HomeMy WebLinkAboutMacari at Laurel 1988 NOV 2 3 1988
MACAR I AT LAUREL PL�ANN NG BO RD
LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III
October, 1988
Location•
Bounded by Sound Avenue-Middle Road
on the north and Laurel Way (R.O.W. ) on the south
in Laurel , Town of Southold, New York
Applicant:
Joseph Macari c/o Peter S. Danowski
616 Roanoke Avenue
P.O. Box 779
Riverhead, New York 11901
Prepared For:
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold, New York
Prepared Bu:
The Clover Corporation
P .O . Box C
Halesite, New York 11743
Contact Persons:
Richard A. Jackson, Ph.D.
Gabrielle A. Schavran, M .S.
Phone: S16-7S4-3415
S16-38S-331'i
TABLE DF"••_CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'f
II . PHYSIO-GEOLOGICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
III . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OR EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A . TOPOGRAPHIC AND SOIL IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B . VEGETATIVE IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C . WILDLIFE AND HABITAT IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'f5
D . GROUNDWATER IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
E. TRAFFIC IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE:
1 . Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Soil Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Lf
3 . Vegetation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Li
If . Geologic Cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5'f
5 . Groundwater Divide North Fork 60
6 . Groundwater Elevation Map North Fork . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7 . Water Table Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . . . * 63
8 . Population Density And Nitrogen Relationships . . . . 76
TABLE:
1 . Water Quality Well #S 53333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2. Summary OF Trip Generation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
APPENDICES
APPENDIX:
A . Environmental Assessment Form - Part I . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
B. Monitoring Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
SUMMARY
Macari At Laurel is a proposed residential housing
development that will construct 27 single-family detached
housing units on a 63 .7 acre site located in the hamlet of
Laurel , Town of Southhold, Suffolk County , New York . The
proposed action is consistent with the present zoning for the
site. Since the site contains surface water, freshwater
wetlands and discontinuous mature upland forest; the site design
will cluster the individual housing lots in such a way as to
entirely preserve the ponds and freshwater wetlands as
designated open space and minimize the loss of upland forest .
Since the site locally contains moderate to steep slopes
associated with kettle depressions, the cluster arrangement will
minimize extensive regrading . In addition, potential erosion
will be minimized at the site by the extensive utilization of
vegetative mulch and the strategic placement of straw bales and
silt screens . These techniques will be instrumental in
minimizing the potential for erosion and siltation of the
freshwater wetlands and other sensitive areas within and
adjacent to the site .
Vegetation at the site consists of upland forest, old
field, freshwater wetlands, and pond vegetation. Although much
of the old field vegetation will be altered due to construction,
strategic positioning of individual housing units on each lot
1
will facilitate the preservation of most of the upland forest
and ecotones. Since most of the upland forest, associated
ecotones, and all of the freshwater and pond vegetation will be
preserved by the cluster arrangement, wildlife presently
utilizing these areas will be only minimally affected .
Although the housing units will produce sewage effluent
from individual septic systems, the design and implementation of
these sanitary facilities will be in strict adherence with the
regulations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services .
Data from monitoring wells completed on the site and regional
groundwater studies imply groundwater flow at the site is in a
southeasterly or possibly south-southeasterly direction. In
addition, distances between the proposed septic systems and
drinking wells or sensitive areas are much greater than the
minimal distance requirements of the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services . Consequently, the housing units for the
Proposed action will have a minimal potential for contaminating
either surface water of Laurel Lake or drinking wells associated
with nearby private homes .
Considering the relatively heavy traffic volume associated
with Sound Avenue CSR TRK #25) , projected traffic generated from
the proposed action will have only minor effects on the present
traffic conditions of the roadway network .
By closely following the design of the environmentally
sensitive site plans and the mitigative measures presented
herein, a minimal environmental impact on this area will occur .
2
Since this site is zoned A Residential , this proposed action is
in keeping with local needs and goals . The proposed action will
produce an aesthetic, bucolic residential community that will
minimally affect the overall environment.
3
I . INTRODUCTION .
The proposed action, Macari At Laurel , will develop 27
single-family detached housing units on 63 .6 acres owned by the
Applicant, Joseph Macari . The site is bounded by Sound
Avenue-Middle Road on the north and Laurel Way (R.O .W. ) on the
south, in Laurel , Town of Southold, New York (Figure 1 ; See
site plans) . The present zoning delineation for the site is A
Residential (A-80)/Agricultural District) , which allows
single-family detached housing units on minimal 80, 000 square
foot lots or acceptable agricultural activites such as raising
crops) (Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 100-Zoning) . The
proposed action does not require a zone change . In addition,
the proposed subdivision of the site is in accordance with
cluster regulations .
This Long Environmental Assessment Form - Part III was
prepared by The Clover Corporation for Joseph Macari CC/0 Peter
S. Danowski (P.C . ) , Esq . , 616 Roanoke Avenue, P.O. Box 779,
Riverhead, New York 11901 . This Long Environmental Assessment
Form - Part III uses plans designed by Young and Young (400
Ostrander Avenue, Riverhead, New York) . Area calculations and
values utilized in this document were determined from the
attached site plans as well as the Environmental Assessment Form
- Part I CAppendix A) .
Anticipating the request of an Environmental Assessment
Form - Part III for the Town Planning Board of Southold, this
4
FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP
HiQ f�`f
et OREGON
AME,� .� 0 r.
's
.w
ILES
\] N
�o c
CAPTAIN KIO�`t 94 >
ESTATES
`I .� :
EAST TTITUCK
e
Q�
1952
ye�,s'F � �t �•
SITE EnJas ,
25
i
K w u.r c
i / flw
(rpor)
Laur
--------- el-
a a O
l�
r 6
N.Y.S. \ `o "T�� �• F ��� 1���� o
AIRPORT
CONSfRVAT/ON GMl o,�c w a
AREA
OLD
1•
LAUREL �� : �-•w... ��• ,V '
��BO NwTrII(KR . �� 0U•v
L� Marr
olwAKl t l •
K
L
p 5 N e 6 t \6 4 ,rorty
2S Vtr -• qty
MafMucb Y.C.
N
0 2000 Ft.
L---------
5
document evaluates the environmental consequences of the
proposed action. Specifically , this Environmental Assessment
Form - Part III will focus on the following:
(1) Impact on. topography : Locally, the site for the
proposed action locally contains moderate to steep slopes. The
proposed action may cause erosion, loss of topsoil , and may
disturb unique topography if not properly compensated for .
(2) Impact_on vegetation: Uegetative buffers and upland
forest should be preserved as open space, where possible . Large
trees and vegetation associated with forest/old field ecotones
should be protected within areas slated for clearing .
(3) Impact_on wildlife and habitat: Uegetative clearing
and development of housing units may adversely affect wildlife
at the site .
Cit) Impact on groundwater: Sanitary discharge associated
with individual housing units for the proposed action may
contaminate the groundwater, adversely affecting private wells
on and near the site, surface water and freshwater wetlands on
the site, and the surface water of Laurel Lake.
(S) Impact on traffic: The proposed action will increase
traffic volume on Sound Avenue CSR TRK #2S) . Entering and
exiting the site may cause traffic safety concerns.
In order to provide the necessary information for the
agencies charged with the review of this project, field
6
J
inspections were performed on the property to assess the site 's
existing conditions . In addition, conversations were held with
various governmental officials and documents related to the
issues raised were examined . It is believed that this Long
Environmental Assessment Form - Part III addresses the potential
issues regarding the proposed action and meets the basic
purposes and requirements of the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act .
Each environmental impact or effect will be listed and
followed by extensive descriptions of the mitigative measures
devised to prevent significant environmental effects due to
these factors .
7
II . PHYSIO-GEOLOGICAL SETTING .
The geological history of the area indicates that during
the Cretaceous Period sediments Ci .e . Raritan Formation and
Magothy Formation) were transported from highlands in the north
and deposited on a south-sloping bedrock surface CNemickas,
et .al . , 1982; Jensen, et .al . , 197q) . These unconsolidated
deposits, the Raritan Formation overlain by the Magothy
Formation, contain two mayor aquifers on Long Island. During
the Tertiary Period deposition ceased and/or was followed by a
time of erosion. During the Pleistocene Epoch at least two
separate stages of glaciation occurred. Long Island 's present
topography is a result of the deposition of glacial material on
top of Cretaceous and Tertiary deposits . The Harbor Hill
Moraine in the north and the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine in the
south were deposited during this time. As the glaciers
retreated, melt water formed streams that flowed through the
topographic lows in the moraines . Subsequently , the streams
partially eroded the moraines and were responsible for the
glaciofluvial deposits that now underlie the southern and
central portions of Long Island .
The site for the proposed action is located entirely within
the Pleistocene-age statigraphic unit, Outwash Deposits,
Undifferentiated CFuller, 191q; Jensen, st .al . , 197q) . The site
is located approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the Harbor Hill
Moraine. The Outwash Deposit, Undifferentiated, unit consists
8
of stratified fine to coarse sand and gravel . Seven C7)
monitoring wells CAppendix B) verify that the site is underlain
by a thick deposit of sand and/or gravel , locally with
interlayered clay deposits Ci .e . Monitoring Wells #3 and #7) .
Long Island is noted for its numerous and diverse glacial
kettles . Long Island displays some of the most diversified
glacial kettles in the world CFuller, 191U . Kettle holes are
circular, or nearly circular, depressions in the topography .
Kettles can be formed in a variety of ways, most commonly by the
burial of isolated blocks of ice by stratified drift . The
gradual ablation of ice leads to a gentle downward flexing of
the sedimentary layers as they settle over the dissipating ice
mass (Ritter, 1978) .
The site contains three kettle holes aligned in a
northeastly-trend within the north-central portion of the site
Csee Attached Site Plans) . In addition, Laurel Lake, directly
south of the site CFigure 1) is an isolated, large glacial
kettle feature . These topographic structures represent kettles
associated with the outwash deposits .
The three (3) kettle depressions within the central portion
of the site may represent a kettle chain . In a kettle chain the
barriers separating the component members are lower in elevation
then the surrounding plains and are not usually more than 15 or
20 feet above the kettle bottoms CFuller, 1910 . These
separating ridges retain their original irregular or rounded
contours .
9
The Laurel Lake kettle probably formed when a buried block
of ice was subsequently buried beneath stratified outwash. The
layers of the outwash subsided and became contorted when the ice
began to melt (Fuller, 1914) .
10
III . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS _OR_EFFECTS .
A . TOPOGRAPHIC AND SOIL IMPACT .
1 . EXISTING SETTING OF THE SITE .
Topography. The site for the proposed action displays
an irregular topography consisting of gentle plains, topographic
depressions and gentle ridges (see Site Plans) . The topography
is dominated by the presence of three (3) elongate kettle
depressions trending northeast-southwest that are located within
the north-central portion of the site. The central kettle has
undergone recent excavation and contains standing water .
There are numerous minor swales leading into the kettle
depressions. Several gentle sloping swales run from the
relatively flat area on the northern portion of the site to the
kettle chain depressions within the central portion of the site .
In addition, several well defined swales, trending south and
originating in the southern portion of the site, lead toward the
wetlands associated with Laurel Lake (see Site Plans) .
Except for the local topographic convergence associated
with the kettle depressions within the north-central portion of
the site, the overall topography of the site grades southward
toward Laurel Lake and its associated wetlands (see Site Plans) .
11
The overall relief is approximately 43 feet, ranging from
approximately 7 feet within the kettle depression and the
approximate elevation of the wetlands associated with Laurel
Lake located along the southern border of the site; to q9 .7
feet, a spot location in the northern portion of the site Csee
Site Plans) .
Slopes locally exceeding 15% Csee Site Plans) are
associated with several of the kettle depression features
Specifically, moderate to steep slopes are present on the sides
of the individual depressions of the kettle chain in the
north-central portion of the site and along the southern
boundary area of the site where the ground surface slopes toward
the wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake . In particular, 86: of the
site contains slopoe gradients from 0-10%, 6% of the site
contains gradients from 10-15:, and 6: of the site contains
slopes greater than 15% .
Soils. As indicated on the General Soil Map of Suffolk
County, New York (U.S . Dept . Agriculture, 1975) the site is
underlain by soil of the Haven-Riverhead Association . This soil
group is characterized by deep, nearly level to gently sloping,
well drained, medium-textured and moderately coarse-textured
soils on outwash plains . In particular, the site is underlain
by numerous soil units including (U.S . Department of
Agriculture, 1975) : Haven Loam CHaA, HaB) ; Plymouth Loamy Sand
12
(P1B, PIC) ; Carver and Plymouth Sands CCpE) ; Plymouth gravelly
loamy sand (PmC3) ; Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdA, RdB, RdC) ; and
Muck (Mu) CFigure 2) .
Soil distribution on the site is as follows (Figure 2) :
Haven Loam (HaA, HaB) is the most abundant soil unit on the
site. HaA underlies the northern portion of the site and occurs
along its eastern border . HaB is only found in the southern
portion of the site. Plymouth Loamy Sand (P1B, PIC) underlies
smaller parts of the site with P1B occupying the central and FlC
underlying the northeast corner area of the site . Carver and
Plymouth Sands (CpE) are present associated with the kettle
chain feature in the north-central portion of the site and in
addition, underlies parts of the southern and eastern border
area and the northwest corner of the site . Plymouth Gravelly
Loamy Sand (PmC3) is a minor constituent of the east-central
portion of the site . Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdA, RdB, RdC) is
Found in scattered locations. RdA and RdB occur in small
patches adjacent to the LILCO power line along the west-central
border area and RdC is found in the west-central area of the
site adjacent to the LILCO power line and in the southeast
corner of the site. Finally , Muck (Mu) occurs within the
wetlands of Laurel Lake in the southwest and southeast corners,
respectively , of the site .
Most of the soils in Suffolk County (U .S . Department of
Agriculture, 1975) formed from materials that were deposited as
a result of glaciation during the Wisconsin age of the
13
FIGURE 2 SOIL MAP
He
PmC3 /1 '
PmC
HaA He ;t'CitE t'. PmC
T E
2dB H
PE RdB Mu—
' RdA• "PlB PE
�9 RdC _0� HaA
RdB
nau'-Ca
Ir
PmC3 HaA RdB Eti Clpir .`..••',-a•.W S��•"
IA
Rd8
�.a Ha8 Y6Q RdA
HaA
1a 11Au: t�:rr4�-�a 53t..•
�RdA .oma@ RdC;. e Mu . a Rrl{s' _ P
HaA
y
RdB
HaA L
de i. . a,, aA HaA p
Cp 4, 0.
laurel
r Q Cele P^ ti-Xi_ CoF He
m83
Rd .d RdA HaA
HaA I
HaA PIG
� ,g' RdA
G�
P SAa _ RdB '.7/PmC3
RdA - "• Q�9 ASCHaA
it
HaA
N
0 1000 Ft.
14
Pleistocene Epoch of geologic time . These materials are glacial
outwash consisting of sorted sands and gravels; glacial till ,
consisting of mixed pebbles, sands, and clays; and locally ,
glacial lake-laid silts and clays . Upon retreat of the ice,
some of the outwash sands and gravels were covered by water or
wind-deposited silts, clays, and fine- to very fine-sands at
varying depths. Haven-Riverhead Association soils are examples
of soils formed from silty deposits overlying startified glacial
outwash sands and gravels.
The Haven Series (HaA, HaB) consists of deep, well drained
medium-textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle
over startified coarse sand and gravel (U.S. Depart . Agric . ,
1975) . Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture
capacity and low natural fertility . Internal drainage is good
and permeability is moderate. The potential for erosion is
slight to moderate Cslopes) .
The U.S . Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes
limitations of the Haven Series for town and country planning as
follows: Soil units HaA and HaB display only slight limitations
for sewage disposal fields, homesites, and lawns or landscaping .
While HaA soils also display only slight limitations to street
and parking lots, HaB soils display moderate limitations
(slopes) . The depth to the seasonal high water table, zone of
saturation, is greater than q feet for both HaA and HaB soils .
In addition, HaA soils are classified as Capability Unit
15
I-1 (U .S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and they are well
suited to all crops commonly grown in Suffold County . Hay and
pasture, grains, and row crops (including vegetables and nursery
stock) respond well to good management on these soils. HaB
soils are classified as Capability Unit IIe-1 , and they are well
suited to forage, grains, vegetable crops, and nursery stock,
except where erosion is a hazard because of the steepness of
slope . These soils should not be cultivated intensively unless
adequate measures are used to help to control erosion.
