Prepared By: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 241 East Fourth

Home , Astral Apartments, Charles Pratt, Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, Mussel Island, Wallabout Bay

FINAL

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY STAGE 1A REPORT NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY, NEWTOWN CREEK

Prepared by:

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 241 East Fourth Street, Suite 100 Frederick, MD 21701

December 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Cultural Resources Survey Stage 1A Report describes the results of research to identify any known or potential cultural resources within the Study Area in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This research included reconnaissance surveys, background research, and development of historical contexts (e.g., land use patterns and prehistoric and historic cultural development) (Anchor QEA 2011: 11). This report was prepared for Anchor QEA, LLC, and performed in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the USEPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) program (USEPA 1989).

The Newtown Creek Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is being conducted under the USEPA CERCLA program and, therefore, must meet the requirements of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The USEPA guidance document CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II Clean Air Act, and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements (USEPA 1989) describes how the effects of a CERCLA remedial action must consider impacts on cultural resources. This guidance document describes a process for compliance with the NHPA and defines the responsibilities of USEPA and other involved agencies (i.e., the State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP]) (Anchor QEA 2011).

Remedial actions performed under CERCLA are subject to the regulations set forth in the NHPA of 1966, as amended (regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties). Under Section 106 of the NHPA, CERCLA remedial actions are required to take into account the effects of the remedial activities on any historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register (Anchor QEA 2011).

36 CFR Part 800 requires the establishment of proposed areas of potential effects (APE), defined as the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties” (36 CFR 800.16(d)). Should historic properties be identified, additional CRS stages will be required (Anchor QEA 2011).

Section 14.09 of The New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 and its implementing regulations establish the State Register of Historic Places and require SHPO review of state agency projects that have the potential to cause a change in the quality of a property eligible for the register (Anchor QEA 2011).

The Newtown Creek Superfund Site Study Area is described in the Administrative Order on Consent as encompassing the body of water known as Newtown Creek, situated at the border of the boroughs of Brooklyn (Kings County) and Queens (Queens County) in the City of New York and the State of New York, roughly centered at the geographic coordinates of 40° 42' 54.69" north latitude (40.715192°) and 73° 55' 50.74" west longitude (-73.930762°), having an approximate 3.8-mile reach, including Newtown Creek proper and its five branches (or tributaries) known respectively as Dutch Kills, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, East Branch, and English Kills, as well as the sediments below the water

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page iii

and the water column above the sediments, up to and including the landward edge of the shoreline, and including also any bulkheads or riprap containing the waterbody, except where no bulkhead or riprap exists, then the Study Area shall extend to the ordinary high water mark, as defined in 33 CFR §328(e), of Newtown Creek and the areal extent of the contamination from such area, but not including upland areas beyond the landward edge of the shoreline (notwithstanding that such upland areas may subsequently be identified as sources of contamination to the waterbody and its sediments or that such upland areas may be included within the scope of the Newtown Creek Superfund Site as listed pursuant to Section 105(a)(8) of the CERCLA) (Anchor QEA 2011: 1).

The legal definition of the Newtown Creek Superfund Site Study Area excludes upland areas beyond the landward edge of the shoreline (Anchor QEA 2011:1), but on-shore areas are contained within the proposed Archeological Study Area and the Built Environment Study Area for cultural resources investigations. The Archeological Study Area is defined as comprising channels, bulkheads along the creek and its tributaries and a 50-foot buffer inland (Anchor QEA 2011:18). The Built Environment Study Area is defined as encompassing properties that are within and immediately adjacent to the Newtown Creek Superfund Site Study Area.

Access to the study area was restricted to public rights of way during the archeological and built resources land-based surveys. During all water based survey activities, access to certain parts of the creek were restricted by obstacles (bridges, piles, containment booms, shallow water, etc.). Any study limitations as a result of restricted access will be addressed if and when a specific property is to be used as part of a response action.

The Stage 1A survey was conducted to determine if potentially National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible historic properties are present in the study area, and to ensure that the development of remediation alternatives can include consideration of effects to these properties (Anchor QEA 2011).

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates Inc. conducted the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey that comprised a literature search, boat and land-side field reconnaissance surveys, and remote sensing data analyses under contract to Anchor QEA for the Newtown Creek RI/FS.

 A literature search was conducted to identify and known potential cultural resources.  A boat and land side survey was conducted to identify areas that may contain potential cultural resources that may require more intensive research or further investigation.  An architectural survey of the Built Environment Study Area was conducted to identify built resources with the potential to possess the qualities of significance and integrity to qualify as historic properties.  An archeological cultural resources assessment applying hydrographic and geophysical survey data collected by CR Environmental was conducted.

The natural and cultural setting of Newtown Creek is presented in Chapter II, establishing the physical, environmental, and historical development of this maritime cultural landscape. An overview history shows the area to be an active and developing maritime cultural landscape from prehistory through the twentieth centuries.

 Newtown Creek is a 3.8 mile long estuary (with 5 tributaries) with a semi-diurnal tidal cycle ranging from five to seven feet.  Three archeological sites have been identified and twenty-three archeological investigations have been conducted within one mile of Newtown Creek.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page iv

 Twenty-two archeological investigations recommended no further work.  No architectural resources within the Newtown Creek Built Environment Study Area are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Within one mile of the creek, eleven architectural resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and thirteen resources are New York City landmarks.  Two bridges, the Borden Avenue Bridge and the Kosciuszko Bridge, have concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

 Newtown Creek has been part of a changing historical maritime cultural landscape from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries.  Thirty-two previously recorded vessel wrecks lay within and in the vicinity of Newtown Creek.  Throughout the history of Newtown Creek there have been many episodes of bridge building and re-building that has left a mark either in the form of standing bridges or ruins along the banks of the creek.  Many different methods of establishing bulkheads were used along Newtown Creek; these range from simple backfilled pile wall structures, to cribbing to the construction of concrete bulkheads.  A commission was established in 1869 to establish wharf, pier and bulkhead lines and to regulate any impediments to navigation along the creek.

The various investigative methods employed during the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey are discussed in Chapter IV. The literature search, boat and land-side field reconnaissance survey, and remote sensing data analyses each used a unique approach to the Study Area.

 The literature search involved extensive archival research at a wide variety of research repositories, visits to relevant agencies were conducted to collect data and online sources and databases were consulted.  Architectural investigations comprised background research, field survey by boat and land, and data analysis using historic maps and aerials.  Nautical archeologists conducted a boat based reconnaissance survey to identify areas of potential cultural resources and to characterize the study area and its overall maritime cultural landscape.  Nautical archeologists analyzed the hydrographic/geophysical data collected by CR Environmental for potential cultural resources.  ArcGIS was employed to combine all of the collected data for an overall comparative analyses and characterization of the Study Area.

Chapter V reports the results of the boat based and land-side reconnaissance surveys undertaken within the Newtown Creek Study Area identifying any areas of potential cultural resource sensitivity and characterizing the area within its maritime cultural landscape.

 The land-side survey was limited to only 2 areas where access to the 50-foot buffer between the water’s edge and extent of the archeological study area was not restricted.  The boat based survey identified 9 areas with high potential to contain cultural resources.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page v

 The boat based survey identified 17 areas with a moderate potential to contain cultural resources.  The boat based survey identified 23 areas with a low potential to contain cultural resources.  The boat based survey identified 12 areas as modern with no visible potential to contain cultural resources.

In all instances where further investigation is recommended, the scope of these further investigations will be determined consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and New York SHPO. Both the final determination of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and the remediation methodology will affect the scope of any further investigation.

Hydrographic and geophysical remote sensing data were collected using side scan sonar, marine magnetometer, and a single-beam echo sounder. Data were submitted to R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for cultural resources analyses, the results are reported in Chapter VI.

 Approximately 145.6 acres (0.2 mi²) were surveyed.  Data gaps accounted for approximately 6.2 acres (0.001 mi²) due to restricted access.  Analyses of side scan sonar data identified ten shipwrecks (Targets 4-7, 9-14) with high archeological potential.  Analyses of magnetometer data identified one target (Target 17) with high archeological potential.

All 17 targets are within the remediation area; therefore, adverse effects to these cultural resources may occur as a result of remediation. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, measures must be developed and implemented in consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and New York SHPO.

In Chapter VII, the architectural reconnaissance survey reports that:

 No National Register listed properties are located within the Built Environment Study Area.  Two bridges, Borden Avenue Bridge and Kosciuszko Bridge, were identified as eligible for National Register listing through concurrence determinations.  Seventy-six built resources were identified as older than fifty years of age, i.e., pre-1962, within the Built Environment Study Area.  Seventeen buildings are recommended for further intensive architectural investigation if they will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities.

The Built Environment Study Area as currently delineated appears to capture the built resources that may be affected by the environmental cleanup actions. It is recommended that the boundaries of the Built Environment Study Area be revisited once specific remediation actions are identified.

The Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey used a multi-disciplinary approach to identify potential cultural resources within the Study Area.

 The literature search revealed a pattern of intense development and utilization of both the landscape and the tributaries throughout the vicinity of Newtown Creek.  Architectural investigations comprising background research, field survey by boat and land, and data analysis using historic maps and aerials revealed 17 buildings recommended for further intensive architectural investigation if they will be potentially

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page vi

directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities. The Built Environment Study Area is adequate, but should be revisited once specific remediation actions are identified.  Nautical archeologists conducted a boat based reconnaissance survey and identified areas that may contain potential cultural resources within the Study Area (9 high potential, 17 moderate potential, and 23 low potential).  Nautical archeologists analyzed the geophysical data and identified 10 potential cultural resources with high potential from the side scan sonar data and one target with high cultural resource potential from the magnetometer data.  ArcGIS was employed to combine all of the collected data for an overall comparative analyses and characterization of the Study Area aiding recommendations for further investigation.

The Stage 1A Survey provides the basis for identifying zones of cultural resource sensitivity. Based on the information gained during Stage 1A, the need for a Stage 1B Survey is determined. The specifics of any Stage 1B examination will be determined as areas that will be affected are identified. Any future cultural resources investigations will be performed after the identification of remediation alternatives and the formalization of the APE. The recommendations in this report require consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and NYSHPO for concurrence and agreement on what will be required during Stage 1B or Stage II Survey (Anchor QEA 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page vii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... III

LIST OF FIGURES ...... XV

LIST OF TABLES ...... XIX

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... XXI

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Organization of Report ...... 2

II. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING ...... 5 Natural Setting ...... 5 Physical Description ...... 5 Geology ...... 5 Geomorphology ...... 6 Climate ...... 6 Cultural Context ...... 6 Previous Investigations ...... 6 Prehistoric Context...... 18 General Overview ...... 18 Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 12,000 - 10,000 BP) ...... 18 Archaic Period (10,000 – 2,700 BP) ...... 19 Woodland Period (2,750 – 500 BP) ...... 20 Contact Period ...... 21 Historic Context ...... 22 Seventeenth Century ...... 22 Eighteenth Century ...... 25 Antebellum Period (1800-1860) ...... 27 Greenpoint ...... 27 Hunters Point ...... 27 Other Communities ...... 28 Civil War to World War II (1860 – 1940) ...... 29 Transportation ...... 30 Community Development ...... 30 Industry and Commerce ...... 32 Late Twentieth Century (1945 – Present) ...... 37

III. HISTORIC MARITIME CONTEXT ...... 39 Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries ...... 39 Nineteenth Century ...... 40 Antebellum Period ...... 40 Post-bellum Period ...... 42

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page ix

Twentieth Century ...... 44 Vessel Wrecks ...... 47 Bridge Related Structures ...... 51 Wharves, Piers and Bulkheads ...... 53

IV. METHODS ...... 57 Archival Research Methods ...... 57 Architectural Investigations Methods ...... 58 Remote Sensing Methods ...... 61 Positioning ...... 62 Magnetometer ...... 62 Side Scan Sonar ...... 63 Echo Sounding Systems ...... 63 Survey Control and Correlations of data Sets ...... 64 Remote Sensing Data Analyses ...... 64

V. ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY ...... 67 Prehistoric Archeological Potential ...... 67 LAND-SIDE RECONNAISANCE SURVEY ...... 68 Maritime Archeological Potential within the Newtown Creek Study Area ...... 69 Boat-Based Reconnaissance Survey ...... 70 Methodology ...... 70 Flooding and Storm Surge Protection ...... 71 Protective Waterfront Structures ...... 72 Areas of Archeological Potential ...... 73 Levels of Archeological Potential ...... 73 Modern/No Archeological Potential ...... 73 Low Archeological Potential ...... 73 Moderate Archeological Potential ...... 73 High Archeological Potential ...... 73 Bulkheads and Maritime Furniture ...... 74 English Kills 2-l-2 ...... 74 English Kills 2-l-l...... 74 English Kills 2-l-3 ...... 74 English Kills 2-2-l, 2-3-l ...... 75 English Kills 2-3-2, 2-2-2 ...... 75 English Kills 2-3-3 ...... 75 English Kills l-l ...... 75 English Kills 2-l, 3-3 ...... 76 English Kills 2-2 ...... 76 English Kills 3-l, 3-2; 4-2 ...... 76 English Kills 4-l ...... 76 English Kills 4-3 ...... 76 English Kills 4-4 ...... 77 English Kills 5-l, 6-2 ...... 77 English Kills 6-1 ...... 77 English Kills 6-3, 7-2 ...... 77 East Branch 2-4-1 ...... 77 East Branch 2-4-2 ...... 78 East Branch 2-5-l, 2-5-6 ...... 78

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page x

East Branch 2-5-2 ...... 78 East Branch 2-5-3 ...... 78 East Branch 2-5-4 ...... 78 East Branch 2-5-5 ...... 79 Newtown Creek Main Channel 7-2, 6-3 ...... 79 Newtown Creek Main Channel 7-1 ...... 79 Newtown Creek Main Channel 7 ...... 79 Maspeth Creek 8-l ...... 79 Maspeth Creek - Creek Bed ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel – Phelps Dodge ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-1, 9-2 ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-3 ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-4; 10-2 ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-5 ...... 80 Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-6, 10-1 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 10-2 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 10-3; 11-1; 12-1 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 12-2 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 12-3 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-1 ...... 81 Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-2, 13-6, 14-2 ...... 82 Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-3, 13-4 ...... 82 Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-5, 14-1 ...... 82 Newtown Creek Main Channel 14-3, 14-5 ...... 82 Newtown Creek Main Channel 14-4 ...... 82 Dutch Kills General ...... 82 Dutch Kills 15-l ...... 83 Dutch Kills 2-6-la & b ...... 83 Whale Creek 14-3, 14-5, 14-6 ...... 83 Unnamed Canal 14-3, 14-5 (Small Canal Mouth) ...... 83 Newtown Creek Main Channel 15-2 ...... 83 Newtown Creek Main Channel 15-3 ...... 83 Newtown Creek Main Channel 16-1, 17-3 ...... 83 Newtown Creek Main Channel 16-2, 17-1 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-1 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-2 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-3 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-4 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 19-1 ...... 84 Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-5, 19-2 ...... 85

VI. ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF THE HYDROGRAPHIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS ...... 89 Submerged Cultural Resources Survey Results ...... 89 Area Description ...... 89 Remote Sensing Data ...... 90 Bathymetry...... 90 Side Scan Sonar ...... 90 Magnetometer ...... 90 Targets 1-17 (Appendices III, VIII) ...... 94

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xi

Target 1 ...... 94 Target 2 ...... 94 Target 3 ...... 94 Target 4 ...... 94 Target 5 ...... 95 Target 6 ...... 95 Target 7 ...... 95 Target 8 ...... 95 Target 9 ...... 95 Target 10 ...... 96 Target 11 ...... 96 Target 12 ...... 96 Target 13 ...... 96 Target 14 ...... 97 Target 15 ...... 97 Target 16 ...... 97 Target 17 ...... 97

VII. ARCHITECTURAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY RESULTS ...... 99 Overview ...... 101 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey Results ...... 102 Previously Identified Historic Properties ...... 102 Overview of Built Resources ...... 102 Built Resources Constructed Between ca. 1860 and 1950 ...... 104 Development from 1951 through 1962 ...... 107 Bridges ...... 111 Properties Recommended for Intensive-Level Investigation ...... 113 The Built Environment Study Area ...... 114 Conclusion ...... 114

VIII. SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 127 Boat-Based Archeological Survey ...... 127 Archeological analyses of the Hydrographic and Geophysical Survey Data ...... 128 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey ...... 129 Land-Side Survey ...... 130

REFERENCES CITED ...... 133

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 151

CR Environmental Inc. Daily Hydrographic and Geotechnical Survey Logs ...... Appendix I

RCG&A, Daily Survey and Photographic Logs ...... Appendix II

Areas of Archeological Potential ...... Appendix III

Trackline Plot for Remote Sensing Data Acquisition ...... Appendix IV

Bathymetric Contours ...... Appendix V

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xii

Side Scan Sonar Contact Data and Images ...... Appendix VI

Side Scan Sonar Mosaic Map Sheets ...... Appendix VII

Target Images Showing SSS, Magnetometer, and Bathymetric Characteristics ...... Appendix VIII

Magnetic Contour Maps ...... Appendix IX

Built Environment Study Area Architectural Survey Map Set ...... Appendix X

Table of Architectural Resources within the Built Environment Study Area ...... Appendix XI

Biographies of Key Project Personnel ...... Appendix XII

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xiii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Study Area locator map...... 3

Figure 2.1. Sketch map of the original plantation grants in Greenpoint and Brooklyn (Armbruster 1912: 120)...... 23

Figure 2.2. Map of original plantation grants in Queens (Cravens et al., 2000) (photograph: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.)...... 24

Figure 2.3. Excerpt from William Faden’s (1776) Plan of New York Island, showing notation designating Newtown Creek as the point of embarkation for British forces on September 15, 1776 (Image from American Memory, Library of Congress)...... 26

Figure 2.4. Excerpt from Jacob Riker’s (1852) map, from the book Annals of Newtown in Queens County, New York, showing bridge spans across Newtown Creek and the location of the Calvary Cemetery ferry...... 29

Figure 2.5. 1921 map of the Newtown Creek Industrial District, showing the distribution of various ethnic groups within the district (Photocopy: Merchants’ Association of New York 1921, p. 18)...... 31

Figure 2.6. Map of Hunter’s Point and Newtown Creek (Harper’s Weekly 1881), showing locations of principal communities, industries, and land use within the lower Newtown Creek watershed (Brooklyn Public Library)...... 33

Figure 2.7. The 1883 USACE map of Newtown Creek, showing principal industries along the creek and recommended dredge depths...... 33

Figure 2.8. Map of Newtown Creek and Vicinity, prepared by the Brooklyn Department of Health in 1896 (New York Public Library digital gallery: Image #1692889)...... 34

Figure 2.9. USACE survey map of Newtown Creek, Long Island, NY (1914-15), showing channel margins, soundings within the channel, and industries adjacent to the shoreline...... 35

Figure 2.10. A 1921 map of the Newtown Creek Industrial District, showing the degree of industrial development within the watershed (Photocopy: Merchants’ Association of New York, p. 40)...... 36

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xv

Figure 3.1. Map of Hunter’s Point and Newtown Creek (Harper’s Weekly 1881), showing locations of principal communities, industries, and land use within the lower Newtown Creek watershed (Brooklyn Public Library)...... 43

Figure 3.2. The 1883 USACE map of Newtown Creek, showing principal industries along the creek and recommended dredge depths...... 45

Figure 3.3. USACE survey map of Newtown Creek, Long Island, NY (1914-15), showing channel margins, soundings within the channel, and industries adjacent to the shoreline...... 46

Figure 3.4. Maspeth Creek from 49th Street, Linden Hill, looking west (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 232), showing partially submerged timber vessel remains...... 51

Figure 3.5. E xcerpt from Bromley’s (1880) Atlas of Brooklyn, Ward 18 (Plate 30), showing Manhattan Beach Railroad Bridge across English Kills (Digital image from New York Public Library)...... 52

Figure 3.6. Maspeth Plank Road bridge from Maspeth Avenue, East Williamsburg, view northeast (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 210)...... 53

Figure 3.7. Remains of the Maspeth Plank Road Bridge from 58th Road, Linden Hill, Queens, looking southwest (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 56)...... 54

Figure 3.8. Pier remains from the Long Island Railroad swing bridge, Blissville, Queens, view southwest (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 180)...... 55

Figure 5.1. Photograph of Newtown Creek, view looking west to Midtown Manhattan...... 69

Figure 5.2. Miller Marine’s M/V Julia Miller...... 70

Figure 5.3. Newtown Creek Hurricane Evacuation Zones (adapted from New York City Hurricane Evacuation Zones: www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hurricane_ map_english.pdf)...... 72

Figure 7.1. Built Environment Study Area Overview Cultural Resources Survey Stage 1A...... 100

Figure 7.2. Former Chelsea Jute Factory (ID No. 42, ca. 1895) at 1155 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 105

Figure 7.3. Former Tiebout Glass Manufactory (ID No. 41, ca. 1880) at 97-99 Commercial Street, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 105

Figure 7.4. 39-14 and 38-42 Review Avenue (ID No. 30, ca. 1890) historically associated with Charles F. Pratt Oil Refinery Company, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 106

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xvi

Figure 7.5. 57-22 49th Street (ID No. 33, ca. 1910) showing multiple additions, Maspeth Creek, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 106

Figure 7.6. Former grease and compounding building at 520 Kingsland Avenue, Brooklyn (ID No. 49, ca. 1908-1913) with surrounding additions (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 108

Figure 7.7. Tidewater Oil Company (ID No. 26, 1919-1920) complex viewed from Newtown Creek, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 108

Figure 7.8. Building remaining from Brooklyn Union Gas Company gasification plant at Greenpoint on Maspeth Avenue, English Kills, Brooklyn (ID No. 56, ca. 1930) (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 109

Figure 7.9. Former Irving Iron Works at 50-09 27th Street (ID No. 17, 1911-1940), Dutch Kills, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 109

Figure 7.10. North end of former Crane Company Pipes, Valves and Fittings at 47-30 29th Street from the street, Dutch Kills, Queens (ID No. 22, 1930) (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 110

Figure 7.11. 55-01 2nd Street once associated with a large sugar refinery. East and north additions were added to this building and are visible from the street elevation, Queens (ID No. 2, 1940) (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 110

Figure 7.12. National Grid (ID No. 53), 287 Maspeth Avenue, English Kills, Brooklyn, constructed in 1958 (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 111

Figure 7.13. 12 Rewe Street (ID No. 60, 1957), English Kills, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 112

Figure 7.14. National Enameling and Stamping Co. complex, ca. 1910, at east end of Maspeth Creek, Queens. The multi-story brick buildings seen at left of photograph currently are outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 115

Figure 7.15. East end of East Branch. The one-story buildings along the south side of Metropolitan Avenue are located within the Built Environment Study Area. The multi-story building located south of Scholes Street is outside the current Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 115

Figure 7.16. South end of English Kills. The multi-story building located south of Johnson Avenue is outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2012)...... 116

Figure 7.17. The four-story building on the west side of Morgan Avenue parallel to English Kills is outside the current Built Environment Study Area. The deteriorated two- story building is within the current Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 116

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xvii

Figure 7.18. North end of Dutch Kills, showing multi-story building located on north side of 47th Avenue outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 117

Figure 7.19. The multi-story building (1913) located in the vicinity of Kingsland Avenue, Brooklyn, is located outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 117

Figure 7.20. 1164 and 1166 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn, currently located outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011)...... 118

Figure 8.1. Cultural resources review under NHPA and remedy selection under CERCLA (Anchor QEA 2011:21)...... 132

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xviii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area ...... 7 Table 2.2. Built resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission...... 13 Table 3.1. Reported vessel wrecks and obstructions in the vicinity of Newtown Creek and East River (Organized by date of loss or Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) record) ...... 48 Table 5.1. Archeological boat-based reconnaissance results and recommendations ...... 85 Table 6.1. Side scan sonar contacts identified in the cultural resources analyses ...... 91 Table 6.2. High-confidence magnetic anomalies identified by CR ...... 93 Table 7.1. Construction date ranges of built resources ...... 103 Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ...... 119 Table 8.1 Areas of remote sensing data gaps within the study area ...... 129 Table 8.2. Recommended areas of archeological potential for submerged cultural resource targets ...... 130

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xix

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APE Area of Potential Effect ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements AWOIS Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System maintained by NOAA BBRS Boat Based Reconnaissance Survey BMT Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit BP Before Present ca. circa CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHIRP Compressed High Intensity Radar Pulse CR CR Environmental, Inc. CRS Cultural Resource Study DGPS Differential Global Positioning Systems DOD Department of Defense EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. FPM Field Procedures Manual FS Feasibility Study GEOD GEOD Corporation, Inc. GT Gross Tonnage Hz hertz kHz kilohertz km kilometers LIRR Long Island Railroad LNG Liquefied Natural Gas m meter

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xxi

mi miles mi2 square miles MLLW Mean Low Low Water mlw mean low water MNY Merchants Association of New York MVUS Merchant Vessels of the United States NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 NAVD88 North American Vertical datum of 1988 NCNA Newtown Creek Navigation Analysis NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places nT nanotesla = 1 gamma (γ) NYC New York City NYDOT New York Department of Transportation NYC/LPC New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission NYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office NYSM New York State Museum OCS Office of Coast Survey PRR Pennsylvania Railroad QCC Queens Chamber of Commerce RCG&A R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. RI Remedial Investigation RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle RSS Remote Sensing Survey SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SPHINX State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange SSS Side Scan Sonar T Tonnage TPU Transceiver Processing Unit USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USBL Ultra Short Base Line

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xxii

USCG United States Coast Guard USCGS United States Coast and Geodetic Survey USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFHWA or FHWA United States Federal Highway Administration USGS United States Geological Survey WPA Works Progress Administration XYZ Three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page xxiii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates Inc. conducted the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey that comprised a literature search, boat and land-side field reconnaissance survey, and remote sensing data analyses under contract to Anchor QEA for the Newtown Creek Remedial Investigation/Feasibility (RI/FS) Study.  A literature search was conducted to identify any known potential cultural resources.  A boat and land side survey was conducted to identify areas that may contain potential cultural resources that may require more intensive research or further investigation.  An architectural survey of the Built Environment Study Area was conducted to identify built resources with the potential to possess the qualities of significance and integrity to qualify as historic properties.  An archeological cultural resources assessment applying hydrographic and geophysical survey data collected by CR Environmental was conducted.

This report presents the results of a Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey (CRS) conducted under contract to Anchor QEA for the Newtown Creek Remedial Investigation/Feasibility (RI/FS) Study. The CRS comprised a literature search, boat and land-side field reconnaissance, and remote sensing data analyses. The purpose of this survey, in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR Part 800), is to identify any archeological and architectural resources within the Study Area that might be affected by potential remedial action. The Newtown Creek Superfund Site Study Area is described in the Administrative Order on Consent as encompassing the body of water known as Newtown Creek, situated at the border of the boroughs of Brooklyn (Kings County) and Queens (Queens County) in the City of New York and the State of New York, roughly centered at the geographic coordinates of 40° 42' 54.69" north latitude (40.715192°) and 73° 55' 50.74" west longitude (- 73.930762°), having an approximate 3.8-mile reach, including Newtown Creek proper and its five branches (or tributaries) known respectively as Dutch Kills, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, East Branch, and English Kills, as well as the sediments below the water and the water column above the sediments, up to and including the landward edge of the shoreline, and including also any bulkheads or riprap containing the waterbody, except where no bulkhead or riprap exists, then the Study Area shall extend to the ordinary high water mark, as defined in 33 CFR §328(e), of Newtown Creek and the areal extent of the contamination from such area, but not including upland areas beyond the landward edge of the shoreline (notwithstanding that such upland areas may subsequently be identified as sources of contamination to the waterbody and its sediments or that such upland areas may be included within the scope of the Newtown Creek Superfund Site as listed pursuant to Section 105(a)(8) of the CERCLA). (Anchor QEA 2011: 1) (Figure 1.1).

The Newtown Creek RI/FS is being conducted in compliance with the USEPA CERCLA program. CERCLA projects must substantively comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties) and other involved agencies (i.e., the State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP]). Under Section 106 of the NHPA, CERCLA remedial actions are required

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 1

to take into account the effects of the remedial activities on any historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., conducted all of the Stage 1A CRS activities in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800), with the objective of identifying any National Register-eligible historic properties within or near the Study Area that might be affected by potential remedial actions.

The literature study, the first step in the CRS process, included research to identify any known or potential cultural resources (prehistoric and historic) within the Study Area. This study included a review of data gathered as part of the historical data review component of the RI/FS. The study focused on previous work related to comparable urban canal/waterway settings, including survey work undertaken within New York City. It also included additional sources not collected as part of the RI/FS historical review and visiting local New York repositories.

The second step in the Stage 1A CRS process included a site visit/reconnaissance survey of the archeological and built environment. The principal purpose of the site visit was to document existing conditions and to identify areas of focus (i.e., archeological potential) for more intensive background research. The site visit/survey included reconnaissance by boat to cover accessible sections of the Study Area and a land-based effort for those landside areas that are accessible to the public. Public accessibility to within 50-feet of the banks of Newtown Creek from land was restricted to only two places.

The architectural component of the reconnaissance survey had the following objectives. One objective was to identify built resources in the Built Environment Study Area with the potential to possess the qualities of significance and integrity to qualify as historic properties applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). A further objective was to determine the adequacy of the limits of the Built Environment Study Area.

For this project R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., conducted an archeological cultural resources assessment applying hydrographic and geophysical survey data collected by CR Environmental, Inc. (CR) within the Newtown Creek Phase 1 Remedial Investigation Study Area. CR performed hydrographic and geophysical surveys in general conformance with a USACE Class I survey (EM 1110- 2-1003, 2002), between October 31, 2011 and November 5, 2011.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report develops the natural setting and prehistoric and historic contexts of the Study Area as the basis for analyses and interpretation. The natural setting and cultural context of the Study Area is discussed in Chapter II. Chapter III reviews its maritime history; Chapter IV outlines the methods used during background research and remote sensing survey. Chapter V provides the boat-based reconnaissance survey results. Chapter VI gives archeological analyses of the hydrographic and geophysical survey. Chapter VII provides the architectural reconnaissance survey results. Chapter VIII contains the Stage 1A CRS conclusions and management recommendations.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 2

Figure 1.1. Study Area locator map.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER II

NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

The natural and cultural setting of Newtown Creek is presented in Chapter II, establishing the physical, environmental, and historical development of this maritime cultural landscape.  Newtown Creek is a 3.8 mile long estuary (with 5 tributaries) with a semi-diurnal tidal cycle ranging from five to seven feet.  Three archeological sites have been identified and twenty-three archeological investigations have been conducted within one mile of Newtown Creek. Twenty-two archeological investigations recommended no further work.  No underwater cultural resources investigations have been conducted within Newtown Creek.  No architectural resources within the Newtown Creek Built Environment Study Area are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Within one mile of the creek, eleven architectural resources are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and thirteen resources are New York City landmarks.  Two bridges, the Borden Avenue Bridge and the Kosciuszko Bridge, have concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.  An overview history shows the area to be an active and developing maritime cultural landscape from prehistory through the twentieth centuries.

NATURAL SETTING

Physical Description

Newtown Creek is a 3.8-mile long estuarine water body characterized by a semi-diurnal tidal cycle with a vertical range of approximately five to seven feet. Newtown Creek forms the border between the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens (Community District 1 in Brooklyn and Community Districts 2 and 5 in Queens). Newtown Creek, itself a tributary of East River, has five main tributaries, Dutch Kills, Whale Creek, Maspeth Creek, East Branch, and English Kills. Although tidal, the principal water flow into Newtown Creek consists of storm water runoff and localized drainage.

Geology

The Study Area consists of unconsolidated fill deposits that overlie Holocene salt-marsh deposits and alluvium. The Holocene deposits are typically underlain by a sequence of Pleistocene-age till and ground moraine (Upper Glacial Aquifer). The Upper Glacial Aquifer overlies the Precambrian-age crystalline bedrock under the Study Area from the mouth of Newtown Creek to just south of Greenpoint Avenue. Bedrock is approximately 30 feet below ground surface near the mouth of Newtown Creek and slopes southeastward to a depth of over 190 feet below ground surface at the southeastern extent of Newtown Creek. In the area east of Greenpoint Avenue through the end of Newtown Creek, the Raritan

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 5

Clay underlies the Upper Glacial Aquifer over the bedrock. Gardiner’s Clay, a marine clay, separates the Upper Glacial Aquifer from the Raritan Clay at the southeastern extent of Newtown Creek (AECOM 2011: 2-2).

