8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
1/53
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
2/53
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 ofCape 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 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 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 S t. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowlands,and it is highly probable that significant ev idence of prehistoric and contact period landuse and settlement is located
within the project area. Groups likely targeted specific landforms based o n 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 comb inations 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 k now that numerous structures (both current and form er) 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 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 me ant to imply that there is n o 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 o r historic structures, the potential for encountering a buried historic site rises significantly.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
3/53
ii
RESULTS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
The dominant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rural and undeveloped setting. Of the 17 USG S landuse
categories identified on the 1 :250,000 Kingston quadra ngle, more than 70 % are c lassified 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 secondary forest growth. Numerous farmsteads are present
along the margins of the main roads. Bedrock outcrops a re visible across the elevated ridges in the western quarter of
the project area.
Other than buried utilities within the DO T 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 w indfarm project area, the next step in the process would be
to devise a suitable testing strategy to p rovide a representative sample o f 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 by
landform variation within the project area.
Subsurface Testing: Shovel test pits (STPs) are one of the most common ly 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 Y ork State, the standard subsurface testing interval for most landforms is 15 m (5 0 ft)
or less. This interval will identify most larger p rehistoric 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 OP RHP requires that different landform types be proportionally
sampled using a 5 m (16 ft) testing interval. This interval may also be appro priate 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 plowed. Non-plowable areas would include wooded parcels. Any artifact scatters
would be collected and mapped w ith hand-held GPS u nits. Unlike costlier subsurface testing, systematic walkovers allow
for more com prehensive 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 p ossible if thick crops (o r 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 canno t be fully proposed
in this repo rt. Once th e 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 prop osed impact (e.g., turbines, access roads, staging a reas, transmission lines, etc.) and associate theseimpacts 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 app lied to each landform. The final
strategy will need to be approved through consultation with the NYS OP RHP.
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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
4/53
iii
AUTHOR/INSTITUTION: Samuel M. Kudrle - Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University
DATE: November 29, 2007
SPONSOR: BP and ERM-Southwest, Inc.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
5/53
iv
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 I nventoried H istoric S tructures/Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1 Glacial History and Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2 Post-Glacial Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3 Bedrock and Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Prehistoric Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Paleo-Indian / Early-M iddle Archaic Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Late Archaic / Transitional Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3.3 Early-Middle Woodland Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.4 Late Woodland Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Historic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Historic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT M ETHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
6/53
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of the Town of Cape Vincent in Jefferson County and New York Sta te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
F ig ure 5 . D ig ital E lev atio n M od el (D EM ) o f the C ap e V in cen t pr oject area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 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 surfic ia l landforms and soi l types for the Cape Vincent project a rea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 9. 1855 LCG&M Map of Jefferson County, New York (detai l of Cape Vincent a rea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
F igure 10 . 1888 Atlas of Je ffer son C ounty, New York (detail o f C ape 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
F igure 14 . C ur rent topography of the C ape Vincent reg ion (water at 75 meter s ASL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
F igu re 1 5. C ap e V incent regio n with the water level at 8 5 m eters AS L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
Figure 16. Cape V incent region with the water level at 95 meters ASL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of documented prehistoric archaeological si tes 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 . Ma jor so il types with in and adjacen t to the C ape Vincent p ro ject a rea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5 . 1990 Landuse ca tegorie s 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