The Plymouth Series (PIB, PIC, PmC3) consists of deep,
excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a
mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified
coarse sand and gravel . Soils of this series are found on
broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains . Plymouth Series
soils have low to very low available moisture capacity , moderate
to rapid permeability, and low natural fertility .
The U .S . Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes
limitations of the Plymouth Series for town and country planning
as follows: sewage disposal and homesites - slight limitations
For P1B, moderate limitaions (slopes) for PIC and PmC3; streets
and parking lots - moderate limitations (slopes) for P1B, and
severe limitations (slopes) for PIC and PmC3; and severe
limitations for lawns and landscaping where there is a sandy
surface layer (P1B, PIC, and PmC3) . In addition, the depth to
the seasonal high water table, zone of saturation, is greater
16
than 4 feet for P1B and P1C soils .
P1B soils are classified as Capability Unit IIIs-1 (U .S .
Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and can be used for all crops
grown in Suffolk County . Unless irrigation water is applied,
deep rooted crops are better suited . P1C soils are classified
as Capability Unit IVs-1 . The soils are best suited for
deep-rooted, close-growing crops . These soils are not well
suited for nursery stock because of their slopes and sandy
texture . Finally, PmC3 is classified as Capability Unit VIIs-1 ;
too droughty , too steep, or too stony for crops or for pasture .
The Carver Series (CpE) consists of deep, excessively
drained, coarse-textured soils (U .S . Department of Agriculture,
1975) . These soils are nearly level to steep and are usually
found on rolling moraines and broad outwash plains. Carver
soils have very low available moisture capacity and very low
natural fertility . Permeability is rapid and the hazard to
erosion is slight to severe, depending on the slope gradient .
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975) further describes
limitations of the Carver Series for town and country planning
as follows: Soil unit CpE displays severe (slopes and/or sandy
surface layer) limitations for sewage disposal fields,
homesites, streets and parking lots, and lawns and landscaping .
In addition, CpE soils are classified as Capability Unit
VIIs-1 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975) , and they are too
droughty , too steep, or too stony for crops or for pasture .
17
They are not suitable for nursery stock or other crop because of
their sandy texture, coarse Fragments, and steepness of slope .
Riverhead Series soils (RdA, RdB, RdC) consist of deep,
well drained, moderately coarse-textured soils that Formed in a
mantle of sandy loam or Fine sandy loam over thick layers of
coarse sands and gravels. Soils of this series are Found on
level to gently sloping areas on outwash plains . Riverhead
Series soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity ,
good internal drainage, moderately rapid to very rapid
permeability , and low natural Fertility .
The Soil Conservation Service C1975) further describes
limitations of the Riverhead Series (RdA, RdB, RdC) For town and
country planning as Follows: Sewage disposal fields - slight
limitations for RdA and RdB, but moderate (slopes) limitations
For RdC; homesites - only slight limitations for RdA and RdB,
but moderate limitations Cslopes) for areas underlain by RdC;
streets and parking lots - slight limitations for RdA, moderate
limitations (slopes) for RdB, and severe limitations (slopes)
For RdC; lawns and landscaping - only slight limitations for
areas having RdA and RdB, but moderate limitations (slopes) for
RdC.
In addition, RdA is classified as Capability Unit IIs-1 for
agricultural use (U .S. Dept . Agriculture, 1975) . This soil is
W811 suited For all crops grown in Suffolk County . Moderate
droughtiness somewhat limits plant growth unless irrigation
18
water is applied, however . Good water management practices are
needed to help to control erosion if these soils are used for
nursery stock . RdB is classified as Capability Unit IIe-2 for
agricultural use . The soils in this unit are well suited to
forage, grain, nursery stock, potatoes, and other vegetable
crops if good management is used . They are not suited to
continuous cultivation. Finally , RdC is classified as
Capability Unit IIIe-1 for agricultural use. The soils in this
unit are suited to common forage and grain crops and are well
suited to crops that can be planted directly in residue left on
the surface.
Muck CMu) consists of very poorly drained organic soils
that formed in partly decomposed or almost completely decomposed
woody or herbaceous plants . This soil unit occurs in the
relatively level portions of the bottom of closed depressions
along a few of the larger streams . It is spongy, black or
dark-reddish organic material overlying loose sand and gravel
CU .S. Dept . Agriculture, 1975) .
Farmland value includes economics, land ethics, civic
pride, and aesthetics . Prime farm soils are also a
non-renewable natural resource . The site contains Prime and
Unique Farmland in Vegetable Crops (northern and east-central
portions of the site) , Prime Farmland Cnorthern boundary area
adjacent north and southeast of the LILCO electric line, and
19
Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance (small locality
along the western boundary of the site dust north of the LILCO
electric line CU.S . Dept . Agriculture, 1978) . The criteria for
identification and designation of prime farmland is entirely
related to soil characteristics . Under this category , Prime and
Unique Farmland Cin vegetable crops, apparently at the time of
the survey for this publication) is land other than prime
Farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value
food crops . It has the combination of soil quality, location,
growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained
high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop (i .e . grapes,
fruit, and vegetables) when treated and managed according to
modern farming methods . Prime Farmland is determined to be
best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, oilseed
crops, and is also available for pastureland and forest land .
Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance is land that is used
For the production of crops . While important for agriculture in
New York, it does not exhibit some soil properties that are
necessary to meet Prime Farmland criteria such as seasonal
wetness, erodibility , limited rooting zone, flooding, or
droughtiness (U .S. Department of Agriculture, 1978) .
Although there are many acres of prime farmland in the Town
of Southold, these soils and areas are also suited for
development . Because of the demand for urbanization, land
values far exceed the ability of the County or other
governmental organization to seriously consider purchase.
20
Seven C7) monitoring wells (Appendix B, see Site Plans)
were completed on the site . The detailed description of each
monitoring well is indicated in Appendix B . The upper portions
of the soil in the monitoring wells are compatible with the
descriptions of the soil types noted above .
Monitoring wells #3 and #7 encountered clay within the
stratigraphic columns . These clay interlayers may represent a
post-glacial lucustrine or flood plain environment .
2 . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ITS ANTICIPATED
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY AND
SOILS, AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE
IMPACTS .
Description of .the proposed action .
----------------
The proposed action requires the regrading and altering of
the present land configuration . Approximately 17 .9 acres of
land, or 28 . 1% of the total area, will be regraded to allow for
the construction of the proposed 27 single-family housing units .
Regrading includes both land clearing and cut/fill operations
Csee Site Plans) . Of the 17 .9 acres slated for regrading
operations: 4 .4 acres (6 .9% total ) will become impervious
surfaces such as dwelling structures, driveways, garages, and
roadways; and 13 .5 acres C21 .2% total area) will become turf
and/or replanted woody vegetation (see Site Plans and Appendix
21
A) .
Anticipated_environmental impacts_
While excavation is required for the foundations and
roadbeds, it will not be necessary to remove large quantities of
earth. This is especially true since the proposed recharge
basins will utilize existing topographic depression within the
northwestern corner and along the east-central boundary of the
site. These features will require limited earth removal and
will be utilized as drainage basins for stormwater runoff from
the proposed action.
Although the potential for erosion at the site is minimal ,
during the general regrading Ci .e . clearing and leveling)
operations local runoff may occur on newly exposed surfaces,
especially during sudden, intense storm rainfall . Any newly
created surfaces associated with this proposed action must be
stablized and protected immediately . Unprotected, these newly
created surfaces can develop such erosional features as sheet
wash, or minor rilling or gullying CParson, 1964) . In addition,
the newly exposed soil surfaces are subject to drying effects
and subsequent wind erosion.
Potential environmental impacts due to the sloping
topography of the site associated with the proposed action
include:
22
(1) Regrading and altering of the present land
configuration .
(2) Newly exposed soil surfaces associated with regrading
operations will be subject to potential wind and water erosion.
This can lead to material transport and possibly result in
siltation within the remaining portions of the site, including
freshwater wetlands, or to adjacent lands, including wetlands
and surface water associated with Laurel Lake .
(3) The present soil distribution and thickness will be
disrupted .
(4) There is a potential for destruction of sensitive and
valuable topsoil by erosion and drying.
(5) Freshly excavated soil that is stockpiled and
regraded will be subjected to erosion, potentially destroying
this natural resource . In addition, siltation to areas
surrounding the site may occur .
Mitigative measures to minimize adverse potential
environmental impacts:
General Statement: Considering the amount of moderate to
locally high slope gradants occurring within the kettle chain
area of the north-central portion of the site, and along the
southern boundary region of the site, considerable potential cut
and/or fill operations could be necessary to insure structural
stability for housing units and roadways . However, in order to
23
limit much of the potential regrading, the housing units will
be located within the most level portions of the site and 52: of
the site will be preserved as open space (see Site Plans) . By
utilizing this modified cluster plan, individual lots will be
located within the relatively flat areas on the northern,
east-central , and southeastern portions of the site. This
modified clustering will considerably limit the amount of cut
and/or fill require to insure structural stability at the site.
Thus, potential erosion at the site will be greatly reduced .
The proposed action will preserve the moderate to locally ,
steep slopes associated with the kettle chain and the slopes in
the southern portion of the site leading to the wetlands
associated with Laurel Lake . Preserved, open space will total
33 . 1 acres, or approximately 52.0: of the site Csee Site Plans) .
Impacts and their mitigation:
(1) Regrading and altering of the present land
configuration will occur .
Approximately 17 .9 acres of land, or 28 . 1: of the site must
be regraded to allow for the development of 27 single-family
detached housing units. Most of the regrading activity will
consist of minor grading, leveling, or clearing in the open
field and locally in the upland forest areas in order to
24
prepare the landscape For housing and roadway construction .
Since the area slated for construction is characterized by
relatively flat topography , cut and Fill operations over most of
the site will not exceed 1 to 2 Feet . Following construction,
most of the regraded area will maintain its original topographic
expression (see Site Plans) .
There are exceptions to the overall minor cut and Fill
requirements For the site . In specific, recharge basins located
in the northwestern corner and along the east-central boundary
areas of the site will necessitate excavations of 8 Feet and 12
Feet, respectively Csee Site Plans) . Shallow depressions in the
topography at these localities will reduce the amount of
required excavation For the proposed recharge basins .
The amount of cut and Fill required For the proposed
housing units will be minimized by positioning each housing unit
on the most level portion of each lot .
i
Since there will be extensive, designated open space areas
as well as preserved upland Forest and old Field within
individual housing lots, approximately 45.7 acres, or 71 .9: of
the site will remian untouched . In addition, cut or fill
operations will not occur within interlot buffer areas, along
the site peripheral border buffers, or within the original
upland Forest patches or old field areas slated to remain
untouched (see Site Plans) . By leaving these specific areas
untouched, the original topographic Features of the site will be
maintained. Any newly created contours will conform to the
25
original contours, allowing for a gradual transition from the
original topography to the newly created topography Csee Site
Plans) .
(2) Newly exposed soil surfaces associated with
regrading operations will be subjected to potential wind
and water erosion. Material transport and siltation could
occur within the remaining portions of the site or along
adjacent lands, including wetlands and surface water
associated with Laurel Lake .
Presently , the potential for extensive erosion at the site
is minimal due to the strategic clustering of the proposed
housing units in the relatively level areas . In addition,
gentle slope gradients and grass or forest ground cover will
further inhibit erosion . On the other hand, the numerous minor
swales on the site could act as potential transport channels
for material eroded off the construction site upon disruption of
the ground surface .
In the cycle of erosion, soil is removed, transported, and
deposited . It is important to eliminate the erosional problem
in its inception by preventing the removal of sediment . The
actual timing for the regrading activity plays an important role
in minimizing the actual time that newly created soil surfaces
are exposed to the effects of wind and water . To minimize the
potential for water and wind erosion during the regrading
26
process, the bare soil will be covered by mulching material such
as straw, immediately following each section of regrading . This
will aid in stabilizing the area before a more permanent cover
is established. Mulching will help prevent water and wind
erosion on the site during the construction and regrading
operations (Parson, 1964; Clark, et.al . , 1985) . The straw will
be kept moist at all times to maintain its erosional preventive
characteristics.
To aid this stabilization process, the development will
occur in small area phases over an approximate 60 month time
period . Thus, it is proposed that regrading activities will
occur in only small sections of the site at any one time . In
this way the entire site will not be exposed for extended
periods. This procedure will allow the regraded land to
stabilize as construction proceeds.
Considering each section undergoing construction, it is
most important to attempt to stabilize exposed surfaces before
erosion initiates. Vegetative soil stabilization methods are
essential . Vegetative methods help in the initial stages of
erosion by absorbing the impact of raindrops, reducing the
velocity of runoff, reducing runoff volumes by increasing water
percolation into the soil , and protecting the soil from wind
(Goldman, et .al . , 1986) .
Straw is an excellent mulch material because its length and
bulk is such that it is highly effective at absorbing raindrop
impact and moderating the climate on the soil surfaces CGoldman,
27
et .al . , 1986) . Straw pieces tend to interweave with each other
on the ground trapping soil and reducing the possibility of the
straw washing or blowing away .
Generally , application of mulch material protects a
disturbed site from erosive forces until the long term methods
can be implemented . In the case of the proposed action, since
much of the site slated for the construction will be covered by
surfaces such as dwelling units, driveways, and roadways, and
replanted vegetation; mulching will control potential water and
wind erosion before covering is completed . Following
construction, catch basins, dry wells, and recharge basins will
collect any excess water runoff .
It will be difficult to completely stabilize all of the
newly created surfaces, even with the mulching stabilization
methods discussed above . Constant movement by machines and men
constructing the buildings will minimize attempts at long-term
stabilization. Although the prevention of erosion and
subsequent local removal of soil during construction will be
difficult, the transportation of erosional material from these
areas can be trapped by the strategic placement of a row or even
two parallel rows of straw bales, filter fabric attached to a
wire fence, or filter fabric on straw bales (Goldman, et .al . ,
1986) .
In particular, the bales will be placed along the headlands
and along banks of the swales within the site. In this manner
the topographic depressions and locally , their surface water and
28
freshwater wetlands will be protected from siltation resulting
for potential erosion. As a further protective measure, straw
bales will be placed within the swales at the points where they
exit the site; along the southern border . This should minimize
the potential For siltation within the freshwater wetlands
adjacent to Laurel Lake and to Laurel Lake itself .
Sediment retention structures, while not preventing
erosion, will act as temporary backup systems . The combination
of the bales and mulch will continue until permanent surface
covering can be established following the construction (Parson,
1964; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977) . The rows of straw
bales will be placed as close to the regraded surfaces as
construction activity will allow . Care will be taken to keep
the bales from breaking apart . In addition, the bales will be
securely staked to prevent overturning, flotation, or
displacement . If deposited sediment accumulates, it will be
removed periodically .
Following regrading operations and construction, long term
surface and slope stabilization is necessary . In the
mitigation of long term potential problems, the newly created
soil surfaces (level lot areas) will be planted with low
maintenance sod, such as perineal rye grasses and indigenous
woody vegetation. This will provide quick soil cover protection
and is recommended by the U .S . Department of Agriculture (1980)
and others (Parson, 196q; Clark, et . al . , 1985) . Further, the
Soil Conservation Service suggests the sod be at least one year,
29
but not more than 3 years old; the sod be placed within about 12
hours of cutting; and the sod should be watered frequently to
establish growth stability . Also, since the proposed grass will
be of a low maintenance variety, it will not require the use of
fast acting fertilizers, that can significantly contaminate the
groundwater with excess nitrogen.
(3) The present soil distribution and thickness will be
disrupted .
Regradation necessitates the disruption of the current soil
profile of the Haven-Riverhead Association throughout the
altered area . The silty loam of this particular soil
association is the topsoil that overlies coarse sands and
gravels (U.S . Department of Agriculture, 1975) . During the
initial steps of construction care will be taken to scrape off
this upper soil mantle and store it in stockpiles. In this
manner, sand and gravel can be distributed throughout the site
without appreciably disturbing the present soil regime . At the
end of construction, the silty loam will be spread over the
regraded sand and gravel in order to reestablish the original
soil profile configuration.
30
(4) There will be potential destruction of sensitive and
valuable topsoil by erosion and drying .
Topsoil initially stripped from the soil profile will be
temporarily stockpiled at the site. Since a certain time will
lapse between the initiation of construction and the eventual
regrading of the topsoil associated with long-term
stabilization, measures will be made to protect this stockpiled
material from erosion and drying .
