Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DEIS Vol 2
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT l�Torthwind Village Proposed Annexation and Development Town of Southold Suffolk Countv . Volume 2 -of 2: Appendices H -T Prepared for KACE LI, LLC Greenport, New York Prepared byEngineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. Hauppauge, New York August 2009 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT AND DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWIND VILLAGE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK • PROJECT LOCATION: 17.19± -acre parcel located on the south side of County Road 48 (North Road), 1,600± feet east of Chapel Lane, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBERS: APPLICANT: District 1000 - Section 40 — Block 3 — Lot 1 KACE LI, LLC PO Box 67, 755 Main Road Greenport, New York 11944 Contact: Michael Kontokosta, Esq. 631-477-0600 LEAD AGENCY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 1 Office SUNY@ Stony Brook 50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, New York 11790-3409 Contact: Sherri Aicher, Environmental Analyst I (631) 444-0403 PREPARER & CONTACT: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C.* 2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal Gail A. Pesner, AICP, Senior Project Manager (631) 234-3444 *The operations of Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. were acquired by VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, P.C. in January 2009 • • 0 With technical input from: Site Engineering: Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman & Van Weele, P.C. 175A Commercial Drive Hauppauge, New York 11788. Contact: Kevin Walsh, P.E. (631)435-1111 Wetland and Ecological Analysis: Land Use Ecological Services 209 West Main Street PO Box 1060 Riverhead, NY 11901 Contact: William Bowman, Ph.D. (631) 727-2400 Traffic Engineering: Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, New York 11978 Contact: Patrick Lenihan, P.E. (631) 288-8822 DATE OF PREPARATION: December 2008 Revised May 2009 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") prepared by the above -referenced applicant. Copies are available for public review and comment at the offices of the Lead Agency. A copy of the DEIS is available for review at the Floyd Memorial Library at North and First Street, Greenport and at the Southold Free Library at 53705 Main Road, Southold. The document is also available on-line at hftD://www.vhb.com/northwindvillaL-e/deis DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... i 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION..........................................................................1 2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1 2.2 Existing Site Conditions...................................................................................................5 2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of the Subject Property........................................................ 5 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use........................................................................................•....... 7 2.2.3 Surrounding Roadways............................................................................................... 8 2.3 Brief Site and Project History...........................................................................................9 2.4 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................13 2.5 Purpose, Need and Benefits of the Proposed Action......................................................21 2.6 Construction Activities...................................................................................................26 2.7 Required Permits and Approvals....................................................................................27 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS..............................................................28 3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography.....................................................................................28 3. 1.1 Geology.....................................................................................................................28 3.1.2 Soils...........................................................................................................................29 3.1.3 Topography...............................................................................................................48 3.2 Water Resources.............................................................................................................51 3.2.1 Groundwater............................................................................................................. 51 3.2.2 Water Usage.............................................................................................................. 59 3.2.3 Sanitary Flow............................................................................................................ 59 3.2.4 Stormwater Runoff.................................................................................................... 60 3.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplains................................................................ 62 3.3 Ecology...........................................................................................................................69 3.3.1 Ecological Communities........................................................................................... 69 3.3.2 Wildlife..................................................................................................................... 73 3.3.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species.............................................................. 76 3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies ......... 86 3.4.1 Land Use and Zoning................................................................................................ 86 3.4.2 Community Character............................................................................................... 89 3.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies................................................................................... 90 3.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.................................................................... 124 3.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................131 3.5.1 Public Schools......................................................................................................... 131 3.5.2 Fire Protection and Ambulance Service................................................................. 136 3.5.3 Police Protection..................................................................................................... 137 3.5.4 Water Supply.......................................................................................................... 137 3.5.5 Sewage Disposal..................................................................................................... 137 3.5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 138 3.5.7 Energy Suppliers..................................................................................................... 138 3.5.8 Recreation............................................................................................................... 138 3.6 Transportation...............................................................................................................139 3.6.1 Methodology...........................................................................................................139 3.6.2 Existing Roadway Network..........................................•.........................................140 244 3.6.3 Unsignalized Intersections................................................................. ..................... 141 3.6.4 Traffic Volumes...................................................................................................... 142 3.6.5 Accident Records.................................................................................................... 144 3.6.6 Existing Public Transportation Services................................................................. 145 3.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................147 3.7.1 Introduction................................................................................•............................ 147 3.7.2 Prehistoric Potential................................................................................................ 147 3.7.3 Historic Potential.................................................................................................... 148 3.7.4 Field Methods for Phase IB.................................................................................... 150 3.7.5 Field Results............................................................................................................ 150 3.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................... 151 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...............................................152 4.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography..................................................................................152 4.2 Water Resources...........................................................................................................155 4.2.1 Groundwater........................................................................................................... 155 4.2.2 Water Usage............................................................................................................ 157 4.2.3 Sanitary Flow.......................................................................................................... 157 4.2.4 Stormwater Runoff.................................................................................................. 158 4.2.5 Surface Water, Wetlands and Floodplams.............................................................. 161 4.3 Ecology.........................................................................................................................164 4.3.1 Ecological Communities......................................................................................... 164 4.3.2 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species............................................................ 169 4.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies ....... 174 4.4.1 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character........................................................ 174 4.4.2 Community Character............................................................................................. 180 4.4.3 Comprehensive Plans/Studies................................................................................. 181 4.4.4 Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans.................................................................... 210 4.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................224 4.5.1 Public Schools......................................................................................................... 224 4.5.2 Fire Protection......................................................................................................... 230 4.5.3 Police Protection..................................................................................................... 231 4.5.4 Water Supply.......................................................................................................... 232 4.5.5 Sewage Disposal..................................................................................................... 232 4.5.6 Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 233 4.5.7 Energy Suppliers..................................................................................................... 234 4.5.8 Recreation............................................................................................................... 234 4.6 Transportation...............................................................................................................236 4.6.1 Site Trip Generation Analysis................................................................................. 236 4.6.2 Directional Distribution Analysis and Traffic Assignment Analysis ..................... 237 4.6.3 Planned Roadway Improvements........................................................................... 237 4.6.4 Other Planned Developments................................................................................. 237 4.6.5 Intersection Capacity Analyses............................................................................... 238 4.6.6 Access..................................................................................................................... 243 4.6.7 Grades and Sight Distances.................................................................................... 244 4.6.8 Parking.................................................................................................................... 246 4.6.9 Alternate Means of Transportation......................................................................... 246 4.6.10 Construction Traffic Impacts.............................................................................. 247 4.6.11 Conclusions.........................................................................................................248 4.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................251 4.8 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................252 5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................255 5.1 Geology, Soils and Topography...................................................................................255 5.2 Water Resources............................................................................................•..............256 5.3 Ecology.........................................................................................................................256 5.4 Land Use, Zoning and Community Character..............................................................258 5.5 Community Services and Utilities................................................................................258 5.6 Transportation...............................................................................................................259 5.7 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................260 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS..........................................................................261 6.1 Short -Term Impacts......................................................................................................261 6.2 Long -Term Impacts......................................................................................................262 7.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS.....................................................................264 7.1 SEQRA-mandated, No -action Alternative....................................................................266 7.1.1 Geology, Soils and Topography............................................................................. 266 7.1.2 Water Resources......................................................._.............................................. 266 7.1.3 Ecology................................................................................................................... 267 7.1.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 7.1.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 267 267 7.1.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 267 7.1.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 268 7.2 Alternative Site Design.................................................................................................269 7.2.1 Geology, Soils and Topography............................................................................. 269 7.2.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 270 7.2.3 Ecology................................................................................................................... 271 7.2.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 271 7.2.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 273 7.2.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 274 7.2.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 274 7.3 Development Under Prevailing Zoning in the Town of Southold................................275 7.3.1 Geology, Soils and Topography............................................................................. 275 7.3.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 276 7.3.3 Ecology................................................................................................................... 277 7.3.4 Land Use and Zoning, Community Character and Comprehensive Plans/Studies. 277 7.3.5 Community Services and Utilities.......................................................................... 279 7.3.6 Transportation......................................................................................................... 280 7.3.7 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 280 7.4 Alternative Sites............................................................................................................281 8.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ........... 282 9.0 GROWTH -INDUCING ASPECTS...................................................................................283 10.0 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY...................................................................284 11.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................285 9 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - SEQRA Documentation Appendix B - 108 Unit Resolution Appendix C - Full Environmental Assessment Form and Supporting Material, Submitted August 23, 2005 Appendix D - Town of Southold Resolution No. 709 of 2005, November 16, 2005 Appendix E - Affidavit of Patricia Finnegan, Esq., February 9, 2006 Appendix F - Reply Affidavit of the Honorable David E. Kappell, Mayor of Greenport, February 2006 and Support Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Workforce Housing Appendix G - Proposed Site Plans Appendix H - One, Two, and Three -Bedroom Floor Plan Layouts Appendix I - Suffolk County Work Force Housing Needs Assessment and Responses Appendix J - Correspondence from Cameron Engineering & Associates and the Village of Greenport Utilities Operations Appendix K - Geologic Cross-section of Long Island Appendix L - Soils Boring Report and Driller's Log Appendix M - Correspondence from the Suffolk County Water Authority and Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Quality Data Appendix N - Ecological Reports and Correspondence Appendix O - Site Photographs Appendix P - Emergency Service Correspondence and Energy Suppliers Appendix Q - Traffic Impact Study Appendix R - Archeological Investigation Reports Appendix S - Architectural Renderings Appendix T - Alternative Site Plans 9 • LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 — Site Location Map......................................................................................................... 2 Figure2 — Excerpt of Tax Map....................................................................................................... 3 Figure3 — Aerial Photograph.......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 — Excerpt of USDA Soil Survey Map............................................................................ 31 Figure5 — On -Site Soil Borings.................................................................................................... 44 Figure 6 — Excerpt of USGS Topographic Map........................................................................... 50 Figure 7 — Excerpt of Hydrogeologic Zone Map.......................................................................... 53 Figure 8 — Excerpt of Water Table Elevation Map....................................................................... 55 Figure9 — Excerpt of SGPA Map................................................................................................. 57 Figure 10 — Excerpt of NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map ...................................................... 65 Figure 11 — Excerpt of National Wetlands Inventory Map........................................................... 66 Figure 12 — NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Mapping (718 -552) ......................................................... 67 Figure 13 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................................ 68 Figure 14 — Excerpt of Zoning Map............................................................................................. 88 Figure 15 — HALO Map November 2004................................................................................... 115 Figure 16 — HALO Map December 2004................................................................................... 116 Figure 17 — Adopted Greenport HALO Map (March 20, 2008) ................................................. 117 Figure 18 — Total Enrollment Grades K-3.................................................................................. 133 0 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Existing and Proposed Site Data................................................................................... 15 Table 2 — Potential Town Property Tax Under Annexation (Greenport) ..................................... 24 Table 3 — Potential Town Property Tax — No Annexation (Southold) ......................................... 25 Table 4 — Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations.................................................................. 42 Table 5 — Existing Slopes on the Subject Property....................................................................... 49 Table 6 — Ecological Communities Present at Northwind Village Site ....................................... 70 Table 7 — Bulk and Dimensional Regulations — HD District........................................................ 86 Table 8 — Total Student Enrollment, 1998-99 to 2006 -07 .......................................................... 131 Table 9 — Population Change Between 1990 and 2000.............................................................. 134 Table 10 — Accident Summary: North Road (C.R. 48)............................................................... 146 Table 11 — Proposed Earthwork (in Cubic Yards)..................................................................... 154 Table 13 — Consistency with Greenport's R-2 Zoning District .................................................. 175 Table 14 — Rutgers Study Demographic Multipliers.................................................................. 226 Table 15 — NCES Demographic Multipliers............................................................................... 227 Table 16 — Town of Southold Demographic Multipliers............................................................ 227 Table 17 — Estimates of School -Aged Children Generated........................................................ 228 Table 18 — Greenport School Capacity vs. Enrollment.............................................................. 229 Table 19 — Site -Generated Trips................................................................................................. 236 Table 20 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Chapel Lane..................................................................................................... 240 Table 21 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street.. .................................................................................................. 241 Table 22 — Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results: North Road (C.R 48) at Moores Lane.................................................................................................... 242 Table 23 — Site Distance Criteria................................................................................................ 245 Table 24 — Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................... 265 • 0 • • • 0 Appendix H (a EmIncering, SunvTing and Landscape Ambitecture, PC. • 1� • 1 -BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH LAYOUT • • 2 -BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH LAYOUT 1ST FLOOR MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM #2 3 -BEDROOM UNIT SKETCH LAYOUT 2nd FLOOR 0 0 0 E • �j Appendix I (a Englneerft., Surt %tying and Landscqpe A mbitertunx, PC. • • • SUFFOLK COUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSES Prepared bjr Center for Urban Policy Research (C UPR) Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey Contract Legislator.• The Honorable Jay Schneiderman Suffolk County Legislator Suffolk County, New York Research Conducted by. Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D. Sean DiGiovanna, Ph.D. William R. Dolphin, M.A. Research Oversight. Kevin Duffy Senior Legislative Analyst Budget Review Office Suffolk County, New York October 5, 2007 FINAL REPORT • 0 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Allocation Table of Conients EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 THEORDER OF THE STUDY......................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND, 2005-2020............................................................................. 4 2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING EXISTING HOUSING DEMAND ....................................................... 4 2.2 EXISTING WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND, 2005................................................................................ 5 2.3 PROJECTED WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND, 2005-2020.................................................................. 23 2.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROJECTED WORKFORCE HOUSING DEMAND ....................................... 28 2.5 EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING SUPPLY..................................................................................... 31 3.0 RESPONDING TO WORKFORCE HOUSING NEED.................................................................. 35 3.1 MEETING FUTURE COST -BURDENED WORKFORCE HOUSING NEED ................................................... 35 3.2 MEETING CURRENT REHABILITATION WORKFORCE HOUSING NEED ................................................. 39 3.3 MEETING BACKLOG COST -BURDENED WORKFORCE HOUSING NEED ................................................ 41 3.4 SUMMARY OF WORKFORCE HOUSING NEED REQUIREMENTS FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY ........................ 43 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Executive Summary Needs Assessment and Responses Page i Executive Summary Suffolk County, New York, located on eastern Long Island, has a population of 1.5 million (November 2006). The county is growing at a rate of 7.5 percent per decade, or just over 100,000 for a ten-year period. As of 2005, Suffolk County had 546,462 housing units, of which about 80 percent were owned. Median family income as of 2005 was $86,667. Median housing value for the same year was $412,300. As of 2004, Suffolk County had about 775,000 jobs, which were growing at about twice the percentage rate of population growth -15 percent per decade. The county occupies 912 square miles and has a population density of 1,645 persons per square mile. The "East End" of Suffolk County splits into two peninsulas: the North Fork and the South Fork. Suffolk County, for analysis purposes, is divided into five western towns (Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip, and Smithtown) and five East End towns (North ForkRiverhead, Southold, Shelter Island; South Fork— Southampton and East Hampton). The growth that will take place in the future in Suffolk County over the period 2005 to 2020 (about 70,000 households) will involve more -intensive residential development within the county's western towns—primarily Brookhaven, Islip, and Babylon. Additional residential development will take place in Huntington and Smithtown at about one-half the absolute level of the former. The entire East End will grow at a level of 40 percent more than Huntington and Smithtown. As this residential development takes place, workforce housing can also take place. For the future, this is projected to be 16,500 units (demand net of supply) over the period 2005 to 2020. (See "Need" minus "Supply" in Table 2.21.) Additional workforce housing will enable those local households who are middle income and below (<120 percent of median), and for whom the market will not provide, to have housing provided at more reasonable price 0 ' This and other recommended response mechanisms are those of the research team and may or may not reflect the views of the County. Suffolk County Workforce Housing Executive Summary Needs Assessment and Responses Page ii levels. This could take place as a share of all new residential and nonresidential construction put in place, primarily through inclusionary housing efforts (Table A).' This inclusionary requirement could be packaged with a 1 -for -1 density bonus and other incentives to make this type of effort more appealing to developers. In addition, according to the U.S. Census, there are those within the county with household incomes less than 120 percent of median (middle income or below) that live in either deteriorated or overcrowded housing. This amounts to about 7,750 units in Suffolk County (see first two columns of Table 2.19). Most of these units are located in Islip, Brookhaven, and Babylon. Locations of lesser amounts of deteriorated and overcrowded housing are the East End and Huntington. Housing that lacks basic components or that is too small for its occupants should be repaired or altered/added to. This becomes part of the county's workforce housing response. A share of an increase in local building permit fees (for alterations, additions, and repairs) could be utilized to provide a 75 percent grant (25 percent county/town matching) to undertake such improvements or alterations (Table Yet another component of a countywide workforce housing strategy involves those middle-income or below households who currently pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing (as owners) or 30 percent of their income (as renters). Based on a Census determination of such units these represent about 94,000 units in the county (see column 4 of Table 2.18). Rendering workforce housing at 5 percent of this need over the period 2005 to 2020 would amount to 4,700 additional county workforce housing units. Buying down rents to landlords for workforce housing occupancy could come from funds garnered through an increase in the county Mortgage Tax (Table A). Given the above, Suffolk County could meet a large share of its workforce housing need of new, rehabilitated, or subsidized workforce housing over the next fifteen years. This would amount to approximately 2,000 units each year for 15 years. This level of activity, which is certainly achievable for a county of Suffolk's size, would put Suffolk ' This and other recommended response mechanisms are those of the research team and may or may not reflect the views of the County. Suffolk County Workforce Housing Executive Summary Needs Assessment and Responses Page iii in the forefront of most of New York's counties in responding to its local workforce housing need. Table A Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs and Responses by Type, 2005-2020 Type of Workforce Housing Need (Households <120% of Median) Units How Need Could Be Addressed What is Impacted I. Future Workforce Housing 16,500 Inclusionary Housing New residential Need units and nonresidential 1 per 4 units residential development (>50% of income for housing costs for owners; >30% of 1 per 5,000 ft.Z nonresidential income for rent for renters) (Costs could be paid into a fund ) Il. Current Rehabilitation 7,750 Provide 75% of rehab or structure Existing Workforce Housing Need units alteration (crowding) costs as a residential and (Four indices of deteriorated grant by raising local non -new nonresidential need — require two for construction Building Permit Fees space improvers deterioration or one plus old by 10% unit.) Also included is a separate measure of crowding (>1.01 persons per room). III. Cost -Burdened Workforce 4,700 Provide subsidy to landlords to Residential/ Housing Need units lower rent for existing units nonresidential through an increase in the mortgage (Goal — 5% of 94,000 Mortgage Tax applications existing need) (countywide) IV. Total (15 years) 28,950 2,000 units per year for 15 years Burden spread units across all sectors 1,100 New 350 Rehab/crowded 550 Subsidized Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005. • C� • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction Page I New housing prices, although decreasing somewhat for the past year, have doubled in Suffolk County over the period 2000 to 2005. Existing housing has increased by 75 percent. It is no longer possible for most of those who provide services to residents of Suffolk County to live in this county. The workforce must live in less -desirable neighborhoods locally, or have purchased their housing decades ago, to afford housing. Logically then, this is a study of what the needs of workforce housing are and what the responses might be to provide this housing. The problem, although daunting, has answers. The first answer is knowing the scale of the problem that must be addressed. This relates to definitions of who should be housed as well as what insufficient housing is. It also relates to what housing is available from the private sector in new and used units and what a new housing problem is compared to either a rehabilitation problem or a housing problem requiring a housing cost subsidy. To answer these questions requires relatively heavy lifting. The first involves definitions. Who should be housed under a workforce housing program? Most workforce housing studies attempt to provide access to housing for those who earn below 120 percent of median income. In Suffolk County, where median household income is $86,667, 120 percent of median income amounts to about $104,000. What does this mean for the price of housing? It means that if one were to address housing by providing it as new ownership or rental housing affordable to the middle of the above distribution, the unit would be delivered at about $220,000, or $2,200 per month. Obviously, units would also have to be provided at $110,000/$1,100 per month and at $330,000/$3,300 per month. New housing is provided primarily for households that will grow in the future in Suffolk County. This could be met through some type of inclusionary housing program wherein housing for the future households below 120 percent of median would be provided as a share of future residential and nonresidential development. • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 1.0 Introduction Page 2 In addition to new housing, there are those households in Suffolk County that live in housing that is affordable but is either deteriorated or overcrowded. These households do not need new housing but rather need to have their housing repaired or expanded. This can be achieved not only through local contractors who would be willing to take this on to expand business in a housing downturn, but especially by owners of the deteriorated properties themselves. A 25/75 matching grant from individual municipalities and/or the county could certainly tempt property owners to make these repairs. This already affordable housing would be rendered both affordable and fully adequate through such a repair program. A final category of workforce housing need is for those households below 120 percent of median income who pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing that they own, or more than 30 percent of their income for housing that they rent. This is a big number that has accumulated over multiple decades and cannot be addressed fully at one point in time. A share of this number (5 percent) could be addressed by increasing a tax on those who apply for new mortgages in Suffolk County. Such a tax, increased by 20 percent, could provide income to buy down workforce housing to a reasonable level in the county. These reduced -price workforce units would be available to some share of those who pay too much for their current housing. Units secured through these efforts would be deed -restricted for significant periods of time to maintain their workforce status. The Order of the Study The first portion of the study that follows is a detailed study of Suffolk County housing needs that relate to those who are middle income and below (less than 120 percent of median income), and who either: (a) currently live in deteriorated or overcrowded housing; (b) will be part of new households that are formed from 2005-2020; or (c) currently pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing (if they own) or 30 percent of their income for housing (if they rent). • • • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 1.0 Introduction Page 3 The above demand is determined using various sources of U.S. Census data to determine both the income -eligible population and the share of this population that is housing deficient. In addition to demand, supply is also calculated. Supply consists of those units that would be built in the future that could be affordable to this income -constrained population. It would also include a small share of the existing stock that might filter down to the income -constrained population and be both physically sound and affordable to new occupants. Supply is projected relative to the numerical amount and price points of housing that has been delivered during the past decade. Filtering is calculated using information on the distribution of the stock available to the two different income groups (market and below-market) at two different periods of time to measure its movement. Another main portion of the study deals with how much affordable housing Suffolk County can actually produce using various means to support the delivery of such housing. Inclusionary zoning on both residential and nonresidential development as support for new low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing is one strategy. Tapping market -level rehabilitation building permit fees for workforce housing rehabilitation is another strategy. Finally, using funds from an increase in the local Mortgage Tax is yet another strategy. What the forthcoming study will reveal is that workforce housing needs are large and strategies to deliver workforce housing are both few and costly. As a result, Suffolk County, in a full delivery mode, can adequately provide for: (1) future growth needs of workforce households, and (2) those households of workforce income that live in deteriorated housing; Suffolk County can address only: (3) a small share of the backlog that currently exists for those workforce households that pay too large a share of their income for housing. The study that follows details the various components of workforce housing need and how these components may be addressed through county -initiated housing -program and housing -cost subsidies. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 4 • 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand, 2005-2020 2.1 Methodology for Determining Existing Housing Demand This section sets forth a methodology for measuring existing need for workforce housing in Suffolk County, placing that methodology squarely within the context of more than fifty years of work by the U.S. Census Bureau and federal housing programs to arrive at definitions of housing need. The study attempts to determine what proportion of the total number of households in Suffolk County can be classified as low, moderate, or middle income, as well as what proportion of these income -constrained households are living in deficient or overcrowded housing or bear an excessive housing cost burden. To address these issues requires rigorous specification of the definition of "low income," "moderate income," and "middle income" and of "deficient housing," "overcrowded housing," and "excessive housing cost burden"—terms that at first glance may seem self- explanatory but upon deeper reflection are quite complex. The study first determines the magnitude of housing need generated by existing (based on estimates of 2005) low-, moderate-, and middle-income households in deficient or overcrowded housing or that are experiencing excessive housing cost burden. Growth in demand is then estimated in the county through the year 2020. The Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) is used to determine existing demand for the year 2005. The methodology used to measure projected demand begins with projections of county population growth for 2000 to 2020, translates these population projections into estimates of household growth rates (since it is households that consume housing units), and then determines the proportion of projected household growth that will be of low, moderate, or middle income. In sum, this section sets forth the magnitude of existing (2005) and projected (2005 to 2020) need for workforce housing in Suffolk County. This specification of need sets the stage for any subsequent attempt at amelioration: it is the critical initial building block that documents the scale of the issue. Only when the magnitude of need has been Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 5 rigorously and systematically defined can the effort required to meet that need be assessed and a workable plan formulated. The study now turns to the identification of existing housing demand in 2005. 2.2 Existing Workforce Housing Demand, 2005 The Census 2000 5 Percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) provides estimates of household and housing characteristics based on a detailed survey of 5 percent of the total population. This data is used to estimate the total population of households in Suffolk County in the year 2005, to determine the proportion of households that are low, moderate, or middle income, and to identify among those which households are cost -burdened, overcrowded, or otherwise deficient and thus in need of workforce housing. 40 Table 2.1 presents estimates of population growth based on U.S. Census, State of New York data sources, and Woods & Poole Economics projections. 2 For the 20 -year period from 2000-2020, the population of Suffolk County is expected to increase by over 200,000. Furthermore, the data show a slightly aging population, which will have implications for future demand for workforce housing. Table 2.2 provides estimates for 2005 household totals by age group. It was necessary for CUPR to derive its own estimates based on Census 2000 PUMS data in order to update the data from 2000. This was done with PUMS data since the source of data forms the backbone of the methodology. This further allows the identification of existing and projected workforce housing demand at a sub -county level — something that could not be readily accomplished with other data sources. Table 2.2 shows that the number of households in Suffolk County grew by 7 percent, or 32,569 households. This means that since the 2000 Census, over 35,000 new housing units would have had to Z Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., CEEDS 2005, The Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source Is(Woods & Pool Economics, Washington, D.C., 2005), p.2438. • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 6 been supplied (including those necessary to account for vacancy) in order to prevent the workforce housing situation from worsening. Table 2.1 Suffolk County Population Estimates, 2000-2020 Age 6,576 7,539 963 14.6% 25 to 34 years Group 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0-4 100,304 89,629 93,971 98,445 102,786 5-9 109,690 103,984 103,833 103,677 103,526 10-14 103,930 111,326 108,446 105,479 102,600 15-19 88,558 103,983 102,519 101,010 99,545 20-24 75,665 87,081 90,112 93,235 96,266 25-29 83,160 81,708 88,817 96,140 103,249 30-34 108,535 95,041 99,699 104,498 109,155 35-39 129,864 112,946 111,434 109,877 108,365 40-44 121,736 130,548 122,398 114,001 105,852 45-49 102,095 120,616 115,062 109,339 103,785 50-54 95,498 101,387 105,070 108,865 112,549 55-59 75,535 91,268 100,265 109,534 118,530 60-64 57,241 70,684 81,191 92,017 102,524 65-69 48,851 52,420 61,881 71,630 81,091 70-74 43,055 43,684 51,857 60,278 68,451 75-79 33,431 37,272 41,115 45,073 48,916 80-84 22,219 27,595 29,043 30,536 31,985 85 & up 20,002 27,138 29,583 32,102 34,547 Total 1,419,369 1,488,311 1,536,296 1,585,736 1,633,721 Table 2.2 Suffolk County Household Estimates, 2000-2005 Age of Head of 2000 2005 Change Percent Household 15 to 24 years 6,576 7,539 963 14.6% 25 to 34 years 65,486 60,145 -5,341 -8.2% 35 to 44 years 119,663 115,162 -4,501 -3.8% 45 to 54 years 104,584 117,175 12,591 12.0% 55 to 64 years 75,212 91,700 16,488 21.9% 65 to 74 years 54,078 56,635 2,558 4.7% 75 years and over 42,964 52,774 9,811 22.8% Total 468,562 501,131 32,569 7.0% • r� • �_J Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.2.1 Identifying Income -Constrained Households 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 7 In order to identify existing demand for workforce housing in Suffolk County, one must first identify the population of households that are considered income constrained and that thus might require assistance in obtaining affordable housing. All income -constrained households and groups of households are defined in relation to the median household income for the county. In discussions between Suffolk County and CUPR, it was agreed that the study would consider three groups of households as income constrained—low-, moderate-, and middle-income households. Numerous state and federal housing programs exist across the country to help provide housing to low-income groups. A basic consideration in defining low-, moderate-, and middle-income households is to ensure that the definition is compatible with definitions used in established and ongoing housing programs in the region. This is important to prevent the inevitable confusion that would be caused by the simultaneous existence of widely disparate estimates of need based on inconsistent definitions of income eligibility. To prevent such confusion and to ensure consistency, the definitions for low and moderate income used in federal regulations governing the Section 8 Rent Supplement program have been adopted. This program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).3 According to these regulations, low-income households are those with incomes below 50 percent of the area's median family income.4 Moderate -income households are those with incomes below 80 percent of the area's 'See 42 U.S. Code, 1437a (b) (2) Supplement. References in Section 8 regulations to "very low income" correspond to the term "low income" as used in this study; the term "low income" in Section 8 regulations corresponds to "moderate income" herein. 4 A explanation of the terms "family" and "household" is in order. The term "family" refers to two or more related individuals residing within the same housing unit, and the term "household" refers to the occupants of a housing unit regardless of their number or relation. In defining income limits, the study followed federal regulations for the Section 8 housing program. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has always used family income to determine eligibility for households that qualify for the Section 8 program. It has done so even though single persons and households consisting of unrelated individuals are eligible for the program. In following these federal standards, this study has used family Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 8 median family income but above the 50 percent median income cutoff for low-income households. Income eligibility in both cases is adjusted by household size. For middle- income households, a definition developed in discussions with Suffolk County: these are households having incomes between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area's median family income. Income eligibility for middle-income households by household size is adjusted. In order to operationalize these definitions, it is necessary to specify (1) the household size adjustments; and (2) the definition of what constitutes a household. Adjustment for Household Size Following federal regulations implementing the Section 8 program, income eligibility levels used to qualify households as either low or moderate income are adjusted by household size. That is, it is assumed that larger households must spend more and therefore can have higher absolute incomes than smaller households and still qualify as income -constrained. The household -size adjustment specified in HUD regulations assumes that the median income corresponds to a family of four. A low-income, four -person household is thus one that is at or below 50 percent of the areawide median family income level; a moderate -income, four -person household is one that is between 50 percent and 80 percent of the areawide median family income level. Adjustment for household size larger or smaller than this four -person standard is accomplished by adding or subtracting a fixed percentage to the four -person income cutoff. The four -person income criterion is adjusted downward for smaller households (to a minimum of 70 percent of the four - person standard for a single -person household) and is adjusted upward for larger households (to a maximum of 132 percent of the four -person standard for an eight or more person household). income to establish income limits for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households, including single persons and unrelated individuals. • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 9 Since the Section 8 regulations do not contain a middle-income category, other sources of information must be used to determine if a household size adjustment is appropriate for this group, and if so, how much is appropriate. The State of New York Mortgage Agency's (SOl`:YMA) Affordable Housing Program provides low-cost financing for families whose incomes are comparable to the income range that has been specified for the middle-income group. Income eligibility varies by location, according to a formula based on a percentage of local or statewide median income, whichever is higher, with adjustments for certain neighborhoods designated as "target areas" and for high-cost areas. Income eligibility also includes an adjustment for family size, although it is calculated somewhat differently from HUD's Section 8 regulations. The Affordable Housing Program uses the one- to two -person family as the base, with one upward adjustment for the three- or more -person family. The upward adjustment ranges from 15 percent in the non -target communities to 20 percent in the target communities.5 Although it is calculated differently, the underlying assumption is the same for the income groups covered by both the HUD Section 8 program and SONYMA's Affordable Housing Program: larger households have higher expenditure needs and therefore can have higher absolute incomes than smaller households, yet still qualify as income -constrained. In order to provide a consistent methodology for assigning household size adjustments, the calculations for middle-income households vary by the sizes specified in the Section 8 regulations. Adjustments increase in increments of two percent to a total percentage increase of 16 percent, which is comparable to the adjustments specified in the SONYMA Affordable Housing Program. The household income cutoffs for low-, moderate-, and middle-income groups are provided in Table 2.3. 'James O'Hare, State of New York Mortgage Agency, telephone interview, June 25, 1990. • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 10 Table 2.3 Income Cutoffs for Low-, Moderate- and Middle -Income Households Suffolk County, 2005 Income Group Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more Middle Income $72,809 $83,210 $93,611 $104,012 $112,333 $120,654 $128,975 $137,296 Moderate Income $48,539 $55,473 $62,407 $69,342 $74,889 $80,436 $85,984 $91,531 Low Income $30,337 $34,671 $39,005 $43,339 $46,806 $50,273 $53,740 $57,207 In calculating the income cutoff, an estimated 2005 countywide median family income of $86,677 was used. Thus, a household with 4 members would be considered low income if total household income was $43,339 or less. The same household would be considered moderate income if total household income fell between $43,339 and $69,342. Finally, the household of 4 would fall into the middle-income category if total household income were between $69,342 and $104,012. Households of 4 earning more than $104,012 in 2005 are not part of the income -constrained population and thus not part of the study. Household Designation The final element in determining the number of low-, moderate-, and middle- income households in Suffolk County is specification of what constitutes a household. For this purpose, several categories of individuals have been excluded from further analysis. They are as follows: 1. Individuals living in group quarters; 2. Individuals living in institutions; and 3. Individuals living as roomers and boarders. This eliminates college students living in dormitories, prisoners, nursing home occupants, inmates of institutions, paid employees, roomers and boarders, and the homeless from being counted as part of the low-, moderate-, and middle-income population in households. 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 11 Income -Constrained Households in 2005 Table 2.4 presents totals for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households for Suffolk County in 2005. Notice that the data are broken down into several regions. These are the Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAS) and are based on areas of roughly equal population. Within each area, Census 2000 data are presented based on a 5 percent sampling rate. The PUMAs, while not ideal, allow the identification and projection of workforce housing characteristics at the sub -county level. In 2005, CUPR estimates that there were a total of 306,598 income -constrained households with income equal to or less than 120 percent of the median in Suffolk County. This represents 61.2 percent of the total households in the county. Of these income -constrained households, 104,029 (33.9 percent) are considered low-income, 86,464 (28.2 percent) are considered moderate -income, and 116,105 (37.9 percent) are considered middle-income. Table 2.4 Income Constrained Households by PUMA Region Suffolk County, 2005 Estimate Total Total Percent of PUMA Region Low Moderate Middle Income House- Region Income Constrained holds Constrained Babylon, Northwest 9,138 7,167 9,452 25,757 37,720 68.3% Babylon, Southeast 7,763 6,862 9,321 23,946 36,248 66.1% Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 7,815 6,029 8,458 22,302 39,800 56.0% Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 9,005 7,496 9,752 26,253 40,532 64.8% Brookhaven, East 8,985 8,027 10,513 27,525 39,798 69.2% Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 6,180 6,781 9,251 22,212 35,336 62.9% East End 15,186 10,135 10,713 36,034 53,765 67.0% East Hampton 2,043 1,454 1,703 5,200 8,716 59.7% Riverhead 3,676 2,202 2,267 8,145 11,375 71.6% Shelter Island 205 102 199 506 806 62.8% Southampton 6,126 4,563 4,853 15,542 23,551 66.0% Southold 3,136 1,814 1,691 6,641 9,317 71.3% Huntington 10,502 8,881 13,814 33,197 69,976 47.4% Islip, East 6,906 6,272 9,359 22,537 38,416 58.7% Islip, Northwest 8,560 6,783 7,929 23,272 31,289 74.4% Islip, Southwest 7,916 6,168 9,083 23,167 37,868 61.2% Smithtown 6,074 5,862 8,460 20,396 40,382 50.5% Total 104,030 86,463 116,105 306,598 501,130 61.2% Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs .Assessment and Responses Page 12 The local concentration of the income -constrained households holds some interest. Huntington has the lowest proportion of income -constrained households, with 50.5 percent. Smithtown also has a relatively low concentration of income -constrained households. The area with the highest concentration of income -constrained households is Northwest Islip, with almost 75 percent of households in these categories. East Brookhaven and Northwest Babylon (68-69 percent) also have somewhat high concentrations. The study now turns to identifying the proportion of these households that are in need of workforce housing due to excessive housing costs, deficient housing, or overcrowded conditions. 2.2.2 Defining Housing Need: Overview In the Housing Act of 1949, Congress established a goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment" for every American family. "Various interpretations of . what constitutes a `decent' home have been developed in an attempt to measure the progress made toward attaining this goal.4 Housing quality indicators available from the decennial U.S. Census and the American Housing Survey make it possible to describe the physical condition of housing in the United States. In addition to the physical adequacy of housing units, HUD also uses crowding and cost -burden indicators to determine the progress made toward the goals of the 1949 Housing Acta All three conditions—physical inadequacy, crowding, and affordability—are recognized as problems that deny Americans decent housing, and all three are included in CUPR's definition of housing need. In considering each of these conditions, demand is prioritized due to deficient housing over that due to overcrowding, and housing need from overcrowding is prioritized over that due to cost burden. As a result, households in deficient housing may or may not be crowded or cost -burdened, yet they are included 6Iredia Irby, "Attaining the Housing Goal?" paper prepared for the Housing and Demographic Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., July 1986, p. 1. 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 13 only in the deficient housing category. Similarly, the overcrowded category will include all non -deficient households that are crowded, regardless of whether they may or may not also be cost -burdened. Finally, cost -burdened demand represents those households that are neither deficient nor crowded but that pay too large a share of their income on housing costs. The purpose of this prioritization is to avoid double counting and to highlight as most important those components of need --deficiency and crowding—that are most likely to lead to the need for new housing construction. Cost burden is not a housing problem but rather an income problem. Cost burden will nonetheless be considered in this study. 2.2.3 Defining Housing Need: Measuring Physical Inadequacy The attempt to develop a sound methodology for measuring the physical adequacy of housing predates the 1949 Housing Act.8 Reflecting concerns of the Depression years, the -1940 Census was the first to include a U.S. Census of Housing, and it obtained a variety of facts on the nation's housing. The Census sought the number of rooms and information on occupants per dwelling unit, enabling calculations to be made regarding crowding. It also required trained enumerators to judge the condition of each dwelling unit and to distinguish between (1) units needing major repairs and (2) those not needing major repairs. The criterion for classification was the presence or absence of a condition that, if left unattended, would undermine the soundness of the structure and create a hazard within the place of residence. The conjectural nature of this evaluation was compounded by the introduction of an additional level of judgment for the 1950 census. For this census, the enumerator was required not only to evaluate the dwelling unit's state of repair but also was required to judge the unit as "dilapidated" or "not dilapidated." The enumerator's task was expanded yet again for the 1960 Census, when housing units were classified into one of three 'Ibid. "U.S. Bureau of the Census, Measuring the Quality of Housing: An Appraisal of Census Statistics and Methods (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1967). Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand • Needs Assessment and Responses Page 14 categories: sound (in good repair), deteriorating (in need of repair), or dilapidated.9 Unfortunately, evaluations and retests of the 1960 Census of Housing revealed significant inaccuracies in the enumeration of housing quality. Enumerators' judgments were found to be subjective and inconsistent. There was no uniform method for making evaluations, and, in addition, the enumerator was given only several minutes to rate the structural condition of a dwelling unit. Questions regarding the structural soundness of housing units were removed from the U.S. Census after 1960. With the 1970 Census, the Census Bureau initiated a new approach. Instead of subjective appraisals of building condition, .the Bureau collected data on the presence or absence of specific, objective attributes of housing units, such as the presence and completeness of plumbing and kitchen facilities, availability of direct access to the unit, type of heating facility, and so forth.10 The 1980 Census continued this approach, including virtually all the questions asked in the 1970 Census. These objective measures of structural characteristics and facilities are used in the CUPR methodology to identify the extent of housing deficiency among income -constrained households. CUPR has brought the methodology up-to-date based on the indicators of housing quality included in the 2000 Census. CUPR Methodology for Identifying Physically Deficient Housing The CUPR methodology uses four U.S. Census variables to identify physically deficient housing units in a region. These represent the full array of variables in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing that describe housing quality.' I In addition, these are "U.S. Bureau of the Census, 200 Years of U.S. Census Taking: Population and Housing Questions, 1790- 1990 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, November 1989), p. 80. 1OFor evaluations of using these measures as indicators of housing condition, see Jeanne E. Goedert and John L. Goodman, Jr., Indicators of Housing Quality: An Exploration of the Annual Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1976); U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Preliminary Look at the Results of the Five City Survey (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, 1975); and Grace Horowitz, Housing Quality Data Needs of Users: Needs for Data on Housing Quality (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977). "Several housing questions related to building condition that had been in the 1990 census were dropped 0 from the 2000 census, such as water and sewer source. • 1�1 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 15 the variables used by HUD and cited in the literature as significant indicators of housing quality. 12 The four variables are as follows: 1. Year structure built: built pre- or post -1940 2. Plumbing facilities: lack of complete or exclusive plumbing 3. Kitchen facilities: lack of complete or exclusive kitchen facilities 4. Heating fuel: no fuel; or coal, coke, or wood for heat Year Built. The age of a residential structure is indicative of many housing quality factors. Most immediately, the age of a structure shows how long it has been in the inventory and the duration of time during which deterioration can potentially take place. Age is also a factor in the filtering process. In general, it is older structures that are passed on to lower-income households. As this process continues over time, the income capacity of the receiving group can be insufficient to retain or maintain the structure; at this point, it can fall into the deficient category. In the CUPR methodology, the age threshold selected is 1940: if a housing unit was built before 1940, it signals a potential deficiency. Old housing (units built pre–World War lI or before 1940) is also one of the criteria used in the Community Development Block Grant Program to allocate funds. Plumbing Facilities. Exclusive use of plumbing facilities is considered a surrogate of plumbing adequacy. 13 The family health is endangered when the essential facilities—hot and cold running water, flush toilet, and bathtub or shower—are not available or are shared with another household. The lack or sharing of such facilities is therefore used as an index of deficient housing conditions. 12 HUD uses the American Housing Survey (AHS) instead of the decennial census for classifying deficient housing units nationwide. The AHS contains thirty-five indicators of housing condition and quality. Despite the wide array of variables in the AHS, the CUPR methodology uses the Public Use Microdata Sample of the decennial census to measure housing condition. This permits generation of custom cross - tabulations of any data required in the analysis. Moreover, the number of households sampled in the AHS is insufficient to yield reliable results for individual counties. The sample of the PUMS is 100 times the sample of the AHS. ''American Public Health Association, Basic Principles of Healthful Housing (New York: APHA, 1961). Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 16 Kitchen Facilities. Adequate kitchen facilities are considered essential for food preparation functions. The ingestion of foods prepared under unsanitary conditions or under such conditions that encourage spoilage or that are uncooked is clearly a threat to good health. 14 The basic components considered essential for a complete kitchen are: a sink with piped water, a refrigerator, and a range or cookstove. The absence of any of these facilities is a signal of deficient housing conditions. Heating Fuel. A reliable and safe heating source is essential for year-round occupancy of housing in many areas of the United States, including New York State. The absence of heating fuel or reliance on such potentially hazardous heating sources as coal, coke, and wood is an indication of housing deficiency. Using these four indicators of housing quality, the CUPR methodology classifies housing units as deficient if any two quality measures indicate a substandard condition. Following this definition, a total of 1,502 housing units occupied by low-, moderate-, and middle-income households in Suffolk County in 2005 are identified as deficient (Table 2.5). As expected, these units represent only a very small proportion of the housing stock (averaging around 0.5 percent). Table 2.6 shows deficient units by region. Although the East End (Southampton and Southold), Huntington, and Northwest Babylon lead the way due to the size of their populations, Northwest Islip and Central Brookhaven both appear to have greater concentrations of deficient units than the relative distributions of their households would indicate. Table 2.5 Households Living in Deficient Units Suffolk County by Income Group, 2005 Estimate 0 14Ibid. Households Percent of Income Group in Deficient Income Units Group Low Income 644 0.6% Moderate Income 456 0.5% Middle Income 402 0.3% Total 1,502 0 14Ibid. • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 17 Table 2.6 Households Living in Deficient Units Suffolk County by PUMA Region, 2005 Estimate PUMA Region Households in Deficient Units Percent of Total Babylon, Northwest 245 16.3% Babylon, Southeast 68 4.5% Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 6 0.4% Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 149 9.9% Brookhaven, East 50 3.3% Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 82 5.5% East End 254 16.9% East Hampton 10 0.7% Riverhead 24 1.6% Shelter Island 31 2.1% Southampton 82 5.5% Southold 106 7.1% Huntington 257 17.1% Islip, East 116 7.7% Islip, Northwest 176 11.7% Islip, Southwest 81 5.4% Smithtown 19 1.3% Total 1,502 100.0% 2.2.4 Defining Housing Need: Measuring Overcrowding The degree of crowding within a dwelling unit is directly related to the potential quality of life of the householders as well as the wear and tear sustained by the structure. The American Public Health Association standards support the notion that a degree of privacy is essential for safety and well-being. The actual point at which the number of persons in a dwelling unit becomes a threat to health and safety is uncertain. However, the value of more than one person per room (1.01) is commonly used by HUD in housing programs as the threshold for defining living conditions as substandard. In previous studies, CUPR used overcrowding as just one of the measures of housing deficiency. Suffolk County has asked CUPR to identify separately those units that are considered overcrowded. Table 2.7 shows that CUPR has identified 6,242 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 18 i overcrowded, non -deficient units occupied by low- and moderate -income households in Suffolk County. Rates of overcrowding seem somewhat stable across income groups, averaging a little more than 2.0 percent. Table 2.8 illustrates that nearly 25 percent of all overcrowded units are found in Northwest Islip; 11.4 percent are found in East Brookhaven; and 9.7 percent are found in Northwest Babylon. Of the East End communities, Riverhead has the most (5.8 percent). Table 2.7 Households Living in Overcrowded Units 15 Suffolk County by Income Group, 2005 Estimate Income Group Households in Percent of Overcrowded Units Income Group Low Income 2,269 2.2% Moderate Income 1,909 2.2% Middle Income 2,064 1.8% Total 6,242 Table 2.8 Households Living in Overcrowded Units Suffolk County by PUMA Region, 2005 Estimate PUMA Region Households in Percent of Overcrowded Units Total Babylon, Northwest 608 9.7% Babylon, Southeast 327 5.2% Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 288 4.6% Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 439 7.0% Brookhaven, East 710 11.4% Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 246 3.9% East End 849 13.6% East Hampton 224 3.6% Riverhead 359 5.8% Shelter Island 0 0.0% Southampton 230 3.7% Southold 35 0.6% Huntington 515 8.3% 'S To avoid double counting, these figures do not include households that were found to be in deficient units, identified in tables 2.5 and 2.6. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 19 Islip, East 302 4.8% Islip, Northwest 1554 24.9% Islip, Southwest 247 4.0% Smithtown 157 2.5% Total 6,242 100.0% The discussion in the above two sections has focused on housing need in terms of the physical characteristics of dwelling units. It has described the measurement of physical inadequacy and crowding by the use of housing quality indicators found in the U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Another housing problem, and one of growing concern to policymakers, is housing affordability. The study now turns to a discussion of this issue. 2.2.5 Defining Housing Need: Measuring Excessive Cost Burden Beginning in the late 1970s, housing costs began to rise rapidly with incomes failing to keep up with costs. 16 In the last few decades, cost burden has become an increasing problem for American households in general, but the data show that the burden has fallen particularly heavily on the nation's poorest families. For example, 56 percent of the nation's low- or lower -middle-income households were moderately or severely cost -burdened in 2001. At the same time, the number of substandard units has been decreasing. In 2001, only about 3 percent of the nation's low- or lower -middle- income housing units were classified as severely inadequate. 17 To summarize, the data for both all households and for the neediest households show that the problem of excessive housing cost burden has been increasing while physically inadequate housing has been decreasing. 16William C. Apgar, Jr., "The Leaky Boat: A Housing Problem Remains," in Housing America's Poor, edited by Peter D. Salins (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), p. 67. 17 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2003. The State of the Nation's Housing. • Cambridge, MA, p. 40. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 20 CUPR Methodology for Identifying Excessive Cost Burden The CUPR methodology for identifying excessive cost burden is based on federal household eligibility standards for rental assistance programs. Since 1983, Congress has given preference for admission to HUD's rental assistance programs to income - constrained households that pay more than 50 percent of income for rent.18 These are the "worst case" families, with priority needs, as compared with those that have "lesser problems," defined as rent burdens between 30 percent and 50 percent of income. 19 Thus, the CUPR methodology defines two categories of excessive cost burden: those households that pay over 30 percent but less than 50 percent of their income for rent are moderately cost -burdened, those that pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent are severely cost -burdened. Owner households are included if they are paying above 50 percent of their income for housing, but are not included in the 30-50 percent category because homeownership represents an investment for which families are often willing to pay a disproportionate share of their income for a variety of reasons. It is assumed that the taking on of a high housing burden includes an element of choice involving either a preference for extensive housing consumption, the expectation of future income increases, the desire for tax benefits associated with homeownership, building equity, or an attempt to benefit from the investment leveraging possible in an era of rising housing prices. Location in better school communities and in safer neighborhoods is also part of the rationale for lower-income home ownership. 18William C. Apgar, Jr., "The Leaky Boat: A Housing Problem Remains," in Housing America's Poor, edited by Peter D. Salins (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987). Preference is also given to income -constrained households that live in substandard housing or that have been involuntarily displaced. • 0 is Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 21 Two groups of households are removed from the cost burden analysis. One group is owner households living in a unit valued at $80,000 or more without a mortgage. These households are considered to have assets available despite their low level of reported income. The other group comprises units occupied solely by persons 1 Q to 24 who are enrolled in college. These units are considered temporary student housing and are not considered as cost burdened. Following the above methodology, the study identifies as excessively cost - burdened (not deficient, not crowded) a total of 93,989 income -constrained households in Suffolk County in 2005 (Table 2.9). As would be expected, the vast majority of all cost - burdened households are found among those with the lowest incomes. Sixty percent of all low-income households are cost -burdened, and most are severely cost -burdened. At the other extreme, only 7 percent of middle-income households are cost -burdened. Table 2.10 shows that cost burden is found in somewhat larger proportion in the East End (Southampton and Riverhead), Huntington, Northwest Babylon, and Central Brookhaven. Table 2.9 Cost -Burdened Households Suffolk County by Income Group, 2005 Estimate Moderate Severe Cost Total Cost percent of Income Group Income Cost Burden Burden Burdened Low Income 7,317 54,330 61,647 61.0% Moderate Income 10,219 14,355 24,575 29.2% Middle Income 2,179 5,588 7,767 6.8% Total 19,715 74,273 93,989 • • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 22 Table 2.10 Cost -Burdened Households Suffolk County by PUMA Region, 2005 Estimate PUMA Region Cost Burdened Households percent of Total Babylon, Northwest 9,138 9.7% Babylon, Southeast 7,187 7.6% Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 6,212 6.6% Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 8,688 9.2% Brookhaven, East 8,035 8.5% Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 5,788 6.2% East End 10,291 10.9% East Hampton 2,048 2.2% Riverhead 2,697 2.9% Shelter Island 130 0.1% Southampton 3,678 3.9% Southold 1,738 1.8% Huntington 10,053 10.7% Islip, East 7,090 7.5% Islip, Northwest 7,729 8.2% Islip, Southwest 7,571 8.1% Smithtown 6,208 6.6% Total 93,989 100.0% Summary — Components of Existing Housing Demand Existing workforce housing demand (2005) in Suffolk County encompasses approximately 102,000 households (101,734). Ninety-three percent of the 102,000 households comprise cost -burdened demand (94,000 households), of which about 80 percent (74,000 households) represents severe cost burden (Table 2.11). About 6 percent involves households that are crowded (6,242 households), and about 1 percent involves households that live in deteriorated housing (1,502 households). Clearly, existing workforce housing demand in Suffolk County in 2005 is demand relating to cost burden. While this will be discussed subsequently, it should be realized that only a portion of this "backlog" cost -burdened housing demand can be addressed by procedures that might be set in place as part of a workforce housing program. It should also be realized that this is an income as opposed to a housing problem. Housing is sound and not crowded. Existing workforce housing demand is the most severe in the East End (Southampton and Riverhead) and Huntington (10-11 percent of total). Again, this is driven primarily by • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 23 cost -burdened housing demand. This is followed by Northwest Babylon, Northwest Islip, and Central/East Brookhaven. It is least in Port Jefferson, Centereach, and Smithtown (6 percent each), which have lower cost -burden demand numbers. Table 2.11 Components of Workforce Housing Demand (Households) Suffolk County by Region, 2005 Deficient Total Income (Occupied Workforce Percentage Cost PUMA Region Constrained Housing Housing Crowded Burdened of Total (Households) Units)' Demand (Households) (Households) Households 23,946 (Households) Babylon, Northwest 25,757 245 608 9,138 9,992 9.8% Babylon, Southeast 23,946 68 327 7,187 7,582 7.5% Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 22,302 6 288 6,212 6,506 6.4% Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 26,253 149 439 8,688 9,276 9.1% Brookhaven, East 27,525 50 710 8,035 8,795 8.6% Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 22,212 82 246 5,788 6,116 6.0% East End 36,034 254 849 10,291 11,393 11.2% East Hampton 5,200 10 224 2,048 2,282 2.2% Riverhead 8,145 24 359 2,697 3,080 3.0% Shelter Island 698 31 0 130 161 0.2% Southampton 15,543 82 230 3,678 3,990 3.9% Southold 6,448 106 35 1,738 1,879 1.8% Huntington 33,197 257 515 10,053 10,825 10.6% Islip, East 22,537 116 302 7,090 7,508 7.4% Islip, Northwest 23,272 176 1,554 7,729 9,458 9.3% Islip, Southwest 23,167 81 247 7,571 7,899 7.8% Smithtown 20,396 19 157 6,208 6,384 6.3% Total 306,598 1,502 6,242 93,989 101,734 100.0% Note: a. An occupied housing unit is equivalent to a household 2.3 Projected Workforce Housing Demand, 2005-2020' The method used to measure projected (2005-2020) workforce housing demand by low-, moderate-, and middle-income households requires several consecutive steps. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 24 Population and household projections are used to determine households in 2020. The proportion of total household distribution by age cohort is determined by using weights derived from the 2000 U.S. Census to obtain the number of income -constrained households in 2020. This figure represents the total workforce housing demand in 2020. The measurement of total population and total household growth between 2005 and 2020 rests on two separate demographic components. These are (1) the 2005 and 2020 population figures by a workforce age cohort; and (2) headship rates, also by age cohort. The county population figures used in this study for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are a combination of official New York State projections for Suffolk County and Woods & Poole Economics projections for Suffolk County (Table 2.12).20 Table 2.12 Suffolk County Population Projections, 2005-2020 Age Group 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 0-4 100,304 89,629 93,971 98,445 102,786 5-9 109,690 103,984 103,833 103,677 103,526 10-14 103,930 111,326 108,446 105,479 102,600 . 15-19 88,558 103,983 102,519 101,010 99,545 20-24 75,665 87,081 90,112 93,235 96,266 25-29 83,160 81,708 88,817 96,140 103,249 30-34 108,535 95,041 99,699 104,498 109,155 35-39 129,864 112,946 111,434 109,877 108,365 40-44 121,736 130,548 122,398 114,001 105,852 45-49 102,095 120,616 115,062 109,339 103,785 50-54 95,498 101,387 105,070 108,865 112,549 55-59 75,535 91,268 100,265 109,534 118,530 60-64 57,241 70,684 81,191 92,017 102,524 65-69 48,851 52,420 61,881 71,630 81,091 70-74 43,055 43,684 51,857 60,278 68,451 75-79 33,431 37,272 41,115 45,073 48,916 80-84 22,219 27,595 29,043 30,536 31,985 85&up 20,002 27,138 29,583 32,102 34,547 Total 1,419,369 1,488,311 1,536,296 1,585,736 1,633,721 0 20 Ib id. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 25 i Household Formation Rate Given population figures by age group reported above, the next step in the analysis is to transform these measures of growth in total population into growth in the number of households. The critical element for this purpose is the rate of household formation, or headship rate. The headship rate measures the propensity of the population within a given age cohort to form a household. Calculated separately for each age group, the headship rate is a function of the sex, marital status, education, income, and other attributes of the population within that age group and reflects the influence of these various characteristics on the propensity to form a new household .21 In this analysis, county -specific headship rates are calculated as the ratio of household heads within a given age cohort to the total number of persons within that age cohort. The resulting headship rates vary directly by age cohort (Table 2.13). The lowest rate of household formation is evident in the youngest age cohorts; the population in the under 25 and- 2529 age groups has a higher propensity to remain part of an existing household, in part reflecting the long-standing trend toward delayed marriage. Headship rates increase among the middle age groups and are highest in the oldest age category, indicating the increasing presence of the elderly in Suffolk County. Table 2.13 Headship Rates by Age Cohort Suffolk County 2005-2020 Headship Rate Age Cohort 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 15 to 24 years 0.0400 0.0395 0.0389 0.0383 0.0377 25 to 34 years 0.3416 0.3403 0.3390 0.3376 0.3363 35 to 44 years 0.4756 0.4730 0.4703 0.4677 0.4650 45 to 54 years 0.5293 0.5278 0.5263 0.5248 0.5234 55 to 64 years 0.5665 0.5662 0.5660 0.5657 0.5655 65 to 74 years 0.5884 0.5893 0.5902 0.5911 0.5921 75 vears and over 0.5679 0.5736 0.5793 0.5850 0.5907 2'George Sternlieb, James Hughes, and Connie O. Hughes, Demographic Trends and Economic Reality (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1982). See also Kenneth T. Rosen, California Housing Markets in the 1980s: Demand, Affordability, and Policies (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1984), pp. 15-16, for an excellent discussion of headship rates and the household formation process. Rosen argues that headship rates are a function of real income, the relative cost of operating a housing unit, and sociological factors, such as the postponement of marriage and the divorce rate. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 26 Application of age-specific headship rates (Table 2.13) to population figures for the county (see Table 2.12) yields household estimates by age group for 2020 (Table 2.14). Suffolk County household calculations for the period 2005 to 2020 show a substantial increase in households in the older age groups (55 and older) and in the early child -raising group (25-34), with the former groups increasing by 18 to 55 percent and the 25-44 age group increasing by 17 percent. At the same time, the data show a general decline in households in the prime income -earning age cohorts (35-54). The largest increase in terms of absolute numbers is in the 55-64 age group, with an increase of 36,000 of the total 69,000 increase. Overall, there is a slightly less than one percent annual growth rate (0.9 percent), or 69,000 households, to 570,000 from the 501,000 households found in 2005. Given these calculations of total household growth for 2005 to 2020, next it is necessary to determine the proportion of these total households that can be classified as income constrained, and thus the number of households in the target population. Projected Demand for Workforce Housing The preceding household projections by age cohort provide the necessary building blocks to project future demand for workforce housing by low-, moderate-, and middle- income households. Future growth in workforce housing need is a function of the contribution of each age cohort to total household growth and the percentage of each age cohort classified as low, moderate, and middle income. Once again, it is important to note Table 2.14 Suffolk County Household Estimates, 2005-2020 2005 2020 Change Percent 15 to 24 years 7,539 7,330 -209 -2.8% 25 to 34 years 60,145 70,105 9,960 16.6% 35 to 44 years 115,162 98,127 -17,035 -14.8% 45 to 54 years 117,175 116,140 -1,035 -0.9% 55 to 64 years 91,700 127,770 36,070 39.3% 65 to 74 years 56,635 88,162 31,527 55.7% 75 years and over 52,774 62,630 9,856 18.7% Total 501.131 570.264 69.133 13.8% Given these calculations of total household growth for 2005 to 2020, next it is necessary to determine the proportion of these total households that can be classified as income constrained, and thus the number of households in the target population. Projected Demand for Workforce Housing The preceding household projections by age cohort provide the necessary building blocks to project future demand for workforce housing by low-, moderate-, and middle- income households. Future growth in workforce housing need is a function of the contribution of each age cohort to total household growth and the percentage of each age cohort classified as low, moderate, and middle income. Once again, it is important to note Table 2.16 Projected Increase in Workforce Housing Demand Suffolk County by Income Group, 2005-2020 Income Group 2005 2020 Increased Percent Demand Increase Low Income Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses page 27 110,598 that application of a single low-, moderate-, and middle-income fraction to total 17.0% household growth obscures the complexity of the income characteristics of those 85,879 households comprising total household growth over a given period. Instead, the 11,557 percentage share of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households within each age Middle Income cohort in 2005 is applied to the age-adjusted total household projections for 2020. 128,079 The income limits for income -constrained households in 2020 are shown in Table 10.4% 2.15. In 2020, CLTPR projects that median household income in Suffolk County will be $128,316 (2020$). Table 2.15 Constrained Income Cut -Offs for Low-, Moderate- and Middle -Income Households 336,113 Suffolk County, 2020 13.4% Income Group Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more Middle Income $107,785 $123,183 $138,581 $153,979 $166,298 $178,616 $190,934 $203,253 Moderate Incom $71,857 $82,122 $92,388 $102,653 $110,865 $119,077 $127,289 $135,502 Low Income $44,911 $51,326 $57,742 $64,158 $69,291 $74,423 $79,556 $84,689 Total household growth by age cohort for 2005 to 2020 is calculated together with the percentage of growth in each age group classified as low, moderate, or middle income. The resulting increase or decrease in these classified households by age cohort, when summed, yields total growth in workforce housing demand for the year 2005 to the year 2020 (Table 2.16). These data are summarized by subarea of the County in Table 2.17. Table 2.16 Projected Increase in Workforce Housing Demand Suffolk County by Income Group, 2005-2020 Income Group 2005 2020 Increased Percent Demand Increase Low Income 94,540 110,598 16,058 17.0% Moderate Income 85,879 97,436 11,557 13.5% Middle Income 116,051 128,079 12,028 10.4% Total Income Constrained 296,470 336,113 39,643 13.4% Two groups of households are not considered when developing the future demand. These are (1) owner households that occupy a unit valued at $80,000 or more Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 28 and do not have a mortgage, and (2) units occupied solely by persons 18 to 24 who are college students. The first group is considered to have assets available beyond reported income, and the second is considered to be temporary student housing. These groups are removed from the calculation of increased demand. The projected growth in low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing need for 2005 to 2020 is 39,643 households in Suffolk County (see Table 2.16). Thus, the growth in low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing need is a function of county trends in total household growth and in the age-specific composition of that growth. In terms of specific subarea, projected demand by low-income/middle-income households is most in Brookhaven (14,372 households) and Islip (6,693 households); it is least in Huntington (2,789 households) and Smithtown (2,840 households) (Table 2.17). 2.4 Summary of Existing and Projected Workforce Housing Demand The preceding data on existing and projected demand for workforce housing are summarized in Table 2.18. To recapitulate, existing demand is defined as comprising three groups: (1) the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households living Table 2.17 Projected Increase in Workforce Housing Demand Suffolk County by Region, 2005-2020 Total Low Moderate Middle Increased Percent of Towns Income Income Income Demand Total Babylon 1,975 1,461 1,571 5,007 12.6% Brookhaven 6,132 3,949 4,291 14,373 36.3% East End 3,467 2,393 2,083 7,942 20.0% East Hampton 473 241 344 1,057 2.7% Riverhead 792 579 113 1,484 3.7% Shelter Island 72 107 95 273 0.7% Southampton 1,456 1,068 1,135 3,659 9.2% Southold 673 400 398 1,471 3.7% Huntington 803 905 1,080 2,789 7.0% Islip . 2,892 1,908 1,894 6,693 16.9% Smithtown 789 941 1,109 2,840 7.2% Total 16,058 11,557 12,029 39,643 100.0% The projected growth in low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing need for 2005 to 2020 is 39,643 households in Suffolk County (see Table 2.16). Thus, the growth in low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing need is a function of county trends in total household growth and in the age-specific composition of that growth. In terms of specific subarea, projected demand by low-income/middle-income households is most in Brookhaven (14,372 households) and Islip (6,693 households); it is least in Huntington (2,789 households) and Smithtown (2,840 households) (Table 2.17). 2.4 Summary of Existing and Projected Workforce Housing Demand The preceding data on existing and projected demand for workforce housing are summarized in Table 2.18. To recapitulate, existing demand is defined as comprising three groups: (1) the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households living • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 29 in deficient housing in 2005; (2) the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households with overcrowded (not deficient) conditions in 2005; and (3) cost -burdened households in 2005. As was noted earlier, this last category is by far the largest. Projected demand comprises the increase in the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households (regardless of housing condition) during the period 2005 to 2020. Table 2.18 Total Workforce Housing Demand Suffolk Countv by Income GrouD, 2005-2020 Total Households Overcrowded Total Existing Projected Housing Income Group in Deficient Units Cost- Demand Demand Demand Units Burdened 2005 2020 2005- 2020 Low Income 644 2,269 61,647 64,560 16,058 80,619 Moderate Income 456 1,909 24,575 26,940 11,557 38,497 Middle Income 402 2,064 7,767 10,233 12,028 22,261 Total 1,502 6,242 93,989 101,734 39,643 141,377 Existing 2005 low-, moderate-, and middle-income demand in Suffolk County consists of about 101,734 households. Demand for workforce housing in Suffolk County is projected to increase by about 39,643 low-, moderate-, and -middle income households between the year 2005 and the year 2020. Thus, total workforce housing demand for Suffolk County from the year 2005 to the year 2020 is about 141,380 households. Of these approximately 141,380 existing and future housing -limited households, about 80,620 are low income, 38,500 are moderate income, and 22,260 are middle income. Further, the largest numbers of the 141,380 households are in Brookhaven (45,065) and Islip (31,558); middle numbers are in Babylon (22,581) and the East End (19,336-40 percent in Southampton); and the smallest numbers are in Huntington (13,614) and Smithtown (9,223) (Table 2.19). • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 30 Table 2.19 Total Workforce Housing Demand (Households) Suffolk County by Region, 2005-2020 Region Brookhaven Existing Demand (2005) Deficient North (Port Total Projected Total (Occupied Crowded Cost- Existing Demand Demand 6,212 Housing (Households) Burdened Demand (2020) (2005-2020) Units)t (Households) (Households) (Households) (Households) Babylon, 149 439 8,688 9,276 Northwest 245 608 9,138 9,992 8,795 Babylon, Brookhaven, Southeast 68 327 7,187 7,582 Babylon Total 313 935 16,325 17,574 5,007 22,581 Brookhaven North (Port Jefferson area) 6 288 6,212 6,506 Brookhaven, Central (Medford area) 149 439 8,688 9,276 Brookhaven, East 50 710 8,035 8,795 Brookhaven, West (Centereach area) 82 246 5,788 6,116 Brookhaven Total 287 1,684 28,722 30,693 14,372 45,065 East Hampton 10 224 2,048 2,282 1,082 3,364 Riverhead 24 359 2,697 3,080 1,519 4,599 Shelter Island 31 0 130 161 91 252 Southampton 82 230 3,678 3,990 3,745 7,735 Southold 106 35 1,738 1,879 1,505 3,384 East End Total 254 849 10,291 11,393 7,942 19,336 Huntington 257 515 10,053 10,825 2,789 13,614 Islip, East 116 302 7,090 7,508 Islip, Northwest 176 1,554 7,729 9,458 Islip, Southwest 81 247 7,571 7,899 Islip Total 373 2,102 22,390 24,865 6,693 31,558 Smithtown 19 157 6,208 6,384 2,840 9,223 County 1,502 6,242 93,989 101,734 39,643 141,377 Note: t An occupied housing unit is equivalent to a household. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Needs Assessment and Responses Page 31 2.5 Existing and Projected Housing Supply In earlier sections data was presented on existing and projected demand for workforce housing in Suffolk County. Existing demand was defined as the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households living in either deficient or -overcrowded housing and the number of cost -burdened households in 2005. Projected demand was defined as the increase in the number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households (regardless of housing condition) during the period 2005 to 2020. Thus, total demand was shown to consist of (1) year 2005 deficiency -based demand of 1,502 units, (2) year 2005 overcrowded demand of 6,242 units, (3) year 2005 cost -burdened household population of 93,989, and (4) year 2020 projected demand of 39,643 units, for a total of 141,377 units. A widespread assumption in public debate appears to be that meeting housing demand requires new construction in a price range and unit type not currently being provided in the region. There are two problems with this assumption. First, it has been housing demand is different kinds New shown that comprised of of need. construction may be appropriate to meet prospective demand, but subsidies for households that are excessively cost -burdened, or unit rehabilitation for households that are living in deficient units, may also be more appropriate responses for these groups. Finally, although it is not significant, a small amount of filtering older units will also be available at affordable levels. This is part of housing supply. New construction, in short, is not the only solution to meeting housing demand. A number of strategies are possible, and the causes giving rise to housing demand must be examined for the appropriate response. Second, before determining the extent to which new construction is required to satisfy demand, one must examine how well that demand is likely to be met given existing and projected dimensions of the county's housing supply. To what extent is the current housing delivery process already providing housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households within normal market channels and with the housing programs now in place? The answer to this question can be obtained only by looking at the numbers on the existing housing stock and recent construction trends. Analysis of housing supply trends is a critical component in responding to the challenge of providing • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 2.0 Workforce Housing Demand Page 32 workforce housing. This section presents baseline data on the dimensions of Suffolk County's housing supply. Once the parameters of existing and projected housing supply are determined, one is able to net supply from demand to calculate unmet need. It should be noted that this discussion of supply is for informational purposes -only. Projected Housing Supply (Including Filtering), 2005-2020 In predicting future growth in housing supply, CUPR assumed that the number and characteristics of new housing units would grow basically in proportion to trends observed for the 1990-2000 period. The filtering calculations are more complex, as is shown below. The characteristics of this projected supply are presented in Table 2.20. In total, CUPR projects that private market productions in Suffolk County will provide for 18,101 new units and 5,053 additional low-, moderate-, and middle-income filtering units between 2005 and 2020. Note that, all else being equal, the projected housing supply will still favor higher -income households and owners over lower-income households and renters. Seventy (70) percent of supply is found in Brookhaven and Islip (45 percent, Brookhaven; 25 percent, Islip). Supply also exists in Babylon and the East End community of Riverhead. It is assumed that some of the households (mostly higher income) comprising current and future demand for workforce housing will be able to satisfy that demand through this "natural" projected growth in supply. That is, some households in need will have access to these new units, thus alleviating deficiency, overcrowding, or cost burden. The remaining unmet need is 118,223 (Table 2.20). This is distributed by subarea in Table 2.21. Supply as a percentage of demand varies from 16 percent (Southold) to 82- 83 percent (Riverhead and Islip). Another measure of ability to access housing is a comparison of housing produced by community (at an average price) versus the average wage of workers in that community. Overall, about 40 percent of those who work in Suffolk communities can afford the housing built there. It is highest in Babylon (64.2 percent) and lowest in Smithtown (22.4 percent; Table 2.22). Table 2.20 Total Workforce Housing Demand and Supply (Households) Suffolk County, 2005-2020 9 0 0 Total Workforce Total Workforce Total Filtering Total Unmet Income Group Housing Demand Housing Supply 2005-2020 Workforce Housing 2005-2020 2005-2020 Need 2005-2020 Low Income 80,619 (-) 2,675 (-) 500 77,444 Moderate Income 38,497 (-) 5,778 (-) 1,500 3,219 Middle Income 22,261 (-) 9,648 (-) 3,053 9,560 Total 141,377 (-) 18,101 (-) 5,053 118,223 Table 2.21 Unmet Need (Future Growth) by Community Area (Households) Suffolk County, 2005-2020 Projected Supply (Including Filtering) Projected Increase in Need 2005-2020 Supply as % of Demand less less than 50 to 80 to less than 50 to 80 to than 50 to 80 to 50% of 80% of 120% of 50% of 80% of 120% of 50% of 80% of 120% of median median median Total median median median Total median median median Total Babylon 564 890 914 2,369 1,975 1,461 1,571 5,007 29% 61% 58% 47% Brookhaven 411 2,906 7,288 10,606 6,132 3,949 4,291 14,373 7% 74% 170% 74% East End 1,115 659 1,311 3,085 3,467 2,393 2,083 7,942 32% 28% 63% 39% East Hampton 363 151 240 753 480 249 355 1,082 76% 61% 68% 70% Riverhead 393 261 589 1,242 803 597 117 1,519 49% 44% 505% 82% Shelter Island 11 7 14 31 24 36 32 91 46% 20% 44% 34% Southampton 267 189 361 818 1,477 1,101 1,171 3,745 18% 17% 31% 22% Southold 81 52 108 242 683 412 411 1,505 12% 13% 26% 16% Huntington 132 387 533 1,052 803 905 1,080 2,789 16% 43% 49% 38% Islip 769 2,392 2,366 5,527 2,892 1,908 1,894 6,693 27% 125% 125% 83% Smithtown 183 43 288 515 789 941 1,109 2,840 23% 5% 26% 18% County Total 3,175 7,278 12,701 23,154 16,058 11,557 12,029 39,644 20% 63% 106% 58% 9 0 0 Table 2.22 New Housing Units (Renter or Owner) That Can Be Afforded in Suffolk County Based on a Comparison of Housing Price Levels Versus Wage Levels C7 New Units That New Units Can Be Afforded Percentage of Constructed by Those Who Work Households Town/Area in Suffolk in the Town Accommodated Babylon town 5,419 3,478 64.2% Brookhaven town 27,581 10,083 36.6% East End 12,246 3,724 30.4% Huntington town 6,161 2,438 39.6% Islip town 12,463 7,423 59.6% Smithtown town 4,040 904 22.4% County Total 67,910 28,050 41.3% s • C7 • • Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 35 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need 3.1 Meeting Future Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need Future workforce housing need is related to the future growth of all households in Suffolk County. That household growth in Suffolk County is about 69,000 households from 2005 to 2020 (Table 2.14). The number of low-, moderate-, and middle-income households that will grow into the future in Suffolk County is 39,643. Housing supply of 23,154 units (occupied) over this same period will net this number to 16,489 households. From the 39,643 households, 18,101 households are removed because they will be produced as part of normal housing supply activities (either new [18,101] households) or filtering [5,053 households]); this amount of housing will be produced within the range of income eligibility. Slightly more than half of this supply (12,701 households) will be in the highest category of the income distribution, whereas almost 60 percent of the need will be in the lowest income category. So it is by no means a one-to-one match. Nonetheless, subtraction of this supply from demand results in about 16,500 future low-, moderate-, and middle-income households that need to be addressed. If an inclusionary housing provision of 20 percent were applied to the 69,000 minus 18,101 units,t or 50,900 market units,t this would yield about 10,180 below-market workforce units.t This is only 6,300 short of the necessary 16,500 units.t The remaining 6,320 units of the 16,500 obligation should be related to future projected employment growth. If future employment growth for Suffolk County is projected to be about 105,000 jobs for the period 2005 to 2020 (from 776,060 to 881,600), and if this number is reduced by 10 percent to account for jobs created in the home (-10,500), 94,500 new jobs in commercial facilities still remain. If this number is divided by 6,320, the resulting ratio is one workforce unit for every 15 jobs. At a ratio of three jobs per 1,000 square feet, the ratio is approximately one workforce units for every 5,000 square feet of new nonresidential construction. This is discussed in the paragraph below and shown in Table 3.1. Using the above two sources of inclusionary housing delivers the required amount of workforce housing in Suffolk County for the period 2005 to 2020. t These numbers indicate the need for occupied housing units to accommodate households on a one-to-one basis. Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 36 Table 3.1 Employment Change: Suffolk County (2005-2020) Woods & Poole CEEDS 2005 776,060 Woods & Poole CEEDS 2020 881,600 Change (2005-2020) 104,640 The linkage of workforce housing to residential and nonresidential development is as follows, regardless of the income distribution of the residential demand projection for a particular locality. As either form of development takes place, very little workforce housing will be built by a market that is producing residential offerings that can be purchased by only middle-income or upper-income households. The average size of the households moving into new housing in Suffolk County is 3.8 persons, of which 1.5 persons are working. Of those households moving into new housing, only about 40 percent work in Suffolk County; 0.9 workers are exported to the surrounding region. Households moving into Long Island as a whole average 3.5 in household size and contain 1.2 workers; about 80 percent of these workers (1.0) are employed in the region. Thus, Suffolk County potentially exports 0.9 workers to the region and potentially receives 1.0 worker from the region—a slight gain from the region. Accordingly, with the addition of 0.1 workers to a household size that without workers is about 3.8, the ratio of 1.6 workers in 3.9 residents (40 percent) is the impact created by nonresidential versus residential development. About 60 percent of the burden is residential (10,200 units); 40 percent is nonresidential (6,300 units). This forms the basis for placing the majority of future workforce housing need to be supported by future market residential growth (60 percent) and the remainder to be supported by future employment growth (40 percent). • Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 37 Table 3.2 Ratio of Assignment of Workforce Housing Need to Residential and Nonresidential Sectors Place Household Workers Out In Net Size Long Island 3.5 1.2 0.2 1.0 — Suffolk County 3.8 1.5 0.9 0.6 (+) 0.1 2.0 (people) 1.8 (workers) (minus employment) 60% 40% Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005 Workforce housing related to the need calculated above can be produced through a voluntary inclusionary housing program effectuated by an incentive -based inclusionary zoning ordinance pertaining to residential and nonresidential development. Inclusionary housing is a program in which developers (both residential and nonresidential) who build new structures create a portion of their developments (or pay an equivalent fee) as ownership or rental workforce housing. The developer is given (if he does not already enjoy) density/FAR, height, reduced parking, and fast-track processing bonuses. The density/FAR bonus should be 1.0 times the inclusionary percentage. For Suffolk County this would be a 20 percent density bonus on a 20 percent residential inclusionary percentage and a 20 percent FAR bonus on a 20 percent nonresidential inclusionary requirement (one workforce housing unit for every 5,000 square feet commercial space). The numbers for inclusionary housing are as indicated previously: two workforce units in every 10 market units; one workforce unit (1,000 ft.2) for every 15 employees or 5,000 square feet of nonresidential development. Such an inclusionary housing program, if vigorously promoted, could keep abreast of the future need for workforce housing in Suffolk County. CJ • • is Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 38 Table 3.3 Calculating the Value of Rents of Workforce Housing Units Low Moderate Middle Housing Characteristic/Cost Income Income Income Square footage 1,OOOftZ i3OOOft2 1,00oft2 Number of bedrooms 2 2 2 Type of housing Condo Condo Condo Mortgage rate (%) 6.5 6.5 6.5 Mortgage cost per $1,000 ($) 6.321 6.321 6.321 Common charges ($) 75 100 150 Insurance ($) 35 50 75 Real estate taxes ($) 145 210 340 Electricity ($) 75 75 75 Oil (s) 125 125 125 Sewer ($) 20 20 20 Water ($) 40 40 40 Total 515 620 825 1. County median household income $86,677 $86,677 $86,677 2. 40%, 60%, or 100% of item 1 ($) $34,671 $52,006 $86,677 3. 30% of item 2 ($) 10,401 15,602 26,003 4. Divide item 3 by 12 ($) 867 1,300 2,167 5. Housing cost assumptions ($) 515 620 825 6. Mortgage payment (4-5) ($) 352 680 1,342 7. Maximum mortgage ($) 55,651 107,602 212,296 8. Maximum sales price (10% downy—Own $61,834 $119,558 $235,885 Rent (month) $618 $1,196 $2,359 Average Own $139,093 Rent $1,391 Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005. The value of new workforce units in Suffolk County would be $61,834 for a low- income household; $119,558 for a moderate -income household; and $235,885 for a middle-income household (Table 3.3). Rental costs at an average of 1 percent of sales price per month would be $618 for a low-income household, $1,196 for a moderate - income household, and $2,359 for a middle-income household. Future workforce units in Suffolk County would average $139,000 in price, or $1,390 in monthly rent. • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Page 39 3.2 Meeting Current Rehabilitation Workforce Housing Need Rehabilitation workforce housing need in Suffolk County primarily involves units that are older and crowded. In these cases, as well as in all deteriorated units, there is rehabilitation that is necessary to render the units sound. It -may be as little as adding an appliance or a fixture to a kitchen or a bath. On the other hand, the unit may require shortening a living room or bedroom to include a bath or kitchen. Finally, the unit may require either the addition or division of a room to create an additional bedroom to reduce crowding. The 2005 American Housing Survey (AHS) includes information on the costs to make the type of repairs specified above. The average individual cost to render a bathroom or kitchen in the Long Island MSA complete and functional is about $9,200 to $9,500 per unit. The costs to add a room to eliminate crowding are determined individually and amount to $6,719. Units having both crowding and kitchen/bath problems would incur the sura of these two costs (about _$15,700) for rehabilitation. This enables current rehabilitation costs to be determined for Suffolk County. Crowding can be eliminated for as high as $21,945 per unit (extra bedroom) or as low as $3,234 per unit (repairing heating). Table 3.4 Suffolk County Rehabilitation/Crowding Workforce Housing Need Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005 Number of Cost per Category of Problem Units Unit Total Cost Old Unit and Kitchen 147 $9,518 $1,399,146 Old Unit and Plumbing 134 $9,193 $1,231,862 Plumbing and Kitchen 458 $18,711 $8,569,638 Old Unit, Plumbing and Kitchen 175 $18,711 $3,274,425 Old Unit and Heating 493 $3,234 $1,594,362 Old Unit, Kitchen, and Heating 17 $12,752 $216,784 Plumbing and Heating 17 $12,427 $211,259 Plumbing, Heating, and Kitchen 44 $21,945 $965,580 All Four 17 $21,945 $373,065 Deterioration Subtotal 1,502 $17,836,121 Crowding 6,242 $6,719 $41,939,998 Total 7,744 $59,776,119 Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005 • LJ Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 40 What is evident from the above is that approximately $60 million is required to address current rehabilitation workforce housing need in Suffolk County. This could take the form of a local grant wherein eligible property owners could petition the county for 75 percent- of the grant amount if they would be willing to pay 25 percent Individual owners would have to validate that those living in the units earned less than $103,200 (120 percent of $86,666) and that a major repair would be required to render the unit sound. Once accepting the grant and paying 25 percent of the total amount, the unit would be deed -restricted for workforce housing occupancy for 10 years. As long as the unit did not move out of the workforce housing inventory during a 10 -year period, the owner of the structure would be under no obligation to repay the grant. Further, this owner would have a fully rehabbed unit that in 10 years he or she could rent to a market as opposed to below-market tenant. The number of units that would have to be rehabilitated would amount to about 775 units per year for 10 years. This would require a rehabilitation fund availability of about $4.5 million annually (75 percent of $6 million). Where would the grant money come from? Residential and market -level property owners improve their properties on a regular basis. An average building permit fee (combined for village, town, and county) is about 1.5 percent of the cost of repair or alterations. If 10 percent of the county's 36,000 units undergo repair each year and that repair involves 250 square feet at $250 per square foot, this would involve a cost of $62,500 per unit times $56,000 unit, or $3,500,000,000 annually. If the above building permit fee (1.5 percent) is applied to this, the resultant amount is $47,500,000. If an increased amount of 10 percent is reserved for the repair of workforce deteriorated housing, this would amount to $4.75 million annually. This amount is about the order of magnitude ($4.5 million) needed annually to repair the deteriorated stock as indicated earlier. The linkage of workforce housing repair to market housing repair is direct and logical. There are residents who do not have the incomes needed to undertake the repairs that will render their units sound. Other residents (those staying in their existing homes) are improving their units far beyond pure functional needs. The latter group is not paying • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 41 for new workforce housing unit construction (they are not buying new homes with a portion of the costs included by inclusionary housing) that should be tapped to maintain the condition of existing workforce housing units. These households are sensitive to the need to repair units (they are repairing their own), and an increase in their building permit costs (for additions, alterations, or repairs) could help support regular workforce housing rehabilitation on units occupied by those local households of very low, low, and moderate income. Thus, increasing local building permits fees by 10 percent and allocating this to affordable housing covers the amount of money of needed to repair existing deficient and overcrowded units. 3.3 Meeting Backlog Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need How would one provide for cost -burdened workforce housing need? What is the linkage? The linkage is housing market activity that has a tendency to drive up prices. Hot markets, regardless of price or where they are in the real estate cycle, are characterized by the number of real estate transactions. The best monitor of real estate transactions is the Mortgage Tax. The return from the Mortgage Tax documents housing turnovers in an area. The objective of reducing cost -burdened workforce housing need would be to buy down units from landlords to lower rents for rental tenants or, similarly, to buy down units (condominiums) to lower occupancy costs for those living in ownership units. On average, in Suffolk County, those paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing pay 60 percent (Table 3.5). For low-income households, that amount is $20,802; for moderate -income households, $31,204; and for middle-income households, $43,339. The difference between these costs and those at 30 percent of income for low- and moderate -income households and 50 percent of income for middle-income households are, respectively, $10,401 (low income); $15,602 (moderate income); and $8,668 (middle income). See tabular footnote next page [7 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Assessment and Responses page 42 isNeeds Table 3.5 Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need Costs Low Income Moderate Middle Income Total Income Median household income $86,677 $86,677 $86,677 Household income @ 40%, $34,671 $52,006 $86,677 60%, 100% of median Amount spent for housing @ $20,802 $31,204 $52,006 60% of income Amount that should be spent $10,401 $15,602 $43,339 @ 30% low/mod; 50% middle Difference $10,401 $15,602 $8,668 Number of units (@ 5% of 3,000 1,200 500 4,700 94,000) Annual amount $31,203,720 $18,722,232 $4,333,850 $54,259,802 Mortgage tax portion 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 Property value transfer $12.481 bil $7.489 bil $1.734 bil $21.703 bil amount to generate funds Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005. The above, multiplied by the number of units required of each, yields a buy -down total of $54.26 million annually. The buy -down amount could be met by Suffolk County raising its current Mortgage Tax of 1.05 percent by an absolute value of 0.25 percent. This would amount to a total of 1.30 percent. If revenues generated by a 20 percent increase from the current rate of $1.05 per $100 for the Mortgage Tax were used to fund workforce housing in Suffolk County, $21.70 billion in mortgage applications would have to take place countywide to fund the above objective. If this were to be comprised of normal rates of residential/nonresidential property transfers and refinancings of existing structures, approximately $22.37 billion in mortgage applications could be counted upon! See tabular footnote next page [7 • • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Page 43 3.4 Summary of Workforce Housing Need Requirements for Suffolk County Future Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need Workforce housing need could be met in Suffolk County through a four -pronged approach. First, future workforce housing need that is projected at 7,750 units for the 15- year period 2005 to 2020 would be met by an inclusionary zoning approach. Within every 10 new units, two workforce units would be built. For every 5,000 square feet of nonresidential development that takes place, one workforce unit would be built. Over a projected 15 -year development period, 10,200 new workforce units would be delivered by 51,500 non—cost-burdened units. The remaining 6,300 units would be delivered by 94,500 gross new jobs in 3.5 million square feet of commercial/retail space created over the period. That is equivalent to one workforce housing unit per 5,000 square feet at a ratio of 3 jobs per 1,000 square feet. In order to deliver these units, developers should be given density/FAR bonuses, height bonuses, parking provision forgiveness, and fast-track processing. For every 10 units constructed as workforce, seven could be built for low income households (40 percent of median), two could be built for moderate income households (60 percent of median), and one could be built for middle income (100 percent of median). Units not able to be built could require a cash contribution of 60 percent of construction costs. Cost Burdened — Amount to Be Raised Via Mortgage Tax Total Units/ Percent Turnover Mgt Amt/ Total Mgt Mgt Tax Sq Ft Turnover Units/ft2 Unit ($) Amount($) Raised($) Residential Turnover 435,000 10% 43,500 290,000 12.62Bil 31.54Mil Nonresidential Turnover 208,746,667 12% 25,049,600 186.03 4.66Bi1 11.66Mil Residential Refinance 435,000 8% 34,800 96,000 3.34Bi1 8.35Mil Nonresidential Refinance 208,746,667 4% 8,349,867 209.70 1.75Bil 4.38Mil Total 22.37Bil 55.93Mil • 0 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Page 44 Rehabilitation/Crowded Workforce Housing Need Rehabilitation/crowded workforce housing need, for households under 120% of median household income, consists of 1,500 units of deteriorated housing (old units with one defect; newer units with more than one defect) and 6,250 crowded units, for a total of 7,750 units that would be dealt with over the period 2005 to 2020. Both rehabilitation and crowded workforce housing need could be addressed by establishing a grant fund for 75 percent of the estimated cost of repair. The cost of repair would be determined by county - approved contractors. In order to receive a grant the owner must validate that the property contains a middle-income or below -middle-income tenant. Once improved, the property must remain as a workforce unit for a minimum of 10 years. The maximum amount of an individual grant is 75 percent of $20,000, or $15,000 per unit. Money for this grant fund could be raised by increasing local non -new - construction building permit fees by 10 percent and dedicating these funds to workforce housing. Funds could be distributed to local property owners on a first-come, first -serve basis. Units could receive grants through a one-third by one-third by one-third distribution to serve low-, moderate-, and middle-income households, respectively. Should one or the other category dominate in terms of initial requests, a subsequent effort could be made to give priority to the categories of owners least represented among grant requests. Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need Within Suffolk County, there are 94,000 households below 120 percent of median household income that are cost -burdened at 30 percent of their income for rental housing and at 50 percent of their income for ownership housing. About 20,000 are moderately cost -burdened (30-50 percent of income spent on housing); about 74,000 are severely cost -burdened (more than 50 percent of income is spent on housing). This represents 19 percent of all households and 31 percent of all households below 120 percent of median household income. • is 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 45 The goal of Suffolk County is to reduce this cost burden number by 5 percent, or 4,700 units over the period 2005 to 2020. The county could do this by raising the Mortgage Tax by 20 percent to create a fund whereby the county could buy down units in condominiums or rental structures sufficient to render them affordable. This is not necessarily the purchase of a full unit but rather about a 50 percent rent or ownership buydown for those who currently pay a significant amount of their income for housing. This rent/ownership buydown would take place as long as the unit was kept within the means of a tenant below 120 percent of median for a specified period of time. The landlord would have to justify the amount of the buydown—that is, the difference between what the tenants could afford and the local fair market rent capitalized into a purchase price. Addressing the Multiple Components of Workforce Housing Need Overall, Suffolk County could address 29,000 to 30,000 units of workforce housing need over the period 2005 to 2020. This is composed of 16,500 units of future workforce housing need, 7,750 units of rehabilitation/crowded workforce housing need, and 4,700 units of cost -burdened workforce housing need (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). The remaining 1,000 units could encompass efforts at retaining portions of the affordable housing inventory that are being lost due to expiring controls. Table 3.6 Addressing Workforce Housing Need in Suffolk County Type of Workforce Housing Need Units Delivered 2005-2020 Future Housing 16,500 Rehabilitation/Crowding 7,750 Cost -burdened (backlog — 5% of total) 4,700 z30,OOO in Total 28,950 15 years Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005 • 0 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Page 46 Table 3.7 Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs and Responses by Type, 2005-2020 Type of Workforce Housing Need Units How Need Could Be Addressed What is Impacted (Households <120% of Median) I. Future Workforce Housing Need (>50% of income for housing costs for owners; >30% of income for rent for renters) II. Current Rehabilitation Workforce Housing Need (Four indices of deteriorated need — require two for deterioration or one plus old unit.) Also included is a separate measure of crowding (>1.01 persons per room). III. Cost -Burdened Workforce Housing Need (Goal — 5% of 94,000 existing need) IV. Total (15 years) 16,500 Inclusionary Housing New residential units and nonresidential 1 per 4 units residential development 1 per 5,000 ft.2 nonresidential (Costs could be paid into a fund ) 7,750 Provide 75% of rehab or structure Existing units alteration (crowding) costs as a residential and grant by raising local non -new nonresidential construction Building Permit Fees space improvers by 10% 4,700 Provide subsidy to landlords to units lower rent for existing units through an increase in the Mortgage Tax 28,950 2,000 units per year for 15 years units 1,100 New 350 Rehab/crowded 550 subsidized Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 2005. Residential/ nonresidential mortgage applications (countywide) Burden spread across all sectors On average, the county would address about 2,000 units per year for the 15 -year period. It is quite conceivable that Suffolk County will not meet the full amount of rehabilitation workforce housing need because residents either fail to or do not want to avail themselves of the grant program. Conversely, due to the pressure for mixed-use development and the densification of areas surrounding the central business districts of Suffolk County Workforce Housing 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Needs Assessment and Responses Page 47 Suffolk County, the County may address more future workforce housing need than original growth plans have indicated. If more future growth occurs, some of the produced workforce housing may be directed to cost -burdened workforce housing need, of which only 5 percent is being addressed. The other categories of need still should be met individually, however. The rehabilitation workforce housing effort will require significant advertising to encourage owners of deteriorated properties to participate in the grant program. Future workforce housing need will require the county to create an environment of incentives to encourage inclusionary housing. Cost -burdened workforce housing need will require the county to pull in its belt and. raise dedicated portions of the Mortgage Tax to support workforce housing. The program of workforce housing provision (Table 3.7) takes Suffolk County to the forefront of all locations in meeting its workforce housing responsibility. All facets of the local workforce housing problem are simultaneously and thoroughly addressed. Responses at the community level are shown below. 3.5 Individual Workforce Housing Response by Communities of Suffolk County Workforce housing numbers by community are presented in Table 3.8. These indicate for each of the municipalities in Suffolk County what would be necessary to meet annual workforce housing need. Clearly, each community is different and its community workforce housing needs are characterized by different components of response. Babylon, Brookhaven, Southampton, and Smithtown have the largest future need responses. These vary from approximately 155 units per year (Smithtown) to 251 units per year (Brookhaven). With regard to rehabilitation responses, Islip will require the most (25) followed by Babylon (21), Brookhaven (19), and then by Huntingdon (17). Crowding must be reacted to in the greatest annual responses in Islip (140), Brookhaven (112), and Babylon (62). Cost burden requires a significant response in Brookhaven (96), Islip (75), and Babylon (54). All of the above are annual number of units that either must be produced new, rehabilitated, reconfigured, or bought down in price to be more 0 affordable to workforce households. 0 • Suffolk County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment and Responses 3.0 Responding to Workforce Housing Need Page 48 Table 3.8 Suffolk County Annual Workforce Housing Response (Annual 2005-2020) Each individual community is clearly capable of devising its own strategies for meeting the above requirements. In the third section of this study, the research group recommended measures to begin to approach financing these need responses. These recommendations flow from the research team and may or may not comport with the response desires of Suffolk County or the individual communities involved. The most important consideration for all involved is to realize that workforce housing is in short supply in eastern Long Island. Everything possible should be attempted to deal with the imbalance that currently exists between workforce housing demand and workforce housing supply. If this is not addressed, the local nonprofessional workforce will wither and even the middle-class professional workforce will be noticeably reduced. Suffolk County needs to house its workers; this is the necessary quantification of how the provision of additional workforce housing could begin. Response to Existing Deficient Crowded Housing Housing Units Units Need Cost Burdened Units (5%) Response to Future Need Additional Units Total Response (2005 - 2020) (Rehabs) (Additions/ (Buy (New Total Reconfigur- Downs) Construction) Community ations) Babylon 21 62 54 176 313 Brookhaven 19 112 96 251 478 East Hampton 1 15 7 22 44 Riverhead 2 24 9 18 53 Shelter Island 2 0 0 4 7 Southampton 5 15 12 195 228 Southold 7 2 6 84 99 East End Subtotal 17 57 34 324 431 Huntington 17 34 34 116 201 Islip 25 140 75 78 317 Smithtown 1 10 21 155 187 County Total 100 416 313 1,099 1,929 Each individual community is clearly capable of devising its own strategies for meeting the above requirements. In the third section of this study, the research group recommended measures to begin to approach financing these need responses. These recommendations flow from the research team and may or may not comport with the response desires of Suffolk County or the individual communities involved. The most important consideration for all involved is to realize that workforce housing is in short supply in eastern Long Island. Everything possible should be attempted to deal with the imbalance that currently exists between workforce housing demand and workforce housing supply. If this is not addressed, the local nonprofessional workforce will wither and even the middle-class professional workforce will be noticeably reduced. Suffolk County needs to house its workers; this is the necessary quantification of how the provision of additional workforce housing could begin. • • • 0 Appendix J Engineering, Sums ing and LuntdscapeArchftecturc, P.C. • CAMERON ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, LLP 100 Sunnyside Boulevard, Suite 100 330 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1300 Woodbury, NY 11797 New York, NY 10001 1e1516-827-4900 Fax 516-827-4920 Tel 212-324-4000 Fax 212-481-3274 November 6, 2006 NIr. Constantine E. Kontokosta, P.E., AICP KALE LI, LLC P.O. Box 67 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Letter of Availability Greenport.Sewggp_Treatmeril.P,lant -- . CE 182B Dear Mr. Kontokosta; Active Member of AC CE NewYotl . 4vrtriun Ce.nail of Fa:;wrerinr Cv.+Nv� Partners John D. Comeron. Jr., P E Joseph R Amnto, P E Associates Mark Wagner, C EP. Janice Jijim, P E, AICP Glenn DeSimone, P E. CPE Nicholas A Kurnbatovic, P E Kevin M McAndrew, RLA Tlrornns W Broderick. P E. Alan J King Jr, P E The Village of Greenport has requested that Cameron Engineering & Associates, LLC provide this Letter of Availability pertaining to the proposed 128 unit affordable housing project. It is our understanding that the proposed project will generate approximately 38,400 gallons per day. The Village's Sewage Treatment Plant is currently permitted to accept up 650,000 gallons per day. The daily average flow to the facility is currently well below 400,000 gallons per day. Based 6h. these .conditions, there is adequate capacity to accept the estimated flow of 38,400 gallons per.dayfrom the project. At the appropriate time, we would be interested in reviewing the details pertaining to the actual connection to the Village's collection system, Pleasekeep us apprised of the project's project with respect to the sewage connection activities. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. 7 Mark Wagner, CEP Associate MW1cr: cc ., Dayid Kap,ell, Mayor —Board oTrusfees St even.Brautigam,.Utilities Director Thomas Cybulski, Facilities Ivlanager K:1CI 50-T991d1 182B\Coires 20061E Ktice-LetofAvailability-110606. doc r'LEED Accredited Professionals" • • SEP -18-2001 12:22 PM KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES ' ers MAYOR DAVID 11, KAM11. TH UNTk lib WII.HAM J. MIIA_V Ill 61"(1 GN W. HURRAkh flAII. F. 111.111TON 1'tkAhLI;Y n nUkNs March 26, 2001 2361"MRO B FTrT QRHF.M?0NT, Nr%WW YORK 11944 KACE Development Corp. 43 West 54a Street New York, NY 14019 Re; Northwind Village Development / Sewer Service Dear Mr, Kontokosta; 2125826047 UTILITY OFFIM (516)477-1746 Pox (5 a 6) 477.1107 POWER PLANT (5 16) 417.0172 The Village ofGrccnport is prepared to provide sewer service for the above referenced project. Please send to this office the details of this project including the number of units and the type of units to be constructed This -information will be used by the village engineer to Me the application with the NYS Depa3►itment ofConservation, Please. contact this office at (631) 477-1748 if any further assistance is needed. Yours truly, GREENPQRT UTELI"T'IES r Thomas Cybulski Administrative Aid Utilities gyrations Over 100 Years of Community Service P. FJ1 • • Appendix K Pnginecering Surt.".jin and Landscape Architecture, PC. PORODUCTION EROSIONAL AND DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY - .. PREVIOUS HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS SELECTED REFERENCES SOURCES OF DATA ._.......�..�....`.._... ,...� ._.: o... >... ���u� vis uu "®�inoa xeirmm- i _ 'L. ,1-S_� —5 «."',^..ryq;.. ALTDTMIE OF THE UPPER SURFACE OF CRETACEOUS DEPOSITS. LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK BY o.n. sr�a>ry, nT. RmAoo, .ae wac sxeoaa 0 HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF LANG ISLAND. NEW YORK Fv U.A. b® kmky. H.T. &uta, W P.K. Sh,.ff t . N t is 1✓.iT ��. �.r ��_'–}f.'r�f+—'' � - ALIITUDE OF THE Ull" SURFACE OF THE GARDNERS CLAY LLQ uw.....r.�mrt...w.o.v..T• - � .� - - • . - ,.,_ 77 1 h 1 y r ,,,��.���..• ALTMDE OF THE (ITER SURFACE OF THE MONMOUTH GRFENSAND AM THE JAW3CO AQUIFER � - -•«.. ,-' _ � , —_vrums .c..0 TIL.. �,1 / .. .' "?Jj U ., .,. \ t il�'r u� -_ ,,,EIMML�_. ALTMME OF IM TFFFR SURFACE OF THF MAOMM AQUFOt------- _.----- HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF LANG ISLAND. NEW YORK Fv U.A. b® kmky. H.T. &uta, W P.K. Sh,.ff Q \ ,1 r ' V N t ALIMM OF THE MIER SURFACE OF TIE RARIIAN CONFMM UM uom �aowx� : rsuro..ffv, van.. �..� ... -• �� /.� ,�:.. _ / t AI.1II11DE OF 11E iRFR SI.RFA(V: OF 1nF. Ill" AQIM*R It -......sem v.. .,. c .... .. ,... _. r u)PXXXMMN OF n1E RmROCK SUKFACL — - _- HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK By DA S.AkA.I* H.T. Baalaa and P.K. si nr a 0 0 n Appendix L 0 Eng.,immeringStas urmqjln� and "indscapeAmbilecture, PC. 4 dq f 6 r CONSULTING ENGINEER June 15, 2008 Mr. Dino Kontokosta Kace Development, LLC P.O. Box 67 Greenport, New York 11946 Re: Route 25 (North Road) Greenport, New York Dear Mr. Kontokosta: i We provide Professional Engineering services and participate with the field personnel of Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. in rendering geotechnical evaluation and judgment associated with their subsoil test boring assignments. Our contribution is enhanced by our experience and participation in the activities of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Section or the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and our awareness of the guidelines of the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE). SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of this assignment was to obtain preliminary information regarding the general subsurface conditions at the subject site. The subsurface materials encountered were evaluated in relation to the available project characteristics. Engineering assessments of the following items have been i formulated: 1. Perform standard penetration test (STP) and determine the resistance (N). 2. Determine the soil stratigraphy and the relevant geotechnical engineering properties of the encountered soils. 3. Visually classify representative soils. 4. Preliminary design parameters required for the foundation system, including allowable soil bearing pressures at foundation levels. P.O. BOX 64, KINGS PARK, L.I., NEW YORK 11754 P TEL (6311234-3592) FAX. (6311234-3439) • • r� Proposed Development Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 2 5. Estimate the post -construction settlement of the foundation system. 6. Construction consideration for foundation excavation, surface and groundwater management. 7. Establish the feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the presumed loads and encountered sub -surface conditions. The general subsurface conditions encountered during the field exploration program are shown on the soil boring logs. Soil stratification is based on the examination of recovered soil samples and field measurements. Stratification lines, dimensions, as well as reported values in this report represent the approximate horizons between soil classifications. The actual transitions and dimensions may be more gradual. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations, and within their respective vertical reaches, variations over the site may be encountered. Laboratory testing may be performed on selected samples as deemed necessary in order to define soil classification and to further identify the engineering properties of the soils. EXPLORATION PROGRAM - A trained and experienced geotechnical technician conducted the boring tests and has completed a subsurface exploration at the site. Samples recovered during the performance of the test were evaluated, identified and the ASTM Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values recorded. Representative samples of the soil were retained and transported to our facility for further examination. This report contains the results of our exploration and geotechnical evaluation. The field exploration program consisted of five (5) Boring Tests which were conducted at the site on March 20, 2008 and were extended to respective depths of 27.0 +/- feet below grade. The borings were performed to determine the depths and horizons of the various strata below the existing ground surface. The number of borings, depth and location were developed by, or in consultation with, the client. The selected boring depths comply with a minimum depth indicated by the Building Code of the State of New Yor ;. (BC) Section 1802.2.3. Y ry' � CONSULTING ENGINEER Proposed Development Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 3 f SUMMARY � This _report was developed from conventional soil testing procedures and engineering analysis. The exploration revealed quality soil conditions which are judged as well suited to standard construction procedures. Sub-surface water was encountered and is at levels significantly below the anticipated depth of construction and need not be considered a project issue. A minor surface fill condition was detected; however, it is not considered a major site factor but should be evaluated in conjunction with the proposed development of the site. In accordance with the BC, Seismic components are exempt for the anticipated project and have not been applied. METHODOLOGY . Conventional 3" rods were utilized to advance the bore hole and to facilitate subsurface testing and sampling. Representative samples were routinely obtained during the drilling process at selected intervals by applying a two inch diameter split spoon sampling tube. The sampler was first seated at grade. The sampler was then driven by the 30 inch fall of a 140 pound hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final foot represents the standard penetration resistance (N), and is an indicator of the safe sustaining power of the soil. The drilling and testing procedures were performed applying the guidelines and procedures of ASTM designations: D1586 Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils D1587 Thin Walled Tube Sampling of Soils D2488 Recommended Practice for Description of Soils D2937 Test for Density of Soil in Place Sectional linear samples were also secured in conjunction with the performance of the standard penetration and density test. The soil profiles reported by the boring logs should be reviewed for specific information at the individual boring locations and test depths. rsr CONSULTING ENGINEER Proposed Development Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 4 SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS The groundwater data presented herein was measured at the time of the field activities and immediately after completion of drilling procedures. They were also corroborated through a visual examination of the retrieved soil samples. Soil staining and other seasonal high groundwater indicators were not noted. Actual groundwater elevation was encountered at a depth of 20.0 +/- feet below grade. The upper moist soil condition at the location of BT #3 is representative of perched or trapped water condition. A fluctuation of the subsurface water level could be expected throughout the year due to seasonal variations and weather events, tidal variations and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. If the presents of subsurface water could be critical to the design or construction of the project, groundwater observation wells could be installed to monitor fluctuations over a period of time. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS A surface fill condition was detected. The materials are related to clearing and grubbing and are marginally consolidated. However, the soils are suitably graded and could be excavated, rendered free of organic, deleterious and reactive materials and replaced as engineered fill. The in situ soils encountered are typical of the area and are non-reactive, dense and moderately consolidated. Soil bearing capacity is estimated from results of in situ tests using empirical correlation factors. The anticipated zone of significant stress possesses sufficient soil bearing value (SBV) and a SBV in tons per square foot is an acceptable application to -the soils encountered as indicated below: Boring No. 1 2 3 4 5 Fill Depth (ft) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 Soil Bearing Values: 1.5 TSF/SBV(ft) --- --- --- --- 3.0 2.0 TSF/SBV (ft) 3.0 5.0 --- 3.0 5.0 3.0 TSF/SBV (ft) --- --- 3.0 5.0 --- S, CONSULTING ENGINEER SIE I a a 5€ 4 -,- CONSULTING ENGINEER Proposed Development Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 5 This report is further valued since it certifies a SBV that exceeds the minimum presumptive 1.0 TSF Allowable Soil Pressure permitted by BC Table 1804.2, SEISMIC COMPONENT The 2003 Building Code of New York State (BC) contains a requirement that every structure be designed to resist the effect of earthquake motion and be assigned a seismic Design Category. However, Sec. 1614.1 also delineates and exempts "...detached one and two family dwellings..."' Based on the available information, the planned subject site activity is exempt and no further seismic investigation is required. Moreover, the project location would result in a wind design component that would exceed the anticipated effect of seismic action and would, therefore, govern the structural integrity of the design. RECOMMENDATION The field exploration revealed quality sub -surface conditions. Attention should be given during excavation to assure that the supporting soils have not been disturbed or have been stabilized. The structurally rated soils will perform well as a bearing material and a standard shallow foundation could be applied. Soil supported concrete ground slabs could be constructed on the undisturbed soils after proper site preparation which is free or organic and reactive materials. The presents of the granular soils preclude the concern of supporting grade shrinkage. Undercut material should be replaced as engineered fill. Do not commence backfill unless existing sub -grade is undisturbed or has been compacted. Fill should be placed in uniform lifts with clean, granular soils with a particle size distribution of 85% passing a No. 4 sieve and less than 5% passing a No. 200 sieve. The material should be compacted in accordance with an Engineered Fill Specification. Each lift should be placed in a maximum loose life thickness of approximately twelve (12) inches and be compacted to the materials maximum dry density, determined by a Proctor Density Test 1557) at optimum moisture content or as required. • • is gg vv mr CONSULTING ENGINEER Proposed Development Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 6 APPLICATION % MAX DENSITY Under Slabs on Grade 95 Under paved areas 95 Under structural members 98 Unpaved areas 90 General grading -85 Foundations constructed on the final bearing soils which are firm, stable and free of organic or reactive materials, mud, water or frost, could experience a one time elastic consolidation of less than one half (0.5") inch. Consolidation would be apportioned with the application of construction with negligible post construction stress under full load. The analysis and recommendations are based on the data obtained from the widely spaced test borings performed for this report. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until open excavation is initiated. Variations should be noted and their impact evaluated with respect to the necessity to modify the recommendations of this report. MISCELLANEOUS Limitations: It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of stress. The flexible nature of structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor settlement of fill or nature soils. In addition, products containing cement also shrink during natural curing. All of the above can induce stresses that frequently result in cosmetic cracking of rigid surfaces. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at the site. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating behavior of the proposed improvement, however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot assure accuracy beyond the limits of the obtained data of the soil profile. This report is based on the evaluation at the described site and on the anticipated construction. Proposed Development ' Route 48 (North Road), Greenport, New York Page 7 1 g, f The field reports, boring logs and the vertical boring plan are hereby made part of this report. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of fin-ther service, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We hope this j report provides you with the necessary information to continue with f development of th @wc4EW Ve tru/l'y� yo s. 'V p" ileo Paul A. Win ler P.E.107 Pl��ti 4,0. sF0 pROFES S I O VON- • 01. �)w)a-',,a c; . �-vi Ee Sa _ CONSULTING ENGINEER ND, AIH WATER *ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 32 CHICHESTER AVE. PO BOX 372 CENTER MORICHES, NY 11934 • • (631) 874-2112 FAX (631) 874-4547 Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY wrE: March 20, 2008 SITE: Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY DEPTH DRILLED: 27 feet CORING DEVICE: 2" X 24" HAMMER DROP: 30 inches DRILLING METHOD: 3" Rods and SPT Hammer DRILLER: S. Pedersen Page# 1 of 1 CONSULTANT: Kace Development, LLC. Greenport, NY DEPTH TO WATER: 20 feet HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 lbs. WELUBORING GROUTED: NO DEPTH TO BOTTOM TAPED: 27 feet HELPER: K. McGourty DEPTH BLOWS / 6 FROM TO RECOVERY INCHES SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Reddish brown/grey silty sand & silts, fine, trace of 0 ft 2 ft 20 inches 1-2-3-3 gravel, (SM) / (SL) 2 ft 4 ft 18 inches 6-8-9-11 Reddish brown silty sands, fine, trace of gravel, (SM) Reddish brown silty sand/sand/silty sand, fine/medium to l 4 ft 6 ft 17 inches 9-11-15-18 fine/fine, trace of aravel, (SM) / (SW) / (SM), moist Ei ft 10 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 10 ft 12 ft 22 inches 4-6-6-8 Grey clay, very fine, (CL) 12 ft 15 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 15 ft 17 ft 24 inches 3-4-6-7 Grey clay, very fine, (CL) 17 ft 20 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification Tan/grey fine sand/clay, fine/very fine, (SW) / (CL), wet, 20 ft 22 ft 24 inches 4-7_8-8 14" sand to 10" clay 22 ft 25 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification Grey clay, very fine, trace of gravel, (CL), wet, end of ft 27 ft 24 inches 4-5.8-10 L2-15 boring as per client waft Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. 1111111111WIT FTE: March 20, 2008 25 feet SITE: Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY NO DEPTH DRILLED: 27 feet CORING DEVICE: 2" X 24" HAMMER DROP: 30 inches DRILLING METHOD: 3" Rods and SPT Hammer DRILLER: S. Pedersen Page# 1 of 1 CONSULTANT: Kace Development, LLC Greenport, NY DEPTH TO WATER: 25 feet HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 lbs. WEL.UBORING GROUTED: NO DEPTH TO BOTTOM TAPED: 27 feet HELPER: K. McGourty 2 ft DEPTH FROM TO RECOVERY BLOWS 16 INCHES SAMPLE DESCRIPTION !D ft 2 ft 6 inches 1-1-2-2 Brown silty sand, fine, (SM), trace of wood or roots 2 ft 4 ft 5 inches 2-2-2-3 Light brown silty sand, medium to fine, trace of gravel, (SM), moist 4 ft 6 ft 13 inches 6-8-8-9 Reddish brown silty sand, medium to fine, trace of gravel, (SM) 6 ft 10 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 10 ft 12 ft 24 inches 10-13-15-18 Reddish brown silty clay, very fine, (SC) 12 ft 15 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 15 ft 17 ft 24 inches 9-13-18-17 Reddish brown silty clay, fine, trace of gravel, (SC) 17 ft 20 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 20 ft 22 ft 20 inches 7-11-11-15 Reddish brown silty clay, fine, trace of gravel, (SC) 22 ft 25 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 2:5 ft 27 ft 19 inches 9-11-13-14 Brown/tan sand, medium, trace of gravel, (SW), wet, end of boring Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. §FTE: March 21, 2008 SITE: Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY RECOVERY DEPTH DRILLED: 27 feet CORING DEVICE: 2" X 24" HAMMER DROP: 30 inches DRILLING METHOD: 3" Rods and SPT Hammer DRILLER: S_ Pedersen Page# 1 of 1 CONSULTANT: Kace Development, LLC Greenport, NY DEPTH TO WATER: 5 feet HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 lbs. WELUBORING GROUTED: NO DEPTH TO BOTTOM TAPED: 27 feet HELPER: D. Benael DEPTH BLOWS / 6 FROM TO RECOVERY INCHES SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Weight of 0 ft 2 ft 18 inches Brown sand, fine to medium, (SM), damp/moist Hammer - 2 2 ft 4 ft 22 inches 7-11-15-12 Brown silt/sand, fine to medium, (SM), damp/moist 4 4 ft 6 ft 21 inches 9-11-11-13 Brown sand/silt, fine to medium, 5% gravel, (SM), wet 6 ft 10 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification Brown clay/silty, fine, %% gravel, (SM), rock at head of 10 ft 12 ft 16 inches 50-16-15-16 shoe (first blow count) 12 ft 15 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 15 ft 17 ft 18 inches 26-7-8-10 Brown clay silty, fine, trace of gravel, (ML) 17 ft 20 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification Brown clay/sand, medium to fine, 5% gravel, (CL), wet 20 ft 22 ft 19 inches 5-9-15-14 through clay into sand. 22 ft 25 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 25 ft 27 ft 21 inches 6-10-11-11 Brown clay/silt, fine, (CL), wet L • Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. WTE: March 21, 2008 SITE: Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY DEPTH DRILLED: 27 feet CORING DEVICE: 2" X 24" HAMMER DROP: 30 inches DRILLING METHOD: 3" Rods and SPT Hammer r1P11 1 FP• Ct Parlar¢en Page# 1 of 1 CONSULTANT: Kace Development, LLC. Greenport, NY DEPTH TO WATER: 20 feet HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 lbs. WELUBORING GROUTED: NO DEPTH TO BOTTOM TAPED: 27 feet HELPER_ D. Benael DEPTH FROM TO RECOVERY BLOWS / 6 INCHES SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 0 ft 2 ft 16 inches Weight of Hammer -1-2 Brown sand, fine, trace of gravel, (OL), 4" sand bottom of spoon 2 ft 4 ft 20 inches 6-18-5-12 Brown sand/silt, medium to fine, trace of gravel, (SM), dry to wet at top of spoon 4 ft 6 ft 21 inches 13-15-18-21 Brown sandfsift, medium to fine, trace of gravel, (SM), dry at top of shoe to wet at top of spoon 6 ft 10 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 10 ft 12 ft 20 inches 8-14-11-14 Brown sand/clay, medium, 5% gravel, (CL) 12 ft 15 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 15 ft 17 ft 19 inches 6-9-10-14 Brown clay, fine, (CL) 17 ft 20 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 20 ft 22 ft 15 inches 17-17-18-13 Tan sand, coarse to fine, (SW), wet 22 ft 25 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification I 2:5 ft 27 ft 22 inches 4-6-7-11 Brown clay, fine, (CL) Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. 4WTE: March 21, 2008 RECOVERY SITE: Route 48 (North Rd.) Greenport, NY 2 ft DEPTH DRILLED: 27 feet CORING DEVICE: 2" X 24" HAMMER DROP: 30 inches DRILLING METHOD: 3" Rods and SPT Hammer r)P11 I !=P• q Piripmt-n Page# 1 of 1 CONSULTANT: Kace Development, LLC. Greenport, NY DEPTH TO WATER: 20 feet HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 lbs. WELUBORING GROUTED: NO DEPTH TO BOTTOM TAPED: 27 feet HELPER: D. Benael DEPTH FROM TO RECOVERY BLOWS / 6 INCHES SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 0 ft 2 ft 15 inches of Ham Weight ghtmerof 1 Brown sand, fine to coarse, trace of gravel, (SM) 2 ft 4 ft 21 inches 3-7-8-6 Brown sand, fine to medium, trace of gravel, (SM) G1 ft 6 ft 22 inches 4-9-11-10 Brown clay/sand, fine to medium, (CL), wet 6 ft 10 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 10 ft 12 ft 19 inches 15-9-9-11 Brown clay/sand, fine, trace of gravel, (CL) 12 ft 15 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 15 ft 17 ft 21 inches 6-8-12-13 Brown clay, fine, trace of gravel, (ML) 17 ft 20 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 20 ft 22 ft 22 inches 5-9-10-11 Grey clay, fine, trace of gravel, (CL) 2.2 ft 25 ft Advance 3" Rods No Samples Taken, No Classification 25 ft 27 ft 22 inches 6-8-9-11 Grey clay sand, fine, trace of gravel, (CL) K-: Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc. 0 9 0 Ll Appendix M an Icrrzrlsca eArc, ller.tumP • Stephen tvi. Janes Admit)istrative Offices: 1060 Sunrise Highway,. Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 Chief Ex?;cutivo Officer (631) 563-0219 Fax (631) 563-0370 March 23, 2009 Constantine E. Kontokosta, P.E. K kCE Group -0-5 North Road P.O. Box 67 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr. Kontokosta: I'd like to respond to your letter of March 17, 2009 which includes an excerpted attachment signed by Sherri Aicher. Environmental Analyst. I've reviewed her request and yours and offer the folio-nzng observations: Provided you are taking all your water (domestic, fire, irrigation) from us for your proposed affordable housing development, as we had assumed you would N hen the issued you a water availability letter, your development will not have an impact on our supplies. Our supplies do all come from the north fork and we design our system for peak future saturation demand. We have analyzed our supplies and do so every five years in a comprehensive way with a thorough SEQRA analysis, which the NYSDEC has in their possession already. They issue well permits to us based on a capped maximum gallons per minute and we are required to provide a complete analysis of any potential problems that might occur from pumping. We use these peal: amounts in our computations as to whether we are approaching a possible peal: demand. We pump all our north fork wells veolightly and only some seasonally because of the potential for either salt water intrusion or infiltration of surface contaminants. You are welcome to use this letter in any response you need to make to the NYSDEC and please refer any further concerns they might have about the public water supply to us for proper response. Sin ChieMecu dive Officer SMJ:dmm 2000 National SOUrCP 4Va er Protec'icn Award Winner 6 SUFFOLK COiJNTY WATER AUTHORITY 4060 Sunrise Highway, PO Box 38, Oakdale, New York 11769 March 4, 2008 The Kace Group Box 67 Greenport, NY 10019 Attn: Constantine Kontokosta Re: Water Availability — KACE LLC — Proposed Affordable Housing SCTM# 1000-4-3-1 File# 4776047 Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Reference is made to your request for information regarding availability of public water service to the above referenced property. There is an existing water main available to the above captioned property from County Rd 48. Accordingly, public water service for the parcel will be provided, in accordance with the rates and charges applicable at the time of hook-up. If a main extension is required, you are responsible for paying the costs of the extension and if appropriate, an easement must be provided to SCWA. This letter is not to be considered an action by SCWA as defined by the New York State Quality Review Act regulations or a determination that the parcel is approved for building. You are responsible for obtaining any other permits or approvals that may be required for the proposed project. SCWA shall not be required to provide water for the project until all required approvals have been obtained. For connections to the public water system, there is a key money fee that must be paid in full prior to taking service. The fee starts at $3000.00 per service for a one -inch service and is greater for larger services. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (631) 563-5610 or our New Service Department at (631) 218-1148. Sincerely, Steve Romano Manager New Service 0 SR:drh PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology Suffolk County Department of Health Services Water Quality Monitoring Database Notes Field/Parameter Units/Format Remarks Date mmddyy { Station -- ###### The first 3 digits represent the bay code; the last 3 the station number 'T. Coliform MPN/100 ml Total coliform bacteria -~ F. Coliform_ MPN/100 ml Fecal -coliform bacteria NH3 NO2 NO3 �NO2+NO3 _ - _- mg/I mg/l mg/1 _ mg/1 mg/l Ammonia (filtered) Nitrite (filtered) Nitrate filtered Nitrite +Nitrate (filtered) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen I -- �TKN_ TDKN_ mg/l Total dissolved Kjeldahl nitrogen !TN _ - _ mg/l Total nitrogen 1 TDN mg/l Total dissolved nitrogen -� TP04 mg/l Total phosphate TDP04 _ o-PO4 j - mg/i Total dissolved phosphate - mg/l Ortho -phosphate (dissolved inorganic) — TP i mg/l Total phosphorus i TDP _ ,-- mg/I Total dissolved phosphorus Notes: * All nutrient values are computed as N, P, C, or Si. * As of August 2000, the Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN, TDKN) and Phosphate (TP04, TDP04) analyses were replaced with procedures that yield Total Nitrogen (TN, TDN) and Total Phosphorus (TP, TDP). 0 ry �rl� t:v z �'r ti .'�� ♦ _ •ft a.°� ri � * tt �' - '. � 4 ata: r 4 1t�1 +`} T�N'4y�'�Y•i T ��'� �] � t + , S<\l �f����" `� .,:1�1 , , a t 4 ,�' A r u,�+ c"v 'i ysY�,Seo i • 1 f ry �rl� t:v __....ice 5 Moores...Drain ;. . i•1 t .. ..�`.' .,..,° a .�\. . �; .r.,.1, ., ..� �5.,,.oE ,.iS.M„a-� �:: .. �._-. 't ;1 ...5 r 4`� �. �'1`. __....ice MO,,,{� +� t'Yi f t {eWa iYYct / •' �r 1 oai ti ~Rae.} �`.Y• ` .,, fJ � c,_ > 5 ` �' 7` � t lye! � � ti4_:•I ��� Unioll J s A `}j� f-,fJALT f .. .y� ..'. i i _ '- ' -�"- � ► 'y `4+�f ".•j �' '. r (. •,��{/! • - _: ! `,�I �►.�-. ..♦ fir■ � '�� �a�5 - ':rl'!j�lA i M �i �i � > � ."tt�(� • ! .- 1ii� ;r#.' ��E''t, y t.it�s` It-�'�r �`'•f'\�` i _: L Y,�'�'� ; `� l �i3� -,r ` � t6 �� -!4 1�•�: ���5� .' 1,3.t,-� ;w_ `r /j VC t } r r S $ r.�-�f � f"�••� :. �1V�y`f7` \ r -- i `r:. <� �js�=r,���'fi,��' > � D r t SUbste1lo�. ,r r rt (.'3 r i y� ..1 t f ..-., ` �• % 1 • � .._ �'' \'�-,r % �i'S. T � I L..�fr 4 l. � `��� y��i I�%c.�. :;�...�2\ - ..�` {;lFr .a:r f• :..' OL'1 .*.. _ { \ s)f r` •f I• M \ l Jr l ¢/ L'b. t r e J ti�`_�•; '. le 1 t t t �� t`\VJ�' iJfl�•' r 5t r 1\.. 4 F -J i j, ` C','r 1 3 YL Y ::i>`r"ft '� r� ''i IMti .F.l:,. - j�i> f .tip\;; `.�� .�... ``^"^:._� S� ✓s +. --. __f .; t�; } 4. trg4/ ,'` `f tf �� i(� �} •-j-�•..��}��+v r� �1 �,`t i - f.� 'a� �.'^> l �•. 41 JL ��V-� ; t :'3��`. �=}` �`.ii,r, .(j _ '9 J` i. �<<..: • `_�Rr/f'�I^^�,`.il`� .�\� • -�: z`,I r� �.L J3- ,ft t�\•,- • �,• s .1 �, � iti" `'4 rte+.- 'i � _ _ f r4: °�s r` i' �\ � "r '-'• - r 4 + '� �. r [ q t :moi+'%J�� £ , �> J s l��'�// b ;T >t1:I_ �.,J r7 r ■/y.'y�;//� t�/t�:�`'i', Jac+' C ,. ♦�. r t J.7 •z 4r Y�� % l' 1�' f�>u.,i5 i r_ 4� ,_..= r� ; J Imo! 1 •. i:, �j�: "t � -' .. ./ t J i a\ } � 4 Ij/ix + ,r ! � t ti>. ; • • • #fes, `!;\ -,. l'Ki � ,y �i �z \ i `` sir F � k -S /. •.,-. •tr.rJ ! t.. r�, �!r .. LnL '�` � _I►•4M1'�1 � { \ ; � � Y Y T f Coovikht (C) 2008. Maptech, Inc. • • Suffolk County Department of Health Services Moores Drain/Pipes Neck Creek - Station 200240 From the culvert on the north side of Main Rd. at the intersection with Old Mill Rd., Southold . . Date ` r-..�,^•-�7.-r.�, ,y � r"� r t . x yun ^+y=� ,�".•+r^3 r S^ � 'E'.�^}""'^^." l � f - 9/19/96 ;Ammonia 0.060 mg/L -� { 9/19/96 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.10 mg/L 9/1-9/96 Dissolved Phosphate 0.054 mg/L 9/19/96 , Fecal Coliform 9000 MPN/100 ml 9119/96 Nitrate < 0.005 mg/L 9/19/96 Nitrite < 0.002 mg/L _ 9/19/96 Total Coliform 16000 MPN/100 ml 9119/96 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.20 mg/L _ 9/19/96 Total Phosphate 0.089 mg/L 10/16/96 (Ammonia 0.030 mg/L 10/16/96 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L _ 10/16/96 _ Dissolved_ Phosphate 0.025 mg/L —� 10/16/96 Fecal Coliform 300 MPN/100 ml 10116/96 Nitrate < 0.005 mg/L 1 10/16/96 Nitrite < 0.002 mg/L ► 1 10/16/96 Notal Coliform 3000 MPN/100 ml 10/16/96 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L i 10/16/96Total (Ammonia Phosphate 0.047 mg/L 12/2/96 - 0.013 mgJL 12/2/96 ;Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.93 mg/L 12/2/96 Dissolved Phosphate 0.061 mg/L 1212/96 Fecal Coliform 3000 MPN/100 ml _ 12/2/96 Nitrate 0.083 mg/L 12/2196 Total Coliform 9000 MPN/100 ml 1212/96 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.67 mg/L 12/2/96 Total Phosphate 0.048 mg/L 1/13/97 Ammonia < .005 mg/L Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.83 mg/L _1/13/97 1113/97 Dissolved Phosphate 0.040 mg/L 1/13/97 Fecal Coliform 20 MPN/100 ml 1/13/97 Nitrate 0.108 mg/L 1/13_/97 JTotal Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml _ —1/13/97 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.50 mg1L 1/13/97 Total Phosphate 0.038 mg/L 2/13/97 Ammonia < .02 mg/L Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.77 mg/L !-_J --2113/97 2113/97 Dissolved Phosphate < .01 mg/L r-- / — 2/13/97 jFecal Coliform 40 MPNJ100 ml —� _ 2/13/97 Nitrate < .2 mg/L i Page 1 of 11 • • 2/13/97 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 2/13/97 Total Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml 2/13/97 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.73 mg/L — _ 2/13/97 ,Total Phosphate 0.018 mg/L 4/10/97 Ammonia < .02 mg/L _ 4/10/97 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.05 mg/L _ 4/10/97 4110/97 4/10/97 Dissolved Phosphate Fecal Coliform Nitrate 0.043 mg/L 80 MPN/100 ml < .2 mg/L _ 4/10197 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 4/10197 Total Coliform 110 MPN/100 ml 4/10/97 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.20 mg/L 4/10/97 'Total Phosphate 0.044 mg/L j 6/9/97 6/9/97 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen Dissolved Phosphate 1.36 mg/L 0.106 mg/L _ _ 6/9_/97 Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml _ 6/9/97 Total Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 6/9/97 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.50 mg/L 6/9197 Total Phosphate 0.130 mg/L 9/22/97 jAmmonia 0.278 mg/L 9/22/97 IDissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.39 mg/L- g/!9/22/97 9/22/97 Dissolved Phosphate 0.048 mg/L I _9/22/97 Fecal Coliform 230 MPN/100 ml _ I 9/22/97 Nitrate & Nitrite < .2 mg/L 9/22/97 Nitrite 0.046 mg/L _ 9/22/97 Total Coliform 2400 MPN/100 ml 9/22/97 ITotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.20 mg/L 9122/97 Total Phosphate 0.117 mg/L 3/18/98 Ammonia 0.054 mg/L 3/18/98 1Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.44 mg/L 3/18/98_ 'Dissolved Phosphate 0.027 mg/L 3/18/98 Fecal Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml _ 3/18/98 Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L _ f 3/18/98 _3118/98 Nitrite Total Coliform < 0.02 mg/L 110 MPN/100 ml - i 3118198 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.26 mg/L 3/18/98 ITotal Phosphate 0.055 mg/L - - 6/15/98 Ammonia 0.035 mg/L 6/15/98 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.09 mg/L 6/15/98 Dissolved Phosphate 0.069 mg/L 'Fecal Coliform 2200 MPN/100 ml _6/15/98 6/15/98 Nitrate & Nitrite 6/15/98 _ Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L 6/15/98 Total Coliform > 16000 MPN/100 ml Page 2 of 11 • C] • 6/15/9!Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.10 mg/L 6/15/98 Total Phosphate 0.075 mg/L _11/9/9_8 11Ammonia 0.073 mg/L ' _ 11/9/98 _)Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.69 mg/L 11/9/98 Dissolved Phosphate 0.031 mg/L _ Fecal Coliform 1100 MPN/100 ml _! i _1_1/9/98 11/9/98 Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L 11/9/98 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 11/9/98 Total Coliform 5000 MPN/100 ml 11/9/98 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.92 mg/L 11/9_/98_ -KA ,Total Phosphate 0.037 mg/L 2/8/99 monis < 0.02 mg/L L_2/8/99 -]Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0-81 mg/L 2/8/99 !Dissolved Phosphate 0.027 mg/L -J1 2/8/99 Fecal Coliform 300 MPN/100 ml -`— 2/8199 ,Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L " 2/8/99 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L - 2/8/99 (Total Coliform 800 MPN/100 ml _ f 2/8/9_9 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L -.2/8/99._ _ ]Total Phosphate 0.032 mg/L 4/20/99 Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L i I - 4/20/99 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.18 mg/L jDissolved Phosphate 0.063 mg/L , _4/20/99 j 4/20/9_9 Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 4/20/99 Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L 4/2_0/99 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 4/20/99 Total Coliform 270 MPN/100 ml 4/20199 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L _4/20/99 _ Total Phosphate 0.075 mg/L -� 11/29/99 Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L _- 11/29/99 'Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.51 mg/L j 11/29/99 Dissolved Phosphate 0.073 mg/L 11/29/99 Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 11/29/99 Nitrate & Nitrite 0.420 mg/L J Nitrite 0.021 mg/L -- _11/29/99 11/29/99 Total Coliform 800 MPN/100 ml ��--11/29/99 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L 11/29/99 (Total Phosphate 0.071 mg/L 3/2/00 Ammonia 0.076 mg/L 3/2/00 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.83 mg/L 3/2/00 _ Dissolved Phosphate 0.052 mg/L i.._____._.___-__ 3/2/00 Fecal Coliform < 20 MPN/100 ml ; 3/2/00 Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.005 mg/L _~ ; 3/2/00 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L Page 3 of 11 • • • 3/2/00 Total Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 1 3/2/00 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L 3/2/00 Total Phosphate 0.078 mg/L Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L --4/1-0/0-0 4/10/00 Dissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen ! Dissolved Phosphate 1.00 mg/L 0.059 mg/L -_4/10/00 �_ 4110_/00_ ]Fecal 4/10/00 Coliform Nitrate & Nitrite 170 MPN/100 ml 0.047 mg/L _- _ 4/10/00__ 4/10/OO�Total ' 4/10/00 5/26/00 Total Coliform Kjeldahl Nitrogen 'Total Phosphate !Ammonia 700 MPN/100 ml 0.97 mg/L 0.067 mg/L 0.074 mg/L —� 5/26100 Fecal Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml 5/26/00 1 I _5/26/00 !Nitrite Nitrate 0.108 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L 5/26/00 Total Coliform 1300 MPN/100 ml 5/26/00 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L _ 5126100 Total Phosphate 0.110 mg/L 6/23/00 Ammonia 0.285 mg/L IDissolved Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.74 mg/L _6/23/00 6/23/_00 Dissolved Phosphate 0.143- mg/L 6/23/00 Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml — -� j _Fecal 6/23/00 < 0.2 mg/L _jNitrate 6/23/00 Nitrite 0.051 mg/L -� ; 6/23/00 Total Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml 6_/23/00 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2.00 mg/L _ 6/23/00 Total Phosphate ' 0.205 mg/L ^ j 10/4/00 Ammonia 0.106 mg/L _ 10/4/00 _ Dissolved Nitrogen 10/4/00 Dissolved Phosphorous 10/4_/00 Fecal Coliform 0.73 mg/L 0.045 mg/L 3000 MPN/100 ml 10/4/00 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 10/4/00 Nitrate & Nitrite 0.165 mg/L 10/4/00 Nitrite 0.038 mg/L _ 10/4/00 Total Coliform 3000 MPN/100 ml - 10/4/00 Total Nitrogen 0.82 mg/L 1014100 Total Phosphorous 0.071 mg/L _ 11/29/00 Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L 11/29/00 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.55 mg/L _ 11/29/00 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L 11/29/00 ;Fecal Coliform Nitrate 230 MPN/100 ml 0.490 mg/L - — _11/29/00 11/29/00 ;Nitrite 11/29/00 Total Coliform < 0.02 mg/L 230 MPN/100 ml Page 4 of 11 • • Page 5 of 11 11/29/00 Total Nitrogen 0.57 mg/L i 12/28/00 11/29/00 Total Phosphorous Ammonia 0.038 mg/L 0.068 mg/L -� 1_- 12/28/00 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.66 mg/L 12/28/00 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.026 mg/L 12/28/00 !Fecal Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml _ -12/28/00 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 12/28/00 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L I 12/28/00 Total Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 12/28/00 Total Nitrogen 0.66 mg/L 12/28/00 Total Phosphorous 0.030 mg/L 3/29/01 jAmmonia < 0.02 mg/L I_ 3/29/01 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.57 mg/L _3129101 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.029 mg/L �- _3/29/01Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 3/29/01 _ Mtrite < 0.02 mg/L 3/29101 __ Total Nitrogen 0.58 mg/L _3/29/01 Total Phosphorous 0.032 mg/L _ I' 5/15/01 'Ammonia 0.163 mg/L _ j �T 5/15/01 5/15/01 ___ Dissolved Nitrogen Z Dissolved Phosphorous 0.86 mg/L 0.077 mg/L -- 5/1_5/01_ I.Fecal Coliform 230 MPN/100 ml r _5/15/01 _� 5/15/01 Nitrate ; Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L 0.022 mg/L 5/15/01 Total Coliform 600 MPN/100 ml I _5/15/01 5115/01 6/7/01 Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Ammonia 0.85 mg/L 0.091 mg/L 0.218 mg/L -- 6/7/01_ Dissolved Nitrogen 1.10 mg/L 6/7/01 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.120 mg/L 6/7/01_ -_-_ 617/01 Nitrate ; Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L _ 6/7/01 6/7101Total (Total Nitrogen Phosphorous 1.10 mg/L 0.159 mg/L '! --i 8/21/01 jAmmonia 0.145 mg/L 8121/01 1Dissolved Nitrogen 0.96 mg/L - -- - 8/21/01 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.076 mg/L - 8/21/01 Fecal Coliform 5000 MPN/100 ml --� j 8/21/01 - Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L ' 8/21/01 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 8/21/01 Total Coliform 16000 MPN/100 ml 8/21/01 ;Total Nitrogen 0.99 mg/L _ - - 8/21101 9/20/01 Total Phosphorous jAmmonia 0.096 mg/L 0.845 mg/L Page 5 of 11 • 9/20/01 Dissolved Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L _ 9/20/01 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.090 mg/L j 9/20/01 Fecal Coliform 800 MPN/100 ml 9/20/01Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L 9/20/01 j Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L - -� 9/20/01_ Total Coliform 1300 MPN/100 ml �— 9/20/01 _ ITotal Nitrogen. 1.00 mg/L _T 9/20/01 Total Phosphorous 0.204 mg/L - 10/22/01 Ammonia 0.121 mg/L 10/22/01 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.66 mg/L 10/22/01 _ Dissolved Phosphorous 0.040 mg/L 10/22/01 Fecal Coliform 1700 MPN/100 ml ------------ 10/22/01 (Nitrate & Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L 10/22/01Nitrite 10/22/01 Total Coliform < 0.02 mg/L 5000 MPN/100 ml 1 10/22/01 Total Nitrogen 0.70 mg/L 10/22/01 Total Phosphorous 0.076 mg/L _ ^_ 11/20/01 Ammonia 0.090 mg/L _ 11/20/01 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.71 mg/L j 11/20/01 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.086 mg/L r 11/20/01 Fecal Coliform 700 MPN/100 ml J 11/20/01 11/20/01 Nitrate Nitrite < 0.2 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L —11/20/01 Total Coliform 9000 MPN/100 ml 11/20/01 11/20/01 Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous 0.72 mg/L 0.098 mg/L � i I 12/19/01 Ammonia 0.060 mg/L - 12/19/01 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.96 mg/L 12/19/01 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.087 mg/L _12_/19/01 12/19/01 ---12/19/01 12/19/01 12/19/01 Fecal Coliform Nitrate Nitrite Total Coliform Total Nitrogen 2400 MPN/100 ml < 0.2 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L 9000 MPN/100 ml 0.98 mg/L -- ;_ 12119/01 Total Phosphorous 0.071 mg/L _ _ 2/14/02 Ammonia 0.028 mg/L 2/14/02 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.65 mg/L i 2/14102 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.043 mg/L 2/14/02 2/14/02 Fecal Coliform Nitrate 110 MPN/100 ml < 0.2 mg/L ! i Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _-2/14/02 2/14102 ;Total Coliform 9000 MPN/100 ml _2/14/02 jTotal 2/14/02Tatal Nitrogen Phosphorous 0.64 mg/L 0.053 mg/L _ Page 6 of 11 • • IF 1/14/03 Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L I 1/14/03 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.66 mg/L _ -1 1/14103 ! Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ _ 1/14/03 Fecal Coliform 20 MPN/100 ml Ij 1/14/03 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 1/14/03 i Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _ 1/14/03 Total Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml �-1/14/03 Total Nitrogen 0.67 mg/L _1/14/03 4/24/03 Total Phosphorous Ammonia < 0.025 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L 4/24/03 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.84 mg/L _ 4/24/03 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.057 mg/L 4/24103 Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 4/24/03 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 4124/03 _ Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L i 4/24/03 ITotal Coliform 230 MPN/100 ml _ 4/24/03 Total Nitrogen 0.73 mg/L 4/24/03 Total Phosphorous 0.058 mg/L Ammonia 0.024 mg/L _12118/03 12/18/03- 1 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.53 mg/L 12/18/03 Dissolved Phosphorous Fecal Coliform 0.076 mg/L 12/18/03 16000 MPN/100 ml 12/18/03_ Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L _ I r 12/18/03 iNitrite < 0.02 mg/L 12/18/03 (Total — Coliform 16000 MPN/100 ml — 12/18/03 TTotal Nitrogen 0.59 mg/L 1_2/18103 Total Phosphorous 0.063 mg/L j 2/25/04 jAmmonia 0.112 mg/L _--- - I 2/25104 Dissolved Nitrogen 1.20 mg/L _ 2/25/04 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.043 mg/L 2125/04 2/25/04 Fecal Coliform Nitrate < 20 MPN/100 ml < 0.2 mg/L 2/25/04 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _ 2/25/04_ Total Coliform 110 MPN/100 ml 2/25/04 (Total Nitrogen 0.73 mg/L - — 2/25/04 T-ootaal Phosphorous 0.047 mg/L -- _ 3/29/04 (Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L ' 3/29/04 'Dissolved _ Nitrogen 0.66 mg/L Dissolved Phosphorous 0.261 mg/L --- _3/29104_ 3/29/04 Fecal Coliform 20 MPNI100 ml 3/29/04 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L �_ 3/29/04 'Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L — 3129/04 _ Total Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml - -� 3/29/04 ;Total Nitrogen 0.62 mg/L Page 7 of 11 • • • _3129104 Total Phosphorous 0.086 mg/L 4/29/04 Ammonia < 0.02 mg/L 4/29104 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L i 4/29/04 _ Dissolved Phosphorous 0.225 mg/L 4129/04 Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml 1 _ 4/29/04 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _4/29/04 _ 4/29/04 - Total Coliform 130 MPN/100 ml 4/29/04 Total Nitrogen 1.10 mg/L 4/29/04 ;Total Phosphorous 0.182 mg/L 5127/04` Ammonia 0.144 mg/L -- ! 5/27104 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L _, 5/27/04 r Dissolved Phosphorous 0.076 mg/L J 5/27/04 Fecal Coliform 5000 MPN/100 ml 5/27/04 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L i 5/27/04 /Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L --i 1 Total Coliform 9000 MPN/100 ml _5_/27/04_ 5/27/04 Total Nitrogen 0.97 mg/L 5/27/04 Total Phosphorous 0.073 mg/L 8/9/04 Ammonia 0.051 mg/L 8.19/04 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.17 mg/L —_-) 8/9/04 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.042 mg/L 8/9/04_ Fecal Coliform 2400 MPN/100 ml 8/9/04 Nitrate 0.336 m /L 819/04_ 8/9/04^Total t— 8/9/04 Nitrite Coliform ITotal Nitrogen 0.054 mg/L 2400 MPN/100 ml 0.16 mg/L — — 8/9/04 I 11/5/04 Total Phosphorous Ammonia < 0.025 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L — _71/5/04 IDissolved Nitrogen 0.93 mg/L 1115/04 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.056 mg/L _ 11/5/0_4 Fecal Coliform 16000 MPN/100 ml i 11/5/04 !Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 11/5/04 ;Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _ 11/5/04 ';Total Coliform 16000 MPN/100 ml 1115/04_ /Total Nitrogen 0.88 mg/L - 11/5/04 'Total Phosphorous 0.057 mg/L _2/3/05 jAmmonia 2/3105 Ammonia 0.050 mg/L 0.050 mg/L 2/3/05 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.60 mg/L f 2/3/05 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.025 mg/L 2/3/05 1 2/3/05 2/3105 Fecal Coliform Nitrate Nitrite 20 MPN/100 ml < 0.2 mg/L < 0.02 mg/L Page 8 of 11 • • • -_ �7 otal Coliform 1300 MPN/100 ml j__2/3/05 --r ITotai Nitrogen 0.55 mg/L Total Phosphorous 0.035 mg/L _2/3/05 3/2/05 Ammonia 0.040 mg/L - J 3/2/05 !Ammonia 0.040 mg/L _ 3/2/05 ! Dissolved Nitrogen 1.30 mg/L - --� 3/2/05 I Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ -_-3/2105 3/2/05 _ :Fecal Coliform !Nitrate 20 MPN/100 ml 0.350 mg/L _ 3/2/05 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 3/2/05 Total Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml 3/2/05 Total Nitrogen 1.10 mg/L 3/2/05 Total Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L 3/30/05 Ammonia 0.040 mg/L 3/30/05 Ammonia 0.040 mg/L — Dissolved Nitrogen 0.51 mg/L _3/30/05 I 3/30/05 ;Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ J 3/30105 Fecal Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml -^ 3/30/05 !Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 3/30/05 'Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 3/30105 Total Coliform 500 MPNI100 ml _3/30/05 3/30/05Total !Total Nitrogen Phosphorous 0.49 mg/L 0.030 mg/L A — 4/27105_ 'Ammonia 0.020 mg/L _ J _ 4_/27/05 Ammonia 0.020 mg/L _ 4/27105 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.93 mg/L 4/27/05 ^I Dissolved Phosphorous 0.079 mg1L 4/27/05 `Fecal Coliform 300 MPN/100 ml ! 4/27/05 Nitrate < 0.2 mg/L 4127/05 Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 4127/05 Total Coliform 2200 MPN/100 ml _ ! 4127/05 Total Nitrogen 0.94 mg/L 4/27/05 Total Phosphorous 0.069 mg/L 6/1105 (Ammonia 0.257 mg/L _ J- 6/1105 Ammonia 0.257 mg/L _ Dissolved Nitrogen 0.73 mg/L ___6/1105 J---6/1/05 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.038 m /L ' I 6/1/05 Fecal Coliform 230 MPN/100 ml t 6/1/05 6/1105 Nitrate Nitrite 0.371 mg/L 0.022 mg/L --i11/ 605 Total Coliform 230 MPN/100 ml 6/1/05 ]Total Nitrogen 0.74 mg/L i 6/1/05 Total Phosphorous 0.036 mg/L — 11/15/05 Ammonia 0.060 mg/L Page 9 of 11 • • • Page 10 of 11 0.060 mg/L k11/15/05Ammonia _ 11/15/05 Dissolved Nitrogen 1.40 mg/L - - 11/15/05 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L 11/15/05 Fecal Coliform 500 MPN/100 ml - ! 11/15/05 iNitrate < 0.2 mg/L _11/15/05 _ _ 11/15/05 Nitrite Total Coliform < 0.02 mg/L 1100 MPN/100 ml 11/15/05 Total Nitrogen 1.50 mg1L 1 11/15/05 Total Phosphorous 0.057 mg/L —11 -- -- i 2/23/06 Ammonia 0.071 mg/L I 2123/06_ Dissolved Nitrogen 0.64 mg/L 2/23/06 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ 2123/06 _Fecal Coliform 80 MPN/100 ml T--_ 2/23106 Nitrate & Nitrite 0.195 mg/L 2/23/06 /Nitrite _ < 0.02 mg/L 2/23/06 !Total Coliform 300 MPN/100 ml { 2/23/06 _ Notal Nitrogen 0.64 mg/L _ 2/23/06 Total Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ _ 3120/06 IAmmonia 0.040 mg/L 3/20106 1 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.59 mg/L - I 3120/06 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L t 3/20/06 Fecal Coliform 20 MPN/100 ml A� 3/20/06 0.290 mg/L — 3/20/06 _Nitrate _ ' Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L -- 3/20/06 _Total Coliform 130 MPN/100 ml _ - 3120/06Total Nitrogen 0.60 mg/L 3/20/06 _ Total Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L _ 4/20/06 jAmmonia < 0.02 mg/L Dissolved Nitrogen 0.70 mg/L j _4/20/06 4/20/06 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.025 mg/L 4/20/06 +Fecal Coliform 40 MPN/100 ml _ 4/20/06 Nitrate 0.344 mg/L -_ I _ 4/20/06 _ Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L _ 4/20106 4/20/06 Notal Coliform Total Nitrogen -- 170 MPN/100 ml 0.68 mg/L - ---------- 1 4/20/06 Total Phosphorous < 0.025 m g L / 5/18/06 Ammonia 0.030 mg/L!F -.-� _ ! 5118/06 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.67 mg/L 5/18/06 Dissolved Phosphorous 0.061 m L r 5118/06 Fecal Coliform 210 MPN/100 ml 5/18/06 Nitrate 0.207 mg/L 5/18/06 Nitrite < 0.02 m /L 5118/06IT tao Coliform 399 MPN/100 ml 5/18/06 Total Nitrogen 1.00 mg/L Page 10 of 11 • • • 5/18/06 ;Total Phosphorous 0.082 mg/L ' _ 12/5/06 r 12/5/06 jAmmonia Dissolved Nitrogen 0.070 mg/L 0.65 mg/L I 12/5106 ?_Dissolved Phosphorous 0.059 mg/L 12/5/06 !Fecal Coliform 260 MPN/100 ml 12/5/06 1Nitrate < 2 mg/L ! 12/5/06 ;Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 1215/06 (Total Coliform 1 700 MPN/100 ml 12/5/06 ,Total Nitrogen __ 0.64 mg/L 12/5/06 Total Phosphorous 0.063 mg/L 1/24/07 Ammonia - 0.040 mg/L 1/24/07 Dissolved Nitrogen 0.76 mg/L 1/24/07 Dissolved Phosphorous < 0.05 mg/L f_ 1/24/07 Fecal Coliform 20 MPN/100 ml -- I 1/24_/07 /Nitrate —` 0.267 mg/L f 1/24/07 ~ Nitrite < 0.02 mg/L 1/24/07 ITatal Coliform 130 MPN/100 ml 1/24/07 Total Nitrogen 0.82 mg/L ; 1/24/07, iTotal Phosphorous 0.056 mg/L j Page 11 of 11 Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology Surface Water Quality Monitoring Database Data Reliability/ Disclaimer Statement The attached water quality data has been collected and compiled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) during the course of various environmental monitoring and management programs, and is provided to interested members of the public upon request. The information provided is both current and historical, and has been collected under a wide variety of sampling, analytical, and quality assurance regimes. Users should be aware that changes may periodically be made to the data by the SCDHS, and that versions formally transmitted may or may not reflect these changes. While the SCDHS believes the data to be accurate and has made great efforts to assure its reliability at the time the information was compiled, the information is provided -on an "as is" basis. Neither the County of Suffolk nor the Department of Health Services makes any warranty, either expressed or -implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability, quality or usability of the information. Any person having been transmitted this data or otherwise obtaining copies thereof, assumes all responsibility and risk for the accuracy and verification of the information. All recipients are requested to properly cite the data as follows: Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), yyyy. Surface water quality monitoring data provided by the SCDHS Office of Ecology, Yaphank, N.Y. r� Stephen M. Jones Chief Executive Officer ;n q-) jr COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769-0901 (631) 563-0219 Fax (631)563-0370 TO: United States Army Corp of Engineers NYS Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets NYS Secretary of State NYS DEC, Division of Environmental Permits NYS DEC, Region 1, Regulatory Affairs Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Bureau of Drinking Water Suffolk County Department of Parks Suffolk County Department of Public Works Town of Riverhead Town of Southampton The Honorable Joshua Horton, Supervisor, Town of Southold Riverhead Water District Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission Long Island Railroad NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation Interested Parties FROM: Stephen M. Jones, CEO RE: Five Year Water Supply 1 for e Town of Southold DATE: July 21, 2003 Please find enclosed the Findings Statement for the Suffolk County Water Authority's Five Year Water Supply Plan Update for the Town of Southold. The Suffolk County Water Authority Board authorized the release of the Findings Statement at its June 24, 2003 meeting. Please feel free to contact my office if you have any comments on the proposed plan. Enclosure State Environmental Quality Review FINDINGS STATEMENT Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 617, the Suffolk County Water Authority, as lead agency, makes the following findings. Name of Action: Adoption of Five Year Water Supply Plan for the Town of Southold Type of Action: Type I Action Location: Town of Southold Contact Person: For more information contact Timothy J. Hopkins, 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769, (631) 563-0236. Agency Jurisdiction: Public Authorities Law Article 5, Title 4 Date Final EIS Filed: June 24, 2003 Description of Action: The DGEIS and FGEIS provided detailed analysis of different options that SCWA will consider when determining how to provide water for the residents of the Town of Southold for the next five years. This Plan recognizes that SCWA will need to be flexible and adapt to the changing conditions, both physical and regulatory, that affect how SCWA produces water for the Town. The underlying assumption of this Plan, is that SCWA will be required to serve those areas identified in the Water Service Area Map adopted by the Suffolk County Department of Health, SCWA and endorsed by the Town of Southold. Currently, SCWA operates many small capacity wells within the Town. Extensive testing indicates that are no areas in the Town that have the ability to support large capacity wells. In addition, water quality trends indicate that treatment may be required on many if not all of the wells in the future. It is also necessary to anticipate regulatory changes that would require SCWA to install treatment systems on many Southold wells to treat water that presently meets all applicable standards. In addition, it appears that treatment systems may not be feasible to treat some of the water quality issues encountered in the Town. Selection of individual components of the Plan will depend upon the costs and benefits of any particular option. The analyses offered in the DGEIS are intended to guide SCWA in performing this balancing of options for the next five yea: s. The options from which SCWA will choose are discussed below. 0 Findings: A. Sufficient water exists in the Town of Southold to support full build out of the Town SCWA finds that the aquifer system within the Town of Southold has a sufficient quantity of water to provide for the Town of Southold even if the Town is developed to the fullest extent allowable under current zoning. The DGEIS analyzed the hydrogeologic conditions of the Town and reviewed studies of Leggette, Brashears, & Graham, ERM -Northeast, Camp Dresser & McKee and development projections of the Suffolk County Department of Planning to determine whether a sufficient quantity of groundwater exists in Southold to serve the needs of the Town. This review indicated that the required quantity exists. The study also noted that while a sufficient quantity groundwater exists, the quality of that groundwater is compromised. Thus, SCWA would need to install extensive and widespread treatment systems throughout the Town if it was to rely exclusively on the Town's groundwater resources to meet the Town's demands. The impacts of relying solely on the Town's groundwater resources are significant. B. SCWA can purchase water from the Town of Riverhead Water District without having significant environmental impacts SCWA finds that, in accordance with the report prepared by H2M, the Riverhead Water District consultant, if valves are installed on the water mains on Pier Avenue, Manor Lane and Herricks Lane, SCWA would be able to obtain up to 1,500 gallons per minute at the proposed Sound Avenue interconnection. The proposed interconnection will require the installation of approximately 8,300 feet of main on Sound Avenue from Cox Neck Lane to the Riverhead system. SCWA further finds that there may be significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of a water main along Sound Avenue for two reasons. If main is installed between Cox Neck Lane and the Riverhead system the mains would front on parcels in Agricultural District No. 1. There is a potential that access to the public water within the mains may encourage the conversion of farm parcels to non-farm uses. Second, the installation of the main would be inconsistent with the Water Supply Map as discussed in the DGEIS. The Map, adopted by the Suffolk County Health Department, SCWA and endorsed by the Town of Southold was intended to guide where water main service was to be provided. SCWA finds that these impacts can be mitigated by designating these mains as transmission mains and adopting a policy which prohibits parcels that are within Agricultural District No. 1 or undeveloped from connecting to the main. This policy would be consistent with Agriculture and Markets Law §305, the mitigation measures discussed in the DGEIS and would not have a significant impact on the groundwater resources. There would be no significant impact on groundwater resources because as a requirement of service, SCWA would require that if an existing unit presently served by a well wanted public water service that the well serving the unit be disconnected. Thus there would be no additional withdrawal from the aquifer to serve to the L J newly connected unit. Another mitigation measure is the ability of the Town to designate new areas on the Water Service Map with Health Department approval as eligible to receive public water. SEQRA regulations require that Generic Environmental Impact Statements identify what, if any, additional approvals or environmental review would be required if the action proposed is implemented. If SCWA establishes an interconnection with the Riverhead Water District, the Town of Riverhead would need to approve the contract providing for the sale and may need to approve a road opening permit. Road opening permits may be required from the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southold as well. Because 112M determined that Riverhead has additional capacity, further environmental review should not required if SCWA enters into a contract with the Town. C. SCWA can develop 2 wells at the Hallockville Museum Site without significant impact to the environment According to SCWA's consultant, Camp Dresser McKee, two wells withdrawing up to 1 million gallons of water per day could be operated at the site without significant adverse impact to the Magothy Aquifer. The Hallockville site is approximately 0.5 miles from the Town of Southold. If the Sound Avenue interconnection was established the water developed at this site could be transmitted into the Southold system via those mains. If the mains were not installed, SCWA could install mains within Sound Avenue. There are two significant environmental impacts associated with developing the wells at the site. The first is the visual impacts associated with developing the well and the second is the same as the impact discussed in the preceding section. SCWA finds that the visual impacts associated with the well can be mitigated in three ways. First, if the chemical treatment building, which houses the equipment which treats the water produced at the site. If located on site, SCWA can position the building behind an existing building on the site. By locating the chemical treatment building behind an existing building, the building will not be readily visible. Second, SCWA finds that if the chemical treatment building is designed to resemble a farm building it will be undistinguishable from the existing buildings at the site. Third, if SCWA has not interconnected with the Riverhead Water District, it could install mains to transmit water directly from the Hallockville site to the SCWA facility at Laurel Lake. At the Laurel Lake facility, the water produced by the Hallockville well could be treated in the existing chemical treatment building. By transmitting the untreated water to Laurel Lake, both impacts associated with the wells at the Hallockville site will be mitigated; first there would be SCWA buildings at the site; and two, new interconnections could not be permitted to the main along Sound Avenue because the water would not be treated for consumption purposes. Prior to operating the wells at the Hallockville site, SCWA would apply for the appropriate permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. A site 3 specific environmental review may be required as part of the permit process. If the installation of mains is required, SCWA may need to obtain a road opening permits as described in the preceding section. SCWA finds that as an alternative, SCWA could purchase a parcel near the Riverhead - Southold town line that is within the Town of Southold from which wells could be developed that draw water from the Magothy aquifer. Developing these wells would require the same review as required for the Hallockville wells_ D. SCWA finds there are beneficial impacts for maintaining some wells in the Town of Southold SCWA finds that there is sufficient groundwater within the aquifer system of the Town to supply the Town's needs even at projected full buildout. However, while the quantity of water is sufficient, the quality of much of the resource is compromised. SCWA further finds that it is beneficial to have a system of wells in the Town as an operational strategy. Operating wells in the Town allows SCWA to maintain multiple sources of water which reduces reliance on a single source. By maintaining several sources of water, if one source is temporarily unavailable water could be provided from other sources. By operating wells in the eastern portion of the Town, SCWA does not need to move water from the western portions of the Town to serve the eastern portion. SCWA finds that treating water with elevated levels of chlorides is not feasible. The technology exists to remove chlorides from water. Elevated chloride levels in production wells is usually associated with either lateral or vertical saltwater intrusion. Typically, SCWA lowers the operating capacity of the affected well or discontinues its use. SCWA could build a desalination facility but as noted by the DGEIS such facilities require large buildings, are costly to operate and generate large amounts of waste. As a general policy SCWA would not develop treatment systems to remove chlorides. SCWA finds that the installation of granulated activated carbon filters to treated water with elevated levels of VOCs and SOCs does not have a significant impact on the environment. When a well produces water which is high in VOCs or SOCs, an appropriate response would be to install a granulated activated carbon filter unit on the well. SCWA is well versed on how to install, operate and maintain carbon filters. SCWA has several units that can be installed on a temporary basis. Furthermore, the units are not enclosed within a building and thus do not require the construction of a building which has permanent visual impacts. Lastly, the carbon within the units can be reactivated by a SCWA contractor who is responsible for disposing of the waste generated by the unit in an appropriate manner. To mitigate the visual impacts of the installing GACs units on Southold wells, SCWA would install SCWA will install GAC filters on the largest capacity wells first. If the impacts to a well is not transitory, SCWA will investigate installing permanent treatment within a specifically constructed building. When determining which wells to install permanent treatment, SCWA will analyze the yield of the well and whether additional wells, on site or off, could utilize the treatment systems. The goal would be to create treatment clusters from which the water from several large capacity wells could be centrally treated. Economies of scale could be realized by clustering treatment facilities without the widespread proliferation of treatment systems. One candidate for this type of treatment facility would be the Kenneys Road - and Middle Road well fields in Peconic. While most cost effective treatment systems can be implemented for most chemicals of concern, wells impacted by elevated nitrate or perchlorate levels present a different set of issues. It is very expensive to develop systems to treat water with high nitrate levels. Currently the most efficient way to address elevated nitrate levels is to blend water with high nitrates with water with lower nitrate levels. This solution presumes the existence of lower nitrate level water that can be used for blending purposes. If such water is unavailable, SCWA may abandon the well. SCWA finds that no new treatment systems for nitrates will be installed. SCWA also finds that the use of the existing nitrate removal system at the North Road wellfield should continue. SCWA has detected perchlorate in 11 of the 30 wells it operates in the Town of Southold. The combined actual capacity of the 30 wells is 4,195 gallons per minute (gpm'. The United States Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering the -drinking water standard for perchlorate. It appears that EPA is analyzing the benefits and costs of different standards ranging is from 0 to 5 parts per billion. Current reliable detection limits, using state of the art laboratory equipment is 0.5 parts per billion. If the EPA selects a level of 2.0 parts per billion or less, water produced at 11 wells will not meet the revised perchlorate standard and will not be useable by SCWA. This represents a potential capacity loss of 2,800 gpm. There are several options for removing perchlorate from groundwater. The DGEIS analyzed each option. The simplest solution for treating water with perchlorate would be pass the water through a GAC unit. However, carbon filters are effective at removing perchlorate for only short periods of time. When a GAC unit is used to treat perchlorate, the carbon needs to be replaced frequently. Whereas, typically carbon is effective at removing VOCs or SOCs for a period of years, it will remove perchlorate for only several months before it is ineffectual and the carbon must be replaced. SCWA finds that site specific determination on whether to treat perchlorate in a well should be made if and when a perchlorate level in a well exceed standards. This determination should include a balancing of the impacts and benefits of installing a perchlorate treatment system. E. Water can be transmitted from the Central Pine Barrens Region to the Town of Southold without significant environmental impact As the DGEIS analyzed there is a plentiful supply of water that is free of human -induced 0 contaminants located to the west of the Town of Southold. Abundant supplies of high quality groundwater lies beneath the Central Pine Barrens region. Since the passage of the Long Pine Barrens Protection Act of 1993 development in the region is regulated by the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy. SCWA finds that the water resources of the Central Pine Barrens region far exceed the potential demand for them and represent a high quality source of water for the residents of the Town of Southold. SCWA has several options for bringing water into the Town. First, _either a new well can be developed to provide water for transmission into Southold or water from an existing well can be transmitted. The DGEIS analyzed the impacts related to developing a well in Flanders that would provide water to the Town. If a new well was developed, a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permit would be required. As part of the DEC application, well specific impacts would need be analyzed. There are several potential impacts associated with bringing water to the Town of Southold. First, there are construction impacts associated with installing a new main between the Central Pine Barrens and the Town of Southold. Second, if a new wellfield is constructed, there will be impacts associated with the construction of the wellfield. Third, there may be growth inducing impacts. SCWA fords that the construction impacts associated with installing the main and developing the wellfield can be mitigated through standard practices of SCWA. SCWA finds that the preferred approach for the main would be along Peconic Bay Boulevard. This approach will minimize the impacts of the main construction and limit the installation of main to areas within the Town of Southold that are designated to receive water services. The growth inducing impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed below. Lastly, according to SCWA's consultant, Camp Dresser McKee, there would be negligible impact to the groundwater levels within the Town of Southold by transmitting water from outside the Town to the Town and recharging the same in the Town. Approvals required include applying for and receiving a permit to operate a public water supply well from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, road opening permits from the County of Suffolk, the Towns of Riverhead, Southampton and Southold, permission from the Long Island Railroad to cross its tracks in Riverhead, permission from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the New York Secretary of State to cross under the Peconic River, a navigable water way and from the County of Suffolk if the main is installed within Indian Island County Park. Site specific environmental review would be required if new wells are proposed. F. Mitigation Measures The DGEIS examined several different measures which could be implemented by SCWA or other agencies to mitigate the impacts associated with adopting a water strategy for the Town of Southold. Mitigation measures analyzed by the DGEIS fall within three general groups. The first group concerns the practical issues on how to provide high quality potable water to the Town's residents. These measures include: (a) treating the water produced at existing SCWA wellfields, (b) transmitting water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold, (c) implementing an Agricultural Watershed Program to encourage low impact agricultural uses near existing wellfields which will lessen the potential for agricultural practices from affecting the quality of the groundwater produced by the well and (d) purchasing and transmitting water from Riverhead Water District. The second group were methods for reducing the growth inducing impacts of increasing the amount of water available within the Town. These measures include: (a) eliminating SCWA's 75 foot rule allowance for projects converting agricultural lands, (b) analyzing the opportunities afforded by the Agriculture and Markets Law to prevent the conversion of agricultural district lands to non-farm uses, (c) advocating for purchases of additional agricultural lands and development rights from farms within the Town of Southold from various sources, (d) supporting the renewal of Agricultural District Number 1, and (e) implementing recommendations of Suffolk County Agricultural Protection Plan. The last group analyzed methods for reducing the demand for water within the town. These measures encouraged the Town of Southold to: (a) impose mandatory restrictions on irrigation dependent vegetation and clearing amounts, (b) require the installation of water saving devices, (c) implement a non-contiguous cluster program allowing development rights to be transferred within the Town, (d) encourage other uses for non-contiguous cluster rights and (e) require mandatory clustering and conservation subdivisions. Facts and Conclusions in the EIS Relied Upon to Support the Decision: PURPOSE, NEEDS AND BENEFITS SCWA is at a critical juncture in supplying water to its customers in the Town of Southold. Presently, SCWA operates a system that relies on a series of low capacity shallow wells that draw water from an aquifer lense that has large amounts of water of compromised quality. The quantity of water within the aquifer is sufficient to supply the entire Town, even at full build out. Relying solely on the Southold aquifer will require that SCWA develop more shallow capacity wells and initiate a program of installing treatment facilities on every well. Such a program would include impacts to the visual resources of the Town, waste disposal and fiscal impacts. SCWA is proposing to adopt a Plan to supplement the existing SCWA system with water sources that do not require significant treatment. SCWA will attempt to create more interconnections between the largely independent Southold system and the largely interconnected water distribution system to the west. The benefits of the proposal are numerous. First, SCWA would not be dependent on the shallow low capacity wells but rather those wells would be buttressed by a supply of water that does not require extensive treatment. Second, the amount of water within the Southold system would be increased. This would provide for additional fire protection and allow for main extensions to serve areas identified by the Town and the Suffolk County Health Department including the Health Department priority areas. Third, because these new water sources are outside the Town of Southold fewer large systems can be installed. Lastly, by selecting from the range of alternatives identified in the DGEIS, SCWA can design a system that minimize environmental impacts. II. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS It has been alleged that the introduction of public water into areas that were previously unserved encourages development. While the point is debatable, the Town of Southold controls development in the Town. SCWA can however shape the manner in which land is developed through the adoption of watershed rules and regulations that must be approved by the New York State and Suffolk County Health Departments. SCWA encourages agencies with jurisdiction over land use issues to analyze development trends in the Town and engage in planning efforts to tailor future development in a way that meets the Town's objectives and preserves and protects the aquifer. The DGEIS identifies several measures that can be enacted to prevent the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. These measures include eliminating SCWA's 75 foot rule allowance for projects converting agricultural lands. SCWA currently has a provision by which it grants an allowance of 75 feet of free water main for residential units which are not located on an existing main. The applicant receives an allowance equal to the installation of 75 feet of water main as part of the SCWA's extension of mains to serve the applicant's house. SCWA could eliminate this allowance for main extensions that involved the conversion of agriculture lands to residential development and mitigate growth inducing impacts. Second, if SCWA or a governmental unit was to fund the provision of public water to non-farm structures within the Agricultural District, Agriculture and Markets Law requires that SCWA or other entity demonstrate that the proposed action minimizes adverse impacts on agriculture. This demonstration would take the form of a study that analyzes the proposed project, its impacts and the reasonable alternatives. The Commissioner of Agriculture is empowered to restrain a public entity from funding the project if adverse impacts to the Agricultural District could occur and require the entity to act in a manner consistent with one of the alternatives analyzed or the Commissioner may select another alternative that would minimize the adverse impacts to the District. If mains were installed in front of Agricultural District parcels, SCWA could designate the mains as transmission mains and not permit service connections to the mains. 0 SCWA encourages Suffolk County to continue the purchase of lands that are within the • Southold Special Groundwater Protection Area pursuant to the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program. Under this program, revenues from a special sales and compensating use tax of 1/4 of 1% provide funding for sewer district tax rate stabilization, environmental protection and property tax mitigation. Within the environmental protection category funds can be expended, for among other things, the purchase of lands within SGPAs, the purchase of lands that are necessary for maintaining the quality of surface and/or groundwater. Additionally, the program provides funds for the purchase of farmland development rights. The purchase of farmland development rights ensures that farms generating the development right cannot be converted to non-farm uses. Suffolk County can also make purchases of farmland development rights pursuant to the County's Community Greenways Fund. SCWA advocates the renewal of Suffolk County Agricultural District Number 1 which expires in 2003. Pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law, the Suffolk County Legislature can continue, modify or terminate the district upon reports of the County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board and the County Planning Department pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law Section 303-a. The County could recommend that the District be extend for either 12 or 20 years as permitted by the law rather than eight years and work to add more properties to the District. Lastly, if the recommerniations of the Suffolk County Agr cultural Protection Plan were implemented the potential for the -conversion of active farmland to non-farm uses would be lessened. SCWA encourages the Town to implement measures that would reduce the demand for public water in the Town. SCWA estimates that during the winter months approximately 10% of its wells are in use to meet the demand for water. In contrast, in the summer months SCWA operates nearly every one of its wells to meet demand. The increased demand is largely attributable to irrigation system use. If the demand for water could be curtailed, SCWA would not have operate its system at full capacity, it would allow more water to be available for fire protection and would reduce pressure peaks and drops that occur concurrently with periods of high water demands. There are several methods that the Town can adopt to reduce water demand. Southold could adopt a local law permitting the irrigation of only 15% of any lot area. The restrictions could be incorporated into any building permit issued by the Town. By encouraging the retention of native areas, limiting clearing and restricting the amount of irrigation that could be operated on a specific parcel, demand for public water could be reduced. Implementation of this recommendation would be consistent with the recommendations of the Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan and would be further protective of groundwater quality than upzonings to 5 acres alone. The restrictions could take the form of covenants and restrictions imposed by the Town in reviewing all future subdivision and building permit applications. 0 9 Second, the Town could require new buildings to install water saving devices, such as low flow faucets and toilets. These devices would reduce water consumption in the Town. Third, an opportunity exists for the Town to harness the market forces on the development of undersized, according to current zoning, infill lots to protect lands it identifies as "critical" through the creation of a non-contiguous cluster program. Under the program, the potential developer of the infill parcel that has less area than current zoning requires, would be required to acquire a right before the infill lot could be developed. The rig?:t would be allocated to an owner of a critical parcel based on the critical parcel's current zoning. The rights would be allocated only after the owner of the critical parcel makes a promise in the form of an easement to maintain a specific land use on the critical parcel. These rights would have significant value by allowing otherwise undevelopable lots to be developed. The amount of rights that would have to be redeemed before an undersized parcel could be developed would be equal to the difference between the area of the infill parcel and the amount of area required by infill parcel's current zoning. As an example, an 10,000 square foot parcel in an area that requires 40,000 square foot of area would need to acquire 30,000 square feet of development rights. Adoption of this program would be advantageous to SCWA for three reasons. First, infill lots are generally located in areas of existing water mains. Thus SCWA would -not-be required to install large main extensions to serve new development within the Town. Second, as development rights are purchased from critical lands, which could include farm lands, the potential for conversion of farmland would be reduced. Third, the reduction in the conversion of such parcels, would lessen demand for lengthy main extensions into agricultural areas, which would make the cost for converting other farmland to non-farm uses lower. The Town could require the Zoning Board of Appeals to require the redemption of non- contiguous cluster rights in three instances. The rights could be required whenever an undersized lot is proposed for development. The amount of rights required would be equal to the difference in the undersized parcel size and the area requirements of current zoning. The Zoning Board of Appeals could require the redemption of rights before allowing a previously merged lot to be unmerged. Lastly, Zoning Board of Appeals could be prohibited from granting lot splits that result in the creation of undersized parcels without the redemption of non-contiguous rights. The Town could adopt local laws requiring mandatory clustering and conservation subdivisions to minimize the destruction of farmland and woodlands which would reduce the amount of run-off and recharge of degraded water to the aquifer. Conservation subdivisions lessen the total potential demand for public water by reducing the number of units that could be built. 0 10 • • CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVEXUND[UNDERTAKE Having considered the Draft and Final EIS and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 617.11, this Statement of Findings certifies that: The requirements of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 617 have been met; 2. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential consideration from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one which avoids or minimizes adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable; and 3. If a State agency is making a final decision in the coastal area, that the agency has made a written finding that the action is consistent with the waterfront revitalization program to the maximum extent practicable. SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Name of Lead Agency Stephen M. Jones Name of Responsible Official Chief Executive Officer Title of Responsible Official July 21, 2003 Date 4060 Sunrise Hi way, Oakdale. New York 11769 Address of Agency 11 US Army Engineers Dist N.Y. Eastern Permits Section Jacob J. Javits Federal Building York, NY 10278-0090 NYS DEC, Region 1, Reg. Affairs Building 40 SUNY @ Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 SC Dep't of Parks, Recreation and Conservation P.O. Box 144 West Sayville, NY 11796 Town of Southampton 116 Hampton Road Southampton, NY 11968 Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission P.O. Box 587 Great River, NY 11739-0587 Ovito Minei SC Dep't of Health Services, 220 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11788 The Nature Conservancy P.O. Box 5125 East Hampton, NY 11937 Mr. Tim Kelly The Suffolk Times P.O. Box 1500 Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Dermis Kelleher H2M Group 575 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Mr. Ken Rydzewski LIRR -Hillside Maintenance Comp 93-59 183rd Street Hollis, N.Y. 11423 NYS Secretary of State 41 State Street Albany, NY 12213 SC Dep't of Public Works 335 Yaphank Avenue Yaphank,. NY 11980 The Honorable Joshua Horton Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 NYS Environmental Facilities Corp 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12207-2997 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Long Island Builders Institute 400 Corporate Plaza Islandia, NY 11722 Long Island Farm Bureau 104 Edwards Avenue Calverton, NY 11933-1601 NYS DEC Division of Environmental Permits 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1750 NYS Comm. of Ag. & Markets Attn: Kim Blow 1 Winners Circle Albany, NY 12235 SC Dep't of Health Services, Bureau of Drinking Water 220 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11788 Town of Riverhead 200 Howell Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. Gary Pendzick Riverhead Water District 1035 Pulaski Road Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. Bill Spitz NYS DEC, Region 1 Building 40, SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 Mr. Tim Caulfield Peconic Land Trust P.O. Box 1776 Southampton, NY 11969 North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Mattituck, NY 11952 Mr. Tom Williams Cornell Cooperative Extension 246 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 • 0 DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR Five Year Water Supply Plan Update Location Town of Southold, County of Suffolk Lead Agency Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769 Contact: Legal Department 631-563-0226 Prepared By Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, New York 11769 Date Accepted April 29, 2003 Date Comments Must Be Submitted By June 6,. 2003 • 2 Table of Contents I. Summary ............................................................9 A. Description of the Proposed Action .................................. 9 B. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts ............................. 9 C. Mitigation Measures Proposed ...................................... 9 D. Alternatives Considered ............................................ 9 E. Matters to Be Decided ........................................... 10 II. Description of the Proposed Action ....................................... 11 A. Project Purpose, Need and Benefits; Social and Economic Considerations .... 11 1. Background and History .................................... 11 2. Public Need for the Project .................................. 11 3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor ............................. 12 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action .............................. 13 5. Social and Economic Considerations ........................... 13 B. Location......................................................13 1. Geographic Boundaries of Project ............................. 13 2. Access to the Project Site ................................... 13 C. Project Area...................................................13 1. Total Site Area ........................................... 14 2. Public Water Supply Areas .................................. 3. Community Character ...................................... 14 14 4. Town of Southold Subdivision Moratorium ...................... 14 D. Jurisdiction And Approvals ........................................ 15 1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ................................ 15 2. New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets ......... 15 3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ........ 15 4. New York Secretary of State ................................ 15 5. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation ............. 15 6. County of Suffolk................................I ......... 16 7. Town of Riverhead ........................................ 16 8. Town of Southampton ..................................... 16 9. Town of Southold ......................................... 16 10. Riverhead Water District .................................... 16 11. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission ......... 16 12. Long Island Rail Road ..................................... 16 III. Environmental Setting ................................................. 17 A. Present Conditions .............................................. 17 1. Number of customers ...................................... 17 2. Miles of main ............................................ 17 3. Well fields...............................................17 • 2 3 a. Water quality and existing treatment ..... 17 4. Drinking Water Quantity and Pumping Trends ...... . ......... .. 17 B. Land Use and Demographics ...................................... 18 1. Land use................................................18 2. Demographics ............................................ 18 a. Current Population .................................. 18 b. Projected population at saturation ....................... 19 C. Hydrogeology.................................................19 1. Introduction.............................................19 2. Amount of water that can be developed on the North Fork .......... 19 D. Potential Conditions ............................................. 22 1. Number of potential units within Water Service Area .............. 22 a. Methodology........................................22 b. Projected number of units that could be developed .......... 23 C. Estimated number of existing units without public water ...... 23 2. Number of potential units outside the Water Service Area ........... 23 a. Methodology.......................................23 b. Projected number of units that could be developed .......... 23 C. Estimated number of existing units without public water ...... 24 3. Summary ...............................................24 E. Potential Conditions - Water Quantity required under different buildout scenarios ..................26 1. Water Service Area ........................................ 26 2. Entire Town ............................................. 26 3. Summary ...............................................27 F. Potential Conditions - Trends of Water Quality ......................... 27 IV. Alternatives.........................................................29 A. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .......................... 29 1. Ion Exchange Resin Technology with on site regeneration to treat for perchlorate..............................................29 a. Technology........................................29 b. Capacity..........................................29 C. Operating Costs ..................................... 30 d. Design............................................30 2. Ion Exchange Resin Technology with off site disposal to treat for perchlorate..............................................30 a. Technology........................................30 b. Capacity..........................................30 C. Cost.............................................30 d. Design............................................30 3. Granulated activated carbon treatment systems ................... 31 a. Requirement.......................................31 3 10 C. 4 b. Contaminants effective at removing ...................... 31 C. Cost of system ....................................... 31 d. Design............................................31 4. Membrane Filtration ............................ . .......... 31 a. Technology........................................31 b. Contaminants effective at removing ...................... 32 C. Capacity of system .................................. 32 d. Cost of system ...................................... 32 e. Design............................................32 5. Desalination of Seawater Using Membrane Filtration .............. 32 a. Technology........................................32 b. Contaminants effective at removing ...................... 33 C. Capacity of system .................................. 33 d. Cost of system ...................................... 33 e. Design............................................33 6. Desalination of Brackish Water Using Membrane Filtration .......... 33 a. Technology........................................33 b. Contaminants effective at removing ...................... 34 C. Capacity of system .................................. 34 d. Cost of system ...................................... 34 e. Approvals required .................................. 34 f. Design ............................................ 34 7. Point of Use Filtration Systems ............................... 34 a. Technology........................................34 b. Contaminants effective at removing ...................... 34 C. Capacity of system .................................. 35 d. Cost of system ...................................... 35 e. Approvals required .................................. 35 8. Water, Water Quality Treatment and Water Supply District ......... 35 9. Underground Injection Wells to Dispose of Waste Generated by Treatment Facilities................................................35 a.Technology........................................36 b. Cost of system ..................................... 36 C. Legal authority ..................................... 36 10. Other Disposal Options ..................................... 36 11. Treatment of water with high nitrate levels ...................... 37 Develop new water sources within the Town .......................... 37 1. North Road, Greenport ..................................... 38 2. Laurel Lake West, Laurel ................................... 38 3. Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue.................................... 38 4. Middle Road, Peconic....................................... 38 Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold .............................................................38 4 1. Proposed Flanders Wellfield................................. 39 a. Proposed wells at Flanders Property ..................... 39 b. Cost analysis.......................................39 i. Cost to develop ............................... 39 ii. Replacement cost based on 2002 dollars ............ 40 C. Life Expectancy..................................... 40 d. Design............................................40 2. Potential Routes - Flanders to Southold ........................ 40 a. Route 1 - Peconic Bay Boulevard ....................... 40 b. Route 2 - Main Road ................................. 40 C. Route 3 - Sound Avenue .............................. 41 3. Flanders Transmission Main Issues ............................ 41 a. Main capacity and retention time ........................ 41 b. Cost analysis....................................... 42 i. Capital Costs................................. 42 ii. Operation and Maintenance Cost .................. 42 C. Expected life span of transmission mains .................... 42 4. Other potential wellfields................................... 43 a. Hallockville Museum Farm site, Hallockville ............... 43 b. Design............................................43 D. Purchase and Transmission of waterfrom Riverhead Water District ......... 43 1. Supplying water developed in the Water District to SCWA Southold system..................................................44 2. SCWA supply of water to Riverhead Water District and Water District supply to Southold system ................................... 45 a. SCWA connection at Hubbard Avenue ................... 45 b. SCWA connection at Main Road ........................ 45 C. SCWA connection at Northville Turnpike and County Road 105 .................................................45 3. Installation of new well within Riverhead Water District ............ 46 E. Conservation Programs and Potential of Reduced Demand ................ 46 F. No action alternative............................................ 47 V. Impacts............................................................48 A. Short term and long term, cumulative impacts .......................... 48 1. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .................... 48 a. Short term impacts.................................. 48 b. Long term impacts................................... 48 C. Cumulative impacts.................................. 49 2. Develop new water sources within the Town .................... 49 a. Short term impacts.................................. 49 b. Long term impacts................................... 50 C. Cumulative impacts.................................. 50 5 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold...............................................50 a. Short term impacts .................................. 50 b. Long term impacts ................................... 50 i. Water transmitted from the Pine Barrens ............ 50 ii. Water transmitted from Hallockville Museum Farm site ...........................................51 C. Cumulative impacts .................................. 52 4. Purchase and transmission of water from Riverhead Water District .... 52 a. Short term impacts .................................. 52 i. Supplying water developed in the Water District to SCWA Southold system ............................... 53 ii. SCWA supply of water to Riverhead Water District and Water District supply to Southold system ............ 53 iii. Installation of new well within Riverhead Water District 0 ...........................................53 b. Long term impacts ................................... 53 C. Cumulative impacts .................................. 53 5. Water, Water Quality Treatment and Water Supply Districts ......... 53 6. No action alternative ....................................... 54 a. -Short term impacts .................................. 54 b. Long term impacts ................................... 54 B. Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided ................... 54 1. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .................... 54 2. Develop new water sources within the Town .................... 55 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold including purchasing water from Riverhead .............. 55 4. No action alternative ....................................... 55 C. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental resource ......... 55 1. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .................... 56 2. Develop new water sources within the Town ..................... 56 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold...............................................56 4. No action alternative ....................................... 56 D. Growth inducing impacts ......................................... 56 E. Impact on use and conservation of energy ............................. 58 1. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .................... 58 2. Develop new water sources within the Town .................... 58 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold -to serve Southold................................................58 4. Purchase and Transmission of water from Riverhead Water District ... 59 5. No action alternative ....................................... 59 F. Impact on and Consistency with Special Groundwater Protection Area :Plan, 0 • VII. Works Consulted.....................................................71 7 Critical Environmental Areas, Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy and Section 305 of the Agriculture and Markets Law .. 59 1. Special Groundwater Protection Areas ......................... 59 a. Southold SGPA..................................... 60 b. Central Suffolk SGPA North ........................... 61 C. Central Suffolk SGPA South ........................... 61 2. Critical Environmental Areas ................................. 61 3. Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy ........ 62 4. Agriculture and Markets Law ................................ 63 a. SCWA actions ...................................... 63 b. Action by private individual within Agricultural District ....... 63 VI. Mitigation Measures .................................................. 65 A. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields .......................... 65 B. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold ............................................................65 C. Purchase and Transmission of water from Riverhead Water District ......... 65 D. Opportunities for Preserving Agricultural Lands ....................... 66 1. Eliminate SCWA's 75 foot rule allowance for projects converting agricultural lands..........................................66 2. Agricultural Watershed Program .............................. 66 3. Opportunities afforded by the Agriculture and Markets Law ......... 67 a. Government and Public Benefit Corporation actions ......... 67 b. Action by individuals within Agricultural District ............ 67 4. Opportunities for County of Suffolk ........................... 67 a. Purchase additional lands and development rights from farms within the Town of Southold ................................ 67 i. Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program ... 68 ii. Community Greenways Fund ..................... 68 b. Continue Agricultural District Number 1 .................. 68 C. Implement Recommendations of Suffolk County Agricultural Protection Plan ..................................... 68 E. Other Opportunities for Mitigating Impacts ........................... 68 1. Mandatory Restrictions on Irrigation Dependent Vegetation and Clearing Amounts................................................68 2. Mandatory Water Saving Devices ............................. 69 3. Non-contiguous cluster program .............................. 69 a. Development of undersized parcels ...................... 69 b. Other uses for non-contiguous cluster rights ............... 70 4. Mandatory Clustering and Conservation subdivisions .............. 70 • VII. Works Consulted.....................................................71 7 VIII. Appendices.........................................................73 0 • • 0 I. Summary • A. Description of the Proposed Action This action involves adopting a comprehensive plan that will ensure a continued safe and reliable public water supply in the Town of Southold. The plan will provide for a range of options for supplying the residents of the Town of Southold with a water source that both meets water quality and quantity requirements. This generic EIS will identify a strategy that best provides a safe and reliable water supply for the Town of Southold and minimizes any associated negative environmental impacts and economic costs. This Plan is intended to guide SCWA actions in the Town for the next five years. Current estimates indicate that 9,480 gallons of water per minute at maximum use over the next five years would be required to serve the water needs of the Town within areas designated for water service. At present, the demand for public water in the Town of Southold exceeds the amount of water currently developed by the existing SCWA Southold system. This strong demand and the limited nature of SCWA's system within Southold, led SCWA to adopt a six month moratorium on allowing connections to its system. The moratorium, adopted on May 21, 2002, was for the express purpose of allowing SCWA time to adopt a strategy for increasing the supply of water within the Town. The moratorium expired on November 21, 2002. B. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Significant beneficial impacts of the action will be to provide a safe and reliable supply of water that assures compliance with applicable regulatory standards and meets the existing demands of the residents of the Town. Potential adverse impacts identified include: impacts to ground and surface water quality and quantity; growth inducing impacts; and temporary impacts associated with construction. C. Mitigation Measures Proposed SCWA will select alternatives that minimize construction activities, minimize visual impacts, are sized to meet projected demand and maintain the hydrogeologic balance within the Town's aquifer system. Growth inducing impacts can be managed by local government. Opportunities identified by SCWA for managing such growth are suggested for local consideration. Encouraging responsible development will lessen the impact that development will have on SCWA's system. D. Alternatives Considered Alternatives identified include the purchase of water from the Town of Riverhead Water District, transmission of water from the west through the Town of Riverhead in newly constructed water mains, reliance on existing wellfields within the Town of Southold through Z extensive water treatment programs, developing new well fields, constructing desalinization • plants, mandatory water conservation programs and a no action alternative. E. Matters to Be Decided Matters to be decided include determining which alternatives to select and the acceptance of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the adoption of Findings by the SCWA. SCWA envisions the resultant Water Supply Plan will guide its actions in the Town of Southold for the next five years. • 10 • U. Description of the Proposed Action • A. Project Purpose, Need and Benefits; Social and Economic Considerations Background and History SCWA has provided public water in the Town of Southold for several years. Initially, SCWA, at the urging of the residents and public officials and pursuant to the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, acquired small water systems. In 1997, SCWA contracted to purchase the portion of the Greenport water system located outside the incorporated Village of Greenport. SCWA is also the sole supplier of water, in bulk, to the Village of Greenport. In 2002, the largely discrete areas of the SCWA Southold system were interconnected. With the exception of one (1) interconnection with the Riverhead Water District, which in turn is connected to the SCWA system in the west, the SCWA Southold system is independent of the larger SCWA system located to the west. This interconnection is used as a last resort, when SCWA can not supply sufficient water from its wellfields within the Town of Southold to meet the water demands of the Town of Southold. SCWA maintains approximately 5,450 customer accounts in Southold. SCWA pumped 665,000,000 gallons of water in the period of September 2001 to September 2002 to serve SCWA customers within the Town. In 2000, SCWA adopted a strategy for providing public water to properties on the North Fork based upon a map adopted in 2000 by it, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Town of Southold. SCWA actions since that time have been in accordance with the 2000 Map and Strategy. 2. Public Need for the Project SCWA prepared this GEIS as an update to the 2000 strategy. Currently SCWA operates a series of small capacity wells on the North Fork. Large capacity wells, of up to 1,300 gallons per minute are the norm in the western portion of the County. The aquifer system within Southold cannot support such large capacity wells. SCWA has not developed additional smaller capacity wells because the groundwater, while of sufficient quantity, is frequently characterized by compromised quality requiring extensive treatment to meet drinking water standards. The cost of developing these wells and treatment systems has caused SCWA to explore a full range of alternatives for providing a safe and reliable supply of water for the Town. If SCWA decides to commit the operational and financial resources to developing these smaller capacity wells and treatment systems, it could produce enough water to satisfy current and projected demands solely from utilizing the water resources of the North Fork Aquifer. Of significant concern to SCWA is the potential that the drinking water standard for the chemical perchlorate currently at 1 I parts per billion will be lowered. Perchlorate (C1O4) is an anion (negatively charged ion) which is found in the environment when solid 11 salts of perchlorate dissolve in water. The most common of these salts are ammonium, potassium and sodium perchlorates. Perchlorate is known to be extremely soluble in water, with solubility similar to common table salt. The perchlorate ion is extremely mobile in groundwater environments and can persist for very long periods of time in groundwater and surface waters due to the strong chemical chloride -oxygen bond. The ion is non-volatile and is a strong oxidizer. (Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Summary Perchlorate Monitoring of Water Supplies in Suffolk County, February 2001). The United States Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering the drinking water standard for perchlorate. It appears that EPA is analyzing the benefits and costs of different standards ranging from 0 to 5 parts per billion. Current reliable detection limits, using state of the art laboratory equipment is 0.5 parts per billion. SCWA has detected perchlorate in 11 of the 30 wells it operates in the Town of Southold. The combined actual capacity of the 30 wells is 4,195 gallons per minute (gpm). If the: EPA selects a level of 2.0 parts per billion or less, water produced at 11 wells will not meet the revised perchlorate standard and will not be useable by SCWA. This represents a potential capacity loss of 2,800 gpm. In such event, SCWA could not satisfy existing demands and will be prevented from meeting the future demands of the Town residents without taking some action. SCWA is committed to providing water in accordance with the Town of Southold's Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy, a component of the Southold Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy was: To design, adopt and implement a strategy for the protection and management of the sole source aquifer of the Township of Southold. The strategy shall define the areas to be protected, areas suitable for development, areas designated for farm and agricultural protection and how the watershed will be managed in order to ensure the highest quality potable drinking water for private water supply wells and preserve rural character. (WSMWPS at 2-3). The Strategy was endorsed by the Town in June 2000 and the Town adopted a map entitled "Locations of Existing Water Mains and Future Water Mains Relative to Protected Lands Within Southold Town" at the same time. (Hereinafter the "Water Service Area Map" or the "Map"). SCWA adopted the Water Service Area Map in July 2000. The; Map designates those areas within the Town which are to receive public water. The Map is included as Appendix 1 and is available for view at www.scwa.com. 3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 12 . The objectives of the project sponsor include: (a) providing a source of water that meets both the demands of the residents and SCWA customers in the Town of Southold and applicable regulatory requirements (b) providing a reliable source of water to meet the demand that is not subject to interruption, (c) increasing the fire protection capacity of the system, (d) judiciously and environmentally dealing with the cost associated with treatment of public water in the Town of Southold, and (e) providing support for water main extensions to areas in accordance with the Town of Southold Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy and the Water Service Area Map. 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action Adoption of a comprehensive water supply plan will ensure that the water demands in the Town can be satisfied. By selecting from a range of alternatives, SCWA will minimize reliance on one source of water in order to create a multi -source system. Operating a multi -source system is a good engineering practice which increases system reliability, minimizes the costs associated with treating contaminated water and lessens the possibility that overpumping of existing North Fork wells will occur. The adoption of the plan will also address water supply in the event that the perchlorate or some other standard is lowered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or the NYS Department of Health. Social and Economic Considerations The economic considerations include analyzing the cost associated with each alternative against the benefit, i.e., the amount of water produced by the alternative. Social considerations include the provision of water to supply the demands in the Town and the growth inducing impact, although largely controlled by the Town, of increasing water availability within the Town. B. Location Geographic Boundaries of Project The project site is the North Fork of Long Island and its contiguous areas. Appendix 2 is a map of the area. 2. Access to the Project Site Water mains presently exist throughout portions of the project site. See Appendix 1. Adoption of a water supply plan will allow SCWA to replace and modestly increase the amount of water available within its existing system and support main extensions throughout the Town in accordance with the Map. C. Project Area • 13 Total Site Area 0 Southold occupies the eastern portion of the North Fork of Long Island. Its mainland reaches from the Town of Riverhead in the west and terminates at Orient Point at the east. A series of islands extend from Orient Point toward Connecticut. The mainland of Southold is approximately 42.90 square miles in size and is surrounded by the Long Island Sound on the North, Gardiners and Peconic Bay on the South. 2. Public Water Supply Areas SCWA provides water in the area from the Riverhead/Southold border in the west to East Marion in the east. With the limited exception of the Browns Hills Estate area in Orient, SCWA does not currently provide water to those properties east of Dam Pond in East Marion. Notwithstanding the extent of the current system, SCWA has adopted a Water Service Area Map and intends to develop its system in a manner consistent with the Map and the projected needs of all of the residents of the Town of Southold. Included within the study area is Suffolk County Agricultural District Number 1.. The district contains approximately 260 parcels comprising 5,850 acres. (Two parcels within the district, totaling roughly 81 acres, are on Shelter Island). While the district lands are spread throughout the Town, a belt of lands primarily used for agricultural purposes straddles -Route 48 in the Cutchogue, Peconic and Mattituck area. The Southold Special Groundwater Protection Area incorporates most of these parcels. It is important to note that not all parcels used for agricultural purposes are within the Agricultural District. The district is defined on a parcel by parcel basis and not as a contiguous area. 3. Community Character The Town of Southold possesses a mosaic of agricultural lands, open spaces, historic hamlets, residential community, secondary homes and a rich and varied coastline ranging from bluffs to coastal marshes. With a population density of approximately 200 to 300 persons per square mile, Southold is still considered rural. By contrast, the population density of Suffolk western towns ranges from 3,000 to 4,000 people per square mile. 4. Town of Southold Subdivision Moratorium The Town recently enacted a moratorium on the subdivision of lands in the Town. During the moratorium the Town is analyzing and reviewing its zoning and subdivision codes -to determine whether amendments are necessary in order to preserve the Town's character. Recommendations from the study effort could include upzonings, mandatory conservation plans, additional wetland setback requirements, and private -public conservation programs. Implementation of wide scale upzonings could reduce the number of units that could be developed in the Town. 14 D. Jurisdiction And Approvals 1. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers An application to the Army Corp would be required if a directional drill under navigable waters is undertaken. 2. New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets The project area includes Suffolk County Agricultural District Number 1. Pursuant to Section 305(4) of the Agriculture and Markets Law, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the Commissioner of Agriculture if a public benefit corporation, like SCWA, intends to construct, ..., water [] facilities to serve non-farm structures, [in such case SCWA] shall use all practicable means in undertaking such action to realize the policy and goals set forth in this article, and shall act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid adverse impacts on agriculture in order to sustain a viable farm enterprise or enterprises within the district. As the project is contemplated, SCWA will not be funding the service of non-farm structures within the agricultural district. The proposed action is limited to adopting a water supply plan. 3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Depending on the options selected by SCWA, well permits may be required. In such event, a water supply application would be submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. SCWA operates under a general wetlands permit issued by the DEC. If the construction of a transmission main from the west into the Town is selected as a viable alternative, depending on whether the route of the main transverses regulated wetlands, DEC would be notified. DEC would need to approve the use of injection wells to dispose of waste water generated by treatment systems. 4. New York Secretary of State The Secretary of State has jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the State and an application would be required if a directional drill within such waters was proposed. 5. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation SCWA frequently applies to the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation for funding of its projects. Projects associated with this Plan would be eligible for funding under the 15 State Drinking Water Revolving Fund administered by the Environmental Facilities Corporation. 0 6. County of Suffolk An application would be required to the Department of Public Works to install a water main within County Roads. A separate application would be required to the Parks Department, the Council of Environmental Quality and the Legislature if a water main was installed within County parklands, including Indian Island County Park. The Department of Health Services would be required to approve any new water treatment facilities. 7. Town of Riverhead Town road opening permits may be required if water mains are built in Town roads. The Town may need to approve the sale of water from the Riverhead Water District to SCWA. 8. Town of Southampton Town road opening permits may be required if water mains are built in Town roads. 9. Town of Southold Town road opening permits may be required if water mains are built in Town roads. 10. Riverhead Water District Alternatives relying on the large scale purchase of water from the Riverhead Water District or any new connection to the District may require approval from the District. 11. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission Although a proposal involves developing public supply wells located in the Core Preservation Area of the Central Pine Barrens and transmitting the water produced by the wells to Southold, no approval from the Commission is required pursuant to the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act of 1993 (Environmental Conservation Law Article 57). 12. Long Island Rail Road A permit may be required from the Long Island Railroad (LM R) if a water main is proposed that crosses LIRR tracks. 16 • M. Environmental Setting A. Present Conditions The current SCWA system has been developed in accordance with the adopted Water Service Area Map. The Map identifies areas which are to be served by public water through the installation of mains. Based on the interest of the owners of existing improved parcels for water in an area designated on the Map, SCWA installs its mains. At present, there are areas designated on the Map, which have yet to receive water mains. The reasons may include, lack of interest from the owners of improved parcels or lack of excess capacity within the SCWA system. Number of customers Currently, SCWA has approximately 5,450 active customer accounts in its Southold system. The average customer consumes between 110,000 and 120,000 gallons of water per year. 2. Miles of main There are approximately 50 miles on main installed within the SCWA Southold system. Major water transmission mains are usually 12 to 24 inches in diameter. These large mains are the backbone of the system. As water is brought into a residential community, the main size gradually decreases so that most individual homes tap into mains only about 6 inches in size. 3. Well fields a. Water quality and existing treatment Water produced and served by SCWA must meet a host of regulatory requirements. SCWA must abide by the regulations promulgated, in large measure, by the New York State Department of Health concerning water quality. If raw water does not meet the standards, SCWA must either treat the water or cannot serve it. Treatment is the process by which the contaminants are removed from raw, untreated, water to levels below the applicable standard allowing the treated water to be served. Appendix 3 is the SCWA 2002 Annual Drinking Water Quality Statement. 4. Drinking Water Quantity and Pumping Trends SCWA operates 30 wells within the Town of Southold. Appendix 4 presents the amount of water produced by each well in the Town for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. As one would expect, the demand on the system is greatest during the summer months. 17 B. Land Use and Demographics Land use • The Suffolk County Planning Department during 1999-2001 undertook a series of studies in order to characterize the development potential for the five eastern Suffolk towns. These efforts resulted in three reports: 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory, Eastern Suffolk County; 1999 Land Available for Development, Eastern Suffolk County; and Saturation Population Analysis, Eastern Suffolk County. Each report built upon the prior studies. The 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory classified all of the parcels in the five eastern towns based on their existing land uses into 13 generalized land use categories. Parcels were assigned to a specific land use category based upon their assessor's code and actual use. Planning staff verified the accuracy of the assessor code through a combination of field inspections, aerial photography interpretation and by other means. (1999 Existing Land Use Inventory at 8). The study classified 34,767 acres in the Town Southold into 13 land use categories. Appendix 5 sets forth the study. 2. Demographics Saturation population was also determined by the Planning Department for each eastern town. "Saturation population is the future potential population that would exist when ail available land is developed in accord with existing zoning." (Saturation Population Analysis at 1). Census data from 2000 was used to determine the population and the number of existing housing units in Southold. Relying on the Census data, Planning staff further refined the saturation population to reflect the population attributable to year-round versus seasonal housing units. In Southold in 2000, according to the Census data, 34% of the housing units were seasonally occupied. Saturation population projections represent the scenario of full buildout of every parcel within the Town. In reality, saturation conditions are unlikely to be realized because parcels may contain environmental constraints which prevent full buildout, vacant land may be protected from development, agricultural lands may not be converted to residential units or the Town :may adopt more restrictive zoning requirements which would have the effect of reducing potential yields. Seasonal population is the critical figure with respect to water supply because it coincides with peak water usage in the summer months. SCWA planning efforts center on creating a reliable water source that can satisfy the peak water usage demands. a. Current Population In 2000, 20,599 people lived year round in the Town of Southold. According to 2000 Census data, the number of people in the Town in the summer months was 39,355. (Saturation Population Analysis 7-8). Thus an additional 18,756 people are in the Town in the summer • 18 months occupying seasonal units which represent 34% of the Town's housing stock. b. Projected population at saturation It is projected that at saturation 33,984 people will live in the Town of Southold year round. This is an increase of 13,385 people over 2000 levels. At saturation, it is projected that the population of the Town in the summer months would be 64,184 people. Based on these projections, it is estimated that 30,200 people will seasonally occupy the Town at saturation. C. Hydrogeology Introduction The North Fork of Long Island, as with most coastal groundwater resources, functions hydrogeologically like an elongated oceanic island with a series of fresh water lenses floating on a large body of underlying salt water and separated laterally by salty zones between the lenses at major estuarine creeks. (Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., "LBG," Master Plan at 5). Appendix 6 provides a LBG study that includes a cross-sectional view of this hydrogeology. There are three aquifer systems below the North Fork: the Upper Glacial, the Magothy and the Lloyd. Only the Upper Glacial Aquifer contains freshwater water as the other two are "primarily saline." (WSMWPS at 9). Beneath the North Fork, a clay layer extends from the Laurel/Mattituck area to the Cutchogue area at depths extending from 50 feet below sea level to 90 feet below sea level. The thickness of the clay varies from 20 feet in the west to 90 feet in the east. (LBG, Master Plan at 5). The presence of the clay layer "limits the potential for upconing of salty water beneath production wells." (Id.). However it does not prevent the lateral intrusion of salt water. Recharge to the aquifer in the form of precipitation has filled the different lenses to different depths. These mounds of groundwater represent the water resources that can be utilized to serve the North Fork. Typically, along the coasts, groundwater in the Upper Glacial Aquifer is at sea level, in the middle of the North Fork, in the vicinity of Mattituck, the groundwater in the Upper Glacial mounds to approximately 5 feet above sea level. For each foot that freshwater extends above sea level, there are approximately 40 feet of freshwater below sea level. (WSMWPS at 10). Thus in the area of the 5 foot groundwater contour, there is an approximately 200 foot thick mound of freshwater. 2. Amount of water that can be developed on the North Fork LBG studied the potential for supplying the water demands of the North Fork by utilizing the groundwater resources below the North Fork and concluded it was feasible. LBG proposed a Master Plan for providing water to the Town in July 1992. LBG built upon previous studies which calculated the "Permissive Sustained Yields" of the North Fork aquifer. Permissive 19 sustained yields were defined by The Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study for Suffolk County (CPWS-24) prepared in 1968 by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell. The permissive sustained yield was defined to be "the maximum rate at which water can be consumed perennially without bringing about some undesired result." (LBG, Master Plan at 9 quoting CPWS-24). LBG summarized the process of determining the yield as follows: In effect, the estimates of Permissive Safe Yield began with area -specific recharge rates, made reductions for near -coast areas outside the main water budget area, and made further reductions based on an "optimum" position of the salt -water interface, including considerations of drought. (LBG, Master Plan at 9). The following table sets forth the Permissive Sustained yields. Permissive Sustained Yields for Southold Town from CPWS-24 Another study of this issue is the North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) prepared by ERM - Northeast and Camp, Dresser & McKee built upon the CPWS-24 study. The results of this study are as follows: • 20 • • • Permissive Sustained Yield for North Fork from NFWSP Zone Permissive Sustained Yield (mgd) (mgd/mil) Present Consumptive Use (mgd) Potentially Available for Future I Use (mgd) 1 -Riverhead 29.4 0.7 4.7 24.7 2 -Riverhead & West Southold 5.6 0.4 3.9 1.7 3 -West Central 4.9' 0.35 3.3 1.6 4 -Central 0.9' 0.25 0.5 0.4 5 -East 0.40' 0.25 0.47 02 Since the underlying aquifer in these zones have insufficient storage, these values are conservatively based on drought conditions and would be larger for a year of average precipitation. The zero entry indicates that the present consumptive use is approximately equal to the permissive sustained yield on Zone 5 during drought conditions. LBG adopted the findings of the CPWS-24 study in analyzing the potential for supplying the Town's water needs as the "most conservative values for water -supply planning purposes_" (LBG, Master Plan at 11). In the LBG Master Plan it was noted that water supply wells with capacities as high as 700 gpm can be operated in areas of water -table elevations of 4 feet above sea level without inducing upconing of saltwater. (LBG, Master Plan at 13). Further protective of a well's capacity would be the clay layer which "limits the potential" for upconing. Having established that large capacity wells could be established along the 4 foot groundwater elevation, LBG proposed developing six wells with the "combined sustained capacity of 3.2 mgd, [a] sufficient yield to supply a population of about 30,000 people." (LBG, Master Plan at 14, emphasis added). LBG recommended locating these wells along the periphery of the 4 foot groundwater elevation. Recognizing that a large seasonal population occupies the Town during the summer months, LBG concluded that, "short -duration seasonal pumpage substantially greater than the year-round rated capacities may be accommodated." (Id). Even though LBG has concluded that the North Fork Aquifer has the capacity to provide for the Town water needs, wells developed on the North Fork most likely will require treatment. As LBG noted, "[t]reatment for nitrate and/or pesticide/herbicide/fungicide residue removal and for iron and/or manganese removal should be planned for [at] any public water well field in the Town." (LBG, Master Plan at 21). And because the clay layer would limit the potential for upconing of saltwater, LBG recognized that lateral intrusion of saltwater would be the "more limiting factor" on wellfield yield. (LBG, Master Plan at 12). 21 Current projections indicate that 33,984 people could live full time within the Town at saturation density. This population base could be served by developing wells as per LBG recommendations. An additional 30,200 people could seasonally occupy the Town. The combination of the existing wells and the well network proposed by LBG could serve the number of people at saturation density. D. Potential Conditions One of the features of the Geographic Information System (GIS) operated by SCWA is its ability to maintain large amounts of land use data. The system contains attributes on the individual parcel level including, among other things, parcel size, parcel ownership, land use code, tax map number, location, location relative to the Water Service Area Map, and whether or not SCWA serves the parcel. Data on existing and proposed water mains on a Town wide level is also maintained in the database. Organizing the data in a particular manner is accomplished through the use of queries. A query permits a GIS manager to define a set of parameters, or conditions, and then submit the query to the system to determine if any data, or in this case, parcels, satisfy the query. Number of potential units within Water Service Area Using data developed by GIS coupled with information provided by the Town of Southold Assessor and the Suffolk County Planning Department, projections were made on the number of customers that SCWA may be required to serve. These projections were of the number of parcels that are located in areas of public water service, as designated by the Water Service Area Map, but have yet to receive public water. Given SCWA's commitment to serve those areas identified by the Map, provisions for developing a water supply for these potential customers must be made. a. Methodology Using carefully scripted queries, the GIS managers were able to characterize the land use and zoning of the parcels in the Water Service Area Map's boundaries. To determine the number of parcels that are within the Map's area but have yet to receive SCWA service the GIS managers determined the amount of raw acreage of each parcel that is within 75 feet of an existing water main or 75 feet of a potential main and classified the totals by zoning category. (See Appendix 7). This data was further refined into 3 categories based on the individual parcel's land use code. The categories were "vacant," "unknown," and "underdeveloped." Parcels in the vacant category were not developed, those in the unknown category did not have a land use code assigned to them by the Town Assessor and those in the underdeveloped category were developed but still could be subdivided and developed further. After determining the number of acres in each category, a development yield factor was applied to the total acreage in the vacant and unknown category. A development yield factor is a multiplier based on the number of lots that could be obtained in a typical subdivision recognizing 22 • the zoning of the underlying parcel. As an example, if a ten (10) acre parcel zoned R-40, with no constraints, is subdivided, the developer can anticipate obtaining eight (8) lots. This recognizes that some of the parcel would be devoted to infrastructure improvements such as roads and drainage facilities. Thus the development yield factor for the R-40 zoning is 0.8. The development yield factors utilized by SCWA were derived by the Long Island Regional Planning Board in 1978. This calculation was done on a parcel by parcel basis for the underdeveloped category after subtracting one unit from the parcel size. Given the uncertainty inherent in the "unknown" category, SCWA assumed that such parcels were undeveloped, subdividable and could require public water. b. Projected number of units that could be developed Using the foregoing methodology, SCWA determined that an additional 4,033 residential units could exist in the Water Service Area if each parcel was developed to its fullest potential. SCWA analysis indicates that an additional 789 non-residential units could exist in the Water Service Area if each existing non-residential parcel was developed to its fullest potential. Thus the total potential number of additional units inside the Water Service Area Map is 4,822 (4,033 + 789). C. Estimated number of existing units without public water To determine the number of existing units within the Water Service Area not currently served by SCWA, SCWA GIS managers highlighted all existing SCWA customers within the water service area. The balance of the units are not currently SCWA customers. A count of these units was performed resulting in the tally of existing units which are not currently SCWA customers. According to this analysis, there are 3,281 existing units within the water service area that are not served by SCWA. 2. Number of potential units outside the Water Service Area SCWA determined the number of units that could be developed in the Town assuming a full buildout, in order to allow the selection of alternatives that would have the capacity to meet the Town's projected demand. Full buildout assumes that every available parcel is developed to its maximum potential under current zoning. a. Methodology SCWA utilized the same methodology as employed to determine the number of units within the Water Service Area to determine the number of units outside the Water Service Area, b. Projected number of units that could be developed 23 SCWA determined that an additional 3,702 residential units could exist outside the Water Service Area if each -parcel was developed to its fullest potential. SCWA analysis indicates that an additional 186 non-residential units could exist outside the Water Service Area if each existing non-residential parcel was developed to its fullest potential. Thus the total potential number of units outside the Water Service Area Map is 3,888 (3,702 + 186). C. Estimated number of existing units without public water In addition to the theoretical number of units which could be developed on vacant lands, 4,877 units already exist. This number was obtained by counting the existing units as depicted on aerial photographs contained within the SCWA GIS system. These units represent potential SCWA customers. Summary The following tables summarize the preceding sections. Potential Residential Units within Water Service Area Development yield factors based on 208 study as of October 18, 2002 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be developable 0 24 Land Use Underdeveloped oP� Unknown* AC 283 552 314 1,149 AHD 24 5 0 29 HD 82 101 55 238 R40 865 421 168 1,454 R80 332 700 123 1,155 8200 0 0 0 0 RO 5 3 0 8 1,591 1,782 660 4,033 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be developable 0 24 Potential Non-residential Units within Water Service Area by Zoning Category 0 as of October 18, 2002 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be undeveloped Potential Residential Units outside Water Service Area Development yield factors based on 208 study as of October 18, 2002 Land Use Land Use Vacant Underdeveloped Vacant Underdeveloped Unknown AC 13 B 21 36 1,758 14 0 71 HB 0 9 29 HD 12 514 50 LB 19 24 295 8 51 LI 490 30 33 363 10 129 73 LIO R200 56 185 9 250 Na 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 MII 0 20 68 2 `<>< 90 RR 35 121 3,702 42 198 >'cE€€>' 190 502 97 789 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be undeveloped Potential Residential Units outside Water Service Area Development yield factors based on 208 study as of October 18, 2002 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be developable 0 25 Land Use Vacant Underdeveloped Unknown* AC 13 1,477 268 1,758 AHD 0 0 0 0 HD 29 514 0 543 R40 295 92 103 490 R80 400 363 129 892 R200 17 2 0 19 R400 0 0 0 0 RO 0 0 0 0 `<>< 754 2,448 500 3,702 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be developable 0 25 Potential Non-residential Units outside Water Service Area by Zoning Category as of October 18, 2002 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be undeveloped E. Potential Conditions - Water Quantity required under different buildout scenarios 1. Water Service Area Historically, the peak demand consumption per unit in the Town is 0.65 gpm. If the areas within the Water Service Area Map's boundaries were fully developed, an additional 4„822 units could be developed. Moreover, there are 3,281 existing units which are not current SCWA customers. In order for SCWA. to have the ability to serve both the potential units and the existing units which are not SCWA customers, an additional 5,267 gallons per minute of capacity will need to be developed. ((4,822 + 3,281) x 0.65). 2. Entire Town The Town could be developed at its fullest potential with 22,318 units (including residential and non-residential). This number is the sum of the existing SCWA customers (5,450) plus the existing units within the Water Service Area that are not SCWA customers (3,281) plus the potential lots in the Water Service Area (4,822) plus the existing units outside the Water Service Area (4,877) plus the potential lots outside the Water Service Area (3,888). Assuming a factor of 0.65 gallons per day per unit, would require 14,507 gallons per minute. (22,318 x 0.65). In addition, 800 gallons per minute are required to serve the Village of Greenport. This does not take into consideration any water intensive uses, such as power plants. In total, 15,307 gallons per minute would be needed to serve the entire Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. 26 • • r] L Land Use V Vacant Underdeveloped Unkn 0 wn * B 5 2 4 11 HB 12 3 6 21 LB 1 13 0 14 LI 15 53 1 69 LIO 1 23 6 30 MI 0 1 0 1 ME 7 2 0 9 RR 0 31 0 31 41 128 17 186 * Parcels which do not have a land use code assigned by the Town of Southold Assessor assumed to be undeveloped E. Potential Conditions - Water Quantity required under different buildout scenarios 1. Water Service Area Historically, the peak demand consumption per unit in the Town is 0.65 gpm. If the areas within the Water Service Area Map's boundaries were fully developed, an additional 4„822 units could be developed. Moreover, there are 3,281 existing units which are not current SCWA customers. In order for SCWA. to have the ability to serve both the potential units and the existing units which are not SCWA customers, an additional 5,267 gallons per minute of capacity will need to be developed. ((4,822 + 3,281) x 0.65). 2. Entire Town The Town could be developed at its fullest potential with 22,318 units (including residential and non-residential). This number is the sum of the existing SCWA customers (5,450) plus the existing units within the Water Service Area that are not SCWA customers (3,281) plus the potential lots in the Water Service Area (4,822) plus the existing units outside the Water Service Area (4,877) plus the potential lots outside the Water Service Area (3,888). Assuming a factor of 0.65 gallons per day per unit, would require 14,507 gallons per minute. (22,318 x 0.65). In addition, 800 gallons per minute are required to serve the Village of Greenport. This does not take into consideration any water intensive uses, such as power plants. In total, 15,307 gallons per minute would be needed to serve the entire Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. 26 • • r] L • 11 3. Summary The following tables summarize the buildout and water required projections. Potential Buildout Water Required under Different Scenarios (Assumes consumption of 0.65 gpm per unit) SCWA m r Custom e s Existing Units Not nn Connected to SCWA Potential Units Totals als Within Water Service Area 5,450 3,281 4,822 13,553 Outside Water Service Area 0 4,877 3,888 8,765 Totals 51450 8,158 8,710 22,318 Water Required under Different Scenarios (Assumes consumption of 0.65 gpm per unit) I SCWA provides water to the Village of Greenport in bulk pursuant to an agreement. F. Potential Conditions - Trends of Water Quality SCWA frequently tests groundwater samples from various wells in the Town of Southold to determine water quality. Under this program, water produced by test wells, fire wells, irrigation wells, monitoring wells or abandoned production wells is tested at the SCWA laboratory. This extensive testing program allows SCWA to track the state of the groundwater throughout the Town. If a site produces water that meets SCWA standards, a production well may be considered for the site. SCWA's standards when evaluating if a site is a candidate for having a public well installed are more stringent than regulatory requirements; underlying this policy is the theory that if the water produced at the test site is close to a standard, the standard may eventually be violated resulting in the implementation of costly treatment or abandonment of the well. By considering sites with groundwater quality well below the standard, the likelihood of a violation is lower and thus the return on the SCWA investment would be greater. Appendix 8 27 Existing SCWA Existing Not Potential Village of : Customers Connected to Units Greenport*rt SCWA Within Water 3,543 2,133 3,134 800 9,610 Service Area Outside Water 0 3,170 2,527 5,697 Service Area 3 543 5 303 5 6 61 8 0 0 15 307 I SCWA provides water to the Village of Greenport in bulk pursuant to an agreement. F. Potential Conditions - Trends of Water Quality SCWA frequently tests groundwater samples from various wells in the Town of Southold to determine water quality. Under this program, water produced by test wells, fire wells, irrigation wells, monitoring wells or abandoned production wells is tested at the SCWA laboratory. This extensive testing program allows SCWA to track the state of the groundwater throughout the Town. If a site produces water that meets SCWA standards, a production well may be considered for the site. SCWA's standards when evaluating if a site is a candidate for having a public well installed are more stringent than regulatory requirements; underlying this policy is the theory that if the water produced at the test site is close to a standard, the standard may eventually be violated resulting in the implementation of costly treatment or abandonment of the well. By considering sites with groundwater quality well below the standard, the likelihood of a violation is lower and thus the return on the SCWA investment would be greater. Appendix 8 27 gives the results of the testing program. • As Appendix 8 indicates, the groundwater quality in the town is compromised and represents some of the worst raw groundwater quality in the County. This factor makes producing drinking water to satisfy the Town's demands difficult absent the implementation of extensive treatment programs. Typical treatment options are discussed in Section N below. • • ►T : 0 IV. Alternatives In this section, SCWA will examine different water supply alternatives for meeting the existing water supply demands of the Town and which can be expanded as the demand increases. The first section will review different technologies for treating the water produced at the existing SCWA wells on the North Fork. The second section will look at the feasibility of developing new wells in the Town. The third section will study the potential for developing a water supply source outside the Town and transmitting the water into the Town. Costs associated with the different options will be reviewed. Special emphasis is placed on developing technologies for removing perchlorate. Proven treatment methods exist for treating the other contaminants encountered in the Town. Appendix 9 sets forth the cost estimates for the various systems discussed below. A. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields Ion Exchange Resin Technology with on site regeneration to treat for perchlorate a. Technology These systems are based on a process by which raw water is passed through a filter media in a vessel consisting of synthetic resin beads that are coated with an anionic gel containing chloride ions. As the raw water passes through the filter media, the chloride ions in the resin exchange with the perchlorate in the raw water. The perchlorate is removed from the raw water and bonds to the resin resulting in finished water that meets standards. Periodically, the resin must be regenerated in order to maintain the efficiency of this type of system. Regeneration involves flushing the system with a brine solution. As the brine solution passes over the resin, ion exchange again occurs with chloride ions in the brine solution exchanging with the perchlorate bonded to the resin. The perchlorate is flushed from the resin. At the end of the regeneration cycle, the resin is regenerated and once again able to remove contaminants. Ion exchange systems result in a volume of waste consisting of the brine solution concentrated with perchlorate. Typical systems contain both brine and waste storage tanks at the well field. The waste produced by these systems is approximately 0.2 percent of the total system flow. This waste must be removed from the plant and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. It is estimated that an on site waste tank sized for a North Fork pump station will need to be emptied every four days. In order to treat a continuous stream of contaminated water it is necessary to have multiple filter vessels installed so that at any given time, one vessel will be filtering raw water while the other is in regeneration mode. b. Capacity • 29 field. Ion exchange systems are designed and constructed to meet the capacity of a specific well . C. Operating Costs Appendix 9 details the cost associated with installing and operating ion exchange: systems -at the existing Southold wells. In general, economies of scale can be realized when the systems are installed at larger capacity wells resulting in a lower cost per thousand gallons of water treated. d. Design Ion exchange systems are housed within a 10 foot by 30 foot building with a 25 foot high peaked roof located at the wellfield. In addition, an above ground 12 foot diameter waste storage tank that is 20 feet high would also be constructed at the wellfield. To prevent freezing, the tank would be enclosed within a 20 foot by 40 foot building which has a 32 foot high peaked roof. A driveway would need to be constructed to allow access to the tank building to facilitate the removal of the waste by tanker truck. 