HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacari at Laurel Book I 1993
. .".....".."'""-...T. ~~ .;~1j~""''!...''fr,''''? - - -. . .- "-,,,".~~- - ";;'if/j;
I
BOOK 1
I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
I MACARI AT LAUREL
TYPE I ACTION
I This Document Represents A Final Environmental Impact Statement
For The Above Referenced Project. Copies Are Available For
I Public Review And Comments At The Offices Of The Lead Agency.
Comments will Be Accepted until
I IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
I Article 8 Environmental Conservation Law (8-0113)
Part 617 statewide Regulations (6 NYCRR)
I DATE: August, 1993
I LEAD AGENCY: APPLICANT:
I Southold Town Planning Board Joseph Macari
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road c/o Peter S. Danowski, Esq.
Southold, New York 11971 616 Roanoke Avenue
Contact Person: Riverhead, New York 11901
I Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Phone: 516-765-1938
I PREPARED BY: LOCATION:
Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Bounded by Sound Avenue-Middle
37 Brightwood Street Road on the north and Laurel Way
I Patchogue, N.Y. 11772 (R.O.W.) on the east and south
in Laurel, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York
I
I ACCEPTANCE DATE:
COMMENT DATE:
I
I
I
I
'~u....,.
I
, (
I ,..^<
TABLE OF CONTENTS " -~
I
F.E.I.S. TEXT
I BOOK 1
I INTRODUCTION
LIST OF COMMENTATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
TOPIC HEADINGS:
I SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . 13
I B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. FLORA 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
I 2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
I D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
I EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND
SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
I HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED
I ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A. PHYSICAL SETTING 44
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
I 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
I C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
I i
I
I
3. SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
I D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
I 4. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7. POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
I 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . 88
I A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
I 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 90
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
FRESHWATER WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
I C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
I 1. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3. SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
I D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
I 3. ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING
AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND
I SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
I VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
I VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
I
B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
I C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
I IX. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
I ii
-----
I
I x. CUMOI.ATI'VE IMPAC'rS .................................. 182
I REFERENCES CITED
BOOK 2/3
I APPENDICES
COMMENTS
I ILLUSTRATIONS
I FIGURE:
1. Location of Data Collection Stations: Quality
I ()jE C;~()\lnciliClt~~ ..................................... 37
2. Site Sensitivity Map ................................ 43
I 3. Lot 18 of Proposed Action: Potential Layout ........ 45
I 4. Contributing Drainage Areas ......................... 102
5. Water Quality of Municipal Water Source ............. 113
I TABLE :
I 1. New York State Coastal Policies ..................... 121
I PLATE:
3. Site Plan - Modified Cluster Alternative ............ In
Pocket
I
~_pPENDICES
I APPENDIX:
A. Town of Southold Documents
I B. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Documents
I 1. Request for Wetlands Delineation of NYSDEC
2. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Boundary Confirmation
I 3. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map and Classifications
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Request for Establishment
of Potential Jurisdiction
I D. Soil and Groundwater Quality at the Macari at Laurel
Site
I E. Water and Nitrogen Budget Calculations
iii
I
I
I F. Suffolk County Water Authority Documents
I G. Letters to Adjacent Property Owners
H. Recharge Basin Information
I I. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Documents
I J. Correspondence to Southold Town Planning Board,
March 6, 1992
I K. Cultural Resource Inventory, stage II
L. Traffic study Supplement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
iv
I
I IRTRODOCTION
I The Draft Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Property was submitted september 26, 1991 and subsequent
I to revision accepted as complete by the Planning Board, Town of
I Southold, Suffolk County, New York on June 4, 1991 (Appendix A).
Subsequently, a public hearing was held on June 24, 1991.
I Comments were presented on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement at the public hearing or submitted, in written form,
I during the designated pUblic comment period. The Final
I Environmental Impact Statement includes the DEIS, copies of the
written comments, and a compilation of all substantial comments
I concerning the DEIS as well as appropriate responses to them.
Following review of the FEIS, the Planning Board Office
I determined that the document was incomplete and required additional
I clarification on certain items of concern (Appendix A) . The
comments associated with this review are incorporated in the
I revised FEIS.
Where a number of individuals or agencies have commented on
I the same topic, these individuals and/or agencies are
cross-referenced at the end of each comment, in the
I
Comment/Reply section of the Final Environmental Impact
I Statement. Where the text of the DEIS has been revised from its
original version to reflect responses, the appropriate section
I within the DEIS is referred to.
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OJ' COMMBll'l'ATORS
I
A. WRIT'l'EN COMMEH'l'S.
I
1. Planning Board Office, Town of Southold, Bennett
Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, July 5, 1991.
I 2. cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and
Planning Consultants, July 5, 1991; May 29, 1992.
I 3. Robert DeLuca, Department of Health Services, Office
of Ecology, July 5, 1991.
I 4. Mohabir Persaud, state of New York, Department of
state, July 5, 1991.
I 5. cynthia Sturner, Member of Conservation Advisory
Council, July 3, 1991.
6. E.J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer, Suffolk County
I Water Authority, July 9, 1991.
7. Adeline Lee, June 28, 1991.
I 8. Barbara Sayre, June 28, 1991.
I 9. Ruth Jahier, July 1, 1991.
10. Sherry Johnson, North Fork Environmental Council,
July 5, 1991.
I 11. Karen Gross, July 3, 1991.
I B. ORAL COMMEH'l'S.
12. Robert Weintrab (sp).
I 13. Judy Greco.
I
I
I
I 1
I
I
I
I RBSPONSB TO COMMEH'l'S
I SUMMARY
I 1. COMMEH'l'1 It is believed that Kirkup Lane has a base, and
is not just a dirt road (p. S-2). (1)
I
I RBPLYI This comment is so noted. The text of the
D.E.I.S., Page S-2 has been changed to the following:
I "The site is currently 63.6 acres of "open space."
Limited access to the site exists from Kirkup Lane and Laurel
I Lane (an unpaved road)."
I 2. COMMEH'l'1 The acronym "MBS" should be defined (p. S-3).
I (1)
I RBPLYI MBAS (i.e., methylene blue active substance) is an
I abbreviation describing synthetic detergents. The presence of
MBAS indicate contamination by septic tank effluent or other
I waste-water (Perlmutter, et al., 1964).
I 3. COMMEH'l' : The last sentence in the first paragraph (p.
S-4) states that topsoil will be stockpiled for "future use".
I
The proposed location and time of the use of the topsoil should
I be mentioned. (1)
I
2
I
I
I
REPLY: Topsoil stockpiled on the site during the initial
I
stages of the regrading process at the Macari at Laurel site,
I will be redistributed within the areas reserved for turf and
indigenous shrubs, prior to the replanting. Most of the topsoil
I will be utilized in the same subdivision lot as it originates.
I II. DBSCRIPTION OJ' TBB PROPOSBD ACTION
I 1. COJIMEH'l' I There is an inconsistency in the second
I paragraph (p. II-2). The projected increase in population is
based on each home being occupied by 2.3 people. Yet, the
I proposal involves the construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes.
I Unless documentation can be provided to support the 2.5 persons
per house figure, the projected adult and child population
I should be revised upward to reflect likely occupancy of 3 and 4
bedroom homes. (1)
I
REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units,
I
14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13
I units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the U.S. Census
(1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family
I housing unit was 2.56 persons/unit in the Town of Southold.
Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51
I
persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990).
I Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the
completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, of
an average 2.50
I
3
I
I
I
person/unit was utilized. However, the actual number of
I
residents per dwelling unit may be higher than this average
I estimate considering the proposed number of bedrooms per house.
This is likely to result in an increase in the amount of
I nitrogen potentially recharged to the aquifer (see details
below). The estimates of sanitary effluent and number of school
I children are not based upon the number of persons inhabiting the
I dwelling units. These estimates will therefore not be affected
by this increased number of persons per dwelling unit.
I
2. COMMEH'l' : The projected population noted in the second
I paragraph (p. II-4) should be revised to reflect the proposed
I construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. (1)
I REPLY I See previous comment.
I 3. COMMEH'l'1 The first paragraph addresses required permits.
I The applicant should determine the jurisdiction of the Town
Trustees with regard to freshwater wetlands on the subject
I parcel. Location of wetlands as determined by the Trustees is
-~~
important for yield determination and site design planning. The
I wetlands reflected on Plate 1 were delineated by the Land Use
I Company. The regulatory boundary of both the town Trustees and
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
I should be determined. (2)
I
4
I
I
REPLY: This comment is so noted. The planned subdivision
I will be constructed in conformance with current regulations.
I A request for delineation of wetlands was sent to the New York
state Department of Environmental Conservation (Appendix
I B-1). An on-site field inspection by the New York state
Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the
I freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the Land Use
I Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) "for the purpose of this
application" (Appendix B-2) . However, should the site plans
I dated August 22, 1990 (Le. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) change,
then a redelineation by the New York State Department of
I Environmental Conservation might be necessary.
I According to Chapter 97, Wetlands, of the Code of the Town of
I Southold, the Town's juridiction applies to any activity within
75 feet of designated wetlands. The Town accepts the NYSDEC
I designation for these purposes. Plate 3 indicates conformity with
this jurisdiction.
I 4. COMMEH'l': Page 1I-3 indicates that, "Indigenous trees and
I shrubs will be planted along the proposed inter-development
roadway, within the cleared portions of each building envelope,
I and elsewhere within the site". There should be a distinction
I made between mitigative planting which is proposed as part of
the subdivision improvements (Le. inter-development road and
I recharge areas) , and mitigative planting which mayor may not
occur on private lots once the parcel is developed. Additional
I information including species density, type and at what stage of
I subdivision approval mitigation will be implemented, is
necessary. (2) .
I
5
I REPLY: The replanting schedule for the proposed action
includes the planting of low-maintenance turf on a total of
I
approximately 8.0 acres, or 12.6% total area, and indigenous
I shrubs on 2.1 acres, or 3.3% total area. This includes all
replanting at the site.
I The Applicant will agree to revegetate along the proposed
inter-development roadway and within areas of general site
I
regradation, but individual lot owners will be responsible for
I mitigative landscaping, utilizing indigenous species as indicated
to follow.
I In her recently published "Long Island Native Plants for
Landscaping: A Source Book" Karen Blumer (1990) lists native
I vegetative species available from local commercial sources.
I Within the following vegetative species list compiled from a
botanical investigation and identification completed on the site
I (See D.E.I.S. Section III-B-1: FLORA) , such commercially
available native species (NP) are indicated with an (X) .
I Mixed Deciduous Forest. HI!
I Common Beech Faaus svlvatica
Chestnut Oak Ouercus Drinus
Scrub Oak Ouercus ilicifolia
I Whi te Oak Ouercus alba X
Red Oak Quercus rubra X
Shagbark Hickory Carva ovata X
I Grey Birch Betula DODulifolia X
Black BirCh Betula lenta X
Ash Fraxinus sp. 2 Fraxinus
I species
available
Big-toothed Aspen pOD~lus ara~di~e~tata
Redcedar Juniper Jun1Derus V1ra1n1ana X
I Sassafras Sassafras variifolium
Red Maple Acer rubrum X
Oleaster Eleaanus anaustifolia
I Red Mulberry Horus rubra X
Fire Cherry Prunus Dennsvlvanica
Black Locust Robinia Dseudoacacia
Staghorn Sumac Rhus tvnhina X
I Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans
P Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida X
Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
I 6
~- ---.-------
I
I
I Maple-leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerfolium
Japanese Barberry Berberis thunberaii
Great Solomon's Seal Polvaonatum canaliculatum
False Solomon's Seal smilacina racemosa X
I Common Smartweed polvaonum hvdrQDiner
Fox Grape Vitis labrusca
Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara
I Dangleberry Gav1ussacia frondosa
Blackberry Rubus flaaellaris
Black Chokeberry Pvrus melanoc8rc8
Garlic Mustard Alliaria officinal is
I Arrow-leafed Aster Aster saaittifolius
P Woodland Fern DrvoDteris sp. 4 DrvoDteris
species
I available
I Old Field and Edae Veaetation. NP
Black Locust Robinia Dseudoacacia
P Bayberry Mvrica Densvlvanica X
I Common Mullein Verba scum thaDsus
Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus X
au~nauefc:>lia .
I Japanese Honeysuckle Lon1cera ,anon1ca
Poison Ivy Rhus radicans
Common Winter Cress Barbarea vulaaris
wild Carrot Daucus carota
I Pokeweed Phvtolacca americana
Yarrow Achillea millefolium
Common Milkweed AscleDias svriaca
I Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis X
Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulaaris
Field pennycress ThlasDi arvense
I Chicory Cichorium intvbus
Daisy Fleabane Eriaeron annus
Horseweed Eriae:on canad~nsis
Common Groundsel Senecl.o vulaarl.s
I Foxtail Grass Chaetochloa alauca
Panic-grass panicum sp. 1 panicum
species
I available
Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Groundsel Tree Baccharis halimifolia
I Slender-leaved Goldenrod Solidaao tenuifolia
Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Solidaao ruaosa
Tall Goldenrod Solidaao altissima
Tick Trefoil Desmodium sp.
I Chaffseed Schwalbea americana
Round-headed Bush Clover LesDedeza caDitata
Fine-leaved Sneezeweed Helenium tenuifolium
I Sickle-leaved Golden Aster ChrvsoDsis falcata
7
I
I
I
I Rough Hawkweed Hieracium scabrum
Common Hawkweed Hieracium vulaatum
Crab Apple Malus svlvestris
st. Peterswort Ascvrum stans
I wild strawberry Fraaaria virainiana
Common Chickweed Alsine media
Bladder Campion Silene latifolia
I silverweed Potentill anserina
Common strawberry Fraaaria virainiana
I Freshwater Wetlands. ~
Common Beech Faaus svlvatica
I Grey Birch Betula DODulifolia X
Black Birch Betula lenta X
Red Maple Acer rubrum X
I Common Greenbrier smilax rotundifolia
Great Solomon's Seal polvaonatum canaliculatum
False Solomon's Seal smilacina racemosa X
Blackberry Rubus flaaellaris
I Woodland Fern DrvoDteris sp. 4 DrvoDteris
species
available
I Sedge Carex sp.
Pond Veaetation !if
I Duckweed Lemma sp.
Hornwort CeratoDhvllum demersum
I Eighteen (18) of the species identified at the Macari at
I Laurel site, including the protected plants (NYSDEC, March 1990:
"Protected Native Plants"), Flowering Dogwood (cornus f1orida)
I (Exploitably Vulnerable) and Bayberry (Mvrica Densvlvanica)
(Exploitably Vulnerable) are available through commercial
I channels (Blumer, 1990). In addition, species belonging to the
three genera DrvoDteris, Fraxinus, and panicum are also
I
available (Blumer, 1990).
I The 2.1 acres (or 3.3% total area) to be replanted with
indigenous vegetation will, if possible, utilize the actual
I
8
I
I
I
I vegetative specimens removed from the site during the regrading
process and/or native plants, e.g., purchased at one of the
I numerous locations described by Karen Blumer (1990).
Blumer (1990) lists five (5) guidelines for landscaping
I with native plants:
I
1. Determine which habitat(s) exist on the property
I to be designed. If the natural substrate has not been
removed or destroyed, use what exists and choose
species naturally adapted to that habitat and its soil
conditions.
I
Four vegetative habitats exist at the site for the proposed
I action: Upland Forest: Old Field: Freshwater Wetlands: and
I Surface Waters. However, only two of these habitats, i.e.,
Upland Forest and Old Field will be exposed to regrading and
I construction activities with the proposed action. During the
initial stages of construction care will be taken to scrape off
I the upper fertile soil mantle and store it in stockpiles. Since
significant time may elapse between the initiation of
I construction and the eventual regrading of the topsoil, measures
I will be made to protect this stockpiled material from erosion
and drying. The stockpiles will be seeded with a quick growing,
I stabilizing grass cover such as perennial rye grasses until it
is reused within the site. Following construction the topsoil
I
will be spread over the regraded sands and gravels in order to
I reestablish the original soil profile configuration.
I
9
I
I
I
2. Retain as much of the native vegetation intact -
I the understory as well as canopy shrubs or trees - as
possible. Learn to use these buffers or vegetation
islands creatively, combining with other native plants
I when desirable. Whether the property is a single
residential lot or an industrial, commercial or
residential subdivision, this is the least expensive
I and energy-consuming approach. The greatest expense
will be in careful planning and hiring skilled
bulldozer operators who are willing to comply with
site specifications.
I
Approximately 18.4 acres, or 28.9% of the site will be
I regraded. Within the regraded area approximately 2.1 acres (or
I 3.3% total area) will be replanted with indigenous vegetation.
Wherever possible vegetative specimen previously removed during
I the regrading process will be utilized in the replanting
schedule.
I 3. For plantings, select species appropriate for the
I habitat or habitats comprising the property as well as
the Long Island range in which they are found.
I Within the area to be replanted with indigenous woody
shrubs, vegetative specimens, wherever possible, previously
I removed during the regrading process will be utilized in the
replanting schedule. In cases, where this is not possible
I similar species, if possible, will be acquired from commercial
I sources (Blumer, 1990).
4. Try to recycle plants from areas of the site to be
I destroyed to other parts of the property to be
landscaped. This is particularly easy for herbaceous
material in the spring and shrubs and small trees in
I the spring and fall.
I
10
I
I
I
Within the area to be replanted with indiqenous woody shrubs,
I vegetative specimens previously removed during the regrading
I process will be utilized, wherever possible, in the replanting
schedule. The strategic timing of the regrading process,
I starting in the spring, would facilitate the successful
replanting of both herbaceous specimens as well as shrubs and
I small trees (Blumer, 1990).
I 5. If there are desirable species on your property or
nearby which you would like more of, try propagating
them from seed, layerings (stem layerings are
I successful in order to get larger specimens) or
cuttings.
I Prior to the start of the construction activities a special
I effort to collect seeds of selected vegetative species could be
made. Following the completion of the proposed action and the
I replanting of relocated native specimens from within the site as
well as the planting of native specimens from commercial sources
I (Blumer, 1990), previously collected seeds from the site can be
I planted within the area reserved for indigenous woody shrubs.
I 5. COJIMEH'l' : Page II-5 indicates, "...the Applicant wishes
to exercise his right to build in direct response to demand ".
I We are in agreement that there are a number of ways in which the
I parcel could be developed; however, it is extremely unlikely
that the entire parcel would be developed at one time.
I Therefore, it is requested that a phased development proposal
outlining the estimated stages of development be included in the
I
11
I
I
I
Final EIS. Given the sensitivity of the parcel and the
I
importance of proper clearing and drainage control as outlined
I in the Draft EIS, it is necessary to consider the project
implementation schedule as a means of mitigation. (2)
I
RBPLYI Considering the current housing economic/market
I climate on Long Island, it seems logical to assume that the
I Applicant will construct a model house, probably on a lot near
Sound Avenue, and construct subsequent dwellings demand.
on
I This type of construction schedule will ensure that a minimal
portion of the site will be exposed to surface erosion at any
I given time (i.e., one lot at a time).
I Prior to final site plan approval a specific construction
and regrading plan could be submitted by the Applicant, if
I required by the Town of Southold.
I 6. COMMEH'l': In terms of the description of the proposed
I project, this section should outline the yield determination
which supports 27 lots. Review of Plate 2 finds that Lot 9
I contains surface water and wetlands which may cause this lot to
fall below the minimum area necessary in the R-80 zoning
I district. (2)
I REPLY I Plate 2 represents a standard layout of the Macari
I at Laurel site. This standard layout was included in the
D.E.I.S. as the Yield Alternative to the proposed action which
I
12
I
I
I
utilizes a clustered layout. Consequently, this alternative
I presents a hypothetical, worst-case scenario of the development
I of the Macari at Laurel site.
I III. BZISTING BNVIRONllBNTAL SB'l'TING
B. BIOLOGICAL SBTTING
I 1. J'LORA
I 1. COJOlEH'l' : Page III-24 indicates that the freshwater
I wetlands are regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 24. It
appears that state-regulated freshwater wetlands MT-2 and MT-22
I are located on this site. The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should
I be established in order to provide an accurate means of
determining compliance with regulations. In addition, the
I regulatory jurisdiction and involvement of the Town Trustees
should be determined. (2) (3) (10)
I
REPLY I This comment is so noted. The planned subdivision
I
will be constructed in conformance with current regulations.
I Prior to final site plan approval the Applicant will have the
freshwater wetlands boundaries delineated by all necessary
I agencies. A request for delineation of wetlands was sent to the
New York state Department of Environmental Conservation
I
(Appendix B-1). An on-site field inspection by the New York
I state Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the
freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the
Land Use
I
13
I
I
I
Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) "for the purpose of this
I application" (Appendix B-2). However, should the site plans
I dated August 22, 1990 (Le. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) change,
then a redelineation by the New York state Department of
I Environmental Conservation might be necessary.
The Applicant will obtain any permits required by the Town
I of Southold and other involved agencies prior to final site plan
approval.
I According to the NYSDEC Preliminary Freshwater Wetlands Map
I for the region, the Macari at Laurel site contains Wetlands Area
MT-22 and part of Wetlands Area M-2 (Appendix B-3). The
M-22
I Freshwater Wetlands Area is inadvertently misplaced within the
northeasternmost (should be located within the central kettle
I hole) kettle hole of the Macari at Laurel site, whereas the
I M-2 Freshwater Wetlands Area consists primarily of Laurel Lake and
a few minor, associated wetlands areas. Thus, the main body
I of the M-2 Wetlands Area, i.e., Laurel Lake, is located adjacent
to portions of the southern boundaries of the site, while a
I portion of a minor associated wetlands area is located
I within the southernmost part of the site (Appendix B-3).
2. COMMEH'1': The DEIS states that 7 rare plants have
I historically been documented as occurring in the vicinity of
this subdivision. Discussion as to whether or not they might
I still be found here is inconclusive. Additional field work, by
a Natural Heritage Botanist should be done to determine if any
I are present on this site. (11)
I
14
I
I
I
I REPLY I As explained in further detail within Section
I III-B-1: FLORA of the D.E.I.S., the New York state Natural
Heritage Program reported eleven (11) rare plant species and
a
I rare plant community, all located in the general vicinity of the
site for the proposed action (Appendix A-4 of the D.E.I.S.) .
I Four (4) of these eleven rare species as well as the rare plant
I community were not located in the Town of Southold, but are
found south in the Town of Southampton on the South Fork of Long
I Island.
The reports regarding the remaining seven (7) species were
I all historic (ranging from 1918 to 1958), reported from an area
I within approximately one (1) mile of the Macari at Laurel site.
Their habitat requirements are described in further detail
I within section III-B-1 : FLORA of the D.E.I.S. . Of these
species, two (2) are described as preferring dry fields and
I clearings (Le. , cut-leaved Evening-primrose (Oenothera
laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantaao ousilla)). These two
I
species were last reported from the area in 1924-1925. The
I remaining five species (Le. , Long's Bittercress (Cardamine
lonaii), Creeping st. John's Wort (Hvoericum adores sum) ,
I Lespedeza (Lesoedeza stuevei), Drowned Horned Rush (Rhvncosoora
inundata), and Fewflower Nutrush (Scleria oauciflora var.
I
caroliniana)), which all were last reported from the area in
I 1918-1958, either prefer pond margins or have been described
from such habitats. Consequently, since the site for the
I
15
I
I
I
proposed action contains a number of delineated wetlands areas
I with kettle hole ponds, it is possible that some of these
I species might occur at the Macari at Laurel site. In addition,
the site also contains areas of old field vegetation, and thus
I potentially containing habitats preferred by the two first
species (i.e., cut-leaved Evening-primrose (Oenothera laciniata)
I and Dwarf Plantain (Plantaao Dusilla)). However, none of these
I species were observed at the site during the detailed field
survey for the proposed action (completed by a professional
I botanist) .
Prior to final site plan approval and if required by the
I Town of Southold, further on-site field investigations could be
I conducted, specifically with respect to the above mentioned 7
vegetative species.
I
3. COMMEH'l'1 The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the
I site in sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. and C. of the
DEIS, which address the present biological and hydrological
I
setting, do not contain a section on wetlands. The DEIS should
I include a map showing New York state Department of Environmental
Conservation ("NYSDEC") designated wetlands and adjacent
areas.
I It should indicate the activities for which a NYSDEC freshwater
wetlands permit may be required and discuss how the proposed
I
Project would satisfy NYSDEC's regulatory requirements for
I permit issuance. The DEIS should also indicate whether the
wetlands are subject to the jurisdiction of the United states
I
16
I
--- --
I
I
I Army corps of Engineers ("Corps") pursuant to Section 404 of the
federal Clean Water Act, whether a Corps permit would be
I required, and if so, how the Project would meed the federal
regulatory requirements. The size of a appropriate buffer to
I protect wetland areas also should be addressed. (The DEIS
states that no roadways or houses would be built within 50 feet
I of wetlands but contains no further analysis.) (DEIS at V-56. )
I (11)
I RBPLYI In general, issues concerning the freshwater
wetlands and ponds at the site for the proposed action are
I discussed as an integral part of the main body of the text
I throughout the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Macari at Laurel project. However, the following sections of
I the D.E.I.S. described the conditions of the freshwater wetlands
and ponds in further detail:
I
I D.E.I.S. Section section and Paae Numher
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
I
Biological Setting:
I Flora III-B-1, pp. III-20 to III-25
Fauna III-B-2, pp. III-30 to III-36
pp. III-38 to III-40
I Municipal Setting:
Zoning, Land Use, and Planning and Open Space:
Planning and Open Space III-D-3, pp. III-84 to III-85
I
I
17
I
------
I
I
IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION:
I Biological Setting:
Flora IV-B-1, IV-7 to IV-8
I Fauna IV-B-2, IV-10 to IV-13
I V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:
Biological Setting:
I Flora V-B-1, V-19 to V-22
I A request for delineation of the freshwater wetlands at the
I site has been submitted to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (Appendix B-1). The NYSDEC conducted
I an on-site visit, confirming for the purpose of this application
(Le. , the proposed action) the freshwater wetlands limits as
I determined by the Land Use Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) .
However, a redelineation may be required by the NYSDEC should
I the site plans dated August 22, 1990 (Le. , Plate 1 of the
I D.E.I.S.) change (Appendix A-2).
The following section further discusses wetlands issues
I that do or might pertain to the Macari at Laurel proposed
action. The New York state Department of Environmental
I Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 and Title 23 of
I Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law (referred to
below as NYSDEC Article 24 ECL) describe in detail the NYSDEC
I freshwater wetlands regulations. According to these regulations
( 24-070l. Permits) , any person desiring to conduct on designated
I freshwater wetlands any regulated activities must obtain a
I permit.
18
I
n
I
I
I Further, activities sub;ect to reaulation (Article 24 ECL,
NYSDEC) include:
I a. Any form of draining, dredging, excavation,
removal of soil, mud, sand, shells, gravel or other
aggregate from any freshwater wetland, either directly
I or indirectly: and any form of dumping, fillinq, or
depositing of any soil, stones, sand, gravel, mud,
rubbish or fill of any kind, either directly or
indirectly: erecting any structures, roads, the
I driving of pilings, or placing of any other
obstructions whether or not changing the ebb and flow
of the water: any form of pollution, includinq but
I not limited to, installing a septic tank, running a
sewer outfall, discharging sewage treatment effluent
or other liquid wastes into or so as to drain into a
freshwater wetland: and any other activity which
I substantially impairs any of the several functions
served by freshwater wetlands or the benefits derived
therefrom which are set forth in section 24-0105 of
I this article. These activities are subject to
regulation whether or not they occur upon the wetland
itself, if they impinge upon or otherwise
I substantially affect the wetlands and are located not
more than one hundred feet from the boundary of such
wetland. Provided, that a greater distance from any
such wetland may be regulated pursuant to this article
I by the appropriate local government or by the
department, whichever has jurisdiction over such
wetland, where necessary to protect and preserve the
I wetland.
b. The depositing or removal of the natural products
I of the freshwater wetlands by recreational or
commercial fishing, Shell-fiShing, aquaculture,
hunting or trapping shall be excluded from regulated
activities, where otherwise leqa1ly permitted and
I regulated.
c. The activities of farmers and other landowners in
I grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use
of water resources, harvesting natural products of the
wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or
wetlands for growing agricultural products and
I otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other
land for growing agricultural products shall be
excluded from regulated activities and shall not
I require permit, except that structures not required
for enhancement or maintenance of the agricultural
activities shall not be excluded hereunder, and
I provided that the use of land designated as a
19
I
I
I
I freshwater wetland upon the freshwater wetlands map at
the effective date thereof for uses other than those
referred to in this subdivision shall be subject to
the provisions of this article.
