HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix_R_-_Phase_1A_Culutral_Resources_Survey.pdfPrepared by:
edr Companies
217 Montgomery St., Suite 1000
Syracuse, New York 13202
P. 315.471.0688
F. 315.471.1061
www.edrcompanies.com
Prepared for:
Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC
P.O. Box 547
Ithaca, New York 14850
P. 607.330.0399
www.blackoakwindny.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield
Tompkins County, New York
Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey
February 2013
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
SHPO Project Review Number: ____
Involved State and Federal Agencies: Town Board of the Town of Enfield
Phase of Survey: Phase 1A
Location Information: Town of Enfield, Tompkins County
Survey Area:
Project Description: 7 wind turbines and associated infrastructure
Project Area: approximately 1,060 acres
USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map: Alpine, Burdett, Ithaca West, Mecklenburg, Montour Falls, and West
Danby, NY
Archeological Survey Overview:
Number/interval of shovel tests: n/a (Phase 1A only)
Number/size of excavation units: n/a (Phase 1A only)
Pedestrian surface survey: n/a (Phase 1A only)
Surface survey transect interval: n/a (Phase 1A only)
Report Authors: Patrick Heaton, RPA
Dan Barbato
Grant Johnson
Eric Lockard
Date of Report: February 2013
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location and Description ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Previously Identified Archeological Sites ....................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Previously Identified Historic-Architectural Resources .................................................................................. 5
2.4 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys ............................................................................................................. 7
2.5 History of the Project Site .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.6 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 12
3.1 Prehistoric Native-American Archeological Sensitivity Assessment ............................................................ 12
3.2 Historic Period Archeological Sensitivity Assessment ................................................................................. 12
3.3 Prior Ground Disturbance ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Potential Effect on Archeological Resources ............................................................................................... 14
4.2 Potential Effect on Historic-Architectural Resources ................................................................................... 14
4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 16
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Dominant Soils within the Project Site.............................................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Archeological Sites Located in the Vicinity of the Project Site ......................................................................... 4
Table 3. Historic Resources Located in the Vicinity of the Project ................................................................................. 6
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Project Location
Figure 2. Project Site Topography
Figure 3. Proposed Project Layout
Figure 4. Project Site Soils
Figure 5. Previously Identified Cultural Resources
Figure 6. 1853 Fagan Map of Tompkins County, New York
Figure 7. 1866 Stone & Stewart New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York.
Figure 8. 1895 USGS Ithaca, NY Topographic Map
Figure 9. 1969 USGS Mecklenburg, NY Topographic Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Photographs
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Investigation
On behalf of Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC, edr Companies (edr) prepared a Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey for
the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm, located in the Town of Enfield, in Tompkins County, New York. The purpose of
the Phase 1A survey is to determine whether previously identified cultural resources (historic and archeological sites)
are located in the areas that may be affected by the proposed project, and to evaluate the potential for previously
unidentified cultural resources to be located in the project’s area of potential effect (APE). T he information included
in this Phase 1A cultural resources survey report is intended to assist the Town Board of the Town of Enfield in their
review of the proposed project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Background research
for the Phase 1A survey was conducted under the supervision of a Registered Professional Archeologist (RPA) in a
manner consistent with the New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development
Cultural Resources Survey Work (the SHPO Wind Guidelines) issued by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) in 2006. The Phase 1A report was prepared in accordance with
NYSOPRHP’s Phase 1 Archeological Report Format Requirements (NYSOPRHP, 2006).
1.2 Project Location and Description
Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the Project Sponsor) is proposing to develop a wind-powered
generating facility in the Town of Enfield, Tompkins County (Figure 1). The Project site is located approximately
seven miles west-southwest of the City of Ithaca, four miles northwest of the hamlet of Newfield, and six miles
northeast of the Village of Odessa (as measured to the nearest turbine). The Project site includes approximately
1,100 acres of private land (owned by six individual landowners) in an area roughly bounded by Cayutaville Road to
the south, the Schuyler County line to the west, Weatherby Road to the north, and Connecticut Hill Road to the east
(Figure 2). The proposed Project site is located on rolling, elevated plateaus that are dissected by tributaries (and
their associated ravines) to Seneca Lake, Cayuga Lake, and the Susquehanna River. Elevations in the Project site
range from approximately 1,450 to 1,960 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Slopes within the Project site range from
0 to 20 percent.
The Project will consist of seven 1.8 megawatt (MW) wind turbines for a total generating capacity of 12.6 MW. As
presently envisioned, the wind turbines proposed for this Project are the REpower MM100 1.8 MW turbines
manufactured by REpower Systems SE. Because the Project is not scheduled to be built until late 2013, issues such
as availability and cost could dictate use of an alternate turbine. However, any turbine ultima tely selected will be
roughly equivalent in terms of its dimensions, appearance, and electrical output. Each wind turbine consists of three
major components; the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor. The height of the tower, or “hub height” (height from
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 2
foundation to top of tower) will be approximately 80 meters (262.5 feet). The nacelle sits atop the tower, and the
rotor hub is mounted to the front of the nacelle. The three-bladed rotor has a diameter of 100 meters (328 feet). The
total turbine height (i.e., height at the highest blade tip position) will be approximately 130 meters, or 426.5 feet. In
addition, the Project will include approximately 2.5 miles of access roads, 4.2 miles of 34.5 kV underground electrical
interconnect, a substation, a meteorological tower and two construction staging areas (Figure 3). All Project facilities
are to be located in Tompkins County.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 3
2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
2.1 Geology and Soils
The Project site is located in the Town of Enfield in Tompkins County. Tompkins County is primarily located in the
Allegheny Plateau physiographic province, with a small part within the Erie Ontario Plain (Cayuga Lake Valley).
Bedrock consists of shale, fine-grained sandstone, and thin limestone from the Devonian age (USDA, 1965). The
nearest large body of water, Cayuga Lake, is located eight miles northeast of the Project site.
edr reviewed the Soil Survey of Tompkins County, New York (USDA, 1965) for data concerning soils within the
Project site as well as electronic data for Tompkins County from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS, 2012). The dominant soil series/complexes within the Project site (Figure 4) include Erie channery silt loam
(EbB, and EbC), Langford channery silt loam (LaB, LaC, and LaC3), and Bath and Valois gravelly silt loam (BgC, and
BgD). Cumulatively, these soils cover over 66% of the Project site. With respect to soil drainage, approximately 47
percent of the soils within the Project site are moderately well drained, approximately 30 percent are somewhat
poorly drained, approximately 23 percent well drained, and less than one percent are poorly to v ery poorly drained.
Table 1 summarizes typical characteristics for the dominant soils (i.e., those soils that cover more than 100 acres)
located within the Project site.
