The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Phase 1B Jan 2022 NYSHPO CRIS FILING Supplemental Phase IB Archaeological Assessment, Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396) Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Prepared for: Strong’s Yacht Center ATTN: Mr. Jeff Strong 5780 W. Mill Road Mattituck, NY 11952 631.786.1392 jeff@strongsmarine.com Prepared by: Matthew D. Spigelman, Co-Principal Investigator (ACME Heritage Consultants; mspigelman@acmeheritage.com) and Carol S. Weed, Co-Principal Investigator/Editor (CSW13108; csw13108@gmail.com) January 7, 2022 i Project Summary SHPO Project Review Number: 21PR04396 Involved City, State and Federal Agencies: Town of Southold Planning Board (SEQRA), Town of Southold Trustees, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Phase of Survey: Supplemental Phase IB Archaeological Assessment Location Information Location: Hamlet of Mattituck Minor Civil Division: Town of Southold County: Suffolk Survey Area (Metric & English) Length: Supplemental area measured 165 feet (50 meters) N-S Width: Supplemental area measured 390 feet (120 meters) E-W Depth (when appropriate): maximum shovel test depth in the supplemental area ca. 32 inches (80 centimeters [cm]) Number of Acres Surveyed (when appropriate): 1.4 acres Number of Square Meters and Feet Excavated: 7.5 sq meters (ca. 81 sq ft) Percentage of Site Excavated: n/a USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Mattituck Hills 7.5-minute quadrangle Archaeological Survey Overview Plow Strips: none Number & Interval of Shovel Test Pits (STPs): CEA = 30 STPs at alternating 25-foot (7.5 meter) intervals. Number & Size of Units: not applicable Survey Transect Interval: not applicable Results of Archaeological Survey Number & Name of Archaeological Sites identified: none Number & Name of Historic Sites identified: none Number & Name of Sites Recommended for Phase II/Avoidance: None Report Author(s): Matthew D. Spigelman, PhD (RPA #36587230) and Carol S. Weed, M.A. (RPA #989090), Date of Report: January 7, 2022 ii Table of Contents Project Summary .................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ....................................................................................................... iii List of Appendix A Figures ................................................................................... iii List of Appendix B Photographs ........................................................................... iii Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 5 Administration and Regulatory Approvals ....................................................... 5 Report Organization......................................................................................... 5 Supplemental Phase IB Methods and Results ........................................................ 7 Surficial Geology and September Phase IB STP Results ................................... 7 December Field Methods ................................................................................ 8 Pre-Fieldwork Survey and Excavation Mapping ................................. 9 Shovel Test Pits ................................................................................... 9 Field Data Recordation ....................................................................... 9 December Investigation Results ...................................................................... 9 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................... 12 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 12 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 12 References Cited ................................................................................................ 13 Appendix A – Figures .......................................................................................... 14 Appendix B – Photographs ................................................................................. 21 Appendix C – Agency Correspondence ................................................................ 25 Appendix D – Stratigraphy Summary .................................................................. 28 iii List of Tables Table No. Description Page 2.1 Soil Class and Bore Soil Class Descriptions .................................. 7 2.2 Soil Class, Bore, and Select STP Profile Descriptions ................... 9 2.3 Supplemental Phase IB Artifacts ................................................ 11 D.1 Supplemental Phase IB Shovel Test Pit Stratigraphy Summary .................................................................................... 29 List of Appendix A Figures Figure No. Description 1 Project Location (USGS Mattituck Hills 1958) ...................................... 15 2 SYC Plan Sheet 13 with CEA Highlighted in Orange (Weed 2021a:27) . 16 3 SYC CEA (Orange) and Phase I Haul Road (Green) (Weed 2021a:28)... 17 4 SYC CEA Supplemental Phase IB STP Locations .................................... 18 5 SYC CEA Supplemental Phase IB STPs With/Without Dredge .............. 