I d. Public health activities, orders, and regulations
of the department of health shall be excluded from
I regulated activities.
e. The Commissioner shall review all current mosquito
control projects to determine whether they are having
I any adverse impact on freshwater wetlands. Where any
adverse impact is found, the commissioner may require
modification of such projects if he deems such
I necessary for the implementation of the policies of
this article.
f. Where dredging or filling is in navigable waters
I of the state or is for the reconstruction or repair of
certain dams and docks, and where such activity also
affects freshwater wetlands, any person undertaking
I such activity must seek permission under this article
as well as under other applicable law.
I g. On any land that is being developed pursuant to a
planned unit development ordinance or local law where
freshwater wetlands are to remain as open space,
development activities shall be permitted in areas
I contiguous to such wetlands if the local government
affirms that such activities will not despoil said
wetland.
I Any person proposing to conduct or cause to be conducted
a
I regulated activity upon any freshwater wetland shall file an
application for a permit with the clerk of the local government
I having jurisdiction or the department. Review of the
I application shall be made by the local government or the
commissioner (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC).
I Regarding local implementation of freshwater wetlands
protection NYSDEC Article 24 ECL states that may implement a
I freshwater wetlands protection law or ordinance in accordance
I with Article 24 ECL. No freshwater wetlands protection law or
20
I
I
I
I ordinance adopted by a county pursuant to section 24-0501
(Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) shall be applicable within the
I boundaries of any city, town or village which has adopted and is
implementing a local freshwater wetlands protection law or
I ordinance consistent with NYSDEC Article 24 ECL. However, it is
the specific provision that no such local freshwater wetlands
I protection law or ordinance shall be less protective of
I freshwater wetlands or effectiveness of administrative and
judicial review, than the procedures presented in NYSDEC Article
I 24 ECL, nor shall such local law or ordinance affect the
activities exempted from permit, as described above (Article 24
I ECL, NYSDEC).
I Furthermore, it is stated within NYSDEC Article 24 ECL that
the commissioner, by rule, may exempt from local implementation
I those freshwater wetlands which due to their size or special
characteristics of unique environmental value or by reason of
I common characteristics, are appropriately to be administered
I pursuant to NYSDEC Article 24 ECL alone. Such rule, based upon
findings of fact made after public hearing, may relate to
I classes of wetlands based on size or particular characteristics,
or to particular wetlands the characteristics of which make them
I subject to the exercise of the commissioner's discretion
I pursuant to NYSDEC Article 24 ECL. The commissioner shall make
an order to such effect in each such instance and inform the
I executive officer of each local government thereof.
In addition, except as provided in NYSDEC Article 24 ECL
I
21
I
I
I
I jurisdiction over all areas which would qualify as freshwater
wetlands except that they are not designated as such on the
I freshwater wetlands map pursuant to section 24-0301 of NYSDEC
Article 24 ECL because they are less than twelve and four tenths
I acres in size and are not of unusual local importance is
I reserved to the city, town or village in which they are wholly
or partially located, and the implementation of NYSDEC Article
I 24 ECL with respect thereto is the responsibility of said local
governmental agency.
I Any freshwater wetland subject to land use regulations
shall be deemed subject to a limitation on the use of such
I wetlands for the purpose of property tax evaluation, in the same
I manner as if an easement or right had been acquired pursuant to
the general municipal law. Assessed value shall be based,
I during the duration of such regulation, on the uses remaining to
the owner thereof.
I
I The Town of Southold has adopted local wetlands
regulations. Thus, Chapter 97: "Wetlands", of the Code of the
I Town of Southold (Town of Southold, 1988) and Local Law No. 4:
"A Local Law in Relation to Wetlands" (Town of Southold, 1989)
I describes the wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. The
I Town of Southold wetlands regulations describes the term
"freshwater wetlands: as (1) "Freshwater Wetlands" of Article 24
I ECL NYSDEC1 and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a
freshwater wetland and lying within 75 feet landward of the most
I
22
I
I
I
I landward edge of a freshwater wetland.
According to the Town of Southold wetlands ordinance, the
I following exceptions do not require a permit:
I a. The ordinary and usual mosquito control operations
conducted by any public authority;
I b. The ordinary and usual operations incidental to
the cultivation and/or harvesting of fish or
shellfish:
I c. The ordinary and usual operations relative to
conservation of soil, vegetation, fish, shellfish and
I wildlife:
d. The ordinary and usual operations relative to
agriculture, aquaculture or horticulture:
I e. The ordinary and usual maintenance or repair of a
presently existing building, dock, pier, wharf,
I bulkhead, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water
control device or structure:
f. The construction of a registered bulkhead, which
I is to replace an existing functional bulkhead,
provided that the new bulkhead is constructed
substantially similar to the design and measurement of
I the existing bulkhead and located in place of the
existing bulkhead.
I
However, within the Town of Southold (Chapter 97 of Code,
I 1988) no person shall conduct operations on any wetlands in the
I Town of Southold unless he shall first obtain a written permit
therefor issued by the authority of the Trustees. The Trustees
I may waive the requirement of a permit with respect to lands
immediately adjacent to wetlands, if the Trustees find and
I determine that no operations are proposed on such lands, or that
I the operations proposed thereon comply with the local standards
23
I
I
I
I (Chapter 97 of Code, Town of Southold, 1988).
The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance
I of a freshwater wetlands permit only if it determines that such
operations will not substantially:
I a. Adversely affect the wetlands of the town:
I b. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation:
c. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water
I resources of the town:
d. Adversely affect fish, shellfish other
or
I beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and
vegetation or the natural habitat thereof:
e. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide
I damage:
f. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the
I tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town:
g. Change the course of any channel or the natural
I movement or flow of any waters:
h. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other
lands in the vicinity:
I L Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the people of the town.
I Consequently, the Freshwater wetlands regulations for the
I New York state Department of Environmental Conservation (Article
24 ECL, NYSDEC) and the Town of Southold (Chapter 97 of Code,
I Town of Southold, 1988) regulate activities within 100 feet and
I 75 feet of wetlands boundaries, respectively.
I In order to comply with local regulations the proposed
action should not cause any alterations except for those
I
24
I
I
I
described above within 75 feet of the landward wetlands
I boundaries at the Macari at Laurel site. However, compliance
I with the NYSDEC Article 24 ECL regulations require that no
activities except those specifically permitted by Article 24 be
I conducted within 100 feet of the wetlands.
I Prior to the construction of the proposed action all
I necessary permits, including wetlands permits from the town of
Southold, the New York state Department of Environmental
I Conservation, individual water well and sanitary system permits
from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, as well
I as any other permits required by law, ensuring the preservation
I of freshwater wetlands and groundwater quality in the area, will
be obtained by the Applicant.
I
Issues that are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers
I are described within the Federal Register, Part II: Department
I of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR
Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
I Engineers; Final Rule (1986). Specifically, section 320.1.b.
describes the types of activities that are regulated:
I
I (1) Dams and dikes in navigable waters of the United
States (Part 321);
(2) Other structures of work including excavation,
I dredging, and/or disposal activities, in navigable
waters of the United states (Part 322);
I
25
I
--------
I
I
(3) Activities that alter or modify the course,
I condition, location, or capacity of a navigable water
of the United states (Part 322):
I (4) Construction of artificial islands,
installations, and other devices on the outer
continental shelf (Part 322):
I (5) Discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United states (Part 323);
I (6) Activities involving the transportation of
dredged material for the purpose of disposal in ocean
waters (Part 324):
I and
I (7) Nationwide general permits for certain categories
of activities (Part 330).
I A request (Appendix C) was sent on september 16, 1991 to
the Army Corps of Engineers to determine any jurisdiction this
I agency may have over the waters and freshwater wetlands areas of
the site. The agency then scheduled an on-site visit on
I
November 14, 1991 (personal communication, Mr. Roberto Barbosa,
I Army Corps of Engineers, 212-264-6730). Subsequently, Mr.
Roberto Barbosa (personal communication, of
Army Corps
I Engineers, December 17, 1991, 212-264-6730) informed The Clover
Corporation that he does not believe the Corps has any
I jurisdiction at the site. However, to date (i.e., February 26,
I 1992) no written communications stating the findings of the Army
Corps of Engineers regarding the Macari at Laurel site have been
I received.
I
I
26
I
I
I
2. J'AONA
I
1. COIIMBH'l' I The statement "The site for the proposed
I action is not considered a significant parcel of habitat for the
I osprey" , should be referenced and supported. The document
should indicate how the Osprey was observed in connection with
I the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders occupying
habitats in proximity such food sources. The significance of
I the parcel in this context should be determined. (2)
I RBPL Y: According to Peter Nye and Barbara Loucks (Undated
I NYSDEC Publication "state Report: New York") the status of the
Osprey in New York is a total of 137 active Osprey nesting
I sites. Of these 110 sites are located in Eastern Long Island.
I Seventy three of these sites were productive in 1983 producing a
total of 155 young. 1983 marks the continuation of the dramatic
I rise in New York's osprey population which began in 1980, as the
young birds, produced after the DOT ban, began to reach sexual
I maturity and nest during the mid-to-late seventies. In
comparison, in the early seventies (i.e., 1982) New York's 105
I active pairs of nesting Ospreys were only able to produce 36
I young from 22 nests. On Long Island at least 50 artificial
nesting platforms have been placed since 1976. CUrrently,
I approximately half of these are in use. Many of these platforms
involve translocation of Ospreys nesting in dangerous situations
I on utility poles that must be moved. Throughout the State of
I New York all available Osprey carcasses are routinely being
27
I
---------------
I
I
I collected and analyzed for contaminant levels. the primary
causes of death in New York ospreys are shooting and
I electrocution. The Osprey was classified as Endangered in New
York until 1983, when it was downgraded to threatened (Nye and
I Loucks, undated report) . This may indicate a trend as the
I population continues to increase counter to its rarity.
A century ago there was a large population of Ospreys on
I Long Island, where an estimated 1,000 - 2,000 adults roosted on
Plum Island (Andrle & Carroll, 1988). In addition, than
more
I 100 nests were reported from Gardiner's Island in 1910. By 1930
the number of nests on Gardiner's Island had increased to more
I than 300. Its decline began in 1948, and by 1966 only 4 young
I were produced from an estimated 55-60 active nests on Gardiner's
Island (Andrle et al., 1988). However, in 1977 the NYSDEC began
I its Osprey monitoring program. As late as in 1986 there were
144 active nests and 186 fledglings (Andrle et al., 1988). On
I Long Island the Osprey usually nests on large tracts of
I undeveloped land near major estuaries, on tributaries, or along
the many harbors or bays; or on islands, such as the Nature
I Conservancy's Mashomack Preserve on Shelter Island, and
Gardiner's Island. One nest, however, was located in the pine
I barrens several miles from water. On Long Island the Osprey
I appears to tolerate human disturbance. Although the nest is
most frequently built in a tall tree, nests at Gardiners Island
I were found on the ground.
Adult Ospreys return to breeding areas on Long Island in
I
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mid to late March and leave for the wintering areas during late
September early October. Ospreys require suitable nesting sites
near an abundant food supply. Since they almost exclusively
feed on fish, they usually nest near streams or bodies of water
(Town of Brookhaven, 1990). Ospreys associated with freshwater
areas usually depend on one or two major fish sources. In tidal
areas, the Osprey tend to use the fish available. Within the
nearby Town of Brookhaven the Osprey has been observed nesting
both directly adjacent to water bodies and at inland sites in
relative proximity (within 3 miles) to feeding areas. One
Osprey nest even occurs on a light pole in an unused racetrack
parking lot (Town of Brookhaven, 1990).
At the Macari at Laurel property Ospreys
occasions been observed flying over the site for
action.
have
the
on two
proposed
In conclusion, although the Osprey appears to be gaining
rapidly in quantity and reproductive ability on Long Island it
seems that its particular strongholds in the area are on the
relatively isolated islands, such as Gardiners Island, Shelter
Island, and Plum Island. In addition, with the close proximity
of tidal waters and more sheltered habitats than the site for
the proposed action, located adjacent to the moderately traveled
Sound Avenue, it seems unlikely that the Osprey would utilize
this site for purposes other than roosting.
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
COJOlBII'l'I
The statement in the first full paragraph on
page 111-36, "The field investigation failed to reveal any
endangered or threatened species of wildlife", contradicts other
information in the Draft EIS which identified the Osprey, a
Threatened species, in association with the site.
It should
also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other
Endangered species and Species of Special Concern. (2)
REPLY:
This comment is so noted.
The text of the
D.E.I.S. Section 111-36 has been changed to the following:
"A survey of the insect species present on the site was not
conducted. with the exception of the observations of the Osprey
(pandion haliaetus) (TH), the field investigation failed to
reveal any endangered, threatened or special concern species of
wildlife (Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF
4-Reg-17;
New
York State
Department
of
Environmental
conservation, 1987; New York Natural Heritage Program, 1987,
Appendix A-5 of the D.E.I.S.).
However, the potential exists
that the site may be utilized by the following rare species:
1. New England Cottontail (Svlvilaaus transitional is) (SC),
often utilizes the same type of habitat as the Eastern
Cottontail. This species was not observed at the site
during the field survey;
2. Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon olatvrhinos) (SC),
prefers open sandy-soiled areas; thinly wooded
hillsides, cultivated fields, and woodland meadows,
species was not observed at the site during the
survey;
upland
This
field
3. Worm Snake (Carohoohis amoenus) (SC), is found in damp
hilly woodlands, partially wooded or grassy hillsides above
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
streams, and farmland bordering woodlands. This species
was not observed at the site during the field survey;
4. Spotted Turtle (Clemmvs auttata) (SC), lives in marshy
meadows, wet woodlands, boqqy areas, beaver ponds, and
shallow muddy-bottomed streams. This species was not
observed at the site during the field survey;
5. Cricket Frog (Acris creDitans) (TH), prefers sunny ponds of
shallow water with good growth of vegetation in the water
or on shore; slow-moving streams with sunny banks. This
species was not observed at the site during the field
survey;
6. Spotted Salamander (~mhvstoma maculatum) (SC), inhabits
hardwood forests and hillsides around pools and flooded
depressions. This species was not observed at the site
during the field survey;
7. Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sDhenoceDhala) (SC), prefers
freshwater locations. It wanders among moist vegetation in
the summer, returns to freshwater ponds and streams and
brackish marshes for the rest of the year. This species
was not observed at the site during the field survey;
8. Eastern
country
species
survey;
Bluebird (sialia sialis) (SC), lives in open
with scattered trees; farms and roadsides.
was not observed at the site during the
This
field
9. Grasshopper
grassland,
observed at
Sparrow (~mmodramus savannarum) (SC),
hayfields and prairies. This species
the site during the field survey;
prefers
was not
10. Vesper Sparrow (pooecetes aramineus) (SC), prefers meadows,
fields, prairies, and roadsides. This species was not
observed at the site during the field survey;
11.
Peregrine Falcon
open country.
during the field
(Falco Derearinus) (EN), lives mainly
This species was not observed at the
survey;
in
site
12. osprey. (pandion haliaetus) (TH), was observed on two
occasions flying over the site. Its main habitats are
rivers, lakes, and coast."
3.
COMMENT :
The second full paragraph on Page III-42
indicates that, "The wildlife population potential at the site
is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as well as
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recent activities on the site itself." This statement seems to
contradict other information in the Draft EIS which indicates
that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas
providing diverse habitat and "edge effect". In addition, the
surrounding area is primarily of low intensity usage. Therefore
it should be indicated how these factors limit the wildlife
population potential on the site. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the
D.E.I.S. Section III-B-2: FAUNA, Page 111-42 has been changed to
the following:
"The wildlife population potential at the site is
moderately limited by the surrounding land usage (e.g.,
farmland and Sound Avenue)."
only
active
C. HYDROLOGIC SBTTING
2. GROUNDWATBR
WATER QUALITY
1. COJOlBNT: The last paragraph (p.
updated to reflect recent findings that
residential use of fertilizers may be an
source of nitrates. (1)
III-56) needs to be
septic systems and
equally significant
REPLY: The text of the D.E.I.S. section III-C-2:
Groundwater, Page III-56 has been changed to the following:
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"Hydrogeologic Zone IV locally has marginal water quality,
mainly in areas underlying farms. Agricultural fertilizers are
a major source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork
(Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978). According to Ms.
Valerie Scopaz of the Town of Southold Planning Board (personal
communication with Melissa Spiro, 516-765-1937, September 16,
1991) recent findings of the Special Groundwater Protection Area
Study have indicated that septic systems and residential use of
fertilizers may be an equally significant source of nitrates."
A study of the Draft Special Ground-water Protection Area
project (LIRPB, 1991) mentions that the findings of a U.S.G.S.
project titled "Statistical Modeling of Shallow Groundwater
Quality in the Central Suffolk pine Barrens SGPA, Suffolk
County, Long Island, New York" (USGS Water Resources Division,
1991) clearly established a linkage between human activities and
the impact on the shallow aquifer. According to Project
Director Lee Koppelman (personal communication, 516-632-9021,
september 24, 1991) the U.S.G.S. study referred to actually is
the u.s. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
86-4142, a study published in 1989 by David A.V. Eckhardt,
William J. Flipse, Jr., and Edward T. Oaksford, titled "Relation
Between Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial
Aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York."
Eckhardt, et al. (1989), studied several different land-use
categories (i.e., industrial, commercial, transportation,
agricultural, institutional, recreational, undeveloped areas,
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and four different densities of residential areas). The
relationship between these land-use categories and the water
quality of the underlying Upper Glacial aquifer was studied in
detail.
Thus, the study by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) placed
special emphasis on contamination by several organic compounds,
but contamination by several inorganic constituents, such as
nitrate,
sulfate, potassium, calcium, chloride, and total
dissolved solids, was also investigated.
The residential
categories included: (1) Low-density Residential (fewer than 2
dwellings per acre); (2) Medium-density Residential (2 to 4
dwellings per acre); (3) Intermediate-density Residential (5 to
10 dwellings per acre); and (4) High-density Residential (11 or
more dwellings per acre).
Thus, the density of the proposed
action (27 dwellings on 63.6 acres, or about 0.42 D.U./acre)
falls under the category of Low-density Residential. In
general, the Eckhardt, et al. (1989) study found:
Groundwater from agricultural areas had the highest
median concentrations of nitrate (6.0 mg/L), sulfate
(40 mg/L), and calcium (19 mg/L), presumably as a
result of fertilizers. AgricUltural areas also had
the most frequent detection of the pesticide
carbofuran (42% of wells). However, aldicarb
contamination was not studied by Eckhardt, et al.
(1989).
and
Groundwater from high-density residential areas had
the highest median specific conductance (296 uS/em),
and the highest median concentrations of chloride (31
mg/L), potassium (4.3 mg/L), and total dissolved
solids (202 mg/L); groundwater in this category also
had the second-highest median concentration of nitrate
(4.6 mg/L) and frequency of detection for
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,1,1-trichloroethane (42%), trichloroethylene (37%),
tetrachloroethylene (33%), chloroform (22%), and
1,2-dichloroethylene (12%). However, groundwater from
low-density residential areas had near-average
concentrations of inorganic chemical constituents and
a relatively low percentage of wells with volatile
organic compound and pesticide detection.
Specifically, Fiqure 7 of the land-use study (Eckhardt, et
al., 1989) presented the relationship between nitrate and
land-use categories.
Accordingly, the median values (50th
percentile) and inter-quartile range (IQR) of data (25th to 75th
percentile) of agricultural and high-density residential are
comparable. However, the impact from low-density residential on
nitrate appears significantly lower. Thus the ranked, actual
values are as follows:
Land-Use Cateaorv
Median
IQB
AGRICULTURAL
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
6.0 mg/L
4.6 mg/L
2.8 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
7.0 mg/L
3.8 mg/L
2.
COIDUDIT :
The third paragraph (p. III-58) notes that Well
#S 53333 goes down 275 feet from the surface.
Table 1 on page
111-60 states that the well goes down 74 feet from the surface.
Which number is correct? (1)
REPLY:
This comment is so noted.
The text of the
D.E.I.S. Section III-C-2: Groundwater, Page III-58,
paragraph has been changed to the following:
"This well, #S 53333, (Fiqure 9) is completed at 74 feet within
Third
the Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives an indication of the quality
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of groundwater in the area within this stratigraphic horizon
(Table 1)."
3 . CO--1I'J! I
location of the
project. (1)
Figure 9. The map does not show clearly the
observation well relative to the proposed
REPLY: Observation well #S53333 is located approximately
0.6 miles northwest of the Macari at Laurel site. Figure 1
(i.e., Figure 9 of the D.E.I.S.) has been changed to demonstrate
more clearly the locations of this observation well and the site
for the proposed action.
4. COMMENT I Although the DEIS refers to groundwater quality
in the area generally, it fails to specifically analyze
groundwater quality on the site.
As the site was used for farming from 1920 until the early
1980's, both the groundwater and the soil should be tested for
residual pesticides. soil testing is critical for a proposed
residential development because children may ingest contaminated
soil while playing out-of-doors. (1) (11) (13)
REPLY I
groundwater
Laurel site
Laboratories
This comment is so noted. Accordingly,
and soil samples were collected at the Macari at
on December 10, 1991, and analyzed by Ecotest
(Appendix D). A map indicating the sample
36
I
I
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF DATA COLLECTION STATIONS:
QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER
I
--
.53326
.65
I
I
.53322 .65605 -6:>42
...__:~ 0:,
,
.53336 ~3327
.53325 , /' y'"
I
-=::->
- -
,~4
/
o.~e
, '<J5l582
.16796
,
,
/
/'
9269
~;w'
,-
I
./4:
-~
.53333
~
/
I
~71
.5~d /-.51587
.71577
~332
,....,.
~8
,.
,
^
-'-
-<S,j>
/
~
"
\
I
3\
--'
,
/e51581
Cd Ma," .515891"\ / _
.515:01' /' _>
~
~. S..../'y "
.4523'- ~ \ ,";
-. ... '. .~"i....
= ~--.....-~\;
:: \e4723i..::::.:.:/
(.
I
.'-- .,"
\ \ ~
1."..1
I
~ '
~:~.AeA1A
""~
/~ ..8584 0;,
.74307 CD .;~ .46537
... -~"--
St '''~449 _ s-.-- ..
~-,~~.,",," ....------,.......
~ ------ "~ - ~---
o' .,. ~ ----..::.: - ~
a.q230 "~-:'.:;. .74304-\~ri; -~ ~
~. -'~'I~qtr ' ~'.
)541 674296 24 . H . -.: ._ .-
~.. .46538 \ a~~ 4.a99 ---;'fol......----
.46536 . 8a sunflse~--
~s "8581 ~_/ ,
_ --.'8tl3~ A46!j,~ _~.~
e47232 - '00'\. --
------v ~~__
:.--
""-"-.
I
'---=~:
I
I
~
.74308
~Al::'i31
'..r:-
--'
__"'6535
.46532
I
,-
I
==
'!!J543
~5.:o .
~
-,
'.
.74306
5
..6540 ,
/'
I
AI
-
(Doriski, 1987)
Q 2 , 4 5 MilES
I , , , , , . , ,
0 2 ;, 4 5 KilOMETERS
I
I
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
locations is included in Appendix D. Groundwater samples were
collected at Monitor Well locations #1, #4 and #5. In addition,
the soil sample was collected in the old field area, adjacent to
Monitor Well #1. The soil sample is a composite of four
separate subsamples, taken at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet
from borings located approximately 3 feet apart.
The results of the groundwater and soil analyses are
presented within Appendix D. Specifically, the soil sample was
specifically tested for presence of pesticides and PCB's. No
PCB's were detected in the soil sample. Elevated, but not
unusual values (i.e., 49 - 260 ug/Kg) of DOT and its breakdown
components (i.e., ODD and DOE) as well as Dieldrin (i.e., 15
ug/Kg) and Eldrin (i.e., 6 ug/Kg) were found.
The~ groundwater samples were analyzed for content of
volatile organic compounds (VQcrs), bacteria and inorganics.
with one exception, the parameters tested did not exceeded the
guidelines (Appendix D). However, the combined Manganese and
Iron contents ranged from 38.6 to 54.2 mgjL, greatly in excess
of the 5 mgjL combined guideline. According to Ecotest
Laboratories, the elevated Manganese and Iron values are probably
caused by slight sediment contamination in the water samples.
Specifically, the Nitrate values ranged between <0.5 and
0.8 mgjL, significantly below the permitted maximum of 10.0
mgjL. In addition, the Chloride measured contents of 5 to 22
mgjL were significantly less than the permitted 250 mgjL.
In order to further evaluate the test results, the SCDHS was
contacted for their imput and analysis (Appendix D).
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. SUJ:TAllY WASTE
1.
COIIIIBIIT :
The second paragraph (p. 111-65) does not
mention that Southold's zoning code mandates clustering in the
R-80 district where the subdivision exceeds 10 acres in area.
(1)
REPLY: This comment is assumed to include a typographical
error in the page reference.
Thus, it is more likely that it
should have read "111-75" instead of "111-65." Accordingly, the
text of the D.E.I.S. section 111-0-3 ZONING, Page 111-75, second
paragraph has been amended to the following:
"The site for the proposed action is zoned R-80 and is
defined as a single-family dwelling on a minimum lot area of
80,000 square feet (Code of Town of Southold, Chapter 100:
Zoning).
According to the section 100-181 of the Zoning
Chapter of the Code of the Town of Southold (1990) clustering is
required within the R-80 Residential District on lots of at
least ten acres (e.g., the site for the proposed action),
subject to the following conditions:
(1) The residential use will be single-family
detached homes for lot sizes of at least 30,000 square
feet and detached or attached houses for lot sizes
less than 30,000 sq. ft.
(2) The density of these homes will be as specified
in the particular district and determined as indicated
in Subsection 100-181-C of the zoning Chapter.
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(3)
The
(a)
minimum lot size is:
Without public water and sewer: 30,000
sq.ft. (i.e., the site for the proposed
action)~
With public water: 20,000 sq.ft.~
With public water and sewer: 10,000 sq. ft.
(b)
(c)
Table
3
further defines the specific
utilization
and
dimensional regulations, respectively, applicable to R-SO zoned
districts.
The site does not fall within a designated historic
district."
In accordance with the existing zoning district designation
for the site Macari at Laurel site, the proposed action is a
clustered residential subdivision, which, as opposed to the
yield alternative, clusters all areas to be regraded, away from
the
environmentally sensitive portions
(Le. ,
freshwater
wetlands and surface waters) of the site.
D. MUNICIPAL SBTTING
... TRAFPIC
BXISTING TRAFPIC VOLUMES
1.
COMMENT :
III-SS.
The year, and date of the traffic
volume data is neither noted nor referenced. (1)
RBPLY: The traffic volume data was collected in late June
of 1990.
40
I
I /
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
2. COMHDlT: There are numerous'deficiencies in the Traffic
study (Appendix D). The study does not address variations in
traffic volume during the year and the marked increase in
traffic during the summer months. In particular, the study does
not state the dates that traffic volume data was collected.
Traffic volume data should have been collected during the summer
months, when traffic volume is highest. (11)
REPLY: Additional data is presented in Appendix L following
discussions with the NYSDOT. Conclusions presented indicate that
there will be no significant adverse impacts on traffic resulting
from the proposed action.
