Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Macari at Laurel 1992
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MACARI AT LAUREL TYPE I ACTION This Document Represents A Final Environmental Impact Statement For The Above Referenced Project. Copies Are Available For Public Review And Comments At The Offices Of The Lead Agency. Comments Will Be Accepted Until IN ACCORDANCE WITH: Article 8 Environmental Conservation Law (8-0113) Part 617 Statewide Regulations (6 NYCRR) DATE: March, 1992 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 225 Main Street, Suite 202 Road on the north and Laurel Way Northport, N.Y. 11768 (R.O.W. ) on the east and south Contact Persons: in Laurel, Town of Southold, Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Suffolk County, New York Gabrielle A. Schavran, M.S. Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Phone: 516-754-3415 ACCEPTANCE DATE: COMMENT DA E: APR - 21992 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD r V TABLE OF CONTENTS F.E.I.S. TEXT INTRODUCTION LIST OF COMMENTATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 TOPIC HEADINGS: SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 13 B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3. SANITARY WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 40 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 HISTORICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . o . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Co HYDROLOGIC SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 i i 3 . SANITARY WASTE 62 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4. TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 7. POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . 88 A. PHYSICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1. TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 iB. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 90 1. FLORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 93 2. FAUNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING 100 1. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2. GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3. SANITARY WASTE 106 D. MUNICIPAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY 107 3. ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE 117 5. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES 136 6. HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 8. MATTITUCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 . o . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 9. TAXES AND FISCAL SETTING 144 VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 IX. GROWTH—INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 ii X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 APPENDICES COMMENTS ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE: 1. Location of Data Collection Stations: Quality of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2. Site Sensitivity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3. Lot 18 of Proposed Action: Potential Layout 45 4. Contributing Drainage Areas 102 5. Water Quality of Municipal Water Source 113 TABLE: 1. New York State Coastal Policies 121 PLATE: 3. Site Plan - Modified Cluster Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . In Pocket APPENDICES APPENDIX: A. Town of Southold Documents B. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Documents 1. Request for Wetlands Delineation of NYSDEC 2. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetland Boundary Confirmation 3. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map and Classifications C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Request for Establishment of Potential Jurisdiction D. Soil and Groundwater Quality at the Macari at Laurel Site E. Water and Nitrogen Budget Calculations iii F. Suffolk County Water Authority Documents G. Letters to Adjacent Property Owners H. Recharge Basin Information I. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Documents J. Correspondence to Southold Town Planning Board, March 6, 1992 iv INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Property was submitted September 26, 1991 and subsequent to revision accepted as complete by the Planning Board, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York on June 4, 1991 (Appendix A) . Subsequently, a public hearing was held on June 24, 1991. Comments were presented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the public hearing or submitted, in written form, during the designated public comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Statement includes the DEIS, copies of the written comments, and a compilation of all substantial comments concerning the DEIS as well as appropriate responses to them. Where a number of individuals or agencies have commented on the same topic, these individuals and/or agencies are cross-referenced at the end of each comment, in the Comment/Reply section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Where the text of the DEIS has been revised from its original version to reflect responses, the appropriate section within the DEIS is referred to. LIST OF COMMENTATORS A. WRITTEN COMMENTS. 1. Planning Board Office, Town of Southold, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman, July 5, 1991. 2. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants, July 5, 1991. 3. Robert DeLuca, Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology, July 5, 1991. 4. Mohabir Persaud, State of New York, Department of State, July 5, 1991. 5. Cynthia Sturner, Member of Conservation Advisory Council, July 3, 1991. 6. E.J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority, July 9, 1991. 7. Adeline Lee, June 28, 1991. 8. Barbara Sayre, June 28, 1991. 9. Ruth Jahier, July 1, 1991. 10. Sherry Johnson, North Fork Environmental Council, July 5, 1991. 11. Karen Gross, July 3, 1991. B. ORAL COMMENTS. 12. Robert Weintrab (sp) . 13. Judy Greco. 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SUMMARY 1. COMMENT: It is believed that Kirkup Lane has a base, and is not just a dirt road (p. S-2) . (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. , Page S-2 has been changed to the following: "The site is currently 63.6 acres of "open space. " Limited access to the site exists from Kirkup Lane and Laurel Lane (an unpaved road) . " 2. COMMENT: The acronym "MBS" should be defined (p. S-3) . (1) REPLY: MBAS (i.e. , methylene blue active substance) is an abbreviation describing synthetic detergents. The presence of MBAS indicate contamination by septic tank effluent or other waste-water (Perlmutter, et al. , 1964) . 3. COMMENT: The last sentence in the first paragraph (p. S-4) states that topsoil will be stockpiled for "future use". The proposed location and time of the use of the topsoil should be mentioned. (1) 2 REPLY: Topsoil stockpiled on the site during the initial stages of the regrading process at the Macari at Laurel site, will be redistributed within the areas reserved for turf and indigenous shrubs, prior to the replanting. Most of the topsoil will be utilized in the same subdivision lot as it originates. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. COMMENT: There is an inconsistency in the second paragraph (p. II-2) . The projected increase in population is based on each home being occupied by 2.3 people. Yet, the proposal involves the construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Unless documentation can be provided to support the 2.5 persons per house figure, the projected adult and child population should be revised upward to reflect likely occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. (1) REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units, 14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13 units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the U.S. Census (1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family housing unit was 2.56 persons/unit in the Town of Southold. Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51 persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990) . Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, an average of 2.50 3 i person/unit was utilized. However, the actual number of residents per dwelling unit may be higher than this average estimate considering the proposed number of bedrooms per house. ' This is likely to result in an increase in the amount of nitrogen potentially recharged to the aquifer (see details below) . The estimates of sanitary effluent and number of school children are not based upon the number of persons inhabiting the dwelling units. These estimates will therefore not be affected by this increased number of persons per dwelling unit. 2. COMMENT: The projected population noted in the second paragraph (p. II-4) should be revised to reflect the proposed construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. (1) REPLY: See previous comment. 3. COMMENT: The first paragraph addresses required permits. The applicant should determine the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees with regard to freshwater wetlands on the subject parcel. Location of wetlands as determined by the Trustees is important for yield determination and site design planning. The wetlands reflected on Plate 1 were delineated by the Land Use Company. The regulatory boundary of both the town Trustees and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be determined. (2) 4 REPLY: This comment is so noted. The planned subdivision will be constructed in conformance with current regulations. Prior to final site plan approval the Applicant will have the freshwater wetlands boundaries delineated by all necessary agencies. A request for delineation of wetlands was sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Appendix B-1) . An on-site field inspection by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the Land Use Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) "for the purpose of this application" (Appendix B-2) . However, should the site plans dated August 22, 1990 (i.e. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) change, then a redelineation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation might be necessary. 4. COMMENT: Page II-3 indicates that, "Indigenous trees and shrubs will be planted along the proposed inter-development roadway, within the cleared portions of each building envelope, and elsewhere within the site". There should be a distinction made between mitigative planting which is proposed as part of the subdivision improvements (i.e. inter-development road and recharge areas) , and mitigative planting which may or may not occur on private lots once the parcel is developed. Additional information including species density, type and at what stage of subdivision approval mitigation will be implemented, is necessary. (2) . 5 REPLY: The replanting schedule for the proposed action includes the planting of low-maintenance turf on a total of approximately 8.0 acres, or 12.6% total area, and indigenous shrubs on 2. 1 acres, or 3.3% total area. This includes all replanting at the site. In her recently published "Long Island Native Plants for Landscaping: A Source Book" Karen Blumer (1990) lists native vegetative species available from local commercial sources. Within the following vegetative species list compiled from a botanical investigation and identification completed on the site (See D.E.I.S. Section III-B-1: FLORA) , such commercially available native species (NP) are indicated with an (X) . Mixed Deciduous Forest. NP Common Beech Fagus sylvatica Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus Scrub Oak Ouercus ilicifolia White Oak Ouercus alba X Red Oak Quercus rubra X Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata X Grey Birch Betula populifolia X Black Birch Betula lenta X Ash Fraxinus sp. 2 Fraxinus species available Big-toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata Redcedar Juniper Juniperus virginiana X Sassafras Sassafras variifolium Red Maple Acer rub rum X Oleaster Eleagnus angustifolia Red Mulberry Morus rubra X Fire Cherry Prunus pennsylvanica Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina X Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans P Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida X Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia 6 Maple-leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerfolium Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii Great Solomon's Seal Polygonatum canaliculatum False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa X Common Smartweed Polygonum hydropiper Fox Grape Vitis labrusca Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara Dangleberry Gavlussacia frondosa Blackberry Rubus flagellaris Black Chokeberry Pyrus melanocarpa Garlic Mustard Alliaria officinalis Arrow-leafed Aster Aster sagittifolius P Woodland Fern Dryopteris sp. 4 Dryopteris species available Old Field and Edge Vegetation. NP Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia P Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica X Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus X auinauefolia Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Poison Ivy Rhus radicans Common Winter Cress Barbarea vulgaris Wild Carrot Daucus carota Pokeweed Phytolacca americana Yarrow Achillea millefolium Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis X Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris Field Pennycress Thlasni arvense Chicory Cichorium intybus Daisy Fleabane Erigeron annus Horseweed Erigeron canadensis Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris Foxtail Grass Chaetochloa glauca Panic-grass Panicum sp. 1 Panicum species available Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Groundsel Tree Baccharis halimifolia Slender-leaved Goldenrod Solidago tenuifolia Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Solidago rugosa Tall Goldenrod Solidago altissima Tick Trefoil Desmodium sp. Chaffseed Schwalbea americana Round-headed Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata Fine-leaved Sneezeweed Helenium tenuifolium Sickle-leaved Golden Aster ChrysoDsis falcata 7 Rough Hawkweed Hieracium scabrum Common Hawkweed Hieracium vulcgatum Crab Apple Malus sylvestris St. Peterswort Ascyrum stans Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Common Chickweed Alsine media Bladder Campion Silene latifolia Silverweed Potentill anserina Common Strawberry Fragaria virainiana Freshwater Wetlands. NP Common Beech Fagus sylvatica Grey Birch Betula RORulifolia X Black Birch Betula lenta X Red Maple Acer rubrum X Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia Great Solomon's Seal Polygonatum canaliculatum False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa X Blackberry Rubus flagellaris Woodland Fern Dryopteris sp. 4 Dryopteris species available Sedge Carex sp. Pond Vegetation NP Duckweed Lemma sp. Hornwort Ceratophvllum demersum Eighteen (18) of the species identified at the Macari at Laurel site, including the protected plants (NYSDEC, March 1990: "Protected Native Plants") , Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) (Exploitably Vulnerable) and Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) (Exploitably Vulnerable) are available through commercial channels (Blumer, 1990) . In addition, species belonging to the three genera Dryopteris, Fraxinus, and Panic um are also available (Blumer, 1990) . The 2.1 acres (or 3 .3% total area) to be replanted with indigenous vegetation will, if possible, utilize the actual 8 vegetative specimens removed from the site during the regrading process and/or native plants, e.g. , purchased at one of the numerous locations described by Karen Blumer (1990) . Blumer (1990) lists five (5) guidelines for landscaping with native plants: 1. Determine which habitat(s) exist on the property to be designed. If the natural substrate has not been removed or destroyed, use what exists and choose species naturally adapted to that habitat and its soil conditions. Four vegetative habitats exist at the site for the proposed action: Upland Forest; Old Field; Freshwater Wetlands; and Surface Waters. However, only two of these habitats, i.e. , Upland Forest and Old Field will be exposed to regrading and construction activities with the proposed action. During the initial stages of construction care will be taken to scrape off the upper fertile soil mantle and store it in stockpiles. Since significant 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. The stockpiles will be seeded with a quick growing, stabilizing grass cover such as perennial rye grasses until it is reused within the site. Following construction the topsoil will be spread over the regraded sands and gravels in order to reestablish the original soil profile configuration. 9 2. Retain as much of the native vegetation intact - the understory as well as canopy shrubs or trees - as possible. Learn to use these buffers or vegetation islands creatively, combining with other native plants when desirable. Whether the property is a single residential lot or an industrial, commercial or residential subdivision, this is the least expensive and energy-consuming approach. The greatest expense will be in careful planning and hiring skilled bulldozer operators who are willing to comply with site specifications. Approximately 18.4 acres, or 28.9% of the site will be regraded. Within the regraded area approximately 2.1 acres (or 3.3% total area) will be replanted with indigenous vegetation. Wherever possible vegetative specimen previously removed during the regrading process will be utilized in the replanting schedule. 3. For plantings, select species appropriate for the habitat or habitats comprising the property as well as the Long Island range in which they are found. Within the area to be replanted with indigenous woody shrubs, vegetative specimens, wherever possible, previously removed during the regrading process will be utilized in the replanting schedule. In cases, where this is not possible similar species, if possible, will be acquired from commercial sources (Blumer, 1990) . 4. Try to recycle plants from areas of the site to be destroyed to other parts of the property to be landscaped. This is particularly easy for herbaceous material in the spring and shrubs and small trees in the spring and fall. 10 Within the area to be replanted with indigenous woody shrubs, vegetative specimens previously removed during the regrading process will be utilized, wherever possible, in the replanting schedule. The strategic timing of the regrading process, starting in the spring, would facilitate the successful replanting of both herbaceous specimens as well as shrubs and small trees (Blumer, 1990) . 5. If there are desirable species on your property or nearby which you would like more of, try propagating them from seed, layerings (stem layerings are successful in order to get larger specimens) or cuttings. Prior to the start of the construction activities a special effort to collect seeds of selected vegetative species could be made. Following the completion of the proposed action and the replanting of relocated native specimens from within the site as well as the planting of native specimens from commercial sources (Blumer, 1990) , previously collected seeds from the site can be planted within the area reserved for indigenous woody shrubs. 5. COMMENT: Page II-5 indicates, °. . .the Applicant wishes to exercise his right to build in direct response to demand". We are in agreement that there are a number of ways in which the parcel could be developed; however, it is extremely unlikely that the entire parcel would be developed at one time. Therefore, it is requested that a phased development proposal outlining the estimated stages of development be included in the 11 Final EIS. Given the sensitivity of the parcel and the importance of proper clearing and drainage control as outlined in the Draft EIS, it is necessary to consider the project implementation schedule as a means of mitigation. (2) REPLY: Considering the current housing economic/market climate on Long Island, it seems logical to assume that the Applicant will construct a model house, probably on a lot near Sound Avenue, and construct subsequent dwellings on demand. This type of construction schedule will ensure that a minimal portion of the site will be exposed to surface erosion at any given time (i.e. , one lot at a time) . Prior to final site plan approval a specific construction and regrading plan could be submitted by the Applicant, if required by the Town of Southold. 6. COMMENT: In terms of the description of the proposed project, this section should outline the yield determination which supports 27 lots. Review of Plate 2 finds that Lot 9 contains surface water and wetlands which may cause this lot to fall below the minimum area necessary in the R-80 zoning district. (2) REPLY: Plate 2 represents a standard layout of the Macari at Laurel site. This standard layout was included in the D.E.I.S. as the Yield Alternative to the proposed action which 12 utilizes a clustered layout. Consequently, this alternative presents a hypothetical, worst-case scenario of the development of the Macari at Laurel site. III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL BETTING B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1. FLORA 1. COMMENT: Page III-24 indicates that the freshwater wetlands are regulated by the NYSDEC under Article 24. It appears that State-regulated freshwater wetlands MT-2 and MT-22 are located on this site. The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should be established in order to provide an accurate means of determining compliance with regulations. In addition, the regulatory jurisdiction and involvement of the Town Trustees should be determined. (2) (3) (10) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The planned subdivision will be constructed in conformance with current regulations. Prior to final site plan approval the Applicant will have the freshwater wetlands boundaries delineated by all necessary agencies. A request for delineation of wetlands was sent to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Appendix B-1) . An on-site field inspection by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the Land Use 13 Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) "for the purpose of this application" (Appendix B-2) . However, should the site plans dated August 22, 1990 (i.e. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) change, then a redelineation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation might be necessary. The Applicant will obtain any permits required by the Town of Southold and other involved agencies prior to final site plan approval. According to the NYSDEC Preliminary Freshwater Wetlands Map for the region, the Macari at Laurel site contains Wetlands Area MT-22 and part of Wetlands Area M-2 (Appendix B-3) . The M-22 Freshwater Wetlands Area is located within the northeasternmost kettle hole of the Macari at Laurel site, whereas the M-2 Freshwater Wetlands Area consists primarily of Laurel Lake and a few minor, associated wetlands areas. Thus, the main body of the M-2 Wetlands Area, i.e. , Laurel Lake, is located adjacent to portions of the southern boundaries of the site, while a portion of a minor associated wetlands area is located within the southernmost part of the site (Appendix B-3) . 2. COMMENT: The DEIS states that 7 rare plants have historically been documented as occurring in the vicinity of this subdivision. Discussion as to whether or not they might still be found here is inconclusive. Additional field work, by a Natural Heritage Botanist should be done to determine if any are present on this site. (11) 14 REPLY: As explained in further detail within Section III-B-1: FLORA of the D.E.I.S. , the New York State Natural Heritage Program reported eleven (11) rare plant species and a rare plant community, all located in the general vicinity of the site for the proposed action (Appendix A-4 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Four (4) of these eleven rare species as well as the rare plant community were not located in the Town of Southold, but are found south in the Town of Southampton on the South Fork of Long Island. The reports regarding the remaining seven (7) species were all historic (ranging from 1918 to 1958) , reported from an area within approximately one (1) mile of the Macari at Laurel site. Their habitat requirements are described in further detail within Section III-B-1: FLORA of the D.E.I.S. . Of these species, two (2) are described as preferring dry fields and clearings (i.e. , Cut-leaved Evening-primrose (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) ) . These two species were last reported from the area in 1924-1925. The remaining five species (i.e. , Long's Bittercress (Cardamine longii) , Creeping St. John's Wort (Hypericum adpressum) , Lespedeza (Lespedeza stuevei) , Drowned Horned Rush (Rhyncosnora inundata) , and Fewflower Nutrush (Scleria pauciflora var. caroliniana) ) , which all were last reported from the area in 1918-1958, either prefer pond margins or have been described from such habitats. Consequently, since the site for the 15 proposed action contains a number of delineated wetlands areas with kettle hole ponds, it is possible that some of these species might occur at the Macari at Laurel site. In addition, the site also contains areas of old field vegetation, and thus potentially containing habitats preferred by the two first species (i.e. , Cut-leaved Evening-primrose (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) ) . However, none of these species were observed at the site during the detailed field survey for the proposed action (completed by a professional botanist) . Prior to final site plan approval and if required by the Town of Southold, further on-site field investigations could be conducted, specifically with respect to the above mentioned 7 vegetative species. 3. COMMENT: The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the Site in sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. and C. of the DEIS, which address the present biological and hydrological setting, do not contain a section on wetlands. The DEIS should include a map showing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") designated wetlands and adjacent areas. It should indicate the activities for which a NYSDEC freshwater wetlands permit may be required and discuss how the proposed Project would satisfy NYSDEC's regulatory requirements for permit issuance. The DEIS should also indicate whether the wetlands are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 16 Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, whether a Corps permit would be required, and if so, how the Project would meed the federal regulatory requirements. The size of a appropriate buffer to protect wetland areas also should be addressed. (The DEIS states that no roadways or houses would be built within 50 feet of wetlands but contains no further analysis. ) (DEIS at V-56. ) (11) REPLY: In general, issues concerning the freshwater wetlands and ponds at the site for the proposed action are discussed as an integral part of the main body of the text throughout the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel project. However, the following sections of the D.E.I.S. described the conditions of the freshwater wetlands and ponds in further detail: D.E.I.S. Section Section and Page Number III. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Biological Setting: Flora III-B-1, pp. III-20 to III-25 Fauna III-B-2, pp. III-30 to III-36 pp. III-38 to III-40 Municipal Setting: Zoning, Land Use, and Planning and Open Space: Planning and Open Space III-D-3, pp. III-84 to III-85 17 IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION: Biological Setting: Flora IV-B-1, IV-7 to IV-8 Fauna IV-B-2, IV-10 to IV-13 V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: Biological Setting: Flora V-B-1, V-19 to V-22 A request for delineation of the freshwater wetlands at the site has been submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Appendix B-1) . The NYSDEC conducted an on-site visit, confirming for the purpose of this application (i.e. , the proposed action) the freshwater wetlands limits as determined by the Land Use Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . However, a redelineation may be required by the NYSDEC should the site plans dated August 22, 1990 (i.e. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) change (Appendix A-2) . The following section further discusses wetlands issues that do or might pertain to the Macari at Laurel proposed action. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law (referred to below as NYSDEC Article 24 ECL) describe in detail the NYSDEC freshwater wetlands regulations. According to these regulations (24-0701. Permits) , any person desiring to conduct on designated freshwater wetlands any regulated activities must obtain a permit. 18 Further, activities subject to regulation (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) include: a. Any form of draining, dredging, excavation, removal of soil, mud, sand, shells, gravel or other aggregate from any freshwater wetland, either directly or indirectly; and any form of dumping, filling, or depositing of any soil, stones, sand, gravel, mud, rubbish or fill of any kind, either directly or indirectly; erecting any structures, roads, the driving of pilings, or placing of any other obstructions whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the water; any form of pollution, including but not limited to, installing a septic tank, running a sewer outfall, discharging sewage treatment effluent or other liquid wastes into or so as to drain into a freshwater wetland; and any other activity which substantially impairs any of the several functions served by freshwater wetlands or the benefits derived therefrom which are set forth in section 24-0105 of this article. These activities are subject to regulation whether or not they occur upon the wetland itself, if they impinge upon or otherwise substantially affect the wetlands and are located not more than one hundred feet from the boundary of such wetland. Provided, that a greater distance from any such wetland may be regulated pursuant to this article by the appropriate local government or by the department, whichever has jurisdiction over such wetland, where necessary to protect and preserve the wetland. b. The depositing or removal of the natural products of the freshwater wetlands by recreational or commercial fishing, shell-fishing, aquaculture, hunting or trapping shall be excluded from regulated activities, where otherwise legally permitted and regulated. C. The activities of farmers and other landowners in grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use of water resources, harvesting natural products of the wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or wetlands for growing agricultural products and otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other land for growing agricultural products shall be excluded from regulated activities and shall not require permit, except that structures not required for enhancement or maintenance of the agricultural activities shall not be excluded hereunder, and provided that the use of land designated as a 19 freshwater wetland upon the freshwater wetlands map at the effective date thereof for uses other than those referred to in this subdivision shall be subject to the provisions of this article. d. Public health activities, orders, and regulations of the department of health shall be excluded from regulated activities. e. The Commissioner shall review all current mosquito control projects to determine whether they are having any adverse impact on freshwater wetlands. Where any adverse impact is found, the commissioner may require modification of such projects if he deems such necessary for the implementation of the policies of this article. f. Where dredging or filling is in navigable waters of the state or is for the reconstruction or repair of certain dams and docks, and where such activity also affects freshwater wetlands, any person undertaking such activity must seek permission under this article as well as under other applicable law. g. On any land that is being developed pursuant to a planned unit development ordinance or local law where freshwater wetlands are to remain as open space, development activities shall be permitted in areas contiguous to such wetlands if the local government affirms that such activities will not despoil said wetland. Any person proposing to conduct or cause to be conducted a regulated activity upon any freshwater wetland shall file an application for a permit with the clerk of the local government having jurisdiction or the department. Review of the application shall be made by the local government or the commissioner (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) . Regarding local implementation of freshwater wetlands protection NYSDEC Article 24 ECL states that may implement a freshwater wetlands protection law or ordinance in accordance with Article 24 ECL. No freshwater wetlands protection law or 20 ordinance adopted by a county pursuant to section 24-0501 (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) shall be applicable within the boundaries of any city, town or village which has adopted and is implementing a local freshwater wetlands protection law or ordinance consistent with NYSDEC Article 24 ECL. However, it is the specific provision that no such local freshwater wetlands protection law or ordinance shall be less protective of freshwater wetlands or effectiveness of administrative and judicial review, than the procedures presented in NYSDEC Article 24 ECL, nor shall such local law or ordinance affect the activities exempted from permit, as described above (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) . Furthermore, it is stated within NYSDEC Article 24 ECL that the commissioner, by rule, may exempt from local implementation those freshwater wetlands which due to their size or special characteristics of unique environmental value or by reason of common characteristics, are appropriately to be administered pursuant to NYSDEC Article 24 ECL alone. Such rule, based upon findings of fact made after public hearing, may relate to classes of wetlands based on size or particular characteristics, or to particular wetlands the characteristics of which make them subject to the exercise of the commissioner's discretion pursuant to NYSDEC Article 24 ECL. The commissioner shall make an order to such effect in each such instance and inform the executive officer of each local government thereof. In addition, except as provided in NYSDEC Article 24 ECL 21 jurisdiction over all areas which would qualify as freshwater wetlands except that they are not designated as such on the freshwater wetlands map pursuant to section 24-0301 of NYSDEC Article 24 ECL because they are less than twelve and four tenths acres in size and are not of unusual local importance is reserved to the city, town or village in which they are wholly or partially located, and the implementation of NYSDEC Article 24 ECL with respect thereto is the responsibility of said local governmental agency. Any freshwater wetland subject to land use regulations shall be deemed subject to a limitation on the use of such wetlands for the purpose of property tax evaluation, in the same manner as if an easement or right had been acquired pursuant to the general municipal law. Assessed value shall be based, during the duration of such regulation, on the uses remaining to the owner thereof. The Town of Southold has adopted local wetlands regulations. Thus, Chapter 97: "Wetlands", of the Code of the Town of Southold (Town of Southold, 1988) and Local Law No. 4: "A Local Law in Relation to Wetlands" (Town of Southold, 1989) describes the wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. The Town of Southold wetlands regulations describes the term "freshwater wetlands: as (1) "Freshwater Wetlands" of Article 24 ECL NYSDEC; and (2) All land immediately adjacent to a freshwater wetland and lying within 75 feet landward of the most 22 landward edge of a freshwater wetland. According to the Town of Southold wetlands ordinance, the following exceptions do not require a permit: a. The ordinary and usual mosquito control operations conducted by any public authority; b. The ordinary and usual operations incidental to the cultivation and/or harvesting of fish or shellfish; C. The ordinary and usual operations relative to conservation of soil, vegetation, fish, shellfish and wildlife; d. The ordinary and usual operations relative to agriculture, aquaculture or horticulture; e. The ordinary and usual maintenance or repair of a presently existing building, dock, pier, wharf, bulkhead, jetty, groin, dike, dam or other water control device or structure; f. The construction of a registered bulkhead, which is to replace an existing functional bulkhead, provided that the new bulkhead is constructed substantially similar to the design and measurement of the existing bulkhead and located in place of the existing bulkhead. However, within the Town of Southold (Chapter 97 of Code, 1988) no person shall conduct operations on any wetlands in the Town of Southold unless he shall first obtain a written permit therefor issued by the authority of the Trustees. The Trustees may waive the requirement of a permit with respect to lands immediately adjacent to wetlands, if the Trustees find and determine that no operations are proposed on such lands, or that the operations proposed thereon comply with the local standards 23 (Chapter 97 of Code, Town of Southold, 1988) . The Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a freshwater wetlands permit only if it determines that such operations will not substantially: a. Adversely affect the wetlands of the town; b. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation; C. Cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the town; d. Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof; e. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage; f. Adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town; g. Change the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters; h. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity; i. Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town. Consequently, the Freshwater wetlands regulations for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Article 24 ECL, NYSDEC) and the Town of Southold (Chapter 97 of Code, Town of Southold, 1988) regulate activities within 100 feet and 75 feet of wetlands boundaries, respectively. In order to comply with local regulations the proposed action should not cause any alterations except for those 24 described above within 75 feet of the landward wetlands boundaries at the Macari at Laurel site. However, compliance with the NYSDEC Article 24 ECL regulations require that no activities except those specifically permitted by Article 24 be conducted within 100 feet of the wetlands. Prior to the construction of the proposed action all necessary permits, including wetlands permits from the town of Southold, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, individual water well and sanitary system permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, as well as any other permits required by law, ensuring the preservation of freshwater wetlands and groundwater quality in the area, will be obtained by the Applicant. Issues that are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers are described within the Federal Register, Part II: Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule (1986) . Specifically, Section 320. 1.b. describes the types of activities that are regulated: (1) Dams and dikes in navigable waters of the United States (Part 321) ; (2) Other structures of work including excavation, dredging, and/or disposal activities, in navigable waters of the United States (Part 322) ; 25 (3) Activities that alter or modify the course, condition, location, or capacity of a navigable water of the United States (Part 322) ; (4) Construction of artificial islands, installations, and other devices on the outer continental shelf (Part 322) ; (5) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (Part 323) ; (6) Activities involving the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal in ocean waters (Part 324) ; and (7) Nationwide general permits for certain categories of activities (Part 330) . A request (Appendix C) was sent on September 16, 1991 to the Army Corps of Engineers to determine any jurisdiction this agency may have over the waters and freshwater wetlands areas of the site. The agency then scheduled an on-site visit on November 14, 1991 (personal communication, Mr. Roberto Barbosa, Army Corps of Engineers, 212-264-6730) . Subsequently, Mr. Roberto Barbosa (personal communication, Army Corps of Engineers, December 17, 1991, 212-264-6730) informed The Clover Corporation that he does not believe the Corps has any jurisdiction at the site. However, to date (i.e. , February 26, 1992) no written communications stating the findings of the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Macari at Laurel site have been received. 26 2. FAUNA 1. COMMENT: The statement "The site for the proposed action is not considered a significant parcel of habitat for the Osprey", should be referenced and supported. The document should indicate how the Osprey was observed in connection with the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders occupying habitats in proximity such food sources. The significance of the parcel in this context should be determined. (2) REPLY: According to Peter Nye and Barbara Loucks (Undated NYSDEC Publication "State Report: New York") the status of the Osprey in New York is a total of 137 active Osprey nesting sites. Of these 110 sites are located in Eastern Long Island. Seventy three of these sites were productive in 1983 producing a total of 155 young. 1983 marks the continuation of the dramatic rise in New York's Osprey population which began in 1980, as the young birds, produced after the DDT ban, began to reach sexual maturity and nest during the mid-to-late seventies. In comparison, in the early seventies (i.e. , 1982) New York's 105 active pairs of nesting Ospreys were only able to produce 36 young from 22 nests. On Long Island at least 50 artificial nesting platforms have been placed since 1976. Currently, approximately half of these are in use. Many of these platforms involve translocation of Ospreys nesting in dangerous situations on utility poles that must be moved. Throughout the State of New York all available Osprey carcasses are routinely being 27 collected and analyzed for contaminant levels. the primary causes of death in New York Ospreys are shooting and electrocution. The Osprey was classified as Endangered in New York until 1983, when it was downgraded to threatened (Nye and Loucks, undated report) . This may indicate a trend as the population continues to increase counter to its rarity. A century ago there was a large population of Ospreys on Long Island, where an estimated 1,000 - 2,000 adults roosted on Plum Island (Andrle & Carroll, 1988) . In addition, more than 100 nests were reported from Gardiner's Island in 1910. By 1930 the number of nests on Gardiner's Island had increased to more than 300. Its decline began in 1948, and by 1966 only 4 young were produced from an estimated 55-60 active nests on Gardiner's Island (Andrle et al. , 1988) . However, in 1977 the NYSDEC began its Osprey monitoring program. As late as in 1986 there were 144 active nests and 186 fledglings (Andrle et al. , 1988) . On Long Island the Osprey usually nests on large tracts of undeveloped land near major estuaries, on tributaries, or along the many harbors or bays; or on islands, such as the Nature Conservancy's Mashomack Preserve on Shelter Island, and Gardiner's Island. One nest, however, was located in the pine barrens several miles from water. On Long Island the Osprey appears to tolerate human disturbance. Although the nest is most frequently built in a tall tree, nests at Gardiners Island were found on the ground. Adult Ospreys return to breeding areas on Long Island in 28 mid to late March and leave for the wintering areas during late September early October. Ospreys require suitable nesting sites near an abundant food supply. Since they almost exclusively feed on fish, they usually nest near streams or bodies of water (Town of Brookhaven, 1990) . Ospreys associated with freshwater areas usually depend on one or two major fish sources. In tidal areas, the Osprey tend to use the fish available. Within the nearby Town of Brookhaven the Osprey has been observed nesting both directly adjacent to water bodies and at inland sites in relative proximity (within 3 miles) to feeding areas. One Osprey nest even occurs on a light pole in an unused racetrack parking lot (Town of Brookhaven, 1990) . At the Macari at Laurel property Ospreys have on two occasions been observed flying over the site for the proposed action. In conclusion, although the Osprey appears to be gaining rapidly in quantity and reproductive ability on Long Island it seems that its particular strongholds in the area are on the relatively isolated islands, such as Gardiners Island, Shelter Island, and Plum Island. In addition, with the close proximity of tidal waters and more sheltered habitats than the site for the proposed action, located adjacent to the moderately traveled Sound Avenue, it seems unlikely that the Osprey would utilize this site for purposes other than roosting. 29 2. CO)MENT: The statement in the first full paragraph on Page III-36, "The field investigation failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species of wildlife", contradicts other information in the Draft EIS which identified the Osprey, a Threatened species, in association with the site. It should also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other Endangered species and Species of Special Concern. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-36 has been changed to the following: "A survey of the insect species present on the site was not conducted. With the exception of the observations of the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (TH) , the field investigation failed to reveal any endangered, threatened or special concern species of wildlife (Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF 4-Reg-17; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1987; New York Natural Heritage Program, 1987, Appendix A-5 of the D.E.I.S. ) . However, the potential exists that the site may be utilized by the following rare species: 1. New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) (SC) , often utilizes the same type of habitat as the Eastern Cottontail. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 2. Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon platyrhinos) (SC) , prefers open sandy-soiled areas; thinly wooded upland hillsides, cultivated fields, and woodland meadows, This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 3. Worm Snake (CarRhophis amoenus) (SC) , is found in damp hilly woodlands, partially wooded or grassy hillsides above 30 streams, and farmland bordering woodlands. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 4. Spotted Turtle (Clemmvs auttata) (SC) , lives in marshy meadows, wet woodlands, boggy areas, beaver ponds, and shallow muddy-bottomed streams. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 5. Cricket Frog (Acris crepitans) (TH) , prefers sunny ponds of shallow water with good growth of vegetation in the water or on shore; slow-moving streams with sunny banks. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 6. Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) (SC) , inhabits hardwood forests and hillsides around pools and flooded depressions. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 7. Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) (SC) , prefers freshwater locations. It wanders among moist vegetation in the summer, returns to freshwater ponds and streams and brackish marshes for the rest of the year. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 8. Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) (SC) , lives in open country with scattered trees; farms and roadsides. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 9. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) (SC) , prefers grassland, hayfields and prairies. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 10. Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) (SC) , prefers meadows, fields, prairies, and roadsides. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 11. Peregrine Falcon (Falco perearinus) (EN) , lives mainly in open country. This species was not observed at the site during the field survey; 12. Osprey* (Pandion haliaetus) (TH) , was observed on two occasions flying over the site. Its main habitats are rivers, lakes, and coast. " 3. COMMENT: The second full paragraph on Page III-42 indicates that, "The wildlife population potential at the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as well as 31 recent activities on the site itself." This statement seems to contradict other information in the Draft EIS which indicates that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas providing diverse habitat and "edge effect". In addition, the surrounding area is primarily of low intensity usage. Therefore it should be indicated how these factors limit the wildlife population potential on the site. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-B-2: FAUNA, Page III-42 has been changed to the following: "The wildlife population potential at the site is only moderately limited by the surrounding land usage (e.g. , active farmland and Sound Avenue) . " C. HYDROLOGIC BETTING 2. GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY 1. COMMENT: The last paragraph (p. III-56) needs to be updated to reflect recent findings that septic systems and residential use of fertilizers may be an equally significant source of nitrates. (1) REPLY: The text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-C-2: Groundwater, Page III-56 has been changed to the following: 32 "Hydrogeologic zone IV locally has marginal water quality, mainly in areas underlying farms. Agricultural fertilizers are a major source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . According to Ms. Valerie Scopaz of the Town of Southold Planning Board (personal communication with Melissa Spiro, 516-765-1937, September 16, 1991) recent findings of the Special Groundwater Protection Area Study have indicated that septic systems and residential use of fertilizers may be an equally significant source of nitrates. ,, A study of the Draft Special Ground-water Protection Area Project (LIRPB, 1991) mentions that the findings of a U.S.G.S. project titled "Statistical Modeling of Shallow Groundwater Quality in the Central Suffolk Pine Barrens SGPA, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York" (USGS Water Resources Division, 1991) clearly established a linkage between human activities and the impact on the shallow aquifer. According to Project Director Lee Koppelman (personal communication, 516-632-9021, September 24, 1991) the U.S.G.S. study referred to actually is the U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4142, a study published in 1989 by David A.V. Eckhardt, William J. Flipse, Jr. , and Edward T. Oaksford, titled "Relation Between Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York. " Eckhardt, et al. (1989) , studied several different land-use categories (i.e. , industrial, commercial, transportation, agricultural, institutional, recreational, undeveloped areas, 33 and four different densities of residential areas) . The relationship between these land-use categories and the water quality of the underlying Upper Glacial aquifer was studied in detail. Thus, the study by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) placed special emphasis on contamination by several organic compounds, but contamination by several inorganic constituents, such as nitrate, sulfate, potassium, calcium, chloride, and total dissolved solids, was also investigated. The residential categories included: (1) Low-density Residential (fewer than 2 dwellings per acre) ; (2) Medium-density Residential (2 to 4 dwellings per acre) ; (3) Intermediate-density Residential (5 to 10 dwellings per acre) ; and (4) High-density Residential (11 or more dwellings per acre) . Thus, the density of the proposed action (27 dwellings on 63.6 acres, or about 0.42 D.U./acre) falls under the category of Low-density Residential. In general, the Eckhardt, et al. (1989) study found: Groundwater from agricultural areas had the highest median concentrations of nitrate (6.0 mg/L) , sulfate (40 mg/L) , and calcium (19 mg/L) , presumably as a result of fertilizers. Agricultural areas also had the most frequent detection of the pesticide carbofuran (42% of wells) . However, aldicarb contamination was not studied by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) . and Groundwater from high-density residential areas had the highest median specific conductance (296 uS/cm) , and the highest median concentrations of chloride (31 mg/L) , potassium (4.3 mg/L) , and total dissolved solids (202 mg/L) ; groundwater in this category also had the second-highest median concentration of nitrate (4.6 mg/L) and frequency of detection for 34 1,1,1-trichloroethane (42%) , trichloroethylene (37%) , tetrachloroethylene (33%) , chloroform (22%) , and 1,2-dichloroethylene (12%) . However, groundwater from low-density residential areas had near-average concentrations of inorganic chemical constituents and a relatively low percentage of wells with volatile organic compound and pesticide detection. Specifically, Figure 7 of the land-use study (Eckhardt, et al. , 1989) presented the relationship between nitrate and land-use categories. Accordingly, the median values (50th percentile) and inter-quartile range (IQR) of data (25th to 75th percentile) of agricultural and high-density residential are comparable. However, the impact from low-density residential on nitrate appears significantly lower. Thus the ranked, actual values are as follows: Land-Use Category Median ME AGRICULTURAL 6.