BP SDEIS App M-1 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent

8/7/2019 BP SDEIS App M-1 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent

1/54

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.206 East 9 th Street, Suite 1700

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 459-4700

Public Archaeology Facility Report - SUNYAppendix M -1

February 2011

Project No. 0092352


2/54


3/54

i

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 completesite 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 S tate.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 LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River.

USGS QUAD MAPS:

1990 1:250,000 Kingston, New York-Ontario1989 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York -Ontario

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT:

Prehistoric sensitivity: Numerous p rehistoric sites have been identified in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands,and it is highly probable that significant e vidence o f prehistoric and contact period landuse and settlement is locatedwithin the project area. Gro ups likely targeted specific landforms based on favorable conditions, such as the accessibilityof water, good drainage, and soil fertility. Each landform type offered a unique set of physical advantages anddisadvantages for prehistoric landuse and settlement. For descriptive purposes these advantages/disadvantages can besummarized by outlining some general landscape variables: access to water, land slope, soil drainage, soilproductivity/work-ability, site accessibility, and resource availability. The scale of the Cape Vincent project areaencompasses landforms with differing ranges and comb inations of environmental variables. Of particular significanceto 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 o f the project area. From theavailable historic maps we k now that numerous structures (both current and former) are within the limits of the pro jectarea, but most appear to flank the major roads and transportation routes, or cluster around the lake bays. Large chunksof the proj ect area are blank on the historic maps, and it is likely much of the region was wooded, p oorly-drained,and/or agricultural during the 19 and early 20 century.th th

This assessment is not m eant to imply that there is n o chance of identifying a historic archaeological site within the CapeVincent project area. P ioneer families were present in the region p rior to the publication of the historic maps, and thearea was used during the colonial Fur Trade and W ar of 1812. In addition, if impacts are expected adjacent to major roads o r historic structures, the potential for encountering a buried historic site rises significantly.


4/54

ii

RESULTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:

The dom inant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rural and undeveloped setting. Of the 17 USG S landusecategories identified on the 1 :250,000 Kingston quadrangle, mo re than 70% are classified as either agricultural land,wooded, or wetlands. An additional 7% are water-related (lakes, streams, bays).

The d rive-over and pho to-documentation confirmed these findings, showing that large tracts of the project area are activehay fields and pasture separated by clusters of brush and second ary forest growth. Numerous farmsteads are presentalong the margins of the m ain roads. Bed rock outcrops are v isible across the elevated ridges in the w estern quarter of the project area.

Other than buried utilities within the D OT right-of-ways, there does not app ear to be any significant ground disturbanceswithin the general project area.

ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

Phase 1B testing for the Cape Vincent Windfarm will likely involve a combination of both subsurface (STP) andsystematic surface surveys. The recommende d strategy should provide a representative sample of cultural resources bylandform variation within the project area.

Subsurface Testing: Shovel test pits (STPs) are one of the most common ly used subsurface testing methods for CRMprojects. Pits are dug by hand with round shovels, and the soil is screened for artifacts through standard 1/4 inch wiremesh. Once com pleted and recorded, pits are immediately back-filled. STPs will be required for any non- plowable andbrushy/wooded p arcels. In New Y ork State, the standard subsurface testing interval for most landforms is 15 m (50 ft)or less. This interval will identify most larger pr ehistoric sites (base-ca mps and v illages), but will intersect only a sampleof smaller camps and processing stations. For extrem ely small artifact scatters the 15 m (50 ft) interval may not beappropriate. For upland windfarm projects, NYS OPRHP requires that different landform types be proportionallysampled using a 5 m (16 ft) testing interval. This interval may also be approp riate for lakeplain landforms.

Surface Survey: Agricultural fields that are currently plowed or are plowable can be surveyed through systematicwalkovers 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 p lowed. No n-plowable areas would include wood ed parcels. Any artifact scatterswould be collected and mapped with hand-held GPS units. Unlike costlier subsurface testing, systematic walkovers allowfor more comprehensive coverage o f large parcels and efficient identification of archaeological sites. Surface surveysare particularly helpful for large agricultural parcels located on shallow soils with little potential for deeply burieddeposits. Surface surveys would not b e possible if thick crops (or hay/grass) obscure surface visibility; these areas wouldneed to be freshly plowed and disked. Plowing is no t an option for any landforms (e.g., forest or light-brush) that havenever been previously plowed or cultivated.

Detailed impact areas have yet to be finalized, so the extent of the Phase 1B survey cannot be fully proposedin this report. O nce the w indfarm layout is finalized, PAF will create and submit a proposal to BP/ERM and SHPOoutlining the testing and sampling strategy based o n the landform variation presented abo ve. This pr oposal will take the

locations of each prop osed impact (e.g., turbines, access roads, staging areas, transmission lines, etc.) and associate theseimpacts with a specific landform. Total impact acreage for each landform will then be computed. Fo llowing the SHPOguidelines for windfarm projects, a target sampling percentage will be selected and applied to each landform. The finalstrategy will need to be approved through consultation with the NYS O PRHP .

It is strongly recommended that agricultural fields be freshly plowed/disked to allow surface surveys. If landowners arewilling to p low agricultural fields (bo th active and fallow) that are slated for windfarm development, systematic surfacesurveys are the preferred survey option given the efficiency and speed of the m ethod.


5/54

iii

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

DATE: November 29, 2007

SPONSOR: BP and ERM-Southwest, Inc.


6/54

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MA NAG EM ENT SUM MA RY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

I. INT ROD UCT ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 P roject D escription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2. G eneral P roject A rea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

III. BA CKG ROU ND RESE ARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 S ite Files Sea rch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1.1 D ocum ented P rehistoric S ites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1.2 D ocum ented H istoric Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1.3 Inventoried Historic Structures/Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2 E nviron mental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2.1 G lacial History an d To pogr aphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2.2 P ost-Glac ial Waters heds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2.3 B edro ck and S oil Typ es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.3 P rehistoric C ontext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.3.1 Paleo-Indian / Early-Middle Archaic Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3.2 Late Archaic / Transitional Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3.3 Early-Middle Wo odland Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3.4 Late Wood land Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4 H istoric Co ntext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.4.1 H istoric M aps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

IV. CULTU RAL RESOU RCES ASSE SSME NT ME THOD OLOG Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

V. AS SES SM ENT RESU LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.1 P roject A rea Char acteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.2 P roject A rea Pho tograp hs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.3 P rehistoric S ensitivity Assessme nt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.4 H istoric Sens itivity Assessmen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

VI. ASSESS MEN T RECO MM END ATION S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426.1 P otential Te sting Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426.2 P ropo sed Ph ase 1B Testing S trategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