3. COMMENT: There are also two errors in the Traffic study
which should be corrected. The location map does not depict the
Macari proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumably shows
existing ambient traffic projected to 1992, and not 1990 as
stated on page 13. (11)
REPLY: These comments are so noted.
s. CULTUR&L, RISTORICAL, AND SCEKIC P~SOURCES
EISTORlCAL RESOURCES
1. COMME~~: 1II-96. The second sentence contradicts
information presented on page 1II-97 that inland camps were
occupied during cold weather months. The first sentence of the
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
second paragraph is contradicted by statements made on
111-93 and 94 that artifacts were found on the si~e. Also,
site sensitivity map referred to in the third paragraph
missing from Appendix B. (1)
pages
the
is
RBPLY: The text of the D.E.I.S. section 111-0-5:
cultural, Historical, and Scenic Resources, Page 111-96 has been
amended to the following:
"Inland camps have more recently been found around kettle ponds
and lakes. It has been concluded that these inland camps were
seasonal occupations during cold weather only. Laurel Lake is a
glacial kettle pond that may have been an attractive environment
for hunting, gathering, fishing and fowling, as well as
providing fresh water, timber, and protection from a harsh
coastal climate. Prehistoric evidence may still exist at and/or
below the disturbed/original soil interface.
Prehistoric archaeological sites and unstratified finds are
known from Suffolk County, but artifacts have not previously
been reported specifically from the site for the proposed
action."
The site sensitivity map from Appendix B of the D.E.I.S. is
included on the following page as Figure 2.
42
.
Ul
.
H
z Ul lJ.;j
'Q) 'd l/)
0 S-~ r:
H rl o QJ
EI 0 ~J Ul
... .<1 Ul
Z -d ........
"I ~J
,.1 Ul .L: rd
Ql U
~Ul QJ s-~ "d
~J
J-I,~ UI t}l
Q) 0
0 :> I,..-t
.<1 ." 00
" ~I Ul Q)
'd Rl
Ul Ul m.C1
QJ 0 QI U
" n. ). H
Rl Rl
. ... @
",
,.
f
.-
!>
~ 1
..;
..
.
l<l
.
r...
r...
o
~
N
gj
::>
l'J
H
r...
;'
U)
J>.l
H
0
~
~
U)
~l
E-i
~
0
Z
0
H
~5
t}S;
P I
c)c)
HZ
~H
~
g \
U)
~ \
.
H \
U)
~
0
~'
.ii
,I
,
It
,.f
, I
I
.
\~
\
i
'.
~ tt~ ~ & ~~rf[ttrrrn-Hf~
--
..
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
';:>'
\-
(/)
-
/
o
o
~
..J
~
..,
-
-
x
\
<"'I
qo
'.
'''-;~''_.
"
,.
; j
,
""I
":1;'
,"\,
. ::i:j
. I.,.
-",I
::',
,.~ t.
..'.'
";"!:-
\
C)
u.
uJ
o
o
al ..
C'l.
,..
4.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. AlIlTICIPATBD BIIVIRONMBIlTAL IMPACTS 01' PROPOSBD ACTIOIt
A. PHYSICAL SBTTIItG
1. TOPOGRAPHY
1. COKKBItT: This section provides a generalized discussion
of topographic impacts. Review of Plate 1 for the proposed
development areas of the site finds that Lot 18 is most severely
constrained with slopes ranging from 10 to 15 percent in the
development area. In addition, this lot is proximate to the
eastern freshwater wetlands area on the site. Mitigation
measures suggested in section V require implementation,
enforcement and monitoring in order to ensure that no impact
occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area
is suggested. (2)
RBPLY: Figure 3 presents a potential layout of Lot 18 of
the proposed action for the Macari at Laurel subdivision. Areas
with slope gradients of <10%, 10-15%, and >15% are indicated for
this lot (Figure 3). Furthermore, the boundary of the 100 foot
buffer zone surrounding the nearby freshwater wetlands area is
also shown (Figure 3).
In general, steeper sloped areas (i.e., areas with slope
gradients of 10-15% and >15%) are concentrated along the
northern boundary and within a centrally located area of Lot 18.
Portions of the 100 foot wetlands buffer zone are found within a
relatively narrow zone along the western part of the northern
boundary of this lot (Figure 3). In addition, Figure 3 contains
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 3 LOT 18 OF PROPOSED ACTION:
POTENTIAL LAYOUT
, ,. :
, , -'
, ...
, ,
, ,
,
, ,.
,
,- I
,
I
,
,
\
...~
"
.... 100 Ft Wetlands Boundar
,'<)
l!l,
Dwelling Unit &
Driveway
Slope Gradients: '.
D
~
~
< 10%
10 - 15%
:.;"
. .
'.
'f.L
r.. ,:::::::
.""
...:':::..::::/:;;.;}:::....
> 15%
\
,
"
"
-
SCALE 1 :600
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a hypothetical building unit and driveway layout. As
demonstrated, it is possible to construct the single-family
dwelling and associated driveway without encroaching upon
steeper sloped areas. Furthermore, the construction on Lot 18
will not result in any regrading activities within the 100 foot
freshwater wetlands boundary. The area requiring regrading
would be further removed from any sensitive portions of the lot
if the dwelling unit was oriented with the long axis parallel to
the northern boundary and the driveway placed along the limit of
the 50 foot buffer along the southern boundary of the lot.
B. Bl:OLOGl:CAL SBTTl:NG
1. FLORA
1. COMMENT: The site contains significant prime farmland as
outlined on Pages 1II-12 and III-13. The loss of this farmland
is regarded as an irreversible impact, which should be
recognized as such. This is of course balanced with other
issues such as potential for lower nitrogen in recharge
associated with cessation of farming. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted.
2. COMMENT: The regulatory wetlands boundary must be
established before conclusions regarding wetlands impacts may be
reached. Lot 18 falls within 75 feet of the suggested wetlands
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands.
Potential for impact of development of this lot upon wetlands is
considered high. (2)
REPLY: The on-site field inspection by the New York state
Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the
freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the Land Use
Company (Plate I of the D.E.I.S.) "for the purpose of this
application" (Appendix B-2). However, should the site plans
dated August 22, 1990 (i.e., Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.) change,
then a redelineation by the New York state Department of
Environmental Conservation might be necessary.
Figure 3 presents a potential layout of Lot 18 of the
proposed action for the Macari at Laurel subdivision. Areas
with slope gradients of <10%, 10-15%, and >15% are indicated for
this lot (Figure 3). Furthermore, the boundary of the 100 foot
buffer zone surrounding the nearby freshwater wetlands area is
also shown (Figure 3). In general, steeper sloped areas (i.e.,
areas with slope gradients of 10-15% and >15%) are concentrated
along the northern boundary and within a centrally located area
of Lot 18. Portions of the 100 foot wetlands buffer zone are
found within a relatively narrow zone along the western part of
the northern boundary (Figure 3). As demonstrated in Figure 3
the construction on Lot 18 will not result in any regrading
activities within the 100 foot freshwater wetlands boundary. In
addition, the area requiring regrading could be further removed
47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
from any sensitive portions of the lot if the dwelling unit was
oriented with the long axis parallel to the northern boundary
and the driveway placed along the limit of the 50 foot buffer
along the southern boundary of the lot.
2. FAun
1. COHKBRT: The Avian Species impact table beginning on
Page IV-ll indicates that the proposed project will adversely
affect grassland species including warblers and sparrow,
including loss of potential habitat for two Species of Special
concern, the grasshopper and Vesper Sparrows. The fact that the
proposed project will alter 44 percent of the existing Old Field
habitat, impacting those species which rely on this habitat,
should be further identified as an impact of the proposed
project. (2)
REPLY: The fauna lists presented within the D.E.I.S. text
section III-B-2 and IV-B-2 Fauna include species that were
actually observed at the Macari at Laurel property during the
on-site field survey as well as species that might potentially
utilize the site, either for living, foraging, or resting
purposes. with the exception of the osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
which was observed flying over the site on two separate
occasions, no other endangered, threatened, or special concern
avian species were observed at the site during the field survey.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed action will, in accordance with the existing
zoning district designation for the site, develop the Macari at
Laurel property as a clustered subdivision.
The site layouts
under the existing and proposed conditions are as follows:
Existina PrODosed
TvDe of Ground Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent
original Ground Cover (63.6)(100.0%) (45.2) (70.9%)
Upland Forest 22.4 35.2% 22.0 34.6%
Low Forest 1.4 2.2% 1.1 1.7%
Old Field 39.1 61. 6% 21.4 33.6%
Wetlands/Surf. Wat. 0.7 1.0% 0.7 1.0%
Impervious Surfaces (0.0) (0.0%) (5.9) (9.3%)
Dwellings/Driveways 0.0 0.0% 2.1 3.3%
Roadway 0.0 0.0% 3.8 6.0%
Replanted Vegetation (0.0) (0.0%) (10.1) (15.9%)
Turf 0.0 0.0% 8.0 12.6%
Indigenous Shrubs 0.0 0.0% 2.1 3.3%
Recharae Basin -2....Q. 0.0% ~ 3.8%
Total Area 63.6 100.0% 63.6 99.9%
Consequently, a total of approximately 18.4 acres, or 28.9%
total area will be regraded with the construction of the
proposed, clustered subdivision.
The areas to be regraded are
as follows:
TvDe of Ground Cover
Rearadina
Acres Percent
Total Area
(18.4) (28.9%)
0.4 0.6%
0.3 0.5%
17.7 27.8%
Original Ground Cover
Upland Forest
Low Forest
Old Field
Total Regrading
18.4
28.9%
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The regrading necessary for the construction of the
proposed action will necessitate the altering of 0.4 acres (0.6%
total area) of the existing upland forest: 0.3 acres (0.5%
total area) of the existing low forest: and 17.7 acres (27.8%
total area) of the old field vegetation. Within the regraded
area approximately 5.9 acres (9.3% total area) will become
impervious surfaces, while the planned recharge basin will cover
an area of 2.4 acres (3.8% total area), and the remaining 10.1
acres (15.9% total area) will be replanted with low maintenance
turf (8.0 acres [ 12.6% total area]) or indigenous shrubs (2.1
acres [3.3% total area]). Within the regraded areas wildlife
will be temporarily or permanently displaced during and after
the construction of the Macari at Laurel proposed action. Some
of these numbers and species of wildlife will find temporary or
permanent shelter in adjacent habitats whereas others will not.
Since the majority of the regrading activities will occur within
the area of old field vegetation, the largest impact on wildlife
is likely to be exerted on the species currently inhabiting the
old field areas.
2. COHMBRT: Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides
an ecotone between these habitats. In addition, this lot is
constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat on site
could be enhanced if this lot were to be relocated. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted.
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. HYDROLOGIC SBTTING
2 . GROUllDWATBR
1. COMKBNTI The project falls within an core watershed area
designed by the County as a Special Groundwater Protection Area,
and the town has also given this area a Watershed Protection
Zone designation. Information about what the recommendations of
the County and the town are as to how to best manage this area
are not included in the DEIS and therefore an accurate
determination of the impacts from the proposed development of
this core watershed area is vague and inconclusive. We believe
more information on this is needed before making a
determination. (5) (10)
RBPLYI According to Article 12: "Suffolk County Drinking
Water Protection Program" of the Suffolk County Code (1989) it
is part of the Suffolk County Water Protection Preserve, which
includes all SGPAs of Suffolk County. Within the Water
Protection Preserve and the Suffolk County pine Barrens
Wilderness the County of Suffolk may acquire one or more parcels
of undeveloped land. Land so acquired as authorized under
Article 12 (SCC, 1989) will remain in its natural state and be
managed so as to perpetuate the natural ecosystem of these lands
as a nature preserve. An exception of these regulations are
lands that the Suffolk County Legislature may determine as being
necessary for use for water supply production and distribution,
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
including ancillary facilities required specifically for such
production and distribution (Article 12, Code of Suffolk County,
1989). Any surplus funds under this acquisition program shall,
on an annual basis, be allocated for Water Quality Protection
Programs as determined by the County Executive and the County
Legislature. The Water Quality Protection Program includes
funding for the sewer districts, extension of water mains, water
purification, and waste water treatment (Article 12, Code of
Suffolk County, 1989).
The Long Island Regional Planning Board, initiated a study
of the Special Groundwater Protection Areas prior to the onset
of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (see
below). The SGPA study of the Long Island Regional Planning
Board was initiated with a pilot study, published in 1986 under
the title "Special Ground-Water Protection Area Project for the
oyster Bay Pilot Area and Brookhaven Pilot Area." This
publication described the Special Ground-water Protection Areas
of Long Island. This publication did not include any areas
within the Town of Southo1d under the SGPAs of Suffolk County.
Subsequently, the Suffolk County Water Authority published
a report titled "Watershed Protection strategy Discussion
Paper" in 1987. within this report, one area in the Town of
Southold, east of Mattituck (i.e., not including the Macari at
Laurel property) was designated as part of the Core Watershed
Corridor. The Core Watershed Corridor was defined as an area
approximately 2 miles on either side and following the path of
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the groundwater divide area, this being the heart of the
groundwater system (SCWA, 1987). The Suffolk County Water
Authority (1987) pointed out that because the conditions and
problems of the Forks (i.e., North and South) are more
specialized, recommendations regarding these areas are delayed
pending further discussion.
A Draft of SCWA Watershed Management Plan (SCWA, 1988)
divided the management plan for SCWA into two elements, a
long-term strategy, emphasizing the protection of the Central
Watershed Corridor (CWC) and a secondary analysis of identified
areas around each well head (WHPA) for activities which will
have a more immediate impact on the SCWA well system. This
Draft Report (SCWA, 1988) stated that the same general principle
as within the central part of Suffolk County was followed in
carrying the concept of the CWC onto the East End of Long
Island. However, within this area another dimension is added to
the problem of identifying the heart of the groundwater system.
This is the fact that within this area lighter potable fresh
water floats in "lenses" on the underlying, denser salt water.
However, water recharged at the divide still penetrates deepest
into the aquifer and resides there for the longest time. Thus,
on the North Fork the CWC was defined as an area around the
groundwater divide, delineated by the five-foot contour above
mean sea level from the 1987 Water Table Contour Map of Suffolk
County Department of Health Services.
53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
On June 29, 1989 the Suffolk County Executive Patrick
Halpin created a Drinking Water Protection Program Advisory
Committee and a technical Subcommittee of Hydrology to assist
Suffolk County with the implementation of the Drinking Water
Protection Program outlined in Article 12 of the Code of Suffolk
County
(1989).
The Subcommittee included among
others,
representatives of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services, Suffolk County Planning Department, Suffolk County
Water Authority, and Suffolk County Department of Real Estate.
The
Hydrology Subcommittee defined a number of
regional
Sub-Watersheds under the Special Groundwater Protection Areas
and the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Zone (Suffolk County
Executive, 1990).
The Hydrology Subcommittee recommended that
acquisition under the Drinking Water Protection Program (Article
12, Code of Suffolk County, 1989) be made within these
sub-watershed
areas
of Suffolk
County.
~e
Hydrology
Subcommittee (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) made the following
additional recommendations:
1. Identification of watershed acquisitions
solely, upon a parcel-to-parcel basis must
Rather, delineations of specific, critical
regions must be the primary task;
strictly, or
be avoided.
subwatershed
2. Since high priority watershed regions will be located
in areas of the County which are distinct from each other
with respect to hydrology, ecology, land use, population,
water supply infrastructure, real estate markets, and other
factors, no evaluation scheme can be endorsed however
intuitively appealing - which compares individual parcels
in one watershed region with those from other regions;
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Comparisons among the subwatersheds must focus upon
watershed-level attributes;
4. Candidate
should only be
parcels within
parcels within an individual
compared against their "peers"
that subwatershed);
subwatershed
(Le., other
5. criteria used
subwatersheds will
In all cases, the
possible protection
to select strategic parcels
vary from one subwatershed to
overriding goal is to ensure
for the subwatershed;
within
another.
the best
6. The establishment of subwatersheds provides a land
evaluation methodology which:
a. Clearly separates regional from local criteria;
b. Permits qualitative and quantitative information to
be combined without artificial numerical conventions;
c. Yields results which are easily presented, understood
and discussed.
The resulting "Comprehensive Acquisition Program" under The
Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program was published
by the Suffolk County Executive in October of 1990.
According
to this publication, although Article 12 of the Code of the
County of Suffolk is called a Drinking Water Protection Program,
the law clearly states that it is a Pine Barrens Wilderness
Protection Program as well. Accordingly, concerted effort is
being
made to blend habitat protection with
groundwater
protection during the acquisition process (Suffolk
County
Executive, 1990).
The Comprehensive Acquisition Plan (Suffolk
county Executive, 1990) included an additional revision of the
Core Watershed Corridor.
Thus, with this (latest) edition more
extensive areas of the North Fork, around the groundwater divide
are included in the Core Watershed Corridor.
Specifically, the Macari at Laurel property is located
within the Core Watershed Corridor and in a Special Groundwater
55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Protection Area (a.k.a. SGPA) (SCWA, 1991). However, it lies
outside the regional Deep Recharge Area of Long Island (SCWA,
1991). specifically, it lies in the Laurel Lake Woods
Sub-Watershed area of the Central Suffolk special Groundwater
Protection Area (Suffolk County Executive, 1990).
The Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed, which covers an area of
approximately 1,124 acres, provides excellent opportunities for
well siting and wellhead protection for the future needs of
western Southold Town. Both the Suffolk County Water Authority
and the Town of Southold have expressed strong interest in this
region (Suffolk County Executive, 1990). However, according to
the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate no purchases had
been made under the Drinking Water Protection Program as of
October, 1990 (Suffolk County Executive, 1990).
The Long Island Regional Planning Board recently published
a follow up to its SGPA pilot study, titled "Draft Special
Groundwater Protection Area Project" (LIRPB, 1991). This draft
report indicates that the overall SGPA plan calls for 46% of all
property to remain in open space. Thus, of the 207,000 acres
within the SGPAs of Long Island more than 96,000 acres would
remain natural for watershed protection. In addition, existing
open space and protected farmland account for 26% of all the
land area. Another 7% is to be permanently protected through
the acquisition of woodlands and the purchase of farmland
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
development rights. Furthermore, 14% will be preserved through
the use of clustering of residential development on both
woodland and farmland site, planned unit development, industrial
clusters and replatted old filed maps. About 38% of all the
SGPA land is expected to be used for residential purposes
(LIRPB, 1991).
Specifically, the Central Suffolk SGPA covers approximately
125,000 acres within the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead,
Southampton, and a small portion of Southold (LIRPB, 1991). The
northeastern portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA covers an area
of approximately 25,268 acres, the current land uses of which
are as follows: 7.3% residential land, 13.2% vacant land, 0.4%
underwater land, 0.7% commercial land, 1.1% industrial land,
0.8% institutional land, 13.7% utilities, 9.5% open space, and
53.2% agricultural land. The Southold portion of this SGPA
includes a combination of wooded and farming areas around Laurel
Lake. It is possible to create a preserve for future watershed
purposes in the western part of the Town of Southold that would
contain over 200 contiguous acres in the vicinity of the lake.
There is some farming, some vacant woodlands, a former mining
area and a camp site that could form the core of such an area.
The specific recommendations for the Southold portion of the
Central Suffolk SGPA are as follows: The county and the Town of
Southold should use a combination of selective acquisition,
T.O.R., and mandatory clustering to assemble and protect a 200+
acre watershed preserve in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. Such a
57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
preserve would comprise both woodlands and portions of farm
parcels.
In addition, the Town of Southold should facilitate
the phase out of the former mining operation and of the small
industrial use on Sound Avenue.
Both properties should be
converted to residential use and further industrial development
should not be permitted in this part of the SGPA. Furthermore,
the Town of Southold should review its zoning ordinances and
amend them as necessary to preclude the expansion of commercial
activities beyond the limits of the SGPA area where such
activities already exist.
According to Ms. Phyllis Haner, Land Management Specialist
IV and Acquisition Agent with the Suffolk County Department of
Real Estate the Department has singled out several parcels for
potential acquisition within the immediate area around Laurel
Lake (personal communication, 516-853-3801, september 23, 1991).
These include the following:
Suffolk Countv Tax MaD NlImher
1000-121-3-7.1
1000-121-4-8.3
1000-121-4-8.4
1000-121-4-9.1 (i.e., Proposed Action)
1000-121-4.10.1
1000-121-5-p/o 4.1
1000-122-2-p/o 25
1000-125-1-1
1000-125-1-13
1000-125-1-14
These properties are currently being appraised. The
appraisal value of a parcel is higher the further along in the
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SEQRA process the particular piece of property is. The Suffolk
County Department of Real Estate will probably be making
specific offers, under the 1/4 cents sales tax program, during
the Spring. Each potential acquisition will be a negotiated
sale, dependent upon the appraisal value, the Department will
make offers that the property owners then can accept or decline
(personal communication, Ms. Phyllis Haner, 516-853-3801,
September 23, 1991).
2. COMMENT: The DEIS acknowledges that Laurel Lake is a
potential source of drinking water (DEIS at III-57) but does not
assess the critical issue of the impact of the Project on the
future use of Laurel Lake as a source of drinking water. The
DEIS should analyze the present water quality of the Lake, the
expected impact of the Project alone, and the cumulative impact
of it and other projects proposed for the area on the water
quality of the Lake. (11)
REPLY: Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6 of the
D.E.I.S.) were completed at the site in order to determine the
present elevation of the groundwater table and to establish the
general groundwater flow direction at the site. The groundwater
table is approximately 6 feet above sea level at the site
(Appendix C of the D.E.I.S.; Figure 7). Depth of the water
table below the surface ranged from approximately 0 to about 45
feet (Appendix C of the D.E.I.S.). Although the water table is
considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of
the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the
north-central portion of the site intersect the water table,
creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively.
The site lies nearly coincident with the regional
groundwater divide of the North Fork of Long Island. The
59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
following table provides a list of different estimates over the
location of the groundwater divide in the area of the site:
Direction to Distance to
Reference GW Divide GW Divide
Jensen, et al. (J.974) S Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet
SCDHS (1988) NW to SE Approx. 0 - 1,250 feet
SCWA (1989) S Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet
SCDHS (J.990) NW Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet
This indicates the potential for an alternating
northwestern to southeastern directional component of the
horizontal groundwater movement for the site. However, the
regional groundwater divide is located only generally and can
only be used for approximate statements.
The monitoring wells at the site were monitored for
groundwater levels during April, J.988 (Appendix C of the
D.E.I.S.). As noted on Figure 6 of the D.E.I.S., the wells are
oriented in a line roughly trending south-southeast. A
graphical presentation of the groundwater elevations at the site
is provided in Figure C-J. and C-2 of Appendix C of the D.E.I.S..
The cross-section along the full trend of the line (Figure C-1
of the D.E.I.S.) indicates a sharp drop in groundwater elevation
in a southeastern direction from northwest to southeast. The
two additional short cross-sections (i.e., Wells #J. to #4; Wells
#2 to #4) (Figure C-2 of the D.E.I.S.), roughly oriented
north-south and northeast-southwest, respectiveJ.y, indicate a
relatively small drop in groundwater elevation in these
directions. The monitoring well data, limited as it may be,
indicates that the site may be slightly south of the regional
groundwater divide.
However, prediction of groundwater movement direction is
limited because the groundwater elevation differences between
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
monitoring wells was slight (i.e., within several inches) and
there were only a limited number of monitoring wells providing
groundwater elevation data over a very short period of time.
Despite these limitations, utilizing the available regional data
and the groundwater elevations at the site, a southeast
directional component to the groundwater movement direction is
estimated.
Consequently, in order to present a worst-case scenario for
the potential impacts of the proposed action upon the water
quality of Laurel Lake, a southeasterly direction of groundwater
underlying the Macari at Laurel site is assumed. Thus, Laurel
Lake is unlikely to be downgradient for recharge stemming from
the sanitary systems and fertilizer use of the proposed action.
The downgradient area for groundwater under the site is more
likely to be the area east of Laurel Lake.
However, given the potential southeastern direction of
groundwater in the immediate area of the Macari at Laurel site,
the water quality of Laurel Lake is much more likely to be
impacted by nitrogen sources, such as sanitary systems and
applied fertilizers, from portions of the existing
single-family residences located adjacent to the lake and south
- southwest of the Macari at Laurel property. Dye tests could
bring conclusive evidence of any seepage of sewage into Laurel
Lake from the sanitary systems on these properties.
61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In conclusion, there is only a remote chance for
groundwater/surface water intersection from water recharging the
groundwater from the Macari At Laurel development. Since the site
is located nearly coincident with the regional divide, despite
yearly variations, there will always be a strong eastern vector
component. In addition, recharging water from the site following
development are calculated to contain approximately 4.48 mg/L of
nitrogen. Considering the distance from the point sources and
Laurel Lake, negligible affects are anticipated from the
development.
3. SUJ:TARY WASTB
1. COMMENT: IV-28. If the anticipated population is
changed to be consistent with that which would be expected in 3
and 4 bedroom houses, then the figures for septic effluent
should be adjusted accordingly. (1)
REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units,
14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13
units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the u.s. Census
(1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family
housing unit was 2.56 persons/unit in the Town of Southold.
Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51
persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990).
Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the
completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, an average of 2.50
person/unit was utilized.
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
However, the actual number of residents per dwelling unit
may be higher than this average estimate. The following
nitrogen budget calculations for the proposed action are based
upon an estimated 4 persons/dwelling unit. An increase in the
number of residents at the Macari at Laurel site is likely to
result in an increase in the amount of potentially recharged
nitrogen, from sources such as sanitary waste. However,
estimates of quantity of sanitary effluent and number of school
children are not based upon the number of persons inhabiting the
dwelling units. These estimates will therefore not be affected
by this increased value of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit.
Nitroaen Budaet for the ProDosed Action:
The proposed 27 housing units will produce a total of 8,100
qpd (27 units @ 300 qpd/unit = 8,100 qpd) of wastewater into the
groundwater from the individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, Department of
Environmental Quality: Standards for Approval of Plans and
Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other than Single
Family Residences, 1988).
Adequate sanitary system design must be developed to
prevent potential groundwater contamination. Without an
adequate septic design, excess nitrogen and coliform bacteria
can percolate to the water table. The Macari at Laurel
subdivision development proposes individual sanitary systems for
each lot. The installed sanitary systems will conform with the
63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
requirements by the Suffolk county Department of Health Services
in "Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for
Subsurface Sewaqe Disposal Systems for Sinqle-family Residences"
(1986); Article 6 (1990); and Article 7 (1986).
The projected population (for nitroqen budqet calculation
purposes) of approximately 108 inhabitants of the Macari at
Laurel
development livinq in 27 units will
produce
an
approximate 8,100 qallons of sewaqe per day. The followinq is a
calculation (see specific details in Appendix E) of the nitroqen
budqet from the development of the proposed action at the site:
Sources of Nitroaen
Resultinq
N-Conc. in Groundwater
1. Precipitation
(Brookhaven National
Laboratory, 1989)
Loadinq 2.69 mq/L; 50% or
1.35 mq/L recharqed
Precipitation chemicals, includinq nitrate nitroqen were
measured for the Upton weather station at Brookhaven National
Laboratory by Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richmond,
Washinqton.
The
averaqe
nitrate
nitroqen
content
in
precipitation durinq 1989 was 2.69 mq/L.
Of this approximately
50% is assumed to reach the qroundwater.
2. Upland Forest/Replanted Woody
(Huqhes, et al., 1981)
(Huqhes, et al., 1985)
0.1 mq/L
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Impervious Surfaces
(L.I.R.P.B., 1982)
0.4 mg/L
4. Turf
(Porter, et al., 1978)
(Residential)
N-loading from turf:
25 lbs/15,000 square feet
(57% recharged: LIRPB, 1984)
N-recharge from turf:
0.57 x 25/15,000 lbs/s.f.
(LIRPB, 1984)
(Residential)
N-Ioading from turf:
2.3 Ibs/1,000 square feet
(57% recharged: LIRPB, 1984)
N-recharge from turf:
0.57 x 2.3/1,000 lbs/s.f.
5. Septic Discharge (standard sanitary system)
(LIRPB, 1978)
10.0 lb/person/yr loading:
50% recharged.
6. Background nitrogen content in the proposed water supply.
Specifically, the water quality of municipal water source
is listed in the 1990 SCWA Annual Water Quality Statement
Suffolk County Water Authoritv for Distribution Area 58
demonstrated an average Nitrate Nitrogen content of 6.45
mg/L. However, on-site monitoring wells have indicated
nitrogen levels of <0.5 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L (Appendix D) .
Although
the following calculations are based on
a
worst-case scenario, such factors as low maintenance turf on
the site, lower background nitrogen, as well as a lower number
of year round residents will reduce this particular additive to
the groundwater.
