Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAngel Shores Vol I 1991 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Final Environmental Impact Statement VOLUME I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS ANGEL SHORES, SECTIONS I AND II Southold, New York OCT - I�� I 1991 TMMVMM PU irc September, 1991 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Final Environmental Impact Statement ANGEL SHORES,SECTIONS I AND II Southold,New York Lead Agency: Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall,53095 Main Road Southold,New York 119710 Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski,Jr. Chairman Planning Board Town Hall,53095 Main Road Southold,New York 119710 (516)765-1938 DEIS Prepared by: Henderson&Bodwell 120 Express Street Plainview,New York 11803 FEIS Prepared by. Cramer,Voorhis&Associates,Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place,New York 11764 '(516)331-1455 Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall,53095 Main Road Southold,New York 119710 FEIS Accepted: September 30, 1991 CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Final Environmental Impact Statement ANGEL SHORES, SECTIONS I AND II Southold,New York VOLUME j CONTENTS DRAFT EIS (Incorporated by Reference) INTRODUCTION Page 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS Page 3 Introduction Page 3 Summary Page 5 Section I: Description Page 6 Section II: Inventory of Existing Page 11 Environmental Conditions Section IV: Assessment of Page 47" Environmental Impacts Section V: Critical Impact Areas & Page 72 Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Adverse Environmental Effects Page 78 That Cannot Be Avoided Section V: Development Alternatives Page 79 REFERENCES Page 92 ATTACHMENTS Page 94 Attachment A- Water Supply Site Well Logs Attachment B - Species Composition Attachment C- Species Adaptability CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Attachment D-Adaptability Analysis Attachment E- Wetlands Inventory Map Great Hog Neck Attachment F- Zoning/Land Use Map Great Hog Neck Attachment G - Water Elevations Well No. S-53328 Attachment H -Drought Resistant and Native Landscape Species Attachment I - Qualifications Statement Henderson & Bodwell Attachment J- Qualifications Statement Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Attachment K-Traffic Counts (9-7-91) Attachment L-Accident Reports (1988-1990) Great Hog Neck Attachment M - School District Correspondence Attachment N- Wetland Species for Retention Areas LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Nitrogen- Probability of Page 61 Exceeding Drinking Water Limitations Table 2 Projected Tax Revenue Page 68 By District Table 3 Altemative Comparison Page 81 FINAL EIS ALTERNATIVE PLANS Concept Design A Sheet 1 of 3 Concept Design B Sheet 2 of 3 Concept Design C Sheet 3 of 3 VOLUME IJ COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS (LETTERS AND TRANSCRIPTS) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS intent of the comment. 6) A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective,and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. 7) The most encompassing comment document should be addressed first in the responses - subsequent comments which are duplicative may refer to a previous response. Comments were received from four (4) agencies, seventeen (17) individuals, civic and interest groups, and through three (3)public hearings. The full list of comments, and actual comments are included in Volume II of this Final EIS. These comments have been annotated with coded initials to identify the source in the Response to Comments on the Draft EIS included in Volume I. Only those comments which included substantive comments which require a response were annotated and included in the Response to Comments and in the following list. The coded initials where noted are followed by a number identifying the number of each substantive comment by that source. The source of comments and corresponding coded initials are as follows: PB) Town of Southold Planning Board CVA) Cramer, Voorhis &Associates, Inc. SC) Suffolk County Department of Health Services DOS) New York State Dept. of State SA) Sophia Adler SB) Sydney S. Breese CBPA1 Cedar Beach Park Assoc. Frank Francia 2-12-91) CBPA2 Cedar Beach Park Assoc. (C. Michel 2-11-91) MC) Michael Costello EL Eric Lamont CL Cecilia Loucka RM) Robert Maus January 18, 199 1) RM2) Robert Maus (March 11, 1991) Si) Sherry Johnson (NFEC 3-11-91) NFEC) North Fork Environmental Council (2-12-91) EP) Ernest Pappas DP) Dorothy Phillips DR) Daniel Ross (Atty. for Mr. & Mrs. Wohl DS) Donald Spates ' LTR) Letter regarding skating pond T1 Public Hearing of February 4, 1991 T2 Public Hearing of February 12, 1991 T3 Public Hearing of March 11, 1991 Letters and transcripts were reviewed in detail by CVA in order to identify all substantive comments. Based on this review, a total of 171 individual comments were generated. These comments have been reproduced herein, and are followed by appropriate responses. Where a response has already been provided answering a prior consecutive question, cross-reference to that response has been made. This document fulfills the obligation of the Planning Board in completing a Final EIS based upon Final EIS content requirements as outlined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.14. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement ANGEL SHORES, SECTIONS I AND II Southold,New York INTRODUCTION This document represents the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for the projorect known as Angel Shores, Section I and 11, located in Southold hamlet, Southold, New Yk. The parcels which this document pertains to are located on the south side of Main Bayview Road, between Rambler Road, and Cedar Beach Road, Great Hog Neck, and are more particularly described as SCTM Parcels 1000-88-64, 5 and 13.1. The project has been sub'ect to a Draft EIS prepared by Henderson & Bodwell, consulting engineers, located in lainview, New York. The Draft EIS was accepted January 14, 1991 after completion of several revisions necessary to provide a document adequate for public review. In order to provide an adequate time from for interested and involved agencies, the public and parties of interest to consider the document, a public comment period was provided between the date of acceptance and March 21, 1991. Public hearings on the Draft EIS were held on February 4, 1991, February 12, 1991 and March 11, 1991. A time period for submission of written comments was provided for a period of ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing establishing the close of the comment period on March 21, 1991. On March 22, 1991 comments were forwarded to the applicant for the attorney providing the opportunity for the applicant to respond to substantive comments on the Draft EIS. Based on correspondence received from the applicant, the Planning Board directed their consultants, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Final EIS for Angel Shores. The Planning Board as lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS, regardless of who prepares it, as per 6 NYCRR Part 617.14). Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. (CVA) is a professional environmental and planning consulting firm with offices at 54-2 North Country Road, Miller Place, New York. CVA has sought to provide the Planning Board with an independent, objective response to each of the comments raised through the review of the Draft EIS, and has sought to identify practical means to reduce impacts where necessary. The Final EIS is structured as was recommended by the Planning Board in the letter to the applicants attorney of March 22, 1991. In preparing the Final EIS, the following was considered: 1) The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference. 2) All on al comment letters and transcripts should be included as a portion of the Final EIS. 3) Comments should be separated to identify whether the comments were received in the context of the hearing or as part of the written record. 4) Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. 5 Comments may be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 1 Angel Shores Final EIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS The following documentation pertains to the relevant sections of the Draft EIS, as noted in comments on the Draft EIS received by the Planning Board as lead agency from involved and interested agencies and the public. The comment is stated or paraphrased and is followed by the source of the comment which corresponds to the annotated letters and transcripts included in Volume H of this Final EIS. Each comment is followed by a response which is intended to provide the information requested in the comment, as related to the required information necessary for the lead agency and involved agencies to make informed decisions of specific impacts of the project. Comments and responses follow on a section by section basis,with reference to relevant portions of the Draft EIS where possible. INTRODUCTION Comment 1: General Comment. Introduction. This section should state clearly that the lot yield stipulated in the court settlement is subject to change based on the findings of this environmental review. (PB-1) Response: Acknowledged. The Stipulation of Settlement, item 2 indicates that, "The parties acknowledge that the yield of Angel Shores II shall be predicated upon two-acre zoning that the combined yield for Angel Shores I and II shall be approximately 49 building lots to be clustered so that approximately 18 lots shall be within Angel Shores I with the remaining approximately 31 lots being contained within Angel Shores H. The final determination of lot yield and placement shall be made forthwith by the Planning Board upon completion of SEQRA." Comment 2. Page vi. The discussion of the Critical Environmental Area on page vi should be expanded to examine the environmental impacts of the proposal relative to the sensitivity of the Critical Environmental Area. As written, it just lists the general characteristics of a CEA. (PB-2) Response. This section of the Draft EIS is neither a summary nor an impact analysis. This section serves the purpose of an introduction, identifying the general nature of the proposal and the characteristics of the area. Draft EIS provides a full impact analysis as compared to all seven (7) factors for consideration of a CEA. The designation of CEA implies that the area is sensitive, thereby warranting a detailed impact assessment. There is no purpose served in"...examining the environmental impacts of the proposal relative to the sensitivity of the Critical Environmental Area." in this section,when the balance of the document addresses the details of this issue. Comment 3. Page vii The statement on page vii that 'The water supply system was approved and constructed in accordance with all applicable State and County regulations and procedures and is now being operated by the Village of Greenport Water District."should be changed to reflect the present state of affairs. (PB-3) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 3 Angel Shores Final EIS Response: The portion of the statement in the Draft EIS "...and is now being operated by the Village of Greenport Water District"was correct at the time the Draft EIS was prepared. The plant is currently being operated by William Gremler (c/o GNS, Route 25, Mattituck). Mr. Gremler is a Licensed Water Treatment Plant Operator under contract to the Homeowners Association to provide services operating the water supply facility. Comment 4. Page v. Referring to the Introduction,page v, I find it questionable that the town has agreed upon 1 acre zoning in an area that has been deemed in print and verbal language to be a very fragile environmental space even as the wording in the 3rd paragraph states that the 'broject lies within the Peconic Bay and Environs Critical Environmental Area (CEA) as designated by the Suffolk County Legislature." (EP-1, T2-1) Response: The Town has not agreed on 1 acre zoning as is indicated in this comment. The Town zoned the property to "A-C'district,which requires Yield based on lot sizes of two (2) acres or greater. The applicant litigated this issue and the environmental review process, and as a result the Town and the applicant entered into a Stipulation of Settlement which established an approximate basis for density as quoted in Response to Comment 1 above. Therefore, the Town has not agreed upon a 1-acre density as indicated but has established an overall density for Sections I and II which is less than 1 dwelling unit per acre. Further the Town Planning Board is in the process of assembling facts as a basis for a ILdecision on this project, in consideration of the CEA designation (as it applies to a portion of the site) as well as site and project specific impacts. Comment 5. Pagev. The project site is located within the Suffolk County-designated Peconic Estuary CEA (Critical Environmental Area). According to the DEIS (page v.), the enabling legislation creating this CEA stated that "the Peconic Bay and its immediate surrounding area contain natural resources requiring the most stringent steps to protect them as integral components of Suffolk County's unique environmental and fragile scenic beauty."(SC-1) Response: Acknowledged. The basis for the CEA designation is stated on Page v, of the Draft EIS. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 4 Angel Shores Final EIS SUMMARY Comment 6. General Comment. Summary. This section should state the number of dwelling units the water system can supply pursuant to the Health Department's approval (PB-4) Response: The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Approval of Plans for Public Water Supply Improvement, does not limit the number of dwellings in the approval. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit to construct three water supply wells states the following in Special Condition (WSA 7718) number 7: "The pro'ect should be limited to only Angel Shores (51 units) and the Cove (3r units)." Comment 7.• In genera4 the description of the impacts and the proposed mitigation measures is cursory. This section should be rewritten after other deficiencies in the report are addressed. (PB-5) Response: The Summary in the Draft EIS was accepted by the lead agency and circulated to involved agencies,parties of interest and the public. Rewriting of the Summary at this time would serve no useful purpose. The description of the impacts and the proposed mitigation measures is indeed cursory in the Summary. Detailed information is provided in the main body of the document, and in this Response to Comments. CRAMER, V RAG OCIATES ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS Page 5 Angel Shores Final EIS SECTION I: DESCRIPTION Comment 8.• 14. It would be more accurate to describe the open part of the property as being a meadow and the beginnings of an old field rather than as being in agricultural use. The text does not mention the existence of a clump of five mature trees along Main Bayview Road (PB-6) Response: The site is presently more characteristic of an old field. At the time of preparation of the Draft EIS, the site had been more recently used for agricultural purposes. Not mentioning"the existence of a clump of five mature trees along Main Bayview Road", is irrelevant to the description section of the report. The Vegetation section, on Page 2-12 does acknowledge the existence of some significant trees along the periphery of the Section II portion of Angel Shores. Additionally, that portion of the site is proposed to remain as open space and therefore the "five mature trees"would not be impacted anyway. Comment 9. 1-2. The discussion on access should be clarified by the addition of a map showing the location of the private roads and the rights of way. This map should indicate which property owners have right of way over this property. (PB-7) Response: This information is provided on the Proposed Sketch Map for Angel Shores I and H prepared by Henderson & Bodwell (9-10-90; Drawing No. NY241-006). The subdivision map included with the Draft EIS and the application depicts a 50 foot right-of-way on Section I of Angel Shores. This right-of-way is an encumbrance on the Tax Parcel associated with Section 1, and is owned by the applicant. This aligns with the existing dirt road and provides access to a parcel south of the site fronting on Peconic Bay. There is also a 33 foot strip of property which aligns with an existing dirt road traversing Section II, then turning south to align with Little Peconic Bay Lane. This land provides access to parcels south of Section II. This strip of land is not owned by the applicant; however, the applicant has a deeded right-of-way to utilize and improve this access. There are alternate right-of-ways (including Little Peconic Bay Lane and Cedar Point Road)which meet Cedar Beach Road to the east to provide access to the parcels south of the site. These right-of-ways are not located on the sub* ct site. The Deeds for subject property are included in Appendix J of the Draft EIS. The project proposed in connection with the Draft EIS proposed to maintain the alignment of right-of-ways by aligning the subdivision road right-of-ways with same. The construction of subdivision access improvements would maintain and improve the integrity of these right- of-ways. CRAMER, VR / SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 6 Angel Shores Final EIS Furthermore, due to the fact that the 33 foot strip is not owned by the applicant, this strip of land must either be left untouched or the subdivision roads must align with the existing dirt road. In the preparation of Concept Design A for the Final EIS, the location of the right-of-ways has been left to remain the same. It should be noted that the applicant's engineering consultant has indicated the following: "Neither the applicant, title company, or any consultants have been able to determine all parties previously granted right of access over this property. Regardless, all right-of-access which has been provided in the past will be provided subsequent to approval and construction of a use on the site." (written correspondence, Charles Beckert to Fred Block,June 18, 1991). This remains true for Concept Design A, and physical right-of-ways are preserved in other concepts included in the alternatives section. Comment 10. 1-3. There should be in the DEIS an absolute guarantee that neither Sections I nor H of the Angel Shores plan has any rights to use Cedar Point Road West (aka. Cedar Point Drive West) or Cedar Beach Road. These are roads privately maintained by the CEPA. The Page 1-3 reference to 'Title Insurance Guarantee"should apply to Little Peconic Bay Road, Qnl . This restriction of course also applies to CBPA residents'private beaches at the foot of Inlet Way and at the foot of Cedar Point Drive East. How will the proposed subdivision affect the private roads within and adjacent the site. (CBPA1-11, DP-S, T1-5, TI-8, T2-21) Response: This comment is acknowledged. Information presented in the Draft EIS in no way indicates or infers that the future residents of the Angel Shores Community have right to utilize any properties which are not part of the Angel Shores subdivision. Title Insurance Guarantee only applies to that which is noted and applies to the site. Please refer to Response to Comment 9 for the affect of the subdivision on private roads within the site. Comment 11: 1-5 through 1-30. The chronology of events listed here is not relevant to the environmental review. While this information may have been of value to the court, it is of no value to the DEIS. Deletion of same is suggested (PB-8) Response. The scoping checklist established by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (6 NYCRR Part 617.21), and the scope specifically established for this project requires that the background and history of the project be established. The chronology of events leading to the acceptance of the Draft EIS is the most efficient way to provide this legally required information. In addition, the Draft EIS has been accepted as complete and circulated to involved agencies for comment. It is not appropriate to retract this section as it benefits the understanding of the background and history of the project. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 7 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 12: 1-30. Provide documentation to support the statement that there is a public need for this project. Also, the discussion of the goals of the Master Plan update does not explain how this project furthers those goals. (PB-9) Response: The public need for this project is based on the desirability of the Great Hog Neck area to attract consumers to high quality housing in a natural setting. The proposed project furthers the goals of the Master Plan through the construction of high end quality housing to compliment and add diversity to other types of available housing in the Town of Southold. The following goals of the Master Plan are applicable to the subject site: * Maximize the town's natural assets,including its coastal location and agricultural base and achieve compatibility between the natural environment and the development. * achieve a land use pattern that is sensitive to the limited indigenous water supply and will not degrade the subsurface water quality. * Provide the opportunity for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycle,various income and age levels and household compositions. * Preserve and enhance the Town's natural environment including,waterways, wetland,tidal marshes,woodlands,bluffs,dunes and beaches. * Ensure that there is adequate quantity of high quality groundwater to serve Southold's present and projected year-round and seasonal populations. * Maintain and improve surface water quality. * Maintain and improve existing utility systems. The Planning Board is extremely cognizant of the goals of the Master Plan as related to providing compatible, sensitive housing developments. The Town's natural resources are what drives the Town economy which heavily relies on the attraction tourism and recreation. Based upon the Proposed Project plan included in the Draft EIS, the Planning Board has concern for maintaining resources associated with the subject site and adjacent areas. This was expressed in the comments generated by the Planning Board as well as other qualified professionals, interest groups and the public. In order the ensure the protection of unique resources associated with the site, including open space, tidal and fresh wetlands, Maritime Red Cedar Forest, dune environment and field habitat, the Planning Board has directed the completion of the Final EIS for this project, including the presentation and analysis of three (3) alternate development plans which tend to conform more closely to the goals of the Master Plan in preserving, protecting and enhancing the To Am's natural resources. The goals of the Master Plan and the Planning Board concerns must be balanced with economic factors and the objectives of the sponsor of the Angel Shores project. The sponsors goals, as stated in the Draft EIS are to, "...acquire subdivision approval,construct the public water main, drainage systems and roadway system and then sell improved lots on CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 8 Angel Shores Final EIS which the new lot owners may construct their individual homes (with proper approvals and permits)." Alternate plans will conform to this objective as well as environmental goals of the Town. Comment 13: 1-32. Provide documentation and proof to support statement that this project will generate sufficient tax revenue to exceed public expenditures. (PB-10) Response: The proposed project will generate approximately $56,533.77 in Town taxes and $12,180.10 in special district taxes. A further breakdown indicates the proposed development will contribute approximately $500.00 per resident on an annual basis. This compares well to the figure of$495.26 per resident which the Town currently spends on each resident to provide maintenance of the roads, snow removal and other town related services. This number only relates current budget to total population and does not take into consideration the amount of land which is classified for non-residential use (i.e. industrial or commercial) and may produce revenue in the future without demand for services. The amount of taxes generated by the proposed Angel Shores Development is for comparison purposes only, recognizing that estimates are hypothetical based on current tax rates and real estate market analysis. Actually, market conditions may be higher in the next 5 to 10 years or at the time of project buildout. The analysis was based upon a market price $350,000 (house and lot) based upon conversations with local relators in consideration of the price of new construction and the cost of vacant land in this area. This analysis concludes that the land would sell for $150,000 a lot and a 2,000 square foot house would cost $100/square foot to construct for a combined price of approximately $350,000.00. It is anticipated that additional development will occur within the Town in the future,which will also generate tax revenue and burden services. Since Angel Shore is to be a private community, the homeowners will be responsible for the maintenance of streets thereby reducing Town expenditures for services in connection with this development. In summary, the proposed project will bring $56,533.77 in taxes a year to the Town,which is,comparable to the per person expenditure of the Town at present. The fiscal impact of the project is reduced slightly by less demand for services such as park facilities and road maintenance due to the proposed open space oriented privately maintained community. Comment 14: 1-35. Where will topsoil be stockpiled? How will the stockpile be protected from erosion? Will all topsoil remain on site, or will some of it be sold? Finally, if lots are not going to be developed until individual lot owners chose to begin construction, which may be years after the initial purchase of the lot, what is the purpose of stripping the lots and stockpiling the topsoil? (PB-11) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 9 Angel Shores Final EIS Response. Topsoil should be stockpiled in areas which will eventually be disturbed as part of the development, andel reused once final g ding is completed. Particular attention should be given to stockpiling materials on Section I. Stockpiles should be placed as far from steep slope and/or wetland areas as possible. Hay bales should be placed on the lowest side of the stockpile. Fast germinating grass seed can be cast over piles if they will remain for more than several days. The buildin&inspector should examine stockpiling techniques during construction inspections, and provide on site recommendations when warranted. Topsoil on individual lots will not be stripped until such time as the lot will be developed. Comment 15. General Comment. The number of lots seems excessive for the area in terms of quality of life for the residents of Bayview and the town in general It is also unfortunate that when developments of this size area proposed that there is not a requirement that a certain portion, say 10%, of the lots be assigned for what we would like to call "affordable housing" When a large number o 3-4 bedroom dwellings area in place there will be a need for services t tat might well be staffed by people of the town who are unable to afford the costs of Angel Shores. (SB-1) Response: The density of development has been a major issue of contention between the Town and the landowner. Response to Comments 1 and 4 outline the density issue, and how it relates to this environmental review. The possible use of this property for affordable homes is optional. The Town of Southold provides a specific zoning district for Affordable Housing (AHD). The subject site has not been placed in this district. The Town is seeking to provide a healthy mix of affordable housing in order to provide housing to a variety of income levels and needs. Staffing for providing services to the Angel Shores community will occur as demand increases and jobs are sought. Comment 16. General Comment. The Board must assure that the sub-division remain inviolatea er approval;i.e., there can be no future application to use any of the buf er zones presently shown. (CBPA-13, 72-22) Response: The concept of clustering is that once the yield of a site is utilized by establishing a number of dwelling units, no further yield may be extracted from the property. This is the case with Angel Shores. In addition, mitigation will require the filing of a covenant that there be no disturbance to the soils or vegetation of any of the common areas on Sections I and H of Angel Shores. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 10 Angel Shores Final EIS SECTION II: INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Comment 17.- 2-1 to 2-4. The geology section is too general: Test boring data should be included here, along with an analysis of the data (PB-1 ) Response. The geology section provides a baseline of information regarding subsurface soils. Tesf holes are required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) in connection with subdivision approval, as well as at the time of permitting of individual sanitary systems on private lots. The Health Department generally requires one test hole per ten (10) acres of land. In addition, the Town of Southold will require test holes in the areas proposed for recharge of stormwater, to ensure proper leaching soils. At the time of processing of the Draft EIS, the exact location of lots and recharge areas were not known. The Final EIS has resulted in thepreparation of alternate development plans which change the location and configuration of lots. Prior to approval of the preliminary subdivision,the applicant should provide test holes in accordance with Health Department requirements as well as those of the Town Engineer for drainage purposes. SCDHS has established design criteria for sanitary systems based on adequate leaching soils (sand and gravel). In cases where sand and gravel are not present, a modified system must be designed and reviewed/approved by the Board of Review. Typical systems involve larger capacity and excavation with backfill of suitable leaching material, in order to provide a properly functioning system. With regard to the subject site,wells have been installed in connection with the Water Supply site. A log of these wells is provided in Attachment 'and these logs indicate an adequate depth of fine to coarse sand and gravel in the area of the well field. The surface soils have been documented in the Draft EIS. With the exception of wetland and flood plain areas, there is no reason to expect that the soils on site are constrained due to poor leaching qualities. The alternative plans preared for this Final EIS, enlarge setbacks from wetlands and removes Former Lot 3 from the flood plain area. As indicated, further review of subsurface soils will be conducted by SCDHS and the Town in connection with the preliminary subdivision review. Comment 18. 2-5 to 2-9 The Soils section should be expanded to include a discussion of the suitability of the soils for septic systems. Accordingly, the discussion should include a review of the probability of nitrates or other chemicals leaching into the groundwater and the fresh and salt water wetlands from septic systems. (PB-13) Response: Appendix B of the Draft EIS provides excerpts from the Suffolk County Soil Survey,which indicate limitations of each of the soil types on site. This includes the suitability for sewage disposal fields. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 11 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS The permitting of sanitary systems is the responsibility of the Health Department. Systems which are designed and approved on the site must meet minimum standards intended to provide for properly functioning systems. Sanitary waste disposal will involve discharge of nitrogen compounds to subsurface soils. The sanitary system is intended to contain solids and provide effluent leaching. Fresh sewage effluent contains primarily ammonia-nitrogen -the function of the sanitary system is to convert ammonia-nitrogen to nitrate-nitrogen. In order to achieve this conversion at least 2 feet of unsaturated soil is required beneath the bottom of the leaching pool, and above seasonal high water elevations. Provided the system is designed, aproved and constructed in accordance with Health Department standards, the Etem will function properly. The proposal calls for all subsurface char&e with no surface discharge of effluent. Therefore there will be no overland transport of effluent to surface water. Subsurface transport of nitrogen and other sanitary wastes will occur, as groundwater migrates from a sanitary discharge point. Nitrogen is conservative in groundwater. For this reason it is extremely important to consider density of development. This is considered in SCDHS requirements under Article 6 of the Sanitary Code,which requires density based on 1 dwelling unit/acre in the portion of Southold Town where Angel Shores is located. The project must conform to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code in order to ensure proper disposal of sanitary waste and minimize impact to ground and surface water. Comment 19: 2-5. The soils map on Page 2-7 identifies an area of Haven Loam soils with a thick su%elview ce layer(He), occupying a mayor portion of Lot S and part of Lot 6. of the Suffolk County Soil Survey finds that these soils pose significant constraints with regard to sanitary disposa4 homesites, streets, etc, due to flooding and poor drainage In fact, the majority of both Lots S and 6 are less than elevation 10 indicating severe constraints with regard to installation of a mandated three (3)pool sanitary system with a minimum of two (2)feet above groundwater. This impact has not been identified or mitigated Lot enlargement, transfer or some means of mitigation should be considered to allow for proper sanitary system functioning and remove activity from the Flood Zone A. (CVA-1) Response: This comment is acknowledged. The Proposed Pro'ect map contained in the Draft EIS would result in potential ground and su2ace water impact due to location of sanitary systems in flood zones,with constrained soil, in areas where sigm cant fill would be required to achieve an adequate leaching depth. Many techniques are available to minimize this impact. Lot lines can be shifted through the design of smaller lots, in effect clustering building envelopes away from constrained soil areas. The Draft EIS provides an alternative which reduces the number of lots in Section I, in order to increase open space areas. These are two viable techniques which have been explored in alternate development plans. It is recommended that clustering, transfer from Section I to Section II, and lot size reduction be utilized to mitigate these impacts. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page u ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 20. 2-9 to 2-11. The Topography section could be expanded to include answers to the following questions: What types of soils underlie the areas of greater than 10%slope? What is the total volume of nano that is generated on the site? What percentage of that nuwf,�'feeds the fresh and salt water wetlands on the site? What percentage drains onto Main Bayview Road? What percentage runs off onto surrounding properties? Does any of the runoff moving off the site feed adjacent salt or freshwater wetland systems? Are there any erosion problems on the site? (PB-14) Response: Figure 4 (Soils Map) and Figure 5 (Slope Analysis Map) are provided in the Draft EIS and can be reviewed to determine the type of soil beneath areas of greater than 10% slope. From these figures it is evident that primarily Riverhead Sandy loam lies beneath greater than 10% slope areas. Runoff issues must be considered in the context of impacts related to development. The tidal wetlands rely on daily inundation by tidal waters. This will not be altered as a result of the proposed project and is not a factor which is related to runoff from the site. The freshwater ponds on the site are groundwater fed ponds as evidenced by a comparison of the topographic elevation with the elevation of the ponds (refer to Proposed Sketch Plan, Henderson& Bodwell 9-10-90; Drawing No. NY241-006). Some overland runoff may feed the ponds on site during extreme precipitation events when the infiltration capacity of the soil is exceeded. The Draft EIS provides a Drainage Shed Map (Figure 6),which deppicts the approximate contributing areas of overland flow to the ponds. It is noted however, that the ponds would be expected to be present, even if overland runoff is diverted from the ponds due to the fact that they are groundwater fed. Review of Figure 6 finds that less than 25 percent of Section II is north of a drainage boundary, indicating that some runoff from the north end of the site may flow toward Main Bayview Road. Figure 6 also indicates a potential for runoff to leave the site toward adjacent properties, including the eastern and southern 50 percent of Section II, and the western 20 percent of Section I. It does not appear that any runoff which leaves the site sustains off site wetlands. During field inspections, there was no evidence of erosion observed. It should be noted that the conditions outlined above are present conditions. The proposed project will involve runoff containment measures in order to control stormwater. Runoff diversion from freshwater wetlands is not expected to change conditions because the ponds are groundwater fed. In addition,alternative development concepts proposed as part of this Final EIS provide additional setbacks and open space in the vicinity of on site ponds,which will have the effect of minimizing changes in the drainage areas of these surface water features. Runoff containment will control runoff which may leave the site on the eastern and southern portions of Section II. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 13 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 21: The Drainage Shed Map, Figure 6, clearly shows that the generalflow low is East and South predominantly towards the Cedar Beach Park Association in addition to the ma onty o the surface runoff which in the past has inundated Cedar Beach Road, contaminated the creek causin ecological damage, and put tons of silt into the creek bottom seriously of j iecting the biological balance and the food chain in our creeks and estuaries. (EP-S, T2-S) Response. This comment pertains to current conditions. Proper runoff containment in connection with a proposed development plan is expected to reduce the quantity of runoff which may leave the site. Comment 22: 2-12 to 2-26. The section on Vegetation is not definitive in its description of what exists. For instancy it goes into detail about the Maritime Red Cedar forest, but does not seem to establish whether there is or isn't such a forest. If there is no such forest, then, at least, there should be a letter from a recognized expert who has been on the site stating that there is no such forest. (PB-IS, SI-1, T3-3) Response: Significant discussion was presented in the DEIS with regard to the Maritime Red Cedar Forest (Pages 2-13 to 2-19). It is acknowledged that this documentation provides no clear position of whether or not the forest type found on site (Section I) is or is not a Maritime Red Cedar Forest. e Draft EIS devoted attention to raising questions regarding the input of individuals knowledgeable about this forest type. For the preparation of this Response to Comments, further contact was made with the cited experts. From personal communication, and as indicated in the Draft EIS, it is clear that there is little available documentation on Maritime Red Cedar Forests. It is also clear that there are very few of these communities existing, as evidenced by the State Rank (Reschke, 1990): SI - Typically S or fewer occurrences, veryfew remaining individuals, acres, or miles of streams, or especially vulnerable to extirpation in New York State for other reasons. To understand why this forest habitat is rare, one should first understand the growth characteristics of the dominant tree, the eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The following is taken from"Native Trees, shrubs, and Vines for Urban and Rural America-A Plant Design Manual for Environmental Designers"written by Gary L lEghtshoe (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York; 1988) and is intended to provide an overview of the eastern red cedar. "Cedars are considered a small tree,SO'-75'feet mature height and are also slow growing(20-30 year old trees generally only 18'-24'tall). Young trees are not very tolerant of shade and the mature trees are very intolerant. This species can survive in a broad range of soil conditions and are heat and drought resistant. They are extremely long lived,given a proper habitat,with the maximum age about 300 years. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 14 Angel Shores Final ELS Since cedars or extremely tolerant of a broad range of soil types and are also drought& beat tolerant,these trees are usually one of the first to colonize an area once it has been cleared(Elias,1980). However,once other tree species establish themselves the cedars are out competed,because of their slow growth rate,small stature and intolerance of shade. Other tree species literally over shadow the cedars. For example,the black oak (Quercus velutina),a large tree(75'-100'mature height),is found in the same soil types and conditions as the cedars and,is fairly tolerant of shade. But,it has a much faster growth rate,approximately 2'per year (Hightsboe,1998). Therefore a 20-30 year old black oak could be as tall as 40'to 60'as opposed to the 18'-24'height of a cedar of the same age." The only way a pure red cedar forest could be maintained is if only red cedars, and species smaller and slower growing (than the cedars) colonized an area. Individual cedars form a very dense mass (Hightshoe, 1988). Numerous cedars, close together would produce very dense shade which would not allow other tree seedlings to grow under them. The occurrence of dense stands of cedars (which would deter other species growth), are not common. In most successional communities the spacing between cedars is wide enough to allow other, more rapid growing, tree species to colonize between them (Andrew Greller,personal communication, September 11, 1991). The result would be an ultimate decline of the cedars. Tree species listed as associated with red cedar are typically: those that have open, narrow canopies (black locust, honeylocust, sassafrass, etc.); small species persimmon, hawthorns, sumac. etc.); and slow growing species blackjack oak,post oak) and/or a combination (Hightshoe, 1988). These vegetative associations further tend to support the argument that other larger, faster growing species out compete cedars. Cedars do have an advantage over many other tree species in a coastal environment. The species is resistant to salt and, as noted previously, is tolerant of heat and poor, droughty soil conditions typical of many coastal areas. With regard to soils, one expert has observed that a Maritime Red Cedar Forest occurs in soils of holocene on* ''n (windblown and tidal beach deposits)rather than soils of glacial origin. Cedar trees are also tolerant of potential wind and ice damage "decidedly windfarm"-(Hightshoe, 1988). The wildlife value for this tree is also considered very high - animals such as songbirds, upland ground birds, small mammals and hoofed browsers all are common in this type of plant community (Hightshoe, 1988). Based on information collected to date on this subject, it is concluded that the habitat found on site is characteristic of a Maritime Red Cedar Forest. The primary unique feature is the dominance of red cedar to the exclusion of other species in a coastal environment. Not all of the indicators are precisely consistent with all of the literature, it must be recognized that documentation on this habitat is incomplete, and the basic unusual characteristics exist on portions of the Angel Shores site. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 15 Angel Shores Final EIS While it is true that no regulations or laws specifically protect this type of habitat, consideration should be given to the preservation and protection of at least a part of it. This protection and preservation is appropriate simply because of the rarity of the habitat, as well as the fact that the forest provides wildlife habitat for the site and the surrounding area The Draft EIS depicts an area of Angel Shores,where red cedars are dominant (Figure 7). Field inspection and review of aerial photographs finds that there are varying densities of red cedars within the depicted area. A dense pure stand of cedars would suggest that a Maritime Red Cedar Forest would continue in that area,while a low density of cedars with other fast growing, taller trees could indicate that the habitat presently on site is transitional. Areas with a low density of cedar could therefore be considered less sensitive for the preservation and protection of a Maritime Red Cedar Forest, given the fact that pure cedar stands would be unlikely as succession proceeds. Field inspections and review of aerialphotographs indicate that the area in the central eastern portion of Section I contains the densest stand of cedar. This area coincides with the area around the central fresh wetlands and extends south to an area east of the tidal marsh. The northwest portion of the site was once a nursery as is evident by rows of plant species. This area includes species other than red cedar; however, mixed species are not expected to achieve a high canopy therefore it is possible that red cedar may eventually outcompete other vegetation. The area in the southwesternportion of the site is more characteristic of dune community vegetation,and includes red cedar mixed with other vegetation. The densest areas of red cedar should be considered in project planning. Comment 23. 2-19 Generally, I have no problems with the statement. The DEIS states that more research is needed on the Maritime Red Cedar Forest plant community-Bob Zaremba, Carol Reschke, and Andy Greller have not visited the site NYNHP has documented only one occurrence of this plant community in the state, and has not systematically searched for others It seems logical to me that before the DEIS is accepted by the Town o SouthoI4 the question of the occurrence of a Maritime Red Cedar f orest at Angel Shores be settled (EL-1) Response: Please see Response to Comment 22,which provides additional information regarding recognized experts, and relevant information on species present on the site. Comment 24. 2-21. The statement in the last paragraph, "It is also very unlikely that any rare or endangered species would be present on the site due to past human disturbance and agricultural activities", is unsupported In fact many of the rare plants thrive on the sunlit conditions of farm fields and road edges The statement in the Draft EIS should be clarified or supported with references. (CVA-2) CRAMER, V R A/ SOGC IATES p 16 ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Response: This comment is acknowledged. No rare or endangered species were observed on the site. Historic occurrences of several un rotected plants have been documented by the New York Natural Heritage Program as is indicated in Appendix G of the Draft EIS. Comment 25. 