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4.6 mg/L 7.0 mg/L LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2.8 mg/L 3.8 mg/L 2. COMMENT: The third paragraph (p. III-58) notes that Well #S 53333 goes down 275 feet from the surface. Table 1 on page III-60 states that the well goes down 74 feet from the surface. Which number is correct? (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-C-2: Groundwater, Page III-58, Third paragraph has been changed to the following: "This well, #S 53333, (Figure 9) is completed at 74 feet within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives an indication of the quality 35 of groundwater in the area within this stratigraphic horizon (Table 1) . " 3. COMMENT: Figure 9. The map does not show clearly the location of the observation well relative to the proposed project. (1) REPLY: Observation well #S53333 is located approximately 0.6 miles northwest of the Macari at Laurel site. Figure 1 (i.e. , Figure 9 of the D.E.I.S. ) has been changed to demonstrate more clearly the locations of this observation well and the site for the proposed action. 4. COMMENT: Although the DEIS refers to groundwater quality in the area generally, it fails to specifically analyze groundwater quality on the Site. As the site was used for farming from 1920 until the early 1980's, both the groundwater and the soil should be tested for residual pesticides. Soil testing is critical for a proposed residential development because children may ingest contaminated soil while playing out-of-doors. (1) (11) (13) REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, groundwater and soil samples were collected at the Macari at Laurel site on December 10, 1991, and analyzed by Ecotest Laboratories (Appendix D) . A map indicating the sample 36 FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF DATA COLLECTION STATIONS : QUALITY OF GROUNDWATER 053326 0656 053322 065605 •6542 •53325 053336 x'53327 � 053333 X39269 7, --- -- — 1582 i •16796 _,•533'32 ?571 •5t3$$�1d *515878 •71577 ' �S %151581 \ Main 051589 •StS� 1588, 1 L 1 •4523 z •472&1 , St .062449 "J230 074304�, 4 -� 3541 67429624 - ,- •46538 �:. 046536 am_ �Ys 48581 074308 ,(c�) ^•a7232 35 046 47232 �__ _ `�48 v 48582 4 � � NvvY / 048584 -"6535 046532 174307 1 •74300 046537 _— s4J8435-- d 13543 Y 074306 = 046540,,-, N (Doriski, 1987) 1 2 3 4 5 MILES 0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS 37 locations is included in Appendix D. Groundwater samples were collected at Monitor Well locations #1, #4 and #5. In addition, the soil sample was collected in the old field area, adjacent to Monitor Well #1. The soil sample is a composite of four separate subsamples, taken at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet from borings located approximately 3 feet apart. The results of the groundwater and soil analyses are presented within Appendix D. Specifically, the soil sample was specifically tested for presence of pesticides and PCB's. No PCB's were detected in the soil sample. Elevated, but not unusual values (i.e. , 49 - 260 ug/Kg) of DDT and its breakdown components (i.e. , DDD and DDE) as well as Dieldrin (i.e. , 15 ug/Kg) and Eldrin (i.e. , 6 ug/Kg) were found. The groundwater samples were analyzed for content of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) , bacteria and inorganics. With one exception, the parameters tested did not exceeded the guidelines (Appendix D) . However, the combined Manganese and Iron contents ranged from 38.6 to 54.2 mg/L, slightly in excess of the 50 mg/L guideline. According to Ecotest Laboratories, the elevated Manganese and Iron values are probably caused by slight sediment contamination in the water samples. Specifically, the Nitrate values ranged between <0.5 and 0.8 mg/L, significantly below the permitted maximum of 10.0 mg/L. In addition, the Chloride measured contents of 5 to 22 mg/L were significantly less than the permitted 250 mg/L. 38 3. SANITARY WASTE 1. CONVENT: The second paragraph (p. III-65) does not mention that Southold's zoning code mandates clustering in the R-80 district where the subdivision exceeds 10 acres in area. (1) REPLY: This comment is assumed to include a typographical error in the page reference. Thus, it is more likely that it should have read 11III-75" instead of "III-65. " Accordingly, the text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-D-3 ZONING, Page III-75, second paragraph has been amended to the following: "The site for the proposed action is zoned R-80 and is defined as a single-family dwelling on a minimum lot area of 80, 000 square feet (Code of Town of Southold, Chapter 100: Zoning) . According to the Section 100-181 of the Zoning Chapter of the Code of the Town of Southold (1990) clustering is required within the R-80 Residential District on lots of at least ten acres (e.g. , the site for the proposed action) , subject to the following conditions: (1) The residential use will be single-family detached homes for lot sizes of at least 30,000 square feet and detached or attached houses for lot sizes less than 30, 000 sq.ft. (2) The density of these homes will be as specified in the particular district and determined as indicated in Subsection 100-181-C of the Zoning Chapter. 39 (3) The minimum lot size is: (a) Without public water and sewer: 30,000 sq.ft. (i.e. , the site for the proposed action) ; (b) With public water: 20,000 sq.ft. ; (c) With public water and sewer: 10,000 sq.ft. 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. " In accordance with the existing zoning district designation for the site Macari at Laurel site, the proposed action is a clustered residential subdivision, which, as opposed to the yield alternative, clusters all areas to be regraded, away from the environmentally sensitive portions (i.e. , freshwater wetlands and surface waters) of the site. D. MUNICIPAL SETTING 4. TRAFFIC EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1. COMMENT: III-88. The year, and date of the traffic volume data is neither noted nor referenced. (1) REPLY: The traffic volume data was collected in late June of 1990. 40 2. COMMENT: There are numerous deficiencies in the Traffic Study (Appendix D) . The Study does not address variations in traffic volume during the year and the marked increase in traffic during the summer months. In particular, the Study does not state the dates that traffic volume data was collected. Traffic volume data should have been collected during the summer months, when traffic volume is highest. (11) REPLY: The traffic analysis was based upon summer conditions (i.e. , late June of 1990) , thereby describing a worst-case scenario. 3. COMMENT: There are also two errors in the Traffic Study which should be corrected. The location map does not depict the Macari proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumably shows existing ambient traffic projected to 1992, and not 1990 as stated on page 13. (11) REPLY: These comments are so noted. S. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES HISTORICAL RESOURCES 1. COMMENT: III-96. The second sentence contradicts information presented on page III-97 that inland camps were occupied during cold weather months. The first sentence of the 41 second paragraph is contradicted by statements made on pages III-93 and 94 that artifacts were found on the site. Also, the site sensitivity map referred to in the third paragraph is missing from Appendix B. (1) REPLY: The text of the D.E.I.S. Section III-D-5: Cultural, Historical, and Scenic Resources, Page III-96 has been amended to the following: "Inland camps have more recently been found around kettle ponds and lakes. It has been concluded that these inland camps were seasonal occupations during cold weather only. Laurel Lake is a glacial kettle pond that may have been an attractive environment for hunting, gathering, fishing and fowling, as well as providing fresh water, timber, and protection from a harsh coastal climate. Prehistoric evidence may still exist at and/or below the disturbed/original soil interface. Prehistoric archaeological sites and unstratified finds are known from Suffolk County, but artifacts have not previously been reported specifically from the site for the proposed action. " The site sensitivity map from Appendix B of the D.E.I.S. is included on the following page as Figure 2. 42 - 6 FIGURE 2 (OF F.E. I .S . ) FIGURE 19 MAP OF SITE SHOWING LOCATION OF TEST HOLES ... _ -- - ':fir: 1 •� �' �- �' -77 AA 7_7 3 •�� �; _ �' '.a�1 -. ,T� Ac- G) �/.i/ • it: OwfM b�rLF �.•-�'-�!w -•^.r+ �\ —�� 41.•:i:•.•i-, _� :� .s..s... •.^.•.fir• r... iY- �:.. -_ �, '•-j?` - :�- -J 49 21 `� „�. 1:�� �.i �'..•,•�tiw i r •y,,� _ • `� : _ w...w /r'/' L° • /I/ •� - ./. _ i; •.l fy _��►`•� /� �-- - ; •-i ty�.e:"• - •w:. .• O 7•�w s a: .fes/;' - y - r• .� !v- :�-• '- 2 f; :.. •: ,t!;:.' + •tom•• U• '•—.� :w 1E. - �" r,r 1 a. w.r `^L. ^cX •.- fi::.•:.•.''�1i 1 07 V '% •�` ate. � t -� { S; • 1$ ,w.r' vLGfi � � v � ��— ..%i"�"'"r�►�.�«. '=_•._ 1-. .A ice'; � • `'. ./�` - `,;' - ac �-- i i . 15 13 SIC-. EXPLANATIONl ` ..-•' y;i.• _� •� - :��� � - • test ho es io ve test posi i t holes - areas of prehistoric 7 - :••_ = -c., � — .:. archaeological sens_ 60 •f�T. _ A\\\ • .rte... / �=�••� - .•. • 3 '��� '=--•`�= • �` :j• _ - _ _ �-'_' - .�' `ter'�- �� `-�—�_ �•s 1 S T y - M a a € F G H �• � KL � A B C D 43 72 IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION A. PHYSICAL SETTING 1. TOPOGRAPHY 1. COMMENT: This section provides a generalized discussion of topographic impacts. Review of Plate 1 for the proposed development areas of the site finds that Lot 18 is most severely constrained with slopes ranging from 10 to 15 percent in the development area. In addition, this lot is proximate to the eastern freshwater wetlands area on the site. Mitigation measures suggested in Section V require implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to ensure that no impact occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area is suggested. (2) REPLY: Figure 3 presents a potential layout of Lot 18 of the proposed action for the Macari at Laurel subdivision. Areas with slope gradients of <10%, 10-15%, and >15% are indicated for this lot (Figure 3) . Furthermore, the boundary of the 100 foot buffer zone surrounding the nearby freshwater wetlands area is also shown (Figure 3) . In general, steeper sloped areas (i.e. , areas with slope gradients of 10-15% and >15%) are concentrated along the northern boundary and within a centrally located area of Lot 18. Portions of the 100 foot wetlands buffer zone are found within a relatively narrow zone along the western part of the northern boundary of this lot (Figure 3) . In addition, Figure 3 contains 44 FIGURE 3 LOT 18 OF PROPOSED ACTION: POTENTIAL LAYOUT f . \No OD .: . moi,\ iii ( :���:::�:•�::��� :. � �j�l�l� � �:i � /�Y :t:• ' '::•::�:��::•�::�:.•::'. • � �� loexoll 11111�411111t� //j /� . �•..:...:..::. . .. .... � � � �� X111 ,..-� � �..:..1:::. .. �r:::���: ����: �.���������� :��:���: � � � , �...� 111 �, ■ �i,/ :s: ,, 100 Ft Wetlands Boundar •• ..:: .; Dwelling Unit 8 •;::.; ���„��// i/ Driveway Yi Slope Gradients: / ;t!L� 10 - 1596 15% ` SCALE 1:600 45 a hypothetical building unit and driveway layout. As demonstrated, it is possible to construct the single-family dwelling and associated driveway without encroaching upon steeper sloped areas. Furthermore, the construction on Lot 18 will not result in any regrading activities within the 100 foot freshwater wetlands boundary. The area requiring regrading would be further removed from any sensitive portions of the lot if the dwelling unit was oriented with the long axis parallel to the northern boundary and the driveway placed along the limit of the 50 foot buffer along the southern boundary of the lot. B. BIOLOGICAL SETTING 1. FLORA 1. COMMENT: The site contains significant prime farmland as outlined on Pages III-12 and III-13. The loss of this farmland is regarded as an irreversible impact, which should be recognized as such. This is of course balanced with other issues such as potential for lower nitrogen in recharge associated with cessation of farming. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. 2. COMMENT: The regulatory wetlands boundary must be established before conclusions regarding wetlands impacts may be reached. Lot 18 falls within 75 feet of the suggested wetlands 46 boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands. Potential for impact of development of this lot upon wetlands is considered high. (2) REPLY: The on-site field inspection by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed the freshwater wetlands boundaries as designated by the Land Use Company (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) "for the purpose of this application" (Appendix B-2) . However, should the site plans dated August 22, 1990 (i.e. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) change, then a redelineation by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation might be necessary. Figure 3 presents a potential layout of Lot 18 of the proposed action for the Macari at Laurel subdivision. Areas with slope gradients of <10%, 10-15%, and >15% are indicated for this lot (Figure 3) . Furthermore, the boundary of the 100 foot buffer zone surrounding the nearby freshwater wetlands area is also shown (Figure 3) . In general, steeper sloped areas (i.e. , areas with slope gradients of 10-15% and >15%) are concentrated along the northern boundary and within a centrally located area of Lot 18. Portions of the 100 foot wetlands buffer zone are found within a relatively narrow zone along the western part of the northern boundary (Figure 3) . As demonstrated in Figure 3 the construction on Lot 18 will not result in any regrading activities within the 100 foot freshwater wetlands boundary. In addition, the area requiring regrading could be further removed 47 from any sensitive portions of the lot if the dwelling unit was oriented with the long axis parallel to the northern boundary and the driveway placed along the limit of the 50 foot buffer along the southern boundary of the lot. 2. FAUNA 1. COIMENT: The Avian Species impact table beginning on Page IV-11 indicates that the proposed project will adversely affect grassland species including warblers and sparrow, including loss of potential habitat for two Species of Special Concern, the grasshopper and Vesper Sparrows. The fact that the proposed project will alter 44 percent of the existing Old Field habitat, impacting those species which rely on this habitat, should be further identified as an impact of the proposed project. (2) REPLY: The fauna lists presented within the D.E.I.S. text Section III-B-2 and IV-B-2 Fauna include species that were actually observed at the Macari at Laurel property during the on-site field survey as well as species that might potentially utilize the site, either for living, foraging, or resting purposes. With the exception of the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) which was observed flying over the site on two separate occasions, no other endangered, threatened, or special concern avian species were observed at the site during the field survey. 48 i The proposed action will, in accordance with the existing zoning district designation for the site, develop the Macari at Laurel property as a clustered subdivision. The site layouts under the existing and proposed conditions are as follows: Existing Proposed Type of Ground Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent Original Ground Cover (63.6) (100.0$) (45.2) (70.9%) Upland Forest 22.4 35.2% 22.0 34.6% Low Forest 1.4 2.2% 1.1 1.7% Old Field 39.1 61.6% 21.4 33.6% Wetlands/Surf. Wat. 0.7 1.0% 0.7 1.0% Impervious Surfaces (0.0) (0.0%) (5.9) (9.3%) Dwellings/Driveways 0.0 0.0% 2.1 3.3% Roadway 0.0 0.0% 3.8 6.0% Replanted Vegetation (0.0) (0.0%) (10.1) (15.9%) Turf 0.0 0.0% 8.0 12.6% Indigenous Shrubs 0.0 0.0% 2.1 3.3% Recharge Basin 0.0 0.0% 2.4 3.8 Total Area 63.6 100.0% 63.6 99.9% Consequently, a total of approximately 18.4 acres, or 28.9% total area will be regraded with the construction of the proposed, clustered subdivision. The areas to be regraded are as follows: Regrading Type of Ground Cover Acres Percent Total Area Original Ground Cover (18.4) (28.9%) Upland Forest 0.4 0.6% Low Forest 0.3 0.5% Old Field 17.7 27.8% Total Regrading 18.4 28.9% 49 The regrading necessary for the construction of the proposed action will necessitate the altering of 0.4 acres (0.6% total area) of the existing upland forest; 0.3 acres (0.5% total area) of the existing low forest; and 17.7 acres (27.8% total area) of the old field vegetation. Within the regraded area approximately 5.9 acres (9.3% total area) will become impervious surfaces, while the planned recharge basin will cover an area of 2.4 acres (3.8% total area) , and the remaining 10.1 acres (15.9% total area) will be replanted with low maintenance turf (8.0 acres [ 12. 6% total area] ) or indigenous shrubs (2.1 acres [3.3% total area] ) . Within the regraded areas wildlife will be temporarily or permanently displaced during and after the construction of the Macari at Laurel proposed action. Some of these numbers and species of wildlife will find temporary or permanent shelter in adjacent habitats whereas others will not. Since the majority of the regrading activities will occur within the area of old field vegetation, the largest impact on wildlife is likely to be exerted on the species currently inhabiting the old field areas. 2. COMONT: Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides an ecotone between these habitats. In addition, this lot is constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat on site could be enhanced if this lot were to be relocated. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. 50 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING 2. GROUNDWATER 1. COMMENT: The project falls within an core watershed area designed by the County as a Special Groundwater Protection Area, and the town has also given this area a Watershed Protection Zone designation. Information about what the recommendations of the County and the town are as to how to best manage this area are not included in the DEIS and therefore an accurate determination of the impacts from the proposed development of this core watershed area is vague and inconclusive. We believe more information on this is needed before making a determination. (5) (10) REPLY: According to Article 12: "Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program" of the Suffolk County Code (1989) it is part of the Suffolk County Water Protection Preserve, which includes all SGPAs of Suffolk County. Within the Water Protection Preserve and the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Wilderness the County of Suffolk may acquire one or more parcels of undeveloped land. Land so acquired as authorized under Article 12 (SCC, 1989) will remain in its natural state and be managed so as to perpetuate the natural ecosystem of these lands as a nature preserve. An exception of these regulations are lands that the Suffolk County Legislature may determine as being necessary for use for water supply production and distribution, 51 including ancillary facilities required specifically for such production and distribution (Article 12, Code of Suffolk County, 1989) . Any surplus funds under this acquisition program shall, on an annual basis, be allocated for Water Quality Protection Programs as determined by the County Executive and the County Legislature. The Water Quality Protection Program includes funding for the sewer districts, extension of water mains, water purification, and waste water treatment (Article 12, Code of Suffolk County, 1989) . The Long Island Regional Planning Board, initiated a study of the Special Groundwater Protection Areas prior to the onset of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (see below) . The SGPA study of the Long Island Regional Planning Board was initiated with a pilot study, published in 1986 under the title "Special Ground-Water Protection Area Project for the Oyster Bay Pilot Area and Brookhaven Pilot Area. " This publication described the Special Ground-water Protection Areas of Long Island. This publication did not include any areas within the Town of Southold under the SGPAs of Suffolk County. Subsequently, the Suffolk County Water Authority published a report titled "Watershed Protection Strategy - Discussion Paper" in 1987. Within this report, one area in the Town of Southold, east of Mattituck (i.e. , not including the Macari at Laurel property) was designated as part of the Core Watershed Corridor. The Core Watershed Corridor was defined as an area approximately 2 miles on either side and following the path of 52 the groundwater divide area, this being the heart of the groundwater system (SCWA, 1987) . The Suffolk County Water Authority (1987) pointed out that because the conditions and problems of the Forks (i.e. , North and South) are more specialized, recommendations regarding these areas are delayed pending further discussion. A Draft of SCWA Watershed Management Plan (SCWA, 1988) divided the management plan for SCWA into two elements, a long-term strategy, emphasizing the protection of the Central Watershed Corridor (CWC) and a secondary analysis of identified areas around each well head (WHPA) for activities which will have a more immediate impact on the SCWA well system. This Draft Report (SCWA, 1988) stated that the same general principle as within the central part of Suffolk County was followed in carrying the concept of the CWC onto the East End of Long Island. However, within this area another dimension is added to the problem of identifying the heart of the groundwater system. This is the fact that within this area lighter potable fresh water floats in "lenses" on the underlying, denser salt water. However, water recharged at the divide still penetrates deepest into the aquifer and resides there for the longest time. Thus, on the North Fork the CWC was defined as an area around the groundwater divide, delineated by the five-foot contour above mean sea level from the 1987 Water Table Contour Map of Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 53 On June 29, 1989 the Suffolk County Executive Patrick Halpin created a Drinking Water Protection Program Advisory Committee and a technical Subcommittee of Hydrology to assist Suffolk County with the implementation of the Drinking Water Protection Program outlined in Article 12 of the Code of Suffolk County (1989) . The Subcommittee included among others, representatives of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Suffolk County Planning Department, Suffolk County Water Authority, and Suffolk County Department of Real Estate. The Hydrology Subcommittee defined a number of regional Sub-Watersheds under the Special Groundwater Protection Areas and the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Zone (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . The Hydrology Subcommittee recommended that acquisition under the Drinking Water Protection Program (Article 12, Code of Suffolk County, 1989) be made within these sub-watershed areas of Suffolk County. The Hydrology Subcommittee (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) made the following additional recommendations: 1. Identification of watershed acquisitions strictly, or solely, upon a parcel-to-parcel basis must be avoided. Rather, delineations of specific, critical subwatershed regions must be the primary task; 2. Since high priority watershed regions will be located in areas of the County which are distinct from each other with respect to hydrology, ecology, land use, population, water supply infrastructure, real estate markets, and other factors, no evaluation scheme can be endorsed - however intuitively appealing - which compares individual parcels in one watershed region with those from other regions; 54 3. Comparisons among the subwatersheds must focus upon watershed-level attributes; 4. Candidate parcels within an individual subwatershed should only be compared against their "peers" (i.e. , other parcels within that subwatershed) ; 5. Criteria used to select strategic parcels within subwatersheds will vary from one subwatershed to another. In all cases, the overriding goal is to ensure the best possible protection for the subwatershed; 6. The establishment of subwatersheds provides a land evaluation methodology which: a. Clearly separates regional from local criteria; b. Permits qualitative and quantitative information to be combined without artificial numerical conventions; c. Yields results which are easily presented, understood and discussed. The resulting "Comprehensive Acquisition Program" under The Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program was published by the Suffolk County Executive in October of 1990. According to this publication, although Article 12 of the Code of the County of Suffolk is called a Drinking Water Protection Program, the law clearly states that it is a Pine Barrens Wilderness Protection Program as well. Accordingly, concerted effort is being made to blend habitat protection with groundwater protection during the acquisition process (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . The Comprehensive Acquisition Plan (Suffolk county Executive, 1990) included an additional revision of the Core Watershed Corridor. Thus, with this (latest) edition more extensive areas of the North Fork, around the groundwater divide are included in the Core Watershed Corridor. Specifically, the Macari at Laurel property is located within the Core Watershed Corridor and in a Special Groundwater 55 Protection Area (a.k.a. SGPA) (SCWA, 1991) . However, it lies outside the regional Deep Recharge Area of Long Island (SCWA, 1991) . Specifically, it lies in the Laurel Lake Woods Sub-Watershed area of the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . The Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed, which covers an area of approximately 1, 124 acres, provides excellent opportunities for well siting and wellhead protection for the future needs of western Southold Town. Both the Suffolk County Water Authority and the Town of Southold have expressed strong interest in this region (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . However, according to the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate no purchases had been made under the Drinking Water Protection Program as of October, 1990 (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . The Long Island Regional Planning Board recently published a follow up to its SGPA pilot study, titled "Draft Special Groundwater Protection Area Project" (LIRPB, 1991) . This draft report indicates that the overall SGPA plan calls for 46% of all property to remain in open space. Thus, of the 207,000 acres within the SGPAs of Long Island more than 96,000 acres would remain natural for watershed protection. In addition, existing open space and protected farmland account for 26% of all the land area. Another 7% is to be permanently protected through the acquisition of woodlands and the purchase of farmland 56 development rights. Furthermore, 14% will be preserved through the use of clustering of residential development on both woodland and farmland site, planned unit development, industrial clusters and replatted old filed maps. About 38% of all the SGPA land is expected to be used for residential purposes (LIRPB, 1991) . Specifically, the Central Suffolk SGPA covers approximately 125,000 acres within the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, Southampton, and a small portion of Southold (LIRPB, 1991) . The northeastern portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA covers an area of approximately 25,268 acres, the current land uses of which are as follows: 7.3% residential land, 13.2% vacant land, 0.4% underwater land, 0.7% commercial land, 1.1% industrial land, 0.8% institutional land, 13.7% utilities, 9.5% open space, and 53.2% agricultural land. The Southold portion of this SGPA includes a combination of wooded and farming areas around Laurel Lake. It is possible to create a preserve for future watershed purposes in the western part of the Town of Southold that would contain over 200 contiguous acres in the vicinity of the lake. There is some farming, some vacant woodlands, a former mining area and a camp site that could form the core of such an area. The specific recommendations for the Southold portion of the Central Suffolk SGPA are as follows: The County and the Town of Southold should use a combination of selective acquisition, T.D.R. , and mandatory clustering to assemble and protect a 200+ acre watershed preserve in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. Such a 57 preserve would comprise both woodlands and portions of farm parcels. In addition, the Town of Southold should facilitate the phase out of the former mining operation and of the small industrial use on Sound Avenue. Both properties should be converted to residential use and further industrial development should not be permitted in this part of the SGPA. Furthermore, the Town of Southold should review its zoning ordinances and amend them as necessary to preclude the expansion of commercial activities beyond the limits of the SGPA area where such activities already exist. According to Ms. Phyllis Haner, Land Management Specialist IV and Acquisition Agent with the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate the Department has singled out several parcels for potential acquisition within the immediate area around Laurel Lake (personal communication, 516-853-3801, September 23, 1991) . These include the following: Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-121-3-7.1 1000-121-4-8.3 1000-121-4-8.4 1000-121-4-9. 1 (i.e. , Proposed Action) 1000-121-4.10.1 1000-121-5-p/o 4.1 1000-122-2-p/o 25 1000-125-1-1 1000-125-1-13 1000-125-1-14 These properties are currently being appraised. The appraisal value of a parcel is higher the further along in the 58 SEQRA process the particular piece of property is. The Suffolk County Department of Real Estate will probably be making specific offers, under the 1/4 cents sales tax program, during the Spring. Each potential acquisition will be a negotiated sale, dependent upon the appraisal value, the Department will make offers that the property owners then can accept or decline (personal communication, Ms. Phyllis Haner, 516-853-3801, September 23, 1991) . 2. COMMENT: The DEIS acknowledges that Laurel Lake is a potential source of drinking water (DEIS at III-57) but does not assess the critical issue of the impact of the Project on the future use of Laurel Lake as a source of drinking water. The DEIS should analyze the present water quality of the Lake, the expected impact of the Project alone, and the cumulative impact of it and other projects proposed for the area on the water quality of the Lake. (11) REPLY: Seven (7) monitoring wells (Figure 6 of the D.E.I.S. ) were completed at the site in order to determine the present elevation of the groundwater table and to establish the general groundwater flow direction at the site. The groundwater table is approximately 6 feet above sea level at the site (Appendix C of the D.E.I.S. ; Figure 7) . Depth of the water table below the surface ranged from approximately 0 to about 45 feet (Appendix C of the D.E.I.S. ) . Although the water table is 59 considerably lower than the ground surface throughout most of the site, the floors of the two westernmost kettle holes in the north-central portion of the site intersect the water table, creating a pond and a freshwater wetland, respectively. The site lies nearly coincident with the regional groundwater divide of the North Fork of Long Island. The following table provides a list of different estimates over the location of the groundwater divide in the area of the site: Direction to Distance to Reference GW Divide GW Divide Jensen, et al. (1974) S Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet SCDHS (1988) NW to SE Approx. 0 - 1,250 feet SCWA (1989) S Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet SCDHS (1990) NW Approx. 0 - 2,500 feet This indicates the potential for an alternating northwestern to southeastern directional component of the horizontal groundwater movement for the site. However, the regional groundwater divide is located only generally and can only be used for approximate statements. The monitoring wells at the site were monitored for groundwater levels during April, 1988 (Appendix C of the D.E.I.S. ) . As noted on Figure 6 of the D.E.I.S. , the wells are oriented in a line roughly trending south-southeast. A graphical presentation of the groundwater elevations at the site is provided in Figure C-1 and C-2 of Appendix C of the D.E.I.S. . The cross-section along the full trend of the line (Figure C-1 of the D.E.I.S. ) indicates a sharp drop in groundwater elevation 60 in a southeastern direction from northwest to southeast. The two additional short cross-sections (i.e. , Wells #1 to #4; Wells #2 to #4) (Figure C-2 of the D.E.I.S. ) , roughly oriented north-south and northeast-southwest, respectively, indicate a relatively small drop in groundwater elevation in these directions. The monitoring well data, limited as it may be, indicates that the site may be slightly south of the regional groundwater divide. However, prediction of groundwater movement direction is limited because the groundwater elevation differences between monitoring wells was slight (i.e. , within several inches) and there were only a limited number of monitoring wells providing groundwater elevation data over a very short period of time. Despite these limitations, utilizing the available regional data and the groundwater elevations at the site, a southeast directional component to the groundwater movement direction is estimated. Consequently, in order to present a worst-case scenario for the potential impacts of the proposed action upon the water quality of Laurel Lake, a southeasterly direction of groundwater underlying the Macari at Laurel site is assumed. Thus, Laurel Lake is unlikely to be downgradient for recharge stemming from the sanitary systems and fertilizer use of the proposed action. The downgradient area for groundwater under the site is more likely to be the area east of Laurel Lake. However, given the potential southeastern direction of 61 groundwater in the immediate area of the Macari at Laurel site, the water quality of Laurel Lake is much more likely to be impacted by nitrogen sources, such as sanitary systems and applied fertilizers, from portions of the existing single-family residences located adjacent to the lake and south - southwest of the Macari at Laurel property. Dye tests could bring conclusive evidence of any seepage of sewage into Laurel Lake from the sanitary systems on these properties. 3. SANITARY WASTE 1. COMMENT: IV-28 . If the anticipated population is changed to be consistent with that which would be expected in 3 and 4 bedroom houses, then the figures for septic effluent should be adjusted accordingly. (1) REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units, 14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13 units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the U.S. Census (1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family housing unit was 2.56 persons/unit in the Town of Southold. Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51 persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990) . Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, an average of 2.50 person/unit was utilized. 62 However, the actual number of residents per dwelling unit may be higher than this average estimate. The following nitrogen budget calculations for the proposed action are based upon an estimated 4 persons/dwelling unit. An increase in the number of residents at the Macari at Laurel site is likely to result in an increase in the amount of potentially recharged nitrogen, from sources such as sanitary waste. However, estimates of quantity of sanitary effluent and number of school children are not based upon the number of persons inhabiting the dwelling units. These estimates will therefore not be affected by this increased value of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit. Nitrogen Budget for the Proposed Action: The proposed 27 housing units will produce a total of 8,100 gpd (27 units @ 300 gpd/unit = 8,100 gpd) of wastewater into the groundwater from the individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Department of Environmental Quality: Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other than Single Family Residences, 1988) . Adequate sanitary system design must be developed to prevent potential groundwater contamination. Without an adequate septic design, excess nitrogen and coliform bacteria can percolate to the water table. The Macari at Laurel subdivision development proposes individual sanitary systems for each lot. The installed sanitary systems will conform with the 63 requirements by the Suffolk county Department of Health Services in "Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems for Single-family Residences" (1986) ; Article 6 (1990) ; and Article 7 (1986) . The projected population (for nitrogen budget calculation purposes) of approximately 108 inhabitants of the Macari at Laurel development living in 27 units will produce an approximate 8,100 gallons of sewage per day. The following is a calculation (see specific details in Appendix E) of the nitrogen budget from the development of the proposed action at the site: Sources of Nitrogen Resulting N-Conc. in Groundwater 1. Precipitation (Brookhaven National Loading 2. 69 mg/L; 50% or Laboratory, 1989) 1.35 mg/L recharged Precipitation chemicals, including nitrate nitrogen were measured for the Upton weather station at Brookhaven National Laboratory by Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richmond, Washington. The average nitrate nitrogen content in precipitation during 1989 was 2.69 mg/L. Of this approximately 50% is assumed to reach the groundwater. 2. Upland Forest/Replanted Woody (Hughes, et al. , 1981) (Hughes, et al. , 1985) 0.1 mg/L 64 3. Impervious Surfaces (L.I.R.P.B. , 1982) 0.4 mg/L 4. Turf (Porter, et al. , 1978) N-loading from turf: (Residential) 25 lbs/15,000 square feet (57% recharged; LIRPB, 1984) N-recharge from turf: 0.57 x 25/15,000 lbs/s.f. (LIRPB, 1984) N-loading from turf: (Residential) 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet (57% recharged; LIRPB, 1984) N-recharge from turf: 0.57 x 2.3/1,000 lbs/s.f. 5. Septic Discharge (standard sanitary system) (LIRPB, 1978) 10.0 lb/person/yr loading; 50% recharged. 6. Background nitrogen content in the proposed water supply. Specifically, the water quality of municipal water source is listed in the 1990 SCWA Annual Water Quality Statement Suffolk County Water Authority for Distribution Area 58 demonstrated an average Nitrate Nitrogen content of 6.45 mg/L. Although the following calculations are based on a worst-case scenario, such factors as low maintenance turf on the site, lower background nitrogen, as well as a lower number of year round residents will reduce this particular additive to the groundwater. Site Specific Calculations 1. Precipitation. 1.35 mgL is expected to recharge the groundwater at the site for this source. 65 2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to areas of preserved original ground cover, to the wetlands, or the replanted indigenous vegetation. Upland Forest,etc. 36.3% of site Replanted Indigenous 3.3% of site Freshwater Wetlands 0.7% of site Old Field 33.6% of site Surface Water Areas 0.3% of site Recharge Basins 3.8% of site Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the site: (0.1 mg/L) x (78.0% of the site) (0.1 mg/L) x (0.780) = 0.08 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 ( .093) = 0.04 mg/L 4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 8.0 acres or 12.6% of the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000 66 square feet of turf, 580.8 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge the number of persons expected to inhabit this development is assumed to constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling unit, i.e. , 108 persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the associated pet population of approximately 44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) . The nitrogen production stemming from these pets is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by turf. Converting 625.08 pounds of nitrogen (580.8 lbs from turf fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 19.87 mg/L. Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (19.87 mg/L) x (12.6% total site) (19.87 mg/L) x (0.126) = 2.50 mg/L N-loading 67 Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted average for N-recharge results: (2.50 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.43 mg/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25 lbs/15,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.43 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application rate of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized, 801.5 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. Converting 845.78 pounds of nitrogen (801.5 lbs from turf fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, 68 fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 24.29 mg/L. Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (24.29 mg/L) x (12.6% total site) (24.29 mg/L) x (0.126) = 3.06 mg/L N-loading Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted average for N-recharge results: (3.06 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.74 mg/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.74 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. 5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs (i.e. , 2.1 acres or 3 .3% of the site) will be irrigated with an estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs. Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted indigenous acreage on the site (i.e. , 1.12 inches/yr or 69 1,967,315.80 gpy/acre x 2.1 acres; Appendix E) compared to the total water budget for the site (i.e. , 29.25 inches/year or 50,503,518.58 gpy) , incorporating the background nitrogen level in the local water source (i.e. , 6.45 mg/L) , and considering that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the following concentrations results: 0.12 mg/L. 6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per dwelling unit is used. Utilizing a separate septic system, approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are calculated. Therefore: 108 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.48 lbs/day Converting 1.48 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the 8,100 gallons per day of septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.71 in/yr of recharge (i.e. , sanitary effluent value calculated over the entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 29.25 in/yr 70 (including the sanitary component) , then the actual septic discharge concentration is as follows: 1.71 in/yr / 29.25 in/yr = 5.85% total recharge Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater at the site due to septic discharge is 1.47 mg/L (25.11 mg/L x 5.85%) . The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the proposed action is as follows: Precipitation 1.35 mg/L Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0.04 mg/L Turf 1.43 mg/L (1.74 mg/L) Indigenous Irrigation 0.12 mg/L Septic Discharge 1.47 mg/L Total 4.48 mg/L (4.80 mg/L) The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In 71 addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background levels added in these calculations will be derived from an on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget, which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly exaggerated. The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 4.48 mg/L, or 4.80 mg/L based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization, is probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables associated with this project. This value lies within the median value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mg/L) recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1987) , and it is somewhat higher than the median nitrogen value for "Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mg/L (interquartile range [50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York." The resulting nitrogen loading value of 4.48 mg/L (or 4.80 mg/L) is substantially less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island) . In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 4.48 mg/L (or 72 4.80 mg/L) is somewhat above the range of 2 to 4 mg/L recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board for the "Special Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven Pilot Area" (1986) , which is part of the Pine Barrens Zone and the Hydrogeologic Zone III. However, it lies below the 6.45 mg/L value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed action will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower than the value of the underlying aquifer. 2. COMMENT: IV-30. What is the background level of nitrogen in the groundwater on the site now? (1) REPLY: The amount of nitrate in the groundwater underlying the site is assumed to be similar to the average nitrate content of 6.45 mg/L reported from the municipal water source (Captain Kidd, SCWA Distribution Area 58) . However, as demonstrated by the three recently collected (i.e. , December 10, 1991) samples the nitrate content of the groundwater underlying the Macari at Laurel site ranged between <0.5 and 0.8 mg/L. These values are significantly lower than the reported 6.45 mg/L value of the municipal water source. 3. COMMENT: Page IV-31. The computations for Turf fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft EIS uses 25 lbs./15, 000 square feet, or 1.7 lbs./1,000 square feet. Standard references including the 208 study and the Non-Point Source Management 73 Handbook, indicate that normal turf fertilization rates are in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,000 square feet. Accurate and realistic turf fertilization rates should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge for the proposed project, cumulative impact evaluations and alternatives. It is acknowledged that lower rates may be achievable if a fertilizer management plan is implemented on the site. (2) REPLY: The 25 pounds per 15,000 square feet value is derived from Porter et al. (1978) and used in the estimation of nitrogen loading from the fertilization of turf. Thus, Porter et al. (1978) in their comprehensive assessment of "Nitrates" (i.e. , Chapter 5 of The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan by Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) cited an average household fertilizer use of 1.52 lbs N/1,000 square feet. This corresponds to a fertilizer application of approximately 22.8 lbs N/15,000 square feet. However, the Non-Point Source Management Handbook by the Long Island Regional Planning Board (1984) which indicates an average value of 2.3 lbs N/1,000 square feet for residential areas. The original source of the information quoted in the Non-Point Source Handbook (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984) is the 1980 Cornell University study (draft version) by James Pike, S. Goldfarb, and K.S. Porter: 111980 Survey of Turf Management Practices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, L.I. ". The comparisons within Table 7 of the Non-point Source Management 74 Handbook (LIRPB, 1984) between land-use and average rate of nitrogen applied (lbs. N/1, 000 Sq. Ft. Yr. ) were calculated as average values for a relatively large range of values (personal communication, Mr. Steven Pacenka, Water Specialist, Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, September 21, 1990, 607-255-5944) . For instance, the 2.3 lbs N/1,000 sq.ft./yr quoted for commercial use, is the average value of measurements ranging from no fertilizer application to a large amount of fertilizer applied per year. Consequently, the amount applied depended significantly upon the owner(s) of a given property. In addition, the numbers of the Pike, Goldfarb, and Porter study reflect the conditions up to 1980. It is the impression that the amount of fertilizer application for various reasons has decreased to some degree since then (personal communication, Steven Pacenka) . Following close examination of the original publication draft by Pike, Goldfarb and Porter (1980) 111980 Survey of Turf Management Practices in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, L.I. Draft for Review" and in accordance with written communication with Steven Pacenka (September 21, 1990) , subsequent to his examination of the Table 7 (LIRPB, 1984) , it became evident that the LIRPB Table 7 did not contain three columns but only one (1) column of its data directly attributable to the Pike, et al. (1980) publication. The said column is titled "Total Acreage in the Bi-County Area", and derived from the Table 6 111981 Turf Area Estimates of Selected Land Uses (in acres) from 75 Gruttadaurio (1981) " of the Pike, et al. (1980) publication. In addition, the information within the "Total Acreage in The Bi-County Area" column of the Table 7 of the LIRPB (1984) "Non-Point Source Management Handbook" deviates in part from the "original" information of Pike, et al. (1980) because the LIRPB (1984) publication misquoted the acreage of "Sod Farms" as 113,34011, where the "original" source (Pike, et al. , 1980) states 113,400". Consequently, the total turfgrass areas also differ, i.e. , the LIRPB (1984) stated the "Total" as "207, 121" whereas the "original" Pike, et al. (1980) stated its "Total Turfgrass" as "207, 181" (acres) . In his written communication (September 21, 1990) Steven Pacenka concludes that he hopes "that it (Table 7 of the LIRPB, 1984 Non-Point Source Management Handbook) is not being used uncritically to justify or refute large-scale decisions". In comparison, according to the USDA Soil Conservation Service publication titled "A Guide To: Conservation Plantings on Critical Erosion Areas" (1980) low-maintenance grasses such as Perennial Ryegrass are suitable for lawn areas. The actual fertilization rate for this type of grass is approximately 0.10 pounds/1,000 square feet (USDA, 1980) compared to the 25 lbs/15,000 square feet and 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet mentioned above. 4. COMMENT: References including Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton (Hughes and Porter, 76 1983) , and BURBS - A Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of Residential Development on Groundwater (Hughes and Pacenka, 1985) , indicate a nitrogen in wastewater value of 10 lbs./person/day. The Draft EIS appears to utilize a lesser figure in computations contained on Page IV-34. , and in alternatives and cumulative impact evaluations. Accurate and realistic nitrogen in sanitary waste values should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge. (2) REPLY: Keith Porter assisted by David Bouldin, Christine Shoemaker, Leland Baskin, Douglas Zaeh, Steven Pacenka, Daniel Fricke, Brian Anderson, Albert Hermann, Wendy King, Karen Kottlar and Cynthia McGaw wrote "Section V: Nitrates" of "Volume II: Summary Documentation" of the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . On Page 193 of "Section 5.3.5: Discussion" these authors state the following: ". . .Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it was conservatively assumed that the average annual per capita nitrogen load in wastewater is ten pounds, which corresponds to an average nitrogen concentration of 82 mg/l in 40 gallons per day of raw sewage. It was further assumed, for initial calculations, that 50 percent of the nitrogen in the raw sewage will reach the groundwater. " The "Cornell Study" (i.e. , the study by Hughes and Porter (1983) titled "Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton") assumes an average annual per capita 77 sewage nitrogen production of 10 pounds for residential areas (Page 8; Table 2.3: "Summary of Assumptions Relating to Each Existing Land Use Type") and that "about 50% of the nitrogen entering a normal (sewage) system, operated on Long Island, is converted to gaseous nitrogen and the remainder leaches into the soil" (Page 14) . In addition, "BURBS: A Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of Residential Development on Groundwater" by Henry B.F. Hughes and Steven Pacenka (1985) uses the same data in the calculations, explained in the following way on the first page of the Appendix (Hughes and Pacenka, 1985) : Parameter #15: "Fraction of wastewater N lost as gas = 0.50 fraction" and Parameter #17: "Nitrogen per person in wastewater = 10.00 lbs/yr. " Consequently, these three studies all use the same assumptions as used in the calculations of nitrogen budget for the proposed action (Section IV-C-3 Sanitary Waste; DEIS) . These calculations were made under the assumption that the standard nitrogen-loading value from septic discharge into groundwater on Long Island is 5 lbs/person/year (or 50% of nitrogen in waste water, i.e. , 10 lbs/person/year) . S. COMMENT: Our agency received an application for subdivision approval pursuant to the requirements of Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCSC) in August of 1988. 78 It appears that the development can conform to the unit density requirements of Article VI, which require a minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet per lot in Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Equivalent lot yield refer to gross land area minus the area of roads, recharge basins, and other improvements which may be necessary to the development of the site. (3) REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, the following calculations demonstrate that the proposed action is in conformance with this comment. Of the total area (63.6 acres) of the Macari at Laurel site, approximately 3.8 acres will become roadway surfaces and the recharge basins will cover an area of approximately 2.4 acres. Thus, the equivalent lot yield can be calculated as 75% of the "adjusted gross land area" of 57.4 acres (i.e. , 63.6 - [3.8 + 2.4] acres) divided by minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet (SCDHS, 1988) . Consequently, the equivalent lot yield for this property is approximately 93.8 lots (i.e. , [0.75 x 57.4 acres x 43,560 sq.ft./acres]/20,000 sq.ft./lot) . 6. COMMENT: It is important to point out that our agency provides for "clustered realty subdivisions. . .which consist of one or more relatively undersized parcels, designed in such a manner as to allow a substantial unimproved portion of the tract to stand open and uninhabited. " [SCSC; Article VI, 760-601(a) ] (3) 79 REPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action does in fact conform with this comment. 7. COMMENT: Where clustered subdivisions are served by private water supply systems, lot sizes may be reduced to a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. and conform to the water facilities requirements of Article VI [SCSC; Article VI, 760-608 (1) (e) ] (3) REPLY: This is so noted. The proposed action conforms with this comment. 8. COMMENT: In Hydrogeologic Zone IV, clustered realty subdivisions must conform to a population density equivalent of a standard residential subdivision wherein all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet. (3) REPLY: This is so noted. The proposed action conforms to this comment. 9. COMMENT: The subject proposal was recently reviewed by our agency's Bureau of Wastewater Management. As a result of this review, it has been determined that well data provided to our agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to be resampled prior to any final determination by SCDHS pertaining to the suitability of the proposed water supply. (3) 80 REPLY: Three monitor wells were sampled at the Macari at Laurel site on December 10, 1991 (Appendix D) . Groundwater samples were collected at Monitor Well locations #1, #4 and #5. The groundwater samples were analyzed for content of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) , bacteria and inorganics. With one exception, the parameters tested did not exceeded the guidelines (Appendix D) . However, the combined Manganese and Iron contents ranged from 38.6 to 54.2 mg/L, slightly in excess of the 50 mg/L guideline. According to Ecotest Laboratories the elevated Manganese and Iron values are probably caused by slight sediment contamination in the water samples. Specifically, the Nitrate values ranged between <0.5 and 0.8 mg/L, significantly below the permitted maximum of 10.0 mg/L. In addition, the Chloride contents of 5 to 22 mg/L were significantly less than the permitted 250 mg/L. 10. COMMENT: In addition to well data, our agency is awaiting the following additional information from the applicant prior to continuing its review of this proposal. -Public water cost letter from the local water district -Test hole/test well locations and details -Neighboring well locations within 150 ft. of property lines -Wetlands determination letter from NYSDEC 81 -SEQRA determination from Town -Applicable well covenants (3) REPLY: This comment is so noted. When the required documents are available they will be forwarded to the Suffolk County Department of Health as requested. The following indicates the status of the above mentioned issues: A. Public water cost letter from the local water district: Appendix F contains communications with the Suffolk County Water Authority that owns the Captain Kidd municipal water source in order to determine the cost of installing public water at the site; B. Test hole/test well locations and details: See previous reply and further details in Appendix D. C. Neighboring well locations within 150 ft. of property lines: Ms. Claire Glew of the Assessor's Office in the Town of Southold (516-765-1937) provided the list of addresses of adjacent property owners. A letter requesting information regarding water well and sanitary system locations has been sent to each property owner (Appendix G) ; Very few responses were received to date (February 28, 1992) . If required by the lead agency or other involved agencies, these responses will be made available upon request. D. Wetlands determination letter from NYSDEC: The NYSDEC wetland delineation determination at the Macari at 82 Laurel site is included in Appendix B; E. SEQRA determination from Town: The SEQRA process has not yet been concluded. When the F.E.I.S. has been found complete and the SEQRA process is concluded the resulting SEQRA determination, together with the other documents will be forwarded to the SCDHS; F. Applicable well covenants: All current and applicable regulations and covenants will be adhered to by the proposed action. 11. COMMENT: The applicant must comply with the requirements of the SCSC and all relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal systems. Design and flow specifications, subsurface soil conditions, and complete site plan details are considered fully during the SCDHS review of the application. SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. The applicant, therefore, should not undertake the construction of either system without Health Department approval. (3) (9) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action will comply with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Prior to final site plan approval the Applicant will obtain all necessary permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 83 D. MUNICIPAL BETTING 4. TRAFFIC 1. COMMENT: In addition, the projected traffic volume calculations do not include projected traffic from the Miller and Jacoby development proposals, which the Planning Board required to be included in a generic environmental impact statement ("GEIS") for the proposed developments in the Laurel Lake area. The use of a mid-1992 build year is not appropriate in view of the applicant's proposed five-year construction schedule. Further traffic analysis is required to reflect summer traffic conditions, the impact of the Miller and Jacoby proposals, and a 1996 or later build year. (11) REPLY: Of the several proposed projects that were included in the original G.E.I.S. analysis, very few are currently active. Consequently, the Environmental Impact Statement for Macari at Laurel subdivision was prepared solely for this project, while the impacts of other projects were included in the cumulative impact analysis. Thus, the traffic study contains an analysis of the projected traffic load for the completed Macari at Laurel subdivision. The traffic study allowed for a two year period in its study of the "Built Conditions. " It is common to use a two year interval between existing and built conditions. 84 2. COMMENT: The Traffic Study indicates that the level of service on Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road would be reduced from B to C if all proposals addressed in the Study are built. The DEIS should address alternatives which would reduce that adverse impact on traffic, including a development with lower density. (11) REPLY: A Level of Service C is very acceptable. It represents stable conditions. 7. POPULATION 1. COMMENT: IV-54. Provide documentation to support the statement that the projected population multiplier is consistent with housing units containing 3 and 4 bedrooms. (1) REPLY: Of the proposed 27 single-family dwelling units, 14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and the remaining 13 units would have 4 bedrooms. According to the U.S. Census (1980) the average number of persons per detached single-family housing unit was 2 .56 persons/unit in the Town of Southold. Since then the average has decreased slightly to 2.51 persons/unit in 1989 and 2.49 persons/unit (LILCO, 1990) . Consequently, in the projection of the population size of the completed Macari at Laurel subdivision, an average of 2.50 person/unit was utilized. However, the actual number of residents per dwelling unit may be higher than this average 85 estimate. The nitrogen budget calculations for the proposed action (Appendix E) are based upon an estimated 4 persons/dwelling unit. An increase in the number of residents at the Macari at Laurel site is likely to result in an increase in the amount of potentially recharged nitrogen, from sources such as sanitary waste and pets. However, estimates of quantity of sanitary effluent and number of school children are not based upon the number of persons inhabiting the dwelling units. These estimates will therefore not be affected by this increased value of 4. 0 persons per dwelling unit. 8. MATTITUCR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 1. COMMENT: IV-55. Provide documentation to support the multipliers used in second paragraph. (1) REPLY: A country-wide standard reference, Burchell, Listokin and Dolphin (1985) , provided Regional and National Demographic Multipliers for Common Configurations of Standard Housing Types for School-Age Children by Housing Type and Number of Bedrooms (Exhibit 13 of Burchell, et al. , 1985) . Thus for the Northeast Region (including New England and the Middle Atlantic) the multipliers for single family dwellings with 3 or 4 bedrooms are 0.734 and 1.366, respectively. The Macari at Laurel development will construct 27 housing units, of which 14 units are assumed to have 3 bedrooms and 13 units will have 4 86 bedrooms. Therefore, the following number of school-age children can be projected: 14 3-BR housing units x 0.734 school-age children per unit = 11 (rounded from 10.28) school-age children 13 4-BR housing units x 1.366 school-age children per unit = 18 (rounded from 17.76) school-age children 29 School Age Children 9. TABES AND FISCAL SETTING 1. COMMENT: IV-56. Given the slump in the real estate market, are stated market values of $275, 000 to $300,000 reasonable? (1) REPLY: It is possible that the estimated market values for the single-family residences of the Macari at Laurel proposed action are somewhat higher than the current real estate market values. 2. COMMENT: IV-58. The second paragraph refers to an analysis of revenue versus expenses which is not included in the report. (1) REPLY: The proposed action will result in a projected P P P 7 real estate tax revenue of approximately $93, 144.07, or 87 $84,943.15 more than the current revenues (i.e. , $8,200.92) derived from the Macari at Laurel site. Utilizing the school district tax rate of 62.5% of the total tax revenue, approximately $58,215.04 would be produced from the proposed action towards the school budget. However, the estimated 29 school children generated from the proposed action will require additional monies to educate. The estimated annual local cost to educate a school-age child is approximately $7,001.94 per student. Therefore, it will cost about $203,056.26. Consequently, the increased revenues from the Macari at Laurel subdivision may not meet the increases in expenses of the municipality. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PHYSICAL SETTING 1. TOPOGRAPHY 1. COMMENT: Page V-5 indicates that, ". . .in order to limit much of the potential regrading, the housing units will be located within the most level portions of the site (old field) . " As previously indicated, limiting potential grading on Lot 18 is difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within the building envelop. (2) 88 REPLY: Figure 3 represents a typical layout of Lot 18, indicating the possible location of the dwelling unit and associated driveway within the more gentle portions of the area. 2. CONMENT: Due to the unavoidable effect of siltation from the proposed regrading activities, the DEIS should include a specific soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a detailed discussion of mitigative measures which would prevent erosion and protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands from siltation during the proposed 5-year period of construction. (11) REPLY: If required by the Town of Southold a detailed erosion-control plan will be submitted prior to final site plan approval. In general, the erosion-control measures employed during the construction of the Macari at Laurel subdivision will include: 1. Immediate hydroseeding or mulching (e.g. , with moist straw) and potentially subsequent covering with filter fabric of stockpiled topsoil and selected other exposed soil surfaces; 2. Emplacement where necessary of two rows of securely staked straw bale dikes, silt screens, filter fabric attached to a wire fence, filter fabric on straw bales, as well as gravel and earth berms within sensitive portions of the site, such as around peripheral portions of the regraded areas, including entrances and exits, as well as along the perimeter of all sensitive areas (e.g. , freshwater wetlands/ponds, areas of steep slopes, proposed drywells, recharge and catch basin locations) . In order to minimize the exposure of sensitive areas to erosion by wind and rain, these preventive measures should be taken as early as possible, either before or immediately after the necessary regrading activities have taken place; 3. Periodic maintenance, including the removal of any trapped sediment from these erosional control measures, will ensure their continued efficiency; 89 4. Replanting with indigenous shrubs, low-maintenance turf, and mulching with coarse bark or other stable materials will provide long-term stabilization of regraded areas, following completion of the construction phase of the proposed action. Where necessary, freshly cut, anchored sod can be used to cover exposed areas in lieu of seeding areas reserved for lawns; 5. Strategic location of areas proposed to be regraded will minimize the potential for erosion; 6. Timing of actual regrading will be planned carefully; and 7. Small areas will be exposed to regrading at any given time, thereby limiting the period that a regraded surface is exposed to erosional forces. B. BIOLOGICAL BETTING 1. FLORA 1. COMMENT: The discussion regarding the lack of potential for the rare plant species Cut-leaved Evening Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) contained on Pages V-18 and V-19, appears to be unsupported due to the documented fact that these species prefer dry fields and clearings with sandy soils as indicated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS should indicate what efforts were made to identify the presence or absence of these species on the site. (2) REPLY: Although the two species, Cut-leaved Evening- Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) (U) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) (U) , prefer dry fields and open areas, these species were last observed in the vicinity of the site in 1924-1925. At 90 the Macari at Laurel site potential habitats for these two species does theoretically exist within the old field areas. However, these areas of the site have been exposed to extensive prior agricultural utilization with extensive, continuous regradation, since the last sighting in the general area of the two species in question. As described within the cultural resource inventory report for the site (Appendix B of the D.E.I.S. ) , regradation included clearing of fields, removal of tree stumps with dynamite, and cultivation until after 1967. Consequently, the old field areas have been exposed to significant regrading activities in the form of active farming since the early 19201s, when the two rare species, mentioned above, were reported from the region. It is therefore possible that previous long term activities within the present open field areas of the site eliminated the potential presence of these species at the site. In addition, neither of the two species have been noted at the site during the on-site field visits by professional botanists. 2. COMMENT: The document indicates that the proposed action will incorporate the use of indigenous woody species for replanting within a "strategic replanting schedule". We support the use of native plantings, and request that additional information describing proposed landscaping species and their replanting schedule be incorporated in the document. (3) 91 REPLY: The replanting of indigenous shrubs will utilize to the maximum extent possible specimens removed from the site during the various stages of the regrading process. These specimens will be replanted as quickly as possible. Prior to the onset of the regrading process seeds from the vegetative species at the Macari at Laurel site can be collected, for later use during the replanting process. In addition, some of the species observed at the site are available from commercial sources (Blumer, 1990) , as described in further detail under Section II: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. 3. COMMENT: The DEIS should include more stringent measures to minimize the impact of the Project on existing vegetation and wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and wildlife corridors. (11) REPLY: The proposed action will leave a significant portion of the original vegetation within each lot untouched, thereby minimizing impacts upon existing flora and fauna; low-maintenance turf will be used, thus minimizing the need for fertilizer use; and the clustered layout of the proposed action will ensure that within the site, areas of preserved original vegetation will be situated in large islands, interconnected by corridors of preserved vegetation. The only discontinuities of these connecting corridors appear where these are intersected by 92 the proposed roadway system (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Furthermore, the preserved original vegetation within each lot will be situated adjacent to these islands and corridors of open space, thereby optimizing the amount of contiguous open space. A potential, additional mitigative measure could possibly be to require that no fences be erected along the individual lot boundaries, adjacent to the designated open space areas of the Macari at Laurel subdivision. FRESHWATER WETLAND8 1. COMMENT: Page V-19 to V-21. Significant discussion is provided regarding the use of soil stabilization techniques to minimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from adjacent development areas. These mitigation measures cause effort to be expended in implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to approach some success of mitigation. Avoidance of steep slope areas in proximity to wetlands is recommended as mitigation as previously indicated. (2) REPLY: As stated above a detailed erosion-control plan could be submitted to the Town of Southold prior to final site plan approval. In general, the erosion-control measures will include immediate hydroseeding or mulching (e.g. , with moist straw) , selective covering with filter fabric, strategic emplacement of rows of securely staked straw bale dikes, silt 93 screens, filter fabric attached to a wire fence, filter fabric on straw bales, as well as gravel and earth berms within sensitive portions of the site. These erosion control measures will especially be employed along the perimeter of all sensitive areas (e.g. , freshwater wetlands/ponds and areas of steep slopes) . These measures will require periodic maintenance, including the removal of any trapped sediment. Replanting with indigenous shrubs, low-maintenance turf or freshly cut, anchored sod, and mulching with coarse bark or other stable materials will provide long-term stabilization of regraded areas. Timing of actual regrading will be planned carefully, and small areas will be exposed to regrading at any given time. Within the individual lots, the clearing envelope will be situated as far away from any sensitive areas, e.g. , steep slopes and freshwater wetlands, as possible. 2. COMONT: V-29. The responses to Recommendations 8, 9, 10, and 11 do not address the recommendations. (1) REPLY: The D.E.I.S. text, Page V-29 has been changed to the following: * Recommendation 8: Retain vegetational diversity to the extent feasible, because many studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between vegetational diversity and avian diversity. It is not necessary to maintain high diversity in each separate management unit as long as there is diversity among different units. Grazing reduces diversity by removing or greatly reducing one or more of the important components of the forest vegetation; 94 Vegetational diversity will be ensured within the areas of preserved original vegetation of the site by leaving these presently diverse areas undisturbed by human trespassing. Grazing by domesticated animals within these areas will not be permitted. If required by the Town of Southold, the old field areas could be exposed to periodic plowing to prevent these areas from reverting to upland forest by natural succession. * Recommendation 9: Pending conclusion of more definitive studies on minimum habitat area requirements of various avian species, think in terms of 2,500 contiguous acres of forest canopy as a desirable goal to preserve most or all of the avian species pool; The relatively limited extent of the Macari at Laurel site, i.e. , 63.6 acres total area, prevents within the boundaries of this site the preservation of larger areas as described within Recommendation 9. However, strategically planned public acquisition by, e.g. , Suffolk County or Town of Southold, could preserve larger parcels within the region. These parcels could be interconnected by the corridors of preserved original vegetation on developed and undeveloped properties, located between the larger publicly acquired parcels. Thus, careful planning by local agencies such as the Town of Southold and Suffolk County is necessary in order to ensure the preservation of larger areas of open space. * Recommendation 10: In smaller tracts (down to 5 acres or less) it is beneficial to maintain the maximum contiguous 1 woodland with the least amount of edge; 95 By utilizing a clustered layout, the proposed action will preserve relatively large "islands" of open space. These islands will be interconnected by natural corridors, only interrupted in four locations by the proposed interdevelopmental roadway system. In addition, within individual lots a significant amount of original vegetation will be preserved by the limited extent of the planned clearing envelopes. The areas of original vegetation preserved within individual lots are located adjacent to the larger islands of open space, thereby optimizing the amount of contiguous original vegetation, preserved with the construction of the proposed action. * Recommendation 11: Management units that approach a square are much more effective in preserving forest-interior birds than are long, narrow ones - especially when managed tracts are small. The portions of a forest that are most beneficial to neotropical migrants are several hundred meters or more away from the forest edge; The planned open space at the Macari at Laurel site will maximize the individual areas while still providing connecting corridors between them wherever possible. Thus, the preserved open space areas, although not square in shape, optimizes the preservation of environmentally sensitive portions of the site, such as freshwater wetlands, surface water areas, and areas of steep slopes. In addition, significant areas of original upland forest will be preserved together with areas of old field vegetation, thereby ensuring the continued diversity of habitats at the site. 96 3. COMMENT: V-30. The responses to Recommendations 13 and 14 do not address the recommendations. (1) REPLY: The D.E.I.S. text of Page V-30 has been changed to the following: * Recommendation 13: In any management plan consider the disruptive effects of other projects such as existing or proposed super highways, impoundments, transmission line corridors, or sewer lines. Check with appropriate agencies on the timing of new construction, to avoid inadvertent loss of a critical area at the wrong time; Any construction activity at the site for the proposed action will be carefully planned to minimize the disturbance to existing wildlife. Thus, construction during prime breeding time (e.g. , May-June) could be avoided. In addition, on a larger scale, strategic planning by involved agencies is necessary in order to coordinate the scheduling of separate projects, in order to minimize the damage to existing wildlife in the area. * Recommendation 14: With reference to recommendation 13, provide mitigation planting as far in advance of the impending disturbance as possible; Any construction activity at the site for the proposed action will be carefully planned to minimize the disturbance to existing wildlife. Thus, the replanting of indigenous shrubs will follow as closely as possible any regrading activities. In addition, the likely development schedule of the site involves 97 the construction of a model home, and subsequent construction of dwellings in response to demand. Consequently, the site will be regraded in steps. It is not likely to be possible to provide replanting in advance, since the areas have to be cleared before replanting can occur, and the proposed action does not intend to alter any of the existing habitats, such as the old field vegetation, by replanting with (e.g. ) upland forested specimens. 4. COMMENT: Page V-23 to V-31. The fifteen (15) recommendations excerpted from Robbins, 1979 are valuable tools toward retaining habitat viability. It is suggested that Lot 18 be relocated in order to include the area in the contiguous open space as a means of better conforming to these recommendations. This has the benefit of increasing the buffer from the eastern wetlands feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas, providing additional old field and forest habitat (with associated ecotones) , and providing a wider linkage through the LILCO easement to open space lands to the south. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted but it is felt that strategic placement of the house slated for Lot 18 can minimize adverse environmental impacts due to the sensitivity of the lot itself (Figure 3) . 98 2. FAUNA 1. COMMENT: The DEIS does not, but should, include the results of a recent on-site field survey and specify the date of that survey. In this regard, the DEIS fails to adequately address the impact of the Project on the wildlife which occupy the wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake. These wetlands are directly connected to the on-site pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. For example, the great blue heron has been observed in the Laurel Lake wetlands, but does not appear to be mentioned in the DEIS. (11) REPLY: The D.E.I.S. includes the results of on-site floral/faunal field surveys. With respect to the wildlife occupying the freshwater wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake, the proposed action will preserve all on-site freshwater wetlands and associated surface water areas, as well as required buffer zones around these. In addition, the proposed areas of preserved open space are especially concentrated within the southern portion of the site. Thus, no construction or regrading will occur within the most sensitive areas near Laurel Lake (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . In conclusion, the D.E.I.S. describes observed and potential wildlife at the site for the proposed action. Although not observed at the Macari at Laurel site, it is possible that the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) , occasionally utilizes the site, such as for roosting purposes. 99 C. HYDROLOGIC SETTING 1. DRAINAGE 1. COMMENT: We support the proposed action's incorporation of recharge areas which are designed to minimize site excavation and structural modification. We would recommend, however, that design details including landscaping and erosion measures (thrust blocks, headwall details, etc. ) be provided for review. (3) REPLY: Prior to final site plan approval specific plans concerning the construction of the proposed recharge basins will be submitted, if required by the Town of Southold. However, in the nearby Town of Brookhaven specific recommendations for the replanting of recharge areas exist (Appendix H) . It is possible that some or all of this information could be applied to the construction and replanting of recharge basins at the Macari at Laurel site, if acceptable to the Town of Southold Board of Trustees. 2. COMMENT: While we commend the applicant for leaving a 100' buffer between development and wetlands we would like to know if the drainage pattern of the wetlands at the site will be disturbed with the proposed development. We have not found this answer in the DEIS. Since the wetlands contain endangered plant species, we would like to see if there is any possibility of further protecting by shifting development as far away as 100 possible from them. We believe a tighter cluster away from these areas would achieve this. We also would like to take the applicant up on his offer to construct leaching pools for each catch basin in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. (5) REPLY: The proposed action is a relative tight cluster, placing the proposed dwelling units at an optimal distance from the freshwater wetlands areas of the site. Although the boundaries of some of the lots are located within 100 feet of the freshwater wetlands, the planned individual clearing envelopes will be minimized thereby ensuring the optimal preservation of original vegetation within each lot. Due to the extremely varied topography at the site for the proposed action, the general contributing drainage areas to the freshwater wetlands areas include major portions of the site (Figure 4) . However, construction of the 27 single-family dwelling units is planned generally within the more level portions of the site. In addition, an extensive system of dry wells, catch basins and two (2) recharge basins will be utilized on the site in order to collect nearly 100% of the precipitation for the site allowing for point recharge to the groundwater (Plate 1) . In addition, near the freshwater wetlands areas of the site individual leaching pools for each catch basin could be constructed, in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. 101 0 41- j!j t3j MEWRED FOR MISTER JOSEPH MACARI Ar LAURELrVWN OF SOUrHOLD SUFFOLK Cousry NEW 0 400 Ft. Drainage Divide 2. GROUNDWATER 1. COMMENT: Discharge from septic systems in a core watershed area is also a concern. The section on the DEIS describing the impacts associated with effluent discharge seems to indicate there will be impacts that could not be mitigated appropriately. Therefore we would suggest that a groundwater monitoring program to provide early indication of water quality problems should be incorporated into the plan. (5) REPLY: The proposed action will result in an overall nitrogen recharge value of approximately 4.48 - 4.80 mg/L. This nitrogen concentration will likely reach the underlying aquifer, which presently has a nitrogen content of approximately 6.45 mg/L (SCWA Distribution Area 58 [Captain Kidd] ) . However, the sanitary waste produced from the occupied 27 single-family dwelling units is a point source and septic discharge from this source may not initially mix completely with waters recharged from other areas of the site. Thus, the individual sanitary systems will be located as far away from the freshwater wetlands areas as possible, minimizing any potential adverse impacts. Prior to final site plan approval, the location and possible installation of any water quality monitoring wells required by the Town of Southold could be decided upon. 103 2. COMMENT: In general, the Authority has no objection to residential subdivisions on two acre (R-80) parcels. However, the cluster proposal shown on Plate 1, which would allow for 27 units on 40,000 sq. ft. (min. ) lots and maintain approximately 33.1 acres of open space, appears to be a better opportunity for both the Authority and the Town. The Town will gain by the permanent dedication of open space and the Authority would like to be deeded a parcel large enough for the future construction of a well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority, based on land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection radius, would require the relocation of the drainage area out of the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1) . (6) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action is a cluster subdivision in accordance with the existing regulations (Chapter 100: Zoning, Town of Southold) . When approved it will construct 27 single-family dwelling units on minimum 40,000 square feet lots, while preserving approximately 45.2 acres, or 71.0% of original vegetation. Of the preserved areas about 33.1 acres, or 52.0% total area, will be located within designated open space preserves, and the remaining approximately 12.1 acres, or 19.0% total area, will consist of areas of preserved original vegetation within individual lots. If approved by all involved parcels the potential exists for the dedication of portions of the designated open space to be 104 reserved for future construction of a municipal well field. If acceptable to the Town of Southold and other involved agencies the planned recharge basin could potentially be relocated to another portion of the site, such as within the proposed 9.2 acre open space area within the northeastern part of the Macari at Laurel site. 3. COMMENT: The DEIS also does not appear to analyze the ' cumulative effect of nitrogen levels caused by the Project and projected ambient nitrogen levels in the groundwater in the build year for the Project. The DEIS also fails to adequately address mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen from lawn fertilizers and chloride from road salt on the groundwater, private residential wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake. Eutrophication of the Lake as a result of nutrient loading also should be analyzed. Measures to mitigate the adverse impact of fertilizers, such as restrictions on the amount of lawn areas and the prohibition of the use of fertilizers should be discussed. The DEIS also should address mitigative measures and alternatives to road salt, such as limitations on the use of salt, and/or the use of sand or gravel. (11) REPLY: As described above within Section IV-C-3: SANITARY WASTE, the proposed action will result in a nitrogen budget of approximately 4.48 mg/L (based on a turf fertilization rate of 25 lbs/15,000 square feet) or 4.80 mg/L (based on a turf 105 I fertilization rate of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet) . These calculations incorporate the background nitrogen content of the potential water source, which was assumed to have the same nitrogen content, i.e. , 6.45 mg/L, as the nearby municipal water source from SCWA Distribution Area 58 (Captain Kidd) . In addition, of the approximately 1.43 mg/L (or 1.74 mg/L) indicated from turf area, approximately 1.30 mg/L (or 1.62 mg/L) is derived from the fertilization of lawns. Although utilizing full fertilization values within these nitrogen budget calculations, the proposed action plans to use low-maintenance turf, requiring a minimum of fertilization. Finally, if required by the Town of Southold, a possible additional mitigative measure could be to restrict the use of on-site lawn fertilizers. In addition, no road salt will be stored at the site, and the use of road salt during winter months could be lowered by the use of sand/salt mixtures, or avoided completely by the use of salt only for deicing purposes. 3. SANITARY WASTE 1. COMMENT: V-47. Documentation to support the first two sentences on this page is not provided. (1) REPLY: The proposed action will result in a nitrogen budget of 4.48 mg/L (4.80 mg/L) , as described above within Section IV-C-3: SANITARY WASTE. These values are lower than the 106 background nitrogen content of the potential water source, which was assumed to have the same nitrogen content, i.e. , 6.45 mg/L, as the nearby municipal water source from SCWA Distribution Area 58 (Captain Kidd) . Consequently, potential contamination to the groundwater and nearby surface water of Laurel Lake is probably relatively minor. The nitrogen recharge values of 4.48 - 4.80 mg/L are well within the limits of the 10 mg/L NYS drinking water standard. D. MUNICIPAL SETTING I. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY 1. COMMENT: Page V-50 indicates that water quality within the area is within "acceptable ranges", however, Page III-61 indicates that certain pesticides exceed allowable limits. This should be clarified. The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 mg/l and aldicarbs and carbofuran exceed the limit indicates that water treatment will almost certainly be required. Treatment techniques are outlined in the Draft EIS; however, the Final EIS should outline the approval process for water source of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services under Article 4 of the Sanitary Code. (2) REPLY: As stated in Section III-C-2: Water Quality of the D.E.I.S. Hydrogeologic Zone IV, in which the Macari at Laurel 107 site is situated, locally has marginal water quality, mainly in areas underlying farms. Agricultural fertilizers are a major Isource of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . Approximately 600 ft. south of the site lies Laurel Lake a 30 acre body of surface water and associated wetlands (i.e. , NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Area M-2; Appendix B-2) . Because of its low nitrate levels it is considered a potential drinking water source and has been deemed a Class "A" lake (SCDHS, 1987) . Specifically, Class "A" waters are described in Part 701: "Classifications and Standards of Quality and Purity" of the NYSDEC Water Quality Regulations (NYSCRR, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-705, 1986) as follows: "Class "A" surface waters are a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes and any other usages. The waters, if subjected to approved treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection, with additional treatment if necessary to reduce naturally present impurities, will meet New York State Department of Health drinking water standards and will be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purposes. " Specifically, the classification of fresh surface waters does not include any information regarding the content of nitrate, but is based upon such items as coliform bacteria, pH, Total Dissolved Solids, and Dissolved Oxygen. Together with nitrate certain agricultural pesticides have become a major source of groundwater contamination on the North Fork of Long Island (SCDHS; Baier and Robbins, 1982) . The 108 carbamate pesticides, aldicarb and carbofuran, have created the Jgreatest problem and have been detected in 30 percent of the private wells tested in the farming areas. In the Town of Southold approximately 16% of the private wells have shown concentrations greater than the NYSDOH 7 ppb aldicarb guideline and 6% of the wells tested displayed levels exceeding the 15 ppb carbofuran guideline (SCDHS, 1987) . Municipal water or sewage facilities do not exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. The existing homes adjacent to Laurel Lake, south of the site, rely on private wells for drinking water. Water quality information from private wells in the area is not public information and therefore, is not readily available for this report. While SCDHS or USGS observation wells or other municipal water supply wells do not exist in the immediate location of the site, one well exists approximately 1,500 feet north of the site (U.S. Geol. Survey, 1986) . This well, #S 53333, (Figure 1) is completed at 74 feet within the Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives an indication of the quality of groundwater in the region (Table 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Well #S 53333 was sampled 34 times from 10-31-74 to 06-10-87 (personal communication, U.S.G.S. , Syosset, Beth McNew) . Results of water analyses are as follows: Parameter Date Value Total Nitrate 10-22-75 4.5 mg/L 05-03-76 3.2 mg/L 02-01-77 4.4 mg/L 05-03-78 7.1 mg/L 109 09-06-79 3.1 mg/L 09-06-79 3.4 mg/L 02-27-80 2.7 mg/L 01-24-81 2.0 mg/L 02-18-81 1.8 mg/L 06-30-81 1.5 mg/L 02-01-82 1.4 mg/L 05-25-82 0.8 mg/L 08-19-82 1.3 mg/L 02-25-83 0.9 mg/L 09-07-83 1.3 mg/L 03-21-84 1.7 mg/L 07-16-85 10.0 mg/L 06-17-86 <0.05 mg/L 12-10-86 0.12 mg/L 03-18-87 0.09 mg/L 06-10-87 0.38 mg/L Consequently, although the total nitrogen nitrate level exceeded the maximum permitted level of 6.0 mg/L allowable for private water supplies, according to Article 4 Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SCDHS, 1990) the average value is significantly lower (i.e. , approximately 2.464 mg/L) and lies within the acceptable range. For further details regarding the requirements for private water supply see below. For well #S 53333 the carbamate pesticides, Aldicarb (including breakdown by-products) and Carbofuran, are found in Table 2 of the D.E.I.S. According to the SCDHS (1982) , limits of Aldicarb (Total) and Carbofuran in drinking water should not exceed 7 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively. Analyses from well #S 53333 gave the following results: Parameter Date Value Total Aldicarb 08-19-82 <1.0 ppb 02-25-83 <1.0 ppb 09-07-83 <1.0 ppb 07-16-85 <1.0 ppb 110 Carbofuran 08-19-82 <1.00 ppb 02-25-83 1.00 ppb 09-07-83 2.00 ppb 07-16-85 27.0 ppb Consequently, the total aldicarb level did not exceed the maximum permitted level, carbofuran apparently did exceed the limits once; however, this value was so significantly above any other values, it is open for question, pending more recent laboratory results. Values measured in Well #S 53333 water quality samples, regarding chlorides and combined iron and manganese, were as follows: Parameter Date Value Chlorides (diss. ) 10-31-74 20 mg/L 10-22-75 23 mg/L 10-22-75 10 mg/L 05-03-76 13 mg/L 02-01-77 20 mg/L 05-03-78 7 mg/L 09-06-79 11 mg/L 09-06-79 12 mg/L 02-27-80 11 mg/L 01-24-81 12 mg/L 01-29-81 12 mg/L 02-18-81 9.8 mg/L 06-30-81 9.4 mg/L 02-01-82 6.6 mg/L 05-25-82 7.5 mg/L 08-19-82 9.0 mg/L 02-25-83 9.0 mg/L 09-07-83 10 mg/L 03-21-84 8.0 mg/L 07-16-85 34 mg/L 06-17-86 24 mg/L 07-29-86 36 mg/L 12-10-86 23 mg/L 03-18-87 25 mg/L 06-10-87 26 mg/L 111 Parameter Date Value Combined Iron 10-22-75 330 ug/L & Manganese 10-22-75 330 ug/L 05-03-76 220 ug/L 02-01-77 320 ug/L 09-06-79 <260 ug/L 02-27-80 <130 ug/L 07-29-86 600 ug/L Consequently, the water sampled from Well #S 53333 lies well below the allowable standard of 100 mg/L of chlorides and 1.0 mg/L of combined iron and manganese, respectively, for private well systems (SCDHS, 1990) . Furthermore, the results of water quality analyses of the local SCWA municipal water supply, i.e. , Distribution Area 58 (Captain Kidd) (SCWA, 1990) , are presented within Figure 5. According to these analyses the average nitrate level of the local municipal water source is 6.45 mg/L; the average chloride level is 26.3 mg/L; and the average combined iron and manganese level is 0.04 mg/L. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4: "Water Supply" of the Sanitary Code (1983) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Division of Environmental Quality (1990) "Standards and Procedures for Private Water Systems" describe the approval process for private water sources. The procedure includes the following steps: 112 FIGURE 5 WATER QUALITY OF MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCE Distribution Area 58 Mattituck (Capt. Kidd) Range of Readings No. High Low Avg. Tests 1 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 6.9 6.7 6.8 2 0.03 0.03 0.03 2 0.01 NO 0.01 2 30.2 22.4 26.3 2 129. 80. 105. 2 37. 29. 33. 2 11.0 9.0 10.0 2 NO NO NO 2 6.55 6.34 6.45 2 NO NO NO 2 22.2 14.8 18.5 2 356. 245. 301. 2 215. 164. 190. 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 - ND ND ND 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 10.2 10.0 10.1 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 0.6 NO NO 2 0.7 NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 (SCWA, 1990) 113 (1) . Initial Submissions: The Applicant must follow relevant SCDHS procedures. The site plans must indicate the location of all cesspools, septic tanks, washing machine drywells, sewer lines, storm drains, catch basins, drainage ditches, sumps, and recharge basins within 150 feet of the Applicant's property line; (2) . Access to Public Water: Evidence must be submitted that no public water supply is available, i.e. , that a municipal source either does not have the capacity or a water main is not located within 150 feet of the Applicant's property line for a single-family residential parcel, and within a distance of 250 feet of a multi-residential parcel; (3) . Approval to Construct: No construction will occur without permission from the SCDHS. The SCDHS will review the proposed well locations, may also require water quality testing on lots located in water sensitive areas; SCDHS approval to construct can be submitted to the municipal building department as part of the application for building permit; (4) . Test Wells: Test wells are required by the SCDHS for realty subdivisions and developments (minimum of 2 wells plus 1 additional well per 10 acres or 10 subdivision lots) . A test well may be required for individual building sites located near the shoreline or in other areas that the SCDHS determines that the quantity or quality of available water may be questionable. The Department must approve (and may specify) the location and depth of a test well or wells. Test wells should be constructed in accordance with SCDHS standards if their eventual use for potable water supply is anticipated. Subdivision test wells must meet the following criteria in order to allow the use of private wells: (a) Minimum well depth is 50 feet; screens may be installed at 40 feet; (b) All organic and inorganic chemicals for the test well(s) must comply with the New York State Part 5 Maximum Contaminant Levels and/or guidelines with the exception of: Nitrates (maximum 6.0 mg/L) ; Chlorides (maximum 100 mg/L) ; and Combined Iron and Manganese (maximum 1.0 mg/L) ; 114 (c) If depth and quality in the test wells complies with the SCDHS's criteria approval of the use of private wells will be granted; (d) If the water quality does not meet the SCDHS standards the use of private wells will not be approved. However, the Applicant may propose: (1) Extending public water to the site; (2) Construct an acceptable on-site community water system. An alternate option is to install a test well on each lot of the subdivision or development to determine if acceptable water is available. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the water quality results of the individual lot test wells. If unacceptable water quality is found at any individual lot, that lot(s) will not be approved as a building lot and shall be so noted on the subdivision map. Unsatisfactory water quality test results for both subdivision test wells and individual lot test wells will be deemed as having demonstrated that the aquifer segment is contaminated and unsuitable as a drinking water source. Deepening of the well will only be allowed if the Applicant can provide satisfactory evidence to the SCDHS that an acceptable deeper aquifer exists. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine the most suitable location and depth for development of a water supply. Test wells are to be installed in strict conformance with SCDHS requirements. At or before the time of sampling the well driller shall provide the Department with a signed certification containing well log data, e.g. , depth of well, groundwater elevation, and other pertinent data required by the SCDHS. The Applicant must contact the SCDHS to arrange a sampling time once the test well(s) have been installed. A SCDHS representative will be present during sampling and water quality analyses will be performed by the SCDHS. If water quantity or quality are found inadequate, subdivisions will be required to provide public water, while water treatment for individual lots and developments (minor subdivisions consisting of 2,3, or 4 contiguous parcels) will be considered by the SCDHS on a case-by-case basis. An approval to construct will be granted only after the SCDHS has approved the proposed treatment system. (5) . Water System Construction: Construction and disinfection of the entire water supply system must be performed in conformance with the SCDHS's standards. 115 (6) . Inspection: The Applicant must notify the SCDHS after installation of the well and well lateral, prior to the backfilling. (7) . Water Quality Analysis: All private water system wells must be sampled prior to issuance of a final approval. (8) . Unacceptable Water Quality: In cases where unacceptable water quality is recorded the Applicant may be required to deepen the well, or to install a new well. (9) . Water Treatment: In cases where the SCDHS has determined that water treatment is necessary, equipment must be installed in accordance with the SCDHS's standards. Installation of water treatment unit may be done only after approval by the SCDHS. (10) . Covenants: An individual lot, development or subdivision approved with private wells is required to have a covenant filed with the County Clerk satisfactory to the SCDHS upon all parcels, as described further within these procedures. If the SCDHS determines that a water treatment system (other than a polyphosphate feeder only) is needed, then the Applicant must also file an additional covenant requirement with the County Clerk. (11) . Certification: The Applicant must provide the SCDHS a copy of the Long Island Well Completion Report submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (12) . Final Approval: Final approval will be issued upon receipt and approval of all required documentation. Final approval will be indicated on copies of the final site plans, which may then be submitted to 116 the municipal building department as part of the application for a certificate of occupancy. (13) . Variances: The Suffolk County Commissioner of Health Services may grant a variance from a specific provision of these regulations in a particular case. The Commissioner may impose more stringent requirements in a particular case, when necessary, to insure a satisfactory water supply. 