P hoto 2. V iew east toward a hayfield and farmstead off N Y 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Photo 3. View west toward a hayfield and pasture off NY 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
P hoto 4. View southwest toward a hayfield and pasture off N Y 12E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 5. V iew east from the intersectio n of N Y 12E and Merchant Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 6. V iew east from the intersectio n of N Y 12E and Merchant Ro ad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Photo 7. View south off Merchant R oad 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 M erchant Road toward a wooded parcel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Photo 10 . V iew so utheast from the co rner of M erchant Road and CR6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Photo 11 . V iew so utheast from the co rner of M erchant 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. . . . . . . . . . 28P ho to 1 6. V iew so uth west off H uff Ro ad . Land fo rm is b ed rock /till rid ge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
P ho to 1 7. V ie w no rthw est fro m N Y 1 2E and K ents Creek to ward H uff Ro ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
Photo 18. V iew northeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Photo 19. V iew southeast from NY12E and Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
P ho to 2 0. V iew so utheast fro m the intersectio n o f B ate R oad and C R6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0
Photo 21. V iew west along the edge of Fox Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Photo 22 . V iew east from the intersection of CR6 and Fo x Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
7/53
vi
Photo 23. View south along NY 12E toward Fox Creek Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Photo 24 . View of the road cu ts and shallow bedrock along NY 12E at Fox Creek Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
P hoto 25. View west from NY 12E toward the drainage for Fox Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
P ho to 26. V iew 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
P ho to 2 9. V iew no rth east o ff C R4 . T he b ru sh line m ark s b ed ro ck o utcro ps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3P ho to 3 0. V iew so utheast fro m the intersectio n o f CR 4 and W ilso n Ro ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3
Photo 31. View north along Wilson Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Photo 32. View south along Hell Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Photo 33. View eas t f rom Dezgremel Road toward wet lands dra ining into Kents Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
P ho to 3 4. V iew east from D ezg rem el Ro ad to ward hayfield s and p astu res. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5
Photo 35. View north off Burnt Rock Road towards wet lands 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Photo 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. V iew west off Favret Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 47. View southwes t from the in te rsection of Favre t R oad and Mason R oad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 48. View southwest from Mason Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Photo 49. View west in the center of the Hamlet of Rosiere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Photo 50. V iew east in the center of the Hamlet of Rosiere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
8/53
1
I. INTRODUC TION
This report presents the results of a Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment for the Cape Vincent Wind Power
Project in the Town of Cape Vincent, 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 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 V ersaggi, Director
of PAF. The assessment was completed by Samuel M. Kudrle, wh o was also the primary author of this report. All
administrative 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, 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 Y ork State. Figure 2 outlines the project
area on the USGS 1:10 0,000 Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario quad rangle. Figure 3 presents the project area limits on
the 2003 aerial photography for the To wn 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 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
9/53
2
Figure2.Locationofgeneralprojectarea
ontheUSGS1:100,000CapeVincen
t,NewYork-Ontarioquadrangle.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
10/53
3
Figure3.Locationof
the
general
project
area
on
the
2003
ae
rial
photographs
fortheTownofCape
Vincent.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
11/53
4
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, cou nty histories, archival documents, and settlement patterns in and around the Town
ofCape Vincent.
3.1 Site Files Search
A site files check at the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRH P) 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 T ables 1-3.
3.1.1 Documented Preh istoric Sites
At least 28 OPRHP prehistoric sites are within or adjacent to the Cape Vincent project area. Mo st are
unidentified camps and traces of occupation documented in the 1920s by archaeologist Arthur C. Parker. Included in
the census are three Late Woo dland villages (circa AD 1 500) with pottery, bone tools, and the remains of chipped stone
tools. In addition, one of the sites produced a Late Archaic (4500-1500 B C) Otter Creek projectile point. The site files
also identified four p otential burial locations, one of which was disturbed during construction of the railroad. None ofthe sites are Na tional Register Eligible or Listed.