2. Ion Exchange Resin Technology with off site disposal to treat for perchlorate a. Technology 0 Ion exchange resin with off site disposal systems work in the same manner as ion exchange resin with on site regeneration with one notable exception. Instead of regenerating the resin by flushing the filter media with a brine solution, when the resin is depleted it is removed from the vessel and new resin is installed. The advantage of such a system is in its simplicity; there is no regeneration of resin, brine storage or waste storage in the field. b. Capacity The systems can be designed and constructed to meet the capacity of an existing well field. C. Cost The cost of designing, constructing and operating these types of systems have not yet been determined because their effectiveness is being evaluated as part of a SCWA pilot study currently underway. d. Design Ion exchange systems are housed within a 10 foot by 30 foot building located at the wellfield. A driveway would need to be constructed to allow access to the building to facilitate IN • the removal of the spent resin by tanker truck. 3 Granulated activated carbon treatment systems a. Requirement In addition to perchlorate contamination, many of the SCWA North Fork wells are impacted by the presence of other contaminants. SC`JVA uses granular activated carbon filters (GAC) to treat these contaminants. These contaminants, range from pesticides and herbicides, the metabolites or breakdown components of pesticides and herbicides, to volatile organic compounds, such as remnants from petroleum spills. GAC units are installed at the Evergreen Drive, Sunset Drive, Inlet Drive, Middle Road, Peconic, Old North Road, Island End, and Rocky Point Road wellfields. The carbon within the units is periodically changed to ensure the effectiveness of the system. Disposal of the carbon is the responsibility of the carbon supplier. Typically, the spent carbon is either incinerated or landfilled. b. Contaminants effective at removing GAC units are effective at removing VOCs, pesticides, and herbicides and have some limited effectiveness at removing low levels of perchlorate. SCWA is currently performing pilot studies to determine the effectiveness of GAC for removing perchlorate. C. Cost of system The estimated cost for developing GAC units for wells producing 50 gpm to 750 gpm of water range from $50,000.00 to $500,000.00 depending on the size of the well. d. Design GAC units are housed within a 20 foot by 40 foot brick facade or steel building located on a concrete slab. The building height can reach as high as 23 feet. The building would have a large garage style door to allow tanker trucks to access to system. The tanker trucks would bring and remove the carbon within the filters when it is no longer effective. The carbon is trucked offsite for disposal. 4. Membrane Filtration a. Technology Membrane filtration systems consist of a membrane through which water is passed. The membrane has tiny holes that allow water to pass through but trap contaminants contained within the water. As the water passes through the membrane, contaminants are filtered from the water. 31 Two drawbacks of membrane systems are that frequently the water to be passed through • the membrane must be pressurized and these systems generate high volume of waste water. Pressure requirements can require the installation of booster pumps. Operation of the booster pumps adds to the complexity of the system and increases operating and maintenance costs. Waste streams associated with membrane filter system can range as high as 15 percent of the amount of water treated. Consequently these large volumes of waste water must be disposed of in accordance with applicable standards. b. Contaminants effective at removing Among the contaminants that membrane filter systems can remove from raw water are perchlorate, nitrates and chlorides. Theoretically, any contaminant that is larger than the pore size of the membrane would be removed from raw water as the water passes through the membrane. This technology is attractive because unlike ion exchange it is not specific to any individual contaminant. Therefore it could be employed to address future unknown constituents or revised standards. C. Capacity of system The membrane filter systems can be designed and constructed to meet the capacity of an existing well field. d. Cost of system SCWA is currently outfitting a small reverse osmosis filter a type of membrane filtration at its Long Way Wellfield in East Marion to gauge the cost and effectiveness for nitrate removal. e. Design A large building is required to house a membrane filter systems because the membranes are arrayed horizontally. It is estimated that a building on the order of tens of thousands of square feet would be required to house a membrane filter system sized to meet SCWA demands. Given the area requirements of large membrane filter systems, they may not be an option for some of the SCWA wellfields located on small parcels. 5. Desalination of Seawater Using Membrane Filtration a. Technology Desalination plants operate on the same principle as membrane filtration systems. Salt water is passed through a membrane that removes the chloride from the water. While membrane • 32 • systems often require "boosting" water pressure to force the water through the membrane, desalination plants require that the water being forced through the membrane be highly pressurized. A typical treatment system rated at 250 gpm of capacity would require the use of a 500 horse power electric pump to create the pressures need to force the saltwater through the membrane. Desalination generates waste which must be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. These systems generate a significant volume of waste. For each gallon of water treated, 50% is waste. b. Contaminants effective at removing Among the contaminants that membrane filter systems can remove from raw water are perchlorate, nitrates and chlorides. Theoretically, any contaminant that is larger than the pore size of the membrane would be removed from raw water as the water passes through the membrane. C. Capacity of system The systems can be designed and constructed to provide capacity as needed. d. Cost of system Desalination plants are expensive to construct, operate and maintain. The increased energy costs to operate the plants over the long term are significant. In addition, the large waste stream must be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Lastly, desalination plants must be located near the shore and thus would require the purchase of an expensive parcel of land. e. Design A large building is required to house a desalination plant because the membranes are arrayed horizontally. It is estimated that a building on the order of 10,000s of square feet would be required to house a membrane filter system sized to meet SCWA demands. Typically, the buildings have flat roofs. Given the area requirements of large membrane filter systems, only a large parcel of land near the shoreline would be able to hold the plant. 6. Desalination of Brackish Water Using Membrane Filtration a. Technology Recognizing that underlying large portions of the North Fork is a lense of brackish water, the use of desalination plants to treat this type of water was explored. Under this type of system, brackish water, which is saltwater diffused with freshwater, would be pumped from beneath an existing wellfield and treated at a desalination plant on site. Because the amount of salt in brackish water is less than seawater the amount of pressure needed to pass the brackish water 33 through the membrane is less, resulting in lower operating costs. b. Contaminants effective at removing Among the contaminants that membrane filter systems can remove from raw water are perchlorate, nitrates and chlorides. Theoretically, any contaminant that is larger than the pore size of the membrane would be removed from raw water as the water passes through the membrane. C. Capacity of system A system can be designed to meet SCWA requirements. Wells using this technology would not be subject to the same capacity limitations of existing SCWA wells. d. Cost of system Construction, operating and maintenance costs while lower than a salt water desalination plant would still be still significant. Land cost savings could be realized if the plant was located at an existing well field. e. Approvals required If a system was designed to treat brackish water a DEC permit authorizing the withdrawal would probably be required. DEC may have institutional reluctance to grant a permit given the potential that brackish water could infiltrate the lense of freshwater which it underlies rendering the freshwater lense unusable for drinking water purposes. f. Design Desalination plants to treat brackish water could be constructed at exiting SCWA wellfields. As with membrane based filters and desalination plants, the membrane would be horizontally arrayed within a large flat roof building. 7. Point of Use Filtration Systems a. Technology Point of use systems are filters installed at the customer level. Rather than treat water at a wellfield, raw water or partially treated water would be provided to customers. At each point of use a filter would be installed to remove contaminants in the water. b. Contaminants effective at removing Point of use systems can remove a suite of contaminants including perchlorate, nitrates, • 34 • VOCs, pesticides and herbicides. Point of use systems are currently being used on the North Fork to remove the pesticide Temik and its breakdown product, aldicarb, from drinking water. Capacity of system The filters would be sized to treat the water used for potable purposes by each customer. They may take the form of "under the sink" filters or household size filters. d. Cost of system Costs include purchasing the filters, installing the filters, maintaining the filters and providing laboratory tests to monitor the filter's efficiency. Labor costs associated with these types of systems is high because visits must be made to each customer to monitor the system's performance. These visits require scheduling with the customer and require that the customer be present to allow the workers to inspect the system. e. Approvals required While the Safe Drinking Water Act permits point of use filtration systems, reluctance to their use on a Town wide basis has been expressed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services because of the absence of continuous monitoring. Additionally, it is an open question whether disposal of the waste generated by point of use filters is a regulated activity. Regulations may be promulgated on the disposal of the filters. Compliance with these regulations could be both expensive and time consuming based on whether the filters are treated as hazardous wastes and if so, the subsequent record keeping responsibilities. 8. Water, Water Quality Treatment and Water Supply Districts Town Law § 190 et seq. authorizes the Town Board of Southold to create water, water quality treatment, and water supply districts. Any proposed district must be created pursuant to Town Law. Upon creation, the Town would then be able to provide water to those properties within the district. The cost of the improvements and operations would be assessed on an ad valorem basis to the property owners within the district. Prior to creating the district, the Town would be required to demonstrate the source of water supply. (Town Law § 190-c). Rather than operate the newly created system, the Town could contract with SCWA to provide those services. 9. Underground Injection Wells to Dispose of Waste Generated by Treatment Facilities SCWA investigated the possibility of discharging the waste generated at its wells in the saltwater beneath its well fields. The impetus for this investigation was the DEC regulation 35 discussed below. a. Technology SCWA investigated the possibility of installing injection wells at its well sites to treat the waste water streams generated by a treatment technology. Under this proposal, nitrate, perchlorate, sulfates, chlorides, and brine waste would be injected into the underlying brackish groundwater. The advantage of injecting the waste water directly into groundwater is that SCWA would not have to truck the waste from the site. In addition, SCWA would not incur disposal or tipping fees in connection with treatment of the waste stream. The wells would be driven to a depth at which their effluent would be released into the salt water which underlies the North Fork. b. Cost of system Costs associated with constructing a typical underground injection well system is estimated at $50,000.00. These costs are offset by the savings realized because a waste: storage -tank would not have to be installed and there would be no long term waste disposal costs. C. Legal authority Underground injection wells are regulated by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and would require SCWA obtain a permit authorizing their use. 9 The DEC classifies groundwaters based on their best usages. Saline groundwaters with a "chloride concentration in excess of 1,000 milligrams per liter or a total dissolved solids concentration in excess of 2,000 milligrams per liter" are classified as Class GSB waters. (6 NYCRR §701.17). The best usage for Class GSB waters is as a "receiving water for disposal of wastes." (Id). Class GSB waters, based on this definition, underlie all of the SCWA North Fork wells. An impediment to the use of injection wells is that, notwithstanding the definition of Class GSB waters, the designation is not assigned to "any groundwaters of the State." (6 NYCRR 701.18). If SCWA determines to pursue the use of underground injection wells, SCWA could petition the Commissioner of DEC to classify the waters beneath the SCWA wells as Class GSB waters. The Commissioner has the authority to make such a classification provided she finds "that adjacent and tributary groundwaters and the best usages thereof will not be impaired by such classification." (Id.). 10. Other Disposal Options Other methods of disposing waste could include the purchase and operation of a 9 36 • destruction module to treat perchlorate brine. Destruction modules destroy the perchlorate in the brine leaving the brine intact. The brine can be either re -used or discarded. Operation and maintenance costs for a destruction module is estimated to be $0.40 per 1,000 gallons treated. The capital costs are estimated to be in the million dollar range. 11. Treatment of water with high nitrate levels SCWA wells impacted by high nitrate concentrations -are currently blended with water with lower nitrate levels as per NYS Department of Health regulations. In addition, at the Old North Road wellfield, SCWA treats water with elevated nitrate levels through an ion exchange system. B. Develop new water sources within the Town SCWA explored the possibility of constructing additional well fields within the Town. SCWA currently owns several properties, which under normal circumstances would support the operation of a wellfield. However, upon closer examination, there are technical and financial issues that affect developing a wellfield on the sites. Two constraints on SCWA's ability to develop new wells in the Town are the proximity of wetlands to many SCWA holdings and the marginal groundwater quality. In addition to the noted constraints, if the perchlorate standard was lowered, SCWA may be forced to install treatment facilities at the site. New wellfields would require clearing to allow the construction of a chemical treatment building and the wells. The chemical treatment building is approximately 20 foot by 40 foot with a peaked roof that is approximately 15 high. The chemical treatment building is accessible to vehicles via a paved driveway. Clearing at the site is kept to a minimum. Additional structures may be constructed at the site depending on whether treatment to remove contamination is required. These types of structures could range from a 20 foot by 40 foot building that is 23 feet high to house a GAC unit, a 10 foot by 30 foot building to house an ion exchange system or a 20 foot high 12 foot diameter above ground waste water holding tank built within a 20 foot by 40 foot building with a peaked roof that is approximately 32 feet high to house waste water generated by an ion exchange system or a very large building to house a membrane filter system. The buildings could be constructed of wood or steel and could have a brick facade with a steel or asphalt shingle roof. Financially the cost of developing a 200 gpm North Fork wellfield is estimated at $650,000.00. The capital cost per gpm is $3,250.00. In comparison, the cost of developing a 3,900 gpm wellfield in areas to the west is $1,900,000.00. The capital cost per gpm for these wellfields is $487.00. Thus it is approximately 6 times as expensive to develop a small capacity North Fork wellfield as it is to develop a higher capacity wellfield in the western portions of the County. 37 North Road, Greenport 0 SCWA owns a 10.5 acre site at the east end of the town near Moores Lane. Saltwater underlies the site at a depth of approximately 90 feet. In addition, adjacent to the site are regulated freshwater wetlands. Given these constraints the site could only support shallow wells of limited capacity (50-100 GPM). For the foregoing reasons, the Department of Environmental Conservation may be reluctant to grant a permit for the operation of any larger capacity wells on the parcel. 2. Laurel Lake West, Laurel SCWA owns a seven acre parcel located to the south of Sound Avenue which is bordered by a large County parcel. The parcel is in close proximity to Laurel Lake along with several other freshwater wetlands which limits SCWA's ability to establish additional wells at the site. The SCWA is currently seeking approval for three additional 100 gpm wells on the existing :Laurel Lake site, which is almost 92 acres in size. The Department of Environmental Conservation, citing concerns on the impacts to the wetlands in the area, has required SCWA to perform specialized tests in support of these applications. Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue This 7 acre site located in the center of the Town of Southold was the subject of a recent test boring to determine the options for well construction. The test boring revealed that the shallow depths are high in nitrates making them unsuitable for water supply purposes. 'The deeper zone that contained water of relatively good quality was very close to the salt -water interface and as such would only yield a small volume of water (50-100 gpm). This low yield makes the site uneconomical to develop. In addition, the site is not within the Water Service Area. Likewise, test wells on nearby agricultural lands showed promise but sustained pumping may degrade the water quality based on similar experiences at the SCWA's Evergreen Avenue wellfield. 4. Middle Road, Peconic This 38 acre site is currently utilized as a well field and contains two 50 gpm shallow wells. Original plans for this well field included the installation of up to six 50 gpm wells. These plans were changed in light of concerns of the NYS DEC regarding lateral salt -water nntrusion from nearby Goldsmiths Inlet. Permitting of any additional wells at this site is questionable and would yield little useable water. C. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold SCWA investigated the potential for developing public supply wells in areas west of the Town of Southold, in the Central Pine Barrens and transmitting the water produced by the wells into the Town. Raw water analysis of wells in the areas to the west of the Town stand in sharp • 38 • contrast to water quality on the North Fork. While North Fork raw water is some of the most compromised within the County, water from the west is virtually free of any human induced contamination because of a complete and continuous lack of human activities in these areas. n When compared with the high costs of filtering and treating North Fork raw water, any future drinking water standard restricting newly regulated chemical constituents or changing development patterns would be of no consequence to wells located in the Central Pine Barrens watershed. Proposed Flanders Wellfield SCWA owns 9.0 acres of land located at Oak Avenue in Flanders. The parcel is located within the Core Preservation Area of the Long Island Central Pine Barrens region. Land uses within the Central Pine Barrens are governed by the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act of 1993 (Environmental Conservation Law Article 57) and the Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Act divides the roughly 100,000 acre Central Pine Barrens into two distinct geographic areas, the Core Preservation Area and the Compatible Growth Area. The Core Preservation Area is composed of approximately 50,000 acres in which development activities are regulated by the Act and the Commission. Approximately 38,000 acres are in public ownership and will not be developed. (Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission website, October 2, 2002). Groundwater recharge flowing from these nondevelopable lands is of high quality. Recharge to groundwater can be compromised by the development activities on the lands through which the water passes. Given the limited development potential of the recharge areas for the Flanders wells, SCWA is reasonably confident that the wells at the Flanders site would produce high quality water for the foreseeable future. a. Proposed wells at Flanders Property Test wells at the Flanders property demonstrated the ability to develop two (2) wells each with a capacity of up to 650 gpm. If such wells were developed, the site would produce 1,300 gpm. Prior to operating these wells, SCWA would have to apply for a DEC permit authorizing their operation. b. Cost analysis Cost to develop SCWA estimates that developing a fully operational wellsite at the Flanders property would cost $1,500,000.00. A fully operational wellsite would include two (2) wells, a chemical treatment building, yard piping, electrical controls, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition equipment and chemical feed equipment. 39 ii. Replacement cost based on 2002 dollars Based on a capital cost of $1.5 million, SCWA would have to put aside between $1.0 and $1.5 million in 2003 dollars to pay for a replacement wellfield in 50 years depending on -the rate of investment return and the rate of inflation. C. Life Expectancy SCWA experience indicates that wells developed in regions similar to Flanders have a life expectancy of 50 years. d. Design An advantage of developing wells at the Flanders property is that filtration of the water is not required. Thus no large buildings housing filtration systems or waste water tanks would be constructed. Rather the site would be developed with a 20 foot by 40 foot chemical treatment building with a 15 foot high peaked roof and two concrete boxes housing the well heads. A portion of the site would be cleared to allow access to the wellheads and the chemical treatment building. However, SCWA strives to minimize the amount of clearing at its wellfields. In addition some paving would be installed to facilitate access to the wellheads and chemical treatment building. 2. Potential Routes - Flanders to Southold Appendix 10 is a map highlighting three potential routes for a transmission main from Flanders to an interconnection with the SCWA Southold system. Two of the routes interconnect with the SCWA system on Main Road in Laurel. The third route ends at the SCWA Laurel Lake well field. Each of the routes begins at the Flanders wellfield and proceed northerly. A directional drill would be required to cross the Peconic River. After crossing the river, the main would be installed along County Road 105 to Indian Island Park and then across the park to Hubbards Avenue, crossing the LIRR tracks near Hubbards Avenue. From Hubbards .Avenue, each route proceeds in a different direction. a. Route 1 - Peconic Bay Boulevard Under this proposal 11.24 miles of main would be installed. From the Hubbards Avenue departure point, the main would be installed in Meetinghouse Creek Road to Peconic Bay Boulevard. The majority of the mains would be installed in Peconic Bay Boulevard, parallel to an existing main to an interconnection at Main Road.. b. Route 2 - Main Road Under this proposal 10.65 miles of main would be installed. From Hubbards Avenue, the 40 • 0 main would be installed in County Route 105 to Main Road. The main would be installed in Main Road from County Road 105 to an interconnection with the SCWA system in Laurel. Route 3 - Sound Avenue Under this proposal 11.98 miles of main would be installed. The main would run from County Route 105 north of Hubbards Avenue to Northville Turnpike. Then proceed along Northville Turnpike to Sound Avenue to an interconnection with the SCWA system at Cox Neck Road. Flanders Transmission Main Issues Water produced by wells developed at the Flanders property would need to be delivered into Southold via a transmission main. SCWA analyzed three different sized mains, a 24 inch diameter main, a 30 inch diameter main, a 36 inch diameter main, to transmit the water. a. Main capacity and retention time A main's capacity varies depending on the route of the main. As the length of the main increases, the amount of water that can be in the main also increases. Likewise, retention time, the amount of time the water is within the main also increases with the length of the main. Retention time does decrease as the usage rate increases. The following table shows the capacity and retention times of various main sizes and routes for the Flanders to Southold main. Size (inches) Capacity (M.G.) Retention time at usage rate of 5,000 gpm Retention time at usage rate of 7,500 gpm Route 1- 24" 1.39 M.G. 4.63 hrs 3.08 hrs Route 1- 30" 2.18 M.G. 7.27 hrs 4.83 hrs Route 1- 36" 3.14 M.G. 10.47 hrs 6.97 hrs Route 2 - 24" 1.32 M.G. 4.40 hrs 2.93 hrs Route 2- 30" 2.07 M.G. 6.90 hrs 4.60 hrs Route 2- 36" 2.98 M.G. 9.93 hrs 6.62 hrs Route 3 - 24" 1.48 M.G. 4.94 hrs 3.29 hrs Route 3- 30" 2.31 M.G. 7.72 hrs 5.14 hrs Route 3- 36" 3.33 M.G. 11.11 hrs 7.41 hrs 41 Retention time is an important consideration in designing a system because water quality can deteriorate if the retention time is too high. During periods of low flow, in order to maintain the proper chlorine residual, a chlorine booster injection system may need to be installed. At low flow times excess main capacity could be recharged in existing Southold wells to be withdrawn during the summer months. Periods of low flow would be anticipated in the winter months. b. Cost analysis Capital Costs The following table sets forth the estimated capital cost for the different routes. Route Size in inches Capital Cost Route 1 - Peconic Bay Boulevard 24 $8,650,000.00 30 $12,650,000.00 36 $13,650,000.00 Route 2- Main Road 24 $13,650,000.00 30 $17,650,000..00 36 $18,650,000.00 Route 3- Sound Avenue 24 $9,500,000.00 30 $13,500,000.00 36 $14,500,000.00 ii. Operation and Maintenance Cost SCWA estimates, based on its experience, that the annual cost to maintain a water main is $0.12 per foot of main installed. In addition, operating the Southold transmission main would require power beyond that which is traditionally required to operate a main because of the considerable length of the transmission main. The electrical cost incurred by SCWA to pump water to the Town would depend on the amount of water transmitted. C. Expected life span of transmission mains Ductile iron pipe and polypropylene pipe installed by directional drills have an estimated life expectancy of 100 years. 42 • 4. Other potential wellfields SCWA is investigating the feasibility of developing new wells closer to the Town of Southold. These wells would produce water from the same aquifer system as the proposed Flanders wells. Ideally, these sites would be located along the one of the proposed Flanders to Southold transmission routes. By locating the wells along or near the transmission route, additional transmission mains would not be needed. Reducing the amount of main which must be installed would lessen the environmental and fiscal impacts of the proposal. a. Hallockville Museum Farm site, Hallockville SCWA is investigating the potential for establishing two wells on the property of the Hallockville Museum Farm site. The Farm is located in the Town of Riverhead on the north side of County Route 48 just to the west of the Southold border. CDM modeled the impacts on the Magothy aquifer of withdrawing 1 mgd from two Magothy wells at Hallockville. CDM determined that "[t]he maximum decline in the water table is [expected to be] 1.55 feet. To the south, just north of Route 25, water table impacts are simulated to be less than 0.1 feet." (CDM at 4). CDM also analyzed the effects of operating the wells on the salt -water interface. Directly beneath the well, the interface is "estimated to rise approximately 75 feet." (Id.). CDM modeled the well under steady state conditions, and under real conditions, "it may take many years before the same magnitude of interface movement is observed." (Id.). o Prior to placing wells developed at Hallockville into production, SCWA would be required to obtain DEC permits. DEC may require additional study of the impacts that the wells would have. • If wells were developed at Hallockville, water would be transmitted into the SCWA Southold system via mains installed along Sound Avenue. The mains would connect with the existing SCWA system at Cox Neck Road in Mattituck or piped to the Laurel Lake facility. b. Design An advantage of developing wells at the Hallockville property is that filtration of the water is not required. Thus no large buildings housing filtration systems or waste water tanks would be constructed. Rather the site would be developed with a 800 square foot peaked roof chemical treatment building and two concrete boxes housing the well heads. A portion of the site would be cleared to allow access to the wellheads and the chemical treatment building. However SCWA strives to minimize the amount of clearing at its wellfields. In addition, some paving would be installed to facilitate access to the wellheads and chemical treatment building. SCWA would work with the owners of the museum to develop the site in a manner that minimizes the visual impact of the wellfield. D. Purchase and Transmission of water from Riverhead Water District 43 SCWA approached the Town of Riverhead Water District to determine whether the Water District could provide water from its system to the SCWA Southold system. Presently, a single interconnection exists between the SCWA system and the Riverhead Water District's system at the Southold Town line on Peconic Bay Boulevard. In addition, there are interconnections on the western end of the Riverhead system. Through the Southold interconnection SCWA has the ability to supplement its Southold system by purchasing water from Riverhead during periods of high demand. Likewise, Riverhead has purchased water from SCWA through the interconnections in the western end of its system. The Riverhead Water District maintains approximately 10,500 services throughout the Town of Riverhead. The district is divided into three zones, Zone 1, 2 and 3. Capital facilities of the District include eleven wells and pumping stations, four elevated storage tanks and standpipes, a booster station and a ground storage tank. (H2M at 2-1). Approximately 214 miles of main in varying sizes is maintained by the District. (Id at 2-3). In response to SCWA's request, Riverhead hired the H2M Group, the Water District's consultant to analyze the potential for supplying water to SCWA. The consultant analyzed three alternatives. The first involved providing water to the Southold system at the three locations where a road crosses from the Town of Riverhead into the Town of Southold. These locations are the existing Peconic Bay Boulevard interconnection, and proposed Main Road and Sound Avenue interconnections. The second alternative involved connecting large transmission mains transmitting water from outside the Town to the Water District at one of three different locations. Supplying water to the Water District system would enable the Water District to provide water to SCWA through the existing or proposed interconnections. The third alternative involved constructing a new well in the Water District to generate a supply of water which could transmitted to the Southold Town line. A copy of the report is included at Appendix 11. The goal of the H2M study was to "determine how much water the Riverhead `Water District can supply to the SCWA without negatively affected [sic] the existing distribution system and the Riverhead Water District consumers." (H2M at 5-2). Supplying water developed in the Water District to SCWA Southold system H2M modeled the effects of supplying water to SCWA at Peconic Bay Boulevard, Main Road and Sound Avenue in differing amounts. Using a computer model H2M was able to predict, the effect, if any on the Water District, under hypothetical conditions of supplying water to SCWA. For modeling purposes, the evaluation was run under peak day demand conditions under the assumption that the largest Riverhead well site was out of service. By using these conservative parameters, H2M was able to predict the maximum amount of water that Riverhead could supply to Southold under a worst case scenario. Additionally, these scenarios would ensure that the Water District did not commit to providing more water than feasible to SCWA. The model demonstrated that if 2,500 gpm of water or more was to be supplied to 44 • SCWA at any interconnection there would be significant pressure drops throughout the entire eastern portion of the Riverhead low zone. In fact, at some locations, the model predicted a pressure reading of 0 psi. The minimum acceptable pressure readings is 35 psi. (112M at 5-2). SCWA could obtain 1,500 gpm of water at a proposed Sound Avenue interconnection with no adverse impact to the Water District's ability to provide water to its customers at acceptable pressure levels. Under this proposal, the existing main on Sound Avenue from Pier Avenue to the Southold line would be transferred into Riverhead Water District Zone 2. Furthermore, three valves on Sound Avenue at Pier Avenue, Manor Land and Herricks Lane would need to be closed isolating the main on Sound Avenue. This would create two long dead end mains on Manor and Herricks Lane. As noted by H2M the option of creating a Zone 2 interconnection on Sound Avenue, "would provide the least impact on the Riverhead Water District pressures while supplying 1500 gpm to SCWA." (112M at 5-4). 2. SCWA supply of water to Riverhead Water District and Water District supply to Southold system Another method for providing water to the SCWA Southold system would involve SCWA developing water to the west of Riverhead and then transmitting the water into the Riverhead system. This proposal would increase the amount of water within the Riverhead system. 112M analyzed how much water the District could supply to Southold, if SCWA provided a constant supply of 100 psi water at three locations within the Town. a. SCWA connection at Hubbard Avenue Under this scenario, SCWA water would be transmitted into the Town and connected to the Riverhead system at Hubbard Avenue and provide 100 psi at the interconnection. Under these assumptions, the Water District could provide 2,000 gpm at the Peconic Bay interconnection. If the existing water main along Peconic Bay Boulevard was upgraded from 12 inch main to 16 inch main from the interconnection location to the Town line, 2,500 gpm could be provided to SCWA. (H2M at 5-4-5). b. SCWA connection at Main Road If SCWA provided an interconnection to the Riverhead Water District at the intersection of Main Road and County Road 105, the Water District could supply 2,000 gpm to the SCWA Southold system at Main Road. If the water main between Herricks Lane and the Southold Town line along Main Road was upgraded from 12 inch to 16 inch the amount of water that could be provided would be 2,500 gpm. The Water District could deliver 3,000 gpm at the Town line if the 12 inch main along Main Road was upgraded to a 16 inch main from South Jamesport Avenue to the Town line. (H2M at 5-5). C. SCWA connection at Northville Turnpike and County Road 105 EIR If SCWA provided water at 100 psi to the Riverhead Water District at the intersection of County Road 105 and Northville Turnpike, the Water District could provide up to 2,000 gpm to SCWA at the Sound Avenue interconnection. ( H2M at 5-5-6). 3. Installation of new well within Riverhead Water District 112M analyzed the amount of water the Riverhead Water District could provide -to SCWA if a new well was installed on Tuthill Lane in Riverhead. According to the H2M model, if a 1,400 gpm well was developed on Tuthill Lane, Riverhead could deliver 2,500 gpm at the proposed Main Road. 112M did issue a caveat when discussing this alternative in that test wells at the Tuthill Lane property indicated the presence of elevated chlorides which may be indicative of increased potential for saltwater intrusion. If operation of the well does indeed cause salt water intrusion, the capacity of the well may be less than 1,400 gpm which in turn reduce the amount of water available to SCWA at Main Road. (H2M at 5-7). E. Conservation Programs and Potential of Reduced Demand One method of decreasing demand on the SCWA Southold system would be to implement mandatory water conservation programs. The goal of such programs would be to lessen demand to the extent that significant infrastructure improvements would be unnecessary. SCWA does not possess the legal authority to mandate conservation programs. Notwithstanding, SCWA, in light of the demands of its system has taken steps to lessen demand. First, SCWA does not permit new customers to make more than one tap into the public water system. A trend was developing in which customers would apply for a separate tap that would be used solely for irrigation purposes. Water used for irrigation purposes represents the largest use by a typical customer. By preventing such taps, water demand can be reduced. Second, SCWA has encouraged the Town in reviewing subdivision and building permit applications to limit the amount of land that can be placed into irrigation dependent uses. These restrictions, typically in the form of clearing restrictions or the requirement that native or drought tolerant plantings be used, can only be applied by the Town. When implemented, these types of restrictions lessen the amount of water which would be used for irrigation purposes. Third, SCWA with the cooperation of the Town and the North Fork Environmental Council initiated a program to distribute water conservation kits to individuals in Southold. These kits allow homeowners to retrofit water using devices to reduce the amount of water the devices use. The program, in place since early summer 2002, has distributed approximately 2`_>0 kits to Southold residents regardless of whether they are SCWA customers or not. To promote the program, SCWA placed advertisements in local papers, on local radio stations and made telephone calls to SCWA customers in the Town via an automated phone system. Each kit contains information on the importance of conserving water, a low flow shower 46 head, two low flow aerators, and a leak detection tablet to locate leaks in toilets. SCWA continues to promote the program and will include information on it on the water bills of its Southold customers. Furthermore, SCWA plans on interviewing people who have used the kit to gather information on the water savings devices. Despite these efforts, even if expanded, it is not anticipated that an appreciable reduction in water demand would occur. Furthermore, the potential impact of a lower perchlorate standard would significantly hinder SCWA's ability to meet existing demand, let alone increased demand, absent infrastructure improvements. F. No action alternative Under the no action alternative, SCWA would continue to rely on its existing wells supplemented on an as needed basis with water obtained from the Riverhead Water District to supply the Town of Southold. Once commitments equaled the capacity of the system, no new connections to the public water system, even to areas on the Water Service Area Map could be entertained. Under this scenario, SCWA may face the untenable position, in contravention of its fundamental mission, of denying water to existing homeowners who experience private well failure. Changes to the perchlorate or other standard could put SCWA in the position of not being able to meet existing demands, unless one of the other options described above was implemented. C7 C. V. Impacts A. Short ter -d long term, cumu' rtive impacts V r treatment at existi:g SCWA wellfields a Short term impar: s Short ter npacts associated w zh developing treatment facilities at existing wells are the construction im1 Additionally, ther , may be minor, short term impacts related to a. tanker truck visiting the every four days to -emove waste water from the site, depending on the type of treatment. b Long term impar;_; If SCW -.barks on a program of treating the water produced at the existing Southold wellfields, no ad anal capacity will be created. Therefore, the system would be designed to serve current cu hers and would be without the capacity to serve additional Town residents. The long term in ;ts would be minimal, in that current customers would continue to be served, and no additions 3idents could be served. The amo of water being withdrawn from the Southold aquifer would not increase markedly and res -ge would occur in the areas from which the water was withdrawn. Long ter npacts would include the visual impact of constructing treatment systems at the wellfields. T reatment facilities could include an ion exchange system, GAC filters and a membrane based er. If an ion exchange system with on site regeneration was implemented a 10 foot by 30 foot t iing with a peaked roof that is 25 feet high would be constructed. In addition a 20 foot by 40 building with a peaked roof of 32 feet would be constructed to house a 12 foot in diameter -oot high waste tank. The waste tank building would have a garage style door to allow a tanker .ck to access the tank. If a ion a ange system with off site regeneration system was developed at the site a 10 foot by 30 foot 1 ding with a 25 foot peaked roof would be constructed. The building would have a garage st, door to facilitate access by a tanker truck to remove the spent resin from the system. If a GAC 'alt was required at the site a 20 foot by 40 foot building with a peaked roof of 23 feet high wou-)e constructed. The building would have a garage style door to facilitate access by a tanks ruck to remove the spent carbon from the system. The spent carbon would either be landfillF )r incinerated by the company which removes it from the facility. If a mernt. ne based filtration system was implemented at the site a large flat roofed 0 48 building on the order of tens of thousands square feet would be constructed. The building would have a roof that is approximately 15 feet high. Any building constructed would have either a wood face, a brick facade or be made of steel. The roofs could be metal or asphalt shingle. SCWA, to the extent possible, would design the building in a manner that conforms to surrounding buildings and minimizes the visual impacts of the buildings. An additional long term impact would include the disposal of the contaminated waste water if an ion exchange system was constructed at the wellfield. If the treatment system was removing perchlorate from the groundwater, a perchlorate rich brine would result. Moreover, the waste water may have elevated levels of other contaminants. This waste would be trucked from the site in large tanker trucks. The tankers would need to remove the waste every 4 days. If a waste effluent was generated, SCWA would propose discharging the effluent at the County sewage treatment plant in Babylon. Currently the plant has no limitation on the levels of perchlorate that it can handle. If standards are adopted, disposal at the plant may not be an option. Treatment at the County plant would not remove the perchlorate from the waste stream. Rather it would pass through the system and be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean where it could adversely affect marine life. The environmental impact and financials costs of implementing such a limited water supply plan would be significant. SCWA would need to invest significant resources both financially and operationally to design, construct and operate the systems and would not receive any increased benefit, increased capacity, from its expenditure. In addition, open ended waste disposal fees would always be associated with the systems. Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts associated with treating water at the existing wells would be the visual impacts of the treatment system, the waste issues associated with disposing of either waste water from an ion exchange system, spent resin from an ion exchange system or spent carbon from a GAC unit, and the increased energy consumption associated with the treatment system. 2. Develop new water sources within the Town a. Short term impacts Developing new sources within the town will result in short term disturbances due to the construction activities associated with developing the new wells. Economic impacts would include the high cost of developing a low capacity well, as is typical on the North Fork. SCWA's experience has been that the cost of developing a well in Southold can be approximately six times as high as developing a large capacity well in the western portions of Suffolk on a gallon per • minute basis. Moreover, the Southold wells typically have much lower capacity for the reasons previously discussed. Therefore, the money spent to develop low capacity wells in Southold could be otherwise used to develop higher capacity wells outside the Town's boundaries,. b. Long term impacts Long term impacts associated with new sources within the Town would be the same as those analyzed in Section V(A)(1)(b) if the new wells required treatment. Given the likelihood that any new wells would eventually require treatment, these impacts would most presumably occur. If new wells were developed in response to increased population in the Town, Icing term impacts of salt water intrusion or other types of contamination may be increased due to increased production from the wells. C. Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts could include growth inducing impacts. These are addressed below. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold a. Short term impacts Short term impacts would include the disturbances associated with the construction of new wells to the west of the Town and the impacts of constructing a water transmission main to connect to the SCWA system in the Town. Other impacts include financing the cost of the improvements. b. Long term impacts Typically in SCWA service areas, water is recharged to the aquifer system in the general vicinity from which it is drawn. In so doing, a regional balance is maintained in the aquifer system, with the amount of water being removed for human activities equal to or less than the amount being recharged from human activities and rainfall. It has been estimated that approximately 85% of the water served in unsewered areas is returned to the aquifer. (WSMWPS at 15, citing Franke and McClymonds, 1972). Transmitting water into the Town may impact the amount of water being recharged. SCWA commissioned a consultant to study the potential impacts to the Southold aquifers, if any, from the increased recharge. As discussed below, an increase of a maximum of 0.4 feet could be anticipated if 5.0 mgd of water is transmitted into the Town. i. Water transmitted from the Pine Barrens Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) modeled the effects of recharging water transmitted from the Pine Barrens into the Town of Southold. CDM based its model on the proposal to is 50 transmit up to 4.0 mgd of water from the Pine Barrens. Using the calculation that 85% of the water transmitted or 3.4 mgd would be recharged to the aquifer, CDM concluded: The maximum water table increase is estimated to be less than 0.3 feet. Since development, and therefore water use, is concentrated closer to the coast (especially the southern coast),, returning the imported water evenly across the model domain may not necessarily provide an accurate assessment of the actual water table impacts. It isexpected that the increase would be less than 0.3 feet in the center of the fork, since less water would be returned in that area, and more water would be returned closer to the coast. CDM at 3. After the increase of 0.3 feet in the water table, a hydrogeologic balance between the amount of water recharged and the water discharged from the aquifer would be achieved and further increases would not be anticipated. No adverse impact to Central Pine Barrens aquifer would be anticipated because the water recharged to the area would be much greater than the amount withdrawn. In addition, the limited potential for development in the area would lessen the possibility that new wells would be needed to serve the demands of the area. 0 ii. Water transmitted from Hallockville Museum Farm site • Assuming 85% of the 1.0 mgd of water was transmitted from the Hallockville Museum Farm site into the Town would be recharged to the Southold aquifer, CDM concluded: The imported water was returned evenly to all model elements east of the most westerly existing supply wells, located just west of Mattituck Inlet. The maximum increase in the water table was found to be less than 0.1 feet in the center of the island, and nearly zero along the coast. CDM at 4. As with the anticipated increase of 0.3 feet increase in the water table from the recharge of 3.4 mgd transmitted from the Pine Barrens, once the increase of 0.1 feet was realized, no further increase attributable to the transmission of water from Hallockville Museum Farm site is anticipated. Long term impacts would also include the visual impacts of constructing new wellfields, ensuring the water maintains a proper chlorine residual as per Section IV(C)(3)(a) above, the ability of SCWA to entertain new connections to its system, and the ability to extend mains into previously unserved areas. Depending on the amount of water transmitted into the Town, 51 additions to the existing SCWA system could be entertained thereby increasing the number of SCWA customers in the Town. Furthermore, additional capacity would allow SCWA to consider water main extensions to heretofore unserved areas in accordance with the Town's comprehensive plan. Development of new wells. within the Core Preservation Area would not affect SCWA's ability to provide water to the residents in the area of the wells for two reasons. First, sufficient capacity exists within this portion of SCWA's system. Second, significant new development is not anticipated given the restrictions of the Article 57 of the Environmental Conservation Law. However, there also may be some positive impacts to wheeling water into the Town. The outfall for the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant is located in the Long Island Sound. This discharge is a net loss of recharge to the aquifer system. Bringing water into the Town and recharging it in the Town will help restore this net loss to the aquifer system. C. Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts could include growth inducing impacts. These are addressed below. 4. Purchase and transmission of water from Riverhead Water District a. Short term impacts 0 The Riverhead Water District analyzed three different options for providing water to SCWA at the Southold town line. Under each scenario additional interconnections between the Southold and Riverhead system could be required. If an interconnection is developed at Main Road, water main will need to be installed from the Laurel Lake facility to the Southold town line along Main Road. SCWA may need to investigate locating a main from the Laurel Lake facility in the property owned by Nofo Associates because Main Road just to the west of the Laurel Lake facility entrance passes under a railroad trestle. The road dips to pass under the trestle. This dip in the road, makes it difficult to install a water main and move water through the main efficiently. Approximately 7,268 feet would need to be installed to connect between the Town line and the Laurel Lake facility. If an interconnection is developed at Sound Avenue, water main will need to be run from Cox Neck Road west along Sound Avenue to the Town line. This will require the installation of approximately 8,300 feet of main. If either interconnection is created the mains installed would front Agricultural District parcels. Installation of the mains would trigger review pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets as 52 • per Section VI(F)(4)(a) below. i. Supplying water developed in the Water District to SCWA Southold system This alternative will have the fewest impacts. Under this scenario, the Riverhead Water District would sell water to SCWA that it developed by its current system. Infrastructure improvements would be limited to establishing the Sound Avenue interconnection. H2M determined that the least impact to the Riverhead Water District would occur if the District supplied SCWA with 1,500 gpm at the Sound Avenue interconnection. The impact to the Riverhead aquifer system of recharging water in the Southold aquifer is not considered significant given the limited amount of water that is proposed to be transmitted into Southold. ii. SCWA supply of water to Riverhead Water District and Water District supply to Southold system The impacts associated with this proposal are similar to those analyzed under the proposal to develop supplies in the Pine Barrens and transmit them into the Town of Southold. The only difference is that the transmission mains would interconnect with the Riverhead Water District system rather than interconnect with the Southold system. The impact to the aquifer system from which the water is withdrawn is not considered significant given the amount transmitted would be far less than the amount recharged. If new wells are proposed to supply the water to Riverhead, as part of the DEC application will analyze this potential impact. iii. Installation of new well within Riverhead Water District Under this proposal, the Riverhead Water District would develop a new well at Tuthill Lane. Development of the well would require DEC approval, at which point site specific environmental impacts would be addressed, including the impact to the Riverhead aquifer of recharging the water produced by the well in Southold. b. Long term impacts Depending on the amount of water purchased from the Riverhead Water District, the long term impacts would be very similar to those discussed under the section VI(A)(3)(b) above. C. Cumulative impacts Cumulative impacts could include growth inducing impacts. These are addressed below. Water, Water Quality Treatment and Water Supply Districts The Town of Southold retains the authority to propose the creation of water, water 53 quality treatment and water supply districts to serve its residents. The mechanism for creating M such property tax districts requires the preparation of a map of the proposed district, an analysis of the source of water supply for the district inhabitants and approval at a public referendum from the residents of the proposed district. (Town Law 190-c). Impacts associated with the creation of a water district would be the growth inducing impacts associated with creating the district. Moreover, the Town would face many of the same issues facing SCWA in providing water to the Town's residents while relying only on Town wells and addressed in the "No action alternative section." The creation of water districts may have growth inducing impacts by increasing the amount of water available within the Town. In addition, depending on the location of the districts, consistency with the Water Service Area Map may not be ensured. 6. No action alternative a. Short term impacts Under the no action alternative, SCWA would continue to rely on its existing wells and water obtained from the Riverhead Water District to supply the Town of Southold. Once commitments equaled the capacity of the system, no new connections to the public water system, even to areas on the Water Service Area Map could be entertained. SCWA may face the untenable position of denying water to existing homeowners who experience private well failure. Likewise, fire protection will remain the same in the Town because no additional water will be available. SCWA professionals will need to continue to aggressively manage the SCWA system to minimize the potential impacts to the aquifer system. b. Long term impacts If the perchlorate or other standard was lowered to levels below those experienced in existing SCWA wells, the wells would need t6 be shut down, further reducing the available water within the Town. Under this scenario, SCWA may not be able to meet the demand of its existing customers. B. Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields If increased treatment at the existing SCWA Southold wells is required to treat and remove perchlorate or other chemical, the amount of waste which must be disposed would also increase. The environmental impacts that could not be avoided would include the waste generation and the environmental impacts associated with trucking the waste from the site. In addition, if the County refuses to accept the waste or places restrictions on the concentration of a 54 • particular contaminant in the waste stream, SCWA could be forced to pre -treat the effluent prior to disposal. Visual impacts would accompany the development of treatment systems within the Town. All of the above impacts would be avoided if water is transmitted into the Town. 2. Develop new water sources within the Town Developing new sources of water within the Town to replace existing contaminated sources should not have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts provided the wells did not require treatment. If treatment was required, the impacts noted above would accompany development of the wells. However, SCWA has been unable to find new water sources within the Town that do not require treatment. Thus, the same unavoidable impacts as treating existing wells would occur. These would be avoided by transmitting water into the Town. 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold including purchasing water from Riverhead The operation of new wells would not have unavoidable adverse impacts because they would be operated pursuant to Department Environmental Conservation permits. The net impact of the increased recharge from water produced outside the Town in the Town was demonstrated to be negligible. Any construction activities would involve temporary disturbances which would cease upon completion. If the water purchased from the Riverhead Water District is surplus no impacts would be anticipated given the limited amount of water to be transmitted. In addition, the H2M model indicated that the Town could sell 1500 gpm to SCWA with the least impact to the Riverhead system. If new wells are installed, the impact on the area supplying the water would be analyzed as part of a well permit application. 4. No action alternative Impacts of the no action alternative include the inability to serve those areas designated by the Town to receive water service. In the event the standards are changed or the water quality changes, SCWA would be forced to stop serving water to its current customers or serve water that does not meet the standards. Maintaining the status quo will result in the operation of a system that is undersized to meet current demand and to serve those areas designated for water supply. These impacts would be avoided if water is transmitted into the Town. C. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental resources 55 Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields 0 Treating water produced by the existing well network would involve visual impacts due the construction of treatment systems and the buildings to house the systems. In addition, the disposal of the waste generated by the treatment system would be an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental resources. Treatment systems would require an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy resources. If an injection system was developed to dispose of wastes into groundwater, there may be an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the groundwater resource receiving the waste. Any impacts associated with the production of the water at the wells would be reversed upon ceasing use of the wells and removing the treatment facilities. 2. Develop new water sources within the Town Development of new sources of water within the Town would have the same inreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental resources as would treating water from existing wells discussed in the preceding section because it is unlikely that SCWA will be able to develop new wells in the Town that do not require treatment of some kind. 3. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold The visual impacts associated with construction of new wellfields may involve the commitment of irreversible and irretrievable environmental resources particularly if wells are developed in the Core Preservation Area of the Central Pine Barrens. There would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of an environmental resources according to the Camp Dresser McKee analysis if water was transmitted into the Town. As the study noted the hydrogeologic balance in the Town would not be compromised by transmitting up to 5.0 mgd of water produced outside the Town. In addition, any impacts associated with the production of the water at the wells would be reversed upon ceasing use of the wells and removing the treatment facilities. Installation of a transmission main will have limited environmental impacts which would be mitigated during construction. 4. No action alternative Maintaining the status quo of the existing SCWA Southold system would not involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of environmental resources except that SCWA may be forced to deny water to those with existing wells which are or become contaminated. D. Growth inducing impacts 56 U The Town of Southold controls the amount of development that will occur in the Town. Through a combination of zoning initiatives, planning efforts and resource management plans, the Town Board will determine the course that development in the Town will take. SCWA, to the extent possible, will cooperate with the Town in developing a water system that is responsive to Town objectives with respect to its planning goals. However, SCWA does not have the ability to control growth in the Town. SCWA strives to provide a safe, high quality source of water to its customers. it has consistently endeavored to provide water that is reasonably priced. As noted earlier, sufficient groundwater exists in Southold's aquifer system to provide for the present and future needs of the Town. Estimated treatment costs for providing this water are quite high. However, on a smaller scale, under the right circumstances, it may be economically justifiable for a developer to create a private water system to treat the water. This economic incentive exists regardless of whether SCWA buttresses its own system. Two factors which may affect the pace of development aie SCWA fees for new connections to SCWA system and the consistency requirements of Agriculture and Markets Law Section 305(4). A SCWA study determined that providing water on the North Fork is more costly than in almost all other areas of Suffolk. SCWA determined that on average to provide the resources to supply a 1 inch connection to its system, it costs approximately $3,000.00 more than elsewhere. And this cost rises proportionally with the size of the connection. The increased costs are due to limitations on the size of the wells that SCWA can develop, treatment costs, the need to provide backup water sources and maintain pressure for fire protection. In order to recoup these extra costs and in order to not have the rest of its customers subsidize the North Fork customers, SCWA charges a key money fee for connections to its system. Imposition of this fee may reduce the financial incentive to connect to the SCWA system. Implementing components of a Water Supply Plan will make provisions for increasing the amount of water available in the SCWA Southold system. Even though the supply of water will be increased there will still be costs associated with accessing the increased supply. For example, if a developer wants a main extension along an improved road to serve a subdivision, they must pay for a main extension. At a projected cost of $43.00 per foot, large main extensions are expensive. Within a subdivision, installing water mains in unimproved roads, costs $31.00 per foot. If the cost of a public water main extension is high enough, it may be less expensive for the developer to build and operate a private water supply system. Thus, there would be no growth inducing impact attributable to SCWA actions. The second factor that could limit the growth inducing potential of increasing the amount of water in the SCWA system is the consistency provisions of Agriculture and Markets Law Section 305(4) addressed in Section VI(F)(4) below. 57 One area where increasing the amount of water in the SCWA system may have growth inducing impacts is in the development of infill lots in developed areas. In some cases, these undeveloped lots are essentially barred from development given their size constraints. Often absent the provision of a public water supply, a private well and sanitary system cannot be physically located on these parcels due to the setback requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. If a sanitary system and private well with requisite setbacks cannot be located on the parcel, the Health Department will not approve the lot for building. Many of these lots are located on existing water mains and are not within Agricultural District #I. Therefore, the cost of main extensions and the consistency provisions of the Agriculture: and Markets Law would not apply to their development. Key money and other fees would still apply to the development of these lots and SCWA would be hard pressed to deny a tap to an existing main fronting these parcels. Some growth inducing impact may occur if increasing the amount of water in the Southold system facilitates the development of these otherwise undevelopable parcels. It is important to note that there is an appeal process by which an owner of these lots who was denied the right to build by the Health Department could request a hearing with the Suffolk County Department of Health Board of Review. The Board of Review is empowered to authorize development on the parcel absent the provision of public water. E. Impact on use and conservation of energy 1. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields Implementation of treatment systems at existing wells will increase the amount of energy consumed by SCWA operations. As noted in the alternatives section, some of the treatment options, such as desalination plants, have the potential to be large energy consumers. Treatment in any form will require an increase in the energy demands on SCWA. 2. Develop new water sources within the Town New wells within Southold will require a commitment of energy to power the wells. If treatment is required at the wellfield, the energy demands will increase. However, if the wells are replacement wells, the net amount of energy consumed by SCWA may not increase because there would be an energy savings from the well which was retired. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold Developing a source of water outside the Town and transmitting the water into the Town will require energy for two purposes. First, energy will be needed to power the new wells. Second, energy may be required to operate booster pumps to move the water through the transmission mains into the Town. The net impact on the amount of energy consumed by SCWA may be minimal if the new wells replace existing wells in the Town. 58 • • • • Purchase and Transmission of water from Riverhead Water District The energy impacts under this alternative would be similar to those addressed in Section VI(E)(3) above. 5. No action alternative Under the no action alternative, there would be no marked change in the amount of energy required by SCWA. SCWA would continue to rely on the existing wells. If the perchlorate standard is lowered and such action requires SCWA to place treatment system on existing wells then it can be anticipated that additional energy will be required to operate those wells. F. Impact on and Consistency with Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan, Critical Environmental Areas, Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy and Section 305 of the Agriculture and Markets Law Special Groundwater Protection Areas Environmental Conservation Law Article 55 calls for a detailed statement of the effects of any proposed action on, and its consistency with, the SGPA Plan. The SGPA Plan contains general policy considerations that are applicable to all SGPAs and specific recommendations for individual SGPAs. The general policy considerations include: (1) a nondegradation policy, (2) a policy of maximum retention and protection of undeveloped areas, (3) the development of watershed rules and (4) the strengthening of regulations and enforcement of laws that further the aims of the SGPA. (SGPA at 2-4). The nondegradation policy includes the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) for reducing impacts associated with residential lawn areas, commercial and golf course turf due to the use of agricultural chemicals. The policy regarding undeveloped lands includes public acquisition of watershed land surfaces, limiting density permitted development by mandatory cluster zoning based on five acre residential zoning, providing sewage treatment facilities for multi -family units or condominium developments and limiting new industrial and nonessential commercial uses. The goals of the watershed rules policy are: (1) to establish standards that ensure the protection of groundwater quality, (2) to define the types of activities that are compatible and incompatible with areas of protection, (3) to emphasize the importance of non -point controls, (4) to coordinate regulatory controls of contaminating activities to protect groundwater quality, and (5) to define zones of management and protection around wells within or proximate to SGPAs. (SGPA at 2-10). 59 The Plan specifically recommends monitoring of all sanitary waste discharges of greater than 1,000 gallons per day, advocates local zoning changes to prevent groundwater contamination; it suggests that existing potential sources of pollution be allowed to continue subject to periodic review by the county health department and local water supplier and states that existing "wet" businesses should be connected to existing sewage treatment plants with discharges outside and down gradient of SGPAs. The Plan recommends that an inventory of existing commercial industrial facilities be taken to determine if they are degrading water and that monitoring wells be installed where such potential exists. The SGPA nondegradation policy focuses on land use activities that cause a degrading of groundwater quality. Consistent with this policy, SCWA is examining a range of options in order to minimize reliance on one source of water to supply the needs of the residents of the Town. Implementing a balanced approach of water supply will reduce the potential that SCWA will degrade water quality at any given well due to over pumping which could cause saltwater intrusion or spreading of contaminants within the aquifer. SCWA will abide by the general policy of nondegradation by examining and selecting alternatives that balance reliance on wells in the Town with the potential impacts to the aquifer if the wells are overused, including, if appropriate, supplementing the water produced in the Town with water produced outside the Town. Through the careful monitoring and balance of pumping of these wellfields, the quantity and quality of SGPA groundwater can be maintained so that its use, function and enjoyment will continue. Implementation of the water supply plan should not have significant impacts to the SGPA's general policy regarding undeveloped lands. Land use decisions are outside the jurisdiction of SCWA and rest largely with the Town. The Town can control the character of its communities through its planning initiatives. For a discussion of the potential impacts to agricultural land resources and growth and character of the community or neighborhood see the sections above. SCWA does not have specific powers to institute or enforce watershed rules. However, it is in SCWA's best interest to fully participate in measures for watershed protection in the Southold SGPA if reliance on existing or new wellfields in the Town is a component of its water supply plan. a. Southold SGPA The Southold SGPA encompasses more than 2,900 acres. It extends from Mattituck Inlet on the west to Southold Hamlet on the east. The southern border is the Long Island Rail Road and the northern border is north of County Route 48. (SGPA 3-117). The Plan's recommendations specific to the Southold SGPA include: (1) continuation of farmland development rights acquisition programs, (2) zoning of farmland at one dwelling unit per five acres together with an incentive for the transfer of development rights to sites outside the SGPA at a density of one dwelling unit per two acres, (3) mandatory clustering at a density of one unit per five acres, (4) limiting residential development to infilling in existing developed areas around M gft Peconic, Cutchogue and just west of Southold hamlet, (5) improving irrigation practices, (6) changing the type of crops to ones that reduce the need for agricultural chemicals, (7) public acquisition of the few remaining wooded sites for future use as wellfields as needed. (SGPA at 3- 121). The Plan also states that in order to provide for the water supply needs of the entire Town of Southold, well sites be established in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. Consistent with the SGPA Plan, SCWA operates wells at its Laurel Lake facility. b. Central Suffolk SGPA North A small portion of the Town in the vicinity of Laurel Lake is included in this SGPA. In addition to the general recommendations discussed above, a set of specific recommendations for this SGPA were included in the SGPA. These recommendations include: (1) locating new business development within the boundaries of the existing commercial areas or outside the SGPA, (2) creating a watershed preserve consisting of approximately 200 acres in vicinity of Laurel Lake, (3) continued acquisition by the Town and County of development rights under the Farmland Preservation Program, (4) the conversion of the former mining operation and the small industrial uses on Sound Avenue to residential uses, and (5) amending the zoning code to prevent expansion of commercial activities within the SGPA. (SGPA at 3-94). Consistent with the SGPA recommendations, SCWA has purchased approximately 110 acres of land in the vicinity of Laurel Lake. Together with the Town and the County, SCWA will continue to pursue opportunities to protect additional acreage in the area. 0 C. Central Suffolk SGPA South The Central Suffolk SGPA South generally extends from Wading River Road in the west along Route 24, the Peconic River, and Riverhead -Hampton Bays Road on the north, Red Creek Road on the East, and South Country Road and Sunrise Highway on the South. It incorporates portions of the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton. Pursuant to Article 57 of the Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"), upon ratification by the towns and adoption of the land use plan by the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, the consistency provisions of article 55 are no longer required for activities proposed for the Central Pine Barrens. Land uses within the Core Preservation Area are strictly limited. Among the permitted activities in the Core Preservation Area are public improvements undertaken for the health safety or welfare of the public and work by any utility performed for the purpose of public health, safety or welfare. More specifically, the Act provides that any work pertaining to the water supply for the residents of Suffolk County is permitted in the Core Preservation Area. (Environmental Conservation Law § 57-0107.). This provision would include the development within the Core Preservation Area of public water supply wells to supply water to the Town of Southold. 2. Critical Environmental Areas • 61 The proposed action will not adversely impact the Critical Environmenta�I u — % _, designated by the Town of Southold because it does not affect the host of state and local regulations safeguarding the CEAs. These CEAs include Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands, Hallock's Bay, Dam Pond, Downs Creek, Orient Creek, West Creek, Richmond Creek and Beach, Brush's Creek, Cedar Beach Creek, Corey Creek, Deep Hole Creek, Goldsmith's Inlet, Halls Creek, Goose Creek, Little Creek, Mill Creek, and Pipes Cove Creek. Most of the CEAs are tiidal waterways. Desalinization, although previously considered as a treatment option, is not considered a viable option given the costs involved. Thus, SCWA would not be affecting the quantity of water within the CEAs. Furthermore, as noted earlier, if water was transmitted into the Town of Southold, the recharge of the water would increase, albeit by a minuscule amount, the underflow to wetlands. The proposed action could increase the amount of water available within the SCWA Southold system, however, new development will still be subject to local and state oversight. If for example a parcel along one of the CEAs that is presently undevelopable absent the provision of public water is developed after receiving public water that action would not compromise the CEA's quality. Compliance with the standards of the Suffolk County Department of Health governing the on-site disposal of recharge from the parcel would ensure the quality of the water within the CEAs is not compromised. In addition, both the Town and the State have wetland regulations which would govern the siting of any structure that is proposed for a location near a tidal wetland. Thus, SCWA plan would not affect the water quality of the CEAs. For a discussion of the growth inducing aspects of the proposal see the above section. 3. Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy Southold Town endorsed the Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Strategy (the "Strategy") in June 2000. The Strategy combined a review of existing conditions, prior studies, land protection measures, analyzed growth factors and trends, made findings and noted opportunities for managing growth and proposed action strategies to achieve the: Strategy's goals. Two action strategies relative to water supply issues were discussed. The first strategy consists of two parts involving the coordination of the installation of water mains. The strategy endorsed the practice of installing water mains and providing public water to high density areas in the Town. High density areas occur mainly along the southern coast for the Town. Second, for planning purposes and water supply purposes, limits on the installation of mains in the agricultural areas of the Town, which coincide with the Southold SGPA, were proposed. Agricultural areas have been identified by the Town as areas worthy of preservation and the implication is that the installation of water mains would encourage the conversion of agricultural lands into non- agricultural uses. (Strategy at 73). Indeed, the Strategy earlier notes, "the availability of public water mains is expected to increase the potential for growth in a number of areas in [the] Town where development is currently limited." (Strategy at 61). Additionally, by installing mains in high density areas and not in the agricultural areas, the water resource below the agricultural areas 62 W • . would be available to serve the high density areas and would not be overburdened by being utilized to serve both areas. (Strategy at 73). SCWA has installed mains in accordance with the Map adopted by the Town which implements this strategy. • The second action strategy addressed supplying water to those areas of the Town for which mains were not to be installed. Endorsed options for these areas included the creation of "satellite" supply facilities, limited/restricted main extensions, relief from the standards of the Suffolk County Department of Health concerning private wells and the creation of water supply districts. (Strategy at 74). 4. Agriculture and Markets Law SCWA actions Suffolk County Agricultural District Number I is comprised of approximately 260 parcels totaling approximately 5,850 acres within the Town. See Appendix 2. The District is not delineated by a line or fixed boundary but rather consists of its member parcels. Parcels within the District enjoy tax savings and some protection from claims of neighbors concerning farm practices. (Two parcels with a combined acreage of roughly 81 acres are on Shelter Island). If a public benefit corporation, such as SCWA, proposes to fund the service of water to non-farm structures within the District, the Agriculture and Markets Law requires the impact to the Agricultural District be analyzed and alternatives selected that minimize adverse impacts to farm enterprises. Adverse impacts could include encouraging the conversion of Agricultural District parcels to non-agricultural uses. Section 305 of the Agriculture and Markets Law sets forth a procedure for reviewing such impacts and for selecting alternatives that minimize the impact. SCWA's proposal does not involve providing water to non-farm structures within the Agricultural District. Rather the proposal involves the creation of a water supply plan that could be implemented to provide water to the Town. If an applicant for public water was within the Agricultural District, consistency and compliance with Section 305 would be required if SCWA was to fund the extension of water service to the applicant. Likewise, if a governmental unit was to fund such an extension, they would also be obligated to perform the review under Section 305. Such review would be performed at the time of the application. This review would apply to those projects that SCWA finances through the Environmental Facilities Corporation or if the main extension was to take advantage of SCWA's 75 foot allowance for the installation of main. SCWA's adoption of a water supply plan is consistent with the Agriculture. and Markets Law because it requires site specific impacts be analyzed pursuant to Section 305(4) if a main extension or connection to serve an Agricultural District parcel is to be paid for by SCWA or by a governmental unit. b. Action by private individual within Agricultural District 63 Section 305(1)(d) provides that if land within an Agricultural District, enjoying the tax benefits associated with the district, is converted to non-farm uses, the owner of the land would be subject to payments and interest based on the amount of real property taxes saved by virtue of being within the Agricultural District. Avoiding incurring these payments provides a financial incentive mitigating the potential for the conversion of farm land to non-farm uses if a water main is installed near the Agricultural District land. • 0 9 VI. Mitigation Measures • A. Water treatment at existing SCWA wellfields Impacts associated with various treatment systems would be mitigated by transmitting AN ater from outside the Town. This would eliminate or greatly reduce the need for extensive treatment systems. Alternatively, treatment systems could be limited to large capacity wells, limiting the need to haul and treat waste from many treatment systems. This would also reduce the proliferation of scattered treatment systems throughout the Town. Mitigation measures could include only developing treatment at wells with large capacity, and developing a system of injecting the waste generated by the treatment system in the saltwater below the site. By limiting the installation of treatment system to large capacity wells the amount of construction would be reduced and some economies of scale achieved. If a system of injecting waste into the saltwater below the wells was developed and permitted by DEC, SCWA would not have to truck the waste from the site to the County's Bergen Point STP in Babylon. Care could be taken to ensure, that to the extent possible, new buildings conform to existing land uses surrounding the wellfield. B. Transmission of water produced outside the Town of Southold to serve Southold Conversely, the relatively small impacts associated with transmitting water from outside the Town, the slight increase in the water table level, would be mitigated by installing treatment systems at certain wells within the Town. A balance between utilizing sone treatment systems in the Town and transmitting some water from outside the Town would potentially minimize the impacts of each alternative. Visual impacts of constructing a wellfield at the Flanders property can be mitigated by minimizing the amount of clearing at the site. The buildings could be located in the center of the site to minimize the potential that they would be seen from off-site. The structures constructed on site could have low roof lines so that the roof do not extend above the surrounding trees. At the Hallockville site, the buildings could be constructed so that they resemble farm buildings. The wells at the site could be located behind the existing buildings so that they would not be visible from County Route 48. Long term impacts and growth inducing impacts can be mitigated through the means iaentified in Sections (D), (E), (F) below. Implementation of the opportunities identified may lessen the demand for water in the Town, reducing the amount which would be needed to be transported into the Town and thus reduce the amount recharged in the Town. Reductions in the amount of recharge will mitigate the minor impact to the aquifer system identified by CDM. C. Purchase and Transmission of water from Riverhead Water District 65 Mitigation measures that would be appropriate under this alternative are the same; as those identified in the prior section. Establishing a new interconnection between the Southold system and the Riverhead Water District would require the installation of water main either along Sound Avenue or Main Road. Cinder either route, the main would front on Agricultural District parcels. In order to minimize the potential that the installation of the mains would prompt the conversion of the Agricultural District parcels to non-farm uses, SCWA could dedicate the mains as transmission mains only and not permit service connections to either. D. Opportunities for Preserving Agricultural Lands Opportunities exist that if implemented would preserve the quality of groundwater recharge from lands surrounding existing SCWA wells fields and would prevent agricultural lands from being converted to non-agricultural uses. Each of these opportunities is discussed below. Eliminate SCWA's 75 foot rule allowance for projects converting agricultural lands SCWA currently has a provision by which it grants an allowance of 75 feet of free water main for residential units which are not located on an existing main. The applicant receives an allowance equal to the installation of 75 feet of water main as part of the SCWA's extension of mains to serve the applicant's house. SCWA could eliminate this allowance for main extensions that involved the conversion of agriculture lands to residential development and mitigate growth inducing impacts. 2. Agricultural Watershed Program In an effort to improve water quality at three existing well fields which are predominately surrounded by agricultural operations, the SCWA will provide grants to the farmers of land within the zone of capture of the wells. These grants will be made on the basis of the farmers participation in the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program sponsored by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and administered by Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE). CCE will be responsible for establishing AEM practices which will be geared -to achieving certain contaminant reduction goals each year. Eligible properties must be used for active farming and cannot be fallow land, unless that is an AEM protocol for one growing season. Farmers would be asked to sign up for a minimum of five years and each year the SCWA would match on a dollar for dollar basis, AEM grants issued for the farm operation. The SCDHS would be involved in reviewing SCWA's raw water sampling data, to track presumed reductions in contaminants during the five year time period. The candidate well fields, near the United States Geologic Survey mapped groundwater 0 M. • divide and/or within the Southold SGPA, are: North Road east of Horton Road; Ackerly Pond e ist of Ackerly Road and south of County Route 48 and Evergreen Drive west of Depot Road, s )lith of the Long Island Railroad. Other eligible farms would be those in the zones of o Dntribution of SCWA wells as identified by the Source Water Assessment Program. Opportunities afforded by the Agriculture and Markets Law a. Government and Public Benefit Corporation actions As noted earlier, if SCWA or a governmental unit was to fund the provision of public water to non-farm structures within the Agricultural District, Agriculture and Markets Law requires that SCWA or other entity demonstrate that the proposed action minimizes adverse jripacts on agriculture. This demonstration would take the form of a study that analyzes the p oposed project, its impacts and the reasonable alternatives. The Commissioner of Agriculture is empowered to restrain a public entity from funding the project if adverse impacts to the Agricultural District could occur and require the entity to act in a manner consistent with one of the alternatives analyzed or the Commissioner may select another alternative that would minimize the adverse impacts to the District. If mains were installed in front of Agricultural District parcels, SCWA could designate the mains as transmission mains and not permit service connections to the mains. b. Action by individuals within Agricultural District Mitigating the potential for conversion of farmland to non-farm uses after the installation &' public water supplies are the provisions of 305(d)(1) of the Agriculture and Markets Law. The jaw• provides that the owner of farm land to be converted to non-farm uses be required to pay, among other things, five times the amount of money saved in real property taxes by being included within an Agricultural District. 4. Opportunities for County of Suffolk Several opportunities exist for the County of Suffolk to reduce the amount of farmland which is converted to non-farm uses. A reduction in the amount of farmland so converted would a'. so reduce the need for public water to serve the structures on the converted farmland. Purchase additional lands and development rights from farms within the Town of Southold Suffolk County has a number of programs that provide for the purchase of land and development rights from farms. Continued implementation of these programs will reduce the arr_ount of land that can be developed in the Town of Southold. Reductions in the available land for development will likewise reduce the demand for public water. A brief summary of two of the programs follows. 67 i. Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program Under this program, revenues from a special sales and compensating use tax of 1/4 of 1% provide funding for sewer district tax rate stabilization, environmental protection and property tax mitigation. Within the environmental protection category funds can be expended, for among other things, the purchase of lands within SGPAs, the purchase of lands that are necessary for maintaining the quality of surface and/or groundwater. Additionally, the program provides for funds for the purchase of farmland development rights. The purchase of farmland development rights ensures that farm generating the development right can not be converted to non-farm uses. ii. Community Greenways Fund By referendum in 1998, the residents of Suffolk County approved the issuance of $62 million in bonds to fund the purchase of open space lands, active parklands, farmland development rights and the creation of an educational center. b. Continue Agricultural District Number 1 Agricultural District Number 1 was created for a eight year period which expires in 2003. Pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law, the Suffolk County Legislature can continue, modify or terminate the district upon reports of the County Agricultural and Farmland :Protection Board and the County Planning Department pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law Section 303-a. The County could recommend that the District be extend for either 12 or 20 years as permitted by the law rather than eight years and work to add more properties to the District. C. Implement Recommendations of Suffolk County Agricultural Protection Plan In 1995, Suffolk County was awarded a $50,000.00 grant to prepare an Agricultural Protection Plan by New York State. The resultant plan was released in June 1996 and, adopted by the Suffolk County Legislature. It contains recommendations on measures which slow the conversion of farmland to non-farm land uses. If the recommendations of the plan are implemented and the conversion trends slowed, the need for public water to serve structures on converted farmland would be lessened. E. Other Opportunities for Mitigating Impacts Mandatory Restrictions on Irrigation Dependent Vegetation and Cleaning Amounts A local law could be adopted, implemented and enforced by the Town limiting that am, ount of irrigation of any lot to 15% of the lot's area. The restrictions could be incorporated 0 68 into any building permit issued by the Town. By encouraging the retention of native areas, limiting clearing and restricting the amount of irrigation that could be operated on a specific parcel, demand for public water could be reduced. The single biggest use of SCWA water at residential units is for landscaping needs. By requiring that new developments limit the amount of irrigation that can be installed, this demand would be lessened. This would have a twofold advantage. One, it would reduce demand, lessening potential for overpumping; and, two, demand would be reduced during critical summer months when the system is most heavily used. Additionally, such restriction would increase the quality of recharge to the aquifer. Implementation of this recommendation would be consistent with the recommendations of the SGPA Plan and would be further protective of groundwater quality than upzonings to 5 acres alone. The restrictions could take the form of covenants and restrictions imposed by the Town in reviewing all future subdivision and building permit applications. 2. Mandatory Water Saving Devices The Town could require new buildings to install water saving devices, such as low flow faucets and toilets. These devices would reduce water consumption in the Town. Non-contiguous cluster program 0 a. Development of undersized parcels An opportunity exists for the Town to harness the market forces on the development of undersized, according to current zoning, infill lots to protect lands it identifies as "critical" through the creation of a non-contiguous cluster program. Under the program, the potential developer of the infill parcel that has less area than current zoning requires, would be required to acquire a right before the infill lot could be developed. The right would be allocated to an owner of a critical parcel based on the critical parcel's current zoning. The rights would be allocated only after the owner of the critical parcel makes a promise in the form of an easement to maintain a specific land use on the critical parcel. These rights would have significant value by allowing otherwise undevelopable lots to be developed. As discussed earlier, infill lots, previously denied development with private wells receive a benefit when public water mains are installed in the roads abutting these parcels. The amount of rights that would have to be redeemed before an undersized parcel could be developed would be equal to the difference between the area of the infill parcel and the amount of area required by infill parcel's current zoning. As an example, an 10,000 square foot parcel in an area that requires 40,000 square foot of area would need to acquire 30,000 square feet of development rights. Frequently, the undeveloped lots are in high value areas and there is significant financial 311 incentive to develop them. As the value of developing them increases, the amount of money a developer would be willing to spend to buy a right that would authorize their development would increase. As this amount increases, the owner of the critical parcel may find it in their best interest to sell the developer the rights associated with the critical land. In fashioning a program, care could be given to ensure that it is completely voluntary, relies on market forces, and provides significant financial incentive for participation. Adoption of this program would be advantageous to SCWA for three reasons. First, infill lots are generally located in areas of existing water mains. Thus SCWA would not be required to install large main extensions to serve new development within the Town. Second, as development rights are purchased from critical lands, which could include farm lands, the potential for conversion of farmland would be reduced. Third, the reduction in the conversion of such parcels, would lessen demand for lengthy main extensions into agricultural areas, which would make the cost for converting other farmland to non-farm uses lower. b. Other uses for non-contiguous cluster rights Increasing the incentives for using non-contiguous cluster rights will increase the market demand for such rights and increase the price for the rights. A method for increasing the demand for the rights is to require the redemption of non-contiguous cluster rights whenever an undersized lot is proposed for development. The amount of rights required would be equal to the difference in the undersized parcel size and the area requirements of current zoning. For example, currently the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to allow a parcel that was the result of a merger of smaller lots to be unmerged. The Town could adopt amendments to its zoning code that mandate the redemption of rights if a proposal to unmerge a merged lot is received by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals could be prohibited from granting lot splits that result in the creation of undersized parcels without the redemption of non-contiguous rights. 4. Mandatory Clustering and Conservation subdivisions The Town could adopt local laws requiring mandatory clustering and conservation subdivisions to minimize the destruction of farmland and woodlands which would reduce the amount of run-off and recharge of degraded water to the aquifer. Conservation subdivisions lessen the total potential demand for public water by reducing the number of units that could be built. 70 • VII. Works Consulted Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25AA—Agricultural Districts, Section 305, Agricultural districts, effects. Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Memorandum, Groundwater Modeling of Redistribution of East Pumping, November, 2002. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Volume 1: Policies, Programs and Standards, 1996. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission, Core Preservation Area Estimated Parcel Status by Ownership and Land Use as of April 1, 2002, (http://www.pb.state.ny.us/chart—core.htm). Environmental Conservation Law, Article 57, Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act. Environmental Protection Agency, Perchlorate, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cci/perchlor/perchlo.htn-A. ERM -Northeast, Camp Dresser & McKee, North Fork Water Supply Plan Suffolk County, New York, 1983. H2M Group, Riverhead Water District, Suffolk County, New York, Distribution System Evaluation & Hydraulic Model, H2M Project No.: RDWD 02-63, 2003. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Ground -Water Availability in the Incorporated Village of Greenport, Long Island, 1996. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Master Plan for Providing�a Public Water Supply to the Town of Southold, New York, 1992. Long Island Regional Planning Board, The Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan, 1992. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, Town of Southold Water Supply Management & Watershed Protection Stratev, 2000. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Critical Environmental Areas in Suffolk County, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dcs/segr/cea/ceasuffolk.html. Public Authorities Law, Title 4, Suffolk County Water Authority. 71 Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Summate Perchlorate Monitoring of Water Supplies in Suffolk County, NY, 2001. 1* Suffolk County Planning Department, 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory Eastern Suffolk Coun , 2000. Suffolk County Planning Department, 1999 Land Available for Development Eastern Suffolk County, 2000. Suffolk County Planning Department, Saturation Population Analysis Eastern Suffolk Coun 2001. Suffolk County Water Authority, Draft Environmental Impact Statement For Laurel Lake Well Field One Million Gallon Elevated Storage Tank, 2002 Suffolk County Water Authority, Findings Statement [Laurel Lake One Miilion Gallon Elevated Storage Tank], 2002 Suffolk County Water Authority, Full Environmental Assessment Form For Acquisition of Greenport Water System, 1997. Town Law, Article 12, District and Special Improvements. 0 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Sections 701.15, 701.16, 701.17, 701.18, 701.19, 701.21 and 701.22. 72 'I'Cultur"fl Overlav Parcels Long Island Sound Southold- Goldsmit Peconic _ffog NeCK M k Lt� Peconic Bay 4MAWt A. 1 JYfflM 11 Hog Neck Bay Agricultural overlay parcels (219/260 mapped) Road Right of Ways -public Road Right of Ways -private Major Roads F ., SCWA Account Locations Existing SCWA Water Mains Potential Mains ® SCWA Properties/Facilities Parcels (within 75' of POTENTIAL water mains) Agriculture (BTCamp 8) Residential: all types (BTCamp 1, 2, 3) Vacant Land: all types (BTCamp 9) Commercial/Institutional/Industrial(BTCamp 4/6/1 Recreation & Open Space/Transportation/Utilities 0 No Available Land Use Data Parcels (within 75' of EXISTING water mains) Agriculture (BTCamp 8) Residential: all types (BTCamp 1, 2, 3) Vacant Land: all types (BTCamp 9) Commercial /Institutional/Industrial(BTCamp 4/6/ Recreation & Open Space/Transportation/Utilities 0 No Available Land Use Data Road Right of Ways -public TCamp 7/10/11) Long Island Sound i Goldsmith. InIe? e. �. — � � — 2002 Annual Urinking Water Quality Ra ort (For the Period January t; 2001 to December 31, 2001) www.scwa.com Suffolk County Water Authority (Including data for Fair Harbor, Camp Hero, Riverside and Stony Brook Water Districts) r+.;.�:t+�':g.•�.ec,:�a:,..:.,.:.s...:,..�rec_ ,.�,.;�._.,:r :._;:;�&v..:_--� •-.,,;�•s, k..,_aac.._,...�..r-a•.� �..,:�=sf.�,��. The Suffolk County Water Authority is currently serving more than a million people, and we again have good news for all our customers in our latest Annual Water Quality Report. Throughout our 51 -year his - wry, the SCWA has never violated a. tsmttft;:efatndard, and we are very t,taxxsed to be able .to report to you that. vrc`rnit'o#`ecceeded all'federiY,iiid,- state health standards for drinking water during 2001. We can make this statement because we tested more than 74,000 qcv an't I- last year at our state-of- laboratory in Hauppauge. We samples from every wellsite in the system on a regular basis and'are currently testing for approximately 300 chemical constituents, 100 more than required by federal and state reg= ulation. "through this extensive moni- toring program, our lab director and her staff know if any SCWA well needs to be removed from service, either permanently or until appropriate remediation can be imple- mented. As in past years, this document also contains general infor- mation about our system as well as some of the results of the tests we did last year. You will find explanations of many of the water quality standards we monitor and a Water Distribution Area Index. This enables you to find the number of the table showing results on water samples that were taken from your area and to compare the results with those from other areas. The readings reported in these tables list some of the substances measured by our chemists in parts per million (mg/L) or parts per billion (ug/L). In almost all cases, you will see the notation "ND" which means that the chemical was riot detected at all. We hope this report, and the suggestions it contains for obtaining even more detailed information, will help you get complete, accurate answers to any questions you may have concerning the quality of your drinking water. (The Suffolk County Water Authority is required to mail this statement to each customer by state and federal law.) Este informe contiene inforrnacion muy importance sobre su agua beber. Traduzcato o hable con alguien que to entienda bien. I WHERE. DOESNOUR WATER COME FROM? - In general, the sources of drinking water (both tap water and battled water) can include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the.land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally oattrring minerals and can pick upsubstances; resulting from the presence of animals or human activities. Contaminants that may be present flit source wata include: microbial contaminants; inorganic contaminants; pesticides and herbicides; organic chemical conta- minants; and radioactive contammants ;,,. All of the water we supply to you comes from beneath the,ground and is referred to as groundwa- ter. Your water is stored beneath the,groundin a sandy, geological fomtation.known as the Aquila System. Water in the Aquifer System originates as precipitation, which slowly percolates down Through the soil. There arc three primary formations which lie, one on the other, and make op the Long Island Aquifer System. From the shallowest to the deepes4)trese formations are:: -, - - Glacial — contains the youngest err newest water to the groundwater system. The SCWA has 199 well drawing from this portion of the aquifer. Virtually all private wells draw from IhG(,dac)al P:quifer. - Magothy — is the largest of the three formations and holds the most water, much of which is hun- dreds of years old. There are 304 SCWA wells drawing fmm this portion of ftic mu fen - Lloyd — a largely -untapped layer which contains the oldest water, uomffof which has "been held in the Aquifer System for more than 5,000 years. The SCWA has four Lloyd wells. The total depth of the Long Island Aquifer System is smallest on the north shore (approximately 600 feet) and deepest along the south short (appwtimately 2000 feet), HOW DOES THE- SCWA KNOW ITS WATER IS GOOD TO D R I N K? For 51 years. our top priority has been to ensure that the water we provide meets the highest included one new imn removal plant, 10 more wells and 153 miles of water main. Possible standards. Once again, this report contains good news for all our residential and busi- As most of the water we pump is already of excellent quality, it generally does not receive ness customers. As in past years, the water we delivered in 2001 mel or exceeded every single extensive treatment prior to distribution, but nothing is left to chance. Chlorine is routinely health standard we Tuve been given. added, for instance, according to the specifications of the state health department, to inhibit bac- We must comply with strictly enforced standards ext by the United Stares Environmental- terial growth in the distribution sys[em. Wealwadjust tle pH level because Suffolk's water is Protection Agency and the New York Slate Health Department. (In order to ensure that tap water - normally slightly acidic (pH can range from 4.5 to 6.8). To prevent corrosion of customers "buffered" is safe to drink, the State and the EPA prescribe regulations which limit the amount ofcertain - home plumbing, the water is chemically by adding a hydrated lime product to contaminants in water provided in public water systema. The State Health Department's andlfie mQ"ease the pH level. In addition to hydrated lime, caustic soda or soda ash must be used in FDA's regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide.Lhe � some of the -systems for pH control. sane protection for public health). Because of these stringent safeguards, we can reassure all Often, no oiler t—tmem is required. Approximately 10% of cur wells, found to be in reed our customers that the water we deliver to dem meets all local, stale and federal guidelines. No -of-remediafion for volatile organics, pesticides or herbicides, retrive specid. add'.lional treat - portion of the water system violated she bacteriological standards or any other health sten- tent using granular activated carton filtralion. Air strippers, ion cschangc,:reverse osmosix and dards in 2001, and New York State has among the strictest requirements in the nation. the addition of polyphosphates for sequestering iron are also used as needed. Our lob, the nation's ,fuigest gmundwartx;testing facility, comains apparatus, fmm.the simple To ensure that Suffolk will continue to have access to the purest, most pnstinegnundwater in ro the soplisticalcd, wonlmiiliootof dollars. -.This equipment is w sensitive that the reseals for the future, the SCWA has been in the forefront of measures to protect oue aquifers fix years. We many of the contaminnnls wctcxt fru arc reporttd in pans per billion. One par: per billion (ppb) also took the lead in sponsoring the pine barrens protection bills that have resulted in thetpreser- pf uric microgrpm.per. leer (troll-) corresponds fit-onat wound in the life of aperaoir who is 12 - vation of 100,000 acres of land. in ei mral Suffolk, and we am now very closely inve load in man - yea" old Outer results arc feprmed in pans peEmillion (ppm). This enables us to fulfill (and' aging and protecting thin unique resource: - two to go beyola) the extensive monitoring required of all public water suppliers. -for In conclusion, we want to thank all our customers allowing us to provide you with clean, Our chemisue tut the water both at the wellhtrd'and within The distribution system for; a wide quality water in 2001 and for laking the time to read this report.We hope you havefound it to range of purameterx including bacteria: inorganic chemicals such as nitrate, chloride and lead; be interesting and valuable overview of our ongoing efforts to guarantee the safety of the volatile organic -compounds including, hcnzcn,, trichlorocthyiew and iritudorncthanes; pests- water we supply:to more than a million people.- it's a job we lake very seriously, dry in and day ciao such as aldicartt and lindane: errs) hcrhkidex suc h a: simazim and atrazine. The labors- ; ,-,r;�;: After all, it's buf'drinking water, too! tory is in use seven days a week, 24 hours, a day. _ - Mom detailed water quality and -well inrormalionisavailable in Our supple went and may rix ..: Cryptosporidiosis and Glardiasis Information obtained by contacting SCWA fab Director Karen Randazzo at 563-0259 or LabhAdminisuration n atria o tbreak %�" Irarve been no knows outbreaks of cryptospor{dioab or gfircdlads linked b any Manager Ed Tmskolaski a1.563-0258. Additionally, this Annual Water Quality.Repon will be - _.� waly ween in S mark available through our wel rile, www,a ryra.eois, - A specific example of the current water quality standards, and fhb known health. risks of the contaminant involved, an inorganic chemical known as nitrate., rtyq be ordntemst to you. The maximum ainidminant levol (MCL)tor IMssubstance is 10 pptn. This means that 10 ppm is the highest level of nilrate allowed in drinking watch Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 ppm is a heahh risk for infamy of Iso than six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Nitrate lev- cls may rise quickly for sMm periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. Monitoring has shown that these activities do not have a variable effect on (he nitrate levels in our wells mu due to seasonal minfalls m fertilizer applications. However, if your water con- tains nitrate above 5 ppm (half of the current MCL) but below 10 ppm, and you are caring for an infant, you should ask f x advice from your health can, provider. *The Suffolk County Water Authority does not recommend the use of bottled water or Amnher.subsianec. radon. is a naturally -occurring radioactive gas found in wil and Outdoor air home fillers and accepts no W billty or responsibility whatsoever for their we. that may also be found in drinking water and indoor air. Some people exposed to elevated radon levels over many years from sources including drinking water may have an increased risk of get- For addir(onal inf>nuution ori eryplasporidiosis or giardiasis, please contact the Suffolk ling cancer. The main risk from radon is lung cancer from radon emenng m000r air from soil Conary Depamnenr c f Health Services at 853.1250. umkr homes. In 2001. approximately 2Wof our wells were tested for radon quarterly, for a total .1`806.,- It is important In know that same people may be more vulnerable to comam{nants pies. The results ranged front Non-Dctecl to 439 piccurics per liter (pCi/L). Currently. (here in drinking water than the, general population: immuno -compromised Persons such is no 59-11158) MCL fm radon. Fhx;ilme (11- M -SOS -Rad tali your slate radon progmni (I- as persons with rancer undergoing chemotherapy, peri onswho have maietgoneorgan g10- contrast. 158) or cavi EPA's cc we Hotline (11 -MM -SOS -Radon). f, - transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or otber immune system disorders, some elderly, In cunn:at, anolirer suhst:nee we est amluccusionally treat. fix, imn;.is nM. a health hazard. Since it can nota aesthetic pn"r,nx, however. we arc currently working to reduce The inconve- and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These peoplesho old seek mines it can cause our cuswnters. In amts where the groundwater naturally contains iron lev- advice from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means cis higher than the .star lard. ..cque.mering agents such as polyphosphatex. arc added to nxrtrul the to lessen the risk of infection by cryptosporidium and other microb{oloo-1 cuntsm{- iron and keep it in solution. We arc also using .specialized iron removal plants featuring a man- nacos are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-4264791).. ganese grecnsand pnoccss and implementings(mtegies .such as locating new sources sof low iron w;ue, Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected in contain a1 least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaml- minls and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Emirunmentai 7 Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). New York State law requires, water suppliers m notify their customers about the risks of crAp toipondwsand ii . giardiasis. `,cryptosporidiosis and giardia4is-ate intestinal illres es caused by microscopic parasites, Cryptosporidiosis can be very serious for people with weak immune sys- tems, such as chemotherapy. dialysis ortransplant patients, and people with Crohn's disease or' HIV infection. People with weakened immune systems should discuss with their health care providers the need to take extra precautions_such as boiling water, using a certified bottled water or a specially approved home filter! Individuals who think they may have cryptosporidiosis a giardiasis should contact their health care providers immediately. As a point it intornt;aion. high iron levels can he caused by turbulence and mixing or scdi- mcnts That contain it which is naturally occurring in the aquifer and can sent, in the water mains. This turbulence or mixing is often due to the use of lire hydrants. water main breaks. repairs or new service hookups. The SCWA employs a systcnutic flushing program to reduce These sediments in the distribution system. Improvements we added to our system in 2001 • 0 2001 Microbiological -Test Results Su(lolk County Wmer Authority collected an avaagc of 1177 Total Coliform Samples each rsruh dur- ing 2(X)I. including samples from Fre Island Stany Brook Water Distda, and Rivoside Water District. Large water distribution areas that collet 40 or mortToul Culifom samples per month, must "Pon the highest percentage of positive samples collected in. my one atonlh. These are repre- sented in Table 1 below. II """'Ina" I ". areas that collect 40 or less Taal Coliform samples per month, must the highest nber of positive samples rnllmed in any one month. Tb -ore rtprcunt- Table 11 below. TABLE I - Microbiological Test Results MCL For Large Water Distribution Arses Llaely Sonya _ Cunf:wnq - MCL htCLG M"U Ma fy 9_r Tonal Presence of. - - = '- Naturally ,. Coliform Coliform to 0 "- n/A Present in the Bacteria fM 5%oonthly Lowest Average Ersvimnrient. Riverside WD Lead and opperTest Results - Samples Monthly Monthly .. Area ...Highest Lowest' " .., Average No. of Distribution Monthly Monthly --- Monthly Tests for Ana Percentage Percentage Percentage the Ynr Davis Park Posittrc Positive Positive 110 IA 1.6%. 0% 0.2% 2,409 IB 4.6% 0%" '-_ 0.7 rk 1.143 6 3.6% 0%. -' 0.7% - 53.4 I2 1.1% 0% 0.2% 2.127'" ---- 15 3.5 % 0% Y 1.0 F• 1.550 18 1.9 % 0 % Ob k: 650 20 1.4%0% ^0.4 'X 816 23 2,0% % 0.2% - 504 30 2.0% 0% 0.2k 511 Large Distribution Area I I had no deuctlons of Total Coliform Bacteria during 2001 TABLE II Microbiological Test Results For Small Water Distribution Areas - (induding Fire Island, Stony Brook WD, Riverside WD and Camp. Hero) Compou,d MCL hICLG.. Mesar i,+ent Llaely Sonya Total ,. Two or more Plumbing Systems - Naturally,... Cohlorm Post[" 0 n/a P_ns in the Baaerii samples Lead No 8/01 4.2'. ugl 0 AL = 15. C- of Hruscbeld Environment Plumbing Systems Highest Lowest Average Ndor- Riverside WD Lead and opperTest Results Monthly Monthly Monthly Testa for Area Percentage Percentage Pcrreutage.... the Year. m .. = amsano Positive Positive Podtive" x+laim Dau un ,c 'n,c Coe4 Nod Yc./No ti:n,gling IIFe,d _ SCWA Area 3 1 - ". 0 0.3% - 344. Davis Park 1 0 - - `0.9- 110 lle I 0 ..1.4�.. 72 WD I ' 0 - 0.4% - 237 r WD J�B-k 1 00.9% .109 WD f 0 - 3.3% - 30 following Small Distribution Areas had'no detections of Total Coliform Bacteria during 2001. • 5, Z8, 9, 10. 14, 21,. 25, 26. 27, 32, 34. 35.44. 45 • Kismet • Cherry Grove • The Pines •,Point O• Woods • Summer Club :• Riverside WD - Why Save Water? Although Suffolk County, as a wfrolc. has an adcgluau; arming of wafer to meet present and future rl-man ls, there ane a numbs of res rs why it is impartara to save wain Saving water saves cmergyand some of the casts associated with both of these rcccssioes of life • Saving wata reduces our demand for electricity to power air pumps. • Saving water reduces the cost of energy required to pump water and the need to constrict costly nevi wells, pumping systems and water lowers • Saving water lessens the stmin on the water system during a d7 spell or drmughL helping to avoid severe water use resuietrons .so that esserutal fire fightin needs are ma. - How Can You needs Water? Conserving water is not difficult, can save you money, and save this precious, life-giving moires.. Please do the following around your home or business: • Check for and repair leaky faucets inside and outside you home or business. Even a small leak r.in waste hundreds of gallons of water a day! • Check for (caking toilets that can also waste water and add to your water bill. - • Use your washing machine and dishwasher with full loads only. Whcn.using a hose outdoors, do not let the water tan needlessly. Use a mule that automatical- ly turnsI'd when not being used. • Most lawns need about I to 2 inches of water per week Waterless often and for longer pen - Ms to encourage deep root growth. It makes for a healthier lawn that will require less pesticides and. herbicides and be better able to withstand drought conditions. Buy a min gauge or use sn empty coffee can to keep track of the amount of water your lawn receives iron your sprinkler and ram. How Much Water Did We Supply in 2001? To meet the demands of our cumomers. we pumped 69.4 billion gallon of wales. Of that laal, we billed our customers for approsirnatel-v 60.5 billion gallons. "llw difference of 8.9 billion gaiI n is not ac r- od for sad represents water lost from the system as well as water used for fire fighting and other purpos- es. This 'unaccounted for warty' represents 13`:1 of tl> total water pumped in 20D1. 0 2001 Lead and Copper Test Results_ SCWA Lead and Copper Test Results Vk+ D:ncot CongaaM Y -No Saioq IRan' ,o RnuW U.- <U.4 �"°1Rpr. h1CLG Arno l,n<1'i Lily Snu,c< Lead " - No 7/01 - '_.9' ugil 0 AL.= 15.. Corrosion of Hm-h lel - 9/01 N2-36.6 Plumbing Systems Copper. No 17101- 0.40' mg/l 1.3 AL = 1.3 Cortaooa of - 9/01 "ND - 1.07 - - Plumbing Svstems Stony Brook WD Lead and Copper Test Results v."„ ua<„r •< "' car,,,W< . s••rtisr 19x6 Peecnrk•d <ga,:aery viae err „d,r,v Mei emir ut<ly So.", IR:ugz of R<su6s Mom I<�cll Lead No 8/01 4.2'. ugl 0 AL = 15. C- of Hruscbeld - ND -5.2 Plumbing Systems opper No . 8/06 0.39 mg/I L- AL = 1.3 Corrosion of Household .0.03-2.OI. Plumbinjz Systems Riverside WD Lead and opperTest Results C,vrywrd Ye IO N'F (9(kh<P<.<cmitcr W," poet KIR Mclr'+ butt ul<y S w IRangr of Rewhs A<r,cm L-4)f<ad 7 Na YS�,I NL ug/1, 0 AL=15, Corrosion of tial fold - ND Plumbing Systems opper o m .. = amsano ND -11.30 Plumbin S stems Fair Harbor WD Lead and Copper Test Results x+laim Dau un ,c 'n,c Coe4 Nod Yc./No ti:n,gling IIFe,d - Un of cgs a,.xy Lilcly Suu.ce- Mra.rner<'w�1.4y,., R<i+u,�rrl 1'r,el'I Lead Nn 8/01 ?. I' ug/I 1) AL = 15. Comosion of Bo ucfnld ND -2.1 Plumbing Systems Copper No 01 0.58-, g1l I.7 AL = 1.3 Canukn of Hsu 0.41-0.61 - Plumhing Systnns l -The I-dp-ta"""".,nc, 90th p.ncnrik the IGa iie ,acd IND=mow Ji -d). A Te ... lile value cat a sale of Ilk] that mdi len the P- is g of a div'"hu i r that is i,pul ro or tw•Imw it. The 9fkh pereennlc to equal m or gre , hon 90 % of tM Lead and C+ pp. valu,s Akre'red al y r sys- tm In this cave IW samples wen ulk<red nyouur wm.r.y,wro anti de 901hyrerecnuk value wa, 2A.0 for Lead and 0.40 mgA for Copper, TI. -act ioa level f Lad w e.c nl �d al two of the 100 eilc<tcvini and ,he an on kvd Hu Copper w s r cx.v d al any of th,, lal..itea -1.1. - - 2 - Aal.n Level (AL) The _a"a too or aria i, n whi h.. If ..,-dd. inggv uortmcnr ,r when regal menu whi h. water ayn.m .uw foltow. 3 - The 1-1 pnxcnat reprererwIh,:9 Nfi,v ,ad,- of.h, 24.iu, .-,d IND = nr dL,-,.I). A No,c I lc is a value on a: soak of X100 that indkdea rte 1w+uenuirc'uf a'di"'it"im 3" ik oryul co it I+clow 4. The 90th Pere-lik, is equal to or gre.t than 90 % 4-rh, I-ead and Cot K, -1- &-tom ,d of your water .ys- 1— In this eaa 24 samples were cnlland al yew an r.syucm d ds, 90111 p,.; ... ok value was 4.2 ugA for Lead and 039 mgA for Ci+pip The' i un 1c 1 f r Lead w nr c.e,xdcd an any ofd. 24 vn.x -,,d. and Ilk anion k-1 for Copper was --&d in pw of0a, 24 site. -d4 - The Ic-1 ji xiucd repieseiiu the 9(kh pin 61, of the 5 > us.. sv«I. I ND = not dnn-i d t A peo ntilc ism value oo a scak of 100 that indica the Ixrttmiage of. digrihul qq slim. Is v q.,rl torr hclow it. Th, 90th 1 u ruile is equal to or -ic. than 90 `b of the Lent and Cop(nr vu1- &- -1 at y<wr water vy.acm. la this care 5 sample were Wiend w your xymc and 1M 9001 p,-niik whit wa ND for Lad and 0_30 mq/1 fur Cgyu.. The aes- k. --k fry Lead or Cups, -nos cutidd a any of the 5 .4s. lo.-* S - The kid peered j_ --M 90h , n,e the of tic 6.,k road. IND = not dewed) A p<o cu ik is a value m s soak M 10011rm inliemo•s the pvx,, w of a diarihosk. that o <N-1 in ox hel w it. TM 900, 1— emik Ls c Iuat to or grew. -r than 90'X. M thc'Levd aM Gy+p< yourwet,., xyg .. In rho - 6 samples were eollend . ymor watt, syl- vrd the 90 Th ps _ ,wile vinic was 21 urA hr L. -A end 0.58 tugA for Copps. The ani- 1-t, rut Lvd or Cnpp.T wen• tr4tum olid m any of the 6 Wells Removed From Service in 2001 . The table below lists four wells that were -removed from service in 21X)l hmause they did rut map the current standard for the contaminants listed- - - WELL NAME. LOCATION CONTAMINANT Bacton AVe.111 _ N. Patchogue Tot., bluromthcoc Lakeview Ave N2 Bayport . Cir: -1,2 Dichimoelhene Evcrgrttn Dc MI - Cutchoguc Total Aldiiarb South Spur Dr. MI East Northport Nitrate The wells listed below were taken rut of .service because they did nu moot the urrom staadards and brought buck into nwtme.service in Nkll, by the use of grunular activated cadrm filtraivm. WELL NAME LOCATION CONTAMINANT ". Bacton Ave. -111 N.P:.ncMrguc - Tctrachlortclhenc Broadway N3 Hannington Station Tetrachloroethene Dare Rd. #I Seiden Tcuachlmroetherrc Middle Rd. X2 Peconic Dino,ch Rocky Point Rd. #3 East Marion. TCPA• - *TetrachlorolempMhalic Acid Statistics Por Caleadar Year Ended De-arber3l. 2WI Customers ...... .....: .......... ..................... 356.327 .- Population Served ...................................... 1.0611,981 Milcs of Main ....... i ............. ........................ 5.399 Fire Hydrants .......... ................... . ...... ........ 33.221 Water Pumped (billion gallons) . ...................... . ....... 111.4 Total Wells in System ........................................ 507 - Active Wells in System ....... ......:....... .......... ...... 476 Pump Stations ........ . ......... . .................... . ... 221 Storage Facilities ...................................... ..... 64 Water Storage Capacity (million gallons) ..... .... _ ............. 66.7 Average Annual Water Rates (1 73,(00 gallons) ............. .. .. $282 TABLE OF DETECTED COMPOUNDS r m{ o,J Unit I Ma'rahrert»rY MCL MCLG DMMIy Source Radioactive Compounds 0 1 Herbicide used on row crops Aldicarb ':bore u Gross 11 actvi Na 15 0' of natural tle ts. gross C a m Pesticide used'n row. or s AY -me u 3 ore am mao-ma e 6�smuth-214PILI arbo ran uQ11, Na Ne D of natural and man-made deposits " Cesium -137 pCAA 200 1 0 1 Decay of natural and man-made OOPOS". Radon ' PCO Na Na Naturally occoming radioactive gas found in sol air aril water - - Inorganic Compounds Used as a fu icicle Meldac u 50 Alkalinity, total marl Na Na The presence of natural:y occomog caft, f_ and bicarbaales alkane earths). Aluminum Tetrachbrutere ugA Add (TCPA) Na Na I Naturally ocotmiri Ammonia, free mgA Na Na. From ammonium nitrate tertillz , or septic system leachate - Arsenic ugA 50 Na Erosionof natural deposits; electronics pro- ". duction wastes' usedIn Insectlddes Asbestos MFL 7 -7" Decinf, of asbestos cement water mains Banum mgA 2 2 Erosion of natural deposits; used In paint and melimf ides - Boron emissions include as use as, a solvent, dly ' Na Na Naturally occurring Bromide mgA Na Na Naturally occurringCO2, calculated mqA Na Na- Naturally occurring Calcium mgA Na Na Naturally occurring, added to vraar as - Calcium H rokide Lime �br H urorntrol Chloride :- mqA 250 - Na- Natural) occurnn ski ht salt water intrusion Coba1t-59 u I - Na I Na I Naturally occiarnif Color - Color units - 15 Ne Tmmord maeturaraslly __ng icon, Copper mgA AL --1.3 1.3 - Corrosion of househdd plumbing systems leachina Isomwood resery ttnres , Dissolved Solids, total m Na " Na Natural) occurrin minerals and meta,. Fluoride - mO 2.2 Na Erosion of natural deposits Hardness, total mgA Na Na Naturally occurring calcium ani magnesium, calduan droxide added as H control Iron300 a Natural) occur -ring - Lead u9A AL _15 0 Corrosion of household plumbing systems, lead Sold., Lithium uuA Na Na Naturally occur - - ma—.i— mCY1 Na Na Naturally occurring M."Q— - -U411 300 Na "Natural) occonliNg- ' Nidrd - ... ugA -.: _ 100 we :from a" and coatings hsarxAacifs;- .. batteries,� Nitrate? - rng/1 10 AO r teachers from se ec ts.._.: p nicety sewe e' erosion. of nahxal de P. -w ate - ugA 18 5" Oxygen additive in scwi fue4. propellant for rook- Cts, missiles and fireworks, Natural mmantiiarr! found in some lertllizas . . ` . Phosphate, onl o it A Na Ne Added to water for Iron sequestering (keeplg iron to bouton) Phosphate, std-' Na Na Added b water for imn sequestatig (keepng t ionn sokaion birxl nsoaps and fertilizers N Na a Measure olthe adthewaterH, held Na Na Measure d the a ol as water Ne Na Natural) occuminSilicon RHUnIts Na Na Natural) oc -Sodium '(See Na Naturally ouxurring Specific Conductance Na Na Measure of thie total amount of naturally occurring minerals In the water. Strontum-89 - m Na Na Natural) occunnq- Sulfate mco 250 Na. Natural: occurs fi���bgradeNa Na Natural) occurs'Na nTempemture, Na Naturally occurting; used n paint pigments, ant as a reducla ant5 Na Silts and cls sin a uiler Zinc5 Na Naturally occurrin alvanized lumbi ' Water containing more than 20 mgA of sodium should not be used for drinking by people on severely restricted sodium diets. Water containing more than 270 mgA of sodium should not be used for drinking by people on moderately restricted sodium diets. Synthetic Organic Com unds including Pesticides and Herbicides " Alachlor _ UQA 2 0 1 Herbicide used on row crops Aldicarb ':bore u .'7 Na I Pesficide usedon row a s Alch . ode u .I Na Pesticide used'n row. or s AY -me u 3 3 1 Herbicide used on row crops - arbo ran uQ11, 40 40 1 Pesticide used on row crs 1,2 0.1am nomelfane ngA EDB 50 0 boil fumigant dischaige nom Petrum containinq banned additive Dineseb ugA 7 7 herbicide used cm soybeans and ve aeries Meaax u50 foaming agent a Used as a fu icicle Meldac u 50 Na Used as a soil herbicide Simazine u 4 4 Used as an herbicide Tetrachbrutere ugA Add (TCPA) 50 Na Used as an herbicide MCL is the sum of the two starred compounds Understanding Your Water Quality Data _ - Key Terms and Definitions - Maximum Contaminant Leval (MCL): The hi hest level of a contaminant that isallowedin drinking water. MCLS am set as close to the MCLG as possible Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there iS ran known or expected risk to htahh. MCLGs allow fora margin of wfe- ly Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. '- Milligrams per liter into), corresponds to one part. of liquid in one million pans of liquid (Pans per million - ppm)." ..... Micrograms per (iter (uo) corresponds to one pan of liquid in one.billion pans of liquid (pans per billion - ppb). Nanograms per liter (no) corresponds to one pan of liquid to one trillion pans of liquid (pans per trillion - ppt). " Picocuries per liter (pCVL): Picocuries poo liter is a measure of the radioactivity in waer. Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU): A measure of the clarity of water. Turbidity in cans of .5 NTU is just noticeable to the average person. Micmmhos per centimeter (umbo/cm)- A measure of the total amount of naturally occurring minerals m the water. Ylkh Percentile Valor. The values repoteed for lead and copper represent the 90th peneemile. A percentile is a value on a scale of 100 that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it. The 90th percentile is equal to or greater than 90% of the lead and copper vat- ues detmled at your water system. - NA, n/s: Not Applicable ND: Nix Detectable at testing limit Million Fibers per Hter (MFL); a measure of the presence of asbestos fibers that ate longer than 10 micrometers. - 4 I • • 0 Volatile Organic Compounds Bmmo chlorennat sane ugA, -BO 1 80 By-product of cloturing water ddorinafion needed to kill tnemnful a 'eras' Bromoform ugA '80 80 By-product oldriNdng water chlorination. - needed to kill harmful organisms Carbon Tetrachlonde U - 5 0 Discharge from chemical plants and other industrial activities CtloruSbmrnreVtane . ugA -80 BO By-product of drinking water chlorination '. needed to kill harmful organisms - Chloroform ug4 � "So 80 By-product of drinking water chlorination .. heeded to killnarmlul o anisms' cls-1'2-Dichlomethene 5:" 5 Discharge from Industrial chemiral:faclones trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ugA 5 15 Discharge from industrial chemical factories D'chiorodRuaorneMhanfl„ ugA i :5 rVa Used as a rehigemol, aerosol propellent, foaming agent 1,1 Dichbroetlene ugA 5 - n1a Degreasing agent,, txaying agent nasi-Wvxit.. - .. gascine. used in vuryf uiioride maixlaehxing: - - d>lorirated sohent Mermediets land in farm- . duction wasteweler. 1,2-Dichloroethane" uaA 5 Na Discharge from indusmal Chemical factories 1,7-Dichloroethene. ugA 5 Na Discharge from Industrial chemical factories .1,2-Dichloro r p ane u4A 5 t- 0 .. Discharge from industrial chemical factorles Methyl -Tern -Butyl -Ether ugA 50 Na Leaks from gawak storage tanks. MTBE MTBE - is an octane enhancer In unleaded gasolLm Tetracnlomethene ugA 5 Na Discharge from factories and dry cleaners; Wase sites, spills.. 1.1,1 -Trichloroethane -ugA b Na Discharge from metal degreasing sites aid - other feet—. s Tdchbroethene ugA 5 0 - Discharge from metal degreasing sites mi i - other factories_ Tnchl.mfluoromethane ugA 5 nJa - This compound was need as a propellant In IF— 11) - aerosol spray. until 1978. Other sources of emissions include as use as, a solvent, dly ' cleaning agent, aerosol propellent and a: a fire exti uisthi a t' 1,2,3 - Trichloroproparne ugA 5 Ne Used as a dearxhgrfkgreasing agent need in '... -,.. chemical max.larining, a9 in Industrial ad-. ';... .... vent and as a ' and vertiAn rerinoswr .ugll 5 Na. Used as a ren rant. -solvent to paints and varnishes: p" xylene -ugA .:_ ".5 : Na Leaks from gasoline tar*.; leedWhg'd act-. fnxn the knin .1 table watertanks The MCL is the sum of fbas four staved cpmPaxds. Disinfection By- ucts T- B,orrnddloroacetic Arlo- ugA Na Ne By�rouktctrldridng water chioriretion .. _ needed b kit he ... U Bromodidhbrom: rbc Acid _ L%o I Na . Na By-proMnl of drinking water dicriatkx: t needed to kill harmful organisms - Cfloro6bromeaceCc Add sell Na Na By-product of drinking vrafer ::ic..nauarn ..- needed to kid hamful .. . Haloacetic Adds total, (5) -ugA .....80 Na- By-product of drinking water chlorination needed to kill harmful oroaniarints Trihalomethanes, total ugA 80 Na By-product of dairlang water chlorination atm need-- . .. ad to hal tamlul orgeren6. TTHkt as formed .. . wharf sawn water contain. WW amounts of organic maB9e. Understanding Your Water Quality Data _ - Key Terms and Definitions - Maximum Contaminant Leval (MCL): The hi hest level of a contaminant that isallowedin drinking water. MCLS am set as close to the MCLG as possible Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there iS ran known or expected risk to htahh. MCLGs allow fora margin of wfe- ly Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. '- Milligrams per liter into), corresponds to one part. of liquid in one million pans of liquid (Pans per million - ppm)." ..... Micrograms per (iter (uo) corresponds to one pan of liquid in one.billion pans of liquid (pans per billion - ppb). Nanograms per liter (no) corresponds to one pan of liquid to one trillion pans of liquid (pans per trillion - ppt). " Picocuries per liter (pCVL): Picocuries poo liter is a measure of the radioactivity in waer. Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU): A measure of the clarity of water. Turbidity in cans of .5 NTU is just noticeable to the average person. Micmmhos per centimeter (umbo/cm)- A measure of the total amount of naturally occurring minerals m the water. Ylkh Percentile Valor. The values repoteed for lead and copper represent the 90th peneemile. A percentile is a value on a scale of 100 that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it. The 90th percentile is equal to or greater than 90% of the lead and copper vat- ues detmled at your water system. - NA, n/s: Not Applicable ND: Nix Detectable at testing limit Million Fibers per Hter (MFL); a measure of the presence of asbestos fibers that ate longer than 10 micrometers. - 4 I • • 0 Town Area t6—Ors. Twm L'6bt7kAon Area f 7own Area / T Arae M x6esoltmmgo d w Load eyW1 1-1.!c=--1U=��ucinti In N. b u d LJRR; N. W W. d Ntrlae, - �� - rove : of Middle.Country Ad: (RT 25) (Ex: Cfpr the'small neighborhood E. of es Rd. B W. d Hawkim Rd., N. I H P. See next Jefferson 14 d Bele Tare Rd, m anywas ssueL .E -or N.W. d Port.)dlasst H.S.. I 1A: TK n ar mo au ou a u RFx F#15e. Ca A(21ton>e As. S d N Cpsmy - CaNcmw Ae. E 2Q,a on a arson is Incldes Port Jef .— Station), t over areas a roe e small rimgroortwod. S. of Middleuaa nlry Rd(RT 25), E. d Moriches d., W. of Hakins Rd., 8 N. of H Pt. is an ensbbiFdid Exit &LRdsor . end all oudCeA port ' Ulla Neck emaen uerre u 15 .. d, a on, Maroc&N. d, erm- � , . e s sic os State Pk V ea a us nor nes re s a s roveue d Broddtaataal rvera�' int oc oatd� a necott a on on oma on m ma 12 - area'belokvl N. d Voteras Hy.., ad6ilaii tt S d Vol- x:rn Ftwy amuhd Ca*stdxY HS, m a dSycrmre Ae& N. d C TR" ParkLOa151 , S d Valera s fwy b Ikiat A-: Orville Dr S.4 and 'AlcingWibu PL; Johnson Fee. S b CL, nct-di g Corporate & Aero•g ater Is Ire un Ingtor, , . Huntington Manor) . or W. of, North St, Oclur'ba SL, Taus W a S of New Y kA m. (Near Holds-. U.), S. of, bol includrp; Seliioq Sorx d, -,&Vii Fin t�ids.;Ed 7 W ioddxdk Fk/ov Ads a e an oaea rove o I e s Jetsp Nck! Mntn Nall Wkft S.W. along Nwaek Rd. rdrdes al serviced dl d No�adke .) b and iridng Panic Bary Ase 1 C— Rd. E b Deerfield Rd . vie . o ase « Ire . o—mise Pvy sure gvt . on. Horse Block Rd eat a y n - , and dl d, Wel nd Ae.. N. up to Island! A-., S coag Belmont A—.t men urs oy oy oyd Neck,.all of West Neck & old S do Ha bo ;, ree own errap smgs or on a - one vI a sen g err Includes d udes parts Sc-n-Je & , ) Scuffle Hole Rd. E d khlid In dt d M�fisone Rd. belwean Saltldna ' 81'e — tradt Mtld, Ra4.; & L um - Lanes, S. past Pheasant D1, hs K d S. b 1 Falf more N d URR tract. es ve . r - - est bellport 15 ,anory a reen astic .211 Sunrise H ren - -. d Sagtkas Pkwy & S. d LIE, a W..11.1-116 Pkv y & N. d URR (Heartland a errnan as c lQ-- . of -.Sunrise H au o rook o, mon, W Rua h,e. dress SL or E d, hot rd p. & W d Nchols .. . or , Pardxtgra#lodock . W d on, a d A,e. as Ic Beach a Iuc reser a uc res . d L1RR bun Capin Kdd Ea+alas S. . & off d, Loners (Breakwater) Rd., Ad Saad A e., 8 f-aciiry Ae:, . b LIAR sad¢, S d L1RR horn River- ! S.A4.1d tzar the E b MaTatxlm . Ave. , Makrabola Ln Ave : & MI to urenh—d 1ASd.Pa�npue-Fkdork Y d Sagu� Pkwy& S. d URKE. of `warns Pkwy, & m: orS d. B. a, U.. Sv Y". Ara, or - e a nac a vI e cu e o e wj a en e Water e u . d URR tacks. Also imides 0. sral d.Joe-sacs N.d Loner Srxep R0.. E dl d Berrteds Rd b 7e, vRere R ars Dr. meets Br1ag- Way. Does not icirde area b N.E d txy Brock R.R Station wtidt l b«rxted 'QAaka Path m to W. Rilgeay Ave the K, 8 N. Gantry Rd- Ddh E 8 S d see belov lar this ac gg amp on �d Rx "rif a.; on.or dl d Snake RL, she —9-n tatl d Mr" or ho entire iergn d Sag Harbor & acb�s stream b are E o vI a areas exce tan I,.,.ogre eras Wa shy Ali. N. d NbWsde 8'S d m Cadre Rd - « . d. but not'- Wbodsde Ae. e ok - . o , or on, sI e.Ave. - ge em on - Must— ,A, . d, but �xx at. Sag FiaoTTpim S d ant -de Rd; m, off d a N. d 'besot Dr.; m, a off d, Millstone Rd 8 d raatadk see ebo 5 un n Cxemer Area: rckdm Satin. Varices snorts areesssisin Huntington area are fuYta fab'.: and dsscraed it subsequent ermfia alarmies b detern" the aR.aopli: zae) -„ -, a M NessauSShik bpda bb//. Spring Hertxa; t icf ort end W d�', Aft RL or Sroatel 4, E a N. of - Hdow, N. Pen (W i to SL 8 E 11 h Staab) or N. d Pulaski kW�.orWtimm6/,or 'R�: N.W.d�ad�rsdtae Cud Fisld:, -i b Herbs '"'' � '.. �- I . d: bJ not idudrg. biter Pira Rd. a hidde "'andF1d. I e .... - n, or E. of. Miller Place-.Yaphenk Rd. '� m. « N: of, Lori Rd. uu t15 area b NE d Sony Brook R.R. a Seuuket) S. d LIRR: icik6rg at or E . Qaka Past Scf Rioga ra/ !ce, W d 8lorNd.N Rd roo even d VkcdWe Ae. B W d Carman (rAxtes areas bob N. 8 S d rvise .bCrev SaJh roo even. d vdcakLide A,e. and S d F1orsWodk e s an a : - Rd. B S d Rid .. I er ace 15, onau s r. n,mofi•ol East Lake r - .0 - ..o. ser. r , o use WYis " on u . o House -s ore am _.. — d,bdnd ort LnWatRd)S hAd Alar •, r Sala Pkwy; W. d W not m:;Semai Rd: S d but not m, N. Slue Rd town ..,. ray.ns r - am ero res n u n In ) Mem S a d he Yyasabn d W. Sfna Rd & AM I Ad. E d a m Nis SL N d Men. X, E d Ad S d Man SL but k d AM SL; n of Fkfi St. or D-1 St . dW.^+r Rd Nb New Wk at Atidson SL, N ala>p bkk`� skim about 1 Wok beeRt m E sole) d New AAs. b8ictiA -tro M Rd,.... N Ytddrg ne aea,8 al steeds, Fbrbar sfnrefte E 4 dl act Fismrgat Bay Rd; hart N. b.. - un entareac h 12 . d warffi Temce, Licht ln, C acro ; Merced Ln, Qos:sp k4r IX_ Peak SL. Dr., W. d Elms Ate., E. of 7 SL, & S. of PorCrn Rd JI areas S. and / a W. of Nichols Rd. E of ebur not on Weshin .Ase. on au ea d Hoer F� Slate Park m Old ". and Mdriadk Skala BAd. v.enle—ch �brxrkas N. & S. Canakeedt Areas S d ( barcYm.MidleC—"Ril aid/oras Wat>rglm Aa hl SE d Pak+ I up b 8 adAi'g he S.E side d .