The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About(4) Phase IB Report.pdf For CRIS Filing 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) October 4, 2021 Project � Summary �� []�� =��UL ��[r�� SHPO Project Review Number: 21PR04]96 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: Phase |B Archaeological Assessment Location Information Location: Hamlet ofMattituck Minor Civil Division:Town of Southold County: Suffolk Survey Area(Metric& English) Length: construction excavation area (CEA) maximum 470 feet (143 meters) N-S;temporary haul road 1454 feet(443 meters)end to end. Width: [EA maximum 376 feet(114 meters) E'VV,temporary haul road 10'16 feet(3'ca. 5 meters). Depth (when appropriate): maximum shovel test depth in the CEA ca. 24inches (6O centimeters [cm]) . Number uf Acres Surveyed (when apprupriate): not applicable Number uf Square Meters and Feet Excavated: 20.5sq meters(ca. 220sqft) Percentage of Site Excavated: n/a USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Matticuck Hi||s7.5'nninute quadrangle Archaeological Survey Overview GPR Survey Blocks: none Plow Strips: none Number& Interval of Shovel Test Pits (STPs): [E4=70STPsatI5foot (7.5 meter) intervals. 165TPsalong the proposed Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road atG0 foot(15meters) Total STPs: 86 Number&Size of Units: not applicable Survey Transect Interval: not applicable Results of Archaeological Survey Number& Name of Archaeological Sites identified: none Number Q' Name of Historic Sites identified: none Number& Name of Sites Recommended for Phase ||/Avoidance: None Report Authorfs>: Matthew D. Spi0e|rnan' PhD (RPA#365&723O) and Carol S. Weed, M.A. (RPA#9Q909O)' Date of Report: October 4' 2021 Table of Contents ProjectSummary..................................................................................................i Tableof Contents.................................................................................................ii Listof Tables.......................................................................................................iii List of Appendix A Figures...................................................................................iii Listof Appendix B Photographs...........................................................................iii ExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................1 Administration and Regulatory Approvals.......................................................1 Existing Conditions Within Phase I Survey Areas and Proposed Direct Impacts ............................................................................................................2 Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigations.....................................................2 Report Organization.........................................................................................3 Phaselb Supplemental Research..........................................................................4 The Goddard Notebooks..................................................................................4 Phase IB Field Methods and Results......................................................................7 FieldMethods..................................................................................................7 Pre-Fieldwork Survey and Excavation Mapping.................................7 ShovelTest Pits...................................................................................7 Field Data Recordation .......................................................................8 FieldResults.....................................................................................................8 Construction Excavation Area (CEA)................................................................8 Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road.........................................................................8 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................10 Conclusions....................................................................................................10 The Supplemental Research .............................................................10 TheSurvey........................................................................................10 Recommendations.........................................................................................11 ReferencesCited................................................................................................12 AppendixA—Figures..........................................................................................14 AppendixB—Photographs.................................................................................23 Appendix C—Agency Correspondence................................................................25 Appendix D—Stratigraphy Summary..................................................................27 ii List of Tables Table No. Description Page 2.1 Mill Road Landowner Correlation................................................5 List of Appendix A Figures Figure No. Description 1 Project Location (USGS Mattituck Hills 1958) 2 SYC Plan Sheet 13 with CEA Highlighted in Orange(Weed 2021a:27) 3 SYC CEA(Orange)and Phase 1 Haul Road (Green) (Weed 2021a:28) 4 SYC Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road,West Side(Weed 2021a:29) 5 Portion of 1902-1909 Hyde Plate 10 6 Part of 1929 Dolph&Stewart Southold Plate Page 20 7 Phase 1B CEA Results 8 Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road Results List of Appendix B Photographs Photo No. Description 1 Looking N at the north profile of Shovel Test Pit 32a,9/2/21 2 Looking N at the north profile of Shovel Test Pit H9,9/22/21 iii Page Left Intentionally Blank iv 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). Herein,the new buildings are referenced by their proposed SYC building numbers. Building(Bldg.) 9 will encompass 49,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and Bldg. 10 will be 52,500 sq.ft. (see Figure 2).1 The proposed Project Site consists of a 4.59+acre construction excavation area (CEA, Figure 3); a 1,454-ft. (433 m.) long by 16-ft. (ca. 5-m.)wide,temporary haul road (Figures 3 and 4); an in-marina marked access route; and new utilities providing service to existing and new SYC buildings. Only the northern half of the CEA was evaluated as archaeologically sensitive. That section of the CEA,the portion of the temporary haul road in the CEA, and the remainder of the road in the upland flat were subject to Phase IB investigations. An application for site plan development was filed with the Town of Southold Planning Board in 2018. On February 8, 2021,the Town issued a Final Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Minor modifications were made to the Final Scope and that edition dates April 5, 2021. Among other items, the Town of Southold Final Scope (2/8/21; revised 4/5/21) noted that the archaeological sensitivity of the direct impact areas within the Project Site had to be evaluated. The walkovers and research for the Phase la Archaeological Assessment were reported in Weed (2021a) which was submitted for review to the NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP) using the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) along with Project Notification information. Weed (2021a)was accepted on July 22, 2021. The Final Town Scope (4/5/21)also stated that the effects of the Project on three NYSHPO inventoried properties located north and west of SYC on W. Mill Road had to be considered. The eligibility of these three properties to the State/National Registers of Historic Places(S/NRHP) is listed in CRIS as Undetermined. The properties are: • Robinson-D'Aires House (USN 10310.000347) at 4255 W. Mill Road, • Old Mill Restaurant(USN 10310.000348) at 5775 W. Mill Road, and • Old Water Tower(USN 10310.000349)on Suffolk County Tax Parcel 1000-106-6-4.1 (W. Mill Road) V .........................................................................................................................