19 6 Supplemental Phase IB STPs Yielding Historic-Era Cultural Material ... 20 List of Appendix B Photographs Photo No. Description 1 STP 112, stratigraphic profile, facing north ................................. 22 2 STP 118, stratigraphic profile, facing east ................................... 22 3 STP 113, stratigraphic profile, facing west .................................. 23 4 STP 113, historic artifacts from lower fill .................................... 24 iv Page Left Intentionally Blank 5 Executive Summary Administration and Regulatory Approvals The Strong’s Yacht Center (SYC) (Applicant), represented by Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. (project attorney for Applicant), proposes to construct two boat storage buildings (Buildings 9 and 10) along with associated improvements to support its existing operations at 5780 W. Mill Road, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY (Appendix A: Figures 1 and 2). In part, the proposed Project Site consists of a 4.59+ acre construction excavation area (CEA; Figure 3). Based on the results of the background and literature review, CEA Phase IA walkovers, CEA topography, and geotechnical bore information, only the northern half of the CEA was evaluated as archaeologically sensitive by Ms. Carol S. Weed in her Phase IA archaeological assessment (Weed 2021). The northern half of the CEA was subjected to Phase IB systematic shovel testing between September 19 to 22, 2021. In total, 71 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated on a 7.5m (25 ft grid), with alternating STP locations excavated, for a density of approximately 32 STPs per acre. The methods and results of that work were reported in Spigelman and Weed (2021) and submitted to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP) using the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) on October 4, 2021. By letter dated November 17, 2021, Dr. Timothy Lloyd requested the proposed project’s geotechnical report. The letter report, entitled Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report 5780 Mill Road Mattituck NY 11952, reported the results of geotechnical bores drilled throughout the CEA (PWGC 2021). Ms. Weed submitted the geotechnical report to Dr. Lloyd on November 18, 2021, and it was subsequently reviewed by NYOPRHP. By letter dated December 3, 2021, Dr. Lloyd requested that supplemental Phase IB shovel testing be conducted in the south area of the CEA. On December 7, 2021, Ms. Weed submitted a figure prepared by Dr. Matthew Spigelman that illustrated STP locations proposed for excavation in the supplemental survey area (Figure 4). On December 8, 2021, Dr. Lloyd accepted the STP layout. The fieldwork was conducted on December 13th and 20th, by Dr. Spigelman, Ms. Jenna Anderson, and Mr. Scott Ferrara. No cultural material associated with Indian Nations was recovered and only a small amount of historic period cultural material was found. Report Organization The report that follows contains this Executive Summary, two other chapters, references cited, and four appendices labelled A through D. The principal sections are: • Chapter 1 – Executive Summary • Chapter 2 – Phase IB Supplemental Methods and Results 1 6 • Chapter 3 – Conclusions and Recommendations • References Cited The lettered appendices are A – Figures; B – Photographs; C - Agency Correspondence (including emails); and D – Stratigraphic Summary. All tables except those presented in Appendix D are embedded in the narrative. 7 2 Supplemental Phase IB Methods and Results This chapter includes the methods and results of the supplemental Phase IB investigations conducted in the south area of the CEA. The discussion is introduced with a summary of the surficial geology as documented by both USDA Soil Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (SCS WSS 2021) and PWGC (2021). The methods section is focused on the field methods. Most of the artifacts were identified in the field though the non-brick materials recovered from STP 113 were retained. The results of the investigations conclude the chapter discussions. Surficial Geology and September Phase IB STP Results PWGC (2021) reported on 15 borings placed within the CEA (Bores B-2 through B-13) and two outside of the CEA (Bores B-1 and B-2) along part of a proposed temporary haul road. Of the borings within the CEA, numbers B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, B-12, and B-13 were located in the area subject to shovel testing in September, 2021. Borings B-7, B-8, B-9, B-10, and B-11 were located in the CEA south area. The USDA SCS WSS (USDA WSS 2021) plots the north area as within Carver and Plymouth (CpE) soils 15–35% slopes and Plymouth loamy coarse sand 8–15% slopes (PlC). The south area is contained with the PlC soil class with a now-filled inlet defined as Tidal Marsh soils. We note that the soil class boundaries in the area do not overlay neatly on the underlying aerial photograph and the boundaries are skewed about 150 feet (45 meters) to the west based on the Mattituck Creek mid-channel delineation. With this caveat, the geotechnical bore stratigraphy does align