DEC's Determination on the Adequacy of Crossroads Ventures' DEIS

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Permits, Region 3
21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561-1696
Phone: (845) 256-3054 • FAX: (845) 255-3042
Website: www.dec.state.ny.us
May 15, 2002
Gary Gailes
Crossroads Ventures, LLC
72 Andrew Lane Road
PO Box 267
Mt. Tremper, NY 12457
RE: Belleayre Resort at the Catskill Park
DEC No. 3-9903-00059100001
Dear Mr. Gailes:
The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has completed its review for acceptability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by Crossroads Ventures, LLC (Crossroads) for the proposed "Belleayre Resort at the Catskill Park" development. The following items identify areas of the document that have been determined to be inadequate and require further analysis or revision:

Alternatives
Pursuant to discussions during our meeting on April 8, 2002, this section of the DEIS must include those project alternatives specifically identified in the Final Scoping Document. For each alternative, the DEIS must present a comparative assessment of the relevant environmental factors. This section should include summary tables for ease of comparison. Also, as noted during the meeting, the alternatives discussions related to wastewater treatment and water supplies must be expanded and clarified and include comparisons of relevant environmental factors including quantifying areas of disturbance. The current document appears to arrive at completely opposite choices for the preferred project systems for each resort complex, despite environmental constraints that are portrayed as similar. In addition, the statement indicating "challenges" related to development of the wastewater treatment beds/trenches requires specific explanation within this section and a more detailed assessment within the DEIS section concerning wastewater treatment proposed for the development. The apparent benefits of using the existing Pine Hill STP to provide quality treatment need to be expanded for comparison and more specific information provided as to why this facility cannot be used.

Local Planning/Traffic/Socioeconomics
Please refer to the enclosed comments of DEC's SEQR fee consultants, Tim Miller Associates, Inc, and Clough Harbour & Associates, LLP. These comments also include items that extend beyond DEIS completeness, but that should be considered and addressed in the DEIS at this time.

Water Supplies
Demand
Calculations in the DEIS related to projected potable water demands include a 20% reduction due to the use of water saving plumbing fixtures. The acceptability of applying this rate to this project will require confirmation from the State Department of Health. In addition, the DEIS should present information based upon known water use at existing comparable-resorts to support these projected demands and the applicability of the 20% reduction.
Well Head Protection
Drawings must show a 100-foot and 200-foot radius of control around each proposed well. The DEIS must discuss specific well head protection measures to ensure water quality.
Hydrogeologic
The DEIS should be revised to clearly identify all proposed water sources and all current sources in the area of the project in tabular format with reference to specific location maps and also include proposed/current rates of withdrawal and other relevant information consistent with discussions between Delaware Engineering and DEC staff.
The presentation of pump test data should be better organized to facilitate review. Conclusions based on the pump test information must be supported with scientific discussion, not declarative statements.
Village of Fleischmanns
Use of Fleischmanns' water supply to serve some of the requirements of the project will require the Village to obtain a Public Water Supply permit from DEC. This permit should be identified in the DEIS permits/approvals section. In addition, the system needs to be further addressed in terms of its existing permit approvals. Also, an explanation of the purpose for the additional well mentioned in this section must be provided.
Wildacres/Highmount Water Treatment
The DEIS indicates that a potable water treatment facility will be used. Discharge wastewater generated by this facility will require a SPDES permit approval and the nature of potential contaminants and methods for treatment should be discussed in the DEIS.