--- Abbreviations: ac.= acre, acres; cm.=centimeter; CF=cubic feet;ft.=foot,feet; in.= inch, inches; hectare = ha; m. = meter, meters 1 An Historic Reconnaissance-level Survey was conducted concomitant with and separate from the archaeological walkovers between March and June 2021. The reconnaissance-level survey documented the existing conditions of the three Undetermined properties noted above. The survey also considered buildings/structures that were located on abutting properties or were in line-of-sight to the CEA or temporary haul road. The results of the reconnaissance-level survey were reported to NYOPRHP on July 29, 2021 (Weed 2021b). Existing Conditions Within Phase IB Survey Areas and Proposed Direct Impacts The proposed Project includes the construction of two storage buildings, similar in function to existing maintenance and storage buildings within the SYC. The SYC marina is located at the terminus of W. Mill Road (aka Cox Neck Road, also Mill Road) on the west floodplain of Mattituck Creek. Topographically,the overall SYC facility includes floodplain, bluff line with abutting valley slope, and upland settings. The two new storage buildings will be constructed west of SYC Buildings 7 and 8 in the CEA which includes the bluff face,valley slope ridges and intervening swale, and part of the upland flat. The temporary haul road will traverse a valley slope ridge and then the westernmost ridge in the CEA. The CEA is located in the southeast quadrant of the SYC parcel to the west of the existing marina complex. Overall,this construction excavation area (CEA) is proposed to measure approximately 470 ft (143 m) north- south and 376 ft(114 m) east-west. At present,the AMSL elevations within the CEA range from about (ca.) 10 ft. AMSL to 50 ft. AMSL with the lowest elevations in the south quarter of the CEA(see Figure 3). The CEA, overall,will have a final elevation of about 10 ft. (3.3 m.)AMSL once Bldgs. 9 and 10 are erected. In order to create usable space for the two new buildings, approximately 134,000 cubic yards will be cut from the CEA. The cut soil will be hauled from the CEA via the temporary haul road during Construction Phase 1. At the end of Phase 1,the temporary haul road will remain as an emergency access route to the site and in Construction Phase 2, an in-marina access route will be used. The Phase 1 temporary haul road will run north-south along the west side of the CEA and then east-west across the upland flat to an entrance/exit point on W. Mill Road approximately 145 ft. (44 m.) southeast of 4105 W. Mill Road (see Figures 3 and 4). The depth of disturbance in the upland flat will be approximately 14 in. (ca. 35 cm.) including 8 in. (20 cm.) of recycled concrete overlying 6 in. (15 cm) of compacted soil. Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigations A Phase IA due diligence assessment focused on the current actions was conducted at various times between March 10 and June 16, 2021 by Carol S. Weed who was sometimes accompanied by others. Ms.Weed completed the NYOPRHP CRIS review and other background research for the Phase IA in the same time period. The CRIS search did not yield information on previously reported archaeological sites or buildings/structures in the CEA or along the temporary haul road. Further, only four archaeological sites were noted in CRIS within a two-mile context buffer. The Phase IA research results are briefly summarized herein in Chapter 2 and fully presented in Weed 2021a and 2021b. 2 No formal work plan for the proposed Phase IB was submitted to NYOPHRHP. However, Dr.Tim Lloyd,the NYOPRHP reviewer, did review the proposed survey grid and Ms. Weed's explanation of the proposed actions (see Appendix C—Agency Correspondence). The current Phase IB cultural resources investigations were conducted under the supervision of Dr. Matthew D. Spigelman, co-principal investigator,from September 19 to 22. The field personnel included included Ms.Jenna L. Anderson, Mr. Scott R. Ferrara, and Ms. Lisa Geiger. All of the field personnel were qualified under the Secretary of the Interior guidelines. Ms. Weed served as co-principal investigator and editor. She was in the field on September 19 and 20. Ms. Lisa Geiger created Appendix D,the Stratigraphic Summary,which was reviewed by Dr. Spigelman. Report Organization The report that follows contains this Executive Summary, four other chapters, references cited, and six appendices labelled A through E. The principal sections are: • Chapter 1—Executive Summary • Chapter 2—Phase IB Supplemental Research • Chapter 3—Phase IB Field Methods and Results Methods • Chapter 4—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. 3 2 Phase Ib Supplemental Research The historic context was begun in the Phase IA report(Weed 2021a) and has been augmented for the Phase IB investigations. The focus of the initial Phase IA had been on a review of sources pertaining to the historic environmental setting,functional uses of the Project parcel, and parcel title. The supplemental Phase IB research was focused on the Charles F. Goddard field notebook dated 1922. The review of this notebook was recommended by Dr. Lloyd in his Phase IA comment letter dated July 22, 2021 (see Appendix C). Herein,the Goddard notebooks are referenced as Goddard (YR:pg). The notebooks were not consistently page numbered by Goddard. Therefore, the Adobe pdf page number is that which is referenced. The research was conducted by Ms.Weed. The research use of the 1922 Goddard notebook, and subsequently others,was approved by the Southold Indian Museum (SIM) Board and President(Ms. Lucinda Hemmick). Dr. Lloyd also provided access to the NYOPRHP copies of the notebooks and the Goddard two-volume Catalogue. The Goddard Notebooks Charles F. Goddard was a founding member of the New York State Archaeological Association (NYSAA) Long Island (LI) Chapter. The LI Chapter founded the SIM which,today, houses archaeological collections containing materials found at both Indian Nation and EuroAmerican use locations. The Goddard notebooks in the SIM and in the NYOPRHP Library are dated between 1919 and November 1936. The notes in the 1919 through 1925 were reviewed and the data included therein on properties owned by Wm. B. Reeve, "Lawyer" Reeve,Will (Wm.) Robinson, Henry Gates, and Geo.Terry will form the basis for NYOPRHP site forms detailing the Goddard survey results in the subject years. These properties are located to the north and south of E. Mill Road, effectively east of Grand Road. The 1926-1936 notebooks were only casually reviewed for this Phase IB report, as much of Goddard's emphasis in those volumes is on the results of his feature exacavations at sites along the Peconic. None of the notebooks appear to reference work conducted on the west side of Mattituck Creek in the area now occupied by the SYC. Goodard and his wife, referred to as "Scout" in the daybooks, recorded book notes, informant coversations, observations they made about the fields they surveyed, and objects they collected from those fields. The locations they visited were,to a large extent, along the north shore of Peconic Bay, near Cutchogue, and elsewhere on the southern side of the North Fork. Their work in what is termed "the Inlet area" of Mattituck Creek is not as extensive as that he conducted elsewhere but they returned to the properties at least once a year between 1919 and 1925. 