well with the CpE and PlE soil descriptions in the north half of the CEA. Table 2.1 presents the summary of the data from these two sources for the upper 3.3 feet (1 meter) in each which was the maximum depth achieved by the STPs. The borings are presented beginning in the northwest corner of the CEA, trending east, then returning west (“as the ox plows”). Table 2.1. Soil Class and Bore Soil Class Descriptions Soil Class Soil Boring # Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 PlC None* H1 (0-4 in.) loamy sand H2 (4-27 in.) loamy sand H3 (27-60 in.) gravelly coarse sand PlC B-13 0-6 in. very loose dark brn sandy topsoil, trace 6-24 in. loose, reddish- brown fine-grained sand, 24-36 in. loose reddish- brown medium to fine 8 Table 2.1. Soil Class and Bore Soil Class Descriptions Soil Class Soil Boring # Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 organics trace silt grained sand, trace organics CpE None* Oa (0-1 in) highly decomposed plant material over H1 (1-9 in.) coarse sand/sand H2 (9-23 in.) coarse sand/sand H3 (23-60 in.) coarse sand/gravelly coarse sand CpE B-12 0-6 in. very loose dark brn sandy topsoil 6-24 in. loose, light reddish brown silty sand 24-36 in. loose light reddish brown silty sand, little gravel, crushed rock PlC B-5 0-6 in. very loose dark brn sandy topsoil 6-24 in. loose, light reddish-brown medium to fine grained sand, trace silt 24-36 in. loose light reddish-brown medium to fine grained sand, trace silt, trace gravel B-6 0-6 in. very loose dark brn sandy topsoil 6-24 in. loose, light reddish-brown medium to fine grained sand, trace gravel, trace silt 24-36 in. loose light reddish-brown medium to fine grained sand, little gravel CpE B-3 0-6 in. very loose dark brn sandy topsoil, trace organics 6-24 in. loose, reddish- brown fine-grained sand, trace silt 24-36 in. loose reddish- brown medium to fine grained sand, trace organics B-4 0-6 in. very loose dark brown sandy topsoil 6-24 in. loose, reddish brown medium to fine grained sand, trace silt 24-36 in. loose reddish- brown medium to fine grained sand, trace gravel * Sources: USDA WSS 2021; Warner et al. 1975 Spigelman and Weed (2021:8) summarized the stratigraphy observed in the September STPs as follows: The natural stratigraphy observed within the CEA generally conformed to the USGS mapped soils of the Plymouth and Carver series (Photograph 1). The CEA is open forest with mature hardwood trees and a thin O/A horizon was present throughout. A silty sand E soil horizon was noted in many STPs, with a distinctive high mineral content and gray (10 YR 3/2 to 7.5YR 4/1) color. Underlying Bw soil horizons were silty sand and sand, with varying gravel content and dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown (10YR 4/4 to 10YR 5/6) color. Gravel content ranged from <5%, as expected for Carver series soils, to 5– 15%, as expected for Plymouth series soils. Gravel was generally small glacial till, though angular fragments of shale were also noted with some frequency. Eastern portions of the CEA that had been previously cleared of forest showed intact or truncated soil stratigraphy beneath modern fill of decomposing wood chips. The association of these clearings with landscaping debris is reinforced by the presence of several piles of pulled stumps and cut logs. December Field Methods Supplemental Phase IB survey investigated the southern portion of the CEA, utilizing a 25 ft. (7.5m) grid, with alternating STP locations excavated, for a density of approximately 32 STPs per acre (Figure 4). The STPs were restricted to areas with less than 15% slope and the grid extended into the areas of known 20th century dredge 9 spoil dumping, as observed from historic aerial photographs (Weed 2021). The large, steeply sloped, dredge spoil heaps in the southeast corner of the CEA were not tested (see Photograph B5 in Weed 2021). A total of 30 STP locations were laid out and excavated in the supplemental Phase IB testing. Pre-Fieldwork Survey and Excavation Mapping A topographic field survey provided by Young and Young served as the base map for the project. This base map was digitized by ACME Heritage Consultants and the proposed STP locations laid out within the CEA. STP locations were uploaded to a real-time kinematic global positioning system (RTK GPS) unit and then marked in the field with labeled pin flags. The limits of the CEA had been previously marked in the field with survey stakes and flagging tape by project surveyors. Shovel Test Pits Within the CEA, STPs measured 19 by 19 in. (50 by 50 cm) square, and were excavated with flat shovels in 4 in. (10 cm) arbitrary levels within the natural stratigraphy. All STPs were excavated at least 4 in. (10 cm) into culturally sterile subsoil, where possible. STPs in deep dredge spoil were excavated to the maximum depth possible based on soil conditions, typically 32 in. (80 cm) below ground level. All excavated material from the STPs were screened through 1/4-in (6 mm) hardware mesh, utilizing two-leg, standing screens. Field Data Recordation Standardized forms were used to record field data, with standard