III.B 20a Site Line Plan and Profile from Stony Street to Route 202/35
III.B-40a View Reference Key
III.B-41a View 1a
III.B-42a View 1a (Transparent)
III.B-43a View 2a
III.B-44a View 2a (Transparent)
III.B-45a View 3a
III.B-46a View 3a (Transparent)
III.B 55 Site Line Section Location Plan
III.B - 56 Site Line Sections

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


v

Section III.C
III.C-1 Erosive Soil Disturbance Map
III.C-3 Proposed Soil Disturbance Map

Section III.F
III.F-1 FEIS Introductory Exhibit Reduced Impact to Wetland A Buffer Area

Section III.G
III.G-A1 FEIS Reduced Impact to Wetland A Buffer Area
III.G-A2 FEIS Exhibit Stormwater Management Drainage System
III.G-A3 FEIS Exhibit Existing Drainage Area Map
III.G-A4 FEIS Exhibit Proposed Drainage Area Map
III.G-A5 FEIS Exhibit Offsite Drainage Area Map
III.G-A6 FEIS Exhibit Offsite Drainage Area Map
III.G-A7 FEIS Exhibit Offsite Drainage Area Map
III.G-A8 FEIS Exhibit Offsite Drainage Area Map
III.G-A9 FEIS Exhibit Wetland A/SWM Infiltration Section
III.G-A10 FEIS Exhibit Existing Drainage Area Map Wetland B
III.G-A11 FEIS Exhibit Proposed Drainage Area Map Wetland B
III.G-A12 FEIS Exhibit Alternate Sewage Disposal System
III.G 37h FEIS Introductory Exhibit Hot Spot WQ Treatment
III.G-49 Hunter Brook Flood Map

Section III.K
III.K-3a FEIS Exhibit - Inbound Trucks to Loading Area
III.K-3b FEIS Exhibit - Outbound Trucks rom Loading Area

Section III.O
III.O-4a Construction Sequence Phase 1
III.O-4b Construction Sequence Phase 2
III.O-4c Construction Sequence Phase 3
III.O-4d Construction Sequence Phase 4
III.O-4e Construction Sequence Phase 5
III.O-4f Construction Sequence Phase 1 Notes
III.O-4g Construction Sequence Phase 2 Notes
III.O-4g(2) Construction Sequence Phase 2 Notes (continued)
III.O-4h Construction Sequence Phase 3 Notes
III.O-4i Construction Sequence Phase 4 Notes
III.O-4j Construction Sequence Phase 5 Notes
III.O-4k Preliminary Construction Schedule

Section VI
VI-1a Vacant Land with Potential for Future Growth
VI-1b Existing Steep Slopes
VI-1c Existing Wetland and Buffers
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


vi

LIST OF DRAWINGS
DWG. NO. DWG. TITLE

SITE PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

C-1 Cover Sheet
C-11 Existing Conditions Plan
C-101 Layout Plan
C-103 Development Requirements Plan
C-201 Grading Plan
C-202 Boring Plan
C-301 Utility Plan
C-305 On-Site Sanitary Sewer (Sheet 1 of 3)
C-306 On-Site Sanitary Sewer (Sheet 2 of 3)
C-307 On-Site Sanitary Sewer (Sheet 3 of 3)
C-401A Construction Sequence Phase 1
C-401B Construction Sequence Phase 2
C-401C Construction Sequence Phase 3
C-401D Construction Sequence Phase 4
C-401E Construction Sequence Phase 5
C-402A Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 1
C-402B Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 2
C-402C Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 3
C-402D Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 4
C-402E Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Phase 5
C-501 As Of Right Lighting Plan (16 Ft.)
C-502 Preferred Lighting Plan (25 Ft.)
C-601 Sight Line Sections (A-C)
C-602 Sight Line Sections (D-G)
C-603 Site Sections
C-604 Site Sections
C-701A SWM Plan View & Sections
C-701B Pond Details & Sections
C-702 Details (Sheet 1)
C-703 Details (Sheet 2)
C-704 Details (Sheet 3)
C-705 Details (Sheet 4)
C-706 Retaining Wall Details (For SWM Facility)
C-801 Highway Improvement Plan

SITE PLAN by EVANS ASSOCIATES

LP-1 Site Landscaping Plan


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Table of Contents



Final Environmental Impact Statement


vii
RES SAND FILTER STRUCTURES by ROTONDO

L-001 Sand Filter F-7-1 (1 of 2)
L-002 Sand Filter F-6-8 (2 of 2)

OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

S-1 Cover Sheet
S-2 Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Plan
S-3 Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Plan
S-4 Off-Site Sanitary Sewer Plan

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

HD-1 Cover Sheet
HD-2 Typical Sections
HD-3 thru 6 Layout Control Plans
HD-7 thru 10 Construction Plans
HD-11 thru 14 Grading & Utilities Plans
HD-19 thru 22 Striping & Signing Plans
HD-36 Diversion Structure Details

TRANSMISSION MAIN RELOCATION PLANS by TRC Engineers, Inc.

W-1 Transmission Main Relocation (Sheet 1 of 2)
W-2 Transmission Main Relocation (Sheet 2 of 2)

I. INTRODUCTION

Part A - Introduction to FEIS


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -1

Part A. Introduction to FEIS

1. Project SEQRA Chronology

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared in accordance
with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article 8 of
the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, and the implementing regulations
6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA Regulations). The consideration of environmental
issues, including the proposed mitigation of potentially significant adverse impacts, is
incorporated into the review and decision-making process at the local and State levels
through a full disclosure process that includes the public scoping process for the Draft
Environmental Impacts Statement (DEIS), the circulation of the DEIS and the review
and comment thereon by agencies and the public, the preparation of an FEIS that
responds to all substantive comments on the DEIS and incorporates any project changes
or relevant new information, and the issuance of a SEQRA Findings Statement.
Following is a chronology of principal events regarding the proposed 151,092 square foot
Costco Wholesale Club retail store, tire center and member-only fueling facility (the
Project or Proposed Action) leading up to the preparation of this FEIS.

On J une 30, 2010, Retail Store Construction Co., Inc. (the Applicant) submitted to
the Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown (the Planning Board or the Lead
Agency) an application for site plan approval for the Project (the Application).

On August 9, 2010, the Planning Board circulated a Notice of Intent to assume the
role of lead agency in connection with the environmental review of the Application
pursuant SEQRA; and

On September 13, 2010, the Planning Board, based on its review of the Application, a
Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, and related information, issued a
Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance pursuant to Section 617.7 of the
SEQRA Regulations; and

The Planning Board produced and circulated a draft scoping document and considered
public comment on the draft scope at a duly noticed public hearing held on
November 8, 2010 at Town Hall in Yorktown Heights, New York; and

The Planning Board, after receiving comment and reviewing the draft scoping
document, adopted the final scoping document at its regular meeting on December 13,
2010 (the Final Scope), and directed the Applicant to prepare and submit the DEIS
pursuant to said Final Scope; and

The Planning Board, at its meeting on November 28, 2011, received a preliminary
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -2

DEIS dated November 16, 2011. At its meetings on J anuary 9, 2012, J anuary 23,
2012, August 13, 2012, and September 10, 2012, the Planning Board reviewed and
discussed the preliminary DEIS. Based on these discussions, and additional
discussions between representatives of the Applicant and staff and consultants to
the Lead Agency to question and or clarify comments of staff and consultants,
multiple revisions were made to the preliminary DEIS and it was re-submitted, as
revised, to the Planning Board in September 2012; and

The Planning Board, at its meeting on September 10, 2012, accepted the DEIS for the
Proposed Action, dated September 6, 2012, as adequate for public review. The DEIS
was circulated to all involved and interested agencies, published online, and made
available for public comment in accordance with Section 617.12 of the SEQRA
Regulations; and

The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the DEIS on October 15, 2012 and
the hearing was continued on November 19, 2012 and, at the close of the November 19,
2012 hearing, the Planning Board extended the written public comment period on the
DEIS through December 19, 2012; and

Comments from agencies and the public regarding the DEIS were submitted to the Town
of Yorktown Planning Department and 183 documents, including letters and reports, were
received. This FEIS contains responses to all substantive comments on the DEIS, organized
by section.

After the conclusion of the DEIS public hearing and extended written comment period, the
Planning Boards staff and consultants worked with the Applicant and its consultants to
prepare a preliminary FEIS (pFEIS). The Planning Board, as Lead Agency of the Project,
is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of this FEIS. After 10 days have elapsed
following the Notice of Completion, any involved agency may rely on the SEQRA record
prepared by the Lead Agency and issue SEQRA Findings prior to rendering a discretionary
agency decision related to this Proposed Action.

2. Organization of this FEIS

DEIS
The DEIS dated September 10, 2012, its two volumes of appendices and the DEIS Site
Plans are hereby incorporated in this FEIS by reference.

FEIS Volume 1
Part A - Introduction to this FEIS - Introduces the Project and summarizes the SEQRA
process as it pertains to the Proposed Action; incorporates the DEIS by reference; and an
Executive Summary that describes the changes made in response to DEIS comments in
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -3

order to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. (For more detailed discussion of
changes made to the Site Plan, refer to FEIS Section Site Plan.)

Part B - Comments and Responses - Summarizes all of the substantive comments
pertaining to the DEIS that were provided at the SEQRA public hearing or submitted in
writing during the public comment period. This section also provides responses to these
comments.

FEIS Volumes 2 and 3
Appendices Written comments received during the public comment period can be found
in Appendix A. Both dates of the SEQRA public hearing were transcribed by Carbone &
Associates, LTD. The transcripts for the public hearing (i.e., all of the spoken comments)
are contained in Appendix B. These appendices also contain indices for both written and
spoken comments.

FEIS Volumes 4 to 6
Appendices - Contain supporting documents that are referenced in the Responses to
Comments supported by a list of contents of such documents.


3. Definitions

LIST OF FEIS DEFINITIONS / ACRONYMS
(Also Refer to DEIS List of Acronyms)
Ac Acres
Applicant See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1), sometimes
referred to as Project Sponsor
BME Bear Mountain Parkway Extension
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
C(TS) NYSDEC stream classification (Trout Spawning)
DA Drainage Area
DCA David Clouser & Associates
DEIS Site Plan The Site Plan submitted as part of the DEIS.
DMA NYC DEC Designated Main Street Area
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Site Plan The site plan submitted as part of the DEIS was modified in response to
public comments. The revised site plan is herein identified as the FEIS
Site Plan.
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -4

LIST OF FEIS DEFINITIONS / ACRONYMS
(Also Refer to DEIS List of Acronyms)
Final Scope See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Fueling Facility It is also known as gasoline filling station as defined in the Yorktown
Town Code and sometimes referred to herein as fueling station.
GIP Green Infrastructure Practices
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MgCl Magnesium chloride
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPO North Pond Outfall
NRCC Northeast Regional Climate Center
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection
NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
Pf Precipitation
PH Public Hearing
pH A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution
Project See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Project Site 18.75 acres consisting Yorktown Tax Map Section 26.18 Block 1 Lots
17, 18, 19 and Section 26.18 Block 1 Lot 1 and located at 3220 Old
Crompond Road, 3220 Crompond Road, 3200 Crompond Road and
3216 Crompond Road respectively.
Project Sponsor See FEIS Definition of Applicant (Introduction to FEIS -1)
Proposed Action See FEIS Introduction, Part A (Introduction to FEIS -1)
RRv Runoff Reduction volume
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SKU Stock-keeping unit
Stormwater
Management
Plan
Refers to all aspects of design associated with stormwater including the
storm drainage plans, Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP),
water quality treatment, stormwater abatement and related design
calculations.
SWF Stormwater Facility
Tc Time of concentration
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TR Technical Release
TU Trout Unlimited
UNH University of New Hampshire
UNHSC University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center
WIG Watershed Inspector General
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -5

LIST OF FEIS DEFINITIONS / ACRONYMS
(Also Refer to DEIS List of Acronyms)
WQ Water Quality
WQv Water Quality volume

Part B - Comments and Responses

1. Organization of Comments and Responses

This FEIS presents all of the comments received through the designated comment period,
including those provided at the SEQRA public hearing. The comments are grouped
according to DEIS subject (e.g., Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, Visual
Character, etc). The subject is numerated in accordance with the related DEIS section
(e.g., III.A, III.B, etc.) followed by a numeric value assigned to each individual comment
(e.g., III.A 1, III.A 2, etc.). The document or public hearing and author/speaker of the
comment is identified within parentheses following the comment number. (See
illustration below typifying the comment nomenclature.)



The written document, along with each comment within each document, is identified by a
numeric value followed by the authors name (e.g., (Document 7.1, NAME). Spoken
comments are identified by public hearing number followed by the commenters name
(e.g., (PH2, NAME)). Organizations were identified after the name where applicable.
Each SEQRA public hearing comment is cross referenced to the transcript identifying the
public hearing, page and line (e.g., PH1, page XX, line X) from which the comment was
excerpted.
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -6


Comments were extracted from the original document using letter recognition
software, which may have resulted in some minor inaccuracies appearing as spelling or
typographical errors. Such software-related errors were corrected as much as possible in
an attempt to maintain the integrity of the original document. Misspellings and/or
grammatical errors that were contained in the original quoted document, however, were
left intact and when found, the error was identified by adding [sic] to the quotation.

Emphases provided in the Comments through bold or large font, underlining, etc. belongs
to the Commenter and was retained as shown in the original document. Some footnote
references may be included in the Comment but the footnotes may not appear. Refer to
the original written documents included in Appendix A to view the footnotes in the
context of the original document. Where numbering sequences within written comments
are found, the numbered items may be incomplete. Since the original comment document
is subdivided according to DEIS subjects, the apparent missing items are actually
contained in other sections of the FEIS. Refer back to the original comment document in
Appendix A to see the complete document in in its original context.

Spoken comments were transcribed, and thus maintain the authors original language. For
the most part, the language remains unedited and contains the transcribers original text
including grammatical inconsistencies, misspellings, etc.. The spoken as well as written
documents are included in their entirety in Appendix A (written comments) and
Appendix B (spoken comments).

Each original comment document (letter, email, report, etc. contained in, Appendices A
and B), is notated with the assigned comment number(s) in the margin to assist the
reader in identifying the origin of the relevant comments.

To assist the reader with finding specific comments, documents or authors, indices have
been provided in Appendices A and B. The indices are sorted by each of the referenced
categories (e.g., comment #, document #, commenter, organization).

In the process of developing the Comments and Responses, certain Comment/Responses
were relocated to more appropriate sections. In that case rather than leave a gap in the
numbering sequence or renumber all the comments, the empty Comment number was
noted as NOT USED.

2. FEIS Subjects

Comments within the referenced 183 written documents as well as the spoken comments,
recorded and transcribed at the public hearing, were reviewed and categorized mainly by
DEIS subject. General comments not fitting neatly into the DEIS technical subject
Part A - Introduction to FEIS
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction to FEIS -7

categories were organized and included in a separate General section. Following is a
listing of DEIS sections/subjects for which this FEIS includes Public Comments and
provides Responses:

FEIS Section Subject
Site Plan Site Plan
II. Description Of Proposed Action
III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
III.B Visual Character
III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology
III.D Hazardous Materials
III.E Flora and Fauna
III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
III.G Stormwater Management
III.H Utilities
III.I Use and Conservation of Energy
III.J Solid Waste
III.K Traffic and Transportation
III.L Parking
III.M Air Quality
III.N Noise
III.O Building Demolition and Construction
III.P Community Facilities and Services
III.Q Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts
III.R Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources
IV. Alternatives
VI. Other SEQR Required Chapters
General
Misc. Legal (Segmentation, Cumulative Impact Assessment,
Procedure, or Need for Supplemental EIS)

II. FEIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Executive Summary

I. Description of Proposed Action

In accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is submitted in connection with the
proposed development of a 151,092 square foot Costco Wholesale store, with a 12
dispenser fueling facility, a tire service center and 610 onsite parking spaces (the Project
or Proposed Action), located on Crompond Road in the Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York 10598 (the Site).

The Site has previously been developed and currently consists of two residences, a
wholesale nursery, an abandoned motel, and a fence company located on the site of a
former gas facility. Many of the abandoned buildings on Site are currently boarded and
covered in graffiti, contributing to blighted conditions. The Proposed Action would
remove the abandoned buildings and other structures on Site, remediate contamination
from historical uses, and redevelop the Site as a new Costco wholesale store and fueling
facility, while preserving the wetland areas on Site and adding landscaping to shield the
new buildings from the Taconic State Parkway and surrounding area roadways. The
Proposed Action would provide an expanded variety of consumer goods to the local retail
and wholesale market community; generate local tax revenues (particularly for the school
district); extend existing utility infrastructure; and result in improvements to local
roadways including Route 202/35 between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road
that would improve overall peak hour traffic operating conditions in the vicinity of the Site
as compared to Existing and No-Build Conditions.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Action was
accepted by the Yorktown Planning Board (the Lead Agency) as complete on September
10, 2012. The Lead Agency conducted a public hearing on the DEIS on October 15, 2012,
which was continued on November 19, 2012. At the close of the November 19, 2012
hearing, the Lead Agency extended the written public comment period on the DEIS through
December 19, 2012. This FEIS incorporates the DEIS by reference and responds to all
substantive comments received (either at the public hearing or in writing) on the DEIS.
For additional information about the organization of the FEIS, refer to the Introduction to
FEIS chapter immediately following this Executive Summary.

The FEIS contains an updated Site Plan that retains the basic design reflected in the DEIS
but modifies certain elements to further reduce potential environmental impacts while
improving on-Site circulation and traffic safety. The FEIS also provides for further offsite
roadway and utility improvements to improve traffic conditions and coordinate offsite
utility and roadwork. In addition, the FEIS includes several additional analyses, conducted
in response to public comment and/or at the request of the Town staff, which amplify the
studies in the DEIS. These additional assessments include the following: quantitative
pollutant loading studies, a thermal impact analysis, an amended Site water budget
analysis, an additional parking utilization study, and a traffic sensitivity analysis.

Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-2
II. Site Plan and Off-Site Changes (Site Plans included in FEIS Appendix J

The FEIS Site Plan maintains the major elements of the DEIS proposal (e.g., the Costco
Building is unchanged, there are still 610 parking spaces and the general site layout is very
similar). A series of modifications were proposed to address DEIS comments from the
public and Town staff, regarding such design elements as on-site traffic flow, pedestrian
access, bike parking, retaining walls, stormwater management, as well as off-site traffic
improvements and off-site sanitary sewer improvements. These proposed modifications
were designed to reduce the Proposed Actions environmental impacts and improve project
design.

For the purpose of comparison the DEIS Site Plan and FEIS Site Plan are included in this
Executive Summary (FEIS Executive Summary Exhibits 1 and 2 below, respectively). A
comparison of the land cover proposed in the DEIS Site Plan and FEIS Site Plan is provided
in Executive Summary Table 1.


FEIS Executive Summary Table 1

DEIS / FEIS Post-Development
Site Land Area Comparison (in acres)
Land Area Category DEIS FEIS
DEIS/FEIS
Change +/-

Total Site Area 18.75 18.75 n/a
Wooded 4.20 4.73 13% (2)
Open Vegetated (1) 3.57 3.07 -14% (2)
Building & Pavement (3) 10.98 10.95 -0.3%

Site Area Disturbance 14.55 14.35 (4) -1%
Wetland Buffer disturbed 1.82 1.26 -30%
Woodlands disturbed 4.40 3.86 -12%

Slopes >25% 0.52 0.12 -77%
Notes:
(1) Open Vegetated Area includes interior, perimeter and embankment
vegetated area. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.7.)
(2) The FEIS Site Plan adds a retaining wall that reduces the western
embankment and increases native woodlands.
(3) Building area remains the same.
(4) Includes minor site grading beyond property line. (14.02 acres
disturbed onsite.)



Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-3
Specific modifications from the DEIS Site Plan include:

Site Layout
Main Site Access Driveway: Extended the second exit lane for the entire length of the
main site access driveway to reduce queuing and improve Site egress movements. This
was enabled by shifting the fueling facility approximately 10 feet to the east.
Exit From The Fueling Facility: Modified the exit from the fueling facility to
channelize exiting traffic and improve traffic circulation. These modifications include:
(1) narrowing the fueling facility exit area; and (2) adding a second receiving
westbound lane opposite the fueling facility in advance of the main access road.
Striped Safety Zone: Provided striped safety zone on both sides of the drive aisle
leading to and from the secondary site access to provide additional area for customer
circulation; restricted the left turn movement from the eastbound leg of the intersection
at the Sites secondary access driveway to improve traffic safety.
Parking Lot Adjustment: Modified the main parking area to reduce impact to the buffer
of Wetland A and improve interior traffic circulation by shifting portions of the
westerly parking lot curb to the east (further from the Wetland A buffer); shifting the
main parking lot bays easterly; narrowing landscaped island adjacent to and west of the
main entrance drive; and modifying interior parking to improve traffic circulation and
safety.
Retaining Walls: Added retaining walls along the westerly curb line, to reduce land
disturbance and preserve more of the existing wooded buffer to Wetland A.
Pedestrian Sidewalk: Extended the pedestrian sidewalk from Route 202 to the Costco
building entrance, and added bicycle parking racks, to promote bicycle and pedestrian
access to the Site.

Stormwater Management
Stormwater Infiltration: Enlarged the stormwater infiltration system from that proposed
in the DEIS, in order to provide treatment of the Runoff Reduction volume (RRv) for
100% of the Water Quality volume (WQv) from the 1-year storm. The FEIS infiltration
system will consist of three pretreatment hydrodynamic structures and four subsurface
storage/infiltration chambers.
Fueling Facility Runoff: Provided separate water quality treatment for stormwater
runoff from the proposed fueling facility in sand filter systems.
Offsite Improvements Runoff: Roadway (Route 202/35) Improvement Runoff: The
runoff from the water quality storm (1-year, 24-hour) from all of the new pavement
surfaces and contributing existing pavement as well as disturbed shoulder areas will
receive treatment as follows:
Most will be conveyed to the onsite infiltration practice for treatment;
The Route 202 and site area in the vicinity of and west of the westerly site entrance
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-4
will be conveyed to an onsite bioretention area adjacent to Old Crompond Road;
The Route 202 area near Strang Boulevard will be conveyed to a water quality
swale.

Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Extension: Revised sanitary sewer extension to coordinate connection
with sewer for the Crompond Crossings development. Realigned sanitary sewer within
Old Crompond Road right-of-way to reduce impact to roadway pavement and provide
the required separation distances from the as-built location of the existing water
distribution system.

Offsite Highway Improvements
Additional turning lane: Widened Route 202/35 to add an additional lane, thereby
providing two exclusive left turn lanes (1-eastbound and 1-westbound) to the Taconic
State Parkway northbound and southbound ramps in order to improve the traffic
movements getting onto the ramps and would reduce delays to vehicles continuing to
the east and west past the interchange area.
Relocation of water transmission main: Designed relocation of existing offsite 24-inch
water transmission main to accommodate widening of Routed 202/35 along the site
frontage.
Additional bus stop: In addition to improving the current bus stops on the eastbound
and westbound sides of Route 202/35 at Strang Boulevard, an additional bus stop will
be added to the Route 202/35 westbound side at the Site frontage.

















Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-7
III. Summary of Responses to Comments on DEIS

The Planning Board received 183 written comments on the DEIS, in addition to spoken
comments recorded and transcribed at the public hearing. All of these comments are
reproduced in full, along with the Planning Boards responses, in the FEIS, which is
divided into chapters that generally correspond to the organization of the DEIS.
1
The most
prevalent comments within each chapter, and the accompanying responses, are generally
characterized below and addressed in the corresponding FEIS chapters. Certain comments
on the DEIS also requested additional analyses beyond those presented in the DEIS. As
indicated below, the Applicant has conducted studies and sensitivity analyses in response to
such comments. These studies provide updated or expanded analysis and are presented and
explained in the applicable chapters and appendices of this FEIS.

Description Of Proposed Action (FEIS Chapter II)
The principal comments on the description of the Proposed Action relate to the proposed
lighting and signage. The Applicant seeks approval to install 155 light sources with a
maximum height of 25 feet; if that request is denied, the Applicant proposes to install 230 light
sources with a maximum height of 16 feet. Light fixtures along the perimeter of the Site will
be shielded to limit horizontal illumination, offsite light spillage and nighttime glare. No signs
will be placed on the north, south or east sides of the building that face the Taconic State
Parkway. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will determine
the extent of any signage on the west side of the building and canopy.

Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy (FEIS Chapter III.A)
The principal comments submitted on land use, planning and zoning relate to the Proposed
Actions consistency with Yorktowns 2010 Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The
Comprehensive Plan discusses the Bear Mountain Triangle, in which the eastern and western
land areas are separated physically by a significant grade difference. In the eastern part of
the Triangle, which includes the Site, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and
office uses with a regional draw. The Site is presently zoned C-3, Commercial, a zone in
which retail and wholesale uses are permitted as of right (and fueling stations are permitted
pursuant to a special use permit). In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the Town considered
changes to but ultimately decided to retain the Sites C-3 zoning.



Visual Character (FEIS Chapter III.B)
The principal comments submitted on visual character relate to the appearance of the Project

1
In addition to the DEIS chapters, the FEIS also contains separate responses to comments on Proposed
Actions Site Plan.
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-8
from the Taconic State Parkway. In responses to these comments, the Applicant prepared
additional computer simulated three-dimensional illustrations of the Project from multiple
viewpoints along the Taconic Parkway, Route 202/35 and Old Crompond Road, which are
provided in the FEIS that accounted for proposed landscaping (which includes evergreen
trees) between the Project and the Taconic, and which indicated the limited viewing time of
the Project for vehicles traveling on the Taconic.

Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology (FEIS Chapter III.C)
The principal comments submitted on soils, topography, slopes and geology relate to
potential erosion impacts from the Proposed Action. The FEIS Site Plan reduces the
proposed disturbance of steep slopes. In particular, disturbance of the soils along slopes
with the greatest potential for erosion (ChD and ChE) is reduced from 0.85 acres in
the DEIS to 0.43 acres in the FEIS. Overall site disturbance is also reduced by 0.2 acres in
the FEIS site plan, and a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan will be reviewed by the
Planning Board in connection with the Site Plan application.

Hazardous Materials (FEIS Chapter III.D)
The principal comments submitted on hazardous materials relate to the potential impacts
of a gasoline spill from the proposed fueling facility on Hunter Brook. There were reported
gasoline spills from the gasoline station previously located on Site; however, those spills
did not migrate beyond the immediate vicinity of the former gasoline filling station site.
Any residual soil contamination from the former gasoline station, as well as hazardous
materials from other historical uses, would be remediated prior to construction of the
Project.

Flora and Fauna (FEIS Chapter III.E)
The principal comments submitted on flora and fauna relate to the methodology used to
assess existing site conditions and evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action. Most of
the Site has already been developed or altered, and the Site is separated from surrounding
biodiversity corridors by major highways that disrupt and fragment the movement of
species.

The responses detail the methodology used by the Applicants consultants, who utilized
the Town of Yorktown guidelines for Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity Assessments.
Consistent with these guidelines, the Site assessment began with a review of resource maps
and other published information to identify which habitats and species may potentially be
present on the Site. This initial review was followed by more than 12 field investigations
over the course of three years to document plant and wildlife species present on the Site
and, in particular, identify any rare, threatened, or endangered species that could be affected
by the Proposed Action. No such species were found; however, during the 2013 field
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-9
investigations an Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on-site, on the
west side of the vernal pool in Wetland A. The Box Turtle is listed as a Species of Special
Concern by New York National Heritage Program.

The Site Plan has been modified to reduce impacts to Wetland A and other sensitive habitat
areas, and the landscaping plan for the Proposed Action would utilize native species to
preserve wildlife habitat.

Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources (FEIS Chapter III.F)
The principal wetlands, groundwater, and surface water resource comments relate to
potential impacts on Wetland A (including the vernal pool), from stormwater runoff and
disturbance of the wetland buffer area.

The Proposed Actions expanded stormwater infiltration system (described above) will
reduce the volume and peak rate of stormwater runoff to Wetland A. These changes are
not expected to affect the hydrology of Wetland A or the vernal pool. Wetland A is linear
and has an intermittent stream within its perimeter. The change in water level depth within
the stream/wetlands corridor as a result of reduced drainage area is less than one quarter
inch and thus there is no adverse impact. The vernal pool is groundwater supported, and
if considering only the surface water runoff the potential decrease in the depth of water in
the venal pool is les than a half inch.

The Proposed Action does not involve any direct disturbance of Wetland A, and
disturbance of its buffer area have been reduced. Approximately 93% of the Wetland A
buffer area will remain undisturbed, and any areas of disturbance will be revegetated with
native species that provide suitable habitat for birds and small mammals.

Stormwater Management (FEIS Chapter III.G)
The principal stormwater management comments relate to the adequacy of the proposed
stormwater management design practices to capture and treat runoff from the Site, and
the potential impacts of such runoff in terms of thermal changes and pollutant loading
on the Wetland A watercourse and downstream water bodies. In response to such
comments, the Applicant (as noted above) has expanded the stormwater infiltration
practices proposed in the DEIS.

The DEIS included a qualitative pollutant loading analysis to assess the potential impacts
of the Proposed Actions increase in impervious surfaces on Site, along with a
quantitative loading analysis for coliform bacteria. While this DEIS analysis detected no
significant, adverse stormwater impacts, in response to public comments and the requests
of Town staff, in the FEIS the Applicant conducted a quantitative pollutant loading
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-10
analysis for the full range of stormwater pollutants (biological oxygen demand (BOD),
total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, oil & grease, copper, zinc, and
lead), as well as a thermal impact analysis. The FEIS pollutant loading analysis was
performed at each relevant design point from which stormwater discharges from the Site,
as well as two intermediate points along the watercourse within Wetland A. The analysis
confirmed that all of the pollutants will be reduced to below pre-development conditions.

The thermal impact analysis confirmed that at the discharge point of the infiltration system in
Wetland A, the post-development temperatures changes will not exceed the permissible 5F
variance from existing conditions, and that runoff temperatures will not exceed the 86F New
York State Department of Environmental Conservatism (NYSDEC) thermal standard.
Consequently, there would be no post-development thermal impacts to the downstream
Sherry Brook or Hunter Brook.

Because the expanded infiltration system will reduce stormwater volumes and peak
discharge rates leaving the Site, it will not affect the potential for downstream flooding.

Utilities (FEIS Chapter III.H)
No comments submitted on the DEIS required any changes to this chapter. As set forth in
the DEIS, the Applicant has proposed extending Westchester Countys Peekskill Sanitary
Sewer District to serve the Site and adjacent properties, and constructing a new gas line
along Old Crompond that would provide service to the Project and existing residences.

Use and Conservation of Energy (FEIS Chapter III.I)
The principal comments submitted on the use and conservation of energy relate to the
Proposed Actions incorporation of green building practices and promotion of alternative
modes of transportation to the Project Site.

The Proposed Action incorporates a variety of green building technologies, including water
saving plumbing fixtures, optimization of energy performance equipment and building
materials, institution of an in-store recycling program, installation of a solar reflective
cool white reflective roof, and installation of skylights with energy-saving photo cells.
To promote alternative modes of transportation, the Proposed Action would improve
pedestrian and bicycle access to the Site and add a new bus stop along the Route 202/35
westbound lanes at the Site frontage

Solid Waste (FEIS Chapter III.J)
Only one comment was submitted on the solid waste chapter of the DEIS, relating to
potential litter associated with the Proposed Action. The Applicant asserts that Costco will
manage and control litter through an internal housekeeping policy.
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-11

Traffic and Transportation (FEIS Chapter III.K)
The principal comments submitted on traffic relate to the methodology and trip
generation assumptions underlying the Traffic Impact Study presented in the DEIS. In
response to those comments, and to account for additional off-site roadway
improvements and traffic calming measures proposed in the FEIS, the Applicant prepared
a Revised Traffic Impact Study analyzing the currently proposed lane geometry and
traffic signal timings for all of the study area intersections under the latest traffic analysis
software (Synchro 8). In addition, the Revised Traffic Impact Study provided an update
of the status of the NYSDOT improvements currently under construction along Route
202/35 between Old Crompond Road and the Parkside Corners Shopping Center. The
Revised Traffic Impact Study confirmed that the Proposed Action will improve peak hour
traffic conditions as compared to Current and No-Build Conditions.

As part of the Revised Traffic Impact Study, new supplementary traffic count data was
collected at key locations of the study area to determine current traffic volumes. These
volumes were generally found to be consistent with or lower than the existing traffic
volumes utilized in the DEIS Traffic Study, indicating that the background traffic
volumes used in the traffic study are representative of current conditions.

Additionally, to address comments questioning the trip generation estimates used in the
DEIS, the Applicant prepared a sensitivity analysis using the higher trip generation
figures referenced in public comments. This assessment showed that under the higher
trip generation assumptions referenced in these comments, traffic generated by the
Proposed Action can be accommodated without significantly changing operating
conditions in the study area.

Parking (FEIS Chapter III.L)
The principal comments submitted on parking relate to the Proposed Actions compliance
with the Towns Parking Code, and the adequacy of the proposed parking capacity to
satisfy customer and employee demand. In response to comments, the Applicant conducted
an additional Parking Utilization Study at the New Rochelle and Nanuet Costco stores on
Friday, November 23, 2012 (Black Friday), Saturday, December 1, 2012, and Sunday,
December 2, 2012. These facilities were selected because, like the Proposed Action, they
both include fueling facilities and tire service centers, and the study dates were selected
because they represent peak shopping periods. This Study supported the Applicants
position that the proposed 610 parking spaces for the Project, for a ratio of 4.04 spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross building floor area (a ratio greater than that recommended by the
Institute of Transpiration Engineers and NYSDEC), is adequate to accommodate
anticipated employee and consumer demand.
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-12

Air Quality (FEIS Chapter III.M)
The principal comments submitted on air quality relate to potential impacts of air emissions
from traffic accessing the Site and from the fueling facility. The air quality assessment (in
the DEIS), which included vehicle exhaust emissions, concluded that the Proposed Action
is not anticipated to cause or contribute to a violation of any National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The fueling station will be required to comply with all applicable
state and federal clean air regulations, and will include Stage II vapor recovery devices that
capture and recover, at a minimum, 90% of the gasoline vapors that are displaced or drawn
from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling.

Noise (FEIS Chapter III.N)
The principal comments submitted on noise relate to potential impacts from traffic
accessing the Site. The Noise Study (in the DEIS) concluded that, when compared to the
existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the Site, the incremental increase in noise
associated with Proposed Action would be imperceptible.

Building Demolition and Construction (FEIS Chapter III.O)
The principal comments submitted on building demolition and construction relate to the
potential erosion and site disturbances associated with construction activities. In response
to these and other comments, the Applicant modified the Site Plan in order to reduce the
disturbance of steep slopes and the Wetland A buffer area. In addition, the FEIS contains
detailed phasing plans for construction activities, such that no more than five acres will be
left unstabilized at any time during the construction process.

The Applicant will also implement erosion control measures pursuant to a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be reviewed by the Planning Board as part
of the Site Plan Application.

Community Facilities and Services (FEIS Chapter III.P)
The principal comments submitted on community facilities and services relate to the
potential impacts of the Project on emergency response times and the increased demand
for fire and police services. The comments on response time are addressed in the FEIS
Revised Traffic Impact Study (discussed above), which found that Applicant-sponsored
roadway improvements and traffic calming measures, as well as roadway improvements
proposed by the NYSDOT, are expected to improve current traffic conditions. As the
Proposed Action is anticipated to generate $819,146 in taxes for the Town of Yorktown
and its Special Districts, including $41,148 to the Lake Mohegan Fire District as well as
$2,506 to Advanced Life Support, the Applicant asserts that such funding would exceed
the cost of any incremental increase in the demand for public services.
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-13

Fiscal and Socioeconomic Impacts (FEIS Chapter III.Q)
The principal comments submitted on fiscal and socio-economic impacts relate to the
potential impact of the Proposed Action on existing businesses within and around Yorktown
and on property values surrounding the Project.

The Applicants Market Study for the area surrounding the Project Site (in the DEIS) found
that the Proposed Action is anticipated to capture a share of leakage from the market, which
would increase the local consumer base without adversely affecting existing businesses in
Yorktown. To the extent the Project does compete with any local businesses, the Applicants
Commercial Character Assessment (in the DEIS) found that such competition is not
anticipated to have a significant, adverse impact on community character. With respect to
property values, the redevelopment of an abandoned, partially blighted Site is not expected
to meaningfully affect surrounding property values.

Cultural, Historical and Archeological Resources (FEIS Chapter III.R)
The only comment on the cultural, historical and archeological resources chapter of the
DEIS relate to the buffering between the Project and the Taconic Parkway, a New York
State designated scenic byway which is on the National Register of Historic Places. As
noted above, there will be a landscaped buffer, including evergreen trees, between the
Project and the Parkway.

Alternatives (FEIS Chapter IV)
The principal comments on the alternatives chapter of the DEIS request additional
consideration and/or selection of a range of alternatives, including alternate locations, Site
uses (e.g., for a hotel), Project designs (e.g., with an underground parking deck or without
a fueling facility), and Project scales (e.g., with a smaller building floor area). The DEIS,
as amplified by the FEIS, considered a range of alternatives to the Proposed Action,
including a no-build alternative that maintains the current Site conditions, the relocation of
the Project to the western part of the Site, alternative site layouts, a mixed-use development
in lieu of a wholesale discount club, and a hotel or motel. The Applicant concluded that
such alternatives were impracticable, inconsistent with its objectives, and/or no more
environmentally protective than the Proposed Action.

Other SEQRA Required Chapters (FEIS Chapter VI)
The principal comments on Chapter VI of the DEIS relate to the impacts of growth
potentially induced by the Proposed Action, including the extension of sewer and gas
service to off-Site properties.

The FEIS analyzed the potential impacts of development in the vicinity of the Project site,
assuming that single-family residential parcels would be rezoned to permit multi-family
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility FEIS Executive Summary

ES-14
development and that commercial development would be permitted on a lot that is highly
constrained by wetlands. The Applicants Traffic Impact Study has accounted for traffic
associated with this potential growth. The water demand and sewage flow from could be
accommodated by existing utility capacity, and any site-specific environmental impacts
(e.g., wetland disturbances) would be addressed through the individual SEQRA review
process associated with any development applications.

Miscellaneous Legal Comments (FEIS General 1)
The principal miscellaneous legal comments relate to: (1) the alleged segmentation of the
Proposed Action from other development projects within the Route 202 corridor, (2) the
alleged need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), and (3) the
conduct of the public hearing and length of the comment period on the DEIS.

With respect to alleged segmentation, the Proposed Action is independent from other
development proposals along Route 202, with distinct owners, objectives, and
development schedules. With respect to the alleged need for supplementation, there have
not been any Project changes, newly discovered information, or changed circumstances
that give rise to new or increased significant adverse impacts not addressed the criteria
to consider in determining the need for an SEIS. With respect to the public hearing, the
public was provided an opportunity to present oral and written comments on the DEIS, and
the public comment period was kept open for 82 days.

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
SITE PLAN

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-1


Site Plan

Introductory Response

The Applicant submitted the DEIS, accompanied by site plans to the Planning Board for
review on November 16, 2011. The DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board as
complete on September 10, 2012, after which the DEIS and site plans were made
available for public review and comment. This section of the FEIS includes those
Comments and the Responses that pertain to the DEIS site plans. In response to public
comments and in preparation of this FEIS, the DEIS site plans were modified by the
Applicant (now referred to as FEIS Site Plan). Site plan exhibits are contained within
this FEIS document and full size site plans are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix J ).

Upon acceptance of this FEIS, issuance of Findings Statement and completion of the
SEQRA review process, the Applicant will submit any revised site plans to the Planning
Board for review and approval in accordance with the requirements of the Town of
Yorktown Zoning Code. Those site plans will incorporate any changes necessary to
conform to the SEQRA Findings Statement.

Description of the FEIS Site Plan

The FEIS Site Plan maintains the major elements of the DEIS site plans (e.g., the Costco
Building is unchanged, there are still 610 parking spaces and the general site layout is
very similar). A series of modifications that were made to address DEIS comments
regarding such design elements as on-site traffic flow, pedestrian access, bike parking,
retaining walls, stormwater management, off-site traffic improvements and off-site
sanitary sewer improvements. Those modifications are summarized below. Detailed
modifications are described in this FEIS Section within the context of specific responses.
Following is a comparison of DEIS / FEIS land cover areas and a description of the
changes incorporated into the FEIS Site Plan:



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-2



Site Plan Table 1
DEIS / FEIS Site Land Area Comparison
Land Area Category DEIS FEIS
DEIS/FEIS
Change +/-

Total Site Area 18.75 18.75 n./a
Wooded 4.20 4.73 13%
Open Vegetated (1) 3.57 3.07 -14%
Building & Pavement (2) 10.98 10.95 -0.3%


Site Area Disturbance 14.55 14.35 (3) -1%
Wetland Buffer disturbed 1.82 1.26 -30%
Woodlands disturbed 4.40 3.86 -12%
Steep Slopes disturbed (D/E/F
(Erosive) Soil Group)
0.85 0.43 -49%
Slopes >25% 0.52 0.12 -77%
Notes:
(1)Open Vegetated Area includes interior, perimeter and embankment vegetated area.
(Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.7.)
(2) Includes gravel pavement.
(3) Includes minor site grading beyond property line. (14.02 acres disturbed onsite.)

DEIS Site Plan (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1)
Provided for comparison

FEIS Site Plan (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2)

Site Layout
Main Site Access Driveway: Extended the second exit lane for the entire length of the
main site access driveway to reduce queuing and improve Site egress movements.
This was enabled by shifting the fueling station approximately 10 feet to the east.
Exit From The Fueling Facility: Modified the exit from the fueling facility to
channelize exiting traffic and improve traffic circulation. The modification included:
1) narrowing the fueling facility exit area; and 2) adding a second receiving
westbound lane opposite the fueling facility in advance of the main access road.
Striped Safety Zone: Provided striped safety zone on both sides of the drive aisle
leading to and from the secondary site access to provide additional area for customer
circulation. Restricted the left turn movement from the eastbound leg of the
intersection at the Sites secondary access driveway to improve traffic safety.
Parking: Overall parking count remains the same with a minor redistribution of the 9
and 10-foot wide parking stalls.
Parking Utilization Study: Performed a parking utilization study at similar Costco
stores during the holiday season to determine peak seasonal parking demand.

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-3


Parking Lot Adjustment: Modified the main parking area to reduce impact to the
buffer of Wetalnd A and improve interior traffic circulation as described following:
Shifted portions of the westerly parking lot curb to the east (further from the Wetland
A buffer); shifted the main parking lot bays easterly; narrowed landscaped island
adjacent to and west of the main entrance drive; modified interior parking to improve
traffic circulation and safety.
Retaining Walls: Added retaining walls along the westerly curb line, to reduce land
disturbance and preserve more of the existing wooded buffer to Wetland A. The net
change is a reduction of open vegetated (embankment) and increase in native
woodlands. For changes to Site land areas, refer to Site Plan Table 1.
Pedestrian Sidewalk: Extended the pedestrian sidewalk from Route 202 to the Costco
building entrance, and added bike parking racks.

Stormwater Management (Refer also to FEIS Section III.G)
Provided treatment of the Runoff Reduction volume (RRv) for 100% of the Water
Quality volume (WQv) from the 1-year storm in a standard subsurface infiltration
practice beneath the paved parking area. The FEIS infiltration system was enlarged
from that proposed in the DEIS.
Provided three flow-based hydrodynamic pretreatment structures.
Provided water quality treatment of the water quality storm, in a standard subsurface
infiltration practice, thereby recharging the groundwater table, providing improved
water quality treatment, reducing pollutant loading, enhancing phosphorous
reduction, reducing stormwater runoff volume, reducing peak discharge rates and
avoiding thermal impact.
Performed quantitative pollutant loading and thermal impact studies.
Provided separate water quality treatment for stormwater runoff from the proposed
fueling facility in a standard practice.
Added RRv treatment practices to treat runoff from offsite highway improvements.

Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 4)
Revised sanitary sewer to coordinate connection with sewer for the Crompond
Crossings development.
Realigned sanitary sewer within Old Crompond Road right-of-way to reduce impact
to roadway pavement and provide the required separation distances from the as-built
location of the existing water distribution system.

Offsite Highway Improvements to Route 202/35 (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory
Exhibit A-5)
Widened Route 202/35 to add an additional lane, thereby, providing two exclusive

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-4


left turn lanes (1-eastbound and 1-westbound) to the Taconic State Parkway
northbound and southbound ramps.
Designed relocation of existing offsite 24-inch water transmission main to
accommodate widening of Routed 202/35.
(Highway Improvement Plans also include those amenities described in the DEIS,
e.g. traffic signal upgrades, westbound lane, sidewalk and bike/shoulder.)

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-10


Comment Site Plan 1 (Document 15A.1, James A. Garofalo):

We are reviewing the DEIS for the proposed Costco site on behalf of a number of
residents with properties in the Yorktown Project area. In order to complete our
review and understand the basis for certain submissions we are requesting additional
information. The materials requested are as follows:

Copy of any waivers and requests made regarding parkway signing
restrictions and signing deed restriction noted in the NYS DOT letters February 16,
2012 letter and J uly 11, 2011.

Response Site Plan 1:

The Applicants engineer had requested relief from the Article 13.07 of Parks Law
restricting the placement of advertising signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State
Parkway. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) administers
enforcement of this law and they have indicated in their October 23, 2012 letter to
TRC Engineers, Inc. that they intend to permit signs on the west building face and the
west side of the fuel station canopy to the extent that they will not be visible from the
Taconic State Parkway. A copy of the NYSDOT letter is included in (Appendix C)
of this FEIS.

Existing lot 23.19-1-1 has a deed restriction that prohibits signs within 300 feet of the
Taconic State Parkway. Relief from this 300 foot sign limitation was requested by
the land owner and is presently being finalized with the NYSDOT Albany office.
Discussions with the NYSDOT Regional office (Poughkeepsie) have indicated their
recommendation to provide relief. Final decision remains with the Albany office,
which, as confirmed by NYSDOT representatives on April 25, 2014, is in the process
of finalizing its review. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2b, 2c, II 13 and III.B 15.

Comment Site Plan 2 (Document 60.8, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Site Plan Issues

This section focuses on specific problems and issues within the proposed site plan.
On-site transportation issues and problems that require further study are highlighted.
These issues should be considered in relation to supply and demand parking and off-
site transportation issues. Table I summarizes some of the identified issues. Figure 1
shows the locations where these issues will occur.

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-11



Sight line issues occur when there are visual obstructions (trees, guard rails, signs,
etc.) and vertical and horizontal geometry problems. There are locations on the
Costco site where sight line angles require severe body turns in order for drivers
to see oncoming vehicles. This can occur at 90 degree intersections where
vehicles are approaching the intersection immediately after a turn as at the
secondary site access.

Response Site Plan 2:
(The Applicant notes that the referenced table 1 was meant to be Table 4 and it is
included in Comment Site Plan 2e, along with Figure 1 referenced in this Comment.)

Design criteria for parking lots are less stringent than the standards required for
public streets and highways. Roadway design standards vary depending upon such
criteria as traffic volume and speed limit. Roadways having lower speed limits and
traffic volumes are not required to be designed to the same standard as, for example,
arterial roadways or highways.

Intersecting roadways are typically designed to 90 degree angles. Although
maximum 90 degree angles are desirable, there are many instances in which they
depart from the ideal design. An example of this is the intersection of Old Crompond
Road and Route 202/35 immediately west of the Project Site in which the angle
approaches 110 degrees.

Since parking lots are low speed environments (typically 15 mph), divergence from
highway and street standards is not unusual. Therefore, it is not uncommon for
intersection sight line angles in parking areas to be greater than 90 degrees. Thus,
the Applicant asserts that it is acceptable for parking aisle intersections to diverge
from the ideal public street design standard resulting in angles greater than 90
degrees.

In response to public comments, the Applicants engineer has reviewed the site plan
submitted with the DEIS and modified several interior intersections to soften
intersection angles. Compare DEIS Site Plan, Introductory Exhibit 1 to FEIS Site
Plan, Introductory Exhibit 2. Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e. Regarding
potential restriction of sight, due to physical obstruction from proposed landscaping,
the landscape maintenance plan will include pruning of low tree limbs and trimming
of shrubs to prevent potential visual impairment.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-12



Comment Site Plan 2a (Document 60.8a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9a,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Part of the development is in the wetland buffer. Transportation infrastructure and
other infrastructure should be removed from the wetland buffers.

Response Site Plan 2a:
Wetland A, as determined by the Applicants wetland consultant, is a highly
functional wetland and its 100 foot buffer is largely wooded. The Proposed Action
proposes no impervious surfaces within the wetland or its buffer. In response to
concerns raised in public comments, the Applicant proposes to reduce grading
impacts to the buffer by diminishing the proposed earth embankment west of the
parking area. The embankment will be reduced by constructing a vertical retaining
wall. This modification to the DEIS Site Plan will result in maintaining significantly
more of the wooded buffer to Wetland A. The disturbance to the natural wooded
buffer under the DEIS Site Plan was 1.05 acres. When accounting for a 10-foot
construction corridor to be cleared at the toe of the slope, the disturbance would have
been 1.26 acres. Under the FEIS Site Plan, with consideration of a 10 foot wide
construction corridor to construct the wall, the disturbance will be 0.5 acres, or
roughly 60% less than for the DEIS Site Plan. The result will be retaining around
of an acre more of the wooded buffer. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Summary
Response and FEIS Responses in Section III.F.

Wetland B, as described in Section III.F.1 of the DEIS, is a small hydrologically
isolated wetland having few functions and values that are typically associated with
wetlands. (Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 5, 16, 30 and 36.) The portion of its buffer
located on the Project Site is largely disturbed, consisting of young forested area
including nonnative invasive species and maintained lawn areas. Since, by
comparison, Wetland A is significantly more valuable than Wetland B, the
Applicants development strategy was to place the proposed development to the
eastern portion of the Site, thereby minimizing potential impacts to Wetland A buffer.

The Proposed Action includes constructing impervious area within the south and west
buffers to Wetland B. The west and south portions of the buffer that will be disturbed
by the Proposed Action do not presently drain toward Wetland B and, therefore, do
not provide wetland protection in the form of runoff pretreatment. Although portions
of the Wetland B buffer will be paved, there will be no loss of infiltration, since
runoff from those areas will be captured and conveyed to the proposed infiltration

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-13


practice, where groundwater will be recharged. In addition, the Applicant asserts that
proposed supplemental landscape enhancement to the remaining buffer will improve
remaining buffer function. The Applicant asserts that impact to the Wetland B buffer
is unavoidable and that the loss of buffer area has been mitigated to the greatest
extent practical. Also refer to DEIS Section IV.C and FEIS Responses IV.3, IV.6 and
IV.15, which discuss an alternative to avoid direct impact to wetlands and their
buffers.

Comment Site Plan 2b (Document 60.8b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9b,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

There are specific requirements for signs along the Taconic Parkway.
Conformance with New York State parkway laws and town signing regulations
should be demonstrated. Details should be provided on signage.

Response Site Plan 2b:

Placement of signage adjacent to the Taconic State Parkway is restricted by
NYSDOT, as described in FEIS Site Plan Responses 1 and 2c, FEIS Responses II.13
and III.B 15. Proposed building signage is detailed on the architectural building
elevations and detailed drawings will be submitted to the Yorktown Building
Department for review and approval as part of the site plan review process. Proposed
building signage is illustrated on FEIS Site Plan Exhibits 2b-1 and 2b-2.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-16



Comment Site Plan 2c (Document 60.8c, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9c,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

The J uly 11, 2011 DOT letter notes sign restrictions within 500 feet of the
parkway (Article 13.07 of the Parks Law). This should be shown on the site plan
as well as the 300 foot deed restriction. (This was shown on plans sent to NYS
DOT but not identified in the DEIS plans).

Response Site Plan 2c:
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 1. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c illustrates the
restricted areas.



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-18


Comment Site Plan 2d (Document 60.8d, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9d,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

The Applicant proposes no bicycle parking until needed, inconsistent with current
proactive approach to providing bicycle parking as a visible attraction to
encourage bicycling. Exterior bicycle racks should be provided for customers and
shown on in [sic] details and located on the site plan to allow public comment.
Consistent with eco-friendly and future thinking New York Citys active design
movement, Costco should provide interior bicycle parking for employees as part
of the building design. This should be shown as part of the total interior layout
design with access points and all interior uses shown.

Response Site Plan 2d:
Table III.I.4 of the DEIS shows that outdoor bicycle parking racks for ten bicycles
will be provided. If the ten spaces prove to be insufficient, additional bike parking
can be added. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d illustrates the location of the proposed
bicycle parking. The Applicant asserts that additional interior bicycle parking is not
necessary, as Costcos experience has been that bike parking racks are often
underutilized. Refer to FEIS Response III.L 1.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-20


Comment Site Plan 2e (Document 60.8e, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9e,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):




Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-21






Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-22



Response Site Plan 2e:
After further study, the Applicant has modified the DEIS Site Plan as described below
and as shown on FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2. These modifications address
the comments described on the Comments Table 4 and Figure 1.

Locations 1 and 2:
The exit from the fueling facility was modified to improve traffic circulation.
The exit opening was narrowed from 49 feet to 25 feet and pavement striping
was added to provide improved channelization for vehicles leaving the pumps.
A second receiving lane along the building frontage was added, thereby
providing two receiving lanes allowing for separate right and left turn
movements. Pavement markings were added to the plan to more clearly
indicate the intended turn movements.
The fuel truck circulation and service area are shown on FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 2e (1). Trucks will enter the Site from the main entrance road, travel
behind the building to the unloading area to facilitate a turnaround and then
return to the southeast corner of the Costco building opposite the fueling
station for offloading. The fuel truck will park in the reserved area indicated
on the plan by a striped hatch pattern. Trucks will offload through remote
receptors, separate from the fueling station, thereby allowing unobstructed
access to the fueling station.
A second exiting lane at the main site driveway has been extended for its
entire length of the main driveway. This extended lane in combination with
the 2
nd
lane along the building frontage road will serve to improve traffic flow
from the fueling facility to the intersection at Route 202/35 and Mohansic
Avenue.
A sidewalk from Route 202/35 to the Costco building has been added along
the site entrance driveway, providing pedestrian connectivity from the bus
stop on Route 202/35 as well as Mohnasic Avenue. Facilitating pedestrian
traffic could lead to a minor reduction in traffic.

Location 3:
The parking spaces along the south face of the Costco building will be
designated as employee parking. In this way the spaces will have minimum
turnover, thereby minimizing potential conflicts with entering and exiting
traffic. In addition, the FEIS Site Plan eliminates the eastern most spaces
along this building frontage to further avoid conflicts. The Applicant asserts

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-23


that ADA parking would not be best suited in this location. ADA parking is
presently designated opposite, or west, of the customer entrance. ADA
compliance will be reviewed by the Building Inspector during the site plan
review process and ultimately approved before a building permit will be
issued.
A location for bike parking has been shown on the FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2d.

Location 4:
The intersection adjacent to the secondary entrance was modified to reduce
potential conflicts. The westerly leg of the intersection was modified to permit
right-in / right-out movements only, thereby eliminating cross traffic flow and
potential conflicts.

Locations 5 & 6:
The parking lot layout at locations 5 & 6 were modified in the FEIS Site Plan
to eliminate offset intersections.

Location 10:
The Applicant modified the secondary entry/exit drive as shown on FEIS Site
Plan Exhibit 2e (10). Striped safety zones were provided behind the parking
spaces on both sides of the aisle allowing the customer room to unload safely.

Location 12:
Diesel fuel will not be sold at the Costco fueling facility. Only regular and
premium grade gasoline will be offered. Since diesel fuel will not be offered,
and fuel will be sold to members only, commercial diesel trucks are not
anticipated. Some members will send their business trucks, typically pickups
and vans, to fuel up. Truck circulation for large vans is shown on FEIS Site
Plan Exhibit 2e (12).
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 9 for discussion regarding capacity/queuing
analyses at the fueling station.
The air monitoring analysis that was performed and included in the DEIS
accounted for idling time of vehicles at the fueling facility. Vehicle emissions
from vehicles operating within the Project, including trips to and from the
fueling facility as well as the warehouse store (idling, standing, queuing, low
speed cruising for parking spaces) are included in the estimate of the total
round-trip vehicles.



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-24


Location 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9:
Landscaping proposed in islands within the parking area will be designed and
maintained in a manner as to prevent sight distance interference. Landscaping
to be provided in the parking lot end islands, as well as the islands provided in
the parking bay lines, will consist of deciduous trees, low growing shrubs (less
than 3 feet height at maturity) and low groundcovers. Deciduous trees will be
selected which naturally have an upright branching pattern to maximize
visibility. Lower limbs of trees will be pruned and shrubs will be trimmed as
may be necessary, thereby maintaining clear visibility for drivers.
Regarding sight line intersection angles, refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2.
Location 9, which had the most significant sight line angle, was modified to
improve the angle. The intersection at location 4 was modified to improve
traffic circulation. With regard to potential obstruction of vision due to
placement of guiderail, the guiderail is only 2 feet high and thus will not
interfere with the drivers visibility. As described in FEIS Site Plan Response
2, landscaping will be trimmed to prevent obstruction of drivers view. Refer
to the FEIS Site Plan, Exhibit 2e (10). The Applicant asserts that the
referenced exhibit plans sufficiently illustrate the internal intersections and
that sight line graphics are not warranted.



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-28



Comment Site Plan 2f (Document 60.8f, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9f,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

The following are additional comments regarding the site plan.

C-301 Utilities

The underground piping for the fuel storage tanks should be shown on the utility
plans to insure there are no conflicts and to assist maintenance and emergency crews.

Response Site Plan 2f:
Pressurized underground fuel pipes, associated with the fueling station, can be
installed while avoiding other underground utilities. Mechanical pipe design will be
included with building architectural plans when provided to the Town for issuance of
a building permit.

Comment Site Plan 2g (Document 60.8g, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9g,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

C-501 and C-502 Lighting plans

Show a cross sectional element to see if these lighting plans C-501 and C-502 will
provide a distraction to Taconic State Parkway drivers.

Are the lighting poles being set back beyond the deflection point of the guiderail?

Response Site Plan 2g:
Visibility of the Site from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) will be limited. Site
lighting will be designed with dark sky technology to minimize lighting impact to
offsite receptors. Extensive landscaping along the TSP will screen the Site and its
lighting from view. Refer to FEIS Exhibits III.B-56, III.B -20a, III.B-40a thru III.B-
46a which illustrate the Site in relation to the TSP and the effectiveness of the
proposed landscape screen. Also refer to FEIS Response II.1 for a discussion of site
lighting relative to its visibility from the TSP.

Guiderails will be placed mainly adjacent to earth embankments along the westerly
edge of the parking area, stormwater management pond and at the main site entrance.
Where light poles will be placed behind the guiderail, they will be offset to account

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-29


for deflection from the guiderail. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c, which illustrates
the location of the proposed light poles behind the guiderail.

Comment Site Plan 2h (Document 60.8h, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9h,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

C-601 and C- 602

Sight line drawings do not show sight lines from the Taconic State Parkway which
sits higher and has higher traffic volumes than its ramps. Drawings should clearly
show existing sign restriction zones and indicate height of trees shown. Since The
Taconic State Parkway is a State Scenic Byway, how is the site going to be visually
buffered from the Taconic State Parkway main lanes which are higher than the
ramps? The visual section shows the site and building will be visible from the
Taconic State Parkway.

Response Site Plan 2h:
Sightlines from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) are illustrated in FEIS Exhibit
III.B-56. As shown in the elevation, the building and site could be visible from the
parkway; however, with the dense array of proposed landscape vegetation, the view
will be screened. The evergreen trees represented in the illustration are assumed to be
20 feet in height, which should be achieved approximately 5 years after initial
planting. Also refer to FEIS Exhibits III.B-20a, III.B-41a thru III.B-46a

The extent of screening of the view from the Taconic State Parkway from newly-
planted trees is dependent on several factors, including: (1) the type of trees
(evergreen or deciduous) to be planted, (2) the height of the trees, (3) the density or
closeness to each other of the trees to be planted, and (4) the arrangement of the trees
at the time of planting.

Primarily, the screen trees will be evergreen and will therefore provide a year-round
ability to screen the view from the TSP, since they do not shed their leaves at the end
of the growing season. The shrubs to be planted will provide additional screening of
the views from the TSP, as well as providing contrast (to a staggered row of
evergreen trees), as well as color, texture and interest, including to passing cars on the
southbound exit ramp.

The trees to be planted in Zone 2 to the west of the southbound ramp off the TSP will
consist of trees with an initial height at the time of planting of 10-12 and in Zone 3,

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-30


8-10 height. The rate of growth of the trees varies by species, other factors being
equal. Tree growth in terms of comparing the height of the tree at the beginning to
the end of the growing season is generally ranked as fast (>25 per year), medium
(13 to 24 per year) and slow (<12 per year). A tree with a height of 10 to 12
growing at a medium rate of 13 to 24 per year, can be anticipated to be between 15
and 22 at the end of 5 years, and continuing to grow at that general rate for several
more years until it begins to reach its ultimate height. Most of the trees to be planted
have an ultimate height which ranges from 30 to 80. A mature height of 40 to 50
would be typical for the evergreen species that are proposed in Zones 2 and 3.

Another factor that greatly influences the ability to screen views is the density of the
trees. The trees need to be planted with sufficient space so that the roots will be able
to obtain sufficient water and nutrients to support the plant growth, but close enough
to provide a dense screen as desired. When planted in a staggered row as is being
proposed, the ability to see through the trees becomes extremely limited as the trees
grow to their mature heights and forms. Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 15.

