HomeMy WebLinkAboutKlein-Comments on Strong Yacht Storage ProjectPage | Air Quality - 1 Rev8b
AIR QUALITY
Mobile Emission Sources
The DEIS scope notes that the proposed “operation of heavy machinery and trucks on and off site over a
long duration of time . . . could result in moderate adverse impacts to local air quality” (p.18). The DEIS
fails to adequately address this concern. Its conclusion that “on-road vehicle emission generated from
the project construction would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality” (p.266), and that
“no significant adverse impacts from mobile off-road emissions would be expected” (p.268), are not
supported by the data provided.
The DEIS scope calls for the Applicant to complete and append to the DEIS an air quality assessment that
includes an analysis of off-road and on-road mobile source emissions using the Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES 2014b), developed by the USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1. In regard
to on-road vehicle emissions the DEIS scope calls for:
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for each on-road construction vehicle and employee
trips will be estimated from roundtrip distances and the number of vehicles and
employees based on the activity specific construction schedule. It is assumed that all on-
road equipment will use either gasoline or diesel fuel. Typical vehicle types will be
passenger car, passenger truck, single unit short-haul, and commercial short-haul. The
emission rates for criteria pollutants on-road construction vehicles will be computed
and compared to USEPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Emission
rates for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) will be computed and compared to New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation DAR-1 Guidelines for the Evaluation
and Control of Ambient Air Contaminants under Part 212” (p.18).2
As VMT increases, so do emissions. The air quality analysis indicates that, as required, it utilized USEPA’s
MOVES software to estimate “Total carbon dioxide (CO)[sic]3, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate
matter (PM-10)” (DEIS Appendix S, p. 7) for off-road vehicles. It is unclear as to whether it used MOVES
to calculate emissions from on-road vehicles (as called for by the DEIS scope) or relied solely on the
USEPA’s Diesel Emission Quantifier online tool to calculate the emissions from on-road construction
vehicles.
1 The DEIS scope requires that, “if available, emission factors will be obtained from the NYSDEC or NYSDOT MOVES specific data
for the County of Suffolk, otherwise national average emission factors in MOVES for Suffolk County using default distribution
assumptions will be used” (p.18).
2 Neither the DEIS nor the Air Quality Report (DEIS Appendix S) mention NYSDEC DAR-1. No comparison of calculated on-road
construction vehicle emission rates with DAR-1, as called for in the DEIS scope, is included in either document.
3 It is unclear whether carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2) is being referred to. The MOVES software deals with
both. Other potentially confusing editorial errors are noted below.
Page | Air Quality - 2 Rev8b
The air quality analysis (Appendix S) has employed a number of questionable, and possibly incorrect,
assumptions to estimate air quality impacts from on-road mobile emissions during the construction
phases of the Project.
In calculating VMT the air quality analysis and the DEIS assume that
“construction vehicles (i.e., delivery trucks and trucks removing debris and material
from the site) would be traveling to/from the west and within 25 miles of the site to the
nearest commercial area where a registered or permitted NYSDEC Part 360 facility and
equipment suppliers are most-likely to be located. Twenty-five miles was used in the
calculator as a conservative estimate, but it is more likely that excavated material and
suppliers would be located within 15 miles of the project location. It is estimated that 40
trips would take place to and from the site during a 10-hour workday, for a five-day
work week” (Appendix S p.9; DEIS pp.263, 297; see also p. 34).
No explanation is provided as to how either the 25 mile (conservative) estimate for the “trucks removing
debris and material,” or the “more likely” 15-mile estimate were derived. The revised DEIS has indicated
that the Project truck route will extend from the Project site to the entrance to the Long Island
Expressway (I-495) in Riverhead. The distance between these two points is approximately 14 miles.
Clearly, the total on-way mileage travelled by “trucks removing debris and material from the site” will
not be the “more likely” 15 miles because there does not appear to be a Part 360 facility within that
distance from the Project site. It is also possible that the distance to a Part 360 facility will exceed the
“conservative” 25 miles. It is apparent that the VMT used to in the air quality analysis may have been
significantly underestimated.
In addition, no actual VMT estimate for each vehicle type is provided, making it impossible to verify
analyses requiring this information.
The DEIS is quite clear that 40 haul trucks will be employed by the Project, and that there would be 40
round-trips each week-day during the construction excavation phases of the Project. Clearly, this means
that each truck will make one round trip per day.4 It seems improbable that each haul truck would
require 10 hours (the DEIS-specified length of each workday) to travel to the Project site, load, travel to
a destination within 25 or 15 miles of the Project site, and return to its point of origin.5 Each truck would
4 In contrast, the DEIS indicates that during the clearing and grubbing portion of the construction phase “One truck with 30-
yard trailer would be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times per day. The truck with trailer would not remain on site
but would return to its base each night” (p. 204). This is further confused by the equipment list in Appendix F which indicates
use during the excavation phases of “40 trailers with operator (1 vehicle for operator)” for excavation phase 1, and “40
trailers with operator - 1 vehicle” for excavation phase 2.
5 Traveling from the Project site to any destination within 15 or 25 miles would require considerably less than one hour. Even if
one assumes that each haul truck’s start and end stop each day is Red Rock Industries in Plainview, LI, NY (Red Rock
Industries is the Project’s designated construction manager), located less than 60 miles from the Project site, no more than
2.5 hours would be required for a round trip. That would leave 6.5 hours to load and unload each haul truck.
Page | Air Quality - 3 Rev8b
therefore have the ability to travel considerably farther than 25 miles from the Project site (or make
multiple trips per day, eliminating the need for 40 vehicles).
The DEIS states that “the material from the subject property would likely be transported to a registered
or permitted NYSDEC Part 360 facility, likely located within 15 miles of the project location, for
processing and re-use” (DEIS p. 297). Fifteen road miles from the Project site includes only portions of
the towns of Southold, Riverhead, and Southampton. The number of permitted Part 360 facilities in this
area is limited. Potential Part 360 facilities are not identified although the DEIS scope (p.21) calls for the
DEIS to “[I]dentify the off-site disposal location.” The DEIS needs to identify how many haul truck trips
during the excavation phases of the Project will, or will not, travel the entire length of the designated
truck route between the Project site and the entrance to the Long Island Expressway in Riverhead.
Further reasons to question the transport distance assumptions (integral to calculating VMT) are the
qualifying statements in the DEIS that “Given that this project is still in the environmental review
process, and the ultimate re-use facility or location is driven by market conditions and the local need, it
is not possible to identify the specific reuse location or alternative locations. However, the
transportation costs of these types of aggregates often drive their use, and it often becomes financially
restrictive to transport these types of materials greater than 50 miles” (pp.34, 297). It is clear that the
“conservative” distance employed in the air quality analysis should have been 50 miles—not 25. All of
this is seemingly contradicted by the statements in the DEIS and Appendix S that material will be
transported “to the nearest commercial area where a registered or permitted NYSDEC Part 360 facility”
(emphasis added) is located (DEIS pp.263; Appendix S p.9). The DEIS could and should have identified
potential disposal locations. It does not.
The DEIS also states that “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for each . . . employee trip was estimated
from roundtrip distances and the number of vehicles and employees based on the activity specific
construction schedule” (DEIS pp. xxv, 263, Appendix S p.9). As noted above, both the DEIS and the air
quality study are silent as to the actual VMT counts employed, making it impossible to judge the validity
of the assumptions/estimates employed.
It is also possible that Benimax Trucking in Middle Island, LI, NY will be the origin and end point for each haul truck’s
workday. (Benimax is named in DEIS Appendix R as the company that assisted in the preparation of the acoustics report.
Google Earth views of Benimax’s Middle Island facility show the presence of numerous haul trucks, including 22-wheel dump
trailers). Benimax is located approximately 28 miles from the Project site.
Alternatively, it is possible that truck trips would originate from multiple points, and be dispatched at staggered times so as
to arrive at the Project site at staggered times throughout the day. It is also possible that multiple destinations might be
involved. These complexities highlight the need for the DEIS to be much more specific about the assumptions it employed in
its air quality and traffic analyses, and employ those that are truly conservative.
Page | Air Quality - 4 Rev8b
A second assumption relates to vehicle classification type 6. The air quality analysis has employed the
suspect assumption that “[T]ypical vehicle types will be passenger car, passenger trucks, and single unit
short-haul construction vehicles (U.S. Department of Transportation Class 7 type vehicle)” (emphasis
added) (Appendix S p.9; also, DEIS p. 63). Table 4 in Appendix S is quite clear that Class 7 single unit
vehicles were used in the air quality analysis.
The construction vehicle type that will have the greatest on-road VMT is the 30 CY dump trailers used to
haul sand from the Project site during the excavation phases. These vehicles are not Class 7 single unit
vehicles.7 Trucks with 30-cubic yard trailers, which is the vehicle type described most frequently in the
DEIS, will be Class 10 (6 or more axle, single trailer)8 vehicles. The air quality analysis has employed an
incorrect vehicle type as a basis for much of its emissions modeling. The use of the wrong vehicle
classification is also significant because heavier vehicles have higher emissions. As a consequence, the
reported results do not accurately reflect potential emissions estimates, and have underestimated
actual emission levels.
The Project traffic study (DEIS Appendix O) and the DEIS note “that the construction company engaged
to complete the work has committed to utilize company multi-occupant vehicles to transport many of
the construction workers to the site to minimize the number of vehicles being utilized and thus minimize
associated air emissions” (Appendix S p.10, DEIS p. 263, Appendix O p. 57). While the construction
company’s commitment will certainly help reduce the volume of traffic traveling to the Project site,
there is no way to know if total emissions will be reduced. That assumption is only valid if one fails to
take into account how far each construction worker must travel to and from his/her home to the
carpool pick-up location.
Section 2.2 (Off-Road Mobile Emissions) of the Air Quality Study includes the following statements: “[A]s
indicated in Table 4 below, emission estimates are well within significant threshold values and,
therefore, the impact due to mobile off-road emissions would be less than significant” (emphasis
added); and “[E]mission rates were estimated for all of the off-road mobile construction vehicles
anticipated to be operating on site during each phase of the project. Detailed results are displayed in
Appendix B and summarized in Table 4” (emphasis added)(p.8). However, Table 4 (p.11) is titled
“Estimated On-Road Vehicle Emission Rates” (emphasis added). Table 4 is clearly correctly captioned
and the references to Table 4 in the text are incorrect.
6 MOVES covers all highway vehicles, divided into 13 source use types (source types): motorcycles, passenger cars, passenger
trucks, light commercial trucks, other buses, transit buses, school buses, refuse trucks, single-unit short-haul trucks, single-unit
long-haul trucks, motorhomes, short-haul combination trucks and long-haul combination trucks” (p.4, Overview of EPA’s
MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator [MOVES3], EPA-420-R-21-004, March 2021).
7 The acoustics analysis for the Project (DEIS Appendix R) also assumed that Project haul trucks would be single unit Class 7
vehicles.
8 The DEIS states that “The proposed haul road would be stabilized to allow the passage of 22-wheel, 30-yard dump trailers”
(p.270). 22-wheel vehicles have 6 axles and would be Class 10 vehicles.
Page | Air Quality - 5 Rev8b
On page 12 of Appendix S one finds the statement that “As indicated on Table 5 above, the anticipated
emission rates for each phase of the project are well within the annual Conformity De Minimis
threshold, therefore it can be concluded that on-road vehicle emission generated from the Project
construction would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality.” It is clear that reference should
be to Table 4 as Table 5 is a list of construction area acreages.
Additional confusing editorial errors can also be found on page 7 and in Table 4. “The excavation phase
for removal of 135,000 cy of material is projecting 4,500 cy trailers over a 6-month period” (p. 7). This
should be “4,500 30-CY trailers.” On Table 4 (p.11) the second footnote should be “**,” not “*”. All of
these seemingly minor errors are significant because they have the potential to confuse the reader.
They also speak to the care with which the results of the air quality analysis have been reported.9
The statement that “Areas of the United States where the ambient air does do not meet NAAQS are
considered nonattainment or maintenance areas. Currently, Suffolk County ambient air quality is within
NAAQS and, therefore, maintains attainment status for all criteria pollutants” (DEIS p.248, Appendix S
p.2) is incorrect. Suffolk County is presently a non-attainment area for ozone.10
The DEIS, in numerous locations where air quality impacts are addressed, makes statements to the
effect that “all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards” (xxxix, 19, 140, 144, 173, 228,
259, 261, 274, 287, 293, 294, 299, 335). However, Tier 4 standards do not apply to on-road vehicles such as
the haul trucks to be used by the Project. According the Section Chief, Heavy Duty Vehicles, of the
NYSDEC’s Bureau of Air Resources “On-road vehicles don’t go by engine Tier, they go by engine model
year standards.”11, 12
Adding confusion is the fact that the DEIS states (pp. xxxvi, xxxviii, 266, 274, 287, 294, 335) that the use of
all Tier 4 certified trucks11 and equipment will further reduce emissions of PM and NOx” (emphasis
added). The ambiguity between the use of the phrases “trucks” and “trucks and equipment” needs to be
resolved, especially in light of the possibly careless (?) wording of other statements in the DEIS. For
example, the DEIS states that “Tier 4 regulations are the strictest U.S. EPA emissions requirements for
off-highway diesel engines. As such, the use of all Tier 4 compliant trucks 13 and equipment would
9 Table 42 in the DEIS is a duplicate of Table 4 in the air quality study (Appendix S). The DEIS correctly cites Table 3 in Appendix S
as referring to off-road emissions.
10 https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html
11 Personal communication from James Symon, P.E., Section Chief, Heavy Duty Vehicles, Bureau of Mobile Sources and
Technology Development, Division of Air Resources, NYSDEC, March 28, 2022.
12 The DEIS contains a lengthy discussion of the various EPA Tier standards. Significantly, this discussion is, appropriately, under
the heading “Off-Road Mobile Emissions” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 266).
13 As noted above, Tier 4 standards do not apply to trucks. Emission standards for on-road vehicles are based on engine model
year.
Page | Air Quality - 6 Rev8b
further reduce emissions of PM and NOx ensures that federal emission standards are being achieved”
(pp. xxvi, 266). This is not the same thing as saying that only Tier 4 trucks11 and equipment 14 will be
used. In other instances the DEIS states that “the Applicant has committed to utilizing trucks11 and
equipment that are all Tier 4 compliant” (p.266) and “SYC will mandate that all construction-related
trucks be Tier 4” (pp. xxxvi, 228), but a few pages later states that “the Applicant is committed . . .”
(emphasis added) (p.294). The latter phrase suggests a desire, rather than an obligatory commitment.
Finally, the statement that “[t]his analysis evaluates the potential impacts associated with trucks11 and
equipment that are equipped with engines that are Tier 3 or Tier 4 compliant for a conservative air
quality impact assessment approach . . . ” (pp.266), adds further confusion. If only Tier 4 trucks11 and
equipment will be used, why are Tier 3 vehicles includes in the analysis and, if they were, in what
manner were they included?15
Other Emission Sources
The DEIS never discusses new and permanent emission sources associated with the Project. “The
proposed buildings would be heated but not cooled, with the heating source planned as radiant flooring
supplied by liquid propane gas (LPG). Each building would be serviced with two, 2,000-gallon LPG tanks”
(DEIS p. 13, also pp. 161, 292). The DEIS contains no information relating to what type of heating
equipment will be fueled by the propane. Nor does it contain any information relating to how much
propane would be consumed each year. It is therefore impossible to calculate how air quality will be
impacted by Project operation. One gallon of propane emits 12.61 pounds (5,719 grams) of carbon
dioxide CO2 when combusted. The 8,000 gallons of propane stored on the Project site would generate
approximately 50 tons of carbon dioxide.
The DEIS also states that “existing buildings at SYC would continue to be heated using recycled engine
waste oil” (DEIS pp. 292)16. The emissions from burning waste oils reflect the compositional variations
of the waste oils. Potential pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), particulate matter (PM), toxic metals, organic compounds, hydrogen chloride, carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4]). These emissions have not been included in the air quality analysis.
14 Essentially, pre-Tier 4” heavy equipment was manufactured before the EPA’s mandate required all new equipment to meet
the Tier 4 regulations. The EPA doesn’t require every currently operating piece of equipment to meet the new
standards. Older equipment is “grandfathered” into the current ecosystem.
15 The language in the DEIS appears in all of these instances to have been taken verbatim from DEIS Appendix S.
16 Table 13 in the DEIS states that waste oil is “repurposed as fuel oil for furnace in shop.”
Page | Air Quality - 7 Rev8b
Carbon Sequestration
The DEIS scope calls for an evaluation and discussion of “the need to remove 493 trees17 and carbon
sequestration and if planting of trees elsewhere can be accomplished to offset tree loss” (p.9). Section
4.4 of the air quality study (DEIS Appendix S) and pp. 272-273 of the DEIS discuss two types of carbon
stock loss mitigation for the Project. These are hard clam farming and proposed supplemental plantings.
“Currently SYC hosts and partially funds a shellfish restoration program operated by Cornell
Cooperative Extension Marine Program at its facility” (p.20). In its discussion of carbon stock loss
mitigation efforts, the DEIS states, under the heading of “Proposed Mitigation” (Section 3.8.2) that the
“projected 1.5 million clams harvested annually have the potential to sequester 9,680 lbs. of carbon. As
such, this program has the beneficial impact of carbon sequestration” (p.273).
While hosting of the shellfish restoration program is certainly a laudable activity that contributes to
carbon sequestration, it is not mitigation of the carbon stock loss that will result from the Project. The
Applicant’s support of the shellfish restoration program is part of the existing conditions at the Project
site, and presumably would continue even if the Project did not proceed. It should be treated as
mitigation only if the Applicant indicates he intends to cease hosting the program if the Project is denied
approvals.18
The DEIS indicates that that the Applicant has included supplemental planting as a carbon stock loss
mitigation measure, and points out that the “proposed action includes the planting of 135 trees,
including 95 pitch pine trees (minimum 4-5 feet height) and 40 trees consisting of staghorn, sumac, and
shadbush to offset carbon stock loss in the Project Area. The planting of 135 pine trees would reduce
the carbon sink loss from the assumed 650 trees (for the purpose of this analysis, as described above) to
515 trees” (p.259).
This is very misleading as it assumes that the trees that will be lost are equivalent to the trees that will
be planted. They are not. It is inappropriate to measure net carbon sink loss by merely measuring the
net change in the number of trees. The 630-650 19 trees that will be destroyed have an average DBH
(Diameter at Breast Height) of 12.8-inches (DEIS Appendix N, p.22), almost all of which are hardwoods20,
and most of which have an estimated height of 80 feet (Appendix C- Tree Removal Carbon Stock
17 This number has been revised upward to 630-650 trees. DEIS Appendix N (table 7) gives the number as 634.
18 The agreement between the applicant and the Cornell Cooperative Extension (Appendix C in DEIS Appendix M) is clear that
the applicant to “has the right to terminate this agreement for any reason.”
19 The actual number of trees destroyed will almost certainly be higher as the 630-650 number as the tree survey included only
trees greater than 6 inches diameter (DEIS Appendix N, p.1).
20 “Approximately 70% of these trees consist of various oak (Quercus sp.) and American beech trees with the remainder
comprised largely of red maple, black locust, and black cherry” (DEIS Appendix N, p.22).
Page | Air Quality - 8 Rev8b
Estimates, in DEIS Appendix S). These trees are in no way equivalent to the 4- to 5-foot-high softwoods,
only a few inches in diameter, that are being proposed as replacements.
The DEIS is misleading in another regard when it states that “it is estimated that 95 adult pitch pine
trees would store 80,191 lbs. (40± tons) of carbon, decreasing total carbon storage loss (above & below-
ground biomass) from 391 tons to 351 tons” (emphasis added) (p.273). The replacement trees are not
adult trees. Pitch pines can take 20-30 years to reach maturity, and considerably longer to reach a
height of 80 feet.
The DEIS concludes its discussion of proposed supplemental planting with the statement that
“Accordingly, based on the above, no significant adverse air quality impacts would result from the
proposed action” (p.273)”. It is unclear whether this conclusion is meant to apply just to impacts
resulting from tree loss, or all air quality related impacts. In either case, the conclusion is not supported
by the data presented.
The DEIS also concludes that the size of the forest area to be cleared for the Project “is not considered
to be a significantly sized clearing area and, therefore, adverse impacts due to tree clearing/carbon
stock loss are considered negligible” (pp. xxvii, 272). No basis for this is provided. Even if one uses the
DEIS’ figure of 351 tons for total carbon loss resulting from forest clearing, this is figure is huge
compared to the less than 5 tons of carbon sequestered by the shellfish restoration Project hosted by
the Applicant and presented in the DEIS as a mitigation measure.21 If a 351-ton loss is “negligible,” what
is a 5-ton gain?
At least two errors are evident in DEIS Appendix S’ discussion of carbon sequestration. In the first case,
Appendix S states that, “[S]tudies have estimated that >1% [of total forest carbon stock] is stored in
dead wood . . . “(p.17). However, Table 6 (p.17) indicates that it is “< 1%”. The latter figure is correct.22
The second instance is found in Appendix S Table 7 (Carbon Storage Loss Estimates) which incorrectly
totals the estimated on-site loss of stored forest carbon. The table indicates the total as 3,402,604 lbs.
However, adding the individual totals for each carbon pool type results in a total of 3,411,603 pounds 23.
Fugitive Dust and Particulate Emissions
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to calculate “Fugitive dust emissions (particulate matter or PM) from
site preparation, land clearing, equipment movement on unpaved areas, material handling” and to
consider in its analyses “Erosion control measures and water programs to minimize fugitive dust and
21 Shellfish carbon sequestration applies to carbon in sea water and is not applicable to an air quality analysis.
22 https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/8142/Ch4_Carbon_FS2021.pdf
23The 8,999 lbs in the “dead wood” category may have been omitted because the carbon stock ratio for dead wood (Table 6) is
assumed to be < 1% , and the formula used in the air quality analysis assigns a value of “0%” to dead wood.
Page | Air Quality - 9 Rev8b
particulate emissions . . .” (p.10). This appears to have been done. However, the DEIS scope also calls
for the DEIS to assess “impacts associated with . . . land disturbance activities (e.g., dust) . . .” (p.20). This
has not been done. The DEIS is silent on the potential for fugitive dust to impact nearby residences,
particularly those in close proximity to the proposed haul road.
The DEIS scope also calls for “[e]stimated emission rates for particulate matter (PM) [to] be computed
and compared to USEPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and PM10” (p.19).
Appendix B (Pollutant Emission Estimates from Off-Road Mobile Diesel Construction Equipment) to DEIS
Appendix S provides information on PM10 only. Both the DEIS and Appendix S correctly note that
“PM2.5 is of special concern since the smaller size of these particles allow them to enter deeper into the
human respiratory tract and damage lung tissue.” However, both documents go on to state that for
“the purposes of this study PM10 emissions were estimated. PM10 values are inclusive of both 10-
micron and 2.5-micron PM” (DEIS p.262, Appendix S p.3). The potential adverse impacts to human
health fromPM10 and PM2.5 are not the same 24, and that is the reason the USEPA treats them
separately and has established separate standards for each. As a consequence of subsuming the PM2.5
data into the PM10 category, the DEIS has, in effect, hidden the potential adverse impacts of PM2.5.25
It should be noted that it has recently been reported that particulate air pollution on Long Island is
exceeding the World Health Organization’s 2021 air quality standards (5 micrograms per cubic meter of
PM2.5).26 Data came from five air quality monitoring stations on Long Island, including one in Riverhead.
Riverhead exceeded WHO guidelines by 1 to 2 times.27
The conclusion in the DEIS and Appendix S that with “the implementation of [dust mitigation]
measures, there would be no adverse impacts created by dust generation and the resultant air quality
impacts would be avoided” (Appendix S p.14, DEIS p.269) is not supported by any of the information
provided.
24“PM10 and PM2.5 often derive from different emissions sources, and also have different chemical compositions. Emissions
from combustion of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel or wood produce much of the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air, as well as a
significant proportion of PM10. PM10 also includes dust from construction sites, landfills and agriculture, wildfires and
brush/waste burning, industrial sources, wind-blown dust from open lands, pollen and fragments of bacteria. . . . For PM2.5,
short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with premature mortality, increased hospital
admissions for heart or lung causes, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, respiratory
symptoms, and restricted activity days” (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health).
25 However, DEIS Appendix S inexplicably includes estimates of PM2.5, and not PM10 in regards to on-road emissions (DEIS
Appendix S Table 4). The DEIS and DEIS Appendix S state “[t]otal CO, NOx and PM-10 have been estimated by utilizing U.S.
EPA MOVES, Version 2014b software” (DEIS p.267, Appendix S p.7). However, the raw data outputs from the MOVES
emission output model, included as Appendix A to DEIS Appendix S, indicate that modeling for the Project included PM2.5
(pollutant ID 110 Primary Exhaust PM-2.5), but did not include PM10 (pollutant ID 100 -Primary Exhaust PM-10).
26 The baseline PM 2.5 standard for the US Environmental Protection Agency is 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
27https://www.newsday.com/long-island/air-pollution-particulates-who-x19avne7
Page | ALTERNATIVES-1 Rev 8
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The DEIS Scope, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, identified six project alternatives to be included in the
DEIS. These were discussed in the original December 2021 DEIS. The revised November 2022 DEIS has
incorporated two additional alternatives.1 Five of the eight alternatives are considered in these
comments. Two other alternatives, that were not identified called out in the DEIS Scope or discussed in
the DEIS, but which have been proposed by the Applicant in other venues, are also discussed. These
are: 1) the phased construction of the Project, and 2) the use of larger-capacity haul trucks to transport
excavated sand from the Project site.
As-of-Right (No-Action Alternative) (Alternative 1)
According to the SEQRA Handbook: “For many private actions, the no action alternative may be simply
and adequately addressed by identifying the direct financial effects of not undertaking the action . . .”
(p.120). This is not addressed in the DEIS. No claim is made that the Applicant, his company, his
employees, the Town of Southold, or Southold residents, would suffer a financial hardship under the no-
action alternative.
The DEIS describes the No-Action Alternative as “leaving the site as it currently remains, absent the
proposed action and the continuation of the site as a full-service marina with boat sales and
maintenance services of SYC (DEIS p.315). However, in other venues, the Applicant has indicated that
an As-of-Right version of the No-Action alternative is also a possibility.
According to the April 27, 2023 issue of the Suffolk Times: After attending the Applicant’s April 25
open house at the Mattituck library, one Mattituck resident told the paper that “[t]he more I listen,
the more I think it [the Project] makes a lot of sense because, quite frankly, it’s a pretty valuable piece
of property they can sell and would be developed . . . There’d be more kids going to school, garbage,
sewage … I think I’d rather have this than a bunch of houses that could be up for rent or Airbnb.” This
is not, as the Applicant has apparently suggested to Southold residents, a realistically possible
alternative.
Residential dwellings are not permitted in M-II zones within which the Project is located, per Section
280-55 of the Southold Town Code. Housing is not, as the Applicant has indicated, a legally
permissible alternative use of the Project Area. Housing on two-acre lots is permitted, and will
continue to be permitted, on the R-80 portion of the Project parcel beyond the limits of the Project
Area. Claiming that housing is a viable as-of-right alternative is at best, misleading and deceptive. In
addition, construction of the Project haul road, which will become a permanent emergency access
road, would, in fact, facilitate the development of new housing on the R-80 portion of the Applicant’s
property.
1 The two new alternatives are Alternative 7 (Alternative Material Mitigation Plan) and Alternative 8 (Alternative Routing Plan).
Page | ALTERNATIVES-2 Rev 8
Alternative Material Removal Plan(s) (Alternative 2)
Use of Barges
DEIS Appendix U contains correspondence from H & L Contracting (H&L) to the Applicant. According to
that correspondence, H&L “investigated very thoroughly with at least 4 different barge companies the
possibility of removing approx. 135,000 yards of sand or any significant portion of this amount by barge
from your Strong’s Yacht Center marina on Mattituck Inlet in relation to your proposed building project.
. . . Unfortunately, all of the barge companies came back with the same answer, the inlet is not deep
enough nor wide enough to safely accommodate the size barges that would be required for this
project.” No correspondence or other record of the Applicant’s request to H&L, is included in the DEIS. It
is therefore not possible to know what, if any, Applicant specified constraints were provided to H&L. For
example, were barge types (bulk cargo, hopper) or sizes specified (exactly what size barge is the barge
“required for this project”?), was a limit placed on the number of barge trips required per given unit of
time (days, weeks, months), was a limit placed on the total number of barge trips, was consideration
given to limiting barge operations to periods of higher tides?
No documentation of the responses from any of the four barge companies, including their names, has
been included in the DEIS. This is concerning since H&L indicates that each company “investigated very
thoroughly.” Given the absence of supporting documentation, it is not possible to determine if those
companies were given specific parameters to include in their feasibility evaluations, or if they limited
their evaluations to barges of a particular size and draft.
H&L indicates that one of the reasons that the barge alternative is not feasible is that barges “would
need a bare minimum of 10 foot of draft at low tide.”2 However, as noted above, no mention is made of
the barge size and associated draft requirements used to make this determination. Barges with drafts,
when loaded, of as little as 7.5 feet are available. It is possible that the companies contacted by H&L
responded as they did because they do not have lower-draft barges in their fleets.
The DEIS states that as “outlined in Table 3 3 in Section 2.2.4 of Appendix M [Boat Vessel Study], the
drafts of the boats/yachts range from approximately 5-feet-11-inches to 6-feet-8-inches.” The apparent
reference is to Table 4 in DEIS Appendix M (Typical Yacht Types to be Stored at SYC Under Proposed
Action) in DEIS Appendix M. That table lists the draft of 86-foot Sunseeker yachts (the largest boats
listed in the table) as 6-feet-5 inches, not 6-feet-8-inches. The marina currently accommodates yachts up
2 According to the DEIS, “[O]verall, average channel depths at low tide are in the 9-to-10 feet range with most areas
significantly deeper than that (p.60). However, according to DEIS Appendix Q “A tide swing graph from
https://tides.mobilegeographics.com7 shows that the average daily tide swing from low tide to high tide on Mattituck Inlet is
5 feet or slightly greater. As such, average depths are approximately 14-to-15 feet at high tide.”
3 The DEIS has misidentified the relevant table. The correct reference is to Table 4 in Section 2.2.4 of Appendix M.
Page | ALTERNATIVES-3 Rev 8
133± feet in length which could have greater drafts. The DEIS also notes that vessels in the commercial
fishing fleet that docks along Mattituck Creek “have greater channel depth requirements with greater
drafts (i.e., 7 feet typical drafts)” (p.60).
“Inlet soundings at low tide were performed by H&L Contracting LLC for Mattituck Creek from the inlet
at Long Island Sound to SYC on April 8, 2020 to document the various depths of the inlet and creek (see
Figure 2). It is noted that the soundings were performed to determine whether suitable depths existed
for barging of cut materials from the project site” (Appendix M p.8).
No detailed chart including water depth soundings for Mattituck Creek is included in Appendix M. Figure
2, dated 4-8-2020, employs a scale of 1” = 400’. No source for the figure is provided, and it is not
suitable for determining actual water depths within Mattituck Creek.4 H&L apparently did a detailed
draft sounding study that was provided to the Applicant (and presumably his consultants) but this
information is not included in the DEIS.
As noted above (fn 2), the DEIS also states that the “tidal range for Mattituck Creek is approximately five
feet. At low tide, depths adjacent to SYC average between 9-to-10 feet within the channel. At high tide,
the average depths range from 14-to-15 feet. As noted above, there two areas immediately north of SYC
with depths greater than 25 feet and at high tide would be approximately 30 feet, providing substantial
draft for the yachts typically serviced by the existing marina” (p. 56). By the same token, it is apparent
that barges with 10-foot drafts could navigate the inlet at high tide but, without explanation, this
alternative was not considered in the DEIS. No consideration, or explanation for why it was not
considered, is given to the feasibility of limiting barge operations to periods of higher tide when vessel
draft might not be of concern.
The second reason provided by H&L for why the barge alternative is not feasible is they are “very
concerned about the sharp S turns as you enter the Inlet first and second bends, these are very tight and
would not allow the width or depth necessary to safely navigate these areas.” This is certainly a
legitimate concern. However, as with concerns about vessel draft, it is unclear if this concern is based
upon the sizes of the barges used in H&L’s analysis, or if the concern could be eliminated through the
use of smaller barges.
The feasibility of the barge alternative has not been adequately explored. The Planning Board must
independently evaluate the barge transport alternative and cannot rely on unsupported assertions
made in the DEIS that this alternative is not feasible.
4 The June 24, 2021 correspondence from H&L Contracting to the Applicant states that H&L “did a very detailed draft soundings
from the inlet entrance to your marina. Those draft findings I emailed you on 4-10-2020” (DEIS Appendix U). It seems likely
Figure 2 in Appendix M is from, or is based on data from, H&L.
Page | ALTERNATIVES-4 Rev 8
On-Site Cement Plant
“During preparation of the DEIS and in response to a Planning Board Member meeting held on-site, the
option to install a cement plant on-site to eliminate the need to transport the excavated material off-
site was investigated” DEIS pp. xlii, 315). The DEIS goes on to conclude that because the amount of sand
required to provide the Project’s requirement for 5,345 CY of concrete is only 1,604 CY, the reduction in
the number of truck trips required for sand removal would not be significantly reduced. It goes on to
conclude further that “potential impacts that arise with on-site processing including dust and noise
generation, as well as the financial cost associated with plant operations, has been determined not
feasible” (DEIS pp. xlii, 315).
However, it appears that the evaluation of this alternative failed to take into account the fact that an on-
site concrete batch plant would eliminate the need for the delivery of concrete to the Project.
According to the DEIS, 89 truck deliveries by concrete trucks will be necessary to provide the concrete
for foundations and floor slabs for the two boat storage buildings (pp. xxx, 19). Concrete trucks
generally carry approximately 10 CY of material per load.5 Assuming 10 CY trucks are used, the 89 truck
deliveries would therefore be transporting approximately 890 CY of concrete to the Project site for
foundations and floor slabs. This is far less concrete than the 4082 CY specified in DEIS Appendix U.
Assuming 10 CY of concrete can be delivered during each round-trip, approximately 410 round-trips, or
820 total trips will be required to deliver the concrete required for the Project’s retaining wall
foundations and building floor slabs. This is more than four times the number stated in the DEIS. The
DEIS has not considered the extent to which the reduction in concrete-truck trips would offset the
disadvantages of an on-site concrete plant.
Construct Proposed Storage Building(s) Without Excavation (Alternative 4)
According to the DEIS, “Similar to the proposed action, this alternative would require slope stabilization
measures to correct existing slope failure behind Buildings 7 and 8, which has occurred due to the
erosion of the upland slope and presence of unconsolidated materials behind the upland slope face that
were deposited by the USACOE [US Army Corps of Engineers] as part of past dredging projects (see
historic topographic maps and Chapter 2 Environmental and Historic Contexts] of the Phase 1A
Archaeological Survey in Appendix T)” (p.317).
Note should be taken of the DEIS’ reference to the “existing slope failure” behind Buildings 7 and 8. The
preferred Project alternative would eliminate this concern because the affected area would no longer
5 The DEIS does not provide information concerning the exact size or weight of concrete trucks that may be used. The revised
DEIS states only that “Concrete will arrive at the site in single unit concrete trucks with a minimum of 3 axles and 10 tires.
The concrete trucks will be no larger than those used for pouring concrete for the construction of single-family homes and
residential pools” (p. 220).
Page | ALTERNATIVES-5 Rev 8
exist. However, the no-action alternative does not address the environmental consequences of the
Applicant continuing to fail to address this concern.
The statement that the “unconsolidated materials behind the upland slope face . . . were deposited by
the USACOE” being the cause of the existing slope failure cannot be supported.6 This is another instance
of the DEIS being used to divert responsibility for existing site conditions onto another party.
Alternative 4 would have significant visual impacts because the tops of the proposed structures would
be at elevations of more than 70 feet. However, the DEIS’ discussion of Alternative 4 neglects to
adequately address a significant advantage of this alternative over the proposed plan. The DEIS states
that “the grading program for this Alternate Plan would result in approximately 2,939 CY of cut material
for export off-site” (p.317). Under the proposed plan 134,921 CY of cut material would have to be
removed—46 times the amount required by Alternative 4. The significant reduction in the amount of
sand that would be exported would be associated with a proportional reduction in the amount of truck
trips along local roads, and a corresponding reduction in damage to local roads, and noise and vibration
impacts, as compared to the preferred alternative. DEIS Table 53 (Comparative Analysis of Proposed
Plan and Alternatives), although it provides comparative data on traffic impacts after the Project is
completed, does NOT include information on construction phase traffic.
According to the DEIS (p.318), Alternative 4 “would realize a cost savings of approximately $750,000
with the reduction in cut material and elimination of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall.” It is
impossible to evaluate the relative significance of this amount since nowhere in the DEIS the total cost
of construction of the proposed Project mentioned.
Alternative Material Mitigation Plan (Alternative 7)
This alternative would “reduce the volume of material to be removed from the subject property by
placing approximately 13,500 cy of material on the R-80-zoned parcel. The material would be placed
within the Successional Shrubland area at a depth of approximately 12 inches and setback
approximately 20 feet from the Successional Southern Hardwoods” (DEIS p.336). The DEIS asserts the
result would be the elimination of “450 trucks from the excavation phase, which would reduce the
excavation phase by 11.25 days or approximately two weeks” (p. 336). This is incorrect, and
underestimates the major advantage of this alternative. The 450 trucks referred to in the DEIS actually
refers to round-trips. The actual reduction in the number of truck trips would be 900 at a minimum.7
6 See comments on soils.
7 The consistent conflation of trips with round-trips was identified by the Planning Board in their comments as an inadequacy in
the original DEIS. In addition, the 450 truck-loads of sand that would no longer have to be moved off-site assumes that each
truck would be filled with 30 CY of material. It is likely that, to avoid exceeding each truck’s MGVW, each load would be less
than 30 CY. That would increase the number of off-site truck trips actually eliminated, and the advantage of this alternative.
Page | ALTERNATIVES-6 Rev 8
The discussion of Alternative 7 also fails to note that the reduction in the number of truck trips would
also be associated with changes in noise, vibration, and air quality impacts. Residences in proximity to
the area where the fill would be placed would be most likely to be affected. The DEIS has not
adequately identified the advantages and adverse impacts associated with this alternative. As a
result, the Planning Board has not been provided with the information necessary to properly evaluate
this alternative.
Table 9 in DEIS Appendix N “Proposed Changes in Ecological Community Coverages Under Alternate Plan
7” requires clarification. For example, it is unclear how this alternative would result in a 126.2% increase
in “Buildings & Paved/Pervious Surfaces” over existing conditions; or a 695.8% increase in “Mowed Lawn
with Trees & Landscaping.” The full ecological impacts of this alternative have not been adequately
evaluated.
Alternative Routing Plan (Alternative 8)
“An Alternate Truck Route has been developed that would reduce the impact of trucks hauling material
from the site. This alternative split arriving empty trucks from departing trucks carrying excavated
material on the south segment of Cox Neck Road” (DEIS p. 225). “Arriving trucks would follow the
original Truck Route plan, making a left turn from east bound Sound Avenue onto north bound Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road. Departing trucks hauling material from the site would utilize West Mill Road/Cox
Neck Road and then turn west onto Bergen Avenue to Sound Avenue” (DEIS pp. xliv, 225, 338; Appendix
N, TIS, p.88).
It is unclear how this would “reduce the impact of trucks.” According to the DEIS, the “advantage of the
proposed Alternate Truck Route Plan is that it halves the number of truck trips on Cox Neck Road where
there are more residential homes fronting on the road. The departing trucks will use Bergen Avenue
which has less than half the number of homes fronting the road. It reduces the number of truck trips on
Cox Neck Road but does increase the number on Bergen Avenue” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 338;
Appendix N, TIS p. 88)
Although some residences will be subjected to fewer truck pass-bys, if employed, this Project alternative
will also increase the total number of residences impacted by the Project.
The Phased Construction Alternative (Proposed by Applicant but Not included in the DEIS)
The phased construction of the Project includes the construction of a single storage building in a first
phase, and a second phase including construction of a second storage building later in time. This
alternative may actually be the Project the Applicant contemplates constructing—not the single-phase
Project upon which the entire DEIS is premised. The Applicant made initial reference to the fact that
bank financing of the second proposed storage building was dependent upon a demonstrated 60%
Page | ALTERNATIVES-7 Rev 8
occupancy of the first building at a meeting with David Boscola, Donna Boscola, and Stephen Boscola at
the Strong’s Yacht Center office on February 8, 2020.8 Stephen Boscola raised this concern to the
Planning Board at a March 9, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board and this is noted in the minutes of
that meeting. The Applicant and his legal counsel were present and, although they had the opportunity
to do so, did not object to, or contradict, Mr. Boscola’s statement. The Applicant has also stated in other
public venues that it is not certain that both storage buildings would be constructed at the same time.9
This alternative would result in environmental impacts significantly different from those described in the
DEIS. Construction traffic impacts would be essentially unchanged; the destruction of more than 600
trees would still be required; impacts to wildlife would be unchanged, as would impacts to the Mill Road
Preserve. In contrast, the few benefits the Project offers including jobs and property tax revenues
would be significantly reduced in scale.
It is imperative that the Planning Board confirm that the Applicant’s proposal involves construction of
the Project in a single phase over a single construction season.
Use of Larger-Capacity Haul Trucks (Considered by the Applicant but Not Included in the DEIS)
This alternative has been suggested, and rejected, by the Project Applicant, but is not discussed in the
DEIS. The Applicant maintains on his website for the Project a “Fact Sheet”10 that states that the
“number of trips, and the timeline, could be reduced by removing the sand in 40-yard loads. We have
chosen to remove the sand in 30-yard loads because this weight can be appropriately handled on local
roads.”11 In fact this is not, and never was, a viable alternative. Haul trucks carrying loads of 40 CY of
sand would be well above the maximum allowable weight under any special permit that might be issued
8 Personal communication from Stephen Boscola.
9 In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant was asked if both
storage buildings would be constructed at the same time. In response he said: “We don’t know the answer to that question
fully right now. The main driver of that is if, and when, this ever gets approved. Just like you’ve seen several projects that
finally get approved that the developer chose to pull out of the project altogether. Some of that was driven by the fact that
the costs have just gone through the roof dramatically. So, I can’t factually speak to that. I can say this—that our desire
would be to do both buildings at the same time. If for some reason we weren’t to do both buildings at the same time the
retaining wall . . would all have to be done at the same time. We more than likely would do the cement work at the same
time. Or worst-case scenario, we would erect one building and then let a little bit of time elapse, and then do the second
building. But it could very well be that if, hopefully, interest rates drop, prices of steel come back in line, we would do both
buildings at the same time.
10 https://strongsmarine.com/assets/images/pdf/4.6.22%20SYC%20building%20project%20fact%20sheet.pdf. This fact sheet is
dated April 6, 2022. The same statement also appeared in an earlier version of the fact sheet dated February 10, 2022. It is
no longer included in the April 23, 2023 version.
11 This is another example of the Applicant attempting to present misleading information to the public. Trucks carrying a 40-CY
load would exceed the maximum allowable gross vehicle weight even for trucks with an overweight permit. The idea that 30-
CY loads “can be appropriately handled on local roads” is refuted by statement in the DEIS which outlines Applicant-
proposed measures to mitigate damage to local roads.
Page | ALTERNATIVES-8 Rev 8
by NYSDOT. As noted elsewhere in these Comments, the DEIS fails to adequately address or consider the
impacts of even the 30-yard trucks Applicant intends to use.12
12 As noted elsewhere in these Comments, the DEIS fails to adequately address impacts of even the 30 CY capacity haul trucks
the Applicant intends to use. The suggestion that a totally non-viable alternative is possible, is another example of the
Applicant’s distribution of false and misleading information about the Project.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -1 Rev6
CULTURAL RESOURCES (ARCHEOLOGY)
The DEIS scope states that development of the Project requires review by the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)1 “for archeological significance.” It calls for the DEIS
to discuss the “potential, adverse impacts to archeological and cultural resources from the action”
(p.22). The scope also notes that no archeological survey of the Project area had been made and the
question as to whether or not archeological resources might be affected could not be addressed with
available information.
In response to this requirement an archeological survey of the Project site was undertaken in 2021. The
survey included both a desk top study (Phase 1A investigation)2 and a field survey (Phase 1B
investigation)3. In response to comments from OPRHP, a supplemental Phase 1B survey report was
completed in January 2022.4 These studies are attached to the DEIS as part of Appendix T.
As defined in the New York Archaeological Council’s Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and
the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State (NYAC Standards), adopted for use by
OPRHP, Phase 1A investigations consist primarily of a literature review to gather information concerning
the environmental/physical setting of a specific project area as well as its cultural setting, which can be
used to evaluate the archeological sensitivity of the project area (NYAC Standards, Section 2.2). Phase
1B investigations consist of systematic field investigations to identify archeological sites through
methods such as systematic surface survey, subsurface shovel testing, and remote sensing studies
(NYAC Standards, Section 2.3).
The Phase 1A and Phase 1B reports for the Project are considered here together. This is because a
significant amount of information which should have been incorporated into the Phase 1A survey is,
instead, included in the Phase 1B report. This information, which is significant, was apparently not
1 The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is the NYS Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation. The staff of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation
(OPRHP) serves as the SHPO staff.
2 Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Phase 1A Archaeology (v2), July 2021, prepared by Carol S. Weed
(included in DEIS Appendix T).
3 Phase 1B Archaeological Assessment, Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP
21PR04396), October 4, 2021, prepared by Matthew D. Spigelman and Carol S. Weed (DEIS Appendix T).
4 Supplemental Phase 1B Archaeological Assessment, Strong’s Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill
Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396), January 7,2022, prepared by Matthew D. Spigelman and Carol S. Weed (DEIS Appendix T).
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -2 Rev6
used in preparing the conclusions and recommendations presented in the Phase 1A report, rendering it
deficient. 5,6
The omission of this data does not appear to have been simple oversight. The Standards state:
“It is recognized that a variety of individuals, especially those interested in or living near
a specific project area, may have information not available from any other source. Such
information can enhance the data gathered from the written record alone. Informant
interviews with persons (e.g., avocational archaeologists, landowners, state or local
government agency staff) who may be familiar with the project area and possible
archaeological sites can make a valuable contribution to these investigations” (Section
2.2.2).
The Phase 1B report states that “No formal work plan for the proposed Phase 1B was submitted to
NYSOPRHP. However, Dr. Tim Lloyd, the OPRHP reviewer, did review the proposed survey grid and Ms.
Weed’s explanation of the proposed actions (see Appendix C – Agency Correspondence).” OPRHP’s July
22, 2021 comment letter states that “OPRHP concurs with your recommendation to conduct Phase 1B
archaeological testing at locations where proposed ground disturbances will take place in relatively level
intact soils.”
The Phase 1B report notes that the DEIS scope for the Project calls for the archeological sensitivity of the
“direct impact areas within the Project Site” to be evaluated. The qualifier “direct” does not appear in
the DEIS scope. While it is true that Phase 1B investigations are generally confined to “direct” impact
areas, possible misinterpretations of both environmental data and land use history, discussed below,
resulted in portions of the “direct impact area” being inappropriately excluded from investigation during
the initial Phase 1B investigations.7
The Phase 1A report presents both historic map and aerial photo evidence to support a conclusion that
a small, and since filled, inlet to Mattituck Creek, existed southeast of, and possibly intruding slightly
5 The information consists primarily of notes and records of archeological work conducted in Mattituck during the 1920’s by
Charles F. Goddard, a founding member of the New York State Archaeological Association and the Southold Indian Museum.
The Phase 1A report author notes (p.5) that she did contact Dr. Joel Klein, a retired professional archeologist resident in
Mattituck, as part of the Phase 1A investigation. However, the author does not mention that during a March 21, 2021
telephone call that she initiated, that Dr. Klein specifically advised her of the existence of the Goddard records, their potential
relevance, or that he recommended that she contact Dr. Tim Lloyd at the State Historic Preservation Office, as Dr. Lloyd was
familiar with the Goddard records and could advise her on how to access them. On July 22, 2021, OPRHP noted in a review of
the Phase 1A report that information from the Goddard records was missing, and directed that it be included in any future
report submissions (Phase 1B report, Appendix C). It is unclear whether the information from the Goddard records was used
in determining specific field methodologies to be used for Phase 1B field investigations.
6 The Phase 1A report does not appear to be a carefully prepared document. There are numerous incorrect and missing
citations and references.
7 This omission was noted by OPRHP which requested additional subsurface testing in the previously omitted areas (see below).
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -3 Rev6
into, the Project’s Construction Excavation Area (CEA). The report notes that this corresponds to the
current location of existing marina Bldg. 8. The report concludes that the fill was “gradually” placed
between 1962 and 1978. This is incorrect. A 1957 surveyor’s map of the property identifies a roughly
200 ft x 600 ft area corresponding to the location of the former inlet as “Sand Filled”. Anecdotal
information from local residents suggests that the former inlet area was filled by a previous owner—not
the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Additionally, both the 1957 survey (COMMENT FIGURE
ARCHEOLOGY-1), and a 1931 survey (COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-2) suggest that the “inlet”
(labeled as “Basin”) extended considerably farther west into the CEA, well beyond the area occupied by
Bldg. 8.
The report author notes that she observed spoil piles along the east side of the CEA, and goes on to say
that “[T]he origin of the spoil is unknown but historic documents indicate that dredge spoil has been
deposited on the floodplain and in valley locations particularly on the west side of Mattituck Creek by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (Morgan et al. 2005, Friends 1986)”. This conclusion is unfounded and
likely incorrect.
The 1A report describes the observed spoil piles as including “concrete fragments, a tire, and other
[unspecified] cultural debris.” This description, as well as the included photograph (B5) of one of the
spoil piles (the author does not indicate how many, how large, or where these are located), strongly
suggest that these piles are not dredge spoil. First, the quantities of cultural debris described are not
typical of dredge spoil. Second, it is obvious from Photograph B5, even though it contains no scale, that
the size of the pile in the photo is relatively small, and totally inconsistent with the large quantities of
material one would expect from a dredge spoil disposal operation.
The 1A report cites Morgan et al. (2005) and Friends (1986)8 as the source of the claim that “dredge
spoil has been deposited on the floodplain and in valley locations particularly on the west side of
Mattituck Creek by the US Army Corps of Engineers” (emphasis added). No such statement appears in
Morgan et al. However, Batten and Kraus (2006), a source listed among the report’s references cited,
but which is never mentioned in the text, states that
“[I]n total, approximately 391,000 cu yd of sediment was dredged from Mattituck Inlet
between 1921 and 2004. Condition surveys for the 1946, 1950, 1955, and 1965 dredging
show that dredged material was placed either on the subaerial beach or below the
waterline directly to the east of the inlet. Records indicate that, after these initial
placements on the beach or in the nearshore, disposal of maintenance dredged
sediment on the eastern beach became standard practice” (2006:10) (emphasis added).
8 The references cited section of both the HRS and the Phase1A report contain a citation for “Friends of the Mattituck Free
Library 1986.” No further information is provided and it is not possible to identify the nature of this document or verify any of
the information it might contain.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -4 Rev6
The Phase 1A report’s questionable conclusions in regard to the existence of large quantities of dredge
spoil within the Project area, which is on the west side of Mattituck Inlet, was used to support a decision
to inappropriately exclude a significant portion (much larger than just the area of the former inlet) of the
Project site from subsurface testing.
The section of the Phase 1A report describing walkover observations of the CEA (Construction
Excavation Area) claims that “The PWGC 2021 geotechnical bores clearly distinguish dredge spoil layers
in Bores B9, B10, and B11 (Figure 20)”. In fact, the author of the PWGC geotechnical report (in DEIS
Appendix H) was uncertain in regard to the classification of sediment recovered from bores as dredge
spoil; witness the decision to refer to them in boring logs as “potential” and “possible” dredged spoil. 9,10
The Phase 1A report goes on to say that, “Overall, the soil layers above the dredge spoils generally agree
with the CpE texture description (see comments on Geology and Soils) and represent erosion sediments
from upslope.” In fact, the USDA description of CpE soils (Warner et al. 1975) included in the Phase 1A
report, describes them as “glaciofluvial deposits.” Such deposits would result from a considerably
different formative process than would be associated with “erosional sediments”.11,12
Surprisingly little attention is given in the Phase 1A report to the prehistoric context associated with the
Project area. Specific prior archeological investigations conducted in the general Project area vicinity in
advance of planned development projects are discussed, as are three previously recorded Native
American archeological sites. However, discussion of the broader archeological context is limited to a
single sentence in a standard archeological reference (Ritchie 1980) which states only that its discussion
of Long Island is “exceptionally brief.”13
9 Section 2G(3) of OPRHP’s Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements state that “If soil boring logs are discussed in
the body of the report they must be provided as an appendix.” Copies of the boring logs were not included in the Phase 1A or
1B reports. They were not made available to OPRHP until a specific request for them was made by that office. The Phase 1A
report also mentions a 2018 test bore location (p.13) and includes a citation for an associated report by McDonald
Geoscience in the possession of the Project Applicant. This report does not appear to have been made available to OPRHP.
10 Borings B-10 and B-11 are within the “Sand Filled” area shown on the 1957 survey map.
11 A more detailed discussion of the possibility that extensive dredge spoil deposits are present in the Project area is included in
comments relating to the DEIS’ discussion of soil and DEIS Appendix H. As noted in those comments, the most significant
basis for questioning whether the material observed in the three borings (referred to as Stratum 3) is dredge spoil is the fact
that the top of Stratum 3 is found at depths varying from four to eight feet below ground surface. This begs the question: if
Stratum 3 is in fact dredge spoil, what is the material overlying it? Any such material could not have been deposited earlier
than the early twentieth century when the first dredging of Mattituck Inlet occurred. If the overlying strata are natural, then
Stratum 3 cannot be dredge spoil.
12 The misinterpretation of some soils in the Project area as dredge spoils is discussed in greater detail in comments on the soils
section of the DEIS.
13 As noted above, while the Phase 1B report contains an analysis of information from the Goddard notebooks, that data was
not considered during preparation of the Phase 1A report.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -5 Rev6
The Phase 1A report Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations section does include a discussion
of the environmental characteristics of the Project area and vicinity that inform the assessment of the
areas likelihood of containing prehistoric Native American sites. The absence of known nearby sources
of potable water necessary to support long term habitations is noted. However, the Phase 1A report
also notes that “micro-terraces [within the CEA] would provide usable space for short term stays while
exploiting the Mattituck Creek and associated inlet riverine resources and the exposed glacial till along
the bluff faces”.14 No consideration is given to the possibility that archeological site types other than
occupation sites (e.g. short-term camps) might be present. Of special concern is the possibility that
burial sites could be present. This possibility is especially relevant because the Project area included a
topographic high point in close proximity to major water bodies (Mattituck Inlet and Long Island Sound).
This is the type of setting associated with the well-known prehistoric Orient-period burial sites located
east and west of the Project area in Orient and Jamesport (Ritchie 1959, 1969).15
Significantly, the Phase 1A report concludes that “the Project Site may retain archaeological sensitivity
within the CEA. It is recommended that the areas as outlined on Figure 20 and discussed above should
be subjected to Phase 1B archaeological survey as both locations are evaluated as having medium
sensitivity for the presence of Indigenous Nation use.”16 However, it also concluded that no subsurface
testing needed to be undertaken in areas believed to be covered by dredge spoil, and in fact, the Phase
1B survey did not test in those areas. The likelihood that significant volumes of dredge spoil are, in fact,
present within the CEA is unlikely for the many reasons mentioned above and in comments on the
portions of the DEIS dealing with soils an in DEIS Appendix H. However, even if the Phase 1A report is
correct in its conclusion that is no reason for excluding supposed areas of dredge spoil from
archeological testing. In all cases Project-related excavation will extend below the supposed levels of
presumed dredge spoil.17 This means that there is a potential for intact ground surfaces and
archeological remains to be present below any dredge spoil deposits. The presence of dredge spoil in
an area does not in and of itself constitute a basis for considering an area “disturbed.” The presence of
significant volumes of fill resulting in the deep burial of archeological deposits is a not uncommon
phenomenon. Archeological survey in such locations is routinely successfully undertaken through the
use of deep testing, most often involving backhoe excavations, or the collection of wide diameter soil
14 The riverine resources are plant and animal food sources. Exposed glacial till would have been a source of material for the
manufacture of stone tools.
15 As noted above, Ritchie (1969) The Archaeology of New York State, revised edition, is the sole standard archeological
reference cited in the Phase 1A report. One of the initial investigators of the Orient sites was Charles Goddard whose
notebooks were not consulted by the Phase 1A report author until she was advised to do so by SHPO staff. The principal
reference relating to North Fork burial sites, Ritchie, W.A. (1959), The Stony Brook Site and its Relation to Archaic and
Transitional Cultures on Long Island, New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 372, was apparently not consulted
as it is not included in the references section of any of the archeological reports.
16 Figure 20 in the Phase 1A report delineates only a single “area of archeological sensitivity”. It is located almost entirely
northwest of, and outside of, the CEA. No definition of what constitutes “medium” sensitivity is provided.
17 The Phase 1A report author was aware of this. The 1A report notes that “C-horizon soils will be encountered throughout the
new building excavation area . . . “
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -6 Rev6
borings in cases where backhoe excavation is not feasible because of the depths involved. The depths of
supposed dredge spoil in the CEA would not preclude backhoe testing. When test bores are employed,
they generally consist of 5-inch or greater bores designed to retrieve intact samples which can be
examined by archeologists for evidence of past human activity.18 These are far superior to the small
diameter split spoon samples collected during the geotechnical investigation conducted for the Project.
The final sentence of the Phase 1A report text reads: “If NYSHPO accepts this recommendation [to limit
Phase 1B work to the area delineated on Figure 20 of the Phase 1A report], a Phase 1B work plan will be
submitted that outlines the exact locations that will be subject to systematic shovel testing” (p.14).
However, it appears that Phase 1B work was carried out without a work plan being submitted.
The Phase 1A report author’s lack of familiarity with the Project vicinity is apparent when she states,
using the past tense, that “At one point, [the North Fork] was also known for its shellfish and fishing
opportunities” (emphasis added).19 The seeming lack of familiarity with relevant professional literature
(see fn 15, above) underscores the general lack of familiarity with the Project vicinity.
Phase 1B fieldwork appears to have been carried out by ACME Heritage Consultants (a third-tier
subcontractor) in accordance with the general plan described in the Phase 1A report. The field methods
employed appear to have been consistent with accepted archeological practice and the standards.
However, the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) was initially “restricted to areas with less than 15%
slope and without known evidence of 20th century dredge spoil dumping” (p.7). While the elimination
of areas of steep slopes is appropriate, eliminating areas from testing solely because they were believed
to be covered with dredge spoil was not.
Areas of “potential dredge spoil” (emphasis added) are shown on Figure 20 in the Phase 1A report. They
are not shown on any of the graphics in the Phase 1B report. Figure 7 in the Phase 1B report shows the
location of planned and excavated STPs. Inexplicably/inconsistently, a significant number (approximately
20 out of a total of 70) of these are shown as having been excavated within the northeast portion of the
CEA in an area designated on Figure 20 in the Phase 1A report as an area of “potential dredge spoils.”
The soils profiles associated with these STPs are described in Appendix D (Stratigraphy Summary) and
are recorded as showing O, A, B, and E horizons typical of undisturbed soils. No evidence of the
presence dredge spoil is indicated.
18 In situations where deep testing is not feasible, as less desirable alternative is a requirement for archeological monitoring
during construction. Such monitoring must be carried out in accordance with Project-specific protocols that provide work
stoppages in the event that archeological remains are observed by monitors.
19 Another problem with the Phase 1A report is indicative of the lack of care with which it was prepared. Numerous references
in the References Cited section are not, in fact, cited in the texts of either the Phase 1A or 1B reports. At least several of
these appear to have been inappropriately copied from the References Cited section of the Historic Resources Survey
prepared for the Project. The References Cited section of the Phase 1A report identifies 44 separate books, reports, and
articles as being cited. Fewer than half of these are actually mentioned in the report text.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -7 Rev6
No STPs were excavated within the southwest portion of the Project’s Construction Excavation Area.
While a portion of this area does have steep slopes, and was properly excluded from subsurface testing,
detailed topographic data shown on Project site plans indicates that much of the area is relatively level
and should have been tested during the initial Phase 1B survey.
The Phase 1B report concludes that “No further archaeological work is recommended for the Strong’s
Yacht Center – Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, 5780 W. Mill Road (NYOPRHP 21PR04396) project.”
Given the deficiencies described above, notably the failure to adequately test all of the areas that will be
affected by Project construction, this conclusion was premature.
Subsequent to the submittal of the DEIS in December 2021, because of deficiencies in the Phase 1B
survey, OPRHP requested that supplemental Phase 1B investigations be conducted in portions of the
Project site that were excluded during the initial Phase 1B field work. The report on that supplemental
fieldwork was completed on January 7, 2022 and submitted to OPRHP for review. OPRHP responded on
January 24, 2022 indicating that “no additional archeological investigation is needed.”
The report on the supplemental fieldwork is confusing, contains numerous errors and omissions20, and
possible misinterpretations. These may have resulted in OPRHP’s incorrectly concluding that no
additional archeological investigation is necessary.
The discussion of soils and stratigraphy in the Phase 1B reports is confusing. For example, soils mapping
by USDA is discussed in tables and text, but this information is not presented in a coherent or consistent
manner.21
20 For example, no scale is provided for four of the six figures in the report, making it very difficult to match locations on one
figure with locations on another.
21 For example, Table 2.1 describes the stratigraphy for PIC soils (Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes) as
described in two USDA sources (WSS 2021 and Warner et al. 1975). WSS 2021 (USDA-NRCS Web soil survey) describes the
uppermost 50+ inches of PIC soils as consisting of 8 distinct strata. Warner et al. contains no description for PIC soils, but the
generic description for the Plymouth soil series includes 5 distinct strata in the uppermost 50+ inches. The description in
Table 2.1 has compressed these into three strata and omitted Munsel color codes. While Munsel color codes are provided in
Appendix D for each excavated STP, no attempt was made to correlate this information with information in either of the
USDA surveys.
Table 2.2 attempts to compare USDA soil descriptions with both the logs from borings and “the closest supplemental Phase
IB STPs to the bores in the supplemental Phase IB area.” For example, the stratigraphic descriptions from the boring B-7 log
are compared with the stratigraphic descriptions from STP 106. However, the comparisons seem to be at odds with the
statement that “stratigraphy was generally consistent with the . . . geotechnical borings.” For example Stratum 2 of STP 106
is described as “loamy sand”, whereas Stratum 2 of boring B-7 is described as “very loose reddish brown silty sand, trace
gravel, roots.” Differences are even more apparent when one realizes that the color of the soil is STP 106 is included in
Appendix D and reported as 10YR4/4 (dark yellowish brown). Further adding to the confusion is that STP 106 may not be the
STP closest to boring B-7. A comparison of Figure 6 in the supplemental Phase IB report with Figure C-101 in the geotechnical
engineering report memo appears to show STP 110 as the closes STP to B-7. Had the supplemental Phase IB report simply
included the locations of the geotechnical soil borings on the same figure as the STPs, this uncertainty could have been
avoided.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -8 Rev6
The supplemental Phase IB report states that
“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 (80 cm+)
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.”
This conclusion is not supported by the data. The stratigraphic descriptions of excavated STPs in
Appendix D (but not the report text) record that “Fill,” or “Fill/Dredge” was found in STPs 113, 114, 117-
122, and 126-129. The report never discusses the criteria used to determine why a deposit should be
identified as “dredge,” or what the distinction is between “dredge” and “fill” (all dredge deposits are fill,
but not all fill is dredge). All of these STPS are located within an area that historic aerial photographs
show as a former inlet off of Mattituck Creek. The Phase IA report concluded that this inlet was filled by
dredge spoil sometime between 1962 and 1978. However, the 1957 survey map of the Project parcel
notes that the area corresponding to the former inlet is “sand filled” (COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-
1).
All of the STPs with strata recorded (Table D-1) as having “fill/dredge” deposits are recorded as showing
those deposits being found from 7 to a maximum of 90 cm (36 in) below the surface. (“STPs in deep
dredge spoil were excavated to the maximum depth possible based on soil conditions, typically 32 in.
(80 cm) below ground level” p.9). The presence of near-surface dredge spoil or fill is inconsistent with
boring log data.22
Borings B-9, B-10 and B-11 are the only borings made within what appears to be area of the former
inlet. Those borings show the top of the “Potential Dredge Spoil” at 4.0 ft, 4.5 ft and 8.0 ft below ground
surface, respectively. As archeological STPs were terminated above those depths, they never
encountered the stratum identified in the geotechnical report as “Potential Dredge Spoil”. This
discrepancy is not mentioned in the Phase IB supplemental report. Nor is mention made of the fact that
the presence of traces of shell noted in geotechnical borings appears to have been a criterion for the
geotechnical report classifying a stratum as “Potential Dredge Spoil.” No mention is made of shell being
present in any STPs excavated during the Phase IB investigation.
Historic period artifacts were found in ten STPs. The report states that most “artifacts were found in low
concentrations, typically one or two per STP, and were not retained for analysis” (p.11). This statement
raises several concerns. An artifact density of one or two per STP is not a “low” density. In some
22 Figure 5 does distinguish between STPs showing “Deep Dredge Spoil” and those showing “Shallow Dredge Spoil”.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -9 Rev6
contexts it would be considered high. More important is the density and distribution of positive STPs. In
this case, as shown on Figure 6 of the supplemental Phase 1B report, all but one of these is clustered
within an area approximately 150 ft in diameter in the southwest corner of the Construction Excavation
Area. In fact, adjacent STPs 112 and 113 contained artifacts including glass, metal, ceramics and bricks,
possibly dating as early as the mid-nineteenth century. This is more than half of all the artifacts found.
These were all recovered from what the supplemental report identifies as Stratum 3 (varying from 17-36
cm [7-14 in] below the surface). Although the supplemental report interprets these deposits as fill, both
are located adjacent to, but outside of, the area shown on aerial photos (Figure 5) as the location of the
former inlet. Given that the deposit may pre-date the date of the earliest map consulted during
background research 23, it is possible that the deposits are associated with a 19th century structure of
unknown function. The location, adjacent to the former inlet would have been a possibly desirable
location for a variety of structure types.
It is also possible that the authors of the supplemental report are correct in interpreting the deposit as
evidence of dumping. However, given the limited areal extent of the deposit, and the possibly tight time
frame (based on the limited artifact identifications) of the deposit, it is possible that the deposit
represents a single dumping episode which could have archeological significance because it would
represent a single point in time, or, represent dumping by a single individual/family over a period of
time—in effect, an archeological time capsule. No attempt was made to more precisely define the limits
of the historic deposit. Section 2.3.2 of the NYAC Standards “When cultural materials are discovered in
isolated shovel-test units, a minimum of four additional units should he dug in the vicinity or the initial
test units should he expanded to insure against mistaking evidence of actual sites for ‘stray finds’.” No
supplemental STPs were excavated as part of the Phase IB investigation.
The second point of concern is the statement that at least some artifacts “were not retained for
analysis.” The report contains no discussion of the criteria used to determine which artifacts would be
retained, and which discarded. Only one photograph in the report illustrates artifacts, and that photo
shows only some of the artifacts from only a single STP. The three (complete?) bricks found in STP 113
are neither illustrated nor described.24 The three corroded nails recovered from STP 113 are included in
Photograph 4. However, it is impossible to confirm from the photo if these nails are, in fact, square
nails, as they are described in Table 2.3. Square nails pre-date 1850 when they were largely supplanted
by machine cut nails with rectangular, not square, shank cross-sections.25
23 The earliest historic map consulted for both the Phase IA archeological report and the Historic Resources Survey report (DEIS
Appendix T) is dated 1902. Earlier maps, e.g. Beers 1873 Atlas of Long Island, which shows structure-level detail, were
apparently never consulted as they are not mentioned in any reports prepared for the Project. The review of 19th century
atlases is standard practice during archeological background research. The fact they were not consulted is another indication
of failure to adequately investigate the archeological potential of the Project site.
24 Whole bricks can be especially diagnostic and are frequently dateable. The size, the presence and nature of inclusions and
markings on bricks can be especially diagnostic as to determining the age, clay source, and/ or manufacturer (e.g. the Sage
Brickworks in Greenport, the C. L. Sanford Brick Co. of Southold, both of which operated during the nineteenth century).
25 The report cites only a single on-line reference as the basis for all artifact identifications. This may reflect the report author’s
general unfamiliarity with historic period artifact identification.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -10 Rev6
In the absence of additional investigation, including supplemental background research (e.g. a title
search of the property associated with historic artifact deposit, and supplemental map research
[which should have been conducted as part of the Phase IA investigation]), and/or a Phase II field
investigation (including the excavation of a limited number of larger test units in the vicinity of STPs
112 and 113) it is not possible to determine that the Project will not affect a significant archeological
site.
It is within the scope of the Planning Board’s authority to request that OPRHP/SHPO review its prior
conclusion that no additional archeological work is required, or as lead agency, to direct the Applicant
to conduct the additional investigations. Either or both of these options should be exercised to ensure
that the Planning Board has taken a “hard look” at the Project’s potential to affect archeological
resources.
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -11 Rev6
COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-1
1957 Ketcham Survey (reduced, scale shown is inaccurate)
Page | Cultural Resources -Archeology -12 Rev6
COMMENT FIGURE ARCHEOLOGY-2
Town of Southold Highway Map Book
http://24.38.28.228:2040/weblink/0/doc/925821/Page1.aspx
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 1 Rev 3b
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPACTS
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the extent to which pedestrians and bicyclists
will be impacted, especially in regards to their safety. It has also failed to adequately address the
inadequacies identified by the Southold Planning Board in the original December 2021 DEIS.
A major problem with both the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS Appendix O) is that they
consistently conflate, and fail to differentiate between, impacts associated with the extended
construction period, and impacts associated with Project operation after the completion of
construction. This is apparent throughout the discussion of impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include a “Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Evaluation”, including “a
roadway user group safety study and analysis in the DEIS during all four seasons on the use of the
roadways (route) by user groups, including potential adverse impacts on pedestrians walking (with
strollers), jogging, biking and children waiting for the school bus that will could be adversely impacted by
vehicles including loaded trucks” (p.13).
The Planning Board’s May 9, 2022 memo summarizing DEIS inadequacies, states that the Board’s staff is
“of the opinion that sampling methodologies were not representative of timeframes when user groups
were expected to use the roadway (morning and evening hours). The sampling methodology was too
narrow in scope and does not provide a comprehensive assessment of user groups along the entire
route.” In addition, the Planning Board’s outside consultant (NPV) noted in their May 6, 2022 memo
that the “pedestrian analysis must provide additional analysis to fully evaluate the potential for impacts
to pedestrians along the entire construction route, including: a. A pedestrian and bicycle count along Cox
Neck Road/W Mill Road between 6 am and 6 pm to quantify the number of pedestrians and bicyclists on
this roadway segment during the period of the day when construction trucks are arriving and departing
the site. . .” (emphasis added).
The revised DEIS’ response to the Planning Board’s concerns, based upon the revised traffic study
including data presented in the Supplemental Data Appendix, is reported as follows:
“Pedestrian and bicycle counts were taken from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during a weekday
on Cox Neck Road at Westphalia Road, West Mill Road at Bayview Drive/Selah Lane, Cox
Neck Road/West Mill Road at Breakwater Road, and Bergen Avenue at Cooper’s Road”
(p. xvii), and
“Pedestrian and bicycle counts were taken from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during a weekday
on Cox Neck Road at Westphalia Road, West Mill Road at Bayview Drive/Selah Lane, Cox
Neck Road/West Mill Road at Breakwater Road, and Bergen Avenue at Cooper’s Road”
(p. 194), and
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 2 Rev 3b
“. . . pedestrian and bicycle counts were taken in August of 2022 along Cox Neck Road
and West Mill Road. The counts were taken between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on a
weekday. The counts were done on Cox Neck Road at Westphalia Road, at Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road near Breakwater Road, and West Mill Road at Bayview
Avenue/Selah Lane” (p.201).
Although the Planning Board called for the revised DEIS to “fully evaluate the potential for impacts to
pedestrians along the entire construction route” (emphasis added), the revised DEIS and TIS do not
discuss, and contain no data relevant to, potential impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians along the
portions of the Project Truck Route in the Town of Riverhead.
The revised DEIS still fails to adequately address the original DEIS scope. It also fails to adequately
address the specific inadequacies identified by the Planning Board in the original DEIS. The DEIS scope
calls for “study and analysis in the DEIS during all four seasons on the use of the roadways (route) by
user groups, including potential adverse impacts on pedestrians walking (with strollers), jogging, biking
and children waiting for the school bus” (emphasis added).
The revised November 2022 DEIS still fails to adequately address this requirement:
1. In the original December 2021 DEIS, bicycle and pedestrian counts were made only in
association with intersection turning movements. This means that pedestrian counts were
limited to intersections/crosswalks, and do not accurately represent the number of pedestrians
walking along the Project truck route. In addition, both bicycle and pedestrian counts were
limited to the 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM periods on three weekdays in 2021 (June 16,
August 5, and November 4), and the 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM period on three Saturdays in 2021
(June 19, August 7 and November 6).
The Saturday data is useless in evaluating impacts during the 5 ½ to 7 month-long excavation
phase of the Project because haul trucks, which will constitute the vast majority of construction
traffic, will only be used on weekdays. The three days of weekday data has very limited value as
haul trucks will operate continuously from 7 AM until 5 PM. As no data was collected between
8:45 AM and 4:00 PM on weekdays, no data was collected for the hours during which most
bicycle and pedestrian use would be expected.
No data was collected during winter months although the DEIS scope calls for four seasons of
data. This inadequacy has not been corrected in the revised DEIS.
2. The Planning Board’s consultant’s May 6, 2022 memo notes that the “timeframes for the various
phases of construction described . . . in the DEIS are not consistent with the time frames
evaluated in the Traffic Study. This should be corrected.” The revised DEIS has not addressed
this issue. None of the pedestrian/bicycle counts in the original DEIS were made in the mid-
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 3 Rev 3b
December thru May time frame which constitutes the Project excavation phase when Project
traffic volumes will be at their highest. The revised DEIS discusses and provides additional data
collected over only two days--Tuesday August 9 and Saturday August 13, 2022--not for four
seasons as called for. As with the data in the original DEIS, August is outside the period of the
Project construction phase when potential impacts will be at their greatest.
The DEIS refers readers to “Table 9 (Summary of Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Data, August 2022) in
the TIS which presents a daily summary of the pedestrians and bicycles counted at three locations along
Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. As indicated in Table 9, the number of bicycles and pedestrians is very low
during the weekday” (DEIS p.220). What the DEIS does not say is that the data in Table 9 consists of only a
single weekday during a time of year when no Project construction is proposed.
3. Even if collected during the appropriate period, the amount of data collected would be
inadequate to assess impacts to bicyclists. The Transportation Research Board’s National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 797: Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle
Volume Data Collection found that “the error in estimating average annual bicycle traffic from
two-hour, 12-hour, or even one-week counts can be up to 40%” (TRB, 2015:7).
4. The DEIS also failed to take into account weather conditions. According the Transportation
Research Board’s Methods and Technologies for Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection,
“Weather – Seasonality and conditions affect traffic. Weather conditions should always be
recorded (i.e., precipitation, temperature)” (2014:22). The TRB report also notes that other
studies have concluded that “there can be considerable differences in bicycle volumes from one
week to the next, both due to weather effects and the fact that bicycle volumes are often
relatively small. As a result, longer count durations are required to get good results, compared
to motorized vehicle counting. Short-term bicycle counts are not advised” (2014:24).
On the one weekday, August 9, 2022, for which supplemental pedestrian/bicycle count data is
provided in the revised DEIS, temperatures reached highs in the low-to-mid 90-degree range—
approximately 10 degrees above normal. One study cited in the TRB report (Phung and Rose,
2007) found that winds in excess of 40 kph “had a statistically significant effect on Volumes.”
The historical weather data for August 9, 2022 indicate that wind speeds and gusts approached
or exceeded this speed during portions of the day. The temperature and wind conditions on
August 9, 2022 suggest that bicycle/pedestrian counts on that day would be atypically low.
5. The revised DEIS includes no additional data specifically addressing potential traffic impacts to
“children waiting for the school bus.” Language is unchanged from that in the original DEIS:
“There are between 50 to 60 homes that front on Cox Neck Road/West Mill
Road between Sound Avenue and the site. Some of these homes may generate
school age children that will be bused to school each weekday during the school
year from early September through June. These children will be picked up by
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 4 Rev 3b
school buses in the morning and dropped off in the evening. Due to the longer
workdays of site construction, the drop-off will occur prior to construction
workers leaving the site. The drop-offs may encounter a truck removing or bring
material to the site. In the morning the pickup of students will likely encounter
both construction workers headed to the site and occasional trucks also headed
to the site. The NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law requires all traffic to stop for school
buses with flashing red lights either dropping off or picking up school children.
The professional drivers operating trucks engaged in the construction of the
project will adhere to the law and the pick-up and drop-off of students is
expected to be safe. Students waiting to be picked up in the morning are
expected to wait off the road, usually in the driveways to their homes. This is
also a safe practice not expected to be degraded by the passage of an occasional
site bound truck or worker headed to the site. It should be remembered that
similar activities take place every day within the Town on far busier roadways,
such as along Route 25” (DEIS p.220-221; Rev Appendix O p.81).