2-21 to 2-32. Review of the Vegetation Zone Map on Page 2-22, indicates that Section I is comprised of at least three (3)distinct, unusual and biologically productive habitats, whereas Section II is depicted as being hom�eneous recently fanned field. Given the Fact that the Draft EIS considers both sections as a whole,please provide more detail regarding the relative wildlife importance and habitat value between these arcelL Further,please provide additional insight into the importance of edges between, and inter-connection of,freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands and adjacent scrub/shrub areas, in terns of wildlife value Please indicate the wildlife habitat importance of the area of dominant red cedar. Finally, please review the potential for increased wildlife activity in southwest comer of Parcel I, between Peconic Bay and the 'finger"of tidal wetlands which protrudes into the property. (CVA-3) Response: This comment is acknowledged. Angel Shores, Section I includes fresh ponds and associated wetlands and adjacent areas. In addition, the southwest corner of the site includes tidal marsh and a portion of a salt pond. Upland areas include dune environment, Maritime Red Cedar Forest, and other shrub upland and former nursery upland areas. Wetland areas are undeniably more biologically productive areas. This is evident in review of wildlife information presented in Response to Comment 26 below. This productivity supports a greater variety and density of wildlife species. Adjacent upland provide additional foraging, hunting and nesting opportunities. It has been previously noted that the cedar stands provide wildlife value for animals such as songbirds,upland ground birds, small mammals and hoofed browsers. With this greater intensity of wildlife activity it is important to preserve the diversity of habitats and provide for substantial inter-connection of habitats in order to support wildlife populations. Preservation of corridors is a common tool in order to promote maintain wildlife activity between productive areas. It is noted that the Proposed Sketch Plan included in the Draft EIS includes a series of lots in the southwest comer of Section I (Lots 11- 15),which limit inter-connection between tidal wetland areas across the site and would cause intrusion into dune community and areas containing stands of red cedar. Expansion of this corridor is particularlyimportant given the network of wetlands which transect Angel Shores Section I and the fact that there are established land uses west of the site which preclude other inter-connection opportunities. In addition, the Proposed Project includes lots which encroach upon wetlands setbacks,limit inter-connection of habitats within the site, and CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 17 Angel Shores Final EIS would result in significant loss of Maritime Red Cedar Forest. For these reasons, alternative develo.pment plans have been prepared in order to achieve the following with respect to habitat protection on Section I: • Elimination(relocation to Section Il)of former Lots 11 and 12(Section 1), which were in a dense stand of pure red cedar and also contained steep slopes adjacent to tidal marsh and a fresh pond. • Elimination(relocation to Section 1T)of former Lots 14 and 15(Section I), which interfered with interconnection of intertidal and high marsh wetlands areas and destroyed central dune community habitat as well as stands of red cedar between the above noted wetland areas. It is recommended that clustering, transfer from Section I to Section II, and lot size reduction be utilized to mitigate these impacts. Other measures may be necessary in response to issues raised in other comments; however, these recommendations pertain primarily to the uniqueness and variety of habitats on the site. Comment 26. 2-27 to 2-30. The Wildlife section does not document the importance of the habitats either in general or for specific species. For instance:Is this a significant deer habitat? How many deer=frequent the site? How will development of the site affect the suitability of this habitat for deer? The absence of quantified field data from an on-site survey makes it difficult to determine the significance of the impacts for each of the species named within this section. (PB-16) Response. Field evaluations for wildlife activity were carried out as part of the preparation of the Draft EIS and in the preparation of this Response to Comments. Species populations have been considered with less emphasis than species composition andspecies expected due to the presence of certain habitats on the site. This form of analysis is consistent with ecological principals and with the legally mandated requirement to protect essential habitat associated with endangered species. In order to provide more comprehensive data regarding wildlife species on or expected on the site, further inventory has been conducted. In addition, a great deal of additional information concerning species biology in terms of needs, seasonality, habits, etc., has also been compiled. The basis for this inventory is a habitat based wildlife inventory model developed by Cramer, Voorhis& Associates,Inc., for use on PC's using a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. The rationale behind the model and its use for predicting species compostion and adaptability on the subject site is presented in Attachments B,C,and D,as well as the results of the model,for Species Composition, Species Adaptability and Adaptability Analysis. Further discussion rear ping specific species of concern as identified in Comment 26 is provided in the following paragraphs. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Ptkge 18 Angel Shores Final EIS The habitats associated with this site support the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The white-tailed deer (the largest locally occurring mammal species),was observed on portions of the site -these observations included both tracks and droppings as well as individuals. This species prefers forests alternating with open fields, in order to 'lied down m"(Connor, 1971;Godin, 1977). The deer also likes to feed near water. White-Tailed Deer tend to be social, living in groups of up to 25 or more in the winter, and usually singly or 2 -3 (doe and awns) in the summer and fall. They are considered browsers, feeding on a tremendous variety of vegetation (twigs, shrubs, fungi, acorns and grass and herbs in season) found in their range (Burt, 1964). The deer's range is rarely more than one mile across (Burt, 1964) and individuals tend to move between areas occupying an area of 2 to 3 square miles for weeks (Godin, 1983). This specie is present in large numbers on the eastern end of Long Island,where suitable cover,mild winters, abundance of food and lack of predators enables the deer to populate. This species is also very tolerant of the activities of man (Burt, 1964) and have been known to damage crops and ornamental landscaping. There are two ponds located on the site, one in the centralonion and the other in the northern part (adjacent to Bayview Avenue of Section I. Considering the amount of evidence and site conditions, the site a appears to be viable habitat for this species, particularly including the field habitat on Section II. The Hog Neck area ingeneral also provides suitable conditions for this species in the form of abandoned farm fields interspersed with woodlots and landscaping around residential homes. In addition to the conditions on the site there are also numerous other fresh water sources in the immediate area of the site. The proposed development is not expected to significantly impact the white-tailed deer, due to the fact that the project site represents a very small portion of the species preferred habitat area found on Hog Neck. The project is however expected to nearly eliminate the existing field habitat on the site which is adjacent to wooded areas. In addition, the wooded habitat will also be reduced in size. To reduce the potential impacts from the loss of wooded habitat and to provide wildlife corridors between the two fresh water ponds and tidal wetlands on the site with existing open space to the north, a clustering of the proposed dwelling units should take place. This can be accomplished through reduction of lot size in order to provide open space corridors and expand the amount of contiguous open space throughout the site. The habitats found on the project site provide for a wide variety of wildlife including the Whiteailed Deer. It is noted that this species is adaptable to the activities of man. In determining impacts upon existing site wildlife populations, or specific species, it is im ortant to consider a basic assumption: that in nature, a balance of wildlife populations is established as a result of the natural and man-induced CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 19 Angel Stores Final EIS stresses and individual site characteristics (food, shelter,habitat type, external factors). Under this principal,it is assumed that each and all of the ecological niches are filled. Thus,the removal of habitats resulting from the proposedprotect will have a direct impact on the abundance and diversity of wildlife using the site. Also, the increased intensity of human activity on the site will cause an indirect impact on the abundance of wildlife which remain on the site and in the area, under post-development conditions. In the short term, lands surrounding the subject property will experience an increase in the abundance of certain wildL.fe populations, prompted by the construction phase of the proposed protect. Competition,with species and individuals already occupying the ecological niches of the surrounding lands,will result in a net decrease of individuals of the various species. However, the density and diversity of regional populations is expected ultimately(long term) to remain the same,provided that habitat types remain intact over the total regional area. In summary, the impacts to the wildlife are directly+related to the removal of vegetation found on site and secondarily related to the activities of man. The white-tailed deer has been identified above as beingtolerant of the activities of man and will still occupy the site andor the adjoining properties subsequent to development. However, the actual number of individuals of this species may ultimately decline because of the loss of breeding and feeding habitat. Food and space in these areas are usually the controlling factors that determine population density for a species. It is assumed that the wildlife population densities (particularly the white-tailed deer)presently on the undeveloped site, and the surrounding areas, are in equilibrium with the resources. When the equilibrium density is.surpassed by displaced individuals from the project site, competition for food and shelter will cause either an increased mortality rate or a decreased birth rate, thereby causing a fluctuation of the number of individuals back to the equilibrium density (Einmel, 1973). Comment 27.• General Comment. Despite comments to the contraryfiled by both the SCDHS " Office of Ecology dated 8-I5-88 and from Frank Panek of the DEC dated 7-28-88 which state that the white-tail deer population of Hog Neck may actually permanently inhabit Section I, the DEIS fails to demonstrate the importance of this site to the Hog Neck herd The FEIS should fully discuss the white-tail deer, its habitat needs both in the winter and summer, suitable locations on Hog Neck and the acreage needed to support the local herd. Impacts such as an increase in damage to ornamental Plantings as a result of the loss of natural habitat should also be discussed (NFEC-3) Response. This comment is addressed in Response to Comment 26. Please refer to that response for a full discussion. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES �2O ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 28. 2-29 The FEIS should substantiate the claim on page 2-29 that osprey wouldn't be likely to nest on the project site because they 'would require a larger tract of undeveloped land." (NFEC-4) Response. The statement presented in the EIS that the ospreys"would prefer a larger tract of undeveloped land"than what the site provides has some support in the literature,but requires additional clarification. In order to fully address this comment a complete understanding of the life habits of the Osprey is necessary. One of the most complete sources is a book entitled "Ospreys -A Natural and Unnatural History"by Alan F. Poole, (Cambridge University Press, N.Y.; 1989). The followin&is paraphrased from this reference, and is intended to provide an overview of the needs of this species: The Osprey is a large bird of prey,about the size of a small eagle or a large soaring (Buteo)hawk. Ospreys are the only diurnal bird of prey that feeds almost exclusively on live fish. They are considered a shore and coastal bird,their life habits are interwoven between land and water. Rarely do they nest more then a few kilometers from a body of water. When not nesting they patrol bays and shoreline in search of prey. Osprey have a world-wide distribution,with most of the population being migratory. Most of the North American population winters in Latin America,the Caribbean Basin and in northern South America. Year round populations are found within Mexico and Florida. Within this section of the country(41 degrees north latitude)the Osprey arrives in the middle to end of March and departs in the first week of September. Breeding pairs usually return to the same nest year after year. During the 1950's and 1960's,pesticide contamination threatened many of the east coast Osprey populations. Egg viability fell drastically,depressing hatching rates and eventually breeding numbers as well. Today,with the elimination of the pesticide problem(principally DDT)these populations are recovering. Reproductive success is high,breeding numbers are expanding rapidly,and pairs are adapting to an increasingly developed coastline. To thrive within a given area the Osprey,like other birds,need food and nest sites. The shallow waters of bays and wetlands warm quickly,attracting fish which constitute the birds'diet. With a readily available source of food immediately in an area the principal concern for use of a site by Osprey is the nesting potential. Good nest sites are critical to breeding success and may last for generations,therefore proper selection favors individuals that discriminate in selection. First,the nest site nearly always is near food,which could be as far as three to five kilometers from water. Second,the area around the nest site must be open,giving the birds clear access when landing. Osprey wings are poorly adapted for maneuvering in tight quarters. Tops of isolated trees(often dead ones),utility poles,light towers,etc. are preferred nest sites. These birds will also use structures(docks,buoys,poles)located in the water for nest sites. The third and critical nest site requirement is the difficulty of predators to climb to the nest(principally raccoons). Man made structures such as utility poles and light towers,as well as structures over the water provide a significant degree of protection CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 21 Angel Shores Final EIS from predators. Another consideration is the potential disruption caused by humans in the area of the nest. Some reports have shown that Ospreys nesting near people reproduce poorly, others have found no negative effects. The key to this differences seems to lie in the timing of the disturbance and the extent to which Ospreys are accustomed to it. Among Ospreys in the eastern United States,for example,it has been found that pairs breeding in suburban habitat(less than 300 meters from roads,railroads,boat channels,or inhabited houses)raised as many young as pairs breeding in natural reserves rarely visited by people. Habituation is apparently the key to Osprey tameness,therefore, nesting pairs disturbed only sporadically are those in the most danger of failing. Osprey also are alert to subtle differences in human behavior and distance from nests is not the sole criterion to be considered. The osprey's potential tameness has had a major impact on its distribution,allowing it to breed successfully in settled areas where many other large birds of prey would never venture. Tolerance of people has helped to make the Osprey the ecological opportunist that it is,and will be a key to its continued success as a species." It should be noted that no Osprey nests were observed on site. With regard to the viability of the site for Osprey habitat two principal conditions must be met-food and nesting opportunities. Little Peconic Bay, Cutchogue Harbor, Hog Neck Bay, Southold Bay, Noyack Bay and all the small tributaries to these bodies of water would be within the range of the Osprey(3 to 5 kilometers). It is therefore considered that a viable source of food (live fish)would be available to the Osprey. The second condition, the nest site,includes three considerations: 1) near to water (3 to 5 kilometers); 2) clear landing area around nest site (usually elevated above surrounding growth), and;3)protection from predators. With regard to the first nest consideration, the site certainly meets the criteria of being within 5 kilometers of the water. However, this in itself is not unique - in fact it should be noted that the entire Town of Southold would meet this criteria. The second and third considerations (a clear flight path to the nest site andprotection from predators), are more tenuous as regards the subject site. While large trees are present on portions of the site, none provide the flat tops conducive to nest construction. Furthermore, as the entire Town of Southold is within nesting range of this species it is safe to assume that there are more conducive nesting platforms in other locations. Man-made structures on the site could provide opportunities for nesting Osprey if they were properly prepared (ie -platforms on top) and located. The later brings into question whether the present existence of people in the area and the proposed development would impact the breeding pairs. Poole states that platforms can be located nearby human activity,but only when exposed to continuous disturbance. In areas where disturbance is not continuous the platform should be located "several hundred meters"away from people. Year round occupation of the residential homes would provide a continuous CRAMER, VR \ SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS disturbance of any breeding pair,providing the opportunity for habituation. Seasonal occupation of the homes surrounding a potential Osprey nest site would result in increased disturbance during the month of June. Human activity would increase at a time when Osprey would be just finishing hatching their eggs or when young have just hatched. This could also be true for the existing homes in the area as activity around them would increase during the warmer summer months. tf Ospreys were disturbed during this period,when young are the most sensitive, it could mean an increase in mortality rate. Since Osprey are not presently found nesting on the site it may suggest that human activity is presently too close. The proposed development would further reduce the viability of the site for nesting. If the reason that Ospreys are not using the site is because of the lack of suitable nest sites mitigation measures could be developed. This mitigation should be the erection of a suitable nesting platform, located in the proposed open space of the project site. Comment 29. 2-31 to 2-39. The section on Wetlands does not rate or rank the value of the wetland habitats relative to other wetlands, whether nearby or within the Town. (PB-17) Response: Wetlands on the site include intertidal, high marsh, and salt marsh and pond areas in terms of tidal wetlands; and freshwater ponds with fringe wetland vegetation associated with freshwater wetlands. There is essentially no distinction in wetland types from a regulatory perspective. Wetlands are considered to be ecologically important and are to be protected in total. Protection is expanded through the preservation of natural buffer zones immediately upland of wetland areas. The US Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory provides information on classification and uniqueness of wetlands from a regional perspective. Two types of tidal wetlands are identified on the site as follows: Estuarine;Subtidal;Open Water Estuarine;Intertidal;Emergent;Narrow-leaved persistent vegetation Two types of freshwater wetlands are identified on the site as follows: Palustrine;Open Water;Intermittently Exposed/Permanent Palustrine;Emergent;Semipermanent The National Wetlands Inventory map of the Great Hog Neck area alone is reproduced in Attachment E. From this it is evident that these types of wetlands are not unique and occur in many coastal areas. An additional source was consulted regarding wetlands ranking. The New York Natural Heritage Program publication"Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke, 1990) includes Estuarine CRAMER, V - R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page Z3 Angel Shores Final EIS and Palustrine wetlands habitat ranking. The estuarine communities consistent with the communities observed on site, are ranked G4 S3S4. G4 refers to Global Ranking which indicates the community is "Apparently secure throughout its range (but possibly rare inpparts of its range)". The State Rank of S3 indicates there are "Typically 21 to 100 occurrences,limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State". Rank S4 indicates the community is"Apparently secure in New York State". The freshwater communities on site correspond to Palustrine Cultural ecosystems in identified by the Natural Heritage Program,which have a rank of G5 S5. This indicates the communities are demonstrably secure from both a Global and a Statewide perspective. In summary, the wetlands on site must be protected by law. The systems are not unique as there are many occurrences of similar systems in New York State and in Southold Town. General ranking is no replacement for site specific inventory of unique features, species and locally relevant importance. The site does contain a Maritime Red Cedar Forest which is not a wetlands community and is discussed in response to other questions. Issues involving the diversity of habitats and relative importance to each other must also be considered and have been addressed in response to other comments. Comment 30. 2-40 to 2-44. The section on Land Use and Zoning omits the fact that the court's "Stipulation of Settlement"regarding the density does not absolve the Planning Board of its responsibility to look at the impacts of the proposed density and determine whether those impacts are severe enough to warrant a reduction in density. (PB-18) Response: This comment is acknowledged. Response to Comment 1-provides the terminology used in the Stipulation of Settlement. Comment 31: The discussion about the recommendations of the 208 Wastewater Management Study does not explain how the recommendations have been incorporated into the Angel Shores development. The discussion about the Town's Master Plan and the purposes of the Town's cluster ordinance does not show how the proposed project achieves those purposes. (PB-19) Response: The 208 Study was a wastewater management plan completed by the Nassau- Suffolk Regional Planning Board in 1978. The recommendations of the 208 Study as related to residential land use are highlighted in the Draft EIS, Land Use and Zoning section. The 208 Wastewater Management Study recommendations were incorporated into the subdivision design through the use of recharge basins, a central water supply system, and covenants that will restrict lawn irrigation and lot clearing. These measures were incorporated to maximize natural groundwater recharge and ensure future water quality. However,the other recommendations such as prohibiting the CRAMER, V R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 24 Angel Shores Final EIS use of chemical cleaners in on-lot sewerage systems, and provision of routine maintenance to the on-site disposal systems, are above and beyond the control of the project sponsor, although they could be enforced by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services or the local government. The project sponsor in the DEIS has adequately stated the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Master Plan in preserving the environment,while providing the opportunity for individuals to purchase buildable lots that satisfy their need and lifestyles. The Town's Master Plan was the basis of the zoning change to Agricultural- Conservation District. This district encourages the preservation of large contiguous tracts of open space and agricultural land to protect the town's economic base while preserving natural and aesthetic features. The developer is clustering the land to maximize open space, and provide for thereservation of environmentally sensitive or unique areas (i.e. wetlands). To preserve future water quantity and quality, the developer has installed a central water supply system. In addition the design takes advantage of minimum impervious surfaces, a drainage system and recharge basins to maximize groundwater recharging. The Draft EIS adequately addresses the goals of the Master Plan, and has incorporated into the design the use of clustering to protect the environment and the existing quality of life. Comment 32. 2-4a This section contains the statement, "It would be possible to link the proposed open space areas of Angel Shores to these areas across Main Bayview Road. This should be considered if development plans for any of this land are proposed in the future." Please provide a vicinity of land use map (customary to DEIS's) to order to provide the Town with the information necessary for project coordination recommended in this statement. (CVA-4) Response: Coordination of the project with surrounding lands will occur as land use proposals are filed for adjacent areas. The Angel Shores pro.ect as modified through this Final EIS will provide for protection of unique resources on the site. In order to understand how this pproject can best be coordinated with adjacent land use proposals, the Zomng Map has been reproduced and is included in Attachment F. This map includes tax parcel configuration and relative size as well as zoning. West of the site is a single family residential subdivision. Review of field conditions and aerial photographs finds that there is a wetlands system north of the site opposite the fresh pond along Main Bayview Road. This is an area of large lot"A-O zonin , and the parcels are in large configurations. Therefore, efforts should be made to protect this unique feature on adjacent land, and preserve a corridor which inter- connects with wetlands and corridors on the subject site. This can readily be accomplished through clustering due to the large lot zoning. This inter-connection also provides additional support for expanding CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 25 Angel Shores Final EIS the corridor in the northern part of the site west of the water supply site. Comment 33: 2-44. Land Use and Zoning. The FEIS should discuss the Department of Environmental Conservation's Draft Groundwater Management Program's statements and recommendations on groundwater quantity problems. (NFEC-9) Response: The NYSDEC Draft and Final Groundwater Management Program was reviewed for the Final EIS, as related to the proposed project site. In general, the plan is not as specific as other water management information available for the subject site, as discussed in other sections of the Draft and Final EIS. Highlights of the Groundwater Management Program are discussed below. Groundwater quantity according to the NYSDEC study is harder to define than water quality problems because there are no numerical standards. However, significant changes to an area such as overpumping or a low water table can cause saltwater intrusion, the drying up of surrounding wetlands, impact to private wells and the reduction of surface waters. Conversely, the opposite can happen (high water tables that cause flooding), due to cessation of water pum.Page. Areas that are threatened by saltwater intrusion should be monitored by the governing body to ensure potable water. The Draft EIS adequately addressed these issues and was advised by the regulatory bodies to construct a single water supply systems to ensure that this will not happen to the Hog Neck area. The site has also been designed so that the groundwater will be replenished by natural recharge through recharge basins. In addition, limited clearing of the lots and large contiguous tracts of open space will preserve much of the natural recharge characteristics of the site. To avoid overpumping of groundwater,noted as a concern in the report, a community water supply system has been constructed. This system will allow for minimized withdrawal and significant storage of water in order to reduce demand during peak use. In addition, a covenant will be filed on each lot within the subdivision prohibiting the installation of individual wells on the site to ensure that overpumping of the area will not occur. As previously indicated, these concepts are related to the NYSDEC Groundwater Management Program, and have been addressed in the Draft and Final EIS more specifically through resource impact evaluation. Comment 34. 2-44. Land Use and Zoning. The FEIS should discuss pesticides and their impacts on groundwater and the bay. The Department of Environmental Conservation's Groundwater Management Study's identification of the project site as being contaminated should be discussed (NFEC-10) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 26 Angel Shores Final EIS Response. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservations Draft and Final Groundwater Management Program document states that areas of the north and south forks have been contaminated by nitrate- nitrogen and pesticides. According to the document the contamination is due to the large agricultural use in the areas,nitrogen,pesticide and animal wastes have degraded the water quality. Aldicarb was a pesticide applied to kill the potato beetle in Long Island crops. Due to Long Island climate and soils this pesticide impacted groundwater, and caused the closure of many wells. The manufacturer of this chemical has installed activated carbon filters on affected wells. The Program identifies areas of aldicarb and nitrate contamination on the Great Hog Neck peninsula including the subject site. There is no doubt that the widespread use of fertilizer and pesticides has impacted groundwater in the area of and including the subject site. The Draft EIS Appendix A (Page D-2) depicts wells exceeding pesticides guidelines, and includes the Dickerson well on the subject site as well as wells south of the site, during the period around 1984. Recent analysis of the well field site finds adequate supply of good quality water. Comment 35. 2-45 to 2-5& The Water Supply section does not contain a discussion of the significance of the conditions that were attached to the State Department of Environmental Conservation's permit approval. And, since we do not have a copy of the application that was submitted to the DEC, we cannot judge the permit approval in the context of what was applied for. If we could review the application and the supporting documentation, we might know answers to the following questions among others. At what rate was the well pumped before salt water intrusion occurred? Was the well being pumped to capacity? What was the result of the drawdown analysis? (PB-20) Response: With regard to the water supply section of the Draft EIS, there is no information contained in the permit applications either to the NYSDEC or the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), that is relevant to the questions asked, nor do they contain any more information than what is provided in the Draft EIS. The application is merely a form which must be filed to activate the application. All pertinent technical data included with the applications is provided in Appendix A of the document as updated through the permit review process. It should be noted that the water supply system has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The system is operating at present and the system is meeting the design standards and operating as intended at this time (personal communication,Paul Ponturo,P.E., SCDHS,94- 91). CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 27 Angel Shores Final EIS Appendix A of the Draft EIS indicates that salt water intrusion did not occur during pump tests. The Appendix also indicates that the well was being pumped to design capacity, equivalent to 60 gallons per minute (gpm). The drawdown analysis is contained on pages G-1 and 2 of Appendix A in the Draft EIS wherein it is indicated that a maximum of 2.5 inches of drawdown occurred a distance of 3 feet from the well; 1.25 inches of drawdown occurred at a distance of 62 feet from the well; and, 0.25 inches of drawdown occurred at a distance of 103 feet from the well. Comment 36. General Comment. This section does not include an analysis of the probability of salt water intrusion occurring, both vertically and horizontally, as a result of the pumping. It does not discuss the possible effects of a long term drought on the groundwater regime or on the probability of salt water intrusion? (PB-21, RM2-7, T3-17) Response: The purpose of the pump test conducted as part of the permit process for the water supply facility,was to determine the potential for saltwater intrusion. Chloride was analyzed on numerous occasions at time intervals during pumping,with no upward trends in concentration recorded. In addition, drawdown was found to be negligible further indicating that there is no potential for significant migration of the salt water interface. Therefore, the affect of pumping is not expected to increase the probability of salt water intrusion caused by an advance of the salt water interface. Given the fact that induced conditions are not expected to increase the probability of salt water intrusion, natural conditions including drought should be considered. The following provides a discussion of natural conditions associated with the coastal groundwater boundary. Great Hog Neck reacts as an independent fresh water aquifer system,where groundwater in the center of the neck stands at a higher elevation than groundwater near the shore of the neck. This phenomenon occurs due to the fact that Great Hog Neck is underlain with salt water. Freshwater falling as precipitation infiltrates the soil to a level below which all strata are saturated, referred to as the water table. Due to the density difference between fresh water and salt water, fresh water in effect"floats"atop underlying saline waters in the shape of a tense. The shape of the lense can be determined in a general sense depending upon the measured elevation of freshwater above sea-level. The total depth of freshwater bearing strata can be predicted using an equation called the Ghyben-Herzberg principle. This principle estimates the depth of freshwater below sea-level (h), by relating the altitude of the water table (t) to the density difference between saline water (G=1.025) and freshwater (g=1.0) (Nemickis, Koszalka, 1982) as follows: t h = G-g CRAMER, VSOCIATES Page 28 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS This equation can be solved to estimate the depth of fresh water below sea level. The altitude of the water table beneath the subject site is approximately 2 feet. This is determined using the static water level below the site (-10 feet) as recorded in the well log identified in Response to Comment 17 and included in the Attachments. The ground elevation at the well field is 12 feet therefore the elevation of water above sea level is 2 feet. Therefore, the approximate depth of freshwater beneath the water supply site is 82 feet. This is the vertical depth of freshwater,which changes laterally depending upon the altitude of water at a given location. Water level varies depending upon the amount of precipitation. In order to determine the affect of precipitation changes,water elevation data for Great Hog Neck was consulted. The SCDHS monitors one well in the north central Hog Neck area (S-53328). A graphic illustration of water levels for a ten (10)year period (June 1981 to June 1991) are included in Attachment G. The mean of this distribution is 2.57 feet above mean sea level (ms]). It should be noted that water levels are a function of precipitation which changes seasonally. In cases where low water elevations were observed, the observation during the next quarter showed a rebound in water elevations which is a function of meteorological events. For this reason the yearly fluctuations have been computed for the period 1981 to 1990, as follows: 1990 2.42 feet 1985 2.17 feet 1989 2.88 feet 1984 2.97 feet 1988 2.37 feet 1983 3.03 feet 1987 2.38 feet 1982 2.88 feet 1986 2.95 feet 1981 2.06 feet The mean value of this distribution is 2.61 feet. The minimum value is 2.06 feet, and the maximum value is 3.03 feet, indicating a total range of 0.97 feet. An important factor to consider is the variation above and below the mean, as this can be used to determine theppotential change in thickness of the freshwater lease by applying the Ghyben-Herzberg principle. The variance below the mean is 0.55 feet and the variance above the mean is 0.42 feet. For this well, the average annual depth of water below sea level over the ten(10)year period would have been 104.4 feet, and have been as little as 82.4 feet and as much as 121.2 feet depending upon meteorological conditions. Therefore the variation would have been 22 feet above the lower limit, and 16.8 feet below the lower limit of freshwater. The long term variation of water levels beneath the subject site has not been determined; however, the variation would be expected to be less than the SCDHS observation well due to the shape of the parabolic surface of water as related to the proximity of the site to the fixed ends of the parabola at the shoreline. The location of the salt water interface will respond to changes in the altitude of water above sea level (Urish and Ozbilgin, 1989). Beneath the subject site, this change CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS )Page 29 Angel Shores Final EIS cannot be determined due to the absence of long-term water levels. Based on review of a SCDHS monitoring well at a location where the water elevation is greater than at the subject site, the variation would be less than 22 feet, indicating that there will be sufficient fresh water depth under average and above average water level conditions. During periods of low water levels the thickness of freshwater will decrease; however, the well point would be expected to be within the freshwater lense. The fact that drought conditions will result in less thickness in the freshwater lense,water quality,should be monitored in order to ensure that potable water is provided in the community water supply system. These conditions are due to natural water level chanes and are not a function of drawdown of the well field which is negligible. Comment 37.- General Comment. Historically, on Long Island, hasn't increased pumping of groundwater resulted in saltwater intrusion along the south shore and therefore resulted in the installation of public water supply from west to east with population growth? If so what information can be derived from this occurrence and what plans are being implemented for this area should this project result in increased salt water intrusion in the area? (RM2-9, T3-19) Response: The Great Hog Neck area is a subsystem of the Long Island aquifer system. Freshwater reserves must be conserved due to limited supply as related to the elevation of groundwater above sea level as discussed in detail in Response to Comment 36. The Town of Southold has decreased density potential through land use zoning changes. The subject project has an established density based upon the Stipulation of Settlement, which=to the final determination of the Planning Board. The board onsider density derived impacts and act accordingly. With respect to water supply for Angel Shores, the project has a State and County approved water source for 51 units. The project proposes 49 units. The water supply system has been designed to accommodate a total of 84 units based upon very conservative use estimates. The water supply report indicates that use is based on 100 single family homes at 3.5 persons per home using 100 gallons each. In reality the system will supply 82 homes. Demographic data indicate less than 3.1 persons per home. In addition water use figures do not include consideration that many units may be occupied on a seasonal basis. The water supply system will feature three wells, of which only two pumps will be operated at a time. The main design feature which ensures adequate water supply is that the system will utilize relatively low pump capacity (60 gpm total of both wells),but will provide significant storage of water (54,000 gallons)in order to ensure that peak demands can be served without relying on groundwater pugpage. The tank will be filled to a 90 percent capacity level by controlled pumping when it reaches 66 percent of capacity. This technique coupled with the conservative use estimates ensures that the project will not place an undue burden on the aquifer. The proposed project considers the unique groundwater quantity limitations associated with the Great Hog CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Pap 30 Angel Shores Final EIS Neck peninsula. Comment 38. General Comment. A map showing the vertical and horizontal configurations of the draw down effect on the water table around the wells should be included Thu map also should show the potential zone of in,f licence along with the zone of contribution at the calculated maximum withdrawal rate (PB-22) Response: The maximum aquifer drawdown is 2.5 inches 3 feet from the well; 1.25 inches 62 feet from the well; and, 0.25 inches 103 feet from the well. Mapping of this information will not add to the understanding of this effect. Comment 39. General Comment. An analysis of how drought might affect the water table should be included Historical data collected by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services showing the depth to groundwater in drought periods should be used in this analysis. A map of same would be useful (PB-23) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 36. Comment 40. General Comment. Copies of the applications and supporting test data that were submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be attached to the DEIS Appendices. (PB-24) Response: The Water Supply Report included as Appendix A in the Draft EIS provides all technical information submitted to the Health Department. Please see Response to Comment 35 for additional information concerning the application and approvals of these agencies. Comment 41: 2-53. Asper special condition #10 of the NYSDEC well permit,page 2-53, ' rovisions shall be made to provide an adequate supply of water to those residents whose private well water systems are diminished or rendered non productive by the use of the wells developed by the permittee". provisions have been made L4 comj2&withh#ki provision? There is nothing in the DEIS addressing this. Is&possible 1Q moire a surety mid La cover aW�future problems? the permit k cancelled Qr restricted 4 problems develop? (CL-5, RM-5, EP-2, T2-10) Response: This is a condition of the NYSDEC permit and must be enforced by that agency. With the understanding of hydropeologic conditions established in Response to Comment 36, it is apparent that the private well water systems of residents near the bay are much more sensitive to seasonal water table fluctuations than the wells to be utilized in the community water supply system, due to their proximity to the salt water interface. Furthermore,the community water supply system for Anel Shores allows for controlled pumping based on the results of extensive pump tests as documented in Appendix A of the Draft EIS. Finally, the ability of the Angel Shores water system to store water will provide for peak demand without creating a sudden stress on the aquifer. Private CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 31 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS well systems near the coast pump in response to demand, and are located in an area where upconing of salt water from beneath the freshwater lense is much more likely. The NYSDEC Condition#10 indicates that"Provisions shall be made to provide an adequate supply of water to those residents whose private well water systems are diminished or rendered non productive by the use of the wells developed by theenmittee". In order for this condition to apply, a link must be made indicating that the Angel Shores water supply system caused private well water systems to become non-productive. Private wells in the area of the subject site,particularlyadjacent the shoreline have experienced water quality problems associated with Pesticides, nitrates and chloridespnor to installation of the community water supply system. Therefore these conditions have not been caused by the Angel Shores water supply system. Based upon the data presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIS and this Final EIS in Response to Comment 36, conditions affecting the migration of the salt water interface are caused by natural fluctuations. The affect of well pumping for the subject project will not affect the position of this interface. There does not appear to be Justification for a surety bond due to the above factors. The NYSDEC may enforce the conditions of their permit as they see fit. Comment 42: 2-55. Page 2-55 NYSDEC permit specifies conditions. We request that the Planning Board certify that these conditions have been met. (CBPA1-10, T2-20) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 41. To the extent that the Planning Board has jurisdiction,the Board will ensure that the conditions of the NYSDEC permit are met. Comment 43. General Comment. After a long history of water problems associated with developer-build satellite wells, the Town of Southold has ruled that satellite wells will no longer be permitted. Nevertheless, the "Angel Shores" Project had already obtained a permit to construct a satellite well Pumping Station. They contracted to pipe its water a mile distant to 'The Cove", a recently completed building project whose own wells had proved incapable of supplying drinkable water to its 33 homes. (SA-1) Response. Comment 43 is a statement and requires no response. Comment 44: General Comment. The Angel Shores proposal to build 49 homes on its property is now awaiting approval from the Town of Southold Those 49 proposed "Angel Shore homes,plus the 33 homes in the "Cove" development, would make a total of 82 homes to be supplied with water delivered by the "Angel Shores"pumping stations from our "quantity- stressed aquifer". (SA-2) Response. Comment 44 is a statement and requires no response. Please refer to Response to Comment 6 regarding the number of units which the water supply system can accommodate. Please refer to Response to CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 32 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 36 regarding water quantity issues. Comment 45. General Comment. 1 understand that Mr. Laoudis has a right to supply water for the proposed development Angel Shores. However, Ido not see his right to supply water to the Cove development. This additional demand for 33 units may very well cause adjacent homeowners problems with their existing wells. Over 40%of the water from this system will be pumped out of the area almost a mile away to the Cove. (CL-3, T2-8) Response: The Angel Shores project sponsor was required to provide water supply to the Cove development by the regulatory agencies. The benefits of this is apparent in view of the fact that controlled pumping will not cause a sigr ificant drawdown on the aquifer. Further the ability to store water allows for greater control of the water supply system. Water will be recharged on the Great Hog Neck peninsula,which is hydrologically independent of the north fork. The majority of water will be recharged on the Angel Shores parcel. This is an added benefit which promotes water balance. Please also refer to Response to Comment 36 for a greater understanding of water quantity issues. Comment 46: General Comment. Litigation is presently being conducted between the owner of the 'Angel Shores"satellite wells and the Greenport Water District. We hope that in the midst of claim and counterclaim, the concerns of established Cedar Beach homeowners for the preservation of our water supply are being considered and protected (SA-3) Response: The technical aspects of the water supply system remain the same regardless of legal issues. The system will be operated by qualified individuals under contract to the Homeowners Association. Comment 47.• General Comment. Evidence of the inadequacy of our "quantity-stressed aquifer"to safely pump the necessary quantity of water to supply 82 homes, is implied in the special restriction demanded by the Department of Environmental Control before it can approve the "Angel Shores"proposah A restriction k the covenant must prohibit the S sv tem fQr non essential purposes such gg lawn irrigation."Mc.Z P.57). Since such a covenant prohibition is transparently unenforceable, it serves only as a warning that the amount of water that would actually have to be pumped to supply the 82 houses of the "Angel Shores"proposag will dangerously overtax the capacity of our "quantity-stressed aquifer". As a consequences the water supply of our long-existing neighborhood homes will be threatened (SA-4, SI-2) Response. There is no question that the hydrologic regime beneath Great Hog Neck is sensitive. For this reason a conservative and controlled approach was used in designing a water supply system for Angel Shores. The NYSDEC condition#9 requires covenants or restriction prohibiting use of water for non-essential purposes such as lawn irrigation. This can be accomplished through the filing of covenants on each individual lot to this effect. The covenants will serve to educate residents and provide a CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS _ Page 33 And Shores Final ELS means of compliance with this condition. Clearing areas must be limited and alternate ground cover must be used in this subdivision. Please see Response to Comment 41 which indicates that existing neighborhood homes have been experiencing water quality/quantity problems. Comment 48: Appendix A. (Reference Page A4 Suffolk County Department o Health letter dated 11/30/83 states (the applicants request for development) Wnce wells located on each individual lot would of necessity be very shallow and there would be a limited amount of quality water, this application will be approved only if a central water supply is provided" Does this mean that individual lot wells are forbidden or does it mean that the developer must only provide a central water supply of quality water and that individual lot owners are free to put down wells for so-called non- essential lower quality water? If the intent was to forbid individual lot wells does the SCHDS have the means to enforce the restriction or is this dependant upon the Building Department's interpretation of the subject clause since they are responsible for the controlling the related permits. (CBPA2-1, CL-2, RM-2, T2-7, T2- 23) Response. The Health Department letter included in A-1 of the Draft EIS refers to the fact that the Angel Shores project may not be built with private wells for water supply, and must make use of a community water supply system for the reasons outlined in previous responses. Additional conditions have been included as part of the permitting of the community water supply system which requires that the system only be used for consumptive purposes. Covenants will be filed on each individual lot alerting homeowners that individual wells are not permitted on lots in the Angel Shores subdivision for non-consumptive ri. water use. If homeowners are found to be in violation of covenants, 1 � ` legal remedies consistent with such violations would apply. The 7 appropriate permitting agencies will be responsible for enforcement. Comment 49. 