Sei sulla pagina 1di 53

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

PROJECT NAME: Cape Vincent Wind Power Project

SHPO PROJECT REVIEW NUMBER: (not available)

INVOLVED STATE/FEDERAL AGENCIES: NYSDEC, Public Service Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers

PHASE OF SURVEY: Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment

LOCATION INFORMATION:
Town: Cape Vincent (MCD 04505)
County: Jefferson

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SURVEY AREA:

BP is proposing to develop a large wind-powered generating facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County,
New York . The number of turbines and associated access roads/buried cables are not yet finalized, but the complete
site outline encompasses an area of approximately 14,500 acres (5,868 hectares).

Geographically, this region is part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland province of northern New York State.
For the Cape Vincent region, the land is flat to gently sloping, marked by isolated southwest oriented low ridges.
Dispersed between these low ridges are a network of small streams and creeks, all flowing southwest toward Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

USGS QUAD MAPS:

1990 1:250,000 Kingston, New York-Ontario


1989 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York -Ontario

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT:

Prehistoric sensitivity: Numerous prehistoric sites have been identified in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands,
and it is highly probable that significant evidence of prehistoric and contact period landuse and settlement is located
within the project area. Groups likely targeted specific landforms based on favorable conditions, such as the accessibility
of water, good drainage, and soil fertility. Each landform type offered a unique set of physical advantages and
disadvantages for prehistoric landuse and settlement. For descriptive purposes these advantages/disadvantages can be
summarized by outlining some general landscape variables: access to water, land slope, soil drainage, soil
productivity/work-ability, site accessibility, and resource availability. The scale of the Cape Vincent project area
encompasses landforms with differing ranges and combinations of environmental variables. Of particular significance
to the project area are the Jefferson County and St. Lawrence Iroquoian populations.

Historic sensitivity: The historic site assessment suggests a fairly low potential for much of the project area. From the
available historic maps we know that numerous structures (both current and former) are within the limits of the project
area, but most appear to flank the major roads and transportation routes, or cluster around the lake bays. Large chunks
of the project area are “blank” on the historic maps, and it is likely much of the region was wooded, poorly-drained,
and/or agricultural during the 19 th and early 20 th century.

This assessment is not meant to imply that there is no chance of identifying a historic archaeological site within the Cape
Vincent project area. Pioneer families were present in the region prior to the publication of the historic maps, and the
area was used during the colonial Fur Trade and W ar of 1812. In addition, if impacts are expected adjacent to major
roads or historic structures, the potential for encountering a buried historic site rises significantly.

i
RESULTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSM ENT:

The dominant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rural and undeveloped setting. Of the 17 USGS landuse
categories identified on the 1:250,000 Kingston quadrangle, more than 70% are classified as either agricultural land,
wooded, or wetlands. An additional 7% are water-related (lakes, streams, bays).

The drive-over and photo-documentation confirmed these findings, showing that large tracts of the project area are active
hay fields and pasture separated by clusters of brush and secondary forest growth. Numerous farmsteads are present
along the margins of the main roads. Bedrock outcrops are visible across the elevated ridges in the western quarter of
the project area.

Other than buried utilities within the DOT right-of-ways, there does not appear to be any significant ground disturbances
within the general project area.

ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:

Once landform sensitivity and variation is defined for the windfarm project area, the next step in the process would be
to devise a suitable testing strategy to provide a representative sample of cultural resources for different landform types.

Phase 1B testing for the Cape Vincent W indfarm will likely involve a combination of both subsurface (STP) and
systematic surface surveys. The recommended strategy should provide a representative sample of cultural resources by
landform variation within the project area.

Subsurface Testing: Shovel test pits (STPs) are one of the most commonly used subsurface testing methods for CRM
projects. Pits are dug by hand with round shovels, and the soil is screened for artifacts through standard 1/4 inch wire
mesh. Once completed and recorded, pits are immediately back-filled. STPs will be required for any non-plowable and
brushy/wooded parcels. In New York State, the standard subsurface testing interval for most landforms is 15 m (50 ft)
or less. This interval will identify most larger prehistoric sites (base-camps and villages), but will intersect only a sample
of smaller camps and processing stations. For extremely small artifact scatters the 15 m (50 ft) interval may not be
appropriate. For upland windfarm projects, NYS OPRHP requires that different landform types be proportionally
sampled using a 5 m (16 ft) testing interval. This interval may also be appropriate for lakeplain landforms.

Surface Survey: Agricultural fields that are currently plowed or are plowable can be surveyed through systematic
walkovers and artifact collection. Plowable areas would be defined as fields used for any crops (such as corn or hay)
that are seasonally tilled and can be plowed. Non-plowable areas would include wooded parcels. Any artifact scatters
would be collected and mapped with hand-held GPS units. Unlike costlier subsurface testing, systematic walkovers allow
for more comprehensive coverage of large parcels and efficient identification of archaeological sites. Surface surveys
are particularly helpful for large agricultural parcels located on shallow soils with little potential for deeply buried
deposits. Surface surveys would not be possible if thick crops (or hay/grass) obscure surface visibility; these areas would
need to be freshly plowed and disked. Plowing is not an option for any landforms (e.g., forest or light-brush) that have
never been previously plowed or cultivated.

Detailed impact areas have yet to be finalized, so the extent of the Phase 1B survey cannot be fully proposed
in this report. Once the windfarm layout is finalized, PAF will create and submit a proposal to BP/ERM and SHPO
outlining the testing and sampling strategy based on the landform variation presented above. This proposal will take the
locations of each proposed impact (e.g., turbines, access roads, staging areas, transmission lines, etc.) and associate these
impacts with a specific landform. Total impact acreage for each landform will then be computed. Following the SHPO
guidelines for windfarm projects, a target sampling percentage will be selected and applied to each landform. The final
strategy will need to be approved through consultation with the NYS OPRHP.

It is strongly recommended that agricultural fields be freshly plowed/disked to allow surface surveys. If landowners are
willing to plow agricultural fields (both active and fallow) that are slated for windfarm development, systematic surface
surveys are the preferred survey option given the efficiency and speed of the method.

ii
AUTHOR/INSTITUTION: Samuel M. Kudrle - Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University

DATE: November 29, 2007

SPONSOR: BP and ERM-Southwest, Inc.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. General Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


3.1 Site Files Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1 Documented Prehistoric Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2 Documented Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3 Inventoried Historic Structures/Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1 Glacial History and Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2 Post-Glacial W atersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3 Bedrock and Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Prehistoric Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Paleo-Indian / Early-Middle Archaic Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Late Archaic / Transitional Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3 Early-Middle W oodland Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.4 Late W oodland Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Historic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Historic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

V. ASSESSMENT RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1 Project Area Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2 Project Area Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3 Prehistoric Sensitivity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.4 Historic Sensitivity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

VI. ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


6.1 Potential Testing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2 Proposed Phase 1B Testing Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

APPENDIX I: SOURCE LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the Town of Cape Vincent in Jefferson County and New York State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Figure 2. Location of general project area on the USGS 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quadrangle. 2
Figure 3. Location of the general project area on the 2003 aerial photographs for the Town of Cape Vincent. . . . 3
Figure 4. 3-meter contour intervals for the Town of Cape Vincent highlighting the regional topography. . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 6. Major creeks and tributaries within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 7. Location of DEC wetlands and hydric soils within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . 11
Figure 8. Major surficial landforms and soil types for the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 9. 1855 LCG&M Map of Jefferson County, New York (detail of Cape Vincent area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 10. 1888 Atlas of Jefferson County, New York (detail of Cape Vincent area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 11. USGS 1907 15' Cape Vincent, New York quadrangle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 12. USGS 1903 15' Clayton, New York quadrangle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 13. Approximate location of project area photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 14. Current topography of the Cape Vincent region (water at 75 meters ASL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 15. Cape Vincent region with the water level at 85 meters ASL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 16. Cape Vincent region with the water level at 95 meters ASL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of documented prehistoric archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Summary of documented historic archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Summary of National Register Listed structures/properties within the Cape Vincent region . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. Major soil types within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5. 1990 Landuse categories from the USGS 1: 250,000 Kingston quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1. View east toward a hayfield pasture off of NY 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Photo 2. View east toward a hayfield and farmstead off NY 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Photo 3. View west toward a hayfield and pasture off NY 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Photo 4. View southwest toward a hayfield and pasture off NY 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 5. View east from the intersection of NY 12E and Merchant Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 6. View east from the intersection of NY 12E and Merchant Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 7. View south off Merchant Road toward a fallow pasture and wooded parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Photo 8. View west along Merchant Road with fallow pastures and wooded parcels to the north and south. . . . . . 26
Photo 9. View south off Merchant Road toward a wooded parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Photo 10. View southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and CR6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Photo 11. View southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and CR6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Photo 12. View east off CR6 toward a hayfield and pasture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Photo 13. View east near the intersection of CR6 and Huff Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Photo 14. View west near the intersection of CR6 and Huff Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Photo 15. View south from the intersection of CR6 and Huff Road toward the mouth of Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . 28
Photo 16. View southwest off Huff Road. Landform is bedrock/till ridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Photo 17. View northwest from NY 12E and Kents Creek toward Huff Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Photo 18. View northeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Photo 19. View southeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Photo 20. View southeast from the intersection of Bate Road and CR6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Photo 21. View west along the edge of Fox Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Photo 22. View east from the intersection of CR6 and Fox Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

v
Photo 23. View south along NY 12E toward Fox Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Photo 24. View of the road cuts and shallow bedrock along NY 12E at Fox Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Photo 25. View west from NY 12E toward the drainage for Fox Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Photo 26. View northwest off CR 56 toward pastures and hayfields. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Photo 27. View north along Bedford Corners Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Photo 28. View southeast from CR4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. The brush line marks bedrock outcrops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Photo 30. View southeast from the intersection of CR4 and W ilson Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Photo 31. View north along W ilson Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Photo 32. View south along Hell Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Photo 33. View east from Dezgremel Road toward wetlands draining into Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Photo 34. View east from Dezgremel Road toward hayfields and pastures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Photo 35. View north off Burnt Rock Road towards wetlands that feed into Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Photo 36. View northeast off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Photo 37. View northwest off Favret Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Photo 38. View east off Favret Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Photo 39. View north off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Photo 40. View north off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Photo 41. View south along Millers Bay Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Photo 42. View west from Miller Bay Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Photo 43. View northwest off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Photo 44. View west off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Photo 45. View east off Favret Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Photo 46. View west off Favret Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 47. View southwest from the intersection of Favret Road and Mason Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 48. View southwest from Mason Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 49. View west in the center of the Hamlet of Rosiere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Photo 50. View east in the center of the Hamlet of Rosiere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

vi
I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Cape Vincent W ind Power
Project in the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York. In compliance with the New York Standards for
Professional Survey (NYAC 1994) and the OPRHP W indfarm Guidelines (2005), this study was undertaken to assess
the potential impact to cultural resources in the project area. The results of this report apply only to the project area as
defined in Section 1.1 of this report.

