HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Phase 1B Jan 2022.pdf 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
Project
� Summary
~
SNPO Project Review Number: 21PRO4396
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 |B Archaeological Assessment
Location Information
Location: Hamlet ofW1attituck
Minor Civil Division:Town nfSouthold
County: Suffolk
Survey Area (Metric& English)
Length: Supplemental area measured 16S feet (S8 meters) N'S
Width: Supplemental area measured 390feet (120 meters) E-VV
Depth (when appropriate): maximum shovel test depth in the supplemental area ca. 32 inches (8O
centimeters [cm])
Number of Acres Surveyed (when appropriate): 1.4acres
Number of Square Meters and Feet Excavated: 7.Gsq meters (ca. 81sqft)
Percentage of Site Excavated: n/a
U6G87.S Minute Quadrangle Map: Mattituck Hi||s7.5-nninute 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 nfUnits: not applicable
Survey Transect Interval: not applicable
Results of Archaeological Survey
Number& Name of Archaeological Sites identified: none
Nunnber& Name of Historic Sites identified: none
Number& Name of Sites Recommended for Phase ||/4voidance: None
Report4`uthor(s): Matthew D. Spi0e|man, PhD (RPA#3G5Q7J]0) and Carol S. Weed, M.A. (RPA#9A909O)'
Dote of Report:January 7, 2022
Table of Contents
ProjectSummary..................................................................................................i
Tableof Contents.................................................................................................ii
Listof Tables.......................................................................................................iii
List of Appendix A Figures...................................................................................iii
List of Appendix B Photographs...........................................................................iii
ExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................5
Administration and Regulatory Approvals.......................................................5
ReportOrganization.........................................................................................5
Supplemental Phase IB Methods and Results........................................................7
Surficia) Geology and September Phase IB STP Results...................................7
DecemberField Methods ................................................................................8
Pre-Fieldwork Survey and Excavation Mapping.................................9
ShovelTest Pits...................................................................................9
FieldData Recordation.......................................................................9
December Investigation Results......................................................................9
Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................12
Conclusions....................................................................................................12
Recommendations.........................................................................................12
ReferencesCited................................................................................................13
AppendixA—Figures..........................................................................................14
AppendixB—Photographs.................................................................................21
Appendix C—Agency Correspondence................................................................25
Appendix D—Stratigraphy Summary..................................................................28
ii
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 113 Artifacts................................................11
D.1 Supplemental Phase 113 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 113 STP Locations....................................18
5 SYC CEA Supplemental Phase 113 STPs With/Without Dredge..............19
6 Supplemental Phase 113 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
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). 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
5
• 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.
6
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 (PIC). The south area is contained with the PIC 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 PIE 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
PIC None` H1(0-4 in.)loamy sand H2 (4-27 in.) loamy sand H3(27-60 in.)gravelly
coarse sand
PIC B-13 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, reddish- 24-36 in. loose reddish-
brn sandy topsoil,trace brown fine-grained sand, brown medium to fine
7
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 H2 (9-23 in.)coarse H3(23-60 in.)coarse
decomposed plant sand/sand sand/gravelly coarse sand
material over H1(1-9 in.)