2-57. Special condition #9 attached to the DEC permit to construct a central water supply installation states that "steps should be taken via covenants or use restrictions to prohibit use of the water supply system for non-essential purposes such as lawn irrigation." Given that the homeowner is apparently precluded from putting down his own well and from using his source of essential water for non-essential purposes, how do you square the statements include in the 'Wtigating factors"section of the DEIS wherein the developer proposed to limit the amount of total lot area given over to lawns? The disconnect here is that no homeowner would invest in landscaping without possessing the means to protect his investment, i.e., ability to sprinkle Does the developer anticipate that (a) each lot owner will put down his own irrigation well- CRAMER, VRAS OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final ELS point (so that eventually these might be as many as 49 additional wells tapping into the aquifer, or(b) each lot owner will ignore the DEC prohibition against using housewater for sprinkling (not to mention Vpools)? Clearly the only alternative would be for each homeowner to collect rainwater in a cistern but this is not suggested in the DEIS. Unless these points are resolved before approval of the DEIS, a not far- fetched scenario might find a drought situation, say S-IO years from now, with the Angel Shores homeowners attempting to save their landscaping investment by the use of sprinklers while some surrounding area homeowners are experiencing a deterioration of their drinking water. Will the homeowners hurting for essential water blame their problem on the drought or will they seek injunction damages and/or other legal remedies from the Angel Shores people and the Town of Southold This is precisely the sort of problem the Plannin Board was established to prevent. (CBPA2-2, 7-2-24) Response: As previously indicated, individual wells for non-consumptive use are not permuted within the subdivision. Homebuyers will be put on notice through Covenants which will be applied to each parcel. The Draft EIS indicates that lawn area should be reduced. The Final EIS takes this to mean that the limits of clearing should be reduced in order to provide more natural vegetation on each lot so that extensive landscape groundcover will not be necessary. Lots in the Section I portion of the project will not require as much groundcover, due to the attractiveness of the existing vegetation in that area. Limits on clearing will provide some area for landscaping which will be tolerant of dry conditions. Alternative groundcover must be used in place of more traditional lawns,in cleared and graded areas around houses in Section I and Section H. A list of potential groundcover which are tolerant of dry conditions is included in Attachment H. This list indicates that there are many hearty herbaceous species of which can be used to provide suitable landscaping within the subdivision. Due to the fact that covenants will be placed on each lot, homeowners are urged to invest wisely in landscape enhancements in order to ensure that plantings will survive. Cisterns may be contemplated by individual homeowners; however, most owners are not likely to use this method. The Town of Southold does have the ability to restrict pool installation through the buildingpermit review process. As part of this review, it is recommended that the Building Inspector require the applicant to demonstrate that they have a water source which is consistent with restrictions on the community water supply system and covenants placed on individual lots. Comment SD: General Comment. When Mr. Dickerson found it necessary to irrigate his potato farm my water would become undrinkable due to salt intrusion. I also had a high temik count which has diminished to a safe level I also would like you to be aware that a heavy draw on the water might pull temik backup and recreate that problem. The water in this area is CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT �/ ` G CONSULTANTS Page 35 Angel Shores Final EIS basicallygroundwater and can stand only so much depletion. If cesspools are installed there is very little depth for filtration. The water level here is only 10-12 feet from ground level (MC-1, RM-3) Response: The dynamics of the groundwater environment are documented in Response to Comment 36. We have no information regarding agricultural wells previously in use, such as well depth,pump capacity, pumping patterns, etc. Therefore cause and effect of this well on local private wells cannot be determined at this time. It is well-documented that the Great Hog Neck area has experienced high concentrations of alidcarb. The water supply system site was sample for pesticides and SCDHS has determined that water quality is acceptable. Future pumping c could induce groundwater now along a path toward a well point. It is not possible at this time to predict if the water supply,system will cause aldicarb to migrate toward the well. Monitoring will be conducted and provisions have been made for Granular Activated Carbon Filtration if it becomes necessary in the future. The Final EIS Concept Plans have been redesigned to provide adequate area and vertical depth for installation of sanitary systems without the need for excessive fill. Comment 51: General Comment. When the testing was done on the present water system, downdraw tests were conducted which showed minimal downdraw, but &M 9 MU Q test i't ere was intrusion aw-11 water that Qplac hwa r Lhhat was 12uml2e =t durin U&test. (CL-1, T2-6) Response. A change in the elevation of the water table caused by natural or pumping conditions may cause landward or upward advance of the salt water interface. This situation is not expected to occur as a result of the water supply site at Angel Shores due to the minimal drawdown. Excessive pumping at a high rate may cause upconing of salt water into the fresh water Tense. Once pumping is ceased, salt water will once again assume a location below the fresh water lense due to the density difference between the two solutes. Upconing is likewise not expected to occur due to the depth of freshwater and the controlled pumping of the well field. Based on this discussion, it is apparent that Comment 51 would not apply to these systems. Comment 52: General Comment. It is necessary to keep a natural buffer area, as large as possible from the residents of Cedar Beach in order to provide a means of minimizing impacts of site development upon present private water supply in the area. (RM-5) Response. The proposed development is based on a low density of development and will be constructed in accordance with Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6,which is intended to avoid impacts from sanitary system effluent on groundwater. Buffers will be provided in accordance with required setbacks and clearing restrictions relevant to this specific subdivision. Sanitary systems will be installed in accordance with SCDHS design standards in order to ensure properly functioning systems. It should CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 36 Angel Shores Final EIS also be noted that site specific nitrogen in recharge computations have been completed and find that the site recharge is not expected to cause contravention of drinking water limitations. Comment 53: 2-59 to 2-64. The Groundwater Hydrology Section does not indicate the nature of the groundwaterpw. For instance, does it ggenerally,flow from north to south, or from northwest to southeast? (PB-25) Response: Groundwater flows in response to hydraulic head. The higher head is in the center of the peninsula, and the elevation of groundwater decreases toward the shore. Therefore groundwater flows toward the surface waters surrounding Great Hog Neck, or generally in a north northeast, to south southwest direction. Comment 54: 2-59. The DEIS mentions a water level elevation of minus 4 feet below mean sea level in the area. Does this mean that the water is flowing from the bay into the area and brining in salt water? Will the water levels decrease further with pumping and increase salt water flow inland? (RM2-8 T3- Response. The consultant that prepared the Draft EIS was contacted to determine the source of these elevations. It was indicated that these elevations were inferred from well drillers logs as related to topography. This method is notprecise enough to determine groundwater flow. The relationship of fresh and saline water has been described in Response to Comments 36 and 51, and should be referred to regarding this comment. Comment 55. General Comment The DEIS used water level data collected from several wells over a period of years Does using water levels collected from different wells at different times yield accurate information on groundwater flow direction? Were the private water supply wells, which were used to determine groundwater flow direction, surveyed and water levels obtained with the same accuracy that the SCDHS would utilize to determine groundwater flow direction? Over the different years that the water levels were obtained did the levels fluctuate and flow directions change resulting in erroneous flow determination?. What is the present flow direction? Wells were not used to determine groundwater,flow direction between the site and the supply wells located to the south or east of the site. What is the groundwater flow direction to the east and south of the site? My well is located to the east of the site and contains nitrates and my neighbors contain temik If the temik is from the site and the DEIS states that groundwaterflow low is to the south how can this be? The DEIS references two reports that map groundwaterflowing lowing to the south. If the DIES does not include wells between the site and the south and eastern water supply wells, do these reports? If these reports do reveal wells in the area to the east and south of the site why are they not included in the DEIS? Do the two referenced reports contain enough data to accurately map groundwater flow at a level of detail needed to determine groundwater flow direction on the site? Will additional monitoring wells be installed in sufficient numbers to answer these questions. (RM2-3, T3-13) CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 37 And Shores Final EIS Response. Use of well drillers logs is not appropriate to determine direction of groundwater flow. The proper technique is to install water level piezometers,which must be surveyed to ensure a known elevation above sea level. Generally at least three wells are needed to determine direction of flow; however, a greater number of wells will yield more accurate results. Wells must be sampled synoptically in order to ensure that the surface of the water table is recorded relative to a known datum at the same time. Based on this information and using a suitable survey as regards the horizontal location of wells, a hydrologist can construct a contour map of the water table. The contour lines represent lines of equal hydraulic head (or elevation of groundwater) In an isotropic aquifer,groundwater moves per to the contours, or from higher head to lower head. Long Island aquifers are generally anisotropic with greater hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction. This anisotropy tends to cause groundwater to migrate perpendicular to contours. None of this procedure was completed for the Angel Shores site. The direction of flow is determined based on the known configuration of the water table beneath the Great Hog Neck peninsula which will cause groundwater to flow toward the shore and away from the area of highest head in the center of the peninsula. Groundwater flow may change and the velocity of flow may chane depending upon precipitation, but generally,groundwater will move toward the shore with great reliability. Local surface water features which have streamflow toward the bay will create an influence on the water table which will tend to cause groundwater to locally flow toward the surface water feature depending upon streamflow. This is not expected to be a significant factor with respect to the subject site, due to the fact that tidal ponds generally only experience flow as a result of tidal waters. Tidal influence can also cause localized changes in groundwater flow increasing gradients at low water and decreasing gradients at high water. Basic hydrologic principles as expressed above are sufficient to gain an understanding of groundwater conditions. On-site monitoring would confirm what is already known from these basic principles. One additional reference indicates a direction of flow toward the shoreline or in a north northeast to south southwest direction in the area of the site, as determined from limited water elevation data (Baier and Robbins, 1982). A well located east of the site would not be expected to be located down gradient of the site due to the direction of flow toward the shore. Large portions of the Great Hog Neck peninsula have been documented as being affected by aldicarb and nitrates. The fact that the water supply site at Angel Shores has suitable water quality would further indicate that a well east of the site which has concentrations of aldicarb and nitrates is not down gradient of the site. There are no published reports which include wells near the site to the east and south. There are only two observation wells which SCDHS CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 38 u Angel Shores Final EIS monitors on Great Hog Neck. One is located northwest of the site (S- 53328), and one is located east northeast of the site (S-47234). These wells provide only general information concerning localized flow conditions beneath the site. Additional monitoring of groundwater for water levels beneath the site is not proposed due to the fact that basic principles are sufficient to understand the groundwater conditions at this site. The Draft EIS was completed based on scoping of issues found to be necessary for an accurate assessment of the impact of the project on the environment. The Draft EIS and Final EIS provide this information in order for the lead agency and involved agency to make informed decisions. Comment 56: 2-63. The groundwater velocity calculation suggests a Kvalue (hydraulic conductivity) of 33 feet per day,providing the 208 Study as a reference. Page 38 of the 208 Study Groundwater Conditions report, indicates a hydraulic conductivity of 270 feet per day in the Upper Glacial aquifer. Computations should be changed to reflect a verified conductivity value. Further, the groundwater elevations in the well drillers reports may not be synoptiq and are most likely not controlled in terms of horizontal and vertical elevations to within acceptable standards. Therefore, the accuracy of the suggested groundwater velocity should be qualified (CVA-5) Response: This comment is acknowledged. A hydraulic conductivity of 33 feet per day is not supported in the literature, for horizontal permeability in the Upper Glacial aquifer. McClymonds and Franke (1972) reported a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 267 feet per day in the Upper Glacial outwash deposits of south-central Suffolk County. This is the source of the reference of the 208 Study noted in Comment 56. In addition,hydraulic conductivity of as much as 430 feet per day have been observed in central Suffolk County (Scorca, 1990) - lower conductivities of between 140 and 380 feet per day.have been reported in other parts of Long Island. Vertical permeability has been estimated in the range of 27 feet per day (Koppelman, 1978);however, the discussion contained in Response to Comment 55 clearly indicates that vertical migration would not be expected in an aquifer so near the coast. Therefore, a hydraulic conductivity of 33 feet per day is inaccurately low, and a value in the range of 220-270 feet per day would be more realistic. For reasons identified in Response to Comment 55,utilization of well drillers logs for the estimation of groundwater flow and velocity is not appropriate. Further the Draft EIS reports a groundwater elevation of feet above msl beneath the north end of the site which is not possible due to the long term data for well number S-53328 and the Baier, Robbins (1981) report,which indicate average groundwater elevations in central Great Hog Neck would not normally exceed 3 feet above msl. A maximum gradient can be determined by subtracting the elevation of groundwater in the center of the peninsula from groundwater elevation zero at the coast, divided by the distance of 3,800 feet. This yields a gradient of 0.0008. Utilizing Darcy's Law a reasonable estimate of CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 39 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS groundwater velocity in the vicinity of the project site is as follows: K(i) V = where: v = average velocity n k = hydraulic conductivity i = hydraulic gradient, and n = effective porosity Solving for (v),velocity is estimated in the range of 0.59 to 0.72 feet per day. This is more consistent with groundwater velocities reported in literature (Jensen and Soren, 1972). Comment 57.• Groundwater Hydrology What level of water quality exists on the site now? What is the water quality in the wells that are down gradient from the site? Is there groundwater contamination by nitrates and pesticides that were used when the property was being farmed? Has that contamination affected the wells of the properties downgradient from the site? How will the projected nitrate loading from sewage and lawn fertilization affect the nitrate levels of the down stream wells? (PB-26, RM-1, RM2-2, T3-12) Response. The Draft EIS clearly states that actual data relating to existing water quality on the property can be found in the Water Supply Report (Appendix A). Water quality at the water supply site has been sampled extensively and found to meet drinkin water standards. The wells downgradient of the site should be sampled by homeowners to ensure that an adequate water supply is available. Private laboratories may be contacted, or the Health Department will sample and analyze private wells on a request basis for a small fee. Based on groundwater flow conditions,water quality in the test well is fairly representative of water quality downgradient of the well site, due to groundwater flow toward the shore and in consideration of the primarily horizontal direction of flow. The site is approximately 1,800 feet wide from Main Bayview Avenue to the Bay. Given the range of groundwater velocity, groundwater would travel across the site within approximately 61/2 to 8 years. Therefore, depending upon when use of fertilizer and pesticide was ceased, contaminant transport in groundwater can be estimated. The concentration of nitrogen in recharge was estimated in the Draft EIS and found to be 6.8 mg/1. This concentration is less than the drinking water limitation, and is not expected to cause significant adverse impact to groundwater usage. Comment 58. General Comment. Hasn't nitrates also been a major reason for the installation of.public water supply wells on most of Long Island? If so what information can be learned historically and what contingencies if any has this DEIS evaluated? (RM2-10. T3-20) Response. Nitrate is the prime groundwater contaminant associated with residential development. The 208 Study identified the need to control nitrate through density limitations. This concept has been incorporated into Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, through limits of no more than CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 40 Angel Shores Final EIS 300 gallons per day per acre of sanitary discharge. The total acreage of the site (92.7 acres)would therefore have an allowable on site discharge of 27,810 gallons per day (gpd). The 49 units are estimated to have a sanitary flow of 14,700 gpd which is significantly less than the allowable flow. This is due to the density limitation imposed by the courts in the Stipulation of Settlement. Comment 59. General Comment. Has the DEIS evaluated the economic impact on surrounding residences that would occur if water quality degrades and public water supply is introduced The majority of the surrounding residences are on fixed incomes and could potentially lose their homes if made to bear the cost of a public water supply system. Should the Town orAngel Shores be made to post a bond at this time in case the surrounding water supplies degrade or the project water supply fails? (RM2-11, T3-21) Response: The surrounding residents have experienced water quality impairment due to chlorides and agriculture related contaminants. The proposed project has been evaluated in terms of potential for salt water intrusion and impact from residential development, and it has been found that the protect will not have a significant impact. Therefore, economic burden due to causes is present prior to construction of the Angel Shores project. Based upon information and data, a bond requirement does not seem warranted. Comment 60. General Comment. What is the accuracy of the work completed in the DEIS. What are the qualifications of an engineering firm to conduct a DEIS in New York State Does it require a trained or registered hydrogeologrst? Does it require a New York registered P.E.? If so does the New York P.E. certification require or have a testing or education requirement for groundwater supply work? If not how can 1 be sure that the groundwater portions of the DEIS are done to any degree of accuracy? What are the qualifications of the firm that prepared the DEIS? Similarly what are the qualifications of the Town's staff with respect to the hydrogeologist who reviewed this Study? (RM2-12, T3-22) Response: The qualifications of the firm that prepared the Water Supply Report and the Draft EIS are presented in Attachment I. The qualifications of the firm that prepared the Final EIS are presented in Attachment J. Henderson & Bodwell has professional engineers on staff. There is no specific requirement for training in hydrogeology;however, engineers must practice within their field of expertise. Comment 61: 2-61. Ground Water Hydrology. The well location map leads to the invalid conclusion that there are only 10 private supply wells in the vicinity of the Angel Shores site, when in reality there are over 100 such wells. In addition, the use of the 10 wells included in the DEIS is questioned with regard to use in the velocityformula (DP-4, T1-4) Response: This comment is acknowledged. It is assumed that because public water is not CRAMER, V R OCIATES Page 41 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS available, all existin homes have private wells. The ten (10)wells noted in the Draft EIS are wells for which well depth and depth to water information was available, and was not intended as a complete list of allprivate wells in the area. Groundwater velocity has been addressed in detail in Response to Comment 56. Comment 62. 2-65 to 2-67. See comments made on pages 2-9 through 2-11. Also, the discussion off food zones does not examine the fact that filo bulkheading and regrading will be needed in order to construct houses at the ten foot elevation or higher this change of grade may change the existing stormwater runof j`'patterns. How will these topographic changes affect the remaining vegetation and habitat, on both the upland and wetland portions of the site? (PB-27) Response: The Draft EIS does discuss the fact that fill and revadin will be necessary to construct some of the houses at the ten foot elevation or higher. This can be fond in Section 3 under both the Topography and Surface Water Hydrology headings. The applicant does not propose bulkheading on the site. Bulkheading of natural shorefront areas would not be consistent with NYSDEC Article 25 Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations or the Southold Town wetlands ordinance. Grading and fill should be minimized through the preparation of an alternative plan which sites homes such that sanitary systems can be located near or above the 10 foot contour, and lots are not constructed in or in close proximity to flood plains. Several alternative concept plans which achieve these goals are provided in the Final EIS. Comment 63. 2-68. See comments on suitability of soils for sewage disposal(2-5 to 2-8). (PB- 28) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 18. Comment 64. 2-69. This section does not provide background information on the Town of Southold's solid waste program. It does not provide information describing the local capabilities to accommodate additional solid waste and where it will be processed, needed in order to reach valid conclusions in the impact section. (CVA-6) Response: Contact was made with the Town of Southold Landfill to find out their solid waste capabilities and programs. Currently all garbage is transported to the landfill by residents. The landfill receives approximately 17,000 tons of garbage per year from approximately 20,000 residents. The landfill operator stated that the amount of garbage going to the facility approximately doubles during the months of June,July,August and September, due to the increased number of tourists and seasonal residents. The landfill is currently operating, the NYSDEC has made an internal decision that the Town is in violation of the 1990 Landfill Law. CRAMER, VSOCIATES Pap 42 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Southold will appeal the ruling- in addition, the Town is in litigation with NYSDEC concerning a broader range of solid waste management issues. The outcome of various litigation will determine the future solid waste management plans for the Town. The Town is also presently engaged in a successful recycling program. The Town has found recycling efforts to be at least as successful as Riverhead Town (10-15% minimum reduction),without the expanded public education programs. Further efforts should decrease solid waste generation The Town hopes to construct a lined sanitary landfill to provide solid waste disposal for Southold residents (personal communication,James Bunchuck,Landfill Supervisor,9-12-91). This along with a rigorous recycling program currently underway,will reduce the quantity and impact of solid waste disposal in the Town. It is anticipated that the Angel Shores project will generate approximately 123.7 tons a garbage per year or 0.33 tons for the estimated 113 residents of Anel Shores (based upon the U.S. Census household factor of 2.30). This 123.7 tons year or 0.33 top/day is based upon a conservative factor of 6 lbs./person/day. This was determined using the annual waste figure, divided by the Town population, adjusted upward for seasonal population during one-third of the year. The waste generated by the project is 03percent (less than 1%) of the total annual solid waste generated in the Town and is not expected to cause an undue burden on facilities. The Town must provide solid waste removal regardless of the Angel Shores project, and will adjust the solid waste program depending on the outcome of litigation Comment 65. 2-70. The traffic section does not explain why traffic impacts were estimated by using only one, non peak day during the low demand part of the season. There is no data in this discussion that is relevant to peak demand traffic. (PB-29, CBPA1-12, DP-2, T1-2, TI-14, TI-15, T2-22) Response: Traffic calculations were performed at the jpoint of entry to the site since this is where the peak activity will occur. According to the ITE Trip Generation Report, a widely accepted source within the transportation profession, the worst case will occur in the weekday PM peak hour period (within the 4-6 PM period) or the Saturday midday period when each dwelling unit could be expected to generate 1 trip for a total of 49 trips for the entire project. The Draft EIS provided traffic volume counts for only one,non-peak day during the low demandpart of the season In order to verify the extrapolation of volume included in the Draft EIS, additional counts were conducted. Weekend counts (Saturday 9-7-91)were taken for this purpose. The counts were adjusted using seasonal adjustment factors obtained from the Highway acs Manual (HCML the Long Island regional office of the New York Staie Department of Transportation �NYSDOT), and the Suffolk County Department of Public Works SCDPW). The new counts strongly support the data in the Draft EIS CRAMER, VOCIATES Page 43 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS and produce virtually identical results. A copy of traffic counts is included in Attachment K. Turning movements counts were taken during the peak midday period on Saturday, 9-7-91 at the intersection of Main Bayview Road and Jacobs Lane (as well as on Main Bayview Road in front of the proposed project site) for the purpose of assessing directional distribution of project generated trips. Data shows that less than 2% of the westbound Mam Bayview Rd.vehicles turned right onto Jacobs Lane and hence are not expected to contribute any significant volume of traffic to the Goose Creek Bridge area. Even if the actual distribution to the north turns out to be higher,that would only serve to dilute the volumes of trips on any given highway link as they are dispersed. Again, the total worst case volume during a peak period is 49 vehicles per hour. Comment 66: 2-70. The key intersections along Main Bayview Road should be identified either graphically or in text. In addition, speed limit and accident information, along with existing sight distances on Main Bayview Road should be incorporated into this section. This information is necessary in order clearly assess the current traffic situation in the project vicinity. (CVA-7) Response: The project site is located on the south side of Main Bayview Road,west of Cedar Point Drive and east of Rambler Road. Main Bayview Road is a collector road which forms a T-intersection with Cedar Point Drive (which is a dirt road running south), and Cedar Beach Road (which an improved road running north) to the east of the site. Approximately 60 feet east of the proposed protect road between Sections I and II is a local improved road known as Midland Parkway which serves less than 30 homes and provides an additional tie to Bayview Road to the north. Approximately 1,800 feet west of the project srte Main Bayview Road intersects Jacobs Lane a collector road which runs north to exist Great Hog Neck via the Goose Creek bride. This intersection is a triangular T-intersection. Between Main Bayview Road and the project site, there are four local roads serving the subdivision west of the site is a West of the project site. Speed limit in the area is consistent with rural roads in the Town of Southold, or 35 miles per hour. Accident information has been collected from the New York State Department of Transportation in the area of Main Bayview Road and Jacobs Lane for the past 3 years. The report is included in Attachment L Two (2) incidents referred to as non-reportable cases are documented as having occurred at the corner of Main Bayview Road and Cedar Beach Road. No information is available on these reports. No other accidents were reported in the portion of Main Bayview Road east of Jacobs Lane and west of Cedar Beach Road; however,ten incidents were recorded at and west of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and west along Main Bayview Road. Three of these incidents were non-reportable cases, and four of these incidents involved collisions with fixed objects. Only three incidents CRAMER, VR OCIATES Page 44 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores F*W EIS over a three year period involved more than one vehicle, and all reportable cases were in excess of one mile from the project site. Sight distance was evaluated and it was determined that at the east site access, sit distance is 450 feet to the intersection of Main Bayview Road and Cedar Beach Road. West of this access site distance is in excess of 400 feet. With regard to the west site road intersection, site distance is also in excess of 400 feet the east, and approximately 400 feet to the west. Comment 67.• 2-70. Traffic. Henderson and Bodwell conducted Traffic Counts along Main Bayview oad on Friday,April 15, 1988 at a point where the existing dirt road (Sunset Road) enters the site This is the least populated area_qf Hog Ned; the Askin Nursery and the Angel Shores site are empty so traft would be limited I submit that traffic calculations from this site would be incorrect because the bulk of population lives elsewhere. (DP-1, TI-1) Response. The traffic analysis portion of the Draft EIS used accepted methodologies recognized by transportation professionals and government review agencies and the data used is supported by the current information collected for this review. Comment 68: 2-70. Traffic. Using a formula from the Highway Capacity Manual of the Transportation Research Board, the consulting engineers calculated the traffic impact on Main Bayview. There is no information given about the Transportation Research Board What is the Transportation Research Boarr4 why is this formula applicable to Main Bayview, is it a governmental agency? (DP-3, TI-13) Response. The HCM(recently updated in 1985) is the"highway capacity bible" and is used by transportation agencies and officials throughout the United States and much of the international transportation communeiy. The Transportation Research Board (TRB is the principal federal agency responsible for the HCM with much of the research performed by universities and transportation consultants which specialize in these areas. The TRB is a unit of the National Research Council,which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's purpose is to stimulate research concerning the nature and performance of transportation systems, to disseminate the information produced by the research, and to encourage the application of appropriate research findings). All highway facilities, from controlled access freeways to 2-lane rural highways are addressed. Comment 69: 2-70. Traffic The projected number of trips generated by Cove homeowners was not included in the count of traf j�ic pro ections There are 20 unsold units there There was no mention of tra fJfic entering Hog Neck from Oaklawn Avenue and Goose Creek Bridge either. Since there are two paths for entering Hog Neck andfor approaching Angel Shores, it seems that both should have been included in the survey. (DP-4, TI-3) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES Page 45 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Response: The trip generation analysis addressed the subject development and existing traffic. It is not the responsibility of the applicant to mitigate the impacts of other private endeavors. However, the 20 unsold units referenced would only contribute 20 additional trips during a worst case peak period. Growth rates and seasonal adjustments also provide additional conservatism to the analysis. Comment 70. 2-74. The demographic data is outdated 1985 updates should be obtained from the Suffolk County Planning Department. (PB-30) Response. According to the 1990 Census information obtained from the New York Regional Office, Bureau of the Census, approximately 19,836 people live in the Town of Southold. The hamlet of Southold has a population of approximately 5,192. The population density for this 12.20 square mile hamlet is approximately 426 persons per square mile and the area's median income is $34,216 (U.S. 1990 Census and Long Island Almanac, 1991). The median age is 43.1 years for the Town of Southold and 47.8 years in the Southold Hamlet. Comment 71: 2-81. The Draft EIS does not provide background information on the per capita cost of providing education services within the school district. This data is necessary to determine the fiscal impact of the proposed subdivision on the impacted school district. (CVA-8) Response: The Southold Union Free School District serves children from the Peconic, Southold hamlet and Bayview areas. The district includes two (2) schools: the Peconic Elementary School, located in Peconic; and, the Southold High School and Middle School, on Oaklawn Avenue, in Southold. The Peconic Primary School serves grades 1 to 3, and the Southold Middle and High School handles grades 4 to 12 and kindergarten (Henderson and Bodewll, 1990;RPPW, 1984). The Southold School district per capita cost of providing educational services to each student is approximately$ 810, 51.73. The expenditures for the school district total approximately$8,290,725 for the current 1992 school year, and approximately 6.42%or $532,264.54 is received in state aid. CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTSPage 46 Angel Shores Final EIS SECTION III:ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Comment 72: 3-1. The section on Geology and Soils does not assess the impacts of the addition of fill that will be required in order to raise the first floor elevation of the homes to ten or more feet above sea level. (PB-31) Response: Nine (9) lots on the proposed project plan would have difficulty locating homes in areas with elevations of less than 10 feet. These include Lots 1, 5, 6, 149 15, 16, 17, 18 of Section I and Lot 31 of Section II. In areas not as sensitive as Angel Shores, it may be acceptable to allow fill to elevate structures. The Angel Shores Section I site has been found to be sensitive in terms of wildlife habitat, unique vegetation associations and wetlands. Every effort should be made to reduce fill in order to minimize clearing and protect these resources. It is possible to build homes to required flood plain elevations by pile support; however, not all homeowners want this type of setting. Furthermore, sanitary systems where the depth to groundwater is less than eight (8) feet would require fill which would be contrary to the goals of mi * i ing grading. Therefore, it is recommended that the configuration of lots be altered to situate building envelopes in areas where the elevation will be near or above ten (10) feet. Three alternative concept plans have been prepared as part of the Final EIS which achieve this goal and provide a reasonable use of the land. Due to the sensitivity of the subject site, it is recommended that clearing limitations be imposed for individual lots. In order to ensure compliance with limits it is recommended that building plans be reviewed in detail for grading and limits of clearing prior to issuance of building permits. Comment 73. 3-1. This section does not discuss the excavations that will result from constructing septic systems,foundations, recharge basins, etc. Such excavations result in significant environmental impacts which should be mitigated during construction. The disposition of material and control methods should be identified (CVA-9) Response. Impact due to excavation includes impacts due to subdivision construction and Mimpacts of private lot development. Impacts due to the subdivision are ated to road and recharge basin construction. Road location has been selected in order to provide practical access to the site. Standard 50 foot right-of-ways have been provided; however, consideration should be given to reducing pavement width in order to inimi e grading impacts and reduce runoff due to impervious surfaces. Three alternative development plans have been provided as part of this Final EIS with recommended road widths to mitigate these unpacts. Excavation for recharge basins should be minimized through use of a larger and less deep area. Excavated soil can be used to create closed contours in order to provide stormwater storage. If excess material is generated, removal from the site may be preferable to use on site, if on site use causes disturbance of natural field areas which could be allowed to succeed. It is recognized that removal from the site could CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 47 Angel Shores Final EIS cause short term impacts due to truck traffic, noise and dust. These impacts can be mitigated by operating during normal working hours, and avoiding overfill of trucks. Three alternative development plans included with the Final EIS expand recharge areas from that which was proposed in the Draft EIS proposed project, in order to minimize depth of excavation, provide potential for more natural recharge and improve aesthetics. Excavation for building foundation and sanitary system are associated with individual lots and will be completed over a longer period of time as lots are purchased. Excavated material can generally be used on individual building sites as fill for driveway leveling and around foundations. Topsoil should be stockpiled in areas which will eventually be disturbed as part of the development, and reused once final grading is completed. Particular attention should be given to stockpiling materials on Section I. Stockpiles should be placed as far from steep slope and/or wetland areas as possible. Hay bales should be placed on the lowest side of the stockpile. Fast germinating grass seed can be cast over piles if they will remain for more than several days. As indicated previously, in order to ensure compliance with limits it is recommended that building plans be reviewed in detail for grading and limits of clearing prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, the building inspector should examine stockpiling techniques during construction inspections, and provide on site recommendations when warranted. Comment 74. General Commend Soils The Draft EIS does not discuss the impacts of placing septic systems in areas where the soils may not be suitable for this purpose. (PB-32) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 18. Comment 75. General Comment. Soils The Draft EIS does not assess the environmental impact of the proposed stripping and stockpiling of topsoil (PB-33) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 73. Comment 76. 3-2 to 3-3. This section does not specifyproposed chanes to the topography. It subsequently fails to address the specific impacts that will result from grading the site in accordance with the proposed plan. This discussion should include a detailed analysis of how the grades will change due to the construction of roads and recharge basins;and the introduction of sand for septic systems or fill for flood protection. (Although the developed does not intend to be responsible for construction of the actual homes, the law requires a 'hard look"at the impacts of their construction as apart of the environmental review) (PB-34) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 73. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 48 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 77.- 3-2 to 3-3. In addition, this section should estimate the effect these topographic changes will have on the storm water ruru patterns. And it should analyze how these changes e likely to ec;the volume of stormwaterect the volume of stormwaterrunoff that feeds the wetland systems. (P -35 Response: Stormwater is generated as a result of impervious surfaces, generally roads in residential subdivisions. The project proposed as part of the Draft EIS required extensive paved area for tog cul-de-sacs, particularly in Section I,which has been determined to be the most sensitive section. Through the review of comments and the preparation of responses to comments, it is evident that measures were necessary to further minimise environmental impacts of the project. A more sensitive design concept involves significantly reducing potential for paved surface area in order to reduce runoff. This can be accomplished by shortening cul-de-sacs in favor of private roads which would be smaller and could make use of natural infiltration. In addition the width of common roads can be reduced depending upon the number of lots as provided for in the Town of Southold Subdivision Regulations. This concept would more closely approximate natural runoffpatterns and reduce impacts due to runoff. In order toprovide a feasible means of achieving this concept, three alternative development plans have been provided as part of this Final EIS with recommended road widths to mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that if some diversion of runoff from the freshwater ponds on site should occur due to changes in runoff atterns, no impacts are expected due to the fact that these ponds intercept groundwater. Please also refer to Response to Comment 20 for more information on pond hydrology. Comment 78. 3-2. The grading plan may have to accommodate problems associated with depth to groundwater,particularly with respect to the installation of septic systems and cesspools. Depth to;roundwater should be identified in the constrained areas of the site,particularly in the vicinity of Lots 5, 6 and 14 through I& This information should be used to guide thnal preparation of the site design, and to provide general conditions for development activities, in consideration of these significant environmental factors. (CVA-10) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 72. Comment 79: 3-2. It appears as though fill will be necessary in order to achieve the proposed grades in the eastern portion of Recharge Basin #1. The extent of this fill and impact on adjacent lots should be identifced (CVA-Il) Response: Recharge Basin#1 of the proposed project plan is to have a floor elevation of 5 feet. Existing grades are not less than 9 feet, therefore the recharge basin will be cut,not filled. The impact of recharge basin construction has been discussed in Response to Comment 73. In order tominimise impacts recharge area has been expanded in the three Final EIS concept pians. CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 49 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 80: 3-2 Section 3 of the DEIS states that a grading plan will be submitted on each lot as they come in for building permits This method does not allow the lead agency control over the steep slopes on the entire site, or allow for mitigation measures based on the entire project site Ofparticular concern is lot#5 in Section I. This lot should be eliminated Building envelopes should be designated on other lots and strict measures outlined for protection against sedimentation and runoff entering wetlands on-site and off. (NFEC-S, T3-6) Response: In order to mitigate impacts identified in this comment, the project plan must be changed. It is acknowledged that Lot 5 is a constrained lot. In addition, excessive road area may result as proposed in the original plan. In order to mitigation these impacts, less paved area is recommended as outlined in responses to previous comments. Furthermore, lot size, configuration and density should be charged in order to eliminate Lot 5, limit clearing and grading, expand wetland setbacks and control erosion. Three alternative development plans have been prepared as part of this Final EIS which achieve these goals. Finally, the use of building permit review is found to be appropriate for mitigation of lot specific imacts, provided that the ultimate development plan provides lots which are not constrained due to proximity to wetlands, steep slopes and poor soils. Comment 81: 3-5 to 3-6. This section offers the guarantee that "homeowners will not clear their lots completely,"wit out any supporting documentation or assurances that this will in fact occur. (PB-36) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 72. Comment 82. 3-5 to 3-6. The "worst case"assumption, that all the lots will be built upon, is not a 'worst case"scenario: it is actually the proposal being presented and reviewed (PB-37) Response: This comment is acknowledged. It is the applicants intent to have a successful project which will achieve full buildout. Comment 83: 3-5 to 3-6. This section does not provide the calculations that were used to arrive at the statement that 9.7 acres of land would be cleared for road and recharge basins construction, and that more than 43 acres "could be disturbed"when the entire site is built upon. (PB-38) Response: The applicant did not include these calculations in the Draft EIS because such documentation is not ordinarily included. The proposed Sketch Plan clearly states the areas for road and recharge basins. There is a 0.2 acre deviation between these totals and the statement that 9.7 acres would be cleared for road and recharge basin construction,which is because the recharge basin construction assumes a smallportion of the perimeter will not be cleared. The 43 acres of disturbed land is arrived at by subtracting the wildlife conservation easements and the wetland setback areas from the total area. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 50 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 84. 3-5 to 3-6. The statement that preservation 9f 48%of this community (the maritime red cedar forest) "represents a signleant effort and concession on the part of the project sponsor to respect the environmentally sensitive nature of the area"is not supported by any documentation whatsoever. The existence of the community is neither proved nor disproved And no determination by a qualified expert has been made as to whether disturbance or removal of more than half of this plant community will destroy its viability as a self-sustaining community. (PB-39, TI-7) Response. Additional information concerning the Maritime Red Cedar Forest has been provided in Response to Comments 22 and 23. In the absence of contrary information, and due to the high consistency of habitat on site to be characteristic of limited documentation on Maritime Red Cedar Forests, the site should be considered as a unique and sensitive habitat, and every effort should be made to preserve as much of this habitat as Possible. The Sketch Plan included in the Draft EIS does not, '...represent a significant effort and concession on the part of the project sponsor to respect the environmentally sensitive nature of the area." For this reason, three alternative concepts have been prepared, each of which situates development outside of the most concentrated areas of this habitat, and each of which preserves at least 60 percent of openi space in Section I of the Angel Shores site. Additional information s presented in the Alternatives discussions. Comment 85: 3.6 The statement, "It should also be noted that none of the existing vegetative species observed on the site are classified as rare, threatened or endangered (Federally or in New York State), so than any loss of the site's vegetation would not have a significant impact on the site or the general area in that regard" This statement is misleading and should be clarified to indicate that no classified species were observed;however, such species may be present. Further, this statement totally disregards impacts to vegetation which is not under State or Federal classification by may be significant in terms of local importance or habitat value. (CVA-12) Response. This comment is acknowledged. No classified species were observed however site habitat is suitable for several endangered, threatened and species of special concern. Additional information concerning vegetation and wildlife resources on the site is presented in Response to Comments 22 through 29 and in the Attachments. Due to the site sensitivity additional mitigation measures in the form of density shift and lot size reduction(clustering) is necessary to maximize habitat preservation and minimize vegetation and wildlife impacts. Comment 86: 3-7 to 3-10. This section on Wildlife does not quantify any of these environmental impacts that are expected to occur. And it does not address how those impacts might be mitigated in a meaning 4 quantitative fashion. (PB-40, DR-2) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 51 Angel Shores Final EIS Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 26 which identifies and quantifies impacts to wildlife. Wildlife impacts are a direct result of the loss of habitat and the sensitivity of the species present in that habitat. Please refer to the Alternative comparison for quantification of the benefits of the three Final EIS alternative concepts in increasing habitat preservation,which directly quantifies these mitigation measures. Comment 87.- 3-7 to 3-8. Statements on these pages are contradictory. On the one hand, the Draft EIS recognizes that while the impact of the Angel Shores project may be small for most species, there are species that may be significantly impacted by the development of this property (on page 3-7). Then, it states (on page 3-8) "While not trying to minimize the impacts to wildlife from this development, it is felt that no signpcant impacts to any species will result from the habitat loss anticipated . Neither statement is supported by any type of quantitative inventory and analysis of actual wildlife on the site for any of the species mentioned Nor is there a categorization of the habitat itself. There is no documentation in this section (or the Appendix) that reflects actual on-site surveys, such as was recommended by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in February of 1989 and 1990, (pages G-2 and G-13). (PB- 41) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 27 which provides additional discussion on habitats, species and quantitatively assesses impacts. Comment 88. 3-7. The statement, 'The Angel Shores project is relatively small in terms of the scope of most species.; Angel Shores Final EIS diversity and protect a much larger area of Maritime Red Cedar Forest. Alternatives have been proposed as part of this Final EIS. Comment 90. 3-11 to 3-12. The statement that the proposed development 'tis not expected to have any significant impacts on either tidal or freshwater wetlands"should be supported y quantitative documentation and analysis The reference to the need for stormwater replenishment of freshwater wetlands should be buttressed by data on the volume of runoff that presently,f lows into these wetlands now, and the volume of runoff that will flow into these wetlands after development. Further, the first statement in this section, that no significant impacts are expected, must be reconciled with later statements that "elimination of all surface runoff into wetlands is neither feasible nor desirable"and 'The majority of runoff will be collected by the drainage system and be directed to the recharge basins away from the wetland areas." (PB-42) Response: The Sketch Plan included in the Draft EIS would result in certainLp acts to wetlands and habitat as recognized in Draft EIS comments and in Final EIS (Response to Comments 22-29; 84-89). These impacts can be substantially mitigated through creative re-design of the project. Discussion has been provided concerning minimizin runoff and paved surface areas (Response to Comments 72, 73, 76, 77 . Information has been included which indicates that changes in runo patterns are not expected to impact the on site ponds (Response to Comments 20, 77). Comment 91: 3-13 to 3-16. The last paragraph on page 3-13 gives the reader the erroneous impression that the proposed density, lot size and layout have the Planning Board's implicit approval: They do not (PB-43) Response: This statement is acknowledged. Please also refer to Response to Comment 1. Comment 92: 3-13 to 3-16. The comparison of previous plans with.the proposed plans in order to show the proposed plan as being less damaing environmentally are irrelevant for purposes of assessing the probable impacts of the proposed plan (PB-44) Response. The statements in the Draft EIS merely document the evolution of the Sketch Plan up until inclusion in the Draft EIS. Comment 93. 3-13 to 3-16. The second paragraph on page 3-14 is not correct. The Town code allows for a minimum o 30,000 square foot lots within a clustered development. It also allows for a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots when public water is available. (PB-45) Response. This statement is acknowledged. Comment 94. 3-13 to 3-16 The mooring o[boats is within the scope of this report. Since all lot owners within this subdivision will have access to the water over the waterfront park property, each owner could apply for a mooring permit off CRAMER, V1!R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 53 Angel Shores Final EIS this stretch of beach. Accordingly, this section should identify all the potential impacts of mooring permits. (PB-46) Response: Mooring of boats is not proposed as part of this subdivision. A passive park is proposed near the waterfront. The Draft EIS explores impacts reasonably related to the proposed project. Mooring of vessels can occur in any protected waters of the Town of Southold. The purpose of a mooring permit program is to ensure that the propagation of moorings takes place in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Speculation regarding the possibility that all residents of this subdivision may seek mooring permits is absurd. Comment 95. 3-13 to 3-16 Among the visual impacts are that which will be created by lots where extensive fill will be required to raise the first floor elevation of the homes to ten feet above sea level or higher. This section should address this impact to the view of the shoreline from the vicinity, as well as from neighboring properties (PB-47) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 76 regarding proposed changes in the quantity of fill based on the need for mitigation. This impact is not expected to occur provided the project is modified in accordance with the concepts promoted in alternative development plans. Comment 96. General Comment. The 50 foot wide Wildlife Conservation Easement on lots 1- 15 of Section II is of little ecological value to wildlife In fact other than providing the applicant with the ability to claim an additional 6.2 acres for "conservation purposes"provides no other value Clearly, the natural features found on the Section I site which include tidal and freshwater wetlands, steep slopes and the red cedar maritime forest indicate that this is the more environmentally significant section of the subdivision. If the open space buffered by the easement were I rested or to be used for agricultural purposes there would be justifation for incorporating an edge into the site plan. Neither of these scenarios exist. (NFEC-1, T3-5) Response: It is evident that Section I is the most ecologically sensitive portion of the site. It should however be noted that Section H provides visual resources and open space value in terms of open former agricultural expanse. This is important to the viewshed and open space appreciation along Main Bayview Avenue. In addition,preservation of this tyke of habitat is important to many wildlife species, as is evident in additional wildlife inventory based on site habitats presented in Response to Comment 26. Therefore the preservation of buffer area along Main BAvenue has both open space and wildlife value. It is recognized= easements proposed on private lots can not be used,the same purpose would be gained if this space is included within the common area,with the added benefit that residents would not be tempted to clear beyond restricted areas. For this reason, alternative concept plans included in the Final EIS decrease lot size to expand common buffer areas, thereby providing greater assurance that such areas will not utilized for private purposes. CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Pop 54 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 97.- 3-13. The DEIS states that "the only portion of the floodplain not in open space are the lots on the bay and lots S, 6, 12 and 13". This statement on the floodplain in relationship to the proposed development leads the reader to believe that most of the floodplain is in designated open space and the portion that isn't is insignificant. Actually 9 lots, or a full ill 'of the Section I lots contain areas designated as flood plain. The FEIS should state what percentage of the total lot coverage is within the flood plain. (NFEC-7) Response. This comment is acknowledged. In addition,please refer to Response to Comments 18, 72, 74 and 76 regarding the need to reconfigure lots to remove building envelopes from the flood plain. A goal would be to have little or no percentage of the building envelope within the flood plain. Alternative concept plans included with the Final EIS adhere to this goal. Comment 98: 3-14. The DEIS claims that the Agricultural-Conservation status of this area would be maintained Actually, the opposite would occur. This projected development would not contribute towards retaining the agricultural and rural environment. On the contrary, it would create another tract development, rushing us all headlong into overpopulation and the inability of this area to support the kind of growth that this developer envisions (EP-3, 72-3) Response: Development must be evaluated on a site specific basis. Important features of the site include unique habitat on Section I and open space views along Main Bayview Avenue on Section II. Protection of these resources is not necessarily dependent upon density,provided the concept of creative clustering is employed. The density has been established through zoning and a subsequent lawsuit. At this time every effort is being made to provide a residential development which conforms to the intent of the A-C district, in consideration of the Stipulation of Settlement. In addition,unique resources must be protected to the maximum extent practicable. It is the hope and intent of both the Planning Board and the developer that this balancing of issues will contribute towards retaining the agricultural and rural environment and provide an attractive natural setting for future residents of the An el Shores community to enjoy without causing detriment to surrounding neighborhoods. Comment 99. General Comment. Land Use and Zoning. The proposed project will impact the potential for use of the ice skating pond on the project site adjacent to Main Bayview Road. (LTR-1, T2-26) Response: The north pond along Main Bayview Avenue will be part of the open space to be preserved as part of the development. Covenants will be filed on the common areas to ensure that no clearing,grading structural use or active improvements occur. The pond is presently on private property, and the owner has been good enough to allow recreational use of the CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page SS Angel Shores Final EIS area. These conditions are likely to not change given the preservation of the pond and surroundings. Comment 100: General Comment. Land Use and Zoning. The proposed project should be reviewed in consideration of a PLAN. (DS-1) Response. The Town has recently updated the Master Plan and the project is in substantial conformance with this plan. Other land use plans which apply to the project site have been reviewed in the Draft EIS. Comment 101: 3-17 to 3-19. In the section on Ground Water Hydrology, the term "slight impact"which is used in the first sentence, should be defined quantitatively. (PB-48) Response: Recharge computations and extensive discussion of hydrologic impacts on the following pages of the section provide both quantitative and qualitative assessment of these impacts. Comment 102: 347 to 3-19. How will the construction of the recharge basin alter the existing hydrology? (PB-49) Response: The recharge basins are intended to provide a means of replenishing groundwater with recharge resulting from impervious surfaces on the project site. Runoff computations have been provided as a means of determining how the protect proposed in the Draft EIS will alter hydrology. Discussion has been provided as to the benefits of reducing runoff through less pavement in order to more closely simulate natural hydrologic conditions on the site. Comment 103. 3-17 to 3-19. The last sentence of the first paragraph in this section is based on an assumption that is not correct. While the Town Code requires the installation of recharge basins in subdivision, the substitution of leaching rings and other, alternate forms of natural drainage U permitted (PB-50) Response: This statement is acknowledged. Reasonable efforts will be made to comply with the Planning Boards requests regarding alternative drainage systems. Leaching rings may be appropriate where sufficient capacity can be provided, particularly if paved surface area is reduced. The applicant has indicated a desire to provide a drainage system based on leaching rings rather than recharge basins as is evidenced based on earlier plans using this concept. This option should be explored in order to preserve additional open space. Alternative drainage systems are facilitated as a means of conforming to natural recharge patterns on the site,through the consideration of the three alternative concepts in this Final EIS. Comment 104. 3-17 to 3-19. The calculations accompanyin this section do not account for the total water budget, in that they do not include the volume of water withdrawn from the ground by the water supply system. (PB-51) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 56 Angel Shores Final EIS Response: Calculations in the section on Ground Water Hydrology are intended to provide information for determination of nitrogen in recharge. Recharge of water from the water supply system is included in the sanitary effluent volumes. It is recognized that additional withdrawal occurs which is recharged at the Cove development site due to exportation of water to that development. Due to the results of drawdown tests and controlled aquifer pumping the withdrawal of water is not expected to significantly alter the water table elevations, thereby minimizing hydrologic impacts. Comment 105. 3-17 to 3-19. The section on the proposed nitrogen loading from sewage effluent and from lawn fertilization does not mention the existing background nitrate levels of the groundwater. The pro ected nitrate levels should be added on to the existing nitrate levels The Water Supply Report (Appendix A) indicates that in 1985 the background level near the wellhead was 7 mg,4 If this level is still the case, then total nitrate loading will exceed the State's 10 mg/1 standard. (PB-52, RM2-1, T3-11) Response: The concentration of nitrogen in nitrogen containing solutes can not be added, without consideration of volume. Concentration is a weightPer volume measure. If two liters of liquid with concentration of 10 mg/are added, the resultant concentration would be 20 milligrams per 2 liters, or equal to the concentration of each solution (10 m /1). The addition of recharge nitrogen with a concentration of 6.8 mg7 to an aquifer containing nitrogen concentrations of 7 mg/l,will not elevate nitrogen concentration in the aquifer. Comment 106: General Comment. What will be the groundwater flow directions once the surface water runoff is directed to the central recharge basins? (RM2-4, T3-4) Response: The overall groundwater flow direction of north northeast to south southwest is not expected to be altered as a result of recharge basins. Recharge basins may have saturated soils beneath them due to infiltration of runoff water into subsoils. Localized changes in flow may occur, such that groundwater flows radially from a mound, if the recharge basin is recharging a significant quantity of water. Groundwater mounding has been observed beneath unlined sludge disposal ponds in water level monitoring efforts conducted by the USGS (Eckhardt and Wexler, 1986). Though this is an inappropriate analogy, the conditions of an unlined sludge disposal pond are fairly analogous with a recharge basin. It is expected that once recharge is complete, groundwater would return to previous levels. Comment 107.- General Comment. Will diverting surface runoff that contains nitrates to central locations introduce concentrations of n rates above the 68 mg 11 potentially into a small area and increase nitrate levels in selected areas that could impact surrounding wells? Is this similarity true of each of the cesspool locations? (RM2-5, T3-15) CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 57 Angel Shores Final EIS Response: Nitrogen in runoff may be due to some overland transport of lfertilizer into the drainage system;however the majority of nitrogen in fertilizer will be recharged through the root zone. This is evident in work performed by the Long Island Regional Planning Board for the NURP Study (Koppelman, 1982),which found nitrate concentrations of 2.5 mg/1 in stormwater in a medium density residential area. Therefore, recharge basins would not be expected to contain significant concentrations of nitrogen. Sanitary systems will discharge high concentrations of nitrogen through a localized discharge area. The simulation approximates the concentration of nitrogen which is present below the root zone, and upper soil horizons where nitrogen reduction may occur via uptake and volatilization. Accordingly,the simulation does not address physical, chemical and biological changes which may occur once recharge enters groundwater. Nitrate-nitrogen (NOY) is the primary form of nitrogen present as recharge enters the saturated zone (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Nitrogen in this form is considered to be very mobile (high potential to migrate in groundwater) (Canter and Knox, 1985). Although the conservatism of nitrate-nitrogen in groundwater is noted, there are several factors which may tend to further reduce nitrogen concentrations. Freeze and Cherry (1979) report that a decline of oxy&en in soil and groundwater, can in some situations cause denitrification, a process in which nitrate-nitrogen is reduced to N20, or N2(nitrogen gas). Dissolved concentrations of N 0 and N2 are not considered detrimental to drinldng water (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). In addition; some nitrate-nitrogen may be reduced to ammonia-nitrogen (NH4+), in the groundwater environment. If this occurs, the ammonium ions are adsorbed in the geologic materials as groundwater migrates through the aquifer (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Canter and Knox, 1985). Freeze and Cherry (1979) indicate that denitrification in the groundwater zone is a process about which little is known; however, since groundwater migrates slowly, a slow rate of denitrification may become significant with respect to a nitrogen budget in the subsurface environment. There are several other factors which may affect the concentration of a contaminant as it migrates through the groundwater system. The mass of nitrogen which is not removed as a result of the above described processes, may be diminished in concentration through mixing. Mixinrfag processes in groundwater are significantly different than in suce water. Due to the laminar flow, characteristic of groundwater, mixing does not readily occur and is limited to that which is induced by differences m aquiferproperties and chemical concentrations of the contaminant plume. Advection (groundwater movement) is the transport of mass by bulk fluid motion. Hydrodynamic dispersion is produced by differences in the local groundwater velocities related to the local differences in hydraulic conductivity. Dispersion can occur both in the direction of groundwater flow and perpendicular to flow, CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 58 Angel Shores Final EIS and acts as a mechanism for dilution. As a contaminant is introduced to the groundwater system, the relative concentration of the contaminant is reduced with distance from the source (Freeze and Cherry, 1979;EPA, 1989). Molecular diffusion is the migration of mass from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. Dispersion has been found to have a more profound affect on contaminant concentrations than diffusion,particularly in short term observations in permeable aquifers; however, the long term affect of dispersion in heterogeneous deposits may be significant (EPA, 1989). It is difficult to quantify the affect of denitrification of nitrate-nitrogen, and hydrodynamic dispersion,without site specific information on physical, chemical and biological aquifer properties. The literature does however indicate that there is a significant potential for further reduction of nitrogen concentration once the contaminant enters groundwater. The combined processes of denitrification and dilution, would be expected to further minimize the predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge, once in groundwater, thereby minimizing impacts to the aquifer. The concentration of nitrogen will decrease with increased distance from the source. The predicted concentration of nitrogen in recharge (6.8 mg/1), in itself is in compliance with drinking water standards, and is therefore not expected to result in significant impacts to groundwater. A greater point source of nitrogen recharge may occur m the vicinity of the sanitary discharge point. This concentration is considered in the nitrogen budget for the site, and is expected to be reduced to 6.8 mg/1 as overall recharge enters groundwater,in combination with dilution from precipitation and other natural processes. It should be noted that the Health Department requires a distance of 150 feet between a sanitary discharge a well, indicating that nitrogen and bacteria/viruses are removed or transformed sufficiently within this distance. Comment 108. 3-18. Page 3-I8, indicates a fertilizer nitrogen application rate of'1.5pounds per 1000 square feet. The references identify this number as an ideal value achieved only through the implementation of a fertilizer management plan and education of property owners. Actual rates of fertilizer nitrogen application range from 2.3 to 25 pounds per 1000 square feet, as referenced in the Long Island Regional Planning Board, Non Point Source Management Handbook Unmitigated groundwater nitrogen budget computations should be changed accordingly. (CVA-15) Response. Due to the requirement that domestic water cannot be used for irrigation, and the covenants which will be applied to the lots prohibiting installation of on-site wells,property owners will be extremely cognizant of the need to utilize low maintenance vegetation on the site. A list of drought resistant, low maintenance groundcovers as well as native and near native vegetation for site landscaping is provided in Response to Comment 35. Based on these unique conditions, it is expected that residents will be educated regarding low maintenance lawns and use of CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Par 59 Angel Shores Final EIS fertilizer use. Furthermore,the Non-Point Source Management Handbook indicates that traditional lawns can be maintained using 1.0 pound of nitrogen/1000 square feet with proper application. Therefore, the use of 1.5 mg/l in the computation may be conservative, providing an added safety factor in consideration of nitrogen in recharge. Comment 109. .3.18. The sewage component of nitrogen loading is based upon a concentration of nitrogen released 1' ui V waste from the cesspool. Therefore, the dilution from the sanitary component of recharge is already accounted for, and would not cause additional dilution. It appears as though a recharge of 50 MG per year would be more appropriate. (CVA-16) Response. The Draft EIS section on Sewage Disposal indicates that the actual amount of nitrogen present in the liquid waste was extracted in the calculations, then added to the quantity of nitrogen from fertilizer. A final concentration was then calculated from the total recharge. This is an appropriate means of incorporating these volumes. Comment 110: 3-19. The final computed concentration of nitrogen in recharge should be compared to the statistical analysis of the percentage of time which the value would be expected to exceed the 10 mg/l drinking water standard (as devised by Cornell University, Hughes and Porter, 1983, and used by government agencies), in order to determine the significance. (CVA-17) Response. Statistical work performed by Cornell University sought to determine the probability that aven nitrogen in recharge concentration will not exceed the 10 mg/standard in groundwater samples. The results of this work indicate that, "In order to ensure that the concentration of any contaminant is below the standard more than half of the time, the average concentration of the contaminant must be less than the standard." (Hughes et a1, 1984). Additional research performed by Stedinger (1981),as referenced by Hughes and Porter (1983),resulted in the development of a statistical formula for estimating the percentage of the time that the standard would be met, given an average nitrogen concentration. Table 1,shows the relationship of these parameters as determined by the formula. CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 60 And Shores Final EIS TABLE 1 NITROGEN-PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING DRINKING WATER STANDARD Probability of not Average nitrogen exceeding 10 mg/1 concentration 90.0% 6 mg/1 99.0% 3 mg/1 99.9% 2 mg/1 Based upon this table, the nitrogen in recharge from the subject site could potentially exceed the 10 mg/1 drinking water standard, not more than 10% of the time. Please also refer to Response to Comment 107 which provides a full discussion of the characteristics of nitrogen in site recharge and point source recharge. Comment 111: 3-19 to 3-22. Given the fact that the Greenport Water Utility Company is no longer operating the supply system, this section should explain how the system is being operated at present. (PB-53, CL-4, TI-10, 72-9) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 3. Comment 112. General Comment. A letter from Suffolk County Board of Health, dated 11/30/83.Letter specifies that water forAngel Shores must be provided from a central water supply and not from individual home wells The DEIS should specifically acknowledge this statement and stipulate clearly that individuals wells would be prohibited (CBPAI-1, 72-11, T3-7) Response. This statement is acknowledged. Please also refer to Response to Comment 49 regarding on-site wells. Comment 113: General Comment. The DEIS states that water from the central supply could not be used for "unnecessary purposes....including lawn watering" It should be clearly stated that homeowners would be prohibitedfrom OU such unnecessary use of water. (CBPAI-2, T2-12) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 49. Comment 114. General Comment We believe that the DEIS should specifically acknowledge that the developer understands theses restrictions;ie., that prospective property buyer willprohibited from the unnecessary use of water from drilling individual wells, and will disclose this information to prospective land buyers. (CBPAI-3, T2-13) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 49. CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 61 Angdl Shores Final EIS Comment 115. General Comment. It should also be acknowledged that water from this central supply can only be used by the 49 property owners in Angel shores and the 33 units in the Cove (CBPAI-4, T2-14) Response: This statement is acknowledged. Comment 116. General Comment. The DEIS should contain assurances that the board of Health has certified adequate water supply for both projects:Angel Shores and the Cove- a total of 82 units. (CBPAI-5, T2-15) Response: The NYS Health Department and the NYSDEC approvals of the water supply systems are contained in the Draft EIS (Pages 2-51 to 2-58). Please refer to these documents and Response to Comment 6 regarding the number of persons the water supply system may serve. Comment 117.- General Comment. The DEIS states that the Greenport Water District has assumed operation of the central water district supply. The DEIS should specify who owns the supply, whether the Greenport Water District's operating agreement is tied to a similar agreement with the Cove, and what would happen if the agreement with the GWD is canceled for any reason. (CBPAI-6, 72-16) Response: The Homeowners Association owns the water supply site. William Gremler, a Licensed Water Treatment Plant operator runs the plant under contract to the Homeowners Association. The operation of the plant includes water supply for both the Cove and Angel Shores. A Licensed Operatoi must operate the system regardless of what agreements are reached with GWD. Comment 118: General Comment. We request that the DEIS guarantee that if the water supply or water quality of CPA residents is impacted as a result of the Angel Shores project, that the GWD would be obligated to extend their service of potable water to impacted residents What recourse is there if private wells downgradient of the site incur salt water- who is accountable? (CBPAI-7, CL-5, TI-12, T1-16, TI-17, T2-2, T2-17) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 41. Comment 119: General Comment. We further request that GWD shall not be allowed to just spot zone areas of service which would impact adjoining areas (CBPAI- 8, T2-18) Response. Zoning is the function of the Town of Southold and has nothing to do with the Greenport Water District. Comment 120: 3-21. Page 3-21 refers to a design report of a test of 48 hours for continuous drawdown at the rate if of 60 gallons per minute produced negligible impact up to 100 feet away. Although this test is the basis for concluding that there is an adequate water supply, and the DEIS states that it includes CRAMER, V f R OCIATES - ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTSPage 62 Angel Shores Final EIS this copy of the report, we found no such copy. It should be included (CBPAI-9, T2-19) Response. The copy of the report received by Cramer,Voorhis & Associates, Inc. at the time of acceptance of the Draft EIS included the Water Supply Report as Appendix A. Based upon the number of comments generated at the public hearing regarding this report, it seems as though the report was in general circulation, either with the Draft EIS or by other means. Comment 121: General Comment. What will be the long term effect of pumping these wells on my well water quality and the project well? Will this well draw water up from depth and in from the shore line over time? What kind of evaluation if any did the DEIS make of this? (RM2-6, DR-3, TI-9, TI-18, T2-27, T3-2, T34, T3-16) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 36. Comment 122. Appendix A. Appendix A,page 3 contains the only table found in the document that attempted to estimate water usage. This is, however, totally inadequate. Although the household use of 350 gpd (100 sfdu x 3.5 people per household x 100 gpd) = 35,000 gpd was an acceptable estimation for that portion of consumption, there are no estimates on other uses which would nonnaL&be associated with a residential development i.e. lawn irrigation. The DEIS does state however that the water from the public water system will"1 be used for household consumption. The FEIS must discuss how it will enforce this claim. How will watering lawns and gardens, swimming pools, landscape planting and washing cars will be prevented How the drilling of a second well by each future homeowner will be prevented (NFEC-8, 72-25) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 49. In addition, it should be noted that car washing can be accomplished through commercial facilities. Comment 123: Appendix A. This report states that ductile iron pipe (cement lined) and PVC pipe were both acceptable for supply lines It later states that the connecting water main between Angel Shores and the Cove will be constructed of ductile iron pips thickness class 52, cement lined I talked to the Greenport Utility inspector who examined these lines and he said that PVC piping was used. (DP-6, TI-6) Response. This comment is acknowledged. Piping must conform to design standards. Comment 124. General Comment. Water Supply. Now that the Angel Shores Water System is providing the Cove with water, it is an ideal time to assess the quality of water provided and the efficiency of the delivery system. The Health Department said that the system would work, the developers said that it would, isn't it time to ask the 11 Cove owners if the water is good to drink and reaches the secondfloor loor without difficulty? (DP-7, T1-11) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 35. CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAGCONSULTANTS Page 63 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 125. General Comment. Water Supply. The recommended condition which encourages homeowners to have small lawns is unrealistic due to the present vegetative condition of Section 11. It is dif j�cult to control what a private landowner will do with their property. ( 1-19) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 49. Comment 126. 3-23 to 3-24. The following questions come to mind. On what basis was the decision made to allow 3.4 acres of imperious surface for 49 homes? Does this figure include for patios, swimming pools and garages? (PB-54) Response: This figure is based on an average house "footprint" (including garage), of 2,000 square feet and an additional 1,000 square feet per home to account for patios,walks, etc. This figure does not include swimming pool areas. Comment 127.- The statement that individual lots are going to be graded so that the first f loor will be 1.2 feet above the drainage divide of the lot clearly does not apply to those lots where the existing elevation does not meet federal flood management standards which require the first floor elevation to be at least ten feet above sea level (PB-55) Response: The statement pertaining to the first floor elevation does apply to all homes. The 1.2 feet represents the proposed finished first floor elevation of the homes in relation to the proposed drainage divide on each lot not the existing elevations. Please note that alternative concepts are necessary to situate building envelopes in areas where final grade does not have to be elevated in order to minimize clearing and grading. Comment 128. As observed in other sections, there is no discussion of the impact the recharge basins will have on the overall surface water hydrology, as well as the wetland ecology and the vegetation, (PB-56) Response: Discussion has been provided concerning the impact of recharge basins on surface water hydrology and minimizing runoff and paved surface areas (Response to Comments 72, 73, 76,77). Information has been included which indicates that chanes in runoff patterns are not expected to impact the on site ponds Response to Comments 20, 77). Comment 129. Finally, as mentioned earlier, alternate forms of drainage can be substituted for recharge basins. (PB-57) Response: This statement is acknowledged. Leaching pools and reduction of stormwater generated facilitatepossible alternatives. In addition, enlargement of areas devoted to recharge may provide opportunity to explore natural planted recharge swales and retention areas either for overflow of leachingpools or perhaps in a series of ponds which could be used to enhance habitat and expand open space areas. The Final EIS Alternative Concept plansprovide additional acreage for recharge in low points in order to facilitate this alternative. CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 64 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 130. 3-25 to 3-29 Since some soils present on this property may not be suitable for septic systems, or the depth to groundwater may be less than eight feet, this section on Sewage Disposal should examine each proposed lot to see if it can meet the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. There should be a listing of the lots that would require excavation of unsuitable soils or the addition of either sand or fill to provide suff cient separation between the water table and the bottom of the septic leaching pools. (PB-58) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 72. Comment 131: 3-29. Additional information should be presented regarding the depth to groundwater on constrained lots (Lots 5, 6, and 14 through 17), and the ability to install properly functioning sanitary systems. SCDHS does not recognize five (5)pool sanitary systems for new subdivisions under the regulations. Excessive grading and fill to achieve elevations needed for three (3)pool systems is totally inappropriate on these lots adjacent to wetlands. The impact statement should acknowled a impacts or provide feasible mitigation in order to overcome these significant constraints. (CVA-18) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 72. Comment 132. 3-29. It should also be noted that the DEIS states that it is anticipated that several lots are not going to meet Health Department requirementsor a sanitary sewage system as the depth to groundwater is as little as 4 feet. It is stated (page 3-29)that these lots will be graded to the appropriate height. The FEIS should identify all of these lots. It should also discuss relocating these lots so that they will meet sanitary health code. (NFEC-6) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 72. Comment 133. 3-30. This section does not present background data on the local government's solid waste capabilities and how the solid waste generated by the project will impact existing facilities. (CVA-19, NFEC-11, T3-8) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 64. Comment 134. 3-31 to 3-34. The conclusions of the traffic study do not address either the quantitative or the relative impact this project will have during the time of peak traffic volume- the summer months. Since the assumptions are not based on actual summer traffic loads, the projected impacts are conjectural (PB-59, EP-4, T2-4) Response: Current traffic data was collected and adjusted using recognized methods for seasonal adjustment in an area with a reasonably high recreational component to its traffic patterns and adjusted to view a worst case scenario for peak times. Seasonal adjustment factors from local transportation agencies, the Long Island regional office of the CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 65 Angel Shores Final EIS NYSDOT and the SCDPW,were compared to the adjustment factors used in the Draft EIS. The factors are based on count data obtained by the two agencies and was found to be virtually identical to the factors from the HCM which were utilized for the DEIS traffic analysis. See Response to Comment 65 for data and additional clarification. The conclusions of the traffic study were based on empirical data, factored by acceptable methods, and supported by adjustment factors from local transportation agencies and supported by current count data obtained for review of the Draft EIS. Comment 135: Although the report states that the carrying capacity of the road will not be exceeded, it does not address the very real impact of an 39%to 82% increase in traffic as it will be felt by the current residents of Hog Neck. (The two percentages noted are in the range of increase noted in this section.) (PB-60) Response. The report demonstrates that the carrying capacity of the roadway will clearly not be exceeded and calculated the percent increases in traffic. Percentages alone, however, can be deceptive and when compared to very low base numbers, can result in high percent increases although the actual quantitative increase is small. Comment 136. Finally, this additional wear and tear on the road will result in an additional financial expense to the Highway Department. This cost should be examined in the section on community services. (PB-61) Response. The cost of increased "wear and tear"on Main Bayview Road and other roads which may reasonably be affected by the project, is one of the impacts to be offset by the increased tax revenues realized by the Town from such a development. It should also be noted that the majority of wear and tear on roads is caused by truck traffic and not automobiles. Revenue will be produced by the proposed project without a commensurate demand due to the proposal to maintain roads as a private community. Comment 137.• 3-31. The analysis should discuss the effect that the proposal will have on the various connector streets that intersect with Main Bayview Road in the project vicinity, and traffic impacts in consideration of the speed limits, accident information and sight distances requested in comment # 7 above. (CVA-20) Response: Response to Comments 134 and 135 and the Draft EIS indicate that the roadways will not experience a significant impact from proect generated traffic. There are numerous routes to, from aZwithin Great Hog Neck as described in Response to Comment 66,which tend to provide distribution of traffic. Road connecting to Main Bayview Road tend to have low volumes. This coupled with relatively low volumes on Main Bayview Road as evidenced in supplemental traffic counts indicates suitable capacity and gaps for traffic flow. There were no CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTSPage 66 Angel Shores Final EIS indications in terms of sight distance or accident history which would cause concern over the ability of the area roads to handle project generated traffic. Comment 138: Section 3-31 refers to a third access road Cedar Point Drive and Cedar Beach Road are private roads maintained by its resident with no aid from the Town of Southold in anyway including snow clearing. This route can in no way be considered an ingress or egress and should be deleted from the DEIS. (RM-6) Response: This comment is acknowledged. Comment 139: 3-35. This section does not consider the percentage increase of population that will occur on Hog Neck should the project proceed (PB-62) Response: It is estimated that there will be an increase of approximately 113 persons to U.S. Census tract 1702.1,which includes the Great Hog Neck area. This will bring the population to approximately 5,305 persons. Information was not available on the block level for this area to the quantify the number of residents that live in the vicinity of the proposed project. The 113 people were estimated using the average household size of 2.3 as supplied by the U.S. Census bureau for this census tract. The population increase over the existing population would be approximately 2.17%. Comment 140. 3-37. This section does not offer any idea as to what the impacts wi14 yet asks the reader to believe that the impacts will not "overtax"community services. (PB-63) Response. The Angel Shores development is proposed to be a private community,which will maintain it own water supply,roads and open space. It is anticipated that the proposed project will use services such as'schools, police, fire, and to a lesser extent Town services such as parks. The community is expected to be occupied by a mix of year-round and seasonal owners; however,the exact makeup of the community can not be determined. Based upon a hypothetical tax analysis,Angel Shores I and II will contribute approximately $223,504.10 in taxes to the Town upon buildout of the property. The taxes generated by this private community will far exceed the services rendered to the Angel Shores residents in the terms of road repair,snow removal and others services required by non-private communities. The tax estimate is derived based on the following factors: Number Market Equalization Tax Rate Total of units Value Rate 1&r/S1000 Taxes 49 350,000 2.9 449.40 204,504.10 CRAMER, VR OCIATES Page 67 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS Any estimate of tax revenue requires that assumptions be made. A more accurate manner to compute tax revenue is to determine the exact taxing based on known square footage and improvements associatecf with the dwellings. This is not possible in this case due to the fact that the developer intends to sell individual lots. Therefore, a variety of houses will be built over an unknown period of time in order to suite the needs of the buyers. The above computation is based on State accepted methods as a means of estimating tax revenue. Real estate agents were contacted with regard to expected sale prices. This figure is justified for a private water access community in the Hog Neck area. Tax and equalization rates were obtained from the Town Assessor's office. For a further breakdown of the estimated taxes and the distribution to the various taxation districts the reader is referred to Table 2. TABLE 2 PROJECTED TAX REVENUE BY DISTRICT District Rate/$1000 Taxes Town 113.67 $56,533.77 county 59.63 $29,656.98 Scbool 251.60 $125, 133.25 Special 24.49 $12, 180. 10 Total -$449.40 $223,504. 