Table 1. Summary of documented prehistoric archaeological sites within the Cape Vincent region
SITE NUMBER / SITE
N A M E
USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STATUS
NYSM 3596
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 305 M (1000 FT) NORTH O F
KENT CREEK; 94 M (310 FT) GENTLE SLOPE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
A04505.000071
UB 958 SAUNDERS SITE
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 200 M (655 FT) EAST OF
KENT 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 3595
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINC ENT SOUTH : 30 M (100 FT) EAST OF FOX
CREEK; 88 M (290 FT) GENTLE SLOPE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3594
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: ADJACENT EAST OF
LITTLE CREEK; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOP E
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3592
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 366 M (1200 FT) WEST OF
CHAUMO NT BAY; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3592
JSFN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH : 122 M (400 FT) WEST OF
CHAUMO NT BAY; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIAL
PLACE
I
NYSM 3433
JFSN-6
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: WETLAND AT SOUTH END
OF CHAUMON T BAY; NORTH SITE OF ISTHMUS; 78
M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIAL
PLACE AND CAM P; PARKER NOTES SITES
IS AT THE PORTAGE AT POINT PENINSULA
I
NYSM 3598
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 152 M (500 FT)
SOUTHEAST OF CREEK; 94 M (310 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3597
ACP JFSN
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: HEAD OF WETLAND AND
ADJACENT CREEK; 94 M (307 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED CAM P I
NYSM 3431
ACP JFSN-4
CAPE VINCENT NORTH: 488 M (1600 FT)
SOUTHWEST OF SCOTCH CREEK; 76 M (250 ft )
FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIAL
MOUND; PARKER NOTES THAT MOUND
WAS OPENED WHEN RAILROAD WAS
BUILT
I
NYSM 7814 ST. LAW RENCE: 305 M (1000 FT) SOUTHEAST OFCREEK; 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
NYSM 1497 ST. LAW RENCE: ADJACENT TO CREEK; 107 M (350
FT) FLAT
LATE ARCHAIC; OTTER CREEK POINT I
NYSM 3432
ACP JFSN-5
ST. LAWRENCE: 213 M (1700 FT) NORTH OF
WETLAND; 107 M (350 FT) FLAT
LATE W OODLAND VILLAGE I
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
12/53
SITE NUMBER / SITE
N A M E
USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STATUS
5
A04507.000105
UB 959 MATSON SITE
ST. LAWREN CE: 100 M (30 FT) EAST OF CREEK; 98
M (320 FT) FLAT
LATE WOODLAND VILLAGE (AD 1500);
COLLARED GRIT-TEMPERED POTTERY,
BONE TOOLS, AND A FEW STONE TOOLS
I
NYSM 3499
ACP JFSN-72
ST. LAWRENCE: ADJACENT TO W ETLAND; 107 M
(350 FT) FLAT
WOODLAND; LARGE VILLAGE AND
MIDDEN
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 7879
ACP JFSN-73B
ST. LAWRENCE: ADJACENT TO WETLAND; 93 M
(305 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3585 CHAUM ONT: VERY LARGE AREA W EST SIDE OF
THREE MILE BAY; 85 M (280 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC; TRACES OF
OCCUPATION
I
NYSM 3504
ACP JFSN-77
CHAU MO NT: 183 M (600 FT) EAST OF CREEK; 85 M
(280 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM PS I
NYSM 7417
ACP JFSN
CHAU MO NT: 671 M (2200 FT) EAST OF THREE MILE
BAY; 85 M (280 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
NYSM 3584
ACP JFSN
CHAUMONT: 183 M (600 FT) NORTH OF THREE
MILE CREEK ; 93 M (305 FT) FLAT
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CAM P I
A04507.000104
UB 955 CHAUMON T SITE
CHAUMO NT: 200 M (656 FT) NORTH OF CREEK; 98
M (320 FT) GENTLE
LATE WOODLAND VILLAGE (AD 1500);
COLLARED GRIT-TEMPERED POTTERY,
BONE TOOLS, AND A FEW STONE TOOLS
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; POTTERY
WITH EFFIGIES ABUNDAN T
I
NYSM 3583
ACP JFSN
CHAUMONT: ADJACENT EAST OF CREEK; 85 M
(280 FT) GENTLE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC VILLAGE I
NYSM 3852
ACP JFSN
CHAUMONT: 366 M (1200 FT) WEST OF
CHAUMO NT RIVER; 85 M (280 FT) GENTLE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC VILLAGE I
NYSM 3581
ACP JSFN
CHAUMO NT: 198 M (650 FT) WEST OF CHAUMONT
BAY; 85 M (280 FT) GENTLE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC VILLAGE I
NYSM 3434
ACP JSFN-7
CHAUMONT: 198 M (650 FT) NORTHWEST OF
SAWMILL BAY; 88 M (290 FT) GENTLE
U NID ENTIFIED PREHISTORIC BURIAL SITE I
NYSM 3586
ACP JFSN
DEXTER: LARGE GENERAL AREA BOTH SIDES OF
CHAUMONT RIVER; 88-91 M (290-300 FT) FLAT-
GENTLE
UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC I
*I=INVENTORIED; NE=NOT ELIGIBLE; NRE=NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE
3.1.2 Documented H istoric Sites
The OP RHP site files identified six historic sites within or adjacent to the Cape V incent 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 heelerth
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
SITE NUMBER / SITE
N A M E
USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STA TUS*
A04505.000015
F R E N C H S H R I N E
DE Z E NGR E M E L R OAD
SITE
CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 610 M (2000 FT) EAST OF
KENTS CREEK; 91 M (297 FT) FLAT
SITE OF FRENCH CATHOLIC CHURCH
BUILT IN 1832. THE CHURC H WAS MOV ED
TO ROSIERE ROAD. A STONE CROSS AND
TABLET ARE LOCATED AT THE OR IGINAL
SITE. A CEMETERY LIES NEARBY WITH
THE GRAVES O F EARLY SETTLERS.
