Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacari at Laurel 1990 Book I 0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MACARI AT LAUREL TYPE I ACTION This Document Represents A Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Above Referenced Project. Copies Are Available For Public Review And Comments At The Offices Of The Lead Agency. Comments Will Be Accepted Until IN ACCORDANCE WITH: Article 8 Environmental Conservation Law (8-0113) Part 617 Statewide Regulations (6 NYCRR) DATE: September, 1990 LEAD AGENCY: APPLICANT: Southold Town Planning Board Joseph Macari Town Hall, 53095 Main Road c/o Peter S. Danowski, Esq. Southold, New York 11971 616 Roanoke Avenue Contact Person: Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Phone: 516-765-1938 PREPARED BY: LOCATION: The Clover Corporation Bounded by Sound Avenue-Middle P.O. Box C Road on the north and Laurel Way Halesite, N.Y. 11743 (R.O.W. ) on the south Contact Persons: in Laurel, Town of Southold, Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Suffolk County, New York Howard J. Ruben, M.S. Phone: 516-754-3415 ACCEPTANCE DATE: COMMENT DATE: ,cr-P 2 7 1990 i TABLE OF CONTENTS BOOK I - D.E.I.S. TEXT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PROPOSED SITE . . III-1 A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 1. GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 2 . TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3 3 . SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5 B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-14 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-14 2 . FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-26 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-38 1. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-39 2 . GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-40 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-52 3 . SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-60 4. WATER BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-61 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-69 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-69 2 . SOLID WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-69 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-69 ZONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-69 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-75 PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-77 4 . TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-81 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-83 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-84 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-88 CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-88 HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-88 SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-96 6. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-97 i 7. POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-98 8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . III-99 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-99 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-101 IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 2 . SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6 FRESHWATER WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7 2 . FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 1. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 2 . GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-17 3 . SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25 4 . WATER BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-34 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40 2 . SOLID WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-40 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-42 ZONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-42 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-42 PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-43 4 . TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-44 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-49 CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-49 HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-50 SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-50 6. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-52 7 . POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-52 8 . MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . IV-53 9 . TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-54 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-57 ii V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . V-1 A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 2 . SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10 B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12 FRESHWATER WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-15 2 . FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-18 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22 1. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22 2 . GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-26 3 . SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-33 4 . WATER BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-40 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-42 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-42 2 . SOLID WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-44 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-46 4 . TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-49 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-51 6. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-53 7. POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-55 8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . V-55 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-57 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-58 VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 A. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 B. FLORA AND FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2 C. GROUNDWATER AND SEWAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3 D. SOLID WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 E. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 F. PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4 G. SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5 iii H. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6 VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1 A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3 B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE (27 Housing Units Distributed Throughout The Site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4 C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-21 D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-24 VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 IX. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . IX-1 X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1 XI. GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 XII. REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE: 1. Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 2 . Soil Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6 3 . Vegetation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15 4 . Geologic Cross-Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-42 5. Hydrogeologic Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-44 6. Groundwater Divide - North Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-47 7. Groundwater Elevation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-49 8. Water Table Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-50 9. Location of Quality of Groundwater Data Collection Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-55 iv 10. Nearest SCWA Water Main Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-70 11. Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-71 12. Land Use Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-76 13 . Existing Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-85 14. Tax Levy 1989-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-100 15. Traffic Volume Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-47 16. Cumulative Development Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-2 17. Traffic Volume - Cumulative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-20 TABLE: 1. Water Quality Data - Well #S 53333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-56 2 . Water Quality Data - Pesticides, VOC'S . . . . . . . . . . . . III-57 3 . Zoning District Schedule - Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . III-73 4 . Zoning District Schedule - Non-Residential . . . . . . . . III-74 5. Median Value of Chemical Constituents of Stormwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-20 6. I.T.E. Trip Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-45 7. Comparison of the Proposed Action and Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2 PLATE: 1. Site Plans - Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Pocket 2 . Site Plans - Yield Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Pocket v BOOK II - D.E. I.S. TEXT APPENDICES APPENDIX: A. Environmental Documents: 1. Environmental Assessment Form - Part I 2 . SEQRA Determination 3 . Scoping Hearing 4 . New York Natural Heritage & Wildlife Resources B. Cultural Resource Inventory C. Test Holes D. Traffic Study Vi SUMMARY Macari at Laurel is a proposed 27 single-family detached housing unit development located on a 63 .6 acre site on the south side of Sound Avenue (State Truck Route #25) , between Kirkup Lane and Laurel Lane, Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. A rezoning for development will not be required since the site is presently zoned R-80, Low Density Residential. Upon review, the Town of Southold Town Planning Board (Lead Agency) determined that the proposed action may have significant effects on the environment and required the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This document provides details on the following potential environmental impacts: (1) Impact on land; (2) Impact on water; (3) Impact on flora, fauna, and habitat; (4) Impact on aesthetic resources; (5) Impact on historic and archaeological resources; (6) Impact on open space and recreation; and (7) Impact on growth and character of the community. A detailed description of the existing environmental setting of the site is presented so that the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives can be documented and placed in their proper perspective. The site is currently 63 . 6 acres of "open space. " Limited access to the site exists from Kirkup Lane and Laurel Lane (both are dirt roads) . Actual access to the interior portions of S-1 the site is limited to areas of old field due to thick vegetative covering. The site has a varied topography; slopes range from gentle to moderate to locally steep associated with kettle holes. Gentle slopes are found within the middle and southern portions of the site. Moderate to locally steep gradients are displayed in the northern portion of the site associated with kettle holes. The site grades overall toward the southwest. In addition, there are several distinctive to subtle swales and kettle depressions. The site contains soil mostly in the Haven-Riverhead Association, which in turn is underlain by glacial sands and gravels. A field investigation failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species of plants or wildlife on the site. Hydrologically, the site falls within Hydrogeologic Zone IV, a sensitive area that is characterized by relatively shallow vertical recharge flow to the Upper Glacial Aquifer and to the Magothy Aquifer. Water quality analyses from a nearby Suffolk County observation well indicate low values of MBAS and acceptable levels of nitrate. The site is not presently served by an existing municipal water main or by an existing municipal sanitary sewer system. Water budget information indicates that there is a recharge value of 23 .75 inches per year at present. The proposed action will potentially create several environmental impacts on the site. With proper precautions and S-2 mitigative measures these potential impacts can be lessened to acceptable levels in order to preserve the environment, while still enabling its utilization. Approximately 18. 4 acres, or 28.9% of the original topographic features of the site will undergo regrading operations. Regrading consists of clearing operations with some filling and cutting activity. Regrading efforts will conform to the remaining contours, allowing for a gradual transition from the newly created topography to the original topography. Although individual housing units will be positioned on the most level areas within each lot, following regrading and dwelling construction, newly exposed or created moderate to high angle slopes could possibly erode. To help alleviate these potential erosion problems, quick stabilizing, vegetative mulch will be emplaced and straw bales and/or other sediment retention devises will be placed along drainage lines. These techniques will help prevent sediment from contaminating catch basins, wetlands, or adjacent properties until complete slope stability is achieved. Valuable organic topsoil stripped from the construction site will be stockpiled for future use. Quick-growing grass cultivated on the stockpiles will prevent damage from water and wind erosion. The proposed construction will alter 18. 4 acres of vegetation. Extensive, contiguous peripheral vegetative buffers and side yard and frontal natural buffers will remain in their natural states. Large, mature trees will be spared where S-3 possible and exotic species will not be introduced into the final landscaped area. While some species and actual numbers of wildlife will be lost during and after construction, the extensive natural buffers and replanted woody shrub vegetation will repopulate with many of those same species of wildlife. The hydrologic setting of the site will be altered by the proposed action. Approximately 5.9 acres of newly created impervious surfaces will increase the potential runoff and volume recharge loss at the site. Mitigative measures such as the strategic placement of drywells, catch basins, and two (2) large recharge basins will prevent the loss of nearly all of the potential runoff water. Nearly 100% of the precipitation will remain on the site with normal non-point infiltration in the vegetated parts and point-source infiltration in the area of actual development. Low maintenance turf and replanted indigenous woody shrub vegetation requiring minimal fertilization will be used within the landscaped sections of the individual lots. Individual lot septic systems will be employed. The septic discharge points for each lot will be located as far away from steep slopes or sensitive areas as possible and will conform to the Suffolk County Department of Health Service regulations in design and implementation. Individual wells will be completed within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and will conform to the Suffolk County Department of Health Service regulations in design and S-4 implementation. Construction workers will be encouraged to use portable sanitary units. Upon completion of the development, rules regarding pet waste discharge will be encouraged. Nearby zoning includes R-80 (Low Density Residential) , A-C (Agricultural Conservation) and LB (Limited Business) . The central area of the site is included within the designated Core Water Protection District of the Town of Southold. Land use within 1/4 of a mile of the site consists of tracts of upland forest, used for recreational and open space activities and agricultural fields. The site is within both Mattituck School District #9 and Laurel School District 11. Tax revenue presently obtained from the site is $8, 200. The proposed action of 27 single-family detached housing units conforms with the present R-80 (Low Density Residential) District zoning. The projected increase in traffic volume associated with the proposed action will be minimal. The adjacent roadway network has the capacity to safely accommodate the estimated increase in traffic volume. The proposed action will increase the total population of the town by 68 persons. Service can be provided to the proposed action by the Town of Southold Police Department, Mattituck Fire Department, and LILCO. A total number of 29 school-age children is projected for the proposed action. The proposed action will generate a total of $93, 144 . 07 tax revenue per year. The effect of the proposed action concerning topography, S-5 soils, flora, fauna, groundwater and sewage, solid waste, planning, zoning and population, traffic, cultural and scenic resources, and the Mattituck and Laurel School Districts are expounded in terms of present setting, environmental impacts, and mitigative measures. Alternatives to the proposed action include: No action; yield development; acquisition; and Transfer Development Rights (TDR) . For each of these alternatives a comparision of the various environmental aspects is presented. Finally, growth-inducing aspects of the proposed action are considered. S-6 I. INTRODUCTION. The proposed action, Macari At Laurel, will develop 27 single-family detached housing units on 63 . 6 acres owned by the Applicant, Joseph Macari. The site is bounded by Sound Avenue-Middle Road on the north and Laurel Way (R.O.W. ) on the south, in Laurel, Town of Southold, New York (Figure 1; Plate 1) The present zoning delineation for the site is A Residential (R-80)/Agricultural District) , which allows single-family detached housing units on minimal 80, 000 square foot lots or acceptable agricultural activites such as raising crops (Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 100-Zoning) . The proposed action does not require a zone change. In addition, the proposed subdivision of the site is in accordance with cluster regulations. This document was prepared by The Clover Corporation for Joseph Macari (C/O Peter S. Danowski (P.C. ) , Esq. , 616 Roanoke Avenue, P.O. Box 779, Riverhead, New York 11901) . This Draft Environmental Impact Statement plans designed by Young and Young (400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901) . Area calculations and values utilized in this document were determined from Plate 1 as well as the Environmental Assessment Form - Part I (Appendix A-1) . On October 1, 1988 an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF I-1 FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP FrY_�_ w `-`moi\ lr L Ir ►J • ♦. ww--7— n \ w v Pfd � .'�.� �j• sk taw o i •mopN ��—•.% �,•E54p d;�� 'Alf �/,�•-•� " y4 L t ITE j 0 a, 45 m .i 57 EW1 \\ to J.�✓ `w �;/ -_._\!\ r '1: -� . \ �_-�•, \ ii�ll��"�L•s'��� u �� �i���Pia ..:�� Iona t n :v.• .--.17r ri^����� �G,r.o. 25 tAr o (� Laurel :;a �� oLo• �z5 s Lakei- � i Q .}'�1 ('—�-�'��\•-011 r•.J %'gyp-� - ✓-. .. am allo A. 00 . ...;ter-'• � � •�•�\ �1 'aZ � \ ,� l_ �-, • \ ampy Immaculate20 em- . 40�+• t \ \ ° •moo \.` ,w9 \� \ '! ✓- O \ \ 0 25 O RR Sta • c •o moo\ \ _ r - \,1 • \ \ - ,l.} O L.S. (U. S.G.S. , 1967) N 0 2000 Ft. L � I-2 Part I) was prepared for the Town of Southold, Southold Town Planning Board (Lead Agency) , (Appendix A-1) . Upon review, the Town of Southold required that an Environmental Assessent Form Part III be prepared. The Environmental Assessment Form Part III was completed and submitted to the Town in October of 1988 . In March of 1989 a Supplemental Traffic Report for Macari at Laurel was prepared as a follow up to the Environmental Assessment Form Part III. Upon final review, the Town of Southold Planning Board determined that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, required the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to further evaluate the environmental consequences of the said proposed action (Appendix A-2) . The purpose of the requested Draft Environmental Impact Statement is to: (1) Identify the present, natural site characteristics; (2) Identify and document anticipated impacts from the proposed action; (3) Identify mitigative measures which can be, or have been, incorporated into the design; and (4) Investigate alternatives to the proposed action. When the Town of Southold Planning Board issued a positive declaration (June 7, 1989) for the Macari at Laurel I-3 proposed action, they specifically requested that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement focus on the following (Appendix A-2) (1) Impact on topography: Locally, the site for the proposed action locally contains moderate to steep slopes. The proposed action may cause erosion, loss of topsoil, and may disturb unique topography if not properly compensated for. (2) Impact on vegetation: Vegetative buffers and upland forest should be preserved as open space, where possible. Large trees and vegetation associated with forest/old field ecotones should be protected within areas slated for clearing. (3) Impact on wildlife and habitat: Vegetative clearing and development of housing units may adversely affect wildlife at the site. (4) Impact on groundwater: Sanitary discharge associated with individual housing units for the proposed action may contaminate the groundwater, adversely affecting private wells on and near the site, surface water and freshwater wetlands on the site, and the surface water of Laurel Lake. (5) Impact on traffic: The proposed action will increase traffic volume on Sound Avenue (SR TRK #25) . Entering and exiting the site may cause traffic safety concerns. A Draft Environmental Inpact Statement scoping meeting was held on August 18, 1989 (Appendix A-3) . It was concluded at I-4 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The Applicant seeks approval from the Town of Southold to develop the Macari at Laurel proposed action; a 27 single-family detached housing unit residential project located south of Sound Ave. , east of Kirkup Lane, and north of Laurel Way in Laurel, Town of Southold, New York (Figure 1; Plate 1) . The proposed action is a request for a residential subdivision within the present zoning; A Residential (R/80/Agricultural District, see Section III-D-3) . It will require the following permits and/or approvals: Site plan approval and subdivision approval by the Town Planning Board and Building Inspector (based on approvals and recommendations by such agencies as Department of Public Works, Town Engineer, Fire Commissioners, and the Suffolk County Department of Health) ; Realty Development Approval by the Suffolk County Health Department; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wetland permits and recommendations where applicable; Individual sanitary permits by the Suffolk County Health Department; Building permits; Certificates of occupancy; Certificate of zoning compliance. Construction will commence immediately following the granting of all permits and approvals. While it is difficult to speculate on the duration of the construction of the proposed action, completion is anticipated approximately 5 (Appendix A-1) II-1 years from the date of initiation or upon market demands. The site for the proposed action consists of approximately 63 . 6 acres of undeveloped land (Plate 1) . The land has right-of-way access from Laurel Lake Drive and Kirkup Lane (Plate 1) . The site can be described as a forested parcel containing open field and gentle to locally moderate sloping topography associated with several kettles. The central and southeastern portions of the site contain New York State Department of Environmental Conservation designated wetlands totaling 0.5 acres (7% of the total site) associated with the central kettle hole and Laurel Lake, respectively (Plate 1) . If the proposed action is approved, the Applicant will develop the site into 27 single-family detached residential units on at least 40, 000 square foot lots (Plate 1) . A cluster development plan is proposed that will preserve the wetlands and kettles within the central and southern portions of the site (Plate 1) . Individual units will average approximately 3 , 000 square feet and will contain 3-4 bedrooms, and a garage. The development will have an access roadways from Sound Ave. , Kirkup Lane and Laurel Lake Road (Plate 1) . Visual screening of the development is proposed through vegetative buffering. Existing vegetation within the site will be preserved by conservative designated building envelopes and possibly convenant cutting boundaries (Plate 1) . A minimal 100 foot buffer/building setback from the freshwater wetlands will II-2 protect these environmentally sensitive areas. Vegetative buffers will be encouraged along the sides of each building lot and along the project boundaries. Indigenous trees and shrubs will be planted along the proposed interdevelopment roadway, within the cleared portions of each building envelope, and elsewhere within the site. Upon completion of the proposed action the 63 . 6 acre site will contain approximately 5.9 acres of impervious surfaces such as unit roofs, driveways and an interdevelopment roadway. There will be 10. 1 acres of turf and/or replanted woody vegetation, 2 .4 acres of recharge/drainage basins and the remaining 45.2 acres will remain in their present condition. The following vegetative zonation can further describe the untouched acreage: Freshwater wetlands, 0.5 acres; surface water, 0.2 acres; old field, 21.4 acres; low forest, 1. 1 acres; and upland forest 22 . 0 acres (combined forest 23 . 1 acres) . It is the intention of this proposed action to leave or utilize existing natural vegetation where possible. This will minimize the impacts of disturbances during development. By using dry wells, catch basins and two (2) recharge basins most of the precipitation that will fall on impervious surfaces will recharge to the groundwater at the site. This will minimize the potential for stormwater overflow and discharge directly into the freshwater wetlands or surface water. A detailed assessment of the groundwater impacts is presented under Section II-3 IV-C-2. Sewage disposal methods for the site will include individual septic systems as illustrated on Plate 1. As determined from test holes (Appendix C) , the subsurface strata consists mostly of sands and gravels. The water table surface intersects the topography of the site at the eastern pond adjacent to Laurel Lake, at the wetlands on the southernmost tip of the site and at the central kettle pond. A detailed assessment of groundwater impacts is presented under Section IV-C-2 . The projected population of this 27 single-family detached residential unit development is based on the population and statistical data compiled by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO 1988) . Since all of the proposed dwellings are anticipated for year-round occupancy, the average number of persons per unit is 2 .50. With the proposed development of single-family housing units, a projected future population of 68 (27 units x 2 .50 persons/unit = 67 .5; rounded off to 68) is calculated. The Macari at Laurel project will satisfy the public need for additional housing. In addition, it will benefit the community by offering positive social and economic considerations. II-4 III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PROPOSED SITE. The physical, biological, hydrological, and municipal settings of the site are outlined below. The effects of the proposed action and its alternatives can be understood by analyzing descriptions of the environmental settings of the area. A. PHYSICAL SETTING. 1. GEOLOGY. The geological history of the area indicates that during the Cretaceous Period sediments (i.e. Raritan Formation and Magothy Formation) were transported from highlands in the north and deposited on a south-sloping bedrock surface (Nemickas, et.al. , 1982 ; Jensen, et.al. , 1974) . These unconsolidated deposits, the Raritan Formation overlain by the Magothy Formation, contain two major aquifers on Long Island. During the Tertiary Period deposition ceased and/or was followed by a time of erosion. During the Pleistocene Epoch at least two separate stages of glaciation occurred. Long Island's present topography is a result of the deposition of glacial material on III-1 top of Cretaceous and Tertiary deposits. The Harbor Hill Moraine in the north and the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine in the south were deposited during this time. As the glaciers retreated, melt water formed streams that flowed through the topographic lows in the moraines. Subsequently, the streams partially eroded the moraines and were responsible for the glaciofluvial deposits that now underlie the southern and central portions of Long Island. The site for the proposed action is located entirely within the Pleistocene-age statigraphic unit, Outwash Deposits, Undifferentiated (Fuller, 1914 ; Jensen, et.al. , 1974) . The site is located approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the Harbor Hill Moraine. The Outwash Deposit, Undifferentiated, unit consists of stratified fine to coarse sand and gravel. Seven (7) monitoring wells (Appendix C) verify that the site is underlain by a thick deposit of sand and/or gravel, locally with interlayered clay deposits (i.e. , Monitoring Wells #3 and #7) . Long Island is noted for its numerous and diverse glacial kettles. Long Island displays some of the most diversified glacial kettles in the world (Fuller, 1914) . Kettle holes are circular, or nearly circular, depressions in the topography. Kettles can be formed in a variety of ways, most commonly by the burial of isolated blocks of ice by stratified drift. The gradual ablation of ice leads to a gentle downward flexing of the sedimentary layers as they settle over the dissipating ice III-2 mass (Ritter, 1978) . The site contains three kettle holes aligned in a northeastly-trend within the north-central portion of the site (Plate 1) . In addition, Laurel Lake, directly south of the site (Figure 1) is an isolated, large glacial kettle feature. These topographic structures represent kettles associated with the outwash deposits. The three (3) kettle depressions within the central portion of the site may represent a kettle chain. In a kettle chain the barriers separating the component members are lower in elevation then the surrounding plains and are not usually more than 15 or 20 feet above the kettle bottoms (Fuller, 1914) . These separating ridges retain their original irregular or rounded contours. The Laurel Lake kettle probably formed when a buried block of ice was subsequently buried beneath stratified outwash. The layers of the outwash subsided and became contorted when the ice began to melt (Fuller, 1914) . 2 . TOPOGRAPHY. The site for the proposed action displays an irregular topography consisting of gentle plains, topographic depressions III-3 and gentle ridges (Plate 1, Figure 1) . The topography is dominated by the presence of three (3) elongate kettle depressions trending northeast-southwest that are located within the north-central portion of the site. The central kettle has undergone recent minor excavation (as evidenced by irregular small hills adjacent to the kettle floor) and contains standing water. There are numerous minor swales leading into the kettle depressions. Several gentle sloping swales run from the relatively flat area on the northern portion of the site to the kettle chain depressions within the central portion of the site. In addition, several well defined swales trend south and originate in the southern portion of the site, leading toward the wetlands associated with Laurel Lake (Plate 1) . Except for the local topographic convergence associated with the kettle depressions within the north-central portion of the site, the overall topography of the site grades southward toward Laurel Lake and its associated wetlands (Plate 1) . The overall relief of the site is approximately 43 feet, ranging from approximately 7 feet within the kettle depression and the approximate elevation of the wetlands associated with Laurel Lake, located along the southern border of the site; to 49 .7 feet, a spot location in the northern portion of the site (Plate 1) . Slopes locally exceeding 15% (Plate 1) are associated with III-4 several of the kettle features. Specifically, moderate to steep slopes are present on the sides of the individual depressions of the kettle chain in the north-central portion of the site and along the southern boundary area of the site where the ground surface slopes toward the wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake. In particular, 86% of the site contains slope gradients from 0-10%, 8% of the site contains gradients from 10-15%, and 6% of the site contains slopes greater than 15%. 3 . SOILS. As indicated on the General Soil Map of Suffolk County, New York (U.S. Dept. Agriculture 1975; Figure 2) , the site is underlain by soil of the Haven-Riverhead Association. This soil group is characterized by deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse-textured soils on outwash plains. In particular, the site is underlain by numerous soil units including (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) : Haven Loam (HaA, HaB) ; Plymouth Loamy Sand (P1B, P1C) ; Carver and Plymouth Sands (CpE) ; Plymouth gravelly loamy sand (PmC3) ; Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdA, RdB, RdC) ; and Muck (Mu) (Figure 2) . Soil distribution on the site is as follows (Figure 2) : III-5 FIGURE 2 SOIL MAP P�e s� PmC3 PIC Cpe RdB PIC HaA G� Q� C P E PIB PIB PmC3 RdC RdA HaB NaP CpE HaB CpE RdC Q� G L.S. EXPLANATION CPE Carver and Plymouth sands, (U. S.D.A. , 19 7 5) 15-358 slopes HaA Haven loam, 0-28 slopes N HaB Haven loam, 2-68 slopes P1B Plymouth loamy sand, 3-88 slopes P1C Plymouth loamy sand, 0 1000R. B-158 slopes (_ PmC3 Plymouth gravelly loamy sand, 8-158 slopes,eroded RdA Riverhead sandy loam, 0-38 slopes RdB Riverhead sandy loam, 3-88 slopes RdC Riverhead sandy loam, 8-158 slopes III-6 Haven Loam (HaA, HaB) is the most abundant soil unit on the site. HaA underlies the northern portion of the site and occurs along its eastern border. HaB is only found in the southern portion of the site. Plymouth Loamy Sand (P1B, P1C) underlies smaller parts of the site with P1B occupying the central and P1C underlying the northeast corner area of the site. Carver and Plymouth Sands (CpE) are present associated with the kettle chain feature in the north-central portion of the site and in addition, underlies parts of the southern and eastern border area and the northwest corner of the site. Plymouth Gravelly Loamy Sand (PmC3) is a minor constituent of the east-central portion of the site. Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdA, RdB, RdC) is found in scattered locations. RdA and RdB occur in small patches adjacent to the LILCO power line along the west-central border area and RdC is found in the west-central area of the site adjacent to the LILCO power line and in the southeast corner of the site. Finally, Muck (Mu) occurs within the wetlands of Laurel Lake in the southwest and southeast corners, respectively, of the site. Most of the soils in Suffolk County (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) formed from materials that were deposited as a result of glaciation during the Wisconsin age of the Pleistocene Epoch of geologic time. These materials are glacial outwash consisting of sorted sands and gravels; glacial till, consisting of mixed pebbles, sands, and clays; and locally, III-7 glacial lake-laid silts and clays. Upon retreat of the ice, some of the outwash sands and gravels were covered by water or wind-deposited silts, clays, and fine- to very fine-sands at varying depths. Haven-Riverhead Association soils are examples of soils formed from silty deposits overlying startified glacial outwash sands and gravels. The Haven Series (HaA, HaB) consists of deep, well drained medium-textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over startified coarse sand and gravel (U.S. Depart. Agric. , 1975) . Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity and low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good and permeability is moderate. The potential for erosion is slight to moderate (slopes) . The U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes limitations of the Haven Series for town and country planning as follows: Soil units HaA and HaB display only slight limitations for sewage disposal fields, homesites, and lawns or landscaping. While HaA soils also display only slight limitations to street and parking lots, HaB soils display moderate limitations (slopes) . The depth to the seasonal high water table, zone of saturation, is greater than 4 feet for both HaA and HaB soils. In addition, HaA soils are classified as Capability Unit I-1 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and they are well suited to all crops commonly grown in Suffold County. Hay and III-8 pasture, grains, and row crops (including vegetables and nursery stock) respond well to good management on these soils. HaB soils are classified as Capability Unit IIe-1, and they are well suited to forage, grains, vegetable crops, and nursery stock, except where erosion is a hazard because of the steepness of slope. These soils should not be cultivated intensively unless adequate measures are used to help to control erosion. The Plymouth Series (P1B, P1C, PmC3) consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. Soils of this series are found on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains. Plymouth Series soils have low to very low available moisture capacity, moderate to rapid permeability, and low natural fertility. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes limitations of the Plymouth Series for town and country planning as follows: sewage disposal and homesites - slight limitations for P1B, moderate limitaions (slopes) for P1C and PmC3 ; streets and parking lots - moderate limitations (slopes) for P1B, and severe limitations (slopes) for P1C and PmC3 ; and severe limitations for lawns and landscaping where there is a sandy surface layer (P1B, P1C, and PmC3) . In addition, the depth to the seasonal high water table, zone of saturation, is greater than 4 feet for P1B and P1C soils. III-9 P1B soils are classified as Capability Unit IIIs-1 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and can be used for all crops grown in Suffolk County. Unless irrigation water is applied, deep rooted crops are better suited. P1C soils are classified as Capability Unit IVs-1. The soils are best suited for deep-rooted, close-growing crops. These soils are not well suited for nursery stock because of their slopes and sandy texture. Finally, PmC3 is classified as Capability Unit VIIs-1; too droughty, too steep, or too stony for crops or for pasture. The Carver Series (CpE) consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) . These soils are nearly level to steep and are usually found on rolling moraines and broad outwash plains. Carver soils have very low available moisture capacity and very low natural fertility. Permeability is rapid and the hazard to erosion is slight to severe, depending on the slope gradient. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes limitations of the Carver Series for town and country planning as follows: Soil unit CpE displays severe (slopes and/or sandy surface layer) limitations for sewage disposal fields, homesites, streets and parking lots, and lawns and landscaping. In addition, CpE soils are classified as Capability Unit VIIs-1 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and they are too droughty, too steep, or too stony for crops or for pasture. III-10 They are not suitable for nursery stock or other crop because of their sandy texture, coarse fragments, and steepness of slope. Riverhead Series soils (RdA, RdB, RdC) consist of deep, well drained, moderately coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sands and gravels. Soils of this series are found on level to gently sloping areas on outwash plains. Riverhead Series soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity, good internal drainage, moderately rapid to very rapid permeability, and low natural fertility. The Soil Conservation Service (1975) further describes limitations of the Riverhead Series (RdA, RdB, RdC) for town and country planning as follows: Sewage disposal fields - slight limitations for RdA and RdB, but moderate (slopes) limitations for RdC; homesites - only slight limitations for RdA and RdB, but moderate limitations (slopes) for areas underlain by RdC; streets and parking lots - slight limitations for RdA, moderate limitations (slopes) for RdB, and severe limitations (slopes) for RdC; lawns and landscaping - only slight limitations for areas having RdA and RdB, but moderate limitations (slopes) for RdC. In addition, RdA is classified as Capability Unit IIs-1 for agricultural use (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1975) . This soil is well suited for all crops grown in Suffolk County. Moderate droughtiness somewhat limits plant growth unless irrigation III-11 water is applied, however. Good water management practices are needed to help to control erosion if these soils are used for nursery stock. RdB is classified as Capability Unit IIe-2 for agricultural use. The soils in this unit are well suited to forage, grain, nursery stock, potatoes, and other vegetable crops if good management is used. They are not suited to continuous cultivation. Finally, RdC is classified as Capability Unit IIIe-1 for agricultural use. The soils in this unit are suited to common forage and grain crops and are well suited to crops that can be planted directly in residue left on the surface. Muck (Mu) consists of very poorly drained organic soils that formed in partly decomposed or almost completely decomposed woody or herbaceous plants. This soil unit occurs in the relatively level portions of the bottom of closed depressions along a few of the larger streams. It is spongy, black or dark-reddish organic material overlying loose sand and gravel (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1975) . Farmland value includes economics, land ethics, civic pride, and aesthetics. Prime farm soils are also a non-renewable natural resource. The site contains Prime and Unique Farmland in Vegetable Crops (northern and east-central portions of the site) , Prime Farmland (northern boundary area adjacent north and southeast of the LILCO electric line, and Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance (small locality III-12 along the western boundary of the site just north of the LILCO electric line (U.S. Dept. Agriculture, 1978) . The criteria for identification and designation of prime farmland is entirely related to soil characteristics. Under this category, Prime and Unique Farmland (in vegetable crops, apparently at the time of the survey for this publication) is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food crops. It has the combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop (i.e. grapes, fruit, and vegetables) when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Prime Farmland is determined to be best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, oilseed crops, and is also available for pastureland and forest land. Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance is land that is used for the production of crops. While important for agriculture in New York, it does not exhibit some soil properties that are necessary to meet Prime Farmland criteria such as seasonal wetness, erodibility, limited rooting zone, flooding, or droughtiness (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1978) . Although there are many acres of prime farmland in the Town of Southold, these soils and areas are also suited for development. Because of the demand for urbanization, land values far exceed the ability of the County or other governmental organization to seriously consider purchase. III-13 Seven (7) monitoring wells (Appendix C; Plate 1) were completed on the site. The detailed description of each monitoring well is indicated in Appendix C. The upper portions of the soil in the monitoring wells are compatible with the descriptions of the soil types noted above. Monitoring wells #3 and #7 encountered clay within the stratigraphic columns. These clay interlayers may represent a post-glacial lucustrine or flood plain environment. B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING. 1. FLORA. Field inspections were conducted on the site in September, 1988 and April and May 1990. The site was reviewed and the vegetation was delineated and identified. In addition, a vegetation/habitat (Figure 3) coverage map was constructed utilizing information from the field inspections, the Site Plans, and the Environmental Assessment Form-Part I The site was formally utilized as farmland as evidenced by the extensive open field area, now classified as old field or succession field. In addition, upland forest patches exist throughout the site between the old fields. Freshwater wetlands III-14 FIGURE 3 VEGETATION MAP Old Field Upland Forest F; Upland' Forest Wetlands and Pond Wetlands Upland Old Field Wetlands forest and Pond Upland Forest Upland 0 600 Ft. Forest Wetlands 111-15 exist within two of the topographic depressions of the kettle chain in the north-central portion of the site and are found locally along the southern boundary of the site in association with Laurel Lake. Finally, ponds exist within the central kettle depression of the kettle chain and in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the freshwater wetlands of Laurel Lake (Plate 1) . Both of these ponds were either due entirely or at least partially to recent excavation activities. Each vegetative habitat will contain descriptions of the dominant characteristics and floral species identified. The upland forest is classified as a Mixed Deciduous Forest, predominately containing oak, beech, and locust trees. Upland forest covers approximately 22 .4 acres, or 35.2% of the site. The edge of the upland forest that borders the southernmost portion of old field consists of late succession vegetation, essentially the same as those species found in the mature upland forest but at an earlier stage of growth. This area of low forest covers an area of 1.4 acres. The following vegetative species were identified (Petrides-Peterson, 1972 ; Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton, et.al.