The assessment summarized in this report was performed under the supervision of Dr. Nina Versaggi, Director
of PAF. The assessment was completed by Samuel M. Kudrle, who was also the primary author of this report. All
administrative duties were performed by Maria Pezzuti and Annie Pisani.

1.1 Project Description

BP is proposing to develop a large wind-powered generating facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, Jefferson
County, New York . The number of turbines and associated access roads/buried cables are not yet finalized, but the
complete site outline (see Figures 2 and 3) encompasses an area of approximately 14,500 acres (5,868 hectares).

1.2. General Project Area

Figures 1 depicts the project location in Jefferson County and New York State. Figure 2 outlines the project
area on the USGS 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quadrangle. Figure 3 presents the project area limits on
the 2003 aerial photography for the Town of Cape Vincent.

Geographically, this region is part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland province of northern New York
State. For the Cape Vincent region, the land is flat to gently sloping, marked by numerous southwest oriented low ridges.
Dispersed between these low planes are a network of small streams and creeks, all flowing southwest toward Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Current landuse patterns for the project area are predominantly agricultural.

Figure 1. Location of the Town


of Cape Vincent in Jefferson
County and New York State.

1
Figure 2. Location of general project area on the USGS 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quadrangle.

2
Figure 3. Location of
the general project
area on the 2003
aerial pho tographs
for the Town of Cape
Vincent.

3
III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Background research was conducted on the environment, prehistory, and history of the project area within
Jefferson County. This research addressed the types of sites likely to be located in the project area based on the results
of site file checks, historic maps, county histories, archival documents, and settlement patterns in and around the Town
of Cape Vincent.

3.1 Site Files Search

A site files check at the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) listed 28
prehistoric sites and six historic sites within the regional vicinity of the project area. Information pertaining to the
recorded archaeological sites and inventoried structures is presented in Tables 1-3.

3.1.1 Documented Prehistoric Sites

At least 28 OPRHP prehistoric sites are within or adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. Most are
unidentified camps and traces of occupation documented in the 1920s by archaeologist Arthur C. Parker. Included in
the census are three Late W oodland villages (circa AD 1500) with pottery, bone tools, and the remains of chipped stone
tools. In addition, one of the sites produced a Late Archaic (4500-1500 BC) Otter Creek projectile point. The site files
also identified four potential burial locations, one of which was disturbed during construction of the railroad. None of
the sites are National Register Eligible or Listed.

Table 1. Summary of documented prehistoric archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region
SIT E N U M B E R / SIT E U SG S Q U A D : L O C A T IO N SIT E TY P E N R ST A T U S
NAM E

N Y SM 3596 C APE V IN C EN T SO U TH: 305 M (1000 FT) N O R TH O F U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I
AC P JFSN KEN T C R EEK; 94 M (310 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE

A04505.000071 C APE V IN C E N T SO U TH: 200 M (655 FT) EAST O F LATE W O O D LAN D V ILLAG E (A D 1500); I
U B 958 SAU N D ER S SITE KEN T C R EEK; 94 M (310 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE C O LLAR ED G R IT-TEM PER ED PO TTER Y ,
BO N E TO O LS, AN D A FEW ST O N E TO O LS

N Y SM 3595 C APE V IN C EN T SO U TH: 30 M (100 FT) EAST O F FO X U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I
AC P JFSN C R EEK; 88 M (290 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE

N Y SM 3594 C APE V IN C EN T SO U T H : AD JAC EN T EAST O F U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I


AC P JFSN LITTLE C R EEK; 78 M (256 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE

N Y SM 3592 C APE V IN C EN T SO U TH: 366 M (1200 FT) W EST O F U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I
AC P JFSN C HAU M O N T BAY ; 78 M (256 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE

N Y SM 3592 C APE V IN C EN T SO U T H : 122 M (400 FT) W EST O F U N ID E N T IFIE D P R E H IS TO R IC B U R IA L I


JSFN C HAU M O N T BAY ; 78 M (256 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE PLAC E

N Y SM 3433 C APE V IN C ENT SOUTH: W ETLAN D AT SO U TH EN D U N ID E N T IFIE D P R E H IS TO R IC B U R IA L I


JFSN -6 O F CHAUM O N T BAY ; N O R TH SITE O F ISTH M U S; 78 PLAC E AN D C AM P; PAR KER N O TES SITES
M (256 FT) G EN TLE SLO PE IS AT THE PO R TAG E AT PO IN T PE N IN SU LA

N Y SM 3598 C A P E V IN C E N T S O U T H : 1 52 M (5 00 FT ) U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I


AC P JFSN SO U T H EA ST O F CR E EK ; 94 M (310 FT ) FLA T

N Y SM 3597 C APE V IN C EN T SO U TH: HEAD O F W ETLAN D AN D U N ID EN TIFIED C AM P I


AC P JFSN ADJACENT CR EEK; 94 M (307 FT ) FLA T

N Y SM 3431 C APE V IN C EN T N O R TH: 488 M (1600 FT) U N ID E N T IFIE D P R E H IS TO R IC B U R IA L I


AC P JFSN -4 SO U THW EST O F SC O TC H C R EEK; 76 M (250 ft) M O U N D ; PAR KER N O TES THAT M O U N D
FLAT W A S O PEN E D W H E N R A ILRO A D W A S
BU ILT

N Y SM 7814 ST. LAW R EN C E : 305 M (1000 FT) SO U THEAST O F PROBABLY PREHISTORIC; NO I


CR EEK ; 107 M (350 FT ) FLAT IN FO R M ATIO N

N Y SM 1497 ST. LAW R EN C E: AD JAC EN T TO C R EEK; 107 M (350 LATE AR C HAIC ; O TTER C REEK PO IN T I
FT ) FLA T

N Y SM 3432 ST. LAW R EN C E: 213 M (17 0 0 FT) N O R TH O F LATE W O O D LAN D V ILLAG E I


AC P JFSN -5 W ETLAND ; 107 M (350 FT) FLA T

4
SIT E N U M B E R / SIT E U SG S Q U A D : L O C A T IO N SIT E TY P E N R ST A T U S
NAM E

A04507.000105 ST. LAW R EN C E: 100 M (30 FT) EA ST O F CR EEK; 98 LATE W O O D LAN D V ILLAG E (AD 1500 ); I
U B 959 M ATSO N SITE M (320 FT) FLA T C O LLAR ED G R IT-TEM PER ED PO TTER Y ,
BO N E TO O LS, AN D A FEW ST O N E TO O LS

N Y SM 3499 ST. LAW R EN C E: AD JAC EN T TO W ETLAN D ; 107 M W O O D LA N D ; LARG E V IL L A G E AND I


AC P JFSN -72 (350 FT ) FLA T M ID D EN

N Y SM 3500 S T. LAW R EN C E: 457 M (1500 FT) EAST OF W O O D LA N D C A M P; PR O JEC TILE PO IN T S I


AC P JFSN -73A W ETLAND ; 107 M (350 FT) FLA T AN D PO TTER Y

N Y SM 7879 ST. LAW R EN C E: AD JAC EN T TO W ET LA N D ; 93 M U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I


AC P JFSN -73B (305 FT ) FLA T

N Y SM 3585 C HAU M O N T: V ER Y LAR G E A R E A W E ST SID E O F U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC ; TR AC E S O F I


THREE M ILE BAY; 85 M (280 FT ) FLA T O C C U PATIO N

N Y SM 3504 C HAU M O N T: 183 M (600 FT) EA ST O F CR EEK; 85 M U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC C AM PS I


AC P JFSN -77 (280 FT ) FLA T

N Y SM 7417 C HAU M O N T: 671 M (2200 FT) EAST O F TH R EE M ILE U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I
AC P JFSN BAY; 85 M (280 FT) FLA T

N Y SM 3584 C HAU M O N T: 183 M (600 FT) N O R TH O F THR EE U N ID E N T IFIE D PRE H ISTO RIC C A M P I
AC P JFSN M ILE CREEK; 93 M (305 FT ) FLA T

A04507.000104 C HAU M O N T: 200 M (656 FT) N O R TH O F CR EEK; 98 LATE W O O D LAN D V ILLA G E (AD 1500); I
U B 955 CH AU M O N T SITE M (320 FT) G EN TLE C O LLAR ED G R IT-TEM PER ED PO TTER Y ,
BO N E TO O LS, AN D A FEW ST O N E TO O LS

N Y SM 3494 C HAU M O N T: 30 M (100 FT) N O R TH O F CR EEK; 85 M PO SSIBLE LATE W O O D LAN D V ILLAG E; I


AC P JFSN -67B (280 FT) G EN TLE PO SSIBLE IR O Q U O IS C AM PS; PO TTER Y
W ITH EFFIG IES ABU N D AN T

N Y SM 3583 C HAU M O N T: AD JA C E N T EAST O F CR EEK; 85 M U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC V ILLAG E I