Table 1. Dominant Soils within the Project Site
Map Unit
Name
Acres w/in
Project Site
Soil Horizon
& Depth Description Slope Drainage
& Landform
Langford channery
silt loam
(LaB/LaC/
LaC3)
LaB: 187
LaC: 156
LaC3: 3
0-18cm (0-7in)
18-38cm (7-15in)
38-56cm (15-22in)
56-76cm (22-30in)
76-132cm (30-52in)
132-152cm (52-60in)
Dark grayish-brown channery silt loam
Yellowish-brown channery silt loam
Grayish-brown channery loam
or very fine sandy loam
Dark grayish-brown channery silt loam
Dark grayish-brown to olive-brown
channery heavy silt loam
Light olive-brown to olive-brown
channery silt loam
(LaB): 2-8% slopes
(LaC): 8-15% slopes
(LaC3): 8-15% slopes, eroded
Moderately well drained;
Undulating to moderately
steep areas where little
excess water can accumulate
Erie
channery
silt loam
(EbB/EbC)
EbB: 237
EbC: 8
0-23cm (0-9in)
23-38cm (9-15in)
38-71cm (15-28in)
71-107cm (28-42in)
107-152cm (42-60in)
Dark grayish-brown channery silt loam
Mottled yellowish-brown, grayish-brown,
and light brownigh-gray channery silt loam
Olive channery heavy loam to light clay loam
Olive-brown/light olive-brown channery loam
Olive channery silt loam w/ few, fine,
faint, olive-brown mottles
(EbB): 3-8% slopes
(EbC):8-15% slopes
Somewhat poorly drained;
Extensive, gently to
moderately sloping upland areas
Bath and
Valois
gravelly
silt loam
(BgC/ BgD)
BgC: 101
BgD:11
0-3cm (0-1in)
3-4cm (1-1.5in)
4-5cm (1.5-2in)
5-30cm(2-12in)
30-66cm(12-26in)
66-76cm(26-30in)
76-102cm(30-40in)
102-122cm(40-48in)
Very dark brown silt loam
Dark-brown channery silt loam
Brown and dark-brown channery silt loam
Dark yellowish-brown channery silt loam
Yellowish-brown channery silt loam
Grayish-brown, light olive-brown, and
dark yellowish-brown channery sandy loam
Olive-brown very channery silt loam
Broken channery Fragments
(BgC): 5-15% slope
(BgD):15-25% slope
Well drained;
Moderate to strongly
sloping hillsides or uplands
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 4
2.2 Previously Identified Archeological Sites
In accordance with NYSOPRHP’s Phase 1 Archeological Report Format Requirements (NYSOPRHP, 2005), this
Phase 1A report includes a summary of previously identified archeological sites located within one mile of the
Project. edr retained Croshier Archeological Services to conduct a review of the consolidated archeological site files
of the NYSOPRHP and New York State Museum (NYSM) to identify archeological sites located in the vicinity of the
Project. No previously identified archeological sites are located within the Project site. There are 20 previously
reported archeological sites located within five miles of the Project site (see Table 2; Figure 5).
Table 2. Archeological Sites Located in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Site
Identifier Site Name Time Period Description
Distance from
Project Site
(Miles)
097.01.0012 Rogers (SUBi-946) Late Archaic Surface traces visible; heavy
debris 2.1
NYSM 9026 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2.5
NYSM 9027 Unknown Unknown Unknown 2.6
NYSM 4785 ACP SCHY-5 Unknown ACP small village 2.7
097.01.0013 Clauson (SUBi-945) Late Archaic Surface traces visible;
Brewerton points, debitage 2.9
NYSM 9028 Unknown Unknown Unknown 3.1
097.01.0016 Allen I (SUBi-920) Late Woodland/
Early Owasco
Surface traces visible,
distinct artifact clusters 3.1
NYSM 4796 ACP SCHY-16 Prehistoric village ACP Small village 3.1
097.01.0014 Allen II (SUBi-921) Unknown One flake, one shell 3.5
NYSM 2192 ITH 3-1RMSC Prehistoric Iroquois village 3.5
NYSM 4797 ACP SCHY Unknown Traces of occupation 3.7
NYSM 4794 ACP SCHY-14 Unknown ACP Camp 4.0
NYSM 9030 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4.2
NYSM 9029 Unknown Unknown Unknown 4.2
NYSM 5029 ACP TOMK 12 Unknown Burial site 4.3
097.01.0007 Loveless II (SUBi-923) Woodland Reported pottery and net
sinkers (reported ca. 1940) 4.3
097.01.0018 Sibley (SUBi-926) Unknown Disturbed; damaged from
relic hunting 4.4
097.01.0015 Loveless I (SUBi-922) Late Archaic Surface traces visible 4.4
109.08.0093 Carter Creek I
Pre-contact Site Unknown prehistoric Prehistoric lithic scatter 4.7
109.08.0094 Carter Creek II
Pre-contact Site Unknown prehistoric Prehistoric lithic scatter 4.8
Many of the Native American archeological sites within five miles of the Project represent recorded locations of sites
from the early-twentieth century, as reported in inventories such as The Aboriginal Occupation of New York
(Beauchamp, 1900) and The Archaeological History of New York State (Parker, 1922). NYSM Sites 4785 and 4796
are located along New York State Route 228 and south of State Route 79, west of the Project site and are described
as “small villages,” which implies a concentrated area from which Native American artifacts have been recovered or
reported (Parker, 1922). NYSM Site 4794 is described as a camp (also located west of the Project) and NYSM site
5029, located southeast of the Project in Newfield, is identified as a burial site (Parker, 1922). The Rogers, Clauson,
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 5
and Loveless I sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 097.01.000012, 097.01.000013, 097.01.000015; see Table 2) indicate use of
upland areas in the region by Native Americans during the Late Archaic Period, ca. 5,000-3,000 years ago (Levine,
2004). Continued Native American occupation and use of the study area into the Woodland Period, ca. 3,000 -1,500
years ago, is indicated by the Allen I and Loveless II sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 097.01.000016 and 097.01.000007).
The Carter Creek I and II sites (NYSOPRHP Sites 109.08.0093 and 109.08.0094) were identified during archeology
surveys conducted in association with a bridge replacement along State Route 13 (Ross and Schmitt, 2009 and
2011; Ross, 2010). These are prehistoric-period archeological sites that represent potential remains associated with
a Native American trade route. Previous investigations at these sites determined that they lacked integrity due to the
extent of previous disturbance.
2.3 Previously Identified Historic-Architectural Resources
edr reviewed the State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) database maintained by
NYSOPRHP to identify significant historic buildings and/or districts located within five miles of the Project.
Historically significant properties include buildings, districts, objects, structures and/or sites listed, or that
NYSOPRHP has formally determined are eligible for listing, on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Criteria set forth by the National Park Service for evaluating historic properties (36 CFR 60.4) state that a
building, district, object, structure or site is significant (i.e., eligible for listing on the NRHP) if the property conveys:
“The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are
associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master,
or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history” (CFR, 2004a; NPS, 1990).