-Audubon, 1985) at the site ("P" indicates New York State Protected Species) : Mixed Deciduous Forest. Common Beech Fagus sylvatica III-16 Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus Scrub Oak Ouercus ilicifolia White Oak Ouercus alba Red Oak Quercus rubra Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Grey Birch Betula populifolia Black Birch Betula lenta Ash Fraxinus Big-toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata Redcedar Juniper Juniperus virginiana Sassafras Sassafras variifolium Red Maple Acer rubrum Oleaster Eleagnus angustifolia Red Mulberry Morus rubra Fire Cherry Prunus pennsylvanica Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans P Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia Maple-leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerfolium Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii Great Solomon's Seal Polygonatum canaliculatum False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa III-17 i Common Smartweed Polygonum hydropiper Fox Grape Vitis labrusca Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa Blackberry Rubus flagellaris Black Chokeberry Pyrus melanocarpa Garlic Mustard Alliaria officinalis Arrow-leafed Aster Aster sagittifolius P Woodland Fern Dryopteris Old field covers approximately 39. 1 acres, or 61.6% of the site, and occurs as discontinuous patches throughout the site. Since these areas were formally cultivated fields, they are generally on the most level portions of the site (Plate l; Figure 3) . The fields have been abandoned for several years and display evidence of natural ecological succession. Typically, in the scheme of ecological succession, community development begins with pioneer stages which are replaced by a series of more mature communities until a relatively stable community evolves that is in equilibrium with the local conditions. The whole series of communities which develop in a given situation is called sere; the relatively transitory communities are called seral stages, and the final community is called the climax (Odum, 1971) . III-18 Since the entire site was formally upland, climax forest, the current situation represents a secondary succession process. Secondary succession is relatively rapid since some organisms are already present. Consequently, the open field portions of the site show transition species from field grasses to upland forest flora. The numerous short black locust trees along the edge areas of the fields illustrate this transitional process. The following vegetative species were identified as old field and edge vegetation (Petrides-Peterson, 1972 ; Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton, et.al. -Audubon, 1985; Peterson, et.al. , 1968) at the site ("P" indicates New York State Protected Species) : Old Field and Edge Vegetation. Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia P Bayberry Myrica pensilvanica Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Poison Ivy Rhus radicans Common Winter Cress Barbarea vulgaris Wild Carrot Daucus carota Pokeweed Phytolacca americana Yarrow Achillea millefolium III-19 i Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris Field Pennycress Thlaspi arvense Chicory Cichorium intybus Daisy Fleabane Erigeron annus Horseweed Erigeron canadensis Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris Foxtail Grass Chaetochloa glauca Panic-grass Panicum Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Groundsel Tree Baccharis halimifolia Slender-leaved Goldenrod Solidago tenuifolia Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Solidaao rugosa Tall Goldenrod Solidaao altissima Tick Trefoil Desmodium Chaffseed Schwalbea americana Round-headed Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata Fine-leaved Sneezeweed Helenium tenuifolium Sickle-leaved Golden Aster Chrysopsis falcata Rough Hawkweed Hieracium scabrum Common Hawkweed Hieracium vulsatum Crab Apple Malus sylvestris St. Peterswort Ascyrum stans Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana III-20 Common Chickweed Alsine media Bladder Campion Silene latifolia Silverweed Potentill anserina Common Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Freshwater wetlands exist in association with the two (2) westernmost kettle depressions of the kettle chain in the north-central portion of the site and along the southern boundary of the site in association with Laurel Lake (Figure 3) . The wetlands formed adjacent to the surface water bodies since the groundwater elevation is close to the ground surface there. During wet periods of the year, some of the wetlands are covered by water or at least the soil is saturated with water. Consequently, wet-tolerant floral species dominate these areas. Some upland forest species also grow within the designated wetland areas since during dry periods of the year the ground becomes relatively dry as the groundwater surface elevation drops. Freshwater wetlands are defined by characteristic plant species that live in areas with flooded or waterlogged soils. Since the wetlands within the site have co-existing shrub and tree populations, these wetlands can be classified by their ecological qualities as shrub swamp-wooded swamp. The water table tends to rise in the spring and drop slightly III-21 during the drier months of the summer. Freshwater wetlands cover a limited area of 0. 5 acres, or 0.7% of the site. The upper elevation boundary of the freshwater wetlands is approximately 8. 5 feet. Since the wetlands occur adjacent to the mixed deciduous upland forest, many of the species within the wetlands are also listed within the upland forest species list. Freshwater wetlands are defined as lands and submerged lands that support semiaquatic vegetation of the following types (Code of the Town of Southold: Chapter 97: Wetlands) : "Wetland trees which depend upon seasonal or permanent flooding or sufficiently waterlogged soils to give them a competitive advantage over other trees, including among others red maple (Acer rubrum) , willows (Saliz sp. ) , swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) , black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) , and sweet gum (Liquidambar stryraciflua) . Wetland shrubs which depend upon seasonal or permanent flooding or sufficiently waterlogged soils to give them a competitive advantage over other shrubs, including among others alder (Alnus sp. ) , buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) , pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) , swamp honey suckle III-22 (Rhododendron viscosum) , and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) . " Wetlands serve a vital ecological role and are among the most productive ecosystems in the world. In many wetlands there are two major energy-flow patterns (Niering, 1985) : The grazing food chain involves the direct consumption of green plants, while the detrital food chain involves organisms that depend primarily on detritus or organic debris as their food source. In addition, accumulated organic material that is not consumed by other organisms is taken over by the decomposers such as bacteria, worms, and aquatic insects. Since wetlands are naturally productive, they do not require man-made fertilizers for sustenance. The high plant productivity is the basis for the high overall production of ducks, muskrats, and other wildlife in marshes. Wetlands are invaluable in controlling floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and filtering pollutants. In addition, they serve as habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife, as support for fisheries, and as sanctuaries for rare and endangered species. They are also valuable for their educational, recreational, and aesthetic qualities (Niering, 1985) . The following vegetative species were identified (Petrides-Peterson, 1972 ; Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton, III-23 et.al. -Audubon, 1985; Niering-Audubon, 1985) at the site. Freshwater Wetlands. Common Beech Fagus sylvatica Grey Birch Betula populifolia Black Birch Betula lenta Red Maple Acer rubrum Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia Great Solomon's Seal Polygonatum canaliculatum False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa Blackberry Rubus flagellaris Woodland Fern Dryopteris Sedge Carex Finally, there are two (2) locations on the site where surface water exists (Plate 1) : the central kettle depression within the kettle chain in the north-central portion of the site and a small pond in the southwest corner of the site, within the freshwater wetlands of Laurel Lake. Both of these ponds represent man-made alterations/modifications. The kettle pond was at least partially excavated, perhaps for utilization as a farm irrigation pond. The small pond appears to have been formed from removal of material within the freshwater wetlands near Laurel Lake. The ponds have subsequently developed a III-24 freshwater ecosystem of vegetation and fauna. The following is a list of the pond vegetation: Pond Vegetation Duckweed Lemma Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum The field investigation on the site of the proposed action failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species of flora (Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF 4-Reg-17) . The freshwater wetlands associated with this site are regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) pursuant to ECL Article 24 . The freshwater wetlands were subsequently delineated by the staff of the Land Use Company (2576 Sound Avenue, Baiting Hollow, New York) during Spring, 1990. Subsequently, surveyors of Young and Young (400 Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901) , accurately located the flagged wetlands on the site plans (Plate 1) . The wetlands within the Town of Southold are protected by Federal, State, and local regulations (Southold Town Code, Chapter 97: Wetlands) . III-25 2 . FAUNA The listing of wildlife below is based upon actual on-site inspections (September, 1988; April and May, 1990) , as well as expected wildlife for this region (Sutton, et. al.-Audubon, 1985; Niering-Audubon, 1985; Andrie, et.al. , 1988 ; Scott, 1983 ; Connor, 1971; Daly, 1974 ; Conant, 1975; ) . Since the on-site visits were made during the spring and fall seasons, many of the actual species utilizing the site have been identified. However, some degree of speculation attaches to the following list of species, which is based on the types of habitats found on the site. The site is presently 63 . 6 acres of upland forest, old field, freshwater wetlands and ponds. The mature mixed deciduous upland forest occurs in discontinuous patches separating old field grasses. The upland forest contains high canopy oak and beech trees with a locally thick understory of small trees and miscellaneous shrubs. The present vegetative habitat at the site offers food, cover, and nesting material to the wildlife within its boundary as well as to species that migrate to and from the site. The irregular topography affords a varied ecosystem setting with seclusion and protection, and would encourage larger wildlife such as deer. The following list of wildlife is based upon on-site inspections (April and May, 1990 and September, 1988) and III-26 includes species observed (indicated by an asterisk (*) symbol) as well as those species expected for this region (Sutton, et.al.-Audubon, 1985) : The specific habitat(s) associated with each of the following species, either actually observed or speculative, include Forest (F) , Old Field (OF) , Edge (E) ; and Freshwater wetlands (FW) . Specific references used to confirm this information are found in the preceeding paragraph. Species actually observed at the site are noted by the "*" symbol: Observed And/Or Potential Fauna. F OF E FW Mammals X X Opposum Didelphis marsupialis X X X X Whitetail Deer* Odocoileus virginianus X X X Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus X X X X Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata X X X New England Sylvilagus transitionalis Cottontail SC X X X X Eastern Cottontail* Sylvilagus floridanus X X X X Short-tailed Shrew* Blarina brevicauda X X X X Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus X X X X Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata III-27 X X X X Red Fox Vulpes fulva X X X X Little Brown Bat Mvotis lucifugus X X Keen's Bat Mvotis keenii X X X Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus X X X Eastern Chipmunk* Tamias striatus X X X X Gray Squirrel* Sciurus carolinensis X X X X Raccoon Procyon lotor X X Pine Vole Pitymys pinetorium X X Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus X X X X White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus X X X X House Mouse Mus musculus X X X X Norway Rat Rattus norveaicus X X X Meadow Jumping Mouse Zanus hudsonius The majority of the mammals listed above utilize both the old fields and the upland forest areas on the site. There were no Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern mammal species (the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation List, 1987) on this site. The New England Cottontail, Sylvilagus transitionalis, which is listed as a species of Special Concern, could utilize similar habitats offered by this site but it is not particularly expected to be found here. III-28 F OF E FW Reptiles and Amphibians: X X X X Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis X X Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekayi X X X X Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum X X Eastern Hognose Snake Heterdon platyrhinos (SC) X X Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus (SC) X X Ribbon Snake Thamnophis s. sauritus X X X X Eastern Box Turtle* Terrapene carolina carolina X Eastern Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta picta X Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina X X Northern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus Snake X X X X Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor X X X Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus h. holbrooki Toad X X Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri X X X Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer X Bullfrog* Rana catesbeiana X Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota X Cricket Frog Acris crepitans (TH) X X X Wood Frog Rana sylvatica X X X Red-backed Salamander* Plethodon cinereus III-29 X X X Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum (SC) X X Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum X X X Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala (SC) Both the Eastern Hognose Snake, Heterodon platyrhinos, and the Worm Snake, Carphophis amoenus, are listed as Special Concern species, and could potentially be found on the site. The Southern Leopard Frog, Rana sphenocephala, the Spotted Turtle, Chlemmys guttata, and the Spotted Salamander, Ambystoma maculatum, are listed Special Concern species and could potentially utilized the freshwater wetlands and ponds on the site. The Cricket Frog, Acris crepitans, appears listed as a Threatened species and could potentially utilize the site. The reptiles and amphibians listed that are protected by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation usually inhabit areas such as kettle holes, ponds and lakes, and their surrounding upland forest habitats. Only the Hognose Snake utilizes both old fields and woodlands. None of these species were observed on the site during this investigation, however. The Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) was placed on the New York State Endangered Species List in 1983 (NYS DEC, 1987) . The Tiger Salamander is restricted to areas with dry, coarse-textured, sandy or gravelly soils where breeding ponds are present. The original Long Island III-30 distribution of the Tiger Salamander included large sections of Nassau and western Suffolk Counties, and scattered locations on the South Fork where sandy soils prevail. Due to the destruction of their natural habitat within western portions of Long Island by urban development, most of the species are presently found within the central section of the Long Island Pine Barrens where there are dry, sandy soils and a large number of potential breeding ponds (Cryan, 1984) . There are no known occurances of the tiger salamander in the vicinity of the proposed action. F OF E FW Birds• X X Canada Goose* Branta canadensis X X X X Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo ;iamaciensis X X X X Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura X X Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X X X Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata X X X X Northern Mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos X X X Northern Cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis X X X Black Capped Parus atricapillus Chickadee* X X House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus X X White-throated Zonotrich albicollis Sparrow* III-31 X X X American Kestrel* Falco sparverius X X X X Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus X X X Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X X X Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica X X X Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor X X X X House Wren Troglodytes aedon X X X Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis X X X X American Robin* Turdus migratorius X X X X European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris X X Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X X White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus X X Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia X X Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula X X American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis X X Rufous-sided Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus X X X Green Backed Heron Butorides striatus X X X Black-crowned Night- Nycticorax nycticorax Heron X X X Ring-necked Pheasant* Phasianus colchicus X X X Bobwhite Quail* Colinus virginianus X X Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus X X X American Woodcock Scolopax minor X X X Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus X X X Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens III-32 X X X Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus X X X X American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis (SC) X X Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X X American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla X Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus X X Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus X X - Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla X X Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia X X X House Sparrow* Passer domesticus X X X Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus X X X Purple Finch* Caroidacys purureus purureus X X White Brested Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis X X X Myrtle Warbler* Dendroica cornata cornata X X X Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X Osprey Pandion halioetus carolinensis X X X Brown Thrasher* Toxostom rufum rufum X X Fulvous Tree Duck* Dendrocygna bicolor helva Many of the bird species listed above utilize both the old III-33 fields and woodland areas. It is potentially possible that the Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis, a Special Concern species, utilizes the area, but it has not been observed by this investigation. A survey of the insect species present on the site was not conducted. The field investigation failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species of wildlife (Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF 4-Reg-17 ; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1987; New York Natural Heritage Program, 1987, Appendix A-5) . The upland forest consists of 23 .8 acres, or 37.4% of the site. The most extensive area of this habitat is in the northern portion of the site, and consists of two wooded lots divided by an old farm road. These areas have abundant trees over 30 feet in height and a locally thick low level shrub vegetation (Figure 3) . The portion of the upland forest south of the kettle pond consists of evenly distributed large, oak and beach trees. The medium or low story vegetative levels are less dense, creating a rather open region. The remaining areas of the upland forest display a more dense vegetation at the medium and low story vegetative levels. This is especially well demonstrated approaching the kettle hole in the northeast corner of the site. Species that live in the canopy setting of the mature trees or within the thick shrubbery, or those species that live in the ground among the roots of the plants find III-34 adequate feed, cover and nesting habitat (Odum, 1971) . The old field consists of 39. 1 acres, or 61.6% of the site and is characterized by abundant, low shrub and grass vegetation. These areas were formally cultivated fields (no cultivation furrows exist) , and are the most level portions of the site (Plate 1) . Since the field has been abandoned for a considerable time, evidence of natural ecological succession is prevalent. Typically, in the scheme of ecological succession, community development begins with pioneer stages which are replaced by a series of more mature communities until a relatively stable community evolves that is in equilibrium with f the local conditions. The whole series of communities which develop in a given situation is called sere; the relatively transitory communities are called seral stages, and final community is called climax (Odum, 1971) . Since the entire old field was formally upland climax forest, the current scenario represents a secondary succession process. Secondary succession is relatively rapid since some organisms are already present. Consequently, the open field portions of the site show transition species from field grasses to upland forest flora. The grasses provide abundant feed, cover, and nesting habitat for the smaller wildlife types. Abundant game birds could be expected to live in this area. The boundary between upland forest and old field represent a transition between two diverse vegetative III-35 communities and is referred to as an ecotone (Odum, 1971) . Further defining the term, the ecotone is a junction zone or tension belt which may have considerable linear extent, but is narrower than the adjoining community areas. These ecotonal areas or habitats commonly contain many of the organisms which are characteristic of and are often restricted to the ecotone. Often, the numbers of species and the population density of some of the species are greater in the ecotonal area than in the communities flanking them (Odum, 1971) . This tendency for increased variety and density at community, or habitat junctions is known as the edge effect (Odum, 1971) . Consequently, those organisms which occur primarily or most abundantly in the ecotonal areas are called edge species. In particular, one of the most important ecotones is the forest edge. Within the site, there are abundant forest edges; an ecotone between the upland forest and the old field communities. Species that utilize or potentially utilize the edge areas are indicated on the list provided above. The freshwater wetlands associated with the kettles and Laurel Lake consist of 0.5 acres, or 0.70 of the site. These areas consist of thick medium/low growth level vegetation with scattered mature high canopy trees, with the latter decreasing in abundance approaching the surface water. Wetlands are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. The high productivity of wetlands is due to their ability to capture III-36 large amounts of sun-light energy and store it as chemical energy (Niering-Audubon, 1985) . Wetland producivity is related to several factors including (Niering-Audubon, 1985) : Efficient functioning of both grazing and detritus food chains; periodic rise and fall of the water level creates a rhythm in wetlands that brings in nutrients during flooding or increases accessibility when the water retreats; and natural oxygenation due to water level cycles. Many species are dependent upon wetland habitats, especially certain species of birds, reptiles, and amphibians (see preceeding faunal list) . The faunal components of fresh waters constitute an extremely diverse assemblage of organisms. The faunal components of fresh waters include zooplankton, benthic fauna, and fish. Analyses of each category's functional roles within aquatic systems necessitate a reasoned balance between the general modes and timing of growth and reproduction in relation to food availability and utilization (Wetzel, 1975) . Evaluations of the population dynamics is fundamental to the producivity and success of individual species populations and of entire communities. The success of any pond species is dependent upon their food or trophic relations with plants and other animals, and competive and predatory interactions that lead to greater success of one species over another. Unfortunately, the fauna of ponds are poorly studied or documented in that investigations have not gone much beyond III-37 descriptive analyses of their types and distribution within fresh waters (Wetzel, 1975) . The wildlife population potential at the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as well as recent activities on the site itself. Along the northern border of the site are agricultural fields interspersed with natural forest habitat. The eastern border is almost exclusively natural forest with a single residence. The western border, north of Laurel Lake, is agricultural fields. The southern and southeastern borders of the site consist of Laurel Lake and the associated moderate density amount of residential development. This is the most dense residential development of any of the areas adjacent to the site. C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING. Hydrologic considerations include data on annual precipitation and expected precipitation, surface drainage, percolation, groundwater, and loss of water due to evaporation and transpiration. A proper evaluation of potential hydrologic impacts on the site can be determined by comparing the present hydrologic setting of the site to the projected hydrologic setting for the Macari at Laurel project and its alternatives. III-38 1. DRAINAGE. In a regional sense, the site lies approximately 600 feet north of Laurel Lake, 2 miles south of Long Island Sound, 2 miles north of Great Peconic Bay, 6 miles west of Little Peconic Bay and 1. 5 miles south of Mattituck Creek (Figure 1) . Geologically the site is located on an outwash plain about 2 miles south of the Harbor Hill Moraine on an outwash plain. The Harbor Hill Moraine is a distinct topographically elevated ridge that acts as a major drainage divide for the northernmost portion of Long Island (Jensen, et. al. , 1974 ; Fuller, 1914) . Evidence of a stream channel or running water does not exist on the site. However, manmade alterations have created two (2) small ponds on the site: One within one of the kettle depressions in the north-central portion of the site; and one within the freshwater wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake in the southwest portion of the site (Plate 1) . The amount of open surface water within the site is approximately 0.2 acres or about 0.3% of the site. The southernmost tip of the site is bordered on the west with approximately 150 feet of shore line (Laurel Lake) and contains an adjacent area of wetlands on the east. In addition, freshwater wetlands exist in two of the kettle depressions within the north-central portion of the site. The series of kettles developed following the Wisconsin age glaciation and were formed subsequent to the deposition and III-39 melting of ice masses deposited in previous drainage systems that covered the outwash. Although the site is characterized by several swales, ridges, kettle holes, and locally, moderate to steep slopes; overland flow or associated erosion was not evidenced (Plate 1) . However, minor slumping features are noted within the easternmost depression of the kettle chain within the northeast-central portion of the site. This system of kettles and swales is likely to have been part of a former drainage system (see Section III-A-1) . 2 . GROUNDWATER. The groundwater of Long Island is utilized extensively for public and private water supply (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . Groundwater aquifers are constantly replenished and recharged by water percolating from the surface. It is essential that the recharging water in this critical groundwater regime be free of contamination. In general, groundwater moves from three major drainage subareas on Long Island toward discharge at or near the shoreline. These subareas are from the Nassau County line to a point near the Brookhaven National Laboratory; the north fork, from Brookhaven National Laboratory to Orient Point; and the III-40 south fork, from Brookhaven National Laboratory to Montauk Point (Jensen, et.al. , 1974) . Thus, a "Y"-shaped pattern that approximates the locations of the major surface-water drainage divides of Long Island, is formed. The flow direction of groundwater within the site can be approximated from the groundwater level data obtained from nearby U.S.G.S./Suffolk County observations wells, from on-site monitoring wells and illustrations in several publications (U.S.G.S. , 1986; Jensen, et.al. , 1974 ; Doriski, 1987; Krulikas, 1986) . The North Fork of Long Island in vicinity of the site is underlain by Cretaceous Tertiary (?) and Quaternary (Pleistocene) age unconsolidated deposits which rest upon a surface of southeast sloping bedrock (Jensen, et.al. , 1974 Koszalka, 1984) . From oldest to youngest, the unconsolidated deposits are: Raritan Formation (Late Cretaceous) subdivided into a basal Lloyd sand member and an upper clay member; Magothy Formation (Late Cretaceous) ; and Upper Glacial and post glacial deposits (Pleistocene and Holocene, respectively) associated with the glacial and post glacial events of Long Island. Of these units the following three, from lowest to highest in the stratigraphic column, constitute the main aquifers for Long Island (McClymonds, et.al. , 1972) : Lloyd Aquifer; Magothy Aquifer; and the Upper Glacial Aquifer (Figure 4) . The present water table is located within the Upper Glacial Aquifer. The site is geologically located within the Pleistocene-age III-41 FIGURE 4 GEOLOGIC CROSS—SECTION O � O O 00 _0 ti °W n 0— -P 120 E � '9 °E 0 = E aoo' S ° °C E a E 400' d 0 .4 Shore Acres v FSEA SEA LEVEL LEVEL Gardiners Clay ��� Upper glacial aquifer aoo' Monmouth greensand aoo' Magothy aquifer soo' soo' l/ Clay ` a tan jeK 1200. .. oY s4 1200' e Bedrock 1600' 1600' L.S. (Jensen, et al. , 1974) III-42 unit: Outwash Deposits, Undifferentiated, approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the Harbor Hill Moraine (Jensen, et.al. , 1974; Fuller, 1914) . The Outwash Deposit, Undifferentiated unit consists of stratified fine to coarse sand and gravel. Sediment within the Harbor Hill Moraine consists of poorly sorted or unsorted till (clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders) , locally with crudely stratifed sand and gravel. Nassau and Suffolk Counties are subdivided into distinct hydrogeologic zones (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978 ; Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) . Accordingly, the project site is located within Hydrogeologic Zone IV (Figure 5) . Zone IV, comprising the North Fork and the eastern part of the South Fork, is characterized by the potential for continued development, although local water quality problems do exist (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . Both vertical and horizontal groundwater recharge is possible within this zone, depending on location. As noted in Figure 4 the Upper Glacial Aquifer directly underlies the site area (Jensen, et.al. , 1974) . This aquifer is the uppermost aquifer of Long Island and contains the water table. This shallow aquifer generally includes saturated coarse sands and gravels in the upper Pleistocene deposits. The upper limit of the aquifer is the regional water table and the lower limit of the aquifer is marked by the Magothy Aquifer. This geohydrologic cross-section (Figure 4) is drawn roughly III-43 r LOCATION MAP AND HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES BLOCK IS. SOUND ORIENT PT. FISHERS ISLAND • PLUM %% ;�,flf,_•..sem. Lono ISLAND :ouNo �1 % / ROBINS 18. NOA •'' �, 1 •1 SARDINERS 1 , 33LSNlLT / BAY GARDINER$ 18. ( NUNTInOTON 1 ' ,r SOUTHOL i • ITNTOWN I 1 _ / •, •• MONTtIU� PT. I / I RIVERN 0 � �'•, i � BROOKHAVEN ------- � EAS G)l_-%-- 7--� •� �0��' r .�. Q .� m ���•���-- H/ L-+ ■�■ / � � `►�i H HA on •L•• H 10 I SASYLON / ISIIP / 0 TH M►TO •�' L;=U1 Q , .,•:: • • a oK '� Z "••i VZN F o s 10 MILES ui 'Q 9� `, o,V o•,' • •' j +f SCALE • ' ��: r r PECONIC BAY SYSTEM ATLANTIC OCEAN SOURCE: L.I.R.P.B. 208 STUDY, AS AMENDED BY THE L.I.G.W.M.S. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean, through the North and South Forks, respectively. The cross-section area is located approximately 1 mile west of the site and indicates that the Upper Glacial Aquifer is approximately 600 feet thick. This illustration also demonstrates the presence of the Magothy Aquifer beneath the Upper Glacial Aquifer under the site (Jensen, et.al. , 1974) . The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources Management Program in order to protect the existing and future groundwater supply of the Town through a combination of environmentally sensitive land use policies and practices. In conjunction with this program, Special Ground Water Protection Areas have been designated within the Town of Southold. One of these core watershed protection areas runs 1, 500 feet north and south of the LILCO power lines (Personal Communication, Mark McDonald, Town of Southold Planning Board, April 25, 1990) , which traverse nearly through the center of the site. Seven (7) monitoring wells were completed at the site in order to determine the present elevation of the groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6 feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C; Plate 1) . Depth of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0 to about 45 feet. Although the water table is considerably lower than the III-45 ground surface throughout most of the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the north-central portion of the site intersect the water table, creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively. Seasonal flucuations in the regional groundwater level can be estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S. Geological Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986) : 516756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8.53 feet MSL. Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6.77 feet MSL. Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site. An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater level at the site is projected from the data obtained from this well. Regional groundwater movement direction is difficult to determine with great accuracy because of limited well data. The site lies nearly coincident with the regional groundwater divide of the North Fork of Long Island. Jensen, et.al. (1974) locates the groundwater divide adjacent, south of the site on the northern shore of Laurel Lake (Figure 6) . This would indicate a northern or east-northeastern directional component of groundwater movement for the site. However, the regional groundwater divide is located only generally and can only be III-46 FIGURE 6 GROUNDWATER DIVIDE-NORTH FORK P v +u area +� area c+r —60 jncy, _- 1 wrec�ate "'q, `+' 1Jy° J O Yd 6' d m +r4y+ 7� 60-/ Ye , +Oh q,Cyr nad n+,° +r, °ph +ory +4Cf +Ory kyr s \\\mom +neyr % obqr �-- S 1 T E X60 Y _ M r ,°, e r �T o PeCO az ��1, II' .Y7r '�M � I'elri'' �^ -J`1'�, - 2i JjA_J. V(fjyr .K.,!„�. f-b�p• i�" �K ';1V - ° +nrr + tt'y Vic-- r.,r4. _ �_}.i �\.�F• r." '+lYprS +a o Dor, aossrb�'oos - 06M!j°h'rh 1 Es&tQ1 07e,sbf,0.03 c' riJ f a � �fow •c �,,,,N e o r�y�+',G �' .� n+' r oL n+'O' ry "i iw AV Grw _ n n ee ni o� '�jP 1 ✓',7 f r `, ,. Shr��e - � 'vX'�1 'Odie, L.S. (Jensen, et al. , 1974) III-47 used for approximate statements. Recent work by Doriski (1987) confirms the site to be approximately coincident with the regional, east/west-trending groundwater divide of the North Fork (Figure 7) . In addition, there is a groundwater elevation saddle just east of the site associated with Mattituck Creek. From west to east, groundwater elevations decrease along the groundwater divide from Riverhead past the site to its lowest point at Mattituck Creek. Continuing further east, the groundwater elevation again increases toward Southold. This would imply an eastward component to the groundwater movement direction at the site. Monitoring wells at the site were monitored for groundwater levels during April, 1988 (Appendix C) . As noted on Plate 1, the wells are oriented in a line trending approximately south-southeast. Groundwater elevation cross-sections are provided in Figure 8. The cross-section along the full trend of the line indicates a sharp drop in groundwater elevation in a southeastern direction from northwest to southeast. The two additional short cross-sections (i.e. , Wells #1 to #4 ; Wells #2 to #4) , oriented north-south and northeast-southwest, respectively, indicate a very small drop in groundwater elevation in these directions. The monitoring well data, limited as it may be, indicates that the site may be slightly south of the regional groundwater divide. However, prediction of groundwater movement direction is III-48 FIGURE 7 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MAP *3.3 *4.7 i4 1 4.01, *3.9 *7.1 fi2�5 4 lk 5.5 o8.6 S I TE] 7, S . 6.21 3.1- '. *5.1 oO.8 07.7 3.9 Pie .8 9.9 954 6.7 25 0119 910.7 010.0 Mai 9.6 ti PC 3.1 .5 erahea 06.5 *27.4 24 (Doriski, 1984 ) 111-49 FIGURE 8 WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS 6. 3 a J 6.2 n 1 CL) #4 ti J Nv+'�M• 6.1 6.0 0 +.j b a u r- m U •r L 41 6.3 au Y ro J 6.2 r Q1 s- ,,2 ;2 4 t fo 1 J 6.1 6.0 Horizontal Cistance III-50 limited because the groundwater elevation differences between monitoring wells was slight (i.e. , within several inches) and there were only a limited number of monitoring wells providing groundwater elevation data over a very short period of time. Despite these limitations, utilizing the available regional data and the groundwater elevations at the site, a southeast directional component to the groundwater movement direction is estimated. The horizontal and vertical movement of groundwater is determined by the distribution of hydraulic heads throughout the aquifer system and by the hydraulic properties of the aquifer materials. The properties of porosity and permeability vary within and between aquifers. The flow of groundwater within an aquifer is thus, related to and can be generally defined by Darcy's Law (Q= -KiA) , where K is a constant of proportionality of permeability, "i" is the hydraulic gradient, and A is the area (Freeze, et.al. , 1979 ; Todd, 1959) . The average permeability of the Upper Glacial Aquifer is approximately 270 feet per day, in a horizontal direction (Franke, et.al. , 1972) . In addition, horizontal velocities in the Upper Glacial Aquifer are approximately 1 to 2 feet per 'day, but can be greater near discharge points such as streams and the shoreline (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) . For Comparison, flow velocities within the deeper Magothy Aquifer are approximately 0. 1-0. 5 feet per day. III-51 Water Quality The chemical quality of water determines the purposes for which water may be used such as for drinking, agriculture, or industry. The chemical composition of water is determined by the types and solubility of materials with which the water comes in contact, the duration of contact with the materials, the chemical quality of precipitation and air through which it falls, the water temperature and pressure, and the composition of surface-derived substances such as domestic wastes, fertilizers, and industrial discharges (Krulikas, 1986) . Hydrogeologic Zone IV locally has marginal water quality, mainly in areas underlying farms. Agricultural fertilizers are ' a major source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . Nitrate contamination can adversely affect drinking water quality. In addition, with respect to ecological considerations, the major threat posed by nitrogen is eutrophication of surface waters (Hughes, et.al. , 1985) . In general, the scattered lakes and ponds within Suffolk County, contain water with a high residence time and thus susceptibility to nutrient (nitrate) imputs. Nitrogen concentrations above 0.4 mg/L in surface water could lower the oxygen content of the water and harm fish (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . High coliform counts as a result of high residential development, wild and semi-wild waterfowl pollution, and improper containment of surface runoff also lead the III-52 eutrophication of these small lakes and ponds. Coliform die-off rates are extended due to the warmer water temperatures of these relatively shallow water bodies. Thus, high coliform levels are maintained for longer periods of time. Approximately 600 ft south of the site lies Laurel Lake a 30 acre body of surface water and associated wetlands. Because of its low nitrate levels it is considered a potential drinking water source and has been deemed a Class "A" lake, the highest classification given to surface waters in Suffolk county (SCDHS, 1987) . At present it is not being utilized as such, However, Laurel Lake is recognized as one of Suffolk County's most pristine freshwater lakes and recreational areas. At present water quality data for Laurel Lake has not been obtainable. Together with nitrate certain agricultural pesticides have become a major source of groundwater contamination on the north fork of Long Island (SCDHS; Baier and Robbins, 1982) . The carbamate pesticides aldicarb and carbofuran have created the greatest problem and have been detected in 30 percent of the private wells tested in the farming areas. In the Town of Southold approximately 16% of the private wells have shown concentrations greater than the NYSDOH 7ppb aldicarb guideline and 6% of the wells tested displayed levels exceeding the 15ppb carbofuran guideline (SCDHS, 1987) . Municipal water or sewage facilities do not exist and are not planned in the near future in the vicinity of the site. The III-53 existing homes adjacent to Laurel Lake, south of the site, rely on private wells for drinking water. Water quality information from private wells in the area is not public information and therefore, is not readily available for this report. While SCDHS or USGS observation wells or other municipal water supply wells do not exist in the immediate location of the site, one well exists approximately 1,500 feet north of the site (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986) . This well, #S 53333, (Figure 9) is completed at 275 feet within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives an indication of the quality of groundwater in the area within this stratigraphic horizon (Table 1) . Water samples analyzed in 1985 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986) observation well noted above gave the following results for nitrate-nitrogen measured in mg/L (Table 1) : 10 mg/L. Thus, the nitrogen level within the groundwater of the Upper Glacial Aquifer in the vicinity of the site indicates, at least locally, that the water quality is marginal with respect to nitrogen concentration. According to the U.S. Public Health Department (1962) , values close to or exceeding 10 mg/L is harmful for human consumption. For well #S-53333 the carbomate pesticides Aldicarb (including breakdown by-products) and Carbofuran are found in Table 2. According to the SCDHS (1982) , limits of Aldicarb (Total) and Carbofuran in drinking water should not exceed 7 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively. Samples from well #S 53333 showed a total aldicarb level of greater than III-54 FIGURE 9 LOCATION OF QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER DATA COLLECTION STATIONS L_I"AT,IY I.1CP FIGURE 8A FIGURE 8B F GR C� —' "D NOT S 0,0 .533 7 y 3 .5333 S L A r 333 1 �33u O G .535 � e2 L 2 e, .57 5 •St. GARDINERS K73)6 .1l),. St1l •53 y... •5.1)5• , BAY 2]5 • 2050 .5 .5 4fl •5332x.5331. •5333: •s,lA .51 e3 - 53 s . n3. •53336 53737 .53737 569 51 •5333. 