I
A04507.000041
BUILDING 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 FOUND
ON PROPERTY
I
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
13/53
SITE NUMBER / SITE
N A M E
USGS QUAD: LOCATION SITE TYPE NR STA TUS*
6
A04513.000098
NYSM 11555
MENZO W HEELER SITE
CHAUMO NT: 46 M (250 FT) NORTHWEST OF BAY ;
79 M (260 FT) FLAT
P AR T OF NR L ( 9 0 NR 1 3 3 5 ) M E NZ O
WHEELER HOUSE PROPERTY. SITE
SURROUNDING HOUSE IS INCLUDED
WITHIN THE NOMINATION. 19 CENTURYTH
SHEET MIDDEN AND FOUNDATIONS IN
ADDITION TO EXTANT HOUSE.
NRL
90NR1335
A04513.000100 NYSM 11557
CARLISLE-FOX SITE
CHAUMO NT: AT HEAD OF THREE MILE BAY; 75 M(245 FT) GENTLE
EXTANT HOUSE AND SHEET M IDDEN I
A04513.000097
NYSM 11554
1887 FIRE SITE
91 M (300 FT) WEST OF BAY; 76 M (250 FT) FLAT EARLY TO LATE 19 CENTURY ITH
A04513.000099
NYSM 11556
OLD STONE STORE SITE
305 M (1000 FT) NOR TH OF THREE MILE BAY; 76 M
(250 FT) FLAT
1838 EXTANT - ORIGINAL STORE NRL
P R O P E R T Y 9 0 N R 1 3 2 9 ; P R O P E R T Y
INCLUDED IN NOMINATION
NRL
90NR1329
*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. Pertinent
information for each structure is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of National Register Listed structures/properties within the Cape Vincent region
N R N UM BER D ESC RIPTION LOCA TION
95NR0907 ROGERS BROTHERS FARM STEAD DABLON POINT ROAD; CAPE VINCENT VICINITY
91NR0059 DISTRICT SCHOOL NO. 3 JUNCTION NY 3 AND CR 57; PUTNAM CORNERS; CHAUM ONT
90NR1120 XAVIER CHEVALIER HOUSE CAPE VINCENT
90NR1121 NICHOLAS COCAIGNE HOUSE FAVRET ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR1122 REM Y DEXENGREM EL HOUSE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR1123 JOSEPH DOCTEUR HOUSE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR1124 REUTER DYER HOUSE ROSIERE ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR1129 CLAUDE VAUTRIN HOUSE M ASON ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR1130 W ARREN W ILSON HOUSE M ASON ROAD; CAPE VINCENT
90NR2999 M ENZO W HEELER HOUSE M AIN AND DEPOT STREETS; CHAUM ONT
90NR3000 OLD STONE SHOP M AIN STREET; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3003 THE ROW M AIN STREET AT SHAVER CREEK; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3004 TAFT HOUSE M AIN STREET; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3005 TAYLOR BOAT HOUSE BAY VIEW DRIVE; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3006 THREE M ILE BAY HISTORIC DISTRICT JUNCTION/CHURCH STREETS; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3009 W ILCOX FARM CARRYING PLACE ROAD; THREE M ILE BAY
90NR3014 CHAUM ONT HISTORIC DISTRICT M AIN STREET; CHAUM ONT
90NR3014 CHAUM ONT HOUSE M AIN STREET; CHAUM ONT
90NR3016 EVANS-GAIGE-DILLENBACH HOUSE EVANS 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 along
the St. Lawrenc e River. The uplands of the Tug Hill Plateau form the second province along the southern edge of
Jefferson County (USDA 19 81). The 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
14/53
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 Wisconsin phase. The
most recent glacial activity within the St. Lawrence valley and the G reat Lakes is known as the Por t 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 B P the ice front in New York state had retreated to the middle Hudson V alley. Pollen profiles from bogs in the
upper Hudso n Valley suggest deglaciation of northern New York occurred rapidly (5000-100 0 years) after 13,500 B P(Snow 1980 ). The enormous weight of the glacial ice depressed some interior areas as far as 1000 m (32 80 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 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 g lacial 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 Warren, a deep lake that deposited sandy sediments along
ancient shore lines. Lake Warren was followed by three shallower and m uch 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 On tario 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 (Mason 1981). T he lake was bounded tothe 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 p resent-day topography of Jefferson County reflects its glacial history, varying from rugged uplands across
Tug H ill to the broad a nd gently sloping lake plain of the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Lowland. County wide elevations
range from a high of 519 m (17 00 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 (2 46 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 bedr ock 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 K ents Creek (see Figures 4-5).