AC P JFSN (280 FT) G EN TLE

N Y SM 3852 C H A U M O N T : 3 66 M (1 2 0 0 FT ) W E S T OF U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC V ILLAG E I


AC P JFSN C HAU M O N T R IV ER ; 85 M (280 FT) G EN TLE

N Y SM 3581 C HAU M O N T: 198 M (650 FT) W EST O F C HAU M O N T U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC V ILLAG E I
AC P JSFN BAY ; 85 M (280 FT) G EN TLE

N Y SM 3434 C HAU M O N T: 198 M (650 FT) N O R THW EST O F U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC BU R IAL SITE I
AC P JSFN -7 SA W M ILL BAY ; 88 M (290 FT) G EN TLE

N Y SM 3586 D EX TER : LAR G E G EN ER AL AR EA BO TH SID ES O F U N ID EN TIFIED PR EHISTO R IC I


AC P JFSN C H AU M O N T R IV E R ; 88-91 M (290-300 FT) FLA T -
G EN TLE
*I=IN V E N TO R IE D ; N E =N O T E LIG IB L E; N R E =N A T IO N A L R E G IST E R EL IG IB L E

3.1.2 Documented Historic Sites

The OPRHP site files identified six historic sites within or adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. Five of
the six are primarily domestic in nature; the sixth site is the remains of an early 19 th century church. The Menzo W heeler
site and the Old Stone Store site are included in larger National Register Listed properties.

Table 2. Summary of documented historic archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region
SIT E N U M B E R / SIT E U SG S Q U A D : L O C A T IO N SIT E T Y P E N R ST A T U S*
NAM E

A04505.000015 C APE V IN C EN T SO U TH : 61 0 M (2000 FT) EAST O F SIT E O F FR EN C H C ATHO LIC C HU R C H I


FR E N C H S H R IN E KENTS CR EEK; 91 M (297 FT ) FLA T BU ILT IN 1832. THE C HU R C H W AS M O V ED
D EZENGREM EL ROAD TO R O SIER E R O AD . A STO N E C R O SS AN D
SITE T A BLE T A RE LO CA T E D A T TH E O R IG IN A L
SITE. A C EM ETE R Y LIES N EAR BY W ITH
THE G R AV ES O F EAR LY SETTLER S.

A04507.000041 ST. LA W REN CE: 213 M (700 FT ) N O RT H O F CR E EK ; (N O T IN S P H IN X ; N O SITE FO R M ) I


BU ILD IN G 4 107 M (350 FT ) FLA T EU R O AM ER IC AN STR U C TU R E O N N Y 12 -
SM ALL N U M BER O F AR TIFAC TS FO U N D
O N PR O PERTY

5
SIT E N U M B E R / SIT E U SG S Q U A D : L O C A T IO N SIT E T Y P E N R ST A T U S*
NAM E

A04513.000098 C HAU M O N T: 46 M (250 FT) N O R THW EST O F BAY ; P A R T O F N R L (9 0 N R 1 3 3 5 ) M E N Z O NRL


N Y SM 11555 79 M (260 FT ) FLA T W HEELER HO U SE PRO PERTY . SITE 90N R 1335
M EN ZO W HEELER SITE SU R R O U N D IN G HO U SE IS IN C LU D ED
TH
W ITHIN THE N O M IN ATIO N . 19 C EN TU R Y
SHEET M ID D EN AN D FO U N D ATIO N S IN
AD D ITIO N TO EX TAN T HO U SE.

A04513.000100 C HAU M O N T: AT H EA D O F THR EE M ILE BA Y ; 75 M EX TAN T HO U SE AN D SHEET M ID D EN I


N Y SM 11557 (245 FT) G EN TLE
C AR LISLE-FO X SITE

A04513.000097 91 M (300 FT) W EST O F BAY ; 76 M (250 FT) FLAT EAR LY TO LATE 19 TH C EN TU R Y I
N Y SM 11554
1887 FIR E SITE

A04513.000099 305 M (1000 FT) N O R TH O F TH R EE M ILE BA Y ; 76 M 1838 E X TAN T - O R IG IN AL STO R E N R L NRL


N Y SM 11556 (250 FT ) FLA T PROPERTY 90N R1329; PRO PERTY 90N R 1329
O LD STO N E STO R E SITE IN C LU D ED IN N O M IN ATIO N
*I=IN V E N TO R IE D ; N E =N O T E LIG IB L E; N R E =N A T IO N A L R E G IST E R EL IG IB L E; N R L = N A T IO N A L R E G IST E R LIST E D

3.1.3 Inventoried Historic Structures/Properties

The viewshed of the project area includes 19 National Register Listed structures/properties. Pertinent
information for each structure is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of National Register Listed structures/properties within the Cape Vincent region
NR NUM BER D E SC R IP T IO N L O C A T IO N

95N R 0907 R O G ER S BR O THER S FAR M STEAD D ABLO N PO IN T R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T V IC IN ITY

91N R 0059 D ISTR IC T SC HO O L N O . 3 JU N C TIO N N Y 3 AN D C R 57; PU TN AM C O R N ER S; C HAU M O N T

90N R 1120 X AV IER C HEV ALIER HO U SE C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1121 N IC HO LAS C O C AIG N E HO U SE FAV R ET R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1122 R EM Y D EX EN G R EM EL HO U SE R O SIER E R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1123 JO SEPH D O C TEU R HO U SE R O SIER E R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1124 R EU TER D Y ER HO U SE R O SIER E R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1129 C LAU D E V AU TR IN HO U SE M ASO N R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 1130 W AR R EN W ILSO N HO U SE M ASO N R O AD ; C APE V IN C EN T

90N R 2999 M EN ZO W HEELER HO U SE M AIN AN D D EPO T STR EETS; C HAU M O N T

90N R 3000 O LD STO N E SHOP M A IN STRE E T; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3003 THE RO W M A IN STRE E T A T SH A V E R C RE E K ; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3004 TAFT HOU SE M A IN STRE E T; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3005 TAYLO R BO AT HOU SE BA Y V IE W D RIV E ; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3006 THREE M ILE BAY HISTO RIC D ISTRICT JU N CT IO N /CH U RC H ST RE ET S; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3009 W ILCO X FARM CA R RY IN G PLA CE RO A D ; T H RE E M ILE BA Y

90N R 3014 C HAU M O N T HISTO R IC D ISTR IC T M AIN STR EET; C HAU M O N T

90N R 3014 C HAU M O N T HO U SE M AIN STR EET; C HAU M O N T

90N R 3016 EVAN S-G AIG E-D ILLENBACH HO U SE E V A N S RO A D

3.2 Environmental Setting

3.2.1 Glacial History and Topography

Geologically, Jefferson County consists of two physiographic provinces. The first province is the St. Lawrence-
Lake Ontario Lowlands, a long and narrow stretch of glacial lake plains extending from Lake Ontario northeast along
the St. Lawrence River. The uplands of the Tug Hill Plateau form the second province along the southern edge of
Jefferson County (USDA 1981). The project area for the Cape Vincent W ind Farm is located solely in the St. Lawrence-
Lake Ontario Lowlands province, encompassing several small drainages and wetlands.

6
Multiple glacial advances and retreats have significantly shaped the lowlands of Lake Ontario and the St.
Lawrence River Valley. The most recent period of glacial activity in the Northeast is termed the W isconsin phase. The
most recent glacial activity within the St. Lawrence valley and the Great Lakes is known as the Port Huron stadial (Abel
and Fuerst 1999: 8). During this period glacial ice 1.7 km (1 mi) thick covered all of northern and eastern New York,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. As the climate warmed, the glaciers began a slow process of recession. By
13,500 BP the ice front in New York state had retreated to the middle Hudson Valley. Pollen profiles from bogs in the
upper Hudson Valley suggest deglaciation of northern New York occurred rapidly (5000-1000 years) after 13,500 BP
(Snow 1980). The enormous weight of the glacial ice depressed some interior areas as far as 1000 m (3280 ft) below
the present sea level (Snow 1980: 105). By 12,800 BP the combination of rising ocean levels from glacial melt-water
and land depression inundated the St. Lawrence Valley with sea-water. By 10,500 BP the valley had rebounded far
enough to completely reverse the drainage of ocean water into the St. Lawrence valley and Ontario basin (Snow 1980:
109; Abel and Fuerst 1999: 10).

The slow glacial recession created a series of post-glacial lakes, which at one point stretched to the eastern edge
of Jefferson County (USDA 1981). The earliest was Lake W arren, a deep lake that deposited sandy sediments along
ancient shore lines. Lake W arren was followed by three shallower and much smaller lakes (Dana, Scottsville, and
Dawson) that over time receded north and west, depositing layers of clay, silt, and sand (USDA 1981). The last post-
glacial lake was Lake Iroquois. This lake, a predecessor to the modern Lake Ontario, developed from meltwater as the
glacial ice retreated from the Ontario Basin. Unlike the earlier glacial lakes that quickly receded north with the glacial
retreat, Lake Iroquois apparently persisted in the region for nearly 1000 years (M ason 1981). The lake was bounded to
the northeast by the Champlain Sea, a marine environment created by the glacial depression of the St. Lawrence Valley
and the intrusion of seawater from the Atlantic ocean. It was through this inlet that whales and other large sea mammals
were able to penetrate into the interior Great Lakes (Mason 1981). Lake Iroquois drained southeast through an outlet
toward the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers at Rome, New York.