10 Source: Mr.Scott,Tax Assessors Office. Tax Rate to nearest hundredth. As indicated, the methodology used to generate the estimated taxes is the method employed by the New York State Assessment Board. The Town of Southold Assessor's office has indicated a preference for the more exacting method described above; however, it is not possible to provide the detail needed for such an assessment. The numbers are for the 1990-1991 tax years and it is estimated the tax rate will increase when the houses are constructed. The market value of Angel Shores is based upon an average price of CRAMER, V R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page68 Angel Shores Final EIS vacant land for sale in Southold that either has beach rights,waterview or water access; and, $100/square foot to construct a home on the a lot, this was determined after speaking with several Realtors in the area in consideration of current market conditions. Traditional] waterview or waterfront property does not lose value during times of depressed market conditions due to the United nature of this commodity. This analysis is for illustrative purposes, the selling cost of the property and taxes could be significantly higher or lower after the houses are constructed in the next five to ten year period. Comment 141: Was there any contact with the Southold Town Police Department or the Fire Department to determine if they anticipate problems servicing this project? Since the Health Department has stipulated that fire hydrants may not be operated off the water supply system, the installation of fire wells will be required A fire well must be able to pump 350 gallons per minute in order to be accepted by the Fire District. (PB-64) Response: Contact was made with the both the police department and volunteer fire department during the week of September 1, 1991. According to Lieutenant Conway, the police department will have no problem providing services to the new development when it is constructed. Chief Davids of the fire department stated that they do not anticipated any problems servicing the new residents when the homes are constructed. Comment 142. Include supporting documentation from the School District that the addition of 40 students will not have a significant impact on the system. (PB-65) Response. The Southold Union Free School District was contacted in order to determine the ability of the school to accommodate children generated as a result of this project. A copy of correspondence received from the district regarding the Angel Shores project and anticipated impacts is included in Attachment M. Students generated by the proposed project will pass through the Southold Union Free School District, and it is anticipated that some of the grade levels can absorb additional students while others cannot. Contact with the district finds that there are wide fluctuations in enrollment between grade levels, making it difficult to provide staffing,particularly for those grade levels at or above capacity. The district has provided a breakdown of the number of pupils per grade level. This is important to consider in planning programs for future years as a large number of children moves from year to year. Mrs. Romeo estimated that the elementary classes can run at 27 pispils, but the high school staffing needs would have to be determined by the number of sections of courses to be offered. It was also stated that the revenues from the project would be generated by taxes due to an increase in the assessed value of the district. She anticipated that state aid would not be affected because their aid is based upon a flat grant and save harmless provisions. Based upon a revised figure of 50 students resulting from the project, CRAMER, V R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT , G CONSULTANTS Page 69 Angel Shores Final EIS Mrs. Romeo,the school district's business administrator, estimates that this will require the hiring of two teachers. The hiring of two additional teachers will add approximately $63,000.00 to the budget in teachers salaries and benefits,this additional cost will be covered by the $125,133.26 generated in taxes generated by the proposed project. A deficit may result in consideration of classroom setup, supplies and other factors. It should be recognized that the school age children generated by the project will be dispersed over various grade levels thereby distributing the impact. Based upon present enrollment, some levels may be impacted while others will not. The school district must change to meet the needs of the community is providing education for children. Long range planning should occur within the district in response to demographic trends. In order for the district to address these issues, information concerning land use and zoning is important to consider. The potential density of housin&has been significantly reduced in the Town of Southold due to rezomngs associated with the Master Plan. Nevertheless, based on contact with the district, there are capacity levels particularly at certain grade levels which will have to be dealt with. The Angel Shores project as well as other pending and future projects must be brought to the attention of the district in order to consider in long range planning. It is anticipated that additional school-aged children will be generated by other residential developments being constructed over the same 5 to 10 year period as Angel Shores, in the other areas served by the school district. According to Mrs. Romeo of the school administrative offices, the 1991-92 enrollment is 762 students in K-12. The capacity of school is approximately 1,110,including capacity of both schools and portable structures. Since the close of the 1990-91 school year the number of school aged children in the district has increased by 23 pupils..Since 1986 the school district has received 10 additional school children each year. Based upon this trend, it is estimated that the school district will have an additional 108 students, in addition to the estimated 50 from the Angel Shores development. New projects will produce tax revenue;however, traditionally, single family residential development does not necessarily provide sufficient tax revenue to offset the required services (Bucknall, 1989). Additional revenue is often provided by tax rateable uses including commercial and industrial uses which do not place a demand on services but produce significant tax revenue. Southold has some rateables but such revenue producers are limited. The Master Plan indicates that the community is reliant upon tourism and recreation. This can also work in favor of school district revenue in cases where families own summer homes which produce tax revenue but do not burden the schools. These factors must be weighed by the school board in order to provide the necessary services without the need for significant tax increases which may cause other economic hardship on a community. CRAMER, VRA OCIATES ENVIRONMENTG CONSULTANTS Pap 70 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 143. 3-3& The factors used in the analysis to project the number of students by unit type for the Angel Shores proposal understates the number of school children that will actually be generated by this project. Review of Rutgers data, as contained in The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (Burchell et a4 1985), indicates 0.705 school-age children (SAC) for a 3-bedroom house, and 1.328 SAC for a 4-bedroom house. These figures are for Middle Atlantic States which includes Long Island by definition in the reference. This matter should be addressed (CVA-21) Response: The Draft EIS predicted that 40 school age children would be generated by the pro ect. There is a basis for this prediction if 15 or more percent of the ch, dren generated by this project attend private school. The generation rates for school age children generation were taken from T71_g Fiscal Impact Handbook (Burchell 1985), and are based upon data for housin build during 1975-1980 and monitored 1980 by the U.S. Census. The author explains that the continued trend toward smaller households and the increasing age of population is having an impact on the usefulness of this type of impact analysis. The Census data is now being used for uer limits of the predicated school age children and household-size dppemand estimates. The more conservative approach is to utilize the generation factors for the Middle Atlantic states as published in this reference,without a reduction factor for private schooling. A revised estimate is based on factors of 0.705 and 1.132, for three and four bedroom homes. This would result in a number of 50 school age children from the Angel Shores project. Comment 144. 3-3& The conclusion that students generated by the project will not have a significant impact is unsupported The analysis should consider the cost of providing educational services to this subdivision, based on current per capita pupil expenditures. This cost should be compared to the tax revenues that will be generated to the school district by the project In the alternative, the district should be contacted to verify capacity. (CVA-22) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 142. Comment 145: The projected number of school children is based on a mix of 3 and 4 bedroom houses. The worse case scenario should be discussed in the FEIS wherein using the formula in the DEIS 51 children could be#enerated The FEIS should discuss the projected cost to educate each child. (NFEC-12, T3-9) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 143. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 71 Angel Shores Final EIS SECTION IV: CRITICAL IMPACT AREAS & IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED Comment 146: 4-1 to 4-4. This section discusses the Delineation of Critical Impact Areas. It should be revised after the questions noted earlier in this letter are addressed (PB-66) Response: The critical impact areas of the site, are related to unique ecological resources. Section I is by far the most critical portion of the site. The Draft EIS identified freshwater and tidal wetlands associated with Angel Shores, Section I. The Final EIS has provided additional information concerningthe wildlife resources on the site as related to the habitats. It has been indicated that the combination of freshwater wetland ponds, tidal pond and marsh areas, and upland shrub and red cedar forest, provide an im ortant diversity of habitats. Particularly important are the corridors between these areas, as well as the need to maintain wide areas of contiguous open space in order to allow for continued use of the site by local deer populations and other wildlife. A great deal of additional discussion has also been provided concerning the Maritime Red Cedar Forest. This habitat is extremely rare in New York State, and further contact with experts finds that dense stands of red cedar on site are unique enough to warrant preservation of additional contiguous stands. Section I also contains areas within the flood plain and areas with poor leaching soils which were included in private lots in the Draft EIS. In addition, there was concern that some lots are located in areas where sanitary system siting would require fill to increase elevations for functioning of systems. Lastly, Section I has several areas of steep slopes adjacent to freshwater wetland ponds,where the project proposed in the Draft EIS had previously placed building lots. The remainder of the site has valuable features including open space/rural character along Main Bayview Road, and edge habitat between field and wooded areas,which are utilized by deer and other species. Although these areas are of less ecological significance they do possess qualities which should be considered in site planning. Alternate design concepts have been considered, and a alternative plans have been prepared which are intended to fulfill the following objectives: ` Reduce coverage of private lots on Section 1,in order to control clearing, provide more contiguous open space for wildlife and aesthetic enhancement, expand wetland setbacks,and maintain a greater portion of Maritime Red Cedar Forest. ` Reduce pavement area on Section I and where possible on Section II,in order to minimize stormwater runoff,in order to reduce needed recharge basin capacity. ` Provide area on lots for location of sanitary disposal systems above the ten(10) foot contour,in order to minimize needed fill,clearing and grading. ` Remove building lots from areas of constrained soils and flood prone areas. ` Remove building lots from areas of steep slopes,particularly where runoff CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 72 Angel Shores Final EIS and/or erosion could impact freshwater ponds. • Expand open space areas on both Section I and Section II where possible, While providing reasonable sized lots for the proposed single family residential use. • Enlarge recharge areas in order to eliminate need for deep excavations which could intersect groundwater,and to allow for greater setback buffering and landscaping of recharge areas. Provide some potential for natural drainage areas where existing topographic contours permit. These objectives have been addressed in three alternative concept plans which are included in the Final EIS and are discussed in greater detail in the section of the report dealing with alternatives. Comment 147.- 4-5 to 4-9. Of what value will the recharge basins be as wildlife habitat? And for what species? (PB-67) Response: The primary purpose of the proposed recharge basins are to provide stormwater retention so that flooding of road does not occur during precipitation events. The Final EIS Concept Alternatives reduce the need for extensive excavation,provide greater surface area for stormwater leaching and evaporation, and allow for landscapingg and natural overflow in areas where topographic contours permit. In addition, the size of recharge areas can be decreased as a function of needed storage, in order to preserve more open space. Wildlife value on the site is primarily intended to be preserved through preservation of a greater amount of open space,particularly on Section I, but also in field areas of Section H. Landscaping of recharge basins with suitable vegetative species could further enhance wildlife value. Recharge basins could provide overflow ponding areas which would sustain wetland plant species for greater wildlife value. While it is =can ed that recharge areas do not replace natural habitat; these provide added wildlife benefit. A list of plant species which could be used for this purpose is included in Attachment N. The Planning Board may wish to consider requirement of a retention/ponding area landscape plan in connection with stormwater control systems. Comment 148. 4-5. This section does not provide any specific recommendations regarding the reuse of excavated materials on site. Arrangements should be made with respect to the soils being stockpiled on site and reutilized in appropriate areas. (CVA-23) Response. Excavation for recharge basins should be minimized throgh use of a larger and less deep area. Excavated soil can be used to create closed contours in order to provide stormwater storage. If excess material is generated,removal from the site may be preferable to use on site, if on site use causes disturbance of natural field areas which could be allowed to succeed. It is recognized that this could cause short term impacts due to truck traffic, noise and dust. These impacts can be CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page73 Angel Shores Final EIS mitigated by operating during normal working hours, and avoiding overfill of trucks. Excavation for building foundation and sanitary system can generally be used on individual building sites as fill for riveway leveling and around foundations. Topsoil should be stockpiled in areas which will eventually be disturbed as part of the development, and reused once final gradin is completed. Particular attention should be given to stockpiling materials on Section I. Stockpiles should be placed as far from steep slope and/or wetland areas as possible. Hay bales should be placed on the lowest side of the stockpile. Fast germinating grass seed can be cast over piles if they will remain for more than several days. The building inspector should examine stockpiling techniques during construction inspections, and provide on site recommendations when warranted. Comment 149. 4-5. A specific goal should be offered with respect to a limit of the fertilizer dependent vegetation that may be used on site, to minimize nitrogen loading. In addition, specific limitations should be placed on grading and clearing activities that may take place on lots and in the open space and conservation areas. (CVA-24) Response: Due to the sensitivity of the site with respect to water supply issues, grass established on site should be of a type which requires no irrigation, Due to their hardiness, these species would likewise be of low fertilizer dependency. A table outlining specific goals for limitation of cleared areas is provided below. These clearing restrictions have been taken from the standards of the Pine Barrens Review Commission, of allowable clearing limits for lots located in the pine barrens. These restrictions are intended to protect another Long Island habitat and watershed area of extreme importance, thereby warranting use on the subject property for similar environmental protection purposes: Lot Size (square feet/acres) Maximum Cleared 10,000 square feet 1/4 acre 90 percent 15,000 square feet 1/3 acre 70 percent 20,000 square feet 1/2 acre 60 percent 30,000 square feet 2/3 acre 58 percent 40,000 square feet 1 acre) 57 percent 60,000 square feet 1 h acre) 46 percent Clearing on each lot should be limited to no more than that percentage which is indicated in this table. These restrictions should be indicated on the subdivision map, and covenants should hr, r r find to r�w�each individual1� Compliance should�rmined at the time of building permit review, and inplementation should be determined byy the building inspector during routine construction inspections. It is also recommended that building permit plans identify the extent of clearing and proposed gradin in order to ensure that compliance is achieved. In addition,building permit review may consider clustering houses nearer to a common lot line on adjacent lots in order to provide wider expanses of vegetation remaining on the CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Pap 74 Angel Shores Final EIS outside perimeter of these lots. These restrictions will reduce the need for irrigation, and allow for preservation of a greater amount of red cedar forest and other contiguous habitat areas on this sensitive site. It is recognized that 100 percent compliance is difficult to achieve; however, covenants of further review will serve the purpose of educating landowners, and increasing probability of compliance. With regard to common areas, no clearing of trees or disturbance of natural soils, or any other activity is permitted to occur,with the exception of creation of foot trails for passive recreational activities, approved recharge basin construction and supplemental planting of appropriate native or near native vegetation (A list of suitable species is provided in Response to Comment 147. No bulkheading shall be permitted in any shorefront areas. No structural improvements shall be permitted in an common land areas of Angel Shores Section I and H. Covenants shall j2g r re and filed t r fle theseconditionsprior IQ final subdivision approval. Comment 150. 4-5. Building envelope guidelines should be established, beyond existing bulk zoning requirements, to control development. These envelops should be established in the subdivision process in recognition of groundwater level and slope constraints, and the preservation of significant vegetation and habitat. (CVA-25) Response: Please refer to response to Comment 149 above for specific clearing and other restrictions. Comment 151: 4-10 to 4-11. The discussion on the loss of wildlife habitat and vegetation is too �enerd It fails to quantify the extent to which mitigation efforts can offset impacts. ( B-68) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 86. Three alternative concept plans have been prepared which increase open space preservation for a variety of reasons as outlined in this document. These plans at a minimum increase the amount of contiguous open space in Section I from 15.4 acres (38.6%) to 24.6 acres (61.7%). This represents a 23.1% increase of contiguous open space in Section I. Section I has been demonstrated to be the most environmentally sensitive, thereby warranting this additional mitigation. With regard to Section II, the open space increases only by a slight amount (0.1 acre) in the minimum case, due to the fact that additional lots have been placed in this section (lot sizes decrease). The minimum percent of open space in this section is 31.2%. Section II is culturally important in terms of aesthetic appreciation of undeveloped roadside areas along Main Bayview Road. Strides should be made to increase contiguous open space providing greater setbacks in this area. In addition,private lot area may be decreased with commensurate clearing limitations thereby reducing potential for landscaping and irni ation. In addition, common areas will be allowed to succeed creating additional CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 75 Angel Shores Final ELS vegetated areas for aesthetic appreciation and wildlife use and recharge areas should be planted. Comment 152. 4-12 The entire paragraph on growth inducement needs to be supported by documentation and analysis. (PB-69) Response. Growth inducing impacts are impacts which will promote further development in given area as a result of a specific project, or combination of projects. A project can be assessed in terms of direct impacts and secondary impacts. Direct impacts include consideration as to whether the pro* ct will cause a significant influx of residents or consumers to the area, t e creation of a major employment center, installation of infrastructure improvement or the development of a major retail or service center. In this sense,Angel Shores I and H is not expected to cause significant growth. Secondary Impacts are considered as those aspects of a project which would act to stimulate growth or at least establish a precedent for future growth in the area. Such impacts are considered secondary because it represents the first steps in the process which could lead to growth in the future. The existing land use and zoning classifications were established in previous sections of the Draft EIS. The development potential of the surrounding area is limited,because of the Agricultural-Conservation District that requires new residential developments based on 2 acre lots. In conclusion, it is acknowledged that the Angel Shores subdivision will site specific impacts which have been discussed previously in this document and the Draft EIS. However,because of the projects location, the existing surrounding land use and zoning, and the size of the proposal, no significant growth inducing impacts are expected. Comment 153. Energy Conservation. The DEIS failed to discuss energy consumption and conservation. This site will offer a southern exposure to many of the home sites. Use of passive solar technology should be discussed as a means of conserving energy. (NFEC-13) Response: The project will consume energy through use of fossil fuels and electricity for construction. Once construction is complete and units are occupied, energy will be consumed by inhabitants. Fossil fuels and electricity will be needed for heat,ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, cooking, cleaning water supply and other purposes. Dwelling construction must meet state building code for construction, insulation,window installation, electric,plumbing and beating. Building code i requirements have kept abreast of changes n technology which contribute to energy conservation Modern homes are more energy efficient both as a result of re&ulatory requirements, and the desire of homeowners to save energy with resultant economic savings. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 76 Angel Shores Final EIS The site will offer southern exposure for many homesights, particularly in Section H. The developer and/or individual lot owners may use this exposure to advantage to further increase energy conservation through passive solar heat. Greenhouse rooms constructed on the rear of north facing homes would provide significant benefit in terms of passive heat generation. Though not a requirement of the subdivision approval, these beneficial features should be recognized and may be used to increase energy conservation. CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 77 Angel Shores Final EIS ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Comment 154. Based on the comments provided herein, it appears appropriate to include a section on Adverse Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided, in the Final EIS (CVA-26) Response: Any time a land use project is implemented, there will be a resultant impact upon environmental resources. It is the function of the decision making board's to assemble the relevant information on a project, and formulate a decision based upon the importance and magnitude of impacts. Several impacts are listed below,which will result due to implementation of the Angel Shores pro'ect. This section is intended to list and acknowledge these impacts whic� may still occur, for which no mitigation exists. • A temporary localized increase in noise levels and dust emissions due to construction activities. • Permanent alteration and re-stabilization of localized areas with slopes of between 10 and 15 percent on Section I. Temporary potential for erosion without mitigation,and minimum potential for erosion with mitigation. • A localized increase in the concentration of nitrogen in recharge which enters the site. • Loss of natural vegetation on individual privately owned lots and areas within road right-of-ways and recharge areas. Landscaping and re-planting will result in some restoration of these areas. • Permanent displacement of some less tolerant mobile wildlife species presently inhabiting the site. Temporary displacement of the majority of mobile wildlife which inhabit the site. Probable destruction of less mobile wildlife species presently inhabiting the site. • Increase in the number of vehicle trips to and from the site,with a quantified imperceptible impact on the roadway network surrounding the site.. • Increase in the intensity of existing land use. • Construction of 49 additional homes in the Southold Fire District and police district. • Generation of approximately 50+ school age children in the Southold School district. • Change in the existing visual character of the site,from that of a vacant, abandoned farm field,wetland ponds/areas and Maritime Red Cedar Forest,to that of a residential subdivision with open space areas including overgrown field, wetland ponds/areas and Maritime Red Cedar Forest. CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 79 Angel Shores Final EIS SECTION V: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Comment 155. This discussion is too narrow in its scope There are numerous other alternatives which should be studied Specifically, there was no consideration of layout changes that might mitigate some of the specific impacts that were mentioned For instancy the relocation of lots so that all lots have at least eight feet to groundwater could have been considered in one of the alternatives. Examination of the following alternatives is being required with the intent of mitigating specific impacts that were identified in this report. since some of the impacts remain to be quantified that new or additional data must be taken into account when fleshing out these alternative layouts. Alternative 4. A cluster layout which avoids. - the placement of buildings at elevations below ten feet above sea level, - the placement of septic systems in areas with unacceptable soils, steep slopes and groundwater table within eight feet of the surface. Further, this cluster layout should utilize natural drainage swales and alternative drainage facilities instead of recharge basins (PB- 70, DR-1) Response. There are an infinite number of alternatives which could be examined given the broad parameters of a single family subdivision of 49 units. It is recognized that alternatives in the Draft EIS could be modified to further mitigate environmental impacts. Based upon not only Comment 155,but numerous other comments generated as a result of the Draft EIS, it is apparent that significant additional work must take place with regard to alternative analysis. Alternative Dein Concepts In general, the most common impacts from the Sketch Plan proposed as part of the Draft EIS which require mitigation include the need to preserve Maritime Red Cedar Forest, avoid steep slope areas,expand wetland setbacks, enlarge and preserve wildlife corridors, avoid flood Eand constrained soil areas, and maintain the current diversity of habitats,with regard to Section I. Section II is recognized for importance to open space and rural character and wildlife use to a lesser extent than Section I. These impact areas were documented in response to numerous comments. These impacts were related to the Sketch Plan in Response to Comment 146, and a set of objectives for an alternative development plan was established, as reiterated below: Reduce coverage of private lots on Section I,in order to control clearing, provide more contiguous open space for wildlife and aesthetic enhancement, expand wetland setbacks,and maintain a greater portion of Maritime Red Cedar Forest. CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 79 Angel Shores Final EIS • Reduce pavement area on Section I and where possible on Section 1 ,in order to minimize stormwater runoff,in order to reduce needed recharge basin capacity. • Provide area on lots for location of sanitary disposal systems above the ten(10) foot contour,in order to minimize needed fill,clearing and grading. • Remove building lots from areas of constrained soils and flood prone areas. • Remove building lots from areas of steep slopes,particularly where runoff and/or erosion could impact freshwater ponds. • Expand open space areas on both Section I and Section II where possible, while providing reasonable sized lots for the proposed single family residential use. • Enlarge recharge areas in order to eliminate need for deep excavations which could intersect groundwater,and to allow for greater setback buffering and landscaping of recharge areas. Provide some potential for natural drainage areas where existing topographic contours permit. In order to meet these criteria, and objectively evaluate alternatives which would minimize significant impacts, three alternative concept plans have been prepared. The plans are similar but provide a variety of configurations which might be employed on the Angel Shores site to achieve stated and necessary objectives in a redesign. It should be noted that these concept plans are not engineering drawings. These plans are intended to meet zoning requirements, though further engineerin&and design refinements are necessato order to ensure that the ultimate subdivision plan conforms to an zoning code requirements. Area computations are approximate and will also require further refinement. The alternatives are intended to illustrate several methods by which a redesign of the project can mitigate significant environmental impacts identified in review of the Draft EIS. The protection of sensitive environmental resources must of course be balanced with, the need to provide for a fair and reasonable economic return on the property, as well as social factors which involve the creation of an attractive and successful subdivision. It is believed that the concepts achieve this balance. It is recopized that these Alternative are not the only way in which the stated objectives can be achieved. A modified plan could be entertainedprovided it achieves equal or greater compliance with the stated objectives, in order to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable while still providing reasonable single family use of land and return on property owners investment, in keeping with the stated objectives of the project sponsor. FEIS Alternative Concept Design Plans A, B and C are included as Sheets 1,2 and 3 of 3,and are located in the pouches at the end of the Final EIS. As a basis for analysis, a comparison table has been developed which indicates relative design parameters and site quantities as compared to the Sketch Plan included with the Draft EIS (Table 3) CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 80 Angel Shores Final EIS TABLE 5 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON PARAMETER PROPOSED FEIS FEIS FEIS PROJECT CONCEPT A CONCEPT B CONCEPT C SECTION I (39.9 acres) Number of Lots 18 lots 13 lots 15 lots 14 lots Minimum Lot Size 40, 000 sf 20,000 sf 20, 000 sf 20, 000 sf Total Area of Lots 18.7 ac. 9.7 ac. 12.0 ac. 9.1 ac. Total Open Space 112 15.4 ac. 26.0 ac. 24.6 ac. 27.7 ac. Average Lot Size 45,250 sf 32,500 sf 34,900 sf 28, 100 sf Water Supply Site 1.7 ac. 1.7 ac. 1.7 ac. 1.7 ac. Recharge Areas --- --- --- --- Road Right-of-way 4. 1 ac. 2.5 ac. 1.6 ac. 1.4 ac. SECTION II (52.8 acres) Number of Lots 31 lots 36 lots 34 lots 35 lots Minimum Lot Size 40,000 sf 30, 000 sf 30,000 sf 30,000 sf Total Area of Lots 30.6 ac. 27.9 ac. 24.3 ac. 26.2 ac. Total Open Space 1 16.4 ac. 17.8 ac. 21.6 ac. 16.5 ac. Average Lot Size 43,000 sf 33,750 sf 31, 100 sf 32, 600 sf Recharge Areas 2.2 ac. 4.7 ac. 3.2 ac. 6.7 ac. Road Right-of-way 3 3.6 ac. 2.4 ac. 3.7 ac. 3.4 ac. Notes: 1- Includes 0.6 acre park area 2- includes dirt road south of cul-de-sac 3- does not include 33 foot right-of-way owned by others ` Proposed Project values from Draft EIS and Proposed Project Plan prepared by Henderson &Bodwell(9-10-90;Drawing No.NY241-006) • FEIS Concept values from Final EIS mitigation plans prepared by CVA(9-20-91;Angel Shores).Concept plans are not engineering drawings-Alternatives are presented for comparison purposes in order to minimize adverse environmental effects. Engineering and final layout must be completed. Areas computed based on Section I and Section U areas stated above. Open space ratios are as follows: Proposed FEIS FEIS FEIS Project Concepi A Concent B Concent!Q Section 1 38.6% 65.2% 61.7% 69.4% Section II 31.1% 33.7% 40.9% 31.2% CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 81 Angel Shores Final EIS Adverse and Beneficial ImDacts There are certain impacts which are common to each of the alternatives, therefore, these impacts are discussed together in the following paragraphs. Impacts associated with these concepts include beneficial impacts associated with achieving the previously stated objectives with regard to unique natural resources. Significant benefits are observed and quantified in the table of relative percentages of contiguous open space preserved through each of the development plans. Relative open space ratios are noted in the following table. Proposed FEIS FEIS FEIS PrQiect Concent A ConceR B Concent_Q Section I 38.6% 65.2% 61.7% 69.4% Section II 31.1% 33.7% 40.9% 31.2% Negative impacts include a potential lower selling price of lots due to a smaller lot saes. This impact is partially offset by the high real estate value of building lots on the Great Hog Neck peninsula due to the desirability of the area. In addition, common areas preserved as contiguous open space provide an amenity which also partially offsets this impact. Finally,the water access opportunity which this subdivision E is a desirable feature that is in limited supply,which further buffers temporary recesses in the real estate market, and economic aspects of providing smaller lots. Lot size reduction will require certain architecture which may or may not allow for side entrygarages depending on lot configuration, particularly on Section I. Privacy can be preserved through retention of natural and planting of supplemental vegetation on individual lots by homeowners. One-half acre and three-quarter acre lots have"been used successfully in many residential subdivisions, and can be developed in such a manner as to avoid an appearance which is too dense. Private roads, significant open space and separation of clusters of housing and the non-grid like design of the concept plan ensures that the site will not take on the appearance of a high density suburban subdivision. In addition, due to constraints in lot placement, many lots are greater than the minimum lots sizes as is evident in review of the average lot sizes for each concept. Larger lot sizes could be provided through density reduction; however, this would also have economic implications for the developer. An overriding concern is the need to protect open space as noted in the number of comments and concerns with regard to the Draft EIS and previously proposed Sketch Plans. Shortening of cul-de-sacs and reduction of paved surface areas is a common concept to each of the plans. This technique allows for less clearing and Fading,with greater retention of natural vegetation and open space. in addition,reduction of paved surface area reduces the quantity of stormwater generated thereby reducing impacts related to CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS page 82 Angel Shores Final EIS runoff. Therefore, this design technique has significant environmental benefits. In addition, this concept has economic benefit to the developer through the reduction of improvement costs associated with road construction. This economic benefit can be used to offset potential increased costs associated with recharge basin landscaping which may be required as a result of project implementation. One potential disadvantage of the alternative design concepts is the shortening of cul-de-sac lengths to reduce paved surface area, thereby requiring private roads for several clusters of lots. The concepts create flag lots with a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a subdivision right- of-way. This would allow for separate access to individual parcels if absolutely necessary;but in reality, a group of homeowners or the developer would construct one private road to service a cluster of lots. The road would be used and maintained jointly by homeowners. This technique allows for reduced road width and reduced maintenance. Private roads have been used extensively in rural areas, and can add to the rural character,privacy and prestige of the homes which they serve. The use of private roads has an economic advantage to the developer by reducing the improvements necessary as part of the subdivision, specifically the installation of additional road. The disadvantage is that such use of roads requires cooperation between homeowners, may limit the range of potential homebuyers and increases the maintenance needs of homes which use the road. These disadvantages must be balanced with the social benefit cited above as wells as the environmental benefit previously noted. Other potential impacts of these design concepts should also be recognized. Clustering of lots raises concerns with regard to concentration of sanitary effluent. The 208 Study encourages large lot development in order to distribute sewage over a larger area and minimize concentration of effluent. Suffolk County Department of Health Services has established a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet for clustered subdivisions where public water is provided in order to maintain groundwater nitrogen within acceptable levels. The water system is a community water supply system located upgradient of development areas. -we only area where the alternatives involve lot sizes approaching 20,000 square feet, is in Section I. Under these scenarios, sanitary systems would be clustered in three areas, the northwest corner(7 lots), the northeast corner (2 lots), and the south east comer (between 4 and 6 lots). The size of most lots is much in excess of 20,000 sgware feet, and in the northwest comer where the greatest number of lots is clustered, lot sizes are mainly in excess of 30,000 square feet. In addition, it is not possible to spread the lots over a larger area of Section I,due to constraints with the depth to groundwater and the need to limit fill due to unique habitats. Lot sizes in Section II are intended to be in excess of 30,000 square feet, thereby providing for further distribution of sanitary effluent. In addition, density and lot size limitations as a function of nitrogen in recharge include nitrogen influx associated with lawn fertilization in standard CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 93 Angel Shores Final EIS residential communities. The Final EIS has made it clear that low maintenance vegetation must be used due to provisions restricting lawn watering. This further reduces potential for nitrogen impacts due to decreased lot sizes (20,000+ square foot) in a small portion of the overall subdivision. The relative highlights, design concepts and impacts of each plan are discussed below. nceiDt Desi _n A In general, the concept behind this alternative involves shifting five (5) lots from Section I to Section II, reducing lots sizes on Section I to 20,000 square feet or greater and 30,000 square feet or greater in Section H. The major difference between this plan and Concept Designs B and C, is that this plan recognizes and preserves all of the known right-of-way and ownership encumbrances on the site. This includes having the 33 foot right-of-way on Section II remain as an outparcel, except where it is improved as part of subdivision, and maintaining the 50 right-of-way on the tax parcel associated with Section I. This alternative achieves the above noted objectives through the following techniques. * Relocation of five(5)lots from Section I to Section II,providing thirteen (13) lots on Section I and thirty-six(36)lots on Section U. * Reduction of the size of lots to provide a greater area of land in common protected ownership. Lot sizes on Section I are 20,000 square feet and greater; and,lot sizes on Section 11 are 30,000 square feet and greater. * Provided access to lots using private roads within combined flag lot taps. This technique requires common driveway construction,use and maintenance,but has the benefit of significantly reducing paved area and clearing. In addition, private roads add to the privacy of a group of homes and is an attractive and prestigious feature. • Reduction of the width of the central access road between Section I and Section II,where same is not necessary to preserve integrity of right-of-ways. Orientation of building lots away from:areas of significant stands of Maritime Red Cedar Forest;areas of interconnection between ponds;and contiguous open space areas of diverse habitat including former orchard,dune community and mixed cedar/pioneer species areas. * Relocation of Lot 1(Section I)further south away from steep slope areas and freshwater pond setback area. • Elimination(relocation to Section II)of former Lot 5(Section I)which was in an area of constrained soils. * Elimination(relocation to Section H)of former Lots it and 12(Section 1), which were in a dense stand of pure red cedar and also contained steep slopes adjacent to tidal marsh and a fresh pond. • Elimination(relocation to Section In of former Lots 14 and 15(Section 1), which interfered with interconnection of intertidal and high marsh wetlands areas and destroyed central dune community habitat as well as stands of red CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTSPage 84 Angel Shores Final EIS cedar between the above noted wetland areas. • Enlargement of Recharge Basin#1 and#2 to allow use of natural contours and reduce need for extensive excavation. Recharge basin design must be finalized;however,larger area allows for some natural overflow and potential landscaping. ConceDt Desitin B The concept behind this alternative involves an eastward relocation of the main site access road, in order to move Lots 12 and 13 of the original Sketch Plan further east and away from steep slope areas and wetland setbacks. Lot 11 is relocated to section II under this scenario, alons with two other lots in order to expand the preservation of the Maritime Red Cedar Forest area. Lot sizes on Section I are also intended to be 20,000 square feet or greater and 30,000 square feet or greater in Section II. This plan has a constraint in that the 50 foot right-of-way associated with Section I, is partially moved to Section II. The physical right-of- way is maintained; however, there may be legal agreements necessary between the developer and the parties which the right-of-way serves, in order to shift the right-of-way. This alternative could be pursued as a means of providing 15 lots in the general area of Section I,while still achieving objectives of contiguous open space preservation. It should be noted that the 50 foot right-of-way is divided between private homeowners of Lots 13-15. This scenario allows these lots to use the existing dirt road for access thereby eliminating the need for an additional private road as is proposed in Design Concept A. At least 15 feet of independent right-of-way is preserved for homeowners south of the site, and the entire physical access which presently exists would be preserved. This is a practical means of utilizing existing roads,which may have legal constraints. This concept is proposed as an illustration, that could pursued if legal obstacles can be overcome. This concept also removes the two flag lots in the southeast part of Section II, and proposes a different means of access for the two lots east of the southwest recharge basin. This plan does recognize and preserve the 33 foot right-of-way on Section II,which remains as an outparcel, except where it is improved as part of subdivision. ConceDt Desi _C The concept behind this alternative involves preserving the physical right-of-ways which presently transect the property,without maintaining the exact alignment. This results is division of the 50 foot north-south right-of-way between Sections I and II, and southward location of a portion of the 33 foot right-of-way which transects Section II. It is recognized that the applicant does not own the 33 foot right-of-way, therefore,this is recognized as having legal constraints. CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT ��� G CONSULTANTS Page 85 Angel Shores Final EIS Design Concept C relocates four (4) lots from Section I to Section II,in order to achieve appropriate contiguous open space percentages. This concept explores a slightly different configuration of lots in the northwest corner and the southeast comers of Section I. In addition, lots off the cul-de-sac near the south recharge area of Section II have also been reconfigured. The southward relocation of the road through Section H also allows for an alternative lot and road configuration within this section,which makes use of an additional cul-de-sac. In summary,there are an infinite number of alternatives which could be explored. This Final EIS attempts to identify the primary concerns and mitigate these concerns through the exploration of three alternative concept designs. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these plans have been identified in an objective analysis presented in response to this comment. Development of the property should conform to the design intent and general percentages of preservation of contiguous open space as identified in the alternatives. Comment 156: Alternative 5: A cluster layout based on Altemative 4, but which uses 20,000 square foot lots. (PB-71) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 155. Comment 157.• Alternative 6. A cluster layout based on Alternatives 4 and 5 which minimizes intrusion on the maritime red cedar forest community, the wetlands and the agricultural land by using attached housing. (PB-72) Response. The use of clustering has been incorporated into the three Final EIS design concepts, in order to minimize intrusion on the Maritime Red Cedar n Forest, the wetlands and the agricultural land. These concept'plans achieve the concept proposed in Comment 157,without the need for attached housing for which there is no precedent in the immediate area of the proposed project. Please o espouse o omment Comment 158. No Development Alternative. This alternative was not explored fully. For instance, no consideration was given to alternatives which would preserve portions of the property, while resulting in some financial compensation. One such alternative is to sell the development rights to the farmland Another is to sell or donate the most environmentally sensitive portions of the property to a conservation group such as the Peconic Land Trust. (PB- 73) Response: The project must yield a fair economic return on the investment in the property. Dedication of land would sterilize that portion of the property and not allow for yield to be obtained. This is economically unviable. The applicant entered into litigation with the Town in order to avoid having to conform to a density based on two acre lots, and was successful in having a density of 49 units recognized by the judge, CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 86 Angel Shores Final EIS exclusive of consideration of environmental resources. This Final EIS explores density and clustering to determine the impact on environmental resources and provides viable means of minimizing impacts while still providing a density which will allow a fair and reasonable economic return. The developer will not take a step backwards in exploring dedication of portions of the property without yield equivalent when other viable options for protection of resources exist. The County has utilized farmland preservation techniques to encourage agricultural use through tax incentives. The subject site is no longer used for agricultural purposes and it is not the applicants objective to use it for that purpose. The applicant can not economically benefit from sale of development rights for farmland on a site where farming has been discontinued and real estate has such high value. Significant open space is proposed as part of the alternative concepts which will be preserved under the homeowners association with covenants to ensure its preservation. This achieves the goals of dedication or public/pnvate trust ownership,without causing maintenance problems. In addition, the openspace is an amenity of the subdivision which offsets some of the minor identified economic loss of the sale of smaller lots. Comment 159. 5-1. Alternative I. This section states that the No Development Alterative will not allow the Town to realize the additional tax revenue that would be generated from its development. In actuality, the revenue impact may be negative, once that the service demands are considered in the analysis. However, since the Draft EIS did not present a cost/revenue analysis on this proposal, with respect to the em' tingg taxing jurisdictions, a conclusion on this matter u not possible. (CVA-27) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 13. Comment 160. 