This entire paragraph is misleading and contains false statements. It reflects not only an attempt
to downplay the danger associated with increased truck traffic, but a failure to even attempt to
obtain relevant data upon which to base an analysis:
a. no attempt appears to have been made to discuss this issue with the transportation
department of the Mattituck-Cutchogue Union Free School District. The District
could have provided information on the actual number of children and residences
served along the truck route in Southold, and the location of designated stops along
the school bus route. Instead, the DEIS only notes that “some of the homes may
generate school-age children” (emphasis added);
b. although the DEIS scope calls for a consideration of impacts along the entire Project
truck route, it contains no discussion of possible safety issues Project construction
traffic may pose to children being picked up or dropped-off in the Town of
Riverhead. The Riverhead Central School District operates school buses along Sound
Ave beginning at Herricks Lane, and along Northville Turnpike. The District was not
contacted during DEIS preparation;
c. the statement that “Due to the longer workdays of site construction, the drop-off
will occur prior to construction workers leaving the site” completely ignores the fact
that the primary traffic danger is not from end-of-day worker traffic, but is from
construction phase trucks (especially haul trucks during the Excavation phases)
which will be operating during drop-off periods;
d. the statement that “drop-offs may [emphasis added] encounter a truck removing or
bring material to the site” implies that such encounters are unlikely. Given the
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 5 Rev 3b
frequency of haul trucks (described inaccurately in the DEIS as “up to 4 trucks per
hour” (DEIS p. 221)1, (but actually more than twice that), students being dropped off
will almost certainly encounter these vehicles;
e. the DEIS states that the “professional drivers operating trucks engaged in the
construction of the Project will adhere to the law and the pick-up and drop-off of
students is expected to be safe” (emphasis added). Although the DEIS scope calls
for evaluation of “[S]ight distances at intersections and around curves in the
roadways,” with a single exception (the location where the proposed haul road will
intersect West Mill Road), this has not been done. No analysis has been made of the
effects of limited sight-lines along portions of the truck route which correspond to
school bus routes; or how this relates to stopping distances of the Project’s empty
and loaded haul trucks; or to what effect the requirement for haul trucks to stop
frequently when travelling behind school buses will have on the number of haul
trucks which may be backed-up as a result; or the possibility that haul truck drivers
may attempt to pass moving school buses. Although not taken for the purpose of
evaluating sight-line distances, Photographs 3 and 6-10, included in the Traffic
Study’s Supplemental Data Appendix, illustrate some locations where the curvature
of the road limits sight-lines;
f. the DEIS states that “Students waiting to be picked up in the morning are expected
to wait off the road, usually in the driveways to their homes.”2 In fact, not all
students waiting to be picked up along Cox Neck Road, West Mill Road, and Sound
Avenue, can be “expected” to wait in the driveways of their homes. Several
communal school bus pick-up locations exist along the haul truck route, which
means students will be walking from their homes to the pick-up location along the
truck routes. This may be even more likely to occur during inclement weather.3
Detailed information on where these pick-up locations are could have been
obtained from the school districts;
g. describing the haul truck traffic headed towards the site as “occasional” is a clear
attempt to downplay the extent of potential impacts; and
h. the statement “that similar activities take place every day within the Town on far busier
roadways, such as along Route 25” is not relevant to situation along Cox Neck Road/West
1 The DEIS text says “up to 4 trucks per hour would travel both north bound and south bound to the site.” This language is
clearly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation. It is yet another example of the DEIS using language that deliberately
underestimates the volume of Project-generated haul truck traffic.
2 This was obviously written by someone with no school-age children.
3 The Mattituck-Cutchogue School District’s website describes the special procedure for pick-ups and drop-offs when ice, snow,
or floods, may affect a driver’s ability to drop students at regularly scheduled stops.
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 6 Rev 3b
Mill Road, which have narrower travel lanes and road shoulders, and ignores the fact that
those “far busier roadways” have wider travel lanes and wider shoulders.
6. The methodology used to collect pedestrian/bicycle count data is described in the DEIS and TIS
as follows: “. . . activity was captured and recorded with video and the videos were observed in
the office with the data transcribed into tables giving the number of vehicles, cyclists and
pedestrians observed in 15-minute intervals over the observation period” (DEIS p.220). No
information is provided about the number or location of video recorders, or the fields of view
captured by each camera. As a result, it is impossible to independently evaluate count accuracy.
7. The DEIS scope specifically calls for the collection of data on “pedestrians walking (with strollers)
[and] jogging”. No information on these user groups is provided in the DEIS or the TIS. Although
not called for in the scope, no information on individuals walking dogs is included.
In the course of preparing the revised DEIS, the preparers have revised language in the “Impacts on
Pedestrian and Bicycle Use” section to deliberately downplay potentially significant impacts. The
revised language also fails to clearly correct inaccuracies noted by the Planning Board in the course of
their adequacy review. In addition, the DEIS text has selectively edited the text in the TIS to obfuscate
impacts. Language in the original DEIS reads as follows:
“The highest number of truck trips would occur during the Phase 1 Excavation of the
site, which is scheduled from the end of September to beginning of April. It includes the
entire winter season when pedestrian and bicycle use is typically lower. During this
period up to 4 trucks per hour would travel both north bound and south bound to the
site. Heavy trucks, such as sanitary trucks and fuel oil delivery trucks currently use the
roadway and there were no accidents evidenced in the accident study, which included
over three years of data indicating that trucks were not causing any problems. The
addition of four trucks an hour in each direction would not create any capacity issues or
create additional hazards not currently experienced by bicycles and pedestrians using
the road” (p.211).
The original traffic study (DEIS Appendix O) states that:
“The highest number of truck trips will occur during the Phase 1 Excavation of the site,
which is scheduled from the end of September to beginning of April. It includes the
entire winter season when pedestrian and bicycle use is typically lower. During this
period up to 4 trucks per hour will travel both north bound and south bound to the
site”.
The revised DEIS reads as follows:
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 7 Rev 3b
“The highest number of truck trips would occur during the Excavation phase, which
includes the entire winter season when pedestrian and bicycle use is typically lower.
During this period, up to 4 trucks per hour would travel both north bound and south
bound to the site. Heavy trucks, such as sanitary trucks and fuel oil delivery trucks
currently use the roadway and there was one accident evidenced in the accident study,
which included five years of data. The addition of four trucks an hour in each direction
would not create any capacity issues or create additional hazards not currently
experienced by bicycles and pedestrians using the road” (p.221; Appendix O, p.80).
The revised Traffic Study reads as follows:
“The highest number of truck trips will occur during the Phase 1 and 2 Excavation of the
site, which is scheduled from mid-December to beginning of June. It includes the entire
winter season when pedestrian and bicycle use is typically lower. During this period up
to 4 trucks per hour will travel both north bound and south bound to the site.”
The revised DEIS text, unlike the original DEIS and the revised Traffic Study, no longer references the
months during which Excavation phase haul trucks will be travelling on local roads. The revised DEIS text
(unlike the TIS text) can easily be taken to imply that the Excavation phase will be limited to the winter
months when, in fact only half of the Excavation phase occurs during that period. In addition, both
documents, in the original and revised versions, use language that fail to clearly indicate that
approximately eight trucks per hour will travelling along the Project’s truck route.
For all of the above reasons, the conclusion in the DEIS that “Counts of pedestrian and bicycle usage
along Cox Neck Road/Mill Road indicated only minimal usage by pedestrians and bicycles” (pp. xviii
and 226), cannot be supported.
In addition, the revised November 2022 DEIS fails to adequately address the inadequacies relating to
bicycle/pedestrian impacts identified by the Planning Board in the original December 2021 DEIS.
Specifically, it does not address the concerns of the Planning Board in regard to use of inappropriate
time frames for data collection, and the narrowness of the original sampling methodology.
Road Width, Capacity, and Configuration
The DEIS scope also call for “an analysis of the proposed truck route's road width and the capacity to
accommodate two vehicles passing at the same time and location as a pedestrian or cyclist, and
whether the roads are currently safe for such an interaction, including the perceived safety from the
perspective of the pedestrian or cyclist”; an “Assessment of the amount of space a pedestrian or cyclist
would have on the pavement when two vehicles pass each other”; an “Assessment of the perceived
safety by pedestrians and cyclists given the pavement width and speed limits along the route and
expected traffic generated by this project”; and an “Assessment of the safety of a pedestrian when two
vehicles pass each other while a cyclist or pedestrian is traveling on the shoulder” (pp.13, 15).
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 8 Rev 3b
The DEIS notes that the Southold town roads that comprise the Project truck routes, Cox Neck Road and
West Mill Road, have a minimum paved width of 22 feet. The DEIS fails to note that along the entire
length of the truck routes north of Sound Avenue there is no fog line or paved shoulder. According to
the revised DEIS Project haul trucks will have a width of eight feet—the maximum allowed by state law.
That leaves a total of six feet that must include space between two passing vehicles and space for a
bicyclist or pedestrian. Suffolk County Local Law No. 13-2021 requires “The operator of a vehicle which
is overtaking, from behind, a bicycle proceeding on the same side of the road [to] pass to the left of such
bicycle at a distance of at least three (3) feet until safely clear thereof.”4 In other words, the paved
surface width available to a bicyclist (or pedestrian) is effectively reduced to two feet (16 feet for the
two trucks + a conservative minimum of one foot between them 5 + the required 3-foot safety zone = 20
feet—leaving two feet). This is not a safe condition. It should also be noted, that maintaining even the
two-foot-wide area for pedestrians and bicyclists, would require the near-side truck to cross the double-
yellow line into the on-coming traffic lane.
COMMENT FIGURE BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS-1, 2, and 3 illustrate the narrowness of West Mill and Cox
Neck Roads, and demonstrate the potentially dangerous conditions created for pedestrians and
bicyclists when large vehicles try to pass one another. COMMENT FIGURE BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS 4
illustrates how Project haul trucks, because of narrow road conditions and deteriorated pavements, will
create dangers for pedestrians and bicyclists along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads.
Both the DEIS and the TIS note that “Almost all trucks operating in NYS are 8 feet wide including
sanitation trucks, fuel oil, landscaping, and box delivery trucks commonly operating on these roadways”
(DEIS p. 220, TIS p.78). Neither document seems to understand the significance of the presence of
“landscaping trucks.” These vehicles don’t just travel West Mill and Cox Neck Road. They frequently
park for extended periods on those roads while servicing customers (COMMENT FIGURE
BICYCLES/PEDESTRIANS 5). This creates a hazard, not only for pedestrians and bicyclists, but for
vehicular traffic as well. That hazard will increase significantly with addition of Project haul trucks which
will have to cross into the oncoming traffic lane in order to pass. Landscaping trucks parking on the road
will be a regular feature of the traffic environment from the late spring thru the following fall. This
period overlaps with the latter portion of the Project’s excavation phase when Project truck traffic will
be at its peak.
Additionally, there are stretches of both roads where the existence of utility poles and roadside
vegetation effectively limit, and even, eliminate, the availability of even unpaved areas adjacent to the
paved roadway (see, for example, Photograph No. 1 in DEIS Appendix G, and Photographs 5, 8 and 10 in
4 https://www.scnylegislature.us/DocumentCenter/View/73791/Introductory-Resolution-1830-20-PDF. This law was widely
publicized and should have been known to the preparers of the DEIS.
5 This does include the fact that truck mirrors may increase the effective width of passing trucks. This would necessitate the
distance between them when passing to be greater than one foot, further reducing the width of paved roadway available to
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 9 Rev 3b
the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix). Although the DEIS scope calls for an evaluation of “[l]ocations and
width of shoulders along the route” no information about this was included in the original December
2021 DEIS, despite its significance in regard to pedestrian/bicyclist safety. The revised DEIS does contain
information on shoulder width for those portions of the truck route in the Town of Riverhead and along
Sound Avenue in Southold. No information about actual shoulder widths is provided for the portions of
the truck route along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road. These concerns are especially acute when one
considers that some pedestrians will be walking dogs.
As noted above, no analysis has been made of the effects of limited sight-lines along portions of the
truck route. Although the DEIS (quoting the TIS) notes the existence of several dangerous locations, it
provides no quantitative or qualitative analysis of the dangers to pedestrians and bicyclists posed by the
limited sight-lines and narrow road widths at these locations. According to the DEIS:
“Much of the Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road is slightly rolling but there are two areas of
significant curves. The first is just north of Bergen Avenue where, going north, the
roadway curves sharply to the east turning about 90 degrees and then turns less sharply
to the north. Within the curves the road drops to the area between the curves just west
of Breakwater Road and then rises in the second curve to peak north of Jackson Landing
and the end of the curved section. No warning signs are posted for either north bound
south bound traffic. On the westerly side of the southern curve guide rail has been
placed to prevent vehicles from leaving the road. The guide rail is substandard and not
properly anchored on the ends. We question whether the two curves should be posted
with curve warning signs indicating the “S” curvature of the road and the use of
additional chevron signing along the back of both curves.
“North of the two curves the roadway straightens out and continues north in a relatively
straight line on gently rolling terrain. West and south of Naugle’s Drive the roadway
turns fairly sharply to the east. Curve warning signs were posted for northbound traffic
approaching the curve and for southbound traffic approaching the same curve. The
southbound signs seem to be placed too close to the curve and chevron warning signs
along the back of the curve would be useful. To the east of Naugle’s Drive West Mill
Road turns to the south and drops vertically. There is a curve warning sign posted for
eastbound traffic and an additional sign stating, “SLOW POPULATED AREA”. That sign is
posted behind a utility pole and not readily visible” (DEIS pp. 195-6; TIS p.12).
According to the revised DEIS and TIS, during Project Excavation Phase 2
“trucks will arrive and depart directly from the site at the north end of West Mill Road.
The trucks will be required to negotiate the curves east and west of Naugles Road. The
curve west of Naugles Road is tighter than the curves to the south and trucks
negotiating this section of the road will not be able to stay within their travel lane. East
of Naugles Road the curve is also tight, and it will be difficult for the trucks to stay in
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 10 Rev 3b
lane. To overcome this, it is proposed that flaggers be used to control traffic as truck
pass through this area” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 219, TIS p.77).
The DEIS contains no discussion of how any of the conditions described above impact
bicyclist/pedestrian safety. Until a detailed study is made of the relationship between limited sight-lines
and the stopping distance of loaded and unloaded Project construction vehicles, in all weather
conditions, no proper evaluation of construction traffic impacts to bicyclists and pedestrians (as well as
vehicular traffic) can be made.
The DEIS attempts to minimize the impacts of Project construction traffic on bicyclists and pedestrians
along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads and concludes that “any motor vehicle will have to give way to
pedestrians and bicyclists using the road. In most 6 cases, they [Project haul trucks] will be able to move
over and pass the slower moving bicycles and pedestrians” (DEIS pp. xviii and 226; TIS pp.73, 80). The
DEIS does not indicate that this can be done safely, especially along parts of the truck routes with
limited sight distances.
Although the DEIS also notes that “Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road is marked with a double barrier line
separating opposing directions of traffic” (p.190) it fails to indicate the significance of this fact. The
entire truck route north of Sound Avenue/Route 48 is a designated no-passing zone.
Accident Data
The revised DEIS and TIS note that along the Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road portion of the truck route
only one accident involving a pedestrian was identified in the five years of data examined. Given that
the qualitative nature of the traffic along this portion of the truck route will change significantly—from
virtually no large 5- and 6-axle vehicles to more than 80 trips by such vehicles per day—there is no basis
for assuming that the potential for accidents involving pedestrians/bicyclists will not also increase. There
is no basis for assuming that historical data is indicative of the likelihood of accidents during the Project
construction period.
The DEIS fails to note that most of the first and last hours of each workday during much of the
excavation phase of the Project will require use of the truck route before sunrise or after sundown.
There is no discussion in the DEIS or TIS as to how this might affect the safety of bicyclists and
pedestrians.
The greater part of the excavation phase of the Project will occur during winter months. No discussion is
provided as to how heavy truck traffic might affect pedestrian safety during snow events when visibility
will be reduced and road conditions may be slippery. While the number of pedestrians can be expected
be low during such periods, it will not be zero (dog walkers will be out in all weather conditions).
6 “most”?—what about cases where they will not be able to move over?
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 11 Rev 3b
The Town of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan notes that “there have been a number of accidents on
Sound Avenue, some involving agriculture workers walking or bicycling along the road to and from their
places of employment” (2003:G-10). Given that traffic volumes on Sound Avenue are presently much
higher than they were at the time the comprehensive plan was prepared, the dangers to pedestrian and
bicyclists traveling Sound Avenue have certainly increased. No historical information on
bicyclist/pedestrian accidents for the portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck Road is included in
the DEIS or the TIS.
Proposed Mitigation
The DEIS scope calls for evaluation of “perceived safety from the perspective of the pedestrian or
cyclist.” Measures proposed in the DEIS to mitigate the impact of Project-related traffic and bicyclists
and pedestrians are unlikely to reduce, and may actually increase the actual, as well as perceived, safety
of these user groups.
The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS include:
1. Prior to the commencement of Project construction, restriping the shoulder edge lines
defining the edge of 10-foot travel lanes on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road is
recommended. (Presumably this will be the responsibility of the Town of Southold).
According to the DEIS, this “will provide the motorist with the appearance of narrower
roadway while providing an area for pedestrians” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 293, 298; TIS
p.93). As the current paved roadway width along portions of these roads is only 22-feet,
this would leave only one foot on either side of the paved area for bicycles and pedestrians.
It seems that this recommendation is actually designed to aid Project truck traffic at the
expense of local residents walking, jogging, or bicycling in this area.
2. “High grass and any brush should be mowed and removed [by whom?] providing a walkable
surface where feasible” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix and 225). The DEIS fails to denote where these
areas are located, or what percentage of the Project truck route along Cox Neck Road and
West Mill Road could be improved. Photos of this portion of the truck route clearly
demonstrate that this measure would result in only a minimal improvement over existing
conditions; and
3. a suggestion that “during the construction period, the speed limit be reduced along Cox
Neck Road/West Mill Road. The current speed limit is 35 miles per hour and could be
reduced to 30 or even 25 miles per hour for the duration of the construction activity. The
speed limit change would require approval of the NYSDOT or the Southold Town Board
depending on the Town's ability to set speed limits” (revised TIS p.93, DEIS 225, 293). The
authors of the DEIS and the Traffic Study do not seem to be aware that the speed limit along
West Mill Road is presently posted at 30 mph. The statement that limiting truck traffic to a
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 12 Rev 3b
30-mph speed limit will “assuage community concerns” (TIS p.73) is pure conjecture and has
no basis in fact.7
Impacts along the Western Portions of the Truck Route
As noted above, the Planning Board’s consultant’s completeness review of the original DEIS noted that
the DEIS failed to address impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists “along the entire construction route”
(emphasis in original). The completeness review goes on to state that
“The width of all the roadways along the entire proposed truck route and the capacity
to accommodate two vehicles passing at the same time and location as a pedestrian or
cyclist, and whether the roads are currently safe for such an interaction. This should
account for the perceived safety from the perspective of the pedestrian or cyclist, as
well as areas with known high pedestrian activity for road crossings, particularly during
peak tourist activity in the fall months (crosswalks at Harbe’s Family Farm on Sound
Ave., and similar crossings frequented by pedestrians in peak season)” (NPV 2022:6).
While the revised DEIS and TIS provide descriptions of conditions relative to pedestrian and bicycle use
along the western portions of the truck route, little analysis of this information is provided, especially as
it relates to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. For example, the DEIS and TIS note that “Except between
Northville Turnpike and the vicinity of Oliver Street shoulders are one foot wide and do not
accommodate either pedestrians or bicyclists.” This would seem to suggest that an unsafe condition
presently exists, but no analysis of how this might be exacerbated by Project-related traffic—especially
the large number of large 22-wheelers.
DEIS Conclusions
The DEIS (p.226) concludes that “[D]espite the relative narrowness of the road the small numbers of
additional vehicles the Project will generate during construction and after completion should not
increase the hazards to bicycles and pedestrians also using the road. . . The minor increase in truck
trips in unlikely to cause any additional problems.” This conclusion is not supported by the data in the
DEIS or the TIS.
The characterization of the increase in Project-generated traffic as “small” is not accurate.8 The
statement that “the project will generate a small number of additional vehicles” is misleading in that it
combines all classes of vehicles—from motorcycles to 22-wheel tractor-trailers into a single number.
The same is true of the characterization of the increase in truck trips as “minor.” In fact, there will be a
very large and significant increase in the number of large trucks, notably Class 10 vehicles (the Project’s
7 The statement in the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) does not appear in the main body of the DEIS.
8 This is another example of the DEIS conflating post-construction/operation phase impacts with construction phase impacts.
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 13 Rev 3b
six-axle haul trucks) traveling the portions of the truck route in Southold Town. Over the 20 weekdays,
spread over four seasons in 2021, for which traffic counts were made, only one Class 9 vehicle (5 axle
tractor-trailer/18-wheeler) was counted on West Mill Road north of Bayview Ave. Not a single Class 10
vehicle was counted in this area. In addition, only four Class 10 vehicles were counted over the 20
weekdays on Cox Neck Road north of Westphalia. The increase in truck traffic of the type associated
with Project construction will effectively increase from zero to more than 80 trips per day along Cox
Neck and West Mill Roads. This is NOT a “minor” increase.
Referring specifically to Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, the DEIS states that the “minor increase in truck
trips in unlikely to cause any additional problems” (DEIS xvii, 226). As noted above, the increase in truck
traffic is NOT “minor”. The conclusion that the increase in “truck traffic is unlikely to cause any
additional problems” is not supported by the data.
The DEIS’ conclusion that the “addition of four trucks an hour in each direction would not create . . .
additional hazards not currently experienced by bicycles and pedestrians using the road” (p.211) is
unsupported and is, in fact, contradicted by available data.
Although called for in the DEIS scope, the DEIS contains no discussion of how pedestrian and cyclists
might “perceive” their safety when being passed by construction vehicles. The conclusion that the
“proposed 30 mile per hour maximum speed to be observed by Project trucks on Cox Neck Road/West
Mill Road will mitigate concerns of the community” is not only not supported by any data in the
DEIS—it is completely untrue.
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 14 Rev 3b
COMMENT FIGURE BICYLCES/PEDESTRIANS-1
West Mill Road (2021)
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 15 Rev 3b
COMMENT FIGURE BICYLCES/PEDESTRIANS-2
West Mill Road (2021)
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 16 Rev 3b
COMMENT FIGURE BICYLCES/PEDESTRIANS-3
Cox Neck Road in the vicinity of Rosewood Drive (Spring 2021)
The construction vehicles were involved in the delivery of fill for a single residential lot at the corner of
Rosewood Drive and Cox Neck Road.
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 17 Rev 3b
COMMENT FIGURE BICYLCES/PEDESTRIANS-4
January 2023 March 2023
Page |Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts - 18 Rev 3b
COMMENT FIGURE BICYLCES/PEDESTRIANS-5
Landscaping truck parked on West Mill Road (April 2023)
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 1 Rev3c
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY
The DEIS (p.151) cites that the Southold Comprehensive Plan’s “Vision Statement, as created through the public
participation process, which reads in part: ‘future planning shall be compatible with existing community character
while supporting and addressing the challenges of continued land preservation, maintain a vibrant local economy,
creating efficient transportation, promoting a diverse housing stock, expanded recreational opportunities and
protecting natural resources’ (page 1). However, the proposed Project does none of these things.
The Project is not, as claimed in the DEIS “consistent with the goals and objectives [of Southold’s
Comprehensive Plan] relevant 1 to the subject property and proposed maritime use” (DEIS p. xiv, 14).
Many specific examples of this are covered elsewhere in these comments, including the comments
describing the Project’s lack of consistency with the Southold LWRP.
In Table 30 in the DEIS “Consistency Analysis with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan,” the DEIS has cherry-
picked items from the Comprehensive Plan to address as “relevant to the subject property” excluding
others that are inconsistent with the Project. For example, Chapter 3 of the Plan identifies 13 goals
associated with land use and zoning. The DEIS Table 30 addresses only three of these. Among the goals
not addressed, because the Project appears to be inconsistent with it, is Land Use and Zoning Goal 10:
“Continue to Preserve Farmland and Open Space.” The Project will adversely impact the Town-owned
Mill Road Preserve. Another example is Community Character Goal 1: “Protect Scenic Resources.” The
Project will have a large visual impact on a key scenic resource of the Town and especially the hamlet,
namely the view from the water and across the water of Mattituck Inlet. It will greatly degrade the
experience of visiting one of the natural heritage treasures of the Town, the Mill Road Preserve, which it
directly abuts. The visual impact assessment included as part of the DEIS was not properly prepared, is
rife with errors, and fails to accurately depict both existing and proposed views. It cannot be used as a
basis for evaluating the visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project.
Land Use and Zoning Goal 5: Protect the Town Character
DEIS: “The existing character of the site and surrounding area is primarily mixed-use maritime at the
water’s edge with residential land uses adjacent and landward of such maritime uses. The subject
property has been an established maritime use for 60 years and is zoned accordingly. . . The
proposed action would expand in line with the existing scale of development on the subject property
with the proposed buildings placed landward (behind) Buildings 7 and 8, and perpendicular to
Mattituck Creek, such that the length and mass would not be visibly obtrusive to users of Mattituck
Creek. The proposed buildings would be constructed with the same material as the existing buildings
(i.e., blue siding with white trim windows and eaves) such that it would blend with the existing
maritime-use buildings on-site.” (DEIS Table 30, p.169).
1 DEIS Table 30 deals almost exclusively with Plan goals that it has deemed relevant. However, in a few instances it has
specifically called out specific Plan objectives and identified them as “not applicable.” These include several objectives relating
to Economic Development and Natural Hazards.
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 2 Rev3c
Response: As noted elsewhere in the comments, questions have been raised about whether the
Project site was properly zoned for maritime use. It is not “at the water’s edge” but elevated
approximately 40 feet above the level of Mattituck Inlet and is presently inaccessible from the
existing marina facility. The proposed structures will likely be the largest buildings in Southold.
They are not “in line with the existing scale of development.” The visual simulations used to
demonstrate how the Project “would blend with the existing maritime-use buildings on-site”
are, as noted in other comments, defective and misrepresent the post-construction views of the
Project site.
Land Use and Zoning Goal 6: Protect Natural Resources and Environment
DEIS: “As the proposed action would replace and upgrade an existing septic system with an I/A OWTS
and install an additional I/A OWTS, the proposed sanitary system would reduce nitrogen loading. . .
Response: Replacement and upgrading of the existing septic system is not contingent upon the
approval of the entire Project. The Applicant can undertake this improvement independent of
Project approval.
DEIS: “The proposed action includes discontinuance of the use of existing on-site wells for potable
water and connection to the public water supply through extension of the water main.”
Response: As noted in other comments, the water line is being constructed independent of the
Project. Groundwater benefits cannot be attributed to the Project.
DEIS: “to mitigate for the loss of forest trees associated with the proposed project, approximately 95
Pitch Pine trees would be planted. In addition, the Applicant will contribute 50 native trees (10-gallon
container typical 1-inch caliper, 5-6 feet tall) for installation at high-priority sites with the Town of
Southold . . .”
Response: It is difficult to understand how the destruction of more than 600 mature trees, even
with the proposed, and clearly inadequate, “mitigation” is consistent with the goal to “Protect
land-based natural resources including agricultural soils and natural habitat for wildlife.”
Land Use and Zoning Goal 7: Economic Prosperity
DEIS: “The proposed project seeks to expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand
for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. . . the proposed action
would create jobs, increase tax revenue to various taxing jurisdictions and increase sales tax revenue
. . . The proposed development responds to an industry demand for large vessel storage, while
including appropriate mitigation measures in the construction and design in consideration of the
surrounding residential land uses. . . implementation of the proposed action would facilitate the
growth of SYC’s [sic] and provide continued support to the maritime industry within the Town of
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 3 Rev3c
Southold. The proposed action would balance economic prosperity while maintaining a high quality
of life, the environment and the unique character of the surrounding community.”
Response: The DEIS contain no data to support the assertion that the Project will “meet an
unmet demand for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island.” As
noted in other comments, yacht manufacturers have indicated that heated storage is not
necessary. The DEIS itself, states that most anticipated customers will from areas beyond the
east end of Long Island. As detailed in other comments, the DEIS has exaggerated the
significance of any job creation and tax revenue benefits. There will be only a minimal increase
in net sales tax revenues to New York State. Property taxes during the first three years of
Project operation will be a mere $32,234, and will not reach their maximum for ten years. The
numerous large environmental impacts during construction, and the permanent damage to the
natural environment that will remain after Project construction are not consistent with
“maintaining a high quality of life, the environment and the unique character of the surrounding
community.”
Transportation and Infrastructure Goal 1: Reduce Stormwater Runoff
DEIS: “The proposed action would increase the total impervious surface area from 2.62± acres to
4.98± acres. Accordingly, there would be a resultant increase in the volume of stormwater runoff
generated on the subject property.”
Response: Although the DEIS describes how the Project plans to address this, the acknowledged
increase in stormwater runoff that the Project will create is not consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. If, as the Applicant has indicated (see comments on Project alternatives), it
is possible that only one storage building, but concrete floor slabs for two buildings, will be
constructed, there will be a significant increase in impervious surface area (more than one acre)
on the Project site. This will result in a significant increase in stormwater runoff.
Transportation and Infrastructure Goal 2: Evaluate alternatives to public sewers
DEIS: “The proposed action includes the replacement of an existing individual on-site sanitary system
with an I/A OWTS . . . the proposed action is in keeping with this goal of the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan.”
Response: As noted in other comments, the replacement of the existing on-site sanitary system
with an I/A OWTS, can be accomplished independent of the Project. Project approval is not
necessary to foster this goal.
Community Character Goal 2: Protect Cultural Resources
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 4 Rev3c
DEIS: “the construction of two additional buildings on the subject property, which is currently
improved with seven (7) buildings for the existing maritime use, is consistent with the maritime
character of the subject property and surrounding area.”
Response: The proposed structures will be located on what is now a forested area significantly
elevated above Mattituck Inlet and is not accessible from the existing SYC facility. The removal
of more than 134,000 cubic yards of sand and the destruction of more than 600 trees is required
to bring the Project site to the same elevation as the existing SYC. The Project site is not
“consistent with the maritime character of the subject property and surrounding area.”
DEIS: “the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has reviewed the
proposed action and a determination of no impact upon cultural resources (historic and archaeology)
has been issued.”
Response: The statement in the DEIS is untrue. OPRHP has expressed concern about possible
impacts to historic structures and has requested the Applicant to prepare a Construction
Protection Plan for the Old Mill Inn and the historic Water Tower on West Mill Road. As
discussed elsewhere in these comments, the plan prepared by the Applicant is inadequate. It
has not been submitted to OPRHP as of April 2023. OPRHP has not reviewed, or been asked to
review, the Project’s impacts to historic properties located along the Riverhead portions of the
Project’s truck route.
Community Character Goal 3: Preserve Quality of Life in Residential Neighborhoods
DEIS: The DEIS describes the Project’s plans to mitigate impacts from construction traffic, site
lighting, noise, and visual impacts.
Response: The very fact that mitigation of these impacts is required, demonstrates that the
Project is not consistent with the goal to “Preserve Quality of Life in Residential
Neighborhoods.” The inadequacy of the proposed mitigation measures has been detailed in
these comments. The quality of life in the residential neighborhoods abutting the Project and
along the Project truck route will be significantly damaged.
Community Character Goal 4: Protect Natural Heritage
DEIS: “The proposed action would expand in line with the existing scale of development on the
subject property. Based on the above, the proposed action would preserve the working waterscape
within this area of the Town as well as support the commercial use of the Town’s marine
ecosystems.”
Response: The Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of maritime industries to the
character and economy of Southold, establishing objectives of “protect[ing] the character of
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 5 Rev3c
historic agricultural and maritime areas by maintaining appropriate scales of development,
intensity of use, and architectural style” and “preserv[ing] and encourag[ing] traditional uses
defining the agricultural and maritime character of the area.” It specifies under this category
“fishing-related industries, marine trades, marine biology, marinas, recreational boating support
uses, and related uses.” While the Project broadly fits under that description, it does nothing to
enhance the maritime character of the Town, the Hamlet, or the Inlet, which historically were
built around commercial and sport fishing and small-boat recreation by local residents — not
servicing multi-million-dollar yachts. The Project will consist of two enormous big-box structures
with no visual appeal or interest or obvious maritime function; its presence will do nothing to
enhance the maritime character of the Town, any more than would an Amazon warehouse on
the same location.
DEIS: “wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action,
specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest habitats from 12.60 acres to 8.28 acres, include
birds or other wildlife that inhabit mature forests, forest interiors, or have large patch size
requirements.”
Response: No detailed response required. The Project is clearly inconsistent with the protection
of natural heritage, even with the inadequate mitigation proposed.
Community Character Goal 5: Protect the Unique Character of Individual Hamlets
DEIS: “the proposed action would maintain the maritime use of the subject property along Mattituck
Creek and expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for indoor and heated
winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. The proposed action would keep those
yachts that utilize local waters during the peak season on Long Island rather than being transported
to warmer climates in the winter which would further support and revitalize the maritime and
commercial hub in this area. Overall, the proposed action would be consistent with this goal and
objective from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.”
Response: As noted above, the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is “an unmet demand
for indoor and heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island.” The Applicant
has stated in public venues that his customers are not individuals who transport their yachts to
warmer clients during the winter.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Water Resources Goal 1: Conserve Water Quantity
DEIS: “[u]pon implementation of this proposed action, the total potable water demand of SYC . . .
would be served entirely by the SCWA through a water main extension to be funded by SYC. This
would decrease the amount of water being withdrawn on-site via private wells. This water main
extension would give the seven property owners, identified in Table 12 and discussed in Section 2.2.1
of this DEIS, with the ability to connect to public water but remain served by private wells the
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 6 Rev3c
opportunity to connect to SCWA and further decrease the amount of water being withdrawn from
the aquifer.
Response: As noted in other comments, the proposed water line is scheduled for construction in
May 2023, independent of whether or not the Project is approved. The Project will therefore
not contribute to a reduction in groundwater drawdown. It will result in an overall increase in
water use. Realistically, only two property owners will be able to connect to the new water line,
one of whom is the Applicant.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Water Resources Goal 3: Protect Surface Water Quality
DEIS: “The proposed ac�on would not involve any illicit discharges into any nearby surface waters.”
Response: It is unclear why “illicit discharges” would ever have been considered as possibility
for inclusion in the Project. It should go without saying that the Project is expected to comply
with the law.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Land Resources Goal 1: Protect Soils and Geologic Features
DEIS: “The proposed action would modify the upland and valley slope; however, the existing slope
face shows natural moraine and outwash plain sediments that have been augmented in places with
spoil and dredged material. While the landform would be modified, the proposed development
includes structural stabilization to correct existing slope failure due to the placement of dredge
material.”
Response: The existing slope face where slope failure is occurring will cease to exist as part of
the Project. The existing slope face will be removed. The proposed “structural stabilization to
correct existing slope failure” is the construction of an 875 ft-long, 30+ foot-high concrete
retaining wall in an entirely different location. As noted in other comments, there is almost no
basis for assuming that the existing slope failure is the result of previous placement of dredge
material.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Land Resources Goal 2: Protect Upland Habitat and Trees
DEIS: “In total, the proposed action would require the removal of 634 trees.”
Response: No response required. Clear-cutting 5.51 acres of forested hillside, resulting in the
destruction of 634 mature trees and an undetermined number of younger trees is clearly
inconsistent with the protection of upland habitat and trees, even with the inadequate
mitigation proposed.
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 7 Rev3c
Natural Resources and the Environment – Land Resources Goal 3: Protect Fish and Wildlife
DEIS: “[T]he decreased habitat availability associated with the loss of 32 percent of the site’s forest
habitat would likely decrease the abundance and diversity of the plant and wildlife species that utilize
the site . . . Wildlife species that would be most likely adversely impacted by the proposed action,
specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest habitats from 12.60± acres to 8.28± acres,
include birds or other wildlife that inhabit mature forests, forest interiors, or have large patch size
requirements.”
Response: No response required. The Project is clearly inconsistent with the protection of
wildlife, even with the inadequate mitigation proposed.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Land Resources Goal 7: Adapt to the effects of climate
change and rising sea levels.
DEIS: “it is not expected that there would be any significant adverse impacts from climate change,
sea level rise and coastal flooding.”
Response: The DEIS downplays the potential effects of sea-level and groundwater rise on the
Project site. As detailed elsewhere in these comments, it uses conservative rather than worst-
case projections of sea level rise to predict future impacts. It also uses cherry-picked historic
precipitation data to minimize the contribution that increasing precipitation will have on
groundwater/sea level rise.
Natural Resources and the Environment – Land Resources Goal 10: Reduce light pollu�on
DEIS: the proposed site lighting plan has been designed in accordance with Chapter 172 of the Town
Code (Outdoor Lighting). As such, the proposed action would be consistent with this goal.
Response: Conformance with the Town Code will not “reduce light pollution.” The
Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this goal is to revise the Town Code to address
LED technology. The Project includes LED lighting. The Project will increase the amount of light
emitted from the presently-forested and unlit portions of the Project site.
Economic Development Goal 1: Encourage new and facilitate the growth of existing business sectors
that pursue stable and suitable employment
DEIS: “[T]he proposed action would create new jobs for the servicing of the larger vessels to be
stored on-site, while continuing to support SYC as an important maritime use on Mattituck Creek. In
turn, the proposed action benefits the existing SYC staff as the business operation responds to
market demands for indoor climate-controlled storage. As such, the implementation of the proposed
Page | Comprehensive Plan - 8 Rev3c
action would facilitate the growth of SYC and provide continued support to the maritime industry
within the Town of Southold.”
Response: The Applicant has exaggerated the number of new jobs that would be created, and
has not indicated if those jobs will be year-round positions. As noted in other comments, the
DEIS does not documented a demand for indoor climate-controlled storage, which yacht
manufacturers have indicated is not necessary. The Project will “facilitate the growth of SYC,”
but it has not been demonstrated how the construction storage for large pleasure yachts will
result in “provide continued support to the maritime industry within the Town of Southold.”
Economic Development Goal 2: Promote Economic Development that Ensures an Adequate Tax Base
Without Compromising the Unique Character of the Town
DEIS: [T]he proposed action would increase tax revenue to various taxing jurisdictions and increase
sales tax revenue.
Response: As noted in other comments, the DEIS has exaggerated the tax benefits of the
Project. Even the limited tax benefits for Southold cannot be accrued “[W]ithout Compromising
the Unique Character of the Town.”
DEIS: The proposed action would balance economic prosperity while maintaining a high quality of
life, the environment, and the unique character of the surrounding community.
Response: The “economic prosperity” derived from the Project, will largely accrue to the
Applicant. The Project will irreparably diminish and degrade the “high quality of life, the
environment, and the unique character of the surrounding community.”
Economic Development Goal 4: Preserve and encourage industries that support existing and future
agriculture and aquaculture uses
DEIS: “the subject property is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program for shellfish restoration.
As a host, SYC has an executed MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] with the CCE [Cornell
Cooperative Extension] Marine Program to support CCE’s involvement with the LISRP [Long Island
Shellfish Restoration Project], inclusive of housing FLUPSY in dockside areas that are used by CCE for
shellfish harvesting.
Response: The continued operation of the CCE program hosted by the Applicant is independent of
Project approval. The Applicant may choose to continue ordiscontinue hosting the program whether
or not the Project is approved.
Page | ECOLOGY - 1 Rev3c
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
According to the DEIS, the “proposed action has a construction footprint of 6.51± acres [and will result]
in the physical disturbance and permanent loss of 4.32± acres of high-quality Coastal Oak-Beech forest,
1.19± acres of southern successional hardwood forest, and 0.54± acre of successional shrubland (see
Table 25, as excerpted from Table 6 of the Ecological Report)” (DEIS p.130). Total removal of 5.51 acres
of upland forest, including cutting down 634 trees and the destruction of the associate wildlife habitat
is not, as described in the DEIS, “forest disturbance,” it is forest/habitat destruction.
The DEIS Scope (p.9) notes that “the forest ecosystem of the subject property, contiguous with forest
protected by the Town, is the last relatively large block of native forest supplying clean groundwater
to Mattituck Inlet that has not been converted to farmland or interrupted by residential and
commercial development, with their attendant sanitary system and stormwater impacts” (emphasis
added).
DEIS Appendix N conflates the Project “site” with the Project “Area” resulting in significant distortions
in the ecological analyses included in the DEIS.
The Ecological Condi�ons and Impact Analysis report (DEIS Appendix N) is the basis for the DEIS’ analysis
of ecological impacts resul�ng from the Project.1 According to both documents: “Ecological surveys
were conducted at the 32.96-acre Strongs Marine property” (DEIS p. 118; Appendix N p.1). The report
repeatedly and consistently refers the en�re 32.96-acre tax parcel as the “site” or “project site” (DEIS
Appendix N pp. 16, 18, 24, 33). It makes no dis�nc�on between the R-2 zoned por�on of the tax parcel,
which includes only the access road, and the much smaller 16.46-acre M-2 zoned por�on which contains
the exis�ng SYC facility and the loca�ons of the proposed yacht storage buildings. It also makes no
reference to the actual “Project Area” defined in the DEIS as follows:
“The overall land area that would be affected by the proposed ac�on is approximately
6.51± acres, which includes the upland area to be excavated and/or cleared as well as
those land areas on the exis�ng SYC facility where infrastructure improvements would
be undertaken (hereina�er, the “Project Area”).” (DEIS p.5)
None of the graphics in Appendix N delineate the boundaries of the Project Area. One graphic (TS-4)
indicates the areas from which trees will be cleared, which roughly corresponds to the limits of the
Project. “[A]pproximately 4.59 acres of material would be excavated and removed to accommodate the
proposed ac�on” (DEIS p.5).2
1 DEIS Sec�on 2.4 (DEIS pp. 118-145) is, with only some minor editorial changes, (and the changes in certain numbers discussed
below) essen�ally iden�cal to the text in DEIS Appendix N.
2 The difference between the 6.51 acres and the 4.59 acres is presumably the “land areas on the exis�ng SYC facility where
infrastructure improvements would be undertaken.”
Page | ECOLOGY - 2 Rev3c
Although the Project Area as defined in the DEIS is 6.51 acres, all of the analyses in the ecology are based
on the premise that all of the 32.96 acres of the tax parcel within which the Project is located comprise
the “project site.” They do not. This has resulted in significant distor�ons in the ecological report’s
analyses.
For example, Table 1, and a table included as part of Figure EC-1 in the report, indicate that coastal oak-
beech forest comprises 38.2 percent of the “site”. However, the same figures clearly indicates that the
por�ons of the M-2 por�on of the “site”, (excluding the paved/pervious3 surfaces associated with the
exis�ng marina structures) where the proposed storage buildings and retaining wall will be constructed,
is composed almost en�rely of coastal oak-beech forest (COMMENT FIGURE ECO-1).
Because it conflates the Project “site” with the Project area, the ecological report mischaracterizes the
land use history of the Project area:
“Between the mid-1950s and 1984, the site consisted of agricultural fields adjacent to
Mill Road, a small tree planta�on or orchard, forests, and a marina facility, as indicated
by aerial imagery from Suffolk County . . . During this �me, cleared land associated with
the agricultural and commercial marine uses accounted for approximately 58% (19.1
acres) of the 32.96 acre property. Aerial imagery of the site from 1962 and 1984 is
provided in Figures 1 and 2. The agricultural use on the western por�on of the site
appears to have been abandoned in the late 1980s. The exis�ng ecological communi�es
now present at the site include coastal oak-beech forests; successional habitats that
have developed on the former agricultural lands ”(emphasis added) (p. 1).
In fact, those aerial photographs clearly show, the “agricultural fields adjacent to Mill Road,
[and] small tree planta�on or orchard” correspond to the R-2 por�on of the Strong’s parcel and
are west of the actual Project Area. The same photos show that, except for the area occupied by
marina structures, almost all of the Project area is forested. The “successional habitats that have
developed on the former agricultural lands” are well west of the Project Area (COMMENT
FIGURE ECO-1).
Another example of how the DEIS atempts to “dilute” the reader’s percep�on of Project impacts, by
trea�ng the en�re tax parcel on which the Project is located as the Project “site,” is through the use of
percentages.4 Table 25 (DEIS p. 134; DEIS Appendix N Table 6, p. 21) indicates that the 5.51 acres of
upland forest affected consist of 4.32 acres of coastal oak-beech forest and 1.19 acres of successional
southern hardwoods. Because both the DEIS and Appendix N treat the en�re 34-acres parcel as the
“project site” they conclude that the Project will destroy 34.3% of the former and only 25.5% of the
3 The contexts in which the word “pervious” is used throughout Appendix N suggests that it should be “impervious.”
4 A “fact sheet” posted on the Applicant’s web site, and distributed at the Ma�tuck-Laurel Library on April 25, 2023, also
atempts to minimize the Project’s impacts by confla�ng “site” with “Project Area,” and employing misleading percentage
numbers: “Approximately 73% of all trees on the property would be retained, including approx.. 66% of the large hardwood
trees (trunks greater than 12’[sic] diameter).”
Page | ECOLOGY - 3 Rev3c
later. The DEIS and Appendix H state that “[U]nder the proposed ac�on, approximately 66% of
these site’s trees greater than 12-inches in DBH will be preserved” (DEIS p.135, DEIS Appendix N
p.22). In fact, almost 100% of the trees within the “Project Area” will be destroyed.
“Edge Effects”
The destruc�on of almost six acres of forest will create new forest edges resul�ng in an “edge effect.”
DEIS Appendix N notes the nega�ve aspects of forest edges, including:
“higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, and wind speed; and lower
rela�ve humidity and soil moisture . . .than forest interiors. . . These changes . . .
par�cularly increased light levels, foster prolifera�on of invasive plant species and
changes to the observed plant community due to differences in plant recruitment and
survivorship. . . [I]ncreased summer heat and drought stress to trees and vegeta�on due
to higher temperatures . . .” (Appendix N pp.34-35).5
Both the DEIS and DEIS Appendix N state that the
“new forest edge will likely result in an intensifica�on of the exis�ng edge effects at the
site, likely resul�ng in coloniza�on and increased growth of invasive plant species and
reduc�on in habitat quality for nes�ng songbirds, and increased abundance of predators
and invasive compe�tors. In addi�on, the proposed project may result in increased
numbers of invasive birds, such as European starling (Sternus vulgaris), house sparrow
(Parus domesticus), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), as these birds thrive
in habitats created by humans and o�en nest on or in buildings “DEIS p.136, Appendix N
p.24).
Both the DEIS and Appendix N also acknowledge that “Some of the 8.28 acres of coastal oak beech
forests and 3.48 acres of successional forests that will be maintained under the proposed action will be
adversely impacted by the creation of new forest edges” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 134, Appendix N
p.23). However, both fail to indicate that they are referring to the por�on of the Project land parcel
beyond the limits of the Project Area. In other words, they do not call out the fact that that the
negative ecological impacts associated with the edge effect will extend far beyond the limits of the
Project Area.
5 The sentence “Edge habitats in forests have higher ambient light levels, air and soil temperatures, and wind speed; and lower
rela�ve humidity and soil moisture (Chen et al, 1995; Gehlhausen et al, 2000) than forest interiors” has been edited out of the
DEIS main text.
Page | ECOLOGY - 4 Rev3c
Impacts to the Mill Road Preserve6
The 27-acre Town -owned Mill Road Preserve abuts the southwest corner of the Project land parcel. The
Preserve and the Project parcel share an approximately 100-foot-long border. The Town of Southold paid
close to $900,000 (adjusted for infla�on) of tax-payer money to purchase the Preserve. At the �me of
purchase, the Town Board stated that “the purchase will serve to con�nue the sense of openness special
to this area of the hamlet of Ma�tuck, specifically, and the Town of Southold in general.” Clearly the
Town was making this area a priority for protec�on for the en�re Town. The Project is contrary to this
goal and undermines the purposes for which the Mill Road Preserve was created. There is no way that
the Project as proposed will not drama�cally and permanently diminish the quali�es of the landscape
and the area specifically prized and valued by the Town of Southold.
According to Appendix N (p.26), “edge effects are expected to extend approximately 195 feet into Mill
Road Preserve from the northeastern corner of Mill Road Preserve. The total area of the Mill Road
Preserve that may be poten�ally impacted by edge effects associated with the new clearing limit on the
Strong’s Yacht Center property is approximately 0.38 acres (16,419 SF)” (DEIS pp. xii, 136; Appendix N
p.26).
The DEIS ignores the fact that edge effects impac�ng the Preserve will not be limited to a small part of
the Preserve as claimed. The Project site and the Preserve form one ecosystem. The Project-induced
changes in microclimate, impac�ng flora and fauna, will permanently change the nature of the Preserve
and destroy the quali�es it was created to preserve. Wildlife iden�fied or expected in the Project Area,
as described in the DEIS and Appendix N, are also living in the Preserve. Destruc�on of the subject
property will, without a doubt, impact wildlife in the Preserve. Wildlife does not understand property
lines.
The DEIS, Appendix N, and the Applicant 7 in other venues, seek to minimize the extent of adverse
impacts to the Mill Road Preserve. Statements such as: “The area subject to new or enhanced edge
effects accounts for approximately 2% of the 18-acres of mature oak-beech forests in Mill Road
Preserve”; and “the magnitude of poten�al edge effects are expected to decrease over �me due to the
proposed landscaping comprised of na�ve deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs” (DEIS p. 137
Appendix p.26), ignore the fact that any impacts to publicly-owned, permanently preserved land is
unacceptable.
6 Comments rela�ng to noise impacts on wildlife in and around the Mill Road Preserve are included in the atached Noise
Comments sec�on.
7 At the April 15, 2023 mee�ng of the Southold-Peconic Civic Associa�on, the Applicant displayed a slide saying that “poten�al
impacts to the preserve habitat will be limited to a 4/10-acre por�on or approximately 2% of the 25-acre preserve,” and
verbally stated that his consultant’s report (DEIS Appendix N) “is not saying that the trees are going to be damaged. They are
saying that the ground cover could poten�ally have a short-term impact . . . “
Page | ECOLOGY - 5 Rev3c
The philosophy behind the acquisi�on of the property for the Mill Road Preserve makes clear that the
Town values this en�re ecosystem. This philosophy is also reflected in Southold’s Local Waterfront
Revitaliza�on Plan (LWRP), which specifically men�ons preserving areas around the inlet to ensure its
cri�cal natural environment. Degrada�on of the Preserve to construct two massive yacht storage
buildings is inconsistent with stated and specific Town mandates and goals. The nature of the Preserve
is predicated on maintaining the current ecosystem, as per the Town’s own document establishing the
area for protec�on. The change in light, forest, invasive species, created by the Project, completely
negate the investment made by the people of Southold. There is no way to mi�gate the drama�c
altera�on of the Preserve’s landscape resul�ng from the Project.
Tree Removal
According to the DEIS, during the two-week-long clearing and grubbing site prepara�on phase “one truck
with 30-yard trailer would be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 �mes per day” (DEIS p. 211). This
translates to a maximum volume of 1,200 CY of vegeta�ve debris.8 Simple arithme�c and common
sense suggest that the actual volume of vegeta�ve debris associated with the removal of 634 trees, and
their stumps and roots, plus an unknown number of smaller trees, shrubs and ground vegeta�on will
generate orders of magnitude greater volumes of debris.
The average diameter of the 634 trees that will be removed is 12.8 inches. Approximately 80% of those
have an es�mated height of 80-feet, approximately 15% have an es�mated height of 50-feet, and the
remainder have an es�mated height of 30-feet (Appendix C in DEIS Appendix S). Eighty-foot-tall trees
with a diameter of 12-13 inches weigh 1.08 to 1.27 tons; 50-foot-tall trees with a diameter of 12-13
inches weigh 0.69 to 0.81 tons; and 30-foot-tall trees with a diameter of 12-13 inches weigh 0.53 to 0.50
tons.9 Almost all of these trees are hardwoods. This means the total weight of the trees being cut and
removed from the Project Area will range from approximately 2,500 to 3,000 tons.
FEMA es�mates that each ton of hardwood debris equates to 4 CY, and each ton of so�wood debris
corresponds to 6 CY.10 This means that the volume of tree debris that will be removed from the site is
approximately 10,000 CY to 12,000 CY.
According to FEMA, “Vegeta�ve debris consists of whole trees, tree stumps, tree branches, tree trunks,
and other leafy material. Depending on the size of the debris, the collec�on of vegeta�ve debris may
8 4 truckloads x 10 days x 30 CY/load = 1,200 CY
9 htps://the�mberlandinvestor.com/how-much-does-a-tree-weigh/. This data is specific to combined hardwoods only and is
based on data for New York State.
10 htps://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_329_debris-es�ma�ng_field-guide_9-1-2010.pdf
Page | ECOLOGY - 6 Rev3c
require the use of flat bed trucks, dump trucks, and grapple loaders. . . Vegeta�ve debris is bulky and
consumes a significant volume of landfill space if buried.”11
All of the above suggests that the DEIS has significantly underes�mated the volume of vegeta�ve debris
that will need to be removed from the Project Area, and has not evaluated the impacts associated with
removing cut trees from the Project Area. It also raises the possibility that the Applicant has not
disclosed that he intends to either sell the cut trees, or move them to the R-80 por�on of the Project
parcel.12 All of these possibili�es are associated with environmental impacts that have not been
addressed in the DEIS.
The Evergreen Wall
The Project includes the construc�on of an Evergreen Macro Gravity Retaining Wall System to stabilize
the newly created, up to 40± foot-high, slopes located north and west of the proposed yacht storage
buildings. It is an integral and essen�al part of the Project. DEIS Appendix H contains a report prepared
by the Project engineer on the Evergreen wall proposed for the Project. The report does not discuss the
plan�ng plan for the wall.13
The DEIS states that “Once in place and backfilled, seeding and use by bird species promote growth in
the trays that are built into the wall to create a “green” wall over a period of two-to-three years” (DEIS
pp. ii, 6, 290). No evidence to support this claim is included in the DEIS. “Photographs of similar walls on
Long Island and throughout the world have been included in Appendix H to document the use of the
wall and the visual appearance of this wall type” (DEIS p. 290). However, one cannot expect the
manufacturer to include examples of wall plan�ng failures. There are reports of green wall failures.14
“The proposed retaining wall features topsoil-filled plan�ng trays that will planted [sic] with na�ve
ground-vegeta�on, shrubs, and small trees” (DEIS p. xxxiv, 144). The DEIS does not men�on how many
plan�ng trays will be or the total size of the plan�ng area. A confused descrip�on of the proposed wall
plan�ngs is included in the DEIS:
Three sec�ons of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be filled with topsoil to
allow for seeding by wildlife. A 144±-foot long in linear distance and 124±-foot long in
linear distance topsoil-filled sec�on of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be
11 htps://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/forestry/icestorm/FEMAVegeta�veDebrisEligibilitypdf.pdf
12 See also the sec�on on traffic impacts in these comments.
13 The report is less than two pages long, followed by a copy of the manufacturer ’s brochure. The detailed wall specifica�ons in
the brochure never discusses plan�ngs.
14 htps://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/growing-pains-why-some-green-walls-die
Page | ECOLOGY - 7 Rev3c
located north and south of the western landscape schedule, respec�vely. A 370±-foot
long in linear distance topsoil-filled sec�on of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall
would be located west of the northern landscape schedule.
This descrip�on is inconsistent with the descrip�on on p. 140 of the DEIS and the landscape schedule on
the proposed landscaping plan included in DEIS Appendix C. That schedule indicates that the plan�ng
shelf on the west por�on of the retaining wall will be “±80 Lin Ft.” and the plan�ng shelf on the north
por�on of the retaining wall will be “±157 Lin Ft.”
Poten�al issues not addressed in the DEIS include the fact there is no men�on of a maintenance plan,
covering irriga�on, mulching or compos�ng. Without irriga�on and a maintenance plan, the plants will
likely die. In addi�on, there is no plan for replacement of plan�ngs should they die, and there is no
performance bond for the Evergreen wall plan�ngs. Should plan�ngs die, the dead vegeta�on also
creates a fire risk.
Inadequacies of Proposed Forest-Loss Mitigation
SEQRA requires that a proposed project “avoids or minimizes anticipated adverse impacts to the
maximum extent practicable” (SEQRA Handbook p.114, 147; 6 NYCRR 617.11d5). None of the mitigation
proposed to compensate for the Project’s adverse ecological impacts come anywhere close to meeting
this standard.
Mi�ga�on proposed in the DEIS to compensate for the loss 634 mature trees with heights up to 80-feet,
and an average diameter of 12.8-inches, plus an unknown number of smaller trees, will consist of
plan�ng 95 4–5-foot-high pitch pine trees.15 However, as shown on proposed landscape plan (DEIS
Appendix C), nine of these would be located around the newly installed propane tanks located east of
proposed yacht storage building No. 1. Fi�een would be located along the southern site boundary,
presumably to screen views from adjacent North Drive proper�es. However, all but six of these appear
to be at a much lower eleva�on than the nearby residences, and appear to be situated in a manner that
would screen only views of the propane tanks planned for this area. The remaining 71 pitch pines would
be located within a 27,333 sq � (0.63-acre) plan�ng area just beyond the top of the proposed Evergreen
retaining wall. According to the DEIS (p.250) and Appendix N (pp. 38-9) “[P]oten�al edge effects and
habitat degrada�on in the retained forests on the subject property and the Town of Southold Mill Road
Preserve will be minimized by [the 0.63-acre plan�ng area and Greenwall plan�ngs].”
Pitch pines grow at a rate of approximately one foot per year. Therefore, it would take between 50-70
years to reach the height of many of the deciduous trees that have been removed. Pitch pines seem to
15 Appendix N states that “approximately 135 trees will be established in a 27,333 SF plan�ng area along the new forest edge
(predominantly pitch pine)” (also Appendix N Table 7, p.22). This is clearly incorrect. Although DEIS Table 26 duplicates Table
7 in Appendix N, accompanying text indicates that 40 of the 135 trees consist of small trees that will be planted on the
proposed Evergreen retaining wall.
Page | ECOLOGY - 8 Rev3c
have been selected because of their relatively rapid growth rate which will facilitate a minimal reduction
in the visual impact of the Project on surrounding properties, including the Mill Road Preserve.16 They
have not been selected because of their appropriateness for mitigating the loss of oak/beech forest.
Mature oak/beech forests and their habitats provide substantially more benefits to wildlife than newly
planted trees and shrubs. Replacing more than 600 hardwood deciduous trees, with 71 coniferous trees
is a significant qualitative as well as quantitative impact.
In the United States, including in Suffolk County, pitch pines are suffering and dying from the Southern
Pitch Pine Beetle, an invasive species considered to be one of the most destructive forest pests in the
country.17 Pitch pines are also being attacked by Pitch Canker. The possibility that these factors could
affect the viability of the proposed plantings is not considered in the DEIS. Furthermore, dead pitch pine
trees increase the risk of forest fires.
In addition to the 71 pitch pines, the 0.63 -acre planting area beyond the top of the retaining wall will
include 57 lowbush blueberry shrubs and 4,295 switchgrass plants. According to the DEIS, “Irrigation
supply is also proposed with the installation of automatic underground sprinkler systems with rain
sensors to serve new planting areas” (emphasis added) (DEIS pp. vi, 74). However, it is clear that the
“new planting areas” do not include the 0.63-acre area beyond the top of the proposed Evergreen
retaining wall, as no water source is available at the top of the retaining wall. Without irrigation, and a
maintenance plan (including replacement plantings), newly planted trees, shrubs, and grasses in this
area will likely die. The DEIS does not indicate if newly planted trees will be staked. It does not indicate if
mulching or compost, fertilization, or fencing to protect from deer browse,18 is planned. The Applicant
has not included a landscape performance bond as part of the Project.
The DEIS also states that the “Applicant will contribute 50 native trees (10-gallon container typical 1-inch
caliper, 5-6 feet tall) for installation at high-priority sites with the Town of Southold, as identified by the
Town Tree Committee, to enhance and beautify public grounds” (DEIS pp. iii, xxxiv, xxxv, 94, 43, 170,
177, 186, 310). This off-site attempt at compensatory mitigation does absolutely nothing to compensate
for the destruction of nearly 5.5 acres of forest habitat.
A more appropriate method of estimating the scale of required mitigation for the destruction of 634
large trees, rather than the arbitrary method used in the DEIS, would be the use of a formula 19
developed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA).
16 See DEIS pp. xx, xxi, xxxv, xxxvii, 166, 181, 187, 236, 237, 240, 245
17 htps://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/spbccear�cle2.pdf
18 The Project does include construc�on of a 6-� high, black vinyl-clad l chain-link fence along the Project-side of the plan�ng
area at the top of the retaining wall. This will not affect damage from deer-browse.
19 The formula is: Tree Value = Base Value x Cross-sectional Area x Species Class x Condition Class x Location Class Base Value is
the dollar amount assigned to 1 square inch of a tree's trunk cross-sectional area and is typically based on the cost of the
largest available replacement plant of the same species.
Page | ECOLOGY - 9 Rev3c
Impacts to Avian Fauna Including Threatened and Endangered Avian Species
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the immediate and long-term threats posed to
the bird population on the Project site, and the surrounding area including the adjacent Southold Town-
owned Mill Road Preserve, and Mattituck Creek. It is inaccurate incomplete and or misleading.
The DEIS states that approximately 91 bird species were observed or expected to occur on the “site”.20
This is a significant underestimate. According to Cornell’s Ornithological E Bird list compiled in January
2023, approximately 117 bird species have been observed in the neighboring Mill Road Preserve and in
the waters and along the beaches of Mattituck Creek.
The DEIS acknowledges that “Wildlife species that are most likely to be adversely impacted by the
proposed action, specifically the reduction in Coastal Oak-Beech forest habitats . . . include birds” (DEIS
p. 137). However, it then attempts to minimize this by stating that bird species that are habitat
generalists are “unlikely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action, due to their general tolerance
for human activity” (DEIS pp. xiii, 137). It is absurd to suggest that the complete destruction of nearly
five acres of mature deciduous forest, and the accompanying construction noise impacts will be
“generally tolerated.” Noise generated by Project construction can also be expected to negatively
impact bird species. As the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge
“Poten�al noise levels during day�me construc�on hours over [during] the 12-month
construc�on period . . . slightly overlap with the range of the chronic industrial levels . . .
that have been found to impact bird breeding produc�vity and are similar to the change
in sound levels that have been found to adversely impact bird community composi�on
and abundance, foraging and nes�ng behavior, and body condi�on” (DEIS p.140,
Appendix N p.32).21
The DEIS (pp. 131, 140) and DEIS Appendix N (pp.17, 33) state that “[N]o endangered, threatened, or
rare species or significant ecological communi�es were observed during the ecological surveys
conducted”. However, both documents refer to December 1, 2020 correspondence from the NY Natural
Heritage Program (Appendix A to DEIS Appendix N) which states that piping plovers have “been
documented nesting within 0.45 mile of the project site.” Neither document mentions that the same
correspondence, in relation to the piping plover, directs the Applicant to “contact the Permits staff at
the NYSDEC Region 1 Office, Division of Environmental Permits.” Piping Plovers are also a Federally
designated endangered species and have been documented by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
20 There are discrepancies between the DEIS and DEIS Appendix N in regard to the number of bird species (see below).
21 This topic is treated more extensively in the atached comments rela�ng specifically to noise impacts.
Page | ECOLOGY - 10 Rev3c
and the North Fork Audubon Society (NFAS) to be breeding, nes�ng and foraging at nearby Breakwater
Beach and at Bailie Beach. Both NFAS and the Group for the East End have monitored and documented
piping plovers on these two sites for at least five years. The USFWS has documented Ma�tuck Creek
side of Bailie Beach as a significant foraging site for adult and fledgling Piping Plovers. Roseate Terns,
another federally designated endangered species have been documented foraging at that site. The DEIS
and Appendix N acknowledge that “Federal- and New York State-protected shorebirds such as
piping plover and least tern, nest on the nearby beaches adjacent to Ma�tuck Inlet and forage in
appropriate �dal wetlands, shoals and mudflats, and estuarine waters of Ma�tuck Creek” (DEIS p.,
Appendix N p.8). However, neither document ascribes any significance to this fact, or considers how the
Project might disrupt these species.
The DEIS and DEIS Appendix N both fail to note that federally endangered peregrine falcons, are
documented on the current Ornithology eBird list compiled on Cornell’s E bird list as being observed in
the Mill Road Preserve and in the Ma�tuck Creek area.
The DEIS and DEIS Appendix N both fail to note that bald eagles, a NYS threatened species, are
documented on Cornell eBird, as being reported in the Mill Road Preserve and along Ma�tuck Creek.
Several local bird experts believe Mill Road Preserve and the subject site are suitable habitats for bald
eagle nes�ng. Eagles prefer to nest in living trees especially pines but will nest in deciduous trees which
are close to water. Bald Eagles do not migrate and start nes�ng in mid to late winter. That exactly
corresponds to proposed �me the Project plans to conduct its forest clearance and site excava�on.
Bird species observed in the Project vicinity that are listed under NYS status of Special Concern, and have
documented on the Cornell eBird list as being present in the Project vicinity include the common
nighthawk, common loon, horned lark, osprey, and sharp shinned hawk. Only the later two are
men�oned in the DEIS and Appendix N.
Impacts to the Eastern Box Turtle
Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), a New York
State Species of Special Concern, has been observed in the Project Area and is expected to be found in
any one of the vegetated upland habitats of the project parcel, and that they “are threatened by
development of their habitat” (Appendix N p. 19).
The DEIS states that the Project will “avoid or minimize” impacts to Eastern Box turtle by
“conducting sweeps or surveys for box turtles prior to commencement of clearing,
grading, and excavation activities, and relocation of any observed turtles to on-site
areas that will not be disturbed. Silt fencing or other barriers will be installed around
work areas to prevent turtles from returning to construction areas” (Appendix N p.34).
Page | ECOLOGY - 11 Rev3c
This statement is misleading and inaccurate. The proposed “mitigation” is actually a danger to the
Eastern Box Turtles survival. It cannot be considered mitigation for the Project’s adverse impacts.
According to Karen Testa, founder and president of Turtle Rescue of the Hamptons Inc., the Eastern Box
Turtle hibernates underground from October through May. They live in underground burrows and in
tree stumps. Every NYS species of turtle (aquatic and terrestrial) nest on land and dig their undetectable
nests approximately 6-12” underground. Eastern Box Turtles are elusive by nature and their camouflage
makes it almost impossible to find them in a natural setting. Therefore, “sweeps or surveys” will not be
effective. They should not be considered mitigation for the Project’s adverse impact to the Eastern Box
Turtle.
Fencing and other barriers will not stop the Eastern Box Turtle’s strong ins�nct to return to its nes�ng
and feeding habitat. Turtles will ins�nc�vely travel along a barrier perimeter to find a weakened spot or
small opening. If turtles cannot find an opening, they will likely dig under the proposed fencing or
worse, become entangled, leading to injury and possible death. Turtles will also follow the fencing line,
which could lead to public roadways and vehicular traffic leading to injury and possible death.
Therefore, fencing or other barriers should not be considered mi�ga�on for the Project’s adverse
impacts. The fencing proposed for top of the Project’s retaining wall will have an unevaluated impact on
the Eastern Box Turtle.
Impacts to the Endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat
In its August 10, 2020 Posi�ve Declara�on, the Planning Board noted that “the Northern long- eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) a listed federally-threatened species under sec�on 4(d) of the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 could poten�ally occur on the parcel. The clearing of 3.94 acres of
woodland habitat could result in large, adverse impacts to the protected species.” The DEIS scope (p.8)
calls for the DEIS to iden�fy “animal species listed as endangered, threatened, and special concern (or
with other protec�ve status), . . . and suitability of habitat as roos�ng or summary foraging habitat for
protected New York State and Federally-protected bat species, . . . and measures to reduce poten�al
impacts.”
The DEIS (based on informa�on in the Appendix N)22 notes that the Project site
“contains habitat that could be u�lized by the northern long-eared bat [NLEB] (Myotis
septentrionalis) during the summer months for foraging and diurnal roos�ng. The
northern long-eared bat was listed as threatened by both the USFWS and New York
State in 2016 due to popula�on declines caused by white-nose syndrome (WNS), a
disease caused by an invasive fungus that kills affected hiberna�ng bats during the
winter months. Northern long-eared bats roost during the day�me in cavi�es or crevices
22 Appendix N was prepared by Dr. William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services Inc.
Page | ECOLOGY - 12 Rev3c
of living trees and snags (i.e., standing dead trees) or underneath loose or exfolia�ng
bark. The site has large trees with loose bark, such as red maple and white oak, and
poten�al for cavi�es in live trees or snags. Due to the northern long-eared bat’s
poten�al use of diverse upland forest types and the presence of large trees with loose
bark, this species may u�lize the site for foraging and roos�ng habitat in the summer
months” (DEIS p. 131).
The DEIS also notes that
“The project site may provide habitat for these bat species during the summer months
and migra�on periods in the spring and autumn. There is growing evidence that
northern long-eared bat also overwinter on eastern Long Island, hiberna�ng in human
structures and foraging for winter-flying moths when temperatures exceed 4°C (Hoff,
2019). During the summer months, bats are expected to forage within the site’s forest,
forest edge, and successional shrubland habitats and over the wetlands and surface
waters of Ma�tuck Creek” (DEIS pp. 129-130; Appendix N p.16).
There is more to support the presence of NLEB on the Project site in addi�on to the presence of suitable
habitat. Both NLEB maternity roosts and winter hibernacula loca�ons have been iden�fied in
Southold.23,24 In addi�on, as the DEIS notes, “[R]ecent bat monitoring conducted by the NYSDEC has
suggested that northern long-eared bats on eastern Long Island are not sensi�ve to forest patch size and
may u�lize forest patch as small as one acre (Hoff, 2019)”25 (DEIS p.129, Appendix N p.16).
DEIS Appendix N, which is the basis for the statement in the DEIS that the NLEB is threatened, is dated
October 2022. However, the DEIS and Appendix N both neglect to men�on that on March 23, 2022,
more than six months earlier, the USFWS issued a proposed regulatory change that would reclassify
(uplist) the NLEB from “threatened” to “endangered.”26 That reclassifica�on took effect on March 31,
2023.
In New York, all federally endangered species that occur in the State are also afforded endangered status
under the New York Endangered Species Law and its implemen�ng regula�ons (6 CRR-NY 182).
The DEIS downplays the significance of the loss of NLEB habitat when it states that the “availability of
summer habitat is not limi�ng for northern long-eared bat. Accordingly, loss of summer habitat is not
23htps://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/508_northernlongeared_townswithmaternityroosts_1.pdf
24 htps://www.fws.gov/media/northern-long-eared-bat-winter-hibernacula-loca�ons-not-exact-loca�ons-we-recommend-least-1
25 The cited reference (Hoff 2019) is not included in the reference sec�on of either the DEIS or Appendix N.
26 The rule became final on November 29, 2022, and takes effect on March 31, 2023.
Page | ECOLOGY - 13 Rev3c
recognized as a threat to the conserva�on of this species” (USFWS, 2016). This statement is technically
correct. However, it is taken out of context. Since white-nose syndrome has led to popula�on declines
of 97-100% across most of its range, NLEB no longer occupy much of their suitable habitat. The species
is rare, and there is much more available habitat than areas actually containing this species.
Bats benefit local agriculture because they eat insects. When bats are around to eat insects, there are
fewer insect pests causing damage to crops, and farmers don't have to invest as much in pes�cides. The
loss of habitat would, at best, result in the reloca�on or reduc�on of the NLEB popula�on in the Project
vicinity with resul�ng impacts to the Ma�tuck area. According to the USFWS “[B]ecause of their
extremely low abundance due to white-nose syndrome, northern long-eared bat popula�ons can be
vulnerable to impacts from other stressors, such as forest habitat modifica�on.”27
As proposed mi�ga�on the Applicant states that “All tree clearing for the proposed ac�on will occur
during the winter months (between December 1 and February 28) in accordance with NYSDEC guidance
to avoid poten�al impacts to the New York State-threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), as the site’s forests provide suitable summer roost habitat for this species” (DEIS pp.
xxxiv, 144-145; Appendix N p.40). However, according to the USFWS
“Winter tree clearing that removes roosts and fragments colonies could harm NLEBs by
increasing stress, reducing opportuni�es to roost in thermally suitable
microenvironments, and reducing benefits accrued from coopera�ng rearing of young.
The likelihood that any winter tree clearing project is likely to take (e.g., “harm”) a NLEB
depends on (1) the likelihood that the tree removal overlaps with an unknown NLEB
colony roos�ng area, (2) the extent of tree (roost) removal, (3) the intensity of tree
removal, (4) the availability of an alterna�ng [sic] roos�ng area known to the colony,
and (5) whether roosts are likely to be limi�ng a�er tree removal. NLEBs ability to
persist in an area from which roosts have been removed may be related to the number
of roosts used by the species, the degree of roost specializa�on, and local roost
availability. NLEBs may use many roosts within a single season” (USFWS 2023:13).28
“The poten�al for effects to NLEBs from tree removal during the unoccupied �meframe
is based on the well-documented knowledge that NLEBs exhibit strong fidelity to their
summer roos�ng areas and foraging habitat (Kurta et al. 2002; Garner and Gardner
1992; USFWS 2007). NLEBs that return to their summer roos�ng area and find it
removed must find new roost trees (Kurta and Rice 2002). This extra energy expenditure
could detract from an individual’s ability to carry out necessary func�ons a�er migra�on
27 Interim Voluntary Guidance for the Northern Long-Eared Bat: Forest Habitat Modifica�on (USFWS March 6, 2023). The
purpose of the guidance “is to assist stakeholders with non-federal ac�ons involving forest habitat modifica�on to address
concerns about compliance with the Endangered Species Act and promote conserva�on of northern long-eared bat
popula�ons.”
28 Standing Analysis and Implementation Plan – Northern Long-Eared Bat Assisted Determination Key (USFWS, March 2023).
Page | ECOLOGY - 14 Rev3c
(e.g., thermoregula�on during cool spring weather, gesta�on) or cope with other
stressors (e.g., unseasonably cold temperatures, WNS) (Kurta and Rice 2002).
Addi�onally, the removal of maternity roost trees can lead to the fragmenta�on or
break up of the maternity colony (Sparks et al. 2003, Silvis et al. 2014)” (USFWS
2023:23).
Since the Project involves impacts (e.g., forest clearance) to NLEB habitats, surveys must be conducted
to determine if the NLEB is present in the Project Area.29 Those surveys must be conducted prior to
Project approval and before any tree removal is permitted in the Project Area.30
No surveys designed to determine if Northern Long-Eared Bats are in the Project Area have been
conducted.
Other DEIS Data Discrepancies and Inadequacies
The DEIS scope calls for ecological resources studies to be “detailed and undertaken over a mul�-season
period (all four seasons) to properly assess poten�al impacts”. DEIS Appendix N indicates that ecological
surveys of the Project site took place on September 18, 2020; October 21, 2020; January 17, 2021; May
13, 2021; July 19-28; 2021; and August 24, 2021. Other than for the summer, the required four-season
study consisted of only a single day in each of the other three seasons.
The December 1, 2020 correspondence from the NY Natural Heritage Program also points out that “[F]or
most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. We cannot provide a defini�ve
statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural
communi�es. Depending on the nature of the project and the condi�ons at the project site, further
informa�on from on-site surveys or other resources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological
resources”. This significant qualifica�on is not included in the main DEIS text.
As noted above, the DEIS text and Appendix N are almost iden�cal. However, there are some significant
discrepancies and inconsistencies between the DEIS and Appendix N. The November 2021 version of
29 Acous�c surveying for bats is a technique involving the listening and/or recording of ultrasound produced by bats. In 2022
USFWS issued guidance on how NLEB surveys should be conducted.
htps://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USFWS_Range-wide_IBat_%26_NLEB_Survey_Guidelines_2022.03.29.pdf
30 As reported on December 7, 2022 in the Albany Times Union, (Northern long-eared bats now on endangered species list: Their
fate was at issue when trees were clear-cut for Costco site), a 2020 proposal to construct a COSTCO discount warehouse in
Albany County raised concerns because tree cu�ng in advance of the project site would destroy NLEB habitat. Even though
the SEQRA process had not been completed, the developer cleared the project site in order to do the clearing during the
winter htps://www.�mesunion.com/news/ar�cle/Northern-long-earred-bats-are-now-on-the-17635149.php.
This is par�cularly relevant to the Planning Board’s considera�on of this project. Southold code enforcement officers have
previously issued stop work orders to the Applicant for improperly clearing tress from the Project site (see accompanying
comments on visual impacts which include detailed informa�on and photographs).
Page | ECOLOGY - 15 Rev3c
Appendix N, which accompanied the December 2021 version of the DEIS included the following
statement in its introduc�on to exis�ng condi�ons:
“A total of 122 vascular plant species were observed, including 53 woody plants, 64
herbaceous plants, and three ferns (Table 2). Addi�onally, 91 birds, 20 mammals and
three herpe�les were observed or are expected to occur on the site.”
However, the October 2022 version of Appendix N, which accompanies the revised November 2022
DEIS, has replaced that statement with:
A total of 105 vascular plant species were observed, including 49 woody plants, 53
herbaceous plants, and three ferns (Table 2). Addi�onally, 84 birds, 20 mammals and
three herpe�les were observed or are expected to occur on the site.”
No explana�on of this change, which would seemingly reduce the magnitude of the Project’s impact on
flora and fauna, is provided. The revised DEIS failed to make the corresponding change. This is yet
another example of the carelessness with which the DEIS has been prepared.31
A tree survey of all site trees greater than 6-inches in diameter (Appendix B to the DEIS Appendix N)
indicates that the loss of these forest areas will result in the clearing/removal of approximately 634
trees (Table 7). However, the referenced appendix contains only a single relevant figure (TS-4). That
figure shows the loca�ons of all large trees on the tax parcel associated with the Project. The
accompanying key, purports to iden�fy each tree by specie. It is completely unreadable. It lists 31
species (by code) and depicts them all in various shades of indis�nguishable green. A detailed table,
lis�ng all of the trees to be cut within the Project Area, by specie, diameter, and es�mated height can be
found in Appendix C to DEIS Appendix S—the DEIS’ air quality analysis. The absence of a reference key
to this very detailed and relevant informa�on in the both the DEIS, and its accompanying ecological
report (Appendix N), hampers a reader’s ability to evaluate this informa�on. A reader of the DEIS
concerned with ecological impacts is unlikely to come across this data, which is best described as
“buried,” in an appendix to an appendix dealing with an unrelated topic.32
Appendix N also contain discrepancies in its descrip�ons of noise impacts, significantly underes�ma�ng
the poten�al impact of Project-generated noise on wildlife:
31 Another egregious example is the unexplained change in numbers in the noise analyses which accompanied the original and
revised versions of the EIS. It must be remembered that the preparers of the original version of the DEIS could not predict
that the Planning Board would reject it as inadequate. Had the Planning Board not done so, the preparers would not have
had an opportunity to make the unexplained changes, and the Planning Board would have had to rely on inaccurate
Applicant-provided informa�on when considering the Project’s environmental impacts.
