HomeMy WebLinkAboutLaurel Links Golf Resort & Res. Devel 09/99Environmental Assessment Form: Part III
Laurel Links Golf Resort
and
Residential Development
Laurel (Town of Southhold)
Suffolk County, New York
Prepared For Subm~ic~ To:
Town of Southhold Planning Department
Applicl~lt:
Laurel Links, LTD.
September, 1999
Southold Town
Planning Board
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
40 HITCHING POST LANE GLEN COVE, NEW YORK 11542
21 MT. PONDS, BOX 779 WILMINGTON, VERMONT 05363
(516) 676-7107
(802) 464-3341
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd
Southold, NY 11971
September 13, I999
Re: Laurel Links, Environmental Review Responses to Information Requests
Dear Chairman Orlowski:
Dru Associates, Inc. provides herein responses to issues raised by Mr. C. Voorhis
of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. in his letter of February l, 1999. It is Dm Associates
opinion that all relevant environmental issues have now been addressed pursuant to the
series of correspondence on the environmental conditions at the proposed project site for
Laurel Links golf club. In order to simplify this response, a table listing the issues raised
by Mr. Voorhis (or other parties) is provided, with the status of each indicated.
Issue
Topography/~rading
Geology/soils
Ecology (incl wetlands)
Hydrology
Archaeology
Transportation
Zoning/Land Use
Agency
Town
Town
DEC
Count7
State
DOT
Town
Resolution
Balanced cut/fill, site plan required
Drainage and Erosion control in site plan
Mapped, requires permit application with site plan
No adverse quantity impacts, 1TMP to protect qualit'/
Phase lB complete, shows no impact
Requests for improvements in site plan
Density and HOA/Cluster options in site plan
As you can see from this summary, ali of the environmental issues raised in review by the
State, County or Town have reached an advanced stage of analysis, and further analysis
would be properly completed in the full engineering site plan process. Those issues that
could be resolved prior to site planning have been fully addressed, so that the project's
review can now proceed past SEQRA-related matters, and enter engineering design.
In Mr. Voorhis most recent review of this project, he highlighted two matters which
required further study this summer: an complete hydrological study and an archaeological
Phase lb study. These t~vo efforts were completed during July, with some follow-up in
August. Accordingly, attached to this letter you will find:
1. Stage lb Archaeological Report by City Scape Cultural Resource Consultants,
and
2. Ground Water Resource Evaluation for the Laurel Links Residential
Development and Golf course, prepared by C.A. Rich Consultants, Inc.
Certified Ground Water Specialists.
The Archaeological Stage lb report explored the site's soils by performing 781 field test
pits in a manner proscribed by the State. They have concluded that the site does not
contain significant artifacts or sites that would require further research or involvement of
the State Museum, thereby concluding the archaeological research required to satisfy
NYS OPRHP.
The Hydrological study involved groundwater testing to determine background quality
conditions, evaluation of the quantitative capacity of the existing wells on site and
groundwater pumping calculations based on the proposed irrigation demands to
determine the potential for impacts to local and surrounding potable water wells. The
Report presents certified laboratory data showing that the groundwater quality is
acceptable to State and County standards. The Report further concludes that natural
recharge of precipitation in the area of the project site will more than adequately restore
the quantity of water drawn from wells, thereby ensuring that the project will not cause
an adverse impact on groundwater quantity (the project's water demand is tess than a
third of the total recharge capacity at the site).
The Hydrology Report and laboratory testing performed at the site will serve as the
background data for a future water quality and quantity monitoring program, to be
designed in conjunction with site plan engineering. The monitoring requirements will be
determined in consultation with the Town's consultants during, and as part of, the
preparation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), to be presented in
permit and site plan applications.
Based on the items in the summary table above, and the successful completion of Mr.
Voorhis' most recent information requests, it is our opinion that the project does not
require further review under the auspices of SEQRA. The research performed to date
make us confident that the project will not result in any significant adverse ecological,
hydrological or geological impacts. The design of the pond and protection of the adjacent
wetland will be thoroughly reviexved by NYS DEC as part of their Article 24 Permit
process, which can only be started when a complete site plan is prepared. The remaining
environmental issues, being grading, drainage, wetland permits, pond design, stormwater
management and roads/structures configuration, can best be resolved in the Town's site
planning process.
I trust this submittal satisfies the Town's request for environmental information. Please
fell free to contact us with requests for clarification.
Dr. R.W. Abrams, CEP
W/Attachments: Archaeology Report, Hydrology Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Environmental Assessment Form: Part III
2. Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report
3. Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey
4. Ground Water Resource Evaluation for the Laurel Links
Residential Development and Golf Course
Ecological Consultants
40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542
21 Mt. Ponds, Wilmington, VT 05363
516 676-7107
802 464-3341
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development
And
Golf Course
Environmental Assessment Form
PART III
NOVEMBER 1998
1998
Ecological Consultants
40 Hitching Post Lane, Glen Cove, NY 11542
21 Mt. Ponds, Wilmington, VT 05363
516 676-7107
802 464-3341
Contents
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
II. Site Environment: Ecological habitats ........................................................................... 4
A. Agricultural Fields .................................................................................................... 5
B. Successional Wooded Upland (Maritime) ................................................................. 6
C. Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 8
D. Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 12
1) Wooded Swamp: ................................................................................................... 12
2) Emergent Marsh: .................................................................................................. 12
III Ecological Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 14
A. Geological Resources ............................................................................................... 14
l) Surface Geology ................................................................................................... 14
2) Topography ........................................................................................................... 14
B. Water Resources ....................................................................................................... 15
1) Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................. 15
2) Surface waters ........................................................................................................ 16
C. Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 17
IV Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 19
A. Geology .................................................................................................................... i9
B. Water Resources ....................................................................................................... 19
C. Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan .................................................................... 25
D. Ecology .................................................................................................................... 26
E. Stormwater Wetland Design ..................................................................................... 29
14-16-2 (2/87)-- 7c
617.21 SEQR
Appendix A
State Environmental Quality Review
· FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project
or action may be significant. The quest[on of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent-
ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also u~derstood that those who determine
significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental
analysis, in addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting
the question of significance.
The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination
process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action.
Full EAE Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts;
Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project
data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.
Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides
guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially-
large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced.
Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the
impact is actually important.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions
Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Partl [] Part2 []Part 3
Upon review of.the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting
information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the
lead agency that:
[] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not
have a ~ignificant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared.
[] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required,
therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.*
[] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact
on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared·
* A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions
Name of Action
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Title of Responsibie Officer
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer)
Date
PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION
Prepared by Project Sponsor
TICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect
environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional
information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3.
It is expected that completion of the full FAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve
new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify
each instance.
NAME OF ACTION /
"TOCATION OF ACTION (include Street Address, Municipal(fy and County)
NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ~bl~TS A
ADDRESS
~*~ ~ BUSINESS TELEPHONE
NAME OF OWNER (Il different) . ,
r STATE ZIP CODE
FL
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
Please Comlete Ea~ ~estion--Indicate N.A, if not applicable
A. Site ~scription
Physical setting of overall proiect, ~oth developed and undeveloped areas.
1. Present land use: ~Urban ~lndustrial ~Commercial ~Residential (suburban) ~Rural (non-farm)
~Forest '~griculture ~Otber
2. Total acreage of project area: ~ ~ '~ acres,
PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE O acres O acres
Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) ~9'~ acres ~%, 6 acres
Forested ~, ~ acres
Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) /~ acres
Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) ~' ~ ~ acres _ ~,Z J acres
o acres ~,~ acres
Water Surface Area O acres O acres
Unvegetated(Rock, earth or fill) O acres ~ I/,]~ acres
Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces
other (Indicate type) (~n~ (~o~ ~Q~[II'~CS [la~t,,~ acres ~&Z,-¢~ _ acres
a. Soil drainage: ~ell drained . g of site ~Moderatelv well drained' % of site
~Poorly drained ~ % of site
b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 df the NYS
Land Classification System? /G~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370).
4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~No
a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet)
2
$. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: ~0-10%
915% or greater / %
project substantially contig.uous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National
isters of Historic Places? DYes [~No ~, ~'r,~,~B~
7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~]Yes .,,~No
§. What is the depth'of the water table? ]~-Z~~'- (in feet)
9. Is site located over a p'~qmary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ,~Yes IqNo
10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes [~o
11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?
E3Yes /~o According to ,,~J~F~ ~o'~-,~cc
Identify each species
12. Are ther~ any unique or unusual ]and forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations)
DYes [~o Describe
13. is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area?
DYes ~No If yes, explain
14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community?
15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ~bo~
a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary
16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Name ~,,~V_ h/"T'-Z~ t'/']-~h~
the site served by existing public utilities? '~Yes [~No
a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?
bi If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection?
b. Size (In acres)
E3No
'~Yes DNo
18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA,
Section 303 and 304? ~es DNo
19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8
of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 DYes t~No
20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes ~No
B. Project Description
1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ~'~" acres.
b. Project acreage to be developed: J'-/'-] ,;~' acres initially; I~'-~,~' acres ultimately.
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped '~',~' acres.
d. Length of project, in miles: /-g~r (If appropriate)
e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed ,/(,J/~ %;
f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing O ; proposed / ~'- '7_,
g. Maximum vehicular trips gen.erated per hour '~-~ (upon completion of project)?
If residential: Number and type of housing units:
One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initially Q) ~ c~ C~
Ultimately '~ C) C~ (~
i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure -~)1 height; /~' ~ width; ~C~ length.
j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare pr6ject will occupy is? j~o~ ft.
3
2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? Q-~ tons/cubic yards
3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? q~Yes [~No
a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? L_q,~,~<~,~,c~}~tc~.~('c~(
b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? '~;]Yes C3No
c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? l~es ~]No
4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? /LJ,z2~ .acres.
5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project?
I-lyes '[~No
6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction ~/c~ months, (including de~nolition).
7. If multi-phased:
a. Total number of phases anticipated _ ~- (number).
b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 '-~"~1'~ month
c. Approximate completion date of final phase ~sN.~ month
d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? I~Yes
8. Will blasting occur during construction? f~Yes
9. Number of jobs generated: during construction /ODE)
10. Number of jobs eliminated .~by' this project _
11. will project require relocation of any proiects or facilities?
'ZOo ~ .. year.
'~N o
. year, (including demolition).
; after project is complete
I~Yes ~o If yes, explain
12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? E3Yes
a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount
b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ]
Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~,Yes I-INo Type _.~'~t,~-
14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ~Yes
Explain ~5 c~a~] ~,x~W ~'~ ~'~ i'?ccec~ ~ ' ' ~ t~C~(e
15. Is project or any portio~of project located in a 100 year nooa p~am~ ~Yes
16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes ~No
a. ]f yes, what is the amount ~er month ~ tons
b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ~es ~No
c. If yes, give name ~ ~ ~ck¢~'~¢~ ; location
d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill?
e. If Yes, explain
17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? [3Yes
a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month.
b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years.
18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? [~es [~No
19. Will
20. Will
21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~'Yes [~No
If yes , indicate type(s)
22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity _
23. Total anticipated water usage per day ~'~lb&~-~ gallons/day.
24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? E3Yes
If Yes, explain
project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes
project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? ~]Yes
gallons/minute.
25. Approvals Required:
Town, Village Board
Town, Village Planning Board
City, Town Zoning Board
City, County Health Department
Other Local Agencies
Other Regional Agencies
State Agencies
Federal Agencies
E~Yes E}No
~'es E]No
~Yes E]No
~'Y e s [3No
C)Yes E3No
E3Yes E3No
t~3.Y e s E~No
E}Yes ~No
Type
Submittal
Date
C. Zoning.and Planning Information
1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ~Yes E]No
If Yes, indicate decision required:
E]zoning amendment ~]zoning variance E~special use permit ~ubdivision /~site plan
C]new/revision of master plan E3resource management plan 'j~]other
2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? ~C.1 ~._drc~('~Bi,-~
3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitt, ed by the present zoning?
CT~C C~*:>~- -~,~ /go ,~ , 7~-I ,~'~ ~ r~ .... ~,,'~i
4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? /~ -~- { ~-'qO rrs~J~,es-
What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?
6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ']~¥es E~No
7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action?
8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? ~es E3No
9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? ~ I
a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ~r~lOOG
10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? E]Yes '~No
11. Will the Proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police,
fire protection)? ..~es E}No
a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand?0~2{esE~No
12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? E]Yes
a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? E}Yes IqNo
D. Informational Details
Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse
impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or
avoid them. ~: ~',~'k~r.~:_c~ -/.AC~r~'~ ~'c~,~c~-~.~k ~,'~z~.~ o,)Q ~,-.~,+~,~¢~d~.1 ~cs~.~¢.~'k '~.~.~
Verification
I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge.
~£M'T~ 1 (~,~ Date
If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
5
I. Introduction
The proposed Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course is located
on the southern side of Main Road (NYS Route 25), west of Bray Avenue in the hamlet
of Laurel. The project proposal is to subdivide the site into 31 lots. 29 Lots would be
clustered in the center of the property and developed with single-family residential units.
Lot 30, totaling 157.9 acres would be developed as an 18 hole, Golf Course. Lot 31
totaling 2.39 acres would be developed for golf course maintenance facilities (Figure 1).
The development of Laurel Links involves a set of potential environmental impacts, as
outlined in an initial review performed by the Town of Southold. The issues identified
were:
1. The proposed development plan potentially effects one geologic resource at
the site: native soils. The construction of the course and the residential development will
be accomplished by a balanced cut and fill, with little or/no material being exported from
the site. Native soils, which were previously disturbed by agriculture, will be used for
establishment of the golf turf;
2. The project site includes some habitat on which wildlife depend, but the
species using the site are typical of those adapted to co-existing with low density human
development. Field research and correspondence with New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation revealed that the wildlife habitats on the property do not
comprise an unusual resource and that the site is not listed as containing any Significant
Fish and Wildlife Habitats and/or species listed as rare or endangered. The wildlife using
the farmland will experience a reduction in their total habitat, but the species, which take
refuge in the less disturbed wooded habitat, will retain quality habitat throughout the
woods preserved on the edges of the property.
3. The project will not adversely effect steep slopes and the potential for erosion
will be fully mitigated; any potential impact from the location of the tennis courts will be
fully mitigated. Previous farmfield erosion has created historic impacts, particularly in
the southerly wetland, where "sediment bars" have formed from accumulated deposits of
runoff from the farmfields. The project has the opportunity to remedy the cause of these
impacts.
4. The potential impacts to the site's groundwater from the development of a golf
course will be mitigated by implementation of an Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan
(ITMP). The sanitary loading created by low density residential and club house operations
will conform with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 through use of single and
separate septic systems. It is anticipated that the Towns Water District will supply
potable water to the site. Existing wells combined with the proposed ponds will supply
irrigation water for the golf course and landscaping. The proposed residences require up
to approximately i8,000 gallons per day. This was calculated from the NYSDEC design
volumes which are 550 gpd/residence based on a 5 bedroom dwelling and includes
consumption for recreational purposes such as car washing and lawn watering.
5. The potential impact of converting farmland to other uses will be primarily
beneficial to the environment (i.e. habitat characteristics improve and groundwater
impacts could be reduced). No adverse impacts will occur to wetlands or adjacent areas
with the proposed plan and mitigation of the loss of open space will be facilitated by the
creation of wetland pond systems throughout the property. Additional vegetative
enhancement is proposed along the buffer of the wetland system in the northeastern
comer of the site (proposed tennis court location).
Design Principles:
A combination of standard engineering practices and the principles of the project
design team guide the design of the project. The configuration of the project has
followed a prioritized set of criteria:
a. Optimize use of already disturbed lands for new development impacts.
b. Achieve reasonable roadway and golf cart access throughout site;
c. Maximize setback from neighboring residences of new building construction;
2
In specific, the prioritized criteria were met as follows:
a. Optimize use of already disturbed lands for most dense development.
In order to limit the amount of development located near adjacent properties, the
residential units are proposed in the central portion of the site, an area that is previously
disturbed by farming. Every effort has been made to avoid and/or minimize disturbance
to the existing woodlands. An exception is the clubhouse which is proposed in the
northeastern comer along an existing vegetative buffer. In this manner, the densest
development being the residences is kept in the already disturbed farm fields.
b. Achieve reasonable residential roadway and golf cart access throughout site:
The first impression that the golf course makes on its guests or residents is the
approach to the clubhouse, the views of the course, and the residential units with respect
to the natural terrain visible on entry to the property. Equally important is that both
automobile and golf cart access around the site be unobtrusive, efficient and that
roadways be no longer than is necessary. In order to meet the preceding criteria, the main
and access road to the clubhouse and residential lots will be designed to preserve the
site's aesthetic appeal and to minimize grading. An auxiliary road from Peconic Bay
Blvd wiI1 also be designed in a similar way. Landscape treatments will mitigate the
appearance of the roadway itself.
c. Maximize setback from neighboring residences of new building construction:
The new residential development proposed would be located well within the
central portion of the site. The clubhouse is placed in the northeastern comer in an area
already visually buffered by an existing wooded upland.
Adherence to these principles was achieved in the proposed project design, and will
mitigate the potential for impacts to the site's natural resources and character of the
community.
II. Site Environment: Ecological habitats
Its large agricultural fields totaling approximately 165 acres and a fringe of
wooded habitat totaling approximately 50 acres characterize the site. Two wetlands are
located on the property totaling 3.21 acres. The site physiography is typical of
agricultural land, having a relatively flat grade across the property. The site's ecological
diversity is limited because it is dominated by row-crop agricultural land with only a
narrow successional wooded border and two small (relative to the property acreage)
wetland systems. The New York State Natural Heritage Program was contacted for
records of endangered, threatened or species of special concern that may have been
recorded on the site, and their response indicated that no such records exist. There were
no direct observations made of species listed by the State or Federal agencies as rare or
endangered.
Laurel Links, and its surrounding lands, have been effected by the process of habitat
fragmentation, which effects wildlife by the suburbanizing diversity and abundance. The
ecology of the wildlife in agricultural areas is altered from its historic origins through
such factors as edge-effect, isolation of woodland patches, artificial food sources (i.e.
crops), and interruption of transit corridors. In fact, most of the farm, including the
woodlands, reflect the pervasive influence of edge-effect
Populations of species that forage in farm fields are accustomed to unreliable resources.
Their reproductive dynamics tend to vary with resource availability. Such opportunism
has become a significant feature of rodents and meadow birds on Long Island because the
conversion of farms to other uses has been occurring for over 40 years. In particular,
birds using these areas have adapted to expanding their home range to ensure that they
visit diverse enough areas that provide diverse food resources. At present, there does not
appear to be any substantial amount of bird breeding on the site. One important factor in
this situation is the presence of domestic dogs and cats, which appear to roam the area
and would certainly threaten birds which typically breed in meadows such as grouse and
4
other gallinaceous species. The wildlife data are based on field research conducted over
the past year by Dru Associates Inc. Information is also taken from file research on the
habitats and species expected for such habitats along the north shore of Suffolk County.
The site contains three principle ecological habitats; agricultural fields, successional
wooded upland, freshwater wetlands.
A. Agricultural Fields
Throughout most of the central portion of the site there are 163.8 acres of
cropland vegetation cosisting of corn, pumpkins, and potato's. Prior to disturbance, this
zone was probably consistent with the wooded uplands along the perimeter of the
property.
The soils of this area of the property are Plymouth loamy sands (PLA, P1B), Riverhead
sandy loam (RdA), and Haven loam (HaA) with a disturbed upper layer.
Plymouth loamy sand (PLA, P1B), are deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils,
found on outwash plains and undulating to steep moraines. A cross section through the
sample of Plymouth loamy sand showed a very thin topsoil layer (less than 6 inches) of
dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil included a yellowish-brown and brown
friable loose loamy sand. The substratum is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly, coarse sand.
Permeability is rapid and erosion potential is slight. Limitations on development are
moderate.
Another soil type found on the site is comprised of the Riverhead Series (RdA): deep,
well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils, which occur on the glacial moraines and
in the outwash plains. The Riverhead sandy loams found on the project site is 0 to 3
percent slopes (RdA).
A typical section through a sample of Riverhead soil showed a brown sandy loam surface
layer to a depth of approximately 12 inches, followed by a strong-brown friable sandy
loam subsurface layer to a depth of 27 inches. The lower subsoil layer is yellowish-
brown, very friable loamy sand about 6 inches thick, follo~ved by a yellowish-broxvn,
gravelly, loamy sand layer about 3-5 inches thick. The substratum is very pale brown to
brown sand and gravel about 30 inches thick. Generally, Riverhead soils have a moderate
to high moisture capacity with good internal drainage and moderately to highly rapid
permeability. Natural fertility of these soils is Iow.
The agricultural fields contain large areas of Haven loam (HaA). This is most often
found on outwash plains or on the tops of Iow-lying morainal hills. A cross section
through a sample of Haven Loam consisted of the following. The undisturbed surface
layer would consist of a thin layer of leaf litter and partly decomposed organic matter
underlain by a light gray to gray sand substrate to i2 inches deep. Root zones extend into
the top part of this layer. The substratum contained dark reddish-brown soils, compact
and very strongly acid. Permeability is rapid, the hazard of erosion is slight and soil
moisture capacity is poor, except during flooding, which is how these soils become
hydric, even though they drain out well seasonally in many locales.
It is not likely that wildlife use the agricultural fields for refuge or breeding habitat. It is a
potential food source for small mammals and birds. Due to the annual disturbance of the
top soil layers from plowing, reptiles and amphibians would generally not inhabit these
areas.
B. Successional Wooded Upland (Maritime)
The project site includes a narrow fringe of successional woods totaling
approximately 50 acres. Almost ali of it being second and third gro;vth forest dominated
in the canopy by oaks, beech, sassafras, locust, hickories, and maple, with patches of
evergreens. In the understory the lesser disturbed areas are dominated by greenbrier,
sumac, and an assortment of vines such as rose, Virginia creeper and viburnums. Much
of this area is relatively level, except for the slopes grading towards the two wetland
6
systems. In some areas, there has been such long term canopy coverage or former
clearing that the groundcover is absent in stands of forest.
The soils of these upland woods are distinct Plymouth loamy sands and Riverhead sandy
loam. Plymouth loamy sands (PLA, PIB), are deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured
soils, found on outwash plains and undulating to steep moraines. A cross section through
the sample of Plymouth loamy sand showed a very thin topsoil layer (less than 6 inches)
of dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil included a yellowish-brown and brown
friable loose loamy sand. The substratum is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly, coarse sand.
Permeability is rapid and erosion potential is slight. Limitations on development are
moderate. Another soil type found in the wooded upland is the Riverhead Series (RdA):
deep, well-drained, moderately coarse textured soils, which occur on the glacial moraines
and in the outwash plains. The Riverhead sandy loams found on the project site is 0 to 3
percent slopes (RdA).
A typical section through a sample of Riverhead soil showed a brown sandy loam surface
layer to a depth of approximately 12 inches, followed by a strong-brown friable sandy
loam subsurface layer to a depth of 27 inches. The lower subsoil layer is yellowish-
brown, very friable loamy sand about 6 inches thick, followed by a yellowish-brown,
gravelly, loamy sand layer about 3-5 inches thick. The substratum is very pale brown to
brown sand and gravel about 30 inches thick. Generally, Riverhead soils have a moderate
to high moisture capacity with good internal drainage and moderately to highly rapid
permeability. Natural fertility of these soils is low.
In the northeast comer of the property the Carver Series dominates (Carver and Plymouth
sands CpE). This soil consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils which
occur throughout Suffolk County on the moraines and the adjacent outwash plains. The
available moisture capacity is very low, as is the natural fertility. These soils are mainly
found on rolling moraines, although they are also on the slopes of drainage channels on
the outwash plains. The hazard of erosion is slight to moderate and the soils are dry.
Generally, Carver soils have a low available moisture capacity and a low fertility.
Permeability through such soils is rapid.
A typical cross section through a sample of Carver soil would find the following strata (of
variable widths). The surface layer would consist of a thin layer of leaf litter and other
organic matter underlain by a thin layer of dark-gray sand. The subsurface layers include
a layer of light-gray to gray loose sand followed by a subsoil layer of loose brown to dark-
brown sand of approximately 14 inches in depth. The substratum (to approximately 60
inches) varies but usually contains loose sand with some gravel of a yellowish brown to
brownish yellow color to the 30 inch depth and a light yellowish brown color below this.
Areas of oak-beech-hickory, as the remnants of the native forest, occur in the wooded
upland fringe extending along the edges of the site into adjacent property. This habitat
includes white oak, black oak, beech, Sassafras and red maple. Most of these trees appear
to be 35-60 years old (<6"-10" DBH). The understory of the oak-beech-hickory
woodland type is low-bush blueberry, witch hazel, greenbrier, virginia creeper, rasberry,
hay-scented fern, roses, goldenrod, violet sp., and viburnum. In some locations the dense
canopy layer has restricted the propagation of a substantial understory.
C. Fauna
a. Mammals
Several mammal species were observed on site. Common species such as the
chipmunk and the cottontail rabbit were not observed or were in very low density.
Evidence (feces and tracks) of white-tail deer were common but not abundant. The
Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus was noted from its burrows. Rodents are present but
not abundant in the fields and edges of the woodlands. Fox and opossum occur in the
general area. Squirrels were observed throughout the woodlands, and nest in the trees or
dense understory.
b. Reptiles and Amphibians
No snakes, turtles, frogs, toads or salamanders were observed in any phase of the
investigations in this section of the site. Some were observed in the immediate upland
8
surrounding the wetland system in the northeastern comer of the site. More than a day
was spent turning over logs and pulling brush piles apart.
The extreme dryness of these Plymouth, Riverhead and Haven sandy loams may be the
main factor in limiting these forms. The lack of persistent surface water in the vicinity
are other factors. The lack of earthworms (none were found) in either the forest or field
soils and the seemingly low density of insects and other invertebrates are also important.
Turtles, Order Testudines
The Eastern Box Turtle, Terrapene carolince was observed.
expected.
No other turtles are
Lizards and snakes, Order Squamata
The eastern fence Lizard Scelopoms undulatus is a rare possibility.
Long Island but with very few sightings.
The five-lined Skink, Eumeces fasciatus is another rare possibility.
It is reported for
Snakes, Suborder Serpentes
The Red-bellied Snake, Storeria occipilomaculata might occur but is severely limited by
dryness.
The Common Garter Snake, Thamnophis sertalis is the most likely snake present. It is
common throughout Long Island.
The Eastern Ribbon Snake T. sanritus is less likely to occur in the wooded areas because
of the lack of surface water and soil moisture.
The Eastern Hognose Snake, Heterodon platyrhinos is possible in the wooded area
immediately above the wetland
The Black Racer Coluber constrictor is another possibility but like the other reptiles, not
an important faunal member.
Amphibians
The Mole Salamanders, family Ambystoma tidae include 2 possibilities of occun'ence.
These are the Spotted Salamander, Ambystoma maculatum; and the Jefferson
Salamander, A. iefferssonianum. The lack of moisture, distance to surface waters and
low earthworm and insect population densities make these very unlikely.
Frogs and Toads, order Anura, would be limited by the lack of substantail surface water
in the vicinity. Only 2 species of toads seem at all possible
The Eastern Spadefoot Toad, Scaphiopus holbrooki is often found in pine forest with
sandy soils and fowler's toad, Bufo woodhousei fowleri is found almost ever~vhere on
Long Island. Fowlers toad was observed.
The Grey Treefrog, H¥1a Versicolor is another possibility but it too is limited by the lack
of persistent surface water. Its call is distinctive but none were heard.
c. Avifauna
In Southold, farming has attracted certain species and residential use has
attracted other species to the general area. Details follow on the most abundant or
conspicuous wildlife species, followed by an inventory of the area's species.
Suburban avifauna forage on the site among the wildflowers and shrubs, and some seek
refuge in the woodlands. Sparrows, Doves, Juncos, Blackbirds, Cardinals and
Meadowlarks feed amongst grasses on the seed and associated insects. Perennial
wildflowers such as Goldenrods, Asters and Ragweeds provide seeds for Goldfinches,
Sparrows, Juncos, Titmice, Cardinals, Finches, Robins and Chickadees. Bayberries
provide food for Crows, Chickadees, Flickers, Meadowlarks, Sparrows, Starlings,
Titmice, Woodpeckers, Wrens and Mockingbirds. Most of the birds listed in this
paragraph also feed on the seeds of Poison Ivy, Dogwoods and the various berry shrubs
present on the site
10
Field searches were conducted for gallinaceous birds during each site visit. These species
were not abundant, as deduced because they flush easily. Ruffed grouse and American
Woodcock occur in the region, and persist through winter, but were not observed.
In the sections of the site secluded from roads and buildings, in the wooded habitat of the
property, the more common birds observed are migratory songbirds, including the Eastern
Peewee, Great-crested Flycatcher, and Northern Oriole in high canopy habitat, Red-eyed
Vireo and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in mid-story habitat, and ground nesters such as Hermit
and Wood Thrush. Cavity nesting species like the Hairy and Downy Woodpeckers, and
White-breasted Nuthatch and Black-capped Chickadee would be most abundant in
isolated patches of mature woods.
Mourning Doves and Blue Jays are more common in the oak and mixed hardwood habitat
and in the dense patches of this habitat, Rufous-sided Towhee and Tanager may occur.
The site's bird species richness is not particularly high for the region. The biotic diversity
generally associated with edge-effect, along the southern fringe of the site, results in the
highest number of birds species, including in addition to those listed above, Sparrows,
Warblers, Red-winged Blackbirds and American Goldfinch.
The paucity of birds on the Laurel Links site is in part due to the dryness of the soils and
the lack of substantial surface water, and a real decline in some of the species or the long
agricultural history. For whatever reason the avian community is not a rich one.
11
D. Wetlands
The site contains two freshwater wetland systems totaling 3.21 acres (State,
Federal, and Town jurisdiction). These wetlands are classified as wooded swamp and
shrub/Emergent Marsh.
l) Wooded Swamp:
The wooded swamp is located in the northeastern corner of the site. It is a small
portion of the larger system classified by the NYSDEC as Wetland MT-4. The wetland is
impounded by Bray Avenue and Rte 25 which has resulted in the ponding situation that
currently exists. This ponding situation is not persistent and has experienced dry periods
which were observed. The wetland does appear to receive hydrological input from road
runoff during storm events, which correlates with the ponding situation during wet
periods and a drying out during summer and early fall. The vegetation is dominated by
assemblages of red maple, hickory, oak, speckled alder, silky dogwood, poison ivy,
greenbrier, and highbush blueberry. The soils in this wetland were formed on the Carver
Plymouth sands (CpE). Due to the presence of some ponding water, the wetland contains
some species of amphibians such as toads and frogs. Reptiles were not observed but
could occur. Deer frequently use this area as a source of drinking water during wet
periods.
2) Emergent Marsh:
The freshwater emergent marsh is an elongated wetland located on the
southcentral portion of the site and extending northward into the property. It is classified
as NYSDEC Wetland MT-27. Dominant vegetation assemblages include species of red
maple, Tree-of-Heaven, black birch, gray birch, shagbark hickory, sassafras, bittersweet,
pussy willow, low juneberry, common greenbrier, wild grape, huckthorn, hawthorn,
woolgrass, cattail, carex sp., and common reed. The soil classification for this wetland is
Tidal Marsh (Tm), and Plymouth gravelly loamy sand (PmB3). Tidal Marsh soils are wet
areas around the borders of tidal creeks. These areas, as is the case with MT-27, are not
subject to daily tidal flow, but could be subject to flooding during abnormal storm tides.
12
The soil has an organic mat on the surface that ranges from several inches thick to several
feet overlying a pale-gray or white sand. This wetland has received a substantial amount
of sediment from the farmland which currently drains into it. Two distinct "sediment
bars" have been created from accumulated sediment about midway downgrade from the
top of the wetland. In and around these sediment bars (where vegetation does grow), the
vegetation has taken on a facultative component as opposed to a wetter hydrologic
vegetative regime.
13
III Ecological Impact Assessment
A. Geological Resources
1) Surface Geology
The potential for erosion from site grading will require erosion control
planning. Since the soil types are not prone to severe erosion, the potential loss of soil
resources represents a negligible impact. Wherever roadways, buildings etc. are to be
built, localized erosion may occur during construction, requiring controls to prevent
sedimentation at the property boundaries. The potential construction impacts will not
affect geological resources, so that mitigation measures for this action are covered under
standard erosion control practices. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
to be prepared with site plan engineering integrates erosion control measures in the
construction stage. No erosion is expected to occur upon completion of the project
construction, because the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will fully control runoff
and the site will be completely vegetated.
2) Topography
The Applicant anticipates that a balance of cut and fill will be achieved on
the site, thus limiting potential impacts from the exportation or translocation of
substantial quantities of excavated materials.
The golf fairways and features would be mounded and shaped, especially in the existing
farm fields, to provide topographic relief and interest within the course. Parking areas
associated with the clubhouse would be generally level, sloped minimally as required for
drainage.
It is currently proposed to balance cut and fill within the project, so no material is
anticipated to be exported from the site. Topsoil within the farm fields will be stripped
14
and stockpiled for future use prior to bulk excavation activities. The stockpiles will be
either covered and/or seeded per procedures outlined in an erosion and sedimentation
control plan that will meet the requirements of the Town of and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges from Construction Activities. The stockpiles will also be surrounded by silt
fence to further limit the potential movement of sediment.
B. Water Resources
The local water district will supply the proposed development with potable water
and sanitary disposal will be through single and separate systems for residential dwellings
and the clubhouse. Irrigation water supply will be from either the existing farm wells or
from the ponds to be created on site. There is no expected impact on groundwater
quantity.
1) Groundwater Quality
There are two elements of this project which potentially impact
groundwater quality: sanitary discharge and golf turf management.
The parcel proposed for development of the residences lies at elevations that place it
about 20 feet above the groundwater table. The protection of groundwater quality in
terms of sanitary discharge is implemented through Suffolk County Department of Health
zoning restrictions, which ensure that local populations do not exceed densities which can
be safely supported by, and in turn protective of, the area's water supply. In the case of
this parcel in the density permitted is compatible with that which would be allowed by
Suffolk's Health Department groundwater protection program. Since all stormwater and
sanitary water disposal is regulated by Suffolk Sanitary Code, i.e. contaminant loadings
~vithin Code restrictions, the impacts to groundwater will remain within the incrementally
acceptable standards of the 208 Study and County Code Article 6, deemed sufficient to
protect the aquifer in the Special Groundwater Protection Area. Engineering calculations
for the number and types of structures to be developed will be presented with the Final
15
Site Plans, and of course, development cannot proceed unless these calculations meet
Sanitary Code restrictions. During construction, there is a potential for erosion along the
roadside or edge habitat from excavation activities. All runoff of mud and silt will be
intensively managed (see Mitigation).
While the sanitary discharge of nitrates (i.e. the key indicator of residential pollution) are
managed by a straightforward engineering exemise, the management of a golf course turf
requires careful planning if groundwater is to be protected from impacts due to fertilizers
and pesticides. There are potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality, and therefore
to human health, from the application of chemicals to turf. These impacts are regulated
through the testing of potable water supplies. The pre-existing groundwater quality in the
area already shows adverse impacts from the area's agricultural history due to excess
nitrates. The ITMP prepared for managing the turf on the proposed golf course
anticipates routine nitrate leaching rates of 0.2-0.3 mg/L, with maximum levels of 1.9-3.8
mg/L, all well below the County Health Department standard of 10 mg/L.
The management of pesticide application also has the potential to impact groundwater
quality. Again, the ITMP prepared for this project evaluates the potential for impacts to
groundwater. An Environmental Risk Assessment was performed to determine the
potential for fungicides, herbicides and insecticides to leach to the site's groundwater. A
~vide array of commercially available products were modeled, and a list generated that
shows the range of potentials for impacting groundwater. This analysis was based on
soils samples taken from the project site, and on state-of-the-art geochemistry. For the
Laurel Links site conditions, more than half the available chemicals modeled as low in
terms of potential impact, and so the ITMP presents a turf treatment plan that shows a
low potential for impacting groundwater resources.
2) Surface waters
The project site does not include any surface waters in the work area. The
northeastern comer contains a small wetland that sometimes floods and holds water.
There is a wetland in the south central portion of the property, but it does not act as a
16
surface water. The design measures employed for buffering the northeast wetland will
protect it, and there will be no impact on these wetlands from filling and or excavating
activities.
C. Ecology
The ecological habitats (which provide wildlife functions) of the Laurel Links
land include the, wetlands and remnants of second growth woods. There will be some
loss of woodland and no loss of wetland, and conversion of farm fields to a combination
of golf turf and residential housing. No impacts have been identified to any individual
plant or animal species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by State or Federal Fish
and Wildlife Services. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to physical habitat that
supports any species listed as rare, threatened or endangered. However, if a rare,
threatened or endangered species (i.e. migrating songbird) passes through the site on a
seasonal basis, and this study did not observe such species, then their use of the site is not
intensive, and these species will not be adversely impacted because they will still find the
basic roosting and foraging resources that they seek as they spend a short time on the site.
Wildlife Impacts
On a local ecological scale, there will be a conversion of the agricultural fields
and old field habitat to what is effectively a managed meadow and native meadow
complex (the golf course). There will be some losses of wooded habitat (approx 14.4
acres) as sections of the woodland are opened for golf. However, all of the vegetated
buffer along the southerly wetland will be preserved. Therefore, the net effect on local
wildlife will be an extension of the farmfield impacts to which the site's fauna are already
adapted. It is possible that some disturbance-sensitive species that range across the
woodlands from other lands will be further deterred from using this site. Amongst the
birds that may use the site, some warblers and the tanagers are examples of species that
prefer interior woodland refugia. The numbers of these birds using the site is low, as few
if any have been observed. Nevertheless, reduction in the amount of interior woodland
refugia could potentially reduce these species use of the site.
17
Rodent populations, already reduced on the site and adjacent farmland, will recover from
short term impacts to their pre-development levels quickly, especially in the newly
vegetated areas located between golf turf areas.
Cumulative biological impact for terrestrial ecosystems is most often assessed using
species-area relationships (Pielou 1977). The small percentage of open-space (or small
fraction of the local species-area curve for the area) represented by the project site does
not represent a situation where vegetation clearing would translate into a significant loss
of biotic diversity within the context of Southold's overall ecology (again in terms of
common species of birds, mammals and insects). Moreover, the surrounding lands are
already modified, except for small patches.
Due to the long-standing agricultural activity in and around this site, disturbance-sensitive
species, with the exception of perhaps one or two species, have been eliminated. A
typical effect on avifauna of habitat alteration is the introduction of parasitic species. The
cowbird and brown creeper are presently absent from the site, and might be expected to
increase after development, although the level of past disturbance has already passed the
threshold that should have encouraged these species.
18
IV Mitigation Measures
The potential for impacts to natural or human resources are limited as described
above, and the design of the project sought to avoid such impacts from the outset. The
following section elaborates the description of the potential impacts have been mitigated
in design, or will be mitigated during construction.
A. Geology
The potential for the Laurel Links Golf Course and Residential Development to
impact geological resources through the movement of soil will be fully mitigated by the
grading and drainage design which includes a complete erosion control plan that will be
prepared in the SWPPP for approval as part of the Final Site Plan review process. It is
currently proposed to balance cut and fill within the project, so no material is anticipated
to be exported from the site. Topsoil within the farm fields will be stripped and
stockpiled for future use prior to bulk excavation activities. The stockpiles will be either
covered and/or seeded per procedures outlined in an erosion and sedimentation control
plan that will meet the requirements of the Town and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from
Construction Activities. The stockpiles will also be surrounded by silt fence to further
limit the potential movement of sediment. There are no plans to irrigate areas of the golf
course outside of the play areas, i.e. the fairways, fringe rough areas, greens and tees.
B. Water Resources
Groundwater
Protection of the region's groundwater requires both design and management
measures to ensure that the water generated by the site, and recharged to the aquifer, does
not exceed the standards necessary to protect groundwater. Accordingly, the project will
remain within the County Sanitary Code Article 6 provisions.
19
The "208 Study" (Long Island Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan) was
prepared as a part of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment
of 1972 and was completed in 1978 by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
The "208 Study" identified hydrogeological zones in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. These
zones comprised both deep recharge and shallow discharge zones in these respective
Counties; sound management of these zones is thought to be essential in maintaining the
quality and quantity of groundwater. The Study furthermore identified non-point sources
of contamination as a major contributor of surface water and groundwater pollution.
According to the 208 Study Management Plan, a project site within Hydrogeologic Zone
IV, i.e., a unique combination of vertical recharge in some places, but on this site, a
tendency to flow towards Peconic Bay. This zone should be protected by adherence to
the 208 recorrLmendations that have been integrated for implementation into Suffolk
County Sanitary Code Article 6. The specific 208 Study recommendations for Zone IV
are to avoid high density residential development, so that the proposed project, which
combines open space (e.g. golf) with clustered, moderate density residential development,
is compatible with groundwater protection. The protection of groundwater quality will be
ensured by adherence to Suffolk County Health Department criteria for the project's
sanitary design, and by application of the Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan,
discussed below.
For construction-related activities, the project will rely upon preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan in order to comply with the State's General SPDES Permit,
which is based on the following points pertaining to the surface and ground water systems
as developed in the Federal study:
a) The majority of runoff into recharge basins is derived from rain falling directly onto
impervious surfaces, with the exception of high intensity, high volume or long duration
storms.
20
b) The concentrations of inorganic chemicals, with the exception of chloride and lead,
measured in stermwater runoff do not generally have the potential to adversely affect the
groundwater quality.
c) Infiltration through the soil is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and
probably chromium from runoff on Long Island. While the NURP findings regarding
chromium are inconclusive, data from an industrial spill at Farrningdale indicate
attenuation. Chloride on the other hand is not attenuated. The effect of infiltration on
Nitrogen is as yet undetermined.
d) Coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator bacteria are removed from stormwater as it
infiltrates through the soil.
e) Further investigations of stormwater runoff as a possible significant source of organic
chemical are essential in view of the need to assure acceptable quality groundwater.
Additionally, the significance of illegal discharges or inorganic chemicals that run off
may carry into storm drains or recharge basins cannot be discounted. From the limited
runoff data, along with the results of a considerable number of organic chemicals and
analyses from ongoing County monitoring programs related to water supply, ambient
groundwater quality and sources of contamination, it is concluded that no change in the
use of recharge basins is necessary.
f) Lead concentration in runoff entering a recharge basin appears to be directly related to
the extent and characteristics of the road network, and the volume and type of traffic in
the drainage area served by the particular basin.
g) The length of time that a recharge basin has been in use (in addition to land use)
appears to affect the concentrations of some pollutants in the basin soil.
h) Plastic-lined basins with overflow to recharge structures and unlined recharge basins
are equally effective in recharging stormwater to the groundwater reservoir and in
attenuating chemical constituents in stormwater.
21
i) Removal of basin vegetation is unnecessary, and could decrease the infiltration rate.
j) Awareness of year round presence of chemical constituents is necessary in order to
control them. The use of highway deicing salt in winter explains the high chloride
concentrations found in runoff at this time.
k) Ratios of fecal coliform bacteria to fecal streptococci (FC/FS) were less than 1.0 in the
overwhelming majority of samples analyzed. FC/FS values greater than 4.0 are generally
considered to be of human origin and values less than 0.7 of animal origin. The evidence
accumulated in this study strongly supports the belief that fecal coliform loads are derived
from a non-human source.
1) Current data indicate that, on an area-wide basis, the opportunities for preserving the
quality of currently certified or certifiable waters far exceeds those for improving the
quality of conditionally certified or uncertified waters.
Overall, the Study recommended the continued use of recharge rings where suitable, and
basins and ponds for stormwater systems of larger stormwater flow generators, because
by filtering through natural habitat and soils the water can effectively be cleaned.
Accordingly, for this project, the potential surficial impacts from stormwater will be
handled by the use of on-site stormwater wetland ponds.
The "Non-Point Source Management Handbook" (LIPRB 1984), which has been prepared
as part of the USEPA 208 Plan Implementation Program, presents solutions to existing
problems and needed controls for non-point sources of contamination. Various non-point
source impacts on ground and surface waters and on pertinent legislation are discussed.
A series of State, Municipal and non-government actions are recommended for the
control of mitigation of undesirable impacts. The handbook furthermore recommends
numerous regulation measures for the protection of the Long Island groundwater quality.
The major objectives, which underlie these recommendations, are: 1. Maximization of the
recharge of high quality groundwater to the aquifers, 2. Minimization of pollutant
loadings from all land uses, and 3. Reductions of the amount of consumptive use of
groundwater, in particular the shoreline areas and other areas where quantities are limited.
22
In particular, the ten LIRPB's handbook chapters describe, discuss and provide
recommendations, all of which have been integrated in the planning control over this
project:
1. Land Use - discusses Land Uses as they presently exist on Long Island, their
relationship to the Hydrogeologic Zones and their controls. The Zoning for this project
will follow the recommendations for controls relative to the siting and location of various
land uses in particular areas and zones.
2. Stormwater - discusses stormwater processes and constituents drainage system design
and operation, impacts on ground and surface waters and existing management and
legislation. The project will follow recommendations for appropriate stormwater controls
and development guidelines.
3. On-site - discusses current siting practices, system functions, maintenance and existing
regulations. The project will follow recommendations by remaining within protective
guidelines from legislation and administrative programs.
4. Highway de-icing - discusses present highway de-icing and salt storage practices and
management. The project will follow recommendations for the control of salt application
and salt storage.
5. Fertilizer - discusses present practices (both residential and agricultural) as they
pertain to groundwater. This project will not employ routine fertilization in landscaping.
6. Animal wastes - not applicable to project.
7. Well construction and location, use and abandonment - not applicable, as public water
is available.
8. Boat pollution - not applicable to project.
23
9. Site plan review - discusses existing site plan review processes, and how it relates to
controlling some of the non-point sources discussed in other chapters. This project will
work closely with the Town to ensure a streamlined and efficient review of all issues.
10. Ordinances - this chapter includes a compilation of existing and proposed ordinances
(currently used on Long Island or in other states). These ordinances are used to illustrate
alternative ways of meeting the water resource protection needs of a particular
municipality. Some of these ordinances may be used in their present form, while others
may need to be tailored to the specific needs of the municipality. These ordinances are
believed by the LIRPB to constitute the best available models for the control of the
impact of a particular non-point source.
The LIRPB recommendations have generally been utilized in Town land-use controls,
design/layout criteria and regulations enacted since the Handbook was issued. Again, the
Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Articles 6, 7 and 12 have been developed to implement
the NURP and Non-Point Source Handbook recommendations for protecting the
environment. The proposed projects sanitary and stormwater disposal design will be in
accordance with the applicable points discussed above.
The depth to groundwater in the area proposed for development ranges from 10 to 25
feet. In order to mitigate potential impacts from stormwater recharge, stormwater
treatment area (SWTA) ponds and natural features taking advantage of the site's sandy
soils will spread recharge across the site and drainage pools will be no less than 10 feet
above groundwater. The stormwater drainage system will be designed to meet the
Statewide standard of on-site retention ora 2" rainfall. The stormwater will be recharged
into the groundwater with effluent concentrations well below the acceptable standards.
Thus, adverse impacts will have been avoided by design criteria.
Regarding wastewater, the single-family residences will be served by conventional single
and separate subsurface disposal systems.
24
The site's landscaped areas will employ low volume irrigation and native species to
minimize the need for excessive watering or fertilization, thereby further minimizing the
potential for nitrogen infiltration into the ground.
C. Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan
The most significant groundwater protection issue for this project is the
management of the golf turf areas. Maintenance of a reliable, disease-free turf is the best
way to ensure that fertilizers and pesticides are needed in quantities that would threaten
natural resources. This strategy is accomplished in two ways:
1. Preparation of an Integrated Pest Management Plan (ITMP), and;
2. Employment ora Superintendent trained and certified in ITMP technology.
The Laurel Links development has engaged the nation's leading expert, Dr. M.
Petrovic of Cornell University to provide planning and implementation guidance. As a
first step in his long- term involvement with the project, Dr. Petrovic has prepared a site-
specific ITMP. This Plan is based on site-specific soils and groundwater analysis, and
has been developed in conjunction with the planning for the irrigation system. The ITMP
will dehver a precise quantity of only those compounds actually needed by the turf
according to a monitoring program executed by the Superintendent.
Pesticides are applied to golf courses either as a granular solid material or as a liquid
spray. For all areas to be treated with pesticides, the drift of the pesticide spray will be
reduced to near zero by only spraying with a shrouded sprayer that confines the spray to
the turf surface, eliminating drift when wind speeds are less than 15 mph.
The protection of the quality of Long Island's groundwater aquifers is critical. The
fertilization and pest/disease control programs are designed to protect the surface and
groundwater quality on and off site. The application of a pesticide to this golf course will
only occur following the precautions outlined as follows:
25
I. All other control measures outlined in the ITMP have been followed and failed to
give adequate control;
2. Weather conditions are still conducive for pest development and plant damage; no
applications will be made within 48 hours (except for Pythium blight due to it's rapid
mortality effect) of a predicted heavy rainfall event;
3. Treatments made to the severely affected areas (spot treatments) to minimize the
amount of pesticide used;
4. Shrouded sprayers will be used to apply spray material at wind speeds greater than 5
mph but less than 15 mph.
Fertilizer applications will follow a similar set of restrictions:
1. Applications of fertilizer will be only to the active play area;
2. Application must be considered necessary based on soil and/or foliar test
recommendations;
3. No applications are to be made within 48 hrs ora predicted heavy rain event.
Finally, the ITMP provides detailed protocols for the golf course Superintendent to follow
in determining when and where to apply treatments to the turf. Such practices as scouting
for pests and weeds are essential, and therefore make it incumbent upon the project
sponsors to engage an experienced and highly trained Superintendent. With this
commitment to the ITMP, the golf turf management at Laurel Links will not adversely
impact the local groundwater.
D. Ecology
The project site's ecological features are the three zones represented by the farm,
the wetlands, and the woodlands. Many years of clearcutting and farming throughout the
site have resulted in some fragmentation of the woodlands, and elimination of natural
ecology from the fields, and to a lesser extent, the woodlands. Impacts from the proposed
development will not amplify the pattern of local disturbance; it will result in the loss of
26
14.4 acres of woodland, and conversion of farmfields from active row-crop farming to
golf turf, wetland pond systems, and residential housing
The potential impacts to flora and fauna will be mitigated by:
In the design phase, minimization of the amount of golf turf;
1. Minimization of cart paths in woodland area;
2. Preservation of native woodland or planting of native vegetation in farmfields in
areas between golf tuff.
3. Protection from pollution of the site's soil, groundwater and native vegetation by the
use of an Integrated Turfgrass Management Plan for controlling turf disease and
pests.
4. Protection from stormwater impacts by the use of stormwater wetland ponds
(SWTA's) containing native emergent and aquatic vegetation for water quality
treatment.
These mitigation measures, particularly with the introduction of wildlife attracting flora
in the stormwater wetlands, will result in the conservation of much of the site's wildlife
benefits. Accordingly, while the site does not routinely support any rare, threatened or
endangered species, the design philosophy of conserving most of the existing woods will
conserve essential wildlife habitat. If a threatened or endangered migratory species
passes through the site on a seasonal basis, then their use of the site will not be adversely
impacted because they will still find the basic roosting and foraging resources that they
seek as they spend a short time on the site.
The golf course and residential design and, the implementation of an Integrated Turfgrass
Management Plan represent the measures recommended for protecting wildlife from golf
course turf management by the Audubon Society in their innovative "Cooperative
Sanctuaries" program. The purpose of the Audubon program is to encourage golf course
managers to follow practices that achieve the objective of maximizing the wildlife
27
benefits of golf courses. It has long been recognized that the permanent preservation of
open space that can be achieved with golf course development is beneficial to
environmental interests if proper management of water and vegetative resources is
practiced, including optimal care in the application of pesticides. The "Cooperative
Sanctuaries" has provided evidence that, when state-of-the-art conservation is employed,
abundant bird life, as well as mammals and wetland systems, can function well and even
prosper.
While the design team is not part of the program, the design of golf course at Laurel
Links will use, as a model, the same principles applied in the Audubon program.
Accordingly, the wetlands and woodlands preserved by the development design will
support at least as robust a rodent and bird population as exists on the site now. The
invertebrate fauna that relies upon sandy, vegetated surfaces will actually increase
because many acres of land that have been plowed and treated with pesticides will now be
allowed to return to natural habitat, and much of the woodland ground habitat will
remain.
The Laurel Links ecosystem is presently lacking in certain bird and small mammal
species due to the absence of persistent surface water. The creation of stormwater
wetland ponds will provide waterfowl, rodents and amphibians with habitat that does not
now exist, thereby diversifying the site's ecology to a limited extent.
In summary, the salient features of this project, with their mitigation benefits, include:
· Project layout to avoid wetlands: e.g. Fields and housing wrap around and along
wetland and wetland corridors.
· Creation of stormwater capture, retention and treatment swales and basins to
prevent wetland and groundwater impact: e.g. The collection and dispersion
through the existing subwatersheds can be accomplished by a series of treatment areas
in which wetland dynamics are applied to water quality management.
28
· Farm-land Restoration to encourage ecological restoration: e.g. Throughout the
farm area, in sections not proposed for playing fields or stormwater treatment, the
lands will be landscaped to restore a "living substrate" where the former farming
activities stripped natural topsoil.
· Integrated Turf Management Plan: e.g. Pesticides are prescribed by a detailed
scientific formula to prevent groundwater or runoff impacts, and to manage both turf
quality and environmental safety over the long term.
E. StormwaterWetland Design
All of the surface water runoff from the proposed playing fields (as well as the
residential buildings) will be directed through vegetated swales and drains to both ponds
and Stormwater Treatment Areas (SWTA's) consisting of treatment zones with
emergent/aquatic vegetation, which act as biofiltering zones to protect the site's
groundwater. As grading of the fields is completed, small receiving floodplains will be
created for capture, treatment and recharge of the water. Habitat-types created in this
manner include shallow water marsh (<1 feet deep), emergent marsh, transitional
shrub swamp. The plantings in such areas range from rooted aquatics (e.g. wild
celery/rice), to temporarily flooded species (bulrush) to swamp shrubs (i.e. vibumums,
arrowwood, swamp azalea), to wetland grasses (i.e. sedges, rushes).
The upland element of the stormwater management plan is the conveyance and detention
of excess runoff from impervious surfaces (buildings and roadways). The stormwater
treatment system within the site will be designed to meet the dual objectives of handling
volumes while protecting water quality. The settling and detention basins within each
pond will attenuate flow velocity, hold the first flush of a large and allow contaminants to
both settle and be absorbed.
The site's stormwater treatment areas will be designed to incorporate the major removal
mechanisms of sedimentation, adsorption, microbial activity and plant uptake. But
equally important to water quality protection is the placement and creation of new
29
wetlands and native habitat in the optimum locations for capturing stormwater and
providing biological treatment to remove excess nutrients. This stormwater treatment
system will be designed in detail during site plan review
Sedimentation (gravitational settling) is the major removal mechanism for particulate
pollutants within a stormwater treatment area (SWTA). The placement and physical form
of the vegetation can promote settling of sediment, and appropriate vegetation will grow
over the accumulated sediment. Sheetflow of runoff is attenuated by the physical form of
the plants, resulting in reduced hydrologic velocities and maximum vegetative contact,
which are effective in both the settling of sediment and uptake of excess nutrients.
Adsorption of pollutants to the surfaces of plants within stormwater treatment area
(SWTA)s is the major chemical removal mechanism. A major factor that increases the
rate of adsorption within the pond is the contact time of water with bottom sediments,
vegetation, and detritus. These pond systems have a large surface area to volume ratio
which increases the contact time of water within the system. The dense vegetative
plantings will also increase the contact time, promoting high rates of absorption. Physical
filtration and uptake by vegetation for pollution removal within the stormwater treatment
area (SWTA) and the rate of removal is dependent upon planting density, plant species
selection, and soil substrate. Plant uptake of pollutants occurs within the root zone of the
plant and is influenced by the amount of previously deposited nutrients within the soil
substrate.
In the design of the Laurel Links stormwater treatment system, plant densities and species
will be carefully selected to meet two objectives: establishment of a self-sustaining
ecosystem, and maximum pollution removal efficiency. Plant species selection for long
term survival takes into consideration the use of plants which are able to withstand a wide
range of hydrological conditions. The layout, densities and species selection will also be
aimed at maximizing uptake efficiency by considering contact time (density dependent)
and uptake rate (plant physiology related to nitrification/denitrification and aerobic
decomposition). Microbial removal is also related to contact time, vegetative density, and
30
soil substrate. Microorganisms are established on plant roots and form a symbiotic
relationship with the higher plants. This relationship produces a synergistic effect which
results in increased degradation rates and removal of pollutants surrounding the root
zones. These basins will incorporate all of these elements which will enhance the
pollutant removal efficiency of the stormwater treatment area (SWTA). Expected
removal efficiencies, based upon the featured design elements, ranges from 25% to 45%
for Nitrogen and from 30% to 65% for Phosphorous. These high levels of removal were
observed in cases where the pollution loading was relatively high. The pollution loading
expected for the project is not expected to be relatively high, because the site will have
low levels of input (i.e. Iow traffic volumes around the residences combined with
turfgrass management).
There are three phases to water quality monitoring: pre-construction (concurrently with
planning and permitting), during construction (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)) and post-construction.
During the construction and grow-in period of the course and grounds, when areas of
grading and planting are exposed, the site's water quality must be intensively monitored
as a continuous check on erosion and pollutant loading into the ponds and wetlands.
Sampling for chemical parameters likely to result from construction disturbances will be
performed throughout the year. Sampling for field indicators of erosion, sediment
transport and biological degradation will also be done. The chemical parameters will be
tested by samples submitted to an environmental laboratory.
If a significant change in any parameter is observed, a protocol for addressing the
condition will be developed with the permitting agencies. It is proposed that the premise
for corrective action be based on New York State's SPDES General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges From Construction Activities, Permit Number GP-93-06.
31
In this General Permit, there is provision for determination of unacceptable discharges
and for enforcement of violations of the discharge limitations. Moreover, the General
Permit requires that, prior to and throughout construction, the developer maintain a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The preparation of the SWPPP is guided by a
set of principles and practices, outlined in the General Permit and in the publications
"Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development" (NYS DEC,
1992), and "Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control" (NYS Soil & Water
Conservation Committee, 1991). Therefore, after approvals are granted under all of the
relevant regulatory programs, the developer must assemble the SWPPP, and then
routinely update the Plan as the project is constructed. The intent is that the SWPPP be a
dynamic management tool, which begins with the following elements, but which is
updated as field conditions dictate.
