APPENDIX I Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation

APPENDIX I
Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation

and End of Field Letter
PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES

INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED
Panamerican
Consultants, Inc.
HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM,
Buffalo Branch
2390 Clinton Street
Buffalo, NY 14227
Tel:
(716) 821-1650
Fax: (716) 821-1607
GALLOO ISLAND PROJECT AREA,
Tuscaloosa Branch
924 26th Avenue East
Tuscaloosa, AL 35404
Tel:
(205) 556-3096
Fax: (205) 556-1144
TOWN OF HOUNSFIELD,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
(OPRHP #07PR6733)
Memphis Branch
91 Tillman Street
Memphis, TN 38111
Tel:
(901) 454-4733
Fax: (901) 454-4736
Tampa Branch
5910 Benjamin Center
Drive, Suite 120
Tampa, FL 33634
Tel:
(813) 884-6351
Fax: (813) 884-5968
Corporate Headquarters
th
2205 4 Street
Suites 21 & 22
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Tel:
(205) 248-9867
Fax: (205) 248-8739
Prepared for:
UPSTATE NY POWER CORP.
950-A Union Road, Suite 20
West Seneca, NY 14224-3454
Prepared by:
PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Buffalo Branch Office
2390 Clinton Street
Buffalo, New York 14227
February 2008
PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

FOR THE PROPOSED HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM,
GALLOO ISLAND PROJECT AREA
TOWN OF HOUNSFIELD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
OPRHP # 07PR6733
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Frank J. Schieppati, Ph.D., RPA, Principal Investigator
Mark A. Steinback, M.A., Senior Historian
Rebecca J. Emans, Ph.D., RPA, Archaeologist
Kelly Mahar, M.A., Architectural Historian
Christine M. Longiaru, M.A., Senior Architectural Historian
Michael A. Cinquino, Ph.D., RPA, Project Director
PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Buffalo Branch Office
2390 Clinton Street
Buffalo, NY 14227
(716) 821-1650
February 2008
Management Summary
SHPO Project Review Number: 07PR6733
Involved State and Federal Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Public Service Commission
Phase of Survey: Phase IA
Location Information:
Location: Galloo Island
Minor Civil Division: Town of Hounsfield
County: Jefferson
Survey Area (Metric & English)
Length and Width: Varies per project component (including interconnects, access roads,
docking facility, helicopter pad, temporary living quarters, up to 77 turbines, substation,
five meteorological towers, and maintenance building)
Number of Acres surveyed: n/a
USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps: Galloo Island, NY Quadrangle 1960
Archaeological Survey Overview
Number & Interval of Shovel Tests: n/a
Number & Size of Units: n/a
Width of Plowed Strips: n/a
Surface Survey Transect Interval: n/a
Results of Archaeological Survey
Number & name of prehistoric sites identified: 0
Number & name of historic sites identified: 0 (numerous but yet to be examined)
Number and name of sites recommended for Phase II/Avoidance: n/a
Results of Architectural Survey
Number of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/
cemeteries/districts: 1
Number of possibly eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: 2
Report Author(s): F.J. Schieppati, M.A. Steinback, R.J. Emans, K. Mahar, C. Longiaru
and M. Cinquino
Date of Report: February 2008
Panamerican Consultants, Inc.
ii
Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA
Table of Contents
Management Summary................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................ iv
List of Photographs ...................................................................................................................... vi
1.0
Introduction .......................................................................................................................1-1
2.0
Background Research and Documentary Review ............................................................2-1

2.1 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Prehistoric Period .....................................................................................................2-5
2.3. Historic Period ........................................................................................................2-10
2.4 Documentary Research..........................................................................................2-19
2.4.1 Historical Map Analysis ..............................................................................2-19
2.4.2 Site File and Archival Review .....................................................................2-23
3.0
Archaeological Sensitivity ................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Sensitivity ......................................................................3-2
3.3 Historic Archaeological Sensitivity ...........................................................................3-2
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................3-8
4.0
Galloo Island Architecture .................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Summary of Existing Architectural Resources .........................................................4-1
4.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................4-44
5.0
References ......................................................................................................................5-1
Appendix A: Supplemental Material
iii
List of Figures and Tables

FIGURE
PAGE
1.1
Location of Galloo Island and the northern and underwater section of the proposed
transmission line ...............................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Proposed wind farm facilities on Galloo Island .................................................................1-2
1.3
Oblique aerial view (toward the west) of Galloo Island and several landmarks ................1-3
1.4
Oblique aerial view of the northern section (toward the northwest) of Galloo Island
and several landmarks ......................................................................................................1-3
1.5
Oblique aerial view of the midsection (toward the west) of Galloo Island .........................1-4
1.6
Oblique aerial view of the north shore (toward the west) of Galloo Island ........................1-4
1.7
Oblique aerial view of the southwestern section (toward the southwest) of Galloo
Island.................................................................................................................................1-5
1.8
Photo angle map for general project area (Photographs 1.1 through 1.20)......................1-6
2.1
Soil map of Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York...................2-3
2.2
Northern New York land purchases, 1790-1815 .............................................................2-13
2.3
Galloup Island in 1887 ....................................................................................................2-20
2.4
Galloo Island in 1895 ......................................................................................................2-20
2.5
Galloo Island ca. 1910 as sketched by Howard Baker....................................................2-22
2.6
Galloo Island, 1932-1935 ................................................................................................2-23
3.1
Structures indicated on the 1887 map of Galloo Island overlain on a 2006 aerial
photograph ........................................................................................................................3-8
3.2
Structures indicated on the 1895 USGS quadrangle overlain on a 2006 aerial

photograph ........................................................................................................................3-9
3.3
Baker sketch map (of the island ca. 1910) overlain on a 2006 aerial photograph of
Galloo Island ...................................................................................................................3-10
3.4
All map documented structures mapped on a 2006 aerial photograph of Galloo

Island...............................................................................................................................3-11
3.5
Proposed Phase IB survey areas....................................................................................3-12
iv
4.1
Layout and location of the Main Lodge complex on the southeastern shore of
Galloo Island .....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2
Galloo Island Lodge Complex consisting of the Main Lodge and outbuildings, with
photo angles......................................................................................................................4-2
4.3
Location of the Lighthouse and Fog Horn House at the southwestern tip of Galloo
Island...............................................................................................................................4-11
4.4
Plan of Galloo Island Lighthouse showing the location of the former assistant
lighthouse keepers house, with photo angles ................................................................4-12
4.5
Location and layout of the former Coast Guard Station at the east end of Galloo
Island, facing northwest ..................................................................................................4-24
4.6
Plan of the former Coast Guard Station on Gill Harbor with photo angles......................4-25
4.7
Location of the Caretakers House on Gill Harbor at the eastern end of Galloo
Island and southwest of the former Coast Guard Station ...............................................4-31
4.8
Plan of Galloo Island Caretakers house with photo angles............................................4-31
4.9
Guest House located at the extreme northeastern end of Galloo Island ........................4-34
4.10 Plan of Guest House with photo angles ..........................................................................4-34

4.11 Location of the Clubhouse on North Pond, on the north shore of Galloo Island,
facing west ......................................................................................................................4-37
4.12 Plan of the Galloo Island Clubhouse with photo angles ...............................................4-38
TABLE
2.1
Galloo Island soils .............................................................................................................2-4
2.2
Map Documented Structures represented on published maps of Galloo Island .............2-20
2.3
Map Documented Structures represented on sketch maps of Galloo Island ..................2-20
List of Photographs
PHOTOGRAPH
PAGE
1.1
The southwestern section of Galloo Island from atop the lighthouse, facing northeast .. 1-7
1.2
The southwestern section of Galloo Island from atop the lighthouse, facing eastnortheast ......................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3
Duck blind on the beach near the Fog Horn house, facing east ...................................... 1-8
1.4
The southwestern tip of Galloo Island near the mainland, facing southeast.................... 1-8
1.5
The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast.............................................. 1-9
1.6
The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast ............................................. 1-9
1.7
Little Galloo Island from the main lodge, facing south ...................................................1-10
1.8
Little Galloo Island from the main lodge (12x telephoto), facing south ......................... 1-10
1.9
Stony Island from the main lodge, facing southeast ...................................................... 1-11
1.10 Stony Island from the main lodge (12x telephoto), facing southeast ............................. 1-11
1.11 Northeastern portion of Stony Island from the main lodge, facing east-northeast ......... 1-12
1.12 Northeastern tip of Stony Island from the main lodge (12x telephoto) with the
Sackets Harbor area in the background, facing southeast ............................................ 1-12
1.13 The northern shoreline of Galloo Island east of North Pond, toward Point
Peninsula, facing northeast............................................................................................ 1-13
1.14 Lake Ontario from the north shore of Galloo Island, facing north-northwest.................. 1-13
1.15 North Pond from the eastern side, facing west-northwest ............................................. 1-14
1.16 Fishermans shack on the west side of North Pond from the opposite shore (12x
telephoto), facing west ...................................................................................................1-14
1.17 The western side of North Pond showing the fishermans shack, picnic area and
duck blind, facing north-northwest .................................................................................1-15
1.18 The cliffs on the northwest coast of Galloo Island, facing southwest.............................1-15
1.19 Lake Ontario from the northwest coast of Galloo Island, facing northwest ....................1-16
1.20 Lake Ontario from the northwest coast of Galloo Island with two large stacks in the
distance (12x telephoto), facing northwest.....................................................................1-16
vi
2.1
Oblique aerial view of the northwest shore of Galloo Island, known as the cliffs...........2-1
2.2
Exposed limestone bedrock in the southeastern area of Galloo Island near the
former birthing barn........................................................................................................2-2
2.3
Soil and vegetation conditions in the northern area of Galloo Island .............................2-2
3.1
Foundations and ruins of the Gannet House and mill site or Wattam farm with the former
birthing barn in the background, facing northeast ..........................................................3-3
3.2
Former birthing barn in a state of collapse, facing northeast .........................................3-3
3.3
Foundations and ruins of the former birthing barn, showing the near total collapse,
facing southwest ............................................................................................................3-4
3.4
Stone foundation south of the birthing barn and adjacent to the lake shore
(provisionally Gannet mill), facing southeast..................................................................3-4
3.5
Ruin of a stone building southwest of the birthing barn, facing north.............................3-5
3.6
Ruin of a stone building southwest of the birthing barn showing a doorway, facing
southwest .......................................................................................................................3-5
3.7
Foundation that may be associated with the northern Wattam farm, north of the
former Coastguard Station .............................................................................................3-6
3.8
Possible Wattam farm foundation and existing corn crib north of the former
Coastguard Station ........................................................................................................3-6
3.9
Map documented ruin of a stone building (possibly Johnson Mill) at the southwest
end of Gill Harbor ...........................................................................................................3-7
3.10 Ruin of a stone and concrete building northeast of the Main Lodge adjacent to the
utility shed (possibly associated with the former Johnson and Gill farm) .......................3-7
4.1
View of the southeast and northeast elevations of the Main Lodge, from near the
lake shore, facing west...................................................................................................4-3
4.2
View of the southwest and southeast elevations of the Main Lodge, from near the
lake shore facing northeast ............................................................................................4-3
4.3
View of the northeast elevation of the Main Lodge, facing southwest ...........................4-4
4.4
View of the northwest elevation of the original block of the Main Lodge, facing
southeast toward the lake ..............................................................................................4-4
4.5
View of the upper floor of the southeast elevation of the Main Lodge, facing westnorthwest........................................................................................................................4-5
4.6
View of the southwest elevation of the Main Lodge, facing northeast ...........................4-5
vii
4.7
View of the upper stories of the northeast elevation of the Main Lodge, facing west ....4-6
4.8
Privy, south of the Main Lodge, from near the lake shore facing northwest ..................4-6
4.9
Privy and cleanout..........................................................................................................4-7
4.10 View of the utility shed and old foundation (left), northeast of the Main Lodge, from
near the lake shore, facing north....................................................................................4-7
4.11 View of the utility shed interior facing southwest............................................................4-8
4.12 Barns northwest of the Main Lodge, from south of the grass runway, facing
northwest........................................................................................................................4-8
4.13 View of the rear of the barns from the pheasant pen, facing east..................................4-9
4.14 View of the pheasant pen west of the barns, facing northwest ......................................4-9
4.15 View northeast of the Main Lodge along the lake shoreline, showing the utility shed
and the Caretakers house and former Coast Guard Station in the background ...........4-10
4.16 View of the grass runway from the southwestern end, facing northeast........................4-10
4.17 Galloo Island Lighthouse and attached Keepers House, facing northeast....................4-13
4.18 Galloo Island Lighthouse and attached Keepers House, facing east-northeast............4-13
4.19 Galloo Island Lighthouse and attached Keepers House, facing east-southeast ...........4-14
4.20 Southern elevation of the Keepers House, facing northeast .........................................4-14
4.21 Western elevation of the Keepers House, facing east-southeast..................................4-15
4.22 Western and northern elevations of the Keepers House, facing southeast ..................4-15
4.23 Detail of the western elevation of the Keepers House, facing east-southeast ..............4-16
4.24 Galloo Island light...........................................................................................................4-16
4.25 Roof of the Keepers House from atop the Galloo Island light .......................................4-17
4.26 Interior (kitchen) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers House ................................4-17
4.27 Interior (upstairs hall) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers House ........................4-18
4.28 Interior (stair well) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers House .............................4-18
4.29 Interior (upstairs bedroom) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers House................4-19
4.30 Interior (upstairs bedroom dormer) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers House ...4-19
viii
4.31 Interior (upstairs hall leading to stairs) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers
House.............................................................................................................................4-20
4.32 View toward the southwest from atop the Galloo Island Lighthouse showing the
Fog Horn House.............................................................................................................4-20
4.33 Eastern and northern elevations of the Fog Horn House associated with the Galloo
Island Lighthouse, facing southwest ..............................................................................4-21
4.34 Western and southern elevations of the Fog Horn House associated with the
Galloo Island Lighthouse, facing northeast ....................................................................4-21
4.35 Southern elevation of the Fog Horn House associated with the Galloo Island
Lighthouse from the lake shore, facing north .................................................................4-22
4.36 Interior of the Fog Horn House associated with the Galloo Island Lighthouse ..............4-22
4.37 Interior ceiling of the Fog Horn House associated with the Galloo Island Lighthouse ...4-23
4.38 Former Coast Guard Station from the south side of Gill Harbor, facing northeast.........4-26
4.39 View of the former Coast Guard Station toward the lake and Stony Island, facing
east ................................................................................................................................4-26
4.40 Southeast and southwest elevations of the Coast Guard Station main building,
radio tower and concrete block utility shed, facing northeast.........................................4-27
4.41 Southeastern facade of the Coast Guard Station main building, facing northeast.........4-27
4.42 Detail of the northwest corner of the former Coast Guard Station main building ...........4-28
4.43 Northwest and southwest elevations of the former Coast Guard Station main
building, facing east .......................................................................................................4-28
4.44 Former Coast Guard Station boathouse from the south side of Gill Harbor, facing
northeast ........................................................................................................................4-29
4.45 Detail of the boathouse, showing dormers and roof condition the south side of Gill
Harbor (telephoto), facing northeast .............................................................................4-29
4.46 Corrugated metal garage/shed located west of the main building, facing northnortheast ........................................................................................................................4-30
4.47 Caretakers house and outbuilding from the southeast side of Gill Harbor, facing
northwest........................................................................................................................4-32
4.48 Caretakers house from the southeast side of Gill Harbor, facing northwest .................4-32
4.49 Caretakers outbuilding from the southeast side of Gill Harbor, facing northwest..........4-33
4.50 Northeast elevation of the guest house, facing southwest.............................................4-35
ix
4.51 Northeast and southeast elevations of the guest house, facing west ............................4-35
4.52 Southwest and southeast elevations of the guest house, facing north ..........................4-36
4.53 Interior of the upper floor of the guest house toward fireplace at the southwest end
of the house ...................................................................................................................4-36
4.54 View of the Clubhouse from the south side of North Pond, facing northeast.................4-39
4.55. West side of the Clubhouse and outbuilding, facing east ..............................................4-39
4.56. Eastern elevation of the Clubhouse, facing west ...........................................................4-40
4.57. Detail of the eastern elevation of the Clubhouse, facing west-northwest ......................4-40
4.58. Western and southern elevations of the Clubhouse, facing east-northeast...................4-41
4.59. Western elevation of the Clubhouse, facing east...........................................................4-41
4.60. Clubhouse interior stone fireplace .................................................................................4-42
4.61. Western elevation of the Clubhouse outbuilding, facing east ........................................4-42
4.62. Southern and eastern elevations of the Clubhouse outbuilding, facing northwest ........4-43
4.63 Remains of a privy south of the Clubhouse outbuilding, facing south............................4-43
4.64 Interior of privy ...............................................................................................................4-44
1.0 Introduction
Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (Panamerican) was contracted by Upstate NY Power
Corporation (Upstate NY Power) to conduct a Phase IA cultural resources investigation for the
Hounsfield Wind Farm, a wind-energy project proposed for location in Jefferson and Oswego
counties, New York (Figure 1.1). Upstate NY Power proposes to construct the turbines for the
proposed Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County,
New York. The project will consist of the installation and operation of up to 77 wind-turbines for
the purpose of generating 280 Megawatts (MW) or less of electricity and infrastructure.
Infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, a docking facility, an operations-and-maintenance
building, roads, an approximately 10-mile underwater cable, and approximately 42 miles of
overhead transmission line (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The locations of the various proposed
structures on Galloo Island are preliminary and may be adjusted as the result of project and
regulatory requirements as well as natural and cultural resources concerns. The results of the
Phase IA investigations are presented in two reports. This report discusses the project area of
the wind-turbine generators on Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield. The second report
discusses the investigation of the location of the proposed underwater cable transmission line
from the island through portions of Jefferson and Oswego counties to the terminal in the Town
of Parish in Oswego County, New York.
Figure 1.1. Location of Galloo Island and the northern and underwater section of the
proposed transmission line (USGS 7.5 Quadrangles: Galloo Island [1960], Point Peninsula
[1960], Henderson Bay [1960], Stony Point [1960], New York).
1-1
Figure 1.2. Proposed wind farm facilities on Galloo Island (USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Galloo
Island, NY 1960).
The Island is privately owned with small portions (the former Coast Guard Station and a
parcel adjacent to and encompassing the lighthouse) under the ownership of the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Four groups of structures are under the
ownership of the islands present owner including the Main Lodge, Caretakers House, Guest
House, Clubhouse (Figures 1.3 and 1.4), and several scattered sheds and small barns. The
owner maintains a herd of white-tailed deer and grows feed crops (in the northern section of the
island) primarily to maintain the herd. Limited hunting of deer and waterfowl is undertaken on
the island through arrangement with the owner. Figures 1.5 to 1.7 show views of the island.
Additional ground-level photographs of the island and its setting are provided at the end of
this section. These include shots taken of the southwestern section of the island from atop the
lighthouse as well as photographs taken from the shore of the island toward other visible land
masses such as Stony and Little Galloo Islands, and toward Sackets Harbor.
The Proposed Action consists of the construction and operation of the Project (which is
subject to review under SEQRA) and the construction of transmission lines and related facilities
(which is not subject to review under SEQRA). That portion of the Project which is subject to
review under the SEQRA regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617), will include the installation and
operation of up to 77 wind turbines on Galloo Island, together with the associated collection
lines (below grade and overhead) and related facilities including a docking facility, helipad, living
quarters, parking areas and operations and maintenance facilities (see Figure 1.2).
1-2
Figure 1.3. Oblique aerial view (toward the west) of Galloo Island and several
landmarks (PCI 2007).
Figure 1.4. Oblique aerial view of the northern section (toward the northwest) of
Galloo Island and several landmarks (PCI 2007).
1-3
Figure 1.5. Oblique aerial view of the midsection (toward the west) of Galloo Island
(PCI 2007).
Figure 1.6. Oblique aerial view of the north shore (toward the west) of Galloo
Island (PCI 2007).
1-4
Figure 1.7. Oblique aerial view of the southwestern section (toward the southwest)
of Galloo Island (PCI 2007).
Additionally, the Project will include construction and operation of an approximately 52mile transmission line (10 miles under Lake Ontario, 42 miles across the mainland), together
with interconnection facilities and other related facilities. This portion of the Proposed Action is
subject to review by the New York State Department of Public Service (NYDPS) under Public
Service Law Article VII and other applicable regulations. As such, that portion is a Type II action
under SEQRA (6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(35) and therefore not subject to SEQRA review (6 NYCRR
617.5(a).
The purpose of the Phase IA investigation was to determine if any previously recorded
cultural resources are present within the project area. The cultural resources investigation
included archival, documentary, and historic map research, a site file and literature search, the
examination of properties listed in the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places
(S/NRHP), a windshield survey of historical structures, a walkover reconnaissance of the project
area, assessments of cultural resource sensitivity and past disturbances within the project area,
and photographic documentation of conditions throughout the Area of Potential Effect (APE or
impact area) following New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) Guidelines for
Wind Farm Development (2006).
The cultural resources investigation was conducted in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the State
Historic Preservation Act (SHPA), the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and all relevant state and federal legislation. The investigation was also conducted
according to the New York Archaeological Councils Standards for Archaeological Investigations
and New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines (2000).
1-5
The investigation was conducted November 2007 through February 2008. The fieldwork
and photography was conducted in November 2007. Dr. Frank J. Schieppati, RPA, served as
Principal Investigator and Preservation Planner; Dr. Michael A. Cinquino, RPA, served as
Project Director/Senior Archaeologist; Ms. Christine Longiaru, M.A., served as Senior
Architectural Historian; Mr. Mark A. Steinback, M.A., was Project Historian. Dr. Rebecca J.
Emans, RPA, was Project Archaeologist, and Ms. Kelly Mahar, M.H.P., served as Architectural
Historian.
Figure 1.8 indicates the locations and viewing angles for the general project area
photographs that follow.
Figure 1.8. Photo angle map for general project area (Photographs 1.1 through 1.20).
1-6
Photograph 1.1. The southwestern section of Galloo Island from atop the
lighthouse, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.2. The southwestern section of Galloo Island from atop the
lighthouse, facing east-northeast (PCI 2007).
1-7
Photograph 1.3. Duck blind on the beach near the Fog Horn house, facing
east (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.4. The southwestern tip of Galloo Island near the mainland,
facing southeast (PCI 2007).
1-8
Photograph 1.5. The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast

(PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.6. The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast

(PCI 2007).
1-9
Photograph 1.7. Little Galloo Island from the main lodge, facing south (PCI
2007).
Photograph 1.8. Little Galloo Island from the main lodge (12x telephoto),
facing south (PCI 2007).
1-10
Photograph 1.9. Stony Island from the main lodge, facing southeast (PCI
2007).
Photograph 1.10. Stony Island from the main lodge (12x telephoto), facing
southeast (PCI 2007).
1-11
Photograph 1.11. Northeastern portion of Stony Island from the main lodge,
facing east-northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.12. Northeastern tip of Stony Island from the main lodge (12x
telephoto) with the Sackets Harbor area in the background, facing
southeast (PCI 2007).
1-12
Photograph 1.13. The northern shoreline of Galloo Island east of North

Pond, toward Point Peninsula, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.14. Lake Ontario from the north shore of Galloo Island, facing
north-northwest (PCI 2007).
1-13
Photograph 1.15. North Pond from the eastern side, facing west-northwest
(PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.16. Fishermans shack on the west side of North Pond from
the opposite shore (12x telephoto), facing west (PCI 2007).
1-14
Photograph 1.17. The western side of North Pond showing the fishermans
shack, picnic area and duck blind, facing north-northwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.18. The cliffs on the northwest coast of Galloo Island, facing
southwest (PCI 2007).
1-15
Photograph 1.19. Lake Ontario from the northwest coast of Galloo Island,
facing northwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 1.20. Lake Ontario from the northwest coast of Galloo Island
with two large stacks in the distance (12x telephoto), facing northwest (PCI
2007).
1-16
2.0 Background Research and Documentary Review

2.1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Topography. The project area is an island in the northeastern part of Lake Ontario. It
measures approximately four miles along its northeast-southwest axis and one mile along its
northwest-southeast axis and contains wetland areas in the south, east central, and northern
portions of the island. Inland areas adjacent to the island are part of the lowlands of the ErieOntario Plain. The Tug Hill Plateau is about ten miles southeast of the project area. The ErieOntario Plain has topography that varies from nearly level to rolling and broken, commonly with
steep ledges of rock (Van Diver 1985; McDowell 1989:2). The island is generally flat, rising to
the north. Elevations of the island range from approximately 250 feet (76.3 meters) above mean
sea level (amsl) at the lighthouse at the southwestern tip to approximately 304 ft (92.7m) amsl
at its highest point south of
North Pond (see Figure 1.2).
An abrupt ridge or cliff drops
precipitously from 290 ft
(88.5m) to 260 ft (79.3m)
amsl at the northern and
north-eastern shores of the
island (Photograph 2.1). For
additional views of the
landscape, see Figures 1.3
through 1.7 and Photographs
1.1 to 1.6 and 1.17 to 1.18 in
Section 1.
Geology.
Most
of
Jefferson County, including
the
project
area,
was
Photograph 2.1. Oblique aerial view of the northwest shore covered by an ancient sea
of Galloo Island, known as the cliffs (PCI 2007).
during the Ordovician period,
450 million years ago.
Bedrock underlying the central-western portion of the county as well as Galloo Island is
limestone from this period. The glacial till veneer formed by continental glaciers, or ice sheets,
of the Wisconsin stage of the Pleistocene Epoch left Jefferson County with a thinner covering of
till than other counties because of the strong ice movements from northeast to southwest along
the western edge of the Adirondack Mountains (McDowell 1989:2-4).
Soils. All of the soils on Galloo Island are part of the Benson-Newstead-Galoo-Rock
Outcrops soil association (the soil survey spells the island Galoo). These soils, in general, are
moderately deep to very shallow, excessively drained to poorly drained, loamy soils and rock
outcrops, and located on lowland plains and uplands (McDowell 1989: General Soil Map; Sheet
128). Many areas on the island show indications of bedrock at or near the surface (Photograph
2.2) while other areas, particularly toward the north and northeast, have soil deep enough to
support both conifers and deciduous tree growth as well as limited cultivation of crops
(Photograph 2.3). Specific soils within the project area are presented in Figure 2.1 and
summarized in Table 2.1.
2-1
Photograph 2.2. Exposed limestone bedrock in the southeastern area of Galloo

Island near the former birthing barn (PCI 2007).
Photograph 2.3. Soil and vegetation conditions in the northern area of Galloo
Island (PCI 2007).
2-2
Figure 2.1. Soil map of Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York (McDowell 1989:Sheet 128).
2-3
Table 2.1. Galloo Island soils

Name
Beaches (Be)
Benson-Galoo
complex, very
rocky (BgB)
Depth cm (in)
Color
Texture
0-8
Somewhat
excessively and
excessively
0-3
3-8
Somewhat
poorly
Lake Plains
3-8
Moderately well
Lake Plains
CH SI LO
V CH SI LO
0-13 (0-5)
13-28 (5-11)
28-36 (11-14)
36-56 (14-22)
56-69 (22-27)
0-20 (0-8)
20-36 (8-14)
36- 46 (14-18)
46-66 (18-26)
66 81 (26-32)
81-152 (32-60)
0-20 (0-8)
20-38 (8-15)
38-48 (15-19)
DK GR BR
GR BR
DK GR BR
DK GR BR
DK GR BR
DK GR BR
YL BR
BR GR/BR/DK YL BR
BR
BR
GR BR
BR
DK YL BR
BR
SI CL
CL
CL
CL
SI CL
SI LO
SI LO
SI LO
SI LO-SI CL LO
SI CL LO
SI, F SA, LT CL
LO
LO
LO
0-10 (0-4)
10-18 (4-7)
DK BR
RD BR
SI LO
CH SI LO
0-23 (0-9)
23-36 (9-14)
36-58 (14-23)
58-66 (23-26)
0-18 (0-7)
18-33 (7-13)
33-48 (13-19)
48 56 (19-22)
0-20 (0-8)
20-30 (8-12)
30-41 (12-16)
41-119 (16-47)
119-150 (47-59)
150-178 (59-70)
0-23 (0-9)
23-36 (9-14)
36-51(14-20)
51-76 (20-30)
76-152 (30-60)
0-20 (0-8)
20-41 (8-16)
41-56 (16-22)
56-76 (22-30)
0-20 (0-8)
20-30 (8-12)
30-46 (12-18)
46-66 (18-26)
66-152 (26-60)
V DK GR BR
DK YL BR
DK GR BR/BR
BR/GR BR
V DK GR
DK GR BR
DK GR BR
GR BR/DK GR BR/BR
BR
BR
BR/DK BR
BR
YL BR
BR
V DK GR BR
DK GR BR
GR BR
DK GR BR
GR
V DK GR BR
GR BR
GR BR
GR BR
DK GR BR
GR BR
BR
GR BR
GR BR
SI LO
GR SI LO
GR LO
V GR LO
CL
CL
CL
CL
SI LO
SI LO
SI CL LO
SI CL
SI LO
SI CL
SI LO
SI LO
SI CL
SI CL
SI CL
SI LO
SI LO
GR LO
GR LO
SI LO
SI LO
SI CL
SI CL
SI CL
Saprists and
Aquents, ponded
(Sa)
0-41+ (0-16+)
152 (60)
BL
bedrock
Wilpoint silty clay

loam (WnB)
0-15 (0-6)
15-23 (6-9)
23-38 (9-15)
38 56 (15-22)
56-74 (22-29)
DK GR BR
DK BR
DK BR
DK GR BR
DK GR
Farmington loam
(FaB)
Galoo-Rock
outcrop complex
(GbB)
Galway silt loam
(GlA)
Guffin clay (Gv)
Hudson silt loam

(HuB)
Madalin silt loam

(Ma)
Newstead silt
loam (Nn)
Rhinbeck silt
loam (RhA)
Landform
0-5
DK BR
RD BR/DK RD BR
Collamer silt
loam, bedrock
substratum
(CoB)
Drainage
SA
0-8 (0-3)
8-30 (3-12)
Chaumont silty
clay (ClA/ClB)
Slope
%
0-8
0-8
Well and
somewhat
excessively
Excessively and
somewhat
excessively
Lake Plains
Lake Plains
0-3
Well and
moderately well
Lake Plains
0-3
Poorly and very