5,M •51567 ^ .3S37 •5 185 •53732 ..72 51588 -61509 •51681 P E C O N I C .7235 •48689 .a653, •3.329 BAY •.6.36 "37 •.e.v ..fisn ..es7e •.8.26 N6520 •]5]0 •68 .4.33 ..N79 •.9896 ^+895) -9426 •.e522 •.8.35 3570 •1.811 .a8127 NeS, •7.15 581 .]273 2.05 •a5 F •,6,0 0 0 N� y •"`a'']\�—y)//1<\J_( /�/f •2316. 48.10 ,7.7a 13., ..N36 OCEAN ATLANTIC (U.S.G.S. , 1982) Site is indicated by arrow. III-55 TABLE 1 WATER QUALITY DATA-WELL #S 53333 QUALITY OF GROUND WATER WATER QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1984 TO SEPTEMBER 1985 SUFFOLK COUNTY All samples were collected and analyzed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services SPE- CALCIUM CIFIC TOTAL LOCAL DEPTH CON- PH OXYGEN, RECOV- IDENT- GEO- DATE OF DUCT- (STAND- TEMPER- DIS- ERABLE I- LOGIC OF WELL, ANCE ARD ATURE SOLVED (MG/L STATION NUMBER FIER UNIT SAMPLE TOTAL (US/CM) UNITS) (DEG C) (MG/L) AS CA) (FEET) 405123072543901 S 51980 112GLCLU 85-04-04 35 185 5 9 10 6.4 -- 410400072202001 S 52050 112GLCLU 85-OB-26 64 175 4 9 13. 5 7 9 16 404523073181101 S 52384 1120LCLU 85-04-02 33 340 6.2 10 7 1 20 405512072395202 S 52449 112GLCLV 85-07-22 40 141 5 2 15 O 0 20 21 404639073034901 S 52641 112GLCLU 85-04-11 35 360 5 9 13.0 3.3 -- 405513072505401 S 52886 112GLCLU 85-01-31 57 210 -- 10 9 0 -- 410104072303301 S 53324 112GLCLU 85-07-16 62 308 5 1 13 0 8.2 34 410007072331901 S 53325 112GLCLU 85-07--26 68 228 4 9 12.6 9 5 40 405924072342301 S 53333 1120LCLU 85-07-16 74 275 5 4 12.0 7 8 45 410004072262701 S 53335 112GLCLU 85-07-2Q 37 297 5 1 12.0 6 8 58 112GLCLU 85-08-13 37 338 5 1 12.0 7 9 56 MA NE- POTAS- SIUM., SODIUM, SLUM, ALKA- CHLO- NITRO- NITRO- MANGA- TOTA, TOTAL TOTAL 1.i1qITY SULFATE RIDE, GEN, GEN, PHOS- COPPER, IRON, NESE, F.ECOV- FECOV- RECOV- FIELD DIS- DIS- NITRATE NITRITE PHORUS, DIS- DIS- DIS- DATF FRACLE ERABLE EPABLE (MG1L SOLVED SOLVED TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SOLVED SOLVED SOLVED OF (11G/�_ (ISG/L (M,IL AS (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L. (MG/L (MG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L SAMPLE AS MG) AS NA) AS K) CACC3) AS SO4) AS CL) AS N) AS N) AS P) AS CU) AS FE) AS MN) 85-04-04 -- 25 -- 51 26 17 2 7 -- -- <100 360 5700 e5-00-26 5 O 14 11 8 22 11 11 0 014 -- -- 100 50 65-04-02 32 11 173 B 5 23 CO 050 0 006 -- -- 4700 260 85-07-2^ 4 4 11 3 1 18 Q 6 29 4 8 0 014 0 012 -- 100 80 e5-,;.:-1) "- 45 -- 180 60 34 G 40 -- -- x:100 21000 700 e5-01--31 -- 10 -- -- 31 to 3 6 -- -- <100 280 <50 65-07-16 6 0 43 7 O -- 66 63 8 9 0 004 0 006 -- 300 <20 85-07-26 7 5 9 0 3.8 9 75 17 8 4 <0 001 0 003 -- 600 <20 85-07-16 8 0 12 4 0 13 56 34 10 <0 001 0 005 -- 300 20 85-07-29 9 5 12 7 S 9 95 31 16 0 001 -- -- 200 <20 85-09-13 7 5 12 7 0 8 100 30 15 0 001 -- -- 200 <20 METHY- LENE ZINC, BLUE DIS- ACTIVE DATE SOLVED SUB- OF (UG/L STANCE SAMPLE AS ZN) (MG/L) 85-04-04 <400 <0 10 85-08-26 -- -- 85-04-02 -- -- 85-07-22 -- -- 85-04-11 <400 0 10 e5-01-31 <400 <O 10 85-07-16 -- -- 85-07-26 -- -- 85-07-16 -- -- 85-07-29 -- -- 85-08-13 -- -- III-56 Well. 6 53333. 1 Record No. : 98505609 Sampled on 07-16-85 at 0900 B parameters Project Medium. Groundwater Sample Station ID- 405924072342301 Aquifer: 112GLCLU Well De th 74 ft p Type: Regular Remarks: p Land Surface. 51. 0 ft MSL Other: Code Name Value Code Name Value Code Name Value � C3027 COLLECTING AGENCY 9820 39053 ALDICARB TOTAL 1 0 < 82586 ALDICARB SULFOXIDE 26. 0 00028 ANALYZING AGENCY 9820 39750 SEVIN 1 0 < 82587 ALDICARB SULFONE 23. 0 39051 METHOMYL TOTAL 1. 0 < 81405 CARBOFURAN (UG/L) 27. 0 O C H trJ FC r y rd � � rn syr H Ln H Lo b N H Well S 53333. 1 W tT] Ln Record No. 98701252 Sampled on 06-10-87 at 1100 37 parameters W y v Project: Medium Groundwater Sample Type. Regular H Station ID. 405924072342301 Aquifer: 112GLCLU Well Depth: 74 ft Land Surface: 51.0 ft MSL (� Remarks Other- Code Name Value Code Name Value Code Name Value U) C0310 WATER TEMPERATURE 12. 0 00935 POTASSIUM DISSOLVED 4.-6 34371 ETHYLBENZENE TOTAL 3. 0 < 03027 COLLECTING AGENCY 9B?0 00940 CHLORIDE DISSOLVED 26 34475 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 2. 0 < C 00.028 ANALYZING A';ENCY 9820 00945 SULFATE DISSOLVED 17 34506 TRICHLOROETHANE T. 2. 0 < O C0095 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE 190 01046 IRON DISSOLVED 1300 34511 TRICHLOROETHANE T 5 0 < n C0300 OXYGEN DISSOLVED 3 4 01056 MANGANESE DISSOLVED 80 34536 DICHLOROBENZENE TOT 4. 0 < 03400 PH 7. 00 32101 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE 3 0 < 34551 TRICHLOROBENZENE TOT 4 0 < 00410 ALKALINITY.WH.FET.F 38 32102 CARBONTETRACHLORIDE 1 O < 34566 DICHL. BENZENE 1.3 T 4 0 < 03615 NITROGEN.NITRITE T 0. 006 32104 BROMOFORM TOTAL 5 0 < 39180 TRICHLORDETHYLENE 5 0 < 03619 AMMONIA UNIONIZED 0 8E10 32105 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 2 0 < 72019 DEPTH BELOW LAND S 41.61 00620 NITROGEN NITRATE T. 0.300 32106 CHLOROFORM TOTAL 5 0 < 77133 P—XYLENE 3. 0 < 00915 CALCIUM DISSOLVED 12 34010 TOLUENE, TOTAL 3 0 < 77134 METAXYLENE.TOT UG/L 3. 0 < C0925 MAGNESIUM DISSOLVED 5 0 34030 BENZENE. TOTAL 3 0 < 00930 SODIUM DISSOLVED 12 34301 CHLOROBENZENE 3 0 < 49 ppb and a carbofuran level of 27 ppb. At these 1985 level this groundwater supply is contaminated and private wells woul require special filtration methods. Table 2 shows water quality data from well #S 53333 from 1987. This analysis includes inorganic as well as volitile organic chemicals (VOC's) but does not include pesticides. The 1987 data displays high levels of iron and manganese (i.e. , very hard water) . Synthetic detergents (commonly referred to as methylene blue active substance, or MBAS) in streams and groundwater have caused considerable concern in parts of Long Island because their presence indicates contamination by septic-tank effluent or other waste-water (Perlmutter, et.al. , 1964) . The U.S. Public Health Service (1962) has recommended that concentrations of synthetic detergents in drinking water not exceed 0.5 mg/L. Samples analyzed in 1985 (Table 2) for MBAS (values in mg/L, Suffolk County Water Authority) from the nearby quality groundwater data collection station gave the following results (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986) : undeterminate value. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan - 208 Study (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) recommends the following (Table 5-1, p. 164) for residential utilization of land within Hydrogeologic Zone IV: III-58 1. Require collection and treatment: in developed areas at densities of three or more dwelling units per acre: in those areas where on lot systems are subject to failure and cannot be up graded (due to soil conditons, high groundwater, small lot size and other conditions) : to those areas where contaminated underflow may reasonably be expected to contribute pollutants to the surface waters and to result in a contravention of the standards. 2 . Where residential development is allowed, require large lot development (1 acre zoning or greater) . 3 . Encourage natural vegetation. 4. At densities of less than 3 dwelling units per gross acre and in areas where contaminants are in excess of ground water standards, establish a groundwater monitoring program to provide timely institution of corrective measures. 5. Provide for routine maintenance of on-site disposal systems. 6. Optimimize the timing of fertilizer application to reduce nitrate contamination from agriculture. 7. Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals, and bacteria to surface and groundwaters. 8. Prohibit the use of certain chemical cleaners in on-lot III-59 systems. 9. Optimize pumping patterns to minimize saltwater upconing 3 . SANITARY WASTE. The site is not serviceable by any existing sanitary sewer district and municipal facilities are not planned for the immediate future. Thus, a major portion of the recharge water reaches the water table and slowly circulates in the shallow part of the groundwater reservoir. Some of the water, however, moves down into the intermediate and deep parts of the Magothy reservoir which, in places, is as deep as several hundred feet below sea level. Since Laurel Lake is located adjacent to parts of the site, some of the groundwater may intersect with this water body. Consequently, any proposed development must provide a Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) approved on-site septic system that will insure continued protection for the groundwater and nearby surface waters and freshwater wetlands. III-60 4. WATER BUDGET. The hydrologic cycle is the balance between the income of water from precipitation and man-induced imports such as sewage water discharge and the outflow of water by evaporation, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, streamflow or overland flow, and man-induced exports (Dunne, et. al. , 1978 ; Todd, 1951) . Most of the water entering the subsurface at the site moves vertically and/or horizontally in a generally northeastern or east-northeastern direction within the Upper Glacial Aquifer. Some undeterminable amount of this water also moves deep enough to partially recharge the Magothy Aquifer. The water balance is useful for predicting some of the human impacts on the hydrologic cycle. The hydrologic effects resulting from changes in ground cover can be estimated to determine whether a given development scheme is hydrologically sound. To effectively evaluate the water budget for this site, considerations in variations in time, space, land use, and soils must be made. Theoretically, any model is based upon the conservation of mass in that the difference between mass flux into and out of a volume equals the change in mass storage within that volume during a particular time interval. The following simplified equation describes the water balance of a given area (Dunne, et. al. , 1978; Fetter, 1980) : III-61 Change in Storage (Q S) = Inflow - Outflow and for this project in specific ( Q S) _ (Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff) - (Evapotranspiration + Exports + Overland Flow + Groundwater Runoff) Precipitation: A precipitation study at Upton, New York, located approximately 20 miles west-southwest of the site, gives a long-term average annual precipitation from 1943-1982 of 46. 32 inches (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981; Krulikas, 1986) . This value compares closely with the average precipitation in inches per year (1931-1980) for the Coastal Division of New York State of 45. 17 inches (National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration, 1981) . Imports: Adding to the precipitation value is selective irrigation on developed sites that have a certain percentage of turf and/or ornamental vegetation (such as the proposed action) . Based on a survey of agricultural and horticultural practices carried out by the Cooperative Extension Service of Suffolk County, Baskin (1977) estimated a value for irrigation for residential land use to be 2 inches per month for the months of May-September. This adds 10 (5 months x 2 inches/month) inches III-62 per year for the area occupied by turf and/or ornamental vegetation. Therefore, parts of the site will receive a total of 56. 32 inches of precipitation. In addition, septic discharge will also add a minor amount of imported recharge to the groundwater. Evaporation: There is a minimal amount of evaporation due to the humidity of the region and ground covering material (Baskin, 1977) . Evaporation that does occur on the land portion of the site is considered part of evapotranspiration. Evaporation amounts from surface waters within the site (i.e. , pond and wetlands) can be estimated from the following: National evaporation maps (Chow, 1964) give an average annual lake evaporation value of 28.5 inches; studies on Long Island yield estimates in the range of 34 inches per year (Baskin, 1977) ; therefore, averaging the two values, a value of 31. 3 ) rounded from 31.25) inches per year is derived. Evapotranspiration: The sum of the water removed from the soil by the combined processes of evaporation and transpiration account for substantial losses of precipitation striking the earth (Dunne, et. al. , 1978 ; Fetter, 1980) . Using data compiled by Peterson (1987) , the area of the site yields an evapotranspiration value of approximately 22 .0 inches per year. III-63 Exports: There are no man-induced exports for the site. Groundwater Runoff: Groundwater runoff is the water that moves within the aquifer from the zone of recharge to the zone of discharge. The groundwater runoff flows at a relatively constant rate. Furthermore, the amount of groundwater runoff flowing through the volume of the aquifer that is underlying the site is considered constant. Infiltration and Overland Flow: The entry of water into the soil through the soil surface is infiltration (Dunne, et. al. , 1978; Fetter, 1980) . This occurs whenever water is available on the surface and the surface medium will allow infiltration. If the infiltration capacity is low, such as with an impermeable road surfaces, more water will flow along the surface than will infiltrate. The value of surface flow is called runoff or overland flow. Overland flow is equivalent to the quantity of precipitation falling on land covered by impervious surfaces (Holzmacker, et. al. , 1970) . If the infiltration capacity is high, such as with a forest floor, most of the precipitation will infiltrate to the subsurface and a minimal amount of water will flow along the surface. Due to the sandy character of the soils and the gentle slopes on Long Island, and these characteristics at the site, itself, the infiltration capacity is very high (Baskin, 1977) . The III-64 potential rate of infiltration is actually higher than the expected rate of precipitation. In urban areas or areas that are partially covered by impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement, infiltrating precipitation is deterred. Despite the abundance of such surfaces on Long Island, Sawyer (1963) suggests that there is very little net effect upon the quantity of recharge to the groundwater. Decreased evaporation and transpiration are assumed to compensate for the increase in runoff. For example, in Nassau County where there are considerable impervious surfaces, the Department of Public Works assumes a runoff factor for the county, taken as a whole, to range from 35% to 90% of the precipitation: The percentage depends on the type of land use (Seaburn, 1970) . For the portion of Long Island near the location of the site, an average overland flow value of 0. 5 inches per year is suggested (Krulikas, 1986) . In most urbanized areas, storm sewer systems exist for the removal of excess precipitation (i.e. , overland flow) . These storm water drainage systems consist of drywells, catch basins, and recharge basins for a particular development site. The proposed action will have strategically placed drywells and catch basins, each with its own leaching pool, as well as drainage (recharge) basins to keep most of the runoff on the site location (Plate 1) . In effect, these features act as direct recharge points. They allow nearly all the overland flow III-65 to naturally infiltrate into the subsurface. Therefore, in the determination of the water budget for this site, the following assumptions are made (based on Baskin, 1977) : 1. All precipitation that falls on an impervious surface runs off (otherwise it infiltrates the soil) . 2 . Most runoff associated with the proposed action will eventually infiltrate through a recharge basin system. The present condition of the site is such that 23 . 8 acres, or 37.4% of the site is upland forest (includes 1.4 acres of "low forest") , 0.5 acres, or 0.7% of the site is freshwater wetlands, 0. 20 acres, or 0. 3% is surface water (i.e. , ponds) , and 39. 1 acres, or 61. 6% of the site are old field. Using the values for the various parameters discussed above, the water budget for the site at present is as follows: Change in Storage ( ,L S) = Inflow - Outflow ( Q S) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff - Evapotranspiration - Exports - Overland Flow) - Groundwater Runoff The actual water budget equation for the site is as follows: III-66 ( (Precipitation + Imports) - (Evaporation + Evapotranspiration + Exports + Overland Flow) ) x (% of total land) Unimproved Land (Consists of upland forest, wetlands, and old field; 63 .4 acres, or 99.7% total land) ( A S) _ (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (22. 0 in/yr + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) x (% total land) (Q S) = 23.82 in/yr x (99.7% total land) ( Q S) = 23 .82 in/yr x 0.997 (Q S) = 23 .75 in/yr (weighted average unimproved land) Surface Water (Consists of surface water of the kettle pond and the small pond associated with Laurel lake; 0. 2 acres or 0.3% total site) ( Q S) _ (46. 32 in/yr + 0. 5 in/yr) - (31. 5 in/yr + 0 + 0) x (% total land) (Q S) _ (46.82 in/yr) - (31.5 in/yr) x (% total land) ( Q S) = 15. 32 in/yr x 0. 3% total land ( QS) = 15. 32 in/yr x 0. 003 S) = 0. 05 in/yr (weighted average surface water) III-67 Therefore: Change in Storage for Present Condition Change in storage (63 .6 acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = (23 .75 in/yr; unimproved area) + (0. 05 in/yr; surface water) 23.80 inches/year The calculated value of 23 .80 inches per year, or approximately 50% of the total precipitation, reenters the subsurface to recharge the groundwater under present site conditions. This value compares well with that of 22 inches per year and 22 .6 inches per year calculated by Nemickas et.al. (1982) and Krulikas (1986) , respectively. Considerable variation in storage values are obtained when differences in evaporation and evapotranspiration values are used in combination with different annual precipitation values and overland flow rates. Since rates of recharge, precipitation, and evapotranspiration may vary considerably from place to place and with time, the average value of annual storage ( Q S) should be considered only a rough approximation (Nemickas, et.al. , 1982) . III-68 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING. 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. At present the site is not served by a municipal water source. The nearest municiple water main is approximately 1.2 miles north of the site at the intersection of Sunset Road and Daisey Road in northeast Mattituck (Figure 10) . This utility now belongs to the SCWA but was formerly the Captain Kidd water utility (Personal communication, Bob Bowin, SCWA engineer) 2 . SOLID WASTE. At present there is no solid waste being generated at the site. However evidence of past usage of the site can be found in several locations in the form of old farm equipment, etc. Minor trash or littering is associated with the unauthorized tresspassing and the surrounding residential areas of the site. 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE. Zoning. According to the most recent zoning map for the town of Southold (January, 1989; Figure 11) the area near and III-69 FIGURE 10 NEAREST SCWA WATER MAIN LOCATION SOV� r% Est f C�x-tRAL CAPTAIN FC QP r � a ``� KID = V. TAIN K1 �'AT9 S 0110 z' DR ES , O R � U�' �Q ► W,L RD J �1 op a� Av R�' VD pY J =�J r Q ao Z n W ESS N 0 1000 Ft. L � III-70 FIGURE 11 ZONING MAP A-C 1 1 itI �\ _j o - ►' SITE A—C ., I R-80 . I i R-80 I I yF A-C t.s. EXPLANATION (Town of Southold, 1989) A-C Agricultural Conservation NR-40 Residential Low Density AA 0 2000 Ft. LB Limited Business R-60 Residential Low Density A B General Business III-71 including the site for the proposed action contains the following district designations (Code, Town of Southold, Chapter 100) : R-80 Residential Low Density A, A-C Agricultural Conservation and L-B Limited Business. The site for the proposed action is zoned R-80 and is defined as a single-family dwelling on a minimum lot area of 80, 000 square feet (Code of Town of Southold, Chapter 100: Zoning) . Table 3 further defines the specific utilization and dimensional regulations, respectively, applicable to R-80 zoned districts. The site does not fall within a designated historic district. Adjacent to the site on the north and extensively to the west is an Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) District (Figure 11) . Permitted uses under both R-80 and A-C zoning designations are: one-family detached dwellings not to exceed one dwelling on each lot; agricultural operations and accessory uses thereto as specified by Town Code of Southold (Chapter 100) ; building structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold school, fire, police, and park districts. Within 1000 feet of the site to the east is a small zone designated L-B (Limited Business) . Permitted uses for L-B are the same as those allowed in A-C zoned districts and also includes retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area as set forth in the Code of the Town of Southold (Chapter 100) . Table 4 further III-72 Town of Southold Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Residential Districts' [Added 1-10-89 by LL No. 1-19891 R-40 R-80 R-120 R-200 R-400 11D A-C Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential liamlct RR RO Conservation Low-Density ton On Acre) (Two-Acre) (Three-Acre) (Five-Acre) Ten-Acre) Residential Rest ed ntial Officeial Districts MINIMUM I"r SIZE.(square feety. 1-family detached dwelling 40000 20,000(vii) 20.000(vii) 40.00) Residential unit without utilities 80.000 40.000 SO,OW 120 200.0(10 Residential unit with community water NA NA NA NAA 000(vii) NA NA NA 20,000(vii) 2 1 Residential unit with community water NA NA NA NA NA NA 10,000(xi) 12,000(xi) NA N and sewer O 2-family detached dwelling Z 2-family dwelling without utilities 160,000(xii) 80.000(iii) 160,000(xii) 240,000(v) 400.000(vi) 800.000(A) 40.000(ii) 40,000(ii) 80,0011(iii) H 2-family dwelling with community water NA NA NA NA NA NA ,000(ii) 40,000(ii) NA 2-family dwelling with community water NA NA NA NA NA NA 200.000(vii) 20,000(vii) NA d and sewer H H Multiple dwelling unit or townhousesNAs NA H (11 > Multiple dwelling or townhouse without NA NA NA NA NA NA 20,000 W utilitiestri ►-� Multiple dwelling or townhouse with NA NA NA NA NA NA 20.000 NAI NA � H H community waterNA H H W I Multiple dwelling or townhouse with NA NA NA NA NA 10.000 NAI NA v community water and sewer n WC7 Motel,hotel or conference center guest W 11i units Guest unit without utilities NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6'000 d Guest unit with community water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6,000 NA r Guest unit with community water and NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4,000 NA t7j sewer Nonresidential use(as permitted) Use with or without utilities 80,000 40,000 80,000 120,000 200,000 400,000 NA 40.000 40.000 KEY: NA=Not applicable. NOTES: t Roman numerals refer to applicable column in the Residential Bulk Schedule.Where no Roman numeral is indicated,refer to the district column in the Residential Bulk Schedule. I For multiple dwelling,hotel,motel and/or conference uses(where permitted),this table refers to minimum lot area per unit.Refer to the Residential Bulk Schedule for total lot size,yard and setback dimensions for the applicable district,unless more-restrictive requirements are indicated in the text of the chapter. [Amended 8-1-89 by LL No.14-19891 10-25-99 Town of Southold Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Nonresidential Districts' (Added 1-10-89 by LL No. 1-19891 LIO LR IIB B tight Industrial I.1 Limited Hamlet General M-1 M-11 Park/Planned t.;Kbt District Business Business Business Marine I Marine II Office Park Industrial MINIMUM IAT SIZE(square feetk Business,office, industrial or other nonresidential use Use with or without utilities 80,000 20,000 10,000 40,000 80,000 120.000 11►ixx► N O 1-family detached dwelling Z Residential unit without utilities 80,000(iii) 20,000(vii) NA 40,000 40.000(vii) NA HA Z z Residential unit with community water NA 20,000(vii) NA 20,000 20.000(vii) NA NA O � Residential unit with community water and sewer NA 10,000(xi) NA 10,000 10,000(xi) NA NA Z 2-family detached dwelling d �-3 2-family dwelling without utilities 160,000 40,000(ii) NA NA NA NA NA to y W H (xii) H 2-family dwelling with community water NA 40,000(ii) NA NA NA NA 11A 0 %U N ~ 2-family dwelling with community water and sewer NA 20,000(vii) NA NA NA NA NA Z n � I y y � v Multiple dwelling unit or townhouse= .a p Multiple dwelling or townhouse without utilities NA 20.000 NA NA NA NA HA c!t E Multiple dwelling or townhouse with community water NA 20,000 NA NA NA NA NA C] Multiple dwelling or townhouse with community water and sewer NA 10,000 NA NA NA NA NA x O Motel, hotel or conference center guest unit! F' Guest unit without utilities NA 6,000 6,000 NA 6.000 60K) 6.1xN) Guest unit with community water NA 6,000 6,000 NA 6.000 ti � Ii.O(Nl �IMN) C=] O Guest unit with community water and sewer NA 4,000 4,000 NA 6.000 6.0011 1 INN) rt KEY: �3' NA = Not applicable. 0, NOTES: Roman numerals refer to the applicable column in the Residential Bulk Schedule. For multiple dwelling,hotel,motel and/or conference uses(where permitted),this table refers to minimum lot size per unit. Refer to the Residential Bulk Schedule for hll:il lot.ire, yard and setback dimensions for the applicable district,unless more-restrictive requirements are indicated in the text of the chapter. F � :! 'lei 99 00 defines the specific utilization and dimensional regulations, respectively, applicable to L-B zoned districts. The purpose of both the R-80 and the A-C zoning designations are to reasonably control and, as much as possible, prevent the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands within the Town containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils. Agriculture is the basis for a significant portion the Town's economy (Code Town of Southold, 1989, Chapter 100) . R-80 and A-C zoning districts also serve to conserve those areas with sensitive enviromental features including aquifer recharge areas and bluffs, and they also serve to protect those areas which support the Town's recreational and resort economy (Town of Southold Master Plan 1984) . Land Use. The 63. 6 acre site consists of upland forest, freshwater wetlands, surface water (two small ponds) and old field. Structures do not exist on the site. This parcel is private property and no trespassing is authorized. However, the site is utilized for recreational wildlife observation (Personal communication, NYSDEC, 1990) . Current land use (Figure 12) within 1000 feet of the site consists of residential development, agricultural, business, upland forest and surface water (Laurel Lake) . Adjacent to Kirup Lane (the western boundary of the site) is an III-75 FIGURE 12 LAND USE PLAN MAP ;:t: �.:_.. :•% '=ice.;;.K .•: .•.. A-C •''•' . �•'off,� SITE •�'.�:: .::::. ::::: . • . •: A•-C ` .•• :•::•••::� ,f1 ,, . .;•;• • , 1.�• ,••••,•,f,.•'• OS �Y �• •�''•• •• •.•'••• .� �� •• ':.g• per.:•., ••� /,••:%;:,• 4'•{� r: •OSP •! 4 �.-;�•; •••!- ••• ��/ t: o .*41L ••: o :�•- • • ' .� ,o aepc o�c Iowa DLy� po � . •RWD •�•• •••••• � • of -7/ Sp 1vC.•O pG p.O•.O •O•:• Vl7 O x.11-1i� "° ,°•, MIN �•.��•�. �+f' ::•• •�''J •••:• ••' �•''••• -Y • JJ 00 ' O. •• �•rJ• A-c AgricuT�tu-,-r nsetvation (Town of Southold, NRD raesidenr;pl Iaw Density 19 85) LI/OP Light Industrial/Office Paris GB General Business OS Coen space I= Recreation P/SP Public/Semi-Public III-76 agricultural field. To the north of this area (north of the LILCO power line R.O.W. ) are located several small businesses and a residence. Land use north of the site along Sound Avenue is primarily agricultural fields, upland forest and a few residences. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site, east of Lake Road, is an area of low forest with a single residence. North of the LILCO power lines, this strip of low forest is approximately 800 feet wide. Adjacent to this corridor (800 feet to the east of the site) is open space and several small businesses. To the southwest of the site is an irregular section of land which acts as a buffer between Laurel Lake and the site. It consists of the shore line and near shore area and is the most heavily developed residential parcel of land adjacent to the site. Planning and Open Space. According to the Town of Southold Master Plan Update, 1985 (Land Use Planning Map, Town of Southold 1985; Figure 12) the area of the site is designated for Low Density Residential development. This designation reflects the present development scheme in the vicinity of the site, and is defined as that which displays an overall net density of one home per 2 acres (Code, Town of Southold, Chapter 100) . Consistent with the philosophy of the Master Plan (Town of Southold, 1985) , low density development is important to the Town for aquifer and surface water protection, retaining III-77 significant environmental features and natural habitat, and prevention of a continuous development pattern. Continuing, the Town of Southold Master Plan (1985) recommends protection and wise use of surface waters, wetlands, agricultural lands, recreational facilities, and forested lands. The Town of Southold Land Use Planning Map (1985) (Figure 12) indicates the area west of the site for open space and agricultural conservation. The area north of the site is designated for agricultural conservation. East of the site low density residential and open space is recommended. Low density residential housing is designated for the area south of the site. Open space has a variety of purposes in a land use plan. This designation is utilized in areas that are set aside for open space/preservation purposes including environmentally sensitive features such as wetlands, dunes, bluffs and surface water. The function of an open space system is to conserve valuable natural resources, protect ecologically sensitive areas, provide recreational opportunities and to conserve aesthetic and cultural resources (Code, Town of Southold, Chapter 59) . The objectives and philosophy of an open space plan are as follows (adapted from the Town of Brookhaven's Open Space Plan; Lambe, 1985) : III-78 1) Protection of open space resources such as farmland, wetlands, and `wilderness' areas; 2) Conservation of renewable natural resources such as groundwater (Core Watershed Area) and forests; 3) Concentration of development of appropriate types on appropriate sites within the existing communities; 4) Provision for a variety of recreational facilities; and, 5) Enhancement of the communities' special qualities and character. The site for the proposed action is predominately "open space" and consists of 39. 1 acres of old field, 23 . 8 acres of upland forest, 0. 5 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of surface water. Habitats of upland forest, freshwater wetlands, old field, and surface waters on the site provide wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, recreational opportunites, and an appealing rural character. The site contains several specific natural resources and they are (from Lambe, 1985) : Woodland; and Groundwater. Woodland is a natural resource and provides wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, recreational opportunities, and an appealing rural character. Groundwater supplies are important. Although the groundwater quality in the general vicinity of the site is marginal, a future development plan should include low III-79 density development with strict pollution safeguards. This is especially significant in the area of the site since the central portion of the site falls with in the Core Watershed protection area of the Town of Southold. Specifically, Article 6 of the Suffolk County Department of Health code requires sewage treatment facilities as part of any development over one dwelling unit per acre. The site has two (2) ecologically sensitive areas that are especially vulnerable to changes from development (from Lambe, 1985) : (1) Wetlands; (2) Surface Waters and Watersheds. Approximately 0.5 acres of freshwater wetlands are associated with the kettle pond in the northern portion of the site and with the wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake in the southeastern corner of the site. Considering that wetlands are one of the most productive ecosystems, it is recommended that the strict regulations on their utilization be continued. There are approximately 0.2 acres of surface water within the site, the aforementioned kettle pond and the small man-made pond adjacent to Laurel Lake, south of the LILCO easement. Surface waters and watersheds are of concern because developments may increase stormwater runoff. This could potentially contaminate surface waters with pollutants and/or excess siltation. Overloading existing drainage systems should not be allowed. Many developments require recharge basins or drywell/catch basin systems to insure protection against III-80 overloading. The purpose of such plans would be to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on the water quality (from Lambe, 1985) . The site could potentially provide passive recreational opportunities such as hiking and birdwatching. At present these activities take place on the site under unauthorized conditions. It is common for municipalities to encourage that lakes or ponds be allowed public access and support facilities. However, an exception to this recommendation would be within wetlands, where public access would be disruptive. 4 . TRAFFIC The site for the proposed Macari at Laurel residential development is adjacent to the south side of Sound Avenue, and is bordered on the west by Kirkup Lane and on the east by Lake Drive (Figure 1; Plate 1) . Access points to the interior of the site do not exist from the adjacent roadways except along a crude trail associated with the LILCO power lines. The major arterial roadways serving the region of the site are Sound Avenue (State Truck Route 25) adjacent to the northern border of the site and S .R. 25 (Main Street) which is located approximately 3/4 of a mile south, parallel to the southern boundary of the site. A comprehensive traffic analysis was completed for the site III-81 area (Appendix D) . Traffic flow information was obtained from Edward J. Sharsky, P.C. , Consulting Engineers (Northport, New York) . Concerning the existing transportation setting, this study examined the existing roadway network and traffic flow conditions. A brief summary of the above items follows. The reader is encouraged to examine the extensive statistical details in Appendix D. The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council , Washington, D.C. ) , was used to appraise the capacity of the street system to carry both existing traffic and traffic generated by the proposed action. The manual sets forth various levels of service for both roadways and intersections. The term "Level of Service" is used to describe conditions on roadways and at intersections. There are six Levels of Service; A through F. Level of Service A represents the highest level of traffic conditions and is descriptive of a situation where free flow exits. Volumes are relatively low and speeds are controlled by the drivers desires and the physical roadway conditions. Level of Service B is a situation of stable flow with operating speeds begining to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Level of Service C is still in the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by higher volumes. Level of Service D approaches unstable flow with tolerable operating speeds being held, though considerably affected by III-82 changes in operating conditions. Both Level of Service C and Level of Service D are frequently used for design purposes. Level of Service E represents operations at low operating speeds with volumes at or near capacity. Level of Service F is descriptive of a forced-flow operation at low speeds. Existing Roadway Network. Sound Avenue is one of the primary east-west oriented roadways in this part of Long Island. It is an extension of State Route 25A which runs along the north shore. In the vicinity of the site, it has one lane for moving traffic in each direction. There are additional left turn lanes at Cox Neck Road. The roadway has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Kirkup Lane begins at Sound Avenue and runs southerly to Laurel Lake. At present it is a minor, unpaved roadway that provides access for a few properties that are developed. Bergen Avenue is a local street which begins at Sound Avenue and extends northerly for a short distance. It then changes to an east-west roadway and terminates at Cox Neck Road. The street has a 30 mile per hour speed limit. Cox Neck Road also begins at Sound Avenue and runs northerly to its intersection with Bergen Road, at which point it splits into two other local streets. Middle Road intersects Sound Avenue just east of Cox Neck Road. It runs in an east-west direction as an extension of Sound Avenue. It is known as New York State Truck III-83 Route 25 and County Road 48 . East of Middle Road, Sound Avenue continues in a southeasterly direction towards the business section of Mattituck, where it ends at its intersection with Main Road. It also has a 30 mile per speed limit. Existing Traffic Volumes. Traffic volume data was collected on a Friday and a Saturday. These days were selected because experience had shown that they were typical of peak traffic conditions in the area (Appendix D) . It was also known from studies of existing similar residential communities, that the peak traffic volumes for such developments typically occur during the morning and evening commuter periods. Examination of the traffic volume data obtained from the State revealed that the morning peak highway hour was considerably less than the comparable peak evening hour. Traffic impact studies are intended to examine the worst-case situations. For this reason, detailed traffic counts were made on a Friday from 4 : 00 to 6: 00 P.M. In addition, the peak Saturday traffic period was identified as occurring between 12 noon and 1 P.M. Counts were made during this hour. All traffic movements along Sound Avenue are shown from Bergen Avenue to Middle Road. Existing traffic volume conditions are compiled in Figure 13 . Intersections are usually the limiting factors which determine how much traffic a roadway can carry. At III-84 O Q Y U Z W W Z U X w O m 26 3622 U 15 1 • ,2 4-416 4 415 f-418 93 4 485 4 357 x--429 0-414 3 Q-392 MIDDLE ROAD 501--b 28— 474----f 474 SOUND 27 r 475 0 0—i 475-0 400—• 422-1 f 437—► a1 1 48 —�• 84� 128 Alf NUf tri Y H �3 H EXISTING WEEKDAY VOLUMES H EVENING PEAK HOUR 5:00-600 PM y H H G) LnH � Ln l37 H F, nw O C cr> O Y r Q U W Z C7 X tlj 0 En w 19 53 35 6 I2 m —35t y �-345 ~352 4--352 4 353 f–� � �106 4 440 4 326 v 4-334 MIDDLE ROAD 5551 29— 528-0 528—i SOUND 21— 526—� I 529-0 465-1 500-1 121 T 43 96 521 —� \, 11412 0 OI —�► a 4 VENCJf Y EXISTING SATURDAY VOLUMES P E AK HOUR 12 NOON- 1:00 P M EDWARD J SHARSKY, pE.,PC CONSULTING cNGINE:4S NORTHPORT NEW YORK intersections, the number of approach lanes, the type of traffic control, and the composition of the traffic flow are the most important elements. The roadways analyzed for this traffic study are not signalized. Right-of-Ways are controlled by STOP signs. Traffic flow was analyzed at the following intersections: Sound Avenue/Bergen Avenue; Sound Avenue/Kirkup Lane; Sound Avenue/Cox Neck Road; and Sound Avenue/Middle Road. Existing Levels of Service of Important Macari at Laurel Intersections Sound Avenue and Bergen Avenue Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Existing B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Existing B A A Sound Avenue and Kirkup Lane Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Existing B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Existing A A A III-86 Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Existing B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Existing C A A Sound Avenue and Middle Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Existing B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Existing B A A A review of the information collected at the previously listed intersections relevant to the Macari at Laurel traffic study revealed that these intersections are operating at high levels of service and are within their traffic carrying capabilities. III-87 absence of cultural resources within a proposed project's potential impact area. The cultural resources are remnants of past land use and include prehistoric and historic archaeological and physical evidence, historic structures, and associated features. This type of investigation allows the information obtained to be used in developing and screening alternatives to mitigate direct and indirect impacts on any significant descoveries, should they be found to exist. The determination of areas of sensitivity within the site was based on environmental attributes, a literature search, and oral interviews with persons familiar with the history of the site. Subsequently, reconnaissance and subsurface testing were carried out in areas of the site selected on the basis of the data gathered in the research phase and the probable locations of the proposed development. The surface reconnaisance of the site (Appendix B) did not identify any artifacts. Subsurface testing included approximately 211 shovel-excavated test holes within a 20 meter by 40 meter grid system. The materials retrieved were then screened through a 1/4 inch mesh sieve to ensure the maximum amount of recovery of both large and small objects. Evidence of prehistoric activity on the site was found in subsurface testing. Prehistoric artifacts were recovered from 30 of the 211 test holes excavated on the parcel. These artifacts included hammerstones and hammerstone/pestles, quartz pressure flakes from the manufacture III-89 of projectile points, quartz drills, a stone ground axe and a flaked quartz hide scraper. The presence of prehistoric artifacts and evidence of stone working in test holes from the site for the proposed action indicate the potential for archaeological significance. Two limited areas of potentially intact prehistoric sediments were delineated (Figure 19 of Appendix B) : 1) In the western portion of the site adjacent to the kettlehole with standing water; and 2) on the southernmost edge of the site near Laurel Lake. Consequently, further limited subsurface excavation in order to fully expose specific areas of sediments below the existing plow zone is needed to define the limits of the site. The presence or absence of activities such as occupancy, farming and waste disposal; the integrity of the site after at least a half century of cultivation and plowing; and the areas of secondary disturbance and redeposition of artifacts could also be determined from additional work (Appendix B) . The archaeological report (Appendix B) is a compilation of all the research and field data obtained from the investigation. The following is a summary of the cultural resource inventory findings (Appendix B) . There is a potential for a discovery of a prehistoric site on the parcel since known prehistoric sites have been recorded north in Wading River, Shoreham, Riverview, and Cusano (Appendix III-90 B) . Inland camps have more recently been found around kettle ponds and lakes. It has been concluded that these inland camps were seasonal occupations during warm weather only. Laurel Lake is a glacial kettle pond that may have been an attractive environment for hunting, gathering, fishing and fowling, as well as providing fresh water, timber, and protection from a harsh coastal climate. Prehistoric evidence may still exist at and/or below the disturbed/original soil interface. Prehistoric archaeological sites and unstratified finds are known from Suffolk County, but artifacts have not been reported specifically from the site for the proposed action. However, the area is considered to be archaeologically sensitive, at least three sites or finds of prehistoric artifacts have occured within one mile of the Macari site (Appendix B) . The Suffolk County Archaeological Association site sensitivity map (Appendix B) shows the Macari property to be in an area of "intensive aboriginal habitation" . The North Fork of Long Island has yielded a number of sites: Jamesport (a shell heap and burial) ; Cutchogue (the stockade and village) ; Southold village (burials and occupation) ; and Greenport (occupation and shell heaps) . More recent finds and archaeological work have shown additional aboriginal occupation of the North Fork from several prehistoric periods (Appendix B) . With an increasing number of documented archaeological sites, it has become possible to construct models explaining the III-91 movements of prehistoric peoples: a pattern of "centrally based wandering" from villages located on tidal bays to temporary camps near inland ponds for winter deer hunting and fishing. Kettle holes, such as Laurel Lake or possibly those on the site for the proposed action, provided fresh water. Throughout much of New England and the coastal areas of northeastern America, prehistoric groups exploited marine resources during seasons when nearshore hunting for sea mammals and fish from dugout canoes was possible. Long Island was one of the classic centers of this pattern of subsistence. Seasonality of prehistoric peoples on Long Island is certainly suggested by more recent patterns in historic times. Consequently, Laurel Lake and possibly the site for the proposed action could have provided fresh water, fish, and wildlife for seasonal exploitation by prehistoric inhabitants. Historically, no designated historic landmarks or sites included in the state or national registars are within the immediate vicinity of the site for the proposed action. The following historic period sites are representative of those which occur within a mile of the site (Appendix B) : The Howell-Kujawski Homestead; the cemetery on Aldrich Lane near Franklinville Road; and the old schoolhouse on the corner of Aldrich Lane and Franklinville Road (Truck route for Route 25) III-92 At the time of the arrival of European settlers in eastern Long Island, Southold was inhabited by the Corchaug, one of several groups of Algonkian speaking Indians that inhabited New England and the eastern part of Long Island. The Corchaug's lands extended from Orient Point to Wading River. When European settlers arrived the area of Southold had been intensively occupied by Native Americans for a long time. At least 45 Indian village sites are known to have existed on North Fork. The most important Corchaug site was at present-day Cutchogue on Corchaug Neck or Fort Neck. One neck comprized the village while the other was a palisade built on an earthwork embankment. Fort Corchaug became a center for wampum manufacture. With the arrival of the Europeans, wampum, which could be transferred for or backed by beaver, became the economic base where coin money was in short supply. The first recorded sale of Indian Land in the Southold area took place in 1640. Native Americans obtained carbohyrates and some protien for their diet from cultivation of such native plant as corn and squash. Wild plants such as Indian turnip (Jack-in-the-Pulpit) were also gathered for food. Protien was obtained from fish and shellfish. Deer also provided protein, and it was noted that Native Americans throughout Long Island burned portions of woodland in controlled fires to increase feed for deer. The native Americans had few rights after European III-93 colonization and the European settlers protected their own interests. For example, many towns on Long Island banned the sale of guns and their accountrements to Indians; areas were reserved as pasture for cattle and hogs and any Indian found with a gun or bow and arrows or even dogs on this land could be lawfully brought in. As Native Americans were restricted in their hunting grounds and in the land they could use, they became dependent on the colonial economy. The first documented records for the Town of Southold date back to 1640. Southold was originally considered a "plantation" in the jurisdiction of the New Haven Colony. The area of the first purchase stretched from Mill Creek on the east to the Fresh Meadows at Cutchogue on the west. This area was soon increased by further purchases from the Indians. In 1647 the present day area of Orient was purchased and by 1654 the western boundary extended to Riverhead and the eastern boundary extended to Plum Gut. The houses were built close together and were usually one and one-half stories, furnishings were minimal. In order to sustain themselves, the early colonists utilized fields, woodland and salt meadows within the Town of Southold. The settlers grew grain and vegetables within the fields, cut timber from the woodlands, and harvested fodder for livestock from the salt meadows. Southold became part of New York in the late 17th century. At this time it was a thriving community. Most of settlers were III-94 still engaged in farming as yeomen, planters, or husbandmen. Another important activity in the area was seafaring: Trading, exporting, and fishing. By the mid-18th century Southold had numerous inns and taverns. During the Revolutionary War, Southold was occupied by the British. Following the war, the town was again resettled, but the economy was dismal. The 19th century saw a revitalization of Southold. Whaling became an important industry that centered in Greenport. Other industries included brick-making and pottery manufacture. The Long Island Railroad was completed to Greenport in 1844, linking New York City to the North Fork. The 20th century saw expansion and marketing of farm produce. The population increased in the Town of Southold due to improved transportion linking it to the City. At present the Southold area continues some of the traditional occupations of the past. Summer tourism continues to be an important source of revenue. Considering the site for the proposed action, it was part of the meadowland in the Mattituck and Cutchogue area and was divided and allotted to private owners prior to the confimatory deed of 1665. The parcel changed hands frequently for fairly small amounts of money. Few of the owners of the land in West Mattituck actually resided on their property. Farming and gardening were important occupations in the Mattituck area, III-95 including the site for the proposed action. The recreational opportunities around Laurel Lake attracted hunters and fishermen for whom there was a hunting lodge and fishing camp. Scenic Resources. In order to assess the aesthetic impacts (including scenic resources) of proposed projects, it is first necessary to understand and appreciate the existing conditions. The project area should be inventoried for site specific features as well as for the roles it fills in contributing to the regional landscape character (Swihart, et.al. , 1988) . Although formerly farmed, the site can be considered an "open space" with locally peripheral and central patches of dense forest and shrubs, extensive old field, and freshwater wetlands and surface water. The previously cultivated fields are now revegetated with grasses, small schrubs and trees. Long views or vistas from the site, other than over the length of the site itself, do not exist. Looking south from Sound Avenue, the northeast portion of the site (old field) is the extent of that which is visible. Upland forest blocks the view of Laurel Lake and the southern and western portions of the site. From Lake Road the eastern section old field can be noted with all other areas being blocked by upland forest vegetation. A conspicous and detracting feature of the site is the Lilco power line that roughly divides the site in half, north-south (Plate 1) . In its III-96 existing state the site has recreational and scenic value as open space to hike and observe wildlife. 