Elements of SWPPP:
1. Site grading and drainage Plan.
2. Site erosion control Plan.
3. Erosion control detail plans, including but not limited to specifications for
erosion control barriers (e.g. silt fencing, hay bales), sediment traps, biofilters,
detention ponds, equipment wash areas and water feature bank stabilization.
4. Erosion control inspection schedule and report protocol.
5. Erosion control measure maintenance schedule.
6. Surface water quality monitoring schedule and report protocol.
7. Erosion control and water quality monitoring reports.
8. Erosion control and water quality monitoring response records, including repair
and facility upgrade details.
At the end of construction, the final SWPPP is a compendium of the activities associated
with environmental protection throughout the project. The SWPPP is a record of
compliance with the SPDES General Permit, as well as a record of the extent to which a
project goes in meeting the environmental protection needs. This document is prepared
32
as part of the submissions to NYS DEC for wetland permits and water quality
certification. It cannot be prepared prematurely because it is linked to the Erosion
Control and Final Engineering designs, details of which often change during site plan
review. The need for, and extent of, post-construction monitoring are to be determined in
negotiation with the Town's consultants during the refinement of the site plan.
33
INTEGRATED TURFGRASS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR THE LAUREL LINKS GOLF
COURSE
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY
A. MARTIN PETROVIC, PH.D
December 4, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. iNTRODUCTION
II. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Special Environmental Issues
3
4
6
III. PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Pest Management Philosophy
B. Anticipated Pest Complex
C. Pest Management Practices
Tur£grass Selection
1. Diseases
2. Disease Control Program
3. Weed Control
4. Insect Control
5. Other Pesticide Issues
6. Example Pesticide Application Schedule
IV. FERTILIZATION PROGRAM
V. OTHER MAiNTENANCE PRACTICES
VI. PROPOSED HANDLING AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDE
AND FERTILIZER
VII. LITERATURE CITED
VIII. APPENDIX
NPURG Description and Rating System
NPURG Evaluation Sheets-Soil Test Results
Pest Scouting Forms
Soil Map showing Soil Sample Location
8
8
9
10
13
I4
16
19
19
21
24
24
26
I. INTRODUCTION
The Laurel Links LTD of Jamesport, New York retained A. Martin Petrovic,
Ph.D. in July of 1998 to develop the Integrated Turfgrass Management Program for the
Proposed Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course, Southold, New York. The Integrated
Turfgrass Management Program (ITMP) contains a program of fertilizer and pest control
options to be used on this golf course. This program, fully endorsed by the Laurel Links
LTD as the operating plan for this golf course, is designed to serve as the maintenance
blueprint for the Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course and when possible, describes
materials used, rates of application, and an expected time of application.
The golf course superintendent wiI1 be responsible for implementing this
program. In general, golf course superintendents, as a group of professionals, are
committed to the preservation of the ecology and the wildlife and share the concern for
the preservation of the sites environmental quality of the golf course. The Laurel Links
LTD has agreed to hire a Golf Course Superintendent Association of America Certified
Golf Course Superintendent, with a proven track record of administering an ITMP of this
nature, to fully implement the ITMP contained in this report.
As with any new or existing golf course, a fertilizer and pest control program
must show flexibility to deal with two very important intangibles: weather and nature.
The initial year(s) or grow-in period, that often lasts up to 2 seasons, wilt require higher
than annual inputs of fertilizers and limited use at most of pest control materials in order
to promote rapid establishment and cover which reduces soil erosion and minimizes the
likelihood of weed infestation.
The basic philosophy of this ITMP is to produce a healthy-pest resistance golf-
playing surface that will have little or no impact on the surrounding environmental.
Selection and use of fertilizers and pesticides will be based on producing a healthy plant
while having a low likelihood of contaminating either surface water (via runoff) or
groundwater (via leaching). While there is little or no evidence that golf courses has or
will contaminate surface or groundwater, it is every golf course superintendent's duty to
minimize the risk of contaminating any water body. Thus, the purpose of this report is to
summarize a site specific management practices that meets the goals of a healthy pest-
resistant golf playing surface that poses little or no treat to the environment on or
surrounding this site.
The report presented here was compiled from the following information: site
specific soil properties provided SCS and soil sample results collected during a site visit
(July 7, 1998), review of the cluster plan of Young and Young, Riverhead, NY of June
12, 1998 including the golf course routing plan of Kelly B. Moran-golf course architect,
environmental fate assessment of the currently registered pesticides in the state of New
York for golf course use by model simulation (NPURG), determination of the anticipated
pest complex, and extensive literature search on the environment fate of fertilizers and
pesticides, integrated pest management programs and fertility requirements for golf
course turf. This report provides a basis for development of an environmentally sound
fertilizer and pest management program to be followed by the golf course management
personnel. Any chemical (fertilizer or pesticide) found by the environmental risk
assessment to pose a risk of either surface or groundwater quality will not be used on the
Laurel Links Country Club Golf Course or will be used if it has been shown that no other
control methods are available and will be only applied under special use conditions
outline later in this report to reduce the risk of either surface or ground water
contamination.
For most pests found to invade this golf course there will be several pesticides
registered for their control. Taking into consideration the need to protect surface and
groundwater from contamination and to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to
highly toxic pesticides, pesticides were selected that have a low potential for either
leaching or runoff. The evaluation included determining the potential of each registered
pesticide for contamination of water on a soil by soil basis based on soil properties of this
site.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The environmental risk assessment is composed of three parts. First, the surface
and ground water contamination (runoff and leaching) potential of all pesticides
registered for use on golf courses in New York will be evaluated. Second, the pesticides
identified to have either a moderate or a high potential for surface or ground water
contamination will be evaluated for their level of toxicity (drinking water health advisory
limit, HAL). Third, for pesticides that have both a moderate or high potential for either
surface or ground water contamination and have at least a moderate toxicity rating
(HAL< 20 ppb) from any of the soils found on site or imported for greens and tees, will
not be used on this site. This plan recognizes the fact that soil will be moved during the
construction phase. In most cases soil will be moved a short distance to create the desired
golf feature. The Riverhead sandy loam and Haven sandy loam soils will be used on areas
that need fill. There will be at least 6 inches of topsoil on the actively used portions of the
site (greens, tees, fairways and roughs). Soils samples will be taken after rough grading
and will be analyzed for nutrient content and organic matter content. A starter fertilizer
will be applied based on the soil test recommendation (and to provide 2 lbs. of
nitrogen/I,000 sq.ft.). It was assumed that after establishment, the erosion potential for all
soils were low; thus, a low soil erosion factor (K factor of 0.05) was used during
NPURG analysis. For the determination of the potential impact of fertilization on nitrate
contamination of groundwater, the 30 year (1961-1990) average rainfall data from the
Riverhead Research Laboratory (Owenby and Ezell, 1992) was used and at least 1.5
inches of rainfall or irrigation was provided during May through September. Soil samples
were collected from each of the soils found in the active play portion of this site on July
7, 1998. Location of the samples in found in appendix. Sampling consisted of taking 5 to
10 small core samples (1" dia.) from about a 50 foot radius in the sample collection area
to the depth of the A horizon (6-10"). The Comell University Nutrient Analysis
Laboratory, Ithaca, NY analyzed the samples, for available nutrient levels, soil pH and
organic matter content.
The assessment of the leaching and runoff potential of each registered pesticide
on each soil (see Tables 1 & 2) found on the site was preformed by using the National
Pesticide/soil database and User decision support system for Risk assessment of Ground
and surface water contamination (NPURG). NPURG is a computerized information
delivery system developed by the US Department of Agriculture and the Soil
Conservation Service based on the GLEAMS model (Leonard et al. 1987). Refer to the
appendix for a complete explanation of NPURG and other information related to the
pesticides that were evaluated.
This model was developed for row crop agricultural and has not been heavily
evaluated under turfgmss condition, but has been used to reduce the risk of ground and
surface water contamination on over twenty five proposed or existing golf courses
(Petrovic, resume). Based on limited research on the leaching of pesticides applied to
turfgrass (Petrovic et al., 1990), the NPURG simulation was found in most cases to
correctly predict the probability of leaching (11 out of 12 predictions were correct) or in
one case over predict (dicamba as example) the leaching of pesticides applied to
turfgrass. Therefore, when the model predicts a low probability for leaching, then in fact
leaching is highly unlikely. However, when the model predicts a high probability for
leaching (1 ranking), in most cases this is real.
It is also very likely that NPURG may grossly over predict the runoff of pesticides
applied to turfgrass based on the results of several studies of pesticide runoff from
turfgrass (Watschke et al, 1989, Harrison et al., 1993, Linde et al., 1995 and Gold et al,
1988). Their results clearly showed that once turfgrass is established there is little water
leaving a mrfgrass site (approximately 1-22 % of the water that comes in contact with the
turf) even when irrigated at a 6 inch/hr. NPURG ranks runoff from bare soil which
reflects the erosion potential of a given soil. Once this site has been established with
mrfgrass, then it is likely that there should not be significant run-off of water that may
contain a pesticide or fertilizer nutrient. It was assumed that erosion would be negligible
from this site once established.
The following are the conditions that the pesticide/soil fate predictions by the
NPURG simulations were determined:
* The pesticide was applied to the surface of a fallow (bare) soil 16, 8, 4, and 2 days
before and on the day of the first major rainfall event.
* A 3.5 inch precipitation event was generated every second day for five events, and
then a 1.0 inch event every other day for at least four times during the half life period of
the pesticide. Total precipitation was 21.5 inches.
* The site had a four per cent slope.
The conditions that these simulations are run under are considered to be the
"worst case scenario". The likelihood of even one 3.5 inch rainfall event per day
(irrigation will be less than 1 inch per day) is very small, let alone 5 such events over a 10
day period. A summary of the pesticide fate as determined by the NPURG analysis for
the soils on greens/tees and fairways are contained in the appendix of this report.
Special Environmental Issues
There are several issues and locations on the Laurel Links Golf Course that have a
special environmental significance. First are the soils to be used on greens and tees. The
greens and tees will be built to US Golf Association Recommended soil physical
properties (sand/peat mixture) to provide a compaction resistant/well drained system to
create a healthy-pest resistant playing surface. Based on the NPURG analysis, greens/tees
will be built with at least 2.6 % organic matter, by weight, to a depth of at least 12 inches
to minimize the potential for pesticide leaching. The Plymouth loamy sand soil was found
by soil testing to be low in organic matter. To protect the groundwater from pesticide
contamination, organic matter during establishment will be added to raise the organic
matter content to at least 2.1% (18 tons of organic matter per acre) on the small sections
of this golf course with Plymouth soil, on fairways and roughs of holes 3-5, 10, 11, 13, 15
and 16.
As with most contemporary golf courses, there will be grading done on this site.
The Riverhead and Haven soils will be used as fill soils on this site. The NPURG analysis
was conducted on all soils found on this site and for greens and tee soil profiles.
Pesticides applied to golf courses either as a granular solid material or as a liquid
spray. For all areas to be treated with pesticides, the drift of the pesticide spray will be
reduce to near zero by only spraying with a shrouded sprayer that confines the spray to
the turf surface, eliminating drift when wind speeds are less than 15 mph.
The protection of quality of Long Islands groundwater aquafers and the surface
waters that feed the Great Peconic Bay are critical. The fertilization and pest control
programs are designed to protect the surface and groundwater quality on and off site. The
application of a pesticide to this golf course will only occur following the precautions
outlined as follows: all other control measures outlined in subsequent sections have been
followed and failed to give adequate control and weather conditions are still conducive
for pest development and plant damage; no applications will be made with in 48 hours
(except for Pythium blight due to it's rapidly killing growth habit) of a predicted heavy
rainfall event; only treatments made to the severely affected areas (spot treatments) to
minimize the amount of pesticide used; only shrouded spray will be used to applied spry
material at wind speeds greater than 5 mph but less than 15 mph. Fertilizer applications
will follow a similar set of restrictions: only applying fertilizer to the active play area,
application much be considered necessary based on soil and/or foliar tests
recommendations, and no application within 48 hrs. of a predicted heavy rain event.
Based on the three part risk assessment, the following is a list of pesticides that
had both a medium or high potential for runoff or leaching and a moderate or high
toxicity rating (health advisory limit, HAL, for drinking water of < 20 ppb) for any soil
on site:
6
dicamba, MCPP,and triclopyr
The following pesticides were found to have a moderate or high potential for surface or
ground water contamination from at least one of the soils on site:
Fenamiphos, imadicloprid, bentazon, ethoprop, fenarimol, metalaxyl, and trichlorfon.
This list of pesticides will not be used or only used as a last resort after all other control
options have failed including the use of other pesticides.
IlL Pesticide Management Plan
A. Pest Management Philosophy
The basic philosophy of this Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program is to
produce a healthy pest resistant golf-playing surface that will have little or no impact on
the surrounding environment. Every available pest management practice will be utilized
with the goal of using pesticides as a last resort after all other control options have been
followed, including every available biological and cultural control methods. A new golf
course provides the opportunity to construct a system that is less prone to stress, which is
often the main cause of pest damage or invasion of weedy species. This can be
accomplished by: 1) establishing grasses that are best adapted for the golf courses and are
pest resistant, 2) by providing a soil system to minimize the stress caused by the golfer,
and 3) reducing moisture plant stress by having "a state of the art" irrigation system that
can provide the necessary amount of water need by the plant (thus reducing over
irrigation which can lead to the potential for ground/surface contamination or more pest
problems). While there is little or no evidence that golf courses have or will contaminate
surface or groundwater, it is every golf course superintendent's duty to minimize the risk
of contaminating any water body. Thus, the propose of this IPM Program is to summarize
the approach that meets the goals of developing a healthy pest resistant golf-playing
surface that poses little or no threat to the environment on or surrounding this site.
This IPM Program presented here was compiled from the following information:
site specific soil properties and soil test results, review of the site plans, determination of
the anticipated pest complex from a golf course in close proximity to the site (National
Golf Links, Southampton, NY), and extensive literature search on the environment fate of
fertilizers and pesticides, integrated pest management programs and irrigation/fertility
requirements for golf course turf.
B. Anticipated Pest Problems
It is anticipated that the Laurel Links Golf Course will have the following pests
based on pest information from an older golf course in close proximity to this site
(information provide by Mr. Karl Olsen CGCS, superintendent of National Golf Links,
Southampton, NY):
Severity Greens Tees Fairways Roughs
Major Pest Problems
(occurs often)
......... Dollar spot ..........
.......... leaf spot ...........
.......... a. bluegrass
--- pink snow mold ...........
...... Hyperodes weevil ......
.... crabgrass ....
................. White grubs ................
..... clover
-other broadleaf weeds-
pink patch*
red thread*
Infrequent Pest Problems
......... anthracnose ............
............ summer patch ......
........ Pythium blight .........
* Not anticipated to be a major problem on this golf course since fairways will be established to creeping
bentgrass not perennial ryegrass like National Golf Link.
The scientific names and biological information for each pest is contained in the
following section.
C. Pest Management Practices
The components of the pest management program rely heavily on the concept know as
Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The IPM program for this golf course will provide
for good pest control while eliminating unnecessary pesticide applications by integrating
all the options (biological, resistant grass, cultural and pesticidal) available to control a
pest. This IPM program includes: pest biology information, scouting and record keeping
procedures
8
It is anticipated that the major pests will occur during the following periods based
on historic pest information:
Pest
Month(s) of Pest Occurrence
Jan-Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov-Dec
Diseases
Dollar spot XXXXXXXXXXXX
Leaf spots XXXXXX
Pink snow mold XXXXX XXXXX
Pythium blight XXXXX
Brown patch XXXXX
Insects
XXX
White grubs
Hyperodes
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Weeds
Broad leafs
Crabgrass
Annual bluegrass
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
and control options (biological, cultural, plant resistance, and with pesticides) for each
anticipated pests of this golf course. IPM programs similar to the one shown here have
been developed and successfully used to reduce pesticide use on golf courses in the
northeast by as much as 50%.
Turfgrass Selection: Performance and Pest Resistance
Even though there are over 7,500 species in the grass family, only a
handful of species are used on golf courses. The main reason for such a few species being
used is the relatively short cutting height demands of golf course playing conditions. For
greens, only two species could be used, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis paiustris) and velvet
bentgrass (Agrostis canina). Velvet bentgrass does poorly under even moderate traffic
conditions and is not well suited for this golf course. There are several cultivars of
creeping bentgrass available. The one best suited for the climate and with good resistance
to the major disease problems anticipated at this golf course (Brown patch and Dollar
spot) will be used on this golf course. The highest rated cultivar will be used on this golf
course based on overall performance under putting green conditions and had the best
resistance to both diseases (from the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program-NTEP,
USDA and Cornell University Turfgrass Variety Recommendations).
Options for grasses on tees/fairways are somewhat broader. Low quality, slower
play golf courses that mow higher than 3/4" can use a mixture of grasses including
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratenses), fine rescue (Festuca spp.) and perennial ryegrass
(Lolium perenne). However, on a golf course of this caliber, tees are limited to creeping
bentgrass and fairways to perennial ryegrass or creeping/colonial bentgrasses. Creeping
bentgrasses proven to be the best-adapted grass for tees/fairways (based on NTEP results)
will be used which have been shown to be superior grasses and have the best resistance to
Brown patch and Dollar spot.
The bentgrass cultivars to be selected just prior to seeding for use on
greens/tees/fairways will also be very dense and are less prone to invasion from annual
bluegrass. New cultivars are being released very frequently and the best one this year
may be replaced with a better one next year. A suggested cultivar to be used on greens
would be A-4 creeping bentgrass (produces a very fast putting surface while resisting
annual blue~vass invasion). At this point in time, bentgrass is not insect resistant.
Roughs are often established with very low maintenance grasses that are mowed
high. This golf course will establish roughs with this in mind using a mixture of fescues
that contain endophytes, perennial ryegrass and Kentucky bluegrass. More Kentucky
bluegrass will be used in the primary rough (nearest to the fairway with <25 % perennial
ryegrass) and more fescues used in the secondary rough (sheep and chewings rescue).
Endophytic rescues will be used when possible since they are resistant to surface feeding
insects like chinch bug and sod webworm and also be resistant to the Red thread disease.
1. DISEASES
Three of the anticipated pests to occur most often on this golf course are diseases.
Fungi cause most diseases that attack turfgrass. The following are description of each of
the most prevalent diseases and the "state of the art" IPM practices that will be followed
on this golf course:
Major Diseases
Dollar Spot (Sclerotinia homoeocarpa)
Dollar Spot is a foliar disease that is favored by temperatures between 70 and 85
F and too low a level of a nitrogen level in the plant tissue. It will likely be most
prevalent disease on this golf courses and should occur on this site from June through
September. Dollar spot is easily recognizable, slow to develop and to cause damage.
Thus, daily scouting should be used to determine the extent of occurrence and range of
this disease on the golf course. Natural organic disease suppressive fertilizers like Ringer
Compost Plus and Greens Restore have been shown to reduce the incidence of Dollar
spot by 45% (Nelson, 1990) and will be used as part of the fertilization program. Tissue
testing can be used to help maintain the nitrogen level in the plant at a level to suppress
disease development.
10
Damage from this disease even with these cultural controls may exceed the
acceptable level on this golf course, thus, fungicide applications are very likely to be
needed. Fungicides should be used only when 1) an outbreak in indicator sites has been
observed in excess of the threshold (3 spots/sq.yd, for greens/tees and 9 spots/sq.yd, for
fairways), when weather conditions still favor disease development (temperatures 70 to
85 F and humid) and plant nitrogen level is below 4.5% N, by weight.
LeafSpots
There are several fungi that cause the disease known as leaf spot. The symptoms
of leaf spot are most often observed in the cooler weather of spring and fall. The are
several ways to manage this disease. First, there are cultivars of Kentucky bluegrass and
rescues that are resistant to this disease and these cultivars will be will used to establish
this golf course. Second, the fertilization program is designed not to apply large amounts
of nitrogen fertilizers in the early spring period but rather to always apply small amounts
to match the needs of the turfgrass. Heavy early spring applications of nitrogen fertilizers
have been shown to dramatically increase the damage this disease can cause to tufgrasses.
Weekly scouting during the spring and fall months will be made and if the action
threshold of l0 % on greens and tees and 25 % fairways is exceeded and the weather
forecast calls for cool wet weather to prevail, then a fungicide will be applied to reduce
any further damage to the golf course.
Pink Snow Mold (Microdochium nivale)
Pink snow mold is a fungal disease that is favored by temperatures in the range of
32 to 40 F and wet conditions with or without snow cover. It is likely to occur on this site
in late fall through winter into early spring on the greens/tees/fairways. Avoiding heavy
late fall water-soluble nitrogen application can reduce the severity (no late nitrogen
applications will be made). However, fungicides are the only control method available at
this time although there is some disease suppression with the natural organic fertilizers to
be used on this golf course. Scouting is not practical for this disease with snow cover.
During other cool-wet periods without snow cover, scouting should be followed before a
treatment is made. If the threshold of one spot/sq.yd, on greens/tees and two spots/sq.yd.
on fairways is exceeded and short term weather forecasts are calling for cool-wet weather
(32-40 F), then a fungicide application will be made.
Infrequent Diseases
Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani)
This disease occurs under conditions of warm (>85 F) and very humid weather as
well in cool wet weather. It is expected that the warm weather Brown patch will occur in
July and August during most years and the cool weather version in April/May and
September/October. Cultural conditions that can reduce the severity of this disease are to
avoid over nitrogen fertilization, to water minimally and provide for good air movement
11
and water drainage. All three of these practices will be followed. The fertilization
program (to follow) will provide optimum level of nutrients for plant growth based on
soil tests, grass nutritional requirements and selected tissue testing (nitrogen levels will
be maintained below 5.25% N to reduce the likelihood of Brown Patch). Part of the
fertilization program will also contain disease suppressive, natural organic fertilizers (i.e.
Sustain and Ringer) that have shown to reduce the incidence of Brown patch by 75 %
(Nelson, 1990), thus, reducing the need for fungicides. Irrigation will be provided to
supply only the amount needed to replace the amount used by the plant. The soils
(naturally well drained) and underground drainage systems on green/tees will provide a
well-drained soil envirorunent. Except for a few isolated sites (holes 1 t, 12 and 13), the
open nature of this site provides for excellent air drainage to reduce the likelihood of
many diseases like Brown patch.
There is one direct biological control agent registered for use (a bacterial product,
BioTrec), applied as a granular material, will be used as a first defense if Brown patch is
detected. The presence of Brown patch will be confirmed by laboratory analysis or by
disease detection kits. The golf course superintendent will use one of the diagnostic
techniques to determine the need for additional control, namely fungicides. Daily
scouting during periods of warm to hot weather is highly recommended and treatments
(Bio Trec first and if that falls, fungicides may be applied) made if the threshold is
exceeded (one spot/yd, on greens/tees and two spot/yd, of fairways) and 24-48 hr.
weather forecast indicates conditions are still favorable for disease development.
Pythium Blight/Pythium Root Rot (?ythium spp.)
Pythium blight is the most rapidly developing and devastating disease to attack
golf courses and when it does occur on this golf course it would be in July and August. It
is favored by excessive nitrogen fertilization (fertilization program avoids over-
fertilization) and very wet (90% humidity for 14 hrs.) and hot weather (>85 F and night
temperatures not below 70 F). Poorly drained or over-water areas often show the disease
first.
Death of an entire green, tee or fairway can occur in hours once the pathogen
becomes active. Thus, quite often a preventative fungicide program is utilized to reduce
the risk of catastrophic damage to the golf course. If preventative measures are not taken,
then very frequent scouting of the golf course is required to determine if the disease-
causing organism is active. Weather has a large effect and it is anticipated that Pythium
blight will occur most years on this golf course.
Scouting and weather forecasts will be used to determine an action plan. When
temperatures are above 85 F and humidity levels are also high (>90% for at least 14 hrs.),
an active scouting plan will be followed. Sites that have shown to be prone to Pythium
blight will be scouted first. The more wooded portions of the golf course (holes 11, 12
12
and 13) are more prown to this disease and will be careully monitored. If the Pythium
blight organism is found to be actively growing on these indicators sites and the 24 hr.
weather forecast call for hot (>85 F) and humid weather to continue, then a fungicide
application would be recommended at least on the areas showing the first outbreak
(indicator sites). No night watering will be used during this time to reduce the amount of
free water on the leaf surfaces necessary for disease infection. The biocontrol Bio Trec
will be applied first when weather conditions favor disease activity. If Bio Trec does not
provide for adequate control, the a contact fungicides (like etridiazole) are most effective
for curative treatments as proposed here (found to have a low likelihood of
surface/groundwater contamination on all sites on this golf course, see Table 1). If
systemic fungicides are to be used then they will have to be applied in advance of the
disease outbreak or in tlfis case when temperature for three days are greater than 85 F and
humidity is high (> 90% for the last 14 hrs.).
The cooler weather Pythium root rot occurs at temperatures from 50 to 70 F,
under wet conditions. Scouting is difficult for this disease since a plant disease diagnostic
laboratory must confirm the presence of this disease. Therefore, if the visual symptoms of
this disease are present and laboratory results confirm the active presence of this
organism, then the biocontrol Bio Trec will be applied first, and if and only if control is
not adequate, then a fungicide application from one of the list above to only portions of
the site showing symptoms will be made.
Gray Snow Mold-Typhula Blight
Typhula blight or Gray snow mold is winter disease that requires snow cover to
develop. During open or winters with low snowfall, Gray snow mold is seldom a
problem. Avoiding over nitrogen fertilization in the mid-fall period reduces the severity
of this disease. Preventative fungicide program is often used to insure minimal turf
damage from this disease since long-term weather predictions are unreliable.
2. Disease Control Program and Scouting/Monitoring
It is impossible and environmentally irresponsible to develop a fungicide
application schedule in advance of the building of a golf course. The major premise of an
IPM program to use all options in controlling a pest and when it is necessary to apply a
pesticide it must be applied at the right time for optimal control. Only a preventative
fungicide program could be developed in advance of operating a golf course.
Preventative programs are only necessary for a few turfgrass diseases. It would be very
likely that an all preventative program would lead to applying fungicides when it was not
necessary, increasing the risk of environmental damage and greater likelihood of
developing fungi resistant to fungicides. The best way to reduce the reliance on pesticides
is to follow proper fertilization practices, allow for good surface drainage, control
irrigation to only replace what the plant has used, scout and monitor pest populations to
determine if an economic/aesthetics threshold has been reached so that some action must
be taken and use the most effective-least toxic method available.
13
Scouting is one of the most common disease management practices followed by
golf courses superintendents. The extent of how formal the scouting program is varies
widely between superintendents. Many superintendents rely on indicator sites or "hot
spots" as areas where diseases (or other pests) first occur and use these sites as early
warning signs. Many golf courses are now having pest populations mapped during a
scouting visit. In this way a more permanent record of pest pressure is recorded and the
effectiveness of control options evaluated. This golf course will follow an aggressive
scouting program as outlined in the discussion section for each pest. The appendix
contains scouting forms for golf course pests that will be used by this golf course. Under
each pest the frequency of scouting is discussed. The golf superintendent will utilize one
of the several ways to record the scouting trips, he or/she will assign the scouting duties
and will be responsible for full development and implementation of the scouting
program. This will be done in cooperation with the Comell Turf IPM Program and the
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. Mapping and hand held mini-
computers with GIS capabilityare two ways to recording pest occurrences. Scouting for
diseases involve either visual identification on site or disease samples analyzed by kits or
sent to a disease diagnostic laboratory (Cornell University Plant Disease Diagnostic
laboratory, Plant Science Building, Ithaca, NY).
Monitoring for pests involves determining the location and number of pests or
area affected by pests. Thresholds for pest occurrence have been developed for many golf
course pests and will be used to determine ifa pesticides application is warranted. Table
4 contains action threshold values for some of the pests that are anticipated to occur on
this golf course. If environmental conditions favor continued pest pressure, the action
threshold has been exceeded and other non-pesticidial options have been tried, then a
pesticide will be applied. The threshold values may be changed as pest history on tkis
golf course warrants modification (i.e. too much or too little pest damage at a given
threshold).
The fungicide selection/application protocol will involve following a program to
reduce the chance of developing a resistance strain of fungicide to a specific fungicide or
class of fungicide. If more than one fungicide is needed to be used to control a disease in
the same year, then a different type/class of fungicide will be used. Ifa systemic
fungicide is used first (iprodione, propiconazole, thiophanate, vinclozalin) then a contact
fungicide (chlorothalonil, mancozeb, PCNB) would be used next. Classes of fungicides
would also be rotated. For every other systemic fungicide application a benzimidazole
class (thiophanate) fungicide would be used, then followed by one of the dicarboximides
fungicides (iprodione, vinclozalin) or sterol inhibitors (propiconazole and triadimefon).
This mixing of classes/types of fungicides will be also followed for all diseases. Refer to
Table 1 for selection of a fungicide for a given disease.
3. WEED CONTROL
It is anticipated that after the first year of establishment of this golf course that
weed problems will tend to be minimal. This is a result of sound golf course cultural/pest
control practices that will produce a dense-competitive environment against weed
14
encroachment. Thus, the anticipated weeds on this golf course will be limited to annual
bluegrass (potentially on ail sites of the golf course), crabgrass (mostly in tees and
fairways and occasionally broad leaf weeds (limited mostly to fairways and roughs).
Annual Bluegrass
Annuai bluegrass (Poa annua spp. Reptans/annua) is a very common weed that
invades golf courses. It is well adapted to short mowing, heavily trafficked sites, soils
high in pH and phosphorus, and wet soil/poorly drained conditions. Thus, the
management program of this golf course is designed to reduce it's competitiveness by: 1)
keeping soil pH at 6.5 or below, 2) providing for good drainage where needed, 3)
irrigating to a minimum, 4) using compaction resistant soils (like the sand used on
greens/tees), following a disease/insect management program to maintain a dense
turfgrass stand and 6) following a fertilization program that is optimum for the growth of
the mrfgrasses used here but not too high in phosphorus that favors annual bluegrass.
Even after doing all of these measures, annuai bluegrass can still invade this golf
course. Thus, it is anticipated that some other control measures will be necessary. There
are experimental biological control agents for annual bluegrass that may some day be
commercially available. Chemical control is limited and generaily involves the use of
either plant growth suppressants (paclobutazol) or a traditional herbicide (ethofumesate,
applied in fall).
Each spring and late August the amount of annual bluegrass for all greens, tees
and fairways will be mapped using the weed maps found in the appendix. Mapping will
consist of a visual estimation of location and amount of aunuai bluegrass on each green,
tee and fairway using a mapping techniques described in the Disease Section.
Paclobutrizol will be applied to tees in late spring and ethofumesate in fairways in
September and again before December if the threshold of 1% is exceeded.
The new creeping bentgrass varieties to be used are very competitive against
annual bluegrass encroachment and herbicide applications may not be necessary.
Broadleaf Weeds
Broad leaf weeds (BLW) occasionally occur on established golf course fairways
and roughs and thus, are considered a minor pest problem on these sites. Clover is a
commonly occurring BLW that is favored by soil pH around 7 and by dry soils. Thus, on
this golf course it would be anticipated that clover would be found on most of this golf
course. One of the best ways to reduce broadleaf weed problems on golf courses is to
produce a dense-competitive turfgrass stand by following the overall turfgrass
management program to be used on this golf course: proper fertilization/irrigation
practices and reducing pest damage that opens the turf to invasion by weeds. However,
broad leaf weeds will most likely still invade this golf course. Weed population and
locations will be scouted and mapped at least twice a year (early June and mid
September). Mapping will consist of making visual estimates of the amount, location and
15
species of broadleaf weeds on each green, tee, fairway and rough. Since broadleaf weeds
may be confined to a small area, pesticide applications wilt only be made on areas with
weeds present in excess of the threshold; one-weed plants per sq.yd on greens/tees, two
weed plants per sq.yd, on fairways and five per sq.yd, on roughs, thus reducing the
mount of pesticide applied. The herbicides will be used for broadleaf weeds, applied in
mid to late September, when thresholds in mid-September scouting exceeds the threshold
limits shown in Table 4, (refer to Table 2 for list of herbicides with a Iow environmental
risk).
Crabgrass
Crabgrass is an annual grassy weed that invades thin turf. Thus, all the cultural
practices to be used on this golf course will encourage a dense stand of turf, thus, will
reduce the incidence of crabgrass. Practices such as the fertilizing, irrigation and
disease/insect control programs to be used on this golf course will produce a dense turf
that restrict light from reaching the soil surface. Crabgrass seeds require light for
germination. These management practices help significantly, however, when a golfer
takes a divot the soil is exposed to light and crabgrass seeds can germinate and invade the
turf. Crabgrass is considered a major weed problem on the tees and fairways of this golf
course. Mapping will consist of visually estimating the mount and location of crabgrass
on each green, tee, fairway and rough.
There are two herbicidal control programs, preemergence and postemergence.
These terms refer to herbicide applications made before or after the crabgrass seeds
germinate, respectively. The preemergent herbicides must be applied in advance of the
period of germination of crabgrass, usually in April. A problem with this approach is that
you are not sure that crabgrass will be present or not. If it is not present, then the
application has been wasted. Preemergent herbicides will only be used on this golf course
if during the previous year there was a large infestation of crabgrass. The crabgrass
population will be mapped and monitored each fall to identify small areas to treated the
following spring.
Postemergent herbicides are few and require carefully timing for good control.
Mapping the amount and location of young crabgrass plants in early summer will be used
to determine if small areas will need treatment.
There is a natural herbicide corn gluten meal, also a stow release fertilizer, will
first be used to control crabgrass then if control is not acceptable then one of the
herbicides listed in Table 2 with a low potential for either surface or ground will be used.
4. INSECT CONTROL
Insect problems anticipated on this golf course are restricted to just a few insects,
which include Hyperodes on greens/tees/fairways and white grubs in fairways/roughs.
There are grasses that contain an endophytic fungi which are resistant to certain surface
feeding insects like cutworm, sod webworm and chinchbug. The grasses that will be used
16
in the roughs are endophytic, thus are resistant to the surface feeding insects. Creeping
bentgrasses (used on greens/tees/fairways) at this time does not contain endophytes and
therefore are not resistant to surface feeding insects. Currently there are no turfgrass
resistant to root feeding insects like grubs.
Biocontrol options are available for most of the insect pests anticipated on this
golf course and will be the first line of control. Only after biocontrol options have been
shown to be no-effective will an synthetic insecticide be used.
One of the best practices to follow in an insect control program is to have a
systematic sampling/monitoring scheme. It has been found that insect pests of turf like
cutworms and white grubs do not uniformly cover the entire golf course. In fact it has
been shown that grubs are confined to certain parts of the golf course and even small
section of fairways. Therefore, prior to any insecticide application the sampling protocol
be followed and treatment be confined to only the areas where the insects are found. The
sampling/monitoring maps for insects found in the appendix will be followed and the
procedures discussed under each insect section. Depending on the type of insect, different
scouting techniques will be used, each will be described in detail below. The golf
superintendent will be responsible to develop and implement the scouting procedures. If
available, the Cornell IPM Program in conjunction with the Comell Cooperative
Extension of Suffolk County will help develop and evaluate the scouting and monitoring
program for all pests.
Cutworms
Black cutworms will occassinally be an insect problems on this golf course. This
insect does not overwinter in NY. Adults each spring fly in from the southeastern U.S.,
usually arriving in late spring-early summer (May-June). The adults lay eggs, which
hatch in two to three weeks as small larvae, the destructive phase of this insect. A second
generation can hatch later in the summer. Cutworm larvae spend their days in the soil,
often in old aerifier holes. At dusk they emerge and feed on the foliage of the grass and
the damage is confined to a small zone surrounding their daytime home.
It is unlikely that the entire golf course at any one time will contain cutworms in
excess of the thresholds. Therefore, monitoring and sampling of the population is
necessary to substantially reduce the amount of the golf course that will need to be
treated. Scouting for this insect will involve a two step process. In May each year, 10 to
20 black light and/or pheromone trays will be place out on the golf course to
attract/collect adult cutworms as they arrive at this golf course. Every other day the
number of adult black cutworm adults in each trap will be counted. Two weeks after the
adults begin showing up in the traps, the second phase of scouting will commence. This
involves placing an irritant solution (soap or pyrethrum) on sections of each green, tee
and fairway at bi-weekly intervals through June, July and August. If the number of
cutworm larvae exceed one/sq.yd, on greens/tees and five/sq.yd, on fairways, then a
control regime will be followed. The smaller the larvae the easier they are to control, so
the initial scouting is very important. Also, biocontrols are most effective on small larvae.
17
The control for cutworms will first rely on a biocontrol method and if this does
not give acceptable control (threshold still above limit after one week), then an
insecticide will be used. A combination of two biocontrol agents will be applied at one
time, the nematode Steinernema carpocapsae (Exhibit) and the bacteria Bacillus
thurgingiensis var. kurstaki (BT). Each takes 2 to 7 seven days to kill the cutworm larvae,
thus, one week after the application the areas will be sampled with the irritant solution to
determine the effectiveness the biocontrols. If populations of cutworm larvae are still in
excess of the threshold, then a traditional insecticide will be applied that has a low
likelihood of runoff/leaching based on NPURG analysis (refer to Table 2). As with the
biocontrols, the effectiveness of the traditional insecticides will be evaluated one week
after application before any additional treatment will be made.
White Grabs
There are several species of insects that have a destructive larval stage known as
white grubs. These include Japanese beetle, Oriental Beetle, Asiatic Garden Beetle and
European Chafer. The most destructive stage of these insects are their grub or larval
stage, third and largest instar which occurs later in the fall into the spring.
The population of these insect grubs will be determined as follows before any
insecticidal treatment will be made. Each hole will be mapped once in late July or early
August each year for the extent, location and species of grub using the maps found in the
appendix. Sampling consists of a crew of 8 to 10 individuals with cup cutters. On
fairways and roughs, taking a sample at 20 yd. spacing will follow a grid sampling
technique. Greens and tees will be sampled at 20 ft. intervals. The sample involves
extracting the turf and top 2-3" of soil and observing the number and species of grubs in
each sample. When the threshold of 36 to 48 grubs/sq.yd, is exceeded, then a treatment
will be made. Treatments are most effective in early August when the grubs are very
small. Spot treatments will be made.
The nematode Steinernema carpocapsae will be used first to control white grubs
when found on sites exceeding the threshold. The effectiveness will be determined by
repeat sampling of the treated sites one week after application. An application will only
be made if the grubs are near the soil surface and the soils are moist. If the nematode
application has failed to lower the white grub population below the threshold level, than
one of the insecticides listed in Table 2 will be applied to the sites still having populations
above the threshold level that has a low likelihood of contaminating either surface or
ground water. As with the nematode, one week after the traditional insecticide application
the grub population will again be sampled on the treated sites and only if threshold levels
are still exceeded would an additional insecticide application be made.
Other Insect Pests
There is some likelihood that other insects will attack the grasses found on this
golf course. These include Hyperodes weevil (use chlorpyrifos, applied in early spring
18
after sampling indicates thresholds are exceeded), sod webworm and Ataenius beetle
grub. There are biocontrol products (Bt bacteria) available for sod webworm and
Ataenius should be used as the first line of defense. If control is unsuccessful and these
insects are still causing unacceptable damage, then one &the insecticides listed above
will be used.
5. OTHER PESTICIDE ISSUES
Included in this analysis are two pesticides that under certain conditions may be
necessary to apply to the golf course. They are glufosinate and glyphosate, nonselective
herbicides used in a renovation project. Both were found to have a low likelihood for
either leaching or runoff from greens, tees and fairways/roughs and will be used as
needed on a small scale for renovation purposes.
6. Example Pesticide Application Program
The following is an example of a preventative pesticide program for the Laurel
Links Golf Course. This program represents a "worst case scenario" pesticide program
since pesticides would be applied on a calendar date to prevent pests from causing
damage. The actual pesticide use program for this golf course should be at least fifty per
cent less than is shown below since cultural and biological controls will limit the need for
pesticide application.
Date of Rate of
Pesticide Application Application Location Controlled
oz(wt) Al/
1000 sq.ft
2,4-D+ & Sept 21 & Oct. 14 F & R* broad-
leaf
2,4-DP weeds
2,4-D 0.37
2,4-DP 0.37
(Trimec Bent-
grass Formula)
MCPP+ 0.18
2,4-D+ 0.06
dicamba+ 0.02
G & T (spot
treat, 20 % of
the area)
pendimethalin April 15 0.8 F & R crabgrass
or
19
prodiamine " 0.28
(Barricade)
or
fenoxaprop-eth June 15 0.012
F,R, GT
Spot treat post-
T, F emergent
crabgrass
PCNB^ Feb. 15 6.0 Spot treat only, pink
& gray
(Tarraclor) snow mold
chlorothalonil^ April 15 2.68
(Daconil 2787)
Spot treat only,
dollarspot, brown
patch, leaf spot
triadimefon May 15 0.25
(Bayleton 25) August 1
Dolarspot,
Brown patch
vinclozalin^ Apr. 15 1.0
(Vorlan) Sept. 1 1.0
brown patch
& dollar spot
iprodione^ June 14 1.0
(Chipco 26019) Oct. 1 2.0
etridiazole^ June 1 1.75
(Koban 30) July 7 1.75
DS & brown
patch
Pink and Gray
snow
mold
Pythium blight
fosetyl-al^ June 14 3.2
(Aliette T & O) Aug. 21 3.2
thiophanate^ July 14 1.12
(3336 F)
Brown patch,
dollar spot
propamocarb^ July 21 1.5
Pythium blight
20
and
(Banol)
root rot
imadicloprid Aug. 1 0.15 G, T, white grubs
(Merit) F & R (spot treat only)
carbaryl July 1 & 2.94 G cutworm
(Chipco Seven 80 WSP) Aug. 1 2.94 G "
paclobutrazole
(Scotts TGR) May 21 0.12 T
annual
bluegrass
control
ethofumasate Sept. 15 0.28 F "
(Prograss) Oct. 7 0.28 F "
* F=fairway, R=roughs, G=greens, T-~ees.
^ fungicides to be used on greens, tees and fairways.
+ Pesticides that are considered a high risk.
IV. FERTILIZATION PROGRAM
Unlike pesticide programs, it is possible to develop in advance a fertilization
program-schedule. Factors important in the development of such a program include the
site specific soil properties, clipping management, nutrient requirements of grass
species/cultivar, irrigation plan, desired level of quality, interaction with pest populations
and environmental considerations. The fertilizer nutrients of concern from an
environmental perspective are nitrogen (as nitrate) and phosphorus (phosphates). Nitrate
can cause a reduction in the quality of water in terms of either as a drinking water source
or it's impact on eutrophication of streams, ponds or lakes. Phosphorus is needed in small
amounts by turfgrass and is mostly a concern of surface water eutrophication. This
fertilization program addresses the following concerns: fertilizers contaminating the
surface waters, the wetlands or the groundwater. Fertilizer application will be made only
if the 24-48 hr weather forecast does not predict a significant rain event, which will
further reduce the likelihood of affecting the environment.
There has been considerable research on the fate of nitrogen applied to turfgrass
(Petrovic, 1990). About half of the applied fertilizer nitrogen is found in the clippings, 30
to 40 % stored in the soil as organic matter, and gaseous loss back to the atmosphere from
0 to 40 % of the applied nitrogen. Thus, there is little fertilizer nitrogen available for
either runoff in surface waters or leaching into groundwater. Factors that influence the
degree of nitrate leaching are the source of nitrogen, the rate of application, the timing of
the application and irrigation practices. These factors are interjected into the fertilization
21
program to produce a good quality golf course with a low probability of any negative
impact on the surrounding enviromuent.
Phosphorus can be a problem in runoff, but in turfgrass situations runoff from turf
seldom occurs due to the high amount of water infiltration into the soil (Harrison et.al.,
1993). Where phosphorus runoff has been a problem is in traditional agricultural
production when erosion has occurred or the application of phosphorus was in excess of
the amount need for plant growth (based on soil tests). On established turf erosion is all
but eliminated. On this golf course phosphorus (potassium, pH modification and other
nutrients other than nitrogen) applications will be based on soil test results to insure that
the proper amounts be applied to provide for acceptable plant health and avoiding
excesses that can lead to contamination of surface water. Soil testing will be done just
prior to establishment to determine the specific amount of phosphorus to apply at
seeding/sodding and three times per year thereafter for maintenance applications. All
greens, tees, fairways and roughs will be sampled. Sampling of the three major soils
found on this site where golf hole are present, indicate that the soils on site are moderate
to high in phosphorus and medium to low in calcium, magnesium and pH. The pH, Ca,
and Mg levels will be modified during establishment. Soils and irrigation water will be
tested just prior to establishment to determine if remedial action may be necessary to
improve the establishment rate.
The fertilization program for the Laurel Links Golf Course is presented in Tables
5 and 6. This program incorporates a balanced approach to fertilization: the amount of
each of the nutrient applied will provide for adequate plant growth, will not over or under
stimulate growth at the expense of disease resistance or weed encroachment, will act in a
disease suppressive manner by the use of natural organic fertilizer (Sustane or Ringer)
and will not lead to the potential for either a significant amount of runoff or leaching by
not having a large pool of water soluble nitrogen available at one time. This program will
avoid several of the major factors that encourage nitrate leaching: them is no late fall
fertilization with highly water soluble sources, the nitrogen sources have not been shown
to leach from golf course type turf (Petrovic, 1990 and Petrovic, 1991) and the rates of
application are Iow, thus resulting in little soluble nitrogen available for off site transport.
During the establishment year, more nitrogen is needed to enhance establishment than is
required by old turf. Therefore, at establishment an application of a starter fertilizer will
be applied to supply 2 lbs. of nitrogerdl,000 sq-ft mixed into the upper 6 inches of the
soil. Soil test recommendations will be followed to determine the amount of phosphorus,
potassium and other nutrients that will be applied in the starter fertilizer. Tissue testing
will be done bi-weekly on greens, tees and fairways during May-September to assess the
nitrogen content. Nitrogen levels will be maintained between a range of 4.5 to 5.25 % N,
on a dry weight bases, to reduce both Dollar spot and Brown patch disease. Small
amounts of soluble N fertilizer in the irrigation (called fertigation) will be applied if N
contents drop below 4.5%. IfN contents are above 5.25%, any scheduled N applications
will not be made until further testing indicates the tissue levels drop below 5.25 % N.
The range of reported of nitrate leaching values for field studies from IBDU
fertilization are 0.1 to 0.9 % of the amount of nitrogen applied Petrovic, 1990). Leaching
22
from applications of the natural organic-disease suppressive fertilizers (Ringer's and
Sustane) has been shown to be near zero (Petrovic, 1991). Thus, an estimated nitrate
loading rates into groundwater assuming the worst case scenario (10 % leaching) and a
realistic leaching (0.9 % of IBDU) for this golf courses are:
Time % leaching
Greens/Tees Fairways Roughs
...... lbs Nitrate/acre/yr .......
growin 10 34.8 20.7 17.4
growin 0.9 3.1 1.9 1.6
routine 10 17.4 13.2 8.7
routine 0.9 1.6 1.2 0.8
The volume of water recharging groundwater as estimated by the NPURG model
from values shown in appendix for rainfall/irrigation for all sites to be turfed on this golf
is 21 and 28.5 inches of groundwater mcharge/yr or 2,115,256 to 2,870,705
liters/acre/yr. The lower more conservative number will be used to estimate the impact of
the fertilization program on nitrate contamination of ground water.
The drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L. Based on research and actual
monitoring of existing golf courses (Petrovic, 1994), nitrate concentration in groundwater
(or research lysimeters) have been found to be less than 10 mg/L. The 0.9% of IBDU
leaching is more realistic than the worst case scenario (10%), thus fertilization of the
Laurel Links Golf Course would have the following impact on groundwater quality:
Time % leaching Greens/tees Fairways Roughs
........... Nitrate conc. (mg/L) ..........
growin 10 7.5 4.4 3.8
" 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3
routine 10 3.8 2.8 1.9
" 0.9 0.3 0.25 0.2
The values shown in this table are at least doubled of what would be expected to find in
the groundwater since the golf course is only using about half of the land of this site.
Thus, fertilization of the Laurel Links Golf Course would not result in groundwater more
than the drinking water standard (10 mg/L) even under the worst-case scenario
conditions.
It is anticipated that there will be a short period (one year or less) of elevated
nitrate levels in groundwater due to the mineralization of organic nitrogen found in the
soils on this site due to disturbance of the soil not from fertilization.
23
V. Other Maintenance Practices-Issues
Irrigation
Many other practices involving the maintenance of a golf course can have an
impact on environment. The major practice in this regard is irrigation. The modem-
computer controlled irrigation systems are very flexible to be able to irrigate to the
amount needed for adequate plant growth while not over irrigating. Over-irrigation can
make many disease problems more severe and can lead to a significantly greater
likelihood for either pesticide or nitrate leaching into groundwater and runoff into surface
waters (Petrovic, 1990 and 1994). Thus, this golf course will utilize a method to estimate
plant water use as the bases for determining the amount of irrigation to be applied. This
irrigation systems will have a weather station linked to the controller to estimate plant
water use (or obtain evapotranspiration values from Northeast Climate Center, Ithaca,
NY) and irrigate accordingly. The proper amount of irrigation will be applied to
minimize any environmental impact, reduce the potential for pest problems, reduce the
waste of water from excess irrigation and produce a healthy pest-resistant grass.
The quality of water used for irrigation is key to the establishment and basic
health of the golf course turf. Irrigation water will be tested monthly along with soils and
grass tissues to develop a program to facilitate a healthy turfgrass growing environment
that reduces the need for pesticides. Irrigation water with an electrical conductivity (EC)
value less that 3.0 dS/m will be used with out concerns of salinity and reduced infiltration
on soils with a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) less than 12. Sodium, chloride, boron and
bicarbonates levels below 70, 355, 2 and 500 mg/L, respectively, are considered safe
levels for irrigation water. If irrigation water and soil exceeds these levels, then remedial
actions will be taken such as to either treat irrigation water to lower the levels of toxic
materials.
Cleaning of Maintenance Equipment
A covered wash pad (to shed rainfall from catch basin) will be used to clean ail
maintenance equipment (except for pesticide application equipment). The pad will be
sloped inward and have a grated catch basin with grease, oil, and sediment traps to collect
any grease, oil, fuel, solid debris and clipping from the mowers and other maintenance
equipment. After each piece of equipment is used, it will be washed before being placed
back in the maintenance facility.
VI. Proposed Storage and Handling of Pesticides and
Fertilizers
Pesticide Storage: All pesticides will be mixed, loaded and stored in a chemical
handling/storage building equipped as follows: a small section for record keeping;
mixing/loading area; application equipment washdown area; and pesticide storage space.
24
Access to the building will be by the superintendent, assistant superintendent and trained
applicators under the direct supervision of the superintendent. The building will contain
heat detectors, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, two stage ventilation (low level ventilation
at all times and a three times ventilation volume increase when someone enters the
building), explosion proof fixtures, emergency shower/eyewash station and personal
protection gear including disposable coverall/suits, gloves, goggles, respirators and
hearing protection. Hazard communication signage will be placed inside and outside the
building. Material Safety Data Sheets on all pesticides stored/used in building will be
readily available. All personnel using the facility will be trained in safe handing and
operation of application equipment and emergency response procedures and contacts.
Spills in the building will be readily contained by dry absorbent materials and
safely stored until disposed of by a licensed hauler (this also pertains to any sludge/solids
from the equipment wash area). Only the amount of pesticide needed will be loaded in
the sprayer. All rinseate from containers and from the sprayer equipment wilt be reused
in the next spray or sprayed in a dilute fashion in the practice range area. All pesticides
will be stored, handled and applied according to the label instructions. All personal
protective measures will be followed.
The building will be constructed of non-combustible walls, with a combustible
roof. With explosion proof fixtures, fire is unlikely. Ifa fire does occur, the building will
vent heat and smoke through the roof and spraying water on the fire will not be
encouraged. The use of a limited amount of fire fighting water is encouraged to reduce
the likelihood of environmental damage from a large volume of water and to reduce the
amount of contaminated water that will need disposal.
It is anticipated that only small quantities of pesticides will be stored in the
building. A general contact fungicide like thiram or a specialized fungicide like
etridiazole (for Pythium control) will be stored in case of an outbreak of a disease posing
an imminent threat to the Laurel Links golf course requiring immediate action. For insect
and weed control, insecticides and herbicides will be purchased and used on an as needed
base. All empty containers will be handled and disposed of by a licensed hauler.
Fertilizer Storage: fertilizers will be stored in a walled off section of the
maintenance facility. The floor will be seal and will not contain a floor drain. The
concrete for the floor and lowest one foot of the walls will be poured at the same time
with out joints so as not to allow water in or out of the storage area. It will be unheated
unless liquid fertilizers will be stored. Only small amounts of fertilizers will be stored at
any one time, usually no longer than several days (from the time of delivery until it is
applied).
25
VII. Literature Cited
I. Morton, T.G., A.J. Gold and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of overwatering and
fertilization on nitrogen losses from home lawns. J.of Environ. Qual. 17:124-130.
2. Petrovic, A.M. 1990. The fate of nitrogenous fertilizers applied to turfgrass. J. of
Environ. Qual. 19:1-14.
3. Petrovic, A.M. 1991. Leaching of organics: fertilizers and pesticides. Proc. 62 nd
Intem. Golf Conf., Las Vegas. p.75.
4. Nelson, E.B. 1990. The advent of biological controls for turfgrass disease
management. Comell Univ. Turfgrass Times. 1 (1):1,4.
5. Watschke, T.L., S. Harrison and G.W.Hamilton. 1989. Does fertilizers/pesticide use on
a golf course put water resources in peril? US Golf Assoc. Greens Sect. Record 27(3)5-8.
6. Petrovic, A. M. 1994. Impact of Golf Courses on Groundwater Quality. Proc. 2 nd
World Scient. Cong. Golf. St. Andrews, Scotland.
7. Harrison, S.A., T.L. Watschke, R.O. Mumma, A.J. Jarrett and G.W. Hamilton, Jr.
1993. Nutrient and pesticide concentrations in water from chemically treated turfgrass.
In, A. Lesie (ed). Pesticides in Urban Environments. Am. Chem. Soc.
8. Gold, A.J., T.G.Morton, W.M.Sullivan and J.McClory.1988.Leaching of 2,4-D and
dicamba from home lawns. J. Water, Air and Soil Poll. 37:121-129.
9. Leonard, R.A., W.G. Knisel and D.A.Still. 1987. GLEAMS:Ground Water Loading
Effects of Agricultural Management Systems. Trans. ASAE 30:1403-1418.
10. Petrovic, A.M., N.C.Roth, D.Lisk and D.A.Haith. 1990. Evaluation of pesticide
leaching models for turfgrass. Am. Soc. Agron. Abs.p.180.
11. Linde, D.T., T.L. Watschke, A.R. Jarrett and J.A. Borger. 1995. Surface runoff
assessment from creeping bentgrass and perennial ryegrass turf. Agron. J. 87:176-182.
12. Owenby, J.R. and D.S. Ezell. 1992. Monthly stations normals of temperature,
precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1961-90, New York. Climatography of
the United States no. 81. US Dept. of Commerce. NOAA, NCDC, Assheville, NC.
26
Table 1. Summary of environmental fate assessment (likelihood of either runoff or
leaching) of pesticides registered for disease control based on NPURG analysis. Any
fungicide found to have a high potential for leaching or runoff from any soil on site
or from greens/tees is listed as a high potential.
Diseases
Pesticide NPURG Rating controlled
Azoxystrobin low PSM,PB
chloroneb low GSM**
chlorothalonil low BP,DS,LS,GSM
cyproconazole low BP
fenarimol high BP,DS,G/PSM
iprodione low BP,DS,LS,P/GSM
mancozeb low BP,LS,
PCNB low BP,P/GSM
propiconazole low BP,DS,P/GSM
thiophanate low BP,DS,PSM
thiram low BP,DS,GSM
triadimefon low BP,DS,P/GSM
vinclozalin low BP,DS,LS,PSM
etridiazole Iow PB,PRR
fosetyl-A1 iow PB,PRR
metalaxyl high PB,PRR
propamocarb iow PB,PRR
* Greens/tees having an organic matter content of at least 2.6%, by weight. **
GSM=gray snow mold, BP=brown patch, LS=leaf spot, DS=dollar spot, PSM=pink snow
mold, PB=pythium blight, PRR=pythium root rot. They fungicides can control other
diseases that are of a lesser problem. All applications are assumed to be applied to the
foliage, not injected into the soil or soil surface applied.
27
Table 2. Summary of environmental fate assessment (likelihood of either runoff or
leaching) of pesticides registered for insect and weed control based on NPURG
analysis. Any pesticide that had a high potential for runoff or leaching from any soil
on site or greens/tees is listed as a high potential
Pest
Pesticide NPURG Rating* Controlled**
2,4-D low BLW
dicamba high BLW
MCPP high BLW
2,4-DP low BLW
triclopyr high BLW
glufosinate Iow AW
glyphosate low AW
ethofumesate Iow ABG
paclobutazol Iow ABG
bendiocarb Iow WG
carbaryl low WG,BB,CW,SWW,CB
chlorpyrifos low WG,BB,HW,SWW,CW,CB
imidacloprid high WG,BB,HW
ethoprop high WG,SWW,CW
fenamiphos high WG
isofenphos low WG,TA,BB,HW,SWW,CWCB
trichlorfon high WG,SWW,CW
benefin low CG
bensulide tow CG
bentazon high NS
dithiopyr low CG
fenoxaprop low CG
pendi- low CG
methalin
prodiamine low CG
oxadiazon low CG
siduron low CG
trifluralin low CG
* Greens/tees having an organic matter content of at least 2.6%, by weight, and for the
Plymouthloam sand soil2.1%. ** BLW=broad-leafweeds, AW=allweeds,
NT=nutsedge, ABG=annual bluegrass, WG=white grubs, BB=bluegrass billbug,
CW=cutworm, SWW=sod webworm, HW=Hyperodes weevil, TA=Black turfgrass
ataenius. All applications are assumed to applied to the foliage, not injected into the soil
or applied to the soil surface.
28
Table 3. Soils found on the fairways and roughs for each hole of the Laurel Links
Golf Course (based on course layout and routing plan, June 12, 1998.
