Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Resources Survey notes Rev DEIS rev10 - FINAL - jkPage |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