Per the SHPO Wind Guidelines, the APE for visual impacts on historic properties for wind projects is defined as those
areas within five miles of a project which are within the potential viewshed (based on topography) of the project
(NYSOPRHP, 2006). This report provides a conservative presentation and includes all historic resources located
within five miles of the Project (i.e., not only the resources within the Project’s viewshed). Historic properties located
within five miles of the Project are listed in Table 3 and shown on Figure 5.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 6
Table 3. Historic Resources Located in the Vicinity of the Project
Site
Identifier Property Name, Address, and/or Description Determination Distance from
Nearest Turbine (Miles)
90NR02242 Enfield Falls Mill and Miller’s House –
Robert H. Treman State Park NRHP-Listed 3.4
99NR01549 Newfield Covered Bridge – Hamlet of Newfield NRHP-Listed 4.3
95NR00761 Enfield Baptist Church – Hamlet of Enfield NRHP-Eligible 2.4
95NR00761
NY Route 228, Structure #20 (residence)
Hector, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.0
109.08.0034
NY Route 228, Structure #26 (Chiment residence ca. 1800)
Hector, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.2
109.08.0038
NY Route 228, Structure #15 (residence)
Catharine, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 3.9
109.08.0033 1504 NY Rte 13 Farmhouse – Town of Newfield NRHP-Eligible 4.2
109.08.0082 368 Main Street – Hamlet of Newfield NRHP-Eligible 4.6
109.08.0030
NY Route 228, Structure #11 (residence),
Catharine, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 4.8
109.08.0029
NY Route 228, Structure #10 (Van Lone barn),
Catharine, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 4.9
109.08.0028
NY Route 228, Structure #8 (residence),
Catharine, Schuyler County
(Location is approximate, may have been demolished)
NRHP-Eligible (District) 5.0
Historic resources listed on the NRHP located within five miles of the Project include the Enfield Falls Mill and
Millhouse and Newfield Covered Bridge. The Enfield Falls Mill and Millowner’s House are located in Robert H.
Treman State Park, 3.4-miles east of the Project (see Appendix A: Photographs 11-12). The house and mill were
originally constructed ca. 1839 as part of the former community of Enfield Falls, and are used today for park facilities
(Breyer, 1978). The Newfield Covered Bridge, which spans the Cayuga Inlet Creek and is located 4.3-mile southeast
of the Project, is the last of three covered bridges in Tompkins County, and was erected from 1851-1853 (Smith,
1999; see Appendix A: Photograph 14).
There are nine properties that have been determined by NYSOPRHP to be NRHP-eligible within five miles of the
Project. These include three individual buildings and a potential historic district that includes six structures. The
Enfield Baptist Church is a 2.5-story front-gabled church with projecting center tower and pointed arch windows, set
on an elevated stone foundation, and is located 2.4-miles from the Project, in Enfield. The house at 1504 NY-13 is a
two-story Italianate house with paired sawn wood brackets and decorative porch bracketing, located 4.2 -mile to the
southeast of the Project. The house at 368 Main Street in Newfield is a two-story Italianate house with cupola and L-
shaped plan located 4.6-miles southeast of the Project. The potential historic district on NY Route 228 between the
hamlets of Odessa and Mecklenburg, located between three and five miles from the Project, includes five residences
and a barn that were identified as part of a cultural resource survey of NY-228 (Ewing, 1984). It is worth noting that
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 7
location information in this report was not adequate to determine the street address or exact location of these five
resources. Their present condition, including whether or not they are still standing, could not be determined.
In addition, there are numerous nineteenth-century structures, primarily residences and farmsteads, which have not
been previously evaluated by NYSOPRHP to determine if they are NRHP-eligible. These types of resources are
typically determined NRHP-eligible under NRHP Criterion C (i.e., they “embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction” [CFR, 2004a]), and often derive their significance from being representative
examples of vernacular nineteenth-century architectural styles that retain their overall integrity of design and
materials. The architectural integrity of historic resources throughout the five-mile radius study area is highly
variable, with many showing noticeable alteration.
2.4 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys
Several cultural resources surveys had been previously undertaken within the five-mile study area, though no
previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the Project site . The locations of previously
surveyed locations are depicted in Figure 5. These surveys are described below:
A cultural resources survey report was conducted between 1983 and 1984 for New York State Department
of Transportation (NYSDOT) PIN 6019.09, which included proposed highway improvements along
approximately 7.5 miles between Mecklenburg and Odessa along Route 228 in the Towns of Catharine and
Hector in Schuyler County (Ewing, 1984). In total, 55 shovel test pits were excavated, which yielded historic
cultural materials such as nails, ceramics, and glass. No prehistoric cultural materials were uncovered.
Two previously known archeological sites were unable to be surveyed due to lack of owner consent. Six
historic structures were identified as potentially eligible for the NRHP. No impact on culturally significant
resources was anticipated.
In 1981 and 1982, cultural resource surveys were conducted for the proposed Newfield Sewer District in the
hamlet of Newfield (McDowell-Loudan and Loudan, 1982), approximately 4.0 miles southeast of the Project
site. A total of 94 test pits were excavated, resulting in the recovery of minimal historic-period cultural
material (one clinker and one bone). No historic architectural resources were surveyed. No significant
cultural resources were identified, and the report concluded that construction of the sewer lines would not
result in any impacts to cultural resources.
A cultural resources survey was conducted in 1984 for NYSDOT PIN 3057.19.121 along Route 13 in the
Town of Newfield (Lord, Jr., 1985). The survey identified no prehistoric or historic archeological sites, and
no further investigations were recommended.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 8
At the very southern portion of the study area, a Phase I cultural resource survey was conducted for the
Pipeline TL-473 (Extension I) in Tompkins County (NPW, 1989). The survey ran roughly parallel to and
southeast of NY Route 13 for a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, and did not identify any archeological
sites or culturally significant materials. The pipeline was later realigned and the alternate route was
surveyed with the same results as the previous survey (NPW, 1991). No cultural resources were identified
and no additional work was recommended.
A cultural resources reconnaissance survey was conducted in 1995 for NYSDOT PIN 3057.40.101, which
included NY Route 13 and Trumbull Corners Road in the hamlet of Newfield (Reeves, Rafferty and Kastl,
1995). No prehistoric artifacts were recovered during this survey. Historic artifacts were uncovered in 30
shovel test pits, but none was determined to be culturally significant. A fieldstone foundation and fieldstone-
lined depression associated with map-documented structures were noted within the survey area. Four
structures were identified, none of which were considered to be architecturally significant.
A Phase I cultural resource survey was undertaken for Tompkins Well #1, a proposed gas well site and
access road in the Town of Newfield in 2002 (Pratt and Pratt, 2002). No historic or prehistoric sites were
discovered as a result of the survey, and no further work was recommended.