The persistence of Lake Iroquois significantly modified the surface landscape in Jefferson County, depositing
layers of sand, silt, and clay in a broad plain across the center of the county. Around 9500-9000 BC the iso-static
rebound of the St. Lawrence Valley and Ontario Basin reversed the Mohawk-Hudson drainage pattern toward the St.
Lawrence River. This drainage reversal caused a northward recession of Lake Iroquois, and marked the emergence of
the modern Lake Ontario shoreline (Mason 1981). For sporadic human groups in the region, the slow recession of the
glacial lake offered some unique resource opportunities, particularly around waning shorelines and bays (Rush et al.
2003).

The present-day topography of Jefferson County reflects its glacial history, varying from rugged uplands across
Tug Hill to the broad and gently sloping lake plain of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland. County wide elevations
range from a high of 519 m (1700 ft) ASL at the crest of the Tug Hill uplands to a low of 75 m (246 ft) ASL at the St.
Lawrence River. In general, the topographic relief of the Lowlands is flat to gently sloping, ranging from an average
maximum elevation of 198 m (650 ft) ASL south of the City of W atertown to a minimum of 75 m (246 ft) ASL at Lake
Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. For the project area and the immediate vicinity, the land slopes very gently
southwest toward Lake Ontario. Numerous low bedrock ridges are present in the western and eastern thirds of the project
area; the central portion forms a very large and shallow depression converging at Kents Creek (see Figures 4-5).

7
Figure 4. 3-meter contour intervals for the Town of Cape Vincent highlighting the regional topography.
Contour intervals were extracted from the USGS digital elevation model (DEM) with the MICRODEM GIS program.

8
Figure 5. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Cape Vincent project area.

9
Figure 6. Major creeks and tributaries within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area.

10
3.2.2 Post-Glacial W atersheds

Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River form the modern (post-glacial) drainage basins for Jefferson County.
In general, rivers and streams flow north and west from the Tug Hill uplands and Adirondack foothills to Lake Ontario
and the St. Lawrence River (USDA 1981). Large tributaries for the county include Black River, the Sandy Creek basin,
Mad River, Indian River, and the Oswegathchie River.

The primary drainage for the project area is provided by Kents Creek and Fox Creek (Figure 6). Kents Creek
originates at a headwaters just north of the cross-roads hamlet of Rosiere, meandering southwest through the center of
the project area to the confluence with Lake Ontario near Bedford Corners. Fox Creek is significantly smaller and arises
from several wetlands near the southern margin of the Town of Cape Vincent. It flows through the southwest corner of
the project area and into Late Ontario. Numerous small streams feed into Kents and Fox Creek within the project area.

In addition to the regional tributaries, the project area overlaps at least seven DEC recognized wetlands and
large tracts of NRCS hydric (e.g., saturated and very poorly drained) soils (see Figure 7). These hydric soils represent
seasonal and/or ephemeral wetlands.

Figure 7. Location of DEC wetlands and hydric soils within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area.

11
3.2.3 Bedrock and Soil Types

Trenton Group and Black River limestones underlie all of northwestern Jefferson County (Van Diver 1985).
For the Cape Vincent area the Trenton limestones are the dominant and relatively younger bedrock, grading into the
Black River formation near Clayton (roughly 15 miles to the east). Both types are dated to the Ordovician period
(roughly 450 million years ago), and are sedimentary rocks formed by the consolidation of loose material in ancient
shallow seas. Many of the units contain fossil inclusions, and high-quality microcrystalline chert has been identified for
the Black River formation. This chert (sometimes referred to as LeRay chert) is commonly encountered in prehistoric
chipped stone assemblages from northwestern New York. Given the fossiliferous nature of the Trenton limestones, high-
quality chert inclusions may also be present in the Cape Vincent region.

W isconsin glacial ice and the series of post-glacial lakes deposited an enormous amount of sediments (till,
outwash, and lacustrine deposits) atop the Trenton and Black River limestones. Over time, the sediments weathered both
physically and chemically to form a diversity of soil types (Figure 8). In the Town of Cape Vincent, outwash, fluvial,
and lacustrine (glacial lake) soils are the dominant types and spread uniformly through the project area. Rocky till/ridge
soils and hydric wetlands soils are present in distinct clusters in the western and center of the project area. Only one
small section of alluvial soil/landform along Kents Creek is adjacent to the western edge of the project area. Overall,
it appears that the proposed windfarm will only impact shallow (non-alluvial) soils.

Table 4. M ajor soil types within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area
SO IL T Y PE L A N D FO R M S SE D IM E N T S D R A IN A G E

G LAC IAL OU TW ASH O U TW ASH TER R AC ES PRIM A RILY W A T ER-SO RT E D G RA V E L, SAN D , A N D SILT -CLA Y V AR IABLE

G LA C IA L FLU V IAL O U TW ASH DELTAS BED RO CK IS O FT E N G RE A T ER T H A N 6 0 IN CH E S BE LO W T H E


G R O U N D SU R FAC E
G LAC IAL LAC U STR IN E LAKE PLAIN S
N O PO TEN TIAL FO R FLO O D IN G O R ALLU V IAL D EPO SITIO N

G LAC IAL TILL D R U M LIN S/TILL PLAIN S U N SO R TED M IX T U R E O F BR O KEN BED R O C K, G R AV EL, AN D V AR IABLE
SILT -CLA Y
BED R O C K R ID G ES LO W R ID G ES
BED R O C K IS O FTEN C LO SE TO THE G R O U N D SU R FAC E

R O C K O U TC R O PS AR E C O M M O N

N O PO TEN TIAL FO R FLO O D IN G O R ALLU V IAL D EPO SITIO N

H Y R IC -W E TLA ND W ETLAND S/D EPRESSIO N S SILT -CLA Y A N D O RG A N IC M A T ERIA L V ER Y PO O R

SAT U R A T ED T H RO U G H O U T TH E Y E A R

D EEPLY BU R IED BED R O C K

N O PO TEN TIAL FO R FLO O D IN G - O FTEN PO N D ED

ALLU V IAL STREA M M AR G IN S SILT-C LAY AN D SO M E FLO O D ED G R AV ELS/C O BBLES V AR IABLE

D EEPLY BU R IED BED R O C K

FLO O D IN G PO T EN T IA L

12
Figure 8. Major surficial landforms and soil types for the Cape Vincent project area.

13
3.3 Prehistoric Context

The archaeological evidence indicates human populations moved into the newly glaciated Northeast during the
last phases of the W isconsin stadial retreat. Moving north from the warmer climates of southern and central North
America, these populations encountered the new and diverse landforms of the Northeast. Although they brought cultural
traditions derived from conditions farther south and west, the new environments, along with its rugged uplands and
ancient lake plains, had profound influences on future settlement/landuse patterns and material culture. Eventually two
distinct settlement and subsistence patterns emerged. These settlement patterns would characterize the prehistory of
upstate New York.

The first, designated as pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer, developed with the arrival of highly mobile groups
during the Paleo-Indian period (around 10,000 BC) and continued through the Middle Archaic (4000 BC). This pattern
matured into more territorial mobility during the Late Archaic (4000-1500 BC) and flourished in the region until the
advent of early agriculture in the Late W oodland period (AD 900-1650). It was during this period that human groups
relied almost solely on wild plant resources, fish, and game animals for daily subsistence. Therefore, mobility was fairly
high as groups moved in search of seasonally available resources. Hunting and gathering continued to be an important
part of the subsistence base during the agricultural Late W oodland period (AD 900-1650), but a large part of the daily
subsistence was increasingly shifted toward the production and consumption of the maize-beans-squash complex. This
subsistence shift led to the development of larger and more sedentary human populations, and the subsequent
construction of hamlet and village settlements near agricultural fields.

3.3.1 Paleo-Indian / Early-M iddle Archaic Periods (10,000 - 4,000 BC)

The distribution of Paleo-Indian sites across northern New York state suggests a very sporadic land-use when
compared to regions in the southern and central portions of the state. Ritchie noted only one Paleo-Indian point in
Jefferson County (1980: 4). Abel and Fuerst identified ten Paleo-Indian points in the lower St. Lawrence Valley, near
the Thousand Islands region (1999: 10). In addition, Mason (1981) noted one site near Cornwall, Ontario that produced
Plano-type points (late Paleo-Indian) and the Piercefield Project in St. Lawrence County identified an occupation with
a fluted Paleo point (Seib 2007). In contrast to the scarcity across northern New York, 31 fluted points have been
recovered from the regions around Syracuse and Utica, and ten from the W allkill Valley in Orange County in southern
New York state (Ritchie 1980: 4).

The low frequency of Paleo-Indian sites in northern New York is most likely a result of environmental
conditions during the late Pleistocene. By far the most important of these conditions was the continental glaciers that
scoured the Northeast between 18,000-16,000 BP (Snow 1980: 103). By 13,500 BP the glaciers had receded across
portions of southern and central New York state, but still covered most of northern N ew Y ork, all of Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine (Snow 1980). The glacial ice had retreated north of the St. Lawrence Valley by 11,500 BP, but
the crustal depression and rising sea levels flooded the upper valley with sea-water. This inundation, termed the
Champlain Sea, lasted approximately 2000 years, and at its maximum covered much of the upper St. Lawrence River
Valley. Glacial meltwater also flooded much of the lowlands surrounding modern-day Lake Ontario, forming glacial
Lake Iroquois. It was only after the St. Lawrence Valley had rebounded above sea level and glacial Lake Iroquois
subsided that human groups were able to migrate into the region.

The Early-Middle Archaic period in the Northeast began around 8000 BC with the disappearance of most large
game animals due to climate and environmental changes. As larger mammals, such as the caribou, became less available
in the Northeast, a wider variety of smaller mammals and birds were substituted into the subsistence base (Ritchie 1980).
The shift from Paleo-Indian to Early and Middle Archaic periods was also marked by a change in projectile point style
from the rather universal Clovis type among the Paleo-Indians to the variety of side-notched points among Early and
Middle Archaic groups (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 12).