(RT 34 of Sunrise H ... 1 meek - . d Wattle Term¢. Lrldar Lit, Croton .. Rarrert Lrt. Cm oda Dr.. Re* SL, Or., W.d"C SL,8SdFbrtar one a 20 . of Sunnse H Dun Ina eaconae or m, Old Field Rd. « Rd. u au e rsaequogueonly .dam nm Rc,Nd Qst Pah Ea. uo ue ut o ,.m Hada Gide; W d, a on, Ft. Rd or YJasrigtrt SL (S of Ins ka l Grecviawn Wafer en ra s r o re a a Spring v[ err "mrm- of Sunken Meadow State Pkwy., .of or m Burr Rd. mmack oof Sunken Meadow Sate Pkwy., N. t Northern Sate Pk Dram u ut ew lathews La and D IanTerrace area 45 avis Park,re Island Park S. c -d7C5m err k . deas N, In d CarxW t Rd. (trrtduj a ea5 N. b Lb Fill Wats DisaO ommac mire Commack zip code E. of "ken Meadow State Pkwy Hampton ep g err Sa Montauk area) 25 :u areas from the I— line E. 4 but m1 i kdry. MUher Has Stale Parka oats E as1 N� est unengton Is (To Greem— Water District al asIRa c es as Neck Last p. , d Masi ili. Rd.. W. d. Sagtkcs Rkwy. b tx=wM Gmeriam Water ! 31 Flwkxd Cv Last arson 30 East ac o ue F.,au— CL, uogh 0 RirYgtnCL Viape Bartlary (near Harbor Rd Duro of Spring Hollow Rd., Including uail Pam & areas S. ut ris x6esoltmmgo d w Load eyW1 1-1.!c=--1U=��ucinti In N. b ityvillea Of Southern SlatePk!4. Am15 el Stony roo « a ore u a an 2Q,a on u am ton e rEa t.o«: rt ewr- . Cru e, Sd Babrm : d Sd Atlantic SL A.e on� ensbbiFdid Exit &LRdsor . end all oudCeA port ' Ulla Neck ton Brook on a .trct SBWD .. d, a on, Maroc&N. d, erm- � , . eClub,re tan erur v nes re s a or nen urs . n n u tialow His) S, Statitne Pak (or, d Bas Ln)aSdOs� Rskddadd t.*FU,S-S dike, Sol 31 Sa E c(Searas NsdRd, SascaAat; A.e. a Re Acres Bad rHage ot e m 12 n25 oogg 8 Sed LLEIRT 495 )( dsabed n HortsNiia?J. .. a necott aterml ..:. eat am ton areas9Z9FI « ee mu es N.alorig Ncyac d. to Roses Grove Rd. 23 es ampton - -12 to URR tacks N. to Sunil. Hwy, ' & dl of. Old Riedead Rd, (C.R s31); street accessed horn / .11 .1 Srerart . across tnan C slki un Ingtor, , . Huntington Manor) . or W. of, North St, Oclur'ba SL, Taus W a S of New Y kA m. (Near Holds-. U.), S. of, bol includrp; Seliioq Sorx d, -,&Vii Fin t�ids.;Ed 7 W ioddxdk Fk/ov Ads orth Selden orth ShirleyN. of SunriseFiv`Y, « Ire . o—mise Pvy or por W. d a N. d, James, eayk , - , a Fort Sahrga Rots, W d, not on, Flew — Rd: eat am [on eac20 eat a y n - , and dl d, Wel nd Ae.. N. up to Island! A-., S coag Belmont A—.t ,lances12or par - da m, D.4. Rd. & N. d Fut: . , Rd (Except aaa bet,— Fon Rd& Ake. errap smgs sr . of Sukan 1.1eadov PI wy., of E Nutporl Rd.& a Old Dock Rd., E oolndary win Srrisiovn Water District 11 3acnila Sadder. below) 4orthpori kmas dl d. E: d a m, Resenir Ave. a el Rif. bet~ Fat Salaga Rd. & est bellport 15 est s estSaint James ...:' .12 kudder Ave: S of Furl Salo ga Rd. a d Suiken Mead— P".., N. of E Rd. E of Vernon Valley Rd. xspal Adfilain SL (RT 25A), N& Ws a e rg Old Rack Rd; Indudes areas N. a vI e Rd. but S. of - Ceder P. ger ar triliaz d the other two 1Crgs Park 9 ecomc Sas. to to C0851.idk�d�m me awn 2002 Annual Water Quality Statement - Suffoik County Water'Authority For Calendar Year, 2001 b • • 0 Distribution Ares tri' Distribution Arca 1B Distribution Arca 3' Distribution Area 5 1 Distribution Area 4 dogs d Me3q. NS d. Rsn9? d Ree sw Na d Foye d Reatllrge Nu d Rergs of ReadirW Nm of - Rsrgs of Reordrgs . Na of Loa Ho A.% 1" lar ta9h Avg. Ta tar Ho �._ Aq Tssa'l - lav - ti9h . , A.Q. Tsps Lm high Aq. Topa vow valur -VMa._ Ybus Va. Vasa- - V" Vaite vales .. vwus velue vats M",. Value Vater._.', - Radloactivity Gross Alpha actvty pCiA ........ NO; NO NO - 5 NO NO NO - 5 _ - NO - NO NO 1 NO NO NO 13. NQ ` . NO ' ND - --. 2 Gross Bata activity pCUI. . _ .. ND NO NO 5.. NO 3.3 NO. 5 NO NO NO 1 NO 4.7_ NO 13.. NO 2.6= ?-a 2 ,...-:. Bismuth -214 pal ..... .. _ ...: NA. NA NA 0 NA.. - NA NA 0 - - `NA NA.--. NA 0 -NA' . NA i NA - 0. NA -- NA -, NA-. 0 Cesium -123:.: -........... NA NA NA 0 NA NA-. NA- 0 NA NA NA 0 NA: NA NA 0, NA NA - -NA - 0 Radon ......-._.-...... .... ..NO NO NO 105 _ NO ;-; 376. -' NO 58 NO -ND-- NO ,. 16 _ _,..•... NO i. NO 35 ND. NO NO - 4 _: inorganics. Alkalinity, trial mgA .... ........ 58 85.0 32.5 640 14.8 68.0 395-' 279 138 60.0 ,. 336 • 49 1•. 5-4 .762 35.7 134 26.4 892 45.3 -., 44 Aluminum mgA .............. ND 0.83 6.07 1105 NO 0.22 ' 0.04, : 595 NO 025. 0.05 51 NEY 1.67 0.32 233. ND �' 021,' ' 0.02 ", 85 Ammonia. tree mo .........:.. -. NO, 21d 0.04 148- "' NO 0.13 NO .68 .; NO.. ND . ND : _'. 8 NO.' - 0.02 ND' .T 46, ND, NO NO - 8 Arsenic ugA ................... ND 8.7 NO 245 ND 1.9 NO : 127 NO - NO - NO - 29 NO, NO - NO 81 NO NO ND, 61 Barium mgA ................... NO NO NO 245 NO NO NO - 127 NO NO - NO 29 NO NO NO 81 : NO - 0.17. 0.13 61 BmgA ........... ...... oron NO, NO. NO 249 NO 0.34 -. N0-. 126 NO NO NO ' - 29 NO 0.16 NO 79 NO ND NO 61 BromidemgA ................. M. 0.08 ND 273 NO 0.09 NO .; 290 NO 0.06 NO 26 --6 NO 0.16 NO 75 NO 0.11) - 0.07. 73 G02. calculated mgA ............ NO 12.4 3.7 62 02 56.6 4.9 32 - 0.7 5.9 2.4 - _ . 0.1. 8.1. 32 34 1.3 -. 21: 2.0 6 Caidum mqA ................... 0.3 402-: 12:5 108- 89 21.7 13.6 53 4.4 - 23.4 10.1 8 ND' 1.5 0-2 36- . 7.8 ,433'_ 31.1 7 Chloride mgA ........ ....... . 2.6- 86.8 18.1 273 3,3 66.1: 25.9_ 290 2.6 15.4 5.9 26 2.3 8.7 4.2 - 75 5.9 130.9 76.7 73 Cobeit-59 uUA ........ ........ NO 4.1 NO 244 NO NO : NO 127 ' NO - NO NO 29 NO NO NO - 81 NO ND - NO : , 61 Color ants........ ........... NO: 38 NO : 196 . - NO .!. - 52 NO 108 NO 14 - NO ' '26 NO - 93 26 -. 76 NO, -.. 10 NO 15 Copper mgA ................... NO' 0.45 0.03 726 NO 0.37 0.04 - 333 NO 0.08. OM 8 NO 0.13 NO 147, NO 0.06 0.02 7 Dissolved adids, tutal mgA........ 22, 186 59 62.. 39 144 72 32 - 22 108 45 ...8 - .. 24 105 57 34 -. 61. -: 280 231 6 Fluoride M%4 :. ...... ... NO NO NO 273 NO - NO NO 290 NO ND.. NO :. 26 ND., NO NO 74 NO ND NQ 73 Hardness, iota mgM .. .. _ . 15.0 .119.8 36.4 - 65 25.6 , 69.0 46.3 37 10.6 622 31.9 8 ND: 2.6 -.. _ 0.6 38 :_.: 34.6 '157.0 1182:;, 7 Iron ugA .... ......... .. ..... NO 1705 421 1079 NO." 1159, 314 592 NO 112 - 46 53 83 _: 2937 437 235. , ND.. 451- 42 85 Lead ugA........... - ......... NO 5.3 ' NO _ 723 NO 9.0 - NO ;_ 332 - NO NO NO -'- 8 ND 3.2 NO 144 ND., NO ND 7 Lithium ugA _. .:..-: .......... NEI ,. 4.8... NO - 245 ND":-_ 60-., 2.2,: 127 NO 1.0 NO 29 NO 9.4 4.5 81 NO -1.17 1.2 61 I— t4a neslum mgA- ' 9 015 .7.46.- 173 108 0.86-- 4.00 2}7.: 54 - 0.27 1 99 0.7b � -8 Q01,� _ 028 0.09 35 3.08 11155 869 7 Mangarut" u9A .. ND 337 14 1 NO,- 297 21 592 NO 10 NO., _ 53 NO 61 ' NO 236 NO _; ill NO 85 Nkital ugA . .. .... ...... - ND; 93 1.7 1099 NE),` D e, 57.6 3.8: 620 NO 69,; 16 53 NO '- 9.8 T1 231 : ': ND" - 21 1.8 61 Nitrate mgA .... .. - :...... , .. , . NO.. '5.321 0.40 273 NO '7.98. -2-87` - 290 NO 3.88, 0.84 26 NO NO NO 75 : 748. 8.6 5:15_- 73 Psrchbrate ugA .........:....... ND`.; NO NO 110 NO ,•' NO ..ND...' 61 NO . NONO ,':. 26 NO r. NO ND' 3 NO NO. ND.. 14 - Phosphate, Who gA ........... NO 1.16, . NO 273 :. NO,, 1.15...' NO 1 289 NO,NO, - NO -_ 26 NO , 229. , 0.39 75 NO 0.28 NO "1 73 Phosphate: --,gA -`.. NO 534 1.00 ' -728 NO. - 329 0.89 `.. 333 ND;- NO NO „_ -,.. 8 NO . 5.19 0.90 145 x. NO N13 NO 7 pH.. ................ ..... .. 5.9 7.9, 72 65 6.8 86 7,4,:,37 7.1 62 7.4 a e.6:.. 8.9 ZS 35 7.1 8:3 • "7.7 7 pH, field unft .. :55: 8.9-,.-- 72 572 85-.-."; 8A .,;7.2:, .239 -, 70 8.4. 73 40 85 8,9 1. 74 1.64 94 ..:.-70 � 8iD ..'7.3 -.: ". 37 m mgA ................ Silicon myl c' 021 -2.61' 3.07 7.0:'. 0.58 3.9 245 199 0.35, ; 42 4.96 80 1.00 .6.1 127 .127 024 3.0" :-1.48. � 4.9 0-55 -- 3.5 29 29 039'`1 3.7 '- 4.82 56 4.7 81 81 .078. ,, 60-, 2.10- 1.7E 6.61 61 � 61 SodlummpA -..� 2 T 1279" 5.4'-' 245 �3�1 --377 ^9:3 -127 - 22 • 10.0 - 44 -28 ' 62 :.' 40A 15.4 - 81 :.: SS t "7'5 4E.9 31.6 81 3pedrrc condductance --h-I- et 363 109 72 72 268 143 34 18 93 52 B 63 188 95 38 102 548.. ,397 7 Sabra. r�89 M9A :.. - , .. , . - .' ND . 0.11 0.02 249 .. ND' 0.14 0,04, 127 -, ND .0.05 0.01 . 29 ND NO NO 79 . 0 02 r 0.'13 0.10, 61 Sull MW .... ......-:....... 1.1 3S,7: 7.4. - 272 2.2 28.8 11.6`: 290 0.6 1,, 10.6 _,, 23 .,. 26 1:8 'i' 9.2-, 5b " ' 75 ' 2.3 152 10.5 -' 73 Temperaft", fret �G .. - B - 18 ' 11 518 10, . , 14 ..12 . 209 101-: :13 : 12 37 10J, 18 14. 87 10 1'.2` 11 ' 34 Titanium ugrl ................ NO ; NO NO .243 NO, ".. NO NO : - 127 ND � l NO' ND;!-: 29 ND. ' 58.8„ 14.1 79..:.;.. ND.:,-. -ND ` NO -.1 61 Turbidity NT units - -11 4.41:, 0.78_....196 NO... " 0.59 ': 108 0.23 2A ,4 2$ .i8. ; 1 162 3S 79 NO . 1.$ 0 _, 15 - Zinc mgA ..... ...-.:........ NO 0.20 ND 720 NEI 0.23 ND 5332 NO 0.07 8 NO .,: 0.15 ND 144 -, v ;ND: NO ;: 7 Synthatic;Organk Compounds tnrdur" Pesticides and , He blcidss ((may Include data colisctsd over last 2 yuan)- ... AlacNor u94 ............. .....= NO:. _ ND NO. 221 NO - NO ND:, - 157 NO NO ND, , 36 NO .'• NO NO 81 NO NO.- N6' " 20 A-irarb sullone LW ......... NO ; : ND::, NO .151 - ,,. ND._ NO -: NO. ;, 83 ND' NO NO ..;25 NO ". NO . ND 66 ND. - . NO NO ` 15 Aldirarltoxids ugA- .. b su . -- ND NO NO 151 NO NO NO - 93 NO , ', NO NO ` 25 NO'` NO NO 66 ;' NO NO NO ". 15 A . NO ND, NO 221 NO : ND, . NO : 157 NO NO NO "96 NO ' ND. NO 81 ,.. NO •.: NO NO . 20 1 _., - Carbofuran ......... NO . NO NO 151 NO..... ND. NO - 93 NO NO NO ., 25 ND,-,; ,NO - NO 68 ND NO ND _ 15 12-Dibrprttoettene (EDB) rqA .... NO 21 NO 1047 ND.(.'- NO ND :: 1175 NO NO hD 134 NO- : 70 NO 235 NO •.. NO NO 50 1 Dinoseb ugA ............ NO . ND.:.: NO 227 NO .: NO NO 222 NO NO NO 52 NO `' NO NO 94 NO ND • ND 19 Metalaxyl ugrl ................ NO NO NO .221 NEI " NO.... ND 157 NO - ND ND c 36 NO ° NO, NO '81 NO,. NO - NO 20 _ Metolact-A. vo ................ NO �.-NO ::. NO 221 _ NO NEI D. N 157 NO NO NO `' 36 ND ND - ND 81 ':- NO ND: ND :..,. 20 y SkT..,_ t+DA ........ ......,r:. ... ND,: ND'.- NO .221. _- : NO ND : NO .... 157 NO -. ND'' ND ,... 36 NO - NO NO 81 _. _ NO. NO , ' NO :'• 20 TetadYdofarepFaafC Acid (TUN tq1.: ND : 5.9 - NO 228 NO... 22 - NO 222 NO - NO ND - 63 NO . NO - NO 94 ND , ND SND ' 19 Voladls Organk.Cor you da- Brornodichbranettane ugtl .".....: NO, :1.0 NO... .392- NO 2.5 NO - . 356 NO NO NO. 46 ND 15 NO 71 NO ND NO . _ 55 - 8romolorm ugA ...:..............: ND... .2.4 ;: NO 392 'ND - �- 12^` NO ' 356 NO. NO NO 46 NO NO NO 71 NO-. -ND ND 55 t Carbon tetrachloride u9A ......... NO NO - NO 392 - NO ` NO NO 356 NO NO ND ':::.46 NO NO NO 71 NO ND' NO ' 55 ,I Chlorodibronrornettarts ugA ..,.... ND; ;1.1 NO. _392. NO 2.3 - ND' . 356 .... NO _ . NO NO :5'.48 NO .' 0.6 ND 71- NO _. hID- NO: 55 Chloroform ugA ................. NO ': 2.8--: NO 392 ND". 6.5 0.64 358 NO `2.6 1.0 46 NO ;, 6.6' NO 71 NO..hID. NO " 55 Gs-1,2-DbhbdhroeugA ....... NO., NO ' NO _, 392 NO _ 5.8 ND._ 356 NO, ,.. ND.: ND-. 46 NO NO NO 71. :- NO :hID, NO :55 DlrYtbrodtluorometlarle ugA ND: 5.2 NO 392 NO NO ND-, ,356 NO NO. NO 46 NO NO. NO 71 . NO NO NO 1.1-DkNoroettarle u9A .......... ND :�' 4.9 NO .392 NO --.. 3.6 ` NO ,..356 NO . ND, • NO 46 NO .' ND-. NO- - X71. _, ND '.-(�:2-7 ; 1.6 , .. - 55 } 1.2-DidJdroetharte ugA ......1 .... ND='. NO, -: NO 392 NO, Z.0 ... ND.. '356 NO NO ND-- .. 46 ' ND... NO -. NO 71. - -, .: NO: ' : hID" ND 55 # 1,1-Dichbroetherie ugA .......... NO NO NO 392_. NO „ 0.8' ." ND'. l' :3% NO NO NO 46 ' NO , . ND' NO' 71 NO C-9 ; NO - 55 i 1,2-Dichloroproparle ugA -......... NO, NO _ NO . 392 ..:ND- NO -ND:' .356 NO NO NO 46 A NO NO NO 71. NO ND' NO 55 f Mett,A-Ten-Butyl-Ether(MTBE)ugA . NO 4.0 NO. 392. NO 2.2 NO :356 NO NO NO 46' NO NO ND,- 71 - NO C,7 ND.. 55 -. Tetrad8oroeomm ugA .:......... . NO,.,, NO NO 392 NO . 725 NO 356 NO NO . NO 46 NO, NO NO 71 NO ND NO ` 55 { Toa 1,2-tfichbroettene ugA ..... NOY NO NO 392 ND NO ND:.. 356 NO NO NO 46 NEI " NO NO 71 ND _ HD, NO' : 55 1,1 1-Trichbroetane ugA ........ NO 1.9 NO 392 NO - 5.1. NO 356 NO NO : ND 46 -ND"' NO NO 71. NO 92. 12 55 i Trichloroethene ug)l ........... . NO 0.8 NO 392 NO 0.7 NO 356 . - ND 0.5 NO 46 NO ` NO NO 71 NO ND.. - NO 55 Triaipoaumrnettare (Recr l l) u9A .. NO NO NO 392 - - NO NO NO 356 NO NO NO 46 NO NO NO 71 NO _ ND NO 55 1,2,3-Trichbropropene ugA ....... NO NO NO 392 NO NO NO 356. NO NO NO 46 NO - NO NO 71 NO, ND NO 55 I . 1,1,2-Trichlorolrithroroetlane ugA. .. NO s. NO NO 392 -ND NO NO 356 NO NO NO 46. NO NO NO 71 NO NO NO 551, P,m-Xylene u9A................ NO. NO NO 392. NO NO ND 356 NO NO ND 46 NO < ND NO 71 NO 14D NO 55 Dlsinfaction By Products _ -- -. Bro" hbroecotic Acid u9A .. ND'• 0.7 NO 63 NO 1.0 NO 31 NO NO NO 7 NO 12 NO 37- NO IJD ND.... 7 Bromod0ilmoscatc Add ugA - ' . NO NO NO 63 NO 0.5 NO , 31 NO NO NO - 7 - NO 0.8 '- ND 37 NQ IJD NO 7, Chbrodibromoacedc Acid u94 ..: ND - NO - NO 63 NO NO NO - . 31 NO NO NO ' 7 NO NO NO - " 37 NO -AD NO -. 7 Haloacetic Acids, total (5)'19'1 ..... NO 1.5 NO 63 NO. 15 NO -,: 31 NO 0.4 ND- 7 NO 7.4 0.6 37 - _ NO 'OS NO 7 Trihalometlaaes. local ugA .. NO 2.4 NO 61 - NO - 2.5 : NO 31 NO 1.9 NO 7 ND 6.6 0.5 39 NO -' - IJD NO 6 b • • 0 2002 Annua Dlstrlbulion Araa 6. Range rX Rea" RargeW Ra 3'gs Lon Hyp Arg. ':sk:e lh.Lx Veiue No.a T- I -bp ND NO NO ND NO NO 2 2 VaLw ItA NA NA 0 1 NA ND NA 329 NA ND 0 23 NA 16.0 .!D 7;. 0.09 37.4 NO 170 81 NA ND .`ID 0.01 NO NO NO 26 54 NA ND NO NO ND NO NO - 54 24 NO 0.5 0.08 6.4 NO 2.7 217 18 NO 5.2 1.8 22.0 19.7 15.6 12.9 20 217 NO NO NO NO 8 NO NO 54 50 NO NO 33 -0.12 125 NO 84 21 8 6 ND 19.2 NO 80.8 NO 51.4 217 20 3.6 ND NO 196 NO NO NO 81 21 25.9 ND ,1-91 2-0 5.56 NO 3.08 54 20 162 NO NO 17 2.5 NO 0.6 81 81 6 0.68 ND 8.91 8.9 5.46 3.4 217 148 NO ND ND 0.12 NO NO NO 217 21 147 72 6.5 8-2 8.0 7.519 7.3 151 NO 0.46 4.5 - 1.20 " 0.79 6.2 '7.0 54 , 54 5 83 0.01 10.5 222 C.Do 149 0.04 54 19 54 NO 0.7 'A 33.6 18 13.5 11 217 138 NO NO 0.12 NO 1 0 ND 0.44 54 4.36 ND NO NO 21 6 ND NO ND NO NO ND 53 '.. 37. 5.53 NO NO 0.9 NO ND NO 37 53 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 37 429 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 96 '.. 53 5 ND NO 0.2 NO NO NO 53 53 7,0 ND 9.1 1.6 96 NO 2.1 NO 272 NO 1.8 ND 272 ND 09 NO 272 NO 3.0 NO 272 NO 1.4 NO 272 NO 0.6 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO 3.9 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO 0.8 NO 272 NO0.7 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO 5.7 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO 3.3 NO 272 ND 2.8 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO NO NO 272 ND 2.7 NO 272 NO NO NO 272 NO NO NO 18 NO NO NO 18 NO NO NO 18 NO 09 NO 18 NO 0.6 NO 19 • I Water Qua Dlstributlon Arw 7 Range rX Rea" Na of Lo« I -bp Avg. T-bffi V hm Vaka VaLw 1 1 ND NO NO 1 NO NO NO 1 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 21.8 67.0 56.5 24 0.03 0.08 0.05 6 NO NO NO 6 NO NO NO 6 NO NO NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO 0.06 NO 6 3.6 8.0 6.0 4 21.9 25.9 24.25 146 7 15.1 171 162 6 NO NO NO 6 NO NO NO 6 NO 0.06 0.02 5 128 147 135 4 NO NO NO 6 73.2 90.0 81.4 5 NO 89 41 6 NO NO NO - 5 NO NO NO_. 6 4.12 4.73 4.36 5 NO NO NO 6 0.6 1.2 09 6 5.53 5.84 5.66 6 NO NO NO 4 , ND NO NO 6 ND NO NO 5 7.1 7.6 7.4 5 7,0 7.5 72 19 0.96. 1.05 1.00 6 6-2 6.8 .: 6.5 6 -- 112--13.7 12.5 11.9 6 210 235 224 5' 006 0.06 0.07 6 9.2 12.0 10.1 - 8- 6 13 11 17 NO NO NO 6 0.20 0.38 0.33 6 NO ND NO 5 NO NO NO 6 NO NO NO 4 NO NO NO 4 NO ND NO 6 NO NO NO 4 NO NO NO 7 NO NO NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO 11D NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO '1.5 NO 46 NO 0.7 NO 46 NO NO NO 46 NO '1.7 NO 46 NONO '46 Y.0 NO 3 NO 46 NO NO NO 46 NO 2.8 1.4 46 NO ND NO 46 NO C.6 NO 46' NO ND NO 46 NO 4.1 2.6 46 NO NO ND 46 NO ND ND 46 NO 3.4 1.0 46 NO ND NO 48 NO ND NO 46 NO NO NO 46 NO NO NO 46 NO NO NO 46 NO NO NO 3 ND NO NO 3 NO NO NO 3 ND 0.3 NO 3 NO 1.7 0.5 3 'ity Statemei Range d Readrgs (For Calends Lav HO Distribution Area B Rarge d Readr% L- Hgh Avg. V19- Va.kI V . Nn d Test . 2.4 NO 2.4 NO 2.4 NO 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 NO NO NO 4 22.0 NO 46.0 0.06 31.9 NO 31 13 NO NO NO NO NO NO 5 13 NO NO NO N0 NO NO 13 13 ND 0.9 0.07 8.9 NO 3,4 146 5 8.1 4.1 27.6 26.0 132 15.3 5 146 NO NO NO NONO NO 13 13 NO 37 0.03 165 NO 70 5 5 NO 259 NO 102.0 NO 432 146 5 NO NO NO IA NO NO 13 5 NO 0.61 NO 8.45 NO 2.48 13 5 ND NO NO 1.4 NO 0.8 13 13 0.73 NO 8.71 NO ,5.05 NO 146 7 ND NO 0.55 ,NO NO NO 146 5 6.8 7.0 8.2 8.0 72 - 7.4 56 28 0.42 32 123 5-9 0.69 38. 13 3.3' 55 11:6 309 6.2 105 "13 13- 71 NO 0.5 0.11 29.9 0.04 14.5 13' - 146 10 NO 12 NO 11 NO 26 13 027 NO 1.7 NO 0.51 NO 13 5 NO NO NO NO NO NO 17 10 NO NO NO NO ND NO 10 17 NO NO NO NO NO10 NO 135 NO NO NO NO NO NO 17 17 NO NO NO ND ND NO 17 17 NO 1.8 NO 17 NO 0.8 NO 66 NO 2.1 NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO 12 NO 66 NO 1.0 NO 66 NO 0.8 NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO 3.5 1.5 66 - NO NO NO 66 NO 1.1 NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO 4.3 1.8 66 NO 2.8 1.3 66 NO. NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 66 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO 5 NO1.8 02 5 NO 1.1 ND 5 it - Suffolk r Year 2001) DistributionArea8 Range d Readrgs Nn of Lav HO Arg, Tas15 Vale Va4N Vak. Vdk a NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 NANA NA NA 0 NO 206 NO 6 19.6 81.6 64.2 72. NO 0.06 NO 32 NO 0.01 NO 13 - ND NO NO 21 NO NO NO 21 NO NO NO 21 NO 0.08 ND 121 1.6 72 3.7 9 9.9 34.1 23.2 13 7.2 31.1 21.1 121 NO NO NO 21 NO 10 NO 10 NO 0.38 0.05 13 51 186 153 9.. NO NO NO 121, 25.8 1162 88.2 12 NO 572 `'41 32 NO 1.7 NO 13 NO 2.6 - .1.0 21. 1.17 8.07 5.22 13: NO 13 NO 32. N0 1.8 0.731 1.1 253 9.22 7.13. 121 NO NO NO15 3.5 NO 0-17 : ND 121 NO 0.18 NDi 3. 7.0 8.0 7.6 12 7.0 B,4 7.3 60 0.50 1.1je .1,11 21 4,1' 8.8 .7.0 21. -' 5.6- `17.6 12.5 21 89 330 234 13, 0.02 0.12 - 0.06 21 0.9 34.0 18.1 121 1 0 13 11 51 NO NO NO 21 0.17 13 0.5 19.1, NO N6 NO 13 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 15 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 15 NO NO NO 118 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 26 NO 1.3 NO 26 NO 14 NO 140 NO 3.9 NO 140P. NO NONO 140 ND 1.8 ND 140 NO. to NO 140 NO 1.0 NO 140 NO NO NO 140 NO 4.1 1.3 140 NO NO NO 140 NO 0.6 NO 140 NO 0.9 NO 140 NO2.6 0.6 140 NO 1.1 NO 140 NO NO NO 140 NO 3.0 0.9. 140 NO 2.1 0.5 140 NO 0.7 NO 140 NO NO NO 140 NO NO NO 140 NO NO NO 140 NO 0.5 NO 12 NO NO NO 12 NO NO NO 12 NO 0.7 NO 12 NO 3.9 NO 11 County Wate Distribution Area 10j Rarge d Readrgs Na d Lw. High Avg. TPIx Vak,e `/aloe Vdk a 3 NO NO NO 2 NO 3A 27 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NO 268 NO 22 9.6 68.0 36.1 139 NO 0.06 NO 59 NO 0.03 NO 27 NO NO NO 43 NO ^:O NO 43 NO NO NO 43 NO 0.09 NO 463 0.1 6.5 2.8 15 8.0 30.1 174 17 6.3 77.5 16.6 463 NO NO NO 43 NO 13 NO 39 NO 0.04 NO 17 .50 161 98 15 NO NO NO 463 22.4 100.0 57.8 17 NO -62 NO S9 NO 1.3 NO 17 NO NO NO 43 1.16 7.11 3.57 17 NO NO NO 59 NO 4,2 1.1 70 1.90 934 7.20 463 NO 9.7 3.5 151 NO 0.46 NO 463 NO NO.- NO 17 6-9,, 8.7 "7.5 52 _ 6.7 8.5 73 121 0.58. 1.28 0.90 43 3,0 7.3 '0.'7 43 4.7 11.6 8.1 43 100 282 230 58 0.02 0-14 0.05 43 NO 48.8 20.1 461 9 13 it 103 NO NO NO 43 0,11 1-6 0.42 39 NO C,06 NO..... t7 NO NO NO 56 NO NO NO 31 NO NO NO 31 NO NO NO 56 NO NO NO 31 ND NO NO 372 NO NO NO 44 NO NO NO 56 IND NO NO 56 ND NO NO ---. 56 NO 2.8 NO 44 14D 1.0 NO 224 NO 1.5 NO 224 t4D 0.9 NO 224 t4D 1.9 NO Z24 NO 0.6 NO 224 NO 1.1 NO 224 NO NO NO 224 NO 3.1 1.3 224 NO 0.6 NO 224 NO 1.3 NO 224 NO 2.4 NO 224 NO 1.8 NO 224 NO 1.8 NO 224 ND NO NO 224 MD 4.3 1.7 224 ND 3.7 12 224 NO NO NO 224 NO NO NO 224 NO NO NO 224 NO NO NO 224 NO NO NO 15 NO NO NO 15 NO NO NO 15 NO 0.6 NO 15 NO 0.8 NO 14 �i r Authority Distribution Area -11 ge d RarReaongs Nn U Lav Value hof V" An- V kA TB NO NO NO 3 NO NO NO 3 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NO 280 NO 31 7.8 115.0 39.6 163 ND- " 0.11 NO 86 NO NO NO 24 NO NO NO 62 NO NO NO 62 NO NO NO 62 NO 0.06 NO 296 0.3 7.6 3.2 22 6.0 34,4 15.8 24 4.8 47.6 21.7 296 NO NO ND 62 NO 11 NO 63 NO 0.06 '0.02 25 42 NO 166 NO 79 NO 22 296 23.2 NO 98.4 74 49.7 NO 24 86 NO 4.1 NO 25 NO 1.0- NO 62 0.83 NO 5.19 42 2.62 NO 24 86 NO 7.7 :" 1.7 85 NO '.9.35 5.33 296 NO NO NO 48 NO 025 NO 296 _ - NO -- NO NO 25 -- 6.7 8:5^' 7.424 `69 0.42 -6:9 2.32 7.2 0.79 - 138 62 ` 32 6.9-:' 4.6 62 3:8' 27.4 8.1 62 80 '274 154 25 NO 0.D9 0.03 62 0.6 20.7 7.9 296 10 NO 13 NO --11- - NO 123 62 0.11 2.0 0.40 63 NO 0.15 NO 25 NO NO NO 116 NO NO NO 50 NO NO NO 50 NO NO NO 115 NO - NO NO 60 NO 43 NO 562 NO NO - NO 71 NO NO NO 116 NO NO NO 116 NO - NO NO 116 NO -4-2 NO 71 NO 2.3 NO 394 NO 3.4 NO 394 NO NO NO, 394 NO " 3.8 - '' ND 394 NO 2.2 ' ND 394 NO 1.3 - NO - 394 NO 0.9- NO 394 NO 3.2 0.8 394 NO NO ' NO 394 NO 1.7 NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO 32 NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO 4.6 0.9 394 Nor 49 NO 394 NO 1.0 - NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO NO NO 394 NO - 0.9 - NO 21 NO 1.0 NO 21 NO NO NO 21 NO 1.6 NO 21 NO 3.1 0.5 Z2 2002'Annual Water- Quality Statement - Suffolk CountyVater Authority (For Calendar Year :2001) Distribution Area 12 Range d Reedogc No W Low High Avg'. Tests • Distribution Area -14 Value - Vahm Value - Radioactivity Range W R -dogs N. d Rents d Reedro. - No. d - Range d Rtm" N& d Lav GrossAlpha activity pCiA ........ NO NO NO 10 Gross Beta activity pCIA ......... ND 3.0 NO 10 Bismuth-214-pCVI ................ NA NA . NA 0 Cesium -137 pCIA t .............. NA NA NA 0 Radon pCW............... ...: ND 323 NO 143 Inorganics - Vafue VeUe - NO Alkalinity, total MgA ............. 9.8 224.0 51.5 - 643 Aluminum mgA ...':............. NO 0.51 0.04 826 Ammonia„ free mgA.:.............. NO - 0.53 - 0.01 139 Arsenic ugA,.....'.............. ND 6 3 NO 346 Badum mgA .................. NO NO NO 346 Boron mgA .................. ... NO NO NO 345 Bromide mgA ................. NO 0.16 NO 857 CO2., --elated mg4 ............ NO 13.2 4.3 79 Calcium mgA ..................... 0.8 43.8 15.6 121 Chloride mgA ................ 30 58.3 24.7 857 Coba11-59 ugA ................: NO 2.1 NO 346 Color units ..................... NO 15 NO 233 Capper m9/1 ....::.............. NO 0.22 0.03 233 Dissolved Solids, total mgA ....... 22 227 97 79 Fluoride mgA . . . NO NO NO - 856 Hardness, total mgA ............' 3.4 1 50 .8 59.-1. 84 iron ugA ..... .. .. .. ........... NO 1501:-158 63 825 Lead ugA .. NO 2.9 NO 237 UtNum ugA; .................... NO4 2 ' NO 346 Magnesium mgA . 0.41 14.56 2.97 121 Marganese ugA ................. NO 243 ' 30 826 Nickel ugA.::.................. SND -9.0 -'0.9 824 Nitrate mgA.............. ..... . NO 9.83 -.4.21 658 .Perchlorate ugA . , �._ .....:..:.... NO NO NO 124 Phosphate,. Ortho mg4 ......... . ..: ND 1.17 NO 857 Phosphate, total mail ....... NO 3.12 0.93 237 pH units ..-.. ,............. -'6.4 -8.8 '.7.4 84 pH. field untie, ... <.............. 6.8 8.3 , 72 596 Potassium rrW ........... . .... . .0.01 3.61 0.84 346 Silicon m,0 .. ................. 2.9 10.5 6.1 346 _ SodWm mgA. ; ......:........ . 3.0 . 33.8 -' 10.1 : 346. . - Specific Conduct- ototWco, ... 54 ' 413 165 94- _ Stmnb--89 mgA ._1 .......... . - NO ':0.17 0.04 346 Sulfate mgA,:................1.241.5 NO 241 12.4 857 Temperature,: field 'C - ..: 10 15 -. 12 544 Titanium ugA L .... . .... NO 10.9 NO : 345 Turbidity NT mils .. ....... 0.11 7.4 0.53 234 Zinc mgA ....................... NO 0.14 - ND 236 Synthetic Organic Compounds-lnciudlng fte itieldes and 0.2 Herbickles(may include debts collected over I..t 2 years) 2.4 Alachlor ugA ......:... l ....... ND ND NO 265 Aldicarb Sulk- ugA ..:... i ...'.... NO NO ' NO 172'- Aldicarb Sulloxide ugA ........... NO NO NO '.172 Atrazine ugA ................... NO NO NO 265 Carboturan ugI................ NO NO NO 172. 1.2 Dibrorlamethane (EDB) ngA ... NO 33 NO 2084 Dinoseb ugA........... :...:... NO NO NO 426 Metalaxyt u9d..:...:..... ....... NO NO NO .265 Metolachlor ugA .. . ............. NO NO NO 265' Simazine ugA .................. NO NO NO 265 TepaUiorotarrpelaic pdd (TCR4) upI .. NO 5.6 NO 432 Volatile Organlc Compounds 155 NO NO NO Bromodichloromethane ugA ....... NO 3.0 NO 1251 Broroolorm ugA ................ NO 2.5 NO 1251 Carbon Tetrachloride ugA ........ NO NO NO 1251- Chlorodibrongmethane ugA ....... ND 3.5 NO 1251 Chlorobrm ugA ................ NO 4.5 0.5 1251 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ugA ....... NO 63 NO 1251' Dichlonldifluororneelana ugrl ...... NO 5.3 NO 1251 1,1-Dichloroethane ugA .......... NO 32 NO 1251 1,2-Dichloroethane ugA ........... NO 0.5 NO 1251 1,1-Dichloroethene ugA.......... NO 1.0 NO 1251 1,2-Dichloropmpane ugA ......... NO NO NO 1251 Methyl-Tert-Butyl-Ether (MTBE) of NO 17 0.8 1251 Tetrachloroethene ugA ............ NO 4.7 NO 1251 Trans-1.2-dichioroethene ugA ..... NO 0.8 NO 1251 - 1,1.1-Trichloroethaneug/l ........ NO 5.3 0.6 1251 Trichloroethene ugA ............. NO 1.3 ND 1251 TridlbrdAA>.onlesarle(Freon ii) LKA .. NO NO NO 1251 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ugA . NO 0.8 NO 1251 1,1,2-Trichlorotri6uoroethane ugll .. NO 3.0 ND 1251 p,m-Xylene ug/I ................ NO NO NO 1251 Disinfection By -Products . NO NO 95 Bromochloroacetic Add ugA .... NO 1.3 NO 84 Bromodichloroacetic Acid ugA ..... NO 0.5 NO 84 Chlorodibromoacetic Acid ugA ..... NO NO NO 84 Haloacetic Acids total(5) ugA ..... NO 23 NO 84 Tnhalomethanes, total ugA . -, .... NO 2.5 NO 98 • Distribution Area -14 - -Distribution Aro. 15. Dlstributlon Areal 18: Distribution Aroe Rarpe d Readrgs 20 Na d Range W R -dogs N. d Rents d Reedro. - No. d - Range d Rtm" N& d Lav High - Xq. Teats Lnw F" Avg. Taste Lav "gh AIV- Tests Low High Avg. Tests VaY:e Value Value NO Vaky Value VaMre NO Value Value V24re ND Vafue VeUe V§en NO NO NO NO 2 -NO NO NO 10 NO 3.3 NO 53 NO 3.4 NO 67 4.4 4A 4,6 2 NO 2.2 NO 10 ND 4.7 NO 53 NO 6.9 NO 67 NA NA NA : 0 NO NO NO 4 NO 95.0 NO 48 NO NO NO 60 NA NA NA 0 NO NO NO 4 NO 24.2. NO 48 NO 8.9 NO 60 NO NO NO 9 NO 261 NO 117 NO NO NO 19 NO NO NO 34 9.6 103.8 27.9 63 7.6 107.8 42.1. 671 12.2. 121.0 41.6. 167 7.6 66.8 35.2 232 NO 0.04 NO 23 NO 024 NO 78 NO 0.36 0.02 192 NO 0.16 0.03 442 NO - NO NO 10 NO 0.18 - NO 130 ND 0.04 NO 27 ND 0.05 . ND 70 NO NO NO 23 NO 2.2 NO 245 NO 2.7 NO 155 NO 2.7 NO 175 NO NO NO 23 NO NO NO 245 NO ND NO 155 NO NO :NO 175 NO NO NO 23 -NO NO NO 241 NO ..NO NO 155 NO 0.62 NO 173 NO NO NO 30 NO 0.08 NO 964 NO NO NO 120 NO 0.08 NO 203 0.2 5.5 2.4 9 NO 16.7 3.7 59 - 0.1 19.7 5.0 22 0.3 8.3 3.0 33 4.7 14,7 6.1 10 3.3 37.9 14.4 93 4.5 41.3 111.4 25 0.2 30.0 10.9 66 3.4 16.3 6.3 30 2.8 170.2 26.5 963 4.8 68.6 19.0 120 3.9 32.4 .1 3.8 203 NO NO NO 23 ND NO NO 245 NO ND NO 155 NO NO NO 175 - NO 6 NO 23 NO 19 ND 230 NO 17 NO 34 NO 34 NO 85 NO 0.09 NO 10 NO 0.17 NO 96 ND .0.29 0.04 25 NO 0.27 NO 250 25 88 41 9 24 339 94 59 42 205 97 22 I 43 171 74 33 NO NO NO 30 NONO NO 964 NO NO NO 120 I NO -0. NO 03 15.0 56.6 25.9 10 10A 134.4 474 97 18.0 - 135.6 63.2 24. O ND `- 49 NO 23 NO 993 60 377 NO -888 187. 193 NO 1059 318 432 NO 15 NO NO NO 95 NO 2.0 NO NO 4.8 NO ' NO NO NO � 2 23 NO 2.6 2.3 NO 245 NO % 2.7 NO 55 155 NO .72 2.7 17 17 0.66 1.46 0.48 10 0.83 11.84 2.83 93 1.36 .7.79 3.72 25- . 0.45 9.04 1.66 6 ND NO NO 23 NO `102 11 377 NO 100 28 193 ND - 91 ' 13 441 NO 2.5 NO 23 NO 8.9 0.7 388 NO 3.8 0.5 195 NO 9.6 0.8 440 NO - 3.64 0.88 30 NO 9.18 4.52 ' 962 .NO 9.20 3.99 120 NO 9.41 2.52 203 NO NO `_: NO 10' NO 4.7 ! 138 NO NO NO 25-. NO 8.0 NO 215 NO NO NO 30 NO 9.11 ,ND NO 964 NO 0.47 NO 120 NO 0.80 0.14 203 ND NO NO ` 10 NO 0.71 NO 96 NO 0. 53 NO 25 - NO 7.63 1.28 250 7.0 8.6 --7.5 10 6.1 9.0 7.6 95 6.1 9'1.5 24 6.7 8.4 75 37 7.0 -8.3 '7.1 :- 53 6.2 9.1 7.2 -. 577 6.4 -9.1 '7.3 - 143. 6.0 '8S 7.3 195 0.33 0.90 0.45 23 0.32 2.39 0.86 244 0.38 2.81 0.83 155 0.28 4.66 0.93 175 3.9 .1 5.0 2338 10.3 6.6 245 4.6 15.5 T.4 155 3.1 . 5.5 X73'.. 175 -. 3.2 ,:69.4 4.4 23 �. 3.0 '69.8 '9.7 ::-245 ti 4.2 -36.8 -: 8.6 165'-.. '3.4 ..:�20 .6 175 - 48 168 "T7 1 10 46 -636 145 96 -79 345 171 24 84 301 134 37 ND 0.04 0.01 23 NO - 0.1 7 0.04 241 0.02 0.11 . 0.05 155 NO 0.10 0.03 173 1.5 15.2 3.7 30 0.8 63.8 13.4 962 4.4 46.0 26.2 120 1.9 .46.4 20.1 203 11 17 12 - 49 10 18 12 534 10 14 12 132-. 10 '15 12 178 NO NO NO 23 NO NO NO 245 NO 12.0 NO 154. NO NO NO 175 0.15 1.3 0.38 23 0.14 5.8 .0.53 - 231 0.16 5:6 0.74 54 0.14 2.6 6.60 86 NO NO NO 10 NO 0.17 NO 95 NO 0.05 NO - 25 NO 0.19 NO 248 NO NO NO 28 NO 0.9 NO ,373 NO NO NO 57 NO NO NO 127 ND NO NO 16 NO NO NO 159 NO 22 ND 58- NO 2.2 NO 103 'ND NO NO 16 NO NO NO 159 NO 1.6 NO 58 ND 3.4 0.6 103 NO ND ND 28 NO 0.3 NO 373 NO NO NO 57 NO NO NO .127 NO NO NO - 16 NO NO NO 159 NO NO NO 58 NO 0.6 NO 103 ND 'NO NO 111' NO 70 ND 2417 ND NO NO 1044 NO NO NO 754 NO NO NO 23 NO NO NO 355 NO NO NO .200- NO NO NO ..124 NO NO NO 28 NO NO NO 373 ND NO NO .57 NO NO NO 127 NO NO NO 28 NO 0.2 NO 372 NO NO NO 57 , ND 0.1 ND '125 NO NO NO 28 NO NO NO 37:1 NO NO NO 57 NO NO ND 327 NO NO NO 23 NO 19 1.1 360 NO 45 2.7 201 NO 5.3 ND 124 NO 0.6 ND 40 NO 4.0 ND 976 NO 1.2 NO 305 NO 4.7 ND 255 NO 1.2 ND 40 ND 2.5 NO 976 ND 0.9 NO 305 NO 0.9 NO 255 NO ND NO 40 NO NO NO 976 NO ND NO 305 NO NO NO 55 NO 1.1 NO 40 NO 5.5 NO 976.. NO 1.3 NO 305 NO 3.3 NO 255 ND 0.5 NO 40 NO 4.0 NO 976 NO 8.3 NO 305 ND 7.6 0.9 255 NO NO NO 40 NO 1.1 ND 976 NO NO NO 305>. NO NO NO 255 NO ND NO 40 NO 2.2 NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO NO NO 255 NO NO ND 40 NO 4.7 NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO ND- NO 255 NO NO NO 40 NO NO NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO NO NO 255 NO NO ND 40 NO 1.2 NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO NO ND 255 NO NO ND' 40 NO 0.8 NO 976 NO NO NO 305- NO NO ND 255 NO NO ND 40 ND 3.0. NO 976 NO 0.6 NO 305 NO 1.2 NO 255 NO NO ND 40 NO 4.8 NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO 0.7 ND 255 NO NO ND 40 NO NO NO 976 NO NO NO 305 NO NO NO 255 ND ND ND 40 NO 4.3 0.6 976 NO ND ND 305 NO 0.7 NO 255 NO NO ND 40 ND 1.7 NO 976 NO NO NO 305. NO 0.6 NO 255 ND NO ND 40 ND NO ND 976 NO NO NO 305 ND NO NO 255 NO ND ND 40 NO 4.4 NO 976 ND NO NO 305 ND NO NO 255 NO NO ND 40 NO NO NO 976 ND NO NO 305 NO NO NO 2 NO ND NO 40 NO NO NO 975 NO NO NO 305 NO NO NO 2 ND NO ND 8 ND 1.0 NO 65 NO NO NO 21 NO NO ND 32 ND ND ND 8 ND 1.0 ND 65 ND NO NO 21 ND 0.6 NO 32 ND ND ND 8 NO NO NO 65 NO NO NO 21 ND NO NO 32 NO 0.3 ND 8 NO 0.9 NO 65 ND 0.6 NO 21 NO 1.2 NO 32 ND 0.8 ND 8 NO 3.3 NO 70 NO 1.3 NO 19 NO 3.9 ND 32 8 • OTHER COMPOUNDS TESTED (With Negative Results) Suffolk County Water Authority also tested for the following items, and they were not detected anywhere in our system during 2001. 1,1,1,2 -Tetrachloroethane Alorin - Chloroneb Glyphosate Picbram 1,1',2-Tetrechlwoelhene Allyl Chloride' " - _ Chbropyrilm '.�'' Heptachlor Epoxide '. Potasabm-40 1,1,2 -Trichloroethane - A. dclum.241 CMpothalooll - Heptachlor .. Pronamide 1,1-Obhbroproperle Ametryn Chlorpropham- Hexaro chrobenzene Prometryn 1,2,3-Trirhlorobenzene Anthracene Ch yw- HexadJoroWnadierie - Propachlor 1,2,4-Tnchlombenzene Antinorry Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Hexachbrocycbpentadene Propazine 12,4-Tdmethylbernzene Arochlor 1016 Gs -Permethrin _ Hexachlomethane.- - Prapoxur 1,2-Ditimmo-3-Chbropropane Arochlor 1221 Cobalt -60 activity - Hexazinone. Pyrene 12 -Dichlorobenzene Anschlor 1232 Cyanazine Imidachloprid - Radium -228 - 1,3,5-Tdmethylbenzene Arochlor 1242 Cyanide Iodeno(1,2,3,C,DjPyrene Sec-Butylbenzene - 1,3 -Dichlorobenzene Arocift 1248 Cycbate Isophorone Selenium 1,3-Dichbropropane. Arochlor 1254 Dalepon Isopropylbomene Silver 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Arochbr 1260 - DCPA Coact ial) Lead -210 - Silver -110 1-Chtombutam Bentazon Decachlombipheryl .- Lead -212 - Silvex(2,4.5-TP) .. 1 -Naphthol Benz(A)Anthracene -- Di (2-Ethylhexyl) adipate- Malathion -. Smietryn . -2.2',3,3h,4,5',6,6-OctacMofobiphe60 Benzene - �. DI(2=Etl ylhexyl) phthalate Manganese -54 - Sodium -22 - 2,2',3,3'(4,6-Heptachlorob1phenyl Bamo(A)Pyrene Diazinon` MEAS Standard Plate Count: 2,2'.3',4,6-Pentachlombiphenyl Benzo(Blfluoramberne DibenztA,H)Anthmcene Mercury Styrene 22',4,4',5,6'-Hexachlwobipheny4 Beron(G,H,I)Perylent, Dibmmochlororned— Meahacrykxatrle TeGMiuron 2,2'.4,4'-Tetrachlorobipherlyl Benzo(KIFluorambene Dibromomethane Methiocarb Temaril 22-Dichlompmpene Ereryatum Dicambe Maewmyl . Terb Aryn - .. 2,3-Didllombipherlyl Berylllum-7 Didhlwpmp Methoxychlor Ten-Buylbenzene 2,4,S -T BHC, Alpha Dichbrvourt Methyl Acrylate Tetrachlorvinphos 2,4,5-Trichlorobiphenyl BHC, Beta Dieldnn Methyl Iodide Tetrahydroturm 2.4-D BHC, Delta Diethyl Ether MOM Paraoxon Thallium 2,4 -DB BHC, Gemma (Undone) DiethyphChalate Meerylene Chloride" Tin " 2,4-Dinitrotduene - 8mme8 Dimethyphthalate Mithlbuzin - Toluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Brornoacetic Acid Di-N-Butylpht palate Mevinphos - Total Chromium 2-Butanone (MEK) Bromobenzene Diphenamid MGK 264 - Isomer A- Total Organic Carbon - 2-Chlombiphenyl Bmmochkxomemne Diqual MGK 264 - Isomer B Toxaphene 2-Chlwotoluene Bromernelhane E.Coti Mirex Trans-1.3-Dichbropropene 2-Hexanone Butachlor Endosdfan I Molinaro Trans-Nonachlor _ 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid Butylate Endosullan II Molybdenum Tarns -Permethrin 3-Hydroxycarbofumn Butylbenzylphthalate Endosultan Sulfate Naphthalene Tribromoacetic Aad 4,4' - DDD Cedmim Endrin Aldehyde Napropamide _ Triadimelom 4,4' -DDE Carbaryl_ EddN-Butylbenzene ". Tricycazole 4,4' - DDT Carbon Disulfide .. EPTC NltrBe TriBur:lin 4-Chlorotduene Chbramben Elnoprop Nitrobenzene Tritium 4-1sopropyltoluene Chlordane-. Ethylbenzene Nodlurazon Uranium 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Chlordane (Alpha) Ethyl Methacrylate N -Pr rrylbenzeneVa rad um -4-Nitrophenol Chlordane (Gamma) Eiridiazole Odor ,�. Vemolaw ..._ . Acenaphthylene Chlordane.(Techniral) Europium -152. Oxamyl Vinyl Chloride Acetochlw _ Chlordane (Trans Nf—chlor) Europium -154 o -xylene Zlnx:-65 Acelorw - ,.- .... Chlorobenzene , Europium -155 Paraquat - Zirconiunt-95 Acihuorfen Chlorobenzllate Fenarimol Pribulate -.. Acrylonitnte Cht—thane Flukl ne .. PenthachbropharKA Aldirarts - m Chloroethane FWwene - Phenanthrene: SPECIAL NOTICE FOR Customers .................. ........................1,637 BRENTWOOD AND FAIR HARBOR WATER DISTRICTS Regional Offices The Suffolk County Water Authority took over the operation of the Brentwood and Fair Harbor Water - Normal business hours, Monday -. Frkkry, 8:30 am - 5q0 p.m:•' .- Districts in 2000. Test mulls for Brentwood arc includedin the information found in the main section'' Wes/em Regiorul Office - of this report. Results from the Brentwood area my be found under DisnihhdonArra 12 Results far Fair �.- 260 Motor P4rkway, Heuppauge. NY 11788 (631) 582-2211 . Harbor are reported on page 12 ruderra Distribution AFHWD. Although these items are being provided stip- Central Regional Olde. - ars Lely. please be assured that information you read elsewhenrin this booklet about the protections and 2045 Route 1 I2 Suite 1. Comm. NY 11727 (631) 698-9500 services we offer to our customers applies to you as well. Eastern Regional Office SPECIAL NOTICE FOR RIVERSIDE WATER DISTRICT -,> 624 old Rivabcd Road. Westhampton Beata. NY 11978 (631) Z98 - 10-U' he For the Hearing Impaired. the TDD You will find information penaining to our testing of war& samples from your area on page 12 under Customer Service Nurhbw is Distribution Ara-RSWD..(According to our calculatiow we -serve approximately, 1734 people in , Admiafitrstaw Office Riverside.) Although these items are being provided separately, pleat be assured that informairon you _ ` prise Highway Oakdale, NY 11769 (631) 589-5200you ,cad elsewhere in this booklet about the protections and services we offer to our customers applies to - Emerg as well. - ay - Monday - F MonFriday 8:30 a.m. • 8:00 P.M. pietist call your regional office. SPECIAL NOTICE FOR STONY BROOK WATER DISTRICT ' An other noun (631) 665-0663 You will find information pertaining to our testing of water samples from your arca on this page along - with some statistics pertinent to your system. are listed below. Although these items are being.provid- Federal, PWS ID Numbers ed separately, please be assured that information you read elsewhere in this booklet about the protections Suffolk County Water Authority 5110526 and services we offer to our customers applies to you as well. .. - Brentwood Water District 5103692' SPECIAL NOTICE FOR CAMP HERO WATER DISTRICT Rwerside Water District 5105655' The Suffolk County Water Authority mak over operation of Camp Hem on September 28. 2001. Test • Stony Bniok Watei District 5103698 results from your area may be found on page 12 under Distribution Area CHWD. According to our cal- -. Fair Harbor Water District 5 11 (1599 cuations.: we serve approximately 72 people in Camp Hero.) Although these items arc being provided ' Camp Hero Water District - 5121774 separately, please be assured that information you read elsewhere in this booklet about the protections" and services we offer to our customers applies to you as well: - Need prom infarnalion aborti tz1 Please visit our weM'de at wwwsewn com'or ire its a Stony Brook Water District Statistics Customers .................. ........................1,637 Population Served .....................................4,911 - Miles of Main ............. .............................26 Fire Hydrants ............... .... ... .................218 Water Used (Billion Gallons) ............. ... ...... ... ..240 Average Annual Bill (101.0(10 gallons) .. ....... .. ..553 Water Billed (Billion Gallons) . .. ...... .. .... ... ..219 Percentage Lost..........................................9% • g ca!/ est 584-52(X). You EmcT alio"be interested iri anert.&g one of the meedng3'. of the., Suffolk County Water Authority Board of Directors. Please feel free to attend these meetings, which are generally held at 7 p.m. on the last Tuesday of the month at our head- quarters in Oakdale. 0 _- Suffolk County is Proud to be.a ° z Groundwater Guardian � � Community e; • 2002 Annual Water Quality Statement - Suffolk County Water Authority ND ND ND 2 1.03 (For Calendar Year 2001) 2.53 2 NO ND NO 2 ND ND ND Distribution Area RSWD Distribution Area SBWD Distribution Area F -H -WD -'-1 Distribution Area CHWD NO Range of Readnge ND Rev d ND 2 N Rd ND NO, d P..V p NA NA NA Low High Avg. No. d 0.16 2 A.¢ Nn d ND 2 M¢ No al low I A'9. Na of 0.14 Value Value Value Tela Vile Value Value The Vex. Veldt Vella Tela Vaka Value Value Tests Redimcdvay Gross Alpha act.*pCIA .. ... ND ND NO 1 ND NO NO 1 ND 26.5 4.38 20 NA NA NA 0 Gross Beta activity pClll .. ...... ND ND NO, 1 - ND ND NO 1 ND NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Bisnnitil-214 pCVI .. ........ NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA 0 Casn-137 pC M "-... ; ..' ... -..... m NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 Redon pCVI..................... NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 Inorganics Alkalinity, total mgA............. 34.0 36.0 35.0 2 30.4 60.2 45.3 2 33.4 3d.4 33.9 2 52.0 68.0 58.6 7 Aluminum mgA................ ND 0.02 ND 2 0.02 0.06 0.04 2 0.48 0.62 0.55 2 NA NA NA 0 Ammonia, free mpA ............. NO NO NO 2 ND NO ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND ND ND 3 Arsenic u94 ................... NO ND NO 2 ND ND NO 2 ND NO ND 2- NO 11.0 6.7 3 Asbestos MFL ................. NO ND NO 1 NO ND ND 1 ND 28.5 4.38. 20 NA NA NA O Barium mo .................. ND NO ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND ND NO. 2 ND 0.10 NO 3 Boron mgA ................... ND ND NO 2 ND ND NO 2 ND NO ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Bromide mgA ................. ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 NO ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 CO2, calculated mg4 3.3 3.5 3.4 2 1.9 3.7 2.8 2 8.1 8.1 8.1 1 NA NA NA 0 Callum mgA ..................' 8.9 10.3 9.6 2 10.0 24.2 17.1 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2 16.0 21.0 16.4 5 Chloride mgA ................. 7.3 7.7 7.5 2 7.6 21.6 14.7 2 4.8 4.9 4.8 2 10.0 110.0 80.2 24 Cobalt-59 ugA ................ I ND ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 NO ND NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Color lints ................... NO ND ND 2 NO ND ND 2 19 27 23 2 NO ND ND 3 Copper mgll .................. NO, ND ND 2 NO 0.03 ND 2 0.04 0.05 0.04 2 NA NA NA 0 Dissolved Solids, total mgA 52 55 54 2 51 129 90 2 52 52 52 1 NA NA NA 0 ,....... Fluoride mg4 ............ I ..... ND NO ND 2 NO ND ND 2 NO ND ND 2 NO ND ND 3 Hardness, total mgA ............ 32.0 34.6 33.3 2 29.4 76.4 52.9 2 ND 2.6 1.3 2 NA NA NA 0 Iron ugA ..................... ND ND ND 2 ND 33 NO 2 241 242 242 2 1700 5500 3600 2 Lead ugA .................... NO NO ND 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND NO 3 Uthlum ugA ................... ND 1.4 1.1 2 ND ND ND 2 6.7 6.8 6.7 2 NA NA NA 0 Magnesium mgA ............... 2.20 2.70 2.45 2 1.42 4.46 2.94 2 0.11 0.13 0.12 2 NA NA NA 0 0 Manganese ugn ............... N NO ND ND NO NO, ND 2 2 NO, ND ND 0.5 ND ND 2 2 ND ND ND ND NO ND 2 2 610 NA 1100 NA 860 NA 2 0 idta ugh .................... Nitrate myl................... ND ND ND 2 1.03 4.02 2.53 2 NO ND NO 2 ND ND ND 3 Perchlorate ugA .......:........ ND ND NO 2 ND NO ND 2 ND ND NO, 2 NA NA NA 0 Phospha a ortllq rr%4 ...........0.11 0.20 0.16 2 NO ND ND 2 0.42 0.93 0.67 2 ND 0.40 0.14 7 Phosphate, total M0 ........... 0.12 024 0.18 2 NO NO ND 2 0.69 1.95 1.32 2 NA NA NA 0 PH untie ..................... 7.3 7.3 7.3 2 7.5 7.5 7.5 2 6.9 6.9 6.9 2 6.5 6.7 6.6 2 PH , field tsi8a .........:....... NA NA NA' 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 72 7.6 7.3 7 potassium mg4 ................ 0.51 0.59 0.55 2 - 0.43 0.86 0.66 2 3.71 3.79 3.75 2 NA NA NA 0 Silicon mgA ................... 7.1 8.3 7.7 2 5.8 8.0 6.9 2 5.0 5.2 5:1 2 NA NA NA 0 Sodium rngA .................. 5.2 6.4 5.8 2 5.7 13.2 9.5 2 16.9 17.8 17.4 2 36.0 46.0 40.3 3 Specific Conductance ranhokin' - T02 103 104 2 - 95 ND 230 ND 163 ND 2 2 82 NO 90 ND OW NO 2 2 340 NA 460 NA 413. NA 7 0 Strontium-89ngAq ............. SuBata myl................... 0.03 5.3 0.03 6.5 0.03 5.9 2 2 2.4 9.5 5.9 2 4.7 5.1 4.9 2 13.0 18.0 15S 2 Tem nutria, aald'CNA NA NA 0 - NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 7 18 13 7 Titanium ugA ... :................ NO ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 25.9. 30.1 -3.1.3.0 28.0 2 NA NA NA 0 ' .............. Turbidity NT units 0.17 0.38_.0.28 - 2 0.32 0.33 0.33 2 2S' 2 NA NA NA 0 Zinc mgA . . . ................... ND NO ND' 2 ND ND ND 2 NO ND, - ND 2 0.02. 0.03 0.03 3 Synthetic Organic Compounds in,' dim, Penleidee and Herbicides (mair include daft eolWctOd over 1"112 yin) Alachlor ugn ............. .. NO ND'' ND 2 ND NO ND 2' ND ND NO 0 NA NA NA 0 AWicarb Buttons ugA .-. .'.....:-... ND ND' ND . 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Aldicarb Sutfoxide ugll ........... NO ND ""ND' -!2' ND ND ND 2 NO ND NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Atrazine ugA .................. ND ND ND - 2 ND NO NO 2. NO ND ND 0 ND ND ND 1 Carbofuman ugA ................ ND ND NO .2 ND ND NO 2 ND ND ND 2 NA NA .NA 0 1,2 Dibroneornethane (EDB) n94 ... ND ND NO. 2 NO ND ND 2 NO . , ND ND. , , 2 .. NA _NA NA 0 Dirlosebrgr .................. ND, ND NO 2 ND NO NO 2 ND •' ND ND '• ' 6 NA - NA NA 0 Metalaxyl ug4 ................. NO ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 NO NO ND 0 NA NA NA 0 Meldachfor ugA ............... NO NO ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND ND ND 0 NA NA NA 0 Simazine u9A ................. ND NO NO 2 ND ND ND 2 NO ND ND 0 ND ND ._. NO 1 TeVadVaoeerepil Add (rC FA) upA NO ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND NO ND 0 NA NA NA 0 VofaOle Organic Compounds Bromodichbrometherm ugA ....... ND ND ND 2 NO ND NO 2 NO ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Bromolorm ugA.................ND 1.2 0.7 2 NO ND NO 2 NO ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Carbon Tetrachloride ugA ........ ND NO ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND NO, ND 2 NO ND ND 3 Chlorodibromornetlmne ugA ...... ND- 0:5. - ND 2 NO ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Chloroform ugA ............... :: 0.6 0.7 0.7 2' NO ND ND 2 ND NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Cis-1,2-DlehforoelMne ugA ....... NO NO ND 2 ND ND NO 2 NO ND NO 2 ND NO ND 3 Dlddabdifluoromerllwo ugA ...... NO ND ND 2 NO ND NO 2 NO ND ND 2 NO ND ND 3 1,1-0ichlomeBene L94 . , , ....... ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 ND NO NO 2 NO ND ND 3 1,2-DidlloroelMne ug4 .......... ND NO, NO 2 ND ND ND 2 ND NO ND 2 ND NO ND 3 1,1-Dichkamelhens ug4 .......... NO NO ND 2 NO ND ND 2 NO NO NO 2 ND ND NO 3 1,2-DldNoropropam ugA ......... ND NO, ND 2 ND ND ND 2 NO ND NO 2 ND NO ND 3 Mffd*T-"3uly t- (MW ugA ... ND NO ND 2 ND ND ND 2 NO NO, NO 2 NO ND NO 3 Tebadtloma6rens ugA........... ND ND ND - 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND- ND 2 ND ND ND 3 Trans-12-didliomethane ugA ..... NO ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 NO ND ND 2 ND ND ND 3 1,1,1-Trichloroeewle ugA ........ ND ND ND 2 ND NO NO 2 ND NO NO 2 NO ND ND 3 Trick oolith0le uo ............. NO NO NO, 2 ND ND NO 2 ND NO ND 2 NO ND NO 3 Tridldc6utsoneeiane (Frew 11) ugA. ND ND ND 2 ND ND NO 2 ND ND ND - 2 ND NO ND 3 1,2,3-Trichforopropone ugA ....... NO ND ND 2 ND NO NO 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 3 1,12-Tdchlorotriluoroeftneugll .. ND ND NO 2 ND NO NO 2 ND ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0� p,m-X*- ugri ................ ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 2 ND ND ND 3 Disinfection By -Products Bronwchloroace0c Add ugA ...... NO NO ND 2 NO NO ND 2 ND 1.2 0.6 2 NA NA NA 0 Bromodidrbroaeetic Add ugn ..... ND ND NO 2 NO ND NO 2 ND ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Chforodibromoacetic Acid ugA . . : . . ND NO. ND 2 NO NO NO 2 NO ND ND 2 NA NA NA 0 Haloacetic Adds total (5) ugA - .... ND 0.4 NO 2 ND 0.3 ND 2 ND 3.3 0.7 2 NA NA NA 0 Trihatomethanes, otal ugA .... , ... ND 1,2 , 0.5 2 ND NO NO 2 NO NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 Suffolk County Nater Authority - Pure, Safe & Constantly Tested 12 - -----------_ ' "'002 Annual Water Quality Statement - Suffolk County Water Authority (For Calendar Year 2001) C�sirfbutlon Arae 21 yrd RnxA qa N2d ' HV� Are. Va4e 'Jahw Tena n.0 ND NO 4 ND NO NO 4 O NO NO 3 U NO NO l ND 255 NO 3 4 :250 71.5 31.7 22 r10 003 ND 20 ND NO NO 4 f:O 1.2 NO 20 �0 NO NO 20 'vD NO NO 20 ,100 -OE NO 10 1 25 1.8 4 8 10.4 9.3 4 6.1 9.5 7.5 10 AD NO NO 20 i10 ND ND 10 NO NO NO 4 54 51 4 ND ND NO 10 30.5 :.i6.0 34.5 4 O 37 NO 20 ND ND NO 4 NO 16 12 20 10 2.:i8 2.28 4 ND ND NO 20 `1O 1-0 NO 20 D^16 NO 10 N0 .1D ND 4 ND 0.23 NO . 10 rO 0.10 NO 4 7.77. 3 0 7.2 188 7.5 4 o - 7 . 0.43 0-61 0-56 20 4.8 8.7 77 20 1.5 7.4 5.3 20 106 102 4 0 ,1 0.04 0.03 20 50 7.0 6,3 10 11 13 12 20 NO NO NO 20 ,)27 0 72 0.38 10 NO NO NO 4 ND ND ND 0 ND NO NO 10 I* ND ND 10 NO NO 10 NO NO 10 ND NO 111 NO NO ND 10 NO ND NO 10 NO NO ND 10 NO ND NO 10 NO ND NO 10 ND 2-5 ND 35 ND 0.5 ND 35 NO ND NO 35 NO 1.9 NO 35. ND :3.2 0.7 35 NO NO NO 35 ND ND NO 35 ND NO NO 35 ND NO ND 35 NO NO NO 35 ND NO ND 35 NO NO NO 35 ND NO NO 35 ND NO ND 35 NO N0. NO35 NO ND ND 35 NO NO NO 35 NO ND NO 35 NO NO NO 35 NO NO NO 35 NO 0.9 NO 4 ND ND NO 4 NO NO ND 4 ND 1 4 NO 4 NO 32 08 4 9 Distrlbutlon Area 23 aa,>aa a a�amg.. r4a a ld Ho Avg T" VZ V.aue Vutie NO ND ND NO 4 ND 34 2A 4 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 ND 424 NO 51 13 93.4 36.7 155 ND 0.25 0.02. 171 ND 0.04 NO 39 " ND 1.2 NO :96 NO NO NO 96 NO NO NO 96 ND 0.21 O07 581 0.2 10.2 3.2 23 5.1 30.9 14.0 25 8.9 51.2 25.3 581 NO 6.0 NO 96 " NO 23 NO U NO 0.27 0.04 25 49 167 94 23 NO ND NO 581 2.0 108.6 51.5 26 NO 371 87 171 NO 4.7 ND 24 NO 5.9 /.7 % 1.71 6.08 5.57 25 NO 286 48 171 ND 9.4 1.4 174 ND 8.22 2.40 582 ND ND NO 61 NO 0.62 NO 581 -ND 8.27 0.39 25 6.4 8.8 7.5 25 6.2 9.0 7.3 131 0.50 3.00 0.92 96 4.8 9.5 TA 96 6-7 30.3 12.4 96 - 96 300 , 1.78 - 23 0.02 0.10 006 96 3.1 53.2 24.8 581 1 10 15 12 122 ND NO NO 96 ' 0.12 4.2 0.55 64 NO 0,07 NO 25 ND ND NO 77 ND 0.9 " ND 105 NO 0 a NO 105 NO. NO NO ' 77 NO ND ND 105 ND NO ND ' 358 NO NO NO 67 ND NO NO 77 NO NO NO 77 NO NO NO 77 NO 3.0 NO 67 NO 2.6 NO 153 NO 8.9 ND 153 NO N6 NO 153 NO 5.7 NO 153 NO 2-6 D.8 153 NO NO ND 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO : NO 153 NO NO ND - 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO NO 153 NO 2.3 - NO 153 NONO NO 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO NO 153 NO NO NO153 NO ND NO 153' ND 0.5 NO 153 NO 0.6 NO 22 NO NO NO 22 NO ND NO Z2 NO 0.8 NO 22 NO 2.0 NO 22 Dlstrlbutlon:Area NO ND ld ri9h . m% Telfa Vale Value Vsk. NO NO NO NO 2 NO NO NO '' 2 INA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 ND 246 NO 19 12.8 100.4 39.1 115 - NO 016 0.02 124 NO 0.02 NO _ -22 NO NO NO 70 NO NO NO 70 NO NO NO 70 NO 0.12 0.05 238 -. 0.5 7.1 2.6 13 8.5 36.5 16.8 14 9.1 37.0 4.4 238 NO NO NO - - 70 NO 18 ND 40 NO 0.10 0.02 ' 14 62 -195 D6 '13 NO NO ND 238 25.0 116.0 55.8 14 ND 460 135 124 NO 3.0 NO 14 NO 1.5 NO 70 1.61 - 7-80. 3.53 14 NO 70 NO 124 NO 3.4 0.8 - 125 - NO 7.04 2.35 -238 NO NO NO 27 NO 0.38 ND 238 - NO, NO NO 14 7.2 8.7 7.6, ::14 6.5 - 8.6 -7.2 97 - 0.43 1.89 -0.83 70 4.5 9.6.8.0 9.5 70 6,4 19.5 11.6 70 - 117 ., 354 --. 179 13- 0.01 -.0.12 0.04 70 3.2 ; 47.5 15.8 237 8 14 12 " 91 " NO NO NO 70 0.11 2.0 . 0.49 40 ' NO 0.10 0.02 14 . NO NO ND 102: NO 1.3 NO 53 NO 1.7 NO 53 NO 0.9 NO 102 NO NO NO 53 ND 31 NO .-474 NA NO NO - NO 39 NO " ND' NO .. 102 NO NO NO 102 NO 1.0 ND'... 102. NO 1.9 NO 39 NO 1.3. ND 117 NO - 22 NO 117 ND NO NO 117 NO 2-1 NO 117 ND 12 '2.2 117 ND .ND NO 117 NO NO NO 117 NO - ND NO . 117 NO NO NO 117 NO Nb NO 117 NO ND NO 117 NO 1.3 NO 117 - NO - NO - ND:.-. 117: .ND NO NO 117 NO NO NO 117 NO NO NO 117 NO ND NO 117 ND NO NO 117 NO NO N0 117: NO NO NO 117 NO 0.8 NO 13 NO NO NO 13 NO NO NO 13, NO 0.7 NO 13 NO 4.2 0.5 13 Distribution Area 26 1 Oarga d Readrgs Nn of tna High Avg Te Vahe Vm- Vaho. NO NO NO NO 2 ND 3.2 NO 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NO 265 NO 10 22.6 105.6 48.1 170 NO 0.22 0.03 268 '. ND 0.02 NO 22 NO NO NO 81 NO 0.11 NO 81 NO NO NO at NO 0.32 NO 552 0.2 41.0 4.9 - 17' 10.4 32.4- 14.8. 62 22.4, 137.2 53.5 552 NO 3,5 NO 81 NO 13 NO 35 NO 0.57 0.09 227 93 219 161 17 NO NO NO 552 45.4 122.6 72.9 18 NO 1188 156. 263 NO 4.6 NO 234 NO 3.1 12' 81 3.15 10.17 6.88 62 NO - 199 43 - 267 NO 4.6 0.7 246 NO 2.81 1.10 553 NO NO NO 26' l NO 1.43 621 552 ND. 2.75. 0.50. 235. 6.0 8.8 7.6 18 5.� 8.9 7.1 ''- 152 .0..3 2.19 1.63 81 7.3 11.3 9.5 81 ..14.9 50.8 31.4. .81 t55 : 502 294 -470 004 0.12 0.08'. 81 6.6- 22.6:' 12.3 552 5 16, 12 141 NO NO NO 81 013 . 3.2 0.87 37 NO 0..14 ND' 234 NO - NO NO 106 NO NO ND 26 - NO NO NO 26 ND NO NO - 106 NO NO NO 26 NO NO NO 193 NO NO NO 33 -- NO : 0.4 NO 106 NO 0.1 - NO 1D6 NO NO NO 106 NO NO NO 33 NO 2.1 - NO 93 NO 21 0.7 93 NO NO NO .. 93 NO 7.0 NO 93 NO 7.0 1.7 93 NO 0.8 ND.. 93 NO 1.0 NO 93 ND NO ND - 93 NO NO NO 93 NO NO NO 93, NO. NO ND 93 ND 6.9 , 0.5 93 NO NO, NO 93 . NO NO NO 93 NO NO NO 93 NO NO NO 93 NO NO NO 93 NO _ NO NO 93 ND ND ND-. 93 ND NO NO 93 NO 0.9 NO 19 ND NO NO - _ 19 NO NO NO 18 N 2.7 NO 19 NDO 7.6 0.7 19 Distrilxrtfoq Area 27 P -V- L- Wy1 Avg. Tests VabA Veto Veto NO NO NO 1 NQ NO NO 1 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 328 328 328 1- 12.6 30.6 22.2 20 ND 0.15 0.03 42 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO '6 NO NO NO - 6 ND NO NO 6 NO 023 NO 60 1.1 4.5 2.7 4 4.9 11.8 8.1 4 21.1 106.9 - .57.2 59 NO NO NO - 6 NO 8 NO 6 ND 0.14 NO - 41 84 175 118 4 NO NO NO 60 25,6 50.8 36.8 . 4 274. 916 486 42 NO NO NO 41 NO NO NO 6 2.46. 4.96 342 4 NO 49• 21 42 1.3. 6.1 25 43 NO 034 0.28 60 " NO ND ND' 4 NO 122 0.66 60 0.73 2.79. 1.72 41 6.9 7-6 7-2 ' 4 - 6.4 8.7 72 16 0.96 133 1.11 6 7.4 7.9 7.7 6 16.5 42.7 26.4 6. 142 , 352 " 1242 58 003 0.07 ;'0.04. 6 4.5 17.4 13.8 60 5.. -14 12- 14 NO NO NO 6 0.15 4-2 1.1 6 NO 0.07 - NO 40 ND NO NO 7 NO NO - NO 4 NO NO NO ' 4 NO NO NO 7 NO NO NO 4 NO NO NO 16, NO NO NO 6 NO - NO NO "7 ND. 1 ANO ' NO 7 NO NO ND' 7 ND NO NO 6 NO. 1.0 NO 5 t ND 1.8 ND 5 NO NO NO 5 NO 2.1 NO 5 0.6 1.0 0-8 5 NONSD NO .5 NO NO NO 5 NO ND NO 5 ND NO - NO 5 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO 5 - NO NO NO 5 NO NO' NO : 5 ND NO NO '5 NO NO NO 5 NO NO NO 5 ",NO ND NO 5 NO NO NO - 5 NO NO NO 5 NO NO ND 5 ND NO ND 4 NO ND NO 4 NO NO NO 4 - ND 0.7 NO 4 NO 2.1 06 4 _ Distribution Area 30 Ferge d aeadkgW Nn d L- Hgh Avg:. Te V A Ve4o Vaho ND ND NO 3 NO - 3.6 2.7 3 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NO 251 NO -36 9.2 105.8 49.2 229 ND 0.13 "-NO 269 NO .0.01 NO, 39 NO NO - NO 72 NO NO ND 72 ND NO NO 72 NO 0.61 - 0.09 -1058 NO 272 5.8 28 - 0.9 52.0 22.5'--- 29 9.2 1864 47:6. 1058 NO ND'' NO ' 72 NO 34 NO 72 NO 0.25 0.05 ` 63 96 360 198... 28 NO NO - NO 1058 ND 149.8 82.5.,. 29. NO 465 ND' ' 269 ND' 4.6 NO 65 ND 25 NO -72 0.29 11.37 737 31 NO - 183 17 269 NO 2.7 0.7 243 ND 9.32 4.28 1057 NO 5.8 NO. 176 NO 0:98 NO 1050 NO 1.10 023 65 - 58. 8.7 72 30,. 5.8 8.0 7.0 22,3 0.40 6.76 2.37 71 - 3.9 94 6.8 72 8.7 86.5 27.4 " 71 176.' 652 368159 NO 0.17 009 7-2 3.0 83.7 37.9 ..1057 7 14 12 212 NO - NO NO 72 0.13 42 0.50 72 NO 0.23 002 65 ND �0.1 NO, 218 NO 22 0.5 102 NO 2.8 0.6 102 ND NO NO 217 NO NO ND, 102 ND NO NO 376 NO 1.6 NO 256. ND 2.5 NO 212 NO 0.9 NO 212 NO 0.3 NO 217 NO 13 ND 254 NO ° :2.9 NO, 155. . NO 3.7 NO 155 NO NO ND 155 NO 3.9 NO -155 NO 6.0 NO 155, NO NO NO. 155,. NO - NO ND 155 NO NO NO 155 NO NO NO, 155. NO. NO ' NO 155 ND' NO .. NO 155 NO 4.1' .ND 155 NO NO NO 155 NO NO ND 155 NO NO ND 155 NO NO NO 155, NO NO ND 155 NO NO NO 155 NO NO NO 155 NO NO NO 155 NO 22 NO 21 NO 0.8 NO 21 NO ND NO 19 ND 3.3 0.3 21 NO 4.7 1.0 22 2002 Annual Water Quality Statement Suffolk County Water Authority! (For Calendar Year 2001,) iii Distribution Area 32 Range d Readrip No d Low Hip Avg Tab Distribution Ares 3+ ' Distribution Ares 35 Rarge d Reedrga Ned Raged Ratidrgs 11, d 1nw Ho ' Arg. Tess I L- ti2h A.'4 Tata Value 1 J Value Veha Vak. Vekte NO NO NO 1 ND NO NO / HA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 ND NO ND 2 21.6 41.4 342 NO 0.04 ND ND ND No ND NO ND NO NO ND No 0.1 ND ND 0.08 0-05 0.6 4.8 2.2 192 20.5 19.6 15.4 19.1 16.7 ND ND NO NO ND ND - NO 0.04 0.02 95 116 105 ND ND NO 62.6 69.8 65.5 ND 58 45 ND NO NO 1.8 2.1 2.0 4.12 4.98 4.55 NO 28 15 NO 1.9 1.0 0.63 1,46 0.91 NO ND ND NO NO ND ND. 0.10 - ND 7.8 8.1 8.0 8.9 8.5 7.4 0.63 0.85 0.74 9.1 9.4 9.2 9.3 11.0 - 10.3 1B7 203' 194 0.05 0.07 0.06 23.5 37.9 28.0 11 12 12 NO NO ND 0.32 0.78- 0.51 ND ND NO ND NO ND 7 NO NO ND 4 ND NO ND 4 _ ND NO ND 7 NO NO ND 4 ND ND - NO 17 NO ND ND 6 NO NO ND 7 NO NO NO 7 ND NO NO 6 ND NO ND 0 NO 2.0 NO 6 NO 4.6 0.9 6 ND ND NO 6 NO 4.8 0.9 - 6 NO 0.8 ND� 6 NO NO ND 6 NO ND ND 6 NO ND NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO NO NO 6 NO ND ND 6' NO ND NO 6 ND ND ND 6 ND -- NO ND 6 NO NO ND 6 NO NO NO 6 ND' ND ND 6 NO ND NO 6 ND NO ND 6 ND • NO ND 6 NO 0.6 ND 3 NO NO .ND 3 NO ND 'ND 3 NO 0.8 ND 3 NO 4.8 1.2 3 10 NO NO NO 1 3.9 3.9 3.9 1 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 15.6 - 120.6 84.7 23 NO 0.03 ND 9 NO NO ND 5 ND NO ND 8 :. NO NO NO 8 ND ND ND 8 ND NO ND 60 ND 11.8 5.6 5 22 452 32.3 5 2.0 10.1 4.7 60 NO NO NO 8 No NO ND 8 ND 0.08 0.03 5 59 359 257 5 ND- ND. ND 60. 7.0 m.0 1272 5 NO 88 ND e NO NO ND 5 NOND - NO, 8 0.78 13.91 10.80. 5 ND NO ND 8`. ND - 0.8 - 0;5 8 - 2.96 8.89 5.09 60 NO 3.5 ND 10 NO 0.38 ND 60 ND NO NO 5 6.7 7.8 7.3 5 6.6 7.6 7-2 18 . 0.63 4.30 2.37 8 1.0.. 8.7 6.4 , 6: 14.4 52.8 32.5 8 49 601 127 66 0,11 0.20 0.15 - 8 NO 4.1 1.4 00 12 14 12 17 NO NO NO: - 8 0.20 s^ 0.34. 8 NO 0.04 - 0.02 5 ND NO ND; 9 No 0.7 NO' 15 ND 0.6 ND 15 NO ND NO 9 NO ND NO ;, 15 NO: - ND NO ): 10 NO NOND ;, 176 NO 0.5 No 9 NO ND" ND.' 9 ND. NO ND .9 ND- 134 16 178 NO ND' NO NO ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO NO. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND,, 40 2.2 NO 40 ND ND 46 0.7 ND: 40 72 0.9 40 NO NO 40 ND NO 40 ND % No ! " 40 NO NO 40 ND .. ND 40 ND ND 40 No ND 40 NO + ND 40 ND ND 40 NO NO 40 ND NO 40 ND ND 40 ND NO 40 NO ND 40 NO ND 40 NO ND 4 ND ND 4 ND NO 4 0.6 ND 4 2.2 0.5 4 Distributlon Ares 44 (- Dlstrlbutlon Ares 4� Rags d Raedq - Value Va1us Wks to RsdloactHlty , To" lav High Gross Alpha activity pC0 ......... NO NO NO 1 Gross Bete activity PCO ......... ND ND ND 1 BN th-214 pan .............. NA NA NA 0 Cashm-137 pCN .............. NA NA NA 0 Radon pCUI................... ND NO ND 7 Inorganics NA NA NA 0 Alkalinity, total mgA ............. 28.6. 65.2 41.9 16 Nummum rng4 .... ........... NO 0.07 ND 28 Ammonia, free mg4 .........: .:. ND ND NO 4 -- Arsenic ugA........:......... . ND ND No 8 . Rutflum mgA .................. ND ND NO B Boron mgA ................... ND ND ND 8 Bromide g4 .................ND r'94- 6 0.11 ND 37 CO2. calculated m9A ............ 6.3 11.4 8.2 4 Calcium mgA .................. 12.8 23.fi 16.9 4 Chloride n19A .....::.......... 8.9 59.9 29.5 37 Cobaft-59 ug,4 ... . ........... NO ND No B Color units .-............ . ....... ND NO NO - 10 Copper mg4 .................. ND 0.14 6.05 4 ' Dissolved Solids, total -V ....... 80 - 102 92 4 Fluoride mgA .... . ............ ND ND ND 37 Hardness. totalmgA. , .......... 43.4 69.4 52.4 5 Iron ugA ..................... NO 37. NO 28 Lead ugA ........... ......... NO 4.6 NO 4 Lithium ug4 ................... ND NO ND -8 Magnesium mgA ............... 217 3.56 2.78 4 Manganese ugA ............... ND NO ND 28 Nickel uyl .................... NO. 1.7 ND 28 Nitrate mg4 ................... NO 1.28 0.84 37 Perchlorate ugA ................ NO ND NO 9 Phosphate, ont10 mgA ........... ND 0.24 ND 37 Phosphate, total mgA ........... NO ND ND' 4 pH units ........ . ...... I - .... 69 7.3 7.1 4 - pH, laid units ....... :....... ... 7.0 Z8 7.4 12 Potassium mgA .. ............... 0.50 1.02 " 0.68 8 Silicon m94 . . ..... ........... 4.7 - 5.6 5.1 8 Sodium mgA ..'.........:...... 9.3 34.4- 17.5. 8 ' Spedsc Condalxrw uTabm ........ 144 200 170- 6 Stronfi -89 mgA ... .......... 0.03 0.06 0.05 8 Sulfate rayl ................... 3.0 27.5 10:1" 36 Temperatue, field'C ........... 10 12 it - 11 Titanium ugn .................. ND ND ND 8 Turbidity NT tufts .. ......... 0.!x- 0 95 0.44_ 10 Zinc mgA.................... No 0.02 ND^ 4 Synthatic Organic Compounds Including Pastlddu ane - Herbicidas (ray Include data coltected mar last 2 years) 1.5 Alachlorug4 . ........... ..:... ND ND ND - 24 Aldicarb Sutkno ttgA ........ ... NO NO ND " 13 Aldicarb Sulloxide. ugA ...... ..... NO, ND ND- 13 Atrazine ugA ........... . .... ND ND No 24 Carboturen ugA ... ... .... :..... NO NO. NO. 13 12 DDrmnrneftate (EDB) ngt . .. -... ND - ND, NO . 41 Diroseb ugA ....... ..... . .... . ND 6.6, 0.2 32 Metalaxyl ug4 ................. ND - ND ND - 24 Metoiachlor ugA ............... ND 41.. 1.7 24 Slmazme uyi ...... .......... ND - NO - ND ` 24 Tet adiorderepftefe Aad (TCA4) t91 .. NO 3.3 ND 32 Volatile Organic Compounds 6 4.2 6.7 6.1 Bromodich lixomedharle ugA .. ... ND 0.9 NO 13 Brorroform IgA ................ NO ND ND 13 Carbon Tetrachloride u9A ........ ND ND ND 13 Chlorodibronto at have IgA ... No -. .0.8 N0.' 13 CNorobrm ugA ................. NO 14 3.5 13 Cis-1,2-Dichloroathene ug/l ....... NO - ND. ND 13 Didrbodluaortte7sne t9l ........ ND NO ND 13 1,1-Dichloroethane u94 ........... NO, NO ND 13 1,2-Dichloroethane ugA .......... ND ND NO 13' 1,1-Dichloroethene ugA .......... ND ND ND 13 1,2-Dichloropropane ug4 ......... ND ND ND 13 MetY,+Tert-Butyl-Efter (MTEEQ ug1 .... ND ND NO 13 Tetrachloroethene ugA ............ NO NO ND 13 Trans-l,2-dichlcroe8lene IgA ..... NO NO ND 13 1.1,1-Trichbroelfrane t194 ........ NO NO ND -- 13 Trichloroethene ugA ............. ND ND ND 13- Ted*,uh-anelhaie (Fenn 11) ug1 .. NO - ND ND 13 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ugA . - ND ND ND 13 1; 1,2Trichlorotriluoroethane ugA .. ND ND ND 13 p,m-Xylene 119A ................ NO ND ND .' 13 Disinfection By -Products Bromochloroacetic Acid IgA .... NO NO ND 5 Bromodichloroacetic Aad ugA ..... NO ND NO 5 Chbrodibromoacetic Acid rg4 ..... ND ND ND 5 Haloacetic Acids total (5) ugA ..... ND 0.4 NO - 5 Trihatornetharles, wail ug/I ........ ND 7.0 1.0 7 Distribution Ares 3+ ' Distribution Ares 35 Rarge d Reedrga Ned Raged Ratidrgs 11, d 1nw Ho ' Arg. Tess I L- ti2h A.'4 Tata Value 1 J Value Veha Vak. Vekte NO NO NO 1 ND NO NO / HA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 ND NO ND 2 21.6 41.4 342 NO 0.04 ND ND ND No ND NO ND NO NO ND No 0.1 ND ND 0.08 0-05 0.6 4.8 2.2 192 20.5 19.6 15.4 19.1 16.7 ND ND NO NO ND ND - NO 0.04 0.02 95 116 105 ND ND NO 62.6 69.8 65.5 ND 58 45 ND NO NO 1.8 2.1 2.0 4.12 4.98 4.55 NO 28 15 NO 1.9 1.0 0.63 1,46 0.91 NO ND ND NO NO ND ND. 0.10 - ND 7.8 8.1 8.0 8.9 8.5 7.4 0.63 0.85 0.74 9.1 9.4 9.2 9.3 11.0 - 10.3 1B7 203' 194 0.05 0.07 0.06 23.5 37.9 28.0 11 12 12 NO NO ND 0.32 0.78- 0.51 ND ND NO ND NO ND 7 NO NO ND 4 ND NO ND 4 _ ND NO ND 7 NO NO ND 4 ND ND - NO 17 NO ND ND 6 NO NO ND 7 NO NO NO 7 ND NO NO 6 ND NO ND 0 NO 2.0 NO 6 NO 4.6 0.9 6 ND ND NO 6 NO 4.8 0.9 - 6 NO 0.8 ND� 6 NO NO ND 6 NO ND ND 6 NO ND NO 6 NO ND NO 6 NO NO NO 6 NO ND ND 6' NO ND NO 6 ND ND ND 6 ND -- NO ND 6 NO NO ND 6 NO NO NO 6 ND' ND ND 6 NO ND NO 6 ND NO ND 6 ND • NO ND 6 NO 0.6 ND 3 NO NO .ND 3 NO ND 'ND 3 NO 0.8 ND 3 NO 4.8 1.2 3 10 NO NO NO 1 3.9 3.9 3.9 1 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 15.6 - 120.6 84.7 23 NO 0.03 ND 9 NO NO ND 5 ND NO ND 8 :. NO NO NO 8 ND ND ND 8 ND NO ND 60 ND 11.8 5.6 5 22 452 32.3 5 2.0 10.1 4.7 60 NO NO NO 8 No NO ND 8 ND 0.08 0.03 5 59 359 257 5 ND- ND. ND 60. 7.0 m.0 1272 5 NO 88 ND e NO NO ND 5 NOND - NO, 8 0.78 13.91 10.80. 5 ND NO ND 8`. ND - 0.8 - 0;5 8 - 2.96 8.89 5.09 60 NO 3.5 ND 10 NO 0.38 ND 60 ND NO NO 5 6.7 7.8 7.3 5 6.6 7.6 7-2 18 . 0.63 4.30 2.37 8 1.0.. 8.7 6.4 , 6: 14.4 52.8 32.5 8 49 601 127 66 0,11 0.20 0.15 - 8 NO 4.1 1.4 00 12 14 12 17 NO NO NO: - 8 0.20 s^ 0.34. 8 NO 0.04 - 0.02 5 ND NO ND; 9 No 0.7 NO' 15 ND 0.6 ND 15 NO ND NO 9 NO ND NO ;, 15 NO: - ND NO ): 10 NO NOND ;, 176 NO 0.5 No 9 NO ND" ND.' 9 ND. NO ND .9 ND- 134 16 178 NO ND' NO NO ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO NO. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND,, 40 2.2 NO 40 ND ND 46 0.7 ND: 40 72 0.9 40 NO NO 40 ND NO 40 ND % No ! " 40 NO NO 40 ND .. ND 40 ND ND 40 No ND 40 NO + ND 40 ND ND 40 NO NO 40 ND NO 40 ND ND 40 ND NO 40 NO ND 40 NO ND 40 NO ND 4 ND ND 4 ND NO 4 0.6 ND 4 2.2 0.5 4 Distributlon Ares 44 (- Dlstrlbutlon Ares 4� Rags d Raedq - Not - . Raga of Raadrga tb. d to Ho Ag To" lav High Aa. Tate V" Vasa VNw 15 V" Value Valod 6 NO NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 ND NO NO 2 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA-, 0 ND NO NO 1' , NA NA NA 0 7.0 31.0 182 13 24.4 50.8. 40.6 5 ND O.D3 NO 6 No NO ND 0 NO ..NO - NO 4 NO ` NO - . W 2 ND No NO. 8 NO ND .-ND 6 NO NO NO .8 ND ND No -6 NO NO ND 6 No ND ND. 6 No NO. ND 6 ND 0.09 OA6 9 12 4.3 3.0 3 2.5 _ 4.6 3.5 2 2.0 9.8 52 4 12.6 13.1 12.6 2 8.4 12.6 10.0. 6 15.4 20.5 18.6 9 ND NO NO 8 ND ND ND 6 ` ND B ND 6 ND 9' NO 6 NO 0.18 0.06 4 0.13 020 0.16 2 44 64 51 3 186 189 187 2 ND ND ND 6 ND ND ND 9 11.2 38.4 22.7 4 69.0 74.4 71.7. 2 ND 51 ND -e 52, 529 167 9 NO 1.8. NO 4 - ND 1.2 1.0 _2 ND 1.1 ND 8 ND ND NO 6 1.61 2.62 2.20 4 8.32 9.00 8.68 2 NO - ND ND 8 - No - NO NO 9 NO. NO ND - e 1.1' - 23 1.5 10 NO 0.81 0.18 6 -4.30 - 5.01 4.63 9 NO:: NO. NO 5 NO 6.9 36' 4 ND NO NO 6 NO No ND 9 NO NO .NO 4 NO ND NO 2 6,1 7.7 6.9 4 7.3 7.5 - T5. 2 8.0 7.5-. 6.8 9 -. 7.0 7.5.: 72, 3 0.50 .0.78 %-0.66' .8 1.06 '1.16 1.11' 6 4.2 6.7 6.1 8 - 6.2 - 7A 6.8., 6 5.0 9.0 7.5 8 14.2 37.6 73.8' 6 60. 121. 87 .4 315 329 322 2 0,01.. 0.04.' 0.02 8 - .0.07 0.00 a08;; 8- 5.8 8:4 7.4 6 46.9 - 61Z - 56.4'. 9 10 13 12 9 12' 13''` 13 -- 2 ND ND NO 8- NO ND ND 6 021. 1.2 - 0.50 6 - 0.63 1.4 0.79 6 ND 0.122 O.D3 4 -. 0.11 0.19. 0.15 2 No,, ND NO, - . 5 ': ND' No ND 4 ND No ND 6 10 30 1.6 15 NO ND ND 6 ND' 4.0 1.9_ 15 ND NO ND '- 5 ND ND ND 4 ND. : ND ND 8' ND --".- ND No 15 NO, - ND NO 10 No - No ND 8 - NO No NO 5 NO - ND No 4' ND ND . No. 5 :" ND ND ND 4 ND NO - NO 5 - NO -. ND - ND '.- 4 - NO, ND) NO '• 5 ND -' ND ND '- 4' NO NO ND 5 NO NO ND 4 - . ND . 1.9 NO 6 ND - ND . ND - 4 NO t.i ND 6 NO - NO - ND 4 ND ND ND 6 ND -. ND ND . 4 ND 2.7 ND - 6: ND ND "- ND 4 1.5 2.7 2-2 - 6 ND - ' ND 14D 4 NO: NO, ND : 6 ND.- NO ND,. 4 NO. ND-. ND,, 6 ; .., . NO- No - ND 4 No '- NO - ND "6 -.- ND '' NO ND 4 - ND - NO ND 6' ND NO ND 4 NO - NO : ND 6 NO ', ND ND 4 -, ND NO NO 6 No NO ND 4 NO ND ND 6 No ND NO 4 NO ". ND - ND 6 NO ND ND 4 ND No ND' 6' NO, ND' ND 4 NO ND ND - 6 NO NO ND - 4 ND - ND ND 6 ND - ND _ ND - 4 ND NO ND 6 NO NO. ND 4 NO NO ND 6 - NO ND ND 4 NO ND. ND 6 ND ND ND 4 ND NO ND 6 ND - ND ND 4 ND 1.0 0.5 2 ND ND - ND 2 NO ND " ND 2 ND ND ND 2 ND NO NO 2 NO ND ND 2 ' NO 1.3 02 2 ND 0.4 NO 2 NO 2.7 1.2 2 ND 2.3 0.8 2 • Appendix 4 Production Well Information .7 Page 1 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold . h;€onth STN ra#IQ. leli�iatn� . "I*1ER .. P a `aiS Pt ;H�urtatsn W Crals :I 30 1 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 2624000 30 2 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 955000 30 30 3 4 341 ACKERLY POND LA 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 1 33775 33775 0 0 0 0 2026000 11840001 30 5 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 48120001 30 6 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 8750000 30 7 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 14095000 30 8 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 15279000 30 9 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 6850000 30 10 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 3710000 30 11 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 1460000 30 12 341 ACKERLY POND LA 1 33775 0 0 5080000 30 1 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 2624000 93 2624000 30 2 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 955000 34 _ r 955000 30 3 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 _ 2026000 71 2026000 30 4 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 1184000 43 1184000 30 5 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 4812000 165 4812000 30 6 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 8750000 305 8750000 30 7 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 14095000 495 14095000 30 8 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 15032217.39 567 15279000 30 9 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 6687181.664 230 6850000 30 10 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93.794 3173405.91 110 3710000 30 Ill 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 1202352.941 14 1460000 30 12 341 ACKERLY POND LA 2 93794 4242889.391 148 5080000 30 1 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 11941.5 0 0 2624000 30 21 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 0 0 955000 30 3 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 0 0 2026000 30 4 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 0 0 1184000 30 5 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 0 0 4812000 30 6 341 ACKERLY POND LA 13 119415 0 0 8750000 Page 1 of 18 Page 2 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold rt .. :::<::::��€��:;::.:::>..>:: 30 7 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 0 0 14095000 30 8 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 246782.6087 42 15279000 30 9 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 162818.3362 28 6850000 30 10 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 536594.0902 93 3710000 30 11 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 257647.0588 15 1460000 30 12 341 ACKERLY POND LA 3 119415 837110.6095 146 5080000 30 1 343 BREMNOCK HALL i 1 76772 4013000 3051 4013000 30 2 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 2304000 177 2304000 30 3 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 2208000 186 2208000 30 4 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 4061000 258 _ 4061000 30 5 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 2455750 188 4807000 30 6 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 2113189.493 163 3455000 30 7 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 7677.2. 2624000 198 4920000 30 8 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 2567415.409 197 4102000 30 9 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 1661819.135 127 2496000 30 101 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76 772 1824603.482 140 3369000 30 111 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76 772 1995000 154 3705000 30 12 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 1 76772 1315492.362 101 2771000 30 1 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 0 0 4013000 30 2 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 0 0 2304000 30 3 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 11809_7 0 0 2208000 30 4 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 0 0 4061000 30 5 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 2351250 240 4807000 30 61 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 1341810.507 138 3455000 30 7 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 2296000 231 4920000 30 8 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 12 118097 1534584.591 157 4102000 30 9 343,BREECKINOCK HALT 2 118097 834180.8651 851 24960001 301 10 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 118097 1544396.518 158 3369000 30 11 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 1180971 1710000 176 3705000 301 12 343 BRECKNOCK HALL 2 1 1180971 1455507.638 149 2771000 Page 2 of 18 Gaga 3, of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold ZONF .. Ian S Nta€xt+ e3e. NTlE13 e °:as . Pu Ht tal,iz FLt1V Vials 35 1 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 133168 42 237800 35 2 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 75845.58824 25 206300 35 3 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 113145.3488 39 249500 35 4 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 11786_3 184287.4016 63 371500 35 5 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 378287.747 133 719600 35 6 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 11786_3 425171.5302 154 775800 35 7 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 767459.4378 268 1426100 35 8 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 642973.4513 239 1216000 35 9 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 123893.4911 381 551000 35 10 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 17500 5 577500 35 11 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 58604 14 418600 35 12 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 2A 117863 225256.6372 55 462800 35 1 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 104632 33 237800 35 2 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 130454.4118 43 206300 35 3 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 136354.6512 47 249500 35 4 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 187212.5984 64 371500 35 5 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 341312.253 120 719600 35 6 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 350628.4698 127 775800 35 71 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 999013 658640.5622 230 1426100 35 8 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 573026.5487 213 1216000 35 9 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 427106.5089 131 551000 35 10 339 BROWNS HII,LS RD 3 99908 560000 160 577500 35 11 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 359996 86 418600 35 12 339 BROWNS HILLS RD 3 99908 237543.3628 58 462800 45 1 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 24335.52632 30 102750 45 2 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 39993.92097 43 102000 45 3 370 EVERGREEN RD 1EE118364 46184.21053 52 78750 45 4 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118-3 991.2587413 1 47250 Gaga 3, of 18 Page 4 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold . ..... . fixals .: 45 5 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 79934.21053 33 168750 45 6 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 29412.47265 29 154570- 45 7 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 35586.73469 31 131250 45 81 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 24286.25954 14 151500 45 9 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 19095.18072 12 88050 45 10 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 39287.7551 21 213900 45 11 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 42000 25 210000 45 12 370 EVERGREEN RD 1 118364 56404.7619 231 154500 45 1 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 78414.47368 29 102750 45 2 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 62006.07903 20 102000 45 3 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 32565.78947 11 78750 45 41 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 46258.74126 14 47250 45 51 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 88815.78947 11 168750 45 6 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 125087.5274 37 154500 45 7 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 95663.26531 25 131250 45 8 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 127213.7405 22 151500 45 9 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 68954.81928 13 88050 45 10 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 174612.2449 28 213900 45 11 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 168000 30 210000 45 12 370 EVERGREEN RD 2 118363 98095.2381 12 154500 30 1 321 INLET DR 1A 105669 2353355.963 178 4323300 30 2 321 INLET DR IA 105669 2065534.405 157 4091600 30 3 321 INLET DR 1A 105669 1270104.79 99 2142500 30 4 321 INLET DR IA 105669 821282.4561 62 1510100 30 5 321 INLET DR IA 10566_9 1942396.552 141 3595500 30 6 321 INLET DR IA 105669 3441466.983 256 5659600 I 30 71 3211INLET DR 11A 1 1056691 2915875.622 220 5328100 30 8 321 INLET DR 1A 105669 2195191.776 163 4094100 30 9 321 INLET DR lA 105669 1389541.176 119 3374600 30 10 321 INLET DR 1A 105669 2852059.091 297 4647800 Page 4 of 18 • Page 5 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold ?ttelNa T 1i4R e Cra3 P Haurs:latipnFLC?1V Ga1o:; 30 11 321 INLET DR 1A 105669 2905444.66 288 5195500 30 12 321 INLET DR lA 105669 2159732.889 197 4933400 30 1 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 1969944.037 149 4323300 30 2 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 2026065.595 154 4091600 30 3 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 872395.2096 68 2142500 30 4 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 688817.5439 52 1510100 30 5 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 1653103.448 120 3595500 30 6 321 INLET DR 2A 10834_7 2218133.017 165 5659600 30 7 321 INLET DR 2A 108:347 2412224.378 182 5328100 30 8 321 INLET DR 2A 108:347 1898908.224 141 4094100 30 9 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 1985058.824 170 3374600 30 10 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 1795740,909 187 4647800 30 11 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 2290055.34 227 5195500 30 12 321 INLET DR 2A 108347 2773667.111 253 4933400 30 1 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 0 0 0 30 2 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 0 0 0 30 3 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 0 0 0 30 41 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 0 0 0 30 5 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 36:7 0 0 0 30 6 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 885000 218 885000 30 7 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 1174000 287 1174000 30 8 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 1047000 265 1047000 30 9 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 351000 89 351000 30 10 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 36)97 572000 152 572000 30 11 357 ISLANDS END 46 6 3697 69000 19 69000 30 12 357 ISLANDS END #6 6 3697 0 0 0 30 1 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 0 30 2 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 01 0 0 Page 5 of 18 Page 6 of 10 S Year 2002 Monthly Pwnpage Data for the Town of Southold zom. .:..'T.....:::;>::>>::<<::c.. 30 3 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 0 30 4 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 0 30 5 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 618000 30 61 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 2989500 30 71 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 2865000 30 8 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 2610000 30 9 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 885000 30 10 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 0 1455000 30 11 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 7 3698 0 n1 165000 30 12 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 17 3698 0 oj 0 30 1 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 0 0 0 30 2 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 0 0 0 30 3 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 0 0 0 30 4 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 0 0 0 30 5 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 618000 45 618000 30 6 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 2989500 307 2989500 30 7 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 2865000 287 2865000 30 81 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 157_95 2610000 265 2610000 30 9 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 1579.5 885000 891 885000 30 10 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 1455000 1531 1455000 30 11 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 165000 18 165000 30 12 352 ISLANDS END 7,8 8 15795 0 0 0 30 1 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 9120000 304 9120000 30 2 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 11160000 372 11160000 30 3 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 10155000 338 10155000 30 4 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 5820000 194 5820000 ^+� .7V c J � A e VL'ATATC[TQ DT JYY au.ivivu t u iW 1 97501 645nnnn - 229 64500001 30 6 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 123090001 4471 12309000 30 7 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 205300001 7101 20530000 30 8 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 203200001 7011 20320000 Page 6 of 10 S • Page 7 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pulnpage Data for the Town of Southold 2 QNZr . i €of" :STN.sia�ror� e �Ia�n� �i J�IB�F�. .. Pt tri ... e , Vials : i Pu Hours` ; i�or� FLC1�1 £salt ; 30 9 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 20050000 713 20050000 30 10 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 19030000 673 19030000 30 11 344 KENNEYS RD 1 975_01 5250000 186 5250000 30 12 344 KENNEYS RD 1 97501 4950000 183 4950000 30 1 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 879883.7209 47 1610000 30 2 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 228378.3784 13 650000 30 3 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 10175_5 1728000 90 3840000 30 41 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 4629682.997 225 7140000 30 51 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 2814783.491 129 6450000 30 61 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 2337423.313 90 5080000 30 71 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 13865874.78 515 21760000 30 8 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 10445421.58 436 21140000 30 9 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 7032358.209 288 16360000 30 10 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 1022471.91 65 4200000 30 11 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 2104218.75 134 4020000 30 12 345 LAUREL LAKE 1 101755 3579478.827 222 4950000 30 1 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 730116.2791 39 1610000 30 2 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 421621.6216 24 650000 30 3 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 2112000 110 3840000 30 4 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 2016484.15 98 7140000 30 5 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 981901.2179 45 6450000 30 6 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 779141.1043 30 5080000 30 7 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 4200148.478 156 21760000 30 8 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 8433000.907 352 21140000 30 9 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106,116 9327641.791 382 16360000 30 10 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106,116 3177528.09 202 4200000 30 11 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 1915781.25 122 4020000 30 12 345 LAUREL LAKE 2 106416 1370521.173 85 4950000 Page 7 of 18 Page 8 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold .... ....Q...... �'�'�+� ....:::<:::.;:::::5ta����;:. :::>:>.:::...�tt::€ €::��t,.��> :.> ;:::..: �: �$ :>:. �'►� .. C. 30 1 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 1610000 30 2 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 650000 30 3 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 3840000 30 41 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 403296.83 49 7140000 30 5 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 392760.4871 45 6450000 30 6 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 290879.3456 28 5080000 30 7 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 1453897.55 135 21760000 30 8 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 1175:31 987044.42431 103 21140000 30 9 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 01 0 16360000 30 10 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 4200000 30 11 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 4020000 30 12 345 LAUREL LAKE 3 117531 0 0 4950000 30 1 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 1610000 30 2 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 650000 30 3 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 3840000 30 4 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 49383.2853 6 7140000 30 5 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 1125913.396 129 6450000 30 6 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 841472.3926 81 5080000 30 7 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 1120039.594 104 21760000 30 8 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 709138.7126 74 21140000 30 9 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 16360000 30 10 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 4200000 30 11 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 4020000 30 12 345 LAUREL LAKE 4 117642 0 0 4950000 30 1 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 0 0 1610000 30 2 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 0 0 650000 30 3 3a5 T.ATTRFT. T.AKF, 15 117643 01 01 3840000 301 41 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 1176431 41152.73775 5 7140000 30 5 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 1134641.407 130 6450000 301 61 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 1176431 831083.8446 80 5080000 Page 8 of 18 0 9 0 Page 9 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold �ta#���; 30 7 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 1120039.594 104 21760000 30 8 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 565394.379 59 21140000, 30 9 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 0 0 16360000 30 101 345 LAUREL LAKE5 117643 0 0 4200000 30 111 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 0 0 4020000 30 12 345 LAUREL LAKE 5 117643 0 0 4950000 30 1 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 2 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 897_54 0 0 0 30 3 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 4 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 5 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 6 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 7 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 8 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 9 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 10 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0' 30 11 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 12 333 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #1 1 89754 0 0 0 30 1 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 37000 30 37000 30 2 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 72000 55 72000 30 3 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 83000 63 83000 30 4 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 294000 236 294000 30 5 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 543000 443 543000 30 6 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 184000 145 184000 30 7 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 200000 158 200000 30 8 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 246000 207 246000 30 9 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 207000 178 207000 30 10 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 258000 225 258000 30 11 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 94274 202000 190 202000 30 12 334 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #2 2 40001 1361 134000 Page 9 of 18 Page 1Oof18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold 30 1 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 105500 124 105500 30 21 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 70000 80 70000 30 3 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 69000 80 69000 30 -5 335 MAJN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 346000 425 346000 30 6. 3 3 5 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756, 103000 123 103000 30 81 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 129000 150 129000 30 91 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 140000 163 140000 30 10 335 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 138000 163 138000 30 11 3 3 5 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 209000 253 209000 30 12 3 3 5 MAIN BAYVIEW RD #3 3 89756 157000 190 157000 30 41 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 138857.1429 18 270000 30 5 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 216964.2857 27 450000 30 6 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 102916,6667 131 190000 30 8. 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 135000 17 270000 30 9 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 135000 17 270000 30 10 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 127058.8235 16 270000 30 11 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 106363.6364 13 270000 30 12 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 1 0 110000 13 220000 30. 1, 336.MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE .2 0 625001 8, 125000 30 21 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 01 55000 7 11000-0-1 30 4 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 131142.8571 17 270000 30 5 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 233035.7143 29 450000 Page 1Oof18 0 0 9 Page 1 i o1 ? 8 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold ZONE . itionih� TNta€s ?1ell�ia. .f ... aUo�P'I:C1a1s 30 6 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 87083.33333 11 190000 30 7 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 100000 13 200000 30 8 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 135000 17 270000 30 9 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 _ 0 135000 17 270000 30 10 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 142941.1765 18 270000 30 11 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 163636.3636 20 270000 30 12 336 MAIN BAYVIEW SERVICE 2 0 110000 13 220000 30 1 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 8043000 275 8043000 30 2 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 7314000 250 7314000 30 3 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 8373000 287 8373000 30 4 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 13325000 467 13325000 30 5 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 20622000 739 20622000 30 6 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 12876000 524 12876000 30 7 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 16380000 598 16380000 30 8 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 16250000 591 16250000 30 9 346 MUDDLE RD 1 97502 12080000 440 12080000 30 10 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 8800000 321 8800000 30 11 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 6500000 2411 6500000 30 12 346 MIDDLE RD 1 97502 2880000 107 2880000 30 1 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 762000 254 762000 30 2 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 670500 231 670500 30 3 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 726000 242 726000 30 4 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 642000 _ 228 642000 30 5 369 N 1DDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 447856.3218 149 784500 30 6 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 306642.8571 102 715500 30 7 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 832082.0313 277 1153500 30 8 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 595 700.6803 208 00 12630 30 30 9 101 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 1 113387 113387 173139.0135 399182.8194 117 127 330000 713500 30 11 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 810824.0343 2221 851000 Page 1 i o1 ? 8 Page 12 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pmpage Data for the Town of Southold ... ....... ............ . . . ....... . . ....... .... ... ...... ...... .... 30 12 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 1 113387 780000 201 780000 30 11 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 0 0 762000 30 21 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 0 0 670500 30 31 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 0 0 726000 30 41 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116�-35 0 0 642000 5 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC .2 116835 336643.6782 112 784500 M 4 v 369,%41DDLE RD PECONIC 12 116835 408857.1429 136 715500 30 7 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 321417.9688 107 1153500 30 8 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 667299.3197 233 1263000 30 9, 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 156860.9865 106 330000 30 10 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 314317.1806 100 713500 30 11 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 40175.96567 11 851000 30 12 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 2 116835 0 0 780000 30 1 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 762000 30 2 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 670500 30 3 369 N41DDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 726000 30 4 3691NUDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 642000 30 5 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 784500 30 6 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 715500 30 7 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 1153500 30 8 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 1263000 30 9 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 330000 30 10 369 N41DDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 713500 30 11 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0 0 851000 30 12, 369 MIDDLE RD PECONIC 3 117742 0, 0 780000 30 1 3681MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 126000 141 3330001 30 2 3681MYLL LA PECONIC 1 103522 135000 151 324000 30 3 3681MILL LA PECONIC 1 10 T5-2 2 154865.8537 171 3735001 Page 12 of 18 0 0 0 Page 13 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold zcrE Iv€onrli STN #xq:.. eliairi ::ER. infix P Hours :tori ::. s <: 30 4 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 291540.9836 32 1111500 30 5 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 1035.22 54032.43243 14 714000 30 6 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 141489.3617 35 570000 30 7 368 MILL LA PECONUC I 103522 526174.4966 140 1120000 30 8 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 858042.7807 146 2198000 30 9 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 34964.28571 22 89000 30 10 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 223235.2941 46 330000 30 11 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 443246.0733 83 1020000 30 12 368 MILL LA PECONIC 1 103522 214651.1628 71 520000 30 1 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 207000 23 333000 30 2 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 189000 21 324000 30 3 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 218634.1463 24 373500 30 4 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 819959.0164 90 1111500 30 5 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 659967.5676 171 714000 30 6 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 428510.6383 106 570000 30 7 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 593825.5034 158 1120000 30 8 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 1339957.219 228 2198000 30 9 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 54035.71429 34 89000 30 10 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 106764.7059 22 330000 30 11 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 576753.9267 108 1020000 30 12 368 MILL LA PECONIC 2 103523 305348.8372 101 520000 30 2 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 0 0 49500 30 3 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 317242.4242 58 361000 30 4 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 609500 78 609500 30 5 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 544578.5441 131 1085000 30 61 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 1032000 344 1665000 30 7 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 813000 271 1653000 30 8 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 1083000 361 1875000 30 9 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 337611.11111 103 708000 30 10 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 339230.76921 105 462000 Page 13 of 18 Page 14 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold WE.. ia�€.... ............::. . 2lit?(ER .: ;:...; .: ..::.:: .:Irs:'laporE.Q 30 11 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 241657.4586 81 540000 30 12 338 NORTH RD 1 117454 225000 75 492000 30 2 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 49500 16 49500 30 3 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 43757.57576 8 361000 30 4 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 0 0 609500 30 51 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 540421.4559 130 1085000 30 6 338 NORTH RD 2 1178611 633000 2111 1665000 30 7 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 840000 280 1653000 30 8 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 792000 264 1875000 30 9 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 370388.8889 113 708000 30 10 338 NORTH RD 2 1178_61 122769.2308 38 462000 30 11 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 298342.5414 100 540000 30 12 338 NORTH RD 2 117861 267000 89 492000 30 1 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 1404653.216 46 2421500 30 2 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 1040641,711 42 1390000 30 3 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 585714.2857 20 1312000 30 4 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 1139239.437 39 1555500 30 5 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 551677.8523 20 822000 30 6 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 2071635.205 81 5419500 30 7 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 3837567,804 119 14744000 30 8 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 4284051.565 134 13020000 30 9 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 1133390.011 26 2051000 30 10 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 1219148.936 25 2292000 30 11 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 2504158.583 66 4498000 30 12 340 OLD NORTH RD 1 24850 3197117.3321 93 5772000 30 11 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 549646.9105 451 2421500 30 2 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 148663.1016 15 1390000 30 31 3401 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 304571.4286 261 1312000 Page 14 of 18 0 0 0 Page 15 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pwnpage Data for the Town of Southold 2�fJ1`dE Iv 611W �'TN ta€sai .. VVe1l1�I � . I,IIvIHEFt e::C7a1s Pu Hours`..taU F>:�C1V. Cra1s. 30 4 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 140214.0845 12 1555500 30 5 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 121369.1275 11 822000 30 6 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 1575465.786 154 5419500 30 71 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 5624132.983 436 14744000 30 8 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 4693274.401 367 13020000 30 9 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 505666.3124 29 2051000 30 10 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 897293.617 46 2292000 30 11 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 1532848.587 101 4498000 30 12 340 OLD NORTH RD 2 24851 1553867.778 113 5772000 30 1 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 467199.8739 34 2421500 30 2 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 200695.1872 18 1390000 30 3 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 421714.2857 32 1312000 30 4 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 276046.4789 21 1555500 30 5 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 148953.0201 12 822000 30 6 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 1772399.009 154 5419500 30 7 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 5282299.213 364 14744000 30 81 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 4042674.033 281 13020000 30 9 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 411943.6769 21 2051000 30 10 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 175557.4468 8 2292000 30 11 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 460992.83 27 4498000 30 12 340 OLD NORTH RD 3 83475 1021014.89 66 5772000 30 1 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 482700 141 908700 30 2 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 399600 111 744600 30 3 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 498600 138 848850 30 4 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 484875 184 1021875 30 5 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 781650 290 1467050 30 6 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 1188000 330 2853000 30 7 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 1087200 302 2749200 30 8 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 658800 183 2008800 30 9 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 671901.6393 230 891000 Page 15 of 18 Page 1Gof18 Year 2002 Monthly Pwnpage Data for the Town of Southold 30 10 3 56 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 534587.2914 188 738375 30 11 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 547894.4625 188 1342050 30 12 356 ROCKY POINT RD 1 115103 465996.8652 166 1343250 30 1 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 426000 142 908700 30 2 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 345000 115 744600 30 3 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 350250 114 848850 30 4, 3 56 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355, 537000 179, 1021875 30 5 3 56 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118,355 685400 253 1467050 30 6 3 56 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 1056000 352 2853000 30 7 3 56 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 759000 253 2749200 30 8 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 681000 227 2008800 30 9, 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 109549.1803 45 891000 30 10 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 101893.8543 43 738375 30 11 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 395863.4636 163 1342050 30 12 356 ROCKY POINT RD 3 118355 437456.8966 187 1343250 30 11 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 0 0 908700 30 2 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 0 0 744600 30 3 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 0 0 848850 30 4 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 0 0 1021875 30 5 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 0 0 1467050 30 61 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 609000 203 2853000 30 7 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 903000 301 2749200 30 8 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 669000 223 2008800 30 9 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 109549.1803 45 891000 30 10 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284 101893.8543 43 738375 30 11, 356 ROCKY POINT RD 4 119284, 398292.0738 164 1342050 30, 12, 356,ROCKY POTNT RD 14 1192841 439796.2382 1881 1343250 30 1 323 SUNSET DR. 1 941381 2749501 331 274950 Page 1Gof18 Page 17 of 18 Year 2002 Monthly Pumpage Data for the Town of Southold zeas .Qeuxn�tE ..� ; . 11�s1 caw 30 2 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 408400 48 408400 30 3 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 108100 19 108100 30 4 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 273100 42 273100 30 5 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 333300 51 333300 30 6 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 346900 54 346900 30 7 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 394200 62 394200 30 8 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 723300 117 723300 30 9 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 208800 33 208800 30 10 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 250900 40 250900 30 111 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 122300 22 122300 30 12 323 SUNSET DR. 1 94138 65000 12 65000 30 1 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 274950 30 2 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 408400 30 3 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 108100 30 4 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 273100 30 5 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 333300 30 6 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 346900 301 7 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 394200 30j 8 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 7233000 30 9 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 208800 30 10 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 250900 30 11 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 122300 30 12 323 SUNSET DR. 2 98400 0 0 65000 30 1 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 274950 30 2 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 408400 30 3 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 108100 30 4 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 273100 30 5 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 333300 30 6 323 SUNSET DR, 3 98399 0 0 346900 30 7 1 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 01 0 394200 Page 17 of 18 Page 18 Year 2002 Monthly Puinpage Data for the Town of Southold 30 8 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 723300 30 9 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 208800 30 10 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 250900 30 11, 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 122300 30 121 323 SUNSET DR. 3 98399 0 0 65000 30 1 3 23, SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0, 274950 30 3 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 108100 273100 30 5, 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 333300 30 6 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 346900 30 7 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 394200 30 8 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 723300 30 9. 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 208800 30 10 323 SUNSET DR. 4 984,01 0 0 250900 30 11 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 122300. 30 12 323 SUNSET DR. 4 98401 0 0 65000 Page 18 Appendix 5 Existing Land Use Inventory SCWA Account Locations Existing SCWA Water Mains Potential Mains SCWA Properties/Facilities Parcels (within 75' of POTENTIAL water mains) Agriculture (BTCamp 8) Residential: all types (BTCamp 1, 2, 3) Vacant Land: all types (BTCamp 9) Commercial /Institutional/Industrial(BTCamp 4/6/6) Recreation & Open Space/Transportation/Utilities (BTCamp 7/10/11) F- No Available Land Use Data Parcels (within 75' of EXISTING water mains) Agriculture (BTCamp 8) Residential: all types (BTCamp 1, 2, 3) Vacant Land: all types (BTCamp 9) Commercial /Institutional/Industrial(BTCamp 4/6/6) Recreation & Open Space/Transportation/Utilities (BTCamp 7/10/11) No Available Land Use Data Road Right of Ways -public Long Island Sound Hog Neck BaY Existing an Potential SCWA VVaiW,,Mi Insta ations, Southold Towns Peconic Bays ini 1] 1999 EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY Eastern Suffolk County Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 July 2000 0 1999 EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY - EASTERN SUFFOLK COUNTY Stephen M. Jones Director Environmental Analysis & Research Divisions DeWitt Davies Laurette Fischer Peter Lambert Ron Verbarg Cartographic & GIS Division James Daly Tom Frisenda Vinnie LeoGrande Carl Lind Suffolk County Water Authority Anthony Graves July 2000 • • 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................... 1 Previous Land Use Studies ...................................................... 1 Study Objectives.............................................................. 1 METHODOLOGY................................................................... 2 Data Management and Scale ..................................................... 2 Land Use Classification System .................................................. 2 Land Use Inventory Process ..................................................... 8 Land Use Classification Conventions .............................................. 8 Existing Land Use Map Accuracy ............................................... 10 0 Time Frame................................................................. 10 r� RESULTS OF THE LAND USE INVENTORY ........................................... 11 REFERENCES..................................................................... 12 Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning i July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk: County LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS TABLES Table 1. Land Use Classification System for Suffolk County ................................. 3 Table 2. Total Upland Acreage and Number of Parcels in Towns of Eastern Suffolk County - 1999.. 11 Table 3. Land Use Acreage by Town for Eastern Suffolk County - 1999 ....................... 11 MAPS The GIS maps that accompany this report are identified below. ■ Existing Land Use Map Series - V = 2,000' Town of Riverhead Town of Southold Town of Shelter Island Town of Southampton Town of East Hampton Prepared by Suffolk County Deparuwnt of Planning ii July 2000 • • • 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County is INTRODUCTION Previous Land Use Studies Existing land use maps and tabulations of land use acreage data on a town -wide basis for the five towns of eastern Suffolk County (Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton and East Hampton) are available that reflect conditions in 1962 (Suffolk County Dept. of Planning 1962), 1966 (Nassau - Suffolk Regional Planning Board 1968) and 1981 (Long Island Regional Planning Board 1982). These studies, conducted on a County -wide basis, are useful in that they provide a general picture of the location and interrelationships of major land use types at different times in the past. However, each of these studies differs with respect to the methodology employed to classify categories of land use, the scale of the base maps used, the level of effort and techniques employed in verifying land use, the extent to which mapped land uses have been generalized, and how acreage figures were generated. Therefore, comparison of the results of these inventories to determine accurate trends is invalid. The need for up-to-date, accurate land use data collected at a large scale was recognized in the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program (BTCAMP) (Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services 1992). The land use inventory conducted in 1988 for the Peconic River/Flanders Bay watershed was prepared at tax map scale and field verified. The Department of Health Services Geographic Information System (GIS) was employed to plot the existing land use map for the study area showing 13 categories of land use and to generate acreage figures. The map, however, reflected generalized land use patterns, since digitized tax map coverages showing parcel boundaries were not available at that time. The recommendation was made in BTC_QMP to conduct an in-depth analysis of existing land use, population and land available for development for the entire watershed of the Peconic Estuary System using GIS technology to plot maps and generate acreage data at tax map scale. The establishment of the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) provided the vehicle and focus for implementing this recommendation. As a result of the work performed under the PEP, the Suffolk County Department of Planning completed a land use inventory and analysis for the watershed of the Estuary that included 52% of the land area of the five east end towns (all of the Town of Shelter Island, 67% of the Town of Southold, 66% of the Town of East Hampton, 51 % of the Town of Riverhead, and 36% of the Town of Southampton). The methodology employed and the GIS data and map products produced are described in the report Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land Use Inventory (1997). The decision was later made by the Suffolk County Department of Planning to assign staff on an as available basis to complete the land use inventory and analysis in a similar fashion for the entire land area within the jurisdiction of the five east end towns. Study Objectives The objectives of this inventory are as follows: ■ Establish an accurate GIS existing land use data base at tax snap scale (i.e., large scale) for eastern Suffolk County. This data base should be prepared using a consistent approach so that the results are comparable among the various municipal jurisdictions involved. ■ Prepare GIS existing land use maps in digital and print formats for each township. ■ Quantify existing land use acreage by general category and municipal jurisdiction. • Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 1 July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County METHODOLOGY Data Management and Scale The Suffolk County Planning Department's GIS was employed to link land use data with parcels shown on the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map. [The Department's GIS consists of the following: • ESRI's Arclnfo 8.0, ArcView 3.2 and Mapinfo 5.0 GIS software • Dell Poweredge 6300 dual processor Windows NT server with 1 gigabyte of RAM and :>0 gigabytes of storage • HP 1055cm color inkjet plotter • Calcomp 9500 digitizer • Four Windows NT workstations, each with 128K RAM and 8 gigabytes storage Backup copies of all hard copy maps are archived in a plotter output format (GRA and HPGL) on a DLT tape format. To access digital maps on a PC running ArcView requires 64 megabytes of RAM and 8 gigabytes of storage.] Land use data were collected at tax map scale. Although the scale of the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Maps for the eastem towns vary, it is_oipically l" = 300'. The existing land use display maps that accompany this report have been greatly reduced, i.e., the scale of these maps (1" = 2000') is an order of magnitude smaller than that of the tax maps. However, tax map parcel boundaries were not altered in any way by GIS manipulation. This preserved the sanctity of the, parcel line work and land use data base. The extent to which small parcels can be visually distinguished depends on the scale selected for GIS map plotting. Land Use Classification System 0 Use of town tax assessor code data expedited the attainment of land use inventory objectives. These data sets were available in electronic format and keyed to Suffolk County tax map parcels. They provided a starting point for the land use inventory work. Tax assessor codes are assigned to parcels for the purpose of raising revenue through real property taxation. There are literally scores of codes assigned to ratable property. To facilitate interpretation, the land use methodology grouped these codes under the following 13 general land use categories that are commonly used for regional planning purposes: low density residential (s 1 d.u./acre), medium density residential (>1 to <5 d.u./acre), high density residential (z 5 d.u./acre), commercial, industrial,`institutional' -recreation and open space, agriculture, vacant, transportation, utilities, waste handling and management, and surface waters. Table 1 shows the general land use categories and the property type classification and ownership codes assigned to each category. The groupings in this table do not necessarily reflect the divisions in the assessor's manual (New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment 1991). The 13 general land use categories are more suitable for characterizing community layout and function, determining land available for development, estimating future; population levels and preparing master plans. Each and every parcel on the tax map was assigned to one (and only one) of the general categories. Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 2 July 2000 • • is 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk Coun Table 1. Land Use Classification System for Suffolk County (p.l of 5) Low Density Residential (sl d.u./acre)* - attribute code 1 - symbol #83 - yellow"* 210 One Family Year -Round Residence 220 Two Family Year -Round Residence 230 Three Family Year -Round Residence 240 Rural Residence with Acreage 250 Estate 260 Seasonal Residences 270 Mobile Home 312 Residential Land Including a Small Three Family Year -Round Residence Improvement (not used for. living Seasonal Residences accommodations) 316 Waterfront Vacant Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 439 Small Parking Garage 483 Converted Residence Medium Density Residential (>1 to <5 d.u./acre)* - attribute code 2 - symbol #84 - gold" 210 One Family Year -Round Residence 220 Two Family Year -Round Residence 230 Three Family Year -Round Residence 260 Seasonal Residences 270 Mobile Home 312 Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 316 Waterfront Vacant Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 439 Small Parking Garage 483 Converted Residence Prenared be Suffulk County Department of Planning High Density Residential (z 5 d.u./acre)* - attribute code 3 - symbol #92 - peru** 210 One Family Year -Round Residence 220 Two Family Year -Round Residence 230 Three Family Year -Round Residence 260 Seasonal Residences 270 Mobile Home 271 Multiple Mobile Homes 280 Multiple Residences 312 Residential Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 316 Waterfront Vacant Land Including a Small Improvement (not used for living accommodations) 410 Living Accommodations 411 Apartments 416 Mobile Home Parks (trailer parks, trailer courts) 439 Small Parking Garage 483 Converted Residence *Parcels designated as residential require lot size calculation to determine residential density classification (low, medium or high density). **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Ver 7.04. July 2000 1999 E.�Qng Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County Prepared b% Suffolk County Depar it of Planning 4 July 2000 Table 1 and Use Classifica; I System for Suffolk County (p.2 of 5) Commercial - 474 Billiards attribute code symbol #110 - red** 480 Multiple Use of Multi purposes 414 Hotel 481 Downtown Row Type (with 415 Motel common wall) 417 Camps, cages, Bungalows 482 Downtown Row Type 418 Inns, Lc s, Boarding & Roomin (detached) Houses, irists Homes, Fraternit, k 484 One Story Small Structure Sorority uses 485 One Story Small Structure - 420 Dining, blishments Multi -occupant 421 iaurants 486 Minimart 422 zrs & Luncheonettes 510 Entertainment Assembly 423 =;k Bars, Drive -Ins, le, 511 Legitimate Theaters am Bars 512 Motion Picture Theaters 424 ht Clubs 513 Drive-in Theaters 425 514 Auditoriums, Exhibition & 426 t Food Franchises Exhibition Halls 430 Motor' cle Services 515 Radio, T.V. & Motion Picture 431 -o Dealers - Sales & SN. Studios 432 vice & Gas Stations 520 Sports Assembly 433 to Body, Tire Shops, 0 --r 521 Stadiums, Arenas, Armories, dated Auto Sales Field Houses 434 435 tomatic Car Wash inual Car Wash 522 Racetracks 530 Amusement Facilities 436if-Service Car Wash 531 Fairgrounds 437 rking Garage 532 Amusement Parks 438 xking Lot 533 Game Farms 450 Retail ,: rices 534 Social Organizations 451 gional Shopping Cente, 540 Indoor Sports Facilities 452 'ea of Neighborhood 541 Bowling Centers )opping Centers 542 Ice or Roller Skating Rinks 453 .urge Retail Outlets 543 YMCAs, YWCAs, etc. 454 irge Retail Food Stores 544 Health Spas 455 --alerships - Sales & Services 545 Indoor Swimming Pools they than auto with large 546 Other Indoor Sports ale operation) 550 Outdoor Sports Activities 460 Bank & office Buildings 554 Outdoor Swimming; Pools 461 andard Bank/Single 555 Riding Stables �ccupant 556 Ice or Roller Skating Rinks 462 `rive -in Branch Bank 557 Other Outdoor Sports 463 'ank Complex w Office Bldg. 570 Marinas 464 ffice Building 583 Resort Complexes 465 rofessional Building 691 Professional Associations 470 Miscel . 3eous Services "The symbol # and color assigned'. to each 471 uneral Homes land use category were selected from the shadeset 472 )og Kennels, Veterinary of Colornames in ARC/INFO Ver 7.04. 'linics 473 Jreenhouses (retail sales) Prepared b% Suffolk County Depar it of Planning 4 July 2000 • • 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County Table 1. Land Use Classification System for Suffolk County (p.3 of 5) Industrial - attribute attribute code 5 - symbol #127 - purple" 440 Storage, Warehouse & Distribution Facilities 441 Gasoline, Fuel, Oil, Liquid Petroleum Storage and/or Distribution 442 Bottled Gas, Natural Gas 620 Facilities 630 443 Grain & Feed Elevators, Mixers, Sales Outlets 444 Lumber Yards, Sawmills 445 Coal Yards, Bins 446 Cold Storage Facilities 640 447 Trucking Terminals 448 Piers, Wharves, Docks & Related Facilities 652 449 Other Storage, Warehouse & 653 Distribution Facilities 475 Junkyards 710 Manufacturing & Processing 720 Mining and Quarrying 721 Sand & Gravel 740 Industrial Product Pipelines (non- utility companies) 741 Gas 742 Water 743 Brine 670 744 Petroleum Products 680 749 Other Pmpred by Suffolk County Depaament of Planning R, Institutional - attribute code 6 - symbol #45 - deep sky blue"" 610 Education 611 Libraries 612 Schools 613 Colleges & Universities 614 Special Schools & Institutions 615 Other Educational Facilities 620 Religious 630 Welfare 631 Orphanages 632 Benevolent & Moral Associations 633 Homes for the Aged 640 Health 641 Hospitals 642 All Other Health Facilities 652 Office Building (Government) 653 Parking Lots (associated with government building) 660 Protection 661 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine & Coast Guard installations, Radar, etc. 662 Police & Fire Protection, Electrical Signal Equipment & Other Facilities for Fire, Police, Civil Defense, etc. 670 Correctional 680 Cultural and Recreational 681 Cultural Facilities (museums, art galleries) 693 Indian Reservations 694 Animal Welfare Shelters "The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARCINFO Ver 7.04. July 2000 1999 Existing Lund Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County Table 1. Land Use Classification System for Suffolk County (p.4 of 5) Recreation & Open Space - attribute code 7 - symbol #70 - green" 190 Fish, Game & Wildlife Preserves 552 Public Golf Courses 553 Private Golf Country Clubs 560 Improved Beaches 580 Camps, Camping Facilities and Sheep & Wool Resorts Honey & Beeswax 581 Camps Other Livestock: donkeys, 582 Camping Facilities 590 Parks Horse Farms 591 Playgrounds 592 Athletic Fields 593 Picnic Grounds 682 Nature Trails, Bike Paths, etc. 695 Cemeteries 920 Private Hunting & Fishing Clubs 930 State Owned Forest Land 932 State Owned Land Other Than Forest Preserve 940 Reforested Land & Other Related Conservation Purposes 941 State Owned Reforested Land 942 County Owned Reforested Land 960 Public Parks 961 State Owned Public Parks, Recreation Areas, and Other Multiple Uses 962 County Owned Public Parks and Recreation Areas 963 City/Town/Village Public Parks and Recreation Areas 970 Other Wild or Conservation Lands 971 Wetlands, Either Privately or Governmentally Owned, Subject to Specific Restrictions as to Use 980 Taxable State Owned Conservation Easements 990 Other Taxable State Land Assessments 993 Transition Assessments for Taxable State Owned Land 994 Transition Assessment for Exempt State Owned Land Agriculture - attribute code 8 - symbol #69 - lawn preen" 105 Agricultural Vacant Land (Productive) 110 Livestock & Products 111 Poultry & Poultry Products 112 Dairy Products 113 Cattle, Calves, Hogs 114 Sheep & Wool 115 Honey & Beeswax 116 Other Livestock: donkeys, goats 117 Horse Farms 120 Field Crops 129 Acquired Development Rights 130 Truck Crops - Mucklands 140 Truck Crops - Not Mucklands 150 Orchard Crops 151 Apples, Pears, Peaches, Cherries, etc. 152 Vineyards 160 Other Fruits 170 Nursery & Greenhouse 180 Specialty Farms 182 Pheasants "The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARCANFO Ver 7.04. Prepared by Suffolk County Departmnt of Planning 6 July 2000 • • • • C7 • 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County Table 1. Land Use Classification System for Suffolk County (p.5 of 5) Vacant - Water Supply attribute code 9 - symbol #26 - white** 310 Residential Telegraph 311 Residential Vacant Land 813 313 Waterfront Vacant Lots TV other than Community 314 Rural Vacant Lots s 10 Acres 320 Rural Community Antenna T.V. 321 Abandoned Agricultural Land 815 322 Residential Vac. Land >10 A. (used by utility companies) 323 Other Rural Vacant Lands 330 Vacant Land Located in Commercial 817 Areas 340 Vacant Land Located in Industrial 867 Areas 350 Urban Renewal or Slum Clearance 910 Private Wild & Forest Lands 911 Forest Land 912 Forest Land Transportation - attribute code 10 - symbol #33 - light grey** 650 Government 651 Highway Garage 692 Roads, Streets, Highways & Parkways, Express or Otherwise including Adjoining Land 821 Flood Control 840 Transportation 841 Motor Vehicle 842 Ceiling Railroad 843 Nonceiling Railroad 844 Air 846 Bridges, Tunnels & Subways Utilities - Water Supply attribute code 11 - symbol #31 - It. slate grey** 810 Electric & Gas 812 Electric Power Generation - Telegraph Coal Burning Plant 813 Electric Power Generation - TV other than Community Oil Burning Plant 814 Electric Power Generation - Community Antenna T.V. Nuclear Plant 815 Electric Power Generation - (used by utility companies) Gas Burning Plant 816 Gas Generation Plant 817 Electric Transmission & 866 Distribution Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 7 818 Gas Transmission & Distribution 820 Water 822 Water Supply 830 Communication 831 Telephone 832 Telegraph 833 Radio 834 TV other than Community Antenna T.V. 835 Community Antenna T.V. 836 Telecommunications 847 Pipelines (used by utility companies) 860 Special Franchise Property 861 Electric & Gas 862 Water 866 Telephone 867 Miscellaneous 868 Pipelines 869 Television Waste Handling & Management - attribute code 12 - symbol #28 - dk. slate grey** 850 Waste Disposal 851 Solid Wastes 852 Landfills & Dumps 853 Sewage Treatment & Water Pollution Control 854 Air Pollution Control Surface Waters - attribute code 13 - symbol #52 - pale turquoise** 183 Aquatic: oysterlands 315 Underwater Vacant Land 845 Water (canal) 972 Land Under Water, Either Privately or Governmentally Owned **The symbol # and color assigned to each land use category were selected from the shadeset of Colornames in ARC/INFO Ver 7.04. July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffo114: County Land Use Inventory Process 0 The following is a brief listing of the steps in the process used for conducting the inventory of existing land use. ■ Using the GIS, combine tax map parcel line work with the three digit, tax assessor property code data and prepare a coverage at tax map scale for each town showing 13 general land use category attributes based on grouped assessor code data and residential density criteria. ■ Prepare large scale plots of all tax map sections located within each township. These plots show the land use attribute code numbers for the 13 general land use categories listed in Table 1, one of which is assigned to each tax map parcel. ■ Verify parcel attribute codes via field inspection, aerial photo interpretation, use of Real Property Tax Service Agency property data and owners list files, etc., and manually correct same; where necessary on the tax map section plots. ■ Correct the GIS data base. ■ Merge the tax map section sheets and prepare preliminary, color -coded GIS existing land use maps for each township. Inspect and correct parcel line work and attribute codes, where needed. ■ Plot final, color -coded existing land use maps at desired scale. ■ Use the GIS to tabulate acreage figures by general land use category and municipal jurisdiction. The steps in the process are conceptually simple. However, the level of effort required to prepare usable GIS coverages, verify and correct land use codes, and produce an accurate parcel -specific land use data base was quite substantial given the geographic extent of the area, the magnitude and complexity of the data bases involved, and the need to conduct extensive field verification. Land Use Classification Conventions Experience gained with the initial phases of the land use inventory and field check process resulted in the establishment of several conventions that were used to simplify and expedite the work, and help assure that land use code attributes were being assigned in a consistent manner by the several staff members involved. These conventions are summarized below. ■ When more than one use was found to occur on a single parcel, the primary use of than: parcel was determined and assigned to that parcel. Primary use is based on the relative intensity of the use in comparison with that of the other use(s) in question, with consideration also given to the areal extent of the use on the parcel. Typical examples follow: - A 100 -acre parcel is used for both residential and agricultural purposes. Crops are grown on about 80 acres, 15 acres are in woodlands, and a house is located on site. Even though the parcel accommodates three uses (including vacant), it is assigned a classification of agriculture, since most of the parcel is dedicated to this use. - A two-story structure is located on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in the retail portion of a central business district. A hardware store occupies the first story of the building and the second 0 floor is used for an apartment. While used for both commercial and residential uses, this Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 8 July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County parcel is classified as commercial, given the relative intensity of the uses in question and the prevailing nature of neighboring retail uses. - A country estate is located on an 18 -acre parcel, some of which is wooded, with the remainder used as pasture. This parcel is classified as low density residential, given the fact that it falls within the density criteria of < 1 d.u./acre. - A road right-of-way parcel traverses a bay, but the improved portion of the parcel does not extend over the water. The entire parcel is classified as transportation. ■ Dedicated common areas on tax map parcels in condominium townhouse projects were classified as recreation and open space, since such areas are not available for development in the future. Small, privately owned parcels that are the sites for residential structures in these projects were classified as high density residential. ■ Agricultural land that had reverted to old field habitat due to non-use was classified as vacant. Actively cultivated lands and those recently left fallow were classified as agriculture. ■ When structures on improved parcels are unoccupied, the parcels are not classified as vacant. They are classified according to the type of structure present, i.e., commercial, industrial, residential, etc. ■ Whether a parcel is publicly owned or privately owned does not necessarily determine how that parcel is classified. For example, parcels classified as recreation and open space can be owned by property owners associations, private conservation groups, or private clubs, as well as public entities. ■ Privately owned, commercially oriented, intensive recreational activities, such as bowling alleys and sports complexes, are classified as commercial. ■ All publicly owned parks and conservation lands, whether actively or passively used, are classified as recreation and open space. ■ Parcels owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority were classified as utility, regardless of whether the parcels were improved or not. ■ The existing zoning designation of a parcel is not a factor in how that parcel is classified as to existing land use. ■ The number of residential structures on a parcel, as opposed to the number of dwelling units, was used in conjunction with parcel acreage to determine density, and hence, the classification of the parcel as low, medium or high density residential. ■ The context within which a parcel is located, i.e., the uses found on adjacent and nearby parcels, can often help in making judgments in the field as to how to classify that parcel. ■ Parcels that are adjacent to commercial uses in business districts and are used as parking lots in connection with these uses were classified as commercial. Parcels used for parking that are directly related to a nearby transportation use, e.g., ferry or railroad, were classified as transportation. Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 7 July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County The tax map base shows property boundaries, and not geographical features, the extent of various "surface covers" or datums. Hence, the boundary of a parcel located on the shoreline may, or may not, coincide with the location of the land/sea interface. The apparent shoreline on the existing land vise maps, i.e., the boundary between parcels classified as surface waters and adjacent parcels classified as one of the 12 upland land use categories, should not be interpreted as the water's edge or mean sea level, etc. Overlay of the tax map base on appropriate maps, such as USGS topographic maps, can indicate the extent to which the shorelines replicate each other. A lake or pond located within a larger tax map parcel will not be shown on the existing land use map as surface waters. if the lake/pond is a separate parcel, i.e., the shoreline is a property boundary, then it will be classified and shown as surface waters on the map. Existing Land Use Map Accuracy The Existing Land Use maps series shows thousands of parcels, each assigned to a land use category. In evaluating the accuracy of these maps, one has to consider two types of potential error. The first type is judgment error, resulting in the assignment of the wrong classification category to a particular parcel. The second type is attribute error, where the wrong classification is assigned to a parcel in the GIS data base, and this error is not detected in review of preliminary maps. Given the extensive level of effort devoted to the land use inventory, the staff is confident that the incidence of both types of error is very low. Users of the Existing Land Use map series and the acreage tabulations by land use category that are derived from the GIS data base should be aware of the methodology employed, so that proper interpretations can be made. Further explanation may help to reduce confusion with respect to the differences between preliminary maps showing uses determined by assessor codes and existing land use maps prepared by using the land use methodology described herein. Each municipality can assign assessor codes to parcels in different ways according to local practice. In almost all towns, it is evident that publicly owned parcels and other non-ratables often are not assigned any category. In addition, the assessor code data sets vary greatly by town in the extent and frequency of update. The use of this methodology and field verification assured comparability of inventory results across municipal boundaries and their accuracy and suitability for planning purposes. Another comment is warranted with respect to the relative accuracy of the acreage numbers in this report. The GIS calculates parcel area from digitized tax maps, which depict approximate parcel boundary locations. Original parcel surveys and/or deeds must be used to determine actual parcel location and acreage for purposes other than general land use inventory that require very accurate parcel data. Time Frame The staff conducted the field verification of land use for the six towns in the PEP land use study area in a sequential fashion over an 18 month period beginning in 1994. On an as available basis, the staff conducted the land use inventory and analysis for that portion of eastern Suffolk not within the boundaries of the PEP from 1996 to 1999. During the process of GIS file correction and map preparation, changes in the use of major parcels within the PEP were noted after completion of field work. For all intents and purposes, the pattern of land uses as portrayed on the Existing Land Use map for each of the five east end towns should be considered as representative of 1999 conditions. This "snapshot" view of land use is, of course, static and will not reflect those incremental changes that have occurred as a result of more recent development activities. Prepared by Suffolk County Deparvnent of Planning 10 July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County RESULTS OF THE LAND USE INVENTORY The results of the existing land use inventory are portrayed in map and numerical formats. The full color, GIS computer generated maps portray the distribution of 13 land use categories as of 1999 within each of the five east end towns. The GIS was utilized to generate land use acreage data from the tax map parcel/land use data base. These data are grouped by land use category and local government jurisdiction. The land area of the five east end towns encompasses approximately 221,000 acres. There are over l 11,000 real property tax map parcels within this study area. The total upland acreage and number of real property tax map parcels by town are shown in Table 2. The town totals shown in both Table 2 and Table 3 include incorporated villages within the geographic boundaries of each town. Table 2. Total U Upland Acreage Town -wide 43,297 34,767 7,247 88,963 46,996 221.270 Table 3 is a summary of the upland acreage by land use category for each of the five east end towns. Approximately 57% of the east end acreage is in the following three land use categories: recreation and open space (24%); agriculture (16%); and vacant (17%). Nearly three-fourths of the recreation and open space acreage and the vacant property is situated on the south fork, and almost three- fourths of the agricultural acreage is located on the north fork. Residential development comprises 27% of the east end acreage. Commercial, industrial and institutional uses each account for 2% of the study area acreage. Eight percent of the study area has been assigned to the transportation category, which consists primarily of road and railroad right-of-ways. Table 3. Land Use -1999 Low density residential .. ...:.......:° 2 094 5,566 1,810 15,194 7,953 32,617 15% .. ...: ; 1V1[edum density%tditl 3,18 731?t3.. 837 l t},935 5;7+68 25,f?2'7"'. ;;r:< High density residential 761 236 14 580 405 1,996 1% .; Cmnerel.... 9.9... 64 . 14+6 2,18?` bl ':: 4,5..... 2.... Industrial 3,661 149 12 789 266 4,877 2% Iri�tiltti©rtl 61 1;242 123 2,244 ;294 4,521 Recreation & open space 8,510 4,105 2,617 24,041 14,,872 54,145 24% Agricultursr 16 %:7_5 %:758 i 56 7,94€ 1.;4 5 Vacant 4,139 6,008 1,371 15,023 10,899 37,440 17% Trailsprttii�n .. 2,22: 2 423 .. 131; 9,31$ 4;075 ;1$317 .. Utilities 157 241 3 493 243 1,137 1% •1Vast hanitng 86 85 27 X24 ;107 52.....:: 0°fu: TOTAL 43,297 34,767 7,247 88,963 46,996 221,270 100% Prepared by Suffolk County Department ol'Planning I I July 2000 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory - Eastern Suffolk County REFERENCES Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. Land use - 1981. Areawide 208 Waste Treatment Management Program. Hauppauge, NY. Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board. 1968. Existing Land Use. Nassau -Suffolk Comprehensive Plan Series. Hauppauge, NY. New York State Division of Equalization and Assessment. 1991. Property Type Classification and Ownership Codes. Bureau of Local Assessment Services. Albany, NY. Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 1992. Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program. 3 vols. Riverhead, NY. Suffolk County Dept. of Planning. 1962. Existing Land Use. Hauppauge, NY. Suffolk County Dept. of Planning. 1997. Peconic Estuary Program Existing Land Use Inventory., Hauppauge, NY. (draft) • Prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning 12 July 2000 • • Appendix 6 Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. Master Plan for Providing a Public Water Supply to the Town of Southold, New York LEGGETTE.-BRASHEARS &.,GRAHAM.- INC. PROFESSIONAL GROUND -WATER CONSULTANTS PREPARED 'FOR - SUOOLK- COUNTY WATER '"AUTHORITY �JULY SUFFOUX'COUNTY lVA.T1MR-AUrrH0Rlvr"Y WILTON- CONNECTICUT • ST. PAUL* TAMPA FISHKILL ALBUQUERQUE - MINNESOTA FLORIDA NEW YORK NEW MEXICO RAMSEY EXTON-. SIOUX FALLS NASHUA NEW JERSEY PENNSYLVANIA SOUTH DAKOTA NEW HAMPSHIRE • MASTER PLAN FOR PROVIDING A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK • Prepared For Suffolk County Water Authority July 1992 LEGGEITE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. Professional Ground -Water Consultants 72 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 TABLE OF CONTENTS LEGGET-IE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM. INC. Page SUMMARY.........................................1 INTRODUCTION.......................................2 POPULATION AND WATER USE ............................ 2 WATER -SUPPLY AVAILABILITY ........................... 4 Hoffman - Bulletin GW -45 ............................. 5 Crandall, USGS WSP-1619-GG .......................... 8 Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study (CPWS-24) ........... 9 North Fork Water Supply Plan - SCDHS .................... 10 LBG Reports.....................................11 WELL -FIELD SITE SELECTION CRITERIA ..................... 12 Population Centers..................................12 Storage Tanks.....................................12 Fresh Mound -Water .................... ............13 Sources of Known or Potential Contamination ................. 14 Competition With Irrigation ............................14 PROPOSED WELL -FIELD LOCATIONS ........................ 