See FEIS Response II. 13 and FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2c which address the area of
restricted sign usage. Note that relief from the restrictive sign usage is being sought
from the NYSDOT, as described in FEIS Site Plan Response 1.

Comment Site Plan 2i (Document 60.8i, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9i,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

C-708

C-708 plan shows details on fencing but not guiderails. C-101 site plan shows
guiderails and no fencing. How are cars and people to be prevented from going over
the retaining walls? How are these two elements going to be put together. Given the
amount of guide rail and retaining walls a plan for snow storage should be provided.

Response Site Plan 2i:
Fencing and guiderail will be provided to ensure safety for pedestrians and motorists.
Fencing will be provided on top of retaining walls and guiderail will be provided
behind the curb adjacent to steep embankments. As noted, guiderails are shown on
the FEIS Site Plan and the fence is shown on the detail. Refer to FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 8c, which illustrates the guiderail and retaining wall with fence.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-31


A snow removal plan is provided in FEIS Site Plan Exhibit II.10, which considers
placement of proposed guiderail, retaining walls and embankments. Also see FEIS
Site Plan Exhibit 8c for typical section of westerly embankment.

Comment Site Plan 2j (Document 60.8j, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.9j,
Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

C-801

There should be a cross sectional plan for Route 35/202 under the Taconic State
Parkway. The impact of this improvement cannot be judged without a [sic]
understanding the impact to future expansion in this area.

Response Site Plan 2j:
Detailed cross-sections of Route 202/35 were developed by the Applicants engineer and were
submitted to the NYSDOT, the agency with jurisdiction, for review. (Updated Route 202/35
Improvement Plans are included in Appendix J of this FEIS.) Future NYSDOT planned
expansion has been considered in the Applicants design of the proposed improvements. The
existing lane configuration under the TSP bridge consists of one eastbound thru lane, one
westbound thru lane, a single shared east/west turn lane and two paved shoulders. The
Applicants proposed improvements under the TSP bridge will add a dedicated westbound turn
lane, a westbound thru lane and a westbound sidewalk. The total lanes after construction will
include one eastbound thru lane, one eastbound turn lane, one westbound turn lane two
westbound thru lanes, two dual purpose paved shoulder/bike lanes and a westbound sidewalk.
(Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j and FEIS III.K Introductory Response.) The NYSDOTs
future plan is to add an eastbound thru lane. According to the Applicants engineer and based on
coordination with the NYSDOT, the existing bridge has adequate clearance to accommodate
both, the proposed Project-related improvements as well as the NYSDOTs future
improvements.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-33




Comment Site Plan 3 - (Document 81.8, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture
and Community Appearance):

The ABACA recommends the accessible route and sidewalks be continued to the
entrance of the retail store not end at the entrance to the parking area.

The Board prefers the As of Right Lighting Plan 16 ft. Mounting Lights plan C-501
and not the applicants Preferred Light Plan 25 ft. Mounting Height plan C-502. The
reason being, although there are more light poles, the light pollution wont be as great
from distances beyond the Costco site.

Response Site Plan 3:

The FEISSite Plan (Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 2) provides a sidewalk along the
site entrance driveway from Route 202/35 to the Costco building. The sidewalk will
provide pedestrian connectivity from the bus stop on Route 202/35 to the Costco
entrance. See FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 3. The improvements to Route 202/35 will
include dual purpose paved shoulder/bike lanes that will promote bicycle
accessibility. Costco will provide bicycle parking. Refer to FEIS Responses III.K
Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Response 2e.

Lighting Comment regarding preference for lighting height noted. Refer to FEIS
Responses II.1, II.2, II.6, II.12 and .III.B 11.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-35



Comment Site Plan 4 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment Site Plan 5 - (Document 60.3b, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.4b,
Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

The site plan presented in the DEIS demonstrates a poor parking layout, internal sight
line issues, inadequate internal road capacity, insufficient vehicle queue storage, fuel
unloading issues, and a lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Air quality
issues are also likely and have not been properly disclosed or reviewed.

Response Site Plan 5:

Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2d and 2e. Offsite pedestrian and bicycle access
will be provided as part of the offsite Route 202/35 improvements (refer to FEIS III.K
Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Responses 2j and 3). An air quality
analysis was performed and discussed in DEIS Section III.M. Also refer to FEIS
Responses III.M 8 and III.M 10.

Comment Site Plan 6 (Document 179.2, William Wegner, Riverkeeper):
In addition to discharging stormwater to Wetland A, the DEIS also proposes
disturbance of the buffers of both Wetland A and Wetland B1.05 acres of grading
in Wetland A and 0.77 acres of grading and additional impervious surfaces in
Wetland B. Grading will permanently alter the natural topography that formed and
has supported both these wetlands. Permanent impervious cover in Wetland B will
impair its ability to infiltrate stormwater and perform the other aforementioned water
quality functions. For these reasons, the proposed project site plan should be
reconfigured to avoid (I) discharging stormwater to Wetland A and (2) disturbing
both on-site wetland buffers.

Response Site Plan 6:

1) The water quality storm (1-year) will be treated through a proposed infiltration
practice that meets the water quality requirements as regulated by the Town of
Yorktown as an MS4 municipality, the NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Runoff from
larger storms will continue to discharge to Wetland A since that is primarily
where runoff from the Site currently drains. Continued discharge to Wetland A is
necessary to maintain the wetlands hydrology. Refer to FEIS Sections III.F and
III.G.

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-36


2) Regarding proposed disturbance to existing wetland buffers, refer to FEIS Site
Plan Responses 2a, III.G Introductory Summary Response and III.F, which
indicate a reduction of disturbance to Wetland A buffer with the FEIS Site Plan
and mitigation of Wetland B buffer impacts through supplemental planting to
improve buffer function.

Comment Site Plan 7 (Document 138.3, Wayne Jeffers, Barrier Motor Fuels, Inc.):

By eliminating the fueling facility, COSTCO will be able to reduce the blacktop
footprint to approach the Town Code requirements and not have to ask the Town for
special variances just because they want a giant facility. Even the parking lot light
pole height will require a special variance.

Response Site Plan 7:

No variance is required for the proposed fueling facility, which can be operated under
existing zoning pursuant to a Special Use Permit from the Town Board. The
Applicant asserts that the elimination of the fueling facility would not yield
significant environmental benefits, since stormwater runoff from the approximately
acre covered by the fueling facility will be managed pursuant to applicable
regulations and an approved Stormwater Management Plan, and is not anticipated to
generate significant environmental impacts. Refer to FEIS Section III.G. The
Applicant further asserts that the fueling facility, which will serve only Costco
members and will not sell diesel fuel, is not anticipated to generate significant adverse
traffic or community character impacts. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2e, IV.6
and IV.7a. Finally, the Applicant sited the fueling facility in a location that will
minimize its potential environmental impacts. As described in DEIS Section II.C, the
location was selected to provide improved traffic circulation, more efficient parking
layout and reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer. In addition, the Applicant asserts
that an alternative without the fueling facility does not meet its objectives for this
Site, and is therefore not a reasonable alternative. See FEIS Responses IV.1, IV.7b,
IV.9 and IV.10.

The Applicant requests only one variance, which is to allow the site lighting with 25-
foot high light poles (refer to FEIS Response II.1). Should the variance or legislative
change not be approved, the Applicant will proceed with the application based on
lighting requirements set forth in the Town Code. Also refer to FEIS Responses
IV.6, 7a and 9.



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-37


Comment Site Plan 8a (Document 167.2a, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2a, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2a, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Disturbances on Steep Slopes and in Wetland Buffers

Steep Slopes: In sensitive watersheds, such as within the NYC Watershed, it is best to
avoid construction on steep slopes. Slope influences the retention and movement of
water, the potential for soil slippage, accelerated erosion, the ease with which
machinery can be used and the engineering uses of soils. It has been our experience
that construction on steep slopes can result in large stormwater erosion events during
construction activity.

Because of the water quality risks posed by construction on steep slopes, the New
York State Stormwater Design Manual recommends that no construction occur on
those slopes:

Development on slopes with a grade of 15% or greater should be avoided,
if possible, to limit soil loss, erosion, excessive stormwater runoff and the
degradation of surface water. Excessive grading should be avoided on all
slopes, as should the flattening of hills and ridges. Steep slopes should be
kept in an undisturbed natural condition to help stabilize hillsides and
soils. On slopes greater than 25%, no development, re-grading, or
stripping of vegetation should be considered

NY Design Manual, p. 5-12 (emphasis added).

While this recommendation does not effect an absolute prohibition against
construction on slopes exceeding 25 percent it reflects the States best professional
judgment that such construction should normally be avoided and that strong
justification for deviating from it should be provided, especially in sensitive areas
such as the NYC Watershed. If allowed, the extent of such construction should be
limited and mitigation requirements should be employed to minimize potential
impacts and fully stabilize the site as soon as possible.

Significant disturbance (0.78 acres) would occur on slopes steeper than 25 percent
and another 2.2 acres of very steeply sloped land (67 percent) would be created
within and adjacent to wetland buffer areas. But the DEIS does not provide strong
justification for doing so. The proposed slopes of constructed land are beyond the
commonly accepted practical limits of 2.5:1 for ongoing activities, such as mowing

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-38


vegetated areas. Maintenance activities on slopes this steep will present health and
safety hazards for the workers involved with ordinary site maintenance. This area of
the site should be re-designed so that no earthfill slopes are steeper than 2.5:1. If this
is not desirable, vertical structural retaining walls may be necessary.

Response Site Plan 8a:

The more environmentally sensitive portions of the Site, which include Wetland A
and steep slopes, are largely located on the western half of the Site. Much of the
existing steep slopes around the nursery and motel parcels were formed through the
cut and fill process during their construction.

As part of the planning process, consideration was taken to minimize impact to
existing sensitive areas located at the western portion of the Site near and adjacent to
the Wetland A buffer. As such, the Costco building was placed as far east as possible
to minimize westward encroachment and minimize required earthwork.

In light of this Comments request to avoid construction on/of steep slopes, the
Applicant modified the site plan to further reduce impacts to the wooded slopes in the
Wetland A buffer. FEIS Site Plan modifications include construction of retaining
walls and flattening of proposed embankments in areas in or adjacent to Wetland A
buffer. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, Site Plan 6 and III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The FEIS Site Plan will flatten the westerly embankment slopes
from 1.5:1 to a combination of 3:1 and 2:1. The embankment will slope away from
the parking area and will be comprised of a flat section followed by sloped section
varying from 3:1 to 2:1. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c and Exhibit 8a(1).

This Comment states that the DEIS Site Plan included disturbance of 0.78 acres that
would occur on slopes steeper than 25 percent (refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(2)).
The Applicant asserts that construction on such slopes within the interior of the Site
(most created during construction of the existing development) is unavoidable. See
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(2.) The FEIS Site Plan, however, will significantly reduce
construction on slopes greater than 25 percent within the Wetland A buffer from 0.52
to 0.12 acres. See FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8a(3).


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-42


This Comment also states that the DEIS site plan included establishment of 2.2 acres
of embankments having slopes of 67% (1.5:1) within or adjacent to the Wetland A
buffer. The FEIS Site Plan eliminates construction of embankments with slopes of
67% (1.5:1) within or adjacent to the Wetland A buffer.

This Comment recommends constructing embankments with minimum slope of 2.5:1.
If that cannot be achieved, construction of retaining walls is suggested. The Applicant
asserts that construction of 2:1 embankments is a standard construction practice and
stabilization can be established based on construction in accordance with and under
the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineers recommendations. The Applicant
asserts that its proposal to implement both a retaining wall (as suggested by the
Comment) (generally 15 to 20 feet high) and a combined 2:1 and 3:1 embankment
slopes will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer while providing a safe and stable
embankment. Refer to FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

Design of proposed embankments was done in coordination with the
recommendations of the Applicants Geotechnical Engineer (DEIS Appendix VII.M),
which includes implementation of various methods of slope stabilization. Such
methods include surface treatment of embankments with erosion control turf
reinforcement mats and installation of geosynthetic reinforcement. To ensure proper
construction, earthwork operations will be performed under the supervision of a
Geotechnical Engineer.

In spite of the necessity to construct on some of these steeper slopes, the Applicants
engineer asserts construction can be performed safely without detrimental effects.
Temporary sediment and erosion control practices will be installed, maintained and
inspected regularly as described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP
provided in FEIS Appendix E) to ensure proper functionality of the practices during
the construction period. Double protection will be provided at the toe of the slope to
protect these sensitive resources. Temporary and permanent erosion control treatment
will be installed to maximize stabilization and protection of the soil and water
resources. Refer to DEIS and FEIS III.G relative to stormwater and III.O relative to
construction. Sediment and Erosion Control Plans will be reviewed for approval
during the site plan review process. Review will take these concerns into
consideration.

Permanent erosion control will include establishing permanent landscape cover.
Although landscape maintenance cannot generally be performed using riding
mechanical equipment on slopes steeper than 2:1, they can be maintained safely using

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-43


manual equipment. Naturalized groundcover, which will require minimal
maintenance, will be established on these embankments to prevent erosion.

Comment Site Plan 8b (Document 167.2b, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2b, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2b, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Avoid Wetland Buffer Disturbances: The erosion and sediment control plan shown on
Construction Drawing C-401 proposes that silt fence be placed in a wetland buffer, at
the toe of a constructed 1.5:1 slope. (The toe of slope is defined as that point where
the slope of the constructed fill intersects with the stripped ground line). The 2005
New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. page
SA-19, require that silt fence be placed a minimum of 10 feet beyond the toe of slope.
Once this issue is corrected, the location of the properly positioned silt fence should
be noted on Construction Drawing C-401. For a slope as steep as the one proposed at
this location, construction equipment will not be able to operate within the 10 foot
corridor required from the toe of this slope. As a result, the silt fence will have to be
repositioned further into the wetland buffer. Thus, much more wetland buffer will be
disturbed than is proposed in the DEIS and presented on Construction Drawing C-
401. This area should be re-designed with vertical retaining walls to preclude wetland
buffer disturbance and to maintain the integrity of the headwater wetland.

A review of the DEIS, Section VII, Appendices, M, Geotechnical Engineering
Report, shows that retaining walls were planned along the west side of the project site
at a height of approximately 21 feet, which would result in much less encroachment
into the wetland buffer. The report also recommended the removal of two feet of
surface material over the entire project area prior to the placement of fill. These
recommendations were not addressed in the design documents and the horizontal
impacts of the proposed earth rock fill slopes will encroach further into the west
wetland buffer as well as off the property boundary to the north. The actual limits
of construction disturbance should be accurately shown on the Grading Plan,
Construction Drawing C-201, and the Erosion Control Plan, Construction Drawing C-
401.

Response Site Plans 8b:
The limit of disturbance on the FEIS Site Plan has been changed to account for a
construction corridor to be placed at the toe of slope. The slope of the embankment
adjacent to the Wetland A buffer will be flattened and a 10-foot corridor provided.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-44


FEIS Site Plan modifications include construction of retaining walls and flattening of
proposed embankments to further reduce impact to the wooded buffer to Wetland A.
Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2a and 6 and FEIS III.G Introductory Summary
Response.

Due to the presence of organic material within the top two feet of the existing soil, the
Applicants Geotechnical Engineer recommends removal of this material prior to
placement of fill. During earthwork operations and construction of embankments,
surface soils will be stripped. There is no need for the contractor to extend the
stripping of topsoil beyond the proposed limit of grading. At the limit of grading, the
stripping can be performed with a vertical cut, thereby minimizing soil disturbance.

Comment Site Plan 8c (Document 167.2c, Charlie Silver, Watershed Inspector General),
(Document 167.2c, Philip Bein, Watershed Inspector General), (Document
167.2c, Donald W. Lake, Jr., DuLac Engineering):

Inadequate Erosion and Sediment Controls

Missing Elements: Construction Drawing C-401 details the erosion and sediment
control plans for the site. Missing from this sheet is a culvert outlet scour pad for the
stormwater management pond inlet, a detailed construction phasing plan addressing
temporary swales, sediment traps, and staging area details. A concrete truck washout
facility for construction operations is also missing. All of these deficiencies need to
be addressed in the SWPPP of the DEIS.

Missing Details: The erosion control details shown on Construction Drawing C-705
should be amended to provide the following details: rock gradation for lined
channels, actual dimensions for the stabilized construction entrance, and the creation
of tables that show specific site locations for energy dissipaters and water bars. Stone
outlet sediment traps and water bars are not shown on Construction Drawing C-401
and should be if they are part of the proposed project. In addition, the stone/rubble
gravity retaining wall explained in detail #10 on Construction Drawing C-703 does
not appear to be erected at the project site. As such, this detail should be deleted.
However, a detail for a concrete truck washout facility needs to be added on
Construction Drawing C-705.

Highway Improvement Work: An erosion and sediment control plan needs to be
developed for all the highway improvement work and offsite sanitary sewer
connection construction activities that will accompany this project.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-45


Construction of Elevated Plateau: The Geo-tech report by Tectonic specified that
rock fill material be used for the construction of an elevated plateau on the western
part of the project. Construction Drawing C-201 indicates that a topsoil layer will be
placed on top of the 1.5:1 slope to an unspecified depth. The site landscaping plan,
Construction Drawing LP- I, presents a very aggressive planting plan for the steep
slopes shown on the site; particularly for the 1.5:1 rock fill slope on the west side of
the project. Additional details and cross-sections of the fill slopes need to be
provided, with construction details, to demonstrate how the proposed site work is to
be accomplished.

Response Site Plans 8c:

Erosion and Sediment Controls Missing Elements and Details

A final Construction Phasing Plan, as well as the recommended erosion and sediment
control elements and details, are included in FEIS Section III.O and on the FEIS Site
Plans . For discussion regarding the Construction Phasing Plan, also refer to FEIS
Response III.O 4.

Highway Improvement Work:

Sediment and erosion control plans for the offsite highway improvements and
sanitary sewer extension activities are included in FEIS Section III.O. Highway
drawings are included as part of this FEIS (Appendix J ).

Construction of Elevated Plateau:

The extent of the westerly earth embankment has been reduced in conjunction with
the proposed construction of vertical retaining walls as described in FEIS Site Plan
Responses 2a, 6 and 8a. As recommended by the Geotechnical Report (DEIS VII.M),
the embankment will be constructed using structural fill material. Topsoil will be
placed on the surface to promote vegetative stabilization. Temporary and permanent
erosion control measures will be installed, maintained and inspected. A typical cross-
section of the earth embankment with retaining wall is provided in FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 8c.


Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-47


Comment Site Plan 9 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):

Within this configuration you have seven lanes, which will go be [sic] into an area
that will have approximately, forty-nine feet. So, you have seven lanes in a very short
distance are going to be channeled in into forty-nine feet which could be five or four
lanes, four lanes a little bit over twelve feet, which is a normal size.

What's that distance that you are going to be transitioned from seven into say four
lanes? Once you get to those four lanes drivers have a choice, they can go to the right
and go all the way around, which they are not going to do, that's like traveling around
ten football fields. So, basically almost all of the traffic is going to be making a left
turn.

What's the distance here, that those vehicles will be able to stack in the two lanes that
are there? Now, Costco's own data shows that approximately, thirty-three percent of
the traffic is going to use both fueling station and the main building. So, most of the
traffic is going to be making a left turn, when it gets to this side access here.

That access should be a level service analysis with queuing looking at that particular
intersection and whether or not the traffic is going to queue back to this exceedingly
large curve cut for the gas station. [PH2, page 42, lines 6-25], [PH2, page 43, lines 1-
13]

Response Site Plans 9:

The Comment refers to traffic circulation at the proposed fueling facility. The
Applicant has modified the fueling facility layout to provide an improved
ingress/egress and traffic circulation. The curb cut from the fueling facility has been
narrowed and relocated as illustrated on the FEIS Site Plan (See FEIS Site Plan
Exhibit 9). The main entrance/exit has been revised to extend the exiting lane further
from the intersection. The revised exit will improve traffic circulation as well as the
operation at the fueling facility intersection. This modification will thus provide
additional storage at the intersection and thus queuing will not interfere with the
entrance/exit of the fueling facility.

Also refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 1.



Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-49


Capacity analyses have been performed by the Applicant for the internal intersection
of the main access driveway and the fueling facility access during the AM, PM and
Saturday Peak Hours. The analyses, contained in FEIS Appendix G.7, indicate that
the intersection will operate at Level of Service a during the Peak AM Hour with a
95
th
percentile queues on the fueling facility Access of one vehicle. The intersection
is expected to operate at a Level of Service c during the Peak PM Hour with the
95
th
percentile queue of approximately 2 vehicles and at a Level of Service d during
the Saturday Peak Hour with a 95
th
percentile queue of approximately 3 vehicles.
This queue, which would not happen often, can be stored within the available area
and will not impact vehicles entering the fueling facility.

It should be noted that this intersection is located approximately 275 feet from Route
202/35 and will experience gaps in traffic flow due to the traffic signal at the main
access intersection with Route 202/35, which will allow vehicles to more easily turn
left out of the fueling facility access. In addition, vehicles on the main access will be
traveling at a relatively low speed, further allowing an easier left turn out movement,
thus the actual Levels of Service will be better than indicated above. The maximum
queuing can be accommodated on the fueling facility Access.

Comment Site Plan 10 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
There are, as I said two lanes, it looks like from the diagram -- from the figures that
this is where the storage tanks are going to be for the fuel lane. Where exactly are the
fuel trucks going to stop to unload their fuel? Is this going to interfere with this very
key location? [PH2, page 43, lines 14-20]

Response Site Plans 10:

Refer to FEIS Site Plan Responses 2e Locations 1 and 2 and Site Plan 9.

Comment Site Plan 11 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
Now, I don't know how you are going to get the four lanes to come out of the fueling
station matching up to the two leans [sic] that are going to be accessed here in this
short distance. I would like to know how that is going to be accomplished.

Over, in front on the south side of Costco, there are a number of parking spaces up
against the building. Now, the fact of the matter is this part of the road is going to be
very heavily traveled, how many vehicles are going to be part of that road? How easy
is it going to be to back in, back out of those locations which would probably be used

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-50


quite frequently for loading and unloading and is that process when somebody is
loading and unloading a very large thing like a large TV set, is that going to interfere
with the traffic that is on this main part of the road?

Normally you would not have parking in that portion of the road, you would leave
that open and you will need all the parking on all these isles with its -- where the
traffic has been broken up. In this particular case they are not doing that. There is
going to be a lot of interference with their main access to the parking areas at that
point. [PH2, page 43, lines 21-25], [PH2, page 44, lines 1-24]

Response Site Plans 11:

Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Locations 1-3 and Site Plan Response 9.

Comment Site Plan 12 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
There are also a number of other problems, one of which is the sightlines here, near
the access to the road that goes around the trucks. Also on the west side where in
order to see vehicle drivers are going to have to turn their heads a lot more than
ninety degrees, in some cases possibly a hundred and seventy, a hundred and ninety.
That's very difficult for a normal driver, much less someone who is older.

Now, this is one of the reasons why most intersections are designed to be "T"
intersections ninety degrees, very clearly do not have that in some locations. This
needs to be addressed. You also have situations where you are going to have
problems with the traffic coming in.

Down here, the secondary access you have traffic that is going to be coming in and in
order to see the driver is going to have to be looking all the way across at a very steep
angle, to see vehicles coming in probably they will be coming in very fast. [PH2,
page 44, line 25], [PH2, page 45, lines 1-22]

Response Site Plans 12:

With regard to sight lines, refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 2, 4, 7, 8 and
9. With regard to the secondary access, refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location
4 and 10.




Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-51


Comment Site Plan 13 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
Now, with the BJ s, when BJ s came in, they actual had a physical barrier along the
road in front of their secondary access and despite the fact that they had a curb there
to prevent the vehicles from making left turns in, they were denied a secondary
access.

In this particular case there is no barrier, so vehicles can physically do it, even though
it is going to be illegal.

One of the things that it is not shown like the question is, where is it going to be
shown that the striping and signing plan for this site -- so you can better understand
what is going on, not only up here to find out that this is four lanes or five lanes
coming out of the gas filling station, but how they're transitioning it.

And even though they show at that point there is a do not enter, once you get at little
snow on that, people aren't gonna see that and you are going to have a forty-nine foot
curb path that the drivers coming in would look like a two lane road. Forty-nine feet
is awful wider than a normal road, two lanes would be twenty-four, so it is twice the
width.

So, you need to have a signing and striping plan so you better understand how traffic
is circulating and being in control within the site. When is this going to be done so
that not only you and J acobs Engineering and the public will have a chance to
comment on the circulation within the site? [PH2, page 45, lines 23-25], [PH2, page
46, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 47, lines 1-7].

Response Site Plans 13:

Drawing C-101, included in the DEIS, illustrated the preliminary site traffic control
signage and striping. The secondary access is restricted to right-in and right-out
movements. FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2e (10) illustrates traffic control measures
designed to prevent illegal left turns. The proposed measures include a raised median
island, pavement markings and No Left Turn signs.

Comment Site Plan 14 (PH2, James Garofalo, Tim Miller Associates Inc.):
In this particular case, there really isn't any on street parking or any other parking
unless maybe this northern side is someday developed, where extra vehicles can go,
this is it. This is all the parking they are going to have. So, you need to take a very

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-52


close look at looking at an alternative to not only this site plan but the alternatives
which they provided in the DEIS.

The isle that comes from the secondary access, how can we redesign this so that there
is no parking, so that vehicles can freely flow. Because vehicles are going to be
coming in at such a slightly higher speed. It is going to be very difficult for the
people coming in and out of parking spaces to see them coming in as well as these
two access cross isles.

Where is the design to show that they can come in freely like they come in, in the
main access road, assuming that, that main access even stays. Certainly there is some
question in the analysis of the plans that show the lane configurations at the two
access points and how the traffic and traffic analysis is done.

These need to be looked at and brought to a similar place, where the analysis is
looking at what is on the plan, and the plan reflects the analysis that has been done.

This area on the southern part of Costco actually might be a very good place for
people to quickly drop off and then leave, but what are the problems going to be
when you actually have people trying to park there and un-park and load in that area,
because that's the primary loading area for major sites -- for major items. [PH2, page
47, lines 19-25], [PH2, page 48, lines 1-25], [PH2, page 48, lines 1-8]

Response Site Plans 14:

Refer to FEIS Site Plan Response 2e Location 10.

Comment Site Plan 15 (PH2, Walt Daniels, Conservation Board):

The DEIS states that the view of the Costco building from the Taconic Parkway
scenic byway will be mitigated by the planting of trees and shrubs. The proposed
planting plan does not adequately show the species and quality -- quantity of the plan,
so we use for landscaping.

Additional planting material may be needed to insure the visual character of the
scenic Taconic Parkway and the landscaping to mitigate tree removal throughout the
site.

To see next for each planning [sic] zone needs further clarification. New England
Conservancy company provides several kinds of measures for different uses. The

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-53


announce [sic] is incomplete unless the specific segments for completion is done for
each Planning [sic] zone.

Landscaping and planting plan is inadequate with a minimum of three year
survivability of plantings from day of acceptance. This insures that all planting
material is not dead or dying and adequate coverage is provided to satisfy the
intended purposes. [PH2, Page 92, lines 1-25], [PH2, Page 93, lines 1-19]

Response Site Plans 15:

Screening of the Costco building from the Taconic State Parkway is proposed to be
accomplished by a natural vegetative barrier, specifically the planting of native
evergreen trees supplemented with deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Staggered rows
of evergreen trees spaced to ensure optimal growth will provide a dense screen to
shield the view of the building from the roadway. The proposed evergreen trees have
an ultimate height at maturity which will range generally from 40 to 50. These trees
will provide a barrier that shields views of the building from the Taconic, and are
anticipated to reach an effective height within five to seven years of planting.

The planting of evergreen and deciduous shrubs on the east and west sides of the
staggered row of evergreen trees will have the effect of screening views toward the
proposed building at the lowermost branching of the evergreen trees. In all, 150 to
155 large evergreen trees are proposed to be planted along the easternmost portion of
the Property to screen views from the roadway toward the building.

The staggered rows of evergreen trees are to be planted center-to-center (spacing
between plants) of about 16 feet. At this separation distance, the trees are far enough
apart to be able to have more than adequate sunlight, as well as nutrients and water
from the soil to thrive and ensure their survivability. The landscaping will be
maintained by the Project Sponsor and shall include removal of invasive vines. The
landscape contractor will be required to guarantee the survival of his landscaping and
replace sick and dying plantings within the guarantee period.

Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B1, B2 and B4 and Response Site Plan 2h.

Comment Site Plan 16 (PH2, Walt Daniels, Conservation Board):

The planting in the parking lot of trees is very minimal in the plans. Plan allowance
have a [sic]they shave [sic] the parking surface and hence reduce the thermal water
going into the ground water and so that is another thing that can be done. [PH2, Page

Part B - Comments and Responses
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Site Plan


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Site Plan-54


94, line 1], [PH2, Page 95, lines 1-5]

Response Site Plans 16:

The Applicant proposes modification to the Site Plan to increase the effectiveness of
the proposed landscaping. Refer to FEIS Responses II.7, III.G Introductory Summary
Response and III.G 13, which address parking lot landscaping and its relationship to
thermal impact.

Comment Site Plan 17 (PH2, Peter Pergola):

I have been looking at the plan, I am in the landscape business, and I think they went
beyond the call of duty to really make the place look great and to pick the plants that
are native to this area.

The only thing I found a problem with is the white pine, which they should have used
spruce because they are a little more deer resistant. [PH2, page 97, lines 5-13]

Response Site Plan 17:

The evergreen trees selected in Zones 2 and 3, which include the road screening
plants, include a total of nine different species. The plants that were selected are
native and non-invasive and will grow well in the environmental conditions in which
they proposed to be planted. In general, some spruce trees may be more deer resistant
than white pines, and the final mix of trees that are actually planted can be weighted
more toward spruces and other trees which deer find less attractive. To some extent,
deer resistance depends on the position of the plant in the landscape, its surroundings
and what other potential food sources are available. The Landscape Plan will be
further reviewed by the Planning Board as part of the site plan review process. That
review will take these concerns into consideration.

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION _

Part B - Comments and Responses Section II


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-1



Section II. Description Of Proposed Action

For a description of the proposed FEIS Site Plan, refer to the Introductory Response in
FEIS Section Site Plan. This will explain changes made after the Planning Board accepted
the DEIS.

Comment II. 1 (PH1, Evan Bray):
the applicant seeks a fifty-six percent increase above the permissible lighting
mounting height, twenty-five feet instead of sixteen. Granting a variance to increase
the height of the lighting so drastically, [PH1, page 94, lines 3-7] Route 202 and
the Taconic as scenic parkways and -- or highways and we are supposed to respect
that.
The calculations submitted with the DEIS it doesn't account for the perception
from the corridor, the 202, 35 and the Taconic State Parkway, or the residences.
In fact, allowing for such a variance will exacerbate the light pollution fine approve
Costco, but do they really need the variances to increase the lighting height by almost
sixty percent, which only does two things. It would increase visibility from the
Taconic State Parkway and would increase visibility from 202 and 35. [PH1, page 94,
lines 12-25], [PH1, page 95, lines 1-6]

Response II. 1:

The Proposed Action includes site lighting of the parking area, circulation roads and
building. Two lighting plans are described in the DEIS and included in the Proposed
Action. One proposal includes area lighting in accordance with the 16-foot height
limitation imposed by Chapter 200 of the Yorktown Code. The second proposal,
which is the Applicants preference, includes area lighting proposed at a height of 25-
feet for which a variance or legislative change would be required. The no-variance
plan would require approximately 230 light sources (poles or building mounts). By
comparison, the plan requiring a variance would require approximately 155 light
sources, or approximately one-third less than the variance free proposal. In
connection with site plan review, the Planning Board will review both plans and
consider the advantages of each plan. Based upon review, the Board may determine
to support the proposed variance or the no variance plan.
Potential impacts from site illumination will be tempered by utilizing dark sky
luminaire optics that throw light downward in order to minimize sky glow and
nighttime glare. Light fixtures along the perimeter of the Site will be equipped with
shielded luminaires to limit horizontal illumination, offsite light spillage and
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-2


nighttime glare. The proposal using the higher light poles will result in significantly
fewer luminaires, thereby decreasing visual point sources at night. The same
proposal, requiring fewer poles, will also reduce visual daytime clutter. After the
store has closed all but the minimum outdoor lighting needed for security will be
turned off.
The International Dark-Sky Association recommends light poles of 25-feet to
promote greater light uniformity as described in their Outdoor Lighting Code
Handbook as follows:

Again, since most area lighting has certain target uniformity
levels, shorter poles will mean that more must be used, which
may increase the visual impact at night as well as in the daytime.
While these poles will be shorter, a community must carefully
evaluate whether the trade-off of more poles might compromise
the original intent to reduce visual clutter. In general, it is not
recommended that a lighting code limit pole heights. With good
designs using fully shielded luminaires, poles with standard
heights (up to about 11 meters or 35 feet) are in most situations
minimally obtrusive it is not recommended to restrict heights
to much below about 8 meters (25 feet).

The view of the site lighting by motorists passing the Site on the Taconic will be
limited. The proposed Costco building and light poles, which are lower than the
building, will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) northbound lanes
as the site will be tucked below the TSP embankment. The view from the southbound
lanes and off ramp will be obscured by a proposed landscape screen, as illustrated in
the exhibits in FEIS Response III.B2. (Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B1, III.B3
and III.B4 and Site Plan 2h.) The proposed landscape buffer will be comprised of a
dense mix of new and existing deciduous and evergreen trees which will obscure the
view. Visibility from this view, therefore, will be very limited.

While the site lighting fixtures in either proposal would be visible from Route 202/35,
landscaping is proposed along the roadway within a landscape strip which is intended
to soften the view along the site frontage. Existing woodlands as well as proposed
landscaping will limit visibility of the Site from residential neighbors along Old
Crompond Road. Although ambient light at the Project site will be altered, reasonable
measures to reduce light pollution will be implemented, as described. Also refer to
FEIS III.B 11, III.B 13, & III.B 17.

The Applicant has stated that if the requested variance or legislative change not be
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-3


supported, the Applicant will go forth with the plan that complies with Code.

Comment II. 2 (Document 42.14, Yorktown Smart Growth):

THE TRUE COSTS OF COSTCO
Noise, Particulate, and Light Pollution

Lighting in the parking lot would create significant light pollution, especially
for nearby residential neighborhoods.

Response II. 2:
The residential neighborhood nearest the Project Site is west of the Site along Old
Crompond Road. Views of the Costco Site will be partially screened by the existing
woodlands that will be maintained along the westerly portion of the Site.
Supplemental landscaping along the southwestern portion of the developed Site is
proposed and will provide additional screening. (Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1,
Sight Line Section B, and III.B2 to III.B4.) Site illumination levels at the site
boundary will approach zero foot-candles in compliance with Town Code
requirements except along Route 202/35 where the Site driveways will be
illuminated. Proposed light fixtures along the parking area perimeter will be equipped
with residential light shields to minimize light spillage. Light fixtures will be dark
sky technology, which will throw light downward to minimize sky glow as
explained in FEIS Response II.1.

Comment II. 3 - (Document 81.9, Mark Connelly, Yorktown Advisory Board on
Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)):

From reviewing Exhibit II-5, Building Elevations, the Board cannot determine the
architecture of the massive building. Building elevations, drawn to scale, are to be
submitted to the ABACA, before site plan approval, for our review and comments.
The applicant is to submit materials and color samples to the Board.

Response II. 3:
ABACA is an advisory Board that provides recommendations to the Planning Board
in connection with site plan review. Drawings showing architectural building
elevations along with materials and color samples will be submitted to Yorktown
ABACA for review upon completion of the SEQRA process and as part of the site
plan review process.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-4


Comment II. 4 - (Document 81.10, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

If built, the Costco building will be one of the few Yorktown buildings visible from
the Taconic. As such, the ABACA hopes that it will have aesthetically attractive
elements, and not simply be a massive corrugated box. The Board recommends the
applicant consider a green roof.

Response II. 4:
As shown on Sight Line Sections illustrated in FEIS Response III.B 1, the proposed
Costco building will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway (TSP) northbound
lanes as the building roofline will be tucked below the TSP embankment. The view
of the building from the southbound lanes and off ramp will be shielded by a
proposed landscape screen, as illustrated in the exhibits in FEIS Response III.B2.
(Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B3 and III.B4.) The proposed landscape buffer will
be comprised of a dense mix of new and existing deciduous and evergreen trees
which will obscure the view. Visibility from this view, therefore, will be very
limited. Refer also to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h.

The Costco roof will be equipped with as many as 200 Energy Star rated skylights
designed to maximize natural lighting while enhancing the indoor environment for
customer and employees. Interior lights will be activated by light sensitive photocells
and are illuminated only when needed, thereby maximizing energy efficiency.
Costcos Solar White roof panels are solar reflective, provide thermal cooling and
exceed the value required for LEED certification (refer to FEIS Response III.I 2).

The Applicant does not propose a green roof because the Applicant asserts that the
environmental costs of green roof would offset any potential environmental benefits.
The Costco building has been developed to maximize construction and operational
efficiency. The building structure is a pre-engineered system designed to minimize
the amount of material used and maximize the use of recycled resources. Adding the
minimum of four inches of growing medium would increase the structural load on the
roof by nearly four million pounds, resulting in increased use of natural resources
required for framing (steel), shipping (fuel) and would increase the cost and carbon
footprint of the building. Should additional growing medium be required, the mass of
the roof would increase proportionally. In addition, the Applicant asserts that
maintenance of a green roof would add to the cost and further render the roof
impractical.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-5


The Applicant asserts that providing a vegetated roof would eliminate positive effects
of the solar white roof by increasing energy usage, adding to the cost of construction,
and increasing the operating cost, complexity and long term maintenance (rooftop
landscaping and waterproofing the 200 skylights) of the building. The Applicant,
therefore, asserts that a green roof would not be practical or cost effective. Based on
the reasons listed, Costco has not employed a green roof on any of their buildings.

Although implementing a green roof is not proposed by the Applicant, they do
propose extensive planting along the Taconic southbound off-ramp that will provide a
green landscape buffer to screen views of the building from parkway travelers.
Computer graphic simulations illustrating such views were developed by the
Applicant and are included in FEIS Responses III.B1, III.B2 and III.B4. Also refer to
FEIS Site Plan 2h and 15.

Comment II. 5 - (Document 83.11, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Size of Development:

After researching the sizes of the Costcos building in our regional area, the Board
found that this development is bigger than any other successful Costco nearby. The
Board recommends decreasing the size of the structure. By decreasing the size, all the
concerns above will be reduced.

Response II. 5:
The Applicant analyzed the Project with a smaller building (120,000 square feet) as
illustrated in DEIS Exhibit IV-2b. According to the Costco management, years of
marketing and operational experience based on the other regional Costco warehouses
has provided numerous, invaluable lessons regarding successful building design and
sales floor layout. Costco has evaluated such design considerations as product
display, aisle width, member comfort to maneuver throughout the building as well as
maintenance and cost in order to develop its current building. Costco asserts that
lessons from the smaller stores, even the recently expanded Brookfield store, have
revealed that the design proposed for Yorktown is what will serve the customer best.
Thus, a smaller store would not meet the Applicants objectives.
Furthermore, Costco asserts that every warehouse built over the past three years has
been at least 148,000 square feet, and up to 157,000 square feet. The 151,000 square
foot building design at Yorktown falls within the lower end of this range.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-6


Comment II. 6 - (Document 100.5, Steve Winkel):

When code indicates a maximum height of 16 feet for light poles in the parking lot,
why is Costco asking for a variance for them to be almost 60% higher? If this is
meant to increase visibility of the complex, doesnt it defeat the purpose of all the
landscaping meant to reduce the impact of the building.

Regarding the number and height of the light poles, Id like to know what sort of
measures are being planned to prevent light pollution. This past weekend, there was a
meteor shower... it was a clear night and in most of residential Yorktown, we could
look up with the naked eye and see the streaks of light. You can contrast this with a
partly cloudy night when Legacy Field is lit up, and it looks like the sun is rising to
the north. Aside from being an enormous waste of electricity, there are some studies
out there linking health issues to communities with excessive light at night (LAN). Id
like you to address this question.

Response II. 6:

The exterior light fixtures will be dark sky technology, which will throw light
downward to minimize sky glow as explained in FEIS Response II.1. Refer to FEIS
Response II.2 for more detail regarding impact due to site lighting.

Comment II. 7 - (Document 108.3, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

The description of the proposed development indicates that 3.57 acres of open
vegetation is proposed. Some of this open vegetation will be parking lot islands,
which are very limited in size and other areas will consist of steeply sloped cut and
fill sections. While it is preferred that as many areas as possible be vegetated, the
limited value of steeply sloping and isolated vegetated areas, as well as the limited
perviousness of compacted fill areas, should be discussed. It is recommended that a
table be provided identifying open vegetated areas by amount of contiguous area and
slope for both pre and post development so that a comparison of significance of the
vegetated areas can be assessed.

Response II. 7:

The DEIS provides a comparative analysis between existing and proposed
landscaped, or vegetated areas. Refer to DEIS exhibits II-2 and II-4a. This Comment
suggests that some of the proposed vegetated areas have limited value due to size and
slope. In response to the Comment, the Applicant modified the Site Plan to maintain
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-7


more of the existing woodlands.

The Applicant modified the DEIS Site Plan to reduce the earth embankment adjacent
to the westerly edge of the parking area by constructing a retaining wall to replace
much of the earth embankment. The proposed modification (FEIS Site Plan
Introductory Exhibit 2) will include constructing an embankment (flatter than the
embankment proposed in the DEIS Site Plan). The embankment will extend
approximately 30 feet beyond the westerly parking area. A vertical retaining wall
will be constructed to a height of approximately 15 to 20 feet thereby reducing
disturbance of the existing woodlands. (Refer to Site Plan Exhibit 8c.) The proposed
modification will reduce the extent of steep slopes and will preserve more of the
existing wooded buffer to Wetland A (3/4 acre). (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response, item 1.) The constructed embankments will be planted. The
proposed modifications will preserve existing woodlands and provide more
meaningful landscaping that will offer additional screening and soften the view from
offsite.

The Planning Board will review the site landscaping as part of the site plan review
process. Such considerations may include the addition of diamond-shaped landscape
cut-outs within the parking area in order to add additional trees to the site without
displacing parking spaces.

A summary of vegetated areas for the FEIS Site Plan is provided in Table II.1 and
illustrated on FEIS Exhibit II.7. The FEIS Site Plan has slightly more overall
vegetated area (7.78 acres) than the DEIS Site Plan. The FEIS Site Plan retains more
woodlands but has slightly less interior, embankment and pond landscaped areas
when compared to the DEIS Site Plan (FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit 1). Also
note that the Proposed Action will maintain approximately half (7.78 acres) of the
Sites existing vegetative areas (15.85).














Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-8


Table II.1
FEIS Onsite Vegetated Area Summary (4)

Open Vegetation
Woodlands
to Remain
(acres)
Total Vegetated
Area (acres)

Interior
Landscaping
(Islands)
(acres)
Front
Perimeter
Landscaping
(acres)
Embankment
(Sloped)
Landscaping
(acres)
Detention
Facility
(acres)
Existing 7.25 (2) 8.60 15.85
DEIS Site
Plan
0.58 0.40 2.13 0.66 4.0 (3) 7.77
FEIS Site
Plan (1)
0.53 0.40 1.56 0.55 4.74 7.78
Notes:
(1) See FEIS Exhibit II.7.
(2) Existing open vegetated area includes all combined pervious area, including the nursery
vegetation.
(3) The DEIS indicated 4.2 acres of woodlands, however, it did not account for a 10 foot wide
clearing at the toe of the embankment slope. Therefore, the woodland area was adjusted down
by 0.2 acres and the open vegetation was adjusted up 0.2 acres.
(4) Nearly another acre offsite within the NYSDOT right-of-way adjacent to the TSP southbound
off-ramp will be landscaped.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-10



Comment II. 8 (Document 108.4, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

The discussion under stormwater drainage notes that runoff peak rates will be reduced
and water quality treatment requirements will be satisfied. A discussion of impacts
from pollutant loading should be incorporated and added to the DEIS to justify this
statement.

Response II. 8:

In response to public comments, the Applicant performed a Pollutant Loading
Analysis. Refer to FEIS Responses in Section III.G and Appendix E for detailed
discussions and calculations.

Comment II. 9 - (Document 108.5, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

This section includes a brief discussion on how green infrastructure practices such as
buffer preservation, reduction of clearing and grading, etc., were employed; however,
based on the configuration, it is not clear that the intent of these practices were
actually met. For instance, buffer preservation could be enhanced by replacing the
steep embankments proposed within the buffer by placing the retaining walls outside
the buffer. This would enable preservation of a wider forested buffer, more in keeping
with the intent of the practice.

Response II. 9:

In an effort to further reduce impacts and enhance buffer preservation the Applicant
proposes to construct retaining walls along the westerly limit of the parking area.
Construction of the retaining walls will reduce the extent of earth embankment
necessary to establish the grade change, reduce the physical disturbance to the buffer
of Wetland A and will preserve a wider strip of the existing forested hillside. Refer to
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response, FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, 8a, II.7 and
III.G Introductory Summary Response.

Comment II. 10 - (Document 108.6, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

Snow removal is briefly mentioned. Based on the intense use of the site and limited
locations for deposition of snow removed, it is recommended that more information
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-11


be provided so that associated impacts can be assessed. Such as, will snow be
deposited in the stormwater basin or on steep slopes leading to the wetland?

Response II. 10:

Snow removal will be performed by an independent contractor as part of a regular
winter maintenance program. In light of sensitive environmental and physical
constraints, a snow removal exhibit has been developed to provide guidance to the
contractor. The objective will be to place snow in remote areas of the parking lot to
minimize loss of prime parking spaces and maintain traffic safety. FEIS Exhibit II.10
illustrates the primary locations for snow stockpiling. The areas shown, if piled as
high as 10 feet, would provide adequate storage for a more than a 1-foot snowfall.
Storage areas could be expanded if necessary to accommodate additional snow. In
order to protect earth embankments and wetlands, deposition of snow will be
excluded from the stormwater management pond and from the westerly embankment.
The use of chloride-containing materials for ice control will be in accordance with
Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for the Protection from
Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of The New York City Water Supply and
its Sources. Refer to FEIS Response III.D 8. All onsite deicing material will be
stored within the building, thereby preventing entrance to the storm drainage system.





Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-13


Comment II. 11 - (Document 108.7, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

Additional information on the proposed offsite improvements along Route 202/35
should be included in this section.

Response II. 11:

In addition to the text provided in the DEIS page II. 13 which provided an overall
description of the improvements to the offsite roadway system, Section III.K of the
DEIS provides a more in depth description. Also, FEIS Site Plan Introductory Exhibit
5 provides a schematic illustration of the referenced improvements. Also refer to
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 2j.

Detailed design drawings of the offsite roadway improvements to Route 202/35,
which include but are not limited to layout geometry, striping, drainage, water quality
treatment, utilities, cross-sections and traffic signals, were developed by the
Applicants Engineer and submitted to the NYSDOT, the agency with jurisdiction,
for review. These detailed plans are included as part of this FEIS.

FEIS Section III.K provides responses to specific comments regarding Traffic and
specific offsite improvements. The Applicant has stated they will continue to work
with the NYSDOT toward final acceptance of the design. With regard to stormwater
management, the Applicant has stated they will continue to coordinate with the
NYCDEP. The offsite roadway improvement plans as well as the related SWPPP
(FEIS Appendix E) will be provided to the NYCDEP for their review.

Comment II. 12 - (Document 114.1, Daniel A. Mitchell):

As it relates to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the captioned proposal:

1- How many light poles will be constructed in the parking facility and filling area?

2- What will be the lineal footage between each light pole?

3- What will be the height of each light pole?

4- What will be the maximum lumens produced by the light fixture atop each light
pole.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-14


5- What will the maximum total illumination (lumens produced) be when all light
fixtures are energized?

6- Will the lumens produced by each light fixture be controllable, i.e. will they be
dimmable?

7- Will the maximum illumination produced in a nighttime sky be within federal
and local standards?

Response II. 12:

The Site Plans that were submitted with the DEIS and updated as part of this FEIS
include two Site Lighting Plans. One plan (C-501, 16-foot mounting height)
illustrates the lighting scheme in conformance with Chapter 200 of the Town of
Yorktown Code. The other plan (C-502, 25-foot mounting height) illustrates a
lighting scheme that departs from the Zoning Code and, as such, would require a
variance or legislative change. The referenced drawings include specific details
regarding the locations and quantities of light standards and illumination levels. The
Applicants preferred Site Lighting Plan, C-502, proposes 25-foot light standards.
The luminaires will utilize dark sky technology including down-lit optics and
shielded luminaires to minimize offsite spillage and nighttime glare. The proposal
using the higher light poles will result in significantly fewer luminaires, thereby
promoting greater light uniformity as well as decreasing visual impact at night. The
same proposal requiring fewer poles will also reduce visual daytime clutter. For
more discussion regarding parking area lighting, see DEIS Section III.B.2.d and FEIS
Responses II.1, II. 2, II. 12 and III.B 11.

1- The As Of Right Lighting Plan with 16 foot high light poles (drawing C-501)
proposes 230 poles. The Applicants preferred lighting plan with 25 foot high
light poles (drawing C-502) proposes 155 poles.

2- The drawings are to scale and the distances between lights are illustrated
graphically. The spacing for the As of Right Lighting Plan with 16 foot high light
poles would be approximately 35 feet. The spacing for the Applicants preferred
lighting plan with 25 foot high light poles would generally range from 50 to 75
feet.

3- The pole heights will either be 16-feet or 25-feet in height, depending on whether
a variance is awarded.

4- Illumination levels are shown on the plan both by point location and by isolux
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-15


bars. Maximum and minimum levels are shown. Maximum light levels vary
throughout the Site. The maximum light levels for both the 16-foot and 25-foot
plans in the parking area and driveway is generally around 7 foot-candles.

5- Illumination levels are shown on the plan both by point location and by isolux
bars. Maximum and minimum levels are shown. The total lumens produced at
the Site is not available as it is not a parameter used in site lighting design.

6- Site lighting with dimmers is not provided by all manufacturers although some
provide this option. Site illumination will be dimmed after business hours
because a smaller percentage of luminaires will be lit. The parking area will
remain illuminated from dusk to just hour after close of business. Minimal
lighting as required for security will remain lit throughout the hours of darkness
when the facility is closed. Security lighting typically allows for continued
illumination of approximately 25 percent of the luminaires, equally dispersed
around the parking area to provide sufficient lighting to discourage potential
vandalism and aid in police patrol efforts. Site lighting design will be reviewed
by the Planning Board in greater detail during the site plan application process.

7- Building and parking area illumination values will be in accordance with Chapter
200, Lighting, Outdoor of the Town of Yorktown Code, which limits the
illumination at the property line to less than 1 foot-candle. There are no federal
regulatory requirements governing site lighting for this Project. Illumination will
be provided to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety and will meet the
minimum lighting criteria for parking areas as recommended by the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES).

Comment II. 13 - (Document 119.13, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl):

The transcript for the Public Hearing is provided in Appendix B.

The following is the result of a review of the DEIS for the above named project
published on the Towns website. I ask that these comments, questions, and requests
be entered into this proposed developments DEIS public hearing record so that they
might be properly addressed in the projects Final Environmental Impact Statement
and incorporated into the final site plan design.

ITS ALL ABOUT BALANCE
New York State law says that to approve any development project Yorktown must
weigh the negative impacts against the possible gains. To this end the applicant (in
this case, Costcos developer) prepares an EIS to try to demonstrate to the permitting
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-16


agency that the gains outweigh the negatives. It does this by first talking about the
possible negatives; secondly, it lists all the positives. As to be expected, an applicant
downplays the negatives and highlights the positives. Thats its job.

The job of concerned citizens like myself, as well as of the Planning Board, is to
ensure that what the developer is telling us in the DEIS is correct. More importantly,
we need to shine a clear light on what it is not telling us. So lets take a close look at
these negatives and positives.

Information Being Requested:

Lighting

What makes the applicants needs so special that it cannot conform to the
towns existing codes regarding the maximum height of light poles?

Signage

Why cant Costco go forward without having signage facing the Taconic
State Parkway?

Response II. 13:

Lighting The Applicant has submitted a lighting plan that is compliant with the
Towns allowed 16 foot mounting height (C-501), as well as, a plan that shows 25
foot mounting height (C-502) in an effort to reduce the number of luminaires required
to adequately light the parking lot. Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, II. 2, II. 6, II. 12
and III.B 11.

Signage The NYSDOT enforces the NYS Parks Law that restricts the placement of
advertising signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State Parkway. The Applicant has
sought relief from this requirement in order to place building signs on the Costco
building and fueling facility canopy within the regulated area. The Applicant is in
receipt of a letter dated 10/23/2012 from the NYSDOT (see FEIS Appendix C) which
indicates that NYSDOT will permit west facing signs on the building and canopy to
the extent that they will not be visible from the Taconic State Parkway. Signs will
not be placed on the north, south or east of the building or canopy elevations, which
face the Taconic Parkway. Refer to FEIS Response III.B 4 and III.B 15.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-17


Comment II. 14 (Document 169.6, Mark H. Linehan):
Will the Costco signs or lighting be visible from the Taconic? Exhibit II-6 shows a
Costco Gasoline sign on the south- and north-facing sides of the gas station canopy,
but the discussion of Site Signage and Lighting in section II says there will be signs
on the south- and west-facing sides of the canopy. Which is it? Will the gas station
canopy -- and the Costco sign on top of the canopy be visible from the Taconic? If
so, should Costco be required to have no sign on the north-facing side of the canopy?

Response II. 14:

The NYS DOT will determine whether to approve west facing signs on the building
and canopy. Signs will not be placed on the north, south or east of the building or
canopy elevations, which face the Taconic Parkway. Refer to FEIS Responses II.1,
II.2, II.12, II.13 and .III.B 11 regarding visibility of signs and site lighting..


Comment II. 15 (Document 169.7, Mark H. Linehan):
Why should Costco be permitted to have 25 foot light poles instead of the town
maximum of 16 foot light poles?

Response II. 15:

Refer to FEIS Responses II.1, II.2, II.12 and .III.B 11 regarding visibility of site
lighting.


Comment II. 16 (Document 171.6, Evan Bray):
Lighting

Applicant seeks a 56% increase above the permissible lighting mounting height. 25
instead of 16. Granting a variance to increase the height of the lighting so drastically
would negate most of the benefit of the shrubs and planting intended to screen the site
from the scenic (as classified by Westchester Patterns) 202/35 corridor.

The calculations submitted with the DEIS only measure the illumination at a 36 [?]
level directly below the lamps. It does not account for perception from the corridor
and residential homes along the westerly edge. In fact allowing for such a variance
would exacerbate the light pollution significantly; light acts as both a particle and a
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-18


wave, right? The same holds true from the Taconic State Parkway which is required
to be shielded from light and signage.

There is no hardship to the applicant by requiring compliance with the gracious 16
foot limit on street lamps.

Response II. 16:

The illumination values submitted with the DEIS provide foot-candle lighting values
at the ground level (not 36 below the lamp). The light poles are shown on Sight Line
Sections, Exhibits III.B 56 & III.B 57 which provide views from the adjacent
roadways and residences. Refer to FEIS Response II.1 and III.B 11.


Comment II. 17 (Document 178.11e, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 11. Its all about balance, Costco must answer real questions with real
answers.

They say they want 40 ft. light poles, but they will do us a favor and give in to 25 ft.
The town code says 16 ft.

The real facts, there is a good reason the town has the specs, and Costco just isnt
special enough for us to change them.


Response II. 17:

Comment noted. Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be
found in FEIS Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this
FEIS are identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Comment II. 18 (Document 178.11f, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 11. Its all about balance, Costco must answer real questions with real
answers.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-19



They want special permission to have signs that will be too close to the parkway to
meet State requirements.

They are just not that special that we should make this exception.

Response II. 18:

Comment noted. Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be
found in FEIS Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this
FEIS are identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Reviews and Approvals

Comment II. 19 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):
First, I know the towns have either a formal or informal agreements they send
copies of large development projects to their neighbors when they are within one
mile of the border, this was not within the one mile of the border of Cortlandt,
Peekskill or Somers for that matters, but the traffic impacts you know, the whole
region and such that I really think that you should be sending copies as a
professional courtesy, have your Planning Department send copies of the traffic
studies, a list of the intersections that are being tested, to Peekskill, Cortlandt and
Somers. [PH1, page 116, lines 14-25], [PH1, page 117, lines 1-3]

Response II. 19:
The City of Peekskill as well as the Town of Cortlandt are listed in the DEIS as
Interested Agencies and copies of the DEIS were distributed to the municipal
Clerks for agency and public viewing. Peekskill and Cortlandt are listed as
interested agencies because they were part of the Sustainable Development Study
and the Town of Yorktown has an inter-municipal agreement to send them projects
within the sustainable development study area (in Yorktown thats all projects
north of 202 & west of the Taconic). The County requires that projects within 500
feet of a town line be distributed to the neighboring municipality. Since the Town
of Somers is greater than 500 feet from the Costco project there is no requirement
to distribute the DEIS to them; however, the DEIS was made available to the
public on the Towns website.
The DEIS addresses Traffic and Transportation in Section III.K and the entire
Traffic Impact Study is included in Appendix Section VII.E. As noted, the DEIS
was distributed to the referenced municipalities.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-20



Comment II. 20 - (Document 172.2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

Additionally, the proximity of the proposed development to the towns of Somers
and Cortlandt warrant input from these municipal neighbors. Has the applicant or
Planning Board, solicited input from Somers and Cortlandt?

Response II. 20:
The Town of Cortlandt is listed in the DEIS as an Interested Agency and copies of
the DEIS were distributed to the municipal Clerk for agency and public viewing.
Refer to Response 1 of this section for additional detail.

The Town of Somers does not have jurisdiction by law to fund, approve or directly
act upon the proposed Costco. Accordingly, the Town and Town agencies are not
involved agencies under SEQRAs regulations 6 NYCRR 617.2(s). As
potentially interested agencies, they were afforded the same ability to participate in
the SEQRA review process as the general public. 6 NYCRR 617.2(s). As noted,
the DEIS was made available to the public on the Towns website.

Comment II. 21 (Document 41.5, William Stoiber), (Document 161.1, William Stoiber):
I have reviewed documents in the DEIS and elsewhere regarding the planned
project for a Costco warehouse store on Rte 202135 While the documents
reference the projects proposed location adjacent to a New York State Scenic
Byway, namely, the Taconic Parkway, I find no evidence that the Scenic
Highways Advisory Board has been engaged in any discussion regarding the
projects impact.

As per N.Y.HAY.LAW 349-cc: NY Code - Section 349-CC, consultation with the
above Advisory Board as well as with the Hudson River Valley Greenway
Communities Council shall take place for purposes of protecting and enhancing
the landscape and view corridors .... and for minimizing traffic congestion on such
a [scenic] highway.

I kindly request that the promoters of the Yorktown Costco project provide and
make public the proper written documentation that will indicate the cognizance,
and approval, of this commercial development on the part of the two agencies
heretofore named.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section II
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Description Of Proposed Action

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
II-21


Response II. 21:
The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Places (OPRHP) is identified as
the agency administering determination of the Projects effect on cultural resources
including the Taconic State Parkway as a Scenic Byway. OPRHP has been listed
in the DEIS as an interested agency and it has been provided a copy of the DEIS.
The other agencies mentioned in the Comment Scenic Highways Advisory Board
and Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council are not involved
agencies pursuant to SEQRA. Refer also to Response II.20 of this section.

The New York State Highway Law does not require consultation with the Scenic
Byways Advisory Board or the Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities
Council for commercial development adjacent to a Scenic Byway. Instead, the
Scenic Byways Advisory Board is authorized only to develop and make
recommendations to the Commissioner [of Transportation] on the organization and
operation of a scenic byways program, to evaluate and recommend to the
Commissioner and the legislature amendments of the statutes and regulations
relevant to the furtherance of a cohesive system of scenic byways, and [to] report
to the government and the legislature on the implementation of this program.
N.Y. HAY LAW 349-cc(2), 349-cc(3). In carrying out those functions, the
Scenic Byways Advisory Board shall consult with the Hudson River Valley
Greenway Communities Council concerning byways within the Hudson River
Valley. N.Y. HAY LAW 349-cc(1). Consultation with the Hudson River
Valley Greenway Communities Council is also not required the under the
Councils organic statute, New York Environmental Conservation Law 44-0107.
As noted, the DEIS was made available to the public on the Towns website.
III.A LAND USE, ZONIING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-1



Section III.A Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

Introductory Response

Several of the comments submitted on the DEIS related to the Projects general consistency with
Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Those issues are therefore addressed in detail in
this Introductory Response, and hereafter referenced in response to particular comments and
questions throughout this FEIS Section III.A.

The Towns Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2010, describes the Project site and its surrounding
parcels bound by the Taconic State Parkway, the Bear Mountain Parkway, and Route 202 as
Cromponds Bear Mountain Triangle (BMP Triangle). The eastern and western land areas
within the BMP Triangle are separated physically by a significant grade difference, which have
lent themselves to be known more informally as the top of the hill, and the bottom of the
hill, respectively. At the eastern end, which includes the Project site, the Comprehensive Plan
seeks to promote retail and office uses with a regional draw. The Plan further describes that on
the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the underlying zoning should
be maintained, while a village center with smaller stores and limited mixed-use be created at
the bottom of the hill (See Comprehensive Plan at ES-7 and Policy 4-24). The Comprehensive
Plan also includes mention of a possible larger office and/or hotel at the top of the hill, further
acknowledging the need for a regional draw to support and balance the creation of a true
Crompond hamlet business center within the BMP Triangle.