32 Presumably the tree survey data is included in the air quality sec�on because it was used in an analysis of carbon
sequestra�on. That does not explain why Appendix N and the DEIS never make reference to it. The data was presumably
collected by William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services, the preparer of the Appendix N.
Page | ECOLOGY - 16 Rev3c
Analysis of poten�al noise levels at nearby residen�al sites (such as 5106 West Mill
Road, 800 North Drive, and 805 North Drive) indicate that noise levels in the property’s
natural areas may increase temporarily during project construc�on to 66 dBA during
tree removal/grubbing (in December), 76 dBA during excava�on phases (between
December to June), and 71 dbA during building and drainage construc�on phases
(between June to November). Under the proposed build condi�ons, noise levels are
expected to increase slightly by 0-4 dbA to 44-48 dbA.
However, according to table in the Project Acous�c Report (DEIS Appendix R), noise levels on North
Drive during construc�on will be as high as 74 dBA—not 66 dBA-- during tree removal/grubbing; 89
dBA—not 76 dBA during excava�on phases; and 84 dBA—not 71 dBA during building and drainage
construc�on phases.
Together, the discrepancies noted here, are sufficient reason to challenge the validity of the ecological
analyses conducted for the Project.
Page | ECOLOGY - 17 Rev3c
COMMENT FIGURE ECO-1
Modified to show the boundary between the M-II and R-80 zones
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 1 Rev8c
IMPACTS ON THE ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
Sales Tax Revenue Impacts
The DEIS states that “the proposed action is also expected to increase tax revenue to the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, and the State of New York. . . Based on an average cost of $20,000 per boat
for service and storage annually, and an expected 88 yachts to be stored on site, the approximately
$1,760,000 would generate an additional $151,800 annually in sales tax. Additional sales tax would also be
generated by the expected increase in yacht sales by SYC. This projected increase in sales tax from boat sales
is $322,575” (DEIS p. 15). The DEIS states that “the proposed action would . . . increase sales tax
revenue further supporting the Town’s economy” (p.179). It is unclear how state and county sales tax
revenues would “benefit the Town’s economy” as the Town of Southold will receive no direct benefit
from these sales tax revenues.
This information is inconsistent with information included in DEIS Appendix E (Marina Economic Impact
Analysis and Tax Revenue Projections). Appendix E includes copies of data input by the Applicant into the
Marina Economic Impact Calculator (MEIC).1 According to that data, in 2024 2 combined total service and
storage revenues would increase by $1,033,904 over 2020 figures—not $1,760,000. The DEIS has
proportionally overstated the amount of sales tax revenues generated from these activities.3
The DEIS is based on the premise that the Project will be constructed in a single phase over a single
construction season. No mention is made of constructing the Project in phases. However, the applicant
has admitted that bank financing for Building Two is contingent on demonstrating 60% occupancy in
Building One. There is no proven demand for this Project.4 As such, there is no way to know for sure how
many boats will be stored in the buildings during any given year. Projected revenue of $20,000 per boat
is a vague target. Competing indoor storage in Connecticut is charged at $7.50/sq ft 5. A 60-ft boat akin
1 Applicant-input data appears to be for 2020.
2 2024 is the last year for which MEIC projections are calculated, and appears to be the year that it is assumed the Project
would be in operation. These figures need to be updated to reflect a 2025 start of operations.
3Appendix E in the revised DEIS is unchanged from Appendix E in the revised DEIS. Appendix E contains information on
projected 2022 revenues. It should now be possible to compare those projected revenues with actual 2022 revenues. This
will provide some indication of the accuracy of MEIC projections.
4 The applicant made initial reference to the fact that bank financing of the second proposed storage building was dependent
upon a demonstrated occupancy of the first building at a meeting with David Boscola, Donna Boscola, and Stephen Boscola
at the Strong’s Yacht Center office on February 8, 2020 at 2:30pm. Stephen Boscola raised this concern to the Planning Board
at a March 9, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board and this is noted in the minutes of that meeting. The Applicant and his
legal counsel were present and did not object to, or contradict, Mr. Boscola’s statement.
5 Refer to Portland Boat Works’ of Connecticut rate card, https://portlandboatworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/21-22-
Rate-Sheet.pdf (accessed 4-23-22) (COMMENT FIGURE ECONOMICS – 1). Competing indoor storage in New Jersey is charged
at 119.69 per foot plus tax. This yields a total pre-tax cost for a 60’ boat at $7181 (see
https://www.teammarineunlimited.com/index.cfm/page/storage, accessed 1-23-23).
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 2 Rev8c
to what SYC sells is 16-ft wide 6 yielding a square footage of 960 feet, which would equate to $7,200 for
inside winter storage. Winterizing costs for the same boat using the competing prices would be
approximately $2,525 for a total (pre-tax) of $9,725. De-Winterizing costs in the springtime could vary
but would be a approximately $1,500, since newer fiberglass boats no longer require major wood work
repairs, exterior hull painting, etc. Total storage bill would then be $11,225 pre-tax which is a little more
than half of the $20,000 estimate.
Using the lower figure, and applying it to 88 yachts, yields a total annual for storage and service of
$987,800. This is very close to the projected revenue ($1,033,904) predicted by the MEIC for 2024, and
inconsistent with estimates in the DEIS.
In order for New York State to realize any new tax revenue from the increased storage and service work
related to the Project, each new boat at SYC would need to come from out of state. Any new SYC
customers from other New York marinas would have a net zero impact on the New York State sales tax
base. The same is true for Suffolk County. It is reasonable to assume that new SYC customers will not be
exclusively from out-of-state. Boat manufacturers typically specify territories for their dealers, so
customers from out of state, or in some cases the tri-state area, might not be allowed to buy a new boat
from Strong’s. This would also limit the market for winter storage and maintenance at SYC, since buyers
of late model boats under warranty typically bring them back to the dealer from which they purchased it
for warranty work.
The DEIS is silent on how SYC will handle repairs covered by warranties, which are charged back to the
manufacturer. Since the boat owners aren’t paying, there is no sales tax to be collected from them. It is
unclear if SYC will charge sales tax to the manufacturers when seeking reimbursement for warranty work
performed, particularly since the manufacturers of the new boats that SYC sells are located outside of
New York State.
The DEIS repeatedly states that “[a]dditional sales tax would be generated by the expected yacht sales by
SYC.” This claim is unsubstantiated. The DEIS does not state how the addition of two storage sheds will
increase yacht sales. In fact, the DEIS states “two new buildings (52,500 SF and 49,000 SF) will be for the
sole purpose of indoor, heated storage for larger vessels (i.e., yachts)” and does not mention anything
about displaying boats for sale, or marketing boats for sale, while stored inside these warehouses. The
Strong’s Marine bi-annual Yacht & Brokerage Showcase is routinely held at their Water Club location south
of the Project site. That location has been described by the developer as “park like.” Boats are displayed
both in the water and on land, in open air.
The DEIS also fails to provide the number of boats sold each year and instead only provides a dollar
figure of SYC Revenue from Boat Sales of “$16,000,000” (DEIS Table 48, p. 278)7. This is very misleading
to the average reader of the DEIS who might assume that $16,000,000 of boat sales at the local sales tax
rate of 8.625% would generate $1,380,000 in sales tax. It would not. Boat sales in New York State are
taxable only up to the sale price of $230,000 per boat – any amount in excess of $230,000 is exempt
6 Cruisers Yachts 60’ Cantius specifications, https://www.cruisersyachts.com/60-cantius.
7 All of the data on revenue and taxes (DEIS Tables 47 and 48) in the revised DEIS is for 2020. This is unchanged from data in the
original DEIS. All of this data should have been updated to include 2021, and possibly 2022, data.
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 3 Rev8c
from New York State sales tax.8 Additionally, in cases where SYC is in fact the "tri-state dealer" (NY-NJ-
CT) (COMMENT FIGURE ECONOMICS -2) for certain boat brands, and is able to sell boats to customers
outside of NYS, any sales of new or used boats to buyers from New Jersey or Connecticut will result in
no sales tax revenue for NYS at all.
The DEIS states “For all six of its Suffolk County locations, SYC paid $7.46 million in payroll in 2020, with
over $347,000 in state withholding taxes being generated. Additionally, over $2.7 million in sales and real
estate (property) taxes were generated in 2020” (p. 274).
It is important to highlight that the DEIS is misleading in this section. The amounts referenced are for all
Strong’s Marine locations in the county, not just SYC. Using “SYC” inconsistently throughout the DEIS to
refer to both the Strong’s Yacht Center and Strong’s affiliated entities often results in the obfuscation
and misrepresentation of data presented in the DEIS.
Information relating to taxes paid, based on revenues derived solely from SYC (Mattituck), although not
included in the DEIS proper, is included in DEIS Appendix E. Appendix E includes copies of data input by
the Applicant into the Marina Economic Impact Calculator (MEIC). According to that data, SYC (Mattituck)
paid $470,139 in sales taxes, and $610,126 in property taxes in 2020, for a total of less than $1.1 million
in sales and property taxes combined.
Property Tax Impacts
The Town of Southold will derive almost no benefit from increased property tax revenues from the
Project.
The DEIS states that the “proposed action represents a continued investment of the applicant into the
Town of Southold, which over the last eight years, has included property investments that have
contributed nearly $300,000 into the Town’s land preservation trust via the 2 percent real estate
transfer tax (pursuant to Chapter 17 – Article IV. Community Preservation Fund).”
It is unclear how the Applicant’s paying of legally required real estate transfer taxes is relevant to the
proposed Project. The proposed Project will not generate any funds for the Town’s land preservation
trust. The applicant’s past payment of these taxes in no way constitutes a mitigative measure for the
proposed Project, as the context in which it is made implies.
8 NYS Dept of Taxation and Finance – Technical Memorandum TSB-M-15(2)S
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 4 Rev8c
The 2022 taxable value of the property is $49,680. The full market value according to the 2022 Final
Assessment Roll is $7,097,143.9 The actual tax bill for the 2022-2023 fiscal-year is $75,335.30.10,11
According to the Southold Board of Assessors (DEIS Appendix E, correspondence dated June 25, 2021),
the increase in assessed value of the property would be $41,000. However, the Project would be eligible
for a 485-b Business Investment Exemption for ten years. As a result, the estimated increase in property
taxes for the first 3 years would be $32,234, Year 4 would be $37,677. These numbers are equivalent to
the combined property taxes paid by just a handful of average single-family Southold residences.
Employment Impacts
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to identify the “number of jobs created (full-time and part time)”, and
to “include the current levels of employment by Strong's at the site and employment that would
be generated by job description, salary benefit levels, etc. Assess the impact of additional employees.”
In response to this requirement the DEIS states that “[u]pon implementation of the proposed action,
SYC projects that an additional 11 employees12 would be added to increase the number of employees at
SYC to 28.13 The number of employees on-site would vary seasonally. Currently, from Monday through
Friday, 17 full-time employees are on-site. On Saturdays from approximately March 15 through
September 15 (season), 12 employees are on-site and from September 16 through March 15 (off-
season), the number decreases to four. On Sundays during the season, approximately four employees
9 According to the 2023 Tentative Assessment roll, the taxable value remains unchanged. However, the full market value has
increased significantly to $8,715,789.
10 https://tax.egov.basgov.com/southold/TaxBill/BillDetailsPaymentOptions?TaxBillID=a2317e78-7572-ed11-98ef-
509a4c486007
11 The 2021-2022 data indicates an assessed full market value of $5,645,455. The increase in full market value from 2021 to
2022 was $1,451,688. However, actual taxes paid increased from $74,059.20 to $75,335.30—only $1276
https://tax.egov.basgov.com/southold/TaxBill/BillDetailsPaymentOptions?TaxBillID=49e91495-8957-ec11-98b3-
509a4c486007
12 The Applicant has continuously misrepresented to the public the number of jobs that the Project would create. A fact sheet
widely circulated by the Applicant, and posted on his web site until April 23, 2023, states that the Project will create “at least
15 [not 11] new full-time, year-round career opportunities for local residents.”
https://strongsmarine.com/assets/images/pdf/4.6.22%20SYC%20building%20project%20fact%20sheet.pdf. (Accessed April
12, 2023). In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant again
stated that the Project would create 15 jobs, and that that would be “a big deal.” On April 23, 2023 the Applicant revised his
web site to indicate the Project create only 11 jobs. If 15 jobs are a “big deal,” misrepresenting the number of jobs created
by more than 36% is also a “big deal.”
13 The DEIS scope states that there “are approximately 13 full-time staff at the Strong's Yacht Center and, upon implementation
of the proposed action, the Applicant expects to create an additional 15 career positions” (p.3). However, the DEIS has
updated this number noting that “[s]ince the application was submitted in 2019, the number of full-time employees has
increased by four from 13 to 17 positions due to the growth in boat sales and required maintenance and storage needs
during the off-season” (p.15).
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 5 Rev8c
are on-site and during the off-season, only one employee is on-site. The anticipated 11 new employees
are anticipated to primarily be on-site on weekdays only” (DEIS pp. xxviii, 20, 279).
It is unclear from this if the reference to full-time employees refers to year-round full-time employees,
or if the number of full-time weekday employees varies seasonally. It is also unclear if the anticipated
11 new employees will be year-round or seasonal, as well as full-time employees.14 The DEIS never
refers to the anticipated new employees as “year-round” employees. The DEIS does state that “[A]s a
proposed winter storage facility, the buildings would be largely inactive for almost half of the year” (DEIS
p. 173). This would seem to indicate that any new jobs created would not be year-round.
The DEIS includes (Appendix E) information generated by the Applicant using the Association of Marina
Industries (AMI) Marina Economic Impact Calculator (MEIC), which calculates the impact on the local
economy based on the facility gross revenues provided by the user15. As the DEIS describes (pp.274-
277), the MEIC then calculates the number of direct, indirect, and induced jobs 16 associated with the
revenue information input into the MEIC. The only required data input is revenue data. No information
on the number of existing or anticipated employees is used by the MEIC. Instead, the MEIC is used to
determine the number of anticipated employees.
According to the MEIC-generated data in DEIS Appendix E, reproduced in DEIS Table 46, the number of
“direct” jobs generated by SYC in 2020 was 49. This is at variance with both the 13 full-time jobs that
existed in 2019 and the 17 full-time jobs that presently exist. DEIS Table 49 indicates that the MEIC
calculates that the number of full-time jobs that will be generated in 2024, if the Project is constructed,
will be 60. This is a net increase of 11, and is presumably the source of the statement that the Project
will generate an anticipated increase of 11 full-time employees.
Jobs figures generated by the MEIC include both full-time and part-time jobs. The DEIS’ main text fails to
note this.17 In addition, the MEIC’s significant overestimate of the number of existing jobs calls into
question its appropriateness for use in assessing the Project’s potential economic impacts.
14 The DEIS states that “Currently, from Monday through Friday, 17 full-time employees are on-site “(emphasis added) (DEIS p.
279). The employees to be added as a result of the Project are NOT described as full-time. It is also of note that the
Applicants ‘website for the Project, as of April 2023, states that the Project will create “at least 15 new full-time, year-round
career opportunities for local residents”.
https://strongsmarine.com/assets/images/pdf/4.6.22%20SYC%20building%20project%20fact%20sheet.pdf. This is another
example of misinformation that has been presented to community by the Applicant.
15 THE MEIC requires only gross annual revenues, year of data, and region/state selected from a pull-down menu.
16 Direct jobs are positions created directly through operation of a business. These jobs can be counted easily because they are
actual positions filled by actual people. Indirect jobs are those created as a result of the business’ spending on goods and
services, and induced jobs are created by the spending of the business’ employees within the region. Construction jobs may
be treated as direct jobs if the period of employment exceeds two years—which is not the case for the proposed Project.
17 This fact is noted in endnotes to tables in Appendix E.
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 6 Rev8c
The MEIC model is based on information from 42 commercial marinas in the U.S., spread over seven
regions of the U.S. (Atlantic-North, Atlantic-South, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Pacific-North, Pacific-
South, and Central). Only four of these marinas are located in the Northeast. It is clear from the MEIC-
generated data reproduced in Appendix E that SYC is atypical when compared to the marinas used to
create the MEIC model. As presented in Appendix E, and repeated in DEIS Table 48, in 2020 SYC
generated 85.72% of its revenues from boat sales, 0.92% from fuel sales, 0% from the lease revenue and
0% from the “all other” category. These figures are significantly different from the regional revenue
percentages of 4.8%, 18%, 13.3% and 45.8% respectively, used by the MEIC to construct the algorithm
used to generate its calculations.
The economic multipliers used by the MEIC to calculate indirect and induced job numbers, state and
local tax impacts, and federal tax impacts are all based on how revenues are distributed between nine
activity categories.18 The atypical distribution of revenue sources for SYC, compared to all the marinas
used to generate the economic multipliers employed by the MEIC, strongly suggest that the data
derived from the MEIC to evaluate the Project’s economic impact may be seriously flawed and
inaccurate to an unknown degree. The portions of the economic impact analysis in the DEIS that are
based on information derived from the MEIC should not be uncritically accepted by the Planning Board.
The DEIS states that “The proposed action is expected to generate approximately 11 new full-time jobs
for servicing of the boats in storage, most of which are expected to be local residents experienced in the
maritime industry. There is a resultant beneficial impact of additional employment and wages for the
local population” (p.312). No basis for the claim that new jobs would be filled by “local” residents is
presented in the DEIS. The DEIS also provides no definition of who it defines as a “local resident.” This is
significant as jobs filled by non-Southold residents will provide little in the way of economic benefits to
the Town of Southold.
The DEIS does not indicate if newly created positions will be filled immediately, or over a potentially
much longer unspecified period of time. This is of special concern as the Applicant has indicated that
the two proposed storage buildings may not be constructed at the same time.
According to the DEIS (p.15), the “types of jobs to be created include boat maintenance, machinery
operators, engine technicians, wood and fiberglass re-finishing personnel, and administration. The salary
ranges for the new full-time positions could be expected from approximately $50,000 to $125,000”, but
does not provide a more detailed breakdown. This information is not responsive to the DEIS scope
requirement that the DEIS include information “by job description, salary benefit levels, etc.” This
suggests that newly created jobs may be filled by non-Southold residents. These employees are unlikely
to relocate to Southold, as many of the jobs will fall within the income limits that would qualify the
employee for affordable housing. The need for affordable housing for employees in the Southold
18 In addition to the boat sales, fuel sales, lease revenue, and “all other” categories, the MEIC employs revenue figures from
merchandise sales, boat rentals, and food and beverage services as separate activity categories.
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 7 Rev8c
maritime industry has been of special concern to Town residents.19 The Project is likely to exacerbate
the already significant demand for affordable/workforce housing in Southold.
19 “Town seeks community input on affordable housing,” Suffolk Times, January 17, 2023; “Southold Town Board votes to put
affordable housing tax on November ballot as it works out plan,” Suffolk Times August 3, 2022; “The North Fork’s affordable
housing ‘crisis’ has reached new extremes,” Suffolk Times March 10, 2022.
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 8 Rev8c
COMMMENT FIGURE ECONOMICS -1
Page | Employment and Economic Impacts - 9 Rev8c
COMMENT FIGURE ECONOMICS – 2
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 1 Rev7d
FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACTS AND CONCERNS
The DEIS scope requires the DEIS to “discuss the threat of fire and explosion on site from all ignitable
sources” and “Include the evaluation of potential fire hazards, and if the Mattituck Fire Department
(MFD) is adequately equipped to respond to a fire at the site” (p.23). The scope notes that this “is of
special concern given the size of the structures and the combustibles within the stored boats.”
The DEIS has not adequately addressed this concern. Recent fires at large indoor boat storage and
service facilities1 (COMMENT FIGURES F1-F3), and a 2019 fire at Strong’s Water Club and Marina in
Mattituck2, highlight the need to ensure that the proposed Project will not pose an increased risk to the
environmental health and safety of Southold residents.
Reports describing the recent fires and boat storage facilities highlight some of the problems faced by
emergency responders and the potential environmental impacts associated with such fires. News
coverage of a recent (February 2023) (COMMENT FIGURE F3) fire at an indoor boat storage/marina
facility in Virginia noted the following:
• the response required over 50 firefighters from eight volunteer fire departments;
• doors could not be opened because of fears that wind coming through the door might push the
fire inside throughout the building;
• most boats had fuel in them and were made out of highly flammable fiberglass;
• a HAZMAT team was needed to handle hazardous materials and to control fire water runoff
along the shore;
• the U. S. Coast Guard was called and arrived on the scene and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) was notified;
• firefighters used saltwater pumped from a river and freshwater from fire hydrants.
News coverage of another recent (January 2023) boat storage/marina facility in Spain (COMMENT
FIGURE F4) reported the following:
• in a matter of minutes, flames devoured the structure until it collapsed with around 80 boats
from 20 ft-40 ft inside;
• some 30 firefighters, health services and a dozen civil protection volunteers were needed to
extinguish the fire;
• the fire spread at high speed through the materials and internal fuel sources;
• the smoke was extremely toxic due to the nature of the burned materials;
• a nearby hospital was told to keep windows closed as a precaution.
1 Toledo Beach Marina (La Salle, Michigan) in 2020: Woodland Marina (St. Charles County, Mo.) in 2020; Seattle’s South Park
Marina in 2021.
2 Four boats destroyed during overnight fire at Mattituck Marina, Suffolk Times August 13, 2019.
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 2 Rev7d
The DEIS has not adequately addressed the possibility that the Mattituck Fire Dept. (MFD) may not have
sufficient equipment (even with mutual aid from other nearby departments) and personnel to
adequately respond to a major fire at the Project site. The MFD has been concerned about the number
of volunteers in the department and has been engaged in an active recruitment campaign for some
time.3 The MFD has frequently been required to call on other nearby departments for assistance.4 A
February 2022 fire at a boat storage warehouse in Illinois required about 100 firefighters from
departments in three counties more than 6.5 hours to get under control.5 A March 2023 fire at a marina
indoor boat storage facility in Seattle required a “total of 14 fire engines, five ladder trucks, [a] fire boat .
. . and additional support units . . . consisting of approximately more than 100 personnel.”6
As the Boat US Foundation notes: “Today's fiberglass/composite boats burn very quickly, and produce
large volumes of toxic smoke that is equally as dangerous.” Burning fiberglass fumes include styrene (a
suspected carcinogen), methyl ethyl ketone, and phosgene. All are considered hazardous air pollutants.
Reports of a March 2023 boat storage warehouse fire in Illinois and the Seattle fire (COMMENT FIGURE
F5) reported: “’They no sooner opened up the front doors, and all this smoke come out, and you could
smell the fiberglass,’ he said. ‘The smoke was a combination of black smoke and yellow, and the yellow
smoke was the fiberglass burning up,”7 and “Parts of the Seattle area saw air quality levels in the
moderate to unhealthy for sensitive groups range as a result of the marina fire”.8
As proposed, the Project does not include adequate fire safety measures and will constitute an
unnecessary and unacceptable safety risk to the community and the environment.
Fire Safety Plan
No Fire Safety Plan for the proposed Project is included in the DEIS.
The Fire Safety Plan for the existing facility is defective and inadequate.
3 https://patch.com/new-york/northfork/mattituck-fire-district-revisits-building-expansion
4 https://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2022/05/mattituck-cutchogue-fire-departments-extinguish-barn-blaze/
5 https://apnews.com/article/fires-chicago-kenosha-waukegan-e918913ddd34f1fb827750248e14c6c0
6 https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-police-probe-massive-marina-fire-damaged-30-boats-risked-spill-hazardous-chemicals
7 https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/boat-owners-concerned-after-fire-sparks-at-muskegon-marina/69-6dadc2c3-
660b-44be-a70c-145b97fd62a9
8 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/22/seattle-marina-fire-suspect-arrested-portage-bay/11521058002/
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 3 Rev7d
The DEIS states that “at the recommendation9 of the Southold Fire Marshal, a Fire Safety Plan has been
developed by SYC [Strongs Yacht Club] to provide hazard locations, utility and water supply information,
and emergency procedures for its employees. A copy of this Fire Safety Plan is included in Appendix P”
(p.190, see also p. xv).
Appendix P contains what is titled “Proposed Fire Safety Plan” (emphasis added). It is dated September
21, 2021 and consists of two pages of bulleted items and two maps. The plan included in Appendix P is
not a fire safety plan for the proposed Project:
• the Building/Site Layout Information section lists the nine existing marina structures. No
mention is made of the two enormous new structures being proposed;10
• the list of hazard locations does not include the four proposed 2000-gallon propane tanks, nor
does the map of the marina’s facilities;
• the Utility Information section does not include information about new utility installations
associated with the proposed Project; and
• the water supply section makes no mention of the new hydrant included in the Project
description, and cryptically describes the primary water supply as “Hydrant supply to property at
Main entrance from Naugles Dr. to Cox Neck direct to Yacht Center”. One of two maps in the
plan 11 depicts a hand-drawn highlighted yellow line identified as “hydrant location” (COMMENT
FIGURE F6).
The fire safety plan included in Appendix P is not applicable to the proposed Project. In addition, it
appears that the fire safety plan (existing and/or proposed) may not even comply with the OSHA’s
Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment regulations set forth at 29 CFR
1915.1502 or with other components of various fire codes.
Section 3.9.3 of the DEIS states that “[F]urthermore, as evaluated in Section 3.9.2 [impacts associated
with ignitable sources] of this DEIS, the proposed [fire safety] plan was submitted to the Mattituck Fire
Department and no potential service issues were identified (p.190). This is misleading as it appears that
a copy of the fire safety plan in Appendix P was never submitted to the fire department.12
9 The Southold Fire Marshall stated that “Although not required by code for this occupancy, it is recommended a fire safety
plan be developed and trained upon by employees”.
10 In addition, the building numbering system used on the maps in the Fire Safety Plan do not correspond to the building
numbers used in the DEIS (p.2). The potential for confusion in the event of an emergency is obvious.
11 The base map, obviously downloaded from the internet, bears a “Google Maps” logo. Streets, the shore of Mattituck Creek,
and a marker labeled “Strong’s Yacht Center” are shown. No actual hydrant location is shown. Actual street names are
illegible, as are the locations of any structures, including any of the existing marina facilities. The highlighted yellow line may
be intended to represent the route from a hydrant at Naugles Drive to the SYC entrance. The second map in the plan has a
hand annotation reading “hydrant on Naugles Drive .3 mi”, but neither map shows the actual hydrant location.
12 The copy of the transmittal (dated June 17, 2021 in Appendix P) from the Applicant’s consultants (PWGC) included in
Appendix P does not include a copy of the fire safety plan among its attachments, and does not reference that plan. In
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 4 Rev7d
The Applicant’s failure to include an appropriate and relevant fire safety plan in the DEIS, even though
one may not necessarily be required at this stage of Project review, is significant because the “Proposed
Fire Safety Plan” is offered by the Applicant as “proposed mitigation” in support of the DEIS’ conclusion
that the Project would have “no significant adverse impacts to human health” (p.191).
Section 3.9.3 of the DEIS also states that the “proposed development would not result in any significant
adverse social or economic impacts. As such, mitigation is not required. Regarding fire safety, the
following mitigation has been incorporated: At the recommendation of the Town Fire Marshal, a Fire
Safety Plan has been prepared to provide hazard locations, utility and water supply information, and
emergency procedures for its employees” (DEIS p. 283). The proposed fire safety plan included as DEIS
Appendix P is inadequate and defective by any standard. It is not acceptable mitigation for increased
fire risks associated with the proposed Project. It may not even be acceptable for the existing marina
facilities.
Fire Department and Fire Marshall Review
According to the DEIS “in the reply correspondence dated July 27, 2021, the chief of the Mattituck Fire
Department indicated that the department ‘has the capability to handle any fire situation on the
proposed plan with the additional hydrant that is being installed’” (p.283).
Although deference should be shown to the opinions and expertise of the Mattituck Fire Department,
we would point out several areas of concern:
According to NFPA 1 13 Chapter 18 ((Fire Department Access and Water Supply), Section 18.5.3, “Fire
hydrants shall be provided for buildings other than detached one- and two-family dwellings in
accordance with both of the following: (1) The maximum distance to a fire hydrant from the closest
point on the building shall not exceed 400 ft (122 m). (2) The maximum distance between fire hydrants
shall not exceed 500 ft (152 m)”. The new hydrant proposed as part of the project (which will be the
only hydrant available to service both the existing marina and the proposed Project structures) will be
located approximately 800 feet (straight-line distance) from the nearest part of proposed Storage
Building No. 1, and even farther from proposed Storage Building No. 2. In addition, Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has recommended “the installation of an additional fire hydrant
at the end of the line” (DEIS Appendix J).
addition, the Fire Safety Plan is dated September 2, 2021—more than two months after comments were requested from the
fire department. The fire department’s reply is dated July 27, 2021
13 National Fire Protection Association Code
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 5 Rev7d
No information was included in the original, December 2021, DEIS to indicate that minimum “fire flow”14
requirements for the proposed Project would be met.15 The revised DEIS contains a Water Design
Report (in DEIS Appendix J) which does discuss fire flow. It states that the “water supply system has
been designed for a maximum fire flow of 1,500 GPM with a total head loss of 29 PSI.” An accompanying
table indicates water main service flows and pressures, including “Pressure Downstream @ Building.”
The “Building” is not identified. This information was not available to either the Southold Fire Marshall,
or the Mattituck Fire Department, at the time they prepared their comments on the Project.
The Water Design Report also states that “The farthest connection is approximately 2,000 ft from the
existing water main in Naugles Road and PWGC has performed design calculations to ensure that
adequate pressure will be provided at this connection point.” However, it is unclear where that
“farthest connection” is. The proposed hydrant would be located less than 1,000 ft from the existing
water main in Naugles Road. The proposed water service line will extend as far as the bathroom in
proposed Boat Storage Building No. 2, which is approximately 2,000 ft. away, but there is no indication
that a fire department hose connection will be located there. In its last review of the Project, dated June
16, 2022 (see DEIS Appendix J), the SCDHS noted that information submitted by the Applicant “do not
show fire separated from domestic service.” As noted above, the SCHDS also recommended “the
installation of an additional fire hydrant at the end of the line.”
According to IFC16 Appendix B (Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings) Section B103.1 “[T]he fire chief is
authorized to reduce the fire-flow requirements for isolated buildings or a group of buildings in rural
areas or small communities where the development of full fire-flow requirements is impractical.” The
Planning Board needs to either confirm that fire flow requirements will be met, or that the fire chief has
exercised his authority to reduce the required fire flow. In the latter case, the Planning Board should
determine what Project modifications/alternatives, such as adding hydrants or standpipes, could satisfy
fire flow requirements. If pumping water from Mattituck Creek, or use of existing on-site wells, is
anticipated as part of any fire response plan 17 the potential environmental impacts should have been
addressed in the DEIS. They are not.
14 “Fire flow” is the maximum rate and duration of water flow needed to suppress a fire. Fire flow is important for emergency
response as it is the total capacity of the system that the fire department has available for use in response to a fire.
15The SCDHS also noted in its January 25, 2021 notice of application incompleteness to the Project engineers (DEIS Appendix J)
that they needed to provide “hydrant flow data with and without fire flow as part of [a Water Design Report that also
includes] the number of fixture units in the report, a riser diagram, & calculations for the needed fire flow using the ISO
method”.
16 The International Fire Code (IFC) is a set of provisions designed to address life and property hazards associated with buildings
and related premises. It is primarily focused on fire prevention and fire protection, and it is generally concerned with
addressing potential harm from fires, explosions, hazardous materials, and unsafe use or occupancy of buildings and
premises. The IFC has been adopted by New York State as part of the NYS Fire Code.
17 “Water Draft from Mattituck Inlet Creek” is identified in the Fire Safety Plan as a water source in addition to the primary
source—the new hydrant proposed a part of the Project.
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 6 Rev7d
There is no discussion in the DEIS relating to the possible need for standpipes. Section 3604.2 of the
New York State Fire Code requires that “Marinas and boatyards shall be equipped throughout with
standpipe systems in accordance with NFPA 303. Systems shall be provided with hose connections
located such that no point on the marina pier or float system exceeds 150 feet (15 240 mm) from a
standpipe hose connection.” No existing or proposed standpipes are indicated on Project plans 18,
although plans do indicate that water lines will be extended to service bathrooms in each of the
proposed storage buildings.
On June 17, 2021 the Applicant’s consultant requested comments on the Project from the Mattituck Fire
Marshal, and the Fire Marshal responded on June 24, 2021 (DEIS Appendix P). In addition to noting a
number of standard code requirements, the Fire Marshal specifically stated that “Fire Department
access shall be provided within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of all buildings”. The
proposed Project site plan will not allow for adequate access to the north side of proposed Storage
Building No. 1, and the east sides of both proposed Storage Building No. 1 and proposed Storage
Building No. 2, as the distance between these structures and the adjacent proposed retaining wall will
be only 10 feet 19.
In addition, according to the Mattituck Fire Department, fire apparatus “need to park out of collapse
zones of buildings, this would be approximately 30 feet . . .”20 The distance between the two
proposed storage buildings is 60 feet. This means that if both structures were involved in a fire, fire
apparatus would be required to enter the collapse zone.
Given the heights of the proposed storage buildings, it is likely that aerial ladder trucks21 may need to be
employed in the event of a fire. According to the New York State Fire Code22, “Aerial fire apparatus
access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (4572 mm), exclusive of shoulders, in
the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof.”
According to the DEIS, although “the Fire Marshal recommended a 150-foot Fire Department access
area from all exterior walls of the two proposed buildings . . . the Mattituck Fire Department’s [July 27,
2021] correspondence (explained above) was accepted by the Fire Marshal as adequate for not
providing the recommended access area” (p.283). There is no evidence that this is the case. There is
18 The US Fire Administration (part of the Department of Homeland Security), in a report on the1989 boat storage structure
fire at the Bohemia Bay Marina in Maryland, called out the lack of standpipes as a “key issue.” (USFA Technical Report TR-
026/January 1989.
19 According to NFPA 1, Chapter 18 (Fire Department Access and Water Supply) Section 18.2.3.4.1.1 “Fire department access
roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 ft”.
20 https://mattituckfiredepartment.com/truck-company
21 e.g. Mattituck FD’s Ladder 8 company with its 95-foot ladder.
22 Appendix D (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) Section D105.2 (Width).
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 7 Rev7d
nothing in the Fire Marshal’s response indicating he has accepted the failure to provide adequate fire
department access to all sides of the proposed structures.
The DEIS is non-responsive to the Southold Fire Marshal’s comment that a sprinkler system is required
and must meet code requirements.
The Southold Fire Marshal also noted the need for a sprinkler system for the Project:
“An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13. Design of
the sprinkler system should include but is not limited to:
o Evaluation of water supply – is the capacity/location adequate for firefighting
efforts.
o What are the area (sq. ft.) limitations of the sprinkler system?
o What is the hazard level of the building? Classification of commodities?
o What are the specific design features required found in Chapters 12, 15, 17 and 20?”
(June 24, 2021 correspondence from Southold Fire Marshal, DEIS Appendix P).
There is nothing in the DEIS indicating that these questions have been answered.
Although there presumably (?) will be one, no mention of a sprinkler system is included in the DEIS’
Project description, and no sprinkler system is shown on the Project’s utility plans (DEIS Appendix C).23
NFPA 1 requires that when “a structure exceeds 5,000 sq. ft., it is required to have a fire sprinkler
system installed regardless of construction type—unless an AHJ [Authority Having Jurisdiction] permits
the omission of sprinklers based on certain factors.”24 There is no indication in the DEIS that the
appropriate AHJ25 has waived the requirement for sprinklers.26 In fact, the fire department and Fire
23 Correspondence dated August 2, 2021, from the Project’s consulting engineer, Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C., to PSE&G (DEIS
Appendix P) references the need for electrical loads to service “Dry system sprinkler pumps” in the proposed storage
buildings. If it the intention of the Applicant to install a dry sprinkler system, it should be noted that such systems have
numerous disadvantages compared to wet systems. Disadvantages include increased complexity (dry pipe systems require
additional control equipment and air pressure supply components which increases system complexity. Without proper
maintenance this equipment may be less reliable than a comparable wet pipe system); Increased fire response time - Up to
60 seconds may pass from the time a sprinkler opens until water is discharged onto the fire. This will delay fire extinguishing
actions, which may produce increased content damage.
24 NFPA 303:6.3.3.4 “Existing facilities shall not be required to be protected by an automatic fire-extinguishing system where
acceptable to the AHJ. NFPA 303: A.6.3.1.3 “Where clearly impractical for economic or physical reasons, the AHJ could permit
the omission of an automatic fire-extinguishing system when considering water supply availability and adequacy and size of
facility.” It is unknown whether or not existing structures at the Project site are equipped with a fire suppression system.
25 It is unclear whether the Southold Fire Marshal or the Mattituck Fire Department chief is the AHJ for the Project.
26 The US Fire Administration (part of the Department of Homeland Security), in a report on the1989 boat storage structure
fire at the Bohemia Bay Marina in Maryland, called out the lack of sprinklers as a “key issue.” (USFA Technical Report TR-
026/January 1989.
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 8 Rev7d
Marshall reviews assumed that the new storage buildings would be equipped “with fire suppression
systems.”
The DEIS states that “based on the above-described coordination with both the local fire department
and Town Fire Marshal, the proposed action would not create any potential fire safety issues” (p.283).
This seemingly definitive statement is not supported by the “above-described coordination.” As noted,
the Fire Marshal raised several issues that have not been adequately addressed. In addition, although
the fire department indicated that it “has the capability to handle any fire situation on the proposed
plan,” that is not the same thing as saying that the plan does not create any new potential fire safety
issues beyond those that may currently exist at the marina. For example, the addition of four 2000-
gallon propane tanks, even if properly installed and maintained creates a “fire safety issue” even if all
fire code requirements are satisfied. Likewise, the on-site indoor storage of large vessels containing
gasoline, diesel fuel, and large amounts of wood and fiberglass reinforced polyester, has the potential to
significantly increase the severity of any fire emergency. It is for this reason that the New York State Fire
Code classifies indoor dry boat storage structures in structure group S-1 (Moderate-hazard storage).
NFPA 303.7.2.1.5 states that “Where a boat is to be dry-stored for the season or stored indoors for an
extended period of time . . . the following precaution shall be taken: . . . Permanently installed fuel tanks
shall be stored at least 95 percent full.” The DEIS never discusses the potential hazard associated with
the large volume of fuel that would present on vessels being stored.
The designation of the Project’s on-site construction haul road as a post-construction fire access road
occurred after the Fire Marshall and the Fired Department completed their reviews.27 As discussed
below, this road does not satisfy code requirements for fire access roads.
Post-Construction Use of the Haul Road
The proposed emergency access road (the haul road) does not conform to code requirements.
According to the DEIS, a “haul road would be constructed from the proposed Construction Excavation
Area to West Mill Road, as shown on the Excavation Phasing Plan and Haul Road Plan in Appendix C. This
haul road would be used for the entirety of Phase 1 and would remain as an emergency access road
post-construction (pp. xxx, 18, 34) . . . for use by police, fire, or ambulance vehicles, as necessary”
(p.288, see also pp. ii, xiv, 163, 209, 212, 217, 222, 285).
The referenced Haul Road Plan does not show the eastern terminus of the haul road, or how close it will
come to the proposed storage buildings. However, the “Aerial Overly” graphic in DEIS Appendix C does
[COMMENT FIGURE F7]. The haul road would allow fire apparatus to come close to the Project site at
27 The original DEIS never identifies the “emergency access road” as a fire access road. The revised DEIS states that the road
“could be used to direct water down from the higher elevation onto a structure fire” (DEIS pp. 19, 290).
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 9 Rev7d
the top of the retaining wall, but “[T]here would be no access for vehicles or personnel past that point”
(p.18, 285). As the DEIS notes, the haul road “could be used to direct water down from higher elevation
onto a structure fire.” However, no readily available water source exists to service that location.
Firefighters would have to rely on tanker trucks.28 Fire department access roads require 20 ft of
unobstructed width.29 The proposed haul road will be only 16 ft wide for most of its length.
In addition, the haul road would not provide adequate turn-around space for fire apparatus as required
by code 30.
Propane Tanks, Lithium Batteries, and Other Potential Fire Dangers
The Project includes the installation of four 2000-gallon propane tanks.31 Although the DEIS mentions
that it will comply with 2020 NYS Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58 as they
relate to the liquid propane gas (LPG) tanks proposed for the Project, it never discusses, or even
mentions, Chapter 36 (Marinas) of the New York State Fire Code 32, or NFPA 303 (Fire Protection
Standard for Marinas and Boatyards). Chapter 7 of NFPA 303 deals specifically with berthing and
storage.
Even when installed according to code and properly maintained, propane tanks still present a danger.
On rare occasions, propane tank explosions can occur from the pressure of the propane tank reaching
higher than the pressure that the tank can safely vent, causing the tank to burst open. This can occur if
the structure adjacent to the tanks (e.g., the proposed storage buildings) is on fire. This kind of explosion
is called a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE). The DEIS should have addressed this
possibility and evaluated the potential impact, and the ability of the Mattituck Fire Department to
adequately respond.
The DEIS makes no mention of how often the propane tanks would require refilling. The DEIS notes that
“the tanks are subject to compliance with the 2020 NYS Fire Code and the National Fire Protection
28 The Mattituck Fire Department possess only one 8500-gallon tanker in addition to water carried on other apparatus.
29 NYS Fire Code Section 503.2.1. Because of its length, the proposed road would require a greater width.
30 NYS Fire Code Section 511.2.2 “When driveways are in excess of 500 feet in length and do not exit to another fire apparatus
access road or public street, a turn-around shall be provided suitable for use by fire apparatus.” In addition, Section D103
requires that dead-end fire apparatus access roads meet specific turnaround requirements. Roads between 501 and 750 feet
long require the turnaround to be a “120-foot Hammerhead, 60-foot “Y” or 96-foot diameter cul-de-sac.”
31However, p.161 of the DEIS states that “In total, there would be four (4) LPG tanks for each building . . .” (emphasis added).
Presumably this an error, but it is another example of the lack of care with which the DEIS has been prepared.
32 “Chapter 36 addresses the fire protection and prevention requirements for marinas. It was developed in response to the
complications encountered by a number of fire departments responsible for the protection of marinas as well as fire loss
history in marinas that lacked fire protection. Compliance with this chapter intends to establish safe practices . . .and provide
fire fighters with safe operational areas and fire protection methods to extend hose lines in a safe manner” (2020 Fire Code
of New York State, pp. xiii, 335).
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 10 Rev7d
Association 58 – Liquified Petroleum Gas Code, which sets forth requirements for installation, setbacks,
and protection from vehicle impacts” (DEIS pp. vii-viii, 77). However, no consideration is given to the
possibility the proposed protection would be adequate to protect against impact from an 85-ton
travelift transporting yachts to and from the proposed storage buildings.
According to the DEIS, yacht repair and maintenance activities would occur within the on-site buildings
and/or at the existing dock. Those activities are planned to occur inside the proposed storage buildings
and will include potential ignition sources. Given that stored yachts will be generally have full fuel tanks,
a substantial fire risk will be created.
The DEIS fails to take into account potential fire hazards associated the presence of lithium batteries
on boats and yachts that will be stored in the proposed storage buildings.
Larger new cruising yachts have been routinely fitted with lithium-ion boat batteries for the past few
years. Sailing yacht manufacturer Arcona, for instance, says up to 90% of their larger yachts--the largest
is 15.8 m [52 ft]--now leave the factory equipped with them. Lithium batteries are being installed on
boats and yachts because it allows for cooking facilities to be changed from gas to electric induction
cooking, and to change from a gas-powered tender to an electrically powered one. “However, there is
so much power concentrated in a lithium boat battery that its chemistry is more lively than that of
conventional batteries, with a potential thermal runaway situation able to create a self-sustaining fire
that’s impossible to control.”33
According to 2022 information from ITA Yachts Canada, on boats within the 2 – 24m (6.5 – 78.7 ft)
range, lithium technology has already replaced many combustion engines and lead-acid batteries for
electrically powered boats. These batteries are also becoming more popular for recreational boats.
Niche markets such as yachts, watercraft, and underwater vehicles will also eventually switch to lithium
batteries.34 In July 2022, the American Boat & Yacht Council (ABYC) introduced ABYC Standard E-13,
Lithium Ion Batteries. The May 23, 2023 issue of Soundings-Trade Only notes that “batteries are an
evolving technology, we expect lithium-ion batteries to be a growing part of marine electrical
systems.”35,36
33 https://www.yachtingworld.com/gear-reviews/lithium-boat-batteries-upgrade-electrics-128151
34 https://itayachtscanada.com/lithium-ion-batteries-in-the-boating-world/
35 https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/post-type-feature/lithium-ion-batteries-are-coming-of-
age?utm_campaign=Trade%20Only%20Today%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=256488758&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-
8b-LXqeXFDO1QRzErruLGKI4E-jU-
Twt195M1IpxTTH7CmS4q8Bt9QhSaSluzTHpc1kHtKHERC_eNGa2KEuthhing8jg&utm_content=256488758&utm_source=hs_e
mail
36 At the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant was asked “Do any of these boats have
those lithium-ion batteries?” The Applicant answered: “They do not currently.” This does not seem credible.
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 11 Rev7d
On February 21, 2023, a yacht insurance underwriter at the Beasley Group, expanded his comments on
lithium battery fire hazards that appeared in the January 2023 issue of Boat International.37 The
underwriter noted that “there has been a lot of speculation as to the cause of several [yacht] fires in the
last couple of years, with the toys [e.g. jet skis, electric surfboards, electric underwater scooters]
onboard being cited as the most probable cause. The Maltese Marine Safety Investigation Unit’s report
into the fire on [one yacht] concluded that ‘that the Li-ion batteries on board were either the cause of
the fire, and / or a contributing factor to the intensity and spread of the fire.’38
It does not appear that the Mattituck Fire Department or the Mattituck Fire Marshall considered the
potential dangers associated with the presence of lithium-ion batteries on yachts stored in the proposed
storage buildings when they conducted their reviews of the Project. The Southold community has
recently expressed special concerns about the hazards of the lithium-ion battery fires associated with
proposed BESS facilities, emphasizing the difficulties in extinguishing such fires. In February of 2023 a
lithium-battery-powered Tesla was involved in an accident in East Marion. “First responders from
Orient, East Marion and Southold arrived and, only after two hours of pouring large amounts of water
on the burning vehicles, managed to bring the fire under control. . . [A}re our fire departments, staffed
by volunteers, equipped to put out electric fires such as the one that claimed the lives of four people
Friday night?”39
Lithium-ion batteries located on yachts in the proposed storage buildings not only present a possible
ignition source, they would create special problems if involved in the fire department’s response to
any fire within the proposed buildings.
Impacts on Emergency Responses
The DEIS has failed to address impacts associated with delays in emergency response times to locations
located along the Project truck routes, especially to locations along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads. The
more than 10,000 truck tips generated by the Project during the six-month-or-more-long excavation
phase means that it is likely that at least one Project haul truck will be travelling on those roads at all
times during that period. Research shows that traffic slows down fire trucks and EMS vehicles arriving at
the scene of an emergency, and increases the average monetary damages from fires.40
37 https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/yacht-fires-lithium-ion-
batteries?j=347744&sfmc_sub=14182049&l=55_HTML&u=9542140&mid=500009995&jb=2006&utm_source=sfmc&utm_me
dium=email&utm_campaign=Deep+Dive+newsletter+140123&utm_term=ARE+LITHIUM-
ION+BATTERIES+TO+BLAME+FOR+RECENT+BOAT+BLAZES%3f+CTA&utm_id=347744&sfmc_id=14182049
38 https://www.beazley.com/en-001/articles/are-lithium-ion-batteries-blame-recent-boat-blazes
39 https://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2023/02/editorial-the-electric-car-fire-that-cost-four-lives-is-a-warning/
40 Brent, Daniel and Louis-Philippe Beland (2020), Traffic congestion, transportation policies, and the performance of first
responders, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 103:1-28
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 12 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F1
Toledo Beach Marina in Monroe County in southeastern Michigan (December, 2020)
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/12/04/monroe-county-boat-storage-facility-
flames/3821844001/
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/massive-fire-breaks-out-at-toledo-beach-marina-in-monroe-county
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 13 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F2
Woodland Marina in St. Charles County, Missouri (October, 2020)
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/fire-woodland-marina-st-charles-county/63-5e9823c3-34ba-4345-9a24-
f989b509ebb0
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/fire-woodland-marina-st-charles-county/63-5e9823c3-34ba-4345-9a24-
f989b509ebb0
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 14 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F3
South Park Marina in Seattle, Washington (September, 2021)
https://komonews.com/news/local/fire-explodes-in-south-park-marina-workshop-sends-one-to-hospital
The Boatyard at Christchurch near Urbanna, Virginia (February, 2023)
https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/fire-threatens-100-boats/
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 15 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F4
Marina Marbella (Spain) (January 2023)
https://boattest.com/article/fire-storage-facility-destroys-80-boats
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 16 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F5
Smoke rises from a fire at Safe Harbor Great Lakes Marina (Muskegon, Illinois) on March 6, 2023
https://www.woodtv.com/news/muskegon-county/crews-battle-fire-at-muskegon-boat-storage-building/
A marina fire on Seattle’s Portage Bay (Seattle Fire Department photo) (March 2023)
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 17 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F6
Page |Fire and Public Safety - 18 Rev7d
COMMENT FIGURE F7
Haul Road Plan (DEIS Appendix C)
Aerial Overlay (DEIS Appendix C)
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 1 Rev.10
CULTURAL RESOURCES (HISTORIC STRUCTURES)
The Amended Final Scope for the DEIS for the Strong’s Yacht Center (SYC) Building Storage Project (the
Project) calls for a discussion of “the effects of excavation and vibration from machinery, heavy
equipment and trucks on structures surrounding the site” and “on existing neighboring structures”. The
Scope also calls for a discussion of “the project's potential impacts to historic and archeological
resources”. It specifically calls out three unevaluated structures within approximately 1000 feet of the
Project area (two of which are immediately adjacent) that are listed in the State Historic Preservation
Office’s (SHPO)1 Building-Structure Inventory. The Scope also calls for “an evaluation as to if and how
these structures may be visually or otherwise (noise, vibration during construction) affected by the
project and, if potentially affected, if they satisfy the eligibility criteria for the State Register of Historic
Places.”
Section 617.7(c)(1)(v) of the SEQRA regulations requires lead agencies, such as the Town of Southold
Planning Board, to assess whether a significant adverse impact may occur to environmental features
surrounding the action, including . . . historic resources and determine if a proposed undertaking will
result in “the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural,
or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.”
DEIS Appendix T includes an Historic Resources Survey (HRS) report entitled Strong’s Yacht Center –
Proposed Boat Storage Buildings, Reconnaissance-Level Historic Resources Survey, dated July 2021,
prepared by Carol S. Weed. This report is quoted extensively in the DEIS and is the primary source of
information used to assess Project impacts to historic structures. Additional relevant information is
included in a vibration report (included in DEIS Appendix R) which was not part of the original DEIS, and
in the Supplemental Data Appendix included in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in DEIS Appendix
O. The HRS (DEIS Appendix T) has not been updated to include this information. It is unlikely that a
reader of the DEIS concerned about the Project’s impacts to historic properties will refer to an appendix
dealing with vibration.
The HRS inappropriately substituted the use of adjacent parcels (including parcels immediately opposite
the Project site on the east side of Mattituck Inlet) as the study area for defining impacts to historic
structures, rather than using the Project’s viewshed—the area within which the project will be visible.
The HRS should not have been undertaken until after the “detailed visual impact analysis for the action,
including (dimensional relief and color of site structures existing and proposed) identification of the
Project's zone of visual influence (ZVI)” had been completed, as called for in the DEIS scope.
1 The New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is the NYS Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation. The staff of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation
(OPRHP) serves as the SHPO staff. The Building-Structure Inventory is accessible through OPRHP’s Cultural Resource
Information System (CRIS).
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 2 Rev.10
The HRS is not a substitute for a comprehensive survey of the ZVI (and possibly different Areas of
Potential Effect (APE) associated with vibration, noise, lighting, and air quality) by a qualified
architectural historian. Likewise, because the HRS may not have adequately identified all historically
significant properties within the Areas of Potential Effect for visual and traffic impacts (including noise
and vibration), it may have compromised other visual, acoustic, and lighting studies being carried out for
the Project which must take into account the presence of “sensitive receptors”, which are defined to
include historic properties.
No Project-specific field survey by a qualified architectural historian (defined as an individual who
satisfies the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualification standards in architectural history)2 was
undertaken for the Project. Instead, the HRS author chose to rely almost exclusively on pre-existing file
data and limited field visits. As a result, the HRS contains extensive commentary on numerous structures
which appear highly unlikely to be considered historic (but which should, however, be considered in the
separate visual assessment being completed for the Project). In at least one case (200 East Mill Road) a
property is included in the visual impact analysis even though the HRS notes that the SHPO has
determined it does not qualify as a “historic property.” One property, the Mill Road Preserve, although it
may be affected by the Project, is not even a structure.
The HRS makes only limited use of historic cartography, although this type of data is essential in
evaluating the historic significance of structures. The HRS does include reproductions of portions of
historic maps dating from 1902-1904 (HRS Figure 7), 1904 (HRS Figure 8), 1947 (HRS Figure 12) and 1956
(HRS Figure 13), but in all cases the portions provided do not include the southern and western portions
of the Project haul truck route along West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road, and Sound Avenue.3 The absence
of a more comprehensive cartographic study is concerning. It is also perplexing, as the HRS author did
include a somewhat more detailed analysis, including a reproduction of at least one additional historic
map, in the Phase 1B archeological study prepared three months after the HRS. Both the HRS and the
archeological reports fail to mention the 1838 NOS T-sheet (T sheet 55) which shows the locations of
some of the structures discussed in the HRS as well as then-existing land cover (the Project site is shown
2 The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history,
historic preservation, or closely related field with coursework in American architectural history or a bachelor's degree in
architectural history, art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one of the following: 1. At least two years
of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an
academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or 2. Substantial
contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural
history (36 CFR 61, Appendix A).
3 Several of these figures (7, 8 12 and 13) lack a scale making them difficult to use when trying to geo-reference identified
structures with those on modern amps.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 3 Rev.10
as wooded).4 The HRS also fails to reference the readily available Beers’ 1873 Atlas of Long Island, which
shows structure-level detail.5
The HRS’ attempts to evaluate Project impacts to historic properties was premature. The evaluation
was done prior to delineation of an accurate viewshed, and without making use of other data sets
(traffic, vibration and noise impact studies also required by the DEIS scope in addition to the visual
analysis). The result is a superficial and inaccurate document that should not be used to evaluate
property-specific impacts, or as a basis for designing mitigation measures.
The Executive Summary of the HRS implies (p.2) that analysis of Project impacts to historic structures
could be limited to “three unevaluated structures listed in OPRHP’s Cultural Resources Information
System (CRIS) within approximately 1000 feet of the project area” referred to in the DEIS Scope. (These
three structures are discussed below). There is no basis for this, and it does not appear that that was the
Planning Board’s intent. Rather, the three structures were called out, after being brought to the Board’s
attention during the scoping process, and because Part 1 of the Applicant-prepared Environmental
Assessment Form (AEF) for the Project answered “NO” to the question “[h]ave additional archaeological
or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site?” Additionally, at the time of scoping
the Applicant had not clearly identified specific off-site haul truck traffic routes—an important factor in
considering if historic structures could be affected by noise and vibration from Project-related truck
traffic.
The HRS Executive Summary also notes that “The Town Final Scope (4/5/21) recognized four indirect
effects that might result from the implementation of the Project. These effects are changes in air quality,
noise, vibration, and viewshed (setting)” (emphasis added) (HRS p. 2). The HRS fails to adequately
address these potential impacts. The revised DEIS includes as part of a new vibration assessment, a
discussion of potential vibration-related impacts to historic structures. There is no indication that the
Applicant’s cultural resources consultant was involved in the preparation of that report.
The Planning Board’s DEIS Scope never refers to “changes in air quality, noise, vibration, and viewshed”
as “indirect”. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.8) define the impacts and
effects that must be addressed and considered by Federal agencies in satisfying the requirements of the
Federal EIS process. These include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts: “Direct effects are caused by
the action and occur at the same time and place. . . Indirect effects are caused by the action and are
later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” New York State’s
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations require lead agencies, such as the Southold
Planning Board, to “consider reasonably related long-term, short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts” (6 NYCRR 617.7[c][2]). NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) SEQRA
4 The relevant portion of National Ocean Service (NOS) T-sheet 55 is reproduced in Morgan et al (2005). That study is listed in
the references cited sections of the both the HRS and the Phase IA archeological report prepared by the same author.
5 Table 3 in the HRS makes several references to properties are believed to pre- or post-date 1873. The basis for this is not
explained. The 1873 Beers Atlas is not referenced in the HRS or listed among the references used to prepare the HRS.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 4 Rev.10
guidance states “impact is one that occurs at the same place and time as the proposed action and that is
likely to occur as an immediate result of the action. For example, the construction and operation of an
office building may create traffic impacts from heavy equipment operation, as well as additional
commuting traffic” (emphasis added). The same guidance goes on to give examples of indirect impacts
“growth-inducing effects and other effects related to changes in the pattern of land use, population
density or growth rate, and air, water, and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (SEQRA
Handbook 2020:79).
Visual, vibration, and noise impacts directly related to Project construction and operation are
not indirect effects. They are all caused by the action (in this case construction of the Project), and
occur at the time of the action (and in the case visual impacts continue beyond the construction phase).
They do not occur later in time.
The HRS Executive Summary concludes by stating “The only direct impacts outside of SYC will occur on
or along W. Mill Road and include the main water line, its associated hydrant, and the Stabilized RCA
[Recycled Concrete Aggregate] Shoulder (see Figure 4)” (HRS p.3). This is inaccurate. The HRS fails to
define the separate Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) associated with visual, vibration and noise impacts,
and has assumed that only properties on land parcels abutting the Project site, or located along the east
side of Mattituck Inlet directly across the inlet from the Project site, need to be considered when
analyzing potential impacts to historic properties. As a result, the HRS failed to consider impacts
associated with off-site truck routes (which have the potential to generate significant noise and
vibration impacts)6, or potential visual impacts (which will be permanent) to properties other than those
on abutting parcels, or directly across Mattituck Inlet from, the Project site.
HRS Table 1 includes a column entitled “Part, Possible Effects.” Under this heading, only the existing SYC
is identified as being subject to a direct effect. All other properties (except for the three called out in
the DEIS scope which contain the notation “Town Scope” in this column) are classified as either
“Adjacent, Indirect” or “Indirect Only.” No explanation of these classifications is provided, although one
interpretation is that the HRS has concluded that all of the properties listed, except for SYC, will possibly
be only indirectly affected by the Project.
The repeated references the Project’s potential visual, vibration and noise impacts to historic structures
as being “indirect” may create a false impression in the reader of both the HRS and DEIS that indirect
impacts are somehow less significant than “direct” impacts.
6 Vibration impacts to historic structures are discussed in the revised DEIS and the vibration report (DEIS Appendix R). Members
of the public concerned about historic properties are unlikely to consult a DEIS appendix dealing with vibration.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 5 Rev.10
Visual Impacts to Historic Properties
The HRS Executive Summary identifies “20 parcels that either abut SYC parcel boundaries or that might
be indirectly affected by proposed Project Actions. Eighteen of these parcels have standing
buildings/structures” (p.2). As noted, the decision to limit the HRS to a consideration of potential visual
impacts (as well as other types of impacts) to these structures is inappropriate, and inconsistent with
recognized principles for conducting historic structure surveys and impact assessments.
Table 1 in the HRS is described as including “The SYC, abutting, and viewshed buildings and structures,
and the three previously inventoried properties called out by the Town . . .” (Table 1 also includes the
Mill Road nature preserve). The DEIS scope calls for an Applicant-generated “Visual Impact Study that
includes computer-generated imagery for viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and adjacent
roadways.” It also calls for the Applicant to
“Provide a detailed visual impact analysis for the action, including (dimensional relief
and color of site structures existing and proposed) identification of the project's zone of
visual influence (ZVI), identification of sensitive receptors (scenic views including views
from Mattituck Creeks, outdoor recreation facilities, historic properties, etc.) within that
zone, and viewshed analyses to determine if and how sensitive receptors would be
affected. Computer generated imagery for viewshed changes should not be limited to
views from Mattituck Creek and the adjacent roadway” (emphasis added) (DEIS Scope
p.16).
There is no indication in the HRS that any attempt was made to identify the actual viewshed (or ZVI)
associated with Project.7
The HRS should not have been completed until after the visual impact study had defined the Project
viewshed and ZVI (which corresponds to the APE for visual impacts). The failure to make use of a
properly defined viewshed means that the Project may visually impact historic structures not identified
in the HRS.
HRS Chapter 2 discusses methods and results. It starts by defining the study area as a “one-mile buffer
around the Project parcel”. In fact, the study area appears to either have been considerably smaller, or
the survey of structures within the study area was incomplete. Numerous residences within one mile of
the Project site—and within the Project’s viewshed (e.g., 465 Harbor View Avenue) are not included in
the HRS8.
7 In fact, as discussed in greater detail in comments on the Project’s visual impacts to the overall project environment, it has
been established that the Project’s viewshed covers a significantly greater area than that used in the HRS to assess visual
impacts to historic properties.
8 465 Harbor View Avenue is discussed in greater detail in comments relating to the project’s overall visual impact.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 6 Rev.10
HRS Chapter 2 goes on to note that the Project site was visited on four separate occasions by the HRS
author. It does not indicate that other areas within the Project’s various APEs were visited although the
inclusion of photos of structures outside the Project site (Appendices D, E, and F) suggests that it was.
Those photos, while potentially helpful in evaluating the historic significance of previously unevaluated
structures are, with a single exception, useless for purposes of evaluating visual impacts. This is because
they are views of the structures, rather than views from the structures that would include potential
views of the completed Project.
HRS Table 3 is a list of “21 previously inventoried [in OPRHP/SHPO files] buildings/structures within the
one-mile context buffer” (p.11). Text and table indicate that in addition to the three structures called
out in the DEIS scope (the Robinson-D’Aires House, the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant, and the Frame Water
Tower at 5670 West Mill Road), two additional properties, (G.H. Fisher House and King’s Dock) are
within the Project viewshed.9
The G.H. Fisher House10 (15 East Mill Road) remains unevaluated by the SHPO as of March 2023.
However, it was identified in 1985 as a historic structure by the Society for the Preservation of Long
Island Antiquities (SPLIA)(now Preservation Long Island). A 2012 resurvey of the Fisher House for the
Southold Historic Preservation Commission notes that “[D]espite alterations, house contributes to
maritime landscape and historic viewshed of Mattituck creek area.”11 The HRS never directly addresses
potential visual impacts to the G.H. Fisher House. Instead, it only states, in apparent contradiction of
the comments on the 2012 survey form, that the “building is not oriented to the creek but rather to the
south and east” (HRS p.19) and that “there is no indication that the building was purposefully sited
because of its view to the west” (HRS p.20).
Significantly, neither of the two photos of the G.H. Fisher House included in the HRS (HRS Photos E7 and
E8) show views from the property looking towards the SYC Project area. As a result, it is impossible to
assess potential visual impacts to this property using the data in the HRS. However, this property is
clearly within the Project viewshed and does have views towards the Project. 12 In addition, the 2012
survey data was never submitted to the SHPO.13 The SHPO’s July 29, 2021 letter stating that they have
9 In 2014 the SHPO determined that King’s Dock does not satisfy State/National Register of Historic Places eligibility, but no
basis for this evaluation is provided.
10 SHPO USN inventory number 10310.000350
11 http://24.38.28.228:2040/weblink/0/edoc/697784/MK45%20GH%20Fisher%20House.pdf
12 A photo showing the view from 15 East Mill Road can be found at https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-E-Mill-Rd-
Mattituck-NY-11952/32755604_zpid/?mmlb=g,2. (COMMENT FIGURE HISTORIC-1). It is clear that 15 East Mill Road will have
views of the project.
13 The 2012 survey form for the Fisher House is missing from the HRS, although the HRS does include copies of 2012 survey
forms for three other properties (HRS Appendix G.).
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 7 Rev.10
“no building/above ground historic resources concerns” also states that that conclusion was based on
the information in the HRS, which as noted, is incomplete and possibly deceptive in regards to the G.H.
Fisher House.14 It is incumbent upon the Planning Board to ensure that its “hard look” at Project
impacts includes an evaluation of the Project’s visual impact on the G.H. Fisher House.
HRS Table 3 also includes the Jackson Water Tower located at 880 West Mill Road (NYOPRHP USN
10310.000347). This six-story brick tower is a prominent local feature. It is included in both the 1985
SPLIA survey and the 2012 resurvey sponsored by the Town of Southold. It is listed in the SHPO’s
Building-Structure Inventory as “unevaluated.” However, neither the HRS nor the DEIS discuss possible
visual impacts to the Tower, which is located approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project site, and
200 feet west of the Project truck route. It was presumably, and inappropriately, excluded from analysis
because it is not on a parcel adjacent to the Project site. The Project will likely be visible from the upper
levels of the Jackson Water Tower.15 The Jackson Water Tower is included in Ostroski’s Water Towers of
the North Fork of Long Island, which is cited in the HRS. The DEIS fails to evaluate the historic
significance of the Jackson Water Tower or consider if or how would be visually impacted by the
Project.
There is one additional inaccuracy in HRS Table 3. The property listed in Table 3 as “Mattituck Creek
Tide Mill (Old Mill Restaurant)” (NYOPRHP USN 10310.000348) is listed as having an “undetermined”
status. OPRHP/SHPO revised that status to “eligible” for the State and National Registers of Historic
Places (S/NRHP) on October 14, 2021, subsequent to the preparation of the HRS.16
HRS Chapter 2 includes a discussion, common to historic resource surveys, of the criteria which must be
met for a property to qualify for the S/NRHP. Although the HRS cites only guidance documents in regard
to these criteria, they are in fact set forth in both Federal and State Regulations (36 CFR 60.4, and
Section 427.3 implementing Section 14.9 of the NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law).
Although HRS Chapter 2 discusses impacts, it does not include, or attempt to apply, the corresponding
criteria for evaluating impacts that are also set forth in Federal and State regulations:
“(iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the
property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual,
atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant
historic features;” (36 CFR 800.5(a)(2).
14 On April 8, 2022 the SHPO revised their July 29, 2021 comments to indicate that they did have concerns about how the
project could affect two historic structures (see below).
15 Although presently unoccupied, the tower could potentially be converted to a residential structure, and there is evidence
that plans for such an adaptive reuse were planned at one time. The tower has additional significance because of its
association with Prof. Daniel Dana Jackson. Jackson was a prominent scientist and the first chairman of the Department of
Chemical Engineering at Columbia University.
16 The revised DEIS, in its discussion of vibration impacts, does indicate that the Old Mill Inn has been determined to be an
“eligible” property.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 8 Rev.10
and
“introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric elements which are out of character
with the property or alter its setting;” (Section 428.7 implementing Section 14.9 of the
NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.
HRS Chapter 2 also quotes from the Southold Historic Preservation Commission’s Handbook, noting that
the Commission believes “even contemporary structures, such as those built within the last 50 years,
play an integral part in the architectural landscape of the town and are as worthy of preservation as
those structures built during the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.” The HRS seems not
recognize the significance of this statement. Many of the properties listed in HRS Table 1 are twentieth
century residences which, by virtue of their age, are not included in the existing historic structure
inventories used to prepare the HRS. It is also possible that additional structures in this category, which
are not located on parcels abutting the Project site, are within the undefined viewshed/Zone of Visual
Influence. The HRS does not identify, or evaluate these properties. The HRS makes no mention of any
attempt to contact the Southold Historic Preservation Commission or the Southold Town Historian, to
determine if they believe that any of the inventoried properties less than 50 years old are “an integral
part in the architectural landscape of the town and . . . worthy of preservation.”
The HRS also dismisses from consideration several properties because “the building does not meet the
minimum-age requirement for the S/NRHP” (800 and 805 North Drive, and 2010 West Mill Road). The
50-year criterion is generally used in preparing historic structure surveys, especially for State and
Federally licensed and funded projects, but it is not an absolute requirement (36 CFR 60.4). As the HRS
itself notes, the Southold Historic Preservation Commission does not feel bound by this criterion in
evaluating historic significance, and there is no requirement that the Planning Board limit its concerns
historic structures less than 50 years old.
There is a second reason why more recent structures should have been identified and included in the
HRS. Unmentioned in the HRS is the fact that the Southold Town Code states that one of the purposes of
the Historic Landmarks Preservation Law of Southold Town is “[M]aintaining visual compatibility with
the historic character of neighboring properties in public view” (Sec. 170.2(c)(5). The DEIS scope states
that the “impacts to the community character as it relates to changes to the existing natural landscape
with the proposed development would be evaluated. The impacts to community character as it relates
to the viewshed from waterway (Mattituck Creek) will be evaluated and the Project's consistency with
the proposed use of land as set forth in approved LWRP [Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan], will be
discussed.” The visual impact assessment prepared for the Project (DEIS Section 3.4 and DEIS Appendix
Q), apparently relied upon the HRS to identify all structures that contribute to community character.
The failure of the HRS to do so means that the assessment in the DEIS of the Project’s visual impacts to
community character, and to individual non-historic properties, is also defective.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 9 Rev.10
HRS Chapter 2 (text and tables) includes a discussion of the parcel at 1900 West Mill Road. This is the
Town-owned Mill Road Preserve. As the HRS notes, this property abuts the Project area. It is unclear
why the Mill Road Preserve is discussed in the HRS as it is not a historic property. However, the DEIS
scope calls for an analysis of “the adverse impacts related to . . . changes in view-sheds . . . and
alteration of a sense of place from this project on the public's enjoyment of the Town owned preserved
property during all phases of the action.” The HRS states that “a rendering prepared for the Project
shows that the roofs of new SYC Bldgs. 9 and 10 will be visible from the northwest quadrant of the
[Preserve’s] perimeter path.” A copy of the rendering is not included in the HRS. However, a copy is
included in DEIS Appendix Q (Figure A-4). It demonstrates that the Project will significantly affect the
view from this location.17
The HRS states that 4900 West Mill Road is “historically linked to the A. F. Robinson holding
located at 4255 W. Mill Road. This association is documented on the Hyde (1902-1909) Suffolk County
map.” A copy of the relevant portion of that map is included as HRS Figure 7. This residence clearly
satisfies the 50-year criterion, but no evaluation of its possible historic significance is provided (as called
for in the DEIS Scope). The HRS goes on to state that the house “is not within the viewshed of the CEA
[Construction Excavation Area] or the Phase 1 temporary haul road” (HRS p.17). It appears that because
the author of the HRS was unable to see the house from the presently wooded Project site, it was
assumed that the completed Project would not be visible from the house. No consideration was given to
what the view would be post-construction.
The HRS describes potential permanent visual impacts to historic structures but either does not call
them out as impacts, or attempts to minimize or mischaracterize those potential impacts.18 For
example, the HRS notes that “Eight parcels are on the east side of Mattituck Creek and these are located
on the creek end of E. Mill Road (HRS Photographs E6-E12) or Grand Avenue (HRS Photographs E13-
E20). Persons on these parcels would have a straight-line view of SYC Bldgs. 7 and 8, immediately east of
the CEA, and bluff and valley slope west of Bldg. 3 which will be cut for the secondary water line to
Bldg.1” (HRS p. 19). These parcels include 15, 80, 100, 200 and 220 East Mill Road, and 3293,3329, 3331
Grand Avenue.
In regard to 80 and 100 East Mill Road, the HRS concludes that these parcels are “used commercially and
[their] function will not be impaired by the Project” (emphasis added) (HRS p. 20). It is unclear how this
is relevant to assessing the Project’s visual impact. It also unclear whether these properties should be
considered “historic”.
In regard to 200 (Kings Dock) and 220 East Mill Road the HRS notes that these structures are “oriented
to the creek. The residence’s viewshed is toward the creek and the west side floodplain and bluff.”
These properties will clearly be within the Project viewshed. Inexplicably, the HRS contains photos
17 The renderings showing both existing and proposed views are highly inaccurate. See comments on visual impacts.
18 See the discussion of the G.H. Fisher House (above).
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 10 Rev.10
showing the views of these properties from the Project site, as if it is the Project site that would be
affected by the presence of structures on those properties, rather than the other way around. The HRS
does not contain photos from these properties looking towards the Project area that would allow the
nature and degrees of the actual visual impact to be assessed. While the HRS notes OPRHP/SHPO has
determined that 200 East Mill Road does not satisfy S/NRHP eligibility criteria, no information regarding
the historic significance (or lack thereof) of 220 East Mill Road is included in the HRS.
In regard to 220 East Mill Road, the HRS only states that the “the house here has been present since
1962 . . . [and] is oriented to the creek. The residence’s viewshed is toward the creek and the west side
floodplain and bluff” (HRS p.20). The house is more than 50 years old, but no evaluation as to whether
or not it is “historic” is included in the HRS.
750 East Mill Road is a building/structure complex on a 26+ acre estate known as Fox Hill. Because
“[T]his residence appears from a distance to have been sited on the valley terrace to purposefully allow
view of the creek and valley as a whole. Because of its elevation, its viewshed will be affected by the
Project” Photograph F12 in the HRS shows the view from the CEA towards 750 East Mill Road. That
structure is clearly visible. It is obvious that the view from 750 East Mill Road which now includes the
existing marina and the wooded bluff top, will be replaced by views of the existing marina and the
proposed massive storage buildings. The HRS apparently dismisses the significance of this by claiming
that “the proposed SYC buildings will be similar to to [sic] those in the current marina complex”
(emphasis added) (HRS p.25). No evaluation as to whether or not Fox Hill is “historic” is included in the
HRS, as required by the DEIS Scope.
There several significant problems with the way the HRS characterizes 220 and 750 East Mill Road. First,
although acknowledging that views from two properties will be “affected,” it attempts to dismiss the
visual impact by qualifying it with the statement: “but the proposed SYC buildings will be similar to . . .
those in the current marina complex.” This is not accurate. Each of the proposed new structures to be
erected on the Project site is more than twice the size (52,500 sq ft and 49,000 sq ft) of the largest of the
existing SYC structures (22,425 sq ft). Also significant is the fact that the proposed new structures will be
taller, and will replace an existing hill which will be mined away.
The HRS describes the residence at 3293 Grand Avenue as “relatively new.” Presumably it has no
historic significance and it is unclear why it was included in the HRS
In regard to 3331 Grand Avenue: the HRS (p.21) states that “persons on the parcel would have a view of
SYC Bldgs. 7 and 8. The cabins and main building, however, are oriented away from the creek and west
side of the valley” (emphasis added). The use of the future tense is confusing as Bldgs. 7 and 8 are
existing structures. No mention is made of how the proposed storage buildings would affect views from
this parcel.
In regard to 3329 Grand Avenue; “. . . there is a clear view of the west side of the valley and SYC Bldgs. 7
and 8 from the lawn between the garage and residence.” As with 3331 Grand Avenue, the HRS fails to
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 11 Rev.10
note that in both cases views from these two properties will include the two new massive structures
included in the Project. No evaluation as to whether or not it is “historic” is included in the HRS.
HRS Chapter 2 also addresses the three previously inventoried resources called out in the DEIS scope. It
begins with quoting a comment letter received by the Planning Board referring to the three properties
called out in the DEIS scope, noting that “The Planning Board included the Klein comment in the final
scope without edit . . .” It is unclear why the HRS chose to quote the comment rather than quote from
the DEIS scope itself, except to somehow imply that because the comment did not originate from
Planning Board members it is somehow less important. The quote is as follows:
“There are three unevaluated structures listed in CRIS within approximately 1000 feet of
the Project area. The scope of work should include an evaluation as to if and how these
structures may be visually or otherwise (noise, vibration during construction) affected
by the project and, if potentially affected, if they satisfy the eligibility criteria for the
State Register of Historic Places.”
The same section of the HRS states that the “S/NRHP eligibility criteria and aspects of integrity were
applied to these three properties during the current work. There is no indication that this was done in
the case of 4255 West Mill Road (the Robinson-D-Aires House, 5775 West Mill Road (The Old Mill
Restaurant), or 5670 West Mill Road (the Old Water Tower). Although brief histories and descriptions of
each of these properties are presented, no attempt was made to relate this information to the specific
S/NRHP eligibility criteria called out earlier in HRS Chapter 2. The HRS does state that “It is of note that
the Town’s ‘Town Register of Historic Landmarks’ (10/18/2017) does not list” [the three properties]
(emphasis added). This is clearly an attempt to diminish the historic significance of these properties and
reflects unfamiliarity with the Southold’s requirements for landmark listing, one of which is property
owner consent—something not required for S/NRHP eligibility. As noted above, subsequent to
preparation of the HRS, the Old Mill Restaurant has been determined to satisfy S/NRHP eligibility
criteria. The two other properties remain classified as “unevaluated” by SHPO as of April 2023.