poorly
Lake Plains
3-8
Moderately well
Lake Plains
0-3
Poorly and very

poorly
Lake Plains
0-3
Somewhat
poorly and
poorly
Upland till
plains
0-3
Somewhat
poorly
Lake Plains
Organic
material/SI CL
0-1
Very poorly
drained
Freshwater
marshes
SI CL LO
SI CL
CL
CL
CL
3-8
Moderately well
Lake Plains
Key
Color: BL = black, BR = brown, DK = dark, F = fine, GR = gray, LT = light, RD = red, V = very, YL = yellow
Texture: LO = loam, SA = sand, SI = silt, CH = channery, GR = gravelly
2-4
Drainage. The island is situated in Lake Ontario and contains wetland areas in southern,
east-central and northern portions of the island. There does not appear to be any streams or
watercourses indicated on the USGS map (see Figure 1.2). However, it was apparent from the
field investigation that an intermittent stream running northwest to southeast is present on the
island.
Forest Zone and Vegetation. As noted, the island contains wetland areas at its southern,
east-central, and northern sections. It is within the Oak-Northern Hardwood forest zone (de
Laubenfels 1966:92). The Oak-Northern Hardwood zone is characterized by the intermingling of
oaks and northern hardwoods at low and intermediate elevations. The direction of the slope
affects the type of trees predominant within a certain area; south-facing slopes support more
oaks or an oak-hickory mix (due to more sunlight), while north-facing slopes support more
northerly-predominant trees, such as elm, red cedar, and hawthorn as well as a variety of
evergreens (de Laubenfels 1966:95). In the early nineteenth century, the island was covered by
cedars, which were harvested for shingles and ship building, leaving the island partially
deforested as it is at present (see Figures 1.3 to 1.7 and Photographs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.6).
2.2
PREHISTORIC PERIOD
The three major cultural traditions manifested in New York State during the prehistoric era
were the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland. Cultural development of the area can be
summarized as a gradual increase in social complexity, marked by several important cultural
and/or technological innovations. The earliest people were nomadic big-game hunters (10,000
to 8000 BC). Changing environmental conditions resulted in an adaptation of the economy, with
a shift to the efficient exploitation of temperate forest resources by Archaic hunter-gatherers. In
many areas of eastern North America, the Archaic (8000 to 1500 BC) is followed by the
Transitional period (1500 to 1000 BC) that bridges the Archaic and the subsequent Woodland
periods. Although it does not represent a departure from Archaic social and economic patterns,
important changes do occur in the artifact assemblage and in burial practices (Ritchie 1955;
Nichols 1928).
The Woodland period (1000 BC to AD 1600) is marked by the introduction of pottery,
agriculture, and burial mounds. As a result of these innovations, many new and very different
social and economic patterns developed (Ritchie 1980). After about 1000 BC, external
influences began to have an increasingly greater effect as the area was occupied by groups
which later formed the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy south of the Tug Hill Plateau
and Canadian groups north of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario (Tuck 1978a; Tooker
1978; White 1961).
Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 11,000-8000 BC). Hunter-gatherer bands of the Paleo-Indian
culture were the first people in New York State after the last glacial retreat approximately 13,000
years ago. At this time, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were locked in ice, and the
project area would have been underneath an ice sheet (Fitting 1975:27). During the recession of
the Wisconsin glaciation the project area was likely inundated by meltwater that formed the
Champlain Sea. It is possible, however, that the environmental fluctuations that occurred during
this early period were conducive to periodic forays by Paleo-Indian groups into the region when
conditions were suitable. As the climate gradually became more temperate, these forays likely
became more extended.
2-5
The Paleo-Indian subsistence strategy has traditionally been viewed as one that
emphasized hunting big game. These species, many of which are extinct, included mastodon,
mammoth, great beaver, caribou and moose-elk, along with a variety of smaller game. The
remains of mastodon, mammoth and Pleistocene peccary have been found throughout the
state, and the remains of a Pleistocene bison were recovered in central Jefferson County
(Ritchie 1980). Few tool associations have been made with aquatic resource remains, although
this diverse and abundantly available food resource was probably utilized once water conditions
allowed (Funk 1972:11; Ritchie 1980; Salwen 1975).
Adapted to the harsh tundra or park tundra environment, Paleo-Indians utilized a nomadic
settlement system in which their movements were directed by the migration of large game
animals. During the seasonal peaks of resources, larger populations occupied strategically
located large camps; and during periods of low resource potential, the population dispersed,
occupying small camps and rockshelters on a temporary basis. A band-level social organization
is attributed to Paleo-Indian groups, with each band consisting of 25 or 30 people (Snow 1980;
Fitting 1968). As climatic conditions allowed more permanent occupation of an area, this
wandering became more restrictive and bands settled into loose territories.
Ritchie and Funk (1973:333) have classified Paleo-Indian sites into two main categories:
quarry workshops and camps. These categories are further subdivided into large, recurrently
occupied camps, small special-purpose camps, and caves or rockshelter sites. Located near the
margin of extinct glacial lakes, many Paleo-Indian sites in the Northeast are located on elevated
areas where good drainage, meaning a dry living floor, was an important consideration (Funk
1978:18). These hills or rises also served as loci for monitoring the migratory patterns of game
species.
Technologically, the Paleo-Indian period has been associated with the fluted Clovis point
industry. These points are generally large (2.5 to 10 cm [1 to 4 in] in length), with a flute on each
face that facilitated hafting (Funk and Schambach 1964; Snow 1980). Neither Paleo-Indian sites
nor fluted points have been excavated in the vicinity of the project area, although one was
recovered in the eastern portion of the Town of Henderson (Ritchie 1980:4).
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1500 BC). The Archaic period is differentiated from the PaleoIndian period by a functional shift in lithic technology, an apparent increase in population,
changes in the subsistence strategy, and a less nomadic settlement system (Funk 1978; Tuck
1978b). These changes reflect an adaptation to an improved climate and a more diversified
biome (Funk 1972:10). Although archaeological sites from the Early and Middle Archaic are
rare, important sites have been found in central and eastern New York (Funk 1991, 1993).
People of the Early Archaic used end scrapers, side scrapers, spokeshaves, drills,
gravers, choppers, hammers, and anvil stones. Moreover, bifurcate base points were found
incidentally during Ritchies (1945) excavation of the Late Archaic site at Frontenac Island.
Other important sites from the Early and Middle Archaic have been found in eastern New York,
in Ulster County and near Sylvan Lake, as well as western Connecticut, the upper Delaware
valley and the Susquehanna valley (Dent 1991; Funk 1991, 1993; Nicholas 1988). Sites from
these periods cluster along major rivers and marshy, swampy land as well as lowlands.
In addition to an improved climate and more diversified biome, a few technological
changes, such as the production of ground and polished stone tools, serve to identify the Middle
Archaic period (6000-4000 BC) (Funk 1991; Kraft 1986). People began to develop woodworking
2-6
tools during this period, using coarse-grained stones and river cobbles as their raw materials.
These stones were commonly available in large sizes and allowed toolmakers to reserve high
quality lithic materials for finely flaked tools. The Middle Archaic tool kit included anvil stones,
bannerstones, choppers, netsinkers, an array of projectile points, axes, adzes, gouges, and
other woodworking implements (Funk 1991; Kraft 1986).
During the Late Archaic period (4000-1500 BC) hunting, fishing, and gathering remained
the principal daily activities, although greater emphasis was placed on deer and small game like
birds and turtles, shellfish, nuts and possibly wild cereal grains. Charred acorn shells were
found in hearths at the Lamoka Lake site in Schuyler County, New York (Ritchie 1980). Most
sites of the Late Archaic period were seasonal, special purpose habitation sites. These include
winter hunting camps, spring fishing stations, fall nut-gathering and processing stations, and
shellfish processing. Principal settlements such as Frontenac Island, Lamoka Lake, and Geneva
were located near major rivers or lakes and were multi-activity spring and summer villages
(Ritchie and Funk 1973).
Much is known about the Late Archaic based on excavations conducted at the Geneva
site in Seneca County, and the Frontenac Island and ONeil sites in Cayuga County. Both the
Geneva and Frontenac Island sites are large sites with deep middens. Numerous human burials
reveal a substantial focus on community life. Evidence from Frontenac Island shows
participation in the widespread Late Archaic exchange of copper and marine shell artifacts
(Funk 1976, 1993). Artifacts characteristic of the Late Archaic Lamoka Phase include
hammerstones, anvils, beveled adzes, and Lamoka points which are small, narrow-bladed,
thick-stemmed or side-notched points.
The Terminal Archaic, sometimes called the Transitional period (ca. 1500-1000 BC),
featured a continuation of Late Archaic cultural and economic patterns, with a few innovative
traits. Among these are a developing burial/ceremonial complex and, toward the end of the
period, the introduction of ceramics. The hallmark of this transition is the adoption of pottery
around 1200 BC. The shift to pottery appears to have been preceded by the adoption of steatite
or soapstone pots, which made cooking and food preparation easier (Ritchie and Funk 1973:87;
Funk 1993:198). The earliest pottery in New York State (Vinette 1 type) has been radiocarbon
dated to about 1250 BC at the Frost Island component of the ONeil site on the Seneca River.
Woodland Period (1000 BC-AD 1500). While the previous hunting and gathering economy
continued as a means of subsistence during Woodland times, native groups became more
dependent on domesticated plants for food. Agriculture brought with it a score of new problems
that required new adaptations and every aspect of native culture was transformed. With
agriculture came settled village life, a general increase in population, technological changes,
warfare, and a litany of social and political changes. Early and Middle Woodland sites often
contain exotic and numerous trade goods within burials, which suggest the existence of
widespread exchange or trade networks.
The Early Woodland period (1000-100 BC) is marked by several cultural phases in New
York State, including the Orient, Meadowood, Middlesex, and Bushkill. Some of these phases,
such as Meadowood, are better understood than others. The Early Woodland is marked by an
increase in burial ceremonialism. The Meadowood phase is strongly represented in northern,
central and western New York, but its presence is weaker and more sporadic east of the
Susquehanna valley (Funk 1976). Meadowood cremation cemeteries have been found in the St.
Lawrence drainage, as well as in the western Finger Lakes region (Ritchie 1980). Dating to the
2-7
Middlesex phase is the Muskalonge Lake site located in Jefferson County north of the project
area near the Jefferson-St. Lawrence county line (Ritchie 1980:183).
The Middle Woodland period (100 BC-AD 1000) shows continued long distance exchange,
although perhaps with varying strength at different times. In northern and central New York, a
sequence of occupation sites shows evidence of a long, Middle Woodland cultural tradition
known as Point Peninsula (Ritchie 1980). Expressed primarily by ceramic traits, the tradition
derives its name from a burial site on Point Peninsula, at the east end of Lake Ontario in
Jefferson County northeast of the project area (Ritchie 1980: 205). Expressed primarily by
ceramic traits, Point Peninsula development during the Middle Woodland is characterized by
four Phases: Canoe Point (AD 2-150), Squawkie Hill (AD 100-300), Kipp Island (AD 300-650),
and Hunter's Home (an early Late Woodland manifestation). The Canoe Point phase (named
after the Canoe Site on Grindstone Island, Jefferson County) is vaguely understood and shows
little change from the Early Woodland (Snow 1980). No house structure patterns have been
found in New York, but analogous Canadian sites show the presence of rectangular structures
measuring 10-to-16 ft-by-16-to-23 ft, and containing single hearths. The single hearth and the
house size would suggest a basic household social unit no larger than an extended family
(Ritchie and Funk 1973; Ritchie 1980:237).
In central and eastern New York, the transition between the Middle and Late Woodland
periods is marked by the Hunter's Home Phase, an aspect of the terminal Point Peninsula
Tradition and sometimes designated Late Woodland (AD 1000-1500/1600). According to Ritchie
and Funk (1973), most Hunter's Home sites are moderately large with heavy refuse
concentrations, storage pits, house patterns, and a wide range of artifacts. Hunter's Home
Phase economy can generally be characterized as a hunting-fishing-collecting system.
Increases in both social complexity and population are evident, leading to the hypothesis that
"maize horticulture was already being practiced as an important aspect of the Hunter's Home
economy" (Ritchie and Funk 1973:356). Most of the evidence for maize horticulture up to this
time period, however, is indirect. Cultivated plant remains are rarely found archaeologically in
New York State because of generally poor conditions for preservation of organic materials.
In New York State, the horticultural complex of corn, beans and squash, called the Three
Sisters by the Haudenosaunee in later times, are found together in some of the earliest Late
Woodland sites in this region (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Hart et al. 2003), indicating the
importance of these plants for at least some early garden systems and subsistence strategies.
However, the frequency with which these crops were grown together is poorly understood (Fritz
1990; Smith 1992; Kuhn and Funk 2000). The common perception is that a heavy reliance on
corn horticulture was supplemented by growing beans and squash, with declining roles for
hunting, fishing and gathering. Many local cultures with a lower reliance on agriculture may have
included wild foods in the subsistence mix to a greater extent, particularly where animal protein
could be substituted for the amino acid complement provided elsewhere by beans. Primary
animal prey most likely included one or more of deer, fish, and shellfish, based on faunal
evidence, site locations, and the prevalence of netsinkers and other fishing technology at some
sites (Cleland 1982; Ritchie 1980; Ritchie and Funk 1973).
During this period, the eight-row variety of Northern Flint corn was replaced by the ten-row
variety, which proliferated after the introduction of beans and squash. The development of bean
and squash horticulture is roughly correlated to a growth in population and village size.
However, these crops were not introduced simultaneously. Nevertheless, traditional food
procurement methodshunting, fishing and collecting vegetable foodsretained a prominent
2-8
role in the culture (Ritchie 1980; see Hart and Brumbach 2003). As expected, a more diversified
faunal assemblage was identified over time, indicating a more stable and reliable subsistence
pattern (Kuhn and Funk 2000).
Although some of the cultural developments Ritchie associated with the Late Woodland
did not occur between AD 1000 and 1100, someparticularly those related to the development
of an agricultural system based on maize, beans, and squashdid happen in the succeeding
years. In fact, several developments appear to cluster around AD 1200 to 1300: the earliest
evidence for longhouses and multiple-household villages is from the thirteenth century AD and
people added beans to their diets around AD 1300 (Hart and Brumbach 2003:744-746). In
addition, Snow (1994) notes that groups in central New York began surrounding their
settlements with defensive palisades after AD 1200. During the later years of the Late
Woodland, people in some areas began clustering their villages within the territories occupied
by historically known nations (Snow 1994). During this time, the techniques people (probably
women) employed to decorate pottery diversified across space, probably reflecting concomitant
changes in the ways and frequencies with which people interacted (MacNeish 1952; Whallon
1968). Likely in part because of the large amounts of wood consumed during the construction
and maintenance of these settlements, as well as that needed for firewood, inhabitants
periodically relocated their villages roughly every 10 to 20 years (Engelbrecht 2003:101-103). In
several cases, researchers have reconstructed parts of the resulting sequences of settlements
and produced detailed data concerning local culture change and the effects thereon of contact
with Europeans (e.g., White 1961). However, as suggested by the results of Engelbrechts
(2003) recent work comparing late prehistoric Jefferson County ceramics with those of other
Iroquoian groups indicates, there are many questions regarding New York States Woodland
inhabitants that remain unanswered.
Cultural changes within the Late Woodland period laid the groundwork for the
development of the Five Nations or Haudenosaunee Confederacy during the historic period.
Each of the five Haudenosaunee nations is represented by a cluster of sites during the late
prehistoric and contact periods. In some cases, so-called Owasco sites occur in sufficient
proximity to suggest hypothetical ancestors of the Haudenosaunee site cluster (Tuck 1971),
although settlement pattern change is apparent. Owasco sites are often located adjacent to
rivers, other sizeable streams and lakes, or on bluffs or terraces immediately overlooking these
kinds of water bodies. Haudenosaunee villages, however, tend to be located on hillier sites,
often defensible elevations near springs or small creeks.
Important changes during this period were social rather than techno-economic, as the
technology was characterized by refinement of the developments of earlier periods with styles
and techniques becoming more regionalized. Horticulture, primarily the growing of corn, beans,
and squash, was the primary source of plant food for Late Woodland peoples, but never totally
supplanted the hunting, fishing, and collecting strategy as the most important means of
subsistence procurement. Above all, the practice of horticulture allowed, perhaps necessitated,
increased sedentism. With the added premium placed on land in the Late Woodland,
territorialism increased (Whallon 1968).
Contact Period (AD 15001650). Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, Jefferson County
was located between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Huron-Algonkians of Canada
and was not continuously occupied by either group. During the Late Prehistoric and Contact
periods, tribal clusters of Iroquoian-speaking peoples were distributed throughout New York
State and lower Ontario. Comprising several thousand people in at least one, and usually
2-9
several, villages in proximity to one another, each tribal cluster was separated from the others
by extensive and widespread hunting and fishing areas (Trigger 1978:344; Engelbrecht 2003).
Native American groups were profoundly affected by the introduction of the fur trade, long
before the arrival of a permanent European-American population in the area. In 1534, French
explorer Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence River and met groups of Iroquoianspeaking Native Americans at what is now Qubec City and Montral. There is some evidence,
however, that Basque, Portuguese and Breton fishermen were traveling to the Gulf of the St.
Lawrence-Newfoundland area and making sporadic contacts with Native Americans (Hoffman
1961). These contacts mark the beginning of the end of traditional Native American cultural
patterns due to ever-increasing political, military, religious and economic interactions with
Europeans.
Beginning in the last decades of the sixteenth century, the increasingly regular encounters
between Europeans and Native Americans incubated a pandemic of European diseases among
unprepared native populations that decimated many native groups. Typhus, smallpox, and
measles ravaged Native communities. In addition to the tensions introduced through simple
contact with Europeans, trade has been recognized as having a major impact upon traditional
aboriginal cultural patterns (Brasser 1978:83). The most immediate changes were the result of
the introduction of a superior material culture. Once the fur trade was established, assuring a
stable supply of these goods, the manufacture of native goods rapidly declined until they were
entirely replaced by European-manufactured implements. Finally, changes occurred in
sociopolitical relationships after 1640 as the fur trade intensified and the supply of furs declined.
2.3
HISTORIC PERIOD
The French were the first Europeans to penetrate the valley of the St. Lawrence River. As
early as 1534, Jacques Cartier visited the gulf of the St. Lawrence, and the following year
explored as far south as Iroquoian villages near Montral. By the middle of the sixteenth century
European goods were reaching the native nations in the Mohawk River valley. The source of
these goods was the French outpost of Tadoussac in the lower St. Lawrence valley at the
mouth of the Saguenay River where European fishing parties traded for furs with the local native
groups (Trigger 1978:344-347).
The traditional Oneida territory was around Oneida Creek and the upper Mohawk River.
Oneida hunting territory, however, extended north to the St. Lawrence River and south to the
Susquehanna River, including the project area. By the end of the sixteenth century, the fur trade
in the St. Lawrence valley became an important commercial and imperial concern, and Jesuit
missionaries and French traders were establishing contacts with native groups. By this time, it
appears that the Mohawk had begun raiding native groups living in the St. Lawrence valley to
obtain European-manufactured goods. Commissioned to fortify outposts of trade in 1608,
Samuel de Champlain founded Qubec (1608) and established a trading post at what is now
Montral (1611). Soon after his arrival in the New World he began intervening in conflicts
between Native American nations vying for control of the fur trade (Campisi 1978:481-482;
Trigger 1978:346-348; Fenton and Tooker 1978:467-469).
Exploring the St. Lawrence River valley in 1609, Champlain and a small party followed the
streams and rivers inland until they reached the lake that Champlain named for himself. While
there, his party encountered a group of Mohawk. Two of the latter were killed by gunfire, an action
that would eventually help seal the fate of the French in North America. Also in that year, the
2-10
Englishman Henry Hudson, employed by the Dutch East India Company, sailed up what the
Dutch would call the North River. Reaching as far north as what is now Albany, Hudson
encounters with the local Mohican were much friendlier. Near the site of present-day Castleton
(south of Albany), Mohican living in a village along the river provided food and entertainment to
Hudson and his crew. Subsequent voyages by Dutch captains established outposts in this
portion of North America to advance the commercial interests of the United Provinces of the
Netherlands (Trigger 1978:346-348; Tooker 1978:430; Ellis et al. 1967:18-25).
In 1615, Champlain and a Native American force of 2,200 landed near Stony Creek in
Jefferson County as part of an attack on the Haudenosaunee living in the Mohawk valley, passing
through the eastern part of Oswego County. While the French were in conflict with the various
Haudenosaunee nations, the Dutch were establishing a trading post called Fort Orange at
present-day Albany in 1624. Also during this time, Recollt and Jesuit missionaries began visiting
Native American villages across southern Canada and New York. From these early settlements
the penetration and exploration of inland New York began (Trigger 1978:346-348; Fenton and
Tooker 1978:467-469; Campisi 1978:481-482; Sullivan 2004 [1927]:525).
During the latter half of the seventeenth century, the importance of the fur trade intensified,
and the ancient hostilities between the French and British resulted in the erection of fortified
trading posts within the frontier. In 1664, the British had seized New Netherland from the Dutch
(renaming it New York), which stoked their imperial rivalry with the French. This rivalry affected
the various Native American nations which were attempting to play one European kingdom
against the other. Having to choose sides, the native nations were drawn into these sporadic
conflicts that marked the European struggle for colonial empire (Abler and Tooker 1978:506507).
During the eighteenth century, construction of fortified trading posts continued along Lake
Ontario and in northern New York. Around 1700, the Seneca allowed the British to build a fort
on the northern end of Seneca Lake, near the future village of Geneva. In 1716, the French
countered with the construction of Fort des Sables on the west side of Irondequoit Bay. In 1716,
the French countered with the construction of Fort des Sables on the west side of Irondequoit
Bay. The British followed by erecting a trading post near Lake Ontario (in what is now Oswego
County) in 1722. This post, when it was enlarged into Fort Oswego by 1727, became their main
frontier outpost during this period; and, as a result, the provisioning and protection of it became
a primary imperial concern (Abler and Tooker 1978:505-507; Trigger 1978:354-356; Aldenderfer
et al. 1982:III-29). The Haudenosaunee traded with both sides, hoping to remain free of their
warring. Moreover, to avoid provoking them to violence and to facilitate further trade in furs,
French and English policy during the early eighteenth century forbid settlers from establishing
homesteads in Haudenosaunee territory (Aldenderfer et al. 1982:III-30; Blau et al. 1978:493).
In 1749, a collection of Christian Haudenosaunee (identified as the Oswegatchies, but
really Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga) settled at La Presentation (present-day Ogdensburg, St.
Lawrence County) under the direction of Sulpician priest (Abb) Franois Picquet. This group,
comprising approximately 1,500 people, was later dispersed into the St. Regis and Onondaga
reservations (ca. 1807). This location served as a staging area for raids against British
settlements in the Mohawk and Champlain valleys during the French and Indian War
(Aldenderfer et al. 1982:III-29; Blau et al. 1978:494-495).
During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the eastern portion of Lake Ontario was
the scene of increased militarization as both the British and the French refortified their nascent
2-11
bases of operation. French efforts centered on areas near Fort La Presentation and Fort
Niagara, while the British focused on areas in proximity to Fort Oswego. Despite French
successes during the early campaigns of the conflict, the fall of Qubec and the death of
Lieutenant General Marquis de Montcalm in 1759 undermined French ambitions in North
America, and precipitated their ultimate surrender. The fall of Montral in 1760 and the signing
of Treaty of Paris in 1763 officially terminated French claims in most of North America. In 1764
Sir William Johnson concluded peace with those Haudenosaunee who sided with the French
(Aldenderfer et al. 1982:III-30, 31; Blau et al. 1978:495).
The erection of forts and trading posts and the trickle of European-American settlers into
the northern and western woodlands aggravated relations with the native nations which already
lived and hunted there (Tooker 1978:433-434; Blau et al. 1978:495; Otterness 2004). At Fort
Stanwix (present-day Rome, New York) the Haudenosaunee nations signed the "Property Line
Treaty of 1768," which ceded to the British all lands east of the Allegheny Mountains (including
territory not actually under Haudenosaunee control), excepting reservations of Mohawks and
others, for the purposes of settlement. What is now Jefferson County was well north of this line,
and was generally not settled except for small outposts along the major rivers (Campisi
1978:483; Tooker 1978:434; Sullivan 2004 [1927]:525).
During the American Revolution, fighting on the frontier remained well south of the project
area and consisted largely of raids in the Mohawk, Wyoming and Cherry valleys. The area also
was spared the destruction engendered by the punitive, four-pronged assault into the heart of
Haudenosaunee country in the summer of 1779. Troops under the command of Major General
John Sullivan destroyed Haudenosaunee land in central New York, notably territory occupied by
the Seneca and Cayuga (Abler and Tooker 1978:507-508; Campisi 1978:483).
After the war, as a result of the Second Fort Stanwix Treaty (1784) the Haudenosaunee
lost all their land west of the Niagara River. This treaty was disputed by several nations until
1794, when a treaty was signed at Canandaigua between the United States and the Six
Nations, which defined the boundaries of Seneca lands and the reservations to the other
Haudenosaunee nations (Abler and Tooker 1978:508). In 1788, in a treaty signed at Fort
Stanwix (called Fort Schuyler at that time), the Oneida relinquished their claim to much of their
land in New York State, including Jefferson County. As part of that treaty, the Oneida reserved
ten miles square (100 square miles) for Peter (or Pierre) Penet to be located in the area of his
choosing (Emerson 1898; Powell 1976). European-American settlement in northern New York
dates from the end of the American Revolution.
Northern New York was virtually unbroken wilderness in 1783 except for a few settlements
fringing Lake Champlain. In fact, most of the region lying between Lake Champlain on the
east, Lake Ontario on the west, the St. Lawrence River on the north, and the southern slopes
of the Adirondacks remained wilderness until late in the nineteenth century [Ellis et al.
1967:156].
With the return of peace, settlers and land speculators again began to stream into the
frontier, exerting pressure to open up land formerly occupied by the Haudenosaunee. Although
some squatters had lived transiently on Oneida land, the British still occupied Oswegatchie, and
continuing hostilities between the new government and the British deterred development along
the northern portion of the state until after 1796. Undaunted, Alexander Macomb purchased
640,000 acres on the south side of the St. Lawrence River in 1787. Later, after the state
acquired northern New York in a 1788 treaty at Fort Stanwix, Macomb, as leader of a three-man
company, added 3,670,000 acres to his holdings in 1791, including all of what would become
2-12
Jefferson County (Dill 1990; Haddock 1895:152). Macombs eponymous purchase was
surveyed into six great tracts and put up for sale. Tracts Four, Five, and Six fell under the
supervision of William Constable, who took over completed control after Macomb became
insolvent (Ellis et al. 1967:156-157). Galloo Island was part of Tract 5 of Macombs Purchase
(Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Northern New York land purchases, 1790-1815 (adapted