3. ZONING, LAND USE, AND PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE 1. COMMENT: V-56. The last sentence on this page does not take into account fact that Town Code requires permits for construction within 75' of a freshwater wetland. (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Page V-56 has been changed to the following: "Similarly, no regrading activities, including clearing, cut/fill, and construction of roadways, dwelling units, or recharge basins will occur within the regulated distance from the freshwater wetlands areas. " 2. COMMENT: We recommend that conditions be placed on dedicated open space within the subdivision be clearly explained in the document. We encourage the Town to require that dedicated open space be preserved in its natural state and protected from any future clearing, construction, or development. 117 We are particularly concerned with dedicated open space adjacent to Laurel Lake. We believe this area has significant potential for increased human use and disturbance after site development, and feel strongly that the appropriate protection of this area should be fully defined in the DEIS. Thus we recommend that the document address any future development plans including parking, dock facilities, boat houses, or any access clearing. Although we have no objection to the provision of appropriate access in this area, we believe strongly, that access must be carefully planned to avoid disturbance of the site's freshwater wetlands and Laurel Lake. We do not believe that this area is an appropriate location for boat storage or parking facilities and recommend that the Town examine the potential long-term use of this portion of the site prior to any approval of the proposed plan. (3) (7) (12) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The proposed action does not plan any activities within the areas of designated open space, indicated on the site plans (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . The Town of Southold has the right to regulate activities on Laurel Lake, including the freshwater wetlands areas around it. If the Town of Southold adopts specific regulations regarding this matter the Applicant and any future residents and visitors of the Macari at Laurel subdivision will comply. 118 3. COMMENT: The DEIS should contain a section which identifies the State's coastal policies which are affected by the proposed action. It should address each policy so as to indicate how the proposed action is consistent or can be made to be consistent with the state's coastal policies. Policy #5 - This coastal policy states that new development should be encouraged to locate in areas where there are adequate public services and facilities essential to such development. In this regard, it will be prudent for the applicant to further explore the options of relocating the development in areas that are more conducive to such actions. The concept of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) , even though, the applicant or one of his colleagues does not singly own other property in the school district or in the Town of Southold should be further investigated. The legal ramifications in attempting to apply TDR to jointly held properties may be enormous, but the preservation of this sensitive tract of prime watershed lands, designated as potential "open space" should be given the greatest consideration. This parcel of land is invaluable in its potential contribution for the protection preservation and enhancement of the ground and surface water quality in the area. Policy #14 states that activities and development shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. 119 The DEIS indicates that regrading will cause slopes to be disturbed and vegetation to be stripped from the area thus increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation within and without the parcel. The DEIS does explore in enough depth, alternatives to the grading, cutting and filling and the minimum amount of grading that would be necessary in order to achieve the project ends. What is the least amount of grading that would be required to accomplish the project goals? (4) REPLY: The New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program "State Coastal Policies" (1982) contains forty-four (44) individual policies, divided into ten specific categories (Table 1) , which are enforceable on all State and Federal agencies managing resources along the State's coastline. The following policies of the Coastal Management Plan (summarized as to content) are potentially applicable to the site for the proposed action (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982) : Policy 1. Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and under utilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational and other compatible uses: This policy does not apply to the proposed action. Policy 2. Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters: 120 TABLE 1 NEW YOU STATE COASTAL POLICIES POLICY I 1 NURSER{ CATEGORY I SUBJECT AREA I I 1 { Development Policies { Waterfront Revitalization 2 I I Water-Dependent Uses 33 } { Major Ports i Small Harbors 5 i Public Services 6 I } Permit Procedures 7 I Fish & Wildlife { Significant Habitats 8 ; Policies { Pollutants 9 I ; Recreational Resources 10 I I Commercial Fisheries 11 ; Flooding & Erosion { Siting of Structures 12 ; Policies { Natural Protective Features 13 I { 30-Year Erosion Control Structures 14 ; { No Flooding or Erosion Increases 15 } ; Natural Coastal Processes 16 { ; Use of Public funds 17 ; tion-Structural Control Measures 18 ; General Policy Fconomic/Social/Ervironmer_tal Interests 19 ; Public Access Policies ; eater Related recreation Resources 20 ; Public Foreshore 21 i Recreation Policies ; Water-Dependent Recreation/Enhanced Recreation ' { Uses 22 { ! Multiple-Use Development 23 ; Historic Resource = Historic Preservation 24 ; and Visual Quality ; Statewide Scenic Resources 25 Policies ; Local Scenic Resources 26 ; Agricultural Lands ; Agricultural Lands Conservation I Policy } 27 ; Energy & Ice ; Energy Facilities Siting & Construction 28 ; :Aar.acement Policies ; Ice Management Practices 2.9 Energy Resources Development 30 ; Fater & Air Resources ; State & National Water Quality Standards 31 ; Policies } LFIRP Policies/Constraints 32 { Innovative Sanitary Waste Systems 33 ; Storm-Water Run-Off, Combined Sewers 34 i I Vessel Discharger. 35 1 ; Dredging & Disposal 36 i I Hazardous Materials Spills 37 i = Non-Point Discharges 38 1 ; Surface & Ground-Water Supplies 39 i { Solid Wastes Management 40 ; ; Industrial Discharges 41 ; ; State & National Air Quality Standards 42 { ; Clean Air Act - Reclassifications 43 ; Acid Rain 44 ; ; Tidal & Freshwater Wetlands 121 This project is not a water dependent use. Furthermore, in accordance with current regulations of the Town of Southold (Chapter 97: Wetlands, Code of Town of Southold, 1989) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Article 24 and Title 23 of Article 71: Freshwater Wetlands Act of the Environmental Conservation Law (NYSDEC, 1987) the Applicant does not plan any water dependent uses within the regulated areas adjacent to the existing surface waters of or adjacent to the site. These areas will be preserved as designated open space (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Policy 3 . Further develop the State's major ports of Albany, Buffalo, New York, Ogdensburg and Oswego as centers of commerce and industry, and encourage the siting, in these port areas, including those under the jurisdiction of State public authorities, of land use and development which is essential to, or in support of, the waterborne transportation of cargo and people: This policy has no applicability to the proposed action. Policy 4. Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activities which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity: The proposed action will develop 27 single-family dwellings in a clustered layout, thereby preserving significant portions of the existing open space at the site. Thus, by using an environmentally sensitive layout, the proposed action will while developing the site in accordance with the current zoning district designation optimize the preservation of the existing 122 scenic qualities of the site. Existing maritime identity of the Town of Southold will not be adversely affected by the proposed action. Policy 5. Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate: The commentator requested the further exploration by the Applicant of options of relocating the development to areas that are more conducive to such actions. The Town of Southold (Commentator #1) indicates that the Town records show the Applicant to own property in the nearby vicinity to which the development rights could be transferred. However, at present the Town of Southold does not have a Transfer of Development Rights program, although the Town has considered implementing one. Policy 6. Expedite permit procedures in order to facilitate the siting of development activities at suitable locations: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action except that SEQRA time regulations are in effect. Policy 7. Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats will be protected, preserved, and where practical, restored so as to maintain their viability as habitats: The proposed action will not have an adverse affect on the marine habitat. In addition, within the site no construction will occur within the freshwater wetlands or surface water 123 areas. Furthermore, during construction strategic erosional control measures will be implemented wherever needed on the site, such as vegetative mulching, straw bales and silt screens. Policy 8. Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources: It is the intention of the Applicant to construct the proposed action such that erosion potential will be minimized, and considering the estimated horizontal movement of underlying groundwater, any potential pollutants from sanitary discharge and fertilizer use from the proposed dwellings are likely to bypass Laurel Lake completely. Furthermore, surface water recharge will occur through dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Consequently, no liquid discharge or solid waste of any kind will enter Laurel Lake from the proposed action. Policy 9. Expand recreational use of fish and wildlife resources in coastal areas by increasing access to existing resources, supplementing existing stocks, and developing new resources: The parcel for the proposed action is private land and public access is unauthorized. Laurel Lake is currently accessed from the existing single-family dwellings located along its shores. The proposed action will not encroach on Laurel Lake and will not alter existing water quality of Laurel Lake. 124 Policy 10. Further develop commercial finfish, shellfish and crustacean resources in the coastal area by encouraging the construction of new, or improvement of existing on-shore commercial fishing facilities, increasing marketing of the State's seafood products, maintaining adequate stocks, and expanding aquaculture facilities: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action. Policy 11. Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action, since the Macari at Laurel site is not located within an area with potential for flooding during a storm (FIRM) . As mentioned above extreme care has been taken to ensure that no erosion or flooding will occur due to the proposed action. In addition, the proposed structures will be situated on the portions of the site that has absolute minimal flooding potential. Policy 12. Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and bluffs: The areas to be regraded with the proposed action are located upland from the shores of Laurel Lake and significant designated open spaces will be preserved along any sensitive areas of surface water and freshwater wetlands, in accordance with Town and State regulations. 125 Policy 13 . The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall be undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least thirty years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs: Should the construction of any retaining walls be necessary within any parts of the site, then these walls will be designed for long term stability. Erosional preventative techniques such as straw bales, silt fences and vegetative mulching will minimize erosional potential during construction. Land surface covering such as impervious surfaces and landscaping will minimize erosion following construction. In addition, the planned storm water drainage system (i.e. , dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins) will minimize the amount of surface erosion at the site. Policy 14. Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations: Erosional structures such as potential retaining walls, internal drainage with dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins will insure maximum protection to the site following construction. Preventative methods during construction are outlined in detail in the mitigation section of the D.E.I.S. on topography, soils and drainage. Commentator #4 requests information regarding the least 126 amount of grading that would be required to accomplish the project goals. In general, since the proposed dwelling units will be constructed within the most level portions of each lot, the amount of cut and fill required to prepare the site for the construction of the 27 individual single-family dwelling units will probably be within 2 - 3 feet. Policy 15. Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal waters shall not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which supply beach materials to land adjacent to such waters and shall be undertaken in a manner which will not cause an increase in erosion of such land: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action. Policy 16. Public funds shall only be used for erosion protective structures where necessary to protect human life, and new development which requires a location within or adjacent to an erosion hazard area to be able to function, or existing development; and only where the public benefits outweigh the long term monetary and other costs including the potential for increasing erosion and adverse effects on natural protective features: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action. Policy 17. Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible: The strategic location of the proposed building units as well as the preservation of open space buffers, concentrated around environmentally sensitive areas, throughout the site, will minimize damage to the natural resources. 127 Policy 18. To safeguard the vital economic, social and environmental interests of the State and of its citizens, proposed major actions in the coastal area must give full consideration to those interests, and to the safeguards which the State has established to protect valuable coastal resource areas: The proposed action will construct a 27 unit single-family development, thereby creating additional jobs for construction workers in the area, while not damaging the environmentally sensitive areas at or adjacent to the site. Policy 19. Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities: The site is in private ownership and thus, no public access exists on the site. However, Laurel Lake is currently and will remain accessible from the several existing single-family residences located along the northern shore of the lake. Policy 20. Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly-owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses: See reply to previous policy. Policy 21. Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given priority over non-water related uses along the coast: 128 The proposed action is not water dependent and water enhanced recreation is encouraged and facilitated by it. By preserving significant designated open space areas near all areas of surface water at or adjacent to the site, major parts of the scenic vistas will be preserved and the residential building units will blend into the surroundings. Policy 22. Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the primary purpose of the development: The proposed action will not develop those portions of the site immediately adjacent to any surface water areas, nor are any water related activities planned to take place. Policy 23 . Protect, enhance, and restore structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the State, its communities, or the Nation: Comments from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation are presented within Appendix I of this document. Policy 24. Prevent impairment of scenic resources of statewide significance: See policy #25. 129 Policy 25. Protect, restore or enhance natural and manmade resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area: By preserving major portions of the site, and thereby providing buffers throughout, significant portions of the existing scenic vistas will be preserved and the residential building units will attempt, to he extent possible, to blend into the surroundings. Policy 26. Conserve and protect agricultural lands in the State's coastal area: This policy will not be met with the proposed action, which will construct 27 single-family dwelling units in a clustered layout in accordance with the existing zoning district designation for the site. Policy 27. Decisions on the siting and construction of major energy facilities in the coastal area will be based on public energy needs, compatibility of such facilities with the environment, and the facility's need for a shore front location: This policy is not applicable. Policy 28. Ice management practices shall not interfere with the production of hydroelectric power, damage significant fish and wildlife and their habitats, or increase shoreline erosion or flooding. This policy is not applicable. 130 Policy 29. Encourage the development of energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Lake Erie and in other water bodies, and ensure the environmental safety of such activities: This policy is not applicable. Policy 30. Municipal, industrial, and commercial discharge of pollutants, including but not limited to, toxic and hazardous substances, into coastal waters will conform to State and National water quality standards: No liquid or solid waste will be discharged into Laurel Lake from the proposed action. Surface runoff will be captured by the extensive storm water drainage system (i.e. , dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins) planned for the Macari at Laurel site. In addition, the direction of groundwater movement under the site will most likely prevent recharged water from the site from reaching Laurel Lake. Policy 31. State coastal area policies and management objectives of approved local Waterfront Revitalization Programs will be considered while reviewing coastal water classifications and while modifying water quality standards; however, those waters already overburdened with contaminants will be recognized as being a development constraint: The proposed action will not contribute significantly to any contamination of the surface waters of Laurel Lake, as discussed above. Policy 32. Encourage the use of alternative or innovative sanitary waste systems in small communities where the costs of conventional facilities are unreasonably high, given the size of the existing tax base of these communities: 131 The proposed action plans the construction of individual sanitary systems for each lot. Prior to final site plan approval the Applicant will obtain all necessary permits for the septic discharge systems from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Policy 33. Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of storm water runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters: Erosional structures such as potential retaining walls, internal drainage with drywells, catch basins, and recharge basins will insure maximum protection to the site following construction. The proposed storm water drainage system will be adequately dimensioned in accordance with existing regulations. Policy 34. Discharge of waste materials into coastal waters from vessels subject to State jurisdiction into coastal waters will be limited so as to protect significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreational areas and water supply areas: This policy does not apply to the proposed action. Policy 35. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands: This policy is not applicable. Policy 36. Activities related to the shipment and storage of petroleum and other hazardous materials will be conducted in a manner that will prevent or at least minimize 132 spills into coastal waters; all practicable efforts will be undertaken to expedite the cleanup of such discharges; and restitution for damages will be required when these spills occur: This policy is not applicable. Policy 37. Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters: The completed development will be designed to have internal storm water drainage leading into drywells, catch basins, and recharge basins. Strategical location of the planned clearing envelopes within the most level portions of each lot long term will further lower the risk for soils erosion from these areas. The replanting schedule for the proposed action requires little or no fertilization or application of pesticides, thereby lowering the amount of nutrient recharged to the underlying groundwater. Furthermore, water recharged at the site to the aquifer from the site is unlikely to reach Laurel Lake. Policy 38. The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply: The proposed action will result in a nitrogen budget of approximately 4 .48 mg/L (based upon a turf fertilization rate of 25 lbs/15,000 square feet) to 4.80 mg/L (based upon a rate of 2.3 lbs/1,000 sq.ft. ) . This value lies significantly below the average nitrate content of 6.45 mg/L of the nearby municipal 133 water source. Thus under the assumption that the water quality of the Upper Glacial aquifer underlying the site is comparable to the nearby municipal source, the nitrogen content of water recharged from the site will actually be lower than the content of the aquifer. Recharged water from the Macari at Laurel site is unlikely to reach Laurel Lake, due to the estimated southeasterly direction of horizontal flow in the underlying aquifer. In addition, as outlined above, surface water runoff from the proposed action will be captured by the strategically placed storm water drainage system (i.e. , dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins) . Policy 39. The transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid wastes, particularly hazardous wastes, within coastal areas will be conducted in such a manner so as to protect groundwater and surface water supplies, significant fish and wildlife habitats, recreation areas, important agricultural lands and scenic resources: This policy is not applicable. Policy 40. Effluent discharged from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal waters will not be unduly injurious to fish and wildlife and shall conform to State water quality standards: This policy is not applicable. Policy 41. Land use or development in the coastal area will not cause National or State air quality standards to be violated: This policy is not applicable. 134 Policy 42. Coastal Management policies will be considered if the State reclassifies land areas pursuant to the prevention of significant deterioration regulations of the Federal Clean Air Act: This policy is not applicable. Policy 43. Land use or development in the coastal area must not cause the generation of significant amounts of the acid rain precursors: nitrates and sulfates: This policy is not applicable. Policy 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas: The proposed action will preserve the freshwater wetlands and surface water areas of the site in accordance with current regulations as mandated by the NYS DEC and Town Code regulations. 4. COMMENT: Similarly, the amount of impervious surfaces that will be created from roof tops, driveways, and the roadway which will increase surface runoff and hence erosion and sedimentation should be analyzed in greater detail to determine if and where impervious surfaces can be reduced or eliminated. Is it absolutely necessary that driveways be constructed of impervious materials or can pervious or semi-pervious ones be substituted? An analysis of this component can reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and hence the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation. (4) 135 REPLY: Any rain falling upon the proposed impervious surfaces of the Macari at Laurel site will be collected by the strategically placed storm water drainage system, consisting of dry wells, catch basins, and recharge basins. In particular, within the vicinity of the environmentally sensitive freshwater wetlands and surface water areas of the site, the individual catch basins could have separate leaching pools, in order to further reduce the risk of surface water runoff encroaching upon these areas, during a heavy storm. If required by the Town of Southold or any other involved agencies, the proposed driveways could potentially be constructed of pervious (e.g. , blue stone) material, instead of the planned, impervious blacktop material. S. CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND SCENIC RESOURCES 1. COMMENT: Page V-59 to V-61. The Archaeological Investigation included in Appendix B indicates that 30 of 211 shovel probes (14 percent) yielded prehistoric artifacts. The report concludes that there are, "Two limited areas of potentially intact prehistoric sediments. . . ", and goes on to recommend that "Further limited subsurface excavation in order to fully expose specific areas of sediments below the existing plow zone is needed to define the limits of the site. " The Mitigation Measures section Page V-61 outlines three possible 136 mitigation measures for this documented sensitivity: "The site layout can be modified such that those areas of sensitivity would be preserved as "open space". On lots where only portions contain archaeological sensitivity, strict building envelope covenants can be imposed in order to preserve the sensitive areas. Finally, physical excavation of the sensitive material can remove the archaeological sensitivity from the site, gaining the knowledge of past occupancy in the process". Further mitigation of prehistoric resources is warranted as indicated in the Draft EIS. The professional archaeologist should contact the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to determine the appropriate and acceptable method of mitigation in fulfillment of the State Historic Preservation Act and minimization of impacts for the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. If options exist based upon contact with the State, the Applicant should assist in determining the appropriate mitigation, as the alternatives may affect yield, configuration, marketability, project scheduling and expenditures. The Final EIS should contain documentation of contact with OPRHP and should outline an adequate means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric resources. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, a letter describing mitigative measures designed to preserve or further establish possible site integrity of the observed two areas of 137 potentially intact archaeological remains at the Macari at Laurel site was sent to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (Appendix I) . The two areas of prehistoric sensitivity consist of a relatively small area located within the southern part of the property and a larger area situated within the northwestern part of the site for the proposed action, respectively (Figure 2) . The proposed mitigative measures include building covenants for the southernmost area of sensitivity, whereas the potential integrity of the northern area would likely be established with a limited excavation within this area. Prior to final site plan approval of the Macari at Laurel proposed action, any further archaeological investigations potentially requested by involved agencies could be conducted if required. 2. COMMENT: The Project as proposed would irretrievably alter the character of the scenic Laurel Lake area by converting the present tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as open space in the Town's Master Plan, into a suburban subdivision with a concomitant increase in noise, air pollution and traffic. (11) REPLY: The proposed action will develop the Macari at Laurel site in accordance with the current zoning district designation. Thus, the proposed action will utilize a clustered 138 layout of the 27 single-family dwellings planned to be constructed. In addition, significant portions of the existing vegetation will be preserved within designated open space areas, which will be concentrated within the environmentally most sensitive parts of the site. In particular, the area adjacent to Laurel Lake will remain untouched with the construction of the proposed action. Finally, the addition of 27 single-family dwelling units in the area is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the level of traffic on area roadways, nor is the residential development likely to result in significantly elevated noise or air pollution levels. 3• COMMENT: The DEIS does not adequately address the visibility of the proposed Project at different times of year from Sound Avenue or the rights-of-way that present residents use for access to their homes. The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way. Alternatives providing for larger buffers along Sound Avenue, the rights-of-way and the proposed road system to screen the project and reduce noise, should be addressed. (11) REPLY: The proposed action will preserve an optimal amount of original ground cover, including surface waters, freshwater wetlands, old field as well as upland forested vegetation. The individual planned designated open space areas 139 will include some or all of these different habitats. This layout will ensure the optimized preservation of habitat diversity. Thus, the proposed action will following the completion of the construction phase provide habitat to the largest number of wildlife species possible. Of the preserved designated open space areas, the northernmost area (i.e. , approximately 5.5 acres) will consist exclusively of old field vegetation, while the centrally located areas (i.e. , up to 18.2 acres) contain almost exclusively upland forested vegetation surrounding the freshwater wetlands and surface water areas. The remaining parts of the open space areas, i.e. , along the LILCO easement, along the eastern boundary of the site, as well as along the southernmost portion of the Laurel Way and Crescent Way right-of-ways, will consist primarily of old field vegetation. Additional original old field and/or upland forest vegetation will be preserved within the individual lots of the site. Where the existing old field vegetation is being preserved, it is inevitable that the proposed houses will be visible from portions of Sound Avenue (i.e. , the northernmost of the planned dwelling units) . In addition, some dwelling units will be visible along the Laurel Way right-of-way along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. The southernmost part of the proposed roadway will be a temporary turnaround, which may be connected to any future roadway system on adjacent properties. Direct access to the southern part of the site could potentially 140 be gained from Laurel Way to this southern part of the roadway in case of an emergency, such as a fire. If required by the Town of Southold, this potential visibility of parts of the proposed action could be mitigated by utilizing indigenous upland forest species in the replanting schedule planned for areas originally covered with old field vegetation. 6. HOUSING 1. COMMENT: V-62. Documentation in support of paragraph 3 is not provided. (1) REPLY: According to Lieutenant Conway of the Mattituck Police Department (personal communication, 9-30-1991, 516-734-6022) the addition to the District of the occupied Macari at Laurel subdivision should not be a problem at this time. Furthermore, Secretary of the Mattituck Fire District, John Keogh (personal communication, 9-30-1991, 516-298-4263) states that fire protection of a given property is largely dependent upon the supply of water. Another concern is the layout of a proposed roadway system. At a site such as the Macari at Laurel property, it is likely that 2 - 3 wells for fire protection will have to be installed at the expense of the Applicant. Normally, the fire department is provided with the specific layout for a given site by the Town of Southold prior 141 to final approval of a project. The fire department then analyzes the plans and responds to the Town with specific requirements for the specific project. S. XATTITUCR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 1. CO)MENT: V-64. The last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict one another. (1) . REPLY: The estimated annual local cost to educate a school-age child is approximately $7,001.94 per student, using a linear computation method. Therefore, it will cost about $203,056.26 from local sources to educate these 29 school children expected from the completed Macari at Laurel subdivision. However, the exact cost to educate a school-age child may not be adequately estimated, assuming a linear correlation between the number of school-age children and the total local school budget. Such a correlation will provide a fiscal value, but this value may not represent actual additional expenditures that must be made by the school district for every new student enrolled. Thus, the change in school district expenditures resulting from the proposed action can only be generally stated. Increased tax revenues for the Town expected from the proposed action should help defray the additional educational costs. The proposed action will result in a projected real estate 142 tax revenue of approximately $93, 144.07, or $84,943.15 more than the current revenues (i.e. , $8,200.92) derived from the Macari at Laurel site. Utilizing the school district tax rate of 62.5% of the total tax revenue, approximately $58,215.04 would be produced from the proposed action to offset any increase in educational cost demands. 2. COMMENT: Page V-63 to V-64. The Draft EIS indicates that revenue generated from the project is not sufficient to directly offset the cost to educate a child, stating that other sources of income may be available to offset this deficit thereby minimizing the impact. Contact should be made with the School District to determine the ability to accommodate additional school aged children. (2) REPLY: See previous reply. The Macari at Laurel property is located within the Mattituck School District #9. The current population of school-age children within the school district consists of 1,240 students. The capacity of the district depends upon the age distribution of a group of additional students, such as the 29 school-age children predicted to be generated from the proposed action. If these 29 children are concentrated on one age level, such as Kindergarten age, it would be difficult for the school district to absorb these students, since the district is at present very pressed for building space, but in general have room for a small number of 143 additional students at each grade level. Thus, if the age distribution of the school-age children from the proposed action is relatively even, they could be educated without incurring major problems to the school district (personal communication, Mr. Lee Elwood, Superintendent, September 16, 1991, 516-298-8460) . 9. TAXES AND FISCAL BETTING 1. COMMENT: V-65. The second paragraph in the section titled "Taxes and Fiscal Setting" contradicts the statements made on the previous page. (1) REPLY: The estimated increase in property taxes, with the construction of the proposed action, is approximately $84,943.15 more than the current tax revenues (i.e. , $8,200.92) , derived from the Macari at Laurel site. In addition, the proposed action will create an increased need for certain municipal services, such as police protection, ambulance service, fire protection, and educational services. The additional property tax revenues will be used to offset, but may not in all cases meet, the increased costs for these services. 144 VI. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. COMMENT: This section should make note of the potential for irreversible loss of prehistoric resources not currently identified on the project site. (2) REPLY: Considering the dense test hole grid utilized on the site during the Stage IB Cultural Resource Inventory, the development of the Macari at Laurel site will most likely not result in the inadvertent loss of currently undiscovered prehistoric resources. However, if the Town of Southold requires it, the presence of an archaeologist at the site during the construction could potentially mitigate this problem. VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. COMMENT: The Applicant should consider a modified cluster involving 35,000 to 40,000 square foot lots, in order to avoid steep slope areas on Lot 18, maximize wetlands setbacks, preserve additional forest, old field and edges, expand open space linkages, and possibly avoid areas of documented prehistoric resources. This alternative would fulfill the ' stated intention of the applicant and further minimize potential significant environmental impacts on this sensitive site. (1) (2) 145 REPLY: This comment is so noted. Accordingly, a modified cluster alternative was prepared. This alternative proposes to construct 27 single-family residences involving lots of 30,000 to 35,000 square feet. Consequently, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Section VII has been changed to include the following text: " E. MODIFIED CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE (27 Housing Units Distributed In a Modified Cluster Throughout The Site) . In a final effort to develop realistic alternatives to the proposed action (i.e. , modified cluster) and upon request from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Commentator #1) , a Isketch (Plate 3) of a second modified cluster alternative is provided. In this alternative plan the site development would be consistent with the existing R-80 Residence District zoning and the housing unit lots would be clustered away from the sensitive portions of the site. This alternative proposal would construct 27 detached single-family residences located within ' three portions of the site leaving approximately 39.3 acres, or 61.8% of the site as preserved open space (Plate 3) . * Physical Setting - Topography and Soil: Approximately ' 12.90 acres, or 20.3% of the total site would be regraded (including clearing and cut/fill operations) in the development of this modified cluster alternative. Since the houses could be 1 146 constructed within the relative flat portions of each lot throughout the site, only minor cut and fill activities would be necessary. The existing contours would remain in the peripheral buffer areas of the site as well as within the open space areas, including the areas adjacent to the freshwater wetlands (Plate 3) . * Biological Setting - Flora and Fauna: Regrading of nearly 12.90 acres of the site would leave 50.70 acres, or 79.7% of the original site vegetation, including all of the upland forest, untouched. Upon completion of the modified cluster alternative, 4.42 acres, or 6.9% of the total site would become turf and/or replanted woody vegetation. The distribution of the original Ivegetation would be within the peripheral areas of the site and especially associated with the freshwater wetlands and the two ponds found within the site (Plate 3) . ' With 79.7% of the existing upland forest, old field vegetation, and freshwater wetlands vegetation and surface water ' areas remaining after construction, certain numbers of the present wildlife would be expected to remain. Most of the species presently occupying the freshwater wetlands would be expected to survive following development, depending on recreational utilization by the future residents of the site. ' In the upland forest areas within the proposed buffers of the site as well as the remaining upland forest/old field edge zones ' the species less sensitive to human activity may repopulate Y 147 following construction. * Hydrologic Setting - Drainage. Groundwater and Water Budget: Regrading of 12.90 acres, or 20.3% 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 7.33 acres, or 11.6% of I the developed parcel. The expected runoff from these surfaces f would have to be controlled by the strategic placement of dry wells associated with the buildings, storm catch basins along the roadways and the two planned drainage areas (Plate 3) . Construction of the modified cluster alternative development would change the groundwater recharge regime of the ' site. Since 7.33 acres, or 11.6% of the total site area, would be covered by impervious surfaces, there could be excessive runoff and a loss of recharge at the site location if not properly prevented. In addition, 4.42 acres, or 6.9% of the site would be covered by turf and/or replanted woody vegetation. Depending on the maintenance required for these types of vegetation, fertilization of this area may be necessary to maintain it. This could lead to potential excess nitrogen loading to the groundwater. The resulting water budget for the development of the tmodified cluster alternative gives a recharge value of 28.75 inches per year at this site. The calculations leading to this ' value are as follows: 148 References and values used below are noted in Sections III-C-4 and IV-C-4 of the D.E.I.S. Change in Storage (,LS) = Inflow - Outflow or (QS) = Precipitation + Imports + Groundwater Runoff - Evapotranspiration - Evaporation - Exports - Overland Flow - Groundwater Runoff IThe actual water budget equation for the site (derived in Section III-C-4 of the D.E.I.S. ) is as follows: (AS) _ ( (Precipitation + Imports) - (Evapotranspiration + IExports + Overland Flow) ) x (% of total land) IValues used for precipitation, evapotranspiration and other parameters are explained and referenced in Section III-C-4 of the D.E.I.S. Unimproved Land (Consists of upland forest, wetlands, and old 1 field; 50.50 acres, or 79.4% total land) ( QS) _ (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (22. 0 in/yr + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) x (% total land) ' ( 0 S) = 24.82 in/yr x (79.4% total land) ( 0 S) = 24.82 in/yr x 0.794 ' (Q S) = 19.34 in/yr (weighted average unimproved land) I 149 Impervious Surfaces (7.33 acres, or 11.6% of total land) ( AS) = ( (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 46.32 in/yr) ) ( AS) = ( (46.32 in/yr) - (46.32 in/yr) ) x (% total land) I ( AS) = 0 in/yr Since the modified cluster alternative action will have dry wells, catch basins and two drainage areas strategically placed (Plate 3) to gather nearly all runoff originating from impervious surfaces such as roofs, driveways, and the roadway; runoff will be negligible, except for an unmeasurable amount that will evaporate in transit or will collect in localized, Iminor shallow puddles. Therefore, the resulting, actual recharge for impervious surfaces will be as follows: ( AS) = ( (46.32 in/yr + 0) - (0 + 0 + 0.5 in/yr) ) ( AS) = ( (46.32 in/yr) - (0.5 in/yr) (Q S) = 45.82 in/yr x (11.6% total land) ( �S) = 45,82 in/yr x 0.116 ' (Q S) = 5.32 in/yr (weighted average impervious surfaces) ' Turf and Replanted Woody Vegetation (2.95 acres plus 1.47 acres, or a total of 4.42 acres, or 6.9% total ' land) I 150 I Irrigation will involve 2 inches/month water imports during the growing season of five (5) months from May to September (Baskin, 1977) I ( 0 S) = ( (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 (6.9% total land) ' ( Q S) = 33.82 in/yr x 0.069 (A S) = 2.34 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 0.3% ' total site) ' ( AS) = (46.32 in/yr + 0.5 in/yr) - (31.3 in/yr + 0 + 0) x (% total land) ' (A S) = (46.82 in/yr) - (31.3 in/yr) x (i total land) ( AS) = 15.52 in/yr x 0.3% total land ( Q S) = 15.52 in/yr x 0.003 (0 S) = 0.5 in/yr (weighted average surface water) ' In addition, since the projected sewage discharge amount for the proposed action is 8,100 gpd, that amount of water will enter the groundwater. This value represents an import factor 151 l over the total area of 63.6 acres. The value obtained from various conversions yields an additional import value of 1.71 in/yr to the total change in storage for the site area. Therefore: Change in Storage for Modified Cluster Alternative Change in storage (63.6 acres, or 100% of total area ' using weighted average values) = ' (19.34 in/yr; unimproved area) + (5.32 in/yr; impervious) + (2.34 in/yr; turf/replanted veg. ) + (0.50 in/yr; surface water) + (1.71 in/yr; sanitary discharge) = 28.75 inches/year The modified cluster alternative action will recharge 28.75 inches of water to the groundwater as storage. As stated above, the gentleness of the terrain, the sandy nature, and the ' high permeability of the subsurface material allows for a large amount of water recharge. Due to the extremely efficient runoff nature of impervious surfaces combined with the post-construction drainage configuration, draining runoff to the Icollector basins, only a minor amount of water will be lost to evaporation or off-site runoff. 152 i * 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 twith the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Iregulations, conventional septic systems would be necessary. This would reduce the potential excess nitrogen and coliform contamination from the alternative action. An estimation of the potential nitrogen-loading values from the modified cluster alternative is as follows: Standard values 1 for nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such ` sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces, Iturf and pets, and septic discharge are given in Section IV-C-3 and will be used here. The 27 residential units will be populated by approximately 68 persons. As in most small residential developments, pet utilization of the site would probably be present, but would probably not be a significant ' factor in nitrogen-recharge. Site Specific Calculations ' 1. Precipitation. 1.35 ma/L is expected to recharge the groundwater at the site for this source. ' 2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to areas of Ipreserved original ground cover, to the wetlands, or the replanted indigenous vegetation. l l153 Upland Forest,etc. 37.3% of site Replanted Indigenous 2.3% of site Freshwater Wetlands 0.7% of site Old Field 41.4% of site Surface Water Areas 0.3% of site Recharge Basins 1.8% of site Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the site: (0.1 mg/L) x (83.8% of the site) (0.1 mg/L) x (0.838) = 0.08 mgL 3. Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement will cover 11.6% of the site. Using weighted average calculations for the site: (0.4 mg/L) x (11.6% of the site) L (0.4 mg/L) x (0.116) = 0.05 mg/L ' 4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 2.95 acres or 4. 6% of the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000 ' square feet of turf, 214.17 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will Ibe irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA 154 value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge the number of persons expected to inhabit this development is assumed to constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling unit, i.e. , 108 persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the associated pet population of approximately 44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) . The nitrogen production stemming from these pets is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by turf. Converting 258.45 pounds of nitrogen (214.17 lbs from turf fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 22.25 mg/L. Since turf covers 4.6% of the site, the weighted average results ' in the following: (22.25 mg/L) x (4.6% total site (22.25 mg/L) x (0.046) = 1.02 mg/L N-loading ' Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will Iactually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted 1 155 average for N-recharge results: (1.02 mg/L) x (0.57) = 0.58 mq/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25 lbs/15,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 0.58 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application f rate of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized, 295.55 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 44.28 lbs (108 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA value of 6.45 mg/L, described above) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. I Converting 299.83 pounds of nitrogen (295.55 lbs from turf ' fertilization and 44.28 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of ' nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading I (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 26.49 mg/L. Since turf covers 4 . 6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: 1 156 (26.49 mg/L) x (4.6% total site) (26.49 mg/L) x (0.046) = 1.22 mg/L N-loading Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted average for N-recharge results: (1.22 mg/L) x (0.57) = 0.69 mg/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 2.3 lbs/1,000 square feet, will contribute approximately 0.69 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. l 5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs (i.e. , 1.47 acres or 2.3% of the site) will be irrigated with an estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is ' planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs. Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted indigenous acreage on the site (i.e. , 0.78 inches/yr or 1,343,280.71 gpy/acre x 1.47 acres; Appendix E) compared to the ' total water budget for the site (i.e. , 28.75 inches/year or 49,645,632.86 gpy) , incorporating the background nitrogen level Iin the local water source (i.e. , 6.45 mg/L), and considering 1 157 that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the following concentrations results: 0.08 mg/L. 6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per dwelling unit is used. Utilizing a separate septic system, approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are calculated. Therefore: 108 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.48 lbs/day Converting 1.48 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the 8,100 gallons per day of septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.71 in/yr of recharge (i.e. , sanitary effluent value calculated over the entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 28.75 in/yr (including the sanitary component) , then the actual septic discharge concentration is as follows: 1.71 in/yr / 28.75 in/yr = 5.95% total recharge 158 Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater at the site due to septic discharge is 1.50 mg/L (25.11 mg/L x 5.95%) . The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the proposed action is as follows: Precipitation 1.35 mg/L Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0.05 mg/L Turf 0.58 mg/L (0.69 mg/L) Indigenous Irrigation 0.08 mg/L Septic Discharge 1.50 mg/L Total 3.64 mg/L (3.75 mg/L) The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background levels added in these calculations will be derived from an 159 on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget, which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly exaggerated. The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 3.64 mg/L (or 3.75 mg/L based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization) is probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables associated with this project. This value lies within the median value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mg/L) recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1987) , and it is comparable to the median nitrogen value for "Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mg/L (interquartile range [50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York." The resulting nitrogen loading value of 3 .64 mg/L (or 3.75 mg/L) is substantially less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island) . In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 3.64 mg/L (or 3.75 mg/L) is within the range of 2 to 4 mg/L recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board for the "Special Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven Pilot 160 Area" (1986) , which is part of the Pine Barrens Zone and the Hydrogeologic Zone III. However, it lies below the 6.45 mg/L value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed action will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower than the indicated value of the underlying aquifer. * Solid Waste: The alternative action of 27 single family detached units would produce a population of approximately 68 persons. At 6. 