At the time the HRS was prepared the Old Mill Restaurant was listed in SHPO files as having an
“undetermined” status as to its S/NRHP eligibility. However, as noted above, it has since been
determined to “eligible” for the S/NRHP. The owner is working with the SHPO in regard to his planned
renovations to the Old Mill Restaurant, and renovations are underway. The HRS states that “the Old
Mill retains no functional mill elements.” While it is true the mill cannot carry out its original function, at
least one important original element associated with that function—the main mill wheel shaft—is extant
and prominently visible. It is also possible that other intact elements of the original mill machinery exist
under the mill. The HRS author never examined the interior of the Old Mill. The HRS states that there
“is no HAER [Historic American Engineering Record] for the Old Mill. This is incorrect. While it is true
that no on-line accessible records are available, the Old Mill was noted by HAER in 1974 and is discussed
in HAER’s Long Island: An Inventory of Historic Engineering and Industrial Sites.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 12 Rev.10
The Assessment, Conclusions and Recommendations section of the HRS begins by noting that the three
properties specifically called out in the DEIS scope because “they are considered important in the Town
of Southold. Each is listed on the Town inventory and the Town had their descriptions updated in 2012
(Tweedie 2012a-c). As such, they possess local significance.” This is a strange way to evaluate historic
significance, as there is no necessary correlation between being listed in an inventory and being
historically significant. For example, the existing SYC buildings, which have no historic significance (a
conclusion of the HRS), are listed in the SHPO’s Building-Structure Inventory, but as “not S/NRHP
eligible”.19 Additionally, it’s fallacious to assume (as noted above) that these are the only three
properties of concern to the Town of Southold.
The HRS also inappropriately dismisses from concern “residences that do not front to the creek or west
valley slope.” There is no basis for this for several reasons. First, merely because the Project will only be
visible from the rear of a property does not mean that the property will not be visually impacted.
Second, views of a property from the front, may now include views of the Project. Given the proposed
size of the buildings, their finished elevations above ground, and the fact that what is now a wooded hill
will be replaced by two massive boat storage buildings, views of, as well as from, these properties will be
significantly different. This is apparent even in the misleading renderings of the proposed Project
submitted to the Southold Planning Board (DEIS Appendix Q).
Even the limited attempts to evaluate visual impacts are misleading and inaccurate. For example, as
noted, the HRS discounts views from the rear of a property; fails to consider views of a property that
may include views of the Project, and inaccurately describes proposed Project buildings as “similar to . . .
those in the current marina complex.” It fails to even mention changes to the Project’s background
views caused by the removal of a large stand of trees. No attempt has been made to consider the effects
of seasonality on views. (Visual impacts during the foliate and defoliate seasons can be significantly
different and bear directly on estimating the severity and duration of impacts). The limited impact
analysis included in the HRS will not permit the Planning Board to adequately consider or evaluate the
impacts of the Project on historic structures.
The DEIS does not adequately or appropriately discuss potential visual impacts to historic properties.
Potential impacts have apparently been largely dismissed on the basis of July 21, 2021 correspondence
from OPRHP which states that “[W]e have reviewed the submission received on July 6, 2021, including
the Reconnaissance Level Historic Resources Survey dated July 2021. Based on that review, the OPRHP
has no building/above ground historic resources concerns.”20 While due consideration should be given
to OPRHP’s comments, their initial conclusion was based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading
19 The existing SYC buildings are listed in the OPRHP Building-Structure Inventory because the HRS author submitted photos of
the buildings to the SHPO for evaluation.
20 It should be noted that OPRHP subsequently amended their conclusion in correspondence dated April 8, 2022. That
correspondence indicates that they do have “concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a
result of vibrations from construction vehicles.”
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 13 Rev.10
information. OPRHP issued their comments on the basis of the HRS alone.21 Specifically, some
potentially significant historic properties were omitted from the analysis. In addition, it does not appear
that visual simulations showing post-construction views from historic properties within the (incorrectly
defined) Project viewshed, were ever submitted to OPRHP. Because of the numerous issues with the
methodology employed to assess visual impacts, the Planning Board, which has ultimate responsibility
for evaluating impacts—not OPRHP--needs to carefully examine this issue.
Vibration Impacts to Historic Properties
Unlike visual impacts, which are limited to the Project viewshed, potential impacts to historic structures
from vibrations generated by Project traffic, especially 22-wheel tractor trailers weighing more than 50
tons, may occur along the entire Project truck route.
The DEIS fails to identify all historic properties which could be impacted by Project construction traffic.
As noted above, the Amended Final Scope for the DEIS calls for a discussion of “the effects of excavation
and vibration from machinery, heavy equipment and trucks on structures surrounding the site” and “on
existing neighboring structures”. The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo detailing inadequacies in
the original DEIS states that the DEIS must discuss “the impacts of vibration from loaded trucks on
structures along the vehicle route(s)”. The Planning Board’s consultant’s comments on inadequacies in
the original DEIS also note that
“The Traffic study discusses the potential impact of vibrations from loaded trucks on
structures along the vehicle route(s) and concludes that the "only existing structure that
may be susceptible to increased vibrations from trucks would be the existing water
tower located close to West Mill Road on adjoining property to the subject property at
the southwest corner." The basis for this conclusion is not clear. The setback distances
of historic homes along the construction route should be considered based on the
extent and duration of proposed heavy truck trips associated with the proposed action”
(NPV p.6).
The HRS states that “indirect affects [sic] were considered for the existing SYC buildings/structures as
direct impacts will occur within the marina.” In other words, the only vibration concerns considered in
the HRS were those related to the Applicant’s existing, non-historic, on-site structures. OPRHP/SHPO
reviewed the photos of the existing SYC structures and determined that none of them are S/NRHP
eligible.
21 OPRHP apparently based their opinion solely upon the information in the HRS. The original DEIS, which included information
on visual impacts, and simulations of the post-construction views of the project site, was completed months after the OPRHP
issued its comments.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 14 Rev.10
Although the OPRHP/SHPO July 29, 2021 letter stating that they have “no building/above ground historic
resources concerns” it also states that that conclusion was based on the information in the HRS.
However, as of April 2023, no information has been submitted to the OPRHP/SHPO about historic
structures located along the Project truck route in Riverhead, and in Southold west of Cox Neck Road.
In response to the concerns raised by OPRHP/SHPO in their April 8, 2022 correspondence, and the
Planning Board’s requirement that impacts to historic structures located along the truck route be
evaluated, the Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board a new vibration impact analysis which is
included in DEIS Appendix R.22 According to the DEIS the “Vibration Report identified all the potential
significant historical structures along the proposed truck route and determined their distance from the
truck route roadway” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.224). This claim is not supported by the data included in
the DEIS, including its appendices.23
No recent comprehensive historic structures survey was carried out for the portions of the Project
truck route west of Cox Neck Road in Southold, or along the portion of the truck route in the Town of
Riverhead.
The preparers of the DEIS, the HRS, the Vibration Report and the Traffic Impact Study, all failed to
determine if any historic properties, other than those shown on the GIS-generated maps in CRIS, exist
along the Project truck route. Of special concern is the fact that the Town of Riverhead’s Historic
Preservation Commission was never contacted. Riverhead maintains its own list of Town Landmarks and
Historic Districts.24
No mention is made anywhere in the DEIS, or any of its appendices, that Sound Avenue in Riverhead
was designated an Historic Corridor by the New York State legislature in 1975.25 The Town of Riverhead
Comprehensive Plan (2003) states that “Riverhead possesses a variety of important scenic and historic
resources, ranging from expansive views of working agricultural landscapes; to scenic roadways like
Sound Avenue” (emphasis added) (2003:5-9).
22 Vibration Report, Vibration Existing Conditions and Expected Impacts: Strong’s Yacht Center – 5780 West Mill Road –
Mattituck, NY, SoundSense, November 3, 2022.
23 According to the Vibration Report, “P.W. Grosser has compiled a list of historic structures along the trucking route. A table
identifying these historic structures has been included in Table 7 [of the Acoustic Report]. The figures prepared by P.W.
Grosser noting the location of each of the historic structures can be found in Figures 3-11 [of the Acoustic Report] for
reference” (DEIS Appendix R p.13). The referenced figures reproduced in the Vibration Report are actually from the
Supplemental Data Appendix to the Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix O) prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates.
24 https://www.townofriverheadny.gov/files/documents/document958100405032717.pdf
25 New York Times, July 6, 1975
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 15 Rev.10
Table 7 in the Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R) is entitled “Potential, Eligible, and Listed Historic
Structures and Their Distances to Roadway.” Table 7 is accompanied by a set of aerial photographs
(Figures 3-8 in DEIS Appendix R) annotated to show the locations of the structures included in Table 7.
Of the 32 historic structures listed in Table 7 26, and shown on accompanying figures, only six are
discussed in the HRS (DEIS Appendix T). The remaining 26 properties in Table 7 appear to consist only of
those listed in OPRHP’s CRIS. Of these, four are in the Town of Southold, and 22 are in the Town of
Riverhead. Information on the Southold properties was recorded in 1985. Information on the
Riverhead properties was recorded in 1974 as part of the research done for a potential Northville
Historic District.27 Given that properties older than 50 years of age may potentially meet the criteria for
historic designation, relying on data that is between 38 and 49 years old is problematic. A survey should
have been undertaken by a qualified architectural historian, not acoustic engineers, to determine if any
additional potentially historic properties are located along the truck route. Had a survey been
undertaken the numerous significant errors in Table 7 and the accompanying figures would not have
been incorporated into the DEIS. The errors include the following:
The Aldrich Jackson House at 6175 Sound Avenue in Mattituck is not included in Table 7.
It is listed in the OPRHP/SHPO Building Structure Inventory (10310.000385) as having an
“undetermined” State/National Register of Historic Places status. It is setback less than
200 feet from Sound Avenue. The S/NRHP eligibility of this structure should have been
determined—as required by the DEIS scope.
The Eugene Hallock House, a designated Town of Riverhead Landmark, is located at
6142 Sound Avenue, not 6038 Sound Avenue. It is mislocated on Vibration Report
Figure 6. It is also approximately 50 feet from the Sound Avenue Road surface, not the
74 feet stated in Table 7.
The Old Hallock Homestead is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places (COMMENT FIGURE HISTORIC-2). Table 7 and Vibration Report Figure 6 indicate
it is only eligible for listing. It is located at 6038 Sound Avenue, not 5976 Sound Avenue.
It is misidentified as the Eugene Hallock House. The Old Hallock Homestead is one of
several historic structures located at the Hallockville Museum Farm—a designated Town
of Riverhead Landmark. Also located at the Hallockville Museum Farm are three
additional historic structures—the Hudson House (located approximately 75 feet from
26 One of the 32, the District 10 School House, has been relocated, and is noted as such on Table 7. It is unclear why it has been
included.
27The 1974 inventory (OPRHP/SHPO Survey Number 96SD00199)) for the potential Northville Historic District lists, and maps, a
total of 75 historic properties, extant as of 1974, along Sound Avenue between the Southold Town line and Northville
Turnpike.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 16 Rev.10
the Sound Avenue road surface), the Cichanowicz House 28 (located less than 50 feet
from the Sound Avenue road surface), and Aunt Francis Washhouse 29 (which is setback
approximately 200 feet from Sound Avenue). All three are missing from Table 7.
The Daniel Wells House is located at 5120 Sound Avenue, not 5004 Sound Avenue as
indicated on Table 7.
The Hallock Luce House is listed in Table 7 as being located at 4778 Sound Avenue. It
has been demolished.
The Northville Academy (Congregation Church Parish Hall) (currently the Long Island
Buddhist Meditation Center) is located at 5268 Sound Avenue, not 5284 Sound Avenue
(a different structure). It is 25 feet—not 63 feet as indicated in Table 7, from the Sound
Avenue Road surface.
Table 7 in the Vibration Report lists the distance of each listed property from the Sound Avenue road
surface. As noted above, several of these measurements are inaccurate. With only a few exceptions, it
appears that these distances were determined through the use of Google Earth, rather than actual
measurements taken in the field (Vibration Study p.25). This has introduced a false perception of
precision. This is important because potential vibration impacts are directly related to the distance
between the vibration source (haul trucks travelling along the truck route) and nearby sensitive
receptors (all structures, including all historic properties).
The numerous errors in Table 7 and the accompanying figures in the Vibration report could have been
avoided had a qualified architectural historian conducted a survey of the portions of the Project truck
route in Riverhead.
The HRS calls out four historic properties in Southold that “could be indirectly affected by the
construction of the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by project truck traffic”. Presumably, the
HRS is referring to vibration impacts. A fourth property, the Jackson Water Tower, may also be affected
by Project-generated vibration, but is not discussed in the HRS or the DEIS.
The Old (Frame) Water Tower. This property (OPRHP USN 10310.000349) is located at 5670 West Mill
Road. It is described in the DEIS (p.4) as a single-family residence. It is presently listed in SHPO/OPRHP
28 The Hudson House is a designated Town of Riverhead Landmark. Both the Hudson House and the Cichanowicz House were
moved to the Hallockville Museum Farm from their original locations. OPRHP/SHPO has indicated (August 24, 2021
correspondence from J. Betsworth, Historic Preservation Specialist to Executive Director, Hallockville Museum Farm) that the
relocated structures at the Hallockville Farm Museum are not eligible for the State or National Registers. However, the same
letter also indicated that “In the future, after more time has passed , . . a re-evaluation of the [Hallockville Museum Farm]
would be appropriate.”
29Aunt Francis Washhouse has been individually determined by OPRHP/SHPO to be eligible for the State and National Registers.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 17 Rev.10
records as having an “undermined” S/NRHP eligibility status. Although required by the DEIS Scope, the
HRS makes no attempt to apply S/NRHP eligibility criteria to this property. It indirectly attempts to
address the question of integrity through a very brief discussion of how the structure has been modified.
The HRS concludes that “The Old Water Tower could be indirectly affected by the construction of the
main water line, the associated hydrant which will be positioned about 40 ft. (12 m.) northwest of the
building’s northeast corner, and Phase 2 construction traffic” (p.24). The Frame Water Tower was
included in the vibration study (see below) that was conducted after the HRS was prepared.
The Old Mill Inn/Restaurant. The HRS concludes that the “Old Mill Restaurant might be indirectly
affected by the construction of the main water line, and Phase 2 construction traffic. It would be less
likely to be affected by the construction of the proposed water hydrant which is proposed to be located
on the west side of W. Mill Road north of the Old Water Tower” (HRS p.23). As noted, above the Old Mill
Inn (OPRHP USN 10310.000348) was determined to be S/NRHP eligible subsequent to the preparation of
the HRS. The Old Mill Inn/Restaurant was included in the vibration study (see below) that was
conducted after the HRS was prepared because of concerns raised by OPRHP.
The Water Tower and Support Building at 3380 West Mill Road, is located in close proximity to the
point where the Project’s proposed on-site haul road will intersect West Mill Road. This property
(OPRHP USN 10310.001551) was determined to be eligible for the State/National Registers of Historic
Places on July 9, 2021, possibly as a result of the SHPO’s initial review of the HRS.30 It is located 12 feet
from the edge of the paved road surface. This historic property is discussed on page 17 of the HRS, and
is described having an “Undetermined” S/NRHP eligibility status. However, as noted above, this historic
property has been determined to be S/NRHP-eligible. The HRS states in regard to this property:
“Haul trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles commonly use W. Mill Road and have done
so for many years. There is no superficial indication that the daily movement of haul
trucks passing by the water tower and the accessary building has damaged them” (HRS
p.17).
These statements are not supported by any data, and are very misleading. There will be an orders-of-
magnitude increase in the number of trucks, of the same type as the Project-related haul trucks, using
West Mill Road. In addition, these trucks will be significantly heavier. When loaded, they will weigh an
estimated 107,000 ponds. It is empirically obvious to anyone regularly traveling West Mill Road that the
number of comparable trucks using that road in no way approaches the numbers that will during the
year-long construction period. There is no way of knowing to what extent traffic has already impacted
the Water Tower as no structural evaluation of this property over time has ever been undertaken. The
HRS, the TIS and the DEIS discuss potential mitigation to deal with vibration impacts to this property.
The inadequacy of the proposed mitigation is discussed below.
30 This omission is particularly significant since this is the property that has generated the most concern in regard to vibration
impacts (see below).
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 18 Rev.10
Robinson-D’Aires House. This property is located at 4225 West Mill Road.31 The HRS states that the
“main house is well-elevated above both W. Mill Road and Naugles Road and, for this reason, is not
likely to be affected by vibration effects in the same manner as buildings might be on the same
elevation” (HRS p.22). Note that this statement does not indicate that this property (OPRHP USN
10310.000347) will not be affected by vibration, only that it will not be affected “in the same manner”
as other properties.
Jackson Water Tower. The Jackson Water Tower located at 880 West Mill Road is listed in Table 3 of the
HRS, but is not discussed. This six-story brick tower is a prominent local feature. It is included in both
the 1985 SPLIA survey and the 2012 resurvey sponsored by the Town of Southold. It is listed in the
SHPO’s Building-Structure Inventory as “unevaluated.” The Jackson Water Tower is located
approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the Project site, and 200 feet west of the Project truck route. It
was presumably excluded from analysis in the HRS because it is not on a parcel adjacent to the Project
site. No consideration is given in the HRS, DEIS, or Vibration Report, to the fact that the Jackson Water
Tower may affected by vibration generated by the large haul trucks traveling along the Project truck
route. It is well established that the vibration threshold levels for damage to historic masonry
structures, especially towers, because of their height and rigidity, are well below the threshold for non-
historic frame structures.32
On April 8, 2022 the SHPO/OPRHP advised that it “has concerns regarding potential impacts to historic
architectural resources as a result of vibrations from construction vehicles. OPRHP recommends the
preparation and implementation of a Construction Protection Plan for . . . the Water Tower and Building,
3380 West Mill Road . . .”33 Potential impacts to the water tower at 3380 West Mill Road are discussed
in greater detail below.
In response to the concerns raised by SHPO/OPRHP the revised DEIS now includes a Vibration Report (in
DEIS Appendix R) that specifically addresses potential impacts to the water tower. According to the
Vibration Report, the “worst-case conclusion was that there is a potential impact from truck traffic to
the historic Water Tower and Building located at 3380 W Mill Road in Mattituck, NY” (p. 3).
To analyze current background vibration levels the Project’s vibration consultant installed four
accelerometers at locations near the Project site. Locations 1 and 2 were at the Old Mill Inn Restaurant
and the Frame Water Tower (5670 West Mill Road). Location 4 is the nearest to the water tower at 3380
31 It listed in some documents, including HRS Table 3 and in OPRHP/SHPO files as being located at 1980 West Mill Road)
32 Gentile, C. and A. Saisi, Ambient vibration testing of historic masonry towers for structural identification and damage
assessment. Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 1311–1321.
33 April 8, 2022 letter from Nancy Herter, Director, Technical Preservation Services Bureau, OPRHP, to Charles Vandrei, Agency
Historic Preservation Officer, NYSDEC. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix T of the revised DEIS.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 19 Rev.10
West Mill Road, but it is more than 900 feet away.34 According to the Vibration Report, “[N]o frequency
analyzer and accelerometer measurements were collected at the Water Tower and Building to be able
to collect readings along the unimpeded path through the soil to best determine the existing conditions”
[sic] (p.6). This explanation is unclear, and does not adequately explain why no vibration levels were
recorded at the location of the historic property most likely to be damaged by Project truck traffic. In
addition, pavement condition is a factor in determining peak particle velocity (PPV) generated by truck
traffic. As the DEIS acknowledges, “[A] pothole or roughness due to alligator cracking or some other
pavement roughness would increase the likelihood that vibrations will be created” (DEIS p. 224). As no
ambient data was collected at the point where West Mill Road passes the water tower, there is no basis
for comparing existing conditions with conditions that will exist during Project construction.
The DEIS has not properly or adequately assessed potential vibration impacts to historic properties.
According to the DEIS and the Vibration Study, anticipated/predicted vibration levels were determined
for each structure utilizing methodology and data from the Federal Transportation Authority’s 2018
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Guidelines”) and the New Hampshire
Department of Transportation’s 2012 Ground Vibrations Emanating from Construction Equipment
(“NHDOT Guidelines”).
According to the Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R), using the methodology (equations) in the FTA and
NHDOT guidelines, the “threshold at which vibration would cause damage to a historic structure, [is]
0.12 in/sec” [inches per second] (Vibration Report p.3). Based on the Vibration Report, the DEIS
concludes that “[U]sing these guidelines, it was determined that historic structures needed to be more
than 17 feet from the truck to be safe from damage” (DEIS p. 224). However, there are problems with
how the DEIS uses both sets of guidelines to assess vibration impacts to historic structures that might be
affected by the Project.
First, the FTA Guidelines do not specifically reference a PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) of 0.12 in/sec as a
damage threshold for historic structures. A single table in the FTA Guidelines, “Construction Vibration
Damage Criteria” associates a value of 0.12 in/s with “[B]uildings extremely susceptible to vibration
damage.”35 The FTA Guidelines do not explain how this threshold value was derived. The NHDOT
Guidelines also cite the 0.12 in/sec PPV as the vibration damage threshold for “extremely fragile historic
buildings” (p.12). However, the source for this is the FTA Guidelines. In effect, the Vibration Report is
relying on a single source to justify use of the 0.12 in/sec PPV as a damage threshold. That threshold is
34 Location 4 is the only location along the truck route for Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction. It is unclear why no accelerometer
was placed at the location of the water tower. This is especially concerning as two of the other three locations were selected
specifically to assess vibration levels at the Old Mill Inn and the Frame Water Tower (not to be confused with the water
tower at 3380 West Mill Road) located near the entrance to SYC.
35 FTA Guidelines, Table 7-5 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria, p.186. The FTA Guidelines do not define this category.
However, the NHDOT Guidelines include in this category structures containing medical and dental offices, hospitals, medical
research labs, computer chip manufacturing, and other manufacturing with sensitive equipment.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 20 Rev.10
not universally accepted. There is no commonly accepted standard for vibration limits to protect historic
buildings.
A 2012 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report, which provides a
comprehensive summary of the available literature, cites more than 20 sources for vibration limits for
historic buildings, with limits as low as 0.08 in/sec.36,37 The NCHRP report recommends a conservative
screening distance of 500 feet for all but blasting activity, and conservative thresholds for potential
damage of 0.2 in/sec for transient and 0.1 in/sec for continuous vibrations. A Federal Highway
Administration report gives a PPV value of 0.10 from traffic as the threshold for structural damage for all
buildings.38
The preparers of the DEIS, although they cite the NHDOT Guidelines, and rely on it for their assessment
of potential damage to historic structures, failed to make use of the construction vibration assessment
procedure described in detail in those guidelines. “The “Construction Vibration Assessment Table”
(Appendix A, Table 1) in the NHDOT Guidelines
“can be routinely used by designers for determining if vibration concerns exist and for
evaluating the potential impact on a project. The assessment matrix described in
Appendix A assigns a point score to ten different categories of data that could
potentially influence the impact of construction vibrations on a NHDOT project. The
total point score from adding the ten categories is used to determine the level of impact
at a site from vibrations emanating from a specific type of construction activity” (NHDOT
Guidelines p.17).39
36NCHRP 25-25/Task 72, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent
to Transportation Projects (2012), prepared by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., ICF International, and Simpson, Gumpertz &
Heger, Inc. See also, Johnson, Arne and Robert Hannen (2015), Vibration Limits for Historic Buildings and Art Collections,
Journal of Preservation Technology 46(2-3):68-74.
37 The NHDOT Guidelines (p.12, Figure 10) also reference a study that found that 0.08 should be the threshold for vibration
damage to historic structures. The vibration analysis in the DEIS chose to ignore this.
38 Rudder, F.F., Jr., Engineering Guidelines for the Analysis of Traffic-Induced Vibration," Federal Highway Administration Report
No. FIIWA-RD-78-166, February 1978
39 The ten categories are 1-Type of Construction Activity/Equipment/Energy Input from Activity; 2- Attenuation (decay) of peak
particle velocity; 3-Displacement; Densification & Settlement; 4-Distance from Vibration Source; 5-Type of Vibration; 6-
Duration of Construction Activity; 7- Type of Structure; 8-Condition/Age of Structure; 9- Vibration Sensitive Equipment
/Vibration Sensitive Manufacturing Process; and 10-Sensitivity of Population.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 21 Rev.10
Applying the NHDOT assessment matrix to assess the severity of vibration impacts to historic structures
adjacent to the Project truck route results in a score of more than 350 for locations 50 feet or less from
passing haul trucks, a score of more than 300 for locations between 51 and 100 feet, and a score of
more than 250 for locations from 101 to 200 feet from the vibration source. According to the NHDOT
Guidelines, a point score of 300 to ˂400 is a “high impact.” A point score of 200 to ˂300 is a “moderate
impact. Sixteen of the 32 historic structures listed in Vibration Report Table 7 are listed as being less
than 50 feet from the truck route road surface. An additional 12 historic properties (not including two
additional properties not listed in Table 7 and described above) are listed as being between 50 and 100
feet away. (As noted above, the actual number is higher because the DEIS has not accurately identified
the distances of some historic structures from the adjacent roadway).
As described above, the vibration study carried out for the Project collected information on ambient
conditions at four locations. Location 4 was located along West Mill Road. According to the Vibration
Report, ambient readings were collected for only 10 minutes. The report goes on to state that at
“Location 4, traffic regularly passed on Cox Neck Road [West Mill Road?] during the data collection
period. During the data collection, it was noted that passenger vehicles, construction vehicles, delivery
trucks, and trucks all travel on the local roads currently, which cause low levels of vibration transmission
into nearby structures” (p.8). However, the Vibration Report does not indicate how many vehicles of
each type passed by the monitoring locations during the 10-minute period. This is another instance in
which the significant change in character/size/weight/number of the Project vehicles that will travel
along the truck route during construction has been ignored. While the statement may be appropriate in
reference to post-construction operations, it should not be uncritically accepted in regard to impacts
during Project construction.
The vibration analysis also included the collection of “On Site Truck Data” including measurements at
Location 4:
“Given Long Island’s unique soil structure, it was important to collect vibration readings
of truck activity near the Project Site to determine the level of vibration transmission
into any nearby residential and historic structures. To facilitate this, measurements of a
truck like the ones to be used during the excavation of the site were measured at 25
feet from the road surface to be comparable to the data presented in the FTA
Guidelines, which are presented in Table 5. Vibration data from a Peterbilt 389 2020
edition dump truck . . . passing by Locations 1-4 was collected. The dump truck was
loaded with 39 tons of sand/dirt at the time of the readings, which is equivalent to 28-
29 yards of material. . . 40 The truck operator was directed to operate the trucks as he
40 The Acoustic Report does not indicate the source of the sand used to load the test truck. According to the geotechnical
report prepared for the Project (DEIS Appendix H) one ton of sand from the Project Area will weigh between 2,970 and 3,105
pounds per CY. If trucks were actually loaded with 28-29 CY of sand from the Project Area, the weight of the sand would be
between 41 and 46 tons, not the 39 tons stated in DEIS’ Vibration Report (Appendix R, p.30).
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 22 Rev.10
would during normal conditions and operation. For Locations 1 and 2, this meant
passing by at 10-15 mph. The truck operator conveyed that these slow speeds were
necessary due to the decline coming into Strong’s Yacht Center from West Mill Road, as
well as the curve at the bottom of the hill entering Strong’s Yacht Center. Data was
collected with the trucks both entering and leaving Strong’s Yacht Center. Data was also
collected from trucks moving northbound and southbound at Location 4 with the truck
passing at 35 mph, which is the speed limit on W Mill Road”41 (p.9).
Table 4 in the Vibration Report (“Vibration Readings Collected from Truck Passbys at the Project Site”)
indicates that the PPV recorded at Location 4 was 0.007 for southbound trucks on West Mill Road, and
0.006.42 At Locations 1 (Old Mill Inn/Restaurant) and 2 (Frame Water Tower at 5670 West Mill Road),
both near the entrance to SYC, a frequency analyzer and accelerometer were used to measure existing
traffic vibration levels. During the on-site truck test PPV readings varied from 0.002 to 0.007. Based on
these measurements, the Vibration report concludes that “vibration levels measured at all locations are
below the 0.12 in/sec which would be necessary to cause damage to a historic structure, as previously
stated as classified by FTA Guidelines” (Vibration Report p.8).
The vibration analysis also assumes that data collected and analyzed in regard to historic properties
located along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads is applicable to historic structures located along Sound
Avenue. There is no reason to assume this is correct. Road conditions, the speed of Project-related
construction traffic, the cumulative effects of Project traffic and existing traffic, and soil conditions
between the source of vibration and the receptor, are all likely to be different along the Riverhead
portions of the Project truck route.
There are problems with the way that vibration data was collected and analyzed that call the
conclusions in the DEIS into question. The vibration analysis uses two equations43,44 from the FTA
Guidelines to determine the “safe distances at which construction vibration would no longer be a
concern for structural damage or disturbance to occupants inside a structure both for truck traffic and
operating construction equipment” (Vibration Report p.11).
The Vibration Report indicates that the first of these equations has been modified (the final exponent
has been reduced from the 1.5 in the FTA Guidelines to 1.1). The Vibration Report justifies this with the
statement that “Long Island’s unique soil structure typically attenuates vibration more effectively than
many other soils of geological areas” (p.10). While true, the analysis has failed to take into account that
41 The speed limit at Location 4 is actually 30 mph.
42 These readings are so low that their accuracy is highly suspect.
43 The first of these equations (Equation 3) is 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒=𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟∗(25/𝐷𝐷)1.1
44 The second equation is 𝐿𝐿𝑣𝑣.𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒=𝐿𝐿𝑣𝑣𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟−30 log(𝐷𝐷/25)+1
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 23 Rev.10
vibration attenuation is lower in frozen soil, or that most Project haul-truck traffic will be during the
winter months. The NHDOT Guidelines (p.29) note that “frozen soil attenuates less than thawed soil.”
The decision to modify the equation in the FTA Guidelines is therefore questionable. The modification of
the equation minimizes the severity of potential impacts to nearby structures from truck-generated
vibration.
Both equations require the use of a “source reference vibration level at 25 feet” (PPVref and Lvref). Table
5 in the Vibration Report, “Reference Data Utilized for Analysis,” indicates that a reference PPV of 0.076
was taken from the FTA Guidelines. However, the Vibration Report analysis indicates that the “loaded
trucks” in the FTA Guidelines are equivalent to “water/fuel” trucks. Those types of trucks generally
weigh only a fraction of what the fully loaded Project haul trucks will weigh. In addition, although the
NHDOT Guidelines also note that the FTA Guidelines use reference value of 0.076, the NHDOT Guidelines
cite other studies that make it clear that this value is not a generally accepted constant.45,46,47
The FTA Guidelines state that “[S]electing sites for an ambient vibration survey requires good judgment.
Sites selected to characterize a transit corridor should be distributed along the entire project where
potential for impacts have been identified” (emphasis added) (p.151). The vibration analysis for the
Project relies on information collected from only one location (Location 4) along the entire truck route.
The FTA Guidelines also call for 4 to 10 passbys for each test. The language in the Vibration Report
suggests that only a single pass was made for the test.
The DEIS has underestimated the potential damage to historic structures from Project truck traffic.
The Vibration Report concludes that “it is anticipated that the minimum distance from trucks to meet
the criteria [required to cause no damage to historic structures] would be 17 feet” (DEIS pp. 224, 295,
Table 52; Vibration Report p.13, Table 6). Using data from the on-site truck study, the analysis
concluded that that distance is 2 feet (DEIS p. 296; Vibration Report p.13). Empirical data indicates that
that this conclusion is incorrect. The Old Hallock Homestead, located considerably farther from Old
45 Final Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, Permanent WTC Path Terminal in Borough of Manhattan, New York County, Chapter
10: Noise and Vibration, May 2005. This document reports loaded trucks have a PPV of 0.85 at 5 feet, 0.30 at 10 feet, 0.11 at
20 feet, and 0.06 at 30 feet.
46 Report on the Pre-Design Studies of Noise and Ground Vibration for N.W.L.R.S., City of Calgary (Oct. 1986), Appendix C,
Vibration Study, Antelope Valley Roadway Project, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. This document reports heavy
trucks have a PPV of 0.25 at 30 meters (99 feet).
47 Readings compiled from Study of Vibrations due to Construction Activities on Haleakala, LeEllen Phelps, Mechanical
Engineering Group, Document TN-0113, Revision A, ATST (Advanced Technology Solar Telescope), Appendix Q: Vibration
Study, July 8, 2009. This document reports large semi-trucks have a Max PPV of 0.010 at 50 feet, 0.0475 at 75 feet, and 0.010
at 150 feet.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 24 Rev.10
Sound Avenue than 17 feet (COMMENT FIGURE - HISTORIC-2), had its plaster ceiling collapse as a
result of traffic-generated vibration.48
The Vibration Report also states that “[A]ll the data collected during the site visit is well below the
threshold at which vibration would cause damage to a historic structure, which would be 0.12 in/sec.
This conclusion was tested against the worst-case scenario using the reference data and calculation
methodology presented in the FTA guidelines” (Vibration Study p.3). However, this is clearly at odds
with the statement in the same paragraph that reads “[T]he worst-case conclusion was that there is a
potential impact from truck traffic to the historic Water Tower and Building located at 3380 W Mill Road
in Mattituck, NY.”
The DEIS discusses potential impacts to historic structures several times. In the section on “Heavy
Vehicle Traffic Induced Vibrations” it states that “the distance trucks needed to be from historic
structures and residential structures in order to not damage those structures was two feet . . . In
summary, the Vibration Study found that the truck traffic generated by construction of [sic] would not
cause damage to either potentially historic structures along the truck route” (DEIS p. 224). If one
accepts this, then no historic properties more than two feet away from a 107,000-pound, fully loaded,
22-wheel tractor trailer travelling at 30 mph (and even faster along Sound Avenue) would be affected.
This strains credulity—witness the damage to the Old Hallock Homestead. The DEIS in the section on
“Construction-Related Vibration Impacts” repeats the two-foot number in three places, but also cites
the 17-foot distance derived from FTA Guidelines (DEIS p. 295, 296, Table 52). This will certainly be
confusing to readers of the DEIS.
The likelihood that Project truck traffic will generate vibrations that will damage the historic Water
Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road is NOT a "worst case" scenario—it is a near-
certain scenario, and that is the reason OPRHP/SHPO request a construction protection plan for this
property. HRS Photos D9-D11 show the water tower and the accessory building give some indication of
the property’s deteriorated condition. More detailed photos (FIGURE HISTORIC-3) clearly show the very
deteriorated condition of the water tower’s concrete foundation (severe cracks and spalling) and iron
components (broken and severely oxidized). The DEIS’ conclusion that this property is unlikely to be
impacted by vibrations from trucks passing it at a distance of 12 feet (or that they could come within
two feet), defies common sense.
The DEIS, in contradiction of its own data, states and falsely concludes that “It was determined that the
Project trucks would not cause vibrations that would impact adjacent historical structures . . . “(DEIS pp.
xix, 227) and “using the data collected near the project site, there is no predicted impact to any nearby
historic structures from truck traffic” (DEIS p. xxxi, xxxii, 296, 306).
According to the DEIS, as “evaluated in . . . Section 3.11 (Archaeological and Cultural Resources), the
proposed action would not result in significant adverse . . . vibration impacts associated with
48 Personal communication from Richard Wines, Hallockville Museum Farm.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 25 Rev.10
construction-related activities . . . “(emphasis added) (DEIS p. 249). As noted above, the HRS barely
touched on the subject of vibration impacts. The “no predicted impact” statements cited above are, in
this statement, replaced with a conclusion that “no significant adverse impacts” will occur. What would
constitute a “significant” or “adverse” impact is not defined.
Noise impacts to Historic Structures
As noted above, the DEIS scope is quite clear that potential noise impacts to historic structures need to
be addressed in the DEIS. Although the HRS makes several references to the need to address noise
impacts HRS pp. 2, 19, 21) it never actually does so.
As noted above, the HRS identifies four properties that “could be indirectly affected by the construction
of the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by project truck traffic”. These are the properties
discussed above in regard to vibration impacts. However, only one of these properties, the Robinson-
D’Aires house, is a residence where “construction of the main water line, the associated hydrant, or by
Project truck traffic” may create potentially adverse noise impacts.
According to the HRS this “historic property . . . is well-elevated above both W. Mill Road and Naugles
Road and, for this reason, is not likely to be affected by vibration effects in the same manner as buildings
might be on the same elevation” (HRS p. 22). However, noise impacts are often perceived to be greater
at locations uphill from the noise source.
The HRS does not address potential noise impacts to properties located along the truck route west of
Cox Neck Road. The DEIS does not indicate if the Applicant has committed to avoiding the use of Jake
brakes along this portion of the Project truck route.
Additional information relevant to assessing noise impacts to historic properties is included in Appendix
R of the revised DEIS. An earlier version of the Acoustic Report in Appendix R was included in the
original December 2021 version of the DEIS. That report is dated November 30, 2021, months after the
HRS was prepared.49 The HRS should not have been prepared until noise data was available.
Only one identified historic property—the Hallock Museum Farm--is open to the public.50 Potential noise
impacts would primarily affect individual residential structures and their occupants. Those impacts are
addressed in comments describing how noise impacts will affect quality of life and community
character.
The HRS does not meaningfully address noise impacts to historic structures although, as noted, this is
required in the DEIS scope.
49 The revised Acoustic Report included in DEIS Appendix R is dated November 29, 2022.
50The Old Mill Inn/Restaurant is currently closed for major restoration/renovation.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 26 Rev.10
Mitigation of Impacts to Historic Structures
The only mitigation proposed in the HRS is for the Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West
Mill Road. The HRS recommends that “orange cones or other prominent markers should be placed at
the south end of the stabilized RCA shoulder during the construction period” (HRS p.17). As shown on
the plan for the temporary on-site haul road (HRS Figure 4) the proposed RCA shoulder would end
approximately 50 feet north of the Water Tower site. According to the DEIS, the purpose of the orange
cones is “to ensure that the construction trucks will maintain distance from the Water Tower and
Building at 3380 West Mill Road to minimize vibration impacts” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xli, 300, 308). It is
unclear exactly how the placement of traffic cones more than 50 feet away from the Water Tower
would mitigate vibration impacts from Project construction vehicles. Given that the water tower is
within feet of the paved roadway, in order to have any meaningful reduction of impact, the restricted
distance between the water tank and passing traffic would require the closing or significant narrowing
of one lane of traffic.
As noted above, based on information in the HRS, OPRHP/SHPO recommended that the Applicant
prepare and implement a Construction Protection Plan for the Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road, and
the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant. In response, the revised DEIS now states that “To ensure that vibration is
responsibly managed, the Applicant has committed to implementing a vibration monitoring plan during
construction at the Project Site to protect nearby historic structures of concern . . .” (pp. xxxii, 296, 306).
Section 3.6.17 of the Vibration Report (included in DEIS Appendix R) is entitled: “Construction Protection
and Vibration Monitoring Plan.” The plan includes the placing of vibration terminals at four
receiving/monitoring locations. Vibration Report Figure 13 shows the prospective monitoring site
locations. Receiver 4 is shown at the location of the Water Tower. None of the other three monitoring
locations are at the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant.51,52
The Applicant-proposed Construction Protection Plan for the Water Tower at 3380 West Mill Road,
and the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant, recommended by OPRHP/SHPO, is inadequate and does not even
address concerns about the Old Mill Inn.
The Applicant’s plan relies on alerts being sent to “the acoustic consultant and construction
management team . . . if an exceedance is measured” Vibration Report p.30). “Exceedance” presumably
refers to an exceedance of “the criteria for no impact, 0.12 in/sec for historic structures and 0.2 in/sec
for residential structures.” The Vibration Report notes that at “location 4, disturbance to inhabitants is
51 The nearest location is at the residence at 5106 West Mill Road which is approximately 600 feet away from the Old Mill
Inn/Restaurant, and at a much higher elevation. The other locations are at 800 and 895 North Drive.
52 Table 9 in the Vibration Report lists the distances from receiving locations to the project site. It twice, incorrectly, identifies
the location of the Water Tower as being located at 3380 Sound Avenue.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 27 Rev.10
not a concern.” The monitoring and construction protection plan for monitoring location 4 (the Water
Tower at 3380 West Mill Road is described as follows:
“- Arrival and departure times for all trucks to be loaded and leaving with building materials
should be logged by the construction management team. All scheduled traffic must occur within
defined work hours.
- Should an alert be triggered at Vibration Monitoring Location 4, the time of the alert should be
correlated with the arrival times of all trucks coming to the Project Site.
- If it is confirmed that exceedance is due to operation of a truck associated with the
construction, truck operators will be required to reduce speeds near the Water Tower and
Building so that vibration is reduced. All drivers are to be notified of any speed restrictions.
- Should two alerts confirmed to be due to truck vibration occur on the same day, truck trips are
to be halted until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented” (DEIS pp.
xli [twice], 301, 307, 308; Vibration Report p. 30).
There are numerous problems with this plan:
It includes setting a value of 0.12 PPV as the point at which an alert will be triggered. This much too high.
“Strict construction vibration control limits for [landmark] buildings serve not only to eliminate the
possibility of immediate damage, but also to reduce future fatigue damage that may be caused by the
cumulative effects of both man and the environment.”53
As noted above, the 0.12 PPV is not a universally accepted threshold for damage to historic properties.
In addition, if an alert is triggered only after a reading 0.12 PPV is recorded, it means that damage may
have already occurred. In addition, the DEIS and the Vibration Report state that tests indicated that the
PPV associated with haul truck movements on West Mill Road is 0.007. If that is correct (which seems
unlikely), there should be no problem with setting the alert threshold at a much lower value than 0.12
PPV.
All components of the plan are designed to collect data for purpose of confirming that a Project
construction vehicle is not be the cause of the alert. The plan should take the conservative approach,
and assume that any alerts are caused by Project vehicles. Given that during the six-month long
excavation phases, a Project haul truck will be passing Monitoring Location 4 approximately every seven
minutes, there will not be sufficient time to determine whether or not a Project vehicle is responsible.
53 Konon, Walter and John R. Schuring. Vibration Criteria for Historic and Sensitive Older Buildings. Paper presented at the 1983
meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Houston, TX.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 28 Rev.10
The last component of the plan is so vague as to be meaningless. It merely calls for truck trips to be
halted “until additional data can be collected and mitigation can be implemented.” What data? What
mitigation? Who will determine what data is collected? Who will determine what constitutes adequate
and appropriate mitigation? How will trucks in-route to the Project site be notified that they should not
proceed to the Project site? Will the Town of Southold be notified? Who will have stop- and start-work
authority?
The DEIS acknowledges that, using both the FTA and NHDOT guidelines, “it was determined that historic
structures needed to be more than 17 feet from the truck to be safe from damage,” (DEIS pp.224, 295).
However, the historic water tower at 3380 West Mill Road will be 12 feet away from passing trucks. The
construction protection plan, because it is reactive, rather than proactive, fails to propose any
meaningful measures to protect this historic property.
No site-specific procedure for dealing with potential vibration impacts to the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant is
included in the plan, in spite of the fact that OPRHP/SHPO specifically called out concerns about this
property.
Consistency with the Southold Comprehensive Plan and the Southold LWRP
The DEIS misrepresents the Project’s consistency with historic preservation policies in both the
Southold Comprehensive Plan and the Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.
DEIS Table 30 (analysis of Project consistency with the Town of Southold’s Comprehensive Plan states
that “[I]t is further noted that the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has
reviewed the proposed action and a determination of no impact upon cultural resources (historic and
archaeology) has been issued (see Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this DEIS).”
DEIS Table 31 (analysis of Project consistency with the Town of Southold’s Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan) (LWRP) states “There are no known historic or archaeological resources on or
adjacent to the subject property that would be adversely impacted by the proposed action. A Phase 1A
and Phase 1B was conducted on the subject property and the NYS OPRHP has issued a determination of
no impact upon cultural resources (see Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this DEIS).
Both of the above statements are incorrect and misleading.
In the case of the Table 30 statement, OPRHP/SHPO has stated that they based their July 29, 2021
comments on information in the HRS. As demonstrated above, this information is incomplete and, in
many cases, inaccurate. Second, OPRHP/SHPO indicated in their April 8, 2022 superseding
correspondence that “OPRHP has concerns regarding potential impacts to historic architectural
resources as a result of vibrations from construction vehicles”.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 29 Rev.10
Table 31 suffers from the same inaccuracies as Table 30. Several historic properties (including the Old
Mill Inn/Restaurant, and the Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road) have been
determined to be eligible for listing on both the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The
references Phase 1A and 1B studies were limited to archeological concerns and did not deal with historic
structures.
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 30 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE HISTORIC-1
View from 15 East Mill Road (G.H. Fisher House). The Project site and the Old Mill Inn/Restaurant are on
the right. The Project includes the removal of the trees on the hill at the right side of the photo.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-E-Mill-Rd-Mattituck-NY-11952/32755604_zpid/?
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 31 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE HISTORIC-2
Old Hallock Homestead, April 2023. Note National Register plaque at right.
National Register Plaque Note distance/proximity to Sound Avenue
Page |Cultural Resources - Historic Structures - 32 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE HISTORIC-3
Page | Human Health Impacts - 1 Rev2a
HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS 1
According to the DEIS the “repair, maintenance, fueling, washing and detailing of boats would occur in
the same manner as they currently do on-site. Repair and maintenance would occur within the on-site
buildings and/or at the existing dock” (emphasis added) (pp. xxvii, 279). This sentence is ambiguous in
that it is unclear whether it means repair and maintenance activities will continue to occur only within
presently on-site buildings, or if on-site buildings include the proposed storage buildings.
The DEIS states that it “is noted that the proposed action would not alter the maximum amounts of
chemicals and antifouling paint stored onsite” (pp. xxviii, 279). The DEIS also states that “[n]o changes
to chemical storage nor chemical storage volumes are anticipated as part of the proposed action” (p.90),
and that the “proposed action would not require SYC to modify its current quantities of chemicals stored
onsite nor require additional chemicals be stored on-site” (pp. xv, 190). However, other statements in
the DEIS call these statements into question.
The DEIS states that “new employees would be for the boatyard only and include positions for boat
maintenance, machinery operators, engine technicians, administrative, and wood and fiberglass re-
finishing personnel” (pp. xxviii, 20, 279) and “the proposed action would create new jobs for the
servicing of the larger vessels to be stored on-site,” (p.178). Many (most?) of the newly created jobs
would presumably be related to the servicing of boats stored inside the new storage buildings. It is
difficult to reconcile this with the statement that the amount of chemicals stored on site will not
increase. This inconsistency is also supported by the fact that the scale of maintenance and repair
activities will increase significantly as a result of the proposed Project. This is evident from the fact that
in 2020 SYC revenues from boat servicing totaled $1,262,936, but will increase more than 40% to an
estimated $1,800,000 in 2024 if the Project is completed. It is also noted that the Planning Board also
believed that the proposed Project would necessitate an increase in the volume of chemicals stored on
site. This is evident from the DEIS Scope requirement that the applicant provide “an analysis on the
chemicals stored and disposed on site and the potential adverse impacts from the increase in volume of
chemicals used and stored on site during the proposed action” (emphasis added) (DEIS Scope p.11).
The DEIS notes that “SYC maintains an Article 12 Permit from SCDHS dated September 1, 2017 for the
storage of hazardous materials at the subject property (see Appendix J)” (pp. 51, also pp. 160, 188), and
states that because there “are no changes proposed to the existing tanks or volume of materials stored
on-site. . . no additional Article 12 permitting [is] required for the proposed action” (p. 77). The DIES also
states that the “current Article 12 permit issued by SCDHS on September 1, 2017 would not be adjusted”
(p.190).
A copy of SYC’s Article 12 permit is included in DEIS Appendix J. Condition 1 of the permit states that
“This site operating permit does not imply that each individual storage unit at the site is in compliance
1 The DEIS discusses the SYC Fire Safety Plan as part of its mitigation of the Project’s potential impacts on human health (p.187).
The significant deficiencies in this plan are discussed as part of other comments relating to fire and public safety.
Page | Human Health Impacts - 2 Rev2a
with all applicable codes.” Permit Condition 3 states that the permit “is limited to storage unit(s) listed
on the latest renewal/invoice notice. That list is made a part of this permit.” This information is not
included with the copy of the Article 12 permit included in the DEIS.
DEIS Table 13 (and DEIS Appendix M Table 3) is a list of “On-Site Stored Chemicals for Boat Maintenance,
Repair and Detailing.” According to the SYC website,2 (COMMENT FIGURE - HEALTH 1) on-site services
offered by SYC include “Gelcoat Refinishing.” According a manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS), Gelcoat is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR
1910.1200).3 Gelcoat does not appear among the list (DEIS Table 13) of on-site stored chemicals.
The DEIS states that “The proposed action would not require SYC to modify its current quantities of
antifouling paint stored on-site as painting services would not be offered to customers storing yachts in
Buildings 9 and 10” [proposed storage buildings 1 and 2] (p.190). However, no such statement in regard
to Gelcoat refinishing services, or other maintenance activities, is included in the DEIS.4 This is
concerning since the DEIS states that new employees hired if the Project proceeds will include “wood
and fiberglass re-finishing personnel.” The latter activity involves the use of Gelcoat.
2 https://strongsmarine.com/strongs_yacht_location
3 https://www.sherfab.com/assets/images/LILLY%20RAM%20W-1%20WHITE%20%20GELCOAT%20%20SDS.pdf
4Under the heading “Battery and Engine Oil Storage “, in the DEIS section dealing with toxic and hazardous material stored at
SYC, the DEIS states that the “proposed action would not require SYC to modify its current quantities of antifouling paint
stored on-site as painting services would not be offered to customers storing yachts in Buildings 9 and 10.” This is presumably
an editorial error, but it leaves unanswered of what types of maintenance services will be offered to customers storing yachts
in the proposed storage structures, and if those services would generate hazardous wastes.
Page | Human Health Impacts - 3 Rev2a
COMMENT FIGURE - HEALTH 1
https://strongsmarine.com/strongs_yacht_location (accessed May 12, 2023).
Page | Lighting - 1 Rev1a
LIGHTING IMPACTS
The DEIS has not adequately or properly addressed the impacts of new lighting proposed as part of the
Project.
The DEIS limits its discussion of lighting impacts that would be created by the Project to a few
paragraphs 1 and sentences, portions of which are repeated throughout the DEIS:
“The proposed site lighting would consist of light poles and building fixtures. Specifically,
as indicated on the Details sheet (see Appendix C), the proposed action includes three
14-foot lamp poles with LED fixtures (two at the above ground tanks between Buildings
7 and 10 and one south of Building 8 at the retaining wall); 38[2] wall scones at 14-feet
above grade around the eastern and southern sides of Building 10 and the northern,
eastern, and southern sides of Building 9, and western sides of Buildings 7 and 8; and
13[3] wall lights along the northern and western sides of Building 10 and along the
western side of Building 9. Each lamp pole would include a shielded fixture such that all
light would be directed downwards with no upward glare. To mitigate light trespass and
glare, all lighting would be shielded and directed downwards at an intensity compliant
with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting). The proposed lighting would
comply with the lighting standards set forth in §172-5 and would be subject to the
review and approval of the Town of Southold Building Department” (p.163, 234; see
also pp. Table 30, p.173, 234).
The DEIS also states that “[T]o mitigate light trespass and glare, all lighting will be shielded and directed
downwards at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting)” (pp.
xxxvii, 12, 163, 240). This implies that conformance to the Town Code equates with “no impact” and
“mitigation.” It does not.
The DEIS does not indicate if the proposed lighting will operate from dusk to dawn, or will equipped with
motion detectors.
Contrary to claims in the DEIS, no photometric analysis has been performed.
The DEIS also states that the “photometric analysis illustrated on the Details sheet (see Appendix C)
demonstrates that the proposed design would not result in any off-site or trespass ligh�ng. As such, the
1 A subsection of DEIS Section 1.2.4 is entitled “Site Lighting” (p.11). A subsection of DEIS Section 3.1.2 (Potential Impacts) is
entitled “Proposed Site Lighting” (p.163). The sections are identical, except that the latter reference contains a second
paragraph having nothing to do with lighting.
2 Only 35 wall sconces are shown on Project site plans (DEIS Appendix C, Sheet 2 of 13 [Alignment Plan]; Sheet 4 of 13 [Utility
Plan]).
3 No Building 13 is mentioned among the existing buildings at the site (DEIS p. 2) or called-out on Project site plans.
Page | Lighting - 2 Rev1a
proposed ac�on would be consistent with this goal from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan” (Table 30,
p.173, 234).
In fact, no meaningful photometric analysis has been performed. A true photometric analysis focuses
on how the light from the fixture surrounds the area of coverage.4 In addi�on to the informa�on
referenced in fn4 (below), the por�ons of the Details sheet in Appendix C dealing with ligh�ng include
only a ligh�ng schedule which indicates the number of each type of ligh�ng fixture planned for the
Project, their lumen 5 ra�ng, profile drawings for the two types of pole mounted fixtures proposed
(COMMENT FIGURE L-1). Nothing on the Details sheet “demonstrates that the proposed design would
not result in any off-site or trespass ligh�ng.”
The DEIS claims that “Addi�onally, the proposed site ligh�ng has been designed to illuminate the subject
property in an efficient manner that would minimize nuisances from light intensity, glare and light
trespass” (emphasis added) (p.234)”. Note the use of the word “minimize.” This would seem to directly
conflict with the previous statement that the Project “would not result in any off-site or trespass
ligh�ng.” In fact, the Applicant stated in his April 6, 2023 version of the Project fact sheet (and earlier
versions) posted on his website that “Impacts to ecological habitat in Mill Road Preserve, such as
increased light in the forest, may occur.”6 That statement was removed from the current version of the
fact sheet dated April 23, 2023.
The analysis of ligh�ng impacts is especially important because exis�ng light levels on the Project site
cannot be compared to post-construc�on light levels. This is because the new ligh�ng will be installed
at a lower eleva�on than the exis�ng ground surface. In addi�on, no atempt has been made to
measure exis�ng ar�ficial light levels. The amount of new ligh�ng to be installed as part of the Project is
considerably greater than exis�ng ligh�ng. No exis�ng ligh�ng is shown on the site plans included in
DEIS Appendix C.
The DEIS has not considered the following:
Will an increase in light levels be visible from adjacent properties and other properties within the
Project’s undefined viewshed? This is of special concern for proper�es on North Drive and at 5106 West
Mill Road. All of the ligh�ng proposed along the south side of proposed Storage Building 2 (Bldg. 9) will
4 This can be done through creation of an isolux contour diagram which shows areas of equal illuminance. Illuminance
measures how much of the incident light (or luminous intensity) illuminates a surface. The unit of measure of illuminance is
the lux. This contrasts with luminance, the measure of direct light emitted from a source. Luminance is measured in lumens.
The lighting plan shown on Sheet 7 of the Site Development Plans (DEIS Appendix C) indicates estimated post-construction
light levels (lumens, lux?) around the Project site, but by virtue of scale and the failure to present this data as isolux contours
makes it very difficult to interpret.
5 The amount of light emitted by each fixture.
6 https://strongsmarine.com/assets/images/pdf/4.6.22%20SYC%20building%20project%20fact%20sheet.pdf. (Accessed April
15, 2023).
Page | Lighting - 3 Rev1a
be less than 200 feet from the former. All of the ligh�ng proposed along the north side of proposed
Storage Building 1 (Bldg. 10) will be less than 200 feet from the later. Although the new ligh�ng will be
at a lower eleva�on than the nearby proper�es, the possibility that light reflected from the metallic
walls of the new storage structures will be visible from these proper�es should have been evaluated in
the DEIS.
To what extent will sky glow be increased by the new/additional lighting associated with the Project?
Sky glow is the brightening of the night sky caused by outdoor ligh�ng and natural atmospheric and
celes�al factors. Outdoor ligh�ng contributes to sky glow by producing light that is either emited
directly upward by luminaires or reflected from the ground. This light is then scatered by dust and gas
molecules in the atmosphere, producing a luminous background. This is the most pervasive form of light
pollu�on and can affect areas many miles from the original light source.
Will residences with views towards the Project (including those on the east side of Mattituck Inlet)
have night-time views of the new storage buildings, or changed views of existing marina facilities as a
result of the new lighting?
The DEIS has not adequately addressed potential lighting impacts to wildlife.
DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Survey) concludes that “no adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat are
expected to result from new outdoor lighting associated with the proposed action” (DEIS Appendix N
p.33). The identical conclusion is included in the DEIS (pp. xiii, 140, 174). This conclusion is apparently
based entirely on the fact that the “proposed lighting shall be dark skies-compliant” and the
unsupported claim that “downward directed lighting [will result] in no increase in light levels beyond the
limit of the proposed buildings, access roads, and parking surfaces” (DEIS pp. xiii, 140, 174; Appendix N
p. 33). It is unclear whether the “no adverse impact” conclusion is based on the opinion of the
Applicant’s ecology consultant, or the Applicant’s Project engineer. Who is quoting whom? Which party
is relying on the other? In any case, the lighting levels shown on the detail sheet in DEIS Appendix C, do
not include post-construction lighting levels beyond the limits of the Project area.
All of the new ligh�ng proposed for the Project will be LED fixtures. Some of the characteristics of LEDs
can influence the effect of artificial light on wildlife. White LEDs generally contain short wavelength blue
light. Short wavelength light scatters more readily than long wavelength light, contributing more to sky
glow. Most wildlife is sensitive to blue light.7
7 Although it not noted in the DEIS, the specific lighting fixtures identified on the Details sheet in Appendix C, come in different
color temperatures. https://www.lsicorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/xpws3-specification-features.pdf
Page | Lighting - 4 Rev1a
COMMENT FIGURE L-1
Lighting information included on the Details sheet (sheet 7 of 15 in DEIS Appendix C).
Page | LWRP Consistency - 1 Rev5
LWRP CONSISTENCY
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include “a summary of the project's consistency with the proposed
land uses set forth in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (L WRP).”
The DEIS has concluded that “the proposed action is consistent with the stated goals of the Town of
Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP)” (p.14). The Applicant’s analysis in support of
that conclusion is presented in DEIS Table 31, which is followed by the conclusion that “[A]s indicated in
Table 30 [sic] above, the proposed action is consistent with the relevant policy goals of the Town of
Southold LWRP. As such, no significant adverse impacts to coastal resources would be expected” (p.
180). In fact, the Project is not consistent with any of Southold’s LWRP policies.
Table 31 presents an incomplete and inaccurate discussion of the Project’s consistency with LWRP in
regard to a majority of LWRP policies. A requirement of all LWRPs is that proposed projects
“comply with and be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable coastal
policies. This is to ensure that multiple coastal policy objectives are advanced to
achieve comprehensive benefits, rather than advancing one or more policies or
objectives to the detriment of others. For example, while several coastal policies
compete with others and competing policies often apply in a wide range of
circumstances, the objective through consistency is to ensure that multiple coastal
policies are advanced by avoiding conflicts between individual policies. This is different
than traditional single purpose environmental or development permit programs,
because it is comprehensive and all applicable policies are required to be adhered to”
(emphasis in original) (New York Coastal Management Program Consistency Manual,
2010:15).
The proposed Project is not consistent with LWRP policies, and is clearly inconsistent with others. The
conclusions in the DEIS concerning the Project’s LWRP consistency cannot be supported.
LWRP Policy 1: Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community
character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal
location, and minimizes adverse effects of development.
DEIS: “the length and mass of the proposed buildings would not be visibly obtrusive to surrounding
properties located along Mattituck Creek. Furthermore, the proposed buildings would be
constructed with the same material as the existing buildings (i.e., blue siding with white trim
windows and eaves) such that it would blend with the aesthetics of existing development on-site”
(DEIS Table 31, p.181).
Response: The applicant’s consultants are substituting their own opinion for that of the
community. No attempt was made as part of the aesthetic analysis to solicit the opinions of
Page | LWRP Consistency - 2 Rev5
property owners within the Project’s viewshed, or recreational users of Mattituck Creek. As
noted in comments on the adequacy of the visual impact assessment completed for the Project,
because of the significant flaws in that analysis (for example, substituting renderings for
photographs to present existing conditions and showing existing structures as stark white when
they are blue), any conclusions based on it must be considered suspect.
DEIS: “5.51± acres of the existing forested land on the western portion of the subject property
would be removed. However, 11.76± acres of forested area on the western portion of the subject
property would remain and an additional 1.67± acres of landscaping would be planted” (DEIS Table
31, p.181).
Response: How much of the existing forest land would remain on the Project parcel is not
relevant. The proposed additional landscaping consists of small immature trees in no way
comparable to the trees which will be destroyed by the Project. No mention is made of the
Project’s potential adverse impacts to presently permanently preserved open space—the Mill
Road Preserve. The Project is clearly inconsistent with Policy 1 in this regard.
DEIS: “Upon project implementation, the tree line would be setback for a distance of approximately
500± feet. As indicated on the renderings included in the Appendix Q of this DEIS, the existing visual
setting (i.e., maritime use with vegetated upland area) would not be significantly altered” (DEIS
Table 31, p.181).
Response: As noted above, this is the opinion of the applicant’s consultants based on a faulty
visual impact analysis. The DEIS’ use of language suggests that it acknowledges that the visual
setting will be altered, but only not to an undefined significant extent in the opinion of the
applicant’s consultants.
DEIS: “The proposed development . . . would connect to the public water supply through extension
of the water main. . . This water main extension would give the seven property owners, identified in
Table 12 and discussed in Section 2.2.1 of this DEIS, with the ability to connect to public water but
remain served by private wells the opportunity to connect to SCWA and further decrease the
amount of water being withdrawn from the aquifer” (DEIS Table 31, p.181).
Response: This statement is incorrect. As discussed in more detail in other comments on the
proposed water main extension, Table 12 is a list, prepared by the Suffolk County Water
Authority, of land parcels located within 500 feet of the Project parcel indicating if a parcel has
access to a public water supply and, if so, if the parcel is connected. It is not a list of parcels that
would be able to access public water if the proposed water main connection is constructed.
Only two parcels, one of which is owned by the Applicant, would be able to realistically access
public water post-Project construction—not seven.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 3 Rev5
DEIS: “The proposed action also includes the replacement of an existing individual on-site sanitary
system with an I/A OWTS, and the installation of one additional I/A OWTS to accommodate all
sanitary waste in accordance with SCDHS requirements. As the proposed action would replace and
upgrade an existing conventional septic system with an I/A OWTS and install an additional I/A
OWTS, the proposed sanitary system would reduce nitrogen loading and be more protective of
groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing conventional septic system” (DEIS Table
31, p. 181).
Response: The installation of an existing on-site sanitary system with an I/A OWTS to “reduce
nitrogen loading and be more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the
existing conventional septic system.” However, as noted elsewhere in the DEIS, in its discussion
of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the DEIS notes that “as of Resolution No. 702-2020 adopted
on October 16, 2020, I/A OWTS are required for new or expanded single-family residences and
new ‘other construction’ projects effective on July 1, 2021” (emphasis added) (p.50). In other
words, while replacement of the existing on-site sanitary system is consistent with the LWRP,
the Project is legally required to install an I/A OWTS. The replacement of the existing system
with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project approval. The Planning Board should
determine if the applicant intends to replace the existing system even if the proposed Project
does not proceed.
DEIS: “The proposed project seeks to expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet
demand for indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island” (DEIS Table 31,
p. 181).
Response: The DEIS does not include any information demonstrating the existence of an “unmet
demand.” The DEIS notes elsewhere that the demand for “indoor heated winter storage of
yachts” is not limited to the east end of Long Island but rather, that the Project is intended to
also serve “other owners on Long Island, Westchester County, and in the States of Connecticut
and New Jersey” (pp. ii, xxviii, 20, 278).
DEIS: “According to the applicant, this investment in additional yacht storage would ensure this
marina continues to operate for many years to come as a working marina and not succumb to the
pressures of transitioning to residential with private waterfront use, or a hotel, motel or restaurant
development which are all permitted by special exception use permit (emphasis added)” (DEIS
Table 31, p. 181).
Response: The preparers of the DEIS are clear that they are relying on the unsupported opinion of the
Applicant. There is no explanation as to why the default uses described by the Applicant would be less
desirable. As the DEIS notes, those uses are not inevitable if the Project is not approved, because they
would require special exception use permits which cannot be guaranteed. The discussion of the No-
Build alternative in the DEIS makes no mention of any of this. Nor does the DEIS include any discussion
Page | LWRP Consistency - 4 Rev5
of the impacts associated with the possibility that the Project might become economically unviable. The
Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 1.
LWRP Policy 2: Preserve historic resources of the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “There are no known historic or archaeological resources on or adjacent to the subject
property that would be adversely impacted by the proposed action” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181).
Response: This statement is both incorrect and misleading. The Project will not result in the
preservation of any historic resource. In addition, while no historic properties are “on or
adjacent” to the Project site, two properties eligible for listing on the State and National
Registers of Historic Places—the Old Mill Restaurant and the Old Water Tower—may be
adversely affected by vibration from Project-associated construction truck traffic.
DEIS: “. . . the NYS OPRHP has issued a determination of no impact upon cultural resources (see
Section 3.11.2 and Appendix T of this DEIS)” (DEIS Table 31, p. 181).
Response: This statement is incorrect. The OPRHP correspondence in Appendix T (labeled
“Historic Signoff SHPO” dated July 29, 2021 indicated that OPRHP had not yet completed its
review of the archeological studies prepared for the Project. On January 24, 2022, OPRHP
advised the NYSDEC that it was “still evaluating the project’s potential to impact historic
architectural resources.” On April 8, 2022, OPRHP advised they have “concerns regarding
potential impacts to historic architectural resources as a result of vibrations from construction
vehicles” (DEIS Appendix T). As of March 2023, OPRHP has not indicated that their concerns
have been addressed.
Although OPRHP’s January 24, 2022 correspondence (DEIS Appendix T) indicated that, in their opinion,
“no additional archaeological investigation is needed,” a careful analysis of information in the
archeological survey reports prepared for the Project (DEIS Appendix T) suggests that this conclusion
was premature.1 It is the Planning Board, not OPRHP, that has ultimate responsibility for determining if
potential impacts to archeological sites have been adequately addressed. The Project is not consistent
with Policy 2.
LWRP Policy 3: Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “The proposed action would not have a significant adverse impact on the visual quality or
scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold.”
Response: As noted above, and in comments on the inadequacy of the visual impact assessment
included in the DEIS, this statement cannot be supported. The Project does nothing to enhance visual
1 See accompanying comments relating to potential impacts to archeological resources.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 5 Rev5
quality or protect scenic resources. The DEIS acknowledges that the Project will have a visual impact,
but qualifies this by saying that the impact “would not be significant as depicted by the photo-
simulations . . .” which, as noted in other comments, are not just misleading, they were not properly
prepared, and cannot be used to assess visual impacts. As demonstrated in photographs accompanying
these comments, the Project likely will have a significant visual impact. The Project is not consistent
with LWRP Policy 3.
LWRP Policy 4: Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
DEIS: “Sea level rise projections discussed in Section 2.3.2 would not inundate the subject property
and impacts from sea level rise and storm inundation are concentrated at the bulkhead.
Additionally, if a 16-inch rise in groundwater elevation occurred, the drainage infrastructure
proposed would be supplemented with shallow drainage structures to accommodate stormwater
runoff” (DEIS p. 182).
Response: The DEIS has based its analyses on a potential sea level rise of 16 inches (or 1.33± feet) by
2050 which, per 6 NYCRR 490 is considered a “medium”2 projection. The DEIS considers this
“reasonable.” A more conservative analysis using a “'High-medium” projection assuming a sea level rise
of 21 inches, or a “high” projection of 30 inches, representing a possible “worst-case” scenario should
have been used. While these alternate scenarios are noted in the DEIS (p.105, Table 16) they are
excluded from analyses.3 The Project does nothing to minimize loss of life, structures, and natural
resources from flooding and erosion. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 4.
LWRP Policy 5: Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “As the proposed action would replace and upgrade an existing septic system with an I/A
OWTS and install an additional I/A OWTS, the proposed sanitary system would reduce nitrogen
loading and be more protective of groundwater quality than continuing to utilize the existing
conventional septic system” (DEIS p. 182).
Response: While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that
replacement of the existing septic system with an I/A OWTS is not contingent upon Project
approval. The applicant could install an I/A OWTS system now, and has chosen not to do so.
2“Medium projection” is the amount of sea level rise that is about as likely as not (the mean of the 25th and 75th percentiles
of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[n]). “High-medium projection” is the
amount of sea-level rise that is unlikely (the 75th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time
interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[h]). “High projection” is the amount of sea-level rise that is associated with high rates of melt of
land-based ice and is very unlikely (the 90th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time
interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[i]).
3 A more detailed discussion is included in comments on how the project could be affected by sea level change.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 6 Rev5
DEIS: “The proposed stormwater management controls include both structural infiltration (on-site
leaching pools) and non-structural methods (pervious gravel)” (DEIS p. 182).
Response: The DEIS states that the “recommended separation distance to groundwater for
sanitary leaching fields is three feet” (emphasis added). This is actually a requirement of the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The DEIS has concluded that Proposed Sanitary
System No. 2 and Drainage Leaching Field 3.0 would be separated from groundwater by exactly
3.0 feet (DEIS Table 17). In other words, the system, as designed, would barely be compliant on
day one of operation, and would become non-compliant should there be any future increase in
sea levels.
DEIS: “The proposed irrigation system would implement smart irrigation controls to reduce or
eliminate the use of the irrigation system during periods of rain. The irrigation system would be
installed with a drip line to prevent evaporation as well as rain sensors so as to not go on while it is
raining.”
Response: While this aspect of the Project is consistent with the LWRP, it should be noted that
installation of smart irrigation controls and rains sensors is not contingent upon Project approval. The
Applicant could upgrade the existing irrigation system now, and has chosen not to do so. The Project is
not consistent with LWRP Policy 5.
LWRP Policy 6: Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem.
DEIS: “To mitigate the impacts to the forest edge, the Applicant will plant 27,333 SF 4 of native
trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the new forest edge. This planted area is approximately 20-30
feet wide and will include dense, multi-layered plantings (i.e., plants that at maturity will occupy
understory, and canopy-levels) with abundant conifer trees (i.e., 86 pitch pine trees) to minimize
light penetration into the new forest.”
Response: This statement in the DEIS acknowledges that that the Project will impact the forest
edge. It is misleading in that it does not indicate that it is the Town-owned Mill Creek Preserve
that will be adversely impacted. Although discussed elsewhere in the DEIS, the discussion of
LWRP consistency 1) makes no mention of the more than 600 trees with an average DBH of 12.8
inches, and estimated heights of 50- 80 feet, that will be destroyed as part of the Project, and 2)
fails to note that the “abundant” (86) pitch pines proposed to offset this loss will be 4-5 foot
high and only a few inches in diameter. The Proposed Landscape Plan in Appendix C indicates
4DEIS Appendix N states that “trees will be planted . . . within a 27,333 SF [0.63 acres] planting area along the new forest
edge,” but does not indicate a source for this number. The DEIS repeats this number more than a dozen times. The new
plantings will be placed adjacent to the top of the proposed 875-foot long retaining wall. The project landscaping plan
indicates that the planting area will extend approximately 20 feet beyond the ends of the retaining wall. Assuming a 30-foot
width for the planting area, this yields a planting area of 0.63 acres. However, as noted above, the planting area as shown on
project plans is closer to 15 feet wide, yielding an area of approximately 0.32 acres.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 7 Rev5
that the planted area will be closer to 15 feet in width, rather than 20-30 feet, and will consist of
a single staggered row of new trees planted 13 feet on-center. This will do little to “minimize
light penetration into the new forest.”
DEIS: “After establishment of these natural vegetation areas located landward of the proposed
retaining wall, the total forest area on the property will increase from 11.76±-acres to 12.39±-
acres.”
Response: This statement is misleading in that it refers only to the area “landward of the
proposed retaining wall” and does not represent total forest loss associated with Project
construction. According to text and tables in DEIS Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and Impact
Report) and the DEIS (p.115) the Project parcel contains 12.60 acres of coastal oak-beech forest
and 4.67 acres of successional southern hardwoods. Both Appendix N (Table 6) and the DEIS
(Table 25) indicate that the Project will destroy 4.32 acres of the former, and 1.19 acres of the
latter. This equates to a loss of 5.51 acres. This loss would be somewhat offset by new plantings
along the forest edge at the top of the proposed retaining wall. The DEIS states that these new
plantings will cover 27,333 SF. This equates to 0.63 acres, giving a net loss of 4.88 acres in forest
area on the Project parcel.5 This significant loss of forest is not consistent with LWRP policy to
“protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s ecosystem.”
DEIS: “Additionally, the Applicant will contribute fifty (50) native trees (10-gallon container typical
1-inch caliper, 5-6 feet tall) for installation at high-priority sites with the Town of Southold, as
identified by the Town Tree Committee, to enhance and beautify public grounds.”
Response: While not inconsistent with the LWRP, this proposed mitigation measure falls far
short of compensating for the loss of more than 600 mature trees. As described in the DEIS, the
cost of installation will have to be borne by the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “Furthermore, the proposed action would include erosion and sedimentation control
measures to be undertaken prior to and during construction and would include, at minimum,
stockpile protection, minimizing the extent and duration of exposed areas, installation of sediment
barriers and sediment traps (silt fencing), and the construction and maintenance of a stabilized
construction entrance to prevent soil and loose debris from being tracked onto local roads.”
Response: The DEIS indicates that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be
prepared in accordance with the requirements and specifications of NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit No. GP-0-20-001 and Chapter 236 "Stormwater Management” of the Southold Town
Code. While a completed SWPP is not required as part of the SEQRA process, there is at least
one aspect of the Project that is of special concern because it is possible that routine erosion
5 As noted above in fn3, the actual area of new plantings will be approximately half as large. As a result, the net forest area loss
will be closer to 5.19 acres.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 8 Rev5
and sediment control measures may not be able to adequately protect the ecosystem from
damage. A concrete washout area is shown on the Project’s erosion and sediment control plan.
It would be located just west of the southwest corner of existing marina building No. 8,
approximately 125 feet from Mattituck Creek. Given that the Project will require more than
5,000 cubic yards of concrete to be delivered, a significant amount of washout water will be
generated. NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-20-001 prohibits the discharge of
wastewater from concrete washout.6 Given the close proximity to Mattituck Inlet the Planning
Board should require the applicant to demonstrate that washout water would not be discharged
or flow to Mattituck Creek. Until this can be reasonably assured, the Project cannot be
considered consistent with the LWRP.
The Applicant’s proposed mitigation falls far short compensating for the significant impacts on the local ecosystem.
Nothing in the proposed Project will “Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold’s
ecosystem.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 6.
LWRP Policy 7: Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “The Air Quality Report (see Appendix S) concluded that long-term air quality impacts would
be inconsequential as the addition of stationary emission sources is not proposed and vehicular
traffic due to the implementation of the proposed action would be minimal.
Response: The Air Quality Report also concluded that short-term air quality impacts “may occur
during the excavation phase of the project.” The statement that stationary emission sources are
not proposed is incorrect. The proposed storage buildings will be heated by propane. Although
the heating source is not identified in the DEIS, one will be required, and it will be an emission
source.
DEIS: “Additionally, the existing CCE FLUPSY units would continue to operate as part of the
proposed action. This program has a beneficial impact on carbon sequestration and therefore
improves the water and air quality of the Town of Southold. As such, the proposed action would be
consistent with the intent of this policy.”
Response: DEIS Table 31 makes no reference to the fact that because the Project will destroy more than
600 mature trees, with an associated loss of sequestered carbon, it will have an adverse effect on air
quality. The DEIS states that “the projected 1.5 million clams harvested annually [from the CCE FLUPSY
units] have the potential to sequester 9,680 lbs. [less than 5 tons] of carbon” (p.273). However, in
discussing LWRP consistency no mention is made of the loss of more than 350 tons of sequestered carbon
as a result of forest clearing, or the fact that the carbon sequestration associated with operation of the
CCE FLUPSY units affects only carbon in seawater and has no effect on air quality. The proposed Project
will adversely affect air quality in the Town of Southold. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 7.
6 The Southold Town Code is silent on the issue of concrete washout discharges.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 9 Rev5
LWRP Policy 8: Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and
hazardous substances and wastes.
DEIS: As part of the proposed action, all wastes generated on-site would be handled in the same
manner, and no significant change is expected for the additional boat storage. As such, the
proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy.”
Response: The increase in yacht maintenance and repair work generated by the Project will be
result in a proportional increase in hazardous waste byproducts from those activities. The Project
is not consistent with LWRP Policy 8.
LWRP Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and
public resources of the Town of Southold.
DEIS: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as the existing marina is for private
membership to utilize the facilities, which would remain as part of the proposed action. The
proposed action would not establish public access to Mattituck Creek. However, the proposed
action would respond to an industry demand for local seasonal storage for recreational boaters.
The proposed Project seeks to expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for
indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. This supports an existing
recreational use within the Town. As such, while this policy is not applicable, the proposed action
would be consistent with the intent of this policy.
Response: Rather than being “inapplicable,” the proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 9 as it does
not provide for “public use.” The DEIS states that the Project is responding to “an industry demand” by
“expand[ing] the business services of SYC . . .”, but includes no information to demonstrate the existence
of the “demand . . . on the east end of Long Island.” There is no aspect of providing “winter storage” that
would result in “recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of
Southold”. The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 9.
LWRP Policy 10: Protect the Town of Southold’s water-dependent uses and promote siting of new
water-dependent uses in suitable locations.
DEIS: The proposed action would expand and enhance an existing maritime and water-dependent
use. The proposed development would respond to an industry demand for recreational boaters.
The proposed Project would expand the business services of SYC to meet an unmet demand for
indoor heated winter storage of yachts on the east end of Long Island. The proposed development
is a suitable location for such use as it is an expansion of an existing maritime use and it is zoned for
such use. As such, the proposed action would be consistent with the intent of this policy.
Response: The proposed Project is not consistent with Policy 10 as it does nothing to “protect
the Town of Southold’s water-dependent uses.” As noted above, the Applicant has provided
Page | LWRP Consistency - 10 Rev5
no information to demonstrate the existence of the “demand for heated storage on the east
end of Long Island.” The Project location is suitable only in that it is permitted under existing
zoning.7 The location is not suitable from an environmental perspective. The arrival and
departure of large yachts via Mattituck Inlet can only have a deleterious impact, however small,
on the Inlet. The Project will do nothing to “Protect the Town of Southold’s water-dependent
uses.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 10.