Site Soecific Calculations
1. Precipitation.
1.35 mq/L is expected to recharge the
groundwater at the site for this source.
65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous
Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to areas of
preserved original ground cover, to the wetlands, or the
replanted indigenous vegetation.
Upland Forest,etc. 36.3% of site
Replanted Indigenous 3.3% of site
Freshwater Wetlands 0.7% of site
Old Field 33.6% of site
Surface Water Areas 0.3% of site
Recharge Basins 3.8% of site
Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the
site:
(0.1 mgjL) x (78.0% of the site)
(0.1 mgjL) x (0.780) = 0.08 maIL
3. Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings
and pavement will cover 9.3% of the site. Using weighted average
calculations for the site:
(0.4 mgjL) x (9.3% of the site)
(0.4 mgjL) x (.093) = 0.04 maIL
4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in
Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 8.0 acres or 12.6% of
the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000
66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
square feet of turf, 580.8 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to
enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will
be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year (Baskin, 1977; DEIS, page IV-
43) of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e.,
assumed to be equal to the SCWA value of 6.45 mg/L, described
above) in this water source should also be added to the areas
replanted with turf.
Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent
(Porter, et.al., 1978 calculated a value of 0.82 lb/person,
however, it is further stated that approximately 50% of this
amount would be removed naturally prior to recharging the
groundwater). For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge
the number of persons expected to inhabit this development
is assumed to constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling
unit, i.e., 108 persons. This gives an expected nitrogen
production from the associated pet population of approximately
44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen). The nitrogen production
stemming from these pets is assumed to be deposited primarily
in the areas covered by turf.
Converting 625.08 pounds of nitrogen (580.8 lbs from turf
fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 19.87 mg/L.
Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average
results in the following:
(19.87 mgjL) x (12.6% total site)
(19.87 mg/L) x (0.126) = 2.50 mg/L N-loading
67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
average for N-recharge results:
(2.50 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.43 maIL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25
lbs/15,000 square feet (based on Porter, et.al., 1978), will
contribute approximately 1.43 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at
the site.
In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application
rate of 2.3 lbs/l,OOO square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized,
801.5 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 44.28 lbs (108 x
0.41 lbs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the
groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be
irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the
background nitrogen level (i.e., assumed to be equal to the SCWA
value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should
also be added to the areas replanted with turf.
Converting 845.78 pounds of nitrogen (801.5 Ibs from turf
fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 24.29 mg/L.
Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average
results in the following:
(24.29 mg/L) x (12.6% total site)
(24.29 mg/L) x (0.126) = 3.06 mg/L N-loading
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
average for N-recharge results:
(3.06 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.74 maIL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of
lbs/1,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.74
nitrogen to the groundwater at the site.
2.3
mg/L
5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to
precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs
(i.e., 2.1 acres or 3.3% of the site) will be irrigated with an
estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In
contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is
planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs.
Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted
indigenous acreage on the site (i.e., 1.12 inches/yr or
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,967,315.80 gpy/acre X 2.1 acres; Appendix E) compared to the
total water budget for the site (i.e., 29.25 inches/year or
50,503,518.58 gpy), incorporating the background nitrogen level
in the local water source (i.e., 6.45 mg/L), and considering
that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the
following concentrations results: 0.12 mg/L.
6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge
from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per
dwelling unit is used. utilizing a separate septic system,
approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of
nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below
the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are
calculated. Therefore:
108 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.48 lbs/day
Converting 1.48 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the 8,100 gallons per day of
septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the
background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the
standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the
following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.71 in/yr
of recharge (i.e., sanitary effluent value calculated over the
entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the
total recharge value for the entire site is 29.25 in/yr
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(including the sanitary component), then the actual septic
discharge concentration is as follows:
1.71 in/yr / 29.25 in/yr = 5.85% total recharge
Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater
at the site due to septic discharge is 1.47 mg/L (25.11 mg/L x
5.85%).
The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting
from the proposed action is as follows:
precipitation 1.35 mg/L
Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L
Impervious Surfaces 0.04 mg/L
Turf 1.43 mg/L (1. 74 mg/L)
Indigenous Irrigation 0.12 mg/L
septic Discharge 1.47 mg/L
Total
4.48 mg/L
(4.80 mg/L)
The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic
discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not
be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the
remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the
other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low
maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site
is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background
levels added in these calculations will be derived from an
on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be
recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget,
which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly
exaggerated.
The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 4.48
mgjL, or 4.80 mgjL based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization, is
probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables
associated with this project. This value lies within the median
value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values
for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mg/L)
recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(1987), and it is somewhat higher than the median nitrogen value
for "Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mg/L
(interquartile range [50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et
a1. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between
Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
in Nassau and Suffolk counties, Long Island, New York."
The resulting nitrogen loading value of 4.48 mgjL (or 4.80
mgjL) is substantially less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York
State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the
Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable
nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island).
In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 4.48 mg/L (or
72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.80 mg/L) is somewhat above the range of 2 to 4 mg/L
recommended by the Long rsland Regional Planning Board for the
"special Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven
pilot Area" (1986), which is part of the Pine Barrens Zone and
the Hydrogeologic Zone rrr. However, it lies below the 6.45
mg/L value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed
action will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower
than the value of the underlying aquifer.
2. COMMENT: rV-30. What is the background level of
nitrogen in the groundwater on the site now? (1)
REPLY: The amount of nitrate in the groundwater
directly underlying the site ranges from <0.5 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L,
as determined from the recent groundwater testing of the on-site
monitoring wells (Appendix D).
3. COMMENT: Page rV-31. The computations for Turf
fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft ErS uses 25 Ibs./15,OOO
square feet, or 1.7 Ibs./1,OOO square feet. Standard references
including the 208 study and the Non-Point Source Management
73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Handbook, indicate that normal turf fertilization rates are in
the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,OOO square feet. Accurate and
realistic turf fertilization rates should be used in the
simulation of nitrogen in recharge for the proposed project,
cumulative impact evaluations and alternatives. It is
acknowledged that lower rates may be achievable if a fertilizer
management plan is implemented on the site. (2)
RBPLY: The 25 pounds per 15,000 square feet value is
derived from Porter et al. (1978) and used in the estimation of
nitrogen loading from the fertilization of turf. Thus, Porter
et al. (1978) in their comprehensive assessment of "Nitrates"
(i.e., Chapter 5 of The Long Island Comprehensive Waste
Treatment Management Plan by Long Island Regional Planning
Board, 1978) cited an average household fertilizer use of 1.52
lbs N/1,OOO square feet. This corresponds to a fertilizer
application of approximately 22.8 lbs N/15,OOO square feet.
However, the Non-Point Source Management Handbook by the
Long Island Regional Planning Board (1984) which indicates an
average value of 2.3 lbs N/1,OOO square feet for residential
areas. The original source of the information quoted in the
Non-Point Source Handbook (Long Island Regional Planning Board,
1984) is the 1980 Cornell university study (draft version) by
James Pike, S. Goldfarb, and K.S. Porter: "1980 Survey of Turf
Management Practices in Nassau and Suffolk counties, L.I.". The
comparisons within Table 7 of the Non-point Source Management
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Handbook (LIRPB, 1984) between land-use and average rate of
nitrogen applied (lbs. Nj1,000 Sq. Ft. Yr.) were calculated as
average values for a relatively large range of values (personal
communication, Mr. Steven Pacenka, Water Specialist, Water
Resources Institute, Cornell University, september 21, 1990,
607-255-5944). For instance, the 2.3 lbs Nj1,000 sq.ft.jyr
quoted for commercial use, is the average value of measurements
ranging from no fertilizer application to a large amount of
fertilizer applied per year. Consequently, the amount applied
depended significantly upon the owner(s) of a given property.
In addition, the numbers of the Pike, Goldfarb, and Porter study
reflect the conditions up to 1980. It is the impression that
the amount of fertilizer application for various reasons has
decreased to some degree since then (personal communication,
Steven Pacenka).
Following close examination of the original publication
draft by Pike, Goldfarb and Porter (1980) "1980 Survey of Turf
Management Practices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, L.I. Draft
for Review" and in accordance with written communication with
Steven Pacenka (September 21, 1990), subsequent to his
examination of the Table 7 (LIRPB, 1984), it became evident that
the LIRPB Table 7 did not contain three columns but only one (1)
column of its data directly attributable to the Pike, et al.
(1980) publication. The said column is titled "Total Acreage in
the Bi-County Area", and derived from the Table 6 "1981 Turf
Area Estimates of Selected Land Uses (in acres) from
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gruttadaurio (1981)" of the Pike, et al. (1980) publication. In
addition, the information within the "Total Acreage in The
Bi-County Area" column of the Table 7 of the LIRPB (1984)
"Non-Point Source Management Handbook" deviates in part from the
"original" information of Pike, et al. (1980) because the LIRPB
(1984) publication misquoted the acreage of "Sod Farms" as
"3,340", where the "original" source (Pike, et al., 1980) states
"3,400". consequently, the total turfgrass areas also differ,
Le., the LIRPB (1984) stated the "Total" as "207,121" whereas
the "original" Pike, et al. (1980) stated its "Total Turfgrass"
as "207,181" (acres).
In his written communication (September 21, 1990) Steven
Pacenka concludes that he hopes "that it (Table 7 of the LIRPB,
1984 Non-Point Source Management Handbook) is not being used
uncritically to justify or refute large-scale decisions".
In comparison, according to the USDA Soil Conservation
Service publication titled "A Guide To: Conservation Plantings
on Critical Erosion Areas" (1980) low-maintenance grasses such
as Perennial Ryegrass are suitable for lawn areas. The actual
fertilization rate for this type of grass is approximately 0.10
pounds/1,000 square feet (USDA, 1980) compared to the 25
lbs/15,000 square feet and 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet mentioned
above.
4. COKKBRT: References including Land Use and Groundwater
Quality in the pine Barrens of Southampton (Hughes and Porter,
76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1983), and BURBS - A simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of
Residential Development on Groundwater (Hughes and Pacenka,
1985),
indicate
a nitrogen in wastewater value
of
10
lbs./person/day.
The Draft EIS appears to utilize a lesser
figure in computations contained on Page IV-34.,
and in
alternatives and cumulative impact evaluations.
Accurate and
realistic nitrogen in sanitary waste values should be used in
the simulation of nitrogen in recharge. (2)
RBPLY: Keith Porter assisted by David Bouldin, Christine
Shoemaker, Leland Baskin, Douglas Zaeh, Steven Pacenka, Daniel
Fricke, Brian Anderson, Albert Hermann, Wendy King, Karen
Kottlar and Cynthia McGaw wrote "Section V: Nitrates" of "Volume
II: Summary Documentation" of the Long Island Comprehensive
Waste Treatment Management Plan (Long Island Regional Planning
Board, 1978). On Page 193 of "section 5.3.5: Discussion" these
authors state the following:
"...Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it was
conservatively assumed that the average annual per
capita nitrogen load in wastewater is ten pounds,
which corresponds to an average nitrogen concentration
of 82 mg/l in 40 gallons per day of raw sewage. It
was further assumed, for initial calculations, that 50
percent of the nitrogen in the raw sewage will reach
the groundwater."
The "Cornell Study" (Le., the study by Hughes and Porter
(1983) titled "Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the pine
Barrens of Southampton") assumes an average annual per capita
77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sewage nitrogen production of 10 pounds for residential areas
(Page 8; Table 2.3: "Summary of Assumptions Relating to Each
Existing Land Use Type") and that "about 50% of the nitrogen
entering a normal (sewage) system, operated on Long Island, is
converted to gaseous nitrogen and the remainder leaches into the
soil" (Page 14).
In addition, "BURBS: A Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of
Residential Development on Groundwater" by Henry B.F. Hughes and
Steven pacenka (1985) uses the same data in the calculations,
explained in the following way on the first page of the Appendix
(Hughes and Pacenka, 1985):
Parameter #15:
"Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas
= 0.50 fraction"
and
Parameter #17:
"Nitrogen per person in wastewater
= 10.00 lbs/yr."
Consequently,
these three studies all use the
same
assumptions as used in the calculations of nitrogen budget for
the proposed action (Section IV-C-3 Sanitary Waste: DEIS).
These calculations were made under the assumption that the
standard nitrogen-loading value from septic discharge into
groundwater on Long Island is 5 lbs/person/year (or 50% of
nitrogen in waste water, i.e., 10 lbs/person/year).
5.
COJDIBIIT :
Our agency received an
application
for
subdivision approval pursuant to the requirements of Article VI
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) in August of 1988.
78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It appears that the development can conform to the unit density
requirements of Article VI, which require a minimum lot yield of
20,000 square feet per lot in Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Equivalent
lot yield refer to gross land area minus the area of roads,
recharge basins, and other improvements which may be necessary
to the development of the site. (3)
REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, the
following calculations demonstrate that the proposed action is
in conformance with this comment. Of the total area (63.6
acres) of the Macari at Laurel site, approximately 3.8 acres
will become roadway surfaces and the recharge basins will cover
an area of approximately 2.4 acres. Thus, the equivalent lot
yield can be calculated as 75% of the "adjusted gross land area"
of 57.4 acres (i.e., 63.6 - [3.8 + 2.4] acres) divided by
minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet (SCDHS, 1988).
Consequently, the equivalent lot yield for this property is
approximately 93.8 lots (i.e., [0.75 x 57.4 acres x 43,560
sq.ft.jacres]j20,000 sq.ft.jlot).
6. COMMENT: It is important to point out that our agency
provides for "clustered realty subdivisions...which consist of
one or more relatively undersized parcels, designed in such a
manner as to allow a substantial unimproved portion of the tract
to stand open and uninhabited." [SCSC; Article VI, 760-601(a)]
(3)
79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPLY I This comment is so noted.
does in fact conform with this comment.
The proposed action
7. OOKHBNT: Where clustered subdivisions are served by
private water supply systems, lot sizes may be reduced to a
minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. and conform to the water
facilities requirements of Article VI [SCSC: Article VI,
760-608(1) (e)] (3)
REPLY: This is so noted.
with this comment.
The proposed action conforms
8. OOHKBNT: In Hydrogeologic Zone IV, clustered realty
subdivisions must conform to a population density equivalent of
a standard residential subdivision wherein all parcels consist
of an area of at least 20,000 square feet. (3)
REPLY: This is so noted. The proposed action conforms to
this comment.
9. COKHBNT: The subject proposal was recently reviewed by
our agency's Bureau of Wastewater Management. As a result of
this review, it has been determined that well data provided to
our agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to be
resampled prior to any final determination by SCDHS pertaining
to the suitability of the proposed water supply. (3)
80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPLY: Three monitor wells were sampled at the Macari at
Laurel site on December 10, 1991 (Appendix D). Groundwater
samples were collected at Monitor Well locations #1, #4 and #5.
The groundwater samples were analyzed for content of
volatile organic compounds (VOC's), bacteria and inorganics.
with one exception, the parameters tested did not exceeded the
guidelines (Appendix D). However, the combined Manganese and
Iron contents ranged from 38.6 to 54.2 mg/L, considerably in
excess of the 5 mg/L guideline. According to Ecotest Laboratories
the elevated Manganese and Iron values are probably caused by
slight sediment contamination in the water samples.
Specifically, the Nitrate values ranged between <0.5 and
0.8 mg/L, significantly below the permitted maximum of 10.0
mg/L. In addition, the Chloride contents of 5 to 22 mg/L were
significantly less than the permitted 250 mg/L.
10. COMMENT: In addition to well data, our agency is
awaiting the following additional information from the applicant
prior to continuing its review of this proposal.
-Public water cost letter from the local water
district
-Test hole/test well locations and details
-Neighboring well locations within 150 ft. of
property lines
-Wetlands determination letter from NYSDEC
81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-SEQRA determination from Town
-Applicable well covenants (3)
REPLY' This comment is so noted. When the required
documents are available they will be forwarded to the Suffolk
County Department of Health as requested. The following
. indicates the status of the above mentioned issues:
A. Public water cost letter from the local water
district: Appendix F contains communications with the
Suffolk County Water Authority that owns the Captain
Kidd municipal water source in order to determine the
cost of installing public water at the site;
B. Test hole/test well locations and details: See
previous reply and further details in Appendix D.
C. Neighboring well locations within 150 ft. of property
lines: Ms. Claire Glew of the Assessor's Office in
the Town of Southold (516-765-1937) provided the list
of addresses of adjacent property owners. A letter
requesting information regarding water well and
sanitary system locations has been sent to each
property owner (Appendix G); Very few responses were
received to date (February 28, 1992). If required by
the lead agency or other involved agencies, these
responses will be made available upon request.
D. Wetlands determination letter from NYSDEC: The NYSDEC
wetland delineation determination at the Macari at
82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Laurel site is included in Appendix B;
E. SEQRA determination from Town: The SEQRA process has
not yet been concluded. When the F.E.I.S. has been
found complete and the SEQRA process is concluded the
resulting SEQRA determination, together with the other
documents will be forwarded to the SCDHS;
F. Applicable well covenants: All current and applicable
regulations and covenants will be adhered to by the
proposed action.
11. COKKBNT: The applicant must comply with the requirements
of the SCSC and all relevant construction standards for water
supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow
specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site
plan details are considered fully during the SCDHS review of the
application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final
location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The
applicant, therefore, should not undertake the construction of
either system without Health Department approval. (3) (9)
REPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action
will comply with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Prior to
final site plan approval the Applicant will obtain all necessary
permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
D. HtJHICIPAL SBTTING
4. TRAFFIC
",
1. COKMENT: In addition, the projected traffic volume
calculations do not include projected traffic from the Miller
and Jacoby development proposals, which the Planning Board
required to be included in a generic environmental impact
statement ("GElS") for the proposed developments in the Laurel
Lake area. The use of a mid-1992 build year is not appropriate
in view of the applicant's proposed five-year construction
schedule. Further traffic analysis is required to reflect
summer traffic conditions, the impact of the Miller and Jacoby
proposals, and a 1996 or later build year. (11)
REPLY: Of the several proposed projects that were
included in the original G.E.I.S. analysis, very few are
currently active. Consequently, the Environmental Impact
Statement for Macari at Laurel subdivision was prepared solely
for this project, while the impacts of other projects were
included in the cumulative impact analysis. Thus, the traffic
study contains an analysis of the projected traffic load for the
completed Macari at Laurel subdivision.
Additional data is presented in Appendix L, following
discussions with the NYSDOT. The study includes a 5-year analysis.
84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'
2. COHMENT: The Traffic study indicates that the level of
service on Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road would be reduced from
,
B to C if all proposals addressed in the study are built. The
DEIS should address alternatives which would reduce that adverse
impact on traffic, including a development with lower density.
(11)
REPLY: The minimum amount of traffic resulting from the
Macari At Laurel project will not change any Levels of Service.
Where changes in Levels of Service occur, they are the result of
normal ambient traffic growth or the traffic generated by other
planned developments.
7. POPULATION
~. COHMENT: IV-54. Provide documentation to support the
statement that the projected population multiplier is consistent
with housing units containing 3 and 4 bedrooms. (1)
REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units,
14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13
units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the U.S. Census
(1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family
housing unit was 2.56 persons/unit in the Town of southold.
Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51
persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990).
Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the
completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, an average of 2.50
person/unit was utilized. However, the actual number of
residents per dwelling unit may be higher than this average
85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
estimate. The nitrogen budget calculations for the proposed
action (Appendix E) are based upon an estimated 4
persons/dwelling unit. An increase in the number of residents
at the Macari at Laurel site is likely to result in an increase
in the amount of potentially recharged nitrogen, from sources
such as sanitary waste and pets. However, estimates of quantity
of sanitary effluent and number of school children are not based
upon the number of persons inhabiting the dwelling units. These
estimates will therefore not be affected by this increased value
of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit.
8. MATTXTUCX SCHOOL DXSTRXCT NO. 9
1. COMMENT: IV-55. Provide documentation to support the
multipliers used in second paragraph. (1)
REPLY: A country-wide standard reference, Burchell,
Listokin and Dolphin (1985), provided Regional and National
Demographic Multipliers for Common Configurations of Standard
Housing Types for SChOOl-Age Children by Housing Type and Number
of Bedrooms (Exhibit 13 of Burchell, et al., 1985). Thus for
the Northeast Region (including New England and the Middle
Atlantic) the multipliers for single family dwellings with 3 or
4 bedrooms are 0.734 and 1.366, respectively. The Macari at
Laurel development will construct 27 housing units, of which 14
units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and 13 units will have 4
86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
bedrooms. Therefore, the following number of school-age children
can be projected:
14 3-BR housing units x 0.734 school-age children per
unit = 11 (rounded from 10.28) school-age children
13 4-BR housing units x 1.366 school-age children per
unit = 18 (rounded from 17.76) school-age children
= 29 School Age Children
9. TAXES AND FISCAL SBTTIRG
1. COMMENT:
market, are
reasonable?
IV-56. Given the slump in the
stated market values of $275,000
(1)
real estate
to $300,000
REPLY: It is possible that the estimated market values
for the single-family residences of the Macari at Laurel
proposed action are somewhat higher than the current real estate
market values.
2. COMMENT: IV-58. The second paragraph refers to an
analysis of revenue versus expenses which is not included in the
report. (1)
real
REPLY:
estate
The
tax
proposed action will result in a projected
revenue of approximately $93,144.07, or
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
$84,943.15 more than the current revenues (i.e., $8,200.92)
derived from the Macari at Laurel site. utilizing the school
district tax rate of 62.5% of the total tax revenue,
approximately $58,215.04 would be produced from the proposed
action towards the school budget. However, the estimated 29
school children generated from the proposed action will require
additional monies to educate. The estimated annual local cost
to educate a SChool-age child is approximately $7,001.94 per
student. Therefore, it will cost about $203,056.26.
Consequently, the increased revenues from the Macari at Laurel
subdivision may not meet the increases in expenses of the
municipality.
V. MITIGATIVE MBASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
EIIVIROHMENTAL IMPACTS OP THB PROPOSBD ACTION
A. PHYSICAL SBTTING
1. TOPOGRAPHY
1. COMMBNT: Page V-5 indicates that, "... in order to limit
much of the potential regrading, the housing units will be
located within the most level portions of the site (old field)."
As previously indicated, limiting potential grading on Lot 18 is
difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within the building
envelop. (2)
88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RBPLY:
Figure 3 represents a typical layout of Lot 18,
indicating the possible location of the dwelling unit and
associated driveway within the more gentle portions of the area.
2.
COIOlBllT I
Due to the unavoidable effect of siltation from
the proposed regrading activities, the DEIS should include a
specific soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a
detailed discussion of mitigative measures which would prevent
erosion and protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands from siltation
during the proposed 5-year period of construction. (11)
RBPLY: If required by the Town of Southold a detailed
erosion-control plan will be submitted prior to final site plan
approval.
In general, the erosion-control measures employed
during the construction of the Macari at Laurel subdivision will
include:
1. Immediate hydroseeding or mulching (e.g., with moist straw)
and potentially subsequent covering with filter fabric of
stockpiled topsoil and selected other exposed soil surfaces~
2. Emplacement where necessary of two rows of securely staked
straw bale dikes, silt screens, filter fabric attached to a
wire fence, filter fabric on straw bales, as well as gravel and
earth berms within sensitive portions of the site, such as
around peripheral portions of the regraded areas, including
entrances and exits, as well as along the perimeter of all
sensitive areas (e.g., freshwater wetlands/ponds, areas of steep
slopes, proposed drywells, recharge and catch basin locations).
In order to minimize the exposure of sensitive areas to erosion
by wind and rain, these preventive measures should be taken as
early as possible, either before or immediately after the
necessary regrading activities have taken place~
3. Periodic maintenance, including the
sediment from these erosional control
their continued efficiency~
removal of any trapped
measures, will ensure
89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Replanting with indigenous shrubs, low-maintenance turf,
and mulching with coarse bark or other stable materials will
provide long-term stabilization of regraded areas, following
completion of the construction phase of the proposed action.
Where necessary, freshly cut, anchored sod can be used to cover
exposed areas in lieu of seeding areas reserved for lawns:
5. strategic location of areas proposed to be regraded will
minimize the potential for erosion:
6. Timing of actual regrading will be planned carefully:
and
7. Small areas will be exposed to regrading at any given time,
thereby limiting the period that a regraded surface is exposed
to erosional forces.
B. BJ:OLOGJ:CAL SBTTJ:Il'G
1. PLORA
1.
COMMBIl"l' :
The discussion regarding the lack of potential
for
the rare plant species Cut-leaved
Evening
Primrose
(Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantaao Dusilla)
contained on Pages V-IS and V-19, appears to be unsupported due
to the documented fact that these species prefer dry fields and
clearings with sandy soils as indicated in the Draft EIS. The
Draft EIS should indicate what efforts were made to identify the
presence or absence of these species on the site. (2)
REPLY:
Although the two species, cut-leaved Evening-
Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) (U) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantaao
Dusilla) (U), prefer dry fields and open areas, these species
were last observed in the vicinity of the site in 1924-1925. At
90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the Macari at Laurel site potential habitats for these two
species does theoretically exist within the old field areas.
However, these areas of the site have been exposed to extensive
prior agricultural utilization with extensive, continuous
regradation, since the last sighting in the general area of the
two species in question. As described within the cultural
resource inventory report for the site (Appendix B of the
D.E.I.S.), regradation included clearing of fields, removal of
tree stumps with dynamite, and cultivation until after 1967.
Consequently, the old field areas have been exposed to
significant regrading activities in the form of active farming
since the early 1920's, when the two rare species, mentioned
above, were reported from the region. It is therefore possible
that previous long term activities within the present open field
areas of the site eliminated the potential presence of these
species at the site. In addition, neither of the two species
have been noted at the site during the on-site field visits by
professional botanists.
2. COMMENT: The document indicates that the proposed action
will incorporate the use of indigenous woody species for
replanting within a "strategic replanting schedule". We support
the use of native plantings, and request that additional
information describing proposed landscaping species and their
replanting schedule be incorporated in the document. (3)
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RBPLY: The replanting of indigenous shrubs will utilize
to the maximum extent possible specimens removed from the site
during the various stages of the regrading process. These
specimens will be replanted as quickly as possible. Prior to
the onset of the regrading process seeds from the vegetative
species at the Macari at Laurel site can be collected, for later
use during the replanting process. In addition, some of the
species observed at the site are available from commercial
sources (Blumer, 1990), as described in further detail under
Section II: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
3. COKKBRT: The DEIS should include more stringent measures
to minimize the impact of the Project on existing vegetation and
wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further
minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and
wildlife corridors. (11)
RBPLY: The proposed action will leave a significant
portion of the original vegetation within each lot untouched,
thereby minimizing impacts upon existing flora and fauna;
low-maintenance turf will be used, thus minimizing the need for
fertilizer use; and the clustered layout of the proposed action
will ensure that within the site, areas of preserved original
vegetation will be situated in large islands, interconnected by
corridors of preserved vegetation. The only discontinuities of
these connecting corridors appear where these are intersected by
92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
the proposed roadway system (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.).
Furthermore, the preserved oriqinal veqetation within each lot
will be situated adjacent to these islands and corridors of open
space, thereby optimizinq the amount of contiquous open space.
A potential, additional mitiqative measure could possibly be to
require that no fences be erected alonq the individual lot
boundaries, adjacent to the desiqnated open space areas of the
Macari at Laurel subdivision.
In particular, the Modified Cluster Alternative (Plate 3)
will preserve 79.7% of the site's oriqinal veqetative habitat.
This mitigation can be achieved by site covenants includinq rear
yard buffers, lawn area percentage (ie., 6.9% site), landscaping
with indiqenous species, etc.
PRESBWATBR 1fBTLUlDS
1. COHKBNT: paqe V-19 to V-21. Siqnificant discussion is
provided regarding the use of soil stabilization techniques to
minimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from
adjacent development areas. These mitiqation measures cause
effort to be expended in implementation, enforcement and
monitoring in order to approach some success of mitigation.