6. HOUSING The Town of Southold added 2 , 390 housing units between 1970 and 1980 (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) . The increase from 8,740 units to 11, 130 units represents a 27.4 percent increase. This rate of increase was about the same as Suffolk County's overall 28. 9 percent increase and considerably above the Nassau-Suffolk bi-county increase in housing units of 16. 1 percent. The housing increase of other neighboring townships are as follows: 34.7 percent increase for Southampton township; 54. 6 percent for Brookhaven township ; and 15. 4 percent increase for Riverhead township. The site lies within census tract number 1700. 01. Of the 300 census tracts in Suffolk County, this tract ranks 46th in terms of percentage of housing units existing in 1980, built prior to 1939. This tract had 1, 944 housing units in 1980, 550 of which, or 28. 29 percent, were built prior to 1939 (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984) . The eastern part of Long Island is characterized by second home or seasonal home housing. The Town of Southold increased its number of second homes from 2 , 660 (30. 6 percent of total houses) to 3, 185 (28. 62 percent of total houses) . This trend III-97 showed a gain of 525 second homes, however the proportion of second housing decreased due to year-round occupancy of existing housing stock (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984) . 7 . POPULATION. The following summary table (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980; Long Island Lighting Company, 1989) indicates population amounts and trends since 1970: 1970 1980 1989 Southold Town 16,804 19, 172 21,798 Laurel (CDP) 598 962 1, 121 (CDP, Census Designated Place) Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO, 1989) estimates that the Town of Southold household average 2 . 50 persons per household for 1988. This compares with an average of 3 . 05 persons per total type of housing for Suffolk County's households (LILCO, 1988) . III-98 8 . MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . The site for the proposed action lies within the Mattituck School District No. 9, Town of Southold. Utilizing figures and information given by Mr. Lee Elwood (Superintendent's Office, Mattituck School District #9) , the following data are considered: The total proposed for the school district for the 1990-91 school year amounted to $11,776,873 . 00, of which 72%, or $8,513,873 . 00 is derived from the local tax levy, and the remaining 28%, or $3 , 263 ,622 . 00 comes from State aid and other revenues. The total student population for the Mattituck School District No. 9 is 1,211 students, with a slight variation from day to day. Local cost per student is $7001.94 . 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING. The site is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as the following designation: 1000-121-04-009 . Figure 14 is a copy of the 1989-90 Tax Levy for this property. The current total assessment of the parcel is as follows: Land Assessment Improvements Total Assessment (1) $17, 400. 00 - $17, 400. 00 III-99 FIGURE 14 TAX LEVY 1989-1990 T01^J14 OF SOUTHOLD ALL , 1,.A I- I "' p 1990 TAX LEVY RECEIVER OF TAXES 01,�L Li A_11-4,A. 1989 v-FJL' N, (.LL'7,'I'tiA TA,ESIBECOME ALIEN(l'JDL: 1� THE WiWC"ARREARS IS :swis : 473889 ROLL SEC I ',jl.AbLE VALUE TAXES PRINTE= SEE THE COUNT ' TREASURER S NOTICE ON THE ICLS: 120 ACRES- 63-63 , . ! REVERSE SIDE SOUND AVE COUNTY 17,400 912.86 BILL NO.- 14593 TOWN 17,4001 1,729.42 r"".--'—­­ SCHOOL SUFFOLK I SC K COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER 17,400 So,123-62 D:S j SP DISTRICT 435.02 LAND t!k4SED VALUATION NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER iNACARI-JOSEPli T & ANO I OTHER 17300 I 17400 (121 MALBA DR VC-EXEM.P7 A3ED EXEP,'--. 1 CT"EXEM-7 )MALBA NY 11357 TOTAL TAX 91200-92 PENALTY c3z-- zZ00.D;STR,CT 14 47:;GG9 RECEIVE[)PAYKIEf.-i-SE,-')ND HALF OR TOTAL TAX RECEIVED PAYMENT-Firc-HALF TAX RECEIPT N-- DATE PAID AMOUNT PAID I RECEIPT NJ D4'i E PAID AMOUNT PAID 601SCN612-31-89#141 *81200.92cl PLEASE READ REVERSE SIDE �) UI;Z b El-V 0 ORIGINAL III-loo The overall total tax rate for the various appropriate taxing bodies for 1989-90 was 47. 13 per 100 dollars. The tax distribution includes the Mattituck School District, Suffolk County and General Town categories. The property taxes received for the 1989-90 fiscal year on the project site are $8, 200.92 (Figure 14) . The largest taxing subdivision was the Mattituck School District No.9 with a tax rate of 29.45 per 100 dollars The school tax amounted to $5, 123. 62 , or approximately 62 .50 of the total tax bill. 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. The site consists of old field, upland forest, freshwater wetlands, and surface water. Bordering the site on the north, west and south, however, are residential units and roadways. Low to moderate noise levels may be generated from the nearby residential units and adjacent roadway network. Occasional unauthorized ATV utilization of the site produces short-term high levels of sound. Power boats are not allowed on Laurel Lake, preserving the tranquility of the area of the lake. There are no direct sources of air pollution on the site. Minor amounts of contaminated air could be expected from the traffic on the adjacent roadways. III-101 IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION. During a review of the application of Macari at Laurel, the Town of Southold, Town Planning Board (Lead Agency) issued a positive declaration (Appendix A-2) in accordance with Section 8-0113 , Article 8, of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617 , SEQRA) . Their findings issued a directive to the Applicant to provide detailed information on the issues below within a Draft Environmental Impact Statement: * Erosion And Destruction of Significant Topography * Flora, Fauna, And Habitat * Freshwater Wetlands * Visual And Aesthetic Resources * Open Space * Groundwater and Surface water * Historic and Archeological Resources * Traffic * Cummulative Impacts It is hoped that the following sections of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement adequately and objectively address the issues and concerns raised by the Town Planning IV-1 Board in their review of the proposed action, Macari at Laurel. Each topic previously discussed in Section III is considered in light of the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed action. Special consideration and discussion is provided for the nine (9) topics (listed above) raised by the Town of Southold, Town Planning Board, in its positive declaration assessment of the proposed action. A. PHYSICAL SETTING. 1. TOPOGRAPHY. The proposed action requires the regrading and altering of the present land configuration. Approximately 18 .4 acres of land, or 28.9% of the site, will be regraded to allow for the construction of the proposed 27 single-family detached housing units. Regrading includes land clearing and cut/fill operations (Plate 1) . Of the 18.4 acres slated for regrading operations: 5. 9 acres (9. 3% total land) will become impervious surfaces such as dwelling structures, driveways, garages, and an interdevelopment roadway; 10. 1 acres (15.9% total land) will become turf and/or replanted woody vegetation; and 2 . 4 will be drainage basins (3 .8% of total land, Plate 1) . IV-2 While excavation is required for the foundations and roadbeds, it will not be necessary to remove large quantities of earth since the overall site gradient is gentle. This is especially true since the proposed recharge basins will utilize an existing topographic depression within the northwestern corner and along the east-central boundary of the site. These features will require limited earth removal and will be utilized as drainage basins for stormwater runoff from the proposed action. Although the potential for erosion at the site is minimal, during the general regrading (i.e. clearing and leveling) operations local runoff may occur on newly exposed surfaces, especially during sudden, intense storm rainfall. Newly exposed soil surfaces associated with regrading operations will be subjected to potential wind and water erosion and material transport and siltation could occur within the remaining portions of the site or along adjacent lands, including wetlands and surface water associated with Laurel Lake. Any newly created surfaces associated with this proposed action must be stablized and protected immediately. Unprotected, these newly created surfaces can develop such erosional features as sheet wash, or minor rilling or gullying (Parson, 1964) . In addition, the newly exposed soil surfaces are subject to drying effects and subsequent wind erosion. Approximately 18.4 acres of land, or 28. 9% of the site must IV-3 be regraded to allow for the development of 27 single-family detached housing units. Most of the regrading activity will consist of minor grading, leveling, or clearing in the open field and locally in the upland forest areas in order to prepare the landscape for housing and roadway construction. Since the area slated for construction is characterized by relatively flat topography, cut and fill operations over most of the site will not exceed 1 to 2 feet. Following construction, most of the regraded area will maintain its original topographic expression (Plate 1) . There are exceptions to the overall minor cut and fill requirements for the site. In specific, recharge basins located in the northwestern corner and along the east-central boundary areas of the site will necessitate excavations of 8 feet and 12 feet, respectively (Plate 1) . Shallow depressions in the topography at these localities have helped to reduce the amount of required excavation for the proposed recharge basins. Since there will be extensive, designated open space areas as well as preserved upland forest and old field within individual housing lots, approximately 45. 2 acres, or 72 . 1% of the site will remian untouched. In addition, cut or fill operations will not occur within interlot buffer areas, along the site peripheral border buffers, or within the original upland forest patches or old field areas slated to remain untouched (Plate 1) . IV-4 2 . SOILS. Potential environmental impacts due to the sloping topography of the site associated with the proposed action include: (1) Newly exposed soil surfaces associated with regrading operations will be subject to potential wind and water erosion. This can lead to material transport and possibly result in siltation within the remaining portions of the site, including freshwater wetlands or to adjacent lands, including wetlands and surface water associated with Laurel Lake. (2) The present soil distribution will be disrupted. (3) There is potential for destruction of sensitive and valuable topsoil by erosion and drying. (4) Freshly excavated soil that is stockpiled and regraded will be subjected to erosion, potentially destroying this natural resource. In addition, siltation to areas surrounding the site may occur. Regradation necessitates the disruption of the current soil profile of the Haven-Riverhead Association throughout the altered area. The silty loam of this particular soil association is the topsoil that overlies coarse sands and gravels (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) . Regrading activities can potentially destroy sensitive and valuable topsoil by erosion and drying. Topsoil initially IV-5 stripped from the soil profile will be temporarily stockpiled at the site. The stockpiled topsoil will be exposed to erosional proccesses since a certain time will lapse between the initiation of construction and the eventual regrading of the topsoil associated with long-term stabilization. B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING. 1. FLORA. Of the present 63 . 6 acres of the site, the following will be changed: 5.9 acres will be covered by impervious surfaces such as housing unit roofs, driveways, and an interdevelopment roadway; 10. 1 acres will become turf and/or replanted woody vegetation; and 2 .4 acres are slated for drainage recharge basins. Proposed construction will occur within portions of the upland forest and old field vegetation. Consequently, alteration of these particular vegetative areas will occur. Approximately 0. 4 acres of upland forest and 0. 3 acres of low forest vegetation (about 3% if the total forested areas) and approximately 17 .7 acres of old field (44% of total old field) will be altered to allow for the proposed construction (Plate 1) . The remaining portions of the upland forest and old field IV-6 vegetation will remain as "open space" (Plate 1) . Freshwater Wetlands. The entire 0.5 acres of freshwater wetlands within the site will remain untouched. The proposed action will regrade approximately 18.4 acres of land. Since designated wetlands occur at three locations within the site (Figure 3 ; Plate 1) , construction activity within the vicinity of the wetlands could potentially affect these areas. Any nearby construction activity that is not carefully implemented could disrupt the delicate ecological balance of this habitat with the resulting loss of vegetation and associated wildlife. The regrading and local development of loosely compacted material associated with regrading operations, especially in lots or on roadways approaching the northern and southern portions of the site, or within the drainage regime of the freshwater wetlands, may be subjected to water erosion during and after construction. Runoff could result in slope erosion that, in turn, could cause siltation to the nearby wetlands. Excess siltation could result in the loss of vegetation and thus, valuable habitat for wildlife in the area. During and following construction of the proposed action, the ambient noise level on the site will increase slightly. Building and roadway noise levels may discourage wildlife from remaining in portions of the site nearest to the proposed IV-7 housing units. In summary, although vegetation will be left untouched following completion of the proposed action, approximately 28.9% of the original vegetative cover will be altered. 2 . FAUNA. The removal of approximately 18.4 acres of original vegetation will result in the elimination of approximately 28. 9% of the natural habitat available to wildlife in the area. Food sources, nesting areas, nesting material, and cover will be reduced by 28.9% during and after construction. Large, fully developed trees such as oaks and beach and the lower shrubbery of the upland forest, and the dense medium and low level vegetation of the old field provide cover, food, and nesting facilities to birds and other wildlife. Portions of these vegetative habitats will be largely altered in the regraded area slated for impervious surfaces and lawns. Food sources such as oak, blueberry, wild strawberry, and huckleberry will be partially eliminated by this project. Thus, with the elimination of approximately 19.9% of the natural habitat, temporary and permanent losses of wildlife presently occupying the site will occur. During construction, noise and activity associated with the IV-8 building of the housing units and roadways will discourage wildlife from remaining in the area, probably even along the natural buffered areas to some extent. While some species are less affected by the activities of man (e.g. squirrels, some species of birds, insects, spiders, butterflies and moths, treefrogs, chipmunks, and mice) , some of the present wildlife population will leave the immediate area of the construction activity. This migration may increase the population pressure in those few surrounding areas with adverse affects (Odum, 1971) . Following construction and revegetation of the site, a certain number of wildlife species will again occupy this site. With the original habitat reduced in abundance, there will be a reduction in wildlife population as well as a reduction in types of species. More specifically, the predicted impacts on the various faunal species, either identified on the site or that could possibly utilize the site, are outlined below. In this way those species that will be forced to relocate, be lost, or return to the site following construction can be determined. The following symbols are used to indicate the predicted impacts from the proposed action: IV-9 (+) Positive impact on abundance (i.e. population may increase. (-) Negative impact on abundance (i.e. population may decline) . (0) No or very little impact. (x) Elimination of the species from the site. Information contained on the list is based on the following referenced works: Andrie, et. al. , 1988 ; Scott, 1983 ; Connor, 1971; Daly, 1974 ; Conant, 1975; and Cryan, 1980. IMPACT Mammals Opposum Didelphis marsupialis (-) Whitetail Deer* Odocoileus virginianus (-) Eastern Mole Scalopus aguaticus (0) Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata (-) New England Cottontail Sylvilagus transitionalis (-) (SC) Eastern Cottontail* Sylvilagus floridanus (-) Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda (-) Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus (-) Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata (-) Red Fox Vulpes fulva (-) Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus (0) IV-10 Keen's Bat Myotis keenii (-) Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus (-) Eastern Chipmunk* Tamias striatus (0) Gray Squirrel* Sciurus carolinensis (0) Raccoon Procyon lotor (0) Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsylvanicus (-) White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus (-) House Mouse* Mus musculus (+) Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus (+) Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius (-) Pine Vole Pitymys pinetorium (-) Reptiles and Amphibians Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis (-) sirtalis Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekayi (-) Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum (-) Eastern Hognose Snake Heterdon platyrhinos (SC) (-) Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus (SC) (-) Ribbon Snake Thamnophis s. sauritus (-) Eastern Box Turtle* Terrapene carolina (-) carolina Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina (0) Northern Ringneck Diadophis punctatus (-) IV-11 Snake Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor (-) Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri (-) Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer (-) Bullfrog* Rana catesbeiana (0) Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota (0) Cricket Frog Acris crepitans (TH) (0) Wood Frog Rana sylvatica (-) Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus (0) Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum (SC) (0) Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum (0) Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala (SC) (-) Birds• Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo lamaciensis (-) Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura (0) Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens (0) Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata (+) Northern Mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos (+) Northern Cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis (0) Black Capped Parus atricapillus (0) Chickadee* House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus (+) White-throated Zonotrich albicollis (-) IV-12 Sparrow* American Kestrel* Falco sparverius (-) Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus (0) Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor (-) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica (-) Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor (-) House Wren Troglodytes aedon (-) Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis (0) American Robin* Turdus migratorius (+) Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina (0) European Starling* Sturnus vulgaris (+) Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus (-) White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus (-) Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus (-) Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia (-) Black-and-white Mniotilta varia (-) Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica (-) Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor (-) Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula (-) Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater (-) American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis (-) Rufous-sided Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus (-) Green Backed Heron Butorides striatus (0) IV-13 Black-crowned Night- Nycticorax nycticorax (0) Heron Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus (-) Bobwhite Quail* Colinus virginianus (-) Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus (-) Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus (-) Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus (-) American Woodcock Scolopax minor (-) Whip-poor-will CaprimulQus vociferus (-) Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe (-) Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens (-) Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus (-) American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos (0) Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis (SC) (X) Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum (-) American Redstart Setoghaga ruticilla (-) Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus (-) Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus (0) Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas (-) Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina (-) Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla (-) Song Sparrow* Melospiza melodia (-) Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum (SC) (X) Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus (SC) (X) House Sparrow* Passer domesticus (+) IV-14 Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus (0) Mute Swan Cygnus olor (0) Canada Goose* Branta canadensis (-) Black Duck Anas rubripes (-) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos (0) White Brested Nuthatch Sitte carolinensis (0) Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus (-) Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum (0) Purple Finch* Caroidacys purureus (0) purureus Myrtle Warbler* Dendroica cornata (-) cornata Osprey* Pandion halioetus (0) carolinensis Fulvous Tree Duck* Dendrocygna bicolor (0) helva The abundant number of species that will be decreased in population numbers (indicated with (-) symbol) attest to those specific species that will permanently and temporarily leave the site. Since few species are to be entirely eliminated by the proposed action (indicated with (X) symbol) , most will slowly return following the completion of the project, provided generous vegetative buffers and woody replanting are available. In general, species diversity may be expected to decrease on the IV-15 site. After the completion of the project, approximately 8 vertebrate species will benefit. Among the potential beneficiaries are the Norway Rat, Black Rat, Blue Jay, American Robin, Northern Mockingbird, European Starling, House Finch, and House Sparrow. The animals which are displaced by the development will attempt to relocate to other areas, such as the adjacent upland forest, freshwater wetlands, and old field, but the majority will be unsuccessful. The natural lands left on Long Island are already at carrying capacity for the species which inhabit them. Thus, there will not be empty habitats for displaced individuals to move into. Therefore, as habitat loss increases, animal populations decline, resulting in decreased species diversity. C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING. 1. DRAINAGE. By regrading approximately 18.4 acres of the site the present drainage configuration will change (Plate 1) . In addition, approximately 5.9 acres of proposed impervious surfaces located within this regraded area will alter the drainage of the site. IV-16 Although the existing natural channels on the site are not normally utilized by water runoff because of efficient water absorption within the present vegetated areas (especially the upland forest and old field) , the proposed impervious surfaces will absorb only limited amounts of rainwater. The resulting increase in water runoff from the site, if not controlled properly, could result in erosion at the site. The numerous swales on the site could receive excess runoff that could, in turn, begin to erode these swales and possibly overflow into the adjacent freshwater wetlands of Laurel Lake. Considering the relatively short distance to Laurel Lake, surface runoff from the site is a concern. Studies have indicated that runoff is a contributor of inorganic chemicals, organic matter and sediment, and possibly, organic chemicals (Long Island Regional Planning board, 1978 ; Suffolk County Deprartment of Health Services, 1982) . Surface water contamination is of major concern to Laurel Lake. 2 . GROUNDWATER. Construction of the proposed action will alter 28.9% of the existing vegetation and change the groundwater recharge regime of the site. Water runoff will potentially increase due to the limited absorption of the newly created impervious surfaces. IV-17 With water blocked from its normal percolation to the subsurface within the site, recharge to groundwater could be reduced at the site if not properly compensated for. Anticipated environmental impacts on the groundwater associated with the proposed action include: (1) Impervious surfaces replacing existing vegetation will increase the potential for water runoff which, in turn could lead to erosion within the site and/or loss of groundwater recharge. In addition, stormwater runoff could leave the site and adversely affect the wetlands and water associated with Laurel Lake. (2) The proposed action includes approximately 10. 1 acres of turf and/or replanted woody vegetation that will require periodic fertilizing during the growing season. The excess fertilization may leach from the surface, percolate to the water table, and contaminate the groundwater. (3) The proposed action will increase nitrogen and viral contamination to the underlying groundwater. Nitrogen concentrations ranging from 3 . 5-4 . 0 mg/L for the site (see Section IV-C-3) are expected to enter the groundwater at the site. This, in turn, may adversely affect private drinking wells immediately down gradient from the sanitary discharge points of the proposed housing units of the site. In addition, the septic discharge may discharge within Laurel Lake, further IV-18 limiting the vitality of this ecosystem. Considering the relatively short distance to freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake, surface runoff is a potential concern. The proposed action will create approximately 5.9 acres of impervious surfaces including housing unit roofs, driveways and an interdevelopment roadway. Studies have indicated that surface runoff is a contributor of inorganic chemicals, organic matter and sediment, and possibly, organic chemicals to surface waters (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURPS) (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) considered the quality of stormwater runoff associated with several different land utilizations. In particular, the Laurel Hollow (Town of Oyster Bay) , location is a low density residential development with housing units on minimal one acre unit yield of approximately 1 unit per acre, the Laurel Hollow project should be applicable. Thus, data obtained from Laurel Hollow will be utilized for projected comparison. Table 5 indicates quantitative chemical analysis of stormwater runoff fron the Laurel Hollow location. Of major concern to the potential quality of groundwater associated with the stormwater runoff from the proposed action are heavy metals (chromium and lead) , bacterial contamination (coliform, etc. ) , chloride (from salting the paved surfaces to prevent freezing during the winter months) , and nitrogen (septic IV-19 MEDIAN VALUE ALL STORMWATER(SW),GROUNDWATER(GW),AND PRECIPITATION(PR)DATA Nitrogen, Nitrogen, -4 Oxygen Nitrogen, Nitrogen, Ammonia t N11 t D Color Specific Demand, Nitrogen Organic Ammonia Organic Organic to Temper- (Platinum- Conduct- Oxygen, Biochemical, pli Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Suspended r- Site and ature Turbidity Cobalt once Dissolved S Day pl1 lab (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll Total nded ^� Sample Type (C°) (NTU) Units) (pmhos) (mg/1) (mgll) (units) (units) as N) as N) as N) as N) as N) entereech C" SW r 5.5 27.0 150 55 0 - - 6.75 6.7 2.9 0.86 008 0.965 0.200 3 GW - 545 20 104 - - - 6.6 091 043 005 0.5 rn PR - 2.4 1.5 15 - - - - 5.85 1.2 0.46 0.08 0.78 0.15 Huntington A SW 12.0 1.7 5 0 320 - 4.5 6.7 6.7 0.9 0.33 0.15 0.49 0 17 GW 130 0 9 1.0 217 - 1.0 5.4 6.1 6.3 0.20 0 020 0.28 0.015 r H C C PR - 0.7 5 0 - - - - 5.7 0 805 0.265 0.13 0.58 0.010 to m N Laurel Hollow -A C) O O SW 9 0 13.0 300 60 - 7.0 7.0 6.7 1.0 0.44 0.075 0.55 0 7 'GW 110 0.4 1.0 61 - 2.0 6.1 6.4 1.0 017 0.02 0.19 0.23 3 n PR 100 0 4 5 0 60 - - 6.6 5.7 0.29 0.13 0.04 0.155 0.005 --4 rr" M 3 Plainview SW 7.0 20.0 16.5 120 50.0 10.0 6.9 6.8 1.3 0.58 0.12 0.7 1.35 n GW 10 0.4 0.0 200 - 2.5 6.55 6.8 1.3 0.20 0.02 0.24 0 r- PR 6.5 0.5 1.5 - - - 7.1 6.0 0.59 0.095 0.08 0.16 0 Syosset z SW 19 3.6 15.0 58.5 - 9.0 6.9 6.4 1.35 0.60 0.090 0.76 0.6 -4 GW 14 26.0 .5 1040 - 1.0 5.1 6.0 2.55 0.38 0.02 0.39 0.035 -1 PR - 0.9 1.5 42.0 - - 4.4 5.35 1.20 0.29 0.16 0.66 0.025 c m -dela unavailable to MEDIAN VALUE ALL STORMWATER(SW),GROUNDWATER(GW),AND PRECIPITATION (PR)DATA Phus- Phos- Carbon, Nitrogen, phate, phorus, Carbon, Organic Ammonia + Nitrogen, Ortho, Ortho, Organic Suspended Cyanide Calcium Magnesium, Sodium, Organic NO + NO Dis- Total Dissolved solved Dissolved Dissolved Total Total llardness Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Site and (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll (mgll as (mgll (mgll (mgll Sample Type as N) as N) as PO") as P) as C) as C) as Cn) CaCO3 as Ca) as Mg) as Na) Centereach SW 1 15 042 0.06 002 6.4 5.6 - 12.0 3 5 069 3.5 GW 01 0.31 011 0.01 2.5 06 - 33.0 75 14 95 PR 0 595 0.105 009 0 015 2.7 0.7 - 1 0 0205 0.095 0.3 Huntington SW 065 034 009 0.03 3.4 4.0 .011 120 3 7 0 7 400 GW 032 5.8 0 045 0.01 1.3 0.9 0.0 56.0 17.0 3 5 190 PR 067 0.26 0.09 0.020 3.5 2.0 - 2.5 049 0.255 175 H C Laurel Hollow tv SW 1 5 0.44 0 18 0.055 5.8 6.9 .02 14.5 4.3 0 8 3.3 ~ GW 041 0.815 003 001 1.8 1.65 0.0 15.0 45 09 3.7 PR 0 195 0.16 0 045 0.01 1.05 0.7 - 2.0 0.30 010 1 1 Plainview SW 2.3 0.495 0 15 0.05 6.90 7 3 0.0 26.0 7.85 1.2 85 GW 0 15 0.82 003 0.01 2.40 0.90 0.0 400 9 0 3.6 270 PR 0.32 0.28 006 0.02 1.80 1.6 - 2.0 0 4 0.2 0.5 Syosset SW 1.35 0.340 0.280 0 090 6.3 5.1 0 0 150 3.7 1.25 1.5 GW 0.395 1.60 0 060 0.010 1.1 1.3 0.0 16.5 4.85 1.2 4.25 PR 0 645 0.415 0 090 0.030 2.6 1.6 - 2.0 0.50 0.185 0.95 -data unavailable MEDIAN VALUE ALL STORMWATER(SW),GROUNDWATER(GW),AND PRECIPITATION(PR)DATA Cadmium Cadmium Potas- Arsenic Suspended Total slum, Chloride, Sulfate Fluoride, Arsenic Suspended Arsenic Cadmium Recov Recov, Chromium, Sodium Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Total Total Dissolved erable erable Dissolved Site and Adsorption (ma11 (mall (mall (mall (µd11 1129n (µIll (pill (pall (P V1 (µ911 Sample Type Ratio as K) as Q as SOS) as F) as As) as As) as As) as(id) as Cd) as Cd) as Cr) Centereach SW 0.5 0.5 3.3 4.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 GW 0.8 1.65 8.1 11.0 0.1 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 0.0 10 10 PR 0.1 0.1 0.85 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 Huntington SW 5.8 0.5 71.5 6.55 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 GW 1105 3.0 26.0 28.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 00 00 1.0 2.0 PR 0.5 0.3 3.0 3.05 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 H C Laurel Hollow I SW 040 1.6 4 1 4.5 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 3.0 N N GW 0.40 7 4.3 11.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 3.0 PR 040 0.15 170 1.55 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .5 1.0 2.0 Plainview r SW 1.1 2.3 10.0 11.0 010 1.0 10 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 GW 2.1 1.6 46.0 16.0 0.05 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 10 0.5 PR 0.3 0.2 2.6 1.65 0.05 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Syosset SW 0.1 1.6 2.3 5.45 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 GW 0.5 1.0 7.3 7.05 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 8.5 1.0 PR 0.3 0.3 1.65 2.65 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -data unavailable i MEDIAN VALUE OF ALL STORMWATER(SW), GROUNDWATER(GW),AND PRECIPITATION(PR)DATA Chromium Chromium, Lead Suspend) Total lead, Suspended lead Recov- Recov- Dis- Recov- Tota Coliform, Potassium Specific erable erable solved erable Recoverable Coliform, Fecal Streplotoccl, Dissolved Conductance Site and (Pill (U911 (F91I (p0 (0,�f1 Confirmed EC Broth Fecal (Pci)I lab Sample Type as Cr) as Cr) as Pb) as Pb) as ib) (MPN) (MPN) (MPN) as K40) (Pmhos) Centereach SW 5.0 2.0 26.0 83.0 130 4,300 2,100 9,300 60 GW 6.0 2.0 4.5 1.5 2 3 3 3 - 106 PR 2.0 4.5 3.5 3.0 13 - - - - 8.5 Huntington SW 8 0 11.0 8.0 24.5 33.0 24,000 9.300 60,500 0.4 286 GW 7.5 9.0 3.0 2.0 6.0 3 3 3 2.3 247 PR 5.5 9.5 10.0 9.0 36.0 - - - 0.2 28 ~ Laurel Hollow C i SW 10.0 13.0 4.0 15.0 190 4,300 930 2,400 1.2 56 N w GW 9.5 13.0 0.0 1.0 6 0 3 2 2 0.5 57 PR 3.0 5.0 6.5 2.0 8.0 - - - 0 1 t0 Plainview SW 15.0 16.0 350 250.0 275 24,000 640 24,000 1.75 106 GW 7 0 7.0 3.5 1.0 4.0 3 3 3 1.2 243 PR 6.0 8.5 11.0 9.0 16.0 - - - 0.2 22 Syosset SW 11.0 12.0 12.5 18.0 30.0 24,000 2,400 24,000 1.3 54 GW 15.0 13.0 6.0 41.0 47.0 13 3 3 14 64 PR 3.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 16 - - - 0.2 27 -data unavailable discharge effluence levels and fertilizer-dependent vegetation) . Potential levels of these chemical constituents expected from the proposed action are as follows (Table 5) . Chromium (total recoverable) 13 . 0 mg/L Lead (total recoverable) 19. 0 mg/L Potential bacterial contamination from the site is as follows (Table 5) : Coliform, Confirmed 4 , 300 MNP Coliform, Fecal (EC Broth) 930 MNP Streptocci, Fecal 2,400 MNP Anticipated levels of chloride from utilization of salt on the driveways and roadways within the site as follows (Table 5) : Chloride, Dissolved 4 . 1 mg/L The possible level of nitrogen at the Laurel Hollow locality within the storm water runoff is as fowllows (Table 5) : Nitrogen, Dissolved 1. 0 mg/L Projecting the results of the quantitative analysis made from IV-24 the Laurel Hollow locality, the potential exists for contamination in storm water runoff by heavy metals, bacteria, chloride and nitrogen. This runoff could contaminate the groundwater at the site as well as the nearby waters of Laurel Lake the if not properly compensated for. Since there are several houses bordering the site to the south (adjacent to Laurel Lake) groundwater contamination from the proposed action may have an adverse effect on their wells if the flow direction is applicable. Considering a total area coverage of approximately 10. 1 acres of turf and replanted woody vegetation, it is concievable that 2/3 of this value or 6.7 acres (10. 6 %) will be planted in turf. Fertilization and irrigation will be necessary to maintain these types of vegetation. Excess nitrogen from the fertilizer may potentially leach from the surface, percolate to the water table, and contaminate the groundwater at the site. 3 . SANITARY WASTE Considering the projected population of 68 people (see Section IV-D-7) that will live in the 27 single-family residential housing units on a yield density value of approximately 1 unit/acre, individual standard septic systems IV-25 will be utilized for each housing unit. Sanitary design must be developed within County regulations in order to prevent potential groundwater contamination. Without an adequate septic design, excess nitrogen and coliform can percolate to the water table and contaminate the groundwater. The groundwater, in turn could potentially discharge into nearby wetlands or Laurel Lake. The proposed 27 housing units will produce a total of 8100 gpd (27 units @ 300 gpd/unit = 8100 gpd) of wastewater into the groundwater from the total individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services Regulations; Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Articles VI and VII, respectively) . With any amount of sewage effluent being discharged daily from the proposed project, nitrogen-loading considerations are important, especially considering the close approximation of freshwater wetlands, surface water and private wells. The projected population for the 27 housing units on the 63 . 6 acre site is 68 persons (2 .50 persons per single-family housing unit; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980) . Thus, the population density is approximately 1. 1 persons per acre (68 persons/63 . 6 acres) and the housing density is approximately 0. 4 houses per acre (27 units/63 . 6 acres) . Utilizing the population density and the housing unit density obtained above, the projected nitrogen concentration IV-26 value calculated from the Cornell University model is approximately 5.5-6. 0 mg/L. This value was obtained by utilizing a summary graph of expected results from WALRAS found in the recently completed Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987, p. 6-13) . At this level of concentration there is a projected probability of exceeding the 10 mg/L (New York State drinking water standard and that level recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island) at least 10% of the time (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) . However, recent studies indicate that the WALRAS model results give a worst-case situation (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) . The studies further elaborate by stating that the WALRAS model results are consistently higher than the nitrogen concentrations actually encountered in the field. This may be due to a number of factors such as: over-estimation of the amount of fertilizer nitrogen applied to lawns; over-estimation of the percentage of fertilizer nitrogen leached to the groundwater; overestimation of the nitrogen content in domestic sewage; and/or under-estimation of the efficiency of septic tanks and the unsaturated zone below cesspools to reduce leachate nitrogen concentrations (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) . The projected nitrogen concentration from sewage effluent IV-27 based on actual well monitoring data accumulated by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1987) ranges from 3 . 5-4. 0 mg/L) . These values include nitrogen-loading associated with fertilization and irrigation of turf and replanted woody vegetation. The concentration value is less than the value of 10. 