BP SDEIS App M-2 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent

8/7/2019 BP SDEIS App M-2 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent

1/67

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

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 459-4700

Public Archaeology Facility Report - SUNYAppendix M-2

February 2011

Project No. 0092352


2/67

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY

FOR THE BP CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT,

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

September 2008


3/67

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY

FOR THE BP CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT,

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK

Draft Report

Submitted to:

ERM206 East 9

thStreet, Suite 1700

Austin, TX 78701

Submitted by:

TRC

4155 Shackleford Road, Suite 225Norcross, Georgia 30093

TRC Project #159220

Authored by Ruth Keenoy and Jeffrey Holland

September 2008


4/67

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey i

ABSTRACT

This report documents a historic architectural survey of the area of potential effects (APE) for

the Cape Vincent Wind Project, Jefferson County, New York. The APE examined consists of a

5-mile-wide area around the proposed wind turbine locations along with a -mile corridor oneither side of a proposed transmission line. The fieldwork for this project was carried out in

April 2006 by TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC), on behalf of BP Alternative Energy.

This effort was undertaken in coordination with the New York State Historic PreservationOffice (NY-SHPO) in Albany, following their guidelines for survey of wind farm projects.

The purpose of the survey was to identify historic architectural properties within the projectsAPE that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Areas that were determined through a visual impacts study to have no view of the turbines and

are outside of the -mile transmission line survey corridor were excluded from the ProjectsAPE. Historic properties identified during the survey were recorded with digital photography,

documented with NY-SHPO Historic Resource Inventory Forms, and located on the appropriate

USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Additionally, UTM coordinates were collected using a hand-heldGPS.

The projects APE overlaps a previously reported project, undertaken by St. LawrenceWindpower, LLC, and the historic properties inventoried for that previous survey that were

determined by the NY-SHPO as eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP are included in this

report.

The survey identified 41 properties currently listed on the NRHP, 87 properties determined

eligible for the NRHP by the NY-SHPO, and 18 properties that are recommended eligible forthe NRHP within the projects APE (and have not previously undergone NY-SHPO review).

Additionally, 27 properties were inventoried within the visual APE and recommended noteligible for the NRHP, pending NY-SHPO review.


5/67

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................... iTABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iiLIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iiiLIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iiiI. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1II. HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 4

Historical Context of Jefferson County, New York, and the Project Vicinity ..................................... 4III. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Survey Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 16

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 16Field Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 17

IV. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................... 18Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places ............................................................ 18Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP ................................................................................... 35Properties Surveyed in the APE not Previously Reviewed ................................................................ 42

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 44

APPENDIX 1. MASTER LIST OF INVENTORIED PROPERTIES

APPENDIX 2. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES DETERMINED ELIGIBLE BY

NY-SHPO

APPENDIX 3. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES NOT YET EVALUATED BY NY-SHPO, RECOMMENDED ELIGIBLE

APPENDIX 4. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES NOT YET EVALUATED BY NY-

SHPO, RECOMMENDED NOT ELIGIBLE


6/67

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey iii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Project location map depicting the projects APE. ................................................................................... 3

2. Portion of Burrs map of Jefferson County in 1829 showing the project vicinity. ................................... 8

3. Beers and Beers 1864 atlas of Jefferson County showing the project area. .......................................... 10

4. Map of the town of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888). ................................................................. 135. Map of the village of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888). .............................................................. 14

6. Location of historic properties within projects APE. ............................................................................ 19

7. Views of NRHP-Listed Properties. ......................................................................................................... 21

8. Map showing the location of historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the turbine array. ........... 38

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Survey Findings for NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Properties in APE. ................................... 1

2. NRHP-Listed Properties Inventoried within the APE. ........................................................................... 20

3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP. ................................................................... 35

4. Historic Properties Recommended Eligible for the NRHP. .................................................................... 42

5. Historic Properties Recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP. ............................................................. 43


7/67

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 1

I. INTRODUCTION

The proposed Cape Vincent Wind Project will entail development of a wind-powered electrical-

generating facility of up to 95 turbine locations with a total capacity of approximately 140 MW.

The proposed Project would be located in the town of Cape Vincent in Jefferson County, NewYork. In addition to the turbines, the project will include temporary construction laydown areas,

access roads, underground interconnect lines, operations and maintenance building,

meteorological towers, an electrical substation and an overhead electrical transmission line thatwill connect to an existing transmission grid substation.

The turbines would have a maximum height of approximately 400 feet from the tip of the rotorblade at the uppermost position to ground level, and the rotor diameter would be a maximum

of 290 feet. Each turbine will ultimately consist of a tall steel tower; a rotor consisting of three

composite blades; and a nacelle, which houses the generator, gearbox, and power train. Atransformer may be located in the rear of each nacelle, or on the ground near the tower base, to

raise the voltage of the electricity produced by the turbine generator to the voltage level of the

collection system. The steel towers used for this Project will be manufactured in multiplesections. The towers will have a base diameter of approximately 15 to 20 feet. Each tower will

have a locked access door and an internal safety ladder to access the nacelle, and will be painted

(off-white) to make the structure less visually obtrusive.

Based on consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY-SHPO), the

projects area of potential effects (APE) for the historic architectural survey is 5 miles from thewind turbine locations. An overhead transmission line that is also a project component had its

own -mile APE.

The fieldwork for this project was carried out in April 2008. Additionally, information on

historic structures listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP that were identified during aprevious project survey (the St. Lawrence Wind Project; see Keenoy and Holland 2008) north ofthe proposed Project, are included in this report.

Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the survey for properties listed on or considered

eligible for listing on the NRHP. For purposes of this study, all not evaluated properties are

being treated as eligible for the NRHP.

Table 1. Summary of Survey Findings for NRHP and NRHP-Eligible Properties in APE.Eligibility Status Number of Resources

Listed on the NRHP 41

Determined Eligible through NY-SHPO Review 87*

Recommended NRHP-Eligible, not reviewed 18*Includes six properties that were unevaluated, but which are considered eligible per NY-SHPO guidance.

Because much of the project area was inventoried for a separate project (Keenoy and Holland2008), Appendix 1 provides a master list of all resources identified within the projects APE,

including review status and NY-SHPO determinations of eligibility. Historic resources that were

identified from the prior survey of the St. Lawrence Wind Project include some identified by

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (TtEC) and TRC. The structures surveyed by TtEC are designated with a


8/67


numeric resource number in this table and throughout the report, although on all maps they are

preceded by a T followed by the resource number to facilitate identification (e.g., T 42). Thoseproperties previously inventoried by TRC for the St. Lawrence project that are within the current

projects APE are designated with an HR (for historic resource) and a resource number (e.g.,

HR-2). All properties designated by T and HR have been reviewed by the NY-SHPO.

Newly inventoried projects are designed with a BP and a resource number (e.g., BP-1).

Additionally, properties that are already listed on the NRHP are designated NRL and a sequentialresource number (e.g., NRL-1, NRL-2, etc.) to distinguish them from other resources. Appendix

2 includes inventory forms for properties previously surveyed and which the NY-SHPO has

deemed eligible or not evaluated for NRHP eligibility (and are being considered eligible forNRHP listing). Appendix 3 contains the inventory forms for properties that were identified as

part of the current and have not previously been reviewed for NRHP eligibility by the NY-

SHPO.


9/67

Figure 1. Project location map depicting the projects APE.


North

APE for turbines and transmission line


10/67


II. HISTORIC CONTEXT

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, AND THE

PROJECT VICINITY

The French were the first Europeans to explore the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. Inthe 1530s, explorer Jacques Cartier traveled the St. Lawrence as far as the site of Montreal,

trading with the Iroquois he encountered there. It was not until the early seventeenth century,

however, that the Great Lakes region was explored. The first European to visit what is nowJefferson County is believed to be Samuel de Champlain, in 1615, when he arrived in the area

with a force of 2,500 Native Americans in an unsuccessful effort to quell the threat of the

Iroquois. He crossed the St. Lawrence River from Canada, landing near the mouth of StonyCreek in what is now the town of Henderson, about 20 miles south of the project area (Sullivan

1927).

Jesuit missionaries visited the Onondaga, in the vicinity of Cape Vincent, in the mid seventeenthcentury, and French traders and trappers made their way up and down the St. Lawrence

throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but they apparently made no permanentsettlements in the Jefferson County area (Mosher 2006).

The Oneida sought to remain neutral during the American Revolution, but were eventually

forced to choose sides, with some supporting the Americans and some siding with the Loyalists,

many of whom had relocated to Canada to escape retribution. The British fortified Carleton

Island, directly across from the project area in the St. Lawrence River and built Fort Haldimandon its western promontory in 1778. The importance of the fort declined with the construction of

Fort Oswego on Lake Ontario in 1782, but a small British force remained after the War of 1812

(Allen 2007; Mosher 2006).

In 1788, the Oneidas ceded 5 million acres of land to the State of New York in the Treaty of FortSchuyler, although the tribe has brought suit that the treaty was only a lease of land rather than

an outright sale. Regardless, the State of New York immediately sold the land in five massive

tracts, totaling over 3.6 million acres, to Alexander Macomb and two other investors who sought

to settle the region. The project area is located in Tract No. 4 of the Macomb Purchase, whichincluded that part of Jefferson County north of a line running from Lake Superior through

Limerick and Great Bend. Macomb soon went bankrupt, but the sale of lands was continued by

Macombs partner, William Constable, and James Le Ray, a Frenchman with U.S. citizenship,who invested in significant tracts of land in the United States. Le Rays involvement brought a

number of Frenchmen fleeing the Revolution, many of whom were from the wealthy classes ofFrance (Mosher 2006).

Le Rays brother-in-law, Paul Chassanis, organized the first significant effort at settlement in

what is now Jefferson County, surveying a large tract of land between Lake Ontario and theBlack River, from Rome to Watertown, which was known as Castorland. This included the

southern part of Jefferson County. Castorland was administered by four commissioners, all of

French descent. Simon Desjardines became the director of the colony. The first settlers arrived in


11/67


about 1795, many of them abandoning the lands before even a year was up. However, the same

year a mill was constructed at Carthage, on the Black River in southeast Jefferson County, andthe town of Worth was laid out south of Watertown (Mosher 2006).

By the late 1790s the French settlement was in shambles and only a few settlers were located in

the Black River region of what is now Jefferson County. In 1798, the New York legislature made

it unlawful for French citizens to own property in the state, and James Le Ray, as a U.S. citizen,

was forced to buy back much of the original Castorland. When conditions stabilized in France,about 1800, many of the original settlers returned to their native country, and Le Ray began to

sell off tracts to settlers coming from New England, Pennsylvania, and other parts of New York.

Le Ray, who had been residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in France, moved to the GreatBend vicinity around 1806, where he built a mansion and set up a land office in Le Raysville

(Friedlander et al. 1986:2-7; Mosher 2006).

Oneida County was created in 1798 and included much of the original Castorland. That same

year, Henry Coffeen and a few other families that had come from New England, settled the town

of Watertown. Other settlers arrived from Vermont and Connecticut, settling primarily south ofthe Black River. Within two years, there were about 80 families living in Watertown. In 1799,

Jacob Brown, a Quaker from Pennsylvania, settled the town of Brownsville and served as Le

Rays agent for his holdings in Tract No. 4, which included the project area. The town ofBrownsville was created in 1802 and included the current towns of Pamelia, Lyme, Cape

Vincent, Clayton, Orleans, and part of Alexandria. The town of Orleans was originally part of

Penets Square, a grant set aside by the Oneida Indians as a gift to Pierre Penet, who had been anally of the tribe. The title to this tract was clouded by rumors of Penets death, and squatters

began to stake claims there in the early 1800s. A portion of Orleans was taken to form Clayton,

which includes the northeastern part of the project area (Friedlander et al. 1986:2-7; Mosher

2006; Powell 1976).

Although the land in Tract No. 4 of Macombs Purchase had been surveyed during theCastorland period into a grid of rectilinear lots, early settlers sought the best quality land and

access to water power and transportation routes, and property boundaries soon reflected thisselective process. The establishment of sawmills to process the timber cleared from the forests

were a top priority, followed by gristmills for grinding grain from the first harvests. In Cape

Vincent, shipbuilding was also an early industry, and residents traded with locations along the St.Lawrence River and in Canada. The earliest resident of the town of Cape Vincent outside of the

British fort on Carleton Island was Captain Abijah Putnam, who established Port Putnam, now

Millen Bay. A road was constructed to Port Putnam in 1803, and Captain Putnam operated aferry from that point to Wolf Island. A number of families of French descent settled at Port

Putnam, including Count Real, Napoleons Chief of Police. The town never prospered, however,

and was soon eclipsed by the settlement at Cape Vincent (Emerson 1898; French 1860;Friedlander et al. 1986; 2-152-18).

A few miles downstream from Port Putnam, a Captain Bartlett made the first settlement in whatis now the town of Clayton. He was sent there by Le Rays land agents in 1801 to operate a ferry

to Gananoqui, but abandoned his post after a short time. Until after the War of 1812, most of the

activity in Clayton was related to timber harvesting. A mill was opened on Wheeler Creek in1803, but it proved expensive to operate due to its isolated location (Hough 1854).


12/67


The first settlement in what is now the town of Lyme was begun in 1801 by Jonas Smith and

Henry Delamater, as agents of Le Ray, who sailed up the Chaumont River about two miles andestablished a log structure for use as a store and dwelling. However, the location was found to be

inconvenient, and in 1803 the village was removed to the mouth of the Chaumont River from

which it takes its name. Prior to the War of 1812, what is now the town of Lyme west of the

Chaumont River was largely wilderness. The village was sparsely populated until the 1830s aftera bridge had been built over the Chaumont River, and the gradual clearing of land had reduced

the incidences of illness (Hough 1854; Mosher 2006).

The earliest settlement at what is now the village of Cape Vincent was in 1809. A group of about

20 men, at the direction of Le Ray, cleared 50 acres around the site and constructed a wharf,block house, tavern, and barn. A store and dwelling were also constructed by Richard Esselstyn

the same year. Esselstyn and Murray had a lumber business at Cape Vincent before the War of

1812 that turned out a copious supply of barrel staves along with other lumber products. Thelocation was originally known as Gravelly Point. The village was laid out in 1817 and named for

James Le Rays son (Emerson 1898; Hough 1854; Mosher 2006).

Jefferson County was created in 1805 from Oneida County, and at the first federal census in

1810, its population was just over 15,000. During the subsequent decade, the population more

than doubled to nearly 33,000. Significant growth continued in the county through the midnineteenth century, then leveled off as agricultural lands were maximized and Watertowns

growth slowed (Friedlander et al. 1986:2-22).

During the War of 1812, the settlements along the St. Lawrence River were subject to attacks

from British forces and their Native American allies. Many residents temporarily vacated their

homes for more secure quarters, while a militia was raised to guard the border until regulartroops could arrive. The troops were housed in barracks in Cape Vincent and established a picket

line along the river. Despite the military presence, a number of raids were conducted during

which stores, houses, ships, and barns were burned. In 1813, a company of volunteers took agunboat to Wolf Island to dislodge a party of Native Americans that were hiding there. The

Native Americans were driven off, but the leader of the expedition was killed in the fight. Thedozen or so families that had settled at Chaumont prior to the war constructed a stone blockhouse

at the site of a stone residence then under construction. A group of British soldiers destroyed the

fort soon after. General Wilkinsons U.S. Army was encamped at Cape Vincent in late 1813 andbrought its own form of destruction by commandeering the supply of barrel staves turned out by

local mills to use as firewood (Emerson 1898).

After the war, Le Ray encouraged French and German immigrants to settle in northern Jefferson

County. In Cape Vincent, these arrivals took up land primarily in the eastern and central parts of

the town, where they constructed houses of locally quarried limestone and established Catholicand Lutheran churches. Their farms were much like those of other settlers in terms of agricultural

regime. The hamlet of Rosiere was established by French settlers, and the St. Vincent de Paul

Catholic Church there was built in 1832 (Emerson 1898; Missionaries of the Sacred Heart n.d.).

The town of Lyme was split from Brownville in 1818 and included the entire present town of

Cape Vincent and the northwestern part of the town of Clayton that includes the project area. Acustoms house was established at the village of Cape Vincent the same year, increasing its


13/67


importance as a trade and administrative center. An important shipbuilding industry also

developed there beginning in 1819, cementing the villages connection to the water. A lighthousewas constructed at Tibbetts Point in 1827. It was replaced in 1854, and the second one

significantly refurbished in 1870 (Hough 1854; Emerson 1898). A number of churches in Cape

Vincent date to the antebellum period including St. Vincent of Pauls Catholic Church in Cape

Vincent (1851), the former Presbyterian Church (1823), and St. Johns Episcopal Church (1841)(Emerson 1898; Harwood 1985; Missionaries of the Sacred Heart n.d.).

Burrs (1829) map of Jefferson County shows the project vicinity during its early development

(Figure 2). Although mills, industries, forges, and churches are supposed to be represented on the

map, none are shown in the project vicinity. The village of Cape Vincent is the only namedsettlement in the 5-mile project radius. Several roads meet in the vicinity of what is now known

as Burnt Rock, at the intersection of Johnny Cake Road and Burnt Rock Road, but no name is

associated with the location. The villages of Clayton, Depauville, and Chaumont are shown justoutside the 5-mile radius. The map shows that a basic road network was in place connecting the

existing villages in the area. A northern and a southern route connected Chaumont and Cape

Vincent. The northern route passed through the Burnt Rock area, while the southern route passed

through what would be Three Mile Bay. A road followed the St. Lawrence River between thevillages of Cape Vincent and Cornela (Clayton). A more inland route paralleled the river road,

passing through the Burnt Rock area and continuing into the town of Orleans (now the town of

Clayton).

In the 1820s and 1830s, a number of new communities emerged in the project vicinity. Some ofthese were little more than a cluster of related dwellings. The hamlet of Warren was founded by

three brothers of that name who cleared land for farms along the road from Port Putnam to

Chaumont in the 1820s. To the north, near the boundary between the towns of Clayton and Cape

Vincent, was a settlement known originally as St. Oars Corners. It had several other namesbefore a post office was established in 1848 and designated Lawrenceville. By the Civil War, it

was known as St. Lawrence (Beers and Beers 1864; Emerson 1898).

In 1820, William H. Angel opened a lumber business and a small store on French Creek, a shortdistance upstream from the mouth of the creek in what is now the town of Clayton. Le Ray

owned the land at the mouth of the creek but had refused to sell. Two years after Angel built his

mill, Le Ray platted the village of Clayton, which was called Cornela until 1831, and sold lots.Soon there was a post office, several stores, and a tavern, and Angels settlement soon faded. In

1835, an article in the Watertown Eagle noted that ten years previous there had been nothing onthe site of the village of Clayton, but that at that time there were 93 buildings and 73 familiesrepresenting a population of 426 people. The shipyard of Smith and Merick was established in

Clayton in 1832 and turned out schooners and steamboats that plied the St. Lawrence River. In

1841, Fowler and Esselstyne opened a second shipyard in Clayton. Xavier Colon built the firstSt. Lawrence skiff in Clayton in 1868, leading to the founding of the St. Lawrence River Skiff,Canoe and Steam Launch Company in 1887. The company manufactured the popular sport craft

for fishermen and recreational users at its Clayton factory before moving to Canton, New York.

The Antique Boat Museum in Clayton displays examples of these boats along with many othersused by nineteenth century watermen and tourists (Hough 1854; Johnston 2005; Mosher 2006;

Nulton 1981:8; Stevens 1895:662).


14/67

Figure 2. Portion of Burrs map of Jefferson County in 1829 showing the project vicinity.


North


15/67


The village of Three Mile Bay, in the town of Lyme, emerged in the 1830s as a shipbuilding and

fishing village. Asa Wilcoxs shipyard produced an average of two boats a year of various types

between 1835 and 1853. The waters of Chaumont Bay produced lake herring and whitefish Bythe 1850s, the village of Three Mile Bay contained about 70 dwellings, five stores, two taverns,

and three warehouses, and was larger than Chaumont village (Hough 1854).

Although shipbuilding and lumbering facilities employed a significant number of people in the

project vicinity, Cape Vincent, Lyme, and Clayton remained overwhelmingly rural outside of the

small villages. Jefferson County farmers during the first half of the nineteenth century wereprimarily family farmers who pursued a mixed agricultural regime of grain crops and livestock

raising. Grain production was relatively evenly distributed between oats, wheat, and corn, with

much of the harvest used to feed dairy cattle. Agricultural surpluses were marketed locally andregionally, including Canadian markets on the St. Lawrence River, but trade regulation limited

these outlets. Until dependable transportation was established to markets in the Mohawk Valley

and Western New York, dairy production was focused on butter and cheese, which were

processed on the farm by family members. Cheese was primarily an export product for Europeanmarkets, while butter was important for home consumption. By the time of the Civil War, cheese

factories and creameries were being introduced and processing shifted out of the home

(Friedlander et al. 1986:2-252-51).

Antebellum growth in Jefferson County led to the creation of a number of new towns during theperiod. The town of Clayton was created from Lyme and Orleans in 1833, and the town of Cape

Vincent was cut off from Lyme in 1848 (Hough 1854). In all, there were 664 families living in

Cape Vincent in 1864, for a total population of 3,611. Clayton was a bit larger, with 800 families

and a population of 4,532. Lyme was the smallest of the three towns in the project area, with 580families and 2,738 residents. Agricultural statistics from 1864 indicate that Cape Vincent

produced only a modest amount of cheese (24,800 lbs.) compared to Clayton (179,475 lbs.) and

Lyme (91,716 lbs.). The town of Clayton was also the leader in improved acreage, livestockholdings, and hay and potato yields. Lyme was the leading producer of grains, with over 125,000

bushels (Beers and Beers 1864).

Maps of the towns in the study area made in 1864 (Beers and Beers 1864) show the increasinglycomplex road network, along with the location of houses, mills, and other features (Figure 3).

Settlement of Cape Vincent is well-distributed based on the Beers and Beers map. Farms werelocated all along the St. Lawrence River, and clusters of residences, some anchored by a school

or a mill, are scattered around the landscape in inland areas. The identified communities in the

project area are Cape Vincent, Millen Bay, Three Mile Bay, St. Lawrence, and French

Settlement (on Kents Creek southwest of Rosiere). Unnamed communities are evident at Warren,Sand Bay, and Rosiere.

The Beers and Beers map in Figure 3 shows the former route of the Rome, Watertown &

Ogdenburgh Railroad, which was constructed to the village of Cape Vincent in 1853. A ferry and

an express steamship line operated from the railroad terminal to Kingston, Canada, carryingpassengers and freight. To handle the freight, the railroad constructed a 3,000-foot wharf, two


16/67

Figure 3. Beers and Beers 1864 atlas of Jefferson County showing the project area.

BPCapeVincentWindProject:HistoricArchitecturalSurvey

10

0 Mile

North

PROJECT RADIUS


17/67


freight houses, and a grain elevator. The railroad was a boon to Cape Vincent, linking it to

several trade routes and attracting tourists and sportsmen looking to enjoy the natural beauty and

hunting and fishing opportunities of the Thousand Islands area. The railroad traffic led to thedevelopment of Cape Vincents Broadway commercial district during the second half of the

nineteenth century. The Clayton & Theresa Railroad opened in 1873, connecting Clayton to the

Black River & Morristown Railroad. This line was incorporated into the Black River & Utica

system in 1885 (Child 1890; Hall 2003; Harwood 1985; Hough 1854).

In the western part of the town of Lyme, which is located within the 5-mile study radius, theBeers and Beers map (1864) shows that the greatest concentration of settlement was in the

vicinity of Three Mile Bay (see Figure 3). The Watertown & Cape Vincent Railroad (the same as

the Rome, Watertown & Ogdenburgh Railroad evidently) passed through the Wells Settlementabout a mile north of Three Mile Bay. A railroad depot was located in the settlement. Residences

were also concentrated west of Three Mile Bay on the road to Cape Vincent, and in the

northwest corner of the town along its border with the town of Cape Vincent. In the northwestern

part of the town of Clayton, which is also within the 5-mile study radius, the Beers and Beersmap shows a dispersed but thickly settled area of farmsteads, along with a few schools and two

mills on French Creek. There were no named communities within the project radius at that time.

Agriculture remained the principal pursuit of those residents of the project vicinity that were not

residing in villages and hamlets. After the Civil War, cheese factories were established in largenumbers, elevating dairying to the main source of agricultural income, and Jefferson County

became one of the top producers of dairy products in the state. The factories were scattered

throughout the countryside so that milk could be delivered daily for processing. As processing

shifted from individual families, farms were consolidated to increase economies of scale. Smallerlandowners sold their holdings to larger operators and often used the proceeds to purchase lands

farther west. This is evident in the increase in farm size in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. From 1880 to 1920 the average farms size in Jefferson County went from 113 acres to135 acres. The agricultural census also shows the shift from home to factory production. In 1850

and 1860, over 4 million pounds of cheese was produced on Jefferson County farms. By 1880,Jefferson County farmers produced less than 300,000 pounds. By the turn of the century,

production of cheese had almost completely shifted to factories, with only 6,360 pounds made on

farms. Butter was more commonly produced on the farm since it was used for homeconsumption and was traded locally; however, creameries were also established for processing

milk into butter (Friedlander et al. 1986:2-24, 2-512-54).

By 1880 there were 161 cheese factories in Jefferson County, representing over one third of all

manufacturing establishments. A factory generally needed to be located within 3 miles of a farm

for it to be feasible for the farmer to get the milk delivered early in the morning each day. Muchof the cheese produced in Jefferson County was so-called fancy cheeses such as Limburger,

Swiss, and Stilton intended for export to Europe. Packaging of the finished cakes was in boxes,

which resulted in box factories being built in proximity to the cheese plants. Rexford (2001) listsnine cheese factories and one creamery in the town of Cape Vincent, including one at Rosiere,

one at Warren Settlement, and one at Millen Bay. There were also six known factories in

Clayton, and at least three in Lyme, including one at Three Mile Bay and one at Chaumont.Census records for the second half of the nineteenth century indicate that the cheese factories


18/67


provided employment for many of Jefferson Countys working women (Friedlander et al.

1986:2-70).

Only one cheese factory is labeled as such on 1888 maps of the town and village of CapeVincent (Robinson 1888). It was located in the northeast part of the town at the crossroads

known as the Warren Settlement. The map of the town is shown in Figure 4. The map of the

village of Cape Vincent in 1888 shows a number of industrial operations including two saw

mills, a grist mill, a brewery, a coal house, and a seed house (Figure 5). A number of seedcompanies operated out of Cape Vincent at one time, including Cleveland Seed Company, J. A.

Scobell Company, and Cape Vincent Seed Company. Numerous commercial enterprises are also

evident in the village, such as hotels, stores, an opera house, and a blacksmith shop.

By the turn of the twentieth century, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River had becomesummer vacation destinations for the well-to-do classes of the Eastern Seaboard. Hotels, lodges,

and summer cottages were constructed in large numbers along the shoreline to accommodate the

seasonal influx of visitors that doubled the population of the town of Clayton. The interior

remained overwhelmingly rural, however, with a continued emphasis on dairying (Nulton 1981;Sexton and Christopher 2007:6).

In 1918, the American Agriculturalistpublished a farm directory of Jefferson County thatincludes a map keyed to the entries, so that the location, ownership, size, and production of each

farm can be established (Flint 2005[1918]). Based on this directory, there were approximately422 farms within the 5-mile project radius. The majority of the farms were operated by owners,

while about two of every five farms (37 percent), were rented or worked on shares. The average

farm size was about 230 acres among all farmers, but only 147 acres among tenants. More than

half of the farms in the project area (55 percent) produced some kind of dairy product. About 10percent were exclusively dairy farms; most of the rest included hay and grains among their farm

products. Among non-dairy farms, the most common products were oats, hay, and grains, but

also included truck crops (market vegetables), apples, potatoes, beans, and berries. There were73 farmers who did not report what type of farm they operated.

During the early twentieth century, farmers became less isolated as a result of improved roads,

availability of trucks and cars, and the extension of telephone service into rural areas (Mosher2006). Mechanization was increasingly used on the farms to harvest grains and hay, and prepare

products for transport. This modernization contributed to larger farms requiring greater

capitalization, and many small operators left farming for other pursuits. Farming remains a

significant industry in Cape Vincent, however, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all jobs formale workers (City-data.com 2007a)

The nationwide Depression of the 1930s affected the project area significantly because of theresultant decline in tourism, as well as the shut-down of numerous paper mills. Passenger service

to Cape Vincent on the railroad was discontinued in 1936, and the line ceased all operations in1952 as cars and trucks replaced the railroads as the main mode of transportation. The tourism

industry shifted in the second half of the twentieth century from catering to the elite to appealing

to working-class vacationers, leading to the proliferation of trailer parks along the shore and in

some inland areas as well (Sexton and Christopher 2007).


19/67

Figure4.MapofthetownofCapeVincentin1888

(Robinson1888).


13


20/67

Figure 5. Map of the village of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888).


14


21/67


Pine Plains was established as a U.S. Army training facility near Watertown in 1908. This

facility was renamed several times before becoming Fort Drum after World War II. In the 1930s,the camp was the site of the largest peacetime maneuvers of the U.S. Army, involving over

36,000 troops (Mosher 2006).

With the United States entry into World War II, the army training camp at Pine Plains was

expanded and renamed Camp Pine. The acquisition of some 75,000 acres resulted in the

displacement of 525 families and the extinction of four villages in the towns of Le Ray,Philadelphia, and Wilna. Activity at the base brought contractors, engineers, and laborers to the

region to build 800 buildings to house the three divisions of troops that would train there,

including Gen. George S. Pattons 4th

Armored Division. The land continued to be used as atraining center for the army after World War II, being designated Camp Drum in 1951. A

permanent garrison was assigned to the camp in 1974, and the facility was renamed Fort Drum.

In the 1980s it became the home of the 10th

Light Infantry Division, better known as the 10th

Mountain Division (Light Infantry), a specialized force of soldiers trained to operate in a variety

of environments. Approximately 80,000 troops annually are trained at Fort Drum (Mosher 2006;

U.S. Army 2007).

Jefferson Countys population grew slowly during most of the twentieth century, increasing less

than 5 percent each decade, from 76,748 at the turn of the century, to 88,151 in 1980. Even theconstruction of I-81 through Jefferson County in the late 1950s seems to have had little effect on

the population. However, the establishment of the 10th

Mountain Division at Fort Drum spurred a

significant increase in the population of the county in the 1980s, which reached nearly 111,000in 1990, a greater than 25 percent increase over 10 years. Growth has since leveled off, and the

population of the county was estimated at 114,738 in 2006 (Forstall 1995; U.S Census Bureau

2007).

Today, the combined population of Cape Vincent, Clayton, and Lyme is just over 10,000, with

Clayton being the largest town at nearly 5,000 residents in 2000. Cape Vincent had a populationof 3,345 in 2000; Lyme was the smallest of the three towns with just over 2,000 residents. The

area is generally considered a part of the Watertown/Fort Drum metropolitan area (U.S. CensusBureau 2007; City-data.com 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).


22/67


III. METHODS

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The architectural and historical inventory was conducted in accordance with guidelines providedby the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY-SHPO) in Albany and NationalRegister Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Surveyinformation (including field notes, sketch maps, photographs, informant interviews, and New

York State Historic Resource Inventory Forms) was collected and maintained throughout thecourse of the inventory.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

According to 36CFR60.4, cultural resources that are eligible for the NRHP include buildings,

structures, objects, and districts that retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials,workmanship, feeling, and association, and also meet at least one of the criteria outlined below.

Criterion D is most often (but not exclusively) associated with archaeological resources.

x Criterion A (Event). Association with one or more events that have made a significantcontribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history.

x Criterion B (Person). Association with the lives of persons significant in the past.

x Criterion C (Design/Construction). Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, ormethod of construction; or representation of the work of a master builder or architect; possession

of high artistic values; or representation of a significant and distinguishable entity whose

components may lack individual distinction.

x Criterion D (Information Potential). Properties that yield (or are likely to yield) informationimportant in prehistory or history.

For a property to be eligible for the NRHP, it must exhibit qualities of integrity. This rule also

applies to historic districts. The seven aspects of integrity are as follows:

x Location: the place where the historic property (or properties) was/were constructed or where thehistoric event(s) occurred;

x Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a

property (or properties);

x Setting: the physical environment of the historic property (or properties);

x Materials: the physical elements that were combined to create the property (or properties) duringthe associated period of significance;


23/67


x Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during anygiven period in history or prehistory;

x Feeling: the propertys (or properties) expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the periodof significance; and

x Association: the direct link between the important historic event(s) or person(s) and the historicproperty (or properties).

FIELD METHODOLOGY

The architectural/historical survey was conducted in accordance with 36CFR800 and the

standards of the NY-SHPO. Federal regulations define an APE as the geographic area or areas

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use ofhistoric properties, if any such properties exist (36CFR800.16[d]). For the proposed project, the

APE includes the project site and surrounding areas that have a visual link to the project area.

The survey evaluated all above-ground properties within 5 miles of each proposed turbine sitesas well as a -mile radius around a proposed overhead transmission line. Areas that weredetermined through a visual impacts study to have no view of the turbines and are outside of the

-mile transmission line survey corridor were excluded from the Projects APE.

Each inventoried property was recorded using digital photography. USGS 7.5-minute

quadrangles were utilized to plot each property (including outbuildings), and a New YorkHistoric Resource Inventory Form was completed for the inventoried properties (see Appendices

2 and 3). UTMs were recorded for the inventoried sites, and this information will be provided to

the NY-SHPO for all properties identified as eligible for or listed in the NRHP under separate

cover.


24/67


IV. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 6 depicts the locations of properties that are listed on or have been determined eligible for

listing on the NRHP from previous surveys as well as properties not previously inventoried

within the 5-mile APE and the -mile transmission line APE.

PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Forty-one NRHP-listed (NRL) properties were identified within the projects APE. Two

properties that are listed on the NRHP but are no longer extant, and are not noted on the project

maps or listed in Table 2. These properties include the Chaumont Railroad Station (90NR03015),which is no longer standing, and St. Johns Episcopal Church (90NR01179), which was destroyed

by fire approximately 10 years ago. Also, the Lance Farm (91NR02998), the George Brothers

Building (90NR03017), the United Methodist Church (90NR03008) and the Union Hall

(90NR03007) are located within 5 miles of the project turbines, but are not within the visual

APE and thus are not noted on the project maps or Table 1.

Five properties that are noted as contributing resources to the Broad Street Historic District

(resources 2021 and 2426), but are not individually listed on the NRHP, are included in the list

of National Register eligible (NRE) properties.

Because these properties are already listed on the NRHP, no inventory forms are included in this

report. On the maps in Figure 6, these resources are identified as NRL-# as indicated in Table1. Figure 7 provides recent views of all NRL properties within the APE.


25/67

No

rth

0Feet10000

0Miles2

0Kilometers3

Figure6.LocationofhistoricpropertieswithinprojectsAPE.

BPCapeVincentWindfarmProject:HistoricArchitecturalSurvey

19

PROJECTAREA

Note:Insetscaleis1:24,000

HR-71

HR-72

T368

C-4

T3

56

T337

T336

T428

T

346

NRL14

NRL15

T473

T471

NRL6

T-479

T484

C-1

C-3

NRL4

NRL-7

NRL-12

NRL-13

T445

T450

T453

HR-20

T461

HR-22

HR-18

T464

HR-17

HR-16

HR-15

NRL-9

NRL-28

NRL-27

T14

T10

T7 T

4

NRL-8

HR-12

HR-9

HR-11

HR-33

T420

T380

NRL18

T470

T421

HR-70

HR-69

HR-63

HR-62

NRL-29

HR-64

HR-36

T301

T297

NRL-5

SEEINS

ETC

SEEINSETB

HR-40

HR-41

HR-42

HR-43

HR-44

HR-45

INSETB-CARLETONISLAND

HR-68

SEEINSETA

NR

L-50

SEEINSETD

INSETC-CHAUMONTVILLAGE

HR-50 H

R-56

HR-55

HR-54

HR-52

HR-53

NRL-32

NRL-30

NRL-31

NRL-33

INSETD-THREEMILEBAY

BP-20

BP-21

BP-30

BP-33

BP-34

BP-18

NRL-43

NRL-42

NRL-41

NRL-39

NRL-38 N

RL-40

BP-26

BP-31

BP-6

BP-5

BP-41

BP-8

BP-9

BP-12

BP-48

BP-42

BP-46

BP-49

5-mileAPEforturbines

EligibleforNRHP-St.Lawrencesurvey

ListedonNRHP-St.Lawrencesurvey

EligibleforNRHP-BPCapeVincentsurvey

Turbines

Transmissionlinecorridorswith0.75mileAPE

0 120

2140

4160

6180

8195

Number

ofturbinesvisibile:

Note:

Resourc

esbeginningwithTidentifiedbyTetraTech

Resourc

esbeginningwithHRidentifiedbyTRC

Resourc

esbeginningwithBPidentifiedbyTRC

T129

T127

T126

T50

T48

NRL-36

T26

T47

T25

NRL-1

NRL-3

T155

NRL-11

NRL-2

NRL-25

NRL-21

T147

T209

NRL-22

NRL-35

NRL-23

NRL-26

NRL-19

NRL-24

T269

T264

T247

T167

T184

T181

T176

T36

T98

T101

T93

T91

T78

NRL-20

NRL-17

INSETA-CAPEVINCENTVILLAGE

T24

T21

T20

T5

05

BROADWAY

HISTORIC

DISTRICT

NRL-10


26/67


Table 2. NRHP-Listed Properties Inventoried within the APE.

Property Name (SHPO Registration Number) Address Map Code

Jean Philipe Galbrand du Fort House (90NR01173) 313 James Street, Cape Vincent NRL-1

John Borland House (90NR01168) 127 Joseph Street, Cape Vincent NRL-2

Otis Starkey House (90NR01181) 9500 Point Street, Cape Vincent NRL-3

Warren Wilson House (90NR01130) 4670 Favret Road, Cape Vincent NRL-4

Captain Louis Peugnet House (90NR1126) 32115 County Road 6, Cape Vincent NRL-5

George Reynolds House (90NR01127) 34191 State Route 12E, Cape Vincent NRL-6

Reuter Dyer House ( 90NR01124) 29902 County Road 4, Cape Vincent NRL-7

Nicholas Cocaigne House (90RN1121) 2867 Favret Road, Cape Vincent NRL-8

Johnson House (90NR01125) 33071 Tibbetts Point, Cape Vincent NRL-9

Broadway Historic District (90NR01169) Village of Cape Vincent NRL-10

James Buckley House (90NR01170) 169 Joseph Street, Cape Vincent NRL-11

Remy Dezengremel House (90NR01122) 30538 Rosiere Road, Cape Vincent NRL-12

Joseph Docteur House (90NR01123) 31469 Rosiere Road, Cape Vincent NRL-13

Xavier Chevalier House (90NR01120) 6338 Gosiere Road, Cape Vincent NRL-14

Claude Vautrin House (90NR01129) 33110 Mason Road, Cape Vincent NRL-15St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church (90NR01180) 139 Kanady Street, Cape Vincent NRL-17

Union Meeting House (90NR01128) 6433 Millens Bay Road, Cape Vincent NRL-18

Burnham House (90NR01171) 565 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-19

Gen Sacket House (90NR01178) 467 James Street, Cape Vincent NRL-20

Lewis House (90NR01175) 230 Market Street, Cape Vincent NRL-21

Anthony Levi building (90NR1166) 580 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-22

Aubertine Building (90NR01167) 496 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-23

Glen Building (90NR01174) 352 Broadway , Cape Vincent NRL-24

Roxy Hotel (90NR01176) 310 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-25

Cornelius Sacket House (90NR01177) 571 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-26

Rogers Brothers Farmstead (95NR00907) 27658 Dablon Point Road NRL-27

Tibbetts Point Lighthouse (90NR01119) Tibbetts Point, Cape Vincent NRL-28Wilcox Farmstead (90NR03009) County Route 57, Chaumont NRL-29

Chaumont House (90NR03014) 11616 Main Street, Chaumont NRL-30

Chaumont Historic District (90NR03013) Along Main Street, Chaumont NRL-31

Evans Gaige Dillenback House (90NR03016) 27655 Evans Road, Chaumont NRL-32

George House (90NR03018) 27405 Washington Street, Chaumont NRL-33

Duvillard Mill (90NR01172) 583 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-35

Vincent Le Ray House (90NR01182) 375 Broadway, Cape Vincent NRL-36

Taft House (90NR03004) 8494 Main Street, Three Mile Bay NRL-38

Old Stone Shop (90NR03000)Main Street, NW corner of Main and

Mill, Three Mile BayNRL-39

Taylor Boat House (90NR03005) Bay View Drive, Three Mile Bay NRL-40

Menzo Wheeler House (90NR02999) Corner of Main and Depot Streets,Three Mile Bay

NRL-41

Three Mile Bay Historic District (90NR03006)Church and Depot Streets, Three Mile

BayNRL-42

The Row Historic District (90NR03003) Main Street, Chaumont NRL-43

District School 3 (90NR00059) Corner of NY 3 and CR 57, Lyme NRL-50


27/67


Figure 7. Views of NRHP-Listed Properties.

NRL-1

Jean Philipe Galbrand du Fort House

313 James Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-2

John Borland House

127 Joseph Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-3

Otis Starkey House

9500 Point Street


28/67


Figure 7. Views of NRHP-Listed Properties (continued).

NRL-4

Warren Wilson House

4670 Favret Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-5

Captain Louis Peugnet House

32115 County Road 6, Cape Vincent

NRL-6

George Reynolds House

34191 State Highway 12E, Cape Vincent


29/67



NRL-7

Reuter Dyer House

29902 County Road 4, Cape Vincent

NRL-8

Nicholas Cocaigne House

2867 Fevret Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-9

Johnson House

33071 Tibbetts Point Road, Cape Vincent


30/67



NRL-10

Broadway Historic District

Western edge of the Village of CapeVincent on Broadway

Sample property, Beechwood House,

contributing resource (see resource 20)

NRL-11

James Buckley House

169 Joseph Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-12

Remy Dezengremel House

30538 Rosiere Road, Cape Vincent


31/67



NRL-13

Joseph Docteur House

31469 Rosiere Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-14

Xavier Chevalier House

6338 Gosiere Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-15

Claude Vautrin House

33110 Mason Road, Cape Vincent


32/67



NRL-17

St. Vincent of Paul Catholic Church

139 Kanady Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-18

Union Meeting House

6433 Millens Bay Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-19

Burnham House

565 Broadway, Cape Vincent


33/67



NRL-20

Gen Sacket House

467 James Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-21

Lewis House

230 Market Street, Cape Vincent

NRL-22

Anthony Levi building



34/67



NRL-23

Aubertine Building


NRL-24

Glen Building


NRL-25

Roxy Hotel



35/67



NRL-26

Cornelius Sacket House


NRL-27

Rogers Brothers Farmstead

27658 Dablon Point Road, Cape Vincent

NRL-28

Tibbetts Point Lighthouse

Tibbets Point Road, Cape Vincent


36/67



NRL-29

Wilcox Farmstead

Carrying Place Road, Chaumont

NRL-30

Chaumont House

11616 Main Street, Chaumont

NRL-31

Chaumont Historic District

Along Main Street, roughly between

Washington and Church streets, Chaumont


37/67



NRL-32

Evans Gaige Dillenback House

27655 Evans Road (Route 12-E),Chaumont

NRL-33

George House

27405 Washington Street, Chaumont

NRL-35

Duvillard Mill



38/67



NRL-36

Vincent Le Ray House


(Within Broadway Historic District)

NRL-38

Taft House

8494 Main Street, Three Mile Bay

NRL-39

Old Stone Shop

Northwest corner of Main and Mill Streets,

Three Mile Bay


39/67



NRL-40

Taylor Boathouse

Bay View Drive, Three Mile Bay

NRL-41

Menzo Wheeler House

Corner of Main and Depot Streets, Three

Mile Bay

NRL-42

Three Mile Bay Historic District

Church and Depot Streets, Three Mile Bay


40/67



NRL-43

The Row Historic District

Main Street, Three Mile Bay

NRL-50

District School 3

NY 3 & CR 7, Lyme


41/67


PROPERTIES DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP

Eighty-seven historic properties that are located within the Projects APE and are within view of

at least one turbine have been reviewed and determined eligible for the NRHP by the NY-SHPOduring a recent survey of the area (Keenoy and Holland 2008). Table 3 provides a summary of

each property, and each is depicted on Figure 6. Figure 8 also shows the location of these and the

NRL properties that are located in the immediate vicinity of the turbine array. Inventory forms

for these properties are presented in Appendix 2.

Table 3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP.Number Eligibility Address City SHPO No.

4 NRE 29766 CR 6 Cape Vincent 4505.000129

7 NRE 2066/2072 Deerlick Road Cape Vincent 4505.000019

10 NRE 3204 NY 12E Cape Vincent 4505.000131


20 NRE 31429 CR 6 Cape Vincent 4547.000007

21 NRE 31429 CR 6 Cape Vincent 4547.00000724 NRE 596 W. Broadway Cape Vincent 4547.000006

25 NRE 523 W. Broadway Cape Vincent 4547.000036


36 NRE 266 N. Lake Street Cape Vincent 4547.000139

47 NRE 139 S. Kanady Street Cape Vincent


50 NRE 277 W. Broadway Cape Vincent

78 NRE No address; Market Street Cape Vincent 4547.000137

91 NRE 383 S. Market Street Cape Vincent 4547.000143

93 NRE 320 S. Market Street Cape Vincent 4547.00014498 NRE 179 W. Lake Street Cape Vincent 4547.000145

101 NRE 266 S. Market Street Cape Vincent 4547.000146

126 NRE 151 W. Gouvello Street Cape Vincent 4547.000148

127 UN 131 W. Gouvello Street Cape Vincent

129 NRE 184 N. Market Street Cape Vincent

147 UN 173/175 N. James Street Cape Vincent

155 NRE 134 N. Point Street Cape Vincent 4547.000117

167 NRE 233/235 S. Point Street Cape Vincent 4547.000158

176 NRE 662 S. James Street Cape Vincent 4547.000160



209 NRE 260 E. Broadway Cape Vincent

247 NRE 567 E. Lake Street Cape Vincent

264 NRE 212 William Street Cape Vincent

269 NRE 742 E. Broadway (rear) Cape Vincent

297 NRE No number; State Route 12E Cape Vincent 4505.000094


42/67


Table 3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP (continued).Number Eligibility Address City SHPO No.


336 NRE 34725 County Route 7 Cape Vincent

337 NRE 34765 CR7 Cape Vincent 4505.000135

346 NRE 35109 CR 7 Cape Vincent 4505.000136356 NRE 35438 CR 7 Cape Vincent 4505.000137

368 NRE 36091 State Route 12E Cape Vincent

380 NRE Cedar Point SP Cape Vincent 04505.000055/56/57

420 NRE 33905 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent 4505.000138

421 NRE St. Lawrence Union Cemetery Cape Vincent 4505.000139

428 NRE 7242 Millens Bay Road Cape Vincent 4505.000140



453 NRE 31305 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent

461 NRE 5851 Dezengremel Road Cape Vincent 4505.000111464 NRE 30485 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent

470 NRE Vacant, no number; W side Hell St. Cape Vincent

471 NRE 5477/5553 Constance Road Cape Vincent

473 NRE 5477/5553 Constance Road Cape Vincent

479 NRE 32175 Hell Street Cape Vincent

484 NRE 4609 Favret Road Cape Vincent

505 NRE 250 Center Cape Vincent

C-1 UN No number; NY State Route 12E

C-3 NRE No number; NY State Route 12E

C-4 UN No number; NY State Route 12EHR-9 NRE 27846 Dablon Point Road Cape Vincent

HR-11 UN 27341 Stony Point Road Cape Vincent

HR-12 NRE 69031 Stony Point Road Cape Vincent

HR-15 NRE 30321 Rosiere Road Cape Vincent




HR-20 NRE Intersection of Rosiere andDezengremel roads

Cape Vincent

HR-22 UN 30252 Burnt Rock Road Cape Vincent

HR-33 NRE 36818 Fish Pond Road (CountyRoute 4)

Clayton

HR-36 NRE Grenadier Island Road #3 Cape Vincent

HR-40 NRE 3063 Carleton Island Road #1 Cape Vincent




43/67


Table 3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP (continued).Number Eligibility Address City SHPO No.




HR-50 NRE 27707 Water Street Lyme



HR-54 NRE 27375 Washington Street Lyme



HR-62 NRE 29340 Ashland Road Lyme

HR-63 NRE 30228 / 30215 Ashland Road Lyme

HR-64 NRE 27817 Three Mile Point Road North Lyme

HR-68 NRE

Robinson Road, west of Three Mile

Creek LymeHR-69 NRE 10163 County Route 8 Lyme

HR-70 NRE 31700 Swalia Road Lyme

HR-71 NRE 12283 County Route 9 Clayton

HR-72 NRE 37455 NY Route 12E ClaytonNRE = National Register Eligible; UN = unevaluated (and considered NRE)


44/67

Figure8,Sheet1.Mapshowingthelocationofhistoricpropertiesintheimmediatevicinityoftheturbinearray.

BP Cape Vincent Windfarm Project: Historic Architectural Survey 38

contourinterval=10feet

No

rth

Mapsource:CapeVincentNorth/Cap

eVincentSouth,

N.Y.Quadrangles,7.5minut

eseries

0feet4000

0mile1

0kilometer1

NRL-29

BP-49

ListedonNRH

P-St.Lawrencesurvey

EligibleforNR

HP-BPCapeVincentsurvey

Turbines

Note:

ResourcesbeginningwithBPidentifiedbyTRC


45/67




North

Mapsource:C

apeVincentNorth/CapeVincentSouth,

N.Y.Quadrangles,7.5minuteseries

0feet4000

0mile1

0kilometer1

NRL-8

T14



Turbines

Note:

ResourcesbeginningwithTiden

tifiedbyTetraTech

ResourcesbeginningwithHRidentifiedbyTRC

NRL-7

T7

T10

T4

HR-12

HR-17

HR-16

HR-15

HR-18

T464

NRL-12


46/67




North

Mapsource:CapeVincentNorth/CapeVincentSouth,


0feet4000

0mile1

0kilomete

r1



Turbines

Note:

ResourcesbeginningwithTiden

tifiedbyTetraTech

ResourcesbeginningwithHRidentifiedbyTRC

HR-18

T464

NRL-12

N

RL-13

NRL-4

HR-20

T461

HR-22

T445

T

450

T453


47/67




North

Mapsource:CapeVincentNorth/CapeVincentSouth,


0feet4000

0mile1

0kilometer1

ListedonNRHP-St.Law

rencesurvey

EligibleforNRHP-St.La

wrencesurvey

Turbines

Note:

ResourcesbeginningwithTidentifiedbyTetraTech

T421

NRL-15

NRL-14

T420

T42

8


48/67


PROPERTIES SURVEYED IN THE APE NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED

TRC evaluated all above-ground properties within 5 miles of each proposed turbine site as well

as a -mile radius around a proposed overhead transmission line and identified 45 properties

within view of the project. Of these properties, 18 are recommended eligible (or potentiallyeligible) for the NRHP (Table 4). The remaining properties are recommended not eligible for the

NRHP (Table 5). Inventory forms for all properties surveyed during this phase of the project andnot yet evaluated by the NY-SHPO are presented in Appendix 3.

Table 4. Historic Properties Recommended Eligible for the NRHP.

Number Address Town

BP-5 9840 Three Mile Creek Road Lyme

BP-6 9765 Three Mile Creek Road Lyme

BP-8 26719 Three Mile Point Road Lyme

BP-9 26731 Three Mile Point Road LymeBP-12 27129 Three Mile Point Road Lyme

BP-18 8261 County Route 12E Lyme

BP-20 Cemetery, North side of County Route 12E Lyme

BP-21 8592 Main Street, Three Mile Bay Lyme



BP-31 8679 Depot Street, Three Mile Bay Lyme



BP-41 Cemetery, Carrying Place Road near Klock Road Lyme

BP-42 2227 South Shore Road Lyme

BP-46 21585 Middle Road Lyme

BP-48 25201 Isthmus Road Lyme

BP-49 Cemetery, North side of Carrying Place Road Lyme


49/67


Table 5. Historic Properties Recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP.

Number Address Town

BP-1 27323 Fox Creek Road Cape Vincent

BP-2 27460 Fox Creek Road Cape Vincent

BP-3 27773 Fox Creek Road Cape VincentBP-4 13733 Wood Road Lyme









BP-19 8261 County Route 12E LymeBP-22 8594 Main Street, Three Mile Bay Lyme







BP-32 8690 Church Street, Three Mile Bay Lyme

BP-35 26940 Carrying Place Road Lyme

BP-36 26808 Carrying Place Road LymeBP-37 26722 Carrying Place Road Lyme

BP-38 [no #-abandoned] Carrying Place Road Lyme

BP-40 7495 State Park Road Lyme

BP-47 25403 Isthmus Road Lyme


50/67


REFERENCES

Allaback, Sarah, and Chuck Milliken (eds)

1995 Resorts and Recreation: An Historic Theme Study of the New Jersey Heritage Trail

Route. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995. [online book athttp://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nj1/index.htm Access date: 3 October2007]

Allen, Robert S.

2007 Fort Haldimand. The Canadian Encyclopedia, Historical Foundation of Canada.

Electronic document,http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002943.