from Ellis et al. 1967:157).
With Macombs bankruptcy, William Constable (one of Macombs partners) actively sought
buyers for property lots in the great tracts. Constables efforts to develop the Black River valley
led him to France, where 210,000 acres of northern New York were purchased by La Compagnie
de New York in 1793 and 600,000 were sold to the Antwerp Company. The land of La
Compagnie became known as Castorland for the extensive number of beaver (castor is
beaver in French) that were reputed to inhabit the heavily forested area. La Compagnie
purchased the parcel to serve as a haven for French aristocrats (with their servants) escaping
the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution. Several of them built grand estates that are now in
ruin. Other speculators were attracted to the pristine North Country, including Jacques-Donatien
(James, in America) Le Ray de Chaumont, Joseph Bonaparte (Napoleons older brother and
former king of Spain), John Brown of Providence, David Parrish, and William Inman (Powell
1976:134; Ellis et al. 1967:156-157; Chan 1997:110; Pilcher 1985:2-3, 22-24, 122). The
Castorland adventure was abandoned in 1814. All in all, the north country proved a
disappointment to most land speculators, who could not successfully compete with the holders of
the richer lands of western New York and, subsequently, of the Great Lakes states (Ellis et al.
1967:158).
2-13
Settlement in Jefferson County took root slowly during the late eighteenth century and
early nineteenth century as a result of the stony soils, a short growing season, and inadequate
in-land transportation (Ellis et al. 1967:156). Several of the more intrepid French migrs had
begun settling their Castorland properties nearest the Black River at what is now Lyons Falls in
1794, and Geoffrey Desjardins erected a mill near what is now Carthage in 1795, although
these endeavors were short-lived. While speculators in the large land tracts were generally
unsuccessful, numerous homesteaders from New England, in general, and Vermont, in
particular, were drawn to the area by its cheap land and potential for industrial and commercial
activity. Jacob Brown (later a Major General during the War of 1812) settled west of what is now
Watertown in 1799 (the settlement was first called Brownville).
At this time, rural communities formed around gristmill and sawmill sites as other
enterprises, such as stores, taverns, and schools, emerged to service these nascent villages
(Pilcher 1985:46-47, 60-62, 80-82, 111-112; Widdis 1991:233; Emerson 1898: Chapter XXX;
Ellis 1991:109-110). Named to honor the third president of the United States, Jefferson County
was formed from Oneida County on March 28, 1805, when its population had reached 1,500,
and Watertown was selected for the county seat (Dixon 2001; Sullivan 2004 [1927]:526).
During this early period, Sackets Harbor was the seat of the customs district, where
soldiers were stationed to control smuggling and the formal trade between northern New York
and Canada, and seized boats and contraband were brought for appraisal and sale during the
period of the embargo mandated by President Thomas Jefferson. Initial harbor defenses were
inadequate at the outset of the War of 1812, consisting of a single brig with sixteen guns. As a
result, Fort Tompkins as well as other forts and defenses were erected, turning Sackets Harbor
into the center of both military and naval operations in the area. Despite the thousands and
troops and marines station at Sackets Harbor, the British threatened to invade the village three
times during the war. The famous battle of Sackets Harbor was fought on May 29, 1813 with
disastrous results to the enemy. After the war, Sackets Harbor became a permanent naval
station, which it remained through the nineteenth century (Ellis et al. 1967:140-141; Emerson
1898: Chapter XXX). In addition to its customs and military importance, Sackets Harbor
emerged as an important shipping and shipbuilding port becoming a key point in the lakes trade.
This importance continued through the 1860s.
Aside from ample waterpower, entrepreneurs exploited other natural resources of the area,
including iron ore and abundant timber. Serving as the foundation for nascent communities,
prominent local forges attracted both people and additional commercial enterprises. For example,
Sterlingburgh, initially a bloomary forge in 1816, attracted other industries including a distillery
(1824) and a grist and plaster mill (after 1835), as well as residential housing. Other types of
iron production facilities included Joseph Bonapartes short-lived blast furnace on the Indian
River, which produced pig and cast before being sold in 1852 to James Sterling, the regions
iron magnate. Sterling had operated iron mines in the area since 1837 as well as a blast furnace
on Black Creek and a charcoal kiln. Sterlings iron works persevered through the vacillations of
the iron market and were sold to the Jefferson Iron company in 1869. This company ceased
operation in 1881 and the last ore shipment was sent in 1890. Other iron operations in the area
were located at Alpina and Philadelphia (Klein et al. 1985: 2/16-17; Child 1890).
As expected, agriculture provided the chief livelihood for most of the early residents of the
county. The first cash crop from the heavily timbered land was potash derived from burning the
timber cut while clearing land (Klein et al. 1985:2-18). While land in the Black River valley was
generally fertile, the rugged topography of the Tug Hill Plateau area precluded intensive
2-14
agriculture. The thin soils of the Plateau encouraged dairying, and cheesemaking was a
prominent nineteenth-century industry in both Lewis and Jefferson counties into the twentieth
century. Begun largely for local or household consumption, numerous small cheesemaking
operations flourished in the area during the second half of the nineteenth century, including
several associated with cheese magnate F.X. Baumert (Klein et al. 1985:2/18-19; Aldenderfer et
al. 1982:III-32).
Improved transportation networks benefited commerce and industry as well as linked the
area to the rest of New York State. Largely unpaved roads connected the various industrial sites
and small communities with distribution sites and farming areas, and included the St. Lawrence
Turnpike (1812-13), the Antwerp-Sterlingville Plank Road (1849), and the Lewisburg Plank
Road (1853). Paving of area roads did not begin until the twentieth century (Klein et al. 1985:219). Initiating an economic boom beginning in 1848, the Black River Canal connected Carthage
to Lyons Falls to the Erie Canal near Rome. The canal carried timber, mill and agricultural
products from the region to downstate markets (Ellis et al. 1967:246; Emerson 1898).
Economic growth of Jefferson County was enhanced by the introduction of railroad
facilities after 1850. During the 1850s, the introduction of railroad transportation certified the
economic and commercial importance of villages along its right-of-way, providing the
wherewithal to transport the areas agricultural and iron products to a larger market. While the
Northern Railroad (1850) connected Ogdensburg and other northern towns with the main, midstate line, the Black River & Utica Railroad (1857; reorganized in 1860) connected Philadelphia
(New York), Boonville, Lowville (1868), and Carthage (1872) with Utica and points south
(Aldenderfer et al. 1982:III-36; Klein et al. 1985:2-20). The more prominent Rome, Watertown &
Ogdensburg Railroad hauled freight, passengers and dairy products (after refrigerated boxcars
were invented). The two routes merged in 1886 and were consolidated in 1891 with the New
York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Meinig 1966:176).
Immigration of different ethnic groups altered the areas predominant New England
character. After the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, Irish immigrants trickled into the
region, reinforced by another stream during the late 1840s. Germans arrived during the midcentury as well. As one might expect as a result of the areas proximity to Canada, English- and
French-Canadians were a noticeable presence in the areas lumber and manufacturing
industries, particularly after the 1870s. Italians and Eastern Europeans arrived during the late
1890s into 1900s. Watertowns population reached 22,000 in 1900 (Widdis 1991:233).
The largest municipality in Jefferson County, Watertown, was (and remains) the countys
commercial hub with a stop on the railroad and numerous industrial operations using the falls at
its center for power. During the nineteenth century, Watertown supported the typical industrial
and manufacturing establishments, such as blacksmith shops, carpenters, masons, carriage
and wagon manufacturers and dealers, livery and horse stables, foundries and machine shops
as well as paper and pulp mills and timbering operations. New York Air Brake (for railroad
engines) employed over 1,200 at the turn of the nineteenth century. In 1900, 289
manufacturing establishments employed 3,760 workers (Widdis 1991:234-5).
However, the economic prosperity did not last. During the early twentieth century due to
increasing deforestation the once-prominent lumbering industry entered a long period of decline.
The areas geographic isolation also would play a role in the decline of the manufacturing
sector, as businesses sought to decrease transportation costs with the advent of cheaper
electric power. Suffering a similar fate during the twentieth century, the cheese and dairying
2-15
industry declined and consolidated as a result of competition from Wisconsin farms and
increasing mechanization. The loss of economic opportunities resulted in a flight of population
(Widdis 1991; Klein et al. 1985:2-19).
Throughout the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century, the economy of
Jefferson County was resource based, with various commercial opportunities afforded by its
water, agricultural and forest resources. Dairy farming, food-making and papermaking have
been major industries, while, more recently, railroad equipment, industrial machinery and
medical equipment contribute substantially to the overall economy. The county also has
benefited from the presence of the Fort Drum Military Reservation, which brought a boom in
construction and trade (Sullivan 2004 [1927]:527).
The military presence in the area began in 1908 as the New York State National Guard
and the U.S. Army held maneuvers on 10,000 acres around Pine Plains east of Watertown.
Beginning in 1910, Pine Camp was permanently established as a site for maneuvers and
artillery testing. A landing strip for planes was added in the 1920s. The camp added over 80,000
acres of land to its reservation during World War II and was renamed Camp Drum in 1951.
Consisting of 107,265 acres at present, the installation was renamed Fort Drum in September
1974 (Klein et al. 1985:2/20-21). Currently, the fort is home to the U.S. Army 10th Mountain
Division (Light Infantry) and involved in the mobilization and training of almost 80,000 troops
annually. With the activation of the division during the 1980s, Jefferson County experienced a
26 percent population increase, becoming the fastest growing county in New York State during
this period.
During the last half of the twentieth century, recreational activities and vacationing have
become an important sector in the North Country economy, especially for those areas near the
lake and the Thousand Islands. In 2000, Jefferson County had a population of 111,738 (U.S.
Census Bureau 2000).
Town of Hounsfield. The 1796 survey of the Black River tract comprised eleven towns.
Tract Number 1, identified as Hesiod at the time, the future Town of Hounsfield, was owned by
Richard Harrison and Joseph Ogden Hoffman. Harrison and Hoffman sold the northern portion
of the tract to Henry Champion and Lemuel Storrs in 1797, and the southern portion, including
the project area, to Peter Kemble and Ezra Hounsfield in 1801. Kemble and Hounsfields land
agents were Silas Stow and Elisha Camp. The northern portion was eventually sold to Amasa
Fox and Augustus Sackett (the latter providing the name for Sacketts Harbor), both of whom
settled along the Black River. Augustus Sacket built the first sawmill in 1801. By 1802, there
were about thirty families living in the town. A number of English-American families formed a
settlement near Sackets mill in 1805, including Samuel Luff and his four sons, David Merritt,
Williams Ashby, John Root, Henry Metcalf, and George Slornan. Numerous other settlers
arrived prior to the War of 1812, when the town had about 950 residents (Emerson 1898:54-56,
Chapter XXX; Hough 1854:171-175).
The Town of Hounsfield (sometimes Houndsfield) was incorporated in February 17, 1806
and named in honor of Ezra Hounsfield, who arrived in New York from England in 1800 as
agent for his brothers, John and Bartholomew Hounsfield. Hounsfield died without heir in 1817,
and his properties were purchased for his brother Bartholomew at public auction. Galloo
(sometimes Galloup, in nineteenth-century histories), Little Galloo, Stony, and Calf islands were
patented by the state to Elisha Camp, in February 15, 1823, and were included as part of
Hounsfield. In April 1818, part of Galloo Island was ceded to the United States for the purpose
2-16
of erecting and operating a lighthouse. In the history of the town these islands have been of
little consequence. They are occupied almost exclusively for agricultural purposes and contain
excellent farming lands (Hough 1854:68-69; Emerson 1898:Chapter XXX).
During the War of 1812, several fortifications, including Fort Tompkins, encircled the
harbor, which was the center of American naval operations for the northern theater of the war.
At the time it was the countrys largest naval port and shipbuilding area, and thousands of
troops and marines were quartered in the area. Twice, the harbor was attacked by British
forces. The First Battle, June of 1812, five British warships attacked the U.S. Oneida and
batteries in the harbor (American Forts Network 2003). As a result, the Americans increased the
fortifications at the harbor to protect the U.S. Naval Shipyard located on Navy Point. Next to the
shipyard was built Fort Tompkins, consisting of a blockhouse, 20 guns, and earthworks. The
troops were garrisoned at the Smith Cantonment, consisting of four blockhouses and a
palisade. Completed in 1813 were Fort Virginia, with a blockhouse and 16 guns, and Fort
Volunteer, an earthwork defensive structure. The British returned in May of 1813, when the
British landed troops on Horse Island and proceeded to march on the harbor. The Americans
burned their military stores, and entrenched within Fort Volunteer. The British failed against the
American solid position, and retreated. Additional fortifications were added by the Americans,
including the stone tower of Fort Chauncey, the earthworks of Fort Kentucky and Fort Stark, and
additional earthworks connected the various fortifications. Fort Volunteer was made into a
Cantonment and renamed Fort Pike.
The Village of Sacketts Harbor was incorporated in 1814 (population: 1,386). The town
attained a population of 3,429 in 1820. In the 1820s, the harbor was cleared out and improved.
In 1828, the Jefferson County Canal Company was incorporated, with Elisha Camp leading and
partially funding the construction. The canal extended from Huntington's Mills, located two miles
north of Watertown, to the Harbor. Referred to as Camps Ditch, the canal was 20 feet wide.
Camp also built two saw mills, grist, plaster, and paper mills, and a furnace near the harbor at
the terminus of the canal. However, the canal was abandoned after about ten years, and Camp
lost $60,000 in his investments. Attempts were also made to establish railroad lines in the town.
The Sacketts Harbor and Ellisburgh Railroad connected to the Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg
Railroad in 1853. However, the line was abandoned in 1862. In late 1874, the Sacketts Harbor
line of the Carthage, Watertown & Sacketts Harbor Railroad was completed, with three stations.
Jewettsville, Brownville, and Dexter were small villages, the latter two being partially in the
Town of Brownville. Jewettsville at one time was quite prosperous. It was first settled by Silas
Godfrey in 1802. Other early settlers include Benjamin Barnes who had a frame house he used
as a tavern, as well as a brickyard and bakery, and John McDole, who also had a tavern.
Heman Pettit arrived around 1804 and opened a mill on Mill Creek. Pettit was a general builder,
and built a saw mill for Augustus Sackett at the harbor, and both a saw mill and a grist mill on
Mill Creek for Samuel Luff. He had built the wharves at Sacketts Harbor, as well. At its height,
Jewettsville was a bustling industrial town. It had four or five distilleries, three vinegar factories,
a malt house, a brewery, a bakery, a powder mill and laboratory, gunsmith shop, two cooper
shops, a wheelwright shop, a rope factory, several asheries, a woolen mill, a tannery, a glove
factory, a lime kiln, and three brickyards. Eventually, the village was largely abandoned, and
became a small crossroads hamlet. Much of the town remained rural throughout the nineteenth
century. Early industries included pot ash, lumber, and hops. Outside the small villages, a few
small hamlets developed in areas such as East Hounsfield, Fields Settlement, Stowells
Corners, and Sulphur Springs. Population of the town reached its nineteenth century apex in
1840 when 4,146 people were enumerated. The number of inhabitants declined gradually for
2-17
the remainder of the nineteenth century and was tabulated as 2,651 in 1890. The decline
continued into the twentieth century, as the population of the town was 2,297 in 1920 (Emerson
1898:636; Sullivan 2004 [1927]. The town had a population of 3,323 in 2000.
Galloo Island. Originally called Galloup Island, it was part of a series of islands once
referred to as the Isles au Gallot. Galloo Island was reputedly first visited by Samuel de
Champlain in 1615, during the course of an ill-fated attack against the Haudenosaunee. Little
attention was paid to the island until the nineteenth century. The first American residents on
Galloo Island were Abraham Wilkinson, his wife, and their six children, who had relocated from
Stony Island in 1809. They returned to the mainland in 1812 (to the Town of Henderson).
Another short-lived resident was William Warner, who settled on Galloup Island in 1811 and left
in 1813 to work with Jesse Hopkins on the construction of a 40-ton schooner in the Town of
Henderson. Five years later, in 1818, the U.S. government acquired approximately 35 acres at
the southern end of the island in order to build a lighthouse. As noted, Galloo Island and its
neighborsLittle Galloo, Stony, and Calf islands (see Figure 1.1)were acquired by Elisha
Camp in 1823 (Emerson 1898:7-8, 55-56, 619, 623; Baker 1958).
The first long-term residents were Whitford Gill and his family. Gill purchased land at the
foot of the island in 1815, but did not settle there with his family until 1822, when he built a
farmhouse. In the 1830s, he tended two orchards and operated a sawmill. His sons, Rodhan,
John, and William, expanded the farm with 2,000 Merino sheep, and about 30 dairy cows.
Although Elisha Camp owned the original patent for the island, Gill purchased it from him at
some point. The Gills owned most of the island except for the lighthouse and a portion of the
island referred to as Gannett Farm (spelled Gannet on the 1887 map; Figure 2.3). Rodham
Gills portion of the family property, including a farm and three lots, was sold to Barney Eveleigh
in 1860. Byron Johnson and his cousin Erwin Willard purchased a 600-acre farm with a
farmhouse and sawmill from John Gill (Johnsons father-in-law) in 1869. Johnson built an
additional house near the farmhouse.
Gannett Mill was a small concentration of houses in the vicinity of Gannetts farm (Baker
1958). Warren Gannett and Benijah Avery had bought the land from Bradley Griffin and Philip
Gage in 1856. At that time, there were several log houses and a sawmill in this locale. A
schoolhouse was built there in 1862. Gannetts son, Emmett, and daughter-in-law lived on and
ran the farm until 1897, when Emmett died. His wife, Margaret, retained the farm until 1912,
when she sold it to Asa Cranson. Emmetts brother Charles married Margarets sister Maria.
Their son Frank Ernest Gannett (born 1876) went on to found Gannett Co., Inc., the national
newspaper and media conglomerate (Quick 2006:182-183).
In addition to the sawmills and farms, occupations on the island included teacher,
lighthouse keeper, and boat construction. The original schoolhouse at Gannetts Mill was
replaced by another school built at the mid-point of the island in the 1870s, with room for 35
students (Baker 1958; Robinson 1888).
The Galloo Island lighthouse was originally built in 1820, and consisted of a stone tower,
and a lantern of 21 lights and 15 patent lamps (Sackets Harbor Gazette nd). The light was
visible for 22 miles on the lake, but the view was obstructed by trees on the island. To improve
visibility of the lighthouse, the island was eventually deforested for lumber and for boat
construction on the island and at Henderson Bay. The lighthouse building was replaced a
number of times, possibly in 1826, as well as 1866 (Baker 1958). The 1866 lighthouse was
razed by fire a few years later, and rebuilt.
2-18
Sailing schooners and scows were built at Galloo (Baker 1958). The Gills built Three
Brothers, Old Taylor, and Galloo. The Gannetts built the C.B. Gannett and the Monitor.
Shipwrecks were known to occur on the shoal at the head of the island, among them the
Ontario, during the Revolutionary War, the schooner M. Ballard, in 1866, Nellie Wilder a few
years later, and the freighter John C. Sharples in 1910.
The U.S. Coast Guard station was built on Gill Harbor in 1936 (Quick 2006:188-89). The
complex associated with the station included a dormitory, boat house, and a 50-foot steel
lookout tower. The station also had a life boat, a pulling boat, and a line gun and signaling
equipment. A crew of seven was stationed there. Beginning in the 1940s, the station was closed
in winter and the men lived at Sacketts Harbor. During the 1970s, the federal government listed
the station for closure, which occurred in 1981. Despite a lawsuit by the island residents who
were concerned to prevent picnicking and public docking on the island, the station was
purchased by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in 1987.
During the 1860s more than 80 permanent residents lived on the island supporting a
school and two sawmills (Quick 2006:184). In 1917, only two farms were in operation on the
island, one owned by Captain Austin Phelps and one by the Gannett family. E.R and Rudolph
Gowing purchased the 1,400-acre Phelps farm at that time. However, by 1923 the entire island,
except for the lighthouse reservation, was purchased by Ontario Stock Farms, Inc. for the
purpose of raising sheep, foxes, turkey and pheasants and operating a recreational area. The
operation was not successful. Sometime in the 1930s or 1940s, Harold and Nelson Hovey
purchased the island and operated a sheep and cattle farm. A U.S. Coast Guard Station was
constructed during the late 1930s. The Coast Guard later took over operation of the lighthouse.
The lighthouse was abandoned in 1973 and the Coast Guard left its station ca. 1983. The island
at present is used for recreational hunting (Williams nd.).
2.4
DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH
2.4.1 Historical Map Analysis. Historical maps of the island are rare. The Beers and
Beers Atlas (1864) included maps of the towns of Henderson and Hounsfield, but Galloo Island
is not depicted with either map and therefore is not reproduced for this report. Two other
published historical maps were consulted for the project area: the 1887 Robinson map (Figure
2.3) and the 1895 USGS topographical map (reprinted in 1925; Figure 2.4).
The 1887 map illustrated approximately 17 structures along the eastern/southern shore of
Galloup Island (see Figure 2.3). At the islands southwestern tip is what appears to be the
lighthouse. Continuing north, two structures were shown associated with R. Eveleigh, seven
structures associated with N. Wattam, Schoolhouse No. 10, a structure attributed to R.R.
Gannet, one to R.F. Johnson, and four structures clustered at the northeastern tip of the island
associated with N. Wattam.
The 1895 USGS map illustrated 10 structures along the eastern/southern shore (see
Figure 2.4). At the southwestern tip is the lighthouse, then one where the Eveleigh structure was
shown; one where the seven Wattam structures were illustrated; one where the 1887
schoolhouse was shown; one structure where the 1887 Gannet structure was depicted; one
structure at Gill Harbor (approximately where the R.F. Johnson structure was shown in 1887);
and four structures near the northern tip where the N. Wattam structures were shown in 1887.
Table 2.2 lists the map documented structures (MDS) shown on Figures 2.3 and 2.4.
2-19
LIGHTHOUSE
Figure 2.3. Galloup Island in 1887 (Robinson 1887).
Figure 2.4. Galloo Island in 1895 (USGS Stony Island, NY 1895).