Avoidance of steep slope areas in proximity to wetlands is
recommended as mitigation as previously indicated. (2)
REPLY: As stated above a detailed erosion-control plan
could be submitted to the Town of Southold prior to final site
plan approval. In qeneral, the erosion-control measures will
include immediate hydroseedinq or mulchinq (e.g., with moist
straw), selective coverinq with filter fabric, strategic
emplacement of rows of securely staked straw bale dikes, silt
93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
screens, filter fabric attached to a wire fence, filter fabric
on straw bales, as well as gravel and earth berms within
sensitive portions of the site.
These erosion control measures
will especially be employed along the perimeter of all sensitive
areas (e.g., freshwater wetlands/ponds and areas of steep
slopes) .
These measures will require periodic maintenance,
including the removal of any trapped sediment. Replanting with
indigenous shrubs, low-maintenance turf or freshly cut, anchored
sod, and mulching with coarse bark or other stable materials
will
provide long-term stabilization of
regraded
areas.
Timing of actual regrading will be planned carefully, and small
areas will be exposed to regrading at any given time.
Within
the individual lots, the clearing envelope will be situated as
far away from any sensitive areas, e.g., steep slopes and
freshwater wetlands, as possible.
2.
COIIMBR'l' :
V-29. The responses to Recommendations 8, 9,
10, and 11 do not address the recommendations. (1)
REPLY:
The D.E.I.S. text, Page V-29 has been changed to
the following:
* Recommendation 8: Retain vegetational diversity to the
extent feasible, because many studies have demonstrated a direct
relationship between vegetational diversity and avian diversity.
It is not necessary to maintain high diversity in each separate
management unit as long as there is diversity among different
units. Grazing reduces diversity by removing or greatly
reducing one or more of the important components of the forest
vegetation;
94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vegetational diversity will be ensured within the areas of
preserved original vegetation of the site by leaving these
presently diverse areas undisturbed by human
trespassing.
Grazing by domesticated animals within these areas will not be
permitted.
If required by the Town of Southold, the old field
areas could be exposed to periodic plowing to prevent these
areas from reverting to upland forest by natural succession.
* Recommendation 9: Pending conclusion of more definitive
studies on minimum habitat area requirements of various avian
species, think in terms of 2,500 contiguous acres of forest
canopy as a desirable goal to preserve most or all of the avian
species pool;
The relatively limited extent of the Macari at Laurel site,
i.e., 63.6 acres total area, prevents within the boundaries of
this site the preservation of larger areas as described within
Recommendation
9.
However, strategically planned
public
acquisition by, e.g., Suffolk County or Town of Southold, could
preserve larger parcels within the region.
These parcels could
be interconnected by the corridors of preserved
original
vegetation on developed and undeveloped properties, located
between the larger publicly acquired parcels.
Thus, careful
planning by local agencies such as the Town of Southold and
Suffolk County is necessary in order to ensure the preservation
of larger areas of open space.
* Recommendation 10: In smaller tracts (down to 5 acres or
less) it is beneficial to maintain the maximum contiguous
woodland with the least amount of edge;
95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
By utilizing a clustered layout, the proposed action will
preserve relatively large "islands" of open space.
These
islands will be interconnected by natural corridors, only
interrupted in four locations by the proposed interdevelopmental
roadway
system.
In addition, within individual lots
a
significant amount of original vegetation will be preserved by
the limited extent of the planned clearing envelopes. The areas
of original vegetation preserved within individual lots are
located adjacent to the larger islands of open space, thereby
optimizing
the amount of contiguous original
vegetation,
preserved with the construction of the proposed action.
* Recommendation 11: Management units that approach a square
are much more effective in preserving forest-interior birds than
are long, narrow ones - especially when managed tracts are
small. The portions of a forest that are most beneficial to
neotropical migrants are several hundred meters or more away
from the forest edge;
The planned open space at the Macari at Laurel site will
maximize the individual areas while still providing connecting
corridors between them wherever possible.
Thus, the preserved
open space areas, although not square in shape, optimizes the
preservation of environmentally sensitive portions of the site,
such as freshwater wetlands, surface water areas, and areas of
steep slopes. In addition, significant areas of original upland
forest will be preserved together with areas of old field
vegetation, thereby ensuring the continued diversity of habitats
at the site.
96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
COJDIBII'1' :
V-30. The responses to Recommendations 13 and
14 do not address the recommendations. (1)
RBPLY: The D.E.I.S. text of Page V-30 has been changed to
the following:
* Recommendation 13: In any management plan consider the
disruptive effects of other projects such as existing or
proposed super highways, impoundments, transmission line
corridors, or sewer lines. Check with appropriate agencies on
the timing of new construction, to avoid inadvertent loss of a
critical area at the wrong time;
Any construction activity at the site for the proposed action
will be carefully planned to minimize the disturbance to
existing wildlife.
Thus, construction during prime breeding
time (e.g., May-June) could be avoided.
In addition, on a
larger scale,
strategic planning by involved agencies is
necessary in order to coordinate the scheduling of separate
projects, in order to minimize the damage to existing wildlife
in the area.
* Recommendation 14: with reference to recommendation 13,
provide mitigation planting as far in advance of the impending
disturbance as possible;
Any construction activity at the site for the proposed action
will be carefully planned to minimize the disturbance to
existing wildlife.
Thus, the replanting of indigenous shrubs
will follow as closely as possible any regrading activities. In
addition, the likely development schedule of the site involves
97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the construction of a model home, and subsequent construction of
dwellings in response to demand. Consequently, the site will be
regraded in steps. It is not likely to be possible to provide
replanting in advance, since the areas have to be cleared before
replanting can occur, and the proposed action does not intend to
alter any of the existing habitats, such as the old field
vegetation, by replanting with (e.g.) upland forested specimens.
4. COMKEHT: Page V-23 to V-31. The fifteen (15)
recommendations excerpted from Robbins, 1979 are valuable tools
toward retaining habitat viability. It is suggested that Lot 18
be relocated in order to include the area in the contiguous open
space as a means of better conforming to these recommendations.
This has the benefit of increasing the buffer from the eastern
wetlands feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas,
providing additional old field and forest habitat (with
associated ecotones), and providing a wider linkage through the
LILCO easement to open space lands to the south. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted but it is felt that
strategic placement of the house slated for Lot 18 can minimize
adverse environmental impacts due to the sensitivity of the lot
itself (Figure 3).
98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. FAun
1. COMMENT: The DEIS does not, but should, include the
results of a recent on-site field survey and specify the date of
that survey. In this regard, the DEIS fails to adequately
address the impact of the Project on the wildlife which occupy
the wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake. These wetlands are
directly connected to the on-site pond adjacent to Laurel Lake.
For example, the great blue heron has been observed in the
Laurel Lake wetlands, but does not appear to be mentioned in the
DEIS. (11)
REPLY: The D.E.I.S. includes the results of on-site
floral/faunal field surveys. with respect to the wildlife
occupying the freshwater wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake, the
proposed action will preserve all on-site freshwater wetlands
and associated surface water areas, as well as required buffer
zones around these. In addition, the proposed areas of
preserved open space are especially concentrated within the
southern portion of the site. Thus, no construction or
regrading will occur within the most sensitive areas near Laurel
Lake (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.). In conclusion, the D.E.I.S.
describes observed and potential wildlife at the site for the
proposed action. Although not observed at the Macari at Laurel
site, it is possible that the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias),
occasionally utilizes the site, such as for roosting purposes.
99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. HYDROLOGIC SBTTIII'G
1. DRAIDGB
1. COKMBII'T: We support the proposed action's incorporation
of recharge areas which are designed to minimize site excavation
and structural modification. We would recommend, however, that
design details including landscaping and erosion measures
(thrust blocks, headwall details, etc.) be provided for review.
(3)
REPLY: Prior to final site plan approval specific plans
concerning the construction of the proposed recharge basins will
be submitted, if required by the Town of Southold. However, in
the nearby Town of Brookhaven specific recommendations for the
replanting of recharge areas exist (Appendix H). It is possible
that some or all of this information could be applied to the
construction and replanting of recharge basins at the Macari at
Laurel site, if acceptable to the Town of Southold Board of
Trustees.
2. COKMBII'T: While we commend the applicant for leaving a
100' buffer between development and wetlands we would like to
know if the drainage pattern of the wetlands at the site will be
disturbed with the proposed development. We have not found this
answer in the DEIS. Since the wetlands contain endangered plant
species, we would like to see if there is any possibility of
further protecting by shifting development as far away as
100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
possible from them. We believe a tighter cluster away from
these areas would achieve this. We also would like to take the
applicant up on his offer to construct leaching pools for each
catch basin in order to prevent any potential overland flow
encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. (5)
RBPLY: The proposed action is a relative tight cluster,
placing the proposed dwelling units at an optimal distance from
the freshwater wetlands areas of the site. Although the
boundaries of some of the lots are located within 100 feet of
the freshwater wetlands, the planned individual clearing
envelopes will be minimized thereby ensuring the optimal
preservation of original vegetation within each lot.
Due to the extremely varied topography at the site for the
proposed action, the general contributing drainage areas to the
freshwater wetlands areas include major portions of the site
(Figure 4). However, construction of the 27 single-family
dwelling units is planned generally within the more level
portions of the site. In addition, an extensive system of dry
wells, catch basins and two (2) recharge basins will be utilized
on the site in order to collect nearly 100% of the precipitation
for the site allowing for point recharge to the groundwater
(Plate 1). In addition, near the freshwater wetlands areas of
the site individual leaching pools for each catch basin could be
constructed, in order to prevent any potential overland flow
encroachment into the freshwater wetlands.
101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 4
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS
I
I
Ii:: ~ It
E~ ; Q_
." "'. it ~f
;!!ij I..,il i'::t
IlIli' ~e~ ~~~
iil,l -iel ~~~
:1111, " I ~ ~..
. ~,r~t.i~~
~"'>
\
,.
\
I
102
III
't:I
'>
i5
III
ell
CI
.E
CI
..
o
.,
~,
~.,
,
~.
!
~
1t
.;
u.
o
o
....
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. GROmmnTBR
1. COMKBNT: Discharge from septic systems in a core
watershed area is also a concern. The section on the DElS
describing the impacts associated with effluent discharge seems
to indicate there will be impacts that could not be mitigated
appropriately. Therefore we would suggest that a groundwater
monitoring program to provide early indication of water quality
problems should be incorporated into the plan. (5)
REPLY: The proposed action will result in an overall
nitrogen recharge value of approximately 4.48 - 4.80 mg/L. This
nitrogen concentration will likely reach the underlying aquifer,
which presently has a nitrogen content of from <0.5 to 0.8 mg/L
(Appendix D) . However, the sanitary waste produced from the
occupied 27 single-family dwelling units is a point source and
septic discharge from this source may not initially mix
completely with waters recharged from other areas of the site.
Thus, the individual sanitary systems will be located as far
away from the freshwater wetlands areas as possible, minimizing
any potential adverse impacts.
Prior to final site plan approval, the location and
possible installation of any water quality monitoring wells
required by the Town of Southold could be decided upon.
103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. COMMENT: In general, the Authority has no objection to
residential subdivisions on two acre (R-SO) parcels. However,
the cluster proposal shown on Plate 1, which would allow for 27
units on 40,000 sq. ft. (min.) lots and maintain approximately
33.1 acres of open space, appears to be a better opportunity for
both the Authority and the Town. The Town will gain by the
permanent dedication of open space and the Authority would like
to be deeded a parcel large enough for the future construction
of a well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority, based
on land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection
radius, would require the relocation of the drainage area out of
the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See
enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1). (6)
REPLY: Conversation with Mr. Dassler (SCWAi 516-563-0317)
resulted in information on the requirements for a well field on
a site: There must be a setback of at least 200 feet from the
nearest sanitary discharge system. The SCWA usually requires at
least 4 acres of contiguous dedicated land for a well field and
this area should be an elevated, or "up gradient" area so that
overland flow and groundwater flow would not intersect the field
wells.
The Macari At Laurel site displays relatively higher
elevations within various peripheral areas such as within its
northwest corner. Although abundant land can be left untouched,
the most sensitive areas (ie., wetlands and kettles with moderate
104
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to locally steep slopes) run through the central portion of the
site and thus, housing must be positioned outside of these areas
in the more favorable localities for a well field (Plate 3). It
would be most difficult to provide a 4 acre locality that meets
the needs of a SCWA well field, as defined above.
3. COMHENT: The DEIS also does not appear to analyze the
cumulative effect of nitrogen levels caused by the Project and
projected ambient nitrogen levels in the groundwater in the
build year for the Project. The DEIS also fails to adequately
address mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen from lawn
fertilizers and chloride from road salt on the groundwater,
private residential wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake.
Eutrophication of the Lake as a result of nutrient loading also
should be analyzed. Measures to mitigate the adverse impact of
fertilizers, such as restrictions on the amount of lawn areas
and the prohibition of the use of fertilizers should be
discussed. The DEIS also should address mitigative measures and
alternatives to road salt, such as limitations on the use of
salt, and/or the use of sand and gravel. (11)
REPLY: As described above within section IV-C-3: SANITARY
WASTE, the proposed action will result in a nitrogen budget of
approximately 4.48 mg/L (based on a turf fertilization rate of
25 lbs/15,OOO square feet) or 4.80 mg/L (based on a turf
105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fertilization rate of 2.3 Ibs/1,000 square feet). These
calculations incorporate the background nitrogen content of the
potential water source, which was assumed to have the same
nitrogen content, i.e., 6.45 mg/L, as the nearby municipal water
source from SCWA Distribution Area 58 (Captain Kidd). In
addition, of the approximately 1.43 mg/L (or 1.74 mg/L)
indicated from turf area, approximately 1.30 mg/L (or 1.62 mg/L)
is derived from the fertilization of lawns. Although utilizing
full fertilization values within these nitrogen budget
calculations, the proposed action plans to use low-maintenance
turf, requiring a minimum of fertilization. Finally, if
required by the Town of Southold, a possible additional
mitigative measure could be to restrict the use of on-site lawn
fertilizers. In addition, no road salt will be stored at the
site, and the use of road salt during winter months could be
lowered by the use of sand/salt mixtures, or avoided completely
by the use of sand only for deicing purposes.
3 . SAlUTARY WASTE
1. COMMENT: V-47. Documentation to support the first two
sentences on this page is not provided. (1)
REPLY: The proposed action will result in a nitrogen
budget of 4.48 mg/L (4.80 mg/L), as described above within
Section IV-C-3: SANITARY WASTE. These values are lower than the
106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
background nitrogen content of the potential water source, which
was assumed to have the same nitrogen content, i.e., 6.45 mgjL,
as the nearby municipal water source from SCWA Distribution Area
58 (Captain Kidd). Consequently, potential contamination to the
groundwater and nearby surface water of Laurel Lake is probably
relatively minor. The nitrogen recharge values of 4.48 - 4.80
mgjL are well within the limits of the 10 mgjL NYS drinking
water standard.
D. MUNICIPAL SBTTING
1. POTABLE WATBR SUPPLY
1. COKKBNT: Page V-50 indicates that water quality within
the area is within "acceptable ranges", however, page 1II-61
indicates that certain pesticides exceed allowable limits. This
should be clarified.
The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 mgjl and
aldicarbs and carbofuran exceed the limit indicates that water
treatment will almost certainly be required. Treatment
techniques are outlined in the Draft EIS; however, the Final EIS
should outline the approval process for water source of the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services under Article 4 of
the Sanitary Code. (2)
REPLY: As stated in section III-C-2: Water Quality of the
D.E.I.S. Hydrogeologic Zone IV, in which the Macari at Laurel
107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
site is situated, locally has marginal water quality, mainly in
areas underlying farms.
Agricultural fertilizers are a major
source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork (Long
Island Regional Planning Board, 1978).
Approximately 600 ft. south of the site lies Laurel Lake a
30 acre body of surface water and associated wetlands (i.e.,
NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Area M-2;
Appendix B-2).
Because
of its low nitrate levels it is considered a potential drinking
water source and has been deemed a Class "A" lake (SCDHS, 1987).
Specifically, Class "A" waters are described in Part 701:
"Classifications and Standards of Quality and Purity" of the
NYSDEC Water Quality Regulations (NYSCRR, Title 6, Chapter X,
Parts 700-705, 1986) as follows:
"Class "A" surface waters are a source of water supply
for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes and
any other usages. The waters, if subjected to
approved treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration and disinfection, with
additional treatment if necessary to reduce naturally
present impurities, will meet New York State
Department of Health drinking water standards and will
be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water
purposes."
Specifically, the classification of fresh surface waters
does not include any information regarding the content of
nitrate, but is based upon such items as coliform bacteria, pH,
Total Dissolved Solids, and Dissolved Oxygen.
Together with nitrate certain agricultural
pesticides
have become a major source of groundwater contamination on the
North Fork of Long Island (SCDHS; Baier and RObbins, 1982). The
108
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
carbamate pesticides, aldicarb and carbofuran, have created the
greatest problem and have been detected in 30 percent of the
private wells tested in the farming areas.
In the Town of
Southold approximately 16% of the private wells have shown
concentrations greater than the NYSDOH 7 ppb aldicarb guideline
and 6% of the wells tested displayed levels exceeding the 15 ppb
carbofuran guideline (SCDHS, 1987).
Municipal water or sewage facilities do not exist in the
immediate vicinity of the site. The existing homes adjacent to
Laurel Lake, south of the site, rely on private wells for
drinking water. Water quality information from private wells in
the area is not public information and therefore, is not readily
available for this report.
While SCDHS or USGS observation wells or other municipal
water supply wells do not exist in the immediate location of the
site, one well exists approximately 1,500 feet north of the site
(U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986). This well, #S 53333, (Figure 1) is
completed at 74 feet within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives
an indication of the quality of groundwater in the region (Table
1 of the D.E.I.S.).
Well #S 53333 was sampled 34 times from
10-31-74 to 06-10-87 (personal communication, u.S.G.s., Syosset,
Beth McNew). Results of water analyses are as follows:
Parameter
Date
Value
Total Nitrate
10-22-75
05-03-76
02-01-77
05-03-78
4.5 mg/L
3.2 mg/L
4.4 mg/L
7.1 mg/L
109
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
09-06-79
09-06-79
02-27-80
01-24-81
02-18-81
06-30-81
02-01-82
05-25-82
08-19-82
02-25-83
09-07-83
03-21-84
07-16-85
06-17-86
12-10-86
03-18-87
06-10-87
3.1 mq/L
3.4 mq/L
2 . 7 mq/L
2.0 mq/L
1. 8 mq/L
1. 5 mq/L
1. 4 mq/L
0.8 mq/L
1. 3 mq/L
0.9 mq/L
1. 3 mq/L
1. 7 mq/L
10.0 mq/L
<0.05 mq/L
O. 12 mq/L
0.09 mq/L
0.38 mg/L
Consequently, although the total nitrogen nitrate level
exceeded the maximum permitted level of 6.0 mg/L allowable for
private water supplies, according to Article 4 Suffolk County
Sanitary Code (SCDHS, 1990) the average value is significantly
lower (i.e., approximately 2.464 mg/L) and lies within the
acceptable
range.
For
further
details
regarding
the
requirements for private water supply see below.
For well #S 53333 the carbamate pesticides,
Aldicarb
(including breakdown by-prOducts) and Carbofuran, are found in
Table 2 of the D.E.I.S.
Accordinq to the SCDHS (1982), limits
of Aldicarb (Total) and Carbofuran in drinking water should not
53333 gave the following results:
exceed 7 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively.
Analyses from well #S
Parameter
~
Total Aldicarb 08-19-82
02-25-83
09-07-83
07-16-85
110
Value
<1.0 ppb
<1. 0 ppb
<1. 0 ppb
<1.0 ppb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carbofuran
08-19-82
02-25-83
09-07-83
07-16-85
<1.00
1.00
2.00
27.0
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Consequently, the total aldicarb level did not exceed the
maximum permitted level, carbofuran apparently did exceed the
limits once~ however, this value was so significantly above any
other values, it is open for question, pending more recent
laboratory results.
Values measured in Well #5 53333 water quality samples,
regarding chlorides and combined iron and manganese, were as
follows:
Parameter
~
10-31-74
10-22-75
10-22-75
05-03-76
02-01-77
05-03-78
09-06-79
09-06-79
02-27-80
01-24-81
01-29-81
02-18-81
06-30-81
02-01-82
05-25-82
08-19-82
02-25-83
09-07-83
03-21-84
07-16-85
06-17-86
07-29-86
12-10-86
03-18-87
06-10-87
Value
Chlorides (diss.)
20
23
10
13
20
7
11
12
11
12
12
9.8
9.4
6.6
7.5
9.0
9.0
10
8.0
34
24
36
23
25
26
111
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Parameter ~ Value
Combined Iron 10-22-75 330 ug/L
& Manganese 10-22-75 330 ug/L
05-03-76 220 ug/L
02-01-77 320 ug/L
09-06-79 <260 ug/L
02-27-80 <130 ug/L
07-29-86 600 ug/L
Consequently, the water sampled from Well #S 53333
well below the allowable standard of 100 mg/L of chlorides
1.0 mg/L of combined iron and manganese, respectively,
private well systems (SCDHS, 1990).
Furthermore, the results of water quality analyses of the
site indicate a shallow groundwater quality for nitrogen at a
range of <0.5-0.8 mg/L (Appendix D). However, local SCWA
municipal water supply, i.e., Distribution Area 58 (Captain
Kidd) (SCWA, 1990), are presented within Figure 5. According
to these analyses the average nitrate level of the local
municipal water source is 6.45 mg/Li the average chloride level
is 26.3 mg/Li and the average combined iron and manganese level
is 0.04 mg/L.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4:
"Water Supply" of the Sanitary Code (1983) and the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services Division of Environmental
Quality (1990) "Standards and Procedures for Private Water
Systems" describe the approval process for private water
sources. The procedure includes the following steps:
lies
and
for
112
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5 WATER QUALITY
OF MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCE
Distribution Area 58
Maltituck (Capt. Kidd)
Range of Readings No.
High Low Avg. Tests
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
6.9 6.7 6.8 2
0.03 0.03 0.03 2
0.01 NO 0.01 2
30.2 22.4 26.3 2
129. 80. 105. 2
37. 29. 33. 2
11.0 9.0 10.0 2
NO NO. NO 2
6.55 6.34 6.45 2
NO NO NO 2
22.2 14.8 18.5 2
356. 245. 301. 2
215. 164. 190. 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2 -
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
10.2 10.0 10.1 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
0.6 NO NO 2
0.7 NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
NO NO NO 2
(SCWA, 1990)
113
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(1). Initial Submissions:
The Applicant must follow relevant SCDHS procedures. The site
plans must indicate the location of all cesspools, septic tanks,
washinq machine drywells, sewer lines, storm drains, catch
basins, drainaqe ditches, sumps, and recharge basins within 150
feet of the Applicant's property line;
(2). Access to Public Water:
Evidence must be submitted that no public water supply is
available, i.e., that a municipal source either does not have
the capacity or a water main is not located within 150 feet of
the Applicant's property line for a sinqle-family residential
parcel, and within a distance of 250 feet of a multi-residential
parcel;
(3). Approval to Construct:
No construction will occur without permission from the SCDHS.
The SCDHS will review the proposed well locations, may also
require water quality testinq on lots located in water sensitive
areas; SCDHS approval to construct can be submitted to the
municipal buildinq department as part of the application for
buildinq permit;
(4). Test Wells:
Test wells are required by the SCDHS for realty subdivisions and
developments (minimum of 2 wells plus 1 additional well per 10
acres or 10 subdivision lots). A test well may be required for
individual buildinq sites located near the shoreline or in other
areas that the SCDRS determines that the quantity or quality of
available water may be questionable. The Department must
approve (and may specify) the location and depth of a test well
or wells. Test wells should be constructed in accordance with
SCDHS standards if their eventual use for potable water supply
is anticipated. Subdivision test wells must meet the followinq
criteria in order to allow the use of private wells:
(a) Minimum well depth is 50 feet; screens may be
installed at 40 feet;
(b) All orqanic and inorqanic chemicals for the test
welles) must comply with the New York State Part 5
Maximum contaminant Levels and/or quidelines with the
exception of: Nitrates (maximum 6.0 mq/L); Chlorides
(maximum 100 mq/L); and COmbined Iron and Manqanese
(maximum 1.0 mq/L) ;
114
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(c) If depth and quality in the test wells complies with
the SCDHS's criteria approval of the use of private
wells will be granted~
(d) If the water quality does not meet the SCDHS standards
the use of private wells will not be approved.
However, the Applicant may propose: (1) Extending
public water to the site~ (2) Construct an
acceptable on-site community water system. An
alternate option is to install a test well on each lot
of the subdivision or development to determine if
acceptable water is available. Approval of the
subdivision is contingent upon the water quality
results of the individual lot test wells. If
unacceptable water quality is found at any individual
lot, that lot(s) will not be approved as a building
lot and shall be so noted on the subdivision map.
Unsatisfactory water quality test results for both
subdivision test wells and individual lot test wells will be
deemed as having demonstrated that the aquifer segment is
contaminated and unsuitable as a drinking water source.
Deepening of the well will only be allowed if the Applicant can
provide satisfactory evidence to the SCDHS that an acceptable
deeper aquifer exists.
It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine the
most suitable location and depth for development of a water
supply. Test wells are to be installed in strict conformance
with SCDHS requirements. At or before the time of sampling the
well driller shall provide the Department with a signed
certification containing well log data, e.g., depth of well,
groundwater elevation, and other pertinent data required by the
SCDHS. The Applicant must contact the SCDHS to arrange a
sampling time once the test welles) have been installed. A
SCDHS representative will be present during sampling and water
quality analyses will be performed by the SCDHS.
If water quantity or quality are found inadequate,
subdivisions will be required to provide public water, while
water treatment for individual lots and developments (minor
subdivisions consisting of 2,3, or 4 contiguous parcels) will be
considered by the SCDHS on a case-by-case basis. An approval to
construct will be granted only after the SCDHS has approved the
proposed treatment system.
(5). Water System Construction:
Construction and disinfection of the entire water supply system
must be performed in conformance with the SCDHS's standards.
115
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(6). Inspection:
The Applicant must notify the SCDRS after installation of the
well and well lateral, prior to the backfilling.
(7). Water Quality Analysis:
All private water system wells must be sampled prior to issuance
of a final approval.
(8). Unacceptable Water Quality:
In cases
Applicant
new well.
where unacceptable water quality
may be required to deepen the well,
is recorded the
or to install a
(9). Water Treatment:
In cases where the SCDHS has determined that water treatment is
necessary, equipment must be installed in accordance with the
SCDHS's standards. Installation of water treatment unit may be
done only after approval by the SCDHS.
(10). Covenants:
An individual lot, development or subdivision approved
private wells is required to have a covenant filed with
County Clerk satisfactory to the SCDHS upon all parcels,
described further within these procedures.
with
the
as
If the SCDHS determines that a water treatment system (other
than a polyphosphate feeder only) is needed, then the Applicant
must also file an additional covenant requirement with the
County Clerk.
(11). Certification:
The Applicant must provide the SCDHS a copy of the Long Island
Well Completion Report submitted to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
(12). Final Approval:
Final approval will be issued upon receipt and approval of all
required documentation. Final approval will be indicated on
copies of the final site plans, which may then be submitted to
the municipal building department as part of the application for
a certificate of occupancy.
(13). Variances:
The Suffolk County Commissioner of Health Services may grant a
variance from a specific provision of these regulations in a
116
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
particular case. The Commissioner may impose more stringent
requirements in a particular case, when necessary, to insure a
satisfactory water supply.
Consistent with Article 4, a test well (ie., community
development field) or wells (ie., individual) must be completed
to at least 50 feet and tested according to stringent collection
and testing procedures.
This type of testing has not been done
of the site.
In addition, it was felt that some soil
contamination may have produced the elevated iron and manganese
levels (Appendix D). These procedures would be followed prior to
the determination of a potable water source for the development.
3. ZONJ:NG, LAND USE, AND PLANNJ:NG AND OPEN
SPACE
1.
COMMENT:
V-56. The last sentence on this page does not
take into account fact that Town Code requires permits for
construction within 75' of a freshwater wetland. (1)
REPLY:
This comment is so noted.
The text of the
D.E.loS.
Page V-56 has been changed to
the
following:
"Similarly,
no regrading activities,
including
clearing,
cut/fill, and construction of roadways, dwelling units, or
recharge basins will occur within the regulated distance from
the freshwater wetlands areas."
