HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacari at Laurel Book II 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-";'~':"'7~r~"~J",,,,,,,-.',"-.'-'.'-':"c-.",,. "
--'-~';"""'.".':"'.' ,,'.-'
---,--~."",,~...,...-,-,-,---
-....,'" .' '-~"'~'-',',,-,~'''''-''''. ""'';-''^''~';' .,
"'~.-.
BOOK 2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
MACARI AT LAUREL
TYPE I ACTION
This Document Represents A Final Environmental Impact Statement
For The Above Referenced Project. Copies Are Available For
Public Review And Comments At The Offices Of The Lead Agency.
Comments will Be Accepted Until
IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
Article 8 Environmental Conservation Law (8-0113)
Part 617 statewide Regulations (6 NYCRR)
DATE: August, 1993
LEAD AGENCY:
APPLICANT:
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Contact Person:
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Phone: 516-765-1938
Joseph Macari
c/o Peter S. Danowski, Esq.
616 Roanoke Avenue
Riverhead, New York 11901
PREPARED BY:
LOCATION:
RiChard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
37 Brightwood street
Patchogue, N.Y. 11772
Bounded by Sound Avenue-Middle
Road on the north and Laurel Way
(R.O.W.) on the east and south
in Laurel, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York
ACCEPTANCE DATE:
COMMENT DATE:
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F.E.I.S. TEXT
INTRODUCTION
BOOK 1
I
LIST OF COMMENTATORS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOPIC HEADINGS:
SUMMARY
I
II.
I
III.
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV.
I
I
I
I
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.
BIOLOGICAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.
2.
FLORA
FAUNA
. .
.
. . . . . .
C.
HYDROLOGIC SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. GROUNDWATER. . .
WATER QUALITY
3. SANITARY WASTE
D. MUNICIPAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.
5.
TRAFFIC
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND
SCENIC RESOURCES ...
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION ............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... ..
A.
PHYSICAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.
TOPOGRAPHY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.
BIOLOGICAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . .
...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.
2.
FLORA
FAUNA
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. ....
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
C.
HYDROLOGIC SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
GROUNDWATER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
F
1
2
2
3
13
13
13
27
32
32
32
39
40
40
40
41
41
44
44
44
46
46
48
51
51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V.
VI.
VII.
IX.
3.. SANITARY WASTE ............................................................. 62
D. MUNICIPAL SETTING................................................................ 84
4.. TRAFFIC.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 84
7.. POPUIATION.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 85
8. MATTI TUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.9.............. 86
9~ TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING.......................................... 87
MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
88
A. PHYSICAL SETTING .................................................................. 88
1. TOPOGRAPHY.. .... .... .................... .......... .......... ........ .. .. .. .. .... 88
B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING .............................................................. 90
1 .. FI.,QRA.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 90
FRESHWATER WETIANDS .................................................... 93
2.. FAUNA.. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 99
c. HYDROLOGIC SETTING ...................................................... 10'0
1. DRAINAGE. ........ ............ . .... . .... ... ... 100
2. GROUNDWATER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103
3. SANITARY WASTE ............................... 106
D. MUNICIPAL SETTING
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
107
1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLy......................... 107
3. ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING
AND OPEN SPACE .............................. 117
5. CULTURAL, fr:STORICAL, AND
SCENIC RESOURCES ............................ 136
6. HOUSING. . .. ..... . . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. 141
8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.9.............. 142
9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING ..................... 144
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 145
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................. 145
A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................ 167
B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE................................ 169
C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL ....................... 178
D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
181
GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION ............................................. 182
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
x. CCMtTIATIVE IMPACTS .................................. 182
REFERENCES CITED
BOOK 2
APPENDICES
COMMENTS
ILLUS'!'RJ4'T'!ONS
FIGURE:
1. Location of Data Collection Stations: Quality
of Groundwater ..................................... 37
2. Site Sensitivity Map ................................ 43
3.
Lot IS of Proposed Action:
Potential Layout ........
45
4.
Contributing Drainage Areas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102
5. Wate~ Quality of Municipal Wate~ Sour=e ............. 113
TABLE :
1. New Yc~k S~a~e Coas~al ?oli=ies ..................... 121
PT ~ m~.
~........
3. site Plan - Modified Cluster Alte=native ............ In
Pocket
1_?P'C'N!J....~ES
APPEND::X:
A. Town of Southold Documents
B. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Documents
1. Request for Wetlands Delineation of NYSDEC
2. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Boundary Confirmation
3. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map and Classifications
C. U.S. Army corps of Engineers Request for Establishment
of Potential Jurisdiction
D. Soil and Groundwater Quality at the Macari at Laurel
Site
E. Water and Nitrogen Budget Calculations
Hi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Suffolk County Water Authority Documents
Letters to Adjacent Property OWners
Recharge Basin Information
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Documents
correspondence to Southold Town Planning Board,
March 6, 1992
CUltural Resource Inventory, Stage II
Traffic study Supplement
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman
Goorge Rilchie Lalham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Konnelh L. Edwards
SCOlT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Tolephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Soulhold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-IH23
June 6, 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM*1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, June 4, 1991.
Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1991,
together with the six pages of revised text, received by the
Planning Board on May 13, 1991 as complete for the purpose of
public and inter-agency review.
Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board initiate a public
comment period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of
this resolution. The public comment period will run until July
5, 1991.
Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board set Monday June 24,
1991, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
JJu,v?Uz( ~~~', L.
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. 71 r?>7)
Chairman
cc: Charles J. Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates
./C
JAr r--I~a.r;
C rul er- {lo,p.
H Y(.l~(l1j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Henllen Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
SCOlT L. HARRIS
Supervisur
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
July 16, 1991
Peter S. Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
RE: Macari at Laurel
SCTM#1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The public comment periOd on the Draft DEIS ended July 5,
1991.
The next step is to prepare a Final DEIS. The Planning
Board feels it would be helpful if you prepared a response to
the pUblic comments received to date. As lead agency, it is
the Planning Board's responsibility to determine the adequacy
and accuracy of the Final EIS. This will provide you with the
opportunity to modify the project, conduct the necessary
research, and propose mitigation measures which may be
appropriate or necessary to address the relevant comments. A
list of the written and verbal comments is enclosed along with
copies of the actual comments.
In preparing these comments, please consider the following:
1. The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final
EIS, but may be incorporated by reference;
2. All original comment letters and transcripts should be
included;
3. Comments should be identified as to whether they were
made at the public hearing or if they were submitted
as part of the written record;
4. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source;
5. Comments should be summarized without detracting from
the nature, scope or intent of the comments;
6. A response for each substantive comment must be
provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and objective, and should be referenced to indicate
source material for conclusions (If it is necessary to
revise any part of the DEIS, it would be helpfUl if
this was clarified in the response.);
7.
The most encompassing comment in the
be addressed first in the responses.
comments that are duplicative can be
previous response.
document should
Subsequent
referenced to a
The Planning Board would like to you take particular care
to thoroughly address the following issues in the final impact
statement:
1. The value of this property for watershed protection
and for public water supply purposes should be
examined closely. Reference should be made to the
significance of this property's inclusion in the
Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area.
2. Alternative development options should be presented.
One option that should be presented is a tighter
cluster with 30,000 square foot lots and less linear
footage of road. Another option is the dedication of
land for watershed protection and supply purposes.
3. A copy of the data that has been requested
by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
should be included in the text.
4. Proposed use(s) of the open space should be set forth.
The State Environmental Quality Review Regulations indicate
that a Final EIS should be prepared within 45 days after the
close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that
additional time is necessary to prepare the statement
adequately. If additional time is needed to provide an adequate
and accurate response, it will not be necessary for you to
adhere to the 45 day time frame.
Upon receipt of five (5) copies of the responses, the
Planning Board will review the documentation in a timely fashion
for adequacy and accuracy.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
~ ~,f{/
Bennett Orlowski, Jr. /~
Chairman
Encls.
ILANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman
I George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G . Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth I.. Edwards
I Telephone (516) 765-I'JJX
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1,\}fFOl.t' "
~, , ~
Q ..~: :.c:. 1
; '~n'" $
~Q '" ~~
'./~ ~
~
- SCOlT L_ HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Soulhold. New York 11971
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Pax (516) 765-IX~.~
June 9, 1992
Peter Danowski, Jr.
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York
11901
RE:
Major Subdivision for
Macari at Laurel
SCTMi 1000-121-4-9
Dear Mr. Danowski:
The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board
at a meeting held on June 8, 1992:
WHEREAS the Southold Town Planning Board has reviewed the
Final Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1992; and
WHEREAS the Planning Board's
Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, has
Environmental Impact Statement;
environmental consultant,
also reviewed the Final
Be it therefore
RESOLVED that the Planning Board deem the Final
Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1992 incomplete,
adopt the report dated May 29, 1992 from Cramer, Voorhis &
Associates.
and
Upon receipt of a revised Final Environmental Impact
Statement the Board will proceed with their review.
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Very truly yours,
B~qi~/~f
Chairman
Encl.
I"":;
I,
1
1
1
1
1
'I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
, '1ii5l.\~ !;;r~ (
CRAMER, VOORHIs.- ~~SSOCIA TES
ENVIRONMENTA~~P:J;~1~G CONSULTANTS
("
0(.</3r-1'-6
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
May 29, 1992
Re: Macari at Laurel
Review of Final EIS
'/Dr @ " n 'If ".~
tpJI - -21~
...iI;;." SOUTHOLD TOIVN
PlANNING BOARD
Dear Benny:
As per your request, we have completed the review of the proposed Final EIS for the
Macari at Laurel site. The doCument contains comments received on the Draft EIS, and the
applicant's response to said COmments. Please note that it is the responsibility of the
Planning Board to ensure that the responses to Draft EIS comments are complete and
adequate, regardless of who prepares the Final EIS. Therefore, based upon detailed review
of the response to comments provided by the applicant, we feel that significant additional
information is required before this document could be considered to provide a complete
Final EIS. Beyond the SEQR requirements for the Planning Board to file a complete Final
EIS, we believe that there is additional information necessary in order to give full
consideration to the environmental implications of the project, prior to reaching an informed
decision.
In general, there are several areas of concern which should be addressed prior to
Final EIS acceptance. A comment on the Draft EIS requested soil sampling to determine
potential p'resence of toxins in soils, due to proposed residential use of the site. Analysis of
on-site s01ls found the presence offive (5) pesticides in detectable concentrations, with two
compounds (p,p-DDE and p,p-DDT) in concentrations of 130 and 260 ug/Kg, respectively,
The applicant should be directed to forward the sampling rationale and methodology and
the results to the local Health Department for a decision regarding public health
implications of site use. It is likely that SCDHS will forward the analysis to the State
Department of Health for consideration; however, the request should originate from the
local agency.
An additional comment on the Draft EIS dealt with the sensitivity of the site with
respect to Cultural Resources. The site has been determined to exhibit extreme pre-historic
resource sensitivity. The site is proximate to other documented archaeological sites, and is
near water sources and productive areas known to be frequented by aboriginal cultures. The
site lies in an area known to yield archaeological artifacts, and indeed shovel probes yielded
cultural material in 30 of 211 shovel probes, with definable areas of greater sensitivity.
Recovered material not only included lithic material but also suggests woodworking tools,
food preparation, stoneworking tools and wampum manufacture. Accordingly,
environmental conditions and recovered material suggest a possibility of seasonal or
permanent settlement of the site. Several areas with potential pre-historic integrity below
the plow zone were delineated in the Final EIS (Figure 2). Due to the documented .
sensitivity of the site, additional information concerning the extent and significance of the
present findings is necessary before adequate site use planning and impact determination
1'.Ige I
54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331.1455
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
.
"
Macari at Laurel
Review or Final EIS
can be completed. The applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of
site cultural resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in
order to maintain identified resources intact on the site. In review of the applicant's
response to this issue provided in the Final EIS, we note that the NYS Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation is in concurrence that additional subsurface testing is
warranted; however, that office was not supplied with a copy of the Stage lA/ill report,
therefore meaningful technical comment was not provided. The extent of further
exploration should be further coordinated with NYS Parks Department, through review of
currently available material. These issues should be resolved prior to acceptance of the
Final EIS in order to provide the Planning Board and involved agencies with information
important in the planning process.
It is also noted that the response to comments thinly defends the original proposed
project, although a revised subdiVision (tighter modified cluster) has been submitted with the
Final EIS which clearly will have less impact than the proposed project. This revised plan
removes Lot 18 from the steep slope and contiguous open space area south of the central
kettle, reduces lots sizes, increases open space, reduces nitrogen loading, maximizes
wetlands setbacks, and is generally more sensitive to the sites environmental resources. The
applicant has voluntarily submitted the revised plan in an effort to mitigate impacts noted in
review of the Draft EIS. The Final EIS should support the revised plan based upon the
superiority of the revised plan. This could be accomplished through the response to
comments which precipitated the design changes, as well as in an additional alternative
analysis which the applicant provided with this Final EIS.
Finally, in terms of general comments on the proposed Final EIS for Macari, it is
noted that the document does not include a reference list for sources of information quoted
in the document. This should be included in a revised Final EIS submission.
In addition to ~eneral comments, there are a number of specific areas of the
document which require revision. These comments pertain mainly to the sensitivity of the
document in responding to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as more technical questions
regarding accuracy and consistency of information presented. Comments are keyed to
corresponding pages and sections of the proposed Final EIS as follows:
II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Page 5
3. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant address the wetlands
regulatory boundary of the Town Trustees. This has not been completed in the reply.
4. Comment: The comment requested that the applicant indicate if proposed landscape
mitigation would be completed as part of proposed subdivision improvement, or as
part of private lot development. Information concerning planting methodology has
been provided; however, the distinction between whether planting will occur as part
of the subdivision or private lot use is unspecified. It is important for the Planning
Board to determine what landscaping can be required as part of subdivision
improvement, as it is more difficult to control landscaping of private lots.
III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
B. Biological Setting
Page 14
~~\\ /:ill"
,~-_.\\\ ,;1"-\\
CRAMER, VOORHIS. &!~SSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT~~t:!.D\Jj;~~t~G CONSULTANTS
Page 2
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
2.
IV.
1.
1.
(
(
Macari at Laurel
Review or Final EIS
1.
1. Flora
Comment: Review of Appendix B-1 finds that wetland area MT-22 is delineated in
the easternmost kettle on the NYSDEC map. The eastern kettle does not contain
wetlands however, the central one does. Therefore, in order to clarify the wetlands
location the Final EIS should make note of the mapping error in the NYSDEC
Freshwater Wetlands Maps.
C. Hydrologic Setting
2. Groundwater Page 38
Comment: The comment pertained to soil testing for residual pesticides due to public
health concerns related to future residential use. Soil analysis was conducted;
however, no supported conclusion with regard to suitability of testing, or public health
concern was reached. Analysis should be submitted to the NYS Department of
Health via the SCDHS for a determination prior to Final EIS acceptance. With
regard to analysis the following is noted. The highest soil concentrations and the
human contact area would be expected in the upper 6 inches of soil. Soil samples
conducted for the Final EIS were composited from unknown portions of four (4)
borings up to a depth of 1.5 feet in depth. These samples may no be representative of
health related contaminant levels of upper soils. Appropriate agencies should be
conducted for sampling methodology and analysis.
The document makes note of high iron and manganese in the range of 38.6 to 54.2
m&/l, but incorrectly compares these levels to a 50 mg/l guideline. In fact, the
guideline of combined iron and manganese for Class GA waters contained in 6
NYCRR Part 703.5 is 0.5 mg/l, indicating that concentrations detected on the site are
excessive and warrant further explanation.
4.
D.
Municipal Setting
4. Traffic Page 41
Comment: The comment requested information concerning seasonal increase of
traffic volume on area roads. The response indicates that a worst-case scenario was
utilized; however, contact with NYSDOT finds that for seasonal traffic based
communities, August daily traffic may be as much as 15 percent higher than June
traffic. The Traffic Impact Study does not make note of any seasonal variation
whatsoever, and does not provide a worst-case analysis as is purported in both the
Traffic Impact Study and the proposed Final EIS.