Geomorphology

Following the retreat of the late Pleistocene glaciers, the coastlines of southern New England and New York were progressively inundated, so that many early (pre-5,000 BP) coastal sites are now under water. Further complicating the environmental picture is the fact that today’s Long Island Sound was not originally a marine ecosystem, but rather a freshwater glacial lake, known variously as Lake Flushing (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 2012) or Lake Long Island (Sanders and Merguerian 1994: 1). The glacial moraines that confined this lake eventually breached ca. 14,000 – 12,000 BP (USGS 2012), and the lake waters commingled with the Atlantic Ocean to form Long Island Sound (Historical Perspectives Inc., 1989: 6). Although sea levels continue to rise today, most shorelines had attained their approximate modern positions by 5,000 BP, and streams like Newtown Creek and its associated tributaries were surrounded by extensive marsh areas (Historical Perspectives Inc. 1989: 4). During the last three to five thousand years of the prehistoric era (and possibly earlier), streams like Newtown Creek and their associated marshes would have afforded hunter-gatherer-fishers access to a diverse array of resources, but such an environment would not have been conducive to habitation or settlement sites, which would have been situated on higher ground.

Climate

The climate in the Study Area is typical of the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The average annual temperature in New York City (NYC) is 54 degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Celsius), with average temperatures ranging from 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius) to 76 degrees Fahrenheit (24 degrees Celsius). Precipitation is distributed uniformly throughout the year, averaging approximately 42 inches annually. Average morning relative humidity varies from 70% to 79% and average evening relative humidity varies from 57% to 62%. Prevailing winds in the Study Area are from the south with an average wind speed in NYC of 10-16 miles per hour (http://www.weather base.com/weather/).

CULTURAL CONTEXT

Previous Investigations

Archeological and architectural site files and reports were reviewed at the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) and through the online resources of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (NYC/LPC) website. These two repositories collectively yielded information concerning previously identified archeological investigations (Table 2.1) and built resources listed in the NRHP and/or on the New York City Landmarks list (Table 2.2) located within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area.

Only three archeological sites have been recorded within one mile of Newtown Creek; none of these sites fall directly within the Archeological Study Area. Albert Parker, archeologist with the New York State Museum, recorded two prehistoric sites in 1922. Neither of these sites was designated with a

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 6

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area 1991 Flagg, Thomas N/A Cultural Resource Evaluation: Phelps-Dodge Refinery operated from 1891 to Abuts Newtown Phelps-Dodge Laurel Hill 1983; located at 43rd St. between LIRR and Creek Copper Refinery Site, Queens Newtown Creek. At time of the report, all County, New York buildings were still standing. Potential significance based upon Criteria A (pioneering work in electrolytic refining process); Criterion C (industrial building design); and Criterion D (information about the copper refining industry). All buildings were removed from the site in 2000, and site was capped with concrete and gravel. 1997 STV Incorporated MTA/Long Island Draft Cultural Resources Examined track alignments and grades, 3500 - 5000 ft N of and others RR Technical Appendix: Major standing structures, within Queens Study Area. head of Dutch Kill Investment Study/Draft Recommended that all railroad related Environmental Impact buildings be documented applying HAER Statement for the Long Island standards. Found potentially archeologically Transportation Corridor: Long sensitive areas with potential deposits related Island Rail Road East Side to the following: prehistoric resources, a ca. Access Project 1650 grist mill, late 19th century dwellings, and occupation by British troops during Revolution. Recommended analysis of soil borings by qualified archeologist, with appropriate mitigation efforts to be determined pending analysis 2006 Historical MTA/Long Island Addendum: Stage IA Examined 3 areas for sensitivity. Concluded 750 - 2000 ft N of Perspectives Inc. RR Archaeological Assessment generally that potential for historic resources is head of Dutch Kill MTA/Long Island Railroad East generally low, but that prehistoric resources Side Access Project Loop Track still could be extant beneath fill and Portal embankment areas in selected locations

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 7

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area 2008 URS Corporation MTA/NYC Transit Phase IB Archaeological Following mechanical removal of fill (0.8 - 5.6 Within 1 mile of head Investigations for Sunnyside, ft), 8 test units excavated in previously of Dutch Kill Queens Rail Complex (Queens designated sensitive area (Area 12). Buried Area 12), MTA/LIRR East Side horizons represent an "inherently disturbed Access Project, Queens, New context resulting from agricultural activities," York and are the "product of secondary redeposition." No further archeological work recommended. 1986 Historical Parsons Phase IA Archaeological Project location is at confluence of Newtown Abuts Maspeth and Perspectives Inc. Brinckerhoff Sensitivity Report on the and Maspeth Creeks, on south shore of Newtown Creeks Quade and Douglas Resource Recovery Project: Maspeth Creek. Documentary research and Maspeth, Queens field recon failed to identify any evidence of prehistoric occupation within the project area. Recent land development (including bulkheading, filling, silting, dumping and grading) were used to modify the formerly swampy land mass, and have erased all traces of former land configuration. Historic and prehistoric occupation sites would be predicted on higher elevation land to the south. No further archeological work was recommended. Present buildings on site date from 1960s. 1990 Historical ARKF, Inc. Archaeological Assessment of Examined secondary impacts resulting from Abuts Newtown Perspectives Inc. the Hunters Point Project proposed re-development of area at confluence Creek at East River Secondary Study Area of East River and Newtown Creek (north shore). Concluded that the archeological potential of the entire area was limited, due to "severe subsurface disturbances" within the study area. No further archeological work recommended.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 8

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area 1996 Historical Allee King Rosen Phase IA Archaeological Examined 3 expansion sites for this facility. Abuts west shore of Perspectives Inc. and Fleming, Inc. Assessment, NYC Department Expansion sites 1 and 3 border the western Whale Creek and w/in of Environmental Protection, shore of Whale Creek; expansion site 2 is 1,000 ft of Newtown Newtown Creek Water located on Greenpoint Avenue southeast of Creek) Pollution Control Plant Whale Creek. Report found that, due to prior marshy topography of area, sensitivity for prehistoric archeological resources is low. No further work recommended. 1990 Historical Greeley and Phase IA Archaeological Project area is part of the NCWPC Plant. Abuts west shore of Perspectives Inc. Hansen Inc. Assessment Report for the Analysis of soil bores showed between 20 and Whale Creek Newtown Creek Water 30 ft of unconsolidated fill across this portion Pollution Control Plant of the site (with deeper fill levels possibly upgrading, Greenpoint, New indicating former course of Whale Creek). York Water table varies from 8.5 - 17.4 ft bs. Archeological potential rated as "minimum" and no further work was recommended. 1991 Kearns, Kirkorian, Allee King Rosen New York City Long Range Project location is at confluence of Newtown Abuts Maspeth and and Cobbs and Fleming, Inc. Sludge Management Plan: and Maspeth Creeks, on south shore of Newtown Creeks (Historical Generic Environmental Impact Maspeth Creek. Documentary research and Perspectives Inc.) Statement III: Maspeth, Queens: field recon failed to identify any evidence of Stage 1A Archaeological prehistoric occupation within the project area. Assessment Recent land development (including bulkheading, filling, silting, dumping and grading) were used to modify the formerly swampy land mass, and have erased all traces of former land configuration. Historic and prehistoric occupation sites would be predicted on higher elevation land to the south. No further archeological work was recommended. Present buildings on site date from 1960s. (see also preliminary report [Historical Perspectives, Inc. 1986])

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 9

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area 1991 Tidlow, Evelyn New York City New York City Department of Project location is on parcels immediately Maspeth Creek (Historical Department of Environmental Protection north of Maspeth Creek. Study found that Perspectives Inc.) Environmental Proposed Bureau of Water extensive fill (10 - 23 ft) overlay a peat lens Protection Supply and Sewers Facility: that represented former estuarine marsh Railroad Place, Maspeth, environment, but that extensive fill levels Queens rendered deep testing untenable. Historic development did not impact the project area until the 1940s, although pier and bulkhead lines along Maspeth Creek had been established by 1910. 1999 Hartgen Shillinger, Salerni Archeological Sensitivity Project location abuts English Kills English Kills Archeological and Boyd, Inc. Assessment: Proposed Solid (immediately east). Soil borings within the Associates, Inc. Waste Processing Building, 322 proposed building site found fill to depths of Morgan Avenue, City of between 19 and 25 ft, with water table at 7 ft. Brooklyn, Kings County, New Sensitivity for significant historic and York prehistoric resources was assessed as low. 1983 Solecki, Ralph Greater Ridgewood The Columbia University Details a 3-year college field school effort at Within 1 mile of Historical Society Archaeological Investigations at the National Register Vander-Onderdonk site English Kills the Onderdonk House in to expose and document features dating from Ridgewood, Queens: 1980-1982 the late 17th through early 20th century at the site 2007 (Various) USFHWA and NY Kosciuszko Bridge Project: Presents a block by block assessment of the Newtown Creek DOT Cultural Resources Technical historic and prehistoric archeological potential Report (Draft) of the project area, including approaches to the bridge. In general, sensitivity for both types of resources is classed as low to moderate 1996 Eugene Boesch N/A Key: Previously recorded Describes previously identified site (New York Maspeth and Native American Sites in the State Museum #4536) located at or near the Newtown Creeks Borough of Queens confluence of Maspeth and Newtown Creeks (north bank of Maspeth Creek). Site identified by Parker (1922), Bolton (1922), and Grumet (1981) as having possible Woodland and Contact Period components

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 10

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area N/A New York State N/A NYSM (New York State Identifies basic information about Site #4536 Maspeth and Historic Museum) site file data base (Queens) and #3613 (Kings/Brooklyn) that Newtown Creeks Preservation Office originally were listed at the New York State Museum by Albert Parker in 1922) 2008 Louis Berger Group Unknown Phase IA Cultural Resources Report unavailable from NYC Landmarks Dutch Kills Assessment, Dutch Kills Preservation Commission Rezoning Project, Long island City, Queens, NY 2008 Louis Berger Allee King Rosen Dutch Kills Rezoning Draft Report unavailable from NYC Landmarks Dutch Kills Group, Inc. and Fleming, Inc., Environmental Impact Preservation Commission Philip Habib and Statement Associates 2008 Louis Berger Group Allee King Rosen Dutch Kills Rezoning Final Report unavailable from NYC Landmarks Dutch Kills Inc. and Fleming, Inc.; Environmental Impact Preservation Commission Philip Habib and Statement Associates 1988 Flagg, Thomas Allee King Rosen Hunter's Point Industrial Documents history, function and significance North side Newtown and Fleming Archeology of railroad related structures located on Port Creek at East River Authority Waterfront Development site in Hunter's Point. However, focuses primarily on built resources rather than subsurface remains. 2004 Bergoffen, Celia J. Philip Habib & Archaeological Assessment Presents an overall historic and prehistoric South side Newtown Associates Report - Phase IA, Greenpoint- context for the project area. Assessment of Creek at East River. Williamsburg Rezoning: Part I, archeological potential for prehistoric remains Historical Background is considered low, due to considerable landform modification beginning in the 19th century.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 11

Table 2.1. Previous studies within one mile of the Newtown Creek Study Area Location in Relation Date Company/Author Client Report title Summary to Newtown Creek Study Area 2004 Bergoffen, Celia J. Philip Habib & Archaeological Assessment Examines a Wide variety of blocks across large South side Newtown Associates Report - Phase IA, Greenpoint- project area. Most relevant to the present Creek at East River. Williamsburg Rezoning: Part II, project is Block 2472, bounded by Newtown Lot Histories - Summary Data Creek, Eagle Street, Manhattan Avenue, and Commercial Street. None of the former commercially developed lots within this area was assessed as archeologically significant. 1991 Allee King Rosen & Landmarks Assessment of Archaeological Examines soil bore data for the Phelps Dodge North side Newtown Fleming, Inc. Preservation Sensitivity, Phelps-Dodge Site, Refining Corporation Laurel Hill Works site Creek at East River. Commission Long Range Sludge on the north side of Newtown Creek. Management Plan: GEIS III Concludes that proposed installation of spread footings and piles would not disturb any significant prehistoric or historic archeological resources. Soil bore data (contained in Appendix) indicate fill depths of from 10-20 ft on the site, with ground water table at 8-12 ft amsl. 1988 Kearns, Kirkorian, Allee, King, Rosen Phase IA Archaeological Extensively documented landform North side Newtown and Seyfried & Fleming Assessment Report for the modifications in the Hunters Point project area, Creek at East River. (Historical Hunters Point Site, Queens, which extended north from the confluence of Perspectives Inc.) New York Newtown Creek and the East River to the canal at Astoria. Report concluded that prehistoric remains, if any, would have been deeply buried beneath 19th - 20th century fills, while continuous development/re-development of waterfront property would have disrupted significant historical archeological resources.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 12

Table 2.2. Built resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Distance/Direction from Resource NYSHPO # Resource Name Chronology Description Newtown Creek Study Type Area National Register Listed Cultural Resources Within One Mile of Newtown Creek Neighborhood of domestic, religious, and commercial buildings exhibiting Italianate, Approximate center is 800 m 90NR01319 Second Empire, Neo-Grecian, and Queen Greenpoint Historic District District ca. 1850-1900 (2,624.7 ft/0.50 mi) south of (LP #1248) Anne styles, with some non-contributing Newtown Creek structures. Local designation documents include original plus expansion. Massive brick and terra-cotta apartment building, designed by Lamb and Rich, Approximately 400 m (1,312.3 90NR01327 Astral Apartments Building 1885-1886 and constructed by Charles Pratt (oil ft/0.25 mi) south of Newtown (LP #1194) magnate) for housing workers in nearby Creek oil refinery. Site includes ruins of 18th century house Approximately 400 m (1,312.3 Vander Ende-Onderdonk House Archeological Late 18th - 20th 90NR01564 (burned 1975), foundation of 19th century ft/0.25 mi) southeast of head Site site century addition, and associated landscape features. of Maspeth Creek French style pavilion with colonnade, Center is approximately 609.5 90NR01276 Monsignor McGolrick Park and Structure and designed by Helmle & Huberty. Site also ca. 1910 - 1938 m (2,000 ft/0.38 mi southwest (LP 0167) Shelter Pavilion landscape includes commemorative statuary and of Newtown Creek radiating walks. Residential district homes feature Romanesque Revival styling. Center is approximately Cypress Avenue West Historic District also includes a Georgian 1,219.2 m (4,000 ft/0.76 90NR01600 District ca. 1888-1906 District Revival style school, and a Gothic mi) southeast of head of Revival church. District straddles English Kills. Kings/Queen County line. Includes 79 two-story brick row houses and Center is approximately 762 one church. Designed by Louis Berger, Stockholm-DeKalb-Hart m (2,500 ft/0.47 mi) 92NR0293 District 1905-1921 distinguished by Romanesque and Historic District southeast of head of Renaissance Revival details. District contains Maspeth Creek. area's only surviving cobblestone street. Center is approximately Fifty (50) 3-story brick tenements feature Willoughby-Suydam Historic 685.8 m (2,250 ft/0.43 mi) 90NR01608 District 1904-1906 ornamental details in Romanesque, District south-southeast of the head Renaissance and Classical Revival detailing. of Newtown Creek

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 13

Table 2.2. Built resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Distance/Direction from Resource NYSHPO # Resource Name Chronology Description Newtown Creek Study Type Area 45th Road-Court House Square Complex includes elevated platform, control 457.2 m (1,500 ft/0.28 mi) 04NR0531 Structure 1914-1916 Station (Dual System IRT) house, three access stairways. northwest of Dutch Kill French Second Empire courthouse rebuilt after fire in 1904 retains basic plan and some 90NR01592 Long Island City Courthouse 381 m (1,250 ft/0.24 mi) Buildings 1874-1908 structural elements of original building. (LP 0925) Complex northwest of Dutch Kill Complex includes brick jail (1915) and annex, also office annex (ca. 1925). Colonial Revival building typifies Federal Approximately 557.8 m 90NR01575 Long Island City Post Office Building 1928-1929 architectural design of the period. Building (1830 ft/0.35 mi) north- occupies entire city block. northeast of Newtown Creek Stone and brick dwellings, previously single-family residential units, now 90NR01589 457.2 m (1,500 ft/0.28 mi) Hunters Point Historic District District ca. 1875-1900 converted to multi-family units. Wide (LP #0450) northwest of Dutch Kill range of late 19th century styles includes Italianate style. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Designated Resources within One Mile of Newtown Creek Romanesque Revival Station House designed Approximately 838.2 m (2,750 83rd Precinct Police Station and by William Tubby; 3-story building with LP #0951 Building 1894-5 ft/0.52 mi) south- southeast of Stable clock tower. Stable building attached; English Kills courtyard now used for parking. Approximately 1,117.7 m Public School 86 (Irvington Brick and stone Romanesque Revival school LP #1808 Building 1892-93 (3,667 ft/0.69 mi) southeast of School) designed by James Naughton. English Kills 36 brick row houses with someoutbuildings; originally developed as working class Approximately 691 m (2,267 Stockholm Street Historic housing. Stockholm Street is only brick paved LP #2081 District 1907-1910 ft/0.43 mi) southeast of head District street in community of Ridgewood. See also of Maspeth Creek. Stockholm-DeKalb- Hart National Register district. A Carnegie Library, designed by William Approximately 1143 m (3,750 Brooklyn Public Library-DeKalb LP #2054 Building 1904-05 Tubby. Brick and limestone building in ft/0.71 mi) south of English Branch Classical Revival Style. Kills

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 14

Table 2.2. Built resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Distance/Direction from Resource NYSHPO # Resource Name Chronology Description Newtown Creek Study Type Area A complex of eight buildings acquired or built for the Faber Pencil manufacturing 1,270 m (4,167 ft/0.79 mi) 1860-1910s, 1923- company, which was founded in 1861. The LP #2264 Eberhard-Faber Pencil Company Buildings on East River southwest of 24 complex, located in Greenpoint, illustrates Newtown Creek the evolution of 19th and early 20th century industrial architecture. Complex includes brew house, engine and William Ulmer Brewery machine house, and stable/storage building. 838.2 m (2,750 ft/0.52 mi) LP #2280 Buildings 1885-1890 Complex Designed in Romanesque Revival style by southwest of English Kills Theobald Engelhart. Frame, three-story Queen Anne style dwelling built by Berlenbach and designed 457.2 m (1,500 ft/0.28 mi) LP #2152 F. J. Berlenbach House Building 1887 by his son. Existing clapboard siding is west of English Kills original, as is highly ornamental applied carved decorative embellishments. Architect Bradford L. Gilbert designed this Approximately 457.2 m (1,500 Fire Engine Company 258, Hook four story Dutch Renaissance Revival LP #2200 Building 1902-4 ft west/0.28 mi) north and Ladder Company 115 building which features Flemish bond northeast of Newtown Creek brickwork with burnt headers. Three and one-half story brick and stone Bethesda Pentecostal Church Approximately 3,167 ft south LP #0734 Building 1892 structure features terra cotta ornamentation, a (Bushwick Democratic Club) southeast of English Kills trademark of its architect, Frank Freeman. Designation includes swimming and Approximately 1219.2 m LP #2242 Sunset Play Center Complex 1934-6 wading pools, associated bathhouse (4,000 ft/0.76 mi) southwest structures, and surrounding landscape. of Newtown Creek Designation includes interior of the WPA Approximately 1219.2 m funded pool complex, executed in the Art LP #2243 Sunset Play Center Interior Complex 1934-6 (4,000 ft/0.76 mi) southwest of Modern style. Mechanical systems also are Newtown Creek unique.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 15

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 16

specific location but, identified as general areas within the Newtown Creek watershed. Site NYSM #3613 encompasses a large area of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, while Site NYSM #4536 indicates an area of high ground due east of the headwaters of Maspeth Creek in Queens. Both sites were described only as evidencing “traces of aboriginal occupation.” The third site, the Vander Ende-Onderdonk house site (NY SHPO #90NR01564), refers to the late seventeenth through early twentieth century structural remains revealed in an excavation conducted by Ralph Solecki and students from Columbia University in the early 1980s (Solecki 1983). This site is listed in the NRHP.

Several neighborhoods and some individual structures listed in the NRHP are located within one mile of Newtown Creek. Table 2.2 lists the architectural resources that have been listed in the NRHP, as well as those designated as New York City landmarks. Within one mile of Newtown Creek, 11 resources are listed in the NRHP; 13 built resources are New York City landmarks. No NRHP-listed architectural resources are located within the Newtown Creek Built Environment Study Area. The majority of the neighborhoods designated as historic districts reflect the rapid urbanization of this area that began after the mid-nineteenth century, a trend that continued and intensified into the first third of the twentieth century. Many of the individually-listed built resources include institutions and facilities that developed to serve the burgeoning populations of the surrounding neighborhoods, such as schools, churches, governmental centers, transportation facilities, and parks and recreational areas. Two resources, the Eberhard-Faber Pencil Company (NYC/LPC #2264) on the East River and the William Ullmer Brewery complex (NYC/LPC #2280) southwest of English Kills, are symbolic of the numerous industrial enterprises that drove the population growth of this area of Brooklyn and Queens.

A search of the architectural survey files in the NY SHPO office did not locate any properties within the Newtown Creek Built Environment Study Area that had concurrence determinations as eligible for NRHP listing, but were not yet listed. One property, the building at 39-14 and 38-42 Review Avenue, within the Built Environment Study Area was previously assessed as not eligible during the architectural investigations for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for planned replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge. The NY SHPO concurred with the finding in 2006 (NY DOT 2008 Appendix M: V- 7, V-76).

Efforts were made to find the NRHP status of the numerous bridges that span Newtown Creek and its tributaries. Documentation collected from other sources identified two bridges within the Newtown Creek Built Environment Study Area that have previous concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the NRHP (Table 2.2). In 2008, the NY DOT and the NY SHPO concurred, that the Borden Avenue Bridge in Queens was eligible for the NRHP as a rare survivor of the retractile bridge design. The Kosciuszko Bridge that carries Interstate (I) 278 across Newtown Creek was identified in 2007 as NRHP eligible with NY SHPO concurrence (NY DOT 2008 Appendix M:V23-V26). The Kosciuszko Bridge is planned for replacement and has been the subject of Section 106 consultation, which as of 2012 has been completed so that plans for the bridge replacement are moving forward (NY DOT 2008). According to Reier (2000: Appendix), the New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) owns the vehicular bridges that span Newtown Creek. NYC DOT’s web site confirms that none of the Newtown Creek bridges have been accorded NYC local landmark status, a fact further confirmed by the absence of any Landmarks Preservation Commission historic designation reports for such structures. In addition, the Queens Midtown Expressway does not appear to possess significance as a historic property. The expressway (I495) does not appear on the Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System (FHWA 2008).

Twenty-three archeological investigations have been conducted within the archeological and Built Environment Study Areas for this project. In all but one case, these investigations have not extended beyond the Stage 1A assessment level; the resulting reports recommended that no further archeological

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 17

investigations should be conducted, due primarily to the degree of disturbance that had resulted from the industrialization of the last 150 years. No underwater cultural resource investigations have been conducted within Newtown Creek or its tributary streams (Lynn Rakos [USACE, New York District], personal communication: 13 January 2012).

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

General Overview

The ancestors of Algonquian-speaking Indians occupied the coast and islands of Long Island Sound for at least 12,000 years. The archeology of this portion of southeastern New York and adjoining southern New England (of which the Newtown Creek watershed is a part) has been studied intensively over the last century through cultural resource management studies, vocational excavations, and traditional "academic" endeavors. Ritchie (1980), Salwen (1978), Snow (1980), and Dincauze (1990) all provided broad regional overviews of this area; a synthesis of the relevant ethno-historic sources was presented in Grumet (1995).

Although much fieldwork has taken place on the shores of Long Island Sound, many questions regarding the region's prehistory remain unanswered. Interpretation has been hindered by a lack of radiocarbon dates from prehistoric Native American sites. This has meant that, in many cases, sites and components of sites have been dated solely on the basis of artifact (especially projectile point) styles. In the Northeast, projectile point typologies typically have been constructed based on morphological considerations, and the contexts from which they were recovered have been assigned dates that have been obtained for similar materials from sites elsewhere in the region. Because the resolution available with typological cross-dating is generally very broad, it is not always adequate for sorting out remains into contemporary components or for making comparisons among sites. Moreover, some of the various point types do not represent discrete temporal periods (Filios 1989), and many types apparently were used for extremely long (thousands of years) periods of time. This is especially the case for some of the Late Archaic types. Despite these drawbacks, artifact typologies are indispensable tools for ordering the prehistoric past, and the general date ranges assigned to various types have been used to organize the discussion that follows (Maymon et al. 2000:7).

Archeologists working on Long Island and elsewhere in the northeastern United States usually employ a system of three general periods (Paleo-Indian, Archaic and Woodland) to divide the span of time between the first settlement of the region by Native Peoples and the arrival of the European explorers and colonists in the sixteenth century (for alternative temporal frameworks, refer to: Snow 1980, Dincauze 1990 and Boesch 1997).

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 12,000 - 10,000 BP)

The Paleo-Indian period encompasses the time frame from the first arrival of humans into the region until around 10,000 BP, at the end of the Pleistocene glacial epoch. As the glacial ice sheets gradually receded, tundra vegetation similar to that found today in Alaska and northern Canada initially colonized newly exposed portions of Long Island (Sirkin 1996). Vegetation in the more temperate southern reaches of this tundra zone, including southern New York, eventually was replaced by open spruce-pine evergreen forests, possibly intermixed with a few deciduous species. On Long Island, pollen studies suggest that a spruce-pine boreal forest had replaced the tundra by 13,000 BP (Boesch 1997:9), and that deciduous hardwoods (first birch and aspen, then oak, and later other mast trees) were dominant

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 18

by 10,000 BP (Newman 1977; Sirkin 1996). Because the latter environment had a high carrying capacity for game, it "probably was the principal milieu of the Early Paleo-Indian hunter over most of the Northeast" (Ritchie and Funk 1973:6, 37). It is thought that the freely wandering Paleo-Indian hunters, traveling together in small bands, penetrated northward into northeastern North America through the major river valleys. Pleistocene mega fauna and/or caribou may have been a primary source of animal protein, but small animals and whatever sparse plant resources were available undoubtedly were exploited as well (Ritchie and Funk 1973:6), as evidenced by the diversity of plant and animal species identified from Paleo-Indian contexts at sites such as Shawnee-Minisink on the Delaware River (McNett 1985).

Although few sites from this period have been identified in the Long Island Sound region, the presence of early peoples is implied from the occasional surface find of the characteristic fluted projectile points that presumably were used to hunt Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene fauna (Saxon 1973). The best-known early Native American site in the Metropolitan New York area is at Port Mobil, Staten Island.

The Port Mobil Site produced diagnostic fluted points (often referred to as “Clovis”), as well as spurred end scrapers and lithic debitage often associated with the Paleo-Indian period. However, the assemblage at Port Mobil was recovered from disturbed, rather than stratigraphically intact, contexts. A surface collection from the Cutting Site also produced fluted points, while non-diagnostic lithic material (i.e., debitage) were collected either from deeply buried sand deposits or strata underlying potential Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene peat deposits at Charleston Beach and Smoking Point (Boesch 1994:8-9). These additional sites also are located on Staten Island overlooking the Arthur Kill.

Late Pleistocene mastodon bones also have been found in the Bronx (Ritchie 1980: Figure 3), but not in association with cultural material. On Long Island, isolated fluted points have been recovered at Wantagh and Massapequa, on the southern shore of the island, in association with stream drainages (Pickman 1982a:22). This paucity of early sites is not surprising. Even if the region was well populated prior to 10,000 BP, most of the evidence for early human presence has been destroyed or hidden by a series of natural forces that influenced post-Pleistocene conditions in the region.

Archaic Period (10,000 – 2,700 BP)

The natural environment during the Archaic period was influenced by the gradual onset of a slowly moderating climate. Interior woodlands, ponds, rivers, and coastal estuaries began to provide a broader range of exploitable food resources (e.g., nuts, large and small game, seed-bearing plants, fish, etc.) and industrial products (stone for making tools and weapons, plants for baskets and textiles, bark for house construction, etc.). Occupants of the region could adopt a more regular subsistence based upon the seasonal resource availability, and Archaic period tool kits diversified to facilitate exploitation of this more diverse array of resources (Kearns et al., 1991:8). In general, the aboriginal population of the regions bordering Long Island Sound had increased significantly by 7,000 BP; some estimates have placed the potential number of residents in the thousands—a relative “population explosion.” The increasing number of sites dating from this period, and the larger size of individual settlements, many of which exceed 12.4 acres (5 hectares), provide the evidence on which this assumption rests (Maymon et al. 2000:9).

Sites assigned to the early stages of this period are relatively few. Several Staten Island sites have yielded archeological deposits containing the bifurcate-base, stemmed, and corner-notched points commonly associated with Early-Middle Archaic occupations (Ritchie and Funk 1973: 38-9). In the vicinity of the Newtown Creek Study Area, the New York Institute of Anthropology (Platt 1997) reported the presence of one potential Early Archaic site in Bayside, Queens, which yielded several bifurcated- base projectile points (Maymon et al. 2000: 11); however, sustained prehistoric occupation of the Long

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 19

Island area apparently began later in the Archaic period; for example, Ronald Wyatt (personal communication 1994) dated the initial occupation of Long Island from about 5,000 BP. All of the documented sites from this Late Archaic period are clustered along the high morainal ridges adjacent to Long Island Sound or on eastern Long Island, and all have been interpreted as small camps associated primarily with hunting (Fehr et al. 1995:26).

Long Island's prehistoric population appears to have increased markedly during the Late Archaic, which some researchers like Boesch (1997) view as a separate phase known as the Transitional period; the type site for this phase, Orient No. 1 (Ritchie 1980: 164), is located on eastern Long Island. The characteristic site distribution and settlement patterns for the period are characterized by temporary encampment sites and separate ceremonial cemeteries. Orient Phase sites also demonstrate marked changes in subsistence patterns from those practiced by earlier groups, in that shellfish, particularly oysters and clams, formed a larger portion of the aboriginal diet. Late in the period, crude forms of pottery began to supplant steatite vessels (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Kearns et al., 1991:8).

Boesch (1997:14-15) points out that several Archaic period sites have been identified on elevated areas bordering inlets and bays on the north shore of Long Island. In terms of the immediate Newtown Creek Study Area, Ralph Solecki and his associates explored an area between Maspeth Avenue and Maspeth Creek for several years in the 1930s, just prior to bulkheading and heavy industrial development. They reported finding numerous Archaic period artifacts, including projectile points and other tool types of that period (Kearns et al. 1991:12-13); however, it is likely that the location surveyed by Solecki does not fall within that Study Area, since much of this formerly marshy area along Newtown and Maspeth creeks was filled and bulkheaded extensively in subsequent years.

Woodland Period (2,750 – 500 BP)

The Woodland Period generally is marked by the full-fledged use and elaboration of ceramic forms, and by the eventual adoption of horticulture (Fehr et al. 1995). Archeologically derived evidence suggests that subsistence strategies and settlement patterns initially changed minimally from what they had been during the preceding Archaic period. Some artifact forms (e.g., projectile point shape) changed, and pottery became important over time, but the basic economic pattern established during the Archaic— that of exploiting a broad range of natural resources—continued during the Woodland period. This pattern of subsistence is reflected in site distribution: larger Woodland period occupation site locations showed a preference for well-drained locations near fresh-water sources, while smaller extractive or resource gathering sites proliferated either along coastlines (in the case of shellfish procurement sites) or in interior zones (Kearns et al. 1991:9).

During the Late Woodland (ca. 1,000-500 BP), agriculture, especially the cultivation of corn and beans imported from the American tropics, became important in the economies of native groups living along the middle and upper reaches of the major river valleys in upstate New York and Connecticut. However, the importance of agriculture in the coastal regions around Long Island is less well known, and has been the topic of much debate among archeologists (Bendremer and Dewar 1994; Bernstein 1993; Ceci 1979, 1982; Lavin 1988; Silver 1981; Boesch 1997:16). Regardless of the dietary importance of cultigens like corn, beans, and squash, it is clear that native peoples on the coast continued to hunt, gather, and collect the abundant products of the natural environment, although questions regarding the degree of reliance upon marine species (especially shellfish), during the Archaic and Early Woodland periods remain open (Maymon et al. 2000).

Numerous researchers in the past have attempted to document Late Woodland occupations in the general vicinity of the Study Area, particularly the Native American village of Mespat or Maspeth

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 20

(presumably a Woodland and/or Contact period occupation). The general location initially was reported by Riker in 1852 and further described by Reginald Bolton in 1922 but, more recent researchers have found it impossible to re-locate these areas definitively, particularly in light of the rapid modern industrial development of this section (Kearns et al. 1991:12-13). Solecki’s map of Indian village sites in Queens County (Kearns et al. 1991: Figure 11) also noted three villages on the uplands overlooking the eastern shoreline of Newtown Creek, including one just north of the confluence of Maspeth and Newtown creeks; these may be the two recorded New York State Museum sites (NYSM #s 4536, 4543) and a habitation site on Maspeth Creek between Laurel Hill and Linden Hills mentioned in Boesch (1996; 1997:18). On the western shore of Newtown Creek, Albert Parker also identified a large area of Greenpoint as a site (NYSM #3613) in 1922 but, the New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) site files provide no specific information about this site. Regardless, all of these loci appear to be well away from the Newtown Creek shoreline and hence are unlikely to be encompassed within the archeological Study Area for this project.