0 mg/L recommended by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sewage effluent for Long Island. At the range of 3. 5-4. 0 mg/L, the 10 mg/L safe water concentration would be violated less than 10% of the time, approaching as little as 1% of the time (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) . With a range of 2.97 to 3 . 70 mg/L (median value of 3 . 35 mg/L) of nitrogen actually encountered in these monitored areas, chances for violation of the 10 mg/L value is probably closer to 1% of the time (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) . In addition to the values of nitrogen concentration predicted for Macari at Laurel utilizing both WALRAS and actual monitored sites similar to those conditions at this site, the following is a specific calculation for predicted nitrogen at the site: IV-28 Sources of Nitrogen Resulting N-Conc. in Groundwater 1. Precipitation (Hughes, et.al. , 1981) (Porter, et.al. , 1978) 0.25 mg/L (3 lbs/yr) 2. Upland Forest/Replanted Woody (Hughes, et.al. , 1981) (Hughes, et.al. , 1985) 0. 1 mg/L 3 . Impervious Surfaces (L.I.R.P.B. , 1982) 0.4 mg/L 4. Turf and Pets (Porter, et.al. , 1978) Turf (if fertilized) 25 lbs/15, 000 square feet Pets 0.41 lbs/person equiv. 5. Septic Discharge (Porter, et.al. , 1978) 50 lbs/10 persons/yr Although the following calculations are based on a worst-case scenario, such factors as low maintenance turf or even a total IV-29 lack of turf on the site will substantially reduce this particular additive to the groundwater. Site Specific Calculations 1. Precipitation. 0.25 mq/L is expected to recharge the groundwater at the site for this source. 2. Upland Forest/Old Field/Freshwater Wetlands/Replanted Woody Vegetation. It is assumed that little or no additional fertilization will be necessary with established replanted woody vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to preserved upland forest, old field vegetation, or freshwater wetlands vegetation. Upland Forest 36. 3% of site Replanted Woody 3 .3% of site Freshwater Wetlands 0.7% of site Old Field 33 . 6% of site Laurel Lake 0. 3% of site Recharge Basins 3 .8% of site Total = 90. 6% of site IV-30 Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the site: (0. 1 mg/L) x (90. 6% of the site) (0. 1 mg/L) x (0.901) = 0. 09 mg/L 3 . Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement will cover 9. 3% of the site. Using weighted average calculations for the site: (0.4 mg/L) x (9. 3% of the site) (0.4 mg/L) x (0. 093) = 0. 04 mg/L 4 . Turf and Pets. As indicated above for the proposed action, turf will cover approximately 12 . 6% (348, 480 sq ft) of the entire site. In addition, the amount of nitrogen entering the groundwater from pets is estimated to be 27.88 pounds (0.41 lbs N/person equivalent x 68 persons) . Using weighted average calculations for the site: Turf = 580.8 pounds nitrogen to the groundwater Pets = 27.88 pounds nitrogen to the groundwater Total = 608.7 pounds of nitrogen to enter the groundwater at the site Converting 608 .7 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of IV-31 nitrogen that will be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated for the site (i.e. see Section IV-C-4 ; 30.4 in/yr) , the following concentration results: 11. 1 mg/L. Since turf covers 12 . 6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (11. 1 mg/L) x (12. 6% total site) (11. 1 mg/L) x (0.126) = 1. 39 mg/L nitrogen Thus, turf and pet wastes will contribute approximately 1. 39 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. 5. Septic Discharge. The 27 housing units proposed for Macari at Laurel will produce approximately 8100 gallons of septic effluent per day. There will be an estimated population of 68 persons for the completed and occupied project. If 50 pounds of nitrogen is produced for every 10 person unit, there will be approximately 340 pounds of nitrogen produced at the site from sewage effluent (68 persons/10 person unit = 6.8 units; 6.8 person units x 50 pounds of nitrogen = 340 pounds of nitrogen) . Using weighted average calculations for the site: 340 pounds of nitrogen to the groundwater. Converting 340 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of IV-32 nitrogen that will be dispersed within the 8100 gallons of septic effluent to enter the groundwater, the following concentration results: 14.0 mg/L. Since 1. 68 in/yr of recharge (i.e. septic effluent value calculated over the entire site; see Section IV-C-4) has a nitrogen concentration of 14 . 0 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 30.4 in/yr (see Section IV-C-4) , then the actual septic discharge concentration is as follows: 1. 68 in/yr / 30. 4 in/yr = 5.5% total recharge Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater at the site due to septic discharge is 0.77 mg/L (14 . 0 mg/L x 5. 5%) . The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the proposed action is as follows: Precipitation 0. 25 mg/L Upland forest/ Replanted Woody Veg. 0. 08 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0. 04 mg/L Turf and Pets 1. 39 mg/L Septic Discharge 0.77 mq/L Total 2 . 53 mg/L IV-33 The 0.77 mg/L nitrogen concentration value indicated for septic discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the other hand, the amount of turf to be actually planted on the site may be considerably overstated. In addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site is also probably exagerated. The final estimated nitrogen concentrated value of 2 . 53 mg/L is probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables associated with this project. 4. WATER BUDGET. Construction of the proposed action will involve removing some of the original forest and old field vegetation, as mentioned above in Section IV-B. Since the vegetative cover will be changed, the water budget for the area will also change. The water budget for the proposed action is constructed in unit areas, or cells, of similar condition. A weighted average of recharge is calculated from the values obtained on each unit area. The water budget has been constructed from the following general formula (Todd, 1951; Dunne, et. al. , 1978 ; Fetter, 1980) : IV-34 Change in Storage ( 0 S) = Inflow - Outflow (0 S) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff - Evapotranspiration - Exports - Overland Flow) - Groundwater Runoff The actual water budget equation for the site is as follows: ( (Precipitation + Imports) - (Evaporation + Evapotranspiration + Exports + Overland Flow) ) x (% of total land) Unimproved Land (Consists of upland forest, wetlands, and old field; 45 acres, or 70. 8% total land) (Q S) _ ( (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (22 . 0 in/yr + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) ) x (% total land) (Q S) = 23 .82 in/yr x (70. 8% total land) ( 0 S) = 23.82 in/yr x 0.708 ( Q S) = 16.86 in/yr (weighted average unimproved land) Impervious Surfaces (5.9 acres, or 9. 3% of total land) ( 0 S) _ ( (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 46. 32 in/yr) ) (Q S) _ ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (46. 32 in/yr) ) x (% total land) IV-35 ( ,Q S) = 0 in/yr Since the proposed action will have drywells, catch basins and two (2) recharge basins strategically placed (Plate 1) to gather nearly all runoff originating from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and roadways; runoff will be negligible, except for an unmeasurable amount that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized, minor shallow puddles. Therefore, the resulting, actual recharge for impervious surfaces will be as follows: ( Q S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) ) ( Q S) = ( (46.32 in/yr) - (0. 5 in/yr) ( Q S) = 45. 82 in/yr x (9 . 3% total land) (Q S) = 45.82 in/yr x 0. 093 ( 0 S) = 4 .26 in/yr (weighted average impervious surfaces) Turf and Replanted Woody Vegetation (8 . 0 acres plus 2 . 1 acres, or a total of 10. 1 acres, or 15. 9% total land) Irrigation will involve 2 inches/month water imports during the growing season of five (5) months from May to September (Baskin, 1977) IV-36 ( d S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 10. 0 in/yr) - (22 . 0 in/yr + 0 + 0. 5 in/yr ( 0 S) = ( (56. 32 in/yr) - (22 . 5 in/yr) ) ( a S) = in/yr x (15. 9% total land) ( � S) = 33 .82 in/yr x 0. 159 ( � S) = 5. 38in/yr (weighted average turf and replanted woody vegetation) Recharge Basins consist of two excavated basins totaling 2 . 4 acres, or 3 .8% of the site. ( 0 S) =( (46.32 in/yr + 0 in/yr) - (0 in/yr + 0 + 0) ) x (% total land) ( AS) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0 in/yr) - (0 in/yr + 0 + 0) ) x (3 . 8% total land) (�S) = 1.76 in/yr weighted average recharge basins Surface Water (Consists of surface water of the small pond associated with Laurel Lake and the central kettle pond; .2 acres, or . 3% total site) ( � S) = (46. 32 in/yr + 0. 5 in/yr) - (31. 5 in/yr + 0 + 0) x (% total land) (A S) = (46 . 82 in/yr) - (31. 5 in/yr) x (% total land) ( 0 S) = 15. 32 in/yr x . 3% total land (� S) = 15. 32 in/yr x 0. 03 ( 0S) = 0.46 in/yr (weighted average surface water) IV-37 Therefore: Change in Storage for Present Condition Change in storage (63 .6 acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = (16.86 in/yr; unimproved area) + (4. 26 in/yr; impervious) + (5.38 in/yr; turf/replanted veg. ) + (1.76 in/yr) ; recharge basins + ( .46 in/yr ;surface water) 28 .72 inches/year In addition, since the projected sewage discharge amount for the proposed action is 8100 gpd, that amount of water will enter the groundwater. This value represents an import factor over the total area of 63 . 6 acres. The value obtained from various conversions yields an additional import value of 1. 68 in/yr to the total change in storage for the site area. Therefore: Change in Storage for Proposed Action Change in storage (63 . 6 acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = IV-38 (16.86 in/yr; unimproved area) + (4 . 26 in/yr; impervious area) + (5. 38 in/yr; turf and replanted woody vegetation area) +(1.76 in/yr) ; recharge basins (0.46 in/yr; surface water) + (1.68 in/yr; sanitary discharge) = 30. 4 inches/year The proposed action will recharge 30.4 inches of water to the groundwater (approximately 65. 6% of the total average precipitation (i.e. 46.32 in/yr) becomes storage) . As stated above, the sandy nature and the high permeability of the subsurface material allows a large amount of water recharge. Due to the extremely efficient runoff nature of impervious surfaces combined with post-construction contours draining this runoff to the recharge basins, only minimal water is lost to evaporation. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan - 208 Study (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) made several recommendations as to acceptable development activities in order to help maintain the marginal water quality of groundwater for Hydrogeologic Zone IV (see Section III-C-2) . These recommendations and their particular applicability to the Macari at Laurel project must be accomidated by the proposed action. IV-39 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING. 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. The proposed action will produce 27 single-family detached housing units. The appropriate estimated water usage determination is as follows (Suffolk County Department of Health Services Regulations) : 27 single family units @ 300 gpd/unit = 8, 100 gpd The total projected water usage for the proposed action is 8, 100 gpd. Since public water will be not be available, individual wells will be required to provide water for each housing unit. The completed project will depleat 8, 100 gallons of water per day from the Upper Glacial aquifer. 2 . SOLID WASTE. With a population of approximately 68 people for the proposed action, 442 pounds of solid waste per day will be generated by this population. This solid waste material must be picked up and transported to the Town of Southold Municipal IV-40 Landfill located north of Route 48 and west of Cox Lane. The landfill is available for use by Town residents and by at least three (3) carters that serve Southold residents. About one-half of the residents are serviced by private carting companies. While the estimate of the amount of potential solid waste from this population is speculative and somewhat indefinite, the following standard values per person are given by the Solid Waste Division of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at Stony Brook (Mr. Evan Liblit, personal communication, 1987) : 5.5 - 6.5 lbs./person/day Utilizing the worst case value, 6.5 pounds of solid waste per person per day, the 68 persons will be expected to produce 442 pounds of solid waste per day. Therefore, an additional 161, 330 pounds per year of solid waste must be deposited into the Town of Southold Municipal Landfill facility, further decreasing the utilization capacity of that site. IV-41 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE. Zoning. The proposed action is a 27 single-family detached housing unit development on a 63 . 6 acre site. In order to construct this project it is not necessary to change the area zoning from the present R-80 District. Details concerning the requirements and restrictions for developing within this zoning area are given in Section III-D-3 above. Lot sizes proposed for Macari at Laurel range from 40, 000 to 67, 000 square feet. Thus, the proposed action is deemed compatible with the current zoning designation for the site. Land Use. The development of a 27 single-family detached housing development within this area of Laurel Lake is compatible with current land usage and development (See Section III-D-3) . Most of the existing houses within the vicinity of the site are small and occupy lots about the same area or smaller than those proposed for Macari at Laurel. However, the site is surrounded on three sides (north, east, and west) by agricultural lands and open space within which are several residential dwellings and small businesses. To the south bordering Laurel Lake, relatively low density residential development has occurred. Since freshwater wetlands IV-42 and two ponds exist within the site, a substantial natural buffer would be required to allow development. Planning and Open Space. Based on the Town of Southold's Master Plan (1984) , it is the intention of the Town of Southold to designate this area as agricultural land and open space. Development of the site into single-family housing units would counter these future plans for the area. The open space designation for the site would protect the ecologically sensitive areas within the site (i.e. , freshwater wetlands, ponds, and upland forest) . In addition, the site is considered of aesthetic and recreational value. Consequently, any development within a designated open space area must be sensitive to these particular environmental attributes. The development must be designed to meet these requirements, since it presently contains 63. 6 acres of natural terrain. Following development, natural vegetation (almost entirely old field) will be reduced by approximately 18 .4 acres. Since the site contains the following special habitats: freshwater wetlands, ponds, and upland forest; development should be proposed clustered as far as possible away from these areas. IV-43 4. TRAFFIC. The impact of the proposed action on the traffic volume of the surrounding roadways (Figure 1) can be projected using statistical information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitiled Trip Generation Report 4th Edition (Table 6) . The Institute of Transportation Engineers is a major reference source for vehicle trip generation rates (Buttke, 1984) . The rates are widely used throughout the United States and Canada to forecast the effects of proposed land development projects, to conduct transportation planning, and to design transportation facilities. The estimates of future trip generations projected for the proposed action are as follows: Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Daily AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Daily Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit EnterExit 272 6 15 17 10 274 14 12 Access to the site for the proposed action will be by way of Kirkup Lane (Plate 1) . Studies were conducted on Sound Avenue at the proposed access driveway. These studies were designed to evaluate the safe opportunities in the traffic flow on Sound Avenue for vehicles to enter and depart from the proposed access. The turns described require a five (5) second IV-44 TABLE 6 I.T.E. TRIP GENERATION RATES Weekdays Trip Per Dwelling Unit Directional Split Average Daily Trip Ends* 10 . 062 Not Given** Average Trip Ends During Generator AM Peak Hour 0 . 773 27% enter 73% exit Average Trip Ends During Generator PM Peak Hour 1 . 012 63% enter 37% exit Saturday Average Daily Trip Ends 10 . 149 Not Given Average Trip Ends During Generator Peak Hour 0 . 954 53% enter 47% exit * A trip end is either a vehicle departure from a house or a vehicle arrival to a house. ** Over a 24 hour period, arrivals tend to equal departures . A 50% - 50% directional split was used. IV-45 gap in traffic. The site distance at Kirkup Lane is sufficient for the turning movements that will take place. The number, duration, and frequency of safe gaps in the traffic flow on Sound Avenue were measured and recorded during both peak study periods. Safe gaps in traffic are a function of traffic volumes, vehicle speeds and vehicle grouping or platooning. For left turns from westbound Sound Avenue into the site and right turns out of the site to travel eastbound on Sound Avenue, safe gaps will be needed in the eastbound flow. In this direction during Friday peak hour, 168 safe gaps averaging 18 seconds, were recorded. On Saturday, 194 safe gaps averaging more than 14 seconds were recorded. For left turns from the site to proceed westbound on Sound Avenue, gaps in both east and westbound direction are required. During the Friday peak 190 such gaps, with an average of more than 11 seconds, were recorded. On Saturday, the mumber of gaps observed amounted to 185 with an average duration of more than 9 seconds. Figure 15 shows the Macari at Laurel weekday and Saturday peak hour volumes distributed to the street system (Appendix D) . To analyze the impact that this traffic would have on roadway and intersection capabilities a mid-1992 build year was selected. If the project were approved, it was assumed that the homes would be constructed and occupied by that time. Ambient traffic volumes were projected to the build year by applying a IV-46 G Y Q U W Z Z W U O cr W I U 0 m LO f-5 L� 4 5 8 ~7 MIDDLE ROAD SOUND I—# 3 1 H 9—♦ 9 3 p 5 5 I IL x a AV f N�f H ¢ J (� Y C O MACARI AT LAUREL PROJECT WEEKDAY VOLUMES 4 G-) EVENING PEAK HOUR 5:00-6:00 PM C � ro H C O I-- I b Ln .P O v � cr O d Q U n w y Z Z H xcr o O W 0 z 0 co LO I 4-3 4--5 -5 4-4 MIDDLE ROAD SOUND I— tt 5 9-0 9 r 5—• I 5 T OL -iq ct Lf N�f z MACARI AT LAUREL PROJECT SATURDAY VOLUMES PEAK HOUR 12-NOON- 1:OO P M E DWARD J.SHARSKY, P E.,P C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS NORTHPORT NEW YORK 4 .2 percent growth factor derived from a review of the New York State Department of Transportation historical traffic data. In addition, intersection capacity analysis for the future conditions of the Macari at Laurel site proposed action is summarized below (Appendix D) : Sound Avenue and Bergen Avenue Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Macari B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Macari B A A Sound Avenue and Kirkup Lane Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Macari B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Macari B A A Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Macari C A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Macari C A A IV-48 Sound Avenue and Middle Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left C A A Saturday Peak Hour 12: 00 N to 1: 00 PM Macari C A A A review of the traffic information reveals the Macari at Laurel proposed action will not significantly affect the traffic volume of the local street system (i.e. , the street system has the capacity to accommodate the traffic that would result from the homes) . There will also be no adverse traffic impact on the adjacent streets, intersections, or properties. Traffic will be able to enter and leave the site safely without undue delay. 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES Cultural Resources. The site is currently accessed indirectly from SR #25 through a network of secondary dirt roadways associated with the Laurel Lake area. A series of old farm roads also extend through the site. This dirt road system is locally wide enough to accomodate off-road vehicles. There is evidence for utilization of the site for unauthorized IV-49 recreational purposes such as an hunting. If the proposed action is approved, access to the site will be limited. Historical Resources. Historical structures or landmarks of significance were not identified at the site during numerous field excursions to the site (Appendix B) . However, two limited areas of potentially intact prehistoric sediments were delineated (Figure 17 in Appendix B) : 1) In the western portion of the site adjacent to the kettlehole with standing water; and 2) on the southernmost edge of the site near Laurel Lake. Consequently, the proposed action could potentially adversely affect significant prehistorical layers. In particular, lots 3 (western portion) , 13 (southwestern portion) , and 14 (southeastern corner) , 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 (eastern portion) are especially impacted by potentially significant prehistorical sensitivity. Scenic Resources. The site can be considered "open space" and consists entirely of upland forest, old field, freshwater wetland vegetation and surface water. In addition, Laurel Lake is located in the south corner of the site. The site provides residents and, locally, travelers on the adjacent roadways with an attractive sylvan/agrarian setting. The vegetative setting IV-50 is aesthetically pleasing with numerous forms of flora and fauna. Although the proposed action will leave extensive natural vegetative buffers and areas of designated open space, approximately 17 .7 acres or 45. 3% of the present old field and 0. 7 acres or 2 .9 % of the upland forest will be altered. It is the intention of the Town of Southold to protect open space resources (Master Plan Town of Southold, 1984) . Thus, the proposed action will alter an area of existing open space. The potential for impacting future recreational and open space opportunities of this area by limiting access and availability of parts thereof, and reducing the scenic qualities of the site will occur in part. Since much of the site lends itself to relative seclusion because of its physical and vegetative attributes, it is felt that while the modified cluster development would adversely affect only a portion of the site, any proposed housing development that constructs 27 housing units on the site could greatly affect visual sensitivity. Consequently, extensive vegetative clearing and grading within those areas slated for development would adversely affect visual attributes of the overall site. The relative distinctiveness of the site would be altered due to the development of 27 housing units, associated driveways, and the interdevelopment roadway. However, much of the unique physical and biological attributes IV-51 of the site (i.e. , surface water and the freshwater wetlands) would be untouched. Likewise, restorative potential and visual preference would be adversely affected by development of the site. Section V-D-S considers the influence of various mitigative measures proposed for this project. 6. HOUSING. The proposed action will provide 27 units of new housing for prospective residents of the Town of Southold. Although designed for year-round residency, it is possible that some individuals will purchase the proposed housing units as weekend or seasonal housing. The proposed housing density for the 63 . 6 acre site is 0.4 units per acre, compatible with current zoning regulations for this site. 7 . POPULATION. The projected population of this 27 single-family detached residential unit development is based on the 1988 populatiopn and statistical data compiled by the Long Island LIghting IV-52 Company. Since all of the proposed residential units are anticipated for year-round utilization, the average number of persons per unit for the Town of Southold is 2 .50 persons. This projected population multiplier is consistent with housing units containing three (3) and four (4) bedrooms. With the proposed development of single-family housing units, a projected future population of 68 (27 units x 2 . 50 persons per unit = 68) persons is calculated. Therefore, the proposed action will increase the population of Laurel, Town of Southold by a projected 68 persons. The population density projected for this proposed action is 68 persons on 63 . 6 total acres, yielding nearly 1. 1 persons/acre. 8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9. The impact of the proposed action on the Mattituck School District No. 9 is related to the estimated projected number of school-age children from the 27 single-family housing unit development. Unfortunately, census data are not available to provide numbers of children or numbers of school-age children per housing type for the Long Island area. However, values can be projected based on other population statistics for similar housing units in the general area of the United States. Using data supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the IV-53 Census (1980) , Burchell, et.al. (1985) calculated the regional and national demographic multipliers for common configurations of standard housing types for school-age children. For the Macari at Laurel development, the 27 housing units will have 3 or 4 bedrooms. For single-family housing units with 4 bedrooms in the Northeast region, a multiplier of 1. 366 can be used and for 3 bedroom units, a multiplier of 0.784 is applicable. Therefore, the following number of school-age children can be projected: 13 (4 bdr. ) housing units x 1. 366 school-age children per unit = 18 (rounded from 17.76) school-age children 14 (3 bdr. ) housing units x 0.784 school-age children per unit = it (rounded from 10. 98) school-age children Total=29 School Age Children The resulting total of 29 school-age children is projected for Macari at Laurel. Additional costs for educational services for these children will be expended by the Town of Southold. 9 . TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING. The current practice in the Town of Southold to determine IV-54 the potential tax revenue for proposed new developments is based on the assessment of the estimated price. The proposed housing units will have a market value of approximately $275, 000. 00-$300, 000. 00 each (personal communication, Applicant, ) . The 27 housing units anticipated for Macari at Laurel will each contain approximately 3 , 000 square feet of living space with three and/or four bedrooms. Each housing unit lot area will range from 40, 000 square feet to 67, 000 square feet (Plate 1) Using the above statistical breakdown for the proposed action, the Town of Southold Assessors Office (Town of Southold Tax Assessor's Office, personal communication, June, 1988) provided the following estimated revenue value utilizing a "residential assessment ratio" of 2 . 550 of the market value for each residential unit: Housing Unit Market Value (3bdrm) _ $275, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio x 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $ 7, 012 . 50 14 Housing Units @ $7, 012 . 50 = $ 98, 175. 00 IV-55 Housing Unit Market Value (4bdrm) _ $300, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio x 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $7, 650. 00 13 Housing Units @ $7, 650. 50 = $99,450. 00 Total project assessed tax revenue for entire project = $197, 625. 00 Thus, the assessment amount for the proposed Macari at Laurel project is $197, 625. 00 (29 units) . Since the 1989-90 tax rate (Figure 14) is 47. 13 per hundred, total projected Town of Southold tax revenue is: ($197, 625. 00) x (0.4713) _ $93, 144 . 07 These calculations give a projected tax revenue of $93, 144 . 07 for the Town of Southold. Since the present tax revenues from the site are $8, 200.92, following completion of the proposed action, there will be a net increase of $84,943 . 15 in tax revenue above the present level. Although the proposed action potentially produces considerably more tax revenue for the Town of Southold than the present land usage, the increased population of the proposed IV-56 action will potentially demand an increase of municipal services such as education. This, in turn, would potentially increase the expenses of the municipality. These two opposing fiscal entities, revenue vs. expenses, must be examined to determine the real impact on the tax and fiscal setting of the municipality. 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. During and after construction of the proposed action, noise associated with human activity will occur. During construction, the regrading, foundation excavating, cement pouring, hammering, and worker discourse will create noise. Following construction, there will be noise generated from the inhabitants of the dwellings and vehicles traveling to and from the site. Minimal air pollution is expected from the proposed action. Diesel exhaust will be emitted from the construction vehicles. In addition, there will be a petroleum odor accompaning the laying of asphalt driveways and roadways. Following construction, only minimal air pollution associated with the traffic generated from the site will occur. IV-57 V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. Each anticipated environmental impact associated with the proposed action will be listed: The symbol * will preceed a summary statement of the anticipated environmental impact. Each statement will be followed by an extensive description of the mitigative measures devised to prevent significant environmental affects due to these factors. With the proper precautions and mitigative measures, these impacts can be lessened to, hopefully, acceptable levels in order to preserve the environment while enabling its utilization by man in his activities. A. PHYSICAL SETTING. 1. TOPOGRAPHY. * There will be regrading and altering of the present land configuration from the proposed action. Approximately 18 . 4 acres of land, or 28 . 9% of the total site, will be regraded to allow for the development of 27 V-1 single-family detached housing units. Regrading will consist of removing existing vegetation and preparing the landscape for housing and roadway construction. The lot layouts illustrated on Plate 1 indicate that most of the regraded area will maintain its original topographic expression upon completion of the project. The site will have extensive, original vegetative buffers (i.e. , open space-scenic easements) adjacent to the wetlands and elsewhere throughout the site. In addition, natural vegetative buffers will exist along the site's periphery (Plate 1) . These buffer areas will not undergo modification by regrading. By leaving the buffers untouched, approximately 45. 2 acres, or 71 % of the original topographic features of the site will be maintained. Any newly created contours will conform to the original contours, allowing for a gradual transition from the original topography to the newly created topography. The buffers will lend additional aesthetics to the proposed action (see Section V-D-5) . The buffers will also provide seclusion during and after the project construction. Topographic alteration will be limited by the strategic positioning of the individual housing units, driveways, and the interdevelopment roadway. Considering the amount of moderate to locally high slope gradients occurring within the kettle chain area of the north-central portion of the site as well as along the southern boundary region of the site, considerable V-2 potential cut and/or fill operations could have been necessary to insure structural stability for housing units and roadways. However, in order to limit much of the potential regrading, the housing units will be located within the most level portions of the site (old field) . Approximately 71 % of the site will be preserved as open space (Plate 1) . By utilizing this modified cluster plan, individual lots will be located within the relatively flat areas on the northern, east-central, and southeastern portions of the site. This modified clustering will considerably limit the amount of cut and/or fill required to insure structural stability at the site. Thus, potential erosion at the site will be greatly reduced by the development configuration. The proposed action will preserve the moderate to locally, steep slopes associated with the kettle chain and the slopes in the southern portion of the site leading to the wetlands associated with Laurel Lake. Preserved open space will total 45.2 acres, or approximately 71 % of the site (Plate 1) . Thus, most of the overall proposed alterations will involve only a few feet of fill or cut operations (Plate 1) . It is the overall design of the proposed action to blend the newly created slopes and surfaces as gradually as possible into the preexisting slopes of adjacent areas. V-3 * Newly created slopes associated with regrading operations and preexisting moderate slopes, locally within some of the proposed building envelopes, will be subject to potential water erosion. This can lead to excessive water runoff and siltation to nearby lands, freshwater wetlands and ponds. Potential erosion resulting from regrading will be minimized by placing housing units on the the gentler parts of each lot. In addition, the proposed vegetative buffer areas (open space) will remain untouched and will not be susceptible to direct erosional activity. Most regrading will be distanced from the natural drainage features, especially those that run directly to the freshwater wetlands and ponds on site. However, since some regrading is necessary within lots suitable erosional prevention techniques such as straw bales and silt screens (Note: Silt screens can be attached to the straw bales) will be utilized to minimize the potential for erosional siltation. Any newly created slopes associated with this proposed action will be stabilized and protected from potential erosion. Some areally limited gentle slopes are necessary to provide level sections in the lots for building units as well as within the site for the proposed interdevelopment roadway (Plate 1) . During the general regrading operations outlined above, local runoff may occur on newly exposed surfaces, especially V-4 during sudden, intense rainfall. Any newly created surfaces can develop erosional features such as sheet wash, or minor rilling or gullying (Parson, 1964) . In addition, the newly exposed soil surfaces may be subjected to drying effects and subsequent wind erosion. The potential for extensive erosion at the site is minimal due to the strategic clustering of the proposed housing units within the relatively level areas. In addition, gentle slope gradients within grass or forest ground cover will further inhibit erosion. On the other hand, the minor swales on the site could act as potential transport channels for material eroded off the construction site upon disruption of the ground surface. In the cycle of erosion, soil is removed, transported, and deposited. It is important to eliminate the erosional problem in its inception by preventing the removal of sediment. The actual timing for the regrading activity plays an important role in minimizing the actual time that newly created soil surfaces are exposed to the effects of wind and water. To minimize the potential for water and wind erosion during the regrading process, the bare soil will be covered by mulching material such as straw, immediately following each section of regrading. This will aid in stabilizing the area before a more permanent cover is established. Mulching will help prevent water and wind erosion on the site during the construction and regrading V-5 operations (Parson, 1964 ; Clark, et.al. , 1985) . The straw will be kept moist at all times to maintain its erosional preventive characteristics. To aid this stabilization process, the development will occur in small area phases over an approximate 60 month time period (depending on market demand) . Thus, it is proposed that regrading activities will occur in only small sections of the site at any one time. In this way the entire site will not be exposed for extended periods. This procedure will allow the regraded land to stabilize as construction proceeds. Considering each section undergoing construction, it is most important to attempt to stabilize exposed surfaces before erosion initiates. Vegetative soil stabilization methods are essential. Vegetative methods help in the initial stages of erosion by absorbing the impact of raindrops, reducing the velocity of runoff, reducing runoff volumes by increasing water percolation into the soil, and protecting the soil from wind (Goldman, et.al. , 1986) . Straw is an excellent mulch material because its length and bulk is such that it is highly effective at absorbing raindrop impact and moderating the climate on the soil surfaces (Goldman, et.al. , 1986) . Straw pieces tend to interweave with each other on the ground trapping soil and reducing the possibility of the straw washing or blowing away. Generally, application of mulch material protects a V-6 disturbed site from erosive forces until the long term methods can be implemented. In the case of the proposed action, since much of the site slated for the construction will be covered by surfaces such as dwelling units, driveways, and roadways, and replanted vegetation; mulching will control potential water and wind erosion before covering is completed. Following construction, catch basins, dry wells, and recharge basins will collect any excess water runoff. It will be difficult to completely stabilize all of the newly created surfaces, even with the mulching stabilization methods discussed above. Constant movement by machines and men constructing the buildings will minimize attempts at long-term stabilization. Although the prevention of erosion and subsequent local removal of soil during construction will be difficult, the transportation of erosional material from these areas can be trapped by the strategic placement of a row or even two parallel rows of straw bales, filter fabric attached to a wire fence, or filter fabric on straw bales (Goldman, et.al . , 1986) . In particular, the bales will be placed along the headlands and along banks of the swales or kettles within the site. In this manner the topographic depressions and locally, their surface water and freshwater wetlands will be protected from siltation resulting for potential erosion. As a further protective measure, straw bales will be placed within the swales V-7 at the points where they exit the site; along the southern border. This should minimize the potential for siltation within the freshwater wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake and to Laurel Lake itself. Sediment retention structures, while not preventing erosion, will act as temporary backup systems. The combination of the bales and mulch will continue until permanent surface covering can be established following the construction (Parson, 1964 ; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977) . The rows of straw bales will be placed as close to the regraded surfaces as construction activity will allow. Care will be taken to keep the bales from breaking apart. In addition, the bales will be securely staked to prevent overturning, flotation, or displacement. If deposited sediment accumulates, it will be removed periodically. Following construction long term slope stabilization is necessary. In the mitigation of long term potential problems, the newly created gentle slopes near the housing units will be planted with closely spaced woody shrub vegetation. Between the individual shrubs, coarse bark or other stable mulching material will be spread. This will provide deep rooting that will eventually stabilize the slopes. other areas being regraded will be stabilized by planting of low maintenance sod such as perennial rye grasses. This will provide quick soil cover protection and is recommended by the V-8 U.S. Department of Agriculture (1980) and others (Parson, 1964 ; Clark, et.al. , 1985) . Further, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1980) suggests: the sod be at least one year, but not more than 3 years old; the sod be placed within about 12 hours of cutting; the sod should be laid in strips across the slope, where applicable, beginning at the bottom; the strips should be anchored using 6-12 inch wire staples, spaced 2 feet aprart along the up-hill edge of the sod strip; and the sod should be watered frequently to establish growth stability. By careful positioning of proposed building structures and roadways, additional stabilization techniques such as retaining walls will not be necessary An additional mitigative measure that will be employed concerns the timing of the phases of construction. The proposed action, will require at least 1 year to complete. The actual timing for the regrading activity will play an important role in minimizing the actual time that newly created soil surfaces are exposed to the effects of wind and water. Thus, it is proposed that regrading activities will occur in small sections, especially in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands on the site. In this way, the entire site slated for regrading will not be exposed for extended periods. This procedure will allow the regraded land to stabilize as construction proceeds. V-9 2 . SOILS. * Present soil distribution and thickness will be disrupted. Although soil will not be removed from the site, regradation necessitates the disruption of the current soil profile of the Haven-Riverhead Association throughout the altered area. The silty loam of the Haven-Riverhead Association is the topsoil that overlies coarse sand and gravel (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) . During the initial steps of construction, care will be taken to scrape off this upper fertile soil mantle and store it in stockpiles. In this manner, the sand and gravel can be distributed without appreciably disturbing the present soil regime. Following construction, the silty loam will be spread over the regraded sand and gravel in order to reestablish the original soil profile configuration. * There will be potential destruction of sensitive and valuable topsoil by erosion and drying. The topsoil that will initially be stripped from the soil profile will be stockpiled at the site. Since considerable time may elapse between the initiation of construction and the eventual regrading of the topsoil, measures will be made to protect this stockpiled material from erosion and drying. V-10 The stockpiles of topsoil will be seeded with a quick growing, stabilizing grass cover such as perennial rye grasses (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980) until it is reused within the site. This temporary seeding procedure should prevent, or at least minimize water erosion and/or harmful drying which could cause blowing dust and the destruction of this valuable soil material. During the final stages of regrading, the topsoil will be spread over the fresh soil surfaces to allow for proper permanent revegetation. * Freshly exposed soil that is stockpiled and regraded will be subjected to erosion, potentially destroying this natural resource. In addition, siltation to areas surrounding the site may occur. Freshly cut or filled areas, except for temporary foundation excavations, will not exceed 12 feet (i.e. , recharge basin) , and generally will range from 1 to 2 feet (see Site Plans) . Therefore the erosional effects of potential water runoff over a large area are limited. However some erosion may occur on freshly exposed slopes. To minimize the potential for runoff erosion during the regrading process, the bare soil on the slopes will be covered by mulching material such as straw. This will aid in stabilizing the area before the topsoil and vegetaton is reestablished. Mulching will help prevent water V-11 and wind erosion on the site during construction and regrading (Parson, 1964 ; Clark, et. al. , 1985) . The straw will be kept moist at all times to maintain its preventive characteristics. If the lower sandy soil needs to be temporarily stockpiled during construction, it will be stabilized by spreading a thin layer of topsoil planted with a quick growing, low maintenance grass over it. Potential erosion from the newly created slopes will be mitigated by proper slope maintenance growth methods, as outlined in detail in Section V-A-1, Topography. B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING. 1. FLORA. * There will be a loss of approximately 18. 4 acres or 28.9% of the original vegetation. The approximate 18 .4 acres subjected to regradation and the subsequent modification of existing vegetation will become impervious surfaces (5.9 acres) , turf (8 . 0 acres) , replanted woody vegetation (2 . 