HomeMy WebLinkAboutIndian Shores 1997 1 ,
' I
r ;
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for
Indian Shores
at
Cutchogue
Town of Southold
New York
r
January 1997
' f
Prepared by: Coastal Environmental Corporation
P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, New York 11718
31997
LJ
SOUr4i:iLu it?�"�i.f
PLANNPNG BOARD
LIST OF FIGURES
� 1
1, Comparative Land Use
2. Regional Map of Long Island, NY
3. USGS Location Map ;
J 4, Site Photographs
5. Subdivision Plan
6: Alternative Subdivision Plan=42 lots
7. Conceptual Development Plan
8. Hydrogeologic Section
9. Soils
10. Groundwater wells=1 Mile Radius
11. Groundwater Elevations
12, Natural Resource Communities
13. Wildlife Photo
14. Visual Impact Photos
i 15. GW Monitoring Well Sample Locations
16. 'Environmental Limitations-of Proposed Plot Plan .,
16a. Staggered Sanitary Disposal &Water Supply Layout
17. Single Family Dwelling Construction-Typical
17a'. Erosion &Sediment Control Measures for Construction Sites&Typical Plan
r
LIST OF TABLES
r �
1. Estimated Site Coverage
i 2. Outline of Recommendations- Southold-Town Stewardship
J Task Force&PEP Action Plan
3. Permit Approvals
4. Well Boring Logs
5. Potential Residential Interior Water Savings
� 1
6. Nitrogen Budget for Turf Fertilization
7. Nitrogen Budget for Wastewater Disposal Systems
8.. Nitrogen Budget for Animal Waste Sources
-' 9. Nitrogen Budget for Vineyards
10. Drinking Water Analysis,Nitrogen Component (Healy Method)
11. Annual Nitrogen Loading &Dilution Factors
.j I�
INDIAN SHORES, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Project Location: Cutchogue, Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-116-1-3
South side of NYS Route 25; 1,100 feet
West of Linden Avenue/Moore's Lane
Applicant: William Baxter
C/O Charles R. Cuddy, Esq.
445 Griffing Avenue
` Riverhead, New York 11901
Tel: (516) 369-8200
Lead Agency: Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179ASSO �
Southold, New York 11971 ®���®,oma• ®r B°.�
' ✓ �b
Preparers: Coastal Environmental Corporation p........
°.°,..°..°,°°°•°.o•m..
263 Lakeview Avenue West l JEFFF3EY L1. . SEEMAN i9
Z..°. •°..•e°°°°°o°°°°°.°.°.°....1W
P.O. Box 602 �p 04404
Brightwaters, New York 11718 �0���° ® �a��
Contact - Jeffrey Seeman REM/CEP t6 �� ---"%
Tel:
Tel: (516) 666 3825 Fax: (516) 6651538 ® ®���°,`® �1®�°•°°°°°�/�1,�•°°®®
Sub consultants Greenhouse Consultants Inc. - Archaeolo JCFFRD' 9-
cc: SEEMAN
Peconic Land Trust - Land Preservation ®Uj eE
Eric Lamont PhD - Botanist 2565 °
Young & Young - Land Surveying & Engineering °° °° °•����
(As adopted from Maguire Group A/E/P, PC) d6°®.e®® °' ° °°°
®®®®d89880B6B9�8®
Date of
Preparation: January 1997
r
f
I
Availability of
Document This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617. Copies are
available for public review and comment at the office of the
Lead Agency:
Date of
Acceptance:
Deadline for
Comments:
f
r - '
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l PAGE
SUMMARY 1
A. PROPOSED ACTION
B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
'C. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
D. ALTERNATIVES
E. MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 10
A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS
1. Background,and History
2. Needs, Objectives and Benefits
B. LOCATION
1. Regional Location and Description
2. Site Location,Description and Access
3. Zoning
C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT
1. Site Area, Coverage and Structures
2. Storm water, Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
3. Open Space
a. Peconic Land Trust and Conservation Easements
b. Taxation of Conservation Easements
C. The Monitoring Agency
d. Criteria for Conservation Easements
e. Land Purchase by Town of Southold
D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
'
E. APPROVALS.
r II® ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 34
A. GEOLOGY
1. Surface and Subsurface
2. Local Topography and Soils
B. WATER RESOURCES
1. Groundwater
2. Surface Water
3. Drainage
l
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
1. Tidal Marsh
2. Upland Forest
D. TRANSPORTATION
E. LAND USE AND ZONING
s
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES
7; G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
H. VISUAL ASPECTS
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 80
A. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Groundwater
a. Usage
b. Quality
1. Turf Fertilization
2. Sanitary Disposal Systems
3. Animal Waste
ti
4. Agriculture
c. Drinking Water Quality Impacts 1 71
ti d. Marine Water Quality Impacts
2. Wetlands and Wildlife
3. Cultural Resources
4. Land Use
S. Visual
B. MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Transportation
2. Community Services
IV. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE
y ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 112
A. GEOLOGY
B. WATER RESOURCES
1. Groundwater
2. Surface Water
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
D. TRANSPORTATION
E. LAND USE AND ZONING
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
H. VISUAL RESOURCES
V ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE
PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 121
R
VI. ALTERNATIVES 122
A. STANDARD SUBDIVISION MAP
B. OPEN SPACE CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE
y ;
C. CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE
D. EXPANDED FOR CORCHAUG SITE ALTERNATIVE
U E. EXPANDED WETLANDS SETBACK ALTERNATIVE
i •
F. NO ACTION
G. PURCHASE AND MANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
I COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES AND
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 129
VIII. REFERENCES 130
APPENDICES (SEPARATELY BOUND)
r
' LIST OF APPENDICES
_ APPENDIX
lA & 1B Greenhouse Consultants -Archaeological Survey Report
2 Town of Southold-Town Codes
3 Suffolk County Department of Health Services -
Monitoring Well Data Results
4 NY"SDEC Water Quality Reporton Downs Creek
5 Floral Inventory&Habitat Description-July 1995
t 6 Town of Southold-Parks
7 Correspondence
8 Preliminary Report-
East End Economic&Environmental Task Force
{ 9 SEQRA Background Data
10 Assessment Value
11 Draft Deed of Conservation Easement "
12 Tidal Wetlands Map(710-540)
tl
I+
�!l
I _
1
SUMMARY
A. PROPOSED ACTION
r The proposed action involves a seventeen (17) lot subdivision of a 105.6 acre site referenced as
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-116-1-3 Town of Southold, New York. The subject site is
located along the south side of Main Road (NYS Route 25) approximately 1,100 feet west of
Moores Lane, and is zoned A-C. The application includes a 37.47 acre parcel offered by purchase
to the Town of Southold for use as a cultural resource park, two (2) agricultural lots of 18.84 and
11.96 acres placed under voluntary conservation easements and proposed as vineyards, an
equestrian lot'comprising 5.67 acres and thirteen"(13) lots proposed for residential single family
housing with lot sizes ranging from 80,100 to 166,400 square feet. :Construction of single family
residences and out buildings associated with'the agricultural needs of vineyards and equestrian
uses will likely -occur. Approximately one-half of the site is currently used for -agricultural
f purposes and the balance is undeveloped woodlands and wetlands.
Proposed access is by New Suffolk Avenue for the southerly equestrian/agricultural and residential
lots and from Main Road (NYS'25) for the northerly proposed park and the second agricultural
site.
Purpose
' The purpose of the proposed action is to:
• Subdivide the parcel for producing revenue associated with resale of two
r agricultural parcels, a lot for equestrian use, park land and 13 (min. 80,100
S.F.) residential lots.
• Provide open space and park land through a 37.47 acre Towri park.
Provide agricultural land preservation through vineyard and equestrian land
use.
• Provide rural landscape protection through conservation easements.
1, Protect sensitive ecological resources.
• Protect cultural resources associated with Fort Corchaug and other historic
' Id sites.
Intent
'+ The intent of the proposed action is to procure subdivision map approval on the land uses whereby
the future development of the site can proceed through a predetermined, environmentally
"responsible plan. This will provide the private land owner, and the Town of Southold an
opportunity to evaluate the best land uses of this-single large(105 acre) parcel through SEQRA and
1
•
aJ r
a
i
avoid ad-hoc development schemes that may conflict with long range Town planning goals or
inhibit private permitted land development.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
�._. The subject action reviewed by the Planning Board, Town of Southold, New York acting as lead
agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, determined the project as a Type 1
1 Action, and required a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) be prepared. The significant
environmental concerns are cultural resources, open space,preservation, visual impacts, and
' impacts to wetlands.
Cultural Resources
A Stage 1A Archaeological/Historical Sensitivity Evaluation Report conducted for, this site
concluded that this parcel is the location of one historic.and four prehistoric sites. It is also `the
location of the,Contact Period Fort Corchaug and a nineteenth century farm stead. (Greenhouse
> Consultants Inc., 1994).
Open Space
Pursuant to the Town of Southold's Codes, Agricultural Land Preservation and Open- Space
Preservation and Suffolk County's Farm Preservation Act, open space preservation is a goal and
reduction of open space and reduction of agricultural uses are to be avoided.
Visual
Together with open space and farmland preservation concerns, aesthetics of a changed landscape
and impacts on the rural and natural environmental settings of,the surrounding area by the
{ proposed project is a concernthat must be addressed.
J. r
j r! Wetlands
The subject parcel is adjacent to the west shore of Downs Creek, an estuarine water course
2, consisting of tidal wetlands. The wetlands- are regulated pursuant to Article 25 of the
Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) as codified by, 6NYCRR Part 661, effective January 16,
1991 and under Chapter 97 Wetlands of the Town of Southold Code. The NYSDEC has been
requested to confirm the wetland delineation line.
C. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The proposed Indian Shores project provides for a planned, development of 105.6 acres of land
which has cultural and environmental significance. There is a balance between the needs of the
applicant and the benefits to the public. Conservation of open space and traditional agricultural
,+ I
1
land use is equaled by a residential cluster mini estate with two acre lot sizes and natural buffers.
Public funds are available for park land purchase and voluntary conservation easements are offered
to preserve farmland. The land becomes economically productive with only moderate impacts.
Mitigation measures suggested to minimize impacts are achievable without gross alteration of the
proposed action or substantial economic burden. Current regulatory requirements will avoid
significant impacts and standards set by specific approval agencies can be achieved.
It should be noted that the applicant's original proposal included development of 42 residential lots,
a 4.7 acre-equestrian parcel, a vineyard of 32.6 acres and a park of 5.4 acres. Comments on the
r. LEAF checklist and the EIS scoping outline were based on this proposed subdivision plan. The
comments on the LEAF Checklist completed by the Lead Agency included: "The yield map should
be feasibly buildable in accordance with recognized environmental and zoning requirements"
(CVA, Review of EAF-Major Subdivision Indian Shores SCTM No. 1000-116-1-3, 1/3/94).
Since that time, the applicant has proposed a much less intensive development, consisting of 13
I residential lots, 2 parcels for vineyards with provisions for one single family residence on each,
� _4 one equestrian parcel (provision for one house) and a 37.47 acre parcel for purchase by the Town
r ;
as a park. This revised proposal represents a significantly less intensive use of the property.
The environmental impacts of Indian Shores as presented in this document are expected to be low
f to moderate. Mitigation where warranted is achievable. It is reasonable that the level of impact
determined by the Lead Agency on the more intense use would be equal or lessened by the
proposed action.
Potential impacts of greater significance were identified by the Lead Agency for the 42 lot plan as
y follows:
Impact of construction on slopes greater than 15%
Impact on plants and animals
Impact on habitats adjacent to wetlands and disturbed sediment impact on wetlands
Impact on aesthetic resources
+ , Impact on Historic and Archaeologic resources
Impact on open space adjacent to Downs Creek and future open space opportunities
Public controversy
I The LEAF Checklist and review identified that the aforementioned potential impacts could be
mitigated and that an Environmental Impact Statement needed to be prepared to review the
applicant's proposal. The information presented in this document reflects impact analysis for the
current (17 lot) subdivision and uses the original 42 lot plan as an alternative scenario.
3
Cultural Resources,
The park proposed for sale to Southold will preserve the cultural resources. Greenhouse
Consultants, Inc. concluded no new impacts to cultural resource sites would be expected with
exception of a new site found during recent investigations. It is recommended that either
t` } construction at this new site be avoided or excavation of the area be conducted by archaeologists
d j for information and documentation.
Water Resources
"Control of pesticide/herbicide applications is required to avoid water resource degradation. Water
conservation methods are recommended to minimize impacts to local drinking water supply.
Groundwater resources will be regulated by NYSDEC and Suffolk County Department of Health.
Current regulatory requirements will avoid significant impacts and the standards imposed by the
approval agencies can be met.
Aquatic&Terrestrial Ecology
Continuous buffer zones between wetland and woodland habitats provide wildlife corridors. The
park provides a habitat'area for wildlife and existing regulations set for tidal wetland protection
governed by Southold and New York State are adequate to provide protection of sensitive
environmental areas. A 75-foot setback zone required by the NYSDEC is proposed, and
M adherence to these restrictions will minimize environmental impacts.
Open Space/Farmland Preservation
Approximately seventy percent of the 105.6 acres will be preserved as park land or agricultural
lands. Conservation easements have been offered on thirty acres under the guidance of the Peconic
Land Trust.
Visual
The rural setting identified as specific to the North Fork of Long Island will not be significantly
impacted. The 75'setback along the tidal wetland fringe will adequately screen the homes from the
creek and road viewshed.
Vistas associated with the site will remain virtually unchanged. The woodlands and open farm
1 j field viewed from NY 25 (Main Road) will not be significantly altered. Conservation easements
and public park lands will provide mitigation of visual disturbance. Development is largely
restricted by the plan to the south end of the parcel,,with primary access via New Suffolk Avenue.
( This area along New Suffolk Avenue is presently developed with residential homes and the
development will be compatible with the local surrounding area
i �� 4
�r Cultural Resources
The significant impact can be identified as cultural/archeological resources. The mitigation measure
proposed to preserve the cultural resources includes purchase of a historically significant area of
the site by the Town of Southold. A second mitigation plan requires additional archaeological
surveys to be conducted within building envelopes of home sites and infrastructure. The public
r +` benefit would include documentation of historically significant findings and continued growth in
cultural resource knowledge through the use of the proposed park site. The cultural resources
within the vineyard area will not be exacerbated beyond existing disturbances caused by soil
tillage. Therefore, no new impacts are anticipated.
The applicant's offer to provide voluntary conservation easements with,involvement of the Peconic
Land Trust, mitigates further disturbance to cultural and environmental resources.
Water Resources/Wetlands
!" `F Water resources and wetlands will be protected from significant degradation through existing_
regulations. These include NY State and Town of Southold Tidal Wetland regulations, private
water supply and sanitary disposal standards administered by Suffolk County Department of
Health Services and a low density of development.
Open Space
Open space is protected by the proposed park offering, wetland setbacks, conservation easements,
and low density residential use located primarily in the southeast quadrant of the site. The
f following graphs help to display the comparison of land uses and increase in Southold's parks that
result from the proposed action. Through interconnection of park lands, buffer areas, and open,
space, protection of wildlife and vegetation resources is provided. The preservation of the more
significant habitats is provided in the land use goals of the applicant's proposal.
1 D. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives reviewed include open space contingency, cultural resource preservation, expanded
Fort Corchaug site, expanded wetlands setback, a 42 lot subdivision, purchase by the government,
and no action. The proposed action itself would be considered a valued mitigation plan had a more
intensified use of the site been proposed. The alternative subdivision plan had proposed 42 lots
and was assessed in the DEIS to determine comparative impact levels against the proposed scheme.
However, the greater density use exceeded moderate impact levels for cultural resources, terrestrial
a
habitats, and sensitive ecological areas; and had potential to increase nitrogen loads. Complete use
of the 105.6 acre parcel for agricultural purposes was not assessed as a viable alternative. The
f impact of clearing the entire woodlands and proximity of agricultural activity immediately adjacent
_ to Down's Creek will cause concern of significant ecological impacts and minimize public benefit.
�f 5
.1
I
,J
An alternative of public purchase of the entire parcel and a no-build alternative were also assessed.
Neither of these alternatives met the intent and goals of the applicant. The most viable plan appears
r to be the proposed action.
E. MATTERS TO BE DECIDED
Numerous local, state, and county approvals will be required for this project. Permit applications
will be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies along with a more detailed site plan. The
conveyance of land to the Town of Southold and final execution of Peconic Land Trust
Conservation easements, will have to be handled at a later date. The following table provides a list
4 of required approvals•anticipated for the project.
J
,r �! 6
i
Indian Shores Subdivision
Approvals Required
AGENCY TYPE STATUS
Town of Southold Subdivision Map In progress pending SEQR
Town of Southold Acquisition of park Pending SEQR and Town
Board decision
Town of Southold Wetland permit- Tidal Pending SEQR and NYSDEC
wetlands and USACOE review
Town of Southold New Suffolk Avenue access Pending subdivision approval
and SEQR
Suffolk County Department Water supply(Article 4) Pending subdivision map
of Health Services Sanitary disposal (Article 6) approvaland
SEQR/Applications to be
filed at future date
New York State Department Curb cut for NYS Route 25 Pending site plan review
of Transportation (Road access permit)
i New York State Department Part 661 - Tidal wetlands Pending wetland delineation
of Environmental Article 25 verification and permit
1 Conservation application
u
c�
;.l
7
JT ,
TABLE 1 -
INDIAN
.INDIAN SHORES
a
ESTIMATED SITE COVERAGE
TOTAL: 105.6 ACRES
•r::i}+�:v v:
.:�::•{'.•: ..v:•:::f{v:.:••.'•.:'::•r 'v}:v' v::rJ�:{•�i• u::}.•::v •.:{r{•.:i• ..f
v ry
•,f
vrr.:
:.:w..:.::.. .. :•}:ti..:::':2;{..:.::. };•,::: .. y}1wt1/�
vrv.y: r:.... "..
AN
yr�.•:.•:': ,:i:•:..'f•'•}f' '•�?:•:•i' v:\•+ 'r f::}+
Buildings and structures
Total: 16 Residential
3 Barns 2.30 2
Misc. structures
*** Expressed as footprint
Driveways 0.15 < 1
Roadways and parking fields 1.49 1
Landscaping 11.48 11
(40% estimated for residential uses)
J -
Natural 16.23 15
(25% estimated'not including the park)
�r
Agricultural and equestrian 36.48 35
Parkland 37,47 35
TOTAL 100
i '
C
■
I m DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action involves a seventeen (17) lot subdivision of a 105.6 acre site referenced on
\� Suffolk County. Tax Map #1000-116-1-3 Town of, Southold, New York. The subject site is
' located along the south side of Main Street (NYS Route 25) approximately 1,100 feet west of
Moore's Lane„ and is zoned A-C. The application includes a 37.47,acre parcel offered by
purchase to the Town of Southold for use as a cultural resource park, two (2) agricultural lots of
18.84 and 11.96 acres'placed under voluntary conservation easements and proposed as vineyards,
an equestrian lot comprised of 5.67 acres and thirteen (13) lots proposed for residential single
family housing with lot sizes ranging from 80,100 to 166,400 square feet. There is also a `
provision for two future residential, one retail and one outbuilding structure on the vineyard parcel
as well as a residence and outbuilding structure along New Suffolk Avenue. Approximately half
the site is currently used for agricultural purposes and the balance is undeveloped woodlands and
wetlands. Proposed access,is by New Suffolk Avenue for the southerly equestrian/agricultural and
residential lots and from Main Road (NYS,25) for the northerly proposed park and the second
agricultural site.
A. PROJECT,PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS
1. Background and History
jThis area known as Fort Neck, including the 105.6 acre parcel,was owned by the Horton Family
from about 1689 (Thompson, 1962). By about 1880, John Downs owned the parcel and was
living there. An 1896 map depicts three structures along Route 25,just west of Downs Creek, that
appear to be on the parcel (Thompson, 1962). 'Three names, including Downs, are evident. By
'1906, Downs had two structures in his name. Since then, the property has changed to the Baxter's
ownership and has remained in the Baxter family.' Based upon research on the site, it has not been
used for any other activity except farming. Recently, most of the land has remained idle.
(Appendix IA & 1B). The owner has requested Suffolk County and the Town of Southold to
evaluate the purchase of portions of the site in order to preserve open space. Neither or these local
governments have managed to finalize a purchase yet agree the site has resource value. A previous
subdivision plan depicted(42) forty-two lots. The present application is for(17) seventeen lots
2. Needs, Objectives and Benefits
1, •
The subject action reviewed by the Planning Board, Town of Southold, New York acting as lead
agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, determined the project as a Type 1
Action, and required a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) be prepared. The significant
10
I
� I
environmental concerns are cultural resources, open space preservation, visual impacts, and
impacts to wetlands
Y
The objective of the applicant is to subdivide the parcel for the purpose of producing revenue by
providing lots for resale as 13 (minimum 80,000 SF) residential home sites, a 37.47 acre open
space/cultural preserve (to be sold to the Town of Southold) and three agricultural lots of 18.84
acres, 11.96 acres and 5.67 acres (primarily for vineyards and/or equestrian use) with provision
for single family residences and outbuildings on each of these three lots. It is the intent of the
applicant to voluntarily commit to conservation easements during the process of subdivision
approval on the agricultural/equestrian parcels. This private offer reduces density and preserves
open space and agricultural land without use of government funds-or loss of tax base to the Town
of'Southold.
f
The Indian Shores project provides combined goals of the applicant's objective to generate income
from the property's resale and for the following public benefits: achieve municipal open space,
agricultural and cultural preservation; minimize environmental impact and protect sensitive, natural
habitats. The subject site had been identified in the Preliminary Report to Governor Mario Cuomo
' prepared by the East End Economic and Environmental Task Force, November 22, 1993 as a
priority parcel within the Peconic Pinelands Maritime Reserve cited in New York State's 1992
Open Space Plan. A request was made to the Governor to preserve "Fort Corchaug - 106 acres,
Indian Fort location". The proposed action includes purchase by the Town of Southold of 37.47
acres including the primary cultural resource area of the fort; conservation easements to preserve
farmland; minimum residential lot size of two (2) acres and an existing contiguous natural buffer
area along Down's Creek and associated tidal wetland system under the ownership of individual lot
owners.
The applicant's efforts to preserve agriculturally significant lands is consistent with the Town of
Southold Land Preservation Program and the Suffolk County Farm Preservation Act. The
proposed project is also consistent with recommendations from the Peconic Estuary Prog Larn
Action Plan.•Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Dec. 1994. Draft Outline of
1 ! Recommendations, Southold Town Stewardship Task Force,Town of Southold, N. Y. September
30, 1993. (Table 2)
r-'
The development of the parcel for residential use will be in concert with the needs of the public in
that individual lots will remain undeveloped until a committed buyer is recognized. Public benefits
include cultural, environmental and open space preservation; park land, residential housing and
economic growth compatible with low density residential housing and agricultural land
development.
A� 11
'i '
i
B. LOCATION
1. Regional Location and Description
_1
Long Island extends from the southeastern part of the mainland of New York State eastward about
120 miles into the Atlantic Ocean, occupying a total area of about 1400 square miles (Figure 2).
Suffolk County, which forms the eastern portion of Long Island, occupies an area of about 920
square miles. The Town of Southold is situated in the northeastern portion of Suffolk County and
is commonly referred to as the "North Fork". The Town is bound on the west side by the'Town of
Riverhead, on the north side by Long Island Sound, on the south side by Peconic Bay, and on the
east side by the Gardiner's Bay, Southold covers a mainland area of about 53.7 square miles and
comprises approximately 5.8 percent of the area of Suffolk County. Within the Town of Southold
is Cutchogue where the site is located. (Figure 3)
2. Site Location, Description, and Access
The subject site is bounded to the north by Main Street (NYS Route 25), to the south by New
Suffolk Avenue, to the east by Downs,Creek and to the west by the property of R.L. Ginsberg and
M.M. Brown. The 105.6 acre parcel presently consists of approximately 53.6 acres of forest
(with 25 -50 year'old oak, maple and pine trees), 45.5 acres used for agricultural purposes, and
6.5 acres of tidal wetlands. The general topography of the site includes slopes of less than 6%
with elevations varying between five (5) feet and thirty (30) feet. Groundwater elevation is
approximately one foot above mean sea level, at the site. This relates to a depth to groundwater
between four(4) and twenty nine(29) feet(average 19 feet) (Figure 4).
Approximately fifty(50) acres located along the western half of the site from Main Road to Suffolk
Avenue had been farmed and is open lield. The eastern half of the site is wooded and tidal
wetlands; offering good wildlife habitats. South of New Suffolk Avenue at the delta of Down's
Creek is a perch stand erected for osprey nesting. This stand contains a developed-nest and the
osprey was observed during several field visits. .
Existing site access is very limited with no formal' roads. A small path exists around the edge of
i� the agricultural fields and within the wooded area. Proposed access to,the site would be from New
J__ Suffolk Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet west of Moores Lane. The road would meander
through the existing agricultural field and a portion of the forested area for approximately 2,000
feet and terminate as a cul-de-sac. Site access to the proposed home sites is not proposed from
NYS,Route 25. Some of the proposed building lots could potentially contain access to Downs
Creek.- Access would be difficult because a minimum 75-foot setback at the edge of the Creek-
would
reekwould make access difficult.
( 12
S
746 73• 72'
� I
\ 1�E1�IP vim- YORK -' �G�1G� _ rp �
\ p / GO�� SoU
\ Ar
`` LOr� -t
SITE P�
41*
io
w�
%4000 fC0�1c. ° ��►Fo
�w 0 1R r
co�r't �St-PNS C
� O
5 0 5 10 15 20 MILES
746 73' 72•
Regional Mala of Long Island
Figure # 2
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, NY 11718
4
,
TABLE 2
DRAFT
OUTLINE OF RECOMMENDATIONS
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
SOUTHOLD TOWN STEWARDSHIP TASK FORCE
TOWN HALL, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PRESERVATION OF FARMLAND AND OPEN SPACE
Recommendation #4 Expand the types of uses allowed to
agri-businesses on agricultural land
Allow donations of open spaces,
Recommendation # 5 that result from clustered subdivisions,
to the Town or land trusts
Recommendation # 6 Continue and expand efforts
to preserve open space
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Recommendation #8 Support agricultural industry~� Recommendation # 11 Expand recreational opportunities
and facilities
�I SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER QUALITY
I '
v
Recommendation # 16 Reduce runoff into surface waters
CHARACTER OF HAMLETS AND RURAL SETTING
Recommendation #30 Protect historic resources
J ,
TABLE 2 CONTINUED...
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM (PEP)
?�~ ACTION PLAN
-" DECEMBER 1, 1994
PEP POLICY COMMITTEE
RIVERHEAD, N.Y.
i
Recommendation# II-1.3 Marine surface water quality-
Pollution abatement
Recommendation# II-1.4 Marine surface water quality-
Eastern portions
Recommendation# II-3.13 Stormwater runoff-
Coliform loading
Recommendation# II -3.13.3 Stormwater runoff-
New development
Recommendation# II -3.13.4 Stormwater runoff-
Fertilizers and animal waste
Recommendation# II-3.C.1 Groundwater underflow-
Prevention of degradation
Recommendation# II -3.C.2 Groundwater underflow-
Monitoring/Impacts —
Recommendation# II -3.C.3 Groundwater underfloor-
Best management practices
Recommendation# II-5 Natural resources-
Miscellaneous
Recommendation# II-5.1 Natural resources-
Protection
lip
Cutchogue Sta 'a J° �,�El/^ENEs• '-
• BM• �1 ,�
• 10
� 'Sacred Heart c +;`A
�' �� �OPo• , •,•p�A Cern v
•� •if ..�\•_. �,.-
Cutchogue •;;�• _ -- .
`yam •��* .; Sch '• =• -
U A .
vy •93 ` .i
Cutchogue I -_-A.
p•e' f° v �PO20
•Tr/ Vf
40
0 am 32
utchogue '
100
�c�� %,to •r •I North Fork
20 61 Country Club ;i 'g,•_��^
r1 o
D1 31 -`�•_/ 10
•'• • o NorthlFork ��( lice-e- 1 ;3 '
• iI3/ � SITE °\ Country Club -I< alo_04•-
LOCATION a , W,r y t' • •\ '•/
r n J C
f,n �' 1\' :, "� 0�`• New,�,
za: 1��• o • sg ', r RI Suffolk yI
/5 2411 �_ 9
S,UFFOLK d_�- rl _ .•. O _ _-• rf�\ �X• ;�•,,, ..�f
/2 )•C•i 1 1� ' - ;1 , ' - , `i NEW\\ •U OLIO" J \ .1 •'a .11 % "B
1 •,.
' � •`b 11• `� �� ! I, � •`��-0 3• . .. :• -� JC,o\. AVE. ..
JM
Le
.�•Q _ •• :�• j wn =1 ;��:. Kimogener
o .�,� �a Pte,?`.. •�3o
1y• _
Airport �• ;, - _ _ ..MarratookaS2 J. -
Point
30
Matt No 2 N R T '
17
USGS Location May Figure # ,
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
` P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, NY 11718
� .rte• � `',K4o 4��""�w�
C
��.J'1f✓+1A\�jY _ *t y r- )� wtw{iy�-s.��}�.f4`� �j{�J• i,
st�'77��(��u. as Y•�'�.i � �I'ham 1 q� � "�����hF•�' n�!PF{!r•y C�-r i_ ..
�z�hb r'�, s,r'rG,, -+�. '', .+,;� ��'7y�•"it} (`�pyr' ,ac �x4��'f•_. �� '
yW-�j"�-; clS.0 n r�sF ♦�'.' ..),ti:�:,LTay��y`_, ,���.-r\�1.,�i��..r�l:.f�'♦-��`'.c
•
1 1 • • 1 1
`fin?
y�Pe }L��+•. �,.t 1 >_'F) .. ti r'FSCj i\ r�l"�`,i�j�,�,t 4i- r't 1 \�_
t •,1 �j +` + it ,' t I ", � tT n
_ �1r 11 4 1pJO
,� v � �� ��� �. a k d �I w r •rr'S__ t •f'-- 1 11.��J`l Tit L
k
� }' 1 tt�, .� NSt('it �• t ,� J F.j�', j.. j�
,t' y 1' x 1,•
I � vy Ir ' iii��.� t � M.� / •t+�
I '.
3. Zoning
The site is zoned residential, A-C, and relevant to this application the following uses are permitted
by the Town of Southold Code for Agricultural Conservation (AC) and low density (A-C, R-120,
R-200, and R-400 districts.
The summary of permitted uses applicable to this project are as follows:
r 1. One-family detached dwellings(maximum 1 per lot).
Y
t�J
2. Two-family dwellings (maximum 1 per lot).
i
3. The following agricultural operations:
a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard and orchard
farming, maintenance of nurseries, and the sale of products grown
on premises. Restrictions: All buildings for display and sales shall
not exceed 1,000 square feet in floor area or 1 story in height, and
shall be a minimum of 10 feet from all street lines. Any farm stand
in excess of 50 square feet shall be set back 20 feet from the street
line. Off-street parking shall be provided and approved by the
Planning Board.
b) The keeping, breeding, raising, and training of horses, domestic
animals, and fowl on lots of 10 acres or more.
+., c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses, and other structures,
provided these structures conform to the yard requirements for
I !
principal buildings.
4. Buildings, structures, and uses owned or operated by the Town of
j Southold, school, park, and fire districts.
5. Wineries with the following stipulations:
I
L�
a) Winery shall be a place where Long Island grapes are produced and
r--
sold on premises, where 10 acres are devoted to vineyard or other
agricultural purposes, and is owned by the winery owner.
18
b) Winery,structures shall be set back 100 feet from any major road.
c) Winery shall obtain site plan approval.
6. Stables and riding academies.
Within the A-C Zoning requirements, the following setbacks and restrictions would apply to the
proposed project.
1. No agricultural operation with exception to spraying or dusting to protect
vegetation will occur within 150 feet of any lot line.
2. Display of produce at a farm stand shall be not less than 10 feet from all street and
lot lines.
3. Any farm stand in excess of 50 ft2 shall be setback 20 feet from the street line.
4. Winery structures shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from a major road.
5. Housing for horses and domestic animals other than for household pets shall not be
within 40 feet of any lot line.
6. Accessory buildings:
a) On lots up to 20,000 ft2, the setback shall not be less than 3 feet from any
lot line.
b) On lots between 20,000-39,999 ft2, the setback shall not be less than 5
feet from any lot line.
c) On lots between 39,999 - 79,999 ft2, the setback shall not be less than 10
r . feet from any lot line.