5 pounds/person/day as a worst-case, this would produce 442 pounds of solid waste per day. This amount of solid waste must be deposited into the Town of Southold Municipal Landfill, further decreasing the utilization capacity of that facility. * Zoning, Land Use And Planning and Zoning: This alternative use, with lots in a modified cluster at the entire site, would not require a rezoning from the present Residence R-80 District Zoning. Open space could be preserved on the site associated with the freshwater wetlands as regulated by Town Code (Plate 3) . Original vegetative buffers along the peripheral areas of the site and within interlot areas, as well as major portions of the upland forest/old field ecotone would help in the preservation of open space and sensitive habitat. Regrading would involve 12.90 acres, or 20.3% of the site provided conservative clearing covenants were enacted. Building on steep slopes would be minimized by positioning individual 161 structures on the most level portions of each building lot and orienting these structures parallel to topographic contours. Development of the site with 27 single-family detached housing units would yield lot value of 0.4 units per acre. * Traffic: The impact of the development of the alternative modified cluster development would be equal to that projected for the proposed action (see Section IV-D-4 of the D.E.I.S. ) . As with the proposed action, only minimal effects on the levels of service for the nearby roadway network are anticipated. * Cultural/Scenic Resources: If the site is developed into the modified cluster alternative, there will be an alteration of at least 12.90 acres of existing "open space. " Buildings, driveways, and an interdevelopment roadway will replace in part, a currently forested and old field area. Peripheral buffers would preserve some of the upland forest and old field vegetation, however there would be a loss of large contiguous areas of natural vegetation (Plate 3) . Since a portion of this site would be developed into residential units, an increased recreational utilization of the open space would be anticipated. If not properly managed, this might have a negative impact on the ecosystems of the freshwater wetlands and ponds. Finally, with a modified cluster development of the site having housing units distributed within three areas throughout 162 the parcel, adverse impacts to existing archaeological areas of sensitivity would also be minimized. * Housing: The development of the site with the modified cluster 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: 13 (4 bedroom) dwelling units x 1.366 school-age children/unit = 18 children 14 (3 bedroom) dwelling units x 0.784 school-age children/unit = 11 children Total = 29 school-age children. These additional children would require additional educational services resulting in higher educational expenses for the Town of Southold. 163 As indicated in Section III-D-9 of the D.E.I.S. , the local cost to educate each student is approximately $7,001.94 within the Mattituck School District #9. 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 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 2.55% 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, 175.00 164 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 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. " 2. COMMENT: Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe a more tightly clustered subdivision design can afford better protection of this site's wildlife habitat, steep slopes, freshwater wetlands, and visual aesthetics than that which is provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision design. The clustered subdivision map included in the document was useful to our review. Based on our evaluation, we believe that with minimum overall modification, a significantly greater degree of contiguous open space, wildlife habitat, and natural groundwater recharge area can be preserved. We have prepared a sketch plan incorporating the following 165 design modifications, which is enclosed for the Town's consideration. -Overall lot size reductions averaging approximately 30,000 to 35,000 sq. ft. (no lots are less than 30,000 sq. ft. ) -Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 are relocated within existing development areas -The separation distance between the closest residential development and Laurel Lake is increased by approximately 200 feet -The separation distance between residential development and the site's freshwater pond will be increased by approximately 200 feet -Approximately 8 additional acres are provided within the site's southwestern open space area -Open space reconfiguration will create an open space preserve of approximately 26 contiguous acres along the properties western boundary acres (as proposed, southwestern open space is contained within two discontinuous parcels of approximately 9 acres each) -Lots 18 and 19 are relocated from within the adjacent area of the site's freshwater pond -6 additional lots will have open space frontage or views -1 flag lot (with access between lots 24 & 25) will be required in the vicinity of the norther "drainage area" -All steep slopes and wetlands will be protected 166 -All views from Sound Avenue will be preserved -The proposed interconnecting roadway network is retained -Slight relocation of the northern drainage area will be necessary to accommodate one residential lot We believe the sensitivity of this site is well documented by its proposed public acquisition, its location within a core watershed protection area, and its proximity to Laurel Lake. We believe, therefore, that all efforts must be employed to assure the full protection of this site's many natural resources through the review alternative development designs which minimize the potential negative environmental effects of this action. (3) (5) (10) (11) REPLY: This comment is so noted. A modified cluster alternative site plan (Plate 3) was prepared and the alternative layout discussed above. A. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 1. COMMENT: The No-Action alternative does not include a thorough and in-depth discussion of development of site for public water supply purposes. The value of this site for watershed protection and public water supply cannot be ignored in this environmental review, particularly given the inclusion of this property in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area. (1) 167 REPLY: The site for the proposed action is situated within the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed of the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . Specifically, the Laurel Lake Subwatershed is described as an area that provides excellent opportunities for well siting and wellhead protection for the future needs of western Southold Town. According to the "Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program: Comprehensive Acquisition Plan" both the Suffolk County Water Authority and the Town of Southold have expressed a strong interest in this region (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . In accordance with these statements, Chief Engineer E. J. Rosavitch (i.e. , Commentator #6) of the Suffolk County Water Authority stated that the SCWA has been considering the acquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989. Municipal acquisition of property available within this area should ideally be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life. The Macari at Laurel site "sits almost directly on top of the regional groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea level." According to Mr. Rosavitch this makes the Macari at Laurel site, and any other sites nearby, candidates for acquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply for the Mattituck area. 168 B. YIELD ALTERNATIVE 1. COMMENT: The density of the Yield Alternative should be adjusted as necessary depending upon the final feasible modified cluster determination of the Planning Board. (2) REPLY: This comment is so noted. 2. COMMENT: Discussions and computations in the Alternative analysis should be adjusted to reflect proper turf fertilization rates and sewage nitrogen values. (2) REPLY: The nitrogen budget for the yield alternative has been recalculated, utilizing the parameters presented above under Section IV-C-3 SANITARY WASTE. Further details regarding the actual calculations are presented within Appendix E: "Nitrogen Budget for the Yield Alternative: The proposed 28 housing units under this alternative action will produce a total of 8,400 gpd (28 units @ 300 gpd/unit = 8,400 gpd) of wastewater into the groundwater from the individual septic tanks (based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Department of Environmental Quality: Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other than Single Family Residences, 1988) . An estimation of the potential nitrogen-budget values from 169 the yield alternative is as follows: Standard values for nitrogen concentrations calculated for groundwater from such sources as precipitation, upland forest, impervious surfaces, turf and pets, and septic charge are given in Section IV-C-3: SANITARY WASTE and Appendix E and will be used here. The 28 dwelling units will be populated, for nitrogen budget calculation purposes, by approximately 4 persons per unit, or a total of 112 persons. Site Specific Calculations 1. Precipitation. 1.35 mg/L is expected to recharge the groundwater at the site for this source. 2. Upland Forest, Old Field, Wetlands, and Replanted Indigenous Woody Vegetation. No fertilization will be applied to the combined areas (47.8 acres, or 75.1% total area) of preserved original ground cover, to the recharge basins, to the wetlands, or the replanted indigenous vegetation. Therefore, using weighted average calculations for the site: (0.1 mg/L) x (75.1% of the site) (0.1 mg/L) x (0.751) = 0.08 mg/L 3. Impervious Surfaces. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and pavement will cover 12.3% of the site. Using weighted 170 average calculations for the site: (0.4 mg/L) x (12.3% of the site) (0.4 mg/L) x ( .123) = 0.05 mq/L 4. Turf and Pets. The specific calculations are presented in Appendix E. Turf will cover approximately 8.0 acres or 12.6% of the site. Using a value of 25 pounds of nitrogen per 15,000 square feet of turf, 580.8 pounds of nitrogen is predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA Distribution Area #58 (Captain Kidd) value of 6.45 mg/L) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. Pets are assumed to contribute 0.41 lbs/person equivalent. For the calculations of the nitrogen recharge the number of persons expected to inhabit this development is assumed to constitute approximately 4 persons per dwelling unit, i.e. , 112 persons. This gives an expected nitrogen production from the associated pet population of approximately 45.92 lbs (112 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) . The nitrogen production stemming from these pets is assumed to be deposited primarily in the areas covered by turf. Converting 626.72 pounds of nitrogen (580.8 lbs from turf fertilization and 45.92 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater 171 recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 19.66 mg/L. Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (19.66 mg/L) x (12.6% total site) (19.66 mg/L) x (0.126) = 2.48 mg/L N-loading Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted average for N-recharge results: (2.48 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.41 mg/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 25 nitrogen lbs/15, 000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.41 mg/L the groundwater at the site. In comparison, if the residential fertilizer application rate of 2.3 lbs/1, 000 square feet (LIRPB, 1984) is utilized, 801.5 pounds of nitrogen from fertilizer and 45.92 lbs (112 x 0.41 lbs nitrogen) from the pets are predicted to enter the groundwater at the site. In addition, since turf will be irrigated with 10.00 inches/year of a local water source, the 172 background nitrogen level (i.e. , assumed to be equal to the SCWA Distribution Area #58 (Captain Kidd) value of 6.45 mg/L) in this water source should also be added to the areas replanted with turf. Converting 847.42 pounds of nitrogen (801.5 lbs from turf fertilization and 45.92 lbs from pets) to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the liters of groundwater recharge calculated. The resulting unweighted nitrogen loading (see detailed calculations in Appendix E) from irrigation, fertilization, and pet utilization of turf areas is 24.00 mg/L. Since turf covers 12.6% of the site, the weighted average results in the following: (24.00 mg/L) x (12.6% total site) (24.00 mg/L) x (0.126) = 3.02 mg/L N-loading Furthermore, considering the assumption that an average of approximately 57% of the nitrogen loading within turf areas will actually be recharged to the groundwater, the following weighted average for N-recharge results: (3.02 mg/L) x (0.57) = 1.72 mg/L N-recharge Thus, turf, based upon a fertilizer loading of 2.3 lbs/1, 000 square feet, will contribute approximately 1.72 mg/L nitrogen to the groundwater at the site. 173 5. Indigenous Replanted Vegetation. In addition to precipitation the areas replanted with indigenous woody shrubs (i.e. , 2.1 acres or 3.3% of the site) will be irrigated with an estimated 10.00 inches of a local water source per year. In contrast to the areas replanted with turf, no fertilization is planned for the areas replanted with indigenous shrubs. Considering a weighted average for irrigation of replanted indigenous acreage on the site (i.e. , 1.12 inches/yr or 1,967,278.57 gpy/acre x 2.1 acres; Appendix E) compared to the total water budget for the site (i.e. , 29.87 inches/year or 51,588,229.40 gpy) , incorporating the background nitrogen level in the local water source (i.e. , 6.45 mg/L) , and considering that 57% of the loading is likely to reach the groundwater, the following concentrations results: 0.12 mg/L. 6. Septic Discharge. In the calculations of nitrogen recharge from sanitary waste a multiplier of 4 person equivalents per dwelling unit is used. Utilizing a separate septic system, approximately 5 (10 lbs loading, 50% recharged) pounds of nitrogen will be produced per person. In the computations below the nitrogen values for a separate sanitary system are calculated. Therefore: 112 persons x 5/365 lbs/person/day = 1.53 lbs/day Converting 1.53 pounds of nitrogen to a milligram value of nitrogen to be dispersed within the 8,400 gallons per day of 174 septic effluent to enter the groundwater and adding the background nitrogen levels (6.45 mg/L; minus 50% removed by the standard sanitary system) for the local water source, the following concentration results: 25.11 mg/L. Since 1.78 in/yr of recharge (i.e. , sanitary effluent value calculated over the entire site) has a nitrogen concentration of 25.11 mg/L, and the total recharge value for the entire site is 29.87 in/yr (including the sanitary component) , then the actual septic discharge concentration is as follows: 1.78 in/yr / 29.87 in/yr = 5.96% total recharge Thus, the nitrogen concentration added to the groundwater at the site due to septic discharge is 1.49 mg/L (25. 11 mg/L x 5.96%) . The total rough estimated nitrogen concentration resulting from the proposed action is as follows: Precipitation 1.35 mg/L Upland Forest etc. 0.08 mg/L Impervious Surfaces 0.05 mg/L Turf 1.41 mg/L (1.72 mg/L) Indigenous Irrigation 0.12 mg/L Septic Discharge 1.49 mg/L Total 4.50 mg/L (4.81 mg/L) 175 The nitrogen concentration values indicated for septic discharge is probably slightly undervalued, since there will not be complete mixing of the septic effluent discharge and the remaining portion of the total groundwater recharge. On the other hand, the designated turf on the site will be a low maintenance type, requiring little or no fertilization. In addition, the number of pets allowed to wander loose on the site is probably also exaggerated. Furthermore, the background levels added in these calculations will be derived from an on-site, local water source, and only 50 - 57% of this will be recharged to the aquifer. Consequently, this nitrogen budget, which includes the background values, is likely to be slightly exaggerated. The final estimated nitrogen concentration value of 4.50 mg/L, or 4.81 mg/L based on LIRPB (1984) fertilization, is probably a reasonably close estimate, considering the variables associated with this project. This value lies within the median value range of actually recorded nitrogen concentration values for similar density developments (approximately 3-5 mg/L) recorded by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (1987) , and it is somewhat higher than the median nitrogen value for "Low Density Residential, Unsewered Areas" of 3.5 mg/L (interquartile range (50% data] of 4.2) reported by Eckhardt, et al. (1989) in their recent analysis of the "Relationship between Land Use and Ground-water Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer 176 in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York. " The resulting nitrogen loading value of 4.50 mg/L (or 4.81 mg/L) is substantially less than the 10 mg/L standard (New York State Drinking Water Standard, and that level recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable nitrogen level within groundwater for Long Island) . In addition, the nitrogen loading value of 4.50 mg/L (or 4.81 mg/L) is somewhat above the range of 2 to 4 mg/L recommended by the Long Island Regional Planning Board for the "Special Ground-water Protection Area Project for the Brookhaven Pilot Area" (1986) , which is part of the Pine Barrens Zone and the Hydrogeologic Zone III. However, it lies below the 6.45 mg/L value of municipal water in the area. Thus, the proposed action will result in a nitrogen recharge value actually lower than the value of the underlying aquifer. " 3• COMMENT: VII-19. The last sentence in the second paragraph refers to the Town of Brookhaven instead of Southold. (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Page VII-19 has been changed to the following: "Thus, a projected tax revenue of $93, 144.07 would result for the Town of Southold with this alternative proposal. " 177 C. LAND ACQUISITION POTENTIAL 1. COMONT: VII-21. The third paragraph on this page states that the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate has indicated an interest in acquiring the property, but that the owner of the property must initiate the process. Has the owner pursued this option? If so, what has been done. If not, why? (1) REPLY: According to Land Management Specialist IV and Acquisition Agent, Ms. Phyllis Haner of the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate (personal communication, 516-853-3801, September 23, 1991) the Department has singled out several parcels for potential acquisition within the immediate area around Laurel Lake under the 1/4 cent sales tax program. The parcels proposed for potential acquisition include the site for the proposed action. Currently an appraisal of the properties is taking place. The further along in the SEQRA process a proposed action is the higher the appraisal value. The Suffolk County Department of Real Estate will probably be making specific offers during the Spring. Each potential acquisition will be a negotiated sale. Dependent upon the appraisal value, the Department will make offers that the property owners then can accept or decline (personal communication, Ms. Phyllis Haner, 516-853-3801, September 23, 1991) . 178 To date (March 9, 1992) no offers are known to have been made to the Applicant and Owner of the site for the proposed action. In addition, the Applicant intends to maintain his constitutional right to develop his parcel (Appendix J) . 2. COMMENT: VII-21. The first and second statements made in the fourth paragraph should be documented. (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. The text of the D.E.I.S. Page VII-21 has been changed to the following: "Considering the relatively advanced stage of the proposed action in the SEQRA review process, the appraisal value may be significantly elevated. Consequently, the cost of acquiring this site might be economically unrealistic for the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate. " 3. COMMENT: The Land Acquisition Potential alternative should be updated to reflect the status of potential County acquisition. The project site does meet many of the criteria generally applied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as outlined on Pages VII-22 to VII-24 of the Draft EIS. (2) REPLY: As described above in further detail the Macari at Laurel site is part of a group of parcels currently being appraised by the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate for potential acquisition. Specific offers will probably be made 179 during the Spring. In addition, according to Chief Engineer E. J. Rosavitch (i.e. , Commentator #6) the Suffolk County Water Authority has been considering watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989, and Mr. Rosavitch suggests that municipal acquisition of property available in this area be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life. 4. COMMENT: As stated previously, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County. We support public acquisition for preservation as a use which will provide the best long-term protection of this site's natural resources. It is important to consider this parcel's location within a core watershed area in the Town, and the nearby location of Laurel Lake. Full site acquisition will preserve this parcel in its undeveloped state and provide for long-term groundwater, wildlife and open space resources protection without the requirement of increased public services (notably; increased education costs which are outlined in the document) . We believe further attention to this alternative is warranted by the approval of funding, and encourage the Town to carefully consider public acquisition (through the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate) as a reasonable alternative. This may involve an offer by the applicant to Suffolk County to sell the property at a free market price. Depending upon the response of Suffolk County, other measures may be perused to 180 preserve the benefits that accrue in keeping this parcel in its present state. (3) (4) (8) (10) (11) REPLY: See previous reply. 5. COMMENT: The Suffolk County Water Authority has been considering the acquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989. In October and November of that year, the Authority had two appraisals done of the A. T. Holding Co. property referred to on page 1-4 of the DEIS. It is suggested that municipal acquisition of property available in this area would be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life. The area in question sits almost directly on top of the regional groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea level (DEIS page III-50) . This makes the site, and any other sites nearby, a candidate for acquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply for the Mattituck area. (6) REPLY: This comment is so noted. D. TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 1. COMMENT: VII-22. The paragraph on the transfer of development rights is misleading. The Town has considered 181 implementing such a program, but does not actually have one at this time. (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. 2. COMMENT: VII-23. The Town's property records show that the applicant owns other property in the nearby vicinity to which development rights could be transferred, should the Town implement such a program. (1) REPLY: This comment is so noted. IB. GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. COMMENT: IX-1. The third sentence contradicts earlier statements that the tax revenues that would be collected by this subdivision would not cover the School District's costs. (1) REPLY: The increased tax revenues collected from the completed occupied Macari at Laurel subdivision would help offset, although they may not necessarily meet, increased costs for e.g. , municipal services. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. COMMENT: X-36. The cumulative traffic impact analysis mistakenly assumes that some proposed subdivisions will have 182 r access to both Sound Avenue and State Route 25. (1) REPLY: This assumption is based upon the fact that the site plans for the A. T. Holding Corporation project, which was included in the cumulative traffic impact analysis, contained a roadway connection running into the McFeeley development. This development had in turn access to State Route 25. 2. COMMENT: One of the wildlife impacts associated with the Macari at Laurel project is the loss of 44 percent of old field habitat present on the site, with associated stress on the species occupying this habitat potentially including two sparrow Species of Special Concern. The potential of this impact to be magnified by cumulative development pressures in the vicinity of Laurel Lake should be explored. If this impact appears to be significant, mitigation measures and/or performance standards should be established to apply to projects which are proposed within the study area. (2) REPLY: The current attempts by the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate to acquire parcels of land within the Ivicinity of the Macari at Laurel site under the 1/4 cent sales tax program may lead to the acquisition of significant parcels of property within the cumulative area. Such separate parcels could through careful planning by the Town of Southold be connected via a network of natural corridors, such as peripheral 183 buffers and other areas of designated open space (e.g. , Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . Thus, the larger potentially acquired parcels could serve as significant sources of wildlife repopulation through the connecting network of corridors. 3. COMMENT: The United States Dept. of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory and the NYS proposed Freshwater Wetlands Maps identify surface water and wetland features within the study area exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands associated with the site. The Final EIS should explore the cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by "islands" of development, with proposed measures to link and protect these features and the exchange of wildlife and resources within the general Laurel Lake area. (2) REPLY: The surface waters and freshwater wetlands areas of the site are currently regulated by the NYSDEC and Town of Southold, which require that a minimum buffer of 100 feet and 75 feet, respectively, be left natural around any freshwater wetlands area. The proposed layout has created islands of designated open space areas, including all surface water areas and freshwater wetlands of the Macari at Laurel site. These islands are connected by natural corridors, with a few exceptions, thereby providing migration possibilities for even smaller or slowly migrating species of wildlife. By careful ' coordination the Town of Southold has the opportunity to ensure PP Y 184 the preservation of more extensive corridors of open space, eventually connecting larger municipally acquired parcels. These parcels could potentially serve as important sources for wildlife repopulation. 4. CO)MENT: The subject project along with the Peconic Homes, Jacoby and John McFeely projects all front on Laurel Lake. The impact of the change in land use density, open space value and configuration, and recreational utilization of the lake should be discussed in more detail as related specifically to Laurel Lake. Appropriate limitations and restrictions, and design considerations should be outlined in more detail. (2) REPLY: At present no recreational facilities exist on Laurel Lake. The lake is currently accessed from the several existing single-family homes aligning the northern shore of the lake. These homes are accessed via the Laurel Way right of way (Plate 1 of the D.E.I.S. ) . The proposed action does not intend to provide additional access to the lake. In addition, the proposed action will preserve a significant area of open space along its boundary on Laurel Lake. Should access be provided through the development of any other project, then the lake would almost certainly be used for recreational purposes such as fishing. However, the Town of Southold has the right to regulate activities on the lake. 185 S. COMONT: The cumulative impacts section of the DEIS does not satisfy the Planning Board's requirement that a GEIS addressing the cumulative impact of all proposed projects for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area be prepared. Ideally, the DEIS should describe the biological setting of all proposed projects, and not simply address cumulative impacts in one abbreviated section. (11) REPLY: The Town of Southold originally requested that one Environmental Impact Statement (i.e. , GEIS) be prepared for the cumulative five specific projects, all of which were actively being pursued at the time of the request. These projects included the Peconic Homes, Douglas Miller, Daniel Jacobi, Joseph Macari, and A.T. Holding. Since then, the Macari at Laurel project has been the only active project at the time of the preparation of the D.E.I.S. Thus, the D.E.I.S. for the proposed action discusses the potential impacts upon the environment of the development of the Macari at Laurel site. In addition, the D.E.I.S. includes a discussion of cumulative impacts from the potential development of six specific projects (covering a total area of approximately 330 acres) within the general area of the site. The six projects are the four major parcels (Peconic Homes, Daniel Jacoby, Joseph Macari, and A.T. Holding) requested to be included into the "GEIS" as well as two other major projects (i.e. , Thornton Smith and John McFeely) . The Douglas Miller parcel is of minor areal extent (i.e. , 186 approximately 8.2 acres) . The extent of the general cumulative area (total area 1,030 acres) considered within the D.E.I.S. covers a major portion of the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . The calculations included within the cumulative section of the D.E.I.S. were made under the assumption that the six projects would be developed while the land use of the remaining portion of the cumulative area would remain as it is at present. Consequently, the total layout of the cumulative area under existing and proposed conditions are as follows: Total Cumulative Area: Existing Developed Groundcover Acres Percent Acres Percent Unimproved 388 37.67% 464 45.05% Replanted: (610) (59.22%) (484.5) (47.04%) Turf 0 0.00% 37.0 3.59% Farmland 610 59.22% 435 42.23% Indigenous 0 0.00% 12.5 1.21% Impervious 0 0.00% 39.6 3.84% Surface Water 32 3.11% 32 3.11% Recharge Basins 0 0.00% 9.9 0.96% Total Acreage 1,030 100.00% 1,030 100.00% Septic Discharge 0 39,000 The developed scenario was based upon the following layout of the six projects, discussed above: sip Specific Developments: Existing Developed Groundcover Acres Acres Unimproved 155 231.0 Replanted: (175) (49.5) Turf 0 37.0 Farmland 175 0.0 187 Indigenous 0 12.5 Impervious 0 39.6 Recharge Basins 0 9.9 Total Acreage 330 330.0 Septic Discharge 0 39,000 Since the Macari at Laurel subdivision proposes to develop only one of these six sites. The bulk of the D.E.I.S. dealt with the conditions at the Applicant's site. The cumulative assessment of the potential development of the six specific projects was presented in Section X: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS of the D.E.I.S. 6. COMMENT: The DEIS fails to include an adequate description or composite map of the other proposed actions. It simply ignores the Miller proposal for the property sandwiched between the wetlands on Laurel Lake and the Macari site. (See DEIS at X-5. ) The cumulative impacts of the Macari and Miller projects on Laurel Lake and the wetlands would be considerably, and should be thoroughly analyzed. In addition, I understand that the McFeely project is proposed for the former Camp Malloy property. The DEIS refers to Camp Malloy in connection with the New York State conservation area as open space which could serve as a wildlife and avian habitat. (DEIS at X-14, X-16. ) If Camp Malloy is indeed slated for development, the cumulative analysis in the DEIS is based on inaccurate information. These omissions and errors in the cumulative impact section must be corrected, 188 and a new analysis performed based on accurate information. (11) REPLY: See previous reply. The location of the six specific projects hypothetically developed within Section X: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS of the D.E.I.S. are indicated within Figure 16B of the D.E.I.S. In addition, the extent of the general cumulative area is demonstrated in Figure 16A of the D.E.I.S. document. This general cumulative area roughly coincides with the Laurel Lake Woods Subwatershed (Suffolk County Executive, 1990) . In general, an assessment of cumulative impacts contained within a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which was prepared for a privately-owned property, will give a fairly general overview over the combined impacts of specific developments within the area. A more in-depth analysis of cumulative impacts should be included within a municipal master plan, or a municipal GEIS. 7. COMMENT: The DEIS also fails to analyze the cumulative effect of the Project and the other proposed developments on Laurel Lake or its wetlands. The increased nitrogen concentrations may result in a degradation of water quality and the eutrophication of the lake. The DEIS should also discuss the impact that the increase in local population would have on the lake in terms of increased recreational use (i.e. , swimming, 189 boating and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails to address the cumulative growth inducing aspects of the proposed projects. The influx of 325 residents to the area may increase demand for business services and induce new commercial and retail developments. This secondary impact of the proposed developments should be addressed. (11) REPLY: This comment is so noted. Any major development within an area will have impacts upon the region. Some of these impacts will be of a positive, whereas others will be of a negative nature. It is the objective of the involved, regulating agencies to determine whether the positive impacts outweigh the negative dittos. 190 APPENDICES APPENDIX A TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DOCUMENTS ��FF OLKc 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS i 'Y SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman y0 Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Ol '�[' Town Hall. 53095 Main Roar. Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1 179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 June 6, 1991 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, June 4, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 1991, together with the six pages of revised text, received by the Planning Board on May 13 , 1991 as complete for the purpose of public and inter-agency review. Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board initiate a public comment period of thirty ( 30) calendar days from the date of this resolution. The public comment period will run until July 5, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Planning Board set Monday June 24, 1991, at 7 : 30 P.M. for a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. '-M5- Chairman -MSChairman cc: Charles J. Voorhis, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates h- y0 t,(A. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSti ' ' '�Ir t SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O . Supervisor LI George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 0 Richard G. Ward �� �� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1 179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 16, 1991 Peter S. Danowski, Jr. 616 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 779 Riverhead, New York 11901 RE: Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Dear Mr. Danowski: 1991.The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended July 5, The next step is to prepare a Final DEIS. The Planning Board feels it would be helpful if you prepared a response to the public comments received to date. As lead agency, it is the Planning Board' s responsibility to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS. This will provide you with the opportunity to modify the project, conduct the necessary research, and propose mitigation measures which may be appropriate or necessary to address the relevant comments. A list of the written and verbal comments is enclosed along with copies of the actual comments. In preparing these comments, please consider the following: 1. The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference; 2. All original comment letters and transcripts should be included; 3 . Comments should be identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or if they were submitted as part of the written record; 4. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source; 5. Comments should be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments; 6. A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions (If it is necessary to revise any part of the DEIS, it would be helpful if this was clarified in the response. ) ; 7 . The most encompassing comment in the document should be addressed first in the responses. Subsequent comments that are duplicative can be referenced to a previous response. The Planning Board would like to you take particular care to thoroughly address the following issues in the final impact statement: 1. The value of this property for watershed protection and for public water supply purposes should be examined closely. Reference should be made to the significance of this property' s inclusion in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area. 2. Alternative development options should be presented. One option that should be presented is a tighter cluster with 30,000 square foot lots and less linear footage of road. Another option is the dedication of land for watershed protection and supply purposes. 3 . A copy of the data that has been requested by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services should be included in the text. 4. Proposed use( s) of the open space should be set forth. The State Environmental Quality Review Regulations indicate that a Final EIS should be prepared within 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. If additional time is needed to provide an adequate and accurate response, it will not be necessary for you to adhere to the 45 day time frame. Upon receipt of five ( 5) copies of the responses, the Planning Board will review the documentation in a timely fashion for adequacy and accuracy. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, �y, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. /� Chairman Encls. APPENDIX B NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DOCUMENTS APPENDIX B-1 REQUEST FOR WETLANDS DELINEATION TO NYSDEC 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516)754-3415 September 12, 1991 Mr. Stephen Sanford Bureau of Environmental Protection New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40, State University of New York Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Sanford: This letter is' a formal request to your agency to establish the NYSDEC regulatory boundaries for the wetlands of the Macari at Laurel site. The wetland areas of the site have previously been delineated by the Land Use Company. These delineations are indicated on the enclosed site plan. We will need a letter stating your findings as well as a copy of the site plan indicating the location and NYSDEC regulatory boundaries of all on-site wetlands areas. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: RAJ:ecl ichard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Enclosures 'President cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. Howard Young Town of Southold, Board of Trustees * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. APPENDIX B-2 NYSDEC FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY CONFIRMATION 6/New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Aft— Region 1 Headquarters SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Iftmo (516) 751-1596 141 W Thomas C. Joriing Commissioner Date: (�C-�yl�r To: 2 I � Ar& �� los �„� T-�'e Cicvq�j- C- '10, '10. (.2 . r"3��c 4nle- 5 i he , N Y l 1 -71+3 Representing: �yh�a r p-rt' MdI."ht rZeccl-T cLLkcsnf\ h, -s Ny 11 37a Dear (� �QGKSU✓� v ` RE: FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY CONFIRMATION TAX MAP # 1CXX� - I.�I - 4 - 9 LOCATION 2t, 50 ,nci A-y-e W/n La u.r�( 10- TEr- In response to your request, a field inspection was made of the above referenced property. The freshwater wetland boundary, as flagged by your firm, has been confirmed ffQr the purposes of this kpa ication. The Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law, regulates most development activities within 100 feet of this boundary. Should you apply for a permit, your site plan must depict the flagged wetland boundary as located. by a licensed surveyor. I .strong.ly recommend that you promptly hire a surveyor to plot these flags. The boundary should be noted on the survey or site plan as follows: , FRESHWATER WETLAND BOUNDARY AS FLAGGED BY (YOUR NAME) AND APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION B N.Y.S.D.E.C. ON I C) / 3o /91 If you have any questions, please contact the Bureau of Environmental Protection at (516) 751-1596. Sinc rely, S � �. Regional Man Bureau of E v ' onment Protection SJS:ki cc: COMLOG [] PAPLOG F1 MAP ❑ CARD FILE ' S hcxc ld -Pl cL.,t s Clc4,+-W n�cce'5ISCL �� , APPENDIX B-3 NYSDEC FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP AND CLASSIFICATIONS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Am � 1-1596 Fax # (516) 751-3839 Ibma '/ - QQ Thomas C. Jorling 1L� 1v'2�i77J2eL /7�/ Commissioner LIcJ�/�rCL420r a fi"J.'C 2 2-S LVIa ir, 9 e 2v� 7Qr Dear Please find enclosed: —Z A copy of the portion of the Suffolk County Tentative Freshwater Wetland Maps that you requested. Please note that these maps are tentative and are subject to change at this time. A copy of the portion of the Nassau County Freshwater Wetland Maps that you requested. .Z Ile- roz"iPc 4 4-he AZ 01;?2 Z2 4h� r Qr4h 4 4-1-7e t4-,e 6 /Vi T-- 2 Z> Q� � U _ I hope that this material is of help to you. If you have any further questions regarding freshwater wetlands, please feel free to contact me at 751-1596 Ext. 374. Sincerely, Kathleen M. Maloney Fish & Wildlife Technician Bureau of Environmental Protection KMM/kf V 00 60 3 J, 4 MAT UCK N soojii ower• Sa AAT 'Al R trAS SysV11 7_7-i �10 o V. M T-70 55 �2 2 el o 3 T7 CD Q 110Y. CZ 25,, '40 (�O attituck Park istrict Beach % a. TbntatiVe.Freshwater This is a section of the A\ Cm _rul�ulatcpi Wetlands Map esoz) Fbr O „ .� ' I�'<" �� � \\ .- F kepared f) County urtuant to Article 24 Ir\ qf the Environmental Conservation La \MZ • w c1 : BM. 3 New York, $tatq D�Piw v- 40-7 `q f Environr Conservation Onta C- C 7-, t A 0 �O PRELIMINARY ERE' HWATER -#ETLAUR ' 0 ./ G 2 5,0,� MAP - SUBJECTIOIED f • $10N This is a section of the Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Map Duck Pond I� Point.': For �t���=c-' County _ Prepared pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law New York State Department of Environmental Conservation = PRELIMINARY FRESHWATER WETLAND ,N °•P�'! MAP - SUBJECT TO REVISION01 '© 09 Alatt'ituck D Q Inlet ;; ,��\ ,y�% �\ L;'°. Q, o• ` Mattttuckr \\ i� \`Jh—; Asa ; 1` l tght: \ Jetty �� •� _ \l ` \Y8 •\ off sl to :`:i � °�t ,: C r'9•,1\\ �'. i` ° 'o po Wate Ville C �% = \ Tidal }i %� .�, �• t 'kci =_+i����l II ° ` .� 50 .t•r/''�. K` �� • �,• '�� 4,, S t � 0.1;:-�•'�n..:�r j/� c� ��" gip. .r ` •'\•!�. \I\1({( - ,'1`' 4 ' \Ae Y n i-- �,• i C@ FRESHWATER I,ETLANDS ACT CLASSIFICATION Wetland Identification Class III County Wetland No. �� Deciduous swamp (d) (1) u Quad Name Shrub swamp (d) (2) 1 DEC Region V Float/submergent vegetation (d) (3) County Mud flat proximity (d) (4) s,,, p�4''Town Contains island (d) (5) Mztbr-,coillage 50+ ppm alkalinity (d) (6) Grid No. Adj. to fertile upland (d) (7) Rare anim. , resident habitat (d) (8) Classification Rare anim. , migration habitat(d) (9) Rare plant, state (d) (10) REGULATORY CLASS 5-10'/, of basin (d) (11) Reclassification Surface water system (d) (12) Visible (d) (13) Applicable Characteristics One of 3 largest of covertype (d) (14) 1% wetland acreage (d) (15) Class I On public land (d) (16) Classic bog (b) (1) Endg. anim. , resident hab. (b) (2) Endg. plant, U. S. (b) (3) Anim. , abun. , div , state/reg(b) (4) Attach field notes confirming each 15% of basin area (b) (5) characteristic checked. Cite sources used. 4+ Class II characteristics (b) (6) Weather Day of Visit: Class II _ Preceding Week: ��t.NNy ' yr Emergent marsh (c) (1) Remarks J y — 2+ covertype groups (c) (2) Assoc. with tidal wetland (c) (3) i'err N I Assoc. with open water (c) (4) .. � Adj. to C(t) stream (c) (5) Endg. anim. , mig. habitat (c) (6) 1 �� Endg. plant, state (c) (7) Anim., abun., div. , county (c) (8) ��(� 3 ,r pow LIL CI&Ss LUT Hist./arch. significance (c) (9) LrtrSRf ��sllaw.ona �� rPC- Unique_geology (c) (10) 10-157 of basin (c) (11) ; Aquifer (c) (12) Investigator: Z Im urbanized area (c) (13) - One_ 0£-_-3 largest wetlands (c) (14) - .-- In public rec. area (c) (15) Title Date -Adj.- td--recreational water (c) (16) � Approved by: No- Class II characteristics Title Date 77:6/78 - - - - - - - -._A UAC) OUh �l,Jc, er � 1Js 7ZL,,- A',- - - - ------ --- -- ----- 5� Z/e V117,rIJ�.S -.. -- APPENDIX C U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF POTENTIAL JURISDICTION 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 16, 1991 Mr. Roberto Barbosa Room 1937, Permit Section Army Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278-0090 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Barbosa: This letter is a formal request to your agency to establish the potential jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers over the wetlands areas present at the Macari at Laurel site. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. The wetland areas of the site have previously been delineated by the Land Use Company. These delineations are indicated on the copy of the enclosed site plan. We will need a letter stating your findings. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Co ation by: _ RAJ:ecl 4ib�hard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Enclosures ' President cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 7 c- -5F�f-'if-I 1 �� _4,� •�y° SITE -• �_�=��=� ��� _ 21 3e 57 nd45 e O'u lei '!77% 7 ;ft % , ff.1 ke "sf u La V V-J ure *-- Lake Lm 01Y, 40 40 O RR Sts (U.S.G.S. , 1967) 0 2000 Ft. 1-2 APPENDIX D SOIL AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY AT THE MACARI AT LAUREL SITE McDONALD GEOSCLENCE Box 1000 ❑ Southold, New York 11971 516-765-3677 Jan. 13, 1992 Richard Jackson, PhD. Clover Corp. 225 Main St. Northport, NY 11768 Dear Richard: Enclosed are the water and soil testing results from Macari at Laurel. The monitor well numbers are the same numbers we have used through out this project. The soil sample was taken adjacent to monitor well #1. Four borings were taken at 3' intervals to a depth of 1.51 . The soil from these four borings was commingled and a sample of this co- mmingled soil was taken to EcoTest labs. You should be aware that the choice of which wells to sample was limited. Wells number 2, 6, and 7 are no longer usable. Well #2 has been broken off below groung level, well # 6 has been filled with soil, and well # 7 appears to have been removed. rs ruly, i )mar McDonald LAKE YVAY O z `.. _ R O N O �•. \ \ \ it - -� d tij � C `MW #'SOIL SAMPLE - �-- MW #4 MW #5, LAUKE 1- e-JITE: \ �' _ `� _ - LAKE r LAUMEL R N. Wo/Ie� 5(7ho 1 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB HO. C914411/4 12/27/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY: JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91 SAMPLE: Soil sample, composite ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Lindane ug/Kg <2 Aroclor 1260 ug/Kg <40 Heptachlor ug/Kg <2 Aldrin ug/Kg <2 Heptachlor Epoxide ug/Kg <2 p, p-DDE ug/Kg 130 Dieldrin ug/Kg 15 Endrin ug/Kg 6 p, p-DDD ug/Kg 49 p, p-DDT ug/Kg 260 Chlordane ug/Kg <8 Toxaphene ug/Kg <40 Endrin Aldehyde ug/Kg <12 a BHC ug/Kg <2 b BHC ug/Kg <2 d BHC ug/Kg <2 Endosulfan 1 ug/Kg <4 Endosulfan 2 ug/Kg <4 Endosulfan Sulfate ug/Kg <12 Aroclor 1016 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1221 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1232 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1242 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1248 ug/Kg <40 Aroclor 1254 ug/Kg <40 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR C - _ rn= 20631 HYSDOH ID#t 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C914411/1 12/18/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY: JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91 SAMPLE: Water sample, MW#1 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Benzene ug/L <0. 5 Iron as Fe mg/L 45 Toluene ug/L <0. 5 T. Coliform, 100 mL Absent Ethyl Benzene ug/L <0. 5 m + p Xylene ug/L <0. 5 o Xylene ug/L <0. 5 Styrene ug/L <0. 5 Isopropylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 n-Propylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 135-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 tert-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 124-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 sec-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 p-Isopropyltoluene ug/L <0. 5 n-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 Manganese as Mn mg/L 3.2 Nitrate as N mg/L 0. 8 Chloride as Cl mg/L 7 MBAS as LAS mg/L <0. 1 pH units mg/L 5. 0 Ammonia as N mg/L <0. 1 Spec. Cond. umbo/cm mg/L 86 Copper as Cu mg/L 0. 11 Zinc as Zn mg/L 0. 08 Lead as Pb mg/L 0. 034 cc: REMARKS: DIRE R rn= 20626 NYSDOH IDO 10320 C0 EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 • (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C914411/1 12/18/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY: JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91 SAMPLE: Water sample, MW*1 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Dichlordifluomethane ug/L <0. 5 Chloromethane ug/L <0. 5 Vinyl Chloride ug/L <0. 5 Chlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 Bromomethane ug/L <0. 5 1112Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0. 5 Chloroethane ug/L <0. 5 Trichlorofluomethane ug/L <0. 5 1122Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0. 5 11 Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 123-Trichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 Methylene Chloride ug/L <0. 5 Bromobenzene ug/L <0. 5 t-1, 2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0. 5 11 Dichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0. 5 2, 2-Dichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 m Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 c-1, 2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 p Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 o Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 Bromochloromethane ug/L <0. 5 111 Trichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 124-Trichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 1, 1-Dichlorpropene ug/L <0. 5 Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L <0. 5 Carbon Tetrachloride ug/L <0. 5 123-Trichlorobenzene 3g/L <0. 5 12 Dichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 t 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0. 5 Trichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 c 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0. 5 12 Dichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 Dibromomethane ug/L <0. 5 112 Trichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 Tetrachloroethene ug/L <0. 5 1, 3-Dichloropropene ug/L <0. 