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