LWRP Policy 11: Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “SYC is a designated host for the CCE Marine Program for shellfish restoration and hosts 8
FLUPSY units. . . SYC is committed to being a FLUPSY host through 2030. These clams aid in the
enhancement and restoration of the shellfish fishery within the Town of Southold and subsequently
Long Island.”8
Response: The DEIS contains no documentation of the Applicant’s commitment to the Cornell
Marine Program through 2030. Appendix C (Memorandum of Understanding Between Cornell
Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and Strong’s Yacht Center [June 5, 2019])9 to DEIS
Appendix M (Boat Vessel Study) is clear in that the applicant “has the right to terminate [the]
agreement for any reason.” The agreement itself indicates that it terminated on December 1,
2020. The proposed Project does not include any provision for increased support of the shellfish
restoration program, which is totally independent from the proposed Project, and which would
presumably continue even if the Project does not proceed. The Project does nothing to
“Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in the Town of Southold.” The Project is not
consistent with LWRP Policy 11.
LWRP Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold.
DEIS: “This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as no impacts to agricultural lands are
anticipated.”
Response: The proposed Project does not protect agricultural lands or advance this policy.
LWRP Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources.
7 Questions have been raised concerning zoning status of the Project parcel (see zooming comment, below).
8 The DEIS states that “SYC provides funding to the CCE Marine Program to operate and maintain the units” (p.3). However, the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CCE Marine Program and the applicant calls for the CCE Marine Program
to “Compensate the Partner [applicant/SYC] for electricity and the utilization of dock slips. . . The cost of the electricity and
dock slips will be $10,715.00.” This was presumably for the period covered by the MOU (June 5, 2019 through December 1,
2020).
9 The table of contents for Appendix M lists the title for Appendix C as “Memorandum of Understanding Between Cornell
Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and Strong’s Yacht Center (June 5, 2019) and Correspondence from CCE”
(emphasis added). No correspondence from CCE is included in Appendix M.
Page | LWRP Consistency - 11 Rev5
DEIS: This policy is not applicable to the proposed action as there would be no development of
energy or mineral resources.
Response: Policy 13 is not limited to “development,” it clearly refers to “use” as well. Project
haul trucks will travel a minimum of 135,000 miles (9000 trips x 15 miles). All trucks
manufactured after 2014 are required to have a fuel economy of at least 7.2 miles per gallon.
This means that Project haul trucks, together with other Project construction equipment will use
approximately 15,000 to 20,000 gallons, or more, of diesel fuel. This expenditure of energy
resources for a Project designed to serve a very limited number of individuals is not an
“appropriate use.” The Project is not consistent with LWRP Policy 13.
Page | Marine Traffic - 1 Rev3b
MARINE TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Boat Wake Impacts
The DEIS Scope requires the DEIS to include an “assessment on the impacts from current and increase
boat traffic on low and high marsh areas within the creek [and for the DEIS to discuss] “the impact from
boat wakes, emissions and chemicals (bottom paints) on the ecosystem” (p.10).
The DEIS contains almost no information relating to how boat wakes that might be generated by the
increased marine traffic from the Project will affect the marsh areas or other shoreline areas in the
Project vicinity. The DEIS states that
“Construction and waterfront development actions may result in . . . erosion due to
increased vessel wakes. . . Long Island’s tidal wetlands are also adversely impacted by
other factors Including . . . erosion caused by recreational and commercial vessel wakes
. . . Mattituck Creek is subject to a 5-mph (no wake zone) enforced by the US Coast
Guard and Town of Southold Bay Constable to maintain safe navigational conditions. No
wake zones reduce the potential for the erosion of marsh edges due to vessel wakes.
The proposed action provides several mitigation measures and best management
practices to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the 0.63-acre of on-site tidal
wetlands and the approximately 60 acres of tidal wetlands located in Mattituck Creek”
(p.142).
The DEIS apparently acknowledges that the vessel wakes associated with the increased marine traffic
the Project will generate will have an adverse impact, but it makes no attempt to characterize or
quantify the impact. Environmental damage from boat wakes is cumulative—any increase in vessel
traffic—no matter how small--will result in an increase in impacts. The DEIS never addresses this. The
DEIS notes that “no wake zones reduce the potential for the erosion of marsh edges due to vessel
wakes” (p.142). The DEIS is careful to use the word “reduce”—not eliminate. It goes on to note that
any reduction of potential impacts is dependent upon enforcement of a 5-mph (no wake zone) by the
USCG and the Town of Southold.
Contrary to the above quote from the DEIS, the DEIS contains no discussion of mitigation measures to
reduce the environmental impacts resulting from boat wakes. Instead, it merely cites §96-13 of
Southold Town Code which requires that vessels operate in accordance with posted 5-mph (no wake
zone) signage. Section 5.4 of DEIS Appendix M states that “Boat operators have a responsibility to abide
by posted speed limits. It would be expected user groups of SYC would maintain appropriate boat
speeds within waters of the Town of Southold and within Mattituck Inlet and Mattituck Creek. There are
ramifications such as speeding tickets, fines, and the revocation of license for failure to adhere to posted
Page | Marine Traffic - 2 Rev3b
speed limit.” While true, the DEIS has not provided any information, such as violation records from the
Southold Town Police Department’s Marine Division 1, to evaluate the validity of their “expectation.”
Boat wake energy is influenced by vessel length, water depth, frequency of vessel passage, as well as
boat speed. “Wakes tend to be most harmful in shallow and narrow waterways where wake energy has
limited ability to dissipate with distance from the vessel. Published values of wave decay after boat
passage indicate that even small (16 ft) recreational vessels traveling within 150 m (~500 ft) of shore are
capable of producing erosion causing waves.”2 The DEIS has made no attempt to provide a
quantitative, or even qualitative, analysis of the degree to which Project-related boat wakes might
increase coastal erosion and damage to marsh areas even though models, such as the Army Corps of
Engineer’s Vessel Wake Prediction Tool, could have been employed to estimate potential damage.
Vessel Traffic and Vessel Characteristics
The DEIS scope requires the DEIS to provide “a comprehensive boat (vessel) traffic study analysis in the
DEIS of the potential moderate to large significant increase of boats to the Mattituck Inlet”. The scope
calls for the DEIS to include an existing conditions analysis and potential adverse impacts based on,
among other things, “Boat Characteristics – Includ[ing] the number of additional new boats added to
Mattituck Inlet, average size of these boats, average draft and maximum draft.”
The DEIS states that “It is estimated that approximately 547 boats are active in Mattituck Creek on a peak
season day” (p.142). However, the actual language in DEIS Appendix M is: “[A]s explained in the table below,
the maximum number of boats utilizing Mattituck Creek on a peak day is approximately 547” (emphasis
added) (p.13, Table 1). A footnote to Table 1 indicates that the 547 number is based on an assumption
that “all boats [that were estimated to be docked on Mattituck Creek] are in use.” Employing this assumption
results in an unsupported decrease in the percentage increase in marine traffic attributable to the Project. In
addition, as the DEIS itself notes, Project-related traffic will occur “at the close of boating season (i.e.,
October-November), . . . [and] in the beginning of the boating season (i.e., April-May)” (pp.278-279),
not during the summer peak.
It may be significant that the original December 2021 version of the DEIS, and the original version of
Boat Vessel Study (DEIS Appendix M,) state that
1 Even if no, or only a few violations have been recorded, this may only reflect a lack of enforcement due the limited resources
available to Southold PD’s Maritime Division.
2 Bilkovic, Donna Marie et al.(2019),Defining boat wake impacts on shoreline stability toward management and policy solutions,
Ocean & Coastal Management 18(2019)104945; Zabawa, C. and C Ostrom (1980), The Role of Boat Wakes in Shoreline Erosion
in Anne Arundel County, Maryland Coastal Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis.
Page | Marine Traffic - 3 Rev3b
“given an eight-week timeframe for entry to storage in the fall and the same timeframe
to remove boats from storage in the spring, this equates to an average of approximately
11 boats per week or less than two boats per day. Averaged annually, the total 176 trips
(88 boat trips in the spring and 88 boat trips in the fall) equates to 0.48 boat trips per
day. It is estimated that approximately 547 boats are active in Mattituck Creek on a peak
season day. Therefore, the increase in vessel traffic of 0.48 boat trips per day is nominal
and the potential for increased erosion of tidal marshes due to vessel traffic is not
significant” (emphasis added) (DEIS 2021:138)”.
However, the revised November 2022 DEIS, and revised Boat Vessel Study, state that:
“given a 12-week timeframe for entry to storage in the fall and the same timeframe to
remove boats from storage in the spring, this equates to an average of approximately
seven (7) boats per week or one-to-two boats per day. It is estimated that
approximately 547 boats are active in Mattituck Creek on a peak season day, which
occurs in the summer season (i.e., July or August), when temperatures are higher. The
entry and return of boats to the water from storage would occur outside of this peak
season day. However, even if the increase of one-to-two boats per day were to occur on
a peak season day, this would equate to 0.18-to-0.36 percent increase in boat traffic,
which is nominal and would not impact tidal marshes due to vessel traffic” (emphasis
added) (DEIS p.142).
No explanation for these changes is provided.3 Why has the original text been revised to suggest a less
severe potential impact to Mattituck Creek? The Applicant presumably is well aware of when boats
arrive for storage and depart. Why has this period been expanded by 50 percent, resulting in a
reduction in the number of boats arriving and departing each week? Why has the unit of measure of
potential impact been changed from “boats per day” to “percent increase in boat traffic”?
The DEIS concludes that “The proposed action would not substantially increase vessel traffic within
Mattituck Creek” (p.142). However, this conclusion is based on three assumptions: first, that existing
traffic on any given day is always at peak levels; second, that Project-related traffic will add to existing
traffic volumes during the summer peak; and three, that the Project-related vessels adding to existing
traffic are similar in characteristics to the average vessel currently traveling on Mattituck Creek. None of
these assumptions is valid.
Any increase in large vessel traffic entering and exiting Mattituck Creek also creates an increased
potential for accidents. In 2022, a 96-foot yacht ran aground east of Bailie Beach in Mattituck
(COMMENT FIGURE MARINE-1). The vessel remained stuck for several hours until the tide flooded and
3 The Planning Board and its consultant (NPV), based their review of, and a lengthy comment on, the adequacy of the original
DEIS on the assumption that vessel trip generation estimates were for two eight-week periods.
Page | Marine Traffic - 4 Rev3b
two boats were able to pull it free. It then “made its way back to Strong’s Marine in Mattituck to dock.”4
Reports from MarineTraffic, a publicly available vessel tracking service, showed the yacht drove bow
first into the beach at 6.8 knots (COMMENT FIGURE MARINE-2). A police reports was filed, as was a
New York State Boating Accident report to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation.5 The DEIS fails to note that the increase in vessel traffic generated by the Project will also
create an increased potential for accidents.
The DEIS’ analysis of existing traffic is also deficient in that it fails to take into account the fact that the
nature of the vessels accounting for the increase in boat traffic will be qualitatively and quantitatively
different from existing marine traffic. No quantified information on the sizes or types of vessels that
currently travel Mattituck Creek during different seasons is provided. The only data in the DEIS relating
to the types (size) of vessels that currently travel Mattituck Creek is limited to the 2020 yacht inventory
at SYC (DEIS Table 1, DEIS Appendix M Table 2).
According to the DEIS “Based upon an average yacht size of 60 feet in length, it is estimated that
approximately 88 yachts could be stored within the proposed buildings” (p. ii, also p. viii, xliii, 20, 99, 315
fn 57). The DEIS also states that the “proposed action [will provide] indoor winter storage of larger
yachts, up to 86 feet in length” (pp. ii, 19, also p. viii, xliii, 20, 99, 315 fn 57).6 Table 4 in both the DEIS
(p.20) and DEIS Appendix M (Typical Yachts to be Stored at SYC Under Proposed Action) lists only yachts
with lengths of 68, 77, and 86 feet in length. It is therefore unclear how the assumed average size of the
yachts which will be stored can be 60 feet. Similarly, the DEIS states that the average beam of boats to
stored will be 17± feet. However, according to DEIS Table 4, typical boats in storage will have a beam of
17 feet 3 inches, 19 feet 6 inches, or 21 feet 3 inches.
The DEIS states that SYC “support[s] winter storage for 96 yachts and boats. In addition to indoor
storage, SYC provides outdoor winter storage for 40 boats and yachts” (p.3). However, in the Executive
Summary it states that “In the winter months, SYC provides both indoor and outdoor storage for 96 and
40 boats and yachts, respectively” (p. i). DEIS Appendix M states that “SYC provides winter storage for
96 yachts and boats. In addition to indoor storage, SYC provides outdoor winter storage for 40 boats and
yachts” (p.20). These statements are confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Are the 40 vessels included
in the 96? Are 96 vessels stored outdoors and an additional 40 stored indoors? Are 96 of the vessels
“boats,” and 40 “yachts”?
4 The yacht, named In Too Deep, was being docked for the summer at Strong’s Marine on Mattituck Inlet (the Project site).
5 https://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2022/06/yacht-named-in-too-deep-runs-aground-near-bailie-beach-in-mattituck/
6 The Applicant’s website ambiguously states that “We offer both indoor and outdoor storage at our three service locations in
Mattituck, accommodating boats and yachts up to 110 ft.” (emphasis added).
https://www.strongsmarine.com/winterization_storage (accessed May 12, 2023).
Page | Marine Traffic - 5 Rev3b
The DEIS creates further confusion in that in some places it makes a distinction between “boats” and
“yachts.” For example, DEIS Table 1, SYC’s 2020 yacht inventory, lists vessels up to 39 feet as “boats.”
Larger vessels are classified as “yachts.”7
Adding still more confusion, the DEIS states that the “average yacht size during the 2020 season was 30±
feet to 49± feet, which made up 50 percent of the boats and yachts at SYC. Of the aforementioned boats
and yachts, approximately 45 were docked at SYC and the remaining were stored in the existing storage
buildings and dry docked on the marina property” (p. 3). This appears to be inconsistent with the
statement in DEIS Appendix M that the “marina accommodates boats and yachts 18-to-133± feet in
length with the majority between 40± feet to 60± feet. The typical yacht size is 50-to-86± feet in length”
(DEIS Appendix M p.14).
Figures 4a-4e in DEIS Appendix M are photographs of “Typical Boats and Yachts at SYC”. Two of the
three photos are of the same vessel which has been identified as the M/Y Le Reve - a 110-ft Lazzara
motor yacht. This vessel would not be able to utilize the proposed indoor storage facilities because the
existing 85-ton travelift at SYC cannot accommodate this “typical” vessel.8
Impacts on Unmotorized Water Sports (Kayakers and Paddleboarders)
The DEIS has not addressed how the Project would impact kayakers and paddleboarders
The DEIS scope required the DEIS to discuss “the impacts of the increased large vessel traffic in the inlet,
and its effects on small local vessels, kayaks, and paddle boarders attempting to navigate the narrow
creek”.
The DEIS concludes that as “the vessel traffic would be comparable to existing conditions, it is not
anticipated the proposed action would alter the ability of personal watercrafts and non-motorized
watersports, such as kayaks and SUPs, to navigate within Mattituck Harbor” (p. xxii, 236). The only
evidence offered in support of this conclusion is the statement that “Viewpoints 12 and 13 in Appendix
Q indicate navigability within Mattituck Harbor is not impacted by larger vessels as they were taken
from the perspective of a kayak with a 95-foot yacht present adjacent to the existing SYC operations”
(DEIS p. 236). This is not evidence of anything. The larger vessels shown in the referenced photographs
are motionless and docked. They provide no evidence of how yachts travelling, up and down, and
generating wakes, would affect kayakers and paddleboarders.
7 This appears to be inconsistent with generally accepted definitions of what constitutes a “yacht” as opposed to a “boat.”
Although there are no “official” definitions, an internet search indicates that yachts are vessels longer than 30 feet, or 10
meters (33 ft). Smaller vessels are boats.
8 The La Reve (Lazzara model 110) has a displacement of 110 metric tons (MT)(wet) and holds 4300 gallons of fuel and 600
gallons of water. She can accommodate up to 8 passengers and 4 crew. Subtracting the weight associated with these items
(approximately 17 MT) results in a dry weight (the weight that the travelift would have to accommodate) of approximately
93 MT. https://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/le-reve.
Page | Marine Traffic - 6 Rev3b
The DEIS states that “[B]ased on SYC data and publicly available data, approximately 2,000 boats, yachts,
commercial fishing vessels, government/public vessels, personal watercrafts, and kayaks and Stand-Up
Paddleboards (SUPs) are docked or use Mattituck Creek annually. It is estimated that approximately 547
boats are active in Mattituck Harbor on a peak season day” (pp. xxii, vii, 95, 236). DEIS Table 1 contains
no estimates of the number of personal watercraft, kayaks and Stand-Up Paddleboards (SUPs) that use
Mattituck Creek on a given day. Presumably, personal watercraft, kayaks, and SUPs constitute the
balance of the 2000 watercraft. However, neither the SYC nor the “publicly available data” are provided;
nor is the source(s) of the publicly available data.
Page | Marine Traffic - 7 Rev3b
COMMENT FIGURE MARINE-1
Page | Marine Traffic - 8 Rev3b
COMMENT FIGURE MARINE-2
Page | Noise - 1 Rev8b
NOISE IMPACTS
The DEIS scope calls for the Applicant to prepare a
“comprehensive noise study [that includes] existing ambient noise levels, noise
produced by all phases of the project, the sources of the noise, and including hours,
duration, decibel level both at the source and at the receptor sites (e.g., the outdoor
spaces of neighbors' properties such as decks or back yards), and impact on tranquility
for residents within hearing range, as well as wildlife.1 (DEIS Scope p.17-1).
In response to this requirement, the original (December 2021) DEIS included text based on analyses
conducted by SoundSense and included as an attached Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R). The Planning
Board and its consultant subsequently found that the DEIS had not adequately addressed noise issues.
The revised DEIS and accompanying Acoustic Report claim to have addressed the inadequacies in the
original DEIS. In doing so both documents raise even more concerns.
Fifteen of the 18 tables in the original version of the Acoustic Report which contain data on sound levels
have been changed in the revised Acoustic Report. In a majority of these tables, the revisions now show
noise levels greater than those reported in the version of the report originally submitted to the Planning
Board. No explanation for these changes is provided. This is obviously of concern, and should cause any
reasonable person to question whether the new data can be relied upon or used to evaluate the
Project’s noise impacts.
Collection of Ambient Noise Data
Noise monitoring locations selected to establish ambient conditions appear to have been poorly
chosen, and the time of year during which data was collected was inappropriate.
To assess noise impacts related to on-site construction activities, the acoustic study selected monitoring
locations that do not appear to be appropriate for establishing ambient conditions. Noise Monitoring
Locations 1 and 2 (as shown on Appendix R Figure 1) are located immediately west of existing marina
Buildings 5 and 6. Both locations appear have been situated at or near the base of the steep slope
behind these buildings, but it is impossible to be certain because precise location coordinates are not
provided. These locations were used to collect data on ambient conditions “at the Project Site.” While
the chosen locations collected data on ambient conditions at locations in close proximity to where
proposed Storage Buildings No.1 and No.2 will be located, they were not situated so as to measure off-
site ambient noise levels. The Construction Excavation Area is at elevations much higher than Noise
1 The DEIS scope went into more detail about the information to be included in the DEIS. The scope also calls for a “[discussion
of] the duration of each type of noise expected. Include an evaluation of cumulative noise generation where multiple
machines/activities might be running simultaneously. Include protocols for monitoring of the noise level during construction
and during operations and include how noise will be attenuated or mitigated.”
Page | Noise - 2 Rev8b
Monitoring Location 2 (and possibly Noise Monitoring Location 1, as well). In addition, it is likely, given
noise at the existing facility, it is that noise, rather than ambient noise where construction is proposed,
that is being measured. While this data can be used to predict and assess post-construction changes in
noise, they cannot be used to assess impacts associated with Project construction.
Significantly, no noise monitoring locations were situated within a) the Construction Excavation Area,
where most construction excavation noise will originate, b) in the vicinity of any of the residences
closest to the Construction Excavation Area, c) within, or along the shared property line with, the Mill
Road Preserve, or d) “the outdoor spaces of neighbors' properties such as decks or back yards” as specifically
called for in the DEIS scope. The failure to collect information on existing conditions at these locations is a
major failing. Instead, to establish existing conditions “[A]round [the] Project Site, the acoustic study
collected data at three locations located along one of the Project’s truck routes. This data was clearly
collected to assist in assessing noise impacts associated with on-road traffic, and not noise generated by
on-site construction.
According to the DEIS, the “Phase 1 Excavation Phase would begin in mid-December and carry through
May. Much of the activity would occur during the winter and spring months . . .” (p.214), including “the
entire winter season” (p.221). This means that the site preparation phase, and most of the excavation
phases of the Project, during which significant construction noise will be generated, will take place over
the winter months. This corresponds to the defoliate season, when deciduous trees on the Project site
and in immediately surrounding areas, including near nearby residences and the Mill Road Preserve, will
have lost their leaves, significantly reducing the degree to which trees will provide a noise buffer
between the sources of construction noise and nearby receptors. By summer, when construction of the
retaining wall and boat storage structures will begin, all trees will have been removed from the site.
“Dense vegetation can reduce noise levels by as much as 5 dB for every 100 feet of vegetation, up to a
maximum reduction of 10 dB over 200 feet” (USDOT 1995).2 In addition, noise generally travels farther
in colder temperatures because temperature inversions may cause temporary problems when cooler air
is next to the earth allowing for more distant propagation of sound (NYSDEC p. 10)3.
In general, surveys of background and ambient noise levels should be conducted over periods of time
which are representative of the times and days when the noise source will be operational. This was not
done in the case of the acoustic study for the Project. Existing sound level readings used in connection
with the noise analysis was derived through noise monitoring performed between April 14, 2021, and
May 3, 2021 and May 13 through May 23, 2021.4,5 These existing sound levels serve as the background
2 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
3 Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Program Policy DEP-00-1
(February 2, 2001).
4 20-minute readings were also recorded on April 20, 2021.
5 The acoustic report (Appendix R) includes daily summary graphs from noise monitoring (Figures 47-78) for Noise Monitoring
Locations 1 and 2. As discussed, the data is of limited use in evaluating ambient conditions at the Project property line.
Page | Noise - 3 Rev8b
sound levels for the area to be incorporated into all noise predictions completed for the Project (DEIS
p.240, Appendix R p.3). Much of the construction proposed for the Project will occur during the fall and
winter, outside the seasonal period during which data was collected. In addition, during the period when
noise measurements were conducted, wind in trees may have resulted in the recording of ambient noise
levels greater than those that would exist during the proposed construction period. This could have
reduced the differential between ambient noise levels and modeled noise levels during the Project
construction period.
The DEIS and Appendix R identify 18 individual receiver (receptor) locations (R1-R18) for which ambient
noise levels, and noise levels during the various phases of Project construction, were
modeled/calculated.6 No actual measurement of ambient conditions at these receptors was
undertaken. Receptor locations include residences closest to the Project site, and residences along one
of the two proposed truck routes.7 This data is presented in Tables 5, 16 and 17 in Appendix R and
duplicated in Tables 38, 39 and 40 in the DEIS.
These tables are among those that contain significant difference between noise levels in the original and
revised versions of both the DEIS and Acoustic Report. The modeled (not actually measured) eight-hour
Leq 8 “Existing Condition” dBA, for 13 of the 18 receptor locations have been changed. All of the changes
indicate that the sound levels in the revised DEIS and Acoustic Report are now lower (as much as 11 dBA
lower). Likewise, peak hour Leq “Existing Condition” at 11 of the 18 receptors have been changed to
lower values.
No explanation for these significant changes in modeled ambient noise conditions is provided.
Construction Equipment Noise Levels
According to the Acoustic Report (Appendix R) the construction noise model used to assess noise
impacts relied on “data available from the FTA Guidelines 9 to find standardized sound levels for
construction equipment. Where information was not available within the FTA Guidelines, the integrated
6 The acoustic analysis relied on the SoundPLAN noise model to establish both ambient and anticipated project-related traffic
noise levels. However, modeling results are only as good as the data input into the model.
7 The NYSDEC notes, in its Program Policy DEP-00-1, that one of the factors that determines the level or perceptibility of sound
at a given point of reception is distance from the source of sound to the receptor. Neither the DEIS nor the acoustic study
provide this information, although it presumably could be derived from graphics in the acoustic report
8 Leq is the average sound pressure level during a period of time. Leq is often described as the average noise level during a noise
measurement. Although an 8-hour Leq is frequently used in noise studies because it corresponds to a typical 8-hour work day,
workdays at the Project site will vary from 10 hours during the excavation phases to 12 hours during the construction phase.
9 Federal Transportation Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018).
Page | Noise - 4 Rev8b
library within SoundPlan10 was utilized for equipment sound sources” (Acoustic Report p.21). Tables 9-
14 in the Acoustics Report includes overall sound power levels for various equipment types that will be
used during each phase of Project construction.11 The equipment types include loaders, excavators,
dozers, water/fuel trucks, tub grinders, woodchippers, feller-bunchers, skid steers, mini excavators,
telescopic forklifts, and scissor lifts. The only pieces of construction equipment (other than trucks) listed
in these tables for which a noise level is provided in the FTA Guidelines are loaders and dozers.
Presumably, noise levels for the other type of equipment came from the “library within SoundPlan.” As
that “library” is proprietary, there is no way to independently assess the bases for the assigned noise
levels.
The noise analysis failed to include all equipment types that will be used during Project construction.
According to the Acoustic Report the equipment types and utilization factors used model Project-
generated construction noise were requested from, and provided by, Red Rock Industries (DEIS
Appendix R, Acoustic Report pp. 4, 27). The information from Red Rock Industries is included in DEIS
Appendix F. Two additional pieces of noise-generating equipment that will be used to construct the
Project are missing. The first of these are vibratory rollers which will be used during construction of the
Project’s retaining wall (discussed below). The second are the concrete trucks that will provide the
concrete for the retaining wall foundations and the floor slabs for the new storage buildings.12
During its review of the original DEIS the Planning Board questioned some of the reference noise levels
for several types of equipment that would be used. “The levels shown in the table in the acoustic report
[for tub grinders and wood chippers] are similar to other machinery, which leads us to believe the
additional noise from the actual grinding and chipping is not included” (Planning Board May 10, 2022
memo). The Planning Board was correct. The revised DEIS shows that the noise levels associated with
these two equipment types have been increased significantly.13 The revised Acoustic Report cites UK
Health and Safety Executive’s 2008 Noise Emissions and Exposure from Mobile Woodchippers,14 as the
basis for the revised noise levels. That same reference indicates that noise levels generated by
woodchippers are also dependent upon the nature of the material being chipped (hardwood vs
10 SoundPlan is a proprietary suite of noise modeling software. Appendix R provides no specific reference to what information
in the “integrated library” was used in developing the noise model for the Project.
11 Following general practice, sound power levels are given as the typical noise, 50 feet from the source, in dBA.
12 According to data in the Federal Highway Administration’s Construction Noise Handbook, concrete mixer trucks have an Lmax
of 79 dBA at 50 feet.
13 The sound power levels for tub grinders and woodchippers were increased by 8 dBA and 19 dBA, respectively. Calculated
sound pressure levels at 50 feet increased by 8 dBA and 19 dBA, respectively. This is another example of the lack of technical
rigor associated with the preparation of the DEIS.
14 https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr618.pdf
Page | Noise - 5 Rev8b
softwood, trimmed vs untrimmed, and moisture content). The Acoustic Report has not accounted for
this.
Although the revised analyses in the Acoustic Report have been revised to include the noise generated
by woodchippers during operation, this raises the question as to whether the reference noise levels
associated with other equipment types reflect noise levels during operation, or at idle.
As noted above, the Acoustic Report has relied in its analyses on generic reference noise level data for
various equipment types. However, actual noise levels within each equipment type can vary depending
upon size, model, engine type, and manufacturer within each equipment type.15 Although the DEIS has
identified the specific model of haul truck tractor that will be used during the Project, it has not done so
for other equipment types. For that reason, all of construction noise level data in the DEIS and the
Acoustic Report derived through modeling should be treated as estimated and approximate, rather than
precise, noise levels.
Construction Noise Impacts
Modeled sound levels for each phase 16 of the Project are included in Tables 16 and 17 in the Acoustic
Report, and Tables 39 and 40 in the DEIS. According to both the Acoustic Report (p. 48) and the DEIS
(pp. xxiv, 259) a “significant increase” in noise was found at Receptors R1-R16 for at least one phase of
construction for either peak hour or 8-hour Leq. For Receivers R1- R8, the increases are predominantly
due to sound created at the Project site from construction activities. R1-R3 are the three residences
closest to the Project site (5106 West Mill Road, and 800 and 805 North Road). R6-R8 are located on the
east side of Mattituck Inlet. R9-R16 are residences along the Project truck route along West Mill and Cox
Neck Roads.
At the three nearest residences peak hour Leq will increase from an existing level of 44 dBA at all three
locations, to a worst case of 89 dBA at 800 North Drive (R2) during Excavation Phase 2—an increase of
45 dBA. During other construction phases noise levels will increase between 13 and 30 dBA. At 5106
West Mill Road (R1) noise levels will increase by 13-14 dBA. At 805 North Drive (R3) levels will increase
by 10-38 dBA. At 3329 Grand Avenue (R8), on the east side of Mattituck Inlet, levels will increase from
20-34 dBA. Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report acknowledge that “[T]hese increases would have a
15 For example, the guaranteed external noise levels for Case brand excavators vary from 101 dBA for model CX210D to 105
dBA for model CX350D. https://www.casece.com/emea/en-eu/resources/downloads. It should also be noted that the
Planning Board’s consultant (Nelson Pope Voorhis), in their review of the adequacy of the DEIS, recently prepared a DEIS for
a proposed project in Calverton. The noise analysis in that document utilized sound levels associated with specific makes and
models of construction equipment.
16 The phases are tree removal/grubbing (sometimes referred to in the DEIS as site preparation), Excavation Phase 1,
Excavation Phase 2, Retaining Wall Phase, Excavation Drainage Phase, and Construction Phase. The DEIS generally combines
the last three phases in to a single Construction Phase.
Page | Noise - 6 Rev8b
significant impact as defined by the NYSDEC criteria to the nearby residences during the periods of
construction” (DEIS p. 259, Acoustic Report p.48).
As noted above, the original December 2021 DEIS and Acoustic Report indicated that the increase in
noise levels during construction would be considerably less than is indicated in the revised versions of
these documents. However, those documents stated that “These increases would be considered a
significant and adverse impact, as defined by the NYSDEC criteria” (emphasis added). The revised
documents, which report even greater increases in Projected noise levels no longer describe the
increase in noise as “adverse.” 17
The same NYSDEC Program Policy cited by both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report also contains the
following table:
HUMAN REACTION TO INCREASES IN SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL
Increase in Sound Pressure (dB) Human Reaction
Under 5 Unnoticed to tolerable
5-10 Intrusive
10-15 Very noticeable
15-20 Objectionable
Over 20 Very objectionable to intolerable
Based on the information the DEIS and Acoustic Report, at least 11 of the residences corresponding to
Receiver/Receptor locations will be subjected to “very objectionable to intolerable” peak increases in
noise levels during some Project construction phases, and 8 will be subjected to “very objectionable to
intolerable” eight-hour Leq noise levels.
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further qualify and downplay the significance and
severity of noise impacts during construction. The Acoustic Report (p.48) states that “these [noise]
increases are temporary only during construction” (emphasis added). The SEQRA Handbook is clear that
short-term (temporary) impacts, including noise impacts, can be significant. The described impacts are
temporary only in the sense that they will not be permanent. Temporary in this case means 10-12 hours
a day, six days a week, for a period in excess of one year. In another instance both the DEIS (pp. xxv,
259) and the Acoustic Report (p.48) state that the increase in noise “would be limited to during daytime
hours, and would be temporary since these increases are only during construction.” The absurdity of
this is readily apparent when one considers that the 89 dBA level at a residence on North Drive is
equivalent to the noise made by a carwash at 20 feet. According to NYSDEC this noise level is not only
“very annoying”, but 8 hours of continuous exposure can result in hearing damage.18
17 This change was made even though Table 1 in the Acoustic Report (NYSDEC Thresholds for Significant Sound Pressure Level
(SPL) Increase) indicates that an increase of 10 or more decibels is an “Adverse impact” that “Deserves consideration of
avoidance and mitigation measures in most cases.” The change in language is clearly an attempt to downplay the severity of
noise impacts.
18 Table E in NYSDEC Program Policy DEP-00-1. Reproduced from Barksdale, R.D., editor, 1991. The Aggregate Handbook,
National Stone Association, Washington, DC.
Page | Noise - 7 Rev8b
Construction noise levels during several phases of construction have been underestimated.
As noted above, two additional pieces of noise-generating equipment which will be used to construct
the Project are missing. Vibratory rollers will be used during construction of the Project’s retaining wall.
They are not included in the equipment list in DEIS Appendix F. As a result, they are not included in
Table 12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and Utilization
Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means that the modeled noise levels during retaining wall
construction at the 18 Receivers/Receptors (almost all of which are residences) shown in Tables 16 and
17 have been underestimated.
Concrete Trucks which will be required during the construction phase of the Project are missing from
the equipment list in Appendix F and from Table 12 in the Acoustic Report. As a result, they are not
included in Table 12 of the Acoustic Report (Construction Equipment Overall Sound Power Levels and
Utilization Factors for the Retaining Wall Phase). This means that the modeled noise levels during both
the retaining wall phase (when foundations for the retaining wall will be constructed) and the
construction phase (during construction of the floor slabs for the new storage buildings) at the 18
Receivers/Receptors shown in Tables 16 and 17 have been underestimated.
Traffic Noise Impacts During Construction
The need to address how noise impacts would affect “quality of life” is called out twice in the DEIS scope
(p.17). The scope also calls for the DEIS to Include an assessment of the Project’s “impact on tranquility
for residents within hearing range” (p.16). In its review of the original DEIS the Planning Board’s
consultant found that the “DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impacts associated with
significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary heavy
construction trucks on local roadways” (NPV p. 4). The Applicant has submitted to the Planning Board an
annotated copy of the Planning Board’s determination of the original DEIS’ inadequacy. That document
indicates only that the revised DEIS has been “revised” to address this comment. However, the portion
of Section 3.7.2 of the revised DEIS entitled “Construction Noise Impacts” contains only minimal
revisions relating to the application of NYSDOT noise criteria. As discussed below, those criteria have
been misrepresented and misapplied.
The Acoustic Report analyzed modeled ambient and projected noise levels at ten Receiver/Receptor
locations (R9-R18) (residences) located along West Mill and Cox Neck Roads. According to the DEIS and
the Acoustic Report: “[F]or receivers R9-R18, any increase in the sound levels would be dependent on
additional traffic, which is highest during the excavation phases. Sound levels are higher than
recommended by the NYSDOT at receivers R10-R14 during the excavation phases, and during all
construction at receivers R14 and R15” (emphasis added) (Acoustic Report p.48, DEIS pp. xxiv, 259).
Page | Noise - 8 Rev8b
As with construction noise, both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to qualify and downplay the
importance of this fact with the statement that “these increases are temporary only during
construction” (emphasis added). As noted above, the SEQRA Handbook is clear that short-term
(temporary) impacts, including noise impacts, can be significant.
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report also attempt to qualify and downplay the importance of the
Project noise increases with the statement that “the NYSDOT criteria are not standards” (Acoustic
Report p.48, DEIS pp. xxiv, 259). Table 2 in the Acoustic Report (Recommended NYSDOT Criteria for Road
Noise Levels) is based on a table in NYSDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual.19 The NYSDOT criteria
are treated in the Acoustic Report as recommended maximum exterior noise levels associated with
various Activity Categories. The maximum exterior noise level for Activity Category B, which includes
residences, is 67 dBA. The residences at 1065, 1480 and 1525 West Mill Road, 155 Breakwater Road, and
2100 Cox Neck Road will be subject to traffic noise that exceeds NYSDOT recommended levels for at
least six months.
The Category B Activity Category was the only category employed by SoundSense in preparing the
Acoustic Report. Activity Category A includes “Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is
essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose” (Acoustic Report p.6). The
recommended maximum exterior noise level associated with Activity Category A is 57 dBA. The Mill
Road Preserve clearly falls within Activity Category A. The Project-adjacent Mill Road Preserve is never
discussed in the Acoustic Report.
Both the DEIS and the Acoustic Report attempt to further downplay the nature of the adverse noise
impact from Project construction truck traffic. They note that the projected noise levels that will exceed
NYSDOT recommendations refer to exterior noise levels, rather than interior noise levels, and these
exceedances will occur when “the majority of this period would see most residents indoors and would
minimize the impact to quality of life” (DEIS p. 259). This ignores the fact that the period of highest
construction traffic volume (the excavation phases) will extend into June. The NYSDOT Manual (and
Table 2 in the Acoustic Report) list an Activity Category E which includes “recommended” interior noise
levels for residences.
The Acoustic Report, citing the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual as basis, states that
19 Although the contents of Table 2 in the Acoustic Report, and Table 1 in Chapter 3 of the NYSDOT’s Manual are the same, the
titles are not. The title of the table in the NYSDOT Manual is “Noise Abatement Criteria.” The Manual states that “NACs
[noise abatement criteria] represent a balancing of that which may be desirable and that which may be achievable.
Consequently, noise impacts can occur even though the NACs are achieved. The NACs should be viewed as maximum values
recognizing that in many cases the achievement of lower noise levels would result in even greater benefits to the
community. The NACs should not be viewed as Federal standards or desirable noise levels. They should not be used as design
goals for noise barrier construction” (emphasis added) (p. 3.1-28).
Page | Noise - 9 Rev8b
“it is expected that a light frame building type with ordinary sash windows is expected
to reduce sound levels by 20 dB. Should a storm window be used, this reduction is
expected to increase to 25 dB. This 20-25 dB decrease in sound levels is expected to
reduce the impact to the interior of residences and would minimize impact to quality of
life while indoors. During the late fall/winter/early spring it is expected that most nearby
residents will be primarily indoors during construction at those times, reducing the
impact on quality of life. If the reduction of 20 dB is applied to the traffic data for
receivers R10-R14, which exceed the outdoor recommendations from the NYSDOT, the
interior recommendations in Category E of Table 2 for interior noise levels are met and
would be within the NYSDOT recommended criteria for those receivers (Acoustic
Report, DEIS pp. xxiv-xxv, 259).
The above discussion is a misrepresentation of what the NYSDOT Manual actually says.20 If one applies
the 10 dB reduction in sound levels which the NYSDOT Manual says should be used “unless there is firm
knowledge that the windows are in fact kept closed almost every day of the year” (see fn 18, below),
then interior noise levels at the residences corresponding to R10-R14 (and R15 and R16 as well) will,
contrary to conclusion in the Acoustic Report and the DEIS, exceed NYSDOT “recommended” noise
criteria.
Noise Impacts to Users of the Mill Road Preserve
Significantly, the Town-owned Mill Road Preserve does not appear to have been identified as a
Receiver/Receptor location.21 As noted above, the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) never even
mentions the Preserve. However, the DEIS Executive Summary, under the heading “Impacts to the Mill
Road Preserve” concludes that “construction noise would be of temporary nature and all noise impacts
would cease upon completion” (p. xxi). Additional language in the DEIS, contradicted by its own data
analyses, is even more extreme. In contradiction of all the data indicating that the Preserve will be
impacted by noise (as well as other factors) the DEIS (pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249) states that “[T]he proposed
action would not alter the public’s enjoyment of the Town-owned preserve property during all phases of
the action as there would be no new impact on Mill Road Preserve from April to September 30, which is
likely to be a time when the trails are most frequently used.” This is false. The DEIS clearly states that
the “[B]uilding Phase of the project will begin in late Spring, early Summer of 2024 and last until the late
Fall of 2024” (DEIS p. 216).
20 According to the Manual: “In those situations where there are no exterior activities to be affected by the traffic noise, or
where the exterior activities are far from or physically shielded from the roadway in a manner that prevents an impact on
exterior activities, the interior criterion shall be used as the basis of determining noise impacts. The Manual goes on:
“Interior use applies mostly to schools, churches, and hospitals.” Although the Acoustic Report has applied a reduction of 20
dB to derive estimated indoor sound levels for wood frame structures with ordinary sash windows, it does not mention that
this applies to closed windows. According the Manual, interior noise levels in all building types are reduced by only 10 dB if
windows are open and that “windows shall be considered open unless there is firm knowledge that the windows are in fact
kept closed almost every day of the year” (emphasis added) (NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual p.3.1-12-13).
21 R4 (2010 West Mill Road) is a lot that abuts the Preserve.
Page | Noise - 10 Rev8b
In addition, no data is presented in either the DEIS or the Acoustic Study (DEIS Appendix R) to support
the claim that April to September 30 is likely to be a time when the Preserve trails are most frequently
used. No visitation data for the Mill Road Preserve is included in the DEIS. The claim that the number of
visitors from April thru September is “likely” to be meaningfully different from other times of the year is
conjecture. The idea that fewer people being impacted equates to “no new impact” is absurd on its
face.22
Ambient conditions at the Mill Road Preserve as shown on Figures 3 and 6 in the Acoustics Report (DEIS
Appendix R) are mostly within (below) the 45 dBA contours for both peak hour Leq and eight-hour Leq.
However, Figures 10 -15 indicate that the eight-hour Leq sound levels during the tree removal/grubbing
phase, and the two excavation phases, will range from 55-70 dBA, and that the peak hour Leq will exceed
70 dBA in some parts of the Preserve. This is within, or exceeds, the 11-20 dBA increase that NYSDEC
considers “very noticeable” to “objectionable.” The DEIS does not mention this.
The Historic Resources Survey (DEIS Appendix T) prepared for the Project independently concluded that
“it is possible that the sound of the haul trucks on the temporary haul road or on W. Mill Road could be
heard by walkers on the [Preserve’s] perimeter trail” (DEIS Appendix T, p.16).
The DEIS conclusion that “[O]verall, based on the above, no significant adverse impacts [including
noise impacts] to Mill Road Preserve are anticipated” (DEIS pp. xxiii-xxiv, 249) has no basis in fact, and
is contradicted by data in the DEIS.
Noise Impacts on Wildlife
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to assess “the potential adverse impacts from noise on . . . wildlife
generated by the operation of machinery, heavy equipment and trucks both on-site and off-site as they
travel through neighborhoods and the region.” The DEIS does contain a discussion of how Project-
related noise could impact wildlife (pp.139-140). That discussion, taken nearly verbatim from DEIS
Appendix N (Ecological Conditions and Impact Report), is deficient in a number of regards. The
discussion begins with the statement that the “potential for the proposed action to generate noise from
construction activities, vehicular traffic, and operation of the proposed boat storage facility is analyzed
in detail in the Acoustic Report (see Appendix R).” This statement is only correct in that the Acoustic
Report discusses the potential for the proposed action to generate noise. The Acoustic Report never
discusses or mentions if or how Project-generated noise will impact wildlife.23
22 It should be noted that this statement in the DEIS Executive Study is intended to apply to all aspects of the environment, not
just noise.
23 It does mention that “[D]ominant sounds at the Project Site include wildlife . . .” (Acoustic Report p.10). This would obviously
change during construction.
Page | Noise - 11 Rev8b
According to the DEIS’ discussion of impacts to wildlife, and Appendix N,
“[U]nder proposed build conditions, sound levels will not increase by more than 6 dBA
above existing conditions and, therefore, is consistent with “no impact” following
NYSDEC standards for impacts to human receptors. As there are no standards for
wildlife, the human standards were applied” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.139, Appendix N
p.31).
There are multiple problems with this statement. First, NYSDEC guidance indicates that an increase in
noise level of 5-10 dB should be considered “intrusive” (see above). 24 Second, the statement in the DEIS
and Appendix N refers only to sound levels under “build conditions.” For example: “Post-development, no
significant adverse noise-related impacts would result” (emphasis added) (p. xiii). The DEIS ignores the fact that
noise associated with Project construction will exceed the 6 dBA increase and is much more likely to
adversely impact wildlife surrounding the Project site. Third, the implied assumption that noise impact
standards for humans are appropriate for applications to wildlife is not supported by any scientific
evidence as numerous studies have concluded that sensitivity to noise varies widely across taxa.25
Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N misrepresent NYSDEC’s “guidance” as “standards.” According to
the NYSDEC “It is not the intention of this guidance to require decibel limits to be established for
operations where such limits are not required by regulation.”26 The DEIS claim that an increase of up to
6bB “is consistent with ‘no impact’ following NYSDEC standards” is false and misleading.
Both Appendix N and the DEIS (which duplicates the text in Appendix N) discuss only impacts to avian
species. There is no discussion, or even mention, of potential noise impacts to types of fauna other
than birds, such as large and small mammals and reptiles. The difficulties in assessing these impacts
does not excuse ignoring them.27
24 The DEIS and Appendix N cite Section VBc of NYSDEC’s 2001 Program Policy DEP-000-1 Assessing and Mitigating Noise
Impacts as the basis for Table 1 in Appendix N which relates sound levels to impact. However, both the DEIS and Appendix N
ignore the NYSDEC’s qualifying language that “The above thresholds as indicators of impact potential should be viewed as
guidelines subject to adjustment as appropriate for the specific circumstances one encounters.” As noted, both the DEIS and
Appendix N ignore Table B “Human Reaction to Increases in Sound Pressure Level” in the same NYSDEC guidance.
25 e.g. Kaseloo, P.A. and K.O Tyson (2004). Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; Brumm, H and H Slabbekoorn (2005) Acoustic
communication in noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior 35, 151–2093.
26 The significance of misrepresenting of NYSDEC guidance as “standards” needs to be considered in light of the following: The
DEIS notes that “Sound levels are higher than recommended by the NYSDOT at receivers R10-R14 during the excavation
phases, and during all construction at receivers R14 and R15.” It then goes on to state that “However, as noted in Section
3.6.3 of the Acoustic Report and in Section 3.7.1 of this DEIS, the NYSDOT criteria are not standards . . .” In other words,
guidance becomes standards when it is positive for the Project, but standards become guidance when they are not.
27 “Sensitivity to noise varies widely across taxa (Kaseloo & Tyson, 2004); Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005; Morley, Jones &
Radford, 2013; Slabbekoorn, 2013), and may also vary depending upon context, sex, and life history (Ellison et al., 2012;
Francis & Barber, 2013). Noise can induce compound biological responses (e.g. shifts in vocalisation and movement;
McLaughlin & Kunc, 2013), and is rarely isolated from other forms of environmental disturbance, such as habitat alteration
Page | Noise - 12 Rev8b
Both the DEIS and Appendix N acknowledge that Project-generated construction noise will have an
impact on wildlife:
“Potential noise levels during daytime construction hours over [during] the 12-month
construction period (45-76 dBA compared to 44 dBA under existing conditions) slightly
overlap with the range of the chronic industrial levels (75-90 dBA) that have been found
to impact bird breeding productivity [Habib et al, 2007] and are similar to the change in
sound levels (11-20 dBA)[28] that have been found to adversely impact bird community
composition and abundance, foraging and nesting behavior, and body condition [Injaian
et al, 2007; Ware et al, 2015](DEIS p.140), and . . . due to the increase in daytime noise
levels, it is expected that a temporary reduction in the habitat quality provided by the
adjacent forest for bird reproduction would occur during the construction period” (fn 27
added) (DEIS p.139; also Appendix N p.32).
However, the DEIS attempts to minimize the significance of this by stating that:
It should be noted that potential noise impacts during construction would only occur
during daytime construction hours and noise levels would return to background
conditions; in contrast, studies identifying adverse impacts to birds due to noise have
analyzed more continuous noise associated with industrial facilities and large roadways.
. . “Mitigation measures to lessen the magnitude of short-term, noise-related impacts
during construction to neighbors are discussed in the Acoustic Report and include the
use of white noise back-up alarms rather than single, tone beeps; no use of Jake Brake
mechanisms on site; and use of dump trucks that meet USEPA Tier 4 standards. These
mitigation measures would serve to reduce potential impacts to birds and wildlife by
decreasing high frequency noise” (DEIS pp.140, 246, see also pp. xxxiv, 144; Appendix N
p. 32).
There is no scientific basis for assuming that limiting noise increases to daytime hours would have a less
severe impact on wildlife than a permanent increase. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed
“mitigation” measures are not, in fact, mitigation. The noise reductions achieved by the proposed
and visual disturbance, confounding interpretation of biological responses to noisy environments (Summers, Cunnington &
Fahrig, 2011). Furthermore, determining the scale and extent of disturbance involves carefully measuring characteristics of
the sound source, such as duration (chronic, intermittent), frequency content, and intensity (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall
et al., 2007; Francis & Barber, 2013; Gill et al., 2015)” [Shannon et al. (2016) A synthesis of two decades of research
documenting the effects of noise on wildlife, Biological Reviews, Cambridge Philosophical Society 91(4):982-1005].
28 The 11-20 dBA change should not be considered a threshold for noise impacts to be adverse. Some studies have found that
sound-level changes of only a few decibels can result in substantial changes in animal responses. See Pater et al. (2006)
Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on Wildlife, The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788-
795.
Page | Noise - 13 Rev8b
measures are no guarantee that wildlife will not be significantly impacted by noise associated with
Project construction.
Although the DEIS has provided information sufficient to establish that Project construction-related
noise will adversely impact wildlife, especially wildlife in the Mill Road Preserve, it fails to clearly call
this out. While the mitigation measures proposed may reduce potential noise impacts to “birds and
wildlife,” there is no evidence presented to suggest that they will, or that they could be expected to
reduce noise impacts to the point where they will not adversely affect wildlife.
Finally, both the DEIS and Appendix N contain significant inconsistencies with information presented in
Appendix R. According to both the DEIS and Appendix N:
“Analysis of potential noise levels at nearby residential sites (such as 5106 West Mill
Road, 800 North Drive, and 805 North Drive) indicate that noise levels in the property’s
natural areas may increase temporarily during " construction to 66 dBA during tree
removal/grubbing (in December), 76 dBA during excavation phases (between December
to June), and 71 dbA during building and drainage construction phases (between June to
November)” (DEIS p. 139; Appendix N p.31).
However, according to the Acoustic Report (DEIS Appendix R) rather than an increase in noise levels
during tree removal/grubbing to 66 dBA, the calculated increase will be to 77 dBA. Rather than an
increase to 76 dBA during excavation phases, the calculated increase will be to 80 dBA. Rather than an
increase to 71 dBA during building and drainage construction, the actual calculated increase will be to 76
dBA.
Applicant-Proposed Mitigation
As noted above, in its review of the original December 2021 DEIS, the Planning Board’s consultant found
that the “DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impacts associated with significant noise
(as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary heavy construction trucks on local
roadways” (NPV p. 4). They also concluded that “The applicant has provided no meaningful and
enforceable mitigation to address these issues” (NPV p. 4). As is also noted above, the Applicant has
submitted to the Planning Board an annotated copy of the Planning Board’s determination of the
original DEIS’ inadequacy. That document indicates that the revised DEIS has been “revised” to address
this comment. This is not true.
The language in the revised DEIS that relates to mitigation of noise impacts has not been changed. No
new or revised noise impact mitigation measures are proposed in the revised DEIS. The revised DEIS
still provides no meaningful and enforceable mitigation to address noise impacts.
The DEIS states that “To mitigate noise impacts to surrounding properties and wildlife during the
excavation and construction phases, the following measures would be implemented: any vehicle which
Page | Noise - 14 Rev8b
requires the use of a back-up alarm will use a white noise back-up alarm instead of a single tone beep;
all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox
Neck Road from County Route 48; and all trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards .
. . and all gasoline or diesel-powered machinery would be equipped with adequate mufflers” (DEIS p.
xxv, see also pp. xxxvi, xxxviii, 19, 140, 144, 173, 228, 259, 261, 287-288). In addition, the DEIS states
that the “excavation phases with truck activity would be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00 am to
5:00 pm as mitigation offered by the Applicant” (DEIS p. xxxi, also pp. 19, 259, 261, 293).
The DEIS and the Acoustic Report state, in relation to the Project’s noise reduction efforts, that “all
trucks utilized would be Tier 4 certified by U.S. EPA standards” (pp. xxii, xxxii, xxxv, 278; Acoustic Report
pp. 20, 53). Tier 4 standards are intended to apply to emissions affecting air quality, and do not directly
relate to noise.29 In addition, Tier 4 diesel engine standards apply to all post-2014 model year
construction equipment. The Applicant is merely agreeing to not use old trucks or equipment. The
DEIS’ claim that having all Project trucks meet Tier 4 standards cannot be considered mitigation.
The DEIS contains more than a dozen references to the fact that the Applicant will limit the use of Jake
brakes 30 as a noise mitigation measure. However, those references are inconsistent and confused. The
DEIS states that ““all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage all Jake Brake mechanisms once
turning on to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48” (pp. xxiii, xxix, xxxv, xxxvi, 19, 246, 248,272,
278,281). This would seem to indicate that Jake brakes would not be used by empty trucks traveling to
the Project site. No mention is made of prohibiting the use of Jake brakes by full trucks traveling from
the Project site to County Route 48. The Project acoustics report uses different language in regard to this
matter stating that “all contractors will be directed to disengage any Jake Brake system on incoming
vehicles once they turn onto Cox Neck Road from County Route 48” (emphasis added) (DEIS Appendix R,
p.16.) This needs to be clarified. Given the wording in the DEIS, clarification is also needed as to whether
or not Jake brakes will be used by haul trucks while they are using the on-site haul road.
There will be no limitation on the use of Jake brakes on the Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and CR
58 portions of the Project truck route.
29 The Acoustic Report indicates that “FTA Guidelines list a truck at having a sound pressure level of 84 dBA when measured at
50 feet. . . [The] actual data collected by SoundSense [found that the haul trucks] would have a sound pressure level at 50
feet ranging from 62-73 dBA depending on the operating condition. This represents a significant reduction compared to the
sound level in the FTA guidelines, showing that using the Tier 4 truck would represent a considerable reduction ranging from
11-22 dBA” (Acoustic Report p. 21). However, the Acoustic Report also states that “there is no standardized data available for
sound levels on Tier 4 truck sound levels” (Acoustic Report p. 53). There is no basis for assumption that the decreased noise
levels are directly related to the use of trucks with Tier 4 engines. The 84 dBA level in the FTA Guidelines is for a “typical”
truck, and does not take into account the size of the truck, its condition, its engine type, or the road conditions on which it is
operating. As discussed in comments on air quality, Tier 4 standards apply only to off-road vehicles—not on-road vehicles
such as Project haul trucks.
30 A Jake Brake is a type of compression release brake that helps truck drivers slow down their truck without wearing out the
service brakes. Commonly called an engine brake, Jake Brakes are often used in large diesel engines on semi-trucks. Jake
brakes generate maximum braking power for a diesel engine.
Page | Noise - 15 Rev8b
The DEIS states that “there would be no Jake Brake mechanisms on the site” (p.xxxii, 136, 139, 169). This
is both a meaningless and incorrect claim. All haul trucks operating on site likely will be equipped with
Jake Brake systems. Other than trucks, the types of construction equipment that will be used are never
equipped with Jake brakes. The DEIS’ claim that all trucks and drivers will be instructed to disengage
all Jake Brake mechanisms once turning on to Cox Neck Road from County Route 48 cannot be
considered mitigation.
It is also possible that any prohibition on the use of Jake brakes will be ineffective in reducing noise.
Truck, engine and equipment manufacturer studies 31 have consistently found that improperly muffled
vehicles are the root cause of construction vehicle and equipment noise. Vehicle operating sound levels
have been shown repeatedly to be much higher for vehicles with improper, defective or deteriorated
mufflers. The drawback to a simple inspection is that it may not catch all offenders. Improper, defective
or deteriorated mufflers that appear intact from the outside may be missed. Detecting these cases
requires a roadside noise test.
It should also be noted that any reduction of noise impacts derived from a prohibition on the use of Jake
brakes, will be offset to some degree by the loss of braking power and an increase in haul truck stopping
distance. This will result in an increased safety risk to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians on West Mill
and Cox Neck Roads, especially along portions of those roads with limited sight distances.
The DEIS states that “in accordance with Town Code and indicated above, all construction activities
would be limited to Monday to Saturday from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. The excavation phases with truck
activity would be limited to Monday to Friday from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm as “mitigation offered by the
Applicant” (DEIS pp. xxiv, xxxi, 19, 259, 293). While this would at first glance appear to be an
accommodation, it is not. Since the total number of 22-wheel tractor trailer truck trips required to haul
sand from the site will remain constant, the only effect of reducing truck activity during the construction
phase by two hours per day, is to increase the number of days during which the community will be
subject to heavy haul truck traffic impacts.
Finally, the DEIS attempts to exempt the Project from responsibility for creating adverse noise impacts
by claiming that “construction-related noise impacts would be limited to the times and days specified,
which are permitted by Town Code” and “the proposed project would comply with the permitted times
set forth in Chapter 180 of the Town Code (pp. xxii, xxiii, xxv, 246, also pp. xxxi, xxxvii, xxxix, 19, 248,
259, 293, 298). However, as the DEIS points out (p.52), during those permitted times32, Section 180-6
31 https://www.jacobsvehiclesystems.com/sites/default/files/2018-08/vehicle-noise-and-compression-release-engine-braking-
28307b.pdf
32 A. Sunday through Thursday: (1) From 7:00 am to 7:00 pm., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and (2) From
7:00 pm. to 7:00 am., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 50 dB(A). B. Friday and Saturday: (1) From 7:00 am to 11:00
pm., airborne or amplified sound in excess of 65 dB(A); and (2) From 11:00 pm. to 7:00 am., airborne or amplified sound in
excess of 50 dB(A).
Page | Noise - 16 Rev8b
sets the maximum allowable noise level at 65 dBA. As the data included in Tables 39 and 40
demonstrate, this level will be exceeded at many of the receiver/receptor locations listed in those
tables.
The DEIS dismisses this concern by referencing Section 180-8 of the Town Code which exempts
construction activities from the standards in Section 180-6. Even though this blanket exemption allows
the Project to avoid violating local law in regard to noise generation, that is not the same thing as saying
Project-related noise impacts will not be significant. Although the DEIS quotes Town Code Sections 180-
5, 180-6, and 180-8 in their entirety, it makes no mention of Section 180-2 which states, in part: “[T]he
existence of unreasonably loud, unnecessarily disturbing or unusual noise within the Town has become
an increasingly significant problem during recent years. Such noise pollution which is prolonged, unusual
or unnatural in its time, place and use is harmful to the peace, welfare, comfort, safety, convenience,
good order and prosperity of the inhabitants of the Town of Southold. It is the public policy and findings
of the Town Board that every person is entitled to noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health
and the enjoyment of his or her property.”33
Compliance with the Town of Southold’s Town Code is following the law. It cannot be considered
mitigation.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to “Include protocols for monitoring of the noise level during
construction.” No noise monitoring protocols are provided in the DEIS or Appendix R.34
Post-Development Noise Impacts
According to the DEIS, “[A]s a proposed winter storage facility, the buildings would be largely inactive
for almost half of the year. The noise would occur when boats are loaded into and out of the building.
Due to the proposed grading, the retaining wall would function as a sound barrier, largely containing the
noise within the graded area” (DEIS p.260). The acoustic analysis is based on the assumption that post-
construction noise generators would be limited to, “truck acceleration, raised voices, and boat washing,
as well as peak future traffic generation along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road.” (DEIS p.260).
However, the DEIS does not indicate whether or not the huge roll-up doors on the proposed storage
buildings will be equipped with warning alarms that sound whenever the doors are operated. Those
alarms can be as loud as 120dB.
33 Section 180-8 which exempts construction activities also states that it applies “provided that such activities and such
equipment and their use comply with the other provisions hereof.” The Town Code is not clear as to whether or not
Section180-2 is “a provision thereof.”
34 Vibration, but not noise, monitoring protocols are described in the Vibration Report and the DEIS.
Page | Noise - 17 Rev8b
DEIS Conclusions
“. . . construction noise levels are predicted to have an impact at the nearby Residences . . . Nearby
residences are predicted to be impacted by the construction for its duration” (Acoustic Report p.3). The
Acoustic Report attempts to obscure these findings by stating that “the Town of Southold specifically
exempts construction noise from the requirements in the Noise Code” and “impact from construction is
common for any construction project to occur, whether it be commercial or residential, which is why it
is commonly exempted from municipal noise codes” (Acoustic Report p. 3). The fact that Project-
generated noise levels will not violate provisions of the Southold Town Code is not sufficient reason to
ignore the fact that Project-generated noise will adversely affect the quality of life of local residents.
The suggestion that just because noise impacts are associated with construction they can be ignored, is
absurd on its face.
In regard to the post-construction operation of the Project, Sound Sense concluded that “the Build
Condition is not expected to increase existing sound levels by more than 4 dBA, which would
constitute “No Impact” under the NYSDEC criteria” (Acoustic Report p.3). This is not what the
NYSDEC criteria say. However, Table 1 in the Acoustic Report correctly notes, quoting from the
NYSDEC criteria, that a sound level increase of 3-6 dB has the “[P]otential for adverse noise impact
in cases where the most sensitive of receptors are present.” NYSDEC does not define what a “most
sensitive receptor” is. The Mill Road Preserve, which abuts the Project site, should have been
treated as a sensitive receptor.35 As noted above, the Acoustic Report never mentions possible
impacts to the Preserve.
Even if one accepts SoundSense’s conclusion that once the Project is in operation it will not generate
noise levels more than 4 dBA above existing noise levels, it is difficult to reconcile their conclusion that
this constitutes “no Impact” with a 2019 noise assessment prepared by SoundSense which states that a
change of 4-5 dB constitutes a “Perceivable and Significant” change (emphasis in original). That same
report also states that the “standard acoustic ruler is that any sound that exceeds the background noise
level by 5 dB(A) or more has the potential to be an annoyance”. 36
The conclusion the Acoustic Report’s Executive Summary that “Analysis showed sound levels are
predicted to increase significantly during construction” (Acoustic Report p.3) is not included in the
DEIS.
35 The USEPA defines “environmental receptor” as including “natural areas such as national or state parks, forests, or
monuments; officially designated wildlife sanctuaries, preserves, refuges, or areas; and Federal wilderness areas" (emphasis
added) (40 CFR §68.3). Definitions of “sensitive receptor,” in the context of assessing noise impacts, include “areas or places
at which acoustic environmental values must be protected. Among others, the list of sensitive receptors includes: a dwelling,
a library or educational institution, childcare center, hospital, commercial or retail premises, a protected area and public
park” (Noise and vibration—EIS information guideline, State of Queensland, 2022).
36 Acoustic Report, Acoustic Blueprint Review at Pop Displays, 1 International Drive, Rye Brook, NY., Prepared by SoundSense
(Jennifer Scinto, Jacob Watrous, and Bonnie Schnitta), February 26, 2019.
Page | Project Description - 1 Rev 6b
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED
Project Objective
Section 1.3.1 of the DEIS (Objectives of the Proposed Project) states that “[c]limate-controlled (heated)
space is essential for maintaining electrical systems in the types of vessels to be stored”(pp. ii, 14). This is
both misleading and inaccurate. Not only is heated indoor storage unnecessary, but indoor storage in
general is unnecessary both to a vessel’s electrical system and even the vessel in its entirety. Strong’s
Marine is an authorized new boat dealer for manufacturers such as Cruisers Yachts and Regal Boats.
Strong’s is also a former dealer for Sunseeker Yachts. All three manufacturers have debunked the
developer’s claim that heated indoor storage is essential. Regal Customer Service noted “The majority of
Regal boats do spend their winters outside, and seem to do very well.” Sunseeker noted “there are no
issues with storing a Sunseeker outside in the winter.” Lastly, Cruisers Yachts noted that their boats are
built in Wisconsin and “may sit outside for several months wrapped and winterized without issue” while
waiting for delivery to their dealers. When asked specifically about electrical systems, Cruisers Yachts
noted “…as far as any additional electrical concerns, you shouldn’t be worried.”1
Nowhere in the DEIS does the Applicant provide or discuss a demonstrated need for the Project. The
financial risks of undertaking the Project without a demonstrated need are those of the Applicant and any
financial supporters. However, if the Project proves to be financially non-viable, it would also mean that
the Town of Southold would incur all of the environmental disruptions/devastation associated with
Project construction without benefiting in any way from the Project. This is of special concern since the
Applicant has advised at least one adjacent property owner that bank financing of the second of the two
proposed storage buildings is contingent upon demonstrating a 60% occupancy of the first building.2
DEIS Scope calls for the DEIS to “include data about stored boat ownership and where the boat is
docked during the season” (DEIS Scope p.23). THE DEIS addresses this in an inadequate and inconsistent
manner.
The DEIS states that “many of the yachts to be accommodated by the proposed action are anticipated to
be existing boats utilizing local waters[,] customers electing to store their yachts in a climate-controlled
facility closer to home rather and eliminates the need to relocate the vessel to warmer climates for
winter storage”[sic](pp. xxiv, 249-250). However, this assumption fails to take into the account that
many yacht owners choose to relocate their vessels to warmer climates during winter months so they
can be made available for revenue-generating winter charters. For example, the M/Y Le Reve, pictured
in DEIS Appendix M, and identified as typical of the vessels at SYC, is currently available for winter
charter in the Caribbean.3 This practice eliminates the need for winter storage.
1 Per emails from: Sunseeker dated 2/23/2022, Cruisers Yachts dated 2/22/2022, and Regal Boats dated 2/24/2022
(ATTACHMENT DESCRIPTIONS -1a and 1b)
2 See comments on Employment and Economic Impacts.
3 https://iyc.com/charter/le-reve-lazzara/
Page | Project Description - 2 Rev 6b
The DEIS also states that “The proposed action would keep those yachts that utilize local waters during
the peak season on Long Island rather than being transported to warmer climates in the winter which
would further support and revitalize the maritime and commercial hub in this area” (DEIS p. 174).
However, at a May 14, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, the Applicant indicated
this was not the case.4
The DEIS also states that it “is anticipated the boat owners would be existing customers who currently
dock at SYC or Strong’s Water Club, new yacht customers from the surrounding Southold community, as
well as other owners on Long Island, Westchester County, and in the States of Connecticut and New
Jersey” (pp. ii, xxviii, 20, 278); and that “a portion of these storage boat customers may be existing
clients of SYC or the Strong’s Water Club, boat owners within the Town, while others are expected to be
future boat owners from yacht sales by SYC or other brokers” (p. 312). DEIS Appendix M states that it
“is anticipated new yacht customers would come from Mattituck Inlet private docks, Greenport,
Montauk, Mount Sinai, Port Jefferson, Huntington, Port Washington, Westchester County, New York,
Connecticut, and Northern New Jersey” (DEIS Appendix M, p.24). The language in these statements is
very imprecise, witness the use of the words “many”, “anticipated”, “a portion”, and “may be”.
Approximately how many yachts/customers are anticipated to be existing customers who currently dock
at SYC?5 Approximately how many are customers at other Town of Southold facilities owned by the
applicant? How many new yacht customers are expected to take advantage of winter storage at SYC?
How many customers will be from outside Suffolk County or from outside New York State? The answers
to these questions go directly to accurately estimating tax revenue aspects of the Project, as well as
assessing whether aspects of the Project’s environmental impacts are merely being moved from one
location to another, or whether certain impacts will be intensified. This information is not included in
the DEIS.
It is difficult to believe that the Applicant is proposing a project of this magnitude without a firm basis
for believing it will be economically viable. The DEIS includes nothing to support or document a
demonstrated need for the Project, other than the Applicant’s assertions. Something more than “If I
build it, they will come,” needs to be provided to the Planning Board by the Applicant to demonstrate a
4 The Applicant state, in response to a question: “In the research studies we’ve done . . . there are a lot of large yachts, which is
not what this project is geared for. We define large yachts . . . as 85-ft and above. Most of those have captains and they’ll
take them down south in the winter . . .That’s not our customer—not what these are built for. Our average size is roughly a
60-ft yacht. Those generally don’t travel down south.” The Applicant later stated, in contradiction of his earlier statement,
that “at least half of those [60-ft boats] are captained boats.
5 Although the DEIS does not directly provide this number, Appendix M indicates that 22 yachts in the 60-105 ft class were
included in the 2020 SYC inventory. The DEIS states that “Based upon an average yacht size of 60 feet in length, it is
estimated that approximately 88 yachts could be stored within the proposed buildings.” Assuming that all of these vessels
opted to utilize the proposed storage facilities, a minimum of 66 60-ft vessels would be owned by individuals who are not
currently SYC customers.
Page | Project Description - 3 Rev 6b
need for indoor winter yacht storage, and some basis for estimating the number and geographic
distribution of anticipated customers.
Project Description
The DEIS states that “existing storage buildings would remain the same and a reconfiguration of the
staging areas and drydock storage is not proposed.” The DEIS fails to mention that the reason there does
not need to be a reconfiguration of the staging area is because the developer made modifications to the
existing haul out slip at the southern end of the property to accommodate larger boats, while the Project
is under SEQR review.
On July 16, 2020, the Applicant applied for a wetlands permit to replace an in-kind bulkhead and make a
modification and extension to the southern haul out slip. Comment letters from Save Mattituck Inlet,
Save the Sound, and the Southold Planning Board were submitted to the Southold Board of Trustees
expressing concern about the apparent segmentation of the review of the Project, which was and is, under
review by the Planning Board. The written comments were supplemented by verbal comments from
representatives of the two former organizations at the May 19, 2021 meeting of the Board of Trustees.6
The Southold Planning Board’s memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated May 19, 2021 noted that the
Planning Board was the designated Lead Agency under SEQRA, and had issued a positive declaration for
a project (the proposed Project) which included aspects of the work the Board of Trustees was being asked
to approve. The Planning Board noted that it “is the determination of the Planning Board that portions of
the proposed work are connected to the whole action and, consequently, approving them could be
considered segmentation of the SEQR review process. This work, which includes the extension of the
travel lift and work associated with the travel lift extension, as well as any other new work, should not be
allowed to move forward until the SEQR process has been concluded.” In spite of this, the Board of
Trustees voted, inappropriately we believe, to approve all work in the application despite the public
comments, public letters, and the Planning Board’s written objection.7
The Planning Board should also be cognizant of the fact the Project, as described in the DEIS, does not
appear to be the project the Applicant intends to build. First, the Applicant has indicated in other venues
that it is likely that the Project will be constructed in phases, with initial phase including only one yacht
storage building. The second building, would be constructed only if factors such as suitable bank
financing, and if interest rates and the price of steel come down.8 Second, the proposed water line, which
6 Minutes, May 19, 2021, Southold Board of Trustees.
7 Memorandum dated May 19, 2021 from James H. Rich III, Vice Chairman, and Members of the Planning Board, to Glenn
Goldsmith, President, Town of Southold Board of Trustees.
8 This is discussed in greater detail in the comment section relating to Project Alternatives.
Page | Project Description - 4 Rev 6b
is touted in the DEIS as a Project benefit is, according to the Suffolk County Water Authority scheduled for
construction in May 2023, and will be in place independent of construction of the Project.9
9 This is discussed in greater detail in the comment section relating to Water Supply.
Page | Project Description - 5 Rev 6b
ATTACHMENT DESCRPTION-1a
Page | Project Description - 6 Rev 6b
ATTACHMENT DESCRPTION-1b
Page | Project Schedule - 1
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The DEIS contains conflicting and confusing information concerning the scheduling of the Project.
The proposed construction schedule for the Project is described in Section 3.10.2 of the DEIS (pp. 284-
287) entitled “Description of Proposed Construction Schedule and Activities”. According to that section
of the DEIS, the schedule will include:
• Site Preparation (Tree Removal and Grubbing) and Haul Road Construction (Approximately 2
Weeks);
• Phase 1 (Excavation) (completed in approximately five-to-six months);
• Phase 2 (Excavation) (completed in approximately 2 to 4 weeks)
• Phase 3 (Construction) (completed in approximately six (6) months)
The DEIS also notes that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS Appendix O) which makes use of the same
schedule “relied upon the construction schedule and details provided by Red Rock Construction [DEIS
Appendix F], included in various sections of this DEIS” (DEIS p. 211).
However, the DEIS is neither internally consistent, nor consistent with the TIS, in regard to the Project’s
schedule. For example, the TIS states that the “proposed excavation plan includes two routes1 for truck
movements and would occur over a projected duration of approximately five to six months based upon
loads of 30 cubic yards per truck and five-day work weeks” (TIS p.34). This contrasts with the 5.5 to 7
months in Section 3.10.2 of the DEIS.
The DEIS text and Appendix F of the DEIS (Construction Schedule and Details, as prepared by Red Rock
Industries, Inc.) indicates that Phase 1 excavation will take 5-6 months, and Phase 2 excavation will take
2-4 weeks. This is inconsistent with the Traffic Study descriptions noted above.
The DEIS states that 4,500 outbound truck trips will be required to remove the excavated sand from the
Project site, and that 40 outbound trips will be made each day. This means that the total number of
days required will be 113—or 23 5-day work-weeks. However, given that the DEIS indicates that no work
will be performed on Federal or State holidays (there are 6 weekday holidays in the six months between
mid-Dec 2023 and mid-June 2024), the total number of weeks required to complete Excavation Phases 1
and 2 would actually be 24.
Assuming that the actual number of truck trips required to remove sand is 5,480 (based on truckloads of
25 CY, rather than 30 CY)2 the Project will require 137 days (28 weeks) without taking holidays into
1 The two routes refer to the route for construction Phase 1 and the route for Construction Phase 2. The TIS is clearly referring
to both construction phases, combined.
2 The 25 CY limit is based upon the weight of a CY of sand from the Project site (as provided in DEIS Appendix H) and the
maximum allowed weight (107,000 pounds) of each outbound haul truck (32,5000 pounds for the unloaded truck plus 74,500
pounds of sand).
Page | Project Schedule - 2
account. Including holidays, the total number of weeks required would be 29, without taking into
account weather or equipment issues.
The DEIS has not adequately addressed concerns regarding potential weather and task delays.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to discuss “how the unexpected site conditions, weather, pandemic,
and work flow and schedule changes will be addressed to not impact the community?” (p.26). The
Planning Board determined that the original DEIS had not adequately addressed this issue because it
stated only that “the proposed construction schedule is a maximum time period and considers delays
that could occur from unexpected weather and task delays" (original DEIS Page 272). The Planning Board
requested that the revised DEIS clarify “What is unexpected weather? What would be considered task
delays?”
The Applicant’s annotated version of the Planning Board’s comments indicates that the DEIS “Narrative
[has been] expanded, as requested. It has not. The revised text states only that: “Task delays could be
expected during unexpected snow events or wet weather during site preparation, which would impact
work on the site. However, the construction schedule provided in this DEIS includes over-estimates
should delay occur” (p. 287).3 There are a number of problems with these statements.
Nowhere in the DEIS, or the TIS, is there an estimate of the number of days that the Project may be
delayed because of weather-related (or task delay) issues. It should be remembered that most of the
Project’s haul-truck traffic will be on the road during the winter months. Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is
there a discussion of what, if any, conditions would determine if the operation of Project haul trucks will
be limited or suspended. This is especially important since most of the haul truck traffic to and from the
Project site will take place during the winter and spring months.
The DEIS states (p. 17) that “Phases 1 and 2 are excavation phases to occur over 5.5 to 6.5 months.” At
another point (p. 309) it states that the excavation phase will require from 6-7 months. This
inconsistency is complicated further by the fact that the DEIS repeatedly states that Excavation Phase 1
“is proposed to be completed within approximately five-to-six (5-6) months” (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 34, 209,
239, 284, 286). However, on page 292, it states that “projected truck trips would be 40 entering trucks
and 40 exiting trucks per day during the four-month excavation period for Phase 1” (emphasis added).
In other words, the DEIS at various points states that the excavation phases will take anywhere from 4.5
to 7 months.
According to the DEIS, “Phase 2 [Excavation] would be up to 1 month (2 to 4 weeks) with a
commencement date of May 2024” (rev DEIS p. xxx, 18, 34, 286), and “Phase 3 [Construction] would be
completed in approximately six (6) months with a commencement date of May 2024” (rev DEIS p.19,
3 It is unclear if this sentence is intended to apply to snow events during all phases of the Project and only to wet weather
during the site preparation phase, or to snow and wet weather during all phases of the Project.
Page | Project Schedule - 3
286). This suggests that excavation and construction phases will overlap. If so, the impact assessments
in the DEIS (notably the noise assessment) need to be revised to reflect this fact.
As noted above, even without taking into account “delays that could occur from unexpected weather
and task delays,” the Project cannot be completed within five months. If, in fact, because of weight
limitations, the total number of truck trips will greater than assumed in the DEIS, the Project could not
be completed in six months even if there were no “weather-related (or task delay) issues.” Assuming
that there will be no delays is a totally unrealistic assumption. The schedule, as proposed, does not
(contrary to the claim in the DEIS) appear to take into account adverse weather conditions, or time lost
to things such as equipment breakdowns.
Potential Delays in Project Start Date
As noted above, the Project schedule as described in the DEIS calls for the excavation phases, which will
include thousands of truck trips by 22-wheel tractor trailer haul trucks, to end, under the most
optimistic schedule given in the DEIS, on or about early June, 2024. Under the maximum time period
described in the DEIS for the excavation phases, it would end in mid-July, 2024. However, if these time
frames have been underestimated, as seems likely, because the number of haul truck trips has been
underestimated, or if the start date of the Project is delayed for any reason, then haul truck traffic will
be traveling on local roads during the summer or even fall. These are the periods that experience the
highest traffic volumes along the Project truck route, notably along Sound Avenue, and there are long-
standing well documented community concerns about summer and fall traffic. ANY increase in traffic on
Sound Avenue during the summer and fall constitutes a significant adverse environmental impact.