Hole Soil Texture*
1 Haven sandy loam
2 Haven and Riverhead sandy loam
3 Plymouth loamy sand
4 "
6 Riverhead sandy loam
7 Haven sandy loam
8 "& Riverhead
9 Riverhead sandy loam
10 "& Plymouth
11 ....
12 Riverhead sandy loam
13 "& Plymouth loamy sand
14 "
15 ....
16 ',
17 "& Haven sandy loam
18 "
practice fairway
Haven sandy loam
* Based on soil survey map for Suffolk County, NY.
29
Table 4. Action threshold levels for pests anticipated on the Laurel Links Golf
Course.
Pest Greens/tees Fairways Roughs
Diseases
..................... #/sq.yd .....................
Dollar spot 3 9
Brown Patch 1 2
Pink Snow mold 1 * 2
Pythium blight UD^ UD
Leaf spot 10 %** 25 %
Insects
White grabs 36~48 36-48 36-48
cutworm 1 5
Ataenius 180-270 180-270 180
Weeds
broadleafs 1 2 5
crabgrass 1 1 3
ann. bluegrass 1 1%**
* #/sq.yd. depend on pest. For diseases of Dollar spot and Brown Patch these are the
number of spots/patches per sq.yd. For insects and weeds it is the number of each
organism per sq.yd. ** Per cent of greens, tees or fairways that have annual bluegrass or
leaf spot. ^ UD=Upon Detection.
30
Table 5. Recommended fertilization program for the greens/tee at the Laurel Links
Golf Course.
April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.-Nov Yr. Tot.
.............................................. lbs/i000 sq.ft.- ..........................................
First Year
IBDU* IBDU Ringer Ringer Ringer IBDU IBDU
or or or
Sustane Sustane Sustane
0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.75N
Future years
0.8 0.8 0.8 (Sustane) 2.4 of P205
0.32 0.32 0.32 (Ringer) 1.0"
.............. Fertigation .....................
0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2.25
Total N 6.0 (8.0^)
Ringer Ringer Ringer
or or or
IBDU IBDU Sustane Sustane Sustane IBDU IBDU
0.5 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.25 0.5 2.7 N
Sustane 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 P205
Ringer 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3"
................ Fertigation .....................
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
1.3 N
Total N 4 lbs./1,000/yr
* Other slow release nitrogen sources could be substituted: methylene urea (Nutralene,
Scotts), coated urea (sulfur, resin or polymer coated. The phosphorus and potassium
needed could be meet with the addition of Sustain/Ringer for summer applications as
noted above. Phosphorus rates must not exceed amounts recommended by soil testing. ^
At the time of planting a 14-1 ratio fertilizer will be applied at a rate of 2 lbs. N/l,000
sq.ft. A lower P and K ratio fertilizer will be used if soil tests recommendations indicate
that less P or K is needed at establishment.
31
Table 6. Recommended fertilization program for fairways and roughs for the
Laurel Links Golf Course.
May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Yearly Total
....................................... lbs/1000 sq.ft. - ..............................................
Fairways, during establishment
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.0
0.75 4.75 Nitrogen
(6.75 N)*^
Fairways, following establishment
0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 Nit.^
Roughs
1.0 1.0 2.0 Nitrogen
(4 N)*
* At the time of seeding a starter fertilizer will be applied at a rate o 2 lbs. N/1,ooo sq.ft
as a 1-14 ration fertilizer, assuming P and K rates do not exceed soil test
recommendations. The rates of nitrogen are based on clippings being returned to both the
fairways and roughs. Sources to be used include any of the following slow release
sources: IBDU, methylene urea (Nutralene, Scotts), natural organic (Sustane, Ringers,
Milorganite) and coated ureas (sulfur, rosin and polymer). ^It is anticipated that about
half the nitrogen applied will be from fertigation.
32
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENTS
A. NPURG Description and Rating System
B. NPURG Evaluations Sheets - Soil Test Results
C. Pest Scouting Forms
D. Soils map showing location of soil samples
33
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
WATER QUAI ,crY/QUANTITY
TECHNICAL REFERENCE NO. lC
REVISED OCTOBER, 1991
National
Pesticide/Soils Database and
User Decision Support System for
Risk Assessment of
Ground and Surface Water Contamination.
A New England Initiative
NPURG 9.5
USER'S MANUAL
NEW YORK
This material is based upon work supported by
USDA-ES under special project 89-EWQI-1-9109
in cooperation with CT, ME, NH, RI, and VT.
APPENDIX B
NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT
The National Pesticide/Soils Database and User Decision Support System for Risk Assessment
of Ground and Surface Water Contamination (NPURG) is an automated version of the Soil
Conservation Service Soil/Pesticide Interaction Screening Procedure.
This procedure provides both a leaching potential and a surface loss potential for the
interaction of a given soil and a given pesticide. Soil/pesticide leaching potentials (SPLP) and
soil/pesticide surface loss potentials (SPSLP) are contained in two separate NPURG worksheet
print-outs titled: "Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for Ground and Surface Water Protection",
with "Soil/Pecticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) or Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SSLP)"
or "Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SSLP)" in the center of the print-outs just above the
rating matrix. The ratings are Potential 1, Potential 2, Potential 3; with Potential 1 being
greater than Potential 2 which is greater than Potential 3.
The individual soil ratings and pesticide ratings that the SPLP and SPSLP are based on, are
available in" Tagged Soil Series Data" and 'Wagged Pesticide Data" print-outs. Soils have Soil
Leaching Potential (SLP) and Soil Surface Loss Potential (SSLP) ratings of High, Intermediate,
and Nominal. Pesticides have Pesticide Leaching Potential (PLP) ratings of Large, Medium,
Small and Nominal, and Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (PSLP) ratings of Large, Medium and
Small.
The screening procedure utilizes two default databases:
1) the SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Selected Properties Database (June 31, 1991 SCS
version), which has been peer reviewed by a twenty-two member group including
representatives from NACA, ARS, SCS, ES, EPA, FS, and the agrichemical industry.
2) the Soil Conservation Service State Soil Survey Database.
NPURG can also be used with "User" entered field specific information for both pesticides and
soils. These entries will .be identified with a "U_" preceding the nesticide ar sail name in all
worksheets. The "U_" designates "User" responsibility for the~accm2acy of the~a~.-
NPURG evaluations help to indicate the relative need for more comprehensive water quality
risk analysis. Many additional factors must be considered with the NPURG evaluation to
provide a comprehensive analysis of water quality impacts of various management alternatives.
Soil/Pesticide Lcaching Potential (SPLP)
This pesticide applied on this soil has a high probability of leaching below the root zone, as
compared to SPLP's of 2 or 3. Before deciding to use a pesticide which results in a SPLP of 1,
the pesticide should be evaluated for its impact of human health and the environment. If a
pesticide use on this soil is determined to pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment, an alternative pesticide or non-chemical pest management technique should be
selected. See "General Considerations for additional lnformatmn.
NY NPURG 9.5 USER'S MAhll 1,~1
Potential 2:
This pesticide applied on this soil has the possibility of leaching below the root zone, however
the possibility of pesticide leaching is not as great as Potential 1. Because potential 2 is a gray
area, overall risk assessment will be determined by further evaluation of site conditions and
pesticide toxicity. See "General Considerations" for additional information.
In addition, potential 2 guidelines differ from potential 1 in that the pesticide leaching potential
(PLP) may be reduced one rank, i.e., high to intermediate, if the pesticide is foliar applied
(significant interception by foliage resulting in less pesticide available for leaching). This will
result in a SPLP rating of 3.
Potential
This pesticide applied on this soil has a low probability of leaching below the root zone.
Therefore, this pesticide could be used according to the label instructions with a low probability
of an adverse impact on groundwater resources. See "General Considerations" for additional
information.
_~': Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) for soils with a maximum slope of 15 percent.
The soil leaching potential (SLP) used to determine the Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
(SPLP) applies to this soil for slope ranges of 0-3, 3-8, and 8-15 percent. For slopes greater
than 15 percent, the soil leaching potential may be lower than displayed for the moderately fine
and fine textures soils (CL, SCL, SICL, SC, SIC, C).
&: Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) for soils with seasonal high water table (HWT)
less than 6 feet
This soil has a seasonal high water table (HWT) within 6 feet of the surface for a significant
period of the growing season. This requires careful evaluation of the soil/pesticide leaching
potential. The closer the groundwater is to the surface the greater the probability of
contamination.
Soils with a positive ( + ) depth to seasonal high water table (HWT) are ponded for a portion of
the growing season. Because the water table is in the root zone, these soils have been assigned
a high soil leaching potential (SLP) regardless of the calculated potential. Pesticide application
is not recommended with a SPLP rating of + 1.
General Considerations
The Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP) is a relative ranking of the potential for pesticide
movement below the root zone. Risk assessment must also consider the potential for
unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. These include the
sensitivity of the groundwater resource and toxicity of the pesticide. To evaluate the sensitivity
of a groundwater resource ask such questions as: What is the water use? (Public well, private
well, livestock, irrigation) What is the depth to the water table? (perched water table, shallow
or deep aquifer) Where is the field located in relation to the nearest well withdrawal? What is
the direction of groundwater flow?
To determine the risk posed by the pesticide ask such questions as: what are the short and long
term human health effects? Short term effects are most often determined by the acute toxicity
(LDs0). Long term effects include fertility impairment, birth defects, damage to the nervous or
immune system, and cancer.
PAGE 34
Consideration of alte~ative pest management practices should result from the risk assessment
of impacts on the groundwater resource. These include alternative pesticide use practices (i.e..
reduced rates, reduced frequency, spot treatment, alternative formulations, modes and timing
of application), alternative pesticides, non-chemical pest management techniques (i.e..
biological control, crop rotation, resistant varieties, mechanical control), and combinations
thereof.
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP]
This pesticide applied on this soil has a high probability of being lost to surface runoff as
compared to SPSLP's of 2 or 3. Before deciding to use a pesticide which results in a SPSLP of
1, the pesticide should be evaluated for its impact on human health and the environment. If a
pesticide use on this soil is determined to pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment, an alternative pesticide or other pest management techniques should be selected.
See the "General Considerations" for additional information.
This pesticide applied on this soil has the possibility of being lost to surface runoff, however the
possibility of loss is not as great as Potential 1. Because potential 2 is a gray area, overall risk
assessment will be determined by further evaluation of site conditions and pesticide toxicity.
See "General Considerations" for additional information.
In addition, potential 2 guidelines differ from potential 1 in that the pesticide surface loss
potential (PSLP) may be reduced one rank, i.e.. high to intermediate, if the pesticide is foliar
applied (significant pesticide interception by foliage), incorporated, or banded under the
surface. This will result in a SPSLP rating of 3, except for pesticide applications on a soil series
with a high surface loss potential.
Potential 3;
This pesticide applied on this soil has a Iow probability of being lost to surface runoff.
Therefore, this pesticide could be used according to the label instructions with a low probability
of an adverse impact on surface water resources. See "General Considerations" for additional
information.
': Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP) for soils with a maximum slope 3 percent.
The soil surface loss potential (SSLP) used to determine the Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss
Potential (SPSLP) applies to this soil for slope ranges of 3-8 and 8-15 percent. The soil surface
loss potential may vary with slope ranges as follows:
O- 3%slope:
3 - 15 % slope:
> 15 % slope:
Reduce the SSLP by one class, i.e. hight to medium
As displayed
Loss may be higher for certain moderately fmc and fine textured soils
(C~ SCL, Sm~, SC, S~C, C).
This soil .has a seasonal ~.!~igh w.ater table within 6 feet of the surface for a significant eriod
the growang season. Th~ reqmres some situations the water table may be perched o ?af
restrictive nPtop o
soil lay that impedes the downward movement of water. This may result in lateral
flow into local surface waters rather than infiltration to deep groundwater. For this reason,
pesticides leaching to perched water tables may have a greater potential to contaminate surface
waters than groundwater. For soils that have a perched water table with soil leaching potential
rated higher than soil surface loss potential, the soil leaching potential rating should be used as
the soil surface loss potential.
General Consideration~
The So/L/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP) is a relative ranking of the potential for
pesticide movement in runoff at the edge of the field. Rick assessment must also consider the
potential for unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. These
include the sensitivity of the surface water resource and toxicity of the pesticide.
To evaluate the sensitivity of a surface water resource ask such questions as: Is the water used
for drinking or recreation? What are the potential impacts on the aquatic/wetland ecosystem'>
Where is the field located in relation to the water resource? '
If a herbicide is being used consider vegetation adjacent to the application area. Will surface
loss affect the vegetation? Will aquatic vegetation be affected if a pond or lake will receive
runoff from the area?
To determine the risk posed by the pesticide ask such questions as: What are the short and long
term human health effects? Short term effects are most often determined by the acute toxicity
.(LDs0). Long term effects include fertility impairment, birth defects, damage to the nervous or
~mmune system, and cancer. What are the short term and long term effects on the aquatic
ecosystem? Short term effects are most often determined by acute toxicity (LC50). Long term
effects may include birth defects and cancer in fish, and reduction in fecundity and vigor in
invertebrates. This may result in a reduction in number and diversity of species.
Consideration of alternative pest management practices should result from the risk assessment
of impacts on the surface water resource. These include alternative pesticide use practices (i.e.
reduced rates, reduced frequency, spot treatment, alternative formulations, modes and timing
of application), alternative pesticides, non-chemical pest management techniques (ie.
biological control, crop rotation, resistant varieties, mechanical control), and combinations
thereof.
PAGE 36
Attachment B: NPURG Ranking Work Sheets and Soil/Pesticide Information
35
Table
· Properties of soil used in the NPURG analysis, Laurel Links CC
NPURG
Soil Series &
Texture Class
Tagged Soil Series Data
K_Fact % Organic Layer Hydro Depth SLP SSLP
Matter Depth Group to GW
U_GREENS/TEES SAND
U_HAVEN SANDY LOAM
U PLYMOUTH LOAM SAND
U RIVERHEAD SANDY LOAM
0.05 2.6- 2.6 12 A > 6 INT NOM
0.05 1.0- 6.0 19 B > 6 NOM NOM
0.05 2.1- 4.0 10 A > 6 INT NOM
0.05 1.0- 4.0 12 B > 6 INT NOM
HIGH / INTERMEDIATE / NOMINAL ratings.
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
Table
· Properties of pesticides used in the NPURG analysis, Laurel Links GC
NPURG
Tagged Pesticide Data
Pesticide
1/2 Life Solubility KOC PLP PSLP
(days) (PPM)
U AZOXYSTROBIN
7 6.000 300 SMA MED
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
11 110 387 SMA MED
U_DITHIOPYR
17 1.380 1638 SMA LAR
U_FLUTOLANIL
160 6.500 1580 SMA LAR
U IMADICLOPRID
61 510 132 LAR MED
U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
210 35.000 717 MED LAR
U PRODIAMINE
69 0.013 12672 SMA LAR
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
1 27500 59 SMA SMA
U VINCLOZALIN
20 3.000 43000 SMA LAR
NOMINAL, SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE ratings, or MISSING Data.
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
Table
.Properties of pesticides used in the NPURG analysis, Laurel Links GC
NPURG
Tagged Pesticide Data
Pesticide
1/2 Life Solubility KOC PLP PSLP
(days) (PPM)
2,4-D ACID
10
ACEPHATE
3
BENDIOCARB
5
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
4O
BENOMYL
240
BENSULIDE
120
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
20
CARBARYL
10
CHLORONEB
130
CHLOROTHALONI L
30
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
10
ETHOFUMESATE
30
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
25
ETRIDIAZOLE
20 G
FENAMIPHOS
50 E
FENARIMOL
360
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
9
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
1
GLUFOS INATE -AMMONIUM
7
GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
47
IPRODIONE
14
ISOFENPHOS
150 E
MANCOZEB
70
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
21
METALAXYL
890 20 MED SMA
818000 2 SMA SMA
40.000 570 SMA MED
0.100 9000 SMA LAR
2.000 1900 SMA LAR
5.600 1000 E MED LAR
2300000 34 LAR SMA
120 300 SMA MED
8.000 1650 SMA LAR
0.600 1380 SMA LAR
50.000 E 1000 E SMA MED
50.000 340 MED M-ED
750 70 LAR MED
50.000 1000 E SMA MED
400 100 LAR MED
14.000 600 LAR LAR
0.800 9490 NOM LAR
120000 20 SMA SMA
1370000 100 E SMA MED
900000 E 24000 E SMA LAR
13.900 700 SMA MED
24.000 600 MED LAR
6.000 2000 SMA LAR
660000 (pH7) 20 E (pH7) LAR SMA
70
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
1000 E
OXADIAZON
60
PCNB
21
PENDIMETHALIN
9O
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
30
PROPICONAZOLE
110
SIDURON
90
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
10 G
THIRAM
15
TRIADIMEFON
26
TRICHLORFON
10
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT
46
TRIFLURALIN
6O
8400 50 LAR MED
1400000 100000 E SMA LAR
0.700 3200 SMA LAR
0.440 5000 E SMA LAR
0.275 5000 SMA LAR
1000000 1000000 E SMA LAR
110 1000 E MED LAR
18.000 420 MED LAR
3.500 1830 E SMA MED
30.000 670 SMA MED
71.500 300 MED MED
120000 10 LAR SMA
2100000 20 E LAR SMA
0.300 8000 SMA LAR
NOMINAL, SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE ratings, or MISSING Data.
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values.
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 12:00:48 1998
Crop:.
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U AZOXYSTROBIN
U CYPROCONAZOLE
U_DITHIOPYR
U_FLUTOLANIL
U_IMADICLOPRID
F - Foliar application
U PACLOBUTRAZOL
F - Foliar application
U_PRODIAMINE
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
3
3
3
3
1
F 3
3
3
U HAVEN
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
F 3
1
3 F 3
3 3
3
3
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG HATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:08 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
% #2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Type:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
U VINCLOZALIN
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
U HAVEN
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:32 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
U_DITHIOPYR
U_FLUTOLANIL
U_IMADICLOPRID
U PACLOBUTRAZOL
U_PRODIAMINE
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
G (guessed)
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
(SPSLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < ft., + ponded
/ E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:56:05 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U_VINCLOZALIN
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
series:
Texture:
(SPSLP)
U RIVERHEAD
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro -
3 *
Hydro -
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_O3.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:50 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U AZOXYSTROBIN
U CYPROCONAZOLE
U DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANI L
U_IMADICLOPRID
U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
U_PRODIAMINE
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
G
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro -
3%,
(guessed) / E (estimated)
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
Hydro -
& depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:39 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Type:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U VINCLOZALIN
* max slope is >
G (guessed)
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
(SPSLP)
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
3 ·
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table <
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
ft., + ponded
/ E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:55:28 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
_AZOXYSTROBIN
U_CYPROCONAZOLE
U DITHIOPYR
U_FLUTOLANIL
U IMADICLOPRID
U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
U PRODIAMINE
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES U_HAVEN
Texture: SAND SANDY LOAM
Hydro - A Hydro - B
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
U PLYMOUTH
SAM SAND
Hydro - A
3* 3*
3* 3*
3* 3*
3* 3*
3* 3*
3* 3*
3* 3*
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surfaco Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:54:25 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U_VINCLOZALIN
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
(SPLP)
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_O3.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:54:13 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
U_AZOXYSTROBIN
U CYPROCONAZOLE
U_DITHIOPYR
U FLUTOLANIL
U IMADICLOPRID
U_PACLOBUTRAZOL
F - Foliar application
U_PRODIAMINE
U_TRINEXPAC-ETHYL
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
U RIVERHEAD
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
1
F 3
3
3
(SPLP)
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28
11:54:58 1991
16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:45:49 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
NPURG 9. 500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Pesticide: Hydro - B
2,4-D ACID F 3
F - Foliar application
ACEPHATE 3
BENDIOCARB 3
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN) 3
BENOMYL 3
BENSULIDE F 3 E
F - Foliar application
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT 1
CARBARYL 3
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USER2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Sep 22 15:06:38 1998
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 12:01:43 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Pesticide: Hydro - A
U VINCLOZALIN 3 *
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_O3.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01
11:54:58 1991
10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:03:55 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
2,4-D ACID
F - Foliar application
ACEPHATE
BENDIOCARB
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
BENOMYL
BENSULIDE
F - Foliar application
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
F - Foliar application
CARBARYL
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
F 3
(SPLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
3 3
3 3
3 3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
F 3
3 3 3
F 3 E 3 E F 3 E
F 3 1
3 3
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:10 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
CHLORPYRIFOS
DICAMBA SALT
F - Foliar application
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
ETHOFUMESATE
F - Foliar application
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
F - Foliar application
ETRIDIAZOLE
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
3
3
3
1
3 E
F 3
1
3 G
(SPLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
3
3
F 3
3 E
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
F 3
3 G
3
3
1
3 E
3 F 3
1
3 G
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
HPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:26 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
FENAMIPHOS
F - Foliar application
FENARIMOL
F - Foliar application
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
GLYpHOSATE AMINE SALT
IPRODIONE
ISOFENPHOS
F - Foliar application
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
1 E
1
3
3
3 E
3 E
3
F 3 E
(SPLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
F 3 E
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
i E
F 3 1
3 3
3 3
3 E 3 E
3 E 3 E
3 3
3 E F 3 E
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG HATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:04:47 1998
Crop:.
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
MANCOZEB
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
F - Foliar application
METALAXYL
F - Foliar application
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
OXADIAZON
PCNB
PENDIMETHALIN
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
(SPLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3
1 E F 3 E 1E
1 F 3 i
3 E 3 E
3 3
3 E
3
3 E 3 E 3 E
3 3 3
3 E 3 E 3 E
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_O3.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Thu Oct 01 10:55:40 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Thu Oct 01 11:05:05 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
Pesticide:
PROPICONAZOLE
F - Foliar application
SIDURON
F - Foliar application
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
F - Foliar application
TRICHLORFON
F - Foliar application
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT
F - Foliar application
TRIFLURALIN
(SPLP)
U_GREENS/TEES
SAND
Hydro - A
F 3 E
U HAVEN
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 E
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
F 3 E
F 3 3 F 3
3 G 3 G 3 G
3
F 3
1
1 E
3
3 3
3 F 3
F 3 1
F 3 E 1 E
3 3
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28
Crop:
Target Pest:
16:49:20 1998
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
TRICHLORFON
TRICLOPYRAMINE SALT
TRIFLURALIN
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
soil
Series:
Texture:
U RIVERHEAD
$~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 * G
(SPSLP)
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:49:08 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
METALAXYL
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT
OXADIAZON
PCNB
PENDIMETHALIN
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE
PROPICONAZOLE
SIDURON
* max slope is >
G (guessed)
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series:
Texture:
(SPSLP)
U RIVERHEAD
S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro -
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
3 *
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table <
/ E (estimated)
Hydro -
ft., + ponded
database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:48:56 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM
GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT
IPRODIONE
ISOFENPHOS
MANCOZEB
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3*
3 * E
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
Hydro -
Hydro -
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28
11:54:58 1991
16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:48:37 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
% #2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Type: Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP)
ETHOFUMESATE
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROP~OS)
ETRIDIAZOLE
FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
* max slope is > 3%,
G (guessed)
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP) Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro - Hydro -
3 *
3 *
ESTER 3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
3 * E
3 *
& depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
/ E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:48:26 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
%
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide: - B
2,4-D ACID 3 *
ACEPHATE 3 *
BENDIOCARB 3 *
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN) 3 *
BENOMYL 3 *
BENSULIDE 3 * E
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT 3 *
CARBARYL 3 *
· max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series: U RIVER}{EAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro
(SPSLP)
Hydro -
Hydro -
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:48:11 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Pesticide: Hydro - A
THIOPHANATE-METHYL 3 * G
THIRAM 3 *
TRIADIMEFON 3 *
TRICHLORFON 3 *
TRICLOPYR AMINE SALT 3 * E
TRIFLURALIN 3 *
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 * G
U PLYMOUTH
LSAM SAND
Hydro - A
3 * G
3 * E 3 * E
3* 3*
* max slope is > 3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (g~essed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency:. Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28
11:54:58 1991
16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:58 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
% #2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Type: Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Pesticide: Hydro - A
METALAXYL 3 *
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT 3 * E
OXADIAZON 3 *
PCNB 3 * E
PENDIMETHALIN 3 *
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE 3 * E
PROPICONAZOLE 3 * E
SIDURON 3 *
· max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
U PLYMOUTH
nSAM
Hydro - A
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 * E
3 * E
3 * 3 *
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft.,
(estimated)
+ ponded
database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:41 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential (SPSLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Pesticide: Hydro - A
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL 3 *
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM 3 *
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM 3 * E
GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT 3 * E
IPRODIONE 3 *
ISOFENPHOS 3 * E
MANCOZEB 3 *
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT 3 * E
· max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
U PLYMOUTH
LSAM SAND
Hydro - A
3* 3*
3*E 3*E
3*E 3*E
3* 3*
3*E 3*E
3* 3*
3*E 3*E
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:28 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP)
ETHOFUMESATE
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
ETRIDIAZOLE
FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
ESTER
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
3 * E
3 *
(SPSLP)
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3 * E
3 *
3 *
3 * G
3 * E 3 * E
3* 3*
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table <
(estimated)
ft., + ponded
database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:47:17 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9. 500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
2,4-D ACID
ACEPHATE
BENDIOCARB
BENEFIN (BENFLURALIN)
BENOMYL
BENSULIDE
BENTAZON SODIUM SALT
CARBARYL
* max slope is >
G (guessed) / E
Soil/Pesticide Surface Loss Potential
Soil
Series: U_GREENS/TEES
Texture: SAND
Hydro - A
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 *
3 * E
3 *
3 *
(SPSLP)
U_HAVEN
SANDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3 *
U_PLYMOUTH
LOAM SAND
Hydro - A
3* 3*
3* 3*
3 * E 3 * E
3* 3*
3* 3*
3%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
(estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2 03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28
11:54:58 1991
16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:56 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
THIOPHANATE-METHYL
THIRAM
TRIADIMEFON
F - Foliar application
TRICHLORFON
TRICLOPYRAMINE SALT
TRIFLURALIN
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B Hydro -
3 G
3
F 3
1
1 E
3
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:39 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
METALAXYL 1
METHANEARSONIC ACID SODIUM SALT 3 E
OXADIAZON 3
PCNB 3 E
PENDIMETHALIN 3
PROPAMOCARB HYDROCHLORIDE 3 E
PROPICONAZOLE F 3 E
F - Foliar application
SIDURON F 3
F - Foliar application
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
(SPLP)
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:21 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential (SPLP)
NPURG 9.500 Soil
Database 2.031 Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Pesticide: Hydro - B
FENOXAPROP-ETHYL 3
FOSETYL-ALUMINUM 3
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM 3 E
GLYPHOSATE AMINE SALT 3 E
IPRODIONE 3
ISOFENPHOS F 3 E
F - Foliar application
MANCOZEB 3
Hydro -
Hydro -
MECOPROP (MCPP) AMINE SALT i E
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( ) -
NPURG
Pesticide/Soil Interaction Ratings for
Ground and Surface Water Protection.
Chemical database name: USDA2_03.DBF Date of issue: Tue Aug 13 11:54:58 1991
Soil database name: USSOILS.DBF Date of issue: Mon Sep 28 16:34:34 1998
Pesticide User:
Address:
Location:
Date: Mon Sep 28 16:46:04 1998
Crop:
Target Pest:
% of field for Soil Type #1:
Ave. Slope: % pH:
Water Resource: Ground / Surface
Type:
#2: % #3:
Drained / Undrained.
Distance:
NPURG 9.500
Database 2.031
Pesticide:
CHLORONEB
CHLOROTHALONIL
DICHLORPROP (2,4-DP) ESTER
ETHOFUMESATE
F - Foliar application
ETHOPROP (ETHOPROPHOS)
ETRIDIAZOLE
FENAMIPHOS
FENARIMOL
Soil/Pesticide Leaching Potential
Soil
Series: U RIVERHEAD
Texture: S~NDY LOAM
Hydro - B
3
3
3 E
F 3
1
3 G
1 E
1
(SPLP)
Hydro -
Hydro -
* max slope is > 15%, & depth to seasonal high water table < 6 ft., + ponded
G (guessed) / E (estimated) database values used in the computations.
These ratings are first tier relative rankings of pesticide/soil interactions.
They are intended for use by SCS and CES personnel as one component of an
environmental risk analysis. Please see attachment NPURG RATING SUPPLEMENT to
help evaluate these ratings.
Planner: Agency: Phone: ( )
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
10EHTITZC~T1O.
I 4608-E7 (H) 107107/98107/27198 109/16/08 I SUFF t 0 I1 ($16)727- 850 J
HARTY PETEOVIC CAROLIN~ KIANG
SENECA Ri} C~P ~T.EDU~TIO~
TRU~NSBUR~ NY 1~6 ~&6 ~RIFFINO AVE
fiI~RHE~ ~ 11901
;:% ?:~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ :~':~L~,~ :~:,~:~.;{'::~:~::'~.::":~r.::;~.~
Envlro~:, ~NY "'~'r'~p Code~ FAR S~es : BE~TG~SS Age/ht/dla: Manure
Oral.ge . ~CEL Var{e~ : Cut Height:.
T~:ure : ~DY Reco~: PEEPLANT
To~raphy: PLAIN Month : Irrigation: ~CAS. Tree T~ = L~
~q~ L TEST R~S~LTS
~ p~ 5.1
........ Ee¢oa~nenclat{or~ per acre ............. Re¢o~rnenclations per 1000 sq ft .......... Recornmendation~ per 100 sq ft ....
Lime CT/A): 4 Li~e (#/HI: 160 Lime (#/100 SD FT): 16.1
Ph~phate (P~ ~/A): ~0 Phos~ate (PEO5 ~/H): 0.~ Phos~ate C~/1O0 SO ~T}: 0.09
Potash (~0 J/A3: 40 Potash (~0 ~/H): 0.9 Potash (~/100 SQ FT): 0.09
1ST Y~R. FAIR~AY (FAR)
~. ~PLY ~ ~ A TOPD~SS[~B AT T~NE OF SEEDinG. A SE~HD ~PLICAT[~ SH~ 8E ~E 4 TO 6 ~E~S AFTEE GE~TiOL
3. I~CORP~TE PHOSPH~US TO A 6 INCH DEPT~
~. TOPD~SS A ST~TER FERTILXZER (EG. 1~-~-3} AT A RATE OF I ~/N OF NITROGEN.
5. L~N~ RATE IS F~ 100~ ENV. TO ~LCULATE ACTURL ~TE: ~TE TO USE ~ RESEEDED ~TE~NV (OF LIRE SOURCE) X 100.
6. US[gG ~LFER CDATED p~ASH gILL ~DUCE LEACHING AHD INCENSE
7. ~CORPG~TE L[~E PREPL~T T~ A 6 ~CH DEPT~. APPLY LIME [~ THE FALL OR E~LY SPRING ~ THE SOIL CAN BE
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
~v{rcnment SUNNY Crop Code FAR Species : BENTGEASS/ Age/ht/d{a: Manure Type:
Orainage EXEEL Variety : Cut Heigh:: < 1/2 / Lacadan :
Texture : SANDY Rec~ PREPAY CLjpp{ngs : ~O / Top Pru~ : Robot, ~n:
T~graphy : P~ZN Month = rrfgafi~: OCCAS / Tree Type : Lime, ~/H :
SOIL T~ST RESULTS
EZ Jcld{ty c~/lOOg)= ? ~ese (Nn ~/i): 5 Nitrate
A[~i~ (AL ~/i): 76 2~ (~ ~/A): 1.4 Salts (~o/~): Q.16g
~ Z E R R E ~ N M E N O A T T.O ~ ~
L~ (T/A): 0 lf~ C/H): 0 li~ Cf/lO0 SO FT): O
Phos~ate (P205 ~/A)t &O Phos~ate (P205 ~): 0.9 Phosphate C~/100 SO FT): 0.09
Potash (K20 ~/A): 0 Potash (~0 ~)= O Potash (~/100 ~ FY): 0
1ST ~R. FAIR~AT (FAR)
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
AOORESBE;
BACKGROUND I N FORMAT 1 ON
............. :S~l:,'~ .............. ! o., ,~:,~geP .................... F R~SS ........... : ..... . R' ~ ................... ' ..............
E~ir~nt: SUKNY Crop C~e= FAR S~cles : BEET~SS j Age/hr/alia:
OraJ~ge : ~L varie~ : C~ Height: < I/2 Locati~ : I ~ure, ~/~:
Texture : ~DY Recked: PREPLA~T Clf~ings : REH~ED Top Pr~e
To~graphy = PLA%~ Month ~ %rrigation: OC~S. Tree T~e . Li~, ~/~ :
J J I Irt. pate: ~Gr~th
s O J L TEST R E ~ U L_~S
EX Acidity (ME/lOON): 6 Manganese CMn #/A): 5 Nitrate (NO3-N #/Al: 2&
A[~int~ CAL #/A): 55 Zinc CZn g/A): 1.1 SaLts ¢~o/cm): 0.150
L I M E F E R T I L ,I ER R E C OM.I~ ~ ~ O I T I O ~ S
........ Rec~nerdatlona per acre ............. Reconmendatiens per 1000 sq ft .......... RecontT~ndations per 100 sq ft ....
L{~ (T/A): 0 Li~ (~3: O Lime (g/100 SQ FT): 0
Hitrog~ Cg ~/A): 45 NitroDen (g t/H}: 1.0 Nitrog~ (~/100 SO FT): 0.10
Phos~at~ (P205 ~/A): ~0 Phoa~ate {P2OS ~/H): 0.9 Phosphate (~/100 ~0 FT]~ 0.09
Po:ash (K2O ~/A): 0 Potash (~o ~/H)t 0 Potash C~/100 SQ FT): 0
1ST YEAR. FAIRUAY (FAR)
Maintain a goec~ s~mpLin~ program end keep a record of aiL nutrient ~nalyses and recmllner~tations.
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
I 46aa-30 iH) J 07/07/98 I 07;27t98 I 09/16/98 J gUF; { 0 '~"~ I (s1&)72?-Taso I
~DDRESSES
HRRTY PETROVI: CAROLINE KTANG
6E E SENECA ED COOP EXT.EDUCAYXON CENTE~
TRUFa~NSBURG NY 14886 246 GR[FFZNG AVE
R[VERNEAO NY 11901
BAC£SROUND .,l U FORMAT I DN
Envir~nt: ~Y Crop C~e: F~ S~Jes : BEHTG~SS m Age/hr/die: Ha~re Ty~
Drainage : EXCEL Variety : Cut Height~ < 1/2 Location : M~ure, ~:
T~ture = SANDY Rec~: PREP~T CLippers : AE~ED Tap Pru~ : C~st, in:
To,graVy : P~IN Man:fl : Irrigation: ~S. Tree T~ : Li~, ~/M :
m J j Irt. Rate : J Growth
~ ~ ~0 [ L TEST R()U ~TS
POtA$$Jb14 (K #lA) 70 ~.m,,-,.,.........,,
CALCIUM (Ca #/A) 320 ...-
Ex Acidity (~E/lOOg): 16 Manganese CMn ~/A): 8 Nitrate (NO3-N #/A): ~9
Lt.~ir'..~ (AL #/A): 16~ Zinc (Zn ~/A): ~.1 SaLts (~o/~): O.E&0
[ ~ME ~ FliRT I L I ZE, Iq COMMENDATIONS
Li~e (T/A): 6 Lime (#/M): 280 Lime {#/100 sa FT): 27.6
Nitrogen (N #/a): ~-5 Nitrogen (N #/M): 1.0 Nitrogen (#/100 $O FT): 0.10
Phosphate (P~O5 #/A): &O Phosphate (p205 #/M): 0.9 Phssp~a:e (#/100 SQ FT): 0.09
Potash [L'20 #/A): 80 Potash (/20 #/M): 1.8 Potash (#/100 ~ FT): 0.18
Maintain a go~ sampling program end keep a record of aLL nu~rlent analyses and rec~endaclons.
Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratories
HANTY PGTSOVZC ~AROLTEE I~]ANG
SENECA RD COOP EXT,EDUCATIDN CEETER
TRLr~SBURG NY 1~6 246 GRIFFINS AVE
~AC~GROUND ~.~ ~ MAT i ON
Environment: SUNNT Crop Code: FAR Species : ~ENTGF~S5 Age/ht/dia~ Narlure Type:
S O i L T ~.s T RESULTS
Atuair~m CAL #/A): 71 [ Zinc (Zn #/A): 1.4 SaLt; (mhD/Cra): 0.270
Iron (Fo ~/A): 5 [O~amlc Matter (X): 1.2 So[ts (~ x lOOOO0)~ ~7
Ling ANP FERT.~.~..~.ER EECOMMEH.9A ],.,~NS
Li~ (T/A): 0 Lime C~): 0 L~ C~/lOO SO FT)~ 0
gitrogen (g ~/A): &5 Nitrogen (W ~): 1.0 Nitrogen (g/t00 $Q FT): 0.10
Phas~ate (P~5 ~/A): 40 Phos~a~e (P205 ~): 0.9 Phos~ate (~/100 SQ FT):
Potash C~20 ~/A): ~0 Potash C~2o ~/H): 0.9 Potash (~/100 S~ FT): 0.09
~ST Y~. FAIRLY (FAR)
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
~~a~~~~~~£
Average Monthly Rainfall for:
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
JAN 3.96
FEB 3.57
MAR 3.91
APR 4.06
MAY 6.00
JUN 6.00
JUL 6.00
AUG 6.00
SEP 6.00
OCT 3.51
NOV 4.30
DEC 4.14
nNitrogen Leaching Index
~for Soil Hydro Group:
~ A 28.5
~ B 21.0
~ C 15.5
n D 12.3
<ESC> to exit. SPACE bar to re-do.
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
~a~~a~~a~a~a~a~a~~£
Average Monthly Rainfall for:
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
JAN 3.96
FEB 3.57
MAR 3.91
APR 4.06
MAY 6.00
JUN 6.00
JUL 6.00
AUG 6.00
SEP 6.00
OCT 3.51
NOV 4.30
DEC 4.14
mNitrogen Leaching Index
nfor Soil Hydro Group:
n A 28.5
n B 21.0
n C 15.5
n D 12.3
<ESC> to exit. SPACE bar to re-do.
Riverhead, NY Laurel Links GC
Pest Monitoring: A Key to
Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass
Gerard Ferrentino and Jennifer Grant,
Comell University IPM Program
Joseph Neal, Dept. of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture
Comell University
Monitoring is the foundation of an authentic IPM approach. The f3rimary goal of
monitoring (or scouting) is to identify, locate, and rank pest infestations and tuffgrass
abnormalities. Scouting on a regular basis will provide you with information on the
changes in pest populations and turfgrass health. Pest management decisions~ timing and
control actions are based on data collected. Regular monitoring is the best method to
check the success or failure of a control strategy.
In order to effectively implement pest monitoring, a person(s) must be assigned
and txained to scout tuff. Monitoring should be the preeminent job responsibility of the
scout. Theh- responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) Monitoring the turfgrass or other landscape plants for insects, plant diseases,
and weed infestations on a regular basis;
2) Recording the findings on field data sheets;
3) Diagnosing problems and rating the severity based on diagnosis, priority of
the site, and turf value;
4) Assessing the efficacy of pest management actions that have been taken;
and
5) Communicating the findings to decision makers.
Scouting
After identifying the person who will be responsible for scouting, but prior to
scouting, a few other decisions need to be made. First, divide the tuffgrass site into pest
management units (PMU). These PMU's may correspond to treatment or use areas (i.e.
scout athletic fields separately from walking areas). This enables you to follow pest
infestations in make treatment decisions for specific areas.
Second, decide on the approach to scouting each PMU. The common turfgrass
pests do not distribute themselves evenly, therefore, it is imperative that the entire
turfgrass area is scouted in a consistent, uniform pattern. Walking-in a serpentine pattern
through each PMU is usually the most efficient way to scout.
Third, scout the turf areas regularly throughout the season. Ideally, all turf should
be scouted a minimum of once a week. However, more susceptible and high priority
areas can be used as indicators to save time. Conversely, some areas may need to be
scouted more than once a week if an active pest problem is being monitored.
Finally, documenting scouting information is crucial. Record pest identification
and location, and the severity of the infestation. Rate infestations by using simple scales
such as: pest absence or presence, light, medium or heavy infestations, and percentage of
area damaged. If you encounter unknown problems when scouting, collect a sample and
send it to a diagnostic laboratory.
Insect Sampling
Insect sampling techniques are useful IPM tools, complementing the visual
monitoring of turf. Initiate sampling when you suspect the presence of insects--al the
appropriate time in the insect's life cycle and the growing season; in historically infested
areas; if damage is seen; or when a post-treatment analysis for efficacy of pesticides or
other control measures is desired. Sampling for scarab grubs is one of the most important
techniques for golf courses. Methods for detecting chinch bugs and Lepidopterans
(cutworms, armyworms, and webworms) will also be discussed.
Grub Sampling
Sampling turf for scarab grubs determines grab population densities, grub species,
and grub developmental stages. High and low population areas can be delineated for
possible spot treatments and damage thresholds used as guidelines in making treatment
decisions. In addition, information on thatch thickness and soil type can be used to aid
in the selection of the most appropriate insecticide.
It is difficult to get a grab to come to you, so you've got to dig down to their
level. A standard golf course cup-cutter removes 4 I/4" (10 cm) soil cores that can be
quickly inspected for grubs and then replaced. Record on a data sheet or map the
number of grubs found, and the predominate stage (instar) and species of the grubs.
Checking soil samples in a grid pattern across any turf area will help you delineate areas
with grub infestations. Minimum intervals of 20-30 meters between samples in large turf
areas will be sufficient. Ultimately, the number of samples taken will depend on the labor
time available.
Knowledge of grub/beetle life cycles will help you get the most out of your
sampling effort. Target your sampling time to when grubs are small (lst and 2nd instar)--
for Japanese beetles in upstate NY and southern Canada, this usually means early to mid
August. Times vary by grub species, and regional and local weather patterns. Start
sampling in just a few areas, several weeks before you expect grubs, to monitor the
insect's life cycle on your own turf.
Damage thresholds have been established for the major grub pests in New York
State (see Table 1). Use these as guidelines for treatment decisions. Generally speaking,
healthy turf with strong roots, adequate moisture and low stress will tolerate grub
infestations above the threshold level. Conversely, stressed turf will be susceptible to
damage at threshold levels.
Table 1 Common Grub Thresholds
Mean Mean per
~ per ft2 sample
European Chafers 5 - 7 .5-.7
Oriental Beetles 5 - 7 .5-.7
Japanese Beetles 8 - 10 ,8- 1
Black Tudgrass Ataenius 30-50 3 - 5
Flotation--A Method for Chinch Bug Detection
Unlike grubs, you can get chinch bugs to come to you! In areas where you
suspect an infestation or want to check treatment efficacy, insert a metal cylinder
(preferably 8-9" diameter) into the ground (1-2" depth). A coffee can with both eaCs
removed is suitable. Fill the cylinder with water and watch for chinch bugs floating to
the surface for 5 minutes. Water refills may be necessary. Consider 20 chinch bugs in a
9" diameter cylinder a damage threshold. Be careful not to count the beneficial big eyed
bug as a chinch bug!
Disclosing Solution--A Method l~or Lepidopteran Detection
One final technique to be discussed is the use of a "disclo. sing" or "irritant"
solution. Mix 1-2 tablespoons of liquid soap in a gallon of water, and pour it over a 1
square meter area of tuff. Irritated insects such as webworms, cutworms, armyworms,
and beetles; as well as earthworms will come to the surface within-five minutes. A
threshold of 15 caterpillars per square yard can be used for webw0rms. The disclosing
solution can be used on both close and high cut tuff.
Disease Sampling
Follow general scouting procedures for disease monitoring. Look for
irregularities and differences in the color of the tuff and examine these areas for signs
and symptoms of diseases. Search for lesions on turfgrass leaves, and the presence of
mycelia and other fungal growth. Record the type, location and severity of the diseases
found. Pay special attention to areas with a history of disease problems. Use these
locations as indicator sites. Send a sample to a diagnostic lab if you are unable to
identify the problem. Combine the disease scouting information with past and future
weather information to determine when and if control action is required.
Weed Sampling
Scout for weeds in the spring (late April or early May), early summer (mid- to late
June), and again in late summer or fall (mid-August to late September). Record the
species, where they occur, the intensity of the infestation, and if there are patterns of
occurrence (spotty, throughout, etc.).
In the spring look for perennial broadleaf weeds or winter annuals not controlled
in the fall. Decide if a May herbicide application will be necessary. Also, evaluate turf
density. Are there thin areas where summer annual weeds will be a problem? If so,
repair these areas or plan for pre or postemergent summer annual weed control.
In early summer scout for summer annual weeds such as crabgrass, goosegrass,
oxalis, spurge, and prostrate knotweed. Make postemergent applications for these
weeds while they are still young and more easily controlled.
In late-summer or early fall look for summer annuals which escaped control,
perennial dicot weeds, seedling winter annual weeds, and thin spots in the tuff. This is
the best time of year to repair thin tuff, control perennial and winter annual broadleaf
weeds, and to assess the overall effectiveness of your weed management program.
Monitoring Records
Write it down! Legible, regular records are crucial to the success of your IPM
program. Documentation is an important tool during and after the season. Set up a
clear, concise way of recording all pest information to ease the task of record-keeping.
At Cornell we examined all types of record-keeping methods and found it necessary to
keep three types of records: a field data sheet, weekly summaries, and control
information records.
Field Data Sheets: Field data sheets vary from a sheet of paper with maps drawn
of turf areas (by PMU) to the use of a sophisticated hand held computer. The field data
sheet serves as the tool to record what, where, and how many pests are present during
scouting. Remember to record basic information such as location scouted, data, scout's
name, and time in and time out. Additional information can be recorded on the field data
sheet, for example, environmental conditions and observations of turf grass growth and
health.
Weekly Summaries: When a Scout has finished the week's monitoring activities
the results should be compiled on a summary sheet. The information is itemized for each
PMU, recording the pest incidence and population, and if any unusual circumstances
were found. Weekly summary sheets inform the pest manager in an organized fashion
about what is happening at each ?MU during each week. Based on this information the
turfgrass pest manager can identify priority areas and then decide on con~'ol strategies.
Control Int'ormation: Recording information pertaining to conu'ol methods and
their results are as vital to a successful IPM program as are the scout's records. The
combined pest and control information forms the basis for judging efficacy and cost as
well as making future plans. Pesticide use records must be complete, up-to-date and as
detailed as possible. Preferably, the pest manager should record: I) Date of pesticide application;
2) Name, classification, and amount of active ingredient;
3) Amount of material and water mixed for the application;
S) How much of the pesticide was actually applied;
6) Where the pesticide was applied;
7) Size of the area;
8) Type of application method (spray, granular, etc.);
9) Applicator's name; and
10) Labor hours.
Keeping good records enables you to ascertain important pest and control trends.
For example, have there been reductions in total amounts applied, or has there been a
shift to pesticides of a higher or lower toxicity? Comparing annual information points
out recurrence and trends of pests.
Conclusion
Too often people are unwilling to change, secure in the methods they follow for
pest control. They believe new techniques to be risky, time consuming, and potentially
jeopardizing their employment. When you start an IPM program you will find out that
IPM is neither risky nor time consuming. Practitioners say IPM is only common sense
and really not that difficult. Start small and develop a pilot monitoring program. Keep
an open mind and give it a chance. When you make monitoring a normal turfgrass
management practice, you will be pleasantly surphsed with the results. Remember, the
primary goal of IPM is improved turfgrass quality.
COURSE
HOLE
GOLF COURSE WEED MAP
DATE
Cornell Universit~ IPM Program
Areas: T = Tee F = Fairway R-- Rough G = Green
Patterns: S = Spor[y P= Pattern TH = Throughout
MAP SIGNIFICANT WEEDS and THIN TURF AREAS
ourse GOLF COURSE IPM SCOUTING REPORT IPM ID # __ -290- __
ole Scout
LOCATION Non-lnft. Diseases Weeds Insects Samp# COMMENTS
B/W/R L C R
B/W/R L C R
B/VV/R L C R
BAN/R L C R
B/W/R L C R
BAN/R L C R
BAN/R L C R
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
yds. LCR
frfoack L C R
fr/back L C R
fr/back L C R
fr/back L C R
fr/back L C R
fr/back L C R
fr/back LCR · ,
aps (when necessary) & additional comments
Turf Scouting Abbreviations
NON-INFECTIOUS
AIg= Algae
BL= Black Layer
Chi= Chlorotic
Comp= Compaction
Dry= D~/ Spot
GD = Golfer Damage
Mos.s= Moss
Oil= Oil Damage
Sc = Scalping
DISEASES
$ = Dollar Spot
? = Unknown
AN = Anthracnose
BP = Brown Patch
CS = Copper Spot
FP = Foliar Pythium
GSM = Gray Snow Mold
LS= Leaf spot/blight
NRS = Necrotic Ring Spot
~ = Pink Snow Mold
FP = Root Pythium
RT = Red Thread
TAP = Take All Patch
WBP = Winter (cool season) Brown Patch
~ = Yellow Patch
WF. ED~
?BL= Unknown Broadleaf
'~ = Unk~wn Grass
(3 = Clover
Crab = Crabgrass
D = Dandelion
6G = Goose Grass
Pi = Plantain
PW = Peartwort
CG = Quackgrass
Ver= Veronica
INSECTS
A = Adult
ABW= Annual Bluegrass Weevil (Listronotus, Hyperodes)
Ant= Ants
BTAA= Black Turfgrass Ataenius--Adults
BTAL= Black Turfgrass Ataenius--Larvae
(28 = Chinch Bugs
CW = Cutworm
BC = European Chafer
JB= Japaneese Beetle
SWW = Sod Webworms
WG = White grubs
CorneJl Cooperalive Comell IPM
Exlension Program
DAILY SCOUTING SUMMARY
Date IPM ID # __-290- __
Course
Location Severity Observations & Comments
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod, Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo MOd. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo MOd. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo MOd. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
;Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo MOd. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi,
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
Hole# Lo Mod. Hi
Tee Fair Green
PEST CONTROL RECORD
IPM # -290- __
)urse
HOLE & PESTICIDE(S) & EPA TOT. AREA TARGET
3ATE SE~ FORMULATION Reg. # RATE TREATED PESTS
2 3 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 /1,000 ft2
121314 15 161718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairwa)' /1,000 ft2
234567891011
12131415161718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairwa), /1,000 ft2
234567891011
1213 14 15 16 17 18 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway /1,000 fi2
123456 7891011 Gq
121314 15 16 1718 /Acre
Tee, Green. Fairway /1.000 It2
1234567891011
12131415161718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway /1,000 ft2
1234567891011
1213141516 1718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway /1,000 ft2
1234567891011
1213 14 15 161718 /Acre
Tee. Green, Fairway /1.000 It2
1234567891011
12131415161718 /Acre
Tee. Green. Fairway /1.000 ft2
123456789101
121314 1516 1718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway /1,000 fi2
123456789101 Gq
12131415161718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fa~irwa)~ /1,000 ft2
234567891011
1213 14 15 1617 18 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway /1,000 112
234567891011 CR
121314 1516 17 18 /Acre
T~e, Green, Fairway /1,000
1234567891011 Gq
1213 1415 16 t718 /Acre
Tee. Green. Fairway /I .000 ft2
1234567891011
12131415161718 /Acre
Tee, Green, Fairway
Course
Hole #
Grub Sampling Summary Map
Date
Large Grub Species
(Japanese Beetles, Eur. Chafers, etc.)
Threshold = 7-12 / sq. ft
Distance from
Grubs per cup cut
number o! eggs
Predominate stage: (circle one)
eggs, 1st. 2nd, 3rd, pupae
beginning
of fairway
510 yds.
480 yds.
450 yds.
420 yds.
390 yds.
360 yds.
330 yds,
300 yds,
270 yds.
240 yds.
210 yds.
180 yds.
150 yds.
120 yds.
90 yds.
60 yds.
30 yds.
0 yds.
Small Grub Species
(Ataenius)
Threshold : 30-50 / sq. ft
'Grubs per cup cut
number of eggs
Predominate stago: (circle one)
eggs, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, pupae
Attachment D: Soils Map Showing Location of Soil Samples
37
el
HaA
STAGE IA LITERATURE REVIEW AND
CULTURAL RESOURCE ~PORT
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development & Golf Course
Route 25. Hamlet of Laurel
Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
prepared For:
Dm Associates, Inc.
40 Hilching Post Road
Glen Cove, New York 12603
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
726 Cancoll Strut
Brooklyn, New York 11215
May 1999
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development & Golf Course
Route 25. Hamlet of Laurel.
Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STAGE lA LITERATURE REVIEW AND CULTURAL RESOURCE REPORT
Project Information ........................................................... 1
Environmental Information ................................................ 2
Documentary Research ...................................................... 5
Recommendations ........................................................... 14
Attachments .................................................................... 15
Bibliography .................................................................... 16
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Prehistoric and Historic Background
Appendix B: Maps & Figures
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development & Golf Course.
Route 25. Hamlet of Laurel.
Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
PART lA: LITERATURE REVIEW AND
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Prepared by:
Affiliation:
(Jail T. Guillet
City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
726 Carroll Street
Brooklyn; New York 11215
Date: May 5, 1999
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
Permit Application:
Permit Number:
Permit Type:
Location of Proposed Action:
The site is an approximately 222.85 acre parcel that is located on the south side of
Main Road (NYS Route 25) in the hamlet of Laurd the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York. (Map 1) The project area is composed of open farmland
surrounded by residential development and local parkland. To the north, as noted is
NYS Route 25 and the Long Island Railroad, which runs from the southwest to the
northeast across the northern portion of the property. Northwest of the Long Island
Railroad tracks is a small portion of the property, along with an outparcd that is now
or was formerly owned by Frank E. J. Caflin and W. F. Carlin. The Carlin property is
located between Pared C and Parcel D, both identified as Open Space. Parcel C
contains 0.75 acres, while Parcel D contains 1.84 acres. In addition to the open space
parcels, there is land identified as Lot 31 (containing 2.39 acres) that will contain
several structures required for the maintenance of the golf course.
laurelksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Staee lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 2
Laurel Links Residential D~'elopment & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count3,, New York.
Moving south of the Long Island Railroad tracks, the property is bounded on the east
by a number of residential structures that front on Bray Avenue, which runs generally
north-south between Route 25 and Peconic Bay Boulevard. The dwellings are
arranged along a number of short streets (Second Street through Eighth Street) that
end at the project area property line. These structures are visually separated from the
project area by a fringe of woodland, which extends around the southern and western
boundaries of the site. On the south the project area is also bounded by residential
development that fronts ~n Peconic Bay Boulevard, and on the west by residential
development that fronts on Delmar Drive. Here, as on the eastern boundary, the
development is divided by several short streets that end at the project area property
line. These streets are Emma Drive, which parallels the Long Island Railroad tracks,
Gina Street, and Joseph Street. At the southern end Delmar Drive makes a right
angle turn, then extends south along the project boundary line to end at Peconi¢ Bay
Boulevard.
Description of Undertaking:
The proposed project is to create 31 lots on land south of Main Road (Route 25).
One parcel, containing 64.5 acres, will be a clustered subdivision of 29 lots. A second
parcel, identified as Lot 30, containing 157.90 acres, will be developed as an 18-hole
not-for-profit golf course, with accessory uses such as a clubhouse, proshop, practice
range, etc. Lot 31, located north of the Long Island Railroad tracks (containing 2.39
acres) will accommodate several structures required for the maintenance of the golf
course.
Description of Impact:
At the present time the land is used for agriculture. The agricultural land will be
replaced by the golf course, accessory buildings, the clustered subdivision containing
29 lots, and associated landscaped areas for the golf course and residential
development. In the course of the development of the property approximately 14.39
acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) will be removed. The wooded areas
at the boundaries of the property will be retained. The wetland in the south central
portion of the property will be undisturbed by the proposed development.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
· Topography:
In terms of topography, the land included within the project area directly reflects the
effects of the most recent glaciation of Long Island, with the level farm field that
constitutes the majority of the Laurel Links Site being a portion of the glacial outwash
plain that was formed as meltwater streams flowed offthe glacier and across the
landscape.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literatur~ R~vie~v and Cultural Resource Re~ort 3
Laurel Links Residential Develomnent & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
The site ranges in elevation from 25 feet above sea level in the southern portion of the
site (the area identified as wetland) to 38 feet above sea level on the north side of the
Long Island Railroad tracks. Looking across the property, the site appearances as a
large, flat farm field, and, although farming has taken place on this land for perhaps
200 years, there has been relatively little alteration to the topography.
Geology:
Looking at the region as a whole, the project area lies within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain region, but it is more precisely defined by the Harbor Hill Moraine that forms
the spine of the North Fork of Long Island. The Harbor Hill Moraine extends from
Staten Island eastward to Cape Cod. The Harbor Hill Moraine was formed, as was
the Ronkonkoma Moraine, which forms the South Fork of Long Island, during the
most recent glaciation of the North American continent - called the Wisconsin
glaciation.
The landforms found in this part of Long Island include ground moraine, recessional
moraine, terminal moraine and outwash plains sediments. The project site is located
on the outwash plain, with soils that are identified as well drained to excessively
drained; however, there are two on the ske that are identified as wetland. The
northeastern corner contains a small wetland that is reported to flood on occasion and
hold water, though at the time of the site visit it was dry. The second wetland is in
the south central per!ion of the property. This has been flagged and no impacts will
occur in this area. In addition, the area surrounding the project area has a number of
kettle lakes, of which Laurel Lake (located north of Route 25) is an example.
Underlying these glacial deposits, composed of gravel, boulders, sand and some clay,
is bedrock thought to date to the Cretaceous Period.
Soils:
The soils located on the LaurelLinks Site that will be impacted by the proposed
development have been identified as Plymouth loamy sands (PLA, PIB), Riverhead
sandy loam (RdA), and Haven loam (HaA) with, as a result of farming activities, a
disturbed upper layer.
Plymouth loamy sand (PLA, PIB) is a deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soil,
found on outwash plains and undulating to steep moraines. A cross-section through
the sample of Plymouth loamy sand showed a very thin topsoil layer (less than 6
inches) of dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil included a yellowish-brown
and brown friable loose loamy sand. The substratum is yellowish-brown loose
gravelly, coarse sand.