2-20
Table 2.2.
Map Documented Structures represented on published maps of Galloo Island.
MDS 1
MDS 2
1887
(Robinson)
Lighthouse
R. Eveleigh - two structures
1895
(USGS)
Lighthouse
one structure
MDS 3
N. Wattam - 7 structures
one structure
MDS 4
MDS 5
MDS 6
MDS 7
MDS 8
S. H. No. 10
not represented
R. R. Gannett
B. F. Johnson
N. Wattam, 4 structures
not represented
one structure
one structure
one structure
4 structures
Map Documented
Structure (MDS)
In addition to published maps, former residents of the island have drawn their own maps.
Howard Baker drew a map from his memory in 1967, representing the island probably in the
1910s or later (Figure 2.5). Elsie Newton drew a map from her memories of living on the island
between 1932 and 1935 (Figure 2.6). The map representing the island in the 1910s shows the
Lighthouse, the Paxon House (formerly the R. Eveleigh structure), five houses surrounding the
Gannett Mill, the schoolhouse, the location of the Gannett House and Mill, the Johnson and Gill
Farm, the Johnson Mill, the Wattam Farm, the Cottage, and the north pond. Table 2.3 lists the
map documented structures shown on Figures 2.5 and 2.6.
Table 2.3.
Map Documented Structures represented on sketch maps of Galloo Island.
Map Documented
Structure (MDS)
ca. 1910
(Baker 1967)
Lighthouse
not represented
not represented
not represented
Paxon House
1932-1935
(Newton n.d.)
Light House
Light House Keeper
Assistant Keeper
Boat House
not represented
MDS 6
5 Houses that surrounded the

Gannett Mill
House (unoccupied), Cattle Shed,

Chicken House
MDS 7
MDS 8
MDS 9
MDS 10
MDS 11
MDS 12
MDS 13
MDS 14
MDS 15
MDS 16
Original Schoolhouse
Gannett House and Mill Site
Johnson and Gill Farm
not represented
not represented
not represented
not represented
Johnson Mill
Wattam Farm
Cottage
Schoolhouse
Big House
Cow Barn, Horse Barn, Shed
Shed for Colt
Fox Pen
Tower
Cottage
Windmill
not represented
not represented
MDS 17
North Pond
Storage Warehouse, Fish Shack, Ice

House, Club House
MDS 1
MDS 2
MDS 3
MDS 4
MDS 5
2-21
Figure 2.5. Galloo Island ca. 1910 as sketched by Howard Baker (Baker 1967).
2-22
Figure 2.6. Galloo Island, 1932-1935 (Newton n.d.).

Figure 2.6 illustrates more detailed information about buildings associated with the
lighthouse and some of the farms. Near the lighthouse were a house for the keeper, the
assistant keeper, and a boat house. From the southern tip of the island were an unoccupied
house (the R. Eveleigh/Paxon house), a cattle shed, a chicken house, the schoolhouse, the Big
House (Gannett farmhouse), a cow barn, a horse barn, a shed, and a shed for a colt. Between
the two bays were a windmill (Johnsons Mill), a fox pen, the lookout tower, the Cottage, and a
storage and hen house. At North Pond were a fish shack, an ice house, and a club house, as
well as a dock.
2.4.2 Site File and Archival Review. A review of the archaeological site files at the New
York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and New York State
Museum (NYSM) was conducted for the project area. No previously recorded sites were
identified on Galloo Island.
Previous Investigations and National Register Listings. No cultural resource
investigations have been conducted for Galloo Island (see Section 4.0 for a discussion of
National Register Listed properties; also see Appendix B).
2-23
3.0 Archaeological Sensitivity

3.1 METHODOLOGY
A Phase IA cultural resources investigation is designed to identify and assess sensitivity
and potential for locating cultural resources within the area of potential effect (APE). These
resources include archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic) and standing structures or other
aboveground features. A Phase IA survey consists of a background/literature search, a site file
check, and a field inspection of the project area. Archaeological and historic site files at the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) are reviewed as an
initial step to determine the presence of known archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of
the APE. These files include data recorded at both the OPRHP and the New York State
Museum (NYSM). Results of the site file check indicated that there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites on Galloo Island. The prehistory and history of the region are reviewed in
order to understand the historic background of the APE and provide a context for any cultural
resources that may exist on the island (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
Information collected during the Phase IA survey is used to assess the sensitivity of the
project area for the presence of cultural resources. The sensitivity of the project area is
assessed through background research and field examination. Areas are considered to have
low archaeological sensitivity according to the following criteria:
x
graded and cut areas through surrounding terrain (e.g., hills or gorges), such
as those resulting from road construction
areas that appear to have over 5 feet (1.5 meters) of fill
areas previously impacted by construction of utilities, drainage ditches, streets

or other obvious areas of significant earth movement
areas including poorly drained soils and wetlands
areas having slopes greater than 12 to 15 percent
Areas of archaeological potential and high sensitivity are identified based on the following
criteria:
x
undisturbed areas that are environmentally sensitive with relatively level welldrained soils or in the vicinity of potable water such as springs, streams or
creeks (these characteristics typify known site locations in the region)
known prehistoric or historic site locations within or adjacent to the project area
historic structures identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area
3-1
3.2
PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Prehistoric Workshop and Camp Sites. The setting of the project area on a relatively
large island in Lake Ontario was suitable for resource procurement (e.g., hunting, fishing and
limited gathering). Therefore, the project area is sensitive for small campsites. Ontario is a fresh
water lake so the availability of potable water is not an issue. The most sensitive locations for
sites are in proximity to the coast and adjacent to wetlands. Clusters of artifacts, stray finds or
low density and scattered artifact assemblages may be encountered.
Prehistoric Villages. No sites were identified in the project area. In general, the carrying
capacity of the island is limited and the likelihood of an unreported village site on the island is
low.
Other Prehistoric Sites (e.g., quarry, rockshelter, burials, mounds). The likelihood of
finding prehistoric quarry sites is moderate. The limestone bedrock underlying the project area
may have chert inclusions providing an important source of materials for stone tool
manufacture. This estimate is further supported by the fact that the bedrock is at, or near, the
surface in many areas of the island. The likelihood of finding rockshelter sites is near zero since
the island terrain is virtually flat. The likelihood of mounds is low as none have been reported
and they would have been readily visible given the flat terrain. Soil limitations also contribute to
the estimation. Sensitivity for burials is generally low primarily due to the lack of reasonably
deep soil on the island.
3.3. HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