soil descriptions and Munsell color descriptions. Forms included shovel test summary forms, bag and special sample logs (if needed), and photograph logs. December Investigation Results The December fieldwork was on the level and moderately sloped (< 15% slope) southern portion of the CEA. A total of 30 additional STPs (STPs 101–130, see Appendix D) were excavated. The stratigraphy was generally consistent with the mapped USGS soil series documented for the area (USDA WSS 2021) and the geotechnical borings (PWGC 2021) described in the south section of the CEA. Photographs 1 through 3 in Appendix B illustrate representative profiles. Table 2.2 presents the USDA soil unit descriptions, those from the geotechnical bores, and the closest supplemental Phase IB STPs to the bores in the supplemental Phase IB area. Table 2.2. Soil Class, Boring, and Select STP Profile Descriptions Soil Class Soil Boring, STP #s Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 PlC description None* H1, 0-4 in. [0-10cm], loamy sand H2, (4-27 in. [10-68 cm], loamy sand H3, 27-60 in. [69-152 cm],) gravelly coarse sand PlC B-7 0-6 in. [0-15 cm], very loose dark brown sandy topsoil 6 - +/- 42 in. [15-106 cm]., very loose reddish brown silty sand, trace gravel, roots STP 106 O/A, 0-9 cm, sandy loam with < 10% gravel B, 9-40 cm, loamy sand C, 40-55 cm, sand CpE description None* O/A, 0-6 in. [0-15 cm] highly decomposed plant material over H1 (1-9 in.) coarse sand/sand H2, (6-23 in. [15-58 cm] coarse sand/sand H3, (23-60 in. [58-152 cm] coarse sand/gravelly coarse sand 10 Table 2.2. Soil Class, Boring, and Select STP Profile Descriptions Soil Class Soil Boring, STP #s Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 CpE B-10 0-6 in. [0-15 cm], brown medium to fine grained sand 6-24 in., light brown medium to fine grained sand, trace clayey sand 24-48 in., very loose, light brown medium to fine grained sand STP 109 O/A, 0-11 cm, sandy loam B, 11-25 cm, loamy sand (mattress spring) C, 25-45 cm, sand B-8 0-6 in. [0-15 cm], very loose dark brown sandy topsoil 6-24 in. [15-61 cm], very loose reddish-brown medium to fine grained sand, trace silt, roots 24-48 in. [61-122 cm], very loose reddish brown fine grain and, trace silt, roots, mica flecks STP 112 O, 0-9 cm, humus A, 9-24 cm, sandy loam (Glass) B, 24-35 cm, loamy sand (Ceramic, metal) B-9 0-3 in. [0-8 cm], very loose dark brown sandy topsoil 3-36 in. [8-91 cm] very loose light brown medium to fine grained sand, trace gravel, roots 36-48 in. [91-122 cm], grey medium to fine grained sand, trace shells STP 122 O/A, 0-10 cm, sandy loam Fill/Dredge, 10-80 cm, clayey silt N/A B-11 0-3 in. [0-7.6 cm], very loose dark brown sandy topsoil 3-24 in. [8-61 cm], light brown and tan medium to fine grained sand, roots 24-48 in. [61-122 cm], very loose tan coarse to fine grain sand STP 129 O/A, 0-6 cm, sandy loam Fill/Dredge, 6-75 cm N/A * Sources: USDA WSS 2021; Warner et al. 1975 Most of the STPs were terminated in C-horizon sterile soils between 40 and 55 centimeters below ground level (Appendix B: Photograph 1), while some encountered deep deposits of dredge spoil that extended greater than 80 centimeters below ground level Photograph 2). The natural stratigraphy observed within the southern CEA generally conformed to the USGS mapped soils of the Plymouth and Carver series (see Photographs 1 and 2). The CEA is open forest with mature hardwood trees and a thin O/A horizon was present throughout. Underlying B and C soil horizons were loamy sand and sand, with varying gravel content and dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and (10YR 4/6) color. Gravel content ranged from <5%, as expected for Carver series soils, to 5–15%, as expected for Plymouth series soils. STPs along the southernmost margin of the CEA showed extensive deposits of dredge spoil. The location of this spoil deposition is consistent with that shown in a 1955 historic aerial photograph (Figure 5). The bank of the former inlet was documented in five STPs, with a truncated soil sequence covered in a thin (10–20cm thick) layer of dredge spoil. The former inlet channel was identified in 10 STPs, with deep (80cm+) deposits of dredge spoil that continued below the limits of excavation. The presence of these deep spoil deposits confirms that additional testing along the southern boundary of the CEA is not needed. No cultural material from Indian Nations was observed in any of the supplemental STPs within the CEA. A sparse amount of historic period cultural material was found across the former bank of the inlet, and is interpreted as late-19th or early-20th century casual dumping of trash and building demolition debris (Figure 6). The historic artifacts were recovered in 10 STPs (Table 2.3). Dating and identifications utilized the online resources of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory (Samford and Miller 2015). 