The stockpiles of topsoil will be seeded with a quick
growing, stabilizing grass cover such as perennial rye grasses
(U.S . Department of Agriculture, 1980) . This temporary seeding
procedure should prevent, or at least minimize water erosion
and/or harmful drying which could cause blowing dust and the
destruction of this valuable soil material . During the final
stage of regrading, the topsoil will be spread over the fresh
surfaces to allow for proper permanent revegetation.
(5) Freshly exposed soil that is stockpiled and regraded
will be subjected to erosion, potentially destroying this
natural resource . In addition, siltation to areas
surrounding the site may occur .
Freshly cut or filled areas, except for temporary
foundation excavations, will not exceed 12 feet (i .e . recharge
basin) , and generally will range from 1 to 2 feet Csee Site
31
Plans) . Therefore the erosional effects of potential water
runoff over a large area are limited . However, some erosion may
occur on freshly exposed slopes. To minimize the potential for
runoff erosion during the regrading process, the bare soil
will be covered by mulching material such as straw, as detailed
above. This will aid in stabilizing the area before the
topsoil and vegetaton is reestablished . Mulching will help
prevent water and wind erosion on the site during construction
and regrading (Parson, 1964; Clark, at . al . , 1985) . The straw
will be kept moist at all times to maintain its preventive
characteristics . If the lower sandy soil needs temporary
stockpiling during construction, it will be stabilized by
spreading a thin layer of topsoil planted with a quick growing,
low maintenance grass .
32
B . VEGETATIVE IMPACT .
1 . EXISTING SETTING OF THE SITE.
Field inspections were conducted on the site in September,
1988 . The site was reviewed and the vegetation was delineated
and identified . In addition, a vegetation/habitat coverage map
was constructed utilizing information from the field
inspections, the Site Plans, and the Environmental Assessment
Form-Part I (Figure 3) . The site was formally utilized as
farmland as evidenced by the extensive open field area, now
classified as old field or succession field . In addition,
upland forest patches exist throughout the site between the old
fields. Freshwater wetlands exist within two of the topographic
depressions of the kettle chain in the north-central portion of
the site and are found locally along the southern boundary of
the site in association with Laurel Lake . Finally, ponds exist
within the central kettle depression of the kettle chain and in
the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the freshwater
wetlands of Laurel Lake (Figure 3) . Both of these ponds were
either due entirely or at least partially to recent excavation
activities . Each vegetative habitat will contain descriptions
of the dominant characteristics and floral species identified .
The upland forest is classified as a Mixed Deciduous
Forest, predominately containing oak, beech, and locust trees.
33
FIGURE 3 VEGETATION MAP
Old Field
Upland
Forest
Upland`'
Forest
Wetlands
and Pond
Wetlands
Upland Old Field
Wetlands Forest.
and Pond
4
Upland
Forest
Upland
0 600 Ft. Forest
Wetlands
34
Upland forest covers approximately 18 .6 acres, or 29 .3% of the
site. The following vegetative species were identified
(Petrides-Peterson, 1972; Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton,
et .al .-Audubon, 1925) at the site (Figure 3) ( "P" indicates
Protected Species) :
Mixed Deciduous Forest .
Common Beech Fagus sylvatica
Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus
Scrub Oak Quercus ilicifolia
White Oak Quercus alba
Red Oak Quercus rubra
Shagbark Hickory Cara ovata
Grey Birch Betula populifolia
Black Birch Betula lenta
Ash Fraxinus
Big-toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata
Redcedar Juniper Juniperus virminiana
Sassafras Sassafras variifolium
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Oleaster Eleaanus anaustifolia
Red Mulberry Morus rubra
Fire Cherry Prunus pennsulvanica
Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia
Staghorn Sumac Rhus ! UUp.tLTIa
35
Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans
P Flowering Dogwood Cornus Florida
Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Maple-leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerfolium
Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii
Great Solomon 's Seal Polugonatum canaliculatum
False Solomon 's Seal Smilacina racemosa
Common Smartweed Polugonum hudropiper
Fox Grape Vitis labrusca
Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara
Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa
Blackberry Rubus flaaellaris
Black Chokeberry Pyrus melanocarpa
Garlic Mustard Alliaria officinalis
Arrow-leafed Aster Aster sacittifolius
P Woodland Fern DrUopteris
Old field covers approximately 44 .3 acres, or 69 .7% of the
site and occurs as discontinuous patches throughout the site .
Since these areas were formally cultivated fields, they are
generally on the most level portions of the site (see Site
Plans; Figure 3) . The fields have been abandoned for several
years and are display evidence of natural ecological succession.
Typically, in the scheme of ecological succession, community
36
development begins with pioneer stages which are replaced by a
series of more mature communities until a relatively stable
community evolves that is in equilibrium with the local
conditions . The whole series of communities which develop in a
given situation is called sere; the relatively transitory
communities are called seral stages, and the final community is
called the climax (Odum, 1959) .
Since the entire site was formally upland, climax forest,
the current situation represents a secondary succession process .
Secondary succession is relatively rapid since some organisms
are already present . Consequently , the open field portions of
the site show transition species from field grasses to upland
forest flora . The numerous short black locust trees along the
edge areas of the fields display this transition .
The following vegetative species were identified as old
field and edge vegetation (Petrides-Peterson, 1972;
Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton, et .al .-Audubon, 1925; Peterson,
et .al . , 1968) at the site (Figure 3) C "P" indicates Protected
Species) :
Old�Field -and _Edge Vegetation .
Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia
P Bayberry Ny.r_ica pensilvanica
Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus
Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus _quinquefolia
37
Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera ,_apgnica
Poisson Ivy Rhus radicans
Common Winter Cress Barbarea vulgaris
Wild Carrot Daucus carota
Pokeweed Phy_tolacca americana
Yarrow Achillea millefolium
Common Milkweed Asclepias suriaca
Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis
Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris
Field Pennycress Thlaspi arvense
Chicory Cichorium_intybus
Daisy Fleabane Erigeron annus
Horseweed Eriperon canadensis
Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris
Foxtail Grass Chaetochloag_lauca
Panic-grass Panicum
Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Groundsel Tree Baccharis halimifolia
Slender-leaved Goldenrod Solidago tenuifolia
Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Solidago rugose
Tall Goldenrod. Solidago_ altia5ima
Tick Trefoil Desmodium
Chaffseed Schwalbea americana
Round-headed Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata
Fine-leaved Sneezeweed Helenium tenuifolium
Sickle-leaved Golden Aster Chrusopsis falcata
38
Rough Hawkweed Hieracium scabrum
Common Hawkweed Hieracium vu_ lgatum
Crab Apple Malus _sulvestris
St . Peterswort Ascurum stens
Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana
Common Chickweed Alsine media
Bladder Campion Silene latifolia
Freshwater wetlands exist in association with the two (2)
westernmost kettle depressions of the kettle chain in the
north-central portion of the site and along the southern
boundary of the site in association with Laurel Lake (Figure 3) .
Freshwater wetlands cover a limited area of 0.5 acres, or 0 .7:
of the site . The upper elevation boundary of the freshwater
wetlands is approximately 8 .5 feet . Since the wetlands occur
adjacent to the mixed deciduous upland forest, many of the
species within the wetlands are also listed within the upland
forest species list .
The following vegetative species were identified
(Petrides-Peterson, 1972; Little-Audubon, 1980; Sutton,
et .al .-Audubon, 1925; Niering-Audubon, 192'1) at the site (Figure
3) ("P" indicates Protected Species) :
39
Freshwater Wetlands.
Common Beech Fagus sulvatica
Grey Birch Betula populifolia
Black Birch Betula lenta
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Great Solomon's Seal Polugonatum canaliculatum
False Solomon's Seal Smilacina racemosa
Blackberry Rubus flaaellaris
Woodland Fern Dryopteris
Sedge Carex
Finally, there are two (2) locations on the site where
surface water exists (Figure 3) : the central kettle depression
within the kettle chain in the north-central portion of the site
and a small pond in the southwest corner of the site, within the
freshwater wetlands of Laurel Lake. Both of these ponds
represent man-made alterations/modifications . The kettle pond
was at least partially excavated, perhaps for utilization as a
farm irrigation pond . The other pond appears to have been
formed from removal of material within the freshwater wetlands
near Laurel Lake . The ponds have subsequently developed a
freshwater ecosystem of vegetation and fauna .
40
The following is a -list of the pond vegetation:
Pond Vegetation .
Duckweed Lemma
Hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum
The field investigation on the site of the proposed action
failed to reveal any endangered or threatened species of flora
(Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF
4-Reg-17) .
2 . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ITS ANTICIPATED
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE VEGETATION, AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
Description of the proposed action.
The proposed action will construct 27 single-family
detached housing units on minimal 40,000 square foot lots with
an interdevelopment roadway on the 63 .6 acre site (See site
plans) . To prepare the site for utilisation, parts of the
existing vegetation will be removed . The upper few feet of
topsoil and sand and gravel will be scraped off and stockpiled .
41
More specifically , approximately 2 .5 acres, or 13.5: of the
original upland forest vegetation and approximately 15 .q acres,
or 3q .8: of the old field vegetation will be altered. The
freshwater wetlands and surface water presently on the site will
remain untouched . In total , approximately 17.9 acres, or 28 . 1%
of the original vegetation on the site will be altered
(regrading activities) to allow for construction of the 27
housing units. This area will be covered by the housing units,
pavement associated with driveways, the interdevelopment roadway
(4 .4 acres) , and turf and/or replanted woody vegetation (turf,
11 .5 acres; replanted woody vegetation, 2 .0 acres) . The
development scheme for the proposed action will cluster the
housing units within the level portions of the site . The
locations of the individual housing units are dependant on the
topographic configuration of building portion of each lot (see
Site Plans) .
Anticipated .environmental impacts .
Potential environmental impacts on the vegetation of the
site associated with the proposed action include:
(1) There will be a loss of approximately 2 .5 acres, or
13.q% of the original upland forest vegetation and 15.4 acres,
or 34 .8: of the existing open field vegetation .
42
Mitigative measures._ to minimize _ adverse potential
environmental impacts .-
The
mpacts_The nearly 17.9 acres subjected to regradation and the
subsequent modification of existing vegetation will become
impervious surfaces, turf, replanted woody vegetation, and two
recharge basins. To minimize the loss of vegetative habitat,
the proposed action will cluster the housing units away from
most of the upland forest areas of the site. Several extensive,
contiguous areas consisting of upland forest, freshwater
wetlands, and old field will be designated as open space (see
Site Plans) . These areas will preserve approximately 33 . 1
acres, or 52.0: of the site 's original vegetation .
Within each proposed building lot, approximately 85% of the
land slated for revegetation will be planted with low
maintenance turf . The remaining 15% will either remain as
original vegetation or be replanted in indigenous woody species .
Consequently , turf will account for approximately 18 . 1: of the
site.
Most of the proposed building lots are designed to contain
varied amounts of upland forest within their back yard sections .
Recognizing the aesthetic as well as the potential wildlife
advantage in preserving these areas, clearing will not be
encouraged . These forested back yard areas will create natural
buffers between the building lots and the designated open space
areas .
43
Upon completion of the proposed action, approximately 45.7
acres, or approximately 71 .9 of original vegetation will
remain intact . Most of this vegetation will remain within
certain, extensive and contiguous designated open space areas
(i .e . 33 .1 acres, or approximately 52.0: of the site) ,
especially in the vicinity of the freshwater wetlands in the
north-central and in the southern portions of the site (see Site
Plans) . Within the construction area, every attempt will be
made to preserve the original trees and shrubs during the
construction activity . As a result, many trees and shrubs now
providing cover, feed, and nesting material for wildlife within
the site will remain untouched . In general , the natural and
replanted vegetation areas will give a pleasing, aesthetic
appearance to the site when fully implemented .
44
C. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT IMPACT .
1 . EXISTING SETTING OF THE SITE .
The site is presently 63.6 acres of upland forest, old
Field, freshwater wetlands, and ponds. The mature mixed
deciduous upland forest occurs in discontinuous patches
separating old field grasses . The upland forest contains high
story oak and beech trees with a locally thick understory of
small trees and miscellaneous shrubs . The present vegetative
habitat at the site offers food, cover, and nesting material to
the wildlife within its boundary as well as to species that
migrate to and from the site. The irregular topography affords
a varied ecosystem setting with seclusion and protection, and
would encourage larger wildlife such as deer .
The following list of wildlife is based upon on-site
inspections (September, 1988) and includes species observed
Cindicated by an asterisk C*) symbol) as well as those species
expected for this region (Sutton, et .al .-Audubon, 1925) :
Mammals:
Opossum Didelphis virginiana
Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus
* Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda
Star-nosed Mole Condulura_cristata
45
Eastern Mole Scalopus aauat_icus
* Eastern Cottontail Syl.vilagus_ floridanus
* Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus
* Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Raccoon Procuon�lotor
Little Brown Bat Nuotis_lucifuaus
Keen 's Bat My_otis_keenii
Silver-haired Bat Lasiony_cteris_noctivagans
Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus
Meadow Mouse Microtus pennsy•lvanicus
Pine Vole Microtus ninetorum
House Mouse Mus musculus
Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius
White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus
Norway Rat Rattus norve_gicus
\ Red Fox Vulpes_vulnes
Longtail Weasel Mustela_frenata
* Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virg_ nianus
The majority of the mammals listed above utilize both the
old fields and the upland forest areas on the site. There were
no Endangered, or Threatened mammal species (the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation List, 1987) on this
site . The New England Cottontail , Sylvilagus transitionalis,
which is listed as a species of Special Concern, may utilize
this site.
46
Reptiles and Amphibians:
Snapping Turtle Chelydra_ser_,.pentina
Eastern Painted Turtle Chrysemys�picta picta
Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene Carolina caroling
Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphionus holbrooki
holbrooki
Fowler 's Toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri
* Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota
Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer
Wood Frog Rana sglvatica
Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor
Ribbon Snake Thamnochis sauritus sauritus
Milk Snake Lam ropeltis triangulum
Northern Ringneck Snake Diadophisunctatus
Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekawi dekaei
* Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtailis sirtalis
* Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus
Both the Eastern Hognose Snake, Heterodon _pla_tkrhinos, and
the Worm Snake, Carphophis amoenus, are listed as Special
47
Concern species, and may be found on the site . The Southern
Leopard Frog, Rana s�enocephala, the Spotted Turtle, Chlemmus
auttata, and the Spotted Salamander, Ambustoma maculatum, are
listed Special Concern species and may utilized the freshwater
wetlands and ponds on the site . The Cricket Frog, Acris
crepitans, appears listed as a Threatened species and could
utilize the site. The reptiles and amphibians listed that are
protected by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation usually inhabit areas such as kettle holes, ponds
and lakes, and their surrounding upland Forest habitats. Only
the Hognose Snake utilizes both old fields and woodlands .
These species were not observed on the site during this
investigation, however .
Birds:
Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nt_cticorax
Mute Swan Cggnus olor
* Canada Goose Branta canadensis
Black Duck Anas rubripes
Mallard Anas platurhUnchos
* Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaciensis
* American Kestrel Falco sparvarius
Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus_colchicus
American Woodcock Scolopax minor
48
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio
* Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
* Common Bobwhite Colinus virginianus
* Morning Dove Zenaida macroura
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus
Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens
* Eastern Phoebe Sayornis vhoebe
Eastern Wood-Pewee Cantop4s virens
Tree Swallow Tachucineta bicolor
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustics
* Blue Jay Cuanocitta cristata
American Crow Corvus brachy_rhy_nchos
* Black-capped Chickadee Parus�atricapillus
Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor
White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
House Wren Troaladutes aedon
Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyplotus
Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
* Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum
* American Robin Turdus migratorius
European Starling Sturna_ vulgaris
American Redstart Setophaga_ruticilla
Ovenbird Seirurus aurocaeillus
49
Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus ,tyrannus
Warbling Uireo Vireo ailvus
White-eyed Vireo Vireo Griseus
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus
Yellow Warbler Dendroica_ petechia
Common Yellowthroat Geothlupis trichas
Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Rose-nosed Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus
House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus
* Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo eruthrophthalmus
* Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
Field Sparrow Spizell_ a �asserina
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Common Grackle Quiscalusquiscula
American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis
Many of the bird species listed above utilize both the old
fields and woodland areas . It is possible that the Eastern
Bluebird, Sialia sialis, a Special Concern species, utilizes
the area, but it has not been observed by this investigation.
A survey of the insect species present on the site was not
conducted . The field investigation failed to reveal any
endangered or threatened species of wildlife (Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF 4-Reg-17; New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1987; New York
Natural Heritage Program, 1987) .
50
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ITS ANTICIPATED
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE WILDLIFE AND
HABITAT, AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE
ADVERSE IMPACTS.