APP EN DIX I: SOU RCE L IST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


7/54

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the Town of Cape Vincent in Jefferson County and New York State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Figure 2. Location of general project area on the USGS 1:100,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quadrangle. 2Figure 3. Location of the general project area on the 2003 aerial photographs for the Town of Cape Vincent. . . . 3Figure 4. 3-meter contour intervals for the Town of Cape Vincent highlighting the regional topography. . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 5. Digital Elevation Mod el (DEM) of the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 6. Major creeks and tributaries within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 7. Location of DEC wetlands and hydric soils within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . 11Figure 8. Major surficial landforms and soil types for the Cape Vincent project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 9. 1855 LCG& M M ap of Jefferson County, New York (detail of Cape Vincent area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 10. 1888 Atlas of Jefferson County, New Y ork (detail of Cape Vincent area). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 11. USG S 1907 15' Cape Vincent, New York quadrangle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 12. USG S 1903 15' Clayton, New York quadrangle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 13. Appro ximate location of project area photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 14. Current topography of the Cape Vincent region (water at 75 meters ASL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Figure 1 5. Cape Vinc ent region with the water lev el at 85 meters ASL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Figure 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Table 2. Summary of d ocumented historic archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Table 3. Summary of National Register Listed structures/properties within the Cape Vincent region . . . . . . . . . . . 6Table 4. M ajor soil types within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 5. 1990 Landuse categories from the USGS 1: 250,000 Kingston quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Pho to 1. View east toward a hayfield pastur e off of NY 1 2E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Photo 2. V iew east toward a hayfield and farmstead off NY 12 E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Photo 3. V iew west toward a hayfield and pasture off NY 1 2E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Photo 4. V iew southwest toward a hayfield and pasture off NY 1 2E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Photo 5. V iew east from the intersection of NY 12E and M erchant Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Photo 6. V iew east from the intersection of NY 12E and M erchant Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Photo 7. V iew south off Merchant Road toward a fallow pasture and wooded parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Photo 8. View west along Merchant Road with fallow pastures and wooded parcels to the north and south. . . . . . 26Photo 9. V iew south off Merchant Road toward a woo ded parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Photo 10 . View southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and C R6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Photo 11 . View southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and C R6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Photo 12. V iew east off CR6 toward a hayfield and pasture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Photo 13 . View east near the intersection of CR6 a nd Huff Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Photo 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. . . . . . . . . . 28Photo 16. V iew southwest off Huff Road. Landform is bedrock/till ridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Photo 17. View northwest from NY 12E and Ke nts Creek toward Huff Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Photo 18. View northeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Photo 19. View southeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Photo 20. View southeast from the intersection of Bate Road and CR6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Pho to 21. View we st along the edg e of Fox Cre ek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Photo 22 . View east from the intersection of CR6 and Fox Cre ek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


8/54

vi

Photo 23. View south along NY 12 E toward Fox Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Photo 24. View of the road cuts and shallow bedrock along NY 12E at Fox Creek Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Photo 25. View west from NY 12 E toward the drainage for Fox Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Photo 26. V iew northwest off CR 56 toward pastures and hayfields. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Photo 27. View north along Bedford Co rners Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Pho to 28. V iew southe ast from C R4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. The brush line marks bedrock outcrops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Photo 30. View southeast from the intersection of CR4 and W ilson Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Pho to 31. View no rth along W ilson Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Pho to 32. V iew south a long H ell Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Photo 33. View east from Dezgremel Road toward wetlands draining into Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Photo 34. View east from Dezgremel Road toward hayfields and pastures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Photo 35. View north off Burnt Rock Road towards wetlands that feed into Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Pho to 36. V iew north east off Bu rnt Rock Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Pho to 37. V iew north west off Fav ret Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Pho to 38. V iew east off Fa vret Roa d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Pho to 39. V iew north off Burn t Rock Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Pho to 40. V iew north off Burn t Rock Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Photo 41. View south along Millers Bay Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Photo 42. View west from Miller Bay Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Photo 43. View northwest off Burnt Rock Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Pho to 44. V iew west off B urnt Ro ck Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Pho to 45. V iew east off Fa vret Roa d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Pho to 46. V iew west off Fa vret Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Photo 47. View southwest from the intersection of Favret Road and M ason Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Pho to 48. View so uthwest from Maso n Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Photo 49. V iew west in the center of the Hamlet of Rosiere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Pho to 50. V iew east in the cente r of the Ha mlet of Ro siere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


9/54

1

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Project in the Town of Cape V incent, Jefferson County, New York. In compliance with the New York Standards for Professional Survey (NYAC 1 994) and the OP RHP W indfarm Guidelines (2005), this study was undertaken to assessthe 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 V ersaggi, Director of PAF. The assessment was completed by Samuel M. Kudrle, who was also the primary author of this report. Alladministrative duties were performed by M aria 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, JeffersonCounty, New York . The number of turbines and associated access roads/buried cables are not yet finalized, but thecomplete 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 N ew York S tate. Figure 2 outlines the projectarea on the USG S 1:100,00 0 Cape Vincent, New Yo rk-Ontario quadrangle. Figure 3 presents the project area limits onthe 2003 aerial photography for the Town of Cape Vincent.

Geographically, this region is part of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland p rovince of northern N ew York State. For the Cape V incent 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 LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River. C urrent landuse patterns for the pro ject area are predom inantly agricultural.

Figure 1. Location of the Townof Cape Vincent in JeffersonCounty and New York State.


10/54

2

Figure 2. Location of general project area on the USGS 1:10 0,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quadrang


11/54

3


12/54

4

III. BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Background research was conducted on the environment, prehistory, and history of the project area withinJefferson County. This research add ressed the types of sites likely to be located in the project area b ased on the resultsof site file checks, historic maps, cou nty histories, archival documents, and settlement patterns in and around the Townof Cape Vincent.

3.1 Site Files Search

A site files check at the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPR HP) listed 28prehistoric sites and six historic sites within the regional vicinity of the project area. Information pertaining to therecorded archaeological sites and inventoried structures is presented in Tab les 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 areunidentified camps and traces of occupation documented in the 19 20s by archaeologist Arthur C. Parker. Included inthe census are three Late Wo odland villages (circa AD 1500) with pottery, bone tools, and the remains of chipped stonetools. In addition, one of the sites produced a Late Archaic (45 00-1500 BC) O tter Creek projectile point. The site files

also identified four potential burial locations, one of which was disturbed du ring construction of the railroad. No ne of the sites are Na tional Register Eligible or Listed.

Table 1. Summary of documented prehistoric archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent regionSITE NUMBER / SITEN A M E

USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STATUS

NYSM 3596ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 305 M (1000 FT) NORTH O FKENT CREEK; 94 M (310 FT) GENTLE SLOPE

U NID ENTIFIED PREHISTO RIC C AM P I

A04505.000071UB 958 SAUNDERS SITE

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 200 M (655 FT) EAST OFKENT CREEK; 94 M (310 FT) GENTLE SLOPE

LATE WOODLAND VILLAGE (AD 1500);COLLARED GRIT-TEMPERED POTTERY,BONE TOOLS, AND A FEW STONE TOOLS

I

NYSM 3595ACP JFSN

CAPE VINC ENT SOUTH : 30 M (100 FT) EAST OF FOXCREEK; 88 M (290 FT) GENTLE SLOPE


NYSM 3594ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: ADJACENT EAST OFLITTLE CREEK; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOP E


NYSM 3592ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 366 M (1200 FT) WEST OFCHAUMO NT BAY; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE


NYSM 3592JSFN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH : 122 M (400 FT) WEST OFCHAUMO NT BAY; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE

UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIALPLACE

I

NYSM 3433JFSN-6

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: WETLAND AT SOUTH ENDOF CHAUMONT BAY ; NORTH SITE OF ISTHMUS; 78M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE

UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIALPLACE AND CAM P; PARKER NOTES SITESIS AT THE PORTAGE AT POINT PENINSULA

I

NYSM 3598ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 152 M (500 FT)SOUTHEAST OF CREEK; 94 M (310 FT) FLAT


NYSM 3597ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: HEAD OF WETLAND ANDADJACENT CREEK; 94 M (307 FT) FLAT

UN IDEN TIFIED CAM P I

NYSM 3431ACP JFSN-4

CAPE VINCENT NORTH: 488 M (1600 FT)SOUTHWEST OF SCOTCH CREEK; 76 M (250 f t )FLAT

UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIALMOUND; PARKER NOTES THAT MOUNDWAS OPENED WHEN RAILROAD WASBUILT

I

N YSM 7814 ST. LA WR EN CE : 30 5 M (1000 FT) SO UTH EA ST O FCREEK; 107 M (350 FT) FLAT

P R O B A B L Y P R E H I S T O R I C ; N OINFORMATION

I

N YSM 1497 ST. LAW REN CE: A DJA CEN T TO C REEK ; 107 M (350FT) FLAT

LA TE AR CHA IC ; O TTER C REEK PO IN T I

NYSM 3432ACP JFSN-5

ST. LAWRENCE: 213 M (1700 FT) NORTH OFWETLAND; 107 M (350 FT) FLAT

LATE W OODLAN D VILLAGE I


13/54

SITE NUMBER / SITEN A M E

USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STATUS

5

A04507.000105UB 959 MATSON SITE

ST. LAWREN CE: 100 M (30 FT) EAST OF CREEK; 98M (320 FT) FLAT


I

NYSM 3499ACP JFSN-72

ST. LAWRENCE: ADJACENT TO W ETLAND; 107 M(350 FT) FLAT

WOODLAND; LARGE VILLAGE ANDMIDDEN

I

NYSM 3500ACP JFSN-73A ST. LAWRENCE: 457 M (1500 FT) EAST OFWETLAND; 107 M (350 FT) FLAT WOODLAND CAMP; PROJECTILE POINTSAND POTTERY I

NYSM 7879ACP JFSN-73B

ST. LAWRENCE: ADJACENT TO WETLAND; 93 M(305 FT) FLAT


N YSM 3585 C HA UM ON T: V ER Y LA RG E A RE A W EST SID E O FTHREE MILE BAY; 85 M (280 FT) FLAT

UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC; TRACES OFOCCUPATION

I

NYSM 3504ACP JFSN-77

CHAU MO NT: 183 M (600 FT) EAST OF CREEK; 85 M(280 FT) FLAT

U NID EN TIFIED PREHISTO RIC C AM PS I

NYSM 7417ACP JFSN

CHAU MO NT: 671 M (2200 FT) EAST OF THREE MILEBAY; 85 M (280 FT) FLAT


NYSM 3584ACP JFSN

CHAUMONT: 183 M (600 FT) NORTH OF THREEMILE CREEK ; 93 M (305 FT) FLAT


A04507.000104UB 955 CHAUMON T SITE

CHAUMO NT: 200 M (656 FT) NORTH OF CREEK; 98M (320 FT) GENTLE


I

NYSM 3494ACP JFSN-67B

CHAUMO NT: 30 M (100 FT) NORTH OF CR EEK; 85 M(280 FT) GENTLE

POSSIBLE LATE WOODLAND VILLAGE;POSSIBLE IROQUOIS CAMPS; POTTERYWITH EFFIGIES ABUNDAN T

I

NYSM 3583ACP JFSN

CHAUMONT: ADJACENT EAST OF CREEK; 85 M(280 FT) GENTLE

U N ID EN TIF IE D P RE HIS TO RIC V ILLA GE I

NYSM 3852ACP JFSN

CHAUMONT: 366 M (1200 FT) WEST OFCHAUMO NT RIVER; 85 M (280 FT) GENTLE


NYSM 3581ACP JSFN

CHAUMO NT: 198 M (650 FT) WEST OF CHAUMONTBAY; 85 M (280 FT) GENTLE


NYSM 3434ACP JSFN-7

CHAUMONT: 198 M (650 FT) NORTHWEST OFSAWMILL BAY; 88 M (290 FT) GENTLE

U N ID E NT IF IE D P RE HI ST OR IC B UR IA L S IT E I

NYSM 3586ACP JFSN

DEXTER: LARGE GENERAL AREA BOTH SIDES OFCHAUMONT RIVER; 88-91 M (290-300 FT) FLAT-GENTLE

U NIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC I

*I=INVENTORIED; NE=NOT ELIGIBLE; NRE=NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE

3.1.2 Documented H istoric Sites

The O PRHP site files identified six historic sites within or ad jacent 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 century church. The Menzo W heeler th

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 regionS ITE NUMBER / S I TEN A M E

USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STA TUS*

A04505.000015F R E N C H S H R I N ED E Z E N G R E M E L R O A DSITE

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 610 M (2000 FT) EAST OFKENTS CREEK; 91 M (297 FT) FLAT

SITE OF FRENCH CATHOLIC CHURCHBUILT IN 1832. THE CHURCH WAS MOV EDTO ROSIERE ROAD. A STONE CROSS ANDTABLET ARE LOCATED AT THE OR IGINALSITE. A CEMETERY LIES NEARBY WITHTHE GRAVES OF EARLY SETTLERS.

I

A04507.000041BUILDING 4

ST. LAWRENCE: 213 M (700 FT) NORTH O F CREEK;107 M (350 FT) FLAT

(NOT IN SPHINX; NO SITE FORM)EUROAMERICAN STRUCTURE ON NY 12 -SMALL NUMBER OF ARTIFACTS FOUNDON PROPERTY

I


14/54

S ITE NUMBER / S I TEN A M E

USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STA TUS*

6

A04513.000098NYSM 11555MENZO W HEELER SITE

CHAUMO NT: 46 M (250 FT) NORTHWEST OF BAY ;79 M (260 FT) FLAT

PA RT O F N R L ( 9 0 N R 1 3 3 5 ) M E N Z OWHEELER HOUSE PROPERTY. SITESURROUNDING HOUSE IS INCLUDEDWITHIN THE NOMINATION. 19 CENTURYTH

SHEET MIDDEN AND FOUNDATIONS INADDITION TO EXTANT HOUSE.