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
15/53
8
Figure4.3-metercontourintervalsfortheTownofCapeVincent
highlightingtheregionaltopography.
Contourintervalswereextra
ctedfromtheUSGSdigitalelevationmodel(DEM)withtheMICRODEMG
ISprogram.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
16/53
9
Figure5.DigitalEleva
tionModel(DEM)oftheCapeVincentprojectarea.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
17/53
10
Figure6.Majorcreeksandtrib
utarieswithinandadjacenttotheCap
eVincentprojectarea.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
18/53
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 west from the Tug Hill uplands and Adirondack foo thills 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 V incent. 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 pro ject area ov erlaps 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
19/53
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 V incent area the Trenton limestones are the dominant and relatively younger bed rock, grading into the
Black River formation near Clayton (roughly 15 miles to the east). Both types are dated to the O rdov ician period
(roughly 450 m illion years ago), and are sedimentary rocks formed by the consolidation of loose material in ancient
shallow seas. Many o f the units contain fossil inclusions, and high-quality microcrystalline chert has been identified forthe 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 pr esent 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 both
physically and chemically to form a diversity of soil types (Figure 8). In the Town o f 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 pro ject 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 propo sed windfarm will only impact shallow (no n-alluvial) soils.
Table 4. Major soil types within and adjacent to the Cape Vincent 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 THE
GROUND SURFACE
NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING OR ALLUVIAL DEPOSITION
VARIABLE
GLACIAL TILL
BEDROCK RIDGES
DRUMLINS/TILL PLAINS
LOW RIDGES
UNSORTED MIXTURE OF BROKEN BEDROCK, GRAVEL, AND
SILT-CLAY
BEDROCK IS OFTEN CLOSE TO THE GROUND SURFACE
ROCK OUTCROPS ARE COMMON
NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING OR ALLUVIAL DEPOSITION
VARIABLE
H YR IC-W ETLAN D W ETLAND S/D EPRESSIO NS SILT-CLA Y A ND ORG ANIC M ATERIAL
SATURATED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
DEEPLY BURIED BEDROCK
NO POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING - OFTEN PONDED
VERY POOR
ALLUVIAL STREAM M ARGINS SILT-CLAY AND SOM E FLOODED GRAVELS/COBBLES
DEEPLY BURIED BEDROCK
FLOODING POTENTIAL
VARIABLE
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
20/53
13
Figure8.Majorsurficialla
ndformsandsoiltypesfortheCapeVincentprojectarea.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
21/53
14
3.3 Prehistoric Context
The archaeological evidence indicates human po pulations moved into the newly glaciated Northeast during the
last phases of the Wisconsin stadial retreat. Moving north from the warmer climates of southern and central North
America, these populations encountered the new and diverse landforms of the No rtheast. 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 profoun d influences on future settlement/landuse patterns and material culture. Eventually 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 ar rival o f highly mobile groups
during the Paleo-Indian period (around 10,00 0 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 Woodland 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 Woo dland period (AD 90 0-1650), b ut a large part of the daily
subsistence was increasingly shifted toward the prod uction 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-Middle Archaic Periods (10,000 - 4,000 BC)
The distribution of Paleo-Indian sites across northern New Yor k 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 P iercefield Project in St. Lawrence Co unty identified an occupation with
a fluted Pa leo 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 Wallkill Valley in Orange Coun ty 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 environmentalconditions during the late Pleistocene. By far the most important of these con ditions was the continental glaciers that
scoured the Northeast between 18,000-16,000 BP (Sno w 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 New York, all of Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine (Snow 19 80). 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 m uch of the lowlands surrounding modern-day Lake Ontario, forming glacial
Lake Iro quois. It was only after the St. Lawrence Valley had rebounded above sea level and glacial Lake Iroquois
subsided that human group s 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 su bstituted 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 projectile point style
from the rather universal Clovis type amo ng 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 bo undaries 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 E arly 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
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
22/53
15
Valley: weak-notched point horizon (10,500-10,000 B P), side-notched point horizon (10,500-9400 BP ), and the Kirk