5 cc: REMARKS: DI �CTOR rn= 20625 NYSDOH ID* 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 a (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C914411/2 12/23/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY: JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D: 12/10/91 RECEIVED: 12/10/91 SAMPLE: Water sample, MW#4 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Benzene ug/L <0. 5 Iron as Fe mg/L 37 Toluene ug/L <0. 5 T. Coliform, 100 mL Present Ethyl Benzene ug/L <0. 5 E. Coli, 100mL Absent m p Xylene ug/L <0. 5 o Xylene ug/L <0. 5 Styrene ug/L <0. 5 Isopropylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 n-Propylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 135-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 tert-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 124-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 sec-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 p-Isopropyltoluene ug/L <0. 5 n-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 Manganese as Mn mg/L 1. 6 Nitrate as N mg/L <0. 5 Chloride as C1 mg/L 22 MBAS as LAS mg/L <0. 1 pH units mg/L 5. 2 Ammonia as N mg/L <0. 1 Spec. Cond. umho/cm mg/L 120 Copper as Cu mg/L 0. 06 Zinc as Zn mg/L 0. 06 Lead as Pb mg/L 0. 020 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR rn= 20628 NYSDOH ID#t 10320 CO EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 9 (516) 422-5777. FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB NO. C914411/2 12/18/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY: JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91 SAMPLE: water sample, MW*4 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Dichlordifluomethane ug/L <0. 5 Chloromethane ug/L <0. 5 Vinyl Chloride ug/L <0. 5 Chlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 Bromomethane ug/L <0. 5 1112Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0. 5 Chloroethane ug/L <0. 5 Trichlorofluomethane ug/L <0. 5 1122Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0. 5 11 Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 123-Trichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 Methylene Chloride ug/L <0. 5 Bromobenzene ug/L <0. 5 t-1, 2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0. 5 11 Dichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 4-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0. 5 2, 2-Dichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 m Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 c-1, 2-Dichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 p Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 o Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 Bromochloromethane ug/L <0. 5 111 Trichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 124-Trichlorobenzene ug/L <0. 5 1, 1-Dichlorpropene ug/L <0. 5 Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L <0. 5 Carbon Tetrachloride ug/L <0. 5 123-Trichlorobenzene 3g/L <0. 5 12 Dichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 t 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0. 5 Trichloroethene ug/L <0. 5 c 13 Dichloropropene ug/L <0. 5 12 Dichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 Dibromomethane ug/L <0. 5 112 Trichloroethane ug/L <0. 5 Tetrachloroethene ug/L <0. 5 1, 3-Dichloropropane ug/L <0. 5 cc: REMARKS: ECTOR rn= 20627 NYSDOH TDO 10320 C7 EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. • N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 9 (516) 422-5777• FAX (516) 422-5770 LAB HO. C914411/3 12/23/91 John W. Hallman Ltd P. O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAMPLE: McDonald Geoscience, Macari at Laurel COLLECTED BY : JH/Ecotest DATE COL'D:12/10/91 RECEIVED:12/10/91 SAMPLE: Water sample, MW#5 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Benzene ug/L <0. 5 Iron as Fe mg/L 49 Toluene ug/L <0. 5 T. Coliform, 100 mL Absent Ethyl Benzene ug/L <0. 5 m + p Xylene ug/L <0. 5 o Xylene ug/L <0. 5 Styrene ug/L <0. 5 Isopropylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 n-Propylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 135-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 tert-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 124-Trimethylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 sec-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 p-Isopropyltoluene ug/L <0. 5 n-Butylbenzene ug/L <0. 5 Manganese as Mn mg/L 5. 2 Nitrate as N mg/L <0. 5 Chloride as Cl mg/L 5 MBAS 3s LAS mg/L <0. 1 pH units mg/L 5. 7 Ammonia as N mg/L <0. 1 Spec. Cond. umho/cm mg/L 140 Copper as Cu mg/L 0. 09 Zinc as Zn mg/L 0. 11 Lead as Pb mg/L 0. 037 cc: REMARKS: DIRECTOR rn= 20630 HYSDOH ID# 10320 0ZE01 *Gl HOQSAN 6Z90Z ---- -- ---------- - NO.L03 Q :SxuvR3a 910> 'I/5n ausdo.xdOJOT40TQ-E4T 5 '0> "I/6n auagl:�ao,xoTgoe,x�ay 9 '0> 'I/5n aueq}ao.xoTgDTJ.L ZTT 910> 'I/5n aueg-4.awowo.xgTQ S 10> 'I/5n ausdosdo.zoTgoTQ ZT 5 '0> 'I/5n auado.zdo,xoTgzTQ ET 0 910> "1/5n auag4ao,xoTgoTJ.L 9 '0> 1/5n auado.xdOJOTgOTQ ET I. 9 '0> 'I/5n aueq}aosoTgoTQ ZT 9 '0> 'I/5E suezuago,xoTgoT-x.L-EZT 9 '0> '1/5n aPTJOTgoe,z-+ay uoq.xe0 9 '0> 'I/5n auaTP84ngo.xoT4oexaH 9 '0> -I/5n auado.xd.xoTgDTQ-T 'T 5 '0> "1/5n auazuago.xoTgDT.x.L-6ZT 9 '0> 'I/5n aueq'Zao.xoTgOTJ.L TTT 900> 'I/5n auvg4awo.xoTgoowosS 9 '0> 1/5n auszuagosoTgOTQ o 9 '0> 1/5n auazuogo.xoTgDTQ d 9 '0> '1/5n auaq-+ao.xoTgOTQ-Z 'T-0 9 .0> 1/5n auazuagOJOTgDTQ w 910> -I/5n ausdo.xdOJOTgoTQ-Z 'Z S '0> 1/5n auanTo-40 -y S '0> 'I/5n aueq'}ao.xoTgDTQ TT S '0> '7/5n auanTo-}o.xoTgO-Z 9 '0> 'I/5n auaglsOJOTgDTQ-Z 'T-� S '0> 'I/5n auazuagowoje S •0> -I/5n aPTJOTgO auaTAq-4ak 910> "1/5n ausdo.xdo,xoTgDTJ.L-EZT 910> 'I/5n auaq-+ao,xoTgoTQ TT S '0> 1/5n ueglao.xoTgOe.xla.LZZTT S '0> 'T/5n ausglawonT;o,xoTgOTJ.L 910> 'I/5n aueq}ao,xoTg7 9 '0> 'I/5n ueq-+ao.xoTgDBJ4ayZTTT 9 '0> -1/5n ousq�awowo ze 910> 1/5n auazuago.xoTgO 5 '0> -1/5n aPT-toTgO TAuTA 5 '0> '1/5n aueg-}awo,xoTg3 9 '0> ^1/5n aueq-+awonTYTP-XoTgOTQ S8313RVHVd 'IYOI.LA'iYHY SH313mY13Yd 'IYOIIAIVHY .;*AW 'aTdwes .xa-4eA :3-IdHYS T6/0T/ZT:Q3AI3038 T6/0T/ZT:a.'I00 3.LYQ I-sa-+003/Hf :AS Q3133'1'100 TaJne'I -4e Ta[eoeq 'aauaTosoaO PTeuOaDR :3"idRvs so 30Mf10S :Nlly S96TT AN 81-g5TaH PueTsl .xal-TagS EZ1, xoS 10 'd P41 uewTTeH 'A ugol T6/87/ZT E/TTVV160 'OH SY'I OLLS-M, MS) Xdzf •LLLS-ZZb OW • COCll WN `NO"1ASVS 'N • '3Ad C3 131333HS LLE JN/1S31 7VIN3WNOLlI/1N3 'ONI `S31HOIVHOSV-1 j zoz APPENDIX E WATER AND NITROGEN BUDGET CALCULATIONS MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET EXISTING EXISTING (in/yr) (mg/1) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 99.70 99.70 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 99.70 99.70 13 % TURF 0.00 0.00 14 % REPLANTED 0.00 0.00 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 0.00 0.00 16 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63,60 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00 Calculations: A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 23.75 41,011,178.94 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 C DELTA, TURF 0.00 0.00 D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.00 0.00 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.00 0.00 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 23.79 41,090,546.92 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) R.2 WATER BUDGET W/0 SEPTIC 23.79 41,090,546.92 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 41,090,546.92 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) II. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 100.00 100.00 ( 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00 13 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 14 % TURF 0.00 0.00 16 TURF (acres) 0.00 0.00 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 0.00 0.00 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00 Calculations: A PRECIPITATION 1.35 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.10 C IMPERVIOUS 0.00 TURF (A), w. septic 0.00 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic Error 11 D TURF (A), w/o septic 0.00 TURF (A+C), w. septic Error 11 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep Error 11 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic Error 11 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic Error 11 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep Error 11 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic Error 11 TURF (8), w. septic 0.00 UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic Error 11 TURF (8), w/o septic 0.00 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.00 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error 11 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error 11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) Error 11 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) Error 11 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) Error 11 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 1.45 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 1.45 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 1.45 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET PROPOSED (P.A.) PROPOSED (P.A.) (in/yr) (mg/l) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 74.90 74.90 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 71.10 71.10 13 % TURF 12.60 12.60 14 % REPLANTED 3.30 3.30 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90 16 % IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80 Calculations: A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.84 30,809,802.43 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 4.26 7,358,738.53 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14 D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.24 50,490,566.89 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 27.53 47,534,066.89 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 44,788,307.59 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 I1. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes et at., 1981) (Hughes et al., 1985) 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 6 A. Porter at M. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 71.40 71.40 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 3.30 3.30 13 % IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30 14 X TURF 12.60 12.60 16 TURF (acres) 8.01 8.01 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (6) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80 Calculations: A PRECIPITATION 1.35 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDiG./RECH. 0.08 C IMPERVIOUS 0.04 TURF (A), w. septic 1.25 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.42 D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.30 TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.37 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 1.67 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 19.09 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.43 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 1.77 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 19.87 TURF (8), w. septic 2.12 UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 29.48 TURF (8), w/o septic 2.22 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.12 1 SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.47 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: OENITE) 0.59 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.43 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.71 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.weLLs) (w/o background nitrogen) R.3 TotaL (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.48 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.weits) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET PROPOSED (P.A.) PROPOSED (P.A.) (in/yr) (mg/0 (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPY/ACRE) (LIRPB, 1984) (LIRPB, 1984) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 74.90 74.90 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 71.10 71.10 23 13 % TURF 12.60 12.60 24 14 % REPLANTED 3.30 3.30 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,100.00 8,100.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.84 30,809,802.43 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 4.26 7,358,738.53 40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.24 50,490,566.89 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 27.53 47,534,066.89 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Welts/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 44,788,307.59 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 II. NITROGEN BUDGET: variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 2.30 2.30 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter et at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 71.40 71.40 84 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 3.30 3.30 85 13 % IMPERVIOUS 9.30 9.30 86 14 % TURF 12.60 12.60 87 16 TURF (acres) 8.01 8.01 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.80 3.80 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VELE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.04 TURF (A), w. septic 1.55 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 21.58 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.62 TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.67 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 1.67 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 23.25 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.75 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 1.77 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 24.30 TURF (8), w. septic 2.12 UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 29.48 TURF (6), w/o septic 2.22 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.12 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.47 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.59 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (8: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.73 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.03 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.80 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.we(ls) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE B (in/yr) (mg/l) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPY/ACRE) 6 1. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 , 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 71.50 71.50 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 68.00 68.00 23 13 % TURF 12.60 12.60 24 14 X REPLANTED 3.30 3.30 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 12.30 12.30 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,400.00 8,400.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.03 29,411,226.62 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.64 9,732,525.15 40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.78 3,066,000.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.87 51,575,277.70 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/0 SEPTIC 28.09 48,509,277.70 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/0 SEPTIC +IRRIG. 667,887,089.08 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (%) II. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes et at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW a 57%) 69 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter et at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 40.78 40.78 84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00 85 13 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 86 14 X TURF 59.22 59.22 87 16 TURF (acres) 609.97 609.97 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 0.00 0.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 8 ORIG. VELE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.04 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.00 TURF (A), w. septic 5.81 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.19 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.28 TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.36 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 1.69 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 18.88 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.41 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 1.80 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 19.67 TURF (8), w. septic 2.08 UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.00 TURF (B), w/o septic 2.18 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.12 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.49 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.60 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (8: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,Septir-A) 4.44 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.72 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.50 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE B (in/yr) (mg/L) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPC/ACRE) (LIRPB, 1984) (LIRPB, 1984) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 71.50 71.50 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 68.00 68.00 23 13 % TURF 12.60 12.60 24 14 % REPLANTED 3.30 3.30 25 15 X TURF/REPLANTED 15.90 15.90 ' 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 12.30 12.30 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 X SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 8,400.00 8,400.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 17.03 29,411,226.62 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.64 9,732,525.15 40 C DELTA, TURF 4.26 7,358,842.14 41 0 DELTA, REPLANTED 1.12 1,927,315.80 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.78 3,066,000.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.87 51,575,277.70 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 28.09 48,509,277.70 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,763,518.41 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 11. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 2.30 2.30 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 68.30 68.30 84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 3.30 3.30 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 12.30 12.30 86 14 X TURF 12.60 12.60 87 16 TURF (acres) 8.01 8.01 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 28.00 28.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 112.00 112.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,400.00 8,400.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,400.00 8,400.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,400.00 8,400.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,400.00 8,400.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 3.50 3.50 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05 TURF (A), w. septic 1.53 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), W. septic 21.27 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 1.59 TURF (A+C), w. septic 1.65 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 1.69 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 22.96 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 1.72 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 1.80 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 24.00 TURF (B), w. septic 2.08 UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.00 TURF (6), w/o septic 2.18 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.12 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.49 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.60 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.74 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 4.04 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SeptiCA) 4.81 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET MOOIF. CLUSTER MODIF. CLUSTER (in/yr) (mg/l) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 81.20 81.20 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 79.40 79.40 23 13 % TURF 4.60 4.60 24 14 % REPLANTED 2.30 2.30 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 6.90 6.90 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60 27 17 X UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 X ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE ON) 8,100.00 8,100.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1.80 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 19.34 33,401,281.14 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.32 9,178,641.61 40 C DELTA, TURF 1.56 2,686,561.42 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.78 1,343,280.71 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 28.75 49,645,632.86 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/0 SEPTIC 27.04 46,689,132.86 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,497,576.94 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 II. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPS, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPS (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 79.70 79.70 84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 2.30 2.30 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60 86 14 X TURF 4.60 4.60 87 16 TURF (acres) 2.93 2.93 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00 96 21 X RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1.80 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./REM 0.08 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05 TURF (A), w. septic 0.46 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.60 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 0.48 TURF (A+C), w. septic 0.58 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 4.65 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 22.25 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 0.61 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 4.94 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 23.25 TURF (B), w. septic 0.78 UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.87 TURF (B), w/o septic 0.82 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.08 115 1 SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.50 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.60 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.64 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.22 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.67 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET MODIF. CLUSTER MODIF. CLUSTER (in/yr) (mg/t) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) (LIRPB, 1984) (LIRPB, 1984) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 81.20 81.20 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 79.40 79.40 23 13 % TURF 4.60 4.60 24 14 % REPLANTED 2.30 2.30 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 6.90 6.90 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 11.60 11.60 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.30 0.30 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE ON) 8,100.00 8,100.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 63.60 63.60 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1.80 37 Catcutations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 19.34 33,401,281.14 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 5.32 9,178,641.61 40 C DELTA, TURF 1.56 2,686,561.42 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.78 1,343,280.71 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.05 79,367.99 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 1.71 2,956,500.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 28.75 49,645,632.86 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 27.04 46,689,132.86 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 45,497,576.94 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 I1. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 ng/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes et at., 1981) (Hughes et at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter et at. (1978) 2.30 2.30 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 79.70 79.70 84 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 2.30 2.30 85 13 % IMPERVIOUS 11,60 11,60 86 14 % TURF 4.60 4.60 87 16 TURF (acres) 2,93 2.93 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 27.00 27.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 108.00 108.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 8,100.00 8,100.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 8,100.00 8,100.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.80 1,80 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.08 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.05 TURF (A), w. septic 0.57 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 21.84 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 0.60 TURF (A+C), w. septic 0.69 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 4.65 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 26.49 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 0.73 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 4.94 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 27.76 TURF (B), w. septic 0.78 UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.87 TURF (B), w/o septic 0.82 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.08 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 1.50 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 25.11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.60 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.15 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.75 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.34 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 3.79 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET EXISTING EXISTING (in/yr) (mg/1) (SCENARIO #1) (SCENARIO #1) (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 40.78 40.78 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 40.78 40.78 23 13 % TURF 59.22 59.22 24 14 % REPLANTED 0.00 0.00 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 59.22 59.22 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.40 0.40 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 1,030.00 1,030.00 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 9.71 271,665,460.75 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 40 C DELTA, TURF 20.03 560,128,220.48 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.00 0.00 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.06 1,713,816.04 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.00 0.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 29.80 833,507,497.27 (muni water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 29.80 833,507,497.27 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 667,887,089.08 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) II. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes et at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter et at. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 5.00 5.00 8. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.50 0.50 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 40.78 40.78 84 12 % REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 0.00 0.00 85 13 % IMPERVIOUS 0.00 0.00 86 14 % TURF 59.22 59.22 87 16 TURF (acres) 609.97 609.97 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 0.00 0.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 0.00 0.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 0.00 0.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 0.00 0.00 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VEGE./REPL. 1NOIG./RECH. 0.04 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.00 TURF (A), w. septic 5.81 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 17.21 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 5.81 TURF (A+C), w. septic 5.81 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 0.00 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 17.21 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 5.81 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 0.00 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 17.21 TURF (B), w. septic 9.80 UNWEIGHTED TURF (B), w. septic 29.04 TURF (B), w/o septic 9.80 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.00 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error 11 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) Error 11 SANITARY (B: DENITE) Error 11 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) Error 11 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) Error 11 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 7.20 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 5.02 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.we(ls) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 7.20 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) MACARI AT LAUREL SUBDIVISION MACARI MACARI CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE WATER and NITROGEN BUDGET BUILD OUT BUILD OUT (in/Yr) (mg/l) SCENARIO #2 SCENARIO #2 (in/yr),(mg/L) (GPT/ACRE) 6 I. WATER BUDGET: Variables: 9 1 PRECIPITATION 46.32 1,257,699.17 10 2 IMPORTS 0.00 0.00 11 3 GROUNDWATER RUNOFF 0.00 0.00 12 4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 22.00 597,352.80 13 5 EXPORTS 0.00 0.00 14 6 OVERLAND FLOW 0.50 13,576.20 15 7 SURFACE INFLOW 0.00 0.00 16 8 SURFACE OUTFLOW 0.00 0.00 17 9 IRRIGATION 10.00 271,524.00 18 10 SURFACE WATER EVAPORATION 31.50 855,300.60 Site Specific Data: 21 11 % UNIMPROVED LAND+RECHARGE BASIN 90.40 90.40 22 12 % ORIGINAL VEGETATION 90.40 90.40 23 13 % TURF 3.60 3.60 24 14 % REPLANTED 1.20 1.20 25 15 % TURF/REPLANTED 4,80 4.80 26 16 % IMPERVIOUS 3.80 3.80 27 17 % UNPAVED ROADS 0.DO 0.00 28 % ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 29 18 % SURFACE WATER 0.00 0.00 30 19 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (gpd) 39,000.00 39,000.00 31 KITCHEN DISCHARGE (gpd) 0.00 0.00 32 20 TOTAL ACREAGE 1,030.00 1,030.00 35 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.00 1.00 37 Calculations: 38 A DELTA, UNIMPROVED 21,53 602,220,638.83 39 B DELTA, IMPERVIOUS 1.74 48,694,972.97 40 C DELTA, TURF 1.22 34,050,347.75 41 D DELTA, REPLANTED 0.41 11,350,115.92 42 E DELTA, UNPAVED ROADS 0.00 0.00 43 DELTA, ROCK OUTCROPS 0.00 0.00 44 F DELTA, SURFACE WATER 0.00 0.00 45 G DELTA, SEPTIC 0.51 14,235,000.00 46 DELTA, KITCHEN 0.00 0.00 Results: 49 R.1 WATER BUDGET W/SEPTIC 25.41 710,551,075.46 (mini water/stand., denite, on-site STP) 51 R.2 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC 24.90 696,316,075.46 (Municipal water/Off-site STP, On-site Wells/Standard Septic) 54 R.3 WATER BUDGET W/O SEPTIC +IRRIG. 682,891,928.90 55 R.4 NET INCREASE IN RECHARGE (X) Error 11 II. NITROGEN BUDGET: Variables: 59 1 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 (BNL, 1989; 2.69 mg/L, 50% recharged) 61 2 BACKGROUND NITROGEN (Distr. Area 58) 6.45 6.45 62 3 ORIGINAL VEGETATION + 0.10 0.10 REPLANTED INDIGENOUS (Hughes at at., 1981) (Hughes at at., 1985) 66 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 0.40 0.40 (LIRPB, 1982) 68 5 TURF (LEACHING TO GW = 57%) 69 6 A. Porter at at. (1978) 25.00 25.00 (25 lbs/15,000 sq.ft.) 15,000.00 15,000.00 B. LIRPB (1984) 3.50 3.50 (3.5 lbs/1,000 sq.ft.) 1,000.00 1,000.00 73 7 C. PETS (lbs/person equiv.) 0.82 0.82 74 8 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (Porter at at., 1978) 76 9 A. Standard (lbs/person/yr) 3.93 3.93 B. denitrification (lbs/per/yr) 2.00 2.00 C. STP (off-site) 0.00 0.00 D. STP (on-site) 0.39 0.39 Site Specific Data: 82 10 PRECIPITATION 1.35 1.35 83 11 X ORIGINAL VEGETATION/GROUND COVER 90.40 90.40 84 12 X REPLANTED INDIGENOUS 1.20 1.20 85 13 X IMPERVIOUS 3.80 3.80 86 14 X TURF 3.60 3.60 87 16 TURF (acres) 37.08 37.08 88 17 DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 130.00 130.00 89 18 PERSONS/DWELLING 4.00 4.00 90 19 PERSON EQUIVALENTS 520.00 520.00 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 0.00 92 20 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (A) 39,000.00 39,000.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (B) 39,000.00 39,000.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (C) 39,000.00 39,000.00 SEPTIC DISCHARGE (D) 39,000.00 39,000.00 96 21 % RECHARGE BASIN 1.00 1.00 Calculations: 99 A PRECIPITATION 1.35 100 B ORIG. VELE./REPL. INDIG./RECH. 0.09 101 C IMPERVIOUS 0.02 TURF (A), w. septic 0.39 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A), w. septic 19.07 104 D TURF (A), w/o septic 0.40 TURF (A+C), w. septic 0.43 UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w.sep 2.00 UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w. septic 21.07 108 E TURF (A+C), w/o septic 0.44 109 F UNWEIGHTED PET LOADING (C), w/o sep 2.04 110 G UNWEIGHTED TURF (A+C), w/o septic 21.37 TURF (B), w. septic 0.68 UNWEIGHTED TURF (8), w. septic 32.95 TURF (B), w/o septic 0.69 114 H INDIGENOUS IRRIGATION 0.04 115 I SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 0.41 116 J UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (A: STANDARD) 20.43 SANITARY (B: DENITE) 0.20 UNWEIGHTED SANITARY (B: DENITE) 10.04 SANITARY (C: STP-OFF-SITE) 0.00 SANITARY (D: STP-ON-SITE) 0.04 KITCHEN WASTE 0.00 Results: 124 R.1 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.34 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,muni wat) 126 R.2 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.11 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (w/o background nitrogen) 129 R.3 Total (turfA+C,SepticA) 2.35 (res.trf+pts,stnd.sept.,wat.wells) (incl. background for septic, irrigation) (of turf and replanted indigenous) APPENDIX F SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY DOCUMENTS ov THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 16, 1991 Ms. Joyce Rosko Suffolk County Water Authority Westhampton District Box 1407 Westhampton Beach, New York 11978 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. , Dear Ms. Rosko: This letter is a formal request to your agency to estimate the cost of providing public water supply to the Macari at Laurel site. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. In addition, a photocopy of the site plan is also included. We will need a letter stating your findings. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: RAJ:ecl ichard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Enclosures President cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. .0 dt wo Irl, 6--it TEU -45 am. Ouivo VL -,4,. 0 • lw NA urel Lake D alloy Camp imaculate ureN am V RR Sts C.L A (U.S.G.S. , 1967) 0 2000 Ft. 1-2 i SUFFOLK COUNTY WAT7;R AUTHORITY 148 Main Street '.Vestha-ipton Beach. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK 11978 Area Code 516.288-1034 September 20, 1991 Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D. , President The Clover Corporation P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 Re: Macari Site Laurel, N.Y Dear Sir: Reference is made to your request for information regarding the supply of public water service to the above captioned property. At the present time, this property is not supplied with public water service. Our nearest existing water main is located on Captain Kidd Estate, Mattituck, N.Y Please let me know if you require any further information re- garding methods and costs to extend public supply. Very truly yours, SUFFOLK COUNTY WAT" AUTHORITY W. R. Stone District Manager WRS/b APPENDIX G LETTERS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754.3415 September 17, 1991 Barbara Kujawski Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Kujawski: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Barbara Ann Kujawski & . William W. Busch Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Kujawski & Mr. Busch: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statemept for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at , lAurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Barbara B. Sayre September 17, 1991 Sound Avenue; Box 821 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Sayre: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south.of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. we will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Christopher Dantes 6130 Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Dantes: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P O. Box C Halesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Sabat Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sabat: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel LAkoa, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Benjamin Jazombek Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Jazombek: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Peconic Homes Corporation P. 0. Box 1442 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Sirs: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63. 6 acres parcel located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Randall J. Feinberg September 17, 1991 P. O. Box 186 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Feinberg: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by• ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P0. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 William & Marilyn Gatz September 17, 1991 Box 45 Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gatz: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63. 6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Joseph & Lee Pufahl September 17, 1991 6175 Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pufahl: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL: e � � � �. _ - ! �./,' •_ �_ p r Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 , Louis & Maureen Buonaguro September 17, 1991 P.O. Box 805 11 Woodland Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Buonaguro: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: EclEnnclosuose Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORFORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Guy Sobering September 17, 1991 P.O. Box 1462 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Sobering: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south- of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Dake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P 0. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Frances Weiss 10 Meadowrye Lane East Northport, New York 11731 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Weiss: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south- of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 James T. & April L. Connolly RR 1; P.O. Box 248M Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Connolly: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south, of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Mr. Thornton E. Smith 44 Brookside Drive Plandome, New York 11030 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Smith: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P0. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Thomas J. Gorman September 17, 1991 Laurel Lake Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Gorman: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel LAke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S.- �C� Enclosures p Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Lillian Herfurth September 17, 1991 4 Oriole Way Dix Hills, New York 11746 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Herfurth: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63. 6 acres parcel located south- of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation b n ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. TIME CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Cornelia & Ronald A. Shapior 210 Crescent Way Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shapior: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located soutIT of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Bradley J. & Janet B. Belz September 17, 1991 77 Dogwood Lane Manhasset, New York 11030 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Belz: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south *of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: L�V.e..,�. C ECL:per Ellen C / . Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORFORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754.3415 Judith Greco September 17, 1991 P. O. Box 398 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Greco: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south,of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by. �. ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Marion E. Smith 103 E. Caroline Street Tavares, FL 32778 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Smith: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south 'of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation b�: /1 ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. gor Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite. New York 11743 {516} 754-3415 Donald Rosen September 17, 1991 c/o Carole Rich 135 Third Avenue; Apt. 3A Mineola, New York 11501 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Rosen: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. CPR Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Carole Rich September 17, 1991 Apt. 3A 135 3rd Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Rich: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation OZ-1x- by• e. ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. AN 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Daniel Soloman 66 Tower Street #1 Boston, Mass 02130 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Soloman: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation �by: 40 - ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Paul & Bharathi Scott September 17, 1991 Laurel Way Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Scott: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south .of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: 00 ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. 99' Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph V. Maida P. O. Box 1178 Laurel Way Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Maida: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: etL" (2' / ECL:per Ellen '12. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Grace M Schalkham September 17, 1991 25-04 33rd Avenue Long Island City, New York 11106 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Schalkham: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south, of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation b C. •J&IQ Q ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. v Enclosures ♦ Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Steven Brautigan 25 Finch Lane Levittown, New York 11756 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Brautigan: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located soulrh ,of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: . /9 ECL:per •p Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. cJ Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Mark D. Gross 220 Manhasset Avenue Manhasset, New York 11030 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. Gross: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south' of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: � C� L ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. �cJ Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 1 ' THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C ' Hatesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Douglas Miller September 17, 1991 ' George O. Guldi 45 Old Main Road Quogue, New York 11960 1 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. IDear Sirs: I The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north Iof Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations I of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation ,by: � n ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Fr Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. ' THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Marilyn Gatz Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 1 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. IDear Ms. Gatz: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the 1 Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south- of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, I please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. 1 Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C ' Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Stiefer September 17, 1991 I P. 0. Box 1167 6760 Soundview Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 JRE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. IDear Mr. & Mrs. Stiefer: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statemept for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north Iof Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation b//y• ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. - Enclosures .S. -Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C ' Halesite. New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 NOFO Associates September 17, 1991 I 44 Dorchester Road Rockville Center, New York 11570 1 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. IDear Sirs: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the 1 Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south -of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. 1 Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map ' indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 1 September 17, 1991 A T Holding Corporation Sound Avenue Laurel, New York 11948 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Sirs: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: -- ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. ov THE CLOVER CORFORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 September 17, 1991 Edward J. & Genevieve A. Woessner Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Woessner: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south. of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 - THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Genevieve A. Woessner September 17, 1991 5180 Sound Avenue Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Woessner: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south* of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lhke, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. ov THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 7543415 Penelope Nesbitt September 17, 1991 2000 Laurel Lake Road Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Nesbitt: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63.6 acres parcel located south, of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Haiesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Adeline Lee September 17, 1991 Box 1073 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Lee: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 . 6 acres parcel located south .of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by• ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez,' M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. 0 THE CLOVER CORPORATION P.O. Box C Halesite, New York 11743 (516) 754-3415 Marion Smith September 17, 1991 103 E. Caroline Street Tavares, FL 32778 RE: The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Macari at Laurel Site, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Dear Ms. Smith: The Clover Corporation is completing a Final Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential subdivision at the Macari at Laurel property. The site is a 63 .6 acres parcel located south- of Sound Avenue, west of Laurel Lake Drive, north of Laurel Lake, and east of Kirkup Lane at Laurel. The Town of Southold is requesting information on the locations of nearby private wells and septic systems. If available, please furnish us with this information. We will, in turn, include this data within the text of the F.E.I.S. This data will be helpful in determining potential impacts, if any, from the proposed action. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Enclosed is a copy of the topographic map indicating the location of the site. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please contact our office. Cordially yours, The Clover Corporation by: Y ECL:per Ellen C. Lopez, M.S. Enclosures Environmental Geologist cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. * A Colorado corporation authorized to do business in New York State as The Clover Consulting Group. APPENDIX H RECHARGE BASIN INFORMATION SIIGGZ= PIAXT XATER At. LIST FOR RECMARGB BASINS The following list is to be used in conjunction with a. Typical Recharge Basin/Planting Areas Diagram. This diagram designates planting Areas according to microclimatic variations as follows: Plantinv Area "A" - Bottom and relatively level ground with frequent flooding, and areas to be left open for access and Town maintenance operations. Planting Area "B" - (1 on 3 ) slope with a hot southwest solar exposure and potential moderately erodible soil. Planting Area "C" - (1 on 3) slope with moderately protected northeast solar exposure and potential moderately erodible soil. Plantinv Area "D" - Top and relatively level ground with an open exposure to sun and •.rind. (As determined by the Town Engineer) Plantinv Area "E" - Top and relatively level ground with moderate protection from sun and wind. (As determined by the Town Engineer) Page 1 of 6 Re: Suggested Plant Material list for Recharge Basins (can't) Plant groups and specimens shall be randomly Dlanted within the appropriate planting area as noted below and shown on Typical Recharge Basin Diagram. Types and quantities shall be as follows: Planting Areas •B• & ■C• (Quantities per type per 10 ,000 square feet) 6 Evergreen Trees all single specimens (or can group in 3 when noted) 8 Small Trees/Large Shrubs all single specimens 28 Flowering Shrubs 6 groups of 3, 2 groups of 5 16 Evergreen Shrubs 2 groups of 3, 2 groups of 5 52 Deciduous Ground Covers 6 groups of 3, 4 groups of 5, 2 groups of 7 24 Evergreen Ground Covers 3 groups of 3, 3 groups of 5 Planting Areas •D• & ■B■ (Quantities per type per 10,000 square feet) 8 Large Deciduous Trees all single specimens 8 Evergreen Trees all single specimens (or can group in 3 when noted) 12 Small Tree/Large Shrubs all single specimens 34 Flowering Shrubs 3 groups of 5, 5 groups of 3, 15 single specimens 30 Evergreen Shrubs 2 group 5, 5 groups of 31 5 single specimens Planting Areas "Be, •C`, •D• or •B• Topsoil (6* depth) and seed with 80% Reliant Hard Fescue per 1000 square Jamestown Chewing Fescue at the rate of 4 lbs. P quare feet. Planting Area •A' Seed Pinto Wildflower Mix at the rate of 1 lb. per 1000 square feet, and sheep Fescue at the rate of .5 lbs. per 1000 square feet, or approval equal. Page 2 of 6 Planting Area Larne Deciduous Trees Within Basin 1 1/2" - 2' cal. Bib see diacram) (40' o.c. min. spacing) (single specimens) D, E Gleditsia tricanthos inermis - Thornless Honey Locust D, E Platanus acerifolia - London Plane Tree 0► E Quercus coccinea - Scarlet Oak D, E Quercus palustris - Pin Oak 0, E Quercus rubra - Red Oak E Acer psuedo-ylatanus - Sycamore Maple E Faaus svlvatica - European Beech E Fraxinus pennsvlvanica - Green Ash E Ginkgo biloba Gale only) - Maidenhair Tree E Liriodendron tulipifera - Tulip Tree E Oxydendrum arboreum - Sorrel Tree E Tilia tomentosa - Silver Linden E Zellee-Iva serrata - Zelkova fiver green Trees 5'-6' At. , BSB (30' o.c. min. spacing) (single specimens) B, C, D _ B, C, D C, E Abies concolor - White Fir C, E Picea ougens (and varieties) - Colorado Spruce C, E Pinus stobus - White Pine C, E Pseudotsuaa menziesii - Douglas Fir (Group with- a 10' o.c. max. spacing) (30' O.C. min. spacing between groups) B, C, D JuniDerus scooulorum varieties ( 'Gray Gleam' and 'Wichita Blue' ) B, C, D J. virainiana - Eastern Red Cedar B, C, D C J. v. varieties - ( 'Burkii' and 'Reteleeri' ) Thuya occidentalis - White Cedar e 3 FI VVS Iri ►c�a. — P e ► ����S �es;N,sat - fed P Pace 3 of 6 Re: Suggestad Plant Material List for Recharce Basins (can't) Planting Area Small Trees fT a=e Shrubs Within Basin 5'-6' ht., B&B (see diagram) (25, o.c. min. spacing) (single specimens) B, C, D, E Betula DODulifolia - Gray Birch B, C, D, E Rhus copallina - Flameleaf sumac B, C, D, E Rhus alabra - Smooth sumac B, C, D Caragana arborescens - Siberian Pea-Tree B, C, D Elaegnus angustifolia - Russian Olive B, C, D Tamarisk sp. - Tamarix C, E Acer campestre - Hedge Maple C, E Acer ginnala - Amur Maple C, E Acer tataricum - Tatarian Maple C• Crataecus phaenopyrum - Washington Hawthorne C, E Prunus cerasifera varieties - Myrobalan Plum C, E Amelanchier canadensis - Shadblow service berry C, E Syringa vulgaris - Common Lilac C, E Cornus mas - Cornelian Cherry C, E Viburnum lentago - Nannyberry C, E Viburnum opulus - European Cranberry Bush E Cornus kousa -- Japanese Dogwood E Cornus Florida - Flowering Dogwood E Cercis canadensis - Redbud E Viburnum sieboldii - Siebold Viburnum Evergreen Shrubs 2 1/2' - 3' At. , B&B (2010.c. min. spacing between group (Group with a 8' o.c. max. spacing) B, C, D Juniperus chinensis varieties - Chinese Juniper C, E Platycladus (Thuial orientalis 'Eleaantissima' C, E Taxus cusDidata - Japanese Yew (Group with a max. 5' o.c. spacing) B, C, D Pinus mugo mugo - Mugo Pine C, E Taxus media varieties ( 'Brownii' , 'Denisiformis' , 'Hatfield' ) gage { of 5 Re: Suggest Plant Material List for Recharce Basins (can't) Planting area Flovering Shrubs Within Basin 3'-4' ht B&B - (see diagram) (Group with a 10' o.c. max. spacing) (20' o.c. min. spacing between groups) B, C, D Berberis thunbergii - Japanese Barberry B, C, D Cytisus scoparius - Scatch Broom B, C, D Myrica pensylvanica - Bayberry B, C, D Prunus maritime - Beach Plum B, C, D Lonicera tatarica - Tartarian Honeysuckle B, C, D Rosa ruaosa - Rugosa Rose D, E Cornus racemosa - Gray Dogwood D, E Cornus stolonifera - Red Osier Dogwood C, E Aronia arbutifolia - Red Chokeberry C, E Elaeagnus umbellata - Autumn Olive C, E Euonymus alatus - Winged Burning Bush C, E Forsythia intermedia 'LYnvood Gold'- Forsythia C, E Hamamelis virginiana - Witch Hazel C, E Rolkwitzia amabilis - Beauty bush C, E Sambucus canadensis - American Elder C, E SDirea x Vanhouttei - Vanhout Spirea C, E Viburnum latana - Wayfaring Tree C, E Viburnum Prunifolium - Black Haw C Viburnum acerifolium - Dockmackie C Viburnum dentatum - Arrowood C Vaccinium angustifolium - Low Bush Blueberry C Vaccinium corymbosum - High Bush Blueberry C CeDhalanthus occidentalis - Button Bush C Clethra alnifolia - Sweet Shrub Deciduous Ground Covers 18"-24" ht. , container grown (Can group with a 6' o.c. max. spacing) (151 o.c. min. spacing bet*ween groups) B, C Arctostaphylos uva-ursi - Bearberry B, C Comptonia asplenifolia - Sweet Fern B, C Forsythia x intermedia 'Arnold Dwarf' - Arnold's Dwarf Forsythia B, C Hyoericum sp. - St. Johnswort B, C Potentilla sp. - Cinquefoil B, C Yucca filimentosa - Yucca B, C Cotoneaster sn. - Cotoneaster B, C Rosa wichuriana - Memorial Rose Page 5 of 6 Re: Suggested Plant Material List for Recharge Basins (can't) Planting Area Evergreen Ground Comer Within Basin 12"-18" ht. , container grown (see diagram) (Can group with a 4' o.c. max. spacing) (151 o.c. min. spacing betreen groups) B, C Juniperus communis varieties - Common Juniper B, C J. conf erta varieties - Shore Juniper B, C J. horizontalis varieties - Creeping Juniper B, C J. Sabina varieties - Savin Juniper 11OTM: (1) All plant material shall meet the latest American Association of Nurser1men Standards for Nursery Stock. (2) Plants in a group shall be homogeneous. (3) The planting plan designer is suggested to use high species diversity along with native plant materials to encourage ecological stabilty. In addition, one should avoid use of highly aggressive plants with the exception of pioneer species used to provide temporary soil cover. i Page 6 of 6 to �fNC! •f' f T. M w • . . � .