11 Table 2.3 Supplemental Phase IB Artifacts STP # Stratum Horizon Item Count Dimension Date 104 I O/A Brick, red, frags. (2 refit), NR 1 3in wide 105 I O/A Metal, ferrous, corroded, frags., all same object, NR 4 ~5cm wide 108 I O/A Glass, green bottle frag., NR 1 <5cm 109 I O/A Metal, mattress spring, NR 1 30cm long 111 I O/A Glass, window, frag., NR 1 <5cm 112 II A Glass, window, frag. 1 <10cm 112 III B Nail, ferrous, corroded, NR 1 <10cm long III B Ceramic, whiteware, indeterminate shape, body frags. 2 <2cm III B Ceramic, blue glaze, indeterminate shape, body frag. 1 <1cm 113 III Fill Metal, ferrous nail, square 3 3.5cm long III Fill Ceramic, whiteware, underglaze paint, green chrome color, open shape, body frags. (2 refit) 1 3cm c.1830– 1860 III Fill Glass, window, colorless, frag. 1 3cm — III Fill Glass, bead, round, blue, frag., 50% preserved 1 1cm diameter, 0.7cm thick III Fill Ceramic, redware, shallow wide mouth jar (aka cake pot or butter crock), frag. (Rim, wall) 1 11cm tall, 25cm diameter, 1.7cm thick walls 19th c. III Fill Bricks, red, complete, NR 3 2-1/2” × 3- 1/2” × 8” 116 II Fill Glass, colorless, bottle, frag., NR 1 <5cm 122 II Fill Glass, colorless, bottle, frags., NR 2 <5cm 123 I O/A Metal, mattress spring, NR 1 30cm long Frag(s). = Fragment(s); NR = Not Retained Most of these artifacts were found in low concentrations, typically one or two per STP, and were not retained for further analysis. Artifacts included fragments of bottle glass, metal mattress springs and bucket fragments, plate glass, and red brick fragments. In STP 113 (Photograph 3), a thin layer of sterile dredge spoil overlaid an assemblage of 3 red bricks (not retained) and 30+ red brick fragments (not retained), 3 corroded nails, 1 whiteware, 1 redware, 1 window glass fragment, and a fragment of a blue glass bead (Photograph 4). This deposit of 19th century material is interpreted as building demolition debris, which likely originated elsewhere and was dumped on the bank of the inlet prior to, or during, 20th century infilling. Historic artifacts were found in STPs on the lower slopes of the CEA in areas with little or no dredge spoil. They provide evidence for the dumping of large and/or heavy refuse (mattresses, bricks, etc.) in an isolated spot. This dumping either pre- dates or was contemporary with the 20th century infilling of the inlet with dredge spoil. 12 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions reached during the Phase IB investigations are summarized below. The final recommendations follow the conclusions. Conclusions The Supplemental Phase IB research and field investigations found that the September STP stratigraphic profiles reflected the characteristics of the upper solum as documented in both the USDA Soil Conservation Web Soil Survey data (USDA WSS 2021) and the geotechnical bore profiles (PWGC 2021). Apparent dredge spoil was also identified in several STPs all of which were within the filled inlet or on that inlet’s shore line. Although historic- era artifacts were recovered, the material is identified as building demolition debris, which likely originated off- site and was dumped on-site during or before the inlet filling. None of the historic-era artifacts are associated with Indigenous Nations. Recommendations No further archaeological work is recommended for the Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396) project. No evidence of use by Indian Nations peoples was identified and no intact historic-era occupation zones were found. 3 13 References Cited PWGC. 2021 (August 3). Letter Report: Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report 5780 Mill Road Mattituck NY 11952. Prepared by P.W. Grosser Consulting (PWGC) for Jeffrey Strong, Strong’s Yacht Center, LLC. Samford, Patricia, and George L. Miller. 2015. Post-Colonial Ceramics. Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland. https://apps.jefpat.maryland.gov/diagnostic/Post-Colonial%20Ceramics/index-PostColonialCeramics.htm. Spigelman, Mathew D. and Carol S. Weed. 2021 (October 4). Phase IB Archaeological Assessment, Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396), Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Report prepared by Matthew D. Spigelman and Carol S. Weed for Strong’s Yacht Center and submitted to NYOPRHP in support of Project 21PR04396. Weed, Carol S. 2021. Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Phase Ia Archaeology (v2), 5780 W. Mill Road, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Report prepared by Carol S. Weed for Strong’s Yacht Center and submitted to NYOPRHP in support of Project 21PR04396. United State Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021 (March). Custom Soil Resource for Suffolk County New York 5780 W. Mill Road, Mattituck, NY. Report downloaded from Web Soil Survey 03112021. Warner, John W. et al. 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. USDA Soil Conservation Services (SCS) in cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. 14 Appendix A – Figures t� . 'l (MATTITUCKJ 646.5 IN� Source: USGS/ESRI Historical Topographic Map Explorer , Weed 2021a:26 Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY � /u , \ \ 32'30" Project Location (USGS Mattituck Hills 1956)Figure 1 4· s Figure 2. SYC Plan Sheet 13 with CEA Highlighted in Orange (Weed 2021a:27)= Strong's Yacht Center = Construction Excavation Area ---·---·-vi .. u,.::i,c19•-�"7'd'-+I _,...........,._.,._ 001111!