It is likely that the initial historic use of the project area (the island) was the production of
shingle and shake from the once extensive stand of cedar. Following deforestation, the island
was used for grazing for both sheep and cattle. A limited amount of agriculture took place where
soil conditions were favorable (the northeastern section of the island). The proposed turbine
locations are generally dispersed across the entire island, although the major wetland areas will
be avoided (see Figure 1.2). Historic farmsteads and milling took place all along the
southeastern shore (see Section 2.4.1). With the exception of the Clubhouse which appears
will not be directly impacted by project construction, and the location of a World War II
watchtower (not yet mapped), all the known foundations, standing and map documented
structures as well as potential historic period archaeological resources are along the
southeastern shore (Photographs 3.1 to 3.10). As presently designed, 18 of the proposed 77
turbines and associated interconnects as well as all of the support structures are along the
southeastern shore. Sensitivity for historic middens along the southeastern shore is moderate to
high. Once the foundations and any middens or artifact deposits have been located and
mapped, avoidance can be accomplished through minor changes in facility layout.
3-2
Photograph 3.1. Foundations and ruins of the Gannet House and mill site or
possibly Wattam farm with the former birthing barn in the background, facing
northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 3.2. Former birthing barn in a state of collapse, facing northeast

(PCI 2007).
3-3
Photograph 3.3. Foundations and ruins of the former birthing barn, showing
the near total collapse, facing southwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 3.4. Stone foundation south of the birthing barn and adjacent to
the lake shore (provisionally Gannet mill), facing southeast (PCI 2007).
3-4
Photograph 3.5. Ruin of a stone building southwest of the birthing barn. There
is a concrete foundation in the foreground at ground level, facing north (PCI
2007).
Photograph 3.6. Ruin of a stone building southwest of the birthing barn

showing a doorway, facing southwest (PCI 2007).
3-5
Photograph 3.7. Foundation that may be associated with the northern Wattam
farm (see Figure 2.5), north of the former Coastguard Station (PCI 2007).
Photograph 3.8. Possible Wattam farm foundation and existing corn crib north
of the former Coastguard Station (PCI 2007).
3-6
Photograph 3.9. Map documented ruin of a stone building (possibly Johnson

Mill) at the southwest end of Gill Harbor (PCI 2007).
Photograph 3.10. Ruin of a stone and concrete building northeast of the Main
Lodge adjacent to the utility shed (possibly associated with the former
Johnson and Gill farm) (PCI 2007).
3-7
3.4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted, the prehistoric sensitivity of the island is low to moderate. One of the
contributing factors of this assessment is its inaccessibility. While not impossible, the trip from
the mainland by canoe, even using an island-hopping route, would have been quite perilous.
There are instances during the winter when travel by foot over lake ice would have been
possible. Historically, this was a common method for reaching the island in winter, although the
risk-reward characteristics of such a trip during the prehistoric period would have likely made it
an uncommon occurrence. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that Native Americans may
have used the island periodically throughout prehistory for hunting, fishing and trapping.
Seasonal, short-term camps would be the most likely settlement type to occur on the island.
The remains of these settlements, if they are present, are unlikely to be located within
wetland areas or in the margins of the wetland. They are also unlikely to be situated on exposed
bedrock but can be located at virtually any other location on the island. Since these sites are
likely to be small, shovel testing may not be an appropriate Phase IB reconnaissance method.
There are areas of the island that are clear enough to be plowed and surface inspected (see
Figures 1.3, 1.6 and 1.7). Shovel testing can be used to examine the proposed locations of
project facilities if that strategy is recommended by the SHPO.
As an aid in determining the likely locations of map documented structures and ultimately
the areas on the island that may be sensitive for historic period resources, the 1887 and 1895
map were overlain on the 2006 aerial photograph (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). It appears that the 1887
Figure 3.1. Structures indicated on the 1887 map of Galloo Island overlain on a 2006
aerial photograph. Labels from left to right are Eveleigh, Wattam, School House No.
10, Gannet, Johnson and Wattam (Robinson 1887; NYSGIS Clearinghouse 2006).
3-8
Figure 3.2. Structures indicated on the 1895 USGS quadrangle overlain on a 2006 aerial
photograph (USGS 15 Quadrangle, Stony Island, NY 1895; NYSGIS Clearinghouse 2006).
map included all structures on the island while the 1895 map did not include outbuildings. The
sketch map (Baker), depicting the general locations of structures ca 1910, was also overlain on
a 2006 aerial (Figure 3.3). This map is not to scale and the overlay was done for information
purposes only. A Phase IB survey to address the historic period remains on the island should be
designed to achieve the following:
x
Locate and map foundation remains that were not observed during the Phase IA site
visit. Figure 3.4 is a composite of the 1887 and 1895 overlays and is an indicator of the
likely locations of any remaining foundations. Of note is that the location of the
assistant lighthouse keepers house may be within the NYSDEC parcel as well as
other former structures associated with the lighthouse.
Determine the presence of middens or artifact deposits associated with the historic
period foundations. Midden or artifact deposit locations should be determined by
removal of sod as shovel testing is likely to be problematical and inefficient. If possible,
previously plowed areas that are adjacent to foundations should be re-plowed and
surface inspected.
Locate and map the remains of one (possibly two) map referenced watchtower(s) (see
Figures 1.2 and 2.6)
3-9
Determine the likely locations of any interior refuse disposal areas. Because of the lack
of soil of any depth along much of the southeastern shoreline where the bulk of the
historic activity took place; it is reasonably likely that refuse disposal took place at
particular inland locations. Due to the lack of significant soil deposition on the island,
these locations may be identifiable by surface inspection.
Figure 3.3. Baker sketch map (of the island ca. 1910) overlain on a 2006 aerial photograph
of Galloo Island. The red dots are structures indicated on the 1887 Robinson map. The
middle part of the map is compressed and is likely more accurate if broken into pieces
(Baker 1967; NYSGIS Clearinghouse 2006).
Areas that may be sensitive for prehistoric remains are delineated on Figure 3.5. The
southwestern quarter of the island, while containing limited regulatory wetlands, is low lying and
appeared somewhat marshy during the site visit. Areas delineated as sensitive in the midsection
of the island are in elevated areas adjacent to wetlands as are the areas in the northeastern
quarter. The northern area, which has been cultivated (see Figures 1.3 and 1.6), is a mixture of
wetlands and relatively elevated areas. In all, the prehistorically sensitive areas account for
approximately 300 acres. It is proposed that an 8-10% sample be surveyed through a
combination of plowing and shovel testing. Of note, the survey of historically sensitive areas
along the southeastern shore will also serve as an opportunity to also identify prehistoric
materials in that area.
3-10
Structures depicted on the 1887 map

Structures depicted on the 1895 map
Structures depicted on the both the

1887 and 1895 maps
1 Map documented structures
7
6
1887
1895
MDS 1
(Robinson)
Lighthouse
(USGS)
Lighthouse
MDS 2
R. Eveleigh - two structures
one structure
MDS 3
N. W attam - 7 structures
one structure
MDS 4
S. H. No. 10
not represented
MDS 5
not represented
one structure
MDS 6
R. R. Gannett
one structure
MDS 7
MDS 8
MDS 9
not represented
B. F. Johnson
N. W attam, 4 structures
one structure
one structure
4 structures
Map Documented
Structure (MDS)
3
2
1
Figure 3.4 All map documented structures

mapped on a 2006 aerial photograph of
Galloo Island (NYSGIS Clearinghouse 2006).
3-11
Prehistorically sensitive area that can be

sampled by surface inspection
Prehistorically sensitive area that can be
sampled by shovel testing
Historically sensitive area that can be sampled
by stripping or shovel testing
Regulated Wetlands
Figure 3.5. Proposed Phase IB survey

areas (base map: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle,
Galloo Island, NY, 1960).
3-12
4.0 Galloo Island Architecture

4.1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
The existing architectural resources on Galloo Island are found at six locations, primarily
on the southeastern shore (i.e., Main Lodge, Caretakers house, former Coast Guard Station,
and Guest House). The Lighthouse is located at the southwestern tip of the island and the
Clubhouse is located on the north shore, on the east side of North Pond. There is a small
fishermans shack on the west shore of North Pond. A summary of each of the six locations
follows.
The Main Lodge. The Main Lodge is a modified, and largely expanded, mid-nineteenth
century building. Located on the southeastern shore of the island, this lakeside building is set in
a manicured lawn with few hardwood trees (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The building is surrounded by
several ancillary modern outbuildings including sheds, storage buildings, barns, a pheasant pen
and a privy. An air strip occupies much of the immediate area to the northwest of the Main
Lodge. The original block of the Main Lodge consists of a frame, 1-story rectangular block
clad with cedar shingles and set on a native gray limestone foundation. A mid-nineteenth
century vernacular interpretation of the Greek Revival style, the original block retains its heavy
cornice, overhanging eaves and overall massing. The building has been enlarged with the
addition of a large two-story wing with raised basement, lesser one-story rear additions, and
wraparound deck. Other twentieth century modifications include replacement sash, new window
openings, and an exterior stone chimney. Its modern wraparound deck offers wide open views
of Lake Ontario (Photographs 4.1 through 4.16).
Figure 4.1. Layout and location of the Main Lodge complex on the southeastern
shore of Galloo Island (PCI 2007).
4-1
Figure 4.2. Galloo Island Lodge Complex consisting of the Main Lodge and
outbuildings, with photo angles.
4-2
Photograph 4.1. The southeast and northeast elevations of the Main Lodge, from
near the lake shore, facing west (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.2. The southwest and southeast elevations of the Main Lodge, from
near the lake shore, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
4-3
Photograph 4.3. The northeast elevation of the Main Lodge, facing southwest (PCI
2007).
Photograph 4.4. The northwest elevation of the original block of the Main Lodge,
facing southeast toward the lake (PCI 2007).
4-4
Photograph 4.5. The upper floor of the southeast elevation of the Main Lodge,
facing west-northwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.6. The southwest elevation of the Main Lodge, facing northeast.
Note gray limestone foundation of original block (PCI 2007).
4-5
Photograph 4.7. The upper stories of the northeast elevation of the Main Lodge,
facing west (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.8. Privy (not in use), south of the Main Lodge, from near the lake
shore, facing northwest (PCI 2007).
4-6
Photograph 4.9. Privy and cleanout (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.10. The utility shed and old foundation (left), northeast of the Main
Lodge, from near the lake shore, facing north (PCI 2007).
4-7
Photograph 4.11. The utility shed interior, facing southwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.12. Barns northwest of the Main Lodge, from south of the grass
runway, facing northwest (PCI 2007).
4-8
Photograph 4.13. View of the rear of the barns from the pheasant pen, facing east
(PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.14. The pheasant pen west of the barns, facing northwest (PCI 2007).
4-9
Photograph 4.15. View northeast of the Main Lodge along the lake shoreline,
showing the utility shed and the Caretakers house and former Coast Guard
Station in the background (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.16. View of the grass runway from the southwestern end, facing
4-10
Galloo Island Lighthouse. The National Register Listed Galloo Island Lighthouse
[90NR01133] stands at the southwest end of Galloo Island (Figures 4.3 and 4.4). The light tower
is a conical structure measuring 60 feet high with a base of 15 feet narrowing to 10 ft 4 inches at
the crown (Photographs 4.17 to 4.19). Perched on top is a polygonal lantern (Photograph 4.24).
The surrounding galley is supported by simple bracketing, enclosed by an iron railing and
capped with a finial. The Keepers House is a largely-intact Greek Revival building, attached to
the east side of the tower by a single-story, frame hyphen (Photographs 4.17 to 4.23).
Completed in 1857, the tower and dwelling were constructed in gray limestone quarried from the
island. These structures replaced the previous (1820) lighthouse. Stylistic elements of the
Keepers House include limestone sills and lintels, quoins, six-over-six double-hung wooden
sash windows, and a heavy cornice. Three pedimented dormers protrude from the east and
west slopes of the buildings cedar-shingle clad roof (Photograph 4.25). A period frame addition
was added to the north faade of the main stone block (Photographs 4.21 to 4.23), which is
separated from the main block by a central interior parged chimney with three chimney pots.
This addition mimics the style of the stone structure with its cornice returns and six-over-six
double-hung wood sash windows (see HAER Survey form, Miller 1979).
The associated Fog Horn House is located southwest of the lighthouse on the edge of the
shoreline (Photographs 4.32 to 4.35). Constructed in the early twentieth century, the building
consists of a brick masonry rectangular block with a frame tower set on its northern roof slope.
The building features a period sliding double door on the east elevation. Two segmented arched
windows with stone sills and a round-arch entry are located on the south and west elevations.
Decorative embellishments include a corbelled cornice and splayed arch lintels. The building
has a hipped roof, with unenclosed overhanging eaves, sheathed with corrugated metal. The
interior of the building has been exposed to the elements due to removal, or deterioration, of its
windows and doors (Photographs 4.36 and 4.37).
Figure 4.3. Location of the Lighthouse and Fog Horn House at the
southwestern tip of Galloo Island.
4-11
Figure 4.4. Plan of Galloo Island Lighthouse showing the location of the former assistant
lighthouse keepers house, with photo angles.
4-12
Photograph 4.17. Galloo Island Lighthouse and attached Keepers House,

facing northeast (PCI 2007).

facing east-northeast. Concrete fuel oil cradles are visible at right (PCI 2007).
4-13

facing east-southeast. Fog Horn House is visible at right (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.20. Southern elevation of the Keepers House, facing northeast

(PCI 2007).
4-14
Photograph 4.21. Western elevation of the Keepers House, facing eastsoutheast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.22. Western and northern elevations of the Keepers House,

facing southeast (PCI 2007).
4-15
Photograph 4.23. Detail of the western elevation of the Keepers House, facing
east-southeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.24. Galloo Island light (PCI 2007).
4-16
Photograph 4.25. Roof of the Keepers House from atop the Galloo Island light
(PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.26. Interior (kitchen) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers

House (PCI 2007).
4-17
Photograph 4.27. Interior (upstairs hall) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse

Keepers House (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.28. Interior (stair well) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse Keepers
House (PCI 2007).
4-18
Photograph 4.29. Interior (upstairs bedroom) of the Galloo Island Lighthouse

Keepers House (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.30. Interior (upstairs bedroom dormer) of the Galloo Island

Lighthouse Keepers House (PCI 2007).
4-19
Photograph 4.31. Interior (upstairs hall leading to stairs) of the Galloo Island
Lighthouse Keepers House (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.32. View toward the southwest from atop the Galloo Island
Lighthouse showing the Fog Horn House (PCI 2007).
4-20
Photograph 4.33. Eastern and northern elevations of the Fog Horn House
associated with the Galloo Island Lighthouse, facing southwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.34. Western and southern elevations of the Fog Horn House
associated with the Galloo Island Lighthouse, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
4-21
Photograph 4.35. Southern elevation of the Fog Horn House associated with the
Galloo Island Lighthouse from the lake shore, facing north (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.36. Interior of the Fog Horn House associated with the Galloo
Island Lighthouse (PCI 2007).
4-22
Photograph 4.37. Interior ceiling of the Fog Horn House associated with the
Galloo Island Lighthouse (PCI 2007).
4-23
Coast Guard Station. The former Coast Guard Station complex is prominently sited on a
hill overlooking Lake Ontario to the southeast (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). Constructed in the 1930s,
the main building was executed in the Shingle style and still sheathed with cedar shingles
(Photographs 4.38 to 4.43). It consists of a frame, two-story, five-bay by three-bay, rectangular
block with hipped roof. The cedar shingle clad roof has centrally placed hipped dormers with
paired windows protruding from the north and south faades. Fenestration is symmetrical with
six-over-six double-hung wood sash windows. A partial-width hipped roof porch supported by
square posts extends along the south faade; it offers wide open views of Lake Ontario.
The early-twentieth century associated Boat House is located on the rocky shores of Lake
Ontario (Photographs 4.44 and 4.45). The building consists of a long rectangular gable-roofed
block with three open boat bays on the gable end. It has asymmetrical fenestration with both
paired and tripartite groupings of six-over-six double-hung wood sash on the east and west
faades. The roof has an exterior cedar shingle siding, gabled dormers and near ridge chimney.
Many of the roof shingles have become detached leaving the underlayment exposed. The
complex also contains two modern buildings, a concrete bock shed and a corrugated metal
garage/shed (Photograph 4.46).

Figure 4.5. Location and layout of the former Coast Guard Station at the east end of
Galloo Island, facing northwest (PCI 2007).