4 In the various notebooks (1919 thru 1925) Goddard provided sketch maps that illustrated the locations of the fields he walked during his surveys. The sketch maps were commonly, but not consistently, linked to Goddard's site designations which were usually single or double letters. Goddard (1921:4) provided a list of landowners associated with the site designations and he periodicaly added additions to his lettering scheme through the years. Goddard's 1919-20, 1921, and 1922 notebooks also contained sketch maps of the most of the E. Mill Road/Grand Road properties as well as his other sites elsewhere. These sketches provided relational details for the noted landowners near the Old Mill Dam crossing of Mattiuck Creek north and south of the west and east Mill Road segments. The notebooks from 1919 through 1924-1925 were reviewed for reference to the landowners noted on the three sketches. These landowner surnames (Bailey, Gates, Reeve, Robinson, and Terry among others)were then checked against the landowner names shown on Hyde's 1909 Suffolk County Atlas plate (Figure 5) and the 1929 Dolph &Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County Atlas plate (Figure 6). Additional checks were made of individual surnames as some surnames are common the Mattituck area. Table 2.1 lists the names noted in the 1909 Hyde Atlas (Figure 5), 1922 Goddard sketches (in red), and the 1929 Dolph &Stewart Atlas(Figure 6)sources within about 1-mile of the SYC CEA. The names are generally ordered west to east on the table. None of the Goddard sketch maps are included herein as some show object locations. Those sketches will be attached to the NYOPRHP site forms. Table 2.1 E. Mill Road Landowner Correlation Landowner Name and Location 1902-1909 1922 1929 Young(W. of W. Mill Road) S.Young S.Young Young(E. of W. Mill Road) D.Young Hill Miller(W.of Mattituck Creek) W.F. Miller Barker,Chudiak Dunn(W.&E. of W. Mill Road) John Dunn Formen (W.), Barker (E.) Robinson (N.&S. of W. Mill A.F. Robinson A.F. Robinson (N.), Road) Barker(E.) Moore(S.of W. Mill Road) Moore Gildersleeve(S. of W. Mill Road) A.Gildersleeve Bailey(N. of E. Mill Road) Mrs.J.J. Bailey Bailey A.J. Bailey Fisher(N. of E. Mill Road) G. M. Fisher Gates H.Gates Reeve IN. of E. Mill Road) W.B. Reeve,J. M. Reeve W. B. Reeve Reeve,Wm. E. Reeve Tuthill(N.of E. Mill Road) S.S.Tuthill Terry(S.of E. Mill Road) Geo Terry Terry G.Terry Reeve(S.of E. Mill Road T. K. Reeve Reeve Howard (S. of E. Mill Road) Miss Howard Moore(S.of E. Mill Road Geo. Moore Robinson (S.of E. Mill Road) Robinson Jenkins(S. of E. Mill Road) Jenkins Tuthill(S.of E. Mill Road) B.G.Tuthill B.G.Tuthill Robinson (S.of Grand Road) Wm. Robinson, P. Robinson W. Robinson S. Robinson Mollitt(S. of Grand Road) J.T. Mollitt J.T. Mutlett Reeve(S.of Grand Road) T. K. Reeve 5 Goddard (1919-20:26) provides his first sketch of the collection site on the south side of E. Mill Road which appears to be linked to the "Lawyer" Reeve property. The Goddard team visited that location in 1920(:29,45) referring to the location as the "Reeve"field. They applied the site designation "N"to the field (Goddard 1921:4)to the "Reeve Farm, shore of Mattituck Creek." In Goddard (1922:37) his sketch map illustrates the location of the "Robinson Farm: Inlet" and associated notes dated July 10th offer sketches of projectile points recovered from that propert. The Gates and Geo.Terry properties were surveyed on 8/31, and then only Gates on 9/14(Goddard 1922:52,57). The Reeve property was visited again on 9/16 and 9/28 and a sketch probably made on 9/28 indicate that the Reeve being reference is "Lawyer Reeve" (Goddard 1922: 59,60-61). Immediately following the note on the Reeve Farm is a reference to "Wm. B. Reeve"farm which, according to the 1909 Hyde Atlas (Figure 5) is located north of E. Mill Road, south of Mrs.A.J. Bailey's property. The Goddard team apparently did not return to the Robinson Farm until June 14th, 1923, when they provided an illustration of a "lozenge" shaped, quartz projectile point. Goddard does not reference Site "N" in the 1923 notebook though he does indicate that he surveyed the "Lou and Fred Robinson Farms" on 9/7 and then, on 9/19,the "Lou Robinson Farm: Inlet." As the Robinson surname abounds in the vicinity,without a sketch map or locational text,there no confirmation that Lou or Fred were inhabiting the Wm. or P.S. Robinson holdings which appear on the Hyde plate. On June 9th, 1924, however, Goddard (1924-1925: 13) noted that he had continued survey on the Lou Robinson property and then he surveyed the "Chudiak Farm:lnlet adjoining L.R." Nicholas Chudiak lived on North Road "in the vicinity of the Old Mill" according the The Watchman (October 26, 1939)which would have put him close to various Robinson holdings on the east side of Mattituck Creek. The name "Chudiak" is also present on the Dolph &Stewart 1929 plate and it is located on the west side of Mattituck Creek in the vicinity of SYC. That property could have been owned by a Chudiak associated with either North Road or Bergen Road Chudiak families. Goddard also mentioned the "Will Robinson Farm: Inlet" on May 17t", 1925 (Goodard 1924-1925:52). His notes say he found a full-groove axe head at the "farm north of Robinson" which, on the Hyde 1902-1909 plate would be the Miss Howard property. The available information seems to support the assignment of Site N to the "Lawyer" Reeve off E. Mill Road and the Wm. Robinson: Inlet property is the holding off of Grand Road and south of E. Mill. What do the Goddard notes tell use about the used areas? First,the Goddard surveys were focused on the identification and retention of what is archaeologically referred to as diagnostic chipped stone objects. Based on the implement sketches in the notebooks,the properties had objects on the ground surface that are assigned to the archaeologically-defined Archaic and Woodland periods. Also noted in the Goddard field walkovers was a fragment of Indian Nation pottery recovered from the "Lawyer" Reeve on June 21, 2021 (Goddard 1921:19) and what appears to be groundstone of various types. Second, all of the subject properties, except possibly Chudiak, are located on the first, second, and third terraces on the east side of Mattituck Creek. These terraces were/are fronted by a sea grass floodplain level and the terraces are relatively broad, allowing for till agriculture. The well-developed bluff line that is present on the west side of the Creek in the SYC area is utterly absent. The terraces on the east side would have afforded any of the users through time easy access to the riparian and riverine resources of the Creek. Those users also would have had easy canoe or rowboat access to Long Island Sound and, prior to the Old Mill Dam,the southern reaches of the Creek. Third,the Goddard notes, provide pertinent information as to the location of their object finds. It is likely the temporally or functionally distinct loci within areas can be defined providing additional insight into the use of the areas by Indian Nations in particular. 