1 acres) , and two recharge basins (2 .4 acres) To minimize the loss of vegetative habitat, the proposed action will cluster the housing units away from most of the V-12 upland forest and wetland areas of the site. Several extensive, contiguous areas consisting of upland forest, freshwater wetlands, and old field will be designated as open space (Plate 1) . These areas will preserve approximately 45.2 acres, or 71. 1 of the site's original vegetation. Within each proposed building lot, approximately 75% of the land slated for revegetation will be planted with low maintenance turf. The remaining 25% will either remain as original vegetation or be replanted in indigenous woody species. Consequently, turf will account for approximately 12 . 6 % of the site upon completion of the proposed action. Most of the proposed building lots are designed to contain varied amounts of upland forest within their back yard sections (Plate 1) . Recognizing the aesthetic as well as the potential wildlife advantage in preserving these areas, clearing will not be encouraged. These forested back yard areas will create natural buffers between the building lots and the designated open space areas. Most of this vegetation will remain within certain, extensive and contiguous designated open space areas (i.e. , 45. 2 acres, or approximately 71. 1% of the site) , especially in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands. Within the construction area, every attempt will be made to preserve the original trees and shrubs during the construction activity. As a result, many trees and shrubs now providing cover, feed, and nesting material V-13 for wildlife within the site will remain untouched. The vegetative plan for the site will prevent an uneven concentration or clustering of vegetation on one or more parts of the site. Therefore, many trees now providing cover, feed and nesting material for wildlife within the site will be left untouched. This will help maintain the natural setting and minimize the introduction of exotic or ornamental vegetation to the site. In order to prevent construction vehicles from encroaching on vegetation not slated for removal, clear visual marker flags or temporary fencing will be placed along the boundaries of the vegetative envelopes for each lot and along the proposed interdevelopment roadways. The natural forested buffers and the replanted trees and woody shrubs will aid in acoustical control for the site. Noise levels for the adjacent properties will be minimized to acceptable levels. The buffers will reduce glare and further aid in reflection control from the site as well as from adjacent residential homes. In general, the natural vegetative buffers will give a pleasing, aesthetic appearance to the site. V-14 Freshwater Wetlands * The regrading and local development of gentle slope gradients associated with the construction of housing units in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands on the site may be subjected to water erosion during and after construction. Runoff could result in erosion and subsequent siltation to the adjacent parts of the freshwater wetlands. The greatest source of sediment to wetlands is from the adjacent land undergoing urbanization without sufficient erosional control measures (U.S. Geological Survey, 1976; Clarke, et.al. , 1985) . If the construction site is allowed to erode, fine-grained sediment such as clay and/or silt will enter the adjacent wetlands. As a result, the regrading operations in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands on the site could create the greatest potential siltation hazard, especially since local drainage swales run into the wetlands from surrounding upland areas slated for regrading (Plate 1) . The details of extensive mitigative measures proposed to minimize the potential siltation effects from the proposed action on the wetlands are found in the above section V-A-1. These measures will be summarized: During the regrading and construction operations, local runoff may occur on newly exposed V-15 surfaces, especially during sudden, intense storm rainfall. Any newly created surfaces associated with this proposed action will be immediately stabilized and protected from potential erosion with extensive vegetative mulching techniques. To minimize the actual time that newly created soil surfaces are exposed to the effects of erosional agents, regrading activities will occur in only small sections of the site at any one time. This is important in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands. Immediately following any regrading operation, the bare soil will be covered by mulching material such as straw. This will aid in stabilizing the area before the topsoil and vegetation is reestablished. Mulching will help prevent water erosion during the construction and regrading operations (Parson, 1964 ; Clark, et.al. , 1985) . In addition, the hay mulch will be kept moist at all times to maintain its erosional preventative characteristics. The placement of one or more rows of straw bales around each wetland locality as well as within drainage swales leading to these areas will trap any silt that does escape the mulching measures. The bales will be securely staked to prevent overturning, flotation, or displacement. If deposited sediment accumulates, it will be removed periodically. V-16 * During and following construction of the proposed action, the ambient noise level on the site will increase. Wildlife may be temporarily discouraged from the wetland areas within the site The most likely areas to receive numbers of and variable species approaching the carrying capacity of the habitat are the presently existing freshwater wetlands and proposed buffer areas where original vegetation and habitat will be entirely preserved. Housing structures and their vegetative clearing envelopes will be positioned as far away from any freshwater wetlands as possible (Plate 1) . The freshwater wetlands will most likely maintain their present wildlife ecology after construction. The potential noise levels generated by the construction activity at the site and from the developed proposed action will be higher than the present condition. However, considering the distance to the wetlands from any proposed housing unit and the overall large lot sizes, there should not be any noticeable disruption of the present wildlife scenario. Since the natural vegetation is thick, especially in the intermediate and lower growth levels, much of the noise will dissipate within a short distance of its production. Because the wetlands are located within kettle depressions, a certain seclusion is afforded naturally. This will further aid in minimizing effects from the proposed action. V-17 * With the development of the proposed action there will be an increase in human recreational activity in the adjacent wetlands. Following construction, the site will be within private, individual home-owner control and protection. The development of the site should not increase the land use intensity of the environmentally sensitive areas within the site more than is already presently occuring. Signs, or even subtle fencing, could be placed around the freshwater wetlands in order to prevent unauthorized access. Any use of the freshwater wetlands or pond that would lead to adverse effects on the ecosystem would be prohibited or restricted. Discrete signs indicating acceptable activities for the wetlands (i.e. , bird watching) could be placed along the borders of these areas. 2 . FAUNA. * The destruction of approximately 18 .4 acres (28 . 9%) of natural habitat, and human activity associated with the site during and after construction will lead to temporary and permanent losses of numbers and types of wildlife species presently found at the project site and adjacent V-18 lands. While it is unlikely that any mitigative measures will restore the original numbers and types of wildlife presently associated with the site, the environmentally sensitive site plans will encourage a certain amount of wildlife to remain or to reestablish. As mentioned above, extensive and contiguous areas designated to remain as open space and natural vegetative buffers (both upland forest and old field) will be preserved. In addition, the freshwater wetlands and ponds associated with the open space areas will be preserved within the designated open space areas. Also, at least 25% of the cleared area slated for vegetative covering will be replanted with indigenous woody vegetation. Conservative building envelopes, minimizing vegetation removal, will help minimize the effects on wildlife at the site as well as on nearby lands. The backyards of most of the proposed lots will contain some upland forest and old field habitat. These areas represent a transition between two or more diverse vegetative communities and are referred to as ecotones (Odum, 1971) . Further defining the term, the ecotone is a junction zone or tension belt which may have considerable linear extent, but is narrower than the adjoining community areas. These ecotonal areas or habitats commonly contain many of the organisms which are characteristic of and are often resticted to the ecotone. Often, the numbers V-19 of species and the population density of some of the species are greater in the ecotonal area than in the communities flanking them (Odum, 1971) . This tendency for increased variety and density at community, or habitat junctions is known as the edge effect (Odum, 1971) . Consequently, those organisms which occur primarily or most abundantly in the ecotonal areas are called edge species. In particular, one of the most important ecotones is the forest edge. As in the case within the site, there are abundant forest edges; an ecotone between upland forest and grass or shrub communities. Thus, it is important that the design of the proposed action contains most of the ecotones natural to the site within designated open space or in the fartherest reaches of the backyards of the proposed housing lots. Consequently, by utilizing clearing covenants the ecotones as well as some of the adjoining upland forest and old field grasses could be preserved. While some of the wildlife presently occupying the vegetative habitats on the site will migrate from the site during construction (i.e. , especially the old field areas) , some of these species (i.e. , birds, squirrels, mice, insects, etc. ) that are less sensitive to human activity will return to repopulate the area. The most likely areas to receive numbers of and variable species approaching the carrying capacity of the habitat are the V-20 extensive and contiguous designated open space areas and the preserved ecotones. These areas will again repopulate with some of the present wildlife ecology after construction. Thus, with 71.9% of the site preserved in its natural state, a considerable, contiguous vegetative area is available to wildlife. On the other hand, the site will be subjected to noise and human disturbances. The natural areas closest to the individual housing units will be subjected to noise and human activity associated with the anticipated population. This could limit habitat utilization by the more sensitive species following construction. The large lot sizes and the extensive open space acreage planned for the proposed action will minimize the loss of some of the sensitive species. In conclusion, although 100% of the wildlife population will not remain, the proposed action will utilize extensive and contiguous designated open space areas and back yard ecotonal buffers and replanted indigenous woody vegetation to provide habitat for a certain amount of faunal population. Although development of the site will alter the contiguous nature of the site as a whole, conservative preservation techniques and strategic positioning of the proposed housing units will minimize the adverse effects that a housing development will have. By clustering the proposed housing units as far as possible away from the freshwater wetlands, on the level areas V-21 of old field, the elimination of most species either observed or speculated to utilize the site will be minimized. Although the development of 27 housing units on this site will have an overall negative impact on many of these species, such methods as extensive vegetative buffering and clustering does minimize these affects. C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING. 1. DRAINAGE. * Regrading of approximately 18. 4 acres of the project site will change the present drainage configuration of the site. In addition, the 5.9 acres of impervious surfaces associated with the development will increase the potential for water runoff which, in turn, could lead to erosion and siltation within the site, including the freshwater wetlands and potentially, Laurel Lake. Impervious surfaces such as the housing structures, driveways, and the interdevelopment roadway will cover approximately 5.9 acres, or 9 . 3 % of the site (Plate 1) . To prevent excessive water runoff, strategically placed collector V-22 basins will be implemented. Catch basins will be located along the intersite roadway and roof and gutter installations will be connected to drywells so that excess rainwater from the housing units will be directed to recharge facilities. Finally, the catch basins will direct their collected runoff to the excavated basins within the east-central and northwestern portion of the site (i.e. , excavated natural depressions) . In this manner, the loss of only minor amounts of water (i.e. , unmeasurable amounts that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized, minor shallow puddles) can be expected from the impervious surfaces associated with the proposed action. The zone of saturation under the construction portion of the site is greater than 30 feet below the ground surface, or greater than 25 feet beneath the bottom of the proposed recharge basins. The findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) were that collector basins minimize the potential contamination from heavy metals (chromium and lead) and bacteria (coliform, etc. ) from overland flow. Although the critical distance required for percolation of the overland flow is not given, the greater the distance from the bottom of the collector basin and the top of the zone of saturation the more efficient the operation. The vertical distance of at least 25 feet provided at the collector basins for percolation of stormwater accumulation should provide V-23 adequate attenuation of potential contaminants. However, recharge basins are shown not to have a favorable effect on the removal of chloride or nitrogen (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) . There was little or no removal of chloride as the stormwater moved through the unsaturated zone beneath the recharge basins studied. Considering that nitrogen level in stormwater runoff is low, it was difficult to determine the removal success of recharge basins for this potential contaminant. Since chloride contamination would be only a minor potential contaminant for this project because of the minimal area covered by roadways, a total elimination of road salt is not proposed. The proposed recharge basins at the site will be properly maintained to insure their continued high quality of function. Maintenance will conform to the following suggestions (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) : Since recharge efficiency can be hindered by low infiltration rates that result from a high percentage of silt, clay, and organic debris that washes in from the drainage area and fills the interstices of the natural deposits; plant growth on a basin floor enhances infiltration because the plant root system keeps the soil layer loose and permeable, and provides channels for infiltrating water. The potential for drainage-related impacts on the V-24 environment at the site and adjacent areas will be present during and after construction of the project. During construction, new slopes and surfaces will be formed from fill and cut operations. Mulching techniques, as discussed above (see Section V-A-1) will minimize potential erosion. As an added precaution, sediment retention stuctures such as straw bales and/or siltation screens will be placed along the downsloping base line of all new slopes. In addition, one or two straw bales/silt screens will be placed along the perimeter of the freshwater wetlands on the site. In this manner silt and other soil material will not travel along new, temporarily formed drainage paths or within swales not presently utilized by overland flow. This will also help to minimize the siltation potential within the proposed catch basins and other collection facilities, as well as along adjacent properties during and after construction. Following construction there will be approximately 5. 9 acres of impervious surfaces. Since the absorption and infiltration characteristics of these surfaces are minimal, most of the precipitation will run off as overland flow. To handle this water runoff, construction plans call for the strategic placement of drywells associated with the housing units and catch basins within the roadways. Therefore, nearly 100% of the potential runoff will be contained on the site. These collector basins are designed to allow natural infiltration to the V-25 subsurface. Excess water from the site will be directed to the collector basins through pipes and surface sloping. In this manner, excess water will infiltrate from the land surface to the groundwater system (Driscoll, 1986) . Catch basins located along the roadway will direct excess water to the leaching pools. In addition, drywells will be properly placed to catch water from roof gutters and downspouts. 2 . GROUNDWATER. * The groundwater recharge regime will locally change from that of natural infiltration and recharge to that of high runoff due to the alteration of 1. 2 acres of natural vegetation to impervious surfaces. To prevent the loss of recharge of precipitation to the groundwater, point recharge drywells associated with dwelling unit roofs and catch basins along the interdevelopment roadway (Plate 1) , as described in the above Drainage Section (V-C-1) , will restore nearly all of the runoff to the groundwater. The exact figures associated with recharge are found in the Water Budget Sections (see Sections IV-C-4 and V-C-4) . Other than minor water losses due to retention and subsequent evaporation V-26 from the impervious surfaces, this method of groundwater recharge should be quite efficient. * The proposed action includes approximately 8. 0 acres of turf and 2 . 1 acres of replanted woody shrub vegetation that will require periodic fertilizing during the growing season. The excess fertilization may leach from the surface, percolate to the water table, and contaminate the groundwater. There is a problem of excess nitrogen leaching into Long Island's aquifers because lawns and cultivated vegetation in residential and agricultural areas are over fertilized (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . The proposed action is designed to limit the amount of turf to only 11. 5 acres (approximately 18. 1% of the site) . The additional 2 . 0 acres of indigenous, low maintenance woody shrub vegetation will limit required fertilization. A low maintenance lawn such as perennial rye grass (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980) will be established and, where possible, the original or natural vegetation will be used as ornamental plantings. These plantings will require very little fertilization beyond that found naturally in the topsoil. Fast-acting inorganic fertilizers will not be used. considering the former utilization of the site for V-27 agricultural activities, this proposed action will require much less fertilization. Consequently, the nitrogen-loading effects on the groundwater due to lawn fertilization will be less than that created by farming. * During construction there will be a potential for groundwater contamination due to the worker's indiscriminate disposal of solid and sanitary waste on the site. This potential problem will be minimized by utilizating 30 cubic yard size dumpster containers for solid waste and several portable sanitation units. Workers will be encouraged to use these facilities. * The Long Island Regional Planning Board (1978) made several recommendations to regulate the development within Hydrogeologic Zone IV. The proposed action should conform to these recommendation in order to protect the groundwater at the site and its vicinity. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan - 208 Study (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) recommends the following (Table 5-1, p. 164) for Hydrogeologic V-28 Zone IV. In addition, each recommendation is related specifically to the proposed action: 1. Require collection and treatment at densities of one or more dwelling unit per acre. The proposed action will produce 27 single-family detached housing units on 63. 6 acres giving a yield density of 0.42 unit/acre. This is less than the recommendation made of the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The proposed action complies with this recommendation. 2 . Where residential development is allowed, require large lot development (2 acre zoning or greater, 0. 5 units/acre) . This recommendation is satisfied since the housing density is 0.4 units/acre. 3 . Encourage natural vegetation. The proposed action will meet this recommendation by extensive natural vegetative areas, thus preserving 23 . 1 acres of natural upland forest, 21. 4 acres of old field, and 0. 5 acres of freshwater wetland vegetation (totalling 45 acres, or approximately 71 % of the site) . V-29 4 . Establish a groundwater monitoring program to provide early indication of water quality problems and to permit timely institution of corrective measures. Considering the low housing density of the proposed action and the compliance with the septic design and discharge regulations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, monitoring wells are not proposed. 5. Provide for routine maintenance of on-site disposal systems. Considering the market value of the housing units, each home owner is expected to insure continued efficiency of the individual septic systems. 6. Reduce the use of fertilizers on turf by promoting the use of low maintenance lawns. The proposed action will create only 8 . 0 acres of turf. This represents less than 12 . 6 % coverage. In addition, low maintenance turf, such as perennial rye grasses will be planted. 7 . Control stormwater runoff to minimize the transport of sediments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals, and bacteria to surface and groundwaters. An extensive system of drywells, catch basins and two (2) recharge basins will be utilized on the site in order to collect V-30 nearly 100% of the precipitation for the site (Plate 1) . Although leaching pools are indicated near the freshwater wetlands on Plate 1, the Applicant would be willing to construct individual leaching pools for each catch basin in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. 8. Prohibit the use of certain chemical cleaners in on-lot systems. Rules and regulations concerning site covenants and other matters, such as this, will be provided to each unit owner upon closing date. These factors outlined by the Long Island Regional Planning Board are only recommendations made to the various townships on Long Island. Consequently, it is up to the individual towns to provide the proper zoning in order to facilitate their implementation. Nevertheless, the proposed action meets or surpasses each of the recommendations. * Storm water runoff is a contributor of heavy metals (chromium and lead) , bacterial contamination (coliform, etc. ) , chloride (from salting the extensive paved surfaces to prevent freezing during the winter months) , and nitrogen (fertilizer dependent vegetation) . V-31 The recently completed Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) investigated the function of recharge basins and the resulting contamination or lack there of to the groundwater. Since the groundwater in Hydrogeologic Zone IV (i.e. , under the site) is utilized for public water supply, this is a critical factor. The conclusions drawn from this study indicate that recharge basins (catch basins) are effective in the removal of many of the potential contaminates to the groundwater. The concentrations of inorganic chemicals measured in stormwater runoff do not have the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality. Infiltration through the soil within the recharge basin flooring is generally an effective mechanism for reducing lead and probably chromium from runoff (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) . In addition, coliform and fecal streptococcal indicator baceria are removed from stormwater as it infiltrates through the soil. However, recharge basins (collector basins) are shown not to have a favorable effect on the removal of chloride or nitrogen (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) . There was little or no removal of chloride as the stormwater moved through the unsaturated zone beneath the recharge basins studied. considering that nitrogen level in stormwater runoff is low, it V-32 was difficult to determine the removal success of recharge basins for this potential contaminant. Since chloride contamination would be only a minor potential contaminent for this project because of the minimal area covered by roadways, a total elimination of road salt is not proposed. The proposed collector basins at the site will be properly maintained to insure their continued high quality of function. Although leaching pools are indicated near the freshwater wetlands on Plate 1, the Applicant would be willing to construct individual leaching pools for each catch basin and dry well in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. 3 . SANITARY WASTE. * The proposed action will potentially increase nitrogen and viral contamination to the underlying groundwater. Nitrogen concentrations, ranging from 3 .5-4 . 0 mg/L for the site, are expected to enter the groundwater at the site. As specifically recommended in the Long Island Regional Planning Board (1978) , mandated in Title 6, Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 703 - Ground Water Classifications Quality Standards and Effluent Standards And/Or V-33 Limitations, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1978) , and followed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the maximum allowable concentration of nitrogen allowed for potable groundwater is 10 mg/L (also a standard of the U.S. Public Health Department and the World Health Organization) . Septic design for the proposed action will conform to the regulations and guidelines set forth by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The projected nitrogen concentration of 3 . 5-4 . 0 mg/L is well below the 10 mg/L value recommended by the agencies listed above. The concentration value that is actually added to the existing groundwater may be less than the calculated value because of the distance of vertical and horizontal percolation to the present groundwater. Over this distance nitrogen may precipitate out of the water before entering the zone of saturation (the phreatic zone) . At the range of 3 .5-4 . 0 mg/L, the 10 mg/L safe water concentration would be violated less than 10% of the time, but more than 1% of the time (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) . If the actual concentration is less than 4 . 0 mg/L, then the probability of violation would approach the 1% value. Another concern is the potential for viral contamination of the groundwater from septic discharge, especially with private wells near the site. A recent study by Vaughn, et.al. (1983) focused on the movement of naturally occurring human V-34 enteroviruses from a subsurface wastewater disposal system through a shallow aquifer located in Speonk, New York. By sampling groundwater from observation wells spaced at specific distances from this point source, viral contaminations could be related to distance. Although observation wells within approximately 12 feet of the discharge point yielded samples that were too toxic for tissue culture assay, toxicity was rarely noted in samples collected from beyond approximately 35 feet from the source. In addition, coliform organisms were rarely detected beyond 5 feet of the point source. Significant differences in the overall virus occurrence frequency did not occur as a function of the season that samples were collected. Since some viral contamination was recorded nearly 200 feet in lateral distance from the point source, it is not clear how extensive viral contamination from a septic discharge source is. However, significant viral contamination was not evidenced beyond approximately 35 feet from the septic discharge point. It was found (Kaplan, 1987) that when viruses enter a leachfield they may be metabolized by microbes, they may adsorb onto the slimy bacterial secreations in and around the clogging mat, or they may continue their travel and be adsorbed in charged soil particles (mostly clay) and inactivated by the clay constituents Al2O3, or MnO2. However, viral adsorption is extremely variable: Different strains of the same virus may adsorb to a different extent; and within a purified population V-35 of virus particles some subgroups adsorb at different rates. Dry soil appears to kill or inactivate viruses, consequently, the greater distance between septic discharge and the zone of saturation, the greater the chance of viral elimination (Kaplan, 1987) . Another significant factor in determining the potential viral contamination to the groundwater is the infiltration time of the septic discharge through the aquifer medium. Vaughn, et.al. (1980) showed that viral substances are removed from a medium by adsorption, not by textural sieving. The longer the viruses remain in the same area within the aquifer, the higher the liklihood of removal by adsorptive processes. The site of the proposed action lies within the Hydrogeologic Zone IV (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978 ; Suffolk County Sanitary Code-Article 7, Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply Sensitive Areas) and the groundwater moves relatively slowly (i.e. , approximately 1 to 2 feet per day; Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) in a lateral and vertical direction. It is possible that this movement rate will facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening the potential impact on the groundwater in the vicinity of the site. With increasing distance from the site, the probability of viral contamination lessens considerably. The project will have private wells associated with each housing unit. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services V-36 requires at least 100 feet between a septic system and a drinking well. Consequently, the proposed action will be compatible with the regulations governing septic system design and distance from a potable water supply source. The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63 . 6 acres) . Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed action is only 8, 100 gallons per day, acceptable levels of discharge are anticipated. Finally, there is concern as to potential contamination from the proposed action to nearby private wells and to Laurel Lake. As stated above, the groundwater movement direction is probably southeast or south-southeast at the site. Consequently, with the distribution of the housing units proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow. In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the private residences south of the site (i.e. , Lots #14 , #15, #16, and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away. This is well in excess of the minimal 100 foot separation distance between septic systems and drinking supply wells, as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. In addition, the groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a V-37 southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the private wells. The only lots that will produce effluent that might intersect with private residences are Lots #21, #22, #23 , #24, and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site (Plate 1) . The distances from these lots to the closest private residence is approximately 1, 000 feet. The septic effluent will be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10 times the distance required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for separation between septic systems and drinking supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these lots should not adversely effect the drinking water quality at priviate residences. In summary, the potential contamination to the groundwater and nearby surface water of Laurel Lake is probably minimal. The initial effluent nitrogen contamination levels from the site will be well within acceptable levels for drinking water. Low maintenance turf will require only minimal amounts of fertilization. Since the groundwater movement direction appears to be southeast or south-southeast and there are large distances between discharge points and wells, most of the proposed lots on the site will not directly affect the nearby private residence drinking wells or the surface water of Laurel Lake. V-38 * Domestic animals such as dogs and cats, walked or loose, could add additional sanitary waste and nitrogen additives to the groundwater within the site (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . The Long Island Regional Planning Board (1978) found that urban runoff containing dog and other animal waste was responsible for high levels of coliform eventually reaching surface water. Consequently, it was recommended (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978 ; 1982) that institutional measures be adopted to control animal waste as follows: Do not encourage curbing of dogs to reduce dog waste because surface runoff on impervious surfaces flushes excess fecal material to surface waters; urge the adoption of dog clean-up ordinances; promote dog sterilization programs in order to limit the growth of the dog population; and provide continuing public information on the problems and solutions to dog waste. As a result, rules associated with the completed project will require that pet owners assume responsibility for the clean-up and disposal of animal wastes. Clean-up ordinances will eliminate potential nitrogen leaching from the ground surface to the groundwater as well as excess coliform potentially entering nearby surface water areas. While these factors will be mentioned to the new home owners, they will be difficult to enforce. It is hoped that public educational information available from the Suffolk V-39 County Department of Health Services can be successful in limiting this form of pollution within the County. 4 . WATER BUDGET. * Within the water budget scheme for the proposed action (see Section IV-C-4) 5.9 acres of former upland forest and old field vegetation will be replaced with impervious surfaces. Groundwater recharge will occur through drywell, catch basins and recharge basin point sources rather than the current general area recharge. Recharge of the groundwater will occur through strategically placed drywells , catch basins and drainage basins on the site (2.4 acres, Plate 1) . Although recharge to the subsurface will be occur through point sources, the strategic locations of these points will still provide a fairly general distribution of recharge. In addition, approximately 45 acres, or 71% of the site, will remain in original state (including forested, old field, freshwater wetland vegetation, and the surface waters of the two ponds within the site boundaries) . An additional 8 . 0 acres, or 12 . 6% of the site, will become turf and 2 . 1 acres, or 3 . 3% of the site, will become replanted with indigenous shrub vegetation. Thus, approximately 70% of the V-40 site will maintain a general non-point recharge to the groundwater. Approximately 5.9 acres, or 12 . 6% of the site, will be covered by impervious surfaces associated with the dwelling units and their associated roadways and driveways. Since these surfaces will absorb minimal precipitation, runoff will be a major factor in these areas of the site. The strategically placed drywells, catch basins and recharge basins (Plate 1) will concentrate the runoff water into individual point sources. Each collection point will then allow for infiltration to the subsurface through leaching pools (Plate 1) . In the manner described, almost 100% of the precipitation will remain on the site with normal non-point infiltration in the vegetated parts and point-source infiltration in the area of actual development. Only a minor loss of recharge due to evaporation is expected. V-41 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING. 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. * The proposed action will increase the use of the groundwater aquifer resource by 8, 100 gallons per day for the 27 unit single-family detached housing units. The water quality within the area of the site is considered marginal, but within the acceptable ranges, indicating somewhat elevated levels of nitrate and chemical contamination. The proposed action will utilize private wells to supply potable water to the housing units. Studies indicate that sufficient amounts of potable water exist within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and the Magothy Aquifer (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978 ; Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987) . The proposed action will utilize a relatively minor portion of the overall quantity of water present within these aquifers. In addition, most of the water consumed at the site will be discharged to the groundwater under the site via individual septic systems. Water treatment units have been used for a number of years to purify contaminated water. These devices, referred to as point-of-use/point-of-entry treatment units provide a V-42 technically and economically feasible alternative to centralized treatment facilities, especially for very small water systems (SCDHS, 1987) . These devices are installed within residences, most commonly under the kitchen sink. A simple bypass of the cold water line directs water to the treatment unit, which is in turn, attached to an extra kitchen faucet. Only the water required for drinking and cooking is treated, and thus the size and replacement requirements are minimized. Treatment devices have been used to soften water, remove nitrate, pesticides, VOCs, chloride, etc. for many years. Ion exchange, low pressure reverse osmosis, and GAC adsorption processes are adaptable to single-family and multi-family residences. The devices require a minimum of operating controls, can be actuated by water pressure, and can be automated (SCDHS, 1987) . In particular, reverse osmosis technology involves the following process: When two solutions of different solute concentrations are separated by a semipermeable membrane, a difference in chemical potential exists across the membrane (Tchobanoglous, G. , and Schroeder, E.D. , 1985, Water Quality, Characteristics, Modeling, Modification: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; Reading Massachusetts) . Water would normally tend to diffuse through the membrane from the lower concentration (higher potential) side to the higher concentration (lower potential) side. However, in reverse osmosis, a pressure gradient is superimposed V-43 in an opposite direction that is greater than the normal osmotic pressure. Flow occurs from the more concentrated (i.e. , chloride) solution across the membrane to the less concentrated solution (i.e. , pure water) . In this manner, chloride contaminated water can be purified and provided to a special faucet to be used as potable water. Non-potable water uses, such as bathing, irrigation, etc. can utilize water directly from the well head without the need for purification. Such a system can be economically installed in the proposed dwelling to insure safe, potable water. 2 . SOLID WASTE. * A projected population of 68 persons for the proposed action will generate a potential of 6.5 pounds of solid waste (Section IV-D-2) per person per day, or a total of 448 . 5 pounds per day for the fully occupied development. The yearly projection of 161, 330 pounds of solid waste will be deposited in the Town of Southold Municipal Landfill facility, further decreasing the utilization capacity/life of that site. The Town of Southold Municipal Landfill is located north of Route 48 and west of Cox Lane. At present it costs 2 cents a V-44 pound to dispose of solid waste for residents or contractors both of whom must also pay a vehicle registration fee ($15. 00 for a single axle, $25. 00 for a doulbe axle (Town of Southold Landfill personnel, June, 1990) . In long term considerations, Chapter 299, Laws 1983 , Citation Section 27-0704, The New York State Long Island Landfill Law becomes effective on December 18, 1990. This law will make the dumping of solid waste illegal on Long Island after its effective date. The Town of Southold has long term plans to dispose of bulk waste through composting and recycling and the Town forsees a reduction of solid waste materials of 30% through these methods (Newsday, Dec. 20, 1987) . The engineering firm of Dveirka and Bartilucci are designing the Town of Southold's recycling plan. For those materials which cannot be composted or recycled, the Town of Southold will have to provide an alternative method of disposal such as incineration or trucking waste off Long Island. The overall impact of the proposed action to this long range problem is speculative and nearly impossible to predict at this time but is probably minimal. V-45 3 . ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE * Since it is the intention of the Town of Southold to preserve and protect open space resources such as woodland tracts and freshwater wetlands, the potential development of the proposed action may depart from this intention and adversely affect the present open space displayed on the site. In order to keep the "open space" nature of the site every attempt has been made to preserve as much existng upland forest and old field vegetation where possible while developing the site according to the present zoning. By clustering the proposed housing units, development will be removed from the freshwater wetlands as far as is practical. The strategic placement of the housing units and roadways will preserve as much contiguous original upland forest and old field areas as possible within the site. In addition, extensive natural vegetative buffers along the peripheral areas of the site, especially along the eastern, northern, and southern borders, as well as between individual lots, are proposed (Plate 1) . The proposed action will regrade 28.9% of the site for construction, however, the design of the proposed action will not construct roadways or housing units within 100 feet of the freshwater wetlands or ponds. The freshwater wetlands on the V-46 site will have extensive natural vegetative buffers around them. Encroachment on these areas will not be allowed. All of the surface pond area (i.e. , 0.2 acres) , the freshwater wetlands (i.e. , 0. 5 acres) and 97 % of the upland forest area will be set aside as designated open space, consistent with the open space recommendations of the town of Southold. Also, the proposed action will cluster the proposed housing units away from the steeper slopes of the site or locate individual housing units within the gentler portions of those lots encroaching onto these slopes. Finally, Lambe (1985) recommends a mandatory cluster regulation for geographic areas of special concern to ensure environmentally sensitive development. Although the Town's Master Plan (1984) designates this area as open space, private ownership of the parcel yields the right to develop the site under the present zoning restrictions (i.e. , R-80) . Relatively large lot sizes and extensive vegetative buffers will minimize the adverse effects to the site as well as to nearby open space. The site contains ecologically sensitive areas of wetlands, surface waters as well as upland forest. The central part of the site falls within the designated Watershed Protection Zone of the Town of Southold (Figure 12) . The entire freshwater wetland areas as well as the waters of Laurel Lake will be protected by the design of the proposed action (Plate 1) . V-47 Construction and vegetative clearing will occur at a large distance up gradient from the freshwater wetlands. Drainage leaching pools/catch basins are presently proposed for the proposed interdevelopment roadway. If requested, the Applicant will agree to provide individual leaching pools associated with each proposed dry well and any catch basin not connected to the recharge basins within the construction portion of the site. In this way excess stormwater runoff will be contained within each collector basin independent on the other collector basins proposed for the system and overflow encroachment within these sensitive areas will be minimized. The individual housing units, however, will have dry wells associated with roof gutters and downspouts. In this way, precipitation will be contained within each housing unit lot area. Since the site contains the following special habitats: freshwater wetlands, ponds, and upland forest, development is proposed as far away as possible from these areas. The proposed action will cluster the housing units and their respective vegetative clearing limits at least 100 feet away from the designated freshwater wetland lines. The clustering development plans for Macari at Laurel will construct housing units at elevations greater than 10 feet above the water table, as recommended by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. V-48 Similarly, the design of the proposed action will not construct roadways or housing units within 50 feet of the freshwater wetlands or ponds. In addition, the proposed action will cluster the proposed housing units away from the steeper slopes of the site or locate individual housing units within the gentler portions of those lots encroaching onto these slopes. 