The Riverhead series is described as deep, well-drained, moderately coarse textured
soils, which occur on the glacial moraines and the outwash plains. The Riverhead
sandy loams found within the project area is 0 to 3 percent slopes (RdA). The typical
section of Riverhead soil consists of a brown sandy loam surface layer of
approximately 12 inches, followed by a brown sandy loam subsurface to a depth of 27
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Reoort 4
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
inches. The lower subsoil is yellowish-brown loamy sand, followed by a yellowish-
brown, gravelly loamy sand layer about 3-5 inches thick. The substratum is a very
pale brown to brown sand and gravel.
The Haven loams (HaA) are found on the farm fields, and is associated with outwash
plains or on the tops of Iow-lying morainal hills. The cross-section is described as
follows: a thin layer of leaf litter and partly decomposed organic matter underlain by a
light gray to gray sand substrate to 12 inches deep. Root zones extend into the top
part of this layer. The substratum contains dark reddish-brown soils, compact and
very strongly acid. The crops formerly associated with this site include corn,
pumpkin and potatoes.
Drainage:
Drainage on the site would be towards the Great Peconic Bay, either southward from the
designated wetland on the site, or westward to Brush's Creek, which flows
southward into the Great Peconic Bay.
Vegetation:
The vegetation has been dividing into two zones.
I. Farm Field Area
Originally the farm field would have been wooded, and before cleating probably
resembled the wooded areas that surround the agricultural area of the site. Based
on the history of the area, it is likely that these woods were "mined" for cordwood
in the 18~' and 19d' centurieg. This activity not only cleared the fields for crops,
but also.provided an immediate "cash" crop for the landowner. Much of the land
would have been used as pasture for the horses required to plow the fields and
pull the wagons and other farm equipment, but with the advent of mechanical
equipment pasture became less needed (fewer horses) and the percentage of land
devoted to crops like potatoes and cauliflower increased. As the economics of
farming on Long Island has changed many former farms have been developed,
some as vineyards, and others as subdivisions, which have contributed to
suburban character of many areas of Long Island. The crops formerly grown on
the agricultural land were corn, pumpkins and potatoes.
2. Successional Wooded Upland (Maritime)
The project area also includes a narrow fringe of successional woods totaling
approximately 50 acres. These woodlands are second and third growth forests,
the virgin wood having, as noted above, been "mined" for cordwood. Oaks,
beech, sassafras, locust, hickories, and maple, with patches of evergreens
currently dominate the woods. The understory in the less disturbed areas of the
woodland consists ofgreenbriar, sumacs and assorted vines, such as rose, Virginia
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Reoort 5
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York.
creeper, and viburnums. In the areas that have experienced repeated clearing or
have been forested for the longest periods of time, groundcover is absent.
Forest Zone:
The project area lies within the Northern Hardwood Forest zone. Sugar maple, birch,
beech and hemlock are the predominant trees in this type of forest. Historically the
aria would have contained a preponderance of hickory and oak, but many of these
trees were cut for cordwood when the land was cleared.
?
Man-made Features and Alterations:
In general, the project area is relatively undisturbed, in that little construction has
taken place except along Main Road (NYS Route 25) and the Long Island Railroad
tracks. Although most of the structures have been removed, the maps from the early
20tl~ century show that a number of buildings were located along Route 25. They
included at least one dwelling and a number of outbuildings, most probably barns and
other structures related to the farming activities. As noted, the Long Island Railroad
crosses the northern portion of the site, running in a southwesterly to northeasterly
direction. The land adjacent to the railroad right-of-way would constitute an area of
profound disturbance.
Despite the construction and subsequent demolition of a number of these structures,
the principle alteration to the site has been the clearing, plow'mg and harvesting of the
farm fields over the last 300-350 years. In terms of its verticality, this disturbance is
limited to the plow zone. Several farm roads crisscross the site. These would have
compacted the soil, but would not constitute subsurface disturbance.
C. DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
Site Files
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)
Information obtained from OPRItP indicates that there are a number of recorded
historic archaeological sites in the Town of Southold. None of these sites will be
impacted by the proposed project.
State Register
Information obtained from OPRHP indicates that them are a number of recorded
historic archaeological and prehistoric sites in the Town of Southold that are listed on
the State Register. None of these sites will be impacted by the proposed project.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 6
Laurel lJnlrg Residential Develomnent & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
National Register
Information provided by the OPRHP indicates that no historic archaeological sites
and prehistoric sites listed on the National Register exist in the immediate vicinity of
the project area.
National Register eligible listing
No structures identified as National Register eligible but not yet included in the
National Register of Historic Places were noted adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
project area.
State/National Register proposed
No structures currently under consideration for the State/National Register are known
to be located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project area.
New York State Museum Prehistoric Archaeological Site Files (now housed at
oPm~P)
As part of the investigation of the proposed project, the New York State Museum
Prehistoric Archaeological Site Files (formerly held at the State Museum, but now
housed at OPRHP) were examined. Information from the Archaeological Site Files
indicates that there are a number of sites in the ger!eral vicinity of the project area -
the majority of these sites are associated with the ~hores and inlets of the Great
Peconic Bay and Long Island Sound. No fewer than 10 sites were identified. Some
of these sites are anecdotal -- that is to say that they are reported in the literature, but
have not been st~bjected to controlled archaeological investigation. However, a
number of the prehistoric sites in the area have been professionally excavated and
reported. These sites will be enumerated below.
Table 1: Prehistoric Sites in Vicinity of Project Area from New York State
Museum Files
Site Number Name Location Description
NYSM#692 Snlecki site Approximately 2-3 miles Dates to Transitional;
east of project area near contained burials.
New Suffolk
NYSM#4881 No name Approximately 2-3 miles Stockade, site described as
east of project area on covering approximately aA
upland overlooking Great acre; likely to be Fort
Peconic Bay Corchaug site, but
inaccurately located.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 7
Laurel Limks Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count,,,, New York.
Site Number Name Location Description
NYSM#4882 No name Approximately 2-3 miles Described as village site. No
east of project area on other information.
upland overlooking Great
Peconic Bay
NYSM#7805 No name Approximately 2-3 miles Described as burial and
east of project area on campsite. No other
upland overlooking Great information.
Peconi¢ Bay
NYSM#8240 Grathwold East of project area Described as a village site
site dating to Woodland period.
NYSM#8241 Fort Neck East of project area No information available;
site overlooking Great probably another listing of
Peconic Bay Fort Corchaug site.
NYSM#8243 Corchaug East of project area on No information available;
Neck site upland overlooking Great probably another reference to
Peconic Bay Fort Corchaug
NYSM#8245 Halls creek East of project area No information available;
site location described as on "salt
marshes around creek."
NYSM#8246 Deep Hole Approximately 2-3 miles Shell midden dated to
site east of project area on Woodland period
Deep Hole Creek, which
flows into PeconicBay.
NYSM#8247 Dam East of project area No information available.
Hollow site
In addition to the sites identified on the New York State Museum's Archaeological
Site maps, the Baxter site on Peconic Bay and the Jamesport site (in the Town of
Riverhead immediate to the west) - both investigated by William A. Ritchie, former
New York State Archaeologist - should be noted (Ritchie, 1965).
Although not specifically identified in the NYSM files, Fort CorChaug is a well-known
and extensively excavated site located within a few miles of the project area in terrain
similar to that found on the Laurel Links Site. Fort Corchaug was one of six forts
located on eastern Long Island, the others being: Manhansett fort on Shelter Island,
Shinnecock fort, near Southampton, Montauk fort on Fort Pond, Fresh Pond fort at
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 8
Laurel Links Residential Developmem & Gulf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Hither Hills, and Fort Shantok at Montville. In 1950 Ralph Solecki described the fort
as follows:
The fort walls are oriented nearly north, south, east attd west in oblong
outlines. The walls are 210feet long north and south and 160feet long
east and west. The area enclosed is close to ~ of an acre. Fresh water
springs rise above the high tide level at several points on the bank of the
creek below the fort. The site is about l l feet above the creek at mean sea
level. (Solecki, 1950:5)
According to Solecki, there was evidence of occupation extending to the south all the
way to the Peconic Bay. It appears that the production of wampum was the chief
actMty within the fort, with no signs of occupation noted.
The Baxter site, approximately 2.5 miles east of the project area, was investigated by
Ritchie and reported in The Archaeology of New York State as follows:
The Baxter site lies on nearly level sand on the west side of Downs Creek,
a tidal inlet emptying into Peconic Bay about a quarter of a mile to the
south. It faces southeast across the open salt marsh and meadow, and
probably had a dense forest barrier to the wind from the west ..... [in the
past] it had, theoretically, a much different setting .... Salwen envisions a
setting on 'a small fresliwater stream, or a very narrow tidal estuary,
which flows a little over a mile to the south before reaching Peconic Bay. '
(Ritchie, 1980:169, quoted Salwen, 1962:pp. 51-53).
Ritchie goes on to describe the Baxter site as small, "covering only some six hundred
square feet," and refers to Ralph Solecki's discovery and exploration of the site in
1938, and the Solecki and Salwen excavations in 1960. The site was well-stratified
and materials from the Late Woodland were recovered. Beneath the Late Woodland
materials was an Orient culture horizon containing fire cracked rock, quartz debitage
and "a sparse representation of typical Orient artifacts - Orient Fishtail points, a drill,
a strike-a-light, a steatite potsherd, and a palntstone" (Ritchie, 1980: pp. 169-70).
Two Wading River points, dated to the Late Archaic, were also recovered.
c. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRltP) files
The OPR.HP Site Files indicate the presence of recorded prehistoric and historic sites
in the general vicinity of the project area. Some of these sites are anecdotal, but a
number of these sites have been professionally excavated and reported. Fort
Corchaug, noted above, and the Rail Fence Well site (associated with Fort Corchaug)
being two examples.
A number of cultural resource surveys undertaken for projects in the Town of
Southold have noted the Fort Corchaug and Rail Fence Well site, as well as others
not presently included in the OPRHP files. In 1998 a cultural resource investigation
was prepared for a project in Greenport, some distance to the east of the project area,
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 9
Laurel l.ink~ Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~. New York.
but, as is the case with a number of reported prehistoric sites, exhibiting
environmental conditions similar to those found within the project area. The Stage
lB field investigation of the project area revealed 90 prehistoric artifacts, but no
projectile points or other materials that would permit the assignment of dates or
cultural affdiati0n for the site (Greenhouse Consultants, 1998). Another cultural
resource investigation, for the Baxter Property in the Town of Southold, identified the
Fort Comhaug site and the Rail Fence Well site on the west side of Downs Creek,
approximately 2.5 miles east of the project area (Greenhouse Consultants, 1994).
The Rail Fence Well site was identified as a multi-component site dating from the
Transitional period through the Contact period. Artifacts recovered from the project
area by the former landowner were identified as ranging in age from the Archaic
period through the Woodland. Another cultural resource survey that yielded
prehistoric artifacts was prepared for the Angel Shores Subdivision site (LI
Archaeological Project, nd). Here the Stage lB field investigation yielded a Levanna
point (picked up as a surface find), a portion of a triangular quartz blade, a pottery
shard, two hammerstones (one picked up as a surface find), and a netsinker (also a
surface find). Based on Ritchie's typology, the Levanna point dates to the Late
Woodland c. AD 900 (Ritchie, 1971:31).
Based on the foregoing, it can only be concluded that the banks and upland areas
associated with streams (or, perhaps, more properly tidal inlets) that open into the
Peconic Bay possess a high probability of yielding prehistoric cultural resources.
Ritchie stated that "... this pattern of location on the west bank of a short tidal
stream was found by our Long Island survey to be the general rule for site of all
periods and cultures" (Ritchie, 1980: 169). Also of importance was the juxtaposition
between the various resources. On the eastern end of Long Island Native American
peoples would never have been far away, relatively speaking from Long Island Sound,
Peconic Bay or fresh water resources, such as Laurel Lake, Marratooka Lake and
Hallocks Pond. Add to these the salt marshes and wetland areas that abound on this
part of Long Island and you have described a veritable paradise from the Native
American's perspective.
Looking at a broader area, one can see a pattern of sites located on fresh water
resources, streams and tidal inlets, and near salt marsh and wetland resources.
Among the sites noted in the literature are the following:
Site Name Location Description
Hallock Pond Site South shore of 2 diagnostic projectile points: Wading River &
Hallock's Pond - Orient Fishtail. Date: Late & Transitional
approximately 2 Archaic; also, knives, scrapers, hammerstones.
miles northwest of Described as seasonal hunting and gathering
project area. camp.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Sta~e lA Literature Review aud Cultural Resource Report 10
Laurel I J nk~ Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Site Name Location Description
East End Site Vicinity of Lithic artifacts from plow zone: knives,
Hallock's Pond - choppers, scrapers, bifaces; 2 Wading River
approximately 2 projectile points - Date: Late Archaic in this
miles northwest of region. Described as one or more short term
project area. occupations.
ACP-SUFK-8 Less than 2 miles On F. B. Conldin farm near Jamesport;
southwest of shellheap. Parker site, 1922.
project area
HCP-SUFK-10 Less than 2 miles On Wallace Seaman property near Jamesport;
southwest of shellheap. Parker site, 1922.
project area
ACP-SUFK-9 Southeast of Burial place near shore. Parker site, 1922.
, Aquebogue-
. approximately 6
miles southwest
of project area
ACP-SUFK-16 East of project Parker site corresponds to NYSM #4885.
area on Greenport Described as village site & shell midden. Some
Harbor miles east of project area, but example of
density of occupation along shores of Peconlc
Bay and associated inlets.
Goose Neck Site East of project Corresponds to NYSM #725. No further
area on south information. Some miles east of project area,
bank of Goose but example of denslty of occupation along
Creek shores of Peconic Bay and associated inlets.
A map prepared for the Riverhead bicentennial (Austen, 1992) shows Native
American sites in the Town of Riverhead, immediately west of the Town of Southold.
The map is extremely generalized, but it provided confirmation that prehistoric sites
tend to be associated with fresh or tidal water sources, including the Peconic River,
the Great Peconic Bay, the Wading River, and scattered sites along the shore of Long
Island Sound. Based on this map, the interior of the island appears to be devoid of
cultural resources, though we know fi.om one recent cultural resources survey that
sites are also located in the interior - particularly adjacent to fresh water sources
(Historic Perspectives, Inc. 1996-7).
laurelksla Ci~/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 11
LanrcllJnkgResidentialDevelopment &Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~. New York.
2. References
(Sources have been examined fo~ prehistoric md/or historic sites in the vicinity of the
project area.)
a. Texts
X
Austen, B., editor
1992 Journey Through Time, The RiverheadBicentennial I792-1992. Riverhead
Bicentennial Commission, Pdverhead, NY.
X
Beauchamp, William
1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin No.
32. Albany, NY.
X
Parker, Arthur
1920 The ArchaeologicalHistory of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin.
No. 237 and 238. Albany, NY.
X
Preservation League of New York State (Compiled by Peter D. Shaver)
1993 The National Register of Historic Places in New York State. Rizzoli: New
York, NY.
X
Ritchie, William A.
1980 The Archaeology of New York State. [Reprint by Natural History press:
Garden City, NY.]
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York
State Museum and Science Service. Albany, NY.
1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York
State Museum Bulletin Number 384. The University of the State of New York:
Albany, New York. [Revised edition]
1965 The Stony Brook Site and Its Relation to Archaic and Transitional Cultures
on Longlsland. New York State Museum and Science Service. Bulletin 372. The
University of the State of New York, The State Education Department. Albany, New
York. [Reprint of 1959 Edition].
X
Edward S. Rutsch & E. B. Gonzalez, editors
1978 SuffolkCoun¢yCulturalResourcesb~ventory. Suffolk County Archaeological
Association (SCAA): Stony Brook, NY. (Fig. 2)
Other (See attached Bibliography).
Maps
(Maps marked are included in this report)
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
1855 Middle Part of Long Island Sound Surveyed by J. F. R. Hassler,
Superintendent of the Survey of the East Coast of the United States. United States
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, DC. (Map 10)
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 12
Laurel I.ink~ Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count, New York.
J. Chace, Jr.
1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long lsland. John Douglass: Philadelphia, PA.
Frederick W. Beers
1873 Atlas of Long Island, New York. Plate 174. Beers, Comstock & Klein: New
York, NY. (Map 11)
Hyde, E. Belcher
1896 Map of Long Island, based upon recent U.S. Coast Surveys .... Hyde & Co.:
Brooklyn, NY.
Hyde, E. Belcher
1909 Atlas of Suffolk Coun(y, Longlsland. Sound Shore. Vol. 2. Pl. 9. E.
Belcher Hyde & Co.: New York, NY. (Map 12)
Fuller, Myron L.
1913 Geological Map of Long lsland, New York. US Government Geological
Survey Professional Paper #82. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Dolph & Stewart
1929 Atlas of Suffolk Cotmty, New York. Dolph & Stewart: New York, NY.
Hagstrom Company, Inc.
1952 Hagstrom's Street and Road Atlas of Suffolk County. Hagstrom Company,
Inc., New York, NY.
United States Geological Survey Maps
1956 USGS Topographical Map. 7.5 Minute Series. Suffolk County, New York.
Scale:l:12,000. (Map 1)
3. Previous Surveys
OPRHP Files:
Historical Perspectives, Inc. Cultural Resources Survey. Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York. Prepared for the Department
of the Navy, Northern Division. 1996.
Other Sources:
Historical Perspectives, Inc. ArchaeologicalFieMlnvestigation. Naval
Weapons lndustrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York. Prepared for the
Department of the Navy, Northern Division. 1997. Personal communication
from A. Michael Pappalardo, TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Greenhouse Consultants. Phase IA Archaeological Research Assessment of
Baxter Project. Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. 1994.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resou~e Report 13
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
o
Archaeological Services, Inc. Cultural Resources Assessment Archival
Research. Beachcomber ll Proposed Development Site. TownofSouthold,
Riverhead, NY. Date not noted.
Greenhouse Consultants. Stage ~ Archaeological Survey of the Continuing
Care Retirement Community, Peconic Landing at Southold. Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. 1998.
Long Island Archaeo!ogical Project. Stage 1 Survey of a Cultural Resource
Inventory of The Angel Shores Subdivision. Bayview. Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, NY. Date not noted.
Sensitivity Assessment/Site Prediction
Prehistoric Sensitivity
The NYS Museum Prehistoric Archaeological Site Files, the files of the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and a number of other sources indicate
the presence of numerous prehistoric sites located either in the vicinity of the Laurel
Linlrs Site or that exhibit environmental conditions similar to those found within the
project area. Two of the sites that have been professionally excavated are located
approximately 2.5 miles to the east on the west bank of Downs Creek. Another
professionally excavated site is northwest of Jamesport to the west, while a third is
located in the Town of Southampton. In addition, there has recently been a cultural
resource survey of an area approximately 2.5 miles east of the project area that
yielded a number of prehistoric artifacts.
Based on the presence of sites in the vicinity and sites that exhibit similar
environmental conditions, the project area must be considered to contain the potential
to yield prehistoric cultural resources. The lack of fresh water anywhere on the site
may be seen as reducing the level of sensitivity of the project area; however, the
presence in the south central portion of the site of a wetland that would prehistorically
have been a tidal inlet or small stream connecting to Peconic Bay certainly increases
the likelihood of a site on the property.
Based on the map of archaeologically sensitive zones included in the Cultural
Resource Inventory prepared in 1978 for the Suffolk County Archaeological
Association, the project area appears to be located in an area of"intensive aboriginal
habitation" (Rutsch, 1978). (Fig. 2) The presence of two sites immediately to the east
and several to the west of the project area (see Fig. 1) certainly indicates that a site or
sites could exist within the boundaries of the Laurel Links project area.
Historic Sensitivity
The literature review and map investigation indicates that the project area was
historically farms that, in the mid-19th century, belonged to the Wells family, who had
undoubtedly been owners of the property for many years. In 1873 John Wells owned
the western portion of the project area. The center section was the property of
Joseph Wells. It is probable that the current project area also included land owned by
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 14
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town or' Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
F. M. Hallock and some portion of a farm owned by M. T. Young[s]. By the early
years of the 20t~l century, F. Monffort had purchased the farm that had been owned by
John Wells. The eastern portion of the project area was still owned by a member of
the Wells family - identified as R. W. Wells. In 1909 George Clark owned the land
that had been owned by F. M. Hallock, and Albert W. Young now owned the M. T.
Young[s] farm. There were a number of buildings within the project area. All of
these structures were located on the Montfort/Wells farms and were clustered
immediately south of the Long Island Railroad tracks. No buildings of any kind are
shown on the agricultural fields.
Based on an examination of local resources and maps, it does not appear that any
designated historic resources are associated with the project area. None of the
standing structures on or in the vicinity of the project area are eligible for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places.
During the site visit one or two deteriorated outbuildings were noted, but no
dwellings, barns or other substantial structures are currently standing on the property.
There are indications that at least one and, perhaps, two 19t~ century farm houses and
their associated outbuildings were formerly located within the project.area. The
Beers 1873 map, which does not include outbuildings, indicates that the dwellings
associate~t with the John Wells and Joseph Wells farms were located south of the
railroad, but near the highway rather than on the agricultural fields. The northern
edge of the project area overlooking Route 25 contains a number of mature trees that
may indicate the site of these dwellings. The 1909 E. Belcher Hyde map shows as.
many as ten sfructures associated with the Montfort~/ells farms. The dwellings seen
on the 19m century map may be among the buildings shown, but this is not certain.
No foundations or other evidence of these or any other structures were observed
during the site visit in April, 1999.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
Prehistoric Sensitivity
Based on the archaeological resources reported by the New York State Museum,
OPRItP, and other reported resources in the immediate area, it has been determined
that the site contains the potential to yield prehistoric cultural resources. It is,
therefore, recommended that a Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey
be undertaken. The investigation should focus on those areas deemed suitable for
prehistoric usage. Due to the apparent lack of fresh water on the site it is anticipated
that the types of sites encountered, if any, will be temporary hunting camps and
temporary gathering camps. It is not anticipated that any long term occupation of the
site took place. One area of interest will be around the margins of the designation
wetland located in the south central portion of the site. Based on the pattern of
settlement identified by Ritchie, it would appear to be the area that would have the
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Revie~v and Cultural Resource Report 15
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count, New York.
highest probability of containing a prehistoric site. No prehistoric potential would be
associated with land occupied by the Long Island Railroad, since this area would have
been profoundly disturbed during the construction of the roadbed.
Historic Sensitivity
The project area does not contain any significant standing historic resources. As
noted above, a number of structures dating to the 19' and early 20* century were
formerly located overlooking Route 25 south of the railroad. With the exception of
one or two derelict structures (probably used as garages), no buildings are currently
standing on the property. No foundations wereobserved during the walk-over in
April, 1999, but it is possible that the remains of the dwellings are within an area
proposed for development. Overall, the historic sensitivity of the site may be
considered low; however, it is recommended that as part of the Stage lB
Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey that the property south of the railroad
marked by a series of mature trees be surveyed and, if warranted, that a number of
shovel tests be located in this area to determine the presence or absence of these
potentially historic resources.
E. ATTACHMENTS
X Topographic map (Appendix B: Map 1)
X Historic maps & figures (Appendix B: Map 2-12 & Fig. 1-3)
X Historic Background of the Site. (Appendix A)
End of Part lA
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 16
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Souflxold. Suffolk County, New York.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austen, B., editor
1992 dourney Through Time, The Riverhead Bicentennial1792-1992. Riverhead
Bicentennial Commission, Riverhead, NY..
Bayles, Richard M.
1962 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk Coun~y. Empire State Historical
Publication, Port Jefferson, NY. [Reprint of 1874 Edition]
Beauchamp, William
1900 "Aboriginal Occupation of New York." Bulletin of the New York State Museum. Vol.
7. No. 32. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.
Cronon, William
1993 Changes itt the Lan& Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Hill &
Wang: New York, NY.
Eisenberg, Leonard
1978 "Palco-Indian Settlement Pattern in the Hudson and Delaware River Drainages" in
Occasional Publications itt Northeastern Anthropology. Vol. 4. Archaeological
Services: Bethlehem, CT.
Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology ora Continent. Thames & Hudson: New
York, NY.
French, J. H.
1860 Historical and Statistical Gazetteer of New York State. R. P. Smith: Syracuse, NY.
Funl(, Robert E.
1976 "Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory." New York State Museum
Memoir 22. The University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.
Kraft, Herbert C.
1978 "The Miller Field Site in New Jersey and Its Influence upon the Terminal Archaic and
Transitional States in New York State and Long Island" in Readings in Long Island
Archaeology andEthnohistory. Vol. 2. Suffolk County Archaeological Association,
Stony Brook, NY.
Lightfoot, Kent G. & James Moore
1985 "Interior Resources Exploitation: A Woodland Settlement Model for Long Island,
New York" Anthropology 8: 15-40.
Parker, Arthur ~ .
1920 "The Archaeological History of New York" New York State Museum Bulletin. No.
237 and 238. The University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.
Preservation League of New York State (Peter D. Shaver, compiler)
1993 The National Register of Historic Places in New York State. Rizzoli: New York,
NY.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 17
Laurel I'.inks Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suff'o~k County, New York.
gitchie, William A.
1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hill Books: Harrison, NY. Revised
edition.
1973 "Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast." Memoir 20. New York State
Museum and Scianoe Service: Albany, NY.
1971 "A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points." New York State
Museum, Division of Research and Collections. Bulletin Number 384. University of
the State of New York: Albany, NY.
1965 "The Stony Brook Site and Its Relation to Archaic and Transitional Cultures on Long
Island." New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. No. 372. University
of the State of New York: Albany, NY. [Reprint of 1959 edition]
Rutsch, Edward S. and Ellice B. Gonzales
1978 SuffolkCountyCulturalResourceslnventory. Suffolk County Archaeological
Association. Ginn and Co.: Lexington, MA and Drawer AR, Stony Brook, NY.
Rutsch, Edward S.
1979 "An Analysis of the Lithic Materials Used in the Manufacture of Projectile Points in
Coastal New York" in Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Vol.
2. Suffolk County Archaeological Association: Stony Brook, NY.
Salwen, Bert
1978 "Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period." Handbook of
North American Indians. edited by Brace G. Trigger. v. 15. Smithsonian Institute:
Washington, DC. p. 160 - 176.
1962 "Sea levels and archaeology in the Long Island Sound area." American AntiquiO~.
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 46-55. Salt Lake City. (quoted in Ritchie, 1980:169)
1979
Walter
"The Paleo-Indian on Long Island" in Readings m Long Islata:lArchaeology and
Ethnohistory. Vol. 2. Suffolk County Archaeological Association, Stony Brook,
NY.
Smith, Carlyle S.
1950 "The Archaeology of Coastal New York." American Museum of Natural History:
AnthropologicalPapers. Vol. 43, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History: New
York, NY.
Snow, Dean R.
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York, NY.
Solecki, Ralph
1950 "The Archaeological Position of Historic Fort Corchaug, L.I., and its Relation to
Contemporary Forts." Bulletht of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut. No.
24, pp. 143-67. Andover.
Thompson, Benjamin F.
1918 History of Long Island from its Discovery and Settlement to the Present Time.
Robert H. Dodd: New York, NY.
Wyatt, Ronald J.
1977 "The Archaic on Long Island" in Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments itt
Northeastern North America. Newman, W. S. & B. S. Salwen, eds. 400-410.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDICES
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Prehistoric & Historic Background
Appendix B: Maps & Figures
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDIX A
PREHISTORIC & HISTORIC BACKGROUND
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Re~ort 18
Laurel Links Residential Development & Goff Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
In order to create a context for previous cultural activities and occupation it is
necessary to include some description of the environmental setting, past and present.
Through the action of natural forces as well as human intervention, the prehistoric and
historic setting of a site can vary considerably from the present.
The project area is located at the eastern end of Long Island on the outwash plain
associated with the Harbor Hill Moraine that underlies the North Fork. The site is divided
into two distinct areas: the farm land, and the upland wooded borders of the property. The
farm land area has little topographical variation, although there is a slight depression in the
northeastern portion of the property that occasionally holds water for brief periods of time.
There is also a designated wetland area in the south central portion of the site. The
elevations of the site range from 25 to 35 feet above sea level. The soils on the entire site are
primarily sandy and well drained.
Looking at the region as a whole, the project area lies within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain region, but it is more precisely defined by the Ronkonkoma and Harbor Hill Moraines
that form the spine of Long Island. (Map 2) The area in which the site is located may be
further delineated as lying on the outwash plain associated with the Harbor Hill Moraine
which forms the North Fork of Long Island, extending from Staten Island eastward to Cape
Cod. The Harbor Hill and Ronkonkoma Moraines were formed during the most recent
glaciation of the North American continent - the Wisconsin glaciation.
To the north of the site, following the retreat of the last glacier, a large proglacial lake
is thought to have covered the area that is now Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound was,
at the time, cut off from the Atlantic Ocean by the Ronkonkoma and Harbor Hill Moraines,
and the waters of the proglacial lake may have been as much as 40 feet above the present sea
level. This proglacial lake may have joined or been one and the same as Lake Flushing
which filled the southern part of Westchester County (Map 3). At the same time, Peconic
Bay would most likely have been dry land, since the level of the ocean offthe southern coast
of Long Island was substantially lower than today, with the coastline up to 150 miles to the
south.
Pollen corns taken from boggy area and former lakebeds indicate a good deal about
the climate and the flora of the period just after the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier.
Immediately following the withdrawal of ice from the southern part of the state, the region is
believed to have been dominated by arctic or tundra-like vegetation. Large game animals,
such as the mammoth and mastodon, roamed these expanses of grass and low-growing
shrubs. It was at this time, approximately 12,000 to 14,000 years ago that archaeologists say
man first entered the area.
The tundra was succeeded by a landscape characterized by herbs and grasses, and
open conifer parkland with some areas supporting spruce, pine, fir and birch forest. The
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 19
Laurel Links Residential Development & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
nature of this landscape changed again about 10,000 years ago, when spruce forest became
dominant. Another change occurred about 7000 years ago, when, as temperatures increased,
this spruce forest was succeeded by a mixture of conifers and deciduous trees. These trees
were, in turn, replaced by oak, hemlock, beech, and, before the blight in the 1930's killed
them, chestnuts. In the Northeast these trees are components of the climax forest.
The archaeological history of man in the area will be further addressed in the second
section of this report, but some comment on their relationship to the land is appropriate here.
In general, it has been thought that the native people of North America had little impact on
the land, but, if European records are to be believed, it is obvious that the Indians of the pre-
Contact period manipulated and significantly altered the landscape through deering and
burning. Their land management techniques, however, were not restricted to agriculture.
Adriaen van der Donck, the frrst European patentee in the Bronx, reports in 1655 that:
The Indians have a yearly custom (which some of our Christians have also
adopted) of bunting the woods, plains at~ meadows in the fall of the year, when
the leaves have fallen, and when the grass and vegetable substances are dry.
Those places which are then passed over are fired in the spring in April. This
practice is named by us and the Indians as 'bush-burning,' which is done for
several reasons: First, to render the hunting easier, as the brush and vegetable
growth renders the walking difficult for the hunter, and the crackling of the dry
substances betrays him and frightens away the game. Secondly, to thin out and
clear the woods of all dead substances and grass, which grow better the ensuing
spring. Thirdly, to circumscribe and enclose the game with in the lines of the
fires, when it is more easily tracked over the burned part of the woods
(Solomon, 1983). '
Similar reports exist for Long Island, where, according to one 19~' century historian,
The islanc~ at the time of discovery, was to a great extent bare of trees. The
cause of this is found in the custom prevailing among the Indians, of burning off
large tracts of land each year, for the purpose of inducing the growth
herbage and grass, which fitrnishes subsistence for deer, and other animals
which they wished to hunt. (Bayles, 1962: 71)
Early European records of visits to New England indicate that the extensive areas along the
coast were clear of underbrush and that large inland areas were treeless. Along the eastern
shores of Long Island Sound, early 17~' century writers report that the woods were
remarkably open, almost park like at times, and reported areas that were sufficiently open to
permit a large army to cross them (Cronon, 1983). Others, writing at a later period, describe
Indian corn and other vegetables growing in cleared fields and orchards with apple, peach and
pear trees. Despite these occasional openings in the forest, it was not until the middle of the
17tu century that wholesale clearing of the forest was undertaken. Initially, the men who
came to the New World did so, not as farmers, who requked open land, but as traders. It
was the abundance of fish and beaver and other game that attracted them.
In contrast with the Dutch controlled areas of New York, such as the Hudson Valley,
where little settlement took place until the 18th century, much of Suffolk County, which, until
the establishment of Greater New York in 1898, included present day Nassau County, was
settled in the mid-17~' century by English families, who came from Massachusetts by way of
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 20
Laurel ! Jnk~ Residential Development & Goff Course. Town of Soufl~old. Suffolk County. New York.
the Colony of New Haven. Despite the fact that some of the families left their former homes
as the result of disagreements with the governmental authorities over matters of theology, the
settlers of the Town of Southold and the other towns on the eastern end of Long Island, were
socially and economically tied to New England rather than to New Amsterdam. This sense of
being allied with New England continued, indeed, umil the years following the American
Revolution. Today, with our focus on the automobile, we see Long Island Sound as a barrier
to travel, but in the 17~' and 18t~ century, when roads were few and primitive, virtually all
travel was by water. In a slope Connecticut and Rhode Island were closer by far than New
York. The same was true in prehistoric times, when the Native American peoples of
Connecticut and eastern Long Island move fi-eely across the Sound, with the result that they
had more in common with each other than with the tribes west of the Hudson River.
PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
In recent years, much information has been gathered on the settlement patterns of the
Native Americans on Long Island; however, despite on-g6ing research, conclusions
concerning the prehistoric of the eastern end of Long Island and its relationship to both the
western part of the island and the southern New England coast must still be considered
preliminary. The material presanted below is a synthesis of the research ofWilliam Ritchie,
Robert Funk, Bert Salwen, Dean Snow, Brian M. Fagan and others.
Paleo-Indian Stage (c. 10,500 - 8000 BC)
To date, some of the earliest evidence of man in our region has been found at a site
called the Dutchess Quarry Cave. Based on radiocarbon dating, the Dutchess Quarry Cave,
which is located on the edge of a former proglacial lake in Orange County, New York, is
assigned to the time period 10,580 BC. It should be noted that the dating of Dutchess
Quarry Cave has remained controversial because it is considered possible by some
archaeologists that the projectile point found in association with the bones of caribou may
have migrated to a lower level in the site through the action of rodents or soil movement, and
is, therefore, not conclusive proof that man was present at the site in 10,580 BC. However,
near Pittsburgh is Meadowcroft Rockshelter, the lower stratum of which has been
radiocarbon dated to between 13,230 and 19,600 BP. Although the dating of Meadowcroft
has also been criticized by conservative archaeologists, it, together with Dutchess Quarry
Cave, indicates that man had entered the Northeast just as the last period of glaciation was
ending. Long Island and the off-shore area inundated by the rising Atlantic Ocean may well
have been inhabited earlier by peoples moving along the coast.
As previously noted, the post-glacial landscape was tundra-like, the colonizing
grasses, sedges and herbs supporting a variety of"big" and small game animals. Among the
fauna was mastodon and mammoth, bones of which are retrieved in fishing nets from the
continental shelf south of Long Island, giant beaver, giant ground sloth, and horse (the horse
we know were brought to North America by the Sl~anish), all of which became extinct, as
well as caribou, musk-ox and bison which persist in modern time.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Slage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Reuort 21
Laurel Links Residential Development & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
Paleo-Indians, as these small bands of nomadic hunters and gatherers are called by
archaeologists, appear to have entered the previously uninhabited Northeast from the south
and west, with the main thrust being from the southeast along the exposed continental shelf
or through the high north-sou{h valleys of the Valley and Ridge Province. (Map 4 & 5).
Their probable path is determined, in part, by the types of foreign chert which are found at
their sites. In New York State, sites have contained "exotics" from areas in Pennsylvania and
Ohio, hence the assumption that they entered southeastern New York State from those
directions. Paleo-lndian sites, identified primarily by the characteristic fluted Clovis javelin or
spear points, are found all over North America. The Clovis point, made by striking long,
narrow flakes from the base of both sides of the projectile, was probably attached to a stick
to produce a javelin or spear. This was used, along with knives and scrapers, in the hunting
and butchering of the animals which the Paleo4ndians used as food. It has traditionally been
assumed that these bands of men and women were strictly "big game" hunters; however, that
assumption has been called into question by the discovery offish, bird, small mammal bones
and some plant remains found in association with Palco-Indian sites such as Shawnee-
Minisink in eastern Pennsylvania. It now seems likely that in addition to the large animals
that comprised their principal food source, they also hunted small game and probably
collected a variety of plants which they processed for food.
Characteristically Paleo-Indian sites are found along major waterways such as the
Hudson River or overlooking former proglacial lakes, as is the case at the Dutchess Quarry
Cave site. Frequently these sites are associated with sources oflithic material, as is the case
at one site in Greene County where a Palco-Indian quarry-workshop complex has been
excavated. More frequently, the sites appear to be temporary campsites. These are located
where it would be possible to watch for game as it moved across the landscape. However,
sites have also been found on flood plains and along migration routes.
Among the Paleo-Indian sites in the general area, the Dutchess Quarry rockshelter,
mentioned above, is notable because of the association of the Clovis point with the bones of
caribou. While animal remains and projectile points have been found in other areas of the
country, this is the only such site known in the Northeast. Although the discovery of Palco-
Indian sites in the Northeast continues, among the most recent being located on the banks of
the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia Enquirer, October 1998), to date such
finds on Long Island are not numerous. However, several fluted points have been found
along waterways flowing off the crest of the terminal moraine south into the Atlantic Ocean
and north into Northport Bay and Smithtown Bay. Other fluted point finds have taken place
on the North Fork, the tip of the Harbor Hill Moraine, and the South Fork, the tip of the
Ronkonkoma Moraine, and west of Lake Ronkonkoma. Based on recovered bones of
mammoth and mastodon from the continental shelf; it appears likely that there may be
additional Paleo-lndian sites off-shore which have been inundated by rising sea levels. (Map 6
& Fig. 3)
Looking at Paleo-Indian finds along the shores of Long Island Sound, several,
including a deeply fluted Clovis projectile point, have been reported from the Town of Rye in
Westchester County. On Long Island, Clovis points (the diagnostic marker for Palco-Indian
peoples) have been reported from Greenport, Bfidgehampton, and Riverhead (see Fig. 1).
While most of these finds were located along the present-day shoreline of Long Island Sound,
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 22
Laurel l.ink~ Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, New York.
at least one (the Riverhead find) was found in the interior north of Riverhead. It must be
pointed out, however, that in Palco-Indian times the environment in which they were found
would have been markedly different than it is today, with present-day islands forming part of
the uplands, overlooking a plain through which there flowed a fresh water stream (Pfeiffer
1982). At the time, it may be presumed that the Peconic Bay was dry land, through which a
number of fresh water streams may have flowed.
With rising sea levels and the creation of modern Long Island Sound, many of the
Palco-Indian and Early Archaic sites that formerly stood on dry land were inundated and
probably destroyed (Pfeiffer 1982). The same point can be made about Palco-Indian finds on
Staten Island, where the Port Mobil site, which in Palco-Indian times would have been an
upland camp overlooking a small stream, later, as the sea levels rose and sediments filled the
low-lying valley, became a site located on the edge of the Arthur Kill (Eisenberg, 1978). The
purpose of these remarks is to point out that the current environmental conditions on the
Laurel Links Site in no way resemble those that existed during Palco-Indian and Early
Archaic times.
Archaic Stage (8000 - 1500 BC)
The Archaic period in New York State is better represented than the Pnleo-Indian. It
is divided into four stages, the Early Archaic (8000-6000 BC), the Middle Archaic (6000-
4000 BC, the Late Archaic (4000-1700 BC) and the Terminal Archaic (1700-1000 BC).
The chronology present here is based on Funk (Funk, 1976). The stages outlined are
characterized by a number of phases, which need not concern us here, except to recognize
that the various phases represent regional manifestations of the widespread Laurentian
culture.
In many important respects the nature of life in the Archaic period was little different
from the nomadic lives lived by the Palco-Indians, however during the time span of the
Archaic significant changes in the envkonment occurred. As mentioned above, the tundra-
like landscape gave way, first to the spruce forest and then to a forest composed of various
conifers, hemlocks and hardwoods. As the hardwood forests advanced northward, a new
ecosystem became available, an ecosystem that provided a range of nuts (in particular the
acorn and hickory), grasses and tubers that supported both the smaller game of the Archaic
period and the human population as well. It was in the hardwood forest areas, rather than in
the pine and hemlock forests, that evidence of man is found.
Like the Paleo-Indian culture, evidence of Archaic man is found throughout north
America. In New York State the culture is identified as Laurentian, a term coined by William
Ritclfie, for many years State Archaeologist. In eastern New York this culture is then broken
into a series of phases: Vergenne, Vosburg, Sylvan Lake, River and Snook Kill. Of these,
only Vosburg and Sylvan Lake are represented in southern New York State, where the
lifeways of the Native Americans were more closely related to southern New England than to
the upper Hudson Valley. Although there are indications that some groups exploited fish and
shellfish, Archaic man is still considered to have been primarily a hunter, the major food
source being the white-tailed deer. Agriculture was not practiced during Archaic times, and,
indeed, remained unknown until Late Woodiand times dating from 700 to I000 AD. Archaic
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 23
Laurel T.ink~ Residential Development & Goff Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
peoples did, however, gather wild vegetables and fruits. Diagnostic traits, meaning those
cultural traits that may be used to identify a group, include the lack of pottery and the
smoking pipe. Ritchie described Archaic peoples as highly mobile, although there is evidence
that at some periods they may have used central base camps from which small bands of men
and women moved to seasonal camps (Ritchie, 1980).
It is hypothesized that this loosely knit group was headed by a chief or, perhaps, a
shaman, who guided them in an advisory capacity. In addition to this simple social system,
the increasingly complex burial customs have led archaeologists to hypothesize that a sense
of territoriality was being developed. It is reasoned that the establishment of cemeteries,
which were used from generation to generation, indicates that the local inhabitants considered
that the land on which the cemeteries were located belonged to them and to their ancestors.
In all probability the territories related to drainage systems and water sheds.
In our region, the Early Archaic is represented by only a few camp sites, which appear
to have been small and temporary. Several of these sites are located on Staten Island and
along the southern shores of Connecticut, but none, to date, have been found on Long Island.
(Map 7)
The Middle Archaic period saw another change in the landscape as the coniferous
forest was replaced by deciduous trees beginning in approximately 6000 BC. While sites of
this period are not numerous, those that exist are usually located on well-drained, low-lying
terraces adjacent to rivers or streams or on the ridges that overlook these water bodies. On
Staten Island, one site, identified as Old Place and related to this general time period, is
located on the banks of the Arthur Kill, where an assemblage of points and scrapers made of
quartzite, rhyolite, argillite, jasper and flint (an analogous term in North America) identified
as typical of the Snook Kill Phase was found at the lowest level (Ritchie, 1980).
With the advent of the Late Archaic period, sites on Long Island become more
numerous, reflecting, it is thought, a substantial increase in the population and more
established settlement patterns. Evidence from the Stony Brook site, located northwest of
the project area in the Town of Smithtown, attests to a well-defined culture in the region
(Ritchie, 1965). Ritchie describes the typical setting of such sites as situated on a well-
drained, sandy, terrace-like slope overlooking a tidal stream, but sites from this period have
also been found on the banks of tidal streams that provide access to the Sound (Ritchie,
1965:14). Comparing the various sites on Long Island, Ritchie draws a picture of small
temporary camps associated with the streams that empty into large bodies of water, such as
the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay, and a people engaged in seasonal activities along
those streams and the adjacent forest uplands (Ritchie, 1965:82).
Ks was the case throughout the Archaic period, the local inhabitants of Long Island
conformed to a centrally-based wandering pattern. They employed the atlatl, which was used
to increase the power of their spears. They hunted deer, which provided approximately 90%
of the protein in their diet, along with turkey, passenger pigeon and small mammals. They
exploited wild vegetable resources, particularly the nuts of the hickory and oak. Heavy
woodworking tools found on their sites suggest that they were engaged in canoe building.
As opposed to the Native American who lived in forested regions and used birch bark
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 24
Laurel l.ink~ Residential Developtncnt & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
canoes, the people living on Long Island produced dugout canoes that were used to travel
Long Island Sound. They made narrow-stemmed projectile points from local lithic materials.
In the case of eastern Long Island, the predominant material was quartz. Little exotic lithic
material has been recovered from Late Archaic sites on Long Island, buttressing the
hypothesis that the peoples of the time were restricted within specific territories.
The material recovered at Stony Brook and the depth of the time period represented
there, indicates that certain areas considered hospitable by earlier groups of people were
often reused by later groups. (Map 8) Although the Stony Brook site was intact prior to its
excavation in 1955-56, many prehistoric sites have been destroyed, especially those along the
shoreline and tidal streams, since Europeans were often attracted to the same locations.
The Transitional Stage (c. 1500 - 1000 BC)
The Archaic period on Long Island was followed by the Transitional Stage. Chief
among the characteristics that separate the Transitional Stage from the earlier period is the
use of soapstone pots with lug handles. Soapstone (steatite) is a scarce resource, available in
a limited number of places, including quarries in Connecticut. It is assumed that the
soapstone vessels found in prehistoric sites on Long Island came from Connecticut, indicating
that cultural exchange and trade took place across that body of water. Another characteristic
of this period is the Orient fishtail projectile point found on sites from Squibnocket on
Martha's Vineyard to the Baxter site in Cutchogue, Rosencrans in eastern Pennsylvania and
north to Lake Champlain. Like their predecessors, the people of the Transitional period
cremated their dead.
Like the people of the Late Archaic, the sites selected by the people in this time
period were frequently on high bluffs and on low-lying terraces along major bodies of water
such as Peconic Bay. The weight of the soapstone pots suggests the use of water transport,
probably the dugout canoe.
Evidence of the Transitional Stage has been found at Stony Brook and at the
Muskeeta Cove site in Glen Cove, both of which are northwest of the project area. In
addition, the Solecki Site 0xIYSM #692), located approximately 3 miles east of the project
area, is reported to date from the Transitional period.
The Woodland Stage (c. 1000 BC - 1500 AD)
The Woodland Stage, like the Archaic is divid~/d into several substages including the
Early Woodland Stage (c. 1000-760 BC), the Middle Woodland Stage (c. 760-400 AD) and
the Late Woodland Stage (c. 400-1500 AD). Again, the characteristic details of each of
these stages need not concern us, except to note that, in addition to the reliance by
archaeologists on the form of projectile points, the presence of fired clay ceramics, which
.replaced the heavier soapstone vessels of the Transitional Period, is a cultural indicator.
Archaeologists use the variations in the decoration of these ceramics as a means to identify
different groups during this period.
Unlike many of their predecessors, the sites used by Woodland groups tend to be
focused away from the major waterways, and are frequently located on high bluffs
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and C'nlmral Resource Report 25
Laurel l.inkn Residential Develooment & Gulf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, Ne~v York.
overlooking inland streams. In later periods there is some indication of the presence of
palisaded villages. Around these sites, on the alluvial plains of nearby streams, the Indian
fields were located. Horticulture, although practiced in other parts of North America at an
earlier date, does not appear in this area until c. 700 AD (Snow, 1980 & Fagan, 1990). The
changeover to cultivation of a variety of domesticates - among them maize, beans, gourds,
sumpweed, groundnut and sunflower - created a marked change in the pattern of land use
and settlement. It was no longer necessary for the entire group to move fi.om place to place
following the seasonal rounds of migration fueled by fluctuating sources of food. Even if
some men continued to travel to the back-country camps to hunt and fish, the women,
children and older men of the tribe would have remained to tend the crops on which they
increasingly relied.
In this period, evidence for the Woodland comes again from Staten Island. The
Bowmans Brook site, located on the northwest shore of Staten Island, is described as a large
village. In general, Woodland sites have been located along tidal streams or coves, with
indications that marine shellfish constituted a large part of the inhabitants' diet. By this
period, it is thought that corn was also raised. Another site, this one located in the Borough
of the Bronx, is Classon's Point. Carlyle S. Smith believes that the Classon's Point Phase
succeeded the Bowmans Brook Phase over a large part of western Long Island and
northward between the Hudson and Housatonic rivers, perhaps as far north as the Hudson
Highlands. Several finds from the Woodland era are located in the Town of Southold,
including the Grathwold Site (NYSM #8240) and the Deep Hole Site (NYSM #8246).
The Contact Period (c. 1600 - 1750 AD)
It is now generally assumed by archaeologist that there was a cultural continuity
between the Indians living on Long Island and in southern Connecticut in the Late Woodland
period prior to the arrival of Europeans in the early 17t~ century and the tribes described by
the Dutch and English in their early records. While archaeologists are extremely careful
about the inferences they draw fi.om the evidence presented, it seems reasonable to assume
that the Corchaug, members of the Algonquian language group that has been described as
living on the eastern end of Long Island, had been the inhabitants of the area for many, many
generations. (Map 9)
To the best of our knowledge, the first European to visit Long Island was Giovanni
da Verrazano in 1527 and 1529 when he is said to have landed on Coney Island. This was
followed by the voyage into New York Harbor and up the Hudson River by Her~ Hudson in
1609. His mate, Robert Juet, kept a log of the journey up the Hudson River, noting that the
Half Moon dropped anchor offan area that we call Coney Island. Juet reported that wildlife
abounded, springs were numerous, the hills offered shelter, and the flyers and streams teemed
with all sorts offinfish and shellfish. Hudson came in contact with various tribes as he sailed
into the harbor and along the shore of the river, but he did not venture into Long Island
Sound, which was not recorded to have been entered by a European until 1614, when Adrian
Block sailed the Restless through Hells Gate.
By the time Block entered Long Island Sound, horticulture had been an important
component of subsistence in the area for a number of centuries. The peoples along the shore
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 26
Laurel Links Residential Develomnent & Golf Course. To~m of Southold. Suffolk Counts'. New York.
of Long Island grew crops near village sites characterized by longhouses occupied by
numerous families. Village sites were located within stockades or spread out in open areas
depending upon the level of hostilities being experienced by the group at any given time.
Hunting continued to represent an important subsistence activity, keyed into a seasonal cycle.
Fishing and shellfish gathering also made up a portion of the subsistence activities, as did the
gathering of wild plant foods.
Archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area range from open-air camps,
including shellfishing camps, to villages and mortuary sites. Carlyle S. Smith, author of The
Archaeology of CoastalNew York, lists 40 Native American sites located on Long Island.
The majority of the sites identified are along Long Island Sound, with one cluster in Brooklyn
and western Nassau County and a second cluster located on the North Fork. At the time that
Smith was writing in 1950, the Stony Brook site in the Town of Smithtown, the Wading
River site and the Jamesport site, both in the Town of Riverhead, had not yet been excavated,
nor had the Sugar Loaf Hill site in the Town of Southampton. Given the date at which he
was writing (1950), it is possible that Smith was aware of Ralph S olecki's investigation of
Native American forts on the eastern end of Long Island and of his finds at Fort Corchaug,
but this is not known for certain. In addition, there are a number of Palco-Indian sites
recorded in the generalized area west of Lake Ronkonkoma, a glacial kettle lake. Unlike the
sites listed in Smith, which are located along the water, the Palco-indian sites are all located
on the spine of the Harbor Hill and Ronkonkoma moraines.
It has already been noted that archaeologists are notoriously reluctant to reach broad-
ranging conclusions, but, based on the archaeological evidence presented above, it is possible
to state with certainty that prehistoric peoples heavily utilized the land surrounding the
LaurelLin~ Site. Several sites are located within 2.5 miles of the project area, but, it is also
possible to state that, with the exception of mol-[uary sites, the majority of the sites are
located on or near fresh water or in association with tidal streams and inlets that provided
access to the rich resources of Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay. The lack of fresh water
within the boundaries of the project area reduces the likelihood that the Native American
peoples utilized the project area as a habitation site. It is, however, possible that the
woodland that would have been present on the site prior to its being cleared for crops and
pasture was the location of temporary hunting and gathering camps.
HISTORIC DISCUSSION
As noted above, the earliest records we have of contact between Europeans and the
Native American peoples living on Long Island date to the early years of the 16t~ century
when Giovanni da Verrazano is thought to have landed on Coney Island. This was followed
in 1609 by more extensive explorations undertaken by Henry Hudson. Hudson also landed at
Coney Island where he was met by the Canarsie Indians, the tribe inhabiting the western.
portion of Long Island. Hudson's first mate, Juet, described the waters teeming with various
species offish and a land of abundant fruit trees and grapevines. Similar descriptions are
available from the late 17th century, when, in 1670, Daniel Denton described Long Island in
A Brief Description of New- York, Formerly Called New-Netherlands:.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 27
Laurel l.ink~ResidentialDevelopment&GolfCourse. Town of Southold. SuffolkCountw, NexvYork.
Long Island... runs Eastward above one hundred miles, attd is fit some places
eight, itt some twelve, in some fourteen miles broad; it is inhabited from one end
to the other. On the FFest end is four or five Dutch Towns; the rest being
English to the number of twelve, besides l/'illages attd Farm houses. The Island
is most of it of very good soil, and very natural for all sorts of English Grain;
which they sow attd have very good increase of, besides all other Fruits attd
Herbs common itt Englcatd, as also Tobac, Hemp, Flax, Pumpkitts, Melons, etc.
·.. The greatest part of the Island is very full of Timber, as Oaks white and red,
Walnut-trees, Chestnut-trees, which yieM store of Mast for Swine... also
Maples, Cedars, Saxifrage, Beech, Birch, Holly, Hazel, with many sorts more...
· The Island is plentifully stored with aH sorts of English Cattle, Horses, Hogs,
Sheep, Goats, etc.; no place itt the North of ~lmerica better, which they can both
raise attd maintain, by reason of the large attd spacious Meadows or Marches,
wherewith it is furnished, the Island likewise producing excellent English grass,
the seed of which was brought out front England, which they sometime mow
twice a year. For wilde Beast, there is Deer, Bear, Wolves, Foxes, Raccoons,
Otters, Muskrats and Skunks, WiM Fowl, there is great store of, as Turla~ys,
Heath-Hens, Quads, Partridges, Pidgeons, Cranes, Geese, of several sorts,
Brants, Ducks, Widgeons, Teal attd divers others... (Denton 1966:3-6)
Denton also described the streams and rivers which entered the oceans offLong Island, all
abounding in fish, and the salt water areas where shellfish were harvested by the Indians to be
taken to Manhattan to market. Denton described in some detail the lives of the Indians
whom he found living on Long Island, and identified the types of crops grown on Long Island
during the last quarter of the 17th century, along with the types of anirnals raised by the
farmers of the island, and the game animals and birds hunted by both the Indians and the
European inhabitants. He identified the importance of the meadows and marshes that were'
mown for fodder, and the woods that provided timber for building, wood for the kitchens and
homes of the farmers, and mast (acorns, walnuts and chestnuts) for the swine that ran free in
them.
By the time that Denton wrote his description, Long Island had been settled for halfa
century, with the western end of Long Island being settled in the 1620's and the eastern end
beginning in the 1640's. According to historians, by the time of Contact there were thirteen
identifiable tribes on Long Island. These were:
1. the Matinecock on the west side of Long Island from Flushing to the east line of
Huntington;
2. the Nissaquogue, east of Huntington to Stony Brook;
3. the Setauket from Stony Brook to Wading River;
4. the Corchaug on the North Fork east of Wading River;
5. the Manhasset on Shelter Island
6. the Montauk on the South Fork included in the Town of Easthampton;
7. the Shinnecock around Canoe Place and east to Easthampton;
8. the Unkechaug (Unquechog) or Patchog from the east line oflslip to western part
of Southampton;
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review attd Cultural Resource Report 28
Laurel LillkS Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, New York.
9. the Secatogue from the west line of Suffolk County, which then included Nassau
County, to the east part oflslip;
10. the Massepequa on the south side of the island west of Suffolk County;
11. the Merrick, also on the south side of the island west of Suffolk County;
12. the Canarsie in Kings County and Jamaica;
13. and the Rockaway, located in part of Jamaica and Newtown.
The territories described for the various group would support the identification of the
Comhang as the group in possession of the LaurelLinks Site at the time Of Contact.
According to archaeologists, the Corehaug, and a number of the other tribes on the eastern
end of Long Island, were linguistically and, it is assumed, culturally allied with the peoples
living in what is today eastern Connecticut. The linguistic group to which they belonged
were the Mohegan-Pequot, one variant of the Algonquian language that, with the exception
of the Mohawk, was spoken by all the people along the coast of Nfrth America fi.om Nova
Scotia to North Carolina.
The Establishment of Suffolk County
The detailed history of Long Island and Suffolk County falls outside out area of
concern, except to report that from the early years of the 17th century Long Island had been
an area of contention between the English colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut and the
Dutch colony of New Amsterdam. From the English viewpoint, all of Long Island, and,
indeed, all of the land lying between the 40th and 48t~ parallels, belonged to England, having
been granted to the Plymouth Company by King James in 1620. In 1635, the douncil of the
Plymouth Company had, in turn, granted this land to William Alexander, Earl of Sterling,
who, in his turn, appointed James Farrett as his agent in North America (Bayles, 1962).
Although the Dutch and English disputed the ownership of Long Island, as a practical matter,
Kings County and the western portion of Suffolk County, which at the time included the area
of present-day Nassau county, remained under the administration of the Dutch in New
Amsterdam until 1664, when the British took New Amsterdam, renaming it New York, while
present-day Suffolk County was, as previously noted, influenced and settled from the English
colonies in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The line dividing the Dutch and English areas of
influence ran in a line south fi.om Oyster Bay.
Lyon Gardiner, whose family still holds Gardiners Island, was the first English settler
of record in Suffolk County in the year 1639. He was followed by others, including a number
of families from Lynn, Massachusetts, who founded Southampton in 1640. Southold, from
which Riverhead was erected in 1792, was founded in the same year. Easthampton followed
in 1648, with Shelter Island in 1652, Huntington in 1653 and Brookhaven in 1655.
Smithtown was founded in 1663. All of these towns, whether established by families fi'om
Massachusetts or from Connecticut, were founded as corporate bodies by a number of
families, who, joining together, purchased their land fi'om the Indian proprietors. However,
the details of the governmental administration varied from town to town, with Southold being
administered as a theocracy, in which only church members were admitted to the privileges of
freemen.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 29
Lanrel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
As administrative units, the counties of New York State came into being on
November 1, 1683, when the legislature divided the Province of New York into twelve
counties. The original counties were: Dutchess (of which Putnam County was part until
1812), Albany, Cornwall (now part of Maine), Dukes (now part of Massachusetts), Kings,
New York, Orange (which then included Rockland County), Queens, Richmond, Suffolk (of
which Nassau County was a part until 1898), Ulster and Westchester. Suffolk County was
then one of the original twelve.