To implement the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board considered a variety of zoning changes
throughout the Town and specifically considered the parcels within the BMP Triangle. Although
the Town Board adopted legislation to rezone parcels on Route 202 west of Pine Grove Court
and parcels on Route 6 in Mohegan Lake for example, it ultimately decided to retain the C-3
zoning within the BMP Triangle. As stated in the Town Board SEQRA Findings Statement
(J une 15, 2010 at page 23), leaving the existing C-3 zoning in this area leaves more flexibility
for a retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports Policy 4-24
1
of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. The Town Board opted to retain the C-3 zoning for the BMP Triangle
area rather than restricting its use by changing the zone to the contemplated Office Business
(OB) or Interchange zones, which would only allow the development of a large office business
campus, a motel or hotel, planned-light industry, a regional convention center, health center, or
college, and public open space; whereas, the C-3 zone allows a variety of retail and wholesale
uses as of right. In addition, the C-3 zoning designation provides for:
Freestanding businesses

1
The SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town Board on J une 15, 2010, states
Policy 4-23 in error.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-2


Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g., not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-foot
landscaping strips along street frontages.
Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances on adjacent
lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and away from
residential areas. Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements relating to
wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

As described in greater detail in responses to specific comments below, the Project is consistent
with and permitted under the Sites C-3 zoning. In particular, the small minimum lot size
design standard does not restrict the maximum size of a C-3 establishment, nor would such a
limitation be compatible with the Comprehensive Plans vision of a regional retail draw on site.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the Proposed Action is consistent and compatible with both
the Comprehensive Plan as well as the C-3 zoning designation.

To the extent that certain comments herein assert that any element of the C-3 zoning designation
is not specifically consistent with every component of the Comprehensive Plan, the highest court
in New York has held that there need not be slavish servitude to any particular comprehensive
plan. Zoning must be consonant with a total planning strategy, reflecting consideration of the
needs of the community and avoid special interest and irrational Ad hocery.
2
There is nothing
to suggest that the decision to retain C-3 zoning for the area encompassing the Project Site
resulted from undue favoritism or any undue extraneous influence. To the contrary, the Town
Boards decision to retain the C-3 was supported by an expressed desire to allow more flexibility
to encourage retail uses and to create a regional draw within the BMP Triangle.


Comment III.A 1 Form Letter D (Document 7.2, Barbara and Joseph Cava), (Document
9.2, Mary Popra), (Document 12.2, Mr. Marc Alfredo), (Document 19.2, Kilik
Sheng), (Document 22.2, John Robinson), (Document 25.2, Pola Silverman),
(Document 27.2, Joanna Cali), (Document 31.2, Joseph Eduardo):

When these big box stores come to town, small stores dont follow. Rather, the record
shows that they attract other big national chain stores. The result is that existing small
hamlet type stores called for in the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan are driven out.
What merchant in his right mind would want to build in this same area? Big box

2
See Bedford v. Village of Mount Kisco, 33 N.Y.2d 178 at 188 (1973) citing, Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-3


stores only beget more big box storesand they will derelict the existing local
merchants.

There is a reason why big box stores are not welcome in those charming communities
such as Katonah, Bedford, and Mt. Kisco and our Comprehensive Plan is there to
ensure that this does not happen to Yorktown.

Response III.A 1:

As stated in FEIS III.A. Introductory Response, the Project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, which envisions the use of the eastern end of the area within the
BMP Triangle for retail and office uses with a regional draw to support the village
center envisioned for the western end of the BMP Triangle. To implement the
Comprehensive Plan the Town Board opted to retain the C-3 zoning for the BMP
Triangle area which allows a variety of retail and wholesale uses as of right. (Refer
also generally to DEIS at Section III.A 10 and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8). The Market Study and Community Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant state that the proposed Costco will not adversely impact smaller, local
businesses in the study area. As explained in the Market Study, the customer base is
broad and will attract new clientele to the area from throughout the region who are
currently shopping elsewhere. The Community Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant also shows that the Project is consistent with the type of existing
development along the Route 202/35 commercial corridor in the vicinity of the site,
and will provide increased convenience for customers. New visitors/customers who
shop at the proposed Costco could also patronize other local businesses. In this way,
the Applicant asserts that the Project would complement and enhance existing
businesses in the study area.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-4


Exhibit III.A-1

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-5


Comment III.A 2 Form Letter C (Document 10.2, Suzzora Grent), (Document 11.2, Mr.
Marc Alfredo), (Document 16.2, Alex Greenman), (Document 21.2, Peter
Bradstone), (Document 24.2, Momhann Arfat), (Document 34.2, Joseph
Eduardo):

We respectfully suggest that adding 14.50 paved over acres to this area will have a
major negative effect. The Yorktown Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses this
issue by suggesting a totally different kind of development approach.

Please consider the better approaches to progressive, smart growth as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.

Response III.A 2:

The Project will increase the existing impervious surface on the site by approximately
8 acres. The total impervious area for the Project site will be approximately 11 acres,
not 14.5, as incorrectly stated in this Comment. As described in DEIS Section III.G,
and as modified in this FEIS Section III.G, the stormwater management and water
quality treatment plan proposed for the Project will mitigate the impacts resulting
from the increased pavement. Note that the present development has approximately 3
acres of pavement and no stormwater management or water quality treatment is
provided.

The Project is consistent with the land use goals articulated in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan because it establishes retail services in the Bear Mountain
Triangle area. Refer also to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. The Project meets design and development concepts for
the site, which includes: freestanding business, greater than 30% open space
requirement, woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and
minimum 20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages, and subject to natural
resource protection requirements.


Comment III.A 3 Form Letter B (Document 13.1, Mr. Marc Alfredo), (Document 17.1,
Maggie Hamilton), (Document 18.1, Robert T.), (Document 33.1, Joseph
Eduardo), (Document 35.1, John Longer), (Document 36.1, Drew Miller),
(Document 50.1, Robert Reynolds):

The Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2010, lays out an
excellent concept for the undeveloped site at the intersection of the Taconic Parkway
and Rte. 202/35 without the harsh impact of the unrestrained and ill-advised Costco
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-6


project. The Town spent a lot of time, energy and money to develop this plan. It is
inexplicable why the Town would effectively ignore the philosophy of the adopted
Comp Plan.

Please explain to me and other citizens the following:

1. How you can reconcile the building of an enormous Costco warehouse store to
the description in the Towns Comprehensive Plan? It states:
On the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the
underlying zoning should be maintained, with an overlay allowing office and/or
hotel uses at the top of the hill, a village center with small stores and limited
mixed-use at the bottom of the hill (with pedestrian amenities, parkland, and
public spaces), and senior housing and office uses in between. These areas
should be integrated, rather than having each element oriented only to Route
202.

2. Additionally, please explain how Costco fits into this zoning description:
Commercial Limited (CL or C-3)
Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along
major arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-
oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.
Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants, but
does not include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This
zone replaces the C3 zone.
Design & Development Concepts
Freestanding businesses
Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g., not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages.
Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.

Costco is the polar opposite of the Hamlet Type Shopping Area, which the Comp
Plan calls for.

I want to see development in our town, but a hulking big box store that will kill or
seriously hurt many of our existing businesses and irrevocably determine the path of
the towns future development is not the way to go. Instead, lets follow through on
the excellent concept of creating a hamlet shopping environment, which will bring in
other great small stores, as called for in the Adopted Comprehensive Plan.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-7


The Comprehensive Plan takes into account all the necessary factors for smart
growth: traffic, the environmental impact on existing business and jobs, tax revenues,
the added cost of police and other servicesyou name it.

Bottom linelets stick to the plan.

Response III.A 3:

The Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and office uses with a regional
draw at the eastern end of the Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle (BMP Triangle),
which encompasses the Project Site. The Comprehensive Plan also provides for a
village center with small stores and limited mixed-use at the bottom of the hill, to
the west of the Project Site (See Comprehensive Plan ES-7). See generally DEIS at
Section III.A10-11 and Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.24. See also FEIS III.A.
Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 5 and III.A 8.

In regard to the zoning, in developing the Comprehensive Plan the Town Board
considered a variety of zoning changes for the BMP Triangle. As stated in the Town
Board SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan (J une 15, 2010 at
page 23), leaving the existing C-3 zoning in this area leaves more flexibility for a
retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports Policy 4-24
3
of the 2010
Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, the Town Board has determined from a planning
and sustainable development perspective that large-scale retail uses are appropriate in
C-3 zoning districts. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan offers ideas and concepts
to promote the Village style in certain areas, but it does not reject other uses in the
Crompond hamlet nor in the location of the Project. The minimum lot size for this
zone is small, but is only the minimum size, and such minimum size allows and
promotes smaller scale development in appropriate areas. The Comprehensive Plan
specifically suggested an office or hotel for this site, which could not be
accommodated on a small lot size. Both hotels and offices would carry similar
intensity impacts as large-scale retail, as all would qualify as a regional draw. See
also FEIS Response III.A 8 for further explanation.

Also, Policy 4-24 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the top of the Bear Mountain
Triangle (on the north) is where the regional draw would be appropriate and the
bottom, where the Chase Bank and the Crompond Crossings developments are
located, would be appropriate for village-type development (smaller stores). The
Chase Bank is a single building surrounded by roads, yet significant landscaping and

3
The SEQRA Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Town Board on J une 15, 2010, states
Policy 4-23 in error.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-8


pedestrian amenities were requested by the Planning Board to connect the parcel to
the surrounding uses. The Crompond Crossing parcel is split between the C-2
commercial hamlet zone and the R-3 multi-family residential zone and was approved
for two commercial buildings along the frontage and 26 attached single-family homes
in the rear of the property. As with the Chase site, significant landscaping and
pedestrian amenities were provided in order to encourage residents and patrons to
walk between area destinations and promote a village-like area in the BMP Triangle,
at the bottom of the Route 202 hill west of the Taconic State Parkway.

Furthermore, the Applicant has conducted a Market Study and Commercial Character
Assessment that concluded that the proposed Costco will not adversely impact
existing businesses or the future development of the Town of Yorktown. Refer also to
DEIS III.Q and FEIS Response III.A 1.


Comment III.A 4 - (Document 59.4, Steven B. Kaplan), (PH1, Steven B. Kaplan):

To address the people who are pushing the business end I agree a vital business
atmosphere in Yorktown is necessary. However, a goal of 5% annual growth will
double Yorktown in a little more than 14 years. Is this sustainable? Does this project
conform to the Yorktown Master Plan, which suggests that we strive for a hamlet
with overall attractiveness, the quality and mix of stores, and walkability.

Response III.A 4:

See FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5and III.A 8
as to how the Project conforms to the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is
no known support for the 5% annual growth estimate referenced in this Comment.
According to the United States Census, the population of Yorktown actually
decreased between 2000 and 2010 from 36,318 to 36,081.


Comment III.A 5 - (Document 67.3, Richard E. Stanton, Law Office of Richard E. Stanton,
Community Stakeholders of the Town of Yorktown):

The Community Stakeholders commenced their review and have now identified
substantial concerns with:

The substantial deviation from the Implementation Plan adopted with the 2004 Route
202/35/6 Bear Mountain Parkway Plan which called for preservation of slopes on the
site, protection of the Crompond Wetland, and a reduction in density on the site; and
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-9



The apparent substantial deviation from the Towns existent Comprehensive Plan
which requires

a protection of the steep slopes which protect the water supply and adjoining
critical habitats: and
a substantial reduction in allowable density of use for the site: and
the exclusion of auto-oriented uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic: and
the adoption of Planned Design District, for CL uses (after consultation with local
stakeholders) for the land at Issue before allowing commercial development. The
elements of the PDD formally adopted with the Comprehensive Plan could allow
a limited hamlet modeled development with small free standing retail and
personal service business, but would not include auto oriented uses which
generate heavy volumes of traffic on the already overburdened Route 202/35.

The requested Planning Board approval of a Site Plan for the Costco Project in gross
divergence from the formally adopted Comprehensive Plan is not authorized. Once a
comprehensive plan is adopted using the State enabling statutes, pursuant to Town
Law 272-a all future land use regulations of the municipality must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan after it was formally adopted,
in addition to requiring a Planned Development District for the site with the elements
listed above, also limited use of the former C-3 sites to CL or Commercial Limited
Use with the following purpose and elements:

Commercial Limited (CL or C-3)

Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses,
along major arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding
auto-oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.

Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants. but does
not include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone
replaces the C3 zone.

Design & Development Concepts

Freestanding businesses
Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g, not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-
foot landscaping strips along street frontages.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-10


Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting Store entrances on
adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to he focused downward and away
from residential areas. Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements
relating to wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

Yorktown 2010 Comprehensive Plan [bold emphasis added]

The proposed site plan with a single big box store (as opposed to a mixed use hamlet
style development), dependent on extreme auto intensive use, and an 18 acre lot
redeveloped over the top of the the protected steep slopes, and adjacent to wetland A,
and discharging water into the Crompond Wetland, is just not consistent with the
formally adopted Comprehensive Plan, and its land use, and planning restrictions, and
may not be approved pursuant to Town Law 272-a.

Response III.A 5:

The Sustainable Development Study, which was taken into account in the 2010
Comprehensive Plan, does recommend protection of the Crompond Wetland.
However, the wetlands located on the Project site do not discharge to the Crompond
Wetland located west of Hunter Brook, which is west of the Bear Mountain Triangle.
The study also does recommend preservation of steep slopes and a reduction in
density, but within the entire sustainable development study area, not specifically on
the Project Site. The study further recommends enhancing centers by shifting
potential development on parcels larger than five acres to central locations, like the
Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle and the Route 202/35 corridor, while reducing the
density on larger parcels located outside of these target areas. Therefore the Proposed
Action is not a deviation from the studys recommendations.

The Proposed Action is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends a regional draw be located in the eastern portion of
the Bear Mountain Triangle where it could take advantage of its location adjacent to
the Taconic State Parkway. For further discussion refer to FEIS III.A Introductory
Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3 and III.A 8. The Planned Development
District Overlays (PDD Overlays) discussed in the Comprehensive Plan are an
additional tool the Town can decide to implement in order to more specifically master
plan an identified area of Town that could benefit from a more detailed design plan.
Refer to FEIS Response III.A 23 for this discussion.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-11


This Comment characterizes the Project as an auto-oriented use to argue that it should
not be permitted in the C-3 zone. However, to the extent the Comprehensive Plan
discourages auto-oriented uses in C-3 zoning districts, gasoline filling stations are
not identified as auto-oriented uses. Rather, the Comprehensive Plan identifies auto-
oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. In 2011, the Town Board
enacted a number of zoning changes to implement the Comprehensive Plan, but
retained the special permit provision for gasoline filling stations in C-3 zoning
districts. In addition, all of the existing gasoline filling stations along Route 202 are
zoned C-3.

The Applicant designed the site plan for the Proposed Action in conformance with the
development concepts mentioned in this Comment. For example 25% of the Site
remains wooded, which provides a buffer to adjacent residents; landscape strips along
street frontages are provided; 30% of the Site remains as open space (wooded and
adjacent naturalized embankment); sidewalks along Route 202/35 are provided. In
addition, the following modifications have been proposed after the acceptance of the
DEIS: a sidewalk to the store entrance; outdoor lighting with dark-sky fixtures to
reduce glare and sky glow; and changes that would reduce impact to existing
woodlands, steep slopes and the buffer to Wetland A. Refer FEIS III.G Introductory
Response and the FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response.

After review and consideration of comments on the DEIS, the Applicant proposed
modifications to the Projects FEIS site plan including construction of a retaining wall
along the westerly edge of the parking area to reduce construction on steep slopes and
reduce impact to existing woodlands. In addition, earthwork on slopes will be
performed in accordance with geotechnical design recommendations and protective
erosion control design measures which include the placement of structural fill,
geosynthetic reinforcement and turf reinforcement (refer to Geotechnical Engineering
Report, DEIS Appendix VII.M). The Applicant also proposes modifications to the
Stormwater Management Plan, which will improve water quality and thereby reduce
potential impact to Wetland A and existing downstream water bodies. (Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response.)

The majority of the stormwater runoff from the site will discharge via an unnamed
watercourse that drains offsite through a wetland south of Old Crompond Road, to
Sherry Brook after which it discharges to Hunter Brook. The site runoff does not
discharge to the Crompond Wetland, which is located west of Hunter Brook and
therefore, any protective restrictions placed on the Crompond Wetland are not
relevant to the Proposed Action.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-12


Comment III.A 6 - (Document 171.1, Evan Bray), (PH1, Evan Bray):

I want to ask, will there be a restrictive declaration or similar legal instrument
attached to the buildings title that would restrict occupancy and use specifically to
Costco? It is my understanding that the planning board is not here to consider the
merits of the tenant occupying the premises, but rather, the board is considering the
impacts of the occupancy and use of the structures proposed on the site. The site is
comprised of 4 or 5 individual zoning lots to be merged if this application is
approved. Is that correct?

The comprehensive plan:

The applicants summary of compliance is entirely reliant on the fact that in a C-3
zoning district, retail and wholesale uses are as of right. The gas station requires a
special use permit. Therefore, the applicant surmises that their proposal is consistent
with the comprehensive plan

The following is a section of the comprehensive plan cited by the applicant in section
III.A (Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy) of the accepted DEIS:

On the north side of Route 202, adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the
underlying zoning should be maintained, with an overlay allowing office
and/or hotel uses at the top of the hill, a village center with small stores and
limited mixed-use at the bottom of the hill (with pedestrian amenities,
parkland, and public spaces), and senior housing and office uses in between.
These areas should be integrated, rather than having each element oriented
only to Route 202.

After reading those words, it is quite a leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that
merging 4 separate zoning lots to create a 150+Ks.f. single retailer, with a auto garage
and a gasoline station complies with this visions.

Response III.A 6:

In response to the question posed by this Comment, it is unlawful to restrict a use to a
particular business, and thus such a restriction is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board.

As stated in the DEIS, the Project Site comprises four parcels (Section-Block-Lots:
26.18-1-17, 26.18-1-18, 26.18-1-19 and 26.19-1-1) for a combined land area of 18.75
acres of land. And all parcels in the Project site are zoned C-3. If the application is
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-13


approved, these lots will be merged together as one.

The proposed use is permitted under the zoning and Comprehensive Plan, although
the gasoline filling station does need a special permit. For more detailed information
regarding the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, including the special permit provision
for the fueling station, refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5, and III.A 8.


Comment III.A 6a (Document 171.2, Evan Bray), (PH1, Evan Bray):

From the DEIS, we know the following percentages of how the site is currently
occupied and how it is proposed to be developed. Of the 18.75 acres in play, only
10.15 have ever been disturbed. That means that nearly half of the site is virgin
woodland, wetland and open vegetated (non wooded) space. Per the DEIS, 85% of
the 18.75 acres falls under these two categorieswooded and open vegetated (non
wooded) space. Under the proposal, we see a near inversion of these numbers. 59
percent of the site will become pavement and buildings. The only reason that 41% is
remaining, is that is highly sensitive stream headwater and wetlands they cant touch-
-otherwise the project would likely exceed 85% site coverage. Hey, its allowed in a
C-3 zone. Which begs the question, does the comp plan hold any water?

On 1/20/12, the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Building Inspector,
and Environmental Consultant wrote to the planning board:

The public policy sections outline the recommendations from the Yorktown
Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainable Development Study, and Westchester
Countys Patterns. Many of these recommendations are contrary to the
objectives of the Costco project, yet there is little discussion in the potential
impacts section on how the project does comply with goals from these reports
or how the project will enhance the Bear Mountain Triangle/Crompond
Hamlet Center area despite these differences. The Comprehensive Plan
describes the C-3 zone as a small scale roadside commercial hamlet center
with woodland buffers to adjacent residential zones, 20 foot landscaped areas
along street frontages, significant open space, and excludes uses that generate
heavy volumes of traffic. The DEIS simply states Costco complies with the
Comprehensive Plan because it furthers improvements and establishes retail
services in the Bear Mountain Triangle area. There is no mention of the goals
of which the project does not comply. As another example, in reference to
Westchester Countys Patterns, it is stated the proposed project is buffered by
the Taconic State Parkway from nearby residential neighborhoods, so it is not
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-14


expected to have significant adverse impacts on the character of the
surrounding neighborhoods. There is no discussion of the residential
neighborhood immediately adjacent to the site on Old Crompond Road.

The applicant cannot change the fact that the spirit of the comp plan, sustainable dev
study, and Westchester patterns run contrary to the very essence of the project.
Theres no way that the applicant can deliver a single tenant, 150K sf retail store, plus
a tire center, and a gas station, to achieve the stated goals of a small scale, mixed
use development. Getting this proposal to substantially conform the stated goals of
the comp plan for this area would require changing the very essence of the Costco I
know and love.

Response III.A 6a:

Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A
6 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and
the Comprehensive Plan.

The Sustainable Development Study is generic in nature and it recommended creation
of a mixed-use hamlet business center in the Bear Mountain Triangle within
Crompond; but it does not specifically mention any sites for this type of development.
There are several other vacant or under-developed parcels in this area where such a
development could be sited. Furthermore, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan took the
2004 Sustainable Development Study into account when it was created. See also FEIS
Response III.A 8.

Section III.A of the DEIS also stated that both the Westchester County Patterns for
Westchester: The Land and the People (1996) and Westchester 2025 (2010) offer a
policy framework to guide the Countys future physical development by establishing
planning strategies through which County and municipal governments may
implement their common goals for serving people, conserving land and water and
assuring economic growth. In terms of land use, these regional plans indicate that
so-called centers, corridors and open space are the three building blocks of
Westchester Countys pattern of development. Corridors are defined as the historic
paths of movement and development, with three functions (transportation,
development and scenic) that sometimes overlap. Existing corridor development can
be enhanced to improve their function and economic vitality and make maximum use
of the public investment in infrastructure. The Taconic State Parkway, which borders
the Project site, is identified as a corridor serving a scenic function. Route 202/Route
35 in Yorktown is also identified as a corridor serving a transportation function.
Patterns for Westchester states that the highest levels of density should be located in
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-15


the Countys centers or corridors for enhancement as mixed use areas, of which Route
202/35 in Crompond qualifies. Also refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response.


Comment III.A 7 - (PH1, Andrew Fisher):

The Sustainable Development Study, which Yorktown does not actively participate
in, strongly recommended consistent with a new development along the Route 202
corridor. Specifically citing, don't create destination developments, and I feel like
this Costco plan as it stands now is a destination development. A village style is not.
[PH1, page 126, lines 7-16]

Response III.A 7:

The Town of Yorktown actively participated in all aspects of the Sustainable
Development Study and the implementation committee that was formed thereafter.
The study identifies the Bear Mountain Triangle as a potential new hamlet center and
recommends concentrating new development in hamlet centers while reducing
density of new development outside hamlet centers. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 5,
III.A 6a and III.A 8.


Comment III.A 8 - (Document 60.5, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.6, Tim
Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (PH1, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates
Inc.):

The Yorktown zoning designation for this site does not conform to the recently
adopted Comprehensive Plan and is therefore unlawful.
Page 2-17 of the Yorktown Comprehensive plan Table 2-11 discusses the purpose of
the C-3 zoning district. The purpose of C-3 zoning is To allow for small,
freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major arterials in the businesses hamlet
centers, but excluding auto oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of traffic.

Typical land uses include retail stores, personal services and restaurants but does
NOT include auto-oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone
replaces the C3 zone.

Design and Development Concepts:

Freestanding businesses
Small minimum lot size
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-16


Significant open space requirement (e.g. not less than 30 percent)
Woodland buffers adjacent to single family residential zones and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages
Cross access agreements and consolidate entrances, wherever possible
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances
on adjacent lots
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirement
relating to wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

The proposed fueling facility will be one of the largest and most traffic intensive auto
oriented uses in the Town and such uses are expressly excluded in the C-3 zone. The
Costco Facility will also to have a tire store that, again, represents a large auto-
oriented business.

Contained within the Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan are the
recommendations for Route 202 from the Sustainable Development Study. It
acknowledges that the December 202 recommendations call for a significant
reduction of the proposed buildout of the study area and that the overall concept put
forward in this Comprehensive Plan is to make the Bear Mountain Triangle into a
mixed-use center.

Attachment A sets forth New York State law as it relates to a Comprehensive Plan. It
specifically states:

11. Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan.

(a) All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section.

The Town of Yorktowns zoning code does not appear to be in compliance with its
Comprehensive Plan at this site as required by NYS Town law.

The Costco application requires variances from the ZBA and/or Planning Board and a
special permit (for the fueling facility) from the Town Board. The standards for a
special permit are as follows.

A. The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation
involved in or conducted in connection with it, the size of the site in relation
to it and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it shall
be such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly
development of the district in which it is located.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-17



B. The location, nature and height of buildings, walls and fences and the nature
and extent of the landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not
hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land
and buildings or impair the value thereof

C. Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, vibration, excessive light, smoke, gas,
fumes, odor or other atmospheric pollutants than would be the operations of
any permitted uses.

D. Parking areas shall be of adequate size for the particular use, properly located
and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses, and the entrance and
exit drives shall be laid out so as to prevent traffic hazards and nuisances.

Based on the analysis provided later in this review, the Town Board will be hard
pressed to make the above consistency findings. The project does not have sufficient
parking, will have excessive light (variances are requested for both parking and
lighting), and traffic hazards and nuisance level congestion will ensue.

The recommendations contained in the interagency and inter municipal agreement
Linking Land Use and Transportation Decisions (Routes 202/35/6 Bear Mountain
Parkway Sustainable Development Plan March 2004) for this area not to be auto
oriented is echoed in the long range County policies (Westchester 2025- Context for
County and Municipal Planning in Westchester County and Policies to Guide County
Planning).

This project makes a mockery of the planning process that involved many volunteers,
professional planners, attorneys, engineers, and municipal officials. It undermines the
comprehensive plan, and turns its back on rational development concepts.

For the Town of Yorktown to take action on a project of this nature is simply
unprecedented and inconsistent with everything the town has historically done in
terms of protecting its resources, its infrastructure, its environment, and its citizens.

Approval of the Costco project will firmly indicate to the New York State
Department of Transportation that preferential treatment in transportation funding
should be focused elsewhere because the Town of Yorktown no longer can be relied
upon to adhere to agreed upon Sustainable Development plans to resolve
transportation issues.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-18


The Costco project is inconsistent with local and regional planning for
transportation purposes. A temporary moratorium on such inconsistent
development should be considered until Yorktowns zoning codes are changed to
reflect local and regional plans.

Response III.A 8:

This Comment asserts that the C-3 Zoning District is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Project is inconsistent with the Sustainable Development
Study, County plans and State transportation arterial management practices. The
Comment further asserts that the C-3 zoning must therefore be modified. When
adopting the Comprehensive Plan the Town Board determined that leaving the C-3
zoning in this location would allow flexibility for a regional draw that would support
more village center style development in the western side of the BMP Triangle. Refer
to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A.3 and III.A.5.

This Comment also asserts that the Projects inclusion of a fueling facility causes it to
be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would generate significant
traffic and therefore be prohibited by the language of both the Comprehensive Plan
and the C-3 zone. This Comment overlooks several relevant facts. First, the fueling
facility would only be open to Costco customers, and not the general public. Thus, it
is not a stand-alone auto-oriented use as assumed by the Comment. Indeed, because
the vast majority of Costco members would not make a special trip elsewhere for gas
and would utilize the fueling facility while shopping at Costco, the Applicant asserts
that its presence is likely to reduce trips from Costco to other gas stations, thereby
reducing traffic on a stretch of Route 202. The Applicant further asserts that its
presence would not be expected to increase traffic, as vehicle owners tend to purchase
gas while out, and do not make special trips solely to purchase fuel (See FEIS
Response III.K 6). Thus, the Applicant asserts that the fueling facility component of
the Project would not attract heavy volumes of traffic. For the same reason, the
Applicant does not consider the tire store, again available only to Costco customers,
to be a major traffic generator. The Applicant has stated that, the tire store only sells
and installs tires, and will do flat repairs only on tires sold by Costco.

This Comment disregards the significance of the C-3 Zoning District provision
(Section 300-46) designating a gasoline filling station as a specially permitted use.
Such a designation presumes a determination by the Town Board that such a use is
compatible with all of the uses allowed as of right in the C-3 District, so long as all of
the specified conditions are satisfied. (See, e.g., Gordon & J ack v. Peterson, 230
A.D.2d 856, 646 N.Y.S.2d 825 (2d Dept. 1996) (A special permit or special exception
classification is tantamount to a legislative finding that if the special exception
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-19


conditions are met, the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not
adversely affect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas.)). By adopting a
zoning code that explicitly designates a gasoline filling station as a specially
permitted use, the Town Board is vested with the power to determine whether such a
use is appropriate at whatever specific location is proposed and to impose conditions,
if warranted, to assure compatibility with neighboring uses of property. The
Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the Town Board, did not prohibit the
designation of filling stations as specially permitted uses.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action will assist the
Town Board in its determination of whether the gasoline filling station component of
the Project satisfies the criteria for granting a special permit (Yorktown Town Code
300-36 (Standards Applicable to All Special Uses)).

With respect to the Comment that the Proposed Action is an auto-oriented use see
FEIS Response III.A 5.

The DEIS, as amplified by this FEIS, discusses location and size of the Project site
and its relationship to the surrounding area (DEIS at Section III.A10); the location,
nature and height of buildings and other structures, landscaping and the effect on
adjacent land and buildings (DEIS at Section III.B1); the absence of objectionable
emissions and noise (DEIS at Sections III. K, M and N); and the adequacy of parking
(DEIS at Section III.L). This FEIS includes the information needed to address the
other concerns raised by this Comment: parking (See FEIS Responses in III.L),
lighting (FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 6, 12 and 13) and the design of entrance and exit
drives (FEIS Responses Site Plan 2e and 9).

The Project is consistent with other applicable plans and public policy. As stated in
Section III.A of the DEIS, the Sustainable Development Study recommends creation
of a mixed-use hamlet business center in the Bear Mountain Triangle within
Crompond, but does not specifically mention any sites. There are several other vacant
or under-developed parcels in this area. Rather, it is generic in advancing these
concepts. (See generally Sustainable Development Study Section V). The more
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan went beyond the generalized language of the
earlier adopted Sustainable Development Study to make specific recommendations
relating to the Bear Mountain Triangle, which encompasses the Project site.

Contrary to the inference in this Comment, the NYSDOT has submitted no comment
opposing the Proposed Action based on inconsistency with the Sustainable
Development Study. The Applicants engineer has submitted its proposed
improvements to Route 202/35 to the NYSDOT for their review and approval. The
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-20


proposed improvements will complement the NYSDOT work, which is currently
under construction. The NYSDOT improvements will provide two lanes in each
direction from west of the Bear Mountain Extension (Snap Fitness building) to Old
Crompond Road. The roadway improvements to be undertaken by the Applicant in
connection with the Proposed Action will extend the two eastbound and two
westbound lanes from the end of the NYSDOTs work at Old Crompond Road to the
east through the Taconic State Parkway interchange, west of Strang Boulevard. The
combined effort of the NYSDOT and the Applicant will provide two through lanes in
each direction between the Taconic State Parkway and west of the Bear Mountain
Extension. Refer to DEIS Section III.K.2.b and FEIS Site Plan, Offsite Highway
Improvements to Route 202/35 (Refer to FEIS Exhibit A-3).

Also refer to FEIS Response III.A 6a on how the Project is consistent with
Westchester County planning principles.


Comment III.A 9 NOT USED


Comment III.A 10 Form Letter E (Document 42.4, Residents of Yorktown), (Document
39.3, Gia Diamond):
- Costco would almost certainly not boost the local economy, when the impact of
existing retailers and the cost of additional government services are factored in. It
will forever eliminate the opportunity to establish the Crompond business
hamlet;

Response III.A 10:

The Project is anticipated to generate approximately $797,195 annually in property
taxes: $92,248 to the Town and $613,290 to the Yorktown Central School District. In
addition, during the first year of operations, the Applicant expects the Project to
generate almost $10.9 million in direct and indirect benefits. For more detail and
explanation, refer to DEIS III.Q 2.

With respect to potentially eliminating the opportunity to establish the Crompond
business hamlet, there are several other vacant or underdeveloped parcels on Route
202 to establish hamlet-like developments. Furthermore, Costco might attract
customers for local businesses as well, which would help boost the local economy.
Again, the Comprehensive Plan provides for a village center with small stores and
limited mixed-use downhill from the Project site, with larger uses such as the Project
located at the top of the hill (Comprehensive Plan ES-7). Refer to FEIS III.A
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-21


Introductory Response for a fuller explanation of the relationship of the Project to the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 11 - (Document 42.7, Yorktown Smart Growth):
The Comp Plan adopted in June 2010 slated the Crompond site for
development; however, Costcos size and nature are wrong for this site.

From the start, Yorktown citizens played a vital role in envisioning what our
town could be in the process of shaping the Comprehensive Town Plan, which
cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Central to the plan is the development of five pedestrian-friendly urban
business hamlets that mix business, retail, and residential uses.
Unlike the other four hamlets, Crompond is essentially undeveloped, meaning
that it has the greatest potential for creating something new and different.
This is where the developer proposes to build a 151,092-square-foot Costco
Wholesale Club with 610 parking spaces, jointly covering 14.5 acres.
To do so is contrary to the very spirit of a pedestrian-friendly, town-center
environment.
Building Costco would eliminate forever the opportunity to establish the
Crompond business hamlet.

Response III.A 11:
Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8. Section III.Q of the DEIS also identifies the broad range of benefits that the
proposed Costco is anticipated to provide to the Town of Yorktown. Moreover, as
reflected in FEIS III.A Introductory Response, the proposed Costco is a permitted use
within the zoning, which in turn is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 12 - (Document 100.4, Steve Winkel):

The law seemed to indicate that development must conform to the comprehensive
plan. From my understanding of it, this development does not conform to the plan.
Can you please clearly address this?

Response III.A 12:

The law requires that land use regulations conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Retention of the C-3 zoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy

__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-22


The Town Board stated in the Findings Statement for the Comprehensive Plan and
Future Related Zoning Amendments that they determined leaving the existing C-3
zoning on the Project Site and several surrounding parcels would allow more
flexibility for a retail draw in the BMP Triangle, and thus better supports a village
center style development on the parcels located at the bottom of the hill. Therefore,
the development conforms to both the Comprehensive Plan as well as C-3 zoning
requirements. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A
3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the Project conforms with both applicable zoning and
the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 13 NOT USED


Comment III.A 14 - (Document 108.10, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

A discussion of the proposed major projects in the study area is provided. A map
showing the location and extent of these proposals is recommended.

Response III.A 14:

Proposed major projects were discussed in DEIS Section III.K.2.a and FEIS Response
III.K.6.1. Their locations are shown on the following map.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


__________________________________ _
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-23



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-24


Comment III.A 15 - (Document 109.1, Julian Charnis):

I attended both public hearings. Based on what was discussed and the many reasons
given not to go ahead with this proposal, I cannot understand why the planning board
would even consider implementing this plan. Besides being environmentally contrary
to the long range plan for Yorktown, it will make my life, and thousands like me, a
living hell!

Response III.A 15:

The Planning Board is required to consider every complete application presented to it.
Also, refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5,
III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the project conforms with both the Comprehensive
Plan and Sustainable Development Study.


Comment III.A 16 - NOT USED


Comment III.A 17 - (Document 117.6, Megan S. and John M. Flynn):

Megan and I have lived in Yorktown since 1985, and I currently serve on the towns
Planning Board. In addition, Megan is a licensed clinical psychologist and, as you are
probably aware, the link between the built environment and residents mental health
has been well established, beginning with the city parks movement early in the last
century. Also, as New J ersey natives, we have witnessed the outcomes of failed
planning policies, as once productive farmland surrounding our hometowns was
transformed into auto-centric, commercial sprawl.

Thus, through our interest in the quality of life for Yorktown residents as well as
volunteer service, we have become interested in the proposed construction of a
Costco store and fueling station on Rt. 202. Since Megan was unable to attend the
recent public hearings on this proposal, we are submitting, for the record, questions
about this proposal in the areas of the projects economic, environmental, traffic, and
public health impacts. We bear no ill will towards the applicant or its subcontractors.
Rather, we simply believe the Planning Board as well as Yorktown residents require
detailed answers to these additional questions before they can determine whether the
proposed development and accompanying impacts meet the towns standards for
sound planning and sustainable development.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-25


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS

In correspondence to the Planning Board, dated October 11, I outlined the findings of
research into the public health impacts of automobile-dependant land uses that are
relevant to the proposed action, yet not examined in the DEIS. Moreover, the
Yorktown Comprehensive Plan recognizes the costs of such development in
discussing C-3 Zones as excluding auto-oriented uses that attract heavy volumes of
traffic. Requiring upwards of 600 parking spaces and nearly eight acres of paved
surface and likely generating nearly 1,000 daily auto trips (estimates of the
projects trip generation were disputed by applicant and non-applicant
professional experts at the hearing), the proposed development clearly rises to the
level of increasing both Yorktowns dependence on automobile travel and the
associated public health risks described in this research. Therefore, if the Planning
Board was to approve such development in a C-3 zone, it would be reasonable to seek
to manage the negative impacts of the projects emphasis on automobile
transportation using the same public policy approach currently applied in the areas of
recreation, traffic, and the environment for example, such remedies as
contributions of park land, street widening, and wetland enhancement. And so, we
offer the following questions:

Does the applicant accept the findings of recent research on public health
impacts of auto dependent development? If not, please explain why. Can the applicant
provide data refuting this research?

How does the applicant plan to offset the proposals likely public health
impacts as well as meet the spirit of C-3 zones as envisioned in the comprehensive
plan?

Response III.A 17:

In adopting the Yorktown Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board determined that the
development of a retail use with a regional draw is an appropriate use for the Project
site and, therefore, is consistent with public health and safety. This use, by its very
nature, depends largely on automobile access in suburban areas like Yorktown. Refer
to FEIS Responses III.A 2, III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 with respect to the consistency
of the proposed Costco with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has
expressed no position on recent academic research into broader public health impacts
of auto-dependent development, as its position on such literature is beyond the scope
of the Proposed Actions SEQRA analysis. However, the Project includes a number
of measures designed to promote alternative means of transportation to the Project
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-26


site, including improving pedestrian and public transportation amenities. The
Proposed Action includes providing a new sidewalk on the north side of Route 202
between Strang Boulevard and Old Crompond Road. This sidewalk will connect to
the sidewalk being constructed as part of the NYSDOT improvement project. At
Strang Boulevard a crosswalk with pedestrian signals will be provided for access to
FDR Park and the Bus stop on the south side of Route 202. In addition, the bus stops
on the north and south sides of Route 202 at Strang Boulevard will be reconstructed.
Also, paved shoulders will be provided on both sides of Route 202/35 adjacent to the
Project improvements from Old Crompond Road to Strang Boulevard, which will
facilitate bike traffic. The Project will include onsite bike parking racks. For more
information, refer to FEIS Section III.K.

Moreover, to the extent the Project provides a local shopping option for consumers
who currently frequent the Costco stores in Danbury and Yonkers, it may reduce
vehicle miles traveled and enable more residents to access Costco via public transit
and other non-automobile-dependent transportation. As discussed in the DEIS (at
Section III.K), the Project would provide extensive improvements to sidewalks,
pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths, promoting the use of alternative means of
transportation and addressing the public health concerns referenced in this Comment.


Comment III.A 18 (Document 139.10, Jonathan Nettelfield):

With reference to DEIS Page III A-18: Potential Impacts, a) Land Uses. The DEIS
states, The proposed project does not entirely comply with the design and
development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set forth in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project specifically does not conform to the
zones conceived purpose of small minimum lot size for the project site, as the
project requires a large floor area on a large tract of land. We couldnt put it any
better. Why does this not prevent this development?

Response III.A 18:

Table 2-11 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the C-3 zone has a small minimum
lot size, (emphasis added). This is not the maximum lot size for this zone. The C-3
requires a minimum 10,000 square foot lot, which for commercial lots in Yorktown is
small; other properties in the triangle have C-2 zoning, which has no minimum lot
size. Therefore, in terms of minimum lot size requirements, the Project site will
comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, providing a regional draw
would be difficult, if not impossible on a 10,000 square foot lot, meaning the
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-27


Proposed Action is compliant with and implements the vision of the Comprehensive
Plan. Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.A 3.


Comment III.A 19 (Document 139.11, Jonathan Nettelfield):

With reference to DEIS Page Ill A-23: Public Policy. The applicant states, Since it
will be a retail destination with different merchandise and a regional draw, the
Applicant does not anticipate the national retailer to have a significant adverse impact
on existing local stores along the Route 202 commercial corridor. Also, the Applicant
believes the proposed Costco serves a different demographic than BJ s Club, and the
two are known to co-exist successfully in other areas. Can the applicant provide hard
data to show that Costco and BJ s coexist, other than physical proximity? For
example we would like to know the impact on sales on the existing warehouse club
when the second one came in. The fact that they both currently exist does not
necessarily mean they both prosper, which is a requirement for the store to remain in
business. Can the applicant provide data on which stores closed within 3 years of the
establishment of a Costco within a 5 mile radius. This information might better
support the statement made above. Also, the applicant states that they believe the
proposed Costco serves a different demographic than BJ s Club.

We would like supporting data for this assertion. The reason for our concern
regarding the future of BJ s is central to the applicants assertion that the arrival of
Costco will reduce blight in the vicinity. We note the vacancy history of the shopping
center that BJ s anchors and the difficulty of finding tenants without a strong anchor
store. With Best Plumbing already scheduled to leave, any additional vacancies might
have a detrimental effect on that location.

Response III.A 19:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 5 and III.Q 46 on how BJ s and Costco can coexist
successfully. FEIS Response III.Q 5 contains a map of existing Costco and BJ s
locations within the New York Metro area, as well as a map of Costco and BJ s
locations within 5 miles of each other.

Examples of locations where BJ s and Costco coexist successfully show both
businesses remain in operation. Furthermore, there are ten locations in the Tri-State
Area where a Costco and a BJ s are located within 5 miles of one another.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the proposed Costco will have no material
adverse impacts on the existing BJ s in Yorktown.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-28



The Comment requests explanation for the assertion that Costco serves a different
demographic than BJ s Club, as stated in the DEIS. The Applicant advises that BJ s
tends to be more grocery store oriented than Costco. BJ s carries more Stock-Keeping
Units (SKUs), or distinct products, than Costco, and has smaller package sizes in the
grocery department. According to the Applicant, by stocking different types and
mixes of goods, BJ s and Costco stores target and attract shoppers of different
demographics.

The Comment asks the Applicant to provide data on which stores closed within three
years of the establishment of a Costco within a five-mile radius. Neither the Applicant
nor the Planning Board is aware of either store closing within such time frame.

The DEIS does not provide impact on sales on the BJ s in areas where BJ s and
Costco exist in close proximity. Such information is not generally available and is
proprietary to individual retail establishments.

Also, in regard to Best Plumbing vacating the BJ s/Staples Shopping Plaza, Best
Plumbing has relocated to the Crompond Crossing development across the street from
the BJ s/Staples Shopping Center and new users were granted permission to occupy
significant square footage of the basement storage area that was vacated by Best
Plumbing. Best Plumbing choosing to build their own store in relatively the same
location and new businesses beginning to in-fill vacated spaces within the
BJ s/Staples Shopping Center suggest positive economic health of the area.

The Market Study and the Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the
Applicant have looked into potential blight in the five-hamlet study area and found
the Proposed Action will not cause blight. Please refer to the FEIS III.Q Introductory
Response and FEIS Response III.Q 1.


Comment III.A 20 (Document 139.12, Jonathan Nettelfield):

With reference to DEIS Page III A-24: Public Policy. The DEIS quotes Patterns for
Westchester as cautioning that while a project may be located in an appropriate
development corridor (as the applicant asserts), it could generate traffic, overburden
existing infrastructure, markedly alter an existing community character, or have
adverse economic impacts on existing centers. In response to this caution the
language of the DEIS only addresses the visual impact issue without answering the
other cautions posed.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-29


Response III.A 20:

Patterns for Westchester cautions that certain types of development could pose
negative impacts, the DEIS addresses all of the cautions posed by Patterns for
Westchester. The DEIS examined the potential impacts of traffic and road
infrastructure in DEIS III.K, utility infrastructure in DEIS III.H, visual and
community character in DEIS III.B and fiscal & socio-economic impacts in DEIS
III.Q and identified no unmitigated adverse impacts. Refer to FEIS Response III.A
6a for further discussion of Patterns for Westchester.


Comment III.A 21 (Document 139.13, Jonathan Nettelfield):

With reference to DEIS Page III A-24: Proposed Mitigation. The Applicant suggests
that the Proposed Action will help implement the conceptual vision established for
the site, with the exception of its large lot size, and will not adversely impact
surrounding land uses. This quote from the DEIS completely ignores the vision for
Crompond Business Hamlet as specified in the Comp Plan, for a walkable, mixed-use
business hamlet. To suggest that it will not adversely impact surrounding land uses
is bordering on willful disregard for the realities of development since it is very
unlikely that anyone will want to create an urban hamlet next to a warehouse club.

Response III.A 21:

The Comprehensive Plan segments its discussion of the Crompond Business Hamlet,
or Bear Mountain Triangle, into two distinct areas; the eastern end at the top of the
hill where the Project Site is located and the western end at the bottom of the hill. At
the eastern end, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote retail and office uses with
a regional draw. The Plan further describes that on the north side of Route 202,
adjoining the Taconic State Parkway, the underlying zoning should be maintained,
while a village center with smaller stores and limited mixed-use be created at the
bottom of the hill. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Responses
III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 8, and III.A 18 as to how the development conforms with both
applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-30


Comment III.A 22 (Document 144.1, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.1, Henry Steeneck):

Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy
There is much discussion about the surrounding park lands being a CEA area, and the
DEIS states as such the project warrants detailed analysis as to how it will impact
the park; however, the only analysis they give is on page 19 where they state the
applicant has determined that the project will not be visible during full leaf season;
this does not appear to be the very detailed analysis that the DEIS said was needed.

REQUEST--We would like to see an independent study of this issue by the Town to
insure that this CEA is being adequately protected

Response III.A 22:

The DEIS recognized the Projects adjacency to the Critical Environmental Area /
CEA (i.e., FDR State Park) and analyzed the potential impacts in several sections.
Based on the balloon studies described in DEIS Section III.B, it was demonstrated
that the Project would not be visible from the FDR State Park during full leaf on
summer conditions. The Project may be visible during winter full leaf off conditions,
solely from the area of the park that lies within the Projects study area; however, the
Project will not be visible from the greater area of the park during these winter
conditions. DEIS Section III.M analyzed potential air quality impacts and found
there would be no significant adverse impacts of Project related traffic, construction
activities, and Project related stationary air emission sources to the surrounding area.
DEIS Section III. N analyzed noise impacts which included impacts to the Park. It
was found that the park would not be significantly affected by noise from increased
traffic since it is separated from the Project Site by the intersection of the Taconic
State Parkway and Route 202 as well as an internal access road within FDR State
Park and that the noise levels at all test locations were found to be below existing
ambient conditions. The impacts of the Proposed Action on the CEA have been
sufficiently analyzed in the DEIS and therefore a separate study is not warranted.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that, the Project will not have a significant adverse
impact on the unique characteristics of the CEA.


Comment III.A 23 (Document 144.2, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.2, Henry Steeneck):
There is much discussion regarding some PDD overlays being retained. None of this
discussion, however, applies as it does not directly reference the adopted comp plan.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-31


Only those overlays that were adopted by the Comp plan, not the findings statement,
apply.

These are:

PDD Office Business Campus

Minimum lot size: 10 acres
Campus-like layout, with maximum F.A.R. of 0.175 after open space set-aside
and maximum building height of two to three stories.
The preferred layout is a grouping of smaller structures, rather than a single
large mass. Development should be compatible with the countryside or scenic
setting.

PDD-Mixed Use

Must have a commercial core with a mix of small-scale shops and
professional offices in a Main Street or village center environment If
present, this commercial core should build off of existing adjacent commercial
areas.
All residential development would not be allowed to exceed the yield
permitted by the underlying zone.
Surrounding residential areas should have a mix of housing types, with a
gradual transition of intensities out from the commercial core, such that the
area blends in seamlessly with adjacent single-family residential areas.
Outside the commercial core and residential areas, space permitting, there can
also be office business park development in a campus style setting
Sidewalks throughout, including connections to adjacent commercial and
residential areas.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant provide a copy of the adopted overlay
where it states that a big-box development is allowed on this site.

Response III.A 23:
The Planned Development District Overlays (PDD Overlays) discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan were proposed as an additional tool to allow more specific
planning of an identified area of town that could benefit from a more detailed design
plan. The Bear Mountain Triangle was identified as a potential PDD-MX overlay
area; however a plan for the overlay has not yet been mapped or undertaken and
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-32


therefore current development proposals on parcels within the triangle do not have
additional requirements such as those listed in the Comment. To the extent that there
are no PDD Overlays within the Town, the underlying zoning dictates what type of
development can occur.
Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.

Furthermore, the potential for large-scale retail development on site is further
established by the Comprehensive Plans authorization of retail uses with a regional
draw within the Bear Mountain Triangle.


Comment III.A 24 (Document 144.3, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.3, Henry Steeneck):

Also, on the same page, the applicant lists the zoning land use description from the
zoning description in place before the adopted plan; however, he does this while
discussing the impacts of the project on the Adopted Comprehensive Plan. They need
to show the impact of the project as it relates to the comp plans land use which is as
follows:

Commercial Limited (CL or C-3)
Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-oriented uses that
attract heavy volumes of traffic.
Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and restaurants, but does
not include auto- oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships. This zone
replaces the C3 zone.
Design & Development Concepts
Freestanding businesses
Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g., not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum
20-foot landscaping strips along street frontages.
Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances
on adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-33


away from residential areas.
Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements
relating to wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

REQUEST--Please have the applicant comply with the spirit of the scoping
requirements, and have them show the impact of the project as it relates to the
Comp plans land use definition.

Response III.A 24:

Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 25 (Document 144.4, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.4, Henry Steeneck):

With reference to DEIS Section III.A-17, it states that the proposed project does not
fall within a center; this is not so, as already discussed via memo dated 1/20/12 to
the Planning Board from the Planning Dept., pg 7 of 16, item #15The Plan does
speak to the Crompond area as its own center

REQUESTPlease have applicant comply with the Planning Depts ruling.

Response III.A 25:

The Comment refers to DEIS Section III.A-17 which discusses and identifies centers
as defined by Patterns for Westchester. The DEIS correctly states that the Property
does not fall within a center as defined within Patterns. The Applicant has addressed
the comments in the referenced Planning Department memo dated J anuary 20, 2012,
which cited concerns related to Yorktown 2010 Comprehensive Plan as it regards
each commercial hamlet or center. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and
FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 regarding the Comprehensive
Plan and the Bear Mountain Parkway Triangle.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-34


Comment III.A 26 (Document 144.5, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.5, Henry Steeneck):

With reference to DEIS Section III.A-pg 18, the applicant discusses how the project
specifically does not comply with the comp plan in about 4 lines. This makes a
mockery of the DEIS process.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant provide an in depth analysis of how it
does not meet basically any of the requirements of the adopted comp plan.

Response III.A 26:

The DEIS provides an in depth analysis of the different aspects on the Project. Refer
generally to the DEIS and also to FEIS Section III.A Introductory Response and FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms to both
applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 27 (Document 144.6, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.6, Henry Steeneck):

The applicant fails to meet the standards of review as previously pointed out via
memo dated 1/20/12 to the Planning Board from the Planning Dept., pg 6 of 16 to
wit:

The public policy sections outline the recommendations from the Yorktown
Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainable Development Study, and Westchester Countys
Patterns. Many of these recommendations are contrary to the objectives of the
Costco project, yet there is little discussion in the potential impacts section on how
the project does comply with goals from these reports or how the project will
enhance the Bear Mountain Triangle/Crompond Hamlet Center area despite these
differences. The Comprehensive Plan describes the C-3 zone as a small scale
roadside commercial hamlet center with woodland buffers to adjacent residential
zones, 20 foot landscaped areas along street frontages, significant open space, and
excludes uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic, The DEIS simply states Costco
complies with the Comprehensive Plan because it furthers improvements and
establishes retail services in the Bear Mountain Triangle area. There is no mention of
the goals of which the project does not comply. As another example, in reference to
Westchester Countys Patterns, it is stated the proposed project is buffered by the
Taconic State Parkway from nearby residential neighborhoods, so it is not expected
to have significant adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is no discussion of the residential neighborhood immediately
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-35


adjacent to the site on Old Crompond Road.

REQUESTPlease have the applicant address the specific comments and
concerns of the planning department.

Response III.A 27:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan as
well as the Sustainable Development Study and Westchester Countys Patterns.
Additionally, Section III.A 2a and VI.A of the DEIS discusses how the Project should
not adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods.


Comment III.A 28 (Document 144.7, Jonathan Nettelfield, Yorktown Smart Growth),
(Document 177.7, Henry Steeneck):
We feel that the applicant is in direct violation of the Towns Zoning code as
explained below:

FirstThe Yorktown Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Yorktown in 2010

Second - NYs zoning enabling statutes all require that zoning laws be adopted in
accordance with a comprehensive plan. The comp plan should provide the backbone
for the local zoning law (NYS Dept of State Pub Zoning and the comp plan,
Revised 2009; reprinted 2011), page 1

The comp plan also provided the means to remove the planning process from
immediate political considerations and allow for more objective analysis of
community growth and need (Ibid, page 3) (Basset, supra, p. 28)

Illegal spot zoning occurs whenever the change is other than part of a well-
considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the
community (Ibid. page 5) (Collard y Village of Flower Hill, 52 NY 2d. 594, 600)

Once an actual plan is adopted, however, all land use regulations must be in
accordance with it. (Town law, 272-a(11); Village law 7-722(11); General City law,
28-a(12)

This usually means (though it is not mandated) that the plan adoption is followed by
the adoption of a series of zoning laws designed to implement the comprehensive
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-36


plan. For these communities, then, the statutory requirement that zoning be in
accordance with a comprehensive or well-considered plan refers to the
comprehensive plan pursuant to Town Law, Village Law or General City Law, as the
case (Ibid. page 9)

Once a comprehensive plan is adopted using the State enabling statutes, all land use
regulations of the community must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In the
future, the plan must be consulted prior to the adoption or amendment of any land use
regulation; once the plan is adopted, the communitys land use regulations must be
consistent with it. (Ibid. page 10)

Third - Pursuant to NYS Town law 272-a paragraph 11

Effect of adoption of the town comprehensive plan

(a) All town land use regulations must be in accordance with a
comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to this section

Fourth - The land use for the C-3 zone as stated within the Adopted Comprehensive
Plan (Section 2 Land Use, page 2-17) states:

Commercial Limited (CL or C-3)
Purpose: To allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses, along major arterial
roadways in the business hamlet centers, but excluding auto-oriented uses that attract heavy
volumes of traffic. Typical Land Uses: include retail stores, personal services, and
restaurants, but does not include auto- oriented uses such as car washes and auto dealerships.
This zone replaces the C3 zone.
Design & Development Concepts
Freestanding businesses
Small minimum lot size
Significant open space requirement (e.g., not less than 30 percent).
Woodland buffers adjacent to single-family residential zones, and minimum 20-foot
landscaping strips along street frontages.
Cross-access agreements and consolidated entrances, wherever possible.
Sidewalks along the street frontage, and walkways connecting store entrances on
adjacent lots.
Lighting standards should require outdoor light to be focused downward and away
from residential areas.
Standards should also strive to reduce glare effects.
All areas should be subject to natural resource protection requirements relating to
wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, tree clearing, etc.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-37


Fifth the parcel of land is located in a C-3 zone; which zone is replaced by the
Commercial Limited (CL or C-3) as stated above.

Sixth Therefore the use for which they are applying is not only, not of right, it is in
direct contradiction to the land use as specified.

Response III.A 28:

After the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Town Board adopted several
zoning amendments to implement the Plan, at which time the Board left the C-3
zoning in place for the Project Site. Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and
FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. As reflected in these FEIS Responses to
earlier comments, the proposed Costco is a permitted use within the zone, which in
turn is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.


Comments III.A 29 thru III.A 33 NOT USED


Comment III.A 34 (Document 150.2, Small and Medium-sized Businesses of Yorktown):

Refer to Document # 150 in Appendix A for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

Our opinions of both residents and businessmen of this town should be taken into
consideration. In this instance, destroying the hamlet cannot be justified by
COSTCO: less tax revenue, more closed and boarded up stores, more businesses not
making enough to keep up the appearance and variety that Yorktown deserves and
that consumers demand.

Response III.A 34:

Refer to FEIS III.A Introductory Response and FEIS Response III.Q 1 as to how the
proposed Costco will generate tax revenue as well as new jobs for the Town of
Yorktown. Also, refer to FEIS Responses III.Q 3 and III.Q 5 regarding how the
proposed Costco will not adversely impact existing businesses in Yorktown.





Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-38


Comment III.A 35 (Document 150.3, Small and Medium-sized Businesses of Yorktown):

Refer to Document # 150 in Appendix A for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

We want the right kind of growth for Yorktown, the growth as per the adopted
Comprehensive Plan that will make our community thrive with distinctive, hamlet
type stores, restaurants, places to go to and enjoy.

Please refer to Appendix for the 25 enterprise signatures

Response III.A 35:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 36 and III.A 37 NOT USED


Comment III.A 38 (Document 171.8, Evan Bray):

Special Use Permit Criteria for a Gas Station:

The criteria set forth in the zoning code prescribe, among other things, that the station
have no more than two driveways and that they shall (not may), be a minimum of 20
feet and shall not exceed 35 feet in width.

At what height is the canopy over the gas station? Zoning requires that the canopy
not exceed ___ feet in height. In the site lines drawings provided, the gas station is
represented to be 40 feet high. Are there any additional zoning variances required for
height and

The applicant provisions zero (0) additional parking spaces for the gas fueling station.
Zoning requires that parking be provided for the sum total of all occupancies and uses
on a given zoning lot. Therefore, the applicant is actually requesting an even larger
zoning variance than previously reported.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-39


Response III.A 38:

The Applicants FEIS Site Plan reduced the entrance of the fueling station to 25 feet,
which now meets the dimensional criteria stated in this Comment.

Exhibit II.6 of the DEIS indicates the canopy height to be 166, not 40 feet high, as
indicated in this Comment. Section 300-46(J )(1) states, Canopies shall provide 15
feet of ground clearance above grade. No canopy shall exceed three feet in thickness.
Accordingly, the maximum height for a canopy shall not exceed 18 feet.

Parking for the fueling facility is accounted for in the overall site parking. The
fueling facility does not require additional parking spaces since no service amenities
are offered. If the customer combines shopping with the fuel purchase, the parking is
accounted for in the shopping demand. Parking for the Costco facility is based on the
whole facility and not by the individual services.

Since a discount club is not listed as a specific use in Chapter 300-182 subsection
A, of the Towns Zoning Code, the Planning Board is granted, in subsection 300-182
B (below), the authority to determine the parking requirements.

B. Reasonable and appropriate off-street parking requirements
for structures and land uses which do not fall within categories
listed above [subsection A] shall be determined in each case by
the Planning Board, which shall consider all factors entering
into the parking needs for such use.

After acceptance of the DEIS and in response to comments, the Applicants engineer
performed a Parking Utilization Study at two nearby comparable Costcos having
similar amenities including Tire Service Centers and fueling facilities. The study
confirmed that even during the peak parking demand of the holiday shopping season,
the maximum number of occupied parking spaces was less than those proposed at the
Yorktown facility. Refer to FEIS III.L Introductory Response.

It should also be noted that Section 300-46(G) of the Town Code states that the Town
Board may vary any of the required special permit standards as it sees fit if it makes a
better plan. Refer to FEIS Response III.A 8 in regard to general special permit
criteria.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-40


Comment III.A 39 (Document 171.9, Evan Bray):

Zoning lots:

The character of the neighborhood, as it exists today within that __ zoning lots the
developer has acquired and proposes to to combine into a single zoning lot, is 85%
woodland and wetland. Combining the lots to establish a __ acre parking lot with
a __acre building would completely alter the character of this area, I would argue,
in a detrimental way. An area which is at the confluence of the Sylvan Glen nature
preserve, Granite Knolls, and the FDR state park. The applicant consistently refers to
the __zoning lots as blight, as if this were the south Bronx. I just want to point out
that abandoned motel only makes up approximately __of the site. The woodlands and
Hunterbrook are the most defining characteristics of the site, percentage-wise,
currently.

I am arguing that the act of combining these 4 zoning lots runs contrary to the
comprehensive plan. What is the position of the board with respect to the lot
combination to create a super-sized 18 acre parcel relative to the historic character of
these 4 separate, small scale, mix of unique occupancies

Response III.A 39:

Although there are woodlands and wetlands located on the Project Site, the 4 zoning
lots that make up the Proposed Action are zoned C-3 and the Proposed Action avoids
impacts to the Wetland A wetland and wetland buffer to the greatest extent
practicable. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 40 (Document 171.11, Evan Bray):

My last question to the board is does the Comp Plan carry the weight of law? Does it
mean anything, or is it so vague and inconclusive that it allows for this proposal to be
deemed in conformance with the spirit of the plan?