Description of the a .prop_osed action.
The proposed action will construct 27 single-family
detached housing units on minimal 40, 000 square foot lots on the
63.6 acre site. To prepare the site for utilization, parts of
the existing vegetation Chabitat) will be modified.
Specifically, 2 .5 acres, or 13.q% of the upland forest and 15 .q
acres, or 3q.8% of the old field vegetation will be eliminated
for the proposed action and replaced by 4 .4 acres of impervious
surfaces such as housing units, driveways, and an
interdevelopment roadway network, and 13 .5 acres of turf and/or
replanted woody vegetation .
An_ ticipated environmental impacts .
With the alteration of 17 .9 acres, or 28. 1% of the original
upland forest and old field vegetation on the site, the
Following potential environmental impact exists:
51
(1) Modification of 28 . 1: of the existing natural habitat
of upland forest and the human activity associated with the site
during and after construction will lead to temporary and
permanent losses of numbers and types of wildlife species
presently found at the project site .
Mitigative measures to minimize adverse potential
environmental impacts.
While it is unlikely that any mitigative measures will
restore the original numbers and types of wildlife presently
associated with the site, the environmentally sensitive site
plans will encourage a certain amount of wildlife to remain or
to reestablish . As mentioned above, extensive and contiguous
areas designated to remain as open space and natural vegetative
buffers (both upland forest and old field) will be preserved .
In addition, the freshwater wetlands and ponds associated with
the open space areas will be preserved within the designated
open space areas . In addition, at least 15% of the cleared area
slated for vegetative covering will be replanted with indigenous
woody vegetation.
The backyards of most of the proposed lots will contain
some upland forest and old field habitat. These areas represent
a transition between two or more diverse vegetative communities
and are referred to as ecotones (Odum, 1959) . Further defining
52
the term, the ecotone is a function zone or tension belt which
may have considerable linear extent, but is narrower than the
adjoining community areas . These ecotonal areas or habitats
commonly contain many of the organisms which are characteristic
of and are often resticted to the ecotone. Often, the numbers
of species and the population density of some of the species are
greater in the ecotonal area than in the communities flanking
them COdum, 1959) . This tendency for increased variety and
density at community , or habitat functions is known as the edge
effect (Odum, 1959) . Consequently, those organisms which occur
primarily or most abundantly in the ecotonal areas are called
edge species . In particular, one of the most important
ecotones is the Forest edge . As in the case within the site,
there are abundant forest edges; an ecotone between upland
Forest and grass or shrub communities .
Thus, it is important that the design of the proposed
action contains most of the ecotones natural to the site within
designated open space or in the fartherest reaches of the
backyards of the proposed housing lots . Consequently , by
clearing covenants the ecotones as well as some of the adjoining
upland forest and old field grasses will be preserved .
While some of the wildlife presently occupying the
vegetative habitats on the site will migrate from the site
during construction (i .e. especially the old field areas) , some
of these species (i .e. birds, squirrels, mice, insects, etc . )
that are less sensitive to human activity will return to
53
repopulate the area .
The most likely areas to receive numbers of and variable
species approaching the carrying capacity of the, habitat are the
extensive and contiguous designated open space areas and the
preserved ecotones . These areas will again repopulate with some
of the present wildlife ecology after construction. Thus, with
71 .9% of the site preserved in its natural state, a
considerable, contiguous vegetative area is available to
wildlife .
On the other hand, the site will be subjected to noise and
human disturbances. The natural areas closest to the individual
housing units will be subjected to noise and human activity
associated with the anticipated population. This could limit
habitat utilization by the more sensitive species following
construction. The large lot sizes and the extensive open space
acreage planned for the proposed action will minimize the loss
of some of the sensitive species.
In conclusion, although 100% of the wildlife population
will not remain, the proposed action will utilize extensive and
contiguous designated open space areas and backyard ecotonal
buffers and replanted indigenous woody vegetation to provide
habitat for a certain amount of faunal population. Clearing
limits for the individual lots could be slated as deed covenants
in order in insure long term provision for habitat and wildlife
protection.
54
D . GROUNDWATER IMPACT .
1 . EXISTING SETTING OF THE SITE .
Drainage . Evidence of a stream channel or running water
does not exist on the site . However, manmade alterations have
created two (2) small ponds on the site: One within one of the
kettle depressions in the north-central portion of the site; and
one within the freshwater wetlands adjacent to Laurel Lake in
the southern portion of the site . In addition, freshwater
wetlands exist in two of the kettle depressions within the
north-central portion of the site and along the southern
boundary of the site adjacent to Laurel Lake . Although the
site is characterized by several swales, ridges, kettle holes,
and locally , moderate to steep slopes; overland flow or
associated erosion was not evidenced (See site plans) . However,
minor slumping foatures are noted within the easternmost
depression of the kettle chain within the northeast-center
portion of the site.
Groundwater . The groundwater of Long Island is utilized
extensively for public and private water supply (Long Island
Regional Planning Board, 1978) . The groundwater aquifers are
constantly replenished and recharged by water percolating from
the surface . It is essential that the recharging water in this
critical groundwater regime be free of contamination.
55
The North Fork of Long Island, in the vicinity of the site,
is underlain by unconsolidated Cretaceous, Tertiary M , and
Quaternary age deposits which rest upon a surface of
southeast-sloping bedrock (Jensen, et .al . , 1975; Koszalka,
19810 . From oldest to youngest, the unconsolidated deposits
are: Raritan Formation (Late Cretaceous) subdivided into a
basal Lloyd sand member and an upper clay member; Magothy
Formation (Late Cretaceous) ; and Upper Glacial and post glacial
deposits (Pleistocene and Holocene, respectively) associated
with the glacial and post-glacial events of Long Island . Of
these units the following three, from lowest to highest in the
stratigraphic column, constitute the main aquifers for Long
Island: Lloyd Aquifer; Magothy Aquifer; and the Upper Glacial
Aquifer (Figure 5) . The present water table is located within
the Upper Glacial Aquifer .
The site is geologically located within the Pleistocene-age
unit: Outwash Deposits, Undifferentiated (Fuller, 1915; Jensen,
et .al . , 197q) , consisting of stratified fine to coarse sand and
gravel in melt-water spillways and outwash plains. It is
located approximately 1 112 miles south of the Pleistocene-age
Harbor Hill Moraine, consisting of crudely stratified sand and
gravel with some boulders and till (Fuller, 1915; Koszalka,
1985) .
Nassau and Suffolk Counties are subdivided into distinct
hydrogeologic zones (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978;
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1986) .
56
FIGURE 4 GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
OE 0 E EP
SEA a lu Shore Acres F SEA
LEVEL LEVEL
Gardiners Clay Upper glacial aquifer —
400 Monmouth greensand —400'
Magothy aquifer
IW-
1200'—
Bedrock
16001— 1600'
(Jensen, et. al . , 1974)
57
Accordingly , the project site is located within Hydrogeologic
Zone IV. Zone IV, comprising the North Fork and the eastern
part of the South Fork, is characterized by the potential for
continued development although local water quality problems do
exist . Both vertical and horizontal groundwater recharge is
possible within this zone, depending on location.
The Town of Southold has established a Water Resources
Management Program in order to protect the existing and future
groundwater supply through a combination of environmentally
sensitive land use policies and practices . In conjunction with
this program, core watershed protection areas have been
designated within the Town . The site is located in Area #1 ,
west of the hamlet of Mattituck (Villa, 1988) .
Figure q is a geohydrologic cross-section drawn roughly
north-south from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean,
through the North and South Forks, respectively . The
cross-section is located approximately 1 mile west of the site .
This cross-section indicates the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
approximately 600 feet thick and demonstrates the presence of
the Magothy Aquifer beneath the Upper Glacial Aquifer under the
site (Jensen, et .al . , 1974) .
Seven (7) monitoring wells were completed at the site in
order to determine the present elevation of the groundwater
table and to establish the general groundwater flow direction at
the site . The groundwater table is approximately 6 feet above
sea level at the site (Appendix B; see Site Plans) . Although
58
table is considerably lower than the ground surface throughout
most of the site, the bottoms of the two westernmost kettle
holes in the north-central portion of the site intersect the
water table and display a pond and a freshwater wetland,
respectively .
Seasonal flucuation in the groundwater level can be
estimated from data obtained from a nearby U.S . Geological
Survey/Suffolk County Department of Health Services well (U.S .
Geol . Survey, 1986) :
S16756. High elevation (1/9/85) ; 8 .53 feet MSL.
Low elevation (7/11/85) ; 6.77 feet MSL .
Municipal Well (Town of Riverhead) , located
approximately 1 1/2 miles west of the site.
An approximate 2 foot seasonal variation in groundwater level at
the site is projected from the data obtained from this well .
Regional groundwater movement direction is difficult to
determine with great accuracy . The site lies within the area
delineated as the regional groundwater divide of the North Fork
of Long Island (Jensen, et .al . , 1974) . Jensen, et .al . (1970
locates the groundwater divide adjacent, south of the site on
the northern shore of Laurel Lake (Figure 5) . This would
indicate a northern or east-northeastern directional component
of groundwater movement at the site . However, this is a
general location for the groundwater divide and can only be used
59
FIGURE 5 GROUND WATER DIVIDE NORTH FORK
So
aya +ee eb
SITE
-70 36
� \
'`"^ra
an,orh Nu�� ^R
"+",sC-r °pssrbra°us r °6,� Ir
$ubrs, bfra Dov ?_
`Opr r/ V of rt
" „r -
r.1
ma
-77
in
'may � �• .- _ �.. t �� .� - J .. °V
J
�7!�4�✓ r r, .� \�0;% airy' � _^u '�Ac y4 y /'
��"'• o4u a, � sit"''br�Pr�r a _ •d
r:,�' - `Aar/ "� Fla, O +ory,"b��n� i' '�l•C# ,i Cobs(
(Jensen, et. al . , 1974)
60
for general statements .
Recent work by Doriski (1987) confirms the location of the
site to be approximately coincident with the regional ,
east/west-trending groundwater divide of the North Fork (Figure
6) . In addition, there is a groundwater elevation saddle dust
east of the site associated with Mattituck Creek . From west to
east, groundwater elevations decrease along the groundwater
divide from Riverhead past the site to its lowest point at
Mattituck Creek . Continuing further east, the groundwater
elevation again increases toward Southold . This would imply an
eastward component to the groundwater direction at the site .
Monitoring wells at the site were monitored for groundwater
levels during April , 1988 (Appendix B) . As noted on the Site
Plans, the wells are oriented in a line trending approximately
south-southeast . Groundwater elevation cross-sections are
provided in Figure 7 . The cross-section along the full trend of
the line indicates a sharp drop in groundwater elevation in a
southeastern direction from northwest to southeast . The two
additional short cross-sections (i .e . Wells #1 to #4; Wells #2
to #'f) , oriented north-south and northeast-southwest,
respectively , indicate a very small drop in groundwater
elevation in these directions . The monitoring well data,
limited as it may be, indicates that the site may be slightly
south of the regional groundwater divide .
However, prediction of groundwater movement direction is
limited because the groundwater elevation differences between
61
FIGURE 6 GROUND WATER ELEVATION MAP NORTH FORK
55
05.5 •8.6 og
,i S ITE -2
07.7 3.9
� Pie
9.9
lid 25
011.9 •10.7
/•10.0
Mai 9.6 �
03.1ti L
Doriski , 1987
62
FIGURE 7 WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS
6.3
a
Y
f0
J
6.2
#1
#4 b
• I J
IMrA•r�M.
6.1
6.0
0
b
v
r
LJ
r
u
}.t
L
N
6.3
a,
Y
�6
J
6.2
CJ
S..
n2 #4 b
J
6.1
6.0
Horizontal Distance
63
Vertical Elevation
cn cr v, am o, rn rn rn
�! CO t0 O N C7 t (v
fJ
2
O
I
J.
N
O
O
c+
iL
J
J. N
N
C'F
a
cfl
w
v
Laurel Lake
r,n
^DA
Zq-. B6 3>.65
Zcl. S9 A78 X.S(
38.57 zcl,5(,C, Z4.7(,=, -3�-.sq
3$.S 1 2-9. SL, 24.14 36 .5?
4/ , 3 6'.q9 Z9. 5 Z. Z-11-7Z SC.s (3. ,
� z3
38. S Z9.47 Z4. 71 X0 q5.39 15.`fZ
*/-zz 38 .44 4 ZcI• q-8 24- -7Z, 4B 4f5.3 13 ZZ
ss.411 z9.4+ -L4.-i 3c. q4 85.31 13•x}3? 4,Z3
5.90
y/g tol .04 S.9(,=, 6,05
`/(3 6.07 :,,07
4/6 61.09 b8 C,os
I/Z7 �. �`1 �. 1� G . Ov � .� S C•Z� 5.85 ? G.oZ
MAOAR-1
'A/ 7V" ' I-vv'VVW 11d390r
liz -12/17
6109 or ) �� •� 4-� ' � ��' � 6l/fi
2q•_9 - 6:S hl' f) Sv�� Q-0 '9 60'9
Lc
c `� abs '
16'5 %'S 06*S 9G'5 ���
DA-r-
q/1 3$:1Z 2°i.7o 74. 86 36.65
q/5 38 •Q- 7-9- S9 A?8 3t;,5 ,
38.S7 Z.q,S(,C, 24.76 x.54
`/13 38.S► 29. SZ, 24.14 36 ,SZ
4-11 38.9 29. 52, 24.72. M. 13.E f ,Z3
`119 36AS 47 7-4. 71 3C.49 y5.39 I!,qZ 4.21
/Z-,7 -sS.`q 1 z9.4+ z-4:i Z. 3(. ` 5.31 I S.43? 4.7-3
monitoring wells was slight Ci .e . within several inches) and
there were only a limited number of monitoring wells providing
groundwater elevation data over a very short period of time .
Despite these limitations, utilizing the available regional data
and the groundwater elevations at the site, a southeast
directional component to the groundwater movement direction is
estimated .
The horizontal and vertical movement of groundwater is
determined by the distribution of hydraulic heads throughout the
aquifer system and by the hydraulic properties of the aquifer
materials. The properties of porosity and permeability vary
within and between aquifers . The flow of groundwater within an
aquifer is thus, related to and can be generally defined by
Darcy 's Law (Da -KiA) , where K is a constant of proportionality
of permeability , "i" is the hydraulic gradient, and A is the
area (Freeze, et .al . , 1979; Todd, 1959) . The average
permeability of the Upper Glacial Aquifer is approximately 270
feet per day , in a horizontal direction CFranke, et .al . , 1972) .
In addition, horizontal velocities in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
are approximately 1 to 2 feet per day, but can be greater near
discharge points such as streams and the shoreline CSuffolk
County Department of Health Services, 1987) . For Comparison,
flow velocities within the deeper Magothy Aquifer are
approximately 0 . 1-0.5 feet per day .
69
Water Quali.tU. The chemical quality of water determines
the purposes for which water may be used such as for drinking,
agriculture, or industry . The chemical composition of water is
determined by the types and solubility of materials with which
the water comes in contact, the duration of contact with the
materials, the chemical quality of precipitation and air through
which it falls, the water temperature and pressure, and the
composition of surface-derived substances such as domestic
wastes, fertilizers, and industrial discharges (Krulikas, 1986) .
Hydrogeologic Zone IV locally has marginal water quality ,
mainly in areas underlying farms . Agricultural fertilizers are
a mayor source of nitrates to the groundwater in the North Fork
(Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . 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, is completed at 275 feet within the
Upper Glacial Aquifer and gives an indication of the quality of
groundwater in the area within this stratigraphic horizon (Table
1) .