History of the Town of Southold
It is stated in the histories of Long Island and Suffolk County that the Town of
Southold (from which the Town of Riverhead was erected in 1792) was first settled in 1640
by a group of Englishmen, many of whom emigrated to Long Island from Lynn,
Massachusetts (Bayles, 1962). As noted above, many of the towns on Long Island were
corporate in nature, but Southold, which was established under the leadership of the
Reverend John Youngs, was essentially a theocracy, in which only church members were
given the privileges of freeman. Among the early families settling in the Town of Southold
were, of course, the Youngs family, along with the Mapes family, and the Wells family.
The area comprising the Town of Southold - and, subsequently, the Town of
Riverhead - was under the control of the Corchaugs, one of the thirteen identified tribes on
Long Island, who are described as the Indian proprietors of the land on the North Fork of
Long Island east of Wading River. Although settlement had taken place in 1640, it is
recorded that in 1648 the Corchaugs were paid 2 fathoms of wampum, 1 iron pot, 6 coats, 10
knives, 4 hooks, and 40 needles for the land that became the Town of Southold (Wells
1987:4-5).
In 1664, following the Dutch surrender of New York to the British, the Dutch areas,
along with the remaining land on Long Island, Staten Island, and a part of Westchester
County were, for administrative purposes formed into a "Riding" called "Yorkshire." The
"Ridings" were further divided, with the "East Riding" corresponding approximately with the
boundaries of present-day Suffolk County. The seat of government was in Southold village,
where the county courthouse and jail Were built. This village was later considered to be
inconveniently located for the families on the South Fork, and by 1727 the seat of the
government of Suffolk County had been moved to the village of Riverhead.
Although the eastern end of Long Island had been settled in the mid-17a- century,
throughout the 18th century it remained sparsely populated. The occupation of the
inhabitants was primarily farming, with fishing and whaling industries associated with the
coastal towns. Greenport, East Marion and Orient - ail on the eastern end of the North Fork
- were particularly involved in the whaling industry. Other villages engaged in fishing - with
much of the fish being divided up among the families to be used as fertilizer to enrich the
sandy soils of the Town of Southold. Wood was harvested as a crop, and shipped to New
York, New Haven, Boston and the West Indies. The areas cleared of trees were then planted
with crops such as corn, or developed as pastureland. Over time, as machines began to
replace horse power, pasture gave way to more crop land.
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource R~port 30
Laurel Links Residential Development & Goff Course. Town of $outhold. Suffolk County. Nexv York.
Following the Battle of Brooldyn in August, 1776, Suffolk County, along with the
rest of Long Island, was under the cbntrol of the British. Indeed, the British looked upon
Long Island as their larder, requisitioning large quotas of livestock, hay, grain and other
produce, making the lives of the inhabitants "hard and difficult. Despite this, the men on the
eastern end of the island, who favorec~ the Revolutionary cause, maintained regular, though
clandestine, contact with Connecticut and the rest of the north coast of Long Island Sound.
Men and supplies traveled under cover of darkness from one side to the other, and, an on at
least one occasion, boats from Connecticut attacked British ships as they sailed toward New
York.
As noted above, in 1792, following the American Revolution, the Town of Riverhead,
was erected from the Town of Southold, and formed the Town of Southold's western
boundary. The northern boundary of the Town of Southold is Long Island Sound, the
southern Peconic Bay, and the eastern the top of Long Island. The governmental center is
the village of Southold, located some distance east of the project area. The earliest European
settler in the town was John Tooker, who, in 1659, along with his partner, Joseph Horton,
established a sawmill near the head of the Peconic Rix;er. Tooker was given the mill grant
with the stipulation that he would supply the Town of Southold with wood from "tyme to
tyme" (Wells, 1987:4). Between 1661 and 1711 the township was divided into four
allotments, referred to as "Aquebogues", which were granted to petitioners for settlement. In
1727 a county courthouse was built in the village of Riverhead, and the following year the
county seat was moved from Southold to Riverhead.
The Town of Southold, although now separate from the Town of Riverhead, shares
many elements of its history with Riverhead and a number of the other towns on the eastern
end of the island. Like other towns, livestock, grains, hay and wood were products that were
regularly shipped to market - either by boat or by road, for despite the fact that the fastest
mode of transportation would have been by boat, roads had been laid out in the eastern part
of the island by 1702. Indeed, a stage ran weekly from Brooklyn to Sag Harbor prior to the
American Revolution. The trip, punctuated by numerous stops for rest, meals and sleep,
took three days, far in excess of the time needed for the trip by sloop along Long Island
Sound. On Long Island there were three east-wast roads: the South Country Road, Middle
Country Road (now corresponding to Route 25 in the vicinity of the project area) and North
Country Road. These roads, which were a uniform four rods (66 feet) wide, are assumed to
have followed closely prehistoric paths which had been used by the Indian inhabitants of
Long Island.
In addition to these major roads, by 1735 there were numerous subsidiary roads and
trails that connected the villages and interior farmsteads and woodlots of Suffolk County.
These roads, usually separated from the main highway by a gate, were generally two rods (33
feet) wide. Roads, nonetheless, remained primitive, though the establishment of turnpikes
throughout New York State in the early years of the 19th century, did improve the condition
of the roadbed. In 1810 the Brooklyn and Jamaica Company extended its turnpike road to
Hempstead, Jericho and into Smithtown. One toll gate on the Middle Post Road (successor
to the Middle Country Road) was located immediately east of the Town of Huntington
boundary with the Town of Smithtown. In the middle of the 19th century, turnpikes were
augmented in many areas by plank roads. Despite these advances, by today's standards, all
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Rgp0rt 31
Laurell.ink~ResidentialDevelopment&GolfCourse. TownofSouthold. SulTolkCounty, NewYork.
the roads of Suffolk County were primitive, and it was not until the 1890's and the
introduction of the bicycle that there was a movement to establish good roads on Long
Island.
Mail was delivered in Suffolk County by 1764, but there was no post offices in the
county until the early years of the 19u. century. Families expecting mail would call at the
docks along Long Island Sound that were closest to their homes or at the nearest inn or
tavern along the roads. However, when post offices were established, one of them was at
Mattituck, a short distance east and north of the project area. By the 1830's the hamlet area
of Franklinville was marked by a church, though it had no post office. In and around
Franklinville (later Laurel) were a number of farms, several of which were later to become
part of the LanrelLinks Site. The project area will be discussed in a separate section of this
report, but we may imagine the area around Franklinville as possessing "... fruitful fields,
and large, well filled barns, granaries and stock-yards, which.., speaks in evidence of the
success with which agriculture is carried on" (Bayles, 1962:284).
Besides agriculture, it appears that by the mid-19t~ century cordwood had become
another one of the important resources of Long Island. According to one writer, this part of
Long Island was "covered with fine black oaks and some other oaks, together with pine,
chestnut and a number of other species. It was not until the mid-19t~ century that coal was
first mined in Pennsylvania, but it was many years before the railroads made transportation of
the coal to metropolitan areas feasible. Prior to that wood was essential for heat, and until
the late 1860's Suffolk County produced more wood than any other county in the state.
Cordwood was cut and hauled to the beaches at Fresh Pond, Jericho Landing, Roanoke,
Penny's and Luce's landings, Duck Pond Point, and to inlets such as Mattituck and
Goldsmith's Inlet, where it was loaded on sloops for shipment to New York City. The slopes
were sailed in to the shore at high tide, lay on the beach during low tide while they were
loaded, and were then re-floated at the next high tide.
ARer cordwood, whaling was the second most important industry on Long Island.
Small-scale offshore whaling had undoubtedly taken place from prehistoric times, but in the
second quarter of the 19~ century, whaling here, like in New England, became a world-wide
enterprise. As noted above, Greenport, East Marion and Orient were the hubs of the whaling
industry in the Town of Southold. Whale oil was sent from these villages to light the lamps
of New York and other cities, towns and villages. The first oil well was not drilled until
1859, but once it became readily available it rapidly replaced whale oil, destroying the
whaling industry.
In addition to these industries, stockralsing continued to be one of the primary
occupations for the farmer.
The growing need for easy access to the markets in New York City provided an
impetus for the railroad in Suffolk County. The first effort to being the ralkoad into Suffolk
County was made in 1836, when the Long Island Railroad was authorized by the New York
State legislature to extend the tracks of the Brooklyn Central and Jamaica railroad from
Jamaica to the eastern end of Long Island. At that time it was the intention that the railroad
would terminate at Brooklyn Ferry on the East River, with a spur into Williamsburgh, where
laarelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 32
Laurel Links Rcsidcntial Development & Goff Course. Town of Southald. Suffolk County. New York.
passengers and goods from the eastern areas of the island could travel to Manhattan by ferry.
In the end, a connection with the ferries to Manhattan did not prove feasible, and the Long
Island Railroad terminated at Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue in downtown Brooklyn.
The Long Island Railroad runs across the northern portion of the project area, with a bridge
carrying the line across Route 25 at the northwestern corner of the property. It does not
appear that the trains stopped in Franldinville in the second quarter of the 19m century, since
the closest station is at Cutchogue.
Until recently, agriculture remained, as it had been for 200 years, the primary focus on
eastern Long Island, changing from subsistence farming to commercial farming, with
potatoes and cauliflower the primary crops. Details of the farming activities in the town will
be addressed in the discussion of the LaurelLinks Site. Today that industry is giving way to
vineyards, as well as vacation and weekend homes, but in past years industry and commercial
development have also brought families to the area who make the North Fork their year-
round home.
The Laurel Links Site
The land that includes the LaurelLinks Site, appears on early maps of Long Island
and Long Island Sound. In a coastal chart, dated 1855, the project area is included. (Map
10) Several features of interest are included on this map:
The point at which the Long Island Railroad crosses Route 25 permits a precise
identification of the project area.
A number of water features, including Laurel Lake (north of Route 25), Brush's
Creek (west of the project area) and Horton Creek (east of the project area) can be
located, but the wetland in the south central portion of the project area is not
indicated.
· At the time no dwellings appear within the boundaries of the project area south of
the railroad.
· There were a series of fields along the highway and railroad, but the interior of the
property was pastureland or lightly wooded.
Three years later (1858), J. Chase prepared a detailed map of Suffolk County, including the
project area. On that map he shows Laurel, which he refers to as Franklinville. At that time
there were a number of dwellings along the highway (Middle Country Road), one of which
may have been located within [he boundaries of the project area. At the time the Clarks, the
Williamsons, the Corwins, the Hudsons, the Howells, the Youngs, and the Wells were among
the families living in the vicinity of the project area. The church and cemetery had been built
by 1830-31 and a school had been established. As noted above, J. Wells then owned part of
the LaurelLinks Site. Another J. Wells lived immediate to the east, but on the north side of
the highway. According to this map, the land along Middle Country Road (now Route 25)
was farmland, while a good deal of the interior land was either pastureland or remained
forested.
In 1873 Frederick W. Beers showed Franldinville and the project area on Plate 178-
79 of his Atlas of Long Island. (Map 11) As was seen on the 1858 map of the area,
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resourc~ Consultants
Stage lA Literature Review and Cultural Resource Report 33
Laurel l.ink~ Residential Development & Golf Course. To~vn of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Franklinville was not a hamlet that clustered around a crossroad, but was stretched out along
Middle County Road, with the Presbyterian church, the parsonage, the cemetery and the
school near the intersection of the main road and present-day Aldrich Lane which ran north
to intersect with present-day Sound Avenue. At the time, Laurel Lake, a kettle lake and
source of fresh water, was identified as "Hallocks or City Pond." Besides not having a post
office, the hamlet of Franldinville also lacked a blacksmith shop, indeed, the only industry in
the hamlet was a carpenter shop.
The farms in this part of the Town of Southold were laid out as long lots extending
from the highway south to Great Peconic Bay. Traditionally the dwellings and farm buildings
were located adjacent to the highway, to provide easy access in bad weather, with the farm
fields and wood lots behind them. It appears that this was the case in this part of the Town
of Southold. Beers' map indicates that John and Joseph Wells owned the majority of the
project area. The Wells family had been among the original settlers of the Town of Southold,
as had the Youngs, who also owned farms in the immediate vicinity. Both John and Joseph
Wells had dwellings located within the boundaries of the project area. To the west was a
dwelling owned by F. M. Hallock, with a farm owned by M. T. Youngs west of the Hallock
property. Portions of both these farms are part of the Laurel Links property.
By 1909 the Youngs farm was owned by Albert W. Young. (Map 12) The property
extended from north of the railroad southward toward Great Peconic Bay Boulevard.
However, by the early years of the 20t~ century, a number of the farms no longer extended
across Great Peconic Bay Boulevard to the water. The Youngs farm is an example of this.
East of the Young property, George Clark owned a small parcel that extended north and
south of the railroad. In 1873 F. M. Hallock had owned this property. P. Montfort now
owned the John Wells farm. South of the raikoad in the northeastern comer of the property
were four structures. The nature of these buildings is not indicated, but one may surmise that
they included a dwelling, barn and outbuildings. The Montfort farm extended south to Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, but no further. East of the Monffort property, was the farm cfR.
W. Wells. Joseph Wells had owned this farm in 1873. On this farm the buildings were
concentrated in the northwestern comer of the property. Again, the nature of the buildings is
not shown, but a dwelling and farm outbuildings may be postulated. The current eastern
boundary of the Laurel Link, Site was the boundary in 1909. Immediately to the eastern on
the northern part of the property the adjacent property owner was C. & F. Bray. Bray
Avenue had been opened between Route 25 and Great Peconic Bay Boulevard. In the
southeastern portion of the Wells farm the adjacent property owner was one of the Hallocks.
During the last 100 some years the property has produced a variety of crops, with the
prime crop until recent years being, as it has been on so many Long Island farms, the potato.
Throughout many of these years, cauliflower has been the second most important cash crop
in the area, but corn and pumpkins have also been grown.
Recently farming on Long Island has changed into a big business, and, squeezed by
the expenses of large scale farming, many of the farms on Long Island have given way to
tracts of houses and shopping centers. In addition to residential and commercial development,
a number of the farms on the North Fork have been transformed into vineyards, whose
product has steadily increased and improved. However, suburhanization has reached even
laurelksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IA Literature Review and Cultural Resource l~eport 34
Laurel l.inkn Renidential Development & Golf Course, Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~,, New York.
easternmost Long Island, as the needs of farnilies for Places to live has grown. It is no longer
only the wealthy seeking a summer or week-end retreat who come to live there, but families,
some of whom work on eastern Long Island, but many of whom travel many miles to their
places of employment in western Long Island and metropolitan New York.
lau~elksla City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDIX B
MAPS & FIGURES
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDIX B
MAP LIST
Map 1:
Map 2:
Map 3:
Map 4:
Map 5:
Map 6:
Map 7:
Map 8:
Map 9:
Map 10:
Map 11:
Map 12:
Location Map including Project Area. USGS Tope. 7.5 Minute Series.
Riverhead Quad. Scale: 1:24,000.
Physiographic Map of North End of Emhayed Section of Atlantic Coastal
Plain. Scale: included on map. (taken from Eisenbers, 1978)
Development of Progiacial Lake Passaic, Hackensack, Hudson & Flushing.
Scale: included on maps. (taken fi'om Eisenberg, 1978)
Physiographic Map of Coastal Plain & Continental Shelf.. Scale: included
on map. (taken from Eisenberg, 1978)
Physiographic Map of Appalachian Highlands. Scale: included on map.
(taken from Eisenberg, 1978)
Mastodon & Mammoth Finds on Submerged Continental Shelf. Scale: No
scale included. (Fig. 3.1 from Snow, 1980)
Some Early and Middle Archaic Sites. Scale: No scale included. (Fig. 4.4
from Snow, 1980)
Late and Terminal Archaic Sites. Scale: No scale included. (Fig. 5.1 from
Snow, 1980)
Distribution of major cultural units in aboriginal New England around
A.D.1600. Scale: No scale included. (Fig. 2.1 from snow, 1980)
1855 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map of Middle Part of Long Island,
including Project Area. Scale: Enlarged, no scale.
Frederick W. Beers' 1873 Map of Riverhead from Atlas of Long Island,
New York. Scale: 1.5" = 1 Mile.
E. Belcher Hyde's 1909 Map of a Portion of Riverhead including Project
Area. Scale: 1" = 1000'.
HGURE LIST
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Native Americans of Riverhead. (from Austen, 1992)
Archaeologically Sensitive Zones (Putsch for
Archaeological Association, 1978)
Suffolk County
Sea Levd Changes on the Continental ShelfoffNew Jersey. (Fig. 3.2 fi'om
Snow, 1980)
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Latli~! I.inks R e~irl~ntii~! D~we, lo?ment & Oo]f Collr~. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count,/. New York
~,fap 1; Location Mao in¢l~dino Project Area. USGS To~o. 7.5 Minute Series. Se, ale: 1:12.000
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultmal ~urce Coasultarits
Harbor
Hill moraine.
Southern limit
of g 3n
~qo Tremon
Sandy Hook
Asbury Park
Philodelp~
ic City
Cope May
Plymou~'~'
Cope
Cod
...."'" Martha's
· Vineyard
· '"'Ol~l(~ck Island
Nantuckel
konkoma moraine
50 lO0 Miles
I ~ I
Scale
l.atlrel I inks R~,_,:identi~l Dcv¢loomcnt & Golf Course. Town 9f Southold. Suffolk County, New York
'~{ap 3: Development o~pz'oo'laclnl Lake Pas.sale, Hack¢lksack. Hudson & Flushing,. Scale: on mao. fEisenber~.. 1978)
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consullants
Laurel !.inkg ~e~irlentinl Devglonmem & G01f C0ul'~. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York
~fap 4: Phvsiov. ra~hic Mao of Coastal Plain & Continental Sheff. Scale: on mao. CEisenbcrg. 1978)
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
I,aurel !.in~ ltenidentinl Development & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York
Map 5: Physiographic Ma~ of NotOl End of Embaved Section of Atlantic Ceaslal Plain, {'Eiseaber~. 1978: Fi~ 41
Highest Peak~
l'. ,~It. Katahdin, Me. 5268 ft
2. Mt. Washington. N.H. 6288 Et
3. Mt. ,~iaflsfield, Vt. 4393 ft
4. Mt. Gre},lock. ,',lass. 3491 ft
Sa. Mt..~{arcy, N.Y. 5S44 ft
5b. Slide Mm.. N.Y. 4204 it
6. Mt. Davis, Pa. 3213 it
7. Backbone Mtn., Md. 3340 ft
Adirondack
Province
8. Spruce Knob Mm.~W. Va. 4860 R
9. Big Black Mm.. Ky. 4130 it
10. Mt. Rogers, Va. 5719 ft
11. MC Mitchell. N.C. 6684 It
12. Clingmans Dome, Tenn. 6642 it
13. Brasstown Bald, Ga. 4768 it
14. Cheaha Mm., Ala. 2407 fi
Triadic Basin
Ct Connecticut River Basin
N Newark Basin
G Gettysburg Basin
Cu Culpepper .Basin
R Richmond B~in
D Danville Basin
DR Deep River Basin
lau~¢llksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
I,aur¢llJnk~l~'idemi01 Development&Golf Course. Town of Southold. ~UffolkCounty, NewYork
~,~ap 6: Mastodon & b,i'n~mmoth Fill~ on Submerged Continental Shelf, Scale: None. (Fig. 3.1 from Snow. 1980)
laar¢llksla · CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
t~_~j~e! !.in]~ ]~e~idenflsl Development ~c Coif Com~. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count. New York
Map 7: Some Early & Middle Archaic Sites, Scale; None included. ~i~. 4.4 from Snow. 1980)
CITY/SCAPE: Culturol Resource Consultants
Laure! I.inl~ l~e~idem'ial Development & Goff Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York
~ap 8; Late & Terminal Arcing Sites. Scale: None included. (Fio. 5.1 from Snow, 1980)
LOCATION
la~elllmla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Reaoume Cona'ultanta
t.aur~l l.inkn Re_nidenlial Develonment & Goff Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Countv. New York
Map 9; Distribution of major cultund units in aboriginal New EneJand c. AD 1600. Scale: None. (Snow. 19g0:Fi,,. 2.11
BENAKI
POCUMTUCI
Q UIRIPI-
laUr~llksla CI'I'Y/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Laurel l.inl~ l~o_~identin! Development & Golf Court. Town of So~lthold SuffnJl~ ColmW. N~,v York
~ap I0; 1855 U.S. C~s~p! Survey Mao of Middle Part of Lon~' l~ls~nd inehldln~ Project Area. Enlarg~l. no scale.
laur¢llksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Lau~l LinltxResidentinlDev¢lonment &Golf Course. TownofSouthold. SuffolkCountv. NewYork
Map 11: 187:] l~eers' Map of Town of $outhold from.dtlas o£Lonr~ Island, New York. Scale: 1.5" -- 1 Mile
~aarcllksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
L_am'el Links Residential Develooment & Golf Course. Town of Southold, Suffolk CounW. NeW York
Map 12; 1909 Map of Town 0f Southold includin~ Prelect Alva. Scale; 1' = 1000"
laurel/ksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Laurel Links Residential Development & Goff Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York
¥ig. I; Native Americans of Riverhcad (from Austin, 1992)
laarellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural P, csource Consullanls
Suffolk (ounky Archneologlcal A~sociation
CULIURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY, 1978
~bori~]lnal h~d~i L o t i
Lam~l Links Residential D~-,'eiopment & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York
~ig. 3: Sea Level Changes on tho Continental SheffoffNew Sersev. (Fi~. 3.2: Snow, 1980).
DISTANCE IN KH
50 SO 100 tSO
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Rr.~ur~ Consullanls
STA GE lB ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development & Golf Course
Route 25. Hamlet of Laurel
Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
prepared For:
Dru Associates, Inc.
40 Hitching post Road
Glen Cove, New York 12603
Prepared By:
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
726 Carroll Street
Brooklyn, N~v York 11215
July 1999
LAUREL LINKS
Residential Development & Golf Course
Route 25. Hamlet of Laurel.
Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...................................................................... 1
Project Area Description ...................................................
Environmental Setting ....................................................... 2
Archaeological Setting ....................................................... 3
General Prehistoric Background ........................................ 4
Archaeological Sensitivity .................................................. 7
Testing Strategy .............................................................. 10
Field Methodology .......................................................... 10
Field Results .................................................................... 11
Summary and Conclusions ............................................... 12
Bibliographic References ................................................. 13
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Shovel Test Records
Appendix B: Artifact Catalogue
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Maps & Figures
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
INTRODUCTION
On June 16, 16, 18, 21 and 22, 1999 City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
completed a Field Reconnaissance level archaeological survey &the LaurelLinks
ResidentialDevelopment and Golf Course (referred to here as Laurel Links) site, Route
25, Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Archaeological
field work was directed by Stephanie Roberg-Lopez M.A., R.O.P.A. and Gall T. Guillet.
Preparation of the final report and the Field Reconnaissance Map was completed by
Stephanie Roberg-Lopez, Principal Investigator. Production &the report, Shovel Test
Records and photographs were completed by Gail T. Guillet. Excavation crew through
the duration of the project included: Luis Lopez, Bolivar Lopez, Jorge Lopez, Beth
Murphy, Kristin Brown and Chandra Casteel.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
(SEE ALSO, STAGE lA LITERATURE REVIEW, CITY/SCAPE, MAY 1999)
The site is an approximately 222.85 acre parcel that is located on the south side of
Main Road (NYS Route 25) in the hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, Suffolk County,
New York. (Map 1 & 2). The project area is composed of open farmland with small
patches of woodland and wetland, surrounded by residential development and local
parkland. The shoreline of Peconic Bay lies a short distance to the south. To the north
the project area is bounded by NYS Route 25 and the Long Island Railroad, which runs
southwest to northeast across the northern portion of the property. Northwest &the
Long Island Railroad tracks is a small portion of the property, along with an outparcel that
is now or was formerly owned by Frank E. J. Carlin and W. F. Carlih. The Carlin
property is located between Parcel C and Parcel D, both identified as Open Space. Parcel
C contains 0.75 acres, while parcel D contains 1.84 acres. In addition to the open space
parcels, there is land identified as Lot 31 (containing 2.39 acres) that will contain several
structures required for the maintenance of the golf course.
Moving south of the Long Island Railroad tracks, the property is bounded on the
east by a number of residential structures that front on Bray Avenue, which runs generally
north-south between Route 25 and Peconic Bay Boulevard, on the south by residential
development that fronts on Peconic Bay Boulevard, and on the west by residential
development that fronts on Delmar Drive. Here, as on the eastern boundary, the
development is divided by several short streets that end at the project area property line.
These streets are Emma Drive, which parallels the Long Island Railroad tracks, Gina
Street, and Joseph Street. At the southern end Delmar makes a right angle turn, then
extends south along the project boundary line to end at Peconic Bay Boulevard.
Documentary research on the Laurel Links site reveals that relatively little
disturbance has occurred on the land surface. The single exception involves the strip of
land along the Route 25 border of the parcel. Construction of the Long Island Railroad
and the collateral disturbance associated with the construction of Route 25 represent
laurclksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultm~ts
Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 2
LaurelLinksResidentialDevelopment&GolfCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, New York.
serious disturbance episodes. Additionally, the parcel was a long established farming
landscape and a number of dwellings and associated outbuildings were clustered along
this Route 25 border. Beyond this disturbance, however, the balance of the parcel is
relatively intact, with the original logging and subsequent plowing being the main
mechanisms of surface disturbance. There is a well established plow zone, recent growth
forest that was probably previously plowed, and undisturbed soils in the wetland zone.
The highest point on the project area is 38 feet above sea level on the north side of
the Long Island Railroad tracks. The lowest point is 25 feet above sea level at the lowest
depression in the wetland ecosystem. Soils on the site are a mosaic of typical glacial
deposits, and include Plymouth loamy sand, Riverhead sandy loam, and'Haven loam. The
soils are overall, well drained. Drainage in prehistoric times and before modern
development would have been southward via the wetland on the site or westward to
Brush's Creek, both draining toward the Great Peconic Bay.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Unlike other landscapes that have been stable for many thousands of years, the
archaeological landscape of Long Island must be evaluated in the context of its recent
geophysical history. Human activity on this island has been greatly impacted by the effects
of the most recent glacial episode in the northern hemisphere. This geological eveot, the
Wisconsin glaciation, essentially created the landscape that we see today.
As discussed in the Stage lA Literature Review, Long Island is one of several high
points along a series of terminal moraines that track the coast of New England. Like Long
Island, features such as Block Island, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Cape Cod
represent high points along the now submerged Atlantic Coastal Plain. During the glacial
maximums, so much water was held in the massive ice caps that sea level was lowered by
as much as 300 feet. The effect on the immediate vicinity of Long Island was the
exposure of a vast inhabited coastal plain stretching for hundreds of miles into what is now
part of the Atlantic Ocean. (Fig. 1) Taken in this perspective, we must consider the fact
that for the earliest human residents of the northeastern United States, Long Island was
inland, and it was high ground on the coastal plain. The earliest human sites were almost
surely far out on the plain at what must then have been shoreline. Most traces of early
human activity are very probably now submerged, an assumption bolstered by the
recovery of Palco-Indian points and fossils of extinct Pleistocene mammals from Long
Island Sound and the submerged coastal plain offNew England. (see Fig. I)
To interpret human activity on Long Island, and to construct a model to predict
the location of zones of human activity it is necessary to understand the geophysical
process that has gradually shaped the moderu landscape. Long Island has been an
ecosystem in steady transition. The soils of Long Island consist primarily of morainal
deposits. The Harbor Hill moraine tracks the north shore of the Island and the
Ronkonkoma moraine runs along the center of the Island, forming twin backbones along
the length of the feature. Between these two glacial features and stretching away
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Sur~ey 3
Laurel Links Residential Develomnent & Golf Course. Town of Soufl~old. Suffolk County. New York.
southward are glacial outwash plains. These plains are comprised of sand and gravel
deposits punctuated by kettle holes, eskers and kames that were formed when the
Wisconsin ice cap retreated. Along with numerous small streams and rivers, these glacial
features play an important role in Long Island archaeology as they are important sources
of fresh water inland and along the island's shore.
Since the retreat of the glacier, a process that began some 15,000 to 17,000 years
ago, a succession of plant ecosystems has colonized Long Island. The first landscape to
follow the ice was park-tundra, a spruce dominated forest. The next ecosystem, around
10,000 BP was dominated by pine forest, which was subsequently, replaced by hardwood
forest some 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. Among the tree species present were oak, chestnut,
pine, walnut, hickory and beech. This hardwood forest, according to Frank Turano (cited
in Lightfoot, 1985) probably contained a wide spectrum of plant resources from mast nuts
including acorns, chestnuts, hickory and beech nuts to wild berries, ground nuts and seeds.
Interior kettle ponds and streams would have provided fresh water and fish. Wildlife
would have included deer, turkeys, squirrels, and most of the other common forest
dwelling mammals. In addition to the freshwater fish in the interior, anadromous fish
would have been available along coastal-linked streams. The modern landscape has been
significantly altered from this hardwood forest state, largely due to human activity. The
prehistoric inhabitants of Long Island are known to have periodically burned offthe forest
growth to promote new grassland and attract game. As a result, features such as the Pine
Barrens emerged, comprised of the pines and oaks that make up a more fire-resistant plant
community. These have expanded at the expense &the less fire-tolerant species. With
the coming of the Europeans, the landscape changed further. On eastern Long Island, the
woodlands were extensively harvested for cordwood (see City/Scape: Cultural Resource
Consultants: May1999: pp 5& 6). The forests were further depleted as the settlers opened
the landscape for farming and pastureland. Recent residential and industrial development
have combined with the agricultural landscape to create the current mixed-usage profile of
eastern Long Island.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Stage lA Literature Review prepared by City/Scape: Cultural Resource
Consultants has determined that the project area contains no significant historic resources.
A field reconnaissance of the locations where structures once existed yielded no significant
potential for cultural resources. As a result of this determination, the Stage lB Field
Reconnaissance Survey focuses only on the potential prehistoric cultural resources present
on the site. For a discussion of the post-contact history of the LaurelL#tks site, see
City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants: May 1999.
The project area lies within the larger prehistoric archaeological zone identified as
Prehistoric New England. (Fig. 2) As discussed in the Stage lA Literature Review, this
classification is a reflection of the cultural connections between the prehistoric peoples of
New England and those of Long Island, where water traffic across the Sound appears to
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
.Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnai~nunee Survey 4
Laurel Links Residential Development &Golf Course. TownofSoutlmld. Suffolk County, NewYork.
have been frequent and easy. During the earliest human occupation of this area some
10,000 years ago, the coast of North America was a vast grassy plain, making overland
contact between New England and Long Island not only easy but also probable. This
amhaeological zone is routinely divided for study imo major river drainages, as these
waterways and their associated lands comprised the geophysical and political boundaries
recognized by the indigenous groups themselves. Along with distinct waterways such as
the Hudson, the Connecticut and the Housatonic, large inland and peninsular areas such as
Long Island and Cape Cod are treated as discrete environmental units (Snow 1980:5).
The majority of prehistoric New England (as defined by Fig. 2) is generally treated as a
single physiographic unit. Only Long Island, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod
are identified as being northern expressions of the coastal plain that broadens and
dominates the landscape to the south (Snow 1980:6).
The entire New England land surface was covered by the Wisconsin glaciation that
receded only 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. As discussed above, the soils of Long Island
are a direct result of this glacial episode, and are dominated by deep, strongly acid soils
that have developed in unconsolidated sand and clay (Snow 1980:6). The soils of the
project area are classic glacial deposits, associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine
that represents the maximum line of advance of the second glaciation episode on Long
Island. (Fig. 3)
GENERAL PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
Long Island and southern New England including the Hudson, Thames and
Com~ecticut drainages, have emerged as one of the richest archaeological zones in the
northeastern United States. The reasons for this are several, the most important being the
cluster of prime waterways that emich the landscape and the fertile seacoast that
surrounds Long Island Sound. The prehistoric inhabitants of this region had ready access
to ve~3, high quality raw materials for tool making, and the moderating influence of the
ocean maintained a climate significantly milder than those regions to the north. As the
first native Americans, indeed the first humans, entered the area during the Palco-Indian
period some 12,000 years ago, their logical route would be along the open seacoast and
the mighty river systems that were the "super highways" of the times. Not only humans,
but also the post-Pleistocene mega fauna, the mammoth, the mastodon and the caribou
that inhabited this tundra-like area would be logically drawn to these corridors. Mammoth
and mastodon finds are densely clustered just south of Long Island. (see Fig. 1) As the
great ice sheet began to retreat from southern New England both the hunter, the Paleo-
Indim~, and the hunted began to move into this region.
Research indicates that the post glacial landscape was tundra-like, the colonizing
-grasses, sedges and herbs supporting a variety of large and small game animals. Among
the fauna were giant beaver, giant ground sloth and horse, all of which became extinct, as
well as the caribou, musk-ox and bison that persist to modern times.
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Surve~ 5
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Towu of Southold. Suffolk Cotmtv. New York.
Paleo-Indians, as these small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers are called by
archaeologists, appear to have entered the previously uninhabited northeast from the south
and west. Their sites, identified primarily by characteristically fluted points, are found all
over North America. It has traditionally been assumed that these nomadic peoples were
strictly "big game" hunters, however that assumption has been called into question by the
discovery offish, bird, small mammal bones and some plant remains found in association
with Paleo-Indian sites. It now seems that in addition to the large animals that comprised
their principal food source, the Palco-Indians also hunted small game and gathered a wide
variety of plants to support their diet. Palco-Indian sites are quite rare in the
archaeological record, and have been found in association with major waterways, such as
the Hudson and quarry zones, such as the Wallkill Valley. Most notably for our present
investigation fluted points have been found at the Port Mobil site on Staten Island and at
least two Palco-Indian fluted point have been found in the immediate vicinity of the
project area. These Clovis points, found near Greenport and Bridgehampton, have been
dated to 7,000 BP by Ritchie. (see Fig. 1)
The Archaic period in New England is better represented than the Palco-Indian
and appears to be the first period during which Long Island was regularly inhabited. The
Archaic is divided into four stages: the Early Archaic, the Middle Archaic, the Late
Archaic and the Terminal Archaic. In many important respects, the nature of life in the
Archaic period was little different from the nomadic lives lived by the Palco-Indians,
however, during the time span of the Archaic significant changes in the environment
occurred. The tundra-like landscape began to give way, first to spruce forest and then to a
forest composed of various conifers, hemlocks and hardwoods. As the hardwood forests
advanced northward, a new ecosystem became available, an ecosystem that provided a
range of nuts (in particular the acorn), grasses and tubers that supported both the smaller
game of the Archaic period and the human population as well.
Like the Paleo-Indian culture, Archaic occupations are found tln'oughout New
England. In eastern New York ttfis period is divided into a series of phases, Vergennes,
Vosburg, Sylvan Lake, Wading River and Snook Kill. There are indications that Archaic
man was by this time exploiting shellfish, a fact of particular importance on Long Island.
The well know Archaic period Wading River point type is named for the Wading River
site just to the northwest of the project area. With the advent of the Late Archaic period,
sites on Long Island become more numerous. (Fig. 4) This indicates a substantial increase
in population and a well established system of resource exploitation. The Stony Brook
site, located west of the project area, is typical of this time period. Ritchie describes the
typical setting of such sites as situated on a well drained, sandy slope overlooking a tidal
strean~. Assuming that the now impounded wetland once drained directly into the Great
Peconic Bay, this ecological model closely conforms to conditions on the LaurelLinks
site.
At this stage of human occupation, the typical site would be a temporary camp
making up part of a hunter-gatherer seasonal round. From this time period, campsites and
other activity loci such as lithic reduction stations and still hunting sites are typically
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lB Archaeological Field Recom~aissance Survey 6
Laurel Liidcs Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
located along streams draining into Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean. Where
habitation and activity occur, the typical site profile is a well-drained alluvial bench, or on
some occasions the edges of inland kettle ponds. Access to fresh water appears to be the
overwhelming determining factor in site location from this time.
It is important to note, however, that a specific category of Archaic site on Eastern
Long Island is located on a very different type of landscape. That specific site type is the
Orient Burial Site, a type of mortuary site represented by four carefully documented
excavations undertaken by William Ritchie in the 1930's and 40%. One of these Archaic
Orient burials is located on the Montauk Fork and the other three are located on the north,
or Orient Fork. The Jamesport site is located only a few miles east of the project area at
the junction of Route 25 and Manor Lane. Ritchie defines these as strictly burial
components without associated habitation areas (Ritchie, 1959; 49&50) The Orient Burial
sites occur in close proximity to the project area, and as a result warrant discussion. They
are all located on prominent sandy knolls visible either from Long Island Sound or from
some 6ther major embayment of the sea. Ritchie states that in no case are they far from
access by water. Ritchie reports what he interprets as human cremation burials, secondary
cremation burials, pit burials, burial bundles and cremated dogs as a part of an Orient
Burial cult. He is able to relate the ceremonlalism and material remains from the Long
Island burials to the early Point Peninsula materials recovered from Jefferson County, New
York indicating that this Archaic mortuary complex extended well beyond eastern Long
Island. The presence of these early burials confirms the established presence of an active
residential population in the vicinity of the project area from 5,000 to 3,000 years ago.
The Archaic period on Long Island is followed by the Transitional Stage. Long
Island takes front stage during the Transitional Period as the locus of the highly distinct
Orient Culture. This Transitional phase culture is identified by the diagnostic Orient
Fishtail projectile point, by the use of soapstone vessels whose raw materials were most
likely quarried in Rhode Island and in Bristol Connecticut, by distinctive burials and by the
intense exploitation of shellfish. It is possible that the supply of large game was being
exhausted on Long Island as early as 900 BC, making exploitation of these alternate food
sources a necessity for survival (Ritchie 1980:166).
We must take particular note of the fact that contact with mainland New England
was clearly an easy and frequent occurrence at this time, with passage across the narrows
between Long Island, Staten Island, Manhattan Island, the lower Hudson drainage and
southern New England a common occurrence. Important sites in dose proximity to the
project area include Muskeeta Cove, Wilkins, Grantville B, Muskeeta Cove and Clason's
Point.
The Woodland Stage, like the Archaic is divided into several substages, including
the early Woodland Stage, the Middle Woodland Stage and the Late Woodland Stage.
Sites used by Woodland groups tend to be away from the major waterways and are
frequently located on inland streams. In later periods there is some indication of the
presence of palisaded villages. Around these sites, on the alluvial plains of nearby streams,
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consullants
Stage ]B Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 7
Laurel Links Residential Develooment & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
the Indian fields were located. Horticulture, although practiced in other parts of North
America at an earlier date, does not appear in this area until c. 1000 AD. The changeover
to cultivation of a variety of domesticates, among them maize, beans, gourds, sumpweed
and sunflower, created a marked change in the pattern of land use and settlement. With
the advent of sedentary of occupations the character of sites changed. On Long Island the
Woodland Stage, particularly the later period, is hallmarked by the Sebonac Phase. The
Sebonac sites are large occupations located on well-drained sites on bays and tidal streams
close to available sources of marine shellfish. Typical of these sites are deep shellfish
middens, abundant pit structures and elaborate burials. This implies stable communities
with people living in circular rush wigwams up to twenty feet in diameter made of grass or
rush harvested from the tidal marshes and wetlands that were abundant on prehistoric
Long Island.
The Sebonac Phase is followed on western Long Island by the Bowman's Brook
phase of the East River tradition. Bowman's Brook sites are located on tidal streams or
coves, and typically contain large village occupations with associated shell middens and pit
structures. Unlike the Sebonac peoples, the Bowman's Brook culture did not focus on
highly ritualized mortuary practices, although dog burials have been noted (Ritchie
1980:271).
By the time the Europeans arrived, the dominant indigenous groups on Long
Island were the Montauk speakers of the eastern tip of the island, the Quiripi-Unquachog
speakers of central Long Island (closely associated with Connecticut groups) and Munsee
speakers on the western tip of Long Island, who were referred to by Johan de Laet as
Nawaas (Snow 1980:87). (Fig. 5) Historical accounts indicate that the specific tribe
occupying the lands that now make up the project area was the Corchang. The Corchaug
are believed to be a Mohegan-Pequot group closely aligned to Connecticut tribes directly
to the north across the Sound, all of whom were members of the greater Algonquian
linguistic group that dominated the eastern coast of North America south to the Carolinas.
Population figures are difficult to calculate due to the lightning speed with which
European diseases wiped out the indigenous population. Snow states that "There is
almost no data on which to base a population estimate for the middle and lower
Connecticut and central Long Island populations". With the coming of first the Dutch,
then the British settler, the indigenous population of Long Island decreased to its current
negligible size.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Research undertaken in the Stage 1A Literature Review identified a large number
of important prehistoric sites in the vicinity of the project area. The majority of the ten
sites identified were associated with fresh water bodies or the shore of Long Island sound.
Some of these sites are anecdotal and therefore impossible to confirm, however a
substantial number have been professionally excavated. Recorded sites in the vicinity of
the project area are summarized in the following table:
laurclkslb CiDTScape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 8
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Table 1: Prehistoric Sites in Viciuity of Project Area from New York State Museum
Files
Site Number Name Location Descriptign
NYSM #692 Solecki site Approximately 2-3 miles east of Dates to Transitional;
project area near New Suffolk contained burials.
NYSM ~4481 No name Approximately 2-3 miles east of Stockade, site described as
project area on upland covering approximately 'A
overlooking Great Peconic Bay acm; likely to be Fort
Corchaug site, but
inaccurately located
NYSM #4882 No name Approximately 2-3 miles east of Described as village site.
project area on upland No other information.
overlooking Great Peconic Bay
NYSM #7805 No name Approximately 2-3 miles east of Described as burial and
project area on upland campsite. No other
overlooking Gmat Peconic Bay information.
NYSM #8240 Grathwold East of project area Described as village site
site dating to Woodland
period.
NYSM #8241 Fort Neck East of project area overlooking No information available;
site Great Peconic Bay . probably another listing of
Fort Corchaug site.
NYSM #8243 Corchaug East of project area on upland No information available;
Neck site overlooking Great Peconic Bay probably another listing of
Fort Corchaug site
NYSM 8245 Halls Creek East of project area East of project area;
site location described as on
"salt marshes along
creek."
NYSM #8246 Deep Hole Approximately 2-3 mile~ east of Shell midden dated to
site project area on Deep Hole Woodland period.
Creek, which flows into Peconic
Bay
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 9
LaurelLinksResidentialDevelopment&GolfCourse. Town of Southold. SuffolkCounly, NewYork.
Site Number Name Location Description
NYSM #8247 Dam East of project area No information available.
Hollow site
Table 2: Kaown Archaeological Sites in Vicinity of Project Area from OPRHP Files
Site Name Location Description
Hallock Pond South shore of Hallock's 2 diagnostic projectile points: Wading River
Site Pond - approximately 2 miles & Orient Fishtail. Date: Late &
northwest of project area. Transitional Archaic; also, knives, scrapers,
hammerstones. Described as seasonal
hunting and gathering camp.
East End Site Vicinity of Hallock's Pond - Lithic artifacts from plow zone: knives,
approximately 2 miles choppers, scrapers, bifaces; 2 Wading River
nrothwest of project area. projectile points - Date: Late Archaic in
this region. Described as one or more short
term occupations.
ACP-SUFK-8 Less than 2 miles southwest On F. B. Conklin farm near Janaesport;
of project area shellheap. Parker site, 1922.
ACP-SUFK-10 Less than 2 miles southwest On Wallace Seaman property near
of project area Jamesport; shellheap. Parker site, 1922.
ACP-SUFK-9 Southeast ofAquebogue - Burial place near shore. Parker site, 1922.
approximately 6 miles
southwest of project area
ACP-SIFK-16 East of project area on Parker site corresponds to NYSM g4885.
Greenport Harbor Described as village site & shell midden.
Some miles east of project area, but
example of density of occupation along
shores of Peconic Bay and associated inlets.
Goose Neck East of project area on south Corresponds to NYSM #725. No further
Site bank of Goose Creek information. Some miles east of project
area, but example of density of occupation
along shores of Peconic Bay and associated
inlets.
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Slage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 10
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
The range of activities represented by the nearby sites that have been scientifically
documented are many - shellfish processing, cooking, lithic reduction stations, temporary
campsites and burials. For the purposes of the Laurel Links investigation it is important to
note that virtually all of these sites are located either near fresh water or on the shoreline.
The environmental and geophysical conditions present at these sites are also present on the
Laurel L#~ks site with the wetland possibly contributing a source of running fresh water.
The Long Island shoreline is also easily accessed by walking a short distance to the south.
Based on the archaeological resources reported by the New York State Museum,
OPRI-IP and other reported resources in the immediate area, the site was judged to
possess a high probability to yield prehistoric cultural resources. The lack of a significant
fresh water feature on the site greatly diminishes the possibility of encountering a
settlement of any kind, however the location and close proximity to such sites as Fort
Corchaug and Jamesport suggests a high probability for more ephemeral sites on the
project area.
TESTING STRATEGY
Testing Strategy for the LaurelLmks site was structured around the knowledge
that the property possessed a high probability to yield prehistoric cultural resources. This
conclusion was based on the ecological condition of the site, the results of the intensive
literature review and historical research, the prehistoric land-use models developed by
Ritchie and other archaeologists who have reported on eastern Long Island sites and a
care[fl walkover and visual inspection of the site.
As discussed above, the lack of a significant water resource on the site had
considerably lowered the probability of encountering substantial prehistoric activity,
however potential for small campsites and hunting stations was quite high. Because the
majority of sites are located on flat, well drained land surfaces, it was judged that the
entire site, with the exception of the profoundly disturbed Route 25 border required
systematic testing.
FIELD METHODOLOGY
Areas selected for subsurface testing were identified during a comprehensive
walkover of the property. This walkover served to evaluate the site, assess loci of
disturbance and determine former land usage. The vast flat agricultural field that now
makes up the majority of the site was tested by hand excavating shovel test pits at 100'
intervals along north-south transects spaced 100' apart. This effectively tested a 100' grid
over the entire land surface. The woodlands and wetland that make up a much smaller
percentage &the site were also tested using hand excavated shovel tests. In the
woodland, the transects conformed to the grid extending from the agricultural field. In the
wetland, transects conformed to the topography &the land, focusing on the highest
probability loci associated with this prehistoric resource. Excavation conditions were
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 11
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
difficult. The agricultural field was blanketed in a maturing crop of rye grass that had
grown to a height of 5 to 6 feet. Visibility was non-existent (equal to the "Field of
Dreams" cornfield) and excavators disappeared within seconds of entering the field. As a
result, all transects had to be manually laid by compass orientation and tape measure,
resulting in a very slow and laborious process. Field crew communicated via Day-Glo
colored flags and whistle signals. (Photo 1-4)
Since the site contained no areas in excess if 10% slope, the entire land surface
was tested. Designated wetlands were eliminated from testing however the areas adjacent
to the wetlands received intense scrutiny and this was judged to the area of highest
archeological potential.. Areas of prior disturbance along Route 25 were eliminated from
testing since prehistoric archaeological integrity has been destroyed. (see Field
Recoimaissance Map)
Field Methodology for the Laurel Links site consisted of several stages of
investigation. These included:
1. A walkover and visual inspection of the site to assess areas of potential
sensitivity for historic and prehistoric cultural material.
2. The excavation of a stratigraphic control test to establish the soil profile of
the site and to identify the depth and composition of the sterile glacially
deposited sub soils.
3. Subsurface testing of those areas identified as having a potential sensitivity
for prehistoric remains.
4. Photographic documentation of the overall site.
The methodology for archaeological field testing in the sensitive areas involved
excavating 12 inch diameter shovel tests at 100 foot intervals along north-south oriented
transects. The soils recovered from these tests were passed through 0.25 inch steel mesh
screan and the materials remaining in the screens were carefully examined for historic and
prehistoric artifacts. Cultural materials recovered from the screen were assigned to the
stratum from which they were obtained. The stratigraphy &each test was recorded,
including the depth and the soil description of each layer. (Appendix A: Shovel Test
Record)
FIELD RESULTS
Field results from the LaurelLinks site were surprisingly sparse. The probability
assessment had indicated a high potential for the presence of prehistoric cultural materials
on the site and their near absence was unexpected.
As described above, the site was essentially gridded offat 100' intervals and
methodically tested through hand excavated shovel tests. A total of 781 shovel tests was
excavated in this locus along 48 transects. The soils were uniform across the site, yielding
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage IB Arclmeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 12
Laurel l.inl~ Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southolfl. Suffolk County, New York.
a consistent stratigraphy of a layer of dark yellowish brown silty sand and underlain by a
layer of yellowish brown silty sand. This profile reflects a typical Long Island agricultural
field, with plow zone underlain by glacially deposited sandy subsoil. Tests were excavated
to as deep as 27" inches, but more typically to a depth of 12 to 14 inches. The sandy soils
contained virtually no stones larger than 1" in diameter, the expected result of years and
years of soil screening in preparing the fields for potatoes, a process which had filtered out
all large inclusions. Of the 781 shovel tests excavated, only two provided cultural
materials of any kind. Shovel test 29 yielded a single white quartz Levaana Point. (see
Artifact Catalogue & Photo 5) Levaana points are typically associated with mid to late
Woodland sites in the Northeast, ranging in date from approximately 700 AD to 1350 AD
(Ritchie, 1978:31). It is believed to be an arrow point. Shovel tests were excavated at
cardinal point 10 feet from shovel test 29 as a means to identify the kind of site the single
Levanna point represents. No debitage or cultural materials of any type were recovered
from shovel test 29 other than the single point, and no cultural materials or debitage of any
type were recovered from any of the shovel tests excavated at cardinal points. It was
therefore determined that the Levanna Point was most likely an isolated drop, or perhaps
the remains of an arrow gone astray. Given the acidic nature of the soils, it is also possible
that it remained lodged in an unrecovered animal that died and decomposed completely,
leaving on the lithic trace of the event. It was judged that no further investigation of the
site is warranted.
Shovel test 526 produced one small quartz debitage flake. Four tests located at
cardinal points were excavated around this test, and once again, they produced no cultural
material. These two artifacts represent the entire body of cultural material recovered from
781 hand excavated shovel tests.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A walkover reconnaissance was completed on the LaurelLinks site, Hamlet of
Laurel, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. After reviewing the
Archaeological and Historical Sensitivity Evaluation completed for the project area, a
testing strategy was created for the site focusing on the possible presence of prehistoric
sites on the property. A total of 781 shovel tests was excavated in the flat expanse of
field, woodland and wetland that makes up the property. Of these 781 tests, which
represent a comprehensive sample grid imposed over the entire site, only two produced
cultural material in the form of one small quartz debitage flake and a quartz Levanna
point. Additional tests excavated around these two finds to determine the presence ora
site were sterile of cultural material.
Based on the comprehensive nature of the testing on this site and the near sterile
nature of the tests, no further archaeological investigation is recommended for the Laurel
Links site.
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Stage lB Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Survey 13
Laurel Links Residential Develooment & Golf Course. Tmvn of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Beauchamp, William
1900 "Aboriginal Occupation ofNew York." In Bulletin of the New York State
Museum, vol. 7, #32. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.
Bolton, Reginald Pelham
1920 New York City in Indian Possession. Indian Notes attdMonographs, vol. 2, #7.
Heye Foundation. Museum of the American Indian: NY.
1922 Indian Paths in the Great Metropolis. Indian Notes and Monographs. Misc. No.
23. Heye Foundation. Museum of the American Indian: NY.
1934 Indian Life of Long Ago itt the City of New York. Joseph Graham: NY.
Eisenberg, Leonard
1978 "Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns in the Hudson and Delaware River Drainages."
In Occasional Publications itt Northeastern Anthropology. vol. 4.
Archaeological Services: Bethlehem, CT.
Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America. Thames and Hudson: New York, NY.
Funk, Robert E.
1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum
Memoir 22. Albany, NY.
Roberts IV, William I.
1991 Archaeological and Historical Sensitivity Evaluation of caribe Village
Development Project. Williamsburgh, Brooklyn, New York. CEQR #88-083K.
Greenhouse Consultants, Inc. New York, NY.
Kraft, Herbert C. (editor)
1991 The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Lower Hudson Valley and NeighbOring
Regions: Essays in Honor ofLewis A. Brennan. Occasional Publications in
Northeastern Archaeology. No. 11. Archaeological Services: Bethlehem, CT.
Kraft, Herbert C.
1978 "The Miller Field Site in New Jersey and Its Influence upon the Terminal Archaic
and Transitional Stages in New York State and Long Island." In Readings in
Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. vol. 2. Suffolk County
Archaeological Association: Stony Brook, NY.
Lightfoot, Kent G. and James Moore
1985 "Interior Resources Exploitation: A Woodland Settlement Model for Long Island,
New York ." Anthropology 8, pp 15-40.
Parker, Arthur
1920 The Archaeological History ofNew York. New York State Museum Bulletin. No.
237 and 238. The University of the State of New York: Albany, NY.
Ritchie, William A.
1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press: Garden City, NY.
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
Sta~,e lB Archaeolo~,ical Field Reconnaissance Sun,ev 14
Laurel Links Residential Development & Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
1965 "The Stony Brook Site and Its Relation to Archaic and Transitional Cultures on
Long Island." New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. No. 372.
University of the State of New York: Albany, NY. [Reprint of 1959 edition]
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York State
Museum and Science Service. Albany, NY.
Salwen, Bert
1975 "Post-Glacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin" In
Man in the Northeast: 10.
1978 "Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period." Handbook of
North American Indians. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger. v. 15. Smithsonian
Institute: Washington, DC. p. 160 - 176.
Saxon, Walter
1979 "The Paleo-Indian on Long Island." In Readings in Long Island Archaeology and
Ethnohistory. vol. 2. Suffolk County Archaeological Association: Stony Brook,
NY.
Schuberth, Christopher J
1968 The Geology of New York City and Environs. The Natural History Press: Garden
City, NY
Skinner, Alanson
1915 Indians of Greater New York. Torch Press: NY.
nd The Indians of Manhattan and Vicinity. Guide Leaflet Series No. 41. American
Museum of Natural History: New York, NY.
Smith,
1950
Carlyle S.
"The Archaeology of Coastal New York." American Museum of NaturalHistory:
AnthropologicalPapers. vol. 43, pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History:
New York, NY.
Snow, Dean R.
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York, NY.
Thompson, John H. (editor)
1966 Geography of New York State. [revised edition] Syracuse University Press:
Syracuse, NY.
United States Department of the Interior.
1985 National Register Bulletin # 24: Technical Information on Comprehensive
Planning, Survey of Cultural Resources, and Registration in the National Register
of Historic Places. Reprint. National Park Service, Interagency Resources
Division.
laurelkslb City/Scape: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDICES
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Shovel Test Records
Artifact Catalogue
Photographs
Maps & Figures
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
APPENDIX A
SHOVEL TEST RECORDS
laurellks 1 a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
AREA 1
OPEN FIELD
laurellks I a CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~Lks Site. Town o£ Southold. Sr~i'olk Count~. Nc~x York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 0 ST 1 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 2 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 3 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 4 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 5 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 1 ST 6 0-10 I 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 7 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 8 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
latLrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lam'el Links Site. Town ofSouthold. Stfffollt Count~. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 9 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 10 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 , yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 11 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) : NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 2 ST12 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 13 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 '10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 14 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 15 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 16 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: CultumI Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST.17 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 18 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 19 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
I ST 20 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 21 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YE4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 3 ST 22 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 23 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 24 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lam'elks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 25 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 26 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 27 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 28 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 29 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 I yellowish brmvn silty sand white quartz Levanna point, AD 700-900 (Ritchie,
1989:31):
ST 29N 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silly sand NCM
ST 29E 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 29S 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appenc~x A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 29W 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 30 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 31 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 32 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 33 0-13 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 34 0--11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) I NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 4 ST 35 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 36 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Tox~m of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 37 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 38 0-1 10YR4/3 , yellowish brown silty sand NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 39 0-1 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 I yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 40 0-12 10YR4/3 very pale brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 41 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 42 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 43 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 44 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town ofSouthold. Stfffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
' Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 45 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 46 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 47 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 48 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 49 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 50 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 51 0-16 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
16-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 52 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Limks Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 5 ST 53 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 54 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 55 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 56 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 57 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 58 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 59 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 60 0-I1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk CotmW. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 61 0-16 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) ! NCM
16-21 10YR4/6 I yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 62 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 63 0-17 10YR4/3 : brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
17-19 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 64 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 , yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 65 0-14 10YR4/3 : brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 66 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 67 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 68 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lanrel Li~ks Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell SollDescription Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 69 0-12 ' 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 70 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 71 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 72 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 73 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 6 ST 74 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 75 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 76 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk CountY. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 77 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR¢/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 78 0-11 10YR4/3 browa silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 79 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 80 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 81 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 82 0-I0 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 83 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 84 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 85 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 86 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 87 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 88 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 89 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 90 0-10 10YR4/3 bm,am silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 91 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 92 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Apl~endix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lam'el Li~ks Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk Count','. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 93 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 94 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 95 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 96 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 7 ST 97 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 98 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 99 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 100 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~flcs Site. Town ofSouthold. Sul'folk Couniv. New York.
STP Depth in
Transec~ Number Inches Munsell Soil Description C~lmral Material Recovered & Notes
ST 101 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 102 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 103 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 104 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 105 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-1! 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand ' NCM
ST 106 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-20 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 107 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 108 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lat~reI Links Site. Toxin of Southold. Suffolk Couut~~. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 109 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-14 10YR416 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 110 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 I yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 111 0-2 10YR4/3 ' brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 112 0-3 10YR43 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 ~ yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 113 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 114 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 115 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 116 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~ks Site. Toxin o£Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 117 0-5 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
5-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 8 ST 118 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 : yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 119 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 120 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-I3 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 121 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 IOYR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 122 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 123 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 124 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Ap0endix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lamel Links Site. Town of Southold. S~fffolk County. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description --' Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 125 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 126 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 127 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 128 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 129 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 130 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 131 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 132 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cu/mral Resource Consultants
Appendix A: ShoYel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Soulhold. Stfffolk Coant¥. New York.
~ STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 133 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 134 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 135 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 136 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
I-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 137 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 138 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 139 0-2 10YR4/3 brmvn silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 140 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~3:s Site. Town ol'Southold. Stffrolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 141 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 142 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 143 0--4 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 144 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 I yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 145 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 9 ST 146 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 147 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 148 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Liul~s Site. Town of Souihold. Std'£olk Coun[~. Nex~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 149 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 150 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 151 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 152 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 153 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 154 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 155 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 156 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Soathold. Stfffoll, Coanb'. New Yolk.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Mansell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 157 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 158 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 159 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 160 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 161 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 162 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 163 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 164 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~l,:s Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk County. Ne',', York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 165 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 166 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 167 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 168 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 169 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 170 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 171 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 172 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Lil~ks Site. Towu of Southold. Stfffolk County. ~.~ '~ ork.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches l~lunsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 10 ST 173 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 174 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 175 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 176 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 177 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 178 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 179 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 180 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plo~v zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lauxel Lilts Site. Toxin o£ Southold. Stz!Tolk Coaniy. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munscll Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 181 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 182 0-2 10YR4/3 brown si!ty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 183 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 ~ yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 184 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 185 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 186 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 187 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 188 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
_Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~ks Site. To~n of Southold. Suffolk County, Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 189 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 190 0-4 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 191 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 192 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 193 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 194 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 195 0-4 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 196 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold d'Fotk Cmmtv. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 197 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 198 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 199 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plo~v zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 200 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 201 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 202 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 203 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 204 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lamel Li~r~:g Silo Toxin of Sou[hold. St~fi%lk Corinth'. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 205 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 11 ST 206 0-2 ' 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 207 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 208 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-19 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 209 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 210 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 211 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 212 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lamel Lilts Site. Toxin of Southold. Suffolk Coont~. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 213 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) ' NCM
2-16 10YR4/6 : yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 214 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 215 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 216 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST217 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 218 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish browa silty sand NCM
ST 219 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 220 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
134-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Lir~ks Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. Ne~x York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Mumell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 221 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 light yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 222 0-18 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
18-19 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sandy loam NCM
ST 223 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 224 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 225 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 226 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 227 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 228 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks 1 b CITY/S CAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
LamreI Li~d<s Siie. To~n of Southold. Suffolk Count~. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 229 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 230 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 231 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 232 0-16 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
16-19 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 233 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 234 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 235 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR¢/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 236 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. SulTolk County, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munscll Soll Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 237 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 12 ST 238 0-13 10YR4-/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 239 0-14 10YR4./3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 240 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-20 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 241 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 242 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 243 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 244 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Apvendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 245 0-I0 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 246 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 247 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 248 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 249 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 ! yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 250 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 251 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 252 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: ShoYel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 253 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 254 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-19 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
ST 255 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 256 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 257 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 258 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 259 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 260 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 261 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10q2 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 262 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish bmwn silty sand NCM
ST 263 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 264 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 13 ST 265 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 266 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 267 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 268 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 light brownish gray and NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Countw'. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 269 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 270 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 271 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 272 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
I 1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 273 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
I ST 274 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 275 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 276 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laumlkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. S~tffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
' ST 277 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 278 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 279 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
0-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 280 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 281 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 282 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 283 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1517 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 284 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Shovel Test Record~- Area 1
Laurel Link__s Site. TownofSouthold. StLffolk Coun ,~ewYork.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inche~ Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 285 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 286 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 287 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 tellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 288 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 ! yellowish brmvn silty sand NCM
ST 289 0-10 10YR4/3 b~t,w~t silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 290 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish.brown silty sand NCM
TR 14 ST 291 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish bmsvn silty sand NCM
ST 292 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
A en~m A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. To~ of Southold~uffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 293 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 294 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 295 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 ~ellowish bs'own silty sand NCM
ST 296 0-12 10YR4/3 otuwn silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 297 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 298 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 299 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 300 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lanrel LilLks Site. Town of Southold, Suffolk County. New Yo~k.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 301 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 302 0-17 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
17-20 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 303 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 i 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 304 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 305 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 ~eilowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 306 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 307 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 308 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 , yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town or Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 309 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 310 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-10 10YF.4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 311 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 312 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 313 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 314 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
ST 315 0-21 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
21-24 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 316 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
~ Shovel Test~Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~tks Site. Town o~Soutbold. Sttffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsall Soil Description ~ Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 15 ST 317 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 318 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 319 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 320 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 321 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 322 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 rellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 323 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 324 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
AppendO Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. S[fffolk Count'v. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 325 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 326 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 327 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 328 0-20 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
20-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 329 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 330 0-17 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
17-20 10YR4/6 light brownish gray sand NCM
ST 331 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 ; yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 332 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laLu'elkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 333 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 334 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 335 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 336 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 337 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 338 0-21 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
21-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 339 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 340 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold, Suffolk Count. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 341 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 342 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 343 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 16 ST 344 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 345 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 346 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 347 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 348 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stffiblk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 349 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 350 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 351 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 352 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13~15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 353 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 354 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 355 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 356 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkstb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~ks Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk Conntv, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 357 0-3 0YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 0YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 358 0-3 0YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 359 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 [0YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 361 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 362 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-9 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 363 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 364 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 365 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
taurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk Count~'. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 366 0-9 10YR4/3 broom silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 Yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 367 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-14 10YR4/6 Yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 368 0-3 0YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 17 ST 369 09 10YR4/3 bro'~m silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 370 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-17 10YR4/6 ! yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 371 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
914 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 372 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 373 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 374 0-I0 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 375 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 376 0-10 10YR4/3 brmvn silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 377 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 378 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 379 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 ! 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 380 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 381 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowishbrown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 382 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 383 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 [0YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 384 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 385 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 386 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 387 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 388 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 389 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laarelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southolcl. Stffl'olk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Muosell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 390 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 18 ST 391 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YE4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 392 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 393 0-2 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 394 0-3 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 395 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand ' NCM
ST 396 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 397 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel l,inlca Site. Towa of Southold. Suffolk Counh'. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 398 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 399 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 400 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 401 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 402 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 403 0-13 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 404 0--11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 405 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) ] NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
I
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Lil~cs Site. Toxxn o£Southold. Stff;olk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 406 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 407 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 408 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 409 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) : NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 410 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 19 ST 411 0-1 10YR4/3 I brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand IqCM
ST 412 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 413 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town o£ Southold. Su££olk Couht~, Ne~ '~ oik.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 414 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 415 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 416 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 417 0-12 10YR4B brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 418 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 419 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 420 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 421 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Lil~ks Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New Yorl,..
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 422 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 423 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 424 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-12 10YR4./6 , yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 425 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 426 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 427 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10~R4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 428 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 429 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li]~.s Site. To~n of Southold. Suffolk County. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 430 0-11 10YR4/3 >rown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 ;ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 431 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 20 ST432 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 433 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 434 0-11 i 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 435 0-12 i 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 436 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 437 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. To~n of Southold. Suffolk County. Ne'er Yolk.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 438 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 439 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 440 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 441 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 442 0-3 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 443 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 444 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 445 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Li~ks Site. To;,,n o£Southold. Std'folk Count~. Ne;~ Yolk.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 446 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 447 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 448 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 449 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 450 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 451 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 452 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 ~ yellowish brown silty sand ~ NCM
ST 453 0-13 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurel,ks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lam'el Links Site. Tos~n of Southold, StffJ'vlk County. Ne~ Yo~k,
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 454 0--11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 455 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 456 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 457 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 458 0-1 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 21 ST 459 0-1 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 460 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) , NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 461 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consullants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurcl Links Site. Town of Southold. Std'folk Conntv. Ne~ York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 462 0-1 10YR4/3 biown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 ~ yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 463 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 464 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 465 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 466 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 467 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 468 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 469 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Sonthold. Suffolk Counlv, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 470 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 471 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 472 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plo~v zone) NCM
I 1-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 473 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 474 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 475 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 476 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 477 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~', Ne~ Yolk.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 478 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 479 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 480 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 481 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 482 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 483 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 484 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 22 ST 485 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel ~ ,ink¢ Site. Town of Southold. S~fffolk Couatv. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 486 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 487 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 488 0-2 ! 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 489 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 490 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 491 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 492 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 · 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 493 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laureilcslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
I,nurel Links Site. Town of Soothold. Suffolk Count,. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell [ Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 494 0-3 10YR4/3 i brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 : yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 495 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 496 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 497 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 498 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 499 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 500 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 501 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Soutbold. Stfffolk County, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 502 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 503 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 504 0---11 10YR4/3 ~ brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand ~ NCM
1012 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 506 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1011 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 507 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1012 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 508 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1012 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 23 ST 509 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 510 0-12 10YR4D brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lauretkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel l,ink~ Site. Town of Sonthold. Suffolk Countv. New York.
STP Depth in '
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 511 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 tellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 512 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 513 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 514 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 515 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 516 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 517 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 518 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cul~ral Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 519 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 520 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 521 0-12 ! 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 522 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 523 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 524 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 525 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 526 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-1, 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 527 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 528 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 529 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 24 ST 530 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) Quartz flake
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 30N 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 30E 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 ! 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 30S 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yello'fish brown silty sand NCM
ST 30W 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
0-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Counl¥. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 531 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YE4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 532 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 533 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 534 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 535 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 536 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 537 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 538 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel l,ink~ Site. Town of Southold. Slfffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 539 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 540 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 541 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone)t NCM
10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand
ST 542 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 543 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowishbrown silty sand NCM
ST 544 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 545 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 547 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Totem of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
¢TP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 25 ST 548 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 549 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 550 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 551 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone)t NCM
2-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 552 0-4 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 553 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 554 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowishbmwn silty sand NCM
ST 555 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel l.inkg Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 556 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 557 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 I 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 558 0-15 10YR4/3 brmvn silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 559 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 560 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 561 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
I 1-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 562 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 563 0-I 1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold, Stff:folk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 26 ST 564 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 565 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 566 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 567 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 568 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 569 0-2 10YR4/3 brown sandy silt (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 570 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 571 0-2 i 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand
laurolkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Ama 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, NewYork.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 572 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zanc) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 573 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 rellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 574 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 575 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 576 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 27 ST 577 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 578 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 579 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area l
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk County, New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 580 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 581 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 582 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 583 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 584 0~11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
i ST 585 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 586 0-I 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 587 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 28 ST 588 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 589 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 590 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown s'dty sand NCM
ST 591 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 592 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown gflty mhd NCM
ST 593 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
'IR 29 ST 594 0-2 ! 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 595 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 596 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
AREA 2
BACK FIELD
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stffgolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in i
Number Inches I Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 30 ST 597 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 598 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
14-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 599 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 600 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 600 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 602 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 603 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 31 ST 604 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Li~s Site. Tox,m of Southold. S~fffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 605 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 I yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 606 0-I0 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
I0-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 607 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 608 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 609 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
i ST 610 0-I0 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 611 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 612 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Toxvn of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 613 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 32 ST 614 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 615 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 616 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 617 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 618 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 619 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 620 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellks lb CITY/S CAPE: Ctflmral Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
! Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 621 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 622 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 623 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 624 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 625 0---3 10YR4/3 brown sandy silt NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 626 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
4-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 33 ST 627 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 628 0-2 10YR4,'3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 629 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
1-13 10YR¢/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 630 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 631 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 632 0-2 10YR¢/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 633 0-3 10YR4/3 ! brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 634 0-2 10YR¢/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 635 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR¢/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 636 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~'. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 34 ST 637 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 638 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 639 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 640 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 641 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-10 i 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 642 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 643 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 644 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 645 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 646 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 647 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 35 ST 648 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 649 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/3 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 650 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 651 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-I 1 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 652 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consul~'mts
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 2
Laurel Links Site. Toxvn of Southold, Suffolk Counly. New York.
Transect ! STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 653 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
AREA 3
WETLAND
laurelllcsla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 3 (Wetland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in !
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 36 ST 654 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 655 0-14 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
14-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 656 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 657 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 37 ST 658 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 659 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-12 ! 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 660 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 661 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 3 (Wetland)
Laurel ! Jnk~ Site. Town of Soufl~old. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 38 ST 662 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 663 0-10 10YR4/3 I brown silty sand NCM
10-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 664 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 665 0-10 10YR4/3 brmvn silty sand NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 666 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yello~vish brown silty sand NCM
ST 667 0-10 10YR413 brown silty sand NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 668 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 669 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 3 (Weflandl
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County, New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 670 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 671 0-2 10YR¢/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 672 0-2 10YR¢/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 673 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 674 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 675 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 676 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 39 ST 677 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-13: 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 3 (Wetland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 678 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 679 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 680 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 40 i ST 681 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 682 0---3 10YR4/3 brown sandy silt NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 683 0-4 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
4-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 684 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 685 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrellslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Al~pendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 3 (Wetland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfl~'olk Country. NewYork.
Transect ! STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsdl Soil Description ! Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 686 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
1-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 687 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 688 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 689 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurells 1 b CITY/S CAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
AREA 4
WOODLAND
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 4 (Woodland)
Lanrel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Transect STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soll Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 41 ST 691 0-16 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
16-19 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 692 0-14 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 693 0-12 10YIL3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 694 0-11 10YP,3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
11-26 10¥R4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 695 0-16 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
16-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 696 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 697 0-10 10YP,3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-24 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 698 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 699 0-11 10YP,3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lattrellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 4 (Woodland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Souflmld. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect STP Depth in '
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 700 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 701 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 702 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR42 ST 703 0-12 ! 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 704 0-10 i 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-27 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 705 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 706 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-24 10YR4/6 yellowish bmwn silty sand NCM
ST 707 0-12 i 10YIL3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 708 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-25 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 4 (Woodland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Santhold. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect I STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 709 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 710 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 711 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 712 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 713 0-12 10YP,3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 43 ST 714 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 715 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 716 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 717 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-24 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 4 (Woodland)
Lattrel Liraks Site. To~at of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
Transect ' STP Depth in '
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 718 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 719 0--16 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
16-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 720 0-14 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 721 0-13 10Y1L3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 722 0-12 10YR3/4 brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 723 0-11 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
11-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 724 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 44 ST 725 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 726 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-22 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellks I b CITY/S CAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
~ ShoYe~l Test Record - Area 4 ~
Laurel Li_~s Site. To~vn of Southold. Suffolk County. N~ew York.
Transect ] STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 727 013 10YP,3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-24 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 728 0-14 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-25 10YR4/6 ?ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 729 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-26 10YR4/6 ~ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 730 0-1~ 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-25 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 731 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-23 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 732 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-25 10YR4/6 rellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 733 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 734 0-15 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
15-28 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 735 0-15 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
15-27 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 4 (Woodland)
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk Conntv~ New York.
Transect ' STP Depth in
Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
TR 45 ST 736 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-25 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 737 0-9 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
9-25 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 738 0-14 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 739 0-14 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
14-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 740 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-28 10YR4/6 ?ellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 741 0-13 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
13-26 10YR4/6 rellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 742 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-24 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 743 0-10 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
10-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 744 0-12 10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown silty sand NCM
12-26 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
A~x A: Shovel Tes~t Record ~
Laurel Links Site. T~oown of_South_old. Suffolk Cotmtv. New York.
Transect STP
Number
TR 46
ST 745
ST 746
ST 747
ST 748
ST 749
ST 750
ST 751
ST 752
ST 753
Depth in
Inches Munsell
10YR3/4
I 0YR4/6
0-14 10YR3/4
10YR4/6
0-13 lOYR3/4
10YR4/6
10YR3/4
14-27 10YR4/6
10YR3/4
16-23 10YR4/6
0-16 10YR3/4
16-24 10YR4/6
0-15 10YR3/4
10 YR4/6
0-12 10YR3/4
10YR4/6
0-13 10YR3/4
13-24 10YR4/6
Soll Description
dark yellowish brown silty sand
gellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
'ellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
~ sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
~ sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
brown silty sand
laurellks lb
Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
...... ~ rote. l'own of South~New York.
TR 47
TR 48
lanrelllcslb
Depth
Number
/riches Munsell
ST 754
10YR3/4
10YR4/6
ST 755
10YR3/4
13-~ 10YR4/6
ST 756
IOYR3/4
10YR4/6
ST 757
0-1: 10YR3/4
12-15 10YR4/6
ST 758
10YR3/4
lOYR4/6
ST 759
10YR3/4
10YR4/6
ST 760
0-13 10YR3/4
lOYR4/6
ST 761
0-L~ 10YR3/4
10YR4/6
ST 762
0-12 10YR3/4
12-I lOYR4/6
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark Yellowish brown silty sand
Yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
Yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark Yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
Yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
Yellowish brown silty sand
dark yellowish brown silty sand
yellowish brown silty sand
Cultural Mater/al Recovered & Notes
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
NCM
Laurel Links Site. To~m Of Southold. Suffolk County, New York.
Depth ---------
Inches
Munsell Soil Description
10YR3/4 dark Yel/-------~wish brown silty sand
10YR4/6 --------'
yel/ow/sh brown silty sand
Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
NCM ---
laurel/ksl b
APPENDIX B
ARTIFACT CATALOGUE
laurelllcsla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Laurel Links Site
Stage lB Archaeological Survey
Artifact Catalogue
TRANSECT SHOVEL DEPTH
TEST
Transect 3 ST 29 2-11" inches
DESCRIPTION OF CULTURAL
MATERIAL
............................................white qumz Le~' ~;;3'~;'~';~';~'"'"'~H~"~;;~'i .......................
2.8 cm x 2.5 cmx .07 cm. Late Woodland, c. AD 700-
900 (Ritchie, 1989'31)
Transect 23 ST 526 0-IV' inches ~!white quartz flake - 1.1 cmx .09 cm ........................................................ x 0.4 cm i
laurellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
PHOTOGRAPHS
laurellksla
CITY/SCAPE: Culturul Resource Consultants
~i ~ndix C: Pholographs
I ~ '1 Liuks Reside~.lial Development and Golf Course. Town of Soulhold. Suffolk Courtly. New York.
Photo 1: The majority of the site was composed of flat terrain on which a crop of rye was
growing This crop stood well over 4 feet in height and in places exceeded 6 feet, effectively
swallowing up the field crew. View is to south from northern portion of property.
Photo 2: View to northeast with one member of the crew out in the field to demonstrate the
height of the crop. Laying transects was a challenge and digging conditions were difl]cull.
lkslb Cl'['h/SCAI~E: Cullulal Rcsomcc Consultants
_A~c~dix C: PhotograPhs
Links Residential Develooment and Goff Course. Town of Soufllold. Suffolk County, New York.
Photo 3: Members of the field crew had to navigate across the field of rye using a compass and
flags placed on tall metal poles for orientation. This view was taken standing on the trunk of one
of the cars. From the ground the crew was invisible. View is to southwest.
Photo 4: Flags mounted on tall metal poles allowed the members of the crew that were laying
transects to maintain their orientation. View is to east across the northern portion of the
property.
I ~t~r ,: ;lkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consullanls
adix C: Photographs
Links Residential Dcvclopmen! and Golf Course. Town of Soulhold. Suffolk County, New York.
Photo 5: The only significant atlifact recovered from the Laurel Links site was a white quartz
Levanna projectile point. This projectile point type is associated with the Late Woodland period,
and dates to c. AD 900 (Kitchie, 1989:31).
: [I;~lb (~I'IY/SCAI~E: C(dlural lt. csourcc Consultants
APPENDIX D
MAPS & FIGURES
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
MAPS
Map 1:
Map 2:
FIGURES
Fig. 1:
Fig. 2:
Fig. 3:
Fig. 4:
Fig. 5:
MAP & FIGURE LIST
Location Map including Project Area.
Riverhead Quad. Scale: 1:12,000.
Location Map including Project Area.
County Atlas. Scale: 3''= 1 Mile.
USGS Topo. 7.5 Minute Series.
Taken from Hagstrom's Suffolk
Mastodon & Mammoth Finds on Submerged Continental Shelf. Scale: No
scale included. (Fig. 3.1 from Snow, 1980)
Distribution of major cultural units in aboriginal New England around
A.D.1600. Scale: No scale included. (Fig. 2.1 from snow, 1980)
Physiographic Map of North End of Embayed Section of Atlantic Coastal
Plain. Scale: included onmap. (taken fromEisenberg, 1978)
Late and Terminal Archaic Sites. (Fig. 5.1 from Snow, 1980)
Sites of the Late Prehistoric Period. (Fig. 8.1 from Snow, 1980)
Archaeological Field Reconnalssafice Map
laurellksla CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Lat~el l.lnlr~ Residential Development & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York
Ma_3p 1: Location Map, including Proiect Area. USGS Tope. 7.5 Minute Series. Riverhead Quad. Scale: 1:12,000
l:~ui-c ilks 1 b CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
.au cci Links Residential Development & Goff Court. Town of Soutlmld. Suffolk County, New York
_M~o~ 2: Location Map, including Proiect Area. Taken from Hagsiom's Suffolk County Atlas. Scale: 3' = 1 Mile.
l;~uretllcslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Links Residential Development & GoffCourse. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count, New York
Mastodon & Mammoth Finds on Submer,,ed Continental Sheff. Wi". 3.1 from Snow. 1980)
l:~'¢[lkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Lm~rdLi~ksRcsidentialDeveloplncnt &Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Countv, NewYork
Distribution of Maior Cultural Units in Aboriginal New England around AD 1600. (Fig. 2.1 from Snow, 1980).
l~ttre~ll~slb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Pa:source Consultants
Harbor Hill
Soulhern limi!
of g
'~ ~<,c) Trenton
Philod
-~Y Cope May
p~ o'~
Sandy Hook
Asbury Po~k
L¸ 0
City I
C~pe
Cod
Mortha's Nanluckel
· -' Vineyard
.. Island
~Ronkonkomo moraine
50 I00 Miles
I J I
Scale
L~u~relLinksResidentialDevelopment &Gol~Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk County, NewYork
Late and Terminal Archaic Sites. (Fi-,. 5.1 from Snow. 1980).
0
Snook Kil
F
R E
S T
l~m:'ellkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultmlts
Ix~m'elLinksResidenfialDevelo~>ment& Golf Course. Town of Southold. Suffolk Count~, New York
_t:~ 5: Sites of the Late Prehistoric Period. (Fig. 8.1 from Snow, 1980).
COVe
lau~ c[lkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Ground Water Resource Evaluation for the
Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course
Southold, New York
July 1999
Prepared for:
Laurel Links
P.O. Box A
Jamesport, New York 11947
Attention: David Saland
Prepared by:
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
404 Glen Cove Avenue
Sea Cliff, New York
Table Of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGY AND AQUIFERS
NEIGHBORING WELL SURVEY AND WATER USAGE
WATER QUALITY
FINDINGS
REFERENCES
Page
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
List Of Tables
1. Inventory of Supply Wells
2. Monthly Pumpage Records in Gallons for SCWA Wells
List Of Figures
1. Map Of Study Area
2. Regional Water Table Map Modified From Schubert (1998)
3. Generalized Geologic Cross-Section Prepared By Bohn-Buxton, et al (1996)
4. Cross-Sectional Plot Including The Estimated Sea Water / Fresh Water Interface In The
Town Of Southold Prepared By Crandell, (1963)
5. Cross-Sectional Plot Including The Estimated Sea Water / Fresh Water Interface In
Jamesport Prepared Bohn-Buxton, et al (1996)
1. Laboratory Data
2. Well Records
3. SCWA Pumpage Records
Attachments
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC,
CERTIFIED GROUND-WATEi=I AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
July 29, 1999
Laurel Links
P.O. BoxA
Jamesport, NY 11947
Attention:
Re:
David Saland
Ground Water Resource Evaluation for the
Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Saland:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As requested, CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC. (CA RICH) is pleased to provide you with this
ground water resource evaluation for the above-referenced property.
The following Report provides an overview of the ground water conditions at the Laurel Links Golf
Course based upon readily available information from the United State Geological Survey
(USGS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the Suffolk
County Water Authority (SCWA), and our own in-house reference information and professional
expertise.
In general, this Report includes and/or discusses the foliowing items:
· A review of the USGS reports available in this area;
· A description of the underlying geology and aquifers in the Town of Southold;
· A map including the locations of the proposed golf course, the three pre-existing on-site
wells, private wells neighboring the golf course, and nearby public supply wells;
· Tabulated well depths, screened intervals and recent pumpage for the neighboring private
domestic wells; and,
· Limited discussion of the ground water resources and ground water quality in connection with
the Laurel Links Plan Proposal and water resources-related findings.
404 GLEN COVE AVENUE, SEA CLIFF. NEW YORK 11579 TEL 516/674-3889 FAX 516/674-3901
CA RICH CONSULTANTS~ INC,
2.0 STUDYAREA
The study area for this Report includes the planned Laurel Links Golf Course and environs. As
this Property is located on the North Fork of Long Island, the north shore and south shore of the
North Fork were selected as the northern and southern report area boundaries. The banks of the
Mattituck and James Creeks are considered the eastern boundary of the study area as these
create a regional hydraulic divide in the water table. The western boundary extends beyond the
Southold Town Line and into the Town of Riverhead. A map of the Study Area is presented on
Figure 1.
3.0 SOURCES OFINFORMATION
The following sources of information were used to prepare this Report:
· Review of available well logs and well construction details maintained at the NYSDEC's
Stony Brook Office;
Communication with the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) and the Riverhead Water
District (RWD) to review and determine the locations and operational status of neighboring
public supply wells;
· A visit to the SCWA to obtain well pumpage records for the nearby public wells covering the
past one and one-half years of operation; and,
Review of available geologic reports for this special area at the USGS office in Coram.
Selected documents that we reviewed as part of this study are listed below:
Hoffman, J.F., 1961, Hydrology of the Shallow Groundwater Reservoir of the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, USGS Bulletin GW-45.
Crandell, H.C., 1963, Geology and Groundwater Reservoir of the Town of Southold, New
York, USGS Water Supply Paper 1619-GG.
Bohn-Buxton, D.E., Buxton, H.T., and Eagen, V.K., 1996, Simulation of Groundwater
Flow Paths and Traveltime in Relation to Tritium and Aldicarb concentrations in the
Upper Glacial Aquifer on the North Fork of Long Island, New York, USGS Open-File
Report 95-761.
McNew-Cartwright, E.R., 1996, Hydrogeologic Data from an Investigation of Water
Resources near Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, USGS Open-File Report 95-427.
Schubert, C.E., 1998, Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary and
Ground-Water Budgets for the North and South Forks, Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk
County, New York.
CA RICH CONSULTANTS~ INC,
4.0 LOCAL HYDROGEOLOGY AND AQUIFERS
The planned Laurel Links Golf Course is underlain by Precambrian Age crystalline bedrock of
relatively Iow permeability at depths in excess of 1,000 feet below grade. A generalized geologic
cross-section is included as an attachment to this Report. Due to the depth and unknown quality
of the ground water occurring in the bedrock, it is not used as a water supply aquifer in Suffolk
County.
The Lloyd Sand Member of the Cretaceous Age Raritan Formation lies directly above the
bedrock. It consists of fully saturated coarse sand and gravel, fne sand, sandy clay and some
thin clay ayers. In most of western Suffolk County, the Ltoyd sand is an excellent deeper aquifer.
However, within the Town of Southold, it is salty and not suitable as a potable water supply.
The upper clay member of the Raritan Formation is predominantly gray silting clay. The "Raritan
Clay" is generally very Iow in permeability and serves as a confining layer between the Lloyd
sand and the overlying geologic strata.
Overlying the Raritan Clay are the saturated sands of the Cretaceous Age Magothy Formation.
The lower portions of the Magothy Formation consist of fine sand and silt with scattered coarse
sand layers. The upper portion of the Mago~hy contains considerably more clay and silt.
Throughout much of western Suffolk County, the Magothy contains excellent water-bearing zones
of fresh potable water. However, in the Town of Southold, the Magothy is generally brackish or
salty and impotable.
Above the Magothy are the Pleistocene deposits of the Upper Glacial Formation. In areas of
Suffolk County, a unit of low permeability clay referred to as the "Gardiners Clay" is sandwiched
between the Upper Glacial and Magothy Formations.
The Upper Glacial Formation is approximately 300 feet thick in the area of Laurel Links. Below
most of the North Shore, it is known to contain Upper and lower interstitial clay layers within the
saturated sand and gravel deposits. These Upper Glacial sands are the only source of fresh,
potable ground water below the North Fork of Long Island. Composed primarily of sand and
gravel of glacial origin, this formation provides excellent yields of flesh, potable water in the area
of the Laurel Links Golf Course. The elevation of the water table (which represents the top of the
Upper Glacial Aquifer) beneath the golf course is approximate y 5 feet above mean sea level. The
direction of ground water flow is to the southeJ~st where it discharges into the nearby Great
Peconic Bay -- as illustrated by Schubert (1991~) on Figure 2. A generalized geologic cross-
section, prepared by Bohn-Buxton, et al (1996) is provided on Figure 3.
5.0 NEIGHBORING WELL SURVEY AND WATER USAGE
There are numerous water wells neighboring th~ Laurel Links Go f Course. Of these, there are
five larger public supply wells in the study area that are owned and operated by the Suffolk
County Water Authority (SCWA). These wellsjwere installed at three separate ocat OhS with
upper and lower we s nstalled at two of the three drill sites. The SCWA wells range in depth from
100 to 150 feet and were pumped at rates of IJ,etween 100 and 300 gallons per minute (gpm)
during 1998. Available information for these well~ is presented on Table I.
CA RICH CONSULTANTS~ INC.
Numerous shallow wells, ranging i~ depth form 50 to 100 feet, also surround the golf course.
These residential wells are used primarily for domestic water supply and irrigation purposes. The
well logs reviewed at the NYSDEC do not contain pumpage records for these smaller wells. In
general, a domestic well for a residence will pump at an intermittent rate of approximately 10 to
15 gpm (on demand), to satisfy a daily use on the order of 100 gallons per day per capita. Most
of the non-irrigation (i.e.: lawn watering) water pumped at these residences is returned to the
ground through on-site septic systems.
There are also three wells located directly on the planned Laurel Links Golf Course. NYSDEC
does not have these wells located on their base map. As such, we were not able to obtain the
State I.D. numbers or well records for these wells. We interviewed Mr. Joseph Wannat, a
previous farmer at this property, by telephone on 7119199, regarding these particular wells. He
informed us that during the hottest summers, the three wells were, at times, commonly run 24-
hours a day during the months of June, July and August. He said that the wells were hooked up
to sprinklers that discharged approximately 10 gpm each. Accordingly, the following table
provides estimated yields from each well
Well
Depth Diameter # Sprinklers .S. prinkler rate Est. flow rate
North well 70 ft. est. 12-inch 80
10 gpm 800 gpm
Mid well 70 ft. est. 10-inch 50 10 gpm 500 gpm
South well 70 ft. est. 10-inch 30
10 gpm 300 gpm
Of the three wells on the property, Mr. Wannat's recollection was that the north well had the best
yield. This well was larger in diameter, could run more sprinklers, and produced higher pressure
than the other remaining two wells on the property.
Typically, 18-hole golf courses in this kind of environmental setting can be expected to require
approximately 8,000,000 gallons/month for irrigation purposes. If we assume a seven month
irrigation season (April-October), then Laurel Links may require withdrawals of about 100 gpm to
satisfy its irrigation demand on an annualized basis. If natural recharge estimates for the golf
course are approximately 150-200 gpm (159 acres) on an annualized basis, then the irrigation
demand of about 100 gpm may reduce the volume of available natural recharge by about one-
half to two-thirds.
6.0 WATER QUALITY
The ground water in the Upper Glacial Aquifer beneath Southold is generally of good quality.
There are two prevailing issues regarding groundwater quality that merit additional detail -
saltwater encroachment and the presence of the pesticide Aldicarb.
Saltwater Encroachment - The potential for saltwater encroachment of the fresh groundwater
reservoir within the Upper Glacial aquifer is an historic issue identified by previous studies in the
Town of Southhold as documented in Section 3.0 of this Report (Hoffman, 1961). As sea water
bounds the north and south shores of the Town and underlies the shallow groundwater at depth,
overpumping could result in lateral and/or vertical seawater encroachment. Natural replenishment
of the ground water below the Town of Southold occurs solely as the result of infiltrating
precipitation. To prevent the accelerated occurrence of seawater encroachment, annual pumping
of the aquifer must not exceed the annual natural recharge from precipitation.
CA RICH CONSULTANTS~ INC,
Crandell (1963) prepared several cross-sectional plots that include the historical (forty years ago)
location of the estimated seawater / fresh water interface in the Town of Southold. In general, a
chloride concentration or 40 mg/I is used as the seawater / fresh water interface. Section A-A
was located in close proximity to the planned Laurel Links Golf Course and is included as Figure
4 of this Report. This cross-section places the sea water / fresh water interface at an elevation of
approximately 250 feet below sea level in the middle of the North Fork tapering upward toward
the two shore lines. A more recent study performed by Bohn-Buxton, et al (1996) included a
similar cross-section below nearby Jamesport and is included as Figure 5 of this Report.
On Mamh 22, 1999, the north and south on-site irrigation wells were sampled and analyzed. On
this date, a chloride level of 24.0 mg/I was detected in the south well and 29.6 mg/I was detected
in the north well. These are both slightly less than the 40 mg/I concentration generally used to
define the transitional area of the seawater / fresh water interface.
Aldicarb - Aldicarb is a pesticide used in the past to control the Colorado potato beetle and the
golden nematode in potato crops on Long Island. As this land was previously used as a potato
farm, the north and south on-site wells were sampled on July 14, 1999 and analyzed for Aldicarb
and its degradation products. The results of these analyses indicate no detections of Aldicarb or
its degradation products in either sample.
In addition to Aldicarb, ground water from the north and south on-site wells were also analyzed
for a series of other pesticides and solvents. These analyses revealed no detections of the
pesticides and solvents included using EPA methods 504.1,505, 507, 515.1,524.2, 525.2, 547,
548 and 549.1. The results of these chemical analyses of the ground water are attached to this
Report.
7.0 FINDINGS
In response to our review, we find the following:
Ground water is the only available source of fresh, potable water for the Town of Southold.
Several water-bearing aquifers exist below the Town, however, the uppermost Upper Glacial
Formation is the only aquifer that has historically yielded large quantities of fresh, potable
water. The ground water in the underlying deeper formations is either brackish or salty and
impotable.
The SCWA operates five (5) public supply wells within a ~ to 2 miles radius of the planned
golf course. These wells range in depth from 100 to 200 feet and, during 1998, were pumped
at rates of between 100 and 300 gallons per minute (gpm).
Numerous residences surround the planned Laurel Links Golf Course. According to
NYSDEC records, many of these homes ara equipped with individual relatively shallow wells
for domestic and irrigation purposes. The residences are serviced by on-site septic systems
that return most of the non-irrigation water that is locally pumped back into the aquifer.
Three (3) on-site wells exist on the Laurel Links Golf Course. The estimated historical yield
of these wells range from 300 to 800 gpm. Installed to estimated depths of approximately 70
feet below grade, the chloride concentration in the north and south well were 29.6 mg/I and
24 mg/I, respectively. This is slightly less than the 40 mg/I value typically used as an
indication of the transitional the interface between subsurface sea water and fresh water.
CA RICH CONSULTAN~S~ INC,
If these wells are to be used for irrigation purposes:
the well depths should be accurately measured,
the wells should be pump-tested to determine their true yield,
the wells should be registered with the NYSDEC, and,
the chloride concentrations should be monitored closely.
Irrigation of Laurel Links, utilizing existing on-site ground water resources may reduce natural
recharge on the property by as much as 50-60%, Development of a local hydrologic water
baseline is suggested to determine whether the planned irrigation system will have any
significant adverse impacts upon the water levels and water quality of nearby, off-site
homeowners' wells.
Aldicarb is a pesticide that historically was used on potato crops on Long Island. The north
and south on-site wells were sampled On July 14, 1999 and analyzed for Aldicarb and its
degradation products. There were no detections of Aldicarb in the water collected from either
well.
The application of pesticides to the planned Laurel Links golf course turf should be performed
by trained and knowledgeable technicians using the best pest management approach
available as to minimize the amount of products applied. A series of monitoring wells along
the property line and a program of periodic ground water testing to establish baseline water
levels, ground water quality conditions, anU any trends; and to confirm that the proper
application rates of the pesticides are applied to the golf course turf during active use is also
recommended.
If you have any questions regarding this R
eport, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully,
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
cc: Ronald Abrams
Attachments
Comax C:',l-ew-99~docs~Laurel links~ Laurel links GW Res Eval
REFERENCES
Hoffman, J.F., 1961, Hydrology of the Shallow Groundwater Reservoir of the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, Long Istand, New York, USGS Bulletin GW-45.
Crandell, H.C., 1963, Geology and Groundwater Reservoir of the Town of Southold, New
York, USGS Water Supply Paper 1619-GG.
Bohn-Buxton, D.E., Buxton, H.T., and Eagen, V.K., 1996, Simulation of Groundwater Flow
Paths and Traveltime in Relation to Tritium and AIdicarb concentrations in the Upper Glacial
Aquifer on the North Fork of Long Island, New York, USGS Open-File Report 95-761.
McNew-Cartwright, E.R., 1996, Hydrogeologic Data from an Investigation of Water
Resources near Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, USGS Open-File Report 95-427.
Schubert, C.E., 1998, Areas Contributing Ground Water to the Peconic Estuary and Ground-
Water Budgets for the North and South Forks, Shelter Island, Eastern Suffolk County, New
York.
CA RICH CONSULTANTSj INC,
(CERTIFIED GROUNE)-WATER ANE)
ENVIRONMENTAL 9F=ECIALiST8
September 9, 1999
Laurel Links
P.O. Box A
Jamesport, New York 11947
Attn: Mr. David Saland
Re:
Addendum Number 1
Ground Water Resource Evaluation for the
Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course
Southold, New York
Dear Mr. Saland:
Introduction
As requested, CA RICH CONSULTANTS INC. (CA RICH) is pleased to provide you with this
Addendum to our Ground Water Resource Evaluation dated July 29, 1999 for the above
referenced property.
This Addendum addresses the concern for the potential reduction in the amount of available
groundwater within the aquifer underlying Laurel Links Golf Course and the anticipated irrigation
need proposed for this Facility. To address these concerns, an annual water budget was
prepared for the golf course. This response does not address the sustained potability of the
irrigation water.
Annual Water Budget Calculation
Irr .gat on Demand - An estimate of the anticipated annual irrigation demand which will be required
for the Laurel Links Residential Development and Golf Course was provided to us by Mr. Joseph
Sarkisian of Joseph Sarkisian & Associates, Inc. - Irrigation Systems Consultants - and is listed
on Table 1 of this Addendum.
A maximum irrigation usage of 325,000 gallons per day (gpd) was calculated for the month of
July, the month with the highest irrigation demand. The maximum projected usage of 325,000
gpd is then multiplied by a seasonal pementage factor applicable to other months when irrigation
is required, and then multiplied by the number of days in that particular month. For example
dudng the month of April, maximum usage is 325,000 gpd, multiplied by a seasonal percentage
factor of 15%, and then multiplied by 31 (the number of days in the month of April). The result is
an estimated 10,075,000 gallons per month (gpm) of grdundwater needed to irdgate Laurel Links
dudng the month of Apdl. The calculations assui*ne there will be no turf irrigation dudng the late
Fall and throughout the cooler Winter months.
404 GLEN COVE AVENUE, SEA CLIFF, NEW YORK 1 1579 TEL 91 6/974-3899 FAX 519/874-3901
CA RICH CONSULTANTS~ INC,
Thus, in total, approximately 30,325,500 gallons per year (gpy) of pumpage is anticipated to be
withdrawn from the underlying aquifer and utilized for irrigation purposes on an annualized basis
(See Appendix A).
Averaqe Annual Recharge - The proposed area of the Laurel Links Residential Development and
Golf Course including wetlands area and ponds will be approximately 226 acres -- as reported to
CA RICH CONSULTANTS by Laurel Links. The fresh water that replenishes the underlying
aquifer, otherwise known as recharge, originates entirely from precipitation. Therefore
calculations were made to determine the amount of recharge the 226 acres will be contributing
back into this portion of the aquifer.
A 47-year average precipitation of 45.49 inches was established by the Northeast Regional
Climate Center for the Town of Riverhead from the location at the Riverhead Research Farm.
This information was provided to CA RICH by the United States Geological Survey in Coram,
New York.
To calculate the average amount of annual recharge in Southold, the local precipitation rate was
multiplied by 50% to account for runoff, average evaporation (that portion of precipitation which is
returned to the air through direct evaporation) and transpiration by vegetation. This value, 23.7
inches per year, was applied as recharge across the area of 226 acres. Using these
assumptions, the average annual recharge from precipitation is calculated to be approximately
140,000,000 gallons per year. This volume is more than four times the amount of water
estimated to be lost through pumped withdrawals to satisfy irrigation demand at the golf course.
Calculations were also performed using a (lesser) recharge factor of 33% of the average annual
precipitation rate, or 15 inches per year (preferred by CA Rich in consideration of potentially
increased localized evaporative losses attributable to coastal breezes). Using this more
conservative approach, the annual recharge from precipitation is equivalent to approximately
90,000,000 gallons per year or roughly three times the calculated irrigation demand on an
annualized basis (See Appendix B).
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that previous historical pumping on this same property (for
the purposes of seasonal irrigation of a potato farm) required combined groundwater withdrawals
from three pre-existing farm wells totaling a maximum of 1,600 gallons per minute. Assuming a
limited pumpage, albeit 24-hours a day, during extended hot periods in the warmer summer
months of July and August, means that historical agdculturel irrigation may have exceeded
2,000,000 gallons per day dudng this two-month period with no reported significantly deleterious
effects. Based upon the information provided tb date, we do not anticipate that the projected
irrigation requirements for the golf course will ever approach these historical rates of withdrawal.
CA RICH CON-~ULTAN'rSj INC,
Conclusions
Therefore, the average existing annual recharge to the Laurel Links property is more than three to
four times the anticipated annual irrigation demand projected by the golf course Architect. We
believe the Architect's projections are reasonable in this regard based upon an earlier coastal golf
course water usage inventory prepared by CA Rich for a planned golf course in Westchester
County. Based upon our assumptions, we expect that there will be a net surplus of recharge at
this site and that "mining" or reductions in the availability of the underlying groundwater should
not occur.
We do suggest that the irrigation demand experienced at Laurel Links, following its full build-out,
be thoroughly metered, and periodically sampled, to establish an actual physical record of the
quantity (and continued quality) of long-term pumpage.
Respectfully,
CA RICH CONSULTANTS INC.
Ivy Hidalg~-Olberding U/ '
Hydrogeologist
Eric A: WeinsJock
Attachment
IHO:EAW
cc: Ronald Abrams - Dru Associates
Ivy:Projects/Laurel Links/Letter
Laurel Links
Projected Monthly Irrigation Usage
Month Max. Daily Usage Seasonal Factor x no.days
April 325,000 15% 31
May 325,000 18% 31
June 325,000 80% 30
July 325,000 100% 31
August 325,000 55% 31
September 325,000 18% 30
October 325,000 15% 31
Estimated Annual Irrigation Demand
Estimated Monthly Usage
1,511,250
1,813,500
7,800,000
10,075,000
5,541,250
1,755,000
1~511,250
30,325,500
Laurel Links Golf Course
Average Annual Recharge Calculations
Given:
226 acres of land
I acre is equivalent to 43,560 square feet (sq. ft.)
226 acres x 43,560sq. ft. = 9,844,560 sq. ft.
1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons
The 47-year average precipitation for Riverhead is 45.49 inches per year.
Formula for recharge on Long Island:
Precipitation x 50% = Recharge
45.49 inches of precipitation x .50 = 22.75 inches of recharge
22.75 inches + 12 inches = 1.90 feet
9,844,560 sq. ft. x 1.90 feet = 18,704,664 cubic feet
18,704,664 cubic feet x 7.48 = 139,910,887 gallons rounded off = '146,996,900 gallons of water
infiltrated as recharge.
Formula for Conservative recharge on Long Island
Precipitation x 33% = Conservative Recharge
45.49 inches of precipitation x .33 = 15.01 incheS' of recharge
15.01 inches + 12 inches = 1.26 feet
9,844,560 sq. ft. x 1.26 feet = 12,404,146 cubic feet
12,404,146 cubic feet x 7.48 = 92,783,009 gallons rounded off= 90,000,000 gallons of water
infiltrated as recharge.
Table 1
Inventory of Supply Wells
Located in Proximity to Laurel Links Golf Course
Page
lof2
Logs
Available
Approx.
Distance
From Well Screened
NYSDEC Laurel Links Depth Interval
Well No. in miles in feet in feet
Formation Use
1998
Annual
Pumpage
(if available)
Yes S- 105669* 2 116
Yes S-108347' 2 123
Yes S-101755' 1/2 196
Yes S-106416' 1/2 242
Yes S-094138 1-1/2 144
No None So. Well 70 (est.)
(On-site)
No None Mid. Well 70 (est.)
(On-site)
No None No. Well 70 (est.)
(On-site)
Yes S-56242 0 to 1/4 55
Yes S-57616 0 to 1/4 41
Yes S-31761 0 to 1/4 48.5
Yes S-53990 0 to 1/4 50
Yes S-28739 0 to 1/4 31
Yes S-6556 0 to 1/4 24
Yes S-21466 1/4 to 1/2 49
Yes S-55933 1/4 to 1/2 80
Yes S-14261 1/4 to 1/2 35
Yes S-22854 1/4 to 1/2 45
Yes S-22310 1/4 to 1/2 54
Yes S~69225 1/4 to 1/2 63
96 to 106
103 to 123
143 to 193
232 to 242
124 to 144
Unknown
Upper Gl. Public Sup.
Upper Gl. Public Sup.
Upper Gl. Public Sup.
Upper Gl. Monitoring
Upper Gl. Public Sup.
Upper Gl. Irrigation
Unknown Upper Gl. Irrigation
Unknown Upper Gl. Irrigation
50 to 55 Upper Gl. Domestic
3'i to 41 Upper Gl. Domestic
28.5 to48.5 Upper Gl. Fire Prot.
45 to 50 Upper Gl. Not Listed
28 to 31 Upper Gl. Domestic
21 to 24 Upper Gl. Not Avail,
39 to 44 Upper Gl. Domestic
60 to 80 Upper Gl. Not Listed
30 to 35 Upper Gl. Domestic
30 to45 Upper Gl. Irrigation
34 to 54 Upper Gl. Fire Prot.
59 to 63 Upper Gl. Domestic
23,053,000
18,300,000
3,418,000
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Inventory of Supply Wells Page
Located in Proximity to Laurel Links Golf Course 2 of 2
Logs
Available
Approx.
Distance
From Well Screened
NYSDEC Laurel Links Depth Interval
Well No. in miles in feet in feet
Formation Use
1998
Annual
Pumpage
(if available)
Yes S-74338 1/4 to 1/2 75 70 to 75
Yes S-92442 0 to 1/4 65 60 to 65
Yes S-76776 0 to 1/4 47 42 to 47
Yes S-76531 0 to 1/4 65 35 to 65
Yes S-78727 0 to 1/4 54 48 to 54
Yes S-93988 0 to 1/4 50 45 to 50
Yes S-75922 0 to 1/4 50 45 to 50
Yes S-82758 0 to 1/4 50 45 to 50
Yes S-94154 0 to 1/4 60 55 to 60
Yes S-85705 0 to 1/4 72 69 to 72
Yes S-92034 0 to 1/4 60 55 to 60
Yes S-97243 0 to 1/4 70 65 to 70
Yes S-74969 0 to 1/4 60 55 to 60
Yes S-80781 0 to 1/4 70 67 to 70
Note:
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Upper Gl.
Domestic Not Available
Irrigation Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Heat Pump Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
Domestic Not Available
*Pumpage from the paired wells at Inlet Drive and Laurel Lake are reported
as one combined value
Comax C:\1-ew-99~ss\Laurel Links~Welllnv
Table 2
Monthly Pumpage Records in Gallons for SCWA Wells
Located in Proximity to Laurel Links Golf Course
I
NYSDEC Well # S-105669' S-108347' S-101755' S-106416' S-094138
Well Location Inlet Drive Inlet Drive Laurel Lake Laurel Lake Sunset Dr.
SCWA Well # lA 2A 1 2 1
Month/Year
Jan. 1998 1,020,000 950,000 18,000
Feb. 1998 822,000 810,000 18,000
Mar. 1998 842,000 1,050,000 0
Apr. 1998 1,164,000 I 1,630,000 0
May 1998 1,624,000 1,500,000 946,000
Jun. 1998 2,214,000 2,030,000 25,000
Jul. 1998 4,040,000 2,770,000 170,000
Aug. 1998 3,606,000 2,810,000 732,000
Sep. 1998 2,677,000 .. 1,740,000 804,000
Oct. 1998 2,174,000 I 1,010,000 425,000
Nov. 1998 1,899,000 860,000 226,000
Dec. 1998 971,000 1,140,000 54,000
1998 total gallons 23,053,000 18,300,000 3,418,000
Jan. 1998 1,239,000 650,000 224,000
Feb. 1998 808,000 780,000 469,000
Mar. 1998 818,000 690,000 801,000
Apr. 1998 1,262,000 1,290,000 372,000
May 1998 2,175,000 2,220,000 793,000
Note: Pumpage from the paired wells at Inlet Drive & Laurel Lake are reported as one combined value
Comax C:\1-ew-99',ss~Laurel Links'~SCWApump
LON5 I~LANI~ ~OLINI~
Legend
Boundory of Proposed
Residentiol Development
& Golf Course
0 1/'4 I/2 1
II ~
Approximate Scale in Miles
~F~A'F F'I~CONIC PAY
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
C~'tlfied Ground-W~tw~ Md Environmental Speniali~ts
404 Glen Cove A~ue, Sea C~iff, NY 11579
STUDY AREA 7/13/99
AS SHOWN
~ LAUREL LINKS S.T.kl.
1090-1A LAUREL NEW YORK EA.W.
Martituck. Creek
SITE
~ 51~ · 10.7- ~
~o.7 _ ~
~ 45~ ~~'~
Creek
GREAT
PECONIC
BAY
--5
WATER -TABLE CONTOUR - - Shows altitude of water table in March - April 1994.
Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval, in feet, is variable.
Datum is sea level.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MILES
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KILOMETERS
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Figure 2
Regional Water Table Map
Laurel Links Golf Course
Town Of Southold. New York
North
Feet '
20° -
South
Level
-200
-400 -
-GO0 -
-800 -
-1200
Long
island
· Great
Peconic
Surface Jam~esport Bay
Water table
/ Upper iflterstadial Clay deposit
Glacial Silty sand (Jnterstadial deposit)
Magothy Aquifer
Raritan
.e Confining
~ Unit
Lloyd
Aquifer
~ - Bedrock ~
.5 I Mile Vertical exaggeration about X 18
0 .*~ '~ Kilometer
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Figure 3
Generalized Geologic Cross-Section
below Jamesport, NY
Laurel Links Golf Course
Town Of Southold, New York
ioo
SECTION A-A' FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND TO GREAT PECONIC BaY (AREA A)
-200
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
See Plate 1 for location of Section A - A'
Figure 4
Cross-Section Plot A-A' Including
Seawater / Fish Water Interface
Laurel Links Golf Course
Town Of Southold, New York
North
Feet
75
50
25
Sea, --
Level
-25-
-SO-
~75-
-100
-125
-150-
-175'
-200-
*225-
-250-
-275-
-300-
-325-
-350-
-375'
-400-
°425-
-450-
-475.
-500-
-525-
-550
~' r- Jamesport
Water
Upper
glacial
Upper
interstadial
Interstadial clay
Lower ~? '
interstadlal clay
~ ~qu--~er
Upper glaci'~-- '---- ~
clay
Upper
glaclal
aquifer
-20
-20
-35
Magothy
aquifer Fresh
water
?
Salt
water
Vertical exaggeration x 20
0 .5 Mile
0 .'~ Kilometer
South
CA RICH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Figure 5
Cross-Section Plot Including Seawater/
Fresh Water Interface below Jamesport, NY
Laurel Links Golf Course
Town Of Southoid, New York
PEDNEA UL T ASSOCIA TES, INC.
'1615 NINTH A VENUE, BOX 205
BOHEML4, N.Y. 11716
· 'Phone: (516) 467-8477 Fax: (516) 467-6905
Prepared F.~clu~tvely For:
SALAND ASSOCIATES
1833 I~L~iH ROAD
JAMESPORT, ~ 11948-0000
(5 ~6) 7~o
AMEPJCA '$ TEST LABI
P£DNEyl U£ T.4SSOCL~ TES, INC.
LAi~l: 990?0258 SAMPLE II~: 99070268-001
PROJECT 1D: LAUREL LINKS PROPERTY
SAMPLE ORIGIN: NORTH WELL
COLLECT DATE
7/14/99
TEST: N-METHYLCARBAMOYLOXIMES & N-METHYLCARBAMATES
MATRIX: . LIQUID
7/14f99 8:26:38 PM 7~5~ 7~5~ J
.... METHOD: EPA$31,I '
Aldlcarb
Aldicarb Sulfone
<0.5 pg/L
Ndlcarb Sulfoxide <0.8 pG/L
Carbaryl <0.7 pg/L
Carbofuran <0.9 pg/L
I 3-Hydroxycarbofuran
<1.6 pg/L
Me~iocarb <4.0 pg/L
Me~omyl
<0.7 pgA. '
Oxamyl (Vy(late) <1.6 p~l.
John Pedneault
Lab Director
Page 1 Of 2
NYS El. AP ~10224
PEDNEA UL T ASSOCIA TES, INC..
1615 NINTH,4 VENUE, BOX205
BOHEMI,4, N.K t 1716
· Phone: (516) 467-8477 Fax: (516) 467-6905
AMERICA '$ TEST I_i. AB!
?rtpared Ea~¢lu~iwtly For:
SALAND ASSOCIATES
1833 MAII'q ROAD
JAMESPORT, NY 11945..0000
(516) 722-4990
PEDNE.4 UL T AS$OCI. A TE$, INC.
1615 NIIffTtt,4YE~VUE. 80X205, BOH~MId. ~E 11716
LA~: 99070268 S~PLE~: 990702~402
PRO~ ~; ~UR~L LINKS PROPER~
SABLE O~GIN: SOU~ WELL
MA~: LIQUID
COLLECT OATE DATE RECEIVED RELF.,ASE DATE
7/14/99 7/14/99 8:26:38 PM' 7/25/99
TEST: N-M~THYLCARBAMOYLOXIMES & N-METHYLCARBAMATE$
PARAMETE;R
Aldic, arb
<1.3 : pg/L J
Aldicarb SuffOne <0.5
A~dicarb Sulfo~dde
<0.8 pg/L
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
<0.7 IJg/L
<0.9 pg/L
<1.6 pg/L
Methlocarb <4.0 pg/L
Methomyl <0.7 p~L
Oxamyl (Vyclate) <1.6 pg/L
John Pedneault
Lab Director
Page 2 of 2
NYS ELAP $'10224
DRU
aSSOCIATES TEL:516-?59-4619
Ha9 06,99
Prepared F.~clmivel.,v For:
SALAND ASSOCIATES
183~ MALN ROAD
JAM~SPORT, NY I
(516) 722-4~0
COl ,I.,K(.'Y DATE,
Chloride
11:48 No.O0$ P.04
TEST
LAI~: 99030367 SAMPLE ID 99030357-001
PROJKCT H); LAUREL LINKS PROPERTY. LAUREL
SAMPL[ ORIGIN: SOUTH WELL
MATRIX: LIQUID
DATE RECEIVED RELEASE DATE REPORT DATE
3/22/99. 4/1/99 4/1,~9
]ilY.~ULT UNITS METHOD M.D,~ M.C.~
24.0 ~ 8~D 0.25 2~
Fluoflde
<0.10 mg/L SM450OF-C 0.01 2.2
Sulfate (Tu~ldomoMc)""
8urfa~-4ant (MBA~)
40.0 mg/L IIM4500504-E o.1
0.21 mg/L SM5540C 0,05
Alkalinity
Cormdvlty
Total DIs~olved Iiolids ('I'DS)
7,40 ~' 11~ SM232.0B 0,5
<0.02 mOA. IIM450pCN-E 0.02 0.2
-3,49 ~ 8rd, Units Lan~il'~r I.D. -10
t88 mg/L $M2.540C 2
Hardness, Total (mg/L as CaCO3)
99.2 rng/L 8M2340C 0,6
John p~lmmult
Lab Dlreotor
Pege 1 of 1 Il
NY~ ELAP #10224
DRU ~SSOCIDTES
TEL:516-?59-4619 Ma9 06,99
11:50 No.O05 P.05
COLLECT DATE DATE
3/2:2/99 3/22/99
EPA ~L02 '~
Bo~e~o <0.~
~io, i~Ca".l~ro,-~at ha ne <0.5
Bromodlchlommethane ,:0.5
n-Butylbenzer~o
<0.5
-s~C-Butytbenzeno <0.0
UI~T5
REI,EA$1~ DATE 1[[1~1~,'i' DATE
3/30/99 3/30/99
Me~i ~OD M,D.L- M.C.L
EPA 524.2 0.5 5
EPA 524.2 0.5 5
EPA 524.2
EPA 524.2
0,5 5
0.5 50
EPA ,524.2
0.5 50
EPA 524.2
EPA o24.2
0-5 5
0.5 5
te--~-Butylbenzene <0,5 pg/L EPA 524.2
0.5 5
Carbon totraohlorlde
Chlorobe~eno
:hloroform
:hiommethana
.Chlorotoluana
m
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
<0.5 pgA_ EPA 524.2 0.5 5
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0,5 5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
pg/L EPA 524.2
pgA. EPA 524.2
p0A. EPA 524.2
0.5 50
u.5 6
0.5 5
Dibromoohlommethane
<0,5
<0.5
pgA. EPA 524.2
pgA. EPA 524,2
0.5 5
0.5 5O
Dlbromomethane
'~'.2-Olchlombenzene
1 .~-DicNorol~enzene
1,4-Diohtorobenzene
Dlchlomdlfluoromethane
l,l-DIcNoroeffiane
1,2.Dlehlor00lhane
<O.&
pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.5 ': pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.§ pg/L EPA 524.2
<0,5 pg/L EPA 524.2
<0,6 IJg/L EPA 524.2
<0.§ pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.5 Pg/L EPA 524,2
0.5
0,5
0.5 5
0.5 5
0.0 ,5
0,5 5
0.5 5
0.5 5
B
cls-l,2-Dlchloroethene
tran~-l,2-Dlchloroethelle
1,2-Dlchlompropane
2,2-DIoN~)mpmp~ne
da- 1,3-Dlchloroproperm
<0,5
<0.5
<0,5
o.5
<0,5
· <0.6
pg/L EPA 524.2
pg/L EPA 524.2
,gA. .... ~PA 52.4.2
pg/L EPA 524.2
pg/L EPA 624,2
EPA 524,2
pg/L
0.5 5
0.& 5
0.5 5
0,5 .' 5
0,5 5
0.5 5
tmns-t,3-Dlchloropmpeno
Ethylbenzene
John Pedneault
Lab Director
<0.5
<0.5.
pg/L
EPA 524.2 0,5
EPA 524,2 0.5
5
page 2 of 18
NY0 El. AP #10224
DRU RSSOCIRTES TEL:St6-759-4619 Mag 06,99 11:50 No.O03 P.06
(~ 16) 722-.499O
COLLECT DATE
3/22./99 .