Response III.A 40:

The zoning regulations and land use laws in Yorktown must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan are
implemented through amendments to the Towns zoning ordinances and other
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-41


sections of the Town code or local laws. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 41 (Document 172.1a, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

Section III, A. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Land Use, Zoning, &
Public Policy

How was the size of the study area determined? A large commercial development of
this magnitude, is likely to have an impact on a much larger area than a one-half mile
radius of the project site.

Response III.A 41:

The study area was determined by the Planning Board in concert with the Applicants
consultants. The study area was based upon standard land use study boundaries, as
well as the boundaries of the Bear Mountain Triangle Crompond Hamlet in the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 42 (Document 172.3, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The proposed development will disturb approximately 78 percent of the site, and
irreparably convert about 10 acres of wooded and open space to impervious parking,
roadway, and building surfaces. This development will, undoubtedly, have an impact
on the areas current open space character despite a statement in the Executive
Summary of the DEIS to the contrary. How will a large commercial development of
10 acres maintain the open space character of Yorktown?

Response III.A 42:

As described in FEIS III.A. Introductory Response, the Project complies with the
zoning. Also, the Proposed Action includes a landscape buffer to help maintain the
open space character of Yorktown. This buffer will also provide screening from the
Taconic State Parkway and surrounding residential uses. Therefore, it will protect the
scenic value of roadways as well as the areas open space character.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-42


Approximately 10 acres of the site is presently developed, which includes
approximately 3 acres of impervious surfaces. After development of the Project,
approximately 4.7 acres, or 25% of the Site, will remain wooded. One acre, or
around 5% of the site, will be re-vegetated embankments adjacent to wetlands. A
total of 5.7 acres, or around 30% of the Site, will remain as open space.


Comment III.A 43 (Document 172.4, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

The DEIS posits that the proposed development is consistent with the Towns newly
adopted Comprehensive Plan (page 11). The DEIS states that according to the
Comprehensive Plan that the purpose of the Commercial Limited (C-3) zone was
modified to allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but exclude auto-oriented uses that
generate heavy volumes of traffic.

The proposed development is a warehouse wholesale operation of 151,092 square
feet. How does the Planning Board define a small, freestanding, roadside
commercial use and does a 151,092 square foot development meet that definition?

The proposed development is not located within a business hamlet center. Given this,
how is the proposed development consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan?

Response III.A 43:

The Comprehensive Plan envisions both a retail regional draw and a business hamlet
center within the Crompond-Bear Mountain Triangle. Consistent with that vision, the
Project provides a regional draw while still allowing for hamlet-style development to
the west of the Project site. Refer to FEIS III.A. Introductory Response and FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both
applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 44 (Document 172.5, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

The DEIS states on page 19 that in fact the proposed development does not entirely
comply with the design and development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set
forth in the Towns Comprehensive Plan. Does the applicant consider their proposed
development to comply (page 11, page 24) or not comply (page 19) with the Towns
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-43


Comprehensive Plan? Does the Planning Board consider the applicants proposed
development to comply or not comply with the Towns Comprehensive Plan?

Response III.A 44:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 45 (Document 174.6, Stephen L. Steeneck):

The DEIS goes put forward the following claim as asserted in Section III Existing
Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation A. Land use, Zoning and Public Policy.
EXHIBIT 5 is page A-18 of Section III A. Under 2. Potential Impacts, a Land use
it states The proposed project does not entirely comply with the design and
development concepts of the C-3 zoning district as set forth in the Towns
Comprehensive Plan. It further goes on to state The proposed project
specifically does not conform to the zones conceived purpose of small minimum lot
size for the project site, as the project requires a large floor area on a large tract of
land. It further goes on to say, The project does not comply with the Town Lighting
Ordinance, and will require a variance from this requirement. Nothing could be more
clear, the DEIS as supplied by Costcos respective Attorneys and Representatives are
telling The Planning Board that the project does not fit within the scope of the
intended plan for the Towns own Comprehensive Plan. Right there alone this project
should be rejected due to the clear language and severe size alone of this project. Not
to mention the FACT that the DEIS is clearly stating it violated the Towns very own
Comprehensive Plan. This is a supporting FACT that cannot be overlooked. The
proof is the DEIS own words and as such this project should be denied and NOT
allowed to proceed any further. This is a clear violation of the Town of Yorktowns
own Plan for the Future Growth of the Town. Please dont think I am against growth,
it is all about sustainable growth that will allow our Town to Progress with
Preservation as the Town of Yorktowns own motto states. We need to put out best
foot forward and grow with sustainable growth suitable and consistent with the true
intent of the Town of Yorktowns own Adopted Comprehensive Plan. I urge you
based on the DEISs own failure to strike down this massive project and say sorry this
is not what the true intent of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan for
future growth for our town




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-44


Response III.A 45:

The Comment refers to development concepts suggested in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Town of Yorktown Zoning Code. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5
and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 46 (Document 174.7, Stephen L. Steeneck):

With reference to DEIS Section III Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation A.
Land use, Zoning and Public Policy. EXHIBIT 6 is page A-15 of Section III c. Public
Policy paragraph 2 states, The Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan was adopted
on J une 15, 2010. The Plan states that the Towns land use vision is for Yorktown to
remain a primarily low- density community, with a mix of retail, office, civic and
residential uses in its five-hamlet business centers. According to the Comprehensive
Plan, the purpose of the Commercial Limited (CL or C-3) zoning district was
modified to allow for small, freestanding, roadside commercial uses along major
arterial roadways in the business hamlet centers, but exclude auto-oriented uses that
generate heavy volumes of traffic. Again another clear point in the DEIS about the
fact that this project does clearly go against the intent of the Town of Yorktowns
very own Comprehensive Plan. It is extremely clear and further read does note the
fact of an increase of 750+Cars per hour AVERAGE addition of TRAFFIC to the
projects area. A point of fact, a direct violation of the Town of Yorktowns own
clear vision of what the Zonings intent is. Based on this ALONE, this project
should be scrapped and told sorry the Town of Yorktowns vision for the future does
not include this type of massive 151,000 square ft footprint in the Zoning of CL or C-
3, as stated directly by the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan. Again,
exclude auto-oriented uses that generate heavy volumes of traffic as clearly stated
in the DEIS. This is a crystal clear violation of the Town of Yorktowns own vision
for its future, all the while keeping in the true intent of Progress with Preservation. I
strongly urge you and the board to reject this project as one not suitable, keeping
with the vision and direction of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan.
There is sustainable growth out there and as a Town looking to further its very own
future must come up with real solid business ideas that further the growth of our
precious town all the while still preserving it for our future generations to enjoy, play
and live. We are at a fragile point in time where there is no going back, this is not a
simple small project that will have little impact to everyone within a 10 mile radius.
In fact, this is a Town changing even that can change the impact of our community
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-45


for future generations to come. We owe them that little bit of hard thought to think
ahead, is this really where we are going. Is there really the true direction as pointed
out in the Town of Yorktowns Comprehensive Plan. We all the real truth behind this,
it is not and it will have life altering repercussions for generations to come. Please
stand up for Yorktown and say, this is not the direction our Comprehensive intended
us to take. In fact, the DEIS own admission state is it NOT the right direction as per
the Town of Yorktown. I urge you to please vote down this project and say our
town is all for Progress with Preservation. We can move forward with the right
plans for that current site. We can do better and we should. We owe it to our future
generations to stand up for what is right and stand together in unity for our Special
Place, a Town I call home.

Response III.A 46:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 47 (Document 174.8, Stephen L. Steeneck):

I know the Planning Board can see that is Project is NOT consistent with the Town
of Yorktowns very own Comprehensive Plan and as such has NO other way but to
say NO. This is not the right Project for this area and is in DIRECT VIOLATION
of the Town of Yorktowns very own plan for the future and the Town of Yorktowns
Comprehensive Plan. This cannot be more clear for all the reasons as set forth above
and the Towns very own view for the Future. Growth is needed, yet Sustainable
Growth is what is needed.

Response III.A 47:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 48 (Document 174.27, Stephen L. Steeneck):
It is very clear there are major deficiencies in the DEIS, in fact in reading what I have
so far, it is very clear that this Project does violate New York State Byways Laws
and the Towns own Comprehensive Plan.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-46


Response III.A 48:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comment
does not identify any support for the claim that Project violates the New York State
Byways Law, or identify which provisions of the Byways Law the Project is alleged
to have violated. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Places (OPRHP), which has jurisdiction over cultural resources including scenic
byways, has been included as an interested agency in the Projects SEQRA review
and received a copy of the DEIS. For a description of the Projects compliance with
signage requirements for scenic byways such as the Taconic Parkway, please refer to
FEIS Response III.B 15.


Comment III.A 49 (Document 174.30, Stephen L. Steeneck):

This project is a CLEAR VIOLATION of The Town of Yorktowns own
Comprehensive Plan NOT to add additionally traffic to that area. As per under
Zoning CL and C-3, of course stated above.


Response III.A 49:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 50 (Document 180.1, Gia Diamond):

Much has been said during the public hearings on DEIS of Costco submitted to you
for approval. I trust that the FEIS for this project will encompass all the suggestions
and answers all questions raised by Yorktown community and will certainly be in
line with 2004 Sustainable Development Study and Yorktown Comprehensive Plan.
Both of these documents had to go through rigorous drafting and approval processes
by your predecessors.

Response III.A 50:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with applicable zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sustainable Development Study.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-47


Comment III.A 51 (PH2, John E. Schroeder):

In the DEIS, Section 3A, page 19, refers to one of our local nature preserves as the
Silver Nature Preserve, the correct terminology is the Sylvan Glen Park Preserve. So
just a house cleaning issue. [PH2, page 73, lines 17-21]

Response III.A 51:

Comment noted. This shall acknowledge the correct name of the referenced preserve
as the Sylvan Glen Park Preserve.


Comment III.A 52 - (Document 60.2, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.3,
Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

The proposed project is grossly inconsistent with Town and County plans, State
transportation arterial management practices, and recently adopted interagency and
municipal land use and transportation agreements. These plans and studies
recommend small lot retail uses and disallows auto oriented business at the subject
site. The traffic congestion that will result from the Costco project and the impact on
the quality of life in this transportation corridor is the primary reason why the
Sustainable Development Study linking land use and transportation decisions
recommendations were agreed to.

Response III.A 52:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5, III.A 6a and III.A 8 as to how the
development conforms with applicable zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sustainable Development Study.


Comment III.A 53 - (Document 60.2a, Tim Miller, Tim Miller Associates Inc.), (136.3a,
Richard E. Stanton, Law Offices of Richard E. Stanton):

The fueling facility requires a special permit from the Town Board, however it
appears that the project will not meet the standards for granting a special permit.

Response III.A 53:

Refer to FEIS Response III.A 8 regarding the fueling facility and how the proposed
fueling facility does meet the standards for granting a special permit.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-48


Comment III.A 54- (Document 122.8, Al Boutross):

Attached to this e-mail is a document entitled: Some Reasons to reject Costco
Proposal RE: Rte 202 & Taconic which represents my opinion on the subject. I will
appreciate it if you would take these reasons (which may have already been
expressed) under consideration in your decision making process. Originally, I was
FOR the project, but more careful thinking has changed my conclusion. Yorktown is
doing very well financially at present and does not need a time bomb dressed as Santa
Claus.


Another large store, Big Lots, has recently been reported to have opened in the former
Circuits City location in Cortlandt, and so, we continue to add to the number of
accessible large stores, obviating the need to encourage any more.

Response III.A 54:

The inclusion of Big Lots in the larger trade area does not demonstrate that additional
large stores are unnecessary. The Applicant asserts that Big Lots and Costco have
different product lines and retail strategies. Big Lots specializes in reduced price
close out items, and does not carry bulk wholesale goods. Moreover, Big Lots has a
very small grocery product line, with no refrigerated items, meats, fresh produce, etc.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the product lines and the target markets have
only marginal overlap, as each retailer caters to distinctly different retail needs within
the trade area. Both retailers can be readily accommodated based on the Market
Study prepared by the Applicant, which was included in Appendix K of the DEIS.
Also refer to DEIS III.Q for more information.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-49


Comment III.A 55 - (Documents 29.01 29.55, Costco Petition), (Documents 77.01 77.45,
Costco Petition), (Documents 116.01 116.12, Costco Petition), (Documents
166.01 166.32, Costco Petition):


Refer to Appendix for the 144 petition signatures

Response III.A 55:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.






Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-50


Comment III.A 56 - (Document 41.6, No Costco Post Cards (11)), (Document 44.1, No
Costco Post Cards (4)), (Document 49.1, No Costco Post Cards (2), (Document
87.1, No Costco Post Cards (1), (Document 141.1, No Costco Post Cards (3),
(Document 160.1, No Costco Post Cards (11)):





Refer to Appendix for the 32 post card signatures

Response III.A 56:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.






Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-51


Comment III.A 57 - (Document 42.15, Say No to Costco):


Response III.A 57:

Comment noted


Comment III.A 58- (Document 86.1, Robert Reynolds):

I am writing this email to urge you to reject the Costco plan.

I was at the last meeting and listened to the Costco experts paint the rosy picture
of how we will all be so well off with the Costco in the proposed location in
Yorktown. They are professionals at doing what they do. In this case selling this
Costco. Again I hope you will see the reality of this. Costco only will benefit.
The town will not nor the residents.

This site is not the place for this kind of development and does not conform to the
spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. On the Yorktown website the banner on all
pages reads Progress with Preservation!!

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-52


Yorktown Heights is a model of poor or no planning, letting the developers do
whatever they want. Lets not continue with this mistake and let the developers
win this. They will be the only ones benefiting.

Response III.A 58:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 59 (Document 150.5, Small and Medium-sized Businesses of Yorktown):

Refer to Letter 150 in Appendix 1 for a complete list of the (25) Businesses

Yorktown Planning Board should be exercising its due diligence by exploring all
adverse impacts of COSTCO before making a mistake of approving this project. You
have responsibility as the Town Supervisor and Members of Yorktown Town
Planning Board to help Yorktown achieve its potential with careful consideration of
interests of small and medium-sized businesses. It is up to you to help us avoid the
threat of existence as businesses once and for all.

Please refer to Appendix for the 25 enterprise signatures

Response III.A 59:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to the
Market Study and Commercial Character Assessment prepared by the Applicant and
included in DEIS Appendix VI.K, and FEIS Responses III.Q 1, 2 and 3, which show
that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to adversely affect existing businesses in
the Town.


Comment III.A 60 (Document 174.37, Stephen L. Steeneck):

What The Planning Board needs to do it decide what is best for the Town of
Yorktown and say to Costco, NO SORRY our Plan for the Future and our
Progress with Preservation own motto holds true. We need to develop
sustainable growth for our future generations to live in harmony and there are
OTHER BETTER OPTIONS for that Location. There is nothing wrong with
building a few common stores, a hotel and something that will add and bring value
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-53


to our Town. Not degrade our town and regress it to the land of Big Box Stores.
We have our future and our children and (childrens childrens) to think about. I
hope The Planning Board will consider the HUGE IMPACT this project will
have on our Town and our Community. We are a small in size (population) town,
NOT a big city. PLEASE, do not degrade our Community and our Town, we are
better than that.

Response III.A 60:

Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code allow the proposed
development on the Project Site. Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and
III.A 8. as to how the development conforms with both applicable zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 61 (Document 174.41, Stephen L. Steeneck):

In fact, it should be noted that this is NOT a Public Referendum. A vote has not
been planned for the residents of the Town of Yorktown, and as such the Planning
Board has the right to do as it sees fit. Also, the Planning Board, MUST
ADHEARE [sic.] to the Town of Yorktown Comprehensive Plan and as such,
MUST deny this application in its entirety. Anything less would be a clear
violation of the Town of Yorktowns own Comprehensive Plan. As the Town of
Yorktown has adopted this plan, it must be followed fully.

Response III.A 61:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8. as to how the development
conforms with both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.


Comment III.A 62 - (Document 45.5, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

This proposal IS consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan, and with the
Sustainable Development Study. It should be noted here that both the Comprehensive
Plan and the Sustainable Development Study made huge efforts to include residents
of the Town in order to plan development in a way that would be consistent with
residents ideas, wishes and concerns. BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE residents
participated in both efforts. As a result, both studies are consistent with the vision of
local residents as to what makes the most sense here (based on our more intimate
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-54


knowledge of the area) and what we not only would like to see in the way of
development, but also what we think we can live with.

The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for building blocks that would
enable the kind of development the Town envisions especially infrastructure like
road improvements and sewer connections. The Costco development offers the
opportunity to create those blocks.

Response III.A 62:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 63 - (Document 45.7, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

A few comments on specifics of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Bear
Mountain Triangle follow.

While Auto Oriented Uses are discouraged in the Bear Mountain Triangle
Crompond Hamlet, Auto Oriented Uses are defined as car lots or dealerships, not
other commercial retail enterprises. The proof is that the subject site was zoned
Commercial Zone, which allows for this type of project.

The Plan calls for infrastructure development and improvements in conjunction
with or prior to development. The Costco proposal is entirely consistent with that
guidance and will enable hamlet development in the rest of the BEAR MOUNTAIN
TRIANGLE. Costcos inclusion of the rest of BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE in
Sewer improvements makes possible more reasonable future hamlet development as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center
of the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
high volume Taconic Parkway/202 intersection is not appropriate as a hamlet
development site.

Response III.A 63:

Comment noted.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-55


Comment III.A 64 - (Document 45.8, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

In the Comprehensive Plan, sidewalks are encouraged as well as ensuring
appropriate vehicular access and adequate parking. Costcos proposal includes
sidewalks, bike lanes and racks, again consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
the developer has worked with NYS DOT to get the planned state project to include
widening of 202 from OLD CROMPOND ROAD east to BJ s light which in
conjunction with rest of state project will not only improve traffic, but also create
walk-able/bike-able connections to Yorktown, including recreation, for first time.
Now must we always use car, no matter how near or far our destination.

Response III.A 64:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 65 - (Document 45.9, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

The impact of this development and any improvements to trails and the
abandoned park behind the site will allow us in the BEAR MOUNTAIN
TRIANGLE to benefit from amenities the rest of Yorktown has had for years. It is
currently not possible to connect to Yorktown trails in the area without serious
suicidal actions. If this proposal is approved, connections will enable us to access
areas to the east and north, as well as providing a safe way to reach the Hunterbrook
area.

Response III.A 65:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 66 - (Document 93.2, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

This site has periodically been the subject of development proposals which have
never gone anywhere, including for a conference center and hotel use and for retail
shops, reportedly because the economics of the proposals didnt work.
Since Whites left the area over 20 years ago, we havent had any food options
other than BJ s, unlike other areas of Town. And although traffic is consistently
much worse on Route 6, Mohegan Lake has seen dramatic retail and restaurant
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-56


development over the years. Much of what we have gotten or might have gotten
has been lured away to Cortlandt!

Response III.A 66:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 67 - (Document 93.4, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

This proposal IS consistent with the Towns Comprehensive Plan, and with the
Sustainable Development Study. It should be noted here that both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Sustainable Development Study made huge efforts to
include residents of the Town in order to plan development in a way that would be
consistent with residents ideas, wishes and concerns. Bear Mountain Triangle
residents participated in both efforts. As a result, both studies are consistent with
the vision of local residents as to what makes the most sense here (based on our
more intimate knowledge of the area) and what we not only would like to see in
the way of development, but also what we think we can live with.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center of
the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
high volume Taconic Parkway/202 intersection is not appropriate as a hamlet
development site.

Response III.A 67:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 68 - (Document 93.18, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.18, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.18, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.18, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.18, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.18, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.18, Ben Falk), (Document 93.18, Renee
Cerasuolo), (Document 93.18, John Bauso), (Document 93.18, Peter
Aritonaros), (Document 93.18, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for building blocks that would
enable the kind of development the Town envisions especially infrastructure
like road improvements and sewer connections. The Costco development offers the
opportunity to create those blocks.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-57


Response III.A 68:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 69 - (Document 93.13, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.13, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.13, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.13, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.13, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.13, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.13, Ben Falk), (Document 93.13, Renee
Cerasuolo), (Document 93.13, John Bauso), (Document 93.13, Peter
Aritonaros), (Document 93.13, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

A few comments on specifics of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the Bear
Mountain Triangle follow.

While Auto Oriented Uses are discouraged in the Bear Mountain
Triangle/Crompond Hamlet, Auto Oriented Uses are defined as car lots or
dealerships, not other commercial/retail enterprises. The proof is that the subject
site was zoned Commercial Zone, which allows for this type of project.

The Plan calls for infrastructure development and improvements in conjunction
with or prior to development. The Costco proposal is entirely consistent with that
guidance and will enable hamlet development in the rest of the Bear Mountain
Triangle. Costcos inclusion of the rest of Bear Mountain Triangle in sewer
improvements makes possible more reasonable future hamlet development as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Plan envisions mixed residential, office, and retail/commercial in the center of
the Bear Mountain Triangle, not along boundaries where Costco is proposed. The
high volume Taconic Parkway/202 intersection is not appropriate as a hamlet
development site.

In the Comprehensive Plan, sidewalks are encouraged as well as ensuring
appropriate vehicular access and adequate parking. Costcos proposal includes
sidewalks, bike lanes and racks, again consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
and the developer has worked with NYS DOT to get the planned state project to
include widening of 202 from Old Crompond Road east to BJ s light which in
conjunction with rest of state project will not only improve traffic, but also create
walk-able/bike-able connections to Yorktown, including recreation, for first time.
Now must we always use a car, no matter how near or far our destination.

The impact of this development and any improvements to trails and the abandoned
park behind the site will allow us in the Bear Mountain Triangle to benefit from
amenities the rest of Yorktown has had for years. It is currently not possible to
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-58


connect to Yorktown trails In the area without serious suicidal actions. If this
proposal is approved, connections and sidewalks will enable us to access areas to
the east and north, as well as provide a safe way to reach the Hunterbrook area.

Response III.A 69:

Comment noted.


Comment III.A 70 - (Document 93.17, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.17, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.17, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.17, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.17, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.17, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.17, Ben Falk), (Document 93.17, Renee
Cerasuolo), (Document 93.17, John Bauso), (Document 93.17, Peter
Aritonaros), (Document 93.17, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

One big difference will be the fueling station. We have heard many concerns from
those representing the local gas stations that approval of this project with the
fueling station will drive many of them out of business. We should remember that
only Costco members can purchase from their fueling station, so competition to
local stations will be limited. And Yorktown stations are already higher priced than
stations outside Yorktown, especially in center of Town. They have been ripping
us off for years.

For all these reasons, we respectfully urge you to approve the Costco proposal.

Response III.A 70:

Comment noted.


Comment III. A 71 (Document 178.9c, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project
at route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 9.

The 2010 comprehensive plan calls for Country Commercial development not
BOX Stores and more traffic. According, to the comprehensive plan, The [sic]
traffic on route 202 is already excessive. I urge everyone to seriously think of what
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.A
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy


______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.A-59


the ramifications that such a project would do to our small town. Do We [sic] want
a ghost town?

Response III.A 71:

Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS
Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are
identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A. Refer to FEIS
Responses III.A 3, III.A 5 and III.A 8 as to how the development conforms with
both applicable zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Also, refer to FEIS Response
III.K 98 regarding traffic.
III.B VISUAL CHARACTER

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character


_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-1
Section III.B Visual Character


Comment III.B 1 - (Document 81.2, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

The Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance (ABACA)
reviewed the subject item during its meeting on October 23, 2012, 2012.
The ABACA needs to see the proper elevation from the Taconic southbound off-ramp
to determine the appropriate height of the Norway spruce.

Response III.B 1:

DEIS Exhibits III.B-41 to III.B-46 illustrate computer simulated 3-dimensional views
of the Site from the Taconic southbound off-ramp. Additional views from the
Taconic mainline are illustrated in this FEIS Exhibits 40a to 46a, which are provided
in FEIS Response III.B 2. The exhibits include views with and without (transparent)
proposed landscaping. DEIS Exhibit III.B-56 has been amended to include the
Taconic off-ramp as well as the mainline. FEIS Exhibit III.B-56 illustrates cross-
sectional views showing sightlines from the off-ramp and mainline southbound lanes.
(The locations of the cross-sections are shown on FEIS Exhibit III.B-55.) FEIS
Exhibit B-20a also illustrates the relationship between the Taconic parkway and the
Project Site and ground surface illustrations are provided. Note that the building will
be in view but it will be screened by the proposed landscaping. The proposed trees
are shown at the height of 20 feet approximately 5 years after initial planting (refer to
FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15).

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-5

Comment III.B 2 - (Document 81.3, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

The visible impact on a car traveling southbound on the Taconic needs to be more
accurate. Show what the site will look like from a car in the southbound lane on the
Taconic. The ABACA emphasizes a request for a right-hand southbound lane. Costco
has provided this information for a southbound exit ramp.

Response III.B 2:

In order to improve the readers understanding of the potential view of the Project site
from the mainline of the Taconic Parkway, additional computer simulated 3-
dimensional illustrations were prepared. FEIS Exhibits III.B-41a thru III.B-46a
illustrate the view of the Project Site as it will be seen from the Taconic southbound
travel lanes. The exhibits represent the views with the proposed landscaping and
without (transparent view). FEIS Exhibit III.B-40a is a key map showing the
locations of the three views.

The illustrations show that the Site will potentially be visible from the southbound
lanes. The Applicant estimates this visibility is for a distance as long as 1500 feet.
Based on the motorist travelling at the legal speed limit of 55 MPH, the length of time
the motorist could see the Site while passing by would be less than 20 seconds.
However, the main landscape component will be evergreen trees that will effectively
screen the Site, even in winter. Refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-6


FEIS Exhibit III.B-40a: View Reference Key



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-7


FEIS Exhibit III.B-41a: View 1a (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 484)




Exhibit III.B-42a: View 1a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 482)



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-8


FEIS Exhibit III.B-43a: View 2a (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 509)



FEIS Exhibit III.B-44a: View 2a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation
509)



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-9


FEIS Exhibit III.B-45a: View 3a (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation 525)



FEIS Exhibit III.B-46a: View 3a (Transparent) (Building roof elevation 476; Viewer elevation
525)



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-10

Comment III.B 3 - (Document 81.5, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

D) Clarification on the elevations is required. Exhibit III-20a. indicates the elevation
as 454.0 in the back of the building at the property line and showing the elevation of
the Taconic south off ramp as 458.0. Graphically it looks like its more than 458.0.

Response III.B 3:

DEIS Exhibit III.B-20a has been revised to reflect the elevations of the Site in
relation to the Taconic State parkway (Refer to FEIS Response III.B 1 for exhibit).
The corrected elevations are shown on FEIS Exhibit III.B-20a and pertinent
elevations are summarized below:
The elevation at the Costco building has been raised to elevation 445 (from
444) for the FEIS Site Plan as described in the FEIS Site Plan Introductory
Response.
The elevation at the Costco roof will be 476.
The elevation at the property line is 454.
The elevation at the Taconic southbound off ramp is 488. The elevation of the
viewer would be 492.
The elevation at the Taconic southbound travel lanes is 521. The elevation of
the viewer would be 525.

Comment III.B 4 - (Document 100.3, Steve Winkel), (PH2, Steve Winkel):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

What about the visual appear [sic]? To a lot of people, that exit is a gateway to the
town.

That gas station and the motel are an eyesore. No arguing that. But Im not sure that
all the people in support of this plan understand the magnitude of this project. And Id
hate for them to only come to that realization when the bulldozers defoliate 15 acres
and replace it with acres of parking lot and 25 light poles blasting the night sky.

Think about the Taconic now. You ride from 84 all the way down to the Saw Mill and
what do you see? Trees, houses, the reservoir.., a few cows up north. Pretty much the
only interruptions you see are some townhouses.., a self storage facility.., a little hint
of Millwood. Now the gateway to our town would be a massive 150,000 square foot
warehouse club with acres of asphalt and gas pumps. And a quarter mile of cars lined
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-11

up to the exit. Welcome to Yorktown. Its a great place to bring your family.

Response III.B 4:

The visual 3-dimensional computer simulations in Section III.B of the DEIS indicate
how the Project will appear from a variety of angles. These depict how the Costco
store will appear as viewed from adjacent roadways including the Taconic State
Parkway (TSP), Route 202/35 and Old Crompond Road. As stated in the DEIS, the
proposed Costco will be visible from the Taconic TSP. See additional graphics
illustrating views from the TSP southbound lanes in FEIS Responses III.B 1, III.B 2
and III.B 3. The views shown in FEIS Response III.B2 illustrate the trees five years
after initial planting. The screening immediately after planting will be somewhat
thinner. The main landscape component will be evergreen trees that will effectively
screen the Site, even in winter. Refer to FEIS Response Site Plan 2h and 15.

Since the TSP and southbound off-ramp are higher than the proposed building, the
potential view would be looking down at the building roof. The roof will be flat and
will contain skylights as well as mechanical equipment. Views of the Costco building
and Site from the TSP, including the roof, will be screened by the proposed
landscaping as shown in FEIS Response Exhibits III.B-41 to 46 (depicting views
from TSP within five years of landscape planting) .

Current views from the TSP are visually impacted by the abandoned, overgrown
motel site with boarded up windows and doors and graffiti written walls. Under the
Proposed Action, these negative visual impacts will be replaced with the new
development. The proposed Costco building will be tucked below the elevation of the
TSP and will therefore not be visible from the TSP northbound lanes and from areas
further east. The building walls will be earth tone colors so as to blend into the natural
background. There will also be a horizontal red stripe around the building. A Costco
sign is proposed to be placed above the building entry door. The sign on the south
building elevation as shown on Exhibit II-5 in DEIS Section II will not be permitted
by the NYSDOT (see below).

The Taconic State Parkway is listed as a Scenic Byway on the State and National
Register of Historic Places. Evaluation of the visual impact of the Project to the
parkway will be reviewed and determined by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation,
and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) as well as by the Yorktown Planning Board
during site plan review. Due to its proximity to the TSP, building signage is limited
by NYS Parks Law, which is enforced by the NYS Department of Transportation
(DOT). Signage will be limited by the DOT to those facing away from the TSP.
Refer to FEIS Responses II.13 and III.B 15.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-12



Comment III.B 5 - (Document 109.3, Julian Charnis):

From the construction phase of the project, to its completion, it will all have a severe
negative effect on everyday life in Yorktown. When it is finished we will be left with
the largest hideously ugly shopping complex imaginable. If the town was facing
bankruptcy a good argument could be made for such a severe and disruptive change
to our way of life. This proposal should only be carried out because of a desperate
need, since it will forever change the character and quality of life here.

Response III.B 5:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Comment III.B 6 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.B 7 (Document 125.1, Dale Saltzman):

How can you allow one of New York States prime view sheds to be compromised?
When you drive north on the Taconic and cross over Route 202 you are presented
with a gigantic crossroads of engineering wonder, of forested landscape and
highways. To the west the Hudson and to the north Elevations that fill the joy of
being part of a large society that works.

If you allow Costco to pave over 15+acres in the Hunter Brook Watershed and light
it day and night, you destroy the forested landscapes of the Taconic. I believe there
are ample laws to be upheld already in place that must be enforced by you denying
permits.

So I ask you again, how can you let their view sheds on the Taconic and Route 202 be
destroyed? Aesthetics are calm to the heart and mind.

Response III.B 7:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4.






Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-13

Comment III.B 8 (Document 139.14, Jonathon Nettelfield), (PH2, Jonathon Nettelfield):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

DEIS Page III B-50: Comparison to Existing Conditions. The conclusion, The
Applicant asserts that the mere visibility of the proposed project from any of the
surrounding viewsheds does not imply a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of
the place; nor will the project, by virtue of its visibility, necessarily cause the
diminishment of public enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of the visual
resources, nor impair the character or quality of the place. is astounding. While we
agree that decaying buildings do not add to perceived beauty, we do not believe
that under any circumstances a big box store and massive car park can be described as
more beautiful than trees, fields and open space which constitute the majority of the
current viewscape. It is this latter type of viewshed which gives Yorktown the rural
character which is so appealing to many of its residents.

Response III.B 8

The Applicant notes that the western portion of the Site will remain wooded. The
portion of the Site which will be developed presently consists of a combination of
natural and previously disturbed land uses. The Applicant merely noted in the DEIS
that some of the existing Site developments are in disrepair and remain visually
unattractive. The Applicant proposes perimeter landscaping to soften views from
offsite. Refer to DEIS Section III.B as well as FEIS Responses III.B 1, 2, 3, and 4
regarding the visibility of the Site from different viewpoints.

Comment III.B 9 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)
Comment III.B 10 (Document 162.2, Ellen Dolan):

All you have to do is go in the Palisades parkway to see how development has ruined
the landscape. I am concerned that the Costco will be seen from the Taconic and
destroy the beautiful views of mountains and trees.

Response III.B 10:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.B 4 and II.13 as to the visual impacts from the proposed
Costco as seen from the Taconic State Parkway.



Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-14

Comment III.B 11 (Document 171.7, Evan Bray):
Sight Lines

Additionally, the applicant failed to represent the 155 to 230 lamp posts on the sight
line drawings. This is important for the homes across the street, visibility from the
TSP and the 202/35. The gas station is only shown in one of the sections, its
represented as a 40 foot high gray box. The application has not details of the gas
station, other than its location in plan.

The site line drawing from the TSP is the only one with a single line. J ust want to
point out the fact that this has the effect of not showing how fully visible the parking
lot, store and gas station will be from the TSP. Granting a zoning variance to raise the
elevation nearly 60% compounds the problem and will bastardize the scenic TSP
view.

Why is this important? Visibility from the 202 scenic corridor. The lighting and
signage associated with the parking lot and gas station flies in the face of the stated
goals of the comp plan and Patterns of maintaining the scenic nature (e.g. the blighted
woodland and wetland character that exists today. Granting a variance for lighting
would only exacerbate that condition. If youve driven on the TSP north of the
Amvets bridge, ever, youd certainly note the lack of light pollution. Granting a
variance to increase visibility from the TSP is wrong.

Response III.B 11:

Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 6, 12, 13 and 16 for discussion related to
lighting. Proposed light poles were added to FEIS Exhibits III.B-56 & 57 (refer
to FEIS Response III.B 1). While light poles will be visible from offsite,
measures to reduce visual impact include down-lit dark sky fixtures and landscape
buffering around the Site perimeter. Landscaping will be provided along the TSP
to screen the view from the Scenic Byway. Also refer to FEIS Responses III.B 2,
3 & 4.
An elevation of the fueling station was provided in the DEIS (Exhibit II-6). The
height of the canopy is 17.5 feet. Sight line F-F (FEIS Response III.B 1) depicts
the Fueling Facility canopy.
DEIS Exhibits III.B-46 and 48 illustrate the proposed view of the Site with the
fueling station. (Note however, that there will be no building and canopy signs
facing the TSP. Refer to FEIS Response III.B 15.)
Light poles (in sectional view) were added to site line DEIS Exhibits III.B-56 and
III.B-57 (Refer to FEIS Response III.B 1) were modified to illustrate light poles.
Additional comments about the variance for light poles noted.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-15



Comment III.B 12 (Document 172.6, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

Does the wind blow-down from Superstorm Sandy have any changes to the proposed
developments impact on the areas visual character?

This section details, with photographic evidence, of the current built environment, but
does not include any photographs or detailed assessments of the natural environment.
Why did the applicant neglect the visual character of the natural environment?

Response III.B 12:

There is no known long-term damaged environment in the immediate vicinity of the
Project resulting from Superstorm Sandy. Photographs of the existing natural and
built character of the environment were included in Section III.B of the DEIS as
illustrated in photographs III.B-1 thru III.B-39.

Comment III.B 13 (Document 172.7, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

It should be noted that the applicant states on page 48 of this section that the
proposed light fixtures will be down lit dark sky luminaries to minimize sky glow
but this is not the same as the International Dark Sky Associations Dark Sky
Compliant Lighting (www.darksky.org). The International Dark Sky Association
recommends that:

Landscape and security lighting should be fully shielded so the majority of
light hits the target and is shielded from normal viewing angles and does not
cause glare.
Areas should not be over-lit. Reflected light contributes to sky glow, so
lighting levels should be kept low.
Lights should be turned off when not needed. Landscape and faade lights can
be turned off after midnight, or earlier, and parking lot luminaries can be
turned off after hours.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-16


According to the International Dark Sky Association, artificial light at night has
been shown to affect the mating, migration, and predation behaviors of many
different species and, consequently, the ecological community as a whole. Of
particular interest to Bedford Audubon is the disturbance artificial lighting can have
on both migrating and local birds. Birds confused by artificial lighting at night can
collide with other birds or buildings, or circle lights until they die of exhaustion. The
Fatal Light Awareness Program cites that more than 450 bird species that migrate at
night across North America are susceptible to collisions with night-lit towers,
including threatened or endangered species like the Cerulean Warbler and Henslows
Sparrow.

Both the Cerulean Warbler and Henslows Sparrow are listed as endangered species
for Westchester County (www.vhb.com/whiteplainsgeis/dgeis/append
ices/appendixD/6 Westchester%2OCo%20Protected%20 Species%2OList.pdf).

Additionally, bats, amphibians, moths and other insects are also negatively impacted
by artificial light at night.

The DEIS states that the parking area will be lit to levels required by Costco to
provide a safe shopping environment for its customers. What is this level? Does it
comply with Town standards? Does it allow for compliance with the International
Dark Sky Associations guidelines?

Response III.B 13:

Site lighting will be provided throughout the parking area. Illumination will be
provided to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety and meet the minimum lighting
criteria recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Proposed
lighting fixtures will be down lit dark sky luminaires to minimize sky glow.
Perimeter light fixtures will be equipped with house side shields to reduce and
minimize offsite illumination (See FEIS Site Plan for illumination values).

Chapter 200-6 of the Town Code requires that illumination levels shall be less than
1.0 footcandle at the property line. When constructed, illumination levels at the
Property perimeter will be below the maximum illumination levels required by the
Town Code, thereby meeting the Town standards.

The parking area will remain illuminated from dusk to just after the facility closes.
Typical hours of warehouse operation will be Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to
8:30 p.m.; Saturday 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m (Refer
to DEIS II-26 for more information). Minimal security lighting will remain lit
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-17

throughout the hours of darkness when the facility is closed. Security lighting
typically allows for continued illumination of approximately 25 percent of the
luminaires, equally dispersed around the parking area to provide sufficient lighting to
discourage potential vandalism and aid in police patrol efforts. Lighting will be
reviewed by the Planning Board in connection with the Site plan approval process.

Regarding International Dark Sky Association recommendations noted in the
Comment, the Applicant asserts that the proposed lighting is dark-sky compliant
based on the following:
Landscape lighting is not proposed, thereby eliminating the greater potential for
upward directed lighting.
Parking and roadway lighting, with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety
issues will be required to comply with any conditions imposed by the Planning
Board in connection with the Site Plan Approval process. House shields will be
provided on perimeter lights to minimize offsite spillage as described in
paragraph 2 of this response.
After hours lighting will be limited as described in paragraph 3 of this response.
Also refer to FEIS Responses II. 1 and 12.

According to information on the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) website
(www.flap.org) during the night, birds are drawn to the artificial sky glow produced
by excessive, overnight lighting. They flutter around the lights until they drop from
exhaustion or collide with the buildings themselves. If they survive until daybreak,
birds find themselves trapped in a maze of reflective buildings and collide with the
windows and reflective walls in an attempt to escape. The executive director of
FLAP, a Toronto-based environmental organization, states that birds often become
disoriented when they fly through brightly lit areas such as tall, brilliantly-lit
broadcast towers or tall buildings in urban areas. The comparatively low height of
the Costco building, the lack of large glass windows or facades on the building, and
the minimal lighting proposed for the parking areas and building perimeter during the
overnight hours are all consistent with the FLAP recommendations for careful
consideration when planning both interior and exterior lighting systems, and reducing
unnecessary overnight lights which are intended to lessen the fatal attraction of [a]
building to birds.

Neither the Cerulean Warbler nor Henslows Sparrow is listed as endangered species
under the federal or state Endangered Species Act. The Cerulean Warbler is unlisted
under the federal Endangered Species Act, and listed as a species of special concern
in New York State. No Cerulean Warblers were observed during field investigations
of the Site or the surveys of the Site area published in The Second Atlas of Breeding
Birds in New York State (Cornell University, 2008). See DEIS III-E.16-17.
Accordingly, no impacts on Cerulean Warblers are anticipated from the proposed
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-18

Project.

Henslows Sparrow is unlisted under the federal Endangered Species Act, and listed
as a threatened species under state law. According to NYSDEC: In New York,
populations [of Henslows Sparrow] are very localized and found primarily in the
central and western parts of the state, especially the Appalachian Plateau and Great
Lakes Plain. In eastern New York, it may also be found in the Mohawk Valley.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/59554.html. No Henslows Sparrows were observed
during field investigations of the Site or the surveys of the Site area published in The
Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State (Cornell University, 2008). See
DEIS III-E.16-17. Accordingly, no impacts on Henslows Sparrows are anticipated
from the proposed Project.

The list of endangered species maintained by the Westchester County Parks
Department is intended to track local populations of species listed by the NYSDEC;
in any event, there are no additional regulatory requirements associated with the
County-specific list. Also, the link in the Comment is no longer available. The current
link for the list of endangered species in Westchester County is:
http://parks.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/EndangeredSpeciesList.pdf..

Comment III.B 14 (Document 172.8, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford
Audubon Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

The applicant intends to request a lighting variance in order to increase the height of
the light fixtures from 16 feet to 25 feet. Did the visual character assessments
properly consider the increased height of the light fixtures during nighttime
conditions, particularly from the Taconic State Parkway? Will the increased height in
fact negate the impact of down lighting? Did the applicant make any assessment or
consideration of migrating bird or bat species in the Atlantic Flyway that migrate over
the Site, or use the region as stopover habitat during migration?

Response III.B 14:

Most migratory species would be flying much higher than 25 in the air, and use of
the Site as stop-over habitat would occur during the daylight hours. Therefore,
Applicant asserts that no significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or bats would
be likely to occur from light poles at heights of 25.

Refer to FEIS Responses II. 1, 2, 12, 13 and 16 for discussion related to lighting.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-19


Comment III.B 15 (174.5, Stephen L. Steeneck):

New York State has Scenic Byways and EXHIBIT 4 is a copy of a print out of the
Current New York State Scenic Byways. Listed in the New York State Designated
Scenic byways is the Taconic State Parkway. Under New York State Law the Laws
that are controlling are N.Y. Highway Law 349-DD Article 12-C supra and as such
pertaining to New York Law Parks, recreation and historic preservation Title C
Article 13 13.03 proving this is a State Agency and as defined will be governed by
the Laws of New York State. Under which EXHIBIT 4 provides a copy of the laws in
succession to New York Law Parks, recreation and historic preservation Title C
Article 13 13.07 Signs and advertising structures restricted. As such the Law is
very clear and states, no person shall erect or maintain within five hundred feet of
the border of any state park or parkway any advertising sign or advertising structures
or devices of any kind, This is very clear as no sign of any kind have an area of not
more than twenty four square feet and do not extend more than fifteen feet above the
ground level and are placed on the fronts of buildings. The Law is very clear to this
and cannot be violated due to Costco decides to place a sign within the five hundred
foot buffer. This just cannot be allowed due to a clear violation of New York State
Law. As such the use of any signs on this proposed site should be strictly banned and
placed in accordance of the Law of New York State. Additionally, does the DEIS
make special note of this and take into accordance these very facts? Facts that NO
Costco sign can exist within a five hundred foot buffer to the Taconic State Parkway
plus no sign higher than fifteen feet above ground level with no signs placed forward
either?

Response III.B 15:

The DEIS addresses the restrictions imposed upon signage in the vicinity of the
Taconic State Parkway in multiple sections. The Description of the Proposed Action
describes the proposed signage and landscape mitigation to shield views of the signs
from the TSP. See DEIS pages II-19 to II-21. The Applicants engineer has consulted
with both the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation with respect to
signage. (Review for the S/NRHP (State/National Register of Historic Places) is
administered at the State level.) As required by law, Costco is seeking approval of
the signage; the required NYSDOT approval is listed in the DEIS under Required
Permits, Reviews and Approvals, in Table II.5 on p. II-33. Signage requirements are
also mentioned in the DEIS as part of the Visual Impacts analysis comparing the
proposed Project with existing conditions. See DEIS page III.B-48.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-20

Section 13.07 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law
authorizes the placement of signs within 500 feet of the Taconic State Parkway
under written permit from the office or state agency charged with responsibility for
the maintenance of such park or parkway. The Taconic State Parkway is owned and
maintained by the NYSDOT, which oversees the placement of signs along and
adjacent to the Parkway.

The Applicant is in receipt of a letter dated 10/23/2012 from the NYSDOT (see
FEIS Appendix C) in which NYSDOT stated the following:

To the extent that proposed signage is not visible from the TSP, NYSDOT
is willing to permit the installation of the signs (#1, 2 & 3) on the west
building elevation and the sign (#5) on the west face of the fueling station.
The two south facing signs (#4 & 6) visible from the TSP will not be
permitted at this time.

The Applicant will continue to work with NYSDOT and other state agencies to
secure any necessary Project permits and approvals.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-21


DOT Sign Exhibit III.B-15
(Based on DEIS Site Plan and still pertinent to the FEIS Site Plan)



Comment III.B 16- (Document 86.2, Robert Reynolds):

I do like Costco as a store but again not at that site. The store structure, parking,
gas station and lighting, if built will be an eyesore forever at that location.

Response III.B 16:

The Applicant proposes landscaping to screen the building and lighting from the
surrounding area. This plan will be reviewed in greater detail during the site plan
approval process. Refer to DEIS Section III.B Visual Character and related FEIS
Responses to Comments in FEIS Section III.B with regard to the assessment of visual
impacts.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-22

Comment III.B 17 (Document 158.1, Dale Saltzman):

The addition of this large building will destroy the view shed of this intersection.
The Taconic crosses 202 and you can see the west side of the Hudson as you drive by.
This will be gone lost forever during the day and gone lost in lighting during the
night. A view shed is very important to the mental health of a community.

Response III.B 17:

Based on the Applicants field observation, while driving past the Site on the Taconic
Parkway at the posted speed limit (55 MPH), the view of the west side of the Hudson
River is visible for no more than a few seconds. Refer to DEIS Section II (pages II-
19 to II-21) with regard to site lighting and visual impacts. Responses to specific
comments are addressed in the corresponding section of this FEIS. (Refer to FEIS
Responses II. 1, 2, 12 and 13). The Costco building is situated below the elevation
of the TSP and will not block the view from the TSP to the Hudson on the western
horizon. Nighttime glow from site lighting will be minimized by utilizing down lit
dark sky optics to minimize offsite impact to the viewshed.

Comment III.B 18 - (Document 45.1, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

The site of the proposed Costco development consists or vacant, abandoned buildings
that have been empty for many years. The area bordering Route 202 a Gateway to
Yorktown is debris littered and overgrown, and needs more than an absentee landlord
or series of absentee landlords, to properly maintain it.

The site is unattractive and the buildings are in rough condition, including a motel
with abandoned septic tanks and an old gas station site.

Response III.B 18:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 19 - (Document 45.10, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

The Town should also acknowledge that this proposal involves the development of a
problem site. As noted above, there are many aesthetic benefits to the Town and local
retailers in the development of a gateway property.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-23


Response III.B 19:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 20 - (Document 62.3, Rose Marie Panio), (PH1, Rose Marie Panio):

The transcript of Public Hearing 1 is provided in Appendix B.
And finally, there is much to be concerned about the future of the North side of Rt.
202. The proposed Costco site, which is currently an abandoned eyesore, is not one of
them!

Response III.B 20:

The Comment acknowledges the existing abandoned condition as an eyesore and that
there are more important concerns than Costco.

Comment III.B 21 - (Document 66.1, Domenick Mascioli)

Costco is the BEST THING that can happen to Yorktown. It will not damage the
environment or destroy the beauty of Yorktown.

Beauty if you call BROKEN DOWN MOTEL with Rodents running around. Beauty,
look again with open eyes.

Response III.B 21:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 22 - (Document 68.5, William Rubin):

Finally, the Costco opposition tells us that Route 202 is lovely and historic. While this
is certainly true of some parts of Yorktown, sadly, unless you wear rose-colored
glasses, Route 202 is neither -- unless you want some historical evidence of the
downturn in the auto industry. Much of it, including the abandoned motel, is an
eyesore and an embarrassment to Yorktown.

Response III.B 22:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-24



Comment III.B 23 (Document 121.3, Christopher D. John):

In addition, this project would clean up what is currently an eyesore on a major
thoroughfare.

Response III.B 23:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 24 - (Document 93.5, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

The Town should also acknowledge that this proposal involves the development of a
problem site. As noted in our written comments, there are many aesthetic benefits to
the Town and local retailers in the development of a gateway property. But there
are also very real benefits to the environment.

Response III.B 24:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based on improvements to
visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 25 - (Document 93.10, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.10, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.10, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.10, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.10, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.10, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.10, Ben Falk), (Document 93.10, Renee Cerasuolo),
(Document 93.10, John Bauso), (Document 93.10, Peter Aritonaros), (Document
93.10, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

The site of the proposed Costco development consists of vacant, abandoned buildings
that have been empty for many years. The area bordering Route 202 a Gateway to
Yorktown, is debris littered and overgrown, and needs more than an absentee
landlord or series of absentee landlords to properly maintain it. The last real use of the
property was to house homeless single men, which did have a big impact on our quiet
neighborhood shopping carts from Staples Plaza were left abandoned along Old
Crompond Road, we had foot traffic at all hours of the day and night, and robberies at
the homes closest to the site.

The site is unattractive and the buildings are in rough condition, including a motel
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-25

with abandoned septic tanks and an old gas station site. The site contains at least one
toxic area that needs to be remediated, already filed with the DEC. (Spill number
1200067).

Response III.B 25:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based in part on
improvements to visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 26 - (Document 93.14, Agin and Cyme Mujaj), (Document 93.14, Barbara
and Brian Hoy), (Document 93.14, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.14, Edmund
Chan), (Document 93.14, Alfio Della Vecchia), (Document 93.14, Mr and Mrs
Mike Hanlon), (Document 93.14, Ben Falk), (Document 93.14, Renee Cerasuolo),
(Document 93.14, John Bauso), (Document 93.14, Peter Aritonaros), (Document
93.14, Gilbert Claudio and Elizabeth Martinez):

The Town should also acknowledge that this proposal involves the development of a
problem site. As noted above, there are many aesthetic benefits to the Town and local
retailers in the development of a gateway property. But there are also very real
benefits to the environment.

Response III.B 26:

The Comment indicates support of the Proposed Action based in part on
improvements to visual aesthetics.

Comment III.B 27 (Document 178.11l, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 11. Its all about balance, Costco must answer real questions with real
answers.

They (the developer) say look at how ugly the property is, and we will clean it up.

The real facts are that they have owned it all this time. Why havent they acted like
responsible neighbors and cleaned it up by now?




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.B
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Visual Character

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.B-26

Response III.B 27:

Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS
Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified
in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Neither the Applicant nor Costco own the Project Site. The Applicant is the Contract
Vendee, as they are in contract to purchase the Property. At present they have no
obligation to clean up the Site. However, if the Proposed Action is approved, as part
of the site development, the Site will be cleaned up. Clean-up will include demolition
of existing deteriorated and underutilized buildings as well as removal of existing
hazardous materials. Refer to DEIS Section III.D.

III.C SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY, SLOPES AND GEOLOGY

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-1


Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

Comment III.C 1 - (Document 108.11, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

Based upon the review of the documents received, it is apparent that there are
deficiencies in the DEIS that need to be addressed before DEP can support a
Findings to Approve for the reasons identified below:

1. The soils maps show some areas of soils with slope classification of E. The
amount of E sloped soils must be quantified along with the amount of disturbance
proposed on these slopes. This information is necessary in order to reasonably assess
impacts from erosion in these areas as well as to verify whether or not the action is
eligible for coverage under the DEC Stormwater General Permit GP-010-001.

Response III.C 1:

DEIS Exhibit III.C-1b indicates the existing soil types and areas on the Site.
Approximately 0.78 acres of E soils were identified on the Site. DEIS Exhibit III.C-2
indicates the areas of the soils within the limit of disturbance. Approximately 0.51
acres of E soils were identified as being disturbed, mainly along the westerly limit of
the proposed development.

The Applicant has prepared an FEIS Site Plan, in part, to reduce impacts to steep
slopes and the Wetland A buffer by reducing the westerly embankment. (Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response, Exhibit III.G-A1, which illustrates the reduction of
the westerly embankment.) By doing so, the impact to E soils will be reduced. The
FEIS Site Plan will disturb approximately 0.27 acres of E soils (refer to FEIS Exhibit
III.C-1) or 0.24 acres less than the DEIS Site Plan.

Part I.D.6b of SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction
Activity (GP-0-10-001) limits disturbance of soils with slope phases E or F on the
USDA Soil Survey to less than 1 acre. As noted in the previous paragraph, proposed
disturbance will be less than the permissible 1 acre threshold, thereby meeting the
requirements of the referenced permit.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-3



Comment III.C 2 - (Document 108.12, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

2. This section should be revised to include a discussion on the erosiveness of the
soils to be disturbed. Charlton loam (ChD and ChE) soils identified on-site are
severely erosive. Disturbance of these soils will occur in close proximity to wetlands
and a watercourse. Impacts from the disturbance could be significant. In addition,
disturbance will occur in Udorthents, smoothed (lib) soils, which are difficult to
assess in terms of erosivity. Based on the parent soils and steep slopes, the potential
for erosion may be relatively high.

Response III.C 2:

FEIS Exhibit III.C-1 indicates the areas of proposed disturbance to ChD and ChE
soils. As identified in the exhibit, the FEIS Site Plan will reduce impact to these
soils. The DEIS disturbance would have been 0.85 acres and the FEIS disturbance
will be 0.43 acres.

Charlton loams are typically fine sandy loams with weak granular or sub-granular
blocky structure. The sub-solid is friable or very friable, with rock fragments.
Typical sub stratum textures can be loam, fine sandy loam, or sandy loam, with
pockets of loamy sand.

One factor that is used to measure the erosion potential of the soil is Erosion Factor
K, which indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.
Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate
of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based
primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and
saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other
factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and
rill erosion by water.

Table 17 in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for
Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York lists a K value of 0.24 for Charlton
loam, while Table A.1 in the New York State Standards and Specifications for
Erosion and Sediment Control lists a Construction Site K Value of 0.43. These
factors would place Charlton loams in the medium to high range in terms of erosion
potential.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-4


The Udorthents soils are soils that were previously disturbed by cut and fill
operations associated with construction of the existing site development. The
Udorthents soils, as mapped by the Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties,
cover approximately 10 acres. Since these soils were previously disturbed, the Soils
Survey does not provide detailed characteristics such as erosivity. However, a site
specific Geotechnical Engineering investigation was performed and the detailed soil
analysis, which included locations within the Udorthents soils, was provided in
Appendix M of the DEIS. Section III.C.1.b of the DEIS discusses the site-specific
subsurface soil investigation and describes the existing fill (Udorthents) as generally
consisting of silty sand with gravel, which would tend to have a low erosivity for the
sand and gravel, and a higher erosivity for the silt portion. DEIS Section III.C.2
describes the findings of the soil investigation and DEIS Section III.C.3 describes the
implementation of a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.

Field conditions relative to potential erosion will be monitored during construction by
an onsite Geotechnical Engineer and necessary erosion control measures will be
implemented and adjusted as necessary to meet site-specific conditions. The specific
Sediment and Erosion Control Plans will be submitted to the Planning Board for
review and approval in connection with the Site Plan Application.

As discussed above in FEIS Response III.C1, and further in FEIS Responses III.O1
and III.O5, proposed disturbance to the ChD and ChE soils will be significantly
reduced with the FEIS Site Plan and measures will be implemented to protect the
watercourse, wetlands and wetlands buffer from potential impacts. Soil erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled by limiting the amount of disturbance at any one
time through construction phasing, and the implementation of erosion sediment and
control measures will control potential erosion form all soil types. Also refer to FEIS
Site Plan Responses 8a, 8b, and 8c. Refer to FEIS Response III.O 4 .for
Construction Phasing.

Comment III.C 3 - (Document 108.13, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental
Protection):

3. It is recommended that a table of soils types be provided with the amounts of
disturbance in each type. A figure showing soils types and limits of disturbance is
also recommended.

Response III.C 3:

DEIS Exhibit III.C-2 indicates the areas of proposed disturbance to each soil type.
FEIS Exhibit III.C-3 indicates the area of proposed disturbance to each soil type
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-5


within the proposed disturbed areas based on the FEIS Site Plan. When comparing
the DEIS and FEIS impacts to D and E Soils (Exhibit III.C-1), the FEIS Site Plan
reduces the impact by 0.42 acres. While there was a reduction of soil disturbance
within the Wetland A buffer, there was an increase of Ub and ChC soils disturbance
primarily along the southwest extents of the proposed development resulting from
reconfiguration of the westerly embankment. Disturbance of these soils pose no new
adverse impacts beyond those studied as they are not sensitive/erosive soils. FEIS
Exhibit III.C-3, indicates a net reduction in soil disturbance of 0.2 acres.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-7



Comment III.C 4 (Document 172.9, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The transcript for the Public Hearing is provided in Appendix B.

III.C. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Soils, Topography, Slopes and
Geology

The soils assessment finds that All of the natural soils on the property have apparent
water tables, meaning that they are all part of the ground water table, and none are
perched above an unsaturated zone. Given this, how does the applicant rationalize
their assertion that the wetlands on the site are isolated?

Response III.C 4:

No claim is made in the DEIS that Wetland A is isolated, as it forms the headwater of
a small stream. Wetland B is considered hydrologically isolated because it receives
no groundwater inflow and has an intermittent outlet which dissipates into upland
soils. Connection (hydrologic) to groundwater is not the basis for determining
whether a wetland is isolated, as surface water connection is used for the
determination of jurisdictional isolation under the US ACOE definitions. The US
ACOE definition of an isolated wetland is non-tidal waters of the United States that
are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate or navigable waters of the
United States and are not adjacent to such tributary water bodies. For Wetland B,
there is no significant nexus between the wetland and any traditional navigable water,
therefore it is considered isolated (refer to FEIS Response III.F 36).

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have
recently signed and published, for public comment, a proposed rule defining the
scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule clarifies the
definition of waters of the United States and excludes the following from the
definition:. ... groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface
drainage systems http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OW-2011-0880-0001.

Comment III.C 5 (Document 172.10, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society), (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The transcript for the Public Hearing is provided in Appendix B.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-8


Page 20 of this section states construction is anticipated to take approximately 14
months beginning in October 2012, with completion by November 2013. These
dates are obviously incorrect, as the public comment period is drawing to a close two
months after their anticipated construction start. If the applicant were to receive all
the necessary permits. when would construction begin?

Response III.C 5:

The construction period is estimated to take approximately 14 months. Construction
will proceed after completion of the SEQRA process and obtaining the necessary
permits and related approvals. The Applicant has stated that construction will begin in
the fall of 2014 and will be completed by the fall of 2015.

Comment III.C 6 - (Document 84.5, Martha Patterson):

It has come to my attention that a few days ago the Town Board has considered
Development and Environmental Impact Report of the Costco Wholesale Store and
Fueling Facility. You went as far as to discuss sewage lines and number of trees to be
planted around the mall. I hope those rumors are false. You see, as Yorktown
residents, we know that opening a Costco in our community will not only affect our
lives, lives of our neighbors and the entire community, but all those living in the
surrounding areas. We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen.
We are strong in the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air
will be polluted from traffic jams, soil and water with all Costco wastes, noise levels
will go up. All of this will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment
and us. We would love nothing more but leave Yorktown Costco-free because we
care, and because you chose to represent us some time ago, we are sure, just like me,
other residents, you want nothing but the best for our peaceful town. We want better
quality of life, not worse. This is a reason I fled New York City to raise our children
and grandchildren here. Yorktown as is should be sustained for future generations;
the true cost of preserving Yorktown is so much more than any Costco promises. I
hope as the Yorktown Board members, you will make our voices heard.

Response III.C 6:

The DEIS Subjects referenced in this comment were addressed in the DEIS Sections
as follows: Section III.M Air Quality, Section III.N Noise, Section III.K Traffic and
Transportation , Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology, Section III.F
Wetlands, Groundwater, and Surface Water Resources. Responses to specific
comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of this FEIS.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-9



Comment III.C 7 - (Document 39a.02, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1e, The
Concerned Residents of Yorktown):

We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in the
belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air will be polluted from
traffic jams, soil and water -with all Costco wastes, noise levels will go up, all of this
will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

(Please refer to Document 42 of FEIS Appendix A for the 103 signatures)

Response III.C 7:

The comment expresses opposition to the Project based, in part, because of soil
impacts. Impacts to soil will be controlled through sediment and erosion control
practices and hazardous soil conditions will be remediated. Refer to DEIS Section
III.C regarding general soils conditions. Refer to DEIS Section III.D regarding
hazardous soil conditions. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, F, D, J and N regarding
air, traffic, water resources, hazardous and solid wastes and noise respectively.

Comment III.C 8 (Document 178.8a, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 8. People Against Costco.

We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in
the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else polluted soil will
cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

Response III. C 8 :

Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS
Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified
in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action. Document 178, in its
entirety can be found in Appendix A. The DEIS subject referenced in this comment
was addressed in the DEIS Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.C
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology

______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.C-10


Responses to specific comments are addressed in Section III.C of this FEIS. Also
refer to DEIS and FEIS Section III.D regarding hazardous materials.
III.D HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-1



Section III.D Hazardous Materials

Comment III.D 1 - (Document 70.1, William Canavan, HydroEnvironmental Solutions,
Inc.):

Hydro Environmental Solutions, Inc. (HES) has been retained by Mr. Henry Stenick
of 500 Chase Road in Yorktown Heights, New York to conduct a hydrogeologic and
hydrologic evaluation of a proposed gasoline station located at 3196 Crompond Road
in Yorktown Heights, New York (Figure 1).