Contact Period

Early European observers (e.g., Danckaerts 1913 [1679-1680]; van der Donck 1841 [1656]; Wolley 1902 [1701]) described the seasonal settlement and subsistence pattern for the Native American inhabitants around modern New York City. Hunting in the wooded uplands took place year-round, but was most important during the late autumn. During the winter, people would disperse in small groups to the interior reaches of southern New England. Larger groups would reassemble in coastal villages in the spring to clear fields for planting, when fishing and collecting shellfish would also resume after the winter hiatus. The summer was a time of visiting and trade, prior to the largest population gathering for the harvest in early autumn. However, Ceci (1977, 1982) argued that the Native American settlement patterns recorded by early Europeans did not necessarily reflect the situation prior to Contact. Instead, she posited that Native American summertime aggregation in coastal villages was related to the introduction of a new economic system centered on fur trading and wampum production, along with the widespread adoption of agriculture based on tropical cultigens. Europeans encouraged both of these activities.

Indigenous tribes in the Newtown Creek area were related to the Munsee-speaking Lenape Indians of the Upper Delaware River (Boesch 1997:17-18). The resident Native American groups in this portion of Long Island were known as the “Canarsees” or “Maspaetches,” and it was they with whom the first European settlers concluded land purchases in 1638 (Historical Perspectives Inc., 1989:10, 13). The initially cordial relationships, however, began to fray, and friction gradually developed between the native groups and the European colonists on Long Island. Tensions first came to a head in the 1630s during the so-called Kieft affair, a hostile outbreak that was prompted by a massacre of Native American groups on order of the Dutch governor at the time. Retaliatory raids included one that resulted in the killing of several settlers at the nascent settlement at Maspeth (Riker 1852:26; Kearns et al. 1991:14). Nonetheless, numbers of Indians apparently continued to reside in the Brooklyn area through much of the seventeenth century; for example, Danckaert and Sluyter (1966) reported in 1679 that “a considerable number” of Indians “gained their subsistence from hunting and fishing” at that time.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 21

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Seventeenth Century

Although the Dutch claim to “New Netherland” was based upon Captain Henry Hudson’s explorations of the Atlantic Coast in 1608 (Morison 1971:301-302), Dutch trader Adriaen Block was the first explorer to penetrate areas beyond the Hudson River estuary. Following the Harlem River from the Hudson to Hell’s Gate, Block then turned eastward, “discovering” Long Island and exploring the shores of Long Island Sound (Wells et al. 1927:65-66). This journey may have taken him past the mouth of Newtown Creek.

The Dutch New Netherland Company established fur trading posts at Manhattan and Albany (Nassau) in 1612 and 1613 (Wells et al. 1927:65), but these outposts were not truly “permanent” settlements. Not until 1623 did the New Netherland Company begin to sell land to prospective investors (Wells et al. 1927:74). In the meantime, initial contacts between the earliest Dutch settlers and local Native American groups were reasonably friendly, but that cordiality began to fray as the region’s Euro- American population increased. The tribes along Long Island Sound were squeezed from the south by expansion of the Dutch settlements and the westward expansion of English colonists from New England, some of whom were dissenters seeking to escape persecution from the Puritan church (Wells et al. 1927:51). These rising tensions led to incidents like the “Kieft Affair” of the 1640s, an encounter that occurred when the Dutch governor, Kieft, ordered an attack on a band of Lenape Indians in New Jersey. In retaliation to the slaughter, tribes affiliated with the Lenapes (including the Canarsees on Long Island), attacked both English and Dutch settlements east of the Hudson River and on Long Island (Lindsley 1886:702).

The earliest land grants around Newtown Creek (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) (Cravens et al. 2000:endmap; Armbruster 1912:120) were issued during this period of tension, after the Dutch purchased the land between Wallabout Bay and Newtown Creek from the local Canarsee Indians in 1638 (Historical Perspectives Inc. 1989:13). This tract, which included Greenpoint, subsequently was incorporated as the town of Bushwick (Boswyck). The first patent issued within the northern part of this township was awarded in 1645 to Dirck Volkertse (sometimes referred to as the “Norman”) (Armbruster 1912:19; Felter 1919:17), who sold the property to Jacob Hey eight years later. Captain Pieter Praa inherited this entire tract through his marriage to Hey’s daughter, and Praa’s heirs retained control through the end of the eighteenth century. South of the Volkertse patent, on or near land granted to Abraham Rycken, the actual village of Bostwyck, comprising some 22 house lots, was laid out in 1661. Its center lay just north of the present intersection of Metropolitan and Bushwick Avenues (Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1946).

Land grants also were issued for property on the north side of Newtown Creek, in what is now Queens County. In 1697, Pieter Praa also purchased the original 130-acre Dominie Bogardus tract (1652), which incorporated the high promontory overlooking the confluence of Mespat (Newtown) Creek and the East River. Known as Dominie’s Hook and later, Bennett’s Point, this area ultimately became Hunter’s Point (Armbruster 1912:64; Dillon et al. 1982:7; Kearns et al. 1988:12; Silka 2006:16-17; NYC LPC 1968). Further east, the patent issued to Richard Brutnel in 1643 encompassed the area that came to be known as Dutch Kills; during the early nineteenth century, the community of Blissville and the original Calvary Cemetery were established in this area. In 1642, Governor Kieft also granted to a group of Quaker dissenters from Massachusetts, led by the Reverend Francis Doughty, title to a 13,332-acre tract on the headwaters of (then) Mespat Creek. These colonists named their grant “Newtown,” and it became the original site of Maspeth (Travellog 1997). A decade later, fearing another Indian attack, some of Newtown’s residents moved temporarily to a tidal flat near the confluence of Maspeth and Newtown

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 22

Figure 2.1. Sketch map of the original plantation grants in Greenpoint and Brooklyn (Armbruster 1912: 120).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 23

Figure 2.2. Map of original plantation grants in Queens (Cravens et al., 2000) (photograph: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.).

Creeks known as Smith’s Island. Here, they established the fortified village of New Arnhem (Armbruster 1912:13-14). The Newtown settlement rebounded, however, and by the 1680s, some 90 families resided there (Kelsey 1896:16). Quakers remained a strong presence in the Newtown area through at least the mid-nineteenth century (O’Gorman 1880; Long Island Daily Press 1936).

Most early residents of Long Island were farmers who marketed their produce in Manhattan. Marine resources also were exploited commercially; oysters from the East River and its tributaries were pickled, packed in casks, and shipped out to the Dutch West Indian colony of Barbados (Dankaerts and Sluyter 1867:123). The few early industries were confined largely to ventures that processed agricultural output or natural resources, like the production of brick and potash, timber harvesting, and shipbuilding (Wells et al. 1927:82). Within the immediate Study Area, sources mention the production of lime from oyster shells, gristmilling, and a fulling mill on Lodowick Creek (Riker 1852:122; Kelsey 1896:9, 12; Seyfried 1984:76). The area’s timber resources also were harvested intensively; in fact, in 1668,

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 24

Newtown’s Commissioners imposed fines on residents who shipped timber out of the town (Kelsey 1896:13).

Eighteenth Century

The first half of the eighteenth century saw few significant social or economic changes around Newtown Creek. The region’s economy continued to be based primarily on agriculture, in common with most of the colony of New York. In fact, the British Board of Trade reported in 1731 that there were no manufacturing establishments in New York, and that the colony’s principal trade items were furs, whalebone, pitch, tar, and “provisions” (Wells et al. 1927:702). In the immediate Study Area, local farmers continued to supply fresh produce for markets in the rapidly growing settlements of Brooklyn and Manhattan (Harrison 2009:3). To facilitate this trade, Newtown’s Commissioners in 1769 established a public dock near Maspeth, known locally as “English Kills Landing” (O’Gorman 1880). By the 1790s, two stores, operated by Nathanial Hazard and Francis White, reportedly were located on town property at this landing (Maspeth Chamber of Commerce 2010).

Through the eighteenth century, the marsh land around Newtown Creek and its tributaries remained a difficult and expensive challenge to keeping roadways serviceable; therefore, as waterway transportation was economic and efficient, passengers and commodities moved primarily by water. For many years, the only land connection between Greenpoint and the rest of Brooklyn was an “ancient highway” that followed the course of Driggs Avenue, and terminated at a public landing on Bushwick Creek known as Wood Point Landing (Felter 1919:15; Smith 1940:1). Faden’s map of 1776 (Figure 2.3) also documented that few roads existed within the region.

Two major developments during the later eighteenth century affected the future history of the Newtown Creek watershed. The first entailed the establishment in 1769 of an official boundary between Kings and Queens Counties, following disputes between the residents of the towns of Bushwick and Newtown. As originally surveyed, this line extended up the deepest part of Newtown Creek, from the East River to Smith’s Island (also known later as Mussel, Furman’s, or Maspeth Island); then to west of the island up a branch (East Branch) to a point near the head of a mill pond; and from there straight to Flatbush. One prominent marker on this boundary line was the so-called “Arbitration Rock,” a glacial boulder located in the vicinity of the present suburb of Ridgewood (Queens Public Library 2010a).

The second event was the American Revolution. The effects of the conflict within the Study Area were felt most profoundly after the British defeated Washington’s forces in the Battle of Long Island in August 1776. After the Americans withdrew from Brooklyn, the British launched an amphibious attack from the head of Newtown Creek across the East River to Kips Bay (approximately 34th Street). Faden’s 1776 map of the Long Island engagement (Figure 2.3) clearly shows not only the British point of embarkation, but also the alignment of British forces northward from the present location of Maspeth (Newtown) towards present-day Astoria. British forces subsequently occupied much of the present Study Area until the conclusion of the war in 1783. According to Kelsey (1896:19), British encampments “covered the hills of Blissville,” and the Queens Head Tavern, which stood near the Newtown Town Dock until the twentieth century, was a center of British activity (Wilford 1936).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 25

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 26

Antebellum Period (1800-1860)

The period prior to the American Civil War saw the emergence of distinctive communities and the first industries along Newtown Creek. The most conspicuous growth occurred at the mouth of the creek in Greenpoint and Hunters Point. By the end of this period, Bushwick, Greenpoint, and the adjacent town of Williamsburgh had been consolidated into the newly created city of Brooklyn (Parsons et al. 2007:IV-24).

Greenpoint

The development of Greenpoint into an “urban” community distinct from Bushwick, commenced about 1832, when Neziah Bliss and Eliphalet Nott, two industrialists with a mutual interest in steam propulsion, established a shipyard there (Dillon et al. 1982:8; Silka 2006: 17). At least a dozen shipbuilding firms (many of which had been squeezed out of their former locations in Manhattan by that borough’s rapid expansion and reorientation of its riverfront facilities in favor of expanding commercial wharf space) followed Bliss and Nott’s lead during the next two decades. Until the end of the nineteenth century, these concerns dominated Greenpoint’s East River frontage. The combined output of these Greenpoint yards was enormous and diverse. A brief overview of vessels launched from Greenpoint suggests that the majority displaced under 200 tons, although some extremely large (between 1,000 and 2,000 tons) steam-powered ships also were produced. The yards’ output ranged from unrigged barges and scows to full-rigged barks and sloops and a wide range of other gas and steam-powered vessel types (Department of the Treasury 1888; Department of Commerce 1918). Two of the more notable vessels to leave Greenpoint were the USS Monitor, launched from Thomas Rowland’s Continental Iron Works in January 1861 (Armbruster 1942:40; Wilson 2005), and the massive (360 ft length; 48.6 ft breadth) wooden side-wheel steamship Great Republic, produced in Henry Steers’ yard in 1866 (Reiss 2005:9; Roberts 2008:64). Other industries also located in Greenpoint during the antebellum period, including the Union Porcelain Works, the Cartlidge Pottery Works, Doerflinger’s Flint Glass factory, the Greenpoint Sugar Company, and Conkling’s Lumber Yard (Dripps 1864; Harding 1944:39).

This industrial growth drew scores of workers into the area; between 1850 and 1855, Greenpoint’s population increased from a few hundred to over five thousand souls (Silka 2006: 15). By 1875, almost 30,000 people resided there (Felter 1919: 29). This in turn created a construction boom during which many of the dwellings and commercial/residential buildings along Milton, Noble, and Franklin streets were constructed (Dillon et al. 1982: 9). The building boom entailed massive landscape modification; one New York journal observed that “a considerable number of men have been employed in cutting down the hill and conveying the soil out into the stream, by means of rail cars, where it has been thrown behind a large bulkhead. The effect is to form about 500 building lots. . .with a dock front of something more than 1,000 feet” (New York Journal of Commerce 1850, cited in Silka 2006:18). Commercial development also encouraged the establishment of more adequate transportation links. Regular ferry service between Greenpoint and Manhattan began in 1852; stages ran along the newly established Ravenswood, Greenpoint and Halletts Cove turnpike; and, by 1855, the City Railroad Company also provided service into the community (Felter 1919:27, 40).

Hunters Point

The transformation of the Queens side of Newtown Creek into a similarly bustling community also began about 1850, when Eliphalet Nott acquired the old Hunter estate on behalf of the Union College of Schenectady, New York, of which he was president during the early 1850s (Seyfried 1984:83; Historical Perspectives Inc. 1988:12-13). This acquisition, managed as an investment to support the

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 27

college, immediately stimulated a flurry of construction. As at Greenpoint, this meant leveling the promontory at the point and redistributing the resulting fill to extend boundaries and shorelines. Kelsey (1896) observed that “the entire section had to be raised” from sea level, and that marshes, lagoons, and “kilties” were filled in to create level ground suitable for industrial development. Nearly two miles of bulkheads and docks were installed along the East River and Newtown Creek. Three blocks of made land fronting on the East River were given to the East River Ferry Company, with other tracts either ceded to or purchased by the Flushing and Hunters Point Railroad (by 1859, absorbed by the Long Island Railroad [LIRR]) (Kelsey 1896:27-29; Seyfried 1984:84). In 1860, the LIRR constructed a passenger terminal and ferry dock at Hunters Point, thereby providing its passengers with direct connections to 34th Street in Manhattan (Queens Public Library 2010b:40).

Other Communities

Villages elsewhere within the Newtown Creek watershed developed more slowly during this time. The population of Bushwick, located approximately one mile southwest of English Kills, began to swell during the late 1840s, as German immigrants moved there. This group eventually established Bushwick as a center for brewing German lager beer. The village of Blissville was laid out on property formerly owned by Neziah Bliss, who also constructed the Blissville drawbridge over Newtown Creek (the predecessor of the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge). The town of Newtown remained as the predecessor of today’s Maspeth. However, areas upstream from Greenpoint and Hunters Point remained largely undeveloped at mid-century (Riker 1852) (Figure 2.4).

Although there were some industries elsewhere in the Study Area at this time, their growth and output did not rival the concentrated industrial powerhouse at Greenpoint. Matthew Dripps’ (1864) map of the area depicted only a few industries upstream from the mouth of the creek, including the Queens County Kerosene and Oilworks and the Furman Distillery at Laurel Hill/Blissville, and Barnett’s Starch Works and a ropewalk along the upper reaches of English Kills. Peter Cooper’s Glue Factory, founded in 1824, moved its operations from Manhattan to Maspeth in 1844 (Hawes 1977; Brooklyn Daily Eagle1891); that enterprise joined other early industries at Maspeth, among which were the Lawrence and Cating Ropeworks, Cord Meyer’s Animal Carbon Plant, the Alden Sampson Oil Factory (Travellog 2010), and the A. D. Fisk Metal Casket Company near English Kills (Riker 1852:260). Additional antebellum industries that located along the creek outside of Greenpoint included the Tower and Brothers Distillery at Penny Bridge; the Cozzens and Company kerosene plant, also near Penny Bridge; a tar factory “at the foot of 48th Avenue;” and, an iron foundry (Seyfried 1984:89).

Perhaps the most striking feature of both the Riker and Dripps maps was the degree to which the region’s transportation infrastructure had grown by the mid-nineteenth century. Three ferries (Greenpoint, Hunters Point, and Calvary Cemetery) all provided direct service to Manhattan. A significantly improved system of roads and bridges had begun to knit together the various communities on either side of Newtown Creek. Dripps’ map depicted no fewer than six bridge crossings: Hunters Point-Greenpoint, Greenpoint Avenue (the Blissville Bridge), Meeker Avenue (the Penny Bridge), Maspeth Avenue, Metropolitan Avenue, and Cypress Hills. In Queens, the Flushing and Hunters Point Railroad linked the villages of Blissville, Laurel Hill, Maspeth and Elmhurst to the nascent commercial center at Hunters Point (Seyfried 1984:84-85). Bankruptcy, followed by a merger with the former New York and Jamaica Railroad, created the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) immediately before the outbreak of the Civil War.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 28

Civil War to World War II (1860 – 1940)

Continued expansion of New York City’s population and its commercial stature in the eight decades between the Civil War and World War II affected previously undeveloped, outlying fringe areas in Brooklyn and Queens. The metropolitan area increasingly functioned as a single unit, a reality that was reflected in the realignment of political boundaries in the area. The heretofore discrete communities of Blissville, Hunters Point, Dutch Kills, Ravenswood, Astoria, and Bowery Bay merged in 1870 to create the new jurisdiction of Long Island City (Queens Public Library 2010b), a move that mirrored Brooklyn’s consolidation some 16 years previously. Even more significantly, in 1898, Kings and Queens Counties were combined with the three other boroughs to create the City of New York. That meant that some decisions formerly made unilaterally by individual counties or municipalities now were controlled by such agencies as, for example, the New York Bureau of Docks and Ferries, which reviewed, coordinated, and approved many aspects of waterfront development for the newly created jurisdiction.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 29

Transportation

Rapidly expanding improved transportation systems solidified the political and economic ties between Manhattan and the communities around Newtown Creek. In 1876, only four ferries provided direct connections from Greenpoint and Hunters Point to various termini in Manhattan (Disturnell 1876). By 1925, however, five interborough transportation links had been forged between Long Island City and Manhattan: the Interboro Transit Tube (1906); the Queensboro Bridge (1909); four Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) tubes (1910); the Queensboro subway (1915); and the 60th Street Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit (BMT) tunnel (1920). These facilities sounded the death knell for the 34th Street-Long Island City ferry service, which discontinued operation in 1925 (Queens Public Library 2010b:70). Improved roads and bridges also facilitated transportation between the developing suburbs during this period, partially in response to increased motor vehicle traffic. Many older bridges were renovated—some several times— while other spans were replaced by totally new structures. Examples include: the Hunters Point Avenue bridge (1874; replaced 1910, rebuilt 1980); the Borden Avenue bridge (1874; replaced 1908); and the Blissville bridge (1830s; rebuilt 1880, 1900; replaced by subsequent Greenpoint Avenue bridges in 1929 and 1987); the Meeker Avenue (Penny) Bridge (replaced by Kosciuszko Bridge 1939); and the Vernon Avenue Bridge (built 1905, replaced 1954 by Pulaski Bridge) (NYC BCC 2010a, b; Reiss 2005:7; Parsons et al. 2007:IV-25; Seyfried 1984:148). The end of this period forecast even more drastic changes in road connections, as construction began on the Brooklyn-Queens and Long Island Expressways (Parsons et al. 2007:IV-27).

Community Development

Rapid community growth was fueled by rising immigration, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe (Figure 2.5), and the rising demand for labor created by the region’s expanding industrial and commercial sectors. Within the Newtown Creek watershed, the impact of such growth was perhaps most noticeable in the fast pace of landform modification. Reclamation of former tidal swamps and creeks surged, as commercial, industrial, and residential development interests clamored for additional buildable land. Whole swaths of high ground adjoining the marshes along the creek were leveled. In 1867, the Brooklyn Times described the transformation of the landscape around Hunters Point: “A dozen years ago, the region was a waste of swamps and wild lands . . . [now] the swamps which disfigure the neighborhood are fast filling up. About 50 men are constantly employed by the [Union] College company in this work” (quoted in Seyfried 1984:92). In Greenpoint, the sand hills around the former Kingsland Farm, west of the present Study Area, were flattened in the 1880s (Harding 1944:14). After purchasing the LIRR in 1902, the PRR reportedly moved 2½ million cubic tons of earth to fill in the marshes bordering Dutch Kills. That landform modification not only supported expansion of rail facilities in Queens, but also provided space for the Degnon Terminal and Realty Company, a PRR subsidiary, to facilitate industrial development along the now channelized tributary (Seyfried 1984:82).

These factors quickly transformed previously semi-rural landscapes throughout the region into densely populated suburbs. In 1889, the Brooklyn Times still could run a feature story that described communities like Maspeth or Ridgewood as “places of residence for those seeking country homes near to the city,” whose residents enjoyed access to such diverse recreational amenities as trout ponds, baseball and picnic grounds, race tracks, beer gardens, amusement parks, and shooting clubs. But by the outbreak of World War I, an estimated 5,000 buildings had been erected in the Ridgewood section alone; these included both residential housing, composed of a mix of multiple- and single-family dwellings, and industrial structures, most of which concentrated around the English Kills (Presa 2000:3, fn.7). Such

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 30

Figure 2.5. 1921 map of the Newtown Creek Industrial District, showing the distribution of various ethnic groups within the district (Photocopy: Merchants’ Association of New York 1921, p. 18).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 31

development was replicated throughout the region; for example, former farm acreage on the fringes of Long Island City was transformed during the 1920s into apartment blocks or complexes of private row homes such as Sunnyside, built in 1924 (Parsons et. al. 2007:IV-27).

Even previously developed neighborhoods like Greenpoint were experiencing these trends. There, population and building densities grew significantly. For example, Charles Pratt, the oil magnate, constructed his innovative six-story Astral Apartment complex there in 1886 (Dillon et al. 1982:14; Dillon 1983), and the center of Greenpoint’s business district gradually shifted from Franklin Street to Manhattan Avenue (Parsons et al. 2007:IV-25). By the 1930s, however, Greenpoint’s older housing stock had begun to deteriorate, so much so that there was talk of slum clearance and redevelopment for public housing. Property owners were pressured to renovate older buildings and bring them up to code. Greenpoint residents, increasingly of Polish and Italian extraction, resisted both initiatives. In the first instance, they feared that public housing would be occupied by African American or Puerto Rican transplants from Harlem, whom they viewed as undesirable. Property owners also claimed that they could not afford to renovate existing buildings, and, moreover, that such renovations also would result in higher property taxes (Smith 1940:4, 38).

Industry and Commerce

Industrialization and commercialization of Newtown Creek’s waterfront districts occurred quickly. One rapidly expanding industrial sector was the production of oil and other petroleum based products like naphtha and varnish. By 1875, fifty oil refineries operated in Brooklyn, with many located along Newtown Creek. At Greenpoint, where the shipbuilding industry slowly declined after 1875, the loss of employment was offset by the entry of other industries, such as pottery and porcelain works, sugar refineries, brass and iron foundries, book binderies, drug plants, lumber yards, chemical manufacturers, and the Eberhard-Faber Pencil Company, which relocated its manufacturing facilities to Greenpoint from Manhattan in 1872 (Felter 1919:29, 50; Dillon et al. 1982:15; Presa 2007). In 1920, the state of New York also opened a massive terminus for the New York State Barge Canal at the point; there, as late as 1939, some 300 barge families overwintered in their vessels while awaiting the resumption of canal traffic in the spring (Merchants’ Association of New York 1921:28; WPA 1939).

Industries located further upstream in the 1880s included, on the Brooklyn shoreline, at least six oil refineries, a carbon company, a fertilizer plant, and a glue factory. The intervening “vacant” and as-yet undeveloped tidal flats continued to be trash disposal sites for New York City’s garbage (Harpers Magazine 1881; USACE 1883) (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). Those same maps also documented increasing development along the opposite shoreline; in addition to the large Queens County Oil Works complex, the north shore also accommodated several lumber companies, an ammonia works, fertilizer and rendering plants, the Nichols Chemical Works, and the LIRR’s “manure dock.” A map prepared in 1896 by Brooklyn’s Department of Health (Locke 1896) (Figure 2.8) provided details about the various types of enterprises that were located in and around English Kills and Maspeth Creek, an area only partially covered by the earlier maps. Here could be found glass and chemical works; cordage and paper bag manufacturers; producers of glue, starch, and whiting; and the Equity Gas Works, located on Maspeth Avenue. This map provides the locations of distinct activities and businesses operating along Newtown Creek at the time: “the wharf from which fat and bones are shipped” at the site of the (removed) Maspeth Avenue bridge; the “night soil boat” (landing?) at the mouth of the English Kills canal; the “manure barges” at Blissville; and at least two outfalls from the Brooklyn sewer system (foot of Oakland Avenue, Greenpoint, and the Grand Street/Metropolitan Avenue intersection) that emptied directly into the waterway.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 32

Figure 2.7. The 1883 USACE map of Newtown Creek, showing principal industries along the creek and recommended dredge depths.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 33

Figure 2.8. Map of Newtown Creek and Vicinity, prepared by the Brooklyn Department of Health in 1896 (New York Public Library digital gallery: Image #1692889).

The map of Newtown Creek produced by the USACE in 1915 (Figure 2.9) showed clearly why, by that date, civic boosters could claim that the volume of commerce within the watershed exceeded that shipped on the Mississippi River (New York Times 1912). Among the most striking features on this map were: (1) the consolidation and expansion of formerly independent petroleum refineries like the Queens County Oil Works into the tank farms and refineries of Standard Oil; (2) the rapid expansion of the Nichols Copper Company and adjacent chemical companies; and (3) the vast amount of land given over to the yards and docks of the LIRR. More construction-related industries, including lime works, stone yards, and lumber yards, came to locate along the creek. By 1921, all land with frontage on Newtown Creek and its tributaries had been claimed by industrial development (Merchants’ Association of New

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 34

Figure 2.9. USACE survey map of Newtown Creek, Long Island, NY (1914-15), showing channel margins, soundings within the channel, and industries adjacent to the shoreline.

York 1921: 40) (Figure 2.10), and residential and commercial zones were no longer located on the creek and its tributaries.

Two issues arose from this intensive surge of industrialization. The first was the progressive changes to the environment related to the rapid industrial development along Newtown Creek. Additionally, Manhattan had been depositing its night soil out in the hinterlands of Long Island as early as the 1820s (O’Gorman 1880). In the 1870s, local ordinances designed to keep rendering plants and manure factories away from residential areas and “routes of public travel” forced such businesses into the “useless” marsh areas around Maspeth and Laurel Hill (Seyfried 1984:109). In 1880, O’Gorman noted the “stagnation of the upper creek …all around Grand and Maspeth Avenues.” One remediation measure that circulated at about this time was a proposal to join Newtown Creek with Wallabout Creek in Brooklyn, thereby creating a strong tidal flow that would flush out the impurities from the creek; this plan never was implemented. As a result, the problems persisted and became more complex. In 1884, the USACE characterized the nature of the material to be dredged from the creek channel as “thick mud and heavy refuse from refineries” (Brooklyn Eagle 1884:6). A review of newspaper entries throughout this period told a story of repeated protests and outraged letters, commission inquiries, charges of bribery and cronyism. Even during the 1920s and 1930s, as local reporters repeatedly toured the creek, their headlines reflected not only the heavy traffic that it carried, but also its “very dirty” and smelly waters (Archie 1931; Wilford 1935; Lockwood 1938).

Another problem was the frequency of fires that occurred within and along Newtown Creek. Given the highly combustible products being handled or produced along the creek, such events were almost inevitable. In addition to the petroleum-related enterprises, the numerous lumber and coal yards, shipyards, rendering plants, furniture factories, and asphalt and chemical plants raised the potential for major conflagrations even further. Newspapers regularly reported such events throughout the

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 35

Figure 2.10. A 1921 map of the Newtown Creek Industrial District, showing the degree of industrial development within the watershed (Photocopy: Merchants’ Association of New York, p. 40).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 36

period; many of these frequently entailed not only significant property damage but also loss of life (Brooklyn Eagle 1876, 1884, 1896; New York Times 1900).

Late Twentieth Century (1945 – Present)

The economic effects of the Depression reduced commercial traffic along Newtown Creek during the early 1930s (Wilford 1935), but the onset of World War II revitalized commerce on the waterway. Within five years of the war’s end, the volume of commodities that moved on the creek had reached some 7.7 million tons per year (Long Island Star Journal 1950), about the same level that it had been in 1929 (McMillan 1929).

As for the communities that bordered the creek, Long Island City seemed to prosper through this period. Not only was the municipality a major transportation hub, but many new industries, including automobile manufacturing plants (Ford, Pierce-Arrow, White Motor [trucks], and American LaFrance [fire engines]) and motion picture studios like Laskey and Paramount, had joined the ranks of older more established manufacturers (Jackson and Melnick 2004:61-62). On the other hand, Greenpoint was not as fortunate. The 1930s and 1940s saw a gradual erosion of that community’s traditional industrial base. Except for employers like Eberhard-Faber and Socony-Vacuum (a Standard Oil affiliate), the average size of industries in Greenpoint declined, and many of its residents instead worked in Manhattan or Queens (Reiss 2005: 7; Parsons et al. 2007:IV-27). To some extent, Greenpoint’s misfortunes could be blamed on the lack of rail service, which instead was concentrated across the creek in Queens (Smith 1940:9, 14). Long Island City, in contrast, could boast of 6,000 companies that employed a work force of nearly 90,000 (Jackson and Melnick 2004).

During the last half of the twentieth century, the Newtown Creek watershed showed signs of transformation. Heavy industrial manufacturing gradually left the creek’s banks. Businesses located along the creek came to include warehousing/storage, oil storage, distribution centers, construction materials, and solid waste and recycling facilities (Arcuri 1999:52). Between 1945 and 1965, industrial waterfront activity along Newtown Creek and its tributaries declined 50 percent. From the 7.6 million tons of cargo estimated as shipped through the creek in 1951, the number dropped to 5.2 million tons in 1968. Since 1967, the Newtown Creek watershed has been zoned for industrial uses; in 1992, the watershed was designated as a significant maritime and industrial area (New York City 1992). Steady declines in tonnage continued throughout the remaining decades of the twentieth century. In 2003, 1.1 million tons were reported as shipped via the creek. The decrease in water borne shipping reflected the growing use of freight trucks (NY DOT 2008: Appendix F 2.9-2.10).

The post-World War II construction of limited access highways across the Newtown Creek area also disrupted community development to some degree. The Brooklyn Queens Expressway, completed in 1950, cut a swath through southeastern Greenpoint, and displaced large segments of an Italian neighborhood (Reiss 2005: 64). It also severed a residential neighborhood in the Laurel Hill section of Queens (Parsons et al. 2007: IV-27).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 37

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER III

HISTORIC MARITIME CONTEXT

Chapter III discusses the development of Newtown Creek from its early use as an economic resource in its own right; through its alteration and adaptation for use as a support mechanism for increasing industrial development.  Newtown Creek has been part of a changing historical maritime cultural landscape from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries.  Thirty-two previously recorded vessel wrecks lay within and in the vicinity of Newtown Creek.  Throughout the history of Newtown Creek there have been many episodes of bridge building and re-building that has left a mark either in the form of standing bridges or ruins along the banks of the creek.  Many different methods of establishing bulkheads were used along Newtown Creek; these range from simple backfilled pile wall structures, to cribbing to the construction of concrete bulkheads.  A commission was established in 1869 to establish wharf, pier and bulkhead lines and to regulate any impediments to navigation along the creek.

Newtown Creek was largely a “meandering tidal wetland,” that attracted, first, prehistoric peoples who exploited the resources offered by the marine environment, and then Euro-Americans who established farms on the surrounding heights. The early colonists used the waterway principally to power mills and ship produce to markets in New York, while pasturing their cattle on its grassy tidal marshes (Historical Perspectives, Inc. 1989:14). But in the years immediately before the Civil War, rising population and incipient industrial development propelled enormous changes.

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES

The earliest use of the Newtown Creek watershed (waterway and its surrounding landscape) was as an economic resource in its own right. Felter (1919:25) commented that the creek “teemed” with finfish and shellfish prior to the extensive industrial development. Undoubtedly local residents, like the native inhabitants before them, exploited such resources, likely using small locally-made craft to do so. Dankaerts and Sluyter (1867) noted in 1679 that travelers who stopped at nearby Gowanus Cove were served oysters “large and full, some of them not less than a foot long.” They also noted that people burnt the shells for lime, and pickled the oysters for export to Barbados.