horizon (9500-800 0 BP). The authors recognize two Middle Arc haic 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 P aleo-Indian period, many scholars believe that the scarcity of Early and M iddle Archaic sites in
northern 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 No rtheast. The location of sites suggests that Early Archaic groupsprobably 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 N ortheast 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 200 0). These resource
areas were often widely dispersed amo ng the major valleys, thus discouraging large settlements during the Early and
Middle Archaic (Versaggi 200 0). This type of settlement model closely matches the distribution of Early Archaic sites
within New Yor k state and the Northeastern United States (Versaggi 2000). The lack of archaeological surveys in
northern 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 (4,000-150 0 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-Indianand 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 days 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 ofsteatite (e.g., soapstone) vessels and b road 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 1 973). 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 M uskalonge Lake, in Jefferson County (Abel and Fuerst
1999: 16).
3.3.3 Early-Middle Woodland Periods (1,000 BC - AD 90 0)
The waning of the Transitional culture in central New Yo rk was evidenced by the arrival of Early Woodland
groups and cultural traits from Adena core areas in the Ohio Valley and the upper Great Lakes. The most well-known
Early Woodland manifestation in central New York was Meadowood (1000 BC - 0 AD). Meadowo od 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 ). Meadowoo d 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 a s Vinette 1, is fairly crude in
appearance with a combination of interior and exterior cord-marking. Meadowo od group s 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
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
23/53
16
1999). Meado wood 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).
Middle Woodland cultural traits, specifically the distinct dentate stamped pottery and side-notched style
projectile points, first appeared around 0 AD in central New York fro m cor e areas around the Great Lakes. Cultural
traditions include the Hopewell and Point Peninsula (Ritchie 1980: xxx). The early Middle Woo dland Hopewell 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 mo unds and the continuity of the complex
mortuary ceremonialism developed during the Early Woodland (Ritchie 1980).
Regions that developed the Point Peninsula culture in New Yo rk State were concentrated around the north sho re
of Oneida L ake, 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 O hio 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 Middle Woo dland artifacts, many with strong similarities to artifacts from Hop ewellian 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 Hunters Home phase of the late Middle W oodland, internal cultural evolution had ou tpaced cultural diffusion
from peripheral areas. The Hunters Home phase marks the beginning of a more sedentary subsistence pattern and alimited experimentation with cultivated resources, specifically Little Barley seed (Wurst and Versaggi 1993:256).
Although cultivated maize has not been definitively associated with Midd le Woo dland sites, Ritchie (1980: 2 41) suggests
it may have been present to a very limited degr ee 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 63 0), 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 On tario (Ritchie 1969). Associated
cultural remains are scarce, but burial remains with Kipp I sland type artifacts have been recovered from o val mounds
in 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 Iroquois
phases of the Late Woo dland. Owasco, a culture that emerged around AD 900 in central and eastern New York, appears
to 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 during
the early Late Woodland. Snows (1995) version of the migration theory argues that early Owasco popu lations migrated
north from a core area in southern and central Pennsylvania around AD 90 0, displacing and subsuming the aboriginal
Point Peninsula communities. Evidence for this migration, according to Snow, is the abrupt appearance of such distinct
Late Woo dland cultural traits as padd le-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 ab original population to a variety
of environmental and social factors (Armstrong et al 200 0: 59-60). Others have suggested Middle Woodland 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 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 practice
during the early Late W oodland, but may have been experimentally cultivated within the Great Lakes during the late
Middle 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 were
substantially larger. Hamlet sites mimic that of the villages, but tend to be smaller in size. In the upland s, processing
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
24/53
17
stations, like those of earlier time periods, were used to extract small quantities of food and no n-food related resources.