Many of the analyses in the DEIS (notably traffic) are based upon a Project start date 4 in early December
2024. A December or January Project start date will be the only Project start date that would result in
the six months of Excavation Phase haul truck traffic avoiding the peak summer/fall traffic season on
Sound Avenue. If the December 2023 start date cannot be met, then the Project start should be delayed
until December 2024. Should this happen, much of the data in the DEIS will have aged to the point that
it cannot be used. This is especially true in regard to traffic and economic impacts.
The proposed Project schedule calls for Phase 3 (Construction) to “occur over approximately 6 months
with a commencement date of May 2024. During Phase 3, it is expected that work would be performed
6 days per week (Monday-Saturday) with time limited to 7:00 am to 7:00” (DEIS p. 19). Should there be
any delay in the start of Phase 3, resulting in construction taking place between October thru early
March, some portion of each workday will occur after sundown. For example, in early December, sunset
in Mattituck is as early as 4:21 PM. This is more than 2.5 hours before the end of the proposed work
day. In the absence of lighting the work area, construction would have to halt at the onset of darkness.
4 The DEIS states that Excavation Phase 1 would “commence in mid-December 2023” (p.284). Clearing and grubbing of the
Project site would precede this by two weeks. The December 2023 start date appears to be very optimistic given the
likelihood of future litigation challenging the Planning Board’s decision.
Page | Project Schedule - 4
This would result in the lengthening of the overall Project schedule. Alternatively, temporary lighting
could be used to allow construction to continue after dark. This possibility, with its attendant lighting
impacts is not addressed in the DEIS.
Another potential cause of a delay is the fact that the Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB), an endangered
species, may be present in the Project area. For this reason, the DEIS has proposed as mitigation that all
tree clearing activities (destruction of LLEB habitat) be conducted, in accordance with USFWS and
NYSDEC requirements be conducted between December 1 and February 28.5 For that reason, any delay
of Project start past February 28 would require a delay until the following December 1.
5 The proposed mitigation was based on the assumption that the NLEB was a threatened species. However, On March 31, 2023
the NLEB officially became an endangered species.
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 1
SEA LEVELS, CLIMATE CHANGE AND FLOODING
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to describe the potential adverse impact on the Project parcel resulting
from climate change and sea level rise, with special attention to flooding, rising groundwater, and
increases in precipitation (DEIS scope p. 7).
Flooding
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include “the potential impacts associated with coastal flooding,
storm events, and rising sea levels” (p. 10). It also calls for the “future physical climate risk due to storm
surge (including sea level rise) and flooding [to] be considered in project design” (p.10). In 2019 Suffolk
County approved legislation that requires the county department of public works to take sea level rise
into consideration when planning major roadwork to alleviate flooding and prevent future damage.
Newsday has reported that this would apply to CR 48 in Southold which is part of the Project truck
route.1
The potential for flooding at the Project site is readily apparent in the attached photograph (COMMENT
FIGURE SL-1) showing conditions at the Old Mill Inn, located adjacent to the Project site, during a high-
tide storm surge event in 2022.
The DEIS concludes that “[S]ea level rise projections . . . would not inundate the subject property and
impacts from sea level rise and storm inundation are concentrated at the bulkhead” (DEIS p. 179, Table
30; p. 182 Table 31). However, the DEIS evaluates only a single, Applicant-selected, scenario.
The DEIS has based its analysis of the adverse impact of sea level rise on a potential sea level rise of 16
inches by 2050 which, per 6 NYCRR 490 is considered a “medium”2 projection. The DEIS states that
“pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 490 . . . [this], is considered a reasonable analysis” (pp. ix, 110). This
language is misleading. Nothing in state regulations sets forth what constitutes a “reasonable” analysis
in regard to evaluating the impacts of sea level changes. What constitutes reasonable analysis should be
determined by the Planning Board—not the Applicant or his consultants.
More conservative analyses using a “'high-medium” projection assuming, a sea level rise of 21 inches,
and a “high” projection of 30 inches, representing a possible “worst-case” scenario should have been
included. While these alternate scenarios, which are set forth in 6 NYRR 490.4, are noted in the DEIS
1 https://www.newsday.com/long-island/environment/climate-change-sea-levels-bay-tides-long-island-s1hsx81r
2“Medium projection” is the amount of sea-level rise that is about as likely as not (the mean of the 25th and 75th percentiles of
ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[n]). “High-medium projection” is the
amount of sea-level rise that is unlikely (the 75th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time
interval (6 NYCRR 490.3[h]). “High projection” is the amount of sea-level rise that is associated with high rates of melt of land-
based ice and is very unlikely (the 90th percentile of ClimAID model outputs) to be exceeded by the specified time interval (6
NYCRR 490.3[i]).
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 2
(p.105, Table 16), potential impacts under these scenarios are not evaluated. In fact, “[S]ea level rise,
which has averaged about 1.2 inches a decade in the past century, could accelerate to as much as an
inch per year over the next several decades, according to numerous reports issued in recent years.”3
This is consistent with the “high” projection.
The DEIS also employed the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) Future
Coastal Floodplain Mapper (the Mapper). The Mapper exhibits how the existing mapped floodplain
could be modified in scenarios where 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 inches of sea level rise are
experienced under 10-year, 50-year, 100-year, and 500-year storm conditions. “When analyzing the
project area’s susceptibility to sea level rise using the Mapper, the median scenario from CRRA for the
2050s was applied, 18 inches” (p.107).4 The DEIS analyzed two mapped storm scenarios
“(1) 18 inches of sea level rise in the 2050s and a 10-year storm event; and (2) 18 inches
of sea level rise in the 2050s and a 100-year storm event. At a 10-year recurrence
interval (see Figure 24 in Appendix A) with 18 inches of sea level rise (2050s), storm
inundation could occur at existing Buildings 2, 7 and 8, and the eastern portions of
existing Buildings 3 through 6 could be affected. The existing Building 1 would be
unaffected. At a 100-year recurrence interval (see Figure 24 in Appendix A) with 18
inches of sea level rise (2050s), storm inundation could occur across the SYC property,
with Building 1 unaffected” (DEIS p.107).
No mention is made in the analysis of how the proposed new boat storage buildings would be affected
by sea level rise. The references to Figure 24 in DEIS Appendix A are misleading. That figure is a
reproduction of a Mapper-generated graphic showing the assumed 18-inch sea level rise/100-year
occurrence scenario. Figure 24 shows the approximate location of the proposed boat storage buildings
as asterisks. According to Figure 24, these locations would be unaffected by sea level rise. This is
misleading and contradicts the DEIS text. The DEIS states that “sea level rise with storm inundation were
evaluated at the subject property, under the post-development condition” (emphasis added) (pp. ix,
107). However, the Mapper graphic, on which Figure 24 is based, depicts existing elevations and does
not take into account the fact that the post-construction elevations of the marked locations will be up to
40 feet lower than the elevations used by the Mapper to generate Figure 24.
No mention is made in the analysis of how the 50-ton travelift to the south of Building 2, and the 85-
ton travelift east of Building 7, would be impacted by sea level rise. This is a significant omission. Even
if the proposed boat storage structures are not directly impacted, should the travelifts, which are
located at a lower elevation, be rendered inoperative, the new storage structures would become
useless. Even if the travelifts are rendered inoperative only during a storm inundation event, should
such events occur during the limited fall window when yachts are expected to arrive for storage, they
3 https://www.newsday.com/long-island/environment/climate-change-sea-levels-bay-tides-long-island-s1hsx81r
4 The 2014 Community Risk and Resiliency Act. 6 NYCRR 490 are the implementing regulations for the CRRA.
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 3
would have to reschedule their arrival (if possible), wait for the travelifts to become operative, or
depart. All of these possibilities have associated potential environmental impacts which the DEIS fails to
address.
Sea Level Change and Groundwater
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to “specifically analyze the effect of rising groundwater on upland
resources.” As the DEIS notes, “[D]ue to location of the subject property along the Mattituck Creek, sea
level rise is expected to have an equal rise in groundwater elevation (i.e., a 16-inch rise in sea level
would cause an equal 16-inch rise in groundwater elevation)” (p.107).
Based on the assumed 16-inch rise in sea level, groundwater modeling (DEIS Appendix L) conducted for
the Project as “shown on the Utility Plan, [shows the] the top elevation of both Sanitary Systems Nos.1
and 2 would be 9.4± feet AMSL and the base of the leaching galleys would be 4.4 feet AMSL. Based on
existing conditions, the distance between the bottom of the leaching pool and groundwater for Sanitary
System No. 1 is approximately 3.2 feet and Sanitary System No. 2 is approximately 3.0 feet. When
applying a projected 1.31-foot [16 inch] rise in groundwater elevation in the 2050s, this separation
distance would decrease to 1.7± feet and 1.9± feet for System Nos. 1 and 2, respectively” (pp. x, 113).
The DEIS states that the “recommended separation distance to groundwater for sanitary leaching fields
is three feet. As such, should sea level rise occur as projected, the system would be non-compliant with
current design requirements” (emphasis added) (pp. x, 114).5,6 In fact, if one were to apply the high-
medium (21-inch) or high (30-inch) estimates for sea level rise (see above), all four of the proposed
drainage leaching fields, not just the two identified in the DEIS, would be non-compliant, and would
become non-compliant sooner.
The DEIS dismisses the anticipated future non-compliance of the Project’s new sanitary system. It states
that “in the 2050 condition, modifications to the leaching field could be implemented by elevating and
installing a pump station. However, the manufacturer lifespan of the I/A OWTS is 30 years, and thus, by
the 2050s, new systems could be expected. Should the projections of sea level rise be realized, the new
systems to be installed would be required to comply with the regulations at that time” (pp. x, 114). This
is speculation as there is no guarantee that this issue would be addressed at some unspecified time in
the future. Furthermore, the analysis of the relationship between rising groundwater and the proposed
sanitary system only concludes that under, the single scenario considered, the system would be non-
5 Table 17 in the DEIS indicates that proposed Sanitary System No.2 and drainage leaching fields 1.0 and 3.0 will all be
separated from current groundwater levels by 3 feet. This is the minimum required separation distance. In other words, the
system, as designed, would barely be compliant on day one of operation.
6 The DEIS cites the SCDHS’ Standards for Approval of Plans and Construction for Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than
Single-Family Residences, July 2020, and the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, January 2015. The
SCDHS Standards (p.51) are clear that the three-foot separation is not a recommendation—it is a requirement.
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 4
compliant by 2050. This does not address when the system would become non-compliant, which could
be considerably sooner than 2050.
As noted above, the groundwater modeling performed for the Project is based on a single scenario. It
does not include worst case scenarios. It is unclear whether appropriate estimates of precipitation
increase over time were integrated into the model (see below). The groundwater report states that
“[P]recipitation records going back over the past 70 years show an average annual total precipitation off
49 inches per year. . . [and that the] groundwater model [was] calibrated . . . based on the annual
average precipitation rate of 49 inches/year . . .” (DEIS Appendix L p.20). However, the source for this
this figure is not provided, and it does not appear to be consistent with data from NOAA for Suffolk
County (see below).
Precipitation Increase
The DEIS scope requires the DEIS to “consider the effects of intensifying precipitation-- including more
seasonal precipitation and higher rates and more total precipitation during storms-- both during
construction and operation.” The DEIS is not responsive to this requirement.
The DEIS has not accurately assessed how future increases in precipitation could affect sea levels.
The DEIS states that “between 1940-2000 at New York (LaGuardia), which is also on the North Shore of
Long Island along the Long Island Sound similar to the location of the proposed action, the average
monthly precipitation was 3.97± inches” (p. 109).7 The choice to use the New York (LaGuardia) data is
also inappropriate, given that Suffolk County data is available.8 While the 1940-2000 data for New York
(LaGuardia) (COMMENT FIGURE SL-2a) shows no change in average annual precipitation over time (0.0
in/decade), the comparable data set for Suffolk County (COMMENT FIGURE SL-2b) shows that average
annual precipitation is trending upward (+0.68 in/decade).
The DEIS, again citing NOAA data, goes on to state that “Since 2017, there has been an overall
downward trend in annual precipitation” (p.108). It is initially unclear why the DEIS preparers chose
2017 as the starting point from which the trend in the change of precipitation increase should be
measured. The NOAA data for the 2017-2021 period is shown in COMMENT FIGURE SL-3a. It does
show a downward trend in annual precipitation. However, a closer examination of the NOAA data
indicates that this is misleading. If one extends the period for which data is used to establish the trend
of change in precipitation by only one year—to 2016--the trend is seen to be increasing—not decreasing
7 The original DEIS indicated that the yearly precipitation was 3.97± inches. This error was noted by the Planning Board’s
consultant during the adequacy review of the original DEIS, and corrected in the revised DEIS. While not significant, it is
another example of the carelessness with which the DEIS was prepared.
8 This is another example of the DEIS basing analyses on data that minimizes impacts, while ignoring data supporting a greater
impact.
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 5
as stated in the DEIS (COMMENT FIGURE SL-3b).6 In addition, according to Suffolk County data displayed
on the USGS National Climate Change Viewer 9, 80% of 20 climate change models predict that
precipitation will be greater during the 2025-2049 period than during the 1981-2010 period.
The DEIS’ multiple attempts to characterize the trend in annual precipitation as decreasing when, in
fact the data indicates the opposite, have compromised all of the climate-change modeling done for
the Project, especially as it relates to impacts to changes in groundwater levels over time.
9 https://www.usgs.gov/tools/national-climate-change-viewer-nccv. See also: U.S. Geological Survey - National Climate Change
Viewer- Summary of Suffolk County, New York, May 5, 2021
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 6
COMMENT FIGURE SL-1
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 7
COMMENT FIGURE SL-2a
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series/USW00014732/pcp/ytd/12/1940-
2000?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1940&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1940&endtrendyea
r=2000
COMMENT FIGURE SL-2b
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/NY-103/pcp/ytd/12/1940-
2000?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1940&endtrendyear=2000
Page | Sea Levels, Climate Change and Flooding - 8
COMMENT FIGURE SL-3a
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/NY-103/pcp/ytd/12/2017-
2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2017&endtrendyear=2022
COMMENT FIGURE SL-3b
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/county/time-series/NY-103/pcp/ytd/12/2016-
2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2016&endtrendyear=2022
Page | Slope Stability - 1
SLOPE STABILITY CONCERNS
The DEIS has not adequately addressed slope stability concerns.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to discuss “the potential of destabilization of adjacent properties and
impacts from vibration and excavation on adjacent properties, the impact of timing in between each
phase, the threat of catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to
weather or other event, and the future maintenance, type of construction, inspection schedules and
monitoring for defects of the retaining wall. The potential catastrophic failure of the retaining wall, in
whole or in part and effect on adjacent properties” (p.21).
The DEIS repeatedly concludes (pp. iv, 32, 37, 41, 79, 80, 86, 92, 290) that construction of the proposed
Evergreen retaining walls presents no slope stability concerns. It bases this conclusion on the
Geotechnical Assessment (DEIS Appendix H) prepared for the Project which states that “PWGC has been
informed that the permanent wall will be an Evergreen Wall system designed by the propriety engineer.
The wall designer has assumed a soil friction angle of 34°, cohesion of 0 psf and moist unit weight of 125
pcf.” The “proprietary engineer” is presumably Evergreen Walls, Inc. However, the Evergreen Wall
report (DEIS Appendix H) was prepared by the project engineer (Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C.) and consists
primarily of materials prepared by Evergreen Walls, Inc.
The reference to a soil friction angle of 34o is significant. In its discussion of slope stability the DEIS states
that “[p]rior to the installation of the permanent retaining wall system, the soil cut is recommended to
be sloped on 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope” (p.37). This is not accurate. The Geotechnical Assessment
actually recommends a “soil cut at a 1.5:1 horizontal:vertical slope or shallower to prevent slope stability
issues” (emphasis added)(DEIS Appendix H, PWGC Geotechnical Memo).
The DEIS goes on to state that the 1:1.5 slope is based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) guidelines for excavation safety in Type C (granular, i.e., sandy) soils. A 1.5:1 slope is a 34° angle,
which is equivalent to the soil friction angle of the on-site soils. As indicated by PWGC, granular soils of
this composition (sand with gravel) and relative compaction (medium dense to dense) are favorable for
stable open cuts. A cut on a 34° angle taken from the base of the proposed retaining wall will not extend
horizontally onto the property of the nearest residence, 5106 Mill Road. Therefore, slope stability is not
a concern to nearby properties” (pp. 37, 86, 291).
What the DEIS fails to note is that the OSHA-required—not recommended--1.5:1 (34o angle) slope is the
“maximum allowable slope”1 and applies only to excavations less than 20 feet deep 2 (29 CFR 1926,
1 OSHA regulations define “maximum allowable slope” as “the steepest incline of an excavation face that is acceptable for the
most favorable site conditions as protection against cave-ins, and is expressed as the ratio of horizontal distance to vertical
rise (H:V).”
2 The excavation for the installation of the Evergreen retaining wall will be in excess of 30 feet deep.
Page | Slope Stability - 2
Subpart P App B - Sloping and Benching). According to OSHA regulations: “For excavations greater than
20 ft depth, the slope or bench shall be designed by a registered professional engineer.”
The project Landscape Plan (Appendix C) does include a “Typical Slope Soil Stabilization” detail prepared
by the project engineer (COMMENT FIGURE SS-1). That detail indicates how erosion control blankets
will be installed on “2:1 (H:V) Slope Max.” The 2:1 slope equates to a 27o angle. That is considerably
shallower than the 34o figure used throughout the DEIS. While this would increase slope stability, it has
other serious negative implications. The shallower slope means that the limit of excavation at the top of
the slope bordering the retaining wall will be set farther back and closer to the residence at 5106 Mill
Road.3 It also means that the limit of excavation in this area may be incorrectly depicted on project
plans. If constructed as shown on Project plans, the potential for slope instability may be considerably
greater than the DEIS indicates. It also means that a much greater volume of material will be needed to
backfill behind the completed retaining wall. It also raises the question of whether the total volume of
material to be excavated for the Project has been underestimated.
As shown on the Project’s Landscape Plan (Appendix C), the horizontal distance between the “landward
edge of the bottom the proposed wall” and the “E.O [edge of] Area of Disturbance” at the top of the
excavation area for most of its length is approximately 40 feet. The change in elevation between these
points is approximately 40 feet (note the location of the 50-foot contour which runs through the
proposed planting area at the top of the wall). That yields an approximate 1:1 slope with an
approximate angle of 45o.
The DEIS adds additional ambiguity and confusion to the issue of slope stability when it states on p.285
that “Bank slopes would not exceed 1 on 3.” This presumably means a 3:1 H:V ratio which would equate
to an 18o slope.4
The DEIS states that the “proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall would improve slope stability as it
would correct existing slope failure due to the placement of dredge material within the Construction
Excavation Area” (p.290). As noted in other comments on soils, the placement of dredge material in the
portion of the existing SYC property where slope failure is occurring has not been demonstrated as the
cause of the slope failure in that area. To the contrary, local residents have long been aware that the
former property owner was engaged in the mining and selling of sand from this area, and comments to
this effect were submitted to the Planning Board in 2020. There is nothing precluding the Applicant from
undertaking slope stabilization measures in this area independent of the proposed Project.
3 The DEIS states that a “cut on a 34° angle taken from the base of the proposed retaining wall will not extend horizontally onto
the property of the nearest resident, 5106 Mill Road. Therefore, slope stability is not a concern to nearby properties” (p.36).
4 The reference to the 1-on-3 slope may be referring to the slope adjacent to the temporary haul road during Phase 1
excavation. A 1-on-3 slope for the haul road is shown as a detail on the Excavation Phasing Plan. However, this not clear
from the DEIS text.
Page | Slope Stability - 3
The DEIS notes that the Evergreen retaining wall will have “a safety factor of greater than 2.0, with 1.5
being the code minimum” (pp. ii, 6, 290). However, no information is included in the DEIS concerning
the safety factor of the bare slope that will be exposed for an extended period before the retaining wall
is constructed. This is of considerable concern since it is during this period that an approximately 40-
foot high unvegetated sand slope will be exposed to the elements (prolonged rainfall and rapid snow
melt can contribute to slope failure) and be susceptible to catastrophic failure. Although numerous
slope stability analysis methods are available 5, none appear to have been used by the project engineers.
Another slope stability issue has been ignored by the DEIS. The slope that will be supported by the
retaining wall is not the only steep slope that will exist during construction. During the Project’s Phase 1
excavation phase the haul road will extend into the Construction Excavation Area along the west side of
the excavation. It will be used throughout Phase 1 excavation. The Phase 1 excavation will create a
slope immediately east of the haul road that will gradually increase in height to a maximum of
approximately 30 feet in height (the bottom of the haul road will be at elev. 12, the top will be at
elev.42). The eastern edge of this portion of the haul road may be located as close as 3 feet from the
top of the temporary slope.6 The integrity of this slope could be compromised by vibration from the
passage of hundreds of fully loaded haul trucks going up, and unloaded trucks going down, into the
excavation area. A failure of this unsupported slope could compromise the portion of the haul road
inside the excavation area, rendering it unusable. Should such a failure occur when a vehicle is entering
or exiting the excavation area the conditions exist for a potential loss of human life.
Another factor relating to the stability of the temporary portion of the haul road within the Construction
Excavation Area is the fact that it will have to be continuously lengthened as the depth of excavation
continuously deepens. Given this, it seems unlikely that this portion of the haul road will be composed
of RCA. If it will be, as implied in the DEIS, a description of how this will be accomplished, without
interfering with the arrival and departure of haul trucks, is needed.
The revised7 DEIS states that “According to the project engineer, there are no slope issues for the haul
road” (pp. 18, 285). However, it is clear from the contexts in which this statement appears that it is
referring only to the portion of the haul road that will remain after the completion of construction, and
not the “temporary” portion located within the Construction Excavation Area shown on the Project’s
Excavation Phasing Plan (DEIS Appendix C).
5 Numerous technical summaries comparing the various methods are available, such as: D.P. Salunkhe (2017) An Overview on
Methods for Slope Stability Analysis, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 6(3):528-535)
6 The haul road cross-section detail on the Excavation Phasing Plan depicts a “3’ min” distance between the edge of the haul
road and the top of the slope (COMMENT FIGURE SS-2). It may be that this intended to apply only to the portion of the haul
road that will traverse the R-80 portion of the Project parcel, but this is not clear.
7 During its review of the adequacy of the original DEIS, the Planning Board’s consultant (NPV) expressed concern about the
grade of the haul road and its suitably for use by heavy equipment.
Page | Slope Stability - 4
The DEIS does not, as called for in the DEIS scope, discuss “the impact of timing in between each
phase, the threat of catastrophic soil loss and erosion if there is a pause in the project schedule due to
weather or other event . . .” It does not discuss the “potential catastrophic failure of the retaining
wall, in whole or in part and effect on adjacent properties.” The DEIS includes no discussion of
methods to mitigate for the possibility of slope failure. Instead, it merely concludes that there are no
slope stability concerns, and that adjacent properties will therefore not be affected.
Page | Slope Stability - 5
COMMENT FIGURE SS-1
From: DEIS Appendix C – Landscape Plan. (Modified to indicate reference to 2:1 slope)
Page | Slope Stability - 6
COMMENT FIGURE SS-2
Page |Soils - 1
SOILS
The DEIS scope section “Impact on Soils and Topography” calls for the DEIS to “identify the existing soil
type(s) on the subject property, based upon the Suffolk County Soil Survey and any available test hole
data,” (p.6) and for the DEIS to discuss “the types and tested physical characteristics of the soils on site
that will be subject to excavation, future load bearing, and installation of sanitary systems and
stormwater conveyance systems” (p.6). Page 19 of the DEIS scope also states that “Soil types will be
identified from soil boring logs and published data through the USDA Suffolk County Soil Survey”.
The DEIS has not properly or adequately characterized and discussed the soils in the Project area.
As detailed below, there are problems with both the portions of the DEIS dealing with soils and the
Project’s geotechnical report in DEIS Appendix H 1. As a result, the validity, accuracy and utility of the
information in the DEIS that relates to Project area soils is suspect.
Tm (Tidal marsh) soils
The DEIS includes information on existing soil types as mapped by the USDA Suffolk County Soil Survey
(DEIS pp.22-26, DEIS Appendix A Figure 6). According to USDA soil survey mapping as described in the
DEIS 2, Tm (Tidal marsh) soils are present in the southern portion of the Project’s Construction
Excavation Area (CEA) in the area that will be partially occupied by proposed Storage Building No.2. DEIS
Table 7 (Soil Engineering and Planning Limitations) notes that the USDA classifies Tm soils as having
“Severe” limitations for homesites because of high water. A note to DEIS Table 7 states that the DEIS
used the homesites evaluation to “determine potential limitations for the development of the proposed
action.”
The USDA description of Tm soils is quoted in the DEIS:
“Tidal marsh is made up of wet areas that are throughout the county around the
borders of calmer embayments and tidal creeks. These level areas are not inundated by
daily tide flow, but they are subject to flooding during abnormally high moon or storm
tides. The areas range from about 2 to several hundred acres. Tidal marsh has an
organic mat on the surface that ranges from a few inches to several feet in thickness.
The organic mat overlies pale-gray or white sand. In many places the profile for the
marsh is made up of alternating layers of sand and organic material as a result of sand
deposited on the organic mat during abnormally high storm tides. They are best suited
to use as habitat for certain types of wildlife” (DEIS p.25).
1 Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report, 5780 Mill Road, Mattituck NY, 11952, August 3, 2021, P.W. Grosser Consulting.
2 See COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-1. It should be noted that DEIS Appendix A Figure 6, which has a scale of 1:3740, includes a note
copied from the USDA Soil Survey Mapper that notes “Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps
beyond this scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The
maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.”
Page |Soils - 2
The Project geotechnical report (DEIS Appendix H) includes the log for boring B-11, located within the
area mapped as containing Tm soils. The soil profile description for B-11 corresponds with the USDA
description of Tm soils. The log describes the first two feet of soil (below several inches of topsoil), from
11 to 9 feet in elevation, as “Very loose, light brown and tan medium to fine grained SAND (SP), roots.”
The presence of roots is indicative that organic matter is a component of the soil.
The existing surface elevation of the area containing Tm soils is approximately 11 feet. The finished
floor elevation of proposed Storage Building No.2 is 10 feet. This raises a number of questions: Will
excavated Tm soils be treated differently from other soils types during excavation? Will excavation of
Tm soils below the 10 ft elevation be necessary because of their severe engineering limitations? If so, to
what depth? Will excavated Tm soils below 10 feet be replaced with fill suitable for construction?
No discussion of the significance of Tm soils is included in the DEIS or the geotechnical report prepared
for the Project (DEIS Appendix H).
“Fd” (fill land, dredged material)
The DEIS also states that the only portion of SYC property identified as having soils classified as “Fd” (fill
land, dredged material) (DEIS Appendix A, Figure 6) is a very small area along the west shore of
Mattituck Creek, east of the southernmost of the existing marina structures. Table 6 in the DEIS (Soil
Types Mapped on Subject Property) notes that Fd soils “are located outside of the area of disturbance
for the proposed action.” However, Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102 (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-2) in the
Project geotechnical report label large areas in the southern and eastern portion of the Project area as
“Potential Dredge Spoils.”3 No explanation of how the boundaries of these areas were determined is
provided in the DEIS or DEIS Appendix H. Fd soils are the only soil type reported in the Project area for
which the DEIS does not include the corresponding USDA soil type description.4
According to the boring logs, borings B-9 (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-3), B-10 and B-11 showed evidence
of “Potential Dredge Spoils.” However, the logs for borings B-6, B-7 and B-8, also located within areas of
“potential dredge spoils”, do not indicate the presence of dredge spoils. (The geotechnical report
designates dredge spoil as Stratum 3, and describes it as “grey sands includ[ing] trace to little amounts
of shells”).5
3 Presumably this seeming contradiction is based on the fact that the USDA survey is referring to near surface soils, while the
DEIS figures are referring to buried deposits. This needs to be clarified as it is a potential source of confusion.
4 The USDA description for Fd soils reads in part: “Fill lands, dredged material (Fd), is made up of areas that have been filled
with material from hydraulic or mechanical dredging operations. These operations are used mainly to widen or deepen boat
channels in salt water; however, some dredged material has been obtained from new channels cut into tidal marshes. Most of
the dredged material is pumped onto tidal marshes. . . . Areas are satisfactory for building sites where the fill is adequate and
if the highly compressible organic layers in the tidal marshes are removed prior to filling” (Warner et al, 1975, Soils Survey of
Suffolk County, New York).
5 The presence of small amounts of shell in sands at these elevations suggests that an alternate explanation for Stratum 3 in
some of the borings is that it consists of old, naturally occurring, beach deposits, possibly dating to the Pleistocene.
Page |Soils - 3
The northeast portion of the Project site is also shown on Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102 as “Potential
Dredge Spoils.” Boring B-6, is shown mapped in the geotechnical report as being located in the center of
the “potential dredge spoils” area in the northeast part of the Construction Excavation Area, under the
proposed location for Storage Building No. 1. The log for Boring B-6 does not note the presence of
“Potential Dredge Spoils”. It is unclear why this area was identified as containing dredged material.
Borings B-7 and B-8 were located along the southern edge of the site of proposed Storage Building No.
2. Both of these are located within an area shown on Figure C-102 in the geotechnical report as being
the center of the southerly area labeled as “Potential Dredge Spoils.” Neither of these logs notes then
presence of “Potential Dredge Spoils.”6
If the areas surrounding borings B-6, B-7, and B-8 do, in fact, contain dredge spoils, why was this not
indicated on the logs for these borings? What is the depth to the top of these deposits? How thick are
they? Will any of this material be excavated as part of the Project? If so, in what quantities? The last
question is especially important because according to the “Soil Type Breakdown of Cut Volume” tables
in both the geotechnical report (Appendix H) and the DEIS (Table 10, p.37), dredge spoils are not part of
the 135,000 CY of material that will be excavated from the Construction Excavation Area.7
The interpretation of the materials recovered in some borings as dredge spoil is problematic. Possible
uncertainty as to the classification of sediment recovered from Borings B-9, B-10 and B-11 is reflected in
the decision to refer to them as “potential” and “possible” dredge spoil. (References to Stratum 3 in
Tables 5 and 6 of the geotechnical report, however, do not include either qualifier).
The geotechnical report states that “PWGC believes that this material was deposited onsite as dredge
spoils as it was found where the spoils were suspected of being.” This is circular reasoning. No
discussion of why dredge spoil was expected in this area is provided.8
6 In contrast, the logs for borings B-9, B-10, and B-11 all contain strata labeled “Potential Dredge Spoils”. However, in these
instances the top of the “Potential Dredge Spoil” strata is located respectively at elevations of 7, 6 and 3 feet. Since proposed
excavation will be to an elevation of 9± feet, any dredge spoils in these areas would not be exposed.
7 According to DEIS Table 10, the “Total Approx. Quantity” of “Stratum 3: Grey Sand w/Shells, Dredge Spoil” is “0”CY out of the
total of 135,000 CY.
8 The DEIS states that “Based on observations made during the walkover of the eastern edge of the proposed Construction
Excavation Area on March 25, 2021 by project archaeologist, Carol S. Weed, MA (RPA), dredge spoil appears to have been
emplaced atop the east side of the valley slope, effectively creating the top of the broken upland slope line. As noted in the
Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment, the origin of the spoil is unknown but historic documents indicate that dredge spoil was
deposited onsite and particularly on the west side of Mattituck” (p.31). It is possible that the “expectation” that dredged spoil
deposits would be found was based on questionable interpretations of historical data included in the archeological
assessment for the Project (see accompanying comments on archeological investigations at the Project site).
Page |Soils - 4
The most significant basis for questioning whether the material observed in borings B-9, B-10, and B-11
is dredge spoil is the fact that the top of Stratum 3, in all three cases, is found at depths varying from
four to eight feet below ground surface. This begs the question: if Stratum 3 is in fact dredge spoil, what
is the material overlying it? Any such material could not have been deposited earlier than the late
nineteenth century when the first dredging of Mattituck Inlet occurred. If the overlying strata are
natural, then Stratum 3 cannot be dredge spoil.9
Stratum 3 is also described in the geotechnical report as “generally found between EL. 0’ and El. +8’
NAVD88.” This means that they would be found below the maximum depth of excavation within the
Construction Excavation Area. However, if they are, in fact, found in the areas identified as containing
“Potential Dredge Spoils” as shown on geotechnical report Figures C-100, C-101, and C-102, this could
be of concern. It would mean that dredged spoil is present under the proposed locations of proposed
Storage Building No. 1, proposed Storage Building No. 2, and possibly segments of the proposed
retaining wall. The DEIS and the Appendix H both point out that the Stratum 3 “material was classified
as “SP” in accordance with the USCS10. This material is considered unsuitable for foundation bearing
based on the loose blow counts” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.28).
The DEIS also contains a disingenuous statement about the significance of the presence of Stratum 3. It
states “Stratums 3 and 4 are mostly located at elevations and locations outside the soil cut” (p.35). If
the area mapped as “Possible Dredge Spoil” is accurate, Stratum 3 soils are “outside the soil cut” only if
one interprets that to mean they will not be excavated because they are found below the limits of
excavation11. They are, however, inside the horizontal limits of the Construction Excavation Area. In the
case of the northeast portion of the Construction Excavation Area (the area surrounding boring B-6)
“dredge spoils” may well be within the soil cut. However, as noted above, as the DEIS failed to include
information about the depth or thickness of possible dredge spoil in this area, it is impossible to
determine whether or not this is so.
Page 31 of the DEIS includes a section titled “Historic Environmental Context.” It begins:
9 The Phase IA archeological assessment report (DEIS Appendix T states that, “[O]verall, the soil layers above the dredge spoils
generally agree with the CpE texture description . . . and represent erosion sediments from upslope.” In fact, the USDA
description of CpE soils (Warner et al. 1975) included in the Phase IA report, describes them as “glaciofluvial deposits.” Such
deposits would result from a considerably different formative process than would be associated with “erosional sediments.
The idea that from 4 to 8 feet of sediment could have eroded downslope to cover the “dredged spoil” seems very unlikely.
10 Unified Soil Classification System
11 As noted above, according to the DEIS, dredge spoils are not part of the 135,000 CY of material that will be excavated from
the Construction Excavation Area.
Page |Soils - 5
“As indicated in the Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment included in Appendix T, based
on aerial photography, the topography of the eastern third of the subject property has
been the subject of significant alteration episodes occurring between 1962 and 2006.
These affected the upland and valley slopes, and marina location. At least one of the
episodes was the result of dredge deposition in a now filled inlet. The filling was under
the direction of the USACOE as part of their larger program to maintain the Mattituck
Creek inlet and channel. Review of published records indicate [sic] maintenance
dredging conducted under USACOE commercial permits was done between 1921 and
the 1970s (Morgan et al. 2005, Batten and Kraus 2006).”
This statement misrepresents and/or misinterprets the archeological assessment. That assessment
never states that “the eastern third of the subject property has been the subject of significant alteration
episodes occurring between 1962 and 2006.” It states only that “aerial photographs dated 1962 and
1978 (Figures 14, 15) show the gradual filling of an inlet in SYC’s southeast quarter” (p.6, also p.11). This
area corresponds to the area identified on the soil survey map (Figure 6 in DEIS Appendix A, and Figure
19 in the archeological assessment) as “Tm” (tidal marsh) soils. As noted above, portions of proposed
Storage Building 2 will be located in an area of Tm soils.
There is also no evidence to support the statement that the “filling was under the direction of the
USACOE as part of their larger program to maintain the Mattituck Creek inlet and channel” (p.31)12 (see
also fn 13, 14 and 16, below).
In fact, the Batten and Kraus report cited in the DEIS (see above) states that the “earliest maintenance
dredging was performed in 1921 and again in 1923 (Ralston 1929)13. The disposal area for this dredging
is not known. Material was likely disposed offshore, to the east of the inlet” (emphasis added) (p.9)14.
The DEIS’ claim that large amounts of dredge spoil is present in the Project area is also used to support
an unprovable contention that some aspects of the Project are necessary to correct actions of the
Army Corps of Engineers. For example:
12 The 1985 report Analysis Of Dredging And Spoil Disposal Activity Conducted By Suffolk County--Historical Perspective And A
Look To The Future, prepared by the Suffolk County Planning Department, does state that in 1955 Suffolk County undertook
the dredging of Mattituck Creek and that “Although some upland disposal sites were used for the placement of spoil from
dredging activities that occurred back in the 1950s and 1960s, all of the Projects now maintained by Suffolk County, with the
exception of West Harbor, utilize dredged spoil for beach nourishment” (p.53).
13 Ralston, R. R. (1929). “Report on survey of Mattituck Harbor, NY,” in House of Representatives (1935) report from the Chief
of Engineers on preliminary examination and survey of Mattituck Harbor, NY, House Document No. 8, 71st Congress, 1st
Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
14 Table 4 in the Batten and Kraus report lists a total of 15 dredging episodes between 1907 and 2004. That table, labeled
“Mattituck Dredging History,” also indicates that the disposal sites for the six earliest (pre-1937) episodes are unknown, but
that the disposal site for all subsequent dredging episodes was the “Beach east of east jetty.” This is well outside the Project
area. Morgan et al (2005) contains an almost identical table (Table 2.4).
Page |Soils - 6
“The proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be constructed along the west
side of Buildings 9 and 10, the north side of Building 10, and southeast of Building 9, to
stabilize the area excavated to accommodate the proposed action and correct existing
stabilization issues to the west of Buildings 7 and 8, that have been caused by
unconsolidated dredge spoils deposited in the past by the USACOE” (emphasis added)
(pp. ii, 6)15.
“The intent and purpose of the retaining wall is to stabilize the slope to be disturbed by
the proposed action and to correct existing stabilization issues caused by former
deposited dredge spoils by the USACOE” (emphasis added) (p.12).
“Additionally, SYC intends to improve the existing facility with constructing new parking,
installing drainage, connecting to the public water supply, and correcting an area of the
site that has been susceptible to erosion due to dredge spoils placed on-site as part of
routine federal maintenance dredging projects” (emphasis added) (p.14).
The DEIS notes that that the small area of USDA-mapped dredged material/fill (Fd soil) located in the
southeast part of the existing marina, outside the area that will be affected by construction for the
proposed Project, “coincide with fill episodes that are documented between 1962 and 1984” (p.23).
There is no evidence to support the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers ever deposited dredge spoil
in the Construction Excavation Area or any other part of the marina property.16,17 The notion that there
15 Local residents believe that the existing slope stabilization issues were aggravated by the unpermitted mining of sand by
prior owners of the property. It may also have been exacerbated by the unpermitted clearing of trees at the top of the slope
by the Applicant. The latter is documented in the records of the Investigation Unit of the Office of the Southold Town
Attorney, CC# 2017-363, dated March 29, 2017 (see COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-4)
16 Cited documentation, including histories of dredging activity in Mattituck Creek and adjacent areas (Morgan et al. 2005)
(Geomorphic Analysis of Mattituck Inlet and Goldsmith Inlet, Long Island, New York), referenced in the archeological survey
report has been incorrectly quoted as indicating that “dredge spoil has been deposited on the floodplain and in valley
locations particularly on the west side of Mattituck Creek by the US Army Corps of Engineers” (emphasis added). No such
statement appears in Morgan et al. However, Batten and Kraus (2006), Evaluation of Downdrift Shore Erosion, Mattituck
Inlet, New York: Section 111 Study), a source listed in archeological survey report’s references cited, but which is never
mentioned in the text, states that “In total, approximately 391,000 cu yd of sediment was dredged from Mattituck Inlet
between 1921 and 2004. Condition surveys for the 1946, 1950, 1955, and 1965 dredging show that dredged material was
placed either on the subaerial beach or below the waterline directly to the east of the inlet. Records indicate that, after these
initial placements on the beach or in the nearshore, disposal of maintenance dredged sediment on the eastern beach
became standard practice” (2006:10) (emphasis added).
17 There is evidence to suggest that a very small area of dredge spoil or other fill may be present east of existing Building 7.
However, as an Army Corps of Engineers report notes “One is immediately inclined to attribute the poor foundation
conditions to the dredge spoil. This has limited validity. Settlement must also be attributed to the subsurface soils, which are
usually highly organic, wet, and compressible. Consequently, poor foundation conditions at spoil disposal areas must be
attributed to poor subsurface conditions as well as poor dredge spoil characteristics. (Boyd et al. 1972:64)(Disposal of Dredge
Spoil, Problem Identification and Assessment and Research Program Development, Technical Report H-72-8, U. S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station)
Page |Soils - 7
was an unrecorded disposal of dredge spoil by the Army Corps of Engineers in an elevated upland area,
which would likely have required the spoil to be pumped 18, is not credible. Combined with the fact that
any such disposal would have required the consent of the land owner, and that the ACOE has a
documented history of depositing dredge spoil from Mattituck Creek in low lying areas on the east side
of Mattituck Inlet, is additional evidence that the ACOE did not deposit dredge spoil in the area west of
the existing marina buildings 19.
Anecdotal information from local residents suggests that the former inlet area was filled by a previous
owner—not the ACOE. This is supported by a 1957 land survey that identifies a roughly 200 ft x 600 ft
area corresponding to the location of the former inlet as “Sand Filled” (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-5).
Soil borings B-10 and B-11 were located in this area. This would suggest that all of the soil above what
the Project geotechnical report identifies as possible dredge spoil (Stratum 3) in the southeast portion of
the Construction Excavation Area is, in fact, dredge spoil or another type of fill, and not, as the
geotechnical report implies, naturally occurring material.
Chemical Testing of Project Area Soils
The soil analytics section of DEIS Appendix H includes a report describing the results of chemical testing
of soils on the Project site. However, the testing was limited to two locations and included an
“Embankment Sample” and an “Embankment Grab” sample at each location. Both locations are clearly
identified on an accompanying aerial photograph, and indicate that all of the samples were collected
from the actively eroding steep slope west of the existing marina structures. This slope forms the
approximate eastern edge of the Project’s Construction Excavation Area. It is clear that no testing of
soils (sand) in the main body of the excavation area was undertaken. This is significant.
The DEIS has not addressed the significance of the possible presence of dredge spoil.
As discussed above, the DEIS had identified large parts of the southern and northeast portions of the
Construction Excavation Area as containing dredge spoil deposits. Dredge spoils are known to be of
concern because of the possibility that they may contain dangerous contaminants. The two locations
sampled and chemically tested were collected from west of the areas of “possible dredge spoil “as
shown on Figures C-100, C-101 and C-102in the geotechnical report (DEIS Appendix H). If these areas
18 According to an Army Corps of Engineers study, “pumping distance from dredge site to disposal site is a significant economic
consideration” (Boyd et al. 1972:74)
19 It is possible that some dredge spoil was deposited in the area east of the existing marina structures by parties other than
Corps of Engineers. According to “Dredged Material Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Long Island Sound Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island (2015), there “are a small number of maritime interests in the Suffolk
County Northeast Shore Area Dredging Center that periodically generate dredged material. Most of these are located at
Mattituck Harbor and consist of marinas, boat yards and yacht clubs”.
Page |Soils - 8
are, in fact, dredge spoil, as the DEIS maintains, then samples from those areas should have been
included in the chemical testing protocol.
Additional Discrepancies and Misleading Information
The boundary between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Excavation Areas as, shown on DEIS Appendix A Figure
6, is not consistent with the location of the boundary as shown on Site Development Plans (Appendix C,
Excavation Phasing Plan) (COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-6).
Figure 6 in Appendix A includes a table indicating the total acreage and percentage of each soil type in
the AOI (Area of Interest). However, the AOI used to calculate these figures is the entire tax parcel on
which the Project will be located—not the area that will be directly affected by construction activities
(the “Project Area” as defined in the DEIS) which will be confined almost entirely to the portion of the
parcel zoned M-II. The AOI as defined in Figure 6 includes the entire portion of the parcel zoned R-80 as
well as the M-II portion. The figures in the table included on Figure 6 are therefore inaccurate and
misleading as they do not reflect the actual Project Area.
Page |Soils - 9
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-1
DEIS Appendix A, Figure 6 (portion)
USDA Soil Survey Mapper, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
(accessed 1-22-22)(Not in DEIS. Note the differences in the boundaries of the various soil types as a
result of a slight change in the map scale).
Page |Soils - 10
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-2
From DEIS Appendix H. Figures C-100 and C-101 show the same areas delineated as “Potential Dredge
Spoils.”
Page |Soils - 11
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-3
Log for Boring B-9 noting presence of “Potential Dredge Spoils”. The logs for borings B-10 and B-11 also
note the presence of “Potential Dredge Spoils”.
Page |Soils - 12
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS--4
Photographs from the Southold Town Attorney’s report CC# 2017-363, dated March 29, 2017. The residence at
5106 West Mill Road, located immediately north of the Project’s Construction Excavation Area is visible in the
photo on the right.
Page |Soils - 13
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-5
1957 Ketcham Survey (reduced, scale shown is inaccurate)
Page |Soils - 14
COMMENT FIGURE SOILS-6
DEIS Appendix C – Excavation Phasing Plan
DEIS Appendix A – Figure 6 – Soil Survey Map
Page | Traffic-1
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Vehicle Count Terminology
The DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (DEIS Appendix O) employ inappropriate and misleading
terminology in their descriptions of construction truck traffic volumes. The revised versions of both
documents fail to adequately address related inadequacies identified by the Planning Board in the
original (December 2021) versions of those documents.
The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS recognizes the importance of providing accurate and
comprehensive information on truck and vehicle traffic associated with the both the construction and
operation of the Project, including “truck trips for soil removal and associated truck routes” (p.6);
vehicle trips on Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road (p.11); and vehicle trip types included in each phase
and post construction (p.13);
Both the original December 2021 DEIS (p.197) and October 2021 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (DEIS
Appendix O, p.34) indicate that they utilized the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report “Trip
Generation” (10th edition) (as called for in the DEIS Scope, p.25) in preparing the traffic analysis, which
is described in the DEIS as “a nationally excepted [sic] standard.” The ITE defines a “trip” as “a single or
one-direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the
study site” (ITE 1976). However, both the original TIS and DEIS consistently equate “trips” with round-
trips when discussing vehicular traffic1. This leaves the impression that the number of “trips” is half of
what it really is. The original TIS and the DEIS employed this practice multiple times2. As described
below, the revised DEIS continues to employ this deceptive wording.
The Planning Board identified this misrepresentation as an inadequacy in the original DEIS. Their May 9,
2022 memo states:
1 However, the DEIS does use the proper definition of “trip” when discussing marine traffic.
2 “Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips” (pp. xxx, 34, 267); “Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips” (pp. xxx, 18, 34, 267);
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips (pp. xxx, 19); “. . . and another 101 truck trips” (pp. xxx, 19); “40 trips would
be made to and from the site” (p.212); “Four trips (entering and exiting) would be made each hour during the day” (p.212);
“no more than two total trips per day “ (p.213); “The Phase 1 Excavation Phase generates the most daily truck trips (40), but
less employee trips (15)” (p.214); “5 truck trips per day would make deliveries to the site and two trucks per week would
remove debris” (p.214); Under the completed project up to 13 new trips would be added (p.221).
Both the December 2021, and November 2022 versions of the DEIS state that “40 [round] trips would be made to and from
the site” each day. However, the Applicant’s Project Fact Sheet, dated February 10, 2022, and posted on his website until
revised on April 6, continued to say that “We estimate that approximately 32 trucks entering and exiting the property per
day.”
Page | Traffic-2
“DEIS combines both directions when assessing the adverse impacts of a truck trip when
in fact the total number of trips is expected to be much greater and is not discussed in
the document.
“Therefore, the Planning Board finds that the discussion provided in the document on
impacts to transportation, community character and infrastructure is not a true
assessment of what will occur on local and regional roads and the direct and indirect
adverse impacts on the quality of life of residents and the character of the impacted
areas.
“During Phase 1; it is expected that a total of 80 trucks loaded and unloaded with sand
would travel the route each weekday passing a single point on the route 9,600 times
over a six-month period.3 For example, a single-family residence (single point) located
on Cox Neck Road or Sound Avenue would be subject to these potential large adverse
impacts along the specified truck route.
“During Phase 2, approximately 12,000 CY of material would be excavated and
removed and would generate 400 total trips or 800 trucks passing a single point
loaded. and unloaded up to 1 month (2 to 4 weeks) . . .
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining
wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for material delivery and 89 trucks for
concrete foundation) for the two boat storage buildings. over approximately 6 months.
This would result in 322 trucks passing a single point along the route over 6 months” (all
emphases in original).”
The Planning Board’s memo requests that the revised DEIS include a more accurate and detailed
discussion on the . . . “the total number of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads
over the duration of the project” (emphasis in original).
The revised DEIS has not addressed this concern and continues to misleadingly misrepresent the
increase in the number of truck trips that the Project will generate.
The revised DEIS continues to deceptively describe truck traffic in terms of round-trips rather than as
one-way movements as called for by the Planning Board (and the ITE):
“Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips” (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 34, 211, 267, 286)4;
3 The 9,600 figure was presumably derived as follows: 24 weeks (5.5 months) x 5 days/week x 80 trips/day. However, if each of
the 4800 trips outbound from the Project site consists of 30-cubic-yard loads, this would result in the amount of sand being
removed being 144,000 CY rather than the 134,000 CY as described in the DEIS. However, it is questionable that the actual
size of each truck load will be 30 CY (see the discussion of truck weights and capacities, below). As a result, the actual number
of truck trips required to transport the sand off site will be close to the Planning Board’s 9600 figure.
4 p. 211 of the revised DEIS also correctly states that Excavation Phase 1 “work will thus generate 8,200 truck trips”, but this is
the only place where this clarification has been incorporated into the revised DEIS. It is not, for example, made in the section
of the DEIS dealing with air quality impacts from truck emissions (p.267) or anywhere in the Executive Summary.
Page | Traffic-3
“Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips” (DEIS pp. xxx, 18, 34, 267, 286)5;
“Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining wall and another
101 truck trips (12 trucks for material delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation) (DEIS p. xxx, 19, 286,
293);
The total number of times that the Project’s 22-wheel tractor-trailer haul trucks will pass a given point
along the truck route is never mentioned in the revised DEIS.6
Haul Truck Weight and Capacity
The DEIS either a) underestimates the number of truck trips required to haul sand from the Project site
during the Excavation Phases, or b) fails to note that haul trucks would have to be overloaded to
conform to the number of estimated trips.
As proposed, the Project includes the removal of an estimated 134,921 cubic yards (CY) of sand from the
Construction Excavation Area (DEIS p. 41). This will be accomplished in two phases. Phase 1 includes
approximately 123,000± CY of material and Phase 2 is the remaining 12,000± CY of material. According to
the DEIS: “Based on 30 CY trucks, [Excavation] Phase 1 would generate 4,100 total trips [loads] . . . [and] Based on
30 CY trucks, [Excavation] Phase 2 would generate 400 total trips [loads]” (DEIS pp. xxx, 286, also p.267).
In order for the Project to limit excavation-associated truck traffic to a total of 4500 truck-loads of sand,
each truck must be loaded to its full 30 cubic yard capacity. This raises a number of issues.
The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (MGVW) for trucks traveling most interstate highways in
New York is 80,000 pounds (23 CFR 658.17). A truck’s MGVW is defined as the weight of a vehicle
without load plus the weight of any load on the vehicle. However, this weight can be exceeded on New
York state and local roads if a Divisible Load Overweight Permit is obtained from the NYSDOT. According
to the revised DEIS, “The empty weight of the Project haul vehicles will be 32,500 pounds and the Gross
Vehicle Weight of the vehicles is anticipated to be 107,000 pounds” (DEIS p.220). The 107,000-pound
limit is presumably because Project haul trucks will presumably have (F2 Type 7[?]) permits issued by
NYSDOT in accordance with 17 NYCRR 154-2.4 which allows for permitted vehicles to have a MGVW of
107,000 pounds. While the TIS states that “None of the trucks used in the construction of the project
will . . . exceed the weight limits established by State law” (DEIS p.78), it fails to note that special
5 p. 212 of the revised DEIS also correctly states that “The work will thus generate 800 truck trips”, but this is the only place
where this clarification has been incorporated into the revised DEIS. It is not, for example, made in the section of the DEIS
dealing with air quality impacts from truck emissions (p.267).
6 The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo specifically calls for “a more accurate and detailed discussion {of the] total number
of trucks per day that will travel over local and regional roads over the duration of the project.” The Applicant’s annotated
version of that memo, submitted with the revised DEIS indicates that the requested information has been “included.” While
the revised DEIS does include discussions about the number of trucks expected to be associated with individual phases of
construction, it does discuss the "total” count for all construction phases.
Page | Traffic-4
permits will be required that will allow each Project haul truck to exceed the unpermitted maximum
allowable weight limit by 27,000 pounds.
The DEIS states that “[T]rucks delivering materials to the site or removing excavated material from the
site would all comply with New York State Vehicle and Traffic law regarding the size of vehicles and the
permissible weight of vehicles that may operate on the public roads of the State including Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road” (p.212). No mention is made of the fact that loaded Project haul trucks may
weigh 15 times the weight permitted on some local roads in Southold.7
As noted above, the MGVW includes the weight of the empty vehicle plus the weight of its load. If the
empty weight of the Project haul vehicles is 32,500 pounds, then the weight of the load on each vehicle
cannot exceed 74,500 pounds (107,000 -32,500). If each haul truck is loaded with 30 CY of sand as
stated in the DEIS, then the weight of each cubic yard cannot exceed 2,483 pounds.
There is considerable variability in the weight of a cubic yard of sand. Grain size, shape, density and
moisture content all affect the weight of a cubic yard of sand. According to the EPA, the weight of a
cubic yard of sand can vary from 2,441 pounds for loose sand to as much as 3,510 pounds for wet sand.8
According to Table 6 in the GWPC9 August 3, 2021 geotechnical report (DEIS Appendix H) approximately
43,851 CY of the sand excavated from the Project site will come from Stratum 1 (Reddish-Brown Fine
Sand) and approximately 84,852 CY will come from Stratum 2 (Tan Medium Sand). Together, these two
strata account for 96 percent of the sand that will be excavated. Table 1 in the same document provides
information on the actual weight of the sands found at the Project site. According to Table 1 in the
Project’s geotechnical report, Stratum 1 sands from the Project Area weigh 110 pcf (pounds per cubic
foot) or 2,970 pounds per cubic yard, and Stratum 2 sands weigh 115 pcf, or 3,105 pounds per cubic
yard.
Using the actual weight of the sand at the Project site, and knowing that the actual maximum weight of
the sand in any one truck load is 74,500 pounds, the maximum volume of Stratum 1 sand that can be
carried by any one haul truck is 25 CY—not the 30 CY stated in the DEIS. The maximum volume of
Stratum 2 sand that can be carried is 24 CY.10
7Residents of the Town of Southold have for some time expressed concerns about heavy truck traffic on local roads. In
response to some of these concerns the Town recently modified Section 260-26 of the Town Code to read “Vehicles, trucks,
tractors, tractor-trailer combinations, tractor-semitrailer combinations or tractor-trailer-semitrailer combinations in excess of
a registered weight of 8,000 pounds are prohibited from traveling upon . . . [Love Lane and Peconic Bay Boulevard].
8 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/conversions.pdf
9 P.W. Grosser Consulting, Inc. prepared the DEIS for the Applicant.
10 According to the revised acoustic study, and the vibration study, in the DEIS (Appendix R), the modeling of noise and vibration
impacts is based on the analysis of a truck “loaded with 39 tons of sand/dirt at the time of the readings, which is equivalent
to 28-29 yards of material” (p.16). This assumption is in direct contravention of the DEIS’ geotechnical report which, as
Page | Traffic-5
Project haul trucks loaded to their maximum allowable weight will not be able to carry, at most, more
than 25 CY of sand. Removal of the sand during Excavation Phase 1 will therefore require a minimum of
4,920 round trips (9,840 total trips)—not the 4,100 trips stated in the DEIS. Excavation Phase 2 will
require a minimum of 480 round trips (960 total trips)—not the 400 trips stated in the DEIS.
The DEIS appears to have significantly underestimated the volume of construction truck traffic that
will be generated by the Project. Under the scenario of 80 truck trips per day, the number of Project
haul trucks travelling along Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road will be one every 7.5 minutes during
Excavation Phases 1 and 2. If this must be increased to 96 trips per day in order to maintain the
Project’s schedule, the interval between trucks will be even smaller (approximately one every six
minutes).
The Planning Board’s consultant (NPV), in their review of the original DEIS, noted that “[T]he basis for
the construction truck traffic analysis and potential construction duration is largely reliant on the use of
large 30 yard trailers, therefore the feasibility of use of this equipment must be fully evaluated to
determine if the projected construction duration is reasonably analyzed” (NPV p. 4-5). The DEIS has not
addressed this issue.
The DEIS has underestimated the number of 22-wheel tractor-trailer truck trips required to remove
sand from the Project site by more than 20 percent.
Vehicle Classification
The DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix O) employ inappropriate and misleading
terminology in their descriptions of the classification of existing and projected truck traffic. The DEIS
and the TIS present conclusions about the increase in construction traffic that are contradicted by raw
data in the TIS. This data is not discussed in the text of either document. Both documents ignore the
true increase in heavy (tractor-trailer) truck traffic (FhWA 10 vehicles) that will be associated with
Project construction.
shown, indicates that 39 tons of sand would (in addition to resulting in an overweight condition for haul trucks) would be the
equivalent of 26 CY of sand—not 28-29 CY.
The Supplemental Data Appendix to the TIS includes a letter from Benimax Inc., an excavated material hauler located in
Middle Island, New York. According to that correspondence “We specifically supply up to 500 tons per day (which is the
equivalent of app. 14 tractor trailer loads) of materials . . .” This means that each load averages approximately 71,500
pounds. This is well within the maximum allowable permitted weight. If Project haul trucks were limited to 71,500-pound
loads (approximately 23.8 cubic yards of sand from the Project site) the number of loads required for the Project excavation
phase would be more than 5,100 for Excavation Phase 1 and more than 500 for Excavation Phase 2. This equates to more
than 11,000 trips.
Page | Traffic-6
The Final Scope of Work for the DEIS calls for the traffic study to include information “on vehicle types
that would be using roadways in the project vicinity” (p.11); “vehicle types involved in the staging,
clearing, excavation, and site preparation [and] construction” (p.13); on “all specifications of the loaded
and unloaded trucks involved in the excavation and construction” (p.13), and “potential adverse impacts
from all vehicle trip types included in each phase and post construction, the wear and tear on roadways
caused by vehicle types” (p.13).
The revised TIS (DEIS Appendix O) includes in its appendices, sections titled “Vehicle Classification
Studies.” These appendices consist of detailed traffic counts, breaking down the counts into the Federal
Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 13-class vehicle classification system 11,12. Significantly, the existence
of this information is mentioned in the DEIS, but the data is never discussed in any detail.13 Instead, the
DEIS ignores this data and combines all truck types (larger than pick-up trucks) into a single “heavy
vehicle” category, and never discusses truck traffic in terms of the FhWA vehicle classification system.
As a result, the DEIS contains numerous misleading statements about the nature of existing truck traffic
and the severity of the impacts associated with Project-related truck traffic. For example:
“trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles commonly use West Mill Road and have done so
for many years” (DEIS p. xxxi); and
“The vehicle classification counts indicated that heavy vehicles (trucks) as a percentage
of the traffic observed exceeded 5 percent of the traffic on Sound Avenue/North Road
during the summer, increasing to over 6 percent in the spring and fall, and dropping to
between 4 and 5 percent during the winter months. . . “; and
“The presence of trucks on Cox Neck Road was noted with between 3.6 and 9.4 percent
on weekdays, varying seasonally. During the winter, the percentage of trucks reduced to
approximately 3.6 percent. Truck usage of West Mill Road was varied from 1.5 to 7.9
percent for the four seasons, also varying seasonally. During the winter the percentage
of trucks reduced to 1.5 percent weekdays and less than 2 percent on weekends during
the summer. During the winter, truck usage of West Mill Road was one percent or less
during weekdays and weekends. The analysis of the classification data from West Mill
11 FHWA Axle Classification Scheme: F1 Motorcycles; F2 Autos; F3 2 axle, 4-tire pickups, vans, motor-homes; F4 Buses; F5 2 axle,
6-tire single unit trucks; F6 3 axle single unit trucks; 7 4 or more axle single unit trucks; F8 4 or less axle vehicles, single trailer;
F9 5 axle, single trailer; F10 6 or more axle, single trailer; F11 5 axle multi-trailer trucks; F12 6 axle multi-trailer trucks: F13 7
or more axle multi-trailer trucks.
12 The New York State Department of Transportation Traffic Monitoring Standards (2001) require vehicle classification counts
to be based on the 13 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) F-Scheme categories as described in the FHWA Traffic
Monitoring Guide.
13 The original December 21, 2021 DEIS and TIS claim that a “fine-grained analysis of the classification data from West Mill
Road” was conducted (DEIS p.195; TIS p.21). There is nothing in either document to suggest that this was, in fact, done. The
revised versions of both documents have been edited to remove the term “fine-grained.”
Page | Traffic-7
Road also indicated that the trucks using the road were smaller than those using Cox
Neck Road and Sound Avenue/North Road” (DEIS p.200-201, TIS p.23).
Nowhere in DEIS or the TIS, including the sections of those documents entitled “Analysis of
Construction-Related Traffic Impacts” (DEIS p.216-217) and “Traffic Impacts from Construction” (TIS pp.
51-65) is there an analysis of the extent to which “heavy” truck traffic (Class 5-13) and more importantly
Class 9 and 10 truck traffic—18- and 22-wheel tractor-trailers, would increase during the months-long
construction period, or what the impacts of this increase would be.
The percentages of total truck traffic described in the DEIS as “heavy vehicles” is derived by combining
the number of trucks in all truck classifications (classes 5-13), and ignores significant differences in the
traffic counts associated with individual vehicle classes. Virtually all delivery trucks, such as the box vans
used by FedEx and UPS, fall into Class 5 or Class 6, and are often categorized as “medium trucks”.14
However, all of the trucks that will be used to haul sand from the Project site--22-wheel tractor-trailers
with 6 axles--will be considerably larger and heavier and will fall into vehicle classification 10 which are
unambiguously considered “heavy trucks” (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-1)15
According to raw data in the TIS, traffic counts made during the one winter week (March 13-19, 2021)
when data was collected, a total of 15 trips by trucks in classes 7-13 were recorded on Cox Neck Road,
all on weekdays. This amounts to 3 trips per day. During the same period, only 2 trips were recorded
along West Mill Road, only one of which was on a weekday. Effectively, no heavy truck traffic was
observed on West Mill Road during the winter study period. The Project will generate at least 80 trips a
day on both Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road by trucks considerably larger and heavier than those
that comprise existing truck traffic on those roads.
According to the DEIS and the TIS “analysis of the classification data from West Mill Road also indicated
that the trucks using the road were smaller than those using Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue/North
Road” (DEIS p.201; TIS p.23). However, the DEIS fails to address the implications of this statement.
During the one-week long fall study period (November 4-10, 2021), a total of 21 trips (18 on weekdays)
by trucks in classes 7-13 were recorded on Cox Neck Road. This amounts to between 3 and 4 trips per
day. The Project will cause an approximately 2000% increase in this number. During the same period a
total of 7 heavy truck trips (6 on weekdays) were counted on West Mill Road, or an average of one trip
per day. The Project will generate almost 80 times this number.
The revised TIS does includes information about the nature of the traffic travelling West Mill Road on
three weekdays in August 2022:
14 MGVW of a typical UPS or FedEx truck is 26,000 pounds or less.
15 However, the acoustic report (DEIS Appendix R) based its analyses on the assumption that vehicles similar to a Peterbilt 389
2020 edition dump trucks will be employed. This is potentially misleading and confusing to lay readers of the DEIS. The
Peterbilt 389 dump truck and the Peterbilt 389 tractor-trailer have different axle configurations and are not in the same
FHWA vehicle class. The former is a Class 5 vehicle.
Page | Traffic-8
“Almost all the vehicles observed were two axel [sic] vehicles with approximately 85 % of
the vehicles were motorcycles, passenger vehicles and personnel pick-up trucks and
vans. One percent were noted as buses. Thirteen percent were 2 axle, 6-tire vehicles
such as UPS, Amazon, or other small delivery vehicles. Most of these trips occur
between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and are not occurring during the weekday AM and PM
peak periods. During the entire three-day period, 3 3-axle vehicles were counted, and 2
4-axle vehicles were counted. None of the 3 or 4 axle vehicles were counted during the
typical weekday AM or PM peak hours. It must also be noted the trucks counted may
not all have destined [sic] for SYC. Some may have been destined for the Town
Commercial Dock. When examining truck activity, the counts reflect vehicles that have
arrived and departed the site. One vehicle delivery is counted as two trips in the
count”16 (emphasis added) (Revised TIS p. 37).
This information, which clearly indicates how little truck traffic presently travels West Mill Road,
and the relatively small size of those vehicles, is NOT included in the revised main DEIS text.17
The increase in the volume of heavy truck traffic generated by the Project, and continuing for up to
seven months, must be considered a significant negative impact affecting not only estimates of road
damage, and dangers to pedestrians and cyclists, but the general quality to life of residents along Cox
Neck Road and West Mill Road.
The DEIS states that “The vehicle classification counts indicated that heavy vehicles (trucks) as a
percentage of the traffic observed [on Sound Avenue in Riverhead] . . . was slightly more than 3 percent
during the winter months” (DEIS p.194-5; Traffic Study p.21). In fact, haul trucks from the Project will
also cause a significant increase in heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue. Data from the vehicle
classification study tables in the traffic study indicate that just the trucks hauling sand from the Project,
without regard to other construction-related truck traffic, will result in an approximate 50 percent
increase in week-day heavy truck traffic on Sound Avenue during the winter.18 The impact will be even
16 Note the correct use of “trip” in contrast to how it used elsewhere in the DEIS.
17 Evidence that the DEIS’ has attempted to overestimate the amount of “heavy” truck traffic presently travelling Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, can be found in DEIS Appendix R (Acoustic Report). Tables 28 and 29 in the Acoustic Report, based upon
information in the Traffic Study (DEIS Appendix O), list the hourly existing traffic distribution on Cox Neck and West Mill
Roads. Unlike the DEIS, Tables 28 and 29 differentiate between “medium trucks,” and “heavy trucks” like the haul trucks that
will be used by the Project. According to Tables 28 and 29, over a 24-hour period only one heavy truck travelled West Mill
Road, and only 12 travelled Cox Neck Road. The latter figure may be an overestimate of the heavy truck volume on Cox Neck
Road. It seems highly likely that most of the heavy trucks counted as travelling Cox Neck Road had either the Premium Wine
Group facility, or the Route 48 Plaza retail complex, as their destination. Both locations have entrances located within 100
yards of Sound Avenue. This means that the recorded heavy truck traffic turned off Cox Neck Road immediately after turning
off of Sound Avenue, and did not travel along the residential portion of Cox Neck Road.
18 A total of 784 trips by vehicles in classes 7-13 were recorded on five weekdays between March 15 and March 19, 2011.
Project haul trucks will add an additional 400 trips during each Monday through Friday period.
Page | Traffic-9
greater during the fall when haul trucks from the Project will result in a more than doubling of heavy
truck traffic on Sound Avenue.19
The DEIS has misrepresented the qualitative nature of the truck traffic that will be generated by the Project in a
way that minimizes the severity of traffic impacts.
Limited-Sight Distances and Roadway Configuration
The DEIS contains no proper evaluation of the hazards posed by limited sight distances along Cox Neck
Road, West Mill Road, and Sound Avenue.
The DEIS scope calls for “[s]ight distances at intersections and around curves in the roadways” to be
evaluated (p.15). However, the DEIS only discusses this issue in the context of sight distances associated
with the proposed intersection of the proposed haul road with West Mill Road.
The DEIS, quoting the Traffic Study, does contain an extensive discussion of roadway characteristics for
the Project truck routes, noting numerous hazardous locations:
“Much of the Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road is slightly rolling but there are two areas of
significant curves. The first is just north of Bergen Avenue where, going north, the
roadway curves sharply to the east turning about 90o and then turns less sharply to the
north. Within the curves the road drops to the area between the curves just west of
Breakwater Road and then rises in the second curve to peak north of Jackson Landing and
the end of the curved section. No warning signs are posted for either north bound south
bound traffic. On the westerly side of the southern curve guide rail has been placed to
prevent vehicles from leaving the road. The guide rail is substandard and not properly
anchored on the ends. We question whether the two curves should be posted with curve
warning signs indicating the “S” curvature of the road and the use of additional chevron
signing along the back of both curves.
“North of the two curves the roadway straightens out and continues north in a relatively
straight line on gently rolling terrain. West and south of Naugle’s Drive the roadway turns
fairly sharply to the east. Curve warning signs were posted for northbound traffic
approaching the curve and for southbound traffic approaching the same curve. The
southbound signs seem to be placed too close to the curve and chevron warning signs
along the back of the curve would be useful. To the east of Naugle’s Drive West Mill Road
turns to the south and drops vertically. There is a curve warning sign posted for eastbound
19 A total of 309 trips by vehicles in classes 7-13 were recorded on five weekdays between November 4 and November 11,
2011. Project haul trucks will add an additional 400 trips during each Monday through Friday period.
Page | Traffic-10
traffic and an additional sign stating, “SLOW POPULATED AREA”. That sign is posted
behind a utility pole and not readily visible” (DEIS pp.195-6; TIS p.12).20
In fact, local residents have documented instances of vehicles failing to negotiate curves on West Mill
Road [COMMENT FIGURES TRAFFIC 2-3].
In addition, according to the Town of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan, “Sound Avenue is a two-lane
roadway, with significant horizontal and vertical curvature and old growth trees along many segments,
resulting in poor sight distance for stopping. Shoulders are narrow or nonexistent; there are few
sidewalks; and there are many agriculture-related businesses (such as farm stands), some of which do
not have well laid out driveways or parking lots” (2003, p.9-11) (emphasis added).
The DEIS fails to identify the actual sight distances at any point along the truck route, or whether they
will allow for adequate stopping sight distances for 107,000 pound 30-yard haul truck travelling at the
speed limit in either dry or wet pavement situations.
Examples of limited sight distances along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads are illustrated in Photographs 3
and 6-10, included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix. At a minimum, the DEIS and TIS should have
evaluated the stopping distances for unloaded and fully-loaded haul trucks in relation to locations with
limited sight distances. The failure to do this is especially concerning because, as cited above, the DEIS
and TIS both note the existence of locations with significant curves that should have warning signs.
The TIS includes the results of a CADD based AutoTurn computer analysis to determine whether the
wheel paths and perimeter of the large tractor-trailer haul trucks being used would stay within their
travel lanes while negotiating a number of curves in Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. The TIS found that
the “curve west of Naugles Road is tighter than the curves to the south and trucks negotiating this
section of the road will not be able to stay within their travel lane. East of Naugles Road the curve is also
tight, and it will be difficult for the trucks to stay in lane” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 219; TIS p.77). Figure
8 of 12, in the Truck Turning Studies section of the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS, clearly shows
that trucks will NOT be able to stay in lane at this location. To overcome this the DEIS and TIS propose
“that flaggers be used to control traffic as truck [sic] pass through this area” (DEIS p.219; TIS p.77).
There are limited sight distances at this location. In the absence of an analysis of the relationship
between sight distance and truck stopping distance it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of this as
a mitigative measure.
The DEIS does state that “Flaggers will be uses for maintenance and protection of traffic at locations
where severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by Project trucks
that may require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines” (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 298). However,
20 These descriptions would seem to contradict the statement on p.25 of the original TIS and p.196 of the original DEIS that
“there are no indication [sic] that Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road has any traffic safety deficiencies.” While the revised TIS
still includes this statement (p.28), it appears to have been eliminated from the revised DEIS.
Page | Traffic-11
other than the Naugles Road locations, no locations where flaggers will be deployed are identified. The
DEIS notes that only two “Flag Personnel” will be employed during the Project excavation phases (DEIS
pp. xxx, 18, 212, 290) suggesting that Naugles Road location is the only location where flaggers will be
used.
Trucks entering and exiting the Project site via the proposed haul road may also be unable to stay in lane
as they turn off West Mill Road. According to the DEIS
“During construction of the proposed crushed concrete haul road, a 100-foot-long
stabilized RCA shoulder would be constructed south of the haul road entrance to
provide for wider turns and safe access for trucks” (DEIS p.288); and according to the TIS
and DEIS “[A]t the proposed temporary haul road to the site that will connect to West
Mill Road south of Naugle's Drive a temporary shoulder will be placed along the road
north and south of the access to protect the existing edge of West Mill Road while
trucks use that access. A 100-foot-long RCA shoulder will be placed south of the haul
road and a wide radius will be provided at the southeast corner to facilitate truck turns
off north bound West Mill Road” (DEIS p. 222; TIS p.82).
Neither the DEIS nor the TIS address whether trucks making left-hand turns to exit the Project site via
the haul road will be able to stay in lane. COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-4 illustrates the difficulty that
large haul trucks have making turns onto Cox Neck Road.
Concerns about limited sight and stopping distances are not confined to the portions of the truck route
in Southold. As noted above, the Riverhead Comprehensive Plan (2003:G-9) states that Sound Avenue
“has significant horizontal and vertical curvature, which limits stopping sight distances”.
The TIS includes a section dealing with roadway characteristics, but fails to mention that Sound Avenue
is marked with double-yellow no-passing lines for the entire length of the truck route, or discuss how
this could impact traffic on that road.
Other than mentioning the existence of the Route 58/Roanoke Ave traffic circle (DEIS p.218; TIS p.76),
there is no discussion of potential issues at this location. Although the revised TIS includes photographs
documenting road conditions along the entire truck route, no photograph of this key location is
included. Likewise, it was not included in the AutoTurn analysis.
The DEIS also reports that the traffic study “indicated that vehicles operating on Breakwater Road at the
survey site had an 85-percentile speed of between 42.9 and 43.9 mph while the posted speed limit was
30 mph. At the survey location Breakwater Road is relatively straight and flat as are much of Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road and it can be anticipated that speeds of this road would be similar to those on
Breakwater Road except in the areas of the curves where horizontal and vertical geometric features will
suppress speed” (p.198). The DEIS fails to take into account how non-Project vehicles travelling in
Page | Traffic-12
excess of the posted speed limits might affect potential construction impacts and overall safety once
Project-related heavy truck traffic is added to existing volumes.
Weather Considerations
The revised DEIS fails to adequately consider how weather conditions and time of day might affect
traffic safety.
The Planning Board’s May 10 memo (p.26) found inadequate the DEIS’ discussion of “delays that could
occur from unexpected weather and task delays,” and asked “What is unexpected weather? What
would be considered task delays?” The Applicant has submitted a copy of the Planning Board’s memo
with the annotation “Narrative expanded, as requested” next to this comment.
The revised DEIS (but not the TIS) claims “that the proposed construction schedule is a maximum time
period and considers delays that could occur from unexpected weather and task delays. Task delays
could be expected during unexpected snow events or wet weather during site preparation, which would
impact work on the site. However, the construction schedule provided in this DEIS includes over-
estimates should delay occur” (DEIS p.287). There are a number of problems with these statements.
The “revised” text is not responsive to the Planning Board’s comments. Explaining that weather delays
consist of snow and wet weather is not helpful. Nor is explaining that task delays could result from bad
weather.21
Nowhere in the DEIS, or the TIS, is there an estimate of the number of days that the Project may be
delayed because of weather-related (or task delay) issues. It should be remembered that most of the
Project’s haul-truck traffic will be on the road during the winter months. (This also has the potential to
affect the overall Project schedule). Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is there a discussion of what, if any,
conditions would determine if the operation of Project haul trucks will be limited or suspended. This is
especially important since most of the haul truck traffic to and from the site will take place during the
winter and spring months.
In Mattituck, the “snowy period of the year lasts for 4.4 months, from November 23 to April 4, with a
sliding 31-day snowfall of at least 1.0 inches. The month with the most snow in Mattituck is January,
with an average snowfall of 5.6 inches.”22 Individual storms have had snow totals well above this
average (e.g., 10.3 inches on February 1, 2021). Between December 15, 2021 and March 15, 2022, snow,
snow/sleet, or a wintry mix were recorded on 17 days. Between December 15, 2020 and March 15,
2021, snow, snow/sleet, or a wintry mix were recorded on 13 days.23 Nowhere in the DEIS or TIS is
21 Presumably task delays could be caused by things other than weather, e.g., the need to service or repair equipment.
22 https://weatherspark.com/y/25435/Average-Weather-in-Mattituck-New-York-United-States-Year-Round#Figures-Snowfall
Page | Traffic-13
there a consideration of how adverse weather conditions might affect visibility or stopping distances,
especially in relation to the numerous limited-sight-distance locations along Cox Neck and West Mill
Road. It can be assumed that wet or icy roadways will require (because of the reduced coefficient of
friction between the road surface and vehicle tires) that vehicle stopping distances will be greater when
such conditions are present.
From mid-December thru January Project haul trucks traveling along the designated truck route after
4:30 PM and before 7:00 AM will be traveling after sunset or before sunrise.24 Some Project traffic
traveling along the western portions of the truck route in Town of Riverhead will also be traveling after
dusk or before dawn, when conditions are even darker. While single overhead street lights are present
at intersections along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, there are large stretches along these roads that
are not illuminated. There is no discussion in the DEIS as to how the lack of lighting might affect traffic
safety.
Accident Data
The DEIS fails to adequately assess the potential for Project-related traffic accidents, and incorrectly
concludes that the potential for accidents along the Project truck routes will not increase as a result of
the Project. The DEIS is still inadequate in that it fails to provide accident data for the entire truck
route.
The DEIS scope called for the DEIS to include accident data from “along the proposed truck routes”.