Hexac. hlorobutadlene
MATRIX: LIQUID
DATE RECEIVED' ltEI,FASE DATIz
3r22/99 3/~0/99
REPORT DATE
<0.5 I~g/L EPA 524.2 - 0.5 5
I~opropylbenzene <0.5 pg/L EPA 524,2 0.5 5
Methylene chloddo ..... <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Methyl-terl-bub/I ether <0.5 pg/l~ EPA 524.2 0.5 ~
Napthaleno <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
~.- 0.5 5
n-Propylbenzene <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2
Styrene- <0.5 pglL EPA 524.2 0.5 5 ....
1, l','l,2-Tol~achlo roetflane' <0.5 , pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,t,2,2-Toltachloroethane <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Tetrachlomolhone <0.5 pg/t. [=PA 524.2 0.5 5
T0{uene <0.5 pglL EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,2,3-Tflchtorobenzene <0,5 .... PO/L EPA 52~'2 0.5 5___
t,2,4-Tdchbrobenzene <0.5 ' pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,1,1-Trichln~oethane ' <0,5 Ug/L EPA 524,2 0.§ 5
1,1,2.Trlchloroethane <0.5 pg/L EPA 524,2 0,5 5
Trlohlonoetheno <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Trtchlomfluoromethane <0.5 IJg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,2,3-'t'dchloropmpane <0.5 IJg/L EPA 524.2 0.5
t,2,4-Trtmothyroenzone <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0,5 5
1,3,5-Trlmeth¥1benzeno <0,5 pg/t. EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Vln'~l chlodd~ <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
o-Xylene <0.5 ' Pgfl- EPA 524.2
0,5 5
i~,~ULT · I~[TS METHOD M.D,I ,. M.C,I-
<0.01 pg/L EPAS04.1 0.01 0.05
<0.01 pg/L EPAS04.1 0.01 0.2
John p~dneault
L~b DlreGtor
Page 3 of 18
NY$ Et. AP dlt0224
DRU RSSOCIDTES TEL:$16-759-4619 Ma,~ 06,99 11:50 No.O0~ P.07
'""*-" * "'* ' 161$HIH'J'H,41~HIJF,.'~DX20$,~OH~N.~ Il?Id
':* SAI,~ND ASSOCIATES
I.~33 MAI~' ROAD
~IAMRSPORT, NY
COLLECT DATE
3/22/99
EPA
ID.:.' LAUREL LINKS PROPERTY, LAUREL
.ORIG~I: SOUTH WELL '
, MATRIX: LIQUID
R~I~A8~ DATE R.~PORT DATE
4/'2/99
R,[ET~OD M.D,L. .. M,C,]b.
0.08 2
EPAr,~5
A. Irazine
I Chlordane
<0.19 pg/L EPAS05 0.t0 2
<0.14 pg/L EPAG00 0.14 2
:)leldrln
Enddn
Hep~ch~r
H,~xe,,~,lorobenzono
Hexachlom,:yclopen[adlene
<0.2 pg/L EPAS05 0,2
<0.01 pg/L EPAS05 0.01 2
<0,01 pg/L EPA505 0.01 0.4
~O.Ot '" pg/L EPAS05 0.01 0.2
1
<0.1 pg/L EPAS05 0.1
' <0,4 pg/L EPAS0$ 0.4 50
Methoxyohlor
1 Tox~phene
<0,14 pg/L EPAS05 0.14 40
<0.01 pg/L EPA505 0.01
<0.2 pg/L EPAS05 0,2
· <0,1 pg/L EPAS05 0.1
<1.0 ,, pg/L EPAS05
0.2
4
0.0
John Pedmmult
Lab Dlreotor
Page 4 of 18
NY$ ELAP #10224
DRU ~SSOCIRTES
TEL:516-759-4619
Ma9 06,99
~1:5! No.O03 P.08
COLLECT DATE
3/22/99
Atraton
[ Bromacll
~uta~or
EPA ~
Catboxln
Chlotpropham
SOUTH wELL
~TRtX; LIQUID
Dlazlnon
<0.25 ' pg/L EPAS07
DATl; RECEIVED PJEL~8le DAT~ RF, PORT DATE
3/22/99 41~ 4/~9
<2.0 ~ EP~7 2
<1.0 P~ EPA~7 1
<2.5 Pg~ EP~7 2.5
<0.4 pglL E~7 0.4
<0;8 ~g[ ~7 0.6
<0,25 ~g/L EP~7 0.25
0.25
<0.25 pg/L EPA507
Oi~hlmwo$ <2.5 I&I/L
Oiponaml<l <0.6 pg/L
Disulfoton <0.3
Dlsulfoton sulfone <$.8 pglL
EPAS07
2:5
EPAS07 0.0
EPAS07 0.3
EPAS07 3.8
Dlsuffot~n sulfoxide <0.38 pg/L. EPAS07
EPTC <0.25 IJg/L EPA007
Etho~0p <0.19 :: pg/L EPAS07
-i~-namlphoa : <1.0 pg/L ~PAS07
Fermrlmol " " <0.38 , pg/L EPAS07
quddon. <3.B pg/L
Hexazlnone <0.8 pg/L
Mor~ho$ <0.25 pg/L
Methyl pnraox0il <2,5 pg/L EPA.507
Metolachlor <0.75 pg/L EPAS07
Mo~bu~ln <0.t5 . pg/L EPAS07' '
Movinphos <5.0 ~/L EP^5~7
MGK 264 <0.5 IJg~- EPAS07
Mollnate <0.15 "pg/L EPAS07
Naptopamlde <0.25 pg/L" EF~AS07
4o~urazon <0.5 I~L' EPAS07
Pebulate <0.1~- pg/L EPA507
Prometon
' <0.3 ,g/L EP/~507
PromeWn '~ <0,2 pg~L EPAS07
Pronamlde <0.8 pg/L EPAS07
0.36
0.25
0.t9
1
0.38
EPA007 3.8
EPA007 0.0
E~AS07 .... 0.25
2.5
0.75
0.15
0.5
0.15
0.25
0.13
John Pedneault
0.3
0.2
0.8
Page 5of18
DRU RSSOCIRTES TEL:S16-?~9-4619 Ha~ 06,99 11:52 No.O03 P.09
Prepared ~r. vlmlw~ For:
SALAND ASSOCIATES
1833 MAIN KOA. D
.1AMEsPORT ~ 'FlY
($16) 722-4990
COLLECT DATE
3/22J9~
EPA ~2~.2
p~D~'F~I f~ T ,4S,~OCE4T~,
$6]$NJNTH~FENU~.~OX20~,BOHK~ K~ I~]~ ' "
p~()~ ~UREL'LINKSPROPE~,'~U~L .'
SAMPL[ O~G~ ~ 8OUTH WELL ' , ·
' DATE R~D ~L~SE BATS ~RT DA~
3~9 4~9
<t.0 P~ EPA ~5.2 ~ 2
: AJdnn
<0.1 pg/L EPA 525.2
lutachlor
Benzo(a)pyrene
~'pha-Chlordane'
gamma-Chlordane
Imn~-Nona~hlor
<0.t pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1
<0.076 pgA. EPA 525.2 0.076
<0.02 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.02
<0.2-- PgA. EPA 525.2
<0. t uglL EPA 525.2 0.1
<0.3 pgA. EPA 525.2 0.3
0.2
.'2-Chloroblphenyl
<0.1 pO/[. EPA 525.2 0. I
4O0
b15(2- Et hylhexy?_).adlpate..
bis(2-E~r, ylhexyl) phthalale
Dlmethylphlhalete
Fluomne
Heptaohlor
Heptachlor opoxkJa
2,2'i~,$',4,4',O*Heptachlerobipheny!
Hexaohlorobenzene
2,2',4,4',5,6'-HoxaoNo roblph enyl
<0.1 pg/L EPA S25.2 0.1
- <1.0 pgA- EPA 525.2 1
~0:04 PgA- EPA 525.2 0.04
- ' <0.2 pg/L EPA 525.2
<0.04 pg/L EPA 525.2
<0.2 pg/L EPA 525.2
<0.1 pglL EPA 525.2
0,2
0.04
0.2'
0.1
<0.1 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.t
0.t
<0.1 pg/L EPA 525.2
Hexac, hlo mcycJo pen~adlene <0.03 PO/L- EPA 525.2 0.03
~ndono(l,2,3-c~l)p~rene <0.1 pg/L ~PA 525.2
~ltibuzln <0.16 pgA. EPA 525.2 0.16
Metolachlot ' <0.09 . pg/L " EPA 525.2 . o.Og
2,2',3,3',4,5',6,B'.Octachio roblphonyl <0.2 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.2
Pentechk)mphenol <0.3 pO/t` EPA 525,2 0.3 I
0.4
Phonanthrene
Pi/rune
$1mazlne
2.2'.4.4'.-Tetrachlomblphenyl
2,4,~-Tflohlomphenol
EPA f.47
Glyphosate
John Pedneault
Lab Director
<0.01 'PO/L EPA 626.2 0.01
<0,02 825.2
<0.2 - pO/L EPA 525,2, 0.2
<0.1 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1·
<0.6 pgA. EPA 625.2 0.8
RF.,SULI?,. UI~'~TS M.r~ ~OO ~.0.~.
,.~'.2 pgA- EPA 547 4.2
M.C.L.
7O0
Page7 of 18
NY8 EtAP #10224
DRU 9SSOCI9TES
TEL:5~6-?59-4619
Ma9 06,99
11:53 No.O0$ P.iO
(st6)'rz~.,.4~0
lCOLLIe. CT DATE DATI~ I~C]~M~D
3/22~9 3/22/99.
· ,PA ~8 RESULT
[ Endothall <3.5
EPA ~49.1 RESULT
Dlquet
METALS RF_~UI,T
' A,tu. mlnum (AJ) . ' <0.62
^ntimon¥ ($b) <0.003
PZ~]) NE/J [E, T..4,'7,~OCL412~, _ITVC.
~: ~0~7. .... S~L~ ~
PR~ ~ ~ ~R~ LINKS PROPERS. ~UREL.
S~E OR]G~: SOUTH WELL
UNITS
UNITS
Po/L
MATRa: LIQUID
RELEAS~ DATE lt~PORT DAT~
4/2/g9 4/2/99
M~ uOD M.D,~ M.C.~
EPA ~8 ~.5 1 ~
EPA ~9.1 0.9 20
Araenlc (A~)
UNITS METHOD M.D.L. M,C.L.
mg/L EPA 100,7 0.003 0.2
mgR. EPA 200.9 0.003 0.006
<0.30 mgR. ..... EPA 200.7 0.002 0.05
Barium (Be) 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.004 2
Beryllium (Be) 40.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.002 0.004
Boron (B) "' 0.03 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.02
Cadmium (Cd) <0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.001 0.005
Calcium (Ca)
26.45 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.01
Chromium (Cr) ' <0.02 mglL EPA 200.7 0.005 0.1.
Copper (Cu) <0,02 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.02 1.3
Iron (Fa) 0.30 mglL EPA 200.7 0.025
Lead (Pb) ..... 0.001 mgR. EPA 200.9 0,0005
0.3
0.015
Magnesium (Mg) 6.84 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.01
~d'anganeae (Mn) <0.02 mg/L EPA 200.7· 0.02 0.03
I~rcury (Hg) <0.0005 eng/L EPA 245.1 0.0005 0.002
Nickel (NI) <0.06 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.004 0.1
Potassium (10 7.25 mgR. EPA 200.7 0.1
~elenlum (Se) <0.250 mg/L EPA 200.7 ' 0.005 "0.05
$ilvor (Ag) <0.005 mgR. EPA 200.7 0.005 0.1
8odium (Ne) 8.00 mgR. EPA 200.7 0.03
Thallium (TI) 0.27 mgR. EPA 2'00.0 '" 0.001
Zing (Zn) <0.05 "mg/L EPA 200.7 0.0t 5
0.002
John pedne~ult
Lab Director
Page 8 of 18
NY,9 ELAP fl10224
DRU 9SSOCIgTES
~ ~,~i:.~' ,, .. ~
· S~A~ ASsoc~A~'SS
TEL:$16-759-~619
· %: -,',. '-{: '." '. ' ' ~
1833 MA~ ROAD .... -
JAM~SPOKT, NY I!~8'0000'
Mag 06,99
11:53 No.O03 P.11
~ Total N;'. ~.~..- ;~, ;~- -' ,5,8 ' pH UnllS SM4500H-B . ' -
)H (electro,~Jc) 0,01
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia, a~ Nitrogen
Orgs~c N~ogen
41~ata as N
Total Nib'ogen 0.41 mg/t. SM4500N
<0.0t mg/L SM4500N-B
<0.61 rng/L SM4500G 0.0t 10
<0,0~--' mg~. SM4S00N---~' O.Ol ~
9.41 mg/L SM4500NO3-F 0.01· 10
<0.0t · SM4500NO2-~ 0,01 1
0.01
John Pedmmult
Lab Director
Page 9 of 18
NYS ELAP # ~ 02.24
DRU RSSOC[RTES TEL:516-759-4619 Ha9 06,99 11:54 No.O05 P.12
..- .1~33 MA'IN ROAD
sAIvfEsPORT. NY' 11948-000¢
(516) ~22.4~0'
~A~Pf.I~01~[c~. HO~TH_VVE'LL." '' ' '~
MATRIX: LIQUID
COllECT DATE DAT]~ B.~"~W~D I~LEA~ DAT~ R~RT DA~
3~9 3~9 ~1~ ~1~9
~T UN ~ ~lOD M.D.~ ~C,~
Fluoride <0,10 ~ SM4$00F-C 0.01 2.2
Suffme frurbldometdo)
12.7 ~g/'L 8M4500SO4-E 0.1
8urfacte~t (MBAS) 0.15 mg/L SM5540C 0.05
Alkalinity 10.6 mglL 8M2320B 0.§
Cyanide <0,02 mg/L SM4500CN-E 0.02
Co~oelvlty -3.57 Std. Unite Langliar I.D. -10
Total DlsaOlVIKI Solids {TDS) 96 mg/L 8M2r.,40C 2
Hatdnelm, Total (mg/L a~ CaCO3) 29.2 mg/L 8M2340C 0.5
John Padneault
Lab Dl~or
Page 10 of 18
· .: ,. NY8 ;~o ~o224
· ' .' :i ~.':.'"..' · "" "'"
DRU ASSOCIATES TEL:516-?59-4619 Ha9 06,99 11:54 No.O03 P.13
PEDNF.4 f. fL T /k-~, I~VC.
~ALA'N'D
· 1533 MAIN ~OAD. ' ..
.IAM~SPORT, NY
COLLECT DATE DATE REC~Z%r~
3/'22199 3/22/99
EPA _~_ ~:~. ]RESULT
Bonzooo ' <0.5
1613 NI~.4FENU~ BOX201 ~oHr~lA. ~ g 11116 *'
~: ~357 S~LE ~ ~357~2 , ,,
PR~ ~ ~ ~UREL' LINKS PROPERS, ~U~L
iA~LE ORIG~: NORTH WELL
MA~: MOULD
~LKASE DA~ ~T DA~
3~0~ ~0~9
~ METHOD M,D.~ M,C.I.
B~ff~obenzene <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
· Bmmochloromethane <0.5 ..... pg~L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
"BromodichlorOmethane <0,5 pglL EPA 524.2 0.5 50
"~romoform <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 50
n-Butylbenzene ¢0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2.. 0.5 5
seo-Butylbenzene <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
tert-Butylbenzene <0,5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0,5 5
Carbon teVachlorlde <0,5 pgA- ..... EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Chlomber~nne <0.5 pill EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Chloroethane <0.5 pgA- EPA 524.2 0.5 5..____
Chloroform <0.5 pg/L EPA 524,2 0,5 50
:hl°r°methane "<015 p~I/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
2-Chlorotoluene <0.5 pgA- EPA 524.2 ' 0.5 5
4-Chlorotoluene <0.5 pgA- EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Oibromoohloromethene <0.5 pD/L EPA 524.2 0.5 50
Dibrornomothane <0.5 -' pg/L EPA 524.2 0.§ 5
t',2-Dk~hlombonzono <0.5 pg~- EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,3-Dtchlorobenzene <0.G Fg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,4-DlchJ0robenzene <0.5 pgP,- EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1 -DJchloroetl'mne
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.5 ,..,. pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5
<0j~ pg,l- EpA 524.2 0,5
<0.5 IJg/L EPA 524.2 0.5
-~':~'l~l~t~l~m~.t ha no " '<0.5 I,Ig/L EPA 524.2 0.5
5
5 '
5
5
GIs-1.2-Dlchlomelhene <0,5 pgA- t~PA 524.2 0.6
trans-l,2-Dlchloroothsns <0.5 pg/L EPA 5~4,2 0.5
1,2-Dlchloropropene <0.5 PgA-
1,3-Dichlompmpane <0.5 .pgA.
2.2-Dlchlompropm~e
EPA 524,2
' EPA 524.2
<0.5 ~pgA. EPA 524.2
0.5
0.5
5
5
6
5
5
~s-l,3-Dlc, hloropmpsne
tmns-l,3-DIc~lompropene
Ethy benzene '
<0,5 pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2
0.5
<0.5 ~ EPA 524.2
0.5
G
5
5
John Pedneault Page 11 of t8
Lab DireCtor NYS ;b~' #10224
DRU RSSOCIflTES TEL:516-?59-4619 Ha9 06,99 11:54 No.O0$ P.14
Prepared ll~l~tmly, For:.
.qALAND ASSOClAT{BS'
J~SPORT, ~ ling
COLLECT DATE DATE RECEW~D RIZLEASE DATE. I~POR'I[' DATE
3/22/99 3~9 3~9 3DO~
Hoxa~lomb~lene <0,5 pg~ EPA 524.2 0,55
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0,5 5
Methyl-ted-butyl ether ,=0,5 pgA. EPA 524.2 0.5 .50
0.5 5
~"~'epthalene <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
n-Pmpylbenz,ne .
'~rene <0,5 IJg/L EPA 524.2 0,5 5
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
~,l.2,2-Tetrachloroeihene
<0.§ pg/L EPA 524.2
0.5 5
Totrachlomethene <0,5 pOP.. EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Toluene <0,5 pglL EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,2,3-Trlchlorobenzene <0.5 pgA. EPA 524.2 0.5
1,2.4-Trl~hlomben?#~e' <0.5 pg~ EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,1,t -Tdohlomethar~e" '
.. ,,(0.5
pg/L EPA 5242 0.5 5
1,1,2-Trlcl~loroothane <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
-Tdchlomethone <0.5 pg/~ EPA 524.2 0.5 5
Trlchlorofluoromethane <0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
1,2,3-TdeJnloropropa¢lo <0,5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5
<0.5 pg/L EPA 524.2 0.5
'~0,5 pg/L EPA 52.4.2 0.5
1,2,4-Trimelhylbonzo~o
3,~Tdmothylbenzene.
5
5
Vinyl chloride <0.5 p01L EPA 524.2 0.5 5
o-Xylene <0.5 pg/L
EPA 524.2 0.5 5
EPA ,'El4. I RESULT UNITS METHOD M.D.L. M.C.L,
1,2-Dlbromo.3.c, hloropwpane <0,01 pg/L EPAS04.1 ... 0.01 0.05
1,2-D~romoethane <0.01 pg/L EPAS04.1 0.01 0.2
John Pedneeult
L~b Director
Page t 2 of 18
I~ ELAP #10224
DRU DSSOCIDTES
TEL:S16-?59-4619 Ma9 06,99 11:54 No.O0:3 P.15
~:~357 . : . ~ ~ ~2
~ m';.~R~ LINKS PROPERS, ~UREL .
sAMPLE OIUGIN: NORTH VVELL'
M.A'I'RIX= LIQUID
COLLI[CT DATE, DATE REC~IVI~.D RELIgA$1~ DAT~ REPORT DATE
3/22/99 3/22/99 4f2D9 4/2/99
EPA 50~ l~Jl;]~ UNITS M~T'J~OD M.D.L~.
Alac. hlor <0.08 IJ~/L EPA.~0~ 0.0~ 2
2
Atrazlne <0.19 I~- EPAS05 0.19
Chlordane <0.t4 pg/L EPA.505 0.14 2
Dieldrin <0.2 . I~g/L EPAS05 0.2
Endrln <0:01 iJg/L EPAS05 0.01 2
Heptachlor ' <0.0t pg/L EPAS05 0.01 0.4
Hopta0hlor Epoxlde ~0.01 pg.q. EPA.505 0.01 0.2
Hexachlombenzene <0.1 r pg/L EPA.505 0.t 1
H exa~hlomoyelopentatllene <0.4 pg~. EPAS05 0.4 50
Methoxychlor <0.14 pg/L ' ' EPAS05 0.14 40
LIndane <0.0t pg/L EPAS05 0.01 0.2
Sirnazlne <0.2 p~., EPAS05 0,2 4
Total PCB$
<0.t pg/L EPA. SOS 0.1 0.5
<1.0 pg/L EPAS05 I 3
Tox~phene
John Pedne&ult
Lab Director
Page 13 of 18
NY$ ELAP//10224
DRU RSSOCIRTES
TEL :516-759-4619
May 06,99
11:5~ No.O05 P,16
COLLF~r DAT~
3/'22/99 3/22/99
EPA ~07
A~t~n ~2,0
Airaton <i.0
Bmmacll <2,5
i~PORT DATE
4/6/99
M.D.L. M.C.L.
2
MATRIX: LIQUID
i~LEA$]~ DAT~
4/6/99
UNITs M~.THOD
pgfL EPAS07
~g/I- EPAS~7
~g/L EPAS07 2.5
autachlor <0.4 pg/l_ EPAS07 0,4
Cmboxin <0.8 po/L EPAS07 0.8
Chl0~pmphem ' <0.25 pg/L E PA.507 0,25
Cycloate <0.25 pg/L EPAS07 0.25
Dlazln0n ,~0.25 p0fL EPAS07 0.25
Dlchlorvo$ <2,5 pgfL EPASO? 2,5
i Dipenamld <0.6 pg,q. EPAS07 0.6
Dlsulfoton <0.3 pg/L EPAS07 0,3
Dlsulfoton sulfone <3.8 pg/L EPA507 3.8
.- <0.38 P0/I. EPA507 0,38
Dlsulfoton sulfoxlde
EPTO <0.25 poll
EPAS07 0.26
Elhoprop
Fenadmol
<0,19 ' ,,, pg/L EPAS07 ' 0,lO
<1.0 pg~ EPAS07 I
<0.38 pg/L EPAS07 0-38
Flurldone <3.8 po/L EPAS0? 3.8
Hoxazlnone <0.8 pg/L EPAS07 0.8
Merphos <0.25 pg/L EPAS0? 0.2.5
Methyl paraoxon <2.5
POfL EPAS07 2.5
0.75
Metolachlor <0.75 pg~ EPA50?
Mo~buzin <0,16 pg/L EPAS07 0.15
Movlnpho$ <5.0 pgA. EPAS07 5
MOK 204 ¢0.5
pg/L EPAS07
Mollnete <0.15 polL EPAS07
Napropamlde <0,25 pg/L EPAS07
Norfluraz~n .<0.5 pg/L EPAS07
Pebulate <0,13 pg/L EPAS07
Prometon <0.3 pg/L EPAS07
PtomeWn <0,2 pg/L .... EPAS07
Pronamlde <0,8 pglL EPAS07
John Pedneault
Lab Olreoter
0.5
0.15
0.25
0.5
0.13
0.3
0,2
0.8
Page 14 of 18
NYS El. AP #1C224
DRU ASSOCIRTES TEL:516-759-4619 Ha9 06,99 11:57 No.O0$ P.17
[~JL.O~030357 ,. ,,. SAu~P[,E ID 99030357-002
pRi~,I~,CT'IO: L~UREL LINKs PROPERTY, LAUREL . '
<1.3
. 1833 nm~oAO. * ."' ,' .
'
~AMPLE omG]IN = NORTH ~
' -
MA~= LIQUID*
, ~RT DATE
CO~L~ DA~ DA~ ~EIVED ~L~ DATE
3~9 3~ 4/~ 4/~9
Pm~r <0.~ p~L EP~7 0,~
Gl~n '" <0.25 P~ EP~7 0.25
8U~os (0.8 PO~ EP~7 0.8
Ton~lumn
Terblcll <4.5
Thlobencarb <0.1
<0.1
Ben{~:on
pg/L EPA507 1.3
po/L EPAS07 4.5
pg/L EPAS07 0.1
2.4-D
Dalapon
UNITS METITOD M,u,L. M.C.L.
pg/L EPA51§.1 0.1
0.1 0.0~7
<0.1 pg/L EPA515.1 .
<0.08 .pg/L EPA515.1 0.08
Olcmmb8 '~0.0g pga- EPA515.1 0.0g
Dlnoseb <0,1 pg~L EPA515.1 0.1
Psnlachlurophenol (PCP) <0.04 pg/L EPA515.t
Plcloram <0.1 pg/L EP^515.1
0.2
0.007
0.04 ' 0.001' --
0.1 0.5
2,4.5-TP (Sllvex) <0.2 pg/L EPA515.1
0.2 0.05
John Pedrmault
Lab Director
Page 15 of 18
NYS El. AP #$0224
DRU 9SSOCIgTES
TEL~516-?~9-'~619..
May 06,99 11:57 No.O03 P.18
PEDHF~ UL T ~OCL~ T~* ~
PR<~CT ~; LAUREL L N~ PROPERTY, L~uREL' '".'
S.A_MPLI['O~Gt~; NORTH WELL
MATRIX= lIQUID
R~L~A~I~ DATE
JAMESPORT, NY 11948-0000
(516) 722-4990 .
~ ~achl~ ~1.0 ~ EPA 525.2 1
~ AJdtin <0.1 . !' pg/L EPA 52,5.2 0.1
Atrazln, <0.1" pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1
Butachlor <0.076 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.076
Benzo(a)pyr0ne <0.02- pg/L EPA 525.2 0.02
al~ho. Chlordsne' <0.2 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.2
0.2
gamme-Ohlotdano
<0.t pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1
trans-Nonachl~¢
2-Chlorobiphonyl
blt~(2-E~hylhexyl) adlpate
bls(2-Ethylhex3fl) phthalate
Dlmgt hylph[hala[e
<0.3 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.3
<0.1 pg)L EPA 525.2 0.1
<0:t '" pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1
<1.0 pg/L EPA 525.2
<0.04 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.04
~0.2 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.2
40O
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxl~le
2.2',3.3'.4.4'.5-Heptachloroblphenyl
Hexacdgombenzene
2.2'.4.4'.5.6'-Haxachiombtphen¥1
<0.04 Poll EPA 52:5.2 0.04 0.4
<0.2 PolL EPA 626.2 0.2 0.2
<0.1 ' Poll EPA 525.2 0.1
<0.1 ~ EPA 525.2 0.1
<0.t pg/L EPA 525.2 ~. 1
H exachlo rocyr~opentadlen®
Indeno(1.2.3-r. cl)pyrene
Motolachlor
<0.03 poll EPA 525.2 0.03
<0.1 polL EPA 57.5.2 O. 1
"'~0.09 p01L EPA 52~.2 0.09
Motribuztn
~ 2,:~:,313',~','5',5,O'-Octadnloroblp he nyl
2,2',3'.4,6'-Penlachlomblphenyl
I Pentachlomphen01
Phenanthrono
$lmazlno
<0.16 polL EPA 625.2
<0.2 poll
<0.1 pg/L
<0.3 , pg/L
<0.02
0.15
EPA 525.2 0.2
EPA 525.2 0.1
EPA 525.2 0.3 1
pg/L EPA 525.2 0.01
pg/L. EPA 525.2 0.02
<0,2 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.2 4
2.2',4,4',.Telmchlombiphe nyl
2.4.5-Tdchlorophenol
ErA 547
Olyphosate
John Pedneault
Lib Director
<0.1 !. .pg/L EPA 525.2 0.1
<0.6 pg/L EPA 525.2 0.6
R~.~UL,'~' ~ METEIOD
<4,2 pgA. EPA 647
M,D.L~ . M,C.L.
4.2 700
Page 16 of t8
NY8 ELAP #10224
DRU ASSOCIATES TEL:S16-759-4619 Ha9 06,99 11:57 No.O03 P.19
SALAND ASSOCIATES
.~AMESpoKT, NY 11945-4~0
(516) 722-4990.
,Roj~Cr m.~ LAUREL LINK5 PRoPERTY,.LAUREI:- .'
IAMPLE OIMCI~ :. NORTH WELL ' ..
'MATRIX; LIQUID
COLLECT DATE DATE REC~iVF, D RIEL. lEASE DATI~ B.~,PORT DATE
3/22/99 3/22/99 4/2/99 4/2/99
EPA ~4~ P~$UL'I' UNIT8 "M sCI'HOD M,D.L.
Endothall ,:3.5 pg/L EPA 548 3.5 1 0
KPA ~49.1 RR3ULT UNITS M/~ 1 HOD M,D.t,. M,~.I.
Di0unt <0.9 EPA 549.1 0.9 20
METALS Rt,'.sULT UNITS METHOD M.I~L. M.C.L.
Aluminum (Al) <0,02 ' mg/[' EPA 200.7 0,003 0.2
........ : ' <~).003 mgJL EPA 200.0 0.003 0,006
Antimony
Amenlc (A~) <0.30 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.002 0.05
'-i]sdum (Be) <0.004 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.004 . 2
Beryl#urn (Be) ~0.001 :.. mg/L EPA 200.7 0.002 0.004
Boron (B) <0.02 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.02
O -~a--d~i~ (Cd) ¢0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.001 0.005
-~';;l~ '(~.a ) 12.40 mglL EPA 200.7
Chromium (Ct) "" - <0.02 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.005 0.1
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fa)
Lead
Magnesium (Mg)
Mangane~a (Mn)
<0.02 mg/L [[PA 200.7 0.02 1.3
<0.025 m~L EPA 200.7 0.025 0.3
........ 0.001 m01L EPA 200.9 0.0005 0.015
2718 mglL EPA 200.7 0.01
<0.02 mglL . EPA 200.7 0.02 0.03
<0.0005 mg/L EPA 245.t 0.0005 0.002
Nlok~el (NI) <0.004 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.004 0.1
Potassium (K) 0.6t mg/L EPA 200.7 0.1
$olenium (80) ,;0.250 mg/L. EPA 200.7 "0:~D5 0.05
$11vOr (-~1) <0.005 I mg/L EPA 200.7 0,005 0,t ,
Sodium (Ns) 1 §.6§ mg/L EPA 200.7 0.03
Theltlum (TI) 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.9 0.001 0.002
Zino (Zn) <0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.01 5
John Pednaault
Lab OlraQtor
Page 17 of 18
NY8 El. AP//10224
~'R(I~CT m, LA01:~.L LINKS, PRbpERTY,
SA.MIq, E OIUG. IN = NORTHWELL
" ]~'~1~: LIQUID·
' I)ATg RECEIVED RELEAS]~ DATE REPORT DATE
3/22/~ '* ' 4/I/09 411/99
]).E~ULT ~ ~ OD M.D.L, M.C.L.
'" o.4o ~ ~r~o~-~ o.o~ -
Ammonia, as Nitrogen 0.08 ' /L 8~OG 0.01 10
OrganiC, Nlbogan 0.38 Mg/t. SM4500N-B 0.01
NIbate as N 0.90 mg/L SM4500NO3-F 0.01 10
NIMte as N ' '. ' <0.01 mg/L SM4500NO2-B 0.01 1
Total NiVogen 1.36 m~ SM4500N 0.01
John Pmin~tuJt
tub Dlrm~or
Page 18 of 18
NYS ELAP ~102~4
DRU ~SSOC~gTES
TEL :516-759-4619
PEDNEA UL T'AS$OCIA TES, INC.
· ' ~6/~N~.,~.~c~,~.Ox2o5 ' ..
' "..' ...' .."
Phone; (~16) ~67~4~7 ~..(~16)'467-69o5
.. . ,~~ .. ~ · .
Pre~ ~d~ F~: ~EDN~ ~ T ~OCIA TES, IN~
SALAND ASSOCIATES
1833 MAIH ROAD
JAMESPORT , NY 11948-0000
(516) 722..4990
May 06,99 11:58 No.O03 P.2i
Ao~naphthene <1.0 pg/L
Acenaphthylene ,' <1.0 pg/L
Anthrecene <1,0 pg/L
SAMPL~'. O~IG~I: 8OUTH wELL
MATiUX= UQUID
RELEASE DATE
COLLRCT DATE DATE RECEt%~-,D
3/22199 3,'22J99 5:30:00 PM
TEST: SI~MI-VOLATILE EXTRACTABLE ORqA~C~
PA~ME~
REPORT DATE
4f2D9
M~TIIOD; EPA 625BN
RESULT uHrrs
Bonzldlno
Benzo(a)anthraoene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluorenthene
<5,0 pg/L
<t .0 PO/L
<1.0 PolL
Benzo(a)pyrene <1.0
' 'polL
Benzo(g,h,I)porylene ¢1.0 pg/L
Butylbenzylphthalate < 1.0 pg/L
BIs(2-~hloroethyl)ettler <1.0 IJo/L
BIs(2-cNoroetboxy)metllano <1.0. p~L
BIs(2-ethylhexyl) phthalste <1.0 pgA_
Bis (2-chlorolsopropyl) ethe~'
4-Brornophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloronaphlhalene
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl el~her <t.0 PO/L
Chrysene ............ <1,0 ' polL
Dlbonzo(a,h)anthracane <1.0 ., pg/L
DI-n-butylphthalato < 1.0 pg/L
1,3-oichlorobenzene
1,2-Dlehlorobenzene
1,4-Dlohlorobertzene
John Pedniault
Lab Director
<1,0 pg/L
<1.o pon-
<4.o p~L
Page 1 of 4
NYS ELAP #10224
15/5 NINTH.4 F£NUF-.. BOX 205, .OOttZl41,i, N.Y. 11716
LAI~; 99030357 SAMPLE[DO: 99030357-001
pROJECT ID; LAUREL LINKS PROPERTY, LAUREL
DRU ASSOCIATES TEL:516-759-4619
Mag 06,99
:59 No.O0:~
PEDNEA UL T ASSOCIA TES, INC.
'".~ .'. "' BO~,~Y.~I716 ", "' ' "':"
Phone: (516) 467~8477 , F~, (516) 467-6905 ·
,
Prepped ~1~ F~: P~DN~ UL T ~SOCIATES, INC.
8At,AND ASSOCIATES
1833 MAIN ROAD
.lAME, SPORT, NY ! 1948-0000
(516) 722-4990
I$lZ N/N/'//,4 r~nJg, aox ~05, ~//.o4t.4, ~. ~ t t zt
LAB#: 99030357 SAMPI,EIDO: g9030357-001
pROaTECT ID; LAUREL LINKS PROPERTY', LAUREL
COLLECT DATE DATE RECEIIV ED
3/22/99 3/22199 5:30:00 PM
'rEST: SUMI-V0!,ATIIi~ EX~CYAnL~ ORO~ICS
PA~J ~R
3.3'-Dichloroben~lfle
Diethyl~thalate
2,4-Dlnltrotoluene
2,8-Dinitrotoluene
DI-n-octylphthelate
Fluoranthene
Pluorerlo
Hexa~lorob6n~en~-'
Hoxaohlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachloroethane
Indono(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
;AMPLE OIMGIN: SOUTH WELL
MATRIX: LIQUID
RELEASE DATE
4/2199
REPORT DATE
4/2/99
METHOD: Ii;PA 625BN
UNITS
<2.0 p§lL
<1.0
<1.0
<2.4
pglL
<t .0
<1.0 pg/L
,~1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<t.0 polL
<1.0 polL
<1.0 polL
<:t .0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0
<1.0 polL
<1'i0 : Ug/L
n-Nltrosodimethylamlno
n-NitrosodiphenyMmlne
n-NllrosoclI-N-propylarnlne
Phonanthrone
Pyrono .,
P .22
1,2,4-Trlohlorobenzene
Naphthalene
NiVobenzone
· ~1.0 pglL
· ;1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pgA.
John Pedneauit
Lab Director
Page 2 of 4
NY$ El. AP #10224
DRU RSSOCIRTES TEL:516-759-4619 Mag 06,99 11:$9 No 005 P.2~
PEDNEA UL 2' ASSOCIATES, INC. ..
[I ~J Phone: (516) 467-8477 F~. (516) 467-6905
SALA~ ASS~IA~S i~IJ NI~ 4~NU~ BOXY5. BOtIRM~, R.E 11716
1833 ~IN ROAD ~ 99030~7 S~PI,E ~: 99030357-~2
JAM~RT, ~ I 1948-00~ PROJE~ ~: ~UREL LINK8 PROPE~, ~UREL
(516) 722~990 SAMPLg O~G~: NORTH WELL
~]X: LIQUID
COLLE~ DATE DA~ ~CE~Ei) ~LEASK D~TK RE~ORT DATE
: METHOD: EPA 625BN
TEST: SEMI-VO~TII.E ~ABLE ORG~CS .
PA~ME~R RESET
~nephthylone , ~, <1.0 ~g/L
~thra~ne
Benzldine <5.0 Pg~
Benzo(a)enthra~ne < 1.0 p~L
eenzo(b)fluoranthene <1.0 , pg/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene <t.0 ' IJg/L
8enzo(a)pyrono < 1.0 pg/L
Benzo(g.h.I)perylone
Butylbanzyip~thalata'
Bia(2-chlOmethyl)other
BIs(2-chloroethoxy)methane ..
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 POIL
<1.0 pg/L
Bis(2-athylhexyl) phthalate
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
4-Bromopher~yl phenyl ether
2-Chloronephthalene
--+,-
<1,0 pg/L
<1,0 polL
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chry?ene
Dlbenzo(a.h)anlhracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
1,3..Olchlombenzene
1.2-Dle. hlorobenzeno
1.4-DIc, hlorobenzene
John Pedneault
Lab Olmtor
<1.0 IJg/L
<1.0 pg/E
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 IJg/L
<'1 .o pga.
Page 3 of 4
NY$ ELNa #10224
DRU RSSOCIRTES TEL:516-?59-4619 Ha9 06,99 12:00 No.O03 P.24
PEDNEA UL T ASSOCIA TES, INC. .. 6 j.jvrivr , v , : OX2os l ...
:' .i ':".'. ~O~M~,.~Y. HTJ6 '.. ' '..
Phone: (516) 467-8477' Fax.-(516) 467-6905
",4MF, RICA ~S
Preparad F_,xe. lu.*t~ly For: PEDNE~ U1. T .4SSOCtA TE$, INC. ·
SALAND ASSOCIATES
1833 MAIH ROAD
JAMESPORT , NY 1194S-0000
(516) 722-4990
161.f NI3ITH ,4 FF-~UE. BOX 20J, #OHEMI& ~, ~ I 171 ~
LA~: 990~357 SAMPLE ID~: 99030357~02
· R(~E~ ~: ~UREL LINKS PROPERS, ~UREL
S~PLE O~GIN: NORTH WELL
3- ~IRIX: LIQUID
CObLgCT DATE DATE RECEIVED
3/22/99 3/22/99 5:30:00 PM
TEST: SEMI-VOLATH.R EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
PARAMETER
3,3'-DiGhlofobonzldlno
D'iethylphthatate
Dlmethyiphthalate
2,4-*~inifl'ot~luene
2,6-Dinitmtoluene
Di-n-oCi~lphthalete ·
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexac, hlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexaohlorocyclopantadiena '
Hexachloroethane
Indano(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
RELEASE
4/2/~
REPORT DATE
4/2/99
METIIOD: EPA 62~BN
R~UI;I' uNIrf$
<2.0 pg/L
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 IJg/L
<:;.4
~1.0 PO/L
<1.0 Ho/L
<1,0 pg/L
<1,0 polL
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 p0/L
<1,0
<1.0
<1,0
pglL
polL
pg/L
Isophorona
n-Nitrosodlmethylamine
n-Nilrosodlphenylamlne
n-Nitrosodi-N-propYlamlne
Phenanthmne
Pyrene
1,2,4 -Trlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0 polL
<1.0 pg/L
<1.0
-<1.0
<1.0
pg/L
pg/L
<1,0 pg/L
<t .0 pglL
<1 ;0 pg/L
John Pedneautt Page 4 of 4
Leb Dlraotor NYS EL,~ ~I02~4
Lab Dlre~or
SAt,AND ASSOCIATES
11133 bLadN'ROAD '
JAMESPORT, ~ 11948-000(
(516) 722..49~0
COLLECT DATE
Pmpachlor
$1mebyn
{tirofoa
Tonu~hlumn
PED~EA UL T AS~OC~AT~, ]NC.
~9~7. :
. ,~ .... ~Em ~57~1
~E~ ~': .~UR~ L~NKS PROPER~ ~UREL. :
SOUTH
WELL
~T~; LIQUID'
DATE RECEIVED ]~LF-.ASE DATE
3/22/99 4/6/99
<0.38 wg/L EPAS07
<0.25 pg/1. EPAS07
<0.8 pg/L EPAS07
· <1.3 pg/L EPAS07
REPORT DATE
4/6~)9
0.38
0.25
0.8
1.3
Terblcll
Thlobencarb
Bentazon
2,4-D
~alapon
Di.amba
Dlnoseb
Pentachlomphenol (PCP)
Ploloram
2.4.5-TP
<0.1 ~G/L EPA507 0.1
RF~vjLT U~'ITS blg, THOD M.D,L, M.C.I.
<0.1 pg/L EPA515.1 0,1
<0,1 tJg/L EPA515.1 0.1 0,07
<0.09 ~g/L EPA§IS.1 0.~ 0.2 , _
<0.09 ~Jg/L EPA515.1 ,,0'09
<0.1 ~g/L EPA515.1 0.t 0.007
<o.O4- o.oo
<0,t pglL
<0.2 pg/L
EPA515.1 0.04
EPA515.1 0.1 0.5
EPASIS. 1 0,2 0.0'5
C . Suffolk
ORIGINAL--TO COMMISSION
State o~ New York
Department of Conservation
Divb{on of Water Rewurccs
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
I~atloo of well ...,.P,,,°,.E,°,,.n...i,,,%..B.!Y.,.,..B,,!,Y...cb..~,...~,.a.},},.t-Lu..~.'....'If'.:''Y'''' ..............
Dept of well below surface .................. ~ ..................................................................... feet
Depth to ground water from surface ........ .~..,~.L..~..'!. ................................................... feet
· 6 in ......................... in ....
Dmmctcr ............................
Length .......... ~.,.~,.....; ......... ft ......................... ft ....
Sealing...........,.,~!.b. ................................................
Casings removed ...~..0. ............................................
- ~ O'J~.., -
..... ~'/Al.~....,..-. ................. 7"
............ l~.~,?..i......?~.~ r~...
Diameter.....6. ...................... in ......................... m ....................... iff. :.:., ........ ~.-,.
. .. ao ~t ........................ ~t .......... :.:..::.~..:-;.----.~
Depth to top lrom top o[ ca.,:.ag ............................... : .......................................... it.
PrOPaNe Tzar: Date ......... .~.'...~..-...6-.~. ............ Test or permanent, ptunp?.......~.¢l.~.~¢..
Duration of Test ............................................ days .......... ~ ................................... h. ours
...... l[-7 5 ....... onllom ~ minute
Static level prior to test....~.~. .................. ft ........... ~..i ............ in. below top of
Level during Max. Pumplng..:.........Z.,9-...ft. ..........~. .............. in. below top of casins
-- - 6 . ...... ft
Maximum urawaown ........................
Approx. time of return to normal levcl afte, cessation
of pumping ............................................ hours .......................................... minutes
PUMP INS?ALI,gO:
'r~e ........................Make ........................................................ Model No. ....................
Motive power ................................ Make ...................................... H.P ...........................
Capacity ..........................g.p.m, against ~ ................................. ft. of dlscha~e head
No. bowls or sta~s ................................ ~ ......................................... ft. of total head
D~o~, Lmz: SucrtoN LIN~,:
Di~neter ...................................................... in ......................................................... in.
Length .......................................................... ft ......................................................... ft.
u. o~w.ter .......... ~!~....~.~..°..L°...°.,~!..°.~ ............
Work st ~r ~l......1 ~,..~ ~,..'. ~l~ ....................................... Corn pie teq,.., 1 P-...-.,7,,.'.~ ~ ...........
", · ,z . Eas'c Coast Well
Date...,.~/.?,/~.,;t ,.,~....2. ~,. ,/f.~,,//.,, ................. Drdlor,D ri, t.t.ing,.,&-.SUl~l~t~
Ucen. So,,...~..a. ..............................................
No~: Show Io~ d well--mate, rials enc,~n, te.red, with depth below ~round
water bearing beds ~ma water levels ir[ eaefl~ easmgl$ ~eeus, pump, aum-
ttonal pumping test~ and other matters of interest, Describe ml~lr ]ob.
i
,'Ground 8ud,, El ............ ft. above sea
^
................ t't.
V
Ine o
sKg,rciH'oP I,o~A'nON
well with rmp~ to n~ le~t two ~treet~ or m~ ~howln~
distance from corner and front of lot.
Sl~ow No,th ~o~t
Countz ,~S u_£~f01 ~
welt l~o. 5-53990
(on prelialnaty report)
Locettou et mi1...~}~. }.~tr.l~ ........ ~.~a~£~UCk,..~.¥, ........
at ~11 bel~ lurface ............ }~ ................... ~eet
Depth
Depth to gt~dw~tur from .u~e ............................. ~u Feet
~S ~: 9~ ~S:
Di~te:.~..in ...... tn ...... in. H~e:................~e~ Po[n~ ....
~ngth ...... ft ...... ~t.
Sealin8 ........................... Dieter.
CMOS r~ed ................... ~ueth .... ~.. ft .......
Depth :o ~o~ of screen ~ :Dp ci ~ine: ...................
ri.eD December 1 . 197q Teat or permit ~?..
~rat[~ of Teat .... ~b.~ .......... deYa ...................
H~m Diech~Ee ............................ gallic per minute
Static level prior to teat ...... ft...~...~..balov top at c~&
~m Dt~o~ .............................................
Approx. tl~ ot retu~ to ~al l~el ~ter cessation
of p~pt~ ~ .............. ho~s ....................... minutes
C~ac~ty .............
~. b~Is or s~ee ............. ).'.;....~ ..... f~. of total
D~P L~: SUCT~N L~:
Dieter ..................... in. .. ......................
~th ....................... f~. ......................... it.
Use of ~ater ...................................... D~'X&ib~'~'l~'' [19Tq
Work st~t~.ge~.e~beR .lb,..~,~ ....... ~e~ ..........
O=&~:3J.aI~. ..Ortller ......... q~.
'" ~ SuoDly ~o., Inc.
Top o£ #ell
I0' to
Coarse ~
Pine San(
~l' Olay
veil with respect to mt least 2 streets or~ roads,
ahowtn$ dimtm~ce ~
D.
~ JAN
, ,'IVLD
._, ,., .
~: ~o~ ~ at ~ell ' materialg ~tered, vi:h depth belay
rater be~i~ ~e ~ eater ~els tn each, cMOs, ecre~s,
~8 tests ~ et~r ~tere et interest. ~ecrtbe ~pa~r job,
,c~w f I'D lk ~l w ¥1r~K S1A1E DEPARTMENI' Of ENVII:ONMENTAL CONSERVATION
-' c~T -- W- ~995
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
LOCATION (~ WELL
DEPTH Of WELL BELOW SURFACE
Msttituc~ Fire Department,
Msttituckr L.I,~ New York
Joseph Street, Mattituck, L.I., New Yo~k
DEPTH TO GROUND WATER FROM SURFACE .
80 ,.
CASINGS
fl.
LENC~r" 61 I,.J "'1
SEALIhG CASINGS R£MOVED
iesd packer
SCREENS
MAK~ j OPENINGS
Johnson 25
T^~tER 8 '"'l '"' I '"'l
O[~TH TO TOP FROM TOP ~ CASING
60'
In.
ft.
DATE
Aug 21, 75
DLRATIONOfTEST
daysi
STATI~ L~VEL PRIO~ TO TEST
- 38 ../
MAXIMUM OIL~. WDOW N
i5
TY~ '1 MA~
?urbine
M~IVE P~ER MAKE
Electric
PUMPING TEST
TEST OR pERMANENT PUMP! permanent
8 hoursJ MAXIMUM DISCHARGE ~ O0 sallons per min.
! LEVEL DUR NG MAX MUM PUMPING · -
to~ of casingI ..... * ~ ft. / top ~ casing
Ap~lmale ti~ of return to nmm~l level alter cessation of pumping
ft. I hrs'l min.
Franklifi
CAPACITY
NUMBER BCY~LS Ok STAGES
ONOP LINE
ilAM~TER
LE~N 50
METNOO OF oRILLING
C~totw~Y ~sble tool ~ Mher
WOItK STARTED
MODEL NO. H6E2
,i.e. 10
S'P'm' agalnsl I ~O ft. of discharge head
130 n. of taal head
SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER
LENGTH
USE OF WATER
COMPLETED
Au~ 1~, 75 Aug__21, 75
DArE IDRILLER
] LICENSE NO.
7 J,a_n 75 ~ast Coast Well D~illing & 52
;NOT£: S~ iu~ of well- materials encou~n~]i~e~}~It~o~e~i?'b:~:°~ sround sm'face,
waler bearing beds and water levels in each, casings, screens, pump,
addXIonal pumpln$ tesls and other mailers ~ Interesh Describe repair job.
See Inslfuctlons as to Well Ofi ers~ .Licenses and Repofls. Pases 5 - ?.
Well No.
* LOG
Ground Swfsce
El.
fl.
TOP OF WELL
JAN 9 ]976 t/"
C I ED
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
OWNER
~ Ground Surface
~ ~ ' EL. R. ~bove sea
LOCATIO OF WELL .
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE , DE~H TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE ~ ~ /
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED
SCREENS
DIAMETER
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
PUMPINO TEST
DATE TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?
DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM ~ISCHARGE
days ~ hours gallons per min.
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING
top o casing [
fi,
lop of casing
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN { Approximate time of return Io normal level after cessation of pumping ~
PUMP iNSTALLED
~~Z~' MAKE ~y~ MODEL NUMBER
MOTIVE POWER MANE H.p. '
CAPACITY
~.p.m. agalnsl ~ R. of discharge head
NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
DROP LINE SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER DIAMETER
LENGTH LENGTH
METHOD OF D~ING USE OF WA~ ·
WORK STARTED ~ /, COMPLIED ~,/~
~EIGER WELL & P~ CO~. 10
repair Job. See instructions as to We~l Driller's Ucenee and Reports. Page ~7.
ORIGINAL--Environmental Conservation Copy
SKETCH OF LOCATION
Locate well'with respect tq at least two streets or roads,
showing distance from corner and;front of lot.
Show North Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] North Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County: [] Babylon
[] Huntington
o elter Island
uthold
[] Brookhaven
[] Islip
[] Smithtown
[] East Hampton
[] RIverhead
[] Southampton
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Counly Well Number
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
Ground Surface
LOC~.~ OF V~E~ ~ ~ ~ - ' ,'~ ~ ft.
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE ~z ~ DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE ~ TOP OF WELL
DIAMETER ~
LENGTH
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED
SCREENS
LENGTH
O[mH TO TOP~FROM TOP OF CASING
top of casing { top of casing
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN Approximate time of return to normal, level after cessation of pumping
ft. hours I min.
DIAMETER / ~n. DIAMETER in. nOT
LENGTH ~R. LENGTH {1. N'
ORIGINAL--Environmental Conservation Copy
SKETCH OF LOCATION
Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads, .
showing distance from corner and front of lot,
Show North Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] North Hempstead
[] Oyster Bay
Sulfolk County!..
[] Babylon
[] Huntington
/~helter Island
outhold
[] Brookhaven
[] Islip
[] Smithtown
[] East Hampton
[] Riverhead
[] Southampton
COMPLEflON REPORT - LONO ISLAND WELL
,Jo~'.
gq ,,, /~ _ "' ,
00~ ....... S~ J
F"~"'-;7'' ~ ...................... I' ,..I
'.'_?':L"_.~z_d .......... ,,.J ,,. I ,,.
...... i~-oott No.
. 1_ ~P
DROP LINE SUCTION LIN!
: ..............................I)~s,~tt~ ........ 6i~'~/k' '
i''~'''' ~0 ,,.. __ "-
' ~ ~0 _
~... ~.t~ .d ~. ~_._ ~-~-~.--~-~ ...........
//
~11~ICII Of LOCATION
from corer a~
Wh~ N~th Point
I
Check the Town In which the ~oJect Ig located:
· Na:sau County;
[] Oysler t~ay
Suffolk County:
~] Babylon
1~] Brookha,~eo
[] Islil)
["] Smilhi~r, vn
~ East HamPl6~
[] Riverhead
[] Sou~h, amNon
IL.
60'
PUMPING Tilt .
Turbine DeminK
Electric Franklin 10
~0
OnOP LINK
Il.
l~O fl. M lol. I I~1
IUCTlON LINK
? Jan 75 COllt Yell DFlllinl &
9 1~TG ~
RI C~I VED
{ PUMPING TEST ,.
}[~.,,c,t.,,.,~,~,,,, ~~ I"v~~'~""~
/"_ --- , , fl, I hrs,[ ,
PUMP INSTAkL~_
~i~O~,.. / "~ ~, I -..: ,,
L CAPACI ~ .
l ~0 "' ~'~''~" --
/ / ~ ~ ........ ' , ~ [
, ~NGTI ·
m..,,,
~E: 5~ ~ of well. ~lerinls e~,wllh doth ~1~. Ri~ml si. la~,
wafer ~ari~ ~s a~l w~le~l~ In each, casl~s, ~c~ns, pt~p,
Check the Town In which the pfoJecl la located:
Nassau County:
['1 Hempt&tead
North Hempslead
Suffolk
[] Babylon
r"] Hunllf~lon
[] Shelter It&land
.~o~ho{d
I-] Brookhevon
[] tslip
{-] SmilPlown
I-l Oyster Bay
I-1 East Hampton
[] Rive~head
[] Southampton
i
i
NEW YORK BTATE'OEPARTN~ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
County SUFFOLK O Well Number S-97243
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
OWNER 'LOG
LISO CONSTRUCTION Grc~und Surface
ADDRESS
BOX 439 JAMESPORT EL. ft, above sea
LOCATION OF WELL A ff.
A. WEST/ DELMAR DRIVE- LAUREL v
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE TOP OF WELL
75 25
CASINGS
DIAMETER
5
LENGTH S'~ INE
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED
40 2
SCREENS
,' 50 2 COARSE SAND
MAKE OPENINGS 60 2 COARSE SAND/
H. SMITH 14 CT ~VEL
DIAMETER 70 2
LENGTH
PUMPING TEST
DATE TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?
DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
days { hours gallons per min.
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING
ti. { In. below In. below
top of casing [ top of casing
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN Approxlrnate time ol return to norma~ level after cessation of pumping
fL. hours I min.
PUMP INSTALLED
TYPE MAKE MODEL NUMBER
SUBMERSIBLE MYERS 718
MOTIVE POWER MAKE H.P.
ELECTRIC 3/4
CAPACITY
[7
g.p.m, against I ft. of discharge head
NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
I' ft. of total head
DROP LINE SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER DIAMETER
LENGTH LENGTH
45 ft. ft.
METHOD OF DRILLING USE OF WATER
[] rotary [] cable tool [] other DOMESTIC
WORK STARTED COMPLETED
7/19/90 7/20/90
DATE DRILLER LICENSE NUMBER
11/19/90 KREIGER WELL & PUMP CORP l0
· NOTE: Show Icg of well maferlals encountered, with depth below ground surface, water bearing beds and water
levels in each, casings, screens, pump, addlllonal pumping tests and other matters of Interest. Describe
repair Job. See Instructions as to Well Driller's License and Reports. Page 5-7.
ORIGINAL--Environmental Conservation Copy
SKETCH OF LOCATION
Locate well' with respect to at least two streets or roads,
showing distance from corner and front of lot.
...... SI~0W No~h Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Nassau County: .-
[] Her~pstead
[] North He.rnpstead
[] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County:
[] Babylon '
[] Huntington
[] Shelter Island
~Southold
[] Brookhaven
[] Isllp
[] Smlthtown
[] East Hampton
[] Rlverhead
[] Southampton
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Count, SUFFOLK 0 we,, Numb.~'
COMPLETION R EPO RT~ LO N G~'S~..."~ELL
AD
~ · · r EL.. ft. above sea
LOCATION OF WELL ,¢~~ A . ft.
DEPTN DP WELL BELOW SURPAOE
DE~H TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
STATIC ~EVEL PR}OR TO TEST LEVEL DUR{NG MAXIMUM PUMPING
ft.
CAPACITY
g.p.m, against ~ R. of discharge head
NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGE
~ ft. ol total head
DIAMETER /~ DIAM~ER
LENGTH LENGTH
METHOD OF DRILLING USE OF WATE~~
~ rota~ ~able tool ~ other
WORK STARTED ~/~ /~ COMPLETED
~AT~b/O DRILLER I LICENSE NUMBER
KREIGER ~LL & P~ CO~. 10
ORIGINAL--Environmental Conservation Copy
SKETCH OF LOCATION
Locate well' with respect
showing distance from corner
Show
least two streets or roads,
:1 front of lot.
)rth Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] North Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County: [] Babylon ''
[] Huntington
shelter Island
outhold
[3 Brookhaven
[~] Isllp
[~] Smlthtown
[] East Eampton
[] Riverhead
[] southampton
86/22/1999 89:48 516-589-5277 SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE 01
,;~_S_UFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
Fax Cover Sheet
DATE: June 22, 1999 TIME: 9:44 AM
TO: Eric Welnstock PHONE: 674-3889
FA J(: 67~901
FROM: Steve Co~bufo PHONE: 563-0210
$.C.W.A
CC:
Information Request Town of Soulhold
Number or pages including cover sheet: 9
Message
NOTE: If you have any queMton~; or have not received this deafly or Gomplelely, please call: (516) 563-02~10.