Response III.D 1:

Comment noted.

Comment III.D 2 - (Document 90.1, Gia Diamond):

I was lucky to get my hands on the final version of the groundwater report prepared
by HydroEnvironmental Solutions, Inc. Please distribute it, as you may feel
necessary.

Response III.D 2:

The letter and report by Hydro Environmental Solutions, Inc. were submitted by
William Canavan to the Planning Board as a comment to the DEIS and made a part of
the Planning Department file, therefore they are available for the public to review,
and are listed herein as Documents #70 & 98 respectively.

Comment III.D 3 - (Document 90.2, Concerned Yorktown Residents):

An active and socially responsible resident of Yorktown Mr. Henry Steeneck has
retained HydroEnvironmental Solutions, Inc. (HES) to prepare a Hydrogeologic and
Hydrologic Evaluation of the proposed COSTCO box store and fueling facility.

Please be fully aware of the adverse impact of the proposed COSTCO project on the
ground waters flowing into Hunter Brook, which as you know, is a direct tributary to
the Croton Reservoir and the New York City Water Supply.

Response III.D 3:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.D 5.1 5.5, which respond to the conclusions drawn by
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-2


HES.

Comment III.D 4 (70.2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions Inc.),
(Document 90.3, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions Inc.):

Please allow this letter to serve as formal notification that HydroEnvironmental
Solutions, Inc. (HES) has been retained by Mr. Henry Stenick of 500 Chase Road in
Yorktown Heights, New York to conduct a hydrogeologic and hydrologic evaluation
of a proposed gasoline station located at 3196 Crompond Road in Yorktown Heights,
New York (Figure 1). The investigation will include the following:

Development of a groundwater model using the USGS computer model
MODFLOW. Preliminary results of model development to date indicate that a leak or
spill from the proposed gasoline station at this location will have an adverse impact
on groundwater and will travel in the downgradient toward nearby Hunter Brook,
where gasoline impacted groundwater will enter the brook, a direct tributary to the
Croton Reservoir and the New York City Water Supply. Preliminary model results
indicate that impacted groundwater entering the brook could be at concentrations in
excess of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS) depending on the volume and duration of
the leak. Figure 2 consists of preliminary model output showing particle flow lines of
a gasoline release and subsequent travel to Hunter Brook.

The investigation will also include a hydrologic or surface water analysis of the
potential impact of a proposed gasoline service station at the subject site to Hunter
Brook and the surrounding New York City Water Supply Watershed. Preliminary
results from the hydrologic analysis are shown on Figure 3. As indicated on Figure 3,
a gasoline spill at the subject site will flow overland downgradient and directly
toward Hunter Brook.

HES anticipates that the groundwater model and site hydrologic evaluation will
be completed along with a comprehensive hydrogeologic/hydrologic report by Friday,
November 2, 2012.

Response III.D 4:

Comment noted. Refer to FEIS Responses III.D 5.1 5.5, which respond to the
conclusions drawn by HES.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-3


Comment III.D 5a - (Document 98.1, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Solutions Inc.), (PH2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions
Inc.):

The transcript of Public Hearing 2 is provided in Appendix B.

A site model was prepared utilizing inferred and known site specific information to
predict the results of water and particle transport from the proposed Costco fueling
facility. The MODFLOW, MOD PATH, and the MT3DMS groundwater modeling
programs were used to solve the equations for groundwater flow and particle
transport within the model. These programs are widely accepted industry standards
for simulating both groundwater flow and contaminant transport through porous
media. The modeling effort resulted in a simulation that accurately represents
groundwater contaminant flow across the site.

Response III.D 5a:

For the referenced GROUNDWATER AND PARTICLE TRANSPORT
MODELING REPORT in its entirety, including figures, refer to Document #98 in
Appendix A.

In addition to the Letter submitted by HES, a copy of the October 2012 Report
entitled Groundwater and Particle Transport Modeling Report for Proposed Costco
Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility (HES Report) was also submitted (Appendix
A). This report is the basis for the HES comment letter and draws three conclusions.
The HES Report conclusions and the Response are as follows:

The Applicant agrees with HES that MODFLOW, MODPATH, and the MT3DMS
models are widely accepted industry standards for simulating groundwater flow and
contaminant transport. Although HES used acceptable computer models to generate a
simulation that may accurately represent groundwater flow and contaminant
transport, the Applicant disagrees with key assumptions used as input into the model,
especially the initial and continuous contaminant input concentration selected by
HES. Therefore, as described in FEIS Response III.D.5b, the Applicant asserts that
the HES Report relies on an unrealistic and speculative series of assumptions
regarding the potential for the migration of gasoline in groundwater, and thus does
not realistically or accurately simulate contaminant transport. Accordingly, the
Applicant disagrees with the conclusions of the HES Report.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-4


Comment III.D 5b - (Document 98.2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Solutions Inc.), (PH2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions
Inc.):

Transport of benzene was accurately simulated and modeling results indicate that
contaminant will flow toward Hunter Brook. Results from the MT3DMS program
indicates that, in the case of a gasoline spill at the proposed fueling facility, a harmful
level of dissolved benzene will reach Hunter Brook in about two and a half years.

Response III.D 5b:

As stated in FEIS Response III.D 5a above, the Applicant accepts that the model,
with accurate and appropriate input of data, may simulate groundwater flow and
contaminant transport for the Site. However, the initial benzene concentration
selected by HES for this hypothetical gasoline spill represents a hypothetical and
unrealistic long-term spill that, as explained below, is not reasonably foreseeable and
is, according to the Applicant, implausible. Given this input data, the Applicant
disagrees with the conclusions of the HES Report.

The spill described in the HES Report consists of an instantaneous and constant
release (i.e. a spill that continues for a period of several years) of benzene at a
concentration in groundwater of 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of benzene
[equivalent of 10,000,000 micrograms per liter (g/L)]. This is the concentration of
benzene in pure gasoline. The Applicant asserts that this assumption and other
assumptions in the HES Report are unrealistic, such that the conclusions of the HES
Report should be rejected. The HES Report assumes that the spill will occur
continuously over a 2.5-year period, over which approximately 4,000,000 gallons of
gasoline will leak from the tanks into the ground evenly across the entire 80,000
square foot gasoline fueling facility portion of the site. At $3.50 per gallon, this is
approximately $14,000,000.00 worth of product. The HES Report makes these
assumption despite the modern safety measures (discussed in detail in the DEIS
Section III.D on page III.D-24) required by law for new underground gasoline tanks.
In fact, the Applicant asserts that any release from the underground tanks is
unreasonable, given the modern safety measures required by law for new
underground double-walled gasoline tanks. A release from the tank would be
captured within the tanks secondary containment (i.e. outer wall of the tank) and an
alarm would sound, notifying the facility operator of the release. The facility
operator would have to repeatedly ignore alarms from the tanks, the secondary
containment tank would need to fail, and approximately 4,000,000 gallons of gasoline
would need to leak out of the tanks for two and a half years (approximately 4,375
gallons per day). This scenario is unrealistic.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-5



Although the Applicant asserts that it is unreasonable to assume that a release from
the proposed tanks will occur, the DEIS (Section III.D on pages III.D-7 to D-8)
provides an examination of the gasoline spill that occurred at the historic Texaco
filling station formerly located onsite as an example of the potential impacts to the
environment, in the event of a future gasoline spill at the Site.

As described in the DEIS Section III.D1b, the 3196 Crompond Road portion of the
Site historically operated as a Texaco gasoline filling station from 1963 until 1988.
Four 8,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) of bare steel construction were
used by the filling station. As discussed above, groundwater sampling conducted
after the removal of the tanks revealed the presence of benzene at a concentration of
up to 212 g/L due to spills associated with the former Texaco operation. The
benzene plume associated with these former spills did not migrate beyond the
immediate vicinity of the former gasoline filling station site and the plume was at
least 1,600 feet away from Hunter Brook.

As described below the Applicant asserts that HES initial benzene concentration and
the continuing nature of the release of benzene is not reasonable or realistic but
entirely speculative given the state-of-the-art tank systems and safety features that
will be installed at the proposed fueling facility. Furthermore, this speculative
scenario is not consistent with the real-world conditions observed during remediation
of the gasoline contaminant plume formerly present at the Texaco site (i.e. benzene at
212 g/L in the groundwater and no contaminant migration beyond the immediate
vicinity of the former Texaco site).

The DEIS Section III.D (page III.D-24) explains that each of the three tanks installed
at the proposed fueling facility will be 30,000-gallon fiberglass double-walled tanks
compatible with the type of products that will be stored (i.e. gasoline, ethanol). The
tanks are manufactured by Xerxes Corporation and feature a defined interstitial space
and are warranted against leaks due to internal or external corrosion for 30 years. All
tanks will feature a hydrostatic monitoring system that continuously monitors the
inner and outer tanks. This system meets or exceeds the United States Environmental
Protection Agencys (USEPAs) most recent and stringent requirements as a precision
tank test (tank tightness test) and is able to detect leaks as small as 0.1 gallons per
hour. All below-grade supply and vent piping will feature secondary containment
and corrosion resistance. The piping integrity will be monitored continuously during
fuel dispensing using an in-line electronic leak detection system. If a drop in pressure
is identified, the dispenser flow is automatically restricted. In addition, the system
will feature liquid level sump sensors with secondary containment, providing
redundant piping leak detection. Dispenser, submerged turbine, and product piping
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-6


leaks will be secondarily contained and monitored by liquid level sensors in the
dispenser and submerged turbine sumps. If liquid is detected, a visible and audible
alarm will identify the leak location and the fueling system will be shut down. These
types of sensors are discriminating and can differentiate between water and gasoline
in the sumps.

The Applicant asserts that these safety measures meet or exceed the changes to the
USEPAs UST Regulations that are presently proposed for enactment. These safety
measures include the addition of secondary containment requirements for new and
replaced tanks and piping; new operator training requirements; significantly enhanced
operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; requiring new release
prevention and detection technologies; and updating codes of practice. The USEPA
stated that these changes will likely protect human health and the environment by
increasing the number of prevented UST releases and quickly detecting them, if they
occur.
1


According to the Applicant, the significant safety measures detailed in Section
III.D3c of the DEIS eliminate the potential for the type of spill envisioned by the HES
Report. In order for the hypothetical spill described in the HES Report to occur, a
massive release of gasoline would have to penetrate the inner and outer tanks (i.e. the
secondary containment). Assuming that the inner tank was breached, an audible
alarm would sound. The operator of the fueling facility would need to ignore this
audible alarm. Applicant asserts that in reality, the operator would respond
immediately (as is required by Federal and State law), and the release would never
migrate beyond the outer secondary containment into the environment. However,
under the HES scenario, the operator would need to ignore the audible alarm and the
release would then need to penetrate the outer secondary containment tank in a
substantial spill that would continue unnoticed and unabated for several years.
Applicant asserts that even if this scenario occurred, the spill envisioned by HES
would require a significant amount of product to be lost such that the spill would be
quickly detected through product reconciliation and thus the operator would be aware
of the spill and address it immediately. The Applicant asserts that the hypothetical
scenario proposed by HES is unreasonable and entirely speculative. According to the
USEPA, these types of major spills are infrequent and in the event of a release at a
facility such as that proposed by the Applicant, the severity of the release is reduced
when compared to a facility that does not include the safety measures proposed by the
Applicant.
2


1
Federal Register Volume 76, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2011). Page 71708

2
Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to EPAs Underground

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-7



As mentioned above, the Applicant asserts that the spill envisioned by the HES
Report is so improbable that the contaminant migration speculated by HES did not
even occur when the former 8,000-gallon bare steel tanks maintained by Texaco were
present at the Site from 1963 until 1988. The HES Report even references the
remediation conducted at this former gasoline station in their report and HES used
data from the 2009 Semi-Annual Status Report prepared by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC). The SAIC report documents the remedial
activities conducted at the Site by Chevron, successor to Texaco. The NYSDEC
approved the report in 2010 and issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter on J uly 8,
2010. While the Applicant does not dispute that HES accurately used real-world data
from the SAIC work such as the hydraulic gradient, depth to groundwater, and
groundwater flow direction in their modeling efforts, it asserts that the HES Report
failed to discuss the limited extent of contaminant migration (limited to
approximately one acre) and the localized nature of the remediation that was
conducted at this former gasoline station site, the benzene concentrations that were
historically present in the groundwater due to a gasoline spill from antiquated USTs,
and omitted that the absence of the migration of groundwater contamination
previously present on the Property did not migrate beyond the vicinity of the former
gasoline filling station. The Applicant also asserts that, HES selectively used data
from the SAIC report and omitted information that did not support its hypothesis.

Applicant asserts that these historic benzene concentrations are particularly relevant,
as they represent real-world data from an actual gasoline spill on the Property.
Specifically, Applicant asserts that HES failed to mention that the highest benzene
concentration ever recorded at the Site by SAIC was 212 g/L. This concentration is
47,169 times lower than the hypothetical groundwater concentration used by the HES
Report in creating a hypothetical spill that adversely impacts Hunter Brook. The
actual Texaco gasoline spill that occurred was a long-term release from four
antiquated bare-steel underground storage tanks with no secondary containment.
While the actual quantity of gasoline historically spilled is not known, gasoline
impacted soil was encountered.

Throughout SAICs investigation and remediation, the highest benzene concentration
was 212 g/L and the extent of groundwater contamination was limited in size
(approximately one acre in size). Furthermore, the contamination did not migrate
beyond the immediate vicinity of the former Texaco service station parcel. While the
actual quantity of gasoline historically spilled is not known, the Applicant asserts that
the spills at the former onsite Texaco gasoline station that operated from the 1960s to

Storage Tank Regulations. Industrial Economics, Inc. August 2011.
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-8


the 1980s were likely significant and continuous release events that occurred over a
period of years. Furthermore, it is the Applicants opinion that the nature of the spills
at the former Texaco service station are more significant than what could reasonably
occur at the proposed state-of-the-art fueling facility. With regard to potential
impacts to Hunter Brook, review of the SAIC reports do not indicate that any
sampling was conducted outside of the immediate vicinity of the former Texaco
parcel, as the groundwater contamination was limited to this area. According to the
Applicants consultant, EcolSciences, Inc., and based on a telephone conversation
with NYSDEC Case Manager Todd Ghiosay on April 3, 2012, potential impacts to
Hunter Brook from the former Texaco fueling station were never raised as a concern
by the NYSDEC.

Applicant asserts that the HES Reports claim that a Costco gasoline station at the
Site is a significant risk to the environment has no basis in fact, given the extensive
safety and protective measures that will be included. The Applicant also asserts that
Costco has been in the retail gasoline business since 1995 and has never had a leak
from an underground storage tank at any facility nationwide. In contrast, according to
the Applicants consultants review of environmental databases maintained by the
NYSDEC, New J ersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), and the
USEPA, soil and/or groundwater contamination is found at many other major
gasoline retailers in the region such as ExxonMobil, BP, or Chevron. For example,
the Mobil Station located immediately opposite the proposed Costco Site (3205
Crompond Road) has three NYSDEC spill cases associated with the site and, as noted
above, the former Chevron station at the Site had a spill case.

Comment III.D 5c - (Document 98.3, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental
Solutions Inc.), (PH2, William A. Canavan of HydroEnvironmental Solutions
Inc.):

Surface water hydrology and stormwater drainage patterns indicate that the majority
of runoff from the project site will drain to Hunter Brook. Surface runoff would
include small surface spills that likely occur daily at gas stations, as well as the
potential for a significant surface spill that could possibly occur at the site given the
anticipated large volume of gasoline being dispensed.

Response III.D 5c:

As presented in the Section III.D of the DEIS (page III.D-24), the Applicant has
stated that it will provide the following gasoline filling station safety features relative
to surface runoff and surface spills:

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-9


Emergency telephone that will automatically dial 911 when the handset is
lifted from the hook
Eight canopy-mounted video cameras with a viewing monitor located in the
warehouse
Two emergency shut off switches located adjacent to the fueling area and the
equipment enclosure to shut off all electrical power to the dispensers and
turbines.
High level alarms located in the equipment enclosure and the Costco
Warehouse that sound when the tank reaches 90% capacity or in the event of a
UST or piping leak.
An overfill prevention valve that shuts the tank at 95% capacity
A system monitoring console (Veeder Root) located inside the Equipment
Enclosure
Absorbent materials located in close proximity to the fueling area
Automatic fire suppression systems (snuffers) installed in each dispenser and
turbine sump
A separate stormwater treatment facility to capture and treat runoff from the
fuel filling and dispensing areas is included in the stormwater management
design. (Refer to FEIS as follows: III.G Introductory Response item 2, III.G
Response 37h, SWPPP in Appendix E and FEIS Site Plans in Appendix J .)

Daily Facility Check Applicant asserts that the facility will be inspected daily
consisting of a complete walk through of the gasoline station area to visually check
the condition of the nozzles, hoses, dispenser damage or leakage, stained or
discolored pavement, spill buckets, and fill and vapor return tubes. Any potential
issues will be addressed prior to use of the equipment and a daily facility inspection
report will be prepared by the operator, filed onsite, and maintained for three years.

In addition, Applicant asserts the following:

Safety All of the safety equipment installed at the facility will be of the latest
technology available (i.e. hose breakaways to minimize spillage in the event of
premature vehicle departure) and meet or exceed all Federal and State regulations and
codes. All employees will receive instruction on the safety procedures at the facility.
A spill cleanup kit and emergency response plan will be located within the Equipment
Controller enclosure. In addition, absorbent materials will be staged at strategic
locations throughout the facility for use in immediately containing and addressing
minor spills. All used absorbent materials will be placed in a NYSDOT-approved
container for proper offsite disposal by a licensed hauler.

Delivery The facility will receive gasoline by common carrier tanker trucks. The
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-10


tanks will be continuously monitored during filling and an audible high-level alarm
will sound when the tank reaches 90% capacity. Each tank will be equipped with a
ball float vent valve and extractor fitting to restrict delivery flow at 95% of the tank
capacity. These systems meet all Federal and State requirements for overfill
protection.

Spill Response The paved surface upon which the gasoline dispensers are placed
will be concrete. Any potential spill at the gas dispensers of gasoline or oil will be
cleaned up immediately by gasoline station attendants using the spill kits discussed
above. Costco personnel are trained to respond immediately to all minor surface spills
using spill containment and cleanup kits that are located throughout the facility. All
potential minor surface spills would be cleaned up immediately and would not have
an opportunity to migrate into the soil or groundwater.

The safety and surface spill prevention features discussed above greatly reduce the
possibility for a substantial surface spill at the proposed Costco gasoline fueling
facility. In the unlikely instance that a major surface spill occurred, the Applicant
asserts that Costco would respond immediately to address the release in accordance
with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. However, the Applicant
asserts that the use of state-of-the-art safety equipment at the proposed facility will
prevent a major spill from occurring and potentially impacting Hunter Brook. In
order for impacts to Hunter Brook to occur as described in the HES Report, the
operator would have to ignore a large-scale surface spill of gasoline for a lengthy
period of time. According to the Applicant, this is not plausible, because any such
release would be plainly observable to the operators employees and customers.
Rather, a major spill would be reported to the appropriate authorities and promptly
addressed.

Therefore, the Applicant asserts that the hypothetical scenario envisioned in the HES
Report is not probable. See also FEIS Responses III.D 5a, III.D 5b and III.D 5c.

Comment III.D 6 - (Document 122.6, Al Boutross):

Attached to this e-mail is a document entitled: Some Reasons to reject Costco
Proposal RE: Rte 202 & Taconic which represents my opinion on the subject. I will
appreciate it if you would take these reasons (which may have already been
expressed) under consideration in your decision making process. Originally, I was
FOR the project, but more careful thinking has changed my conclusion. Yorktown is
doing very well financially at present and does not need a time bomb dressed as Santa
Claus.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-11


SOME REASONS TO REJ ECT COSTCO PROPOSAL RE: RTE 202 & TACONIC

Ground water contamination from the same fuel sources, plus the added risks
of fuel spills from self- service pumps, and the added risk of more major fuel spills
from the refueling trucks. These are risks to our water table, to our environment, and
to the Croton Reservoir (as reported recently).

Response III.D 6:
See FEIS Response III.D 5a-5c for details on safety precautions to prevent and
respond to surface fuel spills.

Comment III.D 7 (PH2, Michael Pierce):

I've been a resident of Yorktown for more than eleven years. Some of the things that
I have to say have been said, so I'll try to edit this. But, of particular concern, actually
anger is to hear that somebody is gouging people in a hurricane. I mean, we all know
who it is and what is that, but it is just amazing.

Obviously I am more for gasoline competition, if that would help, I don't know if
Costco would be gouging people, but that's a stretch, I agree. But, I have a question
or concern about the hydrological study that was presented by the gentleman from
Somers, and that I think was commissioned by one of the gas station owners.

The study says that there could be a runoff from Costco -- the Costco site into the
Hunter Brook. But, from what I understand and what I am asking is, that the Board
hopefully understands as well is that I do really believe that Costco has a
sophisticated environmental protection. That's got to be in place, that's gonna prevent
that.

But, here is what I want to ask. The gas station that is directly across the street from
Costco, the Costco site, I ask if such safeguards are in place and I am only suggesting
that perhaps the environmental committee of Yorktown could use those sophisticated
environmental protection plans if Costco as part of their package, when they look at
future gas stations they've done the work, and if it turns out that it is a good safe plan,
that we try to incorporate it to save time when we look at further gas stations.

But, I would like to see that gas station across from Costco -- it has the brook near it
too, whether safeguards have been looked at there. Thank you. [PH2, Page 90, lines
5-25], [PH2, Page 91, lines 1-23]


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-12


Response III.D 7:

The Comment assumes that Costco has a sophisticated environmental protection
(plan). Refer to DEIS III.D (page III.D-24) and FEIS Responses III.D 5b and 5c for
descriptions of state-of-the-art safety features and surface spill prevention systems to
be incorporated at the Costco fueling facility. In addition, Applicant asserts that
Costco has an impressive nation-wide safety and environmental record that is
unmatched in the industry. See also FEIS Responses III.D 5a-5c for further details.

With regard to the inquiry concerning safeguards in place at the gas station located at
3205 Crompond Road, analysis of the emergency response plans and compliance with
current regulations for an offsite property that is not part of the Proposed Action and,
therefore, beyond the scope of this review under SEQRA.

Comment III.D 8 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

Although, one person did mention the non-mentioning of their plans for storm
removal and de-icing, those add a potential for massive amounts of adding massive
amounts of salt or other chemicals into the ground water. [PH2, Page 93, lines 24-
25], [PH2, Page 94, lines 1-4]

Response III.D 8:

Section III.D of the DEIS (page III.D-26) states the following regarding de-icing
during the winter months, during the winter months, the minimum amount of sodium
chloride necessary to ensure public safety will be used for controlling ice throughout
the parking lot and sidewalk areas. This approach (use of a minimum amount of
sodium chloride) is recommended in Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and
Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of
The New York City Water Supply and its Sources. As specified in these regulations,
if outdoor loading, handling or mixing of winter highway maintenance materials
(such as sodium chloride) is necessary, these activities will be conducted in a manner
to prevent seepage and/or runoff from entering any watercourse or wetland and
removed snow will not be disposed of directly into a watercourse or wetland. The
Applicant will comply with the above-referenced NYCDEP rules and regulations
with regard to de-icing during the winter months. Also refer to FEIS Responses II.10
and III.G 52.

Comment III.D 9 (PH2, Peter Pergola):

I mean, to read this article in the paper about this gas spill that might happen
Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-13



The gentlemen before me hit it on the head, what about the gas stations across the
street?

The one down below the river -- the one down below the street. These gas stations
have been there thirty, forty years, what prevention do they have intact that Costco is
putting a new project and we should be worrying about what their impact on the
environment is going to be. [PH2, page 98, lines 14-25], [PH2, page 99, lines 1-3]

Response III.D 9:

Refer to FEIS Response III.D 7.

Comment III.D 10 - (Document 45.2, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

The site contains at least one toxic area that needs to be remediated, already filed with
the DEC. (Spill number 1200067).

Retirement of less than optimum septic systems in a sensitive watershed, and
remediation of known toxic areas on the building site are big pluses for the watershed
and for local storm water management

Response III.D 10:

The Comment expresses support for the Proposed Action based on the fact that
existing environmental hazardous conditions will be remediated.

Comment III.D 11 (Document 178.1, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project at
route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 1. Costco to Pay 3.6 Million dollars to settle environmental lawsuit.

Response III.D 11:

Document 178 in its entirety, including articles, can be found in FEIS Appendix A.
References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified in the Index,
also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.D
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Hazardous Materials

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.D-14


The referenced Article 1 (FEIS Appendix A) relates to California Costco facilities in
which it was alleged that Costco had violated state laws relating to the storage,
handling, and disposal of hazardous waste including pharmaceutical and pharmacy
waste. Subsequent to the referenced lawsuit, Costco has implemented procedures to
prevent improper storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous pharmaceutical waste.
These procedures include training of all pharmacy personnel with regard to
pharmaceutical waste and appointment of a compliance manager to each Costco
pharmacy to oversee operations. In addition, each Costco Warehouse appoints a
compliance manager to assure regulatory compliance with regard to other hazardous
materials (e.g. pool chemicals, fertilizers, etc.).
III.E FLORA AND FAUNA

Comments and Responses Section III.E


Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-1


Section III.E Flora and Fauna

INTRODUCTORY RESPONSE

Many of the comments received from the general public on the DEIS Section III.E, Flora and
Fauna have questioned the methodology used to assess the existing site conditions on the
Property. The Costco DEIS Final Scope of work, adopted December 13, 2010, required that the
existing Flora and Fauna conditions be analyzed in order to provide a description of the
vegetative communities found on the site, a description of the wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources. In
addition, the scope required that the Applicants consultants assess potential presence of
wildlife corridors on the site, and discuss the Biodiversity Conservation Study (J une 2009)
prepared by Stearns & Wheler and the Croton-on-Hudson Biodiversity Plan (2004) prepared
by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance as they relate to the site. The scope for Section E
also required an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered
species on the site based on site-specific survey and input from the New York Natural Heritage
Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a tree survey within the proposed
limit of disturbance.
Site investigations are summarized in the table below:
Site Inspection Details
Date of Site
Investigation
Evans
Associates
Personnel*
Purpose of Site Investigation
Approximate
Time on Site
Weather
Conditions
06/08/2010
RG, ES Boundary delineation of Wetland A
and Wetland B, including data
collection for vegetation;
Review of flow/hydrology of
Wetland A and Wetland B;
On-site data collection for upland
flora and fauna
4.25 70-75
o
F; mostly
sunny, then cloudy
with light rain
06/29/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A, Wetland
B, and stormwater ditch along east
side of property with DEP for
regulated watercourses
4.5 80-85
o
F; mostly
sunny
08/05/2010
BE, RG, ES Confirm wetland delineation and
jurisdiction of Wetland A and
Wetland B with Town (B. Barber);
Review off-site stormwater ditch
(along east side of property) with B.
Barber;
On-site data collection of upland
vegetation
4.5 80-85
o
F; overcast
08/30/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A and
Wetland B with DEP for regulated
watercourses
6.75 not documented
03/29/2011
RG On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in Wetland A and in
surrounding uplands);
Review flow/hydrology and buffer of
6 40-45
o
F; clear
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-2


Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology of Wetland
B;
Off-site review of northern uplands
and stormwater basin, streams, and
ponds
04/14/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology and buffer of
Wetland B;
Off-site review of northern wetlands
(stormwater basin and ponded areas)
and southern wetland (south of Old
Crompond Road)
6.25 50-55
o
F; partly
sunny (rain
previous 2 days)
04/21/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection: upland
vegetation, birds, Wetland B
flow/hydrology;
Off-site wetland review (between site
wetlands and Hunter Brook)
6.25 50-55
o
F; mostly
sunny
04/25/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
Check flow/hydrology of Wetland B
6.75 60-65
o
F; overcast
04/26/2011
RG, ES Tree survey

6 65-75
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
04/27/2011
RG Tree survey;
Check flow/ponding/hydrology of
Wetland A (with vernal pool) and
Wetland B
6 65-70
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
05/03/2011
RG Tree survey;
Check flow/ponding/hydrology of
Wetland A (with vernal pool) and
Wetland B
6.75 65-70
o
F; overcast
05/25/2011
RG, ES Site review of Wetland A and
Wetland B with DEP for regulated
watercourses
2.25
10:AM
12:45 PM
70-75
o
F; clear
11/04/2011
BE Site walk with the Conservation
Board
4
04/01/2013
BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A;
Off-site review of northern uplands
and stormwater basin, streams, and
ponds
2.0
1:45-3:45 PM
47
o
F; cloudy with
intermittent rain
04/17/2013
BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A
2.0
1:30- 3:30PM
60-65
o
F; sunny
* BE Beth Evans; RG Ron Gautreau; ES Eva Szigeti

Biological assessments are conducted on properties in order to provide baseline, site-
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-3


specific biological information that can assist reviewers in making informed planning
decisions. Development can impact the biodiversity of a site by causing the loss,
disturbance, or fragmentation of natural habitats on and near the site. Alterations to
soils, vegetation, or the hydrology of a site can also impact plant and animal species.
As outlined in the Town of Yorktown guidelines for Wildlife and Plant Biodiversity
Assessments, the site assessment for the Project Site began with a review of resource
maps and other published information. Review of this information helps to identify
which habitats may be present on the site and which plant and animal species could
potentially use those habitats. This information included, but was not limited to:
Soils, topographic, and aerial maps;
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Environmental Resource Mapper to determine regulated wetlands, stream and
waterbody classifications (including those classified as being capable of
supporting trout populations, and/or trout-spawning), floodplains, and other
sensitive or rare habitats or species.
Westchester County Geographical Information Systems Data (steep slopes,
hydric soils, aerial photos, topography, streams, floodplains, and other
details);
Federal, State, and local listings for rare, endangered, and special concern
species, or significant natural communities, including accessing information
from the New York State Natural Heritage Program (NY NHP) and the US
Fish & Wildlife Service (US F&W);
Publications such as: New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History and
Distribution (DeGraaf and Yamasaki, 2001) and Amphibians and Reptiles of
Connecticut and Adjacent Regions (Klemens, 1993);
The DEC Breeding Bird Atlas data;
Data gathered for the New York State Amphibian and Reptile Atlas Project
(NYSDEC, 1999).

In addition to resource reviews, site surveys were conducted to review actual site
conditions. As outlined in the table above, initial surveys consisted of a habitat
assessment to develop a list of possible endangered, threatened, special concern, and
focal species that could utilize the site. Habitats, natural and created, that exist on the
property were reviewed and evaluated to determine if detailed surveys were necessary
and for which habitats and/or species of plants or animals. If detailed surveys were
not deemed necessary, a brief description of site conditions and habitats was
provided.

The site assessment data and descriptions presented in the DEIS were collected over a
period of two years (J une 2010 J une 2012) by Evans Associates Environmental
Consulting staff, including Beth Evans, a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-4


(Society of Wetland Scientists) with an undergraduate degree in biology (botany) and
graduate degrees in geology and environmental planning, Eva Szigeti, who is a
Certified Professional Soil Scientist (American Society of Agronomy and the Soil
Sciene Society of America), and Ron Gautreau, who was a senior Environmental
Analyst with the firm and holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in biology
(zoology) and environmental studies. Evans Associates staff that carried out the
natural resource assessment for this site have an average of 20 years of experience in
conducting such studies, and are well versed in the components which comprise
habitats associated with sensitive species. A total of twelve separate field
investigations totaling approximately 100 hours on site were made during the
growing season (generally mid-March to mid-October) over the two year period for
the current owner. Additional site surveys were undertaken by Evans Associates in
2000 and 2002 for previous owners. Evans Associates staff also conducted two
additional field investigations in the spring of 2013 prior to the compilation of the
FEIS in order to monitor the vernal pool in Wetland A. During the 2013 field
investigations an Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on site, on
the west side of the vernal pool in Wetland A. The Box Turtle is listed as a Species
of Special Concern by NY NHP. The level of effort expended in the site assessment is
commensurate with the requirements set forth in the Final Scope, and is consistent
with the Yorktown guidelines for wildlife and plant biodiversity assessments in the
absence of documented rare, threatened and endangered species.

Many comments on the DEIS reference the survey methodologies set forth by the
New York National Heritage Program (NY NHP) and DEC. The NY NHP Protocols
and the data forms used by that agency, however, apply only to rare plant and animal
surveys or community characterizations, not the general site assessments required in
the Projects Final Scope. Had the site assessment, literature review (including the
2009 Biodiversity Conservation Study done for the Town of Yorktown), or
information obtained from NY NHP or the US Fish & Wildlife Service turned up any
evidence that there was a potential for the presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species to be present on or near the site, then a more formal plant or
animal survey would have been undertaken by the Applicants consultants.

The site is separated from other parcels (such as FDR Park) that are considered to be
part of the biodiversity corridor by major transportation corridors (the Taconic
Parkway and Route 202/35) which disrupt and fragment movement of wildlife
species. In an effort to reestablish and preserve habitat surrounding the project site, a
landscape plan has been prepared using native species found in the area. The plan,
which will ultimately be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, was revised
to include native species and species resistant to deer browse.

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-5


Comment III.E 1a - (Letter 81.1, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

The Advisory Board on Architecture and Community Appearance reviewed the
subject item during its meeting on October 23, 2012, 2012.

The ABACA landscape architect offers the following recommendations on the
submitted landscaping plan.

The applicant should find a native alternative for the forsythia. Consider replacing the
forsythia with Doublefile Viburnum.

Response III.E 1a:

Forsythia has been eliminated from the plan and replaced with Doublefile Viburnum
(Viburnum plicatum) as recommended.

Comment III.E 1b - (Letter 81.6, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

The ABACA recommends keeping the crab apple trees but replace the juniper with a
different ground cover. The reason is not aesthetic. These plants are co-hosts for a
fungus which will effect the health of the plants.

Response III.E 1b:

The two species of groundcover J uniper have been eliminated from the plan and
replaced with Cotoneaster and Potentilla species. It should be noted that the plant list
is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final plans, which will be
reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval process.

Comment III.E 1c - (Letter 81.7, Mark Connelly, Advisory Board on Architecture and
Community Appearance):

The Board questions who will be responsible for maintaining the trees planted along
the southbound exit ramp? The trees are being proposed by Costco but they will be on
state property. ABACA has concerns that the trees planted as a screening will die
within 2-3 years when wild vines invade them. Will Costco maintain these trees,
especially keeping them free from invasive vines?

Response III.E 1c:
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-6



The Applicant will maintain the proposed landscaping within the DOT right-of-way.
Refer to FEIS Response - Site Plan 15.

Comment III.E 2a - (Letter 83.3, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Planting Concerns:

The DEIS states that the view of the proposed Costco building from the Taconic
Parkway, a scenic byway, will be mitigated by plantings of trees and shrubs. The
proposed planting plan does not adequately show the spacing and quantity of plants
that will be used for landscaping. Additional plant material may need to be added to
insure the visual character of the scenic Taconic Parkway and landscaping to mitigate
tree removal throughout the site.

Response III.E 2a:

The spacing of the evergreens, as shown on the FEIS Conceptual Planting Layout
Plan is approximately 15 feet on center, in a staggered double-row. The quantity of
the evergreens to be used for Zone 3 Road Screen Planting is shown on FEIS drawing
LP-1, Site Landscaping Plan included in FEIS Appendix J . This quantity does take
into account the spacing shown on the plan. The spacing of the trees is intended to
allow for natural growth habit that will provide a long term healthy screen. It should
be noted that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the
final plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan
approval process.

Comment III.E 2b - (Letter 83.4, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The seed mix for each planting zone needs further clarification. New England
Conservation Company provides several kinds of mixtures for different uses. The
analysis is incomplete unless the specific seed mixes are identified for each planting
zone.

Response III.E 2b:

To address this Comment, the seed mixes have been added to each planting zone on
the plan. Seed mixes include erosion control / restoration mixes for the slopes below
the parking lot and basin embankments, and conservation wildlife mix and wetland
mix for other portions of the site.

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-7


Comment III.E 2c - (Letter 83.5, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The landscape and planting plan is inadequate without a minimum 2 year guarantee
on survivability of plantings from day of acceptance. This is to insure that all plant
material is not dead or dying and adequate coverage is provided to satisfy the
intended purpose.

Response III.E 2c:

A two-year guarantee and maintenance period on the new landscape plantings is
reasonable. The Applicant has suggested that the final construction documents would
stipulate a 2-year maintenance and guarantee period on the new plant material that
will be required by the landscape contractor. The length of the maintenance and
guarantee period will be established in connection with the Planning Boards site plan
review.

Comment III.E 2d - (Letter 83.6, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The DEIS does not address how the proposed project will comply with the Towns
Tree Ordinance.

Response III.E 2d:

A tree survey and ecological communities map (DEIS Exhibits III.E-2 and III.E-3)
and associated impacts thereto have been provided in the DEIS. As quantified in
Table III.E.4 of the DEIS, approximately 8.48 acres of the 18.75 acre Property are
forested. The forested cover types include successional southern hardwood forest
(4.25 acres), oak-tulip forest (3.31 acres), and red maple swamp (0.92 acres). Forty-
seven percent (3.9 acres) of the forest cover is proposed to be impacted by the project
under the modified FEIS plan.
A tree removal plan will be prepared in compliance with the Town of Yorktown Tree
Ordinance and it will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process and a tree removal permit will be obtained. A landscaping plan (Drawing
CLP-1) to mitigate the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site was included
with the DEIS. An updated landscape plan (LP-1) is included in FEIS Appendix J .

Comment III.E 3 - (Letter 101.3, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The planting schedule for mitigation of wetland A buffer loss due to the location of
the parking areas should reflect not only the use of native plant species but species
that are deer resistant. White pine, mountain laurel, red cedar and rhododendron are
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-8


all listed in the planting plan but known to be readily consumed by deer. Their loss
will reduce the effect of mitigation efforts in the wetland buffer.

Response III.E 3:

No plant species is 100% deer-proof. When hungry, deer will consume almost any
species of plant. Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and Eastern White Pine
(Pinus strobus), which are included in the Applicants proposed landscaping plan, are
identified by Rutgers Cooperative Extension (www.rce.rutgers.edu) as deer-resistant
species which are seldom severely damaged by deer browse. Kalmia (mountain
laurel) and Rhododendron may be prone to deer predation, but provide year round
visual interest (evergreen foliage) and spring color. Appropriate deer protection
options (sprays, canopy netting, deer fence, etc.) will be employed at the time of
installation and during the maintenance periods. A guarantee and maintenance period
on the new landscape plantings will be established by the Planning Board.

Comment III.E 4 - (Letter 108.14, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Pg. III.E-13b Mammals: The discussion of mammal species that may potentially
utilize the site should include a more comprehensive list of bat species. In
addition to big brown bats, there are several other species many of which are
declining due to white-nose syndrome.

Response III.E 4:

According to the American Society of Mamologists, there are nine species of bats
found throughout the State of New York, including Little Brown Bat (Myotis
lucifugus), Keens Bat (Myotis kenii), Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Small-footed Bat
(Myotis leibii), Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Eastern Pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus), Big Brown Bat (Eptisicus fuscus), Red Bat (Lasiurus
borealis), and Hoary Bat (Lasiuris cinereus). Seven of the species of bats listed are
considered common throughout the state, while Small-footed Bat is a special concern
species in New York and Indiana Bat is endangered at both the state and federal level.
Any of the species listed above have the potential to occur on the site. Mitigation
measures to avoid impacts to bats (Indiana Bat in particular) were discussed in the
DEIS at III.E-33, and include limiting tree clearing activity to the fall and winter
months when the bats are in hibernation and enhancing landscaped areas to include
species used for roosting during the summer months.

Comment III.E 5 - (Letter 108.15, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-9


Pg. III.E-13b (Birds): A formal breeding bird survey should be done to properly
assess potential impacts to species breeding on site. Additionally, discussion of
impacts to bird species should not be restricted to forest interior species. Species that
utilize successional forest and old field habitats should be assessed as well. Some
species, dependent on these habitats, are declining as rapidly as some forest interior
species.

Response III.E 5:

A formal breeding bird survey was not included in the Final Scope for the Project.
Bird observations were made during the field investigations of the Site, however, and
were noted in the EIS. Impacts upon bird species that utilize successional forests
within the Projects area of disturbance were discussed in the EIS. See DEIS at III.E-
32.

Data on bird distribution is available online from the NYS Breeding Bird Atlas
(http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html). The Project site falls in the middle of
Block 5957C. In accordance with the Final Scope, this data, together with
information from field investigations, was reviewed as part of the site analysis for the
DEIS. However, based on literature, the site is too small to provide suitable habitat
for most forest interior birds. The forest edge and old field species that were
observed on the site are typical of suburban / residential areas, and the species list
provided in the DEIS includes potential species found in these habitats.

Comment III.E 6 - (Letter 108.16, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Pg. III.E-18c: The discussion on wildlife corridors should be expanded to include
more taxonomic groups in addition to amphibians and to more fully discuss the site
within the context of the larger landscape. The project site is located between the
Sylvan Glen Biotic Planning Unit (cited in the Miller and Klemens report as
regionally important for biodiversity and as mentioned on Pg. III.E-20e) about 0.5
miles to the west and the Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park, also designated in the
Miller and Klemens report as an area regionally important for biodiversity,
immediately to the south and east and thus may serve as a corridor for mobile
wildlife such as birds between these two areas of high biodiversity. The site is also
situated above undeveloped parcels and Mohansic County Park, interspersed with
developed lands and roads, and to the south that connect the site with City owned
and other protected lands around New Croton Reservoir. This section should
acknowledge that the project site is connected to large undeveloped tracts of land to
the northwest, southeast and south and assess impacts to wildlife habitat and
connectivity in that context. Small links such as this can be very important for
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-10


connecting areas of high biodiversity.

Response III.E 6:

A potential localized wildlife corridor exists along the western and northwestern
portion of the Property, to the north and west of, and including, Wetland A. It is
possible for wildlife such as frogs and salamanders to travel from the vernal pool in
Wetland A to the north or west in the uplands, or to the south via the intermittent
stream within Wetland A. Other animals, such as mammals and reptiles, may also
use these routes to travel throughout the site and to nearby areas to the north of the
Property. Applicant asserts that it is unlikely that high value wildlife corridors occur
through the Property because the eastern side of the Property is limited by the
Taconic Parkway, and the southern side of the Property is constrained by Route
202/35. Any wildlife movement along the ground from west or north to the east or
south through the Property would essentially lead to a major transportation corridor.
In addition, Wetland B has seasonally variable hydrology due to fluctuating ground
water levels, and is therefore not capable of supporting breeding amphibians.
Wetland B would therefore would not be a desirable destination for many species
other than breeding song birds which may nest in the shrubby vegetation.

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the Property contain a variety of wildlife
habitats. These areas, and other areas within Yorktown, have been reviewed in other
documents, including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007), Biodiversity
Conservation Study Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, New York (STEARNS
& WHELER, LLC, 2010), and Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site,
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012). However, the majority
of the assessments and study sites in these documents do not specifically address the
portions of the site that are proposed for development; therefore, the DEIS provided
more site-specific information.

The wildlife corridors along the western edge of the Property and to the north will not
be altered or impacted by the Project. The Project has been reconfigured several
times in order to best protect the natural resources on and near the Property, including
wildlife corridors.

Comment III.E 7 - (Letter 108.17, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Pg. III.E-20e: There are other development-sensitive species mentioned in the Miller
and Klemens report that are listed in Table III.E.2 as potentially or actually occurring
on site that should be discussed in this section. These species include: Yellow-
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-11


throated Vireo, Eastern Box Turtle, Northern Black Racer and Black Rat Snake.

Response III.E 7:

As discussed in the DEIS (Section III.E.1. e and f.), the MCA report prepared by
Miller and Klemens states that certain species of animals respond specifically to
development impacts. These species are termed focal taxa and can generally be
divided into development-sensitive species and development-associated species.
Development-sensitive species are those species that are typically habitat specialists
that are compromised by development. Development-associated species are those
species that are habitat generalists that tend to favor habitats that have already been
degraded or altered by humans. Each development-sensitive species is discussed
below.

An Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina) was observed on site, on the west side
of the vernal pool in Wetland A on April 1, 2013, and is therefore confirmed in the
forested portion of the Property where no development is proposed to occur. The
Eastern Box Turtle is a Species of Special Concern in the state of New York, as well
as in the adjacent states of Connecticut and Massachusetts. The Eastern Box Turtle is
a terrestrial species that inhabits a variety of habitats. These habitats include dry and
moist woodlands, brushy fields and field edges, thickets, marshes and marsh edges,
bogs, fens, swales, and stream banks. However, box turtles are most-often found in
well-drained forest bottomlands and open deciduous forests. Box turtles overwinter
(hibernate) in upland forests, and sometimes near closed-canopy wetlands in the
forest. They burrow a few inches under the ground surface, into soil, decaying
vegetation, and/or into mud, often under leaf litter or woody debris. In warm
weather, Box Turtles are most active in the mornings and evenings, and often spend
the warmer portions of the day in springs and seeps where they can burrow into the
moist soil, or they seek shelter in rotting logs, decaying leaves, or in mammal
burrows. They often spend the night in a form that they create in leaf litter, grasses,
ferns, or mosses. Females searching for a nesting site may travel great distances (up
to a mile or more) for nesting habitat. This habitat includes early successional fields,
meadows, utility right of ways, woodland openings, roadsides, cultivated gardens,
residential lawns, mulch piles, beach dunes, and abandoned gravel pits.

While Box Turtles can inhabit a variety of areas, preferred habitat on the subject
property is located in the forested area in the vicinity of Wetland A. The box turtle
that was observed on site was found a few feet to the west of the ponded portion of
Wetland A, on top of some leaf litter (see map). Wetland A and the area to the west
of the wetland are not proposed to be disturbed, with 93% of the upland forested
buffer remaining intact. In addition, much of the forested wetland buffer will remain
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-12


along the eastern side of Wetland A. A retaining wall is proposed to be built along
the eastern edge of the Wetland A buffer. This wall will provide a physical barrier so
that turtles and other animals will not be able to travel into the developed portion of
the property, or onto Route 202/35. Travel routes for turtles and other animals along
the localized forested corridor that extends along the western property boundary, from
Old Crompond Road through Wetland A and off site to the north, will not be
disturbed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Box Turtle habitat on the site will be
preserved and the species will continue to inhabit the western portion of the site.

Northern Black Racers are typically found in transitional areas including fields and
roadsides, and therefore may inhabit the site. They eat a variety of insects,
amphibians and small mammals and birds, and would therefore have available habitat
in the western portion of the site following development. The same is true for the
Black Rat Snake, which often competes with the Northern Black Racer for habitat.

The Yellow-throated Vireo is a species that breeds in mixed deciduous forests such as
those found in the western portion of the site, which will remain undisturbed. None of
the other species mentioned in the comment are currently protected in New York
State.

Comment III.E 8 - (Letter 108.18, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Pg. III.E.21: The New York Natural Heritage Program response letter dated August
26, 2010 should be updated as the database is constantly updated and the letter is now
over two years old.

Response III.E 8:

The current response letter from the New York Natural Heritage Program is dated
October 9, 2012, and is identified as Document 40, which is included in its entirety in
Appendix A of the FEIS. Also refer to FEIS Comments III.F2 and III.F 23. The letter
identified the Red Maple Hardwood Swamp area found on the Franklin Roosevelt
State Park as significant natural community. The description in the letter also states
that the hardwood swamp has a relatively narrow buffer of natural communities
surrounded by a fragmented landscape. The Property is separated from this natural
community by two large transportation corridors (the Taconic Parkway and Route
202/35).




Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-13


Comment III.E 9 - (Letter 108.19, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-2, Tree Survey Map: Many trees depicted immediately adjacent to the
limit of disturbance may also be sufficiently disturbed by site grading and suffer
damage from disturbance activities. Typically, any tree that will have 1/3 or more of
its root system either covered with 3 or more inches of soil or other materials or cut
away will die within the first 10 years of disturbance. It is recommended that the trees
immediately adjacent to the limit of disturbance be reviewed to determine whether
additional trees may need to be removed prior to or during construction to avoid later
hazards resulting from mortality.

Response III.E 9:

The FEIS assumes that trees immediately adjacent to the limit of disturbance may be
impacted by the proposed construction. The limit of disturbance line is shown (FEIS
Site Plan Exhibits 2, 3 and 8c)10-feet beyond the actual limit of grading to account
for potential impact to trees adjacent to construction. The extent of the westerly
embankment has been reduced on the FEIS Site Plan (FEIS Exhibit III.G - A1),
resulting in reduced impact to existing trees. A landscaping plan (Drawing CLP-1) to
offset the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site was included with the DEIS.
An updated landscape plan, LP-1, is included in FEIS Appendix J . A formal tree
removal plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process, and a final Landscape Plan will be submitted at that time to offset any tree
loss. . During construction the actual trees to be removed will be clearly marked..

Comment III.E 10 - (Letter 108.20, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: No seed mix was proposed for
Zones 1, 2 and 6. A mix such as the New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix
for Detention Basins and Moist Sites or New England Wetmix would be suitable for
these areas. It is recommended that perennials or other native herbaceous plants be
added to the proposed plans for Zones 1, 2, and 4, since the addition of small plugs of
these would further enhance wetland function and wildlife habitat and establish
complete native vegetative cover more quickly than tree and shrub plantings alone.

Response III.E 10:

There is already an existing stable vegetative cover in zones 1 and 2; therefore, live
plugs are not needed in these zones. Live plugs are not recommended for zone 4 for a
number of reasons. First, the slopes to be re-vegetated would still require seeding,
mulching, and erosion control blanket in addition to plugs; therefore plugs are a
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-14


redundant step. Second, the plugs would be installed after the seeding operation,
thereby causing unnecessary and potentially erosion causing impacts to the slopes
recently seeded and covered. Third, due to the steepness of the proposed slopes,
plugs would not provide any significant habitat enhancement, and the quantity of
plugs that would be required to provide any kind of erosion control would not be cost
effective. The Conservation Wildlife Mixture proposed contains a diverse mix of
native species, including perennials. Please note that seed mixes have now been
proposed in all of the planting zones. See FEIS Response III.E.2b.

Comment III.E 11 - (Letter 108.21, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

While the majority of species within the Zone 2 - Wetland Buffer Enhancement
and Road Screen Planting list of trees and shrubs are native, limber pine (Pinus
flexilis) is a notable exception. This species is not native to New York and it is
recommended that native plants with similar characteristics be considered to
replace this one, such as: American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern red cedar (J uniperus
virginiana), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and pitch pine (Pinus rigida). These
would provide more wildlife habitat values for our eastern species in addition to
screening the building from nearby highways and residences.

Response III.E 11:

The Applicant has eliminated Limber pine (Pinus flexilis) from the plan and
American Holly (Ilex opaca) has been added to the plan. It should be noted that the
plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final plans, which
will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval process.

Comment III.E 12 - (Letter 108.22, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

In Zone 3 Road Screen Planting, there are some species that may pose problems
over time, depending on the maintenance schedule and proximity to deer herds.
American arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) is known to be a favorite species for deer
herbivory, seldom providing the anticipated screening value as deer browse as high
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-15


as they can reach, sometimes standing on their hind legs. Locally, forsythia is
known to escape cultivation and can become invasive in forest understories.
Arrowwood viburnum may be severely impacted by deer herbivorynot only in
this zone, but in any areas where they are proposed for plantingand screening
value may be reduced. Some other native shrubs that are more deer-resistant and
have good screening value include ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) and
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana).

Response III.E 12:

American Arborvitae has been removed from the plan, and Sweetbay Magnolia and
Ninebark have been added. It should be noted that the plant list is conceptual, and not
all species listed will be used in the final plans. Appropriate deer protection options
(sprays, canopy netting, deer fence, etc.) will be employed at the time of installation
and during the maintenance periods. See also FEIS Response III.E.3.

Comment III.E 13 - (Letter 108.23, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

In Zone 4 Wetland Buffer Slope Replanting, green ash is proposed. Emerald
Ash Borer is spreading from Dutchess, Orange and Ulster Counties and will likely
be in Westchester in the near future. It is recommended that any proposed ash be
replaced with another suitable species. There is some concern that many of the
shrub species proposed for this planting are not particularly shade-tolerant and may
not be suitable for planting in the arrangement depicted on the layout plan, where
many will fall under the canopy of planted trees. Although on a fairly exposed
west-facing slope, certain species really perform best in full sun though they may
survive in partial shade. There is also some concern that certain species will
require more moisture than they will receive at the top of a slope near a parking
lot. Consider either moving the summersweet, sweetfern, meadowsweet, beach
plum, and bayberry further downslope and into the sunshine, or replace them with
more shade-tolerant species. In addition, the summersweet, inkberry, arrowwood
viburnum, and meadowsweet prefer more moist conditions, while the other shrubs
can tolerate a good deal of thought. Please assure that the species that are less
drought-tolerant are placed in areas with sufficient moisture.



Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-16


Response III.E 13:

Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Beach Plum (Prunus maritima), Inkberry (Ilex
glabra), and Meadowsweet (Spiraea latifolia) have been removed from the plan.
Plant species such as Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) and Summersweet (Clethra
alnifolia) are very adaptable to shady, dry, and salt prone locations (from de-icing
compounds) and should thrive well in the locations shown for zone 4. It should be
noted that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the
final plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan
approval process.

Comment III.E 14 - (Letter 108.24, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

For Zone 5 New Parking Lot Ornamental & Street Tree Planting, white and
green ash are both proposed species. Please note comments above regarding
Emerald Ash Borer. It is recommended to delete these species from the plan.

Response III.E 14:

The Applicant has eliminated the ash species noted from the plan. It should be noted
that the plant list is conceptual, and all species listed may not be used in the final
plans, which will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
process.

Comment III.E 15 - (Letter 108.25, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Exhibit III.E-5, Conceptual Planting Layout Plan: Upon review of the Planting Zone
Species Recommendations, minor modifications to the proposed lists for each
planting zone are suggested below:

In Zone 6 Stormwater Basin Planting, a more detailed Stormwater Detention
Planting Plan is required to assure that material is properly matched to moisture
regimes. As soil moisture typically varies significantly from the bottom of a basin
to the top of the slope, basins should be divided into various zones by elevation. It
does not appear that plants listed tolerate drier conditions that would occur four or
more feet above normal water level. Drawing C-701 appears to indicate that the
difference in elevation between the base and rim of the basin may be as much as
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-17


20 feet. Please clarify the difference in elevation between normal inundation and
the top of the basin and provide a more detailed planting plan for this feature.

Response III.E 15:

The FEIS Stormwater Management Plan provides 100% of the water quality
treatment in an infiltration practice, which will provide both runoff reduction and
water quality treatment. (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response.) As a result, the
stormwater attenuation facility will function as a dry detention basin.

With the changes proposed for the design of the stormwater management basin, the
planting of the basin has therefore been changed. The previously selected Zone 6
plants are not appropriate for this basin. Applicant now proposes to install a seed mix
of native herbaceous plants in the floor and side slopes of the basin. The seed mix
will consist of obligate and facultative wetland plants. These plants are very well
able to withstand periodic inundation from precipitation events, so long as there is no
long term or standing water in the basin.

Seed mixes that are appropriate for the planting of the stormwater basin include: (1)
New England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix for Detention Basins and Moist Sites
from New England Wetland Plants, Inc., and (2) Retention Basin Wildlife Mix from
Ernst Conservation Seeds.

Comment III.E 16 - (Letter 137.1, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

I am a New York State licensed wildlife rehabilitator (#1337) and collect reports of
Eastern Box turtle sightings in our area. I also volunteer at Teatown Lake Reservation
and have hundreds of hours of field experience with Eastern box turtle conservation
efforts.

In this letter I address concerns regarding the standard and thoroughness of the
biological survey at the proposed Costco development site. It appears that the data is
not adequate, overly generalized, and woefully incomplete, therefore all
environmental impacts of the project cannot possibly have been fully assessed as
required by the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Without a complete
biological survey, it is impossible to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate potential
environmental impacts of the project.

There are documented cases of Eastern box turtles living over 100 years. They have
site fidelity and cannot be moved from their home habitat. Habitat ranges from 500
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-18


square yards to over 1,000 acres. The New York DEC lists Eastern box turtles as
Species of Greatest Conservation Needs and the New York Heritage Program gives
this species a S3 ranking. They are listed as threatened in Westchester. The species is
listed as vulnerable on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources) red list which just one step above endangered. These animals
are also CITES listed.

On or about August 21, 2012 I received a report of a box turtle sighting from a local
resident whose property abuts the proposed Costco development. I also help citizens
protect turtle nesting sites and in this report, there was concern that there had been
nesting activity. I was asked about. . . signs of egg laying by a box turtle we recently
found in our back yard.

According to the Croton-to-Highlands Biodiversity Plan: Balancing Development and
the Environment in the Hudson River Estuary Catchment Miller, N. A. and M. W.
Klemens. 2004, MCA Technical Paper No. 7, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, the proposed Costco development
site abuts a critical wildlife corridor that spans the Croton to Highlands region.
This geographic area is at an ecological crossroads, and many ecological treasures
remain intact. Eastern box turtles (along with wood frogs and spotted salamanders)
are listed as Development Sensitive and Listed Focal-Species according to the Croton
to Highlands Biodiversity Plan.

The Costco parcel is situated between two delineated biodiversity areas of the Croton-
to Highlands corridor. As such the proposed Costco parcel is important as a buffer;
one which. . . buffers the existing habitat hubs from externally caused degradations
(e.g., runoff of polluted water from roads and parking lots, noise pollution). It also
reduces edge effects, (e.g., changes in vegetation structure, temperature, predation
levels, parasitism levels, and other factors near habitat edges), all of which can
negatively impact area-sensitive species. In addition, the buffers will often serve as
additional habitat. (Ibid.)

According to Surveying for New York s High priority Reptiles and Amphibians:
Implications for Standardized Protocols a report prepared for the DEC by the New
York Natural Heritage Program, it is critical that surveys be done at the appropriate
seasons, during times when turtles are known to be active, and with sufficient man
hours per survey. (See table 26.)

Table 26. Suggested guidelines for Eastern box turtle presence/absence surveys.
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-19




Chaloux, A.M., J .W. J aycox, J .D. Corser, M.D. Schlesinger, H.Y. Shaw, and E.A.
Spencer. 2010. Surveying for New Yorks high priority reptiles and amphibians:
implications for standardized protocols. A report prepared for New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. New York Natural Heritage Program,
Albany, NY.

According to the Conserving Natural Areas and Wildlife in Your Community: Smart
Growth Strategies for Protecting the Biological Diversity of New Yorks Hudson
River Valley by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
The standards outline detailed methods: the survey must be conducted by a qualified
biologist and must occur during a season appropriate for finding the target species.
For example, breeding birds must be assessed during the breeding season (from mid-
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-20


May to early J uly), when they are most likely to be observed (in the early morning).
The standards also require that surveys are conducted in all habitats on the property.
Applicants must prepare a report for the town that includes methods, location specific
wildlife observations, and recommended development alternatives to minimize
disturbance. Finally, the data need to be delivered in a way that can be incorporated
into the towns GIS.

Animals such as the Eastern box turtle (as well as many other reptiles and
amphibians) with cryptic coloration and behaviors are difficult survey subjects. A
badly timed survey can easily create the false impression that these animals are not
present. It is vital that surveys be conducted at times and in weather conditions when
these animals are known to be active. Otherwise false negatives are likely. The only
site visits listed as happening in close temporal proximity to rain were in April, at
very low temperatures, meaning that turtles would not be very active.

The Costco DEIS provides no indication of how many man-hours were spent per
survey or overall. Nor does the DEIS provide any information about the exact times
when the surveys were conducted.