-' d) On lots greater than 79,999 ft2, the setback shall not be less than 20 feet
- from any lot line.
` Within the A-C District,the minimum requirements for single family detached dwellings are:
Lot size=80,000 ft2
- Lot width= 176 feet
- Lot depth=250 feet
-Front yard=60 feet
- Side yard=20 feet
19 4 '
f
- Both side yards=45 feet
- Rear yard=75 feet
- Livable floor area per dwelling unit=850 ft2
The maximum permitted dimensions are:
-Lot coverage=20%
- Building height=35 feet
- Number of stories=2.5
The Town has also identified its goal to preserve farmland. The following describes the Town of
Southold's Agricultural Lands Preservation program as stated in Chapter,25 of the Town Code:
The Town Board finds that the acquisition of development rights in lands located in the Town will
conserve, protect, and encourage the improvement of prime agricultural lands, and is.in the public
interest in accordance with the findings and determinations of the New York State legislature, as
set forth in § 247 of the General Municipal Law.
The acquisition of development rights are as follows:
1. Upon authorization of the Town Board, the Supervisor shall solicit offers
for the sale to the town of development rights in such agricultural lands as
may be recommended by the Committee.
2. Upon the receipt-of such offers, the Town Board shall request an appraisal
to be made of the market value of the development rights being offered.
3. After receipt of the appraisal, The Town Board shall hold a public hearing
on the question of acceptance of such offer or offers.
4. Within 60 days after the hearing, The Town Board,shall adopt a resolution
either accepting or rejecting,such offer or offers.
More details of these regulations can be found,in Appendix 2.
l C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT
1. Site Area, Coverage and Structures
Until the,subdivision map is approved, the site engineering and lot layouts are only preliminary. In
an effort to comply with the Town of Southold's SEQR Scoping Requirements, the following site
20
i
t ,
layout data is provided to assess impacts.
Table 1 describes the estimates of site development and coverage. The house structures planned
` for the site are upscale luxury homes with'a footprint area of approximately 4,000 SF (including
accessory structures). Exact details of each home are not available. Other structures for
agricultural, equestrian or park lands are assumed to be standard structures with
r
common/functional designs.
Development of the site was dictated by natural resource (wetlands) and cultural resource
= constraints, which have been incorporated into the overall development plan.
The concept for the new residential community is for a private "mini estate" atmosphere which will
permit custom home sites in a natural and secluded area. The applicant desires to preserve much of
the forested area on each lot as this setting is unique and has a strong market value. Home sites
along Downs Creek must meet minimum set back areas from the Tidal Wetlands line pursuant to
Article 25 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. Hence, this natural setting
will not be interrupted by development. The Creek will provide an open space and with the North
Fork County Club on the opposite side (east) of the creek these home sites will not likely be
impacted by future developments. The natural and cultural resources which constrain the site's
development will also enhance privacy and seclusion. It is anticipated that each future home owner
may wish to naturally screen and buffer their property in an effort to further enhance this unique
setting. Therefore, the minimum setback requirements are likely to be exceeded when home sites
have been finalized by the owners and their architects.
The home sites located along the west side of the New Suffolk cul-de-sac access road will have
rear yards adjacent to the agricultural use lands. The vineyards and equestrian parcels are covered
by a voluntary conservation easement which reduce overall site density. Hence, these homesites
will also be isolated from future developments that might impact privacy. It is the combination of
seclusion and confined privacy, large lots to accommodate luxury homes, and a natural setting
reflective of traditional "East End" character that the applicant desires to market (Figure 5). The
site was originally proposed for subdivision into 42 lots (Figure 6). Thirty nine lots, between
40,000 and 87,300 square feet in size, were identified for single family luxury housing on 62.9
acres. One 4.7 acre lot bordering on New Suffolk Avenue had been intended for equestrian use.
{ The majority of the existing agricultural fields would be divided into two lots of 12.1 acres and
20.5 acres for vineyards. Previously, this area of the site was farmed for clover and hay. The
remaining 5.4 acres was intended to be reserved as a park for recreational use, and is partially
comprised of a documented Indian fort site(Fort Corchaug) of historical and archaeological interest
to the community.
21
a rib L��s.glr■
1.■ `� DOWNS ' 'CREEK_ _ „ 0 eco
ic Lend Trust '
--'-_- -----
--- �::_�'9=� = -----_-- +20.,♦`1 ♦= ``I'♦` `®- o, `° _ ----- — —
' ,♦` _-_ -_---->1�---- _�--�_NO♦_ __ - �'''
------------- --- - -^ � _^ / L♦� J ——=— ==
`♦ - �-7TT___--- 1 i-,S'' ,= �`,'` _��` 4,-_•-_ 'i� `♦. i � �� _ I �♦�__ \ /i.y'a 1�Wb.. ``d ,
i i a:/ i i--.�- -, IM
RAI m I ter-- IT O ' ® `
- 20- - .cam lii - . ' ♦ , - ®� 1 SS _
OWN
"♦ ♦ - - - - `�• - - div�L=. '�'� ,
AAAA— O...c _ �� �1� s�■4 � •�� �■� 1 - -
}_ ---- ■ ■ �..r rMMM� Amn IMaQ awe ' an OAT
A9%1.,099.ACRS2.TOTAL WIDTH OF ROAD 31
`
&lent MUMMER Or 1019 M50 r1 S
MAA /� --. —� — -- -- ------- ------ -- ----_---_ A-C AC9CI11011AL 00M®IMDOM
_ _
MIR / �. + — ; �!—_—————-- -
i�
10,
—''---------^15 J M1 c - Mn ,-,° -_ -i - -
- - -
1
1ill01,190■SKETCH PLANl
r lamwllr-ei■IM■1 aM!a IMMMi.la
mom>•10!!,
----20 - + �i / , At CIIC.001[ T—.r 9mmne
I 1 1 / CIA& 1,w.M
JI M6 tiei..
25-
INDIAN SHORES=MF ,
,:e, M1 Young a Young-Jan. 1995 _
DOWpS "EE11
••rO.. � ~� � _ ./r*"'',vim -' '--- .�;� ..». � �� - I ,
"- • •.e� « -•`r,r -- - ----- .•w - ,, - ----�` Bf4CN '
„ 1c:3,I t- • - ."900RN I
5170
,. - , �' - - 1 rorty. .wra.e•a• - - '- ,
1 rOrwa.�o.a N aND•.MI.J
Ki• 4
SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN "
CLUSTER MAP OF
�•'-�"'�""j' INDIAN SHORES i
i AT CUTCHOGUE
1 I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY,N Y.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT" •PLAN'
,,,Young & Young
The applicant has maintained an extensive dialogue with the Town of Southold Planning Board and
Planning, Department staff in an effort to develop the land with minimal impacts to the
environment. Together with the Peconic Land Trust, Southampton, New York a land planning
and preservation non profit organization, the original 42 lot subdivision was redesigned for the
current 17 lot plan.
2. Storm Water, Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
Storm water from the road will be discharged into leaching pools. Storm water control will
conform to Town of Southold drainage requirements. Runoff from yards and roof tops will be
allowed to infiltrate into the soil, thus recharging the aquifer. The design of the stormwater
systems will be developed and submitted during the site plan review stage. A detention or recharge
i basin will not likely be required.
Sanitary sewerage will be treated by individual septic systems which will conform to all applicable
i codes and regulations. All systems will be located at least 100 feet from the edge of the tidal
wetland in accordance with NYCRR Part 661. The septic systems will be located down-gradient
r
1 from on-site water supply wells and will conform with Suffolk Sanitary Code Articles 6 and 4.
Also a minimum of three feet of soil between the bottom of the system and the water table will be
maintained. A test hole was dug at the south end of the site which located groundwater at 10.2 feet
below grade. It is anticipated that the conditions for septic system design will be favorable and
conform to Suffolk County Department of Health requirements.
On-site wells will be constructed for each proposed home site. On average, withdrawal would
occur at a rate of 10 gallons per minute. Water quality sampling and testing will be carried out for
each lot as they are developed to ensure'compliance with applicable potable water quality
standards.
3. Open Space
As described,above, the proposed project calls for preserving a significant amount of open space
through: voluntary conservation easements for the 18.84 and 11.96 acre agricultural parcels;
purchase offer to the Town of Southhold for 37.47 acres of contiguous forest and wetland that
'- contains archaeologically-sensitive resources and; forested buffer along.Downs Creek. Although
some small portion of the existing open space will be developed to provide for agricultural related
structures and (possibly) a cultural resource interpretation center, much of the open space will be
preserved. A description of the conservation measures is presented below.
24
s
i'
a. Peconic Land Trust and Conservation Easements
��- The applicant intends to donate conservation easements covering the two agricultural lots of 18.84
I and 11.96 (30.80 acres) (Figure 7) to the Peconic Land Trust. As a public charity recognized by
1_ the IRS, the Trust acquires land and easements for conservation purpose and public benefit. The
Trust also provides stewardship responsibilities associated with protected land and public service
obligations. These proposed easements will provide a mechanism for increased farmland/open
space preservation without additional government funding.
New York State recognizes the importance of conservation easements that preserve rural lands and
are held by local governments and qualified conservation organizations through the enactment of
r the Environmental Conservation Law, Section 49-03031, seq. and General Municipal Law,
Section 247. In addition, the federal government recognizes and encourages the use of such
-� easements through Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and other federal statutes.
An article in the Journal of the American Planning Association (Fall 1995) states that the use of
conservation easements provides municipalities and planners with "an exciting opportunity to
integrate compensatory and regulatory methods of land use control." The article urges planners to
utilize this practical mechanism in "local comprehensive planning goals and landscape conservation
1; + strategies."
The Peconic Land Trust has protected more than 2,000 acres of farmland and open space
throughout eastern Long Island, including a number of projects in Southold, New York.
� 4
The following will provide additional information on the public benefits of private conservation
t easements as well as specific procedures and criteria for Peconic Land Trust conservation projects.
The primary benefit associated with the use of conservation easements is that they are a permanent
{ method of land use control and not easily subject to change. There are other compelling reasons
for the Town of Southold to consider the use of conservation easements under special
circumstances, as follows:
Conservation easement deeds result in a legal division of ownership,therefore, they are
' more effective as a means of achieving the conservation goals set by the Town of Southold
i R Conservation easements are legally binding and provide clear plans for how the properties
will or will not be used. As a result, enforcement of the terms of the easements is more
effective. Violations can be more clearly and definitively settled through negotiation or in
court.
25
f
I
Conservation easements are an extremely flexible tool. They can be as simple or as
complicated as need be, protecting all types of landscapes and natural resources
{ - without the expenditure of public funds.
1 Grantors of conservation easements continue to hold the•land and pay taxes.
'Conservation Easements are incentive based and can, under certain circumstances,
' - be considered as tax-deductible charitable conveyances.
A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and a conservation
organization or governmental agency to restrict the use of land in perpetuity. As such,
easements convey a portion of a property owner's "bundle of rights"- to a qualified
recipient. Such restrictions may protect significant natural, open space, and/or historical
r- features of the property. Property protected by a conservation easement is retained in
private ownership. However, as the ownership of the protected property changes, it
remains subject to the restrictions of the easement.
�- Conservation easements do not normally, permit public access. The public has no more
—� right to trespass on land covered by an easement than on any other private property, unless
4 the owner is willing to permit such access. The recipient of the easement is empowered.to
enforce the restrictions on the land.
b. Taxation of Conservation Easements
I �
Easements benefit both the landowner and the community at large. Since easements keep
land under private ownership, it remains on the tax rolls. Although its value for tax
purposes is lessened, the alternative of an outright gift to a conservation organization or
- ' governmental agency could result in the property being removed from,the tax rolls entirely.
At the same time, the diminished value of the property, due to the imposed restrictions,
} may provide the landowner with the potential for a reduction in property taxes.
A conservation easement is a tax-deductible charitable gift, provided that the easement is
perpetual and is donated "exclusively for conservation purposes" to a qualified organization
or,governmental agency.- The value of the charitable gift is equal to the difference between
the fair market value of the land before and after the imposition of the easement restrictions
as determined by a qualified appraiser.
26
1 '
I
��- C. The Monitoring Agency
The easement is conveyed by the landowner with the provision that the recipient will
assume long term responsibility for the monitoring and enforcement of the easement and its
restrictions. The Internal Revenue Service requires that the gift of an easement be well-
documented at the time of the donation. Generally, a base-line study is conducted of the
protected property to establish and document the condition of the property. Thereafter, the
conservation organization or municipality monitors the protected property at least once a
year to ensure that there have been no violations of the imposed restrictions. Monitoring
s ,
includes a physical inspection of the property along with photographs to document the
-"� condition of the property., If an easement violation has occurred, the monitoring agency
must take steps to rectify the problem including legal action, if necessary. As the easement
is perpetual, the easement holder also assumes the responsibility of establishing and
l - maintaining relationships with the property owners, both present and future, to ensure that
the restrictions of the easement are understood and upheld.
L
d. , Criteria for Conservation Projects
As a public charity recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, the Peconic Land Trust
i provides donors of land and easements with significant tax benefits. In order to do so,
j however, the Trust must be able to demonstrate that its`activities and acquisitions result'in a
genuine public benefit. In addition, it is necessary for the Trust to be certain that it can
fulfill the stewardship responsibilities associated with its land protection activities and
' public service obligations.
To this end, the Board of Directors of the Peconic Land-Trust has adopted the following
criteria for evaluating prospective conservation projects. Although each project is evaluated
on its own merits,it is.important that the project result in a significant public benefit.
A. Factors which contribute to establishing a significant public benefit are:
1. The property is in active agricultural use.
y 2. , , The property buffers agricultural land, wildlife habitats, or other
sensitive areas.
3. The property includes, important wildlife habitats and/or known
migration routes.
4. The property is in a relatively natural,undisturbed condition.
5. The property is visible to the public from roadways, waterways, or
recreational areas.
6. The property shares a common boundary with publicly preserved
-- land or other significant open space areas.
27
L _
7. The property is in close proximity to private land which is already
_- preserved or likely to be permanently protected.
8. The development of the property would diminish scenic views or
" interfere with views across protected open space.
9. The property affects the integrity of a significant watershed area,
creek, pond, or other body of water.
10. The property is of sufficient size that its significant features are
f
likely to remain intact in spite of adjacent development.
B< Factors which may preclude Trust involvement are:
1. The property's value is primarily scenic, yet cannot be readily
viewed by the public.
2. The conservation values of the property are likely to be significantly
�- diminished by the development of adjacent property.
- 3. The landowner insists on conditions which the Trust believes will
seriously compromise the conservation values of the property.
4. Stewardship responsibilities, including the enforcement of easement
provisions, would be unusually difficult to fulfill.
c .
In addition to conservation projects which fit the above criteria, the Board ,of Directors may
authorize projects for 'other worthwhile public benefits, including "trade lands" to be used for
financial support of Trust projects, and cultural benefit programs (which lead to the enhancement
j of particular neighborhoods or communities).
C. Factors which contribute to establishing a sound "trade lands" project are:
i ,
1. The property, including any buildings, is clear in title, free of liens,
and is legal for building purposes.
f
2. The property, including any building, is in a reasonable condition
for trade land purposes (a gravel pit or very run-down building in
need of major repairs would not'be appropriate).
D. Factors which contribute to establishing a neighborhood cultural benefit are:
1. The land would provide a,more beneficial use as a public commons
- or green area in a given neighborhood rather than as a building site.
` 2. The land would form a beneficial attachment to public or quasi-
public holding wherein the project could be conditioned for specific
purposes such as, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
- a. Garden or green space, separators between historic
28
buildings or places, or buffer lands to preserve the spatial
setting of such buildings or places.
! b. Activity space which enhances the public or quasi-public
LJ use.
3. The land wouldprovide the public with significant educational
U; and/or scientific benefits.
E.. Procedures for Making Gifts of Easements
! , Initial Contact
Initial contact between potential easement donors and the Peconic Land Trust to discuss the-
location
helocation and purposes•of the proposed easement.
}, 'Authorization by the Board
If the subject -property satisfies the criteria for conservation projects, the Board will
authorize an appropriate representative of the Trust to,a) negotiate with the prospective
donor and b) initiate a"baseline inventory study" of the property.
Baseline Inventory S9L
j The purpose of the "baseline inventory study" is to assess and -document the current
condition of the property including its size, use,and resources. This information is used to
a) evaluate the public benefit of acquiring the land, b) identify and document the significant
features of the property to be protected, and c) assess its future management needs.
Title Search
The purpose of the "title search" is to a) furnish legal property description and b) identify
encumbrances on the property such as underlying mortgages, etc.
DRAFT Monitoring Plan
This "DRAFT-Plan" is an initial analysis of the long term monitoring costs associated with
! the protection of the property.
DRAFT Easement
The "DRAFT Easement" will be developed collaboratively by the Trust and the donor. The
document will reflect a) specific needs of the donor, b) characteristics of, the subject
property, c) aspects and features of the property to,be protected, and d) descriptions of
monitoring and enforcement procedures. The easement must comply with the requirements
29
for the Internal Revenue Service.
Appraisal
A land appraisal is obtained for IRS purpose.
Final Easement Document
The "final easement document" is signed by the donor and an appropriate representative of
the Peconic Land Trust.
Ongoing Monitoring Activities
Property protected by an easement will be monitored on a regular basis. , Each monitoring
visit includes an inspection of the property and a meeting with the landowner. Included in
this section is the draft agreement between the Trust and the applicant for Indian Shores.
The intended use of the two parcel's totaling 30.8 acres, is a vineyard. Wine production
vineyards are a viable contribution to local agriculture,according to the Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Suffolk County.
The conservation easement prepared for Indian Shores is included as an Appendix to this
document.
e. Land Purchase by Town of Southold
As mentioned previously, the applicant proposes to sell the 37.47 acre parcel to the Town
of Southold so that the land may be used for open space preservation. The cultural
significance of this land as well as the natural amenities (woodland and tidal wetlands)
make this parcel attractive for passive recreational use. The Town has-already expressed
active interest in purchasing this parcel. Upon receiving the necessary approvals for this
subdivision plan, the applicant will finalize the sale with the Town.
D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
It is anticipated that the site will be developed in phases beginning with agricultural and, '
equestrian uses. Then the access road would be constructed. As lots are sold, each home
will have an independent construction schedule. There will be no clear cutting of the area.
This will ensure that effective inter-lot buffers which are an amenity to up-scale residences
are maintained. All construction requirements stipulated by natural resource and cultural
resource agencies will be met. Silt fences and straw bales placed between construction
areas and the natural environment will be implemented to avoid impacts to sensitive areas.
30
, i
I '
`y (Figure 17a) No specific schedule for construction has been set. A 100 foot temporary
construction zone setback from the wetland line will be implemented. A silt fence will be
placed along this 100 foot setback during construction activities.
The individual owners of each parcel resulting from the subdivision will be responsible for
_i land management and conformance with State and local health codes, planning, zoning
environmental codes and regulations and conservation easements. The use of erosion and
sedimentation controls will be maximized for those lots that abut Downs Creek.
Maintenance of the road and stormwater system will be the responsibility of the Town of
I Southold. The Town would also be responsible for operation and management of the
proposed park.
Conservation easement areas associated with the equestrian and agricultural lots will fall
-- under the responsibility of the Peconic Land Trust, upon completion of the necessary legal
transactions.
E. APPROVALS
-, The following table lists the possible approvals required for this proposed project. It
1 i should be noted that an Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of CWA permit would only
be required if work would occur with federal jurisdictional wetlands. As the project is
(� proposed now, no filling of wetlands would occur so Corps approval would not be
required.
i '
i
_I 31
�-J
i
TABLE3
INDIAN SHORES SUBDIVISION
APPROVALS REQUIRED
i .
Town of Southold Subdivision map In progress pending SEAR
Town of Southold Acquisition of park Pending SEAR and Town Board decision
Town of Southold Wetland permit-Tidal wetlands Pending SEQR and NYSDEC and USACOE review
Town of Southold New Suffolk Avenue access Pending subdivision approval and SEQR
Suffolk County
Department Water supply(Article 4) Pending subdivision map approval and
of Sanitary disposal(Article 6) SEQR/Applications to be filed at future date
Health Services
New York State
Department Curb out for NYS Route 25 Pending site plan review
of (Road access permit)
Transportation
New York State
Department Part 661 -Tidal wetlands Pending wetland delineation verification
Of Article 25 and permit application
Environmental Conservation
i
i
' r' °,:• �_�"��K�``ter-,'• 'i~ `,F
,FI'Ij 4 G3T Iir 1: i. 1 ,,.:i 1"' li 1 La, Lftlt35�ti �Y ., k ,.
�- � �� �> {":•�� a3,,,._..:'`�`,_.
� �i ?rL 3?_ z .; ra�r ',1,'FIt<'Y:t.• a J :..,: 1 _Y� �T ``^�sr � x >i4;T• `�� ,� ,.�.
1. ,a! �,.J 1 }i. 14 vt3 4A,a'i t} G[ t. ,y„ I F y,.t�. .t
p a -1 1
q,
Now..",
IH,:h n F,F sktn#,ICY t�1,,: i r< u 7 Yr .•Cr
>, ,...f t �f �- � •u. 1 i.. zti, r' .a. :a. `•„.+-
,I,,,'r,. t.,tr i'- I,f�� �~ ;�;
-;"•�f, F,.t.,:n„«..,,.;ytTtl 1,.Y�'`,,:,:+iw"l.,., 1.,•1,,,11`1• ,,; a fi , p,, aJ i I , �tl ., 1';•' ., i +, yr n.'� .. .c.✓ -
.. "..'D�Lw. �.-
• ., .,.,na,.'r •, �,,1y,«i,,,$,". : •Y Ir 33 ,ta,�4w!I � T 7t�E 1 � ..,_ w,3:!.i,�. ,.F�'
��� ,.k��
_ .,,.,;,I.h,,, , ,.;;:,',`.1 ,..,...,htl1"t•.t.h I�SIQ), •�'•a, „..5., „, ,' x +,r �.t. s. � , ,w• r
., �. N, d ,1f k, „ EI ,II„� ..< f 77 :..l.tr ...,,:! .�. ,. ,..,• nr.. �.� �,.h,Ys'-' .�.-tr`?rr, �c�'��`r
..w.. 1, •,f Fn w7,.`I„3�„1 I r flit !:t r.. t. a >J .,:•1' Y , >st
hs:.::xrr,.,,�•; "rt a .t .�3. ,.L i 3i.^ s ,�
I� •T• �, AI.•>;' .I r.'i,k.r1.3. t. 1.1 a •L=?�''' ,,�.
!�.-^ :a ) i •t Ui i •.a., -1711 I -.x -
.�' •,I, .,iia. 'I� :.t �. - +w
.sinxt:,c lel _;'�, s< '�. Y'c*•u..., c"1<2•'' ,.
,17tr. � M c- k•,� z
7„ AyA
a r5:+
3 .c•' S'.`nss. t,
-
.5
:.. � ,ta.. , .L ,......,.. _....,,.,�;"k:.;,., .c .;....Kw .. Tc„ 1&..i .> ,.•s`IE,�n t. 1- .jci�..
,CuS .,-e•.-rvl `,,4oeJr. ,n�,.•„_'ww,. :^,;...t,.,.{.,='L, r, r, .hi 11 i�_.' d y ,k ;G -,>• L !- :' a rL, ;,^ u. Y+•-« M1 .t 1L.,,�I �L`�� AZ ,..
,.� a'�.,. 1:•`C,::... -^Y ,.w,.:�, a. ,;... ..,,y«,.,.Y ., ”-„-=,:;'-c ., :. '' .,r ,.'.,r I 1 �1« x.$i.a z3, •c,.t.; 1 t'•>... �.
.,a:,. .Y.;x.�,. 'Y,n,.,l ,.4,ec Tfi•Y. ,.t,, x �r�a...ft,t CJ:fit1, -. :f. J f- 5. 'Y•d I L; a1„u; •scP- .•:•,,`�'`t. ■
- ..... _,...x:.. `C 4�.,.d...,,,,...wJW„ �� _, -L ,.i •5a';,-.,..,.«.,w .,ti.s_1_41•r ..F�....13 r. ��"'- .c>�.•'� .t €S
.t,.- c 5. ,<, �..�. .>✓,alw ,1 f^i'CJ' :911�..x...,.c..t. ,i'� {, �.s- ,1-xY.�-,_ '{",.�,: '_�,�,,�:•-•` r',.
�h:.. --::,+F': `h nt...V v. ,...':V•,.r,'�, rIl3F,r 1 .2 ,.1.S,l.�ln u..��n: .t q t. �i �ls
♦ -,,Y..,,.vt�.v...t F.. �. :',., r, T, ,,:i.\,:�...,,.,..,._..-..>'.....f,.,. ..{-. . t,'te}..,a,...�i<.r.....,.....,,v�u.-...,.,_•..L^,.-,fi�.�r..,,,,,.:,�*”.,.r r,*;..;.+.rrr.,-..Vk._,^x,.c,,.;,,,:,.:....,,,,,._,.;..,,.,.,-..,«,.t,h".,.-..rt,.lr.�,vb..,.y•.:,,,1.vw,..c.•,t I„a•":-�^`+..•.,.'..k..-..,_,_L,P-.«.';1o;..r,z,^-:.,•1.•,:—'.fi:,,-...r:,-«-„,.•I>,4,<v,,•.,.T,,•.'�,.,-r-.a....,.,,�,.,...,..:,' v,.Y,.:.,.„.;.a.. .I......,,aI..,...,-,si.E,.4 i.,r«aroi,t r l.,utl v.s..l..i.,._r�.�,,..,,.r•a..r.::«a,.,r1..1.Se.1l,:,t1t!>l.i.1z,F s,.,1.r...u-:.,,�7,r:.':'...r-ar,..i,t-a+!.,3drF(-..,1,.�.l..,t,,ll.,.•if-....,t._ .\,,.. ;..e..s,+I
0..6.:t,+i
,„,« R. 3-0
•;n'Y'"-�, •.rc•
,• �A��� �2r",A'
l''a:c'S•'
, �,-"•a'
zwy,”
A
I .
_
A' ,.-v -•'y.4�• _
_.,I..�t'fi:ra:�,1,,.+'r. -._,. 'I:. 'f•
Y
.M., . .,r _.✓ .,- -1 It,�.,. ,,.,.I.+,Y.,1., .. ... 5���,h.«4.J. c'-^.+s.,.'-'•'� ..�
r ., ,✓, inr,e.:,, .,.v , x.u`,,.. n .,.. ... � ., ... .. N , f •, 1 r.- • ,. Y..., ,, I 1, It I.
r :r,+,.h.v.. „ •a"^' � L, . r .. .,
, ..., t
..,- t. :3, C:,tiz 'z., r_•c•F' •d `':.
a:4
E.. yl ••r
,.0.,.u..„- - . ,. .-.., .., ,_ ,•,.+. , ,nr,.e.��, .,, �..- t t .-t, '.;3.. -
.�. , , , „ •,.-.1,,,..,.+...., ,.,.,.,: ,,, 11..1 .,,,. s1f' ".
.� .,,,..:,..r :, 1 �.Y .�:•s, •^-tom. � '!�<.
,t. t.a.1 .. w:., ,s'^
•).., Y,.'S4 b. �I �_. .YY ;L � 11 ^•J-
.,.'.+:'J. ..i• L, „ri`1r ,.">; t,,1.C1{,4 Y•_Y.<„ }}
•.• «.., R , n.,,,.,-,w _ _ .. ., a., , _. 1„ -'.I '::b;i:. �r�a lilk
'•T^.t's.:, .•L.<. ^
,t
R1, t
.,,,.• „',, 9 ,I ,1:11 rllih{4I.
r111, .fl
•-`�` '>e••.�"1,^fv,
��'•. .�' ,�!', •is .a5.;• � ,.,�,-_ -2x`'-�. J,''`^ a�. b. t
,.:,,'-7.+`.. Via• .l
.�.a,
�. d sas.1 r ,•,
r:a ,n, •3 ..Sla3
,...�.^vr;::�s: �. ,- :. ,.•.,.,,:� .,...,„ ..:,..,, br ✓.,, .".'�;::... ,. Ir .LSLI• I-'a � .ii. ri^ri. :d._ .+.,�.
,, ,•„n - ,., ,. .... m . �., f 6 a :,..,';,,,.:- �, •. !, a,,,slrra Itt.,,lL, ...: i `��'.�
�'
,L �..
-
,fiv+ Fa:u•. ,� 'S., a'2'.•I J '1 '.r_:r �:'"u`'S.
.•,ss._r•...:.,,.-.,-`y...-.a., +n,y. ,. ....a•n.rv.•:. ,,.,,.:,. .: -...,•.,, .,,t Fc ",',•..:.: ,r 11i 1Ati,•r1. q' I:.R ",^:c...- t
•�.,. :E. ,,y�l:a.I t
"�,n:,"",1, .:� r- i, ,.til', •-� :'F ,ppb
:]., 1•I 4'1:1:17..� 1 :r'
w t
:da
'i. :..✓`.,.., v Y, ILF 11.,,7„ 1.:1 �U ,}. ,Z .:I n ,7 �n
y t .U-,�
c�.Y .e 'v 1 •f' ..•'r r.
d
r ., r . . .. r. va �•4 ,., .,, `^f,,, n,.,. ,,.. ,-. , 5. ,4.7
r, F s• .i a. ~r M11 F ,.t r..ar,.. [L,Ht.. ..'1, •ti" �,r.1 -,'” ''c F'
-r `h f„a,• 7 ,:^s, t t 1 s-. +S. •7 - �:; a a.
:�f 'r•' C.L. 'I. a:
t
f J �
hizi 10. :i„ .3•-. s.
.r ,x,n•,, 'v'.. .,. ,•.r ,t. .d'°9}c.,,,. .•!,. 3;t
..• '\.,, } ,•„,a. „ ...,,._„-.,,,. .,,., ., r•,„ ,.3 ,t §?, i;', Ek ,r. r.l a-
ta„t^ �- r., -..1. ,at t"a�Fkl, t 1 •>:wv
�{ y ., F
3 "7zI Por :F'1
J c- -
',. ., ,,. .1,.,«.,,., +,:,.,,,a 1.s „� •,•1�w.,n•is'1.'k•.. '• a:. ..x .0°'`•krr.
qt
L: ,.��.. •I. .� ,S h, .,, .a ",a ,-Ix �'a•. ,.. .,c
,�j':+`•+, °,_.•
"i'tn 4 .'1 +•,wa SF:_ 4• ..l t }__ �._, ,tE ,I• ,L.p �'tyC
Y:
t'k'.
:T w
-
f k=4iMr 1'
't"i++ ,,•a , n, ,. �1.1.11 '�..
_
,
r .. ,. -,Y, . ,,,.,.1_,. .,.•r-,•o+n J,«\ .v,n.n.,, ,.,..,W,., ,. t.,. .f.,.,a �i::'s C�`�7..�'t�'
"rt' 1•r11 tt ,.,. ,r C:.. ..i.>t.�.�ir.l1T. v it�i'.-cx c_ ; Y
„•..5,I.,.,,r. ,..,L•.,-.,.,,. ,. ..,,.t,,n�,....., „-ti .,>,:3.5,., c`>�,w....,a. a ,.,^z. .,., , .k,r. ;,,e, _c. r :s •-�r.: r
M•} +, ,G ., ,.,.,n.. i I q 1,.„F�l.I. .,. .� i. ,•.:}a. •Lt ,: ,-.',
,+,. .,Y'Y7`-T'^-•1�1+, t�r' 3 �'SS' .'-S'v s � -r�'
JJ f
4:r
..,...,..,..,.
„1:
r I -
TS,.
_ ter. t ,,;3,i:” .,...x,,.a.a•a ,
,, ,:,...�t:iu a�•a,S .v.1.
4'rr a-ii1 p e...niL'•`w++' ,1a �,. �
'.fF1 .a+,:N„aGIGFai'k_ •"s, ,Y,
'i• rt:�L'I �t
t "3 ,GF k F• .�L � P,•
1' ( ,.vt. �a, .xx�-'mr"r - .�. rte•'
,.lf.• ,rlt& .vi' �'�rF c1. ,,.n,•OEtit°I: Fs
„�lJ:. '<a?,kt 1'S•' a r• �F '-'r�`t•.•., a-,. Y,. �_,-%.'`.