6 3 Phase IB Field Methods and Results The final field methods used during the Phase IB investigations were outlined in an August 20, 2021 email correspondence with Dr. Lloyd (see Appendix C). There were some modifications to the approaches in the field because of conditions and these are discussed below. No objects assignable to Indian Nations were recovered and from the Historic Periods only one small fragment of plate glass was recovered during excavation (it was noted and not retained). Field Methods Phase IB survey in the CEA followed a 25 ft. (7.5m)grid,with alternating STP locations excavated,for a density of approximately 32 STPs per acre (Figure 7). STPs were restricted to areas with less than 15%slope and without known evidence of 20th century dredge spoil dumping (Weed 2021a), roughly corresponding to those areas above the 30 ft. amsl contour. A total of 75 STP locations were laid out prior to fieldwork, of which 5 were found in the field to be execessively sloped and were not excavated, resulting in a total of 70 STPs excavated within the CEA. STPs were laid out at 50 ft. (15m) intervals along the approximately 1,050 ft. (320 m) long temporary haul road. An area of disturbance associated with a ca. 2010 banked all-terrain-vehicle track(ATV) (Weed 2021a)was avoided, resulting in the investigation of 16 STPs. Pre-Fieldwork Survey and Excavation Mapping A topographic field survey provided by Young and Young of Riverhead NY served as the basemap for the project. This basemap was digitized by ACME Heritage Consultants and the proposed STP locations laid out within the CEA and along the temporary haul road. STP locations were uploaded to an 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. Shovel Test Pits Within the CEA,STPs measured 19 by 19 in. (50 by 50 cm) square, and were excavated with flat spades in 4 in. (10 cm) arbitrary levels within the natural stratigraphy. Along the temporary haul road STPs measured 16 in. (40 cm) round and were excavated with pointed shovels, again in 4 in. (10 cm) arbitrary levels within natural stratigraphy. All STPs were excavated at least 4 in. (10 cm) into culturally sterile subsoil, where possible. All excavated material from the STPs were screened through 1/4-in (6 mm) hardware mesh, utilizing two-leg, standing screens. 7 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. Paper forms were digitized daily by Lisa Geiger into spreadsheets. Field Results Fieldwork consisting of a STP survey was conducted within the level and moderately sloped (and undisturbed) portions of the CEA and within the undisturbed portions of the temporary haul road. Complete records of these tests are found in Appendix E. No cultural material associated with Indian Nations was recovered and only a nominal amount of historic period cultural material was found, interpreted as incidental field scatter. The stratigraphy was generally consistent with mapped USGS soil series,with the CEA soils indicative of a forested landscape and the temporary haul road soils consistent with a formerly plowed agricultural field. Construction Excavation Area (CEA) Systematic shovel testing was conducted across the northern CEA. The southern CEA had been dismissed because of steep slopes associated with the 20 and 30 foot AMSL contours terraces and because the extreme southern area was confirmed through geotechnical work to be fill (Weed 2021a). A total of 70 STPs were excavated within the CEA, ranging to depths as great at 90 centimeters (Appendix D). Most of the STPs were terminated in C-horizon sterile soils between 53 and 60 centimeters below surface (bs). No cultural material, from Indian Nations or the Historic period,was observed in any of the STPs within the CEA. 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 browan 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 chipps. The association of these clearings with landscaping debris is reinforced by the presence of several piles of pulled stumps and cut logs. Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road Systematic shovel testing was conducted along the length of temporary haul road,from the northwest corner of the CEA to its terminus at W. Mill Road. A total of 16 STPs were excavated along the temporary haul road,with a large area of prior disturbance from an ATV track not tested. STPs were continued downward into the C- horizon and most terminated at 55 cm bs. (Appendix D). No Indian Nation cultural material was recovered from the STPs within the CEA. Historic material recovered consisted of a single,small (<1cm) piece of colorless plate glass from STP H7 (not retained),which is interpreted as incidential field scatter within the plow zone. Large 8 piles of modern demolition debris (bricks, glass, etc.)were identified within and adjacent to the start of the temporary haul road along W. Mill Road. The western portion of the temporary haul road is covered in dense, new growth,with many invasive vines reclaiming the former agricultural field. The stratigraphy observed in these STPs (H01—H11, H15—H16) is consistent with the USGS mapped Riverhead series,with a"30 cm deep Ap soil horizon of loamy sand with >5% gravel and a dark brown (10YR 3/3) color, above a truncated Bw soil horizon of loamy sand with 10-15%gravel and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) color(Photograph 2). The eastern portion of the temporary haul road is contiguous with the open, mature forest of the CEA. The stratigraphy observed in these STPs (H12—H14) shows an O/A horizon, above a Bw horizon, as described above. 9 4 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 yielded data acquired by Charles F. Goddard and his wife between 1919 and 1925 on the east side of Mattituck Creek across from SYC. The Phase IB field investigations within SYC's proposed CEA and Phase 1 temporary haul road did not find Indian Nation or EuroAmerican objects other than a single piece of glass. The Supplemental Research All of the Goddard notes dated from 1919-1925 concerning surveyed properties within about 1-mile of SYC reviewed. The results of the Goddard surveys on the east side of Mattituck Creek in the vicinity of the Old Mill have not yet been plotted in CRIS but that will occur this year. The takeaways from the research indicated that Indian Nations actively utilized the east side of the Creek on the first three, relatively broad terraces above the floodplain sea grass plains. Goddard's collection strategy was heavily biased to objects like projectile points and chipped stone knives. However, he also collected groundstone and at least one pottery fragment from the east- side sites. In latter years, Goddard conducted excavations at several sites but all of these were located near the north shore of Peconic Bay. Those excavations yielded examples of both shell and bone tools in addition to the aforementioned chipped stone, groundstone, and ceramic object classes. The Survey Field survey confirmed the findings of the Phase IA research (Weed 2021a)for a lack of evidence for sustained use of the project area, both the CEA and the temporary haul road, by Indian Nation people. The stratigraphy within the CEA shows no major periods of land clearing or use during the historic period. The stratigraphy within the temporary haul road is consistent with evidence for the use of the area as a plowed agricultural field, prior to its recent return to an overgrown state. 