ANTICIPATED I::NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
C. Hydrologic Setting
2. Groundwater Page 59
Comment: The comment requested further information of the impact of the proposed
project on the water quality of Laurel Lake. In addition to informatIOn contained in
the response, the quality of recharge entering the site (particularly nitrogen) should
be considered in the context of groundwater-surface water relationships, should
certain water years produce a more southerly component of groundwater migration.
3. Sanitary Waste . Page 62-73
Comment: The applicant has provided additional computations regarding the
concentration of nitrogen in site recharge. Review of this section raises several
/!?a~ fi!!~
CRAMER. VOORHIS & 'ASSOCIATES
ENVIAONMENT~A!lID\.E~I;~G CONSULTANTS
I'uge 3
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
Macari at Laurel
Review of Final EIS
2.
questions with regard to assumptions and values. The irrigation rate of 10
inches/year noted on Page 67 and in other portions of the document should be
referenced. Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality in the
Pine Barrens of Southampton) make note of a turf irri~ation rate of 5.5 inches/year.
In addition, irrigation would be subject to evapotranspiration which does not appear
to be included in the calculations. References should also be provided for the pet
waste nitrogen based on 0.41Ibs/person equivalent. .
This section also refers to Appendix E for detailed calculations. Cross reference
between the Final EIS text and Appendix E finds that the text refers to a nitrogen
fertilizer load of2.3Ibs/1000 sq ft; however, Appendix E uses 3.5Ibs/lOOO sq ft. In
addition, the text refers to a pet nitrogen contnbution of O.41Ibs/person equivalent,
whereas Appendix E uses 0.82Ib/person. These discrepancies should be clarified so
that the document is consistent.
In the conclusion regarding nitrogen impact on groundwater, the concentration of
nitrogen in recharge should be compared to water quality beneath the site as
determined by on-site monitoring, rather than nitrogen from a more distant water
source. In addition, Hughes and Porter (1983) (Land Use and Ground-Water Quality
in the Pine Barrens of Southampton) provide a statistical basis to determine the
potential for a nitrogen in recharge concentration to exceed the 10 mg/l standard.
The project discharlle could be considered in this context as an additional means of
determining potential impacts.
Any changes in the values, assumptions, methods of analysis and determinlltion of
impact potential related to concentration of nitrogen in recharge, should be changed
in each analysis throughout the document, including Appendices and Alternatives.
Comment: The comment requested the background level of nitrogen beneath the
site. The response should not assume that groundwater beneath the site is similar to
the Captain Kidd water supply, when this is directly contradicted by more accurate
and specific on-site data.
Comment: The new well sample should be reviewed as compared to the 0.5 mg/l
combined iron and manganese guideline.
9.
D.
1.
MuIticipal Setting
4. Traffic Page 84-85
Comment: The comment pointed out the discrepancy between the traffic study build
out evaluation based on 2 years, and the Draft EIS project occupancy schedule based
on 5 years. The response mdicates "It is common to use a two year interval between
existmg and built conditions". While it may be common to perform analysis based on
a two year build out, proper analysis would attempt to make the build out analysis
year consistent with the specific project. In addition, the Traffic Study (Page 4; DEIS
Appendix D), indicates that, ''Traffic impact studies are intended to examine the
worst case situation". Certainly projecting the growth rate over a longer period of
time which is more consistent with the expected build out year would constitute both
a more appropriate methodology and a worst case scenario. The response should be
modified to address the comment. .
,<@\~ I;;'~
CRAMER, VOORHIS &(ASSOCIA TES
ENVJRONMENTA~'$PN~!-~G CONSULTANTS
Page 4
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
V.
(
(
Macari at Laurel
Review or Final EIS
Comment: The comment requested mitigation for a degradation of Level of Service
from B to C at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road. The response
indicates, "A Level of Service C is very acceptable". The Final EIS should define the
Level of Service as regards intersection operational efficiency in support of this
statement.
MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACfS OF TIlE PROPOSED ACTION
3.
B. Biological Setting
1. Flora Page 92
Comment: The comment requested more stringent measures to minimize impact by
restricting lot clearing and minimizing lawn areas. The reply did not address thiS
issue, however, it is noted that additional measures could be taken to further reduce
impacts. Such measures including: covenanted rear yard buffers, percent of lawn area
covenants, etc. should be noted in the Final EIS.
C. Hydrologic Setting
2. Groundwater Page 103-106
Comment: The nitrogen in recharge should be compared to groundwater nitrogen
beneath the site rather than nitrogen in a more distant water source.
Comment: The location of the possible future well field site requested by SCW A
should be included in the Final EIS. The project is a cluster design, therefore it may
be possible to provide sufficient acreage for placement of a well field. In addition,
the site is in a core watershed area with high groundwater elevations as compared
other areas of the North Fork, and on-site water quality is good with the exception of
iron and manganese. The Final EIS should evaluate the feasibility of well field siting
in consideration of SCW A elevation and size requirements.
Comment: The last sentence in the reply to this comment should be corrected to
indicated that sand only could be used for deicing purposes.
3. Sanitary Waste Page 107
Comment: Discharge of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to on-site nitrogen
levels not nitrogen in a more distant water source.
D. Municipal Setting
1. Potable Water Supply Pa~e 107-117
Comment: On-site water quality analysis is available and indicates unsuitable water
quality with respect to iron and manganese. The implications of this should be
discussed as regards proposed water supply for site in view of Article 4 requirement
(4). .
3. Zoning/Land Use/Planning/Open Space Page 123-130
Comment: The Department of State commenlS that the Draft EIS should consider
the 44 State LWRP policies. One particular comment involved consideration of
Transfer of Development Rights to preserve the parcel. The applicant has responded
that the project proponent owns other acreage in Southold; however, Southold does
not have a TOR program in place. The possibility of utilizing NYS Town Law 281,
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
3.
. Aa\\~ /III.~ .
CRAMER, VQ9RH1S. &:;ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENT AC;,~ND,.Ii'tANN'NG CONSULTANTS
.~- ",,,rg---\\\\\
Page 5
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
~
Macari at Laurel
Review of Final EIS
for a yield shift between non-contiguous parcels owned by the same party should be
explored as a means of achieving the same objective.
With regard to Policy 23, the response should be amended as necessary based on
additional evaluation of cultural resources. With regard to Policy 26, the applicant
should discuss the fact that only approximately 50 percent of the parcel contains
prime agricultural soil, and the balance of the site contains valuable wetlands and
unique geologic features associated with Laurel Lake and its environs. Therefore the
appropriateness of preservin~ the site for agricultural use in view of other factors
must be considered. Trends in farming on the parcel and area should be stated in
relation to possible inability to conserve and protect agricultural use of the site.
5.
Cultural/Historical/Scenic Resources
Page 137
1. Comment: The comment notes the documented archaeological sensitivity of the
subject site. Due to the documented sensitivity of the site, additional information
concerning the extent and significance of the present findings is necessary before
ade!luate site use planning and impact determination can be completed. The
applicant may wish to proceed with documentation and recovery of site cultural
resources, or provide mitigation through avoidance possible through redesign, in
order to maintain identified resources intact on the site.
3. Comment: The comment indicated that 'The DEIS also does not discuss the
relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way".
Review of the Final EIS finds that this comment has not been responded to.
VI. UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION
Page 145
1. Comment: The response to this comment should reflect the findings of further
archaeological investigation.
VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Page 145
1.
Comment: The consideration of the modified cluster plan should make note of the
benefits of this modified cluster which clearly will reduce potential environmental
impacts as compared to the proposed project. These benefits include but are not
limited to: removal of Lot 18 from contiguous open space area; increase in overall
percentage of open space on site; increase in percentage of conti~ous open space on
site; reduction in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge; and, Increase in the
setback of private land and developed areas from on-site wetlands. .
D. Transfer of Development Rights Pa~e181
Comment: Additional analysis regarding this alternative should be provIded based
upon the non-contiguous 281 concept noted above.
1.
x.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Page 184
2. Comment: The comment relates to wildlife impacts due to cumulative development
~~\\ fI('&.
CRAMER, VOORHIS. e,:ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTA&MiO,:gL:A:~iNG CONSULTANTS
~ Wid ..~\\
Page 6
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
(
(
Macari at Laurel
Review or Final EIS
noted in the Draft EIS. The response relies on public acquisition of lands in the
watershed as the only means of mitigation. If acquisition is not feasible what form of
contiguous open space habitat could be protected if other land development
conformed to open space preservation achieved under the modified cluster for
Macari at Laurel.
6. Comment: The comment pertains to the need for comprehensive planning between
projects proposed in the area of Laurel Lake. It is noted that the Peconic Homes
project includes 45.3 acres located directly adjacent and west of the subject site.
Consideration should be given to alignment of contiguous o~~~ space between these
parcels, and adequate protection of the resources of Laurel e and its environs.
The comment requests information concerning the Miller property and State land
within the cumulative study area, which is not provided in the reply. The status of
proposed use of the Miller property should be indicated. This parcel lies between the
subject project and Laurel Lake, and therefore, consideration should also be given to
alignment of contiguous open space between the site and this parcel, and adequate
protection of the resources of Laurel Lake and its environs. In addition, the size and
configuration of tlie NYSDEC lands, Camp Malloy and the McFeely parcel should be
determined as related to cumulative impact analysis.
7. Comment: The comment further indicates the need for cumulative impact planning
with re~ard to minimizing impact to Laurel Lake and associated wetlands. It IS
recogruzed that the sponsor of the Laurel Lake project is responsible for only one
project; however, this project will provide infrastructure, establish development
trends, induce growth and set precedent. The cumulative impact analysis is mandated
by SEQR and was required in order to provide information concerning the combined
effect of development in the area of Laurel Lake. Macari at Laurel is the first
significant project to proceed through the EIS process, and therefore will serve as a
model for planning and review. It is not sufficient to indicate that other projects are
inactive, as it is likely that other projects will become active as Macari 8roceeds
through the review process. The response to the comment on Pa~e 19 provides no
useful information for Planning Board consideration in determimng cumulative and
secondary impacts. The applicant is urged to provide further analysis with regard to
positive and negative cumulative impacts as was requested in scoping sessions and
review comments on the Draft EIS. .
This letter constitutes our review of the Final EIS submission for Macari at Laurel.
We feel that the applicant has not provided sufficient information in response to comments
based on the current submission. This letter is advisory to the Planning Board, and I would
be pleased to meet with the Board to discuss any aspect of this letter at your request. If the
Board in consideration of this letter is in agreement with our findings, you may wish to
forward this correspondence to the applicant to serve as a guide for revision to the Final
EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Board with input concerning this project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
arles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
~'\\ I!/M~
CRAMER, VOQRHI5, &;;ASSOCIA TES
ENVIRONMENT~~D;Jt~~t~G CONSULTANTS
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B-1
REQUEST FOR WETLANDS DELINEATION TO NYSDEC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
September 12, 1991
Mr. Stephen Sanford
Bureau of Environmental Protection
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Buildinq 40, State University of New York
Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Sanford:
.
This letter is a formal request to your aqency to establish the
NYSDEC requlatory boundaries for the wetlands of the Macari at
Laurel site.
The wetland areas of the site have previously been delineated by
the Land Use Company. These delineations are indicated on the
enclosed site plan.
We will need a letter statinq your findinqs as well as a copy of
the site plan indicatinq the location and NYSDEC requlatory
boundaries of all on-site wetlands areas.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: ;:;-
RAJ:ecl
Enclosures
.~
~~ A. Jackson, Ph.D.
President
co: Peter Danowski, Jr.
Howard Younq
Town of Southold, Board of Trustees
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B-2
NYSDEC FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY CONFIRMATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Il
I
I
~ Yo", S1a1e Oopa""'o.. of E.~"'mo.'aJ Con_.
Region 1 Headquarters
SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
(516) 751-1596
e
~
Thom.. C. Jortlng
Commissioner
Date:
OC.fvber 3/) (CPt
To: I< ,'rhCL,{"d J(; d"'s<:.Jv\.-
--rl,.f' C I Q.j~Ar c... arT'
'P (J.?'/JL {'"
l1n /.e:'S it--<=:. NY
. /
Representing: -SoSP-ph No ro n'
tf" I t\WV i: N. Up" 'j K -eo...(-kr
--.Jo (kc,n^ /'h.ir/",i-s, tOy 1157,;).
Dear ---.t1 v: j D....CJ::~CJ '^-
\11'+3
RE: FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY CONFIRMATION
TAX filAP # IDeO - 1;7 I --f '1
LOCATION 5/" Su.,,,d A-v-e 1 W!1l Lc.u.r...ll o...r.f"D-: ) / Cu-tr.e..(
In response to your request, a field inspection was made of the above referenced
property. The freshwater wetland boundary, as flagged by your firm, has been
confirmed fQ.r the purposes Qf this application.
The Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
regulates most development activities within 100 feet of this boundary. Should
you apply for a permit, your site plan must depict the flagged wetland boundary
as located by a licensed surveyor. I strongly recommend that you promptly hire
a surveyor to plot these flags. The boundary should be noted on the surveyor
site plan as follows:
FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY AS FLAGGED BY (YOUR NAME)
AND APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION BY
N.Y.S.D.E.C. ON --1!;L/ 30 / 9t .
If you have any questions, please contact the Bureau of Environmental Protection
at (516) 751-1596.
ukaa
Regional Ma~~~
Bureau of E~nment Protection
SJS: ki
cc: -:::G5f-~ h
<<I Q ra n:
o COMLOG
Note'
I . Should. plc....{ts Ctc....+-ed
nc.CCe5~(('d .
o PAPLOG
A-~..::l.;l, l'l~o
o MAP
LILa..^';jL ,
o CARD FILE
,-ate I "d ec....f1~ m 4 I:u..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B-3
NYSDEC FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP AND CLASSIFICATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40-SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
~
-....
~
\316) 7S1-1S96 ,
Fax # (516) 751-3839
ILl r-)ejJ!-PI17b?/r I Iqq /
Thomas C. Jorllng
Commissioner
E/ /~11 Lt'?F~;7
C/()Ver ('.rr(}Or ah(;,.{
22o"Mo.lfI Sf ,)f.e 202-
MrJhcnd NY 117u1'
, , I
D~ar
1'15
L0X'7
Please find enclosed:
~
A copy of the portion of
Maps that you requested.
are subject to change at
the Suffolk County Tentative
Please note that these maps
this time.
Freshwater Wetland
are tentative and
A copy of the portion of the Nassau County Freshwater Wetland Maps that
you requested.
~ TN (OD/e<:.: ,:f- +-he ~v.pSh ~;Q.f.pr W p-J/c1I1d
f~oss//;CQii(jiL tJ(J!-~",~ +r,,~ LJJ.u?( Lat!' (Mr-Z)
. +hc (l(iPa..h <II?/' fI(),<-/-11 ,"JJ ,the (oI:~ (f/fT22) as
0,174
I/(}U
,
re~ue"'f-ed
I hope that this material is of help to you. If you have any further
questions regarding freshwater wetlands, please feel free to contact me at
751-1596 Ext. 374.
Sincerely,
r~/J'ecr--7'r( ??(fi/(;.?~
Kathleen M. Maloney
Fish & Wildlife Technician
Bureau of Environmental Protection
KMM/kf
~)
\
(.
"CV'
>()'
, ,
.' ''-~,j//'' .
~';(.; ;":;0
---?~'. .
/[iv' " -
j' ..." .'
",;..0. ~
;;~~ 7 -1 ,C"~"i' .-'
~ o-;-r"/,: V!l:>9 . '€-' ~
, :x t ~ ,
. _ " 0
".' .
.,f'l""
',.-;
o
.
~
I'
~
~
-.
o
I'
,;,-.",
::':"~f' .// 0
0.,0. ;/' "
~\Q) ;/
'ft'vYe 0
ylo
r.'
/0.-;,. .
~
oc._~
-
1 ~.
,~
.-/
'I~~\{':-"~) -, ~~, ~~A,::.-):::':~-:
~'>~~(" ::; ::'-,' '~,) ',-,
,~~"...- C,
- Q-. il;.""='" ~
-":' .'---",. .~"'.Gf
-.,' ~,,'< ' ...:--
, '.'~\... '. ~O. /....
'-.i'/lIl\-"~,/" -'
';:. _,- ',~,' /' .'S
~ >,
w.