4-24
Figure 4.6. Plan of the former Coast Guard Station on Gill Harbor with photo angles.
4-25
Photograph 4.38. Former Coast Guard Station from the south side of Gill
Harbor, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.39. View of the former Coast Guard Station toward the lake and
Stony Island, facing east (PCI 2007).
4-26
Photograph 4.40. Southeast and southwest elevations of the Coast Guard

Station main building, radio tower and concrete block utility shed, facing
Photograph 4.41. Southeastern facade of the Coast Guard Station main

building, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
4-27
Photograph 4.42. Detail of the northwest corner of the former Coast Guard
Station main building (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.43. Northwest and southwest elevations of the former Coast

Guard Station main building, facing east (PCI 2007).
4-28
Photograph 4.44. Former Coast Guard Station boathouse from the south side of
Gill Harbor, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.45. Detail of the boathouse, showing dormers and roof condition
the south side of Gill Harbor (telephoto), facing northeast (PCI 2007).
4-29
Photograph 4.46. Corrugated metal garage/shed located west of the main

building, facing north-northeast (PCI 2007).
4-30
Caretakers House. The Caretakers House (Figures 4.7 and 4.8) is a modern, long
rectangular, side-gabled rustic log cottage. It is set on a hill overlooking Lake Ontario; the lake is
accessed by wooded stairs (Photograph 4.47). The building features an integral porch on the
southwest faade, overlapping v-notched corners, a polygonal bay with new picture window,
massive exterior stone chimney and is topped by a metal seam roof (Photograph 4.48). An
associated log outbuilding is located to the west of the main structure (Photograph 4.49).
Figure 4.7. Location of the Caretakers House on Gill Harbor at the eastern end of
Galloo Island and southwest of the former Coast Guard Station (PCI 2007).
Figure 4.8. Plan of Galloo Island Caretakers house with photo angles.
4-31
Photograph 4.47. Caretakers house and outbuilding from the southeast side of
Gill Harbor, facing northwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.48. Caretakers house from the southeast side of Gill Harbor,
4-32
Photograph 4.49. Caretakers outbuilding from the southeast side of Gill Harbor,
4-33
Guest House. The Guest House is modern structure sited on a sloped lot with
surrounding manicured lawns (Figures 4.9 and 4.10). The building overlooks Lake Ontario.
Executed in frame, the building is clad in cedar shingle on the second story with a parged
foundation and first story. On the southwest faade is a massive stone interior end chimney.
Elements of the modern style include the steeply pitched side gable roof sheltering a two tier
porch, modern plate glass windows with overhanging eaves and decorative exposed rafter tails
(Photographs 4.50 to 4.52).
Figure 4.9. Guest House located at the extreme northeastern end of Galloo Island
(PCI 2007).
Figure 4.10. Plan of Guest House

with photo angles.
4-34
Photograph 4.50. Northeast elevation of the guest house, facing southwest (PCI
2007).
Photograph 4.51. Northeast and southeast elevations of the guest house,

facing west (PCI 2007).
4-35
Photograph 4.52. Southwest and southeast elevations of the guest house,

facing north (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.53. Interior of the upper floor of the guest house toward fireplace
at the southwest end of the house (PCI 2007).
4-36
Clubhouse. The Clubhouse is located on the northern edge of the island on the east side
of North Pond (Figures 4.11 and 4.12). Built in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, the
Clubhouse is a modest vernacular frame building with an L-shaped plan. It retains some of its
historic qualities including the overall massing and scale, and few four-over-four double-hung
wood sash windows. Modifications include asbestos siding, altered fenestration on the gable
end and a single story enclosed porch addition in the wing (Photographs 4.55 to 4.59). There is
a Craftsman-era storage shed to the east of the property. The outbuilding has a pyramidal roof,
overhanging eaves and six-over-six windows (Photographs 4.61 and 4.62). A deteriorated frame
privy is located to the southeast of the house (Photographs 4.63 and 4.64).
Figure 4.11. Location of the Clubhouse on North Pond, on the north shore of Galloo
Island, facing west (PCI 2007).
4-37
Figure 4.12. Plan of the Galloo Island Clubhouse with photo angles.
4-38
Photograph 4.54. View of the Clubhouse setting from the south side of North
Pond, facing northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.55. West side of the Clubhouse and outbuilding, facing east (PCI
2007).
4-39
Photograph 4.56. Eastern elevation of the Clubhouse, facing west (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.57. Detail of the eastern elevation of the Clubhouse, facing westnorthwest (PCI 2007).
4-40
Photograph 4.58. Western and southern elevations of the Clubhouse, facing

east-northeast (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.59. Western elevation of the Clubhouse, facing east (PCI 2007).
4-41
Photograph 4.60. Clubhouse interior stone fireplace (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.61. Western elevation of the Clubhouse outbuilding, facing east

(PCI 2007).
4-42
Photograph 4.62. Southern and eastern elevations of the Clubhouse

outbuilding, facing northwest (PCI 2007).
Photograph 4.63. Remains of a privy south of the Clubhouse outbuilding,

facing south (PCI 2007).
4-43
Photograph 4.64. Interior of privy (PCI 2007).
4.2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are six structures on Galloo Island that are greater than 50 years old. These include
the lighthouse and attached keepers house, the fog-horn house, the main lodge, the
clubhouse, the former Coast Guard Station main structure, and the associated boathouse. As
noted, the lighthouse complex is NRHP-listed. While the clubhouse and main lodge appear to
be nineteenth century structures, there is no reference to them until the 1930s (see Figure 2.6)
although the main lodge may be associated with the 1910 Johnson and Gill farm. The
clubhouse was either built in an older style in the 1930s or was moved to its present location at
that time. If the latter is true, it does not retain its original setting and along with its deteriorated
condition and lack of notable features it does not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the
National Register. The originality of the setting of the main lodge is problematical and while the
structure is in very good condition, it has been significantly modified over the years. It does not
appear to be National Register eligible. The Coast Guard main structure and boathouse were
constructed in the 1930s using designs that were in common use by the U.S. Navy and Coast
Guard. They are both in a deteriorated condition and do not appear to meet the National
Register criteria for individual listing. They may be eligible for listing as part of a thematic
(maritime) multiple resource listing if they can be associated closely with the lighthouse. The
present lighthouse, however, pre-dates the Coast Guard Station by eighty years and originally
by more than a hundred years.
4-44
5.0 References
Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker
1978 Seneca. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 505-517. Handbook of North
American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Aldenderfer, Mark S., Frank J. Schieppati, Eric Hansen, Kirk Butterbaugh, and Kathy Allen
1982 A Cultural Resource Predictive Model of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River
Shoreline. Reports of the Archaeological Survey 14(6). Department of Anthropology,
State University of New York at Buffalo.
American Forts Network
2003 Sackets Harbor Forts. [online www]. Available URL:
http://www.geocities.com/lakeforts/Sackets_Harbor.html [accessed February 5, 2008]
Baker, Howard
1967 Sketch map of Galloo Island, ca. 1910. Scrapbook in possession of islands owner.
Baker, Margaret
1958 Galloo Island, a Short History. Unpublished manuscript compiled by Margaret Baker,
Watertown, NY.
Beauchamp, William M.
1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin 7(32). Albany.
Beers, S.N., and D.S. Beers
1864 New Topographical Atlas of Jefferson Co., New York. C.K. Stone, Publisher,
Philadelphia. [online www]. Available URL:
http://www.historicmapworks.com [accessed February 5, 2008]
Blau, Harold, Jack Campisi, and Elisabeth Tooker
1978 Onondaga. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 491-499. Handbook of North
Washington, D.C.
Brasser, T.J.
1978 Early Indian-European Contacts. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 78-88.
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Campisi, Jack
1978 Oneida. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 481-490. Handbook of North
Washington, D.C.
Chan, Elise D.
1997 Jefferson County. Images of America Series. Reissued 2004. Jefferson County
Historical Society (NY). Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.
5-1
Child, Hamilton
1866 Gazetteer and Directory of Jefferson County, New York for 1866-7. L. Ingalls &
Company, Printers and Bookbinders, Watertown, NY.
1890 Gazetteer of Jefferson County, N.Y. from A Prism of Memories of Jefferson County,
new York; Shirley Farones Home Page, np [online www]. Available URL:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~twigs2000/indexchilds.html [accesed
February 5, 2008].
Cleland, Charles E.
1982 The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and
Importance in Prehistory. American Antiquity 47:761-784.
de Laubenfels, David J.
1966 Vegetation. In Geography of New York State, edited by John H. Thompson, pp. 90103. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Dent, Richard J.
1991 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: The Earliest Populations. In The People of
Minisink, edited by D.G. Orr and D.V. Campana, pp. 117-144. National Park Service,
Philadelphia.
Dill, David B., Jr.
1990 The Audacity of Macombs Purchase. Watertown Daily Times, September 23,
Watertown, NY [online www]. Available URL: http://www.bobsterner.com/north
[accessed February 14, 2006].
Dixon, Nancy
2001 Town of Henderson. Jefferson County GenWeb Page, np [online www]. Available
URL: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyjeffer/henderso.htm [accessed December 28, 2006].
Ellis, David M.
1991 The Yankee Invasion of New York, 1783-1850. In Coming and Becoming; Pluralism in
New York State History, edited by W. Tripp, pp. 105-120. New York State Historical
Association, Cooperstown, NY.
Ellis, David M., James A. Frost, Harold C. Syrett, and Harry J. Carmen
1967 A History of New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Emerson, Edgar C., editor
1898 Our County and Its People; A Descriptive Work on Jefferson County, New York.
Boston History Company, Publishers, Boston.
Engelbrecht, William
2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Fenton, William N., and Elizabeth Tooker
1978 Mohawk. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 466-480. Handbook of North
American Indians, vol 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
5-2
Fitting, James E.
1968 Environmental Potential and the Postglacial Readaptation in Eastern North America.
American Antiquity 33 (4):441-445.
1975 Climatic Change and Cultural Frontiers in Eastern North America. Michigan
Archaeologist 21:25-39.
Fritz, Gayle
1990 Multiple Pathways to Farming in Precontact Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 4:387-435.
Funk, Robert E.
1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast
4:7-42.
1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir
22. Albany.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 16-27.
1991 The Middle Archaic in New York. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology
1993 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State,
Volume 1. Persimmon Press, Buffalo.
Funk, Robert E., and Frank F. Schambach
1964 Probable Plano Points in New York State. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34(2):90-93.
Haddock, John A.
1895 The Growth of A Century: as Illustrated in the History of Jefferson County, New York,
from 1793 to 1894. Weed Parsons Printing Company Printer and Binders, Albany, NY.
Hart, John P., and Hetty Jo Brumbach
2003 The Death of Owasco. American Antiquity 68(4):737-752.
Hart, John P., Robert G. Thompson, and Hetty Jo Brumbach
2003 Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea Mays) in the Northern Finger Lakes Region of
New York. American Antiquity 68(4):619-640.
Hoffman, Bernard B.
1961 Cabot to Cartier: Sources for an Historical Ethnography of Northeastern North America
1497-1550. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Hough, Franklin B.
1854 Town of Hounsfield in A History of the Jefferson County in the State of New York from
the Earliest Period to the Present Time, pp. 171-189. Albany and Sterling & Riddell,
Watertown, NY.
5-3
Klein, Joel I., Cara Wise, Margaret M.W. Schaeffer, and Sydne B. Marshall
1985 An Archeological Overview and Management Plan for Fort Drum. Revised Draft.
Prepared for the National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA. Prepared by Envirosphere
Company, New York.
Kraft, Herbert
1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History, and Ethnology. The New Jersey Historical Society,
Newark.
Kuhn, Robert D., and Robert E. Funk
2000 Boning up on the Mohawk: An Overview of Mohawk Faunal Assemblages and
Subsistence Patterns. Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:29-62.
MacNeish, Richard S.
1952 Iroquois Pottery Types: A Technique for the Study of Iroquois Prehistory. National
Museum of Canada, Bulletin 124, Anthropological Series No. 31. The Minister of
Resources and Development, Ottawa.
McDowell, Letember
1989 Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station, Government Printing Office, Hyattsville, MD.
Meinig, D.W.
1966 Elaboration and Change, 1850's-1960's. In Geography of New York State, edited by
John H. Thompson, pp. 172-196. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Miller, Carol Poh
1979 Galloo Island Light. HAER - Great Lakes Lighthouse Survey. Available online at:
http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/hp_view.asp?GroupView=100261
New York Archaeological Council (NYAC)
2000 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological
Collections. New York Archaeological Council, Albany.
Newton-Coit, Elsie
n.d. Elsie Newton-Coits drawing of Galloo Island, 1932-1935. Scrapbook in possession
of islands owner.
Nicholas, George P. (editor)
1988 Ecological Leveling: The Archaeology and Environmental Dynamics of Early
Postglacial Land Use. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, pp.
257-296. Plenum Press, New York.
Nichols, John B.
1928 Notes on rock crevice burials in Jefferson County at Point Peninsula. Researches and
Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 5(4). Rochester.
5-4
NYSHPO
2006 Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural Resources Survey Work. New York
State Historic Preservation Office, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,
Peebles Island, Waterford.
Otterness, Philip
2004 Becoming German; The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca and London.
Parker, Arthur C.
1922 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Nos. 235238. Albany.
Pilcher, Edith
1985 Castorland; French Refugees in the Western Adirondacks, 1793-1814. Harbor Hill
Books, Harrison, NY.
Powell, Thomas F.
1976 Penets Square, an Episode in the Early History of Northern New York. North Country
Books, Lakemont, NY.
Quick, Debbie
2006 The History of the Town of Henderson, Plus the Galloup Islands. The Historical
Association of South Jefferson, Adams, NY.
Ritchie, William A.
1945 An Early Site in Cayuga County, New York. Research Records of the Rochester
Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 7. Rochester.
1955 The Northern Burial Cult. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 25:45-50.
1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Revised Edition. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, NY.
Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science
Service Memoir No. 20. Albany.
Robinson, Elisha
1888 Atlas of Jefferson County, New York. E. Robinson, New York. USGenNet webpage, np
[online www]. Available URL:
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/jefferson/hounsfield/hounsfieldmap1887.gif,
[accessed February 5, 2008]
Sackets Harbor Gazette
nd Galloo Light House. Sackets Harbor Gazette. Reprint of October 5, 1820 article from
Oswego Paladium.
Salwen, Bert
1975 Post Glacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin. Man in the
Northeast 10:43-70.
5-5
Smith, Bruce D.
1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture,
edited by C.W. Cowan and P.J. Watson, pp. 101-119. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Snow, Dean R.
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.
1994 The Iroquois. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sullivan, James
2004 [1927] Chapter IV. Jefferson County. The History of New York State. Book IV. Lewis
Historical Publishing Company, Inc., New York. Online edition Holice B. Young, Debbie
Axtman & Pam Rietsch. USGenNet web page, Rio Vista, CA [online www]. Available:
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/state/his/bk4/ch4.htm [accessed February 4, 2008].
Tooker, Elisabeth
1978 The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual. In Northeast, edited by
Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 418-441. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1978 Early Iroquois Contacts with Europeans. In Northeast, pp. 344-356. Handbook of North
Washington, D.C.
Tuck, James A.
1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse
University Press, Syracuse.
1978a Northern Iroquoian Prehistory. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 322-333.
1978b Regional Cultural Development, 3000 to 300 B.C. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G.
Trigger, pp. 28-43. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Census Bureau
2000 Census Information by County and State. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
[online www]. Available URL:
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en [accessed January 2007).
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1895 Stony Island, NY Quadrangle 15-Minute Series (Topographic). U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C. Reprint 1925. On file, Historic USGS Maps of New England &
New York, University of New Hampshire, Dimond Library, Documents Department &
Data Center, Durham [online www]. Available URL:
http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/StonyIsland.htm [accessed February 5, 2008]
5-6
1960 Galloo Island, NY; Point Peninsula, NY; Henderson Bay, NY; Stony Point, NY
Quadrangles, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C.
Van Diver, Bradford B.
1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula,
Montana.
Whallon, Robert, Jr.
1968 Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York State. In New
Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 223244. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
White, Marian E.
1961 Iroquois Culture History in the Niagara Frontier Area of New York State. University of
Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, No. 16. Ann Arbor.
Widdis, Randy William
1991 We Breathe the Same Air: Eastern Ontarian Migration to Watertown, New York. In
Coming and Becoming; Pluralism in New York State History, compiled by Wendell Tripp,
pp. 227-246. New York State Historical Association, Cooperstown, NY.
Williams, J. Robert
nd The Galloups Approach the End of an Era. Scrapbook in possession of islands owner.
5-7
Appendix A: Supplemental Material

Photographs source: http://www.gallooislandlighthouse.com/history.htm
Drawings source:
http://www.gallooislandlighthouse.com/drawings.htm
Southeast (front) elevation of the Coast Guard Station Main Building.
Lighthouse, keepers house (attached) and the assistant keepers house (left) in the
1970s
A-2
Oblique aerial photograph of the lighthouse and fog horn house, facing east.
Drawing of the keepers house.
A-3
Lighthouse plan, as built drawing, 1978.
Specifications for a new standby light (1970s) for lighthouse.
A-4
1866 plan for construction of the new lighthouse and keepers house (built 1867). When
actually constructed, the positions of the house and lighthouse were reversed.
A-5
1886 plan view of the lighthouse property (1885 survey).
A-6
1898 design for rebuilding the assistant keepers house.
A-7
1898 design for rebuilding the assistant keepers house.
A-8
End of Field Letter
PCI
BUFFALO TUSCALOOSA MEMPHIS TAMPA
Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2390 Clinton St. Buffalo, NY 14227 (716) 821-1650 Fax (716) 821-1607
January 9, 2009
Mr. Thomas L. Hagner, Manager