4 . TRAFFIC. * The traffic volumes projected for the completed proposed action will not adversely affect the level of service in the nearby roadway network. Although official level of service data is not available for this site, several visits have not indicated any present traffic congestion on any of the nearby roadways. There will be additional traffic generated by the proposed action, but the numbers of total trip ends during peak hour times is still relatively low. This additonal traffic will have only a minor effect on the heavily travelled County and State roadways near the site. Traffic to and from the development will be limited to residents and their guests. The access roadway location for the proposed action will allow adequate sight distances for exiting the site (Plate 1) . V-49 Vehicles entering or exiting the site will be able to view traffic travelling south or east along Sound Avenue. To ensure the continued safe environment of the roadway network of the Macari at Laurel site the following recommondations should be considered. The results of the safe gap study showed that traffic signal control will not be required, however STOP and YIELD signs are recommended to establish right-of-way control. The internal roadway will be constructed in accordance with Town standards. It is designed to provide quick and easy access to each residential site. On-site parking will be provided as required by the Town. It will be sufficient to meet the needs of both residents and visitors. No separate off-street parking areas will be required. In the long term, it would be desireable to improve the horizontal and vertical alignments of Sound Avenue as part of an overall program to upgrade this street. In this regard the New York State Department of Transportation (New York State Office Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York) completed a Control Report during Winter, 1985-86. Recognizing the need for a straighter, more level section of Sound Avenue in this area, a series of planar maps were generated. The proposed potential changes to Sound Avenue included considerable straightening of the roadway and up-grading the present two lane, relatively narrow roadway, to a more V-50 substantial four (4) lane roadway. A certain amount of leveling of this roadwya would accopany the widening operations. Unfortunately, the roadway modifications indicated for this section of Sound Avenue are not on the current 5-year plan. Consequently, although the roadway modifications are still planned, the timing for this construction is unknown. The traffic study for the proposed action, however, indicates that these improvements are not needed or warranted solely because of the Macari at Laurel project (Appendix D) . 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES. * Presently existing 63. 6 acres of scenic, open space will be altered if the proposed action is completed. There iwould be a loss of the sylvan setting of the site as well as potential visual impairment from adjacent roadways and housing units. Although this site is presently open space, access is available along the two dirt roads that originate from Sound Avenue that lead into the interior sections of the site. This road system is currently used by residents on the adjacent properties. Traversing across the old field portions site is not difficult haowever, much of the upland forest has a very V-51 dense and almost inpenetrable understory. Although aproximately 18. 4 acres of the original vegetation will be altered by the proposed action, 97% of the upland forest will be preserved as well as all of the wetlands and the existing ponds. Extensive natural vegetative buffers, including an extensive, contiguous preserved area adjacent to the freshwater wetlands and the kettle ponds, will be present following completion of the project. ld The housing units will be clustered within the northwestern and eastern-central portions of the site and will have conservative vegetative clearing envelopes. The extensive natural buffers of original upland forest, the preserved large trees within areas of general regradation, as well as the freshwater wetland areas and ponds will enhance the development by insuring a preserved sylvan setting. The scenic nature of the site will be preserved as much as possible while still insuring the development of the site. Views toward the site will remain unobtrusive with the natural thick foliage of the preserved vegetation. In the winter months the proposed housing units will be more visable with the lack of foliage covering, but the relatively low density development will provide sizable gaps between housing structures. V-52 * Several of the proposed lots may adversely impact potentially significant prehistorical data. At this time the potential significance of the prehistorical material found at the site has not been determined. The Cultural Resource Inventory (Appendix B) has suggested additional work to determine the significance, if any, of the artifacts found. Mitigation of prehistorical material and data associated with sites such as that on the Macari At Laurel parcel can take several directions: The site layout can be modified such that those areas of sensitivity would be preserved as "open space. " On lots where only portions contain archaeological sensitivity, strict building envelope covenants can be imposed in order to preserve the sensitive areas. Finally, physical excavation of the sensitive material can remove the archaeological sensitivity from the site, gaining the knowledge of past occupancy in the process. 6. HOUSING. * The proposed action will require such municipal services as fire, ambulance, and police protection. Utility (i.e. LILCO) services will also be required. Services will be provided by the Town of Southold Police V-53 Department. Police headquarters is located on Route 25 in the the Hamlet of Peconic, approximately 5 miles northwest of the site. In addition, the Laurel Lake area is serviced by the Mattituck Fire Department, one of seven Town of Southold fire districts; a volunteer operation. The station is located at the intersection of Wickham Ave and Pike Street, between Routes 25 and 48, approximately 7 miles northeast of the site. A major problem in fire protection throughout the Town is water supply. In areas without fire hydrants, such as the site for the proposed action, firemen depend on tank trucks and pumpers and draft water directly from ponds and wells. In the planning of new subdivisions, fire commissioners review site plans and recommend where shallow wells or deep wells are required. Electric power is provided to the Laurel Lake area by Long Island Lighting Company. The proposed interdevelopment roadway will become a Town roadway. The projected 68 residents of Macari at Laurel are not expected to pose a significant adverse affect on either the police department or fire protection. The increase in property tax will help offset the impacting cost for municipal services. V-54 7. POPULATION. * The proposed action will increase the population of the Town of Southold by a projected 68 persons. The projected population for the proposed action is within the expected range for an area zoned R-80 Residence District. This population increase is minimal when compared to the total population of about 21, 000 in the Town of Southold (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980; Long Island Lighting Company, 1988, Master Plan update, 1984) . The small hamlet of Laurel (CDP) has a population of 1, 123 persons. The projected population for the proposed action will only increase the population of by 6%. The future residents of the Macari at Laurel development will add to the community by bringing new business to the local stores and businesses. 8 . MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 9 . * A total of 29 school-age children is projected for the proposed action (Section IV-D-8) . These additional school- age children will demand additional educational services resulting in higher educational expenses. V-55 To arrive at a cost-factor that the projected 29 school-age children would have on the school district, an approximate figure can be calculated by dividing the total number of school population by the total budget figure for the current school year. The calculations are as follows: 1990-91 proposed school year budget $11,776, 873 . 00 1989-90 projected school population 1211 students Calculated cost to educate $9,724 .92 per student Therefore, using linear calculation methods, the cost per student to educate is $9, 724 .92 . However, the local property tax contribution to the educational system is approximately 72% (Figure 11) or $7001.94 per student. Thus, the 29 school-age children projected for the completed project will require approximately $203 , 056.26 for one year of education. The estimated tax revenue for the Town Southold from the proposed action is $93 , 144. 07 . Utilizing the school district tax rate of $29.45 per $100, or 62 . 5% of the total tax revenue, approximately $58, 215. 04 would be produced from the proposed action to offset any increase in educational cost demands. Since the local contribution to this educational cost for 29 students is $58, 192 . 80 there will be a net deficit of approximately $144,863 . 46 from the proposed action. V-56 However, the cost to educate a school-age child is difficult to define and more difficult to calculate. A linear computation taking the total school budget divided by the total number of school children will give a fiscal value, but this value may not represent actual additional expenditures that must be made by the school district for every new student enrolled. Thus, the increased or decreased school district expenditures resulting from the proposed action can only be generally stated. Increased tax revenues for the Town expected from the proposed action should help defray the additional education costs. 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING. * The proposed action will provide an estimated tax revenue to the Town of Southold of $93 , 144 . 07 (Section IV-D-9) per year. The proposed action will provide an estimated tax revenue to the Town of Southold of $93 , 144 . 07 per year. This compares with the current tax revenue of $8, 200.92 The Town of Southold will realize an approximate increase in revenues of $84 , 943 . 15 from the proposed action. The increase in tax revenues will help to offset the costs for education and municipal services. V-57 10. NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION. * Construction of the proposed action and the use of the dwellings by inhabitants following construction will increase the noise in the area. Noise associated with construction is only temporary and will cease at the completion of the site development. Post-construction noise will only occur from the private homes and the homeowner's vehicles. In addition, the minor permanent post-construction noise will be lessened by the extensive peripheral and interlot vegetated buffers. V-58 VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. There are various environmental impacts associated with development of the Macari at Laurel project for the site. Those impacts, although lessened, but which cannot be avoided entirely even with the mitigative measures outlined, are broken down into the following categories: Topography and Soils; Flora and Fauna; Groundwater and Sewage; Solid Waste; Planning and Open Space; Traffic; Scenic Resources; and Mattituck School District #9. The unavoidable environmental impacts are described as follows: A. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS. The construction of access driveways, housing units, and an interdevelopment roadway will cause minor alterations of the existing topography (Plate 1) . Regrading (leveling) , consisting of minor cutting and filling, and clearing of portions of the existing vegetation on the site are necessary to develop the site. It is expected that during the construction phases of the proposed action, a minor amount of erosion of soils will occur. As with any development, some degree of erosion occurs when natural vegetative or other permanent ground cover is removed during construction activities. With this proposed action, the VI-1 during construction activities. With this proposed action, the alteration of portions of the upland forest and old field, the regrading and leveling of a portion of the property, and the construction activities will cause the soils to be exposed for short periods of time. Minor siltation within the site may occur despite the use of mulch, strategically placed straw bales, and other sediment retention structures. There will be an indirect permanent loss of absorptive capacity of the soils which are covered by pavement or other impervious surfaces. Approximately 5.9 acres, or 12 . 6% of the total land area will be covered by impervious surfaces such as an interdevelopment roadway, driveways, and housing structures (Plate 1) . B. FLORA AND FAUNA. There will be a permanent alteration of 18.4 acres, or 28.9% of the existing upland forest and old field vegetation. Presently, 23 . 8 acres, or 37 .4% of the site contains upland forest and an additional 39. 1 acres, or 61.5% of the site are old field vegetation, therefore, a total of 23 . 1 acres, or 36. 3% of the site will remain upland forest and 21.4 .acres, or 33 . 6% of the site will remain old field vegetation following the completion of the proposed action. The former upland forested and old field areas will be replaced by approximately 5.9 acres VI-2 of impervious surfaces, 8. 0 acres of turf, and 2 . 1 acres for replanted woody vegetation. The alteration of approximately 18.4 acres, or 28.9% of the site's natural habitat, required for this proposed action, will lead to a temporary and permanent loss of some of the wildlife species and numbers presently found at the project site. Considering the preservation of the almost all of the upland forest, along with the entire wetlands and surface water areas, the impact of the proposed project will be reduced as much as possible to these most sensitive wild life areas. However the loss of approximately 55% of the old field area will result in a signifcant loss of those species which prefer this type of habitat. This may be especially evident for those species that frequent and prefer the zones of transition (ecotones) between old field and upland forest where these zones are lost due to development. C. GROUNDWATER AND SEWAGE. The proposed action will increase the nitrogen concentration and total amounts of nitrogen in weight entering the groundwater. Following regulations set by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, nitrogen concentrations will be minimized by a series of individual septic systems. In addition, dry wells, catch basins and two recharge basins will VI-3 limit the contamination potential of storm water runoff from the site. D. SOLID WASTE. The proposed action, when fully populated (68 people) , will generate approximately 442 pounds of solid waste per day. This material will be trucked and dumped at the municipal landfill north of Route 48 and west of Cox Lane. The project will have a minor volumetric impact on the landfill in light of the total amount of solid waste generated by for the Town of Southold. E. TRAFFIC. The proposed Macari at Laurel development will add very little additional traffic to the street system. The street system has the capacity to accomodate the traffic that would result from the homes. Other than STOP and YIELD signs, no additional traffic control measures or roadway improvements are required. F. PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES. With the development of the proposed residential project, there will be a loss of portions of the 63 .6 acres of VI-4 presently vacant "open space. " Access to the site will be limited to the proposed access roadway. The proposed land development scheme will limit the utilization potential of the site for recreational activity. However, overall loss will be mitigated by an extensive, contiguous open areas throughout the site. Some loss of visual aesthetics from the adjacent roadways and existing residences will occur due to the construction of residential units and roadway facilities at the site. The extensive preserved open space of upland forest as well as that associated with the freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake will accentuate the overall attractiveness of the site. G. SCENIC RESOURCES. With the development of 27 single-family detached residential units there will be a loss of presently vacanct "open space. " In addition, replacing upland forest and old field vegetation with housing units, a roadway, and driveways will have a negative impact on an agricultural/sylvan scenery. The extent of this impact is lessened by preserving extensive natural upland forest buffers throughout the site as well as areas associated with the freshwater wetlands and surface water. VI-5 H. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 An estimate of 29 school-age children is projected for the proposed action. This will increase the expenditure associated with educating this number of children. VI-6 VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION. In the assessment of alternatives to the proposed action four (4) alternatives were considered: (1) No Action Alternative - leaving the site undeveloped and in its natural state; (2) Yield Alternative - development of 27 housing units distributed throughout the site; (3) Acquisition; and (4) Transfer Development Rights. Table 7 is a quick reference for the various characteristics associated with each alternative in comparison to the proposed action. A brief discussion of these four (4) alternative concepts is provided below. VII-1 TABLE 7 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE REGRADING REGRADING ORIGINAL VEGETATI0N ORIGINAL VEGETATI0N GW RECHARGE (area in acres) (t of site area) (area in acres) of site area) (inches /year) No Action 0 0.0% 63.6 100% 23.75 (Present) Proposed Action 18.4 28.9% 45,2 71.1% 30.4 Yield Alternative 17.9 28.1 45,7 72.5% 31.2' NITRATE LOADING SOLID WASTE TAX REVENUE SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN POPULATION (mg/1 cone.) (lbs/day) (dollars/yr) (rounded off value) No Action 0.1 0 8200.92 (Present) 0 0 Proposed Action 2.53 448.5 93,144.07 29 68 Yield Alternative 2.49 448.5 93,144.07 29 68 VII-2 A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. This alternative would involve leaving the site in its existing state. It would remain as an undeveloped tract of land consisting of 23 .8 acres of upland forest, 39. 1 acres of old field vegetation, 0.5 acres of freshwater wetlands, and 0.2 acres of surface water associated with kettle ponds and the small pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. The current wildlife and vegetative population would remain intact. The physical, biological, and hydrological settings would remain unchanged. All factors of the present municipal setting would remain the same. Additional tax dollars associated with the proposed action would not be collected by the Town of Southold. In addition, the need for additional quality residential housing units for the Town's expanding population would not be met by a "no action" alternative. Finally, a no action alternative would have a significant adverse effect on the owner of the property. Economic considerations would deprive the Applicant from utilizing this parcel of land within zoning constraints. Lack of utilization of the parcel by disapproval of the application may create a liability for local governmental acquisition. VII-3 B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE (27 Housing Units Distributed Throughout The Site) . In an effort to develop realistic alternatives to the proposed action (i.e. , modified cluster) , a sketch (Plate 2) of a yield alternative is provided. In this alternative plan the site development would be consistant with the existing R-80 Residence District zoning but the housing unit lots would not be clustered away from the environmentaly sensitive zones. This alternative proposal would construct 27 detached single-family residences located throughout the site with the sensitive areas within private ownership (Plate 2) . * Physical Setting - Topography and Soil: Approximately 17 . 9 acres, or 28. 1% of the total site would be regraded (including clearing and cut/fill operations) in the development of the yield alternative. Since the houses could be constructed within the relative flat portions of each lot throughout the site, only minor cut and fill activities would be necessary. The existing contours would remain in the peripheral buffer areas of the site as well as within areas adjacent to the freshwater wetlands, designated to remain natural by Town Code (Plate 2) . VII-4 *.Biological Setting - Flora and Fauna: Regrading of nearly 17 .9 acres of the site would leave 45.7 acres, or 71. 8% of the original site vegetation untouched. Upon completion of the yield alternative, 10. 1 acres, or 15. 9% of the total site would become turf and/or replanted woody vegetation. The distribution of the original vegetation would be within the peripheral areas of the site and especially associated with the freshwater wetlands and the two ponds found within the site (Plate 2) . With 71. 8% of the existing upland forest, old field vegetation, and freshwater wetlands vegetation remaining after construction, certain numbers of the present wildlife would be expected to remain. Most of the species presently occupying the freshwater wetlands would be expected to survive following development, depending on recreational utilization by the future residents of the site. In the upland forest areas within the proposed buffers of the site as well as the remaining upland forest/old field edge zones the species less sensitive to human activity may repopulate following construction. However, unless stringent clearing covenants are imposed on individual home owners, including open field grasses, substantial vegetative clearing and resulting loss of original vegetation would occur. VII-5 * Hydrologic Setting - Drainage, Groundwater and Water Budget: Regrading of 17.9 acres, or 28. 1% of the total site would change the present drainage configuration of the site. Impervious surfaces such as an interdevelopment roadway, driveways, and buildings would cover 7.8 acres, or 12 . 3% of the developed parcel. The expected runoff from these surfaces would have to be controlled by the strategic placement of drywells associated with the buildings, storm catch basins along the roadways and possibly recharge basins (Plate 2) . Construction of the yield alternative development would change the groundwater recharge regime of the site. Since 7.8 acres, or 12 . 3% of the total site area, would be covered by impervious surfaces, there could bd excessive runoff and a loss of recharge at the site location if not properly prevented. In addition, 10. 1 acres, or 15.9% of the site would be covered by turf and/or replanted woody vegetation. Depending on the maintenance requirement of this vegetation, fertilization of this area may be necessary to maintain it. This could lead to potential excess nitrogen loading to the groundwater. The resulting water budget for the development of the alternative gives a recharge value of inches per year at this site. The calculations leading to this value are as follows: References and values used below can be noted in Sections III-C-4 and IV-C-4) VII-6 Change in Storage (AS) = Inflow - Outflow or (,LS) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff - Evapotranspiration - Evaporation - Exports - Overland Flow - Groundwater Runoff The actual water budget equation for the site (derived in Section III-C-4) is as follows: (AS) _ ( (Precipitation + Imports) - (Evapotranspiration + Exports + Overland Flow) ) x (% of total land) Values used for precipitation, evapotranspiration and other parameters are explained and referenced in Section III-C-4 . Unimproved Land (Consists of upland forest, wetlands, and old field; 7 .9 acres, or 65. 3% total land) ( 0 S) _ (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (22 . 0 in/yr + 0 + 0. 5 in/yr) x (% total land) ( 0 S) = 24 . 82 in/yr x (71.9% total land) ( Q S) = 24 .82 in/yr x 0.719 VII-7 ( Q S) = 17.85 in/yr (weighted average unimproved land) Impervious Surfaces (7.8 acres, or 12. 3% of total land) ( d S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 46. 32 in/yr) ) ( AS) = ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (46.32 in/yr) ) x (% total land) ( ,L S) = 0 in/yr Since the proposed action will have drywells, catch basins and possibly recharge basins strategically placed (Plate 2) to gather nearly all runoff originating from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and the roadway; runoff will be negligible, except for an unmeasurable amount that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized, minor shallow puddles. Therefore, the resulting, actual recharge for impervious surfaces will be as follows: ( Q S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) ) ( A s) = ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (0. 5 in/yr) ( 0 S) = 45.82 in/yr x (12 . 3% total land) ( A S) = 45.82 in/yr x 0. 123 ( Q S) = 5. 64 in/yr (weighted average impervious surfaces) VII-8 Turf and Replanted Woody Vegetation (8 .0 acres plus 2 . 1 acres, or a total of 10. 1 acres, or 15.9% total land) Irrigation will involve 2 inches/month water imports during the growing season of five (5) months from May to September (Baskin, 1977) ( As) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 10. 0 in/yr) - (22 . 0 in/yr + 0 + 0. 5 in/yr ( Q S) = ( (56. 32 in/yr) - (22 .5 in/yr) ) ( Q S) = 33 .82 in/yr x (15. 9% total land) ( © S) = 34. 32 in/yr x 0. 159 ( A S) = 5. 54 in/yr (weighted average turf and replanted woody vegetation) Surface Water (Consists of surface water of the kettle pond and the pond associated with Laurel Lake 0.2 acres, or . 3% total site) ( 0 S) = (46. 32 in/yr + 0. 5 in/yr) - (31. 3 in/yr + 0 + 0) x (% total land) ( Q S) = (46.82 in/yr) - (31. 3 in/yr) x (% total land) ( 0 S) = 15. 52 in/yr x 3% total land ( Q S) = 15.52 in/yr x 0. 003 ( Q S) = 0. 5 in/yr (weighted average surface water) VII-9 Therefore: Change in Storage for Present Condition Change in storage (63 . 6 acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = (17 .85 in/yr; unimproved area) + (5. 64 in/yr; impervious) + (5.54 in/yr; turf/replanted veg. ) + (0.5 in/yr; surface water) = 29. 53 inches/year In addition, since the projected sewage discharge amount for the proposed action is 8, 100 gpd, that amount of water will enter the groundwater. This value represents an import factor over the total area of 63 . 6 acres. The value obtained from various conversions yields an additional import value of 1. 68 in/yr to the total change in storage for the site area. Therefore: Change in Storage for Present Condition Change in storage (63 . 6acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = (17 .85 in/yr; unimproved area) + (5. 64 in/yr; impervious) + (5. 54 in/yr; turf/replanted veg. ) + (0. 5 VII-10 in/yr; surface water) + (1. 68 in/yr; sanitary discharge) 31. 2 inches/year The alternative action will recharge 31. 2 inches of water to the groundwater as storage. As stated above, the gentleness of the terrain, the sandy nature, and the high permeability of the subsurface material allows for a large amount of water recharge. Due to the extremely efficient runoff nature of impervious surfaces combined with the post-construction drainage configuration, draining runoff to the collector basins, only a minor amount of water will be lost to evaporation or off-site runoff. * Sewage: The alternative action of 27 single family detached residential units would produce sewage effluent values totalling 8, 100 gallons per day (300 gpd x 27 units) . To comply with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulations, conventional septic systems would be necessary. This would reduce the potential excess nitrogen and coliform contamination from the alternative action. An estimation of the potential nitrogen-loading values from the yield alternative is as follows: Standards values for nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such VII-11 sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces, turf and pets, and septic discharge are given in Section IV-C-3 and will be used here. The 27 residential units will be populated by approximately 68 persons. As in most small residential developments, pet utilization of the site would probably be present, but would probably not be a significant factor in nitrogen-loading. Site Specific Calculations 1. Precipitation. 0. 25 mg/L is expected to recharge the groundwater at the site for this source. 2. Upland Forest, Old Field, and Freshwater Wetlands. No fertilization will be applied to preserved original vegetation. Natural, original vegetation 72 .5% of site Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the site: (0. 1 mg/L) x (72 .5% of the site) (0. 1 mg/L) x (0.725) = 0. 073 mg/L 3 . Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement will cover 12. 3% of the site. Using weighted average calculations for the site: VII-12 (0.4 mg/L) x (12 . 3% of the site) (0.4 mg/L) x (0. 123) = 0.049 mg/L 4 . Turf. As indicated for this alternative, turf will cover approximately 12 . 6% (348,480 square feet) of the entire site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15, 000 square feet of turf, 580.8 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to enter the groundwater at the site from turf. In addition, the amount of nitrogen entering the groundwater from pets is estimated to be 27.88 pounds of nitrogen (0.41 lbs N/person equivalent x 68 persons) . Consequently, the total nitrogen to enter the groundwater at the site due to turf and pets is 608 . 68 pounds. Converting 608. 68 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated, and considering a weighted average for turf acreage on the site (i.e. 31.2 in/yr; see above) concentration, the following concentration results: 10.8 mg/L. Since turf covers 12 . 6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (10.8mg/L) x (12 . 6% total site) (10.8 mg/L) x (0. 126) = 1. 36 mg/L nitrogen Thus, turf and pets will contribute approximately 1. 36 mg/L VII-13 nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. 5. Septic Discharge. The 27 single-family detached residential units proposed for the yield alternative yields 68 persons, equivalent to the proposed action. Since 1. 68 in/yr of recharge (i.e. septic effluent value calculated over the entire site; see Section IV-C-4) has a nitrogen concentration of 14. 0 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 31.2 in/yr (see Section IV-C-4) , then the actual septic discharg concentration is as follows: 1. 68 in/yr / 31.2 in/yr = 5.4% total recharge Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater at the site due to septic discharge is 0.76 mg/L (14 . 0 mg/L x 5.4%) . The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the proposed action is as follows: Precipitation 0.25 mg/L Upland forest, etc. 0. 07 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0. 05 mg/L Turf/Pets 1. 36 mg/L Septic Discharge 0.76 ma/L Total 2 .49 mg/L VII-14 The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. The concentration value is much less than the N.Y.S. drinking water standard (maximum) value of 10. 0 mg/L. * Solid Waste: The alternative action of 27 single family detached units would produce a population of approximately 68 persons. At 6. 5 pounds/person/day as a worst-case, this would produce 442 pounds of solid waste per day. This amount of solid waste must be deposited into the Town of Southold Municipal Landfill, further decreasing the utilization capacity of that facility. * Zoning, Land Use, And Planning and Zoning: This alternative use, lot yield over the entire site, would not require a rezoning from the present Residence R-80 District Zoning. Open space could be preserved on the site associated with the freshwater wetlands as regulated by Town Code (Plate 2) . Original vegetative buffers along the peripheral areas of the site and within interlot areas, as well as parts of the upland forest/old field ecotone would help in the preservation of open space and sensitive habitat. Regrading would involve VII-15 17 .9% of the site provided conservative clearing covenants were enacted. Building on steep slopes would be minimized by positioning individual structures on the most level portions of each building lot and orienting these structures parallel to topographic contours. Development of the site with 27 single-family detached housing units would yield lot value of 0.4 units per acre. * Traffic: The impact of the development of the alternative yield development would be equal to that projected for the proposed action (see Section IV-D-4) . An analysis of projected trip generation from this type of alternative is presented in Figure 15. As with the proposed action, only minimal effects on the levels of service for the nearby roadway network are anticipated. * Cultural/Scenic Resources: If the site is developed into the yield alternative, there will be an alteration of at least 17.9 acres of existing "open space. " Buildings, driveways, and an interdevelopment roadway will replace in part, a currently forested and old field area. Peripheral buffers would preserve some of the upland forest and old field vegetation, however there would be a loss of large contiguous areas of natural vegetation (Plate 2) . Since a portion of this site would be developed into VII-16 residential units, an increased recreational utilization of the open space would be anticipated. This may have deleterious effects on the ecosystem of the freshwater wetlands and ponds. Finally, with a yield development of the site having housing units evenly distributed throughout the parcel, adverse impacts to existing archaeological areas of sensitivity would occur. * Housing: The development of the site with the yield alternative proposal would provide 27 new housing units in the Town of Southold. * Population: The 27 single-family detached housing units would generate a population of approximately 68 persons. This would result in a population density of 1. 1 persons per acre. * Mattituck School District #9: Using a worst-case scenario (refer to Section III-D-8) , Burchell, et.al. (1985) determined that a single-family home of four (4) bedrooms, located in the Northeast region, yields a multiplier of 1. 366 school-age children per housing unit and a three (3) bedroom house yields a multiplier of 0.784 school age children. Therefore, utilizing these statistical multipliers: VII-17 13 (4 bedroom) dwelling units x 1.366 school-age children/unit=18 children 14 (3 bedroom) dwelling units x 0.784 school-age children/unit=ll children Total= 29 school-age children. These additional children would require additional educational services resulting in higher educational expenses for the Town of Southold As indicated in Section III-D-9, the local cost to educate each student is approximately $7, 001. 94 within the Mattituck School District #9. Since the local contribution to this educational cost for 29 students is $203 , 056. 26 and the portion of this alternative's tax revenue designated for education is only $58, 215. 04, there will be a net deficit of approximately $144,863 . 00 * Taxes and Fiscal Setting: The current practice in the Town of Southold to determine the potential tax revenue for proposed new developments is based on the assessment of the estimated price (living footage, lot size, recreational facilities, and number of bedrooms) per housing unit for the project. For this alternative residential complex, 13 housing units will have 4 bedrooms, 14 will have 3 bedrooms, and each VII-18 will have at least 3, 000 square feet living space. The average selling price of the housing units will range from $275, 000. 00 to $300, 000. 00. Using the above statistical breakdown for the proposed action, the Town of Southold Assessors Office (June, 1990) provided the following estimated revenue value utilizing a "residential assessment ratio" of 2.550 of the market value for each residential unit: Housing Unit Market Value = $275, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio = X 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $ 7, 012 .50 14 Housing Units 7012 . 50@ _ $ 98, 175. 00 Housing Unit Market Value = $300, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio = X 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $ 7, 650. 00 13 Housing Units $7650. 00@ _ $ 99,450. 00 Project Total = $ 197, 625. 00 VII-19 Thus, the assessment amount for the proposed residential alternative is $197,625.00. Since the 1989-90 tax rate (Figure 13) is 47 . 13 per hundred, total projected Town of Southold tax revenue is: $197, 625. 00 x 47. 13/100 = $93 . 144 . 07 Thus, a projected tax revenue of $93 , 144 . 07 would result for the Town of Brookhaven with this alternative proposal. VII-20 C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL. Pursuant to the Final Regulations Establishing Procedures For Selection, Review, Approval and Funding Of State Land Acquisition, Preservation and Improvement Projects (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1987) , it is the policy of the State to assure the long-term preservation, enhancement, restoration, and improvement of the quality of the State through the acquisition of additional forest preserve lands; and the acquisition, perservation, and improvement of certain other environmentally sensitive lands which will preserve aquifer recharge areas, areas of exceptional scenic beauty or exceptional forest character, open space, pine barrens, public access, trailways, unique character, wetlands, and wildlife habitats. This legislation established project selection procedures, procedures for priority ranking of eligible projects, departmental review processes, and guidelines and criteria which the commissioner would use to approve eligible projects, and procedures for funding distribution for forest preserve projects and for each type of environmentally sensitive lands projects (NYSDEC, 1987) . Environmentally sensitive lands (i.e. , Wetlands, Aquifer protection areas as found on the site) could be acquired with conservation easements and with appropriate management methods. Procedures outlined in Title 7-Land Acquisition, Preservation VII-21 and Improvements Projects (NYS DEC, 1987) , designate those areas to be considered for aquisition. The site for the proposed action does meet the minimum requirements for the following categories: Unique Character; Open Space; Wildlife Habitat; Wetlands; and potential Public Access. The site for the proposed action also displays special natural beauty, and geological and ecological significance including aquifer recharge. The parcel does consist of natural land that may be necessary to serve the scenic, recreation, and other needs of the area. The site is considered an environmentally sensitive area that contains freshwater wetlands, a permanent pond (i.e. , the kettle pond) and freshwater wetlands associated with Laurel Lake. Under the public access category, the site could potentially provide recreational opportunities. Because the central portion of the site falls within the Watershed Protection Area as designated by the Town of Southold there is potential for its acquisition by county or state authority. At present, according to Mr. Art Ross (Chairman of the Open Space Committee for the Town of Southold, personal communication, June, 1990) , there are no offers of acquisition being made for the Macari at Laurel property. However, all subdivision development within areas located in the Special Watershed Protection Zone has been suspended. The Suffolk County Department of Real Estate (Phyllis Haner, personal communication, June, 1990) is interested in VII-22 acquiring property in the watershed protection areas. However, at present this process must be initiated by the property owner. Once proceedings have begun, the Planning Department and the Park Trustees must approve the parcel in question before an appraisal is undertaken. Considering the current high demand for housing within Suffolk County, and the relatively short supply of quality housing available, the market value of land has increased dramatically over the last several years. Consequently, the cost of purchasing this site for environmental acquisition would be very high and perhaps, economically unrealistic. By careful management and covenant procedures related to the development of this parcel, most of the environmentally valuable portions of the site could be maintained. By clustering the 27 proposed single-family houses within the site, much of the old field grasses, shrubs, and small trees of the open field system, and almost all of the contiguous upland forest could be conserved. All of the freshwater wetlands and surface waters of the ponds and Laurel Lake would be preserved and protected. By conscientious land planning, as outlined by the proposed action, the environmental sensitivity of the site can be properly protected. VII-23 D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. In order to preserve open space there are a number of techniques of land use control that can be implemented for the Town of Southold. One of these techniques is the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) . Under this method some properties within the Town are considered receiving areas and others are considered sending areas. Receiving areas are those properties designated for medium/high development. However, the Town must designate density `caps' for the receiving areas to insure that the subsequent density does not adversely affect each area. Sending areas are those lands that are designated for low density development. The Town of Southold Master Plan, (1984) indicates the site is a potential candidate for "open space" , a potential sending area. TDR would be applicable if the Applicant or one of his colleagues owned other property in the same school district or possibly elsewhere within the Town of Southold that is considered a receiving area. Another possibility for TDR would occur if the Applicant could sell development rights to someone else. The applicability of TDR for this site rests in the potential for the Applicant, if he either owned another parcel in a receiving area or could sell the development rights from this site, to actually transfer development from the sending area to a receiving area. In this way the sensitive VII-24 areas could remain vacant and the receiving area would be allowed to be developed at a higher density. Recognizing the potential applicability of TDR for the site, the Applicant reviewed his options in this regard. The Applicant does not singularly own other property in the Town of Southold and because of the extensive legal complications in attemping TDR to poperty under joint ownership, this option is not applicable to the Macari at Laurel site. Considering the uncertain nature of any sale of the development rights to another unknown individual, the Applicant may experience a financial hardship anticipating this transaction. Consequently, although potential for TDR does exist, it is not a feasible consideration for the Applicant. VII-25 VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES There will be an alteration of the 63 . 6 acre site. The proposed action will alter approximately 18.4 acres of upland forest and old field vegetation. All but 0.4 acres of upland forest, all of the wetland areas and the surface water areas (kettle pond and the pond associated with Laurel Lake) will be preserved as open, natural land. Specifically, within the site 18.4 acres of the existing 63 . 6 acres or approximately 28 .9% of the present vegetation will be removed. Upon completion of the project, 10. 1 acres will become turf and/or replanted woody vegetation and 5.9 acres will become impervious surfaces such as roof tops, driveways, or the interdevelopment roadway. With the loss of vegetative habitat certain species and numbers of wildlife will also be lost from the site. Additionally, construction materials, man hours, and energy will be utilized and committed irreversibly to the development of this project. VIII-1 IX. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. The proposed action will develop and provide 27 additional single-family residencial units for the Town of Southold. It will maintain the existing zoning regulations by providing a housing density of 0. 