� .. . •• ^ ��►� � .G�� r U,cot 'L'a OTltc •Ilia Rs M.�I W e M�►u. TKsea er-1 It C T . vb6, ANO OR�ou+vD At.L- -ryrod& -OYL'R+6 C�TN CVCRGRF-LW N A-WD IWCLVDING FI'•OWISRIN(I Pr r Ip0008 l-ARGC Vii;• GRa�o��ovs R6 �• P�CAL SECTION t: •.. op F'L A�•1T D R E C d^1QG E' bA 31 N • ; • NOT To 3C^ L � , , fir•,,. . i Vie a� SM WV, IM AM AMMU M9 WA WTA64VAL A EAVI rmr &M va IVA �TA#4,6 VLA 1 APPENDIX I NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOCUMENTS 0 CLOVER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 225 Main Street, Northport, NY 11768 Telephone: (516) 754.5044 September 11, 1991 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building 11 Albany, New York 12238-0001 Attention: Mr. Bruce Fullem Project Review Coordinator Field Services Bureau Dear Mr. Fullem: Enclosed is an archaeological sensitivity map for the proposed Macari at Laurel subdivision, located in the Town of Southold near Laurel Lake (see enclosed location map and archaeological sensitivity map) . Following an extensive Stage IA/IB Cultural Resource Inventory of the parcel, two areas of potentially intact archaeological remains have been identified. Since the southernmost sensitive zone is relatively limited in area, a construction covenant can be applied to those proposed lots that include this area in order to preserve this area. However, a relatively large potentially sensitive area is located north of a kettle hole within the north-central portion of the parcel. Artifacts encountered included various lithic tools such as anvil stones, hammerstones, stone axes, and numerous quartz debitage flakes. Since the Town of Southold has requested additional work on the site consistent with your approval, this letter is a proposal to conduct a Stage II limited excavation within the area of sensitivity that cannot be avoided easily by subdivision configuration changes or preservation covenants. In this regard, Clover Archaeological Services, Inc. proposes to complete two (2) 1 1/2 x 1 1/2 m. excavation trenches; one in the eastern and one in the western portion of the area of sensitivity. These trenches could establish site integrity and limited additional test holes could delineate the site boundary more accurately. 4vt Please respond to our proposal for the additional investigation of the archaeological sensitivity on the Macari at Laurel parcel. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, Clover Archaeological Services, Inc. by: j �i 'le ichard A. Jackson, Ph.D. Principal r Robert L. Miller, Ph.D. Senior Archaeologist RAJ:7J Enclosure cc: Peter Danowski, Jr. Howard Young Town of Southold, Board of Trustees �GPEATIOIy ti�S P 1p9 pry C� a a !� W < New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza O NEW YORK STATE Z Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238-0001 Orin Lehman Commissioner October 2, 1991 Dr. Richard A. Jackson Clover Archaeological Services 225 Main Street Northport, New York 11768 Re: SBQRA Macari at Laurel Subdivision Southold, Suffolk County 91PR1742 Dear Dr. Jackson: The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the Staters historic preservation Pte, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation Program, the OPRHP offers the following canwnts: Since we have not been provided a copy of the Stage 1A/1B report, it is difficult for us to comment on the proposal to cmxh=t site evaluation. However, based on the limited information provided, the OPS suggests that two excavation units are not sufficient to adequately evaluate site integrity and =POrtance. We recommend that at least 6 excavation units are needed to sample the area, as well as close interval (ie. 5 meter) shovel testing if it has not already been done, If there is additional material you would like us to examine ward r Your Proposal, we would be pleased to do so. Also, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the Stage 1A/1B report for our files. If you have any questions, please call Vic DiSanto of our Project Review Unit at (518) 474-0479. Sincerelyn yam, ` >vid S. Gill i Director Field Services Bureau DSG/VJD:tr Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau • 518-474-0479 Urban Cultural Parks - 518-473.2375 An Equal Opportunity/Awmative Action Agency APPENDIX J CORRESPONDENCE TO SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD, MARCH 6, 1992 LAW OFFICES PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR. 616 ROANOKE AVENUE P 0 BOX 779 RIVERHEAD, NY 11901 (516)727-4900 PETER S. DANOWSKI,JR. FAX(516)727-7451 MICHAEL T CLIFFORD ROBERT F KOZAKIEWICZ OF COUNSEL March 6 , 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Mai.1 Rd. , Box 1179 Southold, New York 11791 Re : Macari at Laurel SCTM No . 1000 - 121 - 4 - 9 Dear Sir or Madam: With regard to previous comments received by the undersigned, as forwarded by the Planning Board Chairman as contained in a letter dated July 16 , 1991, I respond to the numbered paragraphs 1 through 4 , as follows: 1 . My client 's property may be highly valued by various municipal agencies and various environmental organizations . However, my client has an absolute Constitutional right to develop this parcel , free of cooperative efforts to deny him this right. Should the Town, or should the County , wish to condemn this property for an avowed public purpose , it obviously has the right to bring on a proceeding to do so. My client will then review whatever Court papers are filed, and proceed accordingly . It is also true that rumors abound that the County of Suf fol.-, has an avowed hi tli st of parcels to be acquired. Purportedly my client ' s property is on that hitlist . Ever though my client has been delayed to an extraordinary degree in the subdivision process , and, more importantly, in the implementation of the SEQRA process , he continues to move forward and continues to request an approval of his subdivision. Presumably, the County, the State or the Town could provide my client with copies of any appraisals that are being conducted and make an offer to purchase the property . My client steadfastly desires to gain subdivision approval, despite any attempt to purchase this Southold Town Planning Board Page 2 March 6 , 1992 property by others. There is , however, nothing that prevents the County, the Sate or the Town from making offers to purchase the property, and, obviously, I cannot refuse to accept written communications in that regard. 2 . The firm of Young & Young was retained by client to provide the best possible land surveying and land engineering help in designing a well thought out and prepared subdivision. After careful review, including the provisions of the Town ordinances regarding open space , and the concerns evidenced by the Planning Board, the last cluster subdivision submitted adequately presented a marketable option, paying attention to the Town concerns previously voiced. There is no desire to dedicate the land for watershed protection and supply purposes. 3 . Data is being supplied with the FEIS. 4 . The open space would best be owned by a homeowners ' association, who would maintain the areas and enforce voluntary covenants thereon. That is intended that the open space should be used for the sole and exclusive use of the small number of homeowners who will be constructing homes on the lots depicted on the subdivision plan. Absent the homeowners ' associaton ownership, an alternative viable concept would allow the open space to be owned by one lot owner , with a restricted building envelope being placed on that one particular lot, with recorded covenants filed with the County Clerk, limiting the uses of the open space areas. Very truly yours, PETER S. DANOWSRI , JR. P SD:gsg cc: The Clover Corporation Attn: Richard A. Jackson, President Joseph Macari i WRITTEN COMMENTS July 12, 1991 List of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and the Public Hearing on the D.E.I.S. dated March 1991 for Macari at Laurel Comments from Planning Board Review dated July 5, 1991 Comments from the Planning Board's Environmental Consultant Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Review dated July 5, 1991 Comments from Involved Agencies Letter dated July 5, 1991 from Robert DeLuca, Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology Letter dated July 5 , 1991 from Mohabir Persaud, Department of State Letter dated July 3 , 1991 from Cynthia Sturner, Member of Conservation Advisory Council Letter dated July 9, 1991 from E. J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority. Comments from the Public Adeline Lee June 28, 1991 Barbara Sayre June 28, 1991 Ruth Jahier July 8, 1991 North Fork Envir. Council (Sherry Johnson) July 5, 1991 Karen Gross July 3 , 1991 Transcripts from Public Meetings June 24, 1991 * Draft minutes. To be presented for adoption by Planning Board on July 15, 1991. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman SC01`TL. HARRIS Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward • Town Hall, 53095 Main Roa( Mark S. McDonald P O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Planning Board Comments on DEIS For Macari Subdivision July 5, 1991 SUMMARY S-2 It is believed that Kirkup Lane has a base, and is not just a dirt road. S-3 The acronym I'mBs', should be defined. S-4 The last sentence in the first paragraph states that topsoil will be stockpiled for "future use" . The proposed location and time of the use of the topsoil should mentioned. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 11-2 There is an inconsistency in the second paragraph. The projected increase in Population is based on each home being Occupied by 2 . 3 people. Yet, the proposal involves the construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. Unless documentation can be provided to Support the 2. 5 persons per house figure, the projected adult and child population should be revised upward to reflect likely occupancy of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. 11-4 The projected population noted in the second paragraph should be revised to reflect the proposed construction of 3 and 4 bedroom homes. III . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 111-56 The last paragraph needs to be updated to reflect recent findings that septic systqmn and residential use of fertilizers may be an equally significant source of nitrates. 111-58 The third paragraph notes that Well #S 53333 goes down 275 feet from the surface. Table 1 on page 111-60 states that the well goes down 74 feet from the surface. Which number is correct? Figure 9 The map does not show clearly the location of the observation well relative to the proposed project. III-65 The second paragraph does not mention that Southold' s zoning code mandates clustering in the R-80 district where the subdivision exceeds 10 acres in area. III-84 Reference is made to the marginal water quality in the general vicinity. Yet, there is no information given as to the quality of the water on the site. III-88 The year, and date of the traffic volume data is neither noted nor referenced. III-96 The second sentence contradicts information presented on page III-97 that inland camps were occupied during cold weather months. The first sentence of the second paragraph is contradicted by statements made on pages III-93 and 94 that artifacts were found on the site. Also, the site sensitivity map referred to in the third paragraph is missing from Appendix B. IV. ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IV-28 If the anticipated population is changed to be consistent with that which would be expected in 3 and 4 bedroom houses, then the figures for septic effluent should be adjusted accordingly. IV-30 What is the background level of nitrogen in the groundwater on the site now? IV-54 Provide documentation to support the statement that the projected population multiplier is consistent with housing units containing 3 and 4 bedrooms. IV-55 Provide documentation to support the multipliers used in second paragraph. IV-56 Given the slump in the real estate market, are stated market values of $275, 000 to $300,000 reasonable? IV-58 The second paragraph refers to an• analysis of revenue versus expenses which is not included in the report. V. MITIGATIVE MEASURES V-29 The responses to Recommendations 8, 9, 10, and 11 do not address the recommendations. t V-30 The responses to Recommendations 13 and 14 do not address the recommendations. V-47 Documentation to support the first two sentences on this page is not provided. V-56 The last sentence on this page does not take into account fact that Town Code requires permits for construction within 75 ' of a freshwater wetland. V-62 Documentation in support of paragraph 3 is not provided. V-64 The last sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 contradict one another. V-65 The second paragraph in the section titled "Taxes and Fiscal Setting" contradicts the statements made on the previous page. VII . ALTERNATIVES VII-3 The No-Action alternative does not include a thorough and in-depth discussion of development of site for public water supply purposes. The value of this site for watershed protection and public water supply cannot be ignored in this environmental review, particularly given the inclusion of this property in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area. There is no discussion of an alternative other than the proposed layout and the standard yield layout. VII-19 The last sentence in the second paragraph refers to the Town of Brookhaven instead of Southold. VII-21 The third paragraph on this page states that the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate has indicated an interest in acquiring the property, but that the owner of the property must initiate the process. Has the owner pursued this option? If so, what has been done. If not, why? The first and second statements made in the fourth paragraph should be documented. VII-22 The paragraph on the transfer of development rights is misleading. The Town has considered implementing such a program, but does not actually have one at this time. VII-23 The Town' s property records show that the applicant owns other property in the nearby vicinity to which development rights could be transferred, should the Town implement such a program. IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS IX-1 The third sentence contradicts earlier statements that the tax revenues that would be collected by this subdivision would not cover the School District' s costs. X. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS X-36 The cumulative traffic impact analysis mistakenly assumes that some proposed subdivisions will have access to both Sound Avenue and State Route 25 . The Planning Board' s overriding concern is with the lack of discussion of the alternatives; one of which is to reserve the land for watershed protection and public water supply; another of which is to propose a tighter cluster design or a reduced density. Realistic assessment of the proposal is hampered by the lack of sufficient information about the existing water quality on the site. Further, there is no discussion as to whether the groundwater on the site would meet with the Suffolk County Department of Health' s new standard for nitrate. 2 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS July S. 1991 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ` y' Town of Southold Planning Board d'LL 1S91 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ` P.O. Box 1179 - - -- Southold, New York 11971 F. Re: Macari at Laurel SCTM #1000-121-4-9 Review of the Draft EIS Dear Benny: We have completed our review of dhe Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments oa thw report. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, lease forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Re.;ponce to Comn;ents, for inclusion in thw Final EIS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very tr y y gars, 6harles J.Voorhis enc: Review of Draft EIS 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. MILLER PLACE NY 11764 (S16) 3311455 - - . .. .. I . .- 0% . - V •. � . . T .-- - - To: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. Date. July 5, 1991 Re: Macari at Laurel SCTM #1000-121-4-9 Review of the Draft EIS The Draft Environmental impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Macari at Laurel, was accepted by the Southo'.d Town Planning Board on Ju;e 4, 1991. "llie document has been circulated to involved agencies and parties of irt�arest, for the purpose of providing comments on the document for use by the decision making agency in the preparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the; project. In addition, a Public Hearing was :held on the Draft EIS on June 24, 1991, in order to provide opportunity► for public como ment on the project. A copy of the Draft EIS has also been submitted to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. CA/A), as consultants :o the Planning" ;Board, for review of the SF�QR documentation. his letter constitutes the review of tr_.4 draft EIS, for Macari at Laurel. The following comments with rec'Ud to content and accuracy of the docur ent are provided: ee ri i n of the Pronn�ed Proiect PII-1 The first paragraph addresses required permits. The applicant should determine the tocation isdiction o£the Town Trustees with rc:nc,r.d to freshwater wetlands on the subject parcel. of wetlands as determined by the Trustees is important for yield determination and site design planning. The wetlands reflected on Plate 1 w,:re d.lincated b� the Land Use Company. ne regulatory boundary of both the Town Trustees and the New Fork State Department of Environmental Conservation should be determined. Page 11-3 indicates that, "Indigenous trees and shmbs will b planted alar'the proposed inter- development roadwa); within the cleured portions preach huildi z� envelope, and elsewhere within the site" There should be a distinction mach: between mitigative planting which is proposed as part of the subdivision inlprol mcxrts (i.e. inter-development road and recharg areas), and mitigative planting which rna.y or may not occur on private lots once the parcel`is developed. Additional information inclttding species density, type. and at what stage of subdivision approval mitigation will be implemented, is necessary. Page II-5 indicates, ':..theApp!icant wishes to exercise his right tp build in direct response to demand . We are in agreement that thea are a munber of ways in which the, parcel could be developed; however, it is extremely unlikely that the entire par,,, l would be dcveloped at one time. Therefore, it is requested that a pleased developm;nt propu al outlininn the estimated stages of development be included in the Final cIS. Given t v sensitivity of tTie :parcel and e importance of proper clearing and drainage control as outlin-d ir. the: Draft LIS, it is necessary to consider the project 11-apleme11tauon ,chedulc as a means of mitigation. CRAMER, VCRHt, SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ,ANS � SIG MNSULTANTS Page 1 of 5 = « - .-4 c, ^, .". a s ►.� xa c . a r". rr .. . Y'• T F-1 (1 41 T F. — P: 11 Mucari at Laurel Bruft EIS Review In terms of the description of the proposed project, this sgtion should outline the yield determination which supports 27.lots. Review of Plate 2 finds that I..,ot 9 contains surface water and wetlands which may cause this lot to fall below the mininmurn area necessary in the R-80 zoning district. �ra RaM IIT-24 Page II-24 ;ndicates that the freshwater wetlands are regulated by the, NYSD�.0 under Article 24. The NYSDEC regulatory boundary should be established in order to provide an accurate means of determining compliance with regulations. In addition, the reLrullatory jurisdiction and involvement of the Town ,trustees should be determined. Biologie StUing - & to - . IH—M IQ LIT 41 The statement ' he site for the proposed action is not considered a significant ccarcei of habitat for the Osprey", should be referenced and supported. The doeum.e., - should Indicate how the Osprey.was observed in connection with the site. Ospreys tend to be surface water feeders occupying habitats in proximity such food sources. The significance of the parcel in this context should be determined. The statement in the first full paragra A on nage aII- 5, 'Tht veld investigation failed to reveal a►iy endangered or threatened species of:1�ilcllife'; contrauiCts other information in the Draft EIS which identified the Osprey, a Threatened species, in association with the site. It should also be noted that habitat exists for a number of other Endangered spceies and Species of Special Concern. The second fullaragraph on Page II1-42 indicates that, 771cwildhl re�;apulution potential at the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding land usage as well itis recent activities on the site itself."This statement seems to contradict oiler information in the Draft SIS which indicate:; that the parcel is an old field with forested and wetlands areas providim, divers: habitat and "edge effect" In addition, the surrounding area is primarily of low intensity usage. Therefore it s ou d be indicated how these fa,.wrs Imit the wildlife population potential. on the site. Physic-,J Impacts -T t'r�!'.hX PIV`1 L 1V1 This section provides a generalized discussion of topographic impacts. Review of 31ate 1 for the proposed development areas of the site finds that Lot IS is most severely constrained with slopes ranging from 10 to 15 percent in the developpment area. In addition, this lot is proximate to the eastern freshwater wetlands area on the site. Nlitigation measures suggested in Section V require implementation, enforcement and monitoring in order to ensure that no impact occurs. Alternative mitigation such as avoidance of this area is suggested. iSal lnr � TV-� TV-8 site containssignificantprime farmland as outlined on Pages III-12 and 11I-13. The loss- of this farmland is regarded as an irreversible impact, ,.which be recognized as such. This is of course balanced with other issues such as potontial for lower nitrogen in recharge associated with cessation of farming. The regulatory wetlands boundary mu .t be establis.h-d berore conclusions recardins, wetlands impacts may be reached. Lot i8 f;els .vithin 7- f.:et of the su���cstec�wetla,i�ls boundary, and contains steep slopes proximate to this wetlands. Potc;ttial for impact of development of this lot upon wetlands is considered high. CRAMER, Vtn", ` •SOCIATES ENVIRONMEN " .}� {VG CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 5 a :. I I �� •—� r_. ry . r+ r w 1 rl 1.1 Lr. -- :=t -n in r J' Mucurl at Laurel Dcuft EIS RevIeNy B� io1Q1� rmpacts - Fauna �. � , M:8. in �I-1 The Avian Species impact table bgiunin� on Page IV-1 Undicates that the proposes; project will adverselyaffect grassland species inciuding warblers and sparrows, including loss of potential habitat for two Species of Secial Conetirrt, th, grasshopper and Vesoer Sparrows. The fact that the proposed project %vi'l alter 44 percent cif the existln7 Old Fiefd l-iabitat, impacting those species which rely on this habitat, should be furtiler Identified as an impact of the proposed project. Lot 18 contains forest, old field and provides an ecotone between these habitats. In addition, this lot is constrained by slopes. The preservation of habitat on site could b ; enhanced if this lot were to be relocated. r 1 Xm :r hv, o �I .1 The computations for Turf fertilizer appear to be low. The Draft EIS uses 25 lbs./15,000 square feet, or 1.71hs./1,000 square feet. Standard references including the 208 study and the Non-Point Source l'tanagement Hra dbook, indicats that ►a,.::al turf f.-rtiliZa-don rates are in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 lbs./1,000 square feet. Accurate and realistic turf fertilization rates should be used in the simmation of nitrogen in recharge. for the proposed project, cumulative impact (evaluations and alternatives. It is ack owl (&,;!d that lower rates may be achievable if a fertilizer management play, is implemented on thu- site. References including, Land Use and Groundwat,et QLJ;Ility in the rine Barrens of Southampton (Hughes and Porter, 1983), and :3>;11,.BS - A simulation of th4 Nitrogen Impact of Residential .Dc,,eloprr:ent on C round,,yater (alughzs .-nd Pacenlca, 19085), indicate a nitrogen in wastewater value of 10 lbs./perso.n jday. I h Draft EIS appears to utilize a lesser figure in,computations contained ori Page IV•34, and in alterratWes and cumulative; impact evaluations. Accurate and realistic nitr oven in sanitary Nvastc values should be used in the simulation of nitrogen in recharge. ms.-Me11re .TonoLyranh P. .V, Pa a V-5 indicates that, ':..in order to limit mucli of the potenitial rC�,rllii[n, , t the housiiig units will be located within the most levet portions of the site (sold/eld)." As previously indicted, limiting potential grading on Lot 18 is difficult due to 10 to 15 percent slopes within the building envelop. M' i i Nfcasures_ELQra Elnep. -19 The discussion regarding the lack of potential for the rare plant species Cut-leaved .Evening- p nlrose. (Oenothera lactniata) and Dwarf Plantain (Plantago pusilla) contained on Pages V 18 and V 19, appears to be unsupported due to the documented fact that these $pedes prefer dry fields and clearings with sanely soils as indicated in the Ira,~:t ISIS. The Kraft EIS should Indicate what efforts were made to identify the presence or absence of these species on the site. Y m, M�s'1 : Fr .Sh�v; ter yv_tl knldu Laza V-19 moi _'.?i Significant discussion is provided regarding the use of soil stabilization techniques to minimize potential impact to the freshwater wetlands from adj:�c nt dc-velopmcnt ureas. These mitigation measures cause effort to be expended in implorner,tat.ion, enforcen-ient and monitoring in order to approach some succ;ss of mitigation. Avoidance of steep slope areas in proximity to wetlands is recon:mens:ed as mitigation as previously indicated. CRAMER V CATES ENVIRONMENT RyONSu -TANTS Page 3 of 5 r A - ,J �. "'I I"1 .S ! 1-1 tC. � 1 I 1 a !", i, w . 1 r .11 11 I �. y .� - n � I•I". I I 7 .'� 1 n .". r Macarl at Laurel Aruft EIS Rt:view i i i MS'cA�l1!' _ Fullnc� pP U:?3 S.Q V-3l The fifteen (15) recomrmendations excerpted from Robbins, 1974 are valuably tools tovand retaining habitat viability. It is suggesteJ that Lot IS be relocated in order to include the area in the contiguous open space as a means of better conforming to these recommendations. This has the benefit of increasing the buffer from the eastern wetlands feature, reducing impact to steep slope areas, proviTrig additional old field and forest habitat (with associated ecotones), and providing a wider linkage through the LIL CO easement to open space lands to the south. Mitigation Measures - Potahle E.=C upplly Y—S-Q IQ Page V-50 indicates that water quality %triti�in the area i:;within "acceptable ran es`; however, Page III-61 indicates that certain pesticiJcs exceed allowable limits. This should be ciari;ied. The fact that total nitrogen in groundwater is 10 mg/l and aldicarbs and carbofuran exceed the limit indicates that water treatment will almost certainly be required. Treatment techniques are outlined in the Draft EIa; however, the Final EIS should outline the approval process for water source of t? e Suffolk County Department of Health cervices under Article 4 of the Sanitary Code. i t iga t io n Mm1d_re,5 _(`lilt; raI Rgnii.ir-U. Y �L1-591Q 'V-61 The Archaeological Investigation included in Appendb: 3 indica-.-'s that 30 of 211 shovel probes (14 percent) yieldecrprehistoric artifacts. The retort concludes that there are, ` wo limited areas of otentially intact prehistoric sediments...',' and goes on to recommend that "Further lirnited-ssubsurface excavation in order to fully avpose specific areas of sCdlrnents u-low the existing plow zone is.,wed,--d ro define the limits of t'ie site."The :Llitigation pleasures section Page V-61 outlines three possible mite-ation measures for this documented sensitivity: 'The site layout can be sucY that those areas ot'scruitivity tivould be d preserveas "open space". On lots where only ponions corziaint arcKaeological setuitrriry, strict building envelope covenants can be unposed in order to preserve the sensitive areas. Finally, physical ercavation of the sensitive material can remove the archaeo!ogical sensitivity from the site, gaining the knowledge of past occupancy in the process': Further mitigation of prehistoric resources is warranted as indicated in the Draft EiS. The professional archaeologist should contact the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and HistonAc Preservation(OpRHP) to determine the appropriate and acceptable inctliod of mitigation in fulfillment of the State Historic Preservation Act and minimization of im acts for the purpose of the State Environmental Quality review, Act. If options exist bared upon contact with the State, the Applicant should assist in determining the appropriate rnitigation, as the alternatives inny affect yield, configuration, marketabi ►ty, project scheduling and o.penditures. The ,Fina EIS should contain documentation of contact with OPRI-i and should outline an adequate means of mitigation of impact upon prehistoric resources. NTiti�a�n Ite.asureS_ Mattiii�l School I�is,ri . P,i c� '_,w_61 V-F4 The Draft EIS indicates that revenue generated frown the pro'ect is no sufficient to directly offset the cost to educate a chili, statin; that other sources of income may be available to offset this deficit thereby minimizing the impact. Coritact shoulri t;e made witli the School District to determine the ability to accommodate additional school aged children. CRAMER V V, r .SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ,r t.,AN� ,�r'sA; NG CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 5 htaeart at Laurel Draft ETS Review UnttvQid.t .le v ,rsg En�,iroam eril-,t I,r. P1 O NSI-h This section should make note of the pot„nrial for irreversible loss of prehistoric re„ources not currently identified on Elie project site. All e r n a t i v e s L4 fb& ro ad 4r i n FIga Vii-] to LM:1 The Applicant should consider a modified cluster irivolving 35,000 to =10,000 square foot lots, in order to avoid steep slope areas on Lot 18, maUmize wedands setbacks, preserve additional forest, old field and edgcs, expand open space linkages, and possibly avoid arP:s of documented prehisto.is r.-sour c�;s. "pais alternative would fulfill the stated intention of the applicant and furth.-r minimize potential significant environmental impacts on this sensitive site. The density of the 'Yield Alternative should be adjusted as necessary depending upon the final feasible yield determination of the Planning Board. Discussions and computations in the Alternative analysis should be adjusted to reflect proper turf fertilization rates and s-Mage nitrogen values. The Land Acquisition Potential alternative should be upda ted to reflect the status of potential County acquisition. Tire project site does meet many of the criteria generally applied to sensitive parcels worthy of acquisition as rnatlincd on Pages VII.22 to VIZ- 4 of the Draft EIS. Cumulative Imnacts p':�.;X-1 +,Q One of the wildlife impacts associated ;-it h the Malcaii at Laurel project is the loss of 44 percent of old field habitat present on the site,with associa ted stress on species occupying this habitat potentially including two sparrow Species of up-_cial Concc-rn. The potential of this impact to be rnagnified by cumulative deveiopinent pressures in the vicinity of Laurel Lake should be explored. If this irnpact appears to be si r.ifir_ant, mitigation measures and/orperformance standards should be establi;;;eci to aLply to projects tivhich are proposed within the study area. The United States Dept. of the Interior, Nztional V►retlands Inventory and the NYS proposed Freshwater Wetlands Nlaps identify surface water and wetland features within the study area exclusive of Laurel Lake and the wetlands associated with the site. The Filial EIS should explore the cumulative impact of isolating these habitats by "labels”of development, with proposed measures to link and protect these features and the exchange of wildlife and resources within the general Laurel Lake area. T"ne subject project along with the Peconic Homes, jacony and John McFeely proj!cts all front on Laurel Lake. The impact of the change in land use dti nsity, open space value and configuration, and recreational utilization of the lake should be discussed in more detail as related specifically to Laurel Lake, Appropriate limitations ancfrestrictions, and desi8n, considerations should be outlined in more detail. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Tom of Isouthold Planning Board with comments on the Draft Environmental Impact St:atennent for Macari at Laurel. Please do not hesitate to call if there are any questions concerning this review. CRAMER, V \ SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT aIVG CONSULTANTS Face Sof5 J _J .1 P'. C'. ! r T ►.1 fY 1.1 T a COUNTY OF SUFFOLK A. PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES OAVIO HARRIS. M.D., M.P.H. COMMISSIONER July 5, 1991 B mrett Orlowski,Jr., ChaizYnan Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Mall P.Q. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Subdivision of Joseph INTacari at Laurel SCDHS Ref#88-620, Nlacari-Laurel SC'I.M #1000•1214-9 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Dcpartm,-nr of Health Services (SCDHS) has revieNved the above- referenced Drat Enviromiiental Impact Statement (DEIS). In general, %ve find the document adequate with respect to its scope. Based on our review, however, we believe the document should be amended to provide additional information regarding alternative development designs, mitigation measures, freshwater wetlands infounation, and cumulative impacts on Laurel Lake, Also, it is our under)t and ing. that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has been approved by Suffollc County as Dart of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (Resolution#717-1990), We beiicve the availability of acquisition funds should be an bnpoxt urt consideration Ln the review of ultematives to this action and should, therefore, be reflected in the document's discussion of th1- public acquisition alteliiative. We wish to point out that we have no record of positive deOvation for the subject proposal which ippears to have been segmelited frutft those actions originally i iclucled as pail of the Laurel Lake GEIS declaration of signific:uice. We recommend that the Board consider a recision, or revision of the original positive declaration for the Laurel Lake GEIS and the preparation of a positive declaration specifically addressing the Macari proposal. 'Ne believe the positive declaration also should discuss the COunTY CENTER AI.(CRMCnO, N.Y 11901.3327 Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 2 reasons for segrnentL)g the subject :action from, the original GEIS declaration. It is our opiiiiun, that this procedural clarification is Lnportwit to the complia'ace requirements of SEQ,R.A. Details of our comments axe provided below. I. Sanitary Code: 1. Our agency.received an application for subdivision approval pursuant to the equirements Of Article VI of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code (SC SC) in August of 1988. It appears that the development can confonn to the unit density requirements of Article VI, which require a minimum lot yield of 20,000 square feet per lot in Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Equivalent lot yield refers to gross, lcuid area minus the area of roads,recharge basins, and other iinprovetnents vrhich may be necessary to the development of the site. 2. It is important to point out that our agency provides for "clustered realty subdivisions ... which consist of one or snore relatively undersized parcels, designed in such a inwmer as to allow a substantial uni nprov-td portion of the tract to st.uzd open and uninhabited." (SCSC; Article VI, 760-601(x)) 3. Where clustered subdivisions are served by private water supply systems, lot sizes may be reduced to a rninirnum lut size of 20,C00 sq ft and confonn to the water facilities requirements of A.ricle 4'I. (SCcC; Article VI, 760-608(1)(e)] 4. In Hydrogeologic Z-One rr, clustered xealty subdivisions must conform to a population density equivalent of a standard resid,:nrial slabd.ivision wherein all parcels consist of an area of at least 20,000 square feet, S. The subject proposal was recently reviewed by our agency's Bureau of Wastewater Management. As a result of tris review, it has been determined that well data provided to our agency in 1989 has expired, and that 3 wells will have to he resarrrpled prior to any final cletennination by SCDHS p--paining to the suitability of the proposed water supply. 6. In addition to well data, our agency is awaiting the following additional biformation from the applicatu prior to continuulL its review of this proposal. - Public water cost letter from the loc.,i water district -Test hole/test well locations and details - Neighboring well locations N"ithLl 150 h of property lines r - Wetlands cictcrinination letter fro,n NYSDEC - SEQRA determination from Town -Applicable well covenvats Letter to Bennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 3 7. The applicant inust coinply with the rcquisetuents of the SCSC and all relevant construction stand:u-ds for water supply paid sewage disposal systems. Design ,nnj flow specifications, subsurface soil co editions, and complete site pl.ui details axe considered fully during the SCDHS review of the application. R. SCDHS tnmairrtains jurisdiction over tt.c final location of sewage disposal and water supply systems. Tlie applicant, therefore, should not undettwke the construction of either system without Health Dep:uurnernt approval. U.Mitigation Measures: I. We recoinnnnend that conditions to be placed on dedicated open space within the subdivision be clearly explained in thti document. We encourage the Town to require that dedicated open space be preserved in its natural state and protected froth any future clearing, construction, or developrn,_nt. We are particularly concerrned ,::itli dcdicated open space adjacent to Laurel Lake. We believe this area has signifxcawa potential for increased human use and disturbance after site development, and fccl stxorngly that the appropriate protection of this arra should be fully defined in dee DEIS. Thus, we recorrunnend that the document address any future development plans including parking, deck facilities, boat houses, or any access clearing. Although we have no objection to the provision of appropriate access in this arca, we believe strongly, that access tnust be ca_,efully plaonned to avoid disturbance of the site's freshwater wetlands :u7d Laurel L;.eke, We do not believe drat this area is an appropriate location for boat storage or parking facilities and recommend µ'eat the'Town examine the potential long-tenu use of tins portion of the site prior to grey approval oftine proposed plan. Conditions of approval should clearly define the allowable use of this area and provide the appropriate coven.uits to assure its protection for the future. 2. We support the proposed action's incorporation of recharge areas which are designed to minimize site excavation and structural rnodificatiorn. We would recommend, however, that design details including landsc:�pir�g and erosion measures ((thrust blocks, headwall details, etc.) be provided for review. r 3. The document indicates Liza', tin;. proposed action will incorporate the use of iia•;igenous woody species for replanting within a "wategic repLuiting schedule". We support the use of native plantiuigs, atnd request that additional itnfomnation descriUig proposed landscaping species and diet replanting schedule be incorporated in the document. Letter to Bennett Orlowiki July 5, 1991 Page 4 U1. Freshwater Wetlands and Surface Waters; 1. Based on the Tentative Fxeshwaicr_�Vetlarids RegalatIory.Maps for Suffolk County, it appears Svate-regulated fre;;hwater wetlands (NTT-2 and MT-22) are located on this site. As indicated in the document(p. H-1), the subject proposal will be affected by Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (Freshwater Wetlands). We recvJrun=d that all freshwater wetlaatuds buundary delineations be approved by the NYSDEC and indicated as such on the project survey. In addition, we support full protection of all regulated freshwater wetlands and their adjacent areas on this site. 2. We note that the document's summary of potential cumulative impacts on recreation (p. X- 40)does not include discussion of increased demand on natural resources such as Laurel Lake. Laurel Lake provides a valuable freshwater fishing opportunity accessible to the public through the NYSDEC access point along the Laurel Lake's south shore. Attention to this public resource is hnportart iii the consideration of the subject and nozaby developments which cart ni-we additional pressure on the use: and enjoyment of this passive recreational resource. IV. Alternatives: 1. As stated previously, it is our understanding that funding for public acquisition of the subject parcel has been approved by Suffolk County. We support public acquisition for preservation as a use which will provide the best long-teen protection of this site's natural resources. It is important to considex this Parcel's location within a core waterslied area int the Town, and flue nearby location of Laurel Lake. Full site acquisition will preserve this parcel in its undeveloped state and provide for long- term groundwater, wildlife and open space resources protection without the requitement of uicreased public services (notably; increased education costs which are outlined in the document). We believe further auendon to this altexilative is warranted by the approval of funding, and encourage the Town to carefully consider public acquisition as a reasonable alternative. 2. Absent, the acquisition alternative, we believe a more tibhtl� clustered subdivision design c.ut afford better protection of this site's wildliife habitat, steep slopes, freshwater wetlands, and visual aesthetics tliin tlt;tt Nvll.ich is provided by the applicant's clustered subdivision design. The clustered subdivision snap included in the document was useful to our review. Based on our evaluation, we believe that with triinitnutn overall modification, a significantly Letter to Bennett Orlowski A July 5, 1991 Page 5 greater degree of contiguous open space, wilelife habitat, and natural groundwater recharge arra can be preserved. We have prepared a sketch plan inccrporating the following design modifications, which is enclosed for the Town's consideration. - Overall lot size reductions averaging approxunately 30,000 to 35,000 sq ft (no lots are less than 30,000 sq ft) - Lots 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 187 & 19 are relocated within existing development areas -The separation dizance between the closest residential development and Laurel Lake is increased by approximately 200 feet -The separation distance between residential development and the site's freshwater pond will be increased by approximately 200 feet - Approximately 8 additional acres are provided within the site's soutliwestern open space area - Open space reconfiguratioa will create an open space preserve of approximately 26 contiguous acres along the propenYies western boundary acres (as proposed, southwestern open space is contained within two discontinuous parcels of approxhilately 9 acr,-s each ) - Lots 18 and 19 -ae reloca,rd froin within the adjacent area of the site's freshwater pond -6 additional lots will have open space frontage or views - 1 flag lot (with access between lots 24 & 25) will be required in the vicinity of the northern "drainage area" - All steep slopes cuid wetlands will be protected -All views from Sound Avenue will be preserved -The proposed uitcrconnecti g roadway network is retained - Slight relocation of the northern drainage area will be necessvy to acconunoclate one residential lot We believe the sensitivity.f t11i, site is well documented by its proposed public acquisition, its location within a core watershed protection arca, and its proxbnity to Laurel Lake. We believto therefore, that all efforts must be employed to assure the full protection of this site's many natural resources through tate review alternative development designs which minimize the potenti:,l negative envit'ownental effects of this action. 40 V. Sununary and Conclusions: Based on our review of the DEIS, ive find that there are outstanduag issues which are not fully adds-essed in the docunien:t. We request, therefore, tlrat an addendunn to the DEIS be prepared in response to the stated concerns of our agency. Latter to Sennett Orlowski July 5, 1991 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal,. Should your have any questions or recluixe additional utfor;nation, fccl rUee to contact tile Office of Ecology at 548-3060. Sincerely, Robert S. DeLuca Biologist Office of Ecology cc: Vito hlinei,P.E. Louise Harrison Stephen Costa, P.E. Prat-&Panek,NYSD.EC Stephen Sanford, NYS.DEC Robert Green, NYSDEC enclosure 4 A . STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N Y 12231-0001 GAII.S SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE July 5, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 - � Attn: Mellissa Spiro Re: S-91-012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Macari at Laurel Subdivision Town of Southold Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed major subdivision of Macari at Laural., Town of Southold, New York. According to 6 NYCr.R 617.9 (e) of the regulations which implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , the actions of involved state agencies occurring in or affecting the State's Coastal area must be consistent with New York State 's Coastal Policies. Based on our review of the DEIS, the Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization of the Department of State submits the following comments. The DEIS should contain a section which identifies the State's coastal policies which are affected by the proposed action. It should address each policy so as to indicate how the proposed action is consistent or can be made to be consistent with the skate's coastal policies. Policy #5 - This coastal policy states that new development should be encouraged to locate in areas where there are adequate public services Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. July 51 1991 Page 2 rr and facilities essential to such development. In this regard, it will be prudent for the applicant to further explore the options of re-locating the development in areas that are more conducive to such actions. The concept of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) , even though, the applicant or one of his colleagues does not singly own other property in the school district or in the Town of Southold :should be further investigated. The legal ramifications in attempting to apply TDR to jointly held properties may be enormous, but the preservation of this sensitive tract of prime water-shed lands, designated as potential "open space" should be given the greatest consideration. This parcel of land is invaluable in its potential contribution for the protection, preservation and enhancement of the ground and surface water duality in the area. In order to preserve the environmental value of the subject parcel, the acquisition option that is available through the Suffolk County Department of Real Estate should be further explored. This may involve an offer by the applicant to Suffolk County to sell the property at a free market price. Depending upon the response of Suffolk Count y, other perused to preserve the benefits that accrue in measuresbe this parcel in its present state. Policy 114 states that activities and development shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. The DINS indicates that re-grading will cause slopes to be disturbed and vegetation to be stripped from the area thus increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation within and without the parcel. The DEIS does explore in enough depth, alternatives to the grading, cutting and filling and the minimum amount of grading that would be necessary in-order to achieve the project ends. what is the leastamount of grading that would be roquired to accomplish the project goals. Similarly, the amount of impervious surfaces that will be created from roof-tops, driveways, and the roadway which will increase surface runoff and hence erosion and sedimentation should be analyzed in greater detail to determine if and where impervious surfaces can be reduced or eliminated. Is it Bennett Orlowski, Jr. July 5, 1991 Page 3 rr absolutely necessary that driveways be'constructed of impervious materials or can pervious or semi-pervious ones can be substituted? An analysis of this component can reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and hence- the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation. We would like to corunend the preparers of the DEIS in the manner in which they addressed the many and varied issues and hope that our comments will be helpful in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, a 'Mohabir Persaud Coastal Resources Technical Specialist MP/jtb TOTAL F.04 5 �S TO. Benett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Planning Board FROM: Cynthia Sturner, Member Conservation Advisory Council RE: DEIS for Macari at Laurel SCTM# 1000-121-4-9 We have reviewed the DEIS for Macari at Laurel Lake and have a couple of concerns on the information presented therein. We have narrowed our concerns to groundwater protection and wetland protection. The project falls within an core watershed area designed by the County as a Special Groundwater Protection Area, and the town has also given this area a Watershed Protection Zone designation. Information about what the recommendations of the County and the town are as to how to best manage this area are not included in the DEIS and therefore an accurate determination of the impacts from the proposed development of this core watershed area is vague and inconclusive. We believe more information on this is needed before making a determination. We believe that the plan alternatives of this proposed development could be expanded to include a tighter cluster of this development in order to achieve the following purposes: eliminate more impervious surfaces and therefore minimize road runoff, consolidate the open space proposed into a bigger block, leaving as open space the areas that are the most environmentally sensitive in terms of groundwater recharge and wetlands protection. While we commend the applicant for leaving a 100' buffer between development and wetlands we would like to know if the drainage pattern of the wetlands at the site will be disturbed with the proposed development. We have not found this answer in the DEIS. Since the wetlands contain endangered plant species, we would like to see if there is any possibility of further protecting the ponds by shifting development as far away as possible from them. We believe a tighter cluster away from these areas would achieve this. We also would like to take the applicant up on his offer to construct leaching pools for each catch basin in order to prevent any potential overland flow encroachment into the freshwater wetlands. Discharge from septic systems in a core watershed area is also a concern. The section on the DEIS describing the impacts associated with effluent discharge seems to indicate their will be impacts that could not be mitigated appropriately. Therefore we would suggest that a groundwater monitoring program early indication of water quality problems should be incorpo atedn o the pland� Thank you for your attention to our concerns. i I i 6 x}• ���� �; 5 I C—C)T-TNrrV WATER, AUTHORITY Edward J. Rosavitch. P.E. Administrative Off iC63'4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769.0901 Chlal Engineer (S16)563.0202 Fax No. (S16)589-5277 July 9 , 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Nall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re : Macari at Laurel Draft Environmental InIpact Statement Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County [dater Authority has reviewed the DEIS for the proposed Macari at Laurel subdivision and offers the following comments for your consideration. In general, the Authority has no objection to residential subdivisions on two acre (R-80) parcels . However , the cluster proposal shown on Plate 19 which would allow for 27 units on 40, 000 sq. ft. (min) lots and maintain approximately 33 . 