Subject: End of Field Report for the Phase IB Archaeological Investigation, Upstate NY
Power Corporation Hounsfield Galloo Island Wind Park, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson
County, New York.
Dear Mr. Hagner:
Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (Panamerican) was contracted by Upstate NY Power
Corporation to conduct a Phase IB cultural resources investigation for the Hounsfield Wind
Farm, a wind-energy project proposed for location in Jefferson and Oswego counties, New York
(Figure 1). Upstate NY Power proposes to construct the turbines for the proposed wind farm on
Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York. The project will consist of
the installation and operation of up to 77 wind turbines for the purpose of generating 280
Megawatts (MW) or less of electricity and infrastructure. Infrastructure includes, but is not
limited to, a docking facility, an operations-and-maintenance building, roads, approximately 10
miles (16 km) of underwater cable, and approximately 42 miles (67.5 km) of overhead
transmission line. The focus of this Phase IB survey is the projects area of potential effect on
Gallo Island. The transmission line is the subject of a separate study. Locations of the various
proposed structures on Galloo Island are preliminary and may be adjusted as the result of
project and regulatory requirements as well as natural and cultural resources concerns.
The Phase IB cultural resources investigation involved surface inspection and shovel
testing in selected portions of the project area based on the results of the Phase IA survey
(Schieppati et al. 2008) and in consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). The investigation was designed to comply with SHPO Guidelines for Wind Farm
Development Cultural Resources Survey Work (2006). The investigation was also conducted
according to the New York Archaeological Councils (NYAC) Standards for Archaeological
Investigations and SHPO guidelines. SHPO has designated this project number 07PR06733.
The field investigation was conducted in August and September 2008. Dr. Frank J.
Schieppati, RPA, served as principal investigator; Dr. Rebecca J. Emans, RPA, was project
archaeologist and laboratory director, and Mr. Mark A. Steinback, M.A., was project historian.
Mr. Edwin W. Button, M.A., was the field director, assisted by six field technicians.
Figure 1. Location of Galloo Island near the eastern shore of Lake Ontario, Town of
Hounsfield, Jefferson County, New York.
Galloo Island Phase IB EOF
The project area is limited to Galloo Island, a privately owned island located at the east
end of Lake Ontario. The island is 1.5 miles wide by 4.5 miles long, totaling 2,200 acres.
Approximately 70 percent of the island is wooded. The eastern portion is largely level and well
drained, and is used for agricultural purposes (mostly hay). The south shore consists of wide,
fairly level plane, elevated approximately 10 feet above lake level. Field grass covers much of
the plane, which is cut and bailed. At the eastern extent of the island is North Pond, located
inland from the north shore. Two smaller ponds are located adjacent to the south shore, also at
the east extent of the island.
Two areas totaling approximately 34 acres were excluded from the Phase IB
investigation. The first excluded area totals approximately 30 acres, located at the west extent
of the island. The area is under different ownership and is not part of the APE. Within the
excluded area are two structures; a Fog Horn House and the National Register Listed Galloo
Island Lighthouse [90nr01133]. The second excluded area is owned by the State of New York,
totaling approximately 3.6 acres. On this parcel are five structures associated with the former
Coast Guard Station.
Additional structures on the island include a Main Lodge, Caretakers house, and a
Guest House located along the southeastern shore; a fishermans shack and a Clubhouse
located on North Pond (Figure 2).
The Phase I research design specified the excavation of 5,915 shovel tests within 35
one-acre test areas (see Figure 2). In general, tests were excavated at 5-meter (16.4 ft)
intervals. Much of the islands ground surface is at or near bedrock. These areas along with
delineated wetlands were excluded from the survey and the 35 test locations, herein referred to
as survey areas, were scattered within those areas of the island considered testable. Twenty-six
survey areas were arbitrarily placed across the island within these testable areas. Nine survey
areas were placed in areas determined to have an increased historic period archaeological
sensitivity due to the existence of map-documented structures (MDSs).
A total 6,043 shovel tests were dug during the Phase IB survey, exceeding the 5,915
shovel tests estimated in the accepted testing plan (Table 1). A total 5,901 shovel tests
(including 8 tests dug at close interval) were located within the 35 identified survey areas
(designated Survey Areas 1 through 35). The remaining shovel tests (n=128) were dug at
varying interval over smaller areas at seven additional locations (designated Survey Areas 36
through 39, 39A, 40 and 41) (see Figure 2). The additional tests were implemented by the field
director in order to investigate areas of potential interest not included in the original research
design.
Survey Areas 1 through 35 each consisted of a 208-ft (63.4-m) by 208-ft (63.4-m) square
testing pattern totaling one acre (0.4 hectare) coverage. A total of 169 shovel tests were dug at
each survey area, with exception of Survey Area 1 (154 shovel tests) and Survey Area 9 (171
shovel tests), along 13 transects enumerated typically from west to east, with 13 shovel tests
enumerated typically south to north along each transect. An additional 8 shovel tests were dug
in proximity to positive shovel tests encountered in the Phase IB shovel test investigation.
Figure 2. Galloo Island Phase IB testing locations (USGS 7.5 Quadrangle, Galloo Island, New York 1960).
Table 1. Summary of Survey Areas and number of shovel tests excavated.

Historic Survey Areas
Arbitrary Survey Areas
Survey Area
1 (MDS 2)
Total STPs
154
Survey Area
8
Total STPs
169
2 (MDS 3 multiple
structures, central
portion)
169
10
169
169
11
160
169
169
169
171
169
3 (MDS 3 - multiple
structures, west
portion)
4 (MDS 4)
5 (MDS 5)
6 (MDS 6)
7 (MDS 7)
9 (MDS 8)
12 (MDS 9 - multiple
structures)
STP total =
1,499
Exploratory Testing
Survey Area
36
37 (MDS 3 multiple
structures,
east portion)
Total STPs
72
169
38
12
13
14
15
16
17
169
169
169
169
169
39
39A
40
41
10
2
3
15
18
169
STP total =
142
19
169
20
169
21
169
22
169
23
169
24
169
25
169
26
177
27
169
28
169
29
169
30
169
31
169
32
169
33
169
34
169
35
169
STP total =
4,402
Phase IB STP total = 6,043
28
Table 2. Surveys of Map Documented Structures represented on published maps of

Galloo Island.
N/A
Mapped
Documented
Structure (MDS)
MDS 1
MDS 2
Survey
Area
1887
1895
(Robinson)
Lighthouse
R. Eveleigh
2 structures
(USGS)
Lighthouse
1 structure
2
MDS 3
M. Wattam
7 structures
MDS 4
S.H. No. 10
5
6
7
MDS 5
MDS 6
MDS 7
not represented
R. R. Gannett
B.F. Johnson
not
represented
1 structure
1 structure
1 structure
MDS 8
not represented
1 structure
12
MDS 9
M. Wattam 7
structures
4 structures
1 structure
37
Phase IB results
Extant, outside of APE
Exposed stone foundation. Limited
amount of structural debris found.
Stone house ruin. Moderate amount
of structural debris found.
Exposed stone foundation of
possible mill. Minimal amount of
structural debris found.
Barn ruin. Moderate amount of
No evidence was found.
Exposed stone foundation of
possible mill. Minimal amount of
In addition to the 35 one-acre surveys conducted per the original research design, seven
smaller locales were identified during the field investigation as having an increased
archaeological sensitivity (i.e., as indicated by a surface find, or abnormal vegetation growth).
The seven areas were designated Survey Areas 36, 37, 38, 39, 39A, and 40 (see Figure 2). The
significance of each area and the results of the Phase IB investigation are presented in Table 3
below.
Table 3. Areas surveyed in addition to original Phase IB research design.
Survey Area
36
Total STPs
72
37
28
38
39
11
10
Abnormal vegetation patch

Extant structure Fishermans
shack on North Pond
39A
40
41
16
Bottle dump south of Fishers

Shack along North Pond
Surface finds including bottles and
bed frames south of the Clubhouse
on North Pond
Abnormal vegetation patch
Reason for survey

Partial stone foundation 9-m long
with slab floor. Impacted by
airfield. Likely former shed.
Barn ruin adjacent to south shore
Phase IB results
1 iron pot fragment and several
cut nails found in 4 STPS
Low frequency of building
materials found around perimeter
of structure
No cultural materials
Minimal modern/recent historic
nails/ceramic/glass found in 4
tests
Surface scatter, circa 1950s1970s, beer cans and bottles.
Less than 10 recent-historic
whole or partial bottles observed.
No buried deposits found
1 horseshoe found
Summary of Results
No prehistoric artifacts were found during the field investigation. The Phase IB research
design included the test of eight areas associated with mapped documented structures. The
identified MDSs include a school house, two mills, and five locales with singular or multiple
residential/farmstead structures (see Table 2). A summary of the findings at each MDS location
is presented below.
MDS 1 - multiple structures. Galloo Lighthouse (Not part of the project and is
mentioned here due to assignment of an MDS number in Phase IA report [Schieppati,
2008]). This structure is extant, along with an attached light-keepers house and a foghorn house. The three structures are on an excluded property, outside of the APE. No
archaeological investigation was conducted.
MDS 2 multiple structures (Survey Area 1). Two structures are shown on the 1887
Robinson map (labeled R. Eveleigh); one structure shown on the 1895 USGS (not
labeled). A 20-ft by 25-ft stone foundation under one-foot height was found where MDS
2 is shown near the south shore. A total 154 shovel tests were dug (.9-acre coverage
truncated from 1-acre due to proximity of an irregular shoreline near the foundation).
A total 215 artifacts were found in 40 positive shovel tests dug largely within a 50-ft
diameter around the foundation. The artifact frequency is 5.4 artifacts per positive test.
The artifacts include 41 ceramics, 54 glass, 104 metal (largely cut nails and nondiagnostic flat fragments), eight faunal, and eight miscellaneous items. A mean artifact
date of 1840 is suggested based upon the 18 ceramic fragments (tablewares) found,
although the sample is very limited. Keeping in mind the delayed disposal pattern of
ceramic tablewares (20+ years), the mean ceramic date is generally consistent with the
date of the MDS shown in 1887. No intact artifact concentrations or stratified deposits
were found in the shovel test of Survey Area 1. Artifacts found associated with MDS 2
represent a typical structure demolition/debris pattern. Although the finds are not
considered archaeologically significant, an OPRHP Site Form (PCI/Galloo Island-1) has
been completed to document the MDS foundation and associated artifacts.
MDS 3 multiple structures (Survey Areas 2, 3 and 37). This MDS grouping is shown on
historic maps from 1887 (Robinson seven structures labeled M. Wattam) and 1905
(USGS one structure, not labeled). Three structures associated with the Wattam MDS
group including a dilapidated barn, a stone house ruin, and a mill foundation, were
investiged. The results, presented individually, are:
(Survey Area 2) house ruin. The structure measures approximately 21-ft by 30ft, varying 2-ft to 7-ft height. A poured concrete slab is found exterior to the house,
adjacent to the southeast corner. A total 169 shovel tests were dug within a oneacre area of coverage centered on the north wall of the former house.
A total 1376 artifacts were found within 79 positive tests, distributed widely over
the surveyed area. Materials found were categorized by material class. Stratum 1
had 171 ceramic items, 326 glass, 654 metal, 37 faunal, and 14 other. Stratum 2
had 14 ceramic, 41 glass, 59 metal, one faunal, and seven other. Stratum 3 had
seven glass, 43 metal, one faunal, and one other. The mean artifact frequency
within positive shovel tests is 17.4, with STP 3.6 having the highest frequency.
Artifacts found associated with the house ruin largely represent building materials
in a debris pattern, although a high. An OPRHP Site Form (PCI/Galloo Island-2)

has been completed to document the MDS foundation and associated artifacts.
(Survey Area 3) mill foundation. The foundation measures 45-ft by 65-ft, varying
2-ft to 6-ft in elevation. A chimney fall is present within. A total 169 shovel tests
were dug within a one-acre area of coverage centered at the south extent of the
foundation footprint adjacent to the shoreline. A total 261 artifacts were found
within 35 positive tests, mostly located within immediate proximity of the
foundation and elevated shoreline. The artifacts are almost exclusively building
materials found in low frequency, with the exception of one stoneware fragment.
Although the finds are not considered archaeologically significant, an OPRHP Site
Form (PCI/Galloo Island-3) has been completed to document the MDS foundation
and associated artifacts.
(Survey Area 37) dilapidated barn. The barn ruin, located northeast of the house
ruin described above, measures 45-ft by 65-ft, varying 2-ft to 6-ft in elevation. A
total 28 shovel tests were dug around the perimeter of the barn at 5-m interval to
test for artifact deposits or buried features. A total 106 artifacts were found in 15
positive shovel tests. The artifacts are mostly building materials found in low
frequency, with the exception of two ceramics a few animal bones. No intact
artifact concentrations or stratified deposits were found in the shovel test. Again,
although the finds are not considered archaeologically significant, an OPRHP Site
Form (PCI/Galloo Island-4) has been completed to document the MDS remnants
and associated artifacts.
MDS 4 (Survey Area 4) - School House. A total 169 shovel tests were dug within a
one-acre survey area where the MDS is shown on the 1887 Robison map. No
archaeological or structural evidence of the MDS was found.
MDS 5 (Survey Area 5) - unidentified structure. A total 169 shovel tests were dug
within a one-acre survey area where the MDS is shown on the 1895 map (USGS unidentified). No archaeological or structural evidence of the MDS was found.
MDS 6 (Survey Area 6) - R.R. Gannett structure. A total 169 shovel tests were dug
within a one-acre survey area where the MDS is shown on the 1887 Robinson map. No
MDS 7 (Survey Area 7) - B.F. Johnson structure. A total 169 shovel tests were dug
within a one-acre survey area where the MDS is shown on the 1887 Robinson map. No
MDS 8 (Survey Area 9) - mill foundation. A total 169 shovel tests were dug within a
one-acre survey area where the MDS is shown on the 1887 Robinson map. A partial
stone foundation approximately 5-feet tall is located at the base of a steep slope on the
north shore of Gill Harbor. Minor amounts of building material including brick, nails and
glass were found in proximity of the foundation. A broken modern or recent-historic plate
was found on the surface, at the base of the foundation. No intact artifact concentrations
or stratified deposits were found in the shovel test. Although the finds are not considered
archaeologically significant, an OPRHP Site Form (PCI/Galloo Island-5) has been
completed to document the MDS remnants and associated artifacts.
MDS 9 (MDS 12 multiple structures. This MDS grouping is shown on historic maps
from 1887 (Robinson seven structures labeled M. Wattam); and four structures on
the 1895 USGS (unidentified). A total 169 shovel tests were dug within a one-acre
survey area where the MDSs are shown. One cut nail was found. This isolated find is not
considered significant.
Outside of the tested MDS locations, no archaeological deposits were found within the
remaining one-acre survey areas (Survey Areas 8 through 11, 13 through 35) (see Figure 2).
Six additional areas (designated Survey Areas 36 through 39, 39A, 40 and 41) received
between 2 to 72 shovel exploratory shovel tests totaling 128 tests (see Figure 2). The additional
tests were implemented by the field director in order to investigate areas of potential interest not
included in the original research design. A partial shed foundation was found in Survey Area 36;
a modern bottle dump-surface scatter (circa 1965) was found in Survey Area 39a. Survey Area
37 around the barn ruin is described above. Survey Areas 38 and 41 were tested due to atypical
vegetation growth that is indicative of buried disturbances (possible foundations). No artifact
concentrations, features, or buried foundations were found in any of the additionally tested
areas, excluding the barn ruin in Area 37.
Further analysis is being conducted to determine if any of the five historic period
archaeological sites are potentially National Register-eligible. We expect to have the Phase IB
report completed in the next three to four weeks. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to me or Dr. Michael Cinquino at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Schieppati, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator
cc:
Mark Colmerauer, ACP
Nadine Marrero, ACP

APPENDIX I Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

APPENDIX I Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

APPENDIX I

Phase IA Cultural Resources Investigation

PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES

HOUNSFIELD WIND FARM,

GALLOO ISLAND PROJECT AREA,

PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Background Research and Documentary Review ............................................................2-1

Archaeological Sensitivity ................................................................................................3-1

Galloo Island Architecture .................................................................................................4-1

Appendix A: Supplemental Material

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

List of Figures and Tables

Proposed wind farm facilities on Galloo Island .................................................................1-2

Northern New York land purchases, 1790-1815 .............................................................2-13

Galloup Island in 1887 ....................................................................................................2-20

Galloo Island in 1895 ......................................................................................................2-20

Galloo Island ca. 1910 as sketched by Howard Baker....................................................2-22

Galloo Island, 1932-1935 ................................................................................................2-23

Structures indicated on the 1895 USGS quadrangle overlain on a 2006 aerial

All map documented structures mapped on a 2006 aerial photograph of Galloo

Proposed Phase IB survey areas....................................................................................3-12

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Plan of Galloo Island Caretakers house with photo angles............................................4-31

4.10 Plan of Guest House with photo angles ..........................................................................4-34

Galloo Island soils .............................................................................................................2-4

Map Documented Structures represented on published maps of Galloo Island .............2-20

Map Documented Structures represented on sketch maps of Galloo Island ..................2-20

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast.............................................. 1-9

The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast ............................................. 1-9

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Former birthing barn in a state of collapse, facing northeast .........................................3-3

Ruin of a stone building southwest of the birthing barn, facing north.............................3-5

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Privy and cleanout..........................................................................................................4-7

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Photograph 1.5. The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast

Photograph 1.6. The southeastern shore of Galloo Island, facing northeast

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA

Hounsfield Wind Farm Phase IA