---,'
-----
,
'~
/'
1
,
T
1
~
::lI:I
,.".
,....
3: ~.
Ja -
'V Z
I..~. ~.
-' = 'TI
1 ;;;.::11:1
."~ ~
-f=e
I.~ ~
.;<::11:1
-:;:;::~._~-
I~~':~: .
.':'2: .....
. Ja
Z
CL.... .
"
g> 'J)
...,
:3 tD
'" -g
tD
~ ii! ;;I
Q. ."
...
0 "0" O' ~
:3 E: ... -
... III
r; '" -
c: <' -I
III =r
~ ::J t1l
... ." Vi'
...
0 ~ Vi' ..
>. . Ul III
.::l...~=r
0' 0 ,::;: Ul ..
.- Q) Cb
tD -- (")
N Cb -
... 0
.j>.
0;0 :E ::J
.
... Cb 0
... - -
:T r;;
<l> :::J -
(') :T
", 0 0.. Cb
:::J C VI
<
::;. ::J s:
g -< !:U
3 u "
lI) "
:3
Ar
1
g>2
:3 tD
'" ~
~-<
~.Q
... "
0' In
:3Ar
.......-.
.(\)
-
.~.
~
....,
,:).
tb:.. ~'3.:
t:.. ."
.. :J:r;;', · ~~. ,,' ..
. .~
. - ",
:3
<
a'
.:3 -
Eo.
~.
...
. <lI.
. :,::;-.0
;G'
.
'.....
t
,. .'........
u.
;-'-';~'
......' .
...
- ---: --:-_~:7Q--:-- ~;--'-.- -
--.--.--
. ... 6
~-L
,....
.....
b' -0
iil
:::J -g
UI
(1)
g :z < nl -t
"0 ~ III a. "" (l)
~ :::J r+ "0 0 ::l
rn II> o' ..... -
(1) -< tI: 0>
r- ... 0 :::J ... - -t
- < II> ~.
~ == III ... {; c :r.
r+ :1<: III
:s- - o' (J) ~ :::J VI
"0 z: :::J r+ r+ "" -'
:s- III ..... VI
r+ g (l)
. :D (1) VI
'" -< 0 > ::l" al
C (;" (1) ~ ~ VI
G:J. .... "0 0' -0> (l)
... ~ III CD - n
rn rn . I ~ (l) e.
1"\ '" 3 N ..... 0
~ :c ~ (1) ~ :E :J
\Q :::J
~~ ~ ::E ... 0 (l) 0
0 , ..J) . S. -0. !:!: -..
::..~ ~ r+ D> -
ITI ::r ::l :::l"
;? ~ (1)
rn :::J (") 0- m
" rn ~ ~. ITI '0 VI
."" ..
< ... ::l c:
- ::e 0 ~. ::l ::s::
. '" ::l ... - D>
- 3 0 '<
0 rn ::l :0
~ (1) 3
z: r- ::l
:s- ... (1)
2!. ::l
z: ....
0 III
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
',:;.::' ''CJ2"'
/
i___/i>j '\_.'~:\.
'i?;.,;;,.,",:
o
/
/,,'4.
,,,,I'
.:V'
,;1'-,
/'
;\ r.. --,
// '~'-~ _/
.: \
\
.'<.
,
\
~ J:,..
(' /)l.
'" -......... ,..--/../,-
. -~ ':6 /
".'i. 0 ~::f'--', ,J ..:~~/
". p :OJ ./.....
/ -1'0 \...__../) 'R.
. o~.~/ :--./
~-/ /' .-fi~
o.'::t,:,:.~'1/i'o
">1'.'
,>;"~",,
/;{, ,~ ~~.' .
/},"i ' "~".'"
'\V
"
c
"
~
'~;'..,.
.-
o
I.
""-,
,
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--;
I
I
I
I
I
1______
,-~
;1" ..
/WT- Z-
FRESHWATER \'iETLANDS ACT
CLASSIFICATION
C!c{751!
Wetland Identification
L-~u~~J ~k~_county
tr1.:lff", 'u
~ DEC Reg~on
~ County
S~iJTown
~"Ii ,.---'C.;.Jlillage
Wetland No.
Quad Name
Class III
x
Deciduous swamp (d)(l)
Shrub swamp (d)(2)
Float/submergent vegetation (d)(3)
Mud flat proximity (d)(4)
Contains island (d)(5)
50+ ppm alkalinity (d)(6)
Adj. to fertile upland (d)(7)
Rare anim., resident habitat (d)(8)
Rare anim., migration habitat(d) (9)
Rare plant, state (d)(lO)
5-10% of basin (d)(ll)
Surface water system (d)(12)
Visible (d) (13)
One of 3 largest of cover type (d)(14)
1% 'wetland acreage (d)(15) ,
On public land (d)(16)
Grid No.
---.:L.
-.::i..
..:L
Attach field notes confirming each
characteristic checked. Cite sources used.
Weather
<'5' ~
Day of Visit: 5vN,.'i lJ
Preceding Week:
'-t..lJ-J~7 " }2~AI l._i
~ -CA:J,;,y
C,"'_1C.~"'- S~-St.. Pr"'-. O<t-
Classification
:::If:: REGULATORY CLASS
Reclassification
Applicable Characteristics
Class I
Classic bog (b)(l)
Endg. anim., resident hab. (b)(2)
Endg. plant, U. S. (b)(3)
Anim., abun., div., state/reg(b) (4)
15% of basin area (b)(5)
4+ Class II characteristics (b)(6)
Class II
Emergent marsh (c) (1)
~ 2+ cover type groups Ic)(2)
Assoc. with tidal wetland (c)(3)
Assoc. with open water (c)(4)
Adj. to C(t) stream (c)(5)
Endg. anim., mig. habitat (c)(6)
Endg. plant, state (c)(7)
Anim., abun., div., county (c) (8)
Hist./arch. significance (c)(9)
Unique_geology (c)(lO)
10-15% of basin (c) (11)
Aquifer (c)(12)
In urbanized area (c)(13)
_u '/..' One.. of.3 largest wetlands (c) (14)
"_-,-In public rec. area (c)(15)
Adj. to "recreational water (c)(16)
No.. Class II characteristics
... ..
Remarks
,-L'S"
rt.-.;1<oJ
~<':':'j
- ...--z_
~~4.t......,.
~
I r- . /
.:... /~
I "}
j'v:~~:] /4v,,,,{ Lk.
1"( 1 L... ~<,,~ LIL
u.v5",t Af~IIt.""""co.51)~
Cle.ss IIi
coV<!(tYf ~
Investigator:
Tz.
Title
7//1
,
Date
!
Approved by:
Title
Date
IEF~6/78
. ~.._- "'-.-. ------ --"'--
-'':::.,.. - -_:-=-~-~~---~~~~~.
;:':':;....,.~.~:'..,..,:,.,~.r ....Or""""'- ~~_"'.=_',~.:!"l!!!"~~~~~::;-,*"..._;. .,zo-. f..-':;~iT::,i'".~",~~::.:.~~,;,..:'i'.. ,-~.:;f.'_"'!:" .~._ ~o ~~1c;":1' iJIP.l
1
t-/~~sJ)-
S~m /1 Coonly he:s/'A/c/hr JA/!c,nclS- 4.seSSn-,f//,-!--
I,vifhn/ #': ~Mi-'>>
146/~:
I / '- \:'
.. OI/C(crL/l.,.rft: /?'cl LeN '!: V("" H..-;./,/
I&k K!s/lecl~ ?//C//y'7
1.s;~aIA'c-- L(')(JcJ;'oh; /II. cl ~d 4.L::, S',c:/eY..:re.....c/ ~e
_.S1::Ze..' ~. ..~-7 J/'f.4 u . /b,e,0,.?MRnJ-::
l-.~~.t1-e- :.u _ dk 4,;- 6cy;,ce:
j.(~qe/4re'C<-: //;Q tfZ'
__.._1% lOr: (Jver!Y;Jes; OtJ:r>-~ .-
_ . 0
1 /-2-/0/0
/fS- "0"- - . .P-' U... U ..-. .
..'n. .y. ...> ......0
~~ Lt.,- /?"-yz4__... .m._______._ ... _._.h.,<..'. '.S~4'?--"'.0.
C'; 1'J!'ah~ /-df.)
u ~ 4'A/v.r/
1 ~,jAs4'.54e ~
1 S;;n~~~
A'~ s;q
IL4{jL~.&c.<-~c4u~<,LcrcJC()....----.- -----... ----.
. ..... ))'!-...u(!...,{rClI Cw..,:?S','Ar~.,,_-:g
J6ler - -:70 ~
A'bcJc1-.2~-~ ...
1~#t'oJ( dr-ac.-d;,;a{.~. :
1 4J ~;z::-.
.__~)_a/-o~ o<--7.shc-,,{.,...d r;;7,dy:?S
I. e) a/a4d!77Z'. U .
V-J6/19.>k c:/ ~~ olv!
~ 6)aJ1~ ~ /sLL.. ,
1 drH_~' tJ,h~ ~.~d'~ ~~ a-c ~ ct~ce'- ~~~"""/d,-6
I_~ ---=--_~_____ :-4.~~_/.i-~ &' <: ~ j.~ ~./~ ~ ,.): ~,
.. ....--- . .':._--~-
',,!-. .-~""~......"'-"'" :r ~
. .. .. ~,:-. - ,. -,-- _._~. - .'--.-0".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
September 16, 1991
Mr. Roberto Barbosa
Room 1937,'permit Section
Army Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278-0090
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Barbosa:
This letter is a formal request to your agency to establish the
potential jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers over the
wetlands areas present at the Macari at Laurel site.
Enclosed is a
location of the
previously been
delineations are
plan.
copy of the topographic map indicating
site. The wetland areas of the site
delineated by the Land Use Company.
indicated on the copy of the enclosed
the
have
These
site
We will need a letter stating your findings.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
RAJ:ecl
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clov?r Coati,on
~/--..
~hard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
President
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
,,:,.J.......:. ~WI""...".i..'.lU,,~ ~...1A.r'
I
I
'$.\. /.C'
". .....;
~.;.",=",,- ~Ot
'i v I.
....t
I
I
\
I
.
.
\. '.
'-'
...... '.
II "" ~
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
. \.
"r,
I
- ,
\-
",:
.,.
,
\
,
'.\
I
\. ,,_\
.- \ \
- '.
I
I
(U.5.G.5., 1967)
I
N
.
o
I
2000 Ft.
I
I-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY AT THE MACARI AT LAUREL SITE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
McDONALD
GEOSCIENCE
Box 1000 [J Soulhold. New Vorl< 11971
516-765-3677
Jan. 13, 1992
Richard Jackson, PhD.
Clover Corp.
225 Main St.
Northport, NY 11768
Dear Richard:
Enclosed are the water and soil testing results from Macari
at Laurel. The mcnitor well numbers are the same numbers we have
used through out this project.
The soil sample was taken adjacent to monitor well #1. Four
borings were taken at 3' intervals to a depth of 1.5'. The soil
from these four borings was commingled and a sample of this co-
mmingled soil was taken to EcoTest labs.
You should be aware that the choice of which wells to sample
was limited. Wells number 2, 6, and 7 are no longer usable. Well
#2 has been broken off below groung level, well # 6 has been filled
with soil, and well # 7 appears to have been removed.
~ltr:b
/ l~l McDonald
I
I
~
I
.
I
I
I \
\
\
\
I i
I'-
\
.
i
I
I
I
I
....
I
I
I
I
I I
J
.J
I
I
I
i
~-- -
.
.
\
i _
'r--
.
"
\
\
\
\
./
. --
---
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
i
'.
>-
~~
... tI
~lk
-'
>-
-<
)
'; ~
~ ';)
-
.. '"
"
"
\I "
II' .
;I,! ,
. t ~ I
I I..
! " I ; ! I
If I , ,
111:,; III
. :: III
!:
~
~i ; I I .,:--
" ,
I '
I,
~ i
i
\
.
,
....
'::l
~
...
~
,
,
!
,/
\
\
\
...
'"
....
.....
I::
.
-
--
-
~ ~
II'. I<
i
.
-
<
~
! //ll
I f / "
f ,.: ,
/ / " / / I
J .r / ! !
---
-
'.
"
.
, ,f
. ,
\
\"
\ \,
...
. ~
. ,
\ \. \ '.
':\,.....
-
ECO'I"EST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422.5777. FAX (516) 422.5770
LAS NO.C914411/4 12/27/91
John W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
NY 11965
McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Soil sample, composite
ANALYTICAL
Lindane
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
p,p-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
p,p-DDD
p,p-DOT
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Endrin Aldehyde
a SHC
b SHC
d BHC
Endosul~an
Endosul~an
Endosul~an
PARAMETERS
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
\I.QI)<g
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
ug/Kg
1
2
Sul~ate
<2
<2
<2
<2
130
15
6
49
260
<8
<40
<12
<2
<2
<2
<4
<4
<12
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Aroclor 1260 ug/Kg
<40
Aroclor 1016 ug/Kg <40
Aroclor 1221 ug/Kg <40
Aroclor 1232 ug/Kg <40
Aroclor 1242 ug/Kg <40
Aroclor 1248 ug/Kg <40
Aroclor 1254 ug/Kg <40
cc:
REMARKS:
....,~e"""'l.
"'~c;''!''''I~'~
'!!)~
~I?!"~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECO'I'EST LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
3n SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON. N.Y. 11703. (516) 422.5n7. FAX (516) 422.5nO
LAB NO.C914411/1 12/18/91
John W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY 11965
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water.sample, MW#l
ANALYTICAL
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m . p Xylene
o Xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
135-Trimethylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
124-Trimethylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene
n-Butylbenzene
PARAMETERS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Manganese as Mn
Nitrate as N
Chloride as Cl
MBAS as LAS
pH units
Ammonia as N
Spec. Condo umho/cm
Copper as Cu
Zinc as Zn
Lead as Pb
cc:
REMARKS:
rn=
...,~." ."
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Iron as Fe mg/L
T.Coli~orm, 100 mL
45
Absent
3.2
0.8
7
<0.1
5.0
<0.1
86
0.11
0.08
0.034
I~' ,
I ECOI'EST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
3n SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422-5777. FAX (516) 422.5770
LAB NO.C914411/1
12/18/91
John W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
NY 11965
McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water sample, MW.l
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Dichlordi~luometh.ne ug/L
Chloromethane ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Bromomethane ug/L
Chloroethane ug/L
Trichloro~luomethane ug/L
11 Dichloroethene ug/L
Methylene Chloride ug/L
t-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
11 Dichloroethane ug/L
2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L
c-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Bromochloromethane
111 Trichloroethane
l,l-Dichlorpropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
12 Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
12 Dichloropropane
Dibromomethane
112 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
l,3-Dichloropropane
cc:
REMARKS:
...r,Il~..,e;
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
~~~~Cf,.f
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5 Chlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 1112Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 1122Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5
<0.5 123-Trichloropropane ug/L <0.5
<0.5 Bromobenzene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 m Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 p Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
0 Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
<0.5
<0.5 124-Trichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 123-Trichlorobenzene 3g/L <0.5
<0.5 t 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0.5
<0.5 c 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
01
~" .
-------- ---) -----------
~1)tt
1~~'":!~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E'CO'IEST LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
LAB NO.C914411/2
377 SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422-5777. FAX (516) 422-5770
John W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY 11965
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
12/23/91
':Y'.~.
McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water sample, MW'4
ANALYTICAL
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m + p Xylene
o Xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
135-Trimethylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
124-Trimethylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene .
p-Isopropy1toluene
n-Butylbenzene
PARAMETERS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Manganese as Mn
Nitrate> as N
Chloride> as Cl
MBAS as LAS
pH units
Ammonia as N
Spe>c. Condo umho/em
Coppe>r as Cu
Zinc as Zn
Lead as Pb
cc:
REMARKS:
rn=
20628
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Iron as Fe> mg/L
T.Coli~orm, 100 mL
E.Coli, 100mL
37
Present
Absent
1.6
<0.5
22
<0.1
5.2
<0.1
120
0.06
0.06
0.020
NYSOOlJ ro# 10320
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECO'IEST LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422-5777. FAX (516) 422-5770
LAB HO.C914411/2 12/18/91
30hn W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY 11965
ATTH:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
McDonald Geo.cience. Macari at Laurel
3H/Ecote.t DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water sample, MW#4
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Dichlordi~luomethane ug/L
Chloromethane ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Bromomethane ug/L
Chloroethane ug/L
Trichloroxluomethane ug/L
11 Dichloroethene ug/L
Methylene Chloride ug/L
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
11 Dichloroethane ug/L
2,2-Dichloropropane ug/L
c-l,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Bromochloromethane
111 Trichloroethane
l,l-Dichlorpropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
12 Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
12 Dichloropropane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Dibromomethane
112 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1.3-Dichloropropane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
cc:
REMARKS:
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
Chlorobenzene ug/L
1112Tetrachloroethan ug/L
1122Tetrachloroethan
123-Trichloropropane
Bromobenzene
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
m Dichlorobenzene
p Dichlorobenzene
o Dichlorobenzene
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
124-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
123-Trichlorobenzene
t 13 Dichloropropene
c 13 Dichloropropene
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3g/L
ug/L
ug/L
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
______J~~!--
: i:.CO/EST LABORATORIES,INC.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422.5777. FAX (516) 422.5770
LAB NO.C914411/3 12/23/91
John W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
NY 11965
McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water sample, MWI5
ANALYTICAL
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m .. p Xylene
o Xylene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
135-Trimethylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
124-Trimethylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
p-Isopropyltoluene
n-Butylbenzene
PARAMETERS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Manganese as Mn
Nitrate as N
Chloride as Cl
MBAS 3S LAS
pH
Ammonia as N
Spec. Condo umho/cm
Copper as Cu
Zinc as Zn
Lead as Pb
units
cc:
REMARKS:
rn;
20630
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Iron as Fe mg/L
T.Co11~orm, 100 mL
49
Absent
5.2
<0.5
5
<0.1
5.7
<0.1
140
0.09
0.11
0.037
NYSDOH ID' 10320
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECO'IEST LABORATORIES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING
377 SHEFFIELD AVE.. N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703. (516) 422.5777. FAX (516) 422.5770
LAB NO.C914411/3 12/18/91
30hn W. Hallman Ltd
P.O. Box 423
Shelter Island Heights NY 11965
ATTN:
SOURCE OF SAMPLE:
COLLECTED BY:
McDonald GeOSCience, Macari at Laurel
JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91
SAMPLE:
Water .ample, MW#5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Dichlordi~luomethane ug/L
Chloromethane ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Bromomethane ug/L
Chloroethane ug/L
Trichloro~luomethane ug/L
11 Dichloroethene ug/L
Methylene Chloride ug/L
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
11 Dichloroethane ug/L
2.2-Dichloropropane ug/L
c-1.2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Bromochloromethane
111 Trichloroethane
l,l-Dichlorpropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
12 Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
12 Dichloropropane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Dibromomethane
112 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1.3-Dichloropropane
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
cc:
REMARKS:
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
Chlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
1112Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5
1122Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5
123-Trichloropropane ug/L <0.5
Bromobenzene ug/L <0.5
2-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5
4-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5
111 Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
p Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
0 Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
124-Trichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5
Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L <0.5
123-Trichlorobenzene 3g/L <0.5
t 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0.5
a 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 22, 1993
Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
37 Brightwood street
Patchogue, New York 11772
516-758-7152
Mr. Martin Trent
Bureau of Drinking Water
SCDHS
225 Rabro Dr.
Hauppauge, New York 11788
RE: Macari At Laurel
Soil/Water Test Results
Dear Mr. Trent:
Thank you for our recent telephone conversation concerning the
soil and water test results conducted on the proposed Macari At
Laurel project site near Laurel Lake in the Town of Southold. Per
the request of the reviewing agency, SCDHS opinion as to potential
safety issues related to soil and water quality is requested.
Enclosed are the test results as well as the agency request
comment. Thank you for time and consideration in this regard.
Cordially
~
R ard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
MARY E. HIBBERD, M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
Apri15,1993
Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
37 Brightwood Street
Patchogue, NY 11772
Dear Dr. Jackson:
I have referred your request for comments concerning water and soli
tests at Laurel to Mr. Vito Mlnei. P.E. of the department's Office of Ecology.
It may be helpful If you contact Mr. Mlnei at (516) 852-2077, with Information
on the depth of the monitoring wells, conditions of pumping, etc..
The water test results indicate unusually excessive iron concentrations,
manganese concentrations exceed the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level.
and lead levels which exceed the Federal Action Level. Analyses for aldlcarb
residues (Temlk) were apparently not performed, but would be critical to any
evaluation of water quality in this area.
Since organohalide pesticides were detected In the composited soli sample.
water analyses should also include these compounds. As I informed you in our
telephone conversation. the significance of the soil findings should be
discussed with Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
Sincerely,
Q-/;ud-
Martin Trent
Associate Public Health Sanitarian
Bureau of Drinking Water
MT/cls
cc: Vito Minei, w/attachments
.
BUREAU OF DRINKING WATER
.
22S RABRO DRIVE EAST. HAUPPAUGE. NY 1 1 78S....2liK)
.
(SI 8) 853-3075
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
WATER AND NITROGEN BUDGET CALCULATIONS
I MACARI AT LAUREL suaolVISION
MACAAI MACAAI
I ~TER and NITROGEN BUDGET EXISTING EXISTING
(in/yr) (1IlllIl) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE)
I. ~ TER BUDGET:
I V8r;lbLes:
1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 2 IMPOIITS 0.00 0.00
3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
10 SURFACE ~TER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Det.:
11 " UNIMPROVED LANO+RECHARGE BASIN 99.70 99.70
12 " ORIGINAL VEGETATION 99.70 99.70
13 " TURF 0.00 0.00
I 14 " REPLANTED 0.00 0.00
15 " TURF/REPLANTED D.DO O.DO
16 " IMPERVIOUS D.DO D.DO
I 17 " UNPAVED ROADS O.DO O.DO
" ROCK OUTCROPS D.DO D.DO
1B X SURFACE ~TER 0.30 0.30
19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) D.DO O.DO
I KITCHEN DISCHARGE (spd) 0.00 0.00
20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00
I Calculations:
A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 23.75 41,011,178.94
B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00
C DELTA, TURF D.DO 0.00
I D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.00 0.00
E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS D.DO O.OD
DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I F DELTA, SURFACE ~TER 0.05 79 ,367.99
G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.00 0.00
DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Results:
R. 1 ~ TER BUDGET W/SEPTI C 23.79 41,090,546.92
(muni water/stand., denite, on.site 51P)
I R.2 ~TER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 23.79 41,090,546.92
I
I
I
I (Municipel water/Off-site STP,
on-site Wells/Standord Septic)
I R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 41,090,546.92
R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X)
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I V.rllbles:
PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(8NL, 1989: 2.69 OV/L, 50X rech.rged)
I 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Oistr. Are. 58) 6.45 6.45
3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
I (Hughes .t .1., 1981)
(Hughes et .1., 1985)
4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRP8, 1982)
I 5 TURF (LEACHING TO OW . 57%)
6 A. Porter et .1. (1978) 25.00 25.00
(25 lba/15,OOO sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
I 8. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lba/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
7 C. PETS (Iba/person _iv.) 0.82 0.82
8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et Ilw, 1978)
9 A. Standord (lba/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
o. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
I Site Specific Data:
10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
II X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 100.00 100.00
12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00
I 13 X IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00
14 X TURF 0.00 0.00
16 TURF (8cres) 0.00 0.00
I 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00
18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00
I KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (8) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 0.00 0.00
21 X RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00
I Calculations:
A PRECIPITATION 1.35
8 ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.10
C IMPERVIOUS 0.00
I TURF (A) I w. septic 0.00
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic Error 11
0 TURF (Al, w/o septic 0.00
TURF (A+C), w. septic Error 11
UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sop Error 11
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic Error 11
E TURF (A+C), w/o septic Error 11
F UNWEIGHTEO PET LOADING (C), w/o sep Error 11
G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic Error 11
TURF (I), w. septic 0.00
UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic Error "
TURF (8), w/o septic O.DO
H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION D.DO
I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error l'
J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY CA, STANDARD) Error l'
SANITARY (8: DENITE) Error "
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (8: DENITE) Error "
SANITARY (C, STP-OFF-SITE) O.DO
SANITARY (D, STP-ON-SITE) Error 11
KITCHEN WASTE D.DO
I
I
I
I
I
I
Results:
R.' Toto I (turfA+C,SopticA) '.45
Cres.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
R.2 Totol CturfA+C,SopticA) 1.45
(rea.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(w/o background nitrogen)
R.3 Totol (turfA+C,SepticA) '.45
(r...trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.welLs)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf ond replanted indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBOIVISION
MACARI MACARI
I WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET PROPOSED (P.A.) PROPOSED (P .A.)
(in/yr) (mg/I) (;n/yr),(mg/Ll (GPY/ACllEI
I. WATER BUDGET,
I Variables:
1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 6 OVERLAND FLOlI 0.50 13,576.20
7 SURFACE INFLOlI 0.00 0.00
8 SURFACE OOTFLOlI 0.00 0.00
I 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Data:
11 l UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 74.90 74.90
12 l ORIGINAL VEGETATION 71.10 71.10
13 l TURF 12.60 12.60
I 14 l REPLANTED 3.30 3.30
15 l TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90
16 l IMPERVIOOS 9.30 9.30
I 17 l UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
l ROCK OOTCllOPS 0.00 0.00
18 l SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 21 l RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80
I Calculations:
A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.84 30,809,802.43
B DELTA, IMPERVIOOS 4.26 7,358,738.53
C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14
I D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80
E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
DELTA, ROCK OOTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79 ,367.99
G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00
DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Results:
R.l WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.24 5D,49O,566.89
(muni water/stand., denite, on.site STP)
I R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 27.53 47,534,066.89
I
I
I
I (Municipal water/Off.site STP,
on-oito Wollo/Stondord Septic)
I R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 44,788,307.59
R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(8NL, 1989; 2.69 ~/L, 50X rechorged)
I 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Diotr. Areo 58) 6.45 6.45
3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
I (Hughes et 01., 1981)
(Hugheo et 01., 1985)
4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRPB, 1982)
I 5 TURF (LEACHING TO OW . 57%)
6 A. Porter et 01. (1978) 25.00 25.00
(25 lbo/15,DDO sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
I 8. LIRP8 (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lbo/l,DOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
7 C. PETS (lbo/person equlv.) 0.82 0.82
8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et 01., 1978)
9 A. Stondard (lbo/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
8. denitrificotion (Ibo/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
I Site Specific Doto:
10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COYER 71.40 71.40
12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 3.30 3.30
I 13 X IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30
14 X TURF 12.60 12.60
16 TURF (ocreo) 8.01 8.01
I 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00
18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
I 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (8) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00
21 X RECHARGE 8ASIN 3.80 3.80
I calculations:
A PRECIPITATION 1.35
8 ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08
C IMPERVIOUS 0.04
I TURF (A), w. septic 1.25
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.42
D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.3D
TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.37
UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING (Cl, w.sep 1.67
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 19.09
E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.43
F UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING (C), w/o sap 1.77
G UNWEIGHTED TURF CA+C), w/a septic 19.87
TURF (B), w. septic 2.12
UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.48
TURF (B), w/o septic 2.22
H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION D.12
I SANITART (A: STANDARD) 1.47
J UNWEIGHTED SAN I TART (A: STANDARD) 25.11
SANITART (B: DENITE) 0.59
UHWEIGHTED SANITART (8: DENITE) 10.04
SANITART (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITART (0: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00
Resul ts:
R.l Total (tucfA+C,SeptlcA) 4.43
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
R.2 Total (tucfA+C,SeptlcA) 3.71
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(w/a background nitrogen)
R.3 Total (tucfA+C,SeptlcA) 4.48
(res.trf+pts,stnd.Sept.,w8t.weLls)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of tucf and ceplanteel indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION
MACARI MACAR I
I WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET PROPOSED (P.A.) PROPOSED (P.A.)
(;",yr) (nogJl) (fn/yr), (mg/L) (GPYlACRE)
(LIRPB, 1984) (LIRPB, 1984)
6 I. WATER BUDGlOT:
I Variables:
9 I PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 D.DD
11 3 GRWIClWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
I 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
14 6 OVERLAIIl FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 O.DD
16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.DD 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Deta:
21 II X UNIMPROVED LAND.RECHARGE BASIN 74.90 74.90
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGlOTATlON 71.10 71.10
23 13 X TURF 12.60 12.60
I 24 14 X REPLA/lTED 3.30 3.30
25 15 X TURF/REPLA/lTED 15.90 15.90
26 16 X IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30
I 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 O.DD
28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 O.DD
29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
I 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00
31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGlO 63.60 63.60
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80
I 37 Calculetions:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.84 30,809,802.43
39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 4.26 7,358,738.53
40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14
I 41 0 DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 OEL T A, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79 ,367.99
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Results:
49 R.l WATER BUDGlOT W/SEPTIC 29.24 50,490,566.89
(muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET WID SEPTIC 27.53 47,534,066.89
I
I
I
I (Municipal W8t.r/Off~site STP.