17 Site.........................................17 Site.........................................17 Site.........................................17 Site.........................................18 Site.........................................18 Site.........................................18 Site -Specific Testing.................................19 Orient Area......................................19 LEGGET-IE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM. INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PM 40 GROUND -WATER QUALITY...............................20 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 20 REFERENCES........................................22 APPENDIX FIGURE 4-1 FROM THE NFWSP PLATE PRELIMINARY WATER -SUPPLY PLAN • LEccsrm, BRAsHrmu & GRAHAK iNc. MASTER PLAN FOR PROVIDING A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY TO THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK • SUMMARY The Upper Glacial aquifer in the Town of Southold contains a series of fresh- water lenses separated by tidal creeks or inlets. Development of ground water for public supply purposes is feasible in the lens areas, but individual well withdrawal rates will be smaller than in western and central Suffolk County to minimize the threat of salt -water intrusion by lateral encroachment or vertical upconing. A widespread interstadial clay offers greater protection from upconing on the North Fork than exists in the Montauk area. The largest present water use in the Town is for seasonal agricultural irrigation, a largely consumptive water use, that is forecasted to decrease in future years. Public water -supply usage will be mainly non -consumptive, as most of such usage is returned to the ground by septic systems. Six prospective public water supply well -field sites have been identified in the western sector of the Town of Southold, with a preliminary yield potential of 3.2 mgd (million gallons per day). Individual well yields are estimated to range from 200 to 625 gpm (gallons per minute). Each of the sites meets the Water Authority criterion for tank overflow elevation at or near the well -field location. The chosen well sites are mostly located on the southerly side of the fresh -water lenses, so as to minimize water main distances to population centers which are mainly along the Peconic Bay coast. Eventually, a transmission main could provide a continuous interconnection from the Riverhead system to the Greenport Water District, and perhaps eventually to Orient. A prospective well site of modest yield potential (110 gpm) has been identified in the Orient area. Ground -water quality on the North Fork has been adversely impacted by agricultural chemicals. Although it is possible that concentrations of such chemicals of any given well site may not exceed drinking water limits, the Water Authority should plan on treatment for nitrate removal and for removal of pesticide, herbicide and fungicide residues. Naturally -occurring iron and/or manganese concentrations may also 40 require water treatment. LEG(;--rm BRASHEARS tit GRAHAM. INC. -2 - INTRODUCTION • On M- 1992, the Southold Town Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Town Board is responsible for the health, safety and welfare, of its citizens; now, refore, be it RESOLVED : the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby endorses a study of a pilot plan b Suffolk County Water Authority to provide public water to the people in the area fh he vicinity of the Riverhead Town boundary, South of the Long; Island Rail Road, ul le vicinity of Bay Avenue in the Mattituck area, subject to the Town Board review -ind approving the survey before it is released; and BE IT FUR' X RESOLVED that the Town Board endorses an initial study by the Suffolk Cour Vater Authority of water needs to serve Cutchogue and New Suffolk. As a uonsible provider of a safe and plentiful supply of water to over one million F le in Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Water Authority believes it is prudent to ar spate the needs of the entire North Fork of Long Island so that, if the need arises ix ;e future, they are in a position to expand the initially envisioned pilot - area system. a part of a coordinated effort to generate a Master Water Supply Plan for the Town of athold, the Authority requested that Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (LBG), Prof onal Ground -Water Consultants, prepare a water availability study. No specific atter: n has been given in this study to the area served by the Greenport Water District, but ds district could eventually be integrated into a townwide distribution system. The ey°ments of the study include determination of the safe yield of the aquifers underlying th;: town, estimation of current usage, determination of the optimum locations for water-sut.?ly wells and storage facilities, and review of potential water quality in future producxon wells. POPULATION AND WATER USE Popu:ation in the Town of Southold in 1990 was listed by the U.S. Census Bureau as 19,836 T_ sons. The LILCO estimate for January 1, 1991 was 19,831. The U.S. LEGGEtTE. BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC. • .7 592 Censusdata break out as follows by geographic areas according to "Census Designated Places" (CDPs), which are not necessarily political boundaries. SOUTHOLD TOWN U.S. CENSUS ESTIMATES Geographic Area 4/1/70 4/1/80 4/1/90 Laurel 598 962 1,094 Mattituck 3,039 3,923 3,902 Cutchogue - New Suffolk 2,718 2,788 3,001 Peconic 835 1,056 1,100 Southold 3,749 4,770 5,192 Greenport West (unincorporated) 1,682 1,571 1,614 Greenport Village (incorporated) 2,481 2,273 2,070 East Marion - Orient 1,240 1,511 1,534 Fishers Island 462 318 329 Totals 16,804 19,172 19,836 For the area of the Town of Southold west of the service area of the Greenport Water District, the first four listings - Laurel to Peconic - show a 1990 population of 9,097, about 46 percent of the Town population. According to LILCO, the 1991 population estimate represents 8,229 households, of which 3,774 are located in the four western CDPs; 46 percent. The summer -season population is not so clearly known, but the North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) provided estimates from the Suffolk County Planning Board of a townwide summer increase of 19,760 in 1980, slightly more than double the year-round population. These increases are dominated by second home and summer guest populations, but also include motel and camping visitors. LEGGrr-rF. BRAsHxmm & GRAHAM, Irrc. -4 - Per -capita water use in 1980 in the Greenport and Riverhead Districts was listed in the NFWSP as 110 and 120 gpd (gallons per day), respectively. With a year-round population of 20,000 in the Town of Southold, this translates to 2.2 to 2.4 mgd of domestic water use. Present summer -season domestic water use would be exptxted to be essentially double these values. Based on the water -supply experience in the Montauk area, a growth in summer -vacation home populations could lead to seasonal water use approaching four times the year-round rates. For the four western CDPs, the Greenport and Riverhead per -capita usage: figures correspond to a demand of about half the townwide values. At present, these water demands are being met by individual domestic supply wells, with the exception of the Captain Kidd Estates water system which is operated by the Suffolk County Water Authority. The initial pilot -project plan announced by the Water Authority is to extend a main from the Riverhead system along Peconic Bay Boulevard east to Bay Avenue, with the expectation of serving a substantial number of residences and businesses from the Long Island Railroad/Route 25 area south to Peconic Bay. This area involves approximately 800 property owners, and is known to have a history of private well contamination with nitrates and/or pesticides, as well as high iron content. It is anticipated that new well sources would be developed within about three years and that the initial pilot project would be expanded to the north and east. WATER -SUPPLY AVAILABILITY The hydrogeologic framework of the North Fork of Long Island has been studied for the past 35 years by the United States Geological Survey and other concerned agencies. The reference list of this report illustrates the coverage of the various studies. Fresh -water supply in the Town of Southold is derived from local ground water in the Upper Glacial aquifer. The Magothy aquifer contains salt water throughout the North Fork. Available studies indicate that there is a surplus of shallow ground water available for development, but that care must be taken to avoid unnecessary water -quality problems related to agricultural land use and potential salt -water encroachment. LEGGETT£. BRASHEARLS & GRAHAM, INC. -5 - The most important recent finding concerning water availability is that there is an areally extensive clay layer, previously only inferred, extending from Riverhead at least as far east as Richmond Creek (NFWSP, 1980, Bohn -Buxton et al., in press). This interstadial clay is present at approximately 50 feet below sea level in the LaureUMattituck area, sloping northerly and easterly to about 100 feet below sea level in Shore AcresiWolfpit Lake and in Cutchogue. Its thickness varies from about 20 feet in the west to as much as 90 feet in Cutchogue. Figure 4-1 from the NFWSP is appended to this report, a longitudinal section from Riverhead to Orient which shows the relationship of this clay to the fresh -water lenses. There is also a lower interstadial clay unit, but it is below the fresh-water/salt-water interface over much of the study area. The presence of the upper clay unit limits the potential for upconing of salty water beneath production wells. As with most coastal ground -water resources, the key availability parameters are aquifer transmissivity and individual -well yield potential, volume of (fresh) water in aquifer storage, and recharge rates. On this peninsula, which functions hydrogeologically like an elongated oceanic island, a series of fresh -water lenses float on a large body of underlying salt water, with lateral separation and salty zones between the lenses at the major estuarine creeks. An overview of the more recent previous studies of the area summarizes the available body of knowledge on these hydrogeologic parameters. As with most hydrogeologic studies, the more recent reports are in part derivative of earlier studies. Hoffman - Bulletin GW -45 Hoffman (1961) of the United States Geological Survey, examined the specific rapacity - the yield divided by the drawdown - for 77 wells throughout Southold, and found the following: • LEGGErne. BRASHxAm & GaAHAPA. INC 10 Range in specific capacity (gpm/f0 Percent of wells 40 or more 14 30 to 39 20 Central: 20 to 29 45 10 to 19 20 Fes= Less than 10 1 7,000 1/ Gallons per minute per foot of drawdown. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation that properly designed and constructed wells will have specific capacities greater than 20 gpm/ft, and probably more than 30 gpm/ft, depending on local subsurface conditions. • From these data, Hoffman concluded that the transmissivity of the glacial deposits "ranges from values somewhat less than 200,000 gpd per foot to values somewhat greater". He further noted that the coefficient of permeability may range between 1,000 and 5,000 gpd per square foot. 0 With reference to storage, Hoffman utilized a specific yield of 0.17 and the Ghyben-Herzberg principle to estimate the total fresh ground -water storage on the mainland part of the Town of Southold as 83,000 million gallons in April 1950. This may be broken out into three segments: 1/ Million gallons. LEGGrrrE. BRASHEm & GRAHAM, INC. MGA' Mattituck Inlet to Hashamomuck Inlet 70,000 Central: Chapel Lane, Greenport to Causeway, East Marion 6,100 Fes= Orient 7,000 Total (rounded). 831000: 1/ Million gallons. LEGGrrrE. BRASHEm & GRAHAM, INC. -7 - By far, the largest volume of fresh -water storage occurs in the west area, near Mattituck, Cutchogue, and the Village of Southold. It should be noted that Hoffman did not consider the storage in the part of the Town of Southold west of Mattituck Creek. Of his grand total, only 2,000 million gallons, or 2.4 percent, was storage above sea level, essentially in direct proportion to the Ghyben-Herzberg ratio (40:1). Hoffman estimated average annual recharge to these three areas as: Thus, in contrast to most of Long Island, the annual replenishment is a significant percentage of the fresh -water storage, an important factor in water -supply planning. In this light, Hoffman also looked at the annual recharge during a 3 -year period of minimum precipitation, in which only 30 percent of the precipitation became recharge. MG West 8,600 Central 860 East 1,100 Total (rounded) 10,600 Thus, in contrast to most of Long Island, the annual replenishment is a significant percentage of the fresh -water storage, an important factor in water -supply planning. In this light, Hoffman also looked at the annual recharge during a 3 -year period of minimum precipitation, in which only 30 percent of the precipitation became recharge. I/ Square miles. 2/ Estimate reflects 2 mit area with surficial clay, assumed to have zero recharge. Thus, in an area where fresh ground -water storage is limited, Hoffman estimates a conservative drought recharge rate of about half the accepted average recharge rates for 0 Long Island. UGGE Tr. BRASHrAm & GRAHA, Nc. Area (mom: Annual recharge MGMGD/mid West 29.2 5,750 0.54 Central 6.7 589 0.24t' East 4.7 715 0.42 '-.'Totals (Average) 40.6 7,050 (0.48). I/ Square miles. 2/ Estimate reflects 2 mit area with surficial clay, assumed to have zero recharge. Thus, in an area where fresh ground -water storage is limited, Hoffman estimates a conservative drought recharge rate of about half the accepted average recharge rates for 0 Long Island. UGGE Tr. BRASHrAm & GRAHA, Nc. Crandall. USC„ WSP-1619-GG Cranda 1963) questioned Hoffman's assumptions about evapotranspiration rates, i and calculated average recharge rates for four areas of the Southold peninsula (plus two island -per sulas not considered here), with reductions in parts of the Greenport area to allow for lc xl clayey sediments and paved areas. The west -central (B), central (C), and eastern (1 areas were essentially identical to Hoffman's, but a western area was added to the :est of Mat:tituck Inlet and extending about a mile into the 'town of Riverhead. = average recharge values for Area B were less than Hoffman estimated for his West a to the east of Mattituck Inlet. A (West) B (West -(- C (Cents D (Fast) Tbtal Area Annual recharge (MG) 1,500 1-tral) 5,300 850 1,100 8,750 Cry all noted that recharge may range from 25 to 35 percent of the total annual precipitatiin very dry or very wet years, respectively. Cry fall offered his own estimates for fresh -water storage based on a larger specific y, ;.d of 0.22 and deductions for till and clay units. His values„ which are substantiai� larger than Hoffman's, are: • LEGGErm BRASHEuts & GRAHAK INC • • Ra Area Fresh -water storage (MG) A (West) 46,000 B (West -Central) 134,000 C (Central) 10,400 D (East) 10,400 Total 200,800 Nevertheless, Crandall's storage estimates indicate that the largest fresh -water storage in the Town of Southold occurs between Mattituck Inlet and Hashamomuck Inlet. Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study (CPWS-24) The Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study for Suffolk County (CPWS-24) (1968) by Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell provided a fresh approach to ground -water supply availability by proposing "Permissive Sustained Yields" for specific areas within the County. Permissive Sustained Yields was defined as "the maximum rate at which water can be consumed perennially without bringing about some undesired result". In effect, the estimates of Permissive Safe Yield began with area -specific recharge rates, made reductions for near -coast areas outside the main water budget area, and made further reductions based on an "optimum" position of the salt -water interface, including considerations of drought. The CPWS-24 report also defined "Average Net Yields", which were based on average -year recharge rates. For Southold, the findings were: LEGcE77r, BRAsHEARs & GRAHAM, INC. -10 - North Fork Water Supply Plan - SCDHS The North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) (1983), prepared by ERM -Northeast and Camp, Dresser & McKee for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), offers little new data related to basic aquifer parameters, but much useful data on historical and projected water use. For ground -water availability, this study reexamined and generally accepted the "Permissive Sustained Yields" from the CPWS-24 report, but adjusted the water -budget area slightly. Table 7-4 from the NFWSP, a part of which is reproduced below, is a useful summary of the available water budget, compared to the estimated consumptive water use in 1980. • • LEccErm BRASHEARs & GRAmAK INC. Permissive PSY per mit Average Sustained of water Net Yield Yield budget area (ANY) (PSY) (mgd) (mgd/mi) (m;gd) West of Mattituck Creek 2 0.40 3.4 ck Creek to Hashamomuck 5.5 0.35 10.4 momuck Pond to Orient Harbor [East 1 0.25 2.1 f Orient Harbor 0.5 0.25 11 9 — 17'_ North Fork Water Supply Plan - SCDHS The North Fork Water Supply Plan (NFWSP) (1983), prepared by ERM -Northeast and Camp, Dresser & McKee for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), offers little new data related to basic aquifer parameters, but much useful data on historical and projected water use. For ground -water availability, this study reexamined and generally accepted the "Permissive Sustained Yields" from the CPWS-24 report, but adjusted the water -budget area slightly. Table 7-4 from the NFWSP, a part of which is reproduced below, is a useful summary of the available water budget, compared to the estimated consumptive water use in 1980. • • LEccErm BRASHEARs & GRAmAK INC. -11 - SUMMARY OF WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS (From Table 74, NFWSP) Zone Permissive sustained yield Present consump- tive use (mgd) Potentially available for future use (mgd) (mgd) (mgd/sq.mile) 1 - Riverhead 29.4 0.7 4.7 24.7 2 _ Riverhead & West Southold 5.6 0.4 3.9 1.7 3 - West Central 4.91' 0.35 3.3 1.6 4 - Central 0.911 0.25 0.5 0.4 5 - East 0.401 0.25 0.47 0V 1/ Since the underlying aquifers in these zones have insufficient storage, these values are conservatively based on drought conditions and would be larger for a year of average precipitation. ?/ The zero entry indicates that the present consumptive use is approximately equal to the permissive sustained yield in Zone 5 during drought conditions. LBG Reno[U LBG has prepared several reports on the Southold area for the Water Authority dealing with "Factors Affecting Water Supply Development" (1985) and site-specific reports (Mill Lane -1989, Oregon Road -1991, Laurel Lake -1992). For these reports, the CPWS-24 "Permissive Sustainable Yields" have been adopted as the most conservative values for water -supply planning purposes, and site-specific data have been utilized for well -field planning. The "Factors" reports dealt with the historic fluctuations of the fresh ground -water mound in the area between Mattituck Inlet and Richmond Creek, in effect the west - central, Area B, or Area 3 region of previous studies, and theoretical aspects of salt LEGGrrm BRAsHr.Am & GRAnAK L*4r— -1L - water upconing beneath a pumping well as related to yield and positioning of the well screen, as well as general well -field spacing. ID The three site-specific reports provided preliminary yield -potential estimates ranging from 175 gpm at Mill Lane, to 350 gpm at Oregon Road, to 625 gpm at. Laurel Lake. In each case, consideration was given to vertical upconing and lateral encroach- ment of salt water as the potential limiting parameters. WELL -FIELD SITE SELECTION CRITERIA It is evident that salt -water encroachment, vertically and/or horizontally, is the practical limiting factor for public supply well fields. In practice, it has been found that lateral encroachment is the more limiting factor for well or well -field yield in Southold when theoretical performance is evaluated. As was determined earlier on die South Fork, this means that the optimum locations for ground -water development are along the central spine of the North Fork, where fresh ground -water mounds or lenses occur between the major creeks/tidal inlets, roughly coincident with the Long Island Railroad track. This area affords the greatest aquifer thickness and the greatest distances from • salt -water bodies. However, there are other factors which have to be considered in Southold. Population Centers The primary population centers are located along the southern portion of the town adjacent to Peconic Bay, and also along Mattituck Creek. It therefom becomes inefficient to construct well fields in the interior because of water -main length and excessive pressure losses through the transmission pipes. The well -field site selection process included placing wells in reasonably close proximity to population centers. Storage Tanks Another factor is storage tank placement. In order to be able to integrate the Southold system with the Riverhead system, as well as other Authority systerns, the tanks must have an overflow elevation of 185 feet above sea level. The tallest tanks the LEaGsi-rE. BtusHmum & GRwHAK INc. -13 - Authority constructs are 150 feet, which means that they must be located at 35 feet above sea level. The 35 -foot contour in the western part of the Town of Southold, shown on plate 1, is approximately coincident with a water -table elevation of 4 to 5 feet above sea level on the southerly side of the fresh -water mound. At this elevation, the prospective well sites are sufficiently removed from salt -water bodies to minimize lateral salt -water intrusion potential. All of the six well -field sites in western Southold could accommodate a tank at elevation 35 feet above sea level onsite or in near proximity. A detailed review of storage needs is beyond the scope of this study but is a potentially important factor in an area with high seasonal weekend usage. Fresh -Water Mound The LBG report of March 1985 outlined the normal and extreme drought year (1966) water -table mound centered on Cutchogue Station, between Mattituck Creek and Richmond Creek. A number of prospective production well -field locations have been considered essentially between the normal +4- and +5 -foot water -table elevation contours. These general locations have been chosen because they are downgradient of the ground -water divide, sufficiently distant from tidal water, have a relatively thick fresh -water lens, are sufficiently separated to avoid undue mutual drawdown interference, are reasonably close to population centers and Main Road (Route 25) and, in a preliminary way, are in areas where property may be readily available to the Water Authority. Previous studies by LBG show that at water -table elevations of 4 feet above sea level, well yields as high as 700 gpm can be achieved without inducing upconing of salt water (LBG, 1985). These calculations were completed without consideration of the areally-extensive interstadial clay layer, which would be even more protective of high - yield wells. Based on the above factors, six well -field locations have been selected, as shown on plate 1. The anticipated long-term yields of the well fields, also shown on plate 1, are based on a recharge rate of 0.5 mgd/mF, and the indicated circles around each well site symbolically represent the equivalent recharge area. The actual zone of capture for • LEccErre, BiusHrAm & GRmLAK INc. each well field would have a parabolic shape centered on the wells and widening up to and, in some cases, beyond the present ground -water divide. As any site is tested and developed, site-specific zone -of -capture modeling should be used to define the actual zone of recharge capture. The total selected well -field network would have a combined sustained capacity of 3.2 mgd, sufficient yield to supply a population of about 30,000 people. This is well in excess of the population projections for the entire Town of Southold to the year 2020. It is important to recognize that short -duration seasonal pumpage substantially greater than the year-round rated capacities may be accommodated. The presence of upper interstadial clay in western Southold implies that seasonal upconing of saline water will be less of a limiting factor than on the South Fork. Sources of Known or Potential Contamination The most recent inventory of land disturbances that may involve potential hazardous waste/storage facilities is the Cornell University CLEARS study for the SCDOHS, in which a county -wide inventory of potential waste -disposal site was made by detailed analysis of aerial photographs for 1962, 1978 and 1984. Such features as dumps, landfills, pits, lagoons, barrels or drums, mined areas, disturbed land and above- ground tanks were identified, and changes associated with these sites over the photo history were described. Where pertinent, CLEARS information for the vicinity of proposed well -field sites is discussed below in the section on each proposed well -field location, and the mapped sites are shown on plate 1. Competition With Irrigation As can be seen in table 7-4 from the NFWSP (page 11 of this report). agricultural irrigation is the largest consumer of water on the North Fork. Estimates of the past irrigation pumpage have been given in previous reports, vary considerably from wet to dry year, and are considered unreliable by local agricultural experts. 11 LEGGETTE, BRASHEu s & GRAHAM, INc. -15- A windshield survey of the North Fork was conducted in June 1992 for a first- hand understanding of the active farming and irrigation activities, especially in relation to prospective public water supply well sites. In the Town of Southold, there appears to be considerable agricultural diversity, with the historic dominant potato acreage giving way to sod and wine grapes, and a large acreage still in vegetables and ber.ries. Table 7-3 from the NFWSP, reproduced below, gives estimates of crop acreage and annual water consumption in 1980 based on estimates by the Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Service. IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CROPS GROWN ON THE NORTH FORKY (From Table 7-3, NFMSP) Crop type Acreage Irrigation requirements" (gallons per acre per year) Potatoes 12,000 125,000 Mixed vegetables 4,000' 205,000 Cabbage and Cauliflower 3,500 205,000 Rye 2,000 -- Nursery stock 2,000 165,000 Pastures 1,000 20,000 Sod 1,000 245,000 Sweet corn 800 125,000 Fruit trees 600 125,000 Grapes 350 40,000 Greenhouses 25 815,000 TOTAL 27,275-" 140,000 (weighted average) 1/ Communication with D. Fricke et al. from Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Service. 2/ Peppers, spinach, beans. 2/ All figures rounded. 4/ Acreage was estimated. LEGGL-rm BRAsHEARs & GaAHAK INC. -16 - By contrast, a 1991 estimate for all of Long Island for 1991 from the Farm Bureau shows only 7,500 acres in potatoes, 2,450 acres in cabbages and cauliflower, but with substantial increases in nursery stock, sod and grapes. Irrigation practices vary widely by crop and individual preferences, but mainly involve moveable sprinklers, with some trickle -irrigation in nursery stock areas. The "rule of thumb" is that most crops need an inch of natural or irrigation water per week during their growth cycle. In a typical year, sod requires about double the -water that potatoes need because of the growth cycle, whereas wine grapes are rarely irrigated except in the initial season of planting until the deep roots are set. A representative of the Soil Conservation Service offered his opinion that most crops in the Town of Southold are under -irrigated because of the lack of sufficient equipment and labor, and that the grape crop could be improved by periodic irrigation. In June 1992, a fairly sizeable acreage was in hay or lying fallow, with some area showing "old field progression" to woody plants. Numerous "for sale" signs were evident on inactive and on some active farms. As housing displaces farms, the consumptive use of ground water will decrease. Whether homes are supplied by individual wells or by public water supply, the major part of domestic water use will be returned to the ground by septic systems. Most of the previous reports on the North Fork forecast a long-term reduction in commercial agricultural activity in the future, following patterns from the west. If realized, this will result in less consumptive use of ground water. A working paper by the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange Project found that there were 470 parcels of land of 10 acres or larger in the Town of Southold, comprising 13,500 acres. Active commercial farms, 84 in number, involve ownership of only 3,670 acres. Retired farms comprised 2,533 acres. Substantial acreage, much in sod, was leased land, not included in the active farm list. A total of 1,100 acres of farmland in the Town have reportedly had their development rights sold. • LEccErrE, BxwstmAjts & GPAHAK INc. 9 PROPOSED WELL -FIELD LOCATIONS Site A -17- Site A is a farm site in an area presently used for cabbages and potatoes and with wine grapes, more potatoes and a small horse farm in the immediate area. For the present, there would be moderate competition for the available water for irrigation purposes, and only minor potential for interference with domestic supply wells. The preliminary yield potential of this site is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site B Site B is in unoccupied woodlands directly to the east of the Laurel Lake tract. Nearby farmland is lying fallow; there is some active potato farming to the west and southwest. Competition with irrigation is deemed minor. There is minor potential for interference with domestic supply and commercial wells within the Laurel Lake community, the Camp Malloy area and along Main Road (Route 25). The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.9 mgd. An issue that will need to be addressed during testing will be potential impacts on fresh -water wetlands about 1,000 feet to the north of the site. There is an abandoned sand and gravel pit to the east of Laurel Lake near the prospective well site. It has a hummocky appearance that looks like sand and gravel was dumped in, perhaps to cover something, rather than a typical mined -out appearance. No direct evidence of dumping was observed. This site should be checked out by test borings and a monitoring well during testing for a production well siie. The CLEARS study makes note of this site and another gravel mining site south of Main Road near Bray Avenue. In addition, an industrial site between Main Road and railroad tracks has a history of above -ground storage tanks, scattered waste and soil mounds. One or more monitoring wells would be warranted in this direction. Site C Site C is in farmland presently in use for vegetables and near some fallow land. Potatoes are grown to the west, wine grapes to the south, and more fallow land lies to Lz:GGrrTr. BRAsREA= & GRAmAK INc- the east. At present, there is moderate seasonal competition for the local ground water for irrigation, and some potential for interference with domestic supply wells along Main Road (Route 25). The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site D Site D is presently a Christmas tree farm. Wine grapes and beans are being grown to the west and northwest. The Town of Southold landfill is located 1.2 miles to the north-northwest, on the northerly side of the ground -water divide. Competition with seasonal irrigation water use appears light, but some potential for interference with domestic supply wells along Main Road (Route 25) and nearby side streets. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd. Site Site E is mainly in a wine -grape area, mostly associated with a single vintner. Competition with seasonal irrigation is presently light and the potential for interference with domestic wells is slight. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.5 mgd. . Site F Site F is in a primarily residential and wooded area. Directly to the northwest is a recharge basin/pond which has wetlands characteristics, and directly across Middle Road is a gasoline station. The site is too small to accommodate a storage tank but land 1,000 to 2,000 feet to the northeast on the north side of Middle Road, near the power line right-of-way, may be suitable. There is little to no competition with irrigation supplies, but some potential for interference with domestic supply wells. A 1989 test well at this site showed excellent water quality, and pore -water samples from the interstadial clay showed fresh water to more than 100 feet below the production zone. The preliminary yield potential is estimated as 0.25 to 0.30 mgd. A public water -supply permit has been issued for two wells at this site with an authorized withdrawal rate of 288,000 gpd (gallons per day). Is LEGGL=, BBAswEims & GP.A»AK INc. -19 - Site -Specific Testing Once suitable properties are located for well installation, a testing program would be initiated. At each site, a test well would be installed and a controlled pumping test run to determine the zone of contribution. The tests would utilize existing or newly - installed monitor wells to determine water -level drawdowns at specific distances from the well fields. The final recommended well yields would be based on the aquifer testing. The initial development is planned for the Laurel Lake area. It is anticipated that this well field will be capable of supplying water to the communities west of Mattituck Creek along Peconic Bay, as well as most of Mattituck. In addition, the present investigation has included consideration of prospective well sites both east and west of Mattituck Creek and in Orient. No consideration has been given to the Village of Greenport which operates its own public supply system supported by wells. Orient Area Plate 1 also shows the much smaller and lower ground -water mound in Orient, with the location of a prospective well -field site. Based on Table 7-4 of the NFWSP (page 11 of this report), the Permissive Sustained Yield of this area is already over- subscribed, mainly by agricultural pumpage. Considering that both the agricultural and residential consumption peak during the same months, and the small volume of local fresh ground -water storage, it appears likely that increases in pumpage would likely lead to salt -water encroachment, especially in drought years. A local source of public water supply by shallow wells might be feasible if a significant volume of agricultural pumpage is retired. A rectangular manmade pond about a half mile to the east at the headwaters to the wetlands was identified by the CLEARS study. The 1978 and 1984 photos showed the pond being filled in with material including miscellaneous waste. The estimated yield potential of this site is about 0.15 mgd. • LEGGEr, BRwsmu s & GQ HAA Nc. GROUND -WATER QUALITY Ground -water quality in the Town of Southold has been widely degraded by leaching agricultural chemicals. Heavy fertilizer use has caused elevated nitral:e levels, commonly exceeding the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1 (milligrams per liter) of nitrate -nitrogen. Concentrations of residues of aldicarb and other pesticides and fungicides also commonly exceed drinking water limits. Naturally -occurring dissolved iron and, to a lesser extent, manganese are also commonly esthetic nuisances fir private well owners. Where present above the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels in public water -supply wells, treatment for removal would be required and would be a benefit to customers. Well -site selection can minimize the concentrations of agricultural chemicals. Initial sampling results from the Mill Lane test well in Peconic indicated excellent water quality, but sustained high -yield pumpage at any site will tend to draw in water from laterally -remote areas, and to draw water from the upper part of the water table where surficial chemical impacts tend to be concentrated. Any well in the Southold urea should be expected eventually to show impacts of agricultural chemicals, although not necessarily in excess of drinking water standards. It would be prudent to plan on water treatment for nitrate and pesticidelherbicidelfungicide removal and for iron and/or manganese removal at each well field. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIVIlVI MATIONS 1. There is sufficient fresh ground water in the Town of Southold to support the expected future population growth into the early part of the next century. • • LECGErm BRASHEAm & GR"AK Irrc. • -21- 2. The expected future reduction in commercial agricultural 'activity will reduce the consumptive use of ground water, resulting in a more favorable hydrogeologic budget. Ground water used for domestic water supply is largely returned to the ground by septic systems. 3. Ground -water quality in the Town of Southold has been impaired by residues of agricultural chemicals. Although any well site may initially show satisfactory water quality, some water -quality degradation over time should be expected. Treatment for nitrate and/or pesticide/herbicide/fungicide residue removal and for iron and/or manganese removal should be planned for any public water well field in the Town. Over the very long term, reduced agricultural activity should result in some ground -water quality improvement. 4. Six well -field sites have been identified in the western part of the Town, from the Riverhead border to the hamlet of Peconic. These sites have individual projected yield potentials of 200 to 625 gpm, and an aggregate estimated yield of 3.2 mgd. Tank locations that would meet the Authority's elevation criterion are available at or near each well site. The well -field and tank sites have been situated so as to be reasonably close to population centers that may want public water -supply service. The ultimate distribution system would likely tie into the Greenport Water District, providing additional back-up capacity for that system. 5. The ground -water resources in the Orient area appear to be fully subscribed by domestic and agricultural usage. If agricultural acreage is retired, a small local well field may be feasible. LzGG rne, BzusxEAxs & Gawxwaa, Nc. -22- 6. As with any Water Authority exploration program, a full-scale testing program should be conducted at any proposed well -field site to ascertain the hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface material, the depth of the salt -water interface, !-►e stratigraphy, the water quality and any potential impacts of water -supply development. LEGG=, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC„ R. G. Slayba k, CPG President Robert Lamonica, CPG Vice President skd July 28, 1992 southold.rpt/92-34 • 1-1 LEGGErm BRAsHEAIts & GRAHAM, INc. • • -Lj- REFERENCES Baier, J. H. and Dennis Moran, 1981, "Status Report on Aldicarb Contamination of Groundwater as of September 1981", Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Baier, J. H. and S. F. Robbins, 1982, "Report on the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater - North Fork of Suffolk County", Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Bohn -Buxton, Debra E., Herbert T. Buxton and Valerie-ann K. Eagen, in press, "Ground -Water Flow Patterns and Traveltimes on North Fork, Long Island, New York, in Relation to Aldicarb Contamination", United States Geological Survey. Crandall, H. C., 1963, "Geology and Ground -Water Resources of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York", United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1619 -GG. ERM -Northeast Engineers, P.C. and Camp, Dresser & McGee, 1983, "North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York", prepared for Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Hoffman, John F., 1961, "Hydrology of the Shallow Ground -Water Reservoir of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York", United States Geological Survey, Bulletin GW -42. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, 1970, "Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County, New York, CPWS-24. Jensen, H. M. and Julian Soren, 1974, "Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, New York", United States Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -501. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1985, "Factors Affecting Water -Supply Development in the Southold Area, Long Island, New York", prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. LEGCEI j BRAsHEARB & GRAHAK INC. -24- Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1989, "Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the: Richmond Creek Subdivision Property, Mill Lane, Peconic, New York", prepared for i Suffolk County Water Authority. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1991, "Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Property at Oregon Road, Oregon Hills, Town of Southold, New York", prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., 1992, "Potential Land Acquisition, Laurel, New York", prepared for Suffolk County Water Authority. Luscynski, N. J. and J. F. Hoffman, 1951, "The Water Table as of April 1950 in Southold Township, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York", United States Geological Survey, Open -File Report. McClymonds, N. E. and O. L. Franke, 1972, "Water -Transmitting Properties of Aquifers on Long Island, New York", United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 627-E. Soren Julian and W. G. Stelz 1984 "Aldicarb-Pesticide Contamination of Ground a Water in Eastern Suffolk County, New York", United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report. Suffolk County Water Authority, 1990, "Southold Watershed Management. Plan: Evaluation of Proposed Alvah's Lane Wellsite, Hamlet of Cutchogue". • LEGGr7 r. BRAsmm s & GAmuK Irrc. • t • Fill • ��1 �:1 FIGURE 41 FROM THE NFWSP LEGGL-rm BRAsmas & GRAHAM, INc. ZONE 2 ZONE 3 RIVER HEADG1�' RIVERHEAD 130 TOWN LINE >D o�� SOUTHOLD 120 t g`QP BOUNDARY 100 "' I �o 75 n h .IECL' y0h �Q y 1 SO 93}y� 6Z�0 �y� In H l ,yy't'y yyyy 0! p16gi'"� y„��yti ...wee WATER TABLE `� yy lNAATTI +25 „"` aft4.e n���• CR EE WATER TABLE gw.w�.e ww�w�oww .w.w SEA LEVEL O -20 1 75 100 CLAY AND SANDY CLAY GLA'. 125 � SAM 150 IPL P91 -ft I 173 Vp •. v 200-1MQI { 225 Weil � A 250 275 `� • 300 'Z 2 325- 350 25 350 375 �` 1 400 FRESH WATER TO BEDROCK y 423 1 E 4 1 ZONE 5 1g y�oiIojyy� C, QSHAMy9yp� OBD POND .w..w...� .. .... +•r'lol� / { •lo TEST WELL Figur* 4-f Geologic Cress - See lOn Appendix 7 Parcel Statistics • • 0 Parcel Statistics: Raw Acreage and Factored Lots within 75' of Existing Water Main, by Zoning Designation Zoning status, based on land use codes: Designation vacant not vac. unknown Totals AC raw 497.5 1768.3 508.1 2773.9 factored 199.0 707.3 203.2 1109.6 AHD raw 8.7 82.1 --- 90.8 factored 23.5 221.7 --- 245.2 B 21.1 102.7 13.6 137.4 HB 8.8 126.1 7.1 142.0 HD raw 30.2 44.4 20.2 94.8 factored 81.5 119.9 54.5 256.0 LB 12.7 55.1 8.3 76.1 LI 27.7 107.6 4.2 139.5 LIO 55.7 142.7 9.4 207.8 MI --- 12.5 --- 12.5 MII 12.6 88.2 1.5 102.3 R40 raw 752.2 3293.4 130.7 4176.3 factored 601.8 2634.7 104.6 3341.0 R80 raw 731.9 1881.8 180.7 2794.4 factored 292.8 752.7 72.3 1117.76 RO raw 6.0 44.0 --- 50.0 factored 4.8 35.2 --- 40.0 RR 21.6 86.9 25.8 134.3 artiall /Full 12.7 7.7 15.8 36.2 Under Water, Parcel Statistics: Raw Acreage Factored Lots, within 75' of Potential Water Main, by Zoning Designation • • is Zonin status, based on land use codes: Desianation vacant not vac. unknown Totals AC raw 210.4 841.0 277.8 1329.2 factored 84.16 336.4 111.1 531.7 AHD raw --- --- --- factored --- --- --- B --- 1.5 --- 1.5 HB --- 2.1 4.7 6.8 HD raw --- --- --- factored --- --- --- LB 5.5 6.2 --- 11.7 LI 1.9 14.3 6.3 22.5 LIO --- 51.0 --- MI - -- mil 7.2 7.2 20.5 0.1 27.8 R40 raw 328.6 1273.3 79.2 1681.1 factored 262.9 1018.6 63.4 1344.9 R80 raw 96.2 641.6 127.7 865.5 factored 38.5 256.6 51.1 346.2 RO raw --- 0.6 --- 0.6 factored --- 0.48 --- 0.48 RR-- --- --- Partially/Fully --- --- --- Under Water • • is r1 L ---j • Parcel Statistics: Raw Acreage Factored Lots, Outside Water Service Area Zoning status, based on land use codes.- odes:Designation Designation vacant not vac. unknown Totals AC raw 33.1 5387.14 670.19 6090.41 factored 13.2 2154.9 268.1 2436.2 AHD raw 0.1 5.8 --- 5.9 factored 0.27 15.7 --- 15.9 B 5.4 19.9 4.2 29.5 HB 11.8 13.8 5.9 31.6 HD raw 10.56 192.12 --- 202.68 factored 28.51 518.7 --- 547.2 LB 1.4 18.2 --- 19.6 LI 15.31 69.4 1.3 86.0 LIQ 0.8 39.2 5.6 45.6 MI 0.0 0.1 --- 0.1 Mil 6.9 6.1 0.0 13.1 R40 raw 369.01 976.71 128.75 j 1474.47 factored 295.2 781.4 1031 1179.6 R80 raw 999.35 2142.17 321.53 3463.05 factored 399.7 856.9 128.6 1385.2 R200 raw 103.3 821.6 --- 924.9 factored 16.5 131.5 --- 148 R400 raw 5.0 3.9 8.9 factored 0.4 0.3 0.7 RO raw 0.5 3.5 --- 4.0 factored 0.4 2.8 --- 3.2 RR 1 27.1 --- t 27.1 • Appendix 8 Water Quality at Select Non -Production Wells • • OUT OF SERVICE WELLS MCL 0.3m 0.3m 250m lOm 18u 50u SOu 7u 50u 50u 4u 7u Location Depth Ackerly Pond 89' Lane 1 Date 7/13/2001 Iron <0.03 Manganese <0.01 Chloride 127.7 Nitrate 7.4 Perchlorate 3.3 TCPA <0.10 Metalaxyl 0.14 Total Aldicarb 2.4 Metolachlor 0.61 MEK <0.5 Simazine 0.25 Dinoseb <0.82 Ackerly Pond 57' Lane 3 8/27/2002 <0.03 <0.01 15.6 2.29 (0.6) - - <0.5 - <0.5 - - Main Bayview 55' Rd 1 8/2/2001 0.09 0.09 94.4 <0.10 2.6 <0.10 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.82 Browns Hills Rd 52' 2 8/28/1998 0.34 <0.01 38.1 16.94 <3.0 - - 6.2 - <0.5 - - " Means Not Tested. Perchlorate Results that are in parentheses are below the SCWA laboratory reporting level of 2.0u Test Wells MCL 0.3m 0.3m 250m lOm 18u SOu SOu 7u SOu SOu 4u 7u Location Hommel Ave (6" supply) Depth 80' Date 9/15/1997 Iron 0.06 Manganese <0.01 Chloride 27.8 Nitrate 7.11 Perchlorate - TCPA <0.10 Metalaxyl <0.10 Total Aldicarb 1.1 Metolachlor <0.10 MEK 9.3 Simazine <0.10 Dinoseb <0.82 Rocky Point Rd 2 70' 11/16/2000 <0.03 1 <0.01 11.6 0.25 <3.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.82 Brecknock Hall 2 64' 6/29/2001 0.03 <0.01 19 2.12 <3.0 1.2 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.82 Harbor Lights Test Well 1 40' 5/31/2002 <0.03 0.05 19.9 1.35 <3.0 2.2 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.82 Forestbrook Test Well 1 55' 6/10/2002 <0.03 0.02 28.1 4.24 <3.0 <0. t0 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 <0.82 Means Not Tested. Perchlorate results that are in parentheses are below the SCWA laboratory reporting level of 2.Ou 0 0 9 Monitoring Wells MCL ..................................... 0.3m 0.3m 250m 10m 18u 50u 50u 7u 50u 50u 4u 7u Location Depth Date Iron Manganese Chloride Nitrate Perchlorate TCPA Metalaxyl Total Metolachlor MEK Simazine Dinoseb Aldicarb Ackerly Pond 30' 9/19/2002 - - 35.6 2.8 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #1 Ackerly Pond 40' 9/19/2002 - - 63.1 3.02 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #2 Ackerly Pond 55' 9/19/2002 - - 58.7 4.03 <2.0 <0.10 1.16 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #3 Alvah's Lane 275' 5/16/2002 - - 1002.8 0.36 - - - - - - - CWA1 Brecknock Hall 70' 9/5/2002 - - 77.6 3.93 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #2 Middle Rd. (CR 70' 8/22/2002 - 15.7 2.51 - <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 48) MW #14" Middle Rd. (CR 70' 8/22/2002 - 18.6 0.79 - <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 48) MW #2 6" Middle Rd. (CR 30' 8/22/2002 16.7 0.97 - <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 48) MW #3 4 - Middle Rd. (CR. 65' 8/22/2002 - 9.8 0.95 - <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 48) MW #4 4" Middle Rd. (CR. 65' 8/22/2002 9.8 0.9 - <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 48) MW #5 6" Mill Lane 85' 9/24/2002 - - 35.5 2.16 (1.6) <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 (Peconic) MW #2 Mill Lane 85' 9/24/2002 - - 53.4 0.27 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 (Peconic) MW #3 Mill Lane 85' 9/17/2002 - 22.5 3.97 <2.0 <0.10 _ <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 (Peconic) MW #5 Mill Lane 2"- 1 170' 1 9/24/2002 - 21.7 0.17 1 <2.0 1 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 Mill Lane 2"- p2 170' 9/24/2002 - - 41.9 < - <0.10 I <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.82 Mill Lane 2"- p3 170' 9/24/2002 - - 20.2 0.15 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 Laurel Lake 150' 9/12/2002 - - 16.9 0.99 3.3 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #2d Laurel Lake 150' 9/12/2002 - - 6.6 0.13 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #3d Laurel Lake 80' 9/12/2002 - - 12.7 0.19 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #4s Laurel Lake 80' 9/12/2002 - - 16.2 0.22 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #5s Laurel Lake 4" 235' 9/12/2002 - - 9 0.19 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #6 Rocky Point Rd. 91' 9/6/2002 0.66 0.02 29.3 9.34 <2.0 160 <0.10 1.2 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #4 Rocky Point Rd. 64' 9/6/2002 2.14 0.08 35.4 8.65 <2.0 19 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #5 Rocky Point Rd. 72' 9/6/2002 0.06 0.02 26.6 17.98 <2.0 93 <0.10 <0.5 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #6 _ Sunset Dr 4" 99' 7/18/2002 1.28 0.02 19.6 8.19 2.9 <0.10 <0.10 11.8 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #1 Sunset Dr 4" 103' 6/13/2002 2.85 0.04 16.8 6.52 (1.9) <0.10 <0.10 10.9 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #2 Sunset Dr 4" 104' 5/8/2002 1.66 <0.01 11.7 3.86 <2.0 <0.10 <0.10 3.7 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.82 MW #3 means not tested. Perchlorate results that are in parentheses are below the SCWA Laboratory reporting level of 2.Ou Appendix 9 Engineering Cost Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 1. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Ackerly Pond Well Field, Southold, Town of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS -Based on a 840 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $75,000 $ 75,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation f or Treatment Sy stem Enclosure L.S. 1 $35,000 $ 35,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf ., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 840 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Remov al Treatment L.S. 1 $1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 System, Complete as manuf. . By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly , piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between Sy stem, tanks L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 and Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical W ork, L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 Complete Yard Pining 8) Yard Piping Complete, I ncluding all misc. f ittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 100 $20 $ 2,000 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 400 $40 $ 16,000 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 10 $2,700 $ 27,000 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Pav Ing to Treatment L.S. 1 $75,000 $ 75,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 1,550,000 Engineering (20%): $ 310,000 Contingency (20%): $ 372,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 2,232,000 Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept Table 1. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment Systern, Ackerly Pond Well Field, Southold, Town of Southold, New York B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 122,001,250 gallons per y ear treated Item Unit Quantity $ Unit Cost Total Cost $ Operational Contingency (10%): $ _ 5,725 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 1) Sodium Chloride ton 146 $ 75.00 $ 10,980 $ 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost f or disposal to the Bergen Gallons 246,907 $ 0.08 $ 19,753 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (av g. 0.5 hrsJday) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 15,000 $ 0.15 $ 2,250 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analy sis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated W ater Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, f low meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Operation & Maintenance T reatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on sy stem operating @ 840 gpm f or avg. 6.6 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 122 million gallons of treated water per y ear. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium by pochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are prov ided only for the operation of the Perchlorate remov al treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated f low for Ackerly Pond Lane W ell Field = 122,001,250 gallons. Subtotal: $ 52,048 Administration (10%) $ 5,205 Contingency (10%): $ _ 5,725 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 62,978 _-� ��j! �Ljv TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 0.52 Operation & Maintenance T reatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on sy stem operating @ 840 gpm f or avg. 6.6 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 122 million gallons of treated water per y ear. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium by pochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are prov ided only for the operation of the Perchlorate remov al treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated f low for Ackerly Pond Lane W ell Field = 122,001,250 gallons. Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. • Table 2. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Evergreen Drive Well Field, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 50 gpm T reatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf ., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 50 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Remov al Treatment L.S. 1 $150,000 $ 150,000 System, Complete as manuf. . By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Deliv ery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly , piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between Sy stem, tanks L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 and Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical W ork, L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Complete Yard Piuina 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 230 $20 $ 4,600 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 0 $0 $ - 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 2 $2,700 $ 5,400 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Pav ing to Treatment L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 240,000 Engineering (20%): $ 48,000 Contingency (20%): $ 57,600 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 345,600 Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept Table 2. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Operation 3 Maintenance T reatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on sy stem operating @ 50 gpm f or avg. 0.2 hourstday and 365 day slyear for a total of 0.219 million gallons of treated water per y ear. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium by pochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are prov ided only for the operation of the Perchlorate remov al treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated f low for Evergreen Driv a Well Field = 219,000 gallons. 0 Evergreen Drive Well Field, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, New York B. 08M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 219,000 gallons per y ear treated Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational 1) Sodium Chloride ton 0.3 $ 75.00 $ 20 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost f or disposal to the Bergen Gallons 438 $ 0.08 $ 35 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10.065 collecting samples, etc. (av g. 0.5 hrsJday) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 2,000 $ 0.15 $ 300 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analy sis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated W ater Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, f low meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 • Subtotal: $ 19,420 Administration (10%) $ 1,942 Contingency (10%): $ 2,136 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 23,498 ,2 i 19 a ��1 71 ' TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 107.30 Operation 3 Maintenance T reatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on sy stem operating @ 50 gpm f or avg. 0.2 hourstday and 365 day slyear for a total of 0.219 million gallons of treated water per y ear. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium by pochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are prov ided only for the operation of the Perchlorate remov al treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated f low for Evergreen Driv a Well Field = 219,000 gallons. 0 . Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 3. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Inlet Drive Lane Well Field, Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 400 gpm T reatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation f or Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf ., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 400 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Remov al Treatment L.S. 1 $700,000 $ 700,000 System, Complete as manus. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Remov al Treatment System, L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly , piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between Sy stem, tanks L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 and Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical W ork, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, I ncluding all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 240 $20 $ 4,800 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $4,000 $ 4,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 6 $2,700 $ 16,200 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Pav ing to Treatment L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 895,000 Engineering (20%): $ 179,000 Contingency (20%): $ 214,800 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,288,800 i Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 3. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Inlet Drive Lane Well Field, Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 41,975,000 gallons per y ear treated _ Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational $ 1,000 1) Sodium Chloride ton 50 $ 75.00 $ 3,778 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost f or disposal to the Bergen Gallons 83,950 $ 0.08 $ 6,716 Point STP TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 37,1277 a �' TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (av g. 0.5 hrsJday) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 7,500 $ 0.15 $ 1,125 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated W ater Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, f low meters, level controls and switches, etc. • 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 • Subtotal: 30,684 Administration (10%) $ 3,068 Contingency (10%): $ 3,375 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 37,1277 a �' TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 0.88 Operation & Maintenance T reatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on sy stem operating @ 400 gpm f or avg. 4.8 hours/day and 365 day,Jyear for a total of 41.97 million gallons of treated water per y ear. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium by pochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are prov ided only for the operation of the Perchlorate remov al treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated f low for Inlet Drive Lane Well Field = 41,975,000 gallons. 0 Subtotal: Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. 925,000 Engineering (20%): $ 185,000 Contingency (20%): $ 222,000 Table 4. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment Sptem, Laurel 1,332,000 �- Lake Well Field, Laurel, Town of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 450 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 450 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $725,000 $ 725,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, 6) Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 305 $20 $ 6,100 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 7 $2,700 $ 18,900 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 925,000 Engineering (20%): $ 185,000 Contingency (20%): $ 222,000 l TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,332,000 �- B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 80,300,000 gallons per year treated 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 4. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Laurel Subtotal: Lake Well Field, Laurel, Towt1 of Southold, New York 40,490 Administration (10%) Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational 1) Sodium Chloride ton 96 $ 75.00 $ 7,227 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 160,600 $ 0.08 $ 12,848 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 9,000 $ 0.15 $ 1,350 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 450 gpm for avg. 8.1 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 80.3 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Laurel Lake Well Field = 80,300,000 gallors. 0 Subtotal: $ 40,490 Administration (10%) $ 4,049 Contingency (100/6): $ 4,454 4 f q 3 / TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 48,993 i TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 0.61 Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 450 gpm for avg. 8.1 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 80.3 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Laurel Lake Well Field = 80,300,000 gallors. 0 Suffolk County Water Authority -Engineering Dept. Table 5. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment S}Stem, Main Bayview Well Field, Cutchogue, Toon of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 25 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $7,500 $ 7,500 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 25 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $150,000 $ 150,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $3,000 $ 3,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Complete Yard Pining 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 64nch diameter L.F. 230 $20 $ 4,600 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 0 $0 $ - 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 2 $2,700 $ 5,400 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 230,500 Engineering (20%): $ 46,100 Contingency (20%): $ 55,320 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 331,920 SB. Based 1,825,000 treated �'t O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - on gallons per year Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 5. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment Stem, Main Bayview Well Field, Cutchogue, Tow1 of Southold, New York Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational 1) Sodium Chloride ton 2 $ 75.00 $ 164 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 3,600 $ 0.08 $ 288 _ 23,979 Point STP TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 2,000 $ 0.15 $ 300 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 • Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 25 gpm for avg. 3.3 hours/day and 365 day:Jyear for a total of 1.825million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Main Bayview Well Field = 1,825,000 gallons. 0 Subtotal: $ 19,817 Administration (10%) $ 1,982 Contingency (10%): $ 2,180 _ 23,979 } �: av1 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 13.14 21 . J . Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 25 gpm for avg. 3.3 hours/day and 365 day:Jyear for a total of 1.825million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Main Bayview Well Field = 1,825,000 gallons. 0 Subtotal: Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. 240,000 Engineering (20%): Table 6. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment S)stem, Middle Road Well Field, Peconic, Towt of Southold, New York $ 57,600 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 50 gpm Treatment System 345,600 �} Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 50 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $150,000 $ 150,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L. F. 230 $20 $ 4,600 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 0 $0 $ - 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 2 $2,700 $ 5,400 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 240,000 Engineering (20%): $ 48,000 Contingency (20%): $ 57,600 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 345,600 �} B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 5,000,500 gallons per year treated 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Subtotal: Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. 20,615 Administration (10%) $ Table 6. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment SAtern, Middle Contingency (10%): $ Road Well Field, Peconic, Town of Southold, New York TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 24,944 Item Unit Quantity 4.99 Unit Cost Total Cost Operational 1) Sodium Chloride ton 6 $ 75.00 $ 450 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 10,001 $ 0.08 $ 800 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 2,000 $ 0.15 $ 300 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 Subtotal: $ 20,615 Administration (10%) $ 2,062 Contingency (10%): $ 2,268 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 24,944 TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 4.99 Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 50 gpm for avg. 4.6 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 5 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Middle Road Well Field = 5,000,500 gallons. is Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 7. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs fir a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Mill Lane Well Field, Peconic, Towi of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 600 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $60,000 $ 60,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 600 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $960,000 $ 960.000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $12,000 $ 12,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25.000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 420 $20 $ 8,400 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 8 $2,700 $ 21,600 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 1,192,000 Engineering (20%): $ 238,400 Contingency (20%): $ 286,080 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,716,480 lei COSTS 20,075,000 treated B. O&M (ANNUAL) -Based on gallons per year t / o Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 7. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System. Mill 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 0 Subtotal: Lane Well Field, Peconic, Towt of Southold, New York 26,018 Administration (10%) $ Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost 2,862 Total Cost Operational $ 31,481 1) Sodium Chloride ton 24 $ 75.00 $ 1,807 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 41,823 $ 0.08 $ 3,346 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 12,000 $ 0.15 $ 1,800 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 0 Subtotal: $ 26,018 Administration (10%) $ 2,602 Contingency (10%): $ 2,862 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 31,481 TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 1.57 / �( Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 600 gpm for avg. 1.5 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 20.075 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Mill Lane Well Field = 20,075,000 gallons. 0 • TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,965,600 �n B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 33,003,300 gallons per year treated J (`� Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. is Table 8. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Old North Road Well Field, Southold, Town of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 800 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $75,000 $ 75,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $35,000 $ 35,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 840 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L. F. 100 $20 $ 2,000 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 400 $40 $ 16,000 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 10 $2,700 $ 27,000 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $75,000 $ 50,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 1,365,000 Engineering (20%): $ 273,000 Contingency (20%): $ 327,600 • TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,965,600 �n B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS - Based on 33,003,300 gallons per year treated J (`� Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 8. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment S)stem, Old 2) Misc. Parts and Materials LS_ 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 0 Subtotal: North Road Well Field, Southold, Tovn of Southold, New York 29,116 • Administration (100/6) $ Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational 35,230%�- 1) Sodium Chloride ton 40 $ 75.00 $ 2,970 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 66,007 $ 0.08 $ 5,281 Point STP 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 12,000 $ 0.15 $ 1,800 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104. $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators. Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials LS_ 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 0 Subtotal: $ 29,116 • Administration (100/6) $ 2,912 Contingency (10%): $ _ 3,203 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 35,230%�- TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 1.07/I J � A Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 800 gpm for avg. 1.9 hours/day and 365 da)s/year for a total of 33 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Old North Road Well Field = 33,003,300 gallons. 0 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 838,080 L n B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS -Based on 6,004,250 gallons per year treated `f / Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 9. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Sunset Drive Well Field, Mattituck, Towi of Southold, New York A. CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 130 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $30,000 $ 30,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 130 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $450,000 $ 450,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $7,000 $ 7,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $10,000 $ 10,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 210 $20 $ 4,200 b. 12 -inch diameter L.F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 0 $0 $ - 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 4 $2,700 $ 10,800 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 582,000 Engineering (20%): $ 116,400 Contingency (20%): $ 139,680 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 838,080 L n B. O&M (ANNUAL) COSTS -Based on 6,004,250 gallons per year treated `f / Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 9. Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment S�Stem, Sunset Drive Well Field, Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Operational $ 21,464 Administration (10%) $ 1) Sodium Chloride ton 7 $ 75.00 $ 540 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 13,856 $ 0.08 $ 1,108 Point STP 4.33 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ 55.00 $ 10,065 collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 5,000 $ 0.15 $ 750 system and enclosure 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ 50.00 $ 5,200 and Treated Water Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ 70.00 $ 2,800 Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators, Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials L.S. 1 $ 11000.00 $ 1,000 • Subtotal: $ 21,464 Administration (10%) $ 2,146 Contingency (10%): $ 2,361 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 25,971 1 h( '? t "' i TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 4.33 Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 130 gpm for avg. 2.1 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 6 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Total Treated flow for Sunset Drive Well Field = 6,004,250 gallons. 0 Suffolk County Water Authority - Engineering Dept. Table 10. Capital and Operation and Maintenance. Costs br a Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, Kenny's Road Well Field, Southold, Tow of Southold, New York A_ CAPITAL COSTS - Based on a 500 gpm Treatment System Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Structures 1) Exterior Siding and Roof on Treatment System L.S. 1 $45,000 $ 45,000 Enclosure, Complete including all electric, heat, ventilation, insulation, doors, hardware, etc. 2) Concrete Foundation for Treatment System Enclosure L.S. 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 and Brine Tanks, Complete, including all reinf., slabs, etc. Perchlorate Removal System 3) 500 gpm Continuous Perchlorate Removal Treatment L.S. 1 $775,000 $ 775,000 System, Complete as manuf. By Basin Water, including all controls, piping, fittings, valves, prefilters, brine pumps, flow meter, Resin, Delivery, etc. 4) Installation of Perchlorate Removal Treatment System, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete, including all rigging, assembly, piping, fittings, etc. 5) Brine Tank and Wastewater Collection Tank L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Containment, Complete, including Containment, Installation, level controls, alarms, piping, etc. 6) Misc. Interconnecting Piping between System, tanks and L.S. 1 $15,000 $ 15,000 Yard Piping, Complete Electrical 7) Underground Conduit & Control Room Electrical Work, L.S. 1 $25,000 $ 25,000 Complete Yard Piping 8) Yard Piping Complete, Including all misc. fittings, Copper, Gaskets, Thrustblocking, Roding, etc. a. 6 -inch diameter L.F. 305 $20 $ 6,100 b. 12 -inch diameter L. F. 0 $40 $ - 9) Valves and Hydrants L.S. 1 $5,000 $ 5,000 10) Labor for Yard Piping Installation Day 7 $2,700 $ 18,900 Other 11) Misc. Site Work - including Asphalt Paving to Treatment L.S. 1 $40,000 $ 40,000 System, Grading, Topsoil and Seeding Landscaping, Fencing, etc. Subtotal: $ 990,000 Engineering (20%): $ 198,000 Contingency (20%): $ 237,600 TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: $ 1,425,600 / D .z„ B. 08M (ANNUAL) COSTS -Based on 150,380,000 gallons per year treated i Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Operational 1) Sodium Chloride ton 180 $ 2) Wastewater Disposal - Cost for disposal to the Bergen Gallons 300,760 $ Point STP $ 3) Additional Operator Costs - includes daily system check, man-hours 183 $ collecting samples, etc. (avg. 0.5 hrs./day) $ 4) Electric - includes only the electricity for the treatment kw/hr 10,000 $ system and enclosure $ 5) Water Quality Samples - Perchlorate Analysis of Raw each 104 $ and Treated Water $ Maintenance 1) P.C. Mechanic Costs - General maintenance, Brine man-hours 40 $ Pumps, Valves - test and adjust actuators. Check and calibration of differential pressure gauges, flow meters, level controls and switches, etc. 2) Misc. Parts and Materials 75.00 $ 0.08 $ 55.00 $ 0.15 $ 50.00 $ Total Cost 13,534 24,061 10,065 1,500 5,200 70.00 $ 2,800 L.S. 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000 • Subtotal: $ 58,160 Administration (10%) $ 5,816 Contingency (10%): $ _ 6,398 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL O&M COSTS: $ 70,374 TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED: $ 0.47 Operation & Maintenance Treatment Cost Assumptions 1) Yearly O&M Treatment are based on system operating @ 500 gpm for avg. 13.7 hours/day and 365 days/year for a total of 150.38 million gallons of treated water per year. 2) pH adjustment (Lime) and sodium hypochlorite costs are not included in this cost estimate. 3) Electric costs are provided only for the operation of the Perchlorate removal treatment process, well pump electric costs are not included. 4) Average Yearly Total Treated flow for Kenny's Road Well Field = 150,380,000 gallons. is TABLE 12. NORTH FORK PERCHLORAE REMOVAL TREATMENT SYSTEM - OPERATION 6 MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TABLE GENERAL WELL OIFMI,IATION ANNUAL TREATMEW VSTEM OPERATIONA IA NITENANCE COPT E8TWTES VN ba MM Cela FN. O6M Cala 1 App- An Ate' DWY W.. An. Yaady AOtlMMNrN ►uU ioW TGG E41-W V.-W DW Cala Par 1,000 Flaatl D6M Cala TdN EalmWatl Pump Walbn )NII MN PNCNhN NIU NI SWINa C11aNa TnNW Fbw HouN WNN F4M A ay.YrrH &Ina WrIN Wrla 11rine 11aM 16otllum OpNNr ENclrk W`wM Wy MN1nlamm 6WP. PNIa6 6Na MmInM- ConlMOancy MnuM BNa OWdN Trwlatl 0.11,000 pallma MM Mnual aIW4) rN 18011 Im041 tlNY wNYa ONIlenaltl.Y ProtluGbn IOal.) Fbw Ral 81ba oup.w CNb d Later WmpW NIrNmM:a Wlallala T--1 1-110YU 110%) TraalmanlCrla Iwl2o%Mmin.6 TnrW Iw120% Cwla Par 1,000 Im1Yp 1mp41 IOPmI opNNlatl IPPmI W-) C>la Conl.l Mmin. A Conl.l ONlbna TINa1atl ArNrxIY F-d 1.1 �I 0 G!. 1W 010 U.0 3]9.1111 1T1.-l,T!r0 1./D IJa rX11 i 10,>4] S 10.000 $ 111..!. S 111. S 5.114) S 1.OW 3 1,001 5 41..0 S 5.305 $ 1,)1'• 5 41.910 I). JU 5 n]1 11 lo F x+n Orravl Lxi 1 v 41 r11 TU W U1 HW 11N.(NNI 1110 IJU S S A 5 IU WS S 3IX1 1 11.1. S %.01. Y IJIW S 1D,420 S 1.041 S 1.1. 1J,nxt 5 Us 111.11 lu/.3U H4UI Ur1w IU 1. ] U.. 10 .11 4. J.tl 11'3 W0 11,9)5.)11 900 O1,Sr50 $ 0,116 S $.110 S 10,.5 $ 1.115 S 5,100 S 211. $ t.. $ M... 5 3.W0 $ '13/0 5 111.111 5 UJU s U''1 $ 0H xW LW:u 1,1 J I 10 la 100 p 1 T111.U01 W,01U.IXM1 O W 149,1.119 S 11.040 5 1.331 S 1D,W1 $ 1 ]W S .,.W $ 2.tlW $ I,UW $ 40.4) 5 J6J9 5 4A. S 18,99"J1 D3 > 0.3 Y U.bi airs ll:ry nux J J 4.1 J,r 45 25 lJ 1,4X1 tB%5,W0 O.IU V" $ 2W S 101 $ W.- S 3W $ 1121. $ 2,800 S "N. 5 19,611 $ 1901 $ 2A. f 11,919 S 11. U S 12.11 $ IJ MxIUIU ILexl. au: ryi., 1 3 I,. 1U 15 W Atl 13,/W 5,0x1.5) 11.19 IUWI S OW S IW $ WWI S 3W S 6.1W S '1.000 S I. WU 1 30,615 S 1.42 S 41W 5 I4I4,1 S 0. J $ 4.H5 5 J. MIM I.:aw I,[ 3.5 U 3'.11 W tl90 tr 59,11) 10,0)5,000 I.11 41,tl1:1 $ '1,348 $ 1,001 S 10,W5 $ I.BW S 5,T- S 1.WU $ 1,W0 $ k1,01tl E 1.W1 S 1,tlu1 S Jt; 101 $ O.J1 5 1.35 5 151 UW Nu1N111, t,1.J .1 1 11, 40 0W 1.0 ..IlU 33,013,3) 1.1'11 (41.01% S 6.1o1 S 2. WO S 111,(.1 S 16- S 6,TIN) S 3.- $ 1,0W $ 2,119 $1,013 S 3,191 5 35.%19 S u. 11.11: Y I D1 Clxlaol Lxlw t 3 n ]fl 119 130 It 16450 M1W/.TY1 (130 'J 950 S 1.100 $ W $ lu,h S 150 S 4.201 S 2.0- 1 IIA. S 11,4. S 1, 14tl ullryal2u'xl I ] 3 AL 1} 6- 1:1) 412.1x19 11.:1tl11X111 1W I'M 1H11 5 11..1 $ am. S IO.WL S 1,51. S 5,1110 S 2.bW S 1- S SO,1W 3 6.X14 S 13,;WU 5 -IU,v 5 0.1u S 9.10 5 041 TOWN J,J46 1,202,020 I 605 93t6V1 5 )4,1]5 { 41,410 $ 1-A- S 11,4P$ S 40,11- 5 25,2) $ D,-0 1 ]17,11-1 5 25,001 S 18,581 { ]72,-62 4914E Int Wulu Urldlly [L'11u 11 cvn SCWA Lnb .�iryJL1J.M'19N I. AVW OOU VUNIY WUII 14mucliull a1 S:uW w1 Jf.WA I4Wu.:liu11 C.rx1Ud P�,nlrylpn flab kx yuxs 1999, TOW 9nH )011 TOTAL VARIABLE 06M TREATMENT COST PER 1,000 GALLONS TREATED = $ 0.30 TOTAL AVERAGE FIXED 08M TREATMENT COST PER 1.000 GALLONS TREATED e $ 0.50 9 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE 11. NORTH FORK PERCHLORATE REMOVAL TREATMENT SYSTEM, CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY TABLE OENERALWEURIFORYATION •••�•••�•••••�•�•�••-•••••••. �_••._•-••.__ Appq. A," Ale.lhay WWFA". Wr1.9rM Aep.Yoorly Hwr.I,YY aYsw Wes/L P1•cNor•b 1Nl.aprn.e �0 47Narib Fb• e.a. FMM FIw R.Y W�Ir 9rt1. H (me6) (W) ImWI (pr6) apw.NM golf-sYey let•.1 Is+•l FIIV =8Yee.�E61.rWa1M6e AWfi61r6 Ce•I6 Mal BMRaeICrlw.leTena Enrb•9re Wart 11M& Cw1Yr6e.e1 Cee% Y�.1 P. EWtIW tlpOr6er. WYYlla6a0000TeWalbEmkwoorine YW.all. RbrB Tr,ree6nl Coen ale Autlr.rMY L.Bor 12ett) CanWywrylSs%1 T.4.1 E.d.o6od7r,e1e.4 slM Taatn.nlPer carAcko,ly C.pYiCPomp 11Pm19e6) P.m 1,2 4 8 65 100 64D 60 131,250 1 7U 246.907 S 1,100,000 S 75,000 S 35,000 f 25,000 $ 50.000 S 40000 S 125,000 S 1,550.000 S 310.000 f 372,000 S 2,212,008 S 2,657 Ere,9-D,1- 2 5 45 w 20 w 0.2 600 010 436 f 150,000 S 20.000 f 10,000 $ 5.000 $ 10,000 S 15.000 S M.000 S 240.000 S 48,000 f 5'A. S 345.. S 6,912 bl.lM. ts.2. 3 8.5 28 35 400 4.8 115000 11,9)5,000 0.Y 03,050 f 1001 S 40,000 f 20.000 S 10,000 S M. S 25,000 f 75,000 S 805.000 S 179.000 S 214,&X1 L 1,288,600 S 3,222 Lew.l L.k. 1.2 3 1 25 25 450 8.1 Motto 80,300.000 0.90 160,600 5 726,000 S 40.000 $ 20.000 $ 10,000 S 30.000 $ 25.000 S 15,000 S 925,OD0 S W.ODD S 22:0017 S /,)32,000 S 2,960 Mem Boyrbw 3 3 15 45 55 25 33 5.000 1,525,000 010 7.300 f 150,000 5 15,000 $ 7.500 S 3,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 S 30,000 5 230,500 f 48,100 f 55,320 S 331,920 f 13,277 Mddl. R..d, ru. 1 3 1.5 25 15 50 4.6 13.700 5000,500 0 10 10,001 f 150,000 f 20,000 S WOW S 5000 f 10,000 $ 15,000 S 30.000 f 240,000 S 45,000 S 57,600 S 345,600 S 8,912 MIN 1.- 1.2 3.5 8 35 00 800 1.5 55,000 20,075,000 1.25 41.823 S 080,000 S 80,000 S 25,000 S 12.000 f 35,000 S 25,000 f 75.000 S 1.192000 $ 238.400 $ 280.060 $ 1,715400 S 2,681 OW N.,15 Rd 1,2.3 3 7 a5 40 600 1 9 90,420 ]3 OD3,300 1 00 68,007 $ 1,050000 S 75,000 S 35.000 S 15,000 S 50.000 $ 40,000 f 100,000 S 1 ]85,000 f 273.000 S 327800 S 1,985,600 S 2,457 Sunset Nw. 1 3 0 30 140 130 21 18,450 6,004.250 0.30 13,856 f 450,000 f 30,000 $ 15.000 S 7,000 $ 15.000 S 15,000 $ W.D00 S 562.000 S 118.400 $ 130,660 $ 638,000 S 6.447 Xeivly'. Rood 1 3 3 45 25 500 131 412,0D0 150]50,000 I 300.700 f 775,000 S 46,000 f 20.000 S 15,000 f 30.000 S 25,000 S 80,m $ 900,000 $ 196.000 S 237,800 S 1A25,G0 S 2.651 TDI61e 1,345 1,283,420 190,70.7,100 6.85 931.642 $ 6,310.000 $ 420,000 5197,500 $ 107,000 $ 235.000 $ 215.000 $ 590,000 f 8,200.500 f 1.443,900 $ 1.732.880 S 11,186,080 N.bc (.) W.tm OueNty Oeb 1-SCW ALob (b) T1e.b- System Cosl Elinubc Wovidea Ow, Bush, W-1 l c I T--1 Svtwn h.s. e.6maed Lit. .120 years 95800[91 NQ10 Total Present Worth of Vestment System Replacement Costs at year] 29, 40, 60 6 80 (6.00% Meed 6 20% Adrdn. 8 Cont.) $ 3,398,314 1. A .... 0. Y..rly WaN Nbowlim,s based m SCW A Pod-li.n C-4.1 Pvmp.90 0.b la yod,. 1909 2M. d 2001 Grand Total of Estimated Sits batmen System and batman) System Replacement Cods • S 14,784,394 2 W este &„w clpopu lw,k.9.) is u,cludatl es pail of system wcic • U I* Appendix 10 Map of Potential Water Main Routes Flanders to Laurel Possible Water Transmission Routes: Western So-4,t-hol.d 01- .4, Matfituck' Riverhead vl� Oak Avenue Well Field Well Peconic Bay Possible Water Main Transmission Routes Route #I Route #2 A� Route #3 Combined Alternative #I Combined Alternative #2 Existing SCWA Water Mains Potential Mains SCWA Properties/Facilities Road Right of Ways -public Road Right of Ways -private • Appendix 11 Riverhead Water District Distribution System Evaluation & Hydraulic Model RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION HYDRAULIC MODEL H2M PROJECT NO.: RDWD 02-63 MARCH 2003 'ROLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. 575 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747-5076 u2-AtC;Roup Engineers • Architects • Scientists 0 Planners • Surveyors RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT' SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION HYDRAULIC MODEL H2M PROJECT NO.: RDWD 02-63 MARCH 2003 U2i4(;R0UP HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, N.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS 0 PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS MELVILLE, NY TOTOWA, NJ P -j • CEC U28AC,7ROUP ENGINE RING SUPPORTING EXCELLENCE AIN ENGINEERING Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. ► H2M Associates, Inc. March 31, 2003 H2M Labs, Inc. ► H2M Construction Management, Inc. 575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, New York 11747 Supervisor Robert F. Kozakiewicz (631) 756-8000, Fax: (631) 694-4122 Town of Riverhead e-mail: h2m@h2m.com 200 Howell Avenue web: www.h2m.com Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Riverhead Water District Distribution System Evaluation and Hydraulic Model H2M Project No.: RDWD 02-63 ' Dear Supervisor Kozakiewicz : Enclosed please find a copy of the engineering report entitled "Riverhead Water District — ' Distribution System Evaluation and Hydraulic Model", dated March 2003. This study was authorized by the Town Board to provide the Riverhead Water District with a planning and operational tool for the evaluation of the water transmission and distribution system. Now that the model has been compiled, it will be used by the District when evaluating the impact of additional developments within the Town/District. It will also be utilized for determining the most effective locations for future well sites, storage tanks and transmission mains. This study also evaluates the District's capability and potential impacts of supplying water to the Suffolk County Water Authority at the Southold town line. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact this office. Very truly yours, ZM H]C c nn7 M. Kelleher. P.E. DMK:slp Enclosure N & MURRELL, P.C. cc: Councilman James Lull Councilman Edward Densieski Councilwoman Barbara Blass Councilwoman Rose Sanders Supt. Gary Pendzick Barbara Grattan, Town Clerk • Richard Ehlers, Esq. pArdwd\0263\report\inside cover letter.doc ENGINEERS L ARCHITECTS ► SCIENTISTS PLANNERS ► CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS L SURVEYORS 1H28V; R0 U P RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION HYDRAULIC MODEL H2M PROJECT NO.: RDWD 02-63 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3A Well Facilities TABLE 3-2 Water Storage Tank Facilities I MARCH 2003 PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 2.0 EXISTING RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT OVERVIEW 2-1 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS 3-1 4.0 RIVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 4.1 Overview 4-1 4.2 Fire Flow Scenarios 4-3 5.0 SUPPLY TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 5.1 Interconnection at town line 5-1 5.2 New SCWA Supply Connection 5-4 5.3 New SCWA Supply Connection with Dedicated RDWD Main 5-6 5.4 New Supply Well in Eastern Riverhead 5-6 5.5 Multiple Interconnections at town line 5-7 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3A Well Facilities TABLE 3-2 Water Storage Tank Facilities I ! TABLE 3-3 ' TABLE 4-1 ' TABLES 4-2 & 4-3 TABLE 5-1 & 5-1.A ' TABLE 5-2 TABLE 5-3 TABLE 5-4 TABLE 5-5 TABLE 5-6 TABLE 5-7 TABLE 5-8 I • LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D) Booster Pump Facilities Low Pressure Readings (Wading River) Comparison of Fire Flow Scenarios Interconnection at Peconic Bay Boulevard Interconnection at Route 25 Interconnection at Sound Avenue Dedicated Hubbard Avenue Transmission Main New Well Facility ( Tuthills Lane) New Well Facility (LILCO Fire Well) Multiple Zonel Interconnections Separate Zone 1 & Zone 2 Interconnections LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT I Hydraulic Model Network Schematic ii 1-12MGR0U P RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION & HYDRAULIC MODEL H2M PROJECT NO.: RDWD 02-63 MARCH 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. (H2M) was authorized by the Town of Riverhead (Town) to evaluate the current water distribution system of the Riverhead Water District (District). Although the District normally has no difficulty maintaining; adequate pressures and flows throughout the entire Water District, certain peak summer days have created low pressure situations in a few sections of Town, most notably the areas of new development in Wading River and Baiting Hollow. The District is currently in the process of constructing an additional supply well in the Calverton area (Well No. 11-1) and is in the early planning stages of constructing an second well at the same site (Well No. 11-2). Also, the District has almost completed the upgrading of the existing well pumps at the former Grumman site in Calverton (Well Nos. 12-1 & 12-2) to increase the overall output of both wells at that particular site. This additional capacity will be sufficient to assist the District in meeting the present needs of the District. However, with proposed development continuing throughout the Town, this evaluation and model can determine the effects that these developments will have on the existing system. During last year's summer pumping season, the District had some difficulty maintaining adequate water supply and pressure, most notably in its Zone 2 high pressure zone. To help compensate for the limited water supply and pressure, the District purchases water from the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) through two interconnections located at the Brookhaven Town line. This water is supplied to the District on an as needed basis and is typically utilized during off-peak hours to fill the existing water storage facilities. It is the goal 1-1 U28tG (SOU P of the District that the additional supply wells and proposed improvements at Plants 11 and 12 will eliminate the dependency on the interconnections with SCWA in the Wading River area. As part of the evaluation, a series of improvements were analyzed including the addition of transmission main at various points of the District and the modification of existing well and storage facilities. In order to evaluate the water distribution system, H2M has developed a computerized hydraulic model of the District's water supply and distribution system. This hydraulic model is a powerful infrastructure management tool that can be used in the design, planning and operation of water supply and distribution systems. Specifically, the model can be used to simulate various conditions and modifications to a water supply and distribution system. The results of the simulations can then be used to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the modifications without actually constructing the modifications. In this study, H2M provides a brief overview of the District's water supply and distribution system, describes the hydraulic model, presents the results of various scenarios and analyzes the model results relative to each I� other. �1 The report also provides an evaluation and recommendations to the Town and District in response to the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) request for water from the Riverhead Water District distribution system at various points along the Southold Town line. These recommendations take into account the potential effects on the existing distribution system and the Riverhead consumers at varying water flow rates to Southold. 1-2 IH2MG ISO U P 2.0 EXISTING RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT The Riverhead Water District is a publicly owned and operated Water District administered directly by the Riverhead Town Board. The District has expanded sigrti_ficantly over the past 15 years and now supplies water service to approximately 10,500 services throughout most of the Town of Riverhead, extending from Wading River to Laurel. With the exception of some areas in Calverton, there are few large areas of the Town that do not have public water. Several smaller areas still exist, but unless there is a driving need to extend the public water service (contaminated individual wells or new development), the cost of installing the water mains becomes rather expensive. The existing capital facilities of the Riverhead Water District consist of eleven (11) wells and pumping stations, two (2) elevated steel storage tanks, two (2) steel storage standpipes, one (1) booster stations with three pumps and one (1) ground storage tank with booster pwnps. These facilities are located at twelve (12) plant sites throughout the District. Water is conveyed throughout the District by a system of transmission and distribution mains from the; wells and tanks to the various consumers and to a network of fire hydrants located throughout the system. The District is also currently in the process of planning and constructing two additional wells and pump facilities along Middle Country Road (Rte. 25) in Calverton (Plant No. 11). The District maintains a high (Zone 2) and low (Zone 1) pressure zone. In addition, a third, small higher pressure zone (Zone 3) was created in the Wading River area. Zone 1 is supplied water from a total of seven (7) well stations located at Plant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and contains two (2) elevated storage tanks, a 0.75 million gallon tank at Plant 3 - Route 58 and a 0.15 million gallon tank at Plant 1 — Pulaski Street. The low zone; is located at the central and southeasterly portion of the District and includes the Riverhead Business District, the Middle Road area, Aquebogue and Jamesport. 2-1 0 • U2MGISOU P s Zone 2 is supplied water from four 4 wells located at Plant Nos. 7 and 12 and three 3 P P O ( ) booster pumps at Plant 6 — Osborn Avenue. The booster pumping station contains two electric - driven pumps at 750 GPM each and one automatic start engine driven pump at 1,000-1,200 GPM. The station boosts the pressure of water from the low zone by 45 psi to supply the high zone and the area north of Plant No. 6. The booster station is used to supplement the water from Well Nos. 7-2, 7-3, 12-1 and 12-2 to the high zone. Zone 2 also contains two (2) storage tanks, a 1.0 million gallon standpipe at Plant 8 — Baiting Hollow and a 0.75 standpipe at Plant 9 — Wading River. Zone 2 consists of the areas located in Wading River, Calverton, Bating Hollow and areas north of Sound Avenue. Over the past 10 years, the high zone has grown from a small portion of the District to an area that represents approximately two-thirds of the District's demands. To meet these growing needs the District is in the process of constructing an additional well at Plant 11- Middle Country Road and is in the early stages of planning a second well at the same site. (0 A small booster pump system was constructed at Plant 9 - Wading River to increase the pressure from Zone 2 to Zone 3. Zone 3 is located in the northeast part of Wading River and contains approximately eighty homes. An additional 1.5 million gallon ground storage tank is located at Plant 10 — Northville. When first constructed, Plant 10 was meant to serve as a storage tank for Zone 1 water that floats on Zone 1 pressure. Due to the increased demands within Zone 2 over the past few years, Plant 10 is currently storing water taken from Zone 1 and by means of two (2) booster pumps feeding Zone 2 on a regular basis. Therefore, the tank cannot float on Zone 1 pressure. The water distribution system made of the varying sized water main from 2" to 24" in diameter constructed of mostly cast iron or ductile iron pipe. It also includes some older small quantities of asbestos cement and PVC mains. Most of the small piping (less than 6 inches), (some 2.0 miles of existing small plastic (PVC) piping, 4 inches and smaller), is in the Reeves Park area. Since 1965, all iron mains installed have been cement lined cast iron or cement lined 2-2 H2MGROU P • ductile iron. The District currently maintains a total of 1,128,788 feet (213.7 miles) of water main within the distribution system. • • 2-3 ! ! 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS As discussed, H2M developed a computerized hydraulic model to evaluate the Riverhead Water District distribution system. The hydraulic model was developed to form an accurate Irepresentation of the District's water supply and distribution system. The model was then used to simulate various modifications to the District's eater supply and distribution system and to predict pressures and operating conditions, and the corresponding impacts of the various modifications. The computerized hydraulic model was developed in conjunction with a District -wide, PC-based, Geographic Information System (GIS). The basemap for the GIS, which includes the District's existing water mains, valves and hydrants, was primarily developed from the District's record maps. In sections of the District where record maps were not availiable, the missing areas were surveyed and the information was included as a part of the base map. Upon completion of the GIS base map, existing water main data was exported into the AutoCA.DD-based hydraulic modeling program called H2ONET Analyzer 3.1. Standard practice in distribution system modeling is not to include every water main in a system but to import critical water mains into the hydraulic modeling program. Not all of the water mains were exported to the hydraulic modeling program due to the limited number of links pen-nitted to be used in the program. Links include pumps and sections of pipe from one pipe intersection to another. The version of H2ONET Analyzer used by H2M permitted a maximum of 1000 links. Based on this version, a skeltonized form of the distribution system was developed and modeled. In skeletonization, a commonly accepted water system modeling practice, only the primary transmission and distribution system mains are included in the model. Once the selected water mains were exported to the model, the various wells, pumps and tanks were added to the hydraulic model. The graphical representation of the hydraulic model, 3-1 IH2MG ISO U P called the network schematic, depicts the District's network components including water mains, wells, pumps and tanks and is shown in Exhibit I of this report. The network schematic shows the location and connectivity of the various network components. There are two primary elements to a network schematic — nodes and links. Nodes include wells, tanks and junctions (the intersection of two or more pipes). For example, Node.;; 7044 and 1092 in Exhibit I represent the District's Well 4-2 and a point on the outlet pipe from the plant site, respectively. Links connect two nodes and include pipes and pumps. For example, the link between Node 7044 and 1092 represents the vertical turbine pump of Well 4-2. The nodes and links of the network schematic have data associated with them. This data is called modeling attributes. Modeling attributes include well pumping water level, tank height, junction elevation, pipe diameter and pump capacity to name just a few. Many of the; modeling attributes used in the hydraulic model are tabulated in Tables 3-1 through 3-3. These tables include data on the District's well facilities, water storage tank facilities and booster pump facilities. Demand data are another type of modeling attribute. Water use demands irk a hydraulic model are assigned to junctions. In hydraulic modeling, a base demand is assigned to each junction. In this model, an average day base demand and a peak day base demand were utilized. The average day base demand was based on the year 2002 actual data. The total ;pumpage for the year was approximately 2.2348 billion gallons. According to District records, Zone 2 typically consumes approximately two-thirds of the District water. Therefore, the; demand of Zone 2 for the year 2002 was calculated as 4.04 million gallons per day (MGD). The demand was assumed be equally distributed among the 150 nodes of Zone 2 and the base demand was then calculated as 18.7 gpm/node. Conversely, the demands for Zone 1 were calculated as 2.08 MGD or 5.8 gpm/node. The peak day base demand was based on the demands of July 18, 2002, the peak day for the calendar year 2002. The total pumpage on July 18, 2002 was 16.44 million gallons. Using 3-2 • • • N2MGR0UP the same criteria set forth when determining average day demands the peak day demands for Zone 2 were calculated at 10.84 MGD or 48 gpm/node. For Zone 1 the demands were calculated 1 as 5.60 MGD or 15 gpm/node. • Upon completion of the network schematic and assignment of the various modeling attributes, the network simulator was run using two simulations, a steady state simulation and a 24 hour extended period simulation. The H2ONET network simulator is based on the rigorous Modified Hybrid Method (MHM) for hydraulic analysis. The network simulator solved a set of simultaneous equations to a mathematical accuracy of 0.001 in order to determine the pressure, flow and head at each node and link for each hydraulic time -step. For the majority of the scenarios evaluated in this report, a steady state simulation was utilized. When an extended period simulation was performed, 15 minute hydraulic time -steps were used. Therefore, the pressure, flow and head at each node and link were predicted every fifteen minutes (for each hydraulic time -step) for a 24 hour period. The Hazen Williams equation was used in the model to calculate head loss in the distribution system. In order to verify the accuracy of the hydraulic model, the results of the model were compared to field and historical data. Field data was available in the form of pressure tests performed on March 29, 2002 and hydrant flow tests performed at various locations of the District over the past year. Historical data was available in the form of historical charts and information provided by the District. These data included information on tank level, pressure, pump operation and other data pertaining to the water supply and distribution system. When model results did not conform to the historical charts, the model was calibrated in order to more accurately predict historical results. In addition, pressures predicted by the model at the various pressure test sites corresponded well with data obtained from the field investigation. 3-3 U2MG RO U P is 4.0 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM To evaluate the existing District water distribution system, two base scenarios were developed. Average Day which utilizes the average day demand discussed previously and Peak Day, which utilizes the peak day demands of July 18, 2002. From these two base scenarios, a series of sub -scenarios were developed in order to evaluate the effects of fire flow demands, additional transmission mains and facility modifications would have upon the system. Scenarios were run utilizing the current attributes of the existing system as outlined on Table 3-1. To accurately predict future characteristics of the system, certain scenarios were run with Well No. 11-1 and/or Well No. 11-2 activated. Also, the two well pumps at the Plant 12 — Grumman site are slated to be upgraded this Spring. Scenarios have been run using there existing capacities as well as their proposed capacities. Each of the pumps at Plant 12 will be upgraded to provide 1350 gpm capacity with a head of 355 feet. 0 An understanding of how the existing system operates is important in understanding the hydraulic model results. As discussed in Section 2.0, the District is split into two separate pressure zones with each zone containing its own well and storage facilities. Under current conditions on peak days, the two well stations at Plant 12 provide water to both the Wading River area via Wading River-Manorville Road and the Baiting Hollow area via Route 25. Water produced at the two well stations at Plant 7 supply water to the Wading River are via Sound Avenue and Wildwood Road, as well as the North Baiting Hollow area via Sound Avenue and Edwards Avenue. Plant 7 also transmits water south via Fresh Pond Avenue where it supplements Plant 12 water to meet the demands of South Baiting Hollow. When in operation, the Plant 6 and 10 Booster stations take water from Zone 1 and push it to the Plant 8 storage tank. When additional water is needed, the Riverhead Water District obtains water from the Suffolk County Water Authority from two interconnections located at Merolce Trail and Dogwood Drive. On a peak day, these interconnections will supply approximately 900,000 gallons per day. 0 4-1 U2MGROU P Within Zone 1, on peak days the two well stations at Plant 4 supply the western portion of Zone 1, from Roanoke Avenue to River Road. Water from Plant 12 is also supplied to the 1 Plant 6 Booster station. The two well stations at Plant 5 supply the eastern portion of the District including Jamesport and Aquebogue. Plant 5 also feeds the Route 58 storage tank and areas in downtown Riverhead. Plants 1 & 2, feed the Pulaski Street tank and areas of downtown Riverhead. With the current upgrades to the pumps at the two Plant 12 wells and the activation of Well 11-1 expected by the summer of 2003, the behavior and operation of the system will change. With the addition of Well 11-1, the majority of the water generated at Plant 12 will feed the South Baiting Hollow instead of Wading River. Plant 12 will supplement Plant 11 which j will feed the Wading River area. Plant 7 will still feed both Wading River and North Baiting j Hollow. However with the increased pumpage at Plants 11 and 12, more water will be supplied to the Plant 8 and 9 storage tanks. The Plant 6 and 10 booster pumps will still move water to the Plant 8 storage tank. When activated, Well 11-1 will supply an additional 1.4 million gallons per day to the Wading River area. With this additional supply, the two interconnections with SCWA will be required only for emergency situations. The only effects the additional pumpage will have on the existing Zone 1 will be slightly less water pumped through booster stations 6 and 10. The District is currently in the planning stages of constructing Well 11-2 along Middle Country Road. Although Well 11-2 is not expected to be completed until Spring 2004, when on- line it will provide approximately an additional 500,000 gallons per day to Wading River. With this additional pumpage, the wells at Plant 12 will not be required to provide water to Wading River. Therefore, it will provide supply to the proposed Calverton Enterprise Park and the South Baiting Hollow area. In turn, with the additional pumpage to South Baiting Hollow, more water generated at the two Plant No. 7 wells will be used to feed the Plant 8 and 9 storage tanks. Plant 6 and 10 will remain as feeds to the Plant 8 storage tank. However, pumpage from the boosters at Plant 10 will be approximately 75% less. 0 4-2 IH28tG RO U P As stated previously, certain areas of Wading River experience low pressures during peak pumping days. These areas are centered around a hill located between North Wading River Road and North Country Road. The higher pressure zone (Zone 3) is also in this area, however, all of the areas experiencing low pressures are just outside Zone 3 and typically have ground elevations ranging from 150 to 190 feet above mean sea level. Currently pressure can fall as low as 38 psi, but with the addition of Well 11-1 to Zone 2, an increase of pressure from two to eleven psi is observed. Table 4-1 presents a summary of pressure readings in the Wading River area under current conditions during the peak day, with Well No. 11-1 and with Well Nos. 11-1 and 11-2. To further increase the pressure at the at the areas of low pressure along Oakwood Road, the District has two options. The first option would be to upgrade the existing 'water mains running from Plant 7 to Oakwood Road. The other option would be to extend the Zone 3 boundary lines to include these properties along Oakwood Drive, Howard Street, Deane Street, Faye Street and Shirley Street. The first option would call for the upgrade (increase in main size) of almost 2 miles of water main including restoration. The second option would involve the installation of approximately 500 feet of main and the installation of two check valves. Presently, the District recommends that homes with finished floor elevations over 170 feet above mean sea level install booster pumps on their individual service line. Therefore, an), upgrades or expansions of the system would serve to increase the fire flow capabilities only. 4.1 FIRE FLOW SCENARIOS The fire flow scenarios were developed to determine the impact of a major fire flow water demand condition (2000 gpm) at critical points of the District. Three areas were designated to receive fire flow demands of 2000 gpm including, the former Grumman site, North Woods Road in Wading River and the Northville area. Fire flow scenarios were run utilizing both the average day demands and the peak day demands. 4-3 C� • N2MGROU P ' For the three fire flow scenarios we have focused our analysis to within Zone 2. For each scenario, we analyzed three junctions — 96, 146 and 252 in Zone 2 and 450 in Zone 1, in terms of how pressure changes at each of the junctions on the peak day demand condition. Junction 96 is located in the northwest portion of the District along North Country Road at its intersection with Remsen Road. Junction 146 is located at the intersection of Sound Avenue and Osborn Avenue. Junction 252 is along Middle Country Road, east of the former Grumman site at Edwards Avenue. Junction 450 is located outside of town along County Road 58 at its intersection with Mill Road. By assigning 2000 gpm fire flow scenarios to each of the three locations described above, an accurate evaluation of the effects on the existing system were determined with all well sites operating with peak day demand conditions. To further evaluate whether the system could handle significant fire flows, scenario's were run with the two wells at Plant 7 closed and with the two wells at Plant 12 closed. These results were compared to how the system would currently handle ` a 2000 gpm fire flow, with no Plant 11 wells and the two (2) Plant 12 wells designed to provide a 1000 gpm flow. Pressure results for the three fire flow scenario's in question are shown on LTable 4-2 and 4-3. As shown on Table 4-2, the current system could adequately provide the proper fire flow to a 2000 gpm demand. However, when one of the larger well sites is taken off line, significant pressure drops occur and in some cases pressure readings can fall to as low as 40 psi. With the addition of well 11-1 and the upgrades to well pumps 12-1 and 12-2, the system will have no adverse effects supporting a fire flow demand of 2000 gpm anywhere in Zone 2. When a larger well site such as Plant 7 or Plant 12, were off line, larger pressure drops were recorded. However the system is still more than adequate to support the expected fire flow demands. A 2000 gpm fire flow demand was also assigned to Junction 452 located at the intersection of Roanoke Avenue and Pulaski Street in Zone 1. Plant 5 — Middle Road, which contains wells 5-1 and 5-2 was also taken off line during the fire flow scenario to represent the MI IH2MG ROU P CJ worst case situation. No significant pressure drops were recorded within Zone 1 as a result of the fire flow demand except at the junction where the demand was assigned. • 0 4-S u2MG ISO U P 5.0 SUPPLY OF WATER TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' The Suffolk County Water Authority has approached the Riverhead Water District/Town of Riverhead to request if additional water quantities can be supplied by the Riverhead Water District at the Southold Town line. The Riverhead Water District currently maintains a 12 -inch diameter interconnection at Peconic Bay Boulevard with the SCWA. To date, only small 1 quantities of water are pumped into Southold from Riverhead. However, due to potential water quality issues with several public supply wells within Southold, the SCWA is evaluating its options for replacing lost well capacity to be able to meet the current and future water demands within the Town of Southold. Several options include purchasing water from the Riverhead ' Water District. The SCWA has agreed to pay for a portion of this distribution system evaluation/hydraulic model with the understanding that several flow scenarios will be run to determine the maximum water flow rates that can be provided to the SCWA without any adverse effects on the Riverhead Water District. One option that we have evaluated is to purchase water directly from the Riverhead Water District through a set of interconnections located at the Southold Town Line. This option was evaluated assuming the existing Riverhead Water District distribution system remains in place with minor modifications to extend the Riverhead mains to the town line. A second option for the SCWA is to construct additional supply wells within the Towns of Brookhaven and/or Southampton and install large transmission mains to move the water to Southold. To get the water to Southold, two alternatives were presented. The first would be for the SCWA to install transmission main from its existing well fields to the Town of Riverhead where they would connect to existing Riverhead Water District mains and use these mains for transmission to Southold. There are three areas of existing water mains in which the SCWA could connect to within the Riverhead Water District; Hubbard Lane, Route 25 or Sound Avenue. The Riverhead Water District currently maintains 12 -inch main on all three of these roadways. The second alternative would be to install SCWA through the Town of Riverhead without connections to the Riverhead distribution system. This distribution system evaluation 5-1 t12MGROU P does not examine the option of the SCWA installing new water main through the Town of Riverhead, but it does evaluate an alternative where an existing Riverhead District water main on Hubbard Avenue and Peconic Bay Boulevard be turned over to the SCWA. As part of this study, we have evaluated the ability of the Riverhead Water District to provide water to the SCWA via the options presented above. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine how much water the Riverhead Water District can supply to the SCWA without negatively affected the existing distribution system and the Riverhead Water District consumers. 5.1 — INTERCONNECTION AT TOWN LINE In order to determine the amount of water the Riverhead Water District could supply the SCWA, a series of scenarios were performed within the hydraulic model. The first set of scenarios assumed the additional water would be provided from Zone 1 (low zone) to interconnections at Peconic Bay Boulevard, Route 25 or Sound Avenue. In order to properly evaluate the potential impact of providing water to SCWA, the flow scenarios were run under the peak day demands and the largest well site (Plant Nos. 5-1 and 5-2) was assumed to be out of service due to mechanical or water quality issues. The scenarios were run in stages with a SCWA demand of 5000 gpm independently assigned to junctions at the town line at the locations stated. The same scenarios were run with the SCWA demand reduced at each point to 4000 gpm, 3000 gpm, 2500 gpm, 2000 gpm and 1500 gpm. For all three locations at the town line, when a demand of 2500 gpm or greater was assigned significant drops in pressure were shown across the entire eastern portion of the low zone, most notably at the areas of higher elevation such as Sound Avenue and Northville. Pressure readings were shown to fall well below the recommended minimum working pressure of 35 psi as stated by Suffolk County Health Department and the Ten States Water Quality Standards (Section 8.1.1). In some cases, pressure readings registered below 0 which indicates the inability of the system to meet the demands required. See Tables 5-1 through 5-3 for results. 5-2 • U2MGISOU P i When the demand at the Town line was decreased to 2000 gpm, the resulting pressure readings across the easterly portion of the Zone 1 ranged from 40 psi to 50 psi, except at the highest points of Zone 1 along Sound Avenue at from West Lane to Herricks Lane. At these high points pressure readings fell to as low as 15 psi when the 2000 gpm demand was placed on Sound Avenue and 2.5 psi when assigned to Peconic Bay Boulevard. The demand at the town line was further reduced to 1500 psi and the pressure at the high points along Sound Avenue were observed to increase. However when the 1500 gpm demand was assigned to Sound Avenue pressure readings still were as low as 25 psi at Herricks Lane. In addition to the low pressure readings obtained when any demand is applied along Sound Avenue at the town line, flow reversals are also observed on the north -south arteries to the east. Typically, under normal conditions, water within Zone 1 is produced at the plant sites located within or on the outskirts of the Riverhead Business District and along Middle Road and travels north on Northville Turnpike and then east, with flow on all of the north -south links from West Lane to Herricks Lane being from north to south. When a large demand is placed in the northeasterly portion of the District, flow within these links reverses and goes south to north. The north -south links south of Route 25 act in a similar fashion including South Jamesport Avenue, Washington Avenue and Edgar Lane. Customers who are serviced from these roads both north and south of Route 25 may experience an initial change in their water quality including rusty water. However, no effects would be expected to be considered long term problems. The same flow scenarios were run without removing a well field (Plant 5-1 and 5-2) from service. As shown on Table 5-1.A, significant pressure drops occur above 1500 gpm. Keeping Plant 5 in service adds approximately 2 to 6 psi across the system. Another alternative the Riverhead Water District has for providing water to the SCWA would be to add a new interconnection from Zone 2 (high zone) of the Riverhead Water District. 5-3 t12MG RO U P In order for the District to use Zone 2 water, a few modifications would have to be made to the existing system. Plant 10 - Northville would have to remain a Zone 1 to Zone 2 feed, the existing 12 -inch main on Sound Avenue would be transferred to Zone 2 from Pier Avenue to the Southold Town line and valves on Sound Avenue at Pier Avenue, Manor Lane and Herricks Lane would have to be closed. By closing these valves dead-end mains of considerable length would be created on both Manor and Herricks Lane. As shown on Table 5-3, similar to results obtained with a Zone 1 feed, considerably low pressures were observed across the northeasterly portion of the District when demand was increased over 1500 gpm. This option of providing a Zone 2 interconnection on Sound Avenue would provide the least impact on the Riverhead Water District pressures while supplying 1500 gpm to SCWA. 5.2 — NEW SCWA SUPPLY CONNECTIONS The SCWA is presently investigating options of constructing new well sites in the Towns of Brookhaven and Southampton and using a large transmission main to move 'the water to Riverhead Town where they connect into the existing water system. The three most viable locations to connect to the existing system would be along County Road 105 at its intersection with Hubbard Lane, Route 25 or Sound Avenue. The District currently maintains a 12 -inch diameter water main at both the Route 25 and Sound Avenue location which extend to the Southold Town line. At Hubbard Avenue, the District currently maintains an 8 -inch main which increases to a 12 -inch approximately 1500 feet east of County Road 105 at Shade Tree Lane. From this point a 12 -inch water main runs along Hubbard Lane and Peconic Bay Boulevard to the Southold Town Line. A series of scenarios were performed, utilizing the hydraulic model, assuming a constant alternate supply of water from the SCWA at 100 psi as shown on Table 5.4. The supply was first applied to a point located on Hubbard Avenue near its intersection with Shade Tree Lane where there is currently a 12 -inch water main. Demands were assigned to at the Town line to represent SCWA requirements. With the additional supply an increase of static pressure was observed from 5 psi downtown, 15 psi along Riverside Drive and 20 psi near the point of 5-4 • • IH2MGROU P • connection and points east. Using the existing distribution system, a demand of 2000 gpm could be supplied at the Town line without static pressure falling below 40 psi at any point within the District. A demand of 2500 gpm can be supplied to SCWA, however points along Sound Avenue (particularly at Herricks Lane) and Peconic Bay Boulevard fall to 35 psi and below. If the existing 12 -inch water main along Peconic Bay Boulevard from South Jamesport Avenue to the Southold Town line, approximately 7000 feet, was upgraded to 16 -inch diameter, the 2500 gpm demand could be provided without working pressure along Sound Avenue maintaining 40 psi. With the upgraded mains, a demand of 3000 gpm could be met, however pressure along Sound Avenue would fall to 35 psi or below. Any demands greater than 3000 gpm will severely reduce the pressure of the existing system in the area of Sound Avenue and Herricks Lane. The SCWA supply was also applied to a point along State Route 25 near its intersection with County Road 105. Currently, the District maintains a 12 -inch diameter water main along isRoute 25 from C.R. 58 across C.R. 105 to the Southold Town line. Again it was assumed that the SCWA would provide an unlimited amount of water at 100 psi to the District. An increase of 10 psi was observed along Sound Avenue, 15 psi in the southeasterly portion of the District and 20 psi near the point of connection was observed with the additional supply. The SCWA demand was assigned along Route 25 at the Southold Town line. Using the existing distribution system, a demand of 2000 gpm could be met without working pressure falling below 40 psi at any point of the District. The District could satisfy a 2500 gpm demand if the existing 12 -inch diameter water main along Route 25 from Herricks Lane to the Southold Town line, approximately 3500 feet, was upgraded to 16 -inch diameter. By extending the overall length of the upgrade to include the existing piping along Route 25 from South Jamesport Avenue to the town line, approximately 7300 feet, a demand of 3000 gpm could be met while keeping adequate pressure throughout the District. The third point of connection for SCWA mains was placed at the intersection of Northville Turnpike and County Roads 105. The same criteria set in the previous two scenarios • were assumed again. An increase of 10 psi across the system was observed along Sound Avenue. Utilizing the existing system, a demand of 1500 gpm could be met without working 5-5 U2MG RO U P • pressure falling below 40 psi at any point of the District and a demand of 2000 gpm could be met without working pressure falling below 35 psi. A series of upgrades on the existing 12 -inch water main on Sound Avenue were performed, however due to the higher elevations at certain points along Sound Avenue , a demand of over 2000 gpm could not be met without reducing the working pressure of the system to below 35 psi. A final scenario was run assuming like characteristics of the SCWA supply, this time connecting an existing 12 -inch main on Penny's Lane, Zone 2 of the District's distribution system. Similar to previous scenarios, Zone 2 can provide for a maximum demand of 1500 gpm, unless the additional point of connection is made to the east of Plant 10 — Northville or an upgrade in size of existing water mains on Sound Shore Road, Pier Avenue and Sound Avenue is performed. 5.3 — NEW SCWA CONNECTION WITH DEDICATED RIVERHEAD MAINS • An extended variation to the option presented in Section 5.2 of connecting SCWA mains to District mains on Hubbard Avenue would be to connect the mains and dedicate the existing 12 -inch main on Hubbard Avenue and Peconic Bay Boulevard to the SCWA. By dedicating this main, the District would be creating short dead-end mains on Shade Tree Lane, Edgar Avenue, Washington Avenue and South Jamesport Avenue. Transferring this main would also mean that approximately 800 customers of the Riverhead Water District would receive water provided by the Suffolk County Water Authority. As shown on Table 5-4, transferring this main would do little to increase the amount of water available to the SCWA at the Town of Southold without performing significant upgrades to the existing mains. 5.4 — NEW SUPPLY WELL IN EASTERN RIVERHEAD To help the Riverhead Water District generate more pumpage and in turn supply the SCWA with more water, the option of adding additional well sites within Zone 1 was investigated. Two possible locations where the District has already conducted preliminary 5-6 U2MG RO U P Iinvestigations are on Tuthill Lane in Jamesport and at the site of the existing LILCO fire wells on Mill Lane near its intersection with Main Street The first proposed site, Tuthill Lane was previously investigated by the District for Iadditional supply over ten years ago. However, when a test well was installed at the site, elevated levels of chlorides were detected raising the concern of salt water intrusion. The IDistrict did not consider this a viable location for a well site. For modeling purposes only, a scenario was performed placing a well on Tuthill Lane with a pumping capacity of 1400 gpm. IThe demand for Suffolk County Water was assigned to Route 25 at the Southold Town line. Based on results shown on Table 5-5, with a new 1400 gpm well on Tuthill Lane the Riverhead IWater District could provide the SCWA with approximately 2500 gpm without the pressures within the existing system falling below 35 psi. As with other scenarios, similar negative results are seen when the demand increases to over 2500 gpm. IlaThe second proposed well site, Mill Lane is the location of existing LILCO fire wells. Taking over these wells would require upgrades to the entire facility along with upgrades to the existing Water District in the surrounding area. As shown on Table 5-6, since this location is situated at the far western side of Zone 1, it would offer little assistance to providing water to the SCWA at the Southold Town line. In order for this well to have an impact at the town line, transmission mains would have to be installed from the site east through Town and connect to existing mains on Hubbard Avenue or Route 25 or mains would have to be installed or upgraded north along Mill Road to Middle Road and then east to Route 25. However, even with the upgrade and/or installation of transmission mains, the District would still encounter a significant drop in pressure when demands greater than 1500 gpm were applied. 5.5 — MULTIPLE INTERCONNECTIONS AT TOWN LINE Two final scenarios were run to evaluate the maximum flows to SCWA in Southold included the construction of multiple interconnections at the town line. Table 5-7 reflects two interconnections from Zone 1 (at Route 25 and Peconic bay Boulevard). In placing a demand of 5-7 F1284G ISO U P • 1000 gpm demand at each for a total of 2000 gpm, pressures dropped significantly throughout the District. On Table 5-8, a separate interconnection from Zone 1 and Zone 2 produced significant drops above 2500 gpm combined. • 5-8 TABLES 1-12MG ISO U P TABLE 3-1 RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION & HYDRAULIC MODEL, WELL FACILITIES .............................. WELL ,..... ............................, LOCATION :.GRAD.): ............._............. S W 1G . P W L. PUM P :::::.::..:.:..:.. :,;:. CA:FAI''IC: PU :.:.: 1-1 Pulaski Street 20 ft. 4 ft. 23 ft. 750 GPM 250 ft. 1-3 Pulaski Street 20 ft. 14 ft. 44 ft. 1000 GPM 217 ft. 2-1 Raynor Avenue 23 ft. 9 ft. 82 ft. 1000 GPM[ 274 ft. 4-1 Osborn Avenue 35 ft. 10 ft. 45 ft. 1000 GPM[ 250 ft. 4-2 Osborn Avenue 35 ft. 10 ft. 60 ft. 1200 GPM[ 297 ft. 5-1 Middle Road 20 ft. 7 ft. 57 ft. 1200 GPM 254 ft. 5-2 Middle Road 20 ft. 7 ft. 38 ft. 1000 GPM 275 ft. 7-2 Fresh Pond Avenue 125 ft. 118 ft. 126 ft. 1200 GPM 370 ft. 7-3 Fresh Pond Avenue 125 ft. 114 ft. 167 ft. 1200 GPM 384 ft. 11-1 Middle Country Road* 85 ft. 46 ft. 100 ft. 1380 GPM 368 ft. 12-1 Calverton Enterprise Park** 50 ft 15 ft. 49 ft. 1000 GPM 330 ft. 1[____12-2 Calverton Enterprise Park** 50 ft 15 ft. 66 ft. 1000 GPM346 ft. * - To be placed in service in 2003 ** - capacity increased to 1350 gpm per well in 2003 • • • Fi2M ,I OUP TABLE 3-2 IRIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT lDISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION & HYDRAULIC MODEL WATER STORAGE TANK FACILITIES * Min and Max level are measured from the bottom elevation of the tanks. 1�1 BOTTOM :.: :.:.:.:.: PLANT: TYPE. OF : 1VIIN MAX STORAGE: :LOCATION:::::... .. ELEVATION II NO FACILITY LEVEL * LEVEL * CAPACITY' 1 Pulaski Street Elevated 20 ft. 126 ft. 170 ft. 0.15 MG Steel Elevated 3 Route 58 45 ft 145 ft. 180 ft. 0.75 MG Steel 8 Baiting Hollow Standpipe 210 ft. 0 ft. 86 ft. 1.0 MG 9 Wading River Standpipe 220 ft. 0 ft 76 ft. 0.85 MG Pre - Stressed 10 Northville 156 ft. 0 ft 34 ft. 1.5 MG Concrete Ground * Min and Max level are measured from the bottom elevation of the tanks. 1�1 IH284G ISO U P TABLE 3-3 RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION & HYDRAULIC MODEL BOOSTER PUMP FACILITIES BOOSTER_ LOCATION . ....... .... PUMP:.:;... CAPAC�TV .: . . . . TDH 6A Osborn Avenue 600 GPM 165 ft. 6B Osborn Avenue 600 GPM 165 ft. 6C Osborn Avenue 1300 GPM 128 ft. 9A Wading River 300 GPM 87 ft. 9B Wading River 300 GPM 87 ft. 10A Northville 900 GPM 173 ft. 10B Northville 900 GPM 173 ft. is 0 TABLE 4-1 Low Pressure Readings, Wading River Peak Day Scenario IE Pressure (psi) Location Elevation Current Conditions Well 11-1 on-line Well 11-1 & 11-2 on-line (ft) Wading River-Manorville Rd. & 93 77 86 87 North Country Rd. Farm Road North 185 38 47 48 Woodland Drive 150 52 59 60 North Wading River Rd. & 125 63 69 70 Northside Dr. North Wading River Rd. & 175 41 47 47 Dogwood Lane Oakwood Road 180 41 43 43 Wildwood Road 122 68 72 72 IE IH2MG ISO U P TABLE 4-2 RIVERHEAD WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION COMPARISON OF FIRE FLOW SCENARIOS (using current distribution system, No Well 11-1, Wells 12-1 & 12-2 not yet updated) :LOOATlO)�1 Pressure Uro oliscrved::durin `2000::`m:FircaronilMon:at:North:Woods:Roud:( .si) unction 96 -North Country Road at :1un666ii:14b j:Soond'Avc;:kt:Osborn Junction 252 ; I2oufe:25 at:Edwards;::: :OF:::: ;.: .. . .... :. :. ... . . Remsen Road (Wading River) ..... :.: Ave:..(Baurng Hollaw):.::> >.` .:: _..... ` :: Avc:`(Calvertan): .. ... lkt- FLOW.: ,.. . .:.DEMAND :: :.:: A :::. B C D.. A.:.......)�::::: C.... U.:. ::A ::: C:: ll Junction 1078 - 80 57 40 43 87 85 81 79 102 97 68 78 River —Wading Junction 256 - 80 72 59 52 87 83 78 80 102 89 72 57 Grumman Site Junction 840 - 80 79 71 69 87 80 76 77 102 100 87 79 Northville Scenario A - Pressure at normal conditions, no lire flow assigned Scenario B - Run with all high zone wells on-line. Scenario C - Run same as Scenario 13, except Wells 12-1 & 12-2 are off-line. Scenario D - Run same as Scenario t3, except Wells 7-2 & 7-3 are oft -line. 9 0 0 H2W RO U P 0 0 TABLE 4-3 RIVF,RHEAD WATER DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION COMPARISON OF FIRE FLOW SCENARIOS (using updated Well 12-1 & 12-2 data and Well 11-1 on-line) LOCAT ION. : l'ressurc Urop oliscrved du.rin ..2000: m'�'iicc�Conditon at North Wootls Iioa�i ( si) .. .. .[unction 96-:Noctlt Country ltoad at ... .. .:Iunction:146.=Sound Ave: at Ost�orn: .... .. . Junctjon 252 - Routc 25 at�Edwards: ........ .. ... FIREt LOW Remseu aloud (Wad>tn River.).Ave::(Ba�ting Hollow).. Avc. (Calverton). : ... DEMAND.:::. :.:':::':A::r B.. _ C l). A..:. ::a3:..: Junction 1078 - 90 74 58 62 113 109 80 80 132 127 88 97 Wading River Junction 256 - 90 86 7 3 77 113 100 79 79 132 116 77 92 Grumman Site Junction 840 - 90 82 80 82 113 75 75 75 132 99 92 99 Northville Scenario A - Pressure at normal conditions, no lire Ilow assigned Scenario B - Run with all high zone wells on-line. Scenario C - RUn same as Scenario 13, except Wells 12-1 & 12-2 are off-line. Scenario D - Run same as Scenario 13, except Wells 7-2 K 7-3 are olf-line. TABLE 5-1.A Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Peconic Bay Boulevard. (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are on-line and Zone 1 feed) 1111 Pressure neg = negative readings Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm Location (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 10 69 63 55 44 31 17 neg neg Hubbards & Edgar 20 66 65 61 56 50 44 29 10 Hubbard & CR 105 20 68 67 64 60 56 52 42 36 25 & Herricks 30 60 57 50 50 37 22 neg neg 20 65 62 57 50 46 33 12 neg 25 & Tuthill 25 &Edgar 33 61 59 55 50 45 38 23 5 40 59 58 54 42 46 41 29 15 25 & Shade Tree 63 46 43 36 28 19 9 neg neg Sound & Herricks 60 47 44 38 31 22 12 neg neg Sound & Pier 55 46 44 39 34 27 20 3 neg Sound &West 60 48 47 42 37 31 24 8 neg Sound & Northville Northville 100 31 29 23 17 10 3 neg:i neg neg = negative readings TABLE 5-2 Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Route 25. (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line and Zone 1 feed) Pressure Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm Location (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 10 70 60 52 44 33 22 neg neg Hubbards & Edgar 20 66 59 54 48 41 33 16 neg Hubbard & CR 105 20 66 61 57 52 47 41 27 11 25 & Herricks 30 61 49 39 26 12 neg neg neg 25 & Tuthill 20 66 57 50 42 33 23 neg neg 25 & Edgar 33 61 53 48 42 35 28 10 neg 25 & Shade Tree 40 50 52 47 42 37 30 16 neg Sound & Herricks 63 47 36 28 17 6 neg neg neg Sound & Pier 60 48 38 30 24 11 neg neg neg Sound & West 55 51 42 36 29 20 11 neg neg Sound & Northville 60 49 41 36 29 22 13 neg neg Northville 100 31 23 17 10 1 neg neg neg Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Sound Avenue (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line and Zone 1 feed) I Pressure _ Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm 119 Location (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) neg 10 70 60 53 44 34 23 neg neg Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport neg neg neg neg Sound &Pier _ i40 86 63 56 32 20 66 59 54 48 41 34 16 neg Hubbards & Edgar 45 20 neg neg Sound Shore & Pennys 60 100 116 98 87 72 20 66 61 57 52 47 41 27 11 Hubbard & CR 105 40 11 neg Sound &Dolphin 98 91 84 81 79 77 30 61 50 42 32 20 7 neg neg 25 & Herricks 20 66 57 50 42 33 23 neg neg 25 &Tuthill 33 61 53 48 42 35 28 10 neg 25 & Edgar 40 50 52 47 42 37 30 16 -2 25 &Shade Tree 63 47 34 24 21 neg neg neg neg Sound & Herricks 60 48 38 30 20 8 neg neg neg Sound & Pier 55 51 42 36 29 20 11 neg neg Sound &West 60 49 47 36 29 22 13 neg neg Sound & Northville 100 31 23 17 10 1 neg neg neg Northville Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Sound Avenue (Assumes Zone 2 feed) IPressure Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) Location 63 119 75 40 neg neg neg neg neg Sound & Herricks 60 120 81 51 10 neg neg neg neg Sound &Pier _ i40 86 63 56 32 9 neg neg neg Sound Shore at Tosco 70 115 94 82 65 45 20 neg neg Sound Shore & Pennys 60 100 116 98 87 72 53 32 neg neg Pennys at Sound 92 81 73 63 52 40 11 neg Sound &Dolphin 98 91 84 81 79 77 76 73 68 Sound & Osborn negative readings tttttri ttilfi TABLE 5-4 12" Water Main on Hubbard Ave. & Peconic Bay Blvd. dedicated to SCWA Total length of main to be dedicated; 28,000 ft or 5.3 miles (Assumes SCWA provides unlimited water supply at 100 psi at County Road 105) neg = negative readings Assumed demand required by SCWA at Southold Town Line (headloss in pounds per 1000 ft. of piping) 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm 6000 gpm 7500 gpm Distance from (2.5) (4.0) (6.0) (9.0) (15.0) (22.0) (31.0) (46.0) Location Elevation Source Pressure (psi) (ft) (ft) Point of Connection - County -_-- 20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Road 105 & Hubbard Ave. Hubbard & Shade Tree 1300 10 101 99 96 93 85 75 63 43 Hubbard & Edgar 4800 20 87 79 69 57 27 neg neg neg Peconic Bay at Reeves Creek 9500 10 79 63 43 19 neg neg neg neg Peconic Bay at Marina 14500 5 68 43 11 neg neg neg neg neg Peconic Bay & Washington 19000 15 53 26 neg neg neg neg neg neg S. Jamesport & 4th 20000 5 53 19 neg neg neg neg neg neg 2nd & Green 20000 10 53 19 neg neg neg neg neg neg Peconic Bay & Tuts 21000 10 52 17 neg neg neg neg neg neg Peconic Bay at Town Line 28000 21 30 neg neg neg neg neg neg neg neg = negative readings TABLE 5-5 New 1400 gpm Well on Tuthill Lane Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Route 25 (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line and Zone 1 feed) neg = negative readings • • 1 Pressure Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm 2000 gpm 2500 gpm 3000 gpm 4000 gpm 5000 gpm Locution (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) 10 76 73 70 67 62 56 39 20 Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 20 71 69 69 67 65 61 52 40 Hubbards & Edgar 20 70 69 69 67 65 63 56 47 Hubbard & CR 105 30 68 62 57 50 41 30 1 neg 25 & Herricks 20 74 72 70 68 65 61 49 33 25 & Tuthill 33 65 64 63 62 59 56 46 34 25 &Edgar 40 62 61 60 59 57 54 46 36 25 &Shade Tree 63 54 49 46 41 36 27 7 neg Sound & Herricks 60 55 52 49 45 40 35 17 0 Sound &Pier 55 56 53 52 50 47 45 33 18 Sound & West 60 53 53 52 50 48 44 A 34 21 Sound & Northville 100 36 36 36 34 32 26 15 0 Northville neg = negative readings • • 1 • 0 TABLE 5-6 New 1400 gpm Well at Mill Lane & Main Street Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line on Route Or.- (Assumes 5 (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line and Zone 1 feed) Pressure Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm 1500 gpm (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) Location Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 10 70 60 52 Hubbards & Edgar 20 66 55 54 Hubbard & CR 105 20 66 61 57 25 & Herricks 30 61 49 39 25 & Tuthill 20 66 57 50 25 & Edgar 33 61 53 48 25 & Shade Tree 40 50 52 47 Sound & Herricks 63 47 36 28 Sound & Pier 60 48 38 30 Sound & West 55 51 42 36 Sound & Northville 60 49 41 36 Northville 100 31 23 17 TABLE 5-7 Peak day with demand from SCWA at Town line assigned at Peconic Bay Blvd & Route 25. (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line and Zone 1 feed) (PCB) = Peconic Bay Boulevard (25) = Route 25 neg = negative readings 0 0 0 Pressure Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm (PCB) 1500 gpm (PCB) 500 gpm (PCB) 1500 gpm (PCB) 1500 gpm (PCB) 1000 gpm (25) 500 gpm (25) 1500 gpm (25) 1000 gpm (25) 1500 gpm (25) Location (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 10 70 40 38 41 27 15 Hubbards & Edgar 20 66 48 48 48 41 33 Hubbard & CR 105 20 66 53 53 53 47 41 25 & Herricks 30 61 31 33 28 36 5 25 & Tuthill 20 66 41 41 41 35 21 33 61 42 42 42 32 27 25 & Edgar 40 50 42 48 48 20 30 25 & Shade Tree 63 47 19 20 18 8 neg Sound & Herricks 60 48 21 22 21 11 neg Sound & Pier Sound &West 55 51 25 25 25 17 8 60 49 28 29 28 21 12 Sound & Northville Northville 100 31 9 9 9 0 neg (PCB) = Peconic Bay Boulevard (25) = Route 25 neg = negative readings 0 0 0 iPeak day with demand from SCWA at Town n Peconic Bay Boulevard & Sound Avenue S (Assumes Well sites 5-1 & 5-2 are off-line) (Sound Ave. feed from Zone 2 & Peconic Bay Blvd. Feed from Zone 1) (PCB) = Peconic Bay Boulevard (SND) = Sound Avenue neg = negative readings Pressure 1500 gpm (PCB) 1500 gpm (PCB) 2000 gpm (PCB) 2000 gpm (PCB) 2500 gpm (PCB) Elevation 0 gpm 1000 gpm (SND) 1500 gpm (SND) 1500 gpm (SND) 2000 gpm (SND) 1500 gpm (SND) Location (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) Peconic Bay & S. Jamesport 10 70 45 45 31 31 14 Hubbards & Edgar 20 66 54 54 48 48 40 Hubbard & CR 105 20 66 57 57 53 53 47 25 & Herricks 30 61 39 39 27 27 13 20 66 50 50 41 41 31 25 & Tuthill 33 61 48 48 42 42 38 25 & Edgar 40 50 48 48 42 42 36 25 & Shade Tree Sound & Herricks 63 110 72 33 33 neg 33 Sound & Pier 60 111 78 44 44 4 44 55 51 33 28 28 20 28 Sound & West 60 106 96 80 80 66 80 Sound & Northville Northville 100 31 18 18 11 11 4 Sound Shore at Plant 10 140 86 60 43 43 26 43 Sound Shore & Pennys 70 115 91 75 _ 75 66 75 Sound & Dolphin 100 92 72 65 65 62 65 Sound & Osborn 98 91 74 72 72 70 72 (PCB) = Peconic Bay Boulevard (SND) = Sound Avenue neg = negative readings 0 E • 0 Appendix N Engincering, Surt *T/ng, and Landsaipe A rebiterture, PC. 0 BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY METHODS AND RESULTS FOR SUBJECT SITE A. Herpetological Inventory: Methods.