There were a few industrial and commercial enterprises during this early period. For example, there was a tidal grist mill on Dutch Kills by 1648 ( Kelsey 1896:9), although Seyfried (1984) noted that the remains of a mill dam on the Kills survived into the early twentieth century when it was obliterated during construction of the Long Island Railroad’s Sunnyside yards. A second mill was located on the eastern branch of English Kills; the pond associated with this mill was cited as a reference point in the 1769 document that established the official boundary between Kings and Queens counties (Queens Public Library 2010a: 4).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 39

Early records also mention at least two shipping points within the watershed. Locally grown farm produce was shipped from Van Alst’s wharf on Dutch Kills (Seyfried 1984:76-77). In 1769, the Commissioners of the town of Newtown established a dock at Maspeth on English Kills; the property surrounding this location belonged to the town itself and was leased out. Later records indicate that there also was a store at this location from which market produce was shipped into Manhattan. The store apparently burned in 1809, but use of the landing itself continued well into the nineteenth century. Newtown town records as late as 1847 continue to mention the appointment of a dockmaster at English Kills, which by that time was known as the “Old Town Dock” (O’Gorman 1880). A ferry service, inaugurated in 1670, operated across Newtown Creek to Bushwick from a wharf or pier located at approximately Meeker Avenue (Armbruster 1912:15). This ferry continued as a permanent fixture on the creek, for as late as 1799, it was referenced in the Newtown town records (O’Gorman 1880). By the end of the eighteenth century, vessel traffic evidently was significant enough for the Newtown Town Council to impose controls on development. In 1793, that group passed an ordinance that imposed a fine of 40 shillings on any person that “shall injure the channel of the Newtown Landing by damming or otherwise” (O’Gorman 1880).

Perhaps the most significant incident of these years occurred early in the American Revolution, as the British pursued American forces that had retreated across the East River after the Battle of Long Island. On September 3, 1776, the British navy sent the 32-gun frigate HMS Rose to convoy 30 boats that were anchored in Wallabout Bay up the East River. On the 12th, 36 flat-bottomed transports entered Bushwick Creek, and 40 more followed on the next day. This fleet was joined on the 14th by the frigates Roebuck, Phoenix, Orpheus, and Carysfort, and six more transports (Johnston 1878: 233-234). On September 15, the British launched 84 flat-bottomed boats, filled with General Sir William Howe’s light infantry and reserves, including Hessian grenadiers and jaegers, from “the head of Newtown Creek” (Riker 1852:191-194; Faden 1776) (Figures 2.3, 2.4). According to William Douglas, an American officer waiting across the East River at Kips Bay, these troops landed on the Manhattan shoreline under cover of smoke from the fleet’s fierce cannonade, eventually routing the Americans (Johnston 1878:234).

The British occupied Long Island for the remainder of the war, and Newtown Creek figured heavily in this occupation. In 1779, fearing an attack by the Americans, Sir Henry Clinton directed that all vessels not in service to the government, but that were intending to winter at New York, should be removed to Newtown Creek (Riker 1852:203). Thereafter, “Newtown Creek, during most of the great conflict provided a secure retreat for all sorts of British vessels” (Kelsey 1896:18).

NINETEENTH CENTURY

Antebellum Period

The first half of the nineteenth century saw little change in either settlement patterns or life in general around Newtown Creek. The watershed remained largely undeveloped and large expanses of swamp surrounded the maze of tributaries. Large farms, some of which were used by prominent New Yorkers as summer residences, dominated the landscape (Turner 1974); for example, New York Governor DeWitt Clinton once maintained a large home at the head of Maspeth Creek. During the War of 1812, Newtown Creek once again served as a “prominent naval rendezvous” (this time for American vessels) (Kelsey 1896:25), and American gunboats patrolled the creek during the conflict (Armbruster 1912:17).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 40

Review of the records of the Newtown Town Council suggests that the 1820s witnessed an upsurge of commercial activity along the creek. In 1822, for example, that body resolved to use the proceeds from renting the Town Lands “for the purpose of opening the Navigation to the Public Landing;” this may be the first reference to dredging or other strategies to modify the creek to accommodate commercial traffic. Five years later, the Council voted $75 to erect a bridge over Newtown Creek at English Kills, and by 1829, records also reveal that the landing at Dutch Kills had become a public facility with an appointed dock master (O’Gorman 1880).

Private commercial activities that affected the navigability and use of Newtown Creek intensified during the succeeding two decades. The head of the east branch of English Kills was the site of “Schencks Mill Pond”; although no mill was depicted (Riker 1852: map) (Figure 2.4). The first fledgling industries moved in along the creek during these decades; for example, the Cooper Glue Company relocated from Manhattan to Maspeth in 1844 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1891). More significantly, this period saw massive investment in bridges and ferries along the creek. In 1836, as part of their toll road linking Bushwick to Maspeth, the Maspeth Avenue and Toll Bridge Company constructed a bridge that carried Maspeth Avenue across the creek (Seyfried 1961). Another bridge, built as part of the Newtown and Bushwick Turnpike or Shell Road, spanned the creek between Laurel Hill in Queens and Meeker Avenue in Brooklyn (Armbruster 1942:232); this early span, supported by piles, was replaced in 1836 by a structure that became known as the “Penny Bridge,” which stood on stone piers (Armbruster 1912:17; Maspeth Chamber of Commerce 1999; Parsons Corp. et al. 2007: IV-19). The first Blissville bridge, predecessor of today’s Greenpoint Avenue bridge, also was erected during the 1830s (Reiss 2005:7), and by 1852, a toll bridge linked the emerging village of Greenpoint with Dominie’s Hook (Hunter’s Point) at the mouth of the creek (Riker 1852: map; Smith 1940:2). The establishment of Calvary Cemetery in 1848, a burial ground created to serve the parishioners of Manhattan’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, also prompted direct ferry service within Newtown Creek (Arcuri 1999:11). This ferry initially conveyed funeral cortèges from Bushwick across the creek to the cemetery entrance, but the service subsequently was modified in 1857 to provide a direct link between the cemetery and 23rd Street in Manhattan (Armbruster 1912:177, 185).

The 1850s represented a turning point in the development of communities along Newtown Creek and consequently the traffic that utilized the creek. Early in the decade, workers employed in Greenpoint’s shipyards began to move into the once rural area. Nearly simultaneously, the high promontory previously known as Dominie’s Point was leveled, and the resulting spoil was deposited in the marshes to extend property boundaries and shorelines around Hunter’s Point (Kelsey 1896:27; Seyfried 1984:75, 83). New transportation facilities were established to link these sections of Long Island to the rest of greater New York. One ferry that transited the East River from Greenpoint to 34th Street in Manhattan was initiated in 1851 (Reiss 2005:12; Silka 2006:23). The Flushing and Hunter’s Point Railroad (founded 1854), whose single track paralleled the eastern shore of Newtown Creek, provided steamboat ferry service from Borden Avenue to Fulton Street in Manhattan. Five years later, this line was acquired by the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), which constructed a new ferry terminal directly on the East River at Hunter’s Point (Seyfried1984:84; Queens Public Library 2010b:40). Both the Greenpoint and Hunter’s Point ferries operated until the mid-1920s.

Matthew Dripps’ (1864) map of Newtown Creek depicted the nature and extent of the changing landscape during this decade, as industrial expansion fueled population growth and put increased pressure on transportation systems. Particularly striking was the degree to which former marsh land and smaller tributaries along the creek had been (or were scheduled to be) filled and converted into urban blocks. The industrial development along the shorelines also was evident; manufacturing establishments of the period ranged from the Union Porcelain Works and Conkling’s Lumber Yard at Greenpoint (Harding 1944:39) to the Queens County oilworks and Furman Distillery at Laurel Hill and Barnett’s Starch Works and a ropewalk along the western branch of English Kills. December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 41

The Dripps map also showed that two additional bridges had been erected over English Kills at Metropolitan Avenue and Cypress Hill Road. His map also depicted a much-elongated western branch of English Kills, with a spur extending south and west to the intersection of Bushwick Avenue and McKibbon Street near the previously mentioned ropewalk; at least one turning basin had been installed along this stretch, just south of Metropolitan Avenue. Whether this extension (which does not exist today) ever was built is unclear.

Post-bellum Period

The 35 years after the Civil War saw ever more significant modifications within the Newtown Creek watershed, pressured by the commercial traffic generated by the industries that continued to locate along its banks. By 1867, industries along the Queens shoreline alone included the Tower and Brothers distillery at Penny Bridge, a tar factory, an iron foundry, 3 boiler shops, a tin and Japanned ware manufacturer, 20 kerosene works, 3 varnish factories, a drain pipe pottery, one business that manufactured salaratus (bicarbonate of soda), and the LIRR’s Blissville Yard, known locally as the “manure dock” (Seyfried 1984:89, 91). To this list could be added, by century’s end, wholesale lumber, hay, feed, and grain dealers, as well as manufacturers of printing inks, chemicals, patent medicines, silk, soap, and terra cotta tiles (Kelsey 1896:59). Though the bulk of the area’s shipbuilding industry was concentrated along Greenpoint’s East River shoreline, some enterprises were located on the creek and its tributaries. On Whale Creek, Leary’s Lumber Company and shipyard produced not only pilings, but also dredges, scows, floating derricks and car floats (Harding 1944:41). A random review of ships listed in Merchant Vessels of the United States (MVUS) indicated that vessels also were constructed at yards in Ridgewood, Penny Bridge, and Hunter’s Point (U. S. Department of Commerce 1918; U. S. Treasury Department 1888). By 1883, the value of merchandise carried on the creek was estimated at some $10 million in petroleum products and another $10 million in other types of exports (Queens Public Library 2010b:62). Figure 3.1 provides a snapshot of industrial development and land use along the lower stretches of the creek in the early 1880s.

Up to this time, owners of shoreline properties evidently constructed their own shoreline improvements. For example, in the late 1860s, 600 ft of bulk-heading was installed along the Greenpoint shore, and the 200 ft originally built along the Queens shoreline later was extended for another 300 ft. By May 1869, the Long Island Star described the Queens shoreline of the creek as a “solid front of timber” (Seyfried 1984:92). However, this apparently loosely regulated state of affairs was about to change. By 1870, the status of Newtown Creek was no longer strictly a local issue.

Pursuant to a law enacted in 1869, the New York state legislature appointed a Board of Commissioners to supervise improvements on the creek. The 1869 legislation authorized the commission to establish pier, wharf and bulkhead lines, and to deepen the channel on the upper reaches of the creek between Meeker and Metropolitan Avenues to 6 ft at low tide (Brooklyn Eagle 1870a:2; 1870b:2). After investigating conditions on the ground, the commission determined that two bridges--the drawbridge of the Bushwick and Newtown Bridge and Road Company and the Maspeth Avenue and Toll Bridge company bridge—constituted impediments to navigation. Meanwhile, shoreline development continued; for example, in 1872, Italian laborers completed a 2,000 ft long bulkhead along Dutch Kills that extended from Newtown Creek to the LIRR tracks. In the process, some 20 acres of marsh behind that bulkhead were filled to a depth of 10 ft (Seyfried 1984:105). Local businessmen also began to petition for the creation of a 1,200 ft long canal on English Kills to run from the intersection of Grand and Metropolitan Avenues to the intersection of Johnson Street and Flushing Avenues (Brooklyn Eagle 1872:3). The argument was that such an extension would serve commercial interests in the newly-emerging communities of Ridgewood and Cypress Hills.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 42

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 43

The Brooklyn Eagle reported in January 1880 that the Blissville Bridge had collapsed (Brooklyn Eagle 1880:10), creating a hazard to navigation. One result of such problems was that this decade saw the first major involvement of the Federal government into the navigational issues on Newtown Creek. The steadily increasing volume of traffic on the waterway was the principal impetus for this action. The Brooklyn Eagle (1884b:4) reported that the “chief bridge across the creek opened 50,000 times in 1883,” and that an estimated 3,000 vessels took on cargo at wharves located below the bridge. In all, according to the editorial, the annual tonnage of merchandise transiting the waterway amounted to some 76 million tons. In 1883, the USACE surveyed the creek and recommended the creation of a 100-ft wide channel, with depths of from 10 ft at mean low water (mlw) within English Kills to 18 ft from the East River to just below Whale Creek (Figure 3.2). The USACE estimated that implementation of the project would entail removing an estimated 222,000 cubic yards of material (Brooklyn Eagle 1884a:6). A year later, a contract was let to the Atlantic Dredging Company for deepening the channel to 14 ½ ft up to Maspeth Avenue. Within five years, the USACEs’ dredging program had produced a channel 80 ft wide and 18 ft deep between Vernon Avenue at Hunter’s Point and the location of the Central Oil terminals; the channel between Vernon and the East River was somewhat narrower (60 ft), but was deeper (21 ft). In addition, the supervising engineer for the program also noted that owners of many shoreline properties were dredging spaces in front of their respective wharves to between 21 and 25 ft (Brooklyn Eagle 1890:6). Local interests also were cheered to learn that work on a new Grand Street bridge was “nearing completion” (Brooklyn Eagle 1885:6). By 1888, official bulkhead and pier head lines were recommended and officially established along Newtown Creek to guide future development (USACE 1890).

TWENTIETH CENTURY

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the situation in Newtown Creek became increasingly complex, as both industrial development and population grew steadily in the area. Use of the waterway grew to match, as did oversight by a variety of agencies. The aggregate volume of merchandise hauled into and exported from the creek in 1910 amounted to some 2,861,000 tons (New York Time 1912). By 1912, the volume of commercial navigation on Newtown Creek rivaled that carried by the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Armbruster1912:11). Within five years, annual shipping tonnage on the 4-mile navigable stretch of Newtown Creek averaged 5.6 million tons (Queens Chamber of Commerce [QCC] 1920:21-22). The principal commodities carried included copper ore, petroleum (250 million gallons), lumber, coal, chemicals, and building materials. The various vessel types used on the waterway included steamers; schooners; unrigged vessels (barges, canal boats, and scows) with drafts of between 2 and 20 ft; lighters that offloaded cargoes from deeper draft vessels; tugs; and floating derricks (QCC 1920:23; Merchants’ Association of New York [MNY] 1921).

State, local, and federal agencies assumed increasing roles in setting rules for development and use of the waterway. The USACE maintained and improved the principal navigation channels. The State of New York modified significantly the shoreline at the confluence of Newtown Creek and the East River in Greenpoint when it established a large terminal facility for the New York State Barge Canal (MNY 1921:28). Following consolidation of the five boroughs in 1898, New York City’s Department of Docks and Ferries began to review, approve and supervise other types of changes along New York’s waterways, including harbor lines, equipment, bulkhead and other construction, private dredging, etc. Review of the agency’s annual report for 1904, for example, showed that it oversaw such diverse projects as construction of an onshore handling tower for the Brooklyn Union Coal Company in Greenpoint, piers for the Long Island Railroad in Long Island City, and an engine house near Dutch Kills (New York Department of Docks and Ferries 1904). This department almost certainly would have

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 44

Figure 3.2. The 1883 USACE map of Newtown Creek, showing principal industries along the creek and recommended dredge depths.

reviewed the plans for proposed concrete bulkheads and two 1,000 ft public piers along Whale and Newtown Creeks in 1907 (Brooklyn Daily Eagle [2/5/1907], cited in Historical Perspectives 1989:18).

Prior to World War I, channel depths within the Newtown Creek ranged from 12 ft at its mouth to 4 ft at the head of navigation, but plans already were being discussed to widen and deepen the channel to 125 ft and 18 ft respectively (Armbruster1912:11). In 1918, the USACE presented a plan to improve navigation conditions, based upon surveys conducted in 1914-1915 (Figure 3.3), and Federal dredging operations got under way within the next two years (QCC 1920:20-22). The Queens Borough newspaper reported in March 1918 that the channel had been dredged to a depth of 20 ft, with widths varying from a maximum of between 125 and 250 ft below the Metropolitan Avenue bridge to between 75 and 160 ft in Dutch Kills. As of 1921, Maspeth Creek had not yet been developed, due primarily to the large mud flat (then called Mussel Island, formerly Furman’s or Maspeth Island) at its mouth, but the 1918 USACE plan also proposed complete removal of this obstacle to navigation (MNY 1921:30).

Private landowners and developers also continued to modify the creek and its tributaries. The Merchants’ Association of New York (1921:26) noted that “private owners (also) do considerable dredging around docks and slips, as well as outside of the government-maintained channel.” The City of New York dredged to prevent the buildup of shoals at locations at storm sewer outfalls. Perhaps the most radical changes occurred in the heretofore lightly developed Dutch Kills watershed. Between 1902 and 1908, the PRR leveled the hills adjoining the Kills in the Sunnyside area, and deposited the resulting 2 ½ million cubic tons of soil in the Dutch Kills marshes to depths of between 10 and 30 feet (Seyfried 1984:78, 82). Significant commercial development along Dutch Kills began ca. 1905, when the Degnon Terminal and Realty Company (a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania and Long Island railroads) transformed the meandering waterway into a 150 ft wide canal, with a 500 ft long turning basin designed to handle railroad car floats (QCC 1920:23); this effort, completed in 1912, required the installation of 2,400 ft of bulkheads (Seyfried 1984:142). Under new bulkhead lines established by the Corps of Engineers in 1914, the Kill subsequently was widened to 160 ft at its mouth, with a width of 75 ft at the end of the creek (QCC 1920:23). By 1921, Dutch Kills and Whale Creek had been bulk-headed for half their length, and English Kills was totally bulk-headed (MNA 1921: 12).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 45

Figure 3.3. USACE survey map of Newtown Creek, Long Island, NY (1914-15), showing channel margins, soundings within the channel, and industries adjacent to the shoreline.

Through the 1920s and into the 1930s, calls again were heard to widen and deepen the waterway, as usage of the creek continued to expand. Immediately before the depression, the value of goods shipped on the waterway had reached an estimated $287.3 million, although that dropped off to $99.8 million in 1933 (Wilford 1935). Some 25,000 vessels transported an estimated 7 million tons of cargo, including coal, coke, ore, building and road materials, steel, copper, and petroleum, in 1929 (“Archie” 1931). By 1940, Newtown Creek was “mile for mile the busiest waterway in the US” (Historical Perspectives, Inc. 1989:17).

The increasing traffic volumes and vessel sizes prompted the USACE to propose enlarging the channel to some 150 ft wide and 23 ft deep, although Standard Oil, perhaps the largest landowner along the creek, opposed this action, claiming that expanding the channel could undermine and collapse its bulkheads. To counter Standard’s opposition, the USACE maintained that such adverse effects could be avoided by ensuring that the channel was confined only to the center of the creek (Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1930). By the mid-1930s, navigational improvements to the waterway had resulted in the removal of Mussel Island and installation of shoreline reinforcement systems along 9.6 out of 11.6 miles of creek frontage. The program of channel refurbishment that followed in 1936 resulted in a channel some 130 ft wide and 23 ft deep (Wilford 1935).

Heavy use of the waterway continued through the years of World War II and into the early 1950s, although channel maintenance apparently did not keep up with the traffic volume. By 1950, fleets of barges, tugs, tankers, and “steam colliers” transported an estimated 7.7 million tons of lumber, ore, coal, oil, cement, chemicals, sand and gravel, and waste materials along the creek (Turner 1951). However, the absence of strong tidal flow, coupled with the apparent lack of channel maintenance, had resulted in a buildup of silt within the existing channel and had reduced its depth to an average of 20 ft or less. Accordingly, some $767,000 was spent by the USACE to dredge the channel. Private firms that owned the space between the channel edge and bulkhead lines also engaged in their own program of

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 46

dredging, probably operating under permits issued by the Port of New York, which at that time exercised jurisdiction over that portion of the creek bottom (Long Island Star Journal 1950).

Changes in the use of the waterway were evident. Beginning in the late 1940s, heavy industry along Newtown Creek began to decline. By the 1970s, heavy industry along the creek numbered nine with over 500 employees (Arcuri 1999:50). A marked shift occurred from industrial manufacturing and refining to materials handling. Older industries closed and others adapted their facilities to accommodate new purposes. This was evident in the petroleum business, where businesses along Newtown Creek shifted from refining to receipt and storage of finished products and distribution functions. The transport of finished oil products became an increasingly larger percentage of the tonnage shipped by water. Lumber shipments declined after 1950, ceasing by about 1965, while water shipments of scrap metals and waste increased. Between 1945 and 1965, industrial waterfront activity declined 50 per cent. From the 7.6 million tons of cargo estimated as shipped in 1951, the number dropped to 5.2 million tons in 1968. Steady declines in tonnage continued throughout the remaining decades of the twentieth century. In 2003, 1.1 million tons were reported as shipped via the creek. The decrease in water borne shipping reflected the growing use of freight trucks (NY DOT 2008: Appendix F II-9-II-10). Indeed, beginning in the mid to late 1950s, a growing number of freight trucking stations began to be constructed along the waterfront, particularly in the areas being developed along English Kills and between Maspeth Creek and East Branch. By the 1980s, primary businesses along Newtown Creek included warehousing/storage, oil storage, distribution centers, construction materials, and solid waste and recycling facilities (Arcuri 1999:52).

The history of channel maintenance and associated shoreline improvements within the Study Area since World War II is, at this writing, unclear. Efforts were made to obtain permit records from the New York District Office of the USACE (Larry Young, personal communication, February, 2012), but the requested information had not been received prior to submission of this draft report.

Vessel Wrecks

Review of NOAA’s AWOIS database and a variety of secondary sources identified a total of 32 wrecks or obstructions within and in the vicinity of Newtown Creek; of these, 24 represented known vessel losses (Table 3.1). These wrecks resulted from a variety of causes. Some of the most spectacular losses occurred as a result of fires. For example, one fire in 1869 resulted in the loss of five vessels. Kelsey (1896:138) described another fire in 1880 during which flaming barrels of naphtha and refined oil, blown aloft by an explosion aboard the brig Nictaux, drifted into Newtown Creek where they set fire to the docks of the Export Lumber Company and destroyed four canal boats, a schooner, and a sloop.

Several other factors also could result in the deposition of vessel remains within the creek and its tributaries. Given the crowded conditions and the traffic, it is likely that collisions were a not- uncommon occurrence. At least one vessel, the Underwriter, was deliberately scuttled by the United States Coast Guard (USCG), reportedly because it operated as a rumrunner (McMillen 1929:86). Vessels that no longer were serviceable might simply be abandoned (as they were in the Arthur Kill [James 1999]); this was the case with the tug North America, a former rescue boat, which burned in June of 1931 and was abandoned near the Penny Bridge (“Archie”1931). As late as 2008, two city councilmen identified the Pile Foundation Construction Company as responsible for repeatedly tugging barges into Newtown Creek and other waterways, and leaving them there to rot (von Zielbauer 2008).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 47

Table 3.1. Reported vessel wrecks and obstructions in the vicinity of Newtown Creek and East River (Organized by date of loss or Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) record) Vessel Name Vessel Type Size Event date Cause Location Source Comments Berman Newtown Creek, (1972) Gramercy Oil screw 64T 02/00/1966 Unknown Listed only as "lost." Long Island City #1706; NSW #101821 Berman East River, mouth (1972) Josephine Oil screw 84 GT 10/6/1958 Collision of Newtown Collided with steamship Invincible #2320; NSW Creek # 100620 Berman Newtown Creek, (1972) Harby Barge 162 T 07/00/1940 Foundered No further information Brooklyn #1771; NSW #87139 Long Island North Abandoned, Tug Unknown 06/00/1931 Penny Bridge Daily Star Appeared in article on Newtown Creek America burned 1931 1929 McMillan Unidentified Schooner Unknown Burned Whale Creek No further information (report) 1929 Reportedly deliberately destroyed by Coast McMillan Underwriter Unidentified Unknown 00/00/1929 Scuttled Unknown Guard as a rum-runner; story reported by 1929 New York Times Side-wheel Kings County Unknown 10/26/1897 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 Wooden ferry to 34th Street, Manhattan steamer; ferry Moored at East River with cargo of naphtha and refined oil; explosion sent flaming Hunters Point Nictaux Bark Unknown 00/00/1880 Explosion Kelsey 1896 barrels up Newtown Creek and ignited (East River) docks of the Export Lumber Company lumber yard Set afire at docks of Export Lumber Unidentified Schooner Unknown 00/00/1880 Burned Newtown Creek Kelsey 1896 Company (Item #18) Canal boats Set afire at docks of Export Lumber Unidentified Unknown 00/00/1880 Burned Newtown Creek Kelsey 1896 (4) Company (Item #18)

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 48

Table 3.1. Reported vessel wrecks and obstructions in the vicinity of Newtown Creek and East River (Organized by date of loss or Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) record) Vessel Name Vessel Type Size Event date Cause Location Source Comments Set afire at docks of Export Lumber Unidentified Sloop Unknown 00/00/1880 Burned Newtown Creek Kelsey 1896 Company (Item #18) Australian registry; loading oil at Hunter’s Oscar Brig Unknown 08/05/1873 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 Point, set on fire by burning barge German registry; loading oil at Hunter’s Toni Bark Unknown 08/05/1873 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 Point Fire at Standard Oil docks (on East River Max Brig Unknown 07/30/1872 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 [Sanborn 1911]) Fire at Standard Oil docks (on East River Elpis Ship Unknown 07/30/1872 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 [Sanborn 1911]) British registry; cargo was oil; fire at Edward Bark Unknown 07/30/1872 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 Standard Oil docks (on East River [Sanborn 1911]) Caught fire from burning canal boat; fire at Roslyn Brig Unknown 07/30/1872 Burned Hunters Point Rattray 1976 Standard Oil docks (on East River [Sanborn 1911]) Result of oil fire at Daylight Oil Refinery New York that spread to Devoe Manufacturing Co. of Avarice Brig Unknown 05/26/1869 Burned Hunters Point Times 1869; Hunters Point, and associated vessels. Seyfried 1984 Avarice grounded "at point that juts out at mouth of creek" New York Result of oil fire at Devoe Manufacturing Countersign Lighter Unknown 05/26/1869 Burned Hunters Point Times 1869; Co. of Hunters Point Seyfried 1984 New York Result of oil fire at Devoe Manufacturing Star Lighter Unknown 05/26/1869 Burned Hunters Point Times 1869; Co. of Hunters Point Seyfried 1984 New York Result of oil fire at Devoe Manufacturing Washington Barge Unknown 05/26/1869 Burned Hunters Point Times 1869; Co. of Hunters Point Seyfried 1984 New York Result of oil fire at Devoe Manufacturing W. Price Barge Unknown 05/26/1869 Burned Hunters Point Times 1869; Co. of Hunters Point Seyfried 1984

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 49

Table 3.1. Reported vessel wrecks and obstructions in the vicinity of Newtown Creek and East River (Organized by date of loss or Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) record) Vessel Name Vessel Type Size Event date Cause Location Source Comments Rattray 1976; No further information. Berman says "used Kings County Steamer 467 T. 10/25/1868 Burned Hunters Point Berman as ferry." Note: possible confusion with #2411 entry 14, or vessel could have been raised. Newtown, Long Blown onto a shoal in a northwest blizzard; Sally Ann Sloop Unknown 12/24/1811 Wrecked Rattray 1976 Island 19 lives saved No depth reported. Side scan and multi- 1934 40-43-21N/73-58- AWOIS beam sonar conducted in 2005 and 2006 Obstruction N/A N/A (original N/A 04W #11671 found no evidence of obstruction. Located report) in East River. Originally reported as “thin metal object 2005 40-23-28.56N/73- AWOIS protruding vertically." Reported depth: 20 Obstruction N/A N/A N/A (report) 58-16.26W #11672 ft. Subsequently disproved by side scan sonar in 2005. Located in East River. 2005 40-44-36N/73-58- AWOIS # Reported depth: 29 ft. Located in East Obstruction N/A N/A N/A (report) 25W 13239 River. 2005 40-43-54.27N - AWOIS Reported depth: 37 ft. Located in East Obstruction N/A N/A N/A (report) 073-58-03.25W #13240 River. 2005 40/43/34.05N - AWOIS Reported depth: 39 ft. Located in East Obstruction N/A N/A N/A (report) 073/58/02.05W #13241 River. 2005 40/44/35.58N - AWOIS Reported depth: 27 ft. Located in East Obstruction N/A N/A N/A (report) 073/57/47.50W #13242 River. Reported depth 13.87 m. Described as the 2006 40-44- 54.71N/73- AWOIS Unknown Unidentified Unknown Unknown hull remains of unknown wreck. Identified (report) 57- 54.28W #13565 by side scan sonar and MBES (2006). Reported depth: 34 ft. Described as 2006 40-43-27.54N/73- AWOIS Obstruction N/A N/A N/A “dangerous obstruction/pipeline” with (report) 57-49.09W #13580 height of 4.7 m. Located in East River.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 50

Figure 3.4. Maspeth Creek from 49th Street, Linden Hill, looking west (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 232), showing partially submerged timber vessel remains.

To some degree, many hulks probably were cleared during government or private dredging projects, particularly if they were obstructing navigational channels. During one channel improvement project, for example, the USACE destroyed three wrecks just upstream from Vernon Avenue by blasting away their remains (Brooklyn Eagle 1890:6). However, portions of vessels still could remain outside of defined channel boundaries or, as in the case of Maspeth Creek, in more remote and less developed portions of the waterway (Hamboussi 2010) (Figure 3.4).

Bridge Related Structures

The repeated episodes of bridge building and re-building that characterized the history of Newtown Creek and its tributaries undoubtedly left behind a series of potentially significant structural remains. Bridge deterioration or obsolescence necessitated frequent re-placements. Reiss (2005:7) noted that the original Blissville bridge, predecessor of today’s Greenpoint Avenue bridge, was erected in the 1830s, but was re-built “several times,” including once after the structure collapsed in 1880 (Brooklyn

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 51

Eagle 1880:10). The original Borden Avenue Bridge, which spanned Dutch Kill to link Hunters Point and Blissville, was built in 1869; however, within ten years, the bridge was out of repair and the road bed was “sinking into the marshes.” The replacement for that first bridge in turn was replaced by a retractable span in 1908 (Seyfried 1984:95, 143). Seyfried (1984:143) also noted a sequence of at least three bridges between Greenpoint and Long Island City: a swing bridge that linked Vernon Avenue and Manhattan Avenue, a temporary wooden structure at Oakland Avenue (ca. 1903); and the bascule bridge that replaced the 1903 structure in 1905 (Jackson and Melnick 2004:62). In other cases, bridges apparently were not replaced once they became dysfunctional or obsolete. The US Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) Navigation Map for New York Bay and Harbor (1874) and Bromley’s 1880 Atlas of Brooklyn (Ward 18) depicted a Manhattan Beach Railroad span across English Kills just south of the Grand/Metropolitan Avenue Bridge (Figure 3.5). That bridge was gone by 1924 (USCGS 1924), but some of its structural components could remain.

Recent surveys have documented that portions of some of these former structures still exist within and along Newtown Creek. According to Reiss (2005:19), the “old stone footings of the (ca. 1905 bascule) bridge that once connected Manhattan Avenue with Vernon Boulevard can still be seen along Newtown Creek,” embedded in the present bulkhead on the Long Island City shoreline. And Anthony Hamboussi (2010) recently photo documented structural remains that he identified as portions of the Maspeth Plank Road bridge and supporting piers from the old Blissville swing bridge (Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8).

Figure 3.5. Excerpt from Bromley’s (1880) Atlas of Brooklyn, Ward 18 (Plate 30), showing Manhattan Beach Railroad Bridge across English Kills (Digital image from New York Public Library).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 52

Figure 3.6. Maspeth Plank Road bridge from Maspeth Avenue, East Williamsburg, view northeast (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 210).

Wharves, Piers and Bulkheads

The historical record reflects a long history of shoreline construction along Newtown Creek and its tributaries. Private and commercial docks or landings clearly were in place at Maspeth Creek and on Dutch Kills by the mid-eighteenth century, if not before; these facilities endured through the ante-bellum period (O’Gorman 1880). Along the Newtown Creek shoreline near Meeker Avenue, sources refer to the operation of ferry services as early as 1670 (Armbruster 1912:15). When the original Calvary Cemetery was established ca. 1845, a ferry service was provided, at first across the creek to Bushwick, and later directly to 23rd Street in Manhattan (Armbruster 1912:177, 185); the dock for this service lay close by the former Penny Bridge. Both the 1883 and 1915 USACE maps (Figures 3.2 and 3.3) depict a long pier extending across a large area of tidal flats upstream from the Meeker Avenue bridge; it is likely that, once massive landform modification began along the watershed, the process of filling and bulk-heading covered such earlier shoreline facilities. Hunter Research, Inc., et al (2004:3-2, 3-6) summarized shoreline reinforcement techniques and processes for the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn – a waterway similar in many respects to Newtown Creek. They found that timber cribbing was the most common method used to reinforce shoreline properties from the 1850s through the early twentieth century. In this system, a series of timber cells were filled with sand, silt and coarse material, including debris; sunk; and then faced on

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 53

Figure 3.7. Remains of the Maspeth Plank Road Bridge from 58th Road, Linden Hill, Queens, looking southwest (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 56). the outside with squared timbers bolted or spiked onto the crib framework. On marsh or silt bottoms, the bottom crib might be supported on timber piles. In fact, the City of Brooklyn adopted an ordinance in 1849 that required that “owners or lessees of every dock or pier, bulkhead or wharf in Brooklyn must equip the facility with backing, pieces, logs or timbers, not less than ten inches high and ten inches wide, fastened to the wharf, so that the said backing pieces, logs or timbers shall run along all the fronts and sides of these facilities whether said fronts or sides are above ground level or low tide line” (Haskett 1856:184).

Concrete bulkheads, often constructed to reinforce or tie in with earlier timber work, generally were adopted in the New York area about 1900, and initially were used by railroads which require

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 54

Figure 3.8. Pier remains from the Long Island Railroad swing bridge, Blissville, Queens, view southwest (Photocopy from Hamboussi [2010], Plate 180).

heavier construction to support rolling stock. Sheet metal piling was not commonly used until after World War II.