Paleo-Indian settlements and Early Archaic occupations within the modern boundaries of Jefferson County are
difficult to define due to frequent migrations, small group size, a lack of projectile point recognition, and overall
antiquity. Due to a lack of documented Early and Middle Archaic sites, very little is known about settlement patterns
during this time period. Based on this scarcity, Abel and Fuerst outline three Early Archaic horizons for the St. Lawrence

14
Valley: weak-notched point horizon (10,500-10,000 BP), side-notched point horizon (10,500-9400 BP), and the Kirk
horizon (9500-8000 BP). The authors recognize two Middle Archaic traditions in the St. Lawrence Valley: weak-
stemmed point horizon (8000-6000 BP) and side-notched point horizon (6500-4500 BP) (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 13).

As with the Paleo-Indian period, many scholars believe that the scarcity of Early and Middle Archaic sites in
northern New York is related to the climate and environmental changes (primarily the shift from tundra grassland to
boreal forests) that occurred in the post-Pleistocene Northeast. The location of sites suggests that Early Archaic groups
probably settled in the more stable environments to the south (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and coastal New York), but
occasionally migrated north into the interior of the Northeast to exploit small resource-rich areas, such as upland bogs
and deciduous flora and fauna of the lowland river valleys (Ritchie and Funk 1973: 337; Versaggi 2000). These resource
areas were often widely dispersed among the major valleys, thus discouraging large settlements during the Early and
Middle Archaic (Versaggi 2000). This type of settlement model closely matches the distribution of Early Archaic sites
within New York state and the Northeastern United States (Versaggi 2000). The lack of archaeological surveys in
northern New York may also be a factor in the relative absence of early hunter-gatherer sites (Abel and Fuerst 1999).

3.3.2 Late Archaic / Transitional Periods (4,000 - 1,000 BC)

By the period termed the Late Archaic (4,000-1500 BC), the environment of the Northeast had shifted from a
boreal to a deciduous woodland. The Late Archaic was also marked by the emergence of the modern four seasons and
some degree of territoriality among prehistoric groups (Versaggi 2000). Unlike the settlements during the Paleo-Indian
and Early-Middle Archaic, land use during the Late Archaic was often organized around a logistical system where
seasonal base camps with as many as 100 individuals were established near bodies of water. From these camps, small
groups of foragers roamed the area within a day’s walk of the camp procuring and processing resources. Other groups
ranged farther out to procure distant resources. During other seasons, the base camp divided into smaller groups who
moved frequently to hunt, gather and fish. This type of logistical organization along with seasonal aggregation and
dispersal created a variety of site types ranging from large residential camps, to small special purpose camps, to resource
processing locations created by daily foragers (Versaggi 1996). Most of the Late Archaic period sites in northern New
York are within the vicinity of Fort Drum. This pattern is not surprising given the amount of archaeological surveys at
this location. Surveys in the Fort Drum region have produced evidence of both Laurentian (primarily Brewerton) and
Narrow Point (Lamoka) occupations (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 14). The Robinson Bay I site in the Village of Massena
(St. Lawrence County) also produced evidence of Late Archaic occupations (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 15).

The Transitional (or Terminal Archaic) period (1500-1000 BC) was characterized by development and use of
steatite (e.g., soapstone) vessels and broad spear points, some of which were made from non-local materials. Some
ceramic vessels were manufactured during this period. Small, temporary camps, often oriented toward river or coastal
areas typify settlement patterns during the Transitional (Ritchie and Funk 1973). Occupations in the St. Lawrence River
Valley are particularly scarce, consisting primarily of isolated surface finds. Evidence of mortuary ceremonials
associated with the Glacial Kame culture have been noted near Muskalonge Lake, in Jefferson County (Abel and Fuerst
1999: 16).

3.3.3 Early-M iddle W oodland Periods (1,000 BC - AD 900)

The waning of the Transitional culture in central New York was evidenced by the arrival of Early W oodland
groups and cultural traits from Adena core areas in the Ohio Valley and the upper Great Lakes. The most well-known
Early W oodland manifestation in central New York was Meadowood (1000 BC - 0 AD). Meadowood cultural
organization was similar to earlier Transitional and Late Archaic groups with a heavy reliance on small-game hunting,
fishing, and gathering (Ritchie 1980: 183). Based on site size, groups were typically small, ranging between 30 to 50
individuals (Ritchie 1980: 189). Meadowood produced very distinct side-notched projectile points, cache blades, copper
tools, as well as a form of thick ceramic pottery (Ritchie 1980). The pottery, known as Vinette 1, is fairly crude in
appearance with a combination of interior and exterior cord-marking. Meadowood groups also maintained a very
complex mortuary ceremonialism, marked by the cremation of corpses and the interment of exotic and abundant grave
goods (Ritchie 1980: 197). Sites and components appear to be widely distributed throughout New York State, although
they are clearly absent in portions of the Hudson, Upper Delaware, and parts of the Susquehanna valleys (Versaggi

15
1999). Meadowood points have been found throughout New York State, but the majority of the documented sites are
located in the Lake Ontario Lowlands of northern New York and the Niagara Frontier (Ritchie 1980: xxxi, 180).

M iddle W oodland cultural traits, specifically the distinct dentate stamped pottery and side-notched style
projectile points, first appeared around 0 AD in central New York from core areas around the Great Lakes. Cultural
traditions include the Hopewell and Point Peninsula (Ritchie 1980: xxx). The early Middle W oodland Hopewell groups,
concentrated mainly in western and eastern New York, maintained continuity with groups in the Great Lakes. The strong
Great Lakes cultural connection resulted in the construction of unique earthen mounds and the continuity of the complex
mortuary ceremonialism developed during the Early W oodland (Ritchie 1980).

Regions that developed the Point Peninsula culture in New York State were concentrated around the north shore
of Oneida Lake, the Seneca River region, and the northern Champlain Valley (Ritchie 1980: 208). Point Peninsula
cultures also appear to have been linked to the prehistoric groups of the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley, although this
connection fades in intensity through time (Ritchie 1980: 228). The connection was particularly strong for the early and
middle Point Peninsula groups, as shown from excavations at the Kipp Island Site in central New York. The lowest
levels of the site produced M iddle W oodland artifacts, many with strong similarities to artifacts from Hopewellian and
post-Hopewellian sites in the Ohio Valley, radiocarbon dated to approximately 300 AD (Ritchie 1980: 228). The
Hopewellian connection was present to varying degrees during the middle to late Point Peninsula, but by the emergence
of the Hunter’s Home phase of the late Middle W oodland, internal cultural evolution had outpaced cultural diffusion
from peripheral areas. The Hunter’s Home phase marks the beginning of a more sedentary subsistence pattern and a
limited experimentation with cultivated resources, specifically Little Barley seed (W urst and Versaggi 1993:256).
Although cultivated maize has not been definitively associated with Middle W oodland sites, Ritchie (1980: 241) suggests
it may have been present to a very limited degree in the subsistence base given the strong connection to agricultural
groups in the Ohio Valley during the early and middle Middle W oodland.

Of particular interest to the Cape Vincent project area are the Perch Lake Mounds. Informally dated to the
Middle W oodland period (AD 630), these unusual mounds appear as circular to oval piles of burnt earth and rock with
a visible depression (Ritchie 1969). The primary zone of occurrence appears to center around Perch Lake in northeast
Jefferson County, but similar mounds have also been documented in southern Ontario (Ritchie 1969). Associated
cultural remains are scarce, but burial remains with Kipp Island type artifacts have been recovered from oval mounds
in southern Ontario (Ritchie 1969).

3.3.4 Late W oodland Period (AD 900-1650)

Unlike earlier times, archaeologists have found clear evidence for maize agriculture in the Owasco and Iroquois
phases of the Late W oodland. Owasco, a culture that emerged around AD 900 in central and eastern New York, appears
to be related to the earlier Hunter’s Home phase of the Middle W oodland (MacNeish 1952; Ritchie 1980: 272; Funk
1993). This notion of cultural evolution is in direct contention with Snow’s theory of migration and displacement during
the early Late W oodland. Snow’s (1995) version of the migration theory argues that early Owasco populations migrated
north from a core area in southern and central Pennsylvania around AD 900, displacing and subsuming the aboriginal
Point Peninsula communities. Evidence for this migration, according to Snow, is the abrupt appearance of such distinct
Late W oodland cultural traits as paddle-anvil pottery, clear use of cultigens, and large village settlements (1995). Other
researchers have argued that many of these traits reflect adaptive responses within the aboriginal population to a variety
of environmental and social factors (Armstrong et al 2000: 59-60). Others have suggested Middle W oodland and
Owasco ceramics differ only in decoration techniques, which for the Owasco period tend to mask evidence of coiled
construction (Armstrong et al. 2000). In addition, maize remains from sites in southern Ontario have been dated to
around AD 600; three hundred years earlier than the hypothesized AD 900 arrival of maize agriculture in Snow’s model
(Armstrong et al. 2000). These early dates suggest maize agriculture was not an abruptly introduced subsistence practice
during the early Late W oodland, but may have been experimentally cultivated within the Great Lakes during the late
Middle W oodland (Armstrong et al. 2000).

Early Owasco villages ranged in size from less than one acre to a maximum of two acres; later villages were
substantially larger. Hamlet sites mimic that of the villages, but tend to be smaller in size. In the uplands, processing

16
stations, like those of earlier time periods, were used to extract small quantities of food and non-food related resources.
Subsistence during the Owasco period was based on a combination of agriculture and hunting-gathering. Agriculture
appears to have been initially confined to maize, and possibly Chenopodium or other native cultigens, but by the terminus
of the Owasco period beans and squash were added to the diet (Ritchie 1980: 276). Material culture during the Owasco
period reflects the cultural evolution toward a relatively sedentary/agricultural subsistence. The distinct triangular
Levanna projectile point, which first appeared in the late Middle W oodland, dominates point assemblages from Owasco
sites. Groundstone tools (such as hoes, mortar/pestle, and hammerstones) are abundant, reflecting an increasing
production of cultivated plant resources (Armstrong et al. 2000). Early Owasco ceramic vessels were fairly large, often
decorated with cord-impressions. Later pots show cord-marking and incised decorations.