coarse sand/sand
CpE B-12 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, light 24-36 in. loose light
brn sandy topsoil reddish brown silty sand reddish brown silty sand,
little gravel,crushed rock
PIC B-5 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, light 24-36 in. loose light
brn sandy topsoil reddish-brown medium reddish-brown medium
to fine grained sand, to fine grained sand,
trace silt trace silt,trace gravel
B-6 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, light 24-36 in. loose light
brn sandy topsoil reddish-brown medium reddish-brown medium
to fine grained sand, to fine grained sand, little
trace gravel,trace silt gravel
CpE B-3 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, reddish- 24-36 in. loose reddish-
brn sandy topsoil,trace brown fine-grained sand, brown medium to fine
organics trace silt grained sand,trace
organics
B-4 0-6 in.very loose dark 6-24 in. loose, reddish 24-36 in. loose reddish-
brown sandy topsoil brown medium to fine brown medium to fine
grained sand,trace silt 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
8
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 135 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, Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3
STP#s
PIC description None* H1,0-4 in. [0-10cm], H2, (4-27 in. [10-68 cm], H3,27-60 in. [69-152
loamy sand loamy sand cm],)gravelly coarse sand
PIC B-7 0-6 in. [0-15 cm],very 6-+/-42 in. [15-106 cm].,
loose dark brown sandy very loose reddish brown
topsoil silty sand,trace gravel,
roots
STP 106 O/A,0-9 cm,sandy loam B,9-40 cm, loamy sand C,40-55 cm,sand
with< 10%gravel
CpE description None* OX 0-6 in. [0-15 cm] H2, (6-23 in. [15-58 cm] H3, (23-60 in. [58-152 cm]
highly decomposed plant coarse sand/sand coarse sand/gravelly
material over H1(1-9 in.) coarse sand
coarse sand/sand
9
Table 2.2.Soil Class,Boring,and Select STP Profile Descriptions
Soil Class Soil Boring, Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3
STP#s
CpE B-10 0-6 in. [0-15 cm], brown 6-24 in., light brown 24-48 in.,very loose, light
medium to fine grained medium to fine grained brown medium to fine
sand sand,trace clayey sand grained sand
STP 109 O/A,0-11 cm,sandy loam B, 11-25 cm, loamy sand C,25-45 cm,sand
(mattress spring)
B-8 0-6 in. [0-15 cm],very 6-24 in. [15-61 cm],very 24-48 in. [61-122 cm],
loose dark brown sandy loose reddish-brown very loose reddish brown
topsoil medium to fine grained fine grain and,trace silt,
sand,trace silt, roots roots, mica flecks
STP 112 0,0-9 cm, humus A,9-24 cm,sandy loam B, 24-35 cm, loamy sand
(Glass) (Ceramic, metal)
B-9 0-3 in. [0-8 cm],very 3-36 in. [8-91 cm]very 36-48 in. [91-122 cm],
loose dark brown sandy loose light brown grey medium to fine
topsoil medium to fine grained grained sand,trace shells
sand,trace gravel, roots
STP 122 O/A,0-10 cm,sandy loam Fill/Dredge, 10-80 cm, N/A
clayey silt
B-11 0-3 in. [0-7.6 cm],very 3-24 in. [8-61 cm], light 24-48 in. [61-122 cm],
loose dark brown sandy brown and tan medium very loose tan coarse to
topsoil to fine grained sand, fine grain sand
roots
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).
10
Table 2.3 Supplemental Phase IB Artifacts
STP# Stratum Horizon Item Count Dimension Date
104 1 O/A Brick, red, frags. (2 refit), NR 1 3in wide
105 1 O/A Metal,ferrous, corroded, frags., all 4 —5cm wide
same object, NR
108 1 O/A Glass, green bottle frag., NR 1 <5cm
109 1 O/A Metal, mattress spring, NR 1 30cm long
111 I O/A Glass, window,frag., NR 1 <5cm
112 11 A Glass, window,frag. 1 <10cm
112 III B Nail, ferrous, corroded, NR 1 <10cm long
III B Ceramic, whiteware, indeterminate 2 <2cm
shape, body frags.
III B Ceramic, blue glaze, indeterminate 1 <1cm
shape, body frag.
113 III Fill Metal,ferrous nail, square 3 3.5cm long
III Fill Ceramic, whiteware, underglaze 1 3cm c.1830—
paint, green chrome color, open 1860
shape, body frags. (2 refit)
III Fill Glass, window, colorless,frag. 1 3cm —
III Fill Glass, bead, round, blue,frag., 50% 1 1cm
preserved diameter,
0.7cm thick
III Fill Ceramic, redware, shallow wide 1 11cm tall, 19th c.
mouth jar(aka cake pot or butter 25cm
crock),frag. (Rim, wall) diameter,
1.7cm thick
walls
III Fill Bricks, red, complete, NR 3 2-1/2" x 3-
1/2„ x 8„
116 11 Fill Glass, colorless, bottle,frag., NR 1 <5cm
122 11 Fill Glass, colorless, bottle,frags., NR 2 <5cm
123 1 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.
11
3
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.
12
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:Happs.jefpat.maryland.gov/diagnostic/Post-CoIonial%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 la 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.