Sources consulted for the present project provided only a brief glimpse into the history of shoreline construction within the Study Area, but they suggest that a similar chronology prevailed along Newtown Creek. In general, modification of the creek’s natural contours did not begin until the 1850s or 1860s. As of May 1869, the Long Island Star described the Queens shoreline of the creek as a “solid front of timber” (Seyfried 1984:92), although it is unclear whether standard timber sheeting or cribs were the principal systems utilized. Examination of the USACE 1883 map (Figure 3.2) suggests that construction of bulkhead lined shorelines and wharves were sporadic at that time. Regularized shorelines are present only at properties owned by established industrial concerns, like the various oil refineries and lumber companies along the main creek or smaller concerns such as Cooper’s Glue Factory further upstream. By the time of the 1915 USACE survey (Figure 3.3), however, bulkheads and piers clearly were in place along both shorelines of the main creek between Meeker Avenue and the East River, as well as in Whale Creek. Dutch Kills, and English Kills. While it is again unclear exactly what type of shoreline retention

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 55

systems were applied, we do know that in 1907, concrete was utilized to construct bulkheads and public piers in Whale Creek (Historical Perspectives, Inc. 1989:18). Future research into New York City’s municipal records and USACE completion records is recommended to clarify specific construction episodes.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 56

CHAPTER IV

METHODS

Various investigative methods were employed during the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey. The literature search, boat and land-side field reconnaissance survey, and remote sensing data analyses each used a unique approach to the Study Area.  The literature search involved extensive archival research at a wide variety of research repositories, visits to relevant agencies were conducted to collect data and online sources and databases were consulted.  Architectural investigations comprised background research, field survey by boat and land, and data analysis using historic maps and aerials.  Nautical archeologists conducted a boat based reconnaissance survey to identify areas of potential cultural resources and to characterize the study area and its overall maritime cultural landscape.  Nautical archeologists analyzed the geophysical data collected by CR Environmental data for potential cultural resources.  ArcGIS was employed to combine all of the collected data for an overall comparative analyses and characterization of the Study Area.

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH METHODS

Extensive archival research initiatives were undertaken in support of this report. These included visits to a wide variety of repositories and use of online sites, as well as personal communication with relevant agencies that govern both the Newtown Creek waterway and those portions of Brooklyn and Queens Boroughs that border it. The New York State Historic Preservation Office (NY SHPO) in Cohoes, New York, provided basic archeological and architectural site files and reports for the area. A literature search was conducted to identify previously identified archeological and architectural resources located within one mile of Newtown Creek and its tributaries. This research initially was conducted using the NYSHPO’s online applications, including the State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) and Document Imaging for the National Register. Online research was followed by a research visit to the NY SHPO offices to gather additional archeological data and to search specifically for National Register-eligible properties in the NY SHPO files. This visit enabled in-person dialogue with archeologists and architectural historians with direct responsibility for this area.

Numerous archeological reports and historic resource determinations for Brooklyn and Queens County were available through the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission website. These documents provided additional site-specific information. In addition, telephone contact was made with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to determine if other files in their office would provide additional research and to gather data on such topics as the local bridges. The website maintained by the New York City Department of Transportation furnished cultural resource information on designated historic bridges within the Study Area.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 57

The maritime history of Newtown Creek was accorded especial emphasis. The wreck and obstruction files available online from the Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS) maintained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided basic positions and other information regarding submerged potential resources. However, the obstructions listed within their data bank were confined primarily to the East River rather than Newtown Creek proper. Accordingly, both published and online secondary sources (e.g., the Northern Shipwrecks database, Berman [1972], Rattray [1976]) containing relevant information about vessel disasters in the New York region also were consulted; portions of this research were conducted at the library of the Mariner’s Museum in Newport News, Virginia.

Research repositories in the New York City area were visited to obtain maps and primary and secondary sources related to the historical development of the Study Area. The Long Island Collection at the Queens Borough Public Library in Jamaica, NY, yielded numerous historic maps as well as vertical files that specifically targeted the histories of Newtown Creek, Long Island City, and Maspeth. Research collections also were reviewed at the Brooklyn Public Library Central Branch; the Brooklyn Historical Society; the New-York Historical Society; and, the Milstein Collection of the New York Public Library. Telephone contact with historians/archivists at two additional repositories—the Newtown Historical Society and the Wagner Archives at the LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City—revealed that neither repository was likely to have information related specifically to the Newtown Creek project. A research request to the Topographic Bureau of the Brooklyn Borough President’s Office about their map collection elicited the email response to contact the NYC Department of Buildings. The Property Profile Overviews maintained by the NYC Department of Buildings were accessed online for building construction information.

RCG&A, was provided access to the historical data review component assembled as part of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (AECOM 2011). The historical information contained in this large data assemblage included a wide date range of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps collected from the Queens Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library, and the Brooklyn Historical Society; aerial photographs of the Newtown Creek area dating from 1924, 1938-1940, and 1951; industrial atlases; early historical maps; newspaper clippings; and, scanned images, including the Tax Photographs taken by the New York City tax department between 1939 and 1941.

Personal communications, via either internet or telephone, also were initiated with agencies and individuals. Follow-up informational material, substantiating the historic designation status of bridges, was obtained from the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. At the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District, contacts included Lynn Rakos, district archeologist, and Stacey Jensen and Larry Young of the Regulatory Branch. Ms. Cece Saunders, archeologist with Historical Perspectives, Inc., an archeological firm that has conducted numerous investigations in the Brooklyn and Queens areas, helpfully provided a bibliography of standard works on the history of communities within that region.

ARCHITECTURAL INVESTIGATIONS METHODS

The architectural reconnaissance survey comprised a phased program of archival background research, field survey by boat and on land, data analysis, and report preparation. All work was conducted by personnel who meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61) in architectural history. The investigation was undertaken in accordance with National Park Service guidelines for local surveys (NPS 1985) and the approved work plan (Anchor QEA 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 58

The project Study Area was defined as the approximate 3.8-mile reach of Newtown Creek and its tributaries of Dutch Kills, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, East Branch, and English Kills. The Built Environment Study Area for the current investigation was defined in the approved work plan as encompassing “properties that are within and immediately adjacent to (i.e., within sight of) the Study Area” (Anchor QEA 2011:18). The Built Environment Study Area extended to the boundaries of the tax parcels of properties adjacent to Newtown Creek and its tributaries containing buildings and structures visible from the water. This approach assured the holistic examination of physically and functionally related built resources contained in the industrial complexes anticipated in the area.

The architectural reconnaissance survey had the following objectives. The first objective was to identify built resources in the Built Environment Study Area with the potential to possess the qualities of significance and integrity to qualify as historic properties applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60 [a-d]). The second was to determine the adequacy of the limits of the Built Environment Study Area. These objectives were accomplished through an integrated program of archival research, field investigation, and data analysis. Background research was completed to collect data on previously identified built resources in the Built Environment Study Area, to develop preliminary historic contexts to characterize the development of the area, and to anticipate property types likely to be located in the study area. A historic context is defined “as those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is understood” (NPS Bulletin 1997:7). A historic context organizes historical data by themes (i.e., areas of significance), geographical limits, and a chronological period and provides a “perspective from which to evaluate the property’s significance” (NPS Bulletin 1997:7-8; NPS 1985). Preliminary historic contexts then are refined during the architectural investigations to incorporate additional data to provide a basis for assessing the potential significance of resources. Site-specific research on individual parcels was beyond the scope of work for this project.

Background preparation for the reconnaissance survey included the preparation of base maps for the field survey. The Built Environment Study Area was overlaid on a current aerial map. Comparison of the buildings and structures in the Built Environment Study Area on current and historic aerial photographs and nautical charts provided a defensible basis for establishing the construction date ranges and the locations of built resources likely to be older than fifty years of age.

The reconnaissance field survey was conducted both by boat and by land from 5 December 2011 through 10 December 2011. The boat survey was completed over two days and was followed by two and a half days of land survey. The boat survey was conducted from Newtown Creek and its accessible tributaries. Dutch Kills was not accessible due to an inoperable railroad swing bridge. The upper reaches of Maspeth Creek, East Branch, and English Kills were blocked by containment booms, which prevented navigation. The land survey was conducted from the public streets adjoining the Built Environment Study Area. All survey was completed from the public right-of-way. All “no trespassing signs” and gated entrances to private property were respected.

All built resources identified as older than fifty years of age within the Built Environment Study Area were recorded using Terrasync v. 3.30 software on Trimble GeoXT v. 2005 units containing GPS with sub-meter accuracy. Survey data were manually entered into the Trimble handheld computer. Because the survey was conducted from the public right-of-way, building offsets were calculated to adjust GPS points, thus enabling an accurate building location point. Collected data included resource name, location information, construction and alteration date ranges, present use, condition, number of stories, construction materials for foundation, if visible, exterior wall materials, footprint, roof type, association with the creek, photograph number, and additional notes.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 59

All surveyed resources were photographed using digital cameras. All digital images were executed to meet the digital photography standards of the National Park Service and the NY SHPO. All of the photographs were taken with Nikon CoolPix P6000 cameras at 13.5 megapixels with a resolution of 4224x3168. All photographs were recorded on photograph logs and also were entered into the survey database.

Data analysis comprised a comparison of field data with historic maps and historic aerials to refine construction dates, to identify previous land uses, and to characterize historical development patterns in the area. Sanborn maps dating from the 1980s and 1990s often provided building construction dates. New York City Building Department data available online also were consulted in assigning construction dates. Buildings documented as constructed after 1962 were eliminated from further investigation. The results of the data collected from the reconnaissance survey and the data analysis were compiled in a table of built resources. Buildings identified with a construction date range between 1955 to 1965 were assigned a ca. 1960 construction date and were included in the table of resources.

The field survey data were analyzed within their historic contexts. The historic contexts provided the basis for the preliminary assessments of the significance and integrity of the built resources applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (CFR 60.4 [a-d]). The purpose of this preliminary assessment was to identify properties warranting intensive-level architectural investigations to enable their full evaluation as historic properties. The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation are as follows:

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 U.S. history; B. That are associated with the lives of people significant in the past; 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; D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Certain kinds of properties not usually considered for listing in the NRHP include the following:

 religious properties (Criteria Consideration A),  moved properties (Criteria Consideration B),  birthplaces or graves (Criteria Consideration C),  cemeteries (Criteria Consideration D),  reconstructed properties (Criteria Consideration E),  commemorative properties (Criteria Consideration F), and  properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years (Criteria Consideration G).

In addition to meeting at least one of the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, a cultural resource also must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics it possessed in the past and its capacity to convey information about a culture or

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 60

group of people, a historic pattern, or a specific type of architectural or engineering design or technology (National Park Service 1995:2-3, 45-49).

Location refers to the place where an event occurred or a property was originally built. Design considers elements such as plan, form, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of the property. Materials refer to the physical elements used to construct the property. Workmanship refers to the craftsmanship of the creators of a property. Feeling is the ability of the property to convey its historic time and place. Association refers to the link between the property and a historically significant event, group, or person (National Park Service 1995:45-49).

The results of the architectural reconnaissance survey are presented in Chapter VII. Appendix X contains the Built Environment Study Area Architectural Survey Map Set. The complete table of surveyed built resources within the current Built Environment Study Area, including photographs, is contained in Appendix XI.

REMOTE SENSING METHODS

CR Environmental, Inc. (CR) performed hydrographic and geophysical surveys of the Newtown Creek Study Area in Brooklyn and Queens, New York to support the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The Study Area included Newtown Creek and its tributaries, Dutch Kills, Maspeth Creek, Whale Creek, East Branch, and English Kills. CR collected the hydrographic and geophysical data in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrographic Surveying Engineering and Design Manual (EM 1110- 2-1003) and the NOAA-Office of Coast Survey (OCS) 2011 Field Procedures Manual (FPM). The remote sensing survey was conducted between October 31, 2011 and November 5, 2011 (Appendix I).

CR utilized two vessels to complete the survey. The primary survey vessel was CR’s 26-ft aluminum research vessel, R/V Lophius. In addition, a 12-ft survey vessel, S/V Skiff, was operated in the shallow/inaccessible portions of the Newtown Creek. The survey instrumentation consisted of three precision single-beam echo sounders, high-frequency CHIRP side scan sonar, and a cesium vapor marine magnetometer.

Hydrographic and geophysical survey data analyses can be applied to submerged cultural resources investigations, to identify specific magnetometer, side scan sonar, and sub-bottom profiler anomalies that might represent significant submerged cultural resources. Natural and anthropogenic forces typically scatter ferrous and non-ferrous objects associated with historic shipwrecks. These objects normally can be detected with a remote sensing array that includes magnetometer and side scan sonar. Some prehistoric archeological sites, such as large shell middens and relict landforms with potential to contain other evidence for prehistoric activity can be detected with a sub-bottom profiler. Critical elements in the interpretation of side scan sonar and sub-bottom profiler anomalies are their form, extent, and spatial distribution, and in the case of magnetic anomalies their signature, amplitude, duration, and patterning. The discrimination of potentially significant cultural resources from magnetometer, side scan sonar and sub-bottom profiler data extends beyond review of these characteristics. The identification of potentially significant submerged cultural resources involves correlation of data from the entire remote sensing array; as a result, accurate recording of anomaly locations is essential.

It must be documented that the hydrographic and geophysical survey work CR performed for the Newtown Creek Study Area did not include sub-bottom profiling (i.e., shallow seismic) data collection. The sediments in this creek are enriched in organic matter and, as a result, contain gas bubbles, which

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 61

reduce the effectiveness of sub-bottom profiling by prohibiting acoustic signal penetration, absorbing or scattering most of the acoustic energy back to the surface (USEPA 1994).

The combined use of magnetometer and side scan sonar systems has proven to be the most effective method of identifying submerged historic cultural resources, such as shipwrecks, and of assessing their potential for further research (Green 1990, Hall 1970). When combined with magnetometer data, the near photographic-quality of side scan sonar records have left little doubt regarding the identification of some shipwrecks. For targets lacking sufficient structural integrity or those partially buried beneath bottom sediments, identification can be extremely difficult. The term “target” identifies the location/presence of anomalies that may represent a potential cultural resource. They are not confirmed archeological sites, but warrant analyses. Because intact and exposed shipwrecks are less common than those broken and buried, remote sensing surveys generally produce targets that require ground-truthing (i.e., diving assessments) by archeologists to determine their identity and significance.

Positioning

The navigation systems used were a HemisphereGPS VS110 and, a HemisphereGPS R110 on the R/V Lophius, and a Trimble AgGPS132 on S/V Skiff. The Hemisphere and Trimble units are 12-channel Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) capable of receiving the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Beacon differential corrections, and sub-meter horizontal position accuracy.

The DGPS units were interfaced to a laptop computer running Hypack 2010 hydrographic survey software. Hypack continually logged vessel position, DGPS satellite quality, and provided an active navigation display during survey. Hypack provided automatic data logging for the echo sounders and marine magnetometer and allowed each device to be corrected for offsets and latency time. Hypack survey elements (i.e., lines, text, borders, etc) can be exported to various file output formats and used to produce trackline plots and soundings (XYZ parameters).

Magnetometer

CR utilized a Geometrics G-881Cesium-vapor marine magnetometer for the survey. The magnetometer towfish sensor was towed from the port aft corner of Lophius and off the aft port corner of Skiff, directly behind the antenna. In general, the magnetometer towfish was towed at a distance equal to or greater than twice the vessel length. The transmitting cycle rate ranged from 5-10Hz, for a maximum output rate of 0.001 seconds. The magnetometer towfish sensor was towed a maximum of 15 ft above the creek bed (CR 2012).

Magnetometers have proven useful in marine research as detectors of anomalous distortions in the earth’s magnetic field caused by concentrations of natural and anthropogenic ferrous materials. Distortions or changes as small as 0.02 nT are detectable when operating a magnetometer at a sampling rate of 0.1 seconds. Magnetic anomalies caused by submerged cultural resources may range in intensity from several nT to several thousand nT, depending on such factors as the mass of ferrous materials present, the distance of the mass from the sensor, and the orientation of the mass relative to the sensor. The uses of magnetometers in archeology and the theoretical aspects of their operation have been summarized and discussed in detail by Green (1990), Weymouth (1986), Breiner (1973), Tite (1972), Hall (1970, 1966), and Aitken (1961).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 62

Individual anomalies express distinctive magnetic signatures. A magnetic signature may be categorized as a monopole or a dipole, or other configuration (i.e., simple, complex, or multi-component). Monopoles usually indicate a single source. They are registered as positive or negative deflections from the ambient magnetic field, depending on how the object that they represent is oriented relative to the magnetometer sensor. Dipoles comprise a rise and a fall above and below the ambient magnetic field and also are commonly associated with single source anomalies. Multi-component, or complex signature anomalies, consist of both dipole and monopole magnetic perturbations that are associated with a large overall deflection that can be indicative of debris patterns similar to those typically associated with shipwrecks and other significant submerged cultural resources. The complexity of a magnetic signature is affected partially by the distance of the sensor from the ferrous mass and by the quantity of ferrous debris present. If the sensor is close to a cluster of objects, their signatures will register as complex; if far enough away, their signatures will register as simple.

Side Scan Sonar

An Edgetech Model 4125 (400/900 kHz) dual frequency CHIRP side scan sonar system was used during survey to acquire high-resolution creek bed images. This system consisted of a tow fish operating at simultaneous 400/900 kHz frequencies, and a 4125-P Transceiver Processor Unit (TPU), running Edgetech’s Discover Sonar data acquisition software. The sonar range was set to 82.0 ft (25.0 m) and data were acquired along a subset of the bathymetric survey transects to ensure >200% insonification of the creek bottom (CR 2012:6).

The sonar towfish was deployed from the bow-mounted A-frame on Lophius, or suspended off the starboard side of Skiff. The towfish layback, that is the length of towfish cable deployed relative to the DGPS antenna, was recorded and updated in Hypack. Layback and sound velocity values are essential to calculating accurate positions. CR produced a draft sonar mosaic during the survey to ensure adequate survey coverage. CR delivered processed side-scan sonar data as a series of georeferenced TIF image files that RCG&A incorporated into an ArcGIS database for comparison with the marine magnetometer data.

Side scan data collection in Dutch Kills was conducted from Skiff due to an immovable railway swing bridge with 3-ft vertical clearance. A small gap (approximately 0.18 acres) in the side scan data appears on the east bank of this bridge, caused by a lack of access. Side scan data collection was also impossible in two small side channels, (0.32 and 0.89 acres, respectively) and the end of English Kills (approximately 3.2 acres) due to shoals, booms, and vessels blocking the channel entrances. The end of East Branch was also blocked by a boom. CR made every attempt to collect data beyond the booms by increasing the range of the sonar and running a boom-parallel transect.

Echo Sounding Systems

R/V Lophius was equipped with Teledyne Odom Echotrac CV-100 and Teledyne Odom Hydrotrac echo sounding systems, both attached to 200 kHz, 8° transducers. These systems interfaced with Hypack and DGPS, and located amidships on each rail, and a centrally located tow point on the bow- mounted A-frame. The Echotrac CV-100 and Odom Hydrotrac systems provide resolutions of 0.1 ft (0.03 m). S/V Skiff, utilized in the shallow and inaccessible portions of the Creek, was equipped with a Teledyne Odom Echotrac CVM system, attached to a 200 kHz 8° transducer which provided a resolution of 0.1 ft (0.03 m). Skiff was outfitted with an over-the-side transducer mount, amidships on the port side.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 63

The data acquisition system on Skiff consisted of interfacing the echo sounder with the DGPS via Hypack. The DGPS antennae attached to the top of each of the transducer booms, thereby eliminating the need to correct for horizontal offsets.

The echo sounder transducer offset (depth below the water surface or vertical offset), was checked and recorded daily. Additional calibrations were conducted twice a day by collecting and recording water column profiles of sound velocity. The water column temperature and salinity measurements were collected using YSI, Inc. Model 22 and Pro 2030 instruments. A sound velocity profile was calculated and the profile data were entered into HYPACK to adjust raw soundings.

SURVEY CONTROL AND CORRELATIONS OF DATA SETS

CR used vertical control points established near the mouth (downstream) and the midpoint of the survey area. The control point near the mouth was located at Anchor QEA’s shore side facility, and the control point near the midpoint of the survey area was located near the corner of a National Grid facility. The NAVD88 elevations of these points were determined by NY Registered Professional Land Surveyors from GEOD Corporation, Inc. (GEOD). The bathymetric survey documented bottom elevations relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (CR 2012: 3).

REMOTE SENSING DATA ANALYSES

CR post-processed the hydrographic and geophysical survey data and delivered all data products to Anchor QEA. A digital copy of these data products were then transmitted to RCG&A, for cultural resource analyses. As anticipated, the density of established infrastructure generated substantial sources of magnetic interference and created very complex external magnetic field conditions. Nevertheless, it was necessary to attempt to determine relations between present and past complex maritime structures and to differentiate between potential historic contacts and modern debris using the provided survey data. Acknowledging the data limitations, magnetic contours, anomaly locations and side scan sonar imagery were projected over NOAA navigational charts using ESRI ArcGIS software to establish relationships between these datasets and identify targets with potential to represent submerged cultural resources.

The excessive magnetic gradients, a severe challenge and limitation to buried feature detection, necessitated careful review criteria of the sonar data. For instance, the sonar data combined with depth contours can be accurately used to detect very small creek bed features. Because the rendered surfaces in sonar mosaics can conceal or distort subtle features, line-by-line analyses of side scan sonar data were conducted to identify acoustic contacts with potential to represent areas that contain significant submerged cultural resources. The review criteria included examining the characteristics of each target, relative to its orientation of insonification, acoustic shadow and other acoustic parameters, in order to ensure an accurate interpretation.

The successful application of magnetic data requires a careful examination of individual anomalies. An inventory of magnetic anomalies is compiled, and the profile of each anomaly characterized in terms of signature, amplitude, and duration. The magnetic properties are then compared between cultural areas of interest and the surrounding environment and known features. In generalized terms, magnetic anomalies that express areas of high density, anomalies exhibiting complex magnetic signatures, clusters of anomalies, and anomalies of unusually high amplitude and duration that were

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 64

recorded on multiple transects, are of archeological (man-made) origin and less likely a representation of geology. A contour map is prepared to assist in visualizing and correlating anomaly characteristics (distribution and amplitude) and the relationship between paired anomalies on adjacent track lines.

One last step in the data analyses process is to establish measures to avoid or minimize the impacts to all potential submerged cultural resources that are within the remediation area (i.e., Study Area). The conventional process is to calculate an avoidance zone based on the acoustic characteristics and expression of the magnetic anomalies that compose the target; thereby, capturing total site extents. Because adverse effects to potential cultural resources in the Study Area may occur as a result of direct or indirect remedial activities that same empirical process was used to calculate a minimum area of archeological potential.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 65

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER V

ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY

A boat based and land-side survey was undertaken within the Newtown Creek Study Area to identify any areas of potential cultural resource sensitivity and to characterize the area within its maritime cultural landscape.  The land-side survey was limited to only 2 areas where access to the 50-foot buffer between the water’s edge and extent of the archeological study area was not restricted.  The boat based survey identified 9 areas with high potential to contain cultural resources.  The boat based survey identified 17 areas with a moderate potential to contain cultural resources.  The boat based survey identified 23 areas with a low potential to contain cultural resources.  The boat based survey identified 12 areas as modern with no visible potential to contain cultural resources. In all instances where further investigation is recommended, the scope of these further investigations will be determined consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and New York SHPO. Both the final determination of the APE and the remediation methodology will affect the scope of any further investigation.

The archaeological Study Area for the current project includes the channels and bulkheads of Newtown Creek and its tributaries, with a 50-foot buffer inland from the bulkhead, riprap, or gravity wall line (to ensure that the entire bulkhead area is included). Archeological resources are subject to direct effects as a result of implementation of a remedial option because sites may be disturbed by excavation. Indirect effects to archeological sites would not be expected. Therefore, archeological resources survey is limited to the immediate surrounding shoreline that may be impacted by a remedial option and any staging or processing areas. With the exception of the bulkheads above the water line, potential archaeological resources are, for the most part, buried under sediment and are not visible at the Study Area sediment or water surface. Project actions that have the potential to impact archaeological resources include dredging and bulkhead removal or alteration (Anchor QEA 2011).

As the archaeological Study Area is confined to the waters of Newtown Creek and its tributaries and a 50-foot buffer inland, potential remedies that require or result in subsurface sediment disturbance have the potential to impact archaeological resources. Therefore, the background research conducted for the CRS is of greater value toward an understanding of potential terrestrial archeological resources within the Study Area than the land-side reconnaissance survey.

PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

Within the archeological Study Area, the potential for intact prehistoric period resources appears to be uniformly low. All of the reports reviewed for studies conducted immediately adjacent to any of the

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 67

waterways included in the Newtown Creek drainage suggest that there were almost no loci within that defined perimeter that prehistoric peoples would have considered as habitable. Beginning in the mid- nineteenth century, elevated upland areas overlooking the tidal creeks and marshes were massively flattened; the resulting material was used to fill former small creeks, swamps, and marshes to create buildable land adjacent to navigable water. Hartgen (1994:4) observed that Alfred Parker, writing in the 1920s, had summarized the problem succinctly when he stated that “the early erection of towns and villages over the area soon blotted out aboriginal traces.”

At least five reports reviewed for this project presented soil bore data for their respective project areas, all of which bordered directly navigable channels. At a site on Morgan Avenue adjacent to English Kills (Hartgen 1994:4), soil borings reflected fill depths of between 19 and 24 feet, and the water table was encountered at a depth of between 7.5 and 8 ft below the modern surface. At a proposed sludge management facility at the confluence of Maspeth and Newtown creeks, Historical Perspectives, Inc. accessed soil bore logs prepared for construction on an immediately adjacent parcel. These logs indicated a depth of modern fill in that general area of between 3 and 28 ft (Kearns et al. 1991). At the Phelps- Dodge site along the eastern shoreline of Newtown Creek at Laurel Hill, soil borings conducted in connection with proposed remediation and redevelopment activities indicated fill levels extending from 10 – 20 ft below the current surface. These fills had been superimposed on former marsh surfaces that extended as much as 500 ft inland from the present bulkhead lines (Allee King Rosen and Fleming 1991). On Railroad Avenue, at a site on the north side of Maspeth Creek, Tidlow (1991) reported that similarly extensive fill deposits, ranging between 10 and 23 ft below the present grade, overlay a peat lens that represented a remnant estuarine marsh. Along Whale Creek, at the site of a Water Pollution Control Plant, fill levels ranged between 20 and 30 ft, with the water table varying from 8.5 to 17.4 ft (Historical Perspectives Inc., 1990, 1996). A sixth report (Kearns et al. 1988), while not containing specific geotechnical data, also concluded that any prehistoric remains present at the mouth of Newtown Creek at Hunters Point would be masked by significant quantities of nineteenth–twentieth century fill. Given these observations, it is unlikely that significant prehistoric materials would be encountered within the archeological Study Area defined for this project.

LAND-SIDE RECONNAISANCE SURVEY

The land survey was conducted from the public streets adjoining the Built Environment Study Area. All survey was completed from the public right-of-way. All “no trespassing signs” and gated entrances to private property were respected. The land survey revealed that the majority of the banks of Newtown Creek and its tributaries are not publicly accessible. Public access to the water is limited to the site of the former Vernon Avenue Bridge at Manhattan Avenue and the concrete nature walk near the Whale Creek wastewater treatment plant. The banks of Dutch Kills are visible from the Borden Avenue Bridge and the Hunters Point Avenue Bridge.

The land based survey was unable to identify any potential cultural resources due to restricted access to the banks of Newtown Creek. Therefore, further investigation is recommended to fully assess the potential for cultural resources within the 50-ft (15.2 m) terrestrial archeological study area defined in the work plan.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 68

Maritime Archeological Potential within the Newtown Creek Study Area

Two recent reports have demonstrated the extent to which significant historic resources can survive intact, even within the heavily industrialized urban waterways of greater New York. In 1999, Stephen James documented a wide variety of wrecked and/or abandoned vessels within the Arthur Kill and Kill van Kull, two waterways that historically transported commodities (particularly petroleum products) similar to those that moved through the Newtown Creek watershed. More recently, Cox (2010:3-4) identified a total of 29 targets as a result of a side-scan sonar survey of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. Of these, 7 represented potential cultural resources, including two barges and one shipwreck; seven additional targets represented “rip-rap debris associated with bulkhead failures. Unlike the survey areas defined for the Cox and James reports, the archeological Study Area defined for the Newtown Creek project also incorporates shoreline areas within 50-ft of present bulkhead or rip-rap lines. Soil bore data for several of these areas, as presented in previous archeological reports, indicate that as much as 30- ft of fill has been introduced behind these bulkheads. If environmental remediation measures adopted for the present project include removal of material from behind existing bulkhead lines, historic resources could be present beneath the modern fill.

The historic maritime context developed in the preceding section suggests that three general classes of cultural resources may survive within the Newtown Creek watershed, despite nearly a century and a half of repeated shoreline and channel modification and maintenance.

Figure 5.1. Photograph of Newtown Creek, view looking west to Midtown Manhattan.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 69

BOAT-BASED RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

Newtown Creek and its tributaries comprise an advanced and complex maritime cultural landscape central to the development of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. The boat-based reconnaissance survey enabled an inspection of the existing bulkheads, shorelines and ancillary maritime features. The results of this survey are presented here for the purposes of identifying areas where potential cultural resources may be impacted during the remediation process, and of identifying areas where further investigations are warranted and recommended.

METHODOLOGY

The boat based reconnaissance survey (BBRS) for potential maritime archeological resources was undertaken by members of the RCG&A’s Nautical Archeology Division; this survey was accomplished in conjunction with the built heritage survey performed by members of the Architectural History Division. Boat based visual reconnaissance survey was conducted along the entire length of Newtown Creek and its tributaries, except where shoaling, booms, or other obstructions prevented access.

Specifications Operator: Miller Marine, Inc. Home Port: Staten Island, NY Coast Guard Registry #: 1049873 Telephone #: 718-727-7303 Type of Vessel: Crew/Utility Hull Construction: Aluminum Length: 28′ Beam: 10′ Draft: 2’5″ Range: 8 hours Cruising Speed: 22 kts Top Speed: 28 kts Fuel Capacity: 60 Gallons Total Horsepower: 380 Call Sign: WDD 2267 Navigation: Radar, Digital depth finder, GPS plotter Communications Equipment: 2 VHFs Figure 5.2. Miller Marine’s M/V Julia Miller.

This survey was carried out onboard the M/V Julia Miller (Figure 5.2); no landing for further observation, investigation or recordation was permitted within the scope of work. A photographic record (Appendix II) was made of bulkhead features, shorelines, and other cultural features. Field observations were recorded on survey logs (Appendix II). The scope of work dictated that a brief record be made identifying areas of potential archeology and to indicate whether future archeological investigations (i.e., Stage 1B CRS) are needed.

Analyses and post-survey processing included the division of bulkhead and creek bank locations into areas that were given a code corresponding to the BBRS Survey Logs and to photographs taken. Each area was assessed using these survey logs, photographs, various aerial photographs, maps and charts, results of the remote sensing survey, and other relevant historical and contemporary records.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 70

These analyses resulted in determinations of probability for archeological potential based upon the data available to the Newtown Creek Stage 1A CRS. Where data were insufficient, a recommendation for further research prior to any impact is recommended.

The BBRS mobilized from Staten Island, NY, and was completed during 6-7 December 2011. The survey area encompassed the accessible extents of Newtown Creek and its tributaries. This survey served the purpose of providing the nautical archeologists with a water-based view of the banks of Newtown Creek and any attendant features related to the history and development of the area as an active maritime facility. The archeological and architectural survey crew included:

David A. McCullough, Ph.D. Nautical Archeologist Kathryn A. Ryberg, M.Sc. Remote Sensing Specialist Katherine Grandine, M.A. Architectural Historian Benjamin Riggle, M.A. Architectural Assistant John Vetter, Ph.D. EPA Observer (Dec. 6th 2011)

The tributary basins formally identified by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Ocean Service (NOS) are as follows (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: 03):

 Dutch Kills – on the north side of Newtown Creek, 0.8 miles (1.3 km) from the East River;  Whale Creek – on the south side, at Mile 0.85 (1.4 km), approximately opposite Dutch Kills;  Unnamed Canal – on the south side, at Mile 0.95 (1.5 km), adjacent to a New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) facility;  Maspeth Creek – on the east side, at Mile 2.2 (3.5 km);  East Branch – on the east side, at Mile 2.5 (4.0 km); and  English Kills – extends eastward and southward from the East Branch entrance and forms the last 0.8 miles (1.3 km) of Newtown Creek.