In light of the foregoing information, the following questions should be answered:

1) Without documentation of the exact times that the surveys were conducted, how
can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the DEC and New York Natural
Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 16:

The site investigations total over 100 hours of field time over a period of two years,
with additional investigations occurring after the completion of the DEIS. The date, time,
purpose and weather conditions are described in the table below.
Site Inspection Details
Date of Site
Investigation
Evans
Associates
Personnel*
Purpose of Site Investigation
Approximate
Time on Site
Weather
Conditions
06/08/2010
RG, ES Boundary delineation of Wetland A
and Wetland B, including data
collection for vegetation;
Review of flow/hydrology of
Wetland A and Wetland B;
On-site data collection for upland
flora and fauna
4.25 70-75
o
F; mostly
sunny, then cloudy
with light rain
06/29/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A, Wetland
B, and stormwater ditch along east
side of property with DEP for
regulated watercourses
4.5 80-85
o
F; mostly
sunny
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-21


08/05/2010
BE, RG, ES Confirm wetland delineation and
jurisdiction of Wetland A and
Wetland B with Town (B. Barber);
Review off-site stormwater ditch
(along east side of property) with B.
Barber;
On-site data collection of upland
vegetation
4.5 80-85
o
F; overcast
08/30/2010
RG Site review of Wetland A and
Wetland B with DEP for regulated
watercourses
6.75 not documented
03/29/2011
RG On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in Wetland A and in
surrounding uplands);
Review flow/hydrology and buffer of
Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology of Wetland
B;
Off-site review of northern uplands
and stormwater basin, streams, and
ponds
6 40-45
o
F; clear
04/14/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A;
Review flow/hydrology and buffer of
Wetland B;
Off-site review of northern wetlands
(stormwater basin and ponded areas)
and southern wetland (south of Old
Crompond Road)
6.25 50-55
o
F; partly
sunny (rain
previous 2 days)
04/21/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
On-site data collection: upland
vegetation, birds, Wetland B
flow/hydrology;
Off-site wetland review (between site
wetlands and Hunter Brook)
6.25 50-55
o
F; mostly
sunny
04/25/2011
RG, ES Tree survey;
Check flow/hydrology of Wetland B
6.75 60-65
o
F; overcast
04/26/2011
RG, ES Tree survey

6 65-75
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
04/27/2011
RG Tree survey;
Check flow/ponding/hydrology of
Wetland A (with vernal pool) and
Wetland B
6 65-70
o
F; overcast
to partly sunny
05/03/2011
RG Tree survey;
Check flow/ponding/hydrology of
Wetland A (with vernal pool) and
Wetland B
6.75 65-70
o
F; overcast
05/25/2011
RG, ES Site review of Wetland A and
Wetland B with DEP for regulated
watercourses
2.25
10:AM
12:45 PM
70-75
o
F; clear
11/04/2011
BE Site walk with the Conservation
Board
4
04/01/2013 BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool 2.0 47
o
F; cloudy with
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-22


inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A;
Off-site review of northern uplands
and stormwater basin, streams, and
ponds
1:45-3:45 PM intermittent rain
04/17/2013
BE, ES On-site data collection of vernal pool
inhabitants (in wetland A and in
surrounding uplands) and
flow/hydrology of Wetland A
2.0
1:30- 3:30PM
60-65
o
F; sunny


The Property is located immediately to the west of the Taconic Parkway, and
immediately to the north of Routes 202/35. Because of this location, combined with
its past and current development history, the majority of the property that is proposed
to be developed does not contain high value wildlife habitat. The remainder of the
site will remain undisturbed, including the forested area in the western-most portion
of the Property, adjacent to and including Wetland A. Wetland A also contains a
vernal pool, which is considered important habitat for breeding amphibians and other
species requiring a fish-free aquatic environment. As discussed previously, Wetland
A and the wooded uplands surrounding it are areas which contain higher value
wildlife habitat, and are not proposed to be developed.

A potential wildlife corridor exists along the western and northwestern portion of the
property, to the north and west of, and including, Wetland A. It is possible for
wildlife such as frogs and salamanders to travel from the vernal pool in Wetland A to
the north or west in the uplands, or to the south via the intermittent stream within
Wetland A. Other animals, including a variety of mammals, may also use these
routes to travel. It is unlikely that wildlife corridors occur through the remainder of
the subject property, however. The eastern side of the property is limited by the
Taconic Parkway, and the southern side of the property is constrained by Route
202/35. Any wildlife movement along the ground from west or north to the east or
south through the property would essentially lead to a major transportation corridor
which fragments the available habitat. In addition, Wetland B does has seasonally
fluctuating hydrology and is not capable of supporting breeding amphibians, and
therefore would not be a desirable destination for many species other than nesting
songbirds. The localized wildlife corridors along the western edge of the property,
and to the north of the site will not be altered or impacted by the proposed project.

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the site contain a variety of wildlife habitats.
These areas, and other areas within Yorktown, have been reviewed in other
documents including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007;
http://www.yorktownny.org/planning/freshwater-wetlands-functional-assessment-
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-23


study-2007), Biodiversity Conservation Study Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York (Stearns & Wheler, LLC, 2010;
http://www.yorktownny.org/planning/biodiversity-conservation-study), and
Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site, Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, NY (Barbour, 2012; Document 170 included in FEIS Appendix A). However,
the majority of the evaluations done in these documents do not specifically address
the portions of the site that are proposed for development; therefore the DEIS was
prepared to address more site-specific information.

In the Ecological Survey, the on-site habitats of concern include the wetlands
(Wetland A and Wetland B) and the west ridge (west of Wetland A), of which only a
small portion is located on the Property. Wetland A and the west ridge are not
proposed to be impacted, and the proposed stormwater infiltration practices will
maintain the groundwater-driven hydrology of the wetland. Some encroachment into
the 100-foot buffer of Wetland A is proposed, and these indirect impacts to the
wetlands are discussed in the DEIS and FEIS Section III.G. (Refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Summary Response, item 1). Other potential indirect impacts to
Wetland A include changes in surface water runoff due to proposed increases in
impervious surfaces. Under the present Stormwater Management Plan, no direct
surface runoff will be directed to Wetland A, including the vernal pool in the upper
reach of the wetland. As discussed in the DEIS, Wetland A is sustained mainly by
the groundwater table. The Stormwater Management Plan has been revised to
provide infiltration to the water table in order to to retain hydrology, as well as to
maintain the quality of the water infiltrating to the groundwater and/or flowing off the
site. Stormwater management, including water balance to Wetland A are discussed in
FEIS Section III.G Introductory Response, and the hydrology of the wetlands is also
discussed in FEIS Section III. F.

Little of the remaining property contains high value wildlife habitat, and development
is proposed primarily in areas that are currently developed, or were developed in the
past. These areas include abandoned hotel buildings with surrounding paved areas,
an abandoned building (former fence contractor), a nursery, and a residence. In
addition, former septic tanks and fields (since removed) were located to the west of
the hotel, and a swimming pool (currently filled) was located to the east of the hotel.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that additional environmental evaluation of the
property is beyond the scope of what is necessary to adequately evaluate the impacts
of the proposed project on the property and its surrounding areas.



Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-24


Comment III.E 17 - (Letter 137.2, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

2) Without documentation of the precise weather conditions at the time the surveys
were conducted, how can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the DEC and
New York Natural Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 17:

Weather conditions were recorded for all but one survey date. According to the
weather records for the Yorktown Heights area, the weather on August 30, 2010 at
mid-day was clear and temperatures were between 75 - 80F
(http//weathersource.com).

Comment III.E 18 - (Letter 137.3, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

3) Without documentation of the number of man hours spent surveying for turtles
and other cryptic animals, how can the survey be considered sufficient to meet the
DEC and New York Natural Heritage Program protocols?

Response III.E 18:

Species-specific wildlife and vegetation surveys were not undertaken on the site as no
records of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals or significant natural
communities were identified for the project site by the NYS DEC Natural Heritage
Program or for northern Westchester County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In
accordance with the Yorktown Biodiversity Policy, the Croton-to-Hudson
Biodiversity Study (MCA Technical Paper Series #7, 2004) was reviewed to
determine if the Project was located within or near an area identified as rich in
biodiversity. In conducting the routine site evaluation for the DEIS, Evans Associates
staff biologists were on the site twelve days between 2010 and 2012, including eight
days spent performing a tree inventory and general site assessment (6 to 8 hours per
day) from late March through the end of May in 2011. Additional site investigations
were undertaken in April of 2013 during the daylight hours in order to further
document conditions in Wetland A and the surrounding forested area. Refer to III.E
Introductory Response and DEIS page III.E-1.



Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-25


Comment III.E 19 - (Letter 137.4, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

Since these surveys were conducted at times when Eastern box turtles and other
reptiles are likely to be inactive or difficult to find, how can the public be assured that
a good faith effort was made to find and document species that may be subject to
protection under County, State, or Federal statutes?

Response III.E 19:

Multiple site assessments were conducted during the Eastern box turtles active
season, which lasts from approximately mid-April to mid-October, and, as set forth in
the DEIS, such surveys included a search for box turtle nests and eggs. (Refer to III.E
Introductory Response.) While no evidence of Eastern box turtles were detected
during the field assessments prior to 2013, the DEIS (III.E-17) noted the potential
presence of box turtles based upon the Applicants analysis of potential habitat and
literature review.

An Eastern Box Turtle was observed on site, on the west side of the vernal pool in
Wetland A on April 1, 2013. The vernal pool was also monitored in the spring of
2013 to identify species of amphibian using the pool as breeding habitat. As
discussed in FEIS Response III. E. 7, Wetland A and the area to the west of the
wetland are not proposed to be disturbed, with 93% of the upland forested buffer
remaining intact. In addition, much of the forested wetland buffer will remain along
the eastern side of Wetland A. A retaining wall is proposed to be built along the
eastern edge of the Wetland A buffer. This wall will provide a physical barrier so
that turtles and other animals will not be able to travel into the developed portion of
the property, or onto Route 202/35. Travel routes for turtles and other animals along
the localized forested corridor that extends along the western property boundary, from
Old Crompond Road through Wetland A and off site to the north, will not be
disturbed. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Box Turtle habitat on the site will be
preserved and the species will continue to inhabit the western portion of the site.

Comment III.E 20 - (Letter 137.5, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

4) Since one of the surveys was conducted on 3/29/11, which is typically during
the Eastern box turtle hibernation period, how can such a survey be considered
applicable to reptiles?


Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-26


Response III.E 20:

Please see FEIS Response III.E 19. In addition, weather conditions during the month
of March in 2011 (http//weathersource.com) were generally warm and there was
above average rainfall, both of which often trigger early emergence of reptiles and
amphibians.

Comment III.E 21 - (Letter 137.6, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

5) Since the surveys of 4/14/11, 4/25/11, 4/26/11, 4/27/11 were conducted when
Eastern box turtles were just beginning to emerge from their hibernacula and there is
no mention of searching for forms, the term accepted by the scientific community
for the tunnels in which these animals rest as they gradually warm up from
hibernating, how can this survey be considered comprehensive, at least with respect
to this species?

Response III.E 21:

The dates cited in this Comment are well within the active period indicated for this
species in Comment FEIS III.E.16. The weather conditions documented for those
field dates are appropriate according to the guidelines presented in this Comment.
Also see FEIS Response III.E.20.

Comment III.E 22 - (Letter 137.7, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

How can the survey of 8/30/10 even be considered as part of the DEIS when weather
conditions are noted as not documented?

Response III.E 22:

The work that was being conducted on the site in August of 2010 was not weather-
dependent, and therefore the weather conditions were not documented in the field
notes. According to the weather records for the Yorktown Heights area, the weather
on August 30, 2010 at mid-day was clear and temperatures were between 75 - 80F
(http//weathersource.com). Even if the 8/30/2010 field data were not included in the
DEIS, there are still eleven field days spanning a two year period when weather
conditions were recorded.

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-27


Comment III.E 23 - (Letter 137.8, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

How can the survey be considered sufficient when two surveys (6/29/10 and
8/5/10), were conducted when temperatures were high enough that many reptile
species are likely to have been in estivation and box turtles are more cryptic?

Response III.E 23:

Species-specific wildlife surveys were not undertaken on the Property as no records
of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals or significant natural
communities were identified for the Project Site. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory
Response.) Field work on the dates mentioned would have been focused on less
temperature-sensitive species of wildlife (mammals and birds) and vegetation.

Comment III.E 24 - (Letter 137.9, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

If the surveys for Eastern Box Turtles and other reptiles were so poorly
conducted, how can the public rely on other statements made in the DEIS?

Response III.E 24:

As set forth above, the site assessments and biological community evaluations
performed by the Applicants consultants fully complied with the requirements in the
DEIS Final Scope for a description of wildlife species found or anticipated to be
found on the site and an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened
or endangered species. The wildlife analysis was not based upon field assessments
alone, but also a review of prior regional surveys and relevant literature and an
analysis of potential habitat and migration corridors. It is noted that while the DEIS
identified the potential occurrence of Eastern box turtles on the Site, subsequent field
work in 2013 by the Applicants consultants resulted in the observation of an Eastern
box turtle in the area surrounding Wetland A. This is evidence that the amount of
time that biologists spent on the Site over a two year period in conjunction with the
review of literature and existing records in State data bases was ample to accurately
characterize the habitats present on the site and the potential species using the site.




Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-28


Comment III.E 25 - (Letter 137.10, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

If there is a credible sighting of an Eastern box turtle on property that abuts the
proposed Costco development and a suspicion that nesting had recently taken place
(which suggests a breeding population may be present) how can the public be assured
that numerous animals of this and other species were not overlooked in the course of
the surveys?

Response III.E 25:

Please see FEIS Responses III.E 16, 19 and 24. It is entirely consistent with
biological survey methodology that not every species present on a site will be
detected in every field survey. This is why the Applicants consultants conducted
multiple field assessments over the course of several months and years (during the
growing season and when temperatures were above 42F), and relied upon published
literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the analysis.

Comment III.E 26 - (Letter 137.11, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

Since the field notes are minimal and seemingly perfunctory times, exact
weather conditions, types of habitat and flora were not consistently provided how
can the public be assured that surveys were comprehensive, professional, and
sufficient to meet the statutory requirements?

Response III.E 26:

As described in the Introduction to this section, no records of rare species or sensitive
natural communities were identified in proximity to the site, and no significant habitats
were identified during the initial site surveys. Therefore no species-specific wildlife
surveys were conducted. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.) Moreover, the
Applicants consultants conducted multiple field assessments over the course of two
years (during the growing season and when temperatures were above 42F), and relied
upon published literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the analysis.

Comment III.E 27 - (Letter 137.12, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

No staff members at Evans Associates are listed as having advanced degrees in
biology, and the companys website does not indicate that any staff have other
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-29


certifications or specific experience in field biology. Given the lack of credentialed
field biologists on the Evans Associates staff, the perfunctory nature of the field notes,
and the questionable choices with regard to the timing of the surveys, how can the
public be confident that fieldwork was conducted n a competent and professional
manner?

Response III.E 27:

Evans Associates has over twenty-five years of relevant experience in natural
resource inventory and assessment in New York. Staff includes personnel holding
certifications in wetlands and soil science, undergraduate degrees in biology and
advanced degrees in biology and environmental science . The companys website is
frequently updated to reflect staff changes, and does not necessarily reflect the
personnel contributing to the data collection for this site. For more information on the
personnel who conducted the natural resource assessment, refer to FEIS III.E
Introductory Response.

Comment III.E 28 - (Letter 137.13, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

Since some amphibian species are nocturnal, how can the public be assured that the
surveys are complete and thorough when all were done during daylight hours?

Response III.E 28:

Please see FEIS Responses III.E 16 and 19. Amphibian assessments looked for eggs,
spermatophores, and/or larvae, which would be detectible during the daylight hours.
Logs and large stones were turned over in the uplands on the site. Other survey
methods used to assess nocturnal movement, such as drift fences and pit-fall traps and
mist nets are not appropriate for this type of study, as they must be checked within 24
hours of being set, and often lead to mortality of the species being inventoried due to
predation or desiccation.

Comment III.E 29 - (Letter 137.14, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

Given that this development will increase traffic through sensitive Croton-to
Highlands biodiversity areas, wouldnt that merit a thorough wildlife survey to
reassure the public that this natural resource is being adequately protected?


Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-30


Response III.E 29:

Increases in traffic are discussed in Section FEIS III.Kof the DEIS, but do not
typically relate to wildlife movement, which is impacted by the current levels of
traffic in this busy transportation corridor. The expected increase in traffic associated
with the Project will use existing transportation corridors and would not result in any
new fragmentation or disruption of existing wildlife corridors. Since new roads are
not required to serve the Project, no new impacts to the corridors identified in the
Croton-on-Hudson study are expected.

Comment III.E 30 - (Letter 137.15, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

Have impacts on the entire biodiversity corridor been taken into account?

Response III.E 30:

Yes, refer to FEIS Response III.E 16 and DEIS III.E-32.

Comment III.E 31 - (Letter 137.16, Patricia Johnson, New York State licensed wildlife
rehabilitator Class I #1337):

The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process requires that all
environmental impacts of a project be identified in order to eliminate, minimize, or
mitigate them. Since the surveys appear to be inadequate by any scientific standard,
how can they possibly identify potential impacts on amphibian, reptilian, or other
species?

Response III.E 31:

No records of protected species were identified in proximity to the Site.. The
Applicants consultants conducted multiple field assessments over the course of
several months (during the growing season and when temperatures were above 42F),
and relied upon published literature and prior regional surveys to supplement the
analysis. Based on the analysis that was done, the Project has been carefully designed
to avoid impacts to the portions of the Site identified as most valuable relative to
wildlife. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response for additional information about
the methodolody used to conduct the natural resource assessment.



Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-31


Comment III.E 32 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.E 33 (Letter 172.11, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

III.E. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Flora & Fauna

In general, the biologic survey conducted of the site is woefully lacking.

The surveys do not appear to be conducted by a trained field biologist, as Evans
Associates Environmental Consulting seemingly does not employ appropriately
trained or credentialed field biologists. By what standards were the field surveys
conducted? Given this, does the Planning Board consider the applicants field surveys
thorough and complete as conducted by a trained expert?

Response III.E 33:

As set forth in FEIS Responses III.E 23 and 24, the reptile and amphibian
assessments were not poorly conducted, but rather fully complied with the
requirements in the DEIS Final Scope for a description of wildlife species found or
anticipated to be found on the site and an assessment of the potential preserve of
any rare, threatened or endangered species. The wildlife analysis was not based
upon field work alone, but also a review of prior surveys and relevant literature and
an analysis of potential habitat and migration corridors. Refer to FEIS III.E
Introductory Response.

Comment III.E 34 (Letter 172.12, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

The notes from the field surveys are decidedly brief and lacking sufficient data such
as times, durations, weather conditions, specificity of plant species (what kind of
goldenrod, what kind of grape?), among others. Does the applicant and Planning
Board consider such cursory observations to be thorough and complete for the
purposes of assessing the current flora and fauna conditions of the site?

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-32


Response III.E 34:

The DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data
sources, and for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended
to document the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory.
However, the Applicant and their consultants believe that the studies done are
adequate for the purpose of identifying potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife
habitat on this site. The field notes were used to record observations for the field
biologists, and were not intended to provide all of the data typically recorded for a
formal survey. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.

Comment III.E 35 (Letter 172.13, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

All field surveys were conducted during the day, eliminating proper observation of
nocturnal animals. How can day-only surveys properly assess the fauna of the site,
much of which can be considered nocturnal and/or elusive?

Response III.E 35:

The DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or
anticipated to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data
sources, and for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or
endangered species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended
to document the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory.
Some nocturnal species (e.g., raccoons) are often identified from scat or tracks, which
are plainly visible during the day. Common construction techniques, such as limiting
clearing of mature trees to winter months when nocturnal species such as bats and
most amphibians are in hibernation can reduce incidental impacts to nocturnal
species. Using these techniques can also reduce impacts to breeding birds, including
nocturnal species such as owls. Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.





Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-33


Comment III.E 36 (Letter 172.14, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

The dates of the field surveys do not adequately provide for a comprehensive, multi-
season assessment of both the flora (particularly ephemeral species) and fauna
(specifically conducted during peak breeding and migration seasons) of the site as
well as the half-mile study area. Given this significant omission, does the applicant
and Planning Board consider the biologic survey to be thorough and complete?

Response III.E 36:

Please see FEIS Response III.E 34, The site assessments were done over a two year
period and covered the majority of the growing season, from early spring (mid-
March) through late summer (end of August). These assessments covered the peak
breeding seasons for amphibians, reptiles and birds, as well as most of the flowering
periods for flora on the site. No attempt was made to assess use of the site by
migratory birds in spring or fall, and no on-site assessments were conducted in the
fall or winter, as no species of concern were identified in the screening and record
review. A species of Special Concern, the Eastern Box Turtle, was observed on the
site on April 1, 2013, and is discussed in detail in FEIS Response III.E.7.

Comment III.E 37 (Letter 172.15, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

Birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and butterflies and insects are mobile.
However, the biological survey only focuses on the site, not the entire half-mile study
area. Amphibians are known to travel significant distances, across roads and even
highways, to reproduce in vernal pools and wetlands. Birds often roost in one habitat
type but hunt in a different habitat. The DEIS downplays the interplay between the
various impacted habitats wetlands, forests, and old fields. In particular, old field
habitat is a critical habitat type that we are losing across this community and across
the country. What evidence does the applicant have to show true isolation
whether hydrologically or from a wildlife perspective? Where is a biological
assessment at the point of stormwater discharge? The biologic survey does not
adequately consider habitat (including the presence of a 960-acre Critical
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-34


Environmental Area) within the study area in its assessment: does the applicant and
the Planning Board consider this prudent and sufficiently comprehensive?

Response III.E 37:

There was no half-mile study area identified in the Final Scope, and the Critical
Environmental Area referred to in this Comment is the FDR State Park, which is
separated from the Project Site by the Taconic Parkway and Route 202. The DEIS
Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or anticipated to be
found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources, and for
an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered species
on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was sufficient to document the
potential species on the Site, and on-site assessment by trained biologists did not
identify any habitats likely to support rare, threatened or endangered species. As with
all similar studies, the adjacent properties were evaluated as well as the project site, to
the extent possible. As discussed in the FEIS III.E Introductory Response, the site is
separated from identified biodiversity corridors in the Town.

Comment III.E 38 (Letter 172.16, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

On page 19 of this section, a map shows approximate boundaries of the property
with respect to vernal pools. The DEIS states that Stems & Wheelers Biodiversity
Conservation Study identifies wetlands, vernal pools, and water bodies as
environmentally sensitive resources. The DEIS also states that the Biodiversity
Conservation Study identifies vernal pools and wildlife corridors as sensitive habitats.
Is the applicant unable to provide precise property boundaries? Why are wetlands.
hvdric soils, and tributaries to the drinking water reservoir not included in this
map?

Response III.E 38:

Exhibit III.E-1a depicts a background aerial photo with vernal pool locations and a
site property boundary overlain on the aerial. Because the aerial photo is not a
surveyed drawing, and was taken from an unknown angle, it is not possible to
precisely locate the vernal pools or the property boundary. While the locations are
very close to actual, they cannot be considered as accurate as information that is
survey located. This is also why other information (such as wetland locations) was
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-35


not shown. The drawing was created to provide a depiction of vernal pool locations
on or near the subject property in a form that provides a visual/special understanding
of the locations.

Comment III.E 39 (Letter 172.17, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

On page 30 of this section, the DEIS claims that discharges of runoff would actually
increase the success and productivity of onsite vernal pools. Unfortunately, this is
implausible. By definition, vernal pools are ephemeral. They support natal
development of amphibians that would be unable to withstand competition or
predation in ecosystems that are constantly inundated. Amphibians are extremely
sensitive to the pollutants found in runoff, including the increased temperature of
runoff. Increased PAHs, salts, sediment, nutrients like phosphorus, and other
pollutants commonly found in runoff originating from roads and parking lots would
decrease the reproductive success of vernal pool life. It is critical that vernal pools, as
well as wetlands and wetland buffers are protected. What evidence, such as case
studies, does the applicant have to show that stormwater discharges will actually
benefit vernal pool ecosystems? Does the Planning Board consider the discharge of
contaminant-laden stormwater runoff to vernal pools and wetlands to be a source of
pollution, or lawful restoration as the applicant suggests?

Response III.E 39:
The FEIS stormwater management plan has been revised so that surface water runoff
from the Site will not flow directly into the wetlands. Surface water runoff will be
treated (with Vortech units) and infiltrated into the soil and back into the groundwater
table (as discussed in FEIS Responses III.E.16, III.F 21 and III.F.34). The original
site plan and stormwater treatment system was changed to address concerns about the
quality and quantity of water from the proposed development that would have
reached Wetland A and the vernal pool. The vernal pool is sustained mainly by
groundwater and direct precipitation; therefore a critical component of an on-site
stormwater runoff treatment facility is to get the treated runoff back into the ground
and into the water table. This will be accomplished by the stormwater treatment
facilities that are proposed for the site development plan. Thermal and other pollution
impacts to the vernal pool will be avoided because runoff will be treated, then
infiltrated through the soil to recharge Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response.

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-36


Comment III.E 40 (Letter 172.19, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

III.E. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Flora & Fauna

The DEIS posits a conceptual landscaping plan as acceptable mitigation for the loss
of habitat and biodiversity. Unfortunately, the plan falls short of providing significant
wildlife habitat or value. The plan relies heavily on exotic and non-native species,
particularly Zones 3 and 5. For instance, J apanese Tree Lilac and Bumald Spirea are
species that show invasive tendencies in this region and should be avoided to prevent
the spread of invasive species. Did the applicant consider the large number of native
alternatives that would achieve a similar level of screening and wildlife value? If not,
why?

Additionally, significant deer pressure in the area requires the selection of deer-
resistant planting, protection from grazing, and a long-term commitment to
maintenance. What measures does the applicant intend to undertake to prevent deer
browsing from destroying landscaping and buffers?

Response III.E 40:
The use of native plant species is prevalent throughout the entire planting plan, and
the plant species lists are a conceptual sample and not the final selected material. All
of the species listed in zones 1, 2, 4, and 6 are native, and almost two-thirds of the
plants in zones 3 and 5 are also native, therefore the landscaping plan actually relies
heavily on native species and not on exotic and non-native species as the
commenter has stated. Nearly all of the non-native species conceptually proposed are
limited to the ornamental landscape of the parking lot, and only native species are to
be used in protected areas such as wetland buffers.
Thick, native plantings are proposed for zones 1, 2, and 3, and these plantings will
both mitigate disturbances to current wildlife usage as well as enhance existing
habitat that is to remain undisturbed. Examples of this would include the proposed
wetland buffer enhancement and road screen planting along the Taconic Parkway off
ramp (Zones 2 and 3). Currently, these locations are fairly open and sparsely planted.
The new plantings will provide new bird nesting opportunities and enhanced cover
for smaller, ground-dwelling wildlife that may be displaced during construction.

Comment III.E 41 (Letter 170.2, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-37



PROJECT SITE SURVEYS

The DEIS presents results of surveys conducted on the Costco site and lands to its
immediate north and southwest. Agents for the project also surveyed the NYS
parkway property north of the site, concentrating on prominent features of landscape
and historic significance, drainage, and biology. My reading of the DEIS strongly
suggests that Costco site surveyors did not survey, or at least report upon areas north
and west of NYS 821 (BME) or south of Crompond Rd. as I did in 2012. If the
Costco site surveyors did look at these areas, the DEIS contains no indication that
they did, and offers no assessment of the potential adverse impacts threatened there.

Response III.E 41:

The areas north and west of the Bear Mountain Parkway (NYS 821) and south of
Crompond are private property, and therefore were not surveyed. However, resource
maps and data were reviewed relative to these off-site areas, and that information is
included in the assessment of potential off-site impacts. The Final Scope for the
DEIS did not require surveys of the off-site areas referenced in this comment, which
are not impacted by the Proposed Action.

Comment III.E 42 (Letter 170.3, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

From the north end of the mid-level terrace I descended an even more eroded (and
debris strewn) slope northwest to the forested slope just above Wetland A, in an
upland area mapped in the DEIS as an Oak Tuliptree Forest Community (cite
Eddinger et al. 2002). This ecological community designation is used by the New
York Natural Heritage Program (NHP), and other organizations documenting habitats
and communities scientifically. However, the DEIS has relied on its own consultants
and surveyors to name and describe the communities on the Costco site. In my view
the forest surrounding Wetland A is a blend of described forest communities, of
which oak species and tulip- tree are component elements, but lacks most of the non-
canopy species (understory trees, shrubs and herbs) listed under Oak-Tuliptree
Forest in the NHP manual.

Response III.E 42:
Many of the forested areas in Westchester County have been heavily browsed by
White-tail Deer and therefore lack a well developed understory or shrub stratum. In
many cases, including the northern portion of the Property, forested areas have taken
on an open appearance with very limited shrub and herbaceous layers. Often the
species that are found in the shrub and herb layer are invasive species such as
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-38


barberry, burning bush, and garlic mustard. While the changes that have resulted
from heavy deer browse are evident throughout southeastern New York, the
community characterization is accurate relative to the mature trees found on the site.

Comment III.E 43 (Letter 170.7, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

West Ridge

This is the rocky ridge west of wetland A and North Pond Outfall. Except for its east
flank that includes the buffer of Wetland A, it is outside the Costco site, and only
briefly and cursorily discussed in the DEIS. West Ridge is ideal summer habitat for
amphibians breeding in Wetland A. Though more supportive when moist than when
dry, in summer droughts resident amphibians can easily migrate downslope to wetter
living spaces and avoid desiccation. This value is not noted in the DEIS.

Response III.E 43:

In the Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site, Town of Yorktown,
Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012), the on-site habitats of concern include the
wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) and the west ridge (west of Wetland A) of
which a small portion is located on the Property. Wetland A and the west ridge are
not proposed to be impacted; therefore, their ecological values noted in this Comment
will not be impaired by the Project. The Project has been reconfigured several times
in order to best protect the natural resources on and near the Property, and to maintain
the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near Wetland A, including the west ridge.

Comment III.E 44 (Letter 170.18, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Critical Comments on Costco DEIS
Scoping Violations
- Describe impacts to existing resident plant and animal populations, especially
threatened and/or endangered species.
- describe potential impacts to wildlife corridors, if present on the site.

Response III.E 44:

No threatened or endangered species were identified on or near the Property. The
DEIS Final Scope called for a description of wildlife species found on or anticipated
to be found on the site based on site surveys and review of existing data sources, and
for an assessment of the potential presence of any rare, threatened or endangered
species on the site. The information provided in the DEIS was intended to document
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-39


the potential species on the site, and was not a full species inventory. An assessment
of the potential impacts to resident species and to wildlife corridors was provided in
the DEIS in both narrative and graphic form. Refer to DEIS III.E-29 III.E-32 and
Exhibit III.E-3.

Comment III.E 45 (Letter 170.20, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Section III.E Flora and Fauna

The Flora and Fauna Study has numerous errors and omissions. Upon opening this
appendix of the DEIS I was puzzled by the intense focus on debris around the
developers old motel building, replete with color photographs. If only this level of
critical attention had been given truly significant environmental documentation
efforts and assessments of the projects impacts.

Response III.E 45:

The Project is located in a previously developed site, which is why the existing
conditions on that portion of the Property were documented. In accordance with the
Final Scope, the vegetative communities on the Property were described and mapped.
An assessment of the potential impacts to resident species was provided in the DEIS
in both narrative and graphic form. See DEIS III.E-29 III.E-33 and Exhibit III.E-3.

Comment III.E 46 (Letter 170.21, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Exhibit III.E-1 Ecological Communities Map.

I have no serious issues with this interpretation of the sites ecological communities.
It reflects the difficulty of distinguishing ecological communities on relatively small
sites or historically disturbed landscapes. The community assignments fit the Natural
Heritage categories fairly well, and the mapped boundaries are reasonably accurate.
The onsite communities are simply too small in area and limited in biodiversity and
unique character to match Heritage descriptions well.

Response III.E 46:

Comment noted.

Comment III.E 47 (Letter 170.22, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Wetland Biodiversity and Habitat Values
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-40



I found Wetland A to be a viable if not exceptional vernal pool amphibian breeding
habitat. The following passage from the DEIS is annotated below with my comments
emphasizing how this assessment unfairly and dubiously denigrates the habitat value
of the Wetland A pool.

DEIS p E-9

The vernal pool on site [referring to that of Wetland A] was observed both dry
(late spring 2010) and ponded (spring 2011) up to 1.5 deep, and therefore
exhibits some seasonal ponding during wet years although the area was
observed to dry out during the summer months.

In other words, Wetland A is an average or better than average obligate vernal pool
amphibian breeding habitat by any scientific standard. The surrounding forested
uplands enhance that value by providing undisturbed habitat ample for many
hundreds of wood frogs and mole salamanders. By the way, any reduction or
degradation of this upland habitat (including from other development nearby, and
several projects are being built or under consideration) could decimate the breeding
amphibian community using Wetland A.

Response III.E 47:

Wetland A contains a vernal pool in which a variety of wildlife species (including
species such as wood frogs, spotted salamanders, and fairy shrimp that prefer
reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most recently in April of
2013 (see FEIS ResponseIII.F 18). Wetland A and the upland area to the west of the
wetland are potential wildlife corridors and contain wildlife habitat. The wildlife
corridors along the western edge of the Property, within and near Wetland A, and to
the north of the Property will not be altered or impacted by the Project. The Project
has been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the natural resources on
and near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near
Wetland A, including the vernal pool. In order to reduce impacts (as compared to the
DEIS site plan) to the forest habitat on the site, a retaining wall has been added to
provide additional protection to Wetland A by moving the proposed development
further from the wetlands and to reduce disturbance of the forested buffer. (Refer to
FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 1.) Construction of a retaining wall would
have the benefit of retaining more of the existing woodland habitat, reducing the
potential of sediment runoff from the adjacent slope impacting the buffer, and
minimizing incidental impacts to trees such as wind throw and root disturbance. In
addition, the wall will provide protection from inadvertent amphibian movement
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-41


through the developed portions of the property, which would not be ideal, even under
current conditions. See FEIS Response III.E 6. Concerns about the quality and
quantity of ground and surface water entering Wetland A and ultimately leaving the
site have also been addressed by improving site stormwater treatment facilities and
moving development farther away from Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Response items 2 and 3.

Comment III.E 48 (Letter 170.23, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The DEIS repeatedly misinterprets hydrological evidence, drawing dubious or
erroneous conclusions.
P E-15
During the field investigations in 2010 there was no ponded water observed in
wetland A on J une 8 nor during any subsequent site visits that year which indicates
that if any wood frogs or spotted salamanders utilized the vernal pool for breeding
that year they were most likely not successful. In 2010, a year with an early start to
spring and amphibian breeding (I performed several breeding amphibian surveys that
year), wood frog tadpoles might have transformed and exited some pools by J une 8.
This is less likely for spotted salamanders, which sometimes begin breeding the next
rainy night after wood frogs do, and tend to take longer to transform. Still, it is
possible that at least some metamorph spotted salamanders escaped the pool before
J une 8.

During field work on the site that was conducted by Evans Associates for a previous
applicant this portion of the wetland was noted as being ponded on August 31, 2000.
Based on these observations it appears that this seasonally ponded area does provide
breeding habitat for vernal pool species on some years but based on the low number
of egg masses observed and unpredictable hydroperiod it is not a very productive
vernal pool.
Response III.E 48:

Studies conducted in April of 2013 confirmed that vernal pool species (wood frogs
and spotted salamanders) were using the wetland for breeding, but the highly variable
hydroperiod of the pool is problematic in drier years.

Comment III.E 49 (Letter 170.29, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

DEIS P III.E-9

Because of the shallow depth of the vernal pool, the temperature of its water will
vary with the temperature of the air.
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-42



An unwarranted and unsupported conclusion. There is substantial natural
groundwater input, and in late winter when amphibians breed precipitation is cold and
enhanced by equally cold snowmelt (ideally free of contaminants). The ground is still
frozen some depth below the surface, further cooling waters of woodland pools. Air
temperatures are also relatively cool, certainly at night. More commonly on cold
nights the surfaces of vernal pools refreeze, which has little or no effect on
amphibians that have entered and started breeding in the pools. Every herpetologist I
know has observed salamanders swimming around under the ice at night.

Based on temporary, shallow ponding and being located within glacial till soils
(derived from gneiss), the pH of the vernal pool would be expected to range between
slightly acidic (just below 5.5) to circumneutral (5.5 to 7.4).

Implying what? The DEIS says no more on this. The conclusion is reasonable, but
what is the impact of this level of acidity?

The vernal pool community on the site comprises 0.12 acres or less than 1 percent,
of the 18.75 acre site. The vernal pool community is found throughout New York
State and has a NY NHIP rank of G4 S3S4, meaning it is apparently secure globally
and limited acreage to apparently secure in New York State.

This comment is egregiously misleading, suggesting that there is little point in any
concern that the project could harm resident amphibians by degrading their essential
habitat. It may seem apparent to the authors of the DEIS but obligate VP breeding
species and other vernal pool-dependent animals such as fingernail clams and the
feminine clam shrimp (Cyzicus gynecia), proposed by experts for Endangered status
in some states, including New York, are by no means secure. Globally secure as
used here just means by implication that vernal pools could be wiped out in one
geographic area (e.g. Yorktown, Westchester County, New York State) and there
would still be plenty worldwide, meaning somewhere on Earth.

Response III.E 49:

In the early spring, before leaf-out, this shallow pool is exposed to solar radiation
which tends to warm the surface layers. While groundwater input to the pool is
generally cool, it is significantly above freezing, and the temperatures of shallow
pools can vary widely during the day depending on air temperature.

The pH of the vernal pool was confirmed on April 1, 2013, with a circumneutral
measurement of 6.0 (using pH paper). A reading of 6.0 indicates that the vernal pool,
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-43


at least at this point in time, has not likely been highly impacted by acidifying
processes, such as acid rain or impacts from runoff. The pH is high enough to
support amphibian reproduction. Although some vernal-pool dependent species are
tolerant of lower pH levels, a combination of very low pH with high aluminum levels
can impact their development and survival. (Colburn, Elizabeth A., 2004. Vernal
Pools: Natural History and Conservation, Blacksburg VA: The McDonald &
Woodward Publishing Company).

Wetland A contains a vernal pool in which a variety of wildlife species (including
species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) such as wood frogs, spotted
salamanders, and box turtles have been documented, most recently in April of 2013
(see FEIS Response III.F 18). Protection of sensitive habitats, including the vernal
pool and 93% of the surrounding upland woods, has been a priority during the
planning process, regardless of the characterization of this community by the
NYNHP. The Project has been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the
natural resources on and near the Property, including the quality of the wildlife
habitat in and near Wetland A, including the vernal pool. Concerns about the quality
and quantity of groundwater entering the vernal pool have also been addressed by
revising the proposed site stormwater treatment facilities and moving development
farther away from Wetland A. Please see FEIS Responses III.F 1 and 5b for more
details and FEIS III.G Introductory Response..

Comment III.E 50 (Letter 170.30, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

DEIS P III.E-15
The adjacent State park property to the north of the site was also investigated for
potential amphibian breeding habitat. Several small ponded areas were identified in
the north end of the park that had wood frog and spotted salamander egg masses in
them. These ponded areas appear to have been created when the Bear Mountain
Parkway was realigned. The relatively undisturbed forested areas between the site and
these pools provides good post breeding upland habitat for wood frogs and spotted
salamanders. The ponded areas are 800 to 900 feet from the subject Site and therefore
it is possible that the adult wood frog that was observed on the site in late summer of
2010 came from one of these pools. A relatively recently constructed stormwater
basin [this can only be North Pond] that receives drainage from the Taconic Parkway
is also present approximately 650 feet north of the site. No wood frog or spotted
salamander egg masses were observed in the basin. The only amphibian observed in
the basin was a single eastern American toad on the April 14, 2011 site visit. I would
think that anyone examining North Pond would observe that this basin is too shallow
to hold much water, that the bottom has a dense growth of weeds, that its earthen
walls are porous, and that through a culvert about five feet below its rim (somewhat
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-44


below its bottom level in fact) and over a ten-foot wide stone- fragment spillway its
waters descend rapidly lo wetlands and stormwater basins at the level of the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension (NYS 821). This holding pond doesnt hold much of
anything for more than a day or two, and has no potential for any amphibian species
to actually breed in it. However, water draining through the ground from the pond
may benefit downstream habitat. Toads wander all over the uplands, by the way, even
to the summits of ridges and mountains.

Response III.E 50:

Field investigations in April of 2013 support Mr. Barbours observations of the
stormwater basin hydrology and unsuitability to support breeding of vernal pool
species.

Comment III.E 51 (Letter 170.31, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Habitat values

PEI2
The ability of the site to support less disturbance-tolerant species that require large
blocks of undisturbed land is greatly diminished by the existing on-site development
that includes the former motel, plant nursery, fence contractor building [and a house
or two]. The site surroundings that consist of major roads, commercial and residential
buildings along with paved parking lots also detract from the ability of the site to
support disturbance intolerant species. Therefore, species that were documented on
the site, or are expected to occur on the site, are those species that are tolerant of
human disturbance and are capable of using a variety of habitats
(i.e., they are habitat generalists rather than habitat specialists).

There are two distortions in this statement. 1) It entirely ignores the impact of site
development on at least one specialist species, brook trout that occurs in Hunter
Brook immediately west and southwest of the Costco site. This is a glaring example
of the failure of the DEIS to address significant impacts of the project to proximate
off-site resources, some less than 100 feet from the site. Although only spotted
salamander was found to breed in Wetland A, species listed by DEC and NHP such as
J efferson salamander and marbled salamander could breed there as well. These
species are protected under NY Conservation Law. The DEIS does not even mention
their potential occurrence on the site.



Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-45


Response III.E 51:

Brook Trout in Hunter Brook are discussed in FEIS Response III.F 34. The two
species of mole salamander mentioned are both species of special concern in New
York State. Both species have the potential to occur on the site, but were not
observed. For a description of the field study methodology and its consistency with
the Yorktown guidelines for wildlife and plant biodiversity assessments, refer to
Section III.E Introductory Response.

Comment III.E 52 (Letter 170.32, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Biodiversity

The plant list in the DEIS exhibits lamentably poor plant species documentation. For
example, in the case of the main sedge genus, Carex, the list includes only tussock
sedge (Carex stricta) (in Wetland A). On my visits to the site I saw smaller tussocks
and individual plants of several other wetland sedges. Though reliable identification
features (flowers and fruit) were not in evidence in the dormant season, I recognized
brome sedge (C. bromoides), blunt broom sedge (C. tribuloides) or a closely related
species, and loose-flowered sedge (C. laxiflora), There were at least six others that
were neither tussock sedge nor any of the aforementioned species. The DEIS plant list
contains not one species of upland Carex, of which there have to be at least 10 on the
site, given the variety of elevations, light regimes, soils and moisture conditions. This
list was accumulated during visits that spanned an entire growing season, from April
to September. Its amazing to me how few species the survey revealed, and just as
amazing the low number of species said to be expected (but not found) on a site this
diverse in ecological conditions such as elevation, aspect, soils, rocks and moisture.

Response III.E 52:

In accordance with the Scope the plant list in the DEIS was not intended to be a
comprehensive species inventory of the Property, but was intended to supplement the
descriptions of the ecological communities found on the Property and described in the
text. Contrary to the assertion made in this Comment Applicant noted that, three
sedge species were identified in Table III.E.1 in the DEIS. None of the sedge species
identified on the site is threatened or endangered.

Comment III.E 53 (Letter 170.33, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

DEIS p III.E-12

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-46


No unique or rare habitats were identified on the site and all species that were
documented on, or anticipated to occur on the site are species common to northern
Westchester County.

But many common species that were not found are surely there. Let me name just a
few dirt common sedges for example, in alphabetical order: Carex albicans, Carex
blanda, Carex communis, Carex digitalis, Carex gracillima, Carex intumescens, C.
lurida, C. muhlenbergii, C. normalis, C. pensylvanica, C. rosea, C. scoparia, and C.
swanhi. I would not be surprised to find rare upland sedges such as Carex emmonsii,
C. glaucodea, C. retroflexa and C. nigromarginata.

Repeatedly the DEIS holds the site to an absurdly lofty standard, rather than
addressing potential significant adverse impacts to sensitive ecological receptors, and
waters. It is to all expectations and appearances an average but respectable natural
area. Rare habitats & species are RARE! In the larger context of downtown
Yorktown the site is objectively an interesting and valuable oasis in highly developed
surroundings. It should be seen and respected for what it is. The DEIS repeated [sic]
cuts it off at the knees, the blows and insults coming from two opposite directions.
The first is the argument that theres little there worth looking for (so they found very
little of what is there). The second complaint is that there is nothing extra special
there, just common stuff and not much of that.

Response III.E 53:

The portions of the Property that are proposed to be developed are highly disturbed
and bisected from other natural areas by major transportation corridors (the Taconic
Parkway, Route 202, and the Bear Mountain Parkway) which fragment the larger
landscape blocks critical to high-value wildlife habitat. The DEIS documented what
was found on the site by the Applicants consultants, and Mr. Barbour did not find
any rare, threatened or endangered species during his site investigation.

Comment III.E 54 (Letter 170.34, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG)

Vertebrates

P III.E-l4

Bird observations were made during the field investigations but a formal breeding
bird survey was not conducted on the site.

Why not? The short shrift is not justified by the quality of the habitat.
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-47



Response III.E 54:

A formal breeding bird survey was not included in the Final Scope. Refer to FEIS
III.F Introductory Response. . Data on bird distribution is available online from the
NYS Breeding Bird Atlas (http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html). The Property falls in
the middle of Block 5957C. In accordance with the Final Scope, this data was
reviewed as part of the site analysis for the DEIS, and observations were made during
the site assessments in spring and early summer, when breeding populations most
likely to be impacted by development would be present. The species listed in the
DEIS includes species that would potentially use the Property as breeding habitat.

Comment III.E 55 (Letter 170.35, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Data collected as part of the preparation of The Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in
New York State (Cornell University, 2008) were also reviewed. Specifically, data
collected between 2000 and 2005 for Survey Block 5957C, where the site is located,
were reviewed. In total 54 species were documented as confirmed, probable or
possible breeding in this survey block. Species on the breeding bird list for this
survey block for which suitable habitat is present on the site are indicated by BBA
in the documented on-site column in Table III.E.2.

This is a generic laptop study observed vs. possible, probable or expected
they just blend them together with no connection to the habitats and conditions of the
site and surroundings.

Response III.E 55:

See FEIS Response to III.E. 54. The species listed in the DEIS were reviewed to be
sure that appropriate habitat was available on the Property. Species for which
appropriate habitat was available were included in the list in the DEIS.

Comment III.E 56 (Letter 170.36, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

P III.E-14:

The breeding success of bird species that utilize forest interiors is greatly reduced
near the edges of a forest due to what is known as the edge effect. This is largely
due to species of birds and small mammals preying upon the eggs and young of forest
interior species, as well as nest parasitism from brown-headed cowbirds. Species that
are habitat generalists and tolerant of human disturbance such as the blue jay,
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-48


European starling and American crow would most likely utilize the habitats on the
site.

But there is no onsite documentation of these edge effects. Incidentally, brown-
headed cowbird is not on the bird list in the DEIS.

Response III.E 56:

Brown-headed Cowbird was not reported as observed in the species list for Block
5957C, although it is a common species in Westchester County, particularly near
developed areas or disturbed sites. The edge effect is present on the Property under
the existing conditions due to the past development and clearing, and is anticipated to
continue to be a factor impacting the remaining forested portions of the Property
following development. The edge effect is not anticipated to be exacerbated by the
Project, and may even be reduced by consolidating the development into one portion
of the Property (as opposed to having fragment development on the Property).

Comment III.E 57 (Letter 170.37, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Amphibians and Reptiles

An amphibian and reptile field survey was conducted by Evans Associates in the
spring and early summer of 2011. The major focus of the spring portion of the field
survey was amphibian breeding activity (see vernal pool comments). Active
searching for adult amphibians [and reptiles] was conducted by turning over cover
objects such as rocks, logs and anthropogenic debris. A search for characteristic turtle
nesting areas, as evidenced by the remains of turtle eggs, was also conducted.

These techniques are reliable and standard for herpetology inventories. Results are
largely depended: upon weather and other unpredictable factors. I have learned that
some biologists are adept at, or simply lucky, in locating reptiles and amphibians, too,
under objects.

Eastern garter snakes (abundant under debris) are very common and abundant and
utilize a wide variety of habitats from undisturbed forests to highly disturbed urban
settings. Although not documented on the site other species of snakes that could be
found on the site include the northern ring-necked snake, northern black racer, black
rat snake and northern brown snake.

And milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), no: listed in the DEIS even as potential,
but I would surmise to be more likely than racer and rat snake. American toad is on
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-49


their list, and one male was observed at North Pond. Fowlers toad, uncommon and
local, was not, and the site did not appear to me to be good habitat. However, I expect
that American toad may be far more common on the site and its vicinity than the
survey suggests. Occurring with American toad could be eastern hognose snake
(Heterodon platyrhinos), which feeds nearly exclusively on toads. Hognose snake is
not mentioned in the DEIS even as a potentially occurring species, but it
is listed as a species of Special Concern in New York, one rarity rank below
Threatened, as is Eastern Box Turtle, mentioned in the DEIS but not found in the site
survey. However, eastern box turtle is rather common in the wilder parts of
Westchester County, as in the wooded margins of the New York City reservoirs, as
land several colleagues have observed.

No amphibians or reptiles were collected as voucher specimens during the field
survey.
This is unfortunate. Most of us avoid collecting animals as vouchers, but occasionally
you find an individual that is baffling in its appearance. An example for me is the
salamander in the photo (p. 25, 2
nd
photo, top row) captioned red back salamander,
gray phase. During a survey by Hudsonia, Ltd. in Westchester County we found a
dark salamander we could not identify in the field. We borrowed it to identify in the
lab, then returned it to the stream where we had found it. The stream was Hunter
Brook where it enters the New Croton Reservoir. The subject was a northern red
salamander, not a state rarity, but a rare species in Westchester, and so a significant
find and an indicator of exceptionally clean water.

Response III.E 57:

As noted previously, formal surveys of flora and fauna were not required in the Final
Scope and therefore were not performed. (Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory
Response.) However, a comprehensive review of resource maps and published
records was made as part of the Site evaluation. Although the referenced species, for
example hognose snake and American toad, have the potential to occur at the
Property, they were not observed. Since a formal wildlife survey was not undertaken,
no license to collect voucher specimens was sought from the NYS DEC.

Comment III.E 58 (Letter 170.38, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

P III.E-18 Wildlife Corridors on the Site
The forested areas between the vernal pool in the north end of the western wetland
and the forested areas in the far western portion of the site as well as the forested
areas off site to the north in the adjacent parkland could be considered wildlife
corridors for wood frogs and spotted salamanders.
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-50


Although not distinct corridors wood frogs and spotted salamanders would use these
forested areas to move between their spring breeding habitats in the vernal pool to
their non-breeding terrestrial habitat in the forest.

In this section of the DEIS there is no discussion of amphibian road kill potential on
paved areas of the development receiving high traffic loads, or nearby roads and
highways. Habitual amphibian migration and dispersal paths between wetland and
upland habitats may change unpredictably with project landscaping (e.g. steepened
banks, reduction of upland habitat) and altered drainage patterns (see Wetland
Biodiversity and Habitat Values). The DEIS does not address these potential
impacts, but instead asserts with no supporting evidence that changes brought about
by the development will only benefit resident amphibians.

Although travel may be possible between the on-site vernal pool and off-site vernal
pools to the northwest, the on-site pool would not provide improved habitat for the
vernal pool species when compared to the vernal pools that are located on the
adjacent properties.

First there is no question that travel between on-site and off-sue pools is possible;
there are no barriers through the continuo us forested upland. And how can it be
asserted that the on-site pool (of Wetland A) would not provide improved habitat and
at the same time assert the exact opposite, that the project will raise and stabilize the
water level in Wetland A, thus improving amphibian breeding habitat. Moreover, if
such improvement were plausible, breeding success and output of young amphibians
would increase, with greater dispersal levels of young adult frogs into peripheral
areas with high potential for losses from vehicles and other threats (e.g.
migration into urban areas with no suitable habitat).

Response III.E 58:

. By protecting Wetland A and the surrounding uplands (refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 1), the Applicant is avoiding and minimizing impacts to
wildlife using the on-site wetland/upland complex. As discussed in detail in the
Introductory Response for III. F,the stormwater management design has also been
revised to allow infiltration of the stormwater below the retaining wall footing back
into the soil and shallow groundwater which feeds the wetland complex. Refer also to
FEIS Introductory III.G Response Items 2, 3 and 5. The Applicant asserts that the
proposed retaining wall would prevent young amphibians from dispersing into the
project site, where increased mortality would be likely. The Applicant asserts that
incidental mortality (road kill) of amphibians traveling to off-site wetlands is not a
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-51


significant environmental impact associated with the Proposed Action, as the travel
corridors are in a north-south orientation and will not be altered by the development.

Comment III.E 59 (Letter 170.39, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

DEIS review of other studies

Discuss the Biodiversity Conservation Study, Town of Yorktown, Westchester
County, New York (Stems & Wheeler, J une 2009) (June 2009) as it Relates to the
Site

P III.E-20
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park that is located to the south of the site, south of NYS
Route 3 5/202 is designated as a CEA. There are no riparian areas or floodplains on
the site. The soils in the wetlands on the site are hydric soils.

By definition!

The Biodiversity Conservation Study lists vernal pools and wildlife corridors as
sensitive habitats. So does every other study and statement by every environmental
regulator, conservation organization or scientific institute.

Response III.E 59:

The Biodiversity Conservation Study was discussed in DEIS page III.E-20.

Comment III.E 60 (Letter 170.40, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Review of Croton on Hudson Biodiversity Plan (Miller and Kiemens 2004)
Prepared by the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance as it Relates to the Site

The site is not within any areas that were identified as important for biodiversity. The
closest biotic planning unit (BPU) to the site is located to the west of the Bear
Mountain Parkway and north of NYS Route 202/35.

I reiterate that the DEIS holds that only pristine, ultra-high-quality environments are
worth protecting. Additionally this dismissal violates the hard look requirement of
SEQR to potential significant adverse impacts on the communities environment
SEQRA is not limited to protecting rare and endangered species.


Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-52


Response III.E 60:

The Croton on Hudson Biodiversity Plan (Miller and Klemens 2004) referred to in
this portion of the DEIS focuses on high quality habitats which its authors felt were
important from a biodiversity standpoint. The DEIS (Section III.E) described the
ecological communities found on the Property, and also described how the Property
related to wildlife corridors in the area (Section III.E.-18). The Project has been
designed to protect the portions of the Property which have the highest value as
habitat, particularly as they relate to regional wildlife corridors on or near the
Property. The wildlife investigations conducted for the DEIS complied fully with the
Final Scope, and assessed the range of species and ecosystems on the Property, not
merely rare and endangered species or pristine, ultra-high quality environments.
Refer to FEIS III.E Introductory Response.

Comment III.E 61 (Letter 170.41, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Rare Species

Federally Listed Rare Species
Six federally listed (currently or historically) rare animal species are recorded from
Westchester County. Bald Eagle was delisted in 2007. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and shortnose sturgeon (Acienser brevirostrum) are primarily
in the Hudson River, so not of concern in Yorktown. The three remaining species
with potential to be impacted by the proposed project are: Bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and New England cottontail (Sylvilagus
transitionalis). The DEIS Study found no habitat or potential for any of these three
species.

My research found that no Federally listed plant species are recorded from the Town
of Yorktown.

State-listed Rare Species
Scoping required an assessment of the Potential Presence of any Rare, Threatened or
Endangered Species on the Site based on a site-specific survey and input from the
New York Natural Heritage Program (NHNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). In my view this assessment in the DEIS is flawed and inadequate as
explained below.

In J uly, 2010 a request was made by Costco ecological consultant Evans Associates
to the NYNHP. In a letter of response dated Aug 26, 2010 to Eva Szigeti Evans
Associates, Tara Salerno, Information Services, NYNHP wrote:
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-53



If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we
recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the
most current information.

It has been over two years since NHP issued this response. Did Costco consultants
contact NHP again after the year elapsed? If not, then review of this project is not
complete.

More importantly, the initial identification of NHP rare species and habitats
potentially occurring on the site is still incomplete. The Yorktown Biodiversity Study
(Stearns & Wheeler 2009), not among the studies reviewed in the DEIS, did request
information on state-listed species for the entire Town of Yorktown, but the NYNHP
would only provide records of listed species for specific sites, not entire towns. So
there are no rare species records for the Costco site in Stearns & Wheeler. Other than
the requisite NHP (site only) correspondence in nearly every DEIS I have reviewed,
the Costco DEIS reports no NHP-listed state-rare species.

To obtain a list of rare species and habitats in the vicinity of the site I requested and
obtained from Nick Conrad, NHP Information Resources Coordinator, a Report on
Rare Animals, Rare Plants, and Significant Natural Communities for the Town of
Yorktown, Westchester County as documented in the Natural Heritage database as
of November 21, 2012.

Response III.E 61:

NHP issued a letter dated October 9, 2012, and identified as Document 40, which is
included in its entirety in Appendix A of this FEIS. Also refer to FEIS Comments
III.F2 and III.F 23. The report provided from Mr. Conrad, dated November 21, 2012
did not identify any species or significant habitats of concern relative to the Property.

Comment III.E 62 (PH2, Walt Daniels):

The DEIS does not address how the proposed project will comply with the town's tree
ordinance. [PH2, Page 93, lines 20-22]

Response III.E 62:

A tree survey and ecological communities map (DEIS Exhibits III.E-2 and III.E-3)
and associated impacts thereto have been provided in the DEIS. The appropriate tree
removal plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board during the site plan approval
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-54


process and a tree removal permit will be obtained with the site plan approval, in
accordance with the Towns Tree Ordinance. A landscaping plan (Drawing CLP-1)
to mitigate the effects of the impacts to existing trees on site has been submitted for
Town review as part of the DEIS.

Comment III.E 63 (Letter 142.5a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited),
(Letter 149.2a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited):

The DEIS III-G acknowledges the Hunter Brook as a trout spawning stream.
However, the Flora and Fauna section of the DEIS (III.E) does not mention brook
trout. The DEIS does not evaluate the DO content, PH, nutrient levels or ambient
water temperatures of any of the receiving waters for the projects stormwater
discharges.

Response III.E 63:

Hunter Brook is located approximately 2,400 feet (almost half a mile) from the
Property, and the tributary which originates on the Property flows through thickly
settled areas south of Crompond Road (Route 202) before discharging to Hunter
Brook. The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface
infiltration system that will provide water quality treatment of the stormwater runoff
from the Projects impervious areas. FEIS Appendix E includes quantitative thermal
impact and pollutant loading analyses, which address the constituents mentioned (pH,
DO, nutrients and temperature). Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-development
stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to
reaching Wetland A and/or the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since
impacts will be reduced at the Site, no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies
including Hunter Brook will result.

Comment III.E 64 (Document 172.40, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript is
provided in Appendix B.
In conclusion, is the Planning Board satisfied with the match between the proposed
development and the site in question? With the technology available today, and
progress in scientific discoveries, we know that the proposed development would
have an unnecessary and irreversible impact on the quality of our natural resources.
Yorktown deserves smart development that protects and conserves our natural and
community resources for generations to come, development that improves our
Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-55


community and makes it safer, and ingenious development that leads and inspires our
neighbors.

Response III.E 64:

Refer to DEIS Sections III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology, III.E Flora and
Fauna, III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources, and III.G
Stormwater Management regarding impacts on natural resources. Responses to
specific comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of this FEIS.

Comment III.E 65 - (Document 45.14, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola):

Woodlands on the site (mostly grown on abandoned farm lands by 1870 1910, but
some older existing wooded land) of BEAR MOUNTAIN TRIANGLE (excluding
Costco site) have recently been studied for development of FMP. Results of study
show forest here is rapidly dying, and as trees die and fall they are very quickly being
replaced by invasive species. These woodlands are mostly the same age and condition
as those on the Costco site. Much work needs to be done quickly to preserve the
woodland here, which can only be done by a viable, active landlord, not an absentee
landlord of an abandoned site. Preservation of wetlands and woodlands on the site
automatically also means that we maintain important habitat corridor connections.

Response III.E 65:

This Comment was submitted in support of the Project. As noted in this Comment,
the Project will preserve more than 4 acres of existing woodlands and wetlands
thereby maintaining the existing habitat corridor.

Comment III.E 66 - (Document 93.8, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

Woodlands on the site (mostly grown on farm lands abandoned between 1870 and
1910, but the site also includes some older preexisting wooded land) of Bear
Mountain Triangle (excluding Costco site) have recently been studied for development
of a Forest Management Plan. Results of this study show that the forest here is rapidly
dying, and as trees die and fall they are very quickly being replaced by invasive
species. These woodlands are mostly the same age and condition as those on the Costco
site. Much work needs to be done quickly to preserve the woodland here, which can
only be done by a viable, active landlord, not an absentee landlord of an abandoned
site.

Comments and Responses Section III.E
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Flora and Fauna

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.E-56


And the preservation of wetlands and woodlands on the site will automatically mean
that we will maintain important habitat corridor connections.

Response III.E 66:

The comment expresses support of the Proposed Action. The existing wetlands and
more than 4 acres of woodlands will be conserved.

III.F WETLANDS, GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
RESOURCES


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-1



Section III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

INTRODUCTORY RESPONSE

Many of the Comments included in this section of the FEIS (III.F) relate to potential impacts to
wetlands, groundwater and surface water resources resulting from proposed stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff is discussed thoroughly in FEIS section III.G. Rather than repeat information
in this section that is described in the stormwater section, the reader is referred to III.G of this
FEIS. Changes were made to the DEIS site plan in order to reduce impacts and provide a more
environmentally protective plan. For a description of the FEIS Site Plan, refer to FEIS Site Plan
Introductory Response.

A water balance analysis to determine the potential hydrologic impact to Wetland A was
included in the DEIS as described in DEIS pages III.G-17 to G-23. The water balance analysis
was updated for the FEIS to account for the modifications to the site plan and stormwater
management design, which includes greater runoff reduction through infiltration and no direct
discharge of stormwater to Wetland A. In the water balance analysis, runoff was calculated,
analyzed and compared for the pre and post-development conditions, as illustrated on FEIS
Exhibits III.G A4 and A5 and summarized in FEIS Table III.G A8. The water balance analysis
was calculated for the upstream ponding area (vernal pool) and two downstream reaches of the
Wetland A stream corridor. A detailed summary of results is included in the water balance
analysis provided in FEIS Appendix E

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a subsurface infiltration system and
a detention basin that meet the regulatory requirements for runoff volume reduction, water
quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation. The water balance analysis indicates that the
pre and post-development change in water depth results in a minimal decrease (less than one-
half inch) in water depth, which the Applicant asserts is not significant to the overall health and
functioning of the vernal pool. The water balance analysis ignores the beneficial contribution of
groundwater to Wetland A, which provides the primary hydrologic input to this wetland system.