- The ethods: The species composition of the herpetological community of the subject property was assessed using several techniques. First, twelve pitfall traps were placed throughout the project sites. Drift fences (-150-190' in length, 2' in eig were used to improve the success rates of these traps. The drift fences consisted of silt screen that was firmly stapled into the ground to prevent yi organisms from passing beneath the fence. Three drift fences were installed one fence was located within the successional old field and two fences were located within the red maple - hardwood swamp. One end of each of the drift fences located in the freshwater wetland was placed at the edge of the wetland's standing water and the fences ran landward into areas dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin). The locations of the wetland and upland drift fences are shown on the location map provided in this Appendix. Four pitfall traps were placed on each drift fence. The pitfall traps were constructed of 3 gallon buckets dug into the ground such that the upper limit of the bucket was flush with the soil surface. A 5" PVC lip was installed within each 3 gallon bucket to prevent frogs from jumping out of the pitfall trap. Pitfall traps were covered when not in use to prevent animals from entering the trap. When pitfall traps were utilized, they were checked daily to prevent mortality within the traps. Pitfall traps were utilized for three to four consecutive nights during monthly sampling periods between June and September. All collected organisms were released immediately after identification. Shallow areas of standing water located in the wetlands surrounding the subject property were sampled with dip nets. Dip -netting occurred on the evenings of June 12, June 19, June 26, July 15, August 9, and August 29, 2007 and was conducted by William P. Bowman, PhD and Todd Gardner. Twenty cover boards were placed throughout the project site. The cover boards were checked periodically for herpetiles and observed species were recorded to species. Passive techniques such as listening for frog calls and investigation of woody debris and rocks were also employed to inventory the herpetological community of the site. Listening for frog calls occurred on the nights of May 29, June 12, June 19, June 26, July 15, August 9, and August 29, 2007 between 9-1 IPM by William Bowman and Todd Gardner. Results: Nine species of reptiles and amphibians were observed on the subject property (four frogs, three 6\ salamanders, one snake, and one turtle), as described in the following table. The method of observation for each species and the habitat type where the organisms were observed are also presented. The large area of standing water located to the south and west of the subject property provide breeding habitat for the frogs and salamanders observed. Larval spotted salamanders were observed during dip -netting in these wetlands. The moist woodlands located adjacent to these pools provide foraging habitat for the adult salamanders observed. Four -toed and red - backed salamanders were observed under cover boards placed in these moist woodlands. The wetlands located on the eastern portion of the property have few pools of standing water and, accordingly, seem to provide habitat for fewer numbers of amphibians. Eastern garder snakes were commonly observed under cover boards located throughout the successional old fields. C� • Box turtles were typically observed in the woodlands immediately adjacent to the successional old fields although they were also observed in all habitat on the subject property. Observed Reptiles and Amphibians at the Subject Site Common Name Scientific Name Method of Observation Habitats Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer Cover Boards, Visual Observation Margins of Standing Water within Freshwater Wetlands Bullfrog Rana catesbiana Dip -Netting, Visual Observation, Margins of Standing Water within Pit -fall Traps Freshwater Wetlands Green Frog Rana clamitans Call Identification Margins of Standing Water within Freshwater Wetlands Wood Frog Rana sylvatica Pit -fall Traps Margins of Standing Water within Freshwater Wetlands Four -toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Cover Boards Moist portions of Southern Successional Forest Stand Red -backed Salamander Plethodon cinerus Cover Boards, Turning Acer- and Lindera- dominated portions Logs/Rocks of Red Maple Hardwood Swamp Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum Dip -Netting Margins of Standing Water within Freshwater Wetlands Eastern Garder Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Cover Boards, Pit -fall Traps Successional Old Field and Edges of Adjacent Woodlands and Thickets Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina Visual Observation Successional Old Field, Forest Edges, Successional Southern Hardwood Forest Stands, and Acer- and Lindera- dominated portions of Red Maple Hardwood Swamp B. Mammal Inventory: Methods: The small mammal community present on the subject property was inventoried using ten (10) Sherman aluminum folding live capture traps. The dimensions of the traps were 3"(w) x 3.5"(h) x 9.25"(1). The traps were placed throughout the property site in various habitats including red maple -hardwood swamp, upland successional hardwood forest, and successional old field. The locations of the traps are presented on the location map included in this Appendix. Traps were baited with a combination of cracked corn, peanut butter, and millet. Slices of carrots were provided in the traps to avoid dehydration and cotton bedding material was provided to decrease the chances of hypothermic or hyperthermic captures. Traps were set in the evening and checked the following morning to minimize mortalities and trap stress. Traps were set for 3-4 consecutive nights during each sampling period. One sampling period per month was conducted between July and September. Between sampling periods, traps were left in the field with doors closed. After identification, all collected organisms were immediately released in the area of the trapping station. Results: White-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) were routinely collected in traps located within the successional old fields and are abundant at the subject property. White-footed mice were also found in pit -fall traps and under cover boards placed in these fields. All traps placed within upland and wetland forest stands were disturbed by raccoons; accordingly, no mice were ever collected from these habitats. In addition, grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and white-tailed deer were observed on the subject property. A complete list of the mammals observed and expected to be present on the subject property is located in the following table. a L'... 4 .1 1V4 --lc �t thu SfinhiPet CitP Common Name Scientific Name Observed/Expected Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Expected Short -tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda Expected Masked Shrew Sorex cinerus Expected Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus Expected Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Expected Raccoon Procryon lotor Observed Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Expected Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Expected Red Fox Vulpes fulva Expected Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Expected Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Observed White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Observed Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Expected Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Observed White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Observed 'Expected mammal species based on habitat descriptions provlaea in 1 ne mammais of Long Island, New York (Connor, 197 1) C. Avian Inventory: Methods: An inventory of the bird species present on the project site was conducted by William P. Bowman, PhD of Land Use Ecological Services. Avian surveys were conducted monthly from late April through early October. Birds were identified by both sight and song. Surveys began in the early morning (6-7 AM) to coincide with peak bird calling times and lasted several hours. Surveys occurred on April 29, May 22, June 19, July 15, August 29, September 18, and October 12, 2007. Meander surveys were performed in which each of the habitat types present at the project site during each survey date. Results: Forty six (46) bird species were observed on the subject property with eighteen bird species expected to also utilize the site. A complete list of the observed and expected bird species found on the subject property is provided in the following table. The mature red maple -hardwood swamps associated with Moore's Woods provide high-quality habitat for a variety of forest songbirds including American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), black -and -white warbler (Mniotitla varia), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), and northern parula (Parula americana). These forest - dwelling species were largely observed on the southern and southwestern portions of the property or on the adjacent property. +Sharp -shinned hawa New York State �. species of special concern, was also observed in these woodlands The open fields, forest edges, and dense thickets of low shrubs and woody vines in both the black locust- and red maple - dominated successional hardwood stands provide excellent habitat for a large diversity of is songbirds and foraging sites for raptors and owls. 0 Observed and Expected Bird Species at Subiect Property Common Name Scientific Name Observed/Expected Breeding Activity: (Yes -Observed, Yes - Expected, Not Expected) Sharp -shinned Hawk Accipter striatus Observed Not Expected Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperi Expected Not Expected Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Observed Yes -Expected American Kestrel Falco sparverius Expected Not Expected American Woodcock Scolopax minor Observed Expected Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Observed Yes -Expected Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Expected Not Expected Eastern Screech -Owl Megascops asio Observed Not Expected Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Observed Not Expected Ruby -throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Expected Yes -Expected Red -bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Observed Yes -Observed Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Observed Yes -Expected Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Observed Yes -Expected Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Observed Yes -Expected Eastern Wood -Pewee Contopus virens Observed Not Expected • • • Eastern Phoebe Sayorms phoebe Observed Yes -Expected Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Observed Yes -Expected Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Expected Not Expected Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Expected Not Expected Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Expected Not Expected Red -Eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Observed Yes -Expected White -Eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Expected Yes -Expected Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Observed Yes -Expected American Crow Corvus brachyrynchos Observed Yes -Expected Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Observed Yes -Expected Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Observed Yes -Expected Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Observed Yes -Expected White -breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Observed Not Expected Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovivianus Observed Yes -Observed House Wren Troglodytes aedon Observed Yes -Expected Ruby -crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Observed Not Expected Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Observed Yes -Expected Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Expected Not Expected American Robin Turdus migratorius Observed Yes -Expected Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Observed Yes -Expected European Starling Stemus vulgaris Observed Yes -Expected Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Observed Yes -Expected Blue -winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Observed Yes -Expected Northern Parula Parula americana Observed Not Expected Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Observed Yes -Expected Yellow-Rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Observed Not Expected Black -and -White Warbler Mniotilta varia Observed Not Expected American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Observed Yes -Expected Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Observed Yes -Expected Chestnut -sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Expected Not Expected Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Expected Not Expected Black -throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Expected Not Expected Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Expected Not Expected Black -throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Expected Not Expected Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis triches Observed Yes -Expected Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Observed Yes -Expected Eastern Towhee Piplio erythrophtalmus Observed Yes -Expected Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Observed Not Expected Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Observed Yes -Expected White -throated Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Observed Not Expected Dark -eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Observed Not Expected Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Observed Yes -Expected Rose -breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludivicianus Expected Not Expected Red -winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Expected Not Expected Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscla Observed Yes -Expected Brown -headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Expected Yes -Expected Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Expected Yes -Expected Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Observed Yes -Expected American Goldfinch Caduelis tristis Expected Yes -Expected House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Observed Yes -Expected Fvr,PrtPrl birrl Qnpr-1PC hacprd lirlon rP(.orr1C from the North Fork Audubon Societv for Inlet Pond County Park from 2000-2004. 2Birds expected to breed on the subject property based on New York State Breeding Bird Atlas (2000). D. Rare Plant and Animal Surveys and Results Cat -tail Sedge (Carex typhina) Surveys for Cat -tail sedge were performed in the red -maple hardwood swamps located on the southern and southwestern portion of the property. These wetland areas were surveyed on June 19 and July 15, 2007 to correspond to the June through September flowering period for this . sedge (Mohlenbreck, 1998). C typhina was not found in these wetland areas at these locations. However, known associates of C. typhina were observed including C. lurida and C. vulpinoides; accordingly, suitable habitat for this species is present on and adjacent to the subject property-. . Swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla) Swamp cottonwood is typically found in association with A. rubrum, F. pennsylvanica, and Q. bicolor (N-YNHP, 2007b). The hardwood swamps located on and near the subject property are �" + dominated by red a e (Acer rubrum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Therefore, suitable habitat for this species exists in the wetfaridreas located on the western and southern sides of the property and in the surrounding areas of Moore's Drain. These wetland areas were surveyed on June 19, 2007 for the presence of P. heterophylla. No specimens of this species were observed. Cranefly Orchid (Tipularia discolor) This small, rare orchid occurs in large tracts of mature forests dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red oak (Quercus rubra), swamp white oak (Quercus rubra), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Small stands of these trees were observed in hummocks and on the tops of banks within the red maple -hardwood swamps located on the subject property. Portions of the subject property dominated by these late successional trees were surveyed for cranefly orchid on July 15 and August 29, 2007 and February 12, 2008. Cranefly orchid flowers in the late summer. During the winter months, this species can be observed as a single leaf with deep red undersides. Accordingly, a winter survey for this species was performed. No cranefly orchids were observed on the subject property during summer and winter surveys. However, small areas of suitable habitat for T. discolor are present in the red maple -hardwood swamps located on the southern and southeastern portion of the property and on adjacent properties. • Northern Cricket Froa (Acris crepitans) The Northern Cricket Frog is a small tree -frog that inhabits the edges of sunny marshes, marshy ponds, impoundments, and slow-moving streams in open country (NYNHP, 2007c). Known populations of A. crepitans in New York State occur in Orange, Ulster, and Dutchess counties. Historically, this species occurred on eastern Long Island. Intensive survey efforts to assess the herpetological community of the subject property did not indicate the presence of A. crepitans. Chorusing for the species begins in mid-May and lasts until mid-July (NYNHP, 2007c). The areas of standing water on and adjacent to the subject property were investigated at night (between 9-11 PM) by William Bowman, PhD and Todd Gardner on May 29, June 12, June 26, and July 16, 2007. No A. crepitans chorusing was observed during these night field surveys. A. crepitans was also not observed during herpetile sampling with the pit -fall traps/drift lines or during dip -netting of the areas of standing water. The areas of standing water on the subject property are largely shaded by the surrounding mature forest canopy. A. crepitans prefers open, sunny wetlands (NYNHP, 2007c); accordingly, the shaded wetlands present on and adjacent to the subject property do not appear to provide suitable habitat for A. crepitans. Tiger Beetle (Cicindela patruela consentanea) This rare beetle species is historically known from Greenport (NYNHP, correspondence dated October 12, 2007, included in this Appendix) and other locations on eastern Long Island including Port Jefferson, Riverhead, and Westhampton (Leonard, 1926). On August i4, 2008, Dr. Jonathan Mawdsley visited the 17.2 -acre subject property, and investigated the entire property for microhabitat features that might provide suitable habitat for tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Based upon this habitat survey, the subject property does not contain suitable habitat for the tiger beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. This tiger beetle is closely associated with high-quality pine -oak barrens, an ecological community that is not present at the subject property. In pine -oak barrens, Cicindela patruela consentanea is often associated with white sandy substrates, or white sandy substrates with pebbles. These substrates are not present at the subject property. Neither adult tiger beetles, nor larval burrows of tiger beetles, were observed during the site visit. No adult bombyliid flies (parasites of larval tiger beetles often visible when neither adult larval nor larval tiger beetles are active) were observed during the site visit. The complete report prepared by Dr. Mawdsley, as well as his qualifications and literature review, are presented in this Appendix N. Marsh Straw Sedze (Carex hor`nathodes) This species most commonly occurs in and adjacent to salt or brackish coastal, or rarely slightly inland, tidal marshes. It can also occur in dune swales, fens, the margins of coastal wetlands, and wet forests adjacent to the coast (NYNHP, 2006; NYNHP, 2007d). This plant is typically found in association with common reed (Phragmites australis), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), seaside bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus ssp. paludosus), and beach plum (Prunus maritima) (NYNHP, 2007d). No tidal marshes and coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property 0 0 does not provide suitable habitat for C. hormathodes and this species was not observed during surveys of the freshwater wetlands present on the subject property. Orange -fringed Orchid (Platanthera ciliaris) This species occurs in a variety of wetlands habitats including bogs, damp and sandy meadows, floodplains, seepage areas, and other sites with damp and sandy soils. The wetlands of the sAject property were surveyed for orange -fringed orchid on July 15 and August 29, 2007. ,"'However, due to the presence of 'large areas of wetlands with sandy soils, it is concluded t able habitat for P. ciliaris is present in the southern and southeastern portion of the property on adjacent properties. Nuttall's Tick -Trefoil (Desmodium nuttallii) and Smooth Tick -Trefoil (Desmodium laevigatum) Both of these plant species are known to inhabit dry, sandy soils in open habitats. These species were observed on the subject property in the road margins and scattered sandy patches at the edges of the successional old fields during field inspections on August 29 and September 18, 2007. It appears that there may be areas of suitable sandy soils for these species; however, these patches are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Green Parrot's Feather (Myriophyllum pinnatum) This native aquatic milfoil is a submergent plant found in the shallow water and muddy banks of coastal ponds (Massachuesetts Natural Heritage Program, 2006). No coastal ponds are present on the subject property and the wetlands that are present do not contain a submergent plant community due to the shallow and variable water levels. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for M. pinnatum and this species was not observed during field investigations of the freshwater wetland habitats on and adjacent to the subject property. Cut -leaved Evening -Primrose (Oenothera laciniata) This species is found in cultivated fields, sandy waste places, and roadsides (Clewis et al. 2007). O. laciniata was not observed on the subject property during field investigations of the road margins and scattered sandy patches near the edges of the property's successional old fields on June 19 and July 15, 2007. It appears that some suitable areas of sandy soils, roadsides, and waste places for this species may be present; however, these areas are largely overgrown with thick stands of Solidago and thickets of Rubus. Opelousa Smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides var. opelousa) This rare native sub -species of the Water Smartweed (P. hydropiperoides) inhabits wet, sandy to peaty soils near running water or in swales (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). Surveys of the subject property on July 15, August 29, and September 18, 2007 included investigation of the freshwater wetlands on the property for Opelousa smartweed. P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa was not observed on the subject property; however, P. hydropiperoides was found in the areas of standing water on the southern portion of the property. Although there are no areas of permanent running water on the subject property, the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site suggest that the abundant wet soils provide suitable habitat for P. hydropiperoides var. opelousa. .7 Swamp Smartweed (Persicaria setaceum) This species inhabits shaded swampy forests and lake margins (Mitchell and Dean, 1978). The freshwater wetlands on and adjacent to the subject property were surveyed for this swamp smartweed on July 15 and August 29, 2007. This species was not observed during these field investigations. However, due to the abundance of wetland habitats on and adjacent to the site, it is concluded that suitable habitat for P. setaceum is present. Red P&weed (Chenopodium rubrum) This species occurs in salt marshes, saline soils, and sandy frontal dunes (Maine Department of Conservation, 2004; NYNHP, 2006). No tidal wetlands or coastal dune habitats are present on or adjacent to the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not provide suitable habitat for C. rubrum and this species was not observed during field investigations of the upland and freshwater wetland habitats on and adjacent to the subject property. Velvet Panic Grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) This species is found in open or partially open, moist ditches and swales and sandy soils of adjacent woodlands (Gould and Clark, 1978). The wetlands and ditches on and adjacent to the subject prope ere surveyed for velvet panic grass during field investigations on May 22 and June 19, 2007r.is species was not observed during these field investigations. However, due to the presence of large areas of wetlands with ditches and sandyils, it is concluded that suitable habitat for D. scoparium may be present on or adjacent to the sit) Small -flowered Pearlwort (Sagina decumbens) This species is found in dry, sandy soils (Britton and Brown, 1913) in open areas in fields, pastures, and waste places. The open, sandy areas within the subject property's successional old fields were investigated for small -flowered pearlwort during field investigations on April 24 and May 31, 2007. No specimens of this species were observed. Maryland Milkwort (Polygala mariana) Maryland milkwort was surveyed for in the wetlands located on and adjacent to the subject property during field investigations in August and September of 2007. Suitable habitat for this species was found; however, this is not expected to be found on the site as it is presumed to be extirpated from New York State (NYNHP, 2006). E. Vegetation Inventory Methods: An inventory of the plant community located on the project site, including a plant species list, and surveys for the rare plants was conducted by William P. Bowman, PhD of Land Use Ecological Services. Meander surveys were conducted monthly from April through September in each of the ecological communities present on the subject property. Survey dates included April 29, May 22, June 19, July 15, August 29, September 18, and October 12, 2007. A complete list of the plant species observed on the subject property is provided below. Results: 0 Plant Species Observed at the Subject Property r� Common Name Scientific Name Norway Maple Acer platanoides Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus Red Maple Acer rubrum Redtop Bentgrass Agrostis alba Garlic Mustard Alliaria officinalis Field Garlic Allium vineale Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Shadbush Amelanchier canadensis Little Bluestein Andropogon scoparius Broomsedge Bluestein Andropogon virginicus Wood Anemome Anemome quinquefolia Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Bushy Aster Aster dumous Small White Aster Aster vimineus Lady Fern Athyrium filix femina Groundsel Bush Baccharis halmifolia Gray Birch Betula populifolia False Nettle Boehmeria cylindrica Blue -joint Grass Calamagrotis canadensis Fringed Sedge Carex crinita Sedge Carex intumescens Sedge Carex lurida Soft Fox Sedge Carex stipata • • Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana Pignut Hickory Carya glabra Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus occidentalis Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Lamb's Quarters Chenopodium album Ox -eye Daisy Chyrsanthemum leucanthemum Water Hemlock Cicuta maculata Wood Reed Cinna arundinacea Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Flowering Dogwood Cornus Florida Nut Sedge Cyperus esculentus Queen Anne's Lace Daucus corota Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata Water -willow Decodon verticillatus Hair Grass Deschampsia flexuosa Spinulose Woodfern Dryopteris spinulosa Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Autumn Olive Elaeagnus umbellata Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense Purple Lovegrass Eragrostis spectabilis Daisy Fleabane Erigeron strigosus American Beech Fagus grandifolia • • • Sheep Fescue Festuca ovina Red Fescue Festuca rubra Wild Strawerry Fragaria virginiana Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos Witch Hazel Hamamelis virginiana King Devil Hawkweed Hieracium piloselloides Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Blue Iris Iris versicolor Canada Rush Juncus canadensis Soft Rush Juncus effusus Path Rush Juncus tenuis Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia Wild Lettuce Letuca canadensis Blazing Star Liatris sp. Blue Toadflax Linaria canadensis Spicebush Lindera benzoin Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciva Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tartarica • 0 • Northern Honeysuckle Lonicera villosa Water Purslane Ludwigia palustris White Campion Lychnis alba Bugleweed Lycopus virginicus Canada Mayflower Maianthemum canadense Apple Malus spp. Square -Stemmed Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens Eulalia Miscanthus sinesis Partridgeberry Mitchella repens Bayberry Morella pensylvanica Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis Cinnamon Fem Osmunda cinnamomea Royal Fern Osmunda regalis American Hop - Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Pamcgrass Panicum spp. Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Beardtongue Penstemon sp. Common Reed Phragmites australis Fowl Meadow Grass Poa palustris Long- Bristled Smartweed Polygonum caespitosum Japanese Knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum 0 9 Mild Water Pepper Polygonum hydropipero ides Cottonwood Populus deltoides Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Dwarf Cinquefoil Potentilla canadensis Common Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex Sweet Cherry Prunus avium Black Cherry Prunus serotina Red Chokeberry Prunus virginiana Bracken Fern Pteridium gleditsch White Oak Quercus alba Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea Pin Oak Quercus palustris Red Oak Quercus rubra Black Oak Quercus velutina Smooth Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula Swamp Azalea Rhododendron viscosum Black Locust Robinia pseudo -acacia Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora Prickly Dewberry Rubus flagellaris Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Curled Dock Rumex crispus Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis • Sassafras Sassafras albidum Mad -dog Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora Water Parsnip Sium suave False Solomons Seal Smilacina racemosa Catbriar Smilax rotundifolia Tall Goldenrod Solidago altissima Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis Lance -leaved Goldenrod Solidago gramnifolia Rough -stemmed Goldenrod Solidago rugosa Field Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis Skunk Cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale New York Fern Thelypteris noveboracensis Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans Starflower Trientalis borealis Red Clover Trifolium pratense White Clover Trifolium repens Purple -top Triodia flava Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Moth Mullien Verbascum blatteria Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Common Speedwell Veronica ofcinalis • • 0 Northern Arrowood Viburnum dentatum Northern White Violet Viola pallens Summer Grape Vitis aestivalis Fox Grape Vitis labrusca Netted Chain Fern Woodwardia areolata v �- ® • O \ I I oz NZ IV LEGEND: -•—•—•- = PROPERTY LINE i = WETLANDS LINE - - - - - - - - - - = LIMIT OF NYSDEC FRESHWATER WETLAND ADJACENT AREA • = SMALL MAMMAL TRAP LOCATION CRAPE ® = COVER BOARD LOCATION •L LANE D = DIP -NETTING SITE X ---------X = DRIFT FENCE LINE WITH PITFALL TRAPS LOCATION OF DRIFT FENCES, COVER BOARDS, SCALE; I" = 200' DIP- NETTING SITES AND SMALL MAMMAL TRAPS FOR BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY LAND USE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. DATE: 05-05-09 TAX MAP#: 1000-40-3-1 PO BOX 1060 _ RIVEI I ul I EAMI901 SHEET 1 OF I 0 0 NeW York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits; Region One SUNY @.Stony Brook. 50 Circle.Road Storiy Brook, NY 11790- 3409 Phone::(M1) 444=0403 FAX: {631}"444-0380 Website: wvmdec.statexty.us Alexander S. Grannis commissioner October 12, 2o07 Wiiilarn.Bowman Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. P.O. Box. 1060 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re. Res. DEC H 14738-036,31100001, i ACE LI; LLC Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of Approximately 1T,2: Acres of Land (SCI i41 ## 1000-40-3-1) in the Town of Southold and the. Subsequent Dcre(opicnt aril .Construction of a Residential Project Known as'sNorthwind Village Dear Dr. Bowman: - This De a.._ment has completed its review of your proposed sampling n9 methodology for the referenced.{ �roject:entitled, "Proposed: Methods forNatural Resource inventoryfi r the Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport. of 17.2 Acres in the Town of Southold,v and we have the following comments: Heroetolgical Sampling Methods, Vegetation Inventory and Rare Plant Surveys and Avian Survey: The methods described in your proposal are acceptable to this Department. Small Mammal Sampling Methods; . Pre -baiting, the traps for small mammal sampling might attract racoons who could potentially take the bait and decrease the chances of trapping other species. To minimize the likelihood of racoons interfering, we recommend that pre -baiting of traps.be-avoided- Also, rn order to increase the likelihood of trapping a variety .of species; we suggest that a different bait be used when the traps are set for .collection. A mixture of peanut butter, millet, and bacon would be more suitable_ Invertebrate Sampling Methods:- It has come.to our attention during the review process, that the NY Natural Heritage l]atahase has record of occurrence in the project area of the r er Bee le Creindela atrttele c'onsen&2 64 This species, along with several other of our uncommon tiger beetles, 'is iisteihe Comprehensive Wildlife: Conservation Strategy as 'Species of Greatest. Consewation Need:" It is anticipated that this species .could be recommended forstate listing as Endangered or Threatened within:the next.yeat or two.. Therefore., as per section 2.5.4 :of the "Filial Scope for the Draft Enijmnrnental. Impact - -Statement,* a survey of the- project site trust be conducted for Tiger Beetles by an entomologist, orqualified, naturalist. The sampling should be conducted from late: April to early June or' from late July into the fall. At' least one specimen of each species encountered should be retained. forverification. Data presented. in the Draft Envirohrriental Impact, Statement.should include 1) a map of all transects. sampled, 2):a description of the habitats sampled 3) a list of all observed species 4) iocaiions.of all observed species along • is with:a description of the surrounding habitat-. 6} Quality close-up digital images of any specimens collected and, if possible, of specimens observed but .not collected. You are Hereby directed to incorporate these sampling requirements into your, "Proposed Methods for NatUral Resource inventory €or the Praposed:.AnRexation by the Village of Greenport of -1 T2 Acres.in the Town af'Southold It:�l[.-not.be.necessary to subsequent)y resubmit the revised- proposal for. U&e artmeat approval. Ifyou need any fUrther.information lin sarnpfing protocol for the Tiger:Beetle; please let me know. Finally; New York's :Natural Heritage Program has :compiled lists. of both recent and Historical heritage records in the vicinity of the, site. Copies of these reports.are enclosed for your reference. if you Have any questions or Wesel any additional information, please raft me at 631-444-04403_. Sherri Aicher Environmental Analyst Enclosure CC' Constantine E. Kontokosta New York State Department of Environmental Conservation bivision of Fish, Wildlife & Madrid Resources Denise nn: Sheehan ,New York Natural Heritage. Program commissioner 6-25 Broadway, 5'" floor, Albany, New York 122834757 Phone : (51.8) 402-$935 FAX: (518). 402--8925 W&Site: www.decstalemy. - Sep#etaiber In response to your recent -request, we have reviewed the New. York Natural Heritage. P.rdgram :database with respect -to an En-vi-ronmentalAssessnaent for the proposed 17<2 acre Residential Subdivision., site:area as indicated ad the map you provided, located at 62600 County Rd 48, Greenport, To-,vri o f Southold, -8.iiffo Ik County.: Enclosed is a report -of rare or.state-listed at idtals.and.plants, sio-ficantnaturat communities, and other sigiificant babitafs,'which our:database-indicate.occur, or may occur, on your siteorin the immediate vicinity of your site: Theinformation coutained '. in tliis repoi-tis considered. sensitive and may not be released. to the public without perinission from the Nevv York'Natural Heritage: Program, The presence ofraie species,niay result ui tbis project requiring.additional permits; permit conditions, or reuizw, For further guidance, acid for information regarding other permits that may be -required under state law, for regulated areas or acti.vittes (e.g , regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of' Enx4onmental Permits, at the enclosed address, For inost.sites, comprehensive field sweys have not been conducted; the enclosed, report only includes records froour databases. We cannot prmride-a definitive staternent on presence ar ab epee of all rare or state -listed species Or enificant natural communities. This nformat%an should not be stibstituted.for.. on=$itesur }eys that m4y be regiuimd for:environmentaT impact assessment Our databases:are continualiy growing as records_ are. added aid upiia�ted_ .If this proposed- prcject is still under developmeut one year ftem now, we recommend that you contact _us again so that"We may update this response With the .most current information; Sincerely, Tara Seoazte; information Services NY Natural Heritage Program Eric. ce; Reg. 1, WAdltfe gr. USERS GUIDE'TO NY NATURAL HERITAGE DATA - Nevf'Y.ork Natural Heritage.Pragrarn. 625 Broadir,rav, 5y' rloor, Aihany.. r4Y'122�3 4757------ 57ptione -518), 402-81 5 NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM: The NY Natural Heritage Program is a paririership beWeen the: tJl`S Department .at Envirorimen(.al Conservation (NYS DEC} -and Tne Mature -Conservancy. Our mission is to 2rable and enhance -conservation or rare :animals, rare plants• and significant communities: We ae-Wiriplish this mssiori by combining thorough field inventories, scientific analyses expert interpretation, and the most comprehensive database oa _New York's disiirnctive biodilersity to deliver the highest quality information: for natural.r�rcepfa esonnrnprotection_:and management. DATA 'SENSiTiviTY::The data provided .in the'repod are scologica9y sensitive and should be treated in -a sensitive manner. The repos! is for your in-house use and should not be released' distributed or incorporated in a public document without prior permission from the Natural Heritage-Prograrri.- Eo RANK:.A tetter code for the quality of the occurrence of Ole tarespecies or significant natural community, based on population size or area,..condition, and landscape:context XE = Extant: A Excellent; BFGood, C=Farr Q-Paor E_ Extant &A vrth insuffiaen .It data to assign a rank of A -.D. F Faded to' find Did, Rot locate species during a. limited;search tint habitat is stilt :theta and further field work is justified_ H historical. Historical occurrence withoutany recent.field inforriiafion. X Fxtrrpated Pieldlokher data_indicates elemenUhabitat' s destrpyed and {he:elerrrentno Jonger:eXists`atthis location. U : Extant'Hisloncal status uncertain. - Blank = Not assigned: LAST REPORT: The date that the rare species or significant natural community teas fast observed at this.location, as documented in the Natural Heritage databases. The famiat is most:offen YYYY-ttiiht-DD. NY LEGAL STATUS =- Arirna€s: Categories:of Endangered and Threatened species are. deirncd in New York State Enviranmeribi CooseRl- on Lave section 11-053.5, .Endangered, Threatened. and Special Concern species_are fisted 'snrVgulation 6NYCRR -182.5. E - Endangered Species: anv species:whictrnteet one of.the. foils »trig criteria; Any nati e species in it riminenf danger ofextirpatiorr.or extinc tion in New York.. A ry sjaecies listed as endangered by the United States Ltepartment of the tn.Erior. as enumera3ed in the Code of Federal Regufa!ions 5tr CFR -17-1'1. T - Threatened Species: any species which meet one of the_fotiowing criteria: Any native species likely to become an:endan eyed 9 .species within the `foreseeable future in NY. An; species listed as threatened by the' U.S. Department of the Interior, as. enumerated in thio. Cede of the. Fedora! Regulations 5iJ C1 '.R IT11- SC - Special Concern. Species` those. species which are not yet recognized as endangered or threatened, but for which. documented cohcam exists The their continued welfare in New 'York. Unlike the. first two .cati>gozies; species of .speGal concern receive no additional legal protection tinder Environrrientaf Conservati6n Law. section 1 1-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Speciesj- P - Protected Wildlife (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section 1i=f11o31: Lvitd ga *re:.orotectett wild lairds, and endangered species of wildlife. U tiriprotecfed (defined in Environmental Conserpauon: La;v s -tion ? 1 01Q3}: the species may be taken at any time without' . Grrrit;.ho�ueye,: a license to take may be 11 reci, G Game (defingd in Envfronmentat Caitservation Law section 03}- any of a variety of biij game- or smallgame s; edde. as stat d..m ti;e Environrnental.Conservation l�Lv; many normally have an coon season:for at least part ofthe year, and are protected at Other Urres. NY LEGAL STATUS,- Plants; The-folti7ng czteagries are defined in reputation 6N4CRF2 p2rf a?3.3 and ripply. to W8:511v Consort tion:Ta�v.se0on.9- 1533: _ E - Endangered Species: tisted species are Mose 'with. - 5 or feWer:extant si:es;'or tetierthan 'f,000 indNidua.Is; or r ?5tricte(J to: fer�er than 4 U.S.G.S. 7 '/z minute topographical reaps; or ss listed as endaraered lav t3:S_ Dept; of Interior -as enumera ed in t'ode of Fe(jeral Regulations 50 CFR 17,? t. T-- Threatened- listed species are t*aose with: o to fewer 'than 20 extant sites, or . . t',000 to ;ewer than:3.)000 individuals; or restricted lo -t ►ess than) •t or more than 7 L1.S:C:a 7 and minute tcpograpfrical naps: or listed as threatened by U:6. Departni`nt of }nter:e ; 3s t aumeraied in .Cody: of Federal Pegufatior s MT CF 1.7;11: 11 • R -Rare.: listed species have: 20 to 35 extant sites. or 3;00y1o5000 individuals statewide. V Explaitably vulnerable: fisted species are li -ely to become threatened in 'the ne3f future througnoot all. ora significant .portion of their range ;rrithin the. state if causal factors continue unchecked. U - Unprotected-, no state status_ FEDERAL STATUS (PLANTS and ANIMALS). The categories of.federat status are,defined. by the united States Department of the Interior as part of the 1974 Endangered Species Act_(see Code �fFedei-al Regulations SO C.FR i 7,}: The species Misted under this law are enumerated in the Federal Register vol. 50no. 188,,pp: _39526 - 39527. The codes below without parentheses are those used in tie Federal Register. The codes below in parentheses are created by Heritage m deal ,ewith species which have different listings in different parts of their range, andior different listings. f>3r different subspecies or varieties_ .(blank) - No Federal Endangered Species Act status. LE = Formally listed as endangered. LT = Formally listed as thn Wened. C = Candidate for listing: LE,LT = Founally listed.as endangered in part.of its range, and. as threatened in the other part; or; one or more. subspecies or varieties is listed as endangered, and. the others Oro listed asthreatened. LT RUJL= Populations of the species in Neve York are formalt}_ lusted as3hreatened, and proposed for delisting.. GLOBAL AND STATE RANKS (animals, plants, ecological:cornrnvnities and others): Each element has 'a global .and state rank asdetermined by the NY_Natural .N?silage PnxJrarai These ranks carr; no legal vueigftt. The jtQbat rank refiectsthe rarity of the element throughout. the world and the state rank:reflects the :rarity within New York State. infraspecifrc-taxa are also assigned a taxon rank to reflect the infraspecific taxoWs rank throughout.the world. ? =. lndicates a question exists about the rank. Range ranks, e.g. St S?, indicatenot enough information.ls available to distinguish between two ranks: GLOBAL RANK - G Criticalfyimperiled globally because of extreme rarity 45 or €ewer occurrences.), or very few remaining acres_ or miles of stream) orespecially vulnerable to extinction because of.some factor of its biology. G2._ Imperifed.glbbally because of.rarity (6'- 20 occurrences; or€ewremaining acres.,or miles of.stri-am) or very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G3 -Vulnerable:. Either, rare and. local -throughout its range (21 to .1W occurrences), or found locafty {even abundantty-at some of its kxmtions) in s restricted range.(e.g_ a physiographic region), or vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of otherfactors- G4. - Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts -of its range:. especially at the periphery, GS -. Demonstrably secure, globally, though: it may be :quite tare in parts of its range, especially. at the.periphery, GH = Historically known,'with the expectation that it might .be.rediscovered... GX - Species beTieved to be extinct, NYs RANK 1 Cniicati jrisperrted: Typically -5 ter fewer occurrences very fern rernaming.individu 31s, acres or miles of.strearn., or_somw. fin t bf its bialdg- ma, intt it esperlarhi vtiln�e in Nevis 6* State:,. S2.- Imperiled: Typically .a to:20-occ_rrre6ces, fewremaining individuals..acres,.or miles of stream; of factors demonstrably making it veiy vulnerable in New -York State - 53 "Vulnerable.- Typically 21 to -100 occurreices,)imifed acreage or rttites ofstrearn in New York State. S4 Apparent., secure in New York State. S5 Derronstratly secure in, New York State. SFI'-;t isforicallv.kno}vn from.Nesv York State, but not seen in the past 15 .years, SX:- Apparently extirpated from New York .State and S:xkf where 5x-is-om of the.eodes above, are used. for.rnigrato y animals', and refer to tine_ rant} within New York State c+f the:brbedino (8) opulations and the':ni?n-breeding populations tX). respecti.ely,.of the species TAXON (T) RANK. The T` -ranks; (TI -T5) are defined the sante way as the Global ranks ,(G1. - G5); trut the T -rend .refers only to the ranty of the subspecific taxon. f1 thro ich T5 - See Global Rank definitiiins aboee. D - lndicates a question exists whettFer or not the taxon is a :good :taxonomic entity: William P. Bowman Education Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, New York, NY: M.A (2003), M.Phil (2004), Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution (2005)_ Columbia University, New York, NY: Certificate in Environmental Policy, October 2004 Colgate University, Hamilton, NY: B.A., May 1997, Magna Cum Laude, Honors in Biology Cumulative GPA: 3.59 Concentration GPA: 3.79 Environmental Consulting and Policy Experience Land Use Ecological Services. March, 2007 -Present. Riverhead, NY. Senior Scientist -Completed wetland delineations, natural resource assessments, and impact analysis for Environmental Impact_ Assessments pursuant to NYSEQR in projects located in upland, wetland, and marine habitats. -Responsible for the design of freshwater wetland restoration projects -Responsible for the coordination of pen -nit applications to NYSDEC pursuant to ECL Articles 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) and 25 (Tidal Wetlands), USACE, NYSDOS, and various local municipalities. -Conducted Essential Fish Habitat Assessments for submission to the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Malcolm Pirnie_ February, 2006- February, 2007. White Plains, NY. Environmental Scientist -Completed wetland delineations, natural resource assessments, and impact analysis necessary for Environmental Impact Assessments for clients including the New York City Department of -- Environmental Protection and Oneida Indian Nation. -Conducted habitat surveys for endangered and threatened species, including bog turtle, swamp pink, and other protected species, in New York and New Jersey. -Completed permit applications to NYSDEC pursuant to Articles 24 (Freshwater Wetlands) and 25 (Tidal Wetlands) of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law Provided biological expertise for the project design and ecological assessment of large -projects including the remediation of the lower Passaic River and a phytoremediation plantation in upstate New York. Columbia University, New York, NY: Certificate in Environmental Policy- Received October, 2004 Relevant Coursework: Environmental Law Economics of Sustainable Development Geopolitics of Energy International Relations of the Environment Policy Workshop on Kyoto Protocol New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory Unit. 1998-1999. Stony Brook, NY. Fish and Wildlife Technician -Reviewed permit applications and non jurisdiction requests pursuant to New York State's Freshwater Wetlands Act and Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Act -Conducted wetland boundary delineations utilizing excellent knowledge of indigenous plant species and soil characteristics 0 • • 0 Research and Data Analysis Experience Columbia University, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology. 2000 -Present- New York City, NY. Research Fellow -Collaborated with international teams of scientists on long-term research projects related to sequestration of atmospheric carbon in forests in the United States and New Zealand -Drafted or contributed to grant proposals and annual reports to highly competitive funding agencies including the National Science Foundation and Columbia University's Climate Center -Designed and implemented protocols for the acquisition and analysis of biological data Utilized excellent computer and technical skills to construct, maintain, and program micro- computers and other instruments for the collection of biological data -Developed expertise in statistical analysis of data and data mining including proficiency with SPSS, DataDesk, SigmaPlot, MS Excel, Visual Basic, and JMP Statistics -Created graphical representations of research findings for both lay audiences and colleagues at international conferences and various educational settings -Authored timely articles and reports on research findings for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals Teaching and Communication Experience Universities and Secondary Schools. 2000 -Present. New York City, NY. -Conveyed complex information to non -expert audiences as a guest lecturer and teaching assistant for undergraduate classes at Columbia and Barnard Colleges and as an educator in secondary school classes at New York City Public School 89 Cornell Cooperative Extension. 1999-2000. Riverhead, NY. Senior Program Assistant -Coordinated the implementation of the Explorer Education Program aimed at educating the public and school groups about estuarine processes and wildlife. The Explorer program was highly successful and had —10,000 patrons in its first 2 years of operation. -Trained and supervised a staff of 2-6 assistant educators/volunteers -Authored educational displays for —20 exhibits at the Atlantis Marine World aquarium -Researched and created a 120 pg. reference guide on the Peconic Estuary for use by CCE staff Publications Bowman WP, MG Barbour, DT Tissue, MT Turnbull, D Whitehead, and KL Griffin. 2005. Sap flow rates and sapwood density are critical factors in within- and between -tree variation in CO2 efflux from stems of mature Dacrydium cupressinum trees. New Phytologist 167(3): 815-828. Bowman WP, DT Tissue, MT Turnbull, D Whitehead, and KL Griffin. In Review (free Physiology). The Contribution of Stem Respiration to the Carbon Balance of a Lowland Podocarp-Broadleaf Rainforest in South Westland, New Zealand. Bowman WP, WSF Shuster, and KL Griffin. In Review (Plant, Cell and Environment). Between Tree Variation in Stem CO2 Efflux is Primarily Related to Diameter Growth and Wood Respiratory Activity, Not Xylem [CO2] and Sap Flux Density, in Quercus rubra. Bowman CW and WP Bowman. 1999. A Novel Protocol for the Large Scale Salvage of Wetland Soils and Biota. Environmental Protection of Soil and Water Resources. 30:160-168. Durham KF, RA DiGiovanni, D Spangler -Martin, and WP Bowman. 1998. A Summary of the 1997 Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Strandings in New York. Proceedings of the 1998 Northeast Regional Stranding Conference. Virginia Marine Science Museum Scientific Report. 2.21-24. Awards and Honors Phi Beta Kappa, National Honor Society for Academic Excellence, Spring 1997 National Science Foundation, GK12 Fellowship: July 2003 -Present Ecological Society of America, Physiological Ecology Section: Honorable Mention- Best Student Poster Award, August 2003 American Institute of Biological Sciences: Honorable Mention- Emerging Public Policy Leader Award, March 2003 Beta Beta Beta, National Honor Society in Biology, Fall 1995 Professional Development Methodology for Wetland Delineation. October, 2006. Rutgers University- Cook College Office of Continuing Education Professional Societies Ecological Society of America Society of Wetland Scientists W. 0 • Todd Gardner 16 West Main Street, Apt. 2 Riverhead, NY 11901 (631)926-7419 Fishtail22@aol.com Education Bachelor of Science in Biology and Marine Science, East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, PA, December, 1993 Master of Science in Biology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, August, 2004 Specialized Oceanography, Marine Ecology, Ecology of Water Pollution, Field Course Work Botany, Behavioral Ecology, Aquatic Ecology, Microbiology, Parasitology, Invertebrate Zoology, Marine Ichthyology, Marine Mammals of the Atlantic, Wetlands Ecology, Biology of Mollusks, Advanced Aquaculture, Marine Microbiology Published Gardner, Todd R_ 1997. Commercial breeding of the dottybacks. Sea Scope, Vol. 14. Articles Gardner, Todd R 1999. A welcome contaminant. FAMA, Jan.:168-174. Gardner, Todd R. 1999. Larval rearing of the masked goby, Coryphopterus personatus. Sea Scope, Vol. 16. Gardner, Todd R 1999. Spawning and rearing the yellow dottyback, Pseudochromis Justus. FAMA, April.:126-132_ Gardner, Todd R. and James L. Van Tassell. 2000. A system for laboratory or commercial culture of Gobiid fishes. Sea Scope Vol. 18 (Spring). Gardner, Todd R_ 2001. Solving problems in seahorse culture. Sea Scope. Vol. I8 (Fall). Whitfield, Paula, Todd Gardner, Stephen P_ Vives, Matthew R. Gilligan, Walter R Courtenay, Jr., G_ Carleton Ray and Jonathan A. Hare_ 2002_ Biological invasion of the Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans) along the Atlantic coast of North America. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 235: 289-297. Gardner Todd R 2003. The copepodlArtemia tradeoff in the captive culture of Hippocampus erectus, a vulnerable species in lower New York State. In: Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture & Conservation. (Cato, J.C. and Brown, C.L., eds.). Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa, pp. 297-301 Work Atlantis Marine World Experience Riverhead, NY (2002 -Present) Aquarist/Aquaculture coordinator— Responsible for all aspects of care and maintenance of exhibits and quarantine systems housing a variety of marine and freshwater organisms. Initiation and coordination of an aquaculture program for the production of marine phytoplankton, zooplankton, fishes, and invertebrates. Hofstra University Hempstead, NY (1999-2002) Adjunct Instructor — Teaching of laboratory courses in Botany and Animal Biology. Teaching Assistant —Assisted in laboratory sections of Invertebrate Zoology, Parasitology, and Human Anatomy and Physiology. The Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research Manhattan, NY (Oct. 1998 — Dec. 2000) Research AssistandFisheries Biologist - Responsible for management of a tag and recapture database for the Hudson River stock of striped bass, Morone saxatilis. 0 C -quest, inc. Marine Ornamental Fish Hatchery Salinas, PR (Jun_ 1995 - Sept .1998) Aquaculturist- Responsible for the operation of a 30,000 gallon system, rearing of more than 20 species of fish from egg to market size, and development of technologies for bringing new species into production. Also, spent time working in all other areas of the hatchery. Blue Earth Films Wachapreague, VA (Apr. 1994 - Nov. 1994) Aquarium Manager/Production Assistant for a National Geographic Explorer film - Collected and maintained marine organisms for filming in closed and open seawater systems-, including a 3000 gallon elasmobranch tank, contributed ideas and assisted in field photography. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary Wachapreague, VA (Aug. I994 - Nov. 1994) Laboratory Technician - Assisted in field collection of the summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, to be used in a state -funded study of hooking mortality, maintained 100 specimens at a time in a 4000 gallon open seawater system, assisted in data collection_ Freelance Naturalist (Jan. 1988 - Present) Self employed - Present lectures, live animal demonstrations and workshops for schools and other organizations including the Audubon Society, Boy Scouts of America and numerous aquarium societies. Alvernia Center for Environmental Studies _ Centerport, NY (Dec. 1991 - Apr. 1994) Naturalist - Designed environmental curricula, led nature walks and various outdoor Activities. The National Aquarium in Baltimore Baltimore, MD (Jan. 1991) Aquarist intern - Responsible for maintenance of several large (500 plus gallons) aquaria, assisted in aquaculture projects. Suffolk County Organization for the promotion of Education (SCOPE) Kings Park, NY (Jul_ 1984 - Aug. 1989) Environmental Educator - Led children in a wide range of educational activities, developed curricula, designed and maintained several living exhibits. Awards The Donald Axinn Distinguished Professor fellowship for research on Long Island ecology (2000). Skills PADI-Certified SCUBA Diver SSI -certified Nitrox diver Extensive background in capturing, maintaining and cultin•ing various aquatic and marine organisms, amphibians and reptiles Culturing of marine phytoplankton and zooplankton Design and construction of water filtration systems Experience handling venomous animals Teaching FCC -licensed radio broadcaster Photography 0 i Tiger Beetle Survey Report Prepared For. Northwind Village, LLC By. Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. Summary: On August 14, 2008, Dr. Jonathan R. Mawdsley visited a 17.2 -acre property in Greenport, New York, known as the proposed Northwind Village site, and searched the entire site for microhabitat features that might provide suitable habitat for tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Based on the habitat survey that was conducted on August 14th, this site does not contain suitable habitat for the tiger beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. This tiger beetle is closely associated with high-quality pine -oak barrens, an ecological community that'is not present at the proposed Northwind Village site. In pine -oak barrens, Cicindela patruela consentanea is often associated with white sandy substrates, or white sandy substrates with pebbles. These substrates are not present at the proposed Northwind Village site. Neither adult tiger beetles nor larval burrows of tiger beetles were observed during the site visit. No adult bombyliid flies [parasites of larval tiger beetles, often visible when neither adult nor larval tiger beetles are active] were observed during the site visit. • The proposed Northwind Village site contained several areas of potentially suitable habitat for two common species of tiger beetles. Both of these species (Cicindela punctulata Olivier, Cicindela sexguttata Fabricius) are common and widespread in New York State. Both species have Natural Heritage Status Rank G5, meaning that they are demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R_ Mawdsley, Ph.D. 2 Original Scope of Work: This project will determine whether the 17.2 -acre proposed Northwind Village site provides suitable habitat for any of the species of tiger beetles that have been recorded from Long Island, and particularly the subspecies Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. Drawing on the extensive scientific literature on tiger beetles, Dr. Mawdsley will develop a comprehensive list of tiger beetles that have been recorded from Long Island, as well as information on the known habitat requirements and ecological associations for each of these species. Many tiger beetle species exhibit close associations with particular habitat features (such as dynamic coastal beaches, coastal sand dunes, firebreaks and trails in pine -oak forests, or open bare sandy areas with lichens and mosses) and would not be expected to occur on a given property unless these particular features are present (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Dr. Mawdsley will then survey the 17.2 -acre proposed Northwind Village site, identifying specific areas that may be suitable for the individual tiger beetle species that are known to occur on Long Island, including Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean. Any active tiger beetles that are encountered during the survey will be identified to species in the field and the numbers of individual beetles will be recorded. Any areas of open sandy soil that are encountered will also be checked for the burrows of larval tiger beetles. Dr. Mawdsley will then write areport comparing the results of the field survey with the known habitat parameters for the tiger beetle species that have been recorded from Long Island, providing an expert assessment of the suitability of the property in question to support populations of any of the tiger beetle species that have been recorded from Long Island. Qualifications: Dr. Jonathan R. Mawdsley earned his Ph.D. in entomology from Cornell University under Dr. James K. Liebherr, a world expert in carabid beetles (the major lineage that includes tiger beetles). He subsequently worked for one year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow under carabid beetle expert Dr. Terry L. Erwin, Curator of Coleoptera at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Mawdsley has conducted field studies of beetle ecology in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Most recently, Dr. Mawdsley has conducted tiger beetle surveys for Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary and Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, as well as Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and Kruger National Park in South Africa. He has published over 50 papers on entomological topics, including 1 I papers on the ecology and conservation of tiger beetles. Much of his recent work on tiger beetles has focused on globally rare species from the eastern United States such as Cicindela patruela and Cicindela ancocisconensis that are exhibiting declines in part or all of their historic ranges. His website, http://www.beetleconservation.com includes more details about his recent work. 0 Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. 43 Methods: Field Survey The 17.2 -acre proposed Northwind Village site in Greenport, New York, was visited by Dr. Mawdsley on the morning of August 10, 2008. The timing of this survey was selected to coincide with Dr. Mawdsley's ongoing surveys for tiger beetles in high-quality pine -oak barrens at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the town of Brookhaven, New York. Temperature and weather conditions during the site visit were suitable for activity of adult tiger beetles, as characterized by Knisley and Schultz (1997): ambient air temperature was greater than 70 degrees, and weather conditions were sunny with scattered clouds. All of the major habitat types and areas at the proposed Northwind Village site were inspected for microhabitat features such as open sandy areas, sand dunes, firebreaks, trails, sandbars, and beaches which are known to support tiger beetles. The two open sandy areas that were detected were closely inspected using standard visual inspection procedures (described by Knisley and Schultz 1997) in an effort to detect: 1.) Adult tiger beetles. 2.) Burrows of larval tiger beetles. 3.) Bombyliid or bee flies whose larvae are parasitic on the larvae of tiger beetles (Knisley and Schultz 1997). The presence of these flies is generally indicative of tiger beetles, even when the adult beetles and Iarval burrows are not immediately visible. Literature Review The primary scientific literature on tiger beetles was reviewed and a list was developed of the tiger beetle species that have been recorded historically from Long Island. The catalogue published by Freitag (1999) was used as a source for the earlier literature and the Zoological Record Online database was used as a source for references post -1999. Many of the tiger beetle species recorded from Long Island are closely associated with particular habitat features (such as beaches, riverine sandbars, firebreaks, and dunes) and are not found in areas that do not include these features (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Other species show strong fidelity to particular vegetative communities (such as oak or pitch pine barrens) (Boyd 1978; Knisley and Schultz 1997). For each of the species of tiger beetles recorded from Long Island, a list of suitable habitat features (such as beaches, sandbars, firebreaks, and trails) was developed from the primary literature. For upland tiger beetle species, the associated vegetative communities mentioned in the primary literature were also recorded. 0 Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D_ El I Adults of many tiger beetles ecies are only active during particular months of the year (Knisley and Schultz 1997)_ The known activity periods for the sixteen tiger beetle species recorded from Long Island are included in the species accounts below. The lists of habitat features and vegetative communities derived from the literature were compared with the results of the field surveys, to determine the potential suitability of the. proposed Northwind Village site for each of the 16 species of tiger beetles that have been recorded historically from Long Island. For each species of tiger beetle recorded from Long Island, a suitability statement has been provided for the proposed Northwind Village site, based on the conditions observed during the site visit that was conducted on August 10, 2008. • Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York 0 Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. W Results: The Proposed Northwind Village Site is Unsuitable for the Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean The tiger beetle Cicindela patruela Dejean is of current conservation interest in New York State. Two subspecies of this tiger beetle have been recorded from the state. One of these subspecies, Cicindela patruela consentanea, has been recorded historically from Greenport in Suffolk County, as well as other localities on Long Island. The following information about this subspecies has been derived from the primary literature and Dr. Mawdsley's studies of extant populations of this tiger beetle in the New Jersey Pine Barrens conducted between 2004 and 2007. Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean Substrates/habitats: Adults of Cicindela patruela consentanea are found in a variety of microhabitats in pine/oak woodlands, including woodland trails and firebreaks with white sandy soil (often in areas that have recently burned) and in areas of "dwarf' or "scrub" pine with white sandy soil and pebbles (Mawdsley 2007a). Activity period: March -April, August -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G3 (vulnerable); this subspecies is T1T3 (status could be anywhere between critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable). It is known historically from New York State (NatureServe 2008). Notes: This subspecies is endemic to Mid -Atlantic coastal pine barrens ecosystems (Pearson, Knisley, and Kazilek 2006). There are a number of old records of this tiger beetle from Long Island, mostly from collections dating between 1915 and 1952. All recent records are from the core Pine Barrens region of New Jersey, where the subspecies can be locally common at certain times of the year and in certain areas (Boyd 1973; 1978; Mawdsley 2007a). Suitability of the proposed Northwind Village site: Unsuitable. No areas of white sandy soil, no pine/oak woodlands and no firebreaks were present at the proposed Northwind Village site. Field Survey Detection ofAdult and Larval Beetles The survey of the proposed Northwind Village site yielded no sightings of adult tiger beetles, no detections of larval burrows, and no sightings of bombyliid flies. In comparison, surveys conducted by Dr. Mawdsley in high-quality pine barrens habitat during the same week (August 11-15`I'' 2008) at Brookhaven National Laboratory yielded adults of three tiger beetle species: Cicindela punctulata, Cicindela scutellaris rugifrons, and Cicindela sexguttata. Numerous larval burrows of tiger beetles and adult bombyliid flies were also present at Brookhaven. • Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.b. C.1 0 - Habitat Survey The following habitat features were identified at the proposed Northwind Village site. Two areas of open yellow sandy soil were present at the site. The largest area, approximately 10 by 30 meters, is heavily disturbed, with bulldozer and truck tracks evident This area currently provides potential habitat for the tiger beetle species Cicindela punctulata. Cicindela punctulata is a globally common (Natural Heritage Rank G5) species which is not currently of conservation concern (NatureServe 2008). This area of sand is probably too heavily disturbed at present to support other species of tiger beetles that have been found in sandy barrens sites at Brookhaven National Laboratory and elsewhere on Long Island (specifically, Cicindela repanda, Cicindela scutellaris rugifrons, and Cicindela tranquebarica). The smaller sandy area is heavily shaded and disturbed, and thus very marginal as habitat for most of the species of tiger beetles recorded from Long Island. It may, however, provide potential habitat for the species Cicindela sexguttata. Cicindela sexguttata is a globally common (Natural Heritage Rank G5) species which is widespread in New York State and is therefore not currently of conservation concern. The mature woodland areas on the property, which are located immediately adjacent to the wetlands, contain potential habitat for the species Cicindela sexguttata. Cicindela sexguttata is a globally common (Natural Heritage Rank G5) species which is widespread in New York State and is therefore not currently of conservation cone em. Literature Review Sixteen species of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) have been recorded from Long Island. Potential habitat for two of these species (Cicindela punctulata, Cicindela sexguttata) was detected at the proposed Northwind Village site, as discussed in more detail under the accounts for those species below. The larger open area of yellow sand at the proposed Northwind Village site may at one point have provided suitable habitat for other tiger beetle species (such as Cicindela repanda, Cicindela scutelldris rugifrons, or Cicindela tranquebarica), but this patch has been heavily disturbed by recent bulldozer and truck traffic and consequently is unlikely to support these species at the present time. The woodlands at the site and the smaller, shaded patch of sand provide potential habitat for one species of tiger beetle, Cicindela sexguttata, as discussed in more detail under the account for that species below. Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean Substrates/habitats: Adults are found in a variety of microhabitats in pine/oak woodlands, including woodland trails and firebreaks with white sandy soil (often in areas that have recently 0 Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. 7 burned) and in areas of "dwarf" or "scrub" pine with white sandy soil and pebbles (Mawdsley 2007a). Activity period: March -April, August -September (Leonard 1926)_ Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G3 (vulnerable); this subspecies is Tl T3 (status could be anywhere between critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable). Historical from New York State (NatureServe 2008). Notes: Endemic to Mid -Atlantic coastal pine barrens ecosystems. There are a number of old records of this tiger beetle from Long Island, mostly from collections between 1915 and 1952. All recent records are from the core Pine Barrens region of New Jersey, where the subspecies can be locally common at certain times of the year and in certain areas (Boyd 1973; 1978; Mawdsley 2007x). Suitability: Unsuitable. No areas of white sandy soil, no pine/oak woodlands and no firebreaks were present at the proposed Northwind Village site. Tetracha virginica (Linnaeus) (also known as Megacephala virginica) Substrates/habitats: Dry woodlands, fields, riparian areas, suburban areas (Boyd 1985; Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: New York records are from September (May -October elsewhere in range) (Leonard 1926; Knisley and Schultz 1997). Natural Heritage Status Rank: GS (demonstrably abundant, widespread and secure)_ Status unknown in New York State (NatureServe 2008). Notes: This crepuscular/nocturnal species is usually collected at lights at night or in pitfall traps (Boyd 1985; Knisley and Schultz 1997). There are very old records from Central Park and Long Island (Leonard 1926), which is near the northern limit of the species' distribution (Pearson, Knisley, and Kazilek 2006). Surveys with pitfall traps in the New Jersey Pine Barrens have shown this species to be much more abundant than had been previously thought (Boyd 1985)_ Suitability: Probably unsuitable, given the fact that this species has not been reported from New York for many years. Cicindela abdominalis Fabricius Substrates/habitats: Deep unconsolidated sandy soil in coastal pine barrens (Boyd 1973; 1978; Knisley and Schuliz 1997)` Activity period: August (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G4 (apparently secure). Historical in New York State (NatureServe 2008). Notes: A very small tiger beetle and a weak flier. Usually found only in high-quality pine barrens communities. There are reports of extirpations in Maryland and Virginia due to loss of pine barrens habitat (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Suitability: Unsuitable. No deep sand and no pine barrens at the proposed Northwind Village site. Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. • W Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say Substrates/habitats: Sandy coastal beaches, especially areas with minimal trampling from human activities (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Leonard and Bell 1999). Activity period: July -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G4 (apparently secure), this subspecies is T2 (imperiled). Extirpated from New York State (NatureServe 2008). Notes: Formerly associated with dynamic coastal beaches along the Atlantic shore of Long Island (Leonard 1926). Probably now extirpated throughout Long Island (Hill and Knisley 1994)_ Suitability: Unsuitable. No coastal beaches at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela duodecimguttata Dejean Substrates/habitats: Riverine sandbars, sometimes other sandy areas with high organic content. Larvae develop in eroding clay banks along streams and rivers (Glaser 1984; Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: May, September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: A common riverine tiger beetle throughout much of North America. Many old records throughout Long Island (Leonard 1926). it has not been found recently during spring and fall surveys at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Suitability: Unsuitable. No clay banks or riverine sandbars at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela formosa generosa Dejean Substrates/habitats: Both larvae and adults require large open areas of unconsolidated sand and tolerate only sparse levels of vegetation (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Leonard and Bell 1999). Associated with high quality pine barrens and sand roads in New Jersey (Boyd 1973; 1978). Activity period: May -June, August -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure) and this subspecies is T5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S4 (apparently secure) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: Can be extremely abundant under appropriate conditions (e.g. large sand roads at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the New Jersey Pine Barrens; Boyd 1973). Often co- occurs with Cicindela scutellaris (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Acorn 2001). Suitability: Unsuitable. No large open areas of unconsolidated sand at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela hirticollis Say Substrates/habitats: Another sandy beach specialist, usually found in similar areas as Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. 9 Activity period. early spring until late fall (Leonard 1926), with peaks in June and August -September. Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York- State rank is S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: Recorded from coastal beaches along the Atlantic shore of Long Island (Leonard 1926). Evidently extirpated from many of its former sites along sandy beaches by human use, as is the case with Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis (Leonard and Dell 1999). Suitability: Unsuitable. No sandy beaches at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela lepida Dejean Substrates/habitats: A sand dune specialist, usually associated with coastal dunes and sites with large amounts of loose, unconsolidated sand (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: June -July (Leonard 1926)_ Natural Heritage Status Rank: 63G4 (could be either vulnerable or apparently secure). New York State rank is S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: A rare inhabitat of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, with old records from the Long Island Pine Barrens as well (Leonard 1926; Boyd 1973; 1978). Suitability: Unsuitable. No sand dunes at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela marginata Fabricius Substrates/habitats: Tidal mud flats in estuarine salt marshes and sandy beaches with high ............ organic matter content (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Leonard and Bell 1999). Activity period: July -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S3 (vulnerable) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: In decline, at least in the in northern part of its range (Leonard and Bell 1999). Apparently still present at many sites in the mid-Atlantic region (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Suitability: Unsuitable. No tidal mud flats or sandy beaches at the proposed Northwind Village site. • Cicindela punctulata Olivier Substrates/habitats: An extreme generalist, capable of surviving in a broad range of terrestrial habitat conditions. Only occasionally found near water, this species flourishes in high- quality pine barrens as well as disturbed areas such as roadsides, backyards, and gravel pits (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: July -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). "... generally this tiger beetle is too common to be of conservation concern..." (NatureServe 2008). New York State rank is S5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). Notes: Very common at Brookhaven National Laboratory and in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, where it is easily the most abundant tiger beetle in mid -summer (Boyd 1973; 1978). Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. TO • Suitability: Potentiall suitable. Te larger area of open sandy soil at the proposed Northwind Village site is heavily disturbed but does resembles areas where Cicindela punctulata has been collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory. • Cicindela purpurea Olivier Substrates/habitats: In the New Jersey Pine Barrens, this tiger beetle is associated with sand roads and trails, particularly tow -lying places where wet sandy soils are lightly covered with decaying organic matter (Boyd 1973; 1978). This species occurs throughout much of North America, and in most of the rest of its range, it is associated with eroding clay soils (Pearson, Knisley, and Kazilek 2006). In West Virginia, it is also found in shale barrens (Acciavatti, Allen, and Stuart 1992). Activity period: May -June, September -October (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure) (NatureServe 2008)_ Notes: Numerous old records from Long Island (Leonard 1926). Has not been seen in recent surveys at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Suitability: Unsuitable. No wet sandy soils lightly covered with decaying organic matter-, no eroding clay soils; no shale barrens at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela repanda Dejean Substrates/habitats: Associated with a very wide range of wet and dry sandy habitats, including riverine sandbars, coastal beaches and dunes, wet sand roads, and abandoned sand quarries (Boyd 1978; Knisley and Schultz 1997). Sometimes found far from water (Leonard and Bell 1999). Activity period: May -June, August -September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure) (NatureServe 2008). Notes: Often found in large numbers in coastal or riverine habitats (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Leonard and Bell 1999). Common throughout New York State. Suitability: Probably unsuitable_ The old records from Long Island are all from beach sites where it "inhabits the loose sand beyond the beach" (Leonard 1926)_ This species is only occasionally encountered in upland sand habitats in New Jersey (Boyd 1973; 1978) and at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The open sandy areas at the proposed Northwind Village site are heavily disturbed and appear to be marginally suitable (at best) for this species. Cicindela scutellaris rugifrons Dejean Substrates/habitats: A dry upland sand specialist. Larval burrows are located in loose, unconsolidated dry sand. Adults are active in areas of open, dry, unconsolidated sand (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: May, August -September (Leonard 1926). Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. • 0- 0 Natural Heritage Status Rank: Species is G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure) and this subspecies is T5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank for this subspecies is S3 (vulnerable). Notes: This subspecies is endemic to the mid-Atlantic coastal plain (Pearson, Knisley, and Kazilek 2006)_ Sometimes found in large numbers, especially in abandoned sand pits or quarries (Mawdsley 2007b). Suitability: Probably unsuitable. The open sand areas at the Northwind Village site are heavily disturbed, a condition which usually precludes successful colonization by this species. Cicindela sexguttata Fabricius Substrates/habitats. A woodland species, whose larvae seem to be able to tolerate soils with high humus content (Leonard and Bell 1999) as well as clay or sandy forest soils (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Adults are found in a wide variety of woodland and forest communities (Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: March -July, occasional beetles in August and September (Leonard 1926). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is SS (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). Notes: This is the brilliant green tiger beetle that is often seen in city parks and on woodland trails. Adults are usually active in spring but a few individuals emerge in late summer and early fail (at least at Brookhaven National Laboratory). Suitability: Potentially suitable. The species would be expected to occur throughout the mature woodland areas and in the shaded sandy area at the proposed Northwind Village site. Cicindela tranquebarica Herbst Substrates/habitats: A generalist species that has been found in a wide range of sand, gravel, or clay microhabitats (Knisley and Schultz 1997; Leonard and Bell 1999). In New Jersey it is associated with sand roads, sand trails, and sandy firebreaks in the Pine Barrens region, where it can sometimes be quite abundant (Boyd 1973; 1978). In West Virginia it often occurs in abandoned sand quarries (Acciavatti, Allen, and Stuart 1992). Activity period: March -September, with peaks in early spring and late fall (Leonard 1926; Leonard and Bell 1999). Natural Heritage Status Rank: G5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). New York State rank is S5 (demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure). Notes: A very widespread species, found throughout New York State (Pearson, Knisley, and Kazilek 2006). At Brookhaven National Laboratory, it is found throughout the site in larger sandy areas in small numbers. Suitability: Probably unsuitable. The open sandy areas at the proposed Northwind Village site are small and heavily disturbed, offering what appears to be only very marginal habitat for this species. Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph. D. • • 12 Cicindela unipunctata Fabricius Substrates/Habitats. Associated with dry woodlands, including pine -oak barrens and shale barrens, and often found in areas that -also support Cicindela patruela (Boyd 1985; Knisley and Schultz 1997). Activity period: New York records are from June (April -September elsewhere in its range) (Leonard 1926; Knisley and Schultz 1997)_ Natural Heritage Status Rank: G4 (apparently secure)_ Historical from New York State (NatureServe 2098). Notes: This species is seldom seen due to its nocturnal/crepuscular activity pattern. Pitfall trapping in New Jersey has shown that this species is much more abundant in the New Jersey Pine Barrens than previously thought (Boyd 1985)_ There are very old records from Long Island (Leonard 1926). Suitability: Unsuitable. No dry woodlands present at the proposed Northwind Village site. Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York Jonathan R_ Mawdsley, Ph.D. 13 - Literature Cited Acciavatti, R. E., T. J. Allen and C. Stuart_ 1992_ The West Virginia tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela 24(3-4):45-78. Acorn, 12001. Tiger beetles of Alberta. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton. 120 pp. Boyd, H. P. 1973. Collecting tiger beetles in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. Cicindela 5(1):1-12. Boyd, H. P. 1978. The tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) of New Jersey with special reference to their ecological relationships. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104(2):191-242. Boyd, H. P. 1985. Pitfall trapping Cicindelidae (Coleoptera) and abundance of Megacephala virginica and Cicindela unipunctata in the pine barrens of New Jersey. Entomological News. 96(3): 105-108. Freitag, R. 1999. Catalogue of the Tiger Beetles of Canada and the United States_ NRC Research Press, Ottawa. vii + 195 pp. Glaser, J. D. 1984. The Cicindelidae (Coleoptera) of Maryland. Maryland Entomologist 2(4):65-76. Hill, J. M., and C. B. Knisley. 1994. Northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say) recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 45 pp. Knisiey, C. B. and T. D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia. 210 pp. Leonard, J. G. and R. T. Bell. 1999. Northeastern Tiger Beetles: A Field Guide to Tiger Beetles of New England and Eastern Canada. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. xii + 176 pp. Leonard, M. D. 1926. A list of the insects of New York with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 101:1-1,121, Mawdsley, J. R. 2007a. Ecology, distribution, and conservation biology of the tiger beetle Cicindela patruela consentanea Dejean (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 109(1):17-28. Mawdsley, J. R. 2007b. The tiger beetle fauna of an anthropogenic sand barrens site in central Maryland, U. S. A. (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Cicindela 38(1-4):47-58. Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York I* Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. 14 • NatureServe. 2008_ NatureServe Explorer. World Wide Web database available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed August 22, 2008). Pearson, D. L., C. B. Knisley, and C. J. Kazilek. 2006. A Field Guide to the Tiger Beetles of the United States and Canada: Identification, Natural History, and Distribution of the Cicindelidae. Oxford University Press, New York. vi + 227 pp. + 24 pts. • Tiger Beetle Survey Report, Proposed Northwind Village Site, Greenport, New York me Jonathan R. Mawdsley, Ph.D. r , \ 1 1 n �\ \ / \ v / ✓ PROPOSED LOCATION OF � BOX TURTLE NESTING AREA I I LEGEND: - -•-•- PROPERTY LINE i WETLANDS LINE - - - - - - - - - - LIMIT OF NYSDEC FRESHWATER L 2g E WETLAND ADJACENT AREA �'L IE SCALE: V= 200' PROPOSED LOCATION OF LAND USE BOX TURTLE NESTING AREA ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. DATE: 04-03-09 TAX MAP#: 1000-40-3-1 PO BOX 1060 RNERFffiM,N.Y. 11901 SHEET 1 OF 1 PHONE (6311-727-2400 FAX (63])-727-2605 • • 0 Appendix O Engineering, SurtVInr{ and LandsapeAmbiiertui , PC. Photograph No. 1: View of the northern portion of the subject property, looking east-southeast from County Road 48 (North Road). Photograph No. 2: View of a clearing on the subject property, immediately south of County Road 48 (North Road). • Photograph No. 3: View of the northern portion of the subject property (farther east), looking east-southeast from County Road 48 (North Road). • Photograph No. 4: View of a residence situated on the north side of County Road 48 (North Road). • • Photograph No. 5: View of the north side of County Road 48 (North Road), opposite the subject property. Photograph No. 6: View of a private driveway on the north side of County Road 48 • (North Road), opposite the subject property. • • Photograph No. 7: View of the Sunset Motel located on the north side of County Road 48 (North Road). Photograph No. 8: View of residential condominiums (under construction in • October 2007) situated on the north side of County Road 48 (North Road) and west of the subject property. • • Photograph No. 9: View of a nursing and rehabilitation center on the south side of County Road 48 (North Road), west of the subject property. Photograph No. 10: View of Eastern L.I. Kampground, south of County Road 48 (North Road) and east of the subject property. • • • F -I Appendix P aEngineering, Sumiqing and LandscapeAmbitecture, P.C. KIAIC! E • Constantine E. Kontokosta PE, AICP MKIPAL July 12, 2008 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Chief Cliff Harris Greenport Fire Department 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: KACE LI, LLC Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of 17.2+/- Acres of Land in the Town of Southold and Subsequent Residential Workforce Housing Development North Road (CR 48) Greenport, New York Dear Chief Harris: . This letter is to follow-up our meeting on February 17, 2008, subsequent phone conversation on or 'about March 20, 2008, and letter dated March 31, 2008: We are still awaiting a response to our letter dated February 17, 2008. We greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If for some reason you are unable to provide the information requested, kindly let us know so that we may pursue alternative sources for obtaining any necessary information. If you should have any questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631- 477-0600. Sincerely, Constantine E. Kontokosta, PE, AICP, LEED AP Principal KACE LI, LLC 9THE KACE o C GROUP 43 WEST 54TH STREET / NEW YORK, NY 10019 / TEL: 212.582.6100 / FAX: 212.582.6047 755 NORTH ROAD, P.O. BOX 67 / GREENPORT, NY 11944 / TEL: 631.477.0600 / FAX: 631 .477.080D • Annual Report - 2007 Clifford Harris, Chief John Grilli, First Assistant Chief Kenneth White, Second Assistant Chief Thomas LaMothe, Chaplain Claude Kumjian, Assistant Chaplain James Kalin, Secretary -Treasurer Colleen Hughes, Recording Secretary Karolyn Grimm, Administrative Assistant Board of Wardens Joseph Barszczewski Gary Blasko George Hubbard, Jr. James Kalin David King James A. Pirillo James J. Pirillo Paul Quarty, Jr Laurence Tuthill (deceased December 7, 2007) Thomas Watkins 0 2007 Alarms and Responses Signal Description Total 9 Standby -sporting events & fireworks 7 12 Brush fire 5 13 Structure fire -Automatic Alarm, misc. 96 13-35 Structure fire — working 0 14 Vehicle fire 3 15 Drill 1 16 Ambulance — EMS 526 16-23 Rescue — motor vehicle accident, water rescue, misc. 30 16-59 Ambulance — routine transport 6 23 Miscellaneous fire call -CO detector, fuel spill, odor of smoke or gas, etc 37 24/9 Mutual Aid -Stand by 3 24/13-35 Mutual Aid — working structure fire 7 24/15-23 Mutual Aid- Miscellaneous Drill 1 24-16 Mutual Aid- Ambulance — EMS 19 24/16-23 Mutual Aid — rescue (motor vehicle, water rescue, misc.) 3 24/23 Mutual Aid- Miscellaneous (CO det., fuel spill, odor of smoke or gas, etc) 3 26 Boat Fire 2 Total Alarms in 2007 749 0 Recap of Alarms and Responses The volunteer members of the Greenport Fire Department responded to 749 calls during 2007. This was 43 calls more than in the previous year. Of these 749 total calls, the Department responded to 312 calls within the Incorporated Village of Greenport and 399 calls in the East/West Fire. Protection District. In addition, neighboring Fire Departments were assisted on 38 occasions. In 2007, a total of 10,880 Members responded to the 749 calls. Each call had an average of over fourteen (14.66) responding Members. A total of 318.38 hours were spent on the 749 calls, at an average of 26.46 minutes per incident. This cumulative data calculates to just under three hundred thousand (295,626.56) personnel hours devoted to attendance at Fire and EMS calls. Review of Fire Department Alarms Total number of calls in 2007- 749 Total number of calls in 2006 —706 This equates to an increase of 5.74 percent. Total number of calls to Peconic Landing in 2007- 141 Total number of calls to Peconic Landing in 2006 — 104 The 2007 number equates to 18.82 percent of total calls. Total number of calls to San Simeon Nursing Home in 2007 —38 Total number of calls to San Simeon Nursing Home in 2006 — 24 The 2007 number equates to 5.73 percent of total calls. Most calls per month — July (89) Least calls per month — November (35) Most hours per month — October (43.78) Least hours per month —April (16.3 1) Most total personnel responding —July (1333) Least total personnel responding— April (583) Most Signal 13's — June (16) Most Signal 16's — August (63) 0 • • Membership / Service Awards Program The service awards program was in its fourteenth year in 2007. Of the 109 Members eligible to receive points, 84 of those earned at least 50 points, qualifying for service credit for the year. Thirty retired Members are receiving pension benefits. Two members are considered disabled. Ten new members joined the department this year, of the ten one joined as a member of the rescue squad. Three members transferred between companies. Fireperson of the Year Antone Volinski III -2007 George Capon - 2006 John Tamin — 2005 Honorable Mention — Fireperson of the Year James Kalin — 2006 Wayde Manwaring - 2006 EMT of the Year Colleen Hughes - 2006 Edward Sieban - 2005 EMS Provider of the Year Sally Corwin -2007 Danielle Meraz - 2006 George Pope - 2005 In Memoriam Sadly the following members answered their last alarm in 2007. Frank Corwin 2/07 George Hubbard Sr. 2/07 Gerald King 7/07 Lawrence Tuthill 12/07 Eugene Drum 12/07 • Department Officers - The following held Officers' rank during 2007: Eagle Hose Company Captain George Van Etten First Lieutenant Susano Jimenez Second Lieutenant William Schneider Secretary/Treasurer Paul Quarty, Jr. Relief Hose Company Captain Antone Volinski, III First Lieutenant Brian Staples Second Lieutenant Jeffrey Weingart Secretary Antone Volinski, Jr. Treasurer Gary Blasko Star Hose Company Captain Henry Clark, III First Lieutenant William Bogardus Second Lieutenant Robert Jester Secretary/Treasurer Daniel Creedon Standard Hose Company Captain Brett Stephenson First Lieutenant Gary Detrick Second Lieutenant William McNeill Secretary/Treasurer William McNeill Phenix Hook & Ladder Company Captain Bruce Land First Lieutenant Al McMoore Second Lieutenant Jennifer Grilli Secretary William Nedoszytko Treasurer Peter Harris Rescue Squad Captain Wayde Manwaring First Lieutenant Alain DeKerillis Second Lieutenant Sally Corwin Secretary Karolyn Grimm Treasurer Michael Richter Fire Police Captain David Walker First Lieutenant Claude Kumjian Second Lieutenant George Capon Ladies Auxiliary President Colleen Hughes 0 Training Innumerable hours are devoted to the increasingly difficult task of becoming and remaining a Firefighter and/or EMT. For a new Member to become a Firefighter, he or she must complete the Essentials of Firefighting I, a course given by the Suffolk County Fire Academy. In addition, completing and passing the NIMS course was an added requirement, starting in the year 2005. Another/separate requirement in the Department By-laws specifies that a Member must participate in a Hazmat Awareness class at least once per year. EMS personnel must obtain a minimum of EMT -B (Emergency Medical Technician) status, which requires classroom work and hands-on training, as well as clinical work. After completion of this course, an EMT may pursue additional training and obtain an even more advanced status EMT -CC. In addition, all EMT's are required to attend a refresher course or complete 72 hours of county approved continuing education every 3 years. Fundraisers/Events The Department held its well -attended annual Washington's Birthday Celebration, hosting numerous marching units from diverse locations. Hot dogs, home-made chowder and refreshments were enjoyed by all. As is customary, our Members also participated in many parades hosted by other Departments in Long Island and Connecticut. As usual, the majority of those took place during the spring and summer months. The Greenport Fire Department hosts many organizations throughout the year. Some of these . include the Southold Town Chiefs Council, the Southold Town Fire District Officers Association, the North Fork Volunteer Firefighters Association, the Nassau -Suffolk County Legislative Council and the North Fork Rescue Squad. Our Members further volunteer their time and efforts by assisting with the various feed committees associated with this hosting. The following Companies also organized specific events; with each resulting in wide -scale participation and great success: • 8-3-2 & 8-3-5: 4`'' of July Carnival • 8-3-3 : Memorial Day Carnival • 8-3-4: Barbecue • Rescue: Chicken Dinner • Fire Prevention Week & Circus Additionally, our Members attended, and were of service during, the following events: • Chiefs' Elections • Fireworks Standby (May, July, September) • Department Picnic • Annual Christmas Parade • Peconic Landing May Mile Throughout numerous changes in our lives, communities and larger world, it seems there is indeed a point of consistency - the unfailing dedication of our selfless volunteers. . May our Department Members, their families and friends, be blessed in 2008 with safety, good health, harmony and continuous support. Thank you all for your time and efforts expended while serving our neighborhoods and loved ones. • • • KACE Constantine E. Kontokosta PEA]CP PRINCIPAL July 12, 2008 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Carlisle Cochran, Chief Town of Southold Police Department 51505 State Route 25 Peconic, New York 11958 Re: KACE LI, LLC Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Proposed Annexation by the Village of Greenport of 17.2+/- Acres of Land in the Town of Southold and Subsequent Residential Workforce Housing Development North Road (CR 48) Greenport, New York Dear Chief Cochran: This letter is to follow-up our letter dated February 17, 2008, meeting on March 20, 2008, and letter dated March 31, 2008. We are still awaiting a response to our letter dated February 17, 2008. We greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If for some reason you are unable :to provide the information requested, kindly let us know so that we may pursue alternative sources for obtaining any necessary information. If you should have any questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 631- 477-0600. Sincerely, r ; Constantine E. lfiontokosta, PE, AICP, LEED AP Principal KACE LI, LLC THE KACE GROUP 43 WEST 54TH STREET / NEW YORK, NY 10019 / TEL: 212.582,6100 / FAX: 212.582.6047 755 NORTH ROAD, P.O. BOX 67 / GREENPORT, NY 11944 / TEL: 631 .477.0600 / FAX: 631.477.0800 • MAY -08-2008 10:30 117 Doctors Path L I PA ):WVerh49ad, NY 1190 1 Long Nand power ASI May 2, 2008 Kace Group c/o Constantine Kontokosta PO Box 67 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: KACE LLC-Affordale Housing North Road, Greenport LIPA Ref. # T100874402 Dear Mr. Kontokosta; As requested, please be advised that the LIPA will provide electric service to the above -referenced project in accordance with our filed tariff and schedule5 in effect at the time service is required. Please feel free to contact me at (631)548-7062 if you require any further information. Very truly yours, Steven Aylward. Design Section Manager Electric Design & Construction SA/am • • 0 Elazmn�J i GAS SALES PATCHOGLE Keyspan anergy 448 East Main ST Patchogue, NY 21772 April, 28 2008 The Kace Group Constantine Kontokosta 755 North Road Greenport, NY 11944 RE: 128 Affordable Housing Development, Greenport Dear Constantine, S3i?582iB2 P.01/01 Please be advised that Keyspan Energy will supply natural gas service to the proposed project site provided that all scheduled main reinforcements for the north fork area are completed prior to your projects projected start date. Keyspan Energy will provide natural gas service in accordance with the filed tariffs and schedules in effect � at the time service is requested. This request is valid for one year from the date of this letter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 631- 758-5157. ZSimc/crelyVn.Merrill New Construction Representative Keyspan Energy 448 East Main Street Patchogue, NY 11772 TOTAL P.01 • • • m Appendix Q 0Enginmrft, :Sur tN*I,-zg and LurrdscapeArchitertrurx; PC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR PROPOSED NORTH WIND VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY NORTH ROAD (C.Ft 48) GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD t Prepared For: KACE U, LLC Prepared By: DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES MAY 2008 REVISED MARCH 2009 • • • • Introduction.................................................................................................................................... l Purposeof Report .............................................................................................................. 2 Location............................................................................................................................ 2 StudyApproach.............................................................................................................................. 6 ExistingRoadway Network........................................................................................................... 9 RoadwayCharacteristics................................................................................................. 10 UnsignalizedIntersections.............................................................................................. 10 Gradeand Sight Distances.............................................................................................. 11 Existing Traffic Flow Conditions................................................................................................ 14 TrafficVolumes.............................................................................................................. 15 AccidentRecords............................................................................................................16 ExistingEmergency Services.......................................................................................................19 Site Trip Generation Analysis............................................................. Directional Distribution Analysis................................................................................................ 23 TrafficAssignment Analysis........................................................................................................ 26 Planned Roadway Improvements and Other Planned Developments .......................................... 31 Planned Roadway Improvements.................................................................................... 32 Other Planned Developments.......................................................................................... 32 IntersectionCapacity Analyses.................................................................................................... 33 Unsignalized Intersections.............................................................................................. 34 AccessExamination......................................................................................................................37 Access.............................................................................................................................. 38 Parking.......................................................................................................................................... 39 AdditionalConsiderations..............................................................................................................41 PublicTransportation.......................................................................................................42 Alternate Means of Transportation................................................................................. 42 PotentialShuttle Service................................................................................................. 43 As -of -Right Development.............................................................................................. 43 Construction Traffic Impacts......................................................................................... 44 NP: 27120 -North Wind Village i File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • Conclusions....................................................................................................................... Appendix........................................................................................................................... Intersection Capacity Analyses Summaries Intersection Capacity Analyses Results SCDPW Traffic Flow Data Traffic Volume Counts - Manual Traffic Volume Counts — Supplemental ATR Accident Records Public Transportation NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc 11 • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TTS.doc INTRODUCTION Purpose of Report This Traffic Impact Study contains the results of a traffic engineering examination of the proposed development of the North Wind Village residential condominium community in Greenport. The proposed North Wind Village will consist of 128 residential condominiums of which 64 will be affordable units on a currently vacant 17.2 acre property in Greenport, Suffolk County, New York. This report appraises the traffic aspects of the proposed development with particular emphasis on its impact on the surrounding street and highway network. Location The site is located on the south side of North Road (County Road 48), approximately 1550 feet east of Chapel Lane. Direct access to the site will be provided via a single driveway on North Road. The site is located in Greenport, Town of Southold, New York. Figure 1, Area Map, indicates the location of the Town of Southold in the New York Metropolitan area. The project site is shown in Figure 2, Location Map, while Figure 3, Site Map, presents the boundaries of the property and the adjacent roadway network. 0 At present, the property is vacant. • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 2 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc 0 0 0 Map of the COUNTY OF SUFFOLK LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK N SOUTHOLD r LONG ISLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN FIGURE 1 AREA MAP DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, P.C. SCALE DATE PAGE 1" = 9.7 MILES± APRIL 2008 3 1 • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc STUDY APPROACH As part of the preparation of this Traffic Impact Study, the following tasks were undertaken: i 1. Several personal, on-site field observations were made to observe the traffic movements under various conditions. 2. A physical inventory was made of the adjacent street network. 3. An analysis was made of the traffic volume data obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works and the files of Dunn Engineering Associates. 4. Supplementary machine traffic counts and turning movement counts were collected as necessary to update the available volume counts. 5. An examination was made of the traffic flow on North Road, Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane in the vicinity of the site. 6. An evaluation was made of the safety factors by reviewing recent accident records obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. 0 7. The availability of police and fire protection services was examined. 0 8. A trip generation analysis was performed to determine the additional traffic attributable to the proposed development. 9. Directional distribution analyses were made to distribute the site -generated traffic onto the surrounding street network. 10. Trip assignment analyses were performed to examine the composite traffic volumes that would result due to the addition of the site -generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes, in order to determine the traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways. 11. Capacity analyses were performed at key intersections in order to examine their ability to accommodate the addition of the site -generated traffic. 12. A review of the access arrangements was made. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 7 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • 13. An evaluation of the available parking and on-site circulation was made in regard to traffic circulation, safety, maintenance, and adequacy of layout. 14. Conclusions were made in regard to the traffic impact of the development on the surrounding street network based on the data and facts gathered in this study. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 8 File: Admin/Report MS.doc • I] • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK • • Roadway Characteristics As shown in Figure 3, Site Map, the development will be located on the south side of North Road (County Road 48), approximately 1550 feet east of Chapel Lane. North Road (C.R. 48) is a major east/west County highway facility located north of the site that will provide direct access to the site. In the vicinity of the proposed development, North Road consists of two lanes (one in each direction) with additional turning lanes at major intersections. The posted speed limit on North Road in the vicinity of the site is 50 miles per hour. Chapel Lane is a north/south roadway located west of the site. Chapel Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continues to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Chapel Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted speed limit on Chapel Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. Queen Street is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Queen Street has no pavement markings but allows for two-way traffic onto and off of North Road. Queen Street serves as access to the KOA campground located at its southern terminus. Moores Lane is a north/south roadway located east of the site. Moores Lane terminates at its intersection with North Road and continuous to the south. In the vicinity of the site, Moores Lane consists of two lanes (one in each direction). The posted area speed limit on Moores Lane in the vicinity of the site is 30 miles per hour. Unsignalized Intersections In the vicinity of the site, the following unsignalized intersections were investigated: • North Road at Chapel Lane • North Road at Queen Street • North Road at Moores Lane The lane configurations at the unsignalized T -intersection approaches of North Road at Chapel Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc 10 A combined thru right turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A separate left turn lane and a • thru lane. 3. Northbound Chapel Lane Approach: A combined left turn/right turn lane. The lane configurations at the unsignalized T -intersection approaches of North Road at Queen Street consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined thru/right turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A combined left turn/thru lane. 3. Northbound Queen Street Approach: A combined left turn/right turn lane. The lane configurations at the unsignalized T -intersection approaches of North Road at Moores Lane consist of the following: 1. Eastbound North Road Approach: A combined thru/right turn lane. 2. Westbound North Road Approach: A combined left turn/thru lane. 3. Northbound Moores Lane Approach: A combined left turn/right turn lane. Grades and Sight Distances West of the sight there exists a horizontal curve on North Road with the road's alignment curving south as it heads west. To ensure no sight distance problems at the proposed site access point, field sight distance movements were performed. The posted speed limit on C.R. 48 is 50 miles per hour. The sight distance available from the site driveway was measured according to the procedures set forth in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) publication "A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004". This AASHTO publication is the recognized national standard for roadway geometrics. The sight distance measurements indicated in an available sight distance to the east of over 1,000 feet and an available sight distance to the west of approximately 685 feet. The factor limiting sight lines to the west is roadside vegetation on the south side. With some minor clearing of vegetation, sight 9 distance to the west can be increased to approximately 800 feet. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 11 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc In comparing the field measurements to published standards there are two criteria of concern, - Intersection Sight Distance (ISD) and Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). Intersection sight distance criteria are intended to allow a stopped vehicle entering the roadway a sufficient view of the intersecting roadway to allow the driver adequate time to evaluate and decide when to enter the highway. Adequate ISD allows an entering vehicle to perform the entering maneuver without a major disruption to the traffic stream in that vehicles on the roadway already will not have to significantly adjust their speed as the vehicle ftom the side road enters. Stopping Sight Distance is a more fundamental safety requirement as it represents the minimum distance that a driver on the main road must see in order to be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with an object or other vehicle. "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" states the following: If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have sufficient sight distance to anticipate and avoid collisions. However, in some cases, this may require a major - road vehicle to stop or slow to accommodate the maneuver by a minor -road vehicle. To enhance traffic operations, intersection sight distances that exceed stopping sight distance are desirable along the major road. Information on recommended minimum sight distances is contained in "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets," 2004 by The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The key ISD criteria in this case is related to the left turn out of the driveway. Wz H, �k 50 425 555 55 495 610 60 570 665 65 645 720 70 730 775 Source: -A Folicy on lieometnc Uesign of Highways and Streets", AASH T U 2004. Table 1 Sight Distance Criteria NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 12 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe • As can be seen from Table 1, sight distance from the proposed site driveway to the west exceeds both the required SSD and desirable ISD for design speeds over 60 mph. With minor clearing the desirable ISD for design speeds over 70 mph will be achieved. As the speed limit on North Road in this vicinity is 50 mph, design speeds approaching 70 mph will not be present. The design speed, or 85th percentile speed, although typically higher than the speed limit will not approach 70 mph. It is recommended that vegetation along the south side of North Road in the vicinity of the horizontal curve be trimmed back to the right-of-way line. With this improvement sight distance from the site access will be maximized. As a result, no sight distance restrictions will exist on North Road in the vicinity of the site. • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 13 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • • EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 14 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Traffic Volumes Available traffic flow information was obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) and the files of Dunn Engineering Associates. The available information consisted of automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts on North Road (C.R. 48). The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) in the vicinity of the site on North Road was 13,737 vehicles per day in 2005. This AADT'was not utilized for analysis purposes but is presented for information only. The SCDPW data obtained can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "SCDPW Traffic Flow Data". An examination of the traffic volume information reveals that the peak weekday traffic volumes occur between the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. and 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M., respectively. The peak existing weekend traffic volumes occur on Saturdays between 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Although the SCDPW data indicated that the midday traffic volumes during the weekday are generally higher than the morning traffic volumes, manual counts were collected for the weekday A.M. peak hours instead of the weekday midday peak hours because it is during the weekday A.M. commuting hours, not the weekday midday peak hours when condominium communities generate more trips and any potential impacts will be found. During the week condominium communities generate trips primarily during the weekday A.M. and P.M. commuting hours (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., respectively). Hence to obtains specific turnip count information of the existing traffic during the peak hours of the p g g g proposed development, manual intersection turning movement counts for morning and evening peak hours were collected on weekdays at three intersections on North Road (C.R. 48) located within the study area. The three locations where the manual counts were performed are as follows: • North Road (C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane • North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street • North Road (C.R. 48) at Moores Lane The traffic counts at the above three locations were taken on a typical weekday in August from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. as well as on a typical Saturday from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00.P.M. The manual traffic volume counts performed can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts -Manual". To supplement the August 2005 SCDPW traffic machine count data, additional ATR counts were • collected for a full -week, including a weekend, during the month of August 2007 at several locations. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 15 File: Admin/RepoM/TIS.doc The locations where the ATR counts were performed are as follows: • 1. North Road (C.R. 48) west of Queen Street (in both the eastbound and westbound directions). 2. Chapel Lane south of North Road (in both the northbound and southbound directions). 3. Queen Street south of North Road (in both the northbound and southbound directions). 4. Moores Lane south of North Road (in both the northbound and southbound directions). The automatic traffic recorders at the above four locations were installed on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 and continued to Friday, August 31, 2007 during the peak summer season. The supplemental ATR counts collected by Dunn Engineering Associates on North Road (C.R. 48), Chapel Lane, Queen Street, and Moores Lane can be found in the section of the Appendix entitled, "Traffic Volume Counts — Supplemental ATR". Accident Records Accident history data was obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works concerning all the reportable and non -reportable accidents that have occurred on North Road (C.R. 48) within the • study area. • The data obtained from SCDPW consisted of accident history information from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006. This represents the latest full 3 year period available from the County at the time of the writing of this study. A summary of the accidents on North Road within the study area by year, severity (property damage only, injury, or fatal) and location is shown in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, the intersection with the highest accident experience is North Road at Moores Lane. This intersection experienced a total of 10 accidents in the three year study period, or an average of just over 3 per year. It is not unexpected that this is the highest location as this is the intersection that sees the highest level of side street traffic. North Road at Chapel Lane experienced an average of between 2 and 3 accidents per year (total of 7) while North Road at Queen Street experienced an average of less than 1 accident per year (total of 2). NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 16 File: Admin/Reports/M.doc / .xs;, 1 1M F�'j'.'Li , .f rd%� ,r� gN A,,ys" _: �° . ,gyp A^ ,,(I .y. it ,,.✓ ay .pi,:4' S a�' 't ;si'pCi/ ,r� ....fig.':,.:, �'D .ii .ts .a f� ) ' :'S' , 3 F 3 v 1 • .J ;": :o . � s' y �'t In � fi/ d k�; r :. .� .,.. - .: .its '�.�.. v �t.Y"�' '�.�..xr#%*cx� �Y��Y' �� a ,l . �',s. 3=��'r� ,� Lv'�;°: �✓�' ,sf� , , ' u„S�°, iii ,{^'� 0 �.4;;�` e �•"� ta� it J.i.. , North Road at Chapel Lane 2 .,;,. , 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 7 North Road between Chapel Lane 6 1 0 1 1 0 5 1 0 15 and Queen Street North Road at Queen Street 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 North Road between Queen Street 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 1 0 10 and Moores Lane North Road at Moores Lane 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 10 TOTAL 14 2 0 13 2 0 11 2 0 44 Source: Traffic Accident Records, Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Table 1 Accident Summary North Road NP 27120 -North Wind Village 17 File: Admin/Reports/T1S.doc • • With a well designed access plan, more than adequate sight distance and the addition of a proposed westbound left turn lane into the site, it is expected that the proposed North Wind condominium community will not lead to an undue increase of the rate of accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 18 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe • • • EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 19 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe • 11 The availability of police protection and fire protection services in the vicinity of the proposed site is excellent. The area of the proposed site is patrolled by the Southold Town Police Department. The Southold Town Police Department is located near the intersection of Route 25 at Peconic Lane in Peconic approximately 6 1/3 mile west of the proposed development. At present, numerous police patrols pass by the site. The site is located in the Greenport Fire District. The Greenport Fire Department operates out of two stations. The Greenport Fire Department headquarters are located 2 %2 miles east of the site on the east side of 3rd Street between South Street and Center. A second station (Fire Hose Company #4) is located near the intersection of Flint Street and 5th Street at 514 Flint Street. Due to the close proximity of the firehouse stations and the presence of police patrols, excellent emergency services are available to service the site of the proposed development. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 20 File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc 0 • SITE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 21 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Information on trip generation rates for residential condominiums is contained in the latest (7th) edition of "Trip Generation", a report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). For the purposes of this investigation, the trips expected to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by utilizing ITE data for residential condominiums/townhouses (Land Use Code 230). Table 2, Site -Generated Traffic, Proposed Condominium Community, presents the results of this analysis. Residential Condominiums/Townhouses Land Use Code 230 11 52 50 24 43 37 (1 28 Units) Table 2 Site -Generated Traffic Proposed Condominium Community Greenport, New York As can be seen by Table 2, the proposed townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips are expected to be generated by the proposed North Wind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed North Wind Village. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 22 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • • DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 23 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • 0 In order to determine the origins and destinations of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development, a directional distribution analysis was performed. It is expected that the directional distribution of traffic to the proposed North Wind Village would be similar to the distribution of existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. Based on the existing traffic distribution, as well as the location of the proposed site and its access driveway, the distribution of traffic to various roadways was determined. Figure 4, Directional Distribution of Site -Generated Traffic — Condominium Community, presents the directional distribution of traffic that is expected to arrive at and depart from the proposed North Wind Village development via the existing roadways. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 24 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc 52% 0 co NORTH ROAD (C.R.48) 55% LEGEND: XX = ENTERING TRAFFIC (XX) = EXITING TRAFFIC (45%)i -45% FIGURE 4 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC -41% • • • TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ANALYSIS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 26 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc The site -generated traffic estimates and the directional distribution were utilized to assign the • expected generated traffic volumes at the proposed access points and on the surrounding roadway network. Figure 5, Assignment of Site -Generated Traffic - Weekday A.M. Peak Hour, shows the assignment of site -generated traffic for the proposed North Wind Village during the weekday morning peak hour. Likewise, Figures 6 and 7 present the same information for the weekday afternoon peak hour and the Saturday peak hour using the directional distribution shown in Figure 4 and the trip generation estimates shown in Table 2. • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 27 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe w w a U 27 r 0 NORTH ROAD (C.R.48) 5 6 LEGEND: XX = ENTERING TRAFFIC (XX) = EXITING TRAFFIC (23) Lu w Z w Lu a .0_5 FIGURE 5 ASSIGNMENT OF SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC WEEKDAY A.M. PEAK HOUR 26 -> Lu a J J W Q U 28 LEGEND: XX = ENTERING TRAFFIC (XX) = EXITING TRAFFIC • NORTH ROAD (C.R.48) 22 w I w ITE Z w W C� .0___ 22 FIGURE 6 ASSIGNMENT OF SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR ♦ 20 • 23► w J J w a U 24 LEGEND: XX = ENTERING TRAFFIC (XX) = EXITING TRAFFIC L r NORTH ROAD (C.R.48) 19 (_17).l. ric ITE U) Z w w D a 19 (2) FIGURE 7 ASSIGNMENT OF SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC SATURDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR . 18 r� L • PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 31 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Planned Roadway Improvements 9 A review of the most recent 5 -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) revealed that there are no projects planned by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works that would affect North Road (C.R. 48) in the vicinity of the proposed North Wind Village project. Other Planned Developments • C Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold were contacted in regard to other planned developments in the vicinity of this project to determine the presence of any pending or approved development projects which may generate a significant level of traffic to warrant consideration in this report. Discussions held with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold revealed that they are not aware of any other developments planned in the vicinity of the proposed North Wind condominium community. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 32 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 33 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized capacity analyses were performed to determine the ability of vehicles to safely negotiate turning movements at the key locations noted below: • North Road (C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane • North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street • North Road (C.R. 48) at Moores Lane The unsignalized intersection capacity analyses were performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours as well as the Saturday midday peak hour. These intersection capacity analyses calculations were performed in accordance with the methodology set forth in the latest (2000) edition of the Highway Capacity Manual using the most current version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). Utilizing this methodology, the unsignalized capacity analyses software (HCS+) analyzed the quantity, size and capacity of gaps in the traffic stream on North Road (C.R. 48). Methodology The unsignalized intersection capacity analysis methodology evaluates the average control delay per vehicle to determine level of service. Level of service for a two-way stop -controlled intersection is defined solely for each minor movement. Several variables impact the measure of delay for a two- way stop -controlled intersection, including the level of conflicting traffic impeding a minor street movement and the size and availability of gaps in the conflicting traffic stream. Level of service for an unsignalized intersection is defined in terms of the average control delay per vehicle during a peak 15 minute analysis period. Control delay consists of initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Six levels of service, ranging from A to F, have been established as measures of vehicle delay. These levels and their related control delay criteria are summarized in Table 3, Unsignalized Intersections - Level of Service Criteria. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 34 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • Level of Service Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) A < 10.0 B 10.1 — 15.0 C 15.1 — 25.0 D 25.1 — 35.0 E 35.1 - 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 2000. Table 3 Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Criteria Intersection capacity analyses were first conducted to examine the 2007 existing traffic conditions (2007 Existing Condition). This condition evaluates the traffic conditions at the site and adjacent study area intersections without the proposed condominium community development at present. Intersection capacity analyses were then calculated for the "2008 No -Build" condition. This examination projected the 2007 existing traffic volumes by a growth factor of 2% per year to • determine the total traffic that would be on the roadways without the addition of the proposed North Wind Village condominium community. The 2% annual growth factor used was based on the results of the New York State Department of Transportation's LITP (Long Island Transportation Plan) 2000 planning study and is specific to the North Fork of Long Island. The traffic from the proposed North Wind Village condominium community development was then added to the predetermined 2008 "no build" traffic volumes and the capacity analyses was performed for the 2008 Build Condition using the resulting 2008 Build traffic volume totals. Summaries of the results of the unsignalized capacity analyses are contained in Tables A, B, and C in the Appendix of this report under the section entitled, "Intersection Capacity Analyses Summaries". The results of the unsignalized intersection capacity analyses performed indicate that the traffic due to the proposed North Wind Village condominium community development will have no significant impact on the operation of the three unsignalized intersections analyzed. All of the unsignalized intersections studied continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during all three peak time periods studied and increases in delay due to the North Wind development are slight. Although the results indicate a drop in LOS from B to C from the 2008 No -Build Condition to the 2008 Build 0 Condition for the northbound combined left turn/right turn lane at the North Road at Moores Lane NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 35 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • 0 intersection, the delay experienced by drivers in this land will only be increased by an average of 0.6 seconds per vehicle. The No -Build LOS B delay was very close to the LOS B/LOS C delay threshold of 15.0 seconds causing the minor increase in delay to result in a Build LOS C. The operation of the proposed site driveway was found to be LOS B, C and C during the Weekday A.M., Weekday P.M. and Saturday Midday analysis periods, respectively. It is noted that all movements subject to delay, including the westbound left into the site and traffic exiting the site do not cause any delay to thru traffic on North Road. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 36 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 37 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc ACCESS EXAMINATION • • Access The proposed development will have a single access drive constructed on North Road. This access drive will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be permitted at this access drive. A Stop sign and Stop bar pavement marking should be installed. It is further recommended that, given the speeds on North Road, a westbound left turn lane be constructed for entering site traffic. While a shoulder on the north side of the roadway exists on North Road it is rather narrow (5 feet) and constructed of asphalt adjacent to thru lanes constructed of concrete panels. The shoulders narrow width and uneven surface causes difficulties for westbound thru vehicles in passing vehicles stopped to make a left turn. Installation of a westbound left turn lane eliminates this and provides an added level of safety. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 38 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe PARKING NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 39 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • The Preliminary Alignment Plan prepared for North Wind Village indicates parking provided at a rate meeting Village of Greenport Code requirements as follows: 1.5 spaces per unit x 128 units = 192 spaces required The Preliminary Alignment Plan contains 192 spaces, meeting Village Code requirements. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 40 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • • ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 41 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Public Transportation Suffolk County Transit provides bus service to most of Suffolk County. The closest bus route to the proposed North Wind Village site is the S-92 connector bus line. However, on the north fork this route travels on Main Road (NYS Route 25) which is south of the site through the Village of Greenport (see map for the 5-92 bus route in the section of the Appendix entitled "Public Transportation"). The distance from the site to the closest point of the route is approximately 7/110 of a mile measured west on North Road and then south on Chapel Lane. As the generally accepted pedestrian walking limit distance is t/4 mile, it is questionable that many residents or visitors would utilize the bus service. There are no other bus routes provided by Suffolk County that service the Greenport area. Discussions were held with representatives of Suffolk County Transit regarding if there were any plans to expand the Suffolk County bus route to include service on North Road (C.R. 48). Suffolk County Transit confirmed that due to the rural nature of this section of Greenport with some sections on North Road already developed and other properties remaining undeveloped, although the County is conducting a planning study of the general area, at this time they do not foresee their study to result in bus service being provided on or extended to C.R. 48. Given the distance that the existing 5-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand their bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. Alternate Means of Transportation Given the location and nature of the proposed North Wind Village residential condominium community to the nearby commercial districts of Greenport and Southold, it is likely that some portion of the residents will be employed at nearby businesses in both Greenport and Southold. Some residents may opt to carpool or choose alternative means of transportation (bicycle) to travel to work and back home. North Road in the vicinity of the site is designated as a Suggested On -Road Bikeway (Shared Roadway) on the New York State Department of Transportation's "Bikeway of Long Island" Map due to its bicycle friendly layout. In this study, no credit was applied for use of any alternate means of transportation, and the traffic destined to and from the proposed North Wind Village was based on the use of passenger cars only. However, high potential for carpooling and/or alternative means of transportation by North Wind Village residents would help reduce the slight traffic impact of the site on the surrounding roadway network and hence the analysis presented in this report is isconservative in that regard. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 42 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Potential Shuttle Services 0 0 The developer of Northwind Village has indicated that they will explore the establishment of a private shuttle service in conjunction with the homeowners association. This service may provide for transportation to downtown Greenport as well as other local destinations. As -of -Right Development The current Hamlet Density (HD) zoning of the property allows for residential as -of -right development of the site. Yield maps have been prepared for two alternative layouts that could be developed on the site, one comprised of 50 units and a second comprised of 108 dwelling units. The yield map prepared for the 50 unit alternative reflects construction of 2,500 square foot, four bedroom residences in a semi-detached arrangement. Although employing common -wall construction, the size of the units is counter to typical townhouse or condominium construction. It is also possible that the 50 units could be constructed as traditional detailed housing on individual lots. The ITE "Trip Generation" report contains information on trip generation rates for both Townhouse/Condominium (Land Use Code 230) and Single -Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210). While construction of the 50 unit alternative may involve semi-detached units which technically do not fit the definition of Single -Family Detached Housing, their size indicates that they may follow that trip generation pattern. Given this, and the possibility of actual detached construction, the trip generation for the 50 unit alternative was performed both ways (Land Use Code 230 and Land Use Code 210). Using ITE trip generation data, the traffic volumes generated by the 50 -unit alternative were estimated under both Land Use Code 230 (Residential Townhouse/Condominium) and Land Use Code 210 (Single -Family Detached Housing). The 108 -unit alternative trip generation was estimated under Land Use Code 230. The results of this trip generation estimate are summarized in Table 4, Trip Generation, As -of -Right Use of Site. The trip generation of the proposed 128 -unit condominium community use is also included in Table 4 for comparison purposes. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 43 File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc • • • k11 trips in vehicles per hour. Table 4 Trip Generation As -of -Right Use of Site (Yield Plan) The results of this analysis indicate that in all cases, the As -of -Right alternatives would be expected to generate lower levels of traffic than the proposed development. While these differences may be significant in some instances on a percentage basis they are not large in terms of absolute numbers as even the proposed development can be expected to generate only modest levels of traffic. It is notable that on a per-unit basis single-family homes generate more vehicle trips than condominiums. This effectively reduces to some extent the differences in trip generation between the proposed condominiums and 50 unit Single Family Detached Home alternatives. Construction Traffic Impacts It is anticipated that the construction of North Wind Village will occur over three phases. Phase I will include the construction of all roads, utilities and site drainage, a portion of the lighting and landscaping. Forty-eight units will be constructed in Phase I. It is during this ten month phase that the majority of the earthwork will occur and construction truck traffic will be realized. Phase II includes the construction of an additional 40 units and is anticipated to last seven months. At the completion of Phase II, the vast majority of heavy site work is complete. Phase III would follow with the final 40 units. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 44 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Weekday. SaturdayPeak Development A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit 50 Unit Alternative Townhouse/Condominium 5 25 23 11 31 26 (Land Use Code 230) Single Family Detached 11 33 36 21 30 25 (Land Use Code 210) 108 Unit Alternative Townhouse/Condominium 9 46 43 21 40 34 (Land Use Code 230) Proposed 128 -Unit Condominium Community Use (New traffic on roadway network generated by 128 units of 11 52 50 24 43 37 residential condominiums from Table 2) k11 trips in vehicles per hour. Table 4 Trip Generation As -of -Right Use of Site (Yield Plan) The results of this analysis indicate that in all cases, the As -of -Right alternatives would be expected to generate lower levels of traffic than the proposed development. While these differences may be significant in some instances on a percentage basis they are not large in terms of absolute numbers as even the proposed development can be expected to generate only modest levels of traffic. It is notable that on a per-unit basis single-family homes generate more vehicle trips than condominiums. This effectively reduces to some extent the differences in trip generation between the proposed condominiums and 50 unit Single Family Detached Home alternatives. Construction Traffic Impacts It is anticipated that the construction of North Wind Village will occur over three phases. Phase I will include the construction of all roads, utilities and site drainage, a portion of the lighting and landscaping. Forty-eight units will be constructed in Phase I. It is during this ten month phase that the majority of the earthwork will occur and construction truck traffic will be realized. Phase II includes the construction of an additional 40 units and is anticipated to last seven months. At the completion of Phase II, the vast majority of heavy site work is complete. Phase III would follow with the final 40 units. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 44 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Prior to any construction at the site, the applicant will be required to obtain a construction access 40 permit from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. This will ensure that their standards for temporary construction access are met. With the completion of Phase I, the formal site access point will be available. • A consideration in any construction operation is the removal of excess soil materials in grading the site. In this case, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of excess material will be removed, the majority during Phase I. This translates to an approximate total of 100 removal truck trips (at an average of 20 cubic yards each) over a period of 17 months. As North Road in the vicinity of the site is a truck route and North Road has no restrictions in place, these truck trips will utilize North Road and not impact secondary roadways. Although the final disposition of the removed material is not known at this early stage, it will most likely be to the west. It is expected that construction vehicles as well as workers' private vehicles will arrive daily with the majority from the west based on the site's location. The logical route would be via North Road from the east or the west as it is less congested than Main Road. This roadway does not have any restrictions which would impact construction vehicles routes. It is also noted that as the site fronts only on North Road, no construction vehicles are expected to utilize any of the secondary or residential roadways in the Village. All construction vehicles and workers' private vehicles will be parked on-site during construction activity. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 45 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • r� L NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 46 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc CONCLUSIONS Our study and traffic engineering analysis have led us to conclude that the development of the . proposed North Wind condominium community will not have a significant negative impact on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development will not significantly disrupt the traffic flow on the adjacent roadway network and will not create undue traffic congestion. Although the proposed development will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be at a minimum. The proposed site development will provide a safe traffic operation for the residents and guests of the North Wind Village. The following points should be recognized: 1. Although the site will generate additional traffic, this traffic can be adequately handled by the existing highway network, the proposed access location, and the internal layout. 2. The access plan for the site has been designed to adequately provide for the estimated traffic flow from the adjacent roadways so as to assure the public safety and minimize traffic congestion. 3. The single access point proposed on North Road will provide one lane for entering traffic and one lane for exiting traffic. Both left and right turns into and out of the site would be . permitted at this access drive. A Stop sign and Stop bar pavement marking should be installed at the site exit. • 4. It is recommended that a westbound left turn lane be constructed on North Road for entering site traffic. 5. It is recommended that vegetation on the south side of North Road west of the proposed site access be cut back to the right-of-way lines to increase sight distance to the west. With this measure, sight distance available to vehicles exiting the proposed development will be more than adequate. 6. The proposed 128 unit residential townhouse community is expected to generate 63 new vehicle trips on the roadway network during the weekday A.M. peak hour. During the weekday P.M. peak hour, 74 new vehicle trips can be expected to be generated by the proposed North Wind Village. During the Saturday midday peak hour, 80 new vehicle trips are anticipated to be generated by the proposed North Wind Village. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 47 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc 7. Discussion with representatives of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold indicated that. no other Village related developments are currently planned for the immediate area surrounding the site. 8. The latest Nassau—Suffolk Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) does not list any projects involving the reconstruction and improvement of roadways serving the proposed development prior to its expected completion. 9. Intersection capacity analyses revealed that the existing highway and street network will be able to handle the increase in traffic flow attributed to the proposed development without significant increases in delay. 10. The proposed parking for the North Wind condominium townhouse community development meets Village Code requirements. 11. Due to the excellent patrol coverage of the police and the immediate proximity of the firehouse, it should be recognized that excellent emergency services are available to service the site. 12. Given the distance that the existing 5-92 bus route is to the site, and indications from Suffolk County Transit of no plans to expand their bus service in the area of the site, it is anticipated that few residents will use the service and that the site will not have any significant effect on existing Suffolk County Transit bus service. 13. Our study and analysis have concluded that the proposed North Wind Village development will have no significant adverse traffic impact on the roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the site. As a result, based upon traffic engineering considerations, it is recommended that the proposed development be approved. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 48 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc APPENDIX NP: 27120 -North Wind Village 49 File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Intersection Capacity Analyses Summaries 0 0 0 2007 Existing Condition Table A Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R 48) at Chapel Lane Flow If® �, Mc��ernant' or Shared w Average Control delay w hocationIl�lovenertt y. tpoph} Cap�icity f¢ lvh) Lreoervice "A"M A M SAT A M P.M< $AT Westbound Left Turn Movement 23 19 27 1057 1123 882 8.5 8.3 9.2 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 75 110 87 340 340 261 18.6 20.6 25.5 C C D Table A Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R 48) at Chapel Lane 0 0 0 2008 No -Build Condition r Movement or Shared Auerag Control L ap acr y yx r a rsr t�i Locat�anlMorrement w ti ip P h1 4 r. 777 F .. P M. , -�A7 -: �,� M .,",' P M,"� --SAT A,M " � PM SAT ;��► IVI '.". t� M . SA"1'�.�' Westbound Left Turn Movement 23 19 28 1048 1 1 1 5 871 8.5 8.3 9.3 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 76 113 89 332 333 253 19.0 21.3 1 26.8 1 C I C D Table A (continued) Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at Chapel Lane �.�n _ q),,]ts%HI) roc • 2008 Build Condition Table A (continued/ Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 4.8) at Chapel Lane rrs 'k, Mouement o> Shared Auera a Control 9 Flaw Rete z Capacity vela, Leuel l.acation/movefnent pptrhl tpcpt►l {SeC�IVeh .l ;. _... Ati „P M SAY„; A M l� M r' SAT A:1VI w, x f� M¢T A M: P Westbound Left Turn Movement 26 20 29 1042 1090 852 1 8.5 8.4 9.4 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 76 115 90 313 318 239 20.2 22.6 28.9 C C D Table A (continued/ Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 4.8) at Chapel Lane rrs 'k, 0 0 0 2007 Existing Condition •.k=r k' k- � .;:' '.' �,, •., _'' ^.ns :<..�c ::.-. «ter.. a-r�Fti�w :� ��-..,,., ON— -W L ��y/y�r/� yTt Y2u� ''.4 4 - f� S, h'a, '�' i :.. i•Y-'1x Jr .au_ s �:�iiGat�IMCgy'e�. vhf J �' k � r^' 3"•. �f�fi� : .:,�;.- .) . 4 .:'; »r.. '-E-e',j�. .' xk::...�., -: i, ..� - ..,rx-E .� _Y.:.'P'� �v.. .i �ea�.,: «Yx:r;?'�}` f `.' .,¢�. `ka-•'.', e ^:E v�,s-,'�«-� e �y fir; iv, p y�, �y/� .k '°. i*� .,rr, C ,,.,; .'ani � :! x• .i�"-�iil4-x .. ",`s� -. ,c �i 'sY„�,pi�. 5�,.a .y x r..,. �.y„„_�� � i ..�-:... ��l�Y:'- Yii�..'fi '-” ''Tc'i' fE _:k g r::^. ",: .r, ,;:.. y��.� s:,i '?��"`�..,. ��+�'. • .-^ _ y ,>_��.. , � � -: a�_�.,>�,``r,= .,r � �r �?a).':i � Y �t z<.<>'k �s�, f'''�Y3 w;�fs�'� �:, `his >„� Z^ '..'��` a;!�g.. � .... y, :`._r ,. ....&`. G -Y .:'. _".. :. t. s: •. i,.. 1`7' , '3 4k:"f j. .r"�.. „x .� ^';.'F �E x,;..8', �,,i x:'x ... �._' .. 3i, eb�A ,.:rte * _x..'r,.. ,. i'E �"" •-, .''a`. "� .� ..,r _. F'4... -,` z�y ,�` �tiSAT a.. Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 31 1 170 1148 935 8.1 8.1 9.0 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 572 416 276 11.3 13.8 19.9 B B C Table B Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street NY '?(2U-1br+h \dnui �'Eiiagc t Ele Adn1m,Reports/17S.doc • 2008 i to-Bui/d Condition r Mouement or Shared A►reragp Cantrel 3 lF"low Rate' C c # Delay Level S$r4/ICe .. L ocat�onlrtovemen# bap8y pcphiSk i� A P M �SaT .' A Ni P M SAT A.M? S�tT:". Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 32 1164 1140 925 8.1 8.2 9.0 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 565 409 268 11.4 14.0 20.4 B B C Table B (Continued) Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 46) at Queen Street 4;rniE kcPxts� Ati �E-,� 2008 Build Condition Table B (Continued) Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street lZen��its%tibdo, M�vemey�nt or Shared A►uera�e Cantrul 1,; fi ,.. Flow ate�� " t..'. P 1 '�4 �MIt.` ' JA F j` , Carrel 1 N tut\i I+ L�cattoilllot�rnarit� tpchl "h}Y A. (sec! Iueh ?', . AT.' Combined Westbound Approach 0 4 32 1140 1129 911 8.2 8.2 9.1 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 4 8 34 546 393 257 11.6 14.4 21.1 1 B I B C Table B (Continued) Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street lZen��its%tibdo, 2007 Existing Condition .- � �• ,: t.. ;2;::.vr i ,£.iic f`yu _ik i`�. .<'t,�.,� � :- ���h;.�:�E, • r• .�:: rr '�`. �.-:e::«�." ,:'ra n' ��y3' " : 2?". /�y� .�.:�-� ��;z�.:: .� p�/�'�`.J::. yy a •-`,d;r w � 3� ,., a�,y 4, - :.L. ..� r.�,.. a +\ .xy��yy '+' � . "✓z. i...,... "p' '"�,, � -d �"� � rP• � u 2.:: a � � :•��....-� .. _ :`k,.R�"�c ....,�6'.-> »�. ,�te�,, .a,�?-..; � . u�.�6..,.�. x... ,.. . r >.s" ..,. t,z�"� I-'3 :'rte""� �s�'. iF k•'.` .-�.sc�* �.,.v.. .M k . .5� -w S�?►i.... y � 11St1�. .1ltl5ar4 Fa� 2�*O- � � .«,.+ , . �. ,say: rm -x . �,.: .t _.o.. •.-� , a:,: :�,. . `� ,�. ��..n ?i �u�. u. , ma .. .r.-5 ..�-.�..,... Combined Westbound Approach 49 26 59 1169 1194 945 8.2 8.1 9.1 A A A Combined Northbound Approach 1 81 73 84 484 467 270 13.9 14.1 24.2 B B C Table C Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R 48) at Moores Lane File Adii�m/Reports"IlS.doc� 2008 No -Build Condition �. ,a•.. -� G r � � :� �z �? ,tea �< a ..K. �- xa -� .� 1 x F"�s ;x a< f . .-,,•, c �": �y kJ -a• .. ,, � f,..: ,. � ¢.,�? s i ,.. t ,,,.a `°a ..,.f�: a r, .�vn„��.-v, , .., , ,.. ,>..., ,. .:'-- ...'3„ .t ..�>. , s � 'x i T , .K>\' ”- � j < _-,.s.-+,�+•.' , y�p V,.Y� i �t°.:("�� ��yy�M�;f,�j .I, er��:i yyya� #.,��y 5. i ... �,x ,.. 'a: =c...e - � ., z z e>,«s.., 3', �`3' Z 9 •. �`?:•- ,•.. cs, ^✓ int �� >l!r El 2008 Build Condition Table C (continued) Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at Moores Lane t �mtn Kcpi� 's%l1S di> • 2008 Build Condition Westbound to Southbound Left Turn From North 5 23 20 1 144 1 106 889 8.2 8.3 9.1 A A A Road (C.R. 48) to the Proposed Site Access Combined Northbound Approach 54 24 38 461 358 1 267 13.8 15.8 1 20.7 B I C C Table D Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results North Road (C.R. 48) at the Proposed Site Access Admin'KcporLs/Tlti doc • 0 NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Intersection Capacity Analyses Results 0 NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc North Road (C.R. 48) at the ChapelLane E • V. FILE NAME: INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: DONE BY: ALT X CLEARS TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY EXISTING YEAR: HORIZON YEAR: APPROACH • • 0 FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: Fm >> EXISTING YEAR: 037 HORIZON YEAR: DONE BY:EfVi4><>>;>;><; ..... .........:..:.:.:.. :...........:::..::.. APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • • • FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: jq EXISTING YEAR: 03 HORIZON YEAR: 2f�i38; DONE BY: i74lA :. APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • C� 2007 Existing Condition NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/30/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R L T Volume 372 56 20 285 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 442 66 23 339 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R L T No Southb 1 10 11 L T Volume 55 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 65 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 1 0.25 6 R d 12 R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L 1 LR I 23 75 1057 340 0.02 0.22 0.07 0.83 8.5 18.6 A C 18.6 C • Phone: E -Mail. HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Fax: Minor Street Movements TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 9 10 11 12 Analyst: DEA R L T R Agency/Co.: AY Volume 55 Date Performed: 10/30/2007 0.84 0.84 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane 2 Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County 0 Units: U. S. Customary No RT Channelized? Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Lanes 0 Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 LR East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 372 56 20 285 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 111 17 6 85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 442 66 23 339 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 16 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 65 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 508 860 475 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 475 Potential Capacity 590 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 590 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 508 Potential Capacity 1057 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1057 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 860 Potential Capacity 326 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 319 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 860 Potential Capacity 326 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 319 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 319 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 65 10 Movement Capacity (vph) 319 590 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 340 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 319 590 Volume 65 10 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 340 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 23 75 C(m) (vph) 1057 340 v/c 0.02 0.22 95% queue length 0.07 0.83 Control Delay 8.5 18.6 LOS A C Approach Delay 18.6 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.5 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/30/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 370 50 0.96 0.96 385 52 Undivided 1 0 TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Volume 79 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 0.25 19 459 0.96 0.96 19 478 2 -- -- 1 1 L T No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R 0.96 28 2 0 0 No / 0 LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR 19 110 1123 340 0.02 0.32 0.05 1.37 8.3 20.6 A C 20.6 C • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/30/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R V cel wne Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 370 50 0.96 0.96 96 13 385 52 Undivided 2 1 0 0 TR RT Channelized? No Lanes 7 8 L T Volume 79 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 Peak -15 Minute Volume 21 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? R Lanes 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) R 27 0.96 7 28 2 19 459 0.96 0.96 5 120 19 478 2 -- 11 12 1 1 No L T No 0 11 12 L T R Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 No / 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Movement Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 t(c,hv) Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 Upstream Signal Data P (hv) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 • L L L T R L T R .� t(c,base) Time Calculations 4.1 7.1 Movement 6.2 7 8 9 10 11 12 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p (5) p (dom) p (subo ) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(l) p(4) p(7) p(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 437 927 411 s PX V c, u, x C r, x • C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity •Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 411 Potential Capacity 641 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 641 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 437 Potential Capacity 1123 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1123 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 927 Potential Capacity 298 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 293 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity •Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor .Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 1..00 10 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 927 Potential Capacity 298 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 293 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 293 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 82 28 293 641 340 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches • Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 293 641 Volume 82 28 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 340 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 19 110 C(m) (vph) 1123 340 v/c 0.02 0.32 95% queue length 0.05 1.37 Control Delay 8.3 20.6 LOS A C Delay 20.6 .Approach Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.3 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/30/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbounc Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 606 57 25 395 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 658 61 27 429 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No • Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 49 32 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 53 34 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS •Approach Delay Approach LOS 1 1 L T No 6 R 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R X Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR 27 87 882 261 0.03 0.33 0.09 1.41 9.2 25.5 A D 25.5 D HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/30/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 606 57 25 395 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 165 15 7 107 658 61 27 429 -- -- 2 -- Undivided / 1 0 1 1 TR L T No No 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T Volume 49 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 Peak -15 Minute Volume 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 53 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR 0 32 0.92 9 34 2 0 No / Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 12 R 0.25 II Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fL/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p (2) 0.000 p (5) 0.000 p (dom ) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Aft 1-- -- - Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p (1) p(4) p(7) P (8) P(9) p(10) P (11) P (12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement V c, x s Px V c, u, x C r, x _ C plat,x 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 719 1171 688 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P(x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 688 Potential Capacity 446 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 446 Probability of Queue free St. 0.92 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 719 Potential Capacity 882 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 882 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1171 Potential Capacity 213 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.90 Movement Capacity 206 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 40 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows isPotential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1171 Potential Capacity 213 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.90 Movement Capacity 206 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 206 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 53 34 Movement Capacity (vph) 206 446 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 261 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 206 53 261 446 34 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 27 87 C(m) (vph) 882 261 v/c 0.03 0.33 95% queue length 0.09 1.41 Control Delay 9.2 25.5 LOS A D Approach Delay 25.5 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 0.97 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.2 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0 0 2008 No -Build Condition* s • * Note 1. 2008 No -Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 40 Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 L T R I L Westbound 5 6 T R Volume 379 57 20 291 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 451 67 23 346 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided isApproach Approach LOS / C RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 56 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 66 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config II Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L I LR v (vph) 23 76 C(m) (vph) 1048 332 v/c 0.02 0.23 95% queue length 0.07 0.87 Control Delay 8.5 19.0 LOS A C Delay 19.0 isApproach Approach LOS C 11 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 379 57 20 291 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 113 17 6 87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 451 67 23 346 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 56 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 17 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) 9 0.84 3 10 2 0 No / 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t c base ( ) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p (2) 0.000 p (5) 0.000 p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? SProportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 518 876 484 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat, x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 484 Potential Capacity 583 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 583 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 518 Potential Capacity 1048 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1048 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Mirror St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1'.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 876 Potential Capacity 319 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 312 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 876 Potential Capacity 319 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 312 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 312 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement .Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 66 312 332 10 583 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R • C sep 312 583 Volume 66 .10 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 332 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 23 76 C(m) (vph) 1048 332 v/c 0.02 0.23 95% queue length 0.07 0.87 Control Delay 8.5 19.0 LOS A C Approach Delay 19.0 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.5 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal-, Minor Street: Approach Movement 377 51 0.96 0.96 392 53 Undivided 1 0 TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Volume 81 28 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 84 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS No / 0 0.25 19 468 0.96 0.96 19 487 2 -- -- 1 1 L T No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R It Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR 19 113 1115 333 0.02 0.34 0.05 1.46 8.3 21.3 A C 21.3 C • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 Z T R L T R Volume 377 51 19 468 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Peak -15 Minute Volume 98 13 5 122 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 392 53 19 487 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 81 28 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Peak -15 Minute Volume 21 7 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 84 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments • Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Critical Gap Calculation 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 • L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo ) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 L L V c, x 445 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat, x Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 943 418 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) S 1500 P (x) V(Crurx) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 418 Potential Capacity 635 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 635 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 445 Potential Capacity 1115 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1115 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 943 Potential Capacity 291 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 286 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 Movement Capacity 1.00 0.98 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 943 Potential Capacity 291 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 286 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 286 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 84 29 Movement Capacity (vph) 286 635 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 333 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R . C sep 286 635 Volume 84 29 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 333 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 19 113 C(m) (vph) 1115 333 v/c 0.02 0.34 95% queue length 0.05 1.46 Control Delay 8.3 21.3 LOS A C Approach Delay 21.3 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 p (oj ) 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0 Movement 5 0.98 MW HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/Wept Street: North Roa-d (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 ► 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 0 Minor Street: Approach Movement 618 58 0.92 0.92 671 63 Undivided 1 0 TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R 26 403 0.92 0.92 28 438 2 -- -- 1 1 L T No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume 50 33 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v ( vph ) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR 28 89 871 253 0.03 0.35 0.10 1.52 9.3 26.8 A D 26.8 D • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 618 0.92 168 671 Undivided 1 0 TR No 7 8 L T Volume 50 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 Peak -15 Minute Volume 14 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? -- Lanes 0 Configuration LR C 58 26 403 0.92 0.92 0.92 16 7 110 63 28 438 -- 2 -- 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 12 R 1 1 L T No 9 10 11 R L T 33 0.92 9 35 2 0 No / Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 12 R Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival 'Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) P(5) p (dom ) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II � X11 p(1) p(4) p (7) p (8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 734 1196 702 s Px V c, u, x • C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,X) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 702 Potential Capacity Potential Capacity 438 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 0.97 438 Probability of Queue free St. 0.92 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 10 734 Potential Capacity Conflicting Flows 871 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1.00 871 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 . Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1196 Potential Capacity 206 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.90 Movement Capacity 199 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1196 Potential Capacity 206 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.90 Movement Capacity 199 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 199 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 54 35 Movement Capacity (vph) 199 438 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 253 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 199 438 Volume 54 35 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 253 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service 12 R Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 28 89 C(m) (vph) 871 253 v/c 0.03 0.35 95% queue length 0.10 1.52 Control Delay 9.3 26.8 LOS A D Approach Delay 26.8 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.97 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P*(oj) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.3 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • L-1 • • 2008 Build Condition * Note 1. 2008 Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate and the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 26 Agency/Co.: AY C(m) (vph) Date Performed: 12/7/2007 313 Analysis Time.Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour 0.02 Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane 95% queue length Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County 0.93 Units: U. S. Customary 8.5 Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition LOS Approach Delay Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 C 20.2 East,/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R ( L T Volume 385 57 22 318 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 458 67 26 378 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No . Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume 56 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config L T No I 0.25 Southbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 9 0.84 10 2 0 No / 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR v (vph) 26 76 C(m) (vph) 1042 313 v/c 0.02 0.24 95% queue length 0.08 0.93 Control Delay 8.5 20.2 LOS Approach Delay A C 20.2 Approach LOS C • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 L T R L 5 6 T R 40 Volume 385 57 22 318 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 115 17 7 95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 458 67 26 378 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 56 9 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 Peak -15 Minute Volume 17 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 66 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR 0 Movements Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 4 -Critical Gap 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Calculation Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 Percent Blockage t(f) 0 0 0 0 Movement 1 Upstream Signal Data 7 8 9 Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance L Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal R vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn t(c,hv) 1.00 Through 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S5 Left -Turn P (hv) 2 2 Through t(c,g) Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Critical Gap Calculation 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival 'Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql ) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) P(5) p (dom) p (subo ) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p (1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p (9) p(10) p (11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 525 922 Two -Stage Process 7 8 492 10 11 V c, x s Px V c,u,x C C r, x plat, x 525 922 Two -Stage Process 7 8 492 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) • V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 492 Potential Capacity 577 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 577 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 525 Potential Capacity 1042 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1042 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 922 Potential Capacity 300 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.96 Movement Capacity 293 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 922 Potential Capacity 300 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.96 Movement Capacity 293 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 293 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 66 10 Movement Capacity (vph) 293 577 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 313 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R • C sep 293 577 Volume 66 10 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 313 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 26 76 C(m) (vph) 1042 313 v/c 0.02 0.24 95% queue length 0.08 0.93 Control Delay 8.5 20.2 LOS A C Approach Delay 20.2 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p (oj ) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oJ ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.5 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C-R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 403 51 20 480 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 419 53 20 500 -- -- 2 -- Undivided / 1 0 TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Volume 81 30 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 84 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade ( g ) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 0.25 a 1 1 L T No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R N rA Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 ( 10 11 12 L LR 20 115 1090 318 0.02 0.36 0.06 1.60 8.4 22.6 A C 22.6 C HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 403 51 20 480 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Peak -15 Minute Volume 105 13 5 125 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 419 53 20 500 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 81 30 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Peak -15 Minute Volume 21 8 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 84 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 . Upstream Signal Data 3.5 Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn L L T Through L T R S5 Left -Turn 4.1 7.1 Through 6.2 Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Critical Gap Calculation 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog • Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) l.lJlll�JU LCtL1V11 4-YLUPULL1V11 UL 1WJl. 111LUL5CGLJ_ 11 11111e V_LUUACLi Movement 2 Movement 5 V( ) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000- .000Computation Computation3 -Platoon Event Periods Res It p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.0 C 0 p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 472 986 446 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V (c, X) S 1500 P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 446 Potential Capacity 612 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 612 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 472 Potential Capacity 1090 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1090 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 986 Potential Capacity 275 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 270 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.98 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 986 Potential Capacity 275 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.99 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 270 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 270 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 84 270 318 31 612 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 40 C sep 270 612 Volume 84 31 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 318 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 20 115 C(m) (vph) 1090 318 v/c 0.02 0.36 95% queue length 0.06 1.60 Control Delay 8.4 22.6 LOS A C Approach Delay 22.6 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.4 N, Number of major street through lanes d (rank, 1) Delay for stream 2 or 5 u HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 641 58 27 422 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 696 63 29 458 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No WMinor Street Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume 50 34 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 54 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L I LR i 29 90 852 239 0.03 0.38 0.11 1.66 9.4 28.9 A D 28.9 D • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (CR 48) & Chapel Lane Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Chapel Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Movements Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 1 2 3 4 L T R L 5 6 T R Volume 641 58 27 422 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Peak -15 Minute Volume 174 16 7 115 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 696 63 29 458 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 50 34 0.92 0.92 14 9 54 36 2 2 N Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR isMovements Flow (ped/hr) N Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 P(5) 0.000 p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? _ Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement V c, X s Px V c,u,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R 759 1244 728 C 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s 1500 P (X) V(C,U,X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 728 Potential Capacity Potential Capacity 423 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 0.97 423 Probability of Queue free St. 0.91 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 759 192 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 852 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 0.97 852 0.97 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1244 Potential Capacity 192 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.89 Movement Capacity 185 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. D 11 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1244 Potential Capacity 192 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.97 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.89 Movement Capacity 185 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 185 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 54 36 Movement Capacity (vph) 185 423 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 239 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 185 423 Volume 54 36 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 239 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 29 90 C(m) (vph) 852 239 v/c 0.03 0.38 95% queue length 0.11 1.66 Control Delay 9.4 28.9 LOS A D Approach Delay 28.9 Approach LOS D • Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 12 R Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.97 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.4 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc North Road (C.R. 48) at Queen Street • 0 FILE NAME.1[;>::......:.;.:;;....:. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD:}['ili;>;` EXISTING YEAR: a3 HORIZON YEAR:St6 DONE BY: APPROACH ALT X CLEARS s s I JA FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: 111 . ; ; .. EXISTING YEAR: [ 1#3 HORIZON YEAR: #18 DONE BY: #7EAl/!><>;<;><« APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • FILE NAME. TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD:SAT EXISTING YEAR: 2037: HORIZON YEAR:o.36 DONE BY: ............................:.....:....:...................., :. APPROACH ALT X CLEARS 0 2007 Existing Condition • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 0 Agency/Co.: AY C(m) (vph) Date Performed: 10/31/2007 572 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour 0.00 Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St 95% queue length Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County 0.02 Units: U. S. Customary 8.1 Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition LOS Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 B East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Approach LOS Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R L T Volume 361 4 0 295 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 384 4 0 313 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 1 3 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config 0.25 LT No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R I Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR v (vph) 0 4 C(m) (vph) 1170 572 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay 8.1 11.3 LOS A B Approach Delay 11.3 Approach LOS B • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R •Volume 361 4 0 295 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 96 1 0 78 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 384 4 0 313 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 1 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR • Movements Flow (ped/hr) 3 0.94 1 3 2 0 No Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Critical Gap Calculation Movement Upstream Signal Data 7 is Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn L T R L t(f,base) Through 2.20 S5 Left -Turn 4.1 7.1 0.90 0.90 Through 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) t(c,hv) Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles 1.00 1.00 Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 2 313 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 0.20 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.00 Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 Time Calculations L L L T R L T t(c,base) L T R L t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.1 7.1 0.90 0.90 6.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 11 T 12 R 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 R 0.90 0.90 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 L L L T R L t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 11 T 12 R 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 R 0.90 0.90 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog V c,x 388 699 386 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g (q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(l) p(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 388 699 386 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) isV (c, U, X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 386 Potential Capacity 662 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 662 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 388 Potential Capacity 1170 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1170 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q_free St. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 699 Potential Capacity 406 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 406 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 11 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 699 Potential Capacity 406 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 406 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 406 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement .Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 1 3 406 662 572 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 406 662 Volume 1 3 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 572 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 Lane Config LT LR or 5 313 v(i2), Volume for v ( vph ) 0 4 C(m) (vph) 1170 572 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay 8.1 11.3 LOS A B Approach Delay N, Number of major 11.3 Approach LOS 1 B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 12 R Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 313 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 1.00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 387 4 0.95 0.95 407 4 Undivided 1 0 TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R 0.25 4 460 0.95 0.95 4 484 2 -- -- 0 1 LT No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT ( LR v (vph) 4 8 C(m) (vph) 1148 416 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.1 13.8 LOS A B Approach Delay 13.8 Approach LOS B • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 387 0.95 4 0.95 4 0.95 460 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 102 1 1 121 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 407 4 4 484 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 1 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 t(f,base) Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 t(f) 2.2 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 484 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 • L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(1,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) •Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom ) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 411 901 409 s PX V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 409 Potential Capacity 642 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 642 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 411 Potential Capacity 1148 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1148 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 Step 3-: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 901 Potential Capacity 309 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 308 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor is Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 901 Potential Capacity 309 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 308 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 308 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 4 308 416 4 642 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 308 642 Volume 4 4 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 416 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 4 8 C(m) (vph) 1148 416 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.1 13.8 LOS A B Approach Delay 13.8 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 484 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 1.00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA AY •Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road-(C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 597 16 30 474 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 635 17 31 504 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: 0.25 6 R Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 16 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LT 1 LR I 31 34 935 276 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.42 9.0 19.9 A C 19.9 C HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF E -Mail: Peak -15 Minute Volume 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Analyst: DEA 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Agency/Co.: AY Lanes Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Configuration LR Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 597 16 30 474 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 159 4 8 126 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 635 17 31 504 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 4 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR 91 16 0.94 4 17 2 No / n Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Time Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Gap Calculation Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn L L L T Through L T R t(c,base) S5 Left -Turn Through 4.1 Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 1.00 1.00 504 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: P (hv) 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 2 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 0.20 0.20 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 L L V c,x 652 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat,x Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 1210 644 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P(X) V(c,u,X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step l: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 644 Potential Capacity 473 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 473 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 652 Potential Capacity 935 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 935 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 • Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1210 Potential Capacity 202 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.93 Movement Capacity 195 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1210 Potential Capacity 202 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.93 Movement Capacity 195 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 195 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 17 17 Movement Capacity (vph) 195 473 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 276 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R . C sep 195 473 Volume 17 17 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 276 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 31 34 C(m) (vph) 935 276 v/c 0.03 0.12 95% queue length 0.10 0.42 Control Delay 9.0 19.9 LOS A C Approach Delay 19.9 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 0.97 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 504 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.0 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 0 2008 No -Build Condition* • * Note 1. 2008 No -Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA SAgency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume 368 4 0 301 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 391 4 0 320 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 1 3 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS LT No 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R U Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR 0 4 1164 565 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 8.1 11.4 A B 11.4 B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 368 4 0 301 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 98 1 0 80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 391 4 0 320 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 1 3 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 0 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 • Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Prog. Flow vph Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 320 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 • L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 395 713 393 s PX V c,u,x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 393 Potential Capacity 656 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 656 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 395 Potential Capacity 1164 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1164 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 • Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 713 Potential Capacity 398 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 398 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity isPedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 713 Potential Capacity 398 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 398 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 398 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 1 3 Movement Capacity (vph) 398 656 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 565 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 398 656 Volume 1 3 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 565 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 0 4 C(m) (vph) 1164 565 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay 8.1 11.4 LOS A B Approach Delay 11.4 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 320 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 1.00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 ( 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 LT 1 LR v (vph) Analyst: DEA 8 C(m) (vph) 1140 409 AY 0.00 0.02 95% queue length iAgency/Co.: Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Control Delay 8.2 14.0 LOS Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour B Approach Delay 14.0 Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St B Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 395 4 4 469 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 415 4 4 493 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR L•T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 ( 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 LT 1 LR v (vph) 4 8 C(m) (vph) 1140 409 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.2 14.0 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.0 Approach LOS B • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 395 4 4 469 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 104 1 1 123 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 415 4 4 493 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 1 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR • Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f L/ sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Upstream Signal Data Is Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 493 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom ) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p (12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 419 918 417 s Px V c, u, X C r, x C plat, x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P(x) • V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 417 Potential Capacity 636 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 636 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 419 Potential Capacity 1140 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1140 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 918 Potential Capacity 302 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 301 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 918 Potential Capacity 302 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 301 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 301 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 4 4 Movement Capacity (vph) 301 636 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 409 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R . C Sep 301 636 Volume 4 4 Delay Q Sep Q Sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 409 SUM C Sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 4 8 C (m) (vph) 1140 409 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.2 14.0 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.0 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p (oj ) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 493 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 3(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oi) 1.00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA AY •Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 609 16 31 483 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 647 17 32 513 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 16 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT 1 LR v (vph) 32 34 C(m) (vph) 925 268 v/c 0.03 0.13 95% queue length 0.11 0.43 Control Delay 9.0 20.4 LOS A C Approach Delay 20.4 Approach LOS C • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume 609 16 31 483 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 162 4 8 128 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 647 17 32 513 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- - Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T Volume 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 4 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR 16 0.94 4 17 2 0 No / 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 12 R 0.25 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (tt/sec) Percent Blockage Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 513 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Movement Gap Calculation 7 L 4 L 7 L 8 T 9 R 10 L 11 T 12 R t c base ( ) 2 2 4.1 7.1 3.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal . Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival 'Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p (2) 0.000 p (5) 0.000 p (dom ) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained"? r Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 664 1233 656 s Px V c, u, x C r,x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) S P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 656 Potential Capacity 465 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 465 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 664 Potential Capacity 925 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 925 Probability of Queue free St. 0.97 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1233 Potential Capacity 195 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.93 Movement Capacity 188 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1233 Potential Capacity 195 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.93 Movement Capacity 188 Results for Two -.stage process: a y C t 188 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R isVolume (vph) 17 17 Movement Capacity (vph) 188 465 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 268 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 188 465 17 17 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service 12 R Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 32 34 C (m) (vph) 925 268 v/c 0.03 0.13 95% queue length 0.11 0.43 Control Delay 9.0 20.4 LOS A C Approach Delay 20.4 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 0.97 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 513 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.0 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 • • • 2008 Build Condition * Note 1. 2008 Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate and the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary - Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 391 4 0 306 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 415 4 0 325 Undivided / 1 0 0 1 TR LT No No 0.25 Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 1 3 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2, 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config C1] Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 LT I LR 1 v (vph) 0 4 C(m) (vph) 1140 546 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay 8.2 11.6 LOS A B Approach Delay 11.6 Approach LOS B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 • Phone: Fax: Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 E -Mail. 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Percent Grade (a) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Analyst: DEA 0 Configuration Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 391 4 0 306 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 104 1 0 81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 415 4 0 325 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 1 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (a) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR [�7 3 0.94 1 3 2 nkm 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 • Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Movement 2 Movement 5 Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 325 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Critical 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 0 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods P(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II P(l) p(4) P(7) P (8) p(9) p(10) p(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 419 742 417 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (X) v(C.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 417 Potential Capacity 636 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 636 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 419 Potential Capacity 1140 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1140 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 1.00 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 742 Potential Capacity 383 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 383 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Flows •Conflicting Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 742 Potential Capacity 383 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 383 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 383 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 1 383 546 3 636 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches U.� Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R SC sep 383 636 Volume 1 3 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 546 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 0 4 C(m) (vph) 1140 546 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay 8.2 11.6 LOS A B Delay 11.6 •Approach Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 325 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 1.00 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 U.� HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? AdIlL 406 4 4 491 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 427 4 4 516 -- -- 2 -- Undivided / 1 0 0 1 TR LT No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (a) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR I v (vph) 4 8 C(m) (vph) 1129 393 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.2 14.4 LOS A B Delay 14.4 •Approach Approach LOS B • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 1 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR • Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 406 4 4 491 iVolume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 107 1 1 129 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 427 4 4 516 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 1 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR • Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Time Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 volume, major Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 rt vehicles: 0 Upstream Signal Data rate, major th vehicles: Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through 7.1 6.2 S5 Left -Turn 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Through 1.00 P (hv) 2 Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Movement 2 Movement 5 Time Calculation Critical 0.00 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 516 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical 0.00 Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 L L L T R L t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 L L L T R L t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 11 12 T R 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 11 12 T R 0.90 0.90 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp ( from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom ) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 431 953 429 s Px V c,u,x C r, x • C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P (x) • V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 0 12 Conflicting Flows 429 Potential Capacity 626 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 626 Probability of Queue free St. 0.99 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 431 Potential Capacity 1129 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1129 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 • Conflicting Flows 1.00 0.99 Potential Capacity 1.00 1.00 0.99 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 953 287 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 286 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor is Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 7 10 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 953 Potential Capacity 287 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.99 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.99 Movement Capacity 286 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 286 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R .Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 4 4 286 626 393 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 286 626 Volume 4 4 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 393 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 4 8 C(m) (vph) 1129 393 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.2 14.4 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.4 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 516 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.99 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.0 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Westbound 5 6 T R Volume 626 16 31 502 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 665 17 32 534 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided Approach LOS / C RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 16 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config II Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR v (vph) 32 34 C(m) (vph) 911 257 v/c 0.04 0.13 95% queue length 0.11 0.45 Control Delay 9.1 21.1 LOS A C Approach Delay 21.1 Approach LOS C r� u HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Queen St Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Queen Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 626 16 31 502 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 166 4 8 134 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 665 17 32 534 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 16 16 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Peak -15 Minute Volume 4 4 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. . Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 534 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 . L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) •Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha - beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p (4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p (12) (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 682 1272 674 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V (c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 674 Potential Capacity 455 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 455 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 682 Potential Capacity 911 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 911 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1272 Potential Capacity 185 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.92 Movement Capacity 179 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor •Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1272 Potential Capacity 185 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.92 Movement Capacity 179 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 179 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 17 17 Movement Capacity (vph) 179 455 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 257 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R • C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) • 179 17 n max C sh 257 SUM C sep n C act 455 17 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 32 34 C(m) (vph) 911 257 v/c 0.04 0.13 95% queue length 0.11 0.45 Control Delay 9.-1 21.1 LOS A C Approach Delay 21.1 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.96 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 534 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.5 • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc North Road (C.R. 48) at Moores Lane • r � FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY N�DRTCi:E CII......................:>LAME.AAV.A-T MESINTERSECTION: :<:<:<:: TIME PERIOD:}[` `> EXISTING YEAR:07 HORIZON YEAR:G6 DONE BY: flEUA APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • • .7 FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: s EXISTING YEAR:037 HORIZON YEAR: {100! DONE BY: fkli?rs ........ .......................................................... APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • • FILE NAME: INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: DONE BY: ALT X CLEARS TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY EXISTING YEAR: HORIZON YEAR: APPROACH 0 2007 Existing Condition 0 NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA AY •Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R L T Volume 347 36 49 250 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 354 36 49 255 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement III Iffel Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Volume 40 41 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 0.25 LT No Southbound 10 11 12 L T R 0 a Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR 49 81 1169 484 0.04 0.17 0.13 0.60 8.2 13.9 A B 13.9 B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 347 36 0.98 0.98 89 9 354 36 Undivided 40 1 0 2 TR 0 No RT Channelized? Minor Street Movements 7 8 L T Volume 40 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 Peak -15 Minute Volume 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR R 41 0.98 10 41 2 RE* 49 250 0.98 0.98 12 64 49 255 2 -- 0 1 LT No 10 11 L T 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 12 R is Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Prog Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 255 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Critical Gap Calculation 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t c base ( ) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 P(5) 0.000 p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 390 725 372 s Px V c, u, x C r, x . C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P(x) • V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step l: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 372 Potential Capacity Potential Capacity 674 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 0.95 674 Probability of Queue free St. 0.94 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 390 392 Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1169 1.00 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 0.96 1169 0.96 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 725 Potential Capacity 392 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 376 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor •Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 725 Potential Capacity 392 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 376 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 376 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 40 41 Movement Capacity (vph) 376 674 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 484 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) 376 674 40 41 n max C sh 484 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 49 81 C(m) (vph) 1169 484 v/c 0.04 0.17 95% queue length 0.13 0.60 Control Delay 8.2 13.9 LOS A B Delay 13.9 isApproach Approach LOS B • Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 10 11 12 12 R Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.96 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 255 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P* (oj ) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 26 73 AY 1194 467 isAgency/Co.: Date Performed: 10/31/2007 0.02 0.16 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour 0.07 0.55 Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln 14.1 Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County A B Units: U. S. Customary 14.1 Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition B Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume 273 56 24 357 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 303 62 26 396 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal? Amok No LT No 0.25 JW Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 32 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config X Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR v (vph) 26 73 C(m) (vph) 1194 467 v/c 0.02 0.16 95% queue length 0.07 0.55 Control Delay 8.1 14.1 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.1 Approach LOS B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 273 56 24 357 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 76 16 7 99 303 62 26 396 Undivided / 1 0 0 1 TR LT No No 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 32 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Peak -15 Minute Volume 10 9 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 • Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles 7 L 8 T 9 R 10 L 11 T 12 R t(c,base) Movement 2 Movement 5 2 4.1 7.1 3.5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 396 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Movement Gap Calculation 1 L 4 L 7 L 8 T 9 R 10 L 11 T 12 R t(c,base) 2 2 4.1 7.1 3.5 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(1,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) p(5) p (dom ) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p (11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 365 782 334 s Px V C,U,x C plat, x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 V(c,x) s P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C (plat, x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step l: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 334 Potential Capacity 708 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 708 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 365 Potential Capacity 1194 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1194 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 782 Potential Capacity 363 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.93 Movement Capacity 355 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 782 Potential Capacity 363 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity 0.98 Result for 2 stage process: 0.98 0.93 a 355 y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Flows isConflicting Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 782 Potential Capacity 363 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.93 Movement Capacity 355 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 355 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 38 35 355 708 467 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches • Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 355 708 Volume 38 35 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 467 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10, 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 26 73 C(m) (vph) 1194 467 v/c 0.02 0.16 95% queue length 0.07 0.55 Control Delay 8.1 14.1 LOS A g Approach Delay 14.1 Approach LOS g Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 396 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? . Minor Street: Approach Movement 0.25 6 R 531 90 58 481 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 547 92 59 495 24.2 A C Undivided 24.2 / 1 0 0 1 TR LT No No Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 43 39 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS N Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR 59 84 945 270 0.06 0.31 0.20 1.28 9.1 24.2 A C 24.2 C HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 i 43 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 Peak -15 Minute Volume 11 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Phone: Percent Heavy Vehicles Fax: Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage E -Mail. Lanes 0 Configuration LR TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 10/31/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Existing Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 531 90 58 481 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Peak -15 Minute Volume 137 23 15 124 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 547 92 59 495 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 43 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 Peak -15 Minute Volume 11 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) 39 0.97 10 40 2 0 No / 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 V prog Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left-Turn Through S5 Left-Turn Through Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 495 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2-stage Follow-Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g (q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(1,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(s) 0.000 p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p (1) p(4) p(7) p(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 639 1206 593 s PX V c, u, X C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 593 Potential Capacity 506 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 506 Probability of Queue free St. 0.92 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 639 Potential Capacity 945 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 945 Probability of Queue free St. 0.94 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.91 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1206 Potential Capacity 203 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.86 Movement Capacity 190 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1206 Potential Capacity 203 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.86 Movement Capacity 190 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 190 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 44 40 Movement Capacity (vph) 190 506 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 270 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.94 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 495 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.91 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.8 • Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 190 506 Volume 44 40 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 270 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 59 84 C (m) (vph) 945 270 v/c 0.06 0.31 95% queue length 0.20 1.28 Control Delay 9.1 24.2 LOS A C Approach Delay 24.2 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.94 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 495 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.91 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.8 • 0 2008 No -Build Condition* • • * Note 1. 2008 No -Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Streets North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 354 37 0.98 0.98 361 37 Undivided 1 0 TR No Westbound 5 6 T R 50 255 0.98 0.98 51 260 2 -- -- 0 1 LT No 0 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 41 42 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 51 83 C(m) (vph) 1161 474 v/c 0.04 0.18 95% queue length 0.14 0.63 Control Delay 8.2 14.2 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.2 Approach LOS B Phone: E -Mail. HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Fax: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 354 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 Peak -15 Minute Volume 90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 361 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- Median Type/Storage Undivided RT Channelized? RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street Movements 7 8 LT L T Volume 41 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 Peak -15 Minute Volume 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? -- -- Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) 37 50 255 0.98 0.98 0.98 9 13 65 37 51 260 -- 2 -- -- 0 1 LT No 9 10 11 12 R L T R 42 0.98 11 42 2 0 No Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 - L L L T R L T R t(c,base) Upstream Signal Data Movement 2 Movement 5 is Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Shared In Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal Shared In vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Through rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 S5 Left -Turn major street through lanes: 1 Through t(c,g) Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 - L L L T R L T R t(c,base) Movement 2 Movement 5 7.1 6.2 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 260 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 - L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 is V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival 'Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp ( from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods P(2) p(s) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? SProportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) P(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 398 742 380 s Px V c, u, x C r, x . C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s 1500 P(X) V(c,u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 380 Potential Capacity 667 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 667 Probability of Queue free St. 0.94 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 398 Potential Capacity 1161 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1161 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 742 Potential Capacity 383 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 366 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. M. 11 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt isCap. Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 742 Potential Capacity 383 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 366 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 366 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 41 42 366 667 474 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T C sep 366 667 Volume 41 42 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 474 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 51 83 C(m) (vph) 1161 474 v/c 0.04 0.18 95% queue length 0.14 0.63 Control Delay 8.2 14.2 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.2 Approach LOS B • 12 R Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.96 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 260 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 76 1188 Agency/Co.: AY 0.02 0.17 Date Performed: 12/7/2007 0.59 8.1 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour A B Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 278 57 24 364 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 308 63 26 404 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? 6 R 0.25 Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No . Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 36 33 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LT I LR 26 76 1188 457 0.02 0.17 0.07 0.59 8.1 14.4 A B 14.4 B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 278 0.90 57 24 0.90 0.90 364 0.90 Peak -15 Minute Volume 77 16 7 101 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 308 63 26 404 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 36 33 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Peak -15 Minute Volume 10 9 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (EL/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 404 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.00 Gap Calculation 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 4.1 L L L T R L t(c,base) Time Calculations 4.1 7.1 1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2.20 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.10 0.20 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 6.2 4.1 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 L L t(f,base) 2.20 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 t (f) 2.2 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 6.4 6.2 11 T 1.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 12 R 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 3.50 3.30 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V( t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(s) 0. 000 p (dom) p (subo ) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 371 796 340 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat, x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P (x) IDV(c.u.x) C (r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 340 Potential Capacity 702 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 702 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 371 Potential Capacity 1188 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1188 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 796 Potential Capacity 356 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.93 Movement Capacity 348 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 11 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.97 1.00 7 1.00 0.97 1.00 10 Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 796 Potential Capacity 356 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.93 Movement Capacity 348 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 348 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 40 36 Movement Capacity (vph) 348 702 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 457 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R • C sep 348 702 Volume 40 36 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 457 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement Lane Config 1 4 7 LT 8 9 10 11 12 LR v (vph) 26 76 C(m) (vph) 1188 457 v/c 0.02 0.17 95% queue length 0.07 0.59 Control Delay 8.1 14.4 LOS A B Delay 14.4 •Approach Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 404 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 262 0.06 Analyst: DEA 0.21 Agency/Co.: AY 9.1 Date Performed: 12/7/2007 A Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 542 92 59 491 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 558 94 60 506 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement TR No Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Volume 44 40 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 45 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS LT No 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT I LR I 60 86 935 262 0.06 0.33 0.21 1.38 9.1 25.3 A D 25.3 D • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 12/7/2007 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 No -Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R .volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 542 92 59 491 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 140 24 15 127 558 94 60 506 -- -- 2 -- Undivided Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / RT Channelized? 1 0 0 1 TR Configuration LT No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 L T 9 10 11 12 R L T R Volume 44 40 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Peak -15 Minute Volume 11 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 45 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) Movement Movement 2 Movement 5 1 4 7 8 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 506 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) Movement 2 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal • Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p (5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p (11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 652 ' 1231 605 s Px V c, u, x C r, x • C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u.X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 605 Potential Capacity 498 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 498 Probability of Queue free St. 0.92 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 652 Potential Capacity 935 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 935 Probability of Queue free St. 0.94 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.91 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 . Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1231 Potential Capacity 196 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.85 Movement Capacity 183 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a Y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1231 Potential Capacity 196 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.94 0.85 Movement Capacity 183 Results for Two-stage process: a Y C t 183 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 45 41 Movement Capacity (vph) 183 498 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 262 Worksheet 9-C01"putation of Effect of Flared Minor Sheet Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Ashk --- - C sep 183 498 Volume 45 41 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 262 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 60 86 C (m) (vph) 935 262 v/c 0.06 0.33 95% queue length 0.21 1.38 Control Delay 9.1 25.3 LOS A D Approach Delay 25.3 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.94 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 506 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.91 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.8 I[] 0 2008 Build Condition • • * Note 1. 2008 Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate and the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA 84 1138 AY 0.04 0.18 .Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/30/2008 0.67 8.3 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour A B Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R 1 L T Volume 375 39 50 259 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 382 39 51 264 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R 0.25 1.9 0 1 LT No Southbound I 10 11 12 L T R Volume 42 42 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (o) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LT I LR I 51 84 1138 457 0.04 0.18 0.14 0.67 8.3 14.6 A B 14.6 B 0 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 375 39 50 259 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Peak -15 Minute Volume 96 10 13 66 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 382 39 51 264 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 42 42 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 Peak -15 Minute Volume 11 11 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 C7 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 2.20 3.50 Movement 2 Movement 5 7.1 0.90 0.90 6.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 264 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 2.20 3.50 4.1 7.1 0.90 0.90 6.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 t(c,hv) 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal • Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom ) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 421 768 402 s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,X) s P (x) V(c.u.X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 402 Potential Capacity 648 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 648 Probability of Queue free St. 0.94 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 421 Potential Capacity 1138 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1138 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.95 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 768 Potential Capacity 370 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 353 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 1 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. Step 4: LT from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 10 Part 2 - Second Stage Flows .Conflicting Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 768 Potential Capacity 370 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.95 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.96 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.96 0.90 Movement Capacity 353 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 353 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 42 42 Movement Capacity (vph) 353 648 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 457 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 353 648 42 42 457 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 51 84 C(m) (vph) 1138 457 v/c 0.04 0.18 95% queue length 0.14 0.67 Control Delay 8.3 14.6 LOS A B Approach Delay 14.6 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 P(oj) 1.00 0.96 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 264 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.95 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.3 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.4 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Strom -ems: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Major Street: Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 L T R L Westbound 5 6 T R 0.25 Volume 288 58 24 384 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 320 64 26 426 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 38 33 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 36 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR 26 78 1174 437 0.02 0.18 0.07 0.64 8.1 15.0+ A C 15.0+ C 11 HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Movements Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 1 2 3 4. L T R L 5 6 T R Volume 288 58 24 384 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak -15 Minute Volume 80 16 7 107 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 320 64 26 426 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 38 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 Peak -15 Minute Volume 11 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR 33 0.90 9 36 2 0 No / 0 Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) C7 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/sec) Percent Blockage Prog. Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through 12.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0 0 0 12.0 4.0 0 Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Flow Type Time Length Speed vph sec sec mph Distance to Signal feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Movement 2 Movement 5 Time Calculation Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 426 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p (5) p (dom ) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p (11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 384 830 352 s PX V c, U, X C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 V(c,x) s P(x) 40 V(c,u,x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 352 Potential Capacity 692 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 692 Probability of Queue free St. 0.95 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 384 Potential Capacity 1174 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1174 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.97 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 830 Potential Capacity 340 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.97 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.93 Movement Capacity 332 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Results for Two-stage process: a y C t Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 830 340 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.93 332 332 7 8 9 10 11 L T R L T Volume (vph) 42 36 Movement Capacity (vph) 332 692 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 437 12 R Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 L T R C sep 332 692 Volume 42 36 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 437 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 26 78 C(m) (vph) 1174 437 v/c 0.02 0.18 95% queue length 0.07 0.64 Control Delay 8.1 15.0+ LOS A C Approach Delay 15.0+ Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay 10 11 12 L T R 11 12 Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 426 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.97 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.1 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.2 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY •Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments / Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T Volume 557 94 59 509 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 574 96 60 524 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configura-tion TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 45 40 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade M Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS LT No 6 R 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R 0 0 No / 0 LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 ( 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR 60 87 920 251 0.07 0.35 0.21 1.48 9.2 26.8 A D 26.8 D • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: DEA Agency/Co.: AY Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd (C.R. 48) & Moores Ln Jurisdiction: TownofSouthold, Suffolk County Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: North Wind Condominiums 27120.00 East/West Street: North Road (C.R. 48) North/South Street: Moores Lane Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R •Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 557 94 59 509 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 144 24 15 131 574 96 60 524 Undivided / 1 0 0 1 TR LT No No 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 0.25 Volume 45 40 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Peak -15 Minute Volume 12 10 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 40 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 524 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t (f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 40 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) p(5) p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? . Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process p(1) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) p(10) p(11) p (12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 L V c, x s Px V c, u, x C r, x C plat,x (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L T R L T R 70 1266 622 Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 V(c,X) s P(x) V(c.u.X) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 1500 Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 622 Potential Capacity 487 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 487 Probability of Queue free St. 0.92 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 670 Potential Capacity 920 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 920 Probability of Queue free St. 0.93 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. 0.91 Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1266 Potential Capacity 187 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 0.85 Movement Capacity 175 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.91 0.91 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1266 Potential Capacity 187 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93 0.85 Movement Capacity 175 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 175 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R .Volume (vph) 46 41 Movement Capacity (vph) 175 487 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 251 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 175 487 Volume 46 41 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 251 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT LR v (vph) 60 87 C(m) (vph) 920 251 v/c 0.07 0.35 95% queue length 0.21 1.48 Control Delay 9.2 26.8 LOS A D Approach Delay 26.8 Approach LOS D Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.93 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 524 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 0 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 1700 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 1700 P*(oj) 0.91 d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.2 N, Number of major street through lanes 1 d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 0.9 • • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc North Road (C.R. 48) at the Proposed Site Access • • • FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: # EXISTING YEAR:a# HORIZON YEAR:{�46 DONE BY: )EAI??t><<<>'>><»><>><>»»<< APPROACH ALT X CLEARS • 0 FILE NAME: TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: TIME PERIOD: EXISTING YEAR:a�3 HORIZON YEAR: r�i8 DONE BY: APPROACH ALT X CLEARS �j • 0 1;i14:8,"1 To i TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION: 7. TIME PERIOD: 4` EXISTING YEAR: «203 HORIZON YEAR: Q0 DONE BY: ...........:...............:................................... APPROACH ALT X CLEARS 0 • * Note 1. 2008 Build Condition 2008 Build Condition includes a 2.0% a year normal traffic growth rate and the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: AY Agency/Co.: DEA .Lanes Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Configuration Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour TR Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr No Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Minor Street: Approach Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Northbound Project ID: Northwind Village 7 8 East/West Street: North Road L North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive R Volume Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 0.95 0.95 Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R ( L T Volume 389 6 5 311 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 409 6 5 327 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? .Lanes 1 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 29 23 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 24 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS No / 0 1 1 L T No 6 R 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R J Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L LR 5 54 1144 461 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.39 8.2 13.8 A B 13.8 B HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: AY Agency/Co.: DEA Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday AM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: Northwind Village East/West Street: North Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 389 6 5 311 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 102 2 1 82 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 409 6 5 327 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 8 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 Configuration LR Movements Flow (ped/hr) 23 0.95 6 24 2 0 n Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments 13 14 15 16 0 0 0 0 II Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) Movement 2 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 . L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P (hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V (t) V (l,prot) V (t) V (l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom) p (subo ) Constrained or unconstrained? Proportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(1) p(4) P(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) P(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 415 749 412 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. V(c,x) S 1500 P (x) • V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 412 Potential Capacity 640 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 640 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 415 Potential Capacity 1144 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1144 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 749 Potential Capacity 379 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.96 Movement Capacity 377 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part L - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage isConflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 749 Potential Capacity 379 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 0.96 Movement Capacity 377 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 377 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 30 24 377 640 461 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches • Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 377 640 Volume 30 24 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 461 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 5 54 C (m) (vph) 1144 461 v/c 0.00 0.12 95% queue length 0.01 0.39 Control Delay 8.2 13.8 LOS A B Approach Delay 13.8 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p (oj ) 1.00 1.00 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.2 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: AY 24 1106 DEA 0.02 0.07 1�Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/30/2008 0.21 8.3 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour A C Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: Northwind Village East/West Street: North Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 405 28 22 488 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 426 29 23 513 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 13 11 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 0.25 6 R L T No Southbound I 10 11 12 L T R Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS n II Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 ( 10 11 12 L LR I 23 24 1106 358 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.21 8.3 15.8 A C 15.8 C r� HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: AY Agency/Co.: DEA Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: Northwind Village East/West Street: North Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 405 0.95 28 0.95 22 0.95 488 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 107 7 6 128 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 426 29 23 513 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street Movements 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 13 11 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 3 3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 • Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Prog Flow vph S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Upstream Signal Data Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph sec sec mph feet Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 2.20 3.50 4.1 7.1 0.90 0.90 6.2 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 t(c,hv) 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P (HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g (ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods p(2) P(5) p (dom) p(subo) Constrained or unconstrained? • Proportion unblocked (1) for minor Single -stage movements, p(x) Process Result 0.000 0.000 (2) (3) Two -Stage Process Stage I Stage II p (1) p(4) p(7) p(8) p(9) p(10) p(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 455 999 440 s Px V c,u,x C r, x C plat,x Two -Stage Process 7 G 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V(c,x) s 1500 P(x) V(c.u.x) C(r,x) C(plat,x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 440 Potential Capacity 617 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 617 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 455 Potential Capacity 1106 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 1106 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 999 Potential Capacity 270 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 264 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity •Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1 Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt •Cap. Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Result for 2 stage process: a y C t Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity •Conflicting Part 2 - Second Stage Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 999 Potential Capacity 270 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.97 Movement Capacity 264 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 264 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) 13 11 Movement Capacity (vph) 264 617 Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 358 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R C sep 264 617 Volume 13 11 Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh 358 SUM C sep n C act Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 23 24 C(m) (vph) 1106 358 v/c 0.02 0.07 95% queue length 0.06 0.21 Control Delay 8.3 15.8 LOS Approach Delay A C 15.8 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.3 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: AY 38 889 267 Agency/Co.: DEA 0.14 0.07 0.49 Date Performed: 4/30/2008 20.7 A C Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour C Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: Northwind Village East/West Street: North Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 L T R I L T Volume 651 24 19 428 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 685 25 20 450 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR Am Upstream Signal? No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume 20 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Percent Grade M 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration LR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 0.95 17 2 No / 0 L T No 6 R 0.25 Southbound 10 11 12 L T R 0 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L I LR I 20 38 889 267 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.49 9.1 20.7 A C 20.7 C • HCS+: Unsignalized Intersections Release 5.21 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: AY Agency/Co.: DEA Date Performed: 4/30/2008 Analysis Time Period: Saturday Midday Peak Hour Intersection: North Rd at the Site Access Dr Jurisdiction: Greenport, Town of Southold Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2008 Build Condition Project ID: Northwind Village East/West Street: North Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Access Drive Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Peak -15 Minute Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street Movements 651 0.95 171 685 Undivided 1 0 TR No 7 8 L T 24 19 428 0.95 0.95 0.95 6 5 113 25 20 450 -- 2 -- -- 12 R L Volume 20 17 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 5 4 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 1 1 L T No 9 10 11 12 R L T R Volume 20 17 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Peak -15 Minute Volume 5 4 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments Movements 13 14 15 16 Flow (ped/hr) 0 0 0 0 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0 Upstream Signal Data Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal vph vph sec sec mph feet S2 Left -Turn Through S5 Left -Turn Through Worksheet 3 -Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles Movement 2 Movement 5 Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: Number of major street through lanes: Worksheet 4 -Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation Critical Gap Calculation Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.2 t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P(hv) 2 2 2 t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10 Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 t(c,T): 1 -stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 -stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 t(c) 1 -stage 4.1 6.4 6.2 2 -stage Follow -Up Time Calculations Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 3.30 t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 P(HV) 2 2 2 t(f) 2.2 3.5 3.3 Worksheet 5 -Effect of Upstream Signals Computation 1 -Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) V prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green, g (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from Exhibit 16-11) Proportion vehicles arriving on green P g(ql) g(q2) g (q) Computation 2 -Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked Movement 2 Movement 5 V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot) alpha beta Travel time, t(a) (sec) Smoothing Factor, F Proportion of conflicting flow, f Max platooned flow, V(c,max) Min platooned flow, V(c,min) Duration of blocked period, t(p) Proportion time blocked, p 0.000 0.000 Computation 3 -Platoon Event Periods Result p(2) 0.000 p(5) 0.000 p (dom) p (subo) Constrained or unconstrained? iProportion unblocked (1) (2) (3) for minor Single -stage Two -Stage Process movements, p(x) Process Stage I Stage II p(l) p(4) p(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) P(11) p(12) Computation 4 and 5 Single -Stage Process Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L L L T R L T R V c,x 710 1188 698 s Px V c, U, x C r, x C plat, x Two -Stage Process 7 8 10 11 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 V.(c,x) s 1500 P (x) V(c,u,x) C (r, x) C (plat, x) Worksheet 6 -Impedance and Capacity Equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows 698 Potential Capacity 440 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 440 Probability of Queue free St. 0.96 1.00 Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1 Conflicting Flows 710 Potential Capacity 889 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Movement Capacity 889 Probability of Queue free St. 0.98 1.00 Maj L -Shared Prob Q free St. •Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows 1188 Potential Capacity 208 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 203 Worksheet 7 -Computation of the Effect of Two-stage Gap Acceptance Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows .Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Result for 2 stage process: 1188 a 208 y 1.00 1.00 C t 0.98 Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Part 1 - First Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 2 - Second Stage Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity Part 3 - Single Stage Conflicting Flows 1188 Potential Capacity 208 Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00 Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.98 Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.98 Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.98 0.94 Movement Capacity 203 Results for Two-stage process: a y C t 203 Worksheet 8 -Shared Lane Calculations Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vph) Movement Capacity (vph) Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 21 17 203 440 267 Worksheet 9 -Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R M C sep Volume Delay Q sep Q sep +1 round (Qsep +1) n max C sh SUM C sep n C act • 203 21 267 440 17 Worksheet 10 -Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config L LR v (vph) 20 38 C (m) (vph) 889 267 v/c 0.02 0.14 95% queue length 0.07 0.49 Control Delay 9.1 20.7 LOS A C Approach Delay 20.7 Approach LOS C Worksheet 11 -Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Movement 2 Movement 5 p(oj) 1.00 0.98 v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6 s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5 s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6 P* (oj ) d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.1 N, Number of major street through lanes d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5 • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe SCDPW Traffic Flow Data i i i S IATION 071118 New York State Department of Transportation Page of 2 Traffic Count Hourly Report ROAD 0400 ROAD NAME. CR 48 FRONT: YOUNGS AVENUE T(-): SR 25 Q-0 U N'[ v Suffolk DIRECTION: Eastbound FACTOR GROUP: 40 REC. SERIAL 4: 0005 FUNC CL4eVSS 02 Tom SOUTHOLD STATE COIR CODE' 6 WK OF YR 32 PLACEMENT. ' aOV eio Yuungs ave NHS: yes BIN: DATE OF COUNT: OW0312005 0 REP MARKER: JURIS, County FIR CROSSJNG� NOTES UNNE 0: 000000111830 ADDL DATA: CC , Stn: HPIVIS SAMPLE COUNT TYPE: AXLE PAIRS BATCH 10DOT-00svV34 COUNT TAKEN HY: ORG CODERIO !NITIALS� --- PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE, DOT INITIALS, 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO To TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO 'ro m 'ro TO DAILY DAILY 2 3 4 411 5 6 7 8 9 11) 12 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 '10 111 12 DAILY HIGH HIGH DATE _DAY AM.,1 OUR TOTAI. g,10UNT IL 2 a W 585 563 577 632 534 417 366 274 208 158 66 4 T 32 29 6 6 14 66 354 $87 641 591 600 609 646 621 642 617 670 609 512 444 297 216 194 74 9078 670 16 5 F 43 25 10 5 12 70 338 566 702 656 666 719 820 759 727 797 678 650 616 517 507 371 302 194 10749 820 12 6 5 99 41 31 20 8 124 350 496 703 796 903 1048 1013 1008 821 769 639 495 493 429 324 242 223 174 11249 1048 11 7 S 92 31 27 16 20 70 212 314 405 469 539 710 852 718 696 $90 503 477 358 347 272 165 121 59 8053 $52 12 a to 30 24 6 8 9 76 327 573 665 658 607 593 599 530 493 587 686 613 424 332 269 187 03 54 8 132 555 a 9 T 37 16 4 5 10 61 307 696 604 626 513 600 616 &28 560 533 696 554 424 344 291 192 106 66 8139 Gj 16 12 10 W 34 18 5 11 18 67 354 600 605 668 11 T 12 F 13 S 14 s is m 16 T 17 W Is T 19 20 S 21 S 22 M 23 T 24 W 25 T 26 F 27 S 28 S 29 h1l 30 T 31 W AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 36 22 6 7 14 63 332 576 633 592 603 622 $12 569 556 670 6*13 646 438 364 279 198 136 64 8439 DAYS HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY Axle 431, Seasonalfteekday ESTIMATED Counteo Cgunted co�njql tLqm High How % of day Ea= AdivatQar Factor AADT 8 165 5 99 641 7% 0987 1.216 6940 ROAD # 0480 ROAD NANI& CR 48 FROM. YOUNGS AVENUE 1'0, SR 25 COUNTY. Suffolk STATION: 071118 STATE DDR CODE 6 PIm+CEMENT: 800' ctrl Youngs ave DATE OF COUNT; 08!0312006 -K. 071118 New York State Department of Transportation poijQ 2 `'I.2.., Traffic Count HOUrly Report ROAD 0480 ROAD NAME: OR 48 FR= YOUNG$ AVENUE TO: SR 25 COUNTY. Suffolk DIRECTION: Westbound FACTOR GROUP 40 REC. SERIAL #. 0005 FDNC. CLASS: 02 TQkl'VN SOUTHOLD STATE DIR CODE:' 1 7 WK OF YR: 32 PLACEMENT: BOG' e/o Youngs ave NHS: yes 131N: DATE OF COUNT: 08=112005 (--_) REF MARKER: JURIS: County RR CROSSING: NOTES LANE 0. 000000111870 ADDL DATA: CC $to'HPMS SAMPLE. COUNT TYPE, AXLE PAIRS BATCH 10: DOT410SW34 COUNT TAKEN BY: ORG CODE. R111 INITIALS: --- PROCESSED BY: ORG CODE: DO'' INITIALS: 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 a 9 10 11 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO DAILY DAILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 1 2 3 4 C a . ............. . . L . ........ . 9 10 11 Q DAILY HIGH HIGH DATE DAYI TOTAL qp UN.T HOUR 2 T 3 W 584 586 646 616 699 617 337 392 240 142 90 4 T 33 19 10 7 16 76 230 426 551 529 543 S81 586 576 695 708 677 588 645 415 372 253 226 117 8676 708 15 5 110 14 8 20 20 70 210 393 512 694 566 595 576 610 605 686 600 662 606 340 388 307 232 158 8769 685 16 6 S 60 33 20 22 27 41 132 279 409 681 647 609 520 5.99 691 603 615 632 591 467 $64 375 313 240 8975 647 10 7 S 76 56 39 28 23 37 91 193 305 366 534 602 685 730 732 785 773 611 890 619 664 369 337 123 9667 890 18 a M 45 21 9 10 42 115 261 467 563 552 619 591 570 667 620 687 621 681 529 299 320 158 144 73 8514 667 13 9 T 30 9 18 13 23 78 208 402 5" $19 575 565 667 682 566 617 633 581 471 294 339 158 134 73 7998 633 16 10 W 27 11 9 11 26 76 219 411 535 523 11 T 12 F 13 S 14 S 15 fill 16 T 17 W 18 T 19 F 20 S 21 S 22 M 23 T 24 W 25 T 26 F 27 S 28 S 29 M 30 T 31 W AVERAGE WEEKDAY HOURS (Axle Factored, Mon 6AM to Fri Noon) ADT 49 13 11 13 21 74 223 413 532 536 569 675 $67 $94 683 648 629 577 509 332 351 199 160 87 8268 DAYS HOURS WEEKDAYS WEEKDAY AVERAGE WEEKDAY., A;de Adj. SeasonalrNeekday ESTIMATED Counted Counted Qounled tj2gm High Hour % of day fg= Adj&IsIrnent Factor AADT 6 165 5 99 657 80/1 0.987 1.216 6797 ROAD# 0480 ROAD NAME- OR 48 FROM: YOUNGS AVENUE TO: SR 25 COUNTY: Suffolk STATION: 071118 STATE DIR CODE: 7 PLACEMENT, 800' elo Youngs, ave DATE OF COUNT: 08/03/2005 • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Traffic Volume Counts -Manual • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc North Road (C.R. 48) at the ChapelLane DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane FILE: c48Chaam E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK : Wednesday — ------------Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/29/07 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM Chapel Lane Sound Avenue CR 48 0 372 428 56 0 0 305 285 20 Sound Avenue CR 48 64 0 ( 9 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 0 0 0 864 32 44 0 148 107 706 0 1901 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FILE: c48chapm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0- OFWK--_ Tuesday 0 0 East 4:00 PM 0.80 0 461 17 478 0 96 Time ----------------------------------Movements-----Primary_---_--------------_---_--___-----------DATE---------7 From North 4:15 PM From East 0 79 From South From West 75 Vehicle Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 120 2 3 0 26 17 88 0 256 4:15 0 0 0 0 93 6 6 0 19 13 94 0 231 4:30 0 0 0 0 145 5 4 0 16 10 82 0 262 4:45 0 0 0 0 103 4 6 0 17 17 105 0 252 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 461 17 19 0 78 57 369 0 1001 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 118 4 11 0 27 10 89 0 259 5:15 0 0 0 0 78 3 8 0 16 13 105 0 223 5:30 0 0 0 0 131 4 4 0 15 10 81 0 245 5:45 0 0 0 0 76 4 2 0 12 17 62 0 173 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 403 15 25 0 70 50 337 0 900 DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 864 32 44 0 148 107 706 0 1901 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 4:00 PM 0.80 0 461 17 478 0 96 4 South 4:15 PM 0.70 27 0 79 106 25 0 75 West 4:30 PM 0.88 50 381 0 431 12 88 0 Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.80 0 459 19 478 0 96 4 South 0.70 27 0 79 106 25 0 75 West 0.86 50 370 0 420 12 88 0 p N F - 0.91 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane FILE: C48chapm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK : Tuesday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/28/07 • C7 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 L 0 Sound Avenue CR 48 0 370 420 50 0 478 459 19 Sound Avenue CR 48 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane FILE: c48chasa E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 Y OF WK : - ------ -- Saturday --------- ---- Movements ----- by: Primary ------- —----------------------------------- ------------------ DATE: 8/25/07 Time From North From East ---- From South From West Vehicle Begin ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT- THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 B2 8 5 0 12 18 145 0 270 11:15 0 0 0 0 92 9 4 0 13 21 122 0 261 11:30 0 0 0 0 79 7 10 0 12 18 141 0 267 11:45 0 0 0 0 132 9 6 0 10 15 146 318 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 385 33 25 0 47 72 554 0 1116 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 83 4 10 0 14 10 149 0 270 12:15 0 0 0 0 101 5 6 0 13 14 170 0 309 12:30 0 0 0 0 80 10 4 0 10 10 134 0 248 12:45 0 0 0 0 139 6 9 0 5 16 115 0 290 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 403 25 29 0 42 50 568 0 1117 1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 109 11 11 0 14 20 134 0 299 1:15 0 0 0 0 82 5 7 0 10 15 164 0 283 1:30 0 0 0 0 83 6 6 0 15 21 158 0 289 1:45 0 0 0 0 137 6 5 0 9 12 103 0 272 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 411 28 29 0 48 68 559 0 1143 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1199 86 83 0 137 190 1681 0 3376 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 12:15 PM 0.79 0 429 32 461 0 93 7 South 11:30 AM 0.84 32 0 49 81 40 0 60 West 11:30 AM 0.90 57 606 0 663 9 91 0 Entire Intersection North 11:30 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.74 0 395 25 420 0 94 6 South 0.84 32 0 49 81 40 0 60 West 0.90 57 606 0 663 9 91 0 per =o:9 'L 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane FILE: c48chasa E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK Saturday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/25/07 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM Chap 0 0 0 Sound Avenue CR 48 is 0 606 663 57 0 0 420 395 25 Sound Avenue CR 48 F81 49 0 32 Chapel Lane • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doe North Road (C.R. 48) 7 Queen Street DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 0 0 0 0 487 38 20 0 88 105 738 0 1476 PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Chapel Lane AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ..-...... VOLUMES ........ FILE: c48chaam E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left &_OF WK : Wednesday 0.00 0 Movements by: Primary--------- 0 0 0 East 8/29/07 ---------------------------------------------------- Time From North 285 20 From East — --- — From South -----------------------------DATE: From West South ----------- Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 38 3 3 0 6 9 109 0 168 7:15 0 0 0 0 63 6 4 0 12 16 102 0 203 7:30 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 10 8 78 0 155 7:45 0 0 0 0 46 7 2 0 5 16 77 0 153 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 202 18 11 0 33 49 366 0 679 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 80 6 5 0 21 17 109 0 238 8:15 0 0 0 0 70 8 4 0 8 20 93 0 203 8:30 0 0 0 0 83 1 0 0 16 7 63 0 170 8:45 0 0 0 0 52 5 0 0 10 12 107 0 186 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 285 20 9 0 55 56 372 0 797 DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 487 38 20 0 88 105 738 0 1476 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ..-...... VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 8:00 AM 0.89 0 285 20 305 0 93 7 South 8:00 AM 0.62 9 0 55 64 14 0 86 West 8:00 AM 0.85 56 372 0 428 13 87 0 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.89 0 285 20 305 0 93 7 South 0.62 9 0 55 64 14 0 86 West 0.85 56 372 0 428 13 87 0 PNF --Z-0s+ DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 0 0 0 517 1 5 0 1 5 731 0 1260 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM FILE: c48queam Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 OF WK Wednesday East 7:45 AM 0.88 by: Primary----------------------------------------DATE---------7 297 0 %100 0 South 8:00 AM -- Time ---------- --------------------------------Movements From North 0 1 From East 75 -------- From South West From West 0.87 -- Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 1 106 0 151 7:15 0 0 0 0 61 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 170 7:30 0 0 0 0 56 1 0 0 0 0 77 0 134 7:45 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 141 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 222 1 2 0 0 1 370 0 596 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 173 8:15 0 0 0 0 s0 0 0 0 0 3 93 0 176 8:30 0 0 0 0 84 0 1 0 1 0 67 0 153 8:45 0 0 0 0 59 0 2 0 0 1 100 0 162 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 295 0 3 0 1 4 361 0 664 DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 517 1 5 0 1 5 731 0 1260 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 7:45 AM 0.88 0 297 0 297 0 %100 0 South 8:00 AM 0.50 3 0 1 4 75 0 25 West 7:00 AM 0.87 1 370 0 371 0 %100 0 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.88 0 295 0 295 0 %100 0 South 0.50 3 0 1 4 75 0 25 West 0.90 4 361 0 365 1 99 0 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street FILE: c48queam E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK Wednesday ----------------------------- Movements by: Primary ----------------------------------------DATE- --------- • 0 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM Queen 0 0 0 0 J Im Sound Avenue CR 48 0 361 365 4 0 295 295 0 Sound Avenue CR 48 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street FILE: c48quepm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 �-Y OF WK : ----------------- Tuesday Movements -------------------------------------------------------------------------- by: Primary DATE: 8/28/07 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 120 1 1 0 ------ 1 — -------------------------------------- 1 94 0 218 4:15 0 0 0 0 94 0 1 0 2 1 98 0 196 4:30 0 0 0 0 142 1 0 0 1 0 84 0 228 4:45 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 214 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 460 2 2 0 4 3 385 0 856 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 120 3 3 0 1 2 96 0 225 5:15 0 0 0 0 80 2 0 0 2 1 108 0 193 5:30 0 0 0 0 134 1 0 0 0 3 86 0 224 5:45 0 0 0 0 77 1 1 0 1 0 67 0 147 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 411 7 4 0 4 6 357 0 789 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 871 9 6 0 8 9 742 0 1645 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 4:15 PM 0.81 0 460 4 464 0 99 1 South 4:15 PM 0.50 4 0 4 8 50 0 50 West 4:45 PM 0.92 7 399 0 406 2 98 0 Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.81 0 460 4 464 0 99 1 South 0.50 4 0 4 8 50 0 50 West 0.89 4 387 0 391 1 99 0 PR V `0,U- DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street FILE: c48quepm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 0 OF WK : Tuesday------------- — -------------------Movements by: PrimaryDATE:— -------7 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM Sound Avenue CR 48 0 0 387 391 4 Queen Street- 0 treet 0 0 464 460 L 4 mom Sound Avenue CR 48 8 0 4 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FILE: c48quesa E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 474 30 504 0 94 6 South 12:45 PM 0.69 21 0 12 33 WK : Saturday 36 West 11:30 AM Movements Primary-- 651 0 661 2 98 0 -- ------ Time From North Entire From East --------- ----- -- ----------------------- From South -------------DATE---------7 From West North ---- vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 100 4 4 0 6 1 151 0 266 11:15 0 0 0 0 91 5 4 0 3 2 142 0 247 11:30 0 0 0 0 92 1 5 0 0 3 146 0 247 11:45 0 0 0 0 132 1 7 0 2 2 162 0 306 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 415 11 20 0 11 8 601 0 1066 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 102 3 7 0 2 2 165 0 281 12:15 0 0 0 0 110 7 2 0 4 3 178 0 304 12:30 0 0 0 0 95 10 1 0 3 3 145 0 257 12:45 0 0 0 0 145 3 5 0 5 5 128 0 291 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 452 23 15 0 14 13 616 0 1133 1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 124 10 8 0 4 5 146 0 297 1:15 0 0 0 0 88 4 3 0 1 3 169 0 26B 1:30 0 0 0 0 100 3 5 0 2 6 151 0 267 1:45 0 0 0 0 136 1 2 0 3 5 125 0 272 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 448 18 18 0 10 19 591 0 1104 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1315 52 53 0 35 40 1808 0 3303 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 12:15 PM 0.85 0 474 30 504 0 94 6 South 12:45 PM 0.69 21 0 12 33 64 0 36 West 11:30 AM 0.91 10 651 0 661 2 98 0 Entire Intersection North 12:15 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.85 0 474 30 504 0 94 6 South 0.67 16 0 16 32 50 0 50 West 0.85 16 597 0 613 3 97 0 �4'F-4,94 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Queen Street FILE: c48quesa E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK : Saturday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/25/07 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- • 0 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 12:15 PM - 1:15 PM Queen Street 0 0 0� L oI Sound Avenue CR 48 0 597 613 16 0 504 474 30 ONM Sound Avenue CR 48 32 --y 16 0 16 treet • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 0 0 0 0 470 78 66 0 68 67 686 0 1435 PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES ........ FILE: c48moram E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left OF WK : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q,.1"Y Wednesday 12:00 AM 0.00 Movements by: Primary 0 0 0 0 DATE: 8/29/0" me From North 0 From East 0 From South From West South Vehicle Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 56 6 9 0 9 12 102 0 194 7:15 0 0 0 0 44 7 2 0 8 4 90 0 155 7:30 0 0 0 0 48 7 5 0 7 4 66 0 137 7:45 0 0 0 0 72 9 9 0 4 11 81 0 186 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 220 29 25 0 28 31 339 0 672 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 65 9 11 0 9 9 92 0 195 8:15 0 0 0 0 83 13 4 0 7 12 73 0 192 8:30 0 0 0 0 56 14 14 0 12 5 83 0 184 8:45 0 0 0 0 46 13 12 0 12 10 99 0 192 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 250 49 41 0 40 36 347 0 763 DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 470 78 66 0 68 67 686 0 1435 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 7:45 AM 0.84 0 276 45 321 0 B6 14 South 8:00 AM 0.78 41 0 40 81 5i 0 49 West 8:00 AM 0.88 36 347 0 383 9 91 0 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.78 0 250 49 299 0 84 16 South 0.78 41 0 40 81 51 0 49 West 0.88 36 34? 0 383 9 91 0 p 0- =D,qg is DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane FILE: c48moram E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 ",Y OF WK : Wednesday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/29/01 --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- is 0 Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM Moores Lane 0 0 ( 0 L0 Sound Avenue CR 48 0 347 383 36 0 299 250 49 Sound Avenue CR 48 F81 40 0 41 Moores Lane DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane FILE: c48morpm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 0 OF WK : Tuesday ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/21/07 Time From North From East From South --------------------------------------- From West Vehicle Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 80 5 10 0 11 13 67 0 186 4:15 0 0 0 0 77 6 7 0 8 16 76 0 190 4:30 0 0 0 0 103 9 4 0 14 19 66 0 215 4:45 0 0 0 0 97 4 11 0 2 8 64 0 186 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 357 24 32 0 35 56 273 0 777 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 50 6 8 0 8 4 85 0 161 5:15 0 0 0 0 56 2 9 0 5 10 74 0 156 5:30 0 0 0 0 59 4 6 0 8 11 52 0 140 5:45 0 0 0 0 139 7 5 0 10 16 60 0 237 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 304 19 28 0 31 41 271 0 694 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAY TOTAL 0 0 0 0 661 43 60 0 66 97 544 0 1471 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ......1. VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... . FROMPEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 4:00 PM 0.85 0 357 24 381 0 94 6 South 4:00 PM 0.80 32 0 35 67 48 0 52 West 4:15 PM 0.92 47 291 0 338 14 86 0 Entire Intersection North 4:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.85 0 357 24 381 0 94 6 South 0.80 32 0 35 67 48 0 52 West 0.89 56 273 0 329 17 83 0 l� u DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane FILE: c48morpm E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK : Tuesday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/21/07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 Sound Avenue CR 48 Moores Lane 0 0 0 0 0 273 329 56 0 381 357 24 Sound Avenue CR 48 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 27120.00 FOR THE PERIOD: 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 FILE: cr48mors E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 0 East 12:45 PM 0.92 0 481 58 539 0 89 11 South Y OF WK : Saturday 61 0 50 111 Movements Y� Primary b Prima 45 West 11:30 AM 0.93 74 DATE: 8/25/07 Time From North 89 From East From South -- From West Intersection Vehicle Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 95 9 10 0 16 14 141 0 285 11:15 0 0 0 0 99 20 17 0 8 12 115 0 271 11:30 0 0 0 0 93 11 19 0 9 16 140 0 288 11:45 0 0 0 0 lil 10 17 0- 12 22 147 0 319 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 398 50 63 0 45 64 543 0 1163 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 99 16 16 0 11 16 150 0 308 12:15 0 0 0 0 103 10 9 0 18 20 160 0 320 12:30 0 0 0 0 88 15 16 0 5 10 129 0 263 12:45 0 0 0 0 134 13 14 0 16 15 127 0 319 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 424 54 55 0 50 61 566 0 1210 1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 130 14 10 0 13 18 124 0 309 1:15 0 0 0 0 86 17 9 0 7 32 150 0 301 1:30 0 0 0 0 131 14 6 0 7 25 130 0 313 1:45 0 0 0 0 115 9 11 0 10 19 132 0 296 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 462 54 36 0 37 94 536 0 1219 ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1284 158 154 0 132 219 1645 0 3592 4++F =Q - 9 --� 0 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 12:45 PM 0.92 0 481 58 539 0 89 11 South 11:30 AM 0.96 61 0 50 111 55 0 45 West 11:30 AM 0.93 74 597 0 671 11 89 0 Entire Intersection North 12:45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.92 0 481 58 539 0 89 11 South 0.68 39 0 43 82 48 0 52 West 0.85 90 531 0 621 14 86 0 4++F =Q - 9 --� 0 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code : 27120.00 PAGE: 1 N -S Street: Moores Lane FILE: cr48mors E -W Street: Sound Avenue CR 48 OF WK : Saturday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/25/07 -------- — ------------------- ------------ ---- Total Turning Volumes for the Period: 12:45 PM - 1:45 PM Moores Lane L oo h Sound Avenue CR 48 0 Is 531 621 90 0 0 539 481 L 58 Sound Avenue CR 48 82 43 0 1 39 Moores Lane • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc Traffic Volume Counts Supplemental ATR 1�1 0 • Eastbound North Road (C.R. 48) NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Report MS.doc West of Queen Street 09/04/07 Page: 1 . 10:24:12 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach 11978 (516) 288-2480 *** Basic Count Print (#302) *** ******************************************************************************** Site ID CR48WOFQUEENEB Data Starts 13:00 on 08/22/07 Info 1 Data Ends 10:30 on 08/31/07 Irrfo 2 50093t AVE Adj . Factor 1.000% ******************************************************************************** Lane #1 Info Lane Mode Normal Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 1 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 13:00 86 88 82 79 335 14:00 97 102 83 112 394 15:00 88 103 93 103 387 16:00 78 101 100 110 389 17:00 114 85 93 84 376 18:00 90 82 64 60 296 19:00 62 56 52 46 216 20:00 45 44 36 32 157 21:00 38 34 29 19 120 • 22:00 19 18 22 17 76 23:00 5 15 14 12 46 Daily Total 2792 Average Period: 62.0 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 253.8 PM Total 2792 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 425 ( 15.