Wastewater Treatment
Subsurface Systems
The proposed use of several separate systems of less than 30,000 gallons per day (gpd) that are adjacent to each other may not qualify for the groundwater regulatory exemption (6NYCRR Part 702.21) and thus require that applicable groundwater standards be met prior to discharge. The DEIS must address this concern by providing information to clearly demonstrate that the subsurface systems are not connected to the same groundwater aquifer. Pre-discharge treatment necessary to meet groundwater standards should be assessed.
Percolation tests were performed in November 2000, yet DEC 1988 standards indicate tests should be performed in the spring, as system failure is more likely during wet months. In the Wildacres area three soil percolation tests were performed. DEC standards indicate that two tests should be done for every 1,000 square feet of absorption area. Three tests do not appear sufficient for system design purposes. For example: the Wildacres test pits generally described soil as silt loam, yet percolation tests range from 5.35 to 9.30 minutes per inch which is significantly faster than rates prescribed for silt loams in DEC 1988 standards which range from 31-60 minutes per inch. Also, conclusions regarding lack of seasonally high groundwater are inconclusive because of the time of year the tests were performed.
On page 9, the second paragraph erroneously refers to percolation test results of 0.2 to 0.53 minutes per inch.
The discharge of over 100,000 gpd to groundwaters using "raised" fill absorption system, (also known as a mound), over a relatively impervious fragipan layer, will require ground water mounding analysis. On page 9 the DEIS states that "some challenges exist" to subsurface disposal. These challenges must be identified and discussed to demonstrate feasibility of these systems. Examples of existing, comparable systems should be included and their long term viability assessed.
The proposed disposal system is multiple subsurface mound systems. However, these systems will require blended soils for the mound systems because the upper level of the natural soil is too fast (percolation rates less than one minute) and the deeper natural soil is too slow (percolation rates greater than 60 minutes). The DEIS should describe how the mound systems address the deeper soils inability to percolate wastewater.
The proposed organic loading to the wastewater treatment systems is SOD = 364 mg/I and TSS = 447 mg/I. The DEIS should discuss why these values are so high. They are typically 200 mg/I.
Other
Page 37, Section 1 in the DEIS must be corrected to indicate that sanitary wastewater disposal of 1000 gpd or greater to groundwaters requires a SPDES permit. For industrial discharges such as that from a water treatment facility, all such discharges require a SPDES permit regardless of flow.

Stormwater Management
Individual Permit Requirement
The Department believes that an individual State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (SPDES) permit is appropriate for stormwater discharges from the project construction activities and also for post construction stormwater discharges. This permit requirement should be identified in the DEIS and a description of a proposed monitoring plan presented.
The DEIS references the existing SPDES General Permit (GP) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (GP-93-06) as the standard for designing the project's Stormwater Management Plan (Plan). That Permit is in the renewal process. The revised General Permit, which will be completed in 2002, cites the Department's new manual "NYS Stormwater Design Manual" as the performance standard. This new manual, dated October 2001, should be used for the design of the project's Stormwater Management Plan.
Erosion and Sediment Control

The project is separated into two distinct drainage areas (Pepacton Reservoir and Ashokan Reservoir). The project's phasing plan proposes 25 acres of disturbance for each watershed (total of 50 acres exposed at any one time). While the two main areas drain to two distinct watersheds, the manageability of the 50 acres of exposed area is a concern and adequate monitoring and controls need to be identified and evaluated, including a reduction in the amount of exposed area dependent upon site specific conditions.

The Ulster County Soil Survey indicates that Arnot Series soil is the predominant soil type. The DEIS Soil Test Results (Appendix 12) does not identify this soil. The DEIS appears to identify soils that do not occur in Ulster County, and do not appear to occur in Delaware County. This issue needs to be clarified or, if necessary, corrected.

Stormwater runoff from the construction site must comply with the New York State Water Quality Standards in the receiving water (6NYCRR, Chap. X, Part 703.2). The site soils appear to present a settleability problem. The Plan proposes to use alum as a flocculent to enhance the settleability of the site soils. Alum may not be used as a flocculent at a construction site. Polymers, with acceptable toxicity test results, can be used; however, a site specific plan must be developed. This plan must provide for collection, polymer treatment and pumped dewatering for all construction site runoff. Alternatively, the poor settleability of site soils can be addressed with a reduced disturbance limit and rapid site stabilization.

The Plan provides no detail on the proposed erosion and sediment control measures. Design details must be provided.

On page 5 of Appendix 11, construction stormwater plan, the general construction sequencing should be modified so that additional controls are placed before clearing and grubbing. It should also include an additional step to make sure the site is thoroughly stabilized before winter season.