13
Appendix A - Figures
14
c
e
i'
a
t(
w'
A
sk
SO
� �. 70a °
s. E � 5I Waterville
{ a
400
r 2551
41
ca �
v
vrif
TUCK)(MA TV era � aaT "ITU ;(JUa
die t I
Source: USES/ESRI Historical Topographic Map Explorer,Weed 2021a:26
Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings,Mattituck, Project Location (USES Mattituck'Hills 1956)
Town of Southold,Suffolk County, NY
„.�,.�,,,,,.-:—.,r...—__ ,.w.........my..m,.w...,�.,..,�..,,a..,..-....«..»,.�,,,-,,.-.--.. .............:v. .w.w,.....M...... ......,�.»,,,.,.w......v..,.,........., .,._,.,,,,...w .,...,....... ,....�„_,u.,,............ ..... ,.�._....",. .:: ....w.::. ,.: .,,._......u
9pp Figure 2, SYC Plan SheeC>t3 with EA Hi$hti kited in Orange (Weed 021 a; %)
£' ”
a�tje�i48
# �S �
>-ra e si 42
7
„x a„x.x sx, xk ~r. : txrvarcre r +
mu
Far ,
a :, :,'sas •��� ��„.x�: � '�'�"��' '�'"s� �.` '*�aa� � -�.xµ lk .� �T,;� � .�,ua
t
" ^
'"-wcs,=*5LFuammae.rr.C«s
a.
rr
s'�
��ar$"
� m a
" IN
5'x �m r,
x
k , 1 1
�„-", ,,. aarSreRA6Ct�as,�sms�'
AM,
,.r
...„. .8":.; .. ,a�:^a .T �r<� s's~„n.. max-;5`+ .u:r+ '€fir. �gr '.a�;,. ,� .ax.:, ,"*4s ,d� ...,, � fir+., x�p ,.;� a,w: al }JC�.'�'s R'AGhtY CENTER
a. '.'��, ? nP ." a " ab,r'",t + a`>`• >#'td "'#t -
:F' c sa-, at�as;✓aa�,nia.
74
�¢" aaM .�.a..,. s' ..ez =".�`a7'��r.,r.'.. a �� e r�w-a.,:: s '+g++«>r„ 9§"r... s-
:� `� a' : ,. .. ..,,. ,.,-.._..� _ .�^ '�` sa',s;�, ;,.s �`_,, `�„. ,. ,. a'.x."-a a.,,rrc�rs.c<sw,ay..w.:»,a.a
,: bw:_. .a.,.. a ..,,... .m;. .., ;: ... � ..,,: - _"{..', �. �� ...: ,r,, x, , .,,"� ;. ,.. '�t,a ,. >r,";; x�,.rcx aM•.0 o."�,+:a",s�;m..,rJr a,,,,'vN::,,.
5',. _.;•.t t",k: .�i� s �et�r�re a,� x.�. n x xv +3"5., 4 x,� x ��:^.. :d - `n � �
.mm
k
v.,-.;z ,,,r• c .:3, x� .:,:* "^.•iH
air ,s,,,.s ,v» —"tail .. x a.ax maT srx.; � �rs
77
4 3
. ,
a.>-exr
�p
#�b� onst4�uct€on Excfavaation Ares Sta-caaa Yacht Center � ;,��� _._.
Figure 3. SYC C RA (Orange) and Phase I Natal Road Greets) (bleed 2021a:28)
Ox-
„may i
C
I
a
a
1 <
1 h
4
L
"
w
\ E
e n�
w , j
3�
'y TEMPORARY 57OCKP9W afdEA
T r' FOR CONSTRUCTION OF tt
w
'w"`°^,. •° .," RETA7NINC,V^8UL DUFRNea PHASE � ° l� �a
tz I�
S Y
I( e
z'
pp
OEOONSTNUOT HAUL i CONSTUOT PORIION OF I .
h=
a t0
ROAO OURIroG PHASE2 EVERGREEN,HETAININ
VIAL CS l t
.. LOURING PHASE f
EXCAVATION LIMIT „
e
06 PHASE IWO
10 AD AC)
n �. PHASE.T :E GFdATEREkAA7NN
MA> CI,fOlk PpROACCI ,.�.