NR L90NR1335

A04513.000100NYSM 11557CARLISLE-FOX SITE

CHAUMO NT: AT HEAD OF THREE MILE BAY; 75 M(245 FT) GENTLE

E XTAN T H OU SE A ND S HE ET M ID D EN I

A04513.000097NYSM 115541887 FIRE SITE

9 1 M (3 00 FT ) W ES T O F B AY; 76 M (2 50 F T) FLAT E AR LY T O LATE 19 C EN TU RY ITH

A04513.000099NYSM 11556OLD STONE STORE SITE

305 M (1000 FT) NOR TH OF THREE MILE BAY; 76 M(250 FT) FLAT

1838 EXTANT - ORIGINAL STORE NRLP R O P E R T Y 9 0 N R 1 32 9 ; P R O P E R T YINCLUDED IN NOMINATION

NR L90NR1329

*I=INVENTORIED; NE=NOT ELIGIBLE; NRE=NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE; NRL = NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED

3.1.3 Inventoried H istoric Structures/Properties

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

Table 3. Summary of National Register Listed structures/properties within the Cape Vincent regionN R N UM BER D ESC RIPTION LOCA TION

95N R0907 RO GERS BR OTHER S FARM STEAD D ABLO N PO IN T RO AD ; C APE V IN CEN T V ICIN ITY

91NR0059 DISTRICT SCHOO L NO. 3 JUN CTION N Y 3 AND CR 57; PUTNAM CORNERS; CHAUM ONT

90NR1120 XAV IER CHEVALIER HOUSE CAPE VINCENT

90NR1121 NICHOLAS CO CAIGNE HOUSE FAV RET ROAD; CAPE VINCEN T

90NR1122 REM Y DEXENGREM EL HOU SE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCEN T

90NR1123 JO SEPH DOCTEUR HO USE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCEN T

90NR1124 REU TER DYER HO USE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCEN T

90NR1129 CLAUDE V AUTRIN HOUSE M ASO N ROAD; CAPE VINCENT

90NR1130 W ARREN W ILSON HOUSE M ASO N ROAD; CAPE VINCENT

90NR2999 M ENZO W HEELER HOU SE M AIN AN D DEPO T STREETS; CHAUM ON T

90NR3000 OLD STONE SHOP M AIN STREET; THREE M ILE BAY

90NR3003 THE RO W M AIN STREET AT SHAVER CREEK; THREE M ILE BAY

90NR3004 TAFT HOUSE M AIN STREET; THREE M ILE BAY

90NR3005 TAYLO R BOAT HOUSE BAY V IEW D RIVE; THREE M ILE BAY

9 0N R3 006 T HR EE M ILE B AY H IS TO RIC D IS TR IC T J UN CT IO N/C HU RC H S TR EET S; T HR EE M ILE B AY

90NR3009 W ILCO X FARM CARRY IN G PLACE RO AD; THREE M ILE BAY

90NR3014 CHAUM ON T HISTORIC D ISTRICT M AIN STREET; CHAUM O NT

90NR3014 CHAUM ON T HOUSE M AIN STREET; CHAUM O NT

90NR3016 EVANS-GAIGE-DILLENBACH HO USE EVAN S ROAD

3.2 Environmental Setting

3.2.1 Glacial History and Topography

Geologically, Jefferson Co unty 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 alongthe St. Lawrence River. The uplands of the Tug Hill Plateau form the second province along the southern edge of Jefferson County (USDA 1981). T he project area for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm is located solely in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands p rovince, encompassing several small drainages and wetlands.


15/54

7

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. Themost recent glacial activity within the St. Lawrence valley and the G reat Lakes is known as the P ort Huron stadial (Abeland 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. By13,500 B P the ice front in New York state had retreated to the middle Hudson Valley. Pollen profiles from bogs in the

upper Hudso n Valley suggest deglaciation of northern New York occurred rapidly (5000-10 00 years) after 13,500 BP(Snow 198 0). The enormo us weight of the glacial ice depressed some interior areas as far as 1000 m (328 0 ft) belowthe present sea level (Snow 198 0: 105). By 12,80 0 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 co mpletely reverse the drainage of ocean water into the St. Lawrence valley and Ontario basin (Snow 19 80:109; Abel and Fuerst 1999: 10).

The slow glacial recession created a series of po st-glacial lakes, which at one point stretched to the eastern edgeof Jefferson County (USDA 1981). Th e earliest was Lake Warren, a deep lake that depo sited sandy sediments alongancient shore lines. Lake Warren was followed by three shallower and much smaller lakes (Dana, Scottsville, andDawson) that over time receded no rth 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 theglacial ice retreated from the Ontario Basin. Unlike the earlier glacial lakes that quickly receded north with the g lacial

retreat, Lake Iroquois apparently persisted in the region for nearly 1000 years (M ason 1981). T he lake was bounded tothe northeast by the Champlain Sea, a marine environment created by the glacial depression of the St. Lawrence Valleyand the intrusion of seawater from the Atlantic ocean. It was through this inlet that whales and other large sea mammalswere able to penetrate into the interior Great Lakes (Mason 1981). Lake Iroquois drained southeast through an outlettoward the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers at Rome, New York.

The persistence of Lake Iroquois significantly modified the surface landscape in Jefferson County, depositinglayers of sand, silt, and clay in a broad plain across the center of the county. Around 9500-9000 BC the iso-staticrebound 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 theglacial lake offered some unique resource opportunities, particularly around waning shorelines and bays (Rush et al.2003).

The p resent-day topography of Jefferson County reflects its glacial history, varying from rugged uplands acrossTug H ill to the broad a nd gently sloping lake plain of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland. County wide elevationsrange from a high of 519 m (170 0 ft) ASL at the crest of the Tug H ill 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 averagemaximum elevation of 198 m (650 ft) ASL south o f the City of Watertown to a minimum of 75 m (2 46 ft) ASL at LakeOntario and the St. Lawrence River. For the project area and the immediate vicinity, the land slopes very gentlysouthwest toward Lake Ontario. N umerous low bedro ck ridges are present in the western and eastern thirds of the p rojectarea; the central portion forms a very large and shallow depression conv erging at Kents Creek (see Figures 4-5).


16/54

8

Figure 4. 3-meter contour intervals for the Town of Cape V incent highlighting the regional topography.Contour intervals were extracted from the USGS d igital elevation model (DEM ) with the MICROD EM GI S program.


17/54

9

Figure 5. Digital Elevation Mod el (DEM) o f the Cape Vincent project area.


18/54

10

Figure 6. M ajor creeks and tributaries within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area.


19/54

11

3.2.2 Post-Glacial Watersheds

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 w est from the Tug Hill uplands and Adirondack foo thills to Lake Ontarioand the St. Lawrence River (USDA 198 1). 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 Ro siere, meandering southwest through the center of the project area to the confluence with Lake Ontario near Bedford Corners. Fox Creek is significantly smaller and arisesfrom several wetlands near the southern margin of the Town of Cape V incent. It flows through the southwest corner of the project area and into Late Ontario. Numerous small streams feed into Kents and Fo x Creek within the project area.

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

Figure 7. Location of D EC wetlands and hydric soils within and adjacent to the Cape V incent project area.


20/54

12

3.2.3 Bedrock and Soil Types

Trenton Group and Black River limestones underlie all of northwestern Jefferson County (Van Diver 198 5).For the Cape Vincent area the Trenton limestones are the dominant and relatively younger bedrock, grading into theBlack River formation near Clayton (roughly 15 miles to the east). Both types are dated to the Ordovician period(roughly 450 m illion years ago), and are sedimentary rocks formed by the consolidation of loose material in ancient

shallow seas. M any of the units contain fossil inclusions, and h igh-quality microcrystalline chert has been identified for the Black River formation. This chert (sometimes referred to as LeRay chert) is commonly encountered in p rehistoricchipped stone assemblages from northwestern New York. G iven the fossiliferous nature of the Trenton limestones, high-quality chert inclusions may also be p resent in the Cape Vincent region.