On-slto WoIls/Stondord Septic)
I 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 44,788,307.59
55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Voriobles:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50X rechsrged)
I 61 2 BACKGROUNO NITROGEN (Oistr. Ares 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTEO I NO I GENOUS
I (Hughes et sl., 1981)
(Hugh.. et 01., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRPB, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW . 57%)
69 6 A. Porter et 01. (1978) 2.30 2.30
(25 lbe/15,000 sq. ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
I B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lbe/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (lbe/person _iv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et al., 1978)
76 9 A. Stondord (Ibe/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
B. denitrlflcotion (lbe/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-sito) 0.50 0.50
I Site Specific Data:
82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 71.40 71.40
84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 3.30 3.30
I 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30
86 14 X TURF 12.60 12.60
87 16 TURF (acres) 8.01 8.01
I 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00
89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
I 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80
I Calculations:
99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.04
I TURF (A), .. septic 1.55
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 21.58
104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.62
TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.67
UNWEIGHTED PET L~ING (C), w.sep 1.67
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 23.25
108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.75
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET L~ING (Cl, wlo sep 1.77
110 G UNWEIGHTEO TURF (A+C), w/o septic 24.30
TURF (I), w. septic 2.12
UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 29.48
TURF (8), w/o septic 2.22
114 H INDIGENaJS IRRIGATION 0.12
115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.47
116 J UNWEIGHTEO SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11
SANITARY (8: DENITE) 0.59
UNWEIGHTEO SANITARY (8: DENITE) 10.04
SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITEI 0.00
SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITEI 0.15
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00
Results:
124 R.l Total (turfA+C,SeptlcA) 4.73
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepttcA) 4.03
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.welLs)
(w/o background nitrogenl
129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.80
cres.trf+pts,stnd.Sept.,w8t.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf ond replanted indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION
MACAR I MACAR I
I WATER end NITROGEN BlIlGET ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE B
(in/yr) (mg/l) (in/yr), (mg/L) (GPY /ACRE)
6 I. WATER BlIlGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
11 3 GRlllNOWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACE lllTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAF1lRATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Data:
21 11 X UNIMPROVED LAND.RECHARGE BASIN 71.50 71.50
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION 68.00 68.00
23 13 X TURF 12.60 12.60
I 24 14 X REPLANTED 3.30 3.30
25 15 X TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90
26 16 X IMPERVIlllS 12.30 12.30
I 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
28 X ROCK lllTCROPS 0.00 0.00
29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,400.00 8,400.00
I 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50
I 37 Calculations:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.03 29,411,226.62
39 B DELTA, IMPERVllllS 5.64 9,732,525.15
40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14
I 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.78 3,066,000.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Resul ts:
49 R.l WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.87 51,575,277.70
(muni water/stand., denite, on.site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BlIlGET W/O SEPTIC 28.09 48,509,277.70
I
I
I
I (Municipel waterlOff.site STP,
On-site Wells/Standard Septic)
54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 667 r 887 , 089.08
I 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X)
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(8NL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50X rech.rged)
61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Are. 58) 6.45 6.45
I 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
(Hughes et .1., 1981)
I (Hughes et .1., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(L1RP8, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW . 57%)
69 6 A. Porter et .1. (1978) 25.00 25.DO
(25 lba/15,DOO sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
8. LIRP8 (1984) 3.50 3.50
I (3.5 lba/l,OOD sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (Iba/per.on equiv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et .1., 1978)
76 9 A. Stendard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
8. denitrificetion (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
Site Specific Data:
I 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 40.78 40.78
84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00
I 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS O.DO 0.00
86 14 X TURF 59.22 59.22
87 16 TURF (ocres) 609.97 609.97
88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 O.DO
I 89 18 PERSONSIDWELLING 4.00 4.DO
90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
I 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (8) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 0.00 0.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00
Calculations:
I 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 8 ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.04
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.00
I TURF (A), w. septic 5.81
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF IA), w. septic 17.19
104 D TURF IA), w/o septic 1.28
TURF IA+C), w. septic 1.36
UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING IC), w.sep 1.69
UNWEIGHTED TURF IA+C), w. septic 18.88
108 E TURF (A+C), w/a septic 1.41
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING IC), w/o sep 1.80
110 G UNWEIGHTEO TURF IA+C), w/o septic 19.67
TURF (8), w. septic 2.08
UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 29.00
TURF (8), w/o septic 2.18
114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.12
115 I SANITARY IA: STANDARD) 1.49
116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY IA: STANDARD) 25.11
SANITARY 18: DENITE) D.6D
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY 18: DENITE) 10.04
SANITARY IC: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITARY 10: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15
KITCHEN WASTE D.DD
Results:
124 R.l Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.44
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni WIt)
126 R.2 Total IturfA+C,SepticA) 3.n
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells'
Iw/o background nitrogen)
129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.50
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
lof turf and replanted indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION
MACAR I MACAR I
I WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET AL TERNA TI VE B ALTERNATIVE B
(in/yr) (ms/I) (in/yrl,(ms/L) (GPY/ACRE)
(LlRPB, 1984) (LlRPB, 1984)
6 I. WATER BUlGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
11 3 GRlXJNO\/ATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
I 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Data:
21 11 X UNIMPROVEO LANO+RECHARGE BASIN 71.50 71.50
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION 68.00 68.00
Z3 13 X TURF 12.60 12.60
I 24 14 X REPLANTED 3.30 3.30
25 15 X TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90
26 16 X IMPERVIOUS 12.30 12.30
I 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 D.oo
28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 O.OD
29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
I 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,400.00 8,400.00
31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50
I 37 Calculations:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.03 29,411,226.62
39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.64 9,732,525.15
I 40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14
41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.78 3,066,000.00
46 DELTA, KITCMEN 0.00 0.00
I Reaul ts:
49 R.1 WATER BUlGET W/SEPTIC 29.87 51,575,277.70
I (muni water/stand., denite, on~sHe STP)
51 R.2 WATER BUlGET W/O SEPTIC 28.09 48,509,277.70
I
I
I
I (Municip.l water/Off-site S1P,
on'site Wells/Standord Septic)
54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,763,518.41
I 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error l'
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(BNl, 1989; 2.69 mg/l, 50X recharged)
I 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Oistr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPlANTED INDIGENOUS
(Hugh.. et al., 1981)
I (Hugh.. et al., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES D.40 0.40
(lIRPB, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (lEACHING TO GW . 57X)
69 6 A. Porter et al... (1918> 2.30 2.30
(25 lbo/15,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
B. llRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50
I (3.5 lbo/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (lbo/person _iv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et al., 1978)
76 9 A. Standord (l bo/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
B. denitrification (lbo/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off'site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on.site) 0.5D 0.50
Site Specific Data:
I 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 68.30 68.30
84 12 X REPLANTED lNOlGENOUS 3.30 3.30
I 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 12.30 12.30
86 14 X TURF 12.60 12.60
87 16 TURF (acres) 8.01 8.01
I 88 17 DWElliNG UNIT EQUIVALENTS 28.00 28.00
89 18 PERSONS/DWEllING 4.00 4.DO
9D 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 112.00 112.00
KITCHEN IlASTE D.OO 0.00
I 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,400.00 8,400.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,400.00 8,400.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,40D.00 8,400.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,400.00 8,400.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50
Calculations:
I 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPl. INDIG./RECH. 0.08
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05
I TURF (A), w. septic 1.53
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 21.27
104 D TURF CA), w/o septic 1.59
TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.65
UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 1.69
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A-C), w. septic 22.96
108 E TURF (A+C), wlo septic 1.72
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), wlo sop 1.80
lID G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A-C), wlo septic 24.00
TURF (B), w. septic 2.08
UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.00
TURF (8), w/o septic 2.18
114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION D.12
lIS I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.49
116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11
SANITARY (B: DENITE) D.6O
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) lD.04
SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00
Results:
124 R.l Totsl (turfA+c,SepticA) 4.74
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.04
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(w/o background nitrogen)
129 R.3 Totsl (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.81
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation) ,-
(of turf and replanted incUgenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------------ ---------
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBOIVISION
MACAR I MACAR I
WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET MOO IF. CLUSTER MOOIF. CLUSTER
I (in/yr) (mgJl) (in/yr),(mgJL) (GPY/ACRE)
6 l. WATER BUlGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.BO
13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 14 6 OVERLAND FUlII 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOlI 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOlI 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site SpecifiC Data:
21 11 X UNIMPROVED LAND-RECHARGE BASIN 81.20 81.20
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION 79.40 79.40
23 13 X TURF 4.60 4.60
I 24 14 X REPLANTED 2.30 2.30
25 15 X TURF/REPlANTED 6.90 6.90
26 16 X IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60
I 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.BO 1.BO
I 37 Calculations:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 19.34 33,401,281.14
39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.32 9,178,641.61
40 C DELTA, TURF 1.56 2,686,561.42
I 41 0 DELTA, REPlANTED 0.78 1,343,280.71
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Results:
49 R.l WATER BUDGET II/SEPTI C 28.75 49,645,632.86
(muni water/stand., denite, on.site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BUlGET 11/0 SEPTIC 27.04 46,689,132.86
I
I
I
I (Municipal weter/Off-site STP,
an..ite Wella/Stand8rd Septic)
I 54 R.3 ~TER BUOGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,497,576.94
55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11
ll. NITROGEN BUOGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50X recherged)
I 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Aree 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGIHAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
I (Nughes et el., 1981)
(Hughes et 01., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(L1RPB, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GII . 57X)
69 6 A. Porter et el. (1978) 25.00 25.00
(25 Ibs/15,OOO sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
I B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lbo/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et al., 1978)
76 9 A. Stenderd (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
B. denitrfffcetfon (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
I Sfte Specific Dete:
82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COYER 79.70 79.70
84 12 X REPLANTED I NO I GENOUS 2.30 2.30
I 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60
86 14 X TURF 4.60 4.60
87 16 TURF (acres) 2.93 2.93
I 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00
89 18 PERSOIlS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
90 19 PERSOIl EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00
I KITCHEN IlASTE 0.00 0.00
92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (8) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1.80
I Calculations:
99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 8 ORIG. YEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05
I TURF (A), w. septic 0.46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (AI, ~. septic 17.60
104 D TURF (AI, w/o septic 0.48
TURF (A+C), w. septic 0.58
UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (Cl, w.sep 4.65
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+Cl, w. septic 22.25
108 E TURF (A+Cl, w/o septic 0.61
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (Cl, w/o sep 4.94
110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+Cl, w/o septic 23.25
TURF (8), w. septic 0.78
UNWEIGHTEO TURF (81, w. septic 29.87
TURF (81, w/o septic 0.82
114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION D.08
115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD I 1.50
116 J UNWEIGHTEO SANITARY (A: STANDARD I 25.11
SANITARY (8: DENITEl 0.60
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (8: DENITEl 10.04
SANITARY (C: STP'OFF-SITEl 0.00
SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITEI 0.15
KITCHEN IlASTE 0.00
Rout ts:
124 R.l Total (turfA+C,SepticAl 3.64
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni Nat)
126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.22
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wet.wells)
(w/o background nitrogenl
129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.67
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wet.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf and replanted indigenousl
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBllIVISIOII
MACAR I MACAR I
I WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET MCDIF. CLUSTER MCDIF. CLUSTER
(in/yr) (mg/I> (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPY/ACRE)
(LlRPB, 1984) (LIRPB, 1984)
6 I. WATER BUDGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.BO
I 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Data:
21 11 X UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 81.20 81.20
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION 79.40 79.40
23 13 X TURF 4.60 4.60
I 24 14 X REPLANTED 2.30 2.30
25 15 X TURF/REPLANTED 6.90 6.90
26 16 X IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60
I 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30
I 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00
31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.BO loBO
I 37 Calculations:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 19.34 33,401,281.14
39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.32 9,178,641.61
I 40 C DELTA, TURF 1.56 2,686,561.42
41 D DELTA, REPlANTED 0.78 1,343,280.71
42 E DELTA, UNPAVEO ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Resul ts:
49 R.l WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 28.75 49,645,632.86
(lU"'Ii water/stand. r denite, on-site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 27.04 46,689,132.86
I
I
I
I (Municipal water/Off-site STP,
on-site wells/Standard Septic)
I 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,497,576.94
55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECNARGE (X) Error 11
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(BNL, 1989; 2.69 R8/L, SOX rechlrged)
I 61 2 BACKGROUNO NITROGEN (Distr. Arel 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
I (Hughes et II., 1981)
(Hughes et II., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRPB, 1982)
I 6B 5 TUIlF (LEACHING TO OW . 57X)
69 6 A. Porter et II. (1978) 2.30 2.30
(25 lbs/15,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
I B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 Ibs/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (Ibs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter at al., 1978)
76 9 A. Stlndard (Ibs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
B. denitrifielt;on (Ibs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
I Site Specific Data:
82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 79.70 79.70
84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 2.30 2.30
I 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60
86 14 X TURF 4.60 4.60
87 16 TURF (Ieres) 2.93 2.93
I 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00
89 18 PERSOIlS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
90 19 PERSOIl EQUIVALENTS lOB.OO 1OB.DO
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
I 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,100.00 8,100.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1.80
I Calculations:
99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. D.OB
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05
I TURF (A), w. septic 0.57
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A). w. septic 21.84
104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 0.60
TURF (A+C). w. septic 0.69
UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING (C), w.sep 4.65
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 26.49
108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 0.73
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET lOADING (C), w/o sep 4.94
110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 27.76
TURF (B), w. septic 0.78
UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.B7
TURF (8), w/o septic 0.82
114 H INDIGCNlllS IRRIGATION 0.08
115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.50
116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11
SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.60
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04
SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00
Resul to:
124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.75
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
126 R.2 Totsl (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.34
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(w/o background nitrogen)
129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.79
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf and replanted indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI
CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
I WATER and NITROGEN BlIlGET EXISTING EXISTING
(in/yr) (mg/l) (SCENARIO .1) (SCENARIO .1)
(in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE)
6 I. WATER BlIlGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17
I 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80
I 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60
I Site Specific Data:
21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 40.78 40.78
22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 40.78 40.78
23 13 % TURF 59.22 59.22
I 24 14 % REPLANTED 0.00 0.00
25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 59.22 59.22
26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00
I 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.40 0.40
I 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 1,030.00 1,030.00
I 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00
I 37 Calculations:
38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 9.71 271,665,460.75
39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00
I 40 C DELTA, TURF 20.03 560,128,220.48
41 0 DELTA, REPLANTED 0.00 0.00
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00
I 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.06 1,713,816.04
45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.00 0.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Resul ts:
49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.80 833,507,497.27
(muni wlter/stand., denite, on~site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 29.80 833,507,497.27
I
I
I
------------
I (Municipal w.terIOff~site S1P,
on-site Wells/Stlndord Septic)
I 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 667,887,089.08
55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X)
11. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(BNL, 1989; 2.69 OV/L, 50X recherged)
I 61 2 BACI(GIlllJNO NITROGEN (Oistr. Aree 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INOIGENaJS
I (Hughes et II., 1981)
(Hughes et II., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRPI, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO OW . 57X)
69 6 A. Porter et II. (1978) 25.00 25.00
(25 lbs/15,OOO oq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
I I. LIRPI (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lbs/l,OOO oq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS <lbs/person _iv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE
I (Porter et al., 1978)
76 9 A. Stlndord (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00
8. denitrificltion (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00
o. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50
I Site Specific Data:
82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUNO COVER 40.78 40.78
84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00
I 85 13 X INPERVllXJS 0.00 0.00
86 14 X TURF 59.22 59.22
87 16 TURF (acres) 609.97 609.97
I 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00
89 18 PERSONS/OWELLING 4.00 4.00
90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00
I KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (I) 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (0) 0.00 0.00
96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00
I Calculations:
99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INOIG./RECH. 0.04
101 C I MPERVIlXJS 0.00
I TURF (A), w. septic 5.81
I
I
I
--- ----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGNTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.21
104 0 TURF (A), w/a septic 5.81
TURF CA+C), w. septic 5.81
UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 0.00
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 17.21
108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 5.81
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 0.00
110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 17.21
TURF (8), w. septic 9.80
UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 29.04
TURF (8), w/o septic 9.80
114 H INDIGENlllS IRRIGATION 0.00
115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error 11
116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A, STANDARD) Error 11
SANITARY (8: DENITE) Error "
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (8: DENITE) Error 11
SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITARY (0: STP-ON-SITE) Error "
KITCNEN \/ASTE 0.00
Resul ts:
124 R.l Total (turfA+C,SeptfcA) 7.20
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
126 R.2 Total (turf A+C, Septi cA) 5.02
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(w/a background nitrogen)
129 R.3 Total (turfA+c,SepticA) 7.20
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.weLls)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf and replanted indigenous)
I MACAllI AT lAUREL SUBDIVISIOlI MACAR I MACAllI
ClMJLATlVE CUMULATIVE
\lATER and NITROGEN BlIlGET BUILD aJT BUILD aJT
I (in/yr) (mgjl) SCfNAR 10 fI2 SCENARIO '2
(in/yrl,(mg/L) (GPY/ACRE)
6 I. \lATER BlIlGET:
I Variables:
9 1 PRECIPITATlOlI 46.32 1,257,699.17
10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 11 3 GRllJIIDI/ATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00
12 4 EVAPOTWSPlHATIOlI 22.00 597,352.80
13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00
I 14 6 OVERLAIID FLOW 0.50 13,576.20
15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00
16 8 SURFACf aJTFLOW 0.00 0.00
I 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00
18 10 SURFACE \lATER EVAPORATlOlI 31.50 855,300.60
Site Specific Data:
I 21 11 X UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 90.40 90.40
22 12 X ORIGINAL VEGETATlOlI 90.40 90.40
23 13 X TURF 3.60 3.60
I 24 14 X REPLANTED 1.20 1.20
25 15 X TURF/REPLANTED 4.80 4.80
26 16 X IMPERVIOUS 3.80 3.80
27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
I 28 X ROCK aJTCROPS 0.00 0.00
29 18 X SURFACE \lATER 0.00 0.00
30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 39,000.00 39,000.00
I 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00
32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 1,030.00 1,030.00
I 35 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.00 1.00
37 Calculations:
I 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 21.53 602,220,638.83
39 B DELTA, IMPERVlaJS 1.74 48,694,9n.97
40 C DELTA, TURF 1.22 34,050,347.75
I 41 0 DELTA, REPLANTED 0.41 11,350,115.92
42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00
43 DELTA, ROCK aJTCROPS 0.00 0.00
44 F DELTA, SURFACE \lATER 0.00 0.00
I 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.51 14,235,000.00
46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00
I Resul ts:
49 R.1 WATER BlIlGET W/SEPTIC 25.41 710,551,075.46
(lIU1i water/stand., denite, on.site STP)
I 51 R.2 WATER BlIlGET W/O SEPTIC 24.90 696,316,075.46
I
I
I
I (Municipel W8ter/Off~site STP,
on-site Wells/Standord Septic)
I 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 682,891,928.90
55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (%) Error 11
II. NITROGEN BUDGET:
I Variables:
59 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
(INL, 1989: 2.69 OV/L, 50% recharged)
I 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45
62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10
REPLANTED INDIGENOUS
I (Hughes et al., 1981)
(Hughes et al., 1985)
66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40
(LIRPI, 1982)
I 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%)
69 6 A. Porter et al. (1978) 25.00 25.00
(25 lbo/15,DOO sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00
I I. LIRPI (1984) 3.50 3.50
(3.5 lbo/l,OOO sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00
73 7 C. PETS (lbo/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82
74 8 SEPTI C 0 I SCHARGE
I (Porter et 8l., 1978)
76 9 A. Standord (lbo/personlyr) 3.93 3.93
I. denitrification (lbo/per/yr) 2.00 2.00
I C. STP (off'site) 0.00 0.00
D. STP (on-site) 0.39 0.39
I Site Specific Data;
82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35
83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 90.40 90.40
84 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 1.20 1.20
I 85 13 % IMPERVIOUS 3.80 3.80
86 14 % TURF 3.60 3.60
87 16 TURF (acres) 37.08 37.08
I 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 130.00 130.00
89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00
90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 520.00 520.00
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00
I 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 39,000.00 39,000.00
SEPTIC OISCHARGE (I) 39,000.00 39,000.00
SEPTIC OISCHARGE (C) 39,000.00 39,000.00
I SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 39,000.00 39,000.00
96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.00 1.00
I Calculations:
99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35
100 I ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INOIG./RECH. 0.09
101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.02
I TURF (A), w. septic 0.39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 19.D7
104 D TURF (A), w/o septic D.4D
TURF (A+C), w. septic D.43
UNWEIGHTED PET L~ING (C), w.sep 2.DD
UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 21.D7
108 E TURF (A+C), wla septic D.44
109 F UNWEIGHTED PET L~ING (C), wlo sep 2.04
110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), wlo septic 21.37
TURF (8), w. septic 0.68
UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 32.95
TURF (B), wlo septic 0.69
114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.04
115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 0.41
116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY IA: STANDARD) 20.43
SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.20
UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04
SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00
SANITARY (D: STP-QH-SITE) 0.04
KITCHEN WASTE 0.00
Results:
124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.34
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat)
126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.11
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.weLls)
(w/a background nitrogen)
129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.35
(res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells)
(incl. background for septic, irrigation)
(of turf and replanted indigenous)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
September 16, 1991
Ms. Joyce Rosko
Suffolk county Water Authority
Westhampton District
Box 1407
Westhampton Beach, New York 11978
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, ~own of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Rosko:
This
cost
site.