Flooding and Storm Surge Protection

The BBRS observed that many sections of Newtown Creek and its tributaries had extended their bulkheads in the form of either heaped backfill or, more commonly, large concrete blocks. The area’s most likely to flood during a hurricane and requiring evacuation are shown in Figure 5.3. The presence of these blocks and earthworks obscured the view of many of the landward features, but allowed the bulkheads to be observed and recorded. These barriers will be noted on plates contained in the BBRS photographic record. Although they are not an integral part of the maritime furniture, they are noteworthy in their contribution to the prevention of property damage from floods and storm surges.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 71

Figure 5.3. Newtown Creek Hurricane Evacuation Zones (adapted from New York City Hurricane Evacuation Zones: www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hurricane_map_english.pdf).

PROTECTIVE WATERFRONT STRUCTURES

A detailed discussion of seawall, bulkhead, and quaywall construction, modification and repair is outside of the current scope of work. These items would form part of potential further investigations undertaken on a site by site basis during future CRS stages (Stage 1B).

Maritime facility shore stabilization features fall into three categories: seawalls, bulkheads and quaywalls. Seawalls are soil retaining and armoring structures (riprap, rock armor, etc) whose primary purpose is to defend a shoreline against a wave attack. Seawalls are primarily for protection and are not intended for berthing. Bulkheads are soil retaining wall structures that have vertically spanning sheet piles or other flexural members. Bulkheads derive their strength through mobilization of passive earth pressures between the mud line and the embedded tip, and from a lateral restraint system (deadman/tie- rods) located between MLLW and the top of the structure. Bulkheads are installed to establish and maintain elevated grades along shorelines in areas that are relatively sheltered and that are not subject to heavy wave activity. Bulkheads commonly are used as berthing facilities. Quaywalls are gravity wall structures that have the dual function of providing protection from light to moderate wave activity and that provide berthing facilities. They function similarly to bulkheads, but have an advantage over bulkheads in height and resilience to wave activity (DOD 2006:2).

When selecting a type of facility to construct, various factors weigh in the decision. The key factors are wave severity, berthing requirements, and cost. The banks of Newtown Creek are lined with bulkheads of various ages, size, construction method, and cost. In order to maintain and operate marine facilities in these areas, bulkheads provide all of the necessary attributes of shore protection and accessibility. Bulkheads suit t3he environmental conditions of Newtown Creek and they maximize the use of available space for a marine facility. There are areas of riprap/rock armor along Newtown Creek. This serves as a seawall, but is not an efficient use of available space and eliminates the possibility of using this space for marine facilities. Bulkheads (as defined above) comprise the vast majority of the marine facilities on Newtown Creek and its tributaries.

There are many ways to construct bulkheads. The BBRS discovered that the lack of homogeneity in the construction of the bulkheads and other shore features along the creek provides a living record of the evolution of bulkhead construction. In areas where the bulkheads have not been maintained and have

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 72

collapsed, it is possible to examine the internal structure of the bulkheads and investigate construction methods and materials. Further investigation into the individual bulkheads of Newtown Creek will help identify the construction methods employed and the improvements and repairs that have taken place over time. Visual survey and recording of the various bulkhead construction methods with targeted historical data review is recommended as part of these investigations.

AREAS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

These designations apply only to the areas accessible and visible during the BBRS and subsequent data review.

Levels of Archeological Potential

Modern/No Archeological Potential

The Modern/No Archeological Potential designation applies to areas that have been recently constructed to an extent that obscures all remnants of earlier bulkheads and maritime facilities, or where there are no identifiable potential cultural resources. On the map of archeological potential (Appendix III, Maps 1-14), the designated areas refer only to the areas that they cover; for example, if a bulkhead is marked No Archeological Potential, the adjacent area of Newtown Creek should not be considered to lack archeological potential.

Even in areas that appear to be modern and have no archaeological potential, isolated areas of archaeological materials may be present but not discernible at the surface. Although no further investigation is recommended for these areas, an Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be developed in consultation with the EPA prior to any ground disturbing activity to ensure that if unexpected archaeological materials are encountered, they are treated in compliance with applicable laws.

Low Archeological Potential

Areas of Low Archeological Potential are defined based on either visible remnants of potential cultural resources, or by their capacity to retain earlier structures and resources within the current fabric. Such areas are recommended for further investigation only if they will be impacted directly as part of the remediation measures.

Moderate Archeological Potential

Areas of Moderate Archeological Potential are defined by visible remnants of potential cultural resources, their capacity to retain earlier structures and resources within the current fabric, and the presence of potential subsurface archeology. Such areas are recommended for further investigation if there will be direct or indirect impacts as part of the remediation measures.

High Archeological Potential

Areas of High Archeological Potential are defined based on visible remnants of potential cultural resources; in particular standing historic maritime structures, extant maritime furniture, or discernible

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 73

association with potential submerged cultural resources. Such areas are recommended for further investigation if there will be direct or indirect impacts as part of the remediation measures.

Bulkheads and Maritime Furniture

During the BBRS, photographs and notes were taken of the visible attributes of the banks of Newtown Creek. This Stage 1A survey offers an initial assessment concerning archeological potential and makes recommendations where further investigative work may be required in relation to a variety of potential remediation measures. In addition to the survey log and photographic record (Appendix II), various aerial photographs and satellite images were viewed to aid in the assessment of the various geographic areas. The hydrographic and geophysical remote sensing survey (RSS) undertaken as part of this Stage 1A cultural resources assessment was included in this review to identify any subsurface anomalies that may be associated with bulkheads and maritime features. Additionally, The Newtown Creek Navigation Analysis (NCNA) undertaken under the Kosciuszko Bridge Project by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYDOT 2008) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration was consulted to ascertain the current use of many of the facilities with the maritime Study Area.

The following discussion is organized geographically, from the upstream tributaries, downstream to the East River. A brief name is given to each of the creek areas followed by a numerical designation referring to the survey log and photographic record (Appendix II).

English Kills 2-l-2

This area was inaccessible by both the BBRS and the RSS (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1). As an area of obvious silting, it retains a high potential to contain archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix. According to the Kosciuszko Bridge Project (NY DOT 2008:IV-41), the furthest marine facility recorded was located on the corner between 2-1-1 and 2-1-2. It was operated at various times and by various operators as an oil terminal. This area consisted of timber bulkheads with a solid fill; accommodating two berthing spaces. Due to oil containment booms, which prevented access, any impact to these areas should be preceded by further investigations.

English Kills 2-l-l

This area was inaccessible by both the BBRS and the RSS (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1). As an area of obvious silting, it retains a high potential to contain archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix. During survey, timber bulkheads were observed. In some areas, these timber bulkheads had collapsed; in other areas, they were repaired with sheet pile reinforcement. According to the NY DOT (2008 Appendix F:IV-41), the furthest marine facility recorded was located on the corner between 2-1-1 and 2-1-2. It was operated at various times (1977 and 1988) by various operators as an oil terminal. The wharf consisted of timber bulkheads with a solid fill; accommodating two berthing spaces. Due to oil containment booms, which prevented access, any impact to these areas should be preceded by further investigations.

English Kills 2-l-3

This area has been in its current form since at least 1954, therefore it retains a moderate potential to contain archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 74

1). At the time of the BBRS, there was no evidence of the area’s use as a marine facility. It may retain earlier structures and characteristics from earlier bulkheads. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. If this bulkhead or the adjacent creek bed will be impacted directly, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills 2-2-l, 2-3-l

This section of bulkhead (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1) is not maintained as a marine facility, and it is in a poor state of preservation; it contains many collapsed sections that were evident from the BBRS and from the side scan sonar images collected during the RSS. Submerged areas of collapse and bulkhead fabric are visible all along its length. Therefore, the area is designated as having low archeological potential. If it will be impacted directly during the remediation process, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills 2-3-2, 2-2-2

These two (2) sections of bulkheads (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1) have been present in their current form since before 1954, and the possibility exists that earlier structures may be integral to their structure; therefore, these sections are designated as having moderate archeological potential. The NY DOT (2008 Appendix F: IV-40) reports that these areas were being considered for use as a truck-to- barge waste transfer facility. During the BBRS, it did not appear that such plans had come to fruition. During its most recent period of use, this facility maintained three berthing spaces. These wharves were constructed of both timber piles and steel sheet piles with solid fill. If these will be impacted directly, further investigation is recommended.

The northernmost section of 2-3-2 is a modern development. It is an active marine facility comprised of timber built bulkheads with solid fill (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: IV-39). It maintains a total berthing space of 200 feet (61 m). For these reasons, it can be characterized as an area of no archeological potential.

English Kills 2-3-3

The timber pile bulkhead remains intact (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1), but not as a functioning waterfront amenity. Although having low archeological potential, if it will be directly impacted as part of the remediation measures, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills l-l

This area is heavily eroded, but some of the bulkhead areas adjacent to the terrestrial structures show evidence of repair and rebuild; earlier bulkhead remnants were noted (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 1). There also are a series of timbers from an earlier structure and possible bulkhead collapse. Additionally, the remnants of a dock structure are present that can be indicative of repeated use over time. The protection afforded by piles coupled with the use of the facility over time combine to provide an area conducive to the preservation of cultural material - a moderate archeological potential. The Newtown Creek Navigation Analysis (NCNA) undertaken under the Kosciuszko Bridge Project (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: IV-39) reports that the wharf at this southeast quadrant of this location is property of the Slag Company of America; although the facility was active in 1977, it no longer uses the dock. The wharf

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 75

is constructed of a timber bulkhead approximately 168 feet (51.2 m) long with solid fill. If this area, i.e., existing bulkheads or the creek bed, will be impacted, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills 2-l, 3-3

This area is typified by modern development (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 1 & 2); therefore, it affords no archeological potential. This modern concrete block built bulkhead obscures any visible potential cultural resources. The occupiers of the properties adjacent to English Kills in this area are not using the waterway for any maritime commerce. The RSS revealed an area of collapse/debris immediately adjacent to the bulkhead, which may be the remnants of an earlier bulkhead/marine facility. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. If there will be any impacts to the creek bed adjacent to the bulkhead, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills 2-2

The recent development and use of the creek bank for industrial purposes has obscured earlier bulkhead manifestations and resulted in low archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 1 & 2). The possibility exists to discover earlier structures beneath the current bulkheads. In the case of reclaimed land and improved creek banks, the material deposited to create the new landforms can partially or fully obscure early cultural resources such as vessels, fish weirs, or other maritime structures beneath the current bulkheads. Future investigation of this area is recommended if there will be a direct impact to the bulkheads or creek bed.

English Kills 3-l, 3-2; 4-2

Recent development and use of the creek bank for industrial purposes has obscured earlier bulkhead manifestations and created a low archeological potential for cultural resources (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2). The RSS revealed areas of potential collapse that may be associated with an earlier bulkhead construction. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Further investigation of this area is recommended only if there will be a direct impact to the bulkheads or creek bed.

English Kills 4-l

Because this area exhibits continued use and various stages of improvements and neglect, it may contribute to the understanding of activities in this area. Therefore it offers a high archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2). According to the NY DOT (2008 Appendix F: IV-38) report, this was the location of the Gaseteria, Brooklyn Wharf that was in a state of disrepair in 1998. In 1977 and 1988, this facility was used to receive petroleum products by barge. The bulkhead in this area is constructed of timber and stone with some concrete sections. If it will be impacted during the remediation process, further investigation is recommended.

English Kills 4-3

Timber and stone bulkhead construction, dry-stone built retaining wall and evidence of continuous use without extensive reconstruction help identify this area as having a high archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2). According to the NY DOT (2008 Appendix F: IV-38) report, this was the location of the Gaseteria, Brooklyn Wharf, which was in a state of disrepair in 1998. In 1977 and 1988, this facility was used to receive petroleum products by barge. NY DOT (2008

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 76

Appendix F: IV-39) described the dock as a timber pile, timber-decked, offshore wharf with a timber walkway and pipeline trestle. The wharf face is 32 feet (9.7 m) long with a breasting distance of 60 feet (18.3 m) with a total berthing space of 125 feet (38.1 m). This facility was in a state of dilapidation both in 2005 (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: IV-39) and during the BBRS. The RSS discovered areas of collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area that may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, as well as cultural material from earlier periods of use.

Based upon the visible structure noted during the BBSR, on subsequent review of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project (NY DOT 2008) and on aerial photographs (Appendix III), this area requires future investigation prior to any impacts to the wharf structure, creek bed, or bulkheads.

English Kills 4-4

Visual survey of this area discovered bulkheads in various states of preservation and use (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2). The high amount of recent alteration to this bulkhead in the form of riprap, pipeline crossings, and outfall locations, coupled with recent refurbishment and repair, indicate that this section contains low archeological potential. The NY DOT (2008 Appendix F: IV-36) notes that these facilities were in operation as recently as 1998, but are currently inactive. It was recorded as part timber and part steel sheet piles with solid fill. The wharf face is 460 feet (140 m) long with a breasting distance of 165 feet (50.3 m), and with timber breasting dolphins and a total berthing space of 200 feet (61.0 m). The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. If this area will be impacted directly as part of the remediation measures, future investigation is recommended.

English Kills 5-l, 6-2

This section of bulkhead is in a poor state of preservation (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2); however, some possible carved stone and architectural features were incorporated into the bulkhead structure. Therefore, it merits moderate archeological potential. If this area will be impacted directly, future investigation is recommended.

English Kills 6-1

Timber bulkhead with solid fill and a retaining wall (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2) presents low archeological potential. If this will be impacted directly, future investigation is recommended.

English Kills 6-3, 7-2

The bulkhead at this location is comprised of modern structures that currently are in use as a marine facility (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 2). Located at the mouth of English Kills, this dock is comprised of a timber bulkhead with a solid fill and concrete surface. The wharf face is 200 feet (61 m) long and affords berthing space along its entire length (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: IV-34). The BBRS noted no visible archeological potential.

East Branch 2-4-1

Modern riprap/rock armor installed to maintain and stabilize the bank of the creek (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3), is present in this area. This area was not in use as a marine facility at the time of

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 77

the BBRS. The placement of rock armor/riprap as a shore protection agent eliminates any workable depth immediate adjacent to the banks.

The bank as it now stands has no archeological potential. Future investigation would be recommended in advance of and during any remediation work that would impact the creek bed either adjacent to or beneath the rock armor/riprap and sediments that compose the reclaimed land in this area.

East Branch 2-4-2

This section of the bulkhead is constructed of concrete; a large wall prohibits access to the water (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3); it no longer is used as a marine facility. The bank as it now stands has no archeological potential. Further investigation is recommended in advance of and during any remediation work that would impact the creek bed, either adjacent to or beneath the concrete bulkhead and sediments that compose the creek bank in this area.

East Branch 2-5-l, 2-5-6

The bulkhead in this location still exhibits some of its earlier attributes, as well as evidence of repair and upkeep (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3). The large granite blocks that comprise the footing of the Grand Street Bridge are recommended for further investigations if there will be any impacts to the bridge structure or in the immediate vicinity. During the BBRS, this area was not an active marine facility. Because this area retains a moderate potential to contain archeological materials, it is recommended that future investigations be performed if it will be impacted directly during remediation measures.

East Branch 2-5-2

The horizontal timber bulkheads in this section are bulging and/or collapsed and have been improved by the construction of a concrete bulkhead behind the earlier manifestation (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3). There also is evidence of temporary/semi-permanent flood protection measures (large concrete blocks stacked to protect and prevent flooding and storm surge/over wash). The RSS discovered areas of collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. This area has a moderate archeological potential. If this area will be impacted, further investigation is recommended.

East Branch 2-5-3

A DEP containment boom lay across this branch of East Branch, restricting access during the BBRS and the RSS (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3). The BBRS was able to identify steel sheet pile bulkheads with solid fill on the southwestern bank and some sections of exposed, collapsed stone. The northeastern bank is comprised of large dumped stone (riprap). If disturbance is planned in this area, it is recommended that further investigations occur to record any distinctive bulkhead features. Since the RSS was unable to access this area during survey, a high archeological potential has been assigned. Further investigation is recommended prior to any potential impacts associated with remediation.

East Branch 2-5-4

This bulkhead is comprised primarily of modern concrete construction; therefore it provides no archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3). It is not being maintained as an active marine

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 78

facility. If the bulkhead and/or creek bed will be impacted directly during the remediation measures, further investigation is recommended.

East Branch 2-5-5

This area does not contain a bulkhead proper, but it is located in the vicinity of the Grand Street Bridge on one side and a modern bulkhead construction on the other (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 3). Based upon the high level of disturbance of the sediments in this area, it has a low potential to contain any significant archeology. Evidence that this area was an active marine facility at one time is present in the form of timber dolphins and timber fenders. Future investigations are recommended if there will be direct impacts as part of the remediation measures.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 7-2, 6-3

The northernmost section (7-2) is comprised of a heavily eroded section of bulkhead and the location of the old Maspeth Avenue Toll bridge (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 4). The bridge was operated by the Maspeth Avenue Toll Bridge Company, which was incorporated in 1836 and last crossed Newtown Creek in 1875 (Armbruster 1912:104). The area of the bridge footings has been designated as having moderate archeological potential; future investigations are recommended if it will be impacted during remediation measures. The southern section of this area (6-3) is modern, and no further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 7-1

This area is comprised of sections or riprap/rock armor and eroding shoreline (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 3 & 4). Some of the eroding sections contain large stones, timbers and concrete. In some areas, there may be remnants of a timber bulkhead. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. Although this area has a low archeological potential, areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Further investigations are recommended at this location if the remediation works will impact the creek bank.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 7

This section of bulkhead is an active marine facility operated for the adjacent LNG plant (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 4). No archeological potential exists, and no further investigation is recommended.

Maspeth Creek 8-l

The banks of Maspeth Creek do not appear to have been maintained in a functional form and therefore have low archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 4 & 5). The land that comprises the banks of Maspeth Creek is fill deposited to provide land area and to channelize the creek for industrial economic reasons. The RSS discovered areas of potentially collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. For this reason, further investigation (possibly remediation stage monitoring) would be recommended if the mitigation measures included the destruction of the banks.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 79

Maspeth Creek - Creek Bed

This area was inaccessible to the BBRS survey; as an area of obvious silting, it retains a high potential to contain archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 4 & 5). Further investigation prior to any remediation measures is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel – Phelps Dodge

Remnants of the light railway associated with Phelps Dodge are visible (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 4 & 5), and one side scan sonar contact, Target 8, is immediately adjacent to this property. The narrow rail line was not visible during the BBRS. The potential association between Target 8 and the rail line provides moderate archeological potential. Further investigation is recommended for this bulkhead if it will be impacted during remediation. Such further investigation needs to incorporate Target 8.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-1, 9-2

This section of bulkhead is composed of large aggregate and collapsed stone starting from the Brooklyn Union Gas Company (Keyspan) to the south (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). There are no discernible courses to the stonework, which either is heavily eroded or has been dumped into place. A large concrete slab is visible jutting from the creek bank that may be an earlier structure or merely rubble placed here to reinforce the creek bank. This area is not maintained as a marine facility. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Therefore it presents moderate archeological potential. If this section of bulkhead will be impacted directly; further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-3

This area is in a very poor state of preservation (low archeological potential); concrete has been poured on the top to seal/stabilize the underlying timber bulkhead (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). The possibility exists that earlier features may be present beneath this concrete cap. The RSS discovered areas of potentially collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads and cultural material from earlier periods of use. If this area will be impacted directly, further investigation into what is contained beneath the concrete cap is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-4; 10-2

This area consists of a concrete capped timber bulkhead with sections of small and medium stone (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). The footing of the old bridge (Meeker St.) should be located in this section of bulkhead. This area retains moderate potential to contain archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix. Further investigation and recording is recommended if this section of bulkhead/bridge footing will be impacted directly.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-5

This area contains a concrete capped timber bulkhead located in the area between two bridges (previous Meeker Street and current Kociuszko Bridge) (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). This presents a low potential for archeological materials. If this area will be impacted directly, further investigation is recommended.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 80

Newtown Creek Main Channel 9-6, 10-1

This area contains a concrete capped timber bulkhead with sections of small and medium stone (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). The footing of the old bridge (Meeker St.) should be located in this section of bulkhead. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Therefore, this area exhibits moderate archeological potential. Further investigation and recording are recommended if this section of bulkhead/bridge footing will be impacted directly.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 10-2

This area contains a concrete capped timber plank and pile bulkhead (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 6). The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. Although these areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, it retains a low potential for archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix. Further investigation is recommended only if this bulkhead will be impacted directly during the remediation measures.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 10-3; 11-1; 12-1

This long section of bulkhead is no longer maintained as a marine facility (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 6 & 7). The bulkhead is comprised primarily of timber pile bulkheads with timber fenders. Moving west, the bulkhead sections are constructed of steel sheet piles that are concrete capped. This area has a low archeological potential; however, if it will be impacted directly during remediation, further investigation and recording is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 12-2

This section of bulkhead is constructed of timber piles and timber fenders (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 7). Much of the bulkhead structure is present, but in a poor state of repair. In some areas, large concrete blocks have been placed on top of the creek banks to prevent flooding/storm surge. This area retains moderate archeological potential; therefore, it is recommended that further investigation and recording takes place if it will be impacted by remediation.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 12-3

This timber pile bulkhead is in a poor state of repair (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 7); although it retains some of its earlier fabric, it has a low archeological potential. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. The RSS discovered areas of earlier bridge on the creek bed in this area. These areas may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. It is recommended that further investigation/recording take place if it will be impacted directly by remediation.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-1

This area contains modern steel sheet pile bulkhead constructions; it also may have earlier cultural manifestations in the adjacent creek bed or under the current structures (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8). Timber piles are present in the creek. The RSS discovered areas of what appear to be an earlier bridge on the creek bed. These areas may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 81

cultural material from earlier periods of use. Although assigned low archeological potential, if the bulkhead will be impacted directly, further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-2, 13-6, 14-2

All of the bulkhead construction in this area is modern (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8), and offers no archeological potential. No further investigation is recommended for the bulkhead at this time. However, the RSS discovered a discrete area of debris immediately adjacent to the bulkhead. If this area will be impacted directly during remediation, further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-3, 13-4

All of the bulkhead construction in this area is modern (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8), and therefore offers no archeological potential. No further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 13-5, 14-1

The bulkheads in this area are in a very poor state of preservation and are not active as a marine facility (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8). The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Although this area retains only low archeological potential, if it will be impacted directly during remediation, further investigation and recording is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 14-3, 14-5

This area has been subjected to intense bulkhead improvement and maintenance; thus, the probability of the bulkheads retaining any archeologically significant attributes is low (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8). The creek area is maintained at a predetermined dredge depth. Historically, this was the mouth of a canal. Since the area was inaccessible during the BBRS, further investigation is recommended if the area will be impacted directly during remediation.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 14-4

The creek bank in this area is comprised of modern riprap/rock armor that obscures any potential archeology (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8). No further investigation is recommended.

Dutch Kills General

During the BBRS, the survey vessel was unable to access Dutch Kills (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 8-11). A cursory inspection was undertaken from the best vantage point available. The presence of early bridge structures, limited access, high siltation rates, and a submerged shipwreck (Target 15) recommend that the entirety of Dutch Kills has a high archeological potential and requires further investigation if it will be impacted directly during remediation. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed in this area. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 82

Dutch Kills 15-l

The bulkhead in this area is constructed of timber piles, timber whales and a concrete cap (Appendix II and III: Maps 8-11). This area retains low potential for archeological materials within the creek bed sediment matrix. Further investigation is recommended only if it will be impacted directly by remediation.

Dutch Kills 2-6-la & b

The presence of timber piles related to the swing bridge indicates that the immediate area has not been dredged/ cleared systematically, increasing the chance for archeological materials within the creek bed (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 8-11). The piles themselves should be recorded in detail if there will be any adverse impacts in this area. Because this area retains high archeological potential, further investigation is recommended if direct impacts are anticipated.

Whale Creek 14-3, 14-5, 14-6

The majority of this area is modern development associated with the new sewage treatment plant; it provides no archeological potential (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 8 & 9). The great extent to which the bulkheads, mooring dolphins and river access have been modified and modernized reduces archeological potential. No further investigation is recommended.

Unnamed Canal 14-3, 14-5 (Small Canal Mouth)

The BBRS was unable to obtain access to this area (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 8 & 9), so only cursory assessment could be made. This area has been subjected to intense bulkhead improvement and maintenance; as such, the probability of the bulkheads retaining any archeologically significant attributes is low. The creek area is maintained at a predetermined dredge depth.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 15-2

The creek bank in this area contains concrete capped timber built bulkhead with timber whales and fenders (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 12). The westernmost section of 15-2 exhibits modern development for which no further investigation is recommended. Because the area retains moderate archeological potential, if any direct impacts are planned for this area, further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 15-3

The bulkheads in this area are timber built, but this area is not in use as an industrial marine facility (Appendix II, Appendix III: Maps 9, 11 & 12). This area is used for mooring vessels, but it does not have the dockside furniture for an active marine facility. Although the area retains low archeological potential, if this bulkhead will be impacted directly, then it should be investigated further and recorded.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 16-1, 17-3

This bulkhead is timber built and concrete capped. Although it no longer is in use as a marine facility, it retains the quayside furniture (bollards and cleats) of past industrial marine use (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 12). It retains moderate archeological potential. Further investigation/recording is recommended if this bulkhead will be impacted. The RSS also discovered areas of potential collapsed

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 83

bulkhead on the creek bed. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 16-2, 17-1

The bulkheads in this area are timber built (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 12). However, it is not in use as an industrial marine facility. Although the area retains only low archeological potential, if this bulkhead will be impacted directly, it should be investigated further and recorded.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-1

A horizontal timber bulkhead is present (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 12). Backfill contains large stones and is heavily eroded. This structure is in a poor state of repair, and it no longer is used as a marine facility. This area retains moderate archeological potential. If it will be impacted directly, further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-2

This timber bulkhead is concrete capped and highly modified (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 12). It retains only low archeological potential. In addition, it is no longer used as an active marine facility. If it will be impacted directly during remediation, further investigation is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-3

This large stone built bulkhead retains vestiges of an earlier structure (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 13). It retains moderate archeological potential. If this bulkhead it will be impacted directly during remediation; further investigation and recording is recommended.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-4

This area retains a high potential for archeological materials. The remnants of an earlier bridge footing are still present at this location (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 13). That should be investigated and recorded prior to any impacts.

No longer used as an active industrial marine facility, this area is being used as a mooring facility for "recreational" boating. Many aspects of the older stone/timber bulkhead are visible adjacent to the footing of the now absent bridge. The area immediately across the creek from this manifestation has been severely altered to develop a park/recreational area where the accompanying footing would have been. The RSS discovered areas of potentially collapsed bridge structural materials on the creek bed. These areas of collapse also may contain cultural material from earlier periods of use.

The previous presence of a bridge at this location indicates that further investigation should be undertaken prior to any impacts across the creek bed or to the existing footing and bulkheads on the north bank.

Newtown Creek Main Channel 19-1

The modern riprap/rock armor bank negates any use of this as a marine facility, and obscures any potential cultural resources that may be present (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 13). No further investigation is recommended in this area.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 84

Newtown Creek Main Channel 18-5, 19-2

The timber built bulkhead at the eastern extent of this area is crumbling and in a state of disrepair (Appendix II, Appendix III: Map 13 & 14). Where it has eroded, large stone fill is visible. Whether this is just part of the solid fill, or remnants of an earlier stone structure needs to be investigated. It is not in use as a marine facility at this time. The RSS discovered areas of potential collapsed bulkhead on the creek bed. These areas of collapse may contain structural features from earlier bulkheads, and cultural material from earlier periods of use. Due to its moderate archeological potential, if a direct impact will affect this structure, further investigation/recording is recommended.

The western extent of 19-2 does not present any attributes that would warrant further investigation.

Table 5.1. Archeological boat-based reconnaissance results and recommendations Archeological Associated Area Recommendation Potential RSS Targets English Kills 2-1-2 High Further investigation due to no access - 2-1-1 High Further investigation due to no access - Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 4-1 High - indirectly/directly impacted Further investigation if wharf structure/bulkhead/creek bed 4-3 High - indirectly/directly impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-1-3 Moderate - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 2-3-2, 2-2-2 Moderate - indirectly/directly impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 5-1, 6-2 Moderate - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 1-1 Moderate - indirectly/directly impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-2-1, 2-3-1 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-3-3 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-2 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 3-1, 3-2, 4-2 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 4-4 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 6-1 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 2-1, 3-3 Modern/None - indirectly/directly impacted 6-3, 7-2 Modern/None No further work - East Branch 2-5-3 High Further investigation due to no access - Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-5-1, 2-5-6 Moderate - impacted

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 85

Table 5.1. Archeological boat-based reconnaissance results and recommendations Archeological Associated Area Recommendation Potential RSS Targets Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-5-2 Moderate - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 2-5-5 Low - impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 2-4-1 Modern/None - directly/indirectly impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 2-4-2 Modern/None - directly/indirectly impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 2-5-4 Modern/None - indirectly/directly impacted Newtown Creek Main Channel Further investigation and recording if bulkhead/bridge 18-4 High - footings impacted Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 7-2 Moderate - impacted Phelps Dodge Moderate Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted Target 8 9-1, 9-2 Moderate Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - Further investigation and recording if bulkhead/bridge 9-4, 10-2 Moderate - footings directly impacted Further investigation and recording if bulkhead/bridge 9-6, 10-1 Moderate - footings directly impacted 12-2 Moderate Further Investigation and recording if bulkhead impacted - Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed directly 15-2 Moderate - impacted 16-1, 17-3 Moderate Further investigation and recording if bulkhead impacted - 18-1 Moderate Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - Further investigation and recording if bulkhead directly 18-3 Moderate - impacted Further investigation and recording if bulkhead directly 18-5, 19-2 Moderate - impacted 7-1 Low Further investigation if creek bed directly impacted - 9-3 Low Further investigation if concrete cap directly impacted - 9-5 Low Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - 10-2 Low Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - 10-3, 11-1, Low Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - 12-1 12-3 Low Further investigation and recording if bulkhead impacted - 13-1 Low Further investigation and monitoring if bulkhead impacted - 13-5, 14-1 Low Further investigation and monitoring if bulkhead impacted - Further investigation if bulkhead/creek bed 14-3, 14-5 Low - indirectly/directly impacted 15-3 Low Further investigation and recording if bulkhead impacted - 16-2, 17-1 Low Further investigation and recording if bulkhead impacted - 18-2 Low Further investigation if bulkhead directly impacted - 6-3 Modern/None No further work - 7 Modern/None No further work - 13-2, 13-6, Modern/None No further work - 14-2 13-3, 13-4 Modern/None No further work -

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 86

Table 5.1. Archeological boat-based reconnaissance results and recommendations Archeological Associated Area Recommendation Potential RSS Targets 14-4 Modern/None No further work - 19-1 Modern/None No further work - Maspeth Creek Further investigation/monitoring if creek bed Targets 5, 6, Creek Bed High indirectly/directly impacted during remediation and 7 8-1 (Creek Further investigation if creek banks to be indirectly/directly Low - Banks) impacted Unnamed Canal 14-3, 14-5 Low No further work - Whale Creek 14-3, 14-5 Low No further work - 14-3, 14-5, Modern/none No further work - 14-6 Dutch Kills Further investigation if creek bed indirectly/directly General High - impacted Further investigation and recording if bulkhead directly 2-6-1a & b High - impacted 15-1 Low Further investigation if creek bed directly impacted - - Denotes “no associated target”

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 87

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER VI

ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF THE HYDROGRAPHIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS

Hydrographic and geophysical remote sensing data were collected using side scan sonar, marine magnetometer, and a single beam echosounder. Data were submitted to R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for cultural resources analyses.  Approximately 145.6 acres (0.2 mi²) were surveyed.  Data gaps accounted for approximately 6.2 acres (0.001 mi²) due to restricted access.  Analyses of side scan sonar data identified ten shipwrecks (Targets 4-7, 9-14) with high archeological potential.  Analyses of magnetometer data identified one target (Target 17) with high archeological potential. All 17 targets are within the remediation area; therefore, adverse effects to these cultural resources may occur as a result of remediation. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, measures must be developed and implemented in consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and New York SHPO.

SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY RESULTS

Area Description

CR Environmental, Inc. (CR) conducted hydrographic and geophysical surveys of the Newtown Creek Stage 1A Remedial Investigation Study Area in Brooklyn and Queens, New York under contract to Anchor QEA, LLC. The Study Area included Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, Whale Creek, Maspeth Creek, English Kills, and East Branch. The survey strategy included single beam bathymetry, side scan sonar, and magnetometer surveys conducted simultaneously between 31 October and 5 November 2011. The data collection resulted in approximately 171.7 linear miles of transects (749 lines) spaced at 20.0-ft (6.5 m) intervals over an area measuring approximately 145.6 acres, or 0.2 mi2 (Appendix IV).