\ el !)Ollll!J �c�:,�� -.-r---"'f--<---. ... -, _. ............... _ -.-...... -.... •1.•-0--(.� ......... .e.to __,..,.� ........ &.loO . ,-�r....tt>o.,_""""',-cr�-1:: .. ��--�-l'�-�-___ ,.. ___ �,,,_� .. ----·--··-0 60AT STORA61= eulLDIN6-S 5TRON6'5 "r'AvHT CENTER 01-Motl �J,,. T°""" of �..O:d 5'1Hoi... � � Yo,-, .AERIAL OVERLAY ,.____ _ ___ .., """' "' �lei:-""--IOOO-•� -CM,.., 1,_,. Figure 3. SYC CEA (Orange) and Phase 1 Haul Road (Green) (Weed 2021a:28) �.?l"' --� \ ....�---- � HA..\. ,t('AJ:1 !CCTION . . - TEMPORARY STOCl<Ptt.E AREA FOR CONSTAUCTlON OF RETAINING WALL DURING PHASE 2 OECOHSTRUCT HAUL ROAD DURING PHASE 2 EXCAVATfON LIMIT OF PHASE TWO°" IOIOACI ""-., � -·� �:i ;';7'",:: � Do-..,o:Oll"IOI" i , , I I ?.'6g I I I I I J I L_ TEMP()RAAV $10CKPU • ..E AREA FOR CONSTRUCTOO OF RETAINiNG WALL DURING PHASE 1 CONSTUCT PORTION OF EVERGREEN-RETAINING WALL DURING PttA.SE t '1 ' ' . Construction E.xcavation Area' 11' WIDE TEMPORARY HAUL ROAq CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ACTMTIES COMPL__ETE CON:STUCTION OF EVERGREEN RETAINING WALL CURING PHASE 2 PHASE ONE: EXCAVATEDOWH TO.ELEVATION ta 123.0oo-t CY J EXCAVATION UMrT ·OF PHASE ONE (U9ACI l,.,.:,c,,c-.. :-. r,o,,.crP-hs .Jouph$cltl-T.,JO I � 7 ,u:!°i�,o��:o��:• .. t,,o,-eM· ....,..� r�-ao kit:rrdl'-1,.10<" '"1Cllp o, �. ,t.qci•· f!>GO eK -� � 1411-' o• ""'!l!P M ... I I � = Phase 1 Teljl1porary ij;uJ Road s . \. (3E'K ifuun dary � I -....._,l., ')1 -. • ...... '"1 'J.": ' ,,;-:.'\ 1 •l ' . ' ' '' '1 I ' ' I ;' �! \' ''; ,I I , \' \\.,,,.;;,"._\\ \ I 1.·•t g i 1------·--·"' s,oung cl!;:�;;;�'j. :�;:;:.;,__ ,_ .. ...,.-_.., _c.._.., __ r..,_ ca.-...c. ............. � ... -c-.,--(.� ......... r�• � ... ...._. .... .,,,_ �� OATA _.,...,_.1...,r,c...._,.� � ...... _,_"t:>,-...... ""_,,:i...-...;o ... ..,.��.,..---� .... ,,. ...... "'O(.,o,,O"C, ....... �-..� !'!&�.., �•IGAnoN . ,.--,c.r---�------� .... ·--=-� -=-�..,_,t:,,fl, "00..._•�c.•��.-c>•r ... e,c��-.o-"'6.--�-•C.-...-·�o,•,cw'-ll'JNO�,:.eo'c:1.-,_ "1. w, ... -.,.O!Kl.l � ?Q � ...,.......,.� ��•f�;,;S.C-,·,"C�-�"'._.. .. �.,,e-�,_ -... � ...... , ... "°..,..,.. _...,.,....,_,._1,.. ... ,.c.t.o•- �VC'f"Oflt�_G;_R-,,-IG,Al'l()N • l_..,UOl.,.,,........,,..,_!>.,,.,. ..... .....,_._r..,.:,,,. �• NC � ?>Jlt",c","I ...,-x O• _. ""°'� �-��·-=-- ·, ( eoAT 5'TOR.A6f �1'.LDlt-.6S STRON<l>'S YACHT CENTER �t "1,:;t�:.;!;.._ l'o,,,.,, 0-!lovtr-OIC:I '!<.Oo,._c.c..,":,1'°""'""'� !!XGAVATIO"l Pi-',4,SlN!S, PLA'l 0 c;.,.,.._.,r�"""oP -OOC 06 -,:ia, �• ----·-� .,__.,:, ,X>) � ��:111 t:'!,-,,;>-'::·�.- 3881299 - 4 page 33 SYC CEA Supplemental Phase IB STP Locations Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Figure 4 Source: ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021 3881299 - 4 page 33 SYC CEA Supplemental Phase IB STPs With/Without Dredge Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Figure 5 Source: ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021 3881299 - 4 page 33 Supplemental Phase IB STPs Yielding Historic-Era Cultural Material Strong's Yacht Center - Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Figure 6 Source: ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021 21 Appendix B – Photographs Photograph 1. STP 112, stratigraphic profile, facing north. Soil horizons indicated. Photograph 2. STP 118, stratigraphic profile, facing east. Soil horizons indicated. O A B C O Fill Fill Photograph 3. STP 113, stratigraphic profile, facing west. Soil horizons indicated, note light gray dredge spoil atop dark brown fill containing historic artifacts. O Fill Fill C Photograph 4. STP 113, historic artifacts from lower fill. Scale bar measures 10cm with 1cm increments. 25 Appendix C – Agency Correspondence New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Division for Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 (518) 237-8643 • https://parks.ny.gov/shpo KATHY HOCHUL ERIK KULLESEID Governor Commissioner December 03, 2021 Mr. Charles Vandrei Agency Historic Preservation Officer NYS Environmental Conservation Division of Lands and Forests 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4255 Re: DEC Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings 5780 W Mill Rd, Mattituck, Suffolk County, NY 11952 21PR04396 Dear Mr. Vandrei: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the submitted materials in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section 14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the report of the Phase IB archaeological survey (21SR00609), as well as the Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (dated 8/13/2021). No archaeological sites were identified as a result of the Phase IB archaeological survey. However, the Phase IB report states that shovel tests were not excavated in the southern portion of the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE) because the “southern area was confirmed through geotechnical work to be fill” (Page 8). OPRHP has reviewed the report of the geotechnical investigation and does not agree that there is definitive evidence of fill in the southern portion of the APE. OPRHP recommends the excavation of 7.5-meter-interval Phase IB shovel tests in the southern portion of the APE. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. If you have any questions, please contact me via email. Sincerely, Tim Lloyd, Ph.D. Scientist - Archaeology timothy.lloyd@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only 1/7/22, 7:29 AM Gmail - RE: Project 21PR04396, Supplemental Phase Ib STP Plot https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=5fa1c9b1be&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-8372705812059292245%7Cmsg-f%3A171858657705…1/1 Carol Weed <csw13108@gmail.com> RE: Project 21PR04396, Supplemental Phase Ib STP Plot 1 message Lloyd, Timothy (PARKS) <Timothy.Lloyd@parks.ny.gov>Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 8:57 AM To: Carol Weed <csw13108@gmail.com> Cc: Matthew Spigelman <mspigelman@acmeheritage.com> Good morning, Carol. The layout of shovel tests looks fine. Tim Lloyd, Ph.D. Scientist – Archaeology Division for Historic Preservation New York State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-268-2186 | timothy.lloyd@parks.ny.gov https://parks.ny.gov/shpo Are you registered to vote? Register to vote online today. Moved recently? Update your information with the NYS Board of Elections. Not sure if you’re registered to vote? Search your voter registration status. From: Carol Weed <csw13108@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:00 PM To: Lloyd, Timothy (PARKS) <Timothy.Lloyd@parks.ny.gov> Cc: Matthew Spigelman <mspigelman@acmeheritage.com> Subject: Project 21PR04396, Supplemental Phase Ib STP Plot ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good Morning Tim: Matt has prepared the attached figure and it shows the distribution of the initial Phase Ib shovel test pits (STPs) and the proposed supplemental STPs (#s 101 thru 130). Also included in the figure are the original geotechnical bore locations. As you know, Bores B9, B10, and B11 were the ones where possible dredge spoils were identified at depth. The red diagonal lines delimited areas where surface spoil and other surface disturbance were identified during earlier walkovers. The CEA areas without STPs have slopes 15% or greater. If the layout of the supplemental STPs is OK with you, our plan is to implement it at some point between December 16-22. I have copied Matt on this email as his folks will be conducting the fieldwork. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out to both of us. We are both out of office on Wednesday but will have our trusty cell phones at hand and will respond as soon as feasible. With regards as usual, Carol -- Carol S. Weed, MA (RPA) Independent Consultant (Cultural Resources and Environmental Permitting) C: 646.276.2460 Email: csw13108@gmail.com ; cweed1514@yahoo.com Office Hrs.: 7am - 3pm 28 Appendix D – Stratigraphy Summary Table D.1 - Supplemental Phase IB Shovel Test Pit Stratigraphy Summary STP# Strat# Depth (cm) Soil Texture Munsell Horizon Cultural Materials Notes Date Excavator Initials 101 I 00-16 SaLo, <10% Gr 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 16-30 LoSa, <10% Gr 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 30-60 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 102 I 00-11 SaLo, <10% Gr 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 11-17 LoSa 10YR3/4 A NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 17-25 LoSa, <10% Gr 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA IV 25-40 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 103 I 00-12 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM 10% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 12-34 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS III 34-50 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM 12/13/2021 MDS 104 I 00-09 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR, Brick frag (2 refit), 3" thick 10% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 09-30 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM Erosional setting 12/13/2021 MDS III 30-50 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 105 I 00-14 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR, Metal, 4 iron frags., same vessel/object, heavily corroded 15% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 14-28 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS III 28-45 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 106 I 00-09 SaLo, <10% Gr 10YR3/2 OA NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 09-40 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 40-55 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 107 I 00-08 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 08-20 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 20-40 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 108 I 00-09 SaLo, <10% Gr 10YR3/2 OA NR, Glass, green bottle frag. Recent debris 12/13/2021 JA II 09-18 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 18-38 