"
C> t7stt tattrataavattcata area ,� a
9S'YRDE TEMPORARY HAUL $ t�
EXCAROADVATION
CONSTRATION AUCTESI PRIOR TO
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES x ta
E,a ��" �zA �d�� a °� ^"* ,,,�` !°!4EC✓C!vA'+Y w°"%'"kW+i=.w,Y.o;y"d
`•
3 OOMPL FIE OONSTUOTWN PHASE O ELEVATION
OEEVEROREEN RETAINING DOWN TO s9.
P �
WALL DURING PHASE 2 12I.. Y CY
t
3„
,
�t ti
r
�4 _, t , t•
EXCAVATION UMIT
`j--OF PHASE ONE
J,AT 57rVA45Z CNN.V CLASS
# 7C?h€Ca'6s Yp,G11T raA GENT
E., AVA'f 04 p'� SINIS PLA'v�
s
'w }
w +w,
to ^.' r „�➢ 1�. w,m,s"rz_km,•u�z+tr
mv w,
�
TEPA ORARY STOCKPILE AREA
.
q ,A4ku s
RExaaiN CONSTRUCTION k A + kA.n 4CR$
GWALL DURING PHASE:2
s¢x=ww
Phase 1 errt��aarar attl Roadx ' C�F t)undary
4 CO s as s-_,
OR WRIn
a vw
c tix t�I: r'
rj
Lj
Fx l0
0r G '
Tomcpli.GT�L��4t-it�a,>
U91 CFI l r 1 j
C
qj. +.. �t s �xa��aca
oKv
LOT"4 .4V' GRkE.'ES$. Z3 4R364V t
rr 'DM --- KJI U DO 00 ! �
t s
C .. ` . -0 Xw i OIT
al �� -t
�l '�
f
103
Legend �° a
CC7n5trucB946"i ExGabc'Y41on Area(CEA)
ICa, Phase IS STPs
Supplementak Phase Ig STPs " �... : �...
Source:ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021
Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, SYC CEA Supplemental Phase 113 STP
attituck,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,NY Locations
Gegend � I I 1
Construction Excavation Area( EA)
STP-Deep Dredge Spoil
i STn-Natural Stratigraphy
TP-Shallow Dredge Spoil
Source:ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021
Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, SYC CEA Supplemental Phase 1113 STPs
Mattituck,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,NY With[Without Dredge
* 't3
E4a
G� Fib
a
Lip 'S �µ
,coo cl
S
�X bP{k
gg w
m6� _ [Z 4
' r4 'Ailr
21
s
Legend a
ConstructiGn Excavation Area(CPA)
STP-Historic Cultural klatenal
Ul STP-No Cultural Material
Source:ACME Heritage Consultants, Dec. 2021
Strong's Yacht Center-Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Supplemental Phase 11113 STPs Yielding
attituck,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,NY Historic-Era Cultural Material
•
Appendix B - Photographs
21
R
r
Photograph 1. STP 112,stratigraphic profile,facing north.Soil horizons indicated.
Y,
.. � � mow.: _ �•'
n �
RryCU y
„ ` �. •°�.,` �'�� -�� 1�����IaII 9���; 'tfq. PM MYi.��r�`t�.4�"��� 4 ,i
s
� e
iw
a
,a
T'q J•s U
�N
"N11",2
Photograph 2. STP 118,stratigraphic profile,facing east.Soil horizons indicated.
a
W
Fill k
t
Fill
as �
F R
e
a� .
s
v c ti s.
m
r e y
r
�r.rti t
A
Photograph 3. STP 113,stratigraphic profile,facing west.Soil horizons indicated, note light gray dredge
spoil atop dark brown fill containing historic artifacts.
'My}.�}�,Sj t.t
}
m
y ti
t 1�
3
4Srj�f tt
r
I ?
s=
�i
F..
Photograph 4. STP 113, historic artifacts from lower fill.Scale bar measures 10cm with 1cm increments.