Synthetic detergents (commonly referred to as methylene
blue active substance, or MBAS) in streams and groundwater have
cause considerable concern in parts of Long Island because their
presence indicates contamination by septic-tank effluent or
other waste-water (Perlmutter, et .al . , 1964) . The U .S . Public
Health Service (1962) has recommended that concentrations of
70
TABLE 1 WATER QUALITY WELL #S 53333
296 QUALITY OF GROUND WATER
WATER QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1984 TO SEPTEMBER 1985
SUFFOLK COUNTY--Continued
All samples were collected and analyzed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services
SPE- CALCIUM
CIFIC TOTAL
LOCAL DEPTH CON- PH OXYGEN, RECOV-
IDENT- GEO- DATE OF DUCT- (STAND- TEMPER- DIS- ERABLE
I- LO^IC OF WELL, ANCE ARD ATURE SOLVED (MG/L
STATION NUMBER FIER UNIT SAMPLE TOTAL (US/CM) UNITS) (DEG C) (MG/L) AS CA)
(FEET)
405123072543901 S 51960 112GLCLU 85-04-04 35 185 3 9 10 6.4
410400072202001 S 52050 112GLCLU 85-09-26 64 175 4 9 13.5 7 9 16
404523073181101 S 52384 112GLCLIJ 85-04-02 33 340 6.2 10 7 1 20
405512072395202 S 52449 112GLCLU 85-07-22 40 141 5 2 15 0 0 20 21
404639073034901 S 52641 112GLCLU 85-04-11 35 360 5 9 13.0 3 3 --
405513072505401 S 52886 112GLCLU 85-01-31 57 210 -- 10 9 0 --
410104072:003301 S 53324 112GLCLU 85-07-16 62 308 5 1 13 0 8.2 34
410007072331901 S 53325 112GLCLU 85-07--26 68 228 4 9 12.6 9 5 40
40592407^_342-301 S 53333 112GLCLU R5-07--16 74 275 5 4 12.0 7 8 45
41030407226271)1 S 53335 112GLCLU 85-07-29 37 297 5 1 12.0 6 8 58
112,LCLU 85-08-13 37 338 5 1 12.0 7 9 56
MAC,._- P]T i4
�iUi!` S7:oiUM. SIJM, ALV�A- CH-O- NITRO- NITRO- MANGA-
TOTA� IOTA, TOTAL [AWIT, SULFATE RIDE, GEN, GEN, PHOS- COPPER, IRON, NESE,
('E,_OV- FECOV- FE-OV- FIF_!_D DIS- DIS- NITRATE NITRITE PHORUS, DIS- DIS- DIS-
DATE ER4C!_E EP43LE EPAB!_F (M;'L SOL-'ED SOLVED TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SOLVED SOLVED SOLVED
QFr i1'•6/_ i1'G,L ,M„L As )("G:L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L
SGMPLE AS MG) AS `:A) AS r.) CAC331 AS SO4) AS CL) AS N) AS N) AS P) AS CU) AS FE) AS MN)
85-04-04 -- 25 -- 51 17 2 7 -- -- :_100 360 5700
85-00-26 5 t4 11 8 _2 11 11 0 014 - -- 100 50
85-04-02 2. 5 3-1 11 I'3E. 5 Z3 :0 050 0 006 -- -- 4700 260
65-07-2- 4 S 11 3 1 18 6 29 4 6 0 014 0 012 -- 100 80
45 -- 121i o0 34 0 40 -- -- <100 21000 700
10 -- -- ” to 3 b -- -- <100 280 <50
85-07-16 6 0 43 7 U — ab t•3 8 9 0 004 0 006 -- 300 <20
85-07-26 7 5 9 0 3 3 73 17 8 4 "0 001 0 003 -- 600 <20
95-07-16 6 C, 12 4 0 13 _ 34 10 <:0 001 O 005 -- 300 20
e5-07-'9 9 12 7S 9'. 21 16 0 001 -- -- 200 <20
e5-0=-13 7 5 7 0 8 100 30 15 0 001 -- -- 200 <20
METHY-
LENE
ZINC, BLUE
DIS- ACTIVE
DATE SOLVED SUB-
OF (UG/L STANCE
SAMPLE AS ZN) (MG/L)
85-04-04 .400 CO 10
85-08-26 -- --
85-04-02 -- --
85-07-22 -- --
85-04-11 4-400 0 10
85-01-31 _400 <0 10
85-07-16 -- --
85-07-26 -- --
85-07-16 -- --
95-07-29 -- --
65-08-13 -- --
71 (U.S.G.S. , 1986)
synthetic detergents in drinking water not exceed 0.5 mg/L .
Samples analyzed in 1985 (Table 1) for MBAS (values in mg/L,
Suffolk County Water Authority) from the nearby quality
groundwater data collection station gave the following results
(U .S . Geol . Survey, 1986) : undeterminate value.
Nitrate contamination can adversely affect drinking water
quality . In addition, with respect to ecological
considerations, the mayor threat posed by nitrogen is
eutrophication of surface waters (Hughes, et .al . , 1983) .
Nitrogen concentrations above 0.4 mg/L in surface water could
lower the oxygen content of the water and harm fish (Long Island
Regional Planning Board, 1978) . Water samples analyzed in 1985
from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (U.S .
Geol . Survey, 1986) observation well noted above gave the
following results for nitrate-nitrogen measured in mg/L (Table
1) : 10 mg/L . Thus, the nitrogen level within the groundwater
of the Upper Glacial Aquifer in the vicinity of the site
indicates, at least locally , that the water quality is marginal
with respect to nitrogen concentration. According to the U.S .
Public Health Department (1962) , values close to or exceeding 10
mg/L is harmful for human consumption .
Municipal water or sewage facilities do not exist and are
not planned in the near future in the 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
72
therefore, is not readily available for this report .
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ITS ANTICIPATED
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE GROUNDWATER, AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
Description_of_the_proposed_action .
The proposed action will regrade approximately 28 . 1% of the
of the site. Existing natural upland forest and old field
vegetation will be replaced by impervious surfaces including the
building roof tops, driveways, and an interdevelopment roadway
network . Two natural shallow depressions will be slightly
excavated in order to provide suitable collector, or recharge
basins for potential storage from overland flow (see Site
Plans) .
Considering the relatively short distance to Laurel Lake,
surface runoff from the site is a concern. The proposed action
will create approximately 4.4 acres of impervious surfaces
including housing unit roofs, driveways, and interdevelopment
roadways . Studies have indicated that runoff is a contributor
of inorganic chemicals, organic matter and sediment, and
possibly , organic chemicals (Long Island Regional Planning
Board, 1978) . Of major concern to the potential quality of
groundwater associated with the stormwater runoff from the
73
proposed action are heavy metals (chromium and lead) , bacterial
contamination (coliform, etc. ) , chloride (from salting the paved
surfaces to prevent freezing during the winter months) , and
nitrogen (septic discharge effluence levels and
fertilizer-dependent vegetation) . This runoff could contaminate
the groundwater at the site, or possibly the nearby waters of
Laurel Lake if not properly controlled .
In addition, the proposed action will construct 27
single-family detached housing units on minimal 40,000 square
foot lots. Septic discharge values of 8, 100 gallons per day are
anticipated from the completed project . An adequate septic
system design must be developed to prevent groundwater
contamination. Without adequate septic design, excess nitrogen
and coliform can percolate to the water table and contaminate
the groundwater and eventually the waters of Laurel Lake .
Since there are several houses adjacent to the south and
bordering the site, any groundwater contamination from the
proposed action may have an adverse effect on their wells .
The Long Island Regional Planning Board (1978) determined
that there was a direct relationship between residential
development density and nitrogen concentrations in underlying
groundwater . Attempting to quantitatively determine the
projected amounts of nitrogen from any development, The Center
For Environmental Research, Cornell University, developed a
computerized mass-balance model referred to as BURBS CHughes,
74
et .al . , 1985) , that in-turn is based on another study, The Water
and Land Resource Analysis System (WALRAS) (Cornell University
Center For Environmental Research, 1983) .
The projected population for the 27 housing units on the
63.6 acre site is 69 persons (2 .56 persons per single-family
housing unit; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980) . Thus, the
population density is approximately 1 . 1 persons per acre (69
person5/63.6 acres) and the housing density is approximately 0.4
houses per acre (27 units/63 .6 acres) .
Utilizing the population density and the housing unit
density obtain above, the projected nitrogen concentration value
calculated from the Cornell University model is approximately
5 .5-6 .0 mg/L . This value was obtained by utilizing a summary
graph of expected results from WALRAS found in the recently
completed Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
1987, p . 6-13) CFigure 8) . At this level of concentration there
is a projected probability of exceeding 10 mg/L (New York State
drinking water standard and that level recommended by the Long
Island Regional Planning Board as a maximum acceptable nitrogen
level within groundwater for Long Island) at least 10% of the
time (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986) .
However, recent studies indicate that the WALRAS model
results give a worst-case situation (Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, 1987) . The studies further elaborate by
stating that the WALRAS model results are consistently higher
75
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
I 2 3 4 S 6 7
20 LOW DENSITY I I MEDIUM DENSITY I I OENarr,r I
E
CL WALRAS MODEL RESULTS i
v FOR NASSAU COUNTY
co
z
O
208 STUDY
Ir< EMPIRICAL RESULTS
H
z WALRAS MODEL RESULTS
W FOR PINE BARRENS
z lo.-
0 O
v
z
W
O
O
I—
= s
W W.R.M.P. MEANS 3 RANGES
¢
W
< 1
1 S 10 IS 20 24
• PEOPLE PER GROSS ACRE
Figure 8, POPULATION DENSITY AND NITROGEN RELATIONSHIPS
(SCDHS, 1987) -
76
than the nitrogen concentrations actually encountered in the
field . This may be due to a number of factors such as:
over-estimation of the amount of fertilizer nitrogen applied to
lawns; over-estimation of the percentage of fertilizer nitrogen
leached to the groundwater; overestimation of the nitrogen
content in domestic sewage; and/or under-estimation of the
efficiency of septic tanks and the unsaturated zone below
cesspools to reduce leachate nitrogen concentrations (Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, 1987) .
The projected nitrogen concentration from sewage effluent
based on actual well monitoring data accumulated by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (1987) ranges from 3 .5-q .0
mg/L (Figure 8) . These values include nitrogen-loading
associated with fertilization and irrigation of turf and
replanted woody vegetation. The concentration value is less
than the value of 10.0 mg/L recommended by the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation and by the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services for sewage effluent for
Long Island . At the range of 3.S-q .0 mg/L, the 10 mg/L safe
water concentration would be violated less than 10: of the time,
approaching as little as 1: of the time (Long Island Regional
Planning Board, 1986) . With a range of 2.97 to 3 .70 mg/L
Cmedian value of 3 .35 mg/L) of nitrogen actually encountered in
these monitored areas, chances for violation of the 10 mg/L
value is probably closer to 1: of the time (Long Island Regional
Planning Board, 1986) .
77
Finally , with approximately 11 .5 acres of turf and 2.0
acres of replanted woody vegetation planned for the proposed
action, fertilization and irrigation will be necessary to
maintain this type of vegetation. Excess nitrogen from the
fertilizer may leach from the surface, percolate to the water
table, and contaminate the groundwater at the site is not
properly regulated .
Anticipated environmental impacts .
Anticipated environmental impacts on the groundwater
associated with the proposed action include:
(1) Impervious surfaces replacing existing vegetation
will increase the potential for water runoff which, in turn
could lead to erosion within the site and/or loss of
groundwater recharge. In addition, stormwater runoff could
leave the site and adversely affect the wetlands and water
associated with Laurel Lake .
(2) The proposed action includes approximately 13.5
acres of turf and/or replanted woody vegetation that will
require periodic fertilizing during the growing season. The
excess fertilization may leach from the surface, percolate to
the water table, and contaminate the groundwater .
(3) The proposed action will increase nitrogen and viral
contamination to the underlying groundwater. Nitrogen
78
i
concentrations ranging from 3 .5-4 .0 mg/L for the site are
expected to enter the groundwater at the site. This, in turn,
may adversely affect private drinking wells immediately down
gradient from the sanitary discharge points of the proposed
housing units of the site . In addition, the septic discharge
may discharge within Laurel Lake, further limiting the vitality
of this ecosystem.
Mitigative measures to minimize adverse potential
environmental impacts.
(1) Impervious surfaces replacing existing vegetation will
increase the potential for water runoff which, in turn, could
lead to to erosion within the site and/or loss of groundwater
recharge. In addition, stormwater runoff could leave the site
and adversely affect the wetlands on the site or wetlands and
water associated with Laurel Lake south of the site .
Impervious surfaces such as the housing structures,
driveways, and the interdevelopment roadway will cover
approximately 4 .4 acres, or 6 .9: of the site (see Site Plans) .
To prevent excessive water runoff, strategically placed
collector basins will be implemented . Catch basins will be
located along the intersite roadway and roof and gutter
installations will be connected to drywells so that excess
rainwater from the housing units will be directed to recharge
79
1
facilities . Finally , the catch basins will direct their,
collected runoff to the excavated basins within the east-central
and northwestern portion of the site (i .e . excavated natural
depressions) . In this manner, the loss of only minor amounts of
water (i .e . unmeasurable amounts that will evaporate in transit
or will collect in localized, minor shallow puddles) can be
expected from the impervious surfaces associated with the
proposed action.
The zone of saturation under the construction portion of
the site is greater than 30 feet below the ground surface, or
greater than 25 feet beneath the bottom of the proposed recharge
basins . The findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) were that collector
basins minimize the potential contamination from heavy metals
(chromium and lead) and bacteria (coliform, etc . ) from overland
flow. Although the critical distance required for percolation
of the overland flow is not given, the greater the distance from
the bottom of the collector basin and the top of the zone of
saturation the more efficient the operation. The vertical
distance of at least 25 feet provided at the collector basins
for percolation of stormwater accumulation should provide
attenuation of potential contaminants .
However, recharge basins are shown not to have a favorable
effect on the removal of chloride or nitrogen (Long Island
Regional Planning Board, 1982) . There was little or no removal
80
of chloride as the stormwater moved through the unsaturated zone
beneath the recharge basins studied . Considering that nitrogen
level in stormwater runoff is low, it was difficult to determine
the removal success of recharge basins for this potential
contaminant . Since chloride contamination would be only a minor
potential contaminant for this project because of the minimal
area covered by roadways, a total elimination of road salt is
not proposed.
The proposed recharge basins at the site will be properly
maintained to insure their continued high quality of function .
Maintenance will conform to the following suggestions (Long
Island Regional Planning Board, 1982) : Since recharge
efficiency can be hindered by low infiltration rates that result
from a high percentage of silt, clay, and organic debris that
washes in from the drainage area and fills the interstices of
the natural deposits; plant growth on a basin floor enhances
infiltration because the plant root system keeps the soil layer
loose and permeable, and provides channels for infiltrating
water.
(2) The proposed action includes approximately 13 .5
acres of turf and/or replanted woody vegetation that will
require periodic fertilizing during the growing season. The
excess fertilization may leach from the surface, percolate to
the water table, and contaminate the groundwater.
81
i
i
There is a problem of excess nitrogen leaching into Long
Island 's aquifers because lawns and cultivated vegetation in
residential and agricultural areas are over fertilized (Long
Island Regional Planning Board, 1978) . The proposed action is
designed to limit the amount of turf to only 11 .5 acres
(approximately 18. 1: of the site) . The additional 2 .0 acres of
indigenous, low maintenance woody shrub vegetation will limit
required fertilization. A low maintenance lawn such as
perennial rye grass (U.S . Department of Agriculture, 1980) will
be established and, where possible, the original or natural
vegetation will be used as ornamental plantings . These
plantings will require very little fertilization beyond that
found naturally in the topsoil . Fast-acting inorganic
fertilizers will not be used .
Considering the former utilization of the site for
agricultural activities, this proposed action will require much
less fertilization. Consequently, the nitrogen-loading effects
on the groundwater due to lawn fertilization will be less than
that created by farming.
(3) The proposed action will increase nitrogen and viral
contamination to the underlying groundwater. Nitrogen
concentrations ranging from 3 .5-4 .0 mg/L for the site are
expected to enter the groundwater at the site. This, in turn,
may adversely affect private drinking wells immediately down
gradient from the sanitary discharge points of the proposed
82
housing units of the site . In addition, the septic discharge
may effect Laurel Lake, further limiting the vitality of this
ecosystem.
As specifically recommended in the Long Island Regional
Planning Board (1978) , mandated in Title 6, Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 703 - Ground Water
Classifications Quality Standards and Effluent Standards And/Or
Limitations, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (1976) , and followed by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, the maximum allowable
concentration of nitrogen discharging into the groundwater is 10
mg/L (also a standard of the U.S . Public Health Department and
the World Health Organization) . Septic design for the proposed
action will conform to the regulations and guidelines set forth
by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
The projected nitrogen concentration of 3 .5-4 .0 mg/L is
well below the 10 mg/L value recommended by the agencies listed
above . The concentration value that is actually added to the
existing groundwater may be less than the calculated value
because of the distance of vertical and horizontal percolation
to the present groundwater . Over this distance nitrogen may
precipitate out of the water before entering the zone of
saturation (the phreatic zone) . At the range of 3.5-4 .0 mg/L,
the 10 mg/L safe water concentration would be violated less than
10% of the time, but more than 1% of the time (Long Island
Regional Planning Board, 1986) . If the actual concentration is
83
i
less than 4.0 mg/L, then the probability of violation would
approach the 1% value.