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 109 I 00-11 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR, Metal mattress spring Recent debris 12/13/2021 JA II 11-25 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 25-45 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 110 I 00-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM 10% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 10-29 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS III 29-40 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 111 I 00-12 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR Glass, window frag., thin ~1mm 10% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 12-28 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS III 28-45 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 112 I 00-09 O 10YR3/2 O NCM 5% slope 12/13/2021 MDS II 09-24 SaLo 10YR3/3 A NR, Glass, window frag. — 12/13/2021 MDS III 24-35 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NR, 3 ceramic frags., 1 nail — 12/13/2021 MDS IV 35-50 SiSa, 10% Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 113 I 00-08 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS II 08-17 SiSa 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS III 17-36 SaLo 10YR4/4 Fill NR, 3 red bricks, 30+ brick frags.; [all frags.] 1 glass bead, 1 flat glass, 1 redware, 1 whiteware, 3 corroded nails — 12/13/2021 MDS IV 36-60 Sa, Gr Si 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS 114 I 00-14 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS II 14-85 Sa 10YR6/3 Fill/Dredge NCM sand spoil, deep 12/13/2021 MDS 115 I 00-09 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 09-17 LoSa 10YR4/2 Fill? NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 17-26 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA IV 26-40 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 116 I 00-12 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 12-20 ClSi 10YR4/2 Fill NR, Glass, brown frag. — 12/13/2021 JA III 20-38 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA IV 38-55 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 117 I 00-05 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 05-23 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 23-28 ClSi 10YR7/3 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 JA IV 28-30 SaLo 10YR2/2 A/B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA V 30-42 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA VI 42-60 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 118 I 00-09 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS II 09-23 SiSaCl 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM clay/silt spoil 12/13/2021 MDS III 23-90 Sa 10YR6/3 Fill/Dredge NCM sand spoil, deep 12/13/2021 MDS 119 I 00-07 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA II 07-18 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 JA III 18-21 SaLo 10YR2/2 A/B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA IV 21-35 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA V 35-40 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA 120 I 00-05 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 05-80 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 121 I 00-07 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 07-55 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF III 55-75 SiSa 10YR7/1 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 122 I 0-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 10-80 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NR, Glass, frag. — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 123 I 00-08 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR, Metal, mattress spring — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 08-25 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF III 25-50 Sa 10YR4/4 C NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 124 I 00-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 10-28 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF III 28-55 Sa 10YR4/4 C NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 125 I 00-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 10-25 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF III 25-50 Sa 10YR4/4 C NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 126 I 00-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 10-80 Sa 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 127 I 00-08 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 08-75 Sa 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 128 I 00-60 ClSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 129 I 00-06 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 06-75 SaSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF 130 I 00-20 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF II 20-50 SaSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM excavation ended at large root & +10% gravel 12/20/2021 JA, SF Abbreviations Used: Si = silt, Sa = sand, Lo = Loam, Cl = clay, Gr = gravel, sm = small, frag. = fragment, NR = not retained.