5-1. The No Development Alterative should also identify the potential or lack of potentialfor the project site to be purchased under open space preservation programs This would mitigate the negative impact on the project owners. (CVA-28) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 158. Comment 161: 5-1.Alterative II. It is questionable as to whether this alternative could meet the requirements of the State DEC or local environmental regulations and actually be constructed The siting of primary and accessory structures would not be able to comply with fresh water and tidal wetland restrictions (CVA-29) Response. This comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Response to Comment 155 which outlines additional alternative development concepts. Comment 162. 5-4. Cluster Development Alternative. The Draft EIS does not adequately explore the alterative of clustering building lots from Section Ito Section II. Consideration should be given to the net environmental benefit of CRAMER, VR OCiATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 87 Angel Shores Final EIS relocating Lots 14 through 17, and perhaps Lots S and 6s or a combination of these lots,given the significant constraints regarding depth to groundwater,poor subsoils, diverse habitat, wildlife inter-connection, and domestic impacts to wetlands adjacent to these lots. Such an alternative would remove lots from environmentally sensitive and flood zone areas,preserve more red cedar dominant areas,provide inter- connection of habitats, minimize wetlands impacts, and increase the probability forpropenyfunctioning sanitary systems In addition, this alternative would significantly reduce the necessary length of cul-de-sacs This alternative could be accomplished by nominally reducing some or all lot sizes to less than 40,000 square feet adjacent (35,000 to 37,500 square feet), or decreasing the proposed open space areas Additional visual mitigation could include vegetative buffers, maintaining setbacks albeit perhaps reduced, or other measures. (CVA-30) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 155, and the alternative development scenarios which achieve the intent noted in Comment 162. Comment 163. 5-4.Altemative III. I strongly feel that transferring 3 lots from Section I onto Section II was not representative of an honest attempt to preserve the more sensitive of the two sections, Section I. (NFEC-14, T3-10) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 155, and the alternative development scenarios which achieve the intent noted in Comment 163. Comment 164. 5-l.Alternatives. Rather than reiterate our general concerns for the critical need to protect this site's resources, we have taken the initiative of preparing a recommended design alternative for this project which we be is responsible and reasonable. We hope this alternative will be considered in an addendum to the DEIS for this proposal. It should be pointed out, that we understand this is not the only alternative which could be examined on this site, but that it does incorporate several key design considerations which afford appropriate mitigation for impacts identified in the DEIS The alternative has the following benefits. 1. The recommended design alternative incorporates the use of a lot- yield transfer, rote ated clustering and selective lot-size reduction, to accommodate ll yield single lot development of the property, with the assurance of further protection for the site's contiguous wildlife habitat, steep slopes,freshwater and tidal wetlands, scenic vistas, most significant coastal erosion areas, and possible archaeological resources. 2 This alternative design relocates nine of the proposed lots from Angel Shore I to Angel Shores 11, and realigns 4 proposed lots and a recharge basin within the northern half of Angel Shore II, to the southern half of Anel Shores II. Two lots within Angel Shores I have also been realigned to eliminate the need for the northernmost lateral access mad and thereby better preserves the site's contiguous CRAMER, VR \ SOCIATES Page 88 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS habitat. 3. Size reduction are incorporated into those lots nearest to the shoreline, and for 8 lots located in the northern portion of Angel Shores H These modifications will reduce potential shoreline lot erosion, increase wildlife habitat, and enhance the protection of the scenic vista along Bayview Road 4. The alternative does not rely on the use of lot-specific conservation easements to protect many sensitive areas on the site. It has consistently been our experience that such conditions are of limited value because they are extremely difficult to enforce and, therefore, should be used only where no other alternatives exists. The recommended alternative design expands the common open space dedication to incorporate the most significant and sensitive areas of the site. This common area should be strictly covenanted and overseen by a homeowners association or possible by the Town. S. The project incorporates the use of only "single flag"clustering and disperses clustered lots throughout the development areas. It is our opinion that this type of design is consistent with "country-rural" development objectives and promotes community character consistent with historically developed communities 6 The alternative provides for water-view lots but does not extend lot boundaries into those portions of the site which are most subject to coastal erosion hazards and property loss. We believe strongly that this design consideration can substantially limit the long-term negative effects of shoreline property and loss and, consequently, eliminate the need for individual homeowners to seek structural stabilization of a naturally dynamic coastal area We recommend the provision of combined shoreline access easements for waterfront property owners to reduce the potential shoreline erosion and destabilization for foot traffic Given few lots served by the sites's waterfront access road, we would encourage consideration of a non-asphalt pervious surface which would assist in the reduction of stormwater runoff and reduce development costs Z We also suggest the imposition of stringent clearing restrictions on all waterfront and wooded parcel to reduce erosion potential and to maximize protection n of the site's biological resources. For those parcels currently vegetated in early successional "old field"cover, we recommend turf limitations and native planting covenants be imposed CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 89 Angel Shores Flnal EIS 8. As an important water conservation measure, we recommend restrictive lot covenants which would prevent the installation and operation of in-ground sprinkler systems which can significantly increase the water usage demands on the site's community supply well (SC-1, T,3-1) Response: The SCDHS alternativepplan has been evaluated and found to be inadequate in a number of areas (i.e. flag lots are small and cause setback and privacy impacts, excessive individual driveways are located between lots in many areas, etc.). It is noted that the County acknowledges other design concepts which could achieve similar goals. The alternative plans proposed in the Final EIS conform to the intent of the SCDHS alternative plan. It should be noted that the Stipulation of Settlement states that approximately 49 building lots are recognized,with lots clustered so that approximately 18 lots shall be within Angel Shores I and approximately 31 lots shall be within Angel Shores H,with the final determination of yield and lot placement left to the Planning Board after completion of SEQRA. This Final EIS provides a means of conforming to the approximate parameters established by the settlement,while still maintaining density and an economically viable project. Based on the stipulation, strong ustif ' n would be required for an extreme density hift1rom. Section I to Section 11. e C - a rnives include densities of 1-3—, 14-and 15 lots located on Section I under different scenarios. Parameters for minimum preservation of a contiguous open space have been established and supported, and C �- achieved through each design concept. Therefore, the intent of the County comments have been addressed in consideration of environmental resources, balanced with Planning Board goals in acceptable subdivision design and the Stipulation of Settlement, to produce several viable alternative concepts. Comment 165: 5-1.Alternatives. However, the Department feels that Lots 14, 15, 1 t; 17, and 18 can be modified to exclude all of the tidal wetlands on their southern boundaries as is depicted in the attached sketch on a photocopy of this portion of the plan. The property lines on this sketch can be adjusted to create lots of equal areas (DOS-1) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 155, and the alternative development scenarios which achieve the intent noted in Comment 165. Comment 166. 5-1.Alternatives It would be in the interest to all the property owners who have access to the Bay to create a common walkaway to the beach so as to avoid damage to vegetation by foot traffic or creation of multiple pathways. (DOS-2) Response: This comment is acknowledged. Passive recreational use of the park area is acceptable and should be encouraged in a manner which directs users to the beach via a common walkway. The Homeowners Association may entertain this concept in the future. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 90 Angel Shores Final EIS Comment 167.• 5-1.Alternatives. A requirement for ownership of these lots should be that the owners will not construct individual shore hardening structures such as bulkheads,groins, breakwaters, etc but must be utilize non structural measures to reduce potential erosion along the waterfront. (DOS-3) Response: Acknowledged. Please refer to Response to Comments 62 and 149. Commment 168: 5-1.Alternatives. Should access of navigable waters be required; this can be created by construction of a common boat launching ramp and identi fication of a mooring area offshore rather than be constructing individual docks to serve the waterfront property owners. (DOS-4) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 94. Comment 169. Alternatives Reducing lot sizes and utilizing more of the open space in Section II for the purpose of transferring a greater number(preferably all) of the lots from Section I should be discussed in the FEIS. Additionally, the FEIS should discuss the benefits of open space retained on Section I opposed to the open space on Section II. Included should be a comparison of habitat types, variety of species utilizing each sits topography, depth to groundwater and replaceability of the features found in each section. (NFEC-2) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 155, and the alternative development scenarios which achieve the intent noted in Comment 169. Comment 170. General Comment. To reiterate our position given in previous letters regarding clustering on Angel Shores, and the entire town for that matter, regardless of the "Stipulation of Settlement" this should never have been allowed since it is plain and simple downzoning no matter how you disguise it. If Angel Shores I and II were in two entirely different ownerships, would higher density have been permitted than 2-acre zoning allows? There should not have been more than 24 units permitted on Angel Shores II. (RM 7) Response. The legal constraints with regard to this parcel are clearly established in the Stipulation of Settlement. Comment 171: The FEIS should fully discuss concentrating all the development onto Section II. It should be noted that this move is supported in the "Stipulation of Settlement"which gives final determination of 1Qti�and placement to the Planning Board (N EC-15) Response. Please refer to Response to Comment 164. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 91 Angel Shores Final EIS Final Environmental Impact Statement ANGEL SHORES, SECTIONS I AND II Southold,New York REFERENCES Baier, Joseph H. and Sy F. Robbins, 1982, Report Qn the Occurrence and Movement Qf Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater: North Fork ofuS ffolk Counjy. SCDHS, Hauppauge, New York. Bucknall, Christopher P., 1989, The Real its Qf Development. Sceni Hudson. Inc.. Poughkeepsie, New York. Burchell, Robert W. and David L. Listokin, William R. Dolphin, 1985, Fiscal Impact Anal, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Burt, W. and Grossenheider, R., 1964, A Field Guide IQ the Mammals, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Canter, Larry W.; Knox, Robert C., 1985, SeDtic Tank System Effects Qn Ground Water ali , Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc. Dimond, Donald and Michael MacCaskey, 1982,All About Groundcovers. Chevron Chemical Company, San Ramon, California. Eckhardt, David A. and E.J. Wexler, 1986, Ground-Water Movement in the Upper la i 1 A if r in the Manorville Area. Town Q Brookhaven. Lon Island.New York- in November 1983. R,USGS Water-Resources Investigations eport 85-4043, Syosset, New York. Emmel, Thomas C., 1973,An Introduction ja Eck & Population Bio_ low W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York. Feucht, James R. and Jack D. Butler, 1988, Landscape Management Plate and Mainenance of Trees. Shrubs.and Turf�rasses, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York. Freeze, Allan R.; Cherry,John A., 1979, Groundwater, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,Inc. Godin, Alfred J., 1983, Wild Mammals Qf New England, The Globe Pequot Press, Chester, Connecticut. Henderson& Bodwell, 1990, Draft Environmental ImpactStatement Angel Shores, Southold. New York. Plainview,New York. CRAMER, V(ILSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 92 Angel Shores Final EIS Hightshoe, Gary L., 1988, Native Trees• Shrubs. and Vings for Urbannod Rural America A Plantin2 Desien Manual for Environmental Designers. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. Hughes, Henry B.F.; and Porter,K., 1983, Land Tag and Groundwater Ouali in the Pine Barrens Q Southampton, Cornell University, Water Resources Program, Center for Environmental Research, Ithaca, New York. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1987, Trio Generation. 4th E i i Washington, D.C.: ITE Technical Council Committee 6A-32. Jensen, H. M., and Julian Soren, 1974, Hvdrogeology Q Suffolk Count, I. n Island, New York. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-501, U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. Koppelman, Lee., 1978,208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management, Hauppuage, New York: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. Koppelman, Lee., 1982, I. n Island Segment.Qf the Nationwide Urban Runoff Pr m, Hauppauge, New York: Long Island Regional Planning Board. Long Island Business News, 1991, 1991 Ling Island Almanac, Twenty Second Edition, Ronkonkoma, New York. Long Island Business News, 1990, 1990 Long Island Almanac. Twenty Second Edition, Ronkonkoma, New York. Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB), 1983, Non FQjaj Source Management Handbook. Hauppauge, New York: LIRPB. Martin, Edward C.,Jr., 1983,A Photographic Guide Landscape Plants in Design,AVI Publishing Inc., Westport, Commecticut. McClymonds, N.E. and Franke, O.L., 1972, Water Transmitting PropertieQ A uifer on Long Island, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 627-E., U.S. Government Printing Office. Nemickas, Bronius and E.J. Koszalka, 1982, Geohydrological Appraisal Qf Wa er Resources Q the South Fork.Ione Island. New York. USGS, Water Supply Paper 2073, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. New York State, 1984, Environmental Conservation Law. Book 17 1/2, ECL, 1-0101 to 15- end, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota. New York State, 1987, State Environmental Qualily Review. Part 617,Albany, N.Y.: 6 NYCRR,N.Y.S. Environmental Conservation Law 8-0113. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC), Undated, Water uali Regulations-Surface Waternod Groundwater Classifications and Standards CRAMER, VSOCIATES Page 93 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations,Title 6, Chapter X,Parts 700-705, Section 703.5 Classes and Quality Standards for Groundwater, NYSDEC,Albany, New York. NYSDEC, 1983, Dr "n Island Groundwater Management Program. DEC Publication, Division of Water,Albany, New York. NYSDEC, 1986, Final Ing Island Groundwater Management Program. DEC Publication, Division of Water,Albany, New York. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 1981, USGS Quadrangle maps with planimetnc and topographic information, Albany, New York. Poole, Alan F., 1989, Ospreys A Naturalnnnd Unnatural History. Camrbidge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner (RPPW), 1984, Master Plan Update. Background Studies, Town Q Southold. SuffolkCounly. New York. Tarrytown, New York. Reschke, Carol, 1990, Ecological Communities Q New York Slalp,New York Natural Heritage Program, NYSDEC, Latham, New York. Scorca, Michael, 1990, Ground-Water QualiNear a Scavenger-Waste Disposal Fa ili in ff Manorville, lk County, New York 1984-85, U Water-Resources Investigations Report 884074, Syosset, New York. Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), 1990, Contour Map of the Water Table and Location of Observation Wells in Suffolk Coun1y. New York. 1990. Division of Environmental Health Services, Hauppauge, New York. SCDHS, 1984, Standards for Subsurface w Disposal a for Other Than m 1 - Family Residences.'Revised March 5, 984, Establis�ursuant to Article VB,� Section 2c of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Division of Environmental Quality, Hauppauge, New York. SCDHS, 1987-1, SuffolkCounjy Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Volume 1 Hauppauge, New York. SCDHS, 1987-2, Suffolk County Sanitary Code -Article 6 Groundwater Management Zones. Division of Environmental Quality, Haouppauge, New York. SCDHS, 1987-3, Suffolk County Sanitary Code -Article 6 Realty Subdivisions. Development and Other Construction Pro' s Amended March 4, 1987, Code of Administrative Regulations, Hauppuage, New York. Suffolk County Pine Barrens Review Commission(SCPBRC), 1988, P to icies and Standards for the Review Q AMlications in the Pine Barrens Zone, October 1988,Hauppauge, New York. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 1988, National Wetlands Inventory Maps, CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 94 Angel Shores Final ELS Washington, D.C. Urish Daniel W. and Melih M. Ozbilgin, 1989,The Coastal Ground-Water Boundary. Groundwater Magazine, Volume 27,No. 3, May-June, 1989. Wyman, Donald, 1956, Ground Cover Plants. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York. CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Page 9S Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENTS CRAMER, VOPRHIS 4-ASSOCIATES L AND Page 96 ENVIRONMENTAL. Pi CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT A WATER SUPPLY SITE WELL LOGS CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS ---- -- -- - -- ----- --- --- -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- HENDEFSON BODWELL No . 516 9.35 S.hO Sec 17 . 91 14 :50 F . 02 • HE COVE r "SUPPLY WELL STRATA WELL CORP. 2 BEECH ST. • ISLIP, N. Y. 11761 516 - 581-7100. IN: 84 it•9- . 4F a 10' " �E,e riG II.�►TE� 40 . I to pfA �aRE' o1.t �` SEA • a, L NZArCEMENT hraP ZAIC f'ow.</NG JqCAer4WZf 00 ,lw,p,pyAV EXT ; OFI� CSG' `E/V % m f' rasre,wt�ss� �' qRAvEt P C s�,�EE/y {� AA q +*30 Sicyr HE 1-411ER._iC1 N EOI1[0ELL t40 . 51A a55 7 p 1 f al 14 : 51 F .O� WELL CORPO 2 Beech St. ' (SLIP, N.Y. 117$1 WELL LOC Phone 516 581.7100 10 AME JU . COV eTION Southol New York Well No. W.A.C. WELL 00. S-$9754 _� bu PT. s. w. L. AI& STARTED 2-2-88 COMPLETED 2-10-88 DRILLED K bak D AMPLE -- o1 W+1 ThIck- ' F No. th LOt+ Slows Formation nee• a0th Rsearke ' Excavation - Fi Fine to course brown r -- I ---Brown dyy sandy clay anti sjpnes 1 - 4 Brown sand medium to course stones S ;4 dirty I - ,�-7- HENDERSON BODWELL No .516 935 8760 Sep 17 .91 14 :52 P . 04 . THE COVE SUPPLY WELL STRATA WELL CORP. s Z BEECH ST. ISLIP, N. Y. 11751 d 516 - 581-7100. 8y: 84 M-9-88 . } t r or iw i • f 4 r/G d/k Ar 4eMN -potor—P)PC to ply evSCA a �" IVT�,[/Jrliy I'1''/T1✓ i a-srre�Z c.�s✓IMWO A(ig..Q AMF AF pPdGAr11V6 ' sc,�Av�E ao t =- z�tsr,�,wtEss� • � sr�Et�v�t� ., 444Y,4 PACO( 4 #30 Ucyr HE14DERSON BODWELL No .516 935 8760 Sep 17 .91 14 :53 F . 05 47 WELL CORP . . 2 Beech St. WIELL `OG ISLIP, N.Y. 11751 Phone 516 381.7100 �s • .i B NAME THE COVE LOCATION Southold, New York - Well No. 2 __—W.R.C. WELL 00. S-89755 I WINCE PT. Grade S. M. L 10 ' DATE STARTED 2-10-88 —COMPLETED 2-19-88 DRILLER R bak SAMPLE ' er Actual Th I ck- No. Depth Loth Blows For*atioo nes• Depth tour i Excavation - Fill 6 6 Fine to course brwon sandgrits, ravel $ stones 42 48 Brown dyy sandy clay and stones 1 49 er r Brown medium to course sand & stones 5 54 i K 1 HENDERSON BODWELL No .516 935 5760 Sep 17 .91 14 :54 P .06�-HE COVE SUPPLY WCLL 'r3. STRATA WELL CORP. 2 BEECH ST. ISLIP, N. Y. 11751 616 . 581.7100. a� • TAT/�M.A r4rAt or ti gr P41MA7 4w, tQ'pIA �oR��o� M �L SEA A� r� "VeArceAAe yr ; { 4sI.s1reul-i�A NfeOP,PEANE seow-AwifZAK 40 • M iltsr.+AW,Fss� a 3o sLvt r ' r■�rrM - �M�r Fine -to a7urse -wits. Qrave�ton � •111 1 - • � - �. J •J - •. _ ��[i Mair■■■ �MrMMM r � Mr■■■r ■■■Mair r■■ iMr�rM■M err■ Mair■■■■ ■■rte . ■Mair■■ �MM■M rrrrrM ��r■ � ■Mair■■ rMMMM■■■ r�rr■ �r�rr srr■r■r r■Ml ■■■err MMMMr�, Mair■■■■ �r■� ■■MrMrs rrr ■■Mair■ ME■Mair■■ ■■Mair■■ Mr■M�MiM ■s�r■rM ■�r■r ■tri rrr r�r� Mr�rr� ■r■�Mr■r rM�r:. ■■r�m■■ rrM� ■rr� Mair ■wrM �r Maim■■ �r■r Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT B SPECIES COMPOSITION CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT B SPECIES COMPOSITION This appendix has been included to present the results of a computer model used to investigate the various wildlife species which can be a ected to be found on the site considering the habitats established here. This model(referred to as the CVA Habitat Model,was developed by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc.,using available information and references for the various species. The model utilizes the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, to identify wildlife species commonly found in various Long Island habitats,based upon thorough research of available literature. Three habitats were investigated with the model for the subject site. These habitats are: the Overgrown Field", Fresh Pond, and Tidal Marsh" The model does not include a separate habitat corresponding to Maritime Red Cedar Forest; however, the Section I portion of the site has resulted from the simultaneous succession of a species which is typical of pioneer vegetation associated with Overgrown fields. In addition, the species expected on the upland portion of Section I are consistent with species associated with Overgrown Field. The model provides the following information. Theme column of the list identifies whether the species was observed on site. The second column identifies the common name of the specie, presented with the main common name in alphabetical order (for example: red-tailed hawk would come before blue jay). The scientific name of particular specie is in third column. The fourth column, of particular importance to the environmental setting, contains information on: the frequency of the species in the habitat (abundant, common, rare and non expected); the species activity in the habitat (nesting, hunting and resting); and the duration the specie is in the habitat (resident or seasonal by months of the year). The tl column shows the legal status of the specie, of which there are four possible entries (Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern and Local Concern). References are provided in the sixth column, with the reference list provided after this introduction. The seventh column , and last, contains "COMMENTS"on the particular species. Comments provide relevant information which was obtained from the literature, as regards special habits of the articular specie, such as adaptability, nesting, food, etc. This column is particularly important in assessing the potential impacts to the species from proposed construction. The printout contained in this appendix, coupled with the discussions provided in the main body of the report, pr f des significant information of the wildlife found, or expected to be found on site. a erences used in the preparation of the model are listed at the end of this section.. CRAMER, V(J�MR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS a-r SPECIES COMPOSITION. OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OVERGROWN FLD PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus C / N,F / 3-10 none 4 6 needs water common bobwhite Colinus virginianus C / N,F / R none 4 8 somewhat tolerant of humans during spring and summer months indigo bunting Passerine cyanes C / N,F / 5-10 norx 4 20 inhabits open woodlands with dense thickets for cover northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis C / N,F / R none 4 20 found around gardens, yards, parks gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis A / N,F / 5-9 norx 4 9 abundant around parks, urban and suburban areas black capped chickadee Parus stricapillus A / N,F / R none 4 11 abundant around parks, urban and suburban areas brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater A / N,F / 3-10 none 4 6 lays eggs in other bird's nests; some stay during winter American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos A / H / R rwne 4 11 extremely adaptable; omnivorous black-billed cuckoo Coccyzua erythropthalmus C / N,F / 5-9 none 4 11 avoids human activities yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C / N,F / 5-9 none 4 12 avoids heavy urban areas; prefers wooded open or edges for nests morning dove Zenaida macroura A / N,H / 4-9 rare 4 8 abundant around parks, urban and suburban areas American goldfinch Carduelis tristis C / N,F / 4-11 none 4 20 prefers diet of thistles and dandelions common flicker Colaptus suratus R / H / R none 4 14 abundant Around parks, suburban and urban areas common grackle ouiscalus quiscule A / N,F / R none 4 6 adapts well to urban and suburban habitats ruffed grouse Bonasa umbetlus C / N,F / R none 4 8 prefers dense cover, thick woods; avoids humans rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus C / N,F / 5-10 none 4 20 mainly found on north sho e northern harrier Circus cyaneus R / H / R threatened 4 16 avoids humans; extremely protective of nests red-tailed hawk Buteo jamsicensia C / H / R none 4 16 needs 100 foot radius undisturbed area for nest sharp-shinned hawk Accipeter striatus N / N,F / 4-9 none 4 16 avoids humans; nests in heavily forested areas blue Jay Cyanocitta cristatta A / N,F / R none 4 10 extremely adaptable to human activity and other stresses American kestrel Falco sperverius C / N / R none 4 17 adaptable; prefers open areas and parks; will nest near humans eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus A / N,F / 3-10 none 4 15 very adaptable to human activities; prefers open areas ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula R / N,H / R none 4 7 occurs as non-breeding species; present during migration eastern meadowlark Sturnells magna C / N,F / 5-8 rare 4 6 found in marshes during winter months northern mockingbird Minn polyglottos A / N,F / R none 4 9 prefers to nest near humans barn owl , Tyto alba R / H / R special 4 17 hunts in open areas, nests in man made structures and hollow trees great-horned owl Bubo.virginianus C / N,H / R none 4 17 nocturnal; rare in wooded areas of less than 20 acres ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus C / N,F / R none 4 8 needs fields with cover along edge American redstart Setophaga ruticilla C / N,F / 5-1.1 none 4 19 urbanization and agriculture have negative effects American robin Turdus migratorius A / N,F / 4-10 none 4 7 very adaptable; abundant in parks; nests in man-made structures fox sparrow Passerella ilieca C / N,F / 5=10 rano 20 21 prefers woodland edge, thickets, brushy roadsides, weedy pastures field sparrow Spizella pusilla C / N,F / 4-11 none 4 21 associated with grasslands, fields and brushy wooded edges CRAMER, V SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT �� ' 1 G CONSULTANTS' 8-2 OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT (CONT'D) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OVERGROWN FLD PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS AVIAN SPECIES (CONT'D) grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savennarum C / NJ / 4-10 special 4 20 requires grasslands song sparrow melospiza melodia A / NJ / R none 4 22 common to most habitats except deep forest, open field and marsh swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana C / NJ / R none 4 22 prefers fresh water marshes; may be found in weedy fields perks white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys C / F / 9-5 gonna 22 32 often found in suburban areas and city parks white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis C / NJ / R none 4 22 prefers brushy areas and thick undergrowth European starling Sturnus vulgaris A / NJ / R none 4 23 extremely adaptable to human activity; considered a pest barn swallow Hirundo rustics C / NJ / 5-9 none 4 15 nests almost entirely on buildings brown thrasher Toxostome rufum C / NJ / 4-10 none 4 9 common in parks and suburban areas, wooded edges and dry open areas hermit thrush Catharus guttatus R / NJ / R none 4 7 not common on Long Island; when present, prefers pine barrens wood thrush Hylicichla mustelina C / NJ / 4-10 none 4 7 prefers vacant wood (trees >40 feet); may adapt of wooded suburban rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus A / NJ / 5-10 none 4 20 may be present year round on Long Island white eyed vireo Viro griseus C / N,F / 5-9 Wore 4 23 avoids human activity; prefers dense swampy thickets black-and-white warbler Mniotilts varia R / NJ / 4-9 pore 4 18 builds nests under shrubs and/or trees blue-winged warbler Vermivors pinus C / N,F / 5-9 none 4 14 primarily abandoned and overgrown field, and thickets chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvenica C / NJ / 5-9 none 4 19 prefers first growth woods, with some open brush area prairie warbler Dendroica discolor C / NJ / 5-9 none 4 19 prefers scrub fields and open pine barrens habitat ceder waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum C / NJ / 4-10 none 4 23 32 prefers open woodlands, orchards and residential areas whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous C / F / 5-9 rare 4 12 nocturnal; prefers open woods with adjacent fields American woodcock Scolopax minor C / NJ / 3-11 none 4 30 prefers moist woodland and thicket near open fields Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus C / NJ / R none 4 9 associated with woodland thickets and brushy areas, often near water house wren Troglodytes sedon 4C / NJ / 5-10 rare 4 9 found in suburban areas and gardens; nests in crevices of buildings common yet lowthroat Geothlypis trichas C / NJ / 4-10 rano 4 19 found in all open brushy wet areas MAMMAL SPECIES eastern chipmunk Tamis stristus C / NJ / R none 1 29 prefers open woods, thickets, and rocky areas eastern cottontail Sylvilegus floridanus A / NJ / R none 1 29 will adapt to suburban areas, if there is sufficient cover white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus C / F / R none 1 25 29 requires range of one-half square mile red fox Vulpes vulpes C / 11,11 / R none 1 29 builds den in wooded areas with loose-sandy soil and good drainage eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus C / NJ / R none 1 29 tunnels underground house mouse Mus musculus R / NJ / R nor►e 1 29 lives in association with man, not expected away from buildings white-footed mouse Perosyscus leucopus C / NJ / R rare 1 29 common to most all habitats; does not adapt well to human activity Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana C / NJ / R rare 1 29 common in suburban areas, as well as woods, marsh and coastal areas racoon Procyon lotor C / F / R, none 1 29 nocturnal; very adaptive; found in urban and forest areas black rat Rattus rattus R / NJ / R rare 1 29 lives in association with man, mainly city water front buildings CRAMER, V SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS. S-3 OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT (CONVD) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OVERGROWN FLD PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS MAMMAL SPECIES (CONT'D) short-tailed shrew Blaring breuicauda A / N,F / R none 1 29 tunnels underground; abundant in a variety of habitats meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus C / N,F / R none 29 45 tunnels underground; prefers open woodland pine vole Microtus pinetorum C / N,F / R none 1 29 tunnels underground; prefers sandy soil in woods and field; can swim Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata R / N,H / R none 1 29 prefers dense wood, but may appear in all land habitats near water woodchuck Marmots monax R / N,F / R none 1 29 appears primarily in scrub woods and brushy areas; not common on LI HERPTILE SPECIES eastern garter snake Thannophis sirtalis C / N,F / R none 38 40 occupies a variety of habitats eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos R / N,H / R special 38 sandy soil and sunny roadside; feeds on herptiles and insects eastern milk snake Lampropettis d. triangulum C / N,F / R none 38 39 occupies a variety of habitats Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowlers C / F / R none 33 37 food in suburban areas, gardens; breeds in shallow permanent ponds CRAMER, V SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT �/ G CONSULTANTS' SPECIES COMPOSITION- FRESH POND HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FRESH POND PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus A / N,F / 3-10 none 4 6 needs water canvasback Aythya valisineria R / F / 10-1,2 none 4 27 rarely winters in the area American coot Finita americans R / N,F / 3-11 none 4 26 winters occasionally in area smerican black duck Anas rubripes R / N,F / R none 4 27 nests in thick vegetation within 1.2 meters of water ring-necked duck Aythya collaris C / F / 9-3 none 4 27 does not nest on Long Island wood duck Aix sponsa C / N / 3-4 rams 4 27 prefers wooded rivers and ponds, and wooded swamps blue-grey gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea R / N,F / 4-8 none 4 7 prefers dense foliated trees along water ways Cando goose Brenta canadensis C / N,F / R none 4 28 prefers lakes, rivers, bays and marshes horned grebe Podiceps suritus C / N,F / 10-4 none 32 42 prefers southeast shores, oceans, and bays pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps R / F /4-5 9-10 none 32 prefers brackish water in Long Island area great blue heron Ardes herodias R / M / 5-9 none 4 26 occurs as ran-breeding species; present during migration green heron Butorides striatus C / N,F / 4-10 none 4 26 may be found near lakes, streams, ponds and marshes eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus A / N,F / 3-10 none 4 15 very adaptable to human activities; prefers open areas mel lard Anes platyrhynchos C / N,F / 3-11 rano 4 27 adaptable to human activity common screech owt Outus asio C / N,H / R norx 4 17 nocturnal; nests in hollow trees, abandoned buildings, nest boxes semipalmeted plover Cheradrius semipatmatus R / F / 5-10 rano 31 32 non-breeder on LI; may forage during summer, occasionally winter least sandpiper Calidris minutitle R / F / 5-6,8-9 none 32 may occasionally winter on Long Island spotted sandpiper Actitus macularia R / N,F / 4-10 none 4 31 32 nests on ground in grassy areas greater *coup Aythya merits .0 / F / 10-3 none 32 44 winters in bay areas Lesser *coup Aythya affinis C / F / 10-3 none 32 44 prefers ponds, lakes, rivers and sometimes marshes Europeen sterling Sturnus vulgaris R / N,F / R none 4 23 extremely adaptable to human activity; considered a pest barn swallow Hirundo rustics C / N,F / 5-9 rano 4 15 nests almost entirely on buildings rough-winged swallow Stelgiedopteryx ruficollis R / N,F / 5-8 none 4 15 common to streams 8 rivers; nests in low banks, buildings, cavities tree swallow Tachycinets bicolor C / N,F / 4-9 none 4 15 always nests near water mute swan Cygnus olor C / N,F / R none 4 common in bays, very adaptable green-winged teal Anas creces C / N,F / 4-11 none 4 27 nests in upland areas in proximity to water common tern Sterna hirundo R / N,F / 5-9 threatened 4 24 prefers to nest on islands, locally common on north shore lesser yellowlegs Triniga flevipes R / F / 4-5,7-9 none 30 32 does not nest on Long Island; considered a migratory shorebird MAMMAL SPECIES big-brown bet Eptesicus fuscus R / H / R' none 1 29 roosts in structures; found throughout LI; hunts over water Keens bat Myotis keenii R / N / 6-10 none 1 29 roosts in buildings, crevices and bark; more common on eastern LI CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT AG CONSULTANTS FRESH POND HABITAT (CONrD) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FRESH POND PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS MAMMAL SPECIES (CONT'D) little-brown bat Myotis lucifugus C / H / 5-9 none 1 29 roosts in buildings and man made structures; hunts over water red bat Lasiurus borealis R / F / 5-11 none 1 29 feeds in marsh area; nests within 1000 yards of marsh in trees silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans R / N,F / 6-9 none 1 29 prefers wooded areas near water, primarily during summer months white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus C / F / R none 1 25 29 requires range of one-half square mile red fox Vulpes wipes C / H / R none 1 29 builds den in wooded areas with loose-sandy soil and good drainage mink Mustels vison C / NJ / R none 1 prefers wetlands surrounded by forested areas white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus C / N,F / R none 1 29 common to must all habitats; does not adapt well to human activity muskrat Ondarts zibethicus C / N,F / R none 1 29 prefers damp and marshy fresh and salt water habitats Virginia Opossum Didelphis viginiane C / F / R none 1 29 common in suburban areas, as well as woods, marsh and coastal areas eastern pipistretle Pipistrellus subflavus R / F / 4-10 none 1 29 found near water in open woods, also found in buildings racoon Procyon lotor C / N,F / R none 1 29 nocturnal; very adaptive; found in urban and forest areas Norway rat Rattus norvegicus C / N,F / R none 1 29 nocturnal; usually associated with human activity meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus R / N,F / R none 29 45 tunnels underground; prefers open woodland Long-tailed weasel Mustels frensts R / N,H / R none 1 29 prefers dense wood, but may appear in sit land habitats near water NERPTILE SPECIES butt frog Rana catesbeiane C / N,H / R none 33 34 35 37 strictly aquatic, wooded lakes common gray treefrog Hyla versicolor C / N,F / R none 33 37 prefer mossy trees near ponds green frog Rana clamitans C / N,H / R none 33 35 37 maim aquatic wood frog Rana sylvatica C / M,F / R none 33 37 refersspecies Leafy y pools and transient pools in wooded areas red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescerm C / N,F / R none 36 38 prefers shallow ponds in wooded areas; open moist woods spring peeper Hyla crucifer R / N,F / R none 33 35 38 prefers pools/marsh near woodland; found high in trees in summer eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis C / N,F / R none 38 40 occupies a variety of habitats eastern milk snake Lampropettis d. triangulum C / N,F / R none 38 39 occupies a variety of habitats eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis s. sauritus C / N,F / R none 38 40 semi-aquatic specie seldom wanders far from wet areas northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus C / H / R none 38 prefers secluded moist areas under logs/stones; can adapt to suburb northern water snake Matrix sipedon sipedon C / N,F / R none 38 39 common in swamp, bog, marsh, stream, pond and lake environments Fowler's,toad Bufo woodhousei fowlers C / N,F / R none 33 37 found in suburban areas, gardens; breeds in shallow permanent ponds eastern box turtle Terrepene carotins C / N,F / R none 41 terrestrial based species painted turtle Chrysemys pitta C / N,F / R none 38 prefers small bodies of water snapping turtle Chelydrs serpentine C / N,F / R none 38 41 sometimes found on land near water spotted turtle Chlemys guttate R / N,F / R special 38 41 found in bogs and ponds; may be in brooks and pools CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS a-� SPECIES COMPOSITION- SALT MARSH HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SALT MARSH PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus R / N,F / 3-10 none 4 6 needs water brant Brant bernicla C / F / 3 none 28 migratory only, does not nest in New York State canvasback Aythya valisineria R / F / 10-1,2 none 4 27 rarely winters in the area American coot Fulica americans C / N,F / 3-11 none 4 26 winters occasionally in area fish crow Corvus ossifragus C / N,H / R none 4 11 maritime species; prefers coniferous vegetation; less often intend short-billed dowitcher Limnodramus griseus R / F / 4-10 none 32 non-breeding species found in summer; some during winter months american black duck Anes rubripes C / N,F / R none 4 27 nests in thick vegetation within 1.2 meters of water ring-necked duck Aythys collaris - N / F / 9-3 none 4 27 does not nest on Long Island snowy egret Egretta thula C / N,F / 5-10 none 4 26 nests in vegetation 1 to 3 meters in height Canada goose Brenta canadensis C / N,F / R none 4 28 prefers lakes, rivers, bays and marshes pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps R / F /4-5 9-10 none 32 prefers brackish water in Long Island area Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia R / F / 9-5 none 24 occurs as non-breeding species during winters northern harrier Circus cyaneus R / N,H / R threatened 4 16 avoids huArons; extremely protective of nests little-blue heron Egretta caerulea R / N,F / 5-8 none 4 26 prefers protected areas without human activity (sanctuaries, islands) tricolored heron Egretts tricolor R / N,F / 4-9 none 4 26 maritime species, but rare on Long Island yellow-crowned night-heron Nycticorax violaceus C / N,H / R none 4 26 nests in low coastal shrubbery; prefers islands common loon Gavia immer C / N,F / 9-3 special 31 32 prefers bay and ocean areas mallard Anas platyrhynchos C / N,F / 3-11 none 4 27 adaptable to human activity red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator R / N,F / R none 4 27 nests in shrubs and/or under driftwood, close to water merlin Falco columberius R / H / 9-11 none 32 17 migrates in fall through coastal areas osprey Pandion haliaetus C / N,H / 3-10 threatened 4 16 associated with seacoast, sometimes lakes and rivers saw-whet owl Aegolius acedicus C / N,H / R none 4 17 nocuturnel; low moist coniferous; winter in parks, yards, thickets American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus C / N,F / R none 4 31 prefers salt marsh islands dredge spoil islands, high sandbars black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola N / F / 5-10 none 31 32 non-breeder on LI; may forage during summer, occasionally winter piping plover Charedrius melodus C / F / 4-9 endangered 4 31 32 found in dry, bare sandy areas; nests in sand and beach grass semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus C / F / 5-10 none 31 32 non-breeder on L1; may forage during summer, occasionally winter Virginia rail Rallus limicola R / N,F / 5-10 none 4 26 32 avoids humans; prefers marshes with woody and herbaceous growth least sandpiper Calidris minutilla C / F / 5-6,8-9 none 32 may occasionally winter on Long Island spotted sandpiper Actitus macularia C / N,F / 4-10 none 4 31 32 nests on ground in grassy areas greater *coup Aythya marila C / F / 10-3 none 32 44 winters in bay areas northern shoveler Ansa clypeata C / N,F / 4-10 none 4 27 prefers large protected marshes black skimmer Rynchops niger C / N,F / 5-9 none 4 24 not expected on north shore, feeds in boys and inlets CRAMER, V SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS S-7 SALT MARSH HABITAT (CONT'D) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SALT MARSH PROTECTION REFERENCES COMMENTS AVIAN SPECIES (CONT'D) European starling Sturnus vulgaris R / N,F / R none 4 23 extremely adaptable to human activity; considered a pest mute swan Cygnus olor C / N,F / R none 4 common in bays, very adaptable common tern Sterna hirundo C / N,F / 5-9 threatened 4 24 prefers to nest on islands, locally common on north shore least tern Sterna antillarum C / N,F / 5-8 endangered 4 24 prefers to nest on islands, locally common on north shore ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres R / F /5-6,8-10 none 31 32 more abundant during autism months greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca C / N,F / 10-4 none 30 32 primarily salt marsh species, sometimes along Lakeshore Lesser yellowlegs Triniga flevipes C / F / 4-5,7-9 none 30 32 does not nest on Long Island; considered a migratory shorebird MAMMAL SPECIES Keen's bet Myotis keenii R / N / 6-10 rwne 1 29 roosts in buildings, crevices and bark; more common on eastern LI red bet Lasiurus borealis R / F / 5-11 none 1 29 feeds in marsh area; nests within 1000 yards of marsh in trees silver-haired bet Lasionycteris noctivagans R / N,F / 6-9 norm 1 29 prefers wooded areas near water, primarily during summer months white-tailed deer odocoileus virginianus C / F / R rwne 1 25 29 requires range of one-half square mile red fox vulpes vulpes R / H / R none 1 29 builds den in wooded areas with loose-sandy soil and good drainage mink Mustela vison C / N,F / R none 1 prefers wltlands surrounded by forested areas white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus R / N,F / R none 1 29 common to most all habitats; does not muskrat Ondarts =ibethicus C / N,F / R none 1 29 refers adapt well to human activity p damp and marshy fresh and salt water habitats Virginia opossum Didelphis virginians C / F / R none 1 29 common in suburban areas, as well as woods, marsh and coastal areas racoon Procyon lotor C / N,F / R none 1 29 nocturnal; very adaptive; found in urban and forest areas Norway rat Rattus norvegicus C / N,F / R none 1 29 nocturnal; usually associated with human activity pine vole Microtus pinetorum R / N,F / R none 1 29 tunnels underground; prefers sandy soil in woods and field; can swim long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata R / N,H / R none 1 29 prefers dense wood, but may appear in all land habitats near water HERPTILE SPECIES diamond backed terrapin Malaclemys terrapin R / N,F / R special 38 41 prefers brackish salt water estuaries and bays Legend: Habitat Columns-Three(3)types of information are displayed[Frequency(in habitat)/Activity/Duration] Frequency: A = Abundant;C = Common;R = Rare;N = Not Expected Activity: N = Nests;H = Hunts;F = Forages;R = Rests Duration: R = Resident; 1-12,etc. = Months Expected in Habitat Protection-Refers to Legal Status(designation) in NYS;Entries include: Endangered;Threatened;and,Special(Species of Special Concern) Reference Column-See Reference Sheet included in Appendix Comments-Refers to general comments of interest noted in review of the literature cited CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 8-15 Angel Shores Final EIS WILDLIFE REFERENCES Reference Number Publication 1 Connor,P.F.1971. The Mammals of Long Island. NYS Museum Science Service Bulletin 416 SUNY,Albany. 4 Andrle,R.E.,and J.R. Carroll. 1988. The Atlas Of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press,Ithaca. 5 Pontin,A.J.1982. Competition and Coexistence Species. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program,Boston,Massachusetts. 6 Bent,A.C. 1965.Life Histories of North American Black birds,Orioles, Tangers,and their allies. Dover Pub.,NY. 7 Bent,A.C.1964.Life Histories of North American Thrushes,Kinglets,and their allies. Dover Pub.,NY. 8 Bent,A.C.1963.Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds. Dover Pub.,NY. 9 Bent,A.C.1964.Life Histories of North American Nuthatches,Wrens, Thrashers,and their allies. Dover Pub.,NY. 10 Bent,A.C.1964.Life Histories of North American Jays,Crows,and Titmice,pt. 1. Dover Pub.,NY 11 Bent,A.C. 1964.Life Histories of North American Jays,Crows,and Titmice,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY 12 Bent,A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Cuckoos,Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds,and their allies,pt. 1. Dover Pub.,NY. 13 Bent,A.C. 1964.Life Histories of North American Cuckoos,Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds,and their allies,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY. 14 Bent,A.C.1964.Life Histories of North American Woodpeckers. Dover Pub.,NY. 15 Bent,A.C. 1963.Life Histories of North American Flycatchers,Larks, Swallows,and their allies. Dover Pub.,NY. 16 Bent,A.C. 1961.Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey,pt. 1. Dover Pub.,NY. 17 Bent,A.C. 1961.Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY. 18 Bent,A.C.1963.Life Histories of North American Wood Warblers,pt. 1. Dover Pub.;NY. 19 Bent,A.C.1963.Life Histories of North American Wood Warblers,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY. 20 Bent,A.C.1968.Life Histories of North American Cardinals,Grosbeaks, Buntings,Towhees,Finches,Sparrows,and their allies, pt.1.Dover Pub.,NY. 21 Bent,A.C.1968.Life Histories of North American Cardinals,Grosbeaks, Buntings,Towhees,Finches,Sparrows,and their allies, pt.2.Dover Pub.,NY. 22 Bent,A.C.1968.Life Histories of North American Cardinals,Grosbeaks, Buntings,Towhees,Finches,Sparrows,and their allies, pt.3.Dover Pub.,NY. 23 Bent,A.C.1968.Life Histories of North American Wagtails,Shrikes, Vireos,and their allies. Dover Pub.,NY. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 8-9 Angel Shores Final EIS 24 Bent,A.C. 1963.Life Histories of North American Gulls and Terns. Dover Pub.,NY. 25 Cahalane,V.H. 1961. Mammals of North America. Macmillan Company, NY. 26 Bent,A.C.1963.Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Pub.,NY. 27 Bent,A.C.1962.Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl,pt. 1. Dover Pub.,NY. 28 Bent,A.C. 1962.Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY. 29 Godin AJ.1977.Wild Mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore,Maryland. 30 Bent,A.C. 1962.Life Histories of North American Shore Birds,pt. 1. Dover Pub.,NY. 31 Bent,A.C.1962.Life Histories Of North American Shore Birds,pt. 2. Dover Pub.,NY. 32 Bull,J. 1974.Birds of New York State. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City. 33 Wright,A.H.,and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of Frogs&Toads. Comstock Pub.Ass.,Ithaca,NY. 34 Noble,G.K. 1954.The Biology of the Amphibians,Dover Pub.,NY. 35 Mattison,C. 1987. Frogs&Toads of the world. Facts On File Pub.,NY. 36 Bishop,S.C. 1943. Hand Book of Salamanders. Comstock Pub.Ass., Ithaca. 37 Dickerson,M.C. 1943. The Frog Book. Dover Pub.,NY. 38 Leviton,A.E. Reptiles and Amphibans of North America. Doubleday& Company,NY. 39 Wright,A.H.,and AA. Wright. 1957. Handbook of Snakes V. 1. Comstock Pub. Ass.,Ithaca,NY. 40 Wright,A.H.,and A.A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of Snakes V. 1. Comstock Pub. Ass.,Ithaca,NY. 41 Obst,F.J.Turtles,Tortoises,and Terrapins. Saint Martin's Press,NY. 42 Stone,W. 1965.Bird Studies at Old Cape May V. 1. Dover Pub.,NY. 43 Stone,W.1965.Bird Studies at Old Cape May V.2. Dover Pub.,NY. 44 Forbush,E.H.1912. The History of The Game Birds,Wildfowl,and Shore Birds of Massachusetts and Adjacent States. Wright&Potter Printing,Massachusetts. 45 Barbour,R.W.,and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky,Lexington,KY. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS B-10 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT C SPECIES ADAPTABILITY CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores FInal EIS ATTACHMENT C SPECIES ADAPTABILITY As part of the preparation of the CVA Habitat Model, a tremendous amount of information was accumulated in researching the various references. Various references included some information regarding how individual species react to stresses and particularly man-induced activities. Intuitively we know that secretive, forest interior species will not react favorably to man-induced impacts; however, certain songbirds and small to medium sized mammals actually live in association with suburban or even urban development. Therefore, as information was collected in the preparation of habitat needs and species biology, an assessment of the general adaptability of each species was formulated. This Attachment includes an indication of the adaptability of each species included in the various habitat lists for this project,with supporting references indicated. The reference list is included in Attachment B. A plus (+) si&n indicates the species adapts favorably or positively to human stress; a minus () sign indicates a species adapts negatively to human stress; and, an equal (=) sign indicates a species is not significantly affected by human stress. Print outs of this information are included on the following pages. CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS C—� Angel Shores Final EIS SPECIES ADAPTABILITY- OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT. REFS. AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus = 4,6 common bobwhite Colinus virginianus - 4,8 indigo bunting Passerina cyanes - 4,20 northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis = 4,20 gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis = 4,9 black capped chickadee Parus atricapillus = 4,11 brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater = 4,6 American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos = 4,11 black-billed cuckoo Coccyzua erythropthalmus - 4,11 yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus - 4,12 morning dove Zenaida macroura = 4,8 American goldfinch Carduelis tristis = 4,20 common flicker Colaptus auratus = 4,14 common grackle Quiscalus quiscula = 4,6 ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus - 4,8 rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus = 4,20 northern harrier Circus cyaneus - 4,16 red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis - 4,16 sharp-shinned hawk Accipeter striatus - 4,16 blue jay Cyanocitta cristatta = 4,10 American kestrel Falco sparverius - 4,17 eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus = 4,15 ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula - 4,7 eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna - 4,6 northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos + 4,9 barn owl Tyto alba = 4,17 great-horned owl Bubo virginianus - 4,17 ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus - 4,8 American redstart Setophaga ruticilla - 4,19 American robin Turdus migratorius = 4,7 fox sparrow Passerella iliaca - 20,21 field sparrow Spizella pusilla - 4,21 grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum - 4,20 song sparrow melospiza melodia = 4,22 swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana - 4,22 white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys = 22,32 white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis - 4,22 European starling Sturnus vulgaris + 4,23 barn swallow Hirundo rustics + 4,15 brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum = 4,9 hermit thrush Catharus guttatus = 4,7 wood thrush Hylicichla mustelina = 4,7 CRAMER, VRA/ G OCIATES ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS C__Z Angel Shores Final EIS OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT(CONrD) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT, REFS. AVIAN SPECIES (CONTD) rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus - 4,20 white eyed vireo Viro griseus - 4,?3 black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia - 4,18 blue-winged warbler Vermivora pinus - 4,14 chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica - 4,19 prairie warbler Dendroica discolor - 4,19 cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum + 4,23,32 whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous - 4,12 American woodcock Scolopax minor - 4,30 Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus = 4,9 house wren Troglodytes aedon = 4,9 common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas = 4,19 MAMMAL SPECIES eastern chipmunk Tamis striatus = 1,29 eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus = 1,29 white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus - 1,25,29 red fox Vulpes vulpes - 1,29 eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus = 1,29 house mouse Mus musculus + 1,29 white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus = 1,29 Virginia opossum Didelphis virgmiana = 1,29 racoon Procyon lotor + 1,29 black rat Rattus rattus = 1,29 short-tailed shrew Blarina breuicauda = 1,29 meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus = 29,45 pine vole Microtus pinetorum = 1,29 long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata - 1,29 woodchuck Marmota monax - 1,29 HERPTH E SPECIES eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 38,40 eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos = 38 eastern milk snake Lampropettis d.triangulum 38,39 Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri - 33,37 CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS C,3 Angel Shores Final EIS SPECIES ADAPTABILITY-FRESH POND HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT. REFS. AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus = 4,6 canvasback Aythya valisineria - 4,27 American coot Fulica americana - 4,26 american black duck Anas rubripes - 4,27 ring-necked duck Aythya collaris - 4,27 wood duck Aix sponsa - 4,27 blue-grey gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea = 4,7 Canada goose Branta canadensis = 4,28 horned grebe Podiceps auritus - 32,42 pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps - 32 great blue heron Ardea herodias - 4,26 green heron Butorides striatus - 4,26 eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus = 4,15 mallard Anas platyrhynchos - 4,27 common screech owl Outus alio = 4,17 semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus - 31,32 least sandpiper Calidris minutilla - 32 spotted sandpiper Actitus macularia - 4,31,32 greater scaup Aythya marila - 32,44 lesser scaup Aythya aff nis - 32,44 European starling Sturnus vulgaris + 4,23 barn swallow Hirundo rustica + 4,15 rough-winged swallow Stelgiedopteryx ruficollis = 4,15 tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor = 4,15 mute swan Cygnus olor = 4 green-winged teal Anas crecca - 4,27 common tern Sterna hirundo - 4,24 lesser yellowlegs Triniga flavipes - 30,32 MAMMAL SPECIES big-brown bat Eptesicus fuscus + 1,29 Keen's bat Myotis keenii + 1,29 little-brown bat Myotis lucifugus + 1,29 red bat Lasiurus borealis - 1,29 silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans - 1,29 white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus - 1,2$,29 red fox Vulpes vulpes - 1,29 mink Mustela vison - 1 white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus = 1,29 muskrat Ondarta u'bethicus - 1,29 Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana = 1,29 eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus = 1,29 CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAGCONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS FRESH POND HABITAT (CONrD) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT, REFS, MAMMAL SPECIES (CONT) racoon Procyon lotor + 1,29 Norway rat Rattus norvegicus + 1,29 meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus = 29,45 long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata - 1,29 HERPTILE SPECIES bull frog Rana catesbeiana - 33,34,35,37 common gray treefrog Hyla versicolor - 33,37 green frog Rana clamitans - 33,35,37 wood frog Rana sylvatica - 33,37 red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens - 36,38 spring peeper Hyla crucifer = 33,35,38 eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis = 38,40 eastern milk snake Lampropettis d.triangulum = 38,39 eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis s.sauritus = 38,40 northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus = 38 northern water snake Natrix sipedon sipedon - 38,39 Fowler's toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri - 33,37 eastern box turtle Terrepene caroling - 41 painted turtle Chrysemys pitta - 38 snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina - 38,41 spotted turtle Chlemys guttata - 38,41 CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS C3 Angel Shores Final EIS SPECIES ADAPTABILITY- SALT MARSH HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT, REFS, AVIAN SPECIES red-winged blackbird Agelaivs phoeniceus = 4,6 brant Brant bernicla _ 28 canvasback Aythya valisineria - 4,27 American coot Fulica americana _ 4,26 fish crow Corvus ossifragus = 4,11 short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus _ 32 american black duck Anas rubripes _ 4,27 ring-necked duck Aythya collaris _ 4,27 snowy egret Egretta thula - 4,26 Canada goose Branta canadensis = 4,28 pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps - 32 Bonaparte's gull Larus philadelphia = 24 northern harrier Circus cyaneus - 4,16 little-blue heron Egretta caerulea - 4,26 tricolored heron Egretta tricolor 4,26 yellow-crowned Nycticorax violaceus - 4,26 night-heron common loon Gavia immer - 31,32 mallard Anas platyrhynchos - 4,27 red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator - 4,2/ merlin Falco columbarius - 32,17 osprey Pandion haliaetus - 4,16 saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus - 4,17 American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus - 4,31 black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola - 31,32 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus - 4,31,32 semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus - 31,32 Virginia rail Rallus limicola - 4,26,32 least sandpiper Calidris minutilla - 32 spotted sandpiper Aditus macularia - 4,31,32 greater scaup Aythya marila - 32,44 northern shoveler Anas clypeata - 4,27 black skimmer Rynchops niger - 4,24 European starling Sturnus vulgaris + 4,23 mute swan Cygnus olor = 4 common tern Sterna hirundo - 4,24 least tern Sterna antillarum _ 4,24 ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres - 31,32 greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca - 30,32 lesser yellowlegs Triniga flavipes - 30,32 CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS C-6 Angel Shores Final EIS SALT MARSH HABITAT(CONrD) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ADAPT. REFS. MAMMAL SPECIES Keen's bat Myotis keenii + 1,29 red bat Lasiurus borealis - 1,29 silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans - 1,29 white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus - 1,25,29 red fox Vulpes vulpes - 1,29 mink Mustela vison - 1 white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus = 1,29 muskrat Ondarta zibethicus - 1,29 Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana = 1,29 racoon Procyon lotor + 1,29 Norway rat Rattus norvegicus + 1,29 pine vole Microtus pinetorum = 1,29 long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata - 1,29 HERPTILE SPECIES diamond-backed terrapin Malaclemys terrapin - 38,41 Legend: (+)-adapts positively to human stress (-)-adapts negatively to human stress (_)-not significantly affected by human stress as determined by review of above noted references CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS G-7 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT D ADAPTABILITY ANALYSIS CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT D ADAPTABILITY ANALYSIS Attachment C indicates which individual species would be expected to be impacted from added human stress. Depending upon the loss of habitat which may occur as a result of a specific land use project, the degree of impact can be estimated. The information presented in Attachment C can be analyzed to provide some information concerning the number of species which are impacted by development as a function of the total species population. The following pie charts illustrate the number of species in each habitat that are adaptable (+), not adaptable (-) or not significantly affected N. In addition, the analysis has been separated in to the adaptability of avian species, mammal species, and herptiles, as well as the total species population. It should be noted that these figures are generally useful in determining the percentage of species within a habitat type that are sensitive to development. Specific biological responses are dependent upon the type of land use planned and the magnitude of habitat loss. In addition, there are often mitigation measures which can be incorporated into a development project to minimize impacts to specific species. With regard to wetlands habitats, the importance of upland buffer areas adjacent to wetlands should be considered. In a general sense,wetland species are less adaptable to human stress, providing justification for wetland and wetland buffer preservation. CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS o-r ADAPTABILITY ANALYSIS OVERGROWN FIELD HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 50.0% 43.8 73.3% eo 74 3.3 50 26.7 AVIAN SPECIES MAMMAL SPECIES ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 75.0% (-) 56.1% (_) 75 47.9 6.2 iw 25 43.8 REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS TOTAL SPECIES POPULATION Charts Compiled From Species Adaptability Appendix CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS D 2 ADAPTABILITY ANALYSIS FRESH POND HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 35.7% 28 a 56.2% H 25 (+) 31.2 71 (-) 43.8 33.3 AVIAN SPECIES MAMMAL SPECIES ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 56.2% 312 31.2% 28.3 117 6a.8 60 REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS TOTAL SPECIES POPULATION Charts Compiled From Species Adaptability Appendix CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS a-3 ADAPTABILITY ANALYSIS SALT MARSH HABITAT Angel Shores, Southold ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 18.0% (_) 46.2% (_) (+) 15.4 2.6 23.1 23.1 82 53.8 AVIAN SPECIES MAMMAL SPECIES ADAPTABLE ADAPTABLE 0.0% 24.5% (_) (+) 17 7.5 100 (-) 75.5 REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS TOTAL SPECIES POPULATION Charts Compiled From Species Adaptability Appendix CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT E WETLAND INVENTORY MAP GREAT HOG NECK CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAGCONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT E WETLAND INVENTORY MAP GREAT HOG NECK EZPI Beised0 ,g C� � (SOB�.}lC/�d.'•,' •ti• ," . .a.. E2DDI'1•—� E2FW 1 •..ao E2FOw. I 4' Ez 0.32:.'j�=; eeP I I S L A P1 iP Fwa flOWL r SHELTER �� ISLAND EZF sUS wthold `1 f Ba wno. � ,'•�;• +-.ems ,%:5555 :- EfW SO U N D \\ , G �._ • •fir w'tcK. 1• E268P E=EMBN _ �,'�p• ra •, Sw,no O y� r� E26EN vrcro p. Poen uEMx SP s,� - EzaN +� •'• _�' �: DOWL ':: QOydas:�:••4 ;2..� E2DDP GO° f PFOtE r- ` c .f :•,�• Y }SSK '� Jl �.FJbNLa� .��yL:I lj '.GE�•oO��s •` a VEMSr .�E28DN E2fM6r - 'i. ``� :.. wJ" •CQ:.r�l" r.. •� E �' •• :� :�• � � „ ° - � ' ref �01��J•I.. 04 �1 � i'� R atvs'•\u_ l4 \- � f ftM •�ENMrL o S�.n a.•w . .�.._ f2 :iii•:L i a UFLMCt�r. .1 taker E2De►Neck POW ftFMSw r � � P4WT El�sa6r• MI L v any fsEMEZOM SN �'�..- =WwLFLMi1E71� Eaw -EMSP PO�e1 EPres•6­hE2fYx ELFLM /V/'►�S E2SP EeuJsry r- �E2E6N,.'• SfTE MON10 E2DSP i E,OWL / EZW Source: National Wetlands Inventory Scale: Not to Scale CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS E-I WETLAND LEGEND -Primarily represents upland areas, but may Include unclassified wetlands such as man-modified areas,non photo-identifiable areas and/or unintentional omissions. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM E-ESTUARINE Ea[sMs.1 1 I a•r•t•Iw I-fa.1Yr ]-M•nW [UIf pr11 u VKO•SpeA1l0 Y all 0• Ora r•N• r ra IlA1 e•1 qtly •pr1•:e10 N+.e..r •e.Aew1K.0 -4n Y-11Y 9 �Yw I• Y rtKw• I. IsrrA.1 t[ .cv l•Inw •e erne •..•... .`,..••. •c.aw. .t++r-•w .r.... •+++... T 1.... crew 1 crc... e...r. 1 cr.c.w a...•.r e.r w or...,. ...r...r o,W w [>r�..r�.. I wr- sw..•........ a...- i s.+ [[.. i r.. r a.. i w..,.. [►........1+.�. :.�........1-... ea... •I`�: r`� �� �a. [.�r�.. T�...-.:�.:`r.:..:• i ar �...I.rr•. [o.r ..r 1•-•... •�• �a�.•rrw� i►r w.r h.r•,w i Iwr� i I�w/•�i ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM P- PALUSTRINE No SMb.Tn.m LrCA,JICLASS .BO•T0" so*-$ IDA TEO DAL Iuk L- ADSS OwK•.. E. l.[.01EN7 SS-SC.*'S-Wu. r0 FOI11ST90 w•.r.Mrm f.<cL••• 1 wall 1 C••ar liver 1 SAr�e•••AY 1 Cora.4•.r t M••• • Mr1•r. 1 baae.-DKAa.1 1 •W w.•e 0«Yw T.r,10a• 7 S•n• T S.Y1r•.r•+Va•L-r 7 SAM 7 l:+.• MVrr1•r. 7 Ma•r•w.!D«sr•w 7 NrrW w.•e Os�.wr• 6 t��•��• ]Iti i.r•w w..a.rer•r1w ]..•ae r...e[.rear• ]a•a•e rww 1 M•• FIa•1r41•a•r .Drs ..0-0 r••a1 I•r4r__ .trar•w•ae E.r wean {Fw«4 { •ra.•r•s•w {Ir.ar►•...rrrtw S 0••e I•a^ MaaF1•w•N l.reww 0 U-S, �• 0 Vaya1••y M•••[.rrr E r�i•.a0 A•rnaM {DsYV• 0 Dasirw ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM R- RIVERINE EoobakRl Subsystem t - TIL 2-Lew«Perm- 2-UFp.1 Perso-W a-Intermittent S-Lllinown ION 0. N-IIDtc U. 1K0r10lq.TEO IIS-ADGIv ow-on...TEN CLASS 1. (.[11011.7• BOTTOM 10TTO•I AS-.DUATK KO it-FLAT M-SI.C.M.ED 5-014 M-KAC.4k.4 w•rrn e•trr•1 S•Asr•• J.a•p-w11.e 1 11- 1 C•• 1111 , 1 S•Ar.lreanl A4r 1 Cm«alo••M 1 C."..0r••r t &SW_ 1 C.M.C.- .r�sr wwF.ry wlr., 7 5s 7 Sr. 7 s.ror1••e.r11 vl.Jr 7 S•M 7 S•r•a 7 arA. 7 Sw {.a•e r•A.s�►w•r•1 ]Iy 7 4ser.\\•a• ]M•AI 7 M•/ tver Pave ,0'v_ {IA.L..-.,Sra1wF.+ {v.ewr.e.a•.E+r 7 Ir+•ww G.1•[• 111 E. E MIe011r-S n.r1 Ia•rr n 11.I..-Tr ti Is-leve A-S-0 EINaPL•Sw 1-AI•Ina,er••n w Iye w AS Ie.....Icr• _{1Ar.•1•.1• M - MARINE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM 1 -St/btidel 2-Int.nWal - -Subsystem M. 7 S .00• us u CONSOL.0-/0 Ow OItM w.lE. RS ttOC.v BO-10M BOTTOIJ A. AWAIK N: AS eMISw_.I.- As AO.AtIc KO r-Mir Il-rl.l SrOR[ M KAc.YR CUSS L 1 .ar«• 1 Cee.r•Ciaw 1 SMw•e A4• t Cdr 1 S_,w '.40 1 Car 1 Crn,Gr 1 Labs. I C•m•01••.. SuMI•Y 7 a•„w, 7 ae 7 .b••r•e•m vwLJw wrm }S.e-rr V•« i 6 t w•1.r.slrr.ew E w .I'•1 7 wrm 7.� i arAab ]tw •S.Ar•w F•••[ a Vaan•W IY••� br•�•r1••1 ECOLOGICAL L-LACUSTRINE SYSTEM 1 Ewyer 1-U-stic t-11n«.I a.bT•Itrn As •BOC• Us co1S "'.o Or •►tn r•11a Y eK. VO •r•rCOn 0J•1D .I AX., Or pnwra•Iw prlp. grry Y •G..-[Y1 ..w-•er.� prier g1rp. u .h••<re N Il•, f•ON Y µKw Ma 1. IVI•tA.1 wr.•.rwr. CLAY 1.•rr• •Cr 4•w •f.A+r>a Y Ms• +Crr 4•.r Sr 1 S-_ A4a 1 Crr4•w 1 yr• C�r4a+1 ••r►•.••rr Lk� T.r [{N [1•w..�'•ver [e..rr. l S.r ••rr. T{.•I f 1 far :•rti..w.J.rw.•1r [b• i Ir•�i��r�a�• i p• T{wTrYw• :e •+r a«r NaV.•+,.r • �L4a�u.--«r %Vim.�.Yr+«.• �aT•r1••a••ter 1 L•+•a.-1/•r• f r.�-EPSP MODIFYING TERMS w e•e«M m«e a0epYlaly eelAaee wetl.M aIle a.1nK ILabtale err O roc N Ilr w.t ree1M.veal«H1wlee1rT-e0],r aeec•al mF*f s M b..COMB of ee GI•s r IFS«level N IM.river.hr lamp meblrr tier ab.M"WA 1e 0..co"Cal tY.1- I WATER 190 1*111 WATER CNEY6TRY aO► S"CIAL MODIFIERS Nsr'TW TAW C.."Selnlly eerr SWry SN 1learlen I.F1 Fresh W.tat a 1\�rr IM 6•.r•Or••F . {arae J Lr.ww11W \ t•«r• • {•rrr Irr I•.Irnrr 1••r•rw•r • C. t Ir.y • frr S f•aerw Tr• Irrw a Ir• Tr,..,.,r. • Irwrr C {•ve r w • -, 1rr .•1 �.nar C•.•r.1• 1 AA_ 1 {�r.•ar•r• T a.rr••r11•rr•r•r�r••i `•'•rr•rN t•I••r [ f•••1aralrw r M•r�•r'1� gaaYe�� • b•Or • 1/.r.r {Mrr� 0 ��•r..l.rr .A.w� 1 r..°�bw' f/l 1n1«n•elrOrl rl tM venal reaa.l•rleblrr•la•r1[..ONr baFml,1.11 net Ern/ e4 ateeYlKalr.'Tates,wry M.Metre he.Tile aee.e Mtee.sure.. c2 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT F ZONING/LAND USE MAP GREAT HOG NECK CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT F ZONING/LAND USE MAP GREAT HOG NECK r �,4 COOS@ d � 11 \4p c t, A—C J A-C e —r. ��u \ �—�• a ,(fes R-40 a —C44 \R— C, R— � r Source: Town of Southold Zoning Scale: Not to Scale CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS F-1 LEGEND A-c Agricultural Conservation R-40 Residential Low Density AA R-so Residential Low Density A R-120 Residential Low Density B R-to( Residential Low Density C 8-400 Residential Low Density D Ha Hamlet Density Residential RR Resort/Residential Ro Residential/Office LB Limited Business HB Hamlet Business 8 General Business .MI Marine I MA Marine II uo Light Industrial/Office Park L F-1 Light Industrial AAE) A f fordable Housing Di5t. F2 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT G WATER ELEVATIONS WELL NO. S-53328 CRAMER, VCILSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT G WATER ELEVATIONS WELL NO. S.53328 Month 6-91 2.48 3-91 2.93 12-90 2.05 9-90 2.37 6-90 2.71 3-90 2.54 12-89 2.56 9-89 3.01 6-89 3.66 3-89 2.28 12-88 2.43 9-88 1.81 6-88 2.57 3-88 2.66 12-87 1.92 9-87 2.05 6-87 2.69 3-87 2.86 12-86 2.56 9-86 1.91 6-88 2.25 3-88 2.54 12-85 2.32 9-85 2.19 6-85 2.31 3-85 1.86 12-84 2.04 9-84 2.43 6-84 3.76 3-84 3.66 12-83 3.02 9-83 2.15 6-83 3.38 3-83 3.58 12-82 2.08 9-82 2.04 6-82 4.92 3-82 2.48 12-81 2.08 9-81 1.83 6-BI 2.29 3-81 2.03 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Elevation (above msl) Source: SCDHS CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS G-� Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT H DROUGHT RESISTANT AND NATIVE LANDSCAPE SPECIES CRAMER, VC11 R OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT H DROUGHT RESISTANT AND NATIVE LANDSCAPEPS ECIES The following species of turfgrasses,groundcovers,shrub/vines and trees,have been identified as being particularly resistant to drought conditions. These species have also been identified as suitable for local climates. This is no guarantee that these species will survive if installed-the list is merely intended to illustrate a range of landscape material which can be utilized with possible success in dry conditions. CVA accepts no responsibility for the success of these species. Residents may find it prudent to use professional landscape contractors familiar with local conditions in designing aesthetically pleasing landscape surroundings which will require minimum maintenance. Turfgrasses Blue fescue Festuca ovina plauca Ribbon grass Phalaris arundinacea Picta Zoysiagrass Zoysia spp. Groundcovers Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Dusty-miller (wormwood) Artemisia stelleriana New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus Sweet fern Comptonia peregrina Crown vetch Coronilla vana Broom (portugese,beans Cytisus spp. Prostrate, Kew,ground, purple) Sun Rose Helianthemum nummularium Daylily Hemerocallis spp. Jumper (creeping) Juniperus spp. Matrimony-vine Lycium hahmifolium Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Fleece-flower Polygonum spp. Rose Acacia Robbina hispida Fragrant sumac Rhus aromatica Lavender cotton Santolina chamaecyparissus Stonecrop (white, Lydian, Sedum spp. stringy, two-row Shrubs and Vines - There are numerous shrubs and vines which will survive in non- irrigation conditions on the subject site. The following is a list of only those which have been documented as being particularly resistant to drought. Please also refer to the list of native or near native species below for application in dry and wet natural conditions. Trumpet Vine Campsis radicans Bayberry Mynca pensylvanica Doublefile viburnum Viburnum plicatum CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS It-/ Angel Shores Final EIS Trees -There are numerous trees which will survive in non-irrigation conditions on the subject site. The following is a list of only those which have been documented as being particularly resistant to drought. Please also refer to the list of native or near native species below for application in dry and wet natural conditions. Easter red cedar Juniperus virginiana Common mulberry Morus alba Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia In addition to the above species, local landscape supply stores have indicated that there are perennial ryegrass mixes which are suitable for extremely dry conditions. White clover and wildflower seed mixes for sunny areas may also be used. One retailer supplies a Soil Conservation Grass Seed Mix which is suitable for a variety of conditions including dry soils. Species which are native to the area may also be appropnate in conditions where irrigation is not possible and can be found in nursenes landscape retail stores. In addition, native species may be useful in specific areas where moisture is present or soils are of a certain quality. When planted properly, these species are expected to survive and indeed flourish,under roper conditions. A list of general guidelines to be followed in obtaining and planting these species is as follows: 1. Plants listed are native/near native to parts of Long Island. 2. Proper siting and planting of these native/near native plants is necessary for success of the species. 3. All plants should be container grown or balled and burlapped. 4. Plant material shall meet American Association of Nurserymen standards. 5. Size Specifications Deciduous Trees 11/2"-2"Cal. Evergreen Trees 4'-5'Ht. Small Trees/Lg.Shrubs 4'-5'Ht. Shrubs 2'-21/2'Ht. Small Shrubs 2'-21/2'Ht. Groundcovers 6"-12" The following species are listed in common names, and are recommended for certain landscaping applications depending on site specific conditions, and desired effects: ' Native and Near Native Trees of Lon Ise land ash, black oak, northern red ash, red oak,pin ash,white oak, scarlet basswood, American oak,white birch, gray oak,willow birch, paper pine,pitch birch, river pine,white birch, sweet poplar, quaking aspen CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS o 14-z Angel Shores Final EIS birch,yellow red cedar dogwood, flowering sassafras elder,American serviceberry hackberry sourgum hawthorn, cockspur spruce, red hemlock sumac, shining bollyy,American sumac, smooth hophornbeam,American sweetgum maple,box elder sycamore,American maple,red tuhptree maple, sugar walnut,black mulberry, red willow,pussy nannyberry Native and Near Native Shrubs of Lon Island land arrowwood inkberry bayberry mountain laurel beach plum pasture rose black chokeberry red chokeberry blackhaw rosebay rhododendron blueberry, highbush sheep laurel blueberry, lowbush spice bush buttonbush summer sweet dockmacki sweetfern dogwood,gray winterberry dogwood, red-osier witchhazel huckleberry Perennials./Groundcovers/Vines/Grasses arrowheadgoldenrod aster lobelia beach grass meadowsweet bearberry milkweed birdsfoot violet mullen bittersweet partridge berry bluestem rose mallow chickory sea lavender cord grass swam loosestrife dusty miller virgima creeper forget-me-not CRAMER, VeA OCIATES ENVIRONMENG CONSULTANTS H-3 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT I QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT HENDERSON & BODWELL CRAMER, V R \ SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS HENDERSON AND BODWELL - COMPANY PROFILE Henderson and Bodwell, established in 1975, is a consulting engineering, surveying and land planning firm licensed to practice in 21 states. While we have operated as an independent engineering firm since 1975, our professional staff has worked together as a group since the mid-1960's, when we represented a major development and building firm as its in-house professional engineering and planning staff. Through our headquarters in Plainview, NY and four branch offices in: • Orlando, FL • Elmhurst, IL • Mason, OH • Somerset, NJ we serve the technical needs of both the public and private sectors on projects large and small. With our staff of approximately 100 professional engineers and support personnel, we have the manpower and expertise to professionally respond to your study, analysis, report, plan and specification requirements on a timely basis and within the budgetary parameters established for the assignment. The scope of our professional practice covers a wide range of engineering and related activities with particular emphasis on: • Engineering Studies and Reports • Feasibility Studies/Financial Analysis • Master Land Planning • Master Drainage/Stormwater Management Plans • Environmental Studies • Wetland Delineation/Mitigation • Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution • Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems • Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation • Subdivision/Site Engineering • Processing for Regulatory Agency Approvals • Landscape Architecture and Recreation Facilities Planning • Marina/Waterfront Facilities Design • Local and Arterial Roads; Interstate, Urban and Rural Highways • Golf Course Engineering Design • Surveying • Computer Aided Drafting and Design C.PR01MSo1Q,ENVM0-1 I—� f 1 Representative clients of Henderson and Bodwell include: Private Sector Public Sector • Centex Homes Corporation • Elk Grove, IL Park District • Chemical Bank • Hamilton County, OH • Citicorp • New Jersey Department of Transportation • Corporate Property Investors • New York Department of Transportation • The Hartford Insurance Company • Schaumburg, IL Park District • Prudential Insurance Company of • Suffolk County, NY • Warren County, OH America • Pulte Homes Corporation • The Sammis Company Henderson and Bodwell's experience and expertise is supplemented by a significant computer capability at all offices. Our software library of forty engineering related programs is run on our New York based Digital 1ViicroVax 3400 computer, which is linked to all offices, supplemented by 18 personal computers, and an array of peripheral hardware, including eight (8) Calcomp plotters. We make extensive use of our Vango CADD and AutoCAD programs in our assignments, to maximize accuracy and speed of production and to minimize cost to the client. Representatives of Henderson and Bodwell are available to meet with you at your convenience to discuss our capabilities further. Please contact Mr. Gary Becker at our Plainview, NY office (Tel: 516/935-8870). C.PR01HBSo1Q,D(M0-2 I-2 KEY PERSONNEL Included herein are resumes of five company Key Personnel who may be assigned to key positions in preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement: • James J. Antonelli • Gary Becker, P.E. • Charles R. Beckert, R.L.A., C.L.A. • Gerald Dubow, L.S. • William S. Houck In addition, it is the practice of Henderson and Bodwell to have a Partner or Regional Manager assigned to each project, with responsibility for Quality Control. Such Partner or Regional Manager is responsible for review of all company work product for the project and meeting project schedule requirements. The Partner or Regional Manager assigned is dependent upon the office of Henderson and Bodwell conducting the Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. The organization chart on the following page depicts the interrelationship of the functions necessary to prepare an: • Environmental Assessment - Level I • Environmental Assessment - Level II • Environmental Impact Statement In general, the Environmental Impact Statement is the most comprehensive of the three referenced studies. Although the Environmental Impact Statement may not include all of the testing required in an Environmental Assessment - Level H, it usually involves completion of all Environmental Assessment - Level I work. All of Henderson and Bodwell's five offices are electronically linked to our headquarters based MicroVAX 3400 computer, have Calcomp Plotter drafting capability, access to our AutoCAD and Vango CADD software, FAX capability and IBM compatible PC's for rapid transfer of information, production of reports, financial analyses, review of documentation and quality assurance reviews by appropriate personnel. Kma"01%eivM0 T 3 MWL PROFESSIONAL RESUME JAMES J. ANTONELLI Project Engineeer Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803, 516/935-8870 EXPERIENCE: Over twelve years of diversified experience in land planning, civil/environmental engineering, and permitting for numerous development activities. Relevant experience includes: • Environmental Engineering, including soils, groundwater, surface water, vegetation, wetland, wildlife habitat and noise studies. Studies include quantitative and qualitative evaluations for existing and proposed residential developments, industrial expansion, solid waste management, water and wastewater treatment, commercial developments, and recreational facilities. Mr. Antonelli has provided over 50 environmental reports, ranging from environmental audits to assessments and environmental impact statements. Wetland delineation and assessment experience encompasses over 100 sites in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois and Florida. Mr. Antonelli has devised erosion control plans for residential and commercial construction, stream crossings, and other land disturbances; • Plan Processing/Public Approvals for projects at municipal, county, state and Federal levels, involving air quality, water quality and solid waste management. Included are permits for stream encroachments, sanitary and water system improvement and expansion, well drilling, potable water, ground/surface water monitoring, mining, fugitive dust, alternative wastewater disposal, stormwater handling and wastewater discharges (NPDES, SPDES, and NJPDES); • Engineering Design of water supply facilities including wells, treatment and pumping systems, including construction details and specifications. Projects include Well No. 4 and an elevated storage tank for the Berkeley Water Company in Bayville, NJ and an above ground water distribution system for Spring Township, Centre County,,PA. Mr. Antonelli has been involved with the design of several wastewater facilities, including the unit process designs for Graterford Prison, Montgomery County, PA, the O&M manual for the Mid-Centre County (PA) Authority Pollution Control Facility, and the design of the 26 mile sanitary sewer system for Spring-Benner-Walker Joint Authority in Centre Co., PA. Additionally, Mr. Antonelli has designed numerous stormwater facilities, involving the use of HEC-1, HEC-2 and various runoff models; • Master Planning of lots and units, design of roads, sewer and water facilities, drainage and grading plans for residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Examples of projects include the Penn Eagle Industrial Park in Bellefonte, PA and Holloway Estates, a 103 lot cluster residential development in Bordentown, NJ. ANTON F1UMB-So}Q,EN V Q!O.1 T� LICENSES/ Certified Environmental Professional (C.E.P.) by National Association of PROFESSIONAL Environmental Professionals (1989) AFFILIATIONS: Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands by Interdisciplinary Representatives of the USEPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army, Corps of Engineers (1988) Noise Measurement and Control by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the National Center for Noise Control (1988) Wetland Evaluation Technique by USEPA (1987) Fugitive Dust Sampling by Mine Safety and Health Administration (1980) National Association of Environmental Professionals Society of Wetland Scientists EDUCATION: B.S., Urban and Regional Planning, Indiana University of PA, Indiana, PA (1977) Master of Environmental Pollution Control, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA (1984) EMPLOYMENT Sept. 1984- Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers, Plainview, NY. HISTORY: Present Project Manager, responsible for environmental assessments, permit processing, stormwater management systems, and special studies relating to land development projects. October 1980- BCM Engineers, Inc., State College, PA. August 1984 Project Planner, responsible for site evaluations and environmental studies,permitting for industrial facilities, and stormwater management system designs. October 1978- Hess & Fisher Engineers, Inc., Clearfield, PA. Sept. 1980 Project Director, responsible for site engineering, permitting for clients involved in mining, design of stormwater management systems, erosion control measures, and ground/surface water monitoring. ANTONFI 1 VH8-SofQ,EKV1RO.2 S� PROFESSIONAL RESUME GARY BECKER, P.E. Project Engineer ` Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803, 516/935-8870 EXPERIENCE: Twenty-four years of diversified nationwide real estate experience, including project F conceptualization, planning, and execution. Scope of activities included hands on experience in project planning, land acquisition,formulation of alternative project strategies,market research and merchandising, negotiation of acquisition, development and take-out financing, engineering, securing public approvals,public relations,and construction. As senior level real estate executive, was part of management team responsible for development and implementation of corporate strategy for management of 6,000,000 acre real estate portfolio of major industrial corporation; served as president of a number of real estate development companies in FL, GA, SC, NJ,NY,VA and VT. Relevant experience includes: • Real Estate Asset Evaluation/Strategy Formulation, for 6,000,000 acre multi-state real estate portfolio of International Paper Company (IPCo); real estate holdings were principally located in the southeast (4,000,000 acres) with 1,000,000 acres in both the northeast and northwest. Company policy developed for long-term management of real estate assets resulting in asset purchases by real estate subsidiary, in large transactions at infrequent intervals, with assets categorized as either "sell, develop or manage for maximum appreciation." Mr. Becker's efforts were dedicated to the "develop" and "manage for maximum appreciation" categories, although he played a major role in bulk asset dispositions aggregating over $30,000,000 in value. In many instances, he secured rezoning, utilities and highway access and resolved environmental issues. In addition to International Paper Company real estate asset management, Mr.Becker developed and implemented the residential building plan for a major northern based commercial developer; • General Management of all aspects of multi-state land development and building program for IPCo as president of subsidiary corporations with operations in seven states. In this capacity, Mr. Becker carried out the development strategies formulated for numerous properties aggregating over 50,000 acres in size. He was responsible for all business planning; consultant selection and coordination including legal, architectural, engineering and surveying, land planning, sales and marketing; securing all public approvals; project financing including preparation of all financial analyses;and construction. In his capacity as president of The Evans Housing Group,he performed management functions similar to those at IPCo. Projects included single family, townhouse, low and high-rise condominium, and retirement housing as well as numerous recreational facilities, including swim clubs, beach clubs, golf courses, and tennis centers; • Construction Management for project infrastructure and homes, including all elements of site improvements. The construction management function typically involved the coordination of a number of general contractors and/or subcontractors with responsibility from the pre- construction stage (i.e. the contractor pre-qualification, bid/selection and contract process) through the construction phase (i.e. construction supervision and inspection, testing, shop drawing review and approval; contract administration/cash management, including: scheduling, reporting, contractor payment requests, retainage, and lien waivers) up to and including completion of punch list work and post-closing customer service coordination; • Engineering Management/Coordination of consulting engineering and surveying firms in many states over the course of his career. Work supervised included preparation of plans and specifications for all types of civil works such as dams, roads, water and sewer systems, including pumping and treatment works, drainage systems, including complex interconnected detention ponds, bridges and culverts, and environmental studies. In addition, Mr. Becker coordinated non-engineering technical disciplines as part of the engineering management function including, by way of example, architects, attorneys, archeologists, geotechnical engineers, wildlife biologists, botanists, hydrologists,and environmental specialists. As a Professional B ECK U-HB-So1Q,Fly'V IRO-1 S-G Engineer, Mr. Becker has personally designed civil works and has been responsible for the administrative management of a staff of 62 engineers, architects and support personnel. The foregoing activities frequently involved extensive coordination with attorneys to insure compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations so that unassailable approvals were secured. • Pian Processing/Public Approvals for projects at all levels of government. Activities included: analysis of the approval procedures/process and liaison with counsel in order to optimize timing, coordination with developers' relevant professionals involved in the process, coordination with client and public sector representatives,attending agency meetings and public hearings as owners representative, meeting with interested citizens groups and media (i.e. newspapers,television), preparing applications and generally sheparding the project through to final approval; coordinated approvals with numerous agencies at the Local, State and Federal level. LICENSES/ Registered Professional Engineer,NY, 1971, New York State Society of Professional PROFESSIONAL License No. 045986 Engineers AFFILIATIONS: Licensed Professional Engineer, VT, 1971, National Society of Professional Engineers License No. 2829 American Society of Civil Engineers Licensed Real Estate Broker, NY, License The Society of American Military Engineers No. 0670988-35-216108 International Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives (NACORE) EDUCATION: Bachelor of Civil Engineering, The City College of The City University of New York, 1965; Master of Business Administration(Management),The Bernard M.Baruch College of the City University of New York, 1971; Real Estate Courses in Appraisal, Commercial Real Estate Investment and Construction. EMPLOYMENT October 1990- Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers, Plainview, NY. HISTORY: Present Project Engineer responsible for business management, engineering project management, client and agency liaison, and construction management. July 1986- The Evans Housing Group, Inc., September 1990 Stony Hollow Properties, Inc., Westridge Builders,Inc., New York, NY. President,responsible for development and implementation of business plan for residential real estate development company affiliated with a leading commercial real estate developer. Activities included market research, financial analysis,land acquisition,appraisal,financing,consultant coordination, public approvals, construction, sales and marketing. August 1974- International Paper Realty Corporation, New York, NY, June 1986 Vice President/Manager of Development; also, Litchfield-by-the-Sea,Inc.;Richmond Hill Realty Corp.;American Central Corp.; Stratton Interrealty Development Corp. President, responsible for management of land development and building activities on 6,000,000 acre nationwide real estate portfolio of International Paper Company. Activities included all real estate development and building undertaken by the company, from project conceptualization through execution and included, among other things, consultant coordination, public approvals, rezoning, land planning, design, financing, construction, sales and marketing and structuring and management of joint ventures. August 1967- Levitt and Sons, Inc., Lake Success, NY. July 1974 Executive Engineer, responsible for new project feasibility studies, preparation of construction plans and specifications, construction supervision, operation of five utility companies, and administration of a technical staff of 62 professional and support personnel for this nationwide homebuilder. ssa ER-Ha-soM,0WIRo-Z _-7 Angel Shores Final EIS Key to Wildlife Characteristics: 1. Food 2. Cover 3. Nesting 4. Ducks 5. Geese 6. Songbird 7. Upland Birds 8. Fish 9. Muskrats 10. Rabbits Aside from the plant material these wetland systems must be designed with adequate water depth to provide the resident aquatic animals with protection from freezing conditions. The side slopes of the pond must also be such that they do not pose a safety hazard. It may also be appropriate to import some animals into these site, such as fish and amphibians. This practice would create a viable habitat early and avoid the situation where one species would become dominate, such as mosquitoes. CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS N-z • Construction Management for landscaping and recreational elements of many residential, commercial and industrial developments,including the preparation of opinions of probable cost, bid document packages, participation in contract negotiations, pre-construction meetings, coordination of site construction sub-contractors; also, site inspections for planting operations, irrigation system installation, decorative pavement construction, artificial water features,pond and fountain construction, project signage, site furniture, and athletic and recreational facilities construction. Construction management activities included coordination with all other aspects of site construction such as roadway, parking, utility, and building systems; • Report and Specification Writing for many aspects of project development and construction including: site evaluation reports, environmental analysis studies, wetland mitigation reports, environmental impact assessments, and technical construction specifications; • Computer Systems Management for company-wide hardware and software resources. These include a Digital Equipment Corporation(DEC)MicroVAX 3400 and eighteen MS-DOS based personal computers, supporting a variety of in-house developed and commercial software packages for accounting, word processing, spreadsheet and database management, engineering design, and computer aided design and drafting. Major software packages currently being utilized include Vango, a complete civil engineering CADD program, Autocad, CFMS accounting software, RFP, Word Perfect, Lotus 1-2-3, HEC-1, HEC-2 and Advanced ICPR, a stormwater management design and evaluation package. Other hardware that Mr. Beckert is responsible for includes several multi-pen plotters, advanced color graphics terminals and l disk drives and tape drives. an array of laser, o involved with evaluating and recommendir quality and dot matrix printers, ng Mr. Beckert is also g new hardware and software product purchases and training company personnel in computer systems use. LICENSES/ Registered Landscape Architect in MD, NY, OH and PA. PROFESSIONAL Certified Landscape Architect in NJ. AFFILIATIONS: Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands by Interdisciplinary Representatives of the USEPA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers (1988) American Society of Landscape Architects American Planning Association National Association of Environmental Professionals Landscape Materials Information Service EDUCATION: B.S., Landscape Architecture, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, 1970. EMPLOYMENT