Appendix C - AgenU
Correspondence
25
sT �rrRecreation,
OP'�'t�R r4k 6TY, and Historic Preservation
KATHY HOCHUL ERIKKULLESEID
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
21 PR04396
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 (21 SR00609), 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.11oyd@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only
New York tata 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
1/7/22,7:29 AM Gmail-RE: Project 21 PR04396,Supplemental Phase lb STP Plot
P"1"liaafl Carol Weed<csw13108@gmail.com>
RE: Project 21 PR04396, Supplemental Phase lb STP Plot
1 message
Lloyd,Timothy(PARKS)<Timothy.Lloyd@ parks.ny.gov> Wed,Dec 8,2021 at 8:57 AM
To:Carol Weed<cswl3l08@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 1 tiinothy.11oyd@parks.ny.gov
https 11 pa rks.ny.govish po
Are you registered to vote?Register to vote amine 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<esw13108@gmai(.com>
Sent:Tuesday,December 7,2021 5:00 PM
To:Lloyd,Timothy(PARKS)<Timothy.Lloyd@parks.ply.gov>
Cc:Matthew Spigelman<mspigelman@acmeheritage.com>
Subject:Project 21 PR04396,Supplemental Phase lb STP Plot
Ftt it t,t t:7,"<`: ,.,r r..,,.,,.�, ,r .x, .r. .vt rr,r r t>,,.r r ,r ..,< 7 .:i?;,,. .r..':r„ , ,,, r-r.,, ,.. .< ,.... t..� •x;.> r r .r.,i?s.
Good Morning Tim: Matt has prepared the attached figure and it shows the distribution of the initial Phase lb 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.
1 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@gu aiLwm;cweed1514@yahoo.coru
Office Hrs.:7am-3pm
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ik=5fal c9b 1 be&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-8372705812059292245%7Cmsg-f%3A171858657705... 1/1
Appendix D - Stratigraphy
Summary
28
Table D.1-Supplemental Phase IB Shovel Test Pit Stratigraphy Summary
STP# Strat# Depth Soil Texture Munsell Horizon Cultural Materials Notes Date Excavator
(cm) Initials
101 1 00-16 SaLo, <10%Gr 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
11 16-30 LoSa, <10%Gr 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
111 30-60 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
102 1 00-11 SaLo, <10%Gr 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
11 11-17 LoSa 10YR3/4 A NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
111 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 1 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 1 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
NR, Metal,4 iron frags., same
105 1 00-14 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A vessel/object, heavily 15%slope 12/13/2021 MDS
corroded
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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 00-11 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NR, Metal mattress spring Recent debris 12/13/2021 JA
11 11-25 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
111 25-45 Sa 10YR4/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
110 1 00-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NCM 10%slope 12/13/2021 MDS
11 10-29 LoSa 10YR4/4 B NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
111 29-40 SiSa, 10%Gr 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
111 1 00-12 SaLo 10YR3/2 O/A NRnGllass, window frag.,thin 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 1 00-09 O 10YR3/2 O NCM 5%slope 12/13/2021 MDS
11 09-24 SaLo 10YR3/3 A NR, Glass,window frag. — 12/13/2021 MDS
111 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 1 00-08 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
II 08-17 SiSa 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
NR, 3 red bricks, 30+ brick —
111 17-36 SaLo 10YR4/4 Fill frags.; [all frags.] 1 glass bead, 12/13/2021 MDS
1 flat glass, 1 redware, 1
whiteware, 3 corroded nails
IV 36-60 Sa, Gr Si 10YR5/6 C NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
114 1 00-14 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
11 14-85 Sa 10YR6/3 Fill/Dredge NCM sand spoil, deep 12/13/2021 MDS
115 1 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 1 00-12 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
II 12-20 CISi 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 1 00-05 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
II 05-23 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
III 23-28 CISi 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 1 00-09 O 10YR2/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 MDS
II 09-23 SiSaC) 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM clay/silt spoil 12/13/2021 MDS
111 23-90 Sa 10YR6/3 Fill/Dredge NCM sand spoil, deep 12/13/2021 MDS
119 1 00-07 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
11 07-18 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/13/2021 JA
111 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 1 00-05 SaLo 10YR3/2 0 NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
II 05-80 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
121 1 00-07 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
11 07-55 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
111 55-75 SiSa 10YR7/1 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
122 1 0-10 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
11 10-80 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NR, Glass,frag. — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
123 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 00-60 CISi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
129 1 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 1 00-20 SaLo 10YR3/2 O NCM — 12/20/2021 JA, SF
excavation ended
II 20-50 SaSi 10YR5/2 Fill/Dredge NCM at large root& 12/20/2021 JA, SF
+10%gravel
Abbreviations Used: Si = silt, Sa = sand, Lo = Loam, CI = clay, Gr= gravel, sm = small, frag. =fragment, NR = not retained.