1 acres of open space , appears to be a better opportunity for both the Authority and the Town. The Town will gain by the permanent dedication 04" open space and the Authority would like to be deeded a parcel large enough for the future construction of a well field. An appropriate parcel for the Authority, based on land surface elevations and the required sanitary protection radius ,* would require the relocation of the drainage area out of the open space in the northwest corner of the property (See enclosed copy of portion of Plate 1) . The Suffolk County Water Authority has been considering the aquisition of watershed property around Laurel Lake since 1989 . In October and November of that year , the Authority had two appraisals done of the A. T. Holding Co. property referred to on page 1-4 of the DEIS . It: is suggested that municipal aquisition of property available in thi3 area would be an investment in both the water supply and the quality of life . iLL The area in question sirs alinost directly on top of the regional groundwater divide and has a current water table elevation of approximately 6 feet above sea level (DEIS page III-50) . This makes the site, and any other sites nearby , a candidate for aquisition as watershed property and a potential source of supply for the Mattituck are; . If you have any questions , please advise . Very truly yours , f.) ,�"'�� E.J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer EJR:MM CC . Mr. M. A. LoGrande Mr. W. C. Hazlitt _^� Mr. S. R. Dasslerc �?L 12 1 ' \J n - �J ✓�'/�, ���:,,� ,,rte-���� � to octz )Act r C& 4ae �`- .�z�l2�=L y:� .�.-►�•- ( ( vim 1 � CWZ111w, e O/VL /.vt. �'vtZ, L��`• I � L��1- J�-LvLti� Q✓�-C' -b�`�Z�t�� �J�.{��vl�.� cL JLl J'ectt f ' t - � .J� Q � 'Z4 '�� C ��t1�C���� S�•1/Lf� 8 � J DIC QA e,G �t 2c-CC-�t c. iZ�tE'_ ! ���% �.�-c�eGZ .c.'•',�c-G��L�.v"�.SC L�:cr �-- o �`IZ cC.tic:C�.' �L(7 �,c.��f�CC'G( —'LC`C��_ ro lam" /IZ( Q6i C�a (:c�cii�C,� �C QjL(1:1c_•�.! /1 ,t -`L ;?"C-�0 '-�-� G�'QiL CL�ci G� —c sL 1 �tr 1 LFL CiL G c•��;'Z;�u=c i 4. i f Le- C >) .tiLti�c.� /���.ti . � �(c?c a.•i,� C'�-�c.:.c"�_,�- iLC.L� i P� ���7 � `'// - 3 Q s i414-6 r-7— 7-i s G,Ws ID d U r i 9 +•' !C 111 ,f'•Y- Ruth, Ja 1 l i icer r P. 0. Box 5-12 `r• ' MattltucL, Ne%v York 11952 ,'a> 'r,• '-'•' lrnntncr 3orirri, 3,.)uth_)1,1 Je are verir :nuc; -? •:-iirrst airy' furtt7ier ievel:) );nent around L, urel L::.ce . Houses )n t!;e •:acuri tract e t i ,,)u t� n ° fuse the r.)rr,)ns aii-1 former 1I:;i11ov c-_.mp pr•• 3e_,ties S I have read teat the First house on the shore oi' a late is t'ne be -) innLno' of the lemise o£ t-at r lune . :,JW t'r,ere are lb t-ousel ar-)hind Lsu^el L. dna t' ere re ,r.e� :a b � �, buil before�. '�;, r e We P lit �n vir-)nmentral ^oo'� ;�s . .e .rho 7 ?.,. _ lt:i in 1111 -,Ire f D ! tf a .1e ce live i��r . try n , � ; j ^ r� z - ,aril surru.,�_,i: s . :-iut :.moti er Lu roses riearo7r u1 i ae a its stt ;i- tur�111ir tie land will be z . ld .y i�h la:c e r '1.l- hts . .tore I'am11ieS, qUHStS, r �;:•}�: b•)ats - t're ln,ce cr.;ri ' t talse it. Aun- Dff -Cr `amu;` roa is, fortill;er on inwns ran-i gantens draiii.iru- '' �`;�' ii)t,� ►:;��� 1^..te . rl� r t �,r ill t : ;nen to our, wells . , � tears and see l-reat ��.• ,• .�at- larva 1i.v-. here Pyr 11 r�.�, _ alreadxr. Vhe sore of the lnee is fu.II y a.a '`g�•� "'"::� )1 �lE?�is LricLudint, th,e s'r-^ ] low WR tor. ('Fere, i }` r ";i!:•:p ' •�'�•--i� ..,inn c �� ,•d;-> .''�- -:''= s ouch less L: X111ife - Cew :jueKs, SWFtri C 11 t ,�''. ; 'r='Sig •=-' �f:,1' fiti•,r :;°` „ H hntc[iocj belt lie bet'ore m—Aturity, osprcv no ' 'r1 .0,r ov,r for f Lsh ) ' . bulfrojTs arc selrlom :ag i '� •:,��-�Y.;rte, _ j ... ;een or h ari 1• '�' ty L.� Lhe rlan,. Ln? .ioarri l'ac'es a iirii.•ue challenFre in -i.,•. rhat; vol. have it Within rotir power to be instru- , , merit,il in preserviria an asset for posterity that, once gime >r be replaced . can nevi. Sw. nP'ta,„ 1 j••.r YR f 't t,.`^•� CS..L;jE�'. ♦4t h 4...t:: • ILY •i - r� • 4 t1o. fit,, +r � • •'+ ij�y�,,r '�iF='}'Mtii.gip!:'- :' .�sr,V ,��{�,,� til, ,� ,V ,,T•�,�; xr. A�!''-•St. �~'�`�" a rpt ♦ �,S fib•k�� sir Rr�,•i�'s +r+' Y -E•ti k -A ♦ {{KK t `� �����.('�t$,•"`�::i�--� ',';tart � ;Zis 11 •J�11•.y tl T�F•JTf t"4.v N � .i �e7 fr't - y /i .r•Z �i�Cq�y-kt,t„�st'� .,t,5'�T-� Y'�Tcj y' �'f.i�Y{�- t "lye ��'�'�!• ±y Is �_T"h.r)C.>•`�'{� �'}YID LY Z �,in . 3•�s�.,�ry'�' rr'S7yT� '�s FSn��i�C� � f Y.�'-r�". Pf 10 Y �• H©RTH F®RK ENVIR®HWEw4 YML CCUCOL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 6� July 5 , 1991 Mr . Bennett Orlowski, Jr . , Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel comments on the DEIS Dear Mr . Orlowski, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the comments that I made during the public hearing held on the DEIS on June 24, 1991. The two concerns that I requested be thoroughly covered in the FEIS were the site' s location within a "special groundwater protection area" (SGPA) and the possibility of acquisition. The discussion of these two issues in the DEIS was inadequate. The DEIS identify' s the site as being within the Town' s Watershed Protection Area (VII-21) , but fails to mention the state "SGPA" designation or the recommendation of the Long Island Regional Planning Board that this site (and others around Laurel Lake) be open space acquisitions. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed SGPA map for the Laurel Lake watershed area. The FEIS should recognize this recommendation. The FEIS should also go into further discussion concerning Suffolk County' s Clean Drinking Water Protection Program. It should discuss the program' s mandate that each town make watershed purchases with their allocation from the 1/4 cent sales tax revenue, the recent action of the Legislature which approved purchases surrounding Laurel Lake and it shd'uld be determined if the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Board of Trustees have already recommended that the Macari parcel be acquired. r , a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100` recycled pater FRESHWATER WETLANDS The DEIS also stated on page III-24 that Land Use Company staff delineated the freshwater wetlands boundary. I would like to request that the DEC be asked to flag the boundary according to their criteria and that which ever delineation is greater be used for the purposes of mapping this subdivision. FLORA The DEIS states that 7 rare plants have historically been documented as occurring in the vicinity of this subdivision. Discussion as to whether or not they might still be found here is inconclusive. Additional field work , by a Natural Heritage Botanist should be done to determine if any are present on this site. ALTERNATIVES The alternative of a tighter cluster, 30,000 square foot lots, and their placement closer to Sound Avenue should be discussed in the FEIS. The Macari site, and Laurel Lake in general, is an extremely sensitive area. There are endangered species present which according to the DEIS will be permanently displaced (page X-11) and rare plant occurrences that may be destroyed by this subdivision. Further, the site is within a watershed protection area and has been targeted for public acquisition. The tax revenues generated by this subdivision will not cover the anticipated costs in education or for other services. Traffic will be increased in an already hazardous area. For these reasons, the North Fork Environmental Council opposes this subdivision. Thank you for considering our comments on the DEIS. I look forward to reviewing the FEIS when it is completed. Sincerely, Sherry Joh,pson Program Coordinator Enclosures cc Frank Panek , DEC Kevin Law, Div. of Real Estate ,i Pir-F/,cd Vpvn Spore hccur.lwn OP.ctIdcnlrj — ;.r CL;k, Oc.r1-p•r.ccl PLA N Furrrt:--.d — Clu:Ver P R:FI,I cid Clusler Cvn, e.:i CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North) 0 Infix it id O Tfr-A Preserve; F_• 'c:j i Relcccle 0 ❑ - TC3 (Trc.<,'er ei D!4:p'nenl) PJ-_se )ev/F.rm Oev k;chl r� Vc:nl Fa I� NO V::ed lase _ � �S _ •.I. ^�' 111 I %" •' )� 7' ely Y spa C<. _=—.. ,t�:r:iii/•'4y�'/.cr✓i� `,�� � .� � taw•.+•.+ 11, ;7 :-t' LOCATION 1.11,P CME. ;---I C. For each year of this program, not less than eight perce. (86) of the total sales and compensating use- tax collected for that vea, shall be used to reduce the County's general property taxes :o: ;h, subsequent fiscal year by being credited to revenues in direct proporttc: to taxes assessed and collected by the County of Suffolk from parte'_: within the County. The funds for this purpose shall be guaranteed on annual basis. (The funds a: for this subsection shall come, in descendtnc order, from the following sources: (1)' The total sales and compensating use tax collected in an, given year which shall exceed a seven percent (7t) increase over th, previous year's actual sales and compensating use tax receipts, using th. 1988 receipts as the initial base year; (2) Forfeited or disapproved funds, pursuant to §C12-6(C) , whit` had originally been set aside for payments to the Towns in accordance wits SC12-6; and/or (3) An equal percentage reduction of payments to the Towns under SC12-50) , but in no event to exceed twenty percent (201%) of such payments , (4) Any further surplus funds which exist pursuant to §C12-5(E; D. (1) (a) A 'Suffolk County Environmental Trust Fund' k'trust fund") is hereby created. A portion of the funds acquired under thi: program shall be allocated annually to this trust fund. The monies i, this trust fund shall be made available to the Towns for the purposes o capping and closing municipal solid waste landfills, identifying characterizing and remediating toxic and hazardous waste landfills, arc for other purposes as provided in §C12-5(4) . These funds shall be allocated annually, pursuant to the provisions contained in §C12-5D, anc based upon the following formula: Ten dollars ($10) per capita for the Towns of 100,000 or more in population; Fifteen dollars ($15) per capit. for Towns less than 100,000 in population. Provided, however, that in nc event shall the annual allocation to the trust fund exceed forty percent (40%) of the total sales and compensating use tax collected for that year pursuant to this Article. Payments to the Towns from this trust func Shall be consistent with the above formula as applied to the respective Towns. In the event that this forty percent (40%) limitation comes intc effect, then the payments to each Town shall be reduced in proportion tc the percentage share each Town would have received if the forty percent (40%) limitation had not been in effect. The formula for annual payment: for any given year, to any given Town, may be exceeded for that year is funds are advanced as described in SC12-5D(5) , but the total of any advanced funds, together with any other payments made to the Towns pursuant to SC12-5D and any related administrative, legal or borrowinc costs, may not exceed the estimated share to any given Town over the life of this program, based upon the formulas provided herein. definitions of (b) For Towns where lands are still extant which fit the 'Suffolk County Pine Barrens Preserve' or 'Suffolk County water Protection Preserve, ' as defined in sections C12-2A and C12-29 of this Article, no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of their respective allocations shall be used for acquisitions of such lands . Lanc acquisitions made pursuant to this requirement shall be made by the County, on the recommendation of the relevant Town, in accordance with the provisions contained within SC12-5A. The County shall retain such amounts from the allocations to the respective Towns which are calculated pursuant to SC12-5D(1) (a) above. v (2) An 'Environmental Trust Fund Review Board' shall be treater and shall be comprised of the County Executive, each of the ten ( 10) Towr Supervisors, the Commissioner of the County's Department of Healt! Services and the Director of the County's Planning Department, or thea respective designated representatives . This Review Board shall be responsible for reviewing requests and making recommendations for the allocation of monies to the Towns, from the trust fund, for the cappin and closing of municipal solid waste landfills and/or for the identifying characterizing and remediating of toxic and hazardous waste landfills. (3) The Environmental Trust Fund Review Board shall convene a the earliest possible time to prepare an estimate of the monies that shal be available to the trust fund over the life . of the program. Appro�: . Sup .•oject Owner Acreage waterst, ,0',4N OF SOUTHAMPTON cont . *SOUTH FORK MORAINE WOODLANDS-GREAT SWAMP AREA 0900-039-01-018 Rica?rd G. Hendrickson 16 . 6 15 0900-039-01-019 . 1 David B. Schellinger 4 . 3 0900-035-01-020 Catherine Kelly &jBridg=t 27 Kelly 0900-039-01-031 . 5 Aubrey V. Vannostrand 23 . 3 0900-039-01-028 . 1 Mary Louise Masin « 2 . 9 James Fahy 0900-039-01-028 . 2 David B . Schellinger 17 . 3 0900-039-01-043 . 1 David B . Schellinger 13 . 9 0900-039-01-044 David B . Schellinger E . 0 0300-039-01-042 David B . Schellinger 4 . 0 0900-039-01-045 Unknown, 9 . 9 0900-039-01-046 William Mulvihill 8 . 0 C900-039-01-035 Carl Klepper 5 . 1 0900-039-01-037 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 5 . 0 0900-039-01-038 Robert B. Bear & Peter Schub 5 . 0 0900-039-01-039 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 11 . 2 09C0-039-01-0420 William Mulvihill 4 . 3 0900-039-01-041 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub - 5 . 0 -- C900-039-01-015 Robert B . Bear & Peter Schub 11 . 4 *3IRCH CREEK-OWL POND ADDITION 0500-171-01-020 3 . 0 11 0900-171-01-021 2 . 8 Sub Total 5 . 8 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LAUREL LAKE 1000-121-04-8 . 4 ',falter L. Marilyn Gatc 4 . 7 1000-121-04-8 . 3 Barbara Kujawski 4 . 7 1000-121-05-p/o 4 . 1 Michael & Mary Adaimuoi icz 2i7 . 1000-122-02-p/o 025 A T Holding Corp . 10 . 4 1000-125-01-013 Harold Avant • L5 1000-125-01-001 Aldri Assoc. 42" . 6 Budget Acres Estimat Sub Total 276 . 65 A%)"O)oo0 Exhibit B Total 5 , 406 . 653 f74,271 * P.equires Board of Trustee Approval ( K) In the contractual process, proceeds to come out of* S100 million bond in Phase I NOTE: COSTS ARE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS MUST STILL BE OP.DER COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON MOST PARCEL$ EXHIBIT B-7 t.-.-ural A[i[_L V.'. . D llyOwner Acreage :Jatersr=�.OUTHOLD ake, Laurel 11000-125-01-014 11ofo Associates 22 12 "1000-121-04-009 . 1 Joseph T. Macari 64 . 6 1000-121-04-010 . 1 George 0. Guidi " 3 . 2 1000-121-03-007 . 1 Peconic Homes Ccrp . 46 . 9 Budget Acres Estimat= Sub Total 151 . 7 /-ar�oo�oco." Budget Acres Esti:*i� TOTAT TOWN RECOXMENDED FARCELS 1 , 700 . S Ix�,Coo. �' Approved by Park Trustees r* F.equires Approval from Environmental Trust Fund ate : COSTS' ARE FOR BUDGETARY PURPOSES ONLY. APPRAISALS MUST STILL BE OPDER-v-r , COMPLETED AND REVIEWED ON MOST PARCELS EXHIBIT A-5 r� - PLAN CENTRAL SUFFOLK SGPA (North oy�yp Ll G. LOCATION MAP DATE: 1-91 U •'� 11 Sue�� 110A MS Karen E. Gross VS 460 Park Avenue / New York, New York 10022 C¢V July 3 , 1991 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Macari at Laurel Dear Mr. Orlowski and Planning Board Members: I am writing on behalf of the Laurel Lake Property Owners 1 Association (the "Association") , an organization of the owners of property on Laurel Lake and Mark D. Gross, a member of the Association and a homeowner on Laurel Lake, in opposition to the proposed Macari at Laurel project (the "Project") . The homes of Mr. Gross and many of the Association' s members are located adjacent to or near the site of the proposed Project (the "Site") and Laurel Lake, and would be directly affected by the Project. These comments address the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") submitted on behalf of the applicant for the proposed Project. The Project as proposed would irretrievably alter the character of the scenic Laurel Lake area by converting the present tranquil rural landscape, which is designated as open space in the Town' s Master Plan, into a suburban subdivision with a concomitant increase in noise, air pollution and traffic.' The proposal also threatens to cause the degradation of the water quality of the groundwater, Laurel Lake, a pristine freshwater lake, and its associated wetlands. The DEIS fails to completely identify these and other adverse effects of the Project, address mitigative measures and discuss alternatives. The Project requires further study to accurately determine the nature and level of impacts presented by the proposed development, the cumulative impact of it and the other proposals for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area, and t alternatives to the Project as proposed. The major areas of concern are addressed below. fA. Water Quality The Long Island Regional Planning Board ("LIRPB") has designated the Site as a Special Groundwater Protection Area pursuant to Article 55 of the Environmental Conservation Law. That statute is designed to protect sole source aquifers on Long Island from further groundwater contamination. I understand that the LIRPB has studied the Laurel Lake area and has recommended that the Site remain open space. As reflected in the attached article from Newsday, the Laurel Lake area has been given top priority for acquisition by Suffolk County under the groundwater protection program established by Article 55. A bond resolution to borrow funds for the acquisition of critical aquifer recharge areas, such as the Laurel Lake area, was approved by the County Legislature on June 12 , 1991. It is critical that the DEIS address in depth the LIRPB 's land use recommendations with respect to the Site, the consistency of the proposed Project with those recommendations and the alternative of acquisition by the County under the groundwater protection program. Although the DEIS refers to groundwater quality in the area generally, it fails to specifically analyze groundwater quality on the Site. The DEIS also does not appear to analyze the cumulative effect of nitrogen levels caused by the Project and projected ambient nitrogen levels in the groundwater in the build year for the Project. The DEIS also fails to adequately address mitigation of the impacts of nitrogen from lawn fertilizers and chloride from road salt on the groundwater, private residential wells, wetlands and Laurel Lake. Eutrophication of the Lake as a result of nutrient loading also should be analyzed. Measures to mitigate the adverse impact of fertilizers, such as restrictions on the amount of lawn areas and the prohibition of the use of fertilizers should be discussed. The DEIS also should address mitigative measures and alternatives to road salt, such as limitations on the use of salt, and/or the use of sand or gravel. B. Potential Use of Laurel Lake as a Potable Water Supply The DEIS acknowledges that Laurel Lake is a potential source of drinking water (DEIS at III-57) but does not assess the critical issue of the impact of the Project, on the future use of Laurel Lake as a source of drinking water. ,The DEIS should analyze the present water quality of the Lake, the expected impact of the Project alone, and the cumulative impact of it and other projects proposed for the area on the water quality of the Lake. 2 C. Pesticides As the Site was used for farming from 1920 until the early 19801s, both the groundwater and the soil should be tested for residual pesticides. Soil testing is critical for a proposed residential development because children may ingest contaminated soil while playing out-of-doors. D. Wetlands The DEIS does not describe the wetlands on the Site in sufficient detail. Notably, Parts III B. and C. of the DEIS, which address the present biological and hydrological setting, do not contain a section on wetlands. The DEIS should include a map showing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") designated wetlands and adjacent areas. It should indicate the activities for which a NYSDEC freshwater wetlands permit may be required and discuss how the proposed Project would satisfy NYSDEC's regulatory requirements for permit issuance. The DEIS should also indicate whether the wetlands are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, whether a Corps permit would be required, and if so, how the Project would meet the federal regulatory requirements. The size of a appropriate buffer to protect wetland areas also should be addressed. (The DEIS states that no roadways or houses would be built within 50 feet of wetlands but contains no further analysis. ) (DEIS at V-56. ) E. Flora and Fauna The DEIS should include more stringent measures to minimize the impact of the Project on existing vegetation and wildlife, as by restricting clearing on the lots, further minimizing lawn areas, and preserving avian habitats and wildlife corridors. The DEIS does not, but should, include the results of a recent on-site field survey and specify the date of that survey. In this regard, the DEIS fails to adequately address the impact of the Project on the wildlife which occupy the wetlands surrounding Laurel Lake. These wetlands are directly connected to the on-site pond adjacent to Laurel Lake. For example, the great blue heron has been observed in the Laurel Lake wetlands, but does not appear to be mentioned in the DEIS. F. Traffic There are numerous deficiencies in the Traffic Study (Appendix D) . The Study does not address variations in traffic volume during the year and the marked increase in traffic during the summer months. In particular, the Study does not state the 3 dates that traffic volume data was collected. Traffic volume data should have been collected during the summer months, when traffic volume is highest. In addition, the projected traffic volume calculations do not include projected traffic from the Miller and Jacoby development proposals, which the Planning Board required to be included in a generic environmental impact statement ("GEIS") for the proposed developments in the Laurel Lake area. The use of a mid-1992 build year is not appropriate in view of the applicant ' s proposed five-year construction schedule. Further traffic analysis is required to reflect summer traffic conditions, the impact of the Miller and Jacoby proposals, and a 1996 or later build year. The Traffic Study indicates that the level of service on Sound Avenue and Cox Neck Road would be reduced from B to C if all proposals addressed in the Study are built. The DEIS should address alternatives which would reduce that adverse impact on traffic, including a development with lower density. There are also two errors in the Traffic Study which should be corrected. The location map does not depict the Macari proposal. In addition, Figure 3 presumably shows existing ambient traffic projected to 1992 , and not 1990 as stated on page 13 . G. Erosion and Sediment Control Due to the unavoidable effect of siltation from the proposed regrading activities, the DEIS should include a specific soil erosion and sediment control plan which contains a detailed discussion of mitigative measures which would prevent erosion and protect Laurel Lake and the wetlands from siltation during the proposed 5-year period of construction. H. Scenic Resources The DEIS does not adequately address the visibility of the proposed Project at different times of year from Sound Avenue or the rights-of-way that present residents use for access to their homes. The DEIS also does not discuss the relationship of the proposed road system to the existing unpaved rights-of-way. Alternatives providing for larger buffers along Sound Avenue, the rights-of-way and the proposed road system to screen the project and reduce noise, should be addressed. I. Alternatives A crucial feature of a DEIS is a discussion of alternatives which may reduce the adverse impacts of the project. The DEIS fails miserably in this regard. The only construction alternatives discussed are a 27 lot subdivision and 27 unit cluster development. In addition to the alternative of acquisition by the 4 County (See Item A) , the DEIS should discuss design alternatives which would further mitigate the adverse effects of the Project on flora, fauna, Laurel Lake, wetlands and water quality by increasing buffer areas and maximizing protection of natural areas. The discussion of alternatives should also include a project of smaller magnitude, which would reduce the adverse impacts of the Project on water quality, Laurel Lake, wetlands, flora, fauna, wildlife habitat and traffic conditions. J. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts section of the DEIS does not satisfy the Planning Board's requirement that a GEIS addressing the I cumulative impact of all proposed projects for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area be prepared. Ideally, the DEIS should describe the biological setting of all proposed projects, and not simply address cumulative impacts in one abbreviated section. In f addition to the lack of detail required for a GEIS, the cumulative ` impacts section suffers from the following glaring deficiencies. The DEIS fails to include an adequate description or composite map of the other proposed actions. It simply ignores the Miller proposal for the property sandwiched between the wetlands on Laurel Lake and the Macari site. (See DEIS at X-5. ) The cumulative impacts of the Macari and Miller projects on Laurel Lake and the wetlands would be considerable, and should be thoroughly analyzed. In addition, I understand that the McFeely project is proposed for the former Camp Malloy property. The DEIS refers to Camp Malloy in connection with the New York State conservation area as open space which could serve as a wildlife and avian habitat. (DEIS at X-14 , X-16. ) If Camp Malloy is indeed slated for development, the cumulative analysis in the DEIS is based on inaccurate information. These omissions and errors in the cumulative impact section must be corrected, and a new analysis performed based on accurate information. The DEIS also fails to analyze the cumulative effect of the Project and the other proposed developments on Laurel Lake or its wetlands. The increased nitrogen concentrations may result in a degradation of water qu ality and the eutrophication of the lake. The DEIS should also discuss the impact that the increase in local population would have on the lake in terms of increased recreational use (i.e. , swimming, boating and fishing) of the Lake. The DEIS also fails to address I the cumulative growth inducing aspects of the proposed projects. The influx of 325 residents to the area mag increase demand for business services and induce new commercial and retail developments. This secondary impact of the proposed developments should be addressed. 5 K. Conclusion In sum, the Project as proposed ; should not be approved. Further study and analysis of the impact of the Project, including alternative designs and lower densities, and the cumulative effect of the Project and the numerous other developments proposed for the environmentally sensitive Laurel Lake area is required. Careful and thorough analysis is especially critical with respect to impacts on groundwater quality and the fragile ecosystem of Laurel Lake and the wetlands. Sincerely, Karen E. Gross KEG/HC r 6 PAGE 4TH STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format. Copyright (c) 1991 Newsday, Inc. ; Newsday June 12 , 1991, Wednesday, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7 t ,ENGTH: 812 words 'iEADLINE: Suffolk to Borrow $ 50M for Pine Barrens BYLINE: By Rick Brand. STAFF WRITER ZEYWORD: SUFFOLK COUNTY; LANDMARK; PROGRAM; LEGISLATURE; BUDGET; DEFICIT; PINE 3ARRENS; REAL ESTATE; LAND; ENVIRONMENT; CONSERVATION; NATURE; NATURE CONSERVANCY BODY: To the cheers and whoops of dozens of environmentalists, the Suffolk legislature yesterday approved the borrowing of the last $ 50 million needed to buy pine barrens under the county' s landmark program to acquire sensitive watershed lands. Despite concerns about the county's $ 127 million budget gap for 1991-1992 , lawmakers voted 17-0, with one abstention, to approve the bond resolution after County Executive Patrick Halpin modified the original measure so that no borrowing would take place until Sept. 1. Officials say they expect to develop clan to resolve the county's fiscal problems by then. "The groundwater protection program is one of the great success stories of Suffolk County, " said Legis. Fred Thiele (R-Sag Harbor) , "and I think we're ready to move ahead because we've covered all the bases to protect the financia integrity of the county. " The vote on the pine barrens money was one of three environmental initiative: legislators acted on. Lawmakers also put aside until Aug. 27 a move to eliminate funding to purchase Robins Island, a 420-acre spit in Peconic Bay. The move came after the Nature Conservancy, a national environmental group, agreed yesterday to pay for an appeal of a federal bankruptcy court decision throwing out the county's $ 9 . 2-million contract for purchase. A growing number of legislators indicated that they were ready to balk at legal bills, which have totaled $ 500, 000 so Ear. Andrew Walker, director of the Long Island chapter of the Nature Conservancy laid the offer by the organization is "very unusual, but we're willing to take :he extraordinary step because we believe there are excellent legal grounds and we believe it is important to preserve Robins Island in its entirety.' The legislature also approved borrowing $ 3 million for the acquisition of six parcels for the county's $ 69-million open space program - including 5 . 4-acres on Ketcham Woods Creek in Babylon, 37 acres on Beaver Dam Creek in 3rookhaven and 41 acres in Montauk. PAGE _ (c) 1991 Newsday, June 12 , 1991 "It's a great day for the environment and the protection of our precious irinking water, " said Halpin. "On one hand, the economy has posed certain problems for the county government, but it also gives a tremendous opportunity to acquire pristine land at affordable prices. " But it was the funding for the pine barrens that brought cheers from more than 40 environmentalists, many carrying signs reading: "Keep it green, Keep it clean, " and "Now is the time to buy. " The legislature approved the pine barrens money after more than a dozen speakers, emphasizing that more than 80 percent o the public voted twice (in 1987 and in 1988) for the pine barrens program and that the economy is making land available at bargain prices. . "I think the people of the county want you to put aside the partisan politic and the fiscal mess, " said Randall Parsons of East Hampton. "This is a sacred cow to the people of this county . . . They want you to nurture it. They want you to fund the program. Through the program, funded by one-quarter cent on each dollar of the sales tax to the year 2000, the county has already spent $ 92 million of its original $ 100 million bond authorization, acquiring 6, 500 acres of critical water recharge areas throughout the county, mainly in Brookhaven and the East End. Th $ 50 million approved yesterday is the last money the county expects to borrow for pine barrens acquisition. The new funding will allow the county to pursue purchases from a list of mor than 7 , 200 acres, worth about $ 120 million. Among the top priorities are 250 acres of Warbler Woods in Yaphank, where the county has already bought 300 acres, 120 acres around Laurel Lake in Southold and 300-acre Stony Hill Woods in East Hampton. Legis. Joseph Rizzo (R-Islip Terrace) abstained, saying he wants a new referendum on the program because public sentiment may have changed in light of the downturn in the economy. "We're on the verge of bankruptcy, and shutting down Fridays, " he said. "I think it's time we listen to the public again. " Halpin aides downplayed the fiscal impact, saying the bonds, backed by dedicated sales tax revenues, are viewed in a different light than other obligations. However, they said they agreed to change the proposal because they do not expect to enter the market place to borrow money before September. In other action the legislature: Appointed Babylon Republican Richard Krumholz, 46, to the three-member board of Suffolk Off-Track Betting Corp. Krumholz, who ran against Legis. Sondra Bachety (D-Babylon) two years ago, replaces Gilbert .Stern. Approved an emergency resolution ordering the health department to come up Faith a plan within 90 days to provide developers with alternatives to denitrification septic tank systems that the state Department of Environmental Conservation says it will no longer approve. GRAPHIC: Newsday Photo by George Argeroplos- Sherry Johnson of the North Fork Environmental Council addresses the legislature ORAL COMMENTS June 24, 1991 Planning Board Minutes at Public Hearing on Macari at Laurel SCTM#1000-121-4-9 Mark Gross: My name is Mark Gross I live on Laurel Lake, I 'm a member of the Laurel Lake property owners association. Our attorney has looked over the environmental statement and is going to be sending a letter to the Planning Board, because they feel there are deficiencies in the statement. There are a few points I wanted to mention that concerns me and I 'm sure concerns other members of the Laurel Lake property owners association. One of these is the run off that we are going to be experiencing into Laurel Lake and into the wetlands as a result of this development. There will be fertilizers, conceivably pesticides, salt from the roads and I 'm worried about the quality of the water in the lake and what will happen to the wildlife in the lake, the migratory birds that we get and the wildlife that we have there all year round. I 'm also concerned about the character of the neighborhood and if it will change from a rural neighborhood to a suburban neighborhood. And the loss of open space, and this includes the considerable amount of traffic which we have right now, and will certainly increase when this development goes in. Bennett Orlowski: o.k. I 'd just like to note the public comment period will run until July 5th. Mark Gross: Yes, we' re aware of that. Bennett Orlowski: o.k. Any other comments? Ray Herfurth: My name is Ray Herfurth, my parents own a piece of property on Laurel Lake. I 've been coming out to the lake since I was about 4 years old, better than 20 years. I think its a darn crying shame the last real bastion of beautiful land that we have out in this area that attracts a lot people and is not J necessarily destroyed, but possibly could be. We recognize everyone here has some background and has looked into the environmental impact but just from a personal standpoint, I 've been coming our here for the beauty and the ability to get away from the big hustle and bustle of the city. I mean if somebody wants to put a development in, let him put it in- but not near our lake. That's really the comment that I 'd like to make and 1 the feeling I think everyone in the property owner's association 1 got and I guess I 'm really asking you as the board members what I could do personally to prevent this from happening. ? Bennett Orlowski: That' s a good question. You can make comments until July 5th, if you have any comments on the environmental impact. Ray Herfurth: It 's not necessarily environmental impact I 'm concerned about, just aesthetically. Bennett Orlowski: Well, that' s all part of it. Have you reviewed the environmental impact? Ray Herfurth: That I have not, I was just made aware of it about 3 days ago to tell you -the truth. Bennett Orlowski: Well you can call the office, the libraries so you can take a look at it, get you comments in writing. Judy Greco: I 'm Judy Greco and I live on Laurel Lake and this directly affects me and directly affect my drinking water because these houses will be adjacent to the back of all my property. What I can' t believe is that the Town goes to all the trouble of printing up this, (holds up pamphlet) for the libraries, for the post office for the watershed and the environment, and the impact it will have, and tells us about our garbage and what we can do and then can approve something like this. I think, I don' t know how you justify printing what we should do and approving this at the same time. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? Robert Weintrab(sp) : My name is Robert Weintrab, my mother-in- law, Emaline Lee, lives on Laurel Lake. We had some questions regarding the open space and what your plans were for the open space if this was to be approved. We're not very clear. Is this to be used by everyone? Will it be public? Bennett Orlowski: Well, the open space right now is a question that the Town Board and this Board is discussing, but right now it stays with the owners of the subdivision. Robert Weintrab(sp) : These 27, if this was approved, these 27 houses would have access to the lake and people would go down to the lake on this right of way and use it. Would there be facilities, bathrooms, parking lot, police, garbage? We would like to address all of these issues it would seem before you just turned lose. . . Bennett Orlowski: Have you reviewed the impact statement? Robert Weintrab: I have. Bennett Orlsowki: o.k. Robert Weintrab(sp) : So we 're very concerned •wLt this is going to do to the lake, to the land around the lake, pollution, garbage who is going to look after facilities? It seems as though there is a small piece of wetlands on the lake and a narrow band on sort of a sloping hill. Are they going to remove that hill to make a parking lot, are they going to. . . it seems as though its not very clear. Bennett Orlowski: Right now the hearing is addressing the impact statement. Mr. Voorhis is here. He 's our environmental consultant reviewing this. Chic maybe you could just hold it up and show everybody the size of this impact statement that you have a copy of there. Chic Voorhis: There is some information here that may cover that. What Benny indicated is that there really no plan for it at this time. What I could mention just to give a little more information is that any activity adjacent to the lake or the wetlands would still require wetland comments from the Town Trustees as well as the state DEC. This is a wetlands designated under Article 24 of the environmental conservation law. Any activity within 100 feet would require additional permits. There's no mention of it. At this time we are not aware of any plans for putting in docks, parking lots or any facilities down in that area. Based on the EIS and based on the known permits that are on file, applications that are on file, so that may help you some. Its something that hasn't come up; we ' re not aware of any plans for it. They would need further permits. Robert Weintraub: Would this be a selling point for the subdivision? Bennett Orlowski: They can' t do that now. They can only do what they show us on the subdivision map; and the impact statement, as Chic says, is addressing that, and that' s what we're taking about tonight; not the subdivision. Its the draft environmental impact statement. From here we go on to a final before we address the subdivision. Chic Voorhis: Comments will be responded to in writing as far as part of the record. Robert Weintrab: They will be. Audience member: Yes Robert Weintrab: We also wondered who would be looking after this area if these 27 families had access to it. Who would look after it to make sure it remained in the natural state it is in, garbage, litter. Judy Greco: In the spring I take my paper bag and my plastic bags and my truck and I walk up and down picking up the beer cans, the soda cans, the bottles, the old cigarette cartons and I don' t mind doing it because I feel we ' re doing it to keep the area the beautiful spot that it is. But if you have 27 more families I mean I 'm one person, how many more families in there are going to be picking up with us? My main concern is the watershed, is really the water. I want to be able to drink the water I have well water. I want to be able to drink the water. I can' t have my grandchildren drink it because of the nitrates now. I have to buy bottled water. What' s it going to do with 27 more families in there; that is really an issue as far as I 'm concerned. Thank you. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? Ray Herfurth: I just have a quick question for you. You said that any comments in writing to the Board will be addressed and we have until July 5th to do that? And they have to be addressed just to the board? Bennett Orlowski: Yes. And these comments tonight will be addressed also. Sherry Johnson: On behalf of North Fork Environmental Council we will be providing detailed comments later on this week. But just to get into the record tonight, I like to be sure the draft environmental impact statement and FEIS discussed the issue of County acquisition, which is particularly important, as the legislature recently approved a list that contained this parcel. Also the issue that the recommendations of the special ground water protection areas study be discussed in the FEIS if they weren't in the draft. That' s the extent of my comments tonight. Thank you. Bennett Orlowski: Any other comments? r ' I x Barbaro Ann Kujawski I o00,00rrE Qor6oro w ( i Patricia I Y -fVRN-AROUND 740 BO' S.23 tr 50' '�o�o , ,t ,,,,• r. .. S JNALiMUkI�tU . ^vvrr,„ \' $defer I 115. -a- k' FO THIS SupvFy 15 A VIOLAHON Or �t n/f Joseph B i '(EMPOKAR 35.5 ``.`'r S/ r or n, t _ _ 1 O/ / IFCTIor, 7209 C Nt'W YORK STAT!. (r - [DUCAT^ON LAY! 457 ...-.,- '---•--- .._`_" \� `, � \ \' ��/'• CO!1.' ec rivs sukver 495-97 RIGHT 0i -"� �'}- ...- - .. -.'_" _ �\\ \� \ `` t\ 3titd Q GO 'A' :�r ,,;,., MAP NOT 8!AK(fq ' c I r 5 Jt✓,.L D SEAL O R 4°0150 F _ --t- ' /r 195' \ R `` `\ I \ ��\ .r y or o\a L k, .r 0 20„E $.2 _ -_ / I �. A'•A.n:s ,;-.,.Ar.�I UL `nu(EON 26 57 aa_.x.-._...,.," r � ,' _ _ • `\ ` � \ ` / Srasr 1'y rHL Ytr: SOS, •5 y-:..I V,d tk4i iU2\+t as-- 1 �' ._ 3 r \�, P' •ti Et HIS ncaiAu ix� IY4 GUYER7,;�i,e,il At AC'ctt'r •S.d�@i 4 4si -.� ti" - \ r I / "- ' O \ ` \ c1 { \ \ \ ra(,� \'`\ .-�.... 111 •.TNi-AS5 iiTt i I!�ti LIS�U H-ktON. ANO I 'r'"l`!'- I _ - -C' 'ti l r _• - - y .,_« /r / _ _\ 34000 ± $.c� S Gf TH. LEtkJiNG C> Y .- .'_'- . -d2-' r \ / �'a 32 f' l t \ „�� 1 r �\ ,\ t `�l'�...��. , 6• r , (:JARA`irT-:5 ARE NOT Ti:ANMWvi?A i I � •. ` \, r �\ ` - / ` . r 000_ ST l' , ,l l I \ ' ' i `�.9� r YI(.NAI IrP,IIlITIi:n`.` 04 „r ®L� DRAINAGE I \\ `� h�' o' / -40 AREA m _ _ _ / ` r ,35 \ • ; 4 ' S.48°52 50"W 9" al- l 34000 t,S..F. 10 d, 'I T/� \ ; \� - 'Ma J � .30" ��J `, 'a-- / / C\7 ••'' "` \ \ I ' \ \ �' � r , ` / � `r 1 J' ' { i f �` \ `�. 3 ._ J J J'• r LAuOWArt� LIMI? OF FRE4NWATER / _ .�`, \ l \ 340b0�' S.F. _ 34 \ 1 ` ` / ` \ \ / ( j , 1 1 Wc1LANDJ A�1 DEyIGN4YE� rbY Sayre / / .� r�,r __ \ t \ 1 \ _ \ \ / I -38^ r' I t l _ 25' fHB LAhIO ��lE co. __= rboro B 33.1 LP 32000;tS.F i 1 - / / J ` t � +r 1 \ / / / \ I I \ / 1 I ( 1 \ i `♦ ` ` `� "� � t t // / / r O ... 4 �� , __- / ,/ , / ✓ ,`�� l l \ \ _ `` ♦� r 1 t / / 1 , t O ' , I / i' `\ •'-,a t� ♦ '-". ` / , ,�fp � ' r ,r'" O , , 35 + 0E /irir ' i' -,i,, `\\ \t \\\ `\\ t7�Y ',' t 11 / `132000 ± S.F. ,'/ r/ I�I,', ,rr3�I \'�\ `` + t ` `+ j ``` /Gf1T i ,Jr ...._,.-_ ,r ' +�'O\0 h'r ,rr C) o -- - ° 7 2 �34+� / r' \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ 4 / i ^� I t 2/ / ' r J »2 \. \ 1 0� , r ' /� r` '��' $.'1642. '-" . bt'»r .- ' i ''r-" , ` \ , , \�\ \ \ " 8 l l 1 / � \ ( I 47 !7" / I r J, / eti� `\ ♦ V� .$�•Op ,4 r , , , , , ' r 0 � u+ -42 I1 ' , ! ,'26,` \ { OPEN\ SPACE \` 35' 33000 S. F ` / /r '.• I I , i / \^� // 1, (tl l \ \ 'p I AG R E5 � � ,` \ � : `V 1 � J r l `, \ o - ' �� ' � •+ � Vp ' N I\ ;�Jr'jam-' f'� ` ''r -. , \ \� ♦ \ \ \�n \' \ ,t` / J 5 \ - _ ..3 ` 1 1 ; r i �/ 15 / l �1 \ >,. \ \` Z' =,j' '♦ t 1NE T AN� S , } _ 38_ \\ , r O l I S76 • \ iN \ o 3 3000_S.F. � - \\ I0 r 320005 # S.F. 1 S , ' v O Walter BnMori/yn GQfz \ V t \ 1 J l 1 $ p ` O l l N r'�, ., . . \\ ,\ .• , } V \ _----- \ // - �`�... \ \Q 3300Q ± S F0 \ \ moo ',\ \ i` /� \ + 200 3 \ r D 41v l r , l 1 1 ♦ ♦ t 1 9 P' 'a\` LLI 210 l \l\ l 1 \ \,` / r r, r / J ,I \ \MI t , l 1 . ♦ `,t \ \ n/f Walter Sabot O l+al\\\ \ \ `\ � - 'rr / � � rr - t\I \Il;llt + `\ \\Nlltla ��\` l:;\`\, \ \ 9 \ I ' \ \ , ` +at I 1 , 1 I T O I 1� �►. �2 R-9.65 \ `� r 0 t� L` S o + '1 1 \ \\ \\\\\ - \\ O \ \\ t 6 Q I�'' ---- /1! C• Z \ o_ I 11 \ - \ \ o , , . � ? N35 3320'W \O • o e , \ _-_---==% \ t \ \ \ \ 4� - O \ + 11111 t' + ` \ X3000 S.F \\ r., 1 )/ r , SOP I \Q + 5 �52 ♦59 /0' �G� �� ix, ` ♦ ♦ \+, v, J L 7 ti 43.85 `9- ' + r. ` ` -i / ' 1 l tl'1 4 \ \ / l 32000 S.F Z OCAT/ON MAP N r 1 \ 11 ' l + l i l \ \ \ \ 28' \ \ f �J �I 6 L=/ Oo \ lD a \ \ \ J/' r r l dl t o�J �\3- c q5 7 ? r . \ , _ .- --� l ' , \` ^.-_�� / ,' _ \\1 1 \I+^ ll ,'\` 1\� ,I I t l \ \ \ ` \ \ \ J .. N v�'r 2• �/G .5'�0 \ + SCALE /'1-600" Z , \ \ \ \ \ I= \ \ \ . - J P ? P' Z R` ) T S \. \ \ Y o / 1 1 ti 9� F ° ,i ,' \ `` ,'�.`4_.J��• •'t , t p ` \ \ `\33000 * S.F. . 50' \ \� ``.� _ � / r 'Or /� �\ , Q COI 0 IN S O O � N64./420'W Z , �� 0',\I�`�t � T tlNf ' 71w ��. S.2I°52'00"E. \ ` \ ' \ \ \` ` \� \ b\ 2-�� `�oE�`-�/ Qy tl+'AY h �2 � �o %,' 3202, , , , \ \ , 1 � � � � ' � oi,s j f CRESCENT o A A o r, , � 4.40 175' y' .47' \ \ \ \ \ -- -- - I l -• O '� V! o s' 7203 6 - W c�3 m N./3 5420 W `32000 _ S:F :\� 0 \ 510 55./3' I co n/f v' N Oa. •� \`,` •\~ - ___ ' ` _ ---40 - \ ' \\ \ c�/ • _ 0� (�. 6000 N.35°3320 W o I char/ B. a o \ .` `= =_:_--__- -_�- `__ a _ _ 0 y vWI Gen VB 1 I `\\ \\ 41.6 360\ th ° O 5/9°3800"E. 203.6/ o / _=-`_ ' ` \ 35 _ F _ - = \ \\\ 000 +1,5 �� °) O i O O•\'''Z. t r _ »I,.q.r10 WAS t9.1.1 Ml"( OT1'�,\`` \ ` \ I \ ` ` \ \ , ' \,. 20 .r, `�\ "T t° t `� �/ .';'_ -kREhkwA-f8R •WEtuAtJt� , \ \ `` \ \ O- ,\ r r &-7 / + .Aa D2yI�A-(t!7 OY \ + \ \ \ ♦ \ \ \ \ \ p0"' {� 0� I , 2 30000 -S.F. "flat, LANV l)hE Z� `� Y...• W I ..�_ _ 30000- S.F. Q 1 1 O ) , , t l r , 'r, ' • " \` \ ♦ \ , 1 \ \ \ ♦. \ \ \. r , , '' J\ \ ♦ / I 1 1 - - "_--------._ °' 3 000 0 ±S.F.r __» - - 1 , -r- • G I 'i \ \ , \ `' , .3 ....•�'."""V»'• e� 7 � 1,t, ' 1 I ,, ,/ \ \ , ♦ \ \ \ 1 t \ 1 \ \ ` s �T` J- R 49.7 / oo , lrlr rr rr ♦\ � \ t -.•36.' , ,;-� t� I ,111 S{y , II,1r,, rr fI \ �\\\�\ el _ - qL A I+ IPr, l , \ I l 1 '''�- - - - �'P 00 O h `v �\ \ I „ ttllli;' ,t I \\ \\,♦ \ \ + ) . \ \ 1 \ PO r ' r ---- 6 N 4 �� / o- \ I f t ,+ + I � :, , , ,, \ J• • �.� \6 ,,,y � �7 �' ,..,\ �\ I \ NOTEr \\ l r r /, SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP , l N \ \ r - `� y0 o \ O 1 DIST. /000 SECT. /2/BLOCK 4 4OT,,,99 \\`\ ` , 1 1 \ , � , ice_ /•---- - / '-'� V \ 1 1,1,I,i ,,1 1 l \ l N t t 1 i , , \ \ \ / , ' , , / . CP ' (, i%\1 \1 \ ` , l , , \ / ' J J , : - ^- - o 1 1 1 11 t„1,+ 1 1 i i0 ll tt t '+ l , I t t \ fid. ^ cF Eq t'ER / ,', I t t 1 1 11 I'+;i`` 'I I \ m i I II Ilk I ` ; 1<1 , , I , /I Jr f, rr ,, '- 2. EL EVAT/ONS SHOWN HEREON ARE cuR / - , 1 t r r , - \ Q`�� <Jh REFERENCED TO NGVD (MSL /929) b t - t ' I t`'` 7 t1r , f t 1 \ �� _ / J , t / , r Z `` N 14135'40 W. 200.00" �Q / ''1 ' t\` / r t r '" r r it Ir '� r ` , I ,� „ tl►,r+ l t c Ir 11 , I I f \ \ \ \ `. t\{ _ , / be r , 1 , 'r O. I o r! I I t z I I 1 I \ ttS' a / J \ � `tt)G `\ \ v n/f t'�''"`� r' / I`r ' t '`'+ 1 l` '`,` ` 1 a !t t r ' I 1 11 \\\ `�S N f r'" v 1, , ,, `, `, `�\\' 0. 1 + J +tr, i 1tl tt j a0 / \6 \ CI `♦ \ \ \ k r `\ \ \ \ \ J , ''r' !r -4 0 -f / AT Benjomin JozombeKCr C6 19 _ , + I t \ �• ! + I t 1 I \ ,N /t _ \ 5 i'f E D A t\I l J' _ - - ' ' J r 6 r, , t I\` i 1 \ i r!l r r I \ _ I-fir• r ' / , k`t ,, / l` ,. O! eco q O•i� V OOD + r1t ' 1 o ) , 1 \ .\ \ / / , lL/ J 2 7 t _ , ,, , ) I t , r O , 34000 _ S.F. - , +/ L , I 1111\ lI ! ( 1 , I . \ \ ` cn r , , O , u;r, Q 1 L < \/ 1. TOTAL AREA'= (03.5(091 AGRES Z. ZONING VSE DIS-VK(6-r, = 2,0 ; ,/ - r.','r,�I ; 1 t l t`,l l 't t`f 1 1 r i 1 t \ \ \ ��' �� �/ A6.(y, + R-8D RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITYA Q o S/4°35'40"E 20000' / i' '//' ' J I I t t t t t I 1 1 r 1 I i ! I \ ` ?,0��9 \ \ 32000 * S. F. b / - w _ I + 34800_ S.F 'tOTAI, NIJ, OF LOTS = 27 r I , �' , I ,1 t t \tl \ '' t 1 , , ! J r , r r //w , •\ � 4. LENGTH OF ROA17� -3500 t L F. rt ♦1, ' r \,, \,\ I• 1111 f J , N / ,/ ` ♦ \\ - ''' /' ,',r,/��,'/` `� SrrO /7� ^,f ? ♦ / , / 190 �' t0 \l `` 1 '\\ ` ♦`\ �\\ 1` ', r,., ��' ;' ; \\ ,\\1\\\ ,I\,�l\`,� , li OD II 48.5 OD \ M l cT rr \\ GLVSTER GALGUI-ATION II t•, O , t �` \`, ,r \ \\`�, \`` l � , `; OPEN 21.2 ± AGRES ' t ' - �' �. \ WF--fl.ANpS AREA = 14900 5.F (0.3421 AGRES) / , ♦ \ t 1 I I I p TOTAL AREA 103.5!091 AGRES 32000± S. F i 21 Is`I. \\ . `*\ �`\ t � ', , t 'It� 1 1 t tt 1, t \\ s Patio N LILCO EASEMENT AREA = 507100 c-J.F. (1.I1o53 AGRES) �\ \♦ \ t I t m t ' t 1 Il 1 t L `, ,0� !03,5(091 - 0.3421 - LIlo53 Y 0.80 = .49.fo494 AGREh 33000 ± �.F \ `� _ _ \ `, ' 'SII ; '; 111 '1 `, \ // /' , y �. 49.!0494 AGRES x 435dQ0 �.F1AGRE - 80000 h.F.'' 27.03 LOT'S ' ry Ili I it N.1 TO , ,�' 49.4 OHO 1, t�O ` \ - - \ `.`�\ \ , I 1 , , t',+ t t tD\ tt \♦ \ ----` r // -�',•'�� ' rh 1481 r W' E T L A N D S 1 , t , OPEN SPACE AGRES 2g I j m'I, tl l 't l tiro', _��,\`��. `. � ,L \ lO'1 I t N i tl 1 t ` `\ `� `^ IMITOF» V �\O 0 \� F , `\ \ A8 / 1 1 ( t 1 1 N tlco `,18.5 FytghHWA-r*K W6,rt-A110 I` I 320b0+S.F \ 22 , r t 1I l %I Oil . \ _ O "`\\. ` VI�J Ogg16tJA1C�G� O ' . rwe.L'Awa 11th . J/ �O i dl , /4(° -- �\ / 32000 ± S.F. I 4a t: 4.4 ,' 90 �\2 / l 1 , t t t I t, l '1 \ `^ ^ �^`,\�. � ` \\ N t7l,,` + `\ `� ` O`- ` \ `` \\♦1 t\ ' O nl f I I 6 A I / , N 1 i , t ` / //�-�� /' \ 1 ` , t ' t ' l ' ' t : `'.\ + N r ' Geor a 0. Guldi 8 Doug/OS Miller 1 / , , 1 1 ! ( , .r"..•„� r ' P , 1 1 , l Ol , `� ♦ ' \ \ "...\, t 1 l r / 1 V l 2 ` l 9 34.3 l 4D \ JJ \-115 a .4 , 24 I / , , 1 , \ ♦ \ \ r $t t , ,t202, .5 \ MODIFIED, CL US TER (30000 TO35000 S.F L O TS) f I l , `I I t I t A. 00 w *31 D AREA ► 32000 ; S. F / \`\ 1 M;``�`, \`\`:` �r I.N��i J r ? `,+ \ ` '�\\.``\`` + `, \\ `.`•"�`\.`,`lt` I 1{ t I 1 tip rrr i SUSDI VI,51ON SKETCH PLAN 0 0' \ ,�,.' q• dp \ \ `` \ 1 r r ry E Ord✓. Woessn �\ 32000* S.F. \�\ ��````�` r ,J�,i/'' i Z PREPARED FOR 22 oo"E /, �� \cii JOA6- 150.or, SEPH �4 CAR/ / 00,3 w -- AT LAUREL ISO 34.8 \\ TOWN OF SOU THOL D P R D P p 5 E D 7¢I,4. R/GNr 0 r� y _ N3°o22o'W SUFFOLK COUNT Yt NEW YORK SE of 0 232.49 285.00 \ ROA D N./4°59'0 " . 265.00 2° 4 r00r.w .30004'00"W 6/.00' \ S� D r N.9°0940'£ PR W O 50.00" n/f Pecanic Homs /nc. 11 • YOUNG & YOUN tw. DA TE: FEB. 6, /992 400 OSTRANDE :. �R111E AD N.Y. l SCALE- /'-/00' E NO. 87-1963 HOWARDW.YOUNG, 845 YOUNG, � 1Ss�JG".°l1�O. 45V11D t