10 Recommendations Site forms for the Goddard-surveyed properties north-south of E. Mill Road and east of Grand Avenue will be submitted by Carol S.Weed before December 31, 2021. This action is part of the Phase IB task and is done in support of disseminating Goddard's data to the professional community. No further archaeological work is recommended for the Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, S780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396) project. No evidence of use by Indian Nations peoples was identified and historic period use is limited to agricultural activity. 11 References Cited Goddard, Charles F. Lawyers Archaeologic Notes Mattituck Etc. 1919.20. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NOPRHP. Archaeologic Field Notes Mattituck 1921. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NYOPRHP 2021-08-06T07-41-12. Field Notes Mattituck, 1922. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NOPRHP. Field Notes Mattituck, 1923. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NOPRHP. Field Notes Mattituck 1924 1925. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NYOPRHP 2021-08-06T07-45-08. Field Notes Mattituck 1926 1927. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NYOPRHP 2021-08-06T07-46-26. Field Notes Oct. 1927-1928-1929 C.F. Goddard. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NYOPRHP 2021-08-06T07-47-36. Field Notes Mattituck 1930-31-32 C. F. Goddard. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971, and the NOPRHP. Field Notes Oct. 1934-1935-1936 C.F. Goddard Mattituck, L. I. Reviewed with permission of Southold Indian Museum, 1080 Main Bayview Road,Southold, NY 11971, and the NYOPRHP 2021-08-06T07-51-13. Weed, Carol S. 2021a (July). Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Phase la Archaeology(v2), 5780 W. Mill Road, Hamlet of Mattituck,Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Report submitted July 9, 2021,to NYOPRHP in support of Project 21PR04396. Weed, Carol S. 2021b (July).Strong's Yacht Center—Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Reconnaissance-Level Historic Resources Survey, 5780 W. Mill Road, Hamlet of Mattituck,Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Report submitted July 3, 2021,to NYOPRHP in support of Project 21PR04396. Maps Hyde, E. Belcher. 1909. Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division,The New York Public Library. "Suffolk County,V. 2, Double Page Plate No. 10 [Map bounded by Long Island Sound, New Suffolk, Great Peconic 12 Bay]South Jamesport,Jamesport]" New York Public Library Digital Collections.Accessed August 6, 2021. https://digita|cm||ectimns.nypiorg/henns/a6539eOoec4Z-fdb2-eO4O-eQQal8OG1a2e Dolph &Stewart. 19Z9.Atlas of Suffolk County New York, Page 20 Part of Southold. Dolph &Stewart, New York, NY. New York Herita0e_p1S281co||2_3O245, downloaded 0DO321. 13 Appendix A - Figgres 14 u � �4 3 a w 0', ' " O a peet,� gm 4255 c Cott , 4 10 "JS� "''�°Z\,,.'33 id '^'i f ��'� h} ✓ 3�� ,u'h �' 5�"`"��" � f�� .� �' � \�N 6 ` at4 ��,` I � �,< yeti; t 4 z X If Pil't gig off �,t � .•". �� , kart, ��, `��: Yast; �`t � `� `�, �a�� ^`��, as A a� A 6465 ! apt Source: USES/ESRI Historical Topographic Map Explorer;;Weed 2021a:26 Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings,Mattituck, Project Location (USGS Mattituck Hills 1956) Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY FigUre 2. SYC Phan Shect 13 with CEA I ghtighted in Orange (Weed Ef to:27) � �R x d tjPitBic� s"3 IF h• s _ aa^ a • .. +: ,d} r `x " .�.. s, >x sw. ti' 'tL .ate .ry IwRtk.7 IS x.x I n a, _ OEM Rr IN P z,, "*z a �s" �� x •; s s ..x.. � � .`�. -�'„ z �+s��*�.�ce�r�^a�>�:rraraw .rvz„.r .� �.�,� ;:. 'x- m; •`'� .,r.,r;;:» ,.a,..;, ..,...�`.....�:», '.:�,. s� �s^:, wa �scs:p ea w^�r ^� :Kx T" "��. ... x "_ ,�s�� "°",� .,. as �.° '. $� �b � ,� R .x z"".q� '•7" v ..,er ,.a,,+o-.~r c,.�' ... z P ^e ' � „x.� �.`", c, .. .;_ �s.:w n.; .• �`�^ �'� r^ sµ vt«r`„^.z..v�tz'nraw�sa.:,?a § �„a. gyp., .. `; �. ,' � 'e•`�.,5 S T S P } x ✓ � ',- .e «m� ,,x. �r- � ,.. " 'r��f v �^ �ka}�^�� ,;�s�. a� .�.� ry.�. es�4 �+.� ,✓.rx x r x W r.- t �' r `fi"' ��2.^µ ° � m «".a•;"` :'"' ,.y< xa "'f p» _ ;..,,��-. ..x^.n """49 R :,�• k « xm ,�a .rr�,.n ax w.na„,rn i• ss+° "' z�s^ , a cx �.� � x '^ "a-' $r � r.. � x....t•; �, r .... +, � > �-�,..,a a•� �,z�s:� :� ,.:... "'}.�, tr f i:: � r a�4 x.,�ra �� mr,o;.;*e zF �' .��v .��me -,^�c :e., •. z�,r ~xx?"m^ £Fx. ,. erg• € DOAT 5T'CR,a+6C€V10.,Ja136a..._. STRONCVS YACHT CENMR� .,�, .:' :, ".^:., ...zY. �'n�...d_ e• '� "�"" „.s+m s ^�! ^f ..4�a" .� art.....,,,� �„ � "�.� e Ea '`e x "x :raft T� mx. _x+ ....� �Y i,A� -s� ::u .°,. ..".�..m",�„e.,..�..,......�.„ a+»„•,°..„. �,x` ;....Y `:S+M"„ [ .;�• ",. � fS�:'..w�y°�, "ASS„ F S "vt�4h i&n° n F�vhr"&,F�M. � ::;. :�. .d^^ '.r, x�" :^"�� -..:'z � ..' "r`�+'� r£ sx ".�` r s:x x ror^; r ski"" ,.�'^ m��, s':.•.,'£"�, .. �.:. �C 'rck, TCR�B.:JY?"°Wwi.P+.Y , 4 'S:. i "I.- " s•+za x.- r x ,,, tw sTM '" ..rx xxd^^`s"£ r ^- ,..,..-,..,, x �. tff, Construction Excavation Area �s Figure 3. SYC CRA (Orange) and Phase I Natal Road Green) (bleed 2021a:28) Sd . #6 a re V " � e 04 � a #i " m x t � t y ," ter. POP 1 y,s R, ° ',r TEWPORAkYSTOCKPIUMEA ,+ FOR CONSTRUCTION E Af m PExAsNtrac WALL[auRsiwc PHASE w + T i , � x .E 4 DECONSTRUCT HAUL t I t" "w,�* y CONSTUCT PORTION OF t x st•, ROAD DURING PHASE .," 'EVERGREEN RETAINING' t „„..,* x� i.. dT VlALk,DURIPdG PHASE 5 '" f 1 EXCAVATION LIMIT } O6 PHASE 1.0 to AD AC) �a 14, .��,-•.,..� -�, �,:,.� ""'�'��'"-.:gip �(" x.�. . ,' �`. � � �'`�' i **,crR.-+.tea, ~P3 S„`- a•Y,@ "�, ° PHASE YN7O.EXCAVATE REMAtemh't"ii a MATER3AL TORBRO,IECT Av.l 'A �'" ,r"f' ^ �"' w k x" ". f ° d P Co11StT[.&C'tICDn .Exc°r3\'atIlCa11 Area v , >< fe•VRaE TEMPORARY ilnuL ROAD CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO y !. EXCAVATION ACYIVITIES "L'+^°'G�Y o-+.a„q.Rp,aO✓LhPlw'no, Y COMPLETE CONSTUCTION PHASE ONE.EXCAVATE 1` ! OF EVERGREEN RETAINING DOWN TO ELEVATION 24 a WALL DURING PHASE 2 1234001 CY t r EXGAVATtONUMIT OF PHASEDNE � � t3, Act v r jw L'" yp• s .3 •..*,.:�� . 4.A4'/N`14L?°'C7V WdN�"' 1`ks R3LAk"4 RM p y e p s TEMPORARY SYd"}`�:HPdkLE AREA Yx° g h ar k C C ."'• " w ROE CTU'STRUCTEON Of RL`TA NiNG WA.L MRING PHASE 3 Y,a�vs em^ .ev.^A d E�#„avw"t'cvd'rk"a 6- Tat p *4Ww 4 r n.ad„as + Of rs w ; a ' ['Pass ( Ietaal�caa"ary talr�ad � � CRA Boundary his , s Figure 4. SY C Phase 1 Temporary Haul Road, West Side(Weed 2021aa 2 ) �4 t cntttt e�i{ottttq va . �"•x" .:as }.. `° ,� r 3 ^a�-"'y�'; a a :z ;..: s.. �� .: a�w a� ,«� � �'�,"xg 6� ,�a : '�' j . .... „.'.s r �. � ^s ,: f� r s,�'`�' �� ,fir^,x - � -�r,� ., s c .x m,zs.*w.�^�€:�` �a^s��•.:b,a � ,.„a:. "r a''. s 3�;.. �...` s s"a;�„.• "'.«�`• �'� .fir: :xT '�.x is :. � � I a _ 'A � f " w3p ,'GweaeSee +aF,l xr+ssce " q nT % �h a;., m 1 r,'".. .or ..�" s. ^� 2,3 : °,•� %��:". w.a� ""c. .x:..� way � .,a"., �' ry.>; 3: �'' 'r' s. ,s ��*. �'. .n "�` a xt„. .•, ,.» �x.; �' .w wad as '�°x x:sg� A �.. ",„.. _ _ _ BOAT S 't MALFIN&S a T �aaPa1W,C �..: , `."a .'r„ ': �aa'S ..�-. •~; .. ..>.�.:^: .ra. ;.;a' - r� wz c+��..,,. wa�,z ="�' 'a�.d,'a,.,, ..,Wx � .�: �;' s4c "^d "�- �..:c c—tya�.+va.c : _. ,. 1 ' £. :... rssw a "'° a „Y,s "":^ x^ w c* swa;. - t 'T,.,w•. `: ...+2 " w` KALL ROAD PLAN . u� a:: t, ;3 .