,ti to. !•., �:, _
a y
"^r.� •rS^ n:z'•-J
.•:t. Safi •t, t
!' 1t'Ia
,•'x u
a z d#,Ar ���'
5,.. 4•„,.c>,..r •:',..:.'�s>.-,4,�,t.-. .K.,s.�,.,... .1.� pp pp z „a •t':' y 'n ""Oly .,,.....,
�,. „•,+,.,.: ,^,k^ ,, '�
��
mit
.xy, - •.�• ? ,. rt,,L\:1:1 LC.': 3. .tk' 'f ppAtlwp
zr ,'1Gt,3a.. �>• r
to :�`•,.�;:4„'a: �. ..naR f3,�.., +,h,.•.:lM” .3. -3 5 '`:i . ��_ ,W
�. .'r, _"�. - �{�. T,•, - I.T f
{-, „J.... C;,attfi., �•�:'.riie�tiisL .:E:?�.�:'h�F4ir =`i:i, t•"-1'.. .��` ..�,. � ..•'. 'ki'
+,. .y q,;., ^'a$«, 'a;� ^F: ,,.a7,•7cl$i,iN-',{., �•�"^.kl#, i� _s .�tc.� .-•••'
�>':,:.rxs:;.1,.,F,S"a"k:�s'^x..•w,.t i ..,�., ^re::,ala�>;. i;b .i'. Y,(:: � :t. -z, '`�Xss7t .- -. c:1'. a
w1+f�tF+R�I'••'h:ti .1..,+ 7F "ah '':"^ti T. ?.v.
`.,`-:.,. .' .. M.'. "•- ,,_..,..._..,Y'a.y:, .,, .,.,,,C9•R 7fy`�;r�..ciq!a1:�H`,�1z�u��'1,-,'t;,t , t� �!1 ,1't r,' .lLr �j -a,Uv`•x r- c+airw';• .a �1S2:n.
'�['M�6�:*ruLxaan¢wuw..vw,,..,.w...w ia.'•n,..:.^rc.*,•�� :>sl�Y,.r`.�.St13"s1iCi:J,h,G',lf�`,tl��'��,yII���' �'F.:�`-'�-r .,r ^.},. `'•t^�^5,,.,�rr-c3. 'tib n
_,�a„urvx,w�h>u•,ruuwrwrs�,v.riw0.wwvn4,..srlraYM1'a4.ARwwN,M:.L.'+�,M ��„ ,'.,•';: ••- ,q ..._ �.,....._._�.�_—,.�.__..... 7•. ,..tz��� 'x'ti...1.,.1 t��tL��S [Vy �•�[� � N,r^•""•"n,T'"t1.,
'„WW.w.baa.WwwwNrnw<t•,r,s�uwwlw�e.K1N41�YLhMM.N�M�YNN" 'NYxN.'• C .. � � 11ruY.�M/I` r:�'r cf� I "• "t.
t� MWV IMYhWYYIYiFr.Ift/uY�M�NwytAMAHLI' •. n , ..•, W,NM,MMMYN►.G1iM�M�T1Y�1��YyMAM/l' r 3' ��, � - - .1 �_ '1/
'• _ .. � r ..r-i vw,u .. ���� .•,.: rr�wwwwi�w,wr��wrr.�+�n+'�rw...,; _ 4 a r�
- axnl r
fi i r -r,_���)�r—'v._tIV .i.ew►.�.•+�.r....uwr.n,nw+.r.......w. I
•
�'It�• Y'y �," I,.,.wiH+1.`+wtir., ,. .,...... I�L... ".Tir'u'� F•�-L t _ � '��1-i�4� rY
�x'rt,yp.!�p{ 1 ..'1„a•"'r'an .• .. .,. .. . _ wowM.,rir', ,.. '�......�..�r.:,.•,. _
!r,� t a r
r
5 c
•�,4 4�l��!;+�.w1uMi�W�Mi�M.�f��YWM�
�mM+w"�w'ww�rr�w�eMLw�M�M1inn.
lerrow.,w•i.ir wwwr+w�rr��r,•r •.. .. � •,
7
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. GEOLOGY
The geology of the region and the site is described below. The geologic makeup is
discussed in interrelated elements composed of surface and subsurface geologic features
and soils. Site topography as it relates to soils is also discussed.
1. Surface and Subsurface
Regional geology of Long Island, and in particular Suffolk County, consists of several distinct
formations and has been discussed in numerous technical documents. For this DEIS a summary of
this information is presented herewith.
Bedrock is considered to be the bottom of the groundwater reservoir, since its water bearing
capacity is extremely low. In Suffolk County, it is tilted southeast to south at a slope of
approximately 50 to 70 feet per mile. It is closest to land surface in Northwest Huntington (500 to
600 feet below grade) and at Orient, and deepest along the South Shore (over 2000 feet below
grade). In many places, the upper portion is weathered to a residual clay (SCDHS,,1987). Figure
8 provides hydrogeologic cross sections of the region encompassing the area at Indian Shores.
The Raritan Formation lies above bedrock and consists of lower,sand and gravel with occasional
lenses of clay and silt(Lloyd Sand Member), and an upper clay member(Raritan clay). The Lloyd
Formation has a moderate overall hydraulic conductivity, and ranges in thickness from 100 feet to
over 500 feet. It is approximately parallel to bedrock, ranging from 400 to 1500 feet below grade.
The Raritan Clay member consists of clay and silt with some eroded sections of sand and gravel
which permit good hydraulic conductivity. However, most of the 50 to 300 foot thick formation
has low conductivity. The formation ranges from 300 to 1300 feet below grade and parallels the
Lloyd member, thereby confining it. (SCDHS, 1987;ERM, 1983).
Above the Raritan Formation lie river delta sediments consisting of highly permeable quartzose
sand and gravel with interbred lenses of clay and silt that may have local hydraulic significance.
This formation called "Magothy" is of varying thickness due to its highly eroded surface. Unlike
the previously mentioned formations, Magothy does not exhibit a southeast tilt at its surface, -
,M -
34
k Groundwater Divides
1 -I '
D ! r IA! = ®� Df
.=9a =: w i e _: • 4200
1 2a-
-400
-
r
Ory�r 6las4l 4Mlhr �
200
s �O,I •Ma'd[a+ru4N
.600 + .600
I 1
' ■6o6ta1 4�W dr
-400 —_.__ N00
- I 164
=14rli�i,Z.iT
'� ? -1000 ` -v.r,_e^�•_- -1000
-1200 LIrN anff6r - -rr _=—,•__-.• _t2fA
-14,30 __=•?- ,.140.1
6.Nnr6 - -
-1600 -1600
-low .tote: Vertical exaggeration about x 20. -100
Position of interface estimated.
r
Hydrogeologic Cross Section D - D'
_. Groundwater Divides
I r
0
�e 2 E1
-too E 'E w
r i .-.a -200
r v
-000 I CDM,tl..141y.f r I -700
1 �Ytna6�rNl/4f A
•400
u
I I v -600 Y tj•1.?•. -000
7• -1000 •r .. -Joao
u ,
u •
1 -1200 LIe•6 gWf4r -J200
-1400 9.4-ch .IL00
h -16.0 -1600
-IBM Note: Vertical exaggeration about x 20.E -1600
Position of interface estimated.
-IIA10 -2000
Hydrogeologic Cross Section E - E'
�. Figure #
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, NY 11718
r
' 4
d
although some portions of its interior do. Comparable to other formations, however, thickness is
greatest at the South Shore(SCDHS, 1987).
o_ h
Above the Magothy, along the South Shore, lies a unit called The Monmouth Group consisting of
interbedded clay, silt, and sand of overall low permeability. It ranges in depth from 70 to 165 feet
4 at a thickness of up to 200 feet. Another.formation along the South Shore, called Gardiners Clay,
contains the mineral glauconite as well as sand and silt. Ranging in depth from 40 to 120 feet
j (with thickness reaching 100 feet), this formation is of low permeability and confines. lower
formations (e.g. Magothy). These two formations are not found near Southold or anywhere on the
North Shore. They are limited to the southern portion of Long Island(SCDHS, 1987).
The surface layers consisting of glacial deposits of highly stratified sand and gravel up to 700 feet
p thick, fill the valleys eroded on the surface of the Magothy (except in some areas). Originally,
glacial material was deposited in two terminal moraines; The Ronkonkoma Moraine extending
along the central and southern portions of the island, and the Harbor Hill Moraine which runs
along the North Shore and forms the North Fork. Glacial meltwater reworked soils to form large
sandy outwash plain deposits south of and between the moraines. More recently, wind, runoff,
and wave action helped form beach deposits, and tidal marshes formed from mud and peat which
accumulated along streambeds, in ponds, and in tidal marshes and shoals (SCDHS, 1987).
2. Local Topography and Soils
a ; The topography of the parcel varies in elevation between five and thirty feet above sea level, with
the average elevation being about twenty feet throughout most of the central portions. Slopes are
six percent or less except where elevation decreases eastward toward Down's Creek. There,
slopes are twelve to twenty percent or greater. Figure 9 shows the area of Plymouth (PIC) soils
where slopes are described at 8-18%. This area is located in the proposed park land and is
relatively (2 acres) small. Other slopes of 10-15% occur along the edge of the tidal wetlands and
are within the 75 foot buffer area(where no structures are proposed).
A test hole was dug and soil conditions described as shown of the Subdivision Sketch Plan dated
January 10, 1995. Nearly 200 test holes were dug during the archeological subsurface
investigations. Soil conditions at each location was described in Appendix IA & 1B. Soil types
within the 105.6 acre parcel consist primarily of Plymouth Loamy Sand and Riverhead Sandy
Loam with smaller areas of Haven Loam and Tidal Marsh. Estimates of percentages of each as
well as information regarding the characteristics of each was derived primarily from the Soil
Survey of Suffolk County,New York(USDA, 1975) and is summarized below.
-
Plymouth Loamy Sand comprises the majority of the proposed development area with
36
.r
approximately 40% PIA (0-3% slope), 9% P1B (3-8% slope), and 1% PIC (8-18% slope).
Plymouth Sandy Loam soils are deep and excessively drained with a substratum of sand and gravel
•I
beginning between 20 and 36 inches below grade. They can be described as having high to
moderate permeability (>6.3 inches per hour) with poor topsoil qualities which are not conducive
to agricultural uses or for establishing and maintaining lawns and foundation plantings. It should
t be noted that presently, much of this soil is covered with virgin forest, first growth forest, and
some grass. Based on site visits and observation of the parcel, the soil does not appear to have any
problem sustaining natural vegetation.
r Riverhead Sande (0-3% slope) comprises approximately 40% of the site. It is characterized
as being a deep, well drained, sandy loam surface and subsoil (lower subsoil sometimes contains
loamy sand). The substratum is sand and gravel at a depth of 22 to 36 inches below grade. It is
well suited for many plants including grasses and crops, and has moderate to rapid water intake
with moderate available moisture capacity (11 -15 inches per inch of soil). Substratum soils have
rapid permeability (2.0 - 6.3 inches per hour).as do the values for the majority of soils on the
property Values of pH range from 4.5 - 5.5 . The proposed and currently existing agricultural
activity is located on this soil. In addition, a proposed equestrian facility is over the south-western
�. most portion of the parcel/soil.
Haven Loam (0-2% slope) comprises approximately 10% of the proposed development area and is
characterized as deep, well drained (permeability of.63 to 2.0 inches per hour), medium textured
soils with a loam surface layer and loam or silt loam subsoil. The substratum is sand and gravel
beginning about 18 to 36 inches below grade. These soils have excellent potential for both
agricultural and residential housing uses.
Tidal Marsh- the remaining soil is Tidal Marsh which has an organic surface layer that ranges from
a few inches to several feet in thickness with a heavy vegetative cover of salt tolerant grasses and
reeds. Subsurface soil is white sand.
The proposed development would occur primarily within PIA and some RdA soils, both of which
have only slight limitations for sewage disposal, homesites, streets and landscaping (USDA,
1975).
xr
37
H a B
'4( E 6 k • - rY .eY1 a
HaA
PIB
RdB
HaB
"W stN s -
U5 V
PIA
co
LL 4�k Ap S dpry ' dA•`0.�/
•�` � a �`� q •• �` " eek � •t, +:` '}
SITS} '°
Rd AZZ
Aa
RdA
•;� " � �,•
PIA =ate T'm
Kimogen
� FV °. " Tm - Tidal marsh Poi
'a• - Pl A - Plymouth loamy sand, 0-3% slope
'
1 : ti :^? ' '+� • r P l B - Plymouth loamy sand, 3-8% slope
E , Fd Rd - Riverhead sandy loam, 0-3% slope
SLOPES > 8%
rd
Marratooka
""Point I = APPROX. 830
FIGURE 9
SOURCE: SOIL SURVEY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, 1975 SOILS
,
B. WATER RESOURCES
I - -
j 1. Regional Groundwater
V� The basis for much of the local hydrogeologic information was drillers' logs and well data from a
northwest-southwest transect that crosses the North Fork at Cutchogue,Town of Southold
(wells S-71044, S-71170, and S-71729) (SCDHS, 1982). This transect is located within 6 miles
of the Indian Shores Site. Driller's logs and core samples indicate a highly permeable sand and
gravel formation that extends from land surface to a depth of about 120 feet below mean sea level.
A series of shallow wells (50 to 60 feet below mean sea level) within the same study area indicated
-y sands deposited as glacial outwash with a few thin (about 1 foot) clay lenses and no major
confining beds. Fresh groundwater under the North Fork and extending right up to the shoreline
5L' is believed to exist in a series of four separate, irregularly shaped lenses within the upper glacial
formation. (SCDHS, 1982). Beneath the freshwater lies a clay layer that varies in thickness from
about 85 feet near the center of the Fork to about 200 or more feet near the northern and southern
portions of the transect. It does not, however,appear to form the contact between the upper glacial
_. and Magothy aquifers which varies in depth from about 200 to about 400 feet below mean sea level
(SCDHS, 1982). Whether or not the clay unit is continuous is unclear. Another sand and gravel
layer of unknown thickness lies below the clay. Elevations for different layers were found to be
similar throughout the region. Near Southold, the Lloyd member is about 150 feet thick, and the
' Raritan Clay formation about 100 feet thick. Depths to bedrock are about 500 feet below mean sea
_ level in eastern Southold. Although the salt water and freshwater interface was found to be at
I depths greater than expected(270 to 280 feet below mean sea level), supplies are extremely limited
and would not be useful as a fresh water supply. Generally, the water quality and depth of the
Lloyd member and the water quality(salinity) of the Magothy make them unlikely sources of water
supply within the study area(ERM, 1983).
Groundwater direction in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer is perpendicular to the water elevation
k
-` contour lines on the contour map and generally moves north or south from a central groundwater
t divide. Water elevations are highest away from the transect measured 4 to 5 feet above mean sea
level and gradually dropped to the north and south of the divide. Within 1000 feet of shoreline,
levels dropped from about 2 feet to sea level right at the shoreline.
Groundwater elevation at the subject site is approximately one foot above mean sea level (test hole
f data reported elevation 1.8 feet above MSL) indicating a depth to water of four to twenty nine feet
below the soil. Average depth near central portions is nineteen feet. Groundwater elevations vary
for many reasons. There are seasonal variations with general increases in groundwater level
during January and February and seasonal lows occurring in September and October. Reasons for
the variation are rainfall and' recharge. Groundwater levels can vary as much as 4 feet during
39
fI `
( I�
w
seasonal highs and lows and/or year-to-year as historically recorded by Suffolk County
_ Department of Health. Records from groundwater monitoring wells within the project's general
} location were examined in order to estimate the variation in groundwater elevation at the site.The
mean water elevations and the average high and average low elevations are as follows:
MW Mean Elev. Mean Low Mean Hi
53334 3.98 ft. 3.6 ft. 4.9 ft.
53327 4.19 ft. 3.6 ft. 5.1 ft.
Ab
53336 3.41 ft., 3.2 ft 4.6 ft
�Y
The locations of the wells can be found in Figure 10 and the well reports in Appendix 3. The
variation between the mean elevation and the average highs indicates that local increase in
a groundwater is about one foot.The difference between the mean and the low is about 0.5 ft. The
information reviewed was for a ten year period (1982-1993) of reporting by the County Health
Department and should provide a good indication of general groundwater trends. Extreme highs
and lows also occur. Groundwater data from the Health Department and the USGS indicate a
groundwater contour rise occurs near well number.53324 which is located 200 feet north of Middle
t Road just east of Alvahs Lane. Groundwater elevations at this well were recorded as high as 10.37
ft. above MSL and as low as 3.52 ft. above MSL.The difference in extreme measurements is 6.85
ft. although the seasonal variation recored in 1994 was 2.81 ft. The location of this particular well
at or near the groundwater divide (where the water slopes away from the peak of the higher
elevations) could cause it to experience greater variations in elevations because of the influences
from vertical flow of water in this area (i.e. deep recharge area). Variations in extremes for the
above referenced wells are as follows:
MW Low High Variation
53334 2.58 5.91 3.33
53327 2.2 6.78 4.58
53336 2.13 5.82 3.69
4
The site is located down gradient of these wells and is likely to have similar characteristics with
respect to variations in groundwater elevations. Therefore it is estimated that groundwater at Indian
I ,
Shores will vary towards average highs of one foot above its mean elevation (since only one
40
I q
INNN
elevation is available assume the test well record of 1.8 ft. to be an average low in order to assess
- a worse case scenario). The average low is 0.5 foot less than the mean which yields a mean
} elevation of 2.3 ft. and an average high elevation of 3.3 ft.. Extreme highs in groundwater could
reach elevation 4.7 ft. but would be an uncommon event.
Groundwater flow rate is determined by the slope of the water table and by the hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer materials. As reported by (SCDHS, 1982), groundwater flow near the
divide is almost vertical at a velocity of about 0.1 ft/day, although this value is questionable.
Another document reported vertical flow near the divide on the main body of Suffolk County to be
an estimated 6 feet per year with flow rates elsewhere considerably less (SCDHS, 1987).
Horizontal velocities were found to be about 0.2 to 0.4 ft/day(SCDHS, 1987).
r Within 0.25 miles of the shoreline, vertical flow is upward and is influenced by the saltwater
interface (change in density). Water is discharged by underflow and seepage to surface waters.
Water infiltrating near the center of the Fork will take 100 - 150 years to reach a discharge point
(Porter, 1983; SCDHS, 1982). Water infiltrating at more shallow horizontal flow points take up to
about 30 years to discharge(SCDHS, 1982).
A comparison of the parcel with a site near the transect indicates that groundwater velocities near
4- the parcel may be up to 1.5 ft./day (Porter, 1983). On the,basis of research done, it may be
!._ concluded that local recharge will occur at shallow depths, residence time of local recharge will be
small, and fresh water will be derived primarily from sources that have resided in the aquifer for a
longer period of time. Groundwater direction at the parcel can be interpreted to be south-south
westerly with some localized easterly flow near Down's Creek.
ti
According to the Suffolk County North Fork Water Supply Plan, dated March, 1983, the thickness
_ and lateral extent of the fresh water lenses in the Southold area are in dynamic equilibrium with the
salt water that surrounds them. This equilibrium exists because of the balance between water
Y recharge and water discharge. The location of the fresh water - salt water interface also tends to
remain unchanged as long as the aquifer is not over pumped. The Ghyben-Herzberg relationship,
states that the fresh and salt water hydrostatic equilibrium is caused by the difference in density
between fresh and salt water; the depth of fresh water below sea level is predicted to be 40 times
s the height of fresh water above sea level. Other research published by the USGS by Crandell,
found that the Ghyben-Herzberg method when applied to the North Fork, consistently
- underestimated the actual depth of available fresh water in this region.
According to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, wells tapping the upper glacial aquifer can be
pumped intermittently at the following capacities without drawing saltwater:
41
Height of Water Table Capacity
Above Sea Level (ft) (gpm)
5 300
4 240
3 180
2 60-120
1-1/2 45-90 (1)
1 15-30 (1)
Less than 1 0-10 (1)
(1) Requires site specific investigations and analyses.
Local Groundwater
Groundwater wells were identified within a one mile radius of the site using New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation Long Island Well Information (NYSDEC FOIL
reference No. 95 - 1360) (Figure 10). Field investigations located a water supply well (a well
point system, presumably used for irrigation) which has been abandoned on the northeast
(proposed park area) section of the property.
The three wells nearest the site are 26833, 95594 and 58740. Well 26833 is an irrigation well dug
to a depth of 65 feet and was 22 ft. to groundwater. Well number 59740 is a domestic well located
south of New Suffolk Avenue. Its depth is 26 feet and was dug in 1976. Well 95594 is also a
domestic well dug to 62 feet with'groundwater at 16ft. Well 56922 was reported as being drilled
108 feet deep because of elevated nitrate levels. It is a domestic well with groundwater at 27 feet
below the surface and installed in October, 1977. Well number 29032 located +/- 3700 feet
southwest of the site was drilled to 45 feet. Drilling stopped because salt water was encountered
I
below the 45 foot depth. Table 4 provides details of the wells within the one mile radius.
A local groundwater profile was developed from several wells along a transect of approximately
240 degrees east.including the test well data from Indian Shores. The profile provides some
relevant correlation between the area groundwater elevations researched from the NYSDEC,
County Health and USGS data However the well records do not reflect the exact time periods for
measurements or(where elevations were recored from driller's logs) always the the same degree of
} 42
accuracy. Therefore the profiles should be used for general conditions only.
Based on the Indian Shores test well data and the Ghyben-Herzberg method, the estimated quantity
of fresh groundwater beneath the site is in excess of 8000 acre feet.
The impact of tidal changes on groundwater elevations was recently studied by the Suffolk County
Health Department. The results of the study are not ready for publication (field data was collected
at Shelter Island). The Health Department stated the tidal impact of a system like Downs Creek and
the Peconic Bay on the groundwater elevations recorded for Indian Shores would be negligible
(Telephone interview Sept 10, 1996). Part of the low level of influence is due to the location of the
_ site upland of the large Bay system.
1
i
43
7
tl
Groundwater Elevation & Well Location Distances in Relation to Peconic Bay & Indian Shores
f ••--•---------------•.....----------•-----------..........•-•-••-•..................--.......--•--•.......................-••-....-----
3.8 Downs Creek
3.7 =
®W#59740
3.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...................................................... .........................-,
3.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •-•-•= INDIAN.SHORES
3.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W#95594
3.3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ........................ 0 W#26833
I G 3.2-
W#63304
r3.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '
0 W#54662
I u 3
�f n 2.9
d2.8 --..........................................................................- � .. .........--.... ` .................. ..................
Y
}
,x
i
w2.7 --------------•--------.-.......................-.......-.-..-..------------------ .----...... ........„...--.-........-..--... ........................'
} ,y
p
I i
t 2.5
e
2.4 --------------------------------------------------------------------
s
✓y e
r
E2.2 -----------------------"'----------------------- ........................
1 2.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ---------------------- ------------------------
e 2-
V1.9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------.-------. .......................
a
t 1.8 r,
C
i
1.7
o1.6 ----------------------- ........ --------------...-----
n1.5 ------------------------------------------------------ --..-.-..... A "..-.............
s 1.4 1
1.3-
A
.3 A
f� b 1.2 _
1.1 --------••---------- '` ---------- -----------------•-••-- ------------------------
o -
v 1 --------------------------- •--------------.......-- •••-•.............---- =.---....----------..... ......------------------
�
e0.9 --------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ....................... "........................ --------•--............3
0.8 -
0.7 -------------------------- -----------------------s----------------------- ------------------------
0.6-
L _ -
0.5 --------------------------• ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ...... ----------------------
0.4 '
y0.3 -------------------------- ---------------------- --------•------•-----• -----------------------_----------------------- ------------------------
0.2
3
0 -
0.01 500 ' 1000 ' 3150 ' 3550 ° 5670 ° 6440 '
Horz. Dist. From Peconic Bay (ft)
� t
" II
0
I,
• 9CL N
� 9yN
�y
3
f
53322
W�CKNAM
•
AVE.
5 36 y 53324• 53327
•54662 1 • 9
MILE N
! 25 53334
0 3304 rki
,
Q 24691 WICKHAM
•
• CRK.
NEW 56922 j 26833 1S2 31468 r
SUFFOLK9< ovQ • MILE
r3o
•
95594 0�2 NORTH Q ✓
�
DEEP HOLE SITE _ FORK 4J
CRK. OWNS CRK. r WEST J4 .
59740 CNTRY. CRK. y�o
JAMES o O CLUB �3
CRK�.f MATTITUCK 4 �9 • = f� CUTCHOGUE
AIRPORT r HARBOR
o
29032
AVE,
h
40
GREAT PECONIC
B AY
GROUNDWATER WELLS ' WITHIN I MILE RADIUS OF SITE
INDIAN SHORES '
SOUTHOLD, N.Y,
Figure # 70
SCALE: 1 = 2.,500'
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
P.O. Box 602
Bdghtwaters, NY 11718
TABLE 4
WELL BORING LOGS
Well Number 54662
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Domestic 12 4"Dia. 74 ft 38 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Tan Sand
45 Coarse to Tan Sand
50 Coarse to Tan Sand
55 Coarse to Tan Sand
-, 60 Coarse to Tan Sand
65 Coarse to Tan Sand
70 Coarse to Tan Sand
74 Coarse to Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 29032
—Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Domestic 5 45 ft 6 ft
5 Topsoil
A
l
TABLE 4 CONTINUED..s
Well Number 95594
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater
0 Topsoil Domestic 25 62 ft 16 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Topsoil
20 Medium Sand
25 Medium Sand
30 Medium Sand
35 Medium Sand
40 Medium Sand
45 Medium Sand
50 Medium Sand
55 Medium Sand
60 Medium Sand/Rock
62 Med Coarse Sand Mica-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 31448
(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Irrigation 600 105 ft 24 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Brown Sand
15 Brown Sand
20 Brown Sand
25 Brown Sand
- 30 — Brown-Sand
35 Brown Sand
40 Coarse Sand
45 Coarse Sand
50 Medium Fine Brown Sand
55 Medium Fine Brown Sand
60 Coarse Brown Sand-Grits and Gravel
65 Coarse Brown Sand-Grits and Gravel
70 Coarse Brown Sand-Grits and Gravel
75 Wet Sand
80 Wet Sand
85 Brown Hard Clay and Gravel
90 Coarse White Sand and Gravel
95 Coarse White Sand and Gravel
100 Fine White Sand
105 Fine White Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 11362
Depth(—ft)--F Characteristics I Use GPM Total Depffi Groundwater De
0 1 NA -Replacement Well I Irrigation 60 N.A. NA
`- TABLE 4 CONTINUED...
;
Well Number 56922
' De (ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Domestic 2"Dia. 108 ft 27 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
!_ 15 Topsoil
20 Sand and Gravel
25 Sand and Gravel
30 Sand and Gravel
35 Sand and Gravel
40 Sand and Gravel
45 Sand and Gravel
50 Sand and Gravel
55 Sand and Gravel
7 60 Sand and Gravel
J_ ' 65 Sand and Gravel
70 Sand and Gravel
75 Sand and Gravel
80 Sand and Gravel
85 Sand and Gravel
- 90 Sand and Gravel
95 Sand and Gravel
100 Sand and Gravel
-; 105 Sand and Gravel
108 Sand and Gravel
110 Sand and Gravel-Bottom of Bore Hole
*** Drilled Deeper Due to High Nitrates ***
Well Number 63304
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Dc h
0 Topsoil Domestic 5"Dia. 83 ft 37.5 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Sand and Gravel
20 Sand and Gravel
25 Sand and Gravel
i 30 Sand and Gravel
35 Sand and Gravel
40 Sand and Gravel
45 Sand and Gravel
50 Sand and Gravel
55 Sand and Gravel
60 Sand and Gravel
._.` 65 Sand and Gravel
70 Sand and Gravel
i 75 Sand and Gravel
80 Sand and Gravel
83 Sand and Gravel-Bottom of Bore Hole
TABLE 4 C®NTINUED v o
Well Number 24691
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater De th
0 Topsoil Irrigation 400 42 ft 12 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Topsoil
20 Sand and Gravel
25 Sand and Gravel
30 Sand and Gravel
35 Sand and Gravel
40 Sand and Gravel
42 Sand and Gravel-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 59740
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater De th
0 Topsoil Domestic NA 26 ft 6 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Sand and Gravel
20 Sand and Gravel
25 Sand and Gravel
26 Sand and Gravel-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 26833
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater De
0 Topsoil Irri ation 500 65 ft 22 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Sand and Gravel
20 Sand and Gravel
25 Sand and Gravel
30 Sand and Gravel
35 Sand and Gravel
40 Sand and Gravel
45 Sand and Gravel
50 Sand and Gravel
55 Sand and Gravel
60 Sand and Gravel
65 Sand and Gravel-Bottom of Bore Hole
TABLE 4 CONTINUED...
Well Number 53336
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Ppph
0 Topsoil Monitoring N.A. 41.42 ft 16.27 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
41.42 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
*** 3.34 ft(Elevation of Groundwater),Nitrate Level(4/25/90)-11 mg/L,15.8 mg/L-(11/9/92)-Raised ***
Well Number 53327
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Momtonng N.A. 43.75 ft 19 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
43.75 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
*** Elevation(22.5),Nitrate Level(Nov. 1992)-19.7 mg/L ***
Well Number 53324
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater De th
0 Topsoil Monitorin N.A. 61.83 ft 37 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
45 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
50 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
55 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
60 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
61.83 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
*** Elevation(42.51),5.82 ft(Elevation of Groundwater),Nitrate Level(Nov. 1992)-19.7 mg/L ***
TABLE 4 CONTINUED...
Well Number 54662
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater th
0 Topsoil Domestic 12(4"Dia.) 74 ft 38 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Tan Sand
45 Coarse to Tan Sand
50 Coarse to Tan Sand
55 Coarse to Tan Sand
60 Coarse to Tan Sand
65 Coarse to Tan Sand
70 Coarse to Tan Sand
74 Coarse to Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 29032
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Domestic 5 45 ft 6 ft
5 Topsoil
a 10 Topsoil
15 Medium to Fine Sand
20 Medium to Fine Sand
25 Medium to Fine Sand
30 Medium to Fine Sand
35 Medium to Fine Sand
40 Medium to Fine Sand
45 Medium to Fine Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
Well Number 53334
Depth(ft) Characteristics Use GPM Total Depth Groundwater Depth
0 Topsoil Monitoring N.A. 52.58 ft 26.47 ft
5 Topsoil
10 Topsoil
15 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
20 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
25 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
30 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
35 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
40 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
45 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
50 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand
52.58 Coarse to Fine Tan Sand-Bottom of Bore Hole
*** Elevation(30.37),3.9 ft(Elevation of Groundwater) ***
i
The nearest public water purveyor is the Village of Greenport The Village Office confirmed (by
telephone on December 11, 1995) that no future plans to extend the water service to the site are
j anticipated and water is currently unavailable. The Suffolk County Water Authority's
Westhampton Office confirmed that their water service is available along Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard for approximately 600 feet east of Laurel Avenue, Southold. However, no plans to
extend the service to the vicinity of the site are being considered. Water is not available from the
Suffolk County Water Authority. (Telephone conversation on December 11, 1995).
The Water Resources Data for New York (1994, Vol. 2 Long Island) issued by the U. S.
Geological Survey reports on three groundwater wells in Southold.
One well (S6524.1) is a Southold Fire Department well located at Bayview Avenue and Route 25.
J The second well (S6558.1) is located at Route 25, 244 feet east of the Long Island Railroad tracks.
It is owned by the Mattituck Fire Department. The third well is 53324, a Suffolk County Health
-- Department monitoring well. Only groundwater elevations were recorded from these three well
locations.
The nearest well to the site is 53324. Its averaged groundwater elevation was 6.92 feet above
mean seal level. The average elevation for 1994 was 6.59 feet. Complete data from this study is
provided in Appendix 3.
S6524.1 Period of Record - July 1949 to current year. Extremes for period of record - Highest
! water level measured, 3.43 feet above mean sea level, May 7, 1958; lowest measured', 1.99 feet
below mean sea level, October 2, 1972.
S6558.1 Period of Record - July 1949 to current year. Extremes for period of record - Highest
water'level measured,7.45 feet above mean sea level, March 29, 1973; lowest measured, 1.06'feet
above mean sea level, September 22, 1971.
S-53324:1 Period of Record - October 1975 to current year. Extremes for period of record -
Highest water level measured 10.32 feet above sea level, September 28, 1989 lowest measured,
3.52 feet above sea level, November 20, 1981.
i
2. Surface Water
i-
Relative to the parcel, the most dominant surface water resource is Down's Creek which flows
north to south along the eastern boundary of the site, with a final discharge to Great Peconic Bay.