Cultural resource reconnaissance surveys were conducted for NYSDOT PIN 3057.57.101/BIN 1010290,
Route 13 over Carter Creek in the Town of Newfield (Ross and Schmitt, 2009 and 2011; Ross, 2010). Both
prehistoric and historic materials were uncovered during subsurface testing. Prehistoric materials consisted
of stone debitage, and historic materials included domestic and architectural remains. Two sites, Carter
Creek I and II, were identified as a result of this survey. The sites were initially believed to be associated
with a prehistoric trade route, but were later determined to be disturbed by previous road widening and
therefore not NRHP-eligible. An architectural survey was conducted for a 1959 concrete bridge (BIN
1010290) that was determined not to be eligible for the NRHP. The bridge was slated for replacement. An
addendum survey was conducted in 2011 and found no culturally significant materials or architecturally
significant structures, though a vacant and dilapidated nineteenth century structure was surveyed and
determined not to be eligible for the NRHP.
2.5 History of the Project Site
The Project site is located in the Town of Enfield in Tompkins County. The five-mile-radius study area for the Project
also includes parts of the Town of Newfield in Tompkins County, and Catharine and Hector in Schuyler County.
Archives and repositories consulted during edr’s research for the Project included the Tompkins County History
Center, the John M. Olin Library at Cornell University, Ancestry.com and other on-line history resources, and edr’s in-
house collection of reference materials. Maps reviewed for the Project included the 1853 Fagan Map of Tompkins
County, New York (Figure 6), the 1866 Stone & Stewart New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County, New York
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 9
(Figure 7), the 1895 USGS Ithaca, NY topographic survey (Figure 8), and 1969 USGS Mecklenburg, NY topographic
survey (Figure 9). Sources reviewed for the Project included History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins, and Schuyler
Counties, New York (Pierce and Hurd, 1879), Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York (Selkreg, 1894), and A
Short of History of Tompkins County (Dieckmann, 1986).
At the time of European contact and colonization in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Project site was
located within the heartland of the Cayuga Nation of the Iroquois Confederacy. In the early 1600s the Cayugas used
the area encompassing present-day Tompkins County for hunting and fishing. The Tutelo and Catawba tribes of the
Cayuga occupied present-day Enfield. In 1779, Cayuga territory was invaded and settlements destroyed as part of
General John Sullivan’s campaign against the Iroquois. By 1790, the New Military Tract, a 1.5 million-acre tract set
aside by the state in 1782 for soldiers of the Revolutionary War, encouraged surveying and subsequent migration by
white settlers The land was divided into 28 townships, each containing 100 lots of 600 acres in a uniform grid
pattern. Although the land was set aside for veterans, many of them either neglected to claim their land or sold their
land to speculators and the area was settled primarily by migrants from New England, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
the Hudson Valley (Dieckmann, 1986; Kammen, 2005: Schein, 1993, 2005).
Tompkins County was formed from Cayuga and Seneca Counties on April 17, 1817 and originally consisted of the
towns of Hector, Ulysses and Covert (from Seneca County) and portions of Genoa and Locke (from Cayuga County).
The Town of Enfield was organized on March 16, 1821, though the lands comprising the town had already been
settled for several years. The first settler in the area of the Town of Enfield is considered to be Jabez Hanmer in
1798, followed by John Giltner, who built the first log house in town on military lot 45 in 1804, before moving from the
area within a few years. The first permanent settler is reported to have been Judah Baker , who settled near present-
day Enfield Center with his family in 1804 (and occupied that land until his death in 1851). Settlement continued
rapidly throughout the town over the next decade, with numerous settlers arriving from out-of-state, often to find
military tract lands that had been sold more than once, leading to legal disputes over ownership. The first
schoolhouse was built in 1809, the first sawmill in 1812, and the first grist mill in 1817 (Pierce and Hurd, 1879;
Selkreg, 1894).
The 1860 Gazetteer of the State of New York identifies two churches and 40 dwellings at Enfield Center (the present-
day hamlet of Enfield), and another 25 at “Enfield,” a crossroads settlement also known as Applegate Corners with a
post office, located to the northeast of Enfield Center. Enfield Falls is identified as a hamlet, though no dwellings are
identified (French, 1860). The 1853 Fagan map (Figure 6) and 1866 Stone and Stewart atlas (Figure 7) show the
settlement patterns in the Project area during the mid-nineteenth century, which was organized according to a
generally grid-like network of rural roads laid out during the original Military Tract survey, and subsequent early-
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 10
nineteenth-century property surveys. Some deviations in the grid are seen as a result of waterways and other
topographic features, or were wagon ways and stagecoach routes.
The density of settlement of the Town of Enfield changed little after the initial wave of nineteenth-century settlement.
Farmsteads are generally dispersed throughout the study area, although households tended to be constructed in
clusters in the vicinity of crossroads or major thoroughfares . Clusters of nineteenth-century farmsteads within the
study area were located along present-day NYS Routes 79 and 327, and County Routes143 and 170 in the villages
and hamlets throughout the town. The 1895 USGS topographic map of Ithaca (Figure 8) shows minimal change to
the Town of Enfield in terms of settlement since the 1866 Stone and Stewart map, and the 1969 USGS topographic
map of Mecklenburg (Figure 9) shows that Enfield Center has remained the population center of the town throughout
the twentieth century. As seen on these historic maps, the study area remained relatively unchanged throughout the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with only sparse settlements on rural roads in the southwest corner of town.
2.6 Existing Conditions
Reconnaissance-level field visits to the Project site and vicinity were conducted by edr personnel in October 2011
and on February 7, 2013. Existing conditions within the Project site are shown on Figure 3 and in photographs
included in Appendix A. The Project site is primarily located southwest of the hamlet of Enfield in the Town of
Enfield, in an area generally bounded by Harvey Hill Road and Weatherby Road to the north, Cayutaville Road to the
south, Griffin Road to the east, and the Tompkins County line to the west. Black Oak Road and Rumsey Road
intersect at the middle of the Project site. The Project site is characterized by a patchwork of forested woodlots, open
agricultural fields, pasture, reverting former agricultural lands in various stages of secondary succession, and
scattered residences and farms. The majority of the upland area consists of northern deciduous forest and open
crop fields (primarily hay) and pastures. The Project site also includes successional old field, hedgerow,
successional shrubland, residential yards, farms, streams, wetlands, and ponds. Existing built features include
single-family homes, seasonal homes, communication towers, barns, silos, commercial scrap yard, and other
agricultural buildings (Appendix A: Photographs 1-3).
Numerous creeks are located near the Project site, though only a few unnamed tributaries run through the Project.