Another concern is the potential for viral contamination of
the groundwater from septic discharge, especially with private
wells near the site. A recent study by Vaughn, et .al . (1983)
focused on the movement of naturally occurring human
enteroviruses from a subsurface wastewater disposal system
through a shallow aquifer located in Speonk, New York . By
sampling groundwater from observation wells spaced at specific
distances from this point source, viral contaminations could be
related to distance. Although observation wells within
approximately 12 feet of the discharge point yielded samples
that were too toxic for tissue culture assay, toxicity was
rarely noted in samples collected from beyond approximately 35
feet from the source . In addition, coliform organisms were
rarely detected beyond 5 feet of the point source. Significant
differences in the overall virus occurrence frequency did not
occur as a function of the season that samples were collected .
Since some viral contamination was recorded nearly 200 feet in
lateral distance from the point source, it is not clear how
extensive viral contamination from a septic discharge source is .
However, significant viral contamination was not evidenced
beyond approximately 35 feet from the septic discharge point .
It was found (Kaplan, 1987) that when viruses enter a
leachfield they may be metabolized by microbes, they may adsorb
onto the slimy bacterial recreations in and around the clogging
84
mat, or they may continue their travel and be adsorbed in
charged soil particles (mostly clay) and inactivated by the clay
constituents Al a 031or MnO;, . However, viral adsorption is
extremely variable: Different strains of the same virus may
adsorb to a different extent; and within a purified population
of virus particles some subgroups adsorb at different rates.
Dry soil appears to kill or inactivate viruses, consequently ,
the greater distance between septic discharge and the zone of
saturation, the greater the chance of viral elimination (Kaplan,
1987) .
Another significant factor in determining the potential
viral contamination to the groundwater is the infiltration time
of the septic discharge through the aquifer medium. Vaughn,
et .al . (1980) showed that viral substances are removed from a
medium by adsorption, not by textural sieving. The longer the
viruses remain in the same area within the aquifer, the higher
the liklihood of removal by adsorptive processes . The site of
the proposed action lies within the Hydrogeologic Zone IV (Long
Island Regional Planning Board, 1978; Suffolk County Sanitary
Code-Article 7, Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply
Sensitive Areas) and the groundwater moves relatively slowly
(i .e. approximately 1 to 2 feet per day; Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, 1987) in a lateral and vertical
direction. It is possible that this movement rate will
facilitate an increase in adsorption of viruses, thus lessening
the potential impact on the groundwater in the vicinity of the
85
site . With increasing distance from the site, the probability
of viral contamination lessens considerably .
The project will have private wells associated with each
housing unit . The Suffolk County Department Health Services
requires at least 100 feet between a septic system and a
drinking well . Consequently, the proposed action will be
compatible with the regulations governing septic system design
and distance from a potable water supply source .
The allowable sewage flow (Suffolk County Department of
Health Services) is 300 gallons per day per acre, or
approximately 19, 080 gallons per day (300 gpd X 63 .6 acres) .
Since the projected sewage discharge value for the proposed
action is only 8, 100 gallons per day , acceptable levels of
discharge are anticipated.
Finally, there is concern as to potential contamination
from the proposed action to nearby private wells and to Laurel
Lake . As stated above the groundwater movement direction is
possibly southeast or south-southeast at the site.
Consequently , with the distribution of the housing units
proposed for the site, the septic effluent discharge will have a
minimal effect on Laurel Lake because of the great distances
from the lake and the direction of groundwater flow (see Site
Plans) . In addition, the septic systems on lots closest to the
private residences south of the site (i .e. Lots #14, #15, #16,
and #17) are a distance of at least 200 feet away . This is well
in excess of the minimal 100 foot separation distance between
86
septic 5y9tem5 and drinking supply wells, as required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services . In addition, the
groundwater flow will probably direct the septic effluent in a
southeasterly or south-southeasterly direction, north of the
private wells . The only lots that will produce effluent that
might intersect with private residences are Lots #21 , #22, #23,
#24, and #25, located in the northwestern portion of the site
(see Site Plans) . The distances from these lots to the closest
private residence is approximately 1 , 000 feet . The septic
effluent will be able to mix and dilute for approximately 10
times the distance required by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services for separation between septic systems and
drinking supply wells. Thus, the septic effluent from these
lots should not adversely effect the drinking water quality at
priviate residences .
In summary, the potential contamination to the groundwater
and nearby surface water of Laurel Lake is probably minimal .
The initial effluent nitrogen contamination levels from the site
will be well within acceptable levels for drinking water . Low
maintenance turf will require only minimal amounts of
fertilization. Since the groundwater movement direction appears
to be southeast or south-southeast and there are large distances
between discharge points and wells, most of the proposed lots on
the site will not directly affect the nearby private residence
drinking wells or the surface water of Laurel Lake.
87
E . TRAFFIC IMPACT .
1 . EXISTING SETTING OF THE SITE .
The site is bounded on the north by Sound Avenue, indicated
as a State Road, Truck Route #25 CSR TRK #25) (Figure 1) . This
roadway allows traffic, including trucks, to bypass the hamlet
of Laurel , south of the site along SR #25. SR#25 and SR TRK #25
meet in Mattituck, where SR #25 continues eastward on the North
Fork . SR #25 and SR TRK #25 are heavily travelled two-lane
highways . Approximately 1/2 mile east of the site, Sound Avenue
is joined by Middle Avenue CCR #27) , which originates within the
eastern portion of the North Fork . Traffic utilizes CR #27 to
avoid small hamlets that frequent SR #25. Bordering the site on
the west and east are two dirt roadways/right-of-ways that
access the private residences near Laurel Lake from SR TRK #25 .
Recent information on the traffic volume is available for
the following roadways (Suffolk County Department of Public
Works, 1986) : SR #25, at least 3 miles east of Mattituck; SR
#25, approximately 1 1/2 miles west of Mattituck; Middle Road,
CR #27, approximately 1/2 mile east of its intersection with SR
TRK #25 and approximately 1 mile east of the site; and Middle
Road, CR #27, approximately 3 miles east of its intersection
with SR TRK #25, or 4 miles east of the site . The following
annual average traffic volumes were recorded:
88
SR #25 (east of Mattituck) 8, 050 vehicles
SR #25 (west of Mattituck) 8, 950 vehicles
CR #27 Cl mile from site) 5,600 vehicles
CR #27 C4 miles from site) 7, 800 vehicles
This data indicates that many vehicles access CR #27 from SR #25
in the hamlet of Mattituck via Love Lane or Wickham Avenue. The
traffic volume on SR TRK #25 near the site is no less than
5,600 . The actual number of vehicles passing the site on SR TRK
#25 is probably greater than 5,600 because traffic continuing on
SR TRK #25 east of the access to CR #27 was not recorded . The
5, 600 value can be used as a minimum.
Pedestrian facilities are currently lacking on adjacent
roadways in the vicinity of the site . Sidewalks do not exist on
SR TRK #25 highway . Parking is not prohibited along this
roadway, and dirt shoulder areas are available for emergency
stops.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ITS ANTICIPATED
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DUE TO TRAFFIC, AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACTS.
Description of the_proposed_action. The proposed action
will construct 27 single-family detached housing units on the
63 .6 acre site . Access to these houses will be furnished by an
89
interdevelopment roadway system (see Site Plans) . The
interdevelopment roadway system will have one access point from
SR TRK #25 (Sound Avenue) in the north and another access point
on a proposed roadway located along the western border of the
site that in-turn will run northward to its intersect with Sound
Avenue. The interdevelopment roadway will become a Town road .
It will measure 28 feet in width, have a narrow grass edging,
and a sidewalk on either side.
Site distances can be estimated from the regional location
map on the site plans indicating the proposed access roadways
intersecting Sound Avenue:
Northern access roadway
View to the east > 1 ,000 Feet
View to the west 400 Feet
Western side roadway
View to the east 600 feet
View to the west 300 feet
Anticipated environmental impacts. The impact of the
proposed action on the traffic volume of the surrounding
roadways (Figure 1) can be projected using statistical
information provided by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Report (1982) (Table 2) . The
Institute of Transportation Engineers is a mayor reference
90
TABLE 2
210—Single-Family Detached
Housing
Description:Any single-family detached home on an average weekday trip ends, these variables
individual lot is included in this category. A have limited use. This is because: 1) The
typical example is a home in a modern sub- number of vehicles and residents is difficult to
division. obtain and very few of the studies contained
Slightly over 300 different studies were made these data, and 2)these data are also difficult
of subdivisions containing single-family to predict. The number of units has a high
homes.The average size subdivision contained correlation with average weekday vehicle trip
387 dwelling units for a total of more than ends. This variable is best used because it is
119,000 dwellings studied.These subdivisions contained in most studies, it is easy to project
were located primarily in suburban areas and convenient to use.
throughout the United States. As indicated on the following tables, single-
The average development density was 3.5 units family dwellings generate on the average 10
per acre with 3.7 persons per unit.The average vehicle trip ends per weekday per dwelling
automobile ownership measured was 1.6 vehi- unit. Saturday vehicle trip generation is only
cles per unit. slightly higher,and Sunday is lower.
Measurements were made since 1979 at 37
Trip Characteristics:The analysis of correlation be- subdivisions averaging 188 single-family
tween average weekday vehicle trip ends and dwellings.The average trip rate measured was
all measured independent variables is shown 9.95 average weekday vehicle trip ends per
in the table. dwelling unit or approximately one percent
Although the number of vehicles and number less than that reported in 1979.
of residents have the highest correlations with
Equations and Correlation Between Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends(AWDVTE)
and the Independent Variables for Single-Family Detached Houses.
Equations aitd Independent Variables Correlation Coefcient (R)
AWDVTE _ — 44.3 + 2.548 x Number of Persons 0.995
—391.2 + 11.04 x Number of Units 0.938
—186.6 + 6.761 x Number of Vehicles Owned 0.999
Units Per Acre "0.044
Acres —0.024
Rev. 1982
91 ITE, 1982
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use/Building Type Single-•Family Detached HousinglTE Land Use Code 334_
Independent Variable—Trips per Dwe llinlz Unit
Average Number Average Size of
Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent
Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak A.M. Enter
Hour Between Exit
of 7 and 9 Total
Adjacent P.M. Enter
Street Between Exit 0. 17 1. 0. 1
Traffic 4 and 6 Total 1.00 .0 0. 4 11 277
Peak A.M. Enter 0.21 0.6 0. 1 70
229
Hour Exit 0
of Total
Generator P.M. Enter
Exit
Total
Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 111 -7 1 R - 1 P44
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit
Generator Total On- 7 64 244
Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends
73
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit bl 1 -:) ff- 0;
Generator Total
Source Numbers 1 ,4, 5, 6- 7_ 8, 11, 12 . 11, 14, 16- lq-- 20, 21, 24 , 26
8 4 117 , 11
ITE Technical Committee 6A-6—Trip Generation Rates
Date:June 4, 1975, 1979 , Rev. 1982
92
source for vehicle trip generation rates (Buttke, 1984) . The
rates are widely used throughout the United States and Canada to
forecast the effects of proposed land development projects, to
conduct transportation planning, and to design transportation
facilities . The estimates of future trip generations projected
for the proposed action are as follows (Table 2) :
Weekday :
Average Weekday Trip Ends - 10 trips/unit
27 units x 10 trips/unit - 270 total trips per day
Peak Hour Traffic Generation:
7-9 AM 0.76 trips/unit x 27 units - 21 (rounded from
20.5) total trips
4-6 PM 0 .51 trips/unit x 27 units - 14 (rounded from
13 .8) total trips
Saturday:
Average Trip Ends - 10.0 trips/unit
10. 1 trips/unit x 27 units - 273 (rounded from 272 .7
total trips per day
Peak Hour Traffic Generation:
0 .96 trips/unit x 27 units - 26 (rounded from 25 .9)
total trips
93
Sunday :
Average Trip Ends 8.7 trips/unit
8 .7 trips/unit x 27 units 235(rounded from 231 .9)
total trips per day
Peak Hour Traffic Generation:
0 .94 trips/unit x 27 units = 25 (rounded from 25 .3)
total trips
Official traffic volume studies for CR TRK #25 indicate a
minimum annual average traffic volume of 5,600 vehicles. Using
a worst-case scenario, a total of 26 vehicles would be generated
during peak hours . A total of 235 vehicles may be generated
during a 24-hour time period. This represents an approximate
increase of 4% to the total number of vehicles utilizing the
roadway .
In addition, considering directional distribution of the
projected traffic volume from the completed Macari At Laurel ,
vehicles may enter or exit the site directly from Sound Avenue
or indirectly via the roadway along the western border of the
site.
A potential environmental impact due to traffic generated
from the proposed action include:
94
(1) Traffic volumes projected for the completed proposed
action will increase the current traffic volume on the nearby
roadway network.
Mitigativemeasures to minimize adversepotential
environmental impacts:
Daily traffic is generated by commuters and delivery
vehicles utilizing SR TRK #25 (Sound Avenue) . Since the annual
average daily traffic volume is at least 5,600 vehicles (Suffolk
County Department of Public Works, 1986) , and the projected
traffic volume from the completed project is 235 vehicles per
day, there will be an approximate 4% increase in traffic volume
for Sound Avenue . Although additional traffic will be
generated by the proposed action, the numbers of total trip ends
is still relatively low. This additional traffic will have only
a minor effect on the heavily travelled Sound Avenue and should
not adversely affect the present level of service for the
roadway . Traffic to and from the development will be limited to
residents and their guests . Walkways will be provided along
the interdevelopment roadway to insure pedestrian safety . In
addition, with two points of access into the proposed action,
fire and safety emergent' vehicles will be able to respond to
emergencies in a timely, unhampered fashion .
95
REFERENCES CITED
Buttke, Carl H . , 1982, Trip generation: Institute of
Transportation Engineers Informational Report, 3rd ed. ;
Washington, D.C .
Clark, Edwin H. , II . , Haverkamp, Jennifer A. , and Chapman,
William, 1985, Eroding soils - the off-farm impacts:
The Conservation Foundation; Washington, D .C. ; 252p.
Cornell University Center For Environmental Research, 1983, The
water and land resource analysis system (WALRAS) : An
overview: Cornell University ; Ithaca, New York .
Doriski , T.P . , 1987, Potentiometric-surface of the water-table,
Magothy, and Lloyd Aquifers on Long Island, New York, in
1984: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Investigations Report 86-4169; Syosset, New York .
Franke, O.L . , and Cohen, P . , 1972, Regional rates of groundwater
movement on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol . Survey, Prof .
Paper #800-C
Freeze, R.A. , and Cherry, J .A . , 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-
Hall , Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; 604p .
Fuller, M .L . , 191q, The geology of Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol . Survey Prof . Paper #82; Washington, D.C .
Goldman, S.J . , Jackson, K . , and Bursztynsky, T.A . , 1986, Erosion
and sediment control handbook: McGraw Hill Book Company;
New York, New York .
Hughes, Henry B .F . and Pacenka, Steven, 1985, BURBS - A
simulation of the nitrogen impact of residential
development on groundwater: Center for Environmental
Research, Cornell University; Ithaca, New York .
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982, Transportation and
traffic engineering handbook: Wolfgang S. Homburger,
ed . ; 2nd ed . ; Prentice-Hall , Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey .
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982, Trip generation -
Residential single family : Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 3rd ed . ; Washington, D.C .
Kaplan, O .B . , 1987, Septic systems handbook: Lewis Publishers,
Inc . ; Chelsea, Michigan; 290p.
96
Koszalka, E .J . , 1984, Geohydrology of the northern part of the
Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County , New York: U .S. Geol .
Survey Water Resources Invest . Rpt . 83-4042; Syosset, New
York; 37p.
Krulikas, Richard K . , 1986, Hydrologic appraisal of the Pine
Barrens, Suffolk County, New York: U .S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report #84-4271 ; Syosset,
New York; Sap.
Little, Elbert, L . , 1980, The Audubon Society field guide to
North American trees, Eastern region: Audubon Society ;
Alfred A . Knopf; New York, New York; 714p .
Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1978, Long Island
comprehensive waste treatment management plan - 208
study: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 2 vol . ;
Hauppauge, New York.
, 1982, Long Island segment of the nationwide
urban runoff program: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York.
_—__, 1986, Special groundwater protection area
project: LIRPB; Hauppauge, New York .