letter is a formal request to your agency to estimate the
of providing public water supply to the Macari at Laurel
Enclosed is a copy
location of the site.
is also included.
of the topographic map indicating the
In addition, a photocopy of the site plan
We will need a letter stating your findings.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
RAJ:ecl
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
'/
~
c~ard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
President
~
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
.;;;-_....
..................-,...............1
.'U":I.r
I
I
..... ..:.....
^~.
...~=-
I
I
.\
I
I
.
.
.
'.\ ," "\
-.-'
~.,. '
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
-.
c
.. ,
,,,.,"
- ~ ..' "
._-O"...lf
:'~~~"'+ \ /' ;.
~ ~\:\ '!"\.
\......~..:- .
._.-l~~'<9:
" /~ ~. \
.:~-s"~"~~, )-/
\..... ... '. \
\ ".. '" \
~..'- '\.
.:, ,',:... -'CJ:
\-. .'i~"
........,;. .
\
I
\.
.,,:
",""",' .\.
~~~
\.
'.\
\
\
"
\.
'-\
\
\
I
'{'. \
\>.
..
\
'""
. \.:.
o'\'
'. / ,"
,/,1"
I
,
I
(u.s.G.~':
,
~
I
.
o
1967)
I
,
o
I
2~OO Ft.
I
I-2
I
I
srFFOLK COUNTY WATER ArTHORITY
I
I
I
148 Main S~reet. Westha'-,pton Beach. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK: 1978
Area Code 516.288-1034
I
September 20, 1991
I
I
Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D., President
The Clover Corporation
P.O. Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
I
Re: Macari Site
Laurel, N.Y
I
Dear Sir:
I
Reference is made to your request for information regarding the
supply of public water service to the above captioned property.
I
At the prese~t time, this property is not supplied with public
water service. Our nearest existing water main is located on Captain
Kidd Estate, Mattituck, N.Y
I
Please let me know if you require any further information re..
garding methods a~d costs to extend public supply.
I
Very truly yours,
I
~~~2
W. R. Stolle
District Manager
I
WRS/b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX G
LETTERS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.o. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Barbara Kujawski
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Kujawski:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at LaUrel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located soutlh'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: .
/.... " ('.~ . -,
C C C-!...'-~ -'-) __<-
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Barbara Ann Kujawski &.
William W. Busch
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Ms. Kujawski & Mr. Busch:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at ,Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
.... .
,.::- / / .-
-- - -'-.-......--
/' - -
(-S:<.:'_~ ..:-
/
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
ECL:per
Enclosures
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Barbara B. Sayre
Sound Avenue; Box 821
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Sayre:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south.of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
ECL:per
EnClosures
#' /
/ '
, ~ -... '.
~;l', -. "r
l_ I.... ........- .:..--t_ '- ,/ __~_ _
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
· A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Christopher Dantes
6130 Sound Avenue
MattituCk, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. Dantes:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laufel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~/,
~ :... 1,...A"....,..,__
1___
. ~ ''"t'
/1'-"'- -
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
· A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Mr. & Mrs. Walter Sabat
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sabat:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south o~ Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel ~ke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
/
-'
~ wi' \.--..:... ~"-
. .":"" .
~~l) _'-
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
Benjamin Jazombek
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. Jazombek:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at ~urel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~ " '" . -
~' ..-/__-'-.---,- "_ --.' ) '___1._
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Peconic Homes Corporation
P. O. Box 1442
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Sirs:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located sou"!:h'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:,
/-4'""" /' ,___ ' ~
c.. - - ;:...- "- L j 1......,-- "-
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
Randall J. Feinberg
P. O. Box 186
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Feinberg:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south, o:/: Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
bYJ.
.'C /'~ /
, _L.,'
'-
ECL:per
Enclosures
/ "-'--., ," --,
'- "'-./' :.- --
/
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental GeOlogist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
William & Marilyn Gatz
Box 45
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gatz:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
-
:;..-- .. ., ..-
e C '_'-7. ,_
i _ ,_ ___
,. (-':jC._ ,~
- ..
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Joseph & Lee Pufahl
6175 Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pufahl:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel ~ke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
,L- . /! /,_'
-- --~'--
1/ .-_ '_
,( :J' '
- "y'- (- --
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Hales/Ie. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415 ,
Louis & Maureen Buonaguro
P.O. Box 805
11 Woodland Road
Miller Place, New York 11764
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buonaguro:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: .
c- C(~ " ; '. :.
_ .~ \ l_ ,. . _
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental GeOlogist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
GUY Sobering
P.O. Box 1462
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. SObering:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential Subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel ~ke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
;:: (' "
'-.-- ,L,.
/ ".
-',-', (
,
"c_
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
Frances Weiss
10 Meadowrye Lane
East Northport, New York 11731
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Ms. Weiss:
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at La~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located sou~'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
,-
-.
.....
'-
.r _,.--../.._
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
· A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
James T. & April L. Connolly
RR 1; P.O. Box 248M
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk county, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Connolly:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel take, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~ \~ 1..-:_:. '--
( "'-...-
-'- ',~( ~ .:.---
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Mr. Thornton E. Smith
44 Brookside Drive
Plandome, New York 11030
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Smith:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel ~ke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
i":" i'l .
I ~
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.o. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Thomas J. Gorman
Laurel Lake
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Gorman:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laqrel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~~C~/
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. ~9'
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Lillian Herfurth
4 Oriole Way
Dix Hills, New York 11746
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, SUffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Herfurth:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at La~rel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel rake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
~: , C -~ /
~ . ~ ~/- d-(9~L--
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. ~
Environmental GeOlogist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Cornelia & Ronald A. Shapior
210 Crescent Way
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, SUffolk county, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shapior:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~~ ~;!;::;?-/ f) 2f
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
TI1E CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Bradley J. & Janet B. Belz
77 Dogwood Lane
Manhasset, New York 11030
september 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Belz:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
G~C. ~/
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. O~
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Judith Greco
P. O. Box 398
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Ms. Greco:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laqrel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel rake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: /)~
n.on1<...L. Cr
C-A-U'- . @6'
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.o. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754.3415
Marion E. Smith
103 E. Caroline street
Tavares, FL 32778
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Smith:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at La~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located sou1;h 'Of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
~~p~9b
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
· A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;0
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Donald Rosen
c/o Carole Rich
135 Third Avenue; Apt. 3A
Mineola, New York 11501
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Rosen:
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: C~
~ Lo~ez, M.S. @9
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Carole Rich
Apt. 3A
135 3rd Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Rich:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located souUh of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~C'~(90
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(51S) 754.3415
Daniel Soloman
66 Tower Street #1
Boston, Mass 02130
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Soloman:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
.#
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by : .fl
~C ~~"99"
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental GeOlogist
ECL:per
Enclosures
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Paul & Bharathi Scott
Laurel Way
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, SUffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Scott:
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south .of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: ^
~ ~~p~/9!j'
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph V. Maida
P. O. Box 1178
Laurel Way
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Maida:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~e~/
Ellen.. Lopez, M.S. 821
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
THE CLOVER CORPORA nON
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Grace M Schalkham
25-04 33rd Avenue
Long ISland City, New York 11106
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Ms. Schalkham:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at La~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
~~ {!.~
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. 89-
~ Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O, Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Steven Brautigan
25 F inch Lane
Levittown, New York 11756
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Brautigan:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located sou1;h'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
(~~ ~~!:::?/9Y
Environmental GeOlogist
.
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
September 17, 1991
Mark D. Gross
220 Manhasset Avenue
Manhasset, New York 11030
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. Gross:
The Clover corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
&~C~!
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. 8{)-
Environmental GeOlogist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Hales.le. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Douglas Miller
George o. GuIdi
45 Old Main Road
Quoque, New York 11960
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, SUffolk County, New York.
Dear Sirs:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at. Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~"- C. ~/
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. W-
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Mr. & MrS. Joseph Stiefer
P. O. Box 1167
6760 Soundview Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stiefer:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Stateme~t for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
ruLu- e~f1'Jl99
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Marilyn Gatz
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Gatz:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel take, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
~c.~J
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. 99-
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
NOFO Associates
44 Dorchester Road
Rockville Center, New York 11570
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Sirs:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel take, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
/. " .~. "-
L-/ . / - ....-f'l .; "
-----... -<--:..-'- ._ I .--'- <-
Ellen C. Lopez, M~S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
state as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
September 17, 1991
A T Holding Corporation
Sound Avenue
Laurel, New York 11948
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Sirs:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel ~e, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
r-/'.' .~ / . -,.....,.. , --:-.
'...:.-~ -_:::.... 1_ ~..... ,/ "-'- ___
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover ConSUlting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
September 17, 1991
Edward J. & Genevieve A. Woessner
Sound Avenue
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Woessner:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:..
,,,,' "/ I
- I / ~ ..";.f'...."'~,.-;
"-- "'" '-"f....~ '-~/.I..-__
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental GeOlogist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile. New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Genevieve A. Woessner
5180 Sound Avenue
MattitUCk, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Woessner:
The Clover Corporation is completinq a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south, of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requestinq information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determininq potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topoqraphic map indicatinq the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
,,;-- , ",
,,-"- -.................
'-<;, ')<..:... ~
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geoloqist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consultinq Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Penelope NesDitt
2000 Laurel Lake Road
Mattituck, New York 11952
September 17, 1991
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. NesDitt:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential suDdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south, of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north.
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearDY private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will De helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
availaDle,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by: / )
fE-(Li.-.. L.. '-- 0)~L.2.
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesile, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Adeline Lee
Box 1073
Mattituck, New York 11952
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
September 17, 1991
Dear Ms. Lee:
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south,of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of Southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
ECL:per
Enclosures
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
~i/ (""--"7
e::: [ l.--{ t, '-- -C' '-- L <-
Ellen C. Lopez, .'M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover Consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
THE CLOVER CORPORATION
P.O. Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
(516) 754-3415
Marion Smith
103 E. Caroline street
Tavares, FL 32778
RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at
Laurel Site, Town of Southold, SUffolk County, New York.
Dear Ms. Smith:
September 17, 1991
The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the
Macari at Lau~el property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel
located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north
of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel.
The Town of southold is requesting information on the
of nearby private wells and septic systems. If
please furnish us with this information. We will,
include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S.
will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if
the proposed action.
locations
available,
in turn,
This data
any, from
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the
location of the site.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please
contact our office.
Cordially yours,
The Clover Corporation
by:
..
/'. -
/'- _::"'/':,.:.".-.. I ,'-"~_-
'-- - - ---- :..-'~ ~
ECL:per
Enclosures
Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.
Environmental Geologist
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
* A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York
State as The Clover consulting Group.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX H
RECHARGE BASIN INFORMATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUGGESTED PL.\lIT lfATElUAL LIST FOR
REClARG2 BASINS
The following list is to be used in conjunction with &. Typical
Recharge Basin/plantinq Areas Diagram. This diaqram designates
planting Areas according to microclimatic variations as follows:
Plantinq Area NAN - Bottom and relatively level qround with
frequent flooding, and areas to be left open for access and Town
maintenance operations.
. Plantinq Area N8N - (1 on J) slope with a hot southwest solar
exposure and potential moderately erodible soil.
Plantinq Area NeN - (1 on J) slope with aoderately protected
no~-heast solar exposure and potential moderately erodible soil.
Plantinq Area NON - Top and relatively level ground with an
open exposure to sun and wind. (As determined by the Town
Engineer)
Plantina Area NEft - Top and relatively level ground with
moderate protection from sun and wind. (As determined by the Town
Engineer)
Page 1 of 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Re: Suggested Plant Material list tor
Recharqe Basins
(con't)
Plant groups and specimens shall be randomlv olanted ~ithin
the appropriate planting area as noted below and shown on Typical
Recharge Basin Diagram. Types and quantities shall be as
tollows:
Plantinq Areas -B- , -e-
(Quantities per type per 10,000 sQUare feet)
6 Evergreen Trees
all single specimens (or can group in 3 when noted)
8 Small TreesjLarge Shrubs
all single specimens
28 Flowering Shrubs
6 groups of 3, 2 groups of 5
16 Evergreen Shrubs
2 groups of 3, 2 groups of 5
52 Deciduous Ground Covers
6 groups of 3, 4 groups of 5, 2 groups of 7
24 Evergreen Ground Covers
3 groups of 3, 3 groups of 5
Plantinq Areas -D- , -E-
(Quantities per type per 10,000 sQUare feet)
8 Large DecidUous Trees
all single specimens
8 Evergreen Trees
all single specimens (or can group in 3 when noted)
12 Small TreejLarge Shrubs
all single specimens
34 Flowering Shrubs
3 groups of 5, 5 groupS of 3, 15 single specimens
30 Evergreen Shrubs
2 group 5, 5 groups of 3, 5 single specimens
Plantin~ Areas .B-, .e-, .D- or .E-
Topsoil (6" depth) and seed with 80~ Reliant Hard Fescue
20~ Jamestown Chewing Fescue
at the rate of 4 lbs. per 1000 square feet.
Plantinq Area -A-
Seed Pinto Wildflower Mix at the rate of 1 lb. per 1000 square
feet, and sheep Fescue at the rate of .5 lbs. per 1000 square
feet, or approval equal.
Page 2 of 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plantinq Area
Within Basin
(see diaaram)
0, E
0, E
0, E
0, E
0, E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
C
3) c.) 1)
" r 0
'~r I
R, C', I)
I '
Larqe Deciduous T%: ..._
1 1/2" - 2" cal., B*B
(40' o.c. _in. spacinq)
(sinqle specimens)
.