Small farm ponds and open water areas are also interspersed throughout the area. Generally, they are found in
open field settings, adjacent to houses and barns or within wetlands (see Appendix A: Photograph 4).
The area within five miles of the Project site is for the most part rural and lightly populated, and the majority of
homeowners appear to be long-time residents. Older homes and farms are typically spaced at regular intervals
along roadways and include houses in a variety of vernacular traditions (predominantly Greek Revival and Italianate)
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 11
and traditional agricultural buildings, intermixed with twentieth century homes and farm facilities (see Appendix A:
Photographs 5-7). Notable settlements and locations within five miles of the Project site include:
The hamlet of Cayutaville is located 1.1 miles west-southwest of the Project site along NYS Route 79, on
the border of the Towns of Hector and Catharine in Schuyler County (see Appendix A: Photograph 10).
The hamlet of Enfield Center is located 1.9 miles northeast of the Project site. The structures in the village
are for the most part nineteenth-century in origin, although most include twentieth-century alterations or
additions such as siding or replacement windows (see Appendix A: Photographs 8-9).
Robert H. Treman State Park is located approximately between two and four miles east of the Project site.
The NRHP-listed Enfield Falls Mill and Miller’s House is located within the park, approximately 3.4 miles
from the proposed turbines (Appendix A: Photographs 11-12).
The hamlet of Mecklenburg is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the Project, and part of the
Town of Hector in Schuyler County.
The hamlet of Newfield, located approximately 3.9 miles southeast of the Project site along NYS Route 13,
features a number of nineteenth-century frame and brick structures, as well as the NRHP-listed Newfield
Covered Bridge, (see Appendix A: Photograph 13-14).
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 12
3.0 ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
3.1 Prehistoric Native-American Archeological Sensitivity Assessment
As described in Section 2.2, although no prehistoric Native American archeological sites are reported within the
Project site, the study area within five miles of the Project includes 20 previously reported Native American
archeological sites. For many of these sites, no information concerning their time period or activities that occurred at
the sites are available. At minimum, the sites identified in Table 2 indicate settlement and use of the study area from
at least the Late Archaic (ca. 5,000-3,000 years ago) through Iroquoian (late prehistoric and/or European contact)
Periods. The relative scarcity of previously identified sites, and lack of consistent information about the sites that
have been identified, reflects the general lack of systematic archeological survey or research that has been
conducted for the upland areas of the Finger Lakes region of New York (Levine, 2003, 2004). In general, previously
identified sites in the vicinity of the Project are located on well-drained landforms adjacent to wetlands and/or stream
valleys.
The Project is located on the uplands between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, approximately eight miles southwest of
Cayuga Lake and approximately nine miles east of Seneca Lake. The Project site includes the headwaters
associated with a small number of unnamed streams that drain to either Cayuta Inlet (in the western half of the
Project site) or to Enfield Creek (in the eastern half). Streams in the Project site are highly variable, ranging from
steep-gradient streams in deeply cut wooded ravines to low-gradient streams that meander through pastureland,
wetlands, and valley settings. The high (relative) elevation and presence of small headwaters within the Project site
indicates that the Project site should be considered as having low-to-moderate likelihood for Native American
archeological sites to be present.
3.2 Historic Period Archeological Sensitivity Assessment
Historic-period archeological sites located in the vicinity of the Project site could include settlements, farms, or early
industrial sites (e.g., mills) dating from the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The locations of nineteenth-
century structures within and near the Project site are shown on the 1853 Fagan Map of Tompkins County, the 1866
Stone and Stewart Atlas of Tompkins County, the 1895 USGS Ithaca, NY topographic survey, and 1969 USGS
Mecklenburg, NY topographic survey (Figures 6-9). Map-documented structures (MDS) within the Project site are
generally located adjacent to existing roadways.
In some instances MDS represent existing buildings and/or farms. In other instances, the MDS are abandoned
structures that now may be represented only by archeological remains. Potential archeological resources associated
with these MDS could include abandoned farmstead sites, wherein the complete residential and agricultural complex
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 13
consisting of foundations, structural remains, artifact scatters, and other features, would constitute an archeological
site. In other locations more limited remains of these complexes, perhaps represented by only a foundation or an
artifact scatter, may be extant. Areas located in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 200 feet) of MDS
locations should be considered as having a high potential for the presence of historic-period archeological resources.
The remaining portions of the Project site exhibit minimal (if any) likelihood for significant historic period archeological
sites to be present.
3.3 Prior Ground Disturbance
Previous ground disturbance within the Project site is for the most part limited to previous or ongoing agricultural
activities. These types of activities, particularly farming, are not considered significant in terms of their potential to
affect the integrity of archeological resources (NYAC, 1994; NYSOPRHP, 2005). Additionally, some areas
immediately adjacent to existing roads within the Project site include drainage ditches, culverts, and areas of cut
and/or fill. With the exception of these areas, the Project site in general does not appear to have been subjected to
significant previous disturbance.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 14
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Potential Effect on Archeological Resources
Relative to the potential for archeological sites to be located in the Project site, the results of the Phase 1A cultural
resources survey for the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm can be summarized as follows:
There are no previously reported archeological sites located within the Proj ect site. However, there are 20
previously reported Native American archeological sites located within five miles of the Project. In general,
previously identified sites in the vicinity of the Project are located on well-drained landforms adjacent to
wetlands and/or stream valleys. The high (relative) elevation and presence of small headwaters within the
Project site indicates that the Project site should be considered as having low-to-moderate likelihood for
Native American archeological sites to be present.
Historic maps (see Figures 6-9) identify the locations of farmsteads and other potential historic-period
archeological sites within the Project site. Areas located in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 200
feet) of MDS locations should be considered as having a high potential for the presence of historic -period
archeological resources. Archeological resources associated with these sites could include foundations,
structural remains, artifact scatters, and/or other features.
Proposed construction of the Project will include ground disturbing activities that have the potential to impact
archaeological resources. The APE for archeological resources includes all areas within the limits of disturbance for
proposed construction activities. These areas include proposed turbine pad and assembly areas, access roads,
buried collection lines, laydown and staging areas, operations and maintenance facilities, and other all other areas
where construction activities are proposed. Any archeological sites located within the Project site but that are not
within the limits of disturbance for proposed Project facilities will not be affected by the Project.
4.2 Potential Effect on Historic-Architectural Resources
Relative to historic-architectural resources, the results of the Phase 1A cultural resources survey for the proposed
Black Oak Wind Farm can be summarized as follows:
The five-mile-radius visual study area for the Project includes two sites listed on the NRHP, and nine
properties that NYSOPRHP has formally determined are eligible for listing on the NRHP.
There are additional buildings greater than 50 years old within the five miles of the Project site that have not
been previously evaluated. It is likely that some of these satisfy NRHP eligibility criteria
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 15
Construction of the Project will not require the demolition or physical alteration of any buildings or other potential
historic resources. No direct physical impacts to historic-architectural resources will occur as a result of the Project.