Subsistence during the Owasco period was based on a combination of agriculture and hunting-gathering. Agriculture
appears to have b een initially confined to maize, and possibly Chenopod ium 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, dom inates point assemblages from Owasco
sites. Groundstone tools (such as hoes, mortar/pestle, and hammerstones) are abund ant, reflecting an increasingproduction 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 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 clustered
around the Finger Lakes and the Mo hawk Valley, represent the fluorescence of Late Woodland village life. Unlike the
earlier Owasco, Iroquoian p opulations were clearly organized into sedentary village settlements (Armstrong et al. 20 00).
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 d rainages, 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 wood en palisades and trenches, suggesting tribal warfare was a common occurrence
(Armstro ng 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 triangularLevanna 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 et
al. 2000).
A passage in Nelie Caslers 1906 History of the Town of Cape Vincent suggests Late Woodland (Iroquois)
settlements were numerous within northwest Jefferson County and the pro ject 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 unear thed, an d 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 V incent, a small prehistoric buried mound was unco vered
(Casler 1906: 11). Also in the immediate area are three Late Woo dland villages (circa AD 1500) with pottery, bone
tools, and the remains o f chipped stone tools (see Site Files description).
Jamieson (1990: 38 7) 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 Iroquo is include ceramics with tall collars, chevron designs, a lack of lithic tools, and a large
amount of bone and antler artifacts (Jamieson 199 0: 389).
Abel identified a similar cluster of Iroquoian sites in the lower St. Lawrence V alley around the T own of Clayton
(just east of Cape Vincent) dated to AD 1 350-1550 . 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 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 did
Jesuit missionaries in contact with the Iroquois (Emerson 189 8).
Abijah P utnam was the first settler in what is now the Town of Cape Vincent. Originally from Rome, N ew
York, Putnam built a cabin approximately four miles south of the present village limits in the year 1801, but by 18 04
had sold the land and moved (Emerson 189 8). This early settlement was known as Port Putnam, and under the control
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
25/53
18
of buyers John M acomb 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 o f Cape Vincent was hamp ered by a series of conflicts associated with the Warof 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 War o f 1812. Although conflicts in the town were
relatively minimal, a large garrison was established in the V illage of Cape V incent in 1812, and a b arracks 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 econo mic growth. While the greatest
resource 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 18 50s 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 1898 ).
3.4.1 Historic Maps
Overall, the local histories of Jefferson County do no t contain much information concerning archaeological
sensitivity of the Cape V incent area. T he h istoric maps supply the additional information necessary to construct the
historical-archaeological context of the project area. For the Cape V incent project area the historic maps span a time
range from 1855-1888 and 190 3-1907. All show a somewhat similar trend of population aggregation within the
comm unities of Cape Vincent, Chaumont, and Three Mile Bay. Outside of these communities are small cross-road
settlements and isolated farmsteads along the growing ro ad system. Each map is summarized sp ecifically below; historic
maps 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. 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 C ape 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
26/53
19
Figure9.1855LCG&MMapo
fJeffersonCounty,NewYork(detail
ofCapeVincentarea).
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
27/53
20
Figure10.1888AtlasofJe
ffersonCounty,NewYork(detailofC
apeVincentarea).
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
28/53
21
Figure11.USGS190715'CapeVincent,NewYorkquadrangle.
Figur
e12.USGS190315'Clayton,NewY
orkquadrangle.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
29/53
22
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Archaeologists from the Public Archaeology Facility visited the Town of Cape Vincent on N ovember 1-2 and
November 8-9, 2007 for a drive-through and photo-do cumentation 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 v ideo documentation was made for future reference.
V. ASSESSMENT RESULTS
5.1 Project Area Characteristics
The dominant characteristic of the project area is the markedly rura l and undeveloped setting. GIS data
presented in Table 5 highlight this dominant characteristic. Of the 1 7 USG S 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 3.86RESERVOIRS 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 area
are active hay fields and pasture separated by clusters of brush and second ary forest growth. Numerous farmsteads are
present along the margins of the main roads. Bedrock outcrops are visib le 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 a ny significant grounddisturbances within the general project area.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
30/53
23
Figure
13.