,The tidal range in the vicinity of the site is 2.7 feet. The creek is bounded on its east shore line by
the North Fork Country Club (a golf course) and residential homes. Residential homes are also
52
I _'
located along the west shore line of the creek, south of the Indian Shores site. Down's Creek
enters Great Peconic Bay through a culvert constructed to convey the creek beneath New Suffolk
Avenue. The shoreline along the Indian Shores site is typified as tidal mud flats with well
established stands of Spartina at lower elevations to the water's edge. As the slope of the shore
line rises abruptly (upland), the fringe area is characterized by Barachus, white oak(Quercus alba)
and rosa rugosa. Field observations of the Creek's west shoreline identified possible locations
where groundwater is discharging to the creek. The headwater of Down's Creek is located at
500 feet South of Main Road where it is defined as freshwater.
Down's Creek is classified by the State as certified for a shellfish growing area The New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Division of Marine Resources
monitors water quality of the tributary as part of its data collection for Great Peconic Bay Shellfish
Growing Area#28. Monitoring data'appears in Appendix 4(See results for station 9A). An April
1994 NYSDEC report describes water quality at the Downs Creek sampling station continued to
marginally meet the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP): The degradation of water
quality at this station was also noted by the State in a report titled Review of 1988 - 1991 Water
Quality Data Great Peconic Bay Shellfish Growing Area #28 (NYSDEC Division of Marine
Resources). If the creek is downgraded to "Seasonally .Uncertified" then shellfish harvest is
limited from April 1 through December 14 (when no harvests are permitted). Uncertified waters
prohibit shellfish harvest anytime during the year(unless reclassified).
Water quality is acceptable if the median total coliform (TC) MPN/100 ml is 70 or less and no more
than 10% of the samples exceed a TC MPN/100 ml of 330; or; if the median fecal coliform (FC)
MPN/100 is 14 or less and no more than 10%of the samples exceed a FC/100 ml of 49.
i '
Shellfish water quality classification is a limited criteria for water quality -evaluation because
generally rainfall data and fecal coliform counts are the primary parameters used for classification.
The NYSDEC has also classified the tidal waters of Down's Creek as "SC". This is defined as:
"Saline surface waters, best utilized for fishing, fish propagation and survival and secondary
contact recreational activities".
The Water Resources Data-New York Water Year 1994, Vol. 2 Lon Island prepared by the
1 U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) was reviewed for surface water quality data. The nearest USGS
surface water sample location point identified in the 1994 report is the Peconic River at Riverhead.
Therefore,the NYSDEC data is assessed to be more relevant and site specific.
In December 1982, the Long Island Regional Planning Board released its report on The Long
- Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, commonly referenced as the NURP.
53
i
r-
The NURP investigations examined stormwater runoff and pollutant loading of groundwater and
surface water. The study raised questions concerning the effectiveness and feasibility of large
scale runoff control measures recommended for surface water protection and shell fishing water
quality standards. Recommendations suggested to maintain existing water quality where it is
currently satisfactory include:
a) - Preclude any additional direct discharge of stormwater runoff into surface
j waters, using all available means for detention and/or recharge to reduce
bacterial loads.
b) Protection to stream corridors from encroachment, so that the stream
reaches that will become dry, because of the lowering of the water table due
to sewering, will always be available for stormwater detention and recharge.
c) Inform local officials and the public regarding the nature and cost of the
nonpoint source controls that must accompany further development or
redevelopment and of needed changes in current practices relating to dog
waste clean-up and disposal and public feeding,of waterfowl.
As stormwater runoff generated by the Indian Shores development would not enter Down's Creek
via direct discharge, therefore, the proposed plan is consistent with NYSDEC and NURP
- recommendations. No adverse impacts from stormwater control mechanisms to shell fishing water
quality standards are expected.
3. Drainage
The area proposed for development is generally level, with slopes less than 3%. Surface water
generally drains to the southeast, towards Downs Creek and New Suffolk Avenue. Existing
drainage patterns, however, are subtle. Man-made ditches have been created in the agricultural
fields to facilitate irrigation, although some ponding does occur within the fields. The forested
area is fairly level save for some moderate slopes adjacent to Downs Creek- These slopes,
containing Plymouth Loamy Sand soils are densely vegetated with trees and in some areas thick
understories of shrubs and vines. During field inspection, the soil appeared to be very stable, with
no significant erosion noted.
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
In an effort to best portray the ecology of the site and its environs,a community approach has been
taken in this document. The project area consists of three general ecological communities: tidal
marsh, upland forest, and agricultural fields. Sub-areas within each of these communities exist as
well. Each community has vegetation and wildlife characteristics that are unique, but in most cases
54
I
there is a synergism between each community in terms of wildlife and nutrient flow. In this
section each community will be detailed, with particular emphasis on vegetation and wildlife
conditions and functions.A Vegetation Map was prepared as part of the vegetation inventory and is
included in Appendix 5. The importance of the geographical relationship will be discussed in order
to assess impacts in Section IV.
An investigation of the wildlife on the site was done in November, 1995. These findings
supplemented by existing information and research on animals expected to be present at the site are
discussed in the following sections.
1. Tidal Marsh
The extent of tidal wetlands were delineated in the field using vegetation types, soil characteristics,
and hydrologic/tidal indicators. Wetland delineation was also researched from maps at NYSDEC
Region 1 Office; Stony Brook, New York (Appendix 12). Photographs of the wetland are
presented as Figure 11. The Down's Creek system is mapped as Tidal Wetlands. Field
observations have located a road drainage system along NYS Route 25 with discharge to what can
be identified as freshwater wetland/water course at the extreme north area of the Creek until it is
influenced by tidal interaction from the Great Peconic Bay. The proposed Indian Shores project is
located adjacent to areas mapped as intertidal marsh (IM). The subject site does not appear on the
Southold or Southampton quadrangles of the NYSDEC freshwater wetlands maps, therefore a
letter of no jurisdiction was sought from NYSDEC under Article 24. The DEC determined in
February 1996, that the parcel is more than 100 feet from regulated freshwater wetlands and no
permit is required under the Freshwater Wetlands Act. Appendix 12 contains the DEC letter. The
subdivision of land is subject to jurisdiction under Article 25 of the NYS Environmental
Conservation Law. A copy of the Joint Application for Permit to NYSDEC under Article 25 is
included in Appendix 12. The exact tidal wetlands boundary has not been delineated in the field
(by the NYSDEC) because the tidal wetland/upland line is distinct, with an abrupt change in
elevation and vegetation.' In addition, NYSDEC jurisdiction under Article 25 ends at the 10 foot
-, contour provided there is no escarpment or significant potential erosion impact to wetlands. Lots
6-10 have adequate area above the 10 foot contour for an appropriate building envelope, and areas
east of the 10 foot contour can be covenanted to remain natural or required to obtain a tidal
j wetlands permit if activity is proposed below the 10 foot contour. Lot 5 does not have adequate
�- room for a building envelope outside of NYSDEC jurisdiction,and will require wetland delineation
and permitting. NYSDEC input regarding subdivision layout will be sought through'the Article 25
permit process and during review of the Draft EIS. The submission of the Tidal Wetlands permit
application will facilitate this process.
The State regulations are codified in the Tidal Wetland Use Regulations 6 NYCRR Part 661.
55
f_
Included in the lands classified as being regulatory are Coastal Fresh'Marsh, Intertidal Marsh,
Coastal Shoals, bars and flats, the littoral zone, High Marsh or Salt Meadow, formally connected
tidal wetlands, as well as designated adjacent land to wetland boundaries. Many of the
classifications are based on the vegetative areas in which they lie. The tidal marsh near the project
site is typical of tidal marshes found throughout Long Island (Figure 12).
� i
The small area of what appeared to be freshwater wetlands, which exists at the northern end of the
site as a swale, contains some dense vegetation and transcends into the tidal wetland high marsh
(HM) area. The NYSDEC has determined that no freshwater wetlands exist within 100 feet of the
Baxter property(DEC#1-4738-01281/00001-0 dated February 26, 1996).
I
The Town of Southold regulates Tidal Wetlands pursuant to Chapter 97 Section A. Tidal
Wetlands. According to the Code,tidal wetlands are described as:
-! 1) All lands generally covered or intermittently covered with or which border
on, tidal waters, or lands lying beneath tidal waters, which at mean low tide
are covered by tidal waters to a maximum depth of five(5) feet, including
but not limited to bans, bogs, salt marsh, swamps,meadows, flats or other
low lying lands subject to tidal action;
2) All banks, bogs, meadows, flats and tidal marsh subject to such tides and
upon which grows or may grow some or any of the following: salt hay,
black grass, saltworts, sea lavender, tall cordgrass, high bush, cattails,
groundsel, marshmallow and low march cordgrass;and/or
3) All land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland as defined in Subsection A-
(2)
(2) and lying within seventy-five(75) feet landward of the most landward
edge of such a tidal wetland.
i
56
'r
cwt;
` �.<• i..r s �{-?s'i'x,-.�,�-��� w � _ ..
s -�w �..�:""�'t."'�t-?ems•. `� 4 M �_ fc� _
—IP-.__-:— r�.�,,"i'a'-=��,,,��,,c•ts ''�,y�1;�I-.�nA.,�d� �s� "h 1 a .. - ..
ti
1 • / 1
3,1 � S— ���C�i�l`s'+ 4 �tf� � '>�r R,��`��j tt�..•.ia C.r r k ,
s
P t 3 d
1 • 1 •
_44
' t � .�J r rye'\;�lr r.��+}+• .%
.
.\
1
rrJ� £illa'�f t tr
Kr? �4y a
r- y
ra s.�Yr- V •.�� s �F+},fir...
v T
tjLY���✓x-64 :j rl
'
,X-JW— w
mg?
..� SF+-1\lj�f -,` ✓t" fi'�,z.+tY
amti
ti
l
��F
t•;:x.,s.,. WIN'
_ •rn e. - _
r r SYA.
1r '
1 1
r -
r
�. % � yam_-�'�`���4r���� :�-��,� \ �� � _ j r�:.�;, '•
!/"" c r�;, r`Y'yr'c�'t�hr7 S� Y;.'r�.�/'i.. t• may.. ��` - ,
lr''t � '":hR��,,��;��1S�,r,,�j9 i�� '7 j)� i.. ��err �Fe`•� � '�•
�r��y� wii��y_�,f�yr 2f�Z`.r�.rJ ! J,��F , � i-•c .. 7��� �./e.�i�Li ;:r� `hC',r
�l f r `�4'`is�tw,'(yS���7����1S�GAYV��'�������}`'.`'� Fi�7{r► `k�, �R* r���y�f r; -
s>,^ �
IJ ��°o�-S1ir�.Si`r gtF1.f4. •`N�..:i, '; !,Y -\;� �` t, y�'4K.s--i :.y�1�
-t °• rr#tu• F'� n art"" ri(' t
w '�ir.{,1;1
y�h y.
�#iP
�. i� }�S�,It�f�f�� �f��+ i "F�rytr�p�}s,+ t;tr'� �,}��r�`�•.?y,r -
'�"r� ';� � t �,�•�j���d� �xf# ��s�, s��,"+J� ;� �tx�� i J ,.,+r.�., �
4F 8f
k c
7 Jill °w ,� � til
t�
SI i�_ I �
_ . ? Y+ � ��t�� 1�)'2 � i J Y w ,�,,c..�F tt> ire, �!•,T> --
�g�'t,Y�{J�I 1����t�, ��,��`9���� r. T � �J 7�3t� t ..'>♦��ttgq 4 F - ,
' t .it 'yy lt7�i^.}}'�.`'J i}��tIIVl/��� t} S�ff'�t;l� i !� yak.1��S � tai�,,� ` � � q 3.`i .•'r..
4n4 +} +b ."(4 '"a1��yyypl\�ts �,'+"
.fit .�a�.Ab�Jt!It,'"S'r't�i����i�ll��a� ����`,i`,2ki ��►� �,�' ,-�- c'R�'tG1 �`I��s -v`s. 1, ., i•h
�3 i .•1 �4 xl.� 1j `
�''.4..r
Qt gf' fts l
- S t �' �) �,. 1 �� {r i�z'. ° `��v� t 6�t'1,,�' (• f t : /i !.. t {s
1 •y ,� t •, y r], , � f
Art
♦�...17s `ky� 1: rr�F��r'ybtS \{LdG-- '�.'� j1�<f�'•X1 rur� (�1s�� �Ko-r`t;-ryyr 4< ;? 4rR iia t1
H" t s�
lly ti�� � � �y v 4; s� �� {ix 1 � � � k r.` � t� �, �•
g�� �f����k �\� w i. Tk 1 �'t q{ -,y'�i�i r t - Y >k r{ � G'✓S� i� -�"}\t�r i... 4i � _
F NN�,.t�l�{S.r,�ji�Lh�-�1` I�7 a �7 4 '�l 7'v�Y�+,�t�ij*� +a`+lr. s' (��7�'/S,� f �'1 '•.
t n( t �rr 1 yCr { r fSi� Yd) ;r a
t(�.3��
'ti
*1�.\ s /�i Tl��''� 1\K a'\ l'a�� :\ � `'tf t ft r �}�}}�� 7� �J. •fit.;P t,l'...-r
01
f��� { � � r•1� � � �=t'�r ���. 3 �i1; ���``�{11 �-"�\ �� ;�1 �i% . �7 „ fir 'r`'
� •
LIMA"
AIm
•'��t� '.i �.1 'moi= ''�:� r�.U` , �, �
\ r
/ ,„ � �• l r .• i` �I � '� � ,;�,�'. •a�r;:--:.-� � nYr7'.v x.,t-y. „�fs�ci�iy:'t
i
'VARNira,,, ..{..� U'bj• _, i�p� ti+i
9rs_✓:#'a' y�rr t',r° +' >r �`7 f[{vs��,�y
��rAS•rF��Y'�1�lwP7"�''tst'.'�s,'a ;r•'xw'� 1 Yar � � �'4+
r/
,. -.. / i 21'+!•r Al-4�j fi` '. � �,-
r Z
1 • �
W!1
ri Y hl
r I �
kf
wi
I ` 3`y
a''d� y71 RAI
-,-
1
,{��f eft j"�„
►��i���l�,;,�)d t , ,1wr1�YC�,t�'
,l�� 4 Jto}}1���F �
it �U;r+ /� �iI 4 ",f fknJ r t 1 1!r 1
��►j `� .I �'��
v s+ }
11
lit
V i 'It
i�,�,'
All
lie
l
1 • /
These ecological areas are valuable to marine food production; wildlife habitat, flood, hurricane
and storm control; recreation; cleansing of ecosystems; absorption of silt and organic material;
education and research opportunities and aesthetic values.
The tidal marsh at the site, Downs Creek, consists of: salt marsh (SM) which contains coastal
shoals, bars and mudflats; intertidal marsh (IM) and; high marsh (HM).
The salt marsh (coastal shoals, bars and flats) is the tidal wetland zone that at high tide is covered
by water and at low tide is exposed or is covered by water of a maximum of one foot depth. This
area is not vegetated with the cordgrasses, but contains some submerged aquatic species such as
eelgrass (Zostera murrina) and wedgeon grass (Ruppia m aritima). These macroalgae are valuable
as nursery areas for fish. Exposed mud flats are valuable for waterfowl because benthic
invertebrates that become exposed during low tide are easy food for birds and mammals.
The intertidal marsh area is the vegetated tidal wetland zone lying generally between average high
and low tidal elevation. The predominant vegetation at the site in this zone is the low marsh
cordgrass - (Spartina alterni flora). Other species include spike grass (Distichlis spicata), several
glassworts (Salicornia spp.) and rushes (Scirpus spp.).
The high marsh is the uppermost area of the tidal wetland zone, dominated by salt meadow grass,
(Spartina patens), groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia) and the common reed (Phragrnites
australis). The high marsh, as shown in Figure x, is shown in a small area near the northern end
of the project area. However, a narrow band of high marsh exists between the mapped intertidal
marsh (IM) and the forested area. In this band, which is 5-10 feet in width, the groundsel tree and
common reed are the dominant species. Other less common species in this band that occur nearer
the upland forest are black oak, (Quercus veltrtina), highbush blueberry (Vaccinhun corymrbosurn),
and aster(Aster spp.)
The Downs Creek system is a valuable wildlife and bird habitat. Numerous muskrat dens exist
within the tidal marsh. These organisms utilize the common reed to build dens. Evidence of deer
and fox were noted during field visits. They utilize both the upland and tidal wetland portions of
the project area. Other mammals which are expected to be present in the tidal area are raccoons,
skunks, weasels, mice, voles, shrews. Snakes, both aquatic and terrestrial and amphibious
animals such as turtles, frogs and salamanders are also present in the tidal marsh. The
Diamondback Terrapin (Species of Concern) has been seen in Peconic Bay here but the importance
of Downs Creek to this species has not been documented.
� Y
62
J � V
6 ,y;, -•r►
fii'F� 'tr rx. �`r� � ' it j 1, C:•e.'+i :i. �<' r� 1
V .:yt,,+.:. �.rtE' + ,.i �.. 'S r1,,�•�'r �'�t�lS:^�j` S3!•if t7;. 5 P ti' y •^t;7;,�}'..-.•st'. '�' s�' -:,:�'' ✓r%'" R:�. ar T +'; �•�. jf`
�i -- 't'r a ./, f'. y ,, + .�.: ,i�Z•i't <ryjty t [.�,. ••t r.;,%s►�:. '� .. •r >q•7t; /�t .�r••' .. ,.rr:r• ari" .. 't':�:'�' �+ �,��
°rc r•.-.'hrJ. ,i r>' .r 'u.,{,i.t"v,. .l; c •.?•l T�'. ?•�,+l .�.:•�• �� A.b`��t•;� ,� �1S �• Y/.'t'+r`-:•�s. F,
' ..:i :•vr-� �rX'1 { ti`s id rXr .:J l lr' J ,i•,. . / •y : '�,:` ' �^"- ' t`"". Y eL. i.'`•L ,r}.C7+- J,!, t>.J, •�' ' :2 i'{:t'i1.
t t = --#•�;. :+ ,%"fir �. 3 n� } �' 3` Lasr S�- .,a. �i i' ;�r ;a"'4k:�`tef � cer` T .s,•.c.I
;S;' .�-,''' .a, �. �l^Ja�;•, „ t y'�[ •j3• A� -z �yC ��-�,�„ 't r ,� .7,.�
;;'t r't r-:Ct.r'y� ':1:: is^ -r fir :: ,•/'K')' (t "..•S �P .. �'(' aj=• �i14'' ��+;h•�:�' Jam. yr..l�rw.-•r�v..l. �/ + �R :U
= 114... Lf, �.M- T 1 �GL s'S ♦ J'n'i•C, � ��!�•_T � '• • '�
"�„�r 3; r rti. r}J-�Y'L. t-•ti�- � ..�Ii ''�.1 ! +. , s , � "c-rrc`.+' t" %f , Zr�vt tt+"�-�is'J � `�I °c-? `�� t'� � vy�,�
-�.�l,r nY.""r{��•.•?M ':�+'vp�•���'.�,�Uifs'S j?',t Z �. ASr',.;4'- i r �i rw.. •r•�' h*" �M•. a r!'{;• .�i �`'�'7tcr�.,,. ��Y br�t�:�;+ .�y�.'�T,.•t:F�v t�H:.. /j;;: j(q rr✓ �..
x"'{.•1.,:• h`,' ..'r„ r f'r� ,?3 ✓F'i+. 'r• .q, .?; _ + �' e .'G. if'`i.�t .Y.`�trtu F.�'1 i'.:..:,t?,.•�:,1:w.'�:.•- -�r�.r,�i,�ai:v 1 F•,c ..tr.
st4 -,c<- 2i t�'t;��ui'eyr Xe�.t. ,,,,t�. �,. :s,�YC'i>!iR �.:•.Y 't., •ar....H, �, r>-_. ��� .� �...n. _+.'tit f ."'� �, b
i =a?C.:�`'>r -.'(�.-Y�►ri"J�J�- `* }'�4'ia. .� .tit � +,2,:r'4', civ .'7 •t,,,,,�4�'• .ter �'k,�'�f r'" �Yti`` �,i'•!c'i i z -,�-lti'F.��1 jC s SWI s _:C �?;+ �c
•r , ;<.-�'"'trr,`z i��c ;�•�.,c�..� , SIS y t. �,! :�' "�,:.�'v. ..E`,•p ,�•y.-„ •r _ � `
�,•.r r ,+-.: .+ ,rs ,,r�?. -,:J ( �� +: ��,,,y7�t r�%<� :-•.:lt �' +� iS+'iL:. c '4.,,s•,
a? -
<� ,+�,.�::'�:�ay,`_.x�F�f���r;,'�twt y.��1.+,,��f,,�r��:,; v�5 .f �=` ��,:: y, Y ` tF�.oi 'z-i-4?•�•,��.,,�a�-;a:f.�'�Si,, ( e:� -�;,5'�t,;��.�;1r C.��;;' �-j is+�. 1
ljz.0 `4 (:;> . 'k Ja - / . 2 C�''3 .•S .q•`- ;}nY tit .r ,W,tSy'y��•1' fi';>' :u•. .r.
•i��r }•�m f. `�>r ,;1+. ..-a;bY"•G_'-r�.r- A: -r„ <+J+ r Y•�,,'�` i� •,:•rS•�, x ._-+'��.• .;..•.;1}-;,i.
_,,.,� >< a +(.dye,,r 7t4.•,t+-TtF..,.,,Y J,t7:s � �>rt`-.'• •v. � a,.�•'+•'' i.s � <_,r..•++r` r-rr �'Yf .:t-�.E -<�:c :�.
.r.��Vr rt- t r :r7� '` �w .t; '{{, �� ,,/• .''�-�yj�``��.•`��, r;Ir< ,�:�„�,'c'1��,. ti,.�;Itn. �„r,••t.o f..�.{F. t.;�. �t�rp ;f^ <y.�.��. 7
_y„r,�k,;:w!`t•-{�':'S:�,y:,;.�.�Tvt 7.�,.:f i,,i+�:f%W:"'i Yi:.1 '��.W.-• �Ji j.. '�, ,`�i .;' :,v /Ti' t ++,iYe•.t a�AV!•ti�.�•t•e: rti +c•�1�� J T i.., '.?.�•:-:
f J 3. ,'•;p. .nt rY +�-'` Y v4i'- 'i�L:•� m %r.. iA�S.
..e„t%`V��E-.>,.t<..,,..� ,....y.{t�yr,ro;,'-�i i� ,J.,`���-�-�. ;'�,�r�f� ,L.t." 'j{� i;, - g :ik ��la •�-'�� rr.. 1��'i"w;("y�•�'�� �'a=Y l ,N�:� l.'.
t..,,, �_:;!�'.: +.c�T x..Zy rr1a7 .-�:r r��. �k:.. •°,�. .�',dT' }� it `�',.'yn „j'''S.j/r '7�" � xiv' G. �. y,:d n 'f--i it..:•a?� ;n�•a. � .:�. •'�•.' 1
�«-�� •-,. �.':,- :+-�j. <-a.^�"�r'�1, r•�rt ,�fir. � t•,;s.; �-c's' .1;::.f'-' .1>� .a� �. �F��`1,,�i:�i ��`•�-'�`�,.vj �_.,f�lf -��f-',.- �i::.`;fes-.-k�[ . -' �ry < t..�._��a:`t;.;%i
v},;t' +i.-'�1'S. a,,�•.t„(y; :+�+r.�`,•;r �1✓ „}'n,';'�!�_-^..�'t"}I. "�_. /ic+l• y ,� Y`,f.7 f9 �3r�6�i d�! >'� ��' +S'�,,�•-rt♦ ti a t?.7
',ye"', V f {a Ytn.5 ii- t :h 1'r 'S.- �' \:y+' eC - �S 5 � rr,it f .l�• rte•: 'il r•'t Fy; f -.
V•'- r :,'•.'j � '...�•y 't.;z�`t�+l• _i>�� .�{ .Y�1z � r� .•kr �. ,7i ..I. C'�Ei '�;:d1�i.�,�'��'� 1 ��. r� f f�' �•'�' H< .• .Yl r. 'Na•, •
�,3.r;as �S l... t'L`i.�_N y7r 11�•�'hf,';�„t-+�3"i•� ,'x� -.Y•` +V� .l '�.Nc../...c.. ?. rr � c�,^�!�+•: fR`C�`,,,2•�.'iy, �r 4 _> �'',.«« ✓,J� ,.�'"'[t`.
..:'..Y irk <.:.r`.?.t ,� •�:"!;:'-",%�:`orf+'--�'7. 1. 'a trK'�' 7�.� :�,�.. _ rY. 1! r.JF .sf,•�`�;-v.".>�.",,�� lr �„' �•'„�'��1. ,r•.:�-••l�s�+.�� f. :t _ •,� .•r•,��.s
.::{41-•.3v-.�•-r .r_:t"iyr;•+SF:r=-c"•'aY yr.tl.. 'ti,.,;,"Y�•,,��'�^ ,� '•+_ lc !; '�sy.��: �iJls '` G.. ;t,-: rN. s '., ter, 7 1t •fc,�,,•.., ,e.�„ c. I(
-'"'s.;•Y�,r_•.r xy ia%�tiT ��`.r�� .in. n7',' � 1 7,�„� .J. �;.•��:ij.'t+�' r. --ter ♦ �+.t.. `-,k�� _•��3�'t`:'
1 cz-i- -..•�•• 'k. _:,.:.. Y'l"_►i y...' Y f' r . ��
'�.' .
�.t,,w.,; � '�-'� ,f t: ' ,+'. r y�. rKar .,!IK.,.r4.e `s tJ•ob�c .+ r \ � �''in7'V n r .�1.^`
PG!'�,::`� '.::''}j�" 7fC�•"r `� F^ ,+fJ .j � .•c tom. s-�T��,,��•• f. l. ,s 1�, ♦ /....•��': j....
.yNy„�-a1. f +�'•� .ry' �' •s /`"•- ^k v•-- �r v t f;R„r .•.t ;x,7`.i.w t; �w rJ .`> r.'i«• p•'
f,-`rt-� �'' i.,y�'f' �. .J% .+ �,�►�. r•~ 4��p,�.{t Cr��'"'4`-t!•.;�' ">.Y`Y.s ..;�'.iL !' S:��ie.�ii��1 .ar... ir'�i.."e(�.-t f� + 6,.yAra1F j + r j.' ;.y�•+;�'
;t. .i•.^-' �,,• �", !F2 Y'f. `G .... G� ;,}(/�. •. T€l•�, 1`'�.''r, .h�'F '}k��1�-'ii'�< 'Y y. 2 f ait Y n_,.�"l -:r '�'•'"
.+` y` + V ^'Z`, -i '� r�.*.�_.,�'�+ ST `'li '��,,, i` �•' � `.r•Ll�'- .l `'. +✓�„ � '��,1:- �" oJ:T'^� :�;�''•a:
Lo r+.i r' 1 R : •er:�;. +•�+`�"b }} '4 ...A,�.,, � 1 � �'; t i-�r �'^f;?.rr�isr.,�z -ti„_ .e,3'•a. �. '^t• 4±. 1�''"h�•` y,-,:
./}w• .?^N �.r, ct•' t• 5 .� 4 -•�.;•'.S y.[,�<. �+'ti r \. V"r•+� '4y "'-w. 4 �i. ��y. •• J•� :;Z 1•{, �S� �� 1
".�.� .'•- u�r,Ty� <•G!G t: d .r• ti� `'� .£:t- v" �� �' .c.:; + {.ate- ...•^.�'�c'l,c;,,.�rr'• '1`�. s .li.,'^'.c• .,1. t?' !-,
'�,�.'.�}.,r„�.:r, •:!^ta;'i:'a;�r* ^� � Ii. t��-� { i.]y.a�'•'- ri a}� 7:;„',t� �v' ;�+:... ��...r r �-,.,t" s`-fi•S;?� 'i•:�t
nIC� fi ��.'1 ��{{•,,�Yii ` .I ..y,�' •_• Gti'. uan .
.n5. .•^= y� e`ck: �:S ✓ 1' d y �k �• lr }a�. +r' a okj+t; T�rh � e �� r "'S'S y 4 r-
;�:y.-•.: >�I� _ c ;,:.cy,����'.��•�r���tr� a1 ,h .� r►�y� 1�4 --�-�,,
�•�' -;���...�cu x'yi, �v:f2%�•�F r�`•-.. �^��.^,,'�'1' ._ �4'f•.r/.'�' �,. �tr�`•y0� `Vt�• :�'r. �;.'�� /�'• `<' i7•'�.. .ir.}�` � !j'?r '•'.`i�;.�..}, �
� �Y.� �r 7. w.'M � i (• .41'Jl'..%"v -•7'�•, �,. .1,;;,v 'F -`'�' :>L+ 5K '.y."��•. r' �' •�f'4t'i'•� .`��?
,,��;3Zr.'°.7"dt✓"'�'"`�C��'G /'T'S'•,• f' +4�� 't S4" '4 - + �✓��,.�f:u� IV
''•'•.:J. '"'` .. ^l.^.�,�V'L'�C�',t'S+•� .sit-t: � .:3�+:f' •a•�-4 yJjK�����:r�•f� •,.•J •. .,.-, ' :3'.�7t("2�,,� �`�c. 7"- 1.,'••�•�r � ^��(,
-50
�%`fk< C�t;".' '; '^w"`' ,��:�•;•7•i ` „ �y.,1.ia tNn'i, -^•N"•.' M :sY.yy! "i, .r.' �•< '� ..•, '.r��y •:Jb',.Fdj :�.' '� V.
•,�.`:_ :1Y••t'';rVy, v.•�^••7""v�::l;ti_�'..�'aJ,:;i-•:.��-+'7.•.4",tii t' 'f:tiyv- ��[>�`��, rt��� •..i<� ,:� _ ,...t'�rra'�1 +�•i:.Gda.,rr;"�,.�:'-• y..f•• f, v. �!'.5�: �t
...- ..F''. 3-;t� �a -+>r', .�" �.• ..+ ;. sr••••`•'` � 7 � f•+1!' 3t 1w:. ..d5:•. _r
.. .�. a. y„ .yt.. <>;• /i i}��•1 SJ.T!� a+. '.Yi M.:4 �,�+'S+X':` �n+-'�r-.:i';rJa'•7:'�i-''" .'j,��• �' " �'wlo:.1'7i>"��� '� f=at.;.ar.!u. .Y.:.l' .• r �.y t. t.
+. h'{-'�' .�►1,. EC...' •�, J J�,r.. r+..-a,'�''-''='r�..,..r+.d` ^� tY':. .+,f::+�+y rtE"'.3-tuY 1^- �f�.QJ?«'�,i� � �•"'' '•r� '� .�•t�,i: ,ty ••�t �r•ST''1�•': ��e
r-r �'•r:• � •..•:; ♦\ .B Tr .T+'�.-;!`,ter„�''•'+•;{ ,�.+�:s• .y4 Yf" .✓ y�f' �/ tr.
Y, _s- T.:•�= ': t �:�;.-L_r r ,.�'ti',f�,.]/: .,w�c•'�':�j�k<i_. ati .��".aettr`�'�j�,�.j,[ tti. •w•;.•s,�'^C"">":•'�'•�� �'t1��t'��Y y.. f-r••r`S�' �`'
{ ^.'+� - "' J�<.: •�• -" '•t Y=''Y�v. ���� %+t'•'� f" '.J.r..+�•��t".'. �'iA: `!• Imo' !, '�' -.3.'
\'+L Y �G�-. ,�• �..'�•s•''�f -'•t-f.'.• �.L,•� r yF-��.~�'' ♦.Mr 4� �i/ it •+�`
J�:iG.. � � '`fZ;i.;� .+.•�-a.'.,�'.1�;.�F�'��r� Vr �'."3i, �.:;,- m �r�•i�' }X 7r"�L,i .Ii'• .: ��_71:;�•�; ''C' - �'/'7-"P..r..�7'�.. S 'X
t.. �;:=`✓s,.�✓.c::� aocf.Y'�s`•,`,�'�'.',.i�Y+.�, ..,•�•'`'7`x-*f�•.if+sa� �"y'?t>r,'r;^�-kt•..t�'r'' N.,�.7'•r}hsl!.n•,�•r�,'".,•',x}..jA��j� 1�. ,>, rY�.�y� '�`' �} ''' ��T.Tiy-••.•r✓ •c +''''''M�'rj�r w*
:� � t✓ /'�' �h1, ` � • f' -�. 1'- •/ •w ..f�!!Y� �``•. w ,t ' ..
ti �x 'S•S rte• -.f. n. -���'�a.-v,.:I,-'7•`�6;�{ . 'r�+�,r,�'n�'+�-9.���.ty �'` '".�Jf,'w' '7.3�..,'.�C'�'�1••.�,,' �;'',T•�..j'��.t1"'7'
j+••^<'+"'r 4/''�'� �.n,{- ��!'. ,{„r.♦••a,,,;L✓;'1r.t�4,y'.�',.'pi.'°yL v`.�t�'�s�`C.�'�f. ;�1,�,;.•�::'hyr.�J. .Fr: A t;r .,r ���.�M+-.�y����•hLr!��/,`.�' �•t Jf'"�.+':, ` (.'��:w!'.`� '*1'f. •"F'� i
>n r S:.G.t�.��'!K!•7.t'?�:•y�yr:'.y'-�,�-.�,•t' r�r�•,>'� � '"ht~�^''•f?'�� � 7 N ,a' .•'Si.,r� ,i ��`.�„ "��+• 1.�•��i`•+.I� iY.i � t�"{�A.