2.
COMMENT:
We recommend that conditions be placed on
dedicated open space within the subdivision be clearly explained
in the document.
We encourage the Town to require that
dedicated open space be preserved in its natural state and
protected
from
any
future
Clearing,
construction,
or
development.
117
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We are particularly concerned with dedicated open space
adjacent to Laurel Lake. We believe this area has significant
potential for increased human use and disturbance after site
development, and feel strongly that the appropriate protection
of this area should be fully defined in the DEIS. Thus we
recommend that the document address any future development plans
including parking, dock facilities, boat houses, or any access
clearing.
Although we have no objection to the provision of
appropriate access in this area, we believe strongly, that
access must be carefully planned to avoid disturbance of the
site's freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake. We do not believe
that this area is an appropriate location for boat storage or
parking facilities and recommend that the Town examine the
potential long-term use of this portion of the site prior to any
approval of the proposed plan. (3) (7) (12)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action
does not plan any activities within the areas of designated open
space, indicated on the site plans (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.).
The Town of Southold has the right to regulate activities on
Laurel Lake, including the freshwater wetlands areas around it.
If the Town of Southold adopts specific regulations regarding
this matter the Applicant and any future residents and visitors
of the Macari at Laurel subdivision will comply.
118
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
COIlNlDlT :
The DEIS should contain a section which
identifies the state's coastal policies which are affected by
the proposed action.
It should address each policy so as to
indicate how the proposed action is consistent or can be made to
be consistent with the state's coastal policies.
Policy #5 - This coastal policy states that new
development should be encouraged to locate in
areas where there are adequate public services
and facilities essential to such development.
In this regard, it will be prudent for the applicant to further
explore the options of relocating the development in areas that
are more conducive to such actions. The concept of the Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR), even though, the applicant or one
of his colleagues does not singly own other property in the
school district or in the Town of Southold should be further
investigated.
The legal ramifications in attempting to apply
TDR to jointly held properties may be enormous, but the
preservation of this sensitive tract of prime watershed lands,
designated as potential "open space" should be given the
greatest consideration.
This parcel of land is invaluable in
its potential contribution for the protection preservation and
enhancement of the ground and surface water quality in the area.
Policy #14 states that activities and development
shall be undertaken so that there will be no
measurable increase in erosion at the site of such
activities or development, or at other locations.
119
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The DEIS indicates that regrading will cause slopes to be
disturbed and vegetation to be stripped from the area thus
increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation within
and without the parcel.
The DEIS does explore in enough depth,
alternatives to the grading, cutting and filling and the minimum
amount of grading that would be necessary in order to achieve
the project ends. What is the least amount of grading that would
be required to accomplish the project goals? (4)
REPLY:
The New York state Department of state Coastal
Management Program "State Coastal Policies" (1982) contains
forty-four (44) individual policies, divided into ten specific
categories (Table 1), which are enforceable on all state and
Federal
agencies
managing resources along
the
state's
coastline.
The following policies of the Coastal Management Plan
(summarized as to content) are potentially applicable to the
site for the proposed action (u.s. Department of Commerce,
1982):
policv 1. Restore, revitalize, and redevelop
and under utilized waterfront areas for commercial,
cultural, recreational and other compatible uses:
deteriorated
industrial,
This policy does not apply to the proposed action.
policv 2. Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses
and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters:
120
I
I
I POLler I
Il1lH1I!R I
1
I 2
3
Jj
I 5
6
7
I 8
9
10
11
I 12
13
14
I 15
16
17
I 1r.
19
20
21
I 22
23
I 24
25
26
I 27
28
I 29
30
31
32
I 33
34
35
I 35
37
38
I 39
40
41
42
I 1:3
44
I
I
TABLE 1
lEV TOI[ STATE COASTAL POLICIES
CATEGOJ!!'
SUBJECT ARE!
Development Policies
Fish & Wildlife
Policies
Flooding & Erosion
Policies
Recreation Policies
Historic Resource
and Visual Quality
Policies
Asricultural Lands
Pol:!.c~'
Energy & Ice
H&::l:c;eJ:lent Policies
~ater & Air Resources
Policies
Waterfront Revitalization
Water-Dependent Uses
Major Ports
Small Barbors
Public Services
Permit Procedures
Significant Habitats
Pollutants
I Recreational Resources
COJ:lmercial Fisheries
Siting of Structures
Natural Protective Features
30-Year Erosion Control Structures
No Flooding or Erosion Increases
Natural Coastal Processes
Use of Public funds
lion-Structural Control Measures
Fcon o!:lic/ Social/Envi mnment al Interests
Water Related recreation Resources
Public Foreshore
Water-Dependent Recreation/Enhanced Recreation
Uses
llultiple-U~e Develolll!!ent
Historic Preservation
Statewide Scenic Resources
Local Scenic Resources
Agricultural Lands Conservation
Energy Facilities Siting & Construction
Ice llanagement Prl:Ctices
Enerr,y Resources Development
State & Naticnal Water Quality Standl:rds
L\mp Policies/Constraints
Innovative Sanitary Waste Systems
Storm-Water Run-Off, Combined Sewers
Vessel Discharges
Dredbing & Disposal
Hazardous tlllterials Spills
Non-Point Discharees
Surface & Ground-Water Supplies
Solid Wastes Management
Industrial Discharges
State & National Air Quality Standards
Clean Air Act - Reclassification~
Acid Rain
Tidal & Freshwater Wetlands
121
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This project is not a water dependent use. Furthermore, in
accordance with current regulations of the Town of Southold
(Chapter 97: Wetlands, Code of Town of Southold, 1989) and the
New York state Department of Environmental Conservation Article
24 and Title 23 of Article 71: Freshwater Wetlands Act of the
Environmental Conservation Law (NYSDEC, 1987) the Applicant does
not plan any water dependent uses within the regulated areas
adjacent to the existing surface waters of or adjacent to the
site.
These areas will be preserved as designated open space
(Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.).
Policv 3. Further develop the state's major ports of
Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg and Oswego as centers of
commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in these port
areas, including those under the jurisdiction of state public
authorities, of land use and development which is essential to,
or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and
people:
This policy has no applicability to the proposed action.
policv 4. strengthen the economic base of smaller
areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of
traditional uses and activities which have provided such
with their unique maritime identity:
harbor
those
areas
The proposed action will develop 27 single-family dwellings
in a clustered layout, thereby preserving significant portions
of the existing open space at the site.
Thus, by using an
environmentally sensitive layout, the proposed action will while
developing the site in accordance with the current zoning
district designation optimize the preservation of the existing
122
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
scenic qualities of the site. Existing maritime identity of the
Town of Southold will not be adversely affected by the proposed
action.
policv 5.
where public
development are
Encourage the location of development in
services and facilities essential to
adequate:
areas
such
The commentator requested the further exploration by the
Applicant of options of relocating the development to areas that
are more conducive to such actions.
The Town of Southold
(Commentator #1) indicates that the Town records show the
Applicant to own property in the nearby vicinity to which the
development rights could be transferred.
Despite the fact that
the Town does not have a TOR program, TOR still is not applicable
considering the fact that the Applicant does not own any other
parcels within the Town with the same community of ownership.
policv 6.
facilitate the
locations:
Expedite permit procedures
siting of development activities
in order to
at suitable
This policy is not applicable to the proposed action except
that SEQRA time regulations are in effect.
policv 7. Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats
will be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so
as to maintain their viability as habitats:
The proposed action will not have an adverse affect on the
marine habitat.
In addition, within the site no construction
will occur within the freshwater wetlands or surface water
123
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
areas.
Furthermore, during construction strategic erosional
control measures will be implemented wherever needed on the
site, such as vegetative mulching, straw bales and silt screens.
policv 8. Protect fish and wildlife resources in
coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and
pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which
significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources:
the
other
cause
It is the intention of the Applicant to construct the
proposed action such that erosion potential will be minimized,
and considering the estimated horizontal movement of underlying
groundwater, any potential pollutants from sanitary discharge
and fertilizer use from the proposed dwellings are likely to
bypass Laurel Lake completely.
Furthermore, surface water
recharge will occur through dry wells, catch basins, and
recharge basins (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.).
Consequently, no
liquid discharge or solid waste of any kind will enter Laurel
Lake from the proposed action.
policv
resources
resources,
resources:
9. Expand recreational use
in coastal areas by increasing
supplementing existing stocks,
of fish and wildlife
access to existing
and developing new
The parcel for the proposed action is private land and
public access is unauthorized.
Laurel Lake is
currently
accessed from the existing single-family dwellings located along
its shores.
The proposed action will not encroach on Laurel
Lake and will not alter existing water quality of Laurel Lake.
124
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
policv 10. Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish
and crustacean resources in the coastal area by encouraging the
construction of new, or improvement of existing on-shore
commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the
state's seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks, and
expanding aquaculture facilities:
This policy is not applicable to the proposed action.
policv 11. Buildings and other structures will be sited
in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the
endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion:
This policy is not applicable to the proposed action, since
the Macari at Laurel site is not located within an area with
potential for flooding during a storm (FIRM).
As mentioned above extreme care has been taken to ensure
that no erosion or flooding will occur due to the proposed
action.
In addition, the proposed structures will be situated
on the portions of the site that has absolute minimal flooding
potential.
policv 12. Activities or development in the coastal area
will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources
and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural
protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands
and bluffs:
The areas to be regraded with the proposed action are
located upland from the shores of Laurel Lake and significant
designated open spaces will be preserved along any sensitive
areas of surface water and freshwater wetlands, in accordance
with Town and state regulations.
125
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
policv 13. The construction or reconstruction of erosion
protection structures shall ~e undertaken only if they have a
reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least
thirty years as demonstrated in design and construction
standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs:
Should the construction of any retaining walls be necessary
within any parts of the site, then these walls will be designed
for long term stability. Erosional preventative techniques such
as straw bales, silt fences and vegetative mulching will
minimize erosional potential during construction.
Land surface
covering such as impervious surfaces and landscaping will
minimize erosion following construction.
In addition, the
planned storm water drainage system (i.e., dry wells, catch
basins, and recharge basins) will minimize the amount of surface
erosion at the site.
policv 14. Activities and development including the
construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures,
shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase
in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or
development, or at other locations:
Erosional structures such as potential retaining walls,
internal drainage with dry wells, catch basins, and recharge
basins will insure maximum protection to the site following
construction.
Preventative methods during construction are
outlined in detail in the mitigation section of the D.E.I.S. on
topography, soils and drainage.
Commentator #4 requests information regarding the least
126
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
amount of grading that would be required to accomplish the
project goals.
In general, since the proposed dwelling units
will be constructed within the most level portions of each lot,
the amount of cut and fill required to prepare the site for the
construction of the 27 individual single-family dwelling units
will probably be within 2 - 3 feet.
policv 15. Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal
waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural
coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent
to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner which will
not cause an increase in erosion of such land:
This policy is not applicable to the proposed action.
policv 16. Public funds shall only be used for erosion
protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and
new development which requires a location within or adjacent to
an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing
development: and only where the public benefits outweigh the
long term monetary and other costs including the potential for
increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective
features:
This policy is not applicable to the proposed action.
policv 17. Non-structural measures to minimize damage to
natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall
be used whenever possible:
The strategic location of the proposed building units as
well as the preservation of open space buffers, concentrated
around environmentally sensitive areas, throughout the site,
will minimize damage to the natural resources.
127
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policv 18. To safeguard the vital economic, social and
environmental interests of the state and of its citizens,
proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full
consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which
the state has established to protect valuable coastal resource
areas:
The proposed action will construct a 27 unit single-family
development, thereby creating additional jobs for construction
workers in the area, while not damaging the environmentally
sensitive areas at or adjacent to the site.
policv 19.
types of access
facilities:
Protect, maintain, and increase the level and
to public water-related recreation resources and
The site is in private ownership and thus, no public access
exists on the site.
However, Laurel Lake is currently and will
remain accessible from the several existing
single-family
residences located along the northern shore of the lake.
policv 20. Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to
lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge
that are publicly-owned shall be provided and it shall be
provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses:
See reply to previous policy.
will
over
policv 21. Water dependent and water enhanced recreation
be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority
non-water related uses along the coast:
128
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed action is not water dependent and water
enhanced recreation is encouraged and facilitated by it. By
preserving significant designated open space areas near all
areas of surface water at or adjacent to the site, major parts
of the scenic vistas will be preserved and the residential
building units will blend into the surroundings.
Policv 22. Development when located adjacent to the shore
will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is
compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such
activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the
development:
The proposed action will not develop those portions of the
site immediately adjacent to any surface water areas, nor are
any water related activities planned to take place.
policv 23. Protect, enhance, and restore structures,
districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the
history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the state, its
communities, or the Nation:
According to the Stage II Archaeological Investigation, since
no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were recovered
during this phase of study, no additional work is recommended in
associated with this project (Appendix K).
policv 24. Prevent impairment of scenic resources of
statewide significance:
See policy #25.
129
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policv 25. Protect, restore or enhance natural and manmade
resources which are not identified as being of statewide
significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality
of the coastal area:
By preserving major portions of the site,
and thereby
providing buffers throughout, significant portions of the
existing scenic vistas will be preserved and the residential
building units will attempt, to he extent possible, to blend
into the surroundings.
Policv 26. Conserve and protect agricultural lands in
the State's coastal area:
This policy will not be met with the proposed action, which
will construct 27 single-family dwelling units in a clustered
layout
in accordance with the existing
zoning
district
designation for the site.
Farmland represents only one factor
of significance on the site (approximately 50% prime farm land),
while other features such as wetlands associated with a string of
kettle holes and part of the shore of Laurel Lake are also
important.
However, farming has not occured on the site for
several years and economic constraints may make this type of use
for the site impractical.
POlicy 27. Decisions on the siting and construction of
major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on
public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the
environment, and the facility's need for a shore front location:
This policy is not applicable.
Policy 28. Ice management practices
with the production of hydroelectric power,
fish and wildlife and their habitats, or
erosion or floOding.
shall not interfere
damage significant
increase shoreline
This policy is not applicable.
130
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
policv 29. Encourage the development of energy resources
on the outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water
bodies, and ensure the environmental safety of such activities:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 30. Municipal, industrial, and commercial
discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and
hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State
and National water quality standards:
No liquid or solid waste will be discharged into Laurel
Lake from the proposed action. Surface runoff will be captured
by the extensive storm water drainage system (i.e., dry wells,
catch basins, and recharge basins) planned for the Macari at
Laurel site. In addition, the direction of groundwater movement
under the site will most likely prevent recharged water from the
site from reaching Laurel Lake.
policv 31. State coastal area policies and management
objectives of approved local Waterfront Revitalization Programs
will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications
and while modifying water quality standards: however, those
waters already overburdened with contaminants will be recognized
as being a development constraint:
The proposed action will not contribute significantly to
any contamination of the surface waters of Laurel Lake, as
discussed above.
policv 32. Encourage the use of alternative or innovative
sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of
conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of
the existing tax base of these communities:
131
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed action plans the construction of individual
sanitary systems for each lot. Prior to final site plan
approval the Applicant will obtain all necessary permits for the
septic discharge systems from the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services.
Policv 33. Best
ensure the control of
overflows draining into
management practices will be used to
storm water runoff and combined sewer
coastal waters:
Erosional structures such as potential retaining walls,
internal drainage with drywells, catch basins, and recharge
basins will insure maximum protection to the site following
construction.
The proposed storm water drainage system will be
adequately dimensioned in accordance with existing regulations.
Policv 34. Discharge of waste materials into coastal
waters from vessels subject to State jurisdiction into coastal
waters will be limited so as to protect significant fish and
wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas:
This policy does not apply to the proposed action.
policv 35. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal
waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State
dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and
wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective
features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 36. Activities related to
storage of petroleum and other hazardous
conducted in a manner that will prevent or
the shipment and
materials will be
at least minimize
132
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
spills into
undertaken
restitution
occur:
coastal waters: all practicable efforts will be
to expedite the cleanup of such discharges: and
for damages will be required when these spills
This policy is not applicable.
policv 37. Best management practices will be utilized to
m1n1mize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics
and eroded soils into coastal waters:
The completed development will be designed to have internal
storm water drainage leading into drywells, catch basins, and
recharge basins.
strategical location of the planned clearing
envelopes within the most level portions of each lot long term
will further lower the risk for soils erosion from these areas.
The replanting schedule for the proposed action requires little
or no fertilization or application of pesticides, thereby
lowering the amount of nutrient recharged to the underlying
groundwater. Furthermore, water recharged at the site to the
aquifer from the site is unlikely to reach Laurel Lake.
policv 38. The quality and quantity of
groundwater supplies, will be conserved
particularly where such waters constitute the
source of water supply:
surface water and
and protected,
primary or sole
The proposed action will result in a nitrogen budget of
approximately 4.48 mg/L (based upon a turf fertilization rate of
25 lbs/15,000 square feet) to 4.80 mg/L (based upon a rate of
2.3 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.).
This value lies significantly below the
average nitrate content of 6.45 mg/L of the nearby municipal
133
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water source.
Thus under the assumption that the water quality
of the Upper Glacial aquifer underlyinq the site is comparable
to the nearby municipal source, the nitroqen content of water
recharqed from the site will actually be lower than the content
of the aquifer.
Recharqed water from the Macari at Laurel site
is unlikely to reach Laurel Lake,
due to the estimated
southeasterly direction of horizontal flow in the underlyinq
aquifer.
In addition, as outlined above, surface water runoff
from the proposed action will be captured by the strateqically
placed storm
water drainaqe system (i.e., dry wells, catch
basins, and recharqe basins).
policv 39. The transport, storaqe, treatment and
disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within
coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to
protect qroundwater and surface water supplies, siqnificant fish
and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important aqricultural
lands and scenic resources:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 40. Effluent discharqed from major steam electric
qeneratinq and industrial facilities into coastal waters will
not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform
to state water quality standards:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 41.
will not cause
violated:
Land use or development in the coastal area
National or state air quality standards to be
This policy is not applicable.
134
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
policv 42. Coastal Manaqement policies will be
considered if the state reclassifies land areas pursuant to the
prevention of siqnificant deterioration requlations of the
Federal Clean Air Act:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 43. Land use or development in the coastal area
must not cause the qeneration of siqnificant amounts of the acid
rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates:
This policy is not applicable.
policv 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater
wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas:
The proposed action will preserve the freshwater wetlands
and surface water areas of the site in accordance with current
requlations
as mandated by the NYS DEC and
Town
Code
requlations.
4.
COMMERT :
Similarly, the amount of impervious surfaces
that will be created from roof tops, driveways, and the roadway
which will increase surface runoff and hence erosion and
sedimentation should be analyzed in qreater detail to determine
if and where impervious surfaces can be reduced or eliminated.
Is it absolutely necessary that driveways be constructed of
impervious materials or can pervious or semi-pervious ones be
substituted?
An analysis of this component can reduce the
amount of impervious surfaces and hence the potential for
increased erosion and sedimentation. (4)
135
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPLY: Any rain falling upon the proposed impervious
surfaces of the Macari at Laurel site will be collected by the
strategically placed storm water drainage system, consisting of
dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins. In particular,
within the vicinity of the environmentally sensitive freshwater
wetlands and surface water areas of the site, the individual
catch basins could have separate leaching pools, in order to
further reduce the risk of surface water runoff encroaching upon
these areas, during a heavy storm.
If required by the Town of Southold or any other involved
agencies, the proposed driveways could potentially be
constructed of pervious (e.g., blue stone) material, instead of
the planned, impervious blacktop material.
5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AJID SCBBIC RESOURCBS
1. COKMBHT: Page V-59 to V-61. The Archaeological
Investigation included in Appendix B indicates that 30 of 211
shovel probes (14 percent) yielded prehistoric artifacts. The
report concludes that there are, "Two limited areas of
potentially intact prehistoric sediments...", and goes on to
recommend that "Further limited subsurface excavation in order
to fully expose specific areas of sediments below the existing
plow zone is needed to define the limits of the site." The
Mitigation Measures section Page V-61 outlines three possible
136
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mitigation measures for this documented sensitivity: "The site
layout can be modified such that those areas of sensitivity
would be preserved as "open space". On lots where only portions
contain archaeological sensitivity, strict building envelope
covenants can be imposed in order to preserve the sensitive
areas. Finally, physical excavation of the sensitive material
can remove the archaeological sensitivity from the site, gaining
the knowledge of past occupancy in the process". Further
mitigation of prehistoric resources is warranted as indicated in
the Draft EIS. The professional archaeologist should contact
the New York state Office of Parks Recreation and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP) to determine the appropriate and acceptable
method of mitigation in fulfillment of the state Historic
Preservation Act and minimization of impacts for the purpose of
the state Environmental Quality Review Act. If options exist
based upon contact with the state, the Applicant should assist
in determining the appropriate mitigation, as the alternatives
may affect yield, configuration, marketability, project
sChedUling and expenditures. The Final EIS should contain
documentation of contact with OPRHP and should outline an
adequate means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric
resources. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, a letter
describing mitigative measures designed to preserve or further
establish possible site integrity of the observed two areas of
137
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
potentially intact archaeological remains at the Macari at
Laurel site was sent to the New York state Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (Appendix I). The two
areas of prehistoric sensitivity consist of a relatively small
area located within the southern part of the property and a
larger area situated within the northwestern part of the site
for the proposed action, respectively (Figure 2). The proposed
mitigative measures include building covenants for the
southernmost area of sensitivity, whereas the potential
integrity of the northern area would likely be established with
a limited excavation within this area.
A thorough Cultural Resource Inventory, Stage II, was
completed to evaluate the potential significance of the large
designated area (Appendix K). Since no prehistoric or historic
artifacts or features were recovered during the stage II
investigation, no additional work is recommended in associated
wi th this proj ect. Further, there is no archaeological reason why
construction should be further delayed.
2. COMHBNT: The Project as proposed would irretrievably
alter the character of the scenic Laurel Lake area by converting
the present tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as
open space in the Town's Master Plan, into a suburban
subdivision with a concomitant increase in noise, air pollution
and traffic. (11)
REPLY:
Laurel site
designation.
The proposed action will develop the Macari at
in accordance with the current zoning district
Thus, the proposed action will utilize a clustered
138
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
layout of the 27 single-family dwellings planned to be
constructed. In addition, significant portions of the existing
vegetation will be preserved within designated open space areas,
which will be concentrated within the environmentally most
sensitive parts of the site. In particular, the area adjacent
to Laurel Lake will remain untouched with the construction of
the proposed action. Finally, the addition of 27 single-family
dwelling units in the area is not anticipated to have a
significant impact upon the level of traffic on area roadways,
nor is the residential development likely to result in
significantly elevated noise or air pollution levels.
3. COMKBNT: The DEIS does not adequately address the
visibility of the proposed Project at different times of year
from Sound Avenue or the rights-of-way that present residents
use for access to their homes. The DEIS also does not discuss
the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing
unpaved rights-of-way. Alternatives providing for larger
buffers along Sound Avenue, the rights-of-way and the proposed
road system to screen the project and reduce noise, should be
addressed. (11)
REPLY: The proposed action will preserve an optimal
amount of original ground cover, including surface waters,
freshwater wetlands, old field as well as upland forested
vegetation. The individual planned designated open space areas
139
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will include some or all of these different habitats. This
layout will ensure the optimized preservation of habitat
diversity. Thus, the proposed action will following the
completion of the construction phase provide habitat to the
largest number of wildlife species possible.
Of the preserved designated open space areas, the
northernmost area (i.e., approximately 5.5 acres) will consist
exclusively of old field vegetation, while the centrally located
areas (i.e., up to 18.2 acres) contain almost exclusively upland
forested vegetation surrounding the freshwater wetlands and
surface water areas. The remaining parts of the open space
areas, i.e., along the LILCO easement, along the eastern
boundary of the site, as well as along the southernmost portion
of the Laurel Way and Crescent Way right-of-ways, will consist
primarily of old field vegetation. Additional original old
field and/or upland forest vegetation will be preserved within
the individual lots of the site.
Where the existing old field vegetation is being preserved,
it is inevitable that the proposed houses will be visible from
portions of Sound Avenue (i.e., the northernmost of the planned
dwelling units). In addition, some dwelling units will be
visible along the Laurel Way right-of-way along the eastern and
southern boundaries of the site. The southernmost part of the
proposed roadway will be a temporary turnaround, which may be
connected to any future roadway system on adjacent properties.
Direct access to the southern part of the site could potentially
be gained from Laurel Way to this southern part of the roadway
in case of an emergency, such as a fire.
If required by the Town of Southold, this potential
visibility of parts of the proposed action could be mitigated by
utilizing indigenous upland forest species in the replanting
140
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
schedule planned for areas originally covered with old field
vegetation.
The site plan for the Alternative Cluster (Plate 3) indicates
rights-of-way existing along the eastern and western boundaries
of site, along the trend of the LILCO transmission line and along
parts of the southern boundary of the site adjacent to Laurel
Lake. These rights-of-way are not proposed for roadway
development and should help to screen the proposed action from
adjacent lands.
Ii . HOUSXNG
1. COMMENT:
is not provided.
V-62.
( 1)
Documentation in support of paragraph 3
REPLY: According to Lieutenant Conway of the Mattituck
Police Department (personal communication, 9-30-1991,
516-734-6022) the addition to the District of the occupied
Macari at Laurel subdivision should not be a problem at this
time. Furthermore, Secretary of the Mattituck Fire District,
John Keogh (personal communication, 9-30-1991, 516-298-4263)
states that fire protection of a given property is largely
dependent upon the supply of water. Another concern is the
layout of a proposed roadway system. At a site such as the
Macari at Laurel property, it is likely that 2 - 3 wells for
fire protection will have to be installed at the expense of the
Applicant. Normally, the fire department is provided with the
specific layout for a given site by the Town of Southold prior
141
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to final approval of a project.
analyzes the plans and responds to
requirements for the specific project.
The fire department then
the Town with specific
8. DTTI:TUCK SCHOOL DI:STRI:CT NO. 9
1. COJIMBIfTI V-64.
contradict one another.
The last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3
(1) .
REPLY: The estimated annual local cost to educate a
sChool-age child is approximately $7,001.94 per student, using a
linear computation method. Therefore, it will cost about
$203,056.26 from local sources to educate these 29 school
children expected from the completed Macari at Laurel
subdivision.
However, the exact cost to educate a sChool-age child may
not be adequately estimated, assuming a linear correlation
between the number of sChool-age children and the total local
school budget. Such a correlation will provide a fiscal value,
but this value may not represent actual additional expenditures
that must be made by the school district for every new student
enrolled. Thus, the change in school district expenditures
resulting from the proposed action can only be generally stated.
Increased tax revenues for the Town expected from the proposed
action should help defray the additional educational costs.
The proposed action will result in a projected real estate
142
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tax revenue of approximately $93,144.07, or $84,943.15 more than
the current revenues (i.e., $8,200.92) derived from the Macari
at Laurel site. utilizing the school district tax rate of 62.5%
of the total tax revenue, approximately $58,215.04 would be
produced from the proposed action to offset any increase in
educational cost demands.
2. COHKBRT: Page V-63 to V-64. The Draft EIS indicates
that revenue generated from the project is not sufficient to
directly offset the cost to educate a child, stating that other
sources of income may be available to offset this deficit
thereby minimizing the impact. Contact should be made with the
School District to determine the ability to accommodate
additional school aged children. (2)
REPLY: See previous reply. The Macari at Laurel property
is located within the Mattituck School District #9. The current
population of sChool-age children within the school district
consists of 1,240 students. The capacity of the district
depends upon the age distribution of a group of additional
students, such as the 29 school-age children predicted to be
generated from the proposed action. If these 29 children are
concentrated on one age level, such as Kindergarten age, it
would be difficult for the school district to absorb these
students, since the district is at present very pressed for
building space, but in general have room for a small number of
143
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
additional students at each grade level. Thus, if the age
distribution of the sChool-age children from the proposed action
is relatively even, they could be educated without incurring
major problems to the school district (personal communication,
Mr. Lee Elwood, Superintendent, September 16, 1991,
516-298-8460).
t. TAXES AND PISCAL SBTTIBG
1. COMIIBBT: V-65. The second paragraph
titled "Taxes and Fiscal Setting" contradicts
made on the previous page. (1)
in
the
the section
statements
RBPLY: The estimated increase in property taxes, with the
construction of the proposed action, is approximately $84,943.15
more than the current tax revenues (i.e., $8,200.92), derived
from the Macari at Laurel site. In addition, the proposed
action will create an increased need for certain municipal
services, such as police protection, ambulance service, fire
protection, and educational services. The additional property
tax revenues will be used to offset, but may not in all cases
meet, the increased costs for these services.