Although complete truck routes had not been identified at the time of scoping, the DEIS scope asks for
accident data for Cox Neck Road, West Mill Road, Sound Avenue, and Suffolk County Route 48 (p.11).25
According to the revised DEIS, “[A]ccident data was requested from the NYSDOT for all accidents that
occurred along Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road from its intersection with Sound Avenue/North Road (CR
48) to its terminus at Mattituck Creek and SYC. The DEIS fails to include accident data for the portions of
the truck route along Sound Avenue (west of Bergen Avenue), Northville Turnpike or County Route 58.
The TIS Supplemental Data Appendix includes a section identified as “NYSDOT Accident Verbal
Descriptions”. This section contains information from NYSDOT’s Accident Location Information System
(ALIS) for the period from 1/1/2019-12/31/2021. This supplements data in the original TIS for the
23 https://certifiedsnowfalltotals.com/storm_history/history/NY/2708/64369/Mattituck%2C%2011952
24 Sunset at Mattituck Inlet can occur as early as 4:24 PM, and last light as early as 4:56 PM.
25 The Accident History sections of the revised DEIS and TIS have been significantly updated to include 60 months of data rather
than 42. A comparison of the two versions of both documents indicates that the number of accidents along Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, and at the intersection Of Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue/Route 48, was considerably greater than
stated in the originals. The number of accidents has been increased from 35 to 48; the number of accidents involving injuries
doubled from 4 to 8, and; the number involving only property damage increased from 17 to 32.
Page | Traffic-14
1/l/2017-6/30/2020 period.26 Unlike the original DEIS, the revised DEIS does not include details from
this data. Instead, it refers readers to the TIS Appendix entitled, “Accident Data” and the Supplemental
Data Appendix of the TIS. Given the importance of accident data in assessing safety concerns, the
decision to eliminate this data from the main DEIS text, (necessitating lay readers to refer to two
separate technical appendices) is questionable.
According to the DEIS the “accident data obtained from the Police was largely duplicative of the data
originally obtained from NYSDOT” (p.202). Only one accident in police records is not included in the
NYSDOT data. However, it is noted that this is the only reported accident that involved a vehicle towing
a boat trailer. It does not appear to have been included in total number of accidents (48) noted in the
DEIS and TIS.
Page 27 of the revised TIS states that “As noted by NYSDOT, there were ten accidents that occurred on
Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road in the 60-month period. It goes on to provide descriptions of these
accidents. While the DEIS and TIS both note that 38 accidents were associated with the intersection of
Cox Neck Road and Sound Avenue, no detailed information about these accidents is included in the text
of either document. Given that all Project truck traffic will have to negotiate this intersection, greater
attention should have been given to those accidents.
The DEIS states that “[T]here are no demonstrative conditions along [Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road]
that would indicate that the project volumes would increase the potential for additional [vehicular]
accidents” (pp. xviii, 229). This is a disingenuous statement and is not supported by data in the traffic
study. The DEIS ignores the fact that composition of the Project-related traffic will be significantly
different than the composition of existing traffic. As noted above, the Project will cause an
approximately twenty-fold increase in this number of heavy (Class 9 and 10) trucks traveling Cox Neck
Road, and result in 80 times the number of heavy trucks travelling West Mill Road, during the Project’s
extended construction period.
The DEIS states that the “accident study revealed no accidents involving bicycles or pedestrians. Despite
the relative narrowness of the road the small numbers of additional vehicles the Project will generate
during construction and after completion should not increase the hazards to bicycles and pedestrians
also using the road” (p. xvii). While it may be considered true that once the Project is completed it will
generate “a small number of additional vehicles,” the same cannot be said for the construction period.
The implication that the addition of large numbers of oversize, overweight construction vehicles, of a
type that only rarely travel the proposed Project truck routes, will not pose an increased risk of
accidents is unsupportable.
26 Note the overlapping reporting period from 1-1-19 to 6-30-20. There appears to be a discrepancy in the data reported during
this period. Six accidents are reported in one set of data that are not reported in the other. This suggests that different
criteria may have used by the Applicant’s consultant when requesting ALIS data from NYSDOT, or the ALIS data is possibly
incomplete.
Page | Traffic-15
It is noted that the original December 2021 DEIS and TIS concluded that “accident data . . . during the . .
. analysis period indicated that there are [sic] no indication Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road has any
traffic safety deficiencies” (p.196). While this conclusion appears to have been eliminated from the
revised main DEIS text, it still appears in the revised TIS (p.28). This seems to contradict the statements
in the DEIS (p.191) and the Traffic Study (p.12) (quoted above) that identify potentially dangerous
locations along these roads.
No data is provided to support the statement that the “rate of accidents occurring at the [Cox Neck
Road at Sound Avenue/North Road intersection is not atypical for an intersection with similar volumes”
(p.196). Even if true, it has no bearing on how the accident rate might change with the Project’s massive
increase in heavy construction truck traffic, notably 22-wheel tractor trailers.
The same invalid assumption that past data can be assumed to represent what conditions will be like
during Project construction, when vastly different heavy (Class 9 and 10) truck volumes will exist, is
evident in the statement that a “small portion of West Mill Road east of Naugle’s Drive is only 22± feet
wide. Pedestrians and cyclists currently use the roadway with the existing traffic and the three-year
examination of accidents along the roadway did not indicate any involving either pedestrians or cyclists”
p.211.
The DEIS notes (p.203) that there have also been no recently identified accidents in the vicinity of the
intersection of the proposed haul road and West Mill Road. It is hard to understand how historical
accident data pertaining to a presently non-existent intersection is relevant to what the accident
potential will be after the intersection is created.
Although the DEIS scope (p.11) requires that the DEIS include accident data for Sound Avenue and
Suffolk County Route 48 in Riverhead, no accident data is included for the portions of the Project truck
route in Riverhead. No attempt was made to obtain information from NYSDOT or the Riverhead Police
Department. The potential for accidents along the Riverhead portions of the Project truck route was
demonstrated in a 2018 accident in which a truck carrying sand overturned just east of the Project truck
route 27 (COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-9).
The DEIS and TIS should have included a crash prediction analysis study for the entire Project truck
route, with special emphasis on Cox Neck and West Mill Roads, and the intersection of Cox Neck Road
and Route 48 (North Road)/Sound Avenue. Crash prediction models have been developed and
methodologies are described in detail in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program’s (NCHRP) Document 297 Intersection Crash Prediction Methods for the Highway Safety
Manual.
27 https://www.google.com/search?q=riverhead+truck+traffic&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDiIrdyKT-
AhWMlIkEHYIXDUwQ0pQJegQIAhAC&biw=1078&bih=882&dpr=1.25#imgrc=Oo1Oj_g4bmvjUM
Page | Traffic-16
Damage to Local Roads
The DEIS fails to adequately consider or evaluate the extent of road damage that will occur during the
construction phases of the Project, and does not include the information necessary for the Planning
Board to conduct its own evaluation.
The Planning Board’s 2020 Positive Declaration for the Project notes that “The design and condition of
the roads leading to the site (route) is a concern. Many areas exhibit stress cracks on the pavement. The
design of the roads and the ability to increase traffic, including trucks, is a significant concern”. The DEIS
scope requires the DEIS to discuss “the potential damage and destruction of local and regional roads by
trucks and all other vehicle types involved in the staging, clearing, excavation, site preparation,
construction and post construction and operations of the facility” and “the wear and tear on roadways
caused by vehicle types” (emphasis added) (p.13).
The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 DEIS inadequacy memo concluded that the original DEIS’ discussion
of potential large impacts to “infrastructure (road damage) along an entire route due to the total
number of vehicles trips proposed” was inadequate. In response, the revised DEIS now includes in
Appendix O the results of a pavement analysis (ESAL & Pavement Thickness Calculations in Response to
Town’s Comments) prepared by TSPE 28.
ESAL is a concept developed from data collected at the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHO) Road Test to establish a damage relationship for comparing the effects of vehicle axles carrying
different loads. “Based on computed ESAL values, the thickness of pavement is calculated to find out
how much pavement thickness is required to handle the existing and additional construction traffic”
(TPSE pavement analysis). ESAL values do not quantify how projected traffic loads will accelerate, or
contribute to damage on existing roads.
The DEIS states:
“ESAL are calculated using traffic including the roadway’s Annual Average Daily Traffic
and the results of vehicle classification studies that determine the percentage of heavy
vehicles utilizing the roadway. Table 10 (ESAL for Proposed Truck Route)29 presents the
calculated ESAL for No Build Condition without the proposed construction and the ESAL
for each roadway with the addition of site generated trucks due to the construction of
the project.
28 Tri State Planning, Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C.
29 The Table 10 referred to is in the Pavement Evaluation Report in the Supplemental Data Appendix of the TIS. It is not Table
10 in the DEIS.
Page | Traffic-17
“The ESAL loads are calculated based on a 5-year pavement life in order to take a
conservative approach. Actual pavement life is typically calculated as 20 years. The
comparison of the impact of the projected truck traffic is minimal on all the proposed
truck routes except for West Mill Road which showed an increase in ESAL loading with a
11.14 percent increase and Bergen Avenue, if it is used as an alternative the truck route
[See later Section: Alternate Routing of Haul Material]. While the increased ESAL
loadings by percentage are significant, the significance is due to the existing light traffic
volumes found on the roads. The number of ESAL loads projected to occur on West Mill
Road are approximately one tenth of those projected to occur on Cox Neck Road. TSPE,
as part of the pavement evaluation, also examined the ability of [the]Town of Southold
standard pavement section with 1.5 inches of top, 2.5 inches of binder and 4.0 inches of
stone or recycled concrete base will support the expected loads from the project truck
traffic. The TSPE Pavement Evaluation Report can be found in the Supplemental Data
Appendix of the TIS” (p.223).
There are numerous problems with the pavement evaluation study which call its conclusions into
question.
First, each of the calculation sheets included in TPSE’s pavement analysis states that “calculations were
taken from Figure 4-1 of the NYS Comprehensive Pavement Design Manual (June 2000)”.30 The Manual
includes an ESAL calculator in the form of an Excel spreadsheet 31 which is identical to the calculation
sheets used by TPSE and included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix (in DEIS Appendix O). Chapter
4 of the Manual, where Figure 4-1 and the associated spreadsheet are found, is entitled “New
Construction/Reconstruction.” Figure 4-1 and the associated spreadsheet used by TPSE were NOT
intended for use in evaluating existing roadways. TPSE could have included as part of their analysis the
procedures in the Manual’s Chapter 2 “Evaluation of Existing Pavements”.
Second, the new road construction model used by TPSE to calculate ESAL requires that the percentage
of “Heavy Trucks Class 4 or greater” be estimated. As the DEIS states, ESAL calculations require “results
of vehicle classification studies.” As noted above in the discussion of vehicle classifications, the DEIS (and
the TPSE pavement evaluation study) consistently lumped all truck traffic, regardless of vehicle
classification, into a single group. As a result, TPSE has assumed that the heavy truck percentage along
the truck route in Southold will be: West Mill Road (5%), Cox Neck Road (7%), and Sound Avenue (6%).32
These percentages ignore the fact that virtually all of the increase in heavy truck traffic on West Mill and
Cox Neck Roads during Project construction will be in one of the heaviest truck categories--notably Class
30 TPSE did not use the most current version of that document. Revision 1 was issued in 2002. However, the ESAL calculator
does not appear to have changed as a result of the revision.
31 https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/cpdm/repository/chapter4.pdf
32 These numbers are also inconsistent with the numbers provided in the DEIS and TIS (DEIS p.200-201, TIS p.23).
Page | Traffic-18
10 22-wheel tractor trailers. The result is a significant underestimate of the ESAL increase associated
with Project construction. As noted above in the section on vehicle classification, the increase in Class
10 traffic on West Mill Road during Project construction will be on the order of 2000%. The increase on
Cox Neck Road will be on the order of 8000%. These increases are not taken into account in TPSE’s
calculations. As a result, tables (items 8 and 9) in the TSPE analysis, which compare calculated increases
in total ESAL values from the “no build condition” to the “build condition” along Cox Neck and West Mill
Roads underestimate the actual ESAL increase.
Third, the new road construction model used by TPSE to calculate ESAL also requires that a “Truck
Equivalency Factor (avg ESAL per truck)”33 be included in the model. All of TPSE’s calculations employ a
Truck Equivalency Factor of 1.35—the default value in the calculation spreadsheet. According to the
AASHO, triple-axle sets like those on the 22-wheel tractor trailers that will used by the Project, will likely
have a truck equivalency factor closer to 1.66. One state DOT has indicated that a TEF of 2.24 should be
used for Class 10 vehicles.34 One study has concluded that estimated errors associated with the truck
classification variable used for ESAL predictions can range from ±10 to ±100 percent. The use of the 1.35
default value in TPSE’s calculations has likely further resulted in an underestimate of the ESAL increase
associated with the Project.
Fourth, TPSE has assumed in their calculations that the construction year for the Project will be 2023,
when most construction take place in 2024, at the earliest.
Finally, TPSE’s calculations are based on the unsupported and erroneous assumption that Cox Neck and
West Mill Roads, and Sound Avenue, were constructed in accordance with the Town of Southold’s
current highway specifications (Chapter 161 of Town Code)35. They were not. They are not
“engineered” roads as reflected in the Planning Board’s concern with the “design and condition of the
roads leading to the site.” Chapter 161 was first approved in 1993 and states that the “specifications set
forth in the following chart shall apply to all constructed roadways after April 20, 1993.”36 The
specifications apply to newly constructed roads, not existing ones. Section 161-26 of the Town Code
authorizes the Superintendent of Highways to direct that cores be taken every 500 feet along newly
constructed roads and have them analyzed by “a reliable testing laboratory which has the approval of
the Town Engineer” to confirm that construction specifications were met. TPSE should have taken
33The effect of heavy loads on pavement damage, such as fatigue cracking and rutting of asphaltic concrete pavements, has
traditionally been expressed using the concept of axle load equivalency factors (truck equivalency factors). General Axle Load
Equivalency Factors, Transportation Research Record 1482.
34 Alaska Flexible Pavement Design Manual, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Effective 7/1/2020.
35 Southold Code Sections 161.21–23 call for new asphalt roads to have a 4-inch base course, a 2.5-inch binder course, and a
1.5-inch wearing course. The Sound Avenue portion of the truck route is in Riverhead—not Southold.
36 Cox Neck and West Mill Roads were dedicated in 1907 (Southold Town records Liber K pp.212-225). The DEIS (p. 225) notes
that in recent years only resurfacing of these roads has taken place or is planned. There is no evidence that either road has
undergone any significant reconstruction since their original dedication.
Page | Traffic-19
sample cores along Cox Neck and West Mill Roads and Sound Avenue to determine the actual structure
of the pavement on those roads. They could also have enquired of the Southold and Riverhead
Superintendents of Highways if information on pavement thickness along the truck route was available.
They did neither.
The last factor is significant because TPSE’s conclusion that existing pavement thickness on West Mill
and Cox Neck Road is adequate to support the increase in traffic associated with the Project. Without
knowing the actual existing pavement thickness along Town roads, it is not possible to determine if
existing pavement thickness will be able to support the ESAL increase associated with the large number
of 22-wheel tractor-trailer trips that the Project will generate.
Even if one accepts as valid, the calculations derived by TPSE, it should be noted that TPSE’s conclusions
that the “the roads along the designated truck route are adequate to carry expected Project-generated
traffic” and, that “the combined small vehicle and large vehicle increase in traffic [along Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road, particularly the section north of Breakwater Road], even with the additional truck
loading from site generated construction, should be tolerated by the existing road structure” (DEIS pp.
xviii, 223; TIS p.82) refers only to the thickness of existing pavement. This is NOT the same as saying
that Project-generated traffic will not result in increased damage to the roads that make up the truck
route. TPSE’s conclusion could easily be misinterpreted by readers of the DEIS, in spite of the fact that
common sense dictates that the increase in truck traffic will be result in accelerated damage to local
roads.
The pavement evaluation included in the TIS should have included a Pavement (Present) Serviceability
Index (PSI) evaluation. PSI is a parameter that accounts for the loss in serviceability. It is obtained from
measurements of roughness and distress, e.g., cracking, patching and rut depth at a particular time
during the service life of the pavement. “Roughness is the dominant factor in estimating the PSI of a
pavement. . . The major factors influencing the loss of serviceability of a pavement are traffic, age, and
environment.”37 Recent studies have found that the high volume of overweight permit trucks, such as
the out-bound Project haul trucks, contribute disproportionately to the damage to New York State
highway infrastructure systems, and reduce the service lives of pavements.38
It is obvious to anyone traveling the proposed Project truck route in Southold that the roads are in poor
condition (see COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-5). According to the DEIS “The Town Highway Department
has indicated that resurfacing should be delayed until it is determined how the SYC project will be
conducted, preferring to perform the resurfacing after that work is complete” (p. 221).
37 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993.
38 Ghosn, Michel et al., 2015, Effects of Overweight Vehicles on NYSDOT Infrastructure. University Transportation Research
Center - Region 2
Page | Traffic-20
The statement (item 13) in the TPSE pavement evaluation that “the roads along the designated truck
route are adequate to carry the expected project traffic” fails to take into account the current
condition of local roads, is based on multiple unsupported assumptions, and does not evaluate the
extent to which local roads will be damaged by Project-generated traffic.
According to a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report39
“[a]lthough a five-axle tractor trailer will be loaded to the current 80,000-pound Federal
weight limit weighs about the same as 20 automobiles, the impact of the tractor-trailer
is dramatically higher. Based on [American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials] data, and confirmed by its officials, such a tractor-trailer has
the same impact on an interstate highway as at least 9,600 automobiles. Increasing
truck weight causes an ever increasing rate of pavement damage (GAO 1979: ii). The
GAO report also concludes that “the amount of pavement damage varies depending on
the number of heavy trucks in the total traffic volume and the related axle weights.
Assuming pavement damage caused by a 2,000-pound automobile axle is one unit, then
the pavement damage by 100 such automobile axles would be 100 pavement damage
units. Damage caused by a single 18,000-pound and a 20,000-pound truck axle would
equate to 5,000 and 7,550 pavement damage units, respectively. As the number or
weight of heavy truck axles per 100 vehicle axles increases, pavement damage increases
exponentially” (emphasis added) (GAO 1979:23).40
The GAO conclusions are based on what is known as the Generalized Fourth Power Law. It’s a rule of
thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in
terms of axle loads and equates pavement deterioration with reduced/loss of pavement serviceability.41
Assuming that an average two-axle vehicle, like a car or SUV, weighs 4000 pounds—or one ton on each
axle, and Project haul trucks will average nine tons (18,000 pounds) on each of their six axles, the
Generalized Fourth Power Law indicates that each loaded haul truck leaving the Project site will have
the same effect on Project roads as more than 6,500 2-axle vehicles.
In conclusion, the DEIS fails to adequately address the degree to which the Project will contribute to,
and accelerate, damage local roads.
39 Comptroller-General's Report to the Congress Excessive Truck Weight: An Expensive Burden We Can No Longer Support (CED-
79-94) 1979, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington DC.
40 Some sources criticize the 9,600 figure, underscoring the fact that the AASHO Road Test, which is the basis for the GAO’s
conclusion, was partially conducted on under-designed pavement, not properly designed highways. However, Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road are under-designed, and are not “properly designed highways.”
41 The associated equation is (w1/w2)4, where W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which is compared to W2, the weight of
an axle on vehicle 2.
Page | Traffic-21
Proposed Mitigation
The measures described in the DEIS to mitigate traffic impacts, including road damage, are
inadequate, vague, incomplete, and unacceptable as proposed.
The DEIS scope states that “Potential mitigation measures to reduce potential [traffic] impacts will be
identified.” The scope also calls for a discussion of “the potential increase in . . . traffic and if trucks
should be limited to certain hours, low speeds and the number of trucks per day” (p.13), and for the
DEIS to “[D]iscuss how streets will be repaired” (p.14).
The Planning Board, in its May 9, 2022 memo on DEIS inadequacies, reports that the original DEIS had
not adequately addressed mitigation of traffic impacts and found that the DEIS needed to provide “a
more accurate and detailed discussion on the: . . . mitigation proposed to address potential adverse
impacts from the total number of trucks on the quality of life, community character and infrastructure
along the route.” The Applicant’s annotated version of the Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 adequacy
determination memo, submitted with the revised DEIS, indicates that the requested information has
been “included.” In reality, the revised DEIS includes only a slightly elaborated discussion relating to the
post-construction treatment of road damage. It does not address means of lessening that damage
during the construction period. No additional details about traffic impact mitigation measures are
included in the revised DEIS. It does not address the possibility of reducing the number of trucks per day,
as requested by the Planning Board. The revised DEIS does include information on Project alternatives
which it believes would reduce traffic impacts (discussed below), but these are not part of the proposed
Project. Traffic impact mitigation proposed in the DEIS is discussed below.
The DEIS states that “[A]ll trucks associated with the construction of the proposed action will be limited
to traveling at 30 mph on West Mill Road and all neighboring roads. The posted speed limit on West Mill
Road is 35 mph” (pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 229, 293, 298, 334). This is incorrect. The current posted speed limit is
30 mph.42 The DEIS and the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) claim that the “proposed 30 miles per hour maximum
speed to be observed by Project trucks on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will mitigate the concerns of
the community” (DEIS p.218; TIS p.73). This assumption is not supported by any data, and is incorrect.
The Applicant has made no attempt to determine if the proposed 5 mph reduction in the speed of
Project haul trucks, effectively only on Cox Neck Road, will “mitigate concerns of the community.” The
Applicant’s offer to have construction trucks abide by the posted speed limit on West Mill Road is
effectively meaningless. It is not mitigation and will not mitigate “the concerns of the community.”
The DEIS states that the “current speed limit is 35 miles per hour and could be reduced to 30 or even 25
miles per hour for the duration of the construction activity. The speed limit change would require
42 Traffic count video equipment was observed attached to a 30-mph speed limit sign [COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-6]. The
southerly end of Cox Neck Road is posted at 35 mph. The 30-mph limit is posted starting north of the junction with
Breakwater Road. The DEIS (p,198) notes that the posted speed limit on Breakwater Road is 30 mph.
Page | Traffic-22
approval of the NYSDOT or the Southold Town Board depending on the Town’s ability to set speed
limits” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225). There is no explanation of why, if the Applicant can require
Project trucks to limit their speed to 30 mph on Town roads, he cannot require a limit of 25 mph, or why
this is an action that must be taken by the Town of Southold.43
The DEIS scope notes that “Many areas [of the truck route] exhibit stress cracks on the pavement”
(p.11). The DEIS offers as a “suggested,” “potential,” mitigation measure “monitoring and repairing
damage to Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road during the construction period (DEIS p. xix, 228). (Note that
Sound Avenue in Riverhead is not included). However, the DEIS also states that “Applicant will commit
to quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the roadway during the construction activity” (emphasis
added) (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 224-5, 228, 298). The DEIS also states that during “the construction period,
Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road will be monitored daily to detect any rough surfaces or potholes that
develop [and that] roadway imperfections will be corrected by forces employed by the applicant” (DEIS
pp. xxxvi, 229).
The commitment to repair potholes and “roadway imperfections” is not adequately discussed. Road
damage, in addition to potholes, may include cracking, rutting, and the crushing of the edges of the
travelway.44 Cracks, potholes and rutting could all be significant issues given the heavy loads involved 45
and that peak haul truck traffic volumes will occur during the winter and spring, when freeze/thaw
activity will exacerbate potholing. The DEIS contains no description of how procedures to repair
potholes will be implemented, even though the DEIS scope calls for a discussion of this issue (p.14). No
definition of the word “quickly” is provided. Does this mean daily, weekly, or less frequently? How will
work be completed during winter months when asphalt plants are closed? Will temporary repairs be
with “throw and go” asphalt?46 Will this work be completed by Project personnel or subcontracted?
When will repairs take place? If during work hours, will it interfere with construction traffic (as well as
non-Project traffic)? Or will it take place at night? These factors have not been considered in evaluating
traffic impacts.
43 The Town of Southold is presently considering lowering the speed limit on Town-owned roads to 30 mph due to population
increases over time and the need to improve pedestrian safety. https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/southold-
transportation-commission-
i59hrhkv?utm_term=sub&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mattituck&lctg=2f5d188ab3c70e9
a92b520ea87ba98bd3d83c74704cee45b9a9b42e5e68e4fe3
44 Most of Cox Neck Road and West Mill Road have no paved shoulders. Paved surfaces are limited to the actual travelway.
This is clearly a concern, witness the fact that the Applicant has proposed installing a temporary recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) shoulder along short stretches of West Mill Road, north and south of the proposed haul road exit (DEIS p.212).
45 Gillespie et al (1993), Effects of Heavy-Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program Report 353.
46 When those potholes pop up in winter, they are often only treated with temporary, “throw and go” loose asphalt. This is
because a more permanent repair with standard hot-mix asphalt requires that all loose debris and moisture be absent from
the hole to allow the new filler to affix to the surrounding surfaces. In colder months, asphalt plants shut down because hot
mix can’t be delivered and applied in time before the mix cools.
Page | Traffic-23
The DEIS also includes the following as mitigation: “[A] survey of the pavement condition would be done
prior to the commencement of construction and the roadway would be resurveyed following the
completion of the Project. In concert with Town of Southold Highway Department (but not the
Riverhead Highway Department), the before and after surveys will be reviewed, and if damage did occur
due to the construction, the appropriate measures will be taken to correct it” (pp. xviii, xxxix, 223, 226,
228, 298). The proposal to conduct pre- and post-construction surveys is appropriate. However, as
worded, the DEIS is unclear as to how it will be determined that damage is “due to construction.”
Presumably, some damage will result from non-Project vehicles accelerating damage when passing over
areas damaged by Project vehicles.
The December 2021 version of the DEIS noted that Southold Highway Superintendent advised that a
resurfacing of Cox Neck Road from North Road (CR 48) to Bergen Avenue with 1-1/2 inches of Type 6
asphalt was planned for 2021. The revised November 2022 DEIS now says the Superintendent says that
that work “should be delayed until the it is determined how the SYC Project will be conducted,
preferring to perform the resurfacing after that work is complete” (DEIS p.202). The delay in resurfacing
of Cox Neck Road until after Project construction is complete is understandable. However, it also means
that Cox Neck Road will continue to deteriorate, exacerbating traffic-generated noise and vibration, and
will continue to do so until Project construction is complete. That is not likely to happen before 2025, if
ever. In the meantime, Southold residents travelling on Cox Neck Road have to endure continuously
deteriorating road conditions. A report from the American Automobile Association found that in 2021,
one in ten drivers sustained vehicle damage significant enough to warrant a repair after hitting a
pothole. With an average price tag of almost $600 per repair.
The DEIS scope calls for a discussion of “specific provisions for a performance guarantee to assure
appropriate reclamation/restoration of any areas (including local roadways) that may be required, or in
the event that the Project does not come to completion after a specifically defined period of time”
(p.14). The revised DEIS now states that “at the request of the Town, SYC would be willing to sign a
corporate guarantee for the repair of any road damages to pre-development condition” (DEIS pp. xxxvi,
xxxvi, xxxix, 226-7, 228, 298).47 The DEIS does NOT discuss the “specific provisions” of the offered
corporate/performance guarantee as called for in the DEIS scope. The Applicant must be required to
provide a bond to ensure that road restoration takes place. This is especially essential to ensure that
roads will be repaired in the event that the Project does not proceed beyond the excavations phases, is
not completed, is indefinitely halted, halted for an extended period, or if the Applicant (SYC) should
declare bankruptcy. The Planning Board’s May 10, 2022 memo on the inadequacies of the December
2021 version of the DEIS stated that the discussion of performance guarantees needs to include “all
impacted roadways or Townships” (emphasis added). The DEIS does not include any reference to
performance guarantees discussed with the Town of Riverhead.
The DEIS scope (p.12) calls for the DEIS to discuss “what temporary traffic signals will be considered.
What traffic control measures will be implemented? Discuss what private resources that will be required
47 Does this commitment also apply to portions of the Project truck route in Riverhead?
Page | Traffic-24
to control traffic”. In response, the DEIS offers as a “suggested,” “potential,” mitigation measure
“making traffic control improvement to the roadways” (DEIS pp. xix, 228). Referring to a location on
West Mill Road, just north of Bergen Avenue, the DEIS and TIS both say:
“No warning signs are posted for either north bound south bound traffic. On the
westerly side of the southern curve guide rail has been placed to prevent vehicles from
leaving the road. The guide rail is substandard and not properly anchored on the ends.
We question whether the two curves should be posted with curve warning signs
indicating the “S” curvature of the road and the use of additional chevron signing along
the back of both curves.
“North of the two curves the roadway straightens out and continues north in a relatively
straight line on gently rolling terrain. West and south of Naugle’s Drive the roadway
turns fairly sharply to the east. Curve warning signs were posted for northbound traffic
approaching the curve and for southbound traffic approaching the same curve. The
southbound signs seem to be placed too close to the curve and chevron warning signs
along the back of the curve would be useful. To the east of Naugle’s Drive West Mill
Road turns to the south and drops vertically. There is a curve warning sign posted for
eastbound traffic and an additional sign stating, “SLOW POPULATED AREA”. That sign is
posted behind a utility pole and not readily visible” (DEIS pp.195-6; TIS p.12).
The DEIS does NOT propose any mitigation to correct these unsafe conditions, presumably leaving that
up to the Town of Southold.
Another traffic control improvement “suggested” in the DEIS is that “Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road be
restriped with shoulder edge lines defining the edge of 10-foot travel lanes”. This would also, presumably, be the
responsibility of the Town. In the absence of a commitment to carry out, or fund, the “suggested”
measures, they cannot be considered mitigation.
No traffic control improvements are proposed as part of the Project. The only off-site traffic control
measure, committed to in the DEIS is the use of flaggers “for maintenance and protection of Traffic [sic]
at locations where severe curves in the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by
Project trucks that may require crossing of the yellow double barrier lines” (DEIS pp. xxvi, xxxix, 229,
298). The DEIS identifies only one location, West Mill Road east of Naugles Road, where it will be
difficult for the trucks to stay in lane. No other locations are identified. The DEIS text is ambiguous as to
whether the commitment to provide flaggers would also include all “severe curves” where limited sight
distances exist.48
48 The actual wording is “Flaggers will be uses [sic] for maintenance and protection of traffic at locations where severe curves in
the truck route or at intersections where turns are being made by project trucks that may require crossing of the yellow
double barrier lines” (emphasis added).
Page | Traffic-25
Finally, the DEIS has proposed two Project alternatives, which are represented as having the potential to
reduce traffic-related impacts. The first is “an alternative material mitigation plan . . . to reduce the
volume of material to be removed from the subject property by placing approximately 13,500 cy of
material on the R-80-zoned parcel. This alternative material mitigation plan is discussed in Section 5.7 of
this DEIS” (p. 225). This alternative would reduce the number of truck trips along the Project route but
would create other serious negative impacts. It is not part of the proposed Project.
The second alternative presented as a means of reducing traffic impacts is an
“Alternate Truck Route . . . that would reduce the impact of trucks hauling material
from the site. This alternative split arriving empty trucks from departing trucks carrying
excavated material on the south segment of Cox Neck Road. Arriving trucks would
follow the original Truck Route plan, making a left turn from east bound Sound Avenue
onto north bound Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road. Departing trucks hauling material
from the site would utilize West Mill Road/Cox Neck Road and then turn west onto
Bergen Avenue to Sound Avenue. This alternative routing plan is discussed in Section 5.8
of the DEIS” (p.225).
It is unclear how this alternative would “reduce the impact of trucks.” If employed, this Project
alternative will only increase the number of community residents impacted by the Project, because
additional roadways will be incorporated into the Projects truck route, while none would be eliminated.
Project-Related Vehicle Trips During Site Preparation
The DEIS and TIS have not properly assessed, and underestimate, the number of truck trips required
during the Site Preparation/Clearing and Grubbing Phase of the Project
According to the DEIS and TIS:
“[One] truck with 30-yard trailer will be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times
per day. The truck with trailer will not remain on site but will return to its base each
night. On average, the truck with trailer will generate no more then [sic] one entering
trip every other hour and one exiting trip every other hour. Each piece of equipment will
have an operator (5) and four additional laborers will support the work. Each morning
up to 9 employees and the truck with trailer will arrive at the site and depart at the end
of the day” (DEIS p.211; TIS p.55).
This description fails to take into account that, during site preparation, a 1,454± foot crushed concrete
haul road would be constructed from the proposed Construction Excavation Area to West Mill Road
(p.239). The construction of the haul road is a prerequisite to all on-site work and would have to be
Page | Traffic-26
completed during the two-week long site preparation phase. The DEIS and TIS states that a “temporary
haul road will be developed in the first phase of the project” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.209; TIS p. 53).
According to the Haul Road Plan (DEIS Appendix C, Figure 10)49, the road will vary from 16 ft (along most
of its length) to 30 ft wide. The DEIS estimates that the amount of RCA (Recycled Concrete Aggregate)
required to provide a six-inch horizon for the haul road and shoulders out on West Mill Road is
approximately 700 CY” (DEIS pp. 18, 285).50 This will necessitate a minimum (depending upon the weight
of the crushed concrete) of 24 trips by 30 CY haul trucks to the Project site during site preparation. This
traffic does not appear to have been taken into account in either the TIS (DEIS Appendix O) or the DEIS
even though this was identified as an inadequacy by the Planning Board in its review of the original
DEIS.51 The Project construction schedule (DEIS Appendix F) which lists Project construction vehicles
required during each Project phase also fails to account for these vehicles.
The DEIS implies that all vegetation cleared during the site preparation phase will be removed. This
seems unlikely. According to the DEIS, during the two-week-long clearing and grubbing site preparation
phase “one truck with 30-yard trailer would be used to remove ground-up debris 3 to 4 times per day”
(DEIS p. 211). This translates to a maximum volume of 1,200 CY of vegetative debris. As discussed in
greater detail in comments on the Project’s ecological impacts, the actual volume of vegetative debris
associated with the removal of 634 trees, and their stumps and roots, plus an unknown number of
smaller trees, shrubs and ground vegetation will generate an order of magnitude greater volume of
debris. Based on FEMA data, and data from the tree survey conducted for the Project (Appendix C in
DEIS Appendix S), between approximately 10,000 CY to 12,000 CY of tree debris alone will be created.52
According to FEMA, “Vegetative debris consists of whole trees, tree stumps, tree branches, tree trunks,
and other leafy material. Depending on the size of the debris, the collection of vegetative debris may
require the use of flat bed trucks, dump trucks, and grapple loaders. . . Vegetative debris is bulky and
consumes a significant volume of landfill space if buried.”53 Will the Project require the use of flat-bed
trucks, in addition to feller-bunchers and haul trucks, to remove vegetative debris?
49 The Haul Road Plan is annotated with the words: “CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES.”
50 However, the Haul Road Plan Plan (DEIS Appendix C, Figure 10) indicates that the haul road will consist of eight inches of
recycled concrete over a six-inch stabilized soil base. This discrepancy needs to be resolved.
51 “. . . the estimated quantity of RCA needed to stabilize the access road for use by heavy equipment should be provided and
the analysis of truck trips updated to address the number of truck trips required to bring this material to the site” (NPV p. 5).
The Applicant’s annotated version the Planning Board’s comments indicates that the DEIS text has been revised to address
this issue. It has not.
52 See the Ecology section of these comments.
53 https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/forestry/icestorm/FEMAVegetativeDebrisEligibilitypdf.pdf
Page | Traffic-27
If the trees being cut and removed from the Project Area are being moved (either off-site or to the R-80
portion of the Project parcel), or ground-up, a significant amount of truck traffic will be generated in
excess of the 80 trips (four round-trips per day for 10 days) claimed in the DEIS to remove the debris
created. The actual number will be closer to ten times that amount.
Truck Trips Required During Phase 3 Construction.
The DEIS has significantly underestimated the number of truck trips required during Phase 3
Construction.
The DEIS states that “[t]hrough consultations with LI Precast 54, it was determined that the total concrete
volume for the proposed Project (i.e., for the concrete in the retaining wall, floor slabs and foundations)
is limited to 5,345 CY, of which the total volume of sand in the concrete is limited to 30 percent or 1,604
CY” (DEIS p.315 and DEIS Appendix U). LI Precast is a supplier of the pre-cast concrete sections that will
be used to construct the Project’s Evergreen concrete retaining wall. These pre-cast concrete sections
will be manufactured off-site (DEIS Appendix H, Evergreen Wall Report55) and generate 60 round-trip
truck trips (120 total trips) for delivery.
Appendix U contains a table labeled “Volume Calculations for Concrete Manufacturing, Strong’s Marina -
Retaining Wall & New Building” prepared by LI Precast. According to that table 1,264 CY of concrete will
be required for the retaining wall. Presumably this in the amount of concrete in the precast retaining
wall sections. However, an additional 323 CY will be required for (retaining wall?) foundations, and
3,759 CY will be required for the floor slabs for the two proposed storage buildings. This means that
4,082 CY of concrete will have to be brought to the site.56
As noted above, according to the DEIS “It is anticipated that Phase 3 would generate a total of 60 truck
trips 57 for the construction of the retaining wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for material
delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation) for the two boat storage buildings” (pp. xxx, 19).
Concrete trucks generally carry approximately 10 CY of material per load.58 Assuming 10 CY trucks are
54 http://www.li-precast.com/
55 This report is labeled as a “Draft.”
56 No on-site batch plant is proposed.
57 This is another instance of the DEIS using an incorrect definition of “trip.” The number of trips referred to her refers to round-
trips. The true number of trips is double the numbers stated.
58 The DEIS does not provide information concerning the exact size or weight of concrete trucks that may be used. The revised
DEIS states only that “Concrete will arrive at the site in single unit concrete trucks with a minimum of 3 axles and 10 tires.
The concrete trucks will be no larger than those used for pouring concrete for the construction of single-family homes and
residential pools” (Rev DEIS p. 220).
Page | Traffic-28
used, the 89 truck deliveries would therefore be transporting approximately 890 CY of concrete to the
Project site for foundations and floor slabs. This is far less concrete than the 4082 CY specified in
Appendix U. Assuming 10 CY of concrete can be delivered during each round-trip, approximately 410
round-trips, or 820 total trips will be required to deliver the concrete required for the Project’s
retaining wall foundations and building floor slabs. This is more than four times the number stated in
the DEIS.
Unloaded concrete trucks generally weigh approximately 26,000 pounds. Wet concrete weighs
approximately 4000 pound per cubic yard. A full 10-CY concrete truck therefore has gross vehicle
weight of approximately 60,000 pounds.59
It is also highly unlikely that concrete deliveries will be evenly spaced over the entire six months of the
Phase 3 construction period. The DEIS is not only silent on this point, but fails to include concrete trucks
on the equipment list included in Appendix F.
In addition, the DEIS does not adequately describe the route that will be taken by concrete trucks. The
TIS states that the “materials need for the construction of the buildings, drainage and retaining walls will
all come from suppliers west of the site. Trucks delivering these building materials from the west, will
arrive on Sound Avenue east bound turning north on Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road” (TIS p.64). This
description may not include the trucks required for the delivery of concrete for foundations and floor
slabs. No local concrete suppliers are believed to be located directly along the designated truck route.
Because of their weight, loaded concrete trucks are not permitted on Interstate highways such as the
Long Island Expressway. Trucks delivering concrete to the Project will be traveling and impacting local
roads other than those on the truck route.
The DEIS needs to clarify the number of trips that will be required to deliver concrete, how traffic
volumes and associated traffic impacts evaluations may need to be changed, how the required
number of trips by concrete truck could affect estimates of road damage, and identify potential points
of origin for concrete needed for the Project.
Phase 1 and 2 (Excavation Phase) Traffic Impacts West of Cox Neck Road 60
A comprehensive analysis of potential traffic-related impacts on the portions of the traffic route
between Cox Neck Road and the Long Island Expressway has not been included in the revised DEIS.
The DEIS scope called for the DEIS to “Evaluate and discuss the duration of potential adverse impacts
from all vehicle trip types included in each phase and post construction, the wear and tear on roadways
59 Based on information from the American Concrete Institute. https://www.structuremag.org/?p=10927.
60 SEQRA requires the Planning Board to consider extra-territorial environmental impacts, for example, impacts occurring in an
adjoining municipality (SEQRA Handbook p.172).
Page | Traffic-29
caused by vehicle types, quality of life impacts to the community and receptors along the routes
including adjacent Towns where vehicles will be travelling” (emphasis added) (p.13). The Planning
Board’s May 9, 2022 memo lists as an inadequacy in the original DEIS the fact that the “[truck] route has
not been identified . . . [and that] there is [n]o discussion on the road condition and impacts to Sound
Avenue or other roadways in adjacent Towns . . .” The Planning Board’s consultant’s comments on the
adequacy of the original DEIS clearly states that “the entire construction route should be identified and
evaluated from the subject site to the Long Island Expressway (i.e., West Mill Road, Cox Neck Road,
Sound Ave./Main Road, Northville Turnpike, Route 25, etc.)” (emphasis in original) (NPV p.4).
In response to these comments, the revised TIS now includes a map showing the truck route from the
Project to the Long Island Expressway. The revised TIS also states that “Additional historic data has been
incorporated into the report to cover Sound Avenue between Cox Neck Road and Northville Turnpike,
Northville Turnpike between Sound Avenue and Old Country Road (CR 43), and Old Country Road (CR
58), between the Long Island Expressway and Northville Turnpike. The data was received from the
NYSDOT and included weekday ATR volume and classification counts. The additional data is included in
the Appendix of this Report in the section entitled Supplemental Data” (TIS p. 16). However, it follows
this with the statement that it “should be noted that the above AADT and the traffic volume count data
were not utilized for analysis purposes but were used to define peak periods of highway traffic and are
presented for informational purposes” (TIS pp. 16-17). In other words, these data were not collected
specifically for the Project. As a result, they are qualitatively and quantitatively different from the data
collected for the portions of the truck route in the Town of Southold.
• Traffic count data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited. Data from NYSDOT, now included in
the revised TIS consists of only counts made on: 4 days in August 2019 for the portion of Sound
Avenue from Cox Neck Road to Bergen Avenue; 3 days in August 2018 for the portion of Sound
Avenue from Phillips Lane to Pier Avenue; 4 days in June 2018 for the portion of Northville
Turnpike from CR 58 to CR 105; and 5 days in August 2019 for the portion of Old Country Road
from CR 73 to CR 43.
Not only is this data very limited, in terms of the number of days sampled, it is confined to a
single season, rather than the four seasons required. Additionally, all the data was collected
during the summer, while the greatest impacts associated with increased Project related truck
traffic will occur in the winter.
• Vehicle classification data obtained from NYSDOT is very limited and covers the same dates and
locations as the traffic count data.
• No intersection capacity analyses have been conducted. The intersection of Sound Ave and
Northville Turnpike often has traffic backups associated with left hand turns. No data has been
included that would allow for an assessment of how this situation might be exacerbated by the
addition of Project traffic.
Page | Traffic-30
• No accident data for portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck Road is included in the revised
DEIS or TIS.
According to the DEIS and TIS, in “2018 Northville Turnpike had an AADT of 6,218 vehicles per day of
which 7.84 percent were classified as heavy vehicles. In 2019 Old Country Road had an AADT of 24,585
vehicles per day of which 7.60 percent were classified as heavy vehicles” (DEIS 218-219; TIS p. 76).
However, the percentage of “heavy vehicles” is derived from the fact that all vehicles in FHWA
classifications 4-13 are included in the “heavy vehicle” category. This means that busses, and all trucks
larger than pick-ups, are combined. The net effect is to downplay the significance of increases in 18-
and 22-wheel tractor trailer traffic.
The vehicle classification data included in the TIS Supplemental Data Appendix consists of tables labeled
“Classification Count Average Weekday Data Report”.61 These tables indicate that there will be a
significant increase in the number of Class 10 vehicles (the 22-wheel tractor trailer haul trucks that will
comprise the bulk of Project construction traffic) on the portions of the truck route west of Cox Neck
Road. The daily number of Class 10 vehicles reported varies from 39 on the portion of Sound Avenue
between Cox Neck Road and Bergen Avenue, to 11 on Old Country Road. The number of combined Class
9 (18-wheel tractor trailers) and Class 10 vehicles (together representing the total number of all tractor
trailers), varies from 141 (on a portion of Sound Avenue), to 40 on Northville Turnpike. The addition of a
minimum of 80 Project haul trucks per day on these roads will result in an increase in tractor trailer
traffic ranging from 76% on Sound Avenue, to 200% on Northville Turnpike. Additionally, the number of
tractor trailers travelling Old Country Road to the Long Island Expressway will more than double.
Nothing in the DEIS or TIS supports the conclusion that “Sound Avenue west of Cox Neck Road is well
suited to carry the site related construction traffic.” Nor is there any meaningful analysis of traffic
impacts along the portions of the Project truck route west of Cox Neck Road.
Phase 3 Construction Traffic
The Planning Boards May 10, 2022 memo to the Applicant notes that “Phase 3 would generate a total of
60 truck trips for the construction of the retaining wall and another 101 truck trips (12 trucks for
material delivery and 89 trucks for concrete foundation)62 for the two boat storage buildings, over
approximately 6 months. This would result in 322 trucks passing a single point along the route over 6
months” (p.16).
61 The tables include summary percentages of “heavy truck” traffic. However, the percentages of “heavy truck” traffic given
the tables include vehicle classifications 4-13.
62 The actual number of concrete truck deliveries is estimated to be significantly higher (see discussion, above).
Page | Traffic-31
According to the TIS, “[E]arly in [the Phase 3 Construction Phase] with the retaining wall and drainage
work being done at the same time up to 60 workers maybe on site at one time. The number of workers
will vary after that but will not exceed a maximum of 60” (TIS p. 59). Table 6 (Construction Generated
Traffic) in the TIS provides Project volumes for peak weekday and peak Saturday hours 63, when most site
workers will be travelling to or from the Project site during Phase 3 construction. Table 6 shows that the
Project will generate a total of 72 vehicle trips per hour during both AM and PM and Saturday peak
hours.64
Phase 3 (construction) of the Project, assuming the most optimistic schedule given in the DEIS, would
start early in June 2024 and last until December 2024. This means that Phase 3 construction traffic
would be traveling the Project truck route during all of the summer and fall. This is the period of highest
traffic volumes on Sound Avenue in Southold and Riverhead. Heavy traffic volumes on Sound Avenue,
resulting in bottlenecks at some locations, has been a long-standing community concern65,66 (COMMENT
FIGURE TRAFFIC-7) The DEIS states
“Concern has been expressed regarding the potential impact of Project trucks on
commercial farming operations along the proposed vehicle route. In particular,
operations such as Harbe’s Family Farm on Sound Avenue. These sites are particularly
popular in the summer and fall and roadways they front on can become congested on
weekends. To minimize potential impacts site excavation, hauling and material delivery
to the site will be done during weekdays when activities at these facilities are less
Impactful” (DEIS p. 219).
Limiting some truck traffic to weekdays will not significantly reduce the overall impact of Project traffic.
Given the severity of existing traffic issues on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months, ANY
increase in traffic on Sound Avenue during the summer and fall months is unacceptable.67
63 Unlike the Excavation phases of the Project, during the Construction Phase, work will be conducted on Saturdays.
64 This includes 60 employee vehicles entering and 10 exiting, plus 1 truck entering and 1 truck leaving, during peak hours.
65 “Middle Road and Sound Avenue have become the bypass routes of choice for many people, but neither road is very well-
suited for bypass traffic. Because these roads and intersections have not been designed to handle heavy traffic volumes,
safety has degraded. Both roadways are lined with residential and agricultural uses that are being negatively impacted by
high-volume, high-speed traffic” (Town of Riverhead Comprehensive Plan).
66 Suffolk Times (July 24, 2012) Traffic problems at Harbe’s farm a concern for Planning Board; Suffolk Times (October 10,
2017) Readers weigh in on fall traffic problem; Suffolk Times (March 1, 2018), North Fork officials come together to talk
traffic woes; Newsday (October 10, 2021) Weekends at the pumpkin patch tie up residents, traffic on the North Fork; Suffolk
Times (October 22, 2021) Southold Town Board discusses bottleneck outside Harbes Farm.
67 “With County Road 48 and Route 25 flooded with cars heading out to enjoy the North Fork, it's not just pumpkin farms or
any one business that's sparking the problems, Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said at that meeting and again this
year. ‘It's a volume problem.’ Roadways in town including Peconic Bay Boulevard are frequently backed up as traffic
congestion woes only continue to increase, he said. Riverhead Town Police Chief David Hegermiller said Riverhead is the
"first choking point" as the cars head east. Hegermiller agreed during the harvest season, the volume is the issue. ‘It's like
sand in an hourglass; there's only so much you can put through at one time,’ he said. ‘There are just too many cars on a too
Page | Traffic-32
Miscellaneous deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS
Other deficiencies and discrepancies in the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Study call into question its
reliability as a document that can be used for decision making.
• Vehicle classification data is missing for Sunday 11-6-21;
• Vehicle class data collected only hourly in winter, but quarter-hourly in other seasons;
• The description of the proposed Project in the TIS indicates that there are eight existing
buildings on site. One of these is identified as Building 4 (One-story storage [169 SF]. Building 4
does not exist. It was demolished in 2018 (DEIS p.2).
• The revised DEIS (p.202) contains what appears to be a typographical error: “Twenty-eight (38)
of the accidents were associated with the intersection of Cox Neck Road at Sound Avenue/North
Road.” A careful reading of the text indicates that 38—not 28—is the correct number.
• Page 27 of the revised TIS incorrectly identifies West Mill Road as “West Neck Road”.
• The DEIS indicates that ATR (Automatic Traffic Recorder)68 counts were made along Cox Neck
Road and West Mill Road to obtain vehicle classification data. Data in the TIS indicates a
significant increase in the number of Class 7 and larger vehicles traveling Cox Neck Road/West
Mill Road during late spring (early June data) and summer (early August) over that during the
winter and fall. Because vehicle classification recorders rely on axle counts to identify vehicle
class, the high numbers may reflect the large number of towed boat trailers and landscaper
truck-trailer combinations traveling these roads during these periods, rather than “heavy
trucks.” Finally, because there are fewer Class 7 and larger vehicles travelling Cox Neck Road and
West Mill Road during the winter (when Project construction will be underway) does not mean
that such vehicles are not at present causing traffic problems which will only be exasperated by
the Project. See, for example COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-8 showing the effect on traffic of a
boat being towed down West Mill Road during the winter.
lane highway heading eastbound’” https://patch.com/new-york/northfork/surge-fall-traffic-sparks-fury-toll-bridge-suggested.
68 According to the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Monitoring Guidebook, Automated Traffic Recorders (ATRs) are
automatic vehicle counters that operate for longer periods of time and are set up for more permanent function (continuous
counts). These devices utilize permanent sensors, such as induction loop detectors, which are installed directly into each lane
of pavement at a count location. An inductive-loop detector senses the presence of a metal object by inducing currents in the
object. It seems likely that the Traffic Study, in fact, employed Accumulative Count Recorders (ACRs) rather than ATRs.
These are automatic counters that can be set up at a location and count continuously for short periods of time (short term
counts) up to several weeks. These devices utilize temporary sensors, with the most commonly used type being pneumatic
tubes ("road tubes") placed in the roadway. Local residents reported observed these tubes during the period when the
traffic study was being undertaken. The DEIS should clarify this point.
Page | Traffic-33
DEIS and TIS Conclusions
Conclusions in the DEIS are either not supported by the data (e.g. “there would be a minimal increase in
traffic from the development of the project”), or deal with post-construction operational impacts.
The revised DEIS states that “The construction of the project will generate a substantial amount of truck
traffic.” (p. xix). However, the DEIS also states that, “[C]onclusions were made regarding the traffic
impact of the development on the surrounding street network based on the data and facts gathered in
[the TIS]” (DEIS pp. xvii, 193; TIS p.8). While those conclusions may be appropriate as they apply to post-
construction operation of the Project, they should not be considered applicable to the construction
phase. For example:
• “The proposed action would result in unavoidable short-term impacts that would occur during
the proposed excavation and construction activities; however, these impacts would be
temporary and cease upon completion of construction of the project” (emphasis added) (DEIS
p.309).
• A temporary increase in truck traffic associated with the site preparation (2 weeks), and
excavation phase (6-7 months) and construction phase (6 months) of the proposed
development. However, as indicated in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this DEIS, mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the proposed action to reduce the traffic-related impacts on the
surrounding properties and roadways. Upon completion of construction, the proposed action
will have no adverse traffic impacts post-development” (emphasis added) (DEIS p. 309).
• “As indicated in the TIS, the adjacent highway and street system will be able to accommodate
the proposed project” (DEIS p.225).
• “Although there would be a minimal increase in traffic from the development of the project, the
development of the site, as proposed, will not cause a significant negative impact on traffic
conditions” DEIS p.225; TIS p.96).
• “However, as indicated in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this DEIS, mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the proposed action to reduce the traffic-related impacts on the surrounding
properties and roadways’ (p.309).
• “Under the completed project up to 13 new trips would be added to this roadway during the
weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. This small number of additional vehicle trips will not
be noticeable and will not affect pedestrians or bicycles using the road” (emphasis added) (DEIS
p.221; TIS p.80)
Page | Traffic-34
• “As previously noted, the only real increase in traffic will come from the 11 new employees that
are expected to be brought on to accommodate the additional work generated by the new
vessels to be stored” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.204; TIS p.38).
• “[as] indicated in the TIS, the results of the unsignalized capacity analysis indicate that the
increased traffic from the project would create negligible traffic impacts once the project is
complete and fully operational” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225, 216).
• “The intersection capacity analyses conducted to measure the impact of the new site generated
traffic on the surrounding street and highway network indicate the new traffic can be
accommodated with negligible traffic impact” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.226; TIS p.96).
• Although there would be a minimal increase in traffic from the development of the Project, the
development of the site, as proposed, will not cause a significant negative impact on traffic
conditions” (emphasis added) (DEIS p.225; TIS p.96).
It is obvious that almost all of the conclusions in both the DEIS and TIS relate to impacts associated with
the post-construction operation of the Project—not to the significant impacts during the construction
period. This de-emphasis of construction-related impacts seems to be based on the fact that the DEIS
classifies traffic impacts during Project construction as “short-term impacts.” It cites the SEQRA
Handbook’s description of short-term impacts as “the immediate and temporary results of an action, for
example, noise, dust, and truck traffic during construction of a building.”69 This is a cherry-picking of
language in the SEQRA Handbook, and does not take into account that the SEQRA Handbook makes it
clear that short-term impacts can be significant and need to be considered. The SEQRA Handbook is also
clear that short-term impacts must be considered “to the degree they are determined to be relevant
and significant to an action”. The SEQRA Handbook states that:
“Two key characteristics of possible impacts that should be considered in determining
significance are ‘magnitude’ and ‘importance.’ Magnitude assesses factors such as
severity, size, or extent of an impact. Importance relates to how many people are going
to be impacted or affected by the Project; the geographic scope of the project; duration
and probability of occurrence of each impact; and any additional social or
environmental consequences if the project proceeds (or doesn’t proceed). Each impact
of an action must be judged by these two characteristics” (SEQRA Handbook p.76).
There is no question that the orders of magnitude increase in construction vehicles (including thousands
of trips by 22-wheel tractor trailers with a loaded weight of 107,000 pounds) traveling over local roads,
ten hours a day, for months on end, and the impact that will have on community residents, qualifies the
“short-term” increase in truck traffic as “significant.” The impacts associated with the increase in truck
69 The SEQR Handbook, Fourth Edition, NYSDEC (2020), p.79
Page | Traffic-35
traffic over the entire construction period can be considered short-term only because they are not
permanent.
Page | Traffic-36
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-1
Peterbilt 389 tractor-haul trailer combination dumping sand (4-axle trailer)
Peterbilt 389 tractor with 3-axle trailer (22-wheeler)
Similar to trucks that will be used to haul sand from the Project site
Page | Traffic-37
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-2
Page | Traffic-38
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFFIC- 3
Page | Traffic-39
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFFIC- 4
Haul truck (est. 30 CY capacity) turning onto Cox Neck Road. The truck was delivering fill for a
single residential lot at the corner of Rosewood Drive and Cox Neck Road (Spring 2021)
Page | Traffic-40
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-5
Photo taken Nov 6, 2021 (Not in DEIS)
Page | Traffic-41
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-6
Examples of the condition of the pavement along West Mill Road (photo taken January 2023)
Page | Traffic-42
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC-7
Sound Avenue in Riverhead https://patch.com/new-york/northfork/surge-fall-traffic-sparks-fury-toll-bridge-suggested
Page | Traffic-43
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC- 8
West Mill Road
Page | Traffic-44
COMMENT FIGURE TRAFFIC- 9
Route 25 was closed in both directions from the County Road 58 intersection to County Road 105 in
Riverhead most of the day while an accident involving a dump truck that spilled sand on the road was
cleaned up.
Page | Vibration - 1 Rev9
VIBRATION IMPACTS TO PROPERY AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE
Potential Project-related impacts from vibration related to excavation, construction and truck traffic cut
across a number of areas of concern. These include impacts to historic properties, and quality of life for
nearby residents. Information on vibration impacts is dispersed across numerous sections of the DEIS
and its appendices, and that information has not been well integrated or consistently interpreted.
Items 5 and 6 under Transportation Impacts in the DEIS scope calls for discussions of “the impacts of
vibration from loaded trucks on structures along the vehicle route(s)”, and the effects of excavation and
vibration from machinery, heavy equipment and trucks on structures surrounding the site." Under
Construction-Related Impacts the scope calls for discussions of the vibration impacts associated with
construction of the temporary haul road (item 11), and the effect of excavation and ground vibration
from the operation of machinery, heavy equipment and trucks on existing neighboring structures (items
12 and 13) (p.21).
The DEIS conclusion that there “are also no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or
construction activities” (DEIS p. iv) is not supported by data in the DEIS, and is likely incorrect 1.
Vibration impacts are briefly addressed in four sections of the DEIS: 1) a discussion of soils, based on
information from the geotechnical report (DEIS Section 2.1.2, pp.37-38; Appendix H)2, 2) a discussion of
potential transportation impacts (Heavy Vehicle Traffic Induced Vibrations)(DEIS Section 3.3.2, p.213), 3)
a discussion of potential construction-related impacts (DEIS Section 3.10.3, pp.273, 274, and 275); and 4)
a discussion of potential vibration impacts to cultural resources (DEIS Section3.11, pp. 281, 283,387, and
288.
The Planning Board’s review of the adequacy of the original DEIS states, in regard to the DEIS’ discussion
of traffic impacts, that “[T]his discussion on this section of potential large adverse impacts is
INADEQUATE. There is a direct connection to the magnitude and duration of potential large adverse
impacts on the quality of the life of residents and visitors, residences (vibration), community character,
and infrastructure (road damage) along an entire route due to the total number of vehicle trips
proposed” (caps in original; emphasis added). In addition, the Planning Board’s consultant notes, in their
May 6, 2022 memo, that the original “DEIS does not adequately address the quality-of-life impacts
associated with significant noise (as well as dust and potential vibration) associated with the necessary
heavy construction trucks on local roadways. The applicant has provided no meaningful and enforceable
mitigation to address these impacts” (emphasis added) (p.4).
1 The DEIS conclusion, stated in the Executive Summary is contradicted at several places in the DEIS text, where it is noted that
vibration impacts may be a concern (e.g., pp. xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, xxxvii, xxxviii). It also contradicts the conclusion that at least one
historic property (the Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road likely will be affected by vibration.
2 The DEIS text is identical to the text in Appendix H, and consists of the entire portion of the PWGC Geotechnical Engineering
Memo Report (GEMR) dealing with vibration.
Page | Vibration - 2 Rev9
The assessment of vibration impacts in the original December 2021 DEIS relied on information contained
in the PWGC Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (GEMR) prepared by PWGC (DEIS Appendix H).
However, the revised DEIS now contains an additional stand-alone vibration analysis prepared by
SoundSense (DEIS Appendix R) which is summarized in the main body of the DEIS. These two studies
contain contradictory information and conclusions relevant to assessing the noise impacts of the
Project. The GEMR has not been updated to reflect the information in the new Acoustic Report, and the
Acoustic Report never refers back to the GEMR.
The DEIS does not adequately or correctly address how vibration impacts will affect the quality of life
for residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck routes.
The Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (GEMR) (DEIS Appendix H)
The Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report (GEMR) prepared by PWGC dated August 3, 2021 (DEIS
Appendix H), devotes its final three text paragraphs to “Vibrations.” This discussion is deficient and
misleading, and contains inaccurate data. It does not constitute an adequate basis for evaluating
Project-specific impacts. It appears to be standard boilerplate language and implies that vibration
impacts associated with on-site construction activities (including use of the on-site haul road) will not
affect “nearby residential properties.” It does not address vibration impacts associated with off-site
traffic along the Project’s truck routes. This is one of the noted inadequacies in the original DEIS.
The GEMR states that the “US Bureau of Mines RI 8507 report is the common reference for establishing
safe construction vibration levels. Acceptable vibration levels for modern wood-framed residential
structures are established to be a maximum of 0.5 in/second.” The complete title of RI 8507 is
“Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting” (emphasis
added). The use of blasting standards to evaluate construction traffic impacts, or impacts from other
non-blasting construction activities, is inappropriate. As at least one vibration damage assessment
expert has noted that “While there is much to be learned about vibration effects from blasting studies,
blasting vibration standards are acknowledged in those blasting studies as inappropriate for
construction settings where, as with traffic, vibration can be effectively continuous for minutes, hours,
weeks, months or even years in some large projects (emphasis in original) . . . The all-too-common use
of blasting vibration standard limits in construction settings other than blasting is directly scientifically
contradicted and creates a high probability of damage to structures” (Ziegler nd)3.
Traffic on streets and highways can be a semi-continuous source of low-level vibration. Depending on
the distance of the structure from the road and the type, speed and amount of the traffic, vibrations
may be felt, particularly from large, heavy trucks passing at high speed. It has long been recognized that
the semi-continuous nature of traffic vibrations requires lower acceptable peak particle velocities (PPV)
3 https://vibrationdamage.com/cvdg_ex_sum.htm
Page | Vibration - 3 Rev9
than those acceptable in short duration blasting. The same document cited in the GEMR, USBM RI 8507,
clearly states that “The safe level criteria established for blasting are often applied to these situations
with little justification. Traffic is usually a steady-state source of low amplitude. Appropriate safe levels
would have to be lower than for blasting, which is relatively infrequent and of shorter duration" (USBM
1980:72).
The GEMR does not address the effects of vibration associated with construction traffic (primarily large
loaded and unloaded haul trucks) along the Project’s proposed off-site truck routes (West Mill Road and
Cox Neck Road, Sound Avenue, Northville Turnpike, and County Rt. 58). It cites the CALTrans
Transportation and Construction Guidance Manual, noting that it contains a table indicating that
“Loaded Trucks” will generate an expected PPV (Peak Particle Velocity) at 25 feet away of 0.076
in/second.4 The GEMR goes on to state that this PPV value is “lower than the 0.5 in/sec threshold and
will be separated from nearby residential properties at larger distances than 25 feet.” There are several
problems with this statement.
First, according to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018)5 PPV is often
used in monitoring of construction vibration (such as blasting) since it is related to the stresses that are
experienced by buildings and is not used to evaluate human response” (FTA 2018:110; emphasis added).
In other words, the standard cited in the GEMR is not appropriate for use in evaluating impacts to the
quality of life of “public and user groups” as required by the DEIS scope.
Second, the one-size-fits-all “loaded truck”6 CALTrans PPV standard of 0.076 in/sec should not be
indiscriminately applied. Factors such as truck size, weight, suspension type and characteristics, tire
type and configuration, specific to the types of vehicles actually proposed for use on the Project need to
be identified before actual PPV values can be established.
Another significant factor in deriving the PPV value associated with haul trucks is the condition of the
road surface. As the FTA notes: “Rough track or rough roads are often sources of excessive vibration.
Maintaining a smooth surface will reduce vibration levels” (FTA 2018:114).
“Vehicle contact with irregularities in the road surface (e.g., potholes, cracks and uneven
manhole covers) induces dynamic loads on the pavement . . . These loads generate
stress waves, which propagate in the soil, eventually reaching the foundations of
4 The CalTrans guidance is not cited in the Vibration Report included in the revised DEIS.
5 The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is cited as the basis for the Project noise evaluations in
Appendix R. It is also cited in the Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R prepared for the Project by SoundSense. However, it is
NOT cited in the Acoustic Report (also in DEIS Appendix R), also prepared by SoundSense. This is one of the many examples
discipline specialists involved in preparing the DEIS not communicating with one another.
6 The “heavy trucks” used by CALTrans to define the standard included “heavily-loaded water truck, or dump truck (preferably
25 tons or greater GVW)” (CALTrans 2013:22). The Project’s loaded haul trucks will weigh 107,000 pounds.
Page | Vibration - 4 Rev9
adjacent buildings and causing them to vibrate. Traffic vibrations are mainly caused by
heavy vehicles such as buses and trucks.
“When a bus or a truck strikes an irregularity in the road surface, it generates an impact
load and an oscillating load due to the subsequent “axle hop” of the vehicle. The impact
load generates ground vibrations that are predominant at the natural vibration
frequencies of the soil whereas the axle hop generates vibrations at the hop frequency
(a characteristic of the vehicle’s suspension system). If the natural frequencies of the soil
coincide with any of the natural frequencies of the building structure or its components,
resonance occurs and vibrations will be amplified” (Hunaidi 2001).
A study by the Road Research Laboratory notes that road surface irregularities on the order of 20 mm
[0.79 in] in amplitude can cause peak particle velocities in the ground of up to 5 mm/s [0.197 in/sec] at
which level “architectural damage'” may occur in buildings. However, before this level is reached,
vibrations become intrusive and even annoying to occupants of buildings (at about 2.5 mm/s) [0.098
in/s] and complaints may result. Vibrations increase in severity with dynamic axle load. As heavy axle
loads are increasing both in magnitude and number, vibrations are likely to become more widespread
(Whiffin and Leonard 1971).
The condition of the road surface along the Project truck route is of special importance for several
reasons, and has major implications for the Project. Most roads comprising the Project truck route
(West Mill and Cox Neck Roads and Sound Avenue) are non-engineered roads in far from perfect
condition. It is not unreasonable to assume that the thousands of heavy truck trips over these roads,
over an assumed period of seven months (the construction period identified by the Project Applicant),
will result in significant deterioration of these road surfaces.
The DEIS’ acknowledges that “heavy vehicles operating along the highway can induce vibrations, but the
extent that this occurs is dependent on the surface condition of the roadway itself. A heavy vehicle
riding on a smooth surface would generate little vibration, while the same vehicle riding over a rough
surface will generate vibrations, [and that] [T]hose vibrations can be transmitted in the existing ground
material to structures in proximity” (DEIS p.224). Vehicle weight, speed, and roadway conditions, are all
factors in determining the intensity of vehicle -generated vibration.7 However, the DEIS goes on to
dismiss concerns about truck traffic induced vibrations by claiming that a) the “sandy soil that Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road lies upon is not conducive to the transmission of vibrations created by trucks”
(p.228), and b) the “Applicant would commit to quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the
roadway during the construction activity to minimize the potential for vibrations that could affect
7 K.R. Czech (2016), The Impact of the Type and Technical Condition of Road Surface on the Level of Traffic-Generated
Vibrations Propagated to the Environment, Procedia Engineering 143:1358-67. Advances in Transportation Geotechnics 3. The
3rd International Conference on Transportation Geotechnics. This study found that “cases of deterioration of the technical
condition of bituminous pavement roads . . . are associated virtually in every case by a significant increase in the level of
vibrations propagated to the environment [for trucks over 18 tons]: up to [an]18-fold increase.
Page | Vibration - 5 Rev9
existing structures.” The first claim is problematic; the second is vague as no specific procedure is
identified.
The GEMR is cited as the basis for the conclusion in the DEIS that soils under the truck routes are “not
conducive to the transmission of vibrations created by trucks” (DEIS p. 224). In fact, the geotechnical
report says only that “the [onsite] soils of Stratum 2 8 are favorable for limiting vibration effects”
(emphasis added).9 However, other data in the GEMR suggest that that statement is not completely
accurate. Most of the near surface soils (Stratum 1), as recorded in the boring logs in the GEMR, do
indicate (because of associated blow-count values less than 10), that they are loose or very loose, and
therefore “favorable for limiting vibration.” The GEMR describes them as “loose in terms of relative
density.” However, the same boring logs indicate that Stratum 2 soils (those more than four feet below
surface) are associated with blow-counts between 10 and 30 indicating medium-dense soils, and blow-
counts between 30 and 50 (as high as 49 in boring B-12, located at the site of the proposed retaining
wall), indicating dense soils. THE GEMR concludes that “The medium dense to dense soils of Stratum 2
are favorable for limiting vibration effects.” In fact, these higher density sands are less likely to
attenuate vibration effects than the “loose” soil found in Stratum 1.
Traffic-generated vibration will travel through near-surface soils. However, near-surface Stratum 1 soils
will be removed from the Project site during the early part of the Project’s excavation phase. During
much of the excavation phase, and all of the construction phase, construction equipment, as well as
haul trucks maneuvering within the Project site, will be in direct contact with Stratum 2 soils which have
a higher density, and are therefore more conducive to transmitting vibration than near surface soils.
No information is presented in the DEIS concerning soil types underlying the Project truck routes 10. Even
if low-density sandy soils are present, no mention is made of the fact that the dampening effect of sandy
soils may be less during winter months (the Project excavation phase, when most haul truck activity will
take place) when frozen ground conditions may exist.
The DEIS, based on information in the Traffic Study (Appendix O), notes that in May 2021 the Southold
Highway Superintendent advised that Cox Neck Road/West Mill Road were in “fair condition. There are
some rough locations but for most part fine.” The DEIS goes on to note that a “resurfacing with 1-1/2
inches of Type 6 asphalt of Cox Neck Road from North Road (CR 48) to Bergen Avenue” is planned, but
has been “delayed until it is determined how the SYC Project will be conducted, with preference to
performing the resurfacing after the SYC work is complete” (DEIS p. 202). The DEIS also notes that the
Nassau – Suffolk Transportation Improvement Program has “no projects involving the reconstruction
and improvement of roadways serving SYC [Strongs Yacht Club] prior to its expected completion” (DEIS
8 Stratum 2 refers to soils found from 4 ft to 55 ft below surface (Geotechnical Engineering Memo Report, p.2).
9 A condition also assumed in the Vibration Report.
10 The soil survey map included as Figure 6 in Appendix A of the DEIS delineates soil types only for the Project site proper.
Page | Vibration - 6 Rev9
p.202). As noted above, the condition of a pavement surface is a key variable affecting the severity of
traffic-induce vibration.
“Specific pavement surface irregularities, such as potholes and stepped transverse
cracks, can significantly increase the force of the tire striking the pavement. Compared
to the static force, the dynamic force may be up to 50 to 80 percent higher. The higher
dynamic forces result in proportionately higher groundborne vibration. Consequently,
main generators of highway traffic induced vibration are specific surface irregularities . .
The condition of the pavement surface is the decisive contributor to ground-borne
vibration.” (Hajek et al. 2006:5-7)11.
The GEMR (DEIS Appendix H) recommended orienting the proposed haul road in a manner that could
reduce vibration impacts and this appears to have been done. However, the DEIS does not indicate that
other recommendations to minimize vibration impacts have been adequately considered. The GEMR
recommends “[Reducing} vibrations by locating the haul road at sufficient distances from nearby
residences”. However, the GEMR does not indicate what that distance should be. The GEMR also
recommends “Select[ing] a foundation system for the Boat Storage Buildings that will produce minimal
vibrations to construct. Other than describing the foundations as concrete slabs, the DEIS is silent on this
issue.
The DEIS states, in the context of discussing Phase 3 (Construction) activities, that “No fill material is
proposed” (p.34). It also states that “No fill is proposed as part of the proposed action” (p.80). However,
it is unclear from the context in which these statements are made, whether they apply to the entire
Project or, in the case of the latter phrase, just the relatively small areas where the two I/A OWTS 12
systems will be installed. The GEMR suggests that some filling will be required, and notes that some fill
may need to be “compacted with a smooth-drum vibratory compactor, vibratory plate or Rammax
trench compactor”. Attachment 4 (Minimum Everwall Requirements) to the Evergreen Wall Report
(Appendix H) states that “Backfill [behind the wall] must be compacted to min. 95% relative density . . .
at maximum lifts of 16” . . . Preferably use Rammax self propelled sheep foot vibratory roller, min.
weight 1000 lbs = 450 kg, minimum 6 passes.” The DEIS text does not mention vibration or noise impacts
associated this activity, and the DEIS never mentions the use of soil compacting equipment. Vibratory
rollers are not included on the list of equipment identified in the DEIS (pp. xxx, xxxi, p.18, 19 and
Appendix F) for use during construction of the retaining wall.13
11 Hajek, Jerry J., Chris T. Blaney, and David K. Hein. Mitigation of Highway Traffic-Induced Vibration, paper presented at the
Session on Quiet Pavements: Reducing Noise and Vibration, 2006 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of
Canada.
12 Innovative and Alternative On-Site Wastewater Treatment System.
13 The Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R) includes woodchippers and tub grinders pieces of equipment that will be used on the
Project site. The report equates the reference vibration values for these items as being equivalent values in the FTA
Guidelines for vibratory rollers.
Page | Vibration - 7 Rev9
The GEMR, however, recommends that “[C]ompaction activities should be conducted under full-time
inspection.” This recommendation is not addressed in the DEIS.14 As a result, the magnitude of vibration
impacts during the construction period may have been underestimated.
The Applicant has agreed to have haul trucks maintain a maximum speed of 30 mph along Cox Neck
Road/West Mill Road, as opposed to the posted 35 mph limit, as a means of reducing vibration impacts.
In fact, the posted speed limit along West Mill Road and most of Cox Neck Road is 30 mph—not 35 mph.
No mechanism is proposed to insure that posted speed limits will be adhered to. The Applicant has also
proposed quickly repairing any potholes that appear in the roadway during the construction activity to
minimize the potential for vibrations that could affect existing structures (DEIS pp. xxxvi, xxxix, 224-225,
228, 298). The problems, uncertainties, and impracticalities of this have been discussed in comments
concerning Project traffic impacts.
Finally, the DEIS notes that “vibrations of significant levels can be eliminated with avoiding disruptive
practices such as installation of driven piles or sheet pile installation”. However, since the DEIS
acknowledges that these types of processes are not proposed as part of the Project, it is unclear how
not doing something that is not proposed as part of the Project is relevant.
The DEIS’ concludes that “there are no vibration impacts expected from soil excavation or construction
activities” (pp. iv, 38). This is contradicted numerous times in the DEIS when it acknowledges 1) the
need to orient the proposed haul road to mitigate potential vibration impacts; 2) have construction
trucks maintain distance from the historic Old Water Tower on West Mill Road to minimize vibration
impacts; 3) quickly make road repairs to “minimize the potential for vibrations that could affect existing
structures”; and 4) the medium to dense soils on the Project site would limit vibration effects.
“Mitigate” does not mean eliminate or reduce to the point of no concern/no impact. Nor does
“minimize” or “limit.”
The GEMR relies on inappropriate standards, and equally inappropriate generic estimates of vibration
generating sources such as trucks and construction equipment, to reach its conclusions.
Vibration Report (DEIS Appendix R)
The GEMR is dated August 3, 2021. It was the principal source of data used in the evaluation of
potential vibration impacts in the original December 2021 DEIS. In response to concerns raised by the
Southold Planning Board (noted above) and OPRHP/SHPO 15 about potential vibration impacts, a
14 This recommendation is not mentioned in the Acoustic Report included in the revised DEIS (see below). This is another
example of a failure of the various discipline specialists who prepared the DEIS to coordinate with one another.
15 The New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation/State Historic Preservation Officer
Page | Vibration - 8 Rev9
separate Vibration Report has been incorporated into the revised DEIS as part of Appendix R.16 That
report goes into considerably more detail than the GEMR.17
“On August 2nd, 2022, SoundSense documented the existing vibration conditions at
various locations near the Project Site and vibration data from a representative truck
expected to be used during construction. The measurements collected provide a
baseline for existing conditions and have been used in the predictions completed for the
Project. Predicted vibration levels were used in conjunction with the methodology and
data from the Federal Transportation Authority’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Guidelines”) and the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation’s 2012 Ground Vibrations Emanating from Construction Equipment
(“New Hampshire Guidelines”) . . . The predicted vibration compiled by SoundSense can
be compared to the criteria provided in the FTA Guidelines” (DEIS Appendix R, p.3).
There are questionable aspects about the methodology used to collect and analyze the data included in
DEIS Appendix R (Vibration Report).
The Vibration Report states that it utilized methodology and data from FTA Guidelines and the NHDOT
Guidelines. According to Table 6 in the Vibration Report, using the equations that comprise the FTA and
NHDOT guidelines methodology, the “minimum distance to cause no damage to residential structures is
11 feet.” However, there are problems with how both sets of guidelines were used to assess vibration
impacts to structures that might be affected by the Project.
The vibration analysis uses two equations from the FTA Guidelines to determine the “safe distances at
which construction vibration would no longer be a concern for structural damage or disturbance to
occupants inside a structure both for truck traffic and operating construction equipment” (DEIS
Appendix R, p.11).
The first of these equations (Equation 3 in the Vibration Report) is given as
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒=𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟∗(25/𝐷𝐷)1.1
This equation has been modified from the one given in the FTA Guidelines methodology. The final
exponent has been reduced from the 1.5 in the FTA Guidelines to 1.1. The Vibration Report justifies this
with the statement that “Long Island’s unique soil structure typically attenuates vibration more
16 Vibration Existing Conditions and Expected Impacts: Strong’s Yacht Center – 5780 West Mill Road – Mattituck, NY. Prepared
by Sound Sense, November 3, 2022. The report inexplicably starts with a Section 3.6 that does not have any relationship to
sections in the DEIS
17 The revised DEIS states that “Although the geotechnical engineering analysis concluded no expected vibration impacts,
additional vibration analyses were undertaken by SoundSense . . .” (DEIS p. 38). As documented above, the GEMR was
completely inadequate in regard to assessing potential vibration impacts.