By the 14 th century, the Owasco culture had developed into what is historically known as the Iroquois, a
population that relied heavily on agricultural (corn-bean-squash) subsistence. Iroquois settlements, many clustered
around the Finger Lakes and the Mohawk Valley, represent the fluorescence of Late Woodland village life. Unlike the
earlier Owasco, Iroquoian populations were clearly organized into sedentary village settlements (Armstrong et al. 2000).
Villages were fairly large, in some instances encompassing up to 350 individuals, organized around several large
longhouses (some exceeding 300 feet in length). Typically located along major drainages, village settlements were
shifted every ten to twenty years in response to environmental constraints (soil and wood depletion). In addition, many
of these villages were surrounded by wooden palisades and trenches, suggesting tribal warfare was a common occurrence
(Armstrong et al. 2000). In terms of material culture Iroquoian sites show some similarities with the earlier Owasco
culture, with an emphasis on agricultural tools. Madison style projectile points appear to have supplanted the triangular
Levanna style as the preferred formal hunting tool. Ceramic decorations also differentiate Owasco and Iroquoian sites.
Many Owasco pots, as noted above, were fairly large, with earlier versions exhibiting cord-marked surface decorations.
In contrast, Iroquoian pots were usually smaller and rounder, with more emphasis on decorated collars (Armstrong et
al. 2000).

A passage in Nelie Casler’s 1906 History of the Town of Cape V incent suggests Late W oodland (Iroquois)
settlements were numerous within northwest Jefferson County and the project area. She states that “ there are traces of
an Iroquois prehistoric village on the west bank of French Creek; about 80 rods (1320 feet) south of St. Lawrence
Village, a few stone articles and much pottery, buried deep in ashes have been unearthed, and there was also a large
village on the west branch of French Creek, a quarter of a mile south of St. Lawrence Village” (Casler 1906: 11). During
construction of the railroad leading from Rosiere to Cape Vincent, a small prehistoric buried mound was uncovered
(Casler 1906: 11). Also in the immediate area are three Late W oodland villages (circa AD 1500) with pottery, bone
tools, and the remains of chipped stone tools (see Site Files description).

Jamieson (1990: 387) noted six large clusters of Iroquois sites in the upper St. Lawrence River Valley, with one
large cluster of sites noted near the present-day location of M ontreal, Quebec. The general characteristics of the material
culture of the St. Lawrence Iroquois include ceramics with tall collars, chevron designs, a lack of lithic tools, and a large
amount of bone and antler artifacts (Jamieson 1990: 389).

Abel identified a similar cluster of Iroquoian sites in the lower St. Lawrence Valley around the Town of Clayton
(just east of Cape Vincent) dated to AD 1350-1550. Included in the cluster are at least four repeatedly occupied villages
(AD 1450-1525) bordering inland streams (Abel 2001). Multiple Iroquoian sites for Jefferson County have also been
documented by Engelbrecht (1995); many of which cluster around the Black River drainage and Lake Ontario coast.

3.4 Historic Context

Jefferson County (named in honor of Thomas Jefferson) was organized in 1805 from land originally part of
Oneida County, although pioneer families had settled in the area by at least 1797. Prior to permanent settlement,
European explorers (Champlain in 1614 and Count Frontenac in 1696) traveled through the St. Lawrence Valley, as did
Jesuit missionaries in contact with the Iroquois (Emerson 1898).

Abijah Putnam was the first settler in what is now the Town of Cape Vincent. Originally from Rome, New
York, Putnam built a cabin approximately four miles south of the present village limits in the year 1801, but by 1804
had sold the land and moved (Emerson 1898). This early settlement was known as Port Putnam, and under the control

17
of buyers John Macomb and Peter Sternberg, a new village was planned. Unfortunately, few families moved to the area,
and by 1811 the site was abandoned and the community moved upriver to a settlement founded by James LeRay
(Emerson 1898). This site would eventually become the Village of Cape Vincent. Many families moving to the area
during the early years were French and German immigrants, setting up informal cross-road hamlets known as the “French
Settlement” and Rosiere.

Early settlement of the Town of Cape Vincent was hampered by a series of conflicts associated with the W ar
of 1812. The primary factor cited in the history books that led to a declaration of war was the 1807 attack on the US
Frigate Chesapeake in the Atlantic Ocean by the British ship, the Leopold (Ross 1956). Events in the interior of the
Northeast were equally important factors in the development of the W ar of 1812. Although conflicts in the town were
relatively minimal, a large garrison was established in the Village of Cape Vincent in 1812, and a barracks was built.
During the course of the war, British troops and Native American warriors burned several structures in the village
(Emerson 1898).

The end of the war in 1815 helped to spur additional population and economic growth. While the greatest
resource was lumber during the early 19 th century, clearing of the land attracted large numbers of farming families, and
by 1820 the total census of 3816 individuals (Emerson 1898).

By the 1850s the Town of Cape Vincent included an incorporated village and three hamlets. The village is
Cape Vincent, the hamlets include St. Lawrence, Rosiere, and Miller’s Bay (Emerson 1898).

3.4.1 Historic M aps

Overall, the local histories of Jefferson County do not contain much information concerning archaeological
sensitivity of the Cape Vincent area. T he historic maps supply the additional information necessary to construct the
historical-archaeological context of the project area. For the Cape Vincent project area the historic maps span a time
range from 1855-1888 and 1903-1907. All show a somewhat similar trend of population aggregation within the
communities of Cape Vincent, Chaumont, and Three Mile Bay. Outside of these communities are small cross-road
settlements and isolated farmsteads along the growing road system. Each map is summarized specifically below; historic
maps and USGS quads are presented in Figures 9-12.

1855 LCG&M M ap of Jefferson County (Figure 9):

In the vicinity of the windfarm project area are isolated cross-road settlements and farmsteads. Numerous structures are
present in the project area, but most are set along the margins of the main roads.

1888 Atlas of Jefferson County (Figure 10):

In the vicinity of the windfarm project area are isolated cross-road settlements and farmsteads. Numerous structures are
present in the project area, but most are set along the margins of the main roads.

1903-1907 USGS 15' Clayton and Cape Vincent quadrangles (Figures 11-12):

In the vicinity of the windfarm project area are isolated cross-road settlements and farmsteads. Numerous structures are
present in the project area, but most are set along the margins of the main roads.

18
Figure 9. 1855 LCG&M Map of Jefferson County, New York (detail of Cape Vincent area).

19
Figure 10. 1888 Atlas of Jefferson County, New York (detail of Cape Vincent area).

20
Figure 11. USGS 1907 15' Cape Vincent, New York quadrangle. Figure 12. USGS 1903 15' Clayton, New York quadrangle.

21
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSM ENT M ETHODOLOGY

Archaeologists from the Public Archaeology Facility visited the Town of Cape Vincent on November 1-2 and
November 8-9, 2007 for a drive-through and photo-documentation of the area. Photographs were taken from different
vantage points throughout the project area to provide representations of the regional landuse, landform types, and
topography. Because the exact impact areas have not yet been determined, these photographs document several dominant
characteristics of the general project area. In addition, DVD video documentation was made for future reference.

V. ASSESSM ENT RESULTS

5.1 Project Area Characteristics

The dominant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rural and undeveloped setting. GIS data
presented in Table 5 highlight this dominant characteristic. Of the 17 USGS landuse categories identified on the
1:250,000 Kingston quadrangle, more than 70% are classified as either agricultural land, wooded, or wetlands. An
additional 7% are water-related (lakes, streams, bays).

Table 5. 1990 Landuse categories from the USGS 1: 250,000 Kingston quadrangle
LAND USE CATEGORIES NUMBER IN QUADRANGLE PERCENT
RESIDENTIAL 30 10.53
COMMERCIAL 13 4.56
TRANSPORTATION 1 0.35
MIXED URBAN OR BUILT UP 4 1.40
OTHER URBAN OR BUILT UP 6 2.11
CROPLAND AND PASTURE 30 10.53
ORCHARDS AND GROVES 6 2.11
DECIDUOUS FOREST 29 10.18
EVERGREEN FOREST 28 9.82
MIXED FOREST 93 32.63
STREAM/CANAL 1 0.35
LAKES 11 3.86
RESERVOIRS 5 1.75
BAYS/ESTUARIES 2 0.70
FORESTED WETLAND 10 3.51
NON-FOREST WETLAND 8 2.81
STRIP MINES 8 2.81

The drive-over and photo-documentation confirmed these findings, showing that large tracts of the project area
are active hay fields and pasture separated by clusters of brush and secondary forest growth. Numerous farmsteads are
present along the margins of the main roads. Bedrock outcrops are visible across the elevated ridges in the western
quarter of the project area.

Other than buried utilities within the DOT right-of-ways, there does not appear to be any significant ground
disturbances within the general project area.

22
Figure 13. Approximate
location of project area
photographs.

23
5.2 Project Area Photographs

Photo 1. View east toward a hayfield


pasture off of NY 12E. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 2. View east toward a hayfield and


farmstead off NY 12E. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 3. View west toward a hayfield and


pasture off NY 12E. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

24
Photo 4. View southwest toward a
hayfield and pasture off NY 12E.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 5. View east from the intersection


of NY 12E and M erchant Road. Landform
is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 6. View east from the intersection


of NY 12E and M erchant Road. Landform
is bedrock/till ridge.