Engineering Office: 3525 Sunrise Highway, Great River. NY
06/22/I999 09:40 516-589-5277 SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE 02
11~/~ 15:58 R L WI~_L I~ILt. IN~; '* 516
NO. ~57 ~
YORK ~'AT~ DF. PARTM F.N? Ckl ENVI/~ONMF. N'rAL CC~e~VA~ION
.... -COMPLETION REPORT--LONG 18LAND WELL
P,0. ~x 37, Oa~diler NY 11769
Inlet Pfive Wel~ ,Fieidr, ~tti~uc~
D~H TO ~UN~A~A F~
~ 116. ~t, 68
~. ~2 ,,. I .. J ~ I .. ,..
Nitugal ,I ~N~ ~eU'
M~ ~ 8 ~ ~05
~ 7.5 ~. 0 ~ I 30
~Vi ~1~ ~ ~,
Electzic Fr~n~iin 20
~ [ 258
4 ~.
80 ~
~ ~ ~LLI~ ~ ~ WAT[N
Ap0endix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Lanrel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 341 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NClvl
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 342 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 343 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 16 ST 344 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 345 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 346 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 347 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 348 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Sttffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 349 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 350 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 rellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 351 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) qCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand qCM
ST 352 0-13 I 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 353 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-10 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 354 0-10 10YR4/3 ~ brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 355 04 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
4-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 356 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-16 ! 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. S~fffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Culalral Material Recovered & Notes
ST 357 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 358 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 359 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
3-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 361 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 362 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-9 i 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 363 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 364 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 365 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Stfffoik Count~. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 366 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-13 10YR4/6 Yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 367 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-14 10YR4/6 Yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 368 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 17 ST 369 09 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 370 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-17 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 371 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
914 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 372 0-8 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
8-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 373 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consallants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Soothold. Suffolk Count~,. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 374 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 375 0-9 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
9-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 376 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 377 0-14 10YR4/3 : brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
14-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 378 0-15 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
15-18 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 379 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 380 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 381 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yullowishbrown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Sonflmld. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 382 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 383 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 384 0-11 10YR4/3 brown silly sand (plow zone) NCM
11-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown s'flty sand NCM
ST 385 0-12 10YR413 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-16 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 386 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 387 0-10 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 388 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 389 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
lanrelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Sov~l~akl Suffolk Coant~'. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munseli Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 390 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
TR 18 ST 391 0-2: 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
10YE4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 392 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-12 10YR4/6 i yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 393 0-2 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
2-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 394 0-3 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt I NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 : yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 395 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 396 0-3 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
3-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 397 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelks lb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
Appendix A: Shovel Test Record - Area 1
Laurel Links Site. Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York.
STP Depth in
Transect Number Inches Munsell Soil Description Cultural Material Recovered & Notes
ST 398 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-13 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 399 0-2 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
2-11 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 400 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-14 10YR416 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 401 0-13 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 402 0-12 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
12-14 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 403 0-13 10YR4/3 brownish yellow sandy silt NCM
13-15 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 404 0--11 10YR4B brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
11-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
ST 405 0-1 10YR4/3 brown silty sand (plow zone) NCM
1-12 10YR4/6 yellowish brown silty sand NCM
laurelkslb CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants
06/22/1999 09:40 516-589-5277 SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE 83
COUNTY WATI~ AUTHORITY
86/22/1999
c, mmtT Suffolk ~) w..U.mb~ S-9~138
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL WSA-~
OWNER
DEPTH OiI We.L BElOW B4AIAC~
DEPTH TO QROUNDWATER E/K)~ BUHFACE
IMAMETLq
LENGTH
,..I ,0%,._. ,-.I ,..
fL f
CA~II~8 R~MOYEO
MAKE
LENQTH
DEPTH TO rom IrllOM TOP O~ ~N~:
DATE
~T~ OF TEgT
8TATIG L~I ~ TO TBT
CAPA(~Ty ·
~ LINi
PUMPING TEST
T~T ~ PERMANENT PUMP'/'
fl,
MAKE
MAXIMUM
LEVEL DURIHQ MAXIMUM PUMPING
MOOEL NUMBER
mb~
LENGTH J~'
!1.
~ot~ Jl. ev&Fse USE OF W&TE~ fL
Se ~uttacl; ~d
co Cng for
$-~ '~ 1381'
· ORlQINAL--Envlronmentol Conservation Copy
*See attached construction drawing.
86/22/1999
89:48 51G-589-5277 SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE
ATone' ~¢,,,-~,.~, ' (-)
~v~. o~ O~i~. Orade I' +
TOp "' Above 0.~.
·
' 1{. $.L.
tt'l 0
(-) t-
tiS' - II
85
Boct:,~m o£
CFM (T~ee - _
06/22/1999 09:40 516-589-5277 SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE 06
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
P~ ~ OF TOTAL
06/22/1999 09:d0 516-589-5277 SGWA ENGINEERING PAGE 07
06/22/1999 89:48 516-589-5277
,EFERENCE ~OI NT G,~t ELEV.
DEPT}[
SCWA ENGINEERING PAGE
DRILLER'S LOG AND OESCRIPTION
FORMATION
88
O- ~'~'
~o-
~o0- IOq
~70 '
Suffolk
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
OWNER
Edward Lunds tedt
Main Road~ Laurel~ N. Y.
Same
49 fl' r n.
,.. {
I OPENINGS
Cook 14
5 ft. I ft. ft. lt.
Sept. 15, 1975 Perm
OLRATION (~ TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
PUMP INSTALLED
.C:~ Rtlttb ~yera
CAPACtTY
DIAMETER DIAMETER
40 Ir.
~.H~O OF DRU.LING
Dome. s t ~.e
Sept. 15. 1975
o,.c -
~P. 1: lq7~ ~e~er Well & ~m~ CorD. 10
eN~E: S~ t~ of well - ~lerials e~nle~ed, wilh de~h be[~ gr~ s~face,
wa~er ~aring ~s a~ waler levels in each, casings, screens,
additJma{ p~ping tests and ot~ ~{lers ~ intemsI.Descrl~ re,ir j~.
See Instr~llons as to Wel~ Drillers' Licenses a~ Repels. Pases 5 - 7.
d
TOPOFWELL
Locate well with respect Io at least two streets or roads,
showing distance from come*' and front o!
Show No,lb Point
Check the Town In which the Ixoject is located:
Nassau Coumy:
[-] Hemps{earl
[] No:th Hempstead [] Oysler Bay
Su~¢olk County: [] Babylon
[] Huntinglon
[:] Shelter Island
[] Sout hold
[] Brockhaven [] East Hami~on
[] Islip [] Riverhead
~'1 Smithtown . Fl Southampton
],
Suffolk
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
CASINGS
IR*
Cook
Feb, 18. 1976
PUMP INSTALLED
TYPE ' MAKE MODEL NO.
Myers ~A~t SS Sub ..P.
CAPACITY ,
i- 1/4
~]mtary ~]cablet*t Oother
METHOD OF DRILLING USE OF WATER
W(~RKSTARTED COMPETED Feb, 18, 19/6
Feb 16, 1976
IDAT~ I uimt~ {LICENS~ NO.
-~'~' 7~ K~etRer Well & Pump Corp, lO
a~ilt~l ~ping lesls and ol~r ~t~ers N tntemsI.Oescrl~ re.ir j~.
See Insg~lions as ~o Weft Drillers' Licenses a~ Rep~ls. Pages S - 7,
S-57610
23 7-1/2
32 7
41
Rr c.t' 'ED
Stat~ of New York LOG
Department of Conservat;on Ground Surf., El ............ ft. ~bove
Dillon of W~tcr ~ou~
COMPLE~ON R~T--LONG IS~ WELL ............... ft.
, Tc Well .'
~,~o,~,,......~.........~.~..~ .......... ~.~ a~
D~eter ................ ~.......~n .................. ~......~..~ ................. :~ .......... ~ ..............
~8~ of T,t ........................................... Y ..............................................
M~m~ Dra~ ..............................................................................................
of ~p~n~ ............................................ hou~ ........................................ mmut~
· ,~ ........................ ~...;/~.....~r~ .....................
Mot;~ ~r ................ Z~ ..................................... ~ ...........................
........................................
~ ~ ~ ~ll~terlab en~nt~d, w;~ depth ~I~ ~nd sur~,
donzi F~ng ~u ~d o~er ~tten of intent. ~ ~ J~,
~ l~mctlons ~ to Well Drillen' Lken~s ~d Rear.pp. 5-7.
Courtly WeU Ho.
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
DROP LI~E SUCTIO~ LIRE ~ ~ I
lo-q- 7~ /~-.~- 7~
I~ of well - ~lerials en~lered, with de~h
addili~al pumpifls lests anJ ol~r maUe¢s 6 inleresl. Descrl~ ~e~ir j~.
$~ETCH OF LOCATION
t
ocate well with respect to al least two s tee s ~ roads
showing distance from corner and front of lot.
Show No,lb
Check the Town in which the ~'ojec! is located:
[] Hempstead
[] Norlh Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
Suffo|k County:
[] Babylon [] 8rockhaven
[] Huntlnglon [] blip
[] Shelter Island [] Smithlown
~Southold
[] East Ham~on
D Riverhead
[] Southampton
E
ORIGINAL--TO COMMISSION
we, No..~.=.~..~.~.. ........
State of New York LOG
Department of IDonservatio, Oround Surf.. El ............ ft. above
Divbion of Water P.e$ources
COMPLETXON REPORT--LONG ISLAND WI~LL
Well
Locatlon ol well ................. '~.~..~¢~. ........................................................................
Dept of well below surface ........................................................................ ~.}{.....~.....feet
Depth to g~und water from surface ......................................................... ~....~..... eet
~ngth ........ ~...~.~......ft ......................... f ......................... ft .........................
~in~ ~ ..........................................................................................................
~,s: Make ....................... .~*.~..~ .*~ ................ O~n~ ................. .~ ..............
D~eter........~4 .......... m ......................... ~ ......................... ~ ......................... in.
~ngth ............. :;......~.......f t ......................... ft ......................... ft ......................... ft.
Depth to top f~ to~ of c~mg ........................ ~:~.....I.o ...................................
Duration of T~t.......~. ............................... days ....................................... L.....hou~
M~imom Diz~. ................................................... ~.~......gall~ ~ minu~
g~c le~l ~ior to te~t ............................ It ............................ in. ~l~ top of
M~ D~ .............................................................................................. f~
of pum~ng ........................................... h~ ......................................... minu~
Ca~iw ........... ~..~....g.p.~ ~mt {
~o~ Lmz: Su~o, Lmz: dUN
u~ o~ ~ ............. .~..~ ..................
wo,~ ~.......~.:......t.~.,.L~.~..~. ............. ~,~,,,,.~...~...(ZC~
............ .......... ...........
No~: Sh~ ~ ~ ~B--matcr~s ~unte~, with depfl~ ~1~ ground
SKETCH OF LOCATION
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND tJELL
Mar. tit;tick P'-re r}~olct, ment:.
.v. att~tuck, .,.~.., New York ir
Jn~eph ~treet, ~a~i~uck, L,I., New 3'o~k .... v
80 ,,. { 98 ,,.
".l "' "'1 .... '"
lead packer ....
$CRE~MS
Johnson 25
OlA~ftR
~ ,..{ ,n.I ,..I',...
"~'" so ,,.I ,,.I ,,.1 ".
PUMPING TEST
Aug ~, 75 , TEST L~ PERMANENT PUMP,
fl. [ hr~d miff,
Turbine Demlng
Electric ~rankltn 10
00
L~NGTH
USE OF WAILER
Aug 21,
Jan 75..~ae~ Coao~ Wells I iD~llling &..
waler b~a¢[n~ ~ds and wale~ levels In cach, casl~,
AN 9
a *~l IT. ~!; :n
~976 t/
V ~:D
I
I ~K, EI'CI! OF' L~ATION
~ ~oaeph Gt~eet
L~ale well wilh res~c~ Io a~ ~eas~ ~wo streets or r~ds,
sh~l~ dlslance from corner a~ fron~
5h~ N~th Point
Check the Town In which the ~oJec~ is located:
Nassau County:
[-] Hempstead
[] Nmlh Hempslead
I'-IOysterBay
Suffolk Courtly:
[] Babylon [] Br~haven [] East Hampton
[] HunllnSton [] Isllp [~ Rive~head
[] Sheller Is land [] Smlthlown [] Southampton
[] 5out hold
atrat~ anal,vsls
0!
-
top soil
coarse to fine sand with gravel
ORIGINAL--TO COMMISSION
................
State of New York
Department of Conenrvntlon
Divi*ion of Wnfer Power and Control
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
Location o! w~ll..z;,.,K.,...~.~.....,~a.r~.~.¢.,..~.t....~'.',~. ............................................
Depa ~low s~ce ......... A~:. ............... ; ....................................................... feet
~p~ to water: Gro~d water........~.....: ........ R.; F~hed weH.....i!.=....,.lt.
D~e~r......~. ............. m ....................... ~ ....................... ~ .....................
~n~.........C~ ............. it ....................... It ....................... it .......................
~g ................ ~.t.A.~.: .................................................................................
~ removed ...... ~.~.~.~ ............................................................................
~: Mnke...~.~.;sae..? ............................... Ope~ ........ Z.~ ........................
~et~....-~ .............. m ....... ~. .............. ~ ...................... ~ ......................
~g~ ........ .~ .............. ft ....................... ft ....................... fL .....................
Dep~ ~ ~p from top of ~mg .......... ~.~ ..................................................
Pu~m~ '1~: Dam ........ ?Z.~Z~:~. ............... 'l'~t or pe~eat p~p?~/.~; ....
D~aUon of Test ........................................ daya ........... ~. .................... ho~
Mnxlm~ D~e~ge ........... ~ ........................................ g~o~ pcs ~ute
S~Ue level prior ~ t~t ........~. ........... R ..................... ~. below top of
~vel d~g M~. P~ping...~ ......... ft ..................... in. below top of
Mnxlmu~ Drawdown ............ .~. .................................................................... fL
Approx. ~e ol retu~ to no~al level aft~ c~sation
of p~p~g ...................................... hours ........... ~. ....................... ~ut~
T~e ........................ M~e...~t ...~ ~.~.~.~.: ..................... Model No ........... -
.~.. Mo~ve power ............................ M~e ................................ ~.P .......................
..........................
No. bow~ or s~ges ......... ............ ~ ................................. ft. of to~l ~ead
Diameter .................................................. in .......
~n~h .....~ ................................................ ft.
U~ of water..~t.~.~.....~ .........................
Work st~ed ........... (~/~ ................................. Completed...~ ...................
Dnte .................. Y/~/.CA ................................... ~r ~ er.2~. ~ ~.~.~...~ ~.~.= ..........
~ce~e No ................. ~.A ............................
No, z: Show log of we ~materinls encountered with depth below ~ound
screens, pum~, nddltlonnl pumping tests and other mntte~ of in-
terest. Describe repair Job.
See Instn~edons ns to Well Drllle~' Licenses nnd Repo~pp. 5-7.
Well No...~...~.f~..~./. ................ :
LOG
Ground Surf., El......,.ft. above sea
~. ........... It.
r
SKI~.TCH OF LOCATION
Locate wen with respect to at least two streets or roads, showing
distance from corner and front of lot.
Show Nor~h Point
Coun,y....r~//f=~ ...........
ORIGINAL--TO COMMISSION
State of N'c,,: York
D~parrmcnt of Conscrvatlon
Division of ~¥at~r Resources
COMPLETTON REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
..............................................................................
Location o[ wdl tt
Depth of well below surface
Depth to ground water from eurface.......~. I
D~ameter .......................... m ..................... m,
WAI'~[R R
AUG
COMMISSION
RECLIV, ED
Length.; ............................ ft ..................... ft ..................... ft ..................... ft.
S,~ling ......,~.~./. ..............................................................................................
Casings removed ../.',~.~ .......................................................................................
SC~Ns: Make.../~t~ .......... :: ............ .Openlngs...J3.0 ........................ :...
]Diameter......-.~ ............... m ..................... in ..................... ~n ..................... m.
Leagth......../.~.~. .............. ft. .................... ft. .................... ft. .................... ft.
Depth to top from top of casing ......... ,,%.~. ..................................................... ft.
Puu~'z~o T~s'r: Date.......ff~.,~!..~.- .................. Test or permanmt pump ?...~'. '.-~.~
Duration of Test. ................................................ .days ................ ~. ............. hours
Maximum Discharge. ........ .~..~-~...~ ...................................... gallons p~r minute
Static level prior to test.......I/.. ............ ft ..................... in. below top of casing
Level during Max. Pumplng....~...~.....ft .....................in. below top of casing
Maximum Dcawdowu ........... Zf.. ..................................................................... ft.
Approx. time of return to normal level after cessation
of pumping l~onrs .... m au.es
PUMp INgTAM,~[):
........... ,. .............. .................
~oa,, ~$~.~ ........... ~e...~y ................... ~.~.'~'~;'~'
~city....~.....g.p.m. aghast
No. ~wls or ~ ........................ } .......... ~.Z.~ ................. ft. of to~l h~d
Dido? Lz~tz: SUC~ZON LZNZ:
N~: S~ ~ ~ wdl~ler~ls ~nter~, ~th dep~ ~ ~d surface,
- . [~al ,c~,In t~ and ~er matters of nt~t. Descr~ ~ir Job.
Well 1'~o ...................................
LOG ',,~
Grouml Surf., El. ft above sea
T, of Well
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
LOCATION Df WELl.
EPTH OF WELL
RFACE
ROUND WAIER FROM SURFACE
CASINGS
DATE
II.
PUMPING TEST
PUMP I#STALLED
DROP LINE SUCTIOR LINE
DIAMETER
)IAMETER in,
LENGTI{
cable tool
~'1 log of well - n ~ encountered,
waler bearin~ beds ami walef levels in each, casings, screens, pump,
addilional pumping lesls and olher mailers of inlerest. Describe repair job.
See Inslruclions as ID ~,'/ell Drillers'Cerlificnles of Rogislralinn andRepofls.
Pages S - 7.
n OmAL - ~., ,0,*,., co.,. ,, ~o. c,.
S~TC. O~ LOC^T~ON ~ ~
Lncaln well wilh resl~cl Io al least Iwo slreels or rnads,
shying dislance from corner and froni of Iol.
Sh~ N~lh Point
Check Ihe Town in which the ~oject is located:
Nassau County:
[] Hempslead [] Norlh Hemnslead [] Oysler Bay
Suffotk Counly:
[] Babylon [] Orookheven [] Easl Hamplon
[] Hunlington [] Islip [] Riverhead
[] Sheller Island [] Smilhlown [] Soulhamplon
~ Soulbold
Go..nty ........................................
ORIGINAL,--TO COMMI$$XON
State o[ New York
Dcpartmcnl of Con~crvation
Division t f Water p. moureea
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WEL~
.................. : ......................................................
^ddre,, .......................... ......... R;.P.., .............. .......... ....
V D'
Iq. ). E. C.
Location of well ....................................................................................................................
Depth o! well below surface......~...~... ...................................................................... feet
Depth to ground water {rom surface...~..~...4~'. ............................................................... feet
Dmmcter ............................ m ......................... m ......... : ............... m .............. m
~ngth .......... ~. .............. ft .................. ft ......................... ft ......................... ft.
Sealing .........................................................................................................................
Ga3inp remo~d .........................................................................................................
Sctm~a: Make.....~.~..~.~ .................................... O~ng,......~ ..........................
Diameter ......... ~ ......... m...,.: ................... m ......................... m ............... m
~ngth ............. :~ ........... [t ......................... [t ......................... [t ................. ft.
Depth to top from top of e~mg-,...~.~ ..............................................................
Duration of Test .......... ~ .............................. da~ ............................................... hou~
~ r~ n he ow tod of ~ ng
Stati= level prmr to teat ........................................................
~1 dur~g Minx. ~plng .................... {t ............................ in. Below top of c~ing
M=imum Dmwdown .............................................................................................. ft.
^ppmx. tirn~ of ~turn to normal level after cessation
of pumping ............................................ hou~ .......................................... mlnutea
Moti~ pow er....~ ~T<Z ~.,Make....~.~.H~I~Z.-..H.P.-....Z~ ..............
Capacity........~;~......g.p.m. a~t ~ ................................ ft. ot di~cbar~ head
No. bowls or s~g~ ................................ ~ ........................................ ft. of total h~ad
DJ=meter ................. ~ ................................. in .........................................................
Metimd ot Drillln~ {Rotary, cable mol, etc.) ..................................................................
Use of Water .......~.~.~ ....................................................
~ ~ ~ Go e ed ....................................
~,,~.....,..~- ~ ~..~ n,,~,.....~ .........................................
~.i~.~ ~o......Z~g..~ .................................
No~: Bhow ~ of well--mrlerial~,encounte~d, with deplh ~low ground
water ~ng beds ear wa er level~ in each, cmmgs ~creem, pump,
tional pumping, leto and other matters of interest. Deacrlbe <pair .lob,
~e In~trucllons ~ lo Well D~ilb'r~' l,}ccn~e~ and Re~rt~--pp. 5-7.
COMPLETIO['J REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
CASIHGS
SCRE~RS
/
ft,
~toll NO.
V
TOP OF WELL
ft.
OATE
E NO.
DROP LINE
~NGTH
tool []
"'NOTE: Show mS of well with depth I st~rface,
water hearing beds and water levels in each, casings, screens, pump,
additional pumpieg tests and other matters of interest. Des,-Hbe re. ir job.
See Instructions as (o ',Yell Drillers' Licenses and Reports, Pal;es 5 - 7.
DUPLICATE - Rolal~
c}¢dte well wilh re.~pecl to at least two streots or roads,
showing distance Irom corner and front of lot.
Cinch t[~e T6',~,n in w,d¢~ tl,'~ I~oj~ct Is
[] Hempstead [] Norlh Hempslead [] Oyster
5u~lo|k County:
[] Babylon I'~ §rookhaveo [] East Hamplon
~ Hunting(on ~ Islip ~erhead
~ S~lter Is land ~ Smilhtown ~ Southampton
~ Southold
, COI';]PLETION ~t:POIIT -- LONG ISLAI~,ID NELl. .,
ro,:,~: ...................... ~ .......~ ........... ; ........................... 1 .................... :, ¥ ::.
"' /~ "
L--- ~--~.'J ............. ,~t ............ ~_.~ "'1
~,~,,~ ~..,o.,o ,.,. ,,. I ,o~'"'"~'°'o, ~.~,~ '(~'~"~""~"~;"~"""T~'''~,,. ,o~'"""'~, .,,~ ~r
,. -' '--.t~:..
t
Shaw Nor~§
Cl:,uck 1~ T~.,,,n in which the projec~ is lecated:
i~ Hempstead [] North Hempslead [] Oyster 8ay
COUPLETION REPOflT - LONG ISLAND WELL
LENGTH
ft.
DATE
OU~ATION OF TEST
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TfO.TESTi /
return re notn~l leve~ aNer cessation of pumplnR
fl,
ft,
Sh*,v I~ of well - male a.~ .~ounlercd, wilh deplb below ground surface,
addili~a{ pumpin~ tests und otber mallets ~.~f interest. Descri~ re[~;~ job.
See Instructions as to Wel; Drillers' Licenses and gepDrtS. Pages 5 - 7.
· LOG
El.
V
/lo
_!
S~I'CH 0~' LOCATION
Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads,
showinB distance from corer and front of lot,
Show No'th Point
Check the Town In which lie i~ojecl Is located:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead [] North Hempsteacl [] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County:
[] Babylon [] Orookhaven [] East Hampton
[] Huntington [] Islip [] Riverhead
[] Si'miter Island [] Smithtown [] Southampton
[] Southold
SJ(ETCII O[ LOCAIIgN
s~ing dislance from corner and ;toni of Iol,
Check the To~n in which the i~'-iect is Io~ated:
Nassau County:
[] Hemps!~ad [] Norl:i Hempsmad
[] Oysler Bay
Suffolk County:
[] §abylon [] Brookhaven
[] Iluntington L-] Islip
L-J sheller Island [] Smilhln;;'n
.J~oulhold
[] Easl Hamplon
[] Riverhead
~ 5oulhampton
P
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
~ Weft Number
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
OWNER
'LOG
;4 , G,ound Bu,,ace
LOCA'ON OF W ,,W
A ft.
V
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFA~ O ~ DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE TOP OF WELL
CASINGS
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED
~EPTH TO TOP PROM TOP OF CASING
I PUMPING TEST
TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?
3URATION OF TEST
days ~ hours MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
~TATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST gallons per min.
in. be ow LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING
ft. ~ top of casing [ in. below
IAXIMUM DRAWDOWN
Approximate time o~ return lo normal level after cessation ol pumpm
PUMP INSTALLED
· d~ ~ MODEL NUMBER
~OT~ ~O~R MAKE
JMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
DROP LINE SUCTION LINE
,OT~ Show log el wag materials encountered, wilh deplh below ground surface, waist bearing beds and waist
leve~s in each, casings, screens, pump, additional pumping ~ests
and other matters of interest. Describe
repair job. See instructions as to Well Driller's
~ License and Repo~s. Page 5-7.
~lAL~Envirenm.nf=t r, ........ , ....
ETCH OF LCC/~riON
Locate ~¢1[ ~,
showing distam'~ '""
uect to at 1.8,~:;I two streets or roads,
..ruer and from ~I lot.
~how North Poi~!
CHECK THE TO~*, ~N ¢,,~llCH THE PRojliCT IS LOCATED:
Nassau Counh
[] Hempsl¢;-'.,'
North Henlp,.;h,:~d
[] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County: Brookhaven
.:.
[] Babylo, Islip
[] Hunt n::~,'" Smithtown
[]Shelte~ I~ ~ ','
[~out hol,',
[] East Hampton
[] Riverhead
[] Southampton
I
I
!
I
I
I
OWNER
NEW YC~K STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
COMPLETION REPORT - LONG ISLAND WELL
ADDRE~
DE~H-OF WELL BELOW SURFACE
DIAMETER
I
DEPTH TO GBOUND WATER FROM SURFACE
CASINGS
ft.
LENGTH
SEALING
in. I in.
CASINGS REMOVED
ft. I ft.
SCREENS
J OPENINGS
D AMETER
~ In. In. in.
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
PUMPING TEST
in,
ft.
DATE
DbRATION OF TEST
daysI
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TF;.S.T/
,.,J TEST OR PERMANENT PUMPI '
' in below I LEVEL DURING MAX MUM PU'MPING
PUMP INgTALLED
~IAMETER
~ENGTH
~-"~D OF DRILLING
MODEL NO.
ft. of discharge head
fl. of total head
SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER
in.
LENGTH
ft.
USE OF WATER
[] rotary [:]cable tool [] other
~TED ~ / (~OMPLET ED .,
gATT , '/'' '' 6-RiLLJ ~ ....;,
~ ./,/? z-, ~ ~ /'~ .,* I LICENSE NO.
"N~E: Show I~ of w~ll - m~lerisIs encounlered, wilh d~plh b~low ~round sur[~ce,
w~Jer be~rin~ b~ds ~ wsJ~r levels in e~ch, c~sin~s, screens, pump,
~ddilion~l pumpin~ Jesls ~nd giber m~Jt~rs of inJeresh D~sc~i~ remit job.
S~ Insffuclions ~s lo W~II Drill~rs' Licenses ~nd Repo~Js. P~es S - 7.
In*
fi,
Well No.
# LOG
Ground SuHace
El, ,, ft. above
A
TOP OF WEL
OF LOCATION
Locate well with res~ct to at least two streets or roads,
shying distance from corner and froat of lot,
Sh~ ~th ~oint
Check the Town in which the I~'oject is located:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] North Hempstead
Suffolk County: [] Babylon
[] Huntington
[] Shelter Island
[] Southold
lsr°°khav~n
[] Smithtown
[] Oysler Bay
[] East Hampton
[] Riverhead
[] Southampton
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
/
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL
ADDRESS
A fE
V
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE TOP OF WELL
CASINGS
DIAMETER
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED
DIAMETER
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
~ PUMPING TEST
DATE TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?
DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
days [ hours gallons per min.
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING
~ in. below in. below
top of casing [ lop of casing
ft. hours ) min.
PUMP INSTALLED
~PE MAKE~
/; ~ ~ MODEL NUMBER
MOTIVE POWER MAKE ~ H.P.
g.p.m, against ~ R. of discharge head
NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
Show
materials e~nlered, with depth below ground surfak, water bearing beds and water
ORIGINAL--Environmental C. nnrcnrvnfinn ~nnv
SKETCH OF LOCATION
Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads,
showing distance from corner and front of lot,
Show North Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] North Hempstead
[] Oyster Bay
Suffolk County: [] Babylon
[] Huntington
helter' Island
outhold
[] Brookhaven
[] Islip
r~ Smithtown
[] East Hampton
[] Riverheed
[-']Southampton
Well No.
County
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
COMPLETION REPORI~ - LONG iSLAND WELL
J
]
OWNER
ADDRESS
DE~H OF WELL B~LOW SURFACE DE~H TO GROUND WATER FROM SURFACE
f,. ..
CASINGS
DIAMETER ~'~ in. J
SEALING
Jrt,
ft.
CASINGS REMOVED
ft, I ft.
SCREENS
DIAMETER
LENGTH /
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
PUMPING TEST
)ATE TEST OR PERMANENT PUMPf
DORATION OF TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
daysJ houri gallons per
min.
LEVEL PRIOR TO TI~ST LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PLUMPING
STATIC In. below In. below
ft./ lop of casing ft.! top of casing
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN Approximate time of return to normall level after cessalion of pumpins
ft. hrs.[ min.
PUMP INSTALLED
TYPE MAXE
MAKE
MCq'IVE POWER
CAPACITY
1/7
NUMBER g/OW{IS OR STAGES
ft. of discharge head
ft. of tntat head
DROP LINE SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER DIAMETER
/YY In. '"-
LENGTH LENGTH
ft. ft.
METHOD OF DRILLING
I'-I rotary ~:~,lble tool [] other
'NOTE: Show log of well - materials encountered, with depth below ground surface,
water bearing beds and water levels in each, casings, screens, pump,
additional pumping tests and other matters of interest. Describe repair job.
See Instructions as to Well Drillers' Licenses and Reports. Pages 5 - 7.
ORIGINAl.- Environmental Conservation COD'/
* LOG
Ground Surface
El.
TOP OF WELL
ft. above sea
· ft.
Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads,
showing distance from corner and front of lot.
Show North Point
Check the Town in which the project is located:
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
[] Noeth Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
[] Brookhaven [] East Hampton
[] Islip C~?~..~i vet he ad
[] Smithtown [] Southampton
Suffolk County:
[-~Babylon
[-]Huntington
[]She~ter Island
I"~Southold
64095
.~'~" NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
S-106416
Suffolk ~ WeU Number
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELL co~ -~w-9052
OWNER 'LOG
Suffolk County Water Authority Ground Surface
ADDRESS
P.O. Box 37, Oakdale, NY 11769 EL. ft. above sea
LOCATION OFWELL Laurel Lake Well Field ft.
N/S Main Road, E/O Laurel Lake Drive, 7' SE of S-106415T, Laurel
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE /.. TOP OF WELL
242 feet 25.47 feet
STEEL CASINGS
LENGTH
10 ft. I tt I ft. I ft. See 'at ..ached Iriller'
SEALING CASINGS REMOVED Log an~ Corin Log
Cement Grout none
316LS S SCREENS
MAKE OPENINGS
Johnson
DIAMETER
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
232 feet
PUMPING TEST
DATE TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?
N/A
DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE
days I hours gallons per min.
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING
] in. below in. below
top ol casing I lop of casing
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN Approxlmale time of return to normal level Brier cessalion of pumping
ft. hours ] min.
PUMP INSTALLED
TYPE MAKE MODEL NUMBER
N/A
MOTIVE POWER MAKE H.P.
CAPACITY
g.p.m, against [ ft. ol discharge head
NUMSER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
DROP LINE SUCTION LINE
DIAMETER DIAMETER
N/A ~n. N/A ~n.
LENGTH LENGTH
It. fL
METHOD OF DRILLING F, everse USE OF WATER
~]mtary []cabie{oo~ []otherR°tar~ Chloride Monitoring Well
WORK STARTED COMPLETED
10/25/95 11/01/95
DATE I DRILLER ] REGISTRATION NO.
02/29/96 Delta Well & Pump Co., Inc. [299
' NOTE: Show log of well materials encountered, with depth below ground surface, water bearing beds and water
levels in each, casings, screens, pump, additional pumping tests and other matters of Inlerest Describe
repair IDb. See instructions as to Well Driller's Registration and Reports.
CHClI~INAI --F:nvlrnnmnnta! ~.nn~arv~tlnn ~..~nv
Locate well with re
showing distance from c
}F LOCATION
) at least two streets or roads,
3d front of lot.
torth Point
CHECK THE TO~/N IN ~
Nassau County:
[] Hem"pstead
Suffolk County:
[] Babylon
[] Huntington
[]Shelter Island
[]Southold
'HE PROJECT iS LOCATED:
~ Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
khaven [] East Hampton
[] Riverhead
3town [] Southampton
64095
CORING'
DELTA WEI,I,
97U
P.O
JOB #A~tE S.C.W.A. Laurel Lake, Mattituck
I~CAT 0H ...... Well No. 2 Moniwell
RE~EREKCE PT. grade
~TE ST~RTE~ 10/26/95 C{)~IP LET~
' '#o. le~h tgth 91ow!
_ 1 100 18 1 0 0 Medium to coars
2 110 17 1 3 9 Medium to coars
'~_ 3 120 20 8 5 Fine to medium
._4__13J~_. 2~ .... 7 9 Solid and silty
.~__ 5 140 16 6 8 Fine to medium
6 150 14 7 6 Fine to coarse
~ ~ 7 160 16 7 8 Fine to coarse
; 8 179 17 7 2 Fine to coarse
~ ~ 9 180 18 4 0 Solid' gray
; 10 190 18 8~ 0 Fine to medium
I
I1 200 18 8~ 5 Fine to medium
C 12 210 17 9 0 Coarse gray sa~
C 1~ 230 6 7 7 F~n* brown san{
15 260 ~7 7 1 F~ne to medium
~ ~ 16 250 18 7 0 F~ne to medium
17 260 10 6 8 F~ne to medium
18 269 18 6 9 FSne to medSum
[
' CO. , 1NC. '
enue ~i,,
309 .,:~ .
,Y. 1 ! 779,"'
1 1
S-106416
W.R.C. WELL KO,
30 ~eet
$. W. L.
'/95 DRILLER Cronin, Elmendorf, Kasper
Lion FROH TO DEP'!
;and (hard packed)
: tan/gray snd (hard pack) (2 t~mes)
~d
:lay
~y sand
zd gravel
~d gravel
5d gravel
small to medium stones (2 tLmes)
nd
vel/grits
and
and
and
and
streaks of clay
97
#~E S,O.W.A. ~aurel ~ake, Mattituck
FLDCItl0#__J~¢i] No. 2 Moniwell
;~[~[~[~C~ ~. grade
STARTED 10/25/95 C~PLETE~_
~ C SAHPLE
~] F No. )epth Lgth llowe
L '-- Top soil
~ Fine brown sand
Fine to medium sand
~ Medium to coarse sa
Medium to coarse sa
~ Medium to coarse sa
Medium to coarse sa
t .... clay___..
of
brown
Fine to m.edium sand
] Coarse tan sand~ sm
Small to large gray
Fine to medium tan
~ Fine to medium tan
Solid gray clay, si
~ Fine to medium tan/~
Fine to coarse sand
~ Solid gray clay
Fine to coarse/tan ~
-~.~ Coarse tan/~ray san(
~. __ Fine to medium gray
Fine brown sand
~J __. Fine to medium gray
~ Fine to medium sand
IMP CO., INC.
Avenue
1309
N.Y. 11779
~ege 1 of, 1
W.R.C. WELL RO. S-106416
30 feet
/95 DRILLER Cronin, Elmendork, KaspE
~.tlon FROM TO DEl
0 2
2 30
ravel 30 46
311 gravel 46 54
311 to medium stones 54 67
311 gravel ,. 67 78
]vel, grits, bits
78 85
[ stones 85 I00
~vel 1DO 108
~11 to medium stones 108 110
II0 i25
~its of brown clay 125 130
.y, fine sand 130 140
~nd 140 143
~avel (some clay) 143 !184
184 199
199 205
el, small stones 205 219
219 234
234 235
235 269
ks of clay 269
76096
Suffolk
County
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
COMPLETION REPOR
OWNER
Suffolk County Water Authority
ADDRESS
?.O. Sox 37, Oakdale, ~ 11769
LOCATION OF WELL
Inlet Drive Well No. 2A, E/S Inlet Drive
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE
123 feet
J DEPTH TO GRI
69
STEEL CAStNGS
DIAMETER
12 In. J 10 (sump) in. J
LENGTH
98. B. J 3 ,f. J
SEALING CASINGS REM'
Cement Grout none
SCREENS
MAKE OPENINGS
Johnson HI-Q 50 slot
DIAMETER 0 slot riser
telescope 12~. J telescope 12 in. J
LENGTH
20 .. J 3 .. J
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING J
100 feet
PUMPING TEST
OATE TEST OR PERM
9/18/96 test:
DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM
0 days J 8 hours 335
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST LEVEL DURING
69 ,. J 0 i.. below
top of casing 8 i
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN J Approximate time of return to
12,5 ft.J Not measured
TYPE MAKE
N/A
MOTIVE POWER MAKE
PUMPINSTALLED
CAPACITY
g.p.m, against
NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES
DROP LINE
DIAMETER
N/A
LENGTH
METHOD OF DRILLING
[] cable tool
WORK STARTED
DIAMETER
LENGTH
fl.
J~Jo her. Auger
USE OF WATER
Supp
~.~ __J__Delta Well & Pump Co., Inc
· NOTE: Show log of well ma erlals encountered, with depth below ground
ORIGINAL--Environme
)NMENTAL CONSERVATION
Weft Number S-108347T
NG ISLAND WELL
· LOG
Ground Surface
EL. ft. above
ft.
!R FROM SURFACE TOP OF WELL
See ttached lo8
J 6 in. below
1299
SK
Locate well with resl
showing distance from co
F LOCATION
at least two streets or roads,
front of lot.
)rth Point
CHECK THE TOWN IN WI-
Nassau County:
[] Hempstead
Suffolk County:
[] Babylon
[]Huntington
[]Sheller Island
[] Southold
IE PROJECT IS LOCATED:
Hempstead [] Oyster Bay
~aven [] East Hampton
[] Riverhead
3wn [] Southampton
!---iiiiLt
~ tehl&l
.. .S.~ones b~own san~ ,fine
. ,,.-4 Brow~ sand fins to.~ed
Brown ,sahd fins to med
i Light brown sand fins
..... Brow~. sa~d fins to med
I Brown sand fine to med
i .... Brown sand fin& to,,med
~ ,_ Brown sand fins .to ~e_~d
Brown sand fins to med:
I .... Brown sand .fine
Very.fine brown sand~;;i
I Very. fine brown Sand
...... ~ Very fine brown Sand
~ Veryf~ne.dgrk..~gYm ,s~
..... .F~n~! medium sind~,
~ --. Silty.fine.brown,.sand.l
L__, Silty fine bro~/,sandy
..... __ Medium tan sand and gr~
[ "
.... Medium tan sand.and gr~
--- Medium tan sand .and gr~
I........ _ -.. Mediu~ tan sand.and grs
........ Medium tan sa~d find gr~
-- ---__ Medium tan sand add grs
....... Medium tan sand and. g~
......... Medium tan sand and gra
Medium tan sand and gra
#.LL #~lt #~, ;p-lOSB~7T
a; #. h ....
~ULLU m. mevins
dium gra,vel ,; .~ ..... 0 5
.... "" .......... .............. 5 10
.. 10 15
[um .- i ...... 15 20
.... 20 25
........... 25 30
30 35
..... 35 40
. 60 45
: .... 45 50
..... 50 55
55 60
60 65
65 70
sand, ined br~a~ .saj3d.. ~~ 70 72
tones, some brown sil~ ela 75 77
fide medium sand small stone 80 82
85 87
90 92
95 97
mall stones 100 102
mall stones 105 107
110 112
, . 115 117
· 120 122
125 127
130 -~32
st,t, ~ s,,, yo~t w~u No.~'L.--..-Z-..~:.-7-~-?--
DIVISION OF WATER EESOURC~
COMPLETIO~ EEPORT~LONG ISLAND WELLS
We~ Points up to i inches only
;J
Lo~io~ o! ,,U ........~l.k.~.O. .......... ~..!:.~.L.V...~ ............ :.....~.~.~..~....~..i.:E..~..a.~-- ................................
l~p,~ o~ .~ ~o..u~ .............. ~-1 ............................ ~ ~ ~ "~' ........... ~'~ .........................
Po~t: M~e .....~i-L~-.~--~-~'''~ ............................ O~ .......... ~.~----~'~'~'~ .........................
T~ ............ ~ ~ ~ .......... M'~'"'""~'~'~"~ ................................. MMel No.....--~-5--~'~''~
Mo,ye po~.~.~-.~' M~c.......~...~..~.~.~.-~ ...................... H.P .............. ~ ..............
~p~.........~.~ ............ .:...... ~ ~......~.~;.~.~..~ ........... U~ si w~.....~.~..~.
S~TCH OF LOCATION
~ATER RESOURCES
A~60 ~ ~ AUG101966
~ R~CEIV~D
Show No~ po~t
~, ........ ~.~.~.~...~.~....~ .......... .~..~i.~..~.~.~..~..~ ......... ~--~--~---~ .............
........ ~..~,,~.~I~_.~ ............. ~--~-~.-~'~ ................ E'~*~"~'"'""~'"~*~'~'""~ .......
............... : ..... - ~ ~ ~.= t .: .~..~ ............................
Work ~ .....~.:...L.:......~--~ ............................. ~ .................
D,~...~.:.~.=*~**~ ........... D~..m.~.~.f.~..~.~.~...-...~.~--~ ............ U~ ~o........~..k~ ..........
~ Im~io~ ~ ~ We~ DH~ ~.~ ~d R~P. 5-7.
County Suffolk
NEW YORK STATE OEPARTME
COMPLETION REP(:
t
OWNER
Suffolk County Water Authority
ADDRESS
Sunrise Highway at Pond Rd., Oakda
LOCATION OF WELL
Laurel Lake, Laurel NY
DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE f DEPTH TO (
CASINGS
DIAMETER
LENGTH
143 ,. I ,. I
SEALING CASINGS Ri
Cement Gro%;~ Test w(
SCREENS
MAKE OPENINGS
Johnson
DIAMETER
16" Telesco.t~e i
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING
145
PUMPING TEST
DATE
12-~n-gz
DURATION OF TEST
days I 8 hours
STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST
ft. I In. below
top ot casing
TEST OR PE~
MAXIMUM
LEVEL DURIt
MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN Approximate time of return
ft. t
PUMP INSTALLED
TYPE MAKE
MOTIVE POWER MAKE
CAPACITY
g.p.m, against I
NUMBER OF DOWLS OR STAGES
DROP LINE
~IAMETER
--LENGTH
METHOD OF DRILLING
_.~ rotary [] cable toot
WORK STARTED
DIAMETER
in.
LENGTH
fl,
USE OF WATt
[] other
COMPLETED
DRILLER -
erntion
* NOTE: Show log of well malerla s encountered, with depth below groun
levels In each' casings' screens Pa mP 'ddttis°nL~lcePnU~neP;nn(gl tl~:tp"c
ORIGINAL--Environm
'IRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
we,, Numbers - 1 o 17 5 5 T
,ONG ISLAND WELL
'LOG
Ground Surface
, Y. "J 1 7 {~ .0 EL. ft. above sea
V
ATER PROM SURFACE ! TOP OF WELL
16~
ft ~n place
60F;1 at
~t. [ 1~ ~CT~D ft.
T~t
70 0 g. Pon. per min,
tO~ o~ casing [Sft. ~
min. SlOt E
- 5c~eR
MOOEL NUMBER 20ft.-- --
bl~
lSft.-- --
60 slot
ft. of total head3ft. -- _
i0. L,.~ s~
1706
onservation Copy
W~:L, b NO-
ELEV.
~ _ Iollsg 7-'
~_ EPTH (FT)
bOO ~t,~D
FORMATI'~
qo-
' I~ -ltd;
lJ l( s.
I'/O - Iq(,,
J lq&,,- 2.0o
^u'rH ~u, 0-~'~ q3
nsb cowrn~c? ~o.
~T F'r ~0i'1
L' lo-
ORIGINAL--TO COMMISSION
We~ ~o...5..-...~../.~...~. ............
Dc[~artmcnt Si Conservation LOG
Division of Water Resources Grountl Surf.. El ......... ft. above
COMPLETION REPORT--LONG ISLAND WELI ............ ft.
._V
T~
...............................................
~tion or.,,,, ........ .2~..~.-~.......,~....;~'''~r~' ........................................
Depth of ~vcll below surface ....... ~...O.. ................................................................. feet
Depth to ground water from surface.....~.....~...~.. ................................................. feet
Diameter .............. ~.. ......... in ..................... in ..................... in ..................... in.
Leal.th .............................. ft ..................... ft ..................... ft ..................... ft.
Casings removed ................................................................................................
Sc~r.~Na: Make. ......../,/ ~......~'. .....................Open/rigs......./../;E. ........................
Dimmer e r..........~;;. ............ tn. .................... in ..................... ~r ................ in.
Length .............................. fl ..................... fL .................... ft ..................... fL
Depth to top from top of casing ...................................................................... fL
Duration of Test ................................................. ~ays ................................ hours
Max/mum Discharge. .......................................................... gallons per minute
Static level prior to test. ...................... ft ..................... in. below top of ca~g
Level during Max. Pumping: ............... ft ..................... in. below top of casing
Maxbnum Drawdown ...................................................................................... fL
Approx. time of return to Surreal level after cessation
of pumping ........................................ ~ours .................................... minutes
Motive
C,pee~'....ZO ........ ~.~,.m.,~,st ~ ............................... ft.
No. bowls or ~ages ........................
Diameter ' '
L~ ....................................................... ~t ............................. ...--..~.~..~.L~t.
Use of water.........~:~K';~.9,..9,..9,..9,..9,~. ..........................
Work staffed ......... /~,,~... ~. ~..~ ...../'..~.. ~'.2~. ...... Ca mplet ed...~.~.~,,~/..~.,~ .....
Date ......... £/~....~...../£~...~_ ............... Dri~lcr.. ~d~-~....~ .~,
License No ................ ..~...~. ....................
Nor~: Show log of wdl-=-n~teHals enenontcred, whh depth below ~p'onnd su r face,
water bearing beds ~nd ~ater levels in each, casln~, screens, pump,
additional pumping te~ts and other matters si ;nterat. Describe repair job.
See Instructions ns to Well Drillers' Licenses and Reports- pp. 5-7.
Run Date: 02/23/98 e 10:48
Ous Oate: 02/23/98
PERIOD: 01/90
PUNP STATION
SCWA Production Contro! OeparLment
O.E.C. PRODUCTZOR REPORT
ZONE: 29 NRTTITUCN LON
PUNPAGE AVERAGE FLOW WELL
(TNOUSANOS) (GPW) NO
PROOCTN Page
OPERATING AOUIFER RYS WELL
HOURS NUWBER
INLET-OR" Z,020 209 IA 66 G S'Z05669
i~,~.: 2A 15 G S'108347
?
LAUREk:~LAkE 950 523 1 2 G S-]OZ75S
2 47 G S-106416
SUNSET OR. -18 150 I 2 G S-094138
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED:4-~.~- 4~988 .:
PERK DRY FOR ZONE
182,500 GALLONS OR 01/14/98
0
Sus Date: 03/J0/98 O.E.C, PRODUCT]OW REPORT PRODCTH Page
PERIOD: 02/98 ZONE: 29 WATTITUOK LOW
PUHP STATIOH PUHPAGE AVERAGE FLOW WELL OPERATING AQUIFER NYS WEL~
(THOUSAHOS) (GPW) NO HOURS NUHBER
INLET OR 822 207 IA 35 G S-I05669
2A 31 G S-t08347
LAUREL LAKE 810 321 1 2 G S-101755
2 40 G S-106416
SUNSET OR. 18 150 I 2 G S-094138
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTEO: 3 1,650
PEAN DAY FOR ZONE
88,100 GALLONS ON 02/26/98
Run DaLe: 04/16/98 R 16:17
.Bus DaLe: 04/16/98
PERZOD: 05/98
PUNP STATZOR
PRODCTN PaRe
SC#A Production Coetro! OeparLment
D.E,C. PRODUCT!OR REPORT
ZORE: 29 NATTITUCR CON
PUHPAGE AVERAGE FLOR NELL OPERATIHG AQUIFER RYS NELL
(THOUSANDS) (GPH) NO HOURS HUNBER
INLET DR 842 209 IA 52 G S-105669
2~ ~S G $-108547
LAUREL LAKE 1,050 ~50 t I G S-101755
2 52 G
SUHSET DR. 0 I 0 G S-094158
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: 5 1,892
PEAK DAY FOR ZORE
145,600 GALLONS ON 05/51/98
PUHP STATION PUHPAGE A~ERAGE FLON NELL OPERAT]RO AQUIFER NYS NELL
(THOUSANOS) (GPH) NO HOURS NOHB£R
INLET OR 1,164 217 IA 66 G S-105669
2A 25 G S-108347
LAUREL LAKE J,630 323 ! $ G S-101755
2 8! G S-1064!6
SUNSET DR. 0 ! 0 G S-0941~8
ZOHE: 29 STAT]OHS LISTED: ~ 2,794
PEAK DAY FOR ZORE
226,!00 GALL0NS OH 04/27/98
PU~PAGE AVERAGE FLO# #ELL. OPERaTiNG AGU~ER
INLET DR 1,624 2~9 IA 29 G S-105669
2A 84 G $-108~47
LAUREL LAI(£ 1,500 287 I I G S-101755 .
2 86 G S-106416
SUNSET DR. 946 156 i lOl G S-0941~8 '
PEAK DAY FOR ZONE 605,400 GALLONS ON 05/1~/98
t
.......... : R flrlll ~ .......... ~
~NLET DR 2,2L4 222 IA 73 G
2A 9~ G
S-LOS669
S-108~47
LAUREL LAK£ 2,030 272 ! 2 G S-JOJ7$5
2 122 G 5-106416
SUNSET DR. 25 ]36 ! 3 G S-094138
i~ONE: 29 STATIONS LZSTED: 5 4 269
!~! PEAK ~AY FOR ZONE 235,200 GALLONS ON 06/26/98
Run Oate: 08/I8/98 e t$:~!
~us Oate: 08/LS/~O
PERI00: 07/~U
SCNA Produc[ton Contro! Oepar[men[
O.E.C. PROOUCT!OW REPORT
ZOHE: 29 NATTXTUCK LON
PROOCTX Page 31
PUNP STRTIOH PUNPAGE AVERAGE FLOW WELL OPERAT!NG AOUIEER N¥S NELL
(THOUSAM)S) (GPX) HO HOURS HUNBER
IHLET OR 4,040 225 IA 172 G S-105669
2A 126 G S-108,147
LAUREL LAKE 2,770 281 ! 2 G SdOI7S5
2 162 G 5-1064[6
SUNSET DR. 170 157 I 18 G S-094138
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: 3 6,980
PERK DAY FOR ZONE
418,700 GALLONS ON 07/19/98
' '^' [~ I~ 143
INLET DR
LAUg[L LAKE 2,810 80
~UHBER
G S"105669
S-094138
PEAK DA'( FOR ZONE 427,500 GALLONS OH 08/07/98
~ERIO0:09/98 ZOHE: 29 HATTITUCK LON
PUHF OT~TION POHPAGE A¥£RAGE FLON HELL OFERAT]NG AOU]FER HYS HELL
(THOVSAHOS) (GPH) HO HOURS HUMBER
[HLET DR 2,677 222 ZA [05 G S-105669
2A 96 G S-108~47
LAUREL LAKE 1,740 27~ I 3 G S-101750
2 103 G S-106416
SUHSET OR, 804
ZOH[: 29 STAT]OHO L]STEO: ~ 5,221
PEAK 0AY FOR ZOHE
290,700 GALLONS OH 09/07/98
Al I1'~_1 let L :-- ~
~. gu~DaLe:_.~[/~8/98 H 1[:05 SCHA ProducLion Con~ro/Ue~arLmeDL
8us Oate: 11/18/98 D.E.C. PROOUCTIOH REPORT PRODCTH PaDe ~] ~
PERIOO: 10/98 ZONE: 29 HATTITUC[ LON
~ ....................... P~H~ STATION PU~PAG[ ~VERA6E FLON RELL OPERATING AOUIFER NYS NELL
'!~ ................. ZNL[T UR.
(THOUSANDS) (GPN) HO HOURS NUHBER
2,174 218 tA 82 G S-105669
2A 84 ~ S-108~47
.... LAUREL CAXE 1,010 ' 267- I I G S-ZOL755
2 62 G S-1064t6
SUNSET
425. 144 J 49 G S-094138
PERK DAY FOR ZONE 221,400 GALLONS OH 10/02/98
SCW~ Product. ior. Con[rol Department
Bus Oatei J2/18/98
PERIO0: 11/9B
............... P.__U~ ? .... STATION
D.E.C. PRODUCTION REPORT
ZOHEF'29" HATTITUC~ LON ...........
PUMPAGE AVERAGE FLOW NELL OPERATING AQUIFER
PRODCTN Page 31 dm{
NY$ 4ELL
NUMBER
INLET OR
LAUREL LAXE
1,899 216 IA 74 O S-J05669
2A 72 G S-108347
860 260 I I O S-101755
C 54 G S-106416
226 139 i 27 G S'O94{ZO
ZONE: 2') STATIONS LIOTEO: ,l 2,985
PEAR DAY FOR ZONE
135,500 GALLONS ON 11/08/98
~[~IOD: 12/~8
ZONE: 29 HATT[TUCK LOH
PDHP STATtON PUNPAOE AVERAG£ FLOH HELL OPERRTING AGUIFER NYS HELL
(TNOUSAHDS) (GPM) NO HOURS NUHB£R
IH[ET DR 971 221 JA 38 G S-105669
2A )5 G S-108347
LAUREL LAKE 1,140 260 I i G S'101755
2 72 G S-i06416
SUNSET DR. 54 149 ] 6 G S'094138
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: 3 2,165
PEAK DAY FOR ZONE
138,550 GALLOHO OH 12/04/98
Run Date: 02/25/99 0 16:28
Bus Oate: 02/25/99
PERIOD: 01799
SCNA Production Control Oeparteent
D.E.C, PRODUCTION REPORT
ZONE: 29 NATTITUC~ LON
PRODCTH Page
PUNP STATION PUHPAGE AVERAGE FLON NELL OPERATEHG ~GUEFER NYS NELL
(THOUSANDS) (GPH) NO HOURS NUHOER
]HLET DR J,2~9 2]5 JA 55 G S-105669
2A 4J G S-]0B~47
LAUREL LAKE 650 2SJ
! I ~ S-101755
2 42 G S-1064J6
SUHSET OR. 224 J43 I 26 G .S-094!$8
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTEO: ~ 2,J1]
PEAK GAY FOR ZOHE 117 50~ GALLONS OR 0~/17/99
~ ~Run Date: 0~/!6/99 0 06:22
, 8u$ DaLe:
iPERIOD: 02/99
PUNP STATXOH
SCNA Product]on Contro! Department
D.E.C. PRODUCTEON REPORT
ZOH[: 29 HATTITUCK LON
PUMPAGE AVERAGE FLON. NELL OPERATING
PRO{)CTH Page
AQUIFER HY$ NELL
(THOUSANDS) (GPH) NO HOURS HUMBER
IHLET DR 808 21~ IA ~9 G 5-105669
2A 24 G S-108~47
LAUREL LAKE 780 260 J 2 G S-~01755
2 48 G 5-L06416
SUNSET DR. 469 ISO ! 52 G $-094138
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: $ 2,057 .....
PEAk DAY FOR ZONE
126,600 GALLONS ON 02/01/99
HOSV
Hun Oate 04/16/99 H 10:18 _ . . SCHA Production Contro! Departeent
8us Date: 04/16/99 O,E,C, PROOUCTION REPORT
PERIOD: 03199 '' ZONE: 29 mATT!tUCK LON
PROOCTN PaDe ~]im
PU#P STATION PUMPAGE AVERAGE FLOH HELL OPERATING AOUIFER HYS HELL
(THOUSANOS) (GPH) HO HOURS RUHBER
2A 19 G S-108547
LAUREL CAKE 690 255 I 1 G S-101755
2 44 G S-106416
SUHSET OR,
801 149 I 89 G S-0941~8
ZOHE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: ~ 2,509
PEAK DAY FOR ZONE 109,400 GALLONS ON 05/08/99 ~r ~
:,PERIOD: 04/99
D.E.C. PRODUCTIOR REPORT
PUMP STATION
ZONE:,29
PUMPAGE
(THOUSANDS)
RATTITUCK LON
RVERAGE [LOR NELL OPERATING AGUIFER NYS N£LL~ '~ ,:'
(GPM) NO HOURS NUMBER ~
1,262 212 JR 60 G S-10S669 ......
2R 39 G S-10B~47
IHLET DR
LAUREL LAKE
SUHSET DR.
1,290 262 I 2 G ['101755
2 80 G S'106416 [
372 147 ! 42 G S'09~1~8 :
ZONE: 29 STATIONS LISTED: 3 2,924
~EAK DAY FOR ZONE 186,200 GALLONS ON 04/~0/99
Date: 06/2~/79
PUHP STATZOH
D.E.C. PRODUCTIOH REPORT PRODCTN Page '
ZONE: 29' H~i~iTUCK
PUHPAGE AVERAGE FLOH NELL OPERATING AQUIFER NYS HELL
(THOUSANDS) (GPH) NO HOURS HUHBER
INLET DR 2,175 215 IA 96 G S~105669
~ 2A 72 G S-108S47
LAUREL LAKE 2,220 262 I 2 G $-101755
2 159 G $-106416
SUHSET DR. 793 150 I 88 G S-094138
ZOH[: _2'~.. UATIONS LISTEb: 3 5,188
PEAK DAY FOR lONE
391,100 GALLOHS Ol~ 05/50/99