Page | Vibration - 9 Rev9
effectively than many other soils of geological areas” (DEIS Appendix R, p.10). This justification is not
supportable. As discussed above, in relation to the GEMR, while near-surface soils at the Project site do
have vibration attenuating characteristics, these soils will be removed during the early part of the
Project’s Excavation Phase. During much of the excavation phase, and all of the construction phase,
construction equipment, as well as haul trucks maneuvering within the Project site, will be in direct
contact with soils which have a higher density, and are therefore more conducive to transmitting
vibration. In addition, even if low-density sandy soils are present, no mention is made of the fact that
the dampening effect of sandy soils may be less during winter months (the Project excavation phase,
when most haul truck activity will take place) when frozen ground conditions may exist. The
modification of the equation has the effect of minimizing the projected severity of potential impacts to
nearby structures from truck-generated vibration.
The second equation (Equation 4 in the Vibration Report) is given as
𝐿𝐿𝑣𝑣.𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒=𝐿𝐿𝑣𝑣𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟−30 log(𝐷𝐷/25)+1
Both equations require the use of a “source reference vibration level at 25 feet” (PPVref and Lvref). A
source reference vibration level is the established vibration associated with the operation of a particular
piece of construction equipment. Table 5 in the Vibration Report, “Reference Data Utilized for Analysis,”
indicates that a reference PPV of 0.076 was taken from the FTA Guidelines. However, the Vibration
Report analysis indicates that the “loaded trucks” in the FTA Guidelines are equivalent to “water/fuel”
trucks. Those types of trucks generally weigh only a fraction of what the fully loaded Project haul trucks
will weigh. In addition, although the NHDOT Guidelines also note that the FTA Guidelines use a reference
value of 0.076, the NHDOT Guidelines cite other studies that make it clear that this value is not a
generally accepted constant.18,19,20
The FTA Guidelines state that “[S]electing sites for an ambient vibration survey requires good judgment.
Sites selected to characterize a transit corridor should be distributed along the entire project where
potential for impacts have been identified” (emphasis added) (p.151). The vibration analysis for the
Project relies on information collected from only one location (Location 4) along the entire Project truck
route.
18 Final Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, Permanent WTC Path Terminal in Borough of Manhattan, New York County, Chapter
10: Noise and Vibration, May 2005. This document reports loaded trucks have a PPV of 0.85 at 5 feet, 0.30 at 10 feet, 0.11 at
20 feet, and 0.06 at 30 feet.
19 Report on the Pre-Design Studies of Noise and Ground Vibration for N.W.L.R.S., City of Calgary (Oct. 1986), Appendix C,
Vibration Study, Antelope Valley Roadway Project, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. This document reports heavy
trucks have a PPV of 0.25 at 30 meters (99 feet).
20 Readings compiled from Study of Vibrations due to Construction Activities on Haleakala, LeEllen Phelps, Mechanical
Engineering Group, Document TN-0113, Revision A, ATST (Advanced Technology Solar Telescope), Appendix Q: Vibration
Study, July 8, 2009. This document reports large semi-trucks have a Max PPV of 0.010 at 50 feet, 0.0475 at 75 feet, and 0.010
at 150 feet.
Page | Vibration - 10 Rev9
The FTA Guidelines also call for 4 to 10 passbys for each test. The language in the Vibration Report
suggests that only a single pass was made for the test conducted as part of the test described in the
Vibration Report.
Because of the identified problems with the way that potential vibration damage to nearby residences
was assessed, the Planning Board should obtain the services of an outside consultant to re-evaluate
potential vibration impacts.
The preparers of the DEIS and the Vibration Report, although they cite the NHDOT Guidelines, and rely
on it for their assessment of potential vibration damage, failed to make use of the construction vibration
assessment procedure described in detail in those guidelines. “The “Construction Vibration Assessment
Table” (Appendix A, Table 1) in the NHDOT Guidelines (COMMENT FIGURE VIBRATION-1) “can be
routinely used by designers for determining if vibration concerns exist and for evaluating the potential
impact on a Project. The assessment matrix described in Appendix A assigns a point score to ten
different categories of data that could potentially influence the impact of construction vibrations on a
NHDOT project. The total point score from adding the ten categories is used to determine the level of
impact at a site from vibrations emanating from a specific type of construction activity” (p.17).
Applying the NHDOT assessment matrix to assess the severity of vibration impacts to structures along
the Project truck route results in a score of 215 to 313 based on the following assigned values for
structures located within 50 feet of the road.
Type of Construction Activity heavy wheeled construction vehicles 3 pts
Attenuation of PPV non-cohesive soil (loose)21 3 pts
Displacement; Densification loose soil 27 pts
Distance from Vibration Source 50 ft or less 81 pts
Type of vibration 22 single isolated event or continuous 1-81 pts
Duration of Construction Activity longer than 1 week 81 pts
Type of Structure private residence w/drywall or plaster walls 9-27 pts
Condition/Age of Structure structure constructed after or prior to 1950 9-27 pts
Sensitivity of Population single family residence 1 pt
For structures between 51 and 100 feet from the Project truck route, scores range from 161 to 259.
21 Sand is classified as a non-cohesive soil. Loose non-cohesive soils are associated with a value of 11-24 blows/ft. According to
the boring logs in the geotechnical report prepared for the Project (DEIS Appendix H), blow counts associated with the near
surface sands have blow count values less than 10 blows/ft.
22 According to the NHDOT Guidelines rolling energy transfer (heavy vehicles, railroads) are pseudo-steady vibrations, which
can generate a large range of vibration intensities and some subjective judgment is required when rating this category.
Page | Vibration - 11 Rev9
According to the NHDOT Guidelines, a point score of 300 to ˂400 is a “high impact.” A point score of 200
to ˂300 is a “moderate impact. Many of the residences along West Mill and Cox Neck Road are within 50
feet of the road edge, and many are within 100 feet. Of the 21 historic structures identified in the DEIS
Acoustic Report along the Sound Avenue portion of the Project truck route, 9 are within 50 ft of the
roadway surface, and 10 are between 51 and 100 ft away (DEIS Appendix R, Acoustic Report Table 7).
Vibration Impacts to Quality of Life
As noted, the DEIS never meaningfully addresses the effects of construction-generated vibration on the
quality of life of residents near the Project site or along the Project haul truck routes. The DEIS concerns
itself almost exclusively with vibration impacts associated with potential property damage. However,
people are more sensitive in perceiving vibration than houses are to damage from vibration. “The
tolerance and reactions of humans to vibrations are important when standards are based on annoyance,
interference, work proficiency, and health.”23,24 These levels are significantly lower than the building
damage threshold levels employed in the GEMR and the Vibration Report, and stated in the DEIS, to
assess vibration impacts. According to FTA Guidelines:
“[J]ust like for noise, people annoyed by vibration may experience a variety of negative
responses, such as anger, disappointment, withdrawal, helplessness, depression,
anxiety, distraction, agitation, etc. Some public health experts feel that severe forms of
annoyance should be considered as a legitimate environmental issue affecting the well-
being and quality of life of the population exposed to environmental agents. Annoyance
turns out to be an issue that must be addressed.”25,26
“One of the challenges in developing suitable criteria for ground-borne vibration is that
there has been relatively little research into human response to vibration and,
specifically, human annoyance with building vibration. The American National Standards
23 US Bureau of Mine RI 8507, p.62. This is the same reference cited in the GEMR. Although it contains an extensive discussion
(pp. 62-68), with quantified data, on human response to vibration, this data was apparently not considered by preparers of
the GEMR and the DEIS.
24 One study found that “responses of ‘slightly perceptible’ occurred at 0.010 to 0.033 in/sec, and the threshold of ‘strongly
perceptible’ was 0.10 in/sec, all essentially independent of frequency over the range 4 to 25Hz.”24 Other studies (e.g.,
Goldman, cited in USBM 8507) (1948) support this. Goldman found "slightly perceptible" and "strongly perceptible"
(unpleasant) vibration PPV levels to be approximately 0.0086 and 0.074 in/sec, respectively.
25 Miedema HME, Janssen S and Kim R, Environmental noise and annoyance, in: Theakston, F., ed., Burden of disease from
environmental noise – Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe (2011), World Health Organization Regional Office
for Europe, Copenhagen, 91-98.
26 Trollé, Arnaud, Catherine Marquis-Favre, and Étienne Parizet (2015), Perception and Annoyance Due to Vibrations in
Dwellings Generated from Ground Transportation: A Review, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control
34(4):413-458.
Page | Vibration - 12 Rev9
Institute (ANSI) developed criteria for evaluation of human exposure to vibration in
buildings in 1983, and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) adopted
similar criteria. . . ISO 2631-2 acknowledges that ‘human response to vibration in
buildings is very complex.’ It further indicates that the degree of annoyance cannot
always be explained by the magnitude of the vibration alone. In some cases, complaints
are associated with measured vibration that is lower than the perception threshold.
Other phenomena such as ground-borne noise, rattling, visual effects such as movement
of hanging objects, and time of day (e.g., late at night) all play some role in the response
of individuals. To understand and evaluate human response, which is often measured by
complaints, all of these related effects need to be considered (emphasis added)” (FTA
Guidelines p. 118)
Although the DEIS and the Vibration Report indicate numerous times that they relied on the FTA
Guidelines to prepare analyses of vibration impacts, they do not indicate that either the ISO or ANSI
standards referenced by the FTA were reviewed. Both documents have ignored the FTA’s concerns
regarding how vibration can impact quality of life because “annoyance cannot always be explained by
the magnitude of the vibration alone”.
Table 2 in the Vibration Report is entitled “Indoor Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria for
General Vibration Assessment from the FTA Guidelines.”27 Land Use Category 2 in that Table refers to
“Residences and buildings where people normally sleep.” GBV impact levels (VdB)28 in Category 2 are 72
for frequent events, 75 for occasional events, and 80 for infrequent events. According to the FTA
Guidelines “[I]mpact will occur if these levels are exceeded.” The Vibration Report states that “[F]or
evaluation of the criteria presented in Table 2 for impact to occupants, category 2 for residences with
frequent events will be used” (Vibration Report p.5). The report, following FTA Guidelines “define[s]
“frequent events as more than 70 events per day and occasional events as between 30-70 events per
day” It goes on to state that “[T]here will be up to, but no more than, 40 truck trips per day during
excavation, with a trip to and from the site. Consequently, the frequent events category is appropriate
and chosen since it would be worse case scenario.” This is incorrect and misleading.
The Vibration Report has followed the inappropriate practice in the DEIS of considering each round trip
by a Project haul truck as a single “event.” As the Planning Board has noted, each round trip is actually
two trips—one inbound and one outbound from the Project site.29 The true number of “events” per day
27 Table 2 is based on Table 6-3 in the FTA Guidelines.
28 vibration decibels (VdB)
29 As noted in comments on the Project’s traffic impacts, the Institute of Transportation Engineers defines a “trip” as a one-way
movement.
Page | Vibration - 13 Rev9
is, therefore, actually 80 30, qualifying the events as “frequent.” The appropriate GBV impact level
according to FTA Guidelines is, therefore, 72 VdB—not 75 VdB. This difference is significant.
Included in the Vibration Report is the discussion of a test that was made to collect vibration readings at
four locations from the passby of a truck equivalent to a loaded Project haul truck. Table 4 in the
Vibration Report indicates that at Location 4 (located on West Mill Road at the entrance to the Mill
Creek Preserve), trucks traveling south on West Mill Road generated a VdB of 74; truck traveling north
on West Mill Road generated a VdB of 73. Because the Vibration Report incorrectly classified the
frequency of trucks passing residences on West Mill Road as “occasional” it concluded that there would
be no impact (the VdB values of 74 and 73 are below the FTA Guidelines impact threshold of 75 for
occasional events). However, correctly classifying frequency of Project haul trucks passing residences as
“frequent” means that the impact threshold according to the FTA Guidelines is lowered to 72VdB, and
that vibration generated by Project haul trucks will exceed the impact threshold.31
The Vibration Report also discusses the potential for vibration from on-site construction equipment to
impact nearby residences. Table 8 in the Vibration Report lists the minimum distance (as calculated by
SoundSense)32 “recommended to meet indoor vibration levels”. Equipment generating the most
vibration include tub grinders, wood chippers and vibratory rollers33. The minimum distance to meet
recommended indoor vibration levels for these equipment types is 146 feet. The minimum distance for
bulldozers, excavators, and feller bunchers is 85 feet.
Table 9 in the Vibration Report includes the nearest distances to the construction site, and the distances
to the center of the construction site, for the three residences closest to the Project site. These
residences are 800 and 805 North Drive, and 5106 West Mill Road. According to the Vibration Report
the “nearest distances to the construction site” for these three residences are 175, 351 and 171 feet,
respectively. Based on these distances, the Vibration Report concludes that “[T]his indicates that there
will be no impact to nearby structures due to construction” (Vibration Report p.27). However, the very
next sentence qualifies this conclusion noting that “[T]here can be an increase in vibration levels due to
multiple pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously” (emphasis added) (Vibration
Report p. 27). Given that it is highly unlikely that only a single piece of equipment will be operating at
30 Although it is likely that that the true number will be considerably higher (see comments on the Project’s traffic impacts).
31 There seems to be a disconnect between the ambient VdB values in Tables of the Vibration Report and the VdB values
recorded during the truck passby test. The former indicates the ambient VdB at Location 4 to be 74, yet the later indicates
that the VdB generated by a loaded Project haul truck would be lower at 73 VdB. This implies that the vibration generated by
the passing haul truck is actually lower than the ambient vibration.
32 SoundSense used the same equations (Equations 3 and 4) discussed above to calculate these distances. As also noted above,
one of these equations has been modified by SoundSense from the version in FTA Guidelines. This modification is based on
an questionable assumption about the nature of soils on the Project site.
33 Although vibratory rollers are not included in the equipment list in DEIS Appendix F, according to Appendix F they will be
employed during construction of the Project’s retaining wall.
Page | Vibration - 14 Rev9
any one time, the distances calculated by SoundSense do not reflect what real conditions will be during
construction.
Note that the language in the Vibration Report has been carefully worded to refer to “nearby
structures.” Both the DEIS and the Vibration Report are silent in regard to vibration impacts to
individuals outside, rather than inside, residences. The Vibration Report does not explain what it means
by “the construction site.” As measured from the Site Development Plans in DEIS Appendix C, 800 and
805 North Drive, and 5106 West Mill Road, actually abut the Project site. As measured from the Site
Development Plans the proposed retaining wall will be less than 100 feet from the 5106 West Mill Road
property line, and approximately 150 feet from the residential structure on that lot, and even closer to
the outside patio/pool area. These are all less than the 171 feet stated in the Vibration Report.
Both the DEIS and the Vibration Report fail to discuss potential vibration impacts to visitors to the West
Mill Preserve. The preserve abuts the Project site, and is approximately 100 feet from the location of
the Project’s proposed retaining wall. That construction which will require the use of vibratory rollers—
the equipment which generates the highest vibration levels.
FTA Guidelines34 state that 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible vibration, and at 85 VdB vibrations are tolerable only at infrequent number of
events per day. Neither the Vibration Report nor the DEIS has indicated whether or not the 75 VdB level
will be exceeded at residences close to the Project site, at residence property lines, or at the West Mill
Preserve, when multiple pieces of construction equipment are operating simultaneously.
The conclusions in the DEIS and the Vibration Report (p.38) that “there are no vibration impacts
expected from soil excavation or construction activities” (DEIS p. 38), and that “[A]nalysis of the
construction equipment has shown that there is no predicted impact to any nearby neighbors’. . .”
(Vibration Report p.3) are not supported by the data provided.
Proposed Vibration Monitoring
Vibration monitoring proposed by the Applicant is not sufficient to protect property and residents
from construction-generated vibration impacts.
“To ensure that vibration is responsibly managed, the Applicant has committed to implementing a
vibration monitoring plan during construction at the Project Site to . . . ensure that ground-borne
vibrations are not a disturbance to nearby neighbors (DEIS pp. xxxi, xxxii, 296, 306; Vibration Report
p.3).”
34 FTA Guidelines, Table 5-5 “Human Response to Different Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise.”
Page | Vibration - 15 Rev9
The proposed monitoring plan includes the installation of monitoring terminals at three as yet
undetermined locations.35 “Exact vibration monitoring sites will not be determined until the vibration
monitors are installed based on accessibility to the exact monitoring sites” (p.27). According to the plan
“If vibration levels exceed permissible levels (based on the RMS Velocity [VdB]36 and Peak Particle
Velocity [PPV] the following steps will be taken for Vibration Monitoring at the three locations:
“• The acoustic consultant and construction management team should 37 be notified if an
exceedance is measured.
• The time and location of construction activities when the exceedance is measured are to be
provided to the acoustic consultant.
• If the exceedance is an RMS exceedance, the RMS velocity should be verified in the Syscom
ROCK’s cloud portal.
• Should the cause of the exceedance be linked to the construction activities, construction
should be halted immediately until appropriate measures, such as operating fewer pieces of
equipment or moving construction activities away from the construction area boundary, can
be completed.”
There are problems with this plan. First, the monitoring locations are not identified. However, Figure 13
in the Vibration Report does show possible locations. These possible locations all appear to be at the
Project site boundary, rather than at the closest sensitive receptors (residences and the Mill Road
Preserve). The number of monitoring locations, and their locations, should be determined by the
Planning Board, not left to the discretion of the Applicant.
Second, the threshold PPV for property damage, and threshold VdB for indoor impacts not have been
calculated. In addition, the VdB threshold is not a single value. Threshold values given in Table 2 of the
Vibration Report for indoor ground-borne vibration vary for residences from 72 VdB for frequent events,
to 75 for occasional events, and 80 for infrequent events. The monitoring plan requires that reference
maximum PPV and RMS (VdB) for individual pieces of equipment at the edge of the construction area be
calculated so that threshold vibration criteria can be calculated.
Third, given that much of the proposed construction activity (including the clearing and grubbing, and
excavation phases, as well as the construction phase) will involve mobile equipment, it will be very
35 A fourth terminal would be located the location of the Water Tower and Accessory Building at 3380 West Mill Road. The
water tower is a historic structure about which concern has been expressed by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation (OPRHP).
36 The RMS velocity is calculated in decibels relative to 1 micro-inch per second and is typically noted in VdB. In the Vibration
Report all VdB values are vibration levels in decibels with a reference quantity of 1 micro-in/sec.
37 Note the use of the word “should” rather than “shall.” This implies that the vibration monitoring plan that the Applicant has
committed to, may not be the plan recommended by SoundSense.
Page | Vibration - 16 Rev9
difficult to correlate a measured vibration exceedance with a particular piece of equipment operating at
a particular location at a particular time. The fact that multiple pieces of equipment are likely to be
operating simultaneously is an additional complication.
Fourth, the monitoring plan requires that a measured vibration exceedance be linked to construction
activities before any measures are taken to reduce vibration. No indication as to how long this might
take is provided. In the meantime, the activities generating the vibration will continue.
Finally, there is no way to know in advance that the “appropriate measures, such as operating fewer
pieces of equipment or moving construction activities away from the construction area boundary”
(Vibration Report p.30) would result in reducing vibration levels below the threshold criteria. The
monitoring plan is silent as to what additional measures might be available.
Page | Vibration - 17 Rev9
COMMENT FIGURE VIBRATION-1
Page | Visual-1 Rev.10
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS
The visual impact assessment included as part of the DEIS was not properly prepared, is rife with errors,
and fails to properly depict both existing and proposed views. It cannot be used as a basis for evaluating
the visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project.
No attempt appears to have been made to properly define the zone of visual influence (ZVI), or the
viewshed, associated with the proposed Project.
The DEIS scope (p.15) requires the Applicant to identify the Project's zone of visual influence (ZVI), and
perform viewshed analyses. As generally defined, a zone of visual influence is the area from which a
development or other structure is theoretically visible (e.g. up to a certain distance from the development
or other structure). A viewshed includes all surrounding points that are in line-of-sight with a location and
excludes points that are beyond the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., buildings,
trees). Conversely, it can also refer to the area from which an object can be seen. No ZVI is defined in the
DEIS and no properly prepared viewshed map is included in the DEIS or supporting appendices.
According to the DEIS: “To evaluate the existing viewshed of the subject property and the surrounding area,
site and area visits were conducted by PWGC . . . [and] photographs from various vantage points were taken
to illustrate the existing viewshed from select properties adjacent to and within the subject property’s zone
of visual influence (ZVI), as required by the Amended Final Scope” (DEIS pp. 229-231). Rather than
establishing the limits of the Project’s viewshed, the DEIS preparers made unsupportable assumptions about
what locations might be impacted, and limited their analyses to views from those locations. It is clear from
this that the Project’s viewshed was never defined 1.
Establishing a ZVI, and preparing a map of a Project’s viewshed is routinely done for environmental
assessments and generally involves using readily available computer software2. Alternatively, line-of-sight
mapping as described in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Program
Policy Assessing and Mitigating Visual and Aesthetic Impacts could have been employed. The NYSDEC’s
Program Policy includes “a standardized method for evaluating the significance of visual impact within the
context of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).” In addition to the NYSDEC procedure, there
1 The failure to properly identify a ZVI or viewshed for the Project has also created significant problems in regard to evaluating the
Project’s visual impacts on historic properties. The definition of the Project’s ZVI and viewshed should have been a pre-requisite to
assessing Project impacts to historic structures.
2 A viewshed analysis could have been performed using one of many GIS programs, such as ArcGIS Pro, GRASS GIS, QGIS (viewshed
plugin), SAGA GIS (Visibility), ArcMap or ERDAS IMAGINE. A viewshed is created from a digital elevation model (DEM) by using an
algorithm that estimates the difference in elevation from one cell (the viewpoint cell) to the next (the target cell). To determine the
visibility of a target cell, each cell between the viewpoint cell and target cell is examined for line of sight. Where cells of higher
value are between the viewpoint and target cells the line of sight is blocked. If the line of sight is blocked then the target cell is
determined to not be part of the viewshed. If it is not blocked then it is included in the viewshed.
Page | Visual-2 Rev.10
are numerous long-established visual impact assessment procedures3 that could have been employed by the
Applicant and his consultants, but were not, in spite of the fact that the DEIS scope requires the Applicant to
provide “a detailed visual impact analysis for the action.”
In addition to not properly defining the limits of the ZVI or a project viewshed, the DEIS preparers limited
their analysis of what they call the ZVI to a radius of 1,000 feet from the subject property (p.231)4. They
provide no basis for this limitation. The NYDEC’s Program Policy notes that “for larger scale actions it is
usually protective to use a five-mile radius to determine the area required to be considered for potential
visual impacts” (NYSDEC 2019:8). The NYSDEC does note that a smaller radius may be appropriate for some
projects and that the recommended five-mile radius is derived from a US Forest Service study. The study
classifies five miles as a “background distance.” Alternatively, it classifies anything from 0 – 0.5 miles as
“foreground” within which a viewer is able to perceive details of an object with clarity [and from within
which] surface textures, small features, and the full intensity and value of color can be seen on foreground
objects. The limited analysis presented in the DEIS fails to meet even this minimum distance threshold.
An example of how the failure to properly delineate the Project’s viewshed and the failure to define an
adequate ZVI is apparent in COMMENT FIGURE V-1 which shows the view from 465 Harbor View Avenue on
the east side of Mattituck Creek. The existing marina and the location of the proposed storage buildings are
clearly visible. This property has a direct line of sight to the Project area and is clearly within the Project
viewshed. The property is approximately 3,000 feet from the Project area—more than 2,000 feet beyond
the limit of the ZVI used in the visual impact analysis, and well beyond the arbitrary ZVI limit used to prepare
the DEIS. The residence at 465 Harbor View Avenue is one of several within the Project viewshed that is not
considered in the DEIS.
At least one other structure, the historic Jackson Water Tower, located approximately 0.5 miles from the
Project site is likely within the Project viewshed (the Project site is likely visible from the upper levels of the
tower). It is highly likely that other properties have also been improperly excluded from analyses. Because
the Project’s ZVI and viewshed have not properly or adequately identified the DEIS fails to adequately
identify all potentially impacted visually sensitive receptors as called for in the DEIS scope.
The DEIS fails to properly assess how post-construction views of the Project will be different from existing
views.
3 See for example, Bureau of Land Management (1980), Visual Resource Management Program, U.S. Government Printing Office;
U.S. Forest Service (1974), National Forest Landscape Management, USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 462; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981); U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Instruction Report EL-88-1, Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers (Smardon 1988); and
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002).
4 The DEIS scope notes that several historic properties are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site, but clearly that was never
intended to imply that visual analyses should be limited to that distance since visual impacts can also affect non-historic
properties.
Page | Visual-3 Rev.10
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include a “Visual Impact Study that includes computer-generated
imagery for viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and adjacent roadways (Applicant generated).” Rather
than prepare true photo-simulations 5 for use in assessing visual and aesthetic impacts, DEIS Appendix Q
contains what are identified as “Proposed Action Renderings”6 (DEIS Appendix Q3 Figures A-1 – A-7, A-9 and
A-13). They purport to show existing and proposed views. They do not. The “existing” views are, in fact,
computer rendered images of the existing marine storage buildings and/or natural features superimposed
onto altered versions of original photographs. They are not, as described in the DEIS (pp.231-233),
“Photograph[s]”. The superimposed images show the existing buildings as stark white, which they are not.
They are blue. The proposed views use these same altered images and add computer generated images of
the proposed new storage facilities. However, the proposed structures are shown in blue, to match the true
color of the existing facilities. The resulting unrealistic artificial contrast results in the existing structures
appearing more prominent than they really are and diminishes the prominence of the proposed structures.
Pages 235-239 of the DEIS include descriptions of each “Photograph” and accompanying rendering in
Appendix Q. Each rendering is described as being from a numbered “Post Development Viewpoint.”
However, the viewpoint photos in Appendix Q deviate significantly from same images labeled “Existing
View[s]” shown on the corresponding Appendix Q renderings [COMMENT FIGURES V-2 – V-10].7 The
5 Examples of properly prepared photosimulations prepared for other projects submitted to the Southold Planning Board are shown
on COMMENT FIGURE V-11.
6 The renderings in Appendix Q are all labeled as having been created by “Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C.” The firm is identified in the
DEIS as the “project architect” (pp. xix, 6, 11, 162, 173, 235, 290, 309). The firm principal, Jeffrey Butler, is not a Registered
Architect (RA) or Registered Landscape Architect (RLA). Another employee of the firm, Daniel Butler, is an RA. The Proposed
Landscape Architecture Plan was also prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C, and bears Jeffrey Butler’s PE seal. Under Section 7322
of Article 148 (Landscape Architecture) of the New York State Education Law “Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized to
practice under this article shall practice landscape architecture or use the title ‘landscape architect’".
Architectural elevation drawings (Appendix D) were prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C., but are unsealed. According to the
Guidelines for Professional Engineering Practice in New York State “The seal and signature of a licensee on a document indicates
that the licensee takes professional responsibility for the work and to the best of the licensee’s knowledge and ability, the work
represented in the document is accurate, in conformance with applicable codes at the time of submission and has been prepared in
conformance with normal and customary standards of practice and with a view to the safeguarding of life, health, property and
public welfare”.
7 Viewpoint photograph 1 (Comment FIGURE V-2) prominently features a large outbuilding in foreground along with a large pile of
wooden pallets. A small portion of Mattituck Creek is visible in the middle ground, and some existing marina structures are visible
in the distance on the west side of the creek. In contrast, the Figure A-1 viewpoint showing “existing” conditions appears to be
situated in Mattituck Creek. The view is dominated by existing marina structures. The two views, supposedly from the same
viewpoint bear no resemblance to one another.
Viewpoint photograph 2 (COMMENT FIGURE V-3) bears no resemblance to DEIS Figure A-2. The former shows a dense forest
during the defoliate season. The latter shows five large foreground trees in full leaf. It is also unusually dark compared to the actual
photograph of the same location.
Viewpoint photograph 3 (COMMENT FIGURE V-4) is titled “View from south of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards SYC.”
The accompanying description reads “This viewpoint depicts the views of SYC from the south. From this viewpoint, Mattituck
Creek, select dock slips and the bulkhead are visible. To the west of the bulkhead, the eastern façade of Building 8 is visible along
with the southern portion of Building 7. Upland of Buildings 7 and 8, the woodland portion of the subject property is visible”
(p.232). This description does not match the Viewpoint 3 photograph in Appendix Q which was clearly not taken from Mattituck
Creek. Dock slips and the bulkhead are not visible. In contrast, the Figure A-3 “photograph” does appear to approximate the
Page | Visual-4 Rev.10
location key maps on Figures A-1 – A-7, A-9, and A-13 [COMMENT FIGURE V-12A – V-12B], when compared
with the Viewpoint Key Map [COMMENT FIGURE V-13], confirms that each pair of images were supposedly
taken from the same vantage points with the viewer looking in the same direction. The images should
match. They clearly do not.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to include “detailed visual renderings of the proposed action, and
alternative actions, to reflect how the development would be viewed from . . . any surrounding residential
development” (p.15). The DEIS preparers have chosen to interpret “surrounding” in as limiting a way as
possible. Only a single rendering (A-5), identified as being from the vantage point of a residence (5106 West
Mill Road) is included in the DEIS. It is unclear from exactly where on that property the photo used to
generate the rendering was taken. The existing and proposed views shown in rendering/simulation A-5
suffer all of the problems identified with the other simulations described above. The simulation is so poor
that it is impossible to determine even if the photograph on which it is based was taken during the foliate or
defoliate season—a critical factor in evaluating visibility. No unaltered photo from that location is included
existing view from Viewpoint 3. In another glaring inconsistency, the existing conditions “photograph” from the same viewpoint
included as “Figure A-10 Alternate” in Appendix V (Alternate Site Plans and Renderings) includes non-existent vegetation behind
the existing marina structures that is not shown on Figure A-3 in Appendix Q.
Viewpoint photograph 4 (COMMENT FIGURE V-5) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the Figure A-4
viewpoint “photograph” (existing view from southern trail on Mill Road Preserve) showing “existing conditions” shows a view
dominated by existing marina structures. The supposed existing view shown Figure A-4 bears no resemblance to any view from the
Mill Road Preserve.
Viewpoint photograph 5 (COMMENT FIGURE V-6) bears no resemblance to DEIS Figure A-5. The former shows a forest during the
defoliate season overlooking barely visible existing marina structures at a much lower elevation. The latter shows large foreground
trees overlooking the tops of stark white marina structures. It is also unusually dark compared to the actual photograph of the
same location. The result is an enhancement of the contrast between the forest and the structures making the latter seem much
more prominent. In fact, the structures are blue—not white.
Viewpoint photograph 6 (COMMENT FIGURE V-7) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the DEIS Figure A-
6 viewpoint “photograph” showing “existing conditions” shows a large open area in the foreground, and a distant tree line. What
appears to be a post-construction simulation of the proposed Evergreen retaining wall is shown on the right side of the
“photograph,” indicating that this is not an “existing” “view”. Figure A-6 also shows a lattice frame electric transmission line tower
extending above the distant tree line. No tower is visible in Viewpoint photograph 6, supposedly taken from the same location.
Viewpoint photograph 7 (COMMENT FIGURE V-8) shows a wooded area during the defoliate season. In contrast, the DEIS Figure A-
7 viewpoint “photograph” showing “existing conditions” shows a foreground with a few trees, including evergreens; a middle
ground dominated by an existing marina structure, and Mattituck Creek and the east shore of the creek in the distance. The two
images, although supposedly the view from the same viewpoint, bear no resemblance to one another.
Viewpoint photograph 9 (COMMENT FIGURE V-9) shows the open area at the end of West Mill Road in front of the Old Mill Inn (to
left, not visible). The marina office is in the center middle ground, and the Frame Water Tower dominates the right side of the
photo. None of these features is visible in Figure A-6 which is dominated by existing marina structures, incorrectly shown in white.
The existing and proposed views shown on DEIS Figure A-9 appear to be identical.
Viewpoint photograph 13 (COMMENT FIGURE V-10) is dominated by a large yacht and several smaller vessels with partial views of
existing marina structures behind them. Figure A-13, the “existing view” “photograph” is an obviously different photo. No vessels
are visible and the background tree line is markedly different. A third version of the existing view from the same viewpoint is
presented as the existing view “photograph” (Figure A-9 Alternate) in Appendix V. In that image the relative difference in height
between the existing buildings, and the background landform and vegetation, is clearly not the same as in Figure A-13 in Appendix
Q although both should be the same
Page | Visual-5 Rev.10
anywhere in the DEIS 8. The conclusions in the DEIS that “[O]verall, the viewshed change is not significant”
(DEIS pp. xx, 237) and that “[U]nder postdevelopment conditions, the views would be similar” (pp. xx, 237),
cannot be substantiated. Nor can the Applicant’s assumption that “the top of the vegetation on the
northern portion of the Evergreen concrete retaining wall would aid in obscuring views onto the proposed
buildings” (p.237) (see also, below). No consideration seems to have been given to how the presence of a
proposed six-foot high black vinyl clad fence at the top of the Evergreen retaining wall would affect views
towards the Project, and the fence is not included in the rendering of the proposed view.
In fact, according to the Viewpoint Key Map, Viewpoint 5 was located several hundred feet south of the
5106 West Mill Road property line. An examination of photos taken from 5106 West Mill Road by the
property owner [COMMENT FIGURES V-14 – V-26] and looking towards the south, southeast, and
southwest, towards the proposed Project Construction Excavation Area and the existing marina facilities,
show views that are quite different.
The DEIS scope (p.16) calls for the DEIS to Include “a visual rendering of a typical yacht to be stored in the
building as it would appear traveling south down the creek towards the marina from the perspective of a
person in a kayak on the creek headed north.” Appendix Q viewpoint photos 11A-11C, 12 and 13 do show
photos of yachts of various sizes as seen from a kayak on Mattituck Inlet. The largest of the vessels shown is
incorrectly described as a 95-footer.9 Three of the photos (11A-11C) show vessels at the entrance to
Mattituck Inlet with the breakwater in the background. The two remaining photos show what is identified as
the 95-foot (in reality 80-foot) yacht in front of the existing Strong’s marina facilities. Neither of those
photos has been modified to include a simulated representation of proposed Project facilities. None of the
photos satisfy the requirement specified in the DEIS scope.
According to the key map, DEIS Figure A-13 (dated 11-01-21) shows views from the east, looking west from
Mattituck Creek. However, a rendering/simulation presented by the Applicant (and prepared by the same
individual who prepared the renderings/simulations in the DEIS) to the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association
and the Planning Board in 2020 (labeled A-9 and dated 1-28-2020), shows existing and proposed structures
in a totally different manner. In the earlier simulation, existing storage buildings are shown in light
silhouette, with the proposed buildings clearly visible through and behind them. The same situation applies
to six other renderings/simulations shown at the Applicant’s presentations to the Planning Board and the
Mattituck-Laurel Civic Association. In addition, all of the renderings/simulations in both sets show
8 The DEIS states that “Immediately adjacent to the south of Building 1 on the subject property is a private two-story residence
(5106 West Mill Road) (see Photograph No. 15)” (p.230). In fact, photograph 15 [COMMENT FIGURE V-27] is a view from the end of
the residence’s long driveway, and the home itself is only visible in the distance. No separate view from the residence looking
towards the Project site is provided.
9 The yacht identified as a 95-footer in the Viewpoint 11C photo is actually an 80-footer. Although the Project description states that
vessels serviced by the proposed Project will “average” 60-feet, according to the DEIS “Upon implementation of the proposed
action, the boat storage buildings would be used to store larger boats/yachts, up to 86 feet in length” (p.19), and that “the marina
accommodates boats and yachts 18-to-133± feet in length” (p.20). The revised version of DEIS Appendix M has added photos
(Figures 4a-d) of “Typical Boats and Yachts at SYC.” The vessels shown in these photos have lengths of 65, 76, 105, 110, and 116
feet.
Page | Visual-6 Rev.10
backgrounds that have been altered. The differences between the two sets of renderings/simulations are
not a simple matter of updating to reflect Project changes. The differences in the manner in which the two
sets of renderings were prepared results in significantly different depictions of the Project’s potential visual
impact which, in turn, affects how those impacts are perceived by viewers.
All of the renderings included in Appendix Q include a note that reads “All renderings, color schemes, floor
plans, maps and displays are artists’ conceptions and are not intended to be an actual depiction of the
Project or its surroundings. Actual position of the Project on the property will be determined by the
approved site plan.” The creator of the images shown in these figures is, in effect, acknowledging their
inaccuracy, confirming that they cannot be used to properly assess the visual/aesthetic impacts of the
Project. They do not satisfy the DEIS scope requirements for “3D computer-generated imagery . . . to depict
post-development viewshed changes from Mattituck Creek and the adjacent roadway” (p.16). Given the
problems identified above, none of the renderings/simulations, intended to show existing and proposed
views from Mattituck Creek, can be considered as having satisfied the DEIS scope requirement to provide
“detailed visual renderings of the proposed action [that] reflect how the development would be viewed
from the waters of Mattituck Inlet” (p.16).
DEIS Appendix Q includes ten photographs from land-based viewpoints (Viewpoints 1-10) oriented towards
the existing Strong’s Yacht Club (SYC) facility. Four are from the east side of Mattituck Inlet and the
remaining six are from points on the west side, including three from historic properties10. None of these
photos was used as the basis for a rendering depicting post-Project construction views. The DEIS says that
“All viewpoints under existing conditions and post-development, are included in Appendix Q of this DEIS”
(emphasis added) (p.231). This is incorrect. Twelve viewpoints (excluding viewpoints not oriented toward
the Project site) are discussed in the DEIS. Only nine renderings showing what are purported to be post-
development conditions are included in Appendix Q,
Viewpoint photos are accompanied by a location key map 11. Only one of the viewpoint photos (Viewpoint 1)
is described as being from a “private residence” (p.231)12. The location is not otherwise identified in the
10 The Old Mill Inn (Viewpoint 9), the Robinson-D’Aires House at 4255 West Mill Road (Viewpoint 8), and the Old Water Tower at
3380 West Mill Road (viewpoint 10).
11 The location key map is difficult to use because of the convention it uses to show the point from which each photo was taken and
the direction of the view. Rather than representing each location with a dot, a large rectangle (scaling out to more than 100 feet
on a side, in some cases) containing the viewpoint number is used. In addition, the Viewpoint Key Map in Appendix Q is
inexplicably marked “Map not to scale”, making it difficult to determine the precise location of the viewpoints. This could have
been avoided by recording the GPS coordinates of viewpoints, as is standard practice for visual assessments.
12 The Viewpoint 1 photo in Appendix Q appears to be the same as Photograph 25 in Appendix G. Photograph 24 in Appendix G is
approximately the same view from a slightly greater distance. The captions of both photos identify the views shown as being
from a “single family residence” and include arrows indicating the location of “the proposed action” on the opposite side of
Mattituck Creek. The parcel is identified as a single-family residence on Southold assessment rolls.
Page | Visual-7 Rev.10
DEIS text13. However, the dominant foreground structure in the photograph is clearly not a residence. It
appears to be a garage. The view is toward the existing marina facilities on the opposite side of Mattituck
Inlet and cannot by any means be considered a “representative” view from a residence. Rather than
illustrating the view from the shoreline of the property so as to accurately represent views toward the
proposed Project location, the viewpoint is set well back from the shoreline. A photograph (COMMENT
FIGURE V-32) taken from approximately the same location along the east side of Mattituck Inlet, but from
an unobstructed viewpoint, more accurately represents the view from properties on the east side of the
inlet.
The Viewpoint 2 photograph is described as a north facing view from North Drive, located immediately
south of the Project construction area. It is similar to Photograph 18 in Appendix Q which is described as
“View looking northeast at subject property from 800 North Drive.” Existing marina Building 8 14 (a 22,400 SF
storage structure) is visible through a gap in the trees on the right side of both photos. Rendering/photo
simulation A-2 (Appendix Q) purports to show existing and proposed views from what the location key on
the rendering indicates is approximately the same location at the end of North Drive. The rendering of the
existing view bears no resemblance to either Viewpoint photograph 2, or Photograph 18 in Appendix Q.
Viewpoint 3 is not helpful in regard to assessing visual impacts. The Viewpoint Key Map indicates the
viewpoint is located on the east side of Mattituck Creek. The viewpoint photo is captioned “View from south
of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards SYC.” The viewpoint is actually located along what
Photograph 9 (a reciprocal view) in Appendix G calls an “internal” roadway at the marina. The viewpoint
photo is oriented away from the Project Construction Excavation Area, and potential views are blocked by
an existing marina building [COMMENT FIGURE V-28]. No actual photograph showing the correct existing
view from Viewpoint 3 is included in the DEIS.
13 A photograph (E10) taken from what appears to be essentially the same position (it may be a better resolution version of the
same photo) is included in the historic resources survey (DEIS Appendix T). That photo is captioned “200 E. Mill Road support
building looking W/SW (Field Photograph CSW_P325035, 03/25/21)”.
14 Page 2 of the DEIS states that the “seven buildings located on the subject property are identified on the site development plans as
follows:
o Building 1: one-story residence (1,610 square feet [SF])
o Building 2: two-story office (2,702 SF)
o Building 3: one-story storage (17,320 SF)
o Building 5: one-story storage (341 SF)
o Building 6: one-story storage (10,786 SF)
o Building 7: one-story storage (15,076 SF)
o Building 8: one-story storage (22,425 SF)
The DEIS goes on to note that “SYC maintains a different building numbering system. This DEIS uses the building numbers assigned
on the site development plans”. This creates significant confusion for anyone attempting to read and understand the DEIS.
The Project site plans (Development Plans) in DEIS Appendix C include building numbers for the existing structures shown as
unexplained numbers within circles. Confusing the situation is the fact that proposed structures are labeled as Buildings 1 and 2.
The DEIS refers to them as Buildings 9 and 10 (p. xx). Also of note is the fact that Strong’s “different numbering system” is used to
identify buildings in SYC’s Fire Safety Plan (DEIS Appendix P) (e.g., Bldg. 5 in the Fire Safety Plan is otherwise referred to as Bldg. 7
in the DEIS.
Page | Visual-8 Rev.10
The residence at 805 North Drive which is also directly south of the Project Construction Excavation Area,
and from which the proposed structures will be visible, was not selected as a viewpoint. The historic
resources survey report in DEIS Appendix T contains a photograph (D6) showing 805 North Drive from “the
south end of the CEA [Construction Excavation Area].” It is clear that the reciprocal view would contain
views of the proposed structures. 805 North Drive is called out multiple times in the DEIS’ noise analysis.
The viewpoint 4 photograph15, is described as “View from most southern trail on Mill Road Preserve towards
SYC.” The DEIS text states that “[F]rom this viewpoint, the woodland portion of the subject property is
visible” (p.232). The existing marina facility is not visible in this photo, which was taken during the defoliate
season in March, 2021. Figure A-4 in Appendix Q is a rendering purporting to show existing and proposed
views from the southern trail on the Mill Road Preserve. The Viewpoint Key Map and the location key on
Figure A-4 seem to indicate that the location and direction of the viewpoint photo and the photo/renderings
are the same. The two sets of images bear no resemblance to one another. It is possible that one or both are
incorrectly captioned. Figure A-4 is most likely based on the view from the northernmost trail in the
Preserve [COMMENT FIGURE V-5]. However, the perspective in the “existing view” also seems to be
incorrect in that the viewpoint seems to be excessively elevated.
Viewpoint 5 is described as the “view from 5106 West Mill Road towards SYC . . . facing south.” A red arrow
on the viewpoint photo indicates the location of the SYC. 5106 is a private residence located on an
effectively land-locked parcel within the marina parcel. It is located approximately 100 feet north of the
proposed Construction Excavation Area. The six largest trees shown in the photo, including one in the
immediate foreground, are marked with orange survey tape. These may be the larger trees (˃6-inch
diameter) mapped and scheduled to be cut as shown on Sheet TS-4 in DEIS Appendix N. If so, this means the
viewpoint photo was not taken from 5106 West Mill Road, but from a point at least 100 feet south of the
5106-property line. This also means that viewpoint 5 is located in an area scheduled for excavation and will
not exist once work in the Project’s construction area is finished. COMMENT FIGURES V-19 – V-26 are
photos, taken by the property owner, of existing views from 5106 West Mill Road looking towards the
Construction Excavation Area. Existing marina facilities are visible in the photos taken from Comment
Viewpoints 5 and 8.
The DEIS concludes that “Overall, the viewshed change [from 5106 West Mill Road towards SYC] is not
significant”, and notes that “[U]nder existing conditions, the current view of the subject property is the roofs
of Buildings 7 and 8 and Mattituck Creek beyond. Under post-development conditions, the views would be
similar. Views of portions of the roofs of Buildings 7 and 8 would remain. All woodland area between the
property line and edge of disturbance would remain” (pp. xx, 237). The DEIS omits the fact that the existing
views are a result of the past unauthorized removal of trees by the Applicant in the site line between 5106
15 Viewpoint Photo 4 is reproduced in DEIS Appendix G as “Photograph No. 31: View of West Mill Preserve [sic] from southernmost
trail facing northeast towards SYC. (Photograph taken 3-25-2021).”
Page | Visual-9 Rev.10
West Mill Road and the Project site.16 If one accepts the questionable assertion that the viewshed change is
“not significant,” one must also acknowledge that this is only because of the Applicant’s past misdeed, and
his failure to mitigate the result of his past action.
Viewpoints 6, and 7, like viewpoint 5, are located within the existing marina parcel and are not helpful in
evaluating the Project’s visual impact. They may be views from within the Construction Excavation Area. If
so, the locations will not exist post-construction. These viewpoint photos cannot be used for assessing post-
construction views.
Nowhere in the DEIS is there a description of the methodology employed to generate the “proposed views”
shown in Appendix Q. That imagery forms the basis of much of the analysis in the DEIS text. There is thus
no way to assess the accuracy or inaccuracy of that imagery (although most of it appears to be inaccurate, as
discussed above). There is no indication in the DEIS that software specially designed for use in creating
visual simulations was employed 17. There is no mention of the type of photographic equipment used to take
the photographs on which the renderings/simulations are based. For example, cameras used should have
had a focal length between 28 and 35 mm (equivalent to between 45 and 55 mm on a standard 35 mm film
camera). This focal length is the standard used in visual impact assessment because it most closely
approximates normal human perception of spatial relationships and scale in the landscape.18
The DEIS puts forth the following conclusions based on the viewpoint photos, and the “existing view”
“photographs” and “proposed view” renderings:
Rendering A-1 and Post Development Viewpoint 1 - “The impact to the visual setting of the
subject property would be minimal” (p.222).
Rendering A-3 and Post Development Viewpoint 3 - “The impact to the visual setting of the
subject property would be minimal” (p.223).
16 On March 29, 2017 a complaint was filed with the Town of Southold alleging that trees were being cut on the Applicant’s property
without required Town approvals. The same day the Investigation Unit of the Office of the Town Attorney issued a stop work
order to the Applicant. Although the investigation report noted that “further investigation” was required, it also notes, without
explanation, that the file was closed. The visual impact to 5106 West Mill Road is evident in photographs taken at the time
(COMMENT FIGURES V29 and V30).
17 “With the ever-growing public involvement in design procedure and policy-making and the demand for more objective
presentation of design proposals, traditional simulation methods (drawings. renderings etc.) are increasingly challenged. A good
simulation must be accurate both physically and visually. Ordinary computer-aided design (CAD ) representations (wire-frame,
shaded models) are often questioned for lack of visual accuracy . . .” H. Shang (1992) “A method for creating precise low-cost
landscape architecture simulations — combining computer-aided design with computer video-imaging techniques” Landscape and
Urban Planning 22:11-16.
18 Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects (CEIWEP). 2007. Appendix D: A Visual Impact Assessment Process
for Evaluating Wind-Energy Projects. In, Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, pp. 349-376. National Research Council,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Page | Visual-10 Rev.10
Rendering A-4 and Post Development Viewpoint 4 - “The impact to the visual setting of the
subject property would be minimal” (p.223).
Rendering A-5 and Post Development Viewpoint 5 - “Overall, the viewshed change is not
significant” (p.224).
The DEIS also concludes that “Although the views of the subject property would be altered as a result of the
proposed action, they would not be significant as depicted by the photo-simulations, landscaping plans, and
architectural elevations” (p.226). No definition of “significant” is provided.
Given the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies noted in both the viewpoint photographs, the “existing” view
“photographs”, and the “proposed view” renderings, any conclusions derived for using them as a basis of
analysis must be considered invalid. In addition, many of the viewpoints selected are useless for assessing
visual impacts. This fact is acknowledged in the DEIS which states that no renderings were prepared for
viewpoints 8, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, and 12 because the subject property “would not be visible” (pp.237, 238);
there would be “no change under the proposed action” (p.238); or the “view would remain the same as part
of the post-development views” (p.238).
The DEIS also discusses proposed measures to mitigate adverse visual/aesthetic impacts resulting from the
construction of the Project. For example, the Applicant indicates that the location of the proposed haul road
has been moved to “mitigate potential aesthetic impacts to the single family residence located at 4105 West
Mill Road” (p.239). However, the DEIS contains no information or analyses that indicate what new views
would be generated from West Mill Road looking east through the newly created, approximately 100-foot-
wide haul road entrance 19 (see DEIS Appendix G, Photograph 42).
The proposed haul road will also visually impact 5106 West Mill Road, a single-family residence. The haul
road will be set back approximately 250 feet from the pool (the nearest structure)20 on that property to
“mitigate” visual impacts the Project. The DEIS concludes that “it is not expected that the haul road and
construction vehicles would have a significant adverse aesthetic impact on this single-family residence.” As
noted, the DEIS does not define what it considers to be a “significant” visual impact, nor does it include
information sufficient to allow an independent evaluation to be made. It is clear that the analysis in the DEIS
assumes that views of the haul road could be of concern. It completely fails to address that the most
significant visual impact associated with the haul road will be views of the frequent heavy truck traffic using
the haul road during the months-long construction phases 21, which corresponds with the defoliate season,
significantly reducing the moderating effect of the vegetated buffer between 5106 West Mill Road and the
19 This does not include the stabilized RAC shoulder to be constructed on the east side of West Mill Road, immediately south of the
haul road entrance. The haul road itself is shown on the Haul Road Plan (Appendix C) as being 16 – 30 feet wide.
20 The DEIS fails to mention that the haul road will be less than 200 feet from the residence property line.
21 Noise and vibration generated by traffic along the haul road can also be expected to impact 5106 West Mill Road. Also
unmentioned is the fact that the “Temporary Stockpile Area” shown on the Excavation Phasing Plan (Appendix C) will likely be
visible from 5106 West Mill Road. The maximum height of the stockpile area as shown on the Erosion & Sediment Control Pan
(Appendix C) is 15 feet.
Page | Visual-11 Rev.10
haul road. This can be seen in photographs taken by the property owner [COMMENT FIGURES V-25 and V-
26]. No photographs illustrating views from 5106 West Mill Road looking towards the proposed haul road
are included in the DEIS.
Existing views of a vegetated hillside will be replaced by views, which will last for years, of a massive
concrete retaining wall.
The largest, and potentially most visually significant, feature included in the Project besides the two
proposed boat storage buildings, is “a concrete retaining wall of approximately 875 feet in length and
varying height [that] will be installed to the north and west of the proposed boat storage buildings” (p. iv,
xxxii, 41). The height of the wall “ranges from 20± feet to 30± feet” (pp.12-13 also pp. 40-41). The bottom
elevation of the retaining wall “would be approximately 20 feet AMSL and reach a maximum top elevation
of 50 feet AMS” (p.110, also p.118).
The Applicant indicates that construction of this massive concrete retaining wall is necessitated by the
Applicant’s removal of 135,000 CY of sand, and that it “will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated”
(p.240). The DEIS contains numerous references to how the retaining wall will reduce visual and aesthetic
impacts, and even suggests that the wall will constitute an enhancement of existing views. Unfortunately,
the evaluations of the wall’s impact rely almost entirely on analysis of the faulty renderings included in
Appendix Q. For example, the DEIS concludes that as “illustrated on Renderings A-1, A-3, A-5, and A-13 (and
evaluated further below), the existing visual setting of the SYC operations at the water’s edge with
woodland landward in the background would be maintained” (pp. xxii, 235, 243).
The DEIS concludes, at multiple places, without having conducted any community surveys, that “[P]ortions
of the retaining wall would be vegetated for a visually appealing wall that serves to blend with the
landscape” (pp. iv, xxxii, 41, 86). This statement is the Applicant’s own opinion, and the DEIS is presuming to
speak for the community. It does not.
Again, because of the inadequacy of the photosimulations, and because of the absence of other data, it is
impossible to validate or evaluate statements such as : “The proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall . . .
would also screen much of the views of [proposed] Buildings 9 and 10’; “the proposed vegetation along the
retaining wall would create a green wall such that it would blend into the existing landscape” (pp. xxi, 239);
the “proposed Evergreen retaining wall will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated. It will blend in
with the surrounding woodland and landscape” (pp. xxxvii, 240); the “proposed Evergreen concrete
retaining wall is designed to become a green wall that will blend with the landscape to soften views”(pp.
xxxv, 187); and, “proposed Evergreen retaining wall will provide visual mitigation when it is vegetated. It will
blend in with the surrounding woodland and landscape” (pp. xxxvii, 240).
The DEIS states that the “proposed Evergreen concrete retaining wall would be constructed with planting
trays that will require approximately two-to-three years before establishment of a “green” wall that will
then blend into the landscape” (p.310). The retaining wall plantings are intended to soften views of the wall
as seen from the south and east, especially from Mattituck Creek. However, it is impossible to evaluate how
Page | Visual-12 Rev.10
successful this will be because of the unsuitability of the photo simulations included in the DEIS. In addition,
elevation drawings included in Appendix D do not include the retaining wall. The Evergreen Wall Report in
Appendix H includes brochure photos of installations around the world that give some indication of what the
wall may look like. Those photos also confirm that it will take years for wall plantings to fully establish
themselves, and that they do not “blend into the landscape.”
The Applicant’s 2020 presentations to the Planning Board and the Mattituck-Laurel Civic Association did
include what appear to be computer-generated 3D drawings showing what the vegetated wall might look
like [COMMENT FIGURE V-31]. These have not been included in the DEIS, although they clearly would be
helpful in assessing visual impacts.
A principal component of the Applicant’s visual impact mitigation, is the installation of supplementary
plantings along the top of the retaining wall to create a “sealed edge” of vegetation (DEIS pp. xx, xxxvii, 235,
240). The DEIS describes the supplementary plantings as including “27,333± SF of native trees, shrubs and
groundcover along the new forest edge. This planted area is approximately 20-to-30 feet in width and will
include dense, multi-layered plantings (i.e., plants that at maturity will occupy understory, and canopy-
levels) with abundant conifer trees (86 pitch pine trees) to minimize light penetration into the new forest”
(pp. xxxiv, 136, 144, 170, 177, 310). This statement is incorrect.22 The DEIS concludes that the proposed
“supplemental plantings would retain the existing natural and visual features at the property” (pp. xx, 235).
A detailed review of the Proposed Landscape Plan in Appendix C indicates that the planted area will be
closer to 15 feet in width, rather than the 20-30 feet stated in the DEIS. According to the Landscape
Schedule on the landscape plan, 86 pitch pines,23 with a minimum 4-5 feet height, will be planted 13 feet on-
center, in a single staggered row within this area.24 As a visual screen, this cannot be considered equivalent
to the large wooded area which will be destroyed by the Project, and which currently constitutes the
southerly view from 5106 West Mill Drive.
The DEIS fails to address changes in night-time views that will be affected by the installation of new
lighting on both proposed and existing structures.
22 As indicated, the DEIS says at least six times that 86 pitch pine trees will be planted at the top of the retaining wall. The Proposed
Landscape Plan (DEIS Appendix C) indicates that only 71 pitch pines will be planted in this area. The original version of DEIS
Appendix N (Ecological Conditions Report) also stated that 86 pitch pines would be planted. The revised version has lowered the
number from 86 to 71.
23 These 86 trees are the majority of the 135 trees to be planted as part of the Project to mitigate the destruction of 634 mature
trees in other parts of the Project area.
24 Although the area at the top of the retaining wall is not technically in a “buffer zone,” it should be noted that the DEIS does cite
§280-94 of the Southold Town Code which states in regard to buffer areas that “As a minimum, the planting shall consist of a
double row of trees six feet in height planted at intervals of 10 feet on center.”
Page | Visual-13 Rev.10
The DEIS states only that “[T]o mitigate light trespass and glare, all lighting will be shielded and directed
downwards at an intensity compliant with Chapter 172 of the Town Code (Outdoor Lighting)” pp. xxxvii, 12,
163, 240).
Page | Visual-14 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-1
View from 465 Harbor View Avenue, Mattituck, NY, c.2020 (not in DEIS).
Page | Visual-15 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-2
DEIS Viewpoint 1 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-1 (View #1) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-16 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V3
DEIS Viewpoint 2 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-2 (View #2) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-17 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-4
DEIS Viewpoint 3 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q). This is clearly not the view from Viewpoint 3. No photograph from
Viewpoint 3 is included in the DEIS.
DEIS Figure A-3 (View #3) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-18 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-5
DEIS Viewpoint 4 (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-4 (View #4) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-19 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-6
DEIS Viewpoint 5 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-5 (View #5) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-20 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-7
DEIS Viewpoint 6 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-6 (View #6)“Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-21 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-8
DEIS Viewpoint 7 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-7 (View #7) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-22 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-9
DEIS Viewpoint 9 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-9 (View #9) “Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-23 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-10
DEIS Viewpoint 13 photograph (DEIS Appendix Q)
DEIS Figure A-13 (View #13)“Existing View” “Photograph”
Page | Visual-24 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-11
The Property from Main Street – EXISTING CONDITIONS
View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from the Property
The Property from Main Street – POST-CONSTRUCTION PHOTOSIMULATION
View facing north, from the south side of Main Road, across from the Property
Page | Visual-25 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-12A
Page | Visual-26 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-12B
Page | Visual-27 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-13
Page | Visual-28 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-14
Comment Photo Viewpoint Locations and Mill Road Preserve and trail system (Comment Viewpoints 1-4)
(https://tos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7e08bb30ee414abf887b17320d409b3c
Comment Photo Viewpoints 5-12 from 5106 West Mill Road
Page | Visual-29 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-15 and V-16
View from the Mill Road Preserve looking north (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 1)
View from the Mill Road Preserve looking towards the southeast – 805 North Drive in very close proximity
(COMMENT VIEWPOINT 2)
Page | Visual-30 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-17 and V-18
View from Northern part of the Mill Road Preserve at property line looking east – existing marina structures
visible between the trees. (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 3)
View from the Preserve at property line – 805 North Drive to right (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 4)
Page | Visual-31 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-19 and V-20
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking southeast (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 5)
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking south (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 6)
Page | Visual-32 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-21 and V-22
View from 5106 West Mill Road deck looking towards the southwest (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 7)
View from 5106 West Mill Road second story looking southeast towards existing marina structures
(COMMENT VIEWPOINT 8)
Page | Visual-33 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-23 and V-24
Views from 5106 West Mill Road second story looking southeast towards Project site (COMMENT
VIEWPOINT 9)
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 10)
Page | Visual-34 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURES V-25 and V-26
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking south towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 11)
View from driveway of 5106 West Mill Road looking southwest towards proposed haul road and proposed
Storage Building No. 1 (COMMENT VIEWPOINT 12)
Page | Visual-35 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-27
Photograph 15 (DEIS Appendix G)
Page | Visual-36 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE -V28
DEIS Appendix G Photograph No. 10: “View of boat storage in the southeast corner of SYC with forested area south of
subject property beyond, facing south. (Photograph taken 9-22-2020)”.
DEIS Appendix Q. “Viewpoint 3 (Existing Conditions) View from south of SYC, facing north on Mattituck Creek towards
SYC
Page | Visual-37 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-29
View towards the SE from 5106 West Mill Road on March 29, 2017. Existing marina structures and Mattituck Creek
visible in disatance (Comment Viewpoint 3A)
Page | Visual-38 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-30
View towards the north towards 5106 West Mill Road on March 29, 2017. (Comment Viewpoint 4A)
Page | Visual-39 Rev.10
FIGURE V-31
Applicant prepared image – NOT PART OF DEIS
Applicant prepared image – NOT PART OF DEIS
Page | Visual-40 Rev.10
COMMENT FIGURE V-31
Source: East End Beacon (April 8, 2023)
https://www.eastendbeacon.com/spotlight-on-strongs-boat-storage-buildings-at-several-upcoming-
meetings/
Page | Water Supply-1
WATER SUPPLY
The “post-development benefits of the water supply main” have been indirectly overstated and the
DEIS is misleading as to the extent of those benefits.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to evaluate “the extension of the public water supply main to the
subject property . . . based upon consultations with the SCWA [Suffolk County Water Authority].”
The Applicant contacted the SCWA “regarding the availability of public water service.” The SCWA replied
that “the nearest water main is at Naugles Dr. In order to service your property, a water main extension
of approximately 765 feet would be required” (DEIS Appendix K). No copy of the Applicant’s request to
the SCWA is included. It is therefore unclear whether the SCWA’s response was meant to apply only to
the existing marina facilities, or the Applicant’s property after the Project is constructed.
Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services (SCDHS) Consultation
Project approval is subject to permits and approvals from the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS) (water supply and wastewater disposal) (DEIS p. xliv). According to the DEIS, an
“application for Article 6 Permit was initially filed with the SCDHS in 2018 and consultations with the
SCDHS are ongoing” (p.76). The DEIS text (p.75) mentions the December 27, 2018 Notice of Incomplete
Application from the SCDHS, but not he superseding notices dated January 25,2021, August 10, 2021,
January 26, 2022, February 23, 2022, and June 16, 2022 notices included in DEIS Appendix J.
According to January 2021 notice, the SCDHS requested the Applicant to
“[S]ubmit a Water Design Report to demonstrate that the site will have adequate
pressure under all anticipated flow conditions (i.e. the residence given the ~40’
elevation change & boat storage #2) at the furthest connection. Identify on plan the
location of all water valves, thrust blocks, and hydrant & specify the diameter of the
main. Submit hydrant flow data with and without fire flow as part of this report. In
addition, include the number of fixture units in the report, a riser diagram, &
calculations for the needed fire flow using the ISO method.”
None of this information was included in the original December 21, 2021 DEIS. However, a water design
report, last revised September 6, 2022 is included in the revised DEIS.
The revised DEIS still indicates only that “consultations with the SCDHS are ongoing” (DEIS p. vi, 76). No
mention is made of the deficiencies noted in the SCDHS’ last review dated June 16, 2022.
Page | Water Supply-2
The Project has also requested a variance vary the design flow factor for the storage buildings from
SCDHS (DEIS pp. vi, 76; DEIS Appendix J).1
Suffolk County Water Authority Consultation
The DEIS exaggerates the potential benefits of the water main extension proposed as part of the
Project.
The DEIS scope calls for the DEIS to identify and evaluate the “post-development benefits of the water
supply main.”
As noted above, the DEIS states that the “proposed action includes an extension of the SCWA water
main from Naugles Drive by 765± feet to allow for the site to be served by the public water supply
system. The extension of the public water main would allow for existing landowners to connect to the
public supply system, by request to the SCWA. Information was obtained from SCWA noting those
properties that could connect, if requested, and is included in Appendix K” (p.16). The last two of these
statements are incorrect, misleading and inconsistent with information provided in DEIS Section 2.2.1,
DEIS Table 12, DEIS Appendix A Figure 14, and DEIS Appendix K.
Section 2.2.1 of the DEIS states: “According to the SCWA, in correspondence dated October 21, 2020
(see Appendix K), of the 40 nearby properties, two (2) are connected to public water and seven (7) have
public water connection available. The remaining 31 properties were indicated as not being connected
to public water and a connection ability could only be confirmed with an application to the SCWA”
(emphasis added) (p. 46). In other words, connection ability has not been determined, and it is unknown
whether the water main extension proposed as part of the Project would result in the ability of
additional properties to connect to water service.
What the DEIS text and DEIS Table 12 fail to call out is that the 31 presently unconnected properties
include several on the east side of Mattituck Inlet, several properties on North Drive, vacant properties,
agricultural lands, the Mill Creek Preserve, and properties as distant as 1700 feet from the nearest point
on the proposed water line. 2 Clearly none of these would be able to, or reasonably desire to, connect
to public water as a result of the installation of the proposed water line. Two properties that will be
able to connect as a result of the new water line are the Old Mill Restaurant and a residential property
owned by the Applicant. Table 12 identifies properties only by their tax lot numbers. Had street
1 The Applicant’s Project Fact Sheet, posted on his Project website since February 2022, continues to state that “NO
VARIANACES ARE REQUESTED.”
2 This is illustrated in Figure 14 in DEIS Appendix A. However, that figure is somewhat misleading in that it shows properties
within 500 feet of the marina tax parcels, not the Project area or the area within 500 feet of the proposed water line. Figure 14
also incorrectly depicts properties that the SCWA identified having an “unknown” availability to public water, as “Lot with
Private Wells, Available to connect to SCWA Public Water.” Information in the inset table is correct.
Page | Water Supply-3
addresses been included, the fact that all but two of the 31 properties would be unable to connect to
the proposed water line would be obvious to a reader of the DEIS.
The statement in the DEIS that “[A]s confirmed by SCWA, the extension of the public water main would
also allow for existing landowners to connect to the public supply system, by request to the SCWA”
(p.73), is not accurate. SCWA has made no such confirmation. The SCWA’s October 20, 2017
correspondence (DEIS Appendix K) indicates only that the proposed water main extension from Naugles
Drive to the marina property would be necessary to service the marina. The attached table only
indicates which of the 41 tax parcels listed have public water available and which are connected to
public water. No evaluation of the realistic ability of unserved parcels to connect once the Applicant
completes the water extension is included.
The Proposed Water Line is Not Part of the Project.
According to statements made by the Applicant 3, and confirmed in conversations with the SCWA on
April 19, he has already contracted with the Suffolk County Water Authority to install the line. SWCA
has advised that construction is scheduled for May 2023. Any public benefit resulting from the
installation of the water line is not a benefit that can be attributed to the Project.
Water Use
The DEIS states that the Project, when in operation, “will require, 220 gallons per year for each boat that
requires service prior to/after storage (170± gallons for spring washing and 50± gallons for fall power
washing)” (DEIS p. 170, 175, 311)4. This means that at full capacity, with 88 yachts in storage, water
usage will increase by at least 19,380 gallons per year, in addition to an increase of 18± gpd for potable
water. The DEIS notes that potable water currently used for boat washing operations comes from wells,
and that replacing well water with water from the SCWA would decrease local withdrawal. This is
correct. However, what the DEIS fails no note is that the SCWA water line will be available
independently of the Project (see above), and SCWA-water will be available for boat washing purposes
even if the Project is not approved. This means that the claim that the Project will reduce local
withdrawal is incorrect. In fact, the Project will result an increase in total water usage of more than
20,000 gallons annually.
3 In a statement made at the April 15, 2023 meeting of the Southold-Peconic Civic Association, Mr. Strong stated “we have
already contracted with the Suffolk County Water Authority to extend the main public water main from Naugles Drive, which
isn’t too terribly far away, but we’re paying to have that brought in to this property—it’s a 12-inch main. We’ve been working
on that for three years. I think its scheduled to begin sometime in May.”
4 Wash activities are also capable of introducing pollutants to surface- and groundwater, leading to serious environmental
degradation.
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 1
ZONING AND BUIULDING CODE ISSUES
The DEIS correctly states that “[a]s excerpted from Section 280-54 of the Zoning Code, the intent of the
M-II zoning district is ‘…to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of water-dependent and water-
related uses, which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to or location in marine or
tidal waters and which, in general, are located on major waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island
Sound’” (p. xiv). However, the proposed Project location is not “waterfront”. Nor, given its elevation,
does it presently allow for “direct access” to marine or tidal waters.
The DEIS also states that “[a]dditionally, the proposed action requires the modification of land, soil,
topography, tree cover and soil material; however, the character of the subject property for maritime
use would be maintained. The existing pattern of maritime uses with residential uses landward of
Mattituck Creek and interspersed along the water’s edge would still be maintained” (p. xiv). This is
circular reasoning. The purpose of the “modifications” is not to maintain “the existing pattern of
maritime use,” but rather to transform the Project area, which in no way can currently characterized as
suitable for maritime use, given its elevation above Mattituck Creek, into an area that is compatible with
M-II zoning.
According to the DEIS, the “proposed action would occur primarily within the M-II zoning district of the
Town of Southold, with only a portion of the proposed project affecting the R-80 zoned portion”
(emphasis added) (p. xvi).1 This statement is contradicted in the next paragraph which states that the
“proposed development . . . would be entirely located on the M-II portion of the site” (emphasis added)
(pp. xiv, 163).
The DEIS also states that “[o]verall, the subject property is a privately owned parcel situated within the
M-II zoning district of the Town of Southold and the objective of the Applicant is to develop the property
in accordance with the prevailing zoning regulations (P.295)” This is not accurate. As the DEIS
acknowledges, contradicting other DEIS statements, a portion of the Project will be located within an R-
80 district. The proposed Project is not a permitted use within an R-80 zone.
The majority of the Project haul road will be located within the R-80-zoned portion of the Project parcel.
It is important to note that the haul is not a temporary feature, but will become a permanent part of the
Project as an emergency access road.
*********
The DEIS notes that the “proposed buildings would be situated on a 32.96±-acre parcel located on the
west side of Mattituck Creek, which is zoned Marine II (M-II) and Residential Low-Density A (R-80),
1 When the DEIS scope was prepared it is clear that the Planning Board was under impression that the Project would be located
entirely within the M-II portion of the Project parcel. Page 1 of the DEIS scope states that “[a]ll development is proposed to
occur on the portion of the site zoned M-Il.”
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 2
located at 5780 West Mill Road in the hamlet of Mattituck (the ‘subject property’). The subject property
is designated Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) No. 1000-106-6-10 and 13.4.”
The Town of Southold’s on-line tax parcel map indicates that parcel 106.-6-13.4 consists of 32.00 acres,
and parcel 1000-106.-6-10 consists of 0.08 acres (COMMENT FIGURE Z-1). The 2021 Southold
Assessment roll indicates that parcel 106.-6-13.4 includes 32.60 acres. Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 does not
appear on the final 2021 Southold Assessment Roll. Suffolk County’s on-line Real Property Tax Map
Viewer indicates that parcel 106.-6-13.4 consists of 32.573 acres, and parcel 1000-106.-6-10 consists of
0.079 acres (COMMENT FIGURE Z-2). Although minor, these discrepancies need to be resolved because
they affect calculations used to determine whether or not the Project conforms to bulk and dimensional
requirements set forth in the Southold Town Code.
Parcel 1000-106.-6-10 is a rectangular parcel located adjacent to the SYC bulkhead fronting on Mattituck
Creek. It is part of an existing parking lot for SYC and contains several marked parking stalls. The
tax/ownership status of parcel 1000-106.-6-10, which the DEIS indicates is part of the Project property,
is unclear. As noted above, this parcel is not listed in the Southold assessment roll. The county tax map
indicates that the owner is “unknown.” Town of Southold records include at least one map that also
indicates the ownership as “unknown” (COMMENT FIGURE Z-3).2
**********
Under the heading “Project is Consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan” (p.17), the DEIS states that
the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan adopted in September 2020 (2020 Comprehensive Plan) Land
Use Map (see Figure 4 in Appendix A) identifies the entirety of the subject property as commercial use;
however, as noted above, the subject property is split-zoned for M-II (16.46± acres) and R-80 (16.5±
acres).3 SYC operates entirely on the M-II zoned portion and the R-80-zoned portion of the subject
property is currently undeveloped.”
The DEIS correctly notes that the Project parcel is “split-zoned” (pp. 1, 2, 17, 142, 145, 147). The
Southold Town Comprehensive Plan notes that “[c]urrently, the Town Code provides little guidance on
how to apply the bulk schedule in the case of split-zones.” It also calls for clarification of “the Town
Code with respect to split-zoned parcels and how the bulk schedule is applied” (Comprehensive Plan
p.12). This is particularly relevant with respect to the Project.
********
2 This raises the issue of who actually owns the parcel that the applicant identifies as part of the “subject property”, and who, if
anyone, has been paying the appropriate property taxes on the parcel.
3 The amount of acreage assigned to each zone has apparently been calculated by the developer. As noted above, there are
discrepancies regarding the actual size of the parcel. The Town of Southold’s on-line tax parcel map indicates that the Zacres
of the larger parcel (acreage within the secondary zone of parcel) is 16.76.
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 3
DEIS Table 28 (Bulk and Dimensional Requirements of the M-II Zoning District) lists the Dimensional
Regulation Requirements for the M-II Zone. The maximum building height allowed in an M-II Zone is
given as 35 feet (Southold Town Code §280 Attachment 4). The proposed storage buildings will have a
height to eave of 39-ft 3-inches; a mean roof height of 42-ft 6-inches; and a top of ridge height of 45-ft
8-inches (DEIS Appendix D).
Section 280-4 of the Southold Town Code defines building height as the “vertical distance measured
from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration
or fill, to the highest point of the roof for flat and mansard roofs and to the mean height between eaves
and ridge for other type roofs.” This definition contains several ambiguities which the developer is
exploiting to support the position that the proposed structures conforms to the requirements of the M-
II zone.
First, it is unclear what “adjacent” means. The existing grade where the proposed storage buildings will
be constructed contains significant slopes and existing elevations vary by more than 30 feet. As a result,
the existing elevation of the area that could be considered “adjacent” varies considerably. The DEIS
does not indicate what elevation has been assumed to be the “average elevation of the existing grade.”
Second, and more significantly, the definition of building height calls for it to be measured “before any
alteration or fill.”4 The applicant proposes to erect the new structures after lowering the existing grade
by more than 35 feet. Using the Town Code definition of building height, this results in the proposed
structures actually having a negative height.
Of interest is the fact that the “Alternate Plan” (Alternate 4) site plan included in DEIS Appendix V
contains a note, with quantified data, describing how building height under that plan was calculated. No
comparable note appears on the corresponding site plan for the proposed Project. This information is
essential for confirming that building height was properly calculated and that the proposed Project
conforms to bulk requirements relating to building height.
*********
There is also a question concerning the present status of the zoning of the Project parcel. In 1983 the
eastern portion of what is now the M-II portion of the Project site was zoned “light industrial.” The
western portion was zoned “residential.” As shown on COMMENT FIGURES Z-4 and Z-5, the boundary
between the two zones, as shown, is well to the east of the present boundary between the M-II and R-
80 zones. Southold Local Law 1 of 1989 replaced what was formerly the “light industrial” designation
with the new M-II (Marine II) designation. The accompanying zoning map inexplicably relocated the
4 It would appear that the intent of this wording was to ensure that developers would have to include increases in land surface
height through the placement of fill when measuring the final height of proposed structures.
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 4
boundary between the R-80 and M-II zones several hundred feet to the west of its original location. The
word “inexplicably” is appropriate because the original zone boundary roughly corresponds to the top of
the existing bluff that separates the water adjacent portions of the parcel from the upland portion.
There is no way that any part of the upland portion of the parcel could, or can, be considered “water
adjacent” or suitable for water-related uses. No explanation for the zone boundary change can be
identified in Southold Town records.
The Southold zoning map was modified again by Local Law 23 of 2004. The accompanying zoning map
shows the same relocated boundary shown on the 1989 map. However, it is our understanding that
after the passage of Local Law 1 in 1989 the Town of Southold was in discussions with the then property
owner that indicate that both parties were under the impression the western portion of the M-II zone
was still zoned R-80.
Section A14-14 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code (pursuant to Section 272-a of the New York
Town Law) requires “Each town and village in Suffolk County having jurisdiction to adopt or amend
zoning regulations shall, before taking final action, refer to the Planning Commission any zoning
regulation or any amendment thereof (hereinafter referred to as "municipal zoning action") which
would change the district classification of or the regulations applying to real property lying [within the
Commission’s jurisdiction].”5
Although the Town of Southold did submit to the County the 1989 changes to the Town code relating
to zoning, it did not submit the associated zoning map (COMMENT FIGURE Z-6). Likewise in 2004,
County Planning Commission records indicate that the revised zoning map (which may never have been
submitted to the County, although the County requested it) was intended to only include two minor
changes.6
It is our understanding that the Southold Town Board has been asked to review the potential improper
relocation of the zone boundary on the Project parcel.
This issue bears directly on the issue of whether or not the proposed Project conforms to, or can
conform to, the appropriate zoning requirements. This issue needs to be addressed as part of the
environmental review of the Project, and must be resolved before any SEQR findings statement can be
prepared by the Planning Board.
5 Maps delineating the boundaries of the Commission’s jurisdiction show the Project parcel is within the jurisdictional boundary
https://suffolkcountyny.gov/portals/0/formsdocs/planning/SCPlanningCommission/JurisdictionalMap/jurisdiction_map18of38
.pdf . We have been unable to locate any documentation that Southold ever submitted the relevant zoning changes to the
Commission for review.
6 According to a November 15, 2004 memo from the Southold Planning Board to the Town Board, the “proposed Zoning Map
reflects two changes from the existing map. They are: 1. The existing map does not indicate where R-80 and A-C zones meet
near the General Wayne Inn property. The proposed map shows a clear demarcation. 2. The existing map does not indicate
where MI and MII districts meet in New Suffolk at Schoolhouse Creek. The proposed map shows a clear demarcation.”
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 5
COMMENT FIGURE Z-1
https://tos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=333262f008ba4a8998b2332498326b8d
https://tos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=333262f008ba4a8998b2332498326b8d
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 6
COMMENT FIGURE Z-2
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 7
COMMENT FIGURE Z-3
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 8
COMMENT FIGURE Z-4
http://24.38.28.228:2040/WebLink/PDF/vpsnd1ewwtougfdh21niwkic/15/Section%20A%20Amended%2011151983.pdf
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 9
COMMENT FIGURE Z-5
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 10
COMMENT FIGURE Z-6
Portion of:
Page | Zoning and Building Code Issues - 11
COMMENT FIGURE Z-4