42 units per acre. The additional tax revenues that will be collected will aid the Town of Southold in meeting its budgetary requirements, especially for the Mattituck School District. The 68 projected new residents of Southold will contribute to the local economy by utilizing local merchants for commodity needs. IX-1 X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: This section discusses the potential environmental impacts to the region as a whole if six (6) proposed residential developments (including Macari at Laurel) are developed to the maximum allowable residential density at present zoning. All of the proposed projects are located on presently undeveloped lands in the Town of Southold adjacent to or in close proximity to the Macari at Laurel site (Figure 16) . The entire area (i.e. , approximately 330 acres; see below) is presently zoned A-C\R-80, Agricultural Conservation or Low Density Residential. Both require minimum two (2) acre yield residential development. The following is a list of the proposed actions, the area and the number of subdivision lots in each (Figure 16) : X-1 FIGURE 16 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP f 1 I` r � 4 o I tr----1 1 1 h i AC s ; i A--C 1 A-C t��••• t ®, ���• ■ LIO �u I R-80 i Y• h 1 J y Pic" • �. It ,7 F- x EXPLANATION 1 Macari-------53.6 acres (Town Of SOuthold, 1989) 27units 2 Thorton Smith-88.1 acres N 35 units 3 Peconic Homes-45 acres 19 units 4 Jacoby--------10 acres 0 1000�t 2 units L 5 John McFeely--30.6 acres 13unite 6 A-T Holding---91.5 acres 34 units school district •mmmm boundary x-2 Cumulative Proposed Actions Name Suffolk Cnty Tax Map No. #Acres #Lots Status A.T. Holding Co. 1000-121-5-5. 1 91.5 34 On Hold 1000-122-2-25 Joseph Macari 1000-121-4-9 63 . 6 27 Proposed Act. Peconic Homes 1000-121-3-7 45.3 19 On Hold 1000-121-1-p/o-5 Daniel Jacoby 1000-125-1-5 10. 6 2 On Hold John McFeely 1000-125-01-14 30. 6 13 On Hold Thorton Smith 1000-121-01-01- 88. 1 35 Approved 8-p/o-19 .9 The following discussion on cumulative impacts will consider the environmental consequences if the entire region is developed according to present zoning designation and proposal. The entire issue of cumulative impacts to the Town of Southold within which these projects lie, is considerably controversial and is a highlight of discussion by regional and Town officials and residents. Officials have to divide their efforts between providing "affordable housing" for moderate income families and preserving open space, since the area lies within a central recharge zone for the Town's aquifers. There is also concern for the protection of sensitive ecosystems such as freshwater wetlands and upland forest. X-3 The number of year-round inhabitants of the Town of Southold is approximately 21, 300 persons occupying approximately 11, 130 total dwelling units, each with an average size of 2 . 50 persons (Long Island Lighting Company, 1988; The Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1980) . Based on this information, if all six (6) proposed actions listed above were to be constructed an increase of 130 single family housing units, representing a 1.2% increase in year-round housing units would add 325 residents, a 1.5% increase in population, to the Town of Southold. Potential cumulative impacts from development of the area include: Loss of open space; sewage discharge and excess nitrogen-loading to the aquifers and surface waters; loss of vegetative habitat and resulting loss of wildlife; loss of the rural or scenic appearances of the area; and increased municipal needs such as higher traffic loads on the surrounding roadways, increased demands for cultural resources, higher demands for police, ambulance, and fire station assistance, as well as higher need for schools. In general, cluster development offers positive as well as negative environmental attributes. While clustering of housing units of adjacent developments may allow for an extensive open space area within the contiguous undeveloped portions of each site, those portions of the sites slated for development may be X-4 adversely affected by the resulting concentration of vegetative clearing, turf, impervious surfaces, and sewage effluent. Potential unauthorized utilization of the contiguous open space areas may offset some potential benefits to wildlife and habitat. On the other hand developments, such as Macari at Laurel, provide a sylvan setting for all the planned housing units, maintaining extensive natural vegetation by utilizing conservative clearing covenants and private ownership to a majority of the entire parcel. In contrast, a uniform distribution of the housing units would disperse the sanitary effluent over the entire site, thus lessening contamination to the underlying aquifer, but would potentially result in greater alteration ato natural habitat. However, with several adjacent projects utilizing strategically positioned cluster development designs, large tracts of contiguous open space can be facilitated. In this manner large tracts that minimize the loss of habitat and wildlife in the area could be provided. In addition, large contiguous tracts of open space will insure the aesthetic, sylvan qualities of the area while still allowing development to continue. In order to estimate the various impacts from cumulative development on the various significant environmental parameters X-5 such as the physical, biological, hydrological and municipal settings; respectively, values have been extrapolated from the Macari at Laurel site. Therefore, the resulting values are: Original remaining vegetation provided by a sensitive development scheme: 70% x 330 acres = 231 acres Total area of regradation (including vegetation clearing and ground surface leveling) to be recovered by landscaping and Impervious Surfaces: (Replanted and Impervious Surfaces) : ' 30% x 330 acres = 99 acres Total = 330 acres Breakdown of Regraded Area: Impervious: 12% x 330 acres = 39. 6 acres Turf: 11.2% x 330 acres = 37 . 0 acres Replanted Woody Vegetation: 3 . 8% x 330 acres = 12 . 5 acres Recharge Basins: 3% x 330 acres = 9. 9 acres Total = 99. 0 acres Cumulative Impacts on Preserved Lands and Other Land Use. The cumulative result of the proposed action (Macari at X-6 Laurel) combined with the development of the remaining 266.4 acres (330 acres total) could preserve approximately 231 acres, or 70.0%, of original vegetation; primarily upland forest and old field. This preservation would be possible as long as modified cluster development and/or conservative clearing envelopes could be enforced on the projects. In addition, approximately 49.5 acres or 15. 0% of the land would be covered with impervious surfaces, such as building roofs, swimming pools, driveways, parking areas, and roadways. Approximately 37 . 0 acres, or 11.2% of the total area, would be covered with turf: 12 . 5 acres, or 3 . 8% of the total land, would replanted ' with indigenous woody vegetation; 9 .9 acres, or approximately 3% of the total area, would be excavated for recharge basins; and 0.2 acres, or 0. 07% of the total land, would remain as surface waters. Complete development of the area, consistent with present zoning (i.e. , A/C-R80) would result in the construction of a total of approximately 130 residential dwellings, housing an estimated 325 people. Cumulative Impacts on Water Budget. Development of all of the potentially available lands described above would result in an overall increase in water usage and affect the present water budget of the region. The resulting effects on the water budget are estimated using the equations outlined in detail in sections III-D-4 and VI-D-4 , respectively. X-7 The resulting water budget can be estimated from the following general formula (Todd, 1951; Dunne, et al. , 1978; Fetter, 1980) : Change in Storage (Recharge) = Inflow - Outflow or ( 0 S) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff - Evapotranspiration - Evaporation - Exports - Overland Flow - Groundwater Runoff The actual water budget equation for the area (derived in ' section III-C-4) is as follows: ( 0 S) _ ( (Precipitation + Imports) - (Evapotranspiration + Exports + Overland Flow) ) x (% of total land) Values used for precipitation, evapotranspiration, and other parameters are explained and referenced in Section III-C-4 . Unimproved Land (Consists of original upland forest, open fields, wetlands, etc. , 231 acres, or 70% total land) X-8 ( A S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (22. 0 in/yr + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) ) x (% total land) ( Q S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (22 .5 in/yr) ) x (% total land) ( Q S) = 23 . 82 in/yr x (70% total land) ( A S) = 23 .82 in/yr x 0.70 ( Q S) = 16. 67 in/yr (weighted average unimproved land) Impervious Surfaces (39. 6 acres, or 12% of total land) ( A S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 46. 32 in/yr) ) ( 0 S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (46.32 in/yr) ) x (% total land) ( 0 S) = 0 in/yr Since the developments would have strategically placed drywells, catch basins, and possibly recharge basins to gather nearly all runoff originating from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and roadways; runoff will be negligible, except for an unmeasurable amount that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized, minor shallow puddles. Therefore, the resulting actual recharge for impervious surfaces will be as follows: ( LS) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 0. 5 in/yr) ) ( S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr) - (0. 5 in/yr) ( 0 S) = 45.82 in/yr x (12% total land) ( ,L S) = 45.82 in/yr x 0. 12 ( Q S) = 5. 5 in/yr (weighted average impervious X-9 surfaces) Turf and Replanted Indigenous Woody Vegetation (37. 0 acres turf and 12.5 acres replanted indigenous woody vegetation, or a total of 49. 9 acres, or 15% total land) Irrigation will involve 2 inches/month water imports during the growing season of five (5) months from May to September (Baskin, 1977) ( A S) = ( (46.32 in/yr + 10. 0 in/yr) - (22 . 0 in/yr + 0 + ' 0.5 in/yr) ( 0 S) = ( (56.32 in/yr) - (22 .50 in/yr) ) ( Q S) = 33 .82 in/yr x (15% total land) ( � S) = 33 .82 in/yr x 0. 15 ( Q S) = 5. 07 in/yr (weighted average turf and replanted woody vegetation) Excavated recharge basins will occupy approximately 3% of the total area, or about 9.9 acres. ( � S) =( (46. 32 in/yr + 0 in/yr) - (0 in/yr + 0 + 0) ) x (% total land) ( Q S) = ( (46. 32 in/yr + 0 in/yr) - (0 in/yr + 0 + 0) ) x (3 . 0% total land) (AS) = 1. 34 in/yr weighted average recharge basins X-10 No site other than Macari at Laurel has surface water. The surface waters of the small pond associated with Laurel Lake and the central kettle pond of the Macari at Laurel site cover approximately 0.2 acres, or about 0. 07% of the cumulative region. ( Q S) = (46. 32 in/yr + 0.5 in/yr) - (31. 5 in/yr +0 + 0) x (% total land) ( Q S) = (46.82 in/yr) - (31. 5 in/yr) x (o total land) ( Q S) = 15. 32 in/yr x . 07% total land ( Q S) = 15. 32 in/yr x 0. 0007 ( 0 S) = 0. 01 in/yr (weighted average surface water) In addition, since the projected sewage discharge volume for the developed lands is approximately 39, 000 gpd (130 dwellings producing approximately 300 gallons per day in septic discharge) , that amount of water will enter the groundwater. This value represents an import factor over the total land area of approximately 330 acres (or 14 , 374,800 square feet) . The value obtained from various conversions yields an additional import value of 1. 59 in/yr to the total change in storage for the site area. X-11 Therefore: Change in Storage for Cumulative Development Change in storage (330 acres, or 100% of total area using weighted average values) = (16. 67 in/yr; unimproved area) + (5.5 in/yr; impervious area) + (5. 07 in/yr; turf and replanted woody vegetation area) + (1. 34 in/yr Recharge Basins) + (0. 01 in/yr Surface water) + (1. 59 in/yr; Septic discharge) = 30. 18 inches/year The development of the entire area in accordance with the current zoning designation will recharge 30. 18 inches of water to the groundwater (approximately 66% of the total average precipitation) . The sandy nature and the high permeability of the subsurface material allows a large amount of water recharge. Since this extensive, presently undeveloped area is recharging approximately 22 . 5 inches of water per year (Peterson, 1987) , development with its strategic and efficient collector basin system and partial elimination of natural vegetation, would result in an increase of approximately 7 . 68 inches per year of water available for the underlying aquifers. X-12 Cumulative Impacts on Nitrogen Loading. The cumulative development of the approximately 330 acres of land in the area of the site for the proposed action would result in the construction of approximately 130 dwellings, housing an estimated 325 people. These persons would produce a projected maximum 39, 000 gpd (130 units @ 300 gpd/unit = 39, 000 gpd) of wastewater discharged into the groundwater from the individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Department of Environmental Quality: Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other than Single Family Residences, 1988) . An estimation of the resulting total nitrogen-loading values from the potential development of the approximately 330 acres of cumulative development is as follows: Standard values for nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces, turf, and septic discharge are given in Section VI-D-3. Although the following calculations are based on a worst-case scenario, factors such as low maintenance turf, as well as a lower actual year-round inhabitant number would substantially reduce this particular additive to the groundwater. X-13 Specific Calculations Of Cumulative The Nitrogen Budget 1. Precipitation. 0. 25 mg/L is expected to recharge to the groundwater at the area for this source. 2. Remaining Original Vegetation and Replanted Indigenous Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to preserved original vegetation or to indigenous woody species. These types of vegetation would cover a total area of approximately 196.3 acres or 73 .8% of the area based upon: Original Remaining Vegetation 231 acres (70% of area) Replanted Indigenous Woody 12 .5 acres (3 . 8% of area) Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the area: (0. 1 mg/L) x (73 .8% of area) (0. 1 mg/L) x (0.738) = 0. 07 mgL 3 . Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement will cover approximately 39. 6 acres or 12% of the area. Using weighted average calculations for the area: (0.4 mg/L) x (12% of the area) (0.4 mg/L) x (0. 12) = 0.05 mq/L X-14 4 . Turf and Pets. Turf will cover approximately 37 . 0 acres (1, 611, 720 sq ft) or 11.2% of the area. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15, 000 square feet of turf, 2 , 686.2 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to enter the groundwater at the area. Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. The number of persons expected to inhabit this area is assumed to constitute approximately 325 persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the associated pet population of approximately 133 . 25 lbs (325 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) . The nitrogen production stemming from these pets is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by turf. Converting 2819.45 pounds of nitrogen (2686. 20 lbs from turf fertilization and 133 .25 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated, and considering a weighted average for turf acreage in the area, the following concentrations results: 11. 14 mg/L. Since turf would cover approximately 37. 0 acres, or 11.2% of the area, the weighted average results in the following: (11. 14 mg/L) x (11.2% of the area) (11. 14 mg/L) x (0. 112) = 1. 25 mg/L X-15 Thus, pets and turf will contribute approximately 1.25 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater in the area. 5. Septic Discharge. The area will generate approximately 325 persons using the area upon potential completion and full occupation. Utilizing a separate septic system, approximately 5 pounds of nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are calculated. Therefore: 325 x 51b/yr = 1625 lbs/yr Converting 1625 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the 39, 000 gallons per day of septic effluent to enter the groundwater, the following concentration results: (1625 lbs/yr x 453590 mg/lbs)/ (39 , 000 g/d x 365 d/yr x 3 .79L/g) = 13 . 66 mq/ Since 1. 59 in/yr of recharge (i.e. , septic volume calculated over the entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 13 . 66 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 30. 18 in/yr (see below) , the actual septic discharge nitrogen concentration for the proposed action is as follows: 1. 59 in/yr / 30. 18 in/yr = 5. 26% total recharge X-16 Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater in the area due to septic discharge from the potential residential development is: 13 . 66 mg/L x 5.26% = 0.72 mg/L The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the cumulative development in the area of the site in accordance with current zoning designation (i.e. , 2-acre residential) , is as follows: Precipitation 0.25 mg/L Upland Forest, etc. 0. 07 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0. 05 mg/L Turf and Pets 1.25 mg/L Septic Discharge 0.72 ma/L Total 2 . 34 mg/L The 0.72 mg/L nitrogen concentration value indicated for septic discharge may be slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the other hand, the amount of turf to be actually planted in the X-17 area may be overstated. In addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose in the area is probably also exaggerated. The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 2 . 34 mg/L is probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables associated with this hypothetical project. This value lies close to the lower value of the recommended range of 2 to 4 mg/L nitrogen loadings in the area (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) . In addition, the resulting nitrogen loading value of 2 . 34 mg/L is considerably less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York State Drinking Water Standard) , and that level recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as maximum acceptable nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island. Consequently, these values are consistent with the estimated nitrogen loadings for the hypothetical development of the 330 acre area according to present zoning. Cumulative Impact on Municipal Setting - Traffic. The impacts of the cumulative proposed actions on the traffic volume of the surrounding roadways was estimated using statistical information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication entitiled Trip Generation Report 4th Edition (Table 6) . The estimates of future trip generations projected for the cumulative proposed actions are as follows (Appendix D) : X-18 Weekday Weekday Weekday Saturday Saturday Daily AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Daily Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit EnterExit Macari 272 6 15 17 10 274 14 12 Peconic 191 4 11 12 7 193 10 9 McFeeley 131 3 7 8 5 132 7 6 Holding 342 7 19 21 13 345 17 15 Thorton 352 7 20 22 13 355 18 15 Figure 17 which follows, shows the cumulative traffic impacts for weekday and Saturday peak-hour volumes distributed to the street system. To analyze the impact that this traffic would have on roadway and intersection capabilities a mid-1992 build year was selected (it was assumed that the homes would be constructed and occupied by that time) . X-19 c Y Q U z w w Z C7 X w 31 3732 U m 16 1 II 2 4 452 4-97 aa9 f--- 3 4-431 MIDDLE ROAD 29— 517-1 SOUND 32---+ �► 525—� 3� 2 2 454-1\� 9j� 140 � 116 y IL AV ENUE h] .X H n NOTE O H DIFFERENCES IN VOLUMES BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS FUTURE WEEKDAY VOLUMES t-1 ARE DUE TO MOVEMENTS THAT WILL BEC C ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS ROADWAYS FOR EVENING PEAK HOUR 500-600 PM 7� PECONIC HOMES THORNTON ESTATES, A.T. (ALL PROJECTS INCLUDED) LTJ LTJ X HOLDING,AND FREELY PROJECTS. I N C v O C r a: H G V H w C z z tii w x ¢ 22 55 37 0 ui U 6 2 ��—7 379 1-+ I y '-111 F- y 4-376 1—6 4 -363 MIDDLE ROAD 30— 570—* SOUND 26 f� r1 580 9— I 501-0 I I 49--�. /p9 22 58 0 a. 4�E cr -j NSE Y FUTURE SATURDAY VOLUMES PEAK HOUR 12-NOON-I:OOPM EDWARD J.SHARSK`.', E.,?C. (ALL PROJECTS INCLUDED) CONSULTING =NGNEEPS NORTNPORT NE.Y -RK Since the Peconic Homes, and A.T. Holding Corporation sites will have access to both Sound Avenue and to Main Road (NYS Route 25) , the projected traffic associated with these two residential areas were assigned to both streets. Based upon the location of the sites and the proximity of the individual plats with respect to the two streets, it was decided that the movements to and from each development would be evenly split between Sound Avenue and Main Road. A similar judgement was made with respect to the McFeely development. In this instance, since the site is located closest to Main Road, only 40 percent of its traffic was assigned to Sound Avenue. With regard to Thornton Estates, its location called for the assignment of all traffic to Sound Avenue. Intersection capacity analysis for the future conditions of the Macari at Laurel site plus the other four proposed actions is summarized below (Appendix D) : Sound Avenue and Bergen Avenue Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Cumulative B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Cumulative B A A X-21 Sound Avenue and Kirkup Lane Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Cumulative B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 :00 N to 1: 00 PM Cumulative B A A Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Cumulative B A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 : 00 N to 1: 00 PM Cumulative C A A Sound Avenue and Middle Road Weekday Peak Hour Level of Sevice 5: 00 PM To 6: 00 PM Southbound Eastbound Left Right Left Cumulative C A A Saturday Peak Hour 12 :00 N to 1: 00 PM Cumulative C A A A review of the foregoing information reveals that the study intersections are capable of accomodating the traffic volume from all five proposed actions. The minor changes in Level of Service that will occur in a few instances will be due to the normal growth pattern in the area and in traffic X-22 associated with the residential projects. The internal roadways will be constructed in accordance with Town standards. They are designed to provide quick and easy access to each residential site, respectively. There will also be a connecting roadway to the Peconic Homes Development which will have its own access to Sound Avenue. The internal connection between the two developments (i.e. , Macari At Laurel and Peconic Homes) will further facilitate the disbursement of traffic to the external street system. Cumulative Impact on Municipal Setting - Cultural Resources. In order to insure the preservation of prehistorical and historical sites, archaeological investigations in the area would be necessary, to establish areas of significance. In this manner, proposed developments can be positioned such that significant cultural resources can remain preserved while still allowing land utilization to continue consistent with zoning designations. Cumulative Impact on Municipal Setting - Recreation. The resulting population increase would cause an increased demand on existing recreational facilities in the area, such as beaches, parks, and golf courses, and might require the establishment of a limited number of new recreational facilities. X-23 Cumulative Impact on Municipal Setting - Education. A portion of the expected cumulative population of approximately 325 persons will be school-age children. Using data supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1980) , Burchell, et al. (1985) calculated the regional and national demographic multipliers for common configurations of standard housing types for school-age children. The 130 residential units potentially developed in the 330 acre area will likely have 3 or 4 bedrooms each. For 3 bedroom single-family residences in the Northeast region, a multiplier of 0.784 can be used, and for 4 bedroom single-family residences in the Northeast region, a multiplier of 1. 366 per unit applies (Burchell, et al. , 1985) . Therefore, assuming an equal number of 3 and 4 bedroom houses will be constructed, the following total number of school-age children can be projected: 65 (3 bdr. ) residences x 0.784 school-age children per unit = 51 school-age children; 65 (4 bdr. ) residences x 1. 366 school-age children per unit = 89 school-age children; Total = 140 school age children* X-24 *125 school age children for the Mattituck School District 15 school age children for the Laurel School District With the potential development of the 330 acre area, the number of school-age children would increase from the current 1,445 in the Mattituck School District to approximately 1, 570 children requiring education (i.e. , an increase of 125 children) . According to Mr. Leo Wood of Mattituck School District (Personal communication, July, 1990) the addition of this many school-age children (125, or approximately 9.2%) in the Mattituck school district would require the establishment of ' expanded school facilities. Mr. Wood has also stated that at present the Mattituck School District is filled to capacity. The Laurel School District #9 would recieve approximately 15 new students if the 330 acre cumulative area was developed. Mrs Wall of the Laurel School District #9 (Personal communication, July 1990) , stated that 15 additional students would not require the expansion of school facilities. However, she also mentioned that plans are underway for the construction of new facilities. Cumulative Impact Municipal Setting - Taxes. The current practice in the Town of Southold to determine the potential tax revenue for proposed new developments is based on the assessment ' of the estimated price. The proposed 130 housing units will X-25 have a market value of approximately $275, 000. 00-$300, 000. 00 and each contain approximately 3 , 000 square feet of living space with three or four bedrooms. The above data will be use to estimate the tax revenues from the cumulative development. The Town of Southold Assessors Office (personal communication, Ms. Ross, June, 1990) provided the following estimated revenue value utilizing a "residential assessment ratio" of 2 .55% of the market value for each residential unit. Assuming 50% of the units will be 3 bedrooms then: Housing Unit Market Value (3BdRm) = $275, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio = x 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $ 7, 012 . 50 65 Housing Units @ $7, 012 . 50 = $ 455, 812 . 5. 00 Housing Unit Market Value (4 BdRm) = $300, 000. 00 Residential Assessment Ratio = x 0. 0255 Tax Base Per Unit = $7, 650. 00 65 Housing Units @ $7, 650. 50 = $ 497, 250. 00 X-26 Thus, the assessment amount for the cumulative development project is $953, 062 .50 (130 units) . Since the 1989-90 tax rate (Figure 13) is 47 . 13 per hundred, total projected Town of Southold tax revenue calculations give a projected tax revenue of $449, 178. 36 for the Town. Since the present tax revenues from the cumulative site are estimated to be $34, 299.45 (based on the Macari at Laurel tax levy) , following completion of the cumulative action there would be be a net increase of $414,878 .91. 45 in tax revenue above the present level. Properties that are included in the cumulative impact lie within School Districts #11 (Laurel School District) and District #9 (Mattituck School District) . Using linear calculations the number of the 140 projected school age children that will live within the Laurel district is estimated at 20, the remaining 120 will attend school in the Mattituck district. According to Mrs. Wall of the Laurel School District (June 9, 1990) , the school budget for 1989-90 was $1,706, 892 . 00 for 234 school age children. The local tax levy for education is 91% and the tax rate is 65. 86% (Mrs Wall) . Therefore, the cost to educate per student = $6637 . 712 . Total cost to educate 20 students is approximately 132 , 758. 20 The proposed action would provide 19 housing units with a total revinue of $146, 625. 00. At a tax rate of 65.86%, the available tax revinue for school district #11 will be 96, 567 . 23 . This leaves a net deficit of $36, 190. 00 X-27 As indicated in Section III-D-8, the Mattituck School District #9 fiscal budget for the 1990-91 school year was $11,736,873 . 00 (for 1,211 students) . Of this amount the local tax revenue (72%) represents a cost $7, 001.92 per student. Total cost to educate for the 120 students will be about $840, 124 .80. Total tax revinue from the proposed 111 housing units in the Mattituck School District is $813,450. 00. At a tax rate of 62.5%, $508,406.25 will be available for education. This leaves a net deficit of $331, 718. 55. The total deficit for the entire cumulative action will be approximately $367, 908 . 55 Finally, any substantially increased development in the area would increase the demand for other municipal resources such as police protection and fire and ambulance protection significantly. It is probable that additional fire/ambulance substations and increased police saturation in the area would be required. X-28 XI. GLOSSARY (Bates, et al. , 1977) Aquiclude A body of relatively impermeable material that is capable of absorbing water slowly but does not transmit it rapidly enough to supply a well or spring. Aquifer A body of material that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs. Compressibility Physical condition describing the ability of a material to flatten or compress in reaction to an outside stress. Cretaceous In geologic time the final period of the Mesozoic era thought to have covered the span of time between 135 and 65 million years ago. Drainage Divide The line of separation, or the ridge, summit or narrow tract of high ground, marking the boundary between two adjacent drainage basins. Drainage basin being the tract of country that gathers water originating as precipitation and contributes it to a particular stream channel or system of channels, or to a lake, reservoir, or other body of water. Evapotranspiration Loss of water from a land area through transpiration of plants and evaporation from the soil. Formation Any sedimentary bed or consecutive series of beds sufficiently homogeneous or distinctive to be a unit. Glacial Outwash Stratified detritus (usually sand and gravel) removed or "washed out" from a glacier by meltwater streams and deposited in front of or beyond the margin of a glacier. Glacial Till Dominantly unsorted and unstratified sediment deposited directly by and underneath a glacier without subsequent reworking by meltwater, and consisting of a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders ranging widely in size and shape. GLOSSARY-1 Glaciation The formation, movement, and recession of glaciers or ice sheets; the geologic processes of glacial activity, including erosion and deposition, and the resulting effects of such action on the Earth's surface. Groundwater That part of the subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation; all subsurface water. Median- A value in an ordered set of values below and above which there are an equal number of values. Percolation Slow laminar movement of water through small openings within a porous material, similar to infiltration (the movement of water into soil or porous rock) . Permeability The property or capacity of porous material, such as soil, for transmitting a fluid; it is a measure of relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure. Pleistocene In geologic time an epoch of the Quaternary period, beginning two to three million years ago and lasting until the start of the Holocene, some 8, 000 years ago. Potable Water Water that is safe and palatable for human use; fresh water in which any concentrations of pathogenic organisms and dissolved toxic constituents have been reduced to safe levels, and which is, or has been treated so as to be, tolerably low in objectionable taste, odor, color, or turbidity and of a temperature suitable for the intended use. Quaternary In geologic time the second period of the Cenozoic era that began two to three million years ago and extends to the present. Recharge The processes involved in the absorption and addition of water to the zone of saturation (water table or groundwater) . Regime Flow The condition of a stream with respect to the rate of its average flow as measured by the volume of water passing different cross-sections in a specified period of time. GLOSSARY-2 Scarp A steep surface or bank produced by water erosion during stream flow. Slope Gradient A degree of inclination of the ground surface; the steepness of a slope expressed as a ratio (vertical to horizontal) . Soil The collection of natural earthy materials on the Earth's surface containing living matter and supporting or capable of supporting plants. Soil Profile A vertical section of a soil that displays all its horizons (a layer of soil that is distinguishable from adjacent layers by characteristic physical properties such as structure, color, or texture, or by chemical composition, including content of organic matter or degree of acidity or alkalinity) . Stratigraphic Column Stratigraphic refers to horizontal layers distinctive in composition, color, structure, etc. Stratigraphic column refers to a composite diagram that shows in a single column the subdivisions of part or all of geologic time or the sequence of stratigraphic units of a given locality or region so arranged as to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time and their relative positions to each other (usually from oldest on the bottom to youngest on top) . Swale A linear depression such as a small valley. Tertiary In geologic time the first period of the Cenozoic era thought to have covered the span of time between 65 and three to two million years ago. Unconsolidated A sediment that is loosely arranged or unstratified, or whose particles are not cemented together, occurring either at the surface or at depth; soil material that is in loosely aggregated form. Water Table The surface between the zone of saturation and the zone of aeration; that surface of a body of unconfined groundwater. The upper limit of the portion of the ground wholly saturated with water; a surface. Zone Of Saturation A subsurface zone in which all the interstices are filled with water. GLOSSARY-3 XII. REFERENCES CITED. Andrle, R.F. and Carroll, J.R. , 1988, The atlas of breeding birds in New York State: Cornell University Press; Ithaca, New York. Baskin, Leland B. , 1977, A groundwater recharge model for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York: Master's thesis, Cornell University; 116p. Burchell, Robert W. , Listokin, David, and Dolphin, William R. , 1985, The new practitioner's guide to fiscal impact analysis: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University; New Brunswick, New Jersey. Chow, Ven Te, 1964, Handbook of Applied Hydrology: McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York, New York. Clark, Edwin H. , II. , Haverkamp, Jennifer A. , and Chapman, William, 1985, Eroding soils - the off-farm impacts: The Conservation Foundation; Washington, D.C. ; 252p. Conant, R. , 1975, A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America: National Audubon Society and Natural Wildlife Federation; Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts. Connor, P.F. , 1971, The mammals of Long Island, New York: New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 416 ; Albany, New York. Cryan, J. F. , 1984, 1984 Tiger Salamander Report: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 28 p. , 1980. An Introduction to the Long Island Pine Barrens. The Heath Hen, Vol. 1: 3-13 . Daly, A. , 1974 , A natural history of Long Island: The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Chapter; Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Doriski, T.P. , 1987 , Potentiometric-surface of the water-table, Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers on Long Island, New York, in 1984 : U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4189 ; Syosset, New York. Driscoll, Fletcher G. , 1986, Groundwater and wells: Johnson Division, 2nd ed. ; St. Paul, Minnesota; 1089p. REF-1 Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, Luna B. , 1978, Water in environmental planning: W. H. Freeman and Company; San Francisco, California; 818p. Fetter, C.W. , 1980, Applied hydrogeology: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company; Columbus, Ohio; 488p. Franke, O.L. , and Cohen, P. , 1972 , Regional rates of groundwater movement on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper #800-C. Freeze, R.A. , and Cherry, J.A. , 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 604p. Fuller, M.L. , 1914, The geology of Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 482 ; Washington, D.C. Goldman, S.J. , Jackson, K. , and Bursztynsky, T.A. , 1986, Erosion and sediment control handbook: McGraw Hill Book Company; New York, New York. Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell, 1968, Comprehensive public water supply study, Suffolk County, New York: Holzmacher, McLendon, and Murrell, CPWS-24, 3 vol. ; Melville, New York. Hughes, Henry B.F. and Pacenka, Steven, 1985, BURBS - A simulation of the nitrogen impact of residential development on groundwater: Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University; Ithaca, New York. , Pacenka, S. , Pike, J. , and Porter, K.S. , 1981, Assessment of sources of nitrogen in groundwater recharge, Riverhead and Western Southampton wastewater facility planning area: Cornell University Center for Environmental Research; Ithaca, New York. Institute of Transportion Engineers, 1987, Transportation and traffic engineering handbook: Prentice-Hall, Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Jensen, H.M. and Soren, J. , 1974, Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-501; Washington, D.C. Kaplan, O.B. , 1987 , Septic systems handbook: Lewis Publishers, Inc. ; Chelsea, Michigan; 290p. REF-2 Koszalka, E.J. , 1984, Geohdrology of the Northern Part of the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey: Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4042 ; Syosset, New York; 37p. Krulikas, Richard K. , 1986, Hydrologic appraisal of the Pine Barrens, Suffolk County, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report #84-4271; Syosset, New York; 53p. Lambe, R. , 1985, Brookhaven open space study, technical report: Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council, Town of Brookhaven Division of Environmental Protection; Brookhaven, New York; 214p. Little, Elbert, L. , 1980, The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees, Eastern region: Audubon Society; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New York; 714p. Long Island Lighting Company, 1988, Population survey 1988: LILCO; Hicksville, New York; 38p. Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978, Long Island comprehensive waste treatment management plan - 208 study: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 2 vol. ; Hauppauge, New York. , 1982 , Long Island segment of the nationwide urban runoff program: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York , 1982 , Population - 1980, Housing characteristics: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York; 75p. , 1984 , Population Survey - 1984 , Current population estimates for Nassau and Suffolk Counties: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York. , 1986, Special groundwater protection area project: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York. McClymonds, N.E. and Franke, O.L. , 1972 , Water-transmitting properties of aquifers on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper #627E; Washington, D.C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981, Divisional normals and standard deviations of temperature (degrees F) and precipitation (inches) 1931-80 (1931-60, 1941-70, 1951-80) : Climatography of the United States No. 85; Asheville, North Carolina, 175p. REF-3 Niering, W.A. , 1985, Wetlands: Audubon Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New York; 638p. Nemickas, Bronius and Koszalka, Edward J. , 1982, Geohydrologic appraisal of water resources of the South Fork, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper #2073 ; Washington, D.C. ; 55p. New York State, 1964, Drinking water standards: Public Law 201, Pt. 72, and Public Health Law 1100, Pt. 170. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1978, 6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review Act: Albany, New York. , 1987, Endangered, threatened, and special concern species of New York State: NYS DEC; Albany, New York. , 1987, The New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act: NYS DEC; Albany, New York. New York State Natural Heritage Program, 1987, Rare animal status list; Delmar, New York. Odum, Eugene P. , 1971, Fundamentals of ecology: 2nd ed. ; W.B. Sanders Company; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 546p. Parson, Ruben L. , 1964, Conserving American resources: Prentice-Hall, Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 521p. Peterson, D. S. , 1987, Ground-water recharge rates in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York: U. S. Geol. Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4181; Syosset, New York; 19 p. Peterson, R. T. and McKenny, M. , 1968, A field guide to wildflowers of Northeastern and Northcentral North America: Houghton Mifflin Co. ; Boston, Massachusetts, 420 p. Petrides, George A. , 1972, A field guide to trees and shrubs: The Peterson field guide series, 2nd ed. ; Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts; 428p. REF-4 Perlmutter, N.M. , Lieber, Maxim, and Frauenthal, H.L. , 1964, Contamination of groundwater by detergents in a suburban environment - South Farmingdale area, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper #501-C; Washington, D.C. ; p. 170-175. Porter, K.S. , and 11 others, 1978, Nitrates: in The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan; Volume II, Summary Documentation; Long Island Regional Planning Board; Hauppauge, New York. Ritter, D. F. , 1978, Process Geomorphology: Wm. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa; 603 p. Scott, S.L. , 1983, Field guide to the birds of North America: National Geographic Society; Washington, D.C. Seaburn, G.E. , 1970, Preliminary results of hydrologic studies at two recharge basins on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-C; Washington, D.C. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1986, Suffolk County sanitary code, Article 6 Realty subdivisions, developments, and other construction projects: Hauppauge, New York. , 1986, Suffolk County sanitary code, Article 7 Water pollution control: Hauppauge, New York. , 1987, Suffolk County comprehensive water resources management plan: Division of Environmental Health (SCDHS) , Dvirka and Bartilucci, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ; Hauppauge, New York. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1982 Report on the occurrence and movement of Agricultural Chemicals in groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County: prepaired by Bureau of Water Resources, 71p, Appendices A-H. Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1985, Eastern forests: Audubon Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New York; 638p. Swihart, M. M. and Petrich, C. H. , 1988, Assessing the aesthetic impacts of small hydropower development: National Association of Environmental Professionals, The Environmental Professional, Vol . 10, No. 3 ; Alexandria, Virginia; pp. 198-210. REF-5 Todd, David K. , 1959, Ground water hydrology: John Wiley + Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p. Town of Southold, Code of Town of Southold, Chapter 100, Zoning, Southold New York. Town of Southold Master Plan Update, 1984, Southold New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1975, Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York: Washington, D.C. ; 101p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1977, Guidelines for soil and water conservation in urbanizing areas of Massachusetts: Amherst, Massachusetts. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1978, Important Farm Lands, Suffolk County, New York, three maps , 1980, A guide to: Conservation plantings on critical erosion areas: Syracuse, New York; 31p. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of population: New York, New York. U. S. Geological Survey, 1986, Water Resources data, New York, Water Year 1985: U. S. Geol. Survey Water Data Report NY-85-2, Vol. 2, Long Island; Albany, N. Y. ; 304p. U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: U.S. Public Health Service Pub. #956, 61p. Vaughn, James M. and Landry, Edward F. , 1980, The fate of human viruses in groundwater recharge systems: Brookhaven National Laboratory; Upton, New York, 63p. Vaughn, James M. , Landry, Edward F. and McHarrel, Thomas Z . , 1983 , Entrainment of viruses from septic tank leach fields through a shallow, sandy soil aquifer: Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 45. 5, pp. 1474-1480. Wetzel, R. G. , 1975, Limnology: W. B. Saunders Co. ; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 743 p. REF-6