-J-'=''�.ftl. �L vf•t� " .ry i"7t' :: 1�� `F;;G Y_t"$�v t�aYih�'Y, '. `. 'Kt' t' !!'i' 4`*►C3'"- .•. i.x 1r �.• ,rL �f.^
���i^--, "' �•r>� •pry '��Y'Sbr�< •, aso�, a +:C^�� .•7r s P ...r't1'4►.� �y',�ir l/ .�`�' 7 •r-°� /,��~'•'' >�4:�{• .fin.
'�" Y••"'•N�2�S�,rt. .���Y�"•�'t�•e-tf .'SI"'i+,'.t,iYre32a^�u�y,��„`!Y�:-+yl� �,,'�+'7��.., �•11•`.yL -'I�. si?, � _ .t•rti�'F�(�,�-y
�yr{r y 4'y.c;�'vuN_�L`y�r5eC+�.�•z'rr.n..;<�:r:.ts' yFy.,A.{{r4.,y:.A►':='-:�wL.-jfC�:l.-.�►••f.:s�AS1E���i,iS,,,J�y a'"Ff"�,xs`tic c�+=t';,f`�•x�:'4Y"�I..iy!:.'.�:s.�s•�-.sNI�.`t.5•'-1 v•rank.rt�Ja�•'Y_yT.�;ry.:j„c�r""•'`'1._-'tJt•"„yF7,��,','"946
-J Te'�t'a.a'..:�•'.''."C'��:.��A`ir.z✓.1>.';.l'�i'Sf•�`A •F�+yjr•��+ Iy,��t _ :*:t. :�'.'j" i M'aJ'lrb t�r.,1,;.'.F.r(p,,a•r,:',cr�+/-T�'.:3r'Mi!•i:ssV§r :yy•'�'..�++�75._}'Fr�/,+aPgy�p.,fZw:,rr.'' ^rx•sJ,J'�•r''.r,iY�t•wx, J{�.v�T.•.••-�7 �e., ,• `..FJ
Na•�.�T•�d-
y
4,]•v- J. i " �!�f' Y,;•r,l r.: v+.• 7 oI'r Ilt�.. y�
).�C�•J,- �^�>y ../.�T/_• ✓,`.•' .,•:N'M a GiH1 r��\.Liy�•�.�'�J f'�(1 �J�+r..' �:ti"Y.?i'.-,/�� f• I�� W�.y�,,,��N Ir�� 'l.. - •Y.
/•
.�yy�l.}$t C� i� �.-�'t •=t"t T""rj�t}1'i-9�� -`i rta,j 7''YK 47 �1;{7� N'.t'+' •••P�Y�_Xt: 1'+r•,•,•.. ;j,•,3jl;a^'� 9r... _�:`�'S."y_,T ��- „ � �Fq.3 -. �• .i
�1�:.�-�'3: 'iOt'�. �.��r�y �:.M�:�...�^�:�.ii::Jf•'�t�'X�'.)r s...µN� .•.�r� '',!'""y s j�'�.✓•' �.. •-Y�._' � .;:. `..� q,•_, f`lp._ .'t• .��:.
J�-r �1`,�v�r.� >��":i'£:`►.r.�''+`"'i'r y�' -"C,Le.;�•'�,4„�rti�i'��..`�..ev>�` <`;tr„��y�,t�'�C'.�•y''l�"c`.',��'S:'��•� •.0 ��'r _ 3 'r� � i _ iw�� ,t�, �.t..:..�r�' ,+::' �
a ^�Y5 :�: - `;t�;r ,•'�v,F ,Sr r .;._ ,�. .ar':�•t,..>!x/„„,'-,+•.j..%.'h?Zs±r'r�bwlr;,.r•'"��i •� A7 ..r ', .r�7P�' r tK• $� �s� -�..! 'r
7R';�J"�f� ,.�: ;r�YsY.. x�� Mme, .�J+ r�`a�,a- 'i sY'�Y£..1� 9 r1`t'.,K'�{ t'� ,•-• ."�,'r'�'�Jei1S-•`,�JYi:.•� t'�hw.�r*'' �4.�}r. •r�d�-'-4��i', S,;tY�.
_,;,f^y�?� �: 9+ .i_•�'=•�!r•r_� _ +�. •y..s �s;ru: ,� }�.�,L�. - �.:;f��A.r �' �..`:"•' �'•.> ya� ;�R- s':.a is✓-r.
T"r"ill ��}�,k4:y-Yc ..;.i✓" '?g•r w. J;9 a•' L '� �m ,a.Jc�/�' r:'^� 1r- ,+..,t/ •<' �S'jY(N
+,.�(�``�„•;�%��i� :L:•f.�a?•f.?;•d,'�`4;�: ty45 a't�:�-{!f� ,1.+ysr}�':,r1`�r'•+'•`,,q'>'!�-c3��y-',f{ -,i�y. i "f:�� -F•• � 1j+N; r � - � �i .'�..f'.�,.s6 ':C •lto y�ar` ••�� i
•f,+'r�J. .`i• ':h.� r".t';b4...:�.����'Sy���{,.r 'Lr1 :C `//rV'.• ->T. y� :-'1L J- - •f-�?f= '�.� �'{ y }y�... ,1
.� SANG c y � _•c4•-•s`,�, c•^ i. co.K• _ �i�"=,-} �i'., 'kw."��Y�i:'- ,C,r �r' ?M �''fit.k2'::h�.t'-.� ^^'�� �3: -�: •r+�:
isF•e: _ :�,,. ';%7. ,+a,.s'''i,'o-„�'" 'k/'_:..�.. 'N•n', .�s{5 c"�\.�. <�,-.�,.. ?. r,}>w� :S"" a.�-�<'}� ?�._�;. .zsz.. d' >,Q�•.r 1 '�� "'=' tFs +�j� c:
.t.F,•:i'tY�vna..,{S �.ht'�'�-={ZFi.,r. f' _C t .i... ;•.�J'....,':'y �,�. .� ..Si �`-1?. -si. i:1 „�•r y. 5'.'.:J7,...:� a�'�•4�t' �---i , '�'% 'E:-^� :{r',•'c\- '•" ,Ct= <•-
,-+":.••,,i�� :ti�'A _'•t!S7s"4,':'•a,H;'��v,.i t t . H't,,.:7�"i r• ��;� .tisi,. <., t��l+t`}i,�l..•.�� 1� �".- g'�a• S� r?'" ,,.•
,� {:C/.ri• e7.a. .!".�.� .� ��,,F't 'j:. <.,. ..�SSio'�ic...,,�._.,�• ��.y� .. ^a c�� .3-s t,;- s c- ,t, ,.. c�
..yr. vc;. •+T.,E y,,,:; v!-•%c,,:r.:. a:2t Wc.�P ,.!+.!St'L.yi 'Sh;3' �, x �N '..3:Y �•
�s .4 ti :� � r r. .rs.•.igt'J,''. �. _ Tacrl r x `��.1�::4-`ir�ar.N�•:1^'.;.�^ S ��'] �:. •`Afl -T'r r.� �s r.':�
� ''t,=.�'S y�'.'�f'h.tr=-J t�':f t4i``i''F1.:iS.,;.r '+rt{��-, k+' r��aarr'yfr�"� �.' •. ..yx-!'�.1�:./.ttwaL•+'�?_ :+.rr.:•�.,. lfct`"'5• �•j •�'.. �.} • ���
\. -G't~�•4L1 sl'„ 7�,x,,��` 'j=b:s:Y`i� ,+1![-n.?.�1.,.y- � J k t,;�,;;,;, .`. s - - .} � ��t y ►:.�Ot�isi:;_ 1•
,,yy S+� ��..;F-'* .:3 .�`?�sry� .i• -�•�. �C� �+,5[,,,�y .:.i �t av'- :��� - ...-,n <r V ,•Fi ,n c +r
'K`T�•' ::E(,y.{p j'Yj.1 y.�„tit,,.�9 ,wF>•'+.:t' :i „r�.N,a1•t+ "� t.ie.T +�r�tT'•t'?,• ��r¢¢':`�3.r� '�.7.+ .rte. .{e•f i'.�_�._.T�9,:=n..�".;.Y•"r'�`1�E� .•'1`•'4 �,-:.xc "',�a• :F'.',�:`J"� 5•i�.
!1�i' ��"r?:-s._>� v: +.{r..,, ,{s'�' ..,a<7 Y ..�• a,4,:r� >f�f+73"`k.? '."�' �.'.,t r, ..,.t �• „"`"r aL'T•. ..-�1,^- {,{..t13'.a.•,
.S 5'<i.:. N,,. a.,. , ux; y ,V S. .t ,,,y .�l•1 4T
.Vii:-.;��.t)f•?• i!+4 '5... .i.. j�:•••y.,,,-.`•i'fP�` .�����"s�j!�Cr% r;.+U�"a<ia,5n�},;�.�- :�j� 3t fi�•,., re.�"Fie' �.��r�;.����`";4" b�,� � •.'�� �, w s.
.1, '•�`S+cy;.L,�3�+' _ y.%�.K'a?' T �__t '-fi�;'' t '_ .'•.�..'�n`.-"""T'r 'f „�•,t^ 5�` - x �.a{i }''lfi•ie•1.;'.d•,:��-vY,�� .� y! >"'g'{j`�' !iv't L �.
s+ �T ,��,�tib - rr ;.M c - � '.r *,-ti;+ F.'�tfi �'• +.�'c�r a3.3 ((/` .+1 =r-.ay,+li �-
SI :r,•.s,.�..,rr�y>. ..l..�y{rt` t ;•ll� t h •i, ''ry'ilf' �' 1, ,'i•_.:13Ai1,• ...-Yr.c..0 i`• .�Y' :�.'.�•.:�: ,...'��i ! •r,•�i :. [�Y.,.,.�f w T._�,'�•
:�,N_ � ,t,•.�.'C .: i�1�#���r�f' a+��•� +. "L� �r •• tic„ �" ,tf f?. '<. �/-+af' �: tyF.a...•�J,,� �r (lAs�f.:'�??f .;�•.o-•
-.1- •�' {{y�y'G+.4. {,:�.r� .,.•F••%Z" �i�."��,�i ry,�: ' ^' i' '•�+m�-�r�;y •a yL+2 � ��������,t,-,�j'„,•�t•�•,,r""'Xz 'a, r._f .�/3J .t?l,�'•� ��, .�y�..
"�- er-. -i�,t _ r •r• C '••ktr �.''�-".^`rl.'f�w_ •r�`+• .�'�' wC '�"�o''s+'lti' C; " - ct7�.t�".v�''+-�3r•.'s�T.l,*`?'�R=1:�.�+"Fst�' ��(l�_� ,, ,•� r 4'1?
,�, _ L- '"`rT;>ri 511 �. `,�f�' � kr ... .b r-.;,�.cr�<.�., cF: ••�s'- •ttvX.• N �'�Ji::•. :3 $�s�'.•r.•,S;
-'s •�±''•�a;. �-v��1��,•,.�.v`',," -.,� � � 3�'"Y�' �F!�'�S '� �a`„'s'�-7.��'.c�'#a'rr`Y ���r?�fN.x: ,,:,,.�1. �,ry�t'.,'•:.."f�fa•r'•��vr*��k"�,
,y�.•Y�. � ,•t;t _ ),i .���r., ��'lr':� '�''r"%'Jxrfi>,�• _`y-,p v e• y-•„a? ., .,t/.',•,� :"y'`'�'1 •i., r,i�iJ I.'�
.h'- `�_, ".L."t .,Y'+'i-�s�'��'t•�1; ?}C' - _i1�'•�" :,,..:- tirik,r�.�:7F-cc^:, 7..�. E "� �'�!�;X.6 rfc: �' � y r C� `
}'3..�: x �...'Y.� :��{'d {� ��aK�r h �7j A• �'� ' - r^M. 1. .J F<..�..si`,i. '��nw� :kf:t. �7 .v.. •'t�+�2f;-' �r(+�•'
.!���?��. .Y' � `./'�: ; 't'.l{ �Y ,�1 j ti' ,:' ret •1 a ••e.qi 4.t. `45:31:. •{ ,yl�' ��� r s,.,,�
.f' r ..','3'. 'Vt-t t C.y ,� s!,�; ti.k c�,1':��''S ;n.(:. •f• �Y.•. i Y •'t'�;}` S. <,r r z'7�+�•.�,�,,,�•S�.••itf '�,^:�`��, ! `ir
a5�, ,:_ •st •r.s<a .4.••r.-�•r���� �. 3• a• 3f' ;}� �.v ".ik.;t '�5,+.:e.7 'r `�.•"r .+.^•t.•' .;� -.y,.. .� :� t_., e
�ryr,l .X, �"ti Yr .f,_('.";rr.•';ri"�:-,�,`: b .:5,: s u'•a:'•Zt�� `:t7N"� v„J"4?�!r� :!'x� � �,i-.3ti�•.ti�r��. (��,�r•,,,�g •x 3.. +ti`ar_�.lTj ::tn ?>�x;.:t4,� :'L�!• � ".'r"h
7{!TK �" !:k: f v-•�:•+*• •Sy c p �5•�.:� t:}� ...,!:aF�`r' .z:. "'••" '-'f:...4.,...ay' y. r•.r.. ^r� ti.l•1'• r`' .";.;�.�.•:e r .
pr� 1�G• .�� •� � _�'i•('.,Lc' F y��f! �• •:+S wL�i, r art' '' .w» .rv�•"" N �' �,.y.,>
i;'':s'Y l?• �,} ��,�� ��5•i%W./,'.ff:.t .%,15?�' � ti•.',,:u;r��...,.c'':�"�°��'y s;,-r- f � J2. �bt�S'>' '.+•2'J:,�.�..•G;-5?'�'F..�_,c"';,, •tif�!;','• ir� r� �y�:S.�r �rJ,.��.t ^•��T•'/.•;. 5
^.at•r'r+ - .7t :-?tvYf �, ';,;oT.)►G7... - .�{. „W;t;t;• r..?;ti.:;y,x.{.�e '„r' ij .7� .!a...s� 1 .S.''f k iia , . .� :s.�'i,✓,�. ;fa:+aar.,e;:r`.> ,,,y';�x
.{. +;'a�i,'�'� _ ..C .'�y.- ; n* Y`,^ ,. :N •tlfi .ri'F'(r., ::1X.a'.�o•• -.1. ,.5 a/,;'
r$r^'�?w :ru":�;� ^ :s-p,� y.?' 4 Ioy}t 3(�('✓, i.. ^J ri •" .�-1. �3`a y :F�53ct,T > �,i .; - j �?� 7<•' �3:.C y _7 3 S'n;t3:5t W/t ff
.l•T_r,•_yY.ti � ^t.. �.':vr12"�`•' -.'fit y�,�.�4t •�,;�;, :c,•t �.rr a•� ''+'� _ •.. '� Z. ..Y.. �`sJ h^„�S +t, t�.��;•�..�r 1�'i z.,c s ,�r t. �;f r: n Z+�.• c�y}ltS.
:'�,,..w:�W ,C ^±:i,'_'�''a tb.1 � '_'�=T-,,;.. -pmt +'Y' ,..:.a s•A.+:r ?j:�,;-�.r-,.. , �d .w 1`:".,.; .':`vii* . S4 'v'%i:!•or?'�`
r�H!•'Fyq .•l•ti' nYt �'-.!W� '�' ,vr"�wde�v _� " � tl!:T J ---[ .- �,,, •-:t'.��rj•'`:i',"-"• .'rF1.•P•�,�. {. ✓ 7C
+f� �Y... '�•, ,,,.'��� �.t?! j:'� i•�,s'.' f:!r�.', � - •..rte ':crii',ice _ � ti i ,:�
�, • '' W-
la
4)Z•��'�� G�Irs ���.•��''ti_.'. �` t� n '.. s�_ ..,,,' �. '�r�. 'i"^^}^�" t'�'C f.r :R�:A••ttJ k•�•4^t`t' �' (>�.:- i�'.'�'i�!', .�.. ,�, •.lt,(
„ x�.`��+ .ih: ��'��%�'"i,.:v.��^' ,�, � .hN�'�•9S'-r' 7�',._ ��.. Y'-`�� 4`rt�yr�3•' vy!•'�r
r ..:J'�h� ��•�5yi"+ `-'�at'?:• ,p,wL. .��./' a' ,6�_S"?`;r���..Ctr� '"�� !��:�"i.K,:fiTr'F` /�_�TS:'L�tn!`'.r .`�a-'ri K�i`'r� :�_"i�`ccs �r'r
,r„z t;twl_ ...la:-;t\�ity:'e�`Y]<!.`�-`f.•�.'-.Y .�� +CiCyt.sa� _ r ��J'-��`f. ,,. •w,�,Ar.ti11•�t.r''S•I; Zry.-�!6w'cU,r..!""...t.�,c�. w. � .\ �Cs(4 t••.
t v .r�.•r��'� -ry'�'>x >t t J�yJ ,.t .r frv* .!:}: ;�+�s.
"f'%�tir..ff.�"i.`C hi..f�.. `'r �i" • �r'_+;,�i�' of+Cif'1'!'R..:e�.:t{t.��•�`^`5'1k'M"._+„x�'rJ�i�. �4'rits
- }r nv: 'a�acr�aa'rC•c::, :`:1-.rJ.'ri-l.4 /.:
Birds observed in or near the marsh near the project site include: blue jay, chickadee; red-bellied
woodpecker, white-throated sparrow, bufflehead, downy woodpecker, cardinal, white-throated
nuthatch, great blue heron, pintail, and canvasback. Other species not observed but which likely
occur are: red-tailed hawk (and other hawks),.gulls, terns, black ducks, rails, teals, sparrows and
osprey.
A review of New York Natural Heritage Program Files was conducted in July 1995. This review
confirmed-the presence of an osprey,nesting site near the discharge of Down's Creek to Peconic
Bay. The osprey is a state and federal threatened species. This nesting site is a man-made
platform located over 1000 feet south of the proposed development areas of IndianShores. There
t are other residential homes immediately adjacent to the nest stand: Downs Creek is an important
feeding area for the osprey and other birds and waterfowl identified above(Figure 13).
Downs Creek is also a highly productive area for marine fin fish and shellfish. The creek serves
as a nursery and feeding area for winter flounder, scup and other estuarine fish (April - November,
primarily). Ribbed mussels and fiddler crabs are abundant in the tidal creek banks within the
'+ marsh and bank mussels are commercially harvested for bait fish in the creek.
2. Upland Forests
There are five upland forest communities at the property that are defined by vegetation types. To
evaluate these communities and assess the significance of the proposed action, Eric Lamont, PhD,
Botanical Consultant prepared an analysis for the Peconic Land Trust. Excerpts of Dr. Lamont's
------findings are summarizer e ow. he-full report can be found in Appendix 5.
5 - •
Site inspections of the property were conducted on 17 June, 1995' and 9 July 1995. The
descriptions of the plant communities in this report are based upon the classification system of
Reschke (1990), Ecological Communities of New York State, and nomenclature (the scientific
! names of plants) follows Mitchell (1986),A Checklist of New York State Plants.'
The forested uplands consist of three types: the southern portion of the property is dominated by a
relatively undisturbed and native oak-hickory forest; the northern portion of the property consists
of a highly disturbed successional forest dominated by non-native trees and shrubs; the vegetation
y occurring at the former Fort Corchaug site is unique and can best be described as maritime oak
barrens, this, community contains many plant species characteristic of the maritime grasslands
located on the South Fork of eastern Long Island.
Although two species of rare plants have been reported from the Cutchogue area by New York
Y Natural Heritage Program, no rare plants were located on the proposed development site during the
site inspections.
�VI 64
w
I
4
Oak-Hickory Forest
The oak-hickory forest located at the south end of the property is relatively undisturbed and is
dominated by native species of trees and shrubs. Although historically the forest" had been
lumbered, there is no indication that the land has been historically plowed and cultivated for
farming; as a result, the forest has naturally regenerated itself and is not significantly different in
structure and composition from the time of early European settlement and colonization.
Increasingly fewer remnants of native forest"remain in the Township of Southold.
> The oak-hickory forest on site is dominated by the following tree species: black oak (Quercus
velutina), white oak (Quercus alba) and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea). Mixed with-the oaks at
i lower densities are pignut hickory (Carya glabra) and mockernut hickory,(Caryn tomentosa). The
_ small tree and shrub layer consists of flowering dogwood (Cormis florida), maple-leaf viburnum
(Viburnum acerifolium) and low bush blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum). Black cherry (Prunus
serotina) seedlings are common in the understory but few mature adult individuals occur. The
herbaceous layer is composed of sasparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), spotted wintergreen (Chimophila
macidata), pink lady slipper orchid (Cypripedium acaule), and beech-dorps (Epifagus virginiana):
=, Successional Southern Hardwood Forest
E The land at the north end of the property had been historically cleared or otherwise disturbed in the
past, and the soils have been significantly disturbed. The forest that now occurs at this location is
1 j dominated by non-native, introduced species of trees and shrubs that are well-adapted to
J establishment following disturbance. A characteristic feature of successional forests is the lack of
reproduction of the canopy species.
TNo trees, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and Norway maple (Acer platanoides) dominate
this community. The understory consists of a dense thicket of vines, bramble, and shrubs, many
of which are non-native. They include: oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata), wineberry
- (Rubus phoenicolasius), multiflower rosa (Rosa multiflora), Japanese barberry (Berberis
thunbergii) and Morrows honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowia). Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
1,
is also common in the understory. ,
Maritime Oak Barrens
The vegetation occurring at the former Fort Corchaug site is unique, and different from the oak-
hickory forest adjacent to it. Although the area had been inhabited by Indians and probably had
been influenced by early European settlers, the dominant vegetation is composed of native species
of trees, shrubs, and herbs.
�. 65
I
"
Plant communities are described and classified,by determining two basic criteria: structure and
composition. The structure of a terrestrial ecosystem is primarily determined by calculating the
percent canopy cover oftrees; "Open'uplands" include communities with greater than 60% canopy
cover of trees; "barrens" include communities with 25% to 60% canopy cover of trees. Barrens
are structurally intermediate between forests and open canopy uplands. The composition
1 s of a terrestrial ecosystem is determined by the dominant plant species that constitute the
community.
- The former Fort Corchaug site cannot be classified as a true "forest"'community because it has less
than 60% canopy cover of trees, therefore the area is structurally different from the oak-hickory
1 forest on site. The Fort site also differs from the oak-hickory forest in composition, because one
of the co-dominant trees at the site is post oak(Quercus stellata) which does not occur in the forest,
1 and hickory trees are absent. The understory and groundcover at the Fort site also differs in
a
structure and composition.
The Fort site can�be classified into the "barrens" category,of terrestrial.ecosystems. According to
Reschke (1990) the structure of the vegetation at the Fort site most closely corresponds to an'
ecosystem known as "oak openings", but the composition of the vegetation at the Fort site is
significantly;different from that of oak openings.
Thus, the vegetation at the Fort,site can be classified as barrens, and the structure of the community
is similar to that of oak openings. The composition of the shrub layer and groundcover is very
similar to the "maritime grasslands" of Long Island's South Fork., Maritime grasslands have less
than 25% canopy cover of trees and are therefore classified as open uplands.
r Since the vegetation at the Fort site combines characteristics of barrens, oak openings, and
maritime grasslands, the community will be discussed in this report as the "maritime oak barrens".
This' ecosystem is known to occur at other locations on Long Island, and is currently being
investigated by ecologists.
The dominant tree species of this community are post oak, black oak, scarlet oak, and white oak.
The•trees are somewhat stunted but not truly dwarf. The shrub layer consists,of northern bayberry
(Myrica pennsylvanica), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum) and a few red cedar ,(Juniperus
virginiana). The herbaceous layer consists of common hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), little
bluestem (Schizacharium scoparium)',, poverty grass (Danthonia spicata), panic grass (Panicum
depauperatum), and other rushes, grasses and grass-like plants. Dunegrass (Ammophila
breviligulata) also occurs at the site, another indicator of the maritime influence on this community.
jR� 66
FIGURE 13
4 ,
u EXISTING OSPREY NEST AT GREAT PECONIC BAY SHORE LINE
SOUTH OF DOWNS CREEK
1
i '
Rare Plants
Bushy rockrose (Helianthemum dumosum) was first reported from the Cutchogue area in 1921
and was last observed in 1984. Globally, this rare plant has a very limited range, occurring from
Massachusetts to Long Island, New York. Bushy rockrose occurs in dry sandy soils of open
woodlands and barrens. The plants do not appear every year, and it has been suggested that fire
may play an important role in the species' life cycle. The old Fort Corchaug site provides suitable
habitat for this rare plant, and a very close relative, Canada rockrose (Helianthemum canadensis),
does indeed occur on site.
Velvety lespedeza(Lespedeza stuevel) was first reported from the Cutchogue area in 1919 and has
not been reported since that time. Like bushy rockrose, this rare plant occurs in dry sandy soils of
open woodlands and barrens. The old Fort Corchaug site provides suitable habitat for velvety
lespedeza. Technical characters of the plant's flower are necessary for identification of this
species. The flowering season of this species is from mid-August to late September; therefore, it
was not possible (during June and early July) to definitely determine whether or not velvety
lespedeza occurs on site.
The upland communities described offer habitat to a variety of wildlife, some of which benefit
from the proximity to a water source, i.e. the tidal marsh. Evidence of deer, chipmunks, squirrels,
raccoon, and fox were noted during field investigations. Other mammals which are likely to occur
within the forest include skunk, voles, moles, shrews, bats, opossum, weasel, and hare.
With its proximity to the tidal marsh, which is a food source for many birds, the upland forest is
occupied by both species occurring within predominantly hardwood forests and species that utilize
marshes. Birds observed within the forest include: blue jay, chickadee, red-bellied woodpecker,
white-throated sparrow, bufflehead, downy woodpecker, cardinal, white-throated nuthatch, great
blue heron, pintail, and canvasback. Other species not observed but which likely occur are: red-
tailed hawk (and other hawks), gulls, terns, egrets, black ducks, rails, teals, sparrows and osprey.
The hawks, osprey, ducks, gulls and rails are highly dependent on the marsh for food and habitat,
although they do benefit from a forest fringe. The herons, egrets and hawks, in particular utilize
tall trees along the fringe to perch and scout for food within the marsh.
3. Agricultural Fields
The agricultural fields are habitat to many mammalian "edge" species that range from the forested
area into the fields for feeding. These animals may include squirrels, mice, moles, voles, skunk,
4r woodchuck, raccoon and other opportunistic species. Deer and fox may also graze the area at
�- certain times of the year and various species of birds thrive in the fields.
68
I ,
These animals are certainly not encouraged because of potential,crop damage but their presence is
inevitablegiven the surrounding habitat.
The existing farm fields periodically contain cover crop (rye grass) which is planted to control
topsoil erosion during fallow periods. During these periods, the edge species are likely to be more
active within this habitat.
D. ' TRANSPORTATION
Traffic to and from the site would utilize New Suffolk Avenue, which is a two-lane local arterial.
This east-west road services New Suffolk center. The road is presently in good condition.
State Route 25 is a major east-west arterial that extends the,entire'length of Long Island. Near the
project area it is a two lane road that bisects agricultural fields. Access from this road is not
proposed, except for possible future Fort Corchaug Interpretive Center and Park and uses
associated with Lot 1.
Vehicles utilizing these two roads are primarily passenger vehicles with some commercial trucks
destined for more populated areas to the west.
E. LAND USE AND ZONING
The 105.6 acre parcel is a mix of land uses consisting of agricultural fields, forest, and tidal marsh.
The site is zoned A-C and single family homes, agricultural uses, and open space are permitted
uses within this zone.
Surrounding land uses are compatible with the existing and proposed land use of the project site.
{- To the north are vineyards and agricultural lands which are consistent with the existing on-site
agricultural fields; to the immediate east of the parcel is an active farm field. To the south of the
property are single family residential homes which border,the shoreline of the Great Peconic Bay
(south of New Suffolk Avenue). West of the property is Downs Creek and the North Fork
Country Club golf course. The vegetation and wildlife habitats of these surrounding areas are best
-- described as disturbed residential/agricultural lands with exception of the Downs Creek and North
Fork Country,Club golf course areas. The open space value of the surrounding area is high even
with the residential homes positioned between the Bay and-New Suffolk Avenue. The proposed
project is consistent with the character of the surrounding land uses and open space value of this
immediate community.
69
i I '
The Town of Southold Codes for Agricultural Land Preservation and Open Space and the Suffolk
County Farm Preservation Act are aimed at preserving or increasing open space through
agricultural, forested or other land use commitments. The existing site currently adheres to these
goals.
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES
The Town of Cutchogue's public schools consist of Mattituck Cutchogue Elementary and High
School. Several parochial schools exist in the area.
i
The Town of Southold Police and Suffolk County Police and Fire Departments provide response
to the site. The site is currently patrolled by police.
1 '
Utility' service along New Suffolk Avenue consists of electrical, telecommunications and
stormwater sewer systems. The proposed development would tie into the nearest nodes on these
lines.
Numerous local recreational opportunities exist in Southold including state parks and beaches. The
proposed 37-acre town park would be an additional recreational facility and open space'that could
be enjoyed by Southold Town residents and residents of the proposed development.
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES
An archaeological investigation was recently conducted in a specific area known as the Indian
Shores/William Baxter Site, formerly known as the Rail Fence Well Site. The purpose of this
investigation was to evaluate the historic and prehistoric significance of the site. Specific data was
obtained from actual shovel tests on site; Mrs. James Dean, the former owner who possesses
various projectile points found in the 1940's (uncovered with a hand plow), a local museum
administrator, by visual inspection of the site, old literature and maps, and various artifacts from
the prehistoric age(late Archaic period) held by both the museum and former owner.
- Complete Phase 1A and 1B Archaeological Surveys are in Appendix IA and 1B. A Summary
follows herewith:
Greenhouse Consultants Inc. archaeological consultants participating in the DEIS preparation
identified that Fort Neck, including the 105.6 acre parcel, was owned by the Horton Family from
` 70
�a
r
about 1689 (Thompson, 1962). By about 1880, John Downs owned the parcel and was living
there. An 1896 map depicts three structures along Route 25, just west of Downs Creek, that
appear to be on the parcel (Thompson' 1962). Three names, including Downs, are evident. By
1906, Downs had two structures in his name. Since then, the property has changed ownership
and has remained in the ownership of the Baxter family. Based upon research on the site, it has
not been used for any other activity except farming. Recently, most of the land has remained idle.
(Appendix IA & 1B).
The site lies on a 105 acre glacial outwash plain in Southold, Eastern Long Island. The earliest
known owner was the Horton family (in 1680), then John Downs (in 1880), followed by Mrs.
James Dean then William Baxter. According to the latest map in 1906, a few structures located
within the project area, originate'from Moore, Wickham, and Downs (two structures belonging to
him). These building ruins consist of a brick foundation with only the cellar hole remaining, two
wood farm outbuildings, and a collapsed wood frame-house. South of this area is believed to be
the historic Fort Corchaug, with a possible village also nearby. It is estimated that this fort was in
existence between 1640 - 1662.
There are three types of soil/earth which are found to exist. There is Plymouth,loamy sand,
y ,
Riverhead sandy loam,'and tidal marsh. Several types of vegetation also exist within the site.
i
There are several hardwoods which consist of oaks, beech, birch, pitch and white pine, and maple.
The undergrowth consists of scrub oak, huckleberry, shadbrush,alder, and blueberry.
The first phase of the investigation consisted of shovel testing at every fifty feet north of the fort
adjacent to the creek and the salt marshes. There were three areas in which prehistoric remains
were-identified. These areas consisted of the area north of Fort Corchaug near the forest fringe,
the multi-component Indian Shores site, and an area of quartz debitage on the southern end of the
site extending from the forest to the previously plowed field. The testing took place from August
23rd'to September 2nd, 1994.and July 29 and 30, 1996. Approximately two hundred shovel tests
were performed, and (some abandoned 'due to large obstacles infringing upon normal working
conditions) on a 100 foot grid. The test holes were square at 1.5 ft. across by-2 ft. deep. Sandy
loam was most common among test holes with a yellowish brown color, at 1.2 ft. thick.