µ..y s. srx, ate^,r . .. c :^;• .. .•, :wear:° ., x. .:,.. ""r.. x. . . . x*.� s aw». .,:axs n s�.,a."23 `.: +.. :a+ . _ su:� y s 7" � •„..,3„� `°3 ciY; :, � ~;�"�.n.,t: � 3 "*;°. w� ��"�~kf w% xz x. a � z s ty��.xi' � ��r� s «. tt01 Yacht Center %�� F�� e Temporary € fl RoadS� ti ae� RCA Shoulder r ,. . 3 sr t. ` �. ul yC Area t Va` Kw ; it iT 4 IN x s � ` u�ea rm a "N Source: New York Public Library Digital Collections r 's Yacht Center, Proposed Portion1902-1909 Hyde Plate 10 - oat Storage Buildings Mattituck,New York . ley �a •` ` ' � -Jl F " t * w, -r �� °. .fi . ,t 'Ac 04) 44 1-1 t Z'-,II U. A ktAV l� w ate. Source: New York Heritage r 's Yacht Center, Proposed Part of 1929 Dolphto • Boat Storage Buildings Southold Plate Page 20 Mattituck,New York ...... Figure 7 i 4 i B MUM 031 c ��' g, t a "Z v}t k i y\ s a ` .;yt :wit IMP gq Y t 3t a a LN $ l> '� X 1 '{ too ZTW ryt '3, Of y z<K Y y Y y' 4 A MCI am WE, s c � t 1r a t z W, Vy WAA �t t e �� t`��$7�i,Z�; �`•.!t ��.. �*�y n r�� 'i. y� ��a�s,,,„�"ta3r`v," t`�#r �'�"",�,°':a��c,. 3 3 `w,r �:'�.`.:: `; My- 'yy'..�\ tta ON " �"'' I "t4 t\t,.. t ' 1 �� E� ti ,�`y °~`•. ,v ', t �, `�y' '"y s 4 1,s �.� �21 �'Y'y 4 :y �x�h��'�Y�1'. } Y.. � �1 � e��M. � ,'�,�g"�'�t4 aic.��nd 4�",p4„i��'•'�'� . •• w .e `•.:•. rc \7 'tt t t: c s . st1 ,IyF, is :� :�e WNW, t,, `yrcy+ t.w, 5,.3 wit 3 fit,. `. �a°. FQwe : • . 'i • • ' • • 8 Appendix B - Photographs 23 Photograph1 ,n, >R Looking N at the north profile of Shovel Test Pit 32a, 9/21/21 � 3 y f#a.. Photograph 2 '.,` " Looking N at the north u profile of Shovel Test Pit H9, 9/22/21 v , Pr P x a >.#i 4 emu, W t # Strongs Yacht Center, Shovel Test Pits 32a and H9 Profiles Proposed New r Buildings, Mattituck,New York Appendix C - Agee Correspondence 25 < RK 5TA Parks, Recreation, Opp Ty, and Historic Preservation ANDREVVM. CUOMO EFUK KULLESE|D Governor Commissioner July 22' 2021 Carol Weed Independent Contractor 50 Saw Mill Rd. UOit131O8 Danbury, CTO081O Re: DEC 8tnong'n Yacht Center— Proposed Boo[ Storage Buildings 578OVV Mill Rd, K8GttituCk' Suffolk County, NY11952 21PQO438G Dear Carol Weed: Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parke. Recreation and Historic Preservation ((]PRHP). VVe 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 nm|atu only to Historic/Cultural resources. We have reviewed the report of the Phase |A archaeological study. The report correctly states that there are no previously recorded Native American archaeological sites shown in OPRHP's OD|iOe system (CR|8) within one OOi|B of the project area. HOweVB[' the GOUthO|d |Ddi8O Museum has the field notebooks of the late Charles Goddard, former president of the Long Island Chapter of the New York State Archaeological Association and resident of Mattituck. Mr. Goddard's 1922 field notebook indicates that he identified Native American artifacts along the M8ttitUCk Creek iO the vicinity Of the project 8[e8. |f any additional archaeological reports are submitted for this project, OPR||Preo0nnnn8ndnth@t this information be included in the report. OPRHP has scans of the Goddard field notebooks and can direct you to the digital files in CR|S. OPRHP concurs with your recommendation to conduct Phase IB archaeological testing at locations where p[OpOS8d ground disturbances will take p|8C8 in [H|8tiV8|y |8V8| intact soils. |f further correspondence iS required regarding this project, p|8aS8r8f8rtOth8OPRHPP j8{t Review (PR) number noted above. |f you have any questions, please contact 0e via email. GinC8n8|y. Tim Lloyd, Ph.D. Scientist -Archaeology tirnCthy]|ovd@p8rkSoy.gOv via e-mail only Division for Historic Preservation P.(l Box 188.Waterford,New York 12188-0189~(510)237-8G43~marksoygnv Appendix D - Strati.graphy Summary 27 STP# Strat# Depth Soil Texture Munsell Horizon Cultural Notes Date Excavator cm Materials 1 I 0-5 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM highly organic, dense roots 9/20/2021 LG 11 5-25 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM quartz pebbles, few cobbles, no"E" 111 25-38 Sa 10YR 4/6 C NCM quartz pebbles and few cobbles 2 1 0-4 SiLo 7.5 YR 3/2 O NCM organic, dense roots 9/20/2021 11 4-23 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, quartz pebbles 111 23-24 SiSa 10YR 4/4 E NCM IV 24-43 Sa 10YR 4/6 C NCM pebbles and few quartz cobbles LG 3 1 0-4 SiLo 7.5YR 3/3 O NCM highly organic, dense roots 9/20/2021 II 4-25 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, moderate quartz pebble content III 25-26 Sa 10YR 4/4 E NCM IV 26-38 Sa 10YR 4/6 C NCM quartz pebbles and cobbles, few shale fragments, large roots 4 1 0-10 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA II 10-23 SiSa, Gr 10YR 3/2 E NCM relatively few gravel/pebbles/cobbles III 23-44 SiSa, Gr 10YR 4/4 BC NCM relatively few gravel/pebbles/cobbles IV 44-50 SiSa, Gr, rare 10YR 5/6 C NCM relatively few gravel/pebbles/cobbles eb/cob 5 1 0-8 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA II 8-22 SiSa 10YR 3/4 A E? NCM III 22-32 SiSa, Gr, 10YR 4/4 BC NCM ebbles, cobbles IV 32-43 SiSa, Gr, 10YR 5/6 C NCM ebbles, cobbles 6 I 0-8 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA 11 8-16 SiSa 10YR 3/2 B E? NCM 111 16-30 SiSa, Gr, sm 10YR 4/4 BC NCM ebbles IV 30-48 SiSa, Gr, 10YR 5/6 C NCM ebbles 7 1 0-7 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA 11 7-22 SaSi, Gr 10YR 3/2 E? NCM 111 22-38 SiSa, Gr 10YR 4/4 BC NCM IV 38-48 Sa, Gr, pebbles, 10YR 5/6 C NCM more gravel and cobbles cobbles 8 1 0-7 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA 11 7-28 SaSi 10YR 3/2 E NCM lar a stone 111 28-42 SiSa 10YR 4/4 BC NCM IV 42-53 SiSa, Gr 10YR 5/6 C NCM 9 1 0-5 O 7.5YR 2.5/3 O NCM 10% slope, next to big rock, above 9/20/2021 MDS athwa 11 5-13 SaSi 7.5YR 3/3 A NCM 111 13-30 SiSa, Gr 10% 7.5YR 4/6 Bw1 NCM IV 30-40 SiSa, Gr 15% 5YR 5/4 Bw2 NCM 10 1 0-5 0 10YR 2/2 O NCM 5% sloe 9/20/2021 MDS II 5-13 SaSi 10YR 3/3 A NCM III 13-20 SiSa 10YR 4/4 B NCM IV 20-35 Sa, Gr 10% 10YR 5/6 C NCM 11 1 0-4 0 10YR 2/2 O NCM level 9/20/2021 MDS II 4-12 SaSi 10YR 3/3 A NCM III 12-20 SiSa 10YR 4/4 B NCM IV 20-35 Sa, Gr 10% 10YR 5/6 C NCM 12 1 0-4 0 10YR 2/2 O NCM 5% slope, overlooking swale 9/20/2021 MDS II 4-10 SaSi 10YR 3/3 A NCM III 10-21 SiSa 10YR 4/4 B NCM IV 21-40 Sa, Gr 10% 10YR 5/6 C NCM 13 1 0-18 SaSi 10YR 3/3 A NCM 10% slope, shale 9/20/2021 MDS II 18-33 SiSa 10YR 4/4 B NCM III 33-50 Sa, Gr 10YR 4/6 C NCM glacial gravel 10% 14 1 0-23 SiSi 10YR 3/2 A NCM 5% slope, within swale; fine gravel, some 9/20/2021 MDS small shale II 23-33 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM fine gravel 5%, small shale III 33-60 Sa 10YR 5/6 Bw2 NCM fine gravel 5%, small shale 15 1 0-4 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM 5-10% slope, dense root mat 9/20/2021 LG II 4-11 SiSaLo 10YR 3/2 02 NCM dense with large roots, slightly leeched sandier soil III 11-36 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM many large roots, some quartz pebbles IV 36-42 Sa 10YR 4/6 C NCM some quartz pebbles 16 1 0-3.5 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM dense root mat 9/20/2021 LG II 3.5-20 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM many large and medium roots, quartz pebbles III 20-21.5 SiSa 10YR 5/3- E NCM roots, few pebbles 4/4 IV 21.5-37 Sa 10YR 4/6 C NCM quartz pebbles and small cobbles 17 - - - - - - disturbed ground bee nest within 10cm, skipped 18 - - - - - - skipped due to slope 19 1 0-6 SiSaLo 10YR 4/4 O NCM 5% slope, dense