Water Quantity
The Plan's hydrology section appears to indicate that the post development flows will be attenuated to predevelopment conditions in accordance with the requirements of the GP. The Plan, however, does not address the feasibility of constructing the detention basins necessary to provide the required peak flow attenuation. Design details must also be provided. Additionally, the Plan must demonstrate that, during the construction period, peak rates of runoff for all storms, up to a 10 year 24 hour storm event, are attenuated to predevelopment conditions.
Water Quality
The Plan provides a pre and post development pollutant load analysis which indicates compliance with the GP. The Plan, however, does not provide sufficient detail on the post development treatment measures to support the results of the analysis. Detailed descriptions, locations, and design details for all permanent measures must be provided to support the pollutant load analysis.
Maintenance
The DEIS must include a long term maintenance plan and schedule for all permanent stormwater treatment facilities.
Other Industrial Activity
The Plan states that a rock crusher will be used during the construction period. The Plan must identify the location(s) of the crushing operations and provide a Stormwater management plan specifically for those areas. Additionally, if stone will be washed, an individual SPDES Permit will be required for the discharge from the washing operation. Use of the rock crusher(s) may also require an Air Facility permit approval and criteria for such regulation should be included in the DEIS. The DEIS must also evaluate noise impacts specific to the use of a rock crusher.

Pesticides
Page 109 of the document lists the chemicals proposed for use with no restrictions for golf course turf management at the resort. Following review of this list, the Department finds the following chemicals to be unacceptable for use, or requires further justification for reasons provided. These are:
cyproconazole - Not registered for use in NYS
mancozeb - While the parent chemical is non-mobile, and relatively non-toxic, one of the principle metabolites, ethylene thiourea (ETU), is highly mobile, more toxic, and fairly persistent in an aqueous environment. Additional study or justification for the use of mancozeb which includes the potential effects of ETU should be provided.
metalaxyl - This chemical is noted for it's highly mobile nature in groundwater, with a literature half life range in soils of 7 - 170 days depending upon soil conditions. This is higher than the "60 day" window used as a benchmark in the DEIS. In fact, other modeling studies have indicated metalaxyl has similar leaching characteristics as fenarimol, a chemical identified in the DEIS as "DO NOT USE, LEACHING POTENTIAL". Therefore, additional study or justification for the use of metalaxyl should be provided.
isofenphos - Bayer Corporation, the sole supplier of this chemical, has withdrawn registration of this product for the US. Although products containing isofenphos are still available (to use up existing stock) it is highly unlikely this chemical will be available for use at the time of golf course completion.
2,4-DP - Not registered for use in NYS
DCPA - While DCPA is in itself to be considered to be relatively non-toxic, there are at least two metabolites of concern with respect to the use of this product. These are 3,3', 4,4'tetrachloroazobenzene(TCAB), and 3,3',4,4'-tetrachloroazoxybenzene(TCAOB). Therefore, additional study or justification for the use of DCPA which includes the potential- effects of TCAB, and TCAOB should be provided.
In addition to the specific concerns for the chemicals listed above, the general concern following review of the portions of the DEIS submitted is that the decisions on turf agent use appear to be based solely on modeling information. While modeling can be a useful tool to predict potential outcome of chemical use, ideally it should not be a substitute for "real" data. Therefore it is suggested that a groundwater/vadose zone monitoring program be evaluated and proposed. Such a monitoring program will have enhanced value given the sensitive area of the project (within the NYC watershed), and the ability to confirm the effectiveness of the IPM measures proposed for the project with regard to reducing environmental impact.

Natural Resources
Fisheries
The section of the DEIS that discusses the tributaries to Emory Brook that were sampled should include a statement that indicates that although no trout were collected in these tributaries at the locations sampled, DEC believes that trout do exist further downstream in these drainage systems.
Bicknell's Thrush
The DEIS on page 183 needs to be corrected. Sightings of this species have been recorded for the Catskills in recent years. However, such sightings are usually above the 3000 foot elevation.
Surface Water Retention Ponds
The DEIS indicates that for the most part the streams on the site are removed from the areas to be disturbed by some distance, and will be protected from pollution by retention ponds to intercept first flush and high flow events to the 25 yr storm. There is, however, no discussion of what impacts these ponds may have on water fowl and other wildlife utilizing them. Presumably, these ponds would have runoff containing the herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizer used on the golf courses, as well as high nutrient loads, and metals resulting from the waste water effluent being used for irrigation. These issues need to be discussed and evaluated.
Within the DEIS section related to potential fisheries impacts, the use of springs for project water sources requires discussion related to the value of these springs in supplying thermal refuge in existing trout streams. Potential impacts due to the loss of this flow during critical warm weather, low flow periods needs to be addressed in this section.
Other
The DEIS mentions that only 573 acres of the 1960 acres will be developed, and that the remaining 1387 acres will be left in its natural state, and protected from development by either deed restrictions or a conservation easement. Deed restrictions are not easily enforced when they are violated. Typically, the only way to enforce the restrictions is to take the owner to court. A conservation easement may be a better approach to protect the property, but there is no indication in the DEIS of what entity would hold the easement. More information is needed on this topic with a discussion of the pros and cons of both options, with some organizations identified that may hold a conservation easement.