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis,
pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate that post-
development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to
reaching Wetland A and/or at the point of discharge where leaving the Site. Wetland A is located
approximately 150 feet from the proposed infiltration facility. The elevation of the bottom of the
infiltration facility is 419, which will be cut below existing grade, which will assure that infiltrate
will discharge into the existing soil rather than travel along the fill line. The adjacent wetland is

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-2


at elevation 390, which is approximately 29 feet below the bottom of the infiltrator. The soil to
which the infiltrator discharges are described in DEIS III.C (pages III.C-4 to 9). Based upon site-
specific field investigation by the Applicants geotechnical engineer, the soil to which the
infiltrator discharges is a well-drained sandy soil with rock located from 8 to 18 feet below the
existing ground surface (Test Pits BINF-6, BINF-12, Borings B-14 and B-115). (Refer to the
SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.) The infiltration runoff will pass through well drained soils to and
along the confining rock layer toward Wetland A. Along the route toward Wetland A, it will
pass under the proposed retaining wall with about 10 feet of clearance.

As set forth in the Applicants thermal and pollutant loading analyses (FEIS Appendix E)
impacts will be reduced as a result of the infiltration practice and therefore, no adverse impacts
to downstream water bodies, including Wetland A, Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook and the New
Croton Reservoir will result.

Wetland A buffer:
In response to DEIS comments to reduce potential impact to the Wetland A buffer, the FEIS Site
Plans include a retaining wall along the westerly edge of the parking area that will replace much
of the earth embankment shown on the DEIS Site Plan, thereby reducing disturbance to the
Wetland A buffer. No impervious area is proposed within the wetland buffer. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Exhibits III.G-A1 and FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

The disturbance to the wooded buffer of Wetland A under the DEIS Site Plan was 1.05 acres.
When accounting for an additional 10-foot construction corridor at the toe of the slope, the
disturbance would have been 1.26 acres. Under the FEIS Site Plan, including the construction
corridor, the disturbance will be 0.5 acres of the buffer, 60% less than for the DEIS Site Plan.
The modified design will preserve 0.76 acre more of the wooded buffer when compared to the
DEIS Site Plan.
1
By preserving more wooded buffer, potential erosion will be reduced and more
effective protection of Wetland A will be provided. The disturbed portion of the buffer will be
revegetated.



1
The Wetland A buffer is 5.05 acres of which 3.48 acres are located within the Project Site. The FEIS disturbance
would be approximately 0.5 acres or 14% of the 3.48 acres of the onsite buffer (10% of the entire buffer), as
compared to the DEIS disturbance of 1.26 acres or 36% of the onsite buffer (25% of the entire buffer).

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-4



Comment III.F 1 - Form Letter C (Letter 10.1, Suzzora Grent), (Letter 11.1, Mr. Marc
Alfredo), (Letter 16.1, Alex Greenman), (Letter 21.1, Peter Bradstone), (Letter
24.1, Momhann Arfat), (Letter 34.1, Joseph Eduardo):

In studying the planned project for a Costco warehouse store on Rte. 202/35, it cannot
escape notice that the site borders not only on wetlands, but also one of the most
environmentally sensitive streams in the area. This watercourse, called the Hunter
Brook, serves as a major trout-spawning ground; additionally, it eventually makes its
way to the Croton Reservoir.

We respectfully suggest that adding 14.50 paved over acres to this area will have a
major negative effect.

In short, this Costco project is not only bad for Yorktowns image; it is also bad for
Yorktowns environment.

Response III.F 1:

Wetland A is the only surface water outflow from the property that reaches another
water body. Most of the site drains west to the small stream located within Wetland
A. The stream flows off site under Old Crompond Road to a wetland system that is
between Old Crompond Road and Crompond Road. This wetland drains into a
culvert that ultimately discharges to Hunter Brook, located approximately 2,400 feet
to the west of the site.

Currently, untreated stormwater runoff from the abandoned property flows directly
into the wetlands and watercourse. For the Proposed Action, the DEIS included a
Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a Sediment and Erosion
Protection Plan prepared (see Appendix D of the DEIS) to manage stormwater runoff
during construction.

The Applicant notes that the Project will add approximately 8 acres of impervious
area to the Costco site, not 14.5 acres as stated in the Comment. Considering the
existing 3 acres and the new 8 acres, the Costco site will have approximately 11 acres
of impervious area. (Refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response,) The Applicant
has modified the FEIS stormwater management design for the Proposed Action,
resulting in a more environmentally protective project when compared to the DEIS.

The components of the FEIS stormwater design are summarized in FEIS III.G

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-5


Introductory Response. A description and graphical exhibits of the changes to the Site
Plan are discussed in FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. After construction,
potential impact to Hunter Brook will be avoided through the use of onsite
stormwater management facilities to reduce surface water runoff volume and provide
water quality treatment, including temperature attenuation, of the runoff from the
proposed impervious surfaces on the subject property. Refer to III.F Introductory
Response, and Appendix E for the reports prepared by HDR.

Comment III.F 2 - (Letter 40.1, Jean Pietrusiak, NYS DEC):

In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage
Program database with respect to an Environmental Assessment for proposed New
Construction Costco Wholesale Retail Store, site as indicated on the map you sent,
located in the Town of Yorktown Heights, Westchester County.

Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural
communities, which our database indicates occur, or may occur, on your site or in the
immediate vicinity of your site. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not
been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We
cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-
listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be
substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental impact
assessment.

The enclosed report may be included in documents that will be available to the
public. However, any enclosed maps displaying locations of rare species are
considered sensitive information, and are intended only for the internal use of the
recipient; they should not be included in any document that will be made available to
the public, without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program.

The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in
this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance,
and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for
regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate
NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, as listed at
www.dec.ny.govlabout/3938 I .html.

Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this
proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that
you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-6


information.

Response III.F 2:

The NYNHP indicated that in the vicinity of the subject property there is a natural
community that is considered by the NYNHP to have high ecological and
conservation value. The community is a Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp that is
located in Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park (also called the Mohansic Swamp).
While red maple-hardwood swamps are not rare or protected, the NYNHP considers
this a High Quality Occurrence and recommends conservation of this community.

The Project Site is located to the northwest of Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park, on
the opposite sides of both Route 202/35 and the Taconic State Parkway. The site is
not connected in any way to this natural community. Drainage from the wetlands on
the subject property exits the property to the north and to the south. The intermittent
stream that flows off the property drains to the south, under Old Crompond Road, and
eventually to Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook (see DEIS section III. F.1.d for a
detailed description of the flow path from the property). Flow from the property is
part of a watershed that does not contribute to the Mohansic Swamp. Because of the
location of the property in relation to the Mohansic Swamp, proposed activities on the
property will have no impact on this natural community of concern. Also refer to
DEIS Section III.F.1.f.

Comment III.F 3 - (Letter 37.2, Ali Osama):

Are they donating enough to pollute our WET LANDS?
Response III.F 3:
Refer to response to Comment III.F 1.

Comment III.F 4 - (Letter 82.1, Dale Saltzman):

In response to the Costco DEIS to me, it goes against our current collective wisdom.
This is a blatant disregard for the ecology of important Yorktown water shed.
To pave over a hillside above a vital waterway is to create problems.
No [sic] many of the mitigation processes enacted nature would be better.
The DEP should step in and protect their water supplies and Costco would not
proceed. There is already a list of problems for the State Land Corp. which, as you
know is the western hillside above the Hamlet Brook.
The planning dept. has to stop this rape of our town resources.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-7



Response III.F 4:
The Applicant will comply with all regulatory requirements pertaining to water
resources. The proposed development will comply with all Federal, State and Local
requirements for stormwater management and wetland and watercourse protection.
Refer to FEIS Section III.G and SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.F 5 - (Letter 83.1, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Wetlands Concerns:

The project has significant wetland buffer incursion. Mitigation for this incursion is
not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Wetland A buffer is heavily wooded. It is
unclear if the plant material indicated will restore the wetland buffer and adequately
stabilize the steep slope from eroding into Wetland A. Further clarification is
required.

Response III.F 5:

The Applicant proposes modifications to the DEIS site plan and the FEIS stormwater
management design that will reduce direct impact to the wooded buffer of Wetland A
through the construction of a retaining wall (see FEIS Exhibit III.G-A1) Refer to
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response and FEIS Site Plan Responses 2a, 6, Site Plan
Exhibit 8c, and III.G Introductory Response item 1. Approximately 93% of the
wooded buffer surrounding the vernal pool in Wetland A will remain in an
undisturbed state, which exceeds the minimum 75% recommended development
guidelines contained in the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance Technical Paper No.
5, Best Development Practices: Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in residential
and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United States(2002). The
existing buffer around the vernal pool is 2.86 acres. The post-development
undisturbed buffer will be 2.65 acres. The proposed disturbed buffer will be
revegetated with native species that will provide suitable habitat for birds and small
mammals.

The modified/shortened embankment will be planted for stabilization, and the
proposed retaining wall will prevent the slope for eroding into the wetland.
Additional tree planting for the purpose of mitigation will be planted at the southern
end of the Wetland A buffer and within the Wetland B buffer, as shown on FEIS
Drawings LP-1 and LP-2. The proposed retaining wall at the base of the fill slope

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-8


above Wetland A will prevent erosion into the wetland, and will prevent wildlife
utilizing Wetland A and the surrounding wooded buffer from wandering onto the
developed portion of the site. Modification of the Stormwater Management Plan will
also prevent direct discharge of treated stormwater to the vernal pool and will instead
infiltrate the water back to the groundwater in the buffer area.

Temporary disturbance of the Wetland A buffer will be required for the installation of
the outlet pipe and level spreader serving the upper stormwater basin. Once the pipe
and level spreader are installed, the area will be reseeded with a Conservation seed
mix and allowed to naturalize.

Comment III.F 6 - (Letter 83.2, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The DEIS states that there will be an increased volume of water discharged into
Wetland A and the vernal pool associated with Wetland A. Increasing the volume of
water will change the existing character of the wetland. The DEIS fails to adequately
assess the functionality of the vernal pool and wetland after completion of the project.

Response III.F 6:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, resulting in a more environmentally protective project relative to
Wetland A. A summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response. The modifications include reduced impact to Wetland A
buffer, reduction of runoff volume being discharged to the wetland to more closely
replicate existing drainage conditions, increased groundwater recharge, improved
water quality treatment, and avoidance of thermal impact, thereby, benefiting
downstream water bodies.

The FEIS stormwater management plan includes an enlarged stormwater infiltration
system that will reduce surface runoff volume (improvement from the DEIS) from the
Project Site. The benefit of reducing runoff volume through infiltration will be to
reduce stormwater related impacts to downstream water bodies while cleansing the
discharge and recharging groundwater. FEIS Table III.G-A1 states that runoff volume
will be reduced from the entire Site. FEIS Table III.G-8A states that runoff volume
to Wetland A will be reduced, thereby reducing potential of flooding. The post-
development depth of water in Wetland A resulting from surface water runoff (from
adjacent vegetated area) will be reduced, however, by only less than a half-inch.
Treated stormwater from the infiltration system will be recharged to the subsoil up-

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-9


gradient to Wetland A, and therefore, provide additional source of hydrology to
Wetland A.

A pollutant loading analysis, a thermal impact analysis and updated water balance
analysis have been prepared for the FEIS (see FEIS III.G Introductory Response
items 2, 3 and 5 and FEIS Appendix E. These referenced FEIS studies show that
there will be an overall improvement in water quality leaving the Site as a result of
the Project. Also refer to Response III.F 7.

Comment III.F 7 - (Letter 83.7, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

Stormwater Concerns:

The DEIS asserts that there will be an increase in stormwater volume that will likely
increase the success and productivity of the existing vernal pool, yet it also asserts
that runoff from the proposed parking area will have the highest thermal effects in the
summer when the vernal pool is dry. If the applicant is changing the character and
functionality of the vernal pool to make it a permanent pool then the thermal impacts
in the summer will have a deleterious effect.

Response III.F 7:

The DEIS site plan and stormwater management design has been revised so that
runoff from the paved portion of the Site will not flow directly into the vernal pool at
any time (refer to Response III.F 14) but will instead recharge the groundwater
upslope of Wetland A. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response. In addition to
direct precipitation and snow melt, stormwater runoff to the vernal pool will be
mainly from surrounding undeveloped wooded area. Surface water runoff from the
proposed impervious surfaces will be treated and infiltrated into the soil and back into
the groundwater table, as discussed in Response III.F 6. Treatment of stormwater
runoff through infiltration will avoid potential thermal impacts and will recharge the
groundwater table, thereby supporting the onsite wetland system, which is primarily
groundwater fed. See Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in
FEIS Appendix E. Also refer to III.G Introductory Response item 2, which
addresses thermal mitigation.

Comment III.F 8 - (Letter 83.8, Phyllis Bock, Conservation Board):

The DEIS states that the proposed development will increase impervious surface from
2.90 acres to 10.98 acres, a significant increase, which will result in significant

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-10


thermal pollution in stormwater runoff. The proposed mitigation does not adequately
indicate how this increase in thermal pollution will be managed. Additional
mitigation should include tree islands in the parking lot which would provide
increased shade, break up the wide expanse of impervious surface, reduce the amount
of thermal loading in stormwater runoff and improve the aesthetics
of the parking area.

Response III.F 8:

As discusses in FEIS Responses III.F 6 and 7, changes have been incorporated into
the proposed development plan to treat runoff from the site and return it to the
groundwater table, thereby avoiding potential thermal pollution from runoff. (see
Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response and FEIS Appendix E ) Plantings in and around the parking lot are shown
on DEIS Figure III.E 5 - Conceptual Planting Layout Plan. Refer to Response III.G
13.

Comment III.F 9 NOT USED (Refer to FEIS Introduction Part B.1 for explanation)

Comment III.F 10 - (Letter 97.2, Greg Kravtsov):

Another concern our poll respondents had was inherent inequity in holding to two
different wetland performance/wetland mitigation standards between regular
homeowners wetland property and Costco proposed wetland mitigation and
variances.

Well be glad to provide concrete proof of very harsh wetland performance
enforcement to the point of complete financial distraction [sic] of individual
homeowners and we demand same rigor and harshness applied to Costco wetland
proposal.

Response III.F 10:

No direct impact/disturbance to onsite or offsite wetlands is proposed. The Applicant
will comply with all regulatory requirements pertaining to wetlands and wetland
buffers (Town of Yorktown). Refer to DEIS III.F.a and f.

Comment III.F 11 - (Letter 99.1, Krista Yacovone):

As a signatory to the New York City Watershed Agreement, we have a commitment

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-11


to ensure that development projects in the watershed do not adversely impact the
surface water resources that provide unfiltered drinking water to consumers, which
includes those in the Yorktown Consolidated Water District. Accordingly,
Riverkeeper opposes any project in the New York City watershed that proposes
potentially significant disturbance of streams, wetlands or their buffers.

As proposed in the DEIS, the Costco project will degrade water quality in on-site and
downstream receiving waters. The DEIS plan to discharge stormwater to a regulated
stream and wetland that flow to the New Croton Reservoirthe terminal reservoir for
the entire Croton Watershedis unacceptable. Furthermore, the wetland in question
is a headwater wetland that should be afforded heightened protection from such
disturbance. Scientific evidence clearly shows that healthy headwaters are essential to
the health of stream and river ecosystems. The National Research Council recognizes
that undisturbed wetlands and buffers positioned at the head of surface waters provide
the greatest water quality benefits because of their functions of sediment trapping,
nutrient uptake and adsorption. Discharging stormwater to wetlands and buffers at
their point of origin, as proposed in the DEIS, impairs their ability to perform these
functions and thereby degrades downstream water quality.

Response III.F 11:

As discussed in FEIS Responses III.F 6 and 7, changes have been incorporated into
the proposed development plan to treat runoff from the site and return it to the
groundwater table, thereby mitigating potential off-site impacts from runoff. (see
Thermal Impact Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G, the
Introductory Response to this section, and FEIS Appendix E) The wetlands on the
property will not be disturbed. The health and hydrology of the vernal pool at the
headwaters of Wetland A were a critical consideration in making these changes to
further protect the on and off-site wetlands and waterbodies. The Applicants
engineer performed a water balance analysis to Wetland A and the vernal pool. The
water balance analysis indicates that when compared to the pre-development
condition, post-development hydraulic characteristics remain similar. Refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Response item 5 for discussion of the results. Also refer to FEIS
Responses III.G 12 and FEIS Appendix E.

Discharge of onsite stormwater from the proposed impervious surfaces will be treated
in a subsurface infiltration system that will recharge the groundwater table from
which the onsite wetlands are primarily fed. Surface water discharge from the
detention basin will be dispersed from a spreader ditch that will drain overland by
sheet flow through the existing woodlands to Wetland A. Discharge through a

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-12


spreader ditch will reduce concentrated flow and velocities, thereby providing greater
protection from potential erosion.

In summary, the Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan includes a
subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin that meet the regulatory
requirements for runoff volume reduction, water quality treatment and peak discharge
attenuation. FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
thermal impact analysis, quantitative pollutant loading analysis and water balance
analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory
Response. The analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts
will be reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the
point of discharge where leaving the Site. Since impacts will be reduced at the Site,
no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including Wetland A, Sherry Brook,
Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir will result.

Comment III.F 12a - (Letter 101.1, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust), (PH2, John
E. Schroeder):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

1. The discharge of storm water into wetland A will increase the volume of
water according to the DEIS. There is no mention of the risk to the surrounding
vegetation being flooded potentially causing die off due to root rot. This could
potentially cause the forest canopy to open up and result in increased water
temperatures.

Response III.F 12a:

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact
analysis, pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A.
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results
of the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will be
reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A

Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 1, 6, 7 and 11. Wetland A is primarily fed by
groundwater under existing conditions. The Applicant has modified the proposed
DEIS stormwater management design to implement runoff reduction, improve water
quality treatment and increase groundwater recharge to more closely resemble
existing conditions. This will result in reducing surface water discharge to Wetland

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-13


A, increasing groundwater recharge, improving water quality, and avoiding potential
thermal impact. Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response items 2, 3 and 5 and
Thermal Impact and Pollutant Loading Analyses in FEIS Appendix E. The FEIS Site
Plan and stormwater management design will result in runoff reduction for all storms
studied up to and including the 100-year storm, thereby reducing surface runoff
volume to Wetland A. , By reducing the potential for increased flooding, root rot and
reduction of forest canopy from vegetation die-back will be avoided. Refer to FEIS
section III.G Introductory Summary Response.



Comment III.F 12b - (Letter 101.3, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust), (PH2, John
E. Schroeder):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

3. The discharge of storm water into wetland A does not factor in potential changes
to the pH of water in the wetland. The potential of change to the pH may come from a
number of sources, (ie: snow & ice control, rain, pollutants, etc.) pH is a critical
factor in the Hunter Brooks ability to sustain a healthy trout population.

Response III.F 12b:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action to improve stormwater quality treatment. (see Thermal Impact
Analysis and Pollutant Loading Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and
FEIS Appendix E) With regard to stormwater quality, refer to III.G Introductory
Summary Response and Response III.G 38c. With regard to snow removal and
deicing, refer to FEIS Responses III.D 8, and III.F 12d. Also refer to FEIS Responses
III.F 1, 6, 5c, 11 and III.G 38c.

The use of infiltration practices allows the soils to moderate the pH of the stormwater
as it moves towards the wetland. The soils also tend to remove the majority of
pollutants typically found in stormwater and moderates the temperature of the water
during the hot summer months.





FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-14


Comment III.F 12c - (Letter 101.4, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The DEIS does not mention a maintenance plan for snow and ice control and the
effects deicing will have on wetland A. There is no discussion of storing deicing
materials on site and any mitigation there might be to offset the potential for
movement of the material off- site.

Response III.F 12c:

A snow removal plan has been provided in Response II. 10 and is discussed in the
Pollutant Loading Analysis (FEIS Appendix E). The minimum amount of chloride
compounds necessary to ensure public safety will be used for controlling ice
throughout the parking lot and sidewalk areas, and all deicing compounds will be
stored inside the building. The use of chloride-containing materials for ice control
will be in accordance with Chapter 18-45 of the NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for
the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of The New York City
Water Supply and its Sources. Refer to FEIS Response III.D 8. Runoff generated
on site will be treated in stormwater management facilities. Refer to FEIS Responses
III.F. 6, 7, and 11 and III.G Introductory Response.

Comment III.F 12d - (Letter 101.5, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

Wetland A is recharged primarily by groundwater seepage according to the DEIS.
The DEIS does not address the issue of how the underground storm water storage
structures under the parking areas will affect ground water quality as it recharges
wetland A. These structures are designed to release their contents into the ground
surrounding them.

Response III.F 12d:

Wetland A is primarily recharged by groundwater seepage. The Applicant has
modified the DEIS stormwater management design to enlarge the subsurface
infiltration system, which will provide increased runoff reduction, increase
groundwater recharge and improve water quality treatment when compared to the
DEIS. Stormwater runoff will be pretreated in multiple hydrodynamic structures,
prior to entering the RRv/WQ infiltration practice. The pretreatment facilities will
remove pollutant laden sediment prior to reaching the infiltration practice, thereby
maintaining the effectiveness of the infiltration practice. Pollutants will be captured in
pretreatment units and also treated through soil filtration prior to reaching Wetland A.
Refer to Item 3 of FEIS III.G Introductory Response as well as the Pollutant Loading

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-15


Analysis in FEIS Appendix E. Based on the results of the pollutant loading analysis,
pollutant loads will be reduced to below existing levels within by infiltration through
12 to 18 feet of soil media. Soluble constituents of the stormwater which are not
removed through adsorption onto soil particles will be diluted in the groundwater
moving towards the wetland to concentrations which will have little influence on the
wetland chemistry.

Soil investigations were performed by the Applicant and soil logs for the borings/test
pits in the area of the proposed infiltration system are included in FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.F 13 - (Letter 108.26, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Page III.F 19: The sponsor should include a more detailed discussion of thermal
impacts to surface waters such as, the commitment to the use the proposed cool
roof should include more details as well documentation of thermal advantages.
Thermal impacts prior to flow approximately 700 feet through the forested wetland
should be considered.

Response III.F 13:

Surface water runoff will be treated and infiltrated into the soil and back into the
groundwater table (as discussed in Response III.F 6). This will avoid any potential
thermal impacts to surface waters., as discussed in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
item 3 and the Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS Appendix E. The stormwater
infiltration and the application of a cool roof will reduce thermal impacts and are
further discussed in FEIS Response III.G 13.

Comment III.F 14 - (Letter 108.27, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Page III.F 19: It is unclear that the runoff analysis and the water budget calculations
reasonably represent the existing and proposed conditions. For example, off site
contours used to determine the limits of the tributary area are not provided and it
appears that a portion of the upland area east of E2c may drain towards the vernal
pool. In addition, it is unclear how the point discharge to the vernal pool is in anyway
similar to the groundwater feed or how the groundwater impacts to the wetlands and
watercourse were accounted for in the analysis. The water budget noted that peak
flows to the wetlands are maintained or lessened; however, due to the significant
increase in runoff volumes, the hydroperiod is significantly lengthened. This may
result in saturation of the watercourse bank and can lead to erosion of saturated soils
in subsequent runoff events. In addition, habitat and vegetation can be impacted by

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-16


changes in saturation of soils associated with wetlands and watercourses.

Response III.F 14:

Additional topographic contours were added to the site plan, which confirms the
contributing drainage area to the vernal pool. Refer to FEIS Response III.G 14.

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, which will reduce potential impact to Wetland A. A summary of
the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS Section III.G Introductory Response,
which discusses reduced impact to Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume,
increased groundwater recharge, improved water quality treatment, and avoidance of
potential thermal impact, thereby, mitigating impacts to downstream water bodies

The FEIS stormwater management design will infiltrate treated stormwater to the
groundwater table and reduce direct surface runoff to Wetland A, thereby maintaining
Wetland A as a primarily groundwater fed wetland. The outlet from the detention
pond was modified to discharge to Wetland A, downstream of the vernal pool,
thereby not increasing surface flow to the vernal pool. Surface water discharge from
the detention basin will be dispersed from a spreader ditch that will drain overland in
sheet flow through the existing woodlands to Wetland A. Discharge through a
spreader ditch will reduce concentrated flow and velocities, thereby providing greater
protection from potential erosion.

Since the FEIS stormwater management design will maintain the groundwater inputs
to Wetland A, and the vernal pool will continue to be primarily fed by groundwater
seeps from the undeveloped woodlands and precipitation, the extended hydroperiod
and related saturation and resultant erosion will be avoided under the FEIS plan.
Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 5 which describes the results of the
water balance analysis.

Comment III.F 15 - (Letter 108.28, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Page III.F 21: The section notes that the east buffer of wetlands A includes disturbed
areas with a mix of young forested area and old field habitat containing some
miscellaneous debris. It must be noted that disturbance in this area occurred
historically. In general, the buffer has been predominantly wooded for some time.




FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-17


Response III.F 15:

The DEIS states that the buffers on the west and east sides of Wetland A are closed
canopy forested areas that are predominantly vegetated with native species.
However, as you move further east away from the wetlands, the buffer becomes more
disturbed. Therefore, the lesser impacted forest within the eastern buffer is located
closest to the wetland. The western buffer will not be impacted.

Comment III.F 16 - (Letter 108.29, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Page III.F- 30: The language in Section III.F.3.c: of the DEIS indicates that the
proposed mitigation will improve the functionality of the entire buffer around
Wetland B should be removed. The project, as proposed, would replace 65% of the
on-site buffer of wetland B with impervious surface, which will be located within 20
feet of the wetland boundary. While enhancement of the remaining buffer with native
species may be a desirable outcome, it will not fully offset the loss of buffer and
placement of impervious surface directly adjacent to the wetland.

The stated objective of the buffer mitigation plan is to enhance the buffer by planting
native shrubs and trees to increase the abundance and diversity of vegetation on site.
Portions of the buffer currently include several non-native and invasive species. The
buffer mitigation plan should also include measures to remove or reduce the extent of
invasive species to further enhance the buffer area and help ensure the establishment
of the native plantings.

Response III.F 16:

The functionality of the remaining portions of the buffer surrounding Wetland B will
be improved through planting mitigation (as shown on DEIS Exhibit III.F 4
Wetlands Mitigation Plan). An invasive species removal plan targeted to the species
found in the wetland buffers will be submitted to the Town as part of Site Plan
Review and Approval.

Comment III.F 17 - (Letter 108.30, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Section III.F.3.c indicates that buffer enhancement area 4, located east of Wetland B
along the slope of the Taconic State Parkway (TSP), will be seeded with a wildlife
conservation mix. The site landscaping plan (Sheet LP-1) indicates that only new
slopes within this zone are to receive seeding. This contradiction should be clarified.

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-18


If the slope of the TSP is to receive seed mix, it should also be clarified whether the
surface will be scarified to help establish the seed mix.

Response III.F 17:

There is already an existing vegetative cover in Buffer Enhancement Area 4 (Planting
Zone 2 on Sheet LP-1), which is why seeding and scarification of this area is not
referenced on DEIS sheet LP-1. Any seeding required in this area will be limited to
repair of any minor surface disturbances caused by normal planting operations, and
this will be addressed in final construction documents. Seed mixes have also now
been proposed for all planting zones.


Comment III.F 18 - (Letter 108.31, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Section III.F. l.a indicates that wetland A is not a very productive vernal pool habitat
based on a low number of amphibian egg masses observed in 2011 and an
unpredictable hydroperiod. Vernal pools are naturally highly variable systems, due
to variations in annual and seasonal precipitation levels and in the dispersal and
behavior of amphibians. Several years of data are required to determine an individual
pools functionality towards amphibian breeding. Statements made in this section and
in numerous other sections regarding the low productivity of this vernal pool should
be removed or qualified as productivity cannot be determined from the available
information.

Response III.F 18:

Site visits were made on the afternoons of April 1 and 14, 2013 to assess the current
conditions of on and off-site vernal pools. Wood frog egg masses were present in the
central portion of the vernal pool on both dates. No salamanders were found under
logs or rocks in the adjacent uplands during either site visit. On April 1, wood frogs
were heard calling, and two were observed (one male, one female). Spring peepers
were also heard calling. An Eastern box turtle was observed near the vernal pool; it
appeared to be recently emerged. Conditions on April 1 were cloudy with
intermittent rain; 47
o
F.

On April 14, the ponded area in Wetland A was smaller, and wood frog and spotted
salamander egg masses were found in the central portion of the vernal pool. Small
tadpoles and a green frog were also observed. While observing the wetland, two
wood ducks landed in the vernal pool, then immediately flew away (from and to the

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-19


west, away from the site). Conditions on April 14 were sunny; 60-65
o
F.

On April 1, off site areas near the Bear Mountain Expressway were investigated, as in
the past they had contained areas that acted as vernal pools, containing egg masses.
On this date, there were no egg masses present and rooted aquatics were present,
indicating that this area may no longer seasonally dry up. Wood frogs and spring
peepers were heard calling in the vicinity.

These recent site visits indicate that the vernal pool in Wetland A is likely productive
most, if not all years. The off-site wetlands may be less productive than originally
thought.

Comment III.F 19 - (Letter 108.32, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Claims in Section III.F.2.f and in the Wetland Water Budget that the increase in
stormwater volume within Wetland A will increase the quality of habitat for breeding
amphibians should be revisited. The current proposal will decrease the groundwater
contribution and increase the contribution by surface water that flows over
impervious surfaces into Wetland A. It is unclear that the associated potential changes
in the vernal pools water quality from surface runoff that are not addressed by the
stormwater basin (such as increased hydrocarbons, increased salinity due to road salt
etc) would, in fact, benefit amphibian species, especially when coupled with the
adjacent development.

Response III.F 19:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, in order to maintain the groundwater recharge for Wetland A, A
summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS Section III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The modifications include reduced impact to vegetated portion
of the Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater recharge,
improved water quality treatment, and avoidance of thermal impact. In combination,
these measures will mitigate potential impacts to downstream wetlands and water
bodies. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F 6 and III.F 14. , as well as the Pollutant
Loading Analysis and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
and FEIS Appendix E item 2

FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact
analysis, pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A.
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-20


of the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will be
reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A.

Comment III.F 20 - (Letter 111.3, Cynthia Garcia, Department of Environmental Protection):

Impacts of regional stormwater basin on nearby wetlands must be evaluated.

Response III.F 20:

The Regional Stormwater Basin has been abandoned. Refer to Response FEIS III.G
Introductory Response item 7 and III.G 20.

Comment III.F 21 - (Letter 119.6, Olivia Bell Buehl), (PH2, Olivia Buehl), (Letter 178.11h,
Henry Steeneck):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

The following is the result of a review of the DEIS for the above named project
published on the Towns website. I ask that these comments, questions, and requests
be entered into this proposed developments DEIS public hearing record so that they
might be properly addressed in the projects Final Environmental Impact Statement
and incorporated into the final site plan design.

ITS ALL ABOUT BALANCE
New York State law says that to approve any development project Yorktown must
weigh the negative impacts against the possible gains. To this end the applicant (in
this case, Costcos developer) prepares an EIS to try to demonstrate to the permitting
agency that the gains outweigh the negatives. It does this by first talking about the
possible negatives; secondly, it lists all the positives. As to be expected, an applicant
downplays the negatives and highlights the positives. Thats its job.

The job of concerned citizens like myself, as well as of the Planning Board, is to
ensure that what the developer is telling us in the DEIS is correct. More importantly,
we need to shine a clear light on what it is not telling us. So lets take a close look at
these negatives and positives.

Environment
The developer says that Costco would have no significant impact on the wetlands and
the Hunter Brook.

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-21


The real facts are that the developer wants a special exception to encroach the
wetlands. Plus, its stormwater management approach will result in significant
temperature changes to the Hunter Brook. Further, if our water supply is damaged,
the cost of the penalty if it is not in compliance with standards will be borne by the
town. As you know, these issues are raised in detail in the study presented by David
Clouser & Associates.

Response III.F 21:

Wetland A is the only surface water outflow from the property that reaches another
water body. Most of the site drains west to the small stream located within Wetland
A. The stream flows off site under Old Crompond Road to a wetland system that is
between Old Crompond Road and Crompond Road. This wetland drains into a
culvert that ultimately discharges to Hunter Brook, located approximately 2,400 feet
to the west of the site.

The Proposed Action does not propose encroachment (soil disturbance) to the onsite
wetlands. The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to
provide a more environmentally protective project. The FEIS stormwater
management design will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer (refer to Introductory
Response in this section), increase recharge of the groundwater table, improve water
quality treatment, reduce surface stormwater runoff and mitigate thermal impacts,
thereby providing improved water quality to downstream water bodies, including
Hunter Brook and the NYC watershed. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response.
FEIS Appendix E includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact
analysis, pollutant loading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A.
Summary descriptions are provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results
of the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related impacts will be
reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be
reduced at the Site, the analyses confirm that no adverse impacts to downstream water
bodies will result.

Approximately ten acres of the existing site was previously developed from which the
stormwater runoff discharges from the site without the benefit of water quality
treatment. Runoff from the existing site could include pollutants associated with the
prior soil spill and historic operations of the site. However, the Project proposes the
additional benefit of remediating existing soil and hazardous conditions as described
in DEIS Section III.D.3.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-22


Although there were no reported environmental conditions of concern in the area of
the proposed infiltration facility, as part of the Projects implementation, the subsoils
in the area of the infiltration facility will be exposed and reviewed and if any
indication of contamination is observed or identified, any such soils will be
remediated prior to installation of the infiltration chambers. A review of Phase I and
II Environmental Reports, upon which the statement is based, is set forth in DEIS
Section III.D and DEIS Appendix VII.B.

Responses to the David Clouser & Associates (DCA) have been responded to in
various sections of the FEIS. For a complete listing of responses to each of the DCA
comments refer to Index Sorted by Document. With regard to stormwater
comments from the David Clouser & Associates, refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a
thru III.G 39g.

Comment III.F 22 - (Letter 130.1, John E. Schroeder, Yorktown Land Trust):

The Yorktown Land Trust offers the following additional comments to those made at
the November 19th public hearing on the Costco DEIS.

The Land Trust recognizes the need for a screening plan along the Taconic State
Parkway which is designated as a historic scenic byway. The choices of eastern white
pine, douglas fir, fraser fir, eastern red cedar and American arborvitae are know [sic]
to be readily consumed by white tail deer. While their worth as a screening plant
species is well known, their location along a major highway needs to be carefully
reviewed. Attracting deer to the sides of the highway with these tree species may lead
to accidents. Deer-car collisions at high speeds can be disastrous. The plantings need
to be located in such a way as to be useful as a screen, but also so that safe lines of
sight are necessary to provide a margin of safety for drivers on the parkway.

Response III.F 22:
When hungry, deer will consume almost any species of plant. Eastern Red Cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Eastern White Pine
(Pinus strobus) are widely-known, deer-resistant species, and the Applicant asserts
should not be prone to deer browse, except under severe winter conditions. American
arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) has been removed from the plan. Deer fencing may be
required around some of the proposed plantings as a temporary measure to allow the
plants to become established. A plant guarantee period will be established by the
Planning Board. It should be noted that the plant list has not been finalized, and not
all species listed will be used in the final plant selection. As for the locations of the
screen trees, they will be installed no closer to the Taconic Parkway than the existing

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-23


line of Eastern White Pines already planted along the off-ramp, thereby maintaining
existing lines of sight.

Comment III.F 23 - (Letter 40.2, Jean Pietrusiak, NYS DEC):

The following rare plants, rare animals, and significant natural communities
have been documented at your project site, or in its vicinity.

We recommend that potential onsite and offsite impacts of the proposed project on
these species or communities be addressed as part of any environmental assessment
or review conducted as part of the planning, permitting and approval process, such as
reviews conducted under SEQR. Field surveys of the project site may be necessary to
determine the status of a species at the site, particularly for sites that are currently
undeveloped and may still contain suitable habitat. Final requirements of the project
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts are determined by the lead
permitting agency or the government body approving the project.

The following significant natural communities are considered significant from a
statewide perspective by the NY Natural Heritage Program. They are either
occurrences of a community type that is rare In the state, or a high quality example of
a more common community type. By meeting specific, documented significance
criteria, the NY Natural Heritage Program considers these community occurrences to
have high ecological and conservation value.

Common Name Scientific Name NY State Listing Heritage Conservation Status

Wetland/Aquatic Communities

Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp

Mohansic Swamp: This is a moderate size, diverse, mostly mature swamp with a
relatively narrow buffer of natural communities surrounded by a fragmented
landscape.

This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage databases. For most
sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted, and we cannot provide a
definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species.
This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required
for environmental impact assessment.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-24


If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that
information on the observations be provided to the New York Natural Heritage
Program so that we may update our database.

Information about many of the rare animals and plants in New York. including
habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and management, are available online in
Natural Heritages Conservation Guides at wvw.gwdes.nynhp.org, from NatureServe
Explorer at http:llwww.natureserve.orglexplorer, and from USDAs Plants Database
at http:Ilplants.usda,gov/index.html (for plants).

Information about many of the natural community types In New York, including
identification, dominant and characteristic vegetation. distribution, conservation, and
management, is available online in Natural Heritages Conservation Guides at
www.guides.nynhp.org.

For descriptions of all community types, go to
http:/Iwww.dec.ny.gov/animals/29384.html and dick on Draft Ecological
Communities of New York State.

Response III.F 23:

The NYNHP information indicates that in the vicinity of the subject property there is
a natural community that is considered by the NYNHP to have high ecological and
conservation value. The community is a Red Maple-Hardwood Swamp that is
located in Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park (also called the Mohansic Swamp).
While red maple-hardwood swamps are not rare or protected, the NYNHP considers
this a High Quality Occurrence and recommends conservation of this community.

The subject property is located to the northwest of Roosevelt State Park, on the
opposite sides of both Route 202/35 and the Taconic State Parkway. The site is not
connected in any way to this natural community. Drainage from the wetlands on the
subject property exits the property to the north and to the south. The intermittent
stream that flows off the property drains to the south, under Old Crompond Road, and
eventually to Sherry Brook and Hunter Brook (see DEIS section III. F.1.d for a
detailed description of the flow path from the property). Flow from the property is
part of a watershed that does not contribute to the Mohansic Swamp. Because of the
location of the property in relation to the Mohansic Swamp, proposed activities on the
property will have no impact on this natural community of concern.



FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-25


Comment III.F 24 (Letter 172.20, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon
Society) (PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

III.F. Existing Conditions, Impact, Mitigation: Wetlands, Groundwater, &
Surface Water Resources

Did the applicant refer to the Environmental Design Consultings 2007 Freshwater
Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town of Yorktown?

Response III.F 24:

The Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town of Yorktown New
York was a report in which The scope of work included literature research to find a
wetland function evaluation technique that could readily be applied to several wetland
study areas within the Town. The results of the literature and study area research were
to be incorporated into recommendations for revisions to the existing wetlands
regulations. The functional evaluation procedure that was recommended and
approved by the Town for the functional assessment study was the A Rapid
Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity based on Hydrogeomorphic
(HGM) Classification (Magee and Hollands, 1998).

The Study addressed specific wetlands within several watersheds throughout
Yorktown, including the Hunter Brook watershed. Four wetlands were evaluated
within the Hunter Brook Watershed; however, none of these wetlands are near the
subject property. Three are located to the west of Hunter Brook (the site is located to
the east), and one is located far upstream at the headwaters of Hunter Brook.
Therefore, this study does not address site-specific wetland evaluations and specific
information from this study was not adequate for inclusion in the DEIS.

However, the two wetlands on the subject property were functionally evaluated using
methodology from the Magee and Hollands procedure 1998 (see DEIS Section III F).
Wetland A is best classified as a forested slope wetland with no inlet and an
intermittent outlet. The functions provided by Wetland A include hydrologic support,
flood water storage, water quality maintenance, and provision of wetland dependent
vegetation and wildlife habitat. Wetland A plays a role in hydrologic support, or
drainage continuity within the watershed. Specifically, the small intermittent stream
that flows through the wetland serves to convey surface water from precipitation and

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-26


groundwater discharge from the seeps on the property to areas off site to the south.
The forested wetland corridor also plays a role in the storage of flood waters, but the
wetland is relatively narrow and only has a limited capacity for flood water storage.
The vegetation in the wetland, along with the microtopographic features on the
ground surface, allows the wetland to perform water quality maintenance functions
when the wetland contains flowing or ponded water. Flowing water is slowed and
sediment, particulates, and nutrients can settle out or be taken up by the wetland
vegetation. In addition to the hydrologic functions, Wetland A also provides
biological functions, including the provision of habitat for wetland plant species and
several wetland dependent wildlife species.

Using the Magee and Hollands methodology, Wetland B is best classified as a
forested slope wetland with no inlet and an intermittent outlet, although the wetland is
not hydrologically connected to another wetland. Wetland B provides few functions
and values that are typically associated with wetlands. This wetland is hydrologically
isolated and does not provide drainage continuity within the watershed. Wetland B is
not capable of providing long-term flood water storage (ponded water), nor can it
provide water quality improvements due to its slope and small size. However, the
stone wall that forms the north wetland boundary and property boundary does serve
as a barrier for sediment deposits that were noted in this portion of the wetland during
the field investigations. Wetland B also provides little in terms of biological function
due to its small size and limited wetland vegetation.

Comment III.F 25 (Letter 172.21, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

Page 3 of this section states that the field delineation of the wetlands was conducted
on J une 8, 2010 by a field biologist and soil scientist from Evans Associates
Environmental Consulting. However, as noted previously in these comments, Evans
Associates does not have a field biologist on staff. What field biologist assisted in this
wetlands delineation? Was this same field biologist responsible for the biological
survey?

Response III.F 25:

Ronald Gautreau was the field biologist who performed the wetland delineation in
2010. Mr. Gautreau is no longer with Evans Associates, but Beth Evans, the

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-27


Principal of Evans Associates, is also a field biologist and a Certified Professional
Wetland Scientist with over 25 years of experience in wetland delineation and
evaluation. Ms. Evans has participated in all aspects of the biological assessment and
evaluation of the property. In addition, wetlands on the property were reviewed and
verified by professionals other than the personnel from Evans Associates. These
people include Ms. Mary Galasso of the NYCDEP, and Town Environmental
Consultant Bruce Barber.

Comment III.F 26 (Letter 172.22, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

Pages 5 and 6 of this section state that Wetland B is not hydologically connected, but
the DEIS does not provide sufficient hydrologic evidence of this claim. Given the
high water table of the site. what evidence does the applicant have to show true
hydrologic isolation?

Response III.F 26:

Wetland B does not have a defined outflow connecting to another wetland or
watercourse, and surface connection is the key to determining whether a wetland is
isolated hydroligically from other wetlands. The lack of a defined outflow from
Wetland B has been confirmed by both the Town Wetland Consultant and the NYC
DEP.

Comment III.F 27 (Letter 172.23, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

Has the Army Corps of Engineers responded to the inquiry regarding wetland
permitting? If so, what is their response?

Response III.F 27:

ACOE has not responded to the inquiries by the Applicants consultant (last inquiry,
dated 12-5-2013, received a telephone response from Amanda Switzer on 4-22-2014,

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-28


but no written response)to date. It is the Applicants consultants opinion that no
impacts are proposed to either wetland, and the ACOE does not have a regulated
buffer or adjacent area, so no review or permit will be required from that Agency.
However, the Applicant will continue to attempt to obtain a response from the ACOE.

Comment III.F 28 (Letter 172.24, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

On page 12 of this section the DEIS states that the site is within the New York City
Watershed as part of the Hunter Brook Basin. The same page states that Hunter
Brook is considered a Protected Stream by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Protection of Waters Program. Hunter Brook is
classified by New York State to be a C(TS), meaning it can support trout spawning.
And, according to the Freshwater Wetland Function Assessment Study, the Hunter
Brook watershed, specifically its headwaters wetlands, provide for the maintenance of
downstream base flow and the maintenance of perennial streams.

What impacts on Wetland A can be expected from altering the topography of the
wetland buffer?

Response III.F 28:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to reduce
impact to the Wetland A buffer and improve water quality treatment of stormwater
runoff. The FEIS design will reduce impact to the Wetland A buffer, increase
recharge of the groundwater table, improve water quality treatment, reduce surface
stormwater runoff and mitigate thermal impacts, thereby providing improved water
quality to downstream water bodies including Hunter Brook and the NYC watershed.
Also refer to Responses III.F1, III.F 6 and III.F 14.) FEIS Appendix E includes a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, thermal impact analysis, pollutant loading
analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A. Summary descriptions are
provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The results of the analyses indicate
that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced below existing
thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be reduced at the Site, the
analyses confirm that no adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including
Hunter Brook and New Croton Reservoir will result.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-29


No impervious area is proposed within the Wetland A buffer. The area that will be
disturbed will be revegetated. Surface runoff from the site will be infiltrated, thereby
maintaining the groundwater fed characteristics of Wetland A. Therefore, no
significant impact to Wetland A is anticipated.

Comment III.F 29 (Letter 172.25, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

How is construction of a permanent embankment within the watershed of the wetland
not going to have a permanent impact on the wetland?

Response III.F 29:

Refer to FEIS Response III.F 28. The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater
management design, in part, to reduce the impact to the Wetland A buffer. The
Applicant proposes a retaining wall that will reduce the extent of the westerly
embankment adjacent to Wetland A, thus preserving 93% of the forested buffer.
(Refer to FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary Response.) The disturbed portion
of the buffer below the retaining wall will be revegetated with a Conservation seed
mix and allowed to naturalize following construction.

The stormwater FEIS modifications will include enlarging the infiltration system and
reduction of surface water runoff. Wetland A will, therefore, continue to be
maintained as a primarily groundwater fed wetland, receiving recharge from the
infiltrators behind the wall through the soil and shallow ground water. Peak discharge
rates will be reduced, surface runoff volumes will be reduced, and infiltration will be
increased. Therefore, base flow will be maintained through a combination of surface
runoff from the undisturbed portion of the buffer and groundwater recharge from
seeps at the edge of the wetland.

Comment III.F 30 (Letter 172.26, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-30


What impacts on Wetland B can be expected from constructing impervious surfaces
within the wetland buffer?

Response III.F 30:

No impervious surfaces are proposed within the Wetland A buffer. The portion of the
Wetland B buffer that will be disturbed by the Costco development was previously
disturbed by construction and maintenance of the existing motel, lawn area and pool
(since filled in). Portions of the existing buffer around Wetland B are maintained as
lawn and, therefore, these areas are less capable of providing the protections that
could normally be offered by an unaltered wetland buffer. This area is also not a
wildlife corridor. Potential wildlife corridors are present to the north of the property
and along the western property boundary, including within Wetland A. Vegetation in
the forested (non-lawn) portion of the Wetland B buffer includes non-native invasive
species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Tartarian honeysuckle
(Lonicera tatarica) shrubs, Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata) vines and
garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata); therefore, the buffer will not protect the wetland
from encroachment from undesirable species. Following development Wetland B
will continue to discharge groundwater moving in a northerly direction along the
Taconic corridor.

Also refer to III.G 31, III.G 35, and III.G 36a.

Comment III.F 31 (Letter 172.27, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

What quantitative impacts due to stormwater (pH. nutrient loading, sediment
temperature, dissolved oxygen. heavy metals. PAHs. etc.) on the Hunter Brook. and
New Croton Reservoir can be expected?

Response III.F 31:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management design to reduce
impacts from stormwater on Hunter Brook and New Croton Reservoir. .FEIS
Appendix E includes a, quantitative pollutant loading analysis. A summary
description is provided in FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2. The results of
the analyses indicate that post-development stormwater related pollutants will be

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-31


reduced below existing thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A. Since impacts will be
reduced at the Site, the analysis confirms that no adverse impacts to downstream
water bodies including Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir will result. The
pollutant loading analysis addresses the pollutants referenced in the Comment.

In addition to providing a stormwater management plan that will improve water
quality of stormwater runoff from the Project Site. the Proposed Action also includes
cleanup of existing environmental conditions, such as the debris dumped behind the
motel buildings (likely to contain pollutants), which would eliminate the potential of
untreated runoff from reaching downstream waters of the New Croton watershed.
Refer to DEIS Section III.D.3.

Comment III.F 32 (Letter 172.28, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

The following comment was also presented at Public Hearing 2. The transcript
is provided in Appendix B.

By extension, what will these impacts have on the Hunter Brook ecosystem and the
drinking water supply for New York City?

Response III.F 32:

Refer to FEIS Response III.F 21 and III.F 31, as well as the Pollutant Loading
Analysis and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
Appendix E

Comment III.F 33 (Letter 180.2, Gia Diamond):

Sensitive nature of wetlands on the proposed site does not allow for much
interference, and is usually turned into reservation parkland, while Costco proposes a
mega warehouse with a gasoline facility!!

Response III.F 33:

The wetlands on the subject property will not be directly impacted through soil
disturbance by the proposed development. Stormwater management facilities and
erosion and sediment control plans will protect the wetlands during and after
construction of the proposed facility. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F. 6 and 21. The
proposed site plan has been designed in order to present a plan that minimizes

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-32


impacts to the areas of sensitive habitat on the property. Refer to FEIS Response
III.F 28. The relatively undisturbed wetland and associated upland habitat along the
western property boundary will not be altered and will remain part of the wildlife
corridor to the north.

Comment III.F 34 (Letter 142.5, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited),
(Letter 149.2, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout Unlimited):

I am the Conservation Chair of the Croton Watershed Trout Unlimited Chapter and
submit these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed Costco retail center located at the headwaters of an unnamed tributary
feeding Sherry Brook northwest of the intersection of Routes 202/35 and the Taconic
Parkway. As a trout fisherman and concerned citizen I have studied virtually every
trout spawning tributary in the Croton Watershed including the Hunter Brook and
Sherry Brook. In fact, I submitted a letter to the Yorktown Planning Board on J anuary
10, 2000 on the Yorktown Retail Center FEIS discussing the trout spawning and
degraded conditions in the area of the confluence of the Hunter Brook and Sherry
Brook.

As recognized by Trout Unlimited:

Brook trout have declined across the eastern range as the result of land use decisions
made over the past several hundred years that increased sedimentation, nutrient runoff
and water temperatures, and from more recent impacts as our population, road
network and water needs continue to grow. From Maine to Georgia to Ohio, brook
trout have declined in many areas and have completely vanished from others.
1


Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are part of the trout and salmon (Salmonid) family
and is New Yorks official State fish. Once widespread throughout the state... many
populations have been lost due to habitat destruction and introduction of competing
fish species..., brook trout generally live in small- to moderate-sized streams, lakes,
and ponds, wherever cool (below 72 Fahrenheit) clean water is available.
2

Brook trout have evolved the capacity to take advantage of a variety of aquatic
environments such as river and stream systems, tiny first order tributaries, small
ponds, large lakes and estuaries.
3

1
http://www.tu.org/conservationleastern-conservationlbrook-trout/about.
2
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/70 1 6.html.
3
httpl/www.tu.org/conservation/eastem-conservationibrook-troutfeducationJbiology-habitat-needs.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-33


Response III.F 34:

Comment noted. Refer to item 5 of the FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary
Response which indicates a reduction of pollutant loading contributing to the Hunter
Brook from the Costco site. (see the Pollutant Loading Analysis and Thermal Impact
Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS Appendix E)



Comment III.F 34a (Letter 142.5a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout
Unlimited), (Letter 149.2a, John F. Keane, Jr., Croton Watershed Chapter-Trout
Unlimited):

Thermal requirements for brook trout are well-documented. [O]ptimal growth occurs
between 11C [51.8F.] and 16C [60.8F.]. At 20C [68 F.], brook trout activity
rates are lowest (Fisher and Sullivan 1958) and metabolism is maximized (Hartman
and Cox 2008). The upper incipient lethal temperature for yearling brook trout was
identified as 25.3C [77.54F.].
8

The DEIS states that the maximum temperature for sensitive fish species ranges to
about 78 degrees F. DEIS III-F-24 (78.224 F.) Beyond this overly broad statement
there is no discussion. The DEIS does not report that water temperatures exceeding
68 degrees result in brook trout stress and mortality.
9

First, the DEIS contains no evidence demonstrating that the projects thermal
pollution (from runoff with surfaces as high as 110 F.) is mitigated by the length of a
streams segment. I am unaware of any thermal study or graph showing a point
source discharge decreasing in temperature solely based upon the length of the
stream. In fact, DECs regulations contain specific mixing zone criteria for thermal
discharges. 6 NYCRR 704.3. That criteria requires that [c]onditions in the mixing
zone shall not be lethal in contravention of water quality standards to aquatic biota
which may enter the zone and [t]he location of mixing zones for thermal discharges
shall not interfere with spawning areas, nursery areas and fish migration routes. Id.
at (b) and (c).

Response III.F 34a:

In light of the sensitive ecosystem of Hunter Brook, and its function in supporting
Brook Trout, the water quality and temperature of contributing stormwater runoff
from the Project site were carefully considered. ) The modifications include reduced

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-34


impact to Wetland A buffer, reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater
recharge, improved water quality treatment, and mitigation of thermal impact, thereby
benefiting downstream water bodies. A thermal impact analysis was performed by the
Applicant. The analysis is included in FEIS Appendix E and summarized in FEIS
II.G Introductory Response. Refer FEIS III.F Introductory Response and Responses
III.F 6 and III.F 14. Regarding


Comment III.F 35 (Letter 170.4, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Wetland A

The DEIS and flora and fauna study is accurate in designating Wetland A a Red
Maple-Hardwood Swamp, under NHP definition a more loosely specified
community, simply a swamp dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and other
hardwoods (various species) with few coniferous species.

When I saw this wetland its center (described accurately as a vernal poo1 in the
DEIS) had 1-8 inches of standing water. The standing water center was 30-70 feet in
diameter. The area of saturated soil and low vegetation (mosses. Graminoid plants
and low forbs) stretched 8-40 feet from the edge of standing water, the greatest length
at the south end of the wetland. A raised area, apparently mostly rocks of glacial till,
the soil eroded away by floodwaters, marked the path of water naturally draining
south from Wetland A probably year-round underground, inactive only in drought
conditions.

The DEIS falsely characterizes Wetland A, underestimating its habitat potential for
vernal pool dependent animals and failing to follow its hydrologic connections
beyond the site boundaries. In this report impacts and implications regarding wildlife
values for Wetland A are presented in greater detail in sections on wetlands and
streams, biodiversity and a detailed critical analysis of the Costco DEIS.

Response III.F 35:

Wetland A contains a vernal pool in which a variety of wildlife species (including
species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most
recently in April of 2013 (see ResponseIII.F 18). Wetland A contains an intermittent
watercourse that flows off-site to the southwest. Wetland A and the upland area to
the west of the wetland are potential wildlife corridors and contain wildlife habitat.
The wildlife corridors along the western edge of the property, and to the north of the

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-35


site will not be altered or impacted by the proposed Project. The proposed Project has
been reconfigured several times in order to best protect the natural resources on and
near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and near
Wetland A, including the vernal pool.

Concerns about the quality and quantity of ground and surface water entering
Wetland A and ultimately leaving the site have also been evaluated in this FEIS.
Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, FEIS III.G Introductory Response, FEIS
Appendix E and FEIS Responses III.F 1 and 6 for more details.


Comment III.F 36 (Letter 170.5, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Wetland B

Wetland B is an overgrown mostly weedy shallow basin receiving runoff from the
Taconic Parkway ??? right-of-way. The northern portion is wetter, with shrubs and
small trees, mostly willows. Although Wetland B is not very significant on its own
biologically, the placement of fill and pavement over the wetland B drainage would
be the filling of the wet lands hydrological connection to other Federal Wetlands. The
apparent dredging and fillage [sic] of the drainage of Wetlands B may trigger federal
jurisdiction, which the project sponsors have not addressed. There is only a request to
ACOE for determination of non-jurisdiction. Additionally, stormwater from the
parkway through wetland B contributes significantly to erosion and flooding in the
north end of the Costco site, and the state land north of the site, all of this drainage
goes to Hunter Brook. The project site plan proposes to fill and pave over the
hydraulic connection of on-site Wetland B to Hunter Brook, a clear violation of
federal wetland regulations should ACOE make a positive determination of
jurisdiction for Wetland B.

Response III.F 36:

Wetland B does not receive runoff from the Taconic Parkway, though historically,
prior to the off-site drainage improvements, flow and sediment from off-site likely
entered Wetland B. The Taconic Parkway runoff currently travels through a large rip
rap swale that flows to an off-site stormwater basin to the north. Wetland B is mainly
sustained by groundwater.

Wetland B does not have a surface water connection to any other water bodies. The
NYCDEP visited the site several times at various seasons and determined that

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-36


Wetland B did not qualify as a watercourse (neither perennial nor intermittent). In a
letter dated August 12, 2010, NYCDEP acknowledged that the Project site is located
within the Crompound Designated Main Stream Area(DMSA), which allows
construction of new impervious surfaces within the limiting distances to wetlands and
watercourses provided that the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E) is reviewed and approved
by NYCDEP. As part of this FEIS and site plan review process, the NYCDEP, as an
involved agency, is provided the FEIS and SWPPP for review.

ACOE was contacted in November and December of 2013 regarding the
jurisdictional status of Wetland B, but other agencies have reviewed Wetland B and
have found that there is no surface connection to other wetlands or watercourses,
including Hunter Brook, which is almost half a mile from the property. Thus,
Wetland B is an isolated wetland with no nexus to a downstream waterway.

It is the Applicants consultants opinion that no impacts are proposed to either
wetland, and the ACOE does not have a regulated buffer or adjacent area, so no
review or permit will be required from that Agency.

Comment III.F 37 (Letter 170.11, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Wetlands west of the BME-Crompond Road Intersection

On 29 November I inspected the area north of Rt. 202-35 and west of the Bear
Mountain Parkway Extension ramp. The stormwater basin bordering the intersection
west of the BME is part of this drainage complex, and appears to overflow west into
herbaceous and forested wetlands stretching farther west along the north side of
Crompond Road. These wetlands extend north and a considerable distance and
elevation up the steep south-facing slope conducting runoff to the wetlands through
intermittent streams. The wet lower slopes had robust stands of J apanese stilt grass
(Microstegium vimineum) defining and essentially delineating the wetlands. The
level wetland at the slope base is a red maple swamp that had several inches of
standing water when we observed it. I estimated this wetland to be at least as large as
Wetland A on the Costco site. I did not walk west along the slope or Crompond Road
more than 300 feet, and so did not observe the full extent of this wetland. I do not
believe it to qualify by area (12.5 acres) as a state wetland, but it is a federal
jurisdictional wetland (draining into Hunter Brook, and so not isolated) and a town
jurisdictional wetland.

The DEIS does not mention this wetland, which includes the stormwater basin, as the
DEIS is (intentionally, it appears) limited geographically to the Costco site, and

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-37


minimally to the state land to its immediate north, as described above. However, this
wetland is crucial to stormwater analysis and control, and to the matter of highway
improvements contemplated by NYSDOT. These projected road improvements,
which the DEIS ties to the feasibility of the Costco development project, are
questionable as to their own feasibility.

Response III.F 37:

Off-site habitats to the north and west of the site contain a variety of wildlife habitats.
These areas, and other areas within Yorktown have been reviewed in other
documents, including Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study for the Town
of Yorktown New York (Environmental Design Consulting, 2007), Biodiversity
Conservation Study Town of Yorktown Westchester County, New York (STERNS &
WHEELER, LLC, 2010), and Ecological Survey of the Costco Development Site,
Town of Yorktown, Westchester County, NY (Barbour, 2012). However, the majority
of the comments in these documents do not specifically address the portions of the
site that are proposed for development; therefore, the DEIS was prepared to address
more site-specific information and immediate offsite areas which where potentially
impacted by the Proposed Action.

The referenced offsite wetland and its relation to the referenced NYSDOT roadway
improvements are independent of the Proposed Action. Thus, the Project has no
effect on those offsite areas. Any impact to existing wetlands associated with those
improvements would have been addressed in the NYSDOTs project approval
documents.

Comment III.F 38 (Letter 170.19, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The DEIS fails to meet the fundamental requirements of the Final Scoping Document,
which required the DEIS to:

- Description and mapping of onsite wetlands, watercourses and buffers including
delineation methodology as appropriate for federal, state or local regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction. The description of the wetlands/watercourses/buffers will include
the vegetation, soils, hydrology and functions provided. All onsite wetlands should be
identified and mapped regardless of size. Indicate for each wetland its location;
acreage; type (including soils, vegetation, and hydrology); functionality; and
government agency or agencies with jurisdiction.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-38


- Describe and map wetland buffers onsite, including vegetation, acreage,
functionality, and any existing disturbance.

- Describe the NYC watershed and streams to which the site is tributary.

- Assess the potential presence of any vernal pools on the site.

- Include in the description any offsite wetlands that are functionally related and
which might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Proposed Action.

- Identify surface waters with significant accumulations of silt or sediment.

- Identify and discuss the applicable wetland/watercourse regulations (Federal, State
and local, including watershed regulations).

- State whether any wetlands, wetland buffers, vernal pools, or surface waters will be
directly disturbed, e.g., by filling, dredging, removal of vegetation, etc.

- Identify location of any proposed buildings, impermeable surfaces, major artificial
landforms (e.g., retaining walls, berms) or utility lines/connections in relation to
surface waters, wetlands, and wetland buffers.

- Identify any potential secondary disturbance to wetlands or wetland buffers relating
to activities or construction outside wetlands or wetland buffer areas, such as, erosion
during site construction, runoff from proposed impermeable surfaces, use of
fertilizers, etc.

