BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey

8/8/2019 BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey

1/53


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.


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.


4/53

iii

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

DATE: November 29, 2007

SPONSOR: BP and ERM-Southwest, Inc.


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


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


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


8/53

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.


9/53

2

Figure2.Locationofgeneralprojectarea

ontheUSGS1:100,000CapeVincen

t,NewYork-Ontarioquadrangle.


10/53

3

Figure3.Locationof

the

general

project

area

on

the

2003

ae

rial

photographs

fortheTownofCape

Vincent.


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


NYSM 3594

ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: ADJACENT EAST OF

LITTLE CREEK; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOP E


NYSM 3592

ACP JFSN

CAPE VINCENT SOUTH: 366 M (1200 FT) WEST OF

CHAUMO NT BAY; 78 M (256 FT) GENTLE SLOPE


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


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


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


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


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




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


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


NYSM 3584

ACP JFSN

CHAUMONT: 183 M (600 FT) NORTH OF THREE

MILE CREEK ; 93 M (305 FT) FLAT


A04507.000104

UB 955 CHAUMON T SITE

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

M (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; 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


NYSM 3581

ACP JSFN

CHAUMO NT: 198 M (650 FT) WEST OF CHAUMONT

BAY; 85 M (280 FT) GENTLE


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


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.


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).


15/53

8

Figure4.3-metercontourintervalsfortheTownofCapeVincent

highlightingtheregionaltopography.

Contourintervalswereextra

ctedfromtheUSGSdigitalelevationmodel(DEM)withtheMICRODEMG

ISprogram.


16/53

9

Figure5.DigitalEleva

tionModel(DEM)oftheCapeVincentprojectarea.


17/53

10

Figure6.Majorcreeksandtrib

utarieswithinandadjacenttotheCap

eVincentprojectarea.


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.


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


20/53

13

Figure8.Majorsurficialla

ndformsandsoiltypesfortheCapeVincentprojectarea.


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


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


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


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


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):



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




26/53

19

Figure9.1855LCG&MMapo

fJeffersonCounty,NewYork(detail

ofCapeVincentarea).


27/53

20

Figure10.1888AtlasofJe

ffersonCounty,NewYork(detailofC

apeVincentarea).


28/53

21

Figure11.USGS190715'CapeVincent,NewYorkquadrangle.

Figur

e12.USGS190315'Clayton,NewY

orkquadrangle.


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.


30/53

23

Figure

13.

Approximate

location

of

project

area

photographs.


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.


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.


of NY 12E and Merchant Road. Landform



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.


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.


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.


36/53

29

Photo 16. View southwest off Huff Road.


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.


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.


Photo 21. View west along the edge of

Fox Creek. Landform is a combination of

glacial outwash/lacustrine and hydric soils.


38/53

31


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.


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


Photo 27. View north along Bedford

Corners Road. Landform is a combination

of glacial outwash/lacustrine.


40/53

33

Photo 28. View southeast from CR4.


Photo 29. View northeast off CR4. The

brush line marks bedrock outcrops.


Photo 30. View southeast from the

intersection of CR4 and Wilson Road.



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.


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.


42/53

35

Photo 34. View east from Dezgremel

Road toward hayfields and pastures.


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.


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.


outwash/lacustrine.


Road. Treeline in the far distance is a

large wetlands. Landform is a

combination of glacial outwash/lacustrine.


44/53

37




Photo 41. View south along Millers Bay



Photo 42. View west from Millers Bay

Road. Numerous headwater wetlands for

Kents Creek are marked by the tall brush.


outwash/lacustrine.


45/53

38

Photo 43. View northwest off Burnt Rock



Photo 44. View west off Burnt Rock



Photo 45. View east off Favret Road.


outwash/lacustrine.


46/53

39

Photo 46. View west off Favret Road.


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




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.


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

Documents

BP Phase 1 Archaeological Survey