The Federal Regulations entitled “Protection of Historic Resources” (36 CFR 800) include in Section 800.5(2) a
discussion of potential adverse effects on historic resources. The following types of effects apply to wind energy
projects include:
“Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: [items i-iii do not apply]; (iv)
Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property's setting
that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements
that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; [items vi-vii do not apply]”
(CFR, 2004b).
The Project’s potential effect on a given historic property would be a change (resulting from the introduction of wind
turbines) in the property’s visual setting. As it pertains to historic properties, setting is defined as “the physical
environment of a historic property” and is one of seven aspects of a property’s integrity, which refers to the “ability of
a property to convey its significance” (NPS, 1990:44-45). The other aspects of integrity include location, design,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (NPS, 1990). The potential effect resulting from the introduction of
wind turbines into the visual setting for any historic or architecturally significant property is dependent on a number of
factors including distance, visual dominance, orientation of views, viewer context and activity, and the types and
density of modern features in the existing view (such as buildings/residences, overhead electrical transmission lines,
cellular towers, billboards, highways, and silos).
It is worth noting that visibility of a project does not necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur . The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) guidance concerning visual impacts on aesthetic
resources of statewide significance (which include NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible structures) defines significant
aesthetic impacts as those “that may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciat ion of an
inventoried resources, or one that impairs the character or quality of such a place… Mere visibility, even startling
visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead a project, by virtue of its
visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public’s enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of an
inventoried resource” (NYSDEC, 2000:5). In addition, visual setting may not be an important factor contributing to a
given property’s historical significance. For instance, in most cases rural residential and farmstead properties in
New York are determined NRHP-eligible under NRHP Criterion C (i.e., they “embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction” [CFR, 2004a]). These properties are typically determined NRHP-eligible
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 16
because they are representative examples of vernacular nineteenth-century architectural styles that retain their
overall integrity of design and materials. These properties would retain the characteristics that caused them to be
recommended eligible after the introduction of wind turbines into their visual settings. For these types of resources,
the potential change in the setting resulting from the Project will not necessarily result in diminished public enjoyment
and appreciation of a given historic property, or impair its character or quality (per NYSDEC, 2000, see above).
4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
In the opinion of edr, the following additional measures or studies should be conducted to determine the Project’s
potential effect on cultural resources:
1. A historic-architectural resources survey should be conducted prior to the construction of the
Project. The SHPO Wind Guidelines (NYSOPRHP, 2006) request that cultural resources surveys for wind
projects include a historic-architectural resources survey to assess all buildings greater than 50 years old
within a five-mile-radius study area (as defined by topographic viewshed analysis) to evaluate potential
NRHP-eligibility of previously undocumented resources. It is likely that additional NRHP-eligible properties
(i.e., that have not been previously identified or formally evaluated) are located within five miles of the
Project. The identification and enumeration of these properties will allow for a more thorough evaluation of
the Project’s potential effect on the visual setting associated with historic resources located within five miles
of the Project.
2. A Phase 1B archeological survey should be conducted prior to construction of the Project. The
presence of small headwaters within the Project site indicates that the Project site should be considered as
having low-to-moderate likelihood for Native American archeological sites to be present. Areas within the
Project site located in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 200 feet) of structures depicted on
nineteenth-century maps should be considered as having a high potential for the presence of historic-period
archeological resources. The SHPO Wind Guidelines (NYSOPRHP 2006) request that archeological
surveys for wind projects be conducted in accordance with a specialized methodology, which includes:
a. Conducting a landscape classification analysis for the Project site following the criteria presented in
the Archeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State (Funk, 1993a);
b. Preparing an archeological sampling protocol that provides for intensive sampling of environmental
zones identified in the landscape classification analysis;
c. Providing the archeological sampling protocol (in the form of a work plan) to NYSOPRHP staff for
comment prior to conducting fieldwork; and,
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 17
d. Conducting a Phase 1B archeological field survey in accordance with the approved work plan.
3. Identified archeological sites within the Project site should be avoided during Project construction.
The mapped locations of identified archeological sites should be included on Project construction maps
surrounded by a 100-foot (minimum) buffer, identified as “Environmentally Sensitive Areas” or similar, and
marked in the field by construction fencing with signs that restrict access. Because the Project site includes
large tracts of mostly open agricultural or forest land, and because of the dynamic and flexible nature of
wind energy project components (in terms of siting requirements), it should be possible to avoid any
archeological sites identified within the APE for the Project through relatively minor modifications to the
Project layout.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 18
5.0 REFERENCES
Beauchamp, W.M. 1900. Aboriginal Occupation of New York. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, No. 32,
Volume 7. The University of the State of New York, Albany.
Breyer, Lucy A. 1978. Enfield Falls Mill and Millowner’s House. National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2004a. Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Chapter I - National Park
Service, Department of the Interior, Part 60 - National Register of Historic Places, Section 60.4 - Criteria For
Evaluation. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title36/36cfr60_main_02.tpl.
CFR. 2004b. 36 CFR 800 – Protection of Historic Properties [incorporating amendments effective August 5, 2004].
http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf.
Dieckmann, Jane Marsh. 1986. A Short History of Tompkins County. DeWitt Historical Society, Ithaca, NY.
Dieckmann, Jane. 2005. Enfield. In The Encyclopedia of New York State, edited by P. Eisenstadt, pp. 506-07.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Ewing, Robert L. 1984. Cultural Resources Survey Report, PIN 6019.09 Route 228: Odessa-Mecklenburg, Towns of
Odessa and Mecklenburg, Schuyler County. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Fagan, L. 1853. Map of Tompkins County, New York from Actual Surveys. Available online at:
http://nytompki.org/hecht_index.htm.
French, J.H. 1860. Gazetteer of the State of New York. R. Pearsall Smith, Syracuse, NY.
Funk, R.E. (editor). 1993a. Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State.
Volume I. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, NY.
Funk, R.E. 1993b. Subsistence, Settlement, and Seasonality. In Archaeological Investigations in the Upper
Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Volume I, pp. 245-312. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, NY.
Kammen, Carol. 2005. Tompkins County. In The Encyclopedia of New York State, edited by P. Eisenstadt,
pp.1564-1567. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Levine, Mary Ann. 2003. The Cayuga Lake Archaeology Project: Surveying Marginalized Landscapes in New York’s
Finger Lakes Region. The Archaeology of Eastern North America 31:133-149.
Levine, Mary Ann. 2004. The Clauson Site: Late Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Uplands of Central New
York. The Archaeology of Eastern North America 32:161-181.