144
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI:. UJlAVOI:DABLB ADVERBB BNVJ:ROIlMBBTAL I:XPACTS OF TO
PROPOSBD ACTI:OIJ
1. COKKBIJT: This section should make note of the potential
for irreversible loss of prehistoric resources not currently
identified on the project site. (2)
RBPLY: Following the completion of a stage II Archaeological
Investigation of the site, since no prehistoric or historic
artifacts or features were recovered during this study, no
additional work is recommended in association with this project.
Consequently, there will not be a loss of prehistoric resources.
VI::I. ALTBRlJAT:IVES TO TO PROPOSBD ACT:IOIJ
1. COKMEIJT: The Applicant should consider a modified
cluster involving 35,000 to 40,000 square foot lots, in order to
avoid steep slope areas on Lot 18, maximize wetlands setbacks,
preserve additional forest, old field and edges, expand open
space linkages, and possibly avoid areas of documented
prehistoric resources. This alternative would fulfill the
stated intention of the applicant and further minimize potential
significant environmental impacts on this sensitive site. (1)
(2)
145
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RBPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, a modified
cluster alternative was prepared. This alternative proposes to
construct 27 single-family residences involving lots of 30,000
to 35,000 square feet. Consequently, the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Section VII has been changed to include the
following text:
" E. MODIFIED CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE (27 Housing Units Distributed
In a Modified Cluster Throughout The Site).
In a final effort to develop realistic alternatives to the
proposed action (i.e., modified cluster) and upon request from
the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Commentator #1), a
sketch (Plate 3) of a second modified cluster alternative is
provided. In this alternative plan the site development would
be consistent with the existing R-80 Residence District zoning
and the housing unit lots would be clustered away from the
sensitive portions of the site. This alternative proposal would
construct 27 detached single-family residences located within
three portions of the site leaving approximately 39.3 acres, or
61.8% of the site as preserved open space (Plate 3).
* Physical Settina - Tonoaranhv and soil: Approximately
12.90 acres, or 20.3% of the total site would be regraded
(including clearing and cut/fill operations) in the development
of this modified cluster alternative. Since the houses could be
146
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
constructed within the relative flat portions of each lot
throughout the site, only minor cut and fill activities would be
necessary. The existing contours would remain in the peripheral
buffer areas of the site as well as within the open space areas,
including the areas adjacent to the freshwater wetlands (Plate
3) .
* Bioloaical settina - Flora and Fauna: Regrading of nearly
12.90 acres of the site would leave 50.70 acres, or 79.7% of the
original site vegetation, including all of the upland forest,
untouched. Upon completion of the modified cluster alternative,
4.42 acres, or 6.9% of the total site would become turf and/or
replanted woody vegetation. The distribution of the original
vegetation would be within the peripheral areas of the site and
especially associated with the freshwater wetlands and the two
ponds found within the site (Plate 3).
With 79.7% of the existing upland forest, old field
vegetation, and freshwater wetlands vegetation and surface water
areas remaining after construction, certain numbers of the
present wildlife would be expected to remain. Most of the
species presently occupying the freshwater wetlands would be
expected to survive following development, depending on
recreational utilization by the future residents of the site.
In the upland forest areas within the proposed buffers of the
site as well as the remaining upland forest/old field edge zones
the species less sensitive to human activity may repopulate
147
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
followinq construction.
* Hvdroloaic settina - Drainaae. Groundwater and Water
Budaet: Reqradinq of 12.90 acres, or 20.3% of the total
site, would chanqe the present drainaqe confiquration of the
site. Impervious surfaces such as an interdevelopment roadway,
driveways, and buildinqs would cover 7.33 acres, or 11.6% of
the developed parcel. The expected runoff from these surfaces
would have to be controlled by the strateqic placement of dry
wells associated with the buildinqs, storm catch basins alonq
the roadways and the two planned drainaqe areas (Plate 3).
Construction of the modified cluster alternative
development would change the groundwater recharge regime of the
site. Since 7.33 acres, or 11.6% of the total site area, would
be covered by impervious surfaces, there could be excessive
runoff and a loss of recharge at the site location if not
properly prevented. In addition, 4.42 acres, or 6.9% of the
site would be covered by turf and/or replanted woody veqetation.
Depending on the maintenance required for these types of
vegetation, fertilization of this area may be necessary to
maintain it. This could lead to potential excess nitrogen
loading to the groundwater.
The resulting water budget for the development of the
modified cluster alternative gives a recharqe value of 28.75
inches per year at this site. The calculations leading to this
value are as follows:
148
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References and values used below are noted in Sections III-C-4
and IV-C-4 of the D.E.I.S.
Change in Storage (~S) = Inflow - Outflow
or
(~S) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff
- Evapotranspiration - Evaporation - Exports
- Overland Flow - Groundwater Runoff
The actual water budget equation for the site (derived in
Section III-C-4 of the D.E.I.S.) is as follows:
(~S) = ((Precipitation + Imports) - (Evapotranspiration +
Exports + OVerland Flow)) x (% of total land)
Values used for precipitation, evapotranspiration
parameters are explained and referenced in Section
the D.E.1.S.
and other
III-C-4 of
UnimDroved Land (Consists of upland forest, wetlands, and old
field; 50.50 acres, or 79.4% total land)
( 6s) = (46.32 in/yr + 0) (22.0 in/yr + 0
+ 0.5 in/yr) x (% total land)
( 6 S) = 24.82 in/yr x (79.4% total land)
(6 S) = 24.82 in/yr x 0.794
(6s) = 19.34 in/yr (weighted average unimproved
land)
149
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ImDervious Surfaces (7.33 acres, or 11.6% of total land)
( 6,S)
(6,S)
(6, S)
= ((46.32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 46.32 in/yr))
= ((46.32 in/yr) - (46.32 in/yr)) x (% total land)
= 0 in/yr
Since the modified cluster alternative action will have dry
wells, catch basins and two drainage areas strategically placed
(Plate 3) to gather nearly all runoff originating from
impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and the roadway;
runoff will be negligible, except for an unmeasurable amount
that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized,
minor shallow puddles. Therefore, the resulting, actual
recharge for impervious surfaces will be as follows:
(6s) = ((46.32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 0.5 in/yr))
(6S) = ((46.32 in/yr) - (0.5 in/yr)
(6s) = 45.82 in/yr x (11. 6% total land)
(6s) = 45.82 in/yr x 0.116
(6s) = 5.32 in/yr (weighted average impervious
surfaces)
Turf and ReDlanted Woodv Veaetation (2.95 acres plus 1.47
acres, or a total of 4.42 acres, or 6.9% total
land)
150
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Irrigation will involve 2 inches/month water imports during the
growing season of five (5) months from May to September (Baskin,
1977)
( 6s) = ((46.32 in/yr + 10.0 in/yr) - (22.0 in/yr + 0 +
0.5 in/yr
(6 S) = ((56.32 in/yr) - (22.5 in/yr))
(6s) = 33.82 in/yr x (6.9% total land)
(6s) = 33.82 in/yr x 0.069
(6s) = 2.34 in/yr (weighted average turf and replanted
woody vegetation)
Surface Water (Consists of surface water of the kettle
and the pond associated with Laurel Lake; 0.2 acres, or
total site)
( 6s)
(6s)
(6.S)
(6 S)
(6.S)
pond
0.3%
= (46.32 in/yr + 0.5 in/yr) (31.3 in/yr + 0
+ 0) x (% total land)
= (46.82 in/yr) - (31.3 in/yr) x (% total land)
= 15.52 in/yr x 0.3% total land
= 15.52 in/yr x 0.003
= 0.5 in/yr (weighted average surface water)
In addition, since the projected sewage discharge amount
for the proposed action is 8,100 gpd, that amount of water will
enter the groundwater. This value represents an import factor
151
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
over the total area of 63.6 acres. The value obtained
various conversions yields an additional import value of
in/yr to the total change in storage for the site area.
from
1.71
Therefore:
Chanae in storaae for Modified Cluster Alternative
Change in storage (63.6 acres, or 100% of total area
using weighted average values) =
(19.34 in/yr; unimproved area) + (5.32 in/yr:
impervious) + (2.34 in/yr: turf/replanted veg.) + (0.50
in/yr: surface water) + (1.71 in/yr: sanitary
discharge)
= 28.75 inches/year
The modified cluster alternative action will recharge 28.75
inches of water to the groundwater as storage. As stated
above, the gentleness of the terrain, the sandy nature, and the
high permeability of the subsurface material allows for a large
amount of water recharge. Due to the extremely efficient runoff
nature of impervious surfaces combined with the
post-construction drainage configuration, draining runoff to the
collector basins, only a minor amount of water will be lost to
evaporation or off-site runoff.
152
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* Sewaae: The alternative action of 27 single family
detached residential units would produce sewage effluent values
totalling 8,100 gallons per day (300 gpd x 27 units). To comply
with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
requlations, conventional septic systems would be necessary.
This would reduce the potential excess nitrogen and coliform
contamination from the alternative action.
An estimation of the potential nitrogen-loading values from
the modified cluster alternative is as follows: Standard values
for nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such
sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces,
turf and pets, and septic discharge are given in Section IV-C-3
and will be used here. The 27 residential units will be
populated by approximately 68 persons. As in most small
residential developments, pet utilization of the site would
probably be present, but would probably not be a significant
factor in nitrogen-recharge.
site SDecific Calculations
1. Precipitation. 1.35 maiL is expected to recharge the
groundwater at the site for this source.
2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous
Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to areas of
preserved original ground cover, to the wetlands, or the
replanted indigenous vegetation.
153
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Upland Forest,etc. 37.3% of site
Replanted Indigenous 2.3% of site
Freshwater Wetlands 0.7% of site
Old Field 41. 4% of site
Surface Water Areas 0.3% of site
Recharge Basins 1.8% of site
Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the
site:
(0.1 mg/L) x (S3.S% of the site)
(0.1 mg/L) x (0.S3S) = O.OS maiL
3. Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings
and pavement will cover 11.6% of the site. Using weighted
average calculations for the site:
(0.4 mg/L) x (11.6% of the site)
(0.4 mg/L) x (0.116) = 0.05 maiL
4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in
Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 2.95 acres or 4.6% of
the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000
square feet of turf, 214.17 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to
enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will
be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the
background nitrogen level (i.e., assumed to be equal to the SCWA
154
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
value of 6.45 mgjL, described above) in this water source should
also be added to the areas replanted with turf.
Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbsjperson equivalent.
For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge the number of
persons expected to inhabit this development is assumed to
constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling unit, i.e., 108
persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the
associated pet population of approximately 44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41
lbs nitrogen). The nitrogen production stemming from these pets
is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by
turf.
Converting 258.45 pounds of nitrogen (214.17 lbs from turf
fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 22.25 mgjL.
Since turf covers 4.6% of the site, the weighted average results
in the following:
(22.25 mgjL) x (4.6% total site)
(22.25 mgjL) x (0.046) = 1.02 mgjL N-loading
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
155
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
average for N-recharge results:
(1.02 mg/L) x (0.57) = 0.58 maIL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25
1bs/15,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 0.58 mg/L
nitrogen to the groundwater at the site.
In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application
rate of 2.3 1bs/1,000 square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized,
295.55 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 44.28 1bs (108 x
0.41 1bs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the
groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be
irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the
background nitrogen level (i.e., assumed to be equal to the SCWA
value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should
also be added to the areas replanted with turf.
Converting 299.83 pounds of nitrogen (295.55 1bs from turf
fertilization and 44.28 1bs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 26.49 mg/L.
Since turf covers 4.6% of the site, the weighted average results
in the following:
156
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(26.49 mgjL) X (4.6% total site)
(26.49 mgjL) X (0.046) = 1.22 mg/L N-loading
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
average for N-recharge results:
(1.22 mg/L) X (0.57) = 0.69 maiL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of
lbs/1,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 0.69
nitrogen to the groundwater at the site.
2.3
mWL
5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to
precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs
(i.e., 1.47 acres or 2.3% of the site) will be irrigated with an
estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In
contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is
planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs.
Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted
indigenous acreage on the site (i.e., 0.78 inches/yr or
1,343,280.71 qpy/acre x 1.47 acres; Appendix E) compared to the
total water budget for the site (i.e., 28.75 inches/year or
49,645,632.86 gpy), incorporating the background nitrogen level
in the local water source (i.e., 6.45 mg/L), and considering
157
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the
following concentrations results: 0.08 mg/L.
6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge
from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per
dwelling unit is used. utilizing a separate septic system,
approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of
nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below
the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are
calculated. Therefore:
108 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.48 lbs/day
Converting 1.48 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the 8,100 gallons per day of
septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the
background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the
standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the
following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.71 in/yr
of recharge (i.e., sanitary effluent value calculated over the
entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the
total recharge value for the entire site is 28.75 in/yr
(including the sanitary component), then the actual septic
discharge concentration is as follows:
1.71 in/yr / 28.75 in/yr = 5.95% total recharge
158
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater
at the site due to septic discharge is 1.50 mg/L (25.11 mg/L x
5.95%).
The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting
from the proposed action is as follows:
Precipitation 1.35 mg/L
Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L
Impervious Surfaces 0.05 mg/L
TUrf 0.58 mg/L (0.69 mg/L)
Indigenous Irrigation 0.08 mg/L
Septic Discharge 1.50 mg/L
Total
3.64 mg/L
(3.75 mg/L)
The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic
discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not
be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the
remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the
other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low
maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In
addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site
is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background
levels added in these calculations will be derived from an
159
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be
recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget,
which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly
exaggerated.
The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 3.64
mg/L (or 3.75 mg/L based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization) is
probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables
associated with this project. This value lies within the median
value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values
for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mg/L)
recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(1987), and it is comparable to the median nitrogen value for
"Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mg/L
(interquartile range [50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et
al. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between
Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York."
The resulting nitrogen loading value of 3.64 mg/L (or 3.75
mgjL) is substantially less than the 10 mgjL standard (New York
State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the
Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable
nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island).
In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 3.64 mg/L (or
3.75 mg/L) is within the range of 2 to 4 mg/L recommended by the
Long Island Regional Planning Board for the "Special
Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven Pilot
160
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Area" (1986), which is part of the Pine Barrens Zone and the
Hydrogeologic Zone III. However, it lies below the 6.45 mg/L
value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed action
will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower than the
indicated value of the underlying aquifer.
* Solid Waste: The alternative action of 27 single family
detached units would produce a population of approximately 68
persons. At 6.5 pounds/person/day as a worst-case, this would
produce 442 pounds of solid waste per day. This amount of solid
waste must be deposited into the Town of Southold Municipal
Landfill, further decreasing the utilization capacity of that
facility.
* Zonina. Land Use. And Plannina and Zonina: This
alternative use, with lots in a modified cluster at the entire
site, would not require a rezoning from the present Residence
R-80 District Zoning. Open space could be preserved on the site
associated with the freshwater wetlands as regulated by Town
Code (Plate 3). Original vegetative buffers along the
peripheral areas of the site and within interlot areas, as well
as major portions of the upland forest/old field ecotone would
help in the preservation of open space and sensitive habitat.
Regrading would involve 12.90 acres, or 20.3% of the site
provided conservative clearing covenants were enacted. Building
on steep slopes would be minimized by positioning individual
161
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
structures on the most level portions of each building lot and
orienting these structures parallel to topographic contours.
Development of the site with 27 single-family detached housing
units would yield lot value of 0.4 units per acre.
* Traffic: The impact of the development of the alternative
modified cluster development would be equal to that projected
for the proposed action (see Section IV-D-4 of the D.E.I.S.).
As with the proposed action, only minimal effects on the levels
of service for the nearby roadway network are anticipated.
* CUltural/Scenic Resources: If the site is developed into
the modified cluster alternative, there will be an alteration of
at least 12.90 acres of existing "open space." Buildings,
driveways, and an interdevelopment roadway will replace in part,
a currently forested and old field area. Peripheral buffers
would preserve some of the upland forest and old field
vegetation, however there would be a loss of large contiguous
areas of natural vegetation (Plate 3).
Since a portion of this site would be developed into
residential units, an increased recreational utilization of the
open space would be anticipated. If not properly managed, this
might have a negative impact on the ecosystems of the freshwater
wetlands and ponds.
Finally, with a modified cluster development of
having housing units distributed within three areas
the site
throughout
162
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the parcel, adverse impacts to existing archaeological areas of
sensitivity would also be minimized.
* Housina:
The development of the site with the modified
cluster alternative proposal would provide 27 new housing units
in the Town of Southold.
* PODulation:
The 27 single-family detached housing units
would generate a population of approximately 68 persons.
This
would result in a population density of 1.1 persons per acre.
*
Mattituck
School District #9:
Using
a
worst-case
scenario (refer to Section 111-0-8), Burchell, et al. (1985)
determined that a single-family home of four (4) bedrooms,
located in the Northeast region, yields a multiplier of 1.366
sChool-age children per housing unit and a three (3) bedroom
house yields a multiplier of 0.784 school age
Therefore, utilizing these statistical multipliers:
children.
13 (4 bedroom) dwelling units x 1.366 sChool-age
children/unit = 18 children
14 (3 bedroom) dwelling units x 0.784 school-age
children/unit = 11 children
Total = 29 school-age children.
These additional children would require additional educational
services resulting in higher educational expenses for the Town
of Southold.
163
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As indicated in Section 111-0-9 of the D.E.I.S., the local
cost to educate each student is approximately $7,001.94 within
the Mattituck School District #9.
to this educational cost for 29 students is $203,056.26 and the
Since the local contribution
portion of this alternative's tax revenue designated for
education is only $58,215.04, there will be a net deficit of
approximately $144,863.00
* Taxes and Fiscal Settina: The current practice in the
Town of Southold to determine the potential tax revenue for
estimated
proposed new developments is based on the assessment of the
price (living footage,
lot size,
recreational
facilities, and number of bedrooms) per housing unit for the
project.
For this alternative residential complex, 13 housing
units will have 4 bedrooms, 14 will have 3 bedrooms, and each
will have at least 3,000 square feet living space.
The average
to $300,000.00.
selling price of the housing units will range from $275,000.00
Using the above statistical breakdown for the proposed
action, the Town of Southold Assessors Office (June, 1990)
provided the following estimated revenue value utilizing a
each residential unit:
"residential assessment ratio" of 2.55% of the market value for
Housing Unit Market Value
Residential Assessment Ratio
Tax Base Per Unit
14 Housing Units 7012.50@
Housing Unit Market Value
Residential Assessment Ratio
Tax Base Per Unit
13 Housing Units $7650.00@
Project Total
164
= $275,000.00
= X 0.0255
= $ 7,012.50
= $ 98,175.00
= $300,000.00
= X 0.0255
= $ 7,650.00
= $ 99,450.00
= $ 197,625.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thus, the assessment amount for the proposed residential
alternative is $197,625.00. Since the 1989-90 tax rate (Figure
13) is 47.13 per hundred, total projected Town of Southold tax
revenue is:
$197,625.00 x 47.13/100 = $93.144.07
Thus,
result for the
proposal."
In summary, this Alternative acts as a mitigation to the site
development. Compared to the proposed action, the Alternative
clusters the proposed houses and thus, reduces the amount of land
requiring regradation, increases the amount of contiguous open
space, provides for a greater distance from the wetlands,
repositions Lot #18 on more level land and further away from the
wetlands and provides a more rural setting with open land and
clusters of houses.
a projected tax revenue of
Town of Brookhaven with
$93,144.07 would
this alternative
2. COMMENT: Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe
a more tightly clustered subdivision design can afford better
protection of this site's wildlife habitat, steep slopes,
freshwater wetlands, and visual aesthetics than that which is
provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision design.
The clustered subdivision map included in the document was
useful to our review. Based on our evaluation, we believe that
with minimum overall modification, a significantly greater
degree of contiguous open space, wildlife habitat, and natural
groundwater recharge area can be preserved.
We have prepared a sketch plan incorporating the following
165
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
design modifications,
consideration.
which is enclosed for the
Town's
-OVerall lot size reductions averaging approximately
30,000 to 35,000 sq. ft. (no lots are less than
30,000 sq. ft.)
-Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 are relocated within
existing development areas
-The separation distance between the closest residential
development and Laurel Lake is increased by approximately
200 feet
-The separation distance between residential development
and the site's freshwater pond will be increased by
approximately 200 feet
-Approximately 8 additional acres are provided within the
site's southwestern open space area
-Open space reconfiquration will create an open space
preserve of approximately 26 contiquous acres along the
properties western boundary acres (as proposed,
southwestern open space is contained within two
discontinuous parcels of approximately 9 acres each)
-Lots 18 and 19 are relocated from within the adjacent
area of the site's freshwater pond
-6 additional lots will have open space frontage or views
-1 flag lot (with access between lots 24 & 25) will be
required in the vicinity of the norther "drainage area"
-All steep slopes and wetlands will be protected
166
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-All views from Sound Avenue will be preserved
-The proposed interconnecting roadway network is retained
-Slight relocation of the northern drainage area will be
necessary to accommodate one residential lot
We believe the sensitivity of this site is well documented
by its proposed public acquisition, its location within a core
watershed protection area, and its proximity to Laurel Lake. We
believe, therefore, that all efforts must be employed to assure
the full protection of this site's many natural resources
through the review alternative development designs which
minimize the potential negative environmental effects of this
action. (3) (5) (10) (11)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted. A modified cluster
alternative site plan (Plate 3) was prepared and the alternative
layout discussed above.
A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. COHMBNT: The No-Action alternative does not include a
thorough and in-depth discussion of development of site for
public water supply purposes. The value of this site for
watershed protection and public water supply cannot be ignored
in this environmental review, particularly given the inclusion
of this property in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater
Protection Area. (1)
167
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RBPLY: The site for the proposed action is situated
within the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed of the Central Suffolk
Special Groundwater Protection Area (Suffolk County Executive,
1990). Specifically, the Laurel Lake Subwatershed is described
as an area that provides excellent opportunities for well siting
and wellhead protection for the future needs of western Southold
Town. According to the "Suffolk County Drinking Water
Protection Program: Comprehensive Acquisition Plan" both the
Suffolk County Water Authority and the Town of Southold have
expressed a strong interest in this region (Suffolk County
Executive, 1990).
In accordance with these statements, Chief Engineer E. J.
Rosavitch (i.e., Commentator #6) of the Suffolk County Water
Authority stated that the SCWA has been considering the
acquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989.
Municipal acquisition of property available within this area
should ideally be an investment in both the water supply and the
quality of life. The Macari at Laurel site "sits almost
directly on top of the regional groundwater divide and has a
current water table elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea
level." According to Mr. Rosavitch this makes the Macari at
Laurel site, and any other sites nearby, candidates for
acquisition as watershed property and a potential source of
supply for the Mattituck area.
168
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. YIBLD ALTBRNATIVE
1. OOKMBHT: The density of the Yield Alternative should be
adjusted as necessary depending upon the final feasible modified
cluster determination of the Planning Board. (2)
REPLY: This comment is so noted.
2. OOKMBHT: Discussions and computations in the Alternative
analysis should be adjusted to reflect proper turf fertilization
rates and sewage nitrogen values. (2)
REPLY: The nitrogen budget for the yield alternative has
been recalculated, utilizing the parameters presented above
under Section IV-C-3 SANITARY WASTE. Further details regarding
the actual calculations are presented within Appendix E:
"Nitroaen Budaet for the Yield Alternative:
The proposed 28 housing units under this alternative action
will produce a total of 8,400 gpd (28 units @ 300 gpdjunit =
8,400 gpd) of wastewater into the groundwater from the
individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk County Department of
Health Services, Department of Environmental Quality: Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal
Systems for other than Single Family Residences, 1988).
An estimation of the potential nitrogen-budget values from
169
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the yield alternative is as follows: Standard values for
nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such
sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces,
turf and pets, and septic charge are given in Section IV-C-3:
SANITARY WASTE and Appendix E and will be used here. The 28
dwelling units will be populated, for nitrogen budget
calculation purposes, by approximately 4 persons per unit, or a
total of 112 persons.
Site SDecific Calculations
1. Precipitation. 1.35 maIL is expected to recharge the
groundwater at the site for this source.
2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous
Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to the
combined areas (47.8 acres, or 75.1% total area) of preserved
original ground cover, to the recharge basins, to the wetlands,
or the replanted indigenous vegetation.
Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the
site:
(0.1 mgjL) x (75.1% of the site)
(0.1 mgjL) x (0.751) = 0.08 maIL
3. Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings
and pavement will cover 12.3% of the site. Using weighted
170
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
average calculations for the site:
(0.4 mg/L) x (12.3% of the site)
(0.4 mg/L) x (.123) = 0.05 maIL
4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in
Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 8.0 acres or 12.6% of
the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000
square feet of turf, 580.8 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to
enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will
be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the
background nitrogen level (i.e., assumed to be equal to the SCWA
Distribution Area #58 (Captain Kidd) value of 6.45 mg/L) in this
water source should also be added to the areas replanted with
turf.
Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent.
For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge the number of
persons expected to inhabit this development is assumed to
constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling unit, i.e., 112
persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the
associated pet population of approximately 45.92 lbs (112 x 0.41
lbs nitrogen). The nitrogen production stemming from these pets
is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by
turf.
Converting 626.72 pounds of nitrogen (580.8 lbs from turf
fertilization and 45.92 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
171
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 19.66 mg/L.
Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average
results in the following:
(19.66 mg/L) x (12.6% total site)
(19.66 mg/L) x (0.126) = 2.48 mg/L N-loading
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
average for N-recharge results:
(2.48 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.41 maiL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25 nitrogen
lbs/15,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.41 mg/L
the groundwater at the site.
In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application
rate of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized,
801.5 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 45.92 lbs (112 x
0.41 lbs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the
groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be
irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the
172
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
background nitrogen level (i.e., assumed to be equal to the SCWA
Distribution Area #58 (Captain Kidd) value of 6.45 mg/L) in this
water source should also be added to the areas replanted with
turf.
Converting 847.42 pounds of nitrogen (801.5 1bs from turf
fertilization and 45.92 1bs from pets) to a milligram value of
nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater
recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading
(see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation,
fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 24.00 mg/L.
Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average
results in the following:
(24.00 mg/L) x (12.6% total site)
(24.00 mg/L) x (0.126) = 3.02 mg/L N-1oading
Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of
approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will
actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted
average for N-recharge results:
(3.02 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.72 maiL N-recharae
Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of
1bs/1,OOO square feet, will contribute approximately 1.72
nitrogen to the groundwater at the site.
2.3
mg/L
173
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to
precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs
(i.e., 2.1 acres or 3.3% of the site) will be irrigated with an
estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In
contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is
planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs.
Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted
indigenous acreage on the site (i.e., 1.12 inches/yr or
1,967,278.57 qpy/acre x 2.1 acres; Appendix E) compared to the
total water budget for the site (i.e., 29.87 inches/year or
51,588,229.40 qpy), incorporating the background nitrogen level
in the local water source (i.e., 6.45 mg/L), and considering
that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the
following concentrations results: 0.12 mg/L.
6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge
from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per
dwelling unit is used. utilizing a separate septic system,
approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of
nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below
the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are
calculated. Therefore:
112 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.53 lbs/day
Converting
nitrogen to
1.53 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value
be dispersed within the 8,400 gallons per day
of
of
174
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the
background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the
standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the
following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.78 in/yr
of recharge (i.e., sanitary effluent value calculated over the
entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the
total recharge value for the entire site is 29.87 in/yr
(including the sanitary component), then the actual septic
discharge concentration is as follows:
1.78 in/yr / 29.87 in/yr = 5.96% total recharge
Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater
at the site due to septic discharge is 1.49 mg/L (25.11 mg/L x
5.96%).