Wisco nsin g lacial ice and the series of post-glacial lakes deposited an eno rmous amount of sediments (till,outwash, and lacustrine deposits) atop the Trenton and Black River limestones. Over time, the sediments weathered bothphysically and chemically to form a diversity of soil types (Figure 8 ). In the To wn of Cape Vincent, outwash, fluvial,and lacustrine (glacial lake) soils are the dominant types and spread uniformly through the project area. Rocky till/ridgesoils and hydric wetlands soils are present in distinct clusters in the western and center of the project area. O nly onesmall section of alluvial soil/landform along Kents Creek is adjacent to the western edge of the p roject area. Overall,it appears that the propo sed windfarm will only impact shallow (non -alluvial) soils.

Table 4. Major soil types within and adjacent to the Cape V incent project areaSOIL TY PE LAND FORM S SEDIM EN TS D RA INAGE

GLACIAL OUTWASH

GLACIAL FLUVIAL

GLACIAL LACUSTRINE

OUTWASH TERRACES

OUTWASH DELTAS

LAKE PLAINS

PRIMARILY WATER-SORTED GRAVEL, SAND , AND SILT-CLAY

BEDROCK IS OFTEN GREATER THAN 60 INCHES BELOW THEGROUND SURFACE

NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING OR ALLUVIAL DEPOSITION

VARIABLE

GLACIAL TILL

BEDROCK RIDGES

DRUMLINS/TILL PLAINS

LOW RIDGES

UNSORTED MIXTURE OF BROKEN BEDROCK, GRAVEL, ANDSILT-CLAY

BEDROCK IS OFTEN CLOSE TO THE GROUND SURFACE

ROCK OUTCROPS ARE COMMON

NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING OR ALLUVIAL DEPOSITION

VARIABLE

H Y RI C- W ET LA N D W E TL AN D S/ DE PR ES SI ON S S ILT- CL AY A N D O R GA NI C M ATE RI AL

SATURATED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

DEEPLY BURIED BEDROCK

NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING - OFTEN PONDED

VERY POOR

ALLU VIAL STREA M M AR GIN S SILT-CLAY AN D SO ME FLO OD ED G RAV ELS/C OBBLES

DEEPLY BURIED BEDROCK

FLOODING POTENTIAL

VARIABLE


21/54

13

Figure 8. M ajor surficial landforms and soil types for the Cape Vincent project area.


22/54

14

3.3 Prehistoric Context

The archaeological evidence indicates human po pulations moved into the newly glaciated Northeast during thelast phases of the Wisconsin stadial retreat. Moving north from the warmer climates of southern and central NorthAmerica, these populations encountered the new and diverse landforms of the Nor theast. Although they brough t culturaltraditions 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 m aterial culture. Ev entually twodistinct 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 arr ival of highly mobile groupsduring the Paleo-Indian period (around 10,000 BC) and continued through the Middle Archaic (400 0 BC). This patternmatured into more territorial mobility during the Late Archaic (4000-1500 BC) and flourished in the region until theadvent of early agriculture in the Late Woodland period (AD 900-165 0). It was during this period that human groupsrelied almost solely on wild plant resources, fish, and game animals for d aily subsistence. Therefore, mobility was fairlyhigh as groups moved in search of seasonally available resources. Hunting and gathering continued to be an importantpart of the subsistence base during the agricultural Late Woodland p eriod (AD 900-165 0), but a large part of the dailysubsistence was increasingly shifted toward the production and consumption of the maize-beans-squash complex. Thissubsistence 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-Middle Archaic Periods (10,000 - 4,000 BC)

The distribution of Paleo-Indian sites across northern New York state suggests a very sporadic land-use whencompared to regions in the southern and central portions of the state. Ritchie noted only one Paleo-Indian point inJefferson County (1980: 4). Abel and Fuerst identified ten Paleo-Indian points in the lower St. Lawrence Valley, near the Thousand Islands region (19 99: 10). In addition, Mason (1981) no ted one site near Cornwall, Ontario that producedPlano-type points (late Paleo-Indian) and the P iercefield Project in St. Lawrence Co unty identified an occupation witha fluted Paleo point (Seib 2007). In contrast to the scarcity across northern New York, 31 fluted points have beenrecovered from the regions around Syracuse and Utica, and ten from the Wallkill Valley in Orange Cou nty in southernNew Yo rk state (Ritchie 1980: 4).

The low frequency of Paleo-Indian sites in northern New York is most likely a result of environmentalconditions during the late Pleistocene. By far the most important o f these conditions was the continental glaciers thatscoured the Northeast between 18,000-16,000 BP (Snow 1980: 103). By 13,500 BP the glaciers had receded acrossportions of southern and central New York state, but still covered most of northern New York, all of Vermont, NewHampshire, and M aine (Snow 1980 ). The glacial ice had retreated north of the St. Lawrence Valley by 11,500 BP, butthe crustal depression and rising sea levels flooded the upper valley with sea-water. This inundation, termed theChamplain Sea, lasted approx imately 2000 years, and at its maximum covered much of the upper St. Lawrence River Valley. Glacial meltwater also flooded much of the lowlands surrounding mo dern-day Lake Ontario, forming g lacialLake Iroquois. It was only after the St. Lawrence Valley had rebounded above sea level and glacial Lake Iroquoissubsided 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 largegame 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 E arly and Midd le Archaic periods was also marked by a change in pro jectile point stylefrom the rather universal Clovis type amo ng the Paleo-Indians to the variety of side-notched points among E arly andMiddle Archaic groups (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 12).

Paleo-Indian settlements and Early Archaic occupations within the modern boundaries of Jefferson C ounty aredifficult to define due to frequent migrations, small group size, a lack of projectile point recognition, and overallantiquity. Due to a lack of docum ented Early and M iddle Archaic sites, very little is known about settlement patternsduring this time period. B ased on this scarcity, Abel and Fuerst outline three Early Archaic horizons for the St. Lawrence


23/54

15

Valley: weak-notched point horizon (10,500-10,00 0 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 p eriod, many scholars believe that the scarcity of Early and M iddle Archaic sites innorthern New Y ork is related to the climate and env ironmen tal changes (primarily the shift from tundra grassland to

boreal forests) that occurred in the post-Pleistocene Northeast. The location o f sites suggests that Early Archaic groupsprobably settled in the more stable environments to the south (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and coastal New Y ork), butoccasionally migrated north into the interior of the Northeast to exploit small resource-rich areas, such as upland bo gsand deciduous flora and fauna of the lowland river valleys (Ritchie and Funk 1973: 337; Versaggi 2000 ). These resourceareas were often widely dispersed amo ng the major valleys, thus discouraging large settlements during the Early andMiddle Ar chaic (Versaggi 2000). This type of settlement model closely matches the distribution of Early Archaic siteswithin New York state and the Northeastern United States (Versaggi 2000). The lack of archaeological surveys innorthern New Yo rk 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 B C)