Lord, Jr., Philip. 1985. PIN 3057.19.121, Route 13, Newfield (T), Tompkins County. On file, New York State Office
of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
McDowell-Loudan, Elise E. and Gary L. Loudan. 1982. Stage IB of the Newfield, Tompkins County Sewer Study C-
36-946 (July 1981) and Test Pit Data for Sewer Realignment, Newfield Sewer Feasibility Study, Newfield, Tompkins
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 19
County C-36-946 (June 1, 1982). On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
Waterford, NY.
National Park Service (NPS). 1990. How to Apply the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation.
National Register Bulletin No. 15. National Register Branch, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
NPW Consultants, Inc. (NPW). 1989. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Pipeline TL-473, Extension 1, Tompkins
County, and the Woodhull Measuring and Regulating Station Site, Steuben County, New York. On file, New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
NPW. 1991. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Pipeline TL-473, Extension 1, Tompkins County, and the
Woodhull Measuring and Regulating Station Site, Steuben County, New York. On file, New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
New York Archaeological Council (NYAC). 1994. Standards for Cultural Resources Investigations and the Curation
of Archaeological Collections in New York State. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, Waterford, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2000. Assessing and Mitigating Visual
Impacts. Program Policy DEP-00-2. Division of Environmental Permits, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, NY.
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP). 2005. New York State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Phase 1 Archaeological Report Format Requirements. New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
NYSOPRHP. 2006. New York State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Cultural
Resources Survey Work. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Parker, A.C. 1922. The Archaeological History of New York State, Part 2. New York State Museum Bulletin Nos.
237 and 238. The University of the State of New York, Albany.
Pierce, Henry B. and Hamilton Hurd. 1879. History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins, and Schuyler Counties, New
York. Everts & Ensign, Philadelphia, PA.
Pratt, Peter P. and Marjorie K. Pratt. 2002. Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey, Tompkins Well #1, Town of
Newfield, Tompkins County, NY. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation,
Waterford, NY.
Reeves, Matthew, Sean M. Rafferty and Richard Kastl. 1995. Cultural Resources reconnaissance Survey, PIN
3057.40.101, Route 13, Town of Newfield, Tompkins County, New York. On file, New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Ross, Joel and Victoria Schmitt. 2009. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report of PIN 3057.57.121 (BIN)
1010290, Route 13 Over Carter Creek, Town of Newfield (MCD #10908), Tompkins County, New York. On file, New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Black Oak Wind Farm Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey 20
Ross, Joel. 2010. Cultural Resources Site Examination Report of the Carter Creek I Site (NYSM #12221) and
Carter Creek II Site (NYSM #12222), PIN 3057.57.121 (BIN) 1010290, Route 13 Over Carter Creek, Town of
Newfield (MCD #10908), Tompkins County, New York. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Ross, Joel and Victoria Schmitt. 2011. Addendum Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report of PIN
3057.57.121 (BIN) 1010290, Route 13 Over Carter Creek, Town of Newfield (MCD #10908), Tompkins County, New
York. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Schein, R.H. 1993. Framing the Frontier: The New Military Tract Survey in Central New York . New York History
74:5-28.
Schein, R. 2005. New Military Tract. In The Encyclopedia of New York State, edited by P. Eisenstadt, p.1048.
Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Selkreg, John H., ed. 1894. Landmarks of Tompkins County, New York. D. Mason & Company, Syracuse, NY.
Smith, Raymond W. 1999. Newfield Covered Bridge. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. On
file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Waterford, NY.
Stone and Stewart. 1866. New Topographical Atlas of Tompkins County. Stone & Stewart, Philadelphia, PA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1965. Soil Survey of Tompkins County, New York. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1895. Ithaca, NY. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
USGS. 1969. Mecklenburg, NY. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Figures
Pro ject Lo cation
UV434
UV88
UV417
UV367
UV49
UV221
UV287
UV21
UV38A UV11A
UV5
UV318
UV427
UV34B
UV352
UV223
UV328
UV392
UV173
UV281
UV858
UV245
UV706
UV4014
UV415
UV467
UV41A
UV549
UV96B
UV226
UV80
UV17C
UV414
UV13
UV224
UV54A
UV50
UV96A
UV41
UV79
UV54
UV187
UV17
UV38UV14
UV14A
UV89
UV31
UV34
UV96 UV90
£¤15
£¤220£¤6
£¤20
£¤11
§¨¦690
§¨¦86
§¨¦48 1
§¨¦81
§¨¦90
Cortland
Canandaigua Geneva
Corning
Auburn
Elmira
Ithaca
Syracuse
BRADFORDCOUNTY
SUSQUE HANNACOUNTY
TIOGACOUNTY
BROOMECOUNTY
CAYUGACOUNTY
CHEMUN GCOUNTY
CORTLANDCOUNTY
ONONDAGACOUNTY
ONTARIOCOUNTY
SCHUYL ERCOUNTY
SENECACOUNTY
STEUBE NCOUNTY
TIOGACOUNTY
TOMPKINSCOUNTY
WAYNECOUNTY
YATE SCOUNTY
NEW YORKPENNSYLVANIA
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Figure 1: R egional Project Location
Notes: Basem ap: ESRI StreetMap N orth Am erica, 2008
0 5 102.5 Miles
February 2013
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 2: Proj ect Site Topography
Notes: Basem ap: U SGS Mecklenburg and Alpine 1:24,000 Scale Topogr aphic Quadrangles
0 1,000 2,00 0500Fe et
February 2013
Project Site
H a rv e y H i ll R d
Leonard RdRothermich RdC u lv e r R d
Saxton Hill Rd
R ums e y Hi ll R dChapman RdCR 6S County Line RdWe a th e rb y R d
G r i f f i n R dBlack Oak RdTower RdCayutaville Rd
C R 1 3 6
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 3: Propos ed Project Layout
Notes: Basem ap: N YS 2-Foot R esoultion Orthoimagery
0 1,000 2,00 0500Fe et
February 2013
Public Roads
&=!Turbines
#*Met Tower
Acc ess Road
Buried Interconnect
Staging Area
Project Site
LaC
EbB
LaB
EbB
LaB
MaB
BgC
EbB
EbB
VbC
LaC
LaC
LnDMfD
MaC3
LnE
BgC
LaB
LaB
BaD
MaB
BaD