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.932 0 • • • Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/23/07 00:00 7 5 6 4 22 01:00 2 3 2 2 9 02:00 3 4 2 3 12 03:00 1 0 0 0 1 04:00 0 0 4 2 6 05:00 2 4 14 14 34 06:00 41 56 71 100 268 07:00 81 129 81 87 378 08:00 102 87 77 120 386 09:00 134 105 112 62 413 10:00 80 75 86 96 337 11:00 94 91 99 97 381 12:00 105 135 90 112 442 13:00 109 117 97 93 416 14:00 107 113 ill 102 433 15:00 114 111 100 107 432 16:00 97 120 115 118 450 17:00 106 109 100 104 419 18:00 88 81 30 22 221 19:00 28 30 23 25 106 20:00 19 15 25 40 99 21:00 32 39 24 37 132 22:00 31 32 17 19 99 23:00 16 18 10 10 54 Daily Total 5550 Average Period: 57.2 AM Total 2247 ( 40.5%) Average Hour 231.3 PM Total 3303 ( 59.5%) Peak AM Hour: 08:45= 471 ( 8.5%) Peak AM Factor: 0.879 Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 459 ( 8.30) Peak PM Factor: 0.956 • 11 U, Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/24/07 00:00 4 11 6 9 30 01:00 4 4 1 4 13 02:00 5 2 1 2 10 03:00 3 2 2 0 7 04:00 2 1 4 0 7 05:00 7 11 7 23 48 06:00 34 51 85 94 264 07:00 106 133 105 112 456 08:00 91 115 103 127 436 09:00 149 108 72 98 427 10:00 125 110 113 124 472 11:00 145 118 128 150 541 12:00 128 135 123 142 528 13:00 141 115 110 122 488 14:00 121 137 115 98 471 15:00 134 138 132 138 542 16:00 144 146 129 134 553 17:00 144 119 115 143 521 18:00 124 127 99 106 456 19:00 98 114 94 84 390 20:00 61 83 75 70 289 21:00 65 71 51 54 241 22:00 54 46 41 32 173 23:00 40 30 31 16 117 Daily Total 7480 Average Period: 77.1 AM Total 2711 ( 36.2%) Average Hour 311.7 PM Total 4769 ( 63.80) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 541 ( 7.2%) Peak AM Factor: 0.902 Peak PM Hour: 15:30= 560 ( 7.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.959 • n Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/25/07 00:00 12 12 14 12 50 01:00 7 16 9 7 39 02:00 5 3 4 2 14 03:00 8 1 1 5 15 04:00 1 1 2 9 13 05:00 9 8 19 23 59 06:00 50 59 73 85 267 07:00 85 106 69 68 328 08:00 95 116 89 142 442 09:00 133 115 99 109 456 10:00 112 128 117 137 494 11:00 154 143 149 161 607 12:00 176 189 148 139 652 13:00 159 178 158 128 623 14:00 144 145 147 127 563 15:00 119 137 93 127 476 16:00 106 105 125 118 454 17:00 107 113 100 110 430 18:00 77 74 99 86 336 19:00 82 84 66 80 312 20:00 66 64 41 53 224 21:00 43 50 27 34 154 22:00 49 29 39 38 155 23:00 23 27 31 30 111 Daily Total 7274 Average Period: 75.0 AM Total 2784 ( 38.3%) Average Hour 303.1 PM Total 4490 ( 61.7%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 607 ( 8.3%) Peak AM Factor: 0.943 Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 652 ( 9.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.862 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 14 17 17 7 55 01:00 12 7 7 7 33 02:00 7 5 5 4 21 03:00 3 0 2 3 8 04:00 5 0 1 3 9 05:00 4 11 14 27 56 06:00 35 41 47 68 191 07:00 74 85 71 67 297 08:00 70 77 66 89 302 09:00 98 119 93 113 423 10:00 118 92 107 152 469 11:00 131 126 130 163 550 12:00 168 169 174 138 649 13:00 170 126 140 113 549 14:00 122 151 132 108 513 15:00 105 126 101 109 441 16:00 141 103 106 118 468 17:00 108 90 58 67 323 18:00 64 79 68 59 270 19:00 45 47 62 52 206 20:00 58 44 42 36 180 21:00 33 42 25 11 111 22:00 22 20 18 12 72 23:00 14 11 11 9 45 Daily Total 6241 Average Period: 64.3 AM Total 2414 ( 38.7%) Average Hour 260.0 PM Total 3827 ( 61.3%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 550 ( 8.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.844 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 651 ( 10.4%) Peak PM Factor: 0.935 l� u • 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 5 3 5 4 17 01:00 2 1 3 1 7 02:00 3 2 3 0 8 03:00 4 4 0 1 9 04:00 2 3 0 3 8 05:00 4 6 20 22 52 06:00 35 51 89 78 253 07:00 98 131 103 93 425 08:00 109 87 85 77 358 09:00 132 111 84 96 423 10:00 90 90 89 87 356 11:00 109 99 90 119 417 12:00 95 124 108 91 418 13:00 101 104 85 91 381 14:00 96 91 95 101 383 15:00 89 90 73 81 333 16:00 91 87 74 97 349 17:00 91 93 102 88 374 18:00 56 83 66 72 277 19:00 65 68 55 48 236 20:00 43 52 42 33 170 21:00 32 33 35 23 123 22:00 22 19 16 15 72 23:00 11 8 13 12 44 Daily Total 5493 AM Total 2333 ( 42.5%) PM Total 3160 ( 57.5%) Peak AM Hour: 07:15= 436 ( 7.9%) Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 424 ( 7.7%) Average Period: 56.6 Average Hour 228.9 Peak AM Factor: 0.832 Peak PM Factor: 0.855 • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/28/07 00:00 7 4 1 3 15 01:00 3 1 1 4 9 02:00 2 4 1 1 8 03:00 0 0 1 4 5 04:00 3 4 7 2 16 05:00 2 9 10 18 39 06:00 40 47 88 85 260 07:00 71 112 101 88 372 08:00 101 91 86 114 392 09:00 128 111 73 85 397 10:00 90 84 84 86 344 11:00 95 92 100 97 384 12:00 95 126 104 101 426 13:00 96 93 80 84 353 14:00 101 100 93 104 398 15:00 86 88 86 99 359 16:00 96 100 84 114 394 17:00 99 115 90 68 372 18:00 82 66 73 57 278 19:00 62 60 57 55 234 20:00 55 44 40 40 179 21:00 40 32 38 34 144 22:00 22 29 17 15 83 23:00 13 19 12 11 55 Daily Total 5516 Average Period: 56.9 AM Total 2241 ( 40.6%) Average Hour 229.8 PM Total 3275 ( 59.4%) Peak AM Hour: 08:30= 439 ( 8.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.857 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 427 ( 7.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.847 P • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 6 8 7 1 22 01:00 3 1 5 1 10 02:00 0 0 3 1 4 03:00 1 2 2 1 6 04:00 2 1 1 3 7 05:00 3 5 16 18 42 06:00 29 45 70 75 219 07:00 116 107 83 81 387 08:00 112 101 70 105 388 09:00 137 96 79 87 399 10:00 72 91 82 84 329 11:00 92 103 86 107 388 12:00 95 133 106 104 438 13:00 98 111 100 96 405 14:00 86 107 83 111 387 15:00 87 79 111 85 362 16:00 97 105 89 109 400 17:00 118 94 82 91 385 18:00 84 85 84 88 341 19:00 65 71 50 50 236 20:00 52 40 39 37 168 21:00 39 37 28 25 129 22:00 26 29 21 18 94 23:00 23 15 16 8 62 Daily Total 5608 Average Period: 57.8 AM Total 2201 ( 39.2%) Average Hour 233.7 PM Total 3407 ( 60.80) Peak AM Hour: 08:45= 417 ( 7.40) Peak AM Factor: 0.761 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 441 ( 7.9%) Peak PM Factor: 0.829 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total • 08/30/07 00:00 4 6 10 6 26 01:00 1 0 1 4 6 02:00 1 4 1 0 6 03:00 1 0 4 0 5 04:00 1 2 1 8 12 05:00 6 8 14 35 63 06:00 31 54 82 92 259 07:00 87 109 85 98 379 08:00 105 93 102 115 415 09:00 116 106 80 83 385 10:00 103 89 88 104 384 11:00 121 109 105 122 457 12:00 118 123 115 108 464 13:00 121 109 114 108 452 14:00 112 91 98 100 401 15:00 102 86 101 81 370 16:00 101 107 118 97 423 17:00 106 128 107 121 462 18:00 86 84 73 92 335 19:00 85 74 82 64 305 20:00 64 54 47 43 208 21:00 47 45 32 35 159 22:00 41 33 28 19 121 23:00 18 13 12 13 56 Daily Total 6153 Average Period: 63.4 AM Total 2397 ( 39.0%) Average Hour 256.4 PM Total 3756 ( 61.0%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 457 ( 7.40) Peak AM Factor: 0.936 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 467 ( 7.6%) Peak PM Factor: 0.949 • • Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/31/07 00:00 11 4 11 8 34 01:00 9 4 3 1 17 02:00 3 0 3 1 7 03:00 1 0 3 2 6 04:00 0 4 1 5 1^v 05:00 2 6 14 28 50 06:00 35 55 93 91 274 07:00 84 114 96 112 406 08:00 97 92 96 119 404 09:00 133 118 73 113 437 10:00 100 121 112 333 Daily Total 1978 Average Period: 46.0 AM Total 1978 (100.0%) Average Hour 179.8 PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 08:30= 466 ( 23.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.876 Peak PM Hour: Peak PM Factor: • 0 GRAND TOTALS **************************** LANE 1 FINAL *************+************** Grand Total 54085 Average Period: 62.6 # Of Days 9 ADT 6009 AM Total 21306 ( 39.4%) Average Hour 252.7 PM Total 32779 ( 60.6%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 607 (08/25/07) Peak AM Factor: 0.943 Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 652 (08/25/07) Peak PM Factor: 0.862 • • • Westbound North Road (C.R. 48) NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc West of Queen Street • • 09/04/07 Page: 1 10:21:20 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach 11978 (516) 288-2480 *** Basic Count Print (#302) *** ******************************************************************************** Site ID CR48WBWOFQUEEN Data Starts 13:15 on 08/22/07 Info 1 Data Ends 10:30 on 08/31/07 Info 2 :Spusap AYE WR, Adj . Factor 1.000% ******************************************************************************** Lane #1 Info Lane Mode Normal Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 1 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 13:00 67 93 112 272 14:00 83 91 141 85 400 15:00 101 116 114 133 464 16:00 157 104 102 168 531 17:00 123 78 128 75 404 18:00 154 93 105 52 404 19:00 47 52 57 87 243 20:00 74 102 76 27 279 21:00 26 21 20 40 107 22:00 26 59 12 7 104 23:00 23 17 26 3 69 Daily Total 3277 Average Period: 74.5 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 297.9 PM Total 3277 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 16:00= 531 ( 16.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.790 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 14 3 2 4 23 01:00 5 4 3 3 15 02:00 3 3 2 1 9 03:00 1 2 0 2 5 04:00 2 4 4 2 12 05:00 5 8 9 16 38 06:00 13 31 34 42 120 07:00 33 64 62 72 231 08:00 60 65 99 73 297 09:00 81 65 66 76 288 10:00 76 65 127 74 342 11:00 62 70 75 108 315 12:00 87 85 132 86 390 13:00 115 106 111 97 429 14:00 101 95 102 132 430 15:00 114 119 186 104 523 16:00 133 121 160 122 536 17:00 135 89 67 112 403 18:00 155 105 106 68 434 19:00 47 55 56 98 256 20:00 79 73 87 27 266 21:00 35 37 21 56 149 22:00 58 34 13 16 121 23:00 18 12 12 19 61 Daily Total 5693 AM Total 1695 ( 29.8%) PM Total 3998 ( 70.2%) Peak AM Hour: 09:45= 344 ( 6.0%) Peak PM Hour: 14:45= 551 ( 9.7%) Average Period: 58.7 Average Hour 237.2 Peak AM Factor: 0.677 Peak PM Factor: 0.741 Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/24/07 00:00 11 11 4 5 31 01:00 1 5 1 3 10 02:00 2 3 1 1 7 03:00 4 2 3 3 12 04:00 1 6 5 5 17 05:00 3 8 14 19 44 06:00 15 30 34 36 115 07:00 48 54 58 76 236 08:00 57 57 82 94 290 09:00 78 78 77 93 326 10:00 81 86 80 102 349 11:00 96 107 98 142 443 12:00 113 117 118 142 490 13:00 93 130 126 97 446 14:00 103 111 98 152 464 15:00 125 99 132 142 498 16:00 149 109 166 157 581 17:00 122 113 153 68 456 18:00 178 127 88 77 470 19:00 67 63 96 58 284 20:00 125 47 60 81 313 21:00 93 45 85 46 269 22:00 56 30 66 34 186 23:00 33 33 41 20 127 Daily Total 6464 AM Total 1880 ( 29.1%) PM Total 4584 ( 70.9%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 443 ( 6.9%) Peak PM Hour: 16:00= 581 ( 9.0%) Average Period: 66.6 Average Hour 269.3 Peak AM Factor: 0.780 Peak PM Factor: 0.875 • 0 Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/25/07 00:00 19 11 8 10 48 01:00 11 6 6 9 32 02:00 4 11 8 4 27 03:00 3 1 2 1 7 04:00 4 7 2 1 14 05:00 1 6 5 13 25 06:00 6 22 24 41 93 07:00 28 35 59 67 189 08:00 75 60 118 68 321 09:00 78 103 112 98 391 10:00 101 88 91 141 421 11:00 103 108 92 155 458 12:00 99 119 103 155 476 13:00 129 96 102 142 469 14:00 77 94 97 136 404 15:00 142 127 142 167 578 16:00 100 111 111 170 492 17:00 181 119 107 126 533 18:00 187 101 102 144 534 19:00 82 83 132 74 3-71 20:00 153 57 142 60 412 21:00 61 68 100 40 269 22:00 88 58 47 36 229 23:00 33 48 24 20 125 Daily Total 6918 Average Period: 71.3 AM Total 2026 ( 29.3%) Average Hour 288.3 PM Total 4892 ( 70.7%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 458 ( 6.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.739 Peak PM Hour: 16:30= 581 ( 8.4%) Peak PM Factor: 0.802 • • Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/26/07 00:00 24 25 13 16 78 01:00 5 5 7 13 30 02:00 14 6 8 5 33 03:00 5 5 2 7 19 04:00 6 3 4 1 14 05:00 8 4 9 13 34 06:00 5 31 33 57 126 07:00 73 80 96 75 324 08:00 104 99 159 120 482 09:00 82 66 81 80 309 10:00 98 100 94 127 419 11:00 104 112 171 90 477 12:00 122 105 136 189 552 13:00 153 156 177 150 636 14:00 131 152 112 184 579 15:00 146 167 122 195 630 16:00 156 121 135 182 594 17:00 148 157 127 124 556 18:00 226 114 102 163 605 19:00 96 105 155 82 438 20:00 149 79 128 76 432 21:00 106 56 89 31 282 22:00 71 22 56 42 191 23:00 21 36 16 11 84 Daily Total 7924 Average Period: 81.7 AM Total 2345 ( 29.6%) Average Hour 330.2 PM Total 5579 ( 70.4%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 514 ( 6.5%) Peak AM Factor: 0.751 Peak PM Hour: 12:45= 675 ( 8.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.893 • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 5 6 7 2 20 01:00 3 6 1 0 10 02:00 3 4 3 1 11 03:00 1 2 4 4 11 04:00 8 2 7 13 30 05:00 5 9 23 21 58 06:00 22 34 55 56 167 07:00 56 68 70 66 260 08:00 61 73 96 69 299 09:00 70 68 89 79 306 10:00 89 90 80 93 352 11:00 149 103 110 82 444 12:00 93 96 85 147 421 13:00 78 97 107 135 417 14:00 87 87 86 81 341 15:00 136 98 147 93 474 16:00 155 104 104 154 517 17:00 135 79 123 96 433 18:00 139 83 61 138 421 19:00 57 47 91 43 238 20:00 99 47 76 32 254 21:00 28 26 56 37 147 22:00 36 24 43 12 115 23:00 16 22 12 12 62 Daily Total 5808 AM Total 1968 ( 33.9%) PM Total 3840 ( 66.10) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 455 ( 7.8%) Peak PM Hour: 16:00= 517 ( 8.9%) Average Period: 59.9 Average Hour 242.0 Peak AM Factor: 0.763 Peak PM Factor: 0.834 t Date Time --------------------------------------------- :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/28/07 00:00 11 8 8 7 34 01:00 5 2 0 1 8 02:00 4 2 5 4 15 03:00 1 5 4 1 11 04:00 4 4 10 5 23 05:00 6 12 19 18 55 06:00 22 36 50 40 148 07:00 40 60 53 72 225 08:00 58 63 94 85 300 09:00 71 82 84 63 300 10:00 80 82 101 97 360 11:00 76 84 93 92 345 12:00 86 80 113 94 373 13:00 82 89 71 115 357 14:00 107 103 145 100 455 15:00 119 90 108 130 447 16:00 125 99 150 109 483 17:00 123 82 138 83 426 18:00 114 121 102 72 409 19:00 43 55 88 52 238 20:00 114 58 73 26 271 21:00 43 20 30 31 124 22:00 49 38 25 22 134 23:00 29 6 20 10 65 • Daily Total AM Total PM Total Peak AM Hour: Peak PM Hour: lr u 5606 1824 ( 32.5%) 3782 ( 67.5%) 10:00= 360 ( 6.4%) 15:45= 504 ( 9.0%) Average Period: 57.8 Average Hour 233.6 Peak AM Factor: 0.891 Peak PM Factor: 0.840 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 12 4 8 3 27 01:00 2 2 2 1 7 02:00 2 3 0 5 10 03:00 2 1 4 4 11 04:00 4 3 5 3 15 05:00 4 14 14 14 46 06:00 15 40 42 47 144 07:00 41 68 61 57 227 08:00 81 84 86 58 309 09:00 70 67 86 69 292 10:00 80 94 103 74 351 11:00 79 68 89 93 329 12:00 106 66 98 105 375 13:00 90 104 101 127 422 14:00 112 101 129 113 455 15:00 124 107 126 141 498 16:00 154 100 123 98 475 17:00 118 93 88 142 441 18:00 114 133 94 89 430 19:00 55 58 102 59 274 20:00 85 76 92 37 290 21:00 38 21 20 36 115 22:00 44 73 21 14 152 23:00 19 14 18 5 56 Daily Total 5751 Average Period: 59.3 AM Total 1768 ( 30.7%) Average Hour 239.6 PM Total 3983 ( 69.3%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 351 ( 6.10) Peak AM Factor: 0.852 Peak PM Hour: 15:15= 528 ( 9.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.857 C7 L -7 0 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/30/07 00:00 4 9 4 5 22 01:00 3 0 4 1 8 02:00 1 2 2 2 7 03:00 1 2 2 3 8 04:00 1 2 6 4 13 05:00 3 8 13 16 40 06:00 14 30 49 46 139 07:00 52 42 47 69 210 08:00 88 68 71 69 296 09:00 73 70 97 91 331 10:00 93 74 117 88 372 11:00 81 67 91 126 365 12:00 106 95 98 93 392 13:00 94 88 85 125 392 14:00 92 91 135 100 418 15:00 132 126 108 133 499 16:00 133 105 143 122 503 17:00 99 101 119 71 390 18:00 142 113 109 58 422 19:00 67 58 59 107 291 20:00 107 68 62 67 304 21:00 34 28 24 38 124 22:00 53 86 29 18 186 23:00 23 19 24 12 78 Daily Total 5810 Average Period: 59.9 AM Total 1811 ( 31.2%) Average Hour 242.1 PM Total 3999 ( 68.8%) Peak AM Hour: 09:45= 375 ( 6.5%) Peak AM Factor: 0.801 Peak PM Hour: 15:45= 514 ( 8.8%) Peak PM Factor: 0.899 • • • Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/31/07 00:00 9 4 6 7 26 01:00 6 4 2 2 14 02:00 1 4 1 3 9 03:00 2 0 4 0 6 04:00 2 3 4 5 14 05:00 5 17 14 16 52 06:00 10 36 51 45 142 07:00 46 48 54 67 215 08:00 81 73 80 71 305 09:00 75 91 87 99 352 10:00 99 95 110 304 Daily Total 1439 Average Period: 33.5 AM Total 1439 (100.0%) Average Hour 130.8 PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 09:45= 403 ( 28.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.916 Peak PM Hour: Peak PM Factor: • GRAND TOTALS ********************** LANE 1 FINAL **************************** Grand Total 54690 Average Period: 63.4 # Of Days 8.99 ADT 6084 AM Total 16756 ( 30.6%) Average Hour 255.6 PM Total 37934 ( 69.4%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 514 (08/26/07) Peak AM Factor: 0.751 Peak PM Hour: 12:45= 675 (08/26/07) Peak PM Factor: 0.893 • • • ChapelLane South of North Road (C.R. 48) (both Northbound and Southbound) NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc C-7 • 0 09/04/07 Page: 1 10:22:39 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach 11978 (516) 288-2480 *** Basic Count Print (#302) *** ******************************************************************************** Site ID CHAPELINB2SB Data Starts 12:45 on 08/22/07 Info 1 Data Ends 10:30 on 08/31/07 Info 2 Adj. Factor 1.000% ******************************************************************************** Lane #1 Info Lane Mode Subtraction Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 1 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 12:00 18 18 13:00 17 21 18 21 77 14:00 28 20 26 26 100 15:00 20 25 29 17 91 16:00 21 32 21 35 109 17:00 50 27 27 16 120 18:00 28 24 18 19 89 19:00 21 17 13 12 63 20:00 19 8 13 16 56 21:00 5 13 10 7 35 22:00 12 9 8 8 37 23:00 6 2 1 3 12 Daily Total 807 Average Period: 17.5 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 67.3 PM Total 807 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 139 ( 17.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.695 • Date Time 00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 1 1 1 1 4 01:00 0 3 0 0 3 02:00 1 1 1 0 3 03:00 1 0 0 0 1 04:00 0 0 1 4 5 05:00 3 2 9 14 28 06:00 8 14 14 18 54 07:00 15 20 22 16 73 08:00 17 28 21 17 83 09:00 22 19 17 17 75 10:00 14 34 30 21 99 11:00 21 23 33 31 108 12:00 20 19 23 24 86 13:00 19 30 24 21 94 14:00 17 25 28 27 97 15:00 25 25 19 18 87 16:00 35 23 43 27 128 17:00 39 31 33 24 127 18:00 22 17 21 25 85 19:00 30 25 28 27 110 20:00 18 17 24 16 75 21:00 8 11 8 12 39 22:00 17 10 17 6 50 23:00 5 6 3 1 15 Daily Total 1529 Average Period: 15.8 AM Total 536 ( 35.1%) Average Hour 63.7 PM Total 993 ( 64.9%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 108 ( 7.1%) Peak AM Factor: 0.818 Peak PM Hour: 16:30= 140 ( 9.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.814 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/24/07 00:00 2 5 3 4 14 01:00 1 1 0 3 5 02:00 0 1 0 1 2 03:00 2 1 1 0 4 04:00 0 1 4 2 7 05:00 2 4 6 11 23 06:00 5 12 17 17 51 07:00 25 19 18 21 83 08:00 20 24 18 27 89 09:00 18 22 22 18 80 10:00 24 19 26 16 85 11:00 24 23 21 25 93 12:00 14 17 35 20 86 13:00 25 28 21 24 98 14:00 22 24 21 22 89 15:00 18 27 29 28 102 16:00 26 30 27 29 112 17:00 37 34 29 24 124 18:00 27 22 24 13 86 19:00 22 19 22 22 85 20:00 12 10 17 19 58 21:00 12 14 11 8 45 22:00 13 12 12 16 53 23:00 16 3 7 7 33 Daily Total 1507 Average Period: 15.5 AM Total 536 ( 35.6%) Average Hour 62.8 PM Total 971 ( 64.4%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 93 ( 6.20) Peak AM Factor: 0.930 Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 129 ( 8.6%) Peak PM Factor: 0.872 • • Daily Total 1417 AM Total 472 ( 33.35) PM Total 945 ( 66.70) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 108 ( 7.6%) Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 106 ( 7.5%) Average Period: 14.6 Average Hour 59.0 Peak AM Factor: 0.818 Peak PM Factor: 0.855 :15 :30 :45 Total --Date---Time----_00 08/25/07 00:00 ------------------------- 6 2 3 1 12 01:00 0 2 0 1 3 02:00 3 2 0 0 5 03:00 2 0 1 1 4 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 5 8 5 18 06:00 4 7 7 9 27 07:00 10 12 8 20 50 08:00 21 19 18 21 79 09:00 17 18 25 18 78 10:00 25 21 17 31 94 11:00 24 20 33 25 102 12:00 29 22 21 18 90 13:00 32 20 29 23 104 14:00 29 22 17 33 101 15:00 24 27 21 23 95 16:00 25 23 24 28 100 17:00 31 19 27 26 103 18:00 21 22 25 15 83 19:00 20 14 19 12 65 20:00 16 8 13 20 57 21:00 17 11 18 12 58 22:00 12 10 21 12 55 23:00 9 9 9 7 34 Daily Total 1417 AM Total 472 ( 33.35) PM Total 945 ( 66.70) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 108 ( 7.6%) Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 106 ( 7.5%) Average Period: 14.6 Average Hour 59.0 Peak AM Factor: 0.818 Peak PM Factor: 0.855 • • • Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/26/07 00:00 2 4 3 3 12 01:00 5 0 1 1 7 02:00 1 2 1 0 4 03:00 1 1 1 0 3 04:00 1 0 1 4 6 05:00 2 4 4 7 17 06:00 10 6 16 14 46 07:00 12 14 23 15 64 08:00 12 5 19 28 64 09:00 25 19 20 24 88 10:00 28 28 40 49 145 11:00 42 44 47 46 179 12:00 59 38 51 48 196 13:00 56 41 50 38 185 14:00 34 35 29 38 136 15:00 46 37 46 33 162 16:00 37 24 27 30 118 17:00 33 25 17 19 94 18:00 20 18 15 30 83 19:00 19 15 19 20 73 20:00 20 22 15 21 78 21:00 11 22 11 5 49 22:00 11 11 8 5 35 23:00 7 2 0 4 13 Daily Total 1857 Average Period: 19.1 AM Total 635 ( 34.2%) Average Hour 77.4 PM Total 1222 ( 65.8%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 182 ( 9.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.929 Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 196 ( 10.6%) Peak PM Factor: 0.831 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 2 0 1 1 4 01:00 0 1 1 0 2 02:00 1 3 1 2 7 03:00 0 1 1 1 3 04:00 0 1 0 2 3 05:00 5 5 9 12 31 06:00 11 12 15 20 58 07:00 24 24 26 23 97 08:00 26 27 32 30 115 09:00 9 16 22 37 84 10:00 24 25 25 26 100 11:00 27 22 31 23 103 12:00 18 25 16 17 76 13:00 26 26 17 37 106 14:00 24 26 24 23 97 15:00 23 24 29 22 98 16:00 34 18 33 24 109 17:00 22 30 32 25 109 18:00 21 20 15 13 69 19:00 7 19 14 16 56 20:00 9 16 15 8 48 21:00 11 8 5 9 33 22:00 7 4 4 5 20 23:00 4 4 1 4 13 Daily Total 1441 Average Period: 14.9 AM Total 607 ( 42.1%) Average Hour 60.0 PM Total 834 ( 57.9%) Peak AM Hour: 08:00= 115 ( 8.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.898 Peak PM Hour: 13:45= 111 ( 7.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.750 • • 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/28/07 00:00 3 0 1 0 4 01:00 0 0 1 1 2 02:00 2 0 1 1 4 03:00 2 1 0 0 3 04:00 0 0 3 3 6 05:00 1 2 8 15 26 06:00 7 16 17 21 61 07:00 21 21 21 14 77 08:00 16 25 33 21 95 09:00 20 22 22 13 77 10:00 16 19 21 14 70 11:00 28 19 22 21 90 12:00 17 13 17 19 66 13:00 18 19 11 16 64 14:00 22 19 24 19 84 15:00 17 29 23 23 92 16:00 29 28 22 27 106 17:00 42 32 25 16 115 18:00 18 20 21 19 78 19:00 10 11 14 15 50 20:00 15 12 13 12 52 21:00 10 8 12 6 36 22:00 9 6 8 6 29 23:00 4 5 3 1 13 Daily Total 1300 Average Period: 13.4 AM Total 515 ( 39.6%) Average Hour 54.2 PM Total 785 ( 60.4%) Peak AM Hour: 08:15= 99 ( 7.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.750 Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 126 ( 9.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.750 • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 1 1 3 0 5 01:00 1 0 1 0 2 02:00 0 1 1 0 2 03:00 0 1 0 0 1 04:00 0 1 1 4 6 05:00 1 4 7 22 34 06:00 7 14 15 19 55 07:00 17 27 13 18 75 08:00 30 22 19 16 87 09:00 23 27 20 16 86 10:00 10 20 26 26 82 11:00 14 17 25 18 74 12:00 22 28 17 14 81 13:00 22 21 23 26 92 14:00 18 22 17 20 77 15:00 24 20 28 30 102 16:00 24 29 32 25 110 17:00 32 25 33 26 116 18:00 19 25 27 17 88 19:00 11 23 23 17 74 20:00 13 17 9 10 49 21:00 9 6 5 8 28 22:00 9 5 2 10 26 23:00 1 4 2 1 8 Daily Total 1360 AM Total 509 ( 37.4%) PM Total 851 ( 62.6%) Peak AM Hour: 07:45= 89 ( 6.5%) Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 118 ( 8.7%) Average Period: 14.0 Average Hour 56.7 Peak AM Factor: 0.742 Peak PM Factor: 0.922 --Date ---Time ----_00 :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------- Average Period: 14.6 Average Hour 58.9 Peak AM Factor: 0.788 Peak PM Factor: 0.864 08/30/07 00:00 2 0 1 3 6 01:00 4 0 0 0 4 02:00 0 0 0 1 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 1 1 2 05:00 5 2 8 14 29 06:00 14 7 10 17 48 07:00 21 24 17 22 84 08:00 20 20 26 27 93 09:00 10 17 33 28 88 10:00 20 23 22 29 94 11:00 22 12 18 20 72 12:00 31 14 23 28 96 13:00 19 28 22 26 95 14:00 17 22 17 25 81 15:00 23 29 24 25 101 16:00 31 30 35 23 119 17:00 28 29 22 26 105 18:00 22 16 23 24 85 19:00 10 16 22 25 73 20:00 20 10 11 13 54 21:00 13 3 5 11 32 22:00 13 8 8 6 35 23:00 4 4 8 1 17 Daily Total 1414 AM Total 521 ( 36.8%) PM Total 893 ( 63.2%) Peak AM Hour: 09:30= 104 ( 7.4%) Peak PM Hour: 15:45= 121 ( 8.6%) Average Period: 14.6 Average Hour 58.9 Peak AM Factor: 0.788 Peak PM Factor: 0.864 C7 Date --------------------------------------------- Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/31/07 00:00 1 2 1 2 6 01:00 2 1 0 0 3 02:00 2 0 0 2 4 03:00 0 0 2 0 2 04:00 0 0 1 1 2 05:00 1 6 8 10 25 06:00 12 13 14 23 62 07:00 20 20 11 30 81 08:00 19 18 18 23 78 09:00 17 22 24 15 78 10:00 20 22 19 61 Daily Total 402 AM Total 402 (100.0%) PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 08:45= 86 ( 21.4%) Peak PM Hour: • • Average Period: 9.3 Average Hour 36.5 Peak AM Factor: 0.896 Peak PM Factor: r� • • ******************************************************************************** Lane #2 Info Lane Mode Subtraction Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 2 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 12:00 17 17 13:00 10 18 14 12 54 14:00 18 26 15 13 72 15:00 20 15 17 15 67 16:00 20 24 18 35 97 17:00 24 25 22 19 90 18:00 21 23 10 20 74 19:00 17 11 15 14 57 20:00 16 4 13 13 46 21:00 7 16 8 14 45 22:00 6 8 5 10 29 23:00 4 2 1 2 9 Daily Total AM Total PM Total Peak AM Hour: Peak PM Hour: 657 0 ( 0.0%) 657 (100.0%) 16:45= 106 ( 16.1%) Average Period: 14.3 Average Hour 54.8 Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Factor: 0.757 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 0 0 1 1 2 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 1 1 1 0 3 03:00 1 0 0 1 2 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 2 3 1 6 12 06:00 4 8 15 14 41 07:00 15 15 23 23 76 08:00 19 9 29 20 77 09:00 18 8 15 10 51 10:00 9 2 8 17 36 11:00 15 11 16 18 60 12:00 12 18 18 17 65 13:00 16 19 22 23 80 14:00 16 21 19 23 79 15:00 19 20 24 24 87 16:00 26 15 23 25 89 17:00 30 20 28 18 96 18:00 12 14 10 10 46 19:00 9 7 4 5 25 20:00 5 5 8 9 27 21:00 15 6 7 14 42 22:00 9 12 14 9 44 23:00 9 7 2 1 19 Daily Total 1059 Average Period: 10.9 AM Total 360 ( 34.0%) Average Hour 44.1 PM Total 699 ( 66.0%) Peak AM Hour: 07:15= 80 ( 7.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.870 Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 103 ( 9.70) Peak PM Factor: 0.858 0 • 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/24/07 00:00 3 2 2 1 8 01:00 1 1 4 0 6 02:00 0 0 0 1 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 2 0 2 05:00 0 1 1 10 12 06:00 2 10 13 10 35 07:00 18 24 13 27 82 08:00 20 17 18 20 75 09:00 17 17 15 26 75 10:00 15 25 16 24 80 11:00 18 16 24 19 77 12:00 20 21 25 32 98 13:00 22 21 31 28 102 14:00 23 21 19 32 95 15:00 27 26 32 28 113 16:00 23 27 22 31 103 17:00 36 21 24 21 102 18:00 18 30 15 9 72 19:00 24 21 22 16 83 20:00 25 12 14 19 70 21:00 14 14 16 16 60 22:00 19 14 12 11 56 23:00 10 8 10 2 30 Daily Total 1437 Average Period: 14.8 AM Total 453 ( 31.5%) Average Hour 59.9 PM Total 984 ( 68.5%) Peak AM Hour: 07:15= 84 ( 5.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.778 Peak PM Hour: 14:45= 117 ( 8.10) Peak PM Factor: 0.914 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/25/07 00:00 5 2 3 1 11 01:00 3 0 2 0 5 02:00 1 1 0 0 2 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 1 1 2 05:00 2 3 4 7 16 06:00 1 10 5 7 23 07:00 8 10 8 16 42 08:00 16 18 18 17 69 09:00 18 17 11 22 68 10:00 29 19 15 31 94 11:00 23 24 27 31 105 12:00 24 19 25 33 101 13:00 26 31 27 23 107 14:00 22 23 23 15 83 15:00 24 21 13 24 82 16:00 14 20 19 22 75 17:00 24 14 19 11 68 18:00 18 24 20 19 81 19:00 21 24 21 13 79 20:00 17 14 18 19 68 21:00 8 4 12 14 38 22:00 14 6 12 13 45 23:00 9 8 9 2 28 Daily Total 1292 AM Total 437 ( 33.8%) PM Total 855 ( 66.20) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 105 ( 8.1%) Peak PM Hour: 12:45= 117 ( 9.1%) Average Period: 13.3 Average Hour 53.8 Peak AM Factor: 0.847 Peak PM Factor: 0.886 --Date---Time----�00 :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 2 6 7 3 18 01:00 1 3 1 2 7 02:00 1 0 0 0 1 03:00 1 1 1 0 3 04:00 2 0 0 2 4 05:00 1 4 4 3 12 06:00 14 12 31 26 83 07:00 24 11 34 15 84 08:00 12 9 10 15 46 09:00 11 13 12 16 52 10:00 20 19 14 29 82 11:00 16 21 23 14 74 12:00 22 22 31 35 110 13:00 16 26 25 25 92 14:00 16 17 14 16 63 15:00 21 22 20 13 76 16:00 25 18 13 14 70 17:00 15 16 11 10 52 18:00 16 13 15 8 52 19:00 9 11 10 13 43 20:00 15 12 8 8 43 21:00 10 7 6 5 28 22:00 2 4 5 7 18 23:00 3 2 2 1 8 Daily Total 1121 AM Total 466 ( 41.6%) PM Total 655 ( 58.4%) Peak AM Hour: 06:45= 95 ( 8.5%) Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 110 ( 9.8%) 0 Average Period: 11.6 Average Hour 46.7 Peak AM Factor: 0.699 Peak PM Factor: 0.786 t • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 0 1 3 0 4 01:00 0 3 0 1 4 02:00 0 1 0 1 2 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 1 2 3 05:00 2 3 8 1 14 06:00 6 11 9 10 36 07:00 15 14 16 26 71 08:00 32 26 14 15 87 09:00 13 13 11 16 53 10:00 20 17 13 18 68 11:00 14 16 14 21 65 12:00 18 23 14 16 71 13:00 14 18 21 21 74 14:00 17 16 9 11 53 15:00 17 17 27 19 80 16:00 21 18 23 17 79 17:00 29 20 27 19 95 18:00 23 9 15 9 56 19:00 16 9 10 11 46 20:00 10 16 16 12 54 21:00 8 7 12 7 34 22:00 4 3 10 3 20 23:00 5 3 2 0 10 Daily Total 1079 Average Period: 11.1 AM Total 407 ( 37.7%) Average Hour 45.0 PM Total 672 ( 62.3%) Peak AM Hour: 07:30= 100 ( 9.3%) Peak AM Factor: 0.781 Peak PM Hour: 17:00= 95 ( 8.8%) Peak PM Factor: 0.819 --Date ---Time ----_00 :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------- 0 08/28/07 00:00 4 1 0 1 6 01:00 0 1 1 1 3 02:00 1 0 0 0 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 0 2 2 05:00 0 5 3 10 18 06:00 6 15 16 7 44 07:00 18 19 25 17 79 08:00 29 28 20 19 96 09:00 14 10 12 7 43 10:00 14 14 11 17 56 11:00 16 16 13 19 64 12:00 16 9 17 19 61 13:00 6 14 13 23 56 14:00 16 19 29 21 85 15:00 20 17 17 27 81 16:00 21 21 15 22 79 17:00 11 22 14 20 67 18:00 25 12 14 14 65 19:00 12 16 13 11 52 20:00 14 12 15 7 48 21:00 13 3 6 7 29 22:00 7 7 8 2 24 23:00 3 3 1 4 11 Daily Total 1070 Average Period: 11.0 AM Total 412 ( 38.5%) Average Hour 44.6 PM Total 658 ( 61.5%) Peak AM Hour: 07:30= 99 ( 9.3%) Peak AM Factor: 0.853 Peak PM Hour: 14:15= 89 ( 8.3%) Peak PM Factor: 0.767 0 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 1 0 1 0 2 01:00 0 0 1 0 1 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 5 6_ 7 18 06:00 8 15 13 23 59 07:00 9 22 12 22 65 08:00 22 26 12 19 79 09:00 12 24 17 15 68 10:00 9 16 26 17 68 11:00 14 14 15 15 58 12:00 15 11 15 15 56 13:00 23 17 21 20 81 14:00 18 21 17 24 80 15:00 31 17 31 28 107 16:00 14 25 15 26 80 17:00 22 22 21 16 81 18:00 16 17 22 22 77 19:00 16 12 14 14 56 20:00 25 24 6 8 63 21:00 12 6 6 10 34 22:00 7 9 8 7 31 23:00 4 5 2 2 13 Daily Total 1177 Average Period: 12.1 AM Total 418 ( 35.50) Average Hour 49.0 PM Total 759 ( 64.5%) Peak AM Hour: 07:30= 82 ( 7.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.788 Peak PM Hour: 15:00= 107 ( 9.1%) Peak PM Factor: 0.863 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/30/07 00:00 0 2 2 1 5 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 1 0 0 0 1 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 1 0 1 2 05:00 1 2 5 7 15 06:00 5 10 11 12 38 07:00 17 18 19 16 70 08:00 24 23 21 17 85 09:00 19 16 14 16 65 10:00 17 15 11 16 59 11:00 18 13 18 25 74 12:00 19 18 19 20 76 13:00 30 30 24 22 106 14:00 18 18 14 21 71 15:00 31 20 13 35 99 16:00 23 19 24 30 96 17:00 26 22 19 20 87 18:00 24 19 19 14 76 19:00 15 18 17 23 73 20:00 18 13 18 10 59 21:00 19 7 9 13 48 22:00 11 7 4 5 27 23:00 3 7 5 0 15 Daily Total 1248 Average Period: 12.9 AM Total 415 ( 33.3%) Average Hour 52.0 PM Total 833 ( 66.7%) Peak AM Hour: 08:00= 85 ( 6.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.885 Peak PM Hour: 13:00= 106 ( 8.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.883 • �J Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/31/07 00:00 2 0 3 1 6 01:00 5 1 0 0 6 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 0 2 0 2 05:00 0 2 5 12 19 06:00 4 13 13 16 46 07:00 19 19 16 33 87 08:00 29 17 21 19 86 09:00 14 18 14 23 69 10:00 22 24 17 63 Daily Total 384 Average Period: 8.9 AM Total 384 (100.0%) Average Hour 34.9 PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 07:45= 100 ( 26.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.758 Peak PM Hour: Peak PM Factor: l� u • r 1 u • GRAND TOTALS ********t************* LANES #1, & #2 FINAL ****************** Total Lane 1 13034 Avg Period Lane 1 15.1 -Lane 2 10524 Lane 2 : 12.2 TOTAL 23558 AVERAGE 13.6 # Days Lane 1 9.01 ADT Lane 1 1447 Lane 2 9.01 ------- Lane 2 1168 HIGHEST 9.01 ADT ------- 2615 AM Total Lane 1 4733 ( 36.3%) Avg Hour Lane 1 60.6 Lane 2 3752 ( 35.7%) Lane 2 48.9 TOTAL ---------------- 8485 ( 36.0%) AVERAGE ------- 109.6 PM Total Lane 1 8301 ( 63.7%) Lane 2 6772 ( 64.3%) TOTAL ---------------- 15073 ( 64.0%) Peak AM Lane 1 10:45= 182 (08/26/07) AM Factor Lane 1 0.929 Lane 2 10:45= 105 (08/25/07) Lane 2 0.847 FINAL ------------------------ 10:45= 182 (08/26/07) FINAL ----- 0.929 Peak PM Lane 1 12:00= 196 (08/26/07) PM Factor Lane 1 0.831 Lane 2 14:45= 117 (08/24/07) Lane 2 0.914 FINAL ------------------------ 12:00= 196 (08/26/07) FINAL ----- 0.831 • • • Queen Street South of North Road (C.R. 48) (both Northbound and Southbound) NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc • 09/04/07 Page: 1 10:19:20 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach 11978 (516) 288-2480 *** Basic Count Print (#302) *** ******************************************************************************** Site ID QUEEN STISB2NB Data Starts 13:30 on 08/22/07 Info 1 Data Ends 10:30 on 08/31/07 Info 2 Adj. Factor 1.000% ******************************************************************************** Lane #1 Info Lane Mode Directional Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 1 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 13:00 3 2 5 14:00 5 6 2 5 18 15:00 1 6 4 2 13 16:00 6 5 3 5 19 17:00 3 3 5 0 11 18:00 5 2 2 3 12 19:00 2 0 1 0 3 20:00 2 5 5 2 14 21:00 3 0 1 0 4 22:00 1 0 0 1 2 23:00 0 0 1 0 1 Daily Total 102 Average Period: 2.4 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 9.3 PM Total 102 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 16:00= 19 ( 18.6%) Peak PM Factor: 0.792 • • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 05:00 0 0 1 0 1 06:00 0 0 1 0 i 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 3 1 0 0 4 09:00 5 1 3 2 11 10:00 3 3 0 3 9 11:00 4 1 3 6 14 12:00 5 3 2 3 13 13:00 3 6 9 11 29 14:00 5 7 8 6 26 15:00 6 1 5 4 16 16:00 1 2 4 4 11 17:00 11 4 2 6 23 18:00 4 7 3 2 16 19:00 5 1 5 2 13 20:00 2 2 0 1 5 21:00 2 0 0 0 2 22:00 0 2 0 3 5 23:00 2 1 0 1 4 Daily Total 204 Average Period: 2.1 AM Total 41 ( 20.1%) Average Hour 8.5 PM Total 163 ( 79.90) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 14 ( 6.9%) Peak AM Factor: 0.583 Peak PM Hour: 13:30= 32 ( 15.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.727 --Date ---Time ----�00 :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------- • 08/24/07 00:00 0 0 1 0 1 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 2 0 1 0 3 07:00 0 1 0 2 3 08:00 0 0 2 1 3 09:00 4 0 2 3 9 10:00 4 1 3 6 14 11:00 13 2 7 8 30 12:00 2 5 2 3 12 13:00 3 9 9 5 26 14:00 6 9 5 5 25 15:00 6 3 10 11 30 16:00 6 10 15 13 44 17:00 10 16 8 14 48 18:00 12 10 7 7 36 19:00 5 6 9 4 24 20:00 11 7 7 2 27 21:00 11 2 6 3 22 22:00 4 4 1 2 11 23:00 2 0 1 1 4 . Daily Total 373 Average Period: 3.8 AM Total 64 ( 17.2%) Average Hour 15.5 PM Total 309 ( 82.8%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 30 ( 8.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.577 Peak PM Hour: 16:30= 54 ( 14.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.844 • l� u • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/25/07 00:00 0 0 0 2 2 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 1 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 0 1 1 4 6 07:00 0 0 1 2 3 08:00 2 1 5 2 10 09:00 4 8 4 3 19 10:00 5 12 11 6 34 11:00 6 5 4 1 16 12:00 7 11 12 9 39 13:00 13 11 9 6 39 14:00 12 11 7 7 37 15:00 12 9 13 12 46 16:00 6 7 6 14 33 17:00 8 13 9 16 46 18:00 9 9 6 7 31 19:00 6 7 6 6 25 20:00 6 5 2 3 16 21:00 2 3 5 2 12 22:00 4 1 8 4 17 23:00 6 0 1 1 8 Daily Total 441 AM Total 92 ( 20.9%) PM Total 349 ( 79.1%) Peak AM Hour: 10:15= 35 ( 7.9%) Peak PM Hour: 17:15= 47 ( 10.7%) Average Period: 4.5 Average Hour 18.4 Peak AM Factor: 0.729 Peak PM Factor: 0.734 C� • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 0 1 1 1 3 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 2 2 03:00 0 0 1 0 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 1 0 0 1 2 06.00 0 1 1 0 2 07:00 1 3 4 3 11 08:00 3 4 2 6 15 09:00 3 4 0 3 10 10:00 5 11 11 11 38 11:00 2 5 4 2 13 12:00 9 6 1 8 24 13:00 4 8 1 6 19 14:00 7 5 6 8 26 15:00 8 6 4 3 21 16:00 7 4 4 5 20 17:00 6 6 6 5 23 18:00 5 8 2 3 18 19:00 2 3 2 0 7 20:00 3 2 4 1 10 21:00 0 0 2 3 5 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 9 0 9 Daily Total 279 Average Period: 2.9 AM Total 97 ( 34.8%) Average Hour 11.6 PM Total 182 ( 65.2%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 38 ( 13.60) Peak AM Factor: 0.864 Peak PM Hour: 14:30= 28 ( 10.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.875 0 :15 :30 :45 Total --Date ---Time 08/27/07 ----_00 00:00 ------------------------- 0 0 1 0 1 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 2 0 2 06:00 0 0 1 0 1 07:00 0 2 0 0 2 08:00 1 0 2 0 3 09:00 5 2 1 0 8 10:00 2 9 2 1 14 11:00 1 1 4 7 13 12:00 1 5 4 3 13 13:00 4 1 0 3 8 14:00 4 4 7 1 16 15:00 6 1 0 1 8 16:00 3 5 5 5 18 17:00 1 0 1 8 10 18:00 0 0 0 1 1 19:00 2 3 0 1 6 20:00 2 4 2 1 9 21:00 0 0 2 1 3 22:00 1 1 0 0 2 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 Daily Total 139 Average Period: 1.4 AM Total 45 ( 32.40) Average Hour 5.8 PM Total 94 ( 67.6%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 14 ( 10.10) Peak AM Factor: 0.389 Peak PM Hour: 13:45= 18 ( 12.9%) Peak PM Factor: 0.643 0 0 Date Time :15 :30 :45 Total --------------- 08/28/07 00:00 --:00 -------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 1 0 1 1 3 08:00 0 1 3 3 7 09:00 3 2 1 1 7 10:00 0 1 1 1 3 11:00 1 1 0 0 2 12:00 1 5 2 3 11 13:00 3 7 6 4 20 14:00 4 0 2 4 10 15:00 4 3 5 1 13 16:00 1 2 2 0 5 17:00 4 3 5 2 14 18:00 6 3 1 4 14 19:00 2 1 3 0 6 20:00 1 1 2 1 5 21:00 3 2 0 0 5 22:00 0 2 4 1 7 23:00 0 1 0 0 1 Daily Total 134 Average Period: 1.4 AM Total 23 ( 17.2%) Average Hour 5.6 PM Total 111 ( 82.80) Peak AM Hour: 08:30= 11 ( 8.2%) Peak AM Factor: 0.917 Peak PM Hour: 13:15= 21 ( 15.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.750 0 • • r� L Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 1 0 0 0 1 06:00 0 0 0 2 2 07:00 1 0 1 2 4 08:00 0 0 0 2 2 09:00 3 0 0 2 5 10:00 2 1 0 0 3 11:00 3 2 2 3 10 12:00 3 1 2 1 7 13:00 2 6 3 2 13 14:00 6 2 1 0 9 15:00 4 3 4 5 16 16:00 2 0 2 2 6 17:00 3 2 0 2 7 18:00 1 3 1 5 10 19:00 1 2 1 7 11 20:00 2 0 2 0 4 21:00 0 2 1 0 3 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 Daily Total 114 Average Period: 1.2 AM Total 28 ( 24.6%) Average Hour 4.8 PM Total 86 ( 75.4%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 10 ( 8.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.833 Peak PM Hour: 13:15= 17 ( 14.9%) Peak PM Factor: 0.708 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- LI 08/30/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 2 0 0 1 3 08:00 1 3 3 1 8 09:00 2 2 0 0 4 10:00 1 4 4 3 12 11:00 4 0 3 2 9 12:00 3 0 4 2 9 13:00 3 1 3 3 10 14:00 3 5 8 9 25 15:00 3 1 1 1 6 16:00 8 2 3 1 14 17:00 0 6 6 4 16 18:00 2 5 10 6 23 19:00 0 6 4 5 15 20:00 4 6 2 4 16 21:00 0 1 1 3 5 22:00 3 0 1 1 5 23:00 0 1 0 0 1 Daily Total 182 Average Period: 1.9 AM Total 37 ( 20.3%) Average Hour 7.6 PM Total 145 ( 79.7%) Peak AM Hour: 10:15= 15 ( 8.2%) Peak AM Factor: 0.938 Peak PM Hour: 14:00= 25 ( 13.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.694 LI • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/31/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 0 1 1 06:00 0 1 0 0 1 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 2 3 0 0 5 09:00 1 3 3 0 7 10:00 6 4 3 13 Daily Total 28 Average Period: 0.7 AM Total 28 (100.0%) Average Hour 2.5 PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 09:30= 13 ( 46.4%) Peak AM Factor: 0.542 Peak PM Hour: Peak PM Factor: • • • ******************************************************************************** Lane #2 Info Lane Mode Directional Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 2 Basic Count Print *************************** Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 13:00 8 2 10 14:00 0 4 2 2 8 15:00 0 10 5 2 17 16:00 0 5 5 2 12 17:00 2 1 1 4 8 18:00 4 1 0 0 5 19:00 3 0 1 3 7 20:00 2 1 0 1 4 21:00 0 2 1 0 3 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 1 1 0 2 Daily Total 76 Average Period: 1.8 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 6.9 PM Total 76 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 14:45= 17 ( 22.40 Peak PM Factor: 0.425 • • • :15 :30 :45 Total --Date---Time----_00 08/23/07 00:00 ------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 05:00 0 2 0 0 2 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 0 1 1 2 4 08:00 2 2 4 3 11 09:00 0 3 1 8 12 10:00 3 5 5 3 16 11:00 3 7 3 7 20 12:00 4 2 4 2 12 13:00 4 4 5 10 23 14:00 9 1 1 2 13 15:00 0 3 7 1 11 16:00 1 3 3 2 9 17:00 6 0 5 1 12 18:00 1 4 1 3 9 19:00 1 0 3 1 5 20:00 1 0 1 0 2 21:00 2 3 0 0 5 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 Daily Total 167 Average Period: 1.7 AM Total 66 ( 39.5%) Average Hour 7.0 PM Total 101 ( 60.50) Peak AM Hour: 09:45= 21 ( 12.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.656 Peak PM Hour: 13:15= 28 ( 16.8%) Peak PM Factor: 0.700 • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/24/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 2 2 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 1 0 1 06:00 0 0 1 0 1 07:00 1 1 3 3 8 08:00 2 0 4 6 12 09:00 2 1 8 5 16 10:00 3 4 4 7 18 11:00 7 5 6 13 31 12:00 4 7 2 2 15 13:00 3 2 2 1 8 14:00 3 2 5 3 13 15:00 2 2 6 9 19 16:00 2 3 3 5 13 17:00 2 4 7 3 16 18:00 4 4 10 5 23 19:00 8 3 6 4 21 20:00 3 3 3 4 13 21:00 2 0 2 1 5 22:00 1 0 2 1 4 23:00 0 3 0 1 4 Daily Total 243 AM Total 89 ( 36.60) PM Total 154 ( 63.4%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 31 ( 12.8%) Peak PM Hour: 18:15= 27 ( 11.1%) Average Period: 2.5 Average Hour 10.1 Peak AM Factor: 0.596 Peak PM Factor: 0.675 • r� • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/25/07 00:00 0 0 0 3 3 01:00 1 0 0 0 1 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 0 0 1 05:00 0 0 1 0 1 06:00 1 1 3 0 5 07:00 1 2 4 3 10 08:00 1 4 5 4 14 09:00 9 10 5 4 28 10:00 8 7 6 11 32 11:00 15 6 6 13 40 12:00 11 9 5 9 34 13:00 13 6 8 5 32 14:00 14 5 10 8 37 15:00 11 2 3 7 23 16:00 5 3 7 8 23 17:00 9 8 4 9 30 18:00 8 3 5 7 23 19:00 5 4 4 7 20 20:00 2 5 5 3 15 21:00 3 4 5 1 13 22:00 2 5 1 4 12 23:00 2 0 0 1 3 Daily Total 400 Average Period: 4.1 AM Total 135 ( 33.8%) Average Hour 16.7 PM Total 265 ( 66.2%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 40 ( 10.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.667 Peak PM Hour: 14:00= 37 ( 9.2%) Peak PM Factor: 0.661 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 1 1 2 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 4 1 5 05:00 1 0 1 1 3 06:00 1 5 2 2 10 07:00 5 7 4 4 20 08:00 3 4 4 6 17 09:00 4 4 10 7 25 10:00 9 12 22 13 56 11:00 7 12 9 7 35 12:00 14 8 11 13 46 13:00 18 18 8 9 53 14:00 3 7 11 6 27 15:00 7 5 8 7 27 16:00 7 9 1 5 22 17:00 5 7 5 2 19 18:00 6 4 2 5 17 19:00 1 2 2 5 10 20:00 3 1 1 0 5 21:00 2 1 1 1 5 22:00 2 0 1 0 3 23:00 0 0 8 0 8 • Daily Total 416 Average Period: 4.3 AM Total 174 ( 41.8%) Average Hour 17.3 PM Total 242 ( 58.2%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 56 ( 13.5%) Peak AM Factor: 0.636 Peak PM Hour: 12:30= 60 ( 14.4%) Peak PM Factor: 0.833 0 • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 2 1 3 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 07:00 1 1 2 1 5 08:00 1 2 6 2 11 09:00 2 2 1 3 8 10:00 4 9 7 7 27 11:00 8 10 0 12 30 12:00 1 5 1 4 11 13:00 2 5 5 2 14 14:00 6 0 1 2 9 15:00 3 2 0 0 5 16:00 2 4 1 0 7 17:00 2 1 3 1 7 18:00 1 2 3 4 10 19:00 1 4 2 2 9 20:00 2 2 3 1 8 21:00 0 0 1 0 1 22:00 0 1 0 0 1 23-:00 0 0 0 0 0 Daily Total 167 Average Period: 1.7 AM Total 85 ( 50.9%) Average Hour 7.0 PM Total 82 ( 49.1%) Peak AM Hour: 10:30= 32 ( 19.2%) Peak AM Factor: 0.800 Peak PM Hour: 13:15= 18 ( 10.8%) Peak PM Factor: 0.750 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/28/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 1 0 1 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 0 0 0 1 1 07:00 1 1 1 2 5 08:00 3 1 2 0 6 09:00 2 4 4 2 12 10:00 2 2 2 3 9 11:00 2 3 4 0 9 12:00 2 0 3 1 6 13:00 2 3 2 2 9 14:00 2 2 0 2 6 15:00 3 1 4 2 10 16:00 1 4 3 0 8 17:00 3 2 0 2 7 18:00 5 1 2 4 12 19:00 2 4 1 2 9 20:00 3 1 0 1 5 21:00 0 2 0 0 2 22:00 0 0 2 0 2 23:00 1 0 0 0 1 Daily Total 121 Average Period: 1.2 AM Total 44 ( 36.4%) Average Hour 5.0 PM Total 77 ( 63.60) Peak AM Hour: 09:00= 12 ( 9.9%) Peak AM Factor: 0.750 Peak PM Hour: 18:00= 12 ( 9.9%) Peak PM Factor: 0.600 • • n Date Time :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 --�00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 2 0 0 1 3 07:00 0 1 1 2 4 08:00 0 0 2 1 3 09:00 4 1 3 1 9 10:00 2 0 1 3 6 11:00 6 1 5 5 17 12:00 3 0 5 2 10 13:00 6 1 3 1 11 14:00 1 0 4 3 8 15:00 1 3 3 3 10 16:00 4 0 0 2 6 17:00 0 0 1 1 2 18:00 1 3 2 1 7 19:00 2 0 1 2 5 20:00 0 0 0 1 1 21:00 2 0 0 0 2 22:00 0 0 1 1 2 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 Daily Total 107 Average Period: 1.1 AM Total 43 ( 40.2%) Average Hour 4.5 PM Total 64 ( 59.80) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 17 ( 15.9%) Peak AM Factor: 0.708 Peak PM Hour: 12:30= 14 ( 13.1%) Peak PM Factor: 0.583 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/30/07 00:00 0 0 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 0 0 1 0 1 06:00 0 0 1 1 2 07:00 0 0 1 0 1 08:00 1 0 4 1 6 09:00 0 2 0 4 6 10:00 3 9 2 2 16 11:00 6 2 1 0 9 12:00 7 4 3 1 15 13:00 1 3 5 5 14 14:00 0 2 5 2 9 15:00 1 3 4 2 10 16:00 1 1 5 0 7 17:00 0 2 2 4 8 18:00 3 3 3 1 10 19:00 4 1 3 0 8 20:00 2 3 1 1 7 21:00 1 1 0 1 3 22:00 0 0 1 0 1 23:00 0 1 1 0 2 • Daily Total 136 Average Period: 1.4 AM Total 42 ( 30.9%) Average Hour 5.7 PM Total 94 ( 69.1%) Peak AM Hour: 10:15= 19 ( 14.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.528 Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 15 ( 11.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.536 E �J J Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/31/07 00:00 1 0 0 0 1 01:00 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 0 0 1 0 1 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 1 1 1 1 4 06:00 0 0 1 0 1 07:00 0 0 3 1 4 08:00 3 2 2 3 10 09:00 5 2 3 2 12 10:00 7 3 3 13 Daily Total 47 AM Total 47 (100.0%) PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 09:30= 15 ( 31.9%) Peak PM Hour: Average Period: 1.1 Average Hour 4.3 Peak AM Factor: 0.536 Peak PM Factor: • • r� GRAND TOTALS *+******************** LANES #1, & #2 FINAL +******+************ Total Lane 1 1996 Lane 2 Lane 2 1880 2.2 TOTAL 3876 Lane 2 # Days Lane 1 8.98 432 Lane 2 8.98 Lane 2 HIGHEST 8.98 18.1 AM Total Lane 1 455 ( 22.85) Lane 2 725 ( 38.6%) TOTAL ---------------- 1180 ( 30.4%) PM Total Lane 1 1541 ( 77.2%) Lane 2 1155 ( 61.4%) TOTAL ---------------- 26-96 ( 69.6%) Peak AM Lane 1 10:00= 38 (08/26/07) Lane 2 10:00= 56 (08/26/07) FINAL ------------------------ 10:00= 56 (08/26/07) Peak PM Lane 1 16:30= 54 (08/24/07) Lane 2 12:30= 60 (08/26/07) FINAL ------------------------ 12:30= 60 (08/26/07) Avg Period Lane 1 2.3 Lane 2 2.2 AVERAGE 2.2 ADT Lane 1 222 Lane 2 209 ADT 432 Avg Hour Lane 1 9.3 Lane 2 8.8 AVERAGE 18.1 AM Factor Lane 1 : 0.864 Lane 2 : 0.636 FINAL : 0.636 PM Factor Lane 1 : 0.844 Lane 2 : 0.833 FINAL : 0.833 C7 • Moores Lane South of North Road (C.R. 48) (both Northbound and Southbound) NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc 09/04/07 Page: 1 . 10:25:39 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach 11978 (516) 288-2480 *** Basic Count Print (#302) *** ******************************************************************************** Site ID MOORES 1NB2SB Data Starts 12:30 on 08/22/07 Info 1 Data Ends 10:45 on 08/31/07 Info 2 Adj. Factor 1.000% ******************************************************************************** Lane #1 Info Lane Mode Directional Sensor Used Axle *************************** Lane 1 Basic Count Print *************************** 1� u Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 12:00 23 27 50 13:00 27 19 21 24 91 14:00 18 30 23 19 90 15:00 26 16 35 35 112 16:00 30 21 27 29 107 17:00 24 26 21 12 83 18:00 22 9 15 12 58 19:00 14 8 18 11 51 20:00 15 12 7 7 41 21:00 11 8 5 7 31 22:00 6 8 5 2 21 23:00 5 6 4 3 18 Daily Total 753 Average Period: 16.0 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 62.8 PM Total 753 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 15:30= 121 ( 16.1%) Peak PM Factor: 0.864 1� u • • 0 Date Time :15 :30 :45 Total ---�00 --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 7 0 1 0 8 01:00 5 3 0 0 8 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 2 1 0 3 05:00 2 0 2 7 11 06:00 1 5 14 14 34 07:00 8 19 11 22 60 08:00 15 15 9 21 60 09:00 26 26 22 15 89 10:00 27 12 19 18 76 11:00 26 18 17 22 83 12:00 31 23 18 24 96 13:00 29 13 29 24 95 14:00 31 21 19 38 109 15:00 28 12 27 15 82 16:00 30 23 33 17 103 17:00 38 35 16 20 109 18:00 19 17 26 29 91 19:00 24 24 30 27 105 20:00 17 18 16 14 65 21:00 12 6 5 11 34 22:00 7 5 3 7 22 23:00 4 3 3 3 13 Daily Total 1356 AM Total 432 ( 31.9%) PM Total 924 ( 68.1%) Peak AM Hour: 08:45= 95 ( 7.0%) Peak PM Hour: 16:30= 123 ( 9.1%) Average Period: 14.0 Average Hour 56.5 Peak AM Factor: 0.913 Peak PM Factor: 0.809 . Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total • Average Period: 15.6 Average Hour 63.1 Peak AM Factor: 0.771 Peak PM Factor: 0.889 08/24/07 00:00 3 3 0 2 8 01:00 3 1 0 1 5 02:00 1 0 0 1 2 03:00 2 0 1 1 4 04:00 0 1 0 2 3 05:00 1 1 3 4 9 06:00 5 9 11 11 36 07:00 7 30 20 20 77 08:00 18 14 10 22 64 09:00 14 25 21 23 83 10:00 30 27 23 21 101 11:00 31 21 35 18 105 12:00 45 34 19 24 122 13:00 29 24 36 33 122 14:00 28 31 22 24 105 15:00 33 23 26 27 109 16:00 33 34 30 30 127 17:00 24 23 27 27 101 18:00 17 14 23 15 69 19:00 18 18 19 23 78 20:00 15 13 9 11 48 21:00 23 12 18 8 61 22:00 12 19 8 11 50 23:00 11 6 3 5 25 Daily Total 1514 AM Total 497 ( 32.8%) PM Total 1017 ( 67.2%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 108 ( 7.1%) Peak PM Hour: 13:30= 128 ( 8.5%) • Average Period: 15.6 Average Hour 63.1 Peak AM Factor: 0.771 Peak PM Factor: 0.889 --Date---Time----_00 :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------- 9 08/25/07 00:00 5 2 2 7 16 01:00 0 0 1 2 3 02:00 2 1 4 0 7 03:00 1 0 1 0 2 04:00 1 0 0 1 2 05:00 0 1 6 3 10 06:00 5 8 13 19 45 07:00 9 16 17 14 56 08:00 13 19 21 13 66 09:00 22 32 33 22 109 10:00 27 37 28 26 118 11:00 28 24 33 28 113 12:00 29 22 27 29 107 13:00 30 14 18 18 80 14:00 21 22 21 30 94 15:00 19 22 24 35 100 16:00 20 18 25 25 88 17:00 35 28 20 13 96 18:00 18 18 19 18 73 19:00 23 19 8 10 60 20:00 17 12 16 23 68 21:00 10 16 16 8 50 22:00 12 10 8 8 38 23:00 9 4 2 1 16 Daily Total 1417 Average Period: 14.6 AM Total 547 ( 38.6%) Average Hour 59.0 PM Total 870 ( 61.4%) Peak AM Hour: 09:30= 119 ( 8.4%) Peak AM Factor: 0.804 Peak PM Hour: 16:30= 113 ( 8.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.807 9 • :7 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 9 4 4 1 18 01:00 5 6 5 1 17 02:00 0 2 1 2 5 03:00 0 1 0 3 4 04:00 2 0 0 1 3 05:00 1 1 11 4 17 06:00 4 15 18 29 66 07:00 43 40 45 37 165 08:00 56 34 73 41 204 09:00 20 26 18 18 82 10:00 23 27 19 35 104 11:00 22 28 26 26 102 12:00 28 29 29 35 121 13:00 31 27 27 23 108 14:00 32 31 32 29 124 15:00 21 31 22 20 94 16:00 26 32 24 23 105 17:00 21 19 24 17 81 18:00 21 25 25 14 85 19:00 18 20 7 15 60 20:00 16 13 13 17 59 21:00 16 8 8 6 38 22:00 2 9 9 8 28 23:00 2 2 5 3 12 Daily Total 1702 AM Total 787 ( 46.2%) PM Total 915 ( 53.8%) Peak AM Hour: 08:00= 204 ( 12.0%) Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 124 ( 7.30) Average Period: 17.5 Average Hour 70.9 Peak AM Factor: 0.699 Peak PM Factor: 0.886 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/27/07 00:00 3 3 0 4 10 01:00 0 0 1 0 1 02:00 2 0 1 0 3 03:00 0 1 2 1 4 04:00 0 1 1 1 3 05:00 0 4 7 5 16 06:00 9 9 18 13 49 07:00 15 30 14 6 65 08:00 14 18 17 13 62 09:00 26 24 20 22 92 10:00 27 28 25 20 100 11:00 27 26 25 18 96 12:00 22 35 27 26 110 13:00 27 17 35 21 100 14:00 16 30 20 26 92 15:00 21 28 22 20 91 16:00 40 22 22 18 102 17:00 40 25 21 21 107 18:00 12 15 19 17 63 19:00 18 10 14 15 57 20:00 20 16 13 13 62 21:00 10 6 9 15 40 22:00 11 5 14 6 36 23:00 6 3 1 2 12 Daily Total 1373 Average Period: 14.2 AM Total 501 ( 36.5%) Average Hour 57.2 PM Total 872 ( 63.5%) Peak AM Hour: 09:45= 102 ( 7.4%) Peak AM Factor: 0.911 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 115 ( 8.4%) Peak PM Factor: 0.821 • 0 Average Period: 13.8 Average Hour 56.0 Peak AM Factor: 0.700 Peak PM Factor: 0.839 Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --Date- -------------------------------------- 08/28/07 00:00 6 3 1 0 10 01:00 2 1 0 0 3 02:00 2 0 1 1 4 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 1 0 4 3 8 05:00 3 2 5 4 14 06:00 9 3 13 14 39 07:00 9 31 15 12 67 08:00 19 18 22 26 85 09:00 19 17 18 26 80 10:00 18 20 25 21 84 11:00 20 22 35 11 88 12:00 21 28 21 27 97 13:00 24 22 31 23 100 14:00 21 28 23 24 96 15:00 17 22 35 14 88 16:00 32 22 19 29 102 17:00 29 18 18 16 81 18:00 16 30 19 23 88 19:00 12 21 20 20 73 20:00 8 17 5 17 47 21:00 15 7 4 14 40 22:00 7 5 12 8 32 23:00 11 0 2 3 16 Daily Total 1343 AM Total 483 ( 36.0%) PM Total 860 ( 64.0%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 98 ( 7.3%) Peak PM Hour: 12:45= 104 ( 7.7%) Average Period: 13.8 Average Hour 56.0 Peak AM Factor: 0.700 Peak PM Factor: 0.839 • 0 DateTime :15 :30 :45 Total -- --- 08/29/07 ----_00 00:00 ------------------------- 2 1 1 2 6 01:00 0 0 0 1 1 02:00 0 0 0 1 1 03:00 1 0 0 1 2 04:00 0 0 0 1 1 05:00 1 1 2 3 7 06:00 4 10 12 17 43 07:00 15 17 13 7 52 08:00 19 17 18 23 77 09:00 27 18 19 18 82 10:00 24 27 24 15 90 11:00 29 29 20 18 96 12:00 19 29 25 22 95 13:00 34 32 29 19 114 14:00 25 36 23 34 118 15:00 36 24 28 21 109 16:00 29 31 21 40 121 17:00 28 23 23 17 91 18:00 15 10 8 21 54 19:00 13 9 19 20 61 20:00 15 10 12 12 49 21:00 17 9 8 7 41 22:00 9 11 14 4 38 23:00 10 2 5 6 23 Daily Total 1372 AM Total 458 ( 33.4%) PM Total 914 ( 66.60) Peak AM Hour: 10:30= 97 ( 7.1%) Peak PM Hour: 14:15= 129 ( 9.4%) Average Period: 14.1 Average Hour 57.2 Peak AM Factor: 0.836 Peak PM Factor: 0.896 0 Date Time :15 :30 :45 Total ------------------------------------------ 08/30/07 00:00 ---:00 3 1 0 2 6 01:00 0 1 1 3 5 02:00 1 0 0 0 1 03:00 1 0 0 1 2 04:00 1 0 1 1 3 05:00 0 0 2 6 8 06:00 4 7 19 9 39 07:00 17 10 12 15 54 08:00 12 19 16 23 70 09:00 22 20 31 23 96 10:00 37 26 28 33 124 11:00 19 16 18 24 77 12:00 27 36 24 20 107 13:00 26 20 16 14 76 14:00 22 26 36 18 102 15:00 26 28 27 28 109 16:00 15 24 24 30 93 17:00 26 30 27 18 101 18:00 16 16 11 14 57 19:00 20 21 15 19 75 20:00 18 15 9 14 56 21:00 14 10 9 17 50 22:00 16 18 8 5 47 23:00 5 5 4 5 19 Daily Total 1377 Average Period: 14.2 AM Total 485 ( 35.2%) Average Hour 57.4 PM Total 892 ( 64.8%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 124 ( 9.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.838 Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 113 ( 8.20) Peak PM Factor: 0.942 0 • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/31/07 00:00 1 4 1 0 6 01:00 0 2 0 0 2 02:00 1 0 0 0 1 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 0 1 3 5 05:00 0 3 6 4 13 06:00 2 12 14 15 43 07:00 15 10 16 12 53 08:00 24 19 15 20 78 09:00 22 30 16 30 98 10:00 32 25 31 33 121 Daily Total 420 Average Period: 9.5 AM Total 420 (100.0%) Average Hour 38.2 PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 121 ( 28.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.917 Peak PM Hour: Peak PM Factor: • ******************************************************************************** Lane #2 Info Lane Mode Directional Sensor Used Axle ******************************************************************************** *************************** Lane 2 Basic Count Print *************************** • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/22/07 12:00 16 17 33 13:00 30 15 22 24 91 14:00 20 13 18 17 68 15:00 24 20 26 28 98 16:00 21 19 25 30 95 17:00 31 16 21 14 82 18:00 19 8 23 11 61 19:00 7 12 17 15 51 20:00 15 8 20 8 51 21:00 9 9 5 4 27 22:00 5 9 13 8 35 23:00 3 2 2 2 9 Daily Total 701 Average Period: 14.9 AM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Average Hour 58.4 PM Total 701 (100.0%) Peak AM Hour: Peak AM Factor: Peak PM Hour: 16:15= 105 ( 15.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.847 • • • Date Time 00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/23/07 00:00 0 0 2 2 4 01:00 1 1 2 0 4 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1 1 1 1 4 05:00 1 1 11 4 17 06:00 8 10 16 18 52 07:00 11 32 10 26 79 08:00 21 18 12 24 75 09:00 28 12 17 25 82 10:00 15 22 20 28 85 11:00 34 20 25 33 112 12:00 27 15 31 34 107 13:00 24 26 25 27 102 14:00 28 27 27 27 109 15:00 24 20 22 27 93 16:00 18 17 30 24 89 17:00 16 17 15 30 78 18:00 27 22 20 15 84 19:00 14 13 9 6 42 20:00 7 10 8 13 38 21:00 15 10 5 11 41 22:00 5 6 10 7 28 23:00 9 2 5 6 22 Daily Total 1347 Average Period: 13.9 . AM Total 514 ( 38.20) Average Hour 56.1 PM Total 833 ( 61.8%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 112 ( 8.30) Peak AM Factor: 0.824 Peak PM Hour: 12:30= 115 ( 8.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.846 • • • Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/24/07 00:00 1 2 4 2 9 01:00 1 0 1 0 2 02:00 2 1 1 4 8 03:00 1 1 1 1 4 04:00 1 1 2 0 4 05:00 1 2 3 5 11 06:00 9 9 13 21 52 07:00 14 23 25 21 83 08:00 22 17 22 38 99 09:00 18 25 24 16 83 10:00 28 22 18 26 94 11:00 21 41 20 41 123 12:00 28 31 32 40 131 13:00 22 20 32 25 99 14:00 37 31 23 31 122 15:00 21 23 37 42 123 16:00 26 25 37 32 120 17:00 23 28 31 26 108 18:00 25 25 22 23 95 19:00 24 27 36 17 104 20:00 32 9 21 17 79 21:00 19 17 15 10 61 22:00 19 4 23 11 57 23:00 8 10 5 4 27 Daily Total 1698 Average Period: 17.5 AM Total 572 ( 33.7%) Average Hour 70.8 PM Total 1126 ( 66.3%) Peak AM Hour: 11:00= 123 ( 7.20) Peak AM Factor: 0.750 Peak PM Hour: 12:00= 131 ( 7.7%) Peak PM Factor: 0.819 Date Time --_00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/25/07 00:00 4 1 6 1 12 01:00 1 3 2 1 7 02:00 2 0 1 0 3 03:00 2 0 1 1 4 04:00 0 4 0 3 7 05:00 3 2 3 3 11 06:00 4 20 20 19 63 07:00 13 17 20 12 62 08:00 24 20 32 17 93 09:00 27 30 21 31 109 10:00 34 20 30 39 123 11:00 26 34 25 25 110 12:00 37 34 28 30 129 13:00 24 51 35 44 154 14:00 28 37 24 28 117 15:00 30 27 28 47 132 16:00 22 18 18 19 77 17:00 31 16 28 23 98 18:00 30 18 26 24 98 19:00 21 17 13 16 67 20:00 24 10 14 9 57 21:00 6 9 14 11 40 22:00 10 9 9 15 43 23:00 6 10 5 7 28 Daily Total 1644 Average Period: 16.9 AM Total 604 ( 36.7%) Average Hour 68.5 PM Total 1040 ( 63.3%) Peak AM Hour: 10:30= 129 ( 7.8%) Peak AM Factor: 0.827 Peak PM Hour: 13:15= 158 ( 9.6%) Peak PM Factor: 0.775 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/26/07 00:00 4 4 6 1 15 01:00 4 4 1 0 9 02:00 1 1 1 2 5 03:00 5 0 5 1 11 04:00 4 0 4 2 10 05:00 3 3 5 9 20 06:00 7 9 24 3? 71 07:00 12 9 24 14 59 08:00 30 12 19 38 99 09:00 20 23 22 25 90 10:00 17 15 19 41 92 11:00 24 14 37 25 100 12:00 19 35 21 26 .101 13:00 26 32 21 25 104 14:00 16 27 20 27 90 15:00 10 32 12 22 76 16:00 13 19 17 20 69 17:00 15 17 26 15 73 18:00 22 22 21 8 73 19:00 18 6 8 12 44 20:00 14 10 17 13 54 21:00 11 9 8 6 34 22:00 5 7 9 4 25 23:00 6 5 7 3 21 Daily Total 1345 Average Period: 13.9 AM Total 581 ( 43.2%) Average Hour 56.0 PM Total 764 ( 56.8%) Peak AM Hour: 10:45= 116 ( 8.6%) Peak AM Factor: 0.707 Peak PM Hour: 12:15= 108 ( 8.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.771 • Average Period: 14.3 Average Hour 57.7 Peak AM Factor: 0.799 Peak PM Factor: 0.671 --Date---Time----_00 :15 :30 :45 Total 08/27/07 00:00 ------------------------- 0 1 4 0 5 01:00 0 1 2 1 4 02:00 2 1 0 0 3 03:00 2 3 0 0 5 04:00 2 0 1 1 4 05:00 2 2 5 8 17 06:00 11 8 15 22 56 07:00 27 15 14 17 73 08:00 18 23 25 31 97 09:00 21 27 36 22 106 10:00 30 25 26 22 103 11:00 22 26 18 30 96 12:00 22 24 27 27 100 13:00 20 25 19 23 87 14:00 24 21 16 18 79 15:00 29 24 13 31 97 16:00 23 18 12 27 80 17:00 38 12 25 17 92 18:00 14 15 14 26 69 19:00 17 17 18 26 78 20:00 21 17 11 10 59 21:00 4 6 12 12 34 22:00 8 9 6 5 28 23:00 4 4 1 3 12 Daily Total 1384 AM Total 569 ( 41.10) PM Total 815 ( 58.90) Peak AM Hour: 08:45= 115 ( 8.3%) Peak PM Hour: 16:45= 102 ( 7.4%) Average Period: 14.3 Average Hour 57.7 Peak AM Factor: 0.799 Peak PM Factor: 0.671 . Date Time 08/28/07 ----�00-_-�15-_-�30---�45--Total 00:00 0 1 1 1 3 01:00 0 0 0 1 1 02:00 2 0 1 0 3 03:00 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 4 2 3 9 05:00 1 2 3 5 11 06:00 7 20 16 24 67 07:00 24 19 24 11 78 08:00 19 20 24 22 85 09:00 31 9 17 14 71 10:00 22 24 24 22 92 11:00 18 12 25 27 82 12:00 22 21 24 33 100 13:00 27 25 18 27 97 14:00 36 33 17 29 115 15:00 14 14 15 27 70 16:00 28 17 24 27 96 17:00 23 26 25 22 96 18:00 12 10 18 18 58 19:00 12 19 20 22 73 20:00 18 18 16 12 64 21:00 7 12 12 10 41 22:00 5 9 10 6 30 23:00 4 3 5 4 16 Daily Total 1358 Average Period: 14.0 AM Total . 502 ( 37.0%) Average Hour 56.6 PM Total 856 ( 63.0%) Peak AM Hour: 08:15= 97 ( 7.1%) Peak AM Factor: 0.782 Peak PM Hour: 14:00= 115 ( 8.5%) Peak PM Factor: 0.799 0 11 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/29/07 00:00 3 1 2 2 8 01:00 1 0 0 0 1 02:00 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 0 0 1 2 3 04:00 1 0 2 0 3 05:00 0 2 4 5 11 06:00 5 6 14 31 56 07:00 17 14 15 12 58 08:00 26 15 28 27 96 09:00 18 19 15 21 73 10:00 20 16 25 19 80 11:00 19 17 18 26 80 12:00 31 19 20 35 105 13:00 25 30 23 26 104 14:00 25 25 24 31 105 15:00 29 20 27 27 103 16:00 21 20 27 23 91 17:00 16 21 19 27 83 18:00 18 20 24 20 82 19:00 15 14 20 21 70 20:00 15 17 8 14 54 21:00 17 7 0 8 32 22:00 4 15 5 6 30 23:00 5 4 6 0 15 Daily Total 1343 Average Period: 13.8 AM Total 469 ( 34.9%) Average Hour 56.0 PM Total 874 ( 65.1%) Peak AM Hour: 08:00= 96 ( 7.1%) Peak AM Factor: 0.857 Peak PM Hour: 12:45= 113 ( 8.4%) Peak PM Factor: 0.807 • • 0 Date Time :00 :15 :30 :45 Total --------------------------------------------- 08/30/07 00:00 3 1 3 2 9 01:00 3 0 0 1 4 02:00 1 0 1 0 2 03:00 0 0 0 1 1 04:00 2 1 0 3 6 05:00 2 6 3 10 21 06:00 8 8 13 23 52 07:00 15 18 19 34 86 08:00 20 17 29 27 93 09:00 24 23 16 18 81 10:00 23 17 31 15 86 11:00 23 18 28 32 101 12:00 29 26 25 25 105 13:00 26 24 20 36 106 14:00 37 23 22 23 105 15:00 19 19 22 28 88 16:00 24 21 22 24 91 17:00 20 22 24 28 94 18:00 24 30 16 23 93 19:00 27 13 22 27 89 20:00 23 18 18 17 76 21:00 11 10 5 12 38 22:00 8 13 10 3 34 23:00 7 8 2 4 21 Daily Total 1482 Average Period: 15.3 AM Total 542 ( 36.6%) Average Hour 61.8 PM Total 940 ( 63.4%) Peak AM Hour: 08:30= 103 ( 7.0%) Peak AM Factor: 0.888 Peak PM Hour: 13:45= 118 ( 8.0%) Peak PM Factor: 0.797 • • 0 DateTime_00- :15 :30 :45 Total - --- --------------------------------------------- 08/31/07 ---- 00:00 1 ------------------------ 3 0 2 6 01:00 3 4 0 0 7 02:00 0 0 1 1 2 03:00 1 0 0 2 3 04:00 0 0 3 0 3 05:00 0 4 4 6 14 06:00 7 8 14 27 56 07:00 15 12 13 28 68 08:00 30 17 18 26 91 09:00 28 28 23 26 105 10:00 24 24 50 32 130 Daily Total 485 AM Total 485 (100.0°x) PM Total 0 ( 0.0%) Peak AM Hour: 10:00= 130 ( 26.8%) Peak PM Hour: Average Period: 11.0 Average Hour 44.1 Peak AM Factor: 0.650 Peak PM Factor: • t • GRAND TOTALS *************t*************** LANES #1, & #2 FINAL *******t******************** Total Lane 1 12627 Avg Period Lane 1 14.6 Lane 2 12787 Lane 2 14.7 TOTAL ------- 25414 AVERAGE ------- 14.7 # Days Lane 1 9.03 ADT Lane 1 1398 Lane 2 9.03 Lane 2 1416 HIGHEST ------- 9.03 ADT ------- 2814 AM Total Lane 1 4610 ( 36.5%) Avg Hour Lane 1 58.7 Lane 2 4838 ( 37.8%) Lane 2 59.5 TOTAL ---------------- 9448 ( 37.2%) AVERAGE ------- 118.2 PM Total Lane 1 8017 ( 63.50) Lane 2 7949 ( 62.2%) TOTAL ---------------- : 15966 ( 62.8%) Peak AM Lane 1 08:00= 204 (08/26/07) AM Factor Lane 1 0.699 Lane 2 10:00= 130 (08/31/07) Lane 2 0.650 FINAL 08:00= 204 (08/26/07) FINAL 0.699 Peak PM Lane 1 14:15= 129 (08/29/07) PM Factor Lane 1 0.896 Lane 2 13:15= 158 (08/25/07) Lane 2 0.775 ----- FINAL ------------------------ 13:15= 158 (08/25/07) FINAL 0.775 • • NP: 26073-Seabreeze Ave. File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc Accident Records 0 North Road (C.R. 48) between Chapel Lane and Moores Lane NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/ReportsMS.doc File Edit Favorites Tools Help ( P _ Racks L_ -J .Search Favorites 1l'''�" , Address Whttp J+plr�Jdrive;GISjvie!aser.asp7QuerySEG_ID=3697&Queryzoom Yes&dbShow=Yes&Querylayer Road%205egmentsGa Ila, Search Popups okay Check + ` AutoLink - AutoFill © options Subdivisions t Attributes :s (3yrs+) I Road Map It I Info I CR 48 %AIJO MOORE LA WJO SR25 A 70 71 Southold - 98943 ft 0 18 - 99378 it 706ft concrete, brick or block Rural Principal Arterial (other) 2 r"M 'V I1 q L - -- -- - -- Map; 1432365,8 , 349041,99 -- Image; 666, 15 -- 5caleFactor; 4,129873749300716 A Start 2 Microsoft Offic,,, + �t 061117_ SCOPE D... / 01 NODES f 070912_ WH_ Mem,., ) � SuFFalk County Dri.,. � Suffolk County D... 7055024 - 100544 1 20 66 3 Local intranet tc { 10:15 AM Quick Aids Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORED N CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA (Offset: 0) to MOORES LA N (Offset: 0) From: 1/1/2004,00:00:00 to 7/20/2007,23:59:59 Reference: for Dunn Engineering Prepared by: LLP Date Prepared: 9/12/2007 Most Current Accident Data — SCPD: 10/6/2004; Other Police: 7/21/2007 11:39:00 PM; Fatal (all sources): 6/30/2007 5:43:00 PM • Page 1 of 3 CC Number Date/Time Day Number of NumberN Inured umber Killed Light Weather RoadWay Diagram 1st Event Distance from Direction X Street Milepost Vehicles Description escrpon Intersection 04SD0691 1/21/2004 Wednesday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 8:45:00 AM Vehicle 04SD5090 6/5/2004 Saturday 2 2 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 5:45:00 PM Vehicle 04SD6354 7/3/2004 Saturday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 10:50:00 AM Vehicle 05D11195 10/8/2005 Saturday 2 0 0 Daylight Rain Wet Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 11:35:00 AM Vehicle 05DI1584 10/16/2005 Sunday 1 0 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Fixed Object Tree 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 10:57:00 PM Lighted 06/310411 9/27/2006 Wednesday 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 10:03:00 AM 06D13910 12/31/2006 Sunday 2 0 0 Dark -Road Cloudy Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT CHAPEL LA 93219 5:45:00 PM Lighted Vehicle 06SD8225 8/6/2006 Sunday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Non -fixed Other Motor 200 E CHAPEL LA 93419 5:18:00 PM Object Vehicle 05SD1657 2/21/2005 Monday 1 0 0 Daylight Snow Snow/Ice Fixed Object Sign Post 250 E CHAPEL LA 93469 8:12:00 AM 05SD4880 5/24/2005 Tuesday 2 1 0 Daylight Rain Wet Rear End Other Motor 300 E CHAPEL LA 93519 2:50:00 PM Vehicle 04D13517 12/26/2004 Sunday 1 0 0 Dark -Road Snow Snow/Ice Fixed Object Light 500 E CHAPEL LA 93719 4:46:00 PM Lighted Support/Utility Pole 04SD5808 6/22/2004 Tuesday 2 0 0 Daylight Rain Wet Rear End Other Motor 600 E CHAPEL LA 93819 12:36:00 PM Vehicle 07SDO598 1/20/2007 Saturday 1 1 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Fixed Object Other Object 800 E CHAPEL LA 94019 1:58:00 AM Lighted (Not Fixed)* 04SD7553 7/26/2004 Monday 1 0 0 Dark -Road Cloudy Dry Animal Deer 1000 E CHAPEL LA 94219 8:36:00 PM Lighted 06SD2997 4/3/2006 Monday 1 0 0 Dawn Clear Dry Animal Deer 1056 E CHAPEL LA 94275 6:11:00 AM 04D13195 12/17/2004 Friday 3 3 0 Daylight Clear Dry Rear End Other Motor 1320 E CHAPEL LA 94539 9:26:00 AM Vehicle Quick Amis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORE* N 04SD2284 3/17/2004 Wednesday 10:29:00 AM 06D13186 12/9/2006 Saturday 2:45:00 AM 06SD4746 5/21/2006 Sunday 6:45:00 AM 06SD9759 9/10/2006 Sunday 5:49:00 PM 06SD2090 3/6/2006 Monday 6:28:00 PM 04SD1728 2/28/2004 Saturday 10:49:00 AM 04SD9680 9/11/2004 Saturday 3:16:00 AM 05D12539 11/9/2005 Wednesday 3:28:00 PM 05SD2476 3/18/2005 Friday 11:29:00 PM 05D13133 11/25/2005 Friday 4:34:00 PM 06SD6181 6/22/2006 Thursday 5:10:00 AM 06D11878 11/4/2006 Saturday 10:23:00 AM 05SD3186 4/7/2005 Thursday 3:42:00 PM 05D11378 10/12/2005 Wednesday 2:40:00 PM 06SD1437 2/13/2006 Monday 12:45:00 AM 05SD4748 5/21/2005 Saturday 8:00:00 AM OSSD4749 5/21/2005 Saturday 8:00:00 AM 05D14358 12/29/2005 Thursday 5:08:00 PM 05SD0281 1/10/2005 Monday 1:15:00 AM 04SDO086 1/3/2004 Saturday 2:30:00 PM 06SDO666 1/21/2006 Saturday 6:26:00 AM 0 Page 2 of 3 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Slush Animal Deer -1320 W QUEEN ST 95698 1 0 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Animal Deer -1320 W QUEEN ST 95698 Unlighted 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer 2640 E CHAPEL LA 95859 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer 2640 E CHAPEL LA 95859 2 2 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Animal Deer -1056 W QUEEN ST 95962 Unlighted 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer -528 W QUEEN ST 96490 1 0 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Animal Deer -300 W QUEEN ST 96718 Unlighted 1 0 0 Dark -Road Rain Wet: Animal Deer -100 W QUEEN ST 96918 Unlighted 1 0 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Animal Other Motor 0 AT QUEEN ST 97018 Lighted Vehicle 1 0 0 Dusk Clear Dry Animal Deer 3960 E CHAPEL LA 97179 1 0 0 Dawn Clear Dry Animal Deer 200 E QUEEN ST 97218 2 1 0 Daylight Clear Dry Overtaking / Other Motor -1500 W MOORE LA 97443 Passing / Vehicle Lane Change 2 2 0 Daylight Clear Dry Left Turn Other Motor -1320 W MOORE LA 97623 Same Vehicle Direction 1 0 0 Daylight Rain Wet Animal Deer -528 W MOORE LA 98415 1 0 0 Dark -Road Cloudy Snow/Ice Fixed Object Light -500 W MOORE LA 98443 Unlighted Support/Utility Pole 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer -300 W MOORE LA 98643 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer -300 W MOORE LA 98643 1 0 0 Dark -Road Fog/Smog/Smoke Wet Animal Deer -300 W MOORE LA 98643 Unlighted 1 0 0 Dark -Road Cloudy Dry Animal Deer -200 W MOORE LA 98743 Unlighted 1 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Animal Deer -100 W MOORE LA 98843 1 0 0 Dawn Cloudy Dry Animal Deer -50 W MOORE LA 98893 Quick A*is Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOOROA N I 04SD5924 6/21/2004 Monday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 AT 2:20:00 PM 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT Vehicle 98943 04SD6236 7/1/2004 Thursday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Turn Other Motor 0 9:50:00 AM Opposing Vehicle Direction 04D11273 10/22/2004 Friday 2 0 0 Daylight Cloudy Dry Rear End Other Motor 0 4:38:00 PM Vehicle 04D13489 12/25/2004 Saturday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Left Turn Other Motor 0 4:00:00 PM Opposing Vehicle Direction 05SD2647 3/23/2005 Wednesday 2 0 0 Daylight Snow Wet Right Angle Other Motor 0 4:07:00 PM Vehicle 05SD4445 5/14/2005 Saturday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Rear End Other Motor 0 7:04:00 AM Vehicle 06D11063 10/14/2006 Saturday 1 0 0 Dark -Road Clear Dry Animal Deer 0 5:30:00 AM Unlighted 07SD4861 6/7/2007 Thursday 2 0 0 Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle Other Motor 0 10:09:00 AM Vehicle 04SD4746 5/28/2004 Friday 2 0 0 Daylight Rain Wet Rear End Other Motor 100 2:04:00 PM Vehicle 04SD3110 4/14/2004 Wednesday 2 0 0 Daylight Cloudy Wet Overtaking / Other Motor -50 10:05:00 AM Passing / Vehicle Lane Change Suffolk County DPW DRIVE • Page 3 Of 3 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 AT MOORE LA 98943 E MOORE LA 99043 W MOORES LA N 99328 Number of Accidents: 47 9/12/2007 10:34:14 AM Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 1 of 10 CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA (Offset: 0) to MOORES LA N (Offset: 0) For Dates: 1/1/2004 — 7/20/2007 Reference: for Dunn Engineering Prepared by: LLP Date Prepared: 9/12/2007 •Most Current Accident Data — SCPD: 10/6/2004; Other Police: 7/21/2007 11:39:00 PM; Fatal (all sources): 6/30/2007 5:43:00 PM CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SDO691 1/21/2004 Wednesday 2 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Right 93219 8:45:00 AM Angle MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Pavement Not Applicable E Making Right Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 26 Slippery 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 35 Comments: MVI EB RT 48 MAKING R/T SLID ON ICE & STRUCK MV2 NB CHAPELLA LANE CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD5090 6/5/2004 5:45:00 Saturday 2 2 0 Stop Sign Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle 93219 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Failure to Yield View N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 24 Right -of -Way Obstruction/Limited 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other -Motor -Vehicle Not Applicable 27 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 WHEN MVI NB-CHAPELLA -PULLED OUT IFO MV2 & COLLIDED. VIEW OBSTRUCTED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed, Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05DII195 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 93219 04SD6354 7/3/2004 Saturday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle 93219 10:50:00 AM Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age Not Applicable 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 24 Right -of -Way 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 80 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 WHEN MVI NB CHAPELLA PULLED OUT IFO MV2 & COLLIDED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed, Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05DII195 10/8/2005 Saturday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Rain Wet Right Angle 93219 11:35:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 56 Right -of -Way 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 44 Comments: MVI MADE A L/T FROM CHAPEL LANE ONTO CR 48 FAILING TO YIELD R -O -W TO MV2, E/B ON CR 48 CAUSING COLLISION. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 0OSD11584 10/16/2005 Sunday 1 0 0 Other 10:57:00 PM Dark- Clear Dry Fixed 93219 Road Object http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/2007 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 2 of 10 Lighted • MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Unsafe Speed Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Tree Not Applicable 40 Comments: MV1 FAILED TO NEGOTIATE CURVE IN ROADWAY AND ROADBLOCK DUE TO FLOODING. MVI EXITED ROAD AND COLLIDED WITH TREES ON SHOULDER OF ROADWAY. MV1 STATES TIRE BLEW -OUT ON CURVE. CC Number: Date/rime: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06DIG411 9/27/2006 Wednesday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 93219 10:03:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 61 Comments: MV1 WB CR58 STRUCK DEER CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 1 Alcohol Passing or Lane Usage E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 48 Involvement Improper 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Other* Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 38 Comments: MV2 STOPPED ON EB SHOULDER OF CR48 WHEN STRUCK BY MVS EB WHICH FLED SCENE. DRIVER MV1 FOUND AND ARRESTED FOR DWI. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD1657 2/21/2005 Monday 1 0 0 None Daylight Snow Snow/Ice Fixed 93469 8:12:00 AM Object MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Pavement Not Applicable Unknown Unknown Sign Post Not Applicable Slippery Comments: UNKNOWN MVI LEFT ROADWAY AND STRUCK SIGN ON S/S OF THE ROAD. FLED SCENE. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/200 06DI3910 12/31/2006 Sunday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Dark- Cloudy Dry Right Angle 93219 5:45:00 PM Road Lighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Driver: Age 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable NW Making Left Turn Other -Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 75 Right -of -Way Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 67 02 Comments: MVI MAKING L/TURN FROM CHAPLE ONTO CR48 FAILED TO YIELD ROW TO MV2 WHO WAS E/B CR48, MV'S COLLIDED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SD8225 8/6/2006 5:18:00 Sunday 2 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Non -fixed 93419 PM Object MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Alcohol Passing or Lane Usage E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 48 Involvement Improper 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Other* Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 38 Comments: MV2 STOPPED ON EB SHOULDER OF CR48 WHEN STRUCK BY MVS EB WHICH FLED SCENE. DRIVER MV1 FOUND AND ARRESTED FOR DWI. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD1657 2/21/2005 Monday 1 0 0 None Daylight Snow Snow/Ice Fixed 93469 8:12:00 AM Object MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Pavement Not Applicable Unknown Unknown Sign Post Not Applicable Slippery Comments: UNKNOWN MVI LEFT ROADWAY AND STRUCK SIGN ON S/S OF THE ROAD. FLED SCENE. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/200 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 3 of 10 05SD4880 5/24/2005 2:50:00 Tuesday 2 1 0 None Daylight Rain Wet Rear End 93519 PM • MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Driver Inattention Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 25 (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable W Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 18 Comments: MV2 W/B CR 48 WAITING TO MAKE L/T FROM CR 48 INTO A PARKING LOT. MVI W/B ON CR 48 FAILING TO SEE MV2, TRIED TO STOP, SLID ON WET PAVEMENT AND COLLIDED W/MV2. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04D13517 12/26/2004 Sunday 1 0 0 None Dark- Snow Snow/Ice Fixed 93719 4:46:00 PM Road Object Lighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Pavement Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Light Support/Utility Not Applicable 42 Slippery Pole Comments: MVI WB CR48 LOST CONTROL OF MV & SLID OFF ROAD & STRUCK POLE CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD5808 6/22/2004 Tuesday 2 0 0 None Daylight Rain Wet Rear End 93819 12:36:00 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Not Applicable Not Applicable W Making Right Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 57 2 Following Too Pavement Slippery W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 52 Closely Comments: MVI WB CR48 MAKING R/T INTO SUNSET MOTEL WHEN MV2 WB REARENDED MVI CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 07SDO598 1/20/2007 Saturday 1 1 0 None Dark- Clear Dry Fixed 94019 1:58:00 AM Road Object Lighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age i Driver Inattention Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Object (Not Light Support/Utility 43 (Indicate)* Fixed)* Pole Comments: MVS E/B CR48 REACHED FOR CELL PHONE, LOST CONTROL OF MV, STRUCK POLE AND OVERTURNED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD7553 7/26/2004 Monday 1 0 0 No Passing Dark- Cloudy Dry Animal 94219 8:36:00 PM Zone Road Lighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 60 • Comments: MV1 EB CR48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROAD http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail—analysis—CR—rpt.asp 9/12/200' Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 4 of 10 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SD2997 4/3/2006 6:11:00 Monday 1 0 0 None Dawn Clear Dry Animal 94275 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 50 Comments: MV1 EB CR48 STRUCK DEER CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04DI3195 12/17/2004 Friday 3 3 0 No Passing Daylight Clear Dry Rear End 94539 9:26:00 AM Zone MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Driver Inattention Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 19 (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 30 3 Not Applicable Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Tree 44 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 STOPPED TO MAKE L/T WHEN MV1 EB REARENDED MV2 PUSHING MV INTO WB LANES & STRUCK MV3 WB CR48 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD2284 3/17/2004 Wednesday 1 0 0 No Passing Daylight Clear Slush Animal 95698 10:29:00 AM Zone •MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 39 Comments: MVI EB CR48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROAD CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06D13186 12/9/2006 Saturday 1 0 0 None Dark- Clear Dry Animal 95698 2:45:00 AM Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 48 Comments: MV1 W/B CR48 STRUCK DEER CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SD4746 5/21/2006 Sunday 1 0 0 No Passing Daylight Clear Dry Animal 95859 6:45:00 AM Zone MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 46 Comments: MVI EB CR48 STRUCK DEER • http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/2007 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N ra8G 5 of 10 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SD9759 9/10/2006 Sunday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 95859 5:49:00 PM • MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 51 Comments: MV1 WB CR48 STRUCK DEER CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: -# Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Mileposts 06SD2090 3/6/2006 6:28:00 Monday 2 2 0 None Dark- Clear Dry Animal 95962 PM Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Other Motor Vehicle 39 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Other Motor Vehicle 31 Comments: MVI EB CR48 STRUCK DEER THEN CROSSED OVER DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND STRUCK WB MV2 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SDI728 2/28/2004 Saturday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 96490 10:49:00 AM MV-# Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 64 Comments: MVI EB CR48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROAD CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD9680 9/11/2004 Saturday 1 0 0 No Passing Dark- Clear Dry Animal 96718 3:16:00 AM Zone Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 21 Comments: MVI EB CR48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROAD CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05D12539 11/9/2005 Wednesday 1 0 0 No Passing Dark- Rain Wet Animal 96918 3:28:00 PM Zone Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age i Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 42 Comments: MVS W/B CR 48 STRUCK AND KILLED DEER THAT RAN INTO ROADWAY. • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/200'/ Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 6 of 10 05SD2476 3/18/2005 Friday 1 0 0 None Dark- Clear Dry Animal 97018 11:29:00 PM Road Lighted *MV# Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 71 Comments: MV1 E/B ON CR 48 STRUCK DEER GOING N/B. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05D13133 11/25/2005 Friday 1 0 0 None Dusk Clear Dry Animal 97179 4:34:00 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 57 Comments: MVI W/B CR 48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROADWAY. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SD6181 6/22/2006 Thursday 1 0 0 None Dawn Clear Dry Animal 97218 5:10:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 27 Comments: MV1 WB CR48 STRUCK DEER • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06DII878 11/4/2006 Saturday 2 1 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Overtaking / 97443 10:23:00 AM Passing / Lane Change MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Passing or Lane Not Applicable W Passing Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 26 Usage Improper 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable W Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 45 Comments: MV2 TURNING LEFT INTO D/W; MVI ATTEMPTED TO PASS ON LEFT MAKING CONTACT WITH MV2 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD3186 4/7/2005 3:42:00 Thursday 2 2 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Left Turn 97623 PM Same Direction MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable S Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Light Support/Utility 17 Right -of -Way Pole 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Light Support/Utility 36 Pole Comments: MV2 E/B ON CR 48 TURNED INTO PATHE OF MV2 FROM A DRIVEWAY ON THE N/S OF ROAD, MVI WAS ATTEMPTING TO GO EAST. MVS AND MV2 •MADE CONTACT CAUSING DAMAGE. MVI THEN HIT LIPA POLE. http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysi s_CR._rpt. asp 9/12/200 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 7 of 10 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: •OSDII378 10/12/2005 Wednesday 1 0 0 No Passing Daylight Rain Wet Animal 98415 2:40:00 PM Zone MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib, Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 45 Comments: MV1 E/B STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROADWAY. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SDI437 2/13/2006 Monday 1 0 0 None Dark- Cloudy Snow/Ice Fixed 98443 12:45:00 AM Road Object Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Pavement Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Light Support/Utility , Not Applicable 21 Slippery Pole Comments: MV1 WB CR48 LOST CONTROL STRIKING LIPA POLE #415 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD4748 5/21/2005 Saturday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 98643 8:00:00 AM • MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 55 Comments: MV EB CR 48 STRUCK DEER HEADING S/B ACROSS CR 48. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD4749 5/21/2005 Saturday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 98643 8:00:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 39 Comments: MV1 E/B CR 48 STRUCK DEER S/B CROSSING CR 48. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05DI4358 12/29/2005 Thursday 1 0 0 No Passing Dark- Fog/Smog/Smoke Wet Animal 98643 5:08:00 PM Zone Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 58 Comments: MV1 W/B CR 48 STRUCK DEER THAT RAN INTO ROADWAY. • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_ analysis_ CR_rpt.asp 9/12/200' Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 8 of 10 OSSDO281 1/10/2005 Monday 1 0 0 None Dark- Cloudy Dry Animal 98743 • 1:15:00 AM Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Other Motor Vehicle 65 Comments: MVI W/B ON CR 48 STRUCK DEER. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SDO086 1/3/2004 2:30:00 Saturday 1 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Animal 98843 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age �^ 1 Animals Action Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 39 Comments: MVI WB CR48 WHEN A DEER RAN INTO ROAD & WAS STRUCK BY MVI CC Number. Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD6236 7/1/2004 9:50:00 Thursday 2 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Right Tum 98943 AM Opposing Direction MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Prescription Not Applicable E Making Right Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 46 "1 _ Medication 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 56 Comments: MVI EB CR48 WHILE MAKING R/T STRUCK MV2 NB MOORE LANE STOPPED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: hq://pw/(kive/Accidents/detail—analysis—CR—rpt.asp 9/12/2007 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06SDO666 1/21/2006 Saturday 1 0 0 None Dawn Cloudy Dry Animal 98893 6:26:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Animals Actiorr Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 25 Comments: MV1 EB CR48 STRUCK DEER • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD5924 6/21/2004 Monday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle 98943 2:20:00 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age —� 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 57 Right -of -Way 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 40 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 WHEN MVI NB PULLED OUT IFO MV2 & COLLIDED CC Number. Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD6236 7/1/2004 9:50:00 Thursday 2 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Right Tum 98943 AM Opposing Direction MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Prescription Not Applicable E Making Right Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 46 "1 _ Medication 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 56 Comments: MVI EB CR48 WHILE MAKING R/T STRUCK MV2 NB MOORE LANE STOPPED CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: hq://pw/(kive/Accidents/detail—analysis—CR—rpt.asp 9/12/2007 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 9 of 10 CC Number: Date/Time: Day. # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: TrafitcControl: Light: Weather: Roadway:- Diagram: Milepost: 04D13489 12/25/2004 Saturday 2 4:00:00 PM 04D11273 10/22/2004 Friday 2 PM 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Cloudy Dry Rear End 98943 MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 •4:38:00 MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable (- 39 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 40 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 WHEN MV1 WB CR48 MADE L/T IFO MV2 & COLLIDED Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 46 1 Driver Inattention Not Applicable N Starting in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 19 Comments: MV2 REARENDED MVI STOPPED AT STOP SIGN. (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 44 Comments: MV2 NB MOORE LA STOPPED @ STOP SIGN, MOVED UP TO CHECK TRAFFIC WHEN MVI NB REARENDED MV2 CC Number: Date/Time: Day. # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: TrafitcControl: Light: Weather: Roadway:- Diagram: Milepost: 04D13489 12/25/2004 Saturday 2 4:00:00 PM 0 0 None Daylight Clear Dry Left Tum Opposing Direction 98943 MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Glare Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable (- 39 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 40 Comments: MV2 EB CR48 WHEN MV1 WB CR48 MADE L/T IFO MV2 & COLLIDED Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 46 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 05SD2647 3/23/2005 Wednesday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Snow Wet Right 98943 4:07:00 PM Angle -MV # Contrib-Factor-1-Contrib Factor 2Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event- Drivers Age • 1 Driver Inattention View Obstruction/Limited N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 64 (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 54 Comments: MVI MAKING L/T FROM V.R. MOORES LANE ONTO CR 48 FAILED TO SEE MV2 E/B ON CR 48, STRIKING MV2 DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: GSSD4445 5/14/2005 Saturday 2 0 7:04:00 AM 0 Stop Sign Daylight Clear Dry Rear End 98943 MV # Contrib Factor i Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action ist Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Not Applicable Not Applicable N Stopped in Traffic Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 69 2 Driver Inattention Not Applicable N Slowing or Stopping Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 46 (Indicate)* Comments: MV2 REARENDED MVI STOPPED AT STOP SIGN. CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 06DII063 10/14/2006 Saturday 1 0 0 No Passing Dark- Clear Dry Animal 98943 5:30:00 AM Zone Road Unlighted MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action ist Event 2nd Event Drivers Age (k 1 Animals Action Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Deer Not Applicable 30 Comments: MVS E/B WHEN DEER RAN INTO ROADWAY AND MVS STRUCK DEER i http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail_analysis_CR_rpt.asp 9/12/2007 Detailed Analysis Report for CR 48, Middle Rd from CHAPEL LA to MOORES LA N Page 10 of 10 • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD4746 5/28/2004 Friday 2 0 0• None Daylight Rain Wet Rear End 99043 2:04:00 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Following Too Pavement Slippery W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 39 Closely 2 Pavement Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 53 Slippery Comments: MV2 WB CR48 VEERED TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID STOPPED TRAFFIC & MV2 WB REARENDED MV2 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD3110 4/14/2004 Wednesday 2 0 0 None Daylight Cloudy Wet Overtaking / 99328 10:05:00 AM Passing / Lane Change MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Other Vehicular* Driver Inattention E Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 44 (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Passing Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 28 Comments: MVS EB CR48 WHEN MV2 EB WENT TO PASS MVI WHEN MV1 ATTEMPTED TO MAKE LIT& COLLIDED W/MV2 Number of Accidents: 47 Suffolk County DPW DRIVE 9/12/2007 10:36:21 AM http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail—analvsis—CR—mt.asp 9/12/2007 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: •_. 07SD4861 6/7/2007 Thursday 2 0 0 Stop Sign Daylight Clear Dry Right Angle 98943 10:09:00 AM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action ist Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Failure to Yield Not Applicable N Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 87 Right -of -Way 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 72 Comments: MV1 N/B MOORE LANE ATTEMPTING L/TURN ONTO- W/B CR48 DID NOT `IIELD ROW TO MV2 PULLING OUT I/F/O MV2 WHO WAS E/B CR48 • CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD4746 5/28/2004 Friday 2 0 0• None Daylight Rain Wet Rear End 99043 2:04:00 PM MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Following Too Pavement Slippery W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 39 Closely 2 Pavement Not Applicable W Going Straight Ahead Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 53 Slippery Comments: MV2 WB CR48 VEERED TO THE RIGHT TO AVOID STOPPED TRAFFIC & MV2 WB REARENDED MV2 CC Number: Date/Time: Day: # Vehicles: # Injured: # Killed: Traffic Control: Light: Weather: Roadway: Diagram: Milepost: 04SD3110 4/14/2004 Wednesday 2 0 0 None Daylight Cloudy Wet Overtaking / 99328 10:05:00 AM Passing / Lane Change MV # Contrib Factor 1 Contrib Factor 2 Direction Action 1st Event 2nd Event Drivers Age 1 Other Vehicular* Driver Inattention E Making Left Turn Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 44 (Indicate)* 2 Not Applicable Not Applicable E Passing Other Motor Vehicle Not Applicable 28 Comments: MVS EB CR48 WHEN MV2 EB WENT TO PASS MVI WHEN MV1 ATTEMPTED TO MAKE LIT& COLLIDED W/MV2 Number of Accidents: 47 Suffolk County DPW DRIVE 9/12/2007 10:36:21 AM http://pw/drive/Accidents/detail—analvsis—CR—mt.asp 9/12/2007 • • • NP: 27120 -North Wind Village File: Admin/Reports/TIS.doc Public Transportation 0 0 0 Questions, Suggestions, Complaints? Call Suffolk County Transit Information Service 631.852.5200 Monday to Friday 8:00am to 4:30pm SCAT Paratransit Service Paratransit Bus Service is available to ADA eligible passengers. To register or for more information, call Office of Handicapped Services at 631.853.8337. Large Print Bus Schedules To obtain a large print copy of this or other Suffolk Transit bus schedules, call 631.852.5200 or visit www.sct-bus.org Additional Transportation Services HART ......................... 631,427.8287 MTA LONG ISLAND BUS........... 516,228.4000 LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD In Suffolk County ................ 631.231.5477 In Nassau County ................ 516.822.5477 In New York City ................. 718.217.5477 LI Transportation Mgmt., Inc........ 631.777.7722 www.sct-bus.org Regular fare $1.50 Student fare $1.00 (Between 14 to 22 years old) (High School/College ID required) Children under 5 years old FREE (Limit 3 children accompanied by adult) Senior, Person with Disabilities and Medicare Card Holders 50 cents Personal Care Attendant FREE (when traveling with handicapped passengers) Transfer 25 cents Available on request when paying fare Good for two (2) connecting buses Valid for two hours (2) from time received Not valid for return trip Special restrictions may apply (see transfer) ' Passengers Please Have exact fare ready; Driver cannot handle money. Passengers must deposit their own fare. Arrive earlier than scheduled departure time. Toll driver your destination. SCT Drivers announce Major Bus Stop locations. Smoking, drinking, eating and playing of radios is prohibited on buses. Reduced Fare for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities and Medicare Card Holders Persons with valid, municipally issued cards identifying them as at least 60 years old or having a mental or physical disability may nde for the reduced, one-way fare. A valid Medicare Card is also accepted as ID. Persons must display their ID card to the driver when paying the fare to nde at the reduced rate. Fo; ID information: Seniors ID call 631.853.8200 Disability ID call 631.853.8333 Hearing Impaired TTY 631.853.5658 Suffolk Transit Service: Monday— Saturday No service Sunday, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving or Christmas Day. Persons with Disabilities _ Upon request, drivers will assist wheelchair passengers while boarding and leaving lift and with use of securement device. Use of wheelchair lifts also available to passengers using walkers, canes, braces or who are otherwise mobility -impaired. Person traveling with respirator or portable oxygen supply are permitted to nde ST buses. Service animals to accompany disabled passengers are also permitted. Effective November 200" Orient Point, Greenport to East Hampton via Riverhead, X <z-oass..ii.oa SUFFOLK TRANSIT 0 S92 service available Monday thru Saturday only. ■ In Riverhead bus travels from and to North Fork via CR58. AWLIGHTFACE PNF-BOLDFACE Schedules subject to change without notice. Suffolk County cannot assume responsibility for inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from timetable errors, delayed buses or failure to make connections. Where to Board For your safety, please wait for the bus at a designated bus stop. S92 Connecting Bus Service Route No. Location S58 Riverhead S90, 8A Riverhead S92 Service Southampton, Sag Harbor Orient East Hampton 3:15 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Orient Point Ferry Dock — — — — — — 8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:10 2:40 3:10 3:35 — Orient — — — — — — 8:50 9:50 10:50 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:20 2:50 3:20 3:45 — East Marion — — — — — — 8:55 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:25 2:55 3:25 3:50 — Greenport 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:35 6:55 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 6:30 Southold 510 5:50 6:20 6:40 7:05 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 12:10 110 2:10 2A0 310 30 4:10 6:40 Cutchogue 5:25 5:55 6:25 6:45 7:15 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 2:50 3:20 3:50 4:20 6:50 Mattituck 5:35 6:05 6:35 6:55 7:20 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 7:00 Jamesport 5:40 6:10 6:40 7:00 7:30 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:35 12:35 1:35 2:35 3:05 3:35 4:05 4:35 7:05 Riverhead Railroad 5:50 6:20 6:50 7:10 7:40 8:45 9:45 10:45 11:45 12:45 1:45 2:45 3:15 3:45 4:15 4:45 7:15 Riverhead County Ctr Lv 5:55 6:25 6:55 7:15 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:55 325 3:55 4:25 4:55 7:25 Flanders 6:10 6:40 7:10 7:30 8:10 9:10 10:10 11:10 12:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 3:40 4:10 4:40 5:10 7:40 Hampton Bays 6:20 6:50 7:20 7:40 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 3:50 4:20 4:50 5:20 7:50 Peconic Beach 6:25 6:55 7:25 7:45 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:25 12:25 1:25 2:25 125 3:55 4:25 4:55 5:25 7:55 Shinnecock Club 6:30 7:00 7:30 7:50 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 8:00 Southampton 6:35 7:05 7:35 7:55 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:35 12:35 1:35 2:35 3:35 4:05 4:35 5:05 5:35 8:05 Hay Ground 6:45 7:15 7:45 8:05 8:45 9:45 10:45 11:45 12:45 1:45 2:45 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 8:15 Bridgehampton 6:50 7:20 7:50 8:10 8:50 9:50 10:50 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:50 3:50 4:20 4:50 5:20 5:50 8:20 Sag Harbor — 7:30 8:00 8:20 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 8:30 Hardscrabble — 7:40 8:10 8:30 9:10 10:10 11:10 12:10 1:10 2:10 3:10 4:10 4:40 5:10 5:40 6:10 8:40 East Hampton — 7:45 8:15 8:35 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 8:45 S92 service available Monday thru Saturday only. ■ In Riverhead bus travels from and to North Fork via CR58. AWLIGHTFACE PNF-BOLDFACE Schedules subject to change without notice. Suffolk County cannot assume responsibility for inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from timetable errors, delayed buses or failure to make connections. Where to Board For your safety, please wait for the bus at a designated bus stop. S92 Connecting Bus Service Route No. Location S58 Riverhead S90, 8A Riverhead 10A Southampton, Sag Harbor 10B East Hampton 3:15 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45 Bridgehampton 10C East Hampton 101), 10E Hampton Bays Long Island Rail Road Riverhead – Ronkonkoma Branch Southampton – Montauk Branch East Hampton – Montauk Branch East Hampton Hardscrabble Sag Harbor Bridgehampton Hay Ground ■ 111 111 — 7:35 8:10 8:40 9:10 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 — 7:40 8:15 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:45 11:45 12:45 — 7:50 8:25 8:55 9:25 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 7:00 8:00 8:35 9:05 9:35 10:05 11:05 12:05 1:05 7:05 8:05 8:40 9:10 9:40 10:10 11:10 12:10 1:10 1:40 1:45 1:55 2:05 2:10 ■ ■ 2:40 3:40 4:10 4:40 5:10 5:40 6:10 2:45 3:45 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 2:55 3:55 420 4:55 5:25 5:55 6:25 3:05 4:05 4:35 5:05 5:35 6:05 6:35 3:10 4:10 4:40 5:10 5:40 6:10 6:40 Southempton 7:10 8:10 8:45 9:15 9:45 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 4:45 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:45 Shinnecock Club 7:17 8:17 8:50 9:20 9:50 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 4:20 4:50 5:20 5:50 6:20 6:50 Peconic Beach 7:22 8:22 8:55 9:25 9:55 10:15 11:25 12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 4:55 5:25 5:55 6:25 6:55 Hampton Bays 7:27 8:27 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 Flanders 7:37 8:37 9:10 9:40 10:10 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:10 5:406:10 6:40 7:10 Riverhead Railroad 7:50 8:50 9:20 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:50 3:50 4:50 5:15 5:50 6:20 6:50 7:20 Riverhead County Ctr, Lv 7:55 8:55 9:25 9:55 10:25 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:55 4:55 5:35 5:55 6:25 7:00 7:30 Jamesport 8:05 9:05 9:35 10:05 10:35 11:05 12:05 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:15 5:45 6:05 6:35 7:017:35 Mattituck 8:15 9:15 9:45 10:15 10:45 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:25 5:55 6:15 6:45 7:15 7:45 utcho ue 8:20 9:20 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 4:20 5:30 6:00 6:20 6:50 7:20 7:50 outhol 8:30 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:40 6:10 6:30 7:00 710 8:00 Greenport 8:40 9:40 10:10 10:40 11:10 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:55 6:20 6:40 7:10 7:40 8:10 East Marion 8:45 9:45 10:15 10:45 11:15 11:45 12:45 1:45 2:45 — 4:45 6:00 — — — — — Orient 8:50 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:20 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:50 — 4:50 6:05 — — — — — Orient Point Ferry Dock 8:55 9:55 10:25 10:55 11:25 11:55 12:55 1:y'75 2:55 — 4:55 6:10 — — — — — Bus Route ® Alternate Routing • • A 7 Appendix R 0Eng!»eertng, SurraOtW ural Landsc ie rc ft eture,1?C • • TRCKERrchaeology Services, Inc. 2yq�.His�y Elie 17oo& p -f Dl f�lQ f�!✓G�ffD�J REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the proposed Kontokosta subdivision Greenport, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York October 2007 Prepared for: Kace Development, Greenport, New York Prepared by: Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A./RPA Felicia Cammisa, Alexander Padilla Report* 530 TRACKER ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICES, INC. •IFF MONROE, NY 10950 • (845) 783-4082 NORTH BABYLON, NY 11703 • (631) 321-1380 U� • is MANAGEMENT SUM14ARY PR : none known Involved agencies: Town of Southold Phase. Phase IA & IB Location: Greenport Town of Southold Suffolk County Survey Area: Length: about 675 feet (206 meters) north -south Width: about 525 feet (160 m) east -west. Acres Surveyed: 8 acres (3.2 hectares) USGS: Southold, NY Survey overview: ST no. & interval: 125 ST's at 50ft (15m) intervals. Size of freshly plowed area: na Surface survey transect interval: na Results: No prehistoric or historic remains. Results of Architectural Survey: No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries in project area: none No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: none No. Of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none No. Of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none Authors: Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A./RPA Felicia Cammisa, B.A. Alexander Padilla, B.A. Date of Report- Report completed October, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prehistoric Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historic Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1: Figures and Photographs Appendix 2: Shovel Test Notes LIST OF FIGURES • Figure 1 Portion of the Southold, New York U.S.G.S. Figure 2 Location of shovel tests on the project area. Figure 3 Portion of the 1797 township survey. Figure 4 Portion of the 1836 Colton map. Figure 5 Portion of the 1858 Chace map. Figure 6 Portion of the 1896 Hyde atlas. Figure 7 Portion of the 1904 USGS. Figure 8 Portion of the County Soil Survey. LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1 Looking west from ST 75. Photo 2 Looking south from ST 43. 0 • INTRODUCTION Between August 18 and September 24, 2007, TRACKER -Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase IA documentary study and a Phase IB archaeological survey for the proposed Kontokosta subdivision in Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The purpose of the Phase IA documentary study was to determine the prehistoric and historic potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The Phase IA was implemented by a review of past and current environmental data, archaeological site files, other archival literature, maps, and documents. The prehistoric and historic site file search was conducted utilizing the resources of the New York State Historic Preservation Office in Waterford, New York. Various historic and/or archaeological web sites may have been visited to review any pertinent site information. The purpose of the Phase IB field survey was to provide physical evidence for the presence or absence of prehistoric or historic sites on the property. This was accomplished through subsurface testing and ground surface reconnaissance. The project area consists of approximately 8 acres from a 17 acre property with wetlands and wetland buffers. The property is bordered to the north by North Road (C.R. 48), and to the remaining sides by both private and public properties. The study was conducted by TRACKER -Archaeology Services, Inc. of Monroe, New York. Prehistoric and historic research was conducted by Alfred Cammisa, M.A. Field investigations were conducted by field director Jean Cascardi, B.A. and field technician James Gelarden, B.A. Report preparation was by Alfred Cammisa, Felicia Cammisa, B.A. and Alexander Padilla, B.A. The work was performed for Kace Development, Greenport, New York. ENVIRONMENT Geology The project area is located in the southeast portion of New York State in the northeastern part of Suffolk County. This portion of New York lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. The coastal plain slopes gently eastward and is actually a strip of recently emerged sea bottom. The soils in this region consist largely of sand, clay and marl (a mixture of clay, finely fragmented shell and calcite). This region of Suffolk County, on Long Island's North Fork, lies within a glacial outwash plain on the south edge of the Harbor Hill Moraine. A glacial meltwater channel had once separated Orient Point from the rest of the north fork (Schuberth 1968: cover map, 9, 184-186; Van Diver 1985: 70; Sirkin 1995:142, 149-150). Soils and Topography Soils on the project area consist of: • 1 • • is Name Soil Horizon Color Texture Slope Drainage Landform Depth in (cm) % Inclusion Montauk A=0-2in(0- 10YR4/3 FiSaLo 3-8 well moraines 5cm) & slopes B=5-17 (-43) 10YR5/6 B=17-27 (-69) 10YR5/6 Raynham 0=1-0 (3-0) mull Lo 0-3 poor moraines A=0-1 (-3) 5YR3/1 & B=1-5 (-13) 10YR6/1 outwash B=5-10 (-26) 10YR7/1 plains Plymouth A=0-4in(0-10) 10YR3/2 LoSa 3-8 well moraines B=4-10 (-26) 10YR5/4 & B=10-17 (-43) 10YR5/6 outwash plains (Warner 1975: map #5, pgs. 73-74, 78, 80-81). Elevations on the property range approximately from 30-20 feet above mean sea level. The project area is located on the north fork, a peninsula. Hydrology Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The project area is approximately 700 feet south of the Long island Sound. Vegetation The predominant forest community inhabiting the Coastal Plain in this vicinity (Cape Cod to the Carolinas) was the Northern Pine -Oak Forest. These forests are maintained largely by the effects of frequent fires. Were it not for the fires which the pine species have adapted to, these forests would slowly change to Mesic, dominated by oak, hickory and red maple. Northern Pine -Oak Forests fall within the larger Xeric Forest category. Xeric forests occur on sandy or otherwise poor soils that are overly dry. All coastal plains of eastern North America are Xeric. They generally have lower species diversity than bottomland forests (Kricher 1988:16-17, 65-66). The reason the forest soils and surfaces are so dry in this moist region is due to the excessive drainage of overly sandy soils on the Coastal Plain. At the time of the Phase IB archaeological investigations, the project area consisted of an overgrown thicket of vegetation with briars. PREHISTORIC POTENTIAL A prehistoric site file search was conducted at the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO). The search included a 1 mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded: 2 • • NYSM Sites NYSHPO Sites Distance from APE ft (m) Site Description A10310.000251 5220 (1591) Wickham Farm Estate (Sages): Paleo(?), Orient, Woodland Periods. Shell midden and camp. This is one of the major shell midden sites of the Sebonac Culture on eastern L.I. Farm Site: surface collection with grooved axe, small pits with soft clam. Sages Site: thick shell floor: Sebonac & Niantic pottery, fluted point and grooved axe. On east side of Wickham Farm is a section where Orient focus camped (points, steatite) A Paleo Indian point was recovered in this vicinity (Stone nd:map). In addition, Indian trails were reported in the vicinity of the project area connecting the tidal creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north fork, one appearing along, or near, Route 25 and 98. Although the foot trails were reported during early historic times, they undoubtedly existed prehistorically. Assessing the known environmental and prehistoric data, we can summarize the following: -Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The project area is approximately 700 feet south of the Long island Sound. -The project area is comprised of level to moderately sloped terrain with well and poorly drained soils. -The project parcel is located on a .peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have shown these areas as more desirable for prehistoric occupation (Cammisa 1996). -A prehistoric site is near the study area. -Indian trails were located in the vicinity. In our opinion, the study area has a higher than average potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. The type of site encountered could be a small processing/procurement site. 3 • HISTORIC POTENTIAL Contact Period (Seventeenth Century) At the time of European Contact and settlement, the study area was likely occupied by the Mantoobaugs. These were probably branches or villages of the large Corchaug tribe. (Stone nd:map; Stone -Levine 198:161). The previously mentioned Indian trails were reported along Routes 25 and 48, connecting tidal creeks along the southern and northern portions of the north fork. It may have been Town policy to keep the Indians grouped in the western portion of the Town which was considered wilderness at this time. In 1664 it was voted that the Indians could plant in Hogs Neck if they had sufficient fencing (Anonymous 1982:8). Eighteenth Century Oyster Ponds, now called Orient, was connected with the rest of the Town by a low, sandy beach which was, at times, covered by water. This tract was called Poquatuck by the Indians which means tidal river, cove, or creek (Thompson 1918:385, Tooker 1962:195). Previous to the American Revolution, there was a wharf neat Stirling Creek where sloops from West India landed with rum and molasses. During the Revolutionary Period, there were 6 houses in the village of Greenport, 5 of which were along Stirling Street (Bayles 1962:379). The 1797 Town of Southold survey depicts Pipes Cove, Inlet Pond and Routes 2-5 and • 48. No structures are on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 3). Nineteenth Century The territory upon which Greenport was built was sold by the heirs of Captain John Webb as auction to 3 neighbors in 1820. Greenport was found at about 1827. Main Street was laid out during this same year, as well as the first set of marine railways. The first store was constructed by 1828, the first school house built in 1832, and the name of Greenport adopted in 1834 (Pelletruea 1982:26). The 1836 Colton map shows that no structures are nearby the project area (Figure 4). The 1858 Chace map shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 5). The 1896 Hyde atlas depicts no structures on or adjacent to the property (Figure 6) . Twentieth Century The 1904 USGS shows no structures on or adjacent to the project area (Figure 7) In the late Nineteenth Century, the Town farming became highly specialized in areas such as potatoes, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, peas, beans, and the like (Bailey 1949:162). An historic site file search was conducted at the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO). The search included a 1 mile radius around the study area. The following sites were recorded: • • NYSM Sites NYSHPO Sites Distance from Site Description APE f t W A10310.000250 3400 (1037) Pipes Neck, Great Pine Swamp, Five Wigwams: The Scene of Indian Councils/Pipes Neck gets its name from the barrels that were made there for -transporting whale oil and molasses. Assessing the known environmental and historical data, we can summarize the following: -Freshwater wetlands are on the property adjacent to the project area. The project area is approximately 700 feet south of the Long island Sound. -The project area is comprised of level to moderately sloped terrain with well and poorly drained soils. -Indian trails were located in the vicinity. -No MDS's were on or adjacent to the project area. -An historic Indian site was reported nearby. In our opinion, the study area has a moderate potential for the recovery of historic native American sites. The property has a low potential for historic Euro -American sites. FIELD METHODS Walkover Exposed ground surfaces were walked over at approximately 3 to 5 meter intervals to observe for artifacts. Covered ground terrain was also reconnoitered at 15 meter intervals for any above ground features, such as berms, depressions, or rock configurations which might be evidence of a prehistoric or historic site. Photographs were taken of the study area. Shovel Tests Shovel tests were to be conducted between 15 meter intervals across the project area. Each shovel test pit measured about 30 to 40 cm. in diameter and was dug into the underlying B horizon (subsoil) 10 to 20 cm. or more when possible. All soils were screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh and observed for artifacts. Each shovel test was flagged in the field. Any positive shovel tests were doubled flagged. All shovel tests and any archaeological finds were mapped on the project area map at this time. Soil stratigraphy was recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Munsell color chart for soils. Notes were transcribed on pre- printed field forms and in a notebook. 5 . FIELD RESULTS Field testing of the project area included the excavation of 125 shovel tests (ST's) across the project area. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. Stratigraphy across the project area included the following: -0 horizon - 0 to 33 cm. thick of forest root mat, leaf litter, and humus. At times this level was stripped. -A horizon - 0 to 50 cm. thick of 10YR4/3, brown loamy sand with some sandy loam. On occasion this layer was stripped or very loose indicating disturbance. Undiagnostic or modern debris was encountered here. -B horizon - 10 to 20 cm. dug into of 10YR5/6 yellow brown loamy sand with some sandy loam. CONCLUSIONS AND RECCMENDATIONS The Phase IA had determined the study area had a higher than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites. The property had a moderate to low potential for historic sites. The Phase IB resulted in the excavation of 125 ST's. No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. No historic artifacts or features were encountered. . No further work is recommended. • BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailey, Paul 1949 Long Island: The Story of Two Great Counties, Nassau and Suffolk. Volume 1. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, New York. Bayles, Richard 1962 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Empire State Historical Publishing Company XVIII. Cammisa, Alfred G. 1996 Phase IB Archaeological SurvEld Phase II Intensive Testing of the Pellicano Site for the Proposed Bayview Development Bayview, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER -Archaeology Services. Ms. on file with NYSHPO. Kricher, John C. and Gordon Morison 1988 The Peterson Field Guide Series: Eastern Forests of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Levine, Gaynell, editor 1978 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Volume 2: The Coastal Archaeology Reader. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. A • Pelletreau, William 1982 Southold, in History of Suffolk County, 1683-1883. Suffolk County Tricentennial Commission. W.W. Munsell and Company. Schuberth, Christopher J. 1968 The Geology of New York City and Environs. New York: Natural History Press. Sirkin, Les 1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. Book and Tackle Shop, RI. Stone -Levine, Gaynell 1980 Language and Lore of the Long Island Indians. Readings in Long island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. Stone, Gaynell 1993 Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory: Volume 3, The History and Archaeology of the Montauk. Suffolk County Archaeological Association. Thompson, Benjamin Franklin 1918 History of Long Island. Volume 2. Ira J. Friedman, Inc., New York. Tooker, William Wallace 1962 The Indian Place Names on Long Island and islands adjacent, with their probable significations. Ira J. Friedman, New York. Van Diver, Bradford B. 01985 Roadside Geology of New York. Missoula Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company. Warner, John W.; W. E. Hana; R. J. Landry; J. P. Wulforst; J. A. Neeley; R. L. Holmes; and C. E. Rice 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experimental Station. Maps Chace, Jay 1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.Philadelphia: John Douglas. Colton, J.H. 1836 Map of Long Island. J.H. Colton. Hyde and Company 1896 Map of Long Island. Brooklyn, New York: Hyde & Company. Jensen, H.M. and J. Soren 1974 Hydrology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Stone, Gaynell not dated Map of Native Long Island. Long Island Culture History Lab & Museum - Suffolk County Archaeological Association. • United State Geological Survey 1956 Greenport, New York quadrangle map, 7.5 minute series. 1904 Shelter Island, NY quadrangle map, 7.5 minute series. U� U� APPENDIX 1 CKER r Rock * Ce!r Project •� + j O 0 area - • V) Sewage A , t r r e i. k. l 1 11 ion .. Sell a + • + n; M• •+ L IJ c- Drive -Ir. -� 17 ++ f N • . , Figure 1 Portion of the Southold, NY USGS 1"=1000' al �y2' z SCALE: 1 INCH = 150 FEET �� g :5 16 0 SD '1 �8 17 • c� 3 0 0' tJyB � •0 18 • :7 Y � 300' 225' 150' 75' 0 150' 36 ;9 \ �� 1 L" i9 40 N R_'L,�gkag 3r�$c9 y ' 23 20 E� •• 93 yo ' • • '• • • •' S 3♦ :0 41 • z ♦�y N Y �OYY•YNYr � T9 e '4 :9;1 42 •10� 22 3 .8 uY- 43 43 '� '0 32 233 2 5 1 4 S4�582 fr 3 ' S :0 6 55 29 54116 2 26 ' 6347 64�8 • 531025 0 ' 85 ♦bYrY i tY mm 7 52 - tfl T Y Y Y _ _ -•- - . 49 66 Y 51 Y z ' 4 7 • W ` 50 88 • 67 03 \ Y Y Y 72 / i5 WETLANDS 2 •9 71 • '6 Y y Y Y Y 0 77 8 • Y Y y y :g 85 1� WETLANDS 79 84 88101 LA USE YO. °F eWpBOµC.cadr,e Y Y Y Y • 83 89 • •8 ry t� �,Eu x=X i gyp, t. � w 82 97 ^� � Y Y • i0 • 9 9 �� N >e r Nn �'' 81 96 ' Y a y ) • it ' 95 *00 x N Y ��// :2 'S 101 9 i 94 •/ ,101' Y 80 • 102 o11 S! 119.90 Y '3 103 • :10 / Y Y Y Y 24 104 • 109 �► m • • i14 / Y y tZa Y X05 '08 / Ny 1.07 OXY Y Y e 106 1Y` � � Y Y Y f X17 % foa r[n,�w/s/srfeuac wE� t Y y\ 118 / �Y G� 29 Y Y Y 1 i1 Y 2r Y S 9 ?\20 1 Y Y Y Ix 1211 y Y S° W iY W O / .122 Y O r /• OP y Y 23 O Y y S r 3 Y Y WETLANDS Y o PROJECT NAME: KACE Y N \\\ y y Y FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF SHOVEL TESTS Y ROCKER Y Y �` y Y Y Archaeology Services, Inc V PHOTO ANGLE ¢32'`3• as Y 0 NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST Figure 3 Portion of the 1797 town survey Project area = ;1 • � q a c � �. s .. c c n �. _ te n n e ^ s ar 4 w rtion of the 1636 Colton map N " 4 W Project a < area M V iy 4A �g t 4 e t uw • a pz =u Q; a v. y 1 it lwh9 'a� — + � TMOR - 1 ` e - r', Project area eV , s ; y a ;Q 4e E, P a Y _ 1 :.� �''M 9.•��'(d•1� ♦moo €R S j _ f � Al � if1E� � Y •:� :iiUP;ai'd �iEJ@ $rsss 9 , iii, FRI r Figure 5 `9 e� 4t k � �•� Portion of the 1858 Chace reap e e 4'e' -—z .� _ -1 .� " +. � ���� 4 ��` `� yam. � � - _ '�' -= - -- _--- - •lam e bas& 04 *•o i C S 4` '•i se � qiokAfl.�-51 f t A ♦ e y� • ' s - I' AN SM Project Area pt Figure 7 Portion of the 1904 USGS t HaA HaA- Rd N Rhe Figure 8 aA Portion of the County Soil Survey Stirling Half J NX M s# Lb = '~27 ✓/i// \\\CtSLxI 2 `e {�) 4 We. Rh R q tNiei mu GREETS HILL. �`- CEMETERY Gp Ma �tSu j Lke 't Project -_ t. area �� `_ mu RdB SU FU RdB Ow Ma Ri► MfB `� HaB Su --, Ca H aA Union -" School Ur e 1 mu 5t Agnes /Ca ' School HaAi R h B 1 l ' F Ca HaA 41 -11 BC Fanning Point Tm Ca J :` tet- =., Look'ing west • from ST 75 ..00k'ing south • from ST 43 - '7 "It � U1 ..00k'ing south • from ST 43 APPENDIX 2 • STP Ly 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 7 1 2 3 8 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 10 1 2 3 11 1 2 3 12 1 2 3 13 1 2 3 14 1 • 2 3 Shovel Tests Depth(CM) Texture Color 0-5 rootmat,leav6s,humus 5-16 SaLo 10YR4/3 16-32 SaLo 10YR5/6 0-2 ro-otmat,leaves,humus 2-37 SaLo 10YR4/3 37-47 SaLo 10YR5/6 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus 6-23 SaLo 10YR4/3 23-34 SaLo 10YR5/6 stripped roctmatleaves,humus stripped SaLo 10YR4/3 0-24 SaLo 10YR5/6 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus 6-33 LoSa 10YR3/3 33-43 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus 8-38 LoSa- 10YR4/3 38-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-7 rootmat,leave,humus 7-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus 6-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus 7-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 33-37,rock LoSa 10YR5/6 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus 4-35" LoSa 10YR4/3 35-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus 4-26 Lo$a 10YR4/3 26-35 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus 8-43 LoSa 10YR4/3 4.3-53 LoSa 10YR5/6 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus 7-62 LoSa 10YR3/2 62-72 LoSa 10YR5/6 Hor. Comments A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM g NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM - A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A windowglass,shell,brick B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A clam, brick B NCM A/0 NCM A brick B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM A/0 NCM A NCM B NCM • 30 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 31 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 32 1 0-3 rootmat, leave _;-humus A/0 NCM 2 3-18 LoSa 1.OYR4/3 A NCM 3 18 -roots 33 1 0-5 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 5-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-45 LoSa IOYR5/6 B NCM 34 1 0-3 rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 3-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 33-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 35 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 3-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 27-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 36 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-35 LoSa 10YR4/-3 A NCM 3 35-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 37 1 0-4 rootmat,leave,humus A/0 NCM . 2 4-31 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 31-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 38 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-40 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 40-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 39 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 8-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 40 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-43 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 41 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-38 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 38-49 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 42 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 43 1 0-5 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 5-38 LoSa 10YR4/3 A mod. glass 3 3-8-48 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 44 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM • 3 30-40 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM • 60 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-36 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 61 1 0-6 rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-31 SaLo 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 31-41 SaLo 10YR5/6 B NCM 62 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-33 LoSa 10YR3/3 A NCM 3 33-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 63 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 8-59 LoSa,loose 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 58-70 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 64 1 0-7 roo:tmat,leave,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 65 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 66 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 27-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM • 67 1 2 0-4 4-25 rootmat,leaves,humus LoSa 10YR4/3 A/0 A NCM NCM 3 25 -roots 68 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-31 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 31-41 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 69 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 36-46 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 70 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 8-34 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 34-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 71 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-38 LoSa 10YR3/2 A NCM 3 38-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 72 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-25 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 25-37 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 73 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM -2 6-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 74 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 3-27 LoSa 10YR4/3 A coal • 3 27-38 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM • 90 1 0-5 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 5-32 Sa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-43 Sa 10YR5/6 B NCM 91 1 0-8 rootmatleaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 8=40 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 40-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 92 1 0-3 rootmat,-leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 3-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 93 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-39 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 39-50 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 94 1 0-8 rootmat,leave,humus A/0 NCM 2 8-40 LoSa IOYR4/3 A NCM 3 40-52 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 95 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-36 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 36-48 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 96 1 0-8 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 8-34 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 "34-45 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NEM 97 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM . 2 4-32 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 32-43 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 98 1 stripped rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 0-50 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 50-60 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 99 1 stripped rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 0-50 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 50-60 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 100 1 0-5. rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 5-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 30-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 101 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-37 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 37-47 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 102 1 0-7 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 7-25 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 25-35 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 103 1 0-3 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 3-26 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 2-6-36 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 104 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM • 2 3 6-29 29-39 LoSa 10YR4/3 LoSa 10YR5/6 A B NCM NCM • 120 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/O NCM 2 4-26 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 26-29,root LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 121 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-33 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 33-44 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 122 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-30 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 30-42 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 123 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 4-29 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 29-39 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 124 1 0-4 rootmat,leaves,humus A/O NCM 2 4-28 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 28-38 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM 125 1 0-6 rootmat,leaves,humus A/0 NCM 2 6-29 LoSa 10YR4/3 A NCM 3 29-39 LoSa 10YR5/6 B NCM • • • 0 7 Appendix S obBngimvrtOW, Sur-ing and Lxndsca4wArcbiUvturc, PC. �i a vrP _ iwc � x �2 IR��S.�A` � . i 26 R � �, �A r y R ■� it ■ S` 1 �.y a NORTfMND VILLAGE. a l vrP _ iwc x IR��S.�A` � . '��; ,:,�, �,sj'I • • • 0 Appendix T Engine ring, Surz.v}=itzg and Lantdsatpe rcbitectu , PC. 'Wy 1�1 .� . LM: DIM VIEW: DIM LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF SAMIR ATTIA & JILA SHARIF t / t " t S 23'34'07" E _427.38' _ _ .,. _ 521'23_30"E 1 6.00 PRiPasw-XWAGE \ ` arc hwA wDvr PLANr S (/F #V.Sa SARY) arc arc arc 1904 At arc AL AL x �t Aa + r ar Last c arc arc arc LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF Q p VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 1 ` C:3 C -3s Z / CO Cn o o a �$ •1 I t t X 0 5 to y.7 N X N21 , , 100 WETLAND BUFFER AND7. '\ no. Q ` LIMIT OF CLEARANCE QLA x -' "`� _-� ? \ 10' CONSTRUCTION / /.--\ CLEARANCE (IN ADDITION TO j S / '\% G2 THE 100 WETLAND BUFFER) / ` �O . 00, "00- 4y/r N/T UN/T t z ? ,\% ��,-,� liy�� UNIT `i k ~ �\ �: �a,. UNIT , 8 ! �\ ' UNIT UNIT wwo, ><'ZV LA0 8 e� IT \ t �z 81UNIT UN , y1 C 6 , ��r ; / arc srt arc arc arc aic arc 3 N �^ Z '��/' `_.�\` arc arc a& arc arc arc arc arc arc ` cnilk \' n c 111V17- / � t AL arc arc arc arc a4 arc arc ally AL N � ~ ' SNIT MON. 0.5'S N UNIT O 21 N+ SNIT ` arc Atarc arc arc AL AL AL / UNI1 N SNIT , <<� �' / \. �� ,,,� UN UNIT IT / /T UN/T SNIT ani AL ars ars /100' WETLAND BUFFER AND \ ` T h 'i,�, , • �'� ` \ /' L/M/T OF CLEARANCE � arc arc arc arc 10' CONSTRUCTION ` .,,,.► r-'�' ".� -..� \ ` ` 0C CLEARANCE (IN ADDITION TO THE 100 WETLAND BUFFER) w V arc arc arc 00 N \� , f arc AL AL AL �o N tA It i I (D• '(3- M:\Dr, 07\A070659\dwg\A070659SP1_50UNITS.dwg, 5/13/2009 9:58:00 AM, Adobe PDF A4 / LANDWARD LIMIT OF FRESH WA R WETLANDS AS DELINEATED 7/28/05 BY C. W. BOWMAN — L D USE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, ' INC. AND CONFIRMED BY ROGER MARSH, NYS DEC REGION Z, NOV. 9, 2005 MON. 0.7'E arc adtc a!!Ic AL AIL algc arc clic alb. AL AL AL �� �� �� �� �� �� 4� 4 ee 0.9'N MON �` N22'18'00"W 564.52 ` N � 330 0)o 3y�3. S ate. AL n ` MON w 1.1'N O ? Cy-44�� q �qHowe LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF VILLAGE OF GREENPORT PAT LES UNIT 2520 SF UN/T � ■ Osl'•re') (,seo ar) SITE DATA �.T SITE AREA ........................................ 746,697 SF (17.19 AC) TAX MAP DESIGNATION .................... SEC770N 20 BLOCK 35 LOTS 11-13 & 36-39 PROPOSED ZONING* ......................... HD (HAMLET DENSITY) - TOWN OF SOUTNOLD EXISTING USE ................................... VACANT PROPOSED USE ................................ 50 RESIDENTIAL UN/TS IN 25 BUILDINGS REQUIRED UNDER WD" ZON/NG PROPOSED LOT AREA ........................................ 1Q000 -Sr 748,697 SF LOT WIDTH ....................................... 60' 746' LOT DEPTH ....................................... 80' 344' (MIN) FRONT YARD SETBACK ................... 30' 35' REAR YARD SETBACK ..................... 30' N/A SIDE YARD SETBACK ....................... 15' N/A LOT COVERAGE ................................ 25x 8.4X HEIGHT OF BUILDING ...................... 2.5 S70R/ES/35 2 STORIES LIVABLE FLOOR AREA ...................... 850 SF MIN 2,520 SF MOTES 1. TOTAL AREA — 17.1891 ACRES 2. BOUNDARY SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS, P.C.. 1230 TRAVELER STREET, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 DATED AUG. 5. 2005. 3. ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE TAKEN FROM THE "TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF FIVE EASTERN TOWNS" PREPARED FOR THE SCDPW AND BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (N.G.V.D.). PARKWJ CALCULATIONS PARKING REQUIRED: 2.5 STALLS PER UNIT 2.5 STALLS/UNIT x 50 UNITS = 125 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: 125 STANDARD STALLS (10'x20') MONUMENT 0 REBAR 0 POST 5 10.0x WETLAND FLAG A CONTOURS --65 - - HOUSM DATA vow TYPE AREA err cF OVAN777Y TOTAL VN/TS 4 BEDROCW AFFORDABLE 2,520 Sr 5 10.0x 4 BMWW MARKET ZWO Sw 45 90.OX 70r& UN/TS - 50 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. Date By Revision Designed by: Drafted by: I a Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners by: Barrett Bonacci & Van Weele, PC 175A Commerce Dr. Hauppauge, NY 11788 T631.435.1111 F 631.435.1022 www.66vpc.com Tax Map No.: DIST. 1000 SECT. 40 BLK. 3 LOT 1 N 0 RTIHWIND VILLAGE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SKETCH PLAN 50 UNIT ALTERNATIVE 4C TER,' TION OF THIS 091-0. ENT, EIS EPT BY LICEIN50 P,ROr'ESSIONAd. EM01N'UP, 1'V ACCORCA+VCf_ 9r11H SFCT10111i 1_'0? OF NYSEOUCAhGf,' LAW. 1$ ILLF.GAI, Date Scale Project No. Sheet No. MAY 1312W9 r=-50-1 A070659 of I Vol 1 `"Zn 12 IJ] QD WI 0 1 N i W O a'1 N{ (A OD 1 N 1 � 1 N 0 U1 LA ZI 61 I N W I 0 s � m I N I � 9 LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF SAMIR ATTIA & JILA SHARIF '34'07" E 427.38' — __- — — _..�_. S21'23_� — — ------ — e .�_- — — --- — 1 6.01 PROPOSED SAN?ARY PUMP STA 110N \ \ PROPOSED EMERGENCY N9CCESS ENTRANCE 4 ,4 Ate AIL A4 G i i 6 � Gti � atr. Art AL 1 i c 7 ki ' c A,. S ate `004 AL AL LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 1► z 100' WETLAND BUFFER AND / '\ !t �'k; \ LIMIT OF CLEARANCE 12 ' •\ ,. � z. \ 10' CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE (1N ADD177ON TO ' ; �\ •S; \ \ THE 100' WETLAND BUFFER) / 1-10 UNIT s �• A'/T �N/T _ ?08 r 4 - UNIT \\ UNIT UNIT „� �.._ R ZB h ,,.,,, 1 0 W o, Sz I LM: DIM VIEW: DIM M:\DA07\A070659\dwg\A070659SP1_108UNITS.dwg, 5/13/2009 9:57:00 AM, Adobe PDF 1 BRIM ” "' -... SO N UNIT M `\ 30R s / UNIT M 3g ,M / /100' WETLAND BUFFER AND R� o , � , / LIMIT OF CLEARANCE @UNI 10' coNsrRucrroN CLEARANCE (IN ADDITION TO THE 100' WETLAND BUFFER) AL A4 e,Q SNIT \ 10 UNIT / / arc are AIL Are ate At Are 3BR-A s 8 9 ,.*$ . (,�, i (1300 w) f arc Arc AL are aIle arc ate Arc arc \` ate are arc aIle Art Arc arc arc arc are MON. 0.5'5 vNir 13 Ate arc ate arc Ate Arc Ate ate49 / C�,C� °�- ---_ d\Ti��, J e \ ate Ate a4 Arc Ate ate arc ate .y 1 arc ate ate \<A4 AL A4 \\ A4 /o •pry 00 ARIL A& AL A& \ ALLA�Ie. A4 ASL LANDWARD LIMIT OF FRESHWAR WETLANDS AS DELINEATED 7/28/05 BY C.W. BOWMAN — L D USE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, ' INC. AND CONFIRMED BY ROBER MARSH, NYS DEC REGION 1. NOV. 9. 2005 MON. O.7'E l I ASL ASL AL At AL Ade. A4 AL AL At. AJL A, MON 0.9'N N22i8 00 W 564.52 �\ , 1 Iwy, t +� Op •1�� ASL AIL ARIL A� J 304 0 0 �` . o A� L AL Cl)� 1 V S •\� 1 MON w O , LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Cyq CgNF UM LEGEND AREA PEnwr of, QIUAN71rY TOTAL UNITS UN/T 1BR 1 BR AnrawA81£ uNIr (850 Sr) 12 PROPOSED 12 11.1x 4a3X AFFORDABLE 2 BEVROOM AFFORDABLE 1,195 Sr 20 18.5X 3 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE UNIT 18 16.7x 3 BEDROOM MARKET 2BR 58 5.'<7X 5.'<7X MARKET "Clow n 2 BR AFFORDABLE UNIT (1195 Sr) 20 PROPOSED T A J BR AFFORDABLE UNIT (IMO Sf) 18 AWPOtSED EI UNIT JBR-M J BR MARKET UNIT (1530 so 58 PROPOSED 3 . (17M8) 108 LAMM PROPOSED 16' AL ...c • UN/r TYPE AREA PEnwr of, QIUAN71rY TOTAL UNITS PERCDVr OF HOUSING TYPE I aaVOOV AFFt714DABLE 850 .9r 12 11.1x 4a3X AFFORDABLE 2 BEVROOM AFFORDABLE 1,195 Sr 20 18.5X 3 BEDROOM AFFORDABLE 1,350 9F' 18 16.7x 3 BEDROOM MARKET 1,530 SF 58 5.'<7X 5.'<7X MARKET 707AL UN/1S - 108 1. TOTAL AREA - 17.1891 ACRES 2. BOUNDARY SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PECONIC SURVEYORS. P.C., 1230 TRAVELER STREET, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 DATED AUG. 5, 2005. 3. ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE TAKEN FROM THE "TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF FIVE EASTERN TOWNS" PREPARED FOR THE'SCDPW AND BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (N.G.V.D.). PARKING -CALCULATIONS PARKING REQUIRED: 1.5 STALLS PER UNIT 1.5 STALLS/1UNIT x 108 UNITS - 162 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: 163 STANDARD STALLS (10'x20') LEGEND MONUMENT REBAR 0 POST WETLAND FLAG CONTOURS - -65 - - GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. HIgDate ( By Revisionned by: I Drafted by: I Checked by: Barren � � Bonacci & Van Weele, Pc Civil Engineers 175A Commerce Dr. Surveyors Hauppauge, NY 11788 T 631.435.1111 Planners F 631.435.1022 www.bbvpc.com Tax Map No.: DIST. 1000 SECT. 40 BLK. 3 LOT 1 200 NORTHWIND VILLAGE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY SKETCH PLAN 108 UNIT ALTERNATIVE AiLTER,+;10'; 0, 'Hic C0!",I"FNT EXCFPT 6Y IICPISE0 k0i ;:5i 'o F?+GhVEfK W ACCO.HOANCE VH Ss; iIGN, 7'03 0; NYS FOUCA710N LAV,: 1, JL(_..A( Date Scale Project No. Sheet No. MAY 13, 2009 111=50' A070659 of 1