By the period termed the Late Archaic (4,000-15 00 BC), the environment of the No rtheast had shifted from aboreal to a deciduous wo odland. The Late Archaic was also marked b y the emergence of the modern four seasons and

some degree o f territoriality among prehistoric groups (Versaggi 2000). Unlike the settlements during the Paleo-Indianand Early-Middle Archaic, land use during the Late Archaic was often organized around a logistical system whereseasonal base camps with as many as 1 00 individuals were established near bodies of water. From these camps, smallgroups of foragers roamed the area within a days walk of the camp p rocuring and processing resources. Other groupsranged farther out to procure d istant resources. During other seasons, the base camp divided into smaller groups whomoved frequently to hu nt, gather and fish . T his type of logistical organization along with seasonal aggregation anddispersal created a variety of site types ranging from large residential camps, to small special purpose camps, to resourceprocessing locations created by daily foragers (Versaggi 19 96). M ost of the Late Archaic period sites in northern NewYork are within the vicinity of Fort Drum. T his pattern is not surprising given the amount of archaeological surveys atthis location. Surveys in the For t Drum region have p roduced evidence of bo th Laurentian (primarily Brewerton) andNarrow Po int (Lamoka) occupations (Abel and Fuerst 1999: 14). T he 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. Someceramic vessels were manufactured during this period. Small, temporary camps, often oriented toward river or coastalareas typify settlement patterns during the Transitional (Ritchie and Funk 19 73). Occupations in the St. Lawrence River Valley are particularly scarce, consisting primarily of isolated surface finds. Evidence of mortuary ceremonialsassociated with the Glacial Kame culture have been noted near Muskalonge Lake, in Jefferson County (Ab el and Fuerst1999: 16).

3.3.3 Early-Middle Woodland Periods (1,000 BC - AD 900 )

The waning of the Transitional culture in central New York was evidenced b y the arrival of Early Woo dlandgroups and cultural traits from Adena core areas in the Ohio Valley and the upper Great Lakes. The most well-knownEarly Woodland 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: 1 83). Based on site size, groups were typically small, ranging between 30 to 50individuals (Ritchie 1980: 18 9). M eadowood produced v ery 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 inappearance with a combination of interior and exterior cord-marking. Meadowood groups also maintained a verycomplex mortuary ceremonialism, marked by the cremation of corpses and the interment of exotic and abundant gravegoods (Ritchie 1980: 197). Sites and com ponents appear to b e widely distributed throughout New Yor k State, althoughthey are clearly absent in portions of the Hudson, Upper Delaware, and parts of the Susquehanna valleys (Versaggi


24/54

16

1999). M eadowood p oints have been found throughout New Yo rk State, but the majority of the documented sites arelocated in the Lake Ontario Lowlands of northern New York and the Niagara Frontier (Ritchie 1980: xxxi, 180).

Middle Woodland cultural traits, specifically the distinct dentate stamped pottery and side-notched styleprojectile points, first appeared around 0 AD in central New Y ork fro m co re areas around the G reat Lakes. Culturaltraditions include the Hopewell and Point Peninsula (Ritchie 1980 : xxx). The early Middle W oodland H opewell groups,

concentrated mainly in western and eastern New York, maintained continuity with groups in the Great Lakes. The strongGreat Lakes cultural connection resulted in the construction of unique earthen mou nds and the continuity of the complexmortuary ceremonialism developed during the Early Woodland (Ritchie 1980).

Regions that developed the Point Peninsula culture in New Yo rk State were concentrated around the nor th shoreof Oneida Lake, the Seneca River region, and the northern Champlain Valley (Ritchie 1980: 208). Point Peninsulacultures also appear to have b een linked to the prehistoric groups of the Great Lakes and O hio Valley, although thisconnection fades in intensity through time (Ritchie 1980: 228) . The connection was particularly strong for the early andmiddle Point Peninsula groups, as shown from excavations at the K ipp Island Site in central New York. The lowestlevels of the site produced Middle W oodland a rtifacts, many with strong similarities to artifacts from Hopewellian andpost-Hopewellian sites in the Ohio Valley, radiocarbon dated to approximately 300 AD (Ritchie 1980: 228). TheHopewellian connection was present to varying degrees during the middle to late Point Peninsula, but by the emergenceof the Hunters Home phase of the late Middle W oodland, internal cultural evolution had outpaced cultural diffusion

from peripheral areas. The Hunters Home phase marks the beginning of a m ore sedentary subsistence pattern and alimited experimentation with cultivated resources, specifically Little Barley seed (Wurst and Versaggi 1993:256).Although cultivated maize has n ot been d efinitively associated with M iddle Wo odland sites, Ritchie (1980: 24 1) suggestsit may have been present to a very limited degree in the subsistence base given the strong connection to agriculturalgroups 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 Mo unds. Informally dated to theMiddle W oodland period (AD 630 ), these unusual mounds appear as circular to oval piles of burnt earth and rock witha visible depression (Ritchie 1969). T he primary zone of occurrence app ears to center around Perch Lake in northeastJefferson County, but similar mounds have also been documented in southern Ontario (Ritchie 1969). Associatedcultural remains are scarce, but burial remains with Kipp Island type artifacts have been recovered from oval moundsin southern Ontario (Ritchie 1969).

3.3.4 Late Woodland Period (AD 900-1650)

Unlike earlier times, archaeologists have found clear evidence for maize agriculture in the Owasco and Iroquoisphases of the Late Wo odland. Owasco, a culture that emerged around AD 9 00 in central and eastern New York, appearsto be related to the earlier Hunters Home phase of the Middle Woodland (MacNeish 1952; Ritchie 1980: 272; Funk 1993). This notion of cultural evolution is in direct contention with Snows theory of migration and displacement duringthe early Late Woodland. Snows (19 95) version of the migration theory argues that early Owasco populations migratednorth from a core area in southern and central Pennsylvania around AD 900 , displacing and subsuming the aboriginalPoint Peninsula communities. Evidence for this migration, according to Snow, is the abrupt app earance of such distinctLate Wo odland cultural traits as paddle-anvil pottery, clear use of cultigens, and large village settlements (1995 ). O ther researchers have argued that many of these traits reflect adaptive responses within the abo riginal population to a varietyof environmental and social factors (Armstrong et al 2000: 59-60). Others have suggested Middle Woodland andOwasco 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 toaround AD 600; three hundred years earlier than the hypothesized AD 900 arrival of maize agriculture in Snows model(Armstrong et al. 2000). These early dates suggest maize agriculture was not an abruptly introduced subsistence practiceduring the early Late W oodland, bu t may have b een experimentally cultivated within the Great Lakes during the lateMiddle Woodland (Armstrong et al. 2000).

Early Owasco villages ranged in size from less than o ne acre to a maximum of two acres; later villages weresubstantially larger. Hamlet sites mimic that of the villages, but tend to b e smaller in size. In the uplands, processing


25/54

17

stations, like those of earlier time periods, were used to extract small quantities of foo d and non-food related resources.Subsistence during the Owasco period was based on a comb ination of agriculture and hunting-gathering. A gricultureappears to have b een initially confined to maize, and possibly Chenopod ium or other native cultigens, but by the terminusof the Owasco period beans and squash were add ed to the diet (Ritchie 1980: 276). Material culture during the Owascoperiod 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, dom inates point assemblages from Owasco

sites. Groundstone tools (such as hoes, mortar/pestle, and hammerstones) are abundant, reflecting an increasingproduction of cultivated plant resources (Armstrong et al. 200 0). Early Owasco ceramic vessels were fairly large, oftendecorated with cord-impressions. Later pots show cord -marking and incised decorations.