Visual Impacts
The items previously provided to Crossroads by DEC in a March 15, 2002 letter regarding the visual impact assessment are to be addressed in the DEIS.

Document Format
Given the size of the document and the extensive amount of information presented in the DEIS, it is recommended that effort be made to improve the use and readability of the document. Revisions to incorporate sections of text related to specific areas of impact assessment should be moved from project description sections to the specific section where these impacts are discussed. Where impact analyses relate to several resource concerns, specific references to these analyses should be included within each resource section and results appropriately summarized.
A number of items included in the enclosed comments from Tim Miller Associates, Inc., and Clough, Harbour and Associates, LLP should be considered to improve the use and readability of the DEIS.

Other Agency and Public Comments
The Department has received several comment letters from other agencies and members of the public regarding acceptance of the DEIS. Copies of these letters were provided to Crossroads and responses to these comments were provided by Crossroads. Where Crossroads indicated that additional analyses and revisions will be done, these additions and revisions should be included in the DEIS.
With regard to the specific comments by the Catskill Heritage Alliance and by the Watershed Inspector General regarding segmentation and the need for assessment of the Catskill Watershed Museum and the potential future casinos that may be sited in the region, DEC does not agree and no additional analyses are required. Rather, sections of the DEIS which rely upon accepted growth projections in various analyses are acceptable.

Miscellaneous
Typographical and grammatical errors were noted in the text. Also, certain figures and text (see Appendix 26) were missing. It is DEC's understanding that you are aware of these specific items and that the DEIS will be corrected.
Pursuant to previous discussions, DEC requests that where possible, electronic versions of the accepted DEIS be made available. It is the Department's understanding that Crossroads will be able to accommodate this request for Volume I and create a CD-ROM for this Volume. Also, the Department requests that Crossroads provide an index document which clearly identifies all revised areas of the DEIS when it is submitted to facilitate the review for acceptance.

Permit Applications
Pursuant to our previous discussions regarding the various applications for permits required from DEC, Crossroads must submit individual supporting documents specific to the permits applied for. Reliance upon information included in various sections of the DEIS to support these applications is not acceptable. For example, for the Protection of Waters permit required pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 608, the application must include:

An overview index map that identifies the location of each construction activity proposed that will affect the bed or banks of a surface regulated stream or water body subject to permit requirements under 6NYCRR Part 608. A description of each activity should be keyed to this map.

Detailed drawings that depict the extent of all work proposed at each location, including all dimensions, erosion and sedimentation controls and flow diversions proposed to separate work activities from the affected waters.

In addition to the specific information referenced above, application forms and supporting information must be submitted for the individual stormwater SPDES permit required for this project.
Please note that DEC staff are available to discuss and clarify any of these comments. Please contact me at 845-256-3014 should you desire staff assistance.
Sincerely,
Alexander F. Ciesluk, Jr.
Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
Region 3
AFC/bt-bmb
Enclosures
cc: S. Allen
M. Moran
D. Cordisco
M. Duke
J. Tierney, Office of the Attorney General
Supervisor DiModica, Town of Shandaken
Mayor Vernon, Village of Fleischmanns
P. Davenport, Shandaken Planning Board
M. Porter, Middletown Planning Board
J. Graf, NYC DEP
D. Ruzow, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna
K. Adams, Sidley, Austin, et al.
T. Alworth, The Catskill Center
G. Cox, Audubon
M. Izeman, NRDC
A. Nagy, Catskill Heritage Alliance
J. Wyman, Friends of Catskill Park
M. Allen, Saratoga Associates
G. Engstrom, Clough, Harbour
F. Wells, T. Miller Associates