The artifact remains consisted of historic surface and shovel tested finds, and prehistoric surface
and shovel tested finds. The results are as follows:
-The historic surface finds consisted of a glass lid, jar, flask and bottles; ceramic hotel
-ware, horseshoes and paneled bottle glass.
a
71
_ i
�t
,
-The historic shovel tested finds consisted of miscellaneous glass, porcelain, graniteware, a
belt buckle, a can, wire, leather, a shell, hardware, a battery, a-bracket, earthenware,
stoneware,'a salt/pepper shaker cap, a lamp base and possible pearlware.
-The prehistoric surface finds consisted of a core and secondary flake(represents stone tool
manufacturing), an endscraper (for meat processing), projectile points, and a groundstone
j fragment.
f
-The prehistoric shovel tested finds consisted of charcoal, ceramics, primary and secondary
flakes, a core, fire-cracked rock, a biface fragment, and a sidescraper (for meat
processing).
H. VISUAL ASPECTS
1 i
( The land uses in the vicinity of the site include open space, farming; single family residential, golf
course and vineyard. The following photographs help define the existing vistas. Photos.were
taken of the single family housing developments along the east side of Downs Creek(in the area of
the North Fork Country Club) and at Deep Hole Creek where development exists along,the west
- shore.
j .
��; 72
l �
M z
11,;" t'{1
, 7V f "t a 3t
ahS,'('rS -, tF!,'rti;Y" ).tw� '.s "' '�rrr` .� s•z� t S. ,
r qy-„"'y-.�'x'";,.>,��� t ;�. z13F.1ix }`+�."x'��s.%3�3 �'” iac..s J":�'.,� ,rs�.2, s ;�i`„�_` •""' � -
.r
�+ + �� -��+ ��r'r n iR.it-.r"��4P �•�`�tyCi2;�.y.:i�r-„ +w. 1 r
v" Ali
v;
` Y t�
`" a )�� x p;�" •�\el� �. t S r�5��{`�s s7t��^�yt ?' `�i�J,al��`S��,LI f ��' �`d�tj'. ....
'44!4��j+'f{��� 4i 11.r.+'(
a7YtxFa �3 �5 }1 'S 1re �
t
/I
.;�, \ � .x t _^r }k��ll•kx\l+/n"'-"� _ 1 ani` t�,(L'7 �1 t��`i. � '� f/ a
'{ Jlgi s �r r� ,{P{ttJ/,, p' t �i.� S i,.}' t.•{ r t i= t � �.
'-f~:��� l (st.� ...�t.. �r/z�i_1s�yL'',l)r�e.��!".rRKtt! r tI ��t i Y,�{Sk'•����'jI1f�R4�.r�-'tRl �y�/T!I (��.i
1 • 1 .
� � r
e �xz
r ..�f f�} Jt✓ i;� .. r°�F Y i l��; �' �Yy r,�(r+ -, � ��t�[��.�i .
1� x� I � ��' •'fit' ' � � La� W ,x�� �}i++� ���t i� �� tt � �i•4� ,+ _
+
I
0 'L••.L
i .i`7 r• •rn f r " �.e
XV
S-i
iv .�3�r3� r'7<'�1 'sS.'c:"4,t ' a •;YSr 75..x`;i CHs '✓M1lJ -
r ;=- irti
NOs A�.\ �pV s} ,tr �i � y�r�< ji S �,+t f t r F✓� ,
ii2 y�.f. t'.r IY{� S„' 1 �f -rs- 7✓ L rS,+ 4 /
��,{' 'S,e+^.. c rl�'�r/�S•,,^ -Ck �''S,k'' a 77 s '-.� Z-'�
y.:q P� :!�1�
1 ",z r• z n: try..�.�,�r{? rt ki, J, $ ��c.°-'"� '�. y`7�. NS. �. `_
+C � �T e/ Abd.- •�_- I.'�J I+1 �.2 ?a
...Fr>�s�� 'p�� ,:� 17�;�i){c�qtr SYY�i' r-�SF�. 79����'t_,Y• �.;s�..�"'`1..`VA�.i'1�+f�, t ,`-
•T`fJ �' J 1�1 �V � �+'�'� �r`i ,� �, 1.J Y�i- 'tib I�1 W � f �a �—�L
r.,.tYt',,�E >�r,3.t Ir�+•3i.�YYi„r,�tim�rts+iZ is]''�,�+r% ��"x' -a{' '' �l kfki� f
v� I1� YflZip, 7 r r r{ '' 4t• t CG to 45 !T w jC. r�[Y�d r=q' ,�,�f .n-h:aYa�4� �/.Y<�%/ r� ,'✓; • 1 /- •vcwY�<it
�,�,y
.��°`q -3:•{ �'`rx " L�1f7l} a 17. ��a�l -., - 51 f"f} tti
�`.,�
5 MI, f
ft(�„' �'.f3s�'��i�y�; E r i •,.: !;s w Rrl�_
+•: Yr g„rt'�^'}}'�,X�1 Jt�j�y'7'.r r
�r �::."*e-r,�.��t�13'v�[(1�'�(� rri!��� ����1L{j/"l��♦'f4�(l�ky�i).11�� C a. y n "fir r ^/ y �'.'.
•'. • • 1. •
Eli
L9
•.-,�,.,>�..� ��, ��� � r err��� s�'U'
ZR
�".^'�_ ..�`8.r-,1.t'•""'"'+4.s�t—�.r°`�rsG'�t.t+c�^+.T„'=,�._a+ ''r`_<""+cx� ,��P-)n*�+-r��,t. y€��".,y'�C.S•-•;� �..
ir'.` m���........ -,..,.,,¢ �C+T -yam_ ^r x+ g.�4,s," v�3,�A"r '3" �-q u�G rvi 7 •:
~ �N
�� 3t......;.._��'y „�- F�'y -••c,•�_L�„����' �
` �..`'�+�]a�.�� `..ry,�'-�'t�.�a"`�" �'�'�r''- �''Z'Y��.1Tr"`x�'���•�.e�^"+^� �"e'a�"�,'a��'L.aL��
1.
a
«r. •ate- _.w,. S .� '•
`�t7�, 1wG���F'fi•�a� _�a;��aS.'�y h"i f�f"r�' J:i+ 4 i a` i.'e. +
T T�
�;"- ..,�. awn�"�i��i'Y.?'T'�si,. + �,rr'�•"-• t �,.,-- ;�.�---.^.-
� �'�:.r �L�ri" !! � � c�+ � �s awl�s�-C +�-4:••c` S •r H. ` ,�
ar
�
A
Y,1
F !AM a.
�1 t
+s�-i*-i*y+ �o(Ys�`5�+.#�s "a����"�.#n� zip �•+�'J .-.a�...:e�
'.\a+$•44""r:o-v"`ga-.,3zA m"�*' ��....� ...-:Fad^�tr'�'���� rr�C;�aF,C�c�-,yt�+w, ,.. � �`�y�.
�,• '` �'�C'�+v+..f'S 4a rn...J- L 2 �i -i,,.'s aa •�"+:�`-•- YAf""�"'''S.e•�`y
-"`'ri�..�'•� s., ��.,+�,�xdP+yz''`r.�`���u"'r"`•--,w��" ,'3�s,+-..e R+�s a s sr-i :v . /k -s s".y� �
-M
-rn� 'Z
t '��� ��' �?f-{1L"��y,'S�"�e�,,*thr'��.�'t•.�r?i'� "._`i�^"-:3t+���l?� .y L
,tom K Rks"';r•.-�-'�re wS "`,y1 ai" .S> -a
Y'" A ♦ �.'+rr '�+K as n.ah tC'�'
�.s,,�.�''-''�'t"'A� j vs�"„�x ��� i", "� '���, -•t" T{ x ��.�s'�°�rfk "�Trs� s�rxe�� fir\ \ ^
:fiT,�`�t�•�+«r``/c�Yft�/�; s�s��}y'%v .'i'.�-i•Y�+ir ^5 ��f"i.r �."- -� '£��*�41`{��'`�r;i "s'� �-.
` r
<�?• "`v� f rc x*�•�xt� aY,y��r .,✓�;,V,�� ?' � r~ +4"�<
�.a=rY,(,;n�'�• r2fi' .:i�'p-; '4��-'�:tn ' +.�. ttp .s rte.,. �.��� 7� - krN!�i�..f! ;:E" 'v
r w,
r�:'•s, s'ff
c�'y�.,e'� f.wti�.•, J�.r"c�#,;f;a.�+•��^`y�7tw��`. ; � �'�^` F 's� L f 4���� � �.��•"
,��`'s`.,�a`�`�u;�r".,:��q�.y�•�''�YS?x"v�,�-�'�'���"'�.°' .�'G a"„�7 �ir� u,,,Y��(�.��`,� .E�'�'�',�''
l^.� YJ• .1� `K R'4V'rnc`Y Gc Imo" .'..'ti' � ,�```�+;•
r A' Y Wi �� '`+,`^�.`'�• c7RIC�"'S � ��t`'M'`�'� - ext• �
�a]5>S'ar .ir'..:'�'r�^7"•r y..��`"t±-C iy�t�y����".r� w` �y�.f•y�.c��'y� !�y`ti7>i�'I'=s',n�
31,
..�"+` y> •,r�;-h=••rte, ak� ,�.t...;�„�v�tt"�(��`��y,�*,.y„Y".s�,�"2'�.y3'�'r kah�L`e�'�-zc;Lr,�"3' >.
-.'�✓T'f i 6� -3.vlY`"'i'.N`..0. ra•}'n'iv7.a-A -c. � '�"y yi3+•�••.i,'i•..r 7 4-S •'�ti. '`� *t ,+� .
c 1 7�c t�'^'�'�';•'��;s9�..'y 7.#r.�-�Syy v,,S d-''s.�fi`�n'"6 ,�.�:ra't"L •r��,.l'.r�"'3'J^�""Y`�� ,�y�'yk-,.-?.
S',x,'r�,�,,,.�t''�r si�Ef'�"�'c�•`�lrve�.`l�'Y'''_:'`�� -Y�+- + ':'-�'.�"a�s',f`y f'_'�-� '"t t.� A?'T':X""'�'G.c���»
"7 jsi.ry�,,�, ,Ya,n +x•3..�"�'�"'tn+�?r�'3''�<c" r'4� ��•c•.F.�:t+ i "��.,�"r-.� 3*� ,.p.,�� z£ '.r�IJi'�,
w �'� rr#'+w'F 'f-.:.r i:3' J s�L...•� � 5...'�'F `•v.a".�a'K'tX.+cd�^s.S�-"�t S�"c. -rt. �,.�`4 r K,
..y ;i=., ...?^• .i5 ;'Fa.�., � I,��.'•:�£.-a?'.✓N.` ,L..S'?j• '�'�.^�€..'* ,.�,r.c..__;s��;�.wnlr_'S 'a:-..��m'+�"?'
r �x
s
+�.�"�.- {-�'L.t 3•�'� 'ri'.,� ?•i � 2'''�' �^w it .;S'''�.th.rC' �`�'r�ti»..�+'„w, v r
t•..�.. av +rlv�} � i� 7fi X T
:t.�T1 �'1`� Gl;� �h�l •h .I'll
wr
� ,'J"^`•r '�7:^'�'"..�+, '`� '•��a`i'".` 'fin "t. ytccz' ,� `.fF4 �'v1`T`"�'�'
,ts a £ ±i'tc" Y•+'Fx' JL+.*', ti -'a` pl y„yi r•��g `�.�
° •/. £'1 .� f rte•
*ICrt�x 'r^�.}`i':,».4`'
H r
' n a F ''SSKI ��`Li4�i,., �"YYy�';,•r2�jt`."fit s yu t
is y.•tot^ � �- „_ �•t s u.fix T rrt�` ...
l �r
T •,
''rye y\ � � Y v?C� �A}y •�1 }��.y�y
rr, .•
.wC �
S
-
tN
7v
t`l ,' !! .Y.S�M" 't,!'� 1;.s':�T.. y' �-r�.__✓E�-t' f w ;`rir' ` ,y'i rT •u•'4
TT�ts1'a `;ct � ;if }.y'j� ''6`A�. �lys �r ikiv's 3��� ' •�
� `��ti�{'r. '�,»fl���r RCr.`�3, � "5�+,a��tp�'t ��it� .tT���+Y�4•`x7`��k�S�4 h �i�
1 ,!+' Ca a 4 .r- fti�'✓ i `�, `&VX
^3,+c�v S i �i�`••.i 1, �r�eC G t / ��t 1 2rrr/�'�`�y�-r ['� tr�'t'}n�>#1� b l i
�f 1^R:•�#��J/"
i'v ��rll�
,IZ
i
'F # } ,�` $} �}j� 'C� .� 1 Rr"-"��---�if3= �t Y d �y t�r� �}r�� �'�(l\,!4��} �`• 71:)���t� 1
;��l;'j}• SF.R�:.,'�i1.I1lR'���f1)C:•�����;'-�`.`1!{'. .7��t1.Xut�'��.f:{:- .�.�t�,.��.1, 1 ''� \ ,,,�1`.
Y�Ary.
f em
�. R i .s] � �r�� -0.+ � •,fir$ t� ,✓K".'' C �r :�u:: �,.j Fik"��-., �� �`
.n �}a" t; a�� yrs y k.. t'7 ���•� { #.; a,r. ���,� �h •" cs=sr••...
��3 �t'ut S`{�;'�yyiY� ' S't� .rC '�Fr�r'"� h�• ',�...
f
Xt•#r �� h ailF 5 ♦.
lr �,1Ry -
�r ir+�J �ry'( z'{rg`ijwSklC�# a' � � •..r;�;�
k�a{ ,•5• s..r_ c7'..n� �Y'��i.���S��oj��i�.i:..t�i$ H�� , ���Flz
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of the Indian Shores project are reflective of altering the existing
landscape and land uses to accommodate and support low density single family homes, agricultural
activities, and park land.
The potential impacts of concern include groundwater quality and quantity, wetland/aquatic
ecological disturbances, wildlife arid vegetative habitat disturbance, change of open
space/farmland, loss of cultural resources and disruption of visual aesthetics.
The proposed action has low impact on several of these concerns and a minimal impact on the
remaining. The following assessment describes these impacts.
A. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I
1. Groundwater
a. Usage
Residential
The sixteen (16) single family homes, each required to provide private water supply wells will
withdraw approximately 300 gallons per family per day for a total of 4800 gallons per day for the
16 lots; 1.75 million gallons per year. Approximately 40-60% of this quantity is expected to be
consumed or not returned to the aquifer. It is estimated that the maximum pumping rate would be
10 GPM. Potential for water conservation in residential homes exists, especially for new
construction. The following table Potential Residential Interior Water Savings suggests
techniques. Interior water use is approximately 50% of the total household usage. (Table 5).
Because these would be new houses, it is likely that water-efficient plumbing features such as low
flow toilets and sink and shower heads will be installed. Local building codes will determine what
conservation efforts are required.
The use of native vegetation and natural buffer areas will reduce the dependency on landscape
irrigation systems. Water conservation for irrigation includes drip irrigation systems, automatic
sprinkler controls and increased mulching. As the public becomes more aware of the need to
conserve water, it is likely that these residential irrigation controls will be voluntarily implemented.
The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan prepared in 1992 by
the Long Island Regional Planning Board advocated the conservation of water. It stated,"average
interior use of water is approximately 64 gallons per capita per day, primarily for toilet flushing,
80
i f
' bathing, and laundry. It is estimated that a water conservation program consisting of public
education, pressure regulation, and use of water saving appliances and plumbing fixtures could
reduce the use to 47 gpcd-- a 27 percent reduction-- with no impact on the standard of living."
I
x,
a I
j
f+
II
l
I
1
81
- I i
a
TABLE 5
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
INTERIOR WATER SAVINGS
i
WATER$BVINO
FSA" UR A •PER%.P
INTERIOR Uge .-
Low flush toilets 18
Low flow showerheads 12
i Low flow
kitchen and lavatory 2
fixtures
,i
Pressure reducing valves 5
Insulated hot water lines 4
Low water use 5
clothes washer
Low water use 4
dishwasher
I �
�_1
7
If
Equestrian
Horses consume approximately 12 gallons per day. Estimating ten horses, this computes to 120
gallons per day;43,800 gallons per year.
Vineyards/Agriculture
' The approximate 31 acres of agriculture will require approximately 620 gallons per acre per day of
irrigation for the first planting year and 1,860 gallons per acre per day of irrigation beginning with
�k the third growing year.
These figures are based upon a drip irrigation system as described by D. Mudd of Mudd
Vineyards, a consultant to grape growers on the East End of Long Island. Drip irrigation waters
the plant below the surface soil and reduces water loss caused by evaporation.
r
Drip irrigation requires a smaller water supply pump because it works under reduced pressure,
I
thus energy and water are saved. Operation is generally 3 - 4 days per week from March through
October. This equates to:
31 acres X 620 gallons/acre/day = 19,220 gallons/day
19,220 gallons/day X 3.5 days/week X 32 weeks/year= 2.15 million gallons/year.
Irrigation water use is estimated at 2.15 million gallon per year for the first two years and 6.46
million gallons per year from the third year on. According to Cornell Cooperative Extension
researchers, not all vineyards require irrigation and the greatest number of North Fork vineyards
do not irrigate.
All the water withdrawn for these uses is not consumed; some is replaced through recharge and
some is lost through evapotranspiration. Research produced the following comparison between
k' withdrawal and consumption.
Withdrawal
Functional Use (gallons/day) Consumption
Rural Domestic 100 60 gallons/day
r Agriculture 100 60 gallons/day
Livestock 100 100 gallons/day
* Source, Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, Corbitt, 1990
Based on these figures all of the equestrian water withdrawn would be used but about 40% of the
water for the residential and agricultural use would be recharged or evaporate.
83
� i
Depending on the crops grown, irrigation of agricultural lands can hold the greatest impacts on
water withdrawal. Typical farm irrigation wells have well diameters from 6 - 10 inches and
pumping rates between 600 - 1000 gallons per minute. Although irrigation time is generally
i, limited from March through October, the water use can be substantial. The New York State
�j Department of Environmental Conservation requires a well permit for irrigation wells. The permit
will require well production limits to be established and impacts to the local groundwater be
assessed prior to permit issuance.
The impacts to groundwater quantities from the proposed action are assessed to be acceptable
providing that the recommendations outlined in the North Fork Water Supply Plan and voluntary
efforts to conserve water are met. There are no wells proposed on-site that would exceed the
recommended pumping limits for even more sensitive groundwater areas described in the North
Fork Water Supply Plan. When compared to other agricultural crops, vineyards do not require
large quantities of irrigation water. The low density residential subdivision should not overburden
water supply.
The "permissive safe yield" denotes the maximum rate at which groundwater can be withdrawn
(Le. used consumptively) on a regional, long time basis without causing adverse impacts on
groundwater or ecological resources.A permissive safe yield of 40 percent( .40 million gallons per
day per square mile) is suitable for areas where salt water intrusion is of concern (Grosser, Shelter
Island Subdivision unpublished 1991). While there is strong evidence that the Indian Shores site
f ,
will not be adversely impacted by salt water intrusion, this figure was selected for a conservative
estimate. This yields a permissive sustained yield of 625 gpd/acre. The total permissive yield for
the site is:
625 gpd/acre x 106 acres= 66,250 gpd
A
The consumptive use is:
Residential .50 % (avg.) x 4,800 gpd=2,400 gpd
Agriculture .60% x 31 acres x 1,860 gpd/A=34,596
Livestock 100% x 120 gpd= 120 gpd
Total =37,116 gpd
r
The conservative estimate is 56% of the safe yield. Therefore, the proposed plan is not expected to
significantly impact groundwater quantity.
t
84
I
b. Groundwater Quality
Surface and groundwater contamination from nitrogen compounds has become a focus of Eastern
�l Suffolk municipalities. Many drinking water wells on Long Island contain nitrogen in
concentrations above drinking water standards. In addition, nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in
estuaries, causing eutrophic conditions during warm weather seasons. The Long Island Regional
Planning Board (LIRPB) commissioned the USGS to develop a probability model linking the
density of development with the probable presence of organic contaminants. It was assessed that
_ high density residential areas are likely to experience organic contamination.
The current legal limit for acceptable potable water is the nitrate/nitrogen standard of 10 milligrams
per liter(mg/1) although other guidelines suggest 6 mg/l..
r� According to the The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan
{ (LICSGPAP), " low density residential areas without any commercial or industrial uses are likely
4; to be free of organic contamination. The low density was one half acre zoning or 1.8 houses per
acre. Simply.put this means the entire SGPAs could sustain less than one acre residential zoning
and not create a problem. In other words, if the density were kept at one house per two acres, the
groundwaters would be within water quality standards." The reference here is used to illustrate the
need to protect special ground water areas for future public water supply wells. The Indian Shores
I
project is not within this special area but it is in conformance with the density assessed to sustain
water quality in a SGPA.With the exception of the Project Director, members of the LICSGPAP
Advisory Council who are health, engineering and planning professionals agreed that one or two
acre zoning was necessary for water quality protection and that less density was not needed.
Indian Shores has the potential to increase nitrogen loads to the surrounding water resources.
because agriculture and residential sanitary systems are primary contributions to nitrogen release.
Although the project is proposed as two acre zoning; these impacts have been assessed. The
1� LIRPB prepared The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan in 1978.
Commonly called the "208 study" the report examined waste disposal impacts on the Island's
ground and surface waters and was prepared pursuant to Section 208 of the Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972.
Nitrogen loadings were calculated for the various proposed land uses and activities associated with
each. For residential uses, turf fertilization, sanitary disposal, and domestic animals are the
primary nitrogen-loading activities. Fertilization of crops occurs on agricultural lands, including
vineyards and equestrian uses contain horse droppings that are a nitrogen source. Storm water
85
i .
runoff from roads and fields may also add to the nitrogen budget.
1,
'r Nitrogen is a valued element for crop yield and the normal growth of plant life. However, the
presence of excess of nitrogen amounts in groundwater and surface water can negatively impact
human health and the ecosystem.
Nitrogen has many forms. Some nitrogen compounds are more mobile or potentially harmful than
others. Nitrogen also has several sources including nitrogen from agricultural, wastewater
disposal systems, turf fertilization, and stormwater runoff. Nitrogen has been an environmental
problem on portions of Long Island, New York including the "North Fork". As a result, many
studies relating to nitrogen sources and levels have been performed on the area.
4
The proposed action includes agricultural and residential uses that would include generation of
nitrogen compounds released to the environment. This section was prepared to evaluate the
potential impacts of nitrogen from sources that would exist as a result of the development from the
Indian Shores project. The calculation methods (Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment: A
Site Assessment, Bopp, 1994, NYIT and LIRBP 208 Study 1978) used in this section provide for
a predictive model that uses a water budget (based on rainfall, recharge and land surface area),
nitrogen loads (based on land use, nitrogen quantities and land surface ares) and leaching rates
(based on other models and reports: a percent of the amount of nitrogen loads expected to reach
groundwaters was determined).
This model was not field verified/calibrated by sampling and analysis at the Indian Shores site;
6i
which will not be possible until after construction is completed-The method provides useful data
for general impact assessment purposes relative to the Indian Shore development .Furthermore,
most studies reviewed stated the common problem of theoretical determination of organic loads in
ground and surface waters because of organic chemical interaction with the surrounding
environment (especially nitrogen), dilution of chemical concentrations caused by the large quantity
of water in the aquifer or surface water system (solute/solvent ratio), detention and release time of
the organics in the soil fractions, ambient (background) concentrations and their specific
interactions, and physical anomalies which can skew field test results (groundwater flow direction
F
changes, both vertical and horizontal) needed for calibration of theoretical models.
In the following sections, loadings from each of the above mentioned land activities are estimated
using the best available information. Then a seepage and pollutant model developed by the
University of Connecticut (Healy, 1982) is also used to estimate the increase in nitrogen
concentrations expected in groundwater from sanitary loads at the proposed residential lots. These
results are compared to applicable drinking water quality standards and total loadings are used to
d 86
I ,.
w
II
assess impacts to Downs Creek water quality.
1. Turf Fertilization
} Factors such as quantity, timing, soil, type of grass, temperature, type of fertilizer, and other
J� factors impact leaching of nitrogen to groundwater. Information regarding the types of grass
which would be grown at Indian Shores is currently unavailable. However, there is a turfgrass
model called the Water and Land Resource Analysis System (WALRAS) demonstrated by(Porter,
1983) which utilized data collected specifically from the Southold area. In addition, other turfgrass
experiments presented, (Baier, 1976) and calculations derived from this source corroborate some
of the estimates produced in Porter's model.
.l
Porter's model was based on information gathered about turf fertilization practices in the Town of
Southold. According to the survey, an average 45% of the lawns are fertilized with an
1� annualaverage of 2.4 pounds of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet, and the remaining 55% apply no
fertilizer. Furthermore, the model assumes that 50% of the fertilizer is in fast release form and
50% is in slow release organic form. Fifty percent of the clippings are assumed removed from the
lawns and dispos6d of elsewhere.Table 6 provides a calculation for nitrogen budgets of turf grass
fertilizer application for Indian Shores.
l �
r,
f�
.�I
87
is
Table 6
NITROGEN BUDGET FOR TURF FERTILIZATION
Assumptions:
i
40% of residential development area consists of fertilized lawns and of this, 45% will likely be
fertilized (Porter 1983). This is a conservative value taken from statistical information showing an
average of 18% turf, 61% other non-fertilized vegetation, and 21% impervious surfaces for
residential homes on 2 acre plots (1980 Census for Southold, Porter, 1983). The proposed plan
identifies +/-31 acres of residential development.
2.4 pounds of nitrogen are applied to each 1000 square feet of lawn annually. This translates to
j1 104.54 pounds (47,418,546 milligrams) per acre annually.
f Calculations:
31 acres x 45% fertilized area= 13.95 acres
13.95 acres x 104.541bs/acre = 1,458.33 lbs.
342.71 lbs x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 155,424.036.5 mg
Recharge Calculations:
f Precipitation:
45"/yr=3.75'/yr
3.75'/yr x 50% infiltration= 1.88'/yr
1.88'/yr x 43,560 x 31 acres = 2,538,676.8 cuft
rf "I 2,538,676.8 x 28.32 (conversion) =71,895,326.98 liters
Irrigation:
31 acres x 45% landscaped = 13.95 acres
5.5'/yr= 0.46'/yr 0.46'/yr x 50% infiltration=0.23'/yr
V
0.23'/yr x 43,560 x 13.95 = 139,762.26 cuft
- 139,762 cuft x 28.32 (conversion) =3,958,067 liters
I
yI
Nitrogen loads
!` precipitation: 1.5 mg/1 (SCDHS,1987) = 107,842,990.5 mg x
15 % leaching rate = 16,176,448.57 mg
irrigation: 3 mg/1 ( Lead Agency,1996) = 11,874,201 mg x 15% leaching rate= 1,781,130 mg
+ turf fertilization: 155,424,036.5 mg
Total 173,381,615.1 mg / 75,853,393.981 = 2.286 mg/1
� I
88
1
,Y
'I
, r
I '
2. Sanitary Disposal Systems
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulates standards for sanitary disposal under
,i the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
i�
The project is located in the hydrogeologic zone identified by the County's Article 6 of the Sanitary
Code as Groundwater Management Zone IV. The allowable sanitary flow for the Indian Shores
site is 300 gallons per day per acre or
300 GPD * 105.6 Acres=31,680 GPD
I1� Each of the lots within the subdivision will require an on-site individual septic system.
The assessment of nitrogen (especially nitrate) impacts of the parcel is difficult to achieve
accurately, even with all the necessary information. The intent here is to establish some reasonable
assessment of the effects of changing the present conditions on the 105.6 acre parcel to reflect
some unknown quantity of additional nitrogen contamination from the aggregate of wastewater
disposal systems. There are seven proposed single family homes which would be located
bordering the wetlands. The regulation as specified in 6 NYCRR Part 661, Tidal Wetlands Land
Use Regulations, requires that wastewater disposal systems be located "100 feet landward from the
most landward edge of any tidal wetland". It is also required that there be "a minimum of two feet
r of soil between the bottom... and the seasonal high water table". The proposed subdivision
bordering the wetlands ranges in elevation from less than 5 to about 25 feet above mean sea level.
Because private drinking water wells would be needed, it will be assumed that wastewater systems
will be located down gradient of drinking water wells at locations which have an elevation of about
16 feet. Another alternative is to stagger the locations (Figure 16a). By this approach each lot
drinking water well is placed near the adjacent lot's water well (although with sufficient horizontal
separation to avoid impacts) and the sanitary systems are placed along the opposite side of the lots.
As determined in the Water Resources setting section of this document, average high
groundwater.elevations beneath the area of the proposed dwellings are expected to be
approximately 3.3 feet above MSL, with possible peak water table elevations reaching 4.7 feet
above MSL. A test hole was dug at the south end of the property and the data showed
groundwater encountered at 10.2 feet below grade. Groundwater was overlain by fine sand, loam
ro and sandy loam, and topsoil. It is anticipated that sanitary disposal systems can be designed to
permit a minimum of three feet distance between the bottom of the leaching pool and the
89
if
groundwater elevation. To assure this separation distance, SCDHS standards for single family
residences (SCDHS, November 13, 1996) requires a minimum depth to groundwater of 9 feet for
4 one to four bedroom residences and a minimum depth to groundwater of 11 feet for residences of
more than four bedrooms. The soils appear to be acceptable for sanitary disposal purposes. A
common practice used for sanitary system designs in Suffolk County and one which is accepted by
the Health Department, involves raising on-site grades to permit an acceptable separation between
the seasonal high groundwater elevation and the bottom of the sanitary leaching pool. It is likely
that this technique will be necessary on several of the proposed lots, particularly Lots 3, 4 and 5.
Since soil is excavated for building foundations and associated infrastructure, grades can often be
1 increased without imported fill material, although this too is an option. A select fill that provides
acceptable leaching characteristics can be placed beneath the sanitary system leaching pools, a
common practice where on site subsoils are problematic for sanitary disposal. It is sometimes
necessary to employ both these methods to provide a safe distance between the sanitary disposal
system and groundwater and to provide for the proper function of the system. The systems do
require periodic maintenance and generally pump outs are the most common types. The addition of
r any chemicals to the system for maintenance purpose is regulated by the Suffolk County Health
Department.
h
Data presented by various studies determined that wastewater flow averages about 44 gallons per
s person, per day (Koppelman, 1978). Nitrogen loading produced somewhat more variable results
among studies. This analysis is based on information contained in the Long Island Groundwater
Pollution Study (LIGPS) published by the NYSDEC in 1972. Although this study is dated, it
t contains information based on physical conditions which remain basically unchanged, even today.
The LIGPS serves to demonstrate the fate of nitrogenous compounds from the source through the
unsaturated zone to groundwater at a determined distance down gradient.
Table 7 presents a budget for wastewater disposal system generated nitrogen. Based on a
1 contribution of 11 pounds of nitrogen per person per year, an average household of 3.03, and 50%
leachability, annual nitrogen loading from proposed development of the parcel is on the order of
264 pounds per year.
N '
.r
SII
90
_- Table 7
NITROGEN BUDGET FOR WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Assumptions:
' Conservative g
e averag total nitrogen concentration in wastewater influent is 82 mg/1. Per capita
daily influent of wastewater is 44 gallons(166.56 liters) (LI 208 Study).
a
50% of nitrogen in wastewater reaches groundwater. The remainder is removed from the parcel
through denitrification, remains in the tanks, or is tied up (immobilized) in the soil matrix (LI 208
�. Study).
Number of persons on average per household in Southold is 2.54 (1980 census, Porter, 1983).
We will use a conservative value of 3.03 persons per household based on the 1990 U.S. Census
for Suffolk County, New York.
Calculations:
r `
Sanitary
44 gpd/capita x 3.03 persons/dwelling= 133.32 gpd/dwelling
133.32 prd/dwelling x 16 dwellings = 2,133.12 gpd
2,133.12 gpd x 365 days/yr = 778,588.8 gpy
778,488.8 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) = 1,946,958.61 liters
2,946,978.61 1 x 82 mg/l = 241,650,606.02 mg
241,650,606.02 mg x 50% leaching rate= 120,825,303 mg
TVater Supply
3 mg/l x 6,631,320 liters x 50% leaching rate=9,946,980 mg
Dilution Calculations:
300 gpd/dwelling x 16 dwellings =4,800 gpd
4,800 gpd x 365 dys/yr= 1,752,000 gpy
1,750,000 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) = 6,631,320 liters + irrigation + precipitation recharge
=82,484,713.981 (estimated from Table 6 calculations)
VI
Nitrogen Loads:
ivater sgpply: 9,946,980 mg
r sanilary : 120,825,303 mg
irrigation and precipitation: 17,957,578.57 mg
Total 148,729,861.6 mg/ 82,484,713.981 = 1.803 mg/I
91
C. Animal Waste
Animal waste can originate from domestic dod
g dogs an cats (including strays), farm animals,
equestrian sources, as well as wild animals like geese. Koppelman (1978) determined that based
' on a conservative estimated population of 350,000 dogs and cats on Long Island, that there are two
cats for every three dogs, and that the human population is 2.735 million, therefore, there is one
cat for every twelve persons and one dog for every eight persons. From this, they were able to
estimate the nitrogen load from household pets at 0.82 lbs./person/year. Since studies estimated
that about 50% of the nitrogen in fresh animal waste is lost to volatilization, only the remaining .41
lbs./person/year was determined to be subject to runoff or subsurface percolation. Koppelman
(1978) declared that the total number of horses and their distribution was unknown. However,
' they also mention that the 1974 Census of Agriculture listed 34 farms with a total of 321 horses.
' Town of Southold ordinances do not specify the number of horses permitted. However, they do
specify that on lots under 10 acres (this one is 5.67) horses can be used for personal use only.
r '
This means no breeding, raising or riding academies permitted. Furthermore, horses must be
housed no closer than 40 feet from any property line and must cause no foul smells or other
n` r disturbances which might upset neighbors. Based on this information derived from a phone
4_ conversation with personnel from the Town of Southold Building Dept., a conservative value of
ten horses is used for the equestrian portion of the parcel. It appears unlikely that there would be
greater than ten horses located in an area of this size. At a nitrogen contnbution level of 0.3
lb./day (Koppelman, 1978), 10 horses would create 1,095 pounds of nitrogen per year. It is
assumed that the waste will be collected and used for fertilization purposes at other locations,
J possibly a portion at the agricultural portion of the parcel. Still, some portion will be washed from
the reaches of collection during precipitation periods as well as traces for other reasons.
Wild animals may contribute to nitrogen levels. However, they will not be included in the
quantification due to the uncertainty in accurately estimating their numbers, and the fact that they
would be considered as part of the natural background levels on undeveloped property. It would
appear more likely that their numbers would decrease due to human proximity. The exception
could be Canadian geese or other waterfowl.
Waterfowl contribution to nitrogen contamination was briefly discussed in the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (Koppelman, 1982). It was determined from influent and effluent samples that
nitrogen contained in waterfowl discharges is being consumed or deposited within the various
bodies of water (ponds) being studied. Although sediment samples were not taken, it was
determined empirically, that the large quantity of fecal matter expected in one pond, due to the
I 92
extremely high population, would have been expected to result in higher effluent concentrations if
these compounds were not retained in the pond. The greatest concern from the standpoint of the
105.6 acre parcel is the nearby golf courses which, by observation of golf courses in general, can
be considered an attractive nuisance for these animals. Due to the inability to quantify their
contribution, they will be considered merely as a contribution to the nitrogen input to golf course
` fertilization which should be kept in mind when determining turf fertilization needs. Regardless,
they would not be considered to be part of the nitrogen budget due to the fact that they would not
i be found on the parcel in significant numbers.
A nitrogen assessment done by the National Research Council (NRC) presented the results of
{ t` studies done on animal waste. One study claims that from 70 to 75 percent of the nitrogen in feed
normally appears in animal waste. The partitioning of nitrogen between feces and urine varies
considerably. Horses, for example, excreted 37% of nitrogen in waste through urine (NRC,
1978). This is important in determining nitrogen loading because urine is considerably more
difficult to collect than feces (more likely impossible). Much of the manure falling on pasture or
holding areas is supposedly uncollectible. That which is not removed is subject to runoff,
accumulation in soil, percolation as ammonium, nitrate, and soluble organic nitrogen compounds,
denitrification, or ammonia volatilization. Under warm conditions, urea hydrolyses to ammonia
and carbon dioxide. One study reported that from 25 to 90 percent of nitrogen in urine was
volatilized as ammonia (NRC, 1978). Another study found that Nitrogen lost from a combination
_ of both manure and urine approached 50% (NRC, 1978).
,
Table 8 is a nitrogen budget for animal waste sources at the parcel.
r 4
t '
93
Table 8
NITROGEN BUDGET FOR ANIMAL WASTE SOURCES
Assumptions:
Based on a conservative estimated population of 350,000 dogs and cats on Long Island, that there
are two cats for every three dogs, and that the human population is 2.735 million, there is one cat
d
for every twelve persons and one dog for every eight persons. Nitrogen from household pets is
0.82 lbs./person/year (Koppelman, 1978). Although much of the waste from household pets is
removed, for calculation purposes, it is assumed that 50% of nitrogen from this source will remain
to be loaded to groundwater. There are three persons per household and 16 households on the
parcel. The total number of persons on the parcel is 48. There are 10 horses on the parcel, each
contributing nitrogen levels of 0.3 lbs./day (Koppelman, 1978) or a total of 1,095 pounds per year
for the horses at the parcel. Thirty five percent of nitrogen from horses is excreted as urine and 50
percent of that is volatilized (NRC, 1978). Nitrogen lost to volatilization from manure is 40%
(approximated from NRC, 1978). Therefore, about 56.5% of nitrogen from waste produced by
r horses remains unvolatilized (43.5% is volatilized). The number of additional (farm) animals that
r
would be present at the parcel is unknown. Based on the intention of the agricultural use as
vineyards, this value will be taken to be zero.
Calculations:
pets: 0.82 lbs/person/yr x 48 people=39.36 lbs/yr
39.36 lbs/yr x 50% leaching rate= 19.68 lbs/yr
19.68 lbs/yr x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 8,928,170 mg
horses: 0.3 lbs/day/horse x 10 horses = 3 lbs/day
31bs/day x 365 days/yr= 1095 lbs/yr
10951bs/yr x 56.5% leaching rate = 618.68 lbs/yr
618.68 lbs/yr x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 280,578,231 mg
Dilution Calculations:
precipitation/recharge 12,987,542.941 (derived from: 1:88'/yr x 5.6 acres of equestrian site only)
r v
Nitrogen Loads:
pets: 8,928,170 mg
horses: 280,578,231 mg
precipitation: 2,922,197.16 at 15% leaching rate (factored for the equestrian site only)
Total 292,428,598.2 mg/12,987,542.941 =22.516 mg/l
' (with no animal manure clean up and all nitrogen loading applied to the equestrian site; other area
dilution factors ignored for this calculation)
94
j 4
t
r
f�
d. Agricultural
With regard to agricultural sources of nitrogen, research presented by (Baier, 1976 and Porter,
1983) indicated that nitrogen fertilizer applied at a rate of 200 pounds per acre/year or more is likely
to cause nitrogen levels at or above the 10 mg/I standard in water leaving the root zone and
percolating to groundwater. A substantially lower value is required to maintain standards 90% of
i
the time. These values are applied when referring to potatoes, a more nitrogen intensive crop.
Vineyards intended to be grown at the parcel will use significantly less nitrogen than potatoes.
Farmers must also be conscious of soil makeup. Obviously, more sandy soils will tend to retain
less nitrogen in the root zone, thereby allowing more to escape to groundwater.
In addition to producing high groundwater nitrogen levels, reasons for avoiding over-fertilization
include the possibility of salt damage to seedlings, delayed maturity of crops, and wasted money.
_ Whether or not vineyard damage from nitrogen is a serious problem is not clear. However,
a maintaining a safe groundwater concentration of nitrogen is reason enough to initiate prudent
management practices.
Fertilizer should be utilized in a series of applications according to the needs of the crops and the
potential for heavy precipitation. Excessive irrigation should also be avoided to reduce leaching.
Although the research found that loss of nitrogen to volatilization was not a major concern, high
ammonia fertilizers should be well mixed into the soil soon after application. Using high organic
fertilizers may be appropriate when crops require lower levels over a longer period of time.
Finally, if excessive nitrogen fertilizers were applied to the soil in the past, an equilibrium period
for soil adjustment, possibly a year or two, may be needed for groundwater to reflect new
management practices. This may appear of little present concern with regard to the parcel because
vineyards have not yet been planted, the agricultural portion of the parcel has been idle for periods
of time, and the high sand content in soils may require less adjustment time. Concern, however,
may be warranted if excessive fertilizers are used from the start of planting and are not reflected in
groundwater for an extended period time.
4 I
T �
4 Table 9 is a nitrogen budget for vineyards.
I- y
95
Table 9
NITROGEN BUDGET FOR VINEYARDS
Assumptions:
The maximum application rate for vineyards on Long Island (as reported by the Cornell
Cooperative Extension) is 40 pounds/acre/year.
Calculations:
40 lbs/ acre/yr x 31 acres = 1,240 lbs
1,240 lbs x 50% leaching rate =620 lbs
620 lbs x 453,514.74 (conversion) = 281,179,139 mg
i
Recharge Calculations:
Precipitation:
45"/yr= 3.75'/yr
3.75'/yr x 50% infiltration = 1.88'/yr
1.88'/yr x 43,560 x 31 acres = 2,538,676.8 cuft
2,538,676.8 x 28.32 (conversion) = 71,895,326.98 liters
Itrigalion:
31 acres x 620 gpd/acre = 19,220 gpd
i 19,220 x 3.5 days/Nveek x 32 «reeks/yr=2,152,640 gpy
861,056 gpy x 3.785 (conversion) =3,259,097 liters
Nitrogen Loads:
precipitalion: 1.5 mg/1 = 107,842,990.5 mg x 15% leaching rate= 16,176,448.57 mg
irrigation: 3 mg/1 = 9,777,291 mg x 15% leaching rate= 1,466,594 mg
vineyard fertilization: 281,179,139 mg
Total 298,822,181.6 mg/75,154,423.98 = 3.976 mg/l
� 4
S
96
C. Drinking Water Quality Impacts
The loadings from septic disposal was assessed relative to groundwater (potable) quality. Using
the Healy (1982) method, estimates of nitrogen concentrations in groundwater for each of the
proposed residential parcels were estimated.
The Indian Shores Project will require individual private drinking water supply wells for water
- supply as public water supply systems are not available. The Suffolk County Department of
Health Services regulates private water supply wells under Article 4, Private Water Systems
' i
The proposed subdivision map and test hole data for each lot will be reviewed and approved or
t denied by the Health Department based on Article 4 requirements. The private wells must have a
minimum well screen depth of 40 feet below the water table. Water quality must be verified.
- Pursuant to Section 406.4-12(d) Test Well Requirements for Individual Lots, test wells may be
required because of the proximity of the lots, to salt water. According to this section, in shoreline
areas, where freshwater is not available at greater depths, the top of the well screen may be
installed a minimum of 10 feet below the water table, provided a minimum distance of 150 feet is
maintained to any leaching pool, and all other requirements of the Standard are met. This is
achievable at Indian Shores.
; i
Drinking water quality cannot be verified until individual wells are constructed and water quality
sampled. Water quality data was researched from the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services Public and Environmental Health Laboratory Records at Hauppauge, New York.
Figure 15 shows the location of the wells listed below and proximity to Indian Shores.
IT .
ti Monitoring Well Number Location
. 53336 S/S of Tuthill Ave.; 196' W/0 Wickman Ave.
. 53327 W/S of Alvah's Lane, 176' N/0 NYS 25.
. 53324 E/S of Alvah's Lane, 244' N/0 County Road Rt. 2.
. 53334 16W/O Elijah's Lane, 387N/0 Rt. 25.
. 53322 Oregon Road, 0.2M W/O Elijah Lane.
r
V _
Generally, there were few contraventions of drinking water standards revealed from the test
result data reviewed. Specific results can be found in Appendix 3. Wells S-53327 and S-
97
53336 had instances of 19.7 and 11 mg/1, respectively, which exceed the nitrate standard of
10 mg/1. However, both these wells are about 1 mile from the site. A well located at North
Fork Country Club, about one-half mile from the site, was found to be without
contravention.
s
i
I 4
E
l
l
i
` 1
ly
1
98
1
' •fors
•53118
17213 •16780
•53316 . 54 6 �es
335 1
\ '7 S?
.65606 ,� 1 / 5r
� � 5���� •71013 �.
53J12 . 53311. 1131
/ / 65603
' f / 53315 • 53336
o C � �SJ317
•53333 ' 5J3J/�
51581 • \
•16756` \;• 3916! O,Or 537 `
I
6558 . '53332 SITE
17 •7157\
•71576 \ /
No�PTH Fo.QK 1 J4
•51581 \ 9 •a COUNTRY CGUB / 739!9 . •8d;
,051589 •51885 GUELG LOCAT/D.V
•1631
81711 � �
051368,
1615
�� GREAT PECONIC BAY OJ�d, ,s� „
� N�„PTO
d
f- 2 0-
•18133
8956
1:1318957
•16319
•181
.37367 8
1{31 '(r
vt
• 71199 \� •52619 :d130
•77115, 051658 `
.18381 ^�``� �•165J0
I
5 1723 •165 18111 .16331 1 33 •37361 •16531
•18111
�__, •1811!
8836 •
;37 016335 •31010
F�su�eE *E/5
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH SERVICES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SCALE : I"= 2 MILES
Providing that private drinking water supply well standards established by the Health Department
are maintained, and irrigation wells are developed pursuant to NYSDEC requirements, the impacts
to groundwater quantity and quality would be moderate. Withdrawal of groundwater must be
reviewed with respect to the available supply from the local aquifer conditions, the hydrologic
cycle and actual consumption. The potential impacts of lawn and agricultural applications of
agricultural chemicals may be a cause of concern. Therefore, these applications should not be
conducted without management plans that identify existing soil conditions and baseline data to
verify ambient chemical loads.
Given what is known about the site, a reasonable estimate of nitrogen concentrations expected
from lots with septic systems and on-site wells can be made using the Healy (1982) method. In
this calculation, nitrogen concentrations in groundwater are a function of persons/household,
loadings, pretreatment efficiency, rainfall dilution and drainage area. Table 10 shows this
calculation and application to this project. The smallest lot(80,100 S.F.) was used as a worse case
because it would offer the least rainfall dilution.
As shown, septic disposal can cause up to 1.2 mg/1 of nitrogen (Healy method) to receiving
groundwater for each individual lot. This is well below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l.
The LI 208 Study predicted that two acre zoning would result in a nitrogen recharge concentration
of about 2.6 mg/l which included fertilizer loads. It is assessed that the residential development
portion of Indian Shores will be near this range.
Please note that this analysis is limited because the ambient nitrogen concentration of the
groundwater is not known. Well testing would have to be done to ensure that the minimum
standards for nitrogen and other chemical constituents are met for each lot.
I -
100
Table 10
DRINKING WATER ANALYSIS
NITROGEN COMPONENT
(Healy Method)
Assumptions:
3 persons/household (1990 Census) @ 44 gallons/person/day
Typical influent concentration of 40 mg/1 and 50% is removed by pretreatment
Rainfall dilution= 80,200 sf(min. lot size)
Daily precipitation=45 in/yr(Cornell University) = .Olft/ft2
60% infiltration
Procedure:
1. 3 persons per household (1990 Census) x 75 gpcd = 225 gpd
225 gpd x 3.81/g =8551/d
2. Typical concentrations 40 mg/l, 50% removed by pretreatment, therefore 8551/d @
I 20 mg/1
, I
3. Rainfall for dilution, 80,200 sf
Daily precipitation average is 0.01 ft/ft2, 60% infiltration, therefore 481 ft3/day or 3598
gallons or 13,673 1
I f
4. Delivery to site 8551 at 20 mg/1 = 17,100 mg
Dilution - 13,673 1 + 8551 = 14,5281
5. Final concentration= 17,100/14,528= 1.2 mg/l
Drinking water standard is 10 mg/l.
{ Note- The 208 Study assumed daily average domestic wast%vater flow at 40 gallons per person and
average nitrogen loads of 0.0274 pounds per capita per day(12,428.432 mg) which is equivalent
to 82 mg/l. It was assumed 50% of the raw sewage nitrogen would leach to groundwater (recharge
dilution factor not included).
i '
r
101
Table 11
ANNUAL NITROGEN LOADING & DILUTION FACTORS
Indian Shores Development
Source Nitrogen Loading (mg) Dilution Factor (1)
Precipitation 55,104,289 244,907,953 (1)
Irrigation
turf 1,781,130 3,958,067
vineyard 1,466,594 3,259,097
Fertilization
ttfrf 155,424,037 ---
vineyard 281,179,139 ---
Sanitary 120,825,303 6,631,320
Water Supply 9,946,980 ---
Animal Waste
pets 8,925,170 ---
horses 280,578,231 ---
i" Total 915,230,873 258,756,437
,
(1)Based on 45"/year precipitation,50%recharge and 105 6 acres
Table 11 provides a summary of the expected nitrogen loadings and dilution factors for the Indian
Shores project. Based on the table, the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge for the
project is 3.54 mg/1. The individual nitrogen loadings shown in tables 6-9 provide insights on
fi-
how land uses contribute to nitrogen loadings. One important observation is the impact on the
existing farm field .Crop types such as potato and celery require greater applications of nitrogen
(3.75 times greater) than grapes. Therefore a change in crops to types that require less agricultural
nitrogen applications and less irrigation, can directly reduce nitrogen loading over the same area.
The following data is directly from the 208 Study and can be used for comparative analyses.
I ,
102
SUMMARY OF GROSS ESTIMATES OF SOURCES AND FATE
OF NITROGEN IN THE BI-COUNTY REGION 200
POPULATION (q)
(based on 1975 and 1976 data)
(e)
Initial Load FERTILIZER
Nitrogen to 180 PRECIPITATION (c)
Load Groundwater
Source (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Ca,mment on Sink PETS (D)
Wastewater 160 TOTAL (E) t
On-site systems 8,500 4,300 (Denitrification,etc.)
Sewers& sewage treatment
Sewer leakage 500 200 (Denitrification,etc) 140
Effluent discharge to
(E)
ground 200 100 (Denitrification,etc.)
Effluent discharge to 120
marine bays 4,200 — (Discharge to sea)
Sub-total 13,400 4,600
Fertilizers and Animals 100
Farm (Incl.sod farms) 4,000 1,000 (Crop removal) ¢
Turf (Incl.households,golf w
courses,etc.) 9,300 5,600 (Volatilization& Denit) > 80
N
Animals (primarily dogs& _ X (A)
cats) 1,600 800 (Volatilization& Denit)
a
Ducks 600 300 (Volatilization& Denit.) '" 60
Sub-total 15,500 7,700 J
V, o
Precipitation 4,000 3,700 (By difference from totals) a
0 40
J
Total 32,900 16,000® (Totals estimated by Z
water/nitrogen model) w
0
0
'Assuming an annual recharge of about 500 billion gallons, the resulting F 20
concentrations in the leachate equals about 6.8 mg/l. Z (C)
(DI
2 4 6 a 10 12 14 16
ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADS ORIGINATING ON AN ACRE PERSONS PER GROSS ACRE
OF RESIDENTIAL LAND WITH THREE HOUSES
Relationships Between Population Density and Nitrogen
Lbs.of Nitrogen
Initial Approx.load to Loadings to Groundwater from Major Pollution Sources.
Source Load Groundwater Assumption
10 Persons 100 50 00 lbs.N/person)
15,000 sq.ft.of turf 45 25 (average household income$16,000)
Pets 10 5 (0.82 lbs/person approx.) 208 Study Data
Precipitation 10 6 (1 mg/1)
Coastal Envronmental Corp
P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, NY 11718
f. Marine Water Quality Impacts
It is extremely difficult to quantify the impacts of land development on the water quality of an
estuarine system. Such a study would entail collection of seasonal groundwater and surface water
quality data over several years as well as hydrodynamic information (currents, stratification, etc.).
Land use data on the entire watershed would be required as well. Even then, such a complex
model would likely be unable to be sensitive enough to determine the relatively small changes in
loadings presented by this project.
Therefore, a no-build/build comparison of nitrogen loadings, tempered by a discussion of the
nitrogen assimilation ability of Downs Creek and its environs is presented herein.
From the preceeding tabels and research studies it is suggested that a decrease in nitrogen loadings
could be realized on the existing farmland as a result of the proposed development. Much of the
loading decrease results because fertilizer needs of vineyards are significantly less than that of the
existing crops on the site. The conversion of woodland to residential building lots will effect a net
increase in loadings in the localized area. Horse droppings from the proposed equestrian use
would also add to the nitrogen budget. However, overall, the total contribution of nitrogen
entering groundwater from this proposed plan could be reduced because of crop change.
As discussed below, the small increase in nitrogen loadings to groundwater should not negatively
affect Downs Creek.
Nitrogen is the nutrient of concern in marine systems because excess amounts of nitrogen can
cause algal blooms which impair the health of the ecosystem. In severe cases, occurring mostly in
summer months, excessive nitrogen loadings coupled with high temperatures and low flushing,
can deplete dissolved oxygen and cause fish kills.
Excess nutrients can create an over abundance of rooted vegetation and algae (blooms) which,
upon their demise, cause the depletion of dissolved oxygen (via microbial decomposition) resulting
in higher mortality of certain marine life. Based on data which relates nitrogen concentrations to
chlorophyll-a, and chlorophyll-a to diurnal dissolved oxygen variations, a surface water total
nitrogen concentration limit of 0.5 mg/1 will ensure a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 5.0 mg/l,
which is considered necessary for the preservation of a normal ecological balance (SCDHS, 1992).
The Suffolk County Department of Health determined that evidence such as surface water quality
data, computer modeling analysis, and groundwater infiltration sampling indicate that groundwater
104
nitrogen contribution is not having a significant adverse impact on the Peconic River and Flanders
Bay System (BTCAMP,1992) Furthermore the areas east of Flanders Bay do not appear impacted
by groundwater nitrogen contribution due to greatly increased flushing seaward and lower rates of
groundwater infiltration into the system
There are major differences in the ability of the open bay to'assimilate nutrient loads when
compared to that of smaller, more shallow water bodies like Down's Creek. In addition to the
comparative size of water bodies, their respective regimes support different biota which can result
in differences by which their natural communities respond to nutrient loading (SCDHS, 1992).
The following graphs show the results of morning and afternoon levels of nitrogen verses
dissolved oxygen levels at open bays and creek environments resulting in higher levels and greater
fluctuations in nitrogen and corresponding dissolved oxygen levels. Researchers attributed these
differences to the greater "flushing" of bays verses creeks and higher point source nutrient cycling.
Wetlands act as a buffer against pollutants entering a creek.
One study compared Goose Creek with those experiencing "blooms" and observed that the lack of
point source loading and the abundance of marshes created an environment which fostered nitrogen
and dissolved oxygen levels comparable to open bays with much greater flushing (SCDHS, 1992).
Goose Creek as well as the other creeks are located in the Peconic system. Examining similarities
` with Down's Creek, we can say that the apparent lack of point source discharges, and abundance
ke Goose Creek a comparative example for the analysis of
of wetlands around the creek may ma
Down's Creek. Factors such as relative size, comparative flushing capabilities, and non-point
source nutrient loading, among others would need to be assessed before a definitive comparison
could be made.
The Brown Tide study (SCDHS, 1992) stated several definitive conclusions regarding nitrogen
contributions resulting from groundwater underflow into the marine environment. One
observation was that portions of the study area east of Flanders Bay do not appear to be negatively
impacted by groundwater nitrogen contributions due to the greater flushing from the seaward
r boundary of the system as well as a much lower rate of groundwater infiltration to the system.
Another important determination made by the sampling of Dr. Capone as described in the Brown
Tide Study (SCDHS, 1992) is the relative insignificance of groundwater infiltration to the system.
r-
Another important determination made by the sampling of Dr. Capone as described in the Brown
Tide Study is the relative insignificance of groundwater underflow in relation to point sources of
nitrogen. Although non-point source nitrogen (including and especially sediment flux) greatly
exceeds the total nitrogen load from point sources, computer modeling has shown that the marine
surface water system is not very sensitive to changes in groundwater quality. Furthermore, the
Istudy indicated that groundwater nitrogen may not be a major influence in the water quality of the
Peconic system, and that in terms of management options for mitigating adverse impacts, localized
105
concentrated discharges should be the focus. (Presumably, Capone is referring to the contribution
of organic nitrogen from animal waste and other sources to the sediment flux. Sediment flux can
be a substantial contributor to nitrogen loading in a marine environment.)
Although the findings of the Brown Tide Study (SCDHS, 1992) minimize groundwater nitrogen
contributions, nitrogen loading from groundwater and runoff sources were identified as a potential
for environmental concern with respect to Indian Shores. If groundwater and runoff controls are
to be maintained within a 10 mg/l standard 90% of the time, average concentrations of about 6 mg/l
in groundwater and surface water would need to be maintained.
Due to location within the Peconic Bay system, Down's Creek and local wetlands may be subject
to better flushing when compared to creeks located west of the site. In addition, the wetlands
surrounding Down's Creek may support an ecosystem resistant to ecological imbalances due to the
ability of wetlands to assimilate nitrogen. It is presently unknown as to whether or not a 6 mg/l
groundwater nitrogen level would create imbalances in the creek.
Although local groundwater(and runoff) is an important consideration, much of the flow to marine
waters will result from underflow from more central portions of the North Fork. In addition,
estimates of groundwater direction indicate primary flow away from the wetland/creek area and
toward the more nitrogen assimilative bay area.
Specific (local) groundwater flow tends to move south easterly; this flow would also tend to move
south due to the greater influence of the primary flow (the large groundwater flow having a greater
influence over the localized direction) (Bopp, 1994, Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment:
A Site Assessment).
Runoff is typically a concern, due to the possibility of organic nitrogen contributions to sediment
accumulation. This is a significant concern with regard to non-point source loading. The fact that
there are intended to be vegetative retention buffer zones and runoff collection basins to reduce the
nitrogen (and other contamination) loading to marine waters alleviates the concern about this
source. In addition, stormwater loading in the region comprised less than I% of the total point and
non-point source loading to the system (SCDHS, 1992). A nearby golf course which contributes
to groundwater concentrations of approximately 6 mg/l must also be considered in evaluating
overall local nitrogen loading to the marine environment.
In summary, the proposed project should not significantly affect groundwater and surface water
resources in the area. The nitrogen loadings created by the project could be less than existing
conditions, once crops are converted to vineyards. The characteristics of Downs Creek (i.e. well
flushed, vegetated border) should ameliorate any increased loadings caused by septic effluent and
106
turf fertilizers.
2. Wetland and Wildlife
The proposed project does not involve the filling of tidal or freshwater wetlands. The only wetland
resource on the site is Downs Creek, a tidal estuary. A small freshwater swale collects storm
drainage from the northern portion of the site and conveys it into a"finger" of the tidal creek. Six
of the lots on the development plan border the creek, but a minimum 75-foot vegetated buffer will
be maintained from the landward edge of the tidal wetland boundary, as stipulated by NYSDEC. It
is likely that a much wider forested buffer will remain between the owners' lawns and the tidal
wetland edge because of the relatively large size (2+ acres) of the lots. Future access to the creek
via cleared paths and floating docks could occur, but would be regulated on a case-by-case basis
by NYSDEC, Town of Southold and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The loss of some forested land to development should not negatively affect the water quality or
wildlife of the Downs Creek system. As discussed in Section I VA above (Groundwater), nitrogen
loadings to the system are expected to be insignificant. Any potential soil erosion and
sedimentation occurring during construction will be mitigated by placement of silt fences and hay
bales. The 75-foot vegetated buffer will also serve to minimize erosion impacts to the creek, as
this buffer occurs on the steepest slopes of the site.
Wildlife that inhabit the Creek for feeding, breeding, or lodging will not be affected. Muskrat,
which are prominent in this area, occupy the creek and the tidal/upland interface where reeds and
cattails occur. These plants are the building material for their dens. This area will remain
undisturbed.
The deer habitat would also not be negatively affected. A sufficient corridor of forest and
shrub/scrub vegetation will remain for deer travel and access to the Creek will be maintained.
Large birds, such as osprey, hawks, and herons will continue to thrive. Their food source, located
in the creek proper and along its margins, will be unaffected. These birds utilize large trees
immediately adjacent to the marsh to perch and scout for food. The 75-foot forested buffer is
sufficient to accommodate these birds.
Approximately 70 acres of the existing site are undeveloped woodlands and wetlands; the balance
of the site being used for crop production. After the proposed Indian Shores development,
approximately 24 acres of woodlands would be disturbed. The disturbance will be minimized
because no clear cutting of residential subdivision lots will be permitted and it is anticipated each
107
individual home owner will enhance the property's privacy with naturalized side and rear yard
buffers. The Downs Creek tidal wetland ecosystem will remain protected by the 75 foot building
setback as measured upland from the wetland delineation line. It is anticipated that wildlife
inhabiting the area which would be disturbed by Indian Shores will seek refuge within the 37.47
acres of the proposed town park. Wildlife dependent on the ecosystem of Downs Creek will not
experience significant habitat destruction because of enforceable building setbacks from the tidal
wetlands and the connection of habitats that exist between Downs Creek and the proposed Town
park. One of the more significant species identified and known to inhabit the general area of the
project is the osprey. It has a nesting site at the delta of Downs Creek where it discharges to the
Great Peconic Bay. This nesting site is in close proximity to existing, occupied residential homes
located south of New Suffolk Avenue. Since this bird can co-exist with its human neighbors, it is
unlikely the development of Indian Shores will have a significant adverse impact on its habitat. It
is likely some organisms will have permanent disruption to their habitats, and while this loss is
difficult to quantify, it is unavoidable_
3. Cultural Resources
It is the conclusion of Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. (Archaeologists) that four prehistoric sites and
one historic archaeological site are located within the Baxter project area. The historic site and two
of the prehistoric sites lie within the proposed Town Park. No impacts are expected to these sites.
It is a recommendation that these three sites, the historic farm stead, Fort Corchaug, and the new
southern prehistoric site be preserved by avoiding impacts to them. The current plans for the
project area include no impacts to the sites. Should the Town of Southold develop this park,
additional work on these sites may be needed.
The Fence Rail Well prehistoric site is located within Lots 4 - 10 and 16 of the proposed Major
Subdivision. It is recommended that a Phase 2 Archaeological Survey of this site be undertaken
prior to construction at these lots. This survey would determine the precise boundaries of the site
as well as potential National Register eligibility. The site would then be avoided by the new
construction, or artifacts excavated and archived prior to the beginning of construction. The
_ survey would involve the building envelopes of proposed buildings and/or infrastructure.
The northern new prehistoric site is partially located within Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. A
' possible future house site shown within Lot 1 would impact this site. It is recommended a Phase 2
archaeological survey of this site be conducted, should the new house plans proceed. This survey
should be completed prior to development of Lot 1. If Lot 1 is used entirely as a vineyard, then
this would be a continuation of the agricultural use of this land, and would not be considered a new
impact. Fort Chorchaug is located primarily in the Town Park but probably also in Lot 10. It is
I- recommended to conduct a Phase 2 archaeological survey prior to development of Lot 10 or the
108
southern portion of the Town Park.
4. Land Use
The proposed project is consistent with: Town of Southold zoning regulations; Southold Town
Stewardship Task Force recommendations; and the 1992 New York State Open Space Plan. This
project serves to allow minimal residential development while maintaining agricultural usage and
preserving open space. Indian Shores conforms to the outline of recommendations from the
Southold Town Stewardship Task Force Study in the categories of. preservation of farmland and
open space, sustainable economic development, surface and subsurface water quality, and
character of hamlets and rural setting.
The plan also conforms to recommendations from the Peconic Estuary Program Action Plan dated
December 1, 1994 and is consistent with goals for protection of marine surface water quality,
storrnwater runoff from new development, discharge of fertilizers and animal wastes, prevention
of groundwater degradation, use of best management practices for groundwater protection, and
protection of natural resources. The proposed project is consistent with Town of Southold Codes
for protection and acquisition of open space lands as described in Chapter 59 "Open Space
Preservation" of the Town codes. It is also consistent with the "Agricultural Lands Preservation
Law of the Town of Southold" which serves to conserve, protect, and encourage the improvement
of prime agricultural lands and preserve open space. The proposed action is also consistent with
Town of Southold and New York State DEC regulations for the protection of tidal wetlands, the
Long Island Regional Planning Board's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program goals to reduce
stormwater conveyance of nutrient loads to surface waters, and minimize coliform bacteria
production in productive shellfish beds. Indian Shores is consistent with the groundwater
management goals described in the North Fork Water Supply Plan prepared by Suffolk County
Department of Health and shall conform with County health regulations governing drinking water
supply and sanitary water disposal. The proposed action is consistent with the intent of the 208
Plan because it minimizes the degradation of groundwater from nitrogen loads and because of it,
conforms to the aforementioned land use programs targeted to preserve natural resources.