By the 14 century, the Owasco culture had developed into what is historically known as the Iroquois, ath

population that relied heavily on agricultural (corn-bean-squash) subsistence. Iroquois settlements, many clusteredaround the Finger Lakes and the Mohawk Valley, represent the fluorescence of Late Wood land village life. Unlike theearlier Owasco, Iroquoian p opulations 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 largelonghouses (some exceeding 300 feet in length). Typically located along major drainages, village settlements wereshifted every ten to twenty years in response to environmental constraints (soil and wood depletion). In addition, manyof these villages were surrounded by wood en palisades and trenches, suggesting tribal warfare was a commo n occurrence(Armstro ng et al. 2000 ). In terms of material culture Iroquoian sites show some similarities with the earlier Owasco

culture, with an emp hasis on agricultural tools. Mad ison 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 p ots, as noted ab ove, were fairly large, with earlier versions exhibiting cord-marked surface deco rations.In contrast, Iroquoian pots were usually smaller and rounder, with more emphasis on decorated collars (Armstrong etal. 2000).

A passage in Nelie Caslers 1906 History of the Town of Cape Vincent suggests Late Woodland (Iroquois)settlements were numerou s 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. LawrenceVillage, a few stone articles and much pottery, buried deep in ashes have been une arthed, an d there was also a largevillage on the west branch of French Creek, a quarter of a mile south of St. Lawrence Village (Casler 1906: 11). D uringconstruction of the railroad leading from Rosiere to Cape V incent, a small prehistoric buried mound was uncov ered(Casler 1906: 11). Also in the immediate area are three Late Woodland 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 V alley, with onelarge cluster of sites noted near the present-day location of M ontreal, Quebec. T he general characteristics of the materialculture of the St. Lawrence Iroquo is include ceramics with tall collars, chevron designs, a lack of lithic tools, and a largeamount of bone and antler artifacts (Jamieson 1990: 38 9).

Abel identified a similar cluster of Iroquoian sites in the lower St. Lawrence V alley around the To wn of Clayton(just east of Cape Vincent) dated to AD 1350-15 50. Included in the cluster are at least four repeatedly occupied villages(AD 145 0-1525) bo rdering inland streams (Abel 2001). Multiple Iroquoian sites for Jefferson County have also beendocumented by Eng elbrecht (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 didJesuit missionaries in contact with the Iroquois (Emerson 189 8).

Abijah Putnam was the first settler in what is now the Town of Cape Vincent. Originally from Rome, NewYork, Pu tnam built a cabin approximately four miles south of the present village limits in the year 1801, but by 1 804had sold the land and mo ved (Emerson 1 898). T his early settlement was known as Port Putnam, and un der the control


26/54

18

of buyers Joh n Maco mb 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 189 8). This site would eventually become the Village of Cape Vincent. M any families moving to the areaduring the early years were French and German immigrants, setting up informal cross-road hamlets known as the FrenchSettlement and Rosiere.

Early settlement of the Town o f Cape Vincent was hamp ered by a series of conflicts associated with the War of 1812 . The p rimary factor cited in the history books that led to a declaration of war was the 1807 attack on the USFrigate Chesapeake in the Atlantic Ocean by the British ship, the Leopold (Ross 1956). Events in the interior of theNortheast were equally important factors in the development of the W ar of 181 2. Although conflicts in the town wererelatively minimal, a large garrison was established in the V illage of Cape Vincent in 1812, and a barracks was b uilt.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 greatestresource was lumber during the early 19 century, clearing of the land attracted large numbers of farming families, andth

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 Millers Bay (Emerson 189 8).

3.4.1 Historic Maps

Overall, the local histories of Jefferson Co unty do not contain much information concerning archaeologicalsensitivity of the Cape V incent area. T he h istoric maps supply the additional information necessary to construct thehistorical-archaeological context of the project area. Fo r the Cape Vincent project area the h istoric maps span a timerange from 1855-1888 and 1903-1907. All show a somewhat similar trend of population aggregation within thecommunities of Cape Vincent, Chaumont, and Three Mile Bay. Outside of these communities are small cross-roadsettlements and isolated farmsteads along the growing road system. Each map is summ arized specifically below; historicmaps and USG S quads are presented in Figures 9-12.

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

In the vicinity of the windfarm project area are isolated cross-road settlements and farmsteads. Num erous structures arepresent in the project area, but most are set along the margins of the main road s.

1888 Atlas of Jefferson County (Figure 10):


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



27/54

19

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


28/54

20

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


29/54

21

F ig ure 11. U SG S 1 90 7 1 5' C ap e Vin ce nt, N ew Yor k q ua dra ngle . F ig ur e 1 2. U SG S 1 90 3 1 5' Cla yto


30/54

22

IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Archaeologists from the Public Archaeology Facility visited the Town of Cape V incent on November 1-2 andNovember 8-9, 2007 for a drive-through and photo-documentation of the area. Photographs were taken from differentvantage points throughout the project area to provide representations of the regional landuse, landform types, andtopography. Because the exact impact areas have not yet been determined, these photographs do cument several dominant

characteristics of the general project area. In addition, DVD video documentation was made for future reference.

V. ASSESSMENT RESULTS

5.1 Project Area C haracteristics

The dominant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rural and undeveloped setting. GIS datapresented in Table 5 highlight this dominant characteristic. Of the 17 USGS landuse categories identified on the1:250,000 Kingston quadrangle, more than 70% are classified as either agricultural land, wooded, or wetlands. Anadditional 7% are water-related (lakes, streams, bays).

Table 5. 1990 Landuse categories from the USGS 1: 250,000 Kingston quadrangleLAND USE CATEGORIES NUMBER IN QUADRANGLE PERCENT

RESIDENTIAL 30 10.53COMMERCIAL 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 3.86RESERVOIRS 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 areaare active hay fields and pasture separated by clusters of brush and secondary forest growth. N umerous farmsteads arepresent along the margins of the main roads. Bedr ock outcrops are v isible acro ss the elevated ridges in the westernquarter of the project area.

Other than buried utilities within the DOT right-of-ways, there does not appear to be any s ignificant grounddisturbances within the general project area.


31/54

23


32/54

24

5.2 Project Area Photographs

Photo 1. View east toward a hayfieldpasture off of NY 12E. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.

Photo 2. View east toward a hayfield andfarmstead off NY 12E. Landform is

bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 3. V iew west toward a hayfield andpasture off NY 12E. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.


33/54

25

Photo 4. View southwest toward ahayfield and pasture off NY 12E.Landform is b edrock/till ridge.

Photo 5. View east from the intersectionof NY 12E and M erchant Road. Landform

is bedro ck/till ridge.

Photo 6. View east from the intersectionof NY 12E and M erchant Road. Landformis bedro ck/till ridge.


34/54

26

Photo 7. View south off Merchant Roadtoward a fallow pasture and woodedparcel. Landform is bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 8. View west along Merchant Roadwith fallow pastures and woo ded parcels to

the north and south. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.

Photo 9. View south off Merchant Roadtoward a wooded parcel. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.


35/54

27

Photo 10. V iew southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and CR6 . Landform isbedrock/till ridge.

Photo 11. V iew southeast from the corner of Merchant Road and CR6 . Landform isbedrock/till ridge.