LnE
LaB
EbB
BaC
BaD
LaB
VbC3
EbB
EbB
MaC
BgC
VbB
BgD
LoF
LaC
BgC
Ab
LaC
MaC
LaB
VbB
LaB
EbC
BaC
BgC
MaB
BgC Mo BgC
LaB
LaB BgC
MaC
VbB
BaC
EcA
BaC3
VbB
EcA
LaC3
EbCMaC3
MaB
LaB
Mo
BaC
VbC
BgC
BaC
BoE
MaC
EcA
BgC
MaB
BaD
BoE
EbC
BgC
VbB
MaC3
BgC
LaB
LaB
LaB BaCLaB
CnB
LaB
LaB
CnB
LaB
BgD
BaC
VbB
MfD
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 4: Proj ect Site Soils
Notes: NYSDOT Planimetric Quadrangles
0 1,00 0 2,00 0500Feet
February 2013
Ab - Alluvial land
BaC - Bat h channery silt loam , 5 t o 15 percent slopes
BaC 3 - Bath channery si lt loam , 5 to 15 percent slopes eroded
BaD - Bat h channery silt loam , 15 to 25 percent slopes
BgC - Bat h and Valois gravel ly si lt loams, 5 to 15 percent slopes
BgD - Bat h and Valois gravel ly si lt loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes
BoE - Bath and Valoi s soils, 25 to 35 percent slopes
CnB - Chenango gravel ly loam, fan, 0 to 8 percent slopes
EbB - Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
EbC - Erie channery sil t loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
EcA - Ellery, Chippewa, and Alden soils, 0 to 8 percent slopes
LaB - Langford channery silt loam , 2 to 8 percent slopes
LaC - Langford channery si lt l oam , 8 to 15 percent slopes
LaC3 - Langford channery silt loam , 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
LnD - Lordstown channery silt loam , 15 to 25 percent sl opes
LnE - Lordstown channery si lt loam , 25 to 35 percent slopes
LoF - Lordstow n soil s, 35 to 70 percent slopes
MaB - M ardi n channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
MaC - M ardin channery si lt loam , 8 to 15 percent slopes
MaC3 - M ardi n channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
MfD - Mardin and Langford soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Mo - M iddlebury and Tioga silt loams
VbB - Volusi a channery silt loam , 3 to 8 percent sl opes
VbC - Vol usia channery si lt l oam , 8 to 15 percent sl opes
VbC 3 - Volusi a channery silt loam , 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
NewfieldNewfieldHamletHamlet
Rte 228Improvements(198 4)
Rte 13 Bridgeover C arterCreek (20 09)
Pipe lin eTL-473 Ext1 (1 9 89)
CNG Pip eline& Regula tingStation (1991)
CNG Pip eline& Regula tingStation (1991)
Rte 13 HighwayProgram (1995)
Town of N ew fie ldSewer Stud y& Rea lig nm en t(1 981, 1982 )
Tomp kinsGas Well#1 (20 02)
Rte 13 CurveRealignment- Newfield
Enfield FallsMill andMiller's House
NewfieldCoveredBridge
368 MainSt, Newfield,Tom pkins County
1504 NY Rte 13(farmhouse),Newfield,Tom pkins County
NY Route 228,Structure #10(Van Lone Barn),Catherine,Tom pkins County
NY Route 228,Structure #11(residence)
NY Route 228,Structure #26(Chiment residenceca1800), Hector,Tompkins County
NY Route 228,Structure #8(residence),Catharine,Tompkins County
NY Route 228,Structure #15(residence),Catharine,Tom pkins County
NY Route 228,Structure #20(residence),Hector,Tom pkins County
Enfield BaptistChurch, 174Enfield MainRoad, Enfield
Ithaca
NewfieldHamlet
NorthwestIthaca
SouthHill
F i n g e r L a k e sNationalForest
EnfieldCreekH endershotG ulfGlenwoodCreekSullivanGlen Creek
CliffParkBrook
W BranchCayuga RiverW i l l i a m sBrookLind e r m a n C r e e k
B
u
ttermilk
C
reek
Deckerto
w
n
Creek
CoyGlen
VanbuskirkGulfWillowCreekMCClur
e
Creek Cai
t
l
i
nMi
l
l
Cr
eekPony HollowCreekT
e
x
a
s
H
ollo
w
JohnsCreekIndianC reekCayutaInletE n f i e l dCreek
Catli
nMillCreekLi
ck Br
ookFishKillCayut
aCr
eek CarterCreekW e s tB ra n chCranberryCreekLoganCreekEnfieldCreekFivemileCreekTaughanockCreekC
a
y
ugaI
n
l
et
C a y u g aLake
S c h u y l e rSchuyler
C o u n t yCounty
T o m p k i n sTompkins
C o u n t yCountyST228
ST13
ST228
ST13A
ST89
ST227
ST96
ST224
ST34
ST327
ST228
ST79
µ0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50.25 Miles
Black O ak Wind Farm
Town of EnfieldTompkins County, New Yo rk
Figure 5: Previously Identified CulturalResources
Notes:Base Ma p: ESRI StreetMa p North America, 2012
ww w.ed r co mp a n i es .c o m
February 2013
#*NRHP-Eligible SiteNRHP-Listed SiteArcheologically Sensitive AreasPrevious Cultural Resources SurveyProject Site5 Mile Study Area
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 6: 1 853 Fagan Map of Tompkins C ounty, New York
Notes: Basem ap: Fagan Map of Tom pkins C ounty, N ew Yor k, 1853
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
February 2013
Project Site
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 7: 1 866 Stone and Stewart Ne w Topographi cal Atlas of Tompkins County, NY
Notes: Basem ap: Stone and Stewart New Topographical Atlas of Tom pkins County, NY, 1866
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
February 2013
Project Site
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 8: 1 895 U SGS Ithaca, NYTopographic Map
Notes: Basem ap: U SGS Ithaca, N Y Topographic M ap, 1895
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
February 2013
Project Site
www.edrcom panies.com
µ
Black Oak Wind FarmTown of Enfield, Tompkins County
Figure 9: 1 969 U SGS Mecklenburg, NYTopographic Map
Notes: Basem ap: U SGS Mecklenburg, N Y Topographic M ap, 1969
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
February 2013
Project Site
Appendix A: Photographs
Sheet 1 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 01
Cayutaville Road, view to the
west.
Photo 02
Connecticut Hill Road, view to
the north.
Sheet 2 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 03
Farm and proposed turbine
site, Black Oak Road, view to
the south.
Photo 04
Farm pond near proposed
turbine site, view to the south.
Sheet 3 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 05
Barn, Connecticut Hill Road,
view to the east.
Photo 06
Greek Revival-style house,
Black Oak Road, view to the
southwest.
Sheet 4 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 07
Teeter Farm, Gray Road, view
to the west-southwest.
Photo 08
Hamlet of Enfield, Enfield Main
Road, view to the north.
Sheet 5 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 09
Hamlet of Enfield, Enfield
Center Road West, view to the
east.
Photo 10
Hamlet of Cayutaville, County
Route 6, view to the south.
Sheet 6 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 11
Enfield Falls Mill, view to the
south.
Photo 12
Enfield Falls Miller’s House,
view to the southeast.
Sheet 7 of 7
www.edrcompanies.com
Black Oak Wind Farm
Town of Enfield - Tompkins County, New York
Appendix A: Photo Log
February 2013
Photo 13
Hamlet of Newfield, view to the
west.
Photo 14
Newfield Covered Bridge, view
to the north.