Park land owned by Southold is expected to see an increase from 165 acres to 203 acres as a result
of the purchase of the proposed Indian Shores Park. This is a 19% increase to existing available
park space. The Indian Shores Park would become the single largest park in Southold.
The project will impact approximately 31 acres of existing woodland and open fields because of the
residential subdivision. The impact will be moderate because of the minimum two acre residential
I
lot sizes, clustering these units in the southeast quadrant of the property, buffers and wetland
- setback requirements.
109
The conservation easement on approximately 30 acres of agricultural lands, the 5.67 acre riding
stables and 37.47 acre park lands will preserve open space and farmland.
5. Visual
The aesthetics of the rural setting of the site will be minimally impacted. Single family homes
would be largely screened from the New Suffolk Avenue and Route 25 vantage points. The park,
vineyards and equestrian sites would offer pleasant open space vistas.
B. MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Transportation
The proposed action will require road access to New Suffolk Avenue as the primary ingress/egress
point. The expected traffic flow from thirteen residential units, the equestrian and agricultural use
is:
VEHICULAR TRIPS
USE (ENTER AND EXIT)
Residential trips/day =124 AM peak/hr. = 1OPM peak/hr.= 13
Agricultural trips/day= 38 AM peak/hr. = 3PM peak/hr.= 4
Total trips/day= 162 Totals 13 17
The additional traffic will not adversely impact New Suffolk Avenue.
The flow from the proposed park and northern agricultural park onto New York State 25 (Note:
each has a separate ingress/egress):
TOTAL VEHICULAR TRIPS
I
USE (ENTER AND EXIT)
Park trips/day= 112 AM peak/hr. = 8PM peak/hr. = 11
Agricultural trips/day= 42 AM peak/hr. =4PM peak/hr. = 5
Total 154 AM peak/hr. =12 PM peak/hr. = 16
The additional traffic will not adversely impact traffic flow on NYS 25.
Note: Data suggested above from ITE Trip Generation Manual.
110
2. Community Services
Taxation
The current annual tax on the property is $18,281.44 or approximately $173.12 per acre. The
37.47 acre park proposed for purchase by Southold would remove this area from the Town's tax
base. Taxes will be adjusted on the private property to reflect assessed values.
The estimated assessments of taxes for this project were computed using Town Assessor's
records.
Parcel Assessment
Agricultural Lots $12,300
Residential Lots 39,000
Equestrian Lots 4,135
Park land 0
Total $54,435
The tax increase on the vacant land would increase from $18,281 to $34,773. This figure would
increase as improvements (i.e. building) on each lot is completed.
Education
Cutchogue has the following public schools; Mattituck Cutchogue Elementary and High Schools.
Approximately four more students may be added to the school roster (Long Island Almanac 1995
_ School District data and census counts).
Police Protection
Southold Town Police and Suffolk County Police will need to provide response to the site if
required. This parcel is currently patrolled within each agency's jurisdictions.
Recreational Facilities
Existing recreational facilities will be increased by the proposed 37.47 acre park.
Utilities
Additional utilities will need to be extended to provide each user access.
111
i
I V. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The following is a description of techniques that may be employed as part of this development
project to minimize environmental impact. In most cases, no substantial impact to environmental
resources is expected and, therefore, mitigation measures may not be warranted or even possible.
In other instances, such as wetland and groundwater impacts, best management practices are the
best means of reducing potential impact. In some instances, the commitment to mitigation
measures will be made at a later time, during the site plan and wetland review process, when more
detailed plans of site design, drainage and utilities become available.
A. GEOLOGY
Excavated material will be used as fill on-site to the maximum extent practicable. Select fill may be
required to raise grades to provide for separation between groundwater and sanitary disposal
systems The excavated material will consist primarily of loamy sand, which can be used in some
areas of the developed site. Some landscaping and contouring can be accomplished using the
excavated soil, however, more fertile soils will likely be imported to help support lawn growth.
There will be no development along the steepest slopes of the site, which occur adjacent to Downs
Creek. This area is part of the 75 foot setback zone as stipulated by the NYSDEC.
Soil erosion will be reduced by using silt fences and/or hay bales where necessary. The exact
location and detail of these devices will be developed during the site design process.
B. WATER RESOURCES
1. Groundwater
The proposed action will have impacts on local groundwater resources. These impacts include
reduction in water resources for the purpose of potable uses, irrigation, live stock and general
human needs.
i - ,
Water conservation can be achieved by using residential water conserving devices, and drip
irrigation systems for agricultural water needs. It is likely that new, customized homes would be
fitted with such devices.
Vineyards may require irrigation, and will respond well to drip irrigation systems. This irrigation
technique will provide mitigation to withdrawal of water for this purpose. Specifics of this system
112
will be identified and conditions of operation will be stated by the NYSDEC Irrigation Well Permit
Program if the system requires a pumping rate of 1,500 gpm or more. Typical drip irrigation
systems for a 31 acre vineyard would operate below this threshold. This evaluation program will
identify specific impacts and methods of mitigation. Similarly the Suffolk County Department of
Health will regulate the private water supply wells for each residential user.
Added mitigation measures include:
1. Minimize the application of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers at homesites
through public awareness programs.
2. Animal waste from the equestrian activities should be contained whereby it will not
leach to groundwater or present a public health hazard or nuisance. Off site
disposal of the waste is encouraged.
3. Agricultural lands should establish baseline soil conditions whereby existing
nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide levels can be determined and a managed
application plan can be developed.
4. Reuse soils after excavation for on-site grading and cover material. Avoid erosion
of soils during construction with acceptable (SCS) soil erosion techniques.
5. Private water supply and sanitary disposal requirements must be confirmed by
Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
6. Downs Creek will continue to be monitored by NYSDEC for water quality and
shellfishing purposes.
7. Tidal Wetland permits will determine conditions that will mitigate impact in these
areas.
8. Raise site grades as necessary to increase vertical distance between groundwater
and sanitary disposal systems.
9. Control groundwater withdrawal rates (water pumping) in accordance with
recommended rates.
Note: Figures 16, 16a & 17, 17a provide a schematic view of environmental limitations
which can be met by the development.
2. Surface Waters
Impacts to Downs Creek, the only surface waterbody in the project area, will be minimal. Those
mitigation measures designed to minimize groundwater quality impacts described above will also
serve to reduce impacts to the creek.
r .
113
OD WAA6 O.2EE,<
r104 e. WEre AAvO
I Q
o ti/ATUIf q 4 WOODED
.40 0 � BUFFE,2 A�2 EA � n
Ws
J
GANOSC'AGEO
0 Ij
Qo
Q o ro
50 '
so
zoo
-
WETGANO
dU�2/SD/C T/OA/AL
L//YI/r
,vysoEc= 300' — — —
01e Aa0 vE
EG EVF57T/01-1 le-0
Figure # 16
ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITATIONS
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
-OF PROPOSED PLOT PLAN P O Box 602
SCALE I " = 50 Bnghtwaters; NY 11718
h h h h h h h h h h h
Downs Creek Wetlands h
North
Water Supply
Well
Nin.Two Min.
Acres 100 ft.
Sanitary woo
System
Direction of
Groundwater
® ® ® ® SSE
i'
Proposed Roadway
Z150Min.
ft.
Figure 16a. Indian Shores "Staggered" Sanitary Disposal & Water Supply
Layout (NTS) Sept. 1996
Coastal Environmental Corp.
RO Box 602
Bnghtwaters, NY 11718
Sanitary -
System Sanitary
Final Grade High Marsh
( ) Intertidal Marsh
00 Height
Existing Grade r y
i Mean High Water
Seasonal Ground Water I iE--Width( )— j
e Mean Low Wafer—
_ - i •
*--Width
Distance ( )
CROSSVIEW DIAGRAM
Single Family Dwelling Construction
NYSDEC Tidal Wetland [5omrceDEC)
Figure # 17
Coastal Envronmental Corp.
P.O. Box 602
Brightwaters, NY 11718
Mechanical Measures Vegetative Measures
1. Land Grading: Grade only those areas 1. Vegetative Protection: Conserve max-
necessary for Immediate construction, imum amount of ground cover Parti-
Minimize cut and fill;avoid heavy cularly along stream corridors
grading. ""
2. Bench Terraces: Constructed across 2. Temporary and Permanent Seeding UNDISTURBED,' TEMPORARY BLOCK
P Y g ____ _ SILT TRAP"788
the slope of the land to break long Seeding will add stability to soils
slopes and slow the flow of runoff which are not needed either perms- EARTH DIVERSION BERM
nently or temporarily for construc-
tion Grasses,legumes,trees,shrubs,
vines and ground covers can be used. - 394 f
3. Subsurface Drains: Sometimes re- 3. Mulch: Straw mulch can be used to STRAW BALE
DIVERSiJN
quired at base of fill slopes to remove protect constructed slopes and other
excess ground water. areas regraded at an unfavorable time
for seeding.
4. Diversions: Ridges and channels used 4. Stream Channel Stabilization: Erod- STRAW BALE DIVERSION
to divert runoff away from erodable Ing or erosion-prone channels and
slopes;particularly useful along high- stream banks can be stabilized by I F FL EL 3870 '
way embankments. use of vegetation,rip-rap and meth-
.`
apical measures. 1 �
5. Dikes: Useful around large parking
EARTH DIVERSION BERM
lots to collect runoff for gradual re-
lease
e lease through grassed outlets or sub-
surface drains.
6. Sediment Basins: A permanent or -__ - '
temporary dam to detain runoff and i �\ EARTH DIVERSION BERM
trap sediment.
-390_ —_
7. Filter Berms: Gravel or straw bale _
dikes used to filter stormwater runoff
�—EMERGENCY
prior to discharge. \ SPILLWAY
8 Vertical Drainage:Techniques to in- UNDISTURBED 'SIL' T DAM �� _
filtrate excess runoff water to rapidly
permeable subsoil to reduce excess '--' ' TEMP EASEMEN `
runoff water.
Swra Er on-Sdrsnon Conant N—dbook ID,00.Farb.C000ly,V,rpmu
Figure 17a Erosion & Sediment Control Measures for Construction Sites & Typical Plan
(Source LIRPB 1978, NTS)
A temporary 100-foot construction zone as measured from the wetland delineation line will be
established, and a silt fence placed along this line. This approach will minimize impacts within the
final 75 foot vegetated buffer which could result from an accidental breach of the silt fence by
equipment or workers. The temporary 100 foot buffer will help maintain the water quality of the
creek by reducing potential erosion during construction. Silt fences and/or hobbles will be
deployed as needed to prevent erosion.
Storm water will be routed through leachate catch basins for infiltration to the soil. A net zero
increase in runoff from the site should be possible. Specific design of this system will be
addressed at a later date during the site plan and wetland review process.
C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY
The loss of approximately 31 acres of woodlands and farmlands to residential development will
cause the displacement of some terrestrial animals, particularly animals. It should be noted that the
75-foot setback along Downs Creek is an important habitat interface for aquatic and terrestrial
organisms and this area will be maintained.
The construction of the residential development will not involve clear cutting of the lots. It is
anticipated individual home owners may elect to enhance their side yard and rear yard areas with
natural vegetated buffers and/or increased setbacks in order to maximize their privacy. This
approach would slightly increase available wildlife habitat. Many trees and hedgerows will be left
along the road so as to create an attractive, secluded environment for prospective home buyers.
Thus impacts to the terrestrial ecosystem will be minimized.
The dedication of some 37 acres as open space (town park) will serve to reduce impacts to the
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem by preserving this land in perpetuity. The use of conservation
easements proposed for the agricultural properties will provide significant open space which is
contiguous to the Town park forested habitat. The continuity between the existing uplands
proposed as the Town park and the wetland ecosystem of Downs Creek will remain relatively
undisturbed. This area will likely become a good habitat for organisms which would be disturbed
by the impending development of the residential home sites. Some habitats will be permanently
disturbed as a result of the proposed action. The applicant's proposed preservation of open space
and low density use of the project serves to mitigate the disturbance of natural habitats by
minimizing overall site development. This development approach is consistent with state, county,
and local natural resource preservation goals implemented to permit a balance between development
and preservation of natural resources.
118
D. TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project will have minimal impact on traffic in the area The primary ingress/egress
proposed is along New Suffolk Avenue. One vineyard and future park development may have
access via Route 25. The design of the street and its intersection with New Suffolk Avenue will be
done in accordance with the provision of the Town of Southold's zoning code.
E. LAND USE AND ZONING
The project, as proposed, complies with the Town of Southold and New York State open space
goals for this property and complements existing surrounding land uses. The development of the
parcel for residential use will be done with high aesthetic standards which will be necessary to
attract buyers of these up-scale homes.
F. COMMUNITY SERVICES
The project design plans will satisfy the requirements for emergency vehicle access and turning.
The local police and fire departments will be allowed to review the design plans during the site plan
review process.
Utility services will be provided underground. This will be an amenity to the site in terms of
physical appearance. Custom-designed homes will likely be constructed using state-of-the-art
plumbing fixtures which serve to reduce water demand. Heating and air-conditioning units will
likely be of superior design to conserve energy.
G. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Disturbance to some on-site cultural resources will be avoided through the conveyance of
approximately 37.47 acres to the Town of Southold as parkland. Additional measures are
proposed to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources. A qualified archaeologist may need to
conduct additional shovel tests prior to construction to retrieve any other significant artifacts that
could be on the site. If desired b the prospective lot owner orappropriate a enc the footprint of
� Y p Pg Y,
the house could be moved to avoid any discovered resources. A Phase 2 archaeological survey is
recommended prior to development of Lots 1-10 and Lot 16 and the proposed Town Park (if it
should be developed).
119
H. VISUAL RESOURCES
As mentioned above, the 75 foot vegetated buffer along Downs Creek should effectively screen the
residences from any vantage points along New Suffolk Avenue and Route 25. Also, by not
allowing clear cutting of the forest for development of the lots, sufficient screening of the homes
will be attained to reduce visual impacts, particularly from the vantage point of New Suffolk
Avenue. Houses on lots 1,2, and 3 will not impact aesthetics for passerby, given that these will be
up-scale homes fitted into the context of the vineyard landscape.
The equestrian and vineyard uses of the site will serve to maintain the rural and aesthetic character
of this site.
i
120
V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED
IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
There will be unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed action. These will be a loss of
undisturbed natural areas, particularly hardwood semi-mature deciduous forest and increase in
human activity, which will alter the existing naturalized conditions of the site.
Local water supply will be impacted from withdrawal and experience some degradation from
sanitary and surface run off discharges.
Solid waste and traffic generated by the site's proposed use will impact community services.
There will be minor impacts on area noise levels, air quality and energy use from heating and
cooling systems, automobiles and maintenance equipment.
121
VT. ALTERNATIVES
Seven alternatives were evaluated for the proposed action and they are presented below. Elements
of some of these alternatives have been incorporated into the plans of the preferred alternative.
A. STANDARD SUBDIVISION MAP
The applicant had suggested an alternative plan that provided increased residential density and a
smaller recreation area, as described below:
Residential clustered subdivision:
• 42 single family lots on 105.6 acres
39 of the proposed lots range between 40,000 and 87,300 square feet in
area; Remaining 3 lots are 4.7, 12.1 and 20.5 acres
• 5.4 acres are proposed as a park and recreation area. This area is located in
the east central part of the site, coincident with the primary location of the
documented Indian Fort
The alternative of a higher density use then the proposed action was within the existing land use
regulations for the property. An assessment of the higher density use produced the following
impacts:
• The combined nitrogen loads of the higher density mixed use plans were
greater than the proposed action. There is concern that the higher density nitrogen
loads may require mitigation to protect Down's Creek and local groundwater.
• The cultural resources within the immediate Indian Fort site would remain
undisturbed. All other cultural sites would require on-site assessments prior to
earthwork to avoid loss of valuable historic information and/or artifacts.
• Open space would be reduced and a greater visual impact on the "rural
setting" associated with the sites current use may be experienced.
• Seven additional lots would be adjacent to Down's Creek Tidal Wetlands
and salt shrub transition areas. This additional development would increase impacts
along the estuary.
• Traffic flow along NYS 25 and New Suffolk Avenue would be slightly
effected by the additional vehicles using the ingress/egress point at Main Road.
122
• Agricultural and equestrian land use impacts would closely parallel those of
the proposed action
• Park land available for purchase by the Town of Southold would be reduced
by+/- 30 acres.
• Greater areas of wildlife and vegetated habitats would be disturbed.
The increased density of the site would result in an incremental increase of environmental impacts
and would require more extensive mitigation. These,impacts and mitigation measures would be
greater than those associated with the proposed action.
B. OPEN SPACE CONTINGENCY ALTERNATIVE
The property owner and the Peconic Land Trust have been in communication over the issue of
deeding conservation easements for the two agricultural parcels on the site. In fact, a Draft Deed of
Conservation Easement has been written. In the event that agreement is not reached that would
preserve the agricultural/open space use of the land, the applicant would still propose to use the site
for agricultural (vineyard) and equestrian uses. Without such conservation easements or restrictive
covenants, however, the agricultural lots could potentially be developed with 2-acre'residential
lots.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would involve recovery and/or avoidance of archaeological resources that may be
present within the proposed building lots. The Phase 113 Archaeological Survey recommends
either avoidance or recovery as mitigation. A Phase 2 Survey involving sampling of the home sites
prior to construction is recommended. If artifacts are discovered within the footprint of a proposed
home or outbuilding, then recovery would occur and the artifacts donated to a-local or county
historical society or other interested party. A particular prospective buyer may elect to shift the
footprint to avoid the discovered resource, but in either event the data will be recovered and
archived.
Recovery of artifacts may be more beneficial to the public than just avoidance. Recovery allows
for citizens and historians to study and-view these artifacts in libraries or museums. This may be
more valuable than leaving artifacts buried beneath a homeowner's lawn.
123
D. EXPANDED FORT CORCHAUG SITE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would involve expansion of the proposed 37.47-acre town park to include some of
the proposed residential lots. In order for this to be accomplished, a clustering of homes would be
required to maintain the 16 residential dwelling unit plan. Clustering could be achieved but would
result in small individual home lots.
Lot number 10 could be shifted further south of the Fort site, thus expanding the cultural resource
preservation area. However, this approach would force all adjacent lots located along Downs
Creek to also become narrower, with the exception of Lot 5 which would remain the current size
due to environmental constraints.
This alternative would result in a reduced number and/or size of the most valuable(waterfront) lots
in the proposed subdivision, and force an economic hardship on the applicant. To balance this
financial inequity, the Town of Southold would need to acquire all of Lot 10 in order to expand the
Fort site and provide the owner with compensation for this loss. Based upon the available funds
the Town of Southold has set aside, there is only money to purchase the 37.47 acres proposed as
the Town park. Unless additional funding can be provided, this alternative is not economically
feasible.
The Lead Agency suggested the following options for this alternative:
f Option 1. Removal of Lot 10 and the reduction of lot sizes for the remaining lots in
I order to accomodate a replacement lot for Lot 10. Lot 5 would remain as is
and the resultant lots would be in a one to two acre range.
The expected quantitative impacts from Option 1 are assessed to be similiar to the impacts of the
proposed action with some exceptions. The lot size reductions (resulting from the loss of the
original Lot 10) are below the minimum A-C District requirement of 80,000 square feet.Reduced
lot widths are another impact from this option. The existing lot widths are about 200 feet; the
minimum allowable lot widths are 176 feet. This minimum lot width could be mitigated through a
cluster map under NYS Town Law 278.
Narrower lots can be less desireable from the standpoint of marketing. The distance between lots
directly impacts privacy and may reduce in buffer areas between houses. Narrow lots may also
reduce the distances between the water supply and sanitary systems of adjacent properties.
However, this can be mitigated through proper design.
124
Open space and cultural resource preservation will benefit from option 1. The park land will
increase by slightly more than two acres and existing wildlife and vegetative habitats would remian
undisturbed in this area. The purchase of the additional land by the Town of Southold will reduce
the available funds needed to purchase additional sites in other areas of the Town. The market price
for the lots remaining may be reduced due the smaller lot sizes and reduced widths.
Option 2. Lot 10 could be relocated south by 50 to 100 feet and the widths of Lots 6-
10 be reduced. Lot sizes would remain in the one to two acre range.
The expected quantitative impacts from Option 2 are assessed to be similiar to the impacts of the
proposed action with some exceptions. The lot size reductions (resulting from the relocation of Lot
10 to 50-100 feet south) are below the minimum A-C District requirement of 80,000 square
feet.Reduced the lot widths are potential impact from this option. The existing lot widths are about
200 feet; the minimum allowable lot widths are 176 feet. This minimum lot width could be
mitigated through a cluster map under NYS Town Law 278.
Narrower lots can be less desirable from the standpoint of marketing. The distance between lots
directly impacts privacy and may reduce buffer areas between houses. Narrow lots may also
reduce the distances between the water supply and sanitary systems of adjacent properties.
However, this can be mitigated through proper design.
Open space and cultural resource preservation will benefit from Option 2 but to a lesser degree than
Option 1. The park land will increase by slightly more than 1.2 acres and existing wildlife and
vegetative habitats would remian undisturbed in this area. The purchase of the additional land by
the Town of Southold will reduce the available funds needed to purchase additional sites in other
areas of the Town. The market price for the lots remaining may be reduced due the smaller lot sizes
and reduced widths.
Option. 3. A fifty foot buffer of natural vegetation could be covenanted along the
northern boudary of Lot 10.
Open space and cultural resource preservation will benefit from Option 3 but to a lesser degree than
Options 1 and 2. Existing wildlife and vegetative habitats would remian undisturbed in this area.
No purchase of additional land by the Town of Southold will be required and funds needed to
purchase additional sites in other areas of the Town is expected to remain available. The market
price for the lots would be the same as for the proposed action except for Lot 10.There would be a
slight restriction on the development of Lot 10 but the other lot sizes and lot widths will conform
with the A-C District land use requirements.
125
Option 4. A combination of relocating Lot 10 further south(25-50 feet) and a
covenanted side yard buffer 25-50 feet)
Open space and cultural resource preservation will benefit from Option 4 but to a lesser degree than
Options 1 and 2. Existing wildlife and vegetative habitats would remian undisturbed in this 50 to
100 foot buffer area resulting from moving Lot 10 south and imposing a buffer of natural
vegetation along the north side yard lot line. A purchase of additional land by the Town of
Southold will be required to acquire the (+/- 0.67 acres) and funds needed to purchase additional
sites in other areas of the Town is expected to remain available. The market price for the lots would
be the same as for the proposed action except for Lot 10. There would be a slight restriction on the
development of Lot 10. The other lot sizes and lot widths will conform with the A-C District land
use requirements but will be very near the allowable limits.
E. EXPANDED WETLANDS SETBACK ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would involve expanding the buffer area between Downs Creek and the proposed
home lots, and extend the mandated 75 foot buffer to 100 feet. The buffer zone is regarded as a
transition zone between wetland and upland habitats. The rapid grade change from the wetland to
upland area at the site result in a relatively narrow (+/- 25 foot) transition area. The existing 75-
foot buffer should provide adequate wetland protection. The need to increase this zone to 100 feet
does not result in an obvious or greater benefit for transition area or wetland protection. Horizontal
distances from wetland delineation lines to upland habitats have been established by federal, state,
and regulatory agencies. Distances suggested are accepted minimums to provide protection of
these sensitive environments. It becomes a question of semantics and site specific conditions to
assess whether or not these minimum setbacks are adequate, too great, or too small. For the
purpose of the analysis conducted for Indian Shores, the standard setbacks have been assessed to
be adequate. While increasing these distances 25 feet could result in some benefit to habitat
preservation; it is almost impossible to qualify or quantify the benefit without detailed scientific
studies that extend well beyond the scope for this DEIS_ Increasing the buffer zone by twenty five
feet reduces the utilization of Lot 5. The increase in buffer area would result in an increase in
upland habitat. The proposed action provides adequate upland and open space protection without
the need for extending the wetland protection buffer zone beyond the existing regulatory
requirements.
It has been suggested that the back of lots 5-10 be held in public or common ownership. If public
ownership were to occur, then incidents of human disturbance along the marsh/forest interface may
increase. The potential for development of a trail or boardwalk as an extension of a trail system on
the 37-acre parcel would exist, thereby potentially impacting the Creek. With this important
tidal/upland interface resource held under individual ownership, the likelihood of human
126
disturbance would be minimized. In addition, the Town park site, as currently proposed, would
provide sufficient access to the tidal marsh system.
F. NO ACTION
The no-action alternative will result in minor environmental impact from current agricultural use
and potential vandalism of the cultural resources. The site could be available for development at a
future time and this proposed plan will reflect environmental concerns indicative of the site's
developers. There is potential that a "mini" master land use plan, similar to the proposed action
may not be part of future applications.
The no-build alternative would not result in greater Town of Southold park space. There would be
no voluntary, private conservation easements set on the site, and this parcel's future use would
remain undetermined.
The private objectives of the applicant, to generate income from an environmentally sensitive land
development plan and the public benefit of a cultural resource park would not be achieved under
the no build alternative.
G. PURCHASE AND MANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT
The East End Economic and Environmental Task Force had recommended the entire parcel be
purchased by State and Local government agencies. A review of the applicants files and local
newspaper articles identified several opportunities for government's purchase of the site. The
intent was to preserve the ecological, cultural and agricultural uses as a public benefit.
There are presently no known Suffolk County funds for the purchase of significant cultural
resource lands. In as much as the site does not provide any special groundwater areas, and only
4 approximately forty percent is farmed, a conduit for purchase by the County appears unavailable at
this time.
The property does not contain New York State rare plants or Federal and State rare and threatened
species habitats that act as a driving force for State purchase. As open space, environmentally
sensitive lands and waters and cultural resource value, the parcel is important. However, there are
no known plans for the State , County or Town to purchase the entire site.
There would be a benefit of open space and public use of the property if government purchased the
r entire site. Management by agency personnel would slightly increase local economy but would be
largely off-set by public funds used to purchase the land. At a price of $24,000 per acre, $2.64
127
million would be needed to buy the property. The Land Preservation Committee of Southold has
recommended to the Town Board that the 37.47 acres be purchased. The Town Board would need
to approve the expenditure of +/- $900,000 for this purpose. The Land Preservation Committee
has earmarked Open Space Funds for this purchase but does not have available funds to purchase
more than the 37.47 acres.
128
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Resources that will be converted or made unavailable for future use as a result of the project are:
• Fossil fuel energy sources expended during construction and future land use
activity.
• Vegetation and wildlife habitats in direct conflict with proposed
development will be permanently altered.
• Visual impacts associated with the existing site will be altered albeit
aesthetics will be preserved to some extent; this is a subjective item.
• Natural drainage and soil conditions will be altered.
6 Water will be consumed.
• Land will be converted from a "natural" state to residential homesites,
agricultural use and park land.
• Nitrogen levels in groundwaters in the vicinity of the proposed residences
may increase slightly.
Growth inducing impacts as a result of the project are:
• Increase in Town Park land of 37.47 acres.
• Expansion of cultural and historical documentation.
• Increase in the taxation of developed lands.
• Increase in vineyard and equestrian activity.
• Minor increase in student enrollment.
129
V111. REFERENCES
Nitrogen assessment was conducted by A. Bopp as a Masters thesis
A Joint Symposium of the American Physiological Society and The American Society of
Zoologists held at Bloomington, Indiana, USA, 1972, Nitrogen Metabolism and t h e
Environment, Academic Press, London.
Baier, Joseph H., and Kenneth A. Rykbost, Nov. - Dec. 1976, The Contribution of
Fertilizer to the Groundwater of Long Island, Groundwater, Vol. 14, No. 6.
Bopp, Arthur, Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment: A Site Assessment, NYIT,
Department of Environmental Technology, May 1994.
Beek, J. and M. J. Frissel, Simulation of Nitrogen Behaviors in Soils, Wageningen,
Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, 1973.
Engineering Resources Co., Inc. (ERC), 1978, Nassau - Suffolk Bi-County Regional
Water Quality Management Planning Peconic/Flanders Bay Environment Report,
Cambridge, MA.
ERM-Northeast - Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 1983, North Fork Water Supply Plan,
Suffolk County, New York.
Flipse, W. J. Jr., Jan. - Feb 1985, Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Nitrate in Groundwater
Under Fertilized Fields, Long Island, New York, Groundwater Vol. 23, No. 1.
Healy, 1982. Seepage and Pollutant Renovation, Analysis for Land Treatment;Sewage
Disposal Systems. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Water
Compliance Unit.
Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell, P.C., 1982, Section 201 Wastewater Facility Plan,
Incorporated Village of Greenport and Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New Y o r k,
Selected Plan Report.
International Symposium on the Biological Oxidation of Nitrogen in Organic Molecules,
2d, 1977, University of London.
Koppelman, L. E., 1978, The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management
130
Plan, Volumes I and II.
Koppelman, L. E., 1982, The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program.
National Research Council (NRC), 1978, Nitrates: An Environmental Assessment,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, undated, Draft Long Island
Groundwater Management Program, Executive Summary.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Division of Marine
Resources, February 1992, Tidal Wetlands Land and Use Regulations, 6NYCRR P a r t
661.
New York State Department of Health, 1969,The Long Island Groundwater Pollution
Study, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Petrovic, Dr. A. Martin, March 1989, Golf Course Management and Nitrates in
Groundwater: The Real Story, Draft for review by the American Society of Golf Course
Architects.
Petrovic, Dr. A. Martin, undated, The Fate of Nitrogenous Fertilizers Applied to Turf
Grass, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Submitted to the Journal of
Environmental Quality, Not For Publication.
Porter, K. S., 1983, Nov. - Dec. 1980, An Evaluation of Sources of Nitrogen as Causes
of Groundwater Contamination in Nassau County, Long Island, Groundwater Vol,
18, No. 6.
Porter, K. S., 1983, Southold Demonstration Site, New York State Fertilizer and
Pesticide Demonstration Plot, Center for Environmental Research, Cornell U n i v e r s i t y,
Ithaca, New York.
Starr, Robert C. and Robert W. Gillham, Nov. - Dec. 1993, Denitrification and Organic
Carbon Availability in Two Aquifers, Groundwater Vol. 31, No. 6.
State of Maryland Sediment and Storm water Division (MSS), undated, Wetland Basins
For Storm water Treatment: Discussion and Background, provided by Cornell
Cooperative Extension Service, Riverhead, New York.
131
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), 1992, Brown Tide
Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program, Volumes I, 11, and 111,
(BTCAP).
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), 1982, Report on the
Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater, North Fork o f
Suffolk County: Bureau of Water Resources, Hauppauge, New York (August, 1982).
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), 1987, Suffolk County
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, Volumes I and II.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Public and Environmental Health
Laboratory, 1994, Monitoring Well Sampling Data.
Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Article 6), Realty Subdivisions, Developments, and other
Construction Projects.
Swoboda, Allen R., August 1977, The Control of Nitrate as a Water Pollutant, EPA
Document 600/2-77/158.
Thompson, Benjamin F., 1962, History of Long Island from its Discovery and Settlement
to the Present Time, Volume 11, Ira J. Friedman, New York.
USDA Soil Conservation service, 1975, Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York.
UCONN, 1991. Wetland Impact Assessment Seminar. J. Claussen, presentor.
U. S. Geological Survey, 1989, Availability and Historical Development of Groundwater
Resources on Long Island, New York, An Introduction, Water Resources Investigation
Report 88-4113.
Van Es., Harold M., undated, Nitrogen and the Environment, Cornell Cooperative
Extension Bulletin 218.
Viets, Frank Garfield, 1971, Factors Affecting the Accumulation of Nitrate in Soil, Water,
and Plants, Agriculture Handbook No. 413, USDA, Washington, D. C.
132
GENERAL REFERENCES
Draft Outline of Recommendations Southold Town Stewardship Task Force, Southold,
New York September 30, 1993.
Private Water Systems Standards, SCDOHS, County of Suffolk, New York July 1992,
rev.
Peconic Land Trust, General Brochures, Southampton, New York
NYSDEC
• Part 661 Tidal Wetlands
• Wildlife Resource Center&NYS Natural Heritage Program
Environmental Engineering and Sanitation 9th Ed., Salvato, J. Wiley 1992
Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, Corbitt, McGraw Hill 1989.
, I
133