Photo 12. View east off CR6 toward ahayfield and pasture. Landform is glacialoutwash and lacustrine.


36/54

28

Photo 1 3. View east near the intersectionof CR6 and Huff Road. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.

Photo 14 . View west near the intersectionof CR6 and Huff Road. Landform is

bedrock/till ridge.

Photo 15. View south from theintersection of CR6 and H uff Road towardthe mouth of Kents Creek. Landform isbedrock/till ridge; Kents Creek occupies amix of glacial lacustrine and alluvial land.


37/54

29

Photo 16. View southwest off Huff Road.Landform is b edrock/till ridge.

Photo 17. View northwest from NY 12Eand Kents Creek toward Huff Road

(treeline). Landform is a combination of glacial outwash/lacustr ine and hydric soils.

Photo 18. View northeast from NY12Eand Kents Creek. Landform is acombination of glacial outwash/lacustrineand hydric soils.


38/54

30

Photo 19. View southeast from NY12Eand Kents Creek. Landform is acombination o f glacial outwash/lacustrineand hydric soils.

Photo 20. View southeast from theintersection of Bate Road and CR6.

Landform is b edrock/till ridge.

Photo 21. View west along the edge of Fox Creek. Landform is a combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.


39/54

31

Photo 2 2. View east from the intersectionof CR6 and Fox Creek Road. Landform isa c o m b i n a t i o n o f g l a c i a loutwash/lacustrine.

Photo 23. View south along NY 12Etoward Fox Creek Road. Road cuts with

limestone outcrops are visible east andwest of NY 1 2E. Landform is bedrock/tillridge.

Photo 24. View of the road cuts andshallow bedrock along NY 12E at FoxCreek Road. Landform is bedrock/tillridge.


40/54

32

Photo 25. View west from NY 1 2E towardthe drainage for Fox Creek. Landform is acombination o f glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 26. View northwest off CR 56toward pastures and hayfields. Landform

is bedro ck/till ridge.

Photo 27. View north along BedfordCorners Road. Landform is a combinationof glacial outwash/lacustrine.


41/54

33

Photo 28. View southeast from CR4.Landform is b edrock/till ridge.

Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. Thebrush line marks bedrock outcrops.Landform is b edrock/till ridge.

Photo 30. View southeast from theintersection of CR4 and Wilson Road.Landform is b edrock/till ridge.


42/54

34

Photo 31. View north along Wilson Road.Landform is a combination of glacialoutwash/lacustrine.

Photo 32. View south along Hell Road.Landform is a combination of glacial

outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 33. View east from DezgremelRoad toward wetlands draining into KentsCreek. Landform is a combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.


43/54

35

Photo 34. View east from DezgremelRoad toward hayfields and pastures.Landform is a combination of glacialoutwash/lacustrine.

Photo 35. View north off Burnt Rock

Road towards wetlands that feed intoKents Creek. Landform is a combinationof glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydricsoils.

Photo 36 . View northeast off Burnt Rock Road. Landform is bedrock/till ridge.


44/54

36

Photo 37. View northwest off FavretRoad. Landform is a combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 38. View east off Favret Road.Landform is a combination of glacialoutwash/lacustrine.

Photo 39. View north off Burnt Rock Road. Treeline in the far distance is alarge wetlands. Landform is acombination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.


45/54

37

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

Photo 41 . View south along Millers BayRoad. Landform is a combination of

glacial outwash/lacustrine.

Photo 42. View west from Millers BayRoad. Numerous headwater wetlands for Kents Creek are marked by the tall brush.Landform is a combination of glacialoutwash/lacustrine.


46/54

38

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 glacialoutwash/lacustrine.


47/54

39

Photo 46. View west off Favret Road.Landform is a combination of glacialoutwash/lacustrine.

Photo 47. View southwest from theintersection of Favret Road and Mason

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

Photo 48. View southwest from MasonRoad. Landform is a combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.


48/54

40

Photo 49. View west in the center of theHamlet of Rosiere. The project areasurrounds the hamlet.

Photo 50. View east in the center of theHamlet of Rosiere. The project area

surrounds the hamlet.


49/54

41

5.3 Prehistoric Sensitivity Assessment

Numerous p rehistoric sites have been identified in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands, and it is highlyprobable that significant evidence of prehistoric landuse and settlement is located within the project area. Sites wouldnot have been eq ually distributed throughout the lowlands, as gro ups targeted specific landforms based on favorableconditions, such as the accessibility of water, soil fertility, and good drainage. Each landform type o ffered a unique set

of physical advantages and disadvantages for prehistoric landuse and settlement. For descriptive purposes theseadvantages/disadvantages can be summarized by o utlining some general landscape variables: access to water, land slope,soil drainage, soil pro ductivity/work-ability, site accessibility, and resource availability. The scale of the Cape V incentproject area encomp asses landforms with differing ranges and com binations of environmental variables.

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

Land Slope: Flat, gently-rolling, moderately steep, very steep. Flat to gently-sloping land would b e the most favorablefor prehistoric settlement. Very steep (>15%) would b e disadvantageous. L andslope is relatively flat, although somebedrock 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 wereless favored as potential residential sites. Some areas may experience seasonal changes in soil drainage (e.g. floodplains). Soil drainage app ears less evenly distributed, with better-drained soils in the western and eastern thirds of theproject area and poorer-drained soils clustering in the center.

Soil P roductivity/Work-ability: Most imp ortant fo r later agricultural groups. Easily tillable soils would have beenfavored for crop production over stony upland soils. Agriculture is one of the dominant landuse types for the CapeVincent region, and the natural soil productivity is assumed to b e at least moderate, but the length of the gro wing seasonmay 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 theregion, as well as the multiple bays and inlets, suggests group movement across the landscape was relatively easy.

Resource A vailability: Are needed resources aggregated (e.g. fish-runs) or dispersed across the landscape? Doesresource 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. T his seasonal trend in resource availability is thought to date to at leastthe Late Archaic period (BC 40 00).

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 bethe 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) andstructural (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 asstorage pits and cooking hearths) indicative of short-term occupation, usually during periods of population dispersalfrom 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 resourcepreparation 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).


50/54

42

5.4 Historic Sensitivity Assessment

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

This assessm ent is not meant to imply that there is no chance of identifying a historic arc haeolo gical site withinthe Cape Vincent pro ject area. Pioneer families were present in the region prior to the p ublication of the historic maps,and the area was used during the colonial Fur Trade and the War of 1812. In addition, if impacts are expected adjacentto major roads o r historic structures, the potential for encountering a buried historic site rises significantly.

VI. ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The archaeological assessment has shown that the Cape Vincent Wind Power P roject area is situated in an areawith a high potential for prehistoric cultural resources. The very rural location of much of the project area suggested alower potential for historic archaeological sites. Overall, reconnaissance testing is recommend ed for the Cape V incentWind Power Project.

6.1 Potential Testing Strategies

Sensitivity assessments outlined above will be used to structure archaeological testing strategies for the projectarea. Cultural resource management (CRM ) testing usually involves either subsurface shovel-test pits or surface surveys,and sometimes a co mbination of the two. A s si

BP SDEIS App M-1 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent

Documents

Transcript of BP SDEIS App M-1 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent