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

Public Archaeology Facility Report - SUNY
Appendix M-2
February 2011
Project No. 0092352
Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 459-4700
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
FOR THE BP CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
September 2008
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
FOR THE BP CAPE VINCENT WIND PROJECT,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK
Draft Report
Submitted to:
ERM
th
206 East 9 Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Submitted by:
TRC
4155 Shackleford Road, Suite 225
Norcross, Georgia 30093
TRC Project #159220
Authored by Ruth Keenoy and Jeffrey Holland
September 2008
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 ¾-mile corridor on
either 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 Preservation
Office (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 project’s
APE 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 ¾-mile transmission line survey corridor were excluded from the Project’s
APE. 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-held
GPS.
The project’s APE overlaps a previously reported project, undertaken by St. Lawrence
Windpower, 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 for
the NRHP within the project’s APE (and have not previously undergone NY-SHPO review).
Additionally, 27 properties were inventoried within the visual APE and recommended not
eligible for the NRHP, pending NY-SHPO review.
BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
II. HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 4

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

Survey Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 16
Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 16
Field Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 17
IV. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................... 18

Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places ............................................................ 18
Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP ................................................................................... 35
Properties 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
BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey ii

LIST OF FIGURES
1. Project location map depicting the project’s APE. ................................................................................... 3
2. Portion of Burr’s 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). ................................................................. 13
5. Map of the village of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888). .............................................................. 14
6. Location of historic properties within project’s 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
BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey iii

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, New
York. 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 that
will connect to an existing transmission grid substation.
The turbines would have a maximum height of approximately 400 feet from the tip of the rotor
blade 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. A
transformer 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 multiple
sections. 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
project’s area of potential effects (APE) for the historic architectural survey is 5 miles from the
wind turbine locations. An overhead transmission line that is also a project component had its
own ¾-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 a
previous project survey (the St. Lawrence Wind Project; see Keenoy and Holland 2008) north of
the 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 Holland
2008), Appendix 1 provides a master list of all resources identified within the project’s 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
BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 1

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). Those
properties previously inventoried by TRC for the St. Lawrence project that are within the current
project’s 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 sequential
resource 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 for
NRHP 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.

North
APE for turbines and transmission line
Figure 1. Project location map depicting the project’s APE.

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. In
the 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 now
Jefferson 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 Stony
Creek 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 seventeenth
century, 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 permanent
settlements 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 Haldimand
on 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 Fort
Schuyler, 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, which
included 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
Macomb’s 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 Ray’s involvement brought a
number of Frenchmen fleeing the Revolution, many of whom were from the wealthy classes of
France (Mosher 2006).
Le Ray’s 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 the
Black 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

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, and
the 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 Great
Bend 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 of
the 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
Ray’s agent for his holdings in Tract No. 4, which included the project area. The town of
Brownsville 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
Penet’s Square, a grant set aside by the Oneida Indians as a gift to Pierre Penet, who had been an
ally of the tribe. The title to this tract was clouded by rumors of Penet’s 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 Macomb’s Purchase had been surveyed during the
Castorland 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 this
selective 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 a
ferry from that point to Wolf Island. A number of families of French descent settled at Port
Putnam, including Count Real, Napoleon’s 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; 2-15–2-18).
A few miles downstream from Port Putnam, a Captain Bartlett made the first settlement in what
is now the town of Clayton. He was sent there by Le Ray’s 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 in
1803, but it proved expensive to operate due to its isolated location (Hough 1854).

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 and
established 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 after
a 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. The
location was originally known as Gravelly Point. The village was laid out in 1817 and named for
James Le Ray’s 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 mid
nineteenth century, then leveled off as agricultural lands were maximized and Watertown’s
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 regular
troops 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 a
gunboat 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. The
dozen 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 Wilkinson’s U.S. Army was encamped at Cape Vincent in late 1813 and
brought 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 Catholic
and 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. A
customs house was established at the village of Cape Vincent the same year, increasing its

importance as a trade and administrative center. An important shipbuilding industry also
developed there beginning in 1819, cementing the village’s connection to the water. A lighthouse
was 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 Paul’s Catholic Church in Cape
Vincent (1851), the former Presbyterian Church (1823), and St. John’s Episcopal Church (1841)
(Emerson 1898; Harwood 1985; Missionaries of the Sacred Heart n.d.).
Burr’s (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 named
settlement 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 just
outside 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 the
villages 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 of
these 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 names
before 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 short
distance 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 Angel’s settlement soon faded. In
1835, an article in the Watertown Eagle noted that ten years previous there had been nothing on
the site of the village of Clayton, but that at that time there were 93 buildings and 73 families
representing 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 first
St. 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 others
used by nineteenth century watermen and tourists (Hough 1854; Johnston 2005; Mosher 2006;
Nulton 1981:8; Stevens 1895:662).

North
Figure 2. Portion of Burr’s map of Jefferson County in 1829 showing the project vicinity.

The village of Three Mile Bay, in the town of Lyme, emerged in the 1830s as a shipbuilding and
fishing village. Asa Wilcox’s 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 By
the 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 were
primarily 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 and
regionally, 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 European
markets, 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. 1986:2-25–2-51).
Antebellum growth in Jefferson County led to the creation of a number of new towns during the
period. 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 580
families 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, livestock
holdings, 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 increasingly
complex 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 were
located 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, carrying
passengers and freight. To handle the freight, the railroad constructed a 3,000-foot wharf, two

0 Miles 1.5
rth
No
PROJECT RADIUS
BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey
10
Figure 3. Beers and Beers’ 1864 atlas of Jefferson County showing the project area.
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 the
development of Cape Vincent’s 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, the
Beers 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 Settlement
about 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 Beers
map 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 large
numbers, 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. Smaller
landowners 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 to
135 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 home
consumption and was traded locally; however, creameries were also established for processing
milk into butter (Friedlander et al. 1986:2-24, 2-51–2-54).
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. Much
of 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) lists
nine 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

provided employment for many of Jefferson County’s 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 Cape
Vincent (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 seed
companies 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 become
summer 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 Agriculturalist published a farm directory of Jefferson County that
includes 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 approximately
422 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 10
percent 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 were
73 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 (Mosher
2006). 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 for
male workers (City-data.com 2007a)
The nationwide Depression of the 1930s affected the project area significantly because of the
resultant 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 in
1952 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).

Figure 4. Map of the town of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888).

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey
14
Figure 5. Map of the village of Cape Vincent in 1888 (Robinson 1888).

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. Patton’s 4th Armored Division. The land continued to be used as a
training 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 County’s 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 the
construction 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 111,000
in 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 population
of 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. Census
Bureau 2007; City-data.com 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).

III. METHODS
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The architectural and historical inventory was conducted in accordance with guidelines provided
by the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY-SHPO) in Albany and National
Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Survey
information (including field notes, sketch maps, photographs, informant interviews, and New
York State Historic Resource Inventory Forms) was collected and maintained throughout the
course 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 significant
contribution 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, or

method 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) information
important 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 the
historic 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) during
the associated period of significance;

x Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory;
x Feeling: the property’s (or properties’) expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of the period
of significance; and
x Association: the direct link between the important historic event(s) or person(s) and the historic
property (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 of
historic 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 sites
as well as a ¾-mile radius around a proposed overhead transmission line. Areas that were
determined through a visual impacts study to have no view of the turbines and are outside of the
¾-mile transmission line survey corridor were excluded from the Project’s 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 York
Historic 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.

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 ¾-mile transmission line APE.
PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Forty-one NRHP-listed (NRL) properties were identified within the project’s 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 20–21 and 24–26), 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 Table
1. Figure 7 provides recent views of all NRL properties within the APE.

HR-72
INSET A - CAPE VINCENT VILLAGE

INSET B - CARLETON ISLAND
NRL-1 T 380 5-mile APE for turbines
NRL-3
T 155
NRL-11 T 147 HR-33 Eligible for NRHP - St. Lawrence survey
NRL-2 T 209
NRL-25 HR-40
NRL-21 HR-41 T 368 C-4 Listed on NRHP - St. Lawrence survey
T 505 HR-42
T 129 HR-43
T 127 T 269
T 264 HR-44 Eligible for NRHP - BP Cape Vincent survey
T 126 HR-45
T 50 T 247 T 356
T 48 NRL-22 Note:
NRL-36 NRL-35 T 346
T 26 SEE INSET B
Resources beginning with ‘T’ identified by Tetra Tech
NRL-23
T 47 NRL-26 T 337 NRL 18 Resources beginning with ‘HR’ identified by TRC
T 25 NRL-19 T 336
T 24 NRL-17 NRL-24 Resources beginning with ‘BP’ identified by TRC
T 167 NRL 6
T 184 T 428
T 20 T 36 T 181 NRL 14
T 21 T 98 T 420 HR-71 Turbines
T 176 T 421
T 101
BROADWAY T 93 T 470
HISTORIC NRL-20
T 91 T 471 Transmission line corridors with 0.75 mile APE
DISTRICT T 78 C-3
NRL-10
T 473 Number of turbines visibile:
T 301 NRL 15
T 297 0
SEE INSET A BP-5
C-1 T 484 T-479
1–20
NRL 4
T 445 HR-70
T 450 21–40
NRL-8 T 453
NRL-5 HR-18 41–60
T 14 T 464
HR-17 HR-68
NRL-13
HR-16 HR-20 61–80
HR-15 T 461
NRL-9 T 10 HR-22
T7 BP-6
81–95
HR-63
NRL-28 HR-69
T4 NRL-12
NRL-7
HR-62
HR-12
HR-9
NRL-27 SEE INSET D
HR-11
NRL-50
BP-41
SEE INSET C 0 Miles 2
HR-64
North 0 Feet 10000
0 Kilometers 3
BP-12 INSET C - CHAUMONT VILLAGE
NRL-29 BP-8
BP-49 BP-9
HR-50
HR-52 NRL-32
HR-36 HR-53
INSET D - THREE MILE BAY NRL-30 NRL-31
HR-55
HR-56
NRL-33
BP-48 BP-34
HR-54
BP-20 BP-33
NRL-42
NRL-41
NRL-43 BP-26 NRL-39
BP-31 PROJECT AREA
NRL-38
BP-21 BP-30
BP-18 NRL-40
BP-42
Note: Inset scale is 1:24,000

BP-46
Figure 6. Location of historic properties within project’s APE. BP Cape Vincent Windfarm Project: Historic Architectural Survey 19
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-15
St. 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-28
Wilcox 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
Main Street, NW corner of Main and
Old Stone Shop (90NR03000) NRL-39
Mill, Three Mile Bay
Taylor Boat House (90NR03005) Bay View Drive, Three Mile Bay NRL-40
Corner of Main and Depot Streets,
Menzo Wheeler House (90NR02999) NRL-41
Three Mile Bay
Church and Depot Streets, Three Mile
Three Mile Bay Historic District (90NR03006) NRL-42
Bay
The Row Historic District (90NR03003) Main Street, Chaumont NRL-43
District School 3 (90NR00059) Corner of NY 3 and CR 57, Lyme NRL-50

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

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

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

NRL-10
Broadway Historic District
Western edge of the Village of Cape

Vincent 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

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

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

NRL-20
Gen Sacket House
467 James Street, Cape Vincent
NRL-21
Lewis House
230 Market Street, Cape Vincent
NRL-22
Anthony Levi building

NRL-23
Aubertine Building
NRL-24
Glen Building
NRL-25
Roxy Hotel

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

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

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

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

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

NRL-43
The Row Historic District
Main Street, Three Mile Bay
NRL-50
District School 3
NY 3 & CR 7, Lyme

PROPERTIES DETERMINED ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP
Eighty-seven historic properties that are located within the Project’s APE and are within view of
at least one turbine have been reviewed and determined eligible for the NRHP by the NY-SHPO
during 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
24 NRE 596 W. Broadway Cape Vincent 4547.000006
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
98 NRE 179 W. Lake Street Cape Vincent 4547.000145
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

Table 3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP (continued).
336 NRE 34725 County Route 7 Cape Vincent
337 NRE 34765 CR7 Cape Vincent 4505.000135
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 4505.000111
464 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 12E
HR-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 and Cape Vincent
Dezengremel roads
HR-22 UN 30252 Burnt Rock Road Cape Vincent
HR-33 NRE 36818 Fish Pond Road (County Clayton
Route 4)
HR-36 NRE Grenadier Island Road #3 Cape Vincent
HR-40 NRE 3063 Carleton Island Road #1 Cape Vincent

Table 3. Inventoried Properties Determined Eligible for the NRHP (continued).
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
Robinson Road, west of Three Mile
HR-68 NRE Creek Lyme
HR-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 Clayton
NRE = National Register Eligible; UN = unevaluated (and considered NRE)

contour interval = 10 feet
Listed on NRHP - St. Lawrence survey
0 mile 1
Eligible for NRHP - BP Cape Vincent survey North 0 feet 4000
Note: 0 kilometer 1
Resources beginning with ‘BP’ identified by TRC Map source: Cape Vincent North/Cape Vincent South,
N.Y. Quadrangles, 7.5 minute series
Turbines
BP Cape Vincent Windfarm Project: Historic Architectural Survey

NRL-29
BP-49
38
Figure 8, Sheet 1. Map showing the location of historic properties in the immediate vicinity of the turbine array.
NRL-8
T 14
HR-18
T 464
HR-17
NRL-12
T 10 HR-16
HR-15
T7
NRL-7
T4

contour interval = 10 feet Eligible for NRHP - St. Lawrence survey
HR-12
0 mile 1 Note:
North 0 feet 4000 Resources beginning with ‘T’ identified by Tetra Tech
0 kilometer 1 Resources beginning with ‘HR’ identified by TRC
Map source: Cape Vincent North/Cape Vincent South, Turbines
39
0 mile 1
NRL-4 North 0 feet 4000
0 kilometer 1
Map source: Cape Vincent North/Cape Vincent South,
T 445
T 450
T 453
NRL-13
HR-18 HR-20 T 461

T 464
HR-22

Eligible for NRHP - St. Lawrence survey

NRL-12
Note:
Resources beginning with ‘HR’ identified by TRC
Turbines
40
T 428
T 420
T 421
NRL-14
NRL-15
0 mile 1
North 0 feet 4000
0 kilometer 1
Map source: Cape Vincent North/Cape Vincent South,

Eligible for NRHP - St. Lawrence survey
Note:
Turbines
41
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 ¾-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 potentially
eligible) 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 and
not 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-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

Table 5. Historic Properties Recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP.
Number Address Town
BP-1 27323 Fox Creek Road Cape Vincent
BP-4 13733 Wood Road Lyme
BP-32 8690 Church Street, Three Mile Bay Lyme
BP-35 26940 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

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 at
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nj1/index.htm Access date: 3 October
2007]
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. 1684–1890. Published by the
author, 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 the
Towns. 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.

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.
1860 Gazetteer 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 Rural
Historic 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, 1927–1941. Washington, D.C.: National Park
Service (Cultural Resources Division, Pacific Northwest Region)
Haddock, John A.
1894 The Growth of a Century – As Illustrated in the History of Jefferson County, New
York, 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, electronic
document,
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.

Missionaries of the Sacred Heart
n.d. The Catholic Community of Cape Vincent, Rosiere and Chaumont. Electronic
document, http://www.cvrchparish.org/history.htm.
Mosher, Marc
2006 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. Master’s thesis,
Georgetown University. Copy available at Hawn Memorial Library, Clayton, New York.
Powell, Thomas F.
1976 Penet’s Square: Episode in the Early History of Northern New York. Northcountry
Books, Lakemont, New York.
Reinle, A., and Claire Bonney

1982 French Émigré Houses in Jefferson County. (Self-published, 1982). Copy available
at Flower Memorial Library, Watertown, New York.
Rexford, Eva
2001 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 Robinson’s Atlas of Jefferson County, New York. E. Robinson, New York.
Saratoga Associates
2007 St. Lawrence Wind Energy Project Visual Resource Assessment. Prepared for Tetra
Tech EC, Inc. Morris Plains, NJ.
Sexton, James and Caleb W. Christopher

2007 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 Windpower
LLC.
Stevens, Albert Clark

1895 Other Industries: Boats, Canoes, and Shells. In One Hundred Years of American
Commerce, edited by Chauncey M. Depew, pp. 648–674. D. O. Haynes & Company, New
York.
Sullivan, James (editor)

1927 A Brief Early History of the Counties of New York. In History of New York State,
1523–1927. Reprinted online, http://www.hopefarm.com/nycounty.htm.