Data gaps (Table 8.2) accounted for approximately 6.2 acres or 0.001 mi2 (Appendices V, VII, and IX). Data gaps were present for two small side channels, a small cove, and the end of English Kills; those gaps were due to shoals, booms, and vessels blocking the channel entrances. Floating boom placements restricted access into the end (two sections) of East Branch. The west end of Whale Creek was blocked by a floating boom. A barge blocked access to an unnamed canal in Newtown Creek. In these areas, the archeological potential could not be assessed and therefore, further investigation is recommended of these areas.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 89

REMOTE SENSING DATA

Bathymetry

The bathymetric survey (Appendix V) reported an average elevation within the survey area of - 17.16 ft (5.2 m), using the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 88. The minimum reported elevation was -34.26 ft (10.4 m) NAVD88, and the maximum elevation was 0.89 feet (0.3 m) NAVD88. In general, the channel reach seaward of the Kosciusko Memorial Bridge and pitting and scouring features, suggested vessel groundings and/or sediment disturbance by prop wash and/or keel contact with the creek bottom. Similar features appeared near the mouth of Maspeth Creek and in upper portions of the turning basin adjacent to the National Grid facility (CR 2012).

Side Scan Sonar

CR’s hydrographic and geophysical survey recorded high-resolution side scan sonar data throughout the Newtown Creek survey area. Our data review included individual high resolution line files and geo-referenced mosaics (Appendices VI, VII, and VIII). CR identified 1074 side scan sonar contacts; however, the majority represents insignificant debris from commercial activities along Newtown Creek including tires, scaffolding, and other construction debris. Images of all side scan sonar contacts, unidentified/identified objects, including interpretive annotations, are available in the Bathymetric and Geophysical Survey Report for Newtown Creek, Brooklyn, NY (CR 2012: Appendix B).

Sixteen potential cultural resources were identified during side scan sonar analyses (Table 6.1). They are described below (Targets 1-16). In addition, two parallel pipelines and risers, S004, were identified in English Kills. These pipelines are approximately 430.0 ft (131.1 m) long and may be a hazard to dredging and other planned activities. A third identified pipeline (S013) lays exposed in English Kills, and measures approximately 132.7 x 1.5 ft (40.4 x 0.5 m).

Magnetometer

Magnetic survey data indicated widespread distribution of magnetic anomalies throughout the survey area (Appendix IX). The complexity and amplitude expressed in the magnetic background noise masked smaller features which lacked detectable magnetic contrast. CR’s attempt to transform the magnetic data and to minimize magnetic interference associated with temporal/diurnal magnetic variations concluded unsuccessfully. It is important to note that November 2nd 2011 marked the beginning of several Earth-directed X-Class solar flare eruptions that produced significant geomagnetic activity. The excessive magnetic background noise introduced a significant level of uncertainty to the magnetic data interpretation. CR digitized the locations of 1,605 magnetic anomalies. The location, description, duration, and magnitude of 12 high-confidence digitized magnetic anomalies are reported on Table 6.2.

A number of factors were weighed during target identification and evaluation including the overall complexity of magnetic signatures, the amplitude and duration of anomalies that comprise them, and the spatial distribution of anomalies across multiple transects. Spatial and magnetic contour analyses coupled with careful review of each anomaly resulted in the identification of one (1) target (Target 17)

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 90

Table 6.1. Side scan sonar contacts identified in the cultural resources analyses (New York State Plane-Long Island, NAD83, feet; Geographic Coordinates referenced to WGS84)

Contact RCG&A Location X Y Latitude Longitude Size Relief Associated Target Identification Area of CR ID Contact (ft) (ft) Anomalies Archeological No. Potential - S001 English 1003227.36 199095.01 40.713126 -73.931546 430.0 x 17.0 - - - Two pipelines - Kills with risers 305-185153S S002 English 1003681.04 199931.45 40.715421 -73.929907 8.5 x 3.3 - - Target 1 Small boat - Kills - S003 English 1004583.40 200738.20 40.717633 -73.926649 132.7 x 1.5 - - - Exposed - Kills pipeline 307-181516S S004 East 1005839.19 200238.03 40.716257 -73.922121 22.6 x 5.9 - M10 Target 2 Modern boat - Branch or equipment 307-193245P S005 East 1005518.56 200817.59 40.717849 -73.923275 12.0 x 1.0 - - Target 3 Shipwreck - Branch

- S006 English 1005175.58 201077.76 40.718564 -73.924512 45.0 x 7.6 - - Target 4 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Kills - S007 Maspeth 1006240.15 202955.17 40.723714 -73.920665 24.1 x 10.0 - - Target 5 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek - S008 Maspeth 1006204.63 202949.64 40.723699 -73.920794 38.5 x 9.2 - - Target 6 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek - S009 Maspeth 1005614.79 202972.81 40.723764 -73.922921 25.0 x 6.3 0.5 M8 Target 7 Potential 40 m (131 ft) Creek Cultural Resource 305-200427P S010 Newtown 1004548.41 203705.35 40.725778 -73.926766 16.6 x 4.6 - - Target 8 Rail car 40 m (131 ft) Creek 307-202507P S011 Newtown 1004132.19 204160.00 40.727026 -73.928267 24.5 x 24.3 - - Target 9 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek 305-183828P S012 Newtown 1003972.67 204459.46 40.727849 -73.928841 35.0 x 6.0 1 - Target 10 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek 305-183707S S013 Newtown 1003401.50 204610.23 40.728264 -73.930902 27.0 x 4.0 - - Target 11 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek 305-183419P S014 Newtown 1002242.94 204929.23 40.729142 -73.935081 70.0 x 15.0 >1.0 M3, M9 Target 12 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek 305-183402P S015 Newtown 1002135.25 204985.30 40.729296 -73.935469 56.0 x 10.0 - - Target 13 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 91

Table 6.1. Side scan sonar contacts identified in the cultural resources analyses (New York State Plane-Long Island, NAD83, feet; Geographic Coordinates referenced to WGS84)

Contact RCG&A Location X Y Latitude Longitude Size Relief Associated Target Identification Area of CR ID Contact (ft) (ft) Anomalies Archeological No. Potential 305-183350S S016 Newtown 1002019.03 204924.63 40.729130 -73.935889 31.0 x 5.0 - - Target 14 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Creek 307-132242P S017 Dutch 1000475.25 208704.69 40.739508 -73.941450 16.0 x 6.0 - - Target 15 Modern small - Kills boat 308-130124P S018 Newtown 995898.19 208397.47 40.738672 -73.957967 13.0 x 2.0 - - Target 16 Potential 40 m (131 ft) Creek cultural from center resource point

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 92

Table 6.2. High-confidence magnetic anomalies identified by CR

Amplitude Duration Associated Anomaly Location X Y Latitude Longitude Signature Target Description (nT) (ft) Anomalies English Complex MP- M-1 1001379.70 205363.00 40.73033405 -73.93819443 1172 521 - - Possible pipeline Kills /DP English Complex MP- M-2 1004354.40 200639.70 40.71736348 -73.92747555 2867 699 - - Possible pipeline Kills /DP Newtown Complex Wreckage in side M-3 Creek 1002255.70 204917.70 40.72911007 -73.93503493 3313 803 S014, M-9 Target 12 MP+/DP scan sonar

May be associated with aeration pipe in English M-4 1003033.30 198986.30 40.71282820 -73.93224589 4917 21.75 Complex DP - - English Kill, Kills bathymetric feature present Newtown M-6, M-7, M- Large area of M-5 1004756.80 202714.90 40.72305848 -73.92601761 1303 222.72 MP+ Target 17 Creek 12 magnetic disturbance Newtown M-5, M-7, M- Large area of M-6 1004767.20 202725.40 40.72308727 -73.92598006 862 204.86 MP+ Target 17 Creek 12 magnetic disturbance Newtown M-5, M-6, M- Large area of M-7 1004717.80 202696.20 40.72300724 -73.92615837 567 187.52 MP+ Target 17 Creek 12 magnetic disturbance Maspeth Complex MP- Wreck on nautical M-8 1005593.90 202987.60 40.72380499 -73.92299674 1282 149.89 S009 Target 7 Creek /DP chart Newtown Complex Wreckage in side M-9 Creek 1002237.80 204924.50 40.72912877 -73.9350995 5119 38.22 S014, M-3 Target 12 MP+/DP scan sonar East Debris visible in M-10 1005830.30 200239.80 40.71626237 -73.92215268 862 67.39 MP S004 Target 2 Branch bathymetric surface East Debris associated M-11 Branch 1005986.70 200204.60 40.71616537 -73.92158861 647 46.7 MP+ 307-181454S - with a bathymetric feature Newtown M-5, M-6, M- Large area of M-12 1004730.00 202726.40 40.72309010 -73.92611426 1371 160.7 MP+ Target 17 Creek 7 magnetic disturbance Coordinates in New York State Plane (Zone: NY 3104), NAD83 (U.S. Survey Feet). Geographic coordinates referenced to NAD83. Abbreviations: MP=monopole; DP = dipole; (+) positive; and (-) negative.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 93

that may represent a submerged cultural resource. The results of analyses of this target are described below.

Targets 1-17 (Appendices III, VIII)

Target 1

Target 1 is located at approximately 1003681.04, 199931.45, at a depth of 19.0 ft (5.8 m) NAVD88 in English Kills. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S002 (CR #305-185153S). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 1. S002 depicts a small boat measuring 8.5 x 3.3 ft (2.6 x 1.0 m). The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 1 represents a small modern boat, possibly an aluminum Jon boat. It does not have sufficient antiquity to constitute an historic property.

Target 2

Target 2 is located at approximately 1005839.19, 200238.03, at a depth of 9.0 ft (2.7 m) NAVD88 in East Branch. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S004 (CR #307-181516S), and one magnetic anomaly, M-10. S004 depicts a rectangular structure measuring 22.6 x 5.9 ft (6.9 x 1.8 m). It exhibits high amplitude (862 nT), medium duration (67.4 ft/20.5 m), and a simple, monopolar signature. The high resolution contact sheet showed what possibly represents a vehicle or machinery; however, its acoustic characteristics are not replicated in the mosaic data. Overall, the dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 2 represents a small metal boat or other modern marine equipment, rather than cultural resource.

Target 3

Target 3 is located at approximately 1005518.56, 200817.59, at a depth of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) NAVD88 in East Branch. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S005 (CR #307-193245P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 3; however, the magnetic contour data maps a dense series of high amplitude anomalies that appear associated with near field sources. S005 depicts a curvilinear object measuring 12.0 x 1.0 ft (3.7 x 0.3 m). Although the shadow height measures 7.3 ft (2.3 m), its return is indistinct; perhaps a result of the conditions in which it was ensonified. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 3 represents a small boat; however, the sonar data are inclusive. The archeological potential of this target cannot be ascertained from the existing data.

Target 4

Target 4 is located at approximately 1005175.58, 201077.76, at a depth of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) NAVD88 in English Kills. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S006. No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 4. S006 depicts a sunken vessel with some internal structure measuring 45.0 x 7.6 ft (13.7 x 2.3 m). The wreckage is situated along the western edge of a deep (elevation -10 to -23 ft/0.3-7.4 m) scour area; although the scour does not appear to be entirely influenced by the wreckage, sediment transport clearly has been disrupted. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 4 represents a shipwreck that has high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 94

Target 5

Target 5 is located at approximately 1006240.15, 202955.17, at a depth of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) NAVD88 at the head of Maspeth Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S007. No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 5. S007 depicts a rectangular object measuring 24.1 x 10.0 ft (7.3 x 3.0 m); it has one squared end and one pointed end. Target 5 is located within an area marked “Wrecks” on NOAA Chart No. 12338_1. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 5 represents a shipwreck and has high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 6

Target 6 is located at approximately 1006204.63, 202949.64, at a depth of 3.0 ft (0.9 m) NAVD88 in Maspeth Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S008. No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 6; although one survey line skirted close (<7.0 ft/2.2 m) to the wreckage. S008 depicts a shipwreck with several exposed frames measuring 38.5 x 9.2 ft (11.7 x 2.8 m). Target 6 is located within an area marked “Wrecks” on NOAA Chart No. 12338_1. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 6 represents a shipwreck. It has high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 7

Target 7 is located at approximately 1005614.79, 202972.81, at a depth of 3.0 ft (0.9 m) NAVD88 in Maspeth Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S009, and of one magnetic anomaly, M8. S009 depicts two objects in an area measuring 25.0 x 6.3 ft (7.6 x 1.9 m). M-8 exhibits high amplitude (1282 nT), a medium duration (149.9 ft), and a complex signature. Target 7 is located within an area marked “Wk” on NOAA Chart No. 12338_1. The correlation of M-8 and S009 indicate that Target 7 represents a shipwreck and therefore has high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 8

Target 8 is located at approximately 1004548.41, 203705.35, at a depth of 21.0 ft (6.4 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S010 (CR #305-200427P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 8. The dense isopleth indicate a large rate of change (gradient), which could mask discrete anomalies. S010 depicts an overturned vehicle or more likely, a rail car measuring 16.6 x 4.6 ft (5.1 x 1.4 m). One axle and four wheels are clearly ensonified in the high-resolution bottom record. Its proximity to the Phelps Dodge internal narrow gauge rail system suggests that it could represent an ore car. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 8 represents an ore car of undetermined historical significance. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 9

Target 9 is located at approximately 1004132.19, 204160.00, at a depth of 21.0 ft (6.4 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S011 (CR #307-202507P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 9. S011 depicts an object measuring 24.5 x 24.3 ft (7.5 x 7.4 m). The low amplitude acoustic return is indicative of a wooden structure. In addition, the distinct longitudinal framing pattern (1.0 ft/0.3 m spacing) is clearly defined.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 95

The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 9 represents a wooden shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 10 Target 10 is located at approximately 1003972.67, 204459.46, at a depth of 12.0 ft (3.7 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S012 (CR #305-183828P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 10, although the extremely dense contours (i.e., large gradient) would mask any discrete anomalies. S012 depicts a sunken vessel measuring 35.0 x 6.0 ft (10.7 x 1.8 m) with at least 1.0 ft (0.3 m) of relief. The low amplitude acoustic return is indicative of a wooden structure. Some internal structure, at least one transvers frame, can be seen at both ends of the shipwreck. A blanket of sediment has concealed most of the structure, interfering with any acoustic shadow, which is key to interpretation. In addition, an exposed section of pipeline is nearby. The dimensions and structure of the contact suggest that Target 10 represents a shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 11

Target 11 is located at approximately 1003401.50, 204610.23, at a depth of 12.0 ft (3.7 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S013 (CR #305-183707S). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 11. S013 depicts an object measuring 27.0 x 4.0 ft (8.2 x 1.2 m). The low amplitude acoustic return is indicative of a wooden structure. The acoustic shadow is key to interpretation but, it is nondescript, possibly due to poor sensor- to-target geometry. The dimensions of the contact suggest that Target 11 represents a shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 12

Target 12 is located at approximately 1002242.94, 204929.23, at a depth of 11.0 ft (3.4 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S014 (CR #305-183419P) and two magnetic anomalies, M-3 and M-9. S014 depicts a shipwreck measuring 70.0 x 15.0 ft (21.3 x 4.6 m). M-3 exhibits high amplitude (3313 nT), long duration (803.0 ft/244.8), and a complex signature. M-9 exhibits high amplitude (5119 nT), short duration (38.2 ft/11.6 m) and a complex signature. The detailed sonar image and dimensions of the contact are indicative of a sunken vessel. The high amplitude anomalies indicate composite (wood/metal) materials, although large machinery is absent in the sonar imagery. Target 12 represents a shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 13

Target 13 is located at approximately 1002135.25, 204985.30, at a depth of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S015 (CR #305-183402P). The large gradient would have masked any magnetic anomalies associated with Target 13. S015 depicts a sunken vessel measuring 56.0 x 10.0 ft (17.1 x 3.0 m). The high-resolution sonar imagery clearly shows framing and related miscellaneous objects. The wreckage extends offshore from within several feet of the existing bulk head. The detailed sonar imagery and dimensions of the contact suggest that Target 13 represents a shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 96

Target 14

Target 14 is located at approximately 1002019.03, 204924.63, at a depth of 23.0 ft (7.0 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S016 (CR #305-183350S). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 14. S016 depicts a shipwreck measuring 31.0 x 5.0 ft (9.4 x 1.5 m). The low amplitude acoustic reflection suggests that the structure is wooden. Because an exposed section of pipeline traverses very close (≈2.6 ft/0.8 m) to the wreckage, it is very plausible that construction activities have impacted the site. The acoustic characteristics of the contact suggest that Target 14 represents a shipwreck with high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m).

Target 15

Target 15 is located at approximately 1000475.25, 208704.69, at a depth of 10.0 ft (3.0 m) NAVD88 in Dutch Kills. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S017 (CR #307-132242P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 15. S017 depicts a relatively small sunken boat of recent vintage measuring 16.0 x 6.0 ft (4.9 x 1.8 m). The acoustic shadow measured approximately 4.1 ft (1.3 m) of recent vintage. The sonar imagery reveals a walk-through cockpit and squared stern. The partially open transom indicates that the single outboard engine has been removed. Because the hull shows little signs of deterioration, it is likely constructed of fiberglass. The characteristics of the contact indicate that Target 16 represents a modern pleasure/fishing boat and not an historic property.

Target 16

Target 16 is located at approximately 995898.19, 208397.47, at a depth of 20.0 ft (6.1 m) NAVD88 in Newtown Creek. It is composed of one side scan sonar contact, S018 (CR #308-130124P). No magnetic anomalies were recorded that can be associated with Target 16. S018 depicts a small sunken boat measuring 13.0 x 2.0 ft (4.9 x 1.8 m). The acoustic shadow height measured approximately 4.5 ft (1.4 m), but revealed no structural details to assist interpretation. The exposed wreckage lies within 12.8 ft (4.1 m) of an exposed pipeline. Although the dimensions of the contact suggest that Target 16 represents a relatively small boat, the sonar data are inconclusive. Therefore, Target 16 has moderate archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 131.2 ft (40.0 m), measured from the target’s center point.

Target 17

Target 17 is located at approximately 1004744.517, 202719.089. It is within the Newtown Creek main channel, due south of the entrance of Maspeth Creek, at a depth of 19-21 ft (5.8-6.4 m). This target consists of four magnetic anomalies, M-5, M-6, M-7, and M-12. No side scan sonar contacts were recorded that can be associated with Target 17. M-5 exhibits high amplitude (1303 γ), long duration (222.72 ft/67.9 m) and a simple, monopole signature. M-6 exhibits high amplitude (862 γ), long duration (204.86 ft/62.4 m) and an elementary monopole signature. M-7 exhibits high amplitude (567 γ), medium duration (187.52 ft/57.2 m) and a simple monopole signature. M-12 exhibits high amplitude (1371 γ), medium duration (160.7 ft/48.9 m) and a simple monopole signature. Although elementary monopoles typically are indicative of geological sources, magnetic contour mapping indicates that C17 represents a complex configuration of anomalies. The amplitudes and durations of the anomalies that compose Target 17 suggest that it represents a buried cultural resource (i.e., shipwreck), and therefore high archeological potential. The minimum area estimated for archeological potential is 164.0 ft (50.0 m), measured from the target’s center point.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 97 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER VII

ARCHITECTURAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY RESULTS

The architectural reconnaissance survey found that:  No National Register listed properties are located within the Built Environment Study Area,  Two bridges, Borden Avenue Bridge and Kosciuszko Bridge, were identified as eligible for National Register listing through concurrence determinations,  Seventy-six built resources were identified as older than fifty years of age, i.e., pre-1962, within the Built Environment Study Area,  Seventeen buildings are recommended for further intensive architectural investigation if they will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities, and  The Built Environment Study Area as currently delineated appears to capture the built resources that may be affected by the environmental cleanup actions. It is recommended that the boundaries of the Built Environment Study Area be revisited once specific remediation actions are identified.

Architectural reconnaissance survey was conducted for buildings and structures older than fifty years of age within the Built Environment Study Area. This area was defined as the approximately 3.8- mile reach of Newtown Creek and its tributaries from west to east of Dutch Kills, Whale Creek, Maspeth Creek, East Branch, and English Kills (Figure 7.1). The Built Environment Study Area was established in the approved work plan as encompassing “properties that are within and immediately adjacent to (i.e., within sight of) the Study Area” (Anchor QEA November 2011:18). The Built Environment Study Area encompasses the tax parcels for properties adjacent to Newtown Creek that contain buildings and structures visible from the water. The area comprises 728.3 acres (1.4 square miles). This Built Environment Study Area assured the holistic examination of physically and functionally related built resources contained in the industrial complexes anticipated in the area. Figure 7.1 shows ID numbers assigned to the buildings and structures identified as older than fifty years of age during the water and land survey. In general, the ID numbers are organized from west to east beginning with ID number 1 on the Queens side and ID number 39 on the Brooklyn side. ID numbers 9 through 24 are located along Dutch Kills. ID numbers 33 through 35 are located along Maspath Creek. ID numbers 36 through 38 and 73 through 76 are located along the East Branch, while ID numbers 51 through 72 are located along English Kills. References in the following text to Newtown Creek or to “the creek” include the main body of the creek and its tributaries.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 99

Figure 7.1. Built Environment Study Area Overview Cultural Resources Survey Stage 1A.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 100

OVERVIEW

Newtown Creek is an urban waterway that forms the boundary between Brooklyn and Queens. The historic channel has been dredged to accommodate ship traffic. Over time, the creek has become divorced from its natural head waters and is now primarily a tidal extension of the East River. Despite extensive modifications to the natural feature, the creek is classified as a navigable waterway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: III-2-III-3).

Industrial activities historically have occupied the banks of the creek. These industries have changed over time and illustrate several periods of development for the Built Environment Study Area as a whole. Most buildings within the Built Environment Study Area are low scale, one or two stories in height, and typically utilitarian in design and construction. Generally, older building density in the area is low, with widely spaced buildings interspersed with undeveloped lots or post-1962 development. Few sections of the study area were identified as containing buildings directly adjoining the creek. Dense development was observed along Dutch Kills and English Kills where post-1950 light industrial and warehouse buildings form a continuous line along the creek bank. In these areas, the primary orientation of the buildings is towards the surrounding streets rather than towards the creek. Heavy industrial activity appears to be restricted currently to a narrow band of parcels at the west end. At the east end and along Dutch Kills and English Kills, light industrial and storage buildings continue for blocks inland. This pattern of development reflects both the evolution of the area and late twentieth-century zoning designating Newtown Creek and its tributaries as a Significant Maritime Industrial Area and Manufacturing Zoning District.

Between 1860 and 1950, the waterway functioned as a major shipping center. Historically, heavy industries, such as oil refineries and chemical manufacturers, dominated the Newtown Creek waterfront. Lumber and coal yards also were prominent industries. These industries typically processed raw materials and produced finished products. Archival data confirms that early industrial buildings often were oriented to the waterfront for access to water transport.

Later built resources constructed after 1950 also are industrial in character but are associated with different sectors. Modern uses noted along the creek included warehousing/storage, oil storage, distribution centers, construction material yards, private and public solid waste/recycling facilities, and the wastewater treatment plant that dominates Whale Creek (Arcuri 1999:52).

The banks of Brooklyn and Queens exhibit different patterns of historic development. The grid plan streets in Brooklyn terminate at the property lines of parcels lining Newtown Creek. Streets adjoining those parcels with creek frontage generally are aligned parallel to the creek channel. Some tributaries were modified to conform to the street pattern. Historically, Whale Creek extended further inland than its current channel. English Kills was channelized to conform to the grid pattern of the surrounding streets. In Queens, development along the creek was controlled historically by the Long Island Railroad, which once owned a large swath of land along the creek from the East River to Dutch Kills. Private development on this section of the creek dates to the sale of land by the railroad during the mid-twentieth century. Heavy industry is located further west along the creek in the region of the mouth of Maspeth Creek.

Vehicular traffic between Queens and Brooklyn over Newtown Creek is accommodated by three major bridges: the Pulaski Bridge, the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, and the Kosciuszko Bridge. Secondary bridges also cross the tributaries. Two street-grade vehicular bridges cross Dutch Kills, and bridges cross English Kills and East Branch.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 101

Architectural reconnaissance survey was conducted from the navigable channel and from the public right-of-way for properties located in the Built Environment Study Area (Anchor QEA 2011). The following objectives were established for this investigation:

(1) to identify built resources older than fifty years of age, i.e., pre-1962, located within the Built Environment Study Area; (2) to identify those resources that appear to possess historical significance and integrity to meet the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4[a-d]) and warrant further investigation; and, (3) to determine the adequacy of the proposed Built Environment Study Area (Anchor QEA 2011:19-20).

The following narrative presents the results of the architectural reconnaissance investigation. Maritime features, such as bulkheads, are discussed in Chapter V of this report.

ARCHITECTURAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY RESULTS

Previously Identified Historic Properties

Review of National Register files identified no built resources currently listed within the Built Environment Study Area. No properties within the area have been designated as local historical landmarks. Two bridges within the area have previous concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the NRHP. In 2008, the Borden Avenue Bridge in Queens was evaluated as National Register eligible for its bridge type prior to the renovation of the bridge decking. The Kosciuszko Bridge, which carries I278 across Newtown Creek, was identified in 2007 as eligible for National Register listing (NY DOT 2008 Appendix M:V23-V26). The Kosciuszko Bridge is proposed for replacement and was the subject of consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. The Section 106 process was completed, and plans for the bridge replacement are proceeding.

One property within the Built Environment Study Area previously was evaluated as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. This property, located at 39-14 and 38-42 Review Avenue (ID No. 30), is a series of adjoining buildings historically associated with Charles F. Pratt Oil Refinery. The building was assessed during the architectural investigations completed to support the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge. The NY SHPO concurred with the finding in 2006 (NY DOT 2008 Appendix M: V-7, V-76).

In addition, the Queens Midtown Expressway, which crosses Dutch Kills as an elevated highway bridge, does not appear to possess significance as a historic property. The expressway (I495) is not included on the Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System (FHWA 2008).

Overview of Built Resources

Buildings and structures dating from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were anticipated within the Built Environment Study Area based on a review of the history of the area. Field reconnaissance identified a low survival rate of these earlier resources; nearly half of the buildings in the Built Environment Study Area were constructed post 1950 and are associated with a historic pattern of industrial redevelopment during the late twentieth century. The discussion below characterizes the built December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 102

resources identified during the boat and land surveys within the currently-defined Built Environment Study Area.

Seventy-six built resources comprising 68 buildings and 8 bridges older than fifty years of age were identified within the current Built Environment Study Area. Of these resources, 35 are located in Queens and 38 are located in Brooklyn; three bridges link Brooklyn and Queens. The construction date ranges of the built resources are presented in Table 7.1. The ID numbers used throughout this chapter are keyed to the overview map in Figure 7.1 and to the map set contained in Appendix X: Built Environment Study Area Architectural Survey Map Set. The complete table of surveyed built resources within the current Built Environment Study Area with accompanying photographs is contained in Appendix XI: Table of Architectural Resources within the Built Environment Study Area.

Table 7.1. Construction date ranges of built resources Construction Date Ranges Brooklyn Queens Brooklyn-Queens Total Pre-1900 2 2 -- 4 1900-1950 16 19 2 37 1951-1962 20 14 1 35 Totals 38 35 3 76

The buildings identified as older than fifty years of age generally are widely distributed along the creek banks and are not concentrated in a single geographic area. The older buildings are separated by post-1962 construction and undeveloped lots. Few buildings were constructed directly on the creek banks fronting the water. Buildings oriented to the creek often were associated historically with industrial complexes that included street-side components. The majority of the surviving buildings are oriented towards the surrounding street system. Often, buildings are set back from the creek and sited to accommodate truck access for ground transport. In general, this latter pattern comprised post-1950 construction and included buildings with minimal architectural ornamentation.

Two major periods of construction were identified: 1860-1950 and 1951-1962. The extant buildings do not reflect major construction during World War II and the immediate post-war years. Only two buildings were constructed between 1944 and 1945, and seven buildings were constructed between 1946 and 1950.

The buildings constructed prior to 1950 typically are one- and two-story brick buildings. The few buildings over two stories in height typically date from the late nineteenth century or from the first decades of the twentieth century. These buildings often were constructed to house a complete industrial process.

The majority of pre-1950 buildings were constructed as part of large industrial complexes. These industrial complexes originally comprised numerous small-scale buildings that housed one or two steps of a manufacturing process, storage buildings, and shops. Map research indicates that many of the extant buildings dating from the period 1900 to 1950 were associated historically with larger industrial complexes, where primary buildings have been removed or redeveloped. These surviving buildings frequently were constructed as storage buildings, garages, shops, or other support structures and were not associated directly with the industrial process. The pre-1950 buildings, as a group, also exhibit modifications over time. Later additions often surround original building cores. These modifications and additions have affected the integrity of the original design and construction materials; original industrial associations have been compromised.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 103

Buildings dating between 1951 and 1962 typically were constructed with concrete block. Most of these buildings are sited towards surrounding streets or were centered within large lots surrounded by paved parking areas. These buildings often are divided functionally into a small two-story office and a larger one-story section used for manufacturing or storage. Architectural ornamentation is confined to the front building elevations, which often are faced in brick with minimal accent on the primary entrance. Rear elevations facing the creek were unornamented and had few openings.

Built Resources Constructed Between ca. 1860 and 1950

The historic context developed for the Built Environment Study Area documented the importance of Newtown Creek and its tributaries as an industrial center between 1860 and 1950. Twenty-seven buildings dating from that time period were identified along Newtown Creek.

Three properties survive from the nineteenth century. Two buildings are located in Brooklyn at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue and Commercial and Ash streets near the site of the former Vernon Avenue Bridge: the former Chelsea Jute Factory, currently the Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (ID No. 42, ca. 1895) and the former Tiebout Glass Manufactory (ID No. 41, ca. 1880) (Figures 7.2 and 7.3). Both resources are multi-story brick buildings that housed complete manufacturing processes within their building envelopes. The former Chelsea Jute Factory is oriented both to the creek and to the street; its waterside bays clearly indicate a strong association with Newtown Creek and use of the waterway for water transport.

The third property is a complex of buildings historically associated with the Charles F. Pratt Oil Refinery Company (ID No. 30, ca. 1890) in Queens (Figure 7.4). Map research indicated that the buildings served as support buildings for a larger refinery operation. Documented historic building uses included Grease Department/ warehouse, warehouse/cooper shop, cooper shop, barrel storage (iron clad), iron clad building, and open barrel storage (Sanborn Queens 1911 Vol. 1, Pl 39). None of the buildings were associated directly in the refinery process. During the twentieth century, the buildings were joined together, and a three-story, concrete-frame addition was constructed on the west end in 1931 (Hyde Queens 1928-1946 Vol. 1, Pl 6). Evidence of substantial alteration of the buildings is visible from the creek. This resource was found not to possess the significance and integrity necessary for National Register consideration in 2006 (NY DOT 2008 Appendix M: V-7, V-76).

Fifteen buildings dating between 1900 and 1930 were identified. Land-based survey confirmed by historic map data identified substantial alteration of the former National Enameling and Stamping Company, now the Davis and Warshow showroom (ID No. 33, ca. 1910) (Figure 7.5). The central section of the building originally housed a pickling room, as well as cutting and stamping operations (Sanborn Queens 1914 Vol. 5, Pl 5). A detached storage building was depicted on the 1914 map and later was incorporated into the building. The building was substantially enlarged through additions constructed in 1959 and 1970 (Sanborn Queens 1914-1971, Vol. 3, Pl 5).

Elements of the numerous oil refineries and oil storage activities that were historically prominent industries along Newtown Creek were identified. Oil companies established operations on the shores of Newtown Creek beginning ca. 1860; fifty refineries were in place by 1879. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many smaller firms were acquired by J.D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil (Arcuri 1999: 14-16). Buildings associated with the oil industry along the Brooklyn side of the creek included a former warehouse at 540 Kingsland Avenue (ID No. 48, 1912) on the site of Standard Oil-Kings No. 2 and later the Scovony Mobile Oil; a former grease and compounding building at 520 Kingsland Avenue

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 104

Figure 7.2. Former Chelsea Jute Factory (ID No. 42, ca. 1895) at 1155 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011).

Figure 7.3. Former Tiebout Glass Manufactory (ID No. 41, ca. 1880) at 97-99 Commercial Street, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 105

Figure 7.4. 39-14 and 38-42 Review Avenue (ID No. 30, ca. 1890) historically associated with Charles F. Pratt Oil Refinery Company, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011).

Figure 7.5. 57-22 49th Street (ID No. 33, ca. 1910) showing multiple additions, Maspeth Creek, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 106

(ID No. 49, ca. 1908-1913); a former garage associated with the former Shell Oil Company (ID No. 44, ca. 1930); and, a former Standard Oil warehouse at 494 Kingsland Avenue (ID No. 50, ca. 1935). These resources are one- or two-story brick buildings. The building located at 520 Kingsland Avenue illustrates an example of an earlier building surrounded by numerous later additions (Figure 7.6).

The earliest extant oil storage complexes in Queens date from between 1919-1925. These complexes include the Tidewater Oil Company (ID No. 26, 1919-1920) (Figure 7.7) located west of Greenpoint Bridge, the former Sun Oil Complex (ID No. 5, 1925-1926) located west of the Pulaski Bridge, and the former Texas Oil Company (ID No. 15, ca. 1925) located east of the mouth of Dutch Kills.