Niering, W.A . , 1924, Wetlands: Audubon Society Nature Guides;
Alfred A . Knopf; New York, New York; 638p.
Nemickas, B. , and Koszalka, E.J. , 1982, Geohydrologic
appraisal of water resources of the South Fork, Long Island,
New York: U.S . Geol . Survey Water Supply Paper #2073;
Washington, D .C . ; SSp.
New York State, 1964, Drinking water standards: Public Law 201 ,
Pt . 72, and Public Health Law 1100, Pt . 170.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1978,
6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Quality Review
Act: Albany, New York .
_,-,___, 1987, Endangered, threatened, and special
concern species of New York State: NYS DEC; Albany, New
York .
Ground water classifications quality standards
and effluent standards and/or limitations: Title 6,
Official compilation of codes, Rules and regulations, Part
703.
97
New York State Natural Heritage Program, 1987, Rare animal
status list; Delmar, New York .
Odum, Eugene P . , 1959, Fundamentals of ecology: 2nd ed. ; W.B.
Sanders Company; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 546p.
Parson, Ruben L. , 196q, Conserving American resources:
Prentice-Hall , Inc. ; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ; 521p.
Peterson, R .T . and McKenny , M. , 1966, A field guide to
wildflowers of Northeastern and North-central North
American: Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts;
L120p.
Petrides, George A . , 1972, A field guide to trees and shrubs:
The Peterson field guide series, 2nd ed. ; Houghton
Mifflin Company; Boston, Massachusetts; 428p.
Perlmutter, N.M. , Lieber, Maxim, and Frauenthal , H.L. , 196q,
Contamination of groundwater by detergents in a suburban
environment - South Farmingdale area, Long Island, New York:
U.S . Geological Survey Professional Paper #501-C;
Washington, D.C. ; p . 170-175.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, 1987, Suffolk
County comprehensive water resources management plan:
Division of Environmental Health (SCDHS) , Dvirka and
Bartilucci , Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. ; Hauppauge, New York .
Suffolk County Department of Public Works, 1986, Traffic volume
map, Suffolk County : SCDPW, Yaphank, New York .
Sutton, Ann and Sutton, Myron, 1925, Eastern forests: Audubon
Society Nature Guides; Alfred A. Knopf; New York, New
York; 638p .
Todd, David K . , 1959, Ground water hydrology: John Wiley +
Sons, Inc. ; New York, New York; 336p .
Town of Southold, Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 100,
Zoning: Southold, New York .
, Water Resources Management Program: Planning
Board, Town of Southold, New York .
U .S . Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
1975, Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York:
Washington, D.C. ; 101p .
98
_ , 1977, Guidelines for soil and water conservation
in urbanizing areas of Massachusetts: Amherst,
Massachusetts .
, 1978, Important farmlands of New York: SCS;
Syracuse, New York .
Soil Conservation Service, 1960, A guide to:
Conservation plantings on critical erosion areas:
Syracuse, New York; 31p.
U.S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980, 1980
Census of population: New York, New York .
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, ENF
4-REG-17, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants,
Rev. 4/29/83 .
U.S. Geological Survey , 1986, Water Resources data New York
Water Year 1985, Volume 2 Long Island: Spinello, A.G . ,
Nakao, J.H . , and Winowitch, R .B. ; U.S. Geol . Survey Water
Data Report NY-84-2 Albany, N.Y. ; 304p.
U .S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: U.S .
Public Health Service Pub. #956, 61p.
Vaughn, J.M. and Landry , E .F . , 1980, The fate of human viruses
in groundwater recharge systems: Brookhaven National
Laboratory; Upton, New York; 63p.
Vaughn, J .M. , Landry , E .F. , and McHarrell , T.Z. , 1983,
Entrainment of viruses from septic tank leach fields through
a shallow, sandy soil aquifer: Applied and Environmental
Microbiology , Vol . 115, No. 5, pp. 1474-1480.
Villa, R.A. , 1988, Watershed Protection Study: The Southold Town
Water Advisory committee; Southold, New York .
99
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT FORM - PART I
A-1
L"I
�} ARx v� f
APPEN01x A
[AF
ENYIRO:iMMAL ASS:SSMENf 6D I
Proiact.information
NOTICE: This document 4* desscned to assist In detersining whether the action proposed ray nava a significant
effect an the envircvwat. Piease cawleta the entire Data Sheet. Answers td these questions rill be considered
as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provlda
any additional information you believe will be needed to coaealets PARTS 2 and J.
it is eapectao tnac Cprolptiop of the EAF rill be dependent on information currently available and will not
involve new studies. research or investigation. if information requiring suds additional vert Is unava$aole.
to indicate and specify each Instance.
.UM Of PROJECT: UK Alio ADORES OF OWNER (Tf nifferent;
Joseph Macari
A
AOORESS AMC MAK OF APPLICAMiT:
Joseph Macari c/o Peter S. Danowski , tsq. tate p,
616 Roanoke Avneue PO Box 779 Bustn.0 PNONE:
net
Riverhead, New York 11901
tau p
OESC21IM 1 OF PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) _
Realty Subdivision
(PLEASE COMMKM EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable)
A. SITZ DESCAIP'TION
(Physical setting of overall project. both developed and usdevelooW areas)
1.. ieJ�erel chereeter of tM lan1: generally uniform %tope Generally uneven and rolling or irrwlular
2. Present land use: Urban . lndustrial . Cawercial . Suburban �_. Rural . F-3rest
.
Agriculture .�ltner —'
2. Total acreage of oroject arra: 6 3a".
Aeoro;iwta acreage: Presently After Caapletlon Presently After Ccmoletton
Meador or Brushland 42.9 acres 27 4cres Nater Surface Arve 0.2 acres 0_2 ac-:s
7o crac ri oo d 5 18.6 acres 16•Jcr:s Unvegetated (rack.
1,
tirtn or fill) L-Lacres 3 _acres
toricultural � �cns 0 acres
Roads. buildings
Metland (Fresnwacer or and otner saved
Tidal as oar Articles + surfaces aces% 4.4 ac-:s
or f.C.L.) ,5cres 0_S acres 11
' E�f1Si�ii�.•�fld�'�ape � acres 13.5 ace%s
A. That Is •redominant soil type(s) an nroject site' �{��,_ �,_.__._._ _
S. a are :+er' s'oroce outcro7olnos on irntocc situ
t -at i% :eotn to oedract! N/A
A •eecl
A-2
A. Approxine>;e percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-14: ,-8(Z:.: In-lit g_t; li: or
greeter
1. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed an the National Register of Historic
Places? Tet _J _No
S. what is the depth to the Mater table? 0 feet Min. 40' Max.
g. 00 hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project areal Yes X No
10. ON% project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is Identtfied as threatened or
lndan_ggndd - Yes _Xlo. according to - Identify each species
' 11. Airs there any unique or unusual land forst on the project site? (i.e. cliffs. dunes. other geological
formations - __ as __L No. (Describe I
12. Is the project $Ipresently used by the community or neighborhood as an open span or recreation
area - Yes X No.
12. Does the pr"tot sits offer or include scenic views or vistas know to be important to the community?
les !_ No
14. Streams within or contiguous to project aria: . None
a. Now of stream and neon of river to which it is tributary
15. lakes. Ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area:
a. Nana Laurel Lake ; b. size (in acres) 29.8
14. what is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 wile radius of the pmject (e.g.
single family residential. 1-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story).
"A" Residential / Agriculture 2 story :
1. PROJECT amaiPTION 1
1. physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate)
a. Total contiguous acreage owed by project sponsor 63_5 acres.
b. Project acreage developed: 33'1cres initially; 33.6acres ultimately.
•
c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 30
d. length of project. in miles: N/A (if appropriate)
I. if project is an expansion of existing. indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot-
age l developed acreage N/A
f. Number of off-strut parting spaces existing 0 ; proposed _ 5
g. Maximus vehicular trios generated per hour 8 (uoon completion of project)
h. If residential: Number and tyPe of housing units:
:ret Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium
Initial 27 _
ultimate 27
I. If: Orientation
Utgnoornaod-City-Regional Estimated Emoloyment
Conmercia1
industrial
J. Total heignt of tallest nronasea scruc:tare __35 •.feec.
r .
A-3
2. sips much natural material (Le. rock* earth, etc.) will be rcmved from the site 0 tons
0 cuoic yards.
3. Nor many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be removed fror• site • 17.84cr4s.
d. Will any nature foresf (over 100 years old) or other locally-tagortant vegatatton be removed oy tnis
project? Yes No
!. Ars there any plans for rs-vegetation to replace that renovad during construction? _Yes 'a
t. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction -fla_manchs. (including derolitionl.
7.• If multi-ptosed project: a. Total number Of phases anticipated No.
• b. Anticioated data of cosimmencen ant phase month vear (Including
demolition)
c. Approximate comoletioe data final phase month ytar.
d. is pMse 1 financially dependent oe subseaufm t 2nases? res No
8. Will blasting occur during construction? res X he
!. Mlaaber of jobs generated: during•caastructioe ' 50 ; after project is comolete 0 .
10. number of jobs eliminated by this project 0
11. Will project r*4uire relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes Y_No. If yes. explain:
12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal Involved? X Yes 40.
b. If3rss. indicate typo of waste (sewags.• industrial. etc.) SanitarySawa e
e. It surface disposal naw of strias late which a Kluent will b4 discharged N/A _
i3. Will surface area of existing lakes. ponds.'streams. bays or other surface wtarl:ays be increased or
decreased by proposal? • Yes -L—No.
la. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? res �he
i5. A. Does prefect involve disposal of solid waste? X Yes No
b. If yes. will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? _ Yes 'W
C. If yes. give nave: Snuthnld Tn_I andf i 14cation riitrhrlgrie
d. Will any wastes not go into a swags disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes X No
16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? X Yes No Lawns
17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than ant hour per day)? _ Yes �_No
is. Will project produce acerating noise exceeding the local aswienca noise laveli? _ Yes _X v0
19. Vile project result in an increase in energy use? X Yes So. if yes. Indicate tyne!sl
Electric
20. If water suooly is from walls Indicate outorng capacity 10 gals/minute.
21. soul anticipated water usage per ay 8100 gals/day.
22. Zoning: A. What is dominant zoning classification of site? 'A" Residential/Agriculture
b. Current soecifie zoning classification of site " If Is " If "
C. :s Or00os4d use c0"SisLen; .ith present zoning' Yes
d. If no, indicate desired zoning N/A._.
.i.
• A-4
2i. Approvals: A. Is any Federal peruit required?
Yea —1—ho
b. DOei project Involve State or Federal funding or financing? _ Vas -• No
C. local and Regional approvals:
Approval Required Submittal Approval
(Yes. No) (Type) (Date) (Oats)
City, Town. Village BoardY --
City. Tore. Village Planning Board T _n _..—
City. Torn. Zoning Board --
City. County He<h cap 11 n
other local agencies 1, 1.• _ n
other region&, agencies
State Agencies ---�
Federal Agencies
C. niFgwATIOMAl. DETAILS .
At &ey &dditional information &s may be needed to clarify your project. If then are or may be any
adverse 1e�ptett usoeiatad with the proposal. Platte discuss such irpacts &nd tM weasute1 which can be
:tate» to mitigate or avoid them.
PRQAMIS SIGRATURt: Young & Young
TTTU: _ Land Surveyor
WKSMNG: Joseph Macari
pAn: 01/14/88
.s.
A-5
AP?7-"T2 9
SHORT FNTMO ASSZSSKMT FORK
INSTRLCTIONS, •
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short W is Is assumed that thr
propa"r will use currant-1y available information concerning the project and the
likely impacts of the action* It is not expected that additional studies, research
or other investigations will be undertaken.
(b) If any question•has been answered Yea the project may be si&-ificant and a
completed Environmental Assessment Dorm is necessary.
(a) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is
not significant.
(d) Fnviranmental Assessment
1• Will project result in a large physical change
to the project site or physicallf altar more
than 10 acres of land? • • • • • • . • • • • • Yes No
2. Will there be a major change to Ory unique or
unusual land torso ound on.tha site? . . . Tes '� No
3• Will project altar or have a large effect on
an existing body of water? • • • • • • • • . . Tea• ✓ No
b• Will project have a potentially large impaca on
groundwater quality? • • • •• • . • • • • • _ Tem No
S• Will project significantly effect drainage flow
on adjacent cites? • • • • • • • • • • • • Tee V No
60 'dill project affect any threatened or endacgered
plant or animal species? • • • . • • • • • Tea '� No
7• Will proact result in a cajor adverse effect on
• air quality? • • • •'• • . . • . . • Tea '� No
8. Will project have a major effect on visual chaste
aatar -of the community or scenic viewa or vistas
Mhown to be important to the community? Tes '� No
9• Will project adversely impact any site or atruct-
ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological
importance or any site designated as a critical V,
environmental area by a local agency? • • • Tea Yo
10• Will project have a major ef:ect on ex!atizg or
future recreational opportunitlea? , • • . Tes '� No
11• Will project result in major t-atflc problems or
cause a major affect to existing transportation ✓
syste=m? . . . . . . . . . . . . Ta! No
12. Will p:•aject regularly cause objectionable odors,
noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb-
' ance as a result of the project's operation? Yes Yc
13. Will project Fav* any impact on public health or r/
safety? • • Yes Ho
lL.
Will project :ffa:t the existing co=muniz-1 by
directly causing a grox:N in per--mananz pcpula-.
ticn cf more than S percent over a on.-year
period cr have a sa;cr nega:ice sf:act on ht
c�arac:er o: the community ir relintorncod? . :aa v:
15. Is tners pub:: ccncrovs:_y :cncar-:.z; .:a ;.r::a::" ':zi %'/PRI AP'�`'.'.'S SICHA IZ: _ Land Surveyor
RUNEs_`�T'ZING: Joseph Maca 01/28/88
i/Lila
A-6
E.af
EIIVIA IKKAL ASSESSMENT - FAAT III
IYAUI n:t OF THE t4rnR AVCS AF IMPACT
I:1fOlUMTIllt1 '
- part 7 is prepared if one or mon impact or effect 1s considered to be potentially lama.
- The amount of writing necessary to answer Dart ] may be detarnined by answering the 4uastion: In briefly
completing the instructions below have I plhcad in this record sufficient information to indicata the
reasonableness of ear dedsionst
iNSTAUCTIOns
Complete the follbwinq for each impact or effect Identified in Colum 2 0.' Part 2:
1. Iriefly describe the impact.
2- Describe (if aoolteable) how the impact eight be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro-
ject change.
2. Used on the information available. decide if it 11 reasonable to conclude that this 1=4ct 1s imartaat
to the municipality (city. town or village) in which the project is loatad.
To anger the question of importance. consider:
- Be probability of the impact or effect•occurring
- The duration of the impact or effect
- Its lrreversibi.lity. includiaf permanently lost resources cr values
- Whether the impact or effect can be controlled
- The regional cons*quence of the impact or effect
- Its Potantial divergence from local needs and goals
- Whether known objections to the project apply to this Impact or effect.
DET1:la tX TI0ii OF SIM
IFICAMCE
An action is considered to be significant it:
nne (or more) impact is determined to both larne and its Naieir) cnnseouence. based on the review
above. is iIm artant.
......... ..�
-PART III STATEh6YTS
(Continue on Attachnents, as nettled)
A-7
1 2 3.
SMALL TO POTEVIAL CAN IMPACT CF
MODERATE LARGE REDUCED aY
IMPACT I"PACT PROJECT CPAhGc
IMPACT ON rMGY
14. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMU11ITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR 14 YES
ENEMY SUPPLY? ...........................................0 0
fAmmles that would Apply to Colum 2
Project causing greater than 5% increase in any form of _
energy used in municipality.
Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than So single
or tro fa.dly residences.
Other Impacts: .
IMPACT ON NOISE
16. WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE Q=s 110131, GLARE. YIBjtAATInn .40 YES
or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT Of THIS PROJECT? ....0 O
fs�agll_es that would APoly to Column 2
(lasting within 1.500 feet of a hospital. school or other
sensitive facility.
'ifdors will occur routinely (mor'* than one hour per day).
project will Produce operating noise excaedino the
local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures.
Project will rwave natural barriers that would act as a �s
noise screen.
Ather impacts:
IMPACT ON HEALTH i WARQS
IV) YES
IA. HILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH ANO SA
FE7Y? .............0 O
sample: that Would Apply to column 2
Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.*. oil. pesticides. chemicals. radiation. etc.)
in the event of accident or uoset conditions. or there will
be a cnronte low level discharge or emission.
Project that will result in the burial of 'hazardous wastes'
(i.e. toxic. poisonous. highly reactive. radtoactive. irritating.
Infectious. etc.. tncludine wastes that are solid. seat-solid.
liquid or contain gases.)
Storeoe ficilities for one million or more gallons of liautfted
natural gas or other liauids.
Otner tmoacts:
A-8 -
S."ALL A. .ai. ..L 1 CAli .M - .
. DE-Ul'i tdfrsi REDUCE? ay
;r.PACT Ii14V PROJECT CHANGE
IMPACT Oil SROVTH AND CRAUC:F.R OF CMIMM OR 'IET1011-1 1)
17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAtPACTEa AF THE EXISTING NO TES
Caft-OUTTT ................................................gan 0 O
Example that Mould Apoly to Col2
The population of the City. Torn or Village in rh1cn t.'Ie
project is located It likely to g r2w by more thin :S aP
rtsident h~ population.
The municipal budgets for capital tipenditures or opera-
ting services will Increase by more tnas SZ per ;ear as a
result of this project.
will Involve any sermantnt facility of a non-agricultural
use in as agricultural district or remove arias agricultural
lands from cultivation.
The project rill replace or eliminate existing facilities.
structures or areas of historic Importance to the community.
Osveloprtet will induce an influx of a particilar aye
_.. group with special needs.
Project will sst an important precedent for future projects.
_ Project will relocate iS or more amloyess In one or more
businesses.
Other Imoacts:
NO TES
111. IS THERE PuSLIC C3NTRCVERST COsCFRnI.VA THE PW%JECTT .......0 O
Examoles'that Would Apply to Cala 2
Elthe; government or-citizens of adjacs-it co■munities
have exaressed oaaosition or rtjec:ad too proiact or nave
not been contacted.
Objections to the project from itmin the cowmai ty. —
IF Any ACilOA In NAT 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A
PfITUITIAL LARGE WPACT CII iF YeU CUMT DETERMINE
THE !'ACUTUOE OF Ir.PACT. PROCEED TO PART 7.
PORTIONS OF EAF CCnPLETJO MR THIS PROJECT:
OETEAMINATI(A ►AAT [ PART It PART 1
upon review of the Infam4cla recorded as this EAF (Parts 1. 2
and 1) and consiCsrine born ins madnituds and tmortance of eacn
teoaet. It Is rsasaaoly determined that: PREPARE A NE»ATIVE DECLAAATICII
A. The project rill result io no 2Aajor impacts and. tnerafors. 0
is one emica may not cause significant :awed@ :o the environment.
S. Although :nt 7ro;ec: cauld nave a t:gnificant sffec: an the
environment. :hers milt not oa a significant nffee: In t.Ylt case ORVARE A 11Efa T111E 7E::ARAT:CN
because We sittgatton measursi described to ?.»' 1 have beth 0
Included as part of the aroogsed 7rd;tc:.
•
C. The arojee: will result In :ne or more ma!or adverse Imaac:s PRiVARE 295:7:11[ £fCLUATIJ:i ?ROC::'. sI-H US
I. :Mat Cannot as reduced and may cause tigni!icint damage to 0
:no environment.
:e
2A i:.rt 7 �•t::ns::.a •.:•a: •I mai:
agenCr
. ij'atLrf 7f a�t�trtf ;I :•�{Tftn: �•^a1 .'ttaanf��11 2f+•:2�:
i� :aaa =;ecce
•1�
A-9
"A TQ POTENTIAL CAn IJVACT RE
OE RATE LARGE oEOUCM CT
I..iPACT IWP4CT PIMJECT CMA11GE
f. JILL PRUM ALTEt MINAS fi?i. MTM—ff OR S11IkFK1 LATER 30 YES
R.JMFFf ...........................a........................OO
:amts that ".ould Anply to Calwa 2
protect maid imedo flood water flan. �_ :•��
Inject Is likely to Cause substantial eroslen. �..
protect is imcaegatible with esisti" drain" patterns.
Other ia0acti: .
i "ate"it
GO YE3
1. MILL MMT AFFECT AIR OIIALITfT.........................../'� O
Fmml`s that Would Aptly to Column 2 v
project •ill induce 1.x0 or man vealcle trips In any yivew
hour.
prefect will result in the tacimentiam of rn then i tom
of refuse per hour.
Project awdssiom rate of all contareinants will ascaad S
lbs. oar hour or a heat sours eroducing won them 10
million fTil's pee hour. l
.� Other imeacts:
110511" ON Pt i AN4 A 4if
N0 'YES
f. WILL MECT AFFECT ANY T111 UTEMEO CIA E110AWRO SPECIES?
00
:,notes that Yo.itd Apply to Columm 2
Raductiom of ono or more species listed an the New Tort
or Federal list. using the site. over or wear site or
found om the site.
Removal of anv portion of a critical or sienificant wild- �.
11 fe h4bi tat
Ao-plication of Pesticide or NottlCido over mon than _
Wica a dearother tnam foraIrnc:atural purposes.
9C1gr looacts.
!. 'JILL ►o0,lECT SueSTA.•TTIALLY AFFECT NON•TNREATMED 02 NO YES
E-MAMEREO SPECIES? .......................................0 0
mamole that Would Apply to Colina t
_ rroject would suoaantialiy interfere witn'anr rssld.nt
or migratory fish or wildlife species.
protect reeuirss tno removal of more than iII acres of
mature forest (over 1�O years in ane) or mer localiv
Important vegetation.
A-10
-
YAll fn eQTElITIAL C.V. is PACT aE
:iERATE LUCE REDUCED 4Y
i-p<—, l"rACT P44JECT Cwr;,:
I'"ACT C: "IVit. Rre!!•ACE
11. VILL THE 00NJECT AMC VIE:►:. w[STAS 02 T.1F VISPAL 00 YES
CI'AgACTEA Of THE 3FIG ano.+M0 AA CD"'w41lp? .............. 00
a]anles that ibuld Apply to Colum j
An incompatible visual affect Cawed by the introouctian
of new netsrtals, colors aaa/or tam in Contrast to the
surroundtne landscape.
A orejeet vastly visible. not easily screenedetut is
-- obviously different from nthers around It.
_ Project rill result In the alirination or wejor
screening of scenic views Or vistas known, to be
important to the area.
1.
Other impacts
14PACT On mISTORM RESMaCFS
11. WILL PROJECT IlVACT Aur SITE OR STRt=RE Of NITMAIC, No YU
PRE-HI.TAeIC no PALE(MMICAL IrMPTAtiCET ................0 v
�`
:aaoles these Gould Aooly to COlurm Z
Project occurine wholly or oartially within or Contiguous
to any facility or site. listed on the National Aeoistar of
historic places. ; ...
_
Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located
within the project site.
gther impacts: .
IMPACT qN OP�M SPACE S RECREATTOM
iZ. WILL THE PMJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OA OMITY Of EYISTIM No Y►.1
OA PJ= OPEN SPACES OA RECAMIONAL OPPORM11TIEST...... 00
:amles that Would Apply to Column 2
The pen anent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ..•
A awJor red'uctton of an open space Imartant to the coven wity.
Other lm&cts:
ImaCT nN TaANSi,1RTATTO11
13. PILL THEAE It AN EFFECT TO CXISTI14 TAAMSPORTATIAN NO YES
STSTM? ...............................................
00
Esawoles :.,At Jould Awely to Colum 2
Alteration of present patterns of rove-tent of people
and/or goods.
Project will result ip fevers treftie jrzolews.
Jtner
A.
A-11
EAF
EN IR01?aTAL ASSE52W - PART 11
Project imcacts and Their Magnitude
General infer a tion jRmd CArtfully)
• In completing tree form the rtvie.er Should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinations
been reas�ona_blla? The reviewer Is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst.
••Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily
siqn1ficant. Amy targe effect must be•tvaluatod in PART 3 to determine significance.• By identifying an
ofTe-ctin columsr 2 slmgly asks that it be looked at further.
- The Examples provided ars to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wnenver possitle the threshold
of magnitude that would trigger a response in colum 2. The examples are generally applicable tnrougnout the
Stua and for most situations. Bue, for any specific project or site Other examples and/or lower taresnolds.
may be more awrooriate for a Potential Large Impact rating.
- Each project. an each sits. in each locality. will vary. Therefore. the examples have been offered as guidance.
They do not constitute an exhaustivit list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question.
- The number of examples per question doe not indicate the importance of each question.
IXF17i1CTIOM (Road Carefully) .
a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes it Nen will be a= effect.
b. Ma ba answers should be considered as I*_% answers.
C. If answering res to a auestion then check the appewl atm box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the ootentlsl
•Size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided. check column Z. If
impact will occur but threshold is lamer Nap example. check colupn 1.
d. If nriawer has •doubt about the size of the impact Wen consider the lmoact as notantially large and
proceed to PART 3.
o. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large
magnitude. place a Yes in column 3. A No response isdicates•that such a reduction is not possible.
1 2. 3.
SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE
• Nm]OERATE LARGE REDUCED BY
II,pACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANG-c
IMPACT ON LAND
• ��� NO YCS
1, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHAIZE TO 00
PRWI.T SITE?
Exams lei that would Aooly to Column 2
Any construction on %I.-pas of 151 or greater. (15 foot rise nor
100 foot of lengtR). or when the general slocos in the project
area exceed 10:.
_ Construction on Lana woven the death to the water taole is less
than 3 feet.
ronstruetion of caved oarkinq area for I. " or mare vehicles.
r Canstruction on 13M when bedrock is exposed or generally
riViin 3 fisc of existing ground surface.
Cons:ruc:ian tnar will continue for man than 1 veer or involve
mare than ire itase or Stage.
Excavation for wining iurvoses that would rrnove more ;Nan 1, 00
:ons cf natural ns:erial (i.e. rock or soil) per year.
Con%CriCtian GIF any new sanitar! landfill.
A-12
i. 2. 3.
!-ALL 'n DOTE RAL CA-4 I-PAV 9E
9E1ATE LARGE ACQU;co SY
!MPsCT RROJECT rLUgr--
Conttrwetlon In A designated floodway.
other impacts:
2. WILL THERE 2E AH EFFECT TO AHT UnIOUE OR UNISUAL L3,rA Fn YES
FOUND OA THE SIT:? (i.e. ellffa. dunes. eeploatcal forma-
tions. etc.)
Snecifie land faces:
fNPACT CN 4ATf1
S. WILL PROJECT AFFECT MY UATEB SODY CESIGHATED AS ........:: TES
PROTECTED? (Under Articles IS. Ia. ;S of tae Envlr• O
onmental Conservation Law; E.C.L.)
Es+,=1e_ that Gould Aovlr to Column 2
Dredgtna .ora Chan 101 cubic yards of notarial from
Channel of a yrotmed strias.
Construction In A designated freshwatar or tidal wetland.
Ocner Impacts: '
a. WILL PROJEC' AFFECT All HON-PROTECTED EIISTIM OR N11d ' HD YES
IcorOf WATER? ............................................�
!x-0141 gnat would Apply to Calum 2
410% increase or decrease Is the surface area of any body
of rater or mon than a 10 acre 1ACrslse or deeralae.
I
_'s'CanttruetIQ^ a body Of rater that exceeds 10 acres of
surface area.
Other (enacts:
S. '+:LL P9OJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR 6atxj.%o ATEA MIALITY? — T YES
(+anal/ that yould Aptly to Colum 2 O
Pmol:*c. rill rMulre a discharge permit.
PM'tc: reewlns use Of a sour:e of water ghee does no: nave
IOOrOval :0 terve ]rveosed arciocz.
3;9:ac: reaulres wa:er suoaly ;ram .ells +itn nreatar
Man 05 Qallons ter ainuta lumping caoaci:y.
C:hstric:lon Ir aeration causing any Cancaaination
or a 06olic wa:ar sweaty systam. �—
Pr7:oc: sill mersely affect jr7undwater. •
a LIOu'a ern uent alit :a :anwtyed Off We sire :a
Aw Iltles .&ICA aresta ly 90 'lot oils: ar nave
•'4 ce:uato :304C.Cy.
rtaulreeg a SACli':y :ha: :Quid ase .+te- In
MASS sf :h.^CC ;allans :or ea..
li*01 :lust 01"s:ron :r ::re- :Itciare
+:, an 101111", ;—.y :; :a ter :a :'e fa:an: :�a: aaera
+�' :t c:n:ris: .. �a:oral ;:n:It•:ns.
A-13
APPENDIX B
MONITORING WELLS
A-14
McDONALD
GEOOSCMVCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 • (516)765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #1
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: mattituc',c
Tax Map Number: 1000-121-4-9
Project Description: Engineering
Date: 3/27/88
Dark bro:gn loam
Brown silty loam
2.5'
Pale brown coarse san!
43'
Comments: Monitor well seta. See monitor well lata `.or water level
A-15
--++—^•-+c---,.����.�..,�,�Y-:2�1n'=wyr,�-a:'-�NI'.�r,�cYrw.c�,i;:��TK "" .�Zh'�A'�Fy'WMRw�:A^i':a��'i`i'w«•wttir4:.N+14r�"f'.•.s.. ,. ,.... - --
McDON LD
GEOtSCIENCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 • (516)7653677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #2
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1000-17-1-4-9
Project Description: Engineering
Date: 3/27/88
Brown loam
---- 10"
Brown sandy loam
- 2.2'
Pale brown coarse sand
33'
Comments: Monitor well set.9ee monitor well data for water IM. level
A-16
max—%l �fi�..'�PNt1 �reVtrvjr:aw,+w•�T�s�s,� -
McDONALD
GEOtSCIENCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 • (516)765.3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #3
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1000-124--4-9
Project Description: Engineering
Date: 3/27/88
Dark brown loam
6"
Brown clayey loam
Brown loamy clay
-- -- 3.5'
Pale brown coarse sand
23'
Comments: Monitor well sea. See monitor well data for water level.
A-17
.;N•�:.��,., a u'�-sni:�rrrt:�M'r'osw:�.t';ar�wv;w -rs.��'�►'u;'�' ".�►t ri�i �Oi�Y"�.¢!r.►]j1AMlW,ti+ s:Y+�+caK.r�Pn►mi�Yc�i�r.y�,wr'�„�—: ..�- .._.___,,,. .
McDONALD
GEOQSCMVCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 • (516)765.3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #4
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1000-121-4-9
Project Description: Engineering
Date: 3/27/88
Brown loam
811
Brown sanly loam
--- - 2.1'
Pale brown coarse sand
431
Comments: Monitor well set. See monitor well data for water level.
A-18
-' -• %••L.,s:�"r•:i Sn".k Ai'1��i,.rn.•.C►.7•.}..'�Iaf���RFh'���� `aT's �1N1h�7�,7.`.*..+s iee<a+}X/�Q��rD��'�I`�-' —rs1 r-�---
McDONALD
GEOSCIENCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 • (516)765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963
Surveyor Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1000-121-4-9
Project Description: Engineering
Date: 9/13/88
Brown silty loam
- 2.6'
Pale brown coarse saaa
48'
Comments: Monitor well set. See monitor well lata for grater level.
A-19
.-... ...r� t� pweb�s'f�ran7+K:^,w:A^f4'4!'�'W3�j .l '#'�'7��1^w' ,#•f:.ln•iii[t=+3�1`.+gyy":. _ —..
McDONALD
GEOQSCMVCE
Box 1000 • Southold.New York 11971 • (516)765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #6
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1000-121-4-9
Project Description: Migineering
Date: 4/14/88
Dark brown loam
$,.
Brown sandy loam
--- 2.4'
?ale brown coarse sand
19'
Comments: Monitor well set. See monitor well data for water level.
A-20
•vv..-�{aw.:.iS%+C'is7�s!!:3-:�'i'}M`.YrA'Y:."ri/�:+►'1C1g4�1'v'.'3af4Wliyr:y.��i �a. r�y��' �i"YPM�':+j,S/i'S'IM4ieM°.�rL'st.i}�-+#A[+fY.kY.+'.�+t..M/: .'.a,+
McDONAI.D
GEOtSCMVCE
Box 1000 • Southold,New York 11971 a (516)765-3677
TEST HOLE DATA SHEET
Name: Y&Y 87-1963 #7
Surveyor: Y&Y
Location: Mattituck
Tax Map Number: 1008-121-4-9
Project Description: Engineerlbng
Date: RG 4/13/98
Dark brown sandy loam
-- 8
Wo
Pale brown coarse sand (slight show finis)
--- 7'
Grey clay
8'
Comments: Monitor well set. See monitor well data for water level.
A-21