Approximate
location
of
project
area
photographs.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
31/53
24
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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
32/53
25
Photo 4. View southwest toward a
hayfield and pasture off NY 12E.
Landform is b edrock/till ridge.
Photo 5. View east from the intersection
of NY 12E and Merchant Road. Landform
is bedro ck/till ridge.
Photo 6. View east from the intersection
of NY 12E and Merchant Road. Landform
is bedro ck/till ridge.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
33/53
26
Photo 7. View south off Merchant Road
toward a fallow pasture and wooded
parcel. Landform is bedrock/till ridge.
Photo 8. View west along Merchant Road
with fallow pastures and wo oded parcels to
the north and south. Landform isbedrock/till ridge.
Pho to 9. View south off Merchant Road
toward a wooded parcel. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
34/53
27
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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
35/53
28
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 H uff Road toward
the mouth of Kents Creek. Landform is
bedrock/till ridge; Kents Creek occupies a
mix of glacial lacustrine and alluvial land.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
36/53
29
Photo 16. View southwest off Huff Road.
Landform is b edrock/till ridge.
Photo 17. View northwest from NY 12E
and Kents Creek toward Huff Road
(treeline). Landform is a combination ofglacial outwash/lacustr ine and hydric soils.
Photo 18. View northeast from NY12 E
and Kents Creek. Landform is a
combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine
and hydric soils.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
37/53
30
Photo 19. View southeast from NY12 E
and Kents Creek. Landform is a
combination o f glacial outwash/lacustrine
and hydric soils.
Photo 20. View southeast from the
intersection 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
38/53
31
Photo 22. View east from the intersection
of CR6 and Fox Creek Road. Landform is
a c o m b i n a t i o n o f g l a c i a l
outwash/lacustrine.
Photo 23. View south along NY 12E
toward Fox Creek Road. Road cuts with
limestone outcrops are visible east andwest 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
39/53
32
Photo 25. View west from NY 12E toward
the drainage for Fox Creek. Landform is a
combination o f glacial outwash/lacustrine.
Photo 26. View northwest off CR 56
toward pastures and hayfields. Landform
is bedro ck/till ridge.
Photo 27. View north along Bedford
Corners Road. Landform is a combination
of glacial outwash/lacustrine.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
40/53
33
Photo 28. View southeast from CR4.
Landform is b edrock/till ridge.
Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. The
brush line marks bedrock outcrops.
Landform is b edrock/till ridge.
Photo 30. View southeast from the
intersection of CR4 and Wilson Road.
Landform is b edrock/till ridge.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
41/53
34
Photo 31. View north along Wilson 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
42/53
35
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 intoKents 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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
43/53
36
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.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
44/53
37
Photo 40. View north off Burnt Rock
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.
Photo 41. View south along Millers Bay
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.
Photo 42. View west from Millers Bay
Road. Numerous headwater wetlands for
Kents Creek are marked by the tall brush.
Landform is a combination of glacial
outwash/lacustrine.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
45/53
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 glacial
outwash/lacustrine.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
46/53
39
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 ofglacial outwash/lacustrine.
Photo 48. View southwest from Mason
Road. Landform is a combination of
glacial outwash/lacustrine.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
47/53
40
Pho to 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. The project area
surrounds the hamlet.
8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey
48/53
41
5.3 Prehistoric Sensitivity Assessment
Numerous prehistoric sites have been identified in the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario Low lands, and it is highly
probable that significant evidence of prehistoric landuse and settlement is located within the project area. Sites would
not have been equ ally distributed throughout the lowlands, as gro ups 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 theseadvantages/disadvantages can be summarized by o utlining some g eneral 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 d iffering ranges and combinations of environmental variables.
Access to Water: 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. Water 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 wereless 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 po orer-drained soils clustering in the center.
Soil P roductivity/Work-ability: Most impo rtant for later agricultural groups. Easily tillable soils would have been
favored for crop prod uction 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 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. This seasonal trend in resource availability is thought to date to at least
the Late Archaic period (BC 400 0).
Based on the background research, the expected site types possible for the project area cover a full range:
villages and base-camps to field camp s 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 asstorage 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
prepara
Top Related