The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting
from the proposed action is as follows:
Precipitation 1.35 mg/L
Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L
Impervious Surfaces 0.05 mg/L
Turf 1.41 mg/L (1.72 mg/L)
Indigenous Irrigation 0.12 mg/L
Septic Discharge 1.49 mg/L
Total
4.50 mg/L
(4.81 mg/L)
175
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic
discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not
be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the
remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the
other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low
maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In
addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site
is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background
levels added in these calculations will be derived from an
on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be
recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget,
which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly
exaggerated.
The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 4.50
mgjL, or 4.81 mgjL based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization, is
probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables
associated with this project. This value lies within the median
value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values
for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mgjL)
recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(1987), and it is somewhat higher than the median nitrogen value
for "Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mgjL
(interquartile range [50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et
al. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between
Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
176
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York."
The resulting nitrogen loading value of 4.50 mg/L (or 4.81
mg/L) is substantially less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York
State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the
Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable
nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island).
In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 4.50 mg/L (or
4.81 mg/L) is somewhat above the range of 2 to 4 mg/L
recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board for the
"Special Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven
Pilot Area" (1986), which is part of the pine Barrens Zone and
the Hydrogeologic Zone III. However, it lies below the 6.45
mg/L value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed
action will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower
than the value of the underlying aquifer."
3. COMMENT: VII-19. The last sentence in the second
paragraph refers to the Town of BrOOkhaven instead of Southold.
(1)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the
D.E.I.S. Page VII-19 has been changed to the following:
"Thus, a projected tax revenue of $93,144.07 would result for
the Town of Southold with this alternative proposal."
177
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c. LARD ACQUISITION POTBNTIAL
1. COKNBKT: VII-21. The third paragraph on this page
states that the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate has
indicated an interest in acquiring the property, but that the
owner of the property must initiate the process. Has the owner
pursued this option? If so, what has been done. If not, why?
(1)
REPLY: According to Land Management Specialist IV and
Acquisition Agent, Ms. Phyllis Haner of the SUffolk County
Department of Real Estate (personal communication, 516-853-3801,
September 23, 1991) the Department has singled out several
parcels for potential acquisition within the immediate area
around Laurel Lake under the 1/4 cent sales tax program. The
parcels proposed for potential acquisition include the site for
the proposed action. Currently an appraisal of the properties
is taking place. The further along in the SEQRA process a
proposed action is the higher the appraisal value. The Suffolk
County Department of Real Estate will probably be making
specific offers during the Spring. Each potential acquisition
will be a negotiated sale. Dependent upon the appraisal value,
the Department will make offers that the property owners then
can accept or decline (personal communication, Ms. Phyllis
Haner, 516-853-3801, September 23, 1991).
178
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
To date (March 9, 1992) no offers are known to have been
made to the Applicant and Owner of the site for the proposed
action. In addition, the Applicant intends to maintain his
constitutional right to develop his parcel (Appendix J).
2. COKKBBT: VII-21. The first and second statements made
in the fourth paragraph should be documented. (1)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the
D.E.I.S. Page VII-21 has been changed to the following:
"Considering the relatively advanced stage of the proposed
action in the SEQRA review process, the appraisal value may be
significantly elevated. Consequently, the cost of acquiring
this site might be economically unrealistic for the Suffolk
County Department of Real Estate."
3. COKKBBT: The Land Acquisition Potential alternative
should be updated to reflect the status of potential County
acquisition. The project site does meet many of the criteria
generally applied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as
outlined on Pages VII-22 to VII-24 of the Draft EIS. (2)
RBPLY: As described above in further detail the Macari at
Laurel site is part of a group of parcels currently being
appraised by the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate for
potential acquisition. Specific offers will probably be made
179
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
during the Spring. In addition, according to Chief Engineer E.
J. Rosavitch (i.e., Commentator #6) the Suffolk County Water
Authority has been considering watershed property around Laurel
Lake since 1989, and Mr. Rosavitch suggests that municipal
acquisition of property available in this area be an investment
in both the water supply and the quality of life.
4. COHHBRT: As stated previously, it is our understanding
that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has
been approved by SUffolk County. We support public acquisition
for preservation as a use which will provide the best long-term
protection of this site's natural resources. It is important to
consider this parcel's location within a core watershed area in
the Town, and the nearby location of Laurel Lake.
Full site acquisition will preserve this parcel in its
undeveloped state and provide for long-term groundwater,
wildlife and open space resources protection without the
requirement of increased public services (notably; increased
education costs which are outlined in the document).
We believe further attention to this alternative is
warranted by the approval of funding, and encourage the Town to
carefully consider public acquisition (through the Suffolk
County Department of Real Estate) as a reasonable alternative.
This may involve an offer by the applicant to Suffolk County to
sell the property at a free market price. Depending upon the
response of SUffolk County, other measures may be perused to
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
preserve the benefits that accrue in keeping this parcel in its
present state. (3) (4) (8) (10) (11)
RBPLY: See previous reply.
5. COHMBHT: The Suffolk County Water Authority has been
considering the acquisition of watershed property around Laurel
Lake since 1989. In October and November of that year, the
Authority had two appraisals done of the A. T. Holding Co.
property referred to on page 1-4 of the DEIS. It is suggested
that municipal acquisition of property available in this area
would be an investment in both the water supply and the quality
of life.
The area in question sits almost directly on top of the
regional groundwater divide and has a current water table
elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea level (DEIS page
III-50). This makes the site, and any other sites nearby, a
candidate for acquisition as watershed property and a potential
source of supply for the Mattituck area. (6)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted.
D. TRAIISPZR DEVELOPMEHT RIGHTS
1. COHMBHT: VII-22. The paragraph on the transfer of
development rights is misleading. The Town has considered
181
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
implementing such a program, but does not actually have one at
this time. (1)
RBPLY: This comment is so noted.
2. COMHBHT: VII-23. The Town's property records show that
the applicant owns other property in the nearby vicinity to
which development rights could be transferred, should the Town
implement such a program. (1)
REPLY: While the Applicant has interest in other properties
within the Town of Southold, there is no other parcel with the
same community of ownership as the site for the proposed action.
Consequently, TDR is not a viable option in this case.
IX. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OP THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. COMMENT: IX-1. The third sentence contradicts earlier
statements that the tax revenues that would be collected by this
subdivision would not cover the School District's costs. (1)
REPLY: The increased tax revenues collected from the
completed occupied Macari at Laurel subdivision would help
offset, although they may not necessarily meet, increased costs
for e.g., municipal services.
X. CtJJWLATIVB IMPACTS
1. COMMENT: X-36. The cumulative traffic impact analysis
mistakenly assumes that some proposed subdivisions will have
182
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
access to both Sound Avenue and State Route 25. (1)
RBPLY: This assumption is based upon the fact that the
site plans for the A. T. Holding Corporation project, which was
included in the cumulative traffic impact analysis, contained a
roadway connection running into the MCFeeley development. This
development had in turn access to State Route 25.
2. COMMENT: One of the wildlife impacts associated with the
Macari at Laurel project is the loss of 44 percent of old field
habitat present on the site, with associated stress on the
species occupying this habitat potentially including two sparrow
Species of Special Concern. The potential of this impact to be
magnified by cumulative development pressures in the vicinity of
Laurel Lake should be explored. If this impact appears to be
significant, mitigation measures and/or performance standards
should be established to apply to projects which are proposed
within the study area. (2)
RBPLY: The current attempts by the Suffolk County
Department of Real Estate to acquire parcels of land within the
vicinity of the Macari at Laurel site under the 1/4 cent sales
tax program may lead to the acquisition of significant parcels
of property within the cumulative area. Such separate parcels
could through careful planning by the Town of Southold be
connected via a network of natural corridors, such as peripheral
buffers and other areas of designated open space (e.g., Plate 1
of the D.E.I.S.). Thus, the larger potentially acquired parcels
could serve as significant sources of wildlife repopulation
through the connecting network of corridors.
183
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contiguous open space can also be achieved for the region by
prudent long-range cluster development of proposed land tracts
such that open space portions of each tract join other open space
portions of adjacent parcels. Preservation can be achieved by
strict clearing covenants and/or by Town designated dedications
of open space.
3. COMKBBT: The United states Dept. of the Interior,
National Wetlands Inventory and the NYS proposed Freshwater
Wetlands Maps identify surface water and wetland features within
the study area exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands
associated with the site. The Final EIS should explore the
cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by "islands" of
development, with proposed measures to link and protect these
features and the exchange of wildlife and resources within the
general Laurel Lake area. (2)
REPLY: The surface waters and freshwater wetlands areas
of the site are currently regulated by the NYSDEC and Town of
Southold, which require that a minimum buffer of 100 feet and 75
feet, respectively, be left natural around any freshwater
wetlands area. The proposed layout has created islands of
designated open space areas, including all surface water areas
and freshwater wetlands of the Macari at Laurel site. These
islands are connected by natural corridors, with a few
exceptions, thereby providing migration possibilities for even
smaller or slowly migrating species of wildlife. By careful
coordination the Town of Southold has the opportunity to ensure
184
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the preservation of more extensive corridors of open space,
eventually connecting larger municipally acquired parcels.
These parcels could potentially serve as important sources for
wildlife repopulation.
4. COKKBRT: The subject project along with the peconic
Homes, Jacoby and John McFeely projects all front on Laurel
Lake. The impact of the change in land use density, open space
value and configuration, and recreational utilization of the
lake should be discussed in more detail as related specifically
to Laurel Lake. Appropriate limitations and restrictions, and
design considerations should be outlined in more detail. (2)
REPLY: At present no recreational facilities exist on
Laurel Lake. The lake is currently accessed from the several
existing single-family homes aligning the northern shore of the
lake. These homes are accessed via the Laurel Way right of way
(Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S.). The proposed action does not intend
to provide additional access to the lake. In addition, the
proposed action will preserve a significant area of open space
along its boundary on Laurel Lake. Should access be provided
through the development of any other project, then the lake
would almost certainly be used for recreational purposes such as
fishing. However, the Town of Southold has the right to
regulate activities on the lake.
185
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. OOKKBBT: The cumulative impacts section of the DEIS does
not satisfy the Planning Board's requirement that a GElS
addressing the cumulative impact of all proposed projects for
the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area be prepared.
Ideally, the DEIS should describe the biological setting of all
proposed projects, and not simply address cumulative impacts in
one abbreviated section. (11)
REPLY: The Town of Southold originally requested that one
Environmental Impact Statement (i.e., GElS) be prepared for the
cumulative five specific projects, all of which were actively
being pursued at the time of the request. These projects
included the Peconic Homes, Douglas Miller, Daniel Jacobi,
Joseph Macari, and A.T. HOlding. Since then, the Macari at
Laurel project has been the only active project at the time of
the preparation of the D.E.I.S. Thus, the D.E.I.S. for the
proposed action discusses the potential impacts upon the
environment of the development of the Macari at Laurel site. In
addition, the D.E.I.S. includes a discussion of cumulative
impacts from the potential development of six specific projects
(covering a total area of approximately 330 acres) within the
general area of the site. The six projects are the four major
parcels (peconic Homes, Daniel Jacoby, Joseph Macari, and A.T.
Holding) requested to be included into the "GElS" as well as two
other major projects (i.e., Thornton Smith and John McFeely).
The Douglas Miller parcel is of minor areal extent (i.e.,
186
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approximately 8.2 acres).
The extent of the general cumulative area (total area 1,030
acres) considered within the D.E.I.S. covers a major portion of
the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed (Suffolk County Executive,
1990).
The calculations included within the cumulative section
of the D.E.I.S. were made under the assumption that the six
projects would be developed while the land use of the remaining
portion of the cumulative area would remain as it is at present.
Consequently, the total layout of the cumulative area under
existing and proposed conditions are as follows:
Total Cumulative Area:
Existing Developed
Groundcover Acres Percent Acres Percent
Unimproved 388 37.67% 464 45.05%
Replanted: (610 ) (59.22%) (484.5) (47.04%)
Turf 0 0.00% 37.0 3.59%
Farmland 610 59.22% 435 42.23%
Indigenous 0 0.00% 12.5 1.21%
Impervious 0 0.00% 39.6 3.84%
Surface Water 32 3.11% 32 3.11%
Recharge Basins 0 0.00% 9.9 0.96%
Total Acreage 1,030 100.00% 1,030 100.00%
Septic Discharge 0 39,000
The developed scenario was based upon the following layout of
the six projects, discussed above:
six SDecitic Deve1oDments:
Groundcover
Existing
Acres
Developed
Acres
Unimproved
Replanted:
Turf
Farmland
155
(175)
o
175
231. 0
(49.5)
37.0
0.0
187
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Indigenous 0 12.5
Impervious 0 39.6
Recharge Basins 0 9.9
Total Acreage 330 330.0
Septic Discharge 0 39,000
Since the Macari at Laurel subdivision proposes to develop
only one of these six sites. The bulk of the D.E.I.S. dealt
with the conditions at the Applicant's site. The cumulative
assessment of the potential development of the six specific
projects was presented in Section X: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS of the
D.E.I.S.
6. COKMBHT: The DEIS fails to include an adequate
description or composite map of the other proposed actions. It
simply ignores the Miller proposal for the property sandwiched
between the wetlands on Laurel Lake and the Macari site. (See
DEIS at X-5.) The cumulative impacts of the Macari and Miller
projects on Laurel Lake and the wetlands would be considerably,
and should be thoroughly analyzed. In addition, I understand
that the McFeely project is proposed for the former Camp Malloy
property. The DEIS refers to Camp Malloy in connection with the
New York State conservation area as open space which could serve
as a wildlife and avian habitat. (DEIS at X-14, X-16.) If Camp
Malloy is indeed slated for development, the cumulative analysis
in the DEIS is based on inaccurate information. These omissions
and errors in the cumulative impact section must be corrected,
188
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and a new analysis performed based on accurate information.
(11)
RBPLY: See previous reply. The location of the six
specific projects hypothetically developed within Section X:
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS of the D.E.I.S. are indicated within Figure
168 of the D.E.I.S. In addition, the extent of the general
cumulative area is demonstrated in Figure 16A of the D.E:I.S.
document. This general cumulative area roughly coincides with
the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed (Suffolk County Executive,
1990).
The Miller Property is an 8.2 acre parcel located between the
southwest corner of the Macari At Laurel site and the shore of
Laurel Lake. Although the parcel is 8.2 acres, approximately 3.3
acres is designated wetlands and an additional approximately 1.4
acres is LILCO right-of-way. Considering Town wetland setbacks
and parcel shape restrictions, probably only one (1), or possibly
two (2) houses could be constructed. This would be a difficult
parcel to develop considering the close approximation of the
wetlands and the surface waters of Laurel Lake. Serious
considerations such as erosion potential, wetland and surface
water contamination, as well as zoning restrictions make this
parcel nearly unfeasible for development purposes. Consequently,
the extremely limited development potential for this parcel did
not impact significantly on the regional situation and was not
included in the Cumulative Analysis.
189
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Finally, although not broken down as to specific
configuration within the D.E.I.S., the NYSDEC land and Camp Malloy
(McFeely) are as follows:
NYSDEC
Town Southold
Camp Malloy
12.7 acres
11. 4 acres
30.6 acres
There are no plans to develop the Camp Malloy site, however, the
Cumulative analysis considered this possibility as a worst-case
scenario. The open space lands were also considered within the
Cumulative analysis to continue as open space.
In conclusion, the Cumulative Analysis of the D.E.I.S. did
investigate the potential impacts for worst-case situations and
did anticipate planned cluster configurations in order to provide
for the most contiguous open space tracts.
In general, an assessment of cumulative impacts contained
within a Draft Environmental Impact statement, which was
prepared for a privately-owned property, will give a fairly
general overview over the combined impacts of specific
developments within the area. A more in-depth analysis of
cumulative impacts should be included within a municipal master
plan, or a municipal GElS.
7.
COMMlurr :
The DEIS also fails to analyze the cumulative
effect of the Project and the other proposed developments on
Laurel Lake or its wetlands. The increased nitrogen
concentrations may result in a degradation of water quality and
the eutrophication of the lake. The DEIS should also discuss
;f--
the impact that the increase in local population would have on
the lake in terms of increased recreational use (i.e., swimming,
190
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
boating and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails to
address the cumulative growth inducing aspects of the proposed
projects. The influx of 325 residents to the area may increase
demand for business services and induce new commercial and
retail developments. This secondary impact of the proposed
developments should be addressed. (11)
REPLY: An extensive Cumulative Analysis is provided within
the D.E.I.S. and additionally requested data is provided above.
Although most of the projects formally proposed for development,
are no "on hold." Since the status of each of the projects could
change, especially as market demand changes, the Cumulative
Analysis examined the potential environmental consequences if they
were developed as once proposed.
Nitrogen-loading was calculated and considered in light of
nearby wetlands and surface water of Laurel Lake (see D.E.I.S.,
X). A significant potential impact onto the Lake are the. numerous
residences on small lots, especially adjacent to the eastern shore
front area. Future development will be constrained to large lots
and subjected to strict wetland setbacks. Consequently,
significant changes to the existing quality of Laurel Lake are not
expected.
Recreational use of the Lake should be restricted in that
most of the Lake is in private ownership. Access through State
or Town lands can be limited and require permits. However,
children from the proposed nearby developments may use the Lake,
although unauthorized.
The anticipated increased population will demand additional
retail services. The Town of Southold has adequate business
zoning designations in order to meet this demand, however.
191
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES CITED.
Andrle, R.F. and Carroll, J.R., 1988, The Atlas of Breeding
Birds in New York State: Cornell University Press; Ithaca,
New York.
Baskin, Leland B., 1977, A Groundwater Recharge MOdel for
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York: Master's thesis,
Cornell University; 116p.
Burchell, Robert W., Listokin, David, and Dolphin, William R.,
1985, The new practitioner's guide to fiscal impact
analysis: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers
University; New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Buttke, Carl H., 1984, Trip generation: Institute
Transportation Engineers Informational Report,
Washington, D.C.
of
3rd ed.;
Chow, Ven Te, 1964, Handbook of Applied Hydrology:
Book Company; New York, New York.
Clark, Edwin H., II., Haverkamp, Jennifer A., and Chapman,
William, 1985, Eroding soils - the Off-farm Impacts:
The Conservation Foundation; Washington, D.C.; 252p.
McGraw-Hill
Conant, R., 1975, A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America: National Audubon Society
and Natural Wildlife Federation; Houghton Mifflin Company;
Boston, Massachusetts.
Connor, P.F., 1971, The Mammals of Long Island, New York: New
York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 416; Albany,
New York.
Cryan, J.F., 1980. An Introduction to the Long Island Pine
Barrens. The Heath Hen, Vol. 1:3-13.
Daly, A., 1974, A Natural History of Long Island: The Nature
Conservancy, Long Island Chapter; Cold Spring Harbor, New
York.
Doriski, T.P., 1987, Potentiometric-surface of the Water-table,
Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers on Long Island, New York, in
1984: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations Report 86-4189; Syosset, New York.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Driscoll, Fletcher G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells: Johnson
Division, 2nd ed.; st. Paul, Minnesota; 1089p.
Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, Luna B., 1978, Water in
Environmental Planning: W. H. Freeman and Company; San
Francisco, California; 818p.
Fetter, C.W., 1980, Applied hydrogeology: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company; Columbus, Ohio; 488p.
Franke, O.L., and Cohen, P., 1972, Regional Rates of Groundwater
Movement on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof.
Paper #800-C.
Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 604p.
Fuller, M.L., 1914, The Geology of Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper #82; Washington, D.C.
Goldman, S.J., Jackson, K., and Bursztynsky, T.A., 1986, Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook: McGraw Hill Book Company;
New York, New York.
Hagstrom Map company, 1988, Hagstrom Suffolk County Atlas:
Hagstrom Map Company, Inc.; Maspeth, New York; 115p.
Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell, 1968, Comprehensive Public
Water Supply Study, Suffolk County, New York: Holzmacher,
McLendon, and Murrell, CPWS-24, 3 vol.; Melville, New
York.
Hughes, Henry B.F. and Pacenka, Steven, 1985, BURBS - A
Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of Residential
Development on Groundwater: Center for Environmental
Research, Cornell University; Ithaca, New York.
, Pacenka, s., Pike, J., and Porter, K.S., 1981,
Assessment of Sources of Nitrogen in Groundwater Recharge,
Riverhead and Western Southampton wastewater facility
planning area: Cornell University Center for Environmental
Research; Ithaca, New York.
Jensen, H.M. and Soren, J., 1974, Hydrogeology of Suffolk
County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-501; Washington, D.C.
Kaplan, O.B., 1987, Septic Systems Handbook: Lewis Publishers,
Inc.: Chelsea, Michigan; 290p.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kelly, T., 1988, 10-Acre Building Limits Proposed for watershed;
The Official paper of the Towns of Southold, Riverhead and
Southampton and the Incorporated Villages of Greenport and
Westhampton Beach.
Koszalka, E.J., 1984, Geohdrology of the Northern Part of the
Town of BrOOkhaven, Suffolk County, New York: u.S.
Geological Survey: Water Resources Investigations Report
83-4042; Syosset, New York; 37p.
Krulikas, Richard K., 1986, Hydrologic Appraisal of the pine
Barrens, Suffolk County, New York: u.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report #84-4271; Syosset,
New York; 53p.
Lambe, R., 1985, Brookhaven Open Space Study, Technical Report:
Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council, Town of
Brookhaven Division of Environmental Protection; Brookhaven,
New York; 214p.
Little, Elbert, L., 1980, The Audubon Society Field Guide to
North American Trees, Eastern region: Audubon Society;
Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New York; 714p.
Long Island Lighting Company, 1988, Population survey
Current Population for Nassau and Suffolk County:
Hicksville, New York; 38p.
1988:
LILCO;
, 1989, Long Island Population survey: LILCO;
Hicksville, New York.
Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978, Long Island
Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan - 208
study: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 2 vol.;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1978, Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 6,
Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply Sensitive
Areas: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York.
, 1982, Long Island segment of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York
, 1982, Population - 1980, Housing
Characteristics: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York; 75p.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, 1984, Population Survey - 1984, Current
Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties: LIRPB;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1986, Special Groundwater Protection Area
Project: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York.
MCClymonds, N.E. and Franke, O.L., 1972, Water-transmitting
properties of aquifers on Long Island, New York: u.S.
Geological Survey Prof. Paper #627E; Washington, D.C.
Mitchell, R.S., and Rhoviak, C.J., 1983, Rare Plants of New
York State; Bulletin No. 445, New York State Museum,
University of the State of New York, State Education
Department; Albany, New York; 96p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981,
Divisional Normals and Standard Deviations of
Temperature (degrees F) and Precipitation (inches)
1931-80 (1931-60, 1941-70, 1951-80): Climatographyof
the united States No. 85; Asheville, North Carolina,
175p.
Nemickas, Bronius and Koszalka, Edward J., 1982, Geohydrologic
Appraisal of Water Resources of the South Fork, Long Island,
New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper #2073;
Washington, D.C.; SSp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1978,
Ground Water Classification Quality Standards and Effluent
Standards and/or Limitations (Title 6; Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 703) (Statutory
Authority: Environmental Conservation Law, Sections 17-
0809), 16p.
, 1987, Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern
Species of New York State: NYS DEC; Albany, New York.
, 1987, Final Regulations Establishing Procedures
for Selection, Review, Approval and Funding of State Land
Acquisition, perservation and Improvement Projects: NYS
DEC; Albany, New York.
, 1987, Land Acquisition, Preservation and
Improvement Projects: Title 7, NYS DEC; Albany, New York.
, 1990, New York Rare Plant Status List, June 1990;
Latham, New York.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New York state Natural Heritage Program, 1987, Rare Animal
status List; Delmar, New York.
Niering, W.A., 1985, Wetlands: Audubon Society Nature Guides;
Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New York; 638p.
Odum, Eugene P., 1971, Fundamentals of Ecology: 2nd ed.; W.B.
Sanders Company; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 546p.
Parson, Ruben L., 1964, Conserving American Resources:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 521p.
Perlmutter, N.M., Lieber, Maxim, and Frauenthal, H.L., 1964,
contamination of Groundwater by Detergents in a Suburban
Environment - South Farmingdale area, Long Island, New York:
u.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper #501-C;
Washington, D.C.; p. 170-175.
Peterson, D. S., 1987, Ground-water Recharge Rates in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, New York: U. S. Geol. Survey, Water
Resources Investigations Report 86-4181; Syosset, New York;
19 p.
Peterson, R. T. and MCKenny, M., 1968, A Field Guide to
Wildflowers of Northeastern and Northcentral North
America: Houghton Mifflin Co.; Boston, MassaChusetts,
420 p.
Petrides, George A., 1972, A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs:
The Peterson Field Guide Series, 2nd ed.; Houghton
Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts; 428p.
Porter, K.S., and 11 others, 1978, Nitrates: in The Long Island
Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan; Volume II,
Summary Documentation; Long Island Regional Planning Board;
Hauppauge, New York.
Ritter, D. F., 1978, Process Geomorphology: Wm. C. Brown
Company, Dubuque, Iowa; 603 p.
Robbins, C.S., 1979, Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Bird
PopUlations: in Degraff, R.M. & Evans, K.E., Workshop
Proceedings, Management of North Central and Northeastern
Forests for Nongame Birds, January 23-25, 1979, Minneapolis,
Minnesota; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
NC-51; st. Paul Minnesota; pp. 198-212.
Scott, S.L., 1983, Field Guide to the Birds of North America:
National Geographic Society; Washington, D.C.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Seaburn, G.E., 1970, Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies
at Two Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982, Report on
the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in
Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepared by
Bureau of Water Resources, Baier and Robbins; 71 p.,
Appendices A-H.
, 1987, Sanitary Code, Article 6, Groundwater
Management Zones (Map); Hauppauge, New York. .
, 1987, Suffolk County Comprehensive Water
Resources Management Plan: Division of Environmental Health
(SCDHS), Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1988, Standards and Procedures for Private Water
systems: Division of Environmental Quality; Hauppauge,
New York; 14p.
, Division of Environmental Quality, 1988, Standards
for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewarge Disposal
Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences, Hauppauge,
New York.
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon
Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p.
Swihart, M. M. and PetriCh, C. H., 1988, Assessing the Aesthetic
Impacts of Small Hydropower Development: National
Association of Environmental Professionals, The
Environmental Professional, Vol. 10, No.3;
Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210.
TChobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D., 1985, Water Quality,
Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts.
Todd, David K., 1959, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.; New York, New York; 336p.
Town of Southold, 1984, Master Plan Update, Background Studies:
Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc.; Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, 1985, Master Plan Update Summary: Raymond, Parish
Pine and Weiner, Inc.; Town of Southold Planning Board,
Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
, 1989, Code of Town of Southold, Chapter 100,
Zoning, Southold New York.
, 1989, Zoning Map: Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975, Soil Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York: Washington,
D.C.; 101p.
, 1977, Soil Conservation Service
Guidelines for soil and water conservation in
urbanizing areas of Massachusetts: Amherst, Massachusetts.
,
Important
maps
1978, Soil Conservation Service
Farm Lands, Suffolk County, New York, three
, 1980, A guide to: Conservation Plantings on
Critical Erosion Areas: Syracuse, New York; 31p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980,
Characteristics of the Population, NUmber of Inhabitants,
New York; 1980 Census of Population.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF
4-REG-17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,
Rev. 4/29/83.
U. S. Geological Survey, 1986, Water Resources Data, New York,
Water Year 1985: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Data Report
NY-85-2, Vol. 2, Long Island; Albany, N. Y.; 304p.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking Water standards: U.s.
Public Health Service Pub. #956, 61p.
Vaughn, James M. and Landry, Edward F., 1980, The Fate of Human
Viruses in Groundwater Recharge Systems: Brookhaven National
Laboratory; Upton, New York, 63p.
Vaughn, James M., Landry, Edward F. and MCHarrel, Thomas Z.,
1983, Entrainment of Viruses from Septic Tank Leach Fields
through a Shallow, Sandy Soil Aquifer: Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 45. 5, pp. 1474-1480.
I--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Wetzel, R. G., 1975, Limnology: W. B. Saunders Co.;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 743 p.