Beers, S. N. and D. G. Beers

1864 New Topographical Atlas of Jefferson County, New York. S. N. and D. G. Beers,New York.

Child, Hamilton (compiler)

1890 Geographical Gazetteer of Jefferson County, N.Y. 16841890. Published by theauthor, Syracuse, New York. Available online at:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyjeffer/childcap.htm.

City-data.com

2007a Cape Vincent, New York Detailed Profile. Electronic document, http://www.city-

data.com/city/Cape-Vincent-New-York.html.

2007b Clayton, New York Detailed Profile. Electronic document, http://www.city-

data.com/city/Clayton-New-York.html.

2007c Lyme, New York Detailed Profile. Electronic document, http://www.city-data.com/city/Lyme-New-York.html.

Coughlin, Jere (comp)

1905 Jefferson County Centennial 1905 Speeches, Addresses and Stories of theTowns. Watertown, NY: Hungerford-Holbrook Co.

Emerson, Edgar C. (editor)

1898 Our County and Its People: A Descriptive Work on Jefferson County, New York.The Boston History Company, Boston.

Flint, Ellie (transcriber)

2005[1918] American Agriculturalist Farm Directory and Reference Book, Jefferson

County, New York. Transcribed and republished online,http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyjeffer/1918exp.htm.


51/67


Forstall, Richard L.

1995 Population of Counties by Decennial Census: 1900 to 1990. Population Division,U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

French, J. H.

1860Gazetteer of the State of New York.

R. Pearsall Smith, Syracuse, N.Y. Reprinted

online, http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyjeffer/frencht.htm.

Friedlander, Amy, Charles Leedecker, and Robert Floss

1986 Fort Drum Cultural Resources Project, Report No. 2, 1986: Re-Evaluation of RuralHistoric Contexts for the Fort Drum, New York Vicinity. Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.,East Orange, New Jersey. Submitted to U.S. National Park Service, Middle Atlantic

Region, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Gilbert, Cathy A., and Gretchen A. Luxenberg

1990 The Rustic Landscape of Rim Village, 19271941. Washington, D.C.: National ParkService (Cultural Resources Division, Pacific Northwest Region)

Haddock, John A.

1894 The Growth of a Century As Illustrated in the History of Jefferson County, NewYork, From 1793 to 1894. Philadelphia, PA: Self-published.

Hall, Greg

2003 History of the Rivergate Trail. Electronic document,http://www.rivergatewheelers.com/Maps/History/Rivergate_Trail_History.htm.

Harwood, John

1985 Cape Vincent Town and Village Multiple Resource Area, National Register of

Historic Places Inventory Form. National Register Information System, electronicdocument,http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=Cover&IWS_LOGIN=1&IW

S_REPORT=100000007.

Hough, Franklin B.1854 A History of Jefferson County in the State of New York. Sterling & Riddell,

Watertown, New York.

Johnston, David Cay

2005 Rituals; Aged and in Wood: Boats from the Gilded Age. New York Times 22 July.Published online,http://www.antiqueboatamerica.com/ab_list_boatNew.asp?Left=Auction&Type=AuctionA

rticles.

Keenoy, Ruth, and Jeffrey Holland

2008 Historic Architectural Survey for the St. Lawrence Wind Project, Jefferson County,New York. TRC, Atlanta. Submitted to St. Lawrence Wind Power, LLC, Cape Vincent,New York.


52/67


Missionaries of the Sacred Heart

n.d. The Catholic Community of Cape Vincent, Rosiere and Chaumont. Electronicdocument, http://www.cvrchparish.org/history.htm.

Mosher, Marc2006 A History of the Jefferson County Region. Electronic document,

http://marcmny.tripod.com/jeffco.htm.

Nulton, Laurie Ann

1981 The Golden Age of the Thousand Islands: Its People and Its Castles. Masters thesis,Georgetown University. Copy available at Hawn Memorial Library, Clayton, New York.

Powell, Thomas F.1976 Penets Square: Episode in the Early History of Northern New York. Northcountry

Books, Lakemont, New York.

Reinle, A., and Claire Bonney

1982 French migr Houses in Jefferson County. (Self-published, 1982). Copy availableat Flower Memorial Library, Watertown, New York.

Rexford, Eva2001 List of Butter and Cheese Factories, Milking Stations and Condensing Plants in

Jefferson County, New York State. Electronic document,

http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyjeffer/cheese.htm.

Robinson, E.

1888 Robinsons Atlas of Jefferson County, New York. E. Robinson, New York.Saratoga Associates

2007 St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment. Prepared for TetraTech EC, Inc. Morris Plains, NJ.

Sexton, James and Caleb W. Christopher2007 Historic Architectural Resource Investigation (1-mile Ring Area of Potential

Effects), St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project, Towns of Cape Vincent and Clayton,Jefferson County, New York. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Submitted to St. Lawrence WindpowerLLC.

Stevens, Albert Clark1895 Other Industries: Boats, Canoes, and Shells. In One Hundred Years of American

Commerce, edited by Chauncey M. Depew, pp. 648674. D. O. Haynes & Company, NewYork.

Sullivan, James (editor)

1927 A Brief Early History of the Counties of New York. In History of New York State,15231927. Reprinted online, http://www.hopefarm.com/nycounty.htm.


53/67


U.S. Army

2007 Fort Drum History. U.S. Army Installation Command, Northeast Region. Electronicdocument, http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/about/history.asp.

U.S. Census Bureau

2007 Jefferson County, New York Quick Facts. Electronic document,

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36045.html.

WPA

1904 New YorkA Guide to the Empire State. Writers Program of the Works ProgressAdministration. Oxford University Press, New York.


54/67



55/67


NRE = National Register Eligible; NRL = National Register ListedPE = Potentially Eligible; Rec. = Recommended

Resource No. SHPO Review Notes

4 NRE

7 NRE

10 NRE

14 NRE

20 NRE

21 NRE

24 NRE

25 NRE

26 NRE

36 NRE

47 NRE

48 NRE

50 NRE

78 NRE

91 NRE93 NRE

98 NRE

101 NRE

126 NRE

127 Unevaluated

129 NRE

147 Unevaluated

155 NRE

167 NRE

176 NRE

181 NRE

184 NRE

209 NRE

247 NRE

264 NRE

269 NRE

297 NRE

301 NRE

336 NRE

337 NRE

346 NRE

356 NRE

358 NRE

359 NRE

368 NRE

380 NRE

408 NRE


420 NRE

421 NRE

424 NRE

428 NRE

445 NRE

450 NRE

453 NRE

461 NRE

464 NRE

470 NRE

471 NRE

473 NRE

479 NRE

484 NRE

505 NREC-1 Unevaluated

C-3 NRE

C-4 Unevaluated

HR-9 NRE

HR-11 Unevaluated

HR-12 NRE

HR-15 NRE

HR-16 NRE

HR-17 NRE

HR-18 NRE

HR-20 NRE

HR-33 NRE

HR-36 NRE

HR-40 NRE

HR-41 NRE

HR-42 NRE

HR-43 NRE

HR-44 NRE

HR-45 NRE

HR-50 NRE

HR-52 NRE

HR-53 NRE

HR-54 NRE

HR-55 NRE

HR-56 NRE

HR-62 NRE

HR-63 NRE


56/67


NRE = National Register Eligible; NRL = National Register ListedPE = Potentially Eligible; Rec. = Recommended


HR-64 NRE

HR-68 NRE

HR-69 NRE

HR-70 NRE

HR-71 NRE

HR-72 NRE

BP-1 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO




BP-5 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPO




BP-9 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPOBP-10 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO






































57/67

APPENDIX 2. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES DETERMINED

ELIGIBLE BY NY-SHPO

(Inventory forms available on Project website.)


58/67


59/67


60/67


61/67


62/67


63/67


64/67


65/67


66/67


67/67

Documents

BP SDEIS App M-2 Public Archeology Facilty Report-SUNY Cape Vincent