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis - Thornless Honey
Locust
Platanus acerifolia - London Plane Tree
Quercus coccinea - Scarlet Oak
Quercus ~alustr1s - Pin Oak
Quercus rubra - Red Oak
Acer ~suedo-~latanus - Sycamore Haple
PaQUs svlvatica - European Beech
Praxinus pennsvlvanica - Green Ash
GinkQ'o bUoCa (ule only) - Maidenhair Tree
Liriodendron tUligifer3 - Tulip Tree
Oxvdendrum arboreWl - SOrrel Tree
Tilia tomentosa - Silver Linden
Zelkova serrata - Zelkov~
2ve.......een !'rees
5'-6' ht., B*B
(30' o.c. _in. spacinq)
(sinqle specimens)
Abies concolor - White Fir
Picea ~uQ'ens (and varieties) - Colorado
Spruce
Pinus stobus - White Pine
Pseudotsuqa menziesii - Douqlas Fir
(Group with-a 10' a.c. max. spacing)
pO' a. c. lIIin. spacing bet-Jeen groups)
Juni~erus scopulorum varieties ('Gray Gleam'
and 'Wichita Blue')
J. virainiana - Eastern Red Cedar
J. v. varieties - ('Burkii' and 'Xeteleeri')
Thu;a occidental is - White Cedar
8'u,Q. 4th_a. WH.i/;~ S,rv(;.e
f!i"'r/s ~J.a. - Pit-GIn f~
P,,,, II) reSitJos<% - ,-ed. f~
~aqe J of S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Re: SUggested Plant
Recharae Basins
(con't)
Planting Area
Within Basin
(see diaqralll)
B, C, D, E
B, C, D, E
B, C, D, E
B, C, D
B, C, .D
B, C, D
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
E
E
E
E
Haterial List tor
Salill ~us/Lll.rae Shrubs
5'-6' ht., BiB
(25' o.c. min. spacing)
(single specimens)
Betula DODulifolia - Gray Birch
Rhus cODallina - Flameleaf sumac
Rhus qlabra - Smooth sumac
Careqane arborescens - Siberian Pea-Tree
Elaecrnus ancrustifolia - Russian Olive
Tamarisk SD. - 'ramarix
Acar camcestre - Hedge Haple
Acar qinnala - Amur Kaple
Acar tataricum - 'ratarian Haple
Crataec:rus DhaenoDvrum - Washington Hawthorne
Prunus cerasifere varieties - Kyrobalan Plum
Amelanchier canadensis - Shadblow ser/ice
berry
Svrinqa vulqaris - Common Lilac
Cornus mas - COrnelian Cherry
Viburnum lentaqo - Nannyberry
Viburnum oDulus - European Cranberry Bush
Cornus kousa - Japanese Dogwood
Camus florida - Flowering Doqwood
Carcis canadensis - Redbud
Viburnum sieboldii - Siebold Viburnum
Everqreen Shrubs
2 1/2' - 3' ht., BiB
(20'o.c. 1Iin. spacing between group
(Group with a 8' o.c. max. spacing)
B, C, D JuniDerus chinensis varieties - Chinese
Juniper
C, E Platvcladus ('1'hu;a) orientalis
, Eleqantissima'
C, E Taxus cusDidata - Japanese Yew
(Group with a max. 5' o.c. spacing)
B, C, D Pinus muqo ~uqO - Hugo P~ne
C, E Taxus media varieties ('Brownii',
, Denisif orllli.s' , 'Hatfield' )
Paal! ~ ot ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Re: Suggest Plant Material List tor
Recharqe Basins
(con't)
Planting Area
wi thin Basin
(see diaqram)
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
B, C, 0
D, E
D, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C, E
C
C
C
C
C
C
B, C
B, C
B, C
B, C
B; C
B, C
B, C
B, C
PloveriDq Shrubs
3'-4' ht., B&B
(Group with a 10' c.c. max. spacing)
(20' o.c. min. spacing between groups)
Berberis thunberqii - Japanese Barberry
CVtisus scogarius - Scotch Broom
Myrica gensvlvanica - Bayberry
Prunus maritima - Beach Plum
Lonicera tatarica - Tartarian Honeysuckle
Rosa ruqosa - Rugosa Rose
Comus racemosa - Gray Doqvood
Comus stolonifera - Red Osier Ooqwood
Aronia arbutifolia - Red Chokeberry
Elaeaqnus umbel lata - Autumn Olive
Euonvmus alatus - Winged Burning Bush
Forsvthia intermedia 'Lvnwood Gold'-
Forsythia
Hamamelis virqiniana - Witch Hazel
Xolkwitzia amabilis - Beauty bush
Sambucus canadensis - American Elder
Sgirea x Vanhouttei - Vanhout Spirea
Viburnum latana - Wayfarinq Tree
Viburnum grunifolium - Black Haw
Viburnum acerifolium - Dockmackie
Viburnum dentatum - Arrowood
Vaccinium anCl'Ustifolium - Low Bush Blueberry
Vaccinium COrvmDoSUlD - High Bush Bluebe~J
Cenhalanthus occidentalis - Button Bush
Clethra alnifolia - SWeet Shrub
Deciduous Gl.u,,"d Covers
18"-24" ht., container grown
(Can group with a 6' o.c. max. spacing)
(15' o.c. min. spacinq between groups)
ArctostaphVlos uva-ursi - Bearberry
ComDtonia aSDlenifolia - SWeet Fern
Forsvthia x intermedia 'Arnold Dwar1"
Arnold's Dwar1' Forsythia
H'ft)ericum so. - St. Johnsvort
Potentilla so. - Cinquefoil
Yucca tilimentosa - Yucca
Cotoneaster so. - Cotoneaster
Rosa wichuriana - Memorial Rose
Page 5 of 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Re: Suggested Plant Material List tor
Recharqe Basins
(can't)
Plantinq Area
Within Basin
(see diac:ram)
B, C
B, C
B, C
B, C
lVergreen Ground Cover
12"-18" ht., container qrown
(Can qroup with a 4' o.c. max. spacing)
(15' o.c. min. spacinq be~.een qroups)
Junioerus communis varieties - Common Juniper
J. conferta varieties - Shore Juniper
J. horizontalis varieties - Creeping Juniper
J. sabina varieties - Savin Juniper
_arES:
All plant material shall meet the latest American
Association of Nurserymen Standards for Nursery StocX.
(2) Plants in a qroup shall be homcqeneous.
(1)
(3) The planting plan desiqner is suggested to use hiqh species
diversity alonq with native plant materials to encourage
ecoloqical Stabilty. In addition, one should avoid use of
hiqhly agqressive plants with the exception ot pioneer species
used to provide temporary soil cover.
Page 6 of 6
z
o
t-
u
IlJ
d)
.' ~ i
. (7 0
a< I
.... -
. ~~ Q..
~_,,,:..d '. . ~ '
~-.: ,,:~o:i~'i&t~;~;:~\::: .,~:?ri~; /:':_0 .::: .~:
o .. 00., "'...0 .'- ~ ... .'
." ._.~~~..';.~.l~:'::' :-
0"
. ,
. ,
~
'.-:.:.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
f-
u
u
i
-II
. It
~11 ~~":lti
I[ ~2QuQ
:0 .J"<IC~~
o ~~..1~lJ
...
o
~O
0t
01
:Zli~
-<~J
.r 0
::' cJI0:l
.\) ~ ~ ~
~ (>u
_ lUll
-to G r n
· ii \t
II-"'~
~ It.
j!~
i>~
ClS\Lo
.
--- -
~
z
-
dl
~
OJ
(!)
~
<
r
U
1U
OCI1
J
Q<
01lJ ~
I-
7.. 0
< ....
.J
(It- ..
0
II. 1
0
....-.
........ ~
_0. . ~.'_
I'" ;.
. ".
. '.
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. !SSS1
.~
~ID~ AAO
e't!~CI'If"'. 1M~u..
'T'R!!~, eM~~..4/ooID
GItO~O CQ"e~~
VAA1E~ WITH e/,T: cowomc~
Ae DET!RMI"'~D ey TH. .
. ,TCwl-oI ~/oJGI"'e.!!.~
IO'WIP!: EA6EMeIo-lT ^~OU~D
P!~IMeTe~ (T"l"P.)
FoFl CL-~~~O ^!(}!A6 01-11-"'(
.
"t/
. "
e
~M. AS Aecve.
)-
11
IU
lr:
...
~
-
w'ln:. CHAI.... 1.l000K "INCS C"'l"l?)
....., """ ,./~
OIAG~AM OF
. -
TYPICAL RECH^RGE e,^:,l~
WITH
FL^~'TI ~G ^RE^5
NOT 1t> ~c.A.1.!.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
# CLOVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES. (lie.
225 Main Street, Northport, NY 11768
Telephone: (516) 754.5044
September 11, 1991
New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 11
Albany, New York 12238-0001
Attention: Mr. Bruce Fullem
Project Review Coordinator
Field Services Bureau
Dear Mr. Fullem:
Enclosed is'a~ archaeological sensitivity map for the proposed
Macari at Laurel subdivision, located in the Town of Southold
near Laurel Lake (see enclosed location map and archaeological
sensitivity map).
Following an extensive Stage IAIIB Cultural Resource Inventory
of the parcel, two areas of potentially intact archaeological
remains have been identified. Since the southernmost sensitive
zone is relatively limited in area, a construction covenant can
be applied to those proposed lots that include this area in
order to preserve this area.
However, a relatively large potentially sensitive area is
located north of a kettle hole within the north-central portion
of the parcel. Artifacts encountered included various lithic
tools such as anvil stones, hammerstones, stone axes, and
numerous quartz debitage flakes. Since the Town of Southold has
requested additional work on the site consistent with your
approval, this letter is a proposal to conduct a Stage II
limited excavation within the area of sensitivity that cannot be
avoided easily by subdivision configuration changes or
preservation covenants. In this regard, Clover Archaeological
Services, Inc. proposes to complete two (2) 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 m.
excavation trenches: one in the eastern and one in the western
portion of the area of sensitivity. These trenches could
establish site integrity and limited additional test holes could
delineate the site boundary more accurately.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
Please respond to our proposal for the additional investigation
of the archaeological sensitivity on the Macari at Laurel
parcel. Thank you for your time and consideration in this
matter.
Cordially yours,
Clover Archaeological Services, Inc.
by: /
.#;/
.~~ A. Jackson, Ph.D.
Principal
,
A ~l\I>>--
Robert L. Miller, Ph.D.
Senior Archaeologist
RAJ:jj
Enclosure
cc: Peter Danowski, Jr.
Howard Young
Town of Southold, Board of Trustees
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""'_0"<.T10~'''''''Q"
~ 'f>
a: ..
~ ill
~ '"
o m
~
w <
U ~
- ~
it /5
o NEW YORK STATE z
Orin Lehman
Commissioner
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238-0001
october 2, 1991
Dr. Richard A. Jackson
Clover Archaeological services
225 Main street
Northport, New York 11768
Re:~
Macari at Laurel SUbdivision
Southold, SUffolk Colmty
9lPRl742
Dear Dr. Jackson:
'!he Office of Parks, Recreation ani Historic Presel:vation (OPRHP) has
received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state
agency responsible for the coordination of the state I s historic preservation
PI'-":fL..ms, including the encouragement ani assistance of local preservation
programs, the OPRHP offers the followin; ..............<ts:
Since we have not been provided a copy of the stage lAIlB report, it is
difficult for us to ccmunent on the proposal to corxiuct site evaluation.
However, based on the limited information provided, the OPRHP suggests that
two excavation units are not sufficient to adequately evaluate site
integrity ani ~rtance. We reo """""<U that at least 6 excavation units are
needed to sample the area, as well as close interval (ie. 5 meter) shovel
testing if it has not already been done.
If there is additional material you W'CUld like us to examine regarding
your proposal, we W'CUld be pleased to do so. Also, we W'CUld appreciate
receivirq a copy of the Stage lAIlB repel. t for our files.
If you have any questions, please call vic Disanto of our Proj ect Review
Unit at (518) 474-0479.
Sincerely yours, ,
'~r:;; 4JA.u:L- .
~d s. GillJtp1;7-
Director
Field Services B.Jreau
OOGjVJD:tr
Historic Pres.rntlon Field S.rvice. Bureau. 518.474.0479
Urban Cullunll Parka. 518-473.2375
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX J
CORRESPONDENCE TO SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 6, 1992
I
I
I
LAW OFFICES
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
616 ROANOKE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 779
RIVERHEAD. NY 11901
(516) 727.4900
FAX (516) 727.7451
MICHAEL T. CLIFFORD
OF COUNSEL
PETER S. DANOWSKI. JR.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ
March 6, 1992
Southold Town Planning Soard
Town Hall
53095 Main Rd., Box 1179
Southold, New York 11791
Re: Macari at Laurel
SCTM No. 1000 - 121 - 4 - 9
Dear Sir or Madam:
With regard to previous comments received by the
undersigned, as forwarded by the Planning Board Chairman as
contained in a letter dated July 16, 1991, I respond to the
numbered paragraphs 1 through 4, as follows:
1. My client's property may be highly valued by various
municipal agencies and various environmental organizations.
However, my client has an absolute Constitutional right to
develop this parcel, free of cooperative efforts to deny him this
right. Should the Town, or should the County, wish to condemn
this property for an avowed public purpose, it obviously has the
right to bring on a proceeding to do so. My client will then
review whatever Court papers are filed, and proceed accordingly.
It is also true t~at rQ~ors abound that the County of
SuffolK has an avowed hitlist of parcels to be acquired.
Purportedly my client's proper~y is on that hitlist. Even ~hough
my client has been delayed to an extraordinary degree in the
subdivision process, and, more importantly, in the implementation
of the SEQRA process, he continues to move forward and continues
to request an approval of his subdivision. Presumably, the
County, the State or the Town could provide my client with copies
of any appraisals that are being conducted and make an offer to
purchase the property. My client steadfastly desires to gain
subdivision approval, despite any a~telUpt to purchase this
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Southold Town Planning Board
Page 2
March 6, 1992
property by others. There is, however, nothing that prevents the
County, the Sate or the Town from making offers to purchase the
property, and, obviously, I cannot refuse to accept written
communications in that regard.
2. The firm of Young & Young was retained by client to
provide the best possible land surveying and land engineering
help in designing a well thought out and prepared subdivision.
After careful review, including the provisions of the Town
o rdi nances regardi ng open space, and the concerns evi denced by
the Planning Board, the last cluster subdivision submitted
adequately presented a marketable option, paying attention to the
Town concerns previously voiced. There is no desire to dedicate
the land for watershed protection and supply purposes.
3. Data is being su?plied with the FEIS.
4. The open space would best be owned by a homeowners'
association, who would maintain the areas and enforce voluntary
covenants thereon. That is intended that the open space should
be used for the sole and excl~sive use of the small number of
homeowners who will be construc~ing homes on the lots depicted on
the subdivision plan. Absent the homeowners' associaton
ownership, an alternative viable concept would allow the open
space to be owned by one lot owner, with a restricted building
envelope being placed on that one particular lot, with recorded
covenants filed with the County Clerk, limiting the uses of the
open space areas.
Very truly yours,
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR.
PSD:gsg
C~.
~.
The Clover Corporation
Attn: RiChard A. Jackson, President
Joseph Macari
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
APPENDIX K
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
STAGE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING REPORT
MACARI AT LAUREL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Prepared for:
Burton Behrendt Smith O'Callaghan, P.C.
244 East Main Street
Patchogue, New York 11772
Prepared by:
Greenhouse Consultants Inc.
40 Exchange Place
New York, New York 10005
Principal Investigators:
Alfred G. Cammisa
William 1. Roberts IV
March 1993
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Abstract
On February 18, 1993 Greenhouse Consultants Incorporated completed a Phase II
archaeological survey of a proposed housing development site in Laurel, Suffolk County,
New York. During the testing, the area deemed the most "archaeologically sensitive"
during the 1990 Stage IB work was subjected to backhoe trenching to remove the
plowzone. Visual inspection of the surface of the B horizon was conducted where artifacts
were previously reported. Two trenches, six '/2 feet by 100 feet each were placed in this
area. In addition, one 5-foot x 5-foot excavation unit was placed within Test Trench 2.
No Native American or Euro-American artifacts or features were encountered. No
additional work is recommended as no sites that might qualify for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the proposed construction.
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ei
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Geography and Physical Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Previous Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G
List of Fil!ures
Figure 1
Project area shown on portion of U.S.G.S. 7.5
minute series Mattituck quadrangle 1956.