- Discuss and quantify potential impacts of each type of disturbance, including any
secondary disturbance, relative to onsite and, as applicable, offste wetlands and
surface waters. Describe impacts on functional values of wetlands, vegetative
composition, wildlife habitat, pollution abatement, hydrology, etc.

- Discuss construction and post-construction impacts to ground water and surface
water as a result of sedimentation, potential pollutant loading and thermal pollution.

Response III.F 38:

The following items address each of the points listed in the comment above:

- For a description and mapping of onsite wetlands, watercourses and buffers, etc.

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-39


refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.a.

- For a description and map of wetland buffers onsite, including vegetation, acreage,
functionality, and any existing disturbance, refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.b.

- For a description of the NYC watershed and streams to which the site is tributary,
refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.c.

- For an assessment of the presence of any vernal pools on the site, refer to DEIS
Section III.F.1.c.

- For a description of any offsite wetlands that are functionally related and which
might reasonably be expected to be affected by the Proposed Action, refer to DEIS
Section III.F.1.d.

- For an identification of any surface waters with significant accumulations of silt or
sediment, refer to DEIS Section III.F.1.e.

- For identification and discussion of applicable wetland/watercourse regulations
(Federal, State and local, including watershed regulations), refer to DEIS Section
III.F.1.f.

- For a discussion on whether any wetlands, wetland buffers, vernal pools, or surface
waters will be directly disturbed, e.g., by filling, dredging, removal of vegetation,
etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.a.

- For identification of the locations of any proposed buildings, impermeable
surfaces, major artificial landforms (e.g., retaining walls, berms) or utility
lines/connections in relation to surface waters, wetlands, and wetland buffers, refer
to DEIS Section III.F.2.b. Also, refer to FEIS Part A Introduction to FEIS and Site
Plan Introductory Response, along with Site Plan Introductory Response Exhibits 1
and 2.

- For identification of any secondary disturbance to wetlands or wetland buffers
relation to activities or construction outside wetlands or wetland buffer areas, such
as, erosion during site construction, runoff from proposed impermeable surfaces,
use of fertilizers, etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.c. Also refer to FEIS III.G
Introductory Summary Response.

- For a discussion and quantification of potential impacts of each type of

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-40


disturbance, including any secondary disturbance, relative to onsite and, as
applicable, offsite wetlands and surface waters, and a discussion of impacts on
functional values of wetlands, vegetative composition, wildlife habitat, pollution
abatement, hydrology, etc., refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.d. Also refer to FEIS
III.G Introductory Summary Response.

- For a discussion of construction and post-construction impacts to ground water and
surface water as a result of sedimentation, potential pollutant loading and thermal
pollution, refer to DEIS Section III.F.2.e. Also refer to FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response.

Comment III.F 39 (Letter 170.24, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The WETLAND WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS by Evans Associates (Appendix C)
repeats this assertion: Based on observations made by Evans Associates staff of the
upper portion of Wetland A over a number of years, it is apparent that Wetland A
does not consistently provide suitable breeding habitat for amphibians.

But longer surveys (2-3 or more years) such as those I have participated in at West
Point and the Northern Shawangunks demonstrate that you cant judge a pool s
output by 1 or 2 year observations. Staff biologists at West Point and at Mohonk
have continued these annual surveys begun in the mid-1990s, and found that breeding
comparative breeding [sic] success varies greatly from one pool to another not only
year to year, but pool to pool, and less predictably than assumed influences of
weather, rainfall and other factors might suggest.

Response III.F 39:

Wetland A contains a vernal pool in which a variety of wildlife species (including
species that prefer reproduction within vernal pools) have been documented, most
recently in April of 2013 (see ResponseIII.F 18). This pool has been monitored by
the Applicants consultants over a number of years, spanning a variety of
climatological conditions (very dry years as well as very wet years). Protection of
sensitive habitats, including the vernal pool in Wetland A, has been a priority during
the planning process. Approximately 93% of the wooded buffer surrounding the
vernal pool in Wetland A will remain in an undisturbed state, which exceeds the
minimum 75% recommended development guidelines contained in the Metropolitan
Conservation Alliance Technical Paper No. 5, Best Development Practices:
Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in residential and Commercial Developments
in the Northeastern United States(2002). The existing buffer around the vernal pool

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-41


is 2.86 acre-feet. The post-development undisturbed buffer will be 2.65 acre-feet.
The proposed temporary disturbance to the wetalnd buffer will be revegetated.

The proposed Project has been designed in order to best protect the natural resources
on and near the property, and to maintain the quality of the wildlife habitat in and
near Wetland A, including the vernal pool. Concerns about the quality and quantity
of water entering the vernal pool, with respect to stormwater runoff have also been
redesigned to protect the vernal pool, and no direct runoff from the Project site will
enter the pool under the present design.

Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, FEIS III.G Introductory Response and
FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. Also refer to FEIS Responses III.F 1, 6, 7,
14, 18, 35.

The Applicants consultants agree with the commenters observation that breeding
success for species using vernal pool wetlands is highly variable and is influenced by
many factors.

Comment III.F 40 (Letter 170.25, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The water budget analysis continues

This is partly due to climatic variation from year to year which affects the regional
groundwater, but is also due to the highly variable surface water inputs which results
from a limited surface drainage area.

I assume this means weather variations. Climate is measured in long-term trends, not
annual variations. Annual weather variations dont affect groundwater much, but they
do affect surface water. Thus the second clause of the sentence is at least
appropriately stated, though the reasoning (as I am able to follow it) is circular.
However, the gist and intent of the argument is revealed in the next passage.

(For next passage, see Comment III.F 41)

Response III.F 40:

Annual weather patterns impact surface water flows most directly, but can also affect
groundwater levels, particularly during drought periods and periods of above average
precipitation.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-42


Comment III.F 41 (Letter 170.26, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The proposed development will result in a significant alteration of the surface water
drainage area, which in turn will result in increases in both the volume of surface
water input as well as the duration of flow through the wetland. As discussed in detail
below, the net result is predicted to be extended periods of surface ponding within the
wetland basin, and extended periods of flow within the stream channel, without
alteration of the overall morphology within the stream channel below the wetland.
This design will avoid impacts such as erosion and degradation of water quality to
wetlands and watercourses offsite.

Clousers analysis (summarized below) and my observations of the existing
hydrology of Wetland A lead me to the opposite conclusion that the design will
alter the morphology of the stream channel below the wetland increasing erosion of
the mounded stone field at the outlet of the wetland, as well as the southern portion of
the outlet channel draining southwest and offsite. This conclusion is supported by
Clousers analysis demonstrating greater quantities of runoff-derived stormwater
(openly acknowledged in the Water Budget Analysis, continued below!) as well as
greater flow rates and consequently greater transport of sediments and pollutants into
and out of Wetland A and then offsite, increasing flooding in the town, and further
degradation of Hunter Brook.

Response III.F 41:

The Applicant has modified the DEIS Sstormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, to reduce potential impact to Wetland A and offsite water bodies.
A summary of the FEIS modifications are described in FEIS III.G Introductory
Summary Response. The modifications include reduced impact to Wetland A buffer,
reduction of runoff volume, increased groundwater recharge, reduced peak discharge
rates, improved water quality treatment, and mitigation of thermal impact, thereby,
benefiting Wetland A and downstream water bodies. Refer to FEIS Responses III.F
6, 14, 21 and 34. The FEIS stormwater management designis described in FEIS III.G
Introductory Response.

The net result of the proposed modifications will maintain Wetland A and its
intermittent watercourse as a groundwater fed water system.





FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-43


Comment III.F 42 (Letter 170.27, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Clouser stormwater comments summary:

On the matter of stormwater controls on the Costco site. Clouser found that the DEIS
1) contains inaccurate watershed modeling, 2) severely underestimates the projects
impacts. 3) advances a system design that clearly does not comply with basic state
and federal stormwater requirements, and 3) ignores significant and far- reaching
environmental impacts from pollutant loading and transport.

Addressing this matter was specifically identified as a requirement in the projects
Scoping Document, yet the DEIS lacks any analysis of these adverse impacts from
pollutant discharge to downstream water bodies and the New York City reservoir
system.

Response III.F 42:

Refer to FEIS Responses III.G 39a to III.G 39g.

Comment III.F 43 (Letter 170.27a, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

The WBA continues:

Post development, Wetland A will have a larger watershed area (19.66 acres)
contributing surface water runoff (SWI) to it, but there will be a reduction in the area
available for groundwater recharge, as an additional 4.40 acres of the original
watershed will become impervious after development. A total of 6.18 acres of the
watershed will either be wooded (undisturbed) or part of the vegetated embankment
below the parking lot following development, and will continue to provide sheet flow
to the wetland.
The argument being initiated and presented by the DEIS drafters here and continuing
below is that 4.4 more acres of pavement will be good for the wetland.

The remainder of the watershed (13.48 acres) for Wetland A will consist of the
proposed impervious portions of the development. More impervious surface 13.5
acres of it is even better for the wetland!

Response III.F 43:


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-44


The Applicant has modified the DEIS stormwater management designfor the
Proposed Action, to reduce potential impact to Wetland A and offsite water bodies.
As referenced by the Comment: the post development contributing drainage area to
Wetland A will increase and the impervious cover within the drainage area will
increase. However, these changes in the runoff characteristics will be mitigated
through runoff reduction and infiltration which will maintain Wetland A as a
groundwater fed wetland system. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response. The
Applicants hydrologic analyses are discussed in FEIS III.G Introductory Response
and FEIS Appendix E.

Comment III.F 44 (Letter 170.28, James G. Barbour, Ecological Consultant for YSG):

Of the 6.18 acres of vegetated area contributing surface water runoff (S WI), 3.66
acres (subarea P2c) will contribute to the upper basin, while 2.64 acres (subarea P2a)
will contribute runoff to the stream and streamside wetland. Runoff from the
developed portion of the project site (subarea P2b) will flow into the stormwater
detention basin prior to entering Wetland A. But it still enters Wetland A.


This design preserves the hydrology of the wetland and therefore avoids changes in
the hydroperiod on a seasonal basis [undemonstrated, and in fact a salient feature of
vernal pools], while improving the quality of the habitat for breeding amphibians
(vernal pool species in the upper basin and other species that may be associated with
the stream) by extending the length of time that water will be present within the
wetland following each precipitation event.

Water input can be too much of a good thing. An example I encountered was that
of vernal pools in a stream floodplain at Mohonk Preserve. In March amphibians
deposited numerous egg masses in floodplain pools, but nearly all of the egg masses
were washed out of the pools in a large storm in April.

In addition, the detention of the runoff from the impervious portions of the site within
the stormwater basin will reduce the potential for adverse thermal impacts to the
wetland or watercourse by allowing the water to cool prior to discharge.

There is no analysis with real measurements of temperature or demonstration of the
basin design to support this argument for cooling pavement-heated runoff water. This
claim of mitigating thermal impacts is just so much hot water. See the comment
about the Wetland A vernal pool below.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-45


In my view an equally critical impact of pavement-generated runoff is transport of
chemical pollutants into streams and wetlands from the developed site. Assessment of
pollution impacts are generally avoided in the DEIS, or at best dismissed as
mitigated, with no supporting data. One big source of pollution never mentioned in
the DEIS, typically delivered in one big dose annually, would be snow accumulation
from repealed winter clearing of the Costco Parking lot. The variety of pollutants
would be staggering notably fluids from vehicles, and other chemicals sold in the
store and spilled around the fueling station and also trash from customers cars,
delivery vehicles, and disposal of packaging and empty containers, etc.

Response III.F 44:

Stormwater from the existing site presently drains to Wetland A and related
downstream waters in the New Croton watershed. The existing site presently
includes no stormwater treatment practices. Therefore, at present, untreated
stormwater discharges to Wetland A and downstream water systems. (Refer to DEIS
III.D.2)

The FEIS stormwater management design provides improved water quality treatment
as compared to the DEIS by providing, in part, an enlarged infiltration system. The
Sites water quality treatment will improve stormwater quality treatment resulting in
reduced pollutant loads contributing to Hunter Brook and the New Croton Reservoir.
(Refer to FEIS Section III.G Introductory Summary Response.) In addition to
providing a stormwater quality treatment of stormwater runoff from the Project Site,
the Proposed Action will include cleanup of existing environmental conditions which
would prevent the potential of untreated runoff from reaching downstream waters.
(Refer to DEIS Section III.D.3.)

Potential thermal impacts will be avoided by the treatment of the water quality storm
through infiltration. Stormwater runoff of the water quality storm contributing from
the impervious site area will be pre-treated and conveyed to a subsurface infiltration
system for treatment. This will prevent the heated runoff from entering the surface
water system, thereby avoiding thermal impacts. (Refer to FEIS Section III.G
Introductory Summary Response item 2 and FEIS Appendix E.)

Surface water treatment from the fueling station area will be captured and treated
separately where pollutants will be removed prior to discharging it to the site
stormwater system. (Refer to FEIS III.G Introductory Response item 2d, Response
III.G 37h.) With regard to snow removal and related pollutants refer to FEIS
Response III.G 52 and FEIS Response III.D 8, and see the Pollutant Loading Analysis

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-46


and Thermal Impact Analysis in FEIS III.G Introductory Response and FEIS
Appendix E.

Comment III.F 45 - (Document 84.4, Martha Patterson):

It has come to my attention that a few days ago the Town Board has considered
Development and Environmental Impact Report of the Costco Wholesale Store and
Fueling Facility. You went as far as to discuss sewage lines and number of trees to be
planted around the mall. I hope those rumors are false. You see, as Yorktown
residents, we know that opening a Costco in our community will not only affect our
lives, lives of our neighbors and the entire community, but all those living in the
surrounding areas. We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen.
We are strong in the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air
will be polluted from traffic jams, soil and water with all Costco wastes, noise levels
will go up. All of this will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment
and us. We would love nothing more but leave Yorktown Costco-free because we
care, and because you chose to represent us some time ago, we are sure, just like me,
other residents, you want nothing but the best for our peaceful town. We want better
quality of life, not worse. This is a reason I fled New York City to raise our children
and grandchildren here. Yorktown as is should be sustained for future generations;
the true cost of preserving Yorktown is so much more than any Costco promises. I
hope as the Yorktown Board members, you will make our voices heard.

Response III.F 45:

The DEIS Subjects referenced in this comment were addressed in the DEIS Sections
as follows: Section III.M Air Quality, Section III.N Noise, Section III.K Traffic and
Transportation , Section III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes, and Geology, Section III.F
Wetlands, Groundwater, and Surface Water Resources. Responses to specific
comments are addressed in the corresponding sections of this FEIS.

Comment III.F 46 - (Document 145.2, No Costco Petitions (8)):

A PETITION TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF YORKTOWN, NY

As concerned citizens and taxpayers who live in the White Hill/ Mill Pond area,
the undersigned wish to state our opposition to the proposed the Costco warehouse
store for many reasons.

Pollutants in the runoff, including petroleum byproducts from the gas station,
will contaminate the Hunter Brook, which is a trout-spawning stream.

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-47


Please do not approve this ill-advised project.



Refer to Appendix for the 8 petition signatures

Response III.F 46:

Refer to DEIS Section III.F Wetlands and III.G Stormwater Management. Responses to
specific comments are addressed in the corresponding section of this FEIS.

Comment III.F 47 (Document 172.41, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society)
(PH2, Janelle Hope Robbins, LEED AP, Bedford Audubon Society):

In conclusion, is the Planning Board satisfied with the match between the proposed
development and the site in question? With the technology available today, and
progress in scientific discoveries, we know that the proposed development would
have an unnecessary and irreversible impact on the quality of our natural resources.
Yorktown deserves smart development that protects and conserves our natural and
community resources for generations to come, development that improves our
community and makes it safer, and ingenious development that leads and inspires our
neighbors.

Response III.F 47:

Refer to DEIS Sections III.C Soils, Topography, Slopes and Geology, III.E Flora and
Fauna, and III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and Surface Water Resources regarding
impacts on natural resources. Responses to specific comments are addressed in the
corresponding section of this FEIS.

FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-48




Comment III.F 48 - (Letter 39a.01, The Concerned Residents of Yorktown), (42.1f, The
Concerned Residents of Yorktown):

We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in the
belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else air will be polluted from
traffic jams, soil and water -with all Costco wastes, noise levels will go up, all of this
will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment and us.

(Please refer to Letter 42 of the Appendix the for the 103 signatures)

Response III.F 48:

The comment expresses opposition to the project based, in part, because of impact to
water resources. Refer to DEIS and FEIS Sections III.G regarding water resources
and stormwater management. Refer to DEIS Sections III.M, K, C, D, J and N
regarding air, traffic, soil, hazardous and solid wastes and noise respectively.

Comment III.F 49 - (Document 45.13, Edmund Chan, Agin and Cyme Mujaj, Barbara and
Brian Hoy, Rose Mazzola), (Document 93.7, Ben Falk), (PH2, Ben Falk):

Opponents are concerned about the impact of this development on the woodlands and
wetlands surrounding the building site. As residents, we are pleased to see there is no
wetlands incursion, and that changes to the parking layout (due to the relocation of
the filling station) mean even minimal incursion into buffer is for the most part
avoided.

Response III.F 49:

The comment expresses support for the Proposed Action and commends the
Applicant for minimizing impact to woodlands, wetlands and wetland buffer.

Comment III.F 50 (Document 178.8b, Henry Steeneck):

Please refer to the listed articles that I have submitted regarding the Costco project
at route 202/35& Taconic Parkway in the Town of Yorktown.

Article 8. People Against Costco.


FEIS Comments and Responses Section III.F
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Wetlands, Groundwater And Surface Water Resources

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.F-49


We, our friends and neighbors cannot just sit and let this happen. We are strong in
the belief that Costco should not be allowed in our town or else
pollutedwater will cause enormous irreparable damage to the environment
and us.

Response III.F 50:

Document 178 in its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS
Appendix A. References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are
identified in the Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A.

Article 8 expresses general opposition to the Proposed Action. Document 178 in
its entirety, including referenced articles, can be found in FEIS Appendix A.
References to this document in other sections of this FEIS are identified in the
Index, also included in FEIS Appendix A. The DEIS subject referenced in this
comment was addressed in the DEIS Section III.F Wetlands, Groundwater and
Surface Water Resources. Responses to specific comments are addressed in
Section this FEIS section as well as FEIS III.G.

III.G STORMWATER MANAGEMENT


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-1
Section III.G Stormwater Management

INTRODUCTORY RESPONSE

In response to comments received from the general public and public agencies, the
Applicant modified the DEIS Site Plans and stormwater management design for the
Proposed Action, resulting in a more environmentally protective project. For a
description of Site Plan changes refer to FEIS Site Plan Introductory Response. For
revised Site Plans refer to FEIS Appendix J . The stormwater management design is
detailed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which complies with the
NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town of Yorktown stormwater regulations and is included in
FEIS Appendix E. Since many of the public comments were repeated, nine
comprehensive responses are included in this Introduction that address many of the
repetitive comments. Within the Comment/Response section that follows the
Introduction, cross references to this Introduction are provided. Drawing exhibits that
supplement and support these discussions are included at the end of this Introductory
Response.

1. Wetland A Buffer
In response to DEIS comments to reduce potential impact to the Wetland A buffer,
the FEIS Site Plans include a retaining wall along the westerly edge of the parking
area that will replace much of the earth embankment shown on the DEIS Site Plan,
thereby reducing disturbance to the Wetland A buffer and increasing the natural
existing woded buffer area by 0.76 acres. No impervious area is proposed within the
wetland buffer. Refer to FEIS III.F Introductory Response, Exhibit III.G-A1 and
FEIS Site Plan Exhibit 8c.

2. FEIS Stormwater Management Design Water Quality Treatment

The Applicant, at the direction of the Lead Agency, incorporated comments on the
stormwater management design and water quality treatment into an updated
stormwater management design. The modified design enhances the previously
proposed stormwater management measures, and thus results in fewer impacts than
those reported in the DEIS.

A. Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv):
The DEIS stormwater management design provided the minimum required
Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) for redevelopment projects (Chapter 9 of the
New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (Design Manual)).
The Projects FEIS post-construction stormwater management practices (SMPs)
are designed in accordance with the technical standards as described in Chapters

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-2
3, 4, and 5 of the Design Manual for new construction, which entails an even a
higher degree of stormwater treatment than Chapter 9. These standards require
the total (100%) reduction of the water quality volume (WQv) through the
application of, to the extent practicable, green infrastructure (GI) techniques
and/or standard stormwater management practices (SMPs) having runoff
reduction volume (RRv) capacity.

Section 3.3 of the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E) details the evaluations done to
determine either the applicability and/or feasibility of each of the GI techniques
listed in the Design Manual. The only GI technique that could be applied to the
Proposed Action was the Conseravtion of Natural Areas. Approximately 8.92
acres, which contains Wetland A, a stream and wooded buffer (both offsite and
onsite), of the total post-development contributing drainage area of 24.28 acres
within the limits of study have been preserved in their natural state. As such, the
contributing drainage area can be reduced by the portions being preserved,
thereby reducing the runoff volume that is required to be reduced and/or treated.
As required by the Design Manual, the SWPPP identifies the specific site
limitations that make the application of the other GI techniques infeasible (see
also FEIS Responses III.G 26, 33, 34, and 37c).

As explained further in Section C below and Section 3.3 of the SWPPP, the FEIS
design also incorporates an infiltration practice, which is listed in Table 3.5 of
the Design Manual as one of the acceptable standard SMPs with RRv capacity.
In doing so, the FEIS design will capture and treat 100% of the runoff from the
water quality storm (i.e. WQv) from contributing area regardless of previous
development a using a subsurface infiltration system. Therefore, the FEIS
stormwater management design exceeds the minimum requirement by treating
the redevelopment area (existing impervious area) to the level of new
construction (and therefore more stringent) standards.

Stormwater runoff from the entire Sites proposed impervious surfaces plus
runoff from most offsite roadway improvement impervious surfaces (new and
existing) will be captured and conveyed to the onsite subsurface infiltration
system. Other treamtment practices have been identified for the westerly and
easterly segments of the offsite roadway improvements. Stormwater
management for offsite roadway improvements is further discussed in items 1E
and 3B of this Introduction.) The proposed onsite subsurface infiltration facility
will provide treatment at the source (beneath the parking area), and thus will
meet the regulatory water quality treatment and runoff reduction criteria. Further
information regarding water quality treatment in runoff volume reduction is
provided in items 2C and 3B of this Introductory Response.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-3

B. Pretreatment:
Prior to entering the infiltration system, runoff will receive pretreatment at each
of the three entries to the infiltration chamber. Pretreatment will be provided in
flow-based, New York State verified, proprietary hydrodynamic structures.
These pretreatment structures, which conform to the Design Manual standards,
will capture floatable litter and pollutant laden sediment, thereby maintaining the
efficiency of the infiltration practice.

C. Infiltration:
Infiltration will be provided in a GI stormwater management practice (Table 3.5
of the Design Manual), acceptable for providing runoff reduction and water
quality treatment. Stormwater runoff from the entire Sites proposed impervious
surfaces plus offsite impervious surfaces (new and existing) will be captured and
conveyed to the onsite infiltration system (FEIS Exhibit III.G-2). The infiltration
system will consist of three pretreatment hydrodynamic structures, three
subsurface storage chambers, and a subsurface storage/infiltration chamber
interconnected with the other three storage chambers. Low flows will be treated
for water quality, infiltrated to the subsoil and, therefore, removed from the
surface water discharge. Excess flows from larger storm events will bypass the
infiltration system and be directed to a surface detention basin, where runoff will
be stored and released slowly at or below pre-development rates. Further
discussion regarding offsite stormwater management is provided in item 2E and
4 of this Introductory Response.

Site-specific field testing to determine soil characteristics and percolation rates
was performed at multiple locations throughout the Site to determine the best
location for the infiltration chamber. The location selected for the proposed
infiltration chamber is within an area mapped by the Westchester County Soil
Survey as Charlton-Chatfield Complex, 2-15% slopes, which is typically
characterized as very well draining (see DEIS page III.C-5). Field testing
confirmed the suitability of the soil at this location for infiltration. The field
testing was performed by Tectonic Engineering and witnessed by NYC DEP
staff, in accordance with the Design Manual, Appendix D: Infiltration Testing
Requirements. Results of the investigation confirmed favorable percolation rates
ranging from 14.5 to 19 inches per hour. (Refer to FEIS Appendix E for the
infiltration investigation report prepared by Tectonic Engineering and Surveying
Consultants, P.C.) Existing soil in the location of the infiltration system was
determined to consist of coarse to fine sands and gravels ranging from 0.5 feet
below existing grade to ten feet deep with no bedrock or groundwater present.
The bottom of the proposed infiltration vault will be constructed below existing

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-4
grade at elevation 419.0, which is a minimum of two feet below existing grade,
which will, therefore, promote infiltration into the subsoil.

Although providing RRv is only required for the water quality storm, the FEIS
stormwater management design will reduce stormwater runoff volume and
provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff for the Project for all
storms through the 100-year frequency. A comparison summary of pre- and
post-development runoff volumes is provided in Table III.G A1. The runoff
volumes in the table are the cumulative volumes calculated at all of the site
discharge design points. Detailed calculations and summaries are included in
FEIS Appendix E. In addition to providing reduction of stormwater runoff
volume, the infiltration will moderate thermal impacts and provide water quality
treatment resulting in reduction of pollutant loads (refer to item 3 of this
Introductory Response).

The volume analysis is being provided project wide on a quantitative basis rather
than at individual design points. Qualitatively, the Applicant finds that post-
development volume for individual design points will be equal to or lower than
the pre-development condition for the following reasons:
For some design points (DP-3, DP-4, DP-5 contributing area has been
greatly reduced;
For design points DP-1 to DP-6 and DP-8, the runoff from the water
quality storm has been redirected to the sites infiltration practice;
For design point DP-7 the CN remains unchanged and therefore the
runoff volume remains unchanged.

Table III.G-A1
Peak Discharge Volume Comparison Table for Project (1)
Design Storm
Frequency
Runoff Volume (ac-ft) % Change
(+Increase, - Decrease)
Existing Proposed
1-Year
1.184 0.230 -81
2-Year
1.705 0.440 -74
10-Year
3.567 2.718 -24
25-Year
4.983 4.401 -12
50- Year
6.494 6.147 -5
100-Year
7.280 7.040 -3
(1) Runoff from Costco site (DP-1 to DP-5), plus runoff from offsite roadway
improvements from DA 6 and DA 8 from which the 1-year storm drains to the onsite
infiltration system (FEIS Exhibits III.G-A3, A4, A5, A6 and A8.)
.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-5
D. Fueling Facility:
For the purposes of stormwater management, the proposed fueling facility is
classified a stormwater hotspot, which is defined in Section 4.11 of the DEC
Design Manual as a land use or activity that generates higher concentrations of
hydrocarbons, trace metals and toxicants than are found in typical stormwater
runoff. As such, runoff from hotspot areas cannot infiltrate untreated into
groundwater, and pre-infiltration treatment is required. Section 4.11 requires
that SWPPPs for stormwater hotspots include a series of operational practices at
the site that reduce the generation of pollutants. Therefore, runoff from the
fueling facility will receive separate water quality treatment prior to discharging
to the site storm drainage and the underground infiltration system. Water quality
treatment for the fueling facility drainage areas will be provided in two perimeter
sand filters with catch basin inserts as described further below. Refer to SWPPP
(Appendix E) and Site Plans (Appendix J ).

The fueling facility areas are graded in a manner that will isolate its stormwater
runoff. This isolated runoff from the tank filling area and the fuel dispensing
area will be captured and conveyed to separate perimeter sand filter systems.
Each system is sized to capture and treat the water quality storm runoff volume
from their respective contributing drainage areas. In addition, the drain inlet
grates for each perimeter sand filter will be fitted with inserts containing filters
with a special sorb type media specifically designed to trap hydrocarbons,
metals and silts carried in the runoff. After treatment, the runoff will be
conveyed to the underground infiltration system. For illustration, refer to FEIS
Site Plan Exhibit 37h. Detailed calculations are included in FEIS Appendix E.

E. Offsite:
As part of the Proposed Action, the Applicant will construct offsite roadway
improvements within the NYS Route 35/U.S. Route 202 corridor extending
between Old Crompond Road and Strang Boulevard. The improvements will
also include widening of Mohansic Avenue near its intersection with NYS Route
35/U.S. Route 202.

The referenced areas of offsite construction consist of five sub-drainage areas
(DA-4 through DA-8) (FEIS Exhibits III.G-A5 to A8). As part of the
supplemental subsurface soils investigation, Tectonic Engineering performed
additional investigation (FEIS Appendix E) to determine the feasibility of
providing localized SMPs with RRv capacity for the Route 202/35 improvements
within the right-of-way. The subsurface soils investigation determined that
providing localized SMPs with RRv capacity within the Route 202/35right-of-
way of drainage areas (DA-4, DA-5, DA-6 and DA-8) was not feasible, and

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-6
therefore an alternate means of meeting RRv requirements for the Route 202/35
improvements was necessary.

Stormwater runoff from the water quality storm for the majority of drainage area
DA-4 (0.94 acres) as well as DA-5, Sub-DA-6 and Sub-DA-8 will be captured in
proposed roadway storm drain systems and diverted to the subsurface infiltration
system on the Costco Site, thereby achieving 100% runoff reduction and
providing water quality treatment. Runoff from storm events greater than the 1-
year frequency will continue to be conveyed to their current points of discharge.
Since runoff from the water quality storm will be diverted to the Site for
infiltration, rates and volumes of runoff from Route 202/35 drainage areas to
their current points of discharge during larger storms will be reduced to below
the pre-development condition (see also Item 4B below for further discussion).
New impervious pavement in these drainage areas will be 0.64 acres and the total
impervious area contributing runoff to be treated in the onsite infiltration practice
will be 2.92 acres. FEIS Table III.G A2 shows the proposed RRv/WQv
treatment of each drainage area from the improved portions of Route 202/35.



Table III.G A2
Offsite (Rte 202/35) Improvement Stormwater RRv/WQv Treatment
Drainage
Area
Impervious Area (acres)
RRv/WQv
Treatment
Pre-development
(without
treatment)
Post-development
New (1)
Conveyed to
Site RRv/WQv
Treatment
Practice
Draining to
Offsite RRv/WQv
Treatment
Practice
Remaining
Existing Area
(without
treatment) (3)
(a) (b) (c) (d) (a)+(b)-(c)-(d)=(e)
4 1.02 (2) 0.06 0.94 0.06 0.08
Onsite Infiltration
Offsite
Bioretention
5 0.56 0.20 0.77 - 0.00 Onsite Infiltration
6 0.98 0.14 0.40 - 0.72 Onsite Infiltration
7 0.48 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.48 Offsite Dry Swale
8 0.87 0.30 0.81 - 0.36 Onsite Infiltration
Total 3.91 0.77 2.92 0.13 1.64 -
Notes:
(1) New offsite impervious pavement associated with Route 202/35 improvements
(2) Impervious area includes gravel (0.29 acres) and paved/building (0.73 acres) surfaces.
(3) Existing pavements from which runoff will not mix with runoff from new pavement and therefore does not require
treatment as part of this Project. RunoffR will continue to drain to its originalits destination without water quality
treatment as it presently does.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-7
Areas at the west (portion of DA-4) and east (Sub DA-7) fringes of the proposed
roadway improvements will be captured and conveyed to separate localized
water quality treatment practices. Runoff volumes equal to the minimum
required RRv from the remaining fringe portions of drainage areas DA-4 (0.06
acres of new pavement) and Sub-DA-7 (0.07 acres of new pavement) are unable
to be diverted to the onsite infiltration practice. Runoff from these areas will
therefore be conveyed to a separate bioretention basin (DA-4) and dry swale
(DA-7) for reduction and treatment. See FEIS Exhibits III.G-A5 and III.G-A7
for the locations of these proposed practices. Bioretention basins and dry swales
are listed as acceptable SMPs with RRv capacity. Design details conform to the
NYSDEC and NYCDEP technical standards.

The bioretention basin for area DA-4, located adjacent to Old Crompond Road,
consists of a shallow storm water facility that utilizes engineered soils and
vegetation (turf) to capture and treat the water quality runoff volume, via
biological uptake and filtration, (see Appendix E for the calculation of the
volume to be treated). The facility has both pretreatment and treatment elements
and is a standard practice conforming to the DEC Stormwater Design Manual.
Pretreatment of runoff from the drainage area occurs by passing flow through a
separate cell called a forebay. A two to three-inch layer of mulch on the top of
the filter bed provides additional pretreatment. After passing through the
pretreatment cell, runoff temporarily ponds to a maximum depth of six inches,
then passes through the filter media of the bioretention basin, which consists of a
24-inch deep planting soil bed (bioretention soil). The filtered runoff is
collected in a perforated under drain collection system wrapped in a gravel layer.
An overflow catch basin and drain pipe connected to the existing drainage
system handles runoff in excess of the target volume to be treated. See highway
improvement HD-Series drawings in FEIS Appendix J for details.

The dry swale for area DA-7, located off the shoulder of Route 202/35 eastbound
west of Strang Boulevard, is a subtlely sloped (less than 4%) trapezoidal channel
that possesses the same treatment and discharge features of a bioretention basin,
essentially making it a linear bioretention system. Water will pond to an
average of twelve inches, with pretreatment occurring by passing overland flow
through a grass filter strip and a stone diaphragm. See highway improvement
HD-Series drawings in FEIS Appendix J for details.

In summary, as shown in Table III.G A2, column (a) indicates that under existing
conditions, there is untreated runoff from 3.91 acres draining to the roadway
right-of-way. Column (e) indicates that under post-development conditions
untreated runoff from existing impervious area draining to the roadway right-of-

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-8
way will be reduced to 1.64 acres. Under post-development conditions,
therefore, runoff from all the new offsite impervious area (0.77 acres) and offsite
contributing existing impervious area (2.27 acres) (currently untreated) will be
captured and treated in a standard practice, thereby improving water quality
draining to downstream water bodies including Sherry and Hunter Brooks.
(Although there is regulatory obligation to treat runoff from the existing paved
surfaces, when runoff from existing surfaces cannot be separated from runoff
from new impervious surfaces, runoff from both new and the accompanying
existing pavements will be captured and conveyed to the Site for water quality
treatment.)

Detailed description and calculations of stormwater management for areas of
offsite highway improvements are included in the SWPPP (FEIS Appendix E).

3. Pollutant Analyses

The Applicant, at the direction of the Lead Agency, incorporated comments on the
stormwater management design and water quality treatment into an updated
stormwater management design. The modified design enhances the previously
proposed stormwater management measures, and thus results in fewer impacts than
those reported in the DEIS.

A. Thermal Impact Analysis:
The DEIS stormwater management design implemented a micropool extended
detention pond and infiltration facility to treat the runoff from the water quality
storm. Both facilities are recommended to moderate thermal impacts; however
infiltration is more effective than the micropool extended detention pond. The
FEIS stormwater management design enlarged the infiltration system to treat
100% of the water quality storm runoff volume and converted the micropool to a
dry stormwater detention basin for use in peak flow abatement only. The
Applicant performed a Thermal Impact Analysis, which is included in FEIS
Appendix E. The analysis confirms that thermal impacts to Wetland A will be
avoided by treating the water quality stormwater runoff from the impervious
surfaces of the Site in an infiltration facility. Since no stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces will be discharged to the vernal pool, no thermal impacts to
the vernal pool will result.

The onsite Wetland A watercourse is tributary to Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook
and the New Croton Reservoir. Therefore, since thermal impacts to Wetland A
are avoided, then potential thermal impacts to downstream water bodies will also
be avoided. The thermal impact analysis was prepared to demonstrate

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-9
compliance with NYSDEC Regulations Chapter X, 6 NYCRR Part 704 Criteria
Governing Thermal Discharges. Since the unnamed stream within Wetland A is
not a trout supporting stream, the thermal impact criteria described in NYSDEC
Regulations Chapter X, Part 704.2 (b)(1) apply. Detailed discussion and
calculations supporting this conclusion are provided in a separate Thermal
Impact Analysis, included in FEIS Appendix E.

The analysis includes a quantitative thermal impact analysis on the post-
development stormwater discharge that will drain to the existing Wetland A
stream corridor. Results of the analysis confirm the effectiveness of the FEIS
infiltration practice to moderate temperature of the stormwater runoff from the
proposed development, as summarized in Table III.G A3.

Table III.G A3
Daily Average Stream Temperature (Summer Period)
Case
Daily Avg. Temperature (F)
Downstream End
of Reach - Design
Point (DP) 2
Reach Average
1-yr Storm
Existing 78.5 78.1
Proposed 74.3 73.5
Change -4.2 -4.6
2-yr Storm
Existing 78.0 78.1
Proposed 73.9 74.3
Change -4.1 -3.8

Since the post-development temperature changes are calculated to be less than
the allowed 5F temperature change as compared to the existing conditions and
are also less than 86F (per the referenced NYSDEC non-trout thermal
regulations), there will be no thermal impacts to the onsite wetland stream due to
the post-development runoff conditions. Since there will be no Project related
impacts to the onsite wetland stream, no Project related thermal impacts will
occur in watercourses and water bodies downstream of the wetlands during the
summer period. Similar results were computed for the winter period. Refer to
the Thermal Impact Study in FEIS Appendix E for details.

B. Pollutant Loading Analysis:
Section III.G.2.e of the DEIS Final Scope of Work required the DEIS to Include
a pre- and post-development analysis of pollutant loading due to increase in

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-10
impervious surface. The DEIS did provide a primarily qualitative pollutant
loading analysis (with quantification regarding coliform bacteria), but did not
provide an entirely quantitative analysis because neither the current NYC DEP
Rules and Regulations nor the NYS DEC Design Manual require such an
analysis (except for analysis of coliform bacteria).
Nevertheless, in response to public comments on the DEIS, the FEIS provides a
quantitative pollutant loading analysis for the full range of stormwater pollutants,
including BOD, TP, TN, TSS, oil & grease (O&G), copper, zinc, and lead. This
analysis can be found in FEIS Appendix E. (Assessment of Coliform was
performed for the DEIS and was included in the DEIS SWPPP, DEIS Appendix
D.)
The FEIS pollutant loading analysis was prepared in accordance with NYSDEC
standards found in the Stormwater Management Design Manual, (NYSDEC,
August 2010) and in Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New
Development (NYSDEC, April 1992). The analysis was performed at each
relevant design point from where stormwater discharges from the Site. In
addition, two intermediate points along the watercourse within Wetland A were
analyzed. Contributing drainage areas include runoff from the entire Sites
impervious area as well as runoff from offsite highway improvement areas (as
discussed in Response 2E and FEIS Exhibits III.G-A4 to A8). Since stormwater
runoff from all of these impervious surfaces that will contribute to Wetland A
will be treated in a NYSDEC standard stormwater management practice, there
will be no untreated stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces discharged to
Wetland A.
The onsite Wetland A watercourse is tributary to Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook
and the New Croton Reservoir. Therefore, if impacts to Wetland A are avoided,
then potential impacts to downstream water bodies will also be avoided. Results
of the analysis confirm that under post-development conditions, all of the
referenced pollutants will be reduced to below pre-development concentrations
contributing to Wetland A and from the cumulative discharge leaving the Site. A
summary of the analytical results are included in FEIS Tables III.G A4 and 5.
Reduction in pollutant loads under post-development conditions can be attributed
to treatment of the water quality storm through the infiltration practice.
Additional pollutant removals will occur as infiltrate moves through the existing
soil strata. Existing soils beneath the infiltration chamber and laterally within the
Wetland A buffer area are characterized as coarse to fine sands and gravels,
which essentially will perform as a sand filter providing further pollutant
removals. For purposes of this analysis, the model assumes only 12 to 18 feet of
soil media providing lateral treatment beyond the infiltration chamber. In fact the

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-11
actual lateral distance to Wetland A is approximately 150 feet, and therefore, the
Applicant asserts that the 12 to 18 feet of media used in the model is very
conservative.)
The results of the model, as shown in Table III.G A4, indicate reduction of post-
development pollutants below pre-development levels prior to reaching Wetland
A. Results summarized in Table III.G A5, indicate that post-development
pollutant loads will be reduced to below pre-development levels when
considering runoff from the entire Project Site.
Within the referenced summary tables, low and high ranges of pollutant
removals are accounted for. The high rates of pollutant removals can be
achieved in the long term through implementation of pretreatment and a diligent
maintenance program. Pretreatment is included in the design and a maintenance
program is provided in the SWPPP. Annual post-development loadings from the
entire Site will decrease for all parameters (BOD, TN, TP, TSS, lead, copper,
zinc and O&G) under both low and high on-site treatment levels. Therefore, the
FEIS stormwater management design, as described, will provide overall
improvement to off-site stormwater quality as a result of the Project. Pollutant
loads will be reduced over the entire Project Site as well as at each site design
point (DP-1 to DP-5).


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-12








Table III.G A4
Pollutant Loading Comparison Table
To Wetland A
Pollutants
Annual Load (lb/yr) % Change from Existing
Condition
Existing
Post-Development
Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
BOD 156 42.9 40.0 -72% -74%
TN 36.5 35.6 25.7 -3% -30%
TP 2.2 1.1 0.9 -48% -58%
TSS 1543 615.1 615.0 -60% -60%
Lead 0.62 0.10 0.10 -84% -84%
Copper 0.64 0.20 0.17 -68% -73%
Zinc 0.71 0.17 0.17 -76% -76%
O&G 24.0 20.8 11.5 -13% -52%
Note:
1. All loading values, are expressed in lbs/yr. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis for the Proposed Costco
Yorktown Site, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. in FEIS Appendix E for detailed analysis.
2. Low and high range refer to low and high pollutant removal rates, which have been assigned based on Table 15
of the DEC publication: Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development (NYSDEC, April
1992). The high range of removal can be expected when supported by a diligent maintenance program.
3. Pollutant removals are based on removal from the infiltration practice and migration through the equivalent of 12
to 18 feet of soil strata. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis prepared by HDR in FEIS Appendix E for detailed
analysis.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-13



The following discussion summarizes additional information set forth in the
pollutant loading report provided in FEIS Appendix E.

PH - Land use specific ranges of pH in storm water runoff of 7.3 to 7.7 fall within
the NYSDEC pH surface water quality standard range of 6.5 to 8.5 and are
comparable under both the existing and post-development site scenarios.
Therefore, post development pH will remain consistent with NYSDEC surface
water quality standards.

BOD and nutrient (TN and TP) loads to Wetlands A and from the entire site are
calculated to be reduced under the post-development site conditions. These
reductions represent an overall improvement to off-site water quality as a result of
the project and, therefore, offsite impacts resulting from the Project will be
reduced. With the reduction of BOD and nutrient loads, there will also be
reduced stress to the onsite and offsite DO concentrations. .

Table III.G A5
Pollutant Loading Comparison Table
Entire Costco Site
Pollutants
Annual Load (lb/yr) % Change From Existing
Condition
Existing
Post-Development
Low Range High Range Low Range High Range
BOD 844.8 119.2 116.3 -86% -86%
TN 133.2 49.4 39.5 -63% -70%
TP 11.34 2.2 2.0 -81% -83%
TSS 6396 1311 1311 -80% -80%
Lead 4.01 0.45 0.45 -89% -89%
Copper 3.35 0.53 0.47 -84% -86%
Zinc 4.04 0.54 0.54 -87% -87%
O&G 145.49 40.6 27.0 -72% -81%
Note:
1. All loading values, are expressed in lbs/yr. Refer to Pollutant Loading Analysis prepared by HDR in FEIS
Appendix E for detailed analysis.
2. Low and high range refer to low and high pollutant removal rates, which have been assigned based on Table 15
of the NYSDEC publication: Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff From New Development, (NYSDEC,
April 1992). As set forth in the referenced manual, the high range of removal can be expected when supported
by a diligent maintenance program.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-14
DO - Potential DO reduction in the soil and groundwater as flow travels from the
infiltration system to Wetland A may occur. However, the infiltrated stormwater
entering the wetland will travel through the same soil stratum with the same soil
characteristics and temperature levels, and will undergo the same mechanisms in
the soil such as oxygen consumption due to BOD decay or ammonia nitrification,
as currently occurs for the existing groundwater. Therefore, although DO
reductions may occur in the soil and groundwater, the infiltrated DO entering
Wetland A will not be significantly different from existing groundwater DO
levels. The reduced sources of oxygen consumption (via reduced BOD and
nutrient levels) entering Wetland A under the proposed project, will further
mitigate any potential groundwater DO impacts in the wetlands since there will be
less oxygen demand in the water column under the proposed project. In summary,
DO levels in groundwater contributing to Wetland A under post-development
conditions will be consistent with existing conditions.

Deicing Agents - Management of deicing agents will follow Chapter 18-45 of the
NYCDEP Rules and Regulations for the Protection from Contamination,
Degradation and Pollution of The New York City Water Supply and its Sources
(Rules and Regulations) and the Westchester County Best Management Practices
Manual on Highway Deicing Storage and Application Methods. Limited amount
of deicing agent will be stored on site (inside the building) for localized
applications at building entrances and walks surrounding the building. Deicing
agents will be applied on the site roadways, parking areas, and sidewalks as
needed to protect the public and employees. Applications to roadways and
parking areas will be performed by an outside contractor/ maintenance company
to avoid storing large quantities of agents on-site; that company will be licensed,
as required, by Westchester County. In determining the minimum amount of
deicing agents needed for public safety, best management practices developed by
the NYSDOT will be considered, as stated in Chapter 18-45(c) of the Rules and
Regulations. Compliance with Chapter 18-45 of the Rules and Regulations
and the Best Management Practices Manual, will minimize potential impacts
from the storage and application of such agents to the maximum extent
practicable. The potential for reduced salt/deicing areas will be considered during
site plan review.

4. Stormwater Quantity Abatement:

A. Onsite:
As with the DEIS stormwater management design, the FEIS design will also
provide stormwater abatement of peak discharge rates for the range of storms
required in Chapter 4 of the NYSDEC Design Manual. The FEIS design will:

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-15
Provide stream channel protection by infiltrating the channel protection
volume (CPv) for the 1-year, 24-hour storm,
Provide overbank flood control by controlling (attenuating) the peak
discharge from the 10-year, 24-hour storm to pre-development runoff
rates,
Provide extreme flood control by controlling (attenuating) the peak
discharge from the 100-year, 24-hour storm to pre-development runoff
rates.
The design will reduce discharge volume to surface waters through infiltration as
well as provide detention of runoff in a separate surface extended detention basin.
The abatement practices will result in reduced peak discharge rates to below
existing flow rates from the Project Site for all studied storms as summarized in
FEIS Table III.G A6.

Stormwater runoff from all of the impervious surfaces on the Project Site and the
majority of the offsite area of highway improvements will be captured and
conveyed to the stormwater detention system. The water quality storm will be
directed to the infiltration system, For larger storm events, the runoff in excess of
the water quality volume will bypass the infiltration system and be directed to a
surface detention basin, where runoff will be stored and released slowly at or
below pre-development rates.

The detention system will be equipped with two outlet control structures provided
with weirs and/or orifices that will limit the outflow to low discharge rates. The
primary outlet control structure will discharge stormwater to the west through an
outlet pipe that will discharge to a spreader ditch located south and west of the
detention basin. The spreader ditch will serve to reduce exit velocities as well as
spread the discharge equally over a long level area (85 linear feet) which will
slow the outflow and reduce the risk of potential erosion. The outflow from the
spreader ditch will flow overland through the wooded buffer to Wetland A at a
point downstream from the upstream ponding area.

The basins second outlet control structure will be equipped with an outlet that
will discharge to the north. Under pre-development conditions, stormwater runoff
from drainage area DA-E3 drains overland from the Site, across State lands to the
north. Runoff flows some 2600 feet, mainly through existing woodlands prior to
entering an existing NYSDOT stormwater management facility. Under post-
development conditions, approximately 3.9 acres of DA-E3 will be developed.
Stormwater runoff from this developed area will be captured and conveyed to the
stormwater management system for treatment in the infiltration system and
abatement in the extended detention basin. From the detention basin, stormwater

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-16
will be discharged to the north to flow overland across wooded State lands, as
pre-development runoff did.

The Projects FEIS stormwater management design as described will reduce
discharge rates and volumes leaving the Project Site. The Applicants analyses
(III.G A6) conclude that with implementation of the referenced design, the Project
will cause no adverse impact to offsite downstream water bodies with regard to
potential flooding. Detailed calculations are included in FEIS Appendix E.


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-17


Table III.G A6
Peak Discharge Rate Comparison Table
Design Storm
Frequency
Rainfall
(inches)
Design
Point
(Notes 1-6,
8)
Runoff Rate (cfs)
Existing Proposed
% Change
(+Increase,
- Decrease)
1-Year Design
Storm
3.0
1 1.78 1.23 -31
2 1.24 0.73 -41
2c 0.02 0.00 -100
3 2.00 0.03 -99
4 2.94 0.63 --79
5 2.50 0.00 (Note 7) -100
2-Year Design
Storm
3.5
1 3.22 2.28 -29
2 2.27 1.40 -38
2c 0.17 0.09 -47
3 3.04 0.08 -97
4 4.15 0.82 -80
5 2.96 0.20 (Note 7) -93
10-Year Design
Storm
5.0
1 9.10 6.42 -29
2 6.43 3.96 -38
2c 1.58 0.89 -44
3 6.73 4.31 -36
4 8.20 1.44 -82
5 4.31 0.80 (Note 7) -81
25-Year Design
Storm
6.0
1 14.16 9.69 -32
2 11.41 6.77 -41
2c 4.36 2.95 -32
3 9.48 7.35 -22
4 11.17 1.86 -83
5 5.21 1.20 (Note 7) -77
50-Year Design
Storm
7.0
1 23.74 16.54 -30
2 19.37 15.31 -21
2c 7.55 5.67 -25
3 12.37 11.04 -11
4 14.20 2.29 -84
5 6.11 1.60 (Note 7) -74
100-Year Design
Storm
7.5
1 28.71 25.73 -10
2 23.51 23.22 -1
2c 9.52 6.97 -27
3 13.85 12.96 -6
4 15.73 2.51 -84
5 6.55 1.80 (Note 7) -73

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-18
Notes:
(1) Design Point 1: Offsite location where watercourse discharges to existing culvert under Old
Crompond Road.
(2) Design Point 2: Location where watercourse discharges from the Site.
(3) Design Point 2c: Point of discharge from Wetland A pond/vernal pool.
(4) Design Point 3: Location where site runoff discharges from site at north property line.
(5) Design Point 4: Location where site runoff discharges to existing culvert at Old Crompond Road.
(6) Design Point 5: Location where existing site runoff discharges to existing storm drain in Route
202/35.
(7) Under proposed condition, DA-5 is incorporated into DA-2b1, which drains to DP-2.
(8) Refer to FEIS Exhibits III.G-A3 and III.G-A4. (Full size drainage area maps, showing the design
points are provided in the SWPPP, FEIS Appendix E.)


B. Offsite:
The Proposed Action includes offsite highway improvements to Route 202/35
extending along the Site frontage and east from Old Crompond Road to Strang
Boulevard. The areas of proposed offsite work are identified within five drainage
areas (DA-4 through DA-8). The offsite drainage areas are shown on FEIS
Exhibits III.G-A5 through III.G-A8, with summary discussions provided below.
A summary of the quantitative analysis for the five (5) offsite drainage areas is
included in FEIS Table III.G A7. Detailed calculations and discussion are
included in FEIS Appendix E.

Stormwater runoff from the majority of DA-4 (3.63 acres), which currently drains
to the public right-of-way, will be captured and conveyed into the Site drainage
system for water quality treatment and detention. After development, only 0.45
acres of the original 4.08 acre drainage area will remain. As a result, runoff from
DA-4 will be significantly reduced.

Stormwater runoff from all of DA-5, which currently drains to the public right-of-
way, will be captured and conveyed into the Site drainage system for water
quality treatment and detention. After development, runoff from DA-5 will be
significantly reduced. Runoff from DA-4 and DA-5 currently drains to open
channels that lead to Sherry Brook. After development, runoff that had been
diverted from these areas will be discharged from the Site to Design Point 1,
which also will drain to Sherry Brook, thereby discharging to the same drainage
basin.

Improvements within DA 6 and DA-8 will result in relatively minor increases in
impervious areas. Each of these drainage areas is large and the relative minor
increases in impervious area are not substantial enough to change the existing
drainage characteristics. In addition, the water quality storm will be directed to
the onsite drainage system. Thus, the net result would yield no increase in peak
stormwater runoff rates.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-19

Improvements within DA-7 will result in relatively minor increases in impervious
areas. The drainage area is large and the relative minor increase in impervious
area is not substantial enough to change the existing drainage characteristics.
Thus, the net result would yield no increase in peak stormwater runoff rates.


Table III.G A7
Summary of Offsite Drainage Conditions
(Contributing to Route 202/35 & Old Crompond Road Right-of-Way)
Drainage Area
Designation
Existing
Drainage
Area (ac)
Proposed
Drainage Area
(ac)
New
Impervious
Area (ac)
Existing CN Proposed CN
DA-4 (1) 4.08 0.45 0.06 74 81
DA-5 (2) 0.62 0.00 0.20 95 na
DA-6 (3)(4) 38.93 38.93 0.14 78 78
DA-7 (3) 55.79 55.79 0.07 81 81
DA-8 (3) (4) 37.17 37.17 0.30 84 84
TOTAL 136.59 132.35 0.77
na na
Notes:
(1) Since the drainage area is significantly reduced there will be a decrease in stormwater discharge,
and stormwater abatement is not required. (3.63 acres becomes part of DA-P2b-1)
(2) DA-5 is rerouted to, and treated by the Onsite Stormwater Management System. (0.62 Acres
becomes part of DA-P2b-1)
(3) The addition of the proposed impervious area results in no increase to the CN. Therefore there is
no appreciable increase in peak runoff rates, and stormwater abatement is not required.
(4) The Applicant asserts that the analysis is conservative as runoff from the 1-year storm will be
captured and conveyed to the onsite infiltration system.




Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-20

5. Water Balance Analysis to Wetland A:

A water balance analysis to determine the potential hydrologic impact to Wetland A
had been performed for the DEIS as described in DEIS pages III.G-17 to G-23. The
hydrologic analysis includes modeling the surface water runoff draining to the
wetland and vernal pool resulting from the 1-year and 2-year storms. The analysis
was updated for the FEIS to account for the modifications to the site plan and
stormwater management design, which includes greater runoff reduction through
infiltration.

Runoff was calculated, analyzed and compared for the pre and post-development
conditions. Pre- and post-development conditions are shown on FEIS Exhibits III.G
A3 and A4. The water balance analysis was calculated for the upstream ponding
area, two downstream reaches and at design point 2. Hydraulic characteristics
calculated for the referenced storms include peak flow rates, volume, flow depth,
velocities, and duration. The analysis provides a comparison for pre- and post-
development conditions at the noted design points. A detailed summary of results is
included in the water balance analysis provided in FEIS Appendix E . However,
when assessing the results, the key characteristic used for comparison is the depth of
water in the wetland, which is the primary determinant of hydrology. FEIS Table
III.G A8 includes the comparative analysis of water depth within the wetlands.

FEIS Table III.G A8
Wetland A Drainage Analysis
Depth of Water
Design Storm Rainfall
(inches)
Depth of Water (feet)
Pre-
Development
Post-
Development
Change
Upstream Ponding Area (Vernal Pool)
1-Year 3.0 0.65 0.61 -0.04
2-Year 3.5 0.67 0.66 -0.01

Stream Corridor Reach #1
1-Year 3.0 0.04 0.02 -0.02
2-Year 3.5 0.06 0.06 0.00

Stream Corridor Reach #2 to Design Point 2
1-Year 3.0 0.05 0.03 -0.02
2-Year 3.5 0.07 0.05 -.0.02


Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-21

In all instances the change in water depth from pre-to post-development conditions
results in a minimal decrease in water levels (one-half inch or less), which the
Applicant asserts is not significant.

Proposed Infiltration Flow Pattern
Wetland A is located approximately 150 feet from the proposed infiltration facility.
The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration facility is 419, which will require
excavation below existing grade. (This will ensure that infiltrate will discharge into
the existing soil rather than travel along the fill line.) The adjacent wetland is at
elevation 390, which is approximately 29 feet below the bottom of the infiltration
chamber. The soils to which runoff will discharge beneath and downgradient of the
infiltration chamber to Wetland A are described in DEIS III.C (pages III.C-4 to 9).
Based upon site-specific field investigation by the Applicants geotechnical
engineer, the soil to which the infiltration chamber discharges to is a well-drained
sandy soil. Rock is located from 8 to 18 feet below the existing ground surface, and
groundwater was not encountered (Test Pits BINF-6, BINF-12, Borings B-14 and B-
115). (Refer to the SWPPP in FEIS Appendix E.)

As shown in FEIS Exhibit III.G-A9, the infiltration runoff will pass through well
drained soils to and run along the confining rock layer toward Wetland A. Along the
route toward Wetland A, at a point some 65 feet along the flow path, it will pass
under the proposed retaining wall with about 10 feet of clearance.

Refer to FEIS Appendix E for the Water Balance Study.

6. Wetland B

Wetland B is an isolated wetland with limited contributing drainage area. Under
existing conditions, based on the surveyed contour elevations and through field
verification, the contributing area is 0.5 acres. Surface runoff generally drains
overland from south to north as well as from east to west. West of the wetland,
surface runoff drains west, away from the wetland and discharges offsite to a
NYSDOT stormwater management basin located approximately 650 north of the
Project Site. To the east is an existing drainage swale that flows from south to north
past Wetland B along the TSP right-of-way, capturing and conveying runoff from
the TSP and Route 202 rights-of-way. The Applicants wetland consultant asserts
that infiltrate from this ditch may be a hydrologic source that contributes to Wetland
B. Under post-development conditions, the TSP ditch and the contributing drainage
area to Wetland B remain unchanged from existing conditions or that previously
proposed in the DEIS.

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-22

The Proposed Action proposes no paved impervious areas within the contributing
drainage area to Wetland B. Existing vegetation within the contributing drainage
area will remain unchanged. Therefore, no increase to thermal or pollutant loads
will result from the Proposed Action. As part of the landscape mitigation plan (FEIS
Appendix J , Landscape Plan), however, supplemental planting is proposed to
enhance the wetlands adjacent easterly buffer.

Wetland B is located within a larger drainage area, identified as Drainage Area 3
(DA-3). Under existing conditions, the area drains generally north and west, where
the majority of runoff from this area discharges to the north at the Sites northerly
boundary (FEIS III.G Exhibit III.G-A10 and A11). Under post-development
conditions the portion of DA-3 that presently drains away (west) from Wetland B
will be developed. Unchanged from the DEIS, the post-development DA-3 will be
reduced from 4.46 to 0.55 acres and its runoff to the existing design point (DP-3)
will be maintained.

Under the FEIS stormwater management plan, the proposed detention basin, located
at the north end of the Site will have two discharge points. The majority of the
ponds outflow will be directed to the south where, the outflow will be discharged to
a spreader ditch that will return surface water to Wetland A. A minor portion of the
ponds outflow will discharge to a spreader ditch at DP-3, thereby maintaining
hydrology to the north as under existing conditions.

7. Regional Stormwater Management Facility

As noted by FEIS Comment III.G 20, Section III.G. 3a, page III.G-32 of the DEIS
discussed, in response to the Towns request, the potential of developing a regional
stormwater management facility that could be constructed adjacent to the Project
Site on State owned land. Further investigation on the part of the Applicants
engineer shows that it is not possible to provide a significant regional improvement
at this location that would meet the Towns goal of reduced downstream flooding
because, among other reasons: the Sites relative location within the larger Hunter
Brook drainage basin; the small contributing drainage area in relation to the larger
Hunter Brook drainage basin; and the resultant small flow in comparison with the
overall flow contributing to Hunter Brook. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site
drains to the Hunter Brook, generally at the intersection of Old Crompond Road with
Stony Street. The contributing area from the Site (18.75 acres) is a small part (1%)
of the overall contributing drainage area (1,600 acres) to the referenced confluence.
Thus, appreciable benefit could be obtained through further management of
stormwater from the Site. Therefore, the concept of providing a stormwater

Part B - Comments and Responses Section III.G
Proposed Costco Wholesale Store and Fueling Facility Stormwater Management

______________________________________________________________________________________
_______
Final Environmental Impact Statement
III.G-23
management facility on adjacent State lands, which would reduce downstream
flooding, is not being pursued.

8. Downstream Water Bodies

The Applicants FEIS stormwater management plan, which includes an onsite
subsurface infiltration system and a detention basin, will meet the regulatory
requirements of the NYSDEC, NYCDEP and Town of Yorktown for runoff volume
reduction, water quality treatment and peak discharge attenuation. FEIS Appendix E
includes a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, a Thermal Ithermal mpact analysis,
a Pollutant Lpollutant oading analysis and water balance analysis to Wetland A, and
summary descriptions are provided in this FEIS III.G Introductory Response. The
analyses conclude that post-development stormwater related impacts will be reduced
below pre-development thresholds prior to reaching Wetland A and/or at the design
points of discharge where leaving the Site. Since stormwater related impacts are
reduced to or below pre-development levels prior to leaving the Site, no significant
adverse impacts to downstream water bodies including Sherry Brook, Hunter Brook,
Mill Pond and the New Croton Reservoir will result.

9. Alternate Sewage Disposal System

In the event that extension of the offsite sanitary sewer system (DEIS and FEIS
III.H) is not permitted, an alternate onsite sewage treatment and disposal system