root mat 9/20/2021 LG II 6-22.5 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM roots, very few quartz pebbles 111 22.5-45 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM very few quartz peebles, very small amount of silt 20 1 0-5 SiLo/Silo lens 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM root mat with thin, grayer lens in some 9/21/2021 LG w/ 10YR 4/2 areas lens 11 5-14 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM quartz pebbles 111 14-35 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM many quartz pebbles and few cobbles 21 1 0-6.5 SiSaLo 10YR 4/2 0 NCM dense root mat 9/21/2021 LG II 6.5-17 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM many quartz pebbles, large decayed branch in NE corner III 17-35 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM many quartz pebbles and small cobbles 22 - - - - - - skipped due to slope 23 1 0-5 SiSaLo 10YR 4/4 O NCM 5-10% slope, thin root mat 9/21/2021 LG II 5-16.5 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM few quartz pebbles and shale fragments III 16.5-45 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM few pebbles, gradual transition from II-III 24 1 0-6 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA II 6-15 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 15-60 SiSa, Gr 10YR 4/4 BC NCM 25 1 0-9 O 7.5YR 2.5/3 O NCM level, at nose just beyond path 9/20/2021 MDS II 9-18 SaSi 7.5YR 3/3 A NCM III 18-50 SiSa, Gr 10% 7.5YR 4/6 Bw1 NCM 26 1 0-8 O/Lo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 5% slope 9/20/2021 MDS II 8-16 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 16-45 SiSa, 5% gravel 7.5YR 4/6 B NCM 27 - - - - - - skipped due to slope 28 1 0-5 O/Lo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% slope, within swale 9/20/2021 MDS II 5-18 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM shale III 18-45 Sa 10YR 5/6 Bw2 NCM 29 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 15% sloe 9/21/2021 SRF II 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 30 1 0-5 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA II 5-22 SaSi 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 22-50 SiSa, Gr 10YR 4/4 BC NCM 31 1 0-7 O/La 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 15% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS II 7-12 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 12-55 SiSa, Gr 5% 7.5YR 4/5 B NCM 32 1 0-5 O/La 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS II 5-9 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 9-40 SiSa, Gr 5% 7.5YR 4/5 B NCM 33 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 15% sloe 9/21/2021 SRF II 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/2 E NCM III 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 34 1 0-9 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/20/2021 JA 11 9-12 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM 111 12-40 SiSa, Gr 10YR 4/4 BC NCM IV 40-50 Sa, Gr, pebbles, 10YR 5/6 C NCM small cobbles 35 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 15% sloe 9/21/2021 SRF 11 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/2 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 36 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM top of sloe 9/21/2021 SRF 11 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/2 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 37 1 0-4 O 10YR 3/3 O NCM 10% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS 11 4-10 LoSa 10YR 2/2 A NCM 111 10-40 Sa 10YR 6/6 B NCM 38 1 0-12 O,Lo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS 11 12-20 Sa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 20-45 Sa 10YR 6/6 B NCM 39 1 0-4 O,Lo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% slope, just beyond s oil heap 9/21/2021 MDS 11 4-11 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM thin O/A, no roots, seems like erosion of round clearin 111 11-50 Sa 10YR 6/6 B NCM 40 1 0-3 O,Lo, compact 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM flat, compact, next to road, thin soil cover 9/21/2021 MDS 11 3-9 SiSa, compact 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 9-45 Sa, compact 10YR 6/6 B NCM 41 1 0-4 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM 5-10% slope, root mat 9/21/2021 LG 11 4-10 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM few quartz pebbles 111 10-32 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM few quartz pebbles 42 1 0-7 SiSaLo 10YR 4/2 O NCM 5-10% slope, very dense roots and root 9/21/2021 LG mat 11 7-18 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, few quartz pebbles 111 18-38 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM quartz pebbles and few small cobbles 43 1 0-5 SiSaLo 7.5YR 2/3 O NCM root mat, thin grayer lense —2cm thick at 9/21/2021 LG with 10YR O/A interface 5/2 lens 11 5-14 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM few pebbles 111 14-33 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM few pebbles 44 1 0-5 SiSaLo 7.5YR 4/3 O NCM 5% slope, thin root mat 9/21/2021 LG 11 5-12.5 SiSa 10YR 5/3 A NCM dry, dense/compact; pebbles 111 12.5-34 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM very compact, —15-20% pebbles and cobbles, few large cobbles 45 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 SRF 11 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 46 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 SRF 11 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 47 1 0-20 SiSa 10YR 5/6 Fill NCM 9/21/2021 SRF 11 20-25 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 111 25-30 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM IV 30-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 48 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 SRF 11 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 49 1 0-10 SiSa, Gr 10YR 5/6 Fill NCM 9/21/2021 SRF 11 10-15 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 15-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 50 1 0-7 O, SaLo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 5% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS II 7-16 SiSa 10YR 4/4 B NCM III 16-40 Sa, Gr 15% 10YR 6/6 C NCM 51 1 0-4 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 MDS II 4-10 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 10-40 SiSa, Gr 5% 10YR 6/6 B NCM 52 1 0-4 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 5% sloe 9/21/2021 MDS II 4-9 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 9-40 SiSa, Gr 5% 10YR 6/6 B NCM 53 1 0-8 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM flat, wood chips in O/A 9/21/2021 MDS II 8-17 SiSa 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM III 17-90 SiSa, Gr 5% 10YR 6/6 B NCM very few inclusions 54 1 0-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 SRF II 10-15 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 E NCM III 15-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 55 1 0-6 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM 10% slope, root mat 9/21/2021 LG II 6-18 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM very few pebbles III 18-35 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM very few pebbles 56 1 0-6 SiLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM 5% slope, root mat, dense roots 9/21/2021 LG II 6-17 SiSa 10YR 4/3- A NCM dense roots, some lighter sand mottled 5/3 into soil III 17-35 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM few quartz pebbles 57 1 0-6 SiSa 10YR 4/3 O/A NCM thin grass cover with grass roots atop 9/21/2021 LG grayish soil II 6-85 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM Loose, uncompacted sand w/ 15-20% quartz pebbles and cobbles. Some minor dark gray banding could indicate deposition layers or related to decayed roots 58 1 0-5 SaLo 7.5YR 2.5/2 O/A NCM 9/21/2021 SRF II 5-10 LoCI 7.5YR 4/1 E NCM 111 10-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 B NCM 59 1 0-12 O 10YR 3/6 O NCM wood chips 9/21/2021 MDS II 12-18 O,Lo 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM root mat 111 18-21 Sa 10YR 3/2 E NCM IV 21-26 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Bw1 NCM V 26-60 So 10YR 6/6 Bw2 NCM 60 1 0-6.5 SiSaLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM 5-10% slope, thin root mat 9/22/2021 LG 11 6.5-15 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM slightly grayer 10YR 5/3 lens at A/B interface <.5cm thick 111 15-40 So 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM 5% quartz pebbles and small cobbles 61 1 0-9.5 SiSaLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM grassy cover at surface 9/22/2021 LG 11 9.5-10.5 Sa 10YR 5/3 E? NCM sandy graylens between O and A III 10.5-20 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM IV 20-50 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM loose/non-compacted, —15% quartz pebbles and cobbles 62 I 0-4 SaLo 10YR 5/3 O NCM thin root mat. Possible cutting and soil 9/22/2021 LG backfill piles immediately to north and around cut-down tree pile suggests recent soil impacts II 4-10 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM very thin A not consistent across profile III 10-31 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM —10% pebbles and cobbles 63 I 0-9 SiSaLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM thick (3cm)root mat 9/22/2021 LG II 9-20 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM large# roots, few pebbles III 20-36 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM few quartz pebbles and cobbles 64 I 0-8 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% slope 9/22/2021 MDS II 8-18 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 18-30 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM IV 30-44 Sa, Gr 5% 10YR 6/6 Bw2 NCM V 44-55 Sa, Gr 20% 10RY 6/6 Bw3 NCM 65 I 0-8 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 5% sloe 9/22/2021 MDS II 8-13 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 13-29 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM IV 29-40 Sa, Gr 5% 10YR 6/6 Bw2 NCM flat 9/22/2021 MDS 66 I 0-8 Sa, Gr 15% 10YR 4/1 Fill NCM II 8-13 O, LoSa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM III 13-17 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM IV 17-26 Sa 10YR 4/6 Bw1 NCM wet V 26-45 Sa, Gr 10% 10YR 6/6 Bw2 NCM 67 1 0-9 O, Sa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% sloe 9/22/2021 MDS 11 9-13 Sa 10YR 3/2 E NCM 111 13-30 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM dry, dense/compact; pebbles IV 30-50 SiSa, Gr 20% 10YR 4/4 Bw2 NCM 68 1 0-7 O, Sa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 10% slope 9/22/2021 MDS 11 7-13 Sa 10YR 3/2 E NCM 111 13-26 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM IV 26-45 SiSa, Gr 20% 10YR 4/4 Bw2 NCM 69 1 0-4 O, Sa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 5% slope 9/22/2021 MDS 11 4-8 Sa 10YR 3/2 E NCM 111 8-24 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM IV 24-35 SiSa, Gr 20% 10YR 4/4 Bw2 NCM 70 1 0-6 O, Sa 10YR 3/3 O/A NCM 9/22/2021 MDS 11 6-11 Sa 10YR 3/2 E NCM 111 11-30 SiSa 10YR 4/4 Bw1 NCM IV 30-50 SiSa, Gr 5% 10YR 4/4 Bw2 NCM 10% slope 71 1 0-7 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA 11 7-11 SiSa 10YR 3/2 E NCM very thin 111 11-52 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM very little silt 72 1 0-7.5 SiSaLo 10YR 5/3 0 NCM thick (2cm)root mat, dense root network 9/22/2021 LG II 7.5-19 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, —5% quartz pebbles III 19-43 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM —10% quartz pebbles and small cobbles 73 1 0-10 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 10-18 SiSa, Gr 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 18-50 SiSa, Gr, 10YR 5/6 BC NCM very little silt ebbles 74 1 0-5 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 5-15 SiSa, Gr 10YR 3/2 E NCM III 15-32 Sa, Gr, pebbles, 10YR 5/6 C NCM cobbles 75 - - - - - - skipped due to slope 76 1 0-10 SiSaLo 7.5YR 3/2 O NCM thick root mat, dense roots 9/22/2021 LG II 10-23 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots III 23-53 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM —5% quartz pebbles and cobbles H1 1 0-25 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Ap NCM 9/22/2021 MDS II 25-30 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM hard packed, dry H2 1 0-28 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Ap NCM 9/22/2021 MDS II 28-40 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM H3 1 0-5 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 5-35 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM III 35-55 LoSa, Gr 10% 10RY 4/6 BCC NCM H4 1 0-33 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Ap NCM 9/22/2021 MDS II 33-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM H5 1 0-5 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 5-33 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM III 33-55 LoSa, Gr 10% 10YR 4/6 BC NCM H6 1 0-35 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Ap NCM 9/22/2021 MDS II 35-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM H7 1 0-34 SiSa 10YR 4/6 Ap 1 sm plate 9/22/2021 MDS glass frag, NR II 34-50 SiSa 10YR 5/6 BC NCM H8 1 0-8 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 8-30 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM III 30-50 LoSa, Gr 10% 10RY 4/6 BC NCM H9 1 0-2 LoSa 10YR 3/3 A NCM 9/22/2021 MDS II 2-30 LoSa 10YR 4/6 Ap NCM 111 30-40 LoSa, Gr 10% 10YR 6/6 BC NCM H10 1 0-8 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA 11 8-32 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM 111 32-55 LoSa, Gr 10% 10YR 4/6 BC NCM H11 1 0-1.5 SiLo 10YR 5/3 O NCM dense roots 9/22/2021 LG 11 1.5-26 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, few pebbles 111 26-30 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM very compacted, few pebbles H12 1 0-7 SiLo 10YR 5/3 0 NCM dense roots 9/22/2021 LG II 7-17.5 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots III 17.5-31 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM very compacted, 1 large rock in N. profile H13 1 0-12 SiLo 10YR 5/3 O NCM thick root mat, dense roots 9/22/2021 LG II 12-38 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, few pebbles III 38-49 Sa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM —5% pebbles H14 1 0-5 SiLo 10YR 5/3 O NCM dense roots 9/22/2021 LG II 5-24 SiSa 10YR 4/3 A NCM dense roots, —5% pebbles III 24-40.5 SiSa 10YR 4/6 B/C NCM —5-10% pebbles H15 1 0-6 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 6-31 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM III 31-45 LoSa, Gr 5% 10YR 4/6 BC NCM H16 1 0-5 SaLo 10YR 2/2 O NCM 9/22/2021 JA II 5-42 LoSa 10YR 4/4 P2 NCM III 42-50 SiSa 10YR 4/6 BC NCM no gravel Abbreviations Used: Si = silt, Sa= sand, Lo= Loam, Cl = clay, Gr= gravel, sm = small, fr=fragment, NR= not retained.