Figure 2
Portion of 1993 project area with Test Trenches 1
and 2 shown.
List of Plates
Plate 1
Test Trench 1 facing north.
Plate 2
Test Trench 1 facing west, also showing backhoe.
Plate 3
Test Trench 2 facing west.
Plate 4
5-foot x 5-foot excavation unit within Test Trench 2,
facing north.
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ei
Introduction
On February 18, 1993 Greenhouse Consultants Incorporated conducted Stage II
archaeological testing of a proposed housing development in Laurel, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York. The purpose of the Stage II testing was to examine further part
of this location that had been previously reported to contain numerous, largely undiagnostic,
prehistoric artifacts (see Previous Work below). The area subjected to Stage II testing
contained a slightly higher percentage of positive shovel tests during the 1990 Stage IB field
work. This area is also bordered by two kettle holes and was labeled "archaeologically
sensitive" on the 1990 Stage IB map. The current project area is approximately 910 feet east-
west by 325 feet north-south in size. It is located at 705,200E by 4539,500N on the
Mattituck Quadrangle, 1956, U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series topographic map. See Figure I.
The survey was conducted by Alfred Cammisa and Felicia Burgos Cammisa for Greenhouse
Consultants Incorporated of New York, New York. Background research and report
preparation were conducted by co-principal investigators Alfred Cammisa and William I.
Roberts IV of Greenhouse Consultants Incorporated. Word processing and editing was by
Paula Crowley. The work was undertaken for the firm of Burton, Behrendt, Smith and
O'Callaghan of Patchogue, New York.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCALE 124000
t 0
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
~ ~
I 5 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
] MILE
EB
6000 7000 FEET
I KILOMETER
I
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
I
Figure 1
Project area shown on portion of U.S.G.S. 7.5
minute series Mattituck quadrangle 1956.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(i
Geo!!raDhv and Phvsical Sellin!!
The project area is located on the north fork of Long Island, northeastern Suffolk County, in
the southeast portion of the state (Figure I). This portion of New York lies in the Atlantic
Coastal Plains province (Schuberth 1968, cover map). This area is characterized by glacial
outwash deposits of sands and gravel which were evidently formed during the Wisconsonian
glaciation (Miller and Miller 1990: 5). Elevations in this region generally extend from about
twenty to fifty feet above mean sea level. The project area has a 3 to 8 percent slope. The
project area lies just south of the Harbor Hills Moraine (Van Diver 1985: 70).
The project area is located in the northeast portion of the hamlet of Laurel. It lies
approximately '4 mile south of Sound Avenue and 14 mile north of Laurel Lake. It is
bounded on the east and the south by kettles associated with the last glacier. It is bounded on
the west by a dirt road that connects to Sound Avenue. The project area is an irregular lot
with maximum dimensions of 910 feet east-west and 325 feet north-south and is virtually a
flat plain.
Soils in the project area consist of Haven loam with nearly level 0 - 2 percent slopes. These
are deep, well-drained, medium textured soils formed in a loamy or silty mantle lying over
coarse sand and gravel. They are usually located on outwash plains. Plymouth loamy sand
is also present on the project area. This soil is also located on outwash plains and consists of
deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soil in a mantle of loamy sand or sand and
overlying coarse sand and gravel (Warner er at. 1975: 71-72, 77-78).
Prior to the intensive utilization of the area by Euro-American populations, the primary
vegetation cover in the general project area consisted of hardwoods, mainly oaks, beech,
birch, maple, with pitch pine and some white pine. The undergrowth included scrub oak,
huckleberry, shadbush, alder and in wetter zones, blueberry (Warner er at. 1975: 92). At the
time of the Stage II investigations, this area consisted of farmland overgrown with weeds,
blueberry, brambles and other light brush. Forest surrounding the adjacent kettles consisted
of mixed hardwood and softwood, primarily oak and pine.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Previous Work
Previous archaeological investigations include a Stage IA archival research and a Stage IB
archaeological field reconnaissance. The work was done by Miller & Miller of Clover
Archaeological Services, Inc. in 1990 (Miller & Miller 1990).
The Stage fA revealed that the project area lies within an archaeologically sensitive area.
Prehistoric sites and artifacts had been reported in and around the project site. Three historic
sites are situated within a mile of the project area (Miller & Miller 1990: 9-14).
The Stage IB survey included two phases. The first phase consisted of a controlled visual
inspection of the ground surface and the second phase subsurface testing consisting of 211
shovel tests. Surface walkover transects were conducted at 40 m intervals and subsurface
testing was conducted along a 20 m by 40 m grid established with a Brunton Pocket Transit
(Miller and Miller 1990: 74-76).
Surface inspections yielded no Native American artifacts. Subsurface investigations were said
to have yielded 30 positive test holes. Numerous prehistoric tools were said to have been
found, such as hammerstones, pestles, an axe or hoe, drills, bifaces, a scraper and an anvil.
An unspecified number of flakes and cores were also said to have been found. Quartz was
the common material of tools and debitage (Miller and Miller 1990: 81, 88-89).
Two areas of prehistoric sensitivity had been outlined. A very small area, approximately 200
feet east-west by 100 feet north-south on the southeast part of the 1990 project area. A
second, larger area of prehistoric sensitivity was outlined at the north central portion of the
1990 project area (Miller and Miller 1990, map). It was this second parcel that constituted
the current project area. Project plans call for no impacts to the smaller location, so no
additional archaeological investigations were required there.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Methods
Stage II testing of the 1993 project area consisted of excavating two backhoe trenches, each
of which was approximately 100 feet long by 6 Ih feet wide. The backhoe's large 6 Ih feet
blade pushed the dirt and deposited it to one side of the trench. The soil removed by the
backhoe was the plowzone soil only, as this A, horizon was reported to have been virtually
devoid of any artifacts in this area during the 1990 Phase I survey.
Figure 2 shows the location of the test trenches within the project area. Test Trench I was
in the southwest comer of the project area and was aligned lengthwise north-south. See
Plates I and 2. Test Trench 2 was situated in the east-central portion of the project area and
was aligned lengthwise east-west. See Plate 3. The surface of the B horizon was inspected
for features and artifacts. In addition, a 5-foot x 5-foot hand excavated unit was placed
within the western portion of Test Trench 2. This unit was excavated to 55 cm below the
plow zone into the B, horizon. See Plate 4. Soil was screened through 'A inch mesh. The
remainder of the B, horizon in test trench 2 was then removed with the backhoe and the
surface of the B, horizon was examined for the presence of features. Following this, the
backdirt from the backhoe removed B, horizon was troweled through and examined for
artifacts.
4
11~El.\U" ,,,' ..~---.::.:.-_--.--ue___ -....~_____ ... __...~" _"".... ",'-... /,,"',/ ',/ ,./ '/,/ I JI / I I 'J/~I ;;
- 61",' "'." _---__-----_ --__ -------- _- _'''/" '" J ',//11,111,1 ~
'4,(""'" ," ...........:_-:.:-_'"'..::._-~__ ---_ ----__011__---- .--"",/,./,1', '"" ""/ /1/1/11"1 '0
bib~~ "//,........--_~__~---- ------91_~___----_-9\.. ,'I '//.." ",I'" ""/"1/11,' ~
(';1.\-(1:2 ,,' ../.................,.........---_-_-_-::....... .,_____-::----....__\;) -~--- ___.../........ I, ..-,'" ......' ..:..", ",', I I" II ~
,~~.~, r r:}ifj' ,'_-- ------------'"-~-----A .s'-----~_,- ..01' /,,' ,,', r -' ' "I ""',,,,-,' ,
l-!i:.bJ, ,,',,",,"",' "'... - ----- ----- --~ LU----- --------"''''..... ...,- ,..../,,; " ,,/ 1'11"" I
'O',S\tl~/"..........." ....-;... -....'b----Of--_.... ft-.., _______c:~-__-----=_:-__...:--_:.O"t ,,"',/ "1/"/11, J
131M I ",""......,.."'... "~....-__.----~ _gl--~-~-- _~- ~.. " / II/III'
')"~~''''~<",/.....:...-: J,."fP#'. aNOd '~I' -'~_C\ \)::---- -:--:.::-.:--.:----=:-~-~~ ~ /,' I" / 1'111 'I"
I ,~,,""'''' 6'9~~1 J ...I _",-,U- .A'----81-__---.--~-~~_zz-~-- z~~....'" //1111 1',
1" II' '/ -' _........~- _ ...... _--- _- ___-----tr .., 1,/'11 I
1'1':', II, _- -::=~...:.:...--..;..;:..Z +,:-----_--------_-=------------ ......./..,,".."I/I/;, I ,(
I'\I:,\~ ~...~ _.-_~: _.J~--=-';_::;;:-~__: .. ._--- _----~ _,- ___8Z~__-',>....;_~"..,'I, / 1\
1"1,' .........~ -- --......-..' - --... W'..... ------ --- -...... I
\.\.,~.... ---- - ...- ...- ...---..- -~ ....... ~ N""; ...- ....-- _Or'-._-~-_.-- ---. ....-'"'i.r-~ ,/ I I' \
' ,. .' ~ - - ~ :.-= ~- - - - - - - - ~ - - .. - -.. - - - ... , I
'..,-..~c. -- " ,'-,'-,' - '0.. ,,' -----~--- ,,', ?-' I
, \. ........<::~~:~<:: -~-==:_-.:::::::..-.....:::.-..=:::- --' ~ ....--..... .... / ,,;:--:_:-.;;:_-=--;:--~:----"2--;:.~=K ~::...~ I / I /
~ ,- ~-~~~._-~ ----';.0--- -- - r'\. I'''.,'i....~ t .,.)IrC.-~-=-=----::-:....-~ "
\.......~~_..--~:::::-=-=~_::~j.-:-=ff":=~--::---:.:--~ - - - .. " I //,,:,:>....9.1- - 'I I ,
'_.u__. --..----. , ", ,/-------_ 'f f J \
~:~~~',:~~~~::~~~~~!?~~1Wi~~:.~~~-OZ-.--' //,:/..f ~ "'00_ ----/,/ / (
--9li:-----_____ -....~.. -... 1111 I I I \
---_~ ......'0 -_ __ I \
-----00 -.. ~,...:r, ----9Z I I I I I I I
~- -- . --... ..~.. .......... , , -", I
- ..-------~,...........~ III I' -_....________"'..
_ - - It~.... \ ' ,.. , .... I ~ I
- ,~-~........... \ \ ,....... .... ' I I I 1.\
~ .. , "... ~/ " I , I
.... ..... /to,,~, ,'t' , , ,,,~.. / /, I , I / I
~ /" ", 1'1-. \ \"" .....~~~/ IIJII /' u.:
V'1. " / " I" \ .. 'o>r -' r I , J \
~ ~" \\,.... .'1" tJ) I
. \, ' r
, C> \'. I /, ...1 I
~ ~ U:," --,' ~ / '" @g'
I' \ cnt tJ) ~ t
+, ,
+,1 @O'
0' / N 0
0\ -.. 0
o '" ~' ... N
.~ ~
r<l
"
,
'I:)
,:/~
...._ ':t:
----'I~
}
.
I
!
I
/' )'$ ) 1/
4/1:
'"
vi
+'
/
,
11.:
II)
Vg
o
r<l
"
/
+.
"
"
,",@g
, r<l
, r<l
.<::
t) IL;
C II)
~"~'@~
'0 0
+J N 0
_ 00 .,.
~ ~ r<l
,
-~.....
vi
+,
G~
r<l
zzo
IL;
LL: LL: vi
vi vi +,
+, +-, ~ @ 0
) 0 @ 0 .. 0
0 .~ .. 0
0 0 N
0 0 r<l
r<l N
r<l
,0680/
~.o?'f:.?o1;L 'N
c, ~
<::I ~
<::I ...
<::I ~~
'" <:<:
'~
'"
.'<' <: L,
. ~ ~
<::I ~ ,r--J C,
''>r-~--'
..., .'>
;;; I ::;
~ l..--.r- 0
- '>
'" -
OJ
Ul
\).1'
~~
1ft\)
<(
Z tl
lUN
0..-3
\)
<::I
<::I
<::I
~
~~~
'---/
I
!
!
!
I
;
..
'"
..
g.
'g.
,
r
~
I;J
I
\J
,~
\~)
'<>
.--~.t-iF1; 1/,' .9 ' . -,
,g. ..Oi?o,J"o?;ZlVT;~-'-:"'" <:Crh
-.-___ ... tI,.. '), '4:" ... ' '
---'-"--~ .',. _ ---". ,. .. lO
, .' ----....,'~ .
~Jr1/V3A-,:.;.; , ~.'. ~~f.~l,.96': ~ .
/ IV --.... lot,. ~-K~S_.
-"- .~-s' ~ ,s,9.
r '...-'-< 0.9,..
~. ~.
... .. ,'''0
.. _, ' ", /, ;0-
~--... .~." '~''< ,01'
--... ~,-:".pi ~ .- -....-':./,,9S
.... .t'-
-'--.~'.t
___ _.___~.._6_l'"
_ .1" .-
. .__!_9,.
,*
C> ",
~" J', ~
~ oJI " t:
,. OJ ~'.... J "lI'J
-III ') '--. '" :
f .. t. r..
v -";0 v
;: c- ~ ,~ C)
'<". . ""'oj ~J (')
0" (;j
~ ~\ ~
~Oj
'"
~,
,-
.0'
c~
..
~
Q''th '
'/CS
". "--.
~~
.:( Of
'.....
f'. ~,
',- w~
/..' J~'~>'~;;--"'"
I......j ., '.-........
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'"
...
~
'"
:,'"
!~
...
'"
,
'"
'0
'!1
-
a
~
'Il{
~
~
~
Cl
w'
J'I
<:)
D..
\;.)
Il{
D..
...
",
...
...
...
-
N
'tl
C
III
~
00
Q)
.<::
t)
C
Q)
I-<
E-<
+J
00
Q)
E-<
tJ1
C
.....
:3
o
.<::
00
III
Q)
I-<
Ill..c:
t)
+JC
t).....
Q)
.,,~
o
I-< "
0-
+J
MQ)
"'Q)
"'....
~
o
....0
o~
C
0"
..... Q)
+J.....
I-< III
o t)
p.,(/J
N
Q)
I-<
::l
tJ1
.....
11.
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ei
Results
The soil stratigraphy of the 5-foot x 5-foot unit was:
A,:
B,
B,
o - 25 cm
25 - 45 cm
45 - 55 cm
IOYR4/3
IOYR5/4
IOYR6/4
brown loam
yellow-brown loam
light yellow brown coarse sand, heavy gravel and
pea gravel
Layer B, was interpreted as glacial outwash. No cultural materials were recovered from
either Test Trench I or from Test Trench 2 or from the 5-foot by 5-foot unit. No features,
other than recent plow scars, were discovered.
/'
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Conclusions and Recommendations
No artifacts or features of archaeological importance were uncovered during the 1993 Stage
II testing. Many of the prehistoric stone artifacts said to have been found during the 1990
field season were reported to have been in the B, or B, horizons. Since both strata contain
heavy gravel - B, is glacial outwash - perhaps there had been some mistake made in
identifying the numerous stone artifacts reported in 1990.
Since no prehistoric or historic artifacts or features were recovered during the Stage II
investigations, no additional work is recommended in association with this project. There is
no archaeological reason why construction should be further delayed.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plate I
Test Trench I facing north.
Plate 2
Test Trench facing west, also showing backhoe.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
Bibliol!raDhv
Fuller, M.L.
1914 Geology of Long Island. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological
Survey.
Jenson, H.M. and J. Soren
1974 Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. Washington,
D.C.: United States Geological Survey.
Miller, Janie Rees and Robert L. Miller
1990 Stage Ia and Ib Archaeological Investigations of Macari at Laurel,
Town of Southold. Northport, New York: Clover Archaeological
Services, Inc.
Schuberth, Christopher J.
1968 DIe Geology of New York City and Environs. New York: Natural
History Press.
Van Diver, Bradford B.
1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing
Company.
Warner, John W. Jr.; W.E. Hanna, R.J. Landry, J.P. Wulforst, I.A. Neeleg, R.L. Holmes,
and C.E. Rice.
1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, 1975. United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation
with Cornell Agricultural Experimental Station.
7