U.S. Army
2007 Fort Drum History. U.S. Army Installation Command, Northeast Region. Electronic
document, 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 York–A Guide to the Empire State. Writer’s Program of the Works Progress
Administration. Oxford University Press, New York.

Resource No. SHPO Review Notes Resource No. SHPO Review Notes
4 NRE 420 NRE
7 NRE 421 NRE
10 NRE 424 NRE
14 NRE 428 NRE
20 NRE 445 NRE
21 NRE 450 NRE
24 NRE 453 NRE
25 NRE 461 NRE
26 NRE 464 NRE
36 NRE 470 NRE
47 NRE 471 NRE
48 NRE 473 NRE
50 NRE 479 NRE
78 NRE 484 NRE
91 NRE 505 NRE
93 NRE C-1 Unevaluated
98 NRE C-3 NRE
101 NRE C-4 Unevaluated
126 NRE HR-9 NRE
127 Unevaluated HR-11 Unevaluated
129 NRE HR-12 NRE
147 Unevaluated HR-15 NRE
155 NRE HR-16 NRE
167 NRE HR-17 NRE
176 NRE HR-18 NRE
181 NRE HR-20 NRE
184 NRE HR-33 NRE
209 NRE HR-36 NRE
247 NRE HR-40 NRE
264 NRE HR-41 NRE
269 NRE HR-42 NRE
297 NRE HR-43 NRE
301 NRE HR-44 NRE
336 NRE HR-45 NRE
337 NRE HR-50 NRE
346 NRE HR-52 NRE
356 NRE HR-53 NRE
358 NRE HR-54 NRE
359 NRE HR-55 NRE
368 NRE HR-56 NRE
380 NRE HR-62 NRE
408 NRE HR-63 NRE
NRE = National Register Eligible; NRL = National Register Listed
PE = Potentially Eligible; Rec. = Recommended
Resource No. SHPO Review Notes Resource No. SHPO Review Notes
HR-64 NRE BP-37 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO
HR-70 NRE BP-41 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPO
BP-1 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO BP-47 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO
BP-2 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO BP-48 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPO
BP-3 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO BP-49 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPO
BP-4 Rec. Not Eligible Not reviewed by SHPO
BP-5 Rec. NRE Not reviewed by SHPO
NRE = National Register Eligible; NRL = National Register Listed
PE = Potentially Eligible; Rec. = Recommended
APPENDIX 2. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE BY NY-SHPO
(Inventory forms available on Project website.)

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Archaeology Facility Report - SUNY

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

TRC Project #159220

Authored by Ruth Keenoy and Jeffrey Holland

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii

II. HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 4

III. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 16

IV. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................................................... 18

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

APPENDIX 1. MASTER LIST OF INVENTORIED PROPERTIES

APPENDIX 2. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES DETERMINED ELIGIBLE BY

APPENDIX 3. INVENTORY FORMS FOR PROPERTIES NOT YET EVALUATED BY NY-

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

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey ii

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey iii

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 1

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 2

APE for turbines and transmission line

Figure 1. Project location map depicting the project’s APE.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK, AND THE

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 4

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 5

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 6

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 7

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 8

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 9

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 11

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 12

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 13

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

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 15

x Criterion C (Design/Construction). Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or

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

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 16

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 17

PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 18

INSET A - CAPE VINCENT VILLAGE

Note: Inset scale is 1:24,000

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 20

Jean Philipe Galbrand du Fort House

313 James Street, Cape Vincent

John Borland House

127 Joseph Street, Cape Vincent

Otis Starkey House

9500 Point Street

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 21

Warren Wilson House

4670 Favret Road, Cape Vincent

Captain Louis Peugnet House

32115 County Road 6, Cape Vincent

George Reynolds House

34191 State Highway 12E, Cape Vincent

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 22

Reuter Dyer House

29902 County Road 4, Cape Vincent

Nicholas Cocaigne House

2867 Fevret Road, Cape Vincent

33071 Tibbetts Point Road, Cape Vincent

BP Cape Vincent Wind Project: Historic Architectural Survey 23