October 1975- Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers, Plainview, NY. HISTORY: Present Associate, responsible for landscape architectural design, master planning, environmental impact assessments, report and specification writing, and construction review relating to land development projects. Additionally, responsible for management and coordination of company-wide computer operations and services. Dec. 1972- Levitt and Sons, Inc., Lake Success, NY. Sept. 1975 Chief Landscape Architect/Land Planner,responsible for landscape architectural design, land planning, environmental studies, specification writing, and construction review for this national homebuilding firm. July 1970- Zion and Breen Associates, Inc., New York, NY. Nov. 1972 Landscape Architect working as a member of design team responsible for site layout,planting design,landscape structures,site analysis,master planning, site planning and engineering for urban and rural, residential and commercial developments. BECKERT•HBSoPQ.EKV 0io-2 T^� PROFESSIONAL RESUME GERALD DUBOW, L.S. Land Surveyor/Senior Engineering Technician Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803, 516/935-8870 EXPERIENCE: Forty-three years of surveying and surveying related experience including preparation of property surveys, subdivision plats, control surveys, property features mapping, and construction surveys utilizing Topcon GTS Total Stations, Zeiss Electronic Tacheometer and Wild T1000/DI1000 with GRE-3 Data Collectors. Relevant experience includes: • Property Surveys, for over two thousand parcels in sixteen states to meet local standards as applied to the American Land Title Association (ALTA) and the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) standards for land title surveys. Property surveys include, among others, boundary surveys, surveys of easements, route surveys for highways, and title surveys; • Subdivision Plat preparation, for properties aggregating over 15,000 lots, showing lots, rights-of-way, easements and other areas, including plat recordation and field work necessary to set monuments; • Control Surveys for establishing job-site reference points tied to off-site monumentation, for numerous projects in New York, Maryland and other states; control surveys were used in connection with development of aerial topographic mapping, construction surveys, property surveys and preparation of subdivision plats; • Features Mapping including topography (ground or aerial in conjunction with various aerial mapping firms), wetlands mapping (based upon flagging of wetlands limit by other company professionals), subsurface utilities mapping and hydrographic surveys; • Construction Surveys, including construction stakeout tied to control monumentation for site improvements (i.e. roads, drainage, grading and utilities) and building construction, and as-built surveys for subdivision infrastructure, highways and building structures (as-built locations); • Computations and Description Preparation required in connection with all surveying activities, title transfers and easement grants, utilizing Vango CADD, AutoCAD and COGO soft% re, in conjunction with Micro VAX 3400 computer, PC's and Calcomp plotters; and • Records Research and Analysis to provide historical ownership and use evaluation,adjoining ownership information,easement information,and to resolve boundary problems resulting from gaps, gores, encroachments and similar situations. Research and analysis conducted on over three thousand properties in sixteen states; MM0W/HB,%WQ,EKM0-1 _-/0 PROFESSIONAL RESUME CHARLES R. BECKERT, R.L.A., C.L.A. Associate Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803, 516/935-8870 EXPERIENCE: Twenty-one years of diversified experience in landscape architectural design, site and master planning, and civil/environmental engineering for over 350 commercial, office building, residential, recreation, highway, drainage, and utility construction projects in seventeen states. Mr. Beckert also has a demonstrated proficiency in all aspects of computer operations management. Relevant experience includes: • Landscape Architectural Design, encompassing detailed site layout and planting plans, grading, and construction detailing for all types of site structures. Mr. Beckert has extensive experience in the design of roads,parking facilities,bicycle paths,athletic facilities,playground equipment, site lighting, irrigation systems, decorative pavement, fountains, man-made water features, and park structures. He has prepared conceptual and detailed planting plans, details, opinions of probable cost, and specifications relating to plant material installation and maintenance. Included within the scope of Mr. Beckert's practice of landscape architectural design is the preparation of plans, details, specifications, and supervision of plant material installation for the creation, restoration, and enhancement of wetland ecosystems,in connection with mitigation requirements, for various types of development projects. The breadth of Mr. Beckert's landscape design activities range from individual building or single purpose land use planting plans to planting plans for residential communities of up to 2,000 residences requiring common element planting plans for entrance features, parks, greenbelts and community facilities as well as individual lot planting plans. Construction value of landscaping elements designed range from $10,000 to $2,000,000 per project; • Land Planning, including the preparation of site analysis studies,master planning, site-specific land use plans, and detailed site plans for such diverse projects as Planned Unit Developments ("PUD's"), office parks, single-family and multi-family residential developments, shopping centers, commercial sites,and various recreational facilities;projects planned range up to 2,000 housing units. In connection with his land planning activities, Mr. Beckert has provided preliminary opinions of probable cost, conducted site inspections, prepared grading and drainage concept plans, reviewed and coordinated plans of other consultants, and coordinated overall site design with other in-house professionals; • Environmental Engineering, including the preparation and processing of Environmental Impact Statements for review by Federal, State and Local regulatory agencies. Mr. Beckert has completed more than thirty Environmental Impact Statements for commercial, industrial, residential, office park, shopping center, and marina projects in the eastern United States, evaluating, as appropriate: air quality, demography, geology and soils, groundwater resources, historic and archaeological resources, land use and zoning, noise,public water supply, sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, surface water resources, traffic and transportation, vegetation, wetlands,wildlife and endangered species. As part of Mr. Beckert's EIS function, he interviews, selects and coordinates professional sub-consultants providing input into the EIS; • Plan Processing/Public Approvals for public and private sector projects at the Local, State and Federal levels for many of the projects for which Mr. Beckert has been responsible. Agencies that Mr.Beckert has secured approvals or permits from include the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and numerous county,village and town planning and zoning boards; =-8 LICENSES/ Registered Land Surveyor, NY, 1968, License No. 44157 PROFESSIONAL Licensed Land Surveyor, RID, 1966, License No. 5092 AFFILIATIONS: American Congress of Surveying and Mapping New York State Association of Professional Surveyors New York State Land Title Association EDUCATION: Civil Engineering Program, 1945-1948, University of Maryland, College Park, MD B.S., Social Sciences, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1958; Continuing Education, 1973-1989, various workshops and seminars on current trends and developments in surveying. EMPLOYNEM January 1978- Henderson and Bodwell,Consulting Engineers,Plainview, HISTORY: Present NY. Land Surveyor/Senior Engineering Technician, responsible for all professional surveying activities of headquarters (NY) office including field work, computations, records research and analysis, map preparation, property descriptions, scheduling or work, supervision of party chiefs and survey equipment maintenance. September 1975- Levitt Corp., Greenwich, CT. December 1977 Property Records Supervisor, responsible for reporting on ownership status and survey/title related problems with company's real estate holdings and obligations in 16 states and Canada; supervised disposition of assets by proper conveyance; prepared various surveys and maps. June 1965- Levitt and Sons, Inc., Lake Success, NY. August 1975 Staff Engineer and Surveyor, responsible for preparation of all subdivision maps, property surveys and mortgage surveys, for all company projects in New York State; reviewed compliance with company's stringent specifications for property surveys in all other locations. Also, checked, adjusted and balanced intricate horizontal control networks, prepared legal descriptions, utilized "state of the art" software/computer systems to make surveying calculations and map plottings, checked title reports and opined on significance of objections, and maintained property record files. July 1948- City of Baltimore, MD, Bureau of Surveys,0 DPW May 1965 Tax Map Supervisor/Property Location Division Supervisor, responsible for collection of information and data and continuous updating of official tax maps of City of Baltimore. Also, as Engineering Aide and Civil Engineer, conducted research and made computations and survey plottings for property surveys. DLMOW4 ,%oQ,B,Mxo-i 7—I/ PROFESSIONAL RESUME WILLIAM S. HOUCK Project Engineer Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803, 516/935-8870 EXPERIENCE: Twenty years of diversified experience in potable water system and wastewater facilities design and operation including: process development, engineering reports and studies, preparation of plans and specifications, construction management, permitting, start-up and operation, including laboratory testing, for new and retrofit projects. Relevant experience includes: • Engineering Design/Wastewater Treatment, for new facilities, encompassing site selection, treatment process development and effluent disposal methods, report preparation, and detailed technical design including: determination of organic and hydraulic loadings,hydraulic profiles,tank sizing,pumping and piping,aeration,process control and instrumentation, plant and equipment layout, equipment selection, and specifications. Qualified in resolution of nutrient removal problems, for example: denitrification by suspended and fixed growth, with and without supplemental carbon, phosphorus removal, etc.; processes used include oxidation ditches, internal recycle systems, physical-chemical, and denitrifying filters. Pilot and bench studies are conducted, where appropriate, to demonstrate appropriateness of treatment process and develop design parameters; studies range from bench scale to full scale on existing facilities. For example, denitrification by internal recirculation was demonstrated at full scale plant operation prior to incorporation into plant expansion at a Federally owned facility on Long Island, NY; physical-chemical and biological treatment of automotive assembly plant wastewater (industrial)demonstrated at 1 percent scale; denitrification by internal recirculation through rotating biological contactor(RBC)was demonstrated at 0.5 percent scale at a Selden, NY plant; and secondary treatment of dairy waste demonstrated at bench scale; • Engineering Design/Potable Water Treatment for new facilities, including storage, encompassing site selection, evaluation of required treatment, selection of delivery system,report preparation, and detailed technical design of all facilities including, among other things, treatment tankage, filtration, piping networks, chemical treatment, storage and disinfection. Treatment methods applied include iron removal by manganese greensand adsorption/filtration, nitrate removal by ion exchange (nitrate removal from potable water by ion exchange demonstrated at bench scale) and organics removal by activated carbon; • Retrofit Design for wastewater and potable water facilities, for upgrade of treatment, expansion of capacity, or both. Projects emphasized cost effective retrofits with maximum utilization of existing structures and equipment, with installation of and adaptation for new equipment as appropriate. Typical assignments included upgrade to nitrification, nitrification/denitrification,conversion from coarse to fine bubble aeration, addition of internal recirculation for denitrification, addition of rapid sand filtration and addition of flow equalization; • Plan Processing/Public Approvals for new and retrofit projects including preparation of preliminary and final comprehensive engineering reports necessary for approval of process and design parameters, securing approvals for detailed plans and specifications, H OUQUHB-sdQ.FN V 180.1 1-i preparation and securing approval of wastewater management plans (or amendments to area-wide water quality management plans), meetings and coordination with state and local approving agencies, and presentation at public meetings and hearings; • Construction Management activities including, but not limited to, bid package preparation, estimate of probable cost, construction observation and shop drawing review and approval; • Field Surveys/Faeility Start-ups to identify problems of existing plants and pump stations and develop data needed for improvements, and infiltration and inflow studies of sewage collection systems, including nighttime inspection and spot flow metering, television inspection, and continuous flow metering with both primary element devices and velocity-area devices, in-depth plant start-ups, including observation at full operation as required; • Treatment Plant Operations, including day-today process control, as wastewater and water utility division operations analyst, resulting in in-depth knowledge of operational problems associated with wastewater treatment plants; • Laboratory Analysis, including conventional pollutants (BOD, COD), nitrogen series, phosphorus, and odor control (sulfides), handling permit compliance and process and nitrogen control problems (utilizing in-plant labs) for five wastewater treatment plants. Also experienced in laboratory work for consulting engineering firm specializing in analysis of water and wastewater, for numerous parameters, using a wide variety of analytical techniques. PUBLICATIONS: Can Microbiology solve DenitrificatiDns Problems7, with R. S. Bodwell, A. Henderson, E. Battley, Water and Wastes Engineering, 1978; Avoid Built-in Problems with Sewage Lift Stations, American City and County, March, 1981. LICENSES/ Water Pollution Control Federation PROFESSIONAL American Water Works Association AFFILIATIONS: EDUCATION: B.S., Chemical Engineering, Cornell University, 1971. EMPLOYMENT January 1978- Henderson and Bodwell, Consulting Engineers, Plainview, NY. HISTORY: Present Project Engineer, responsible for process development, engineering reports, preparation of plans and specifications, securing approvals, construction management, start-up and troubleshooting for new and retro- fit wastewater and potable water treatment plants, pump stations, force mains and appurtenant facilities. October 1973- Selden Sanitary Corp., Coram, NY. December 1977 Laboratory Analyst, responsible for all plant sampling, laboratory testing and reporting to insure compliance with operating permit requirements for six water and sewer utilities in Suffolk County, NY. Sept. 1971- Elson T. Killam Associates, Millburn, NJ. Sept. 1973 Laboratory Analyst, responsible for sampling and analysis for a number of wastewater and potable water plants; conducted pilot studies; plant troubleshooting and plant start-up for facilities throughout New Jersey. NoLCK WB-soR.ENvUaz 7-13 RELEVANT EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE Henderson and Bodwell has prepared Environmental Studies since our inception in 1975. We have successfully completed studies of various types for projects ranging in size from individual single-family homes to major corporate business parks and large residential subdivisions, commercial and industrial land uses and numerous unique land use needs. The assessment of existing environmental conditions and the probable impacts from various forms of development is integral to the approval process, due to public and governmental agency awareness of environmental concerns and imposition of increasingly more stringent regulations. Also, lenders are acutely aware of the need for appropriate environmental investigation of properties prior to making loans or initiating foreclosure proceedings. Henderson and Bodwell personnel work closely with the client and the permitting/ review agencies to maximize development potential while minimizing environmental impacts. In the case of Environmental Assessments our activities may be responsive to client needs prior to property acquisition for development or, as is becoming a frequent occurrence, prior to lender foreclosure. Our experience and capabilities embrace most aspects of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, including studies in the following categories (which are performed routinely either singly or in various combinations for our clients): • Geology and Soils • Groundwater Resources • Surface Water Resources • Air Quality • Wildlife and Endangered Species • Vegetation • Wetlands • Traffic and Transportation • Land Use and Zoning • Public Water Supply • Sewage Disposal Facilities • Solid Waste Disposal • Demography • Historic and Archaeological Resources • Noise Henderson and Bodwell has extensive experience in the preparation and processing of comprehensive environmental documents, known as Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's), usually encompassing all of these categories and sometimes others as well. These documents vary in content and depth of analysis according to each state or local municipality's requirements, as well as the type and magnitude of the proposed development. IXP4fl %UQ.EN'M0-1 In addition, we frequently secure different types of environmental permits required for project construction, such as NPDES and state Wastewater Permits and Stormwater Discharge Permits, 401 Water Quality Certificates, Wetlands Disturbance and Stream Encroachment Permits and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permits. Henderson and Bodwell has completed over seventy-five major environmental studies, including preparation of wetlands delineation and mitigation plans, several of which are highlighted in the project summaries on the following pages. In addition to provision of environmental services for lenders, Henderson and Bodwell can provide other services to assist in management of lender REO portfolios: • Engineering, Surveying and Land Planning - Technical and documentation review - Site engineering and surveying - Zoning review and development of alternative land use options • Regulatory Authority Related Services - Approval review and maintenance of approvals - Assistance in obtaining continuing approvals - Coordination of acceptance of public improvements including: punch lists, bond releases, substitution of maintenance bonds and preparation of record documents • Construction Related Services - Construction review - Cost to complete studies - Assistance in construction contract negotiation - Review and certification for progress payments - Project review for plan conformance • Coordination of Related Consulting Services - Construction management - Appraisal - Marketing EXP4U1SofQ.ENVWtG-2 Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT J QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. CRAMER, V Z R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT CRAMER,VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES, INC. The principals of the firm,Thomas W. Cramer,ASIA and Charles J.Voorhis, AICP, are well known and respected in the fields of planning and environmental science on Long Island,for their work in both the private sector and government. Thomas Cramer is trained in land use and environmental sciences and is a licensed Landscape Architect with New York State, as well as a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASIA). Mr. Cramer's administrative experience in complex issues and SEQR implementation as Deputy Commissioner of the Brookhaven Department of Planning, Environment and Development and past Director of Environmental Protection is extremely valuable. Charles Voorhis holds a graduate degree in environmental engineering and has significant applied experience in dealing with land use issues, as Director of Environmental Protection for the Town of Brookhaven. In addition, Mr. Voorhis was employed with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,for four years during which time he was involved with environmental resource protection and monitoring,public health issues, industrial facility compliance and sewage treatment plant operation. Mr. Voorhis is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). It is important to note that Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis have been in close professional association since 1982. Beyond the extensive government experience both Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis were involved with environmental and land use consulting prior to the formation of Cramer,Voorhis &Associates, Inc.in 1988, and have expanded the list of professional achievements since that time. The solid professional'and decision-making background of the two principals of the firm allow Cramer,Voorhis &Associates to advise clients in procedural and environmental planning issues. As key personnel in Brookhaven Town government, Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis were relied upon by the Town Board and other decision making Boards in the Town to provide professional input and justification for decisions involving complex planning and environmental issues. Through the Department of Planning, Environment and Development, Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis were responsible for the processing of over 70 DEIS's and FEIS's,well over 600 site plans and 500 sub/land divisions between 1986 and the time of their departure from the Town. With Brookhaven, Mr. Cramer and Mr. Voorhis were the principal staff persons responsible for the 1987 Land Use Plan,and personally prepared four Generic Environmental Impact Statements in review of rezoning initiatives contemplated by the Town Board. These documents were prepared in conformance with SEQR requirements for investigation of synergistic impacts resulting from a series of rezonings that effected over 300,000 acres of land in the Town of Brookhaven. Cramer,Voorhis &Associates, Inc.,was established in August of 1988 to provide municipal and private clients with services in the disciplines of environmental science and planning. Since that time the firm has developed a list of over 150 clients, and has completed over 250 large and small scale projects. Large projects including Draft and Final EIS have been completed in most Long Island Townships. CVA has also completed many planning and environmental reports including: visual impact analyses; planning, zoning and CRAMER, VRAG OCIATES ENVIRONMENT CONSULTANTS T-/ Angel Shores Final EIS land use recommendation reports; ecological studies; noise impact studies;feasibility analyses;park designs, and wetland project design and permitting. A partial list of projects with brief descriptions of key components is provided in a subsequent section. CVA has become active in the growing fields of Environmental Property Assessments and Asbestos Surveys, two areas important in pre-purchase of land and property transfer/financing. These environmental audits are necessary to determine if potential or actual public health or environmental hazards are associated with a site which a bank may be financing. A site assessment involves review of historic site use, analysis of surrounding land use, review of potential for asbestos and/or PCB's, consultation with agencies, groundwater and/or soil characterization, and other factors as may be necessary. CVA is certified to submit reports to ten(10)banks, two (2) insurance companies and one (1) commercial lending institution, and has completed numerous projects for these institutions as well as private clients. In addition CVA has completed Phase if site assessments involving soil and groundwater analysis and Phase III site clean up projects. CVA is also special consultant to a number of local municipalities on planning and environmental issues. As land use and environmental consultants to the Town of Southold and the Village of Port Jefferson, CVA has maintained an effective role in municipal support, SEAR administration and land use implementation. The contacts that CVA has developed through the years, at all levels of government, results in the firm's ability to better serve its clients in a diverse range of projects. CVA provides a full array of land use services to both municipal and private sector clients. General categories of expertise include the following areas: * Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements * Feasibility and Development Potential Studies * Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Audits * Asbestos Surveys for Building Demolition * Visual Impact Assessments * Site Planning and Landscape Design * Archaeological and Historic Studies * Testimony before Boards and in Court * Wetland Project Design and Permitting It is our hope that you will find our credentials and qualifications in order and acceptable for the intended project. CVA is confident in our ability for the preparation and presentation of the subject matter. Included herein is a list of representative clients, a list of representative projects, and the personal professional qualifications of the principals of the CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 72 Angel Shores Final EIS PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THOMAS W. CRAMER,ASIA Licensing and Certification: Landscape Architecture; State of New York American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Experience: * Principal of, Cramer,Voorhis &Associates,Inc.; Miller Place, New York (8/88- Present) * Deputy Commissioner,Department of Planning, Environment and Development;Town of Brookhaven,New York (4/86-8/88) * Acting Commissioner,Department of Planning,Environment and Development;Town of Brookhaven, New York (7/87-11/87) * Director,Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development;Town of Brookhaven,New York (8/82-3/86) * Environmental Planner/Planner,Department of Environmental Protection & Planning Board;Town of Brookhaven, New York(5/75-8/82) * Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (9/74-3/87) Education: * SUNY, College of Environmental Science & Forestry and Syracuse University;Undergraduate BLA-Landscape Architecture BS -Environmental Sciences & Forestry * SUNY at Stony Brook; Graduate courses in Planning and Political Science * Suffolk County Community College; Associate Business and humanities * LIU, Southhampton College, Undergraduate studies * SUNY,Agricultural &Technical College at Farmingdale, Specialized technical course work * Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning and environmental fields CRWER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS T-3 Angel Shores Final EIS Significant Professional Achievements: * GEIS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS A-1 Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS Commercial Rezomngs on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988 * Environmental Quality Bond Act,Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987 * Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987 * Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985 * Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984 * Open Space Study,-Town of Brookhaven, 1984 * Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone,Town of Brookhaven, 1983 * Coastal Erosion Along the North Shore of Brookhaven, 1979 * Sound Beach-A Neighborhood Study, 1978 * Puerto Escondido,Hoy y Manana, 1976 * Mount Sinai Harbor,A Conceptual Plan, 1975 * Cedar Beach-A Balanced Future, 1973 * Guest lecturer at several colleges and universities on land use and environmental issues * Conducted seminars and workshops for the State of New York Department of State on land use and coastal management Professional & Other Organizations: past and present * American Planning Association * American Society of Landscape Architects * American Water Resources Association * Boy Scouts of America, District Advancement Chairman Long Island Association Advisory Committee * Miller Place Historical Society * Moriches Inlet Breach and Stabilization Committee * Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee * National Eagle Scout Association * New York Planning Federation * New York State Association of Environmental Professionals * New York State Pine Barrens Task Force * Peconic River Advisory Board * Suffolk County 208 Technical Advisory Council * Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality * Suffolk County Pine Barrens Advisory Council * Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council CRAMER, VR SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 7-y Angel Shores Final EIS PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CHARLES J.VOORHIS,AICP Licensing and Certification: American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Certified Environmental Inspector,Environmental Assessment Association Certified Environmental Professional (pending) US Coast Guard, Master of Steam and Auxiliary Sail Vessels Experience: * Principal of Firm, Cramer,Voorhis&Associates, Inc.; Miller Place, New York (8/88-Present) * Director,Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development;Town of Brookhaven, New York (3/86-8/88) * Environmental Analyst, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development;Town of Brookhaven, New York (8/82-3/86) * Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (8/82-3/87) * Public Health Sanitarian, Suffolk County Department of Health Services; Hauppauge, New York (1/80-8/82) * Environmentalist 1, Suffolk CounDepartment of Environmental Control, Central Islip, New York (2/78-8/�9) Education: * SUNY at Stony Brook; Master of Science in Environmental Engineering, concentration in Water Resource Management, 1984 * Princeton Associates; Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Short Course, Princeton, New Jersey, 1983 * New York State Health Department, Environmental Health Training Course, Hauppauge, New York, 1982 * Southampton College of Long Island University; Bachelor of Science in Environmental Geology, 1977 * Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning and environmental fields. CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS T-s Angel Shores Final EIS Significant Professional Achievements: * GEIS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS A-1 Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS Commercial Rezomngs on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * GEIS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988 * Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988 * Environmental Quality Bond Act,Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987 * Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987 * Discussion of Hydrogeologic Zone Boundaries in the Vicinity of South Yaphank, Long Island,New York, 1986 * Duck Farms in Brookhaven Town, Land Restoration Techniques, 1985 * Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985 * Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984 * Coastal Energy Impact Program, 1984 * Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone,Town of Brookhaven, 1983 * Groundwater Supply and Early Groundwater Use in Brookhaven Township, Suffolk County, w York, 1983 * Guest lecturer at High Schools and universities on land use and environmental issues Professional & Other Organizations: past and present * American Institute of Certified Planners * American Planning Association, Washington, D.C. * National Association of Environmental Professionals,Alexandria, VA * Environmental Assessment Association, Scottsdale,Arizona * American Water Resources Association, Syracuse, New York * National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio * New York Planning Federation,Albany, New York * New York Water Pollution Control Association, Riverdale, New York * Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C. * Alumni Association,LIU, Southampton College, New York * Historical Society of Port Jefferson,Trustee, Port Jefferson, NY * Environmental Conservation Board, Inc. Village of Port Jefferson, NY * Port Jefferson Village,Waterfront Advisory Committee, Port Jefferson, NY * Town of Brookhaven Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee, Medford, NY * Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council, Medford, New York * Holland Society of New York, New York * Kraissl Company, Inc., Board of Directors, Hackensack, New Jersey CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT K TRAFFIC COUNTS - GREAT HOG NECK CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS LOCATION: TA-CO E J B /�y y( f—cj OBSERVER: MANUAL C UNT AM MID PM TIME: l2— TO S 1 DATE: DAY:y��_ WEATHER: SL)k MOVEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL TIME C, 41 _SZ la ' —1 it I 32 F.� t 2 130 1 Z SUB-TOTAL I '� i� rc I`► � � I aO 7 SUB-TOTAL 30 a 7 - j g ¢-Z SUB-TOTAL SUB-TOTAL TOTAL REMARKS CRAMER, VR OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS 1 min K-/ LOCATION: a 3&Ayv(ew OBSERVER: MANUAL COUNT AM -m-Tn PM TIME: 12 TO 3 DATE:-!91 J�j DAY: y�� WEATHER: �-�1�►t`''v DATE:-! MOVEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL TIME to p 5 G - 10 -Z-o SUB-TOTAL rs e Cl t SUB-TOTAL 2 i -7 ,P5- ` -3 �-- SUB-TOTAL SUB-TOTAL TOTAL REMARKS J ' � - CRAMER, V OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS K-j Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT L ACCIDENT REPORTS (1988-1990) GREAT HOG NECK CRAMER, V ; R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS LOCAL ACCIDENT SURVEILLANCE PROJECT ACCIDENTS ALONG A STREET - VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS PAGE: 1 JNTY: SUFFOLK MUNICIPALITY: T. SOUTHOLD GATE: 20-SEP--91 1""ES: 01/88 - 22/90 STREET: Maim Bayview Rd IK: 56795 - 56855 12/16/89 Sat 4Pm, In j, 0-FAT, 2-INJ, C, i(VEH= 2, TYPE=Fixed Object . Head On LIGHT COND=Dust , WEATHER=Clear , ROAD=Dry , NCIC= 5156, CASE t#= 9842748 VEH1: Passenger Car, Going Straight , DIR=S . FACTOR=Other Veh Factor ► YOB=72 SECOND EVENT=Tree , SECOND ~ACTOR=None VEH2: Passenger Car, Parked , DIR=N , FACTO9=None , YOB=44 MODE: 56745 : Baywater Ave 01/ 6/89 NON-REPORTABLE CASE#= 7112625 03/18/89 Sat i0Pm, Ins, C-FAT, 1-1NJ, C, #VEH= 1, TYPE=Fixed Object ' Other LIGHT COND=Dark UnIit, WEATHER=Cloudy, ROAD=Wet , NCIC= 5159, CASE #= 9249682 VEHi: Passenger Car, Going Straight , DIR-S . FACTOR=Steering Failure , YOB=6y SECOND EVENT=Utility Pole , SECOND FACTOR=None 12/14/90 NON--REPORTABLE CASE#- 808909 M. 56745 - 54657 03/18/90 Sun 1OPm, In,J, 0-FAT. 1--INJ; C, ##VEH= 1, TYPE=Fi xed Object , Other LIGHT COND=Dark Lit , WEATH.ER=Clear : ROAD=Dry , NCIC= 5159, CASE #a 102483 VEH1: Trk/Trctr Trl. Going Straight , DIR=W , FACTOR=Lost Consciousness , YOB=67 SECOND EVENT=Tree , SECOND FACTOR=None 08/25/90 NDN--REPORTABLE CASE#= 579301 i^r.i ;!'I I t"H'_'IH �i_t'a� _.t:rl il_,r,j—.1--�=— LOCAL. ACCIDENT SURVEILLANCE PROJECT ACCIDENTS ALONG A STREET -- VEREAL DESCRIPTIONS PAGE: 2 �t NTY: SUFFOLK MUNICIPALITY: T. SOUTHOLD DATE: 20-SEP-91 3E ES: 01/88 - 12/90 STREET: Main Bayview Rd -IK- : 56745 - 56770 10/22/88 Sat 5Pm, Ins, 0-FAT, 1-INJ, B, tVEH= 2, TYPE=Other Motor Veh, Right Angle LIGHT COND=Daylight • , WEATHER=C laud y, ROADwDrq , NCIC= 5159, CA$E #= 869946$ VFY.I: Passenger Car, Making Right Turn, DIR=S , FACTOR=Turning Improperly , YOB= 4 VEH2: Passenger Car, Going Straight , DIR=E „'ACTOR=Improper Lane Vse , Y0B=38 03/10/89 Fri 5Pttu Ina, 0-FAT, I--INJ, C, #VEH- 1, TYPE=Fixed Object , Other LIGHT COND=Dusk , WEATHER=Cisar , ROAR=Dry , NCIC= 5159, CASE #= 9234652 VEH1: Passenger Car, Going Straight . DIR=S , FACTOR=Other Human Factor , YOB=19 SECOND EVENT=Utility Pole , SECOND FACTQR=None IK: 56767 - 56761B 05/28/88 Sat 9A;n, Ins, 0-FAT, 2-INJ, C, CVEH= 2, TYPE=Other Motor Veh, Rear End DIGHT COND=Daylight , WEATHER=Clear , ROAD=Dry , NCIC= 5154, CASE #= 8393621 VEHi: Passenger Car, Slowing Stopping , DIR=E , FACTOR-None , YOB=51 VEH2: Trk/Trctr TrI; Going Straight . DIR=E , FACTOR=Driver Inattention , YOB-69 't 3E: 567,17 : Cedar Ave 08/ 4/90 Sat 5Pa, Ins, 0-FAT, 3-INJ, A, #VEH= 2, TYPE=Other Motor Veh, Left Turn LIGHT COND=Daylight , WEATHER=Clear , ROAD=dry . , NCIC= 5159, CASE 535110 VEH1: Trk/Trctr Trl, Going Straight , DIR=N ,FACTOR=None , YOB-70 VEH2: Passenger Car, Making Left Turn . DIR-W , FACTOR=Driver Inexperience, YOB=64 JK: 56683 - 56725 - 06/04/89 NON-REPORTABLE CASE#= 9411127 zo'd 5r0ST229IS92-0ii 01 AL4P1H=�IH WO!_+ LO:bT LOCAL ACCIDENT SVRVEILLANCE"PROJECT ACCIDENTS ALONG A STREET - VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS PAGE: 3 Cl )NTY: SUFFOLK MUNICIPALITY: T. SOUTHOLD DATE: 20-SEP-91 D CES: 01/88 -- 12/90 STREET: Main Sayview Rd L+.4K: 56653 - 56725 11/03/90 NON-REPORTABLE CASE# 722987 170'd 91708T££aTSE'2L0TT-6 01 3)NHNMNIHW AL-MhIN Wi-Id bO:bT T66T-07--d3S 7 r Knr f J t �� 5a/a `jG �� • j f x CNN.slw Er p •ffe ar sunR 4 nM ails+ km _M& SMS• 4 ar X 3 asses swa uxw it f sass sales 66,064 Sol• .� it Y. i• �. _._�...� ....•-1�_.» _ ��•. acwm r swsi ' y pans •a -5447. ('• . L � away rs•X■ 4 � G � i ��i, u � w!a ��S V r4�drta •,,•�•'•. a1[• ►+�X 9 v5 ay ,, b r rRay N •. war ' SSW µ aasss e to is44sa ,� -------..__•�__ .`♦ '-sem',= ows pP 9 +'aw ar A swat sass 4 w, ]C rwsi '149 n P asssr w +s•7r WILL,"sun 0 ! 5r i44t s 5rar0 4 PO " � i aeaap sss► a ` d� , 'smr so te9 r� i as• u rt Y � paw a j Kt 54M t sa7s w/t at +K't' safe 9 was J �v r43+ a µ asar ;. 6; P i 44n ! a4 Kn0 Y W!M[r Q "Too Q c „ a ? R swi w/n t s ffi sun f. Mars �� � � c4• f y A to J rI s6714 S+i swr7 esus xq,f P 3� ss" rt 's CS b E cry '+ Y r} K/t A I w 44ns 9 sans am a+r �$i 43 sway sa/w Y1 Y 44n1 sena Sim •. Sasrr • d tr{y aWr d� nes% S Sara K7K A.r,r • �� it p 4pr as 4 !� aS ++lii 7 oro spar San ` �r _. - - •_'�� ' ars ^ ` a , L .� ,•w'w 44iw4 sere Ott a+ SiaKno CM. .... - ti Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT M SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS SOUTHOLD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT 420 OAKLAWN AVENUE, P.O BOX 470 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971-0470 (516) 765-5400 FAX (516) 765-5086 BOARD OF EDUCATION SOUTHOLD HIGH SCHOOL F MARC WIEDERLIGHT,FRES PATRICIA A. HENNESSEY WILLIAM J McGONEGAL,VP SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SOUTHOLD MIDDLE SCHOOL JOSEPHINE H BOYD MARGARET H BROWN PECONIC PRIMARY SCHOOL BARBARA KOCH September 16, 1991 Mr. Charles J. Voorhis, AICP Cramer, Voohis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Angel Shores, Final EIS Dear Mr. Voorhis: This is in response to your letter to Mrs. Hennessey dated September 6, 1991 requesting information from the school district with respect to the above project. The 1991-92 enrollment is 762 students in K-12 (see attachment) . The capacity of our current facilities (Oaklawn Avenue High & Middle School, Peconic Lane Primary and portables) is 1,100. The 1991-92 estimated state aid is $568,243. Our budget for 1991-92 is $8,240,725. Regards potential impact of the projecton the school district, your projections indicate that 50 school-age children would be generated. Depending on how the numbers fall, this would require additional teaching staff. Elementary class sizes could run up to 27 pupils. High school staffing needs would be determined by numbers of sections of courses to be offered. We would probably require at least two additional teachers. Revenue from the project would be generated by taxes due to an increase in the assessed value of the district. State aid would likely be unaffected as the school district's aid is based on flat grant and save harmless provisions. I hope this information is of assistance. Sincerely, Ann 0. Romeo Business Administrator AOR:pd Attachement H-1 cc: P Hennessey SOUTHOLD SCHOOL DISTRICT Enrollment - 9/16/91 K 45 1 54 2 36 3 65 4 43 5 48 F' 6 55 7 58 8 80 9 65 10 51 11 49 12 74 Ung. 28 OD * 11 *Out of District 762 4 BOCES 1 Mattituck 1 Pilgrim 2 Residential 3 Alternative K2 CRAMER, V , RH OCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS September 6, 1991 Mrs. Patricia Hennessy, Superintendent of Schools Southold Union Free School District 420 Oaklawn Avenue P.O. Box 470 Soutbold, New York 11971 Re: Angel Shores, Final EIS Dear Mrs. Patricia Hennessy: Our firm is engaged in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project,for the Town of Southold Planning Board. The proposed project involves the subdivision of 92 acres into 49 lots and phased construction of 49 single family units (three-bedroom and four-bedroom). Based upon this we estimated that 50 school-aged children would be generated by the proposed project over a 5 to 10 year period. I would appreciate your prompt consideration of this project, and any information which you may have regarding the following: s Present enrollment by grade " Estimated ca acity of school system Any potential impacts, adverse or beneficial,which the project may have on the district s Estimated State Aid Expenditures of the district I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. Your input is important and will be used in the review of this project.-Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Very t y s, .harles J. oorhis,AICP 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 M-3 Angel Shores Final EIS i ATTACHMENT N WETLAND SPECIES FOR RETENTION AREAS CRAMER, VOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Angel Shores Final EIS ATTACHMENT N WETLAND SPECIES FOR RETENTION AREA The following is a list of vegetation species considered as appropriate for the creation of a naturally functioning wetlands system. A mix of vegetation which supplies food and _ shelter to wildlife is important. The species included in the list are not intended to be all inclusive,but rather to provide an array of commercially available wetland plants suitable for this project. Common Name (Scientific Name) -Wildlife Characteristics Trees Red Maple (Acer rubrum) - 1,2,3,6,7 American Holly (Ilex opaca) - 1,2,3,6,7,10 Larch (Larix decidea) -2,3,6,7,10 Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflue) -2,3 Sourgum (Nyssa sylvatica) -2,3,6,7 Oaks (Quercus spp.); 1,2,3,7 Weeping Willow (Salix babyonica) - 1,2,3,6,7,9,10 Pussy Willow (Salix discolor) -2,3,6,7,9,10 Shrubs Alder (Alnus spp.) - 1,2,3,6,7,9,10 Swamp Azalea Azalea wiscosum) - 1,2,3,6,7 Summersweet (Clethra alnifolia) - 1,2,3,6,9,10 Inkberry (Ilex glabra) - 1,2,3,4,6,7 spicebush (Lindera benzoin) - 1,2,3,6,7 Bayberry (Myrica pensylvamca) - 1,2,3,6 Ruguso rose (Rosa rugusa) - 1,2,3,6,7 Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum) - 1,2,3,6,7,10 n Arrowood (Vibunim dentatum) - 1,2,3,6,7 Emer n Herbaceous Plants Sedges (Carex spp.) - 1,2,4,5,8,9 Wild Iris (Iris germaica) -2,3,4,5,6,9 Rushes (Juncos F�tom;jeton ) 145 Sago Pondweed pectinatus) - 1,4,5,8 Pickeralweed (Pontederia cordata) - 1,4,5,9 Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) - 1,4,5,9 Hard Stem Bulrush (Scirpus acutus) - 1,2,4,8,9 Three Steam Bulrush (Scirpus fluviatua) - 1,4 Burreed (Spaganium eurycarpun) - 1,2,4,7,9 Cattails (Typha spp.) - 1,2,3,4,5,9 CRAMER, VSOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS N-/ V ...................... P)A7T 4!: ........... Z f � 10 '7 2!5 Q CD Aq I if 2 Z Z-7 ry) 2c> (D iNl� 1 '7 311 2 V X SITE DATA It A It % CONCEPT SECTION 1 (39.9 acres) Number of Lots 13 lots Minimum Lot Size 20 000 square feet Total Area of Lots 9.1 acres Total Open Space 1,2 26.0 acres Average Lot Size 32 500 square feet -S I Site 1-1 acres Water Sul? �y Rechar reas IfT I Road I ight-of-way 2.5 acres 00 SECTION 11 (52.8 acres) Number of Lots 36 lots NA SHT-15 J1Iininiuni Lot Size 30,000 Square feet Total Area of Lots 27.9 acres D.1w Sept. 20, 1991 V = 100'-- of# 'Total Open sj�ace 11) V OtCIAF, INIC. 17.8 acrcs U, IM, 11111 "'I't ON., I TA NVIRONMP.NTAL AN �'IAlj tING CONS 11,TA 'I t Average Lot Size 33 750 square feet Civ TIT Pvc ia-me Areas Red 4.1 acres Road Right-of-way 2.4 acres 1000-88-6-13.1. 4 &, 5 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Note-: I- Includcq 0.G acre park arca (518) 331-t455 2- includes dirt road south of cul-de-sac 3- does not include 13 foot right-o[-way owned IVY 0111crs; * ri oposcd Project values from Draft 171S and Proposed Project man prepared by i,,.oj(,Qt.: Angel Shores FEI S I Ic"fletson & Bodwell (9-10-90; Drminp,No. NY241-006) * ('(,ncel,t values from Final EIS mitigition plans prepared by CVA (9-20-91;Angel Shores). Concept e t e s 3*,- 1-1,! " All e i, c e l4atts we n(-,A cn!�inccring dravings-Alternatives are presented for comparison purposes in order to rnininli7 C �.-) i! advrrsc environmental effects. Engineering and final layout must tic completed. Areas computed based on Loo'lHoll: Sheet Not Section I and Section If areas stated above. Open space ratios are as follows: Section 1 65.2% Greil- Hog Neck, Southold, N.Y. I of 3 Section 11 33.7711) i 1 a t 2 t t f - --- x � Z 3 7 -------------------------------------------- { z � I � ,,'—•--.._._,_�_�._.�,_� ' ' - - � _ _ ' 1 --. ...-�-_.._ . __ -- -�._ _---_. __ ,fir � C 3 JA r t � F I 1 � r f$ r sS," a 17 <��E—: c 77 0 Zta E k'• 1 � t 3 I i •� ; ,r -C ONE E— sri cri1ION I (39.9 acres) Number of Lots 15 lots Minimum I_ot Size 20 000 Square feet 1 ;Total Area of Lots 12.6 acres Total OPcn S rlcc 1,2 24.6 acres - Average Lot Size 34 900 square feet � �, 13 WaterSupply Site 1.1 acres , l Rechal��e Areas Road IZIght-of-w ay 1.6 acres S 'C TION II (52.8 acres) NA I,iA n. 1 Number of Lots 34 lots -- --- -0' o loot 1,. .- too — o,. c ! 1111111111tH Lot S17.0 30 000 s ware feet �% j�� c'I? ttl';1?, 1'()t)l,ttlf l S0CIA t: INC. _ ►,p, , , 'Total Arca of Lots acres fI ( F- 24.3 ...a a, CJV1 21.6 acresf'flt11rn1�b(1t7TAl'ar+s t+� tae cora nt� s`l'otal Open sl: ,Ice 0 s uarc feet ' \ �� --^--'— t "A of Vl�e ✓1 10 t-� t j �, _ / -. T.f Y.r N.,mbrr: r C Avei=i ,c L rs ]000-iTtj-G-1 1.1,_9^ FC .� itccllar;e Areas 3.� acres --_-- - Ito,lc1 Iigllt-of-way 3 3.7 acres kfill51 rtt„119 rpt„91ry rr i Inrp, New York 11761 fi) :111-1155 Notes: 1 includes O.ti+acre park arca f • 2- illcttulcs dirt road south of cul-de.-sac 1'rc�jc'cl.: Angel S I i Ol�f'-� 1' l'.1� 3 does not include 33 foot right-of wny owned by others • Proposed Project values from Draft EIS and Proposed Project Flan prepared by p. w ll 9-10-90• Drawin .No. NY241 + gn 1 IienderfiflR ll. rl(d C , f' Shores). Concept 1 , from r incl r?1S miiigation plans prepnrecl by CVA (9 2E191;Angel. ) p Sheet No: 1 :,9r1s are 1•f,t cuginceling drawings-Allernalivcs are presented for comparison purposes in order to minimize 1,1.,i ;1l ioI1: 3 a,;,erse cl.�;.rnTmeutat effects. Eng;necring and final layout must be completed. Areas computed based on w of Section I :,...Section ll areas Stated above. t.'r”<�rli ltcl;r NccA, �f�tttltolcl, N.Y. SC-:.7 t%t t ;T- • Open space r atif s are as follows: Section 1 61.7% Section It 4(1.9°'x - '--�- - --" ,....,..•..-...,..-.-.w- .+.T--....-.. ,... ... .. .._-...,.._.„._.,.. .. ...,. ...... W:.:.4'.'^.:T;r:"'y..rm�c..^^.t_.CTr+-"--r e•e:era.�m.,v! .,.....:.....w...,,.a.r.,........,.ww-,5o...n,..rw ew.,,,....,.-r-w...;.-,....,...v...m.+,...---,.w..a.,r.......,a"...-,^•v...«+.w...,.....-..,..«.•-.,,.......,,......,,«.....-..,a.+•.•, F-5 V N N t ^"_^ter. *-^•„+,.s+."�nrnw.r,�„�Mrq°���^M.�/' L. . 7 *7 0 2_ :-5- X / 7 Z'S, C_ 46) L/ 7-C-3 7 Z Z ry) 7 yti Ilk c) Al VI)z,::7 Z ......... SITE, DATA SECTION 1 (39.9 .acres) is I Z. Number of Lots 14 tots Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet Total Area of Lots, 2 9.1 acres Total Open Space 27.7 acres Average Lot Size 28 100 square feet Water Su%y Site 1.� acres Recharge e .real ----- Road Right-of-way 1.4 acres SECTION 11 (52.8acres) r-f..4 P6, pit.to. SIIT-15 Number of Lots, 35 lots NA Minimum Lot Size 30,000 square feet se-P t. 203 loot- Tott'll Area of Lots 26.2 acres Total Open Space CTZ I T, MIMI SOCIA INC. 0 16.5 acres V1r",rVF1"JTAf,AN Average Lot Size -32 600 square feet CIT trivc TIVC Recharge Areas 6.1 (acres Right-of-luny 3 Road Wight-o 3.4 acres1000-88-6-13.1, 4 51 North CMIntry Pnkd kmet rimer, New York 11794 Notes: I- Includes 0.0;tc-rc park area oi(-(,t,: ,Ange1 Sholles FEIS Proposed Project values from Draft EIS and Proposed Project Plan prepared by 'Ilk 2- includes dirt ;oad south of cul-de-sac 3- does not include 33 foot right-or-way owned by others Pr Ilendcrson& Bodwcll (9-1(1-90;Drawing No. NY241-W,) C Concept values from Final r-,IS mitigation plans prepared by CVA (4 20-91;Angel Shores). Concept k,J k—., 1,J r-A "P,- n plans are not engineering dra''%"ng.s-Alternatives are presented for comparison purposes in or&r to minimize adverse environmental effects. Engineering and final layout mus n t be completed. Areas computed based oil Lo C, I jot): Section I and Section 11 areas stated above. Sher! No: ,is follows: Section 69Af7-0 G)TfIt flog Ne(,k, F3011thol(], N.Y. • Open space ratios are f 3 Section 11