25
Photo 7. View south off M erchant Road
toward a fallow pasture and wooded
parcel. Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 8. View west along Merchant Road


with fallow pastures and wooded parcels to
the north and south. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 9. View south off Merchant Road


toward a wooded parcel. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

26
Photo 10. View southeast from the corner
of Merchant Road and CR6. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 11. View southeast from the corner


of Merchant Road and CR6. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 12. View east off CR6 toward a


hayfield and pasture. Landform is glacial
outwash and lacustrine.

27
Photo 13. View east near the intersection
of CR6 and Huff Road. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 14. View west near the intersection


of CR6 and Huff Road. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 15. View south from the


intersection of CR6 and Huff Road toward
the mouth of Kents Creek. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge; Kents Creek occupies a
mix of glacial lacustrine and alluvial land.

28
Photo 16. View southwest off Huff Road.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 17. View northwest from NY 12E


and Kents Creek toward Huff Road
(treeline). Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.

Photo 18. View northeast from NY12E


and Kents Creek. Landform is a
combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine
and hydric soils.

29
Photo 19. View southeast from NY12E
and Kents Creek. Landform is a
combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine
and hydric soils.

Photo 20. View southeast from the


intersection of Bate Road and CR6.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 21. View west along the edge of


Fox Creek. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.

30
Photo 22. View east from the intersection
of CR6 and Fox Creek Road. Landform is
a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 23. View south along NY 12E


toward Fox Creek Road. Road cuts with
limestone outcrops are visible east and
west of NY 12E. Landform is bedrock/till
ridge.

Photo 24. View of the road cuts and


shallow bedrock along NY 12E at Fox
Creek Road. Landform is bedrock/till
ridge.

31
Photo 25. View west from NY 12E toward
the drainage for Fox Creek. Landform is a
combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 26. View northwest off CR 56


toward pastures and hayfields. Landform
is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 27. View north along Bedford


Corners Road. Landform is a combination
of glacial outwash/lacustrine.

32
Photo 28. View southeast from CR4.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. The


brush line marks bedrock outcrops.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 30. View southeast from the


intersection of CR4 and W ilson Road.
Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

33
Photo 31. View north along W ilson Road.
Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 32. View south along Hell Road.


Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 33. View east from Dezgremel


Road toward wetlands draining into Kents
Creek. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.

34
Photo 34. View east from Dezgremel
Road toward hayfields and pastures.
Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 35. View north off Burnt Rock


Road towards wetlands that feed into
Kents Creek. Landform is a combination
of glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric
soils.

Photo 36. View northeast off Burnt Rock


Road. Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

35
Photo 37. View northwest off Favret
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 38. View east off Favret Road.


Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 39. View north off Burnt Rock


Road. Treeline in the far distance is a
large wetlands. Landform is a
combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.

36
Photo 40. View north off Burnt Rock
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 41. View south along Miller’s Bay


Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 42. View west from Miller’s Bay


Road. Numerous headwater wetlands for
Kents Creek are marked by the tall brush.
Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

37
Photo 43. View northwest off Burnt Rock
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 44. View west off Burnt Rock


Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 45. View east off Favret Road.


Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

38
Photo 46. View west off Favret Road.
Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 47. View southwest from the


intersection of Favret Road and Mason
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 48. View southwest from Mason


Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.

39
Photo 49. View west in the center of the
Hamlet of Rosiere. The project area
surrounds the hamlet.

Photo 50. View east in the center of the


Hamlet of Rosiere. T he project area
surrounds the hamlet.

40
5.3 Prehistoric Sensitivity Assessment

Numerous prehistoric sites have been identified in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands, and it is highly
probable that significant evidence of prehistoric landuse and settlement is located within the project area. Sites would
not have been equally distributed throughout the lowlands, as groups targeted specific landforms based on favorable
conditions, such as the accessibility of water, soil fertility, and good drainage. Each landform type offered a unique set
of physical advantages and disadvantages for prehistoric landuse and settlement. For descriptive purposes these
advantages/disadvantages can be summarized by outlining some general landscape variables: access to water, land slope,
soil drainage, soil productivity/work-ability, site accessibility, and resource availability. The scale of the Cape Vincent
project area encompasses landforms with differing ranges and combinations of environmental variables.

Access to W ater: How easy or difficult to obtain drinkable and/or transportable water. Locations with very scant or hard
to reach water resources would be less favorable for prehistoric groups. W ater sources appear plentiful throughout the
project area, with numerous lake bays, tributaries, headwaters, and wetlands.

Land Slope: Flat, gently-rolling, moderately steep, very steep. Flat to gently-sloping land would be the most favorable
for prehistoric settlement. Very steep (>15%) would be disadvantageous. Landslope is relatively flat, although some
bedrock ridges are visible along the western third of the project area.

Soil Drainage: How well accumulated rain and flood water leeches through soil horizons. Poorly-drained locales were
less favored as potential residential sites. Some areas may experience seasonal changes in soil drainage (e.g. flood
plains). Soil drainage appears less evenly distributed, with better-drained soils in the western and eastern thirds of the
project area and poorer-drained soils clustering in the center.

Soil Productivity/W ork-ability: Most important for later agricultural groups. Easily tillable soils would have been
favored for crop production over stony upland soils. Agriculture is one of the dominant landuse types for the Cape
Vincent region, and the natural soil productivity is assumed to be at least moderate, but the length of the growing season
may have hindered some crops.

Site Accessibility: How easy or difficult it is to reach a site location; flat plains vs. steep uplands. The low relief of the
region, as well as the multiple bays and inlets, suggests group movement across the landscape was relatively easy.

Resource Availability: Are needed resources aggregated (e.g. fish-runs) or dispersed across the landscape? Does
resource availability change seasonally (e.g., late summer and fall nut harvesting) or by landform type (e.g., upland rock
outcrops for stone tool material)? Resource availability today varies seasonally, with spring fish runs, fall mast ripening,
and late-fall/early-winter deer congregations. This seasonal trend in resource availability is thought to date to at least
the Late Archaic period (BC 4000).

Based on the background research, the expected site types possible for the project area cover a full range:
villages and base-camps to field camps and resource-processing stations. The largest and most complex sites would be
the residential base-camps and agricultural villages. Typically located near river confluences and lake inlets/outlets,
these sites produce large numbers of artifacts and tools, and high frequencies of functional (hearths/fire-pits) and
structural (post-molds) features. Tethered to the larger base-camps and villages were a series of small camps (single-task
and multi-task) and processing stations. Single-task camps were associated with intensive resource extraction.
Examples include quarry sites and butchering stations, both of which produce high numbers of specialized tools. Multi-
task camp sites tend to produce a moderate to low artifact density and limited numbers of cultural features (such as
storage pits and cooking hearths) indicative of short-term occupation, usually during periods of population dispersal
from the larger base-camps and villages. These sites tend to cluster near the margins of small streams or wetlands.
Resource processing sites, found throughout all landforms, reflect short-term landuse for opportunistic resource
preparation or extraction. In terms of material culture, these sites are usually associated with small artifact assemblages
(primarily lithic scatters) characterized by expedient tools (utilized debitage).

41
5.4 Historic Sensitivity Assessment

The historic site assessment suggests a fairly low potential for much of the project area. From the available
historic maps we know that numerous structures (both current and former) are within the limits of the project area, but
most appear to flank the major roads and transportation routes, or cluster around the lake bays. Large chunks of the
project area are “blank” on the historic maps, and it is likely much of the region was wooded, poorly-drained, and/or
agricultural during the 19 th and early 20 th century.

This assessment is not meant to imply that there is no chance of identifying a historic archaeological site within
the Cape Vincent project area. Pioneer families were present in the region prior to the publication of the historic maps,
and the area was used during the colonial Fur Trade and the W ar of 1812. In addition, if impacts are expected adjacent
to major roads or historic structures, the potential for encountering a buried historic site rises significantly.

VI. ASSESSM ENT RECOM M ENDATIONS

The archaeological assessment has shown that the Cape Vincent W ind Power Project area is situated in an area
with a high potential for prehistoric cultural resources. The very rural location of much of the project area suggested a
lower potential for historic archaeological sites. Overall, reconnaissance testing is recommended for the Cape Vincent
W ind Power Project.

6.1 Potential Testing Strategies

Sensitivity assessments outlined above will be used to structure archaeological testing strategies for the project
area. Cultural resource management (CRM) testing usually involves either subsurface shovel-test pits or surface surveys,
and sometimes a combination of the two. As site sensitivity varies both within and across landform types, these testing
strategies can be used in different manners and intensities to maximize the probability of identifying cultural resources.
Reconnaissance testing for the Cape Vincent W ind Power Project will need to be structured using the NYS OPRHP
guidelines for windfarm CRM. These new guidelines focus on either systematic surface surveys or the strategic
placement of shovel test pits across different landform types.

The first step in the OPRHP guideline process is a determination of landform sensitivity and variation for
project impact areas, defined as turbine locations, staging zones, burrow pits, access roads, utility corridors, and other
ground modifying areas. The guidelines suggest using Funk’s 1993 study of the eastern Upper Susquehanna drainage,
an area marked by rugged uplands, steep valley walls, and a network of rivers. As part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario
Lowlands, the Cape Vincent area does not fit these criteria, but as presented above, different landform types and locations
do exist within the project area. Such landform types include:

Turbine locations overlooking/adjacent to lake bays/inlets: These areas are most prominent along the western edge
of the project area, near the coastline of Lake Ontario.

Turbine locations adjacent to streams/creeks: At least two tributaries of Lake Ontario (Kents Creek and Fox Creek)
fall within or adjacent to the limits of the project area. Numerous small streams feed the larger creeks.

Turbine locations adjacent to wetlands: The project area overlaps several wetlands adjacent to Kents Creek and Fox
Creek. The area also includes large tracts of hydric (wetland soils).

Turbine locations near bedrock outcrops: Bedrock and ridge soils are most prominent in the western half of the
project area and may contain chert bearing limestone units, a favored raw material for stone tools. Large outcrops may
have also offered temporary shelters and vantage points.

Turbine locations on ancient shore-line features: The Cape Vincent project area hugs the modern coastline of Lake
Ontario, but much of this area was below water during the age of Lake Iroquois (Figures 14-16). It was only when the
lake level dropped that large tracts of stable land were available. With water levels at roughly 95 m (312 ft) ASL, much
of the project area is submerged, with low islands at the modern coastline. Dropping the water level to 85 m (279 ft;
7 meters above current level) ASL opens up a significant amount of land, creating an inland bay at Kents Creek, as well
as connecting the earlier islands to the mainland. The modern shoreline at 75 m (246 ft) ASL is complex and irregular,
with numerous inlets and bays.

42
Figure 14. Current topography
of the Cape Vincent region
(water at 75 meters ASL).

Figure 15. Cape Vincent region


with the water level at 85 meters
ASL. At this water level Kents
Creek becomes an inland bay
connected to the St. Lawrence
and Lake Ontario.

Figure 16. Cape Vincent region


with the water level at 95 meters
ASL. The western half is
essentially flooded, but a
prominent peninsula forms in
the eastern half.

43
Archaeological surveys at the neighboring Fort Drum army installation in W atertown have identified numerous
prehistoric sites (including three Paleo-Indian occupations) clustered near elevated ravines around the 183-213 meter
(600-700 ft) ASL contour range (Rush et al. 2003). This elevation range contains multiple ancient sandy shorelines and
marks the Frontenac level of glacial Lake Iroquois, dated to roughly 11,300 years BP (before present - 1950). In addition
to the early Paleo-Indian sites, many of these ancient shorelines were continually occupied from the Archaic to the Late
W oodland periods given the favorable landscape (e.g., elevated and good soil drainage).

Turbine locations on inland areas: Any section of the project area that does not fit the previous definitions.

6.2 Proposed Phase 1B Testing Strategy

Once landform sensitivity and variation is defined for the windfarm project area, the next step in the process
would be to devise a suitable testing strategy to provide a representative sample of cultural resources for different
landform types.

Phase 1B testing for the Cape Vincent W indfarm will likely involve a combination of both subsurface (STP)
and systematic surface surveys. The recommended strategy should provide a representative sample of cultural resources
by landform variation within the project area.

Subsurface Testing: Shovel test pits (STPs) are one of the most commonly used subsurface testing methods for CRM
projects. Pits are dug by hand with round shovels, and the soil is screened for artifacts through standard 1/4 inch wire
mesh. Once completed and recorded, pits are immediately back-filled. STPs will be required for any non-plowable and
brushy/wooded parcels. In New York State, the standard subsurface testing interval for most landforms is 15 m (50 ft)
or less. This interval will identify most larger prehistoric sites (base-camps and villages), but will intersect only a sample
of smaller camps and processing stations. For extremely small artifact scatters the 15 m (50 ft) interval may not be
appropriate. For upland windfarm projects, NYS OPRHP requires that different landform types be proportionally
sampled using a 5 m (16 ft) testing interval. This interval may also be appropriate for lakeplain landforms.

Surface Survey: Agricultural fields that are currently plowed or are plowable can be surveyed through systematic
walkovers and artifact collection. Plowable areas would be defined as fields used for any crops (such as corn or hay)
that are seasonally tilled and can be plowed. Non-plowable areas would include wooded parcels. Any artifact scatters
would be collected and mapped with hand-held GPS units. Unlike costlier subsurface testing, systematic walkovers allow
for more comprehensive coverage of large parcels and efficient identification of archaeological sites. Surface surveys
are particularly helpful for large agricultural parcels located on shallow soils with little potential for deeply buried
deposits. Surface surveys would not be possible if thick crops (or hay/grass) obscure surface visibility; these areas would
need to be freshly plowed and disked. Plowing is not an option for any landforms (e.g., forest or light-brush) that have
never been previously plowed or cultivated.

Detailed impact areas have yet to be finalized, so the extent of the Phase 1B survey cannot be fully proposed
in this report. Once the windfarm layout is finalized, PAF will create and submit a proposal to BP/ERM and SHPO
outlining the testing and sampling strategy based on the landform variation presented above. This proposal will take the
locations of each proposed impact (e.g., turbines, access roads, staging areas, transmission lines, etc.) and associate these
impacts with a specific landform. Total impact acreage for each landform will then be computed. Following the SHPO
guidelines for windfarm projects, a target sampling percentage will be selected and applied to each landform. The final
strategy will need to be approved through consultation with the NYS OPRHP.

It is strongly recommended that agricultural fields be freshly plowed/disked to allow surface surveys. If
landowners are willing to plow agricultural fields (both active and fallow) that are slated for windfarm development,
systematic surface surveys are the preferred survey option given the efficiency and speed of the method.

44
APPENDIX I: SOURCE LIST

Abel, Timothy James


2001 The Clayton Cluster: Cultural dynamics of a Late Prehistoric village sequence in the upper St. Lawrence Valley (New
York). Doctoral Dissertation in Anthropology. Albany University.

Abel, Timothy, and David N. Fuerst


1999 Prehistory of the St. Lawrence headwaters region. Archaeology of Eastern North America. 27: 1-53.

Armstrong, Douglas V., LouAnn Wurst, and Elizabeth J. Keller


2000 Archaeological Sites and Preservation Planning in Central New York. New York State Preservation Office.

Casler, Nelie Horton


1906 Cape Vincent and Its History. Watertown, New York.

Emerson, Edgar C.
1898 History of Cape Vincent, New York. Boston History Company.

Engelbrecht, William
1995 The Case of the Disappearing Iroquoian: Early Contact Period Superpower Politics. Northeast Anthropology (50): 35-59.

Funk, Robert
1993 Archeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State Vol. 1. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, NY.

Jamieson, James B
1990 The Archaeology of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650. edited by Chris
Ellis and Neal Ferris, pp.385-404. Occasional Publications of the London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society 5. The
London Chapter, OAS: London.

LCG&M Insurance
1855 Map of Jefferson County, New York.

Mason, Ronald J.
1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press: New York.

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).

NYAC (New York Archaeological Council)


1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State. The
New York Archaeological Council, Albany. NYSED, New York State Education Department.

Parker, Arthur C.
1920 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin.

Robinson, E.
1888 Atlas of Jefferson County, New York.

Ritchie, William A.
1969 The Perch Lake Mounds. New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin. Vol. 46, p. 1-10.
1980 Archaeology of New York State. Purple Mountain Press: Fleischmanns.

Ritchie, William A. and Robert Funk


1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 20: Albany, NY.

Ross, John
1956 This Happened Here: the Story of the Lake Champlain Territory. Northern Publishing: Rouses Point.

45
Rush, Laurie W., Randy Amici, James, Rapant, Carol Cady, and Steve Ahr
2003 Glacial Geology and Prehistoric Sensitivity Modeling Fort Drum, New York. In Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the
Glaciated Northeast, ed. by David L. Cremeens and John P. Hart. New York State Museum Bulletin 497.

Seib, Daniel C.
2007 Cultural Resource Management Report, Piercefield Hydroelectric Project, Towns of Piercefield and Tupper
Lake, St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties, New York, MCDs 08925 and 03301. Public Archaeology Facility,
Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY.

Snow, Dean
1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York.
1995 More on Migration in Prehistory: Accommodating New Evidence in the Northern Iroquoian Case. American Antiquity
61(4): 791-796.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)


1981 Soil Survey of Jefferson County, New York. US Government Printing Office: Washington DC.

United State Geological Survey (USGS)


1990 1:250,000 Kingston, New York-Ontario
1989 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario
1907 15' Cape Vincent, New York
1903 15' Clayton, New York

Van Diver, Bradford B.


1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Mountain Press Publishing: Missoula.

Versaggi, Nina
1987 Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Models and the Archaeological Record: A Test Case from the Upper Susquehanna Valley of
New York. PhD dissertation. Binghamton University: Binghamton, New York.
1996 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Models: Interpreting the Upper Susquehanna Valley. In A Golden Chronograph
for Robert E. Funk, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 15: 129-140.
1999 Regional Diversity within the Early Woodland of the Northeast. Northeast Anthropology, Number 57(Spring):45-56.
2000 An Overview of Prehistoric Settlement Patterns and Landforms in the Northern Appalachians. Paper presented in the
Symposium: Current Topics in Northeast Geoarchaeology: Glaciated Landscapes (John Hart and David Cremeens,
organizers). New York State Museum, Albany.
2002 Upland Sites: The View from the Northern Tier and Southern New York. Paper presented in the Conference, Byways to
the Past: the Significance and Management of Small Upland Prehistoric Sites. Co-sponsored by the Penn. Department of
Transportation and the Penn. Musuem and Historical Commission.

Versaggi, Nina M., LouAnn Wurst, T. Cregg Madrigal, and Andrea Lain
2001 Adding Complexity to Late Archaic Research in the Northeastern Appalachians. In Archaeology of the Appalachian
Highlands, L.P. Sullivan and S.C. Prezzano (ed.), pp. 121-137. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville.

Versaggi, Nina M. and Christopher Hohman


2006 Small Lithic Sites: Linking Significance with Context. paper presented at the Symposium: Current Approaches to the
Analysis and Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast (November 2003). New York State Museum.

Wurst, LouAnn, PhD and Versaggi, Nina M, PhD


1993 Under the Asphalt: The Archeology of the Binghamton Mall Project. Vol. 1. Public Archeology Facility, State University
of New York at Binghamton. Prepared for the City of Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency.

46

Potrebbero piacerti anche