The former Brooklyn Union Gas Company plant located west of the mouth of English Kills occupied one of the largest parcels on the Brooklyn shore. In 1928, this company opened a coal gasification plant at Greenpoint. The plant employed both the coke-oven method and the water-gas method to manufacture gas until 1952, when the company switched to supplying natural gas (Brooklyn Union Gas Company 2012). Four buildings (ID Nos. 52, 54, and 56, ca. 1930) associated with the Brooklyn Union Gas plant were identified during the boat and land survey. These one- and two-story brick buildings are among the most architecturally elaborate buildings identified during the field survey (Figure 7.8). The brick-clad buildings featured brick pilasters, concrete belt courses and concrete coping on parapet roofs.

Development along Dutch Kills was supported by the Degnon Terminal and Realty Company, a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania and Long Island railroads. This company developed the meandering Dutch Kills waterway into a 150 ft (45.72 m)-wide channel with a 500 ft (152.4 m) turning basin designed to handle railroad car floats (QCC 1920:23). This project began ca. 1905 and was completed in 1912. The waterway improvement made water transport possible between the creek and the railroad yards in Queens to facilitate the transport of goods. Early development along Dutch Kills was represented by the former Irving Iron Works (ID No. 17, 1911-1950) (Figure 7.9) and the former Crane Company Pipes, Valves and Fittings (ID Nos. 21 and 22, 1930) (Figures 7.10 and 7.18). The latter resource currently is used as a self- storage facility. During the late 1930s and 1940s, the Long Island Railroad sold land bordering Newtown Creek between the East River and Dutch Kills. This decision ushered in an era of construction along the Queens shoreline. Examples of construction during the period included a warehouse for a large sugar refinery (ID No. 2, 1940) (Figure 7.11), a garage and maintenance facility (ID No. 1, 1939), the former New York Wholesale Live Poultry Market (ID No. 8, 1941), 53-01 Vernon Boulevard (ID No 4, 1944- 1945), 28-25 Borden Avenue (ID No. 13, ca. 1945) a building on 53rd Avenue (ID No. 7, ca. 1950), and 37-50 Railroad Avenue (ID No. 27, 1946).

Development from 1951 through 1962

The architectural reconnaissance survey identified 34 buildings constructed between 1951 and 1962. Construction from this period illustrates a change in industrial and transport patterns in the area. Building designs shift from earlier dual orientations to both the street and creek (reflecting the use of water transport) to orientations exclusively to the street (reflecting the dominance of truck transport). The buildings typically are one-story in height with concrete-block walls. Ornamentation often is restricted to the primary entrances on the street elevations. Accommodation for trucks and parking areas are incorporated into plans. Examples of these building types were identified throughout the Built Environment Study Area. National Grid (ID No. 53) is housed in a three-building complex constructed in 1958 (Figure 7.12).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 107

Figure 7.6. Former grease and compounding building at 520 Kingsland Avenue, Brooklyn (ID No. 49, ca. 1908-1913) with surrounding additions (RCG&A, December 2011).

Figure 7.7. Tidewater Oil Company (ID No. 26, 1919-1920) complex viewed from Newtown Creek, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 108

Figure 7.8. Building remaining from Brooklyn Union Gas Company gasification plant at Greenpoint on Maspeth Avenue, English Kills, Brooklyn (ID No. 56, ca. 1930) (RCG&A, December 2011).

Figure 7.9. Former Irving Iron Works at 50-09 27th Street (ID No. 17, 1911-1940), Dutch Kills, Queens (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 109

Figure 7.10. North end of former Crane Company Pipes, Valves and Fittings at 47-30 29th Street from the street, Dutch Kills, Queens (ID No. 22, 1930) (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 110

Figure 7.12. National Grid (ID No. 53), 287 Maspeth Avenue, English Kills, Brooklyn, constructed in 1958 (RCG&A, December 2011).

Light industrial and storage buildings are evident in the eastern area of the Built Environment Study Area between Maspeth Creek and English Kills and surrounding English Kills. The transfer of two large parcels influenced the redevelopment of the area between 1957 and 1962. These parcels included the Federally-owned New York Naval Annex and the former Chapman Dock Company along English Kills. English Kills historically was the site of numerous lumber and coal supply companies, and the Chapman Dock Company had substantial real estate holdings. Between 1957 and 1962, several light industrial and storage buildings were constructed on former Chapmen Dock Company in the vicinity of Rewe Street (Figure 7.13). The current reconnaissance survey identified one construction supply company in the area. The other buildings are used currently for warehousing, light manufacturing, and distribution centers relying on truck transport. These types of buildings make up a high proportion of post-1962 buildings in the blocks surrounding English Kills.

Bridges

Bridges represent the transportation and engineering history for both vehicular traffic and railroads between 1860 and 1954. Eleven bridges span Newtown Creek and its tributaries, including eight vehicular bridges and three railroad bridges. Of the eight vehicular bridges, three span Newtown Creek, three span Dutch Kills, one spans the East Branch, and one spans English Kills. The eight bridges comprise four bascule bridges, one swing bridge, one retractile bridge, and two fixed bridges. Two railroad bridges cross Dutch Kills and another bridge spans English Kills.

Nine bridges are older than fifty years and are among the oldest surviving built resources within the Built Environment Study Area. The oldest resource, dating to 1861, is the Long Island Railroad Bridge at the mouth of Dutch Kills (ID No. 9) (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F: II-3). The riveted iron swing bridge rests on a brownstone turntable. Though the bridge is inoperable, trains still use the track. The

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 111

Figure 7.13. 12 Rewe Street (ID No. 60, 1957), English Kills, Brooklyn (RCG&A, December 2011).

second Long Island Railroad Bridge (ID No. 10) was constructed in 1921; this bridge crosses Dutch Kills north of the swing bridge. The third railroad bridge (ID No. 68) is associated with the Bushwick Branch of the Long Island Railroad and crosses the south end of English Kills at Montrose Avenue; this bridge dates from 1905 (NY DOT 2008 Appendix F:II-3).

The Grand Street Bridge (ID No. 36) is a swing bridge constructed in 1903 that crosses the East Branch. The Borden Avenue Bridge (ID No. 11), a retractile bridge with a bridge operator’s house, spans Dutch Kills and was constructed in 1908 and rebuilt ca. 2010. The Metropolitan Avenue bascule bridge (ID No. 64) was constructed in 1931-1933 over English Kills (Reier 1977:154-157).

The two fixed bridges are the Kosciuszko Bridge (ID No. 32), completed in 1939, and the elevated Midtown Highway Crossing (ID No. 12), completed in 1940. The Kosciuszko Bridge currently carries I278 across Newtown Creek. The last bridge constructed over Newtown Creek was the Pulaski Bridge (ID No. 6) at McGuiness Boulevard (Brooklyn) and 11th Street (Queens); this double-span bascule bridge was constructed in 1954.

Two vehicular bridges in the Built Environment Study Area are less than fifty years of age. The Hunters Point Avenue Bridge over Dutch Kills originally was constructed as a double-leaf bascule bridge in 1910. In 1981, the bridge was replaced with a single-leaf drawbridge with new machinery and a new operating house (Leahy 1981). The Greenpoint Avenue Bridge over Newtown Creek was constructed in 1987, replacing the 1929 bridge (“Rise and Fall of Greenpoint Avenue Bridge” ca. 1984).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 112

Properties Recommended for Intensive-Level Investigation

Among the objectives of the architectural investigations was the identification of built resources older than fifty years of age that may possess the historical significance and integrity defined in the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and warrant further investigation. A review of the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) and a discussion of integrity is contained in Chapter IV.

The reconnaissance-level architectural survey compiled previous investigations on properties in the area and generated data on type, period, method of construction, and overall integrity for resources over fifty years of age. These data sets enabled the classification of resources according to the three working historic contexts reflecting development in the area.

The first historical pattern of development is Newtown Creek as an important industrial center for Queens and Brooklyn from ca. 1860 through 1950. In 1940, Newtown Creek was promoted as the nineteenth largest port in the United States (Arcuri 1999:44-45). Three buildings and one bridge survive from the nineteenth century, while an additional 37 buildings and bridges are extant from the period 1900 through 1950. These resources were constructed during the period when Newtown Creek was a noted industrial center. However, many of the buildings were constructed as support structures and are remnants from industrial complexes that have been removed or redeveloped. This loss of physical context has impacted the historical integrity of many of these properties. Many buildings also exhibit substantial alterations that compromise their integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.

The collection of buildings and bridges along the Queens and Brooklyn shorelines and contained within the current Built Environment Study Area do not meet the definition of a district as a “significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development” (NPS Bulletin 1997:5). The pre-1962 buildings and structures are widely dispersed along the 3.8-mile length of the creek and do not represent a significant concentration of built resources. Parcels located between the resources older than 50 years of age contain post-1962 buildings and structures or are vacant.

As noted above, no concentration or linkage of resources that might constitute an historic district was identified. However, seventeen individual buildings are identified for further intensive architectural investigation as related to the identified themes. These properties are presented in Table 7.2 at the end of this chapter.

The following resources identified with the industrial development of the creek warrant further investigation: the Chelsea Jute Factory (ID No. 42, ca. 1895); the former Tiebout Glass Manufactory (ID No. 41, ca. 1880); the former New York Live Poultry Market (ID No. 8, 1941); the former Texas Oil Co. (ID No. 15, ca. 1925); the former Tidewater Oil Co. (ID No. 26, 1919-1920); the warehouse at 540 Kingsland Avenue (ID No. 48, 1912); and, several buildings associated with the former Brooklyn Union Gas Co. (ID Nos. 52, 54, 56, ca. 1930). These buildings exemplify the types of industries located along the creek during a major period of its history between 1860 and 1950 when Newtown Creek was noted as an industrial center.

A second historical theme that emerged during the architectural survey is transportation illustrated by the development of vehicular and railroad bridges linking Brooklyn and Queens. Six individual bridges (three railroad bridges and three vehicular bridges) are recommended for further investigation. These bridges are the Long Island Railroad Bridge over Dutch Kills (ID No. 9, 1861), the second Long Island Railroad Bridge over Dutch Kills (ID No. 10, 1921), the railroad bridge at Montrose

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 113

Road over English Kills (ID No. 68, 1905), the Grand Street Bridge (ID No. 36, 1903), the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge (ID No. 64, 1931-1933), and the Pulaski Bridge (ID No. 6, 1954). These bridges are recommended for further investigation for their potential importance as engineering structures. Both the Borden Avenue Bridge and the Kosciuszko Bridge have previous concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The third pattern of development identified during the architectural survey is the development of light industrial, storage buildings, distribution centers, and freight trucking centers constructed between 1951 and 1962 in the Built Environment Study Area. These buildings depended on freight trucking to transport goods rather than the waterway. Buildings dating to this period accounted for nearly half of the buildings (n=34) identified in the architectural reconnaissance survey. These later industrial properties frequently are massive buildings incorporating offices, production, storage, and shipping. The architecture of these properties emphasizes function in plan and materials. Style frequently is expressed through integrated design and restrained modern ornamentation. Two buildings are recommended for further investigation based on their architectural styles and embodiment of later industrial properties. These buildings are 59 Paidge Avenue (ID No. 46, 1951) and 1300 Metropolitan Avenue (ID No. 75, 1952).

The Built Environment Study Area

An additional task of the architectural investigations was to review the adequacy of the limits of the current Built Environment Study Area (Anchor QEA November 2011:18). The architectural reconnaissance survey confirmed that the defined Built Environment Study Area captures the area containing buildings and structures visible from, and anticipated to have views to, Newtown Creek. Areas along the creek that allow further views are at the termini of the tributaries of Maspeth Creek (Figure 7.14), East Branch (Figure 7.15), English Kills (Figures 7.16 and 7.17), and Dutch Kills (Figure 7.18), as well as at a building in the vicinity of Kingsland Avenue west of Greenpoint Avenue Bridge (Figure 7.19) and the buildings at 1164-1166 Manhattan Avenue (1900) (Figure 7.20). In all cases, the multi-story buildings are taller than the intervening lower-scale buildings. In the case of 1164-1166 Manhattan Avenue, the intervening lot historically contained a warehouse that was removed. In these cases, views from the water extend beyond the Built Environment Study Area to include the upper stories of buildings over three stories in height beyond the low-scale creek shore development; however, these larger resources are separated from the creek by intervening buildings or structures. The distantly visible buildings are part of the urban streetscape rather than individual resources whose historic setting is associated with the creek.

CONCLUSION

This chapter presents the results of the architectural reconnaissance survey conducted for the buildings and structures older than fifty years of age located within the Built Environment Study Area identified for Newtown Creek. Seventy-six buildings and structures older than fifty years of age were identified during the survey. Seventeen buildings are recommended for further intensive architectural investigation if they will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities. Additional investigations to identify historic properties would include site-specific research and intensive architectural survey. In addition, the current Built Environment Study Area appears to capture the built resources that may be affected by the environmental cleanup actions. It is recommended that the Built Environment Study Area be revisited once specific actions are identified.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 114

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 115

Figure 7.16. South end of English Kills. The multi-story building located south of Johnson Avenue is outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2012).

Figure 7.17. The four-story building on the west side of Morgan Avenue parallel to English Kills is outside the current Built Environment Study Area. The deteriorated two-story building is within the current Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 116

Figure 7.18. North end of Dutch Kills, showing multi-story building located on north side of 47th Avenue outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011).

Figure 7.19. The multi-story building (1913) located in the vicinity of Kingsland Avenue, Brooklyn, is located outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 117

Figure 7.20. 1164 and 1166 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn, currently located outside the Built Environment Study Area (RCG&A, December 2011).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 118

8 150 68 52-15 11th St. Queens 1941 Post-1966 from Multiple uses Building appeared on 1928-1946 Hyde map Yes - Additional historic aerials Vol 1 Pl 2. 1947-1949 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl survey required to 29 showed one long single building labeled assess integrity; no City of NY Wholesale Live Poultry Market accessibility during with brick office building on west end and land and boat metal frame dealers shed extending eastward. survey. 1915-1986 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl 29 showed two separate buildings labeled Truck Sales and Service and NYC Live Poultry Market- Dealers Shed. 2010 aerial showed two separate buildings rather than one long building. 9 Long Island RR Railroad Queens 1861 119 Transportation - Bridge crossing Dutch Kills in this location Yes - Additional bridge 1 swing bridge appeared on 1898 Sanborn Map Vol 1 index. research required to Date came from NY DOT 2008 Appendix evaluate resource in F:II-3. context of railroad bridges in Queens.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 119

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 10 Newer RR Long Island Queens 1921 Transportation - Not on 1898 Sanborn map Vol 1 index. Yes - Additional bridge at mouth Railroad bridge Railroad line appeared on 1911 Sanborn Map research required to of Dutch Kills Vol 1 index Pl 32. Date came from evaluate resource in NYSDOT/USDOT FHWA 2005 bridge table context of railroad p.II-3. bridges in Queens.

11 Borden Ave. Borden Ave. Queens 1908 ca. 2010 Transportation - Defined as rectractile bridge in Reier National Register Bridge bridge 1977:154-157. Undertaking to resurface eligible (Cumming, bridge in ca. 2010. NSY OPRHP, 11/28/2008).

15 294 106 Off Review Queens ca. 1925 Trucking yard Lot was vacant on 1911 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl Yes - Requires Avenue just 34. Texas Oil Co. was located here on 1928 additional survey SE of Hyde map Vol 1 Pl 5, 1928-1946 Hyde map and research due to intersection Vol 1 Pl 5, and 1915-1936 Sanborn map Vol 1 no access from with Borden Pl 34. No building dates on maps. Complex public ROW. Ave. shown on 1947-1949 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl 34. Fuel tanks gone by 1915-1986 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl 34, and use identified as trucking terminal.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 120

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 26 270 294 Getty Yard 30-23 Queens 1919-1920 Post-1966 Natural Gas Location of J.P. Williams & Co. Lumber Yard Yes - Associated Greenpoint additions to Facility 1898 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl 35. Building with industrial Ave.; Railroad complex per identified as Tidewater Oil Company. history along Ave. visual Complex shown on 1928-1946 Hyde map Vol Newtown Creek. observation 1 Pl 6. Date came from 1985 Sanborn map Vol 1 Pl 35.

32 Kosciuszko I278 Brooklyn 1939 Transportation - Bridge replaced Meeker Avenue bridge; Recommended as Bridge -Queens bridge named Kosciuszko Bridge in 1940. National Register eligible in 2008 as part of Section 106 review of bridge replacement; Section 106 consultation for that undertaking completed and bridge replacement is planned (NY DOT 2008

Appendix M). 36 Grand Street Grand St./Ave. Brooklyn 1903 Transportation - Date source Reier 1977:154-157. Yes - Additional Bridge -Queens swing bridge research required to evaluate resource in context of bridges in Queens and Brooklyn.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 121

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 41 400 2472 Brooklyn Ice 97-99 Brooklyn ca. 1880 Work in Building appeared on 1886-1888 Sanborn Yes - Associated Cream Factory Commercial Progress - being map Vol 4 Pl 90 as E.P. Gleason Mfg Co- with early industrial (one business in St. converted to glass works. 1916-1942 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl history along building) apartments and 10 identified Gleason Tiebout Glass Co. Newtown Creek small shops containing offices, storage, mixing, glass under National works, and coal pocket with courtyard. Register Criterion Appeared on 1954 aerial. A, but possible building integrity issues.

42 350 2472 Greenpoint 1155 Brooklyn ca. 1895 Multiple Vacant shed shown in this location on 1886- Yes - Associated Manufacturing Manhattan commercial 1888 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 90. Current with early industrial and Design Ave. uses building shown on 1904-1908 Sanborn map history along Center Vol 4 Pl 10 as Chelsea Jute Mills and Newtown Creek. described as "mill construction.” 1916-1942 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 10 identified as Yorke Terminal warehousing.

46 51 2491 Greenpoint 59 Paidge Brooklyn 1951 1952; 1964 per Multiple uses Earlier building on site appeared on 1916- Yes – Example of Business Park Ave. map research include fire 1942 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 56 identified as 1950s architecture; dept. annex, New York City transit system bus garage. possibly recently commercial, Earlier building appeared on 1924 aerial and renovated. and industrial on 1938-1940 aerial. Current complex appeared on 1954 aerial. Construction date came from 1980 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 10, which identified building as containing NY Auto Sales on west end and Williamsburg Steel Products Co. on east end. Two-story office on east end constructed in 1964 that appeared to be a different company.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 122

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 48 35 2517 540 Kingsland Brooklyn 1912 1946 addition Unknown This building was located on site of Standard Yes - Associated Ave. Oil Co-Kings No. 2 on 1916-1933 Sanborn with industrial map Vol 4 Pl 58. Both sections of the building development along appeared on the 1954 aerial. 1916-1942 Newtown Creek. Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 58 showed as storage and shipping. 1916-1965 Sanborn map Vol 4 Pl 58 showed warehouse addition dated 1946 with concrete block and brick-faced walls. Building was once associated with Division of Scovony Mobile Oil that occupied most of the block.

52 1 2837 Brooklyn 439? Maspeth Brooklyn ca.1930 ca. 1950 Industrial/Eng.- Sited on portion of Brooklyn Union Gas Co. Yes - Possibly Union Gas Co.- Ave. part of Greenpoint Plant property. SW half of associated with Greenpoint industrial building with flat roof appeared on 1933 Brooklyn Union Gas Plant complex Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 72 as service building. Co, a major industry Addition appeared on 1954 aerial and on in area. 1933-1965 Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 73.

54 1 2837 Maspeth Ave. Brooklyn ca.1930 Industrial/Eng.- Part of Brooklyn Union Gas Co. Greenpoint Yes - Possibly part of plant. Identified as service and storage associated with industrial building on 1933 Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 73. Brooklyn Union Gas complex Co, a major industry in area.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 123

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 56 168 2927 Brooklyn 301 block Brooklyn ca. 1930 Industrial/Eng.- Part of Brooklyn Union Gas Co. Greenpoint Yes - Possibly Union Gas Co- Maspeth Ave. part of Plant property. Identified as "A" Compressor associated with Greenpoint industrial house on 1933 Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 73. Brooklyn Union Gas Plant complex Located near former site of circular gas Co, a major industry holder. in area.

64 Metropolitan Metropolitan Brooklyn 1931-1933 Transportation- Stringers replaced and stiffeners added in Yes - Additional Avenue Bridge Ave. bridge 1992 per NYC DOT. Renovated and redecked research required to during 2000s. evaluate resource in context of bridges in Brooklyn and Queens.

68 English Kills Railroad Brooklyn 1905 Transportation - No railroad appeared here on 1880 Brooklyn Yes - Additional RR bridge at bridge bridge Ward 18 map. Identified as part of Bushwick research required to Montrose Ave. Branch LIRR on 1912 Hyde map Pl 482. evaluate resource in Identified as iron draw bridge on 1907 context of railroad Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 60. Appeared on 1924 bridges in Brooklyn aerial. Date came from NYSDOT/USDOT and Queens. FHWA 2005 bridge table p.II-3.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 124

Table 7.2. Resources recommended for intensive architectural survey ID Tax Lot Tax Block Building Name Address Borough Construction Alteration Present Use Historic Use/Sources Further Study Photos Number Number Number Date Date Recommendations 75 1 2953 "EP" 1300 Brooklyn 1952 Vacant 1933-1965 Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 60 Yes – Building Metropolitan identified building as S. Poshers & Son paper represents a type, Ave. products. 1933-1990 Sanborn map Vol 9 Pl 60 period, and method identified use as J. Rabinowitz & Sons, mirror of construction. manufacturers, and gave construction date as 1952.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 125 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey used a multi-disciplinary approach to identify potential cultural resources within the Study Area.  The literature search revealed a pattern of intense development and utilization of both the landscape and the tributaries throughout the vicinity of Newtown Creek (pg. 5-65).  Architectural investigations comprising background research, field survey by boat and land, and data analysis using historic maps and aerials revealed 17 buildings recommended for further intensive architectural investigation if they will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities. The Built Environment Study Area is adequate, but should be revisited once specific remediation actions are identified (pg. 117-148).  Nautical archeologists conducted a boat based reconnaissance survey and identified areas that may contain potential cultural resources within the Study Area (9 high potential, 17 moderate potential, and 23 low potential) (pg. 79-104).  Nautical archeologists analyzed the geophysical data and identified 10 potential cultural resources with high potential from the side scan sonar data and one target with high cultural resource potential from the magnetometer data (pg. 105-115).  ArcGIS was employed to combine all of the collected data for an overall comparative analyses and characterization of the Study Area aiding recommendations for further investigation (App. III-X). The recommendations in this report require consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and NYSHPO for concurrence and agreement on what will be required during the Stage 1B Survey.

BOAT-BASED ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY

We have identified potentially significant resources and areas with high probability for unidentified significant resources. Further investigation of any these resources and areas is recommended if they may be directly or indirectly affected by remediation. Nine (9) areas exhibiting a high potential to retain archeology, seventeen (17) areas exhibiting a moderate potential to retain archeology, twenty-three (23) exhibiting a low potential to retain archeology and twelve (12) areas exhibiting modern characteristics and no visible potential to retain archeology were identified during the BBRS. These data were reviewed in conjunction with the RSS, which provided complementary information.

Remediation measures and impacts have yet to be identified, so potential effects cannot be assessed at this time. In areas where bulkheads are the primary method of shoreline retention and stabilization and where active marine facilities are present, the level of impact on the shoreline structures will vary greatly with both dredge depth and proximity to the feature. Bulkhead designs are sensitive to any increase in the elevation of the exposed face. This type of impact also can happen from prop wash or other scouring activities. In an area where bulkheads initially were built prior to the

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 127

extensive use of propeller driven vessels, increases in erosion potentially can destabilize the bulkhead. This sensitivity in the bulkhead design to the increase in the height of the exposed face necessitates careful consideration for all possible dredging requirements, since it is very difficult to strengthen a bulkhead after it has been constructed (DOD 2006:50). The contributory nature of these factors indicates that any dredging activity in Newtown Creek and its tributaries is likely to impact the bulkheads. This is especially true in relation to earlier bulkheads. Those with a shallower toe were not built to withstand modern propeller activity or increased dredge depths. The recommendations made above assume that any dredging activities will have either a direct or an indirect effect on adjacent bulkheads.

The scope of work for the Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey was to identify potential archeological resources and to recommend further investigation as necessary. The extent of the future investigation will be determined by the nature and extent of the remediation measures. If it is determined that a bulkhead or other maritime feature will be impacted, then further archival research and recordation may be included in such further investigation. The methodology to be employed will need to be determined on a site by site basis.

ARCHEOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF THE HYDROGRAPHIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY DATA

The Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey analyses of hydrographic and geophysical remote sensing data collected by CR Environmental, Inc. (CR), previous archeological survey, and background/archival information collected within the Newtown Creek Study Area identified 17 possible submerged cultural resources and areas of data gaps that may also require further investigation or construction monitoring.

The data gaps appeared in the remote sensing data collection due to shoals, booms, and vessels blocking or restricting access. These gaps accounted for approximately 6.2 acres or 0.001 mi2 (Table 8.1). Data gaps were present within English Kills, East Branch, Whale Creek, and in an unnamed canal in Newtown Creek. In these areas, the archeological potential could not be assessed; however, adverse effects as a result of direct or indirect remedial activities must be considered. Stage 1B investigations could include additional background research and alternative methods of subsurface investigations. If the environmental conditions severely restrict or prohibit access, construction monitoring would be indicated.

The 17 submerged cultural resource targets were reviewed carefully for spatial distribution, complexity (structural characteristics), and acoustic/magnetic expression, and then ranked in archeological potential (low-to-high) (Table 8.2). All 17 targets are within the remediation area; therefore, adverse effects to these cultural resources may occur as a result of remediation. Alternatives to avoid or minimize such impacts should be considered. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, measures must be developed and implemented in consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and New York SHPO to evaluate potential historic properties and to mitigate effects to any historic properties again in consultation with the appropriate agencies. Stage 1B Subsurface Investigations should be designed “to obtain detailed information on the integrity, limits, structure, function, and cultural/historical context of an archaeological site sufficient to evaluate its Potential National Register eligibility” (New York Archaeological Council 1994).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 128

The Stage 1B investigation could include additional background research and subsurface investigations (e.g., using alternative remote acoustic imaging systems) to establish cultural resource boundaries (New York Archaeological Council Standards Committee 2000). For example, for targets 1-5 and 8-17, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) configured with USBL positioning and high- definition and/or multibeam sonar, or a hull-mounted system, could be utilized to record extant features within the area of archeological potential to allow detailed assessment of each target’s potential significance. Targets 6 and 7, located in extremely shallow water (3.0 ft/1.0 m), will require alternative Stage 1B investigation strategies. For these targets, construction monitoring might be the preferred method.

Table 8.1 Areas of remote sensing data gaps within the study area Area Acres Meters2 English Kills 4.13 16713.39 East Branch 1.62 6555.85 Newtown Creek, Unnamed Canal 0.72 2913.71 Whale Creek 0.34 1375.92 Total Area 6.81 27558.88

ARCHITECTURAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

The architectural reconnaissance survey identified seventy-six buildings and bridges older than fifty years of age within the Built Environment Study Area identified for Newtown Creek. Seventeen buildings are recommended for further intensive architectural investigation due to their potential to qualify as historic properties applying the National Register for Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4[a-d]) based on their integrity and general association with historic themes of development along the creek. Further investigation of these resources is recommended if they will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by remediation activities. Table 7.2 presents the list of properties that warrant further intensive architectural investigations. In addition, two bridges, the Borden Avenue Bridge and the Kosciuszko Bridge, have previous concurrence determinations as eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The architectural reconnaissance survey also confirmed that the current Built Environment Study Area captured the area containing buildings and structures visible from, and anticipated to have views to, Newtown Creek. The few areas where views beyond the Built Environment Study occurred comprised buildings over three stories in height. While views from the water extended beyond the Built Environment Study Area in a few areas to include the upper stories of these taller buildings beyond the low-scale creek shore development, these resources are separated from the creek by intervening buildings or structures. These distantly visible buildings are part of the urban streetscape rather than individual resources whose historic setting is associated with the creek. It is recommended that the Built Environment Study Area be revisited once specific remediation actions are identified.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 129

Table 8.2. Recommended areas of archeological potential for submerged cultural resource targets RCG&A Location X Y Target Identification Area of Archeological Potential Contact No. S002 English Kills 1003681.04 199931.45 Target 1 Small Boat - Potential Cultural S004 East Branch 1005839.19 200238.03 Target 2 - Resource S005 East Branch 1005518.56 200817.59 Target 3 Shipwreck - S006 English Kills 1005175.58 201077.76 Target 4 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S007 Maspeth Creek 1006240.15 202955.17 Target 5 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S008 Maspeth Creek 1006204.63 202949.64 Target 6 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) Potential Cultural S009 Maspeth Creek 1005614.79 202972.81 Target 7 40 m (131 ft) Resource S010 Newtown Creek 1004548.41 203705.35 Target 8 Rail Car 40 m (131 ft) S011 Newtown Creek 1004132.19 204160.00 Target 9 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S012 Newtown Creek 1003972.67 204459.46 Target 10 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S013 Newtown Creek 1003401.50 204610.23 Target 11 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft)

S014 Newtown Creek 1002242.94 204929.23 Target 12 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft)

S015 Newtown Creek 1002135.25 204985.30 Target 13 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S016 Newtown Creek 1002019.03 204924.63 Target 14 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) S017 Dutch Kills 1000475.25 208704.69 Target 15 Shipwreck 40 m (131 ft) from center point Potential Cultural S018 Newtown Creek 995898.19 208397.47 Target 16 40 m (131 ft) from center point Resource Potential Cultural N/A Newtown Creek 1004744.517, 202719.089 Target 17 50 m (164 ft) from center point Resource Coordinates in New York State Plan (Zone: NY 3104), NAD 83 (U.S. Survey Feet).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 130

LAND-SIDE SURVEY

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey of the Newtown Creek Study Areas recommends further investigations in many cases. The scope of further investigations is dependent of several factors. Firstly, a well-defined APE is required to determine if areas that are currently recommended for further investigation will be contained within the final APE. Secondly, analysis on the method of remediation is recommended to anticipate the range of potential impacts upon the identified areas of potential cultural resources. Prior to the elimination of these two variables, further investigations (Stage 1B) would most likely involve historic and archival research targeted specifically at the potential cultural resources identified in this survey. A flow chart (Anchor QEA 2011:21) shows the steps involved for the identification and investigation of potential cultural resources under CERCLA (Figure 8.1).

Intensive architectural survey designed to determine the significance and integrity the buildings identified during the Stage 1A may be required once the specific remediation actions are selected and the areas of potential effect for the built environment are delineated. Intensive architectural investigations may include additional property documentation and analysis and site-specific research at New York City archives to identify construction dates, subsequent alterations, and building histories. Data generated from this in-depth investigation will provide the basis for recommendations on the significance and integrity of the built resources applying the Criteria for Evaluation of the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60.4[a-d]). It is anticipated that National Register recommendations will support consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended for the project. The Stage 1A Survey provides the basis for identifying zones of cultural resource sensitivity. Based on the information gained during Stage 1A, the need for a Stage 1B Survey is determined. Any future cultural resources investigations will be performed after the identification of remediation alternatives and the formalization of the APE. The recommendations in this report require consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and NYSHPO for concurrence and agreement on what will be required during Stage 1B or Stage II Survey (Anchor QEA 2011). The specifics of any Stage 1B examination will be determined as areas that will be affected are identified. The results of further investigations (Stage 1B – Stage II) and consultation with USEPA, the lead federal agency and the NYSHPO will dictate if additional work and/or remediation phase monitoring will be required.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 131

Figure 8.1. Cultural resources review under NHPA and remedy selection under CERCLA (Anchor QEA 2011:21).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 132

REFERENCES CITED

AECOM 2011 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan, Newtown Creek. June.

Aitken, Martin J. 1961 Physics and Archeology. Interscience, New York.

Alle, King, Rosen and Fleming, Inc. 1991 Assessment of Archaeological Sensitivity, Phelps-Dodge Site, Long Range Sludge Management Plan: GEIS III. Prepared for the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

Anchor QEA 2011 Cultural Resources Survey Stage 1A Work Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Newtown Creek. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Montvale, New Jersey, November.

“Archie” 1931 Hardy Canoeists Brave Smells of Newtown Creek in Trip of Exploration. Long Island Daily Star, August 3.

Arcuri, Laura J. 1999 “Newtown Creek: An Environmental History.” Partial fulfillment of Master of Arts degree in History from Hunter College, The City University of New York.

Armbruster, Eugene 1912 The Eastern District of Brooklyn. Privately Published. New York.

1942 Brooklyn’s Eastern District. Privately published. Brooklyn, NY.

Bendremer, J. C. M., and R. E. Dewar 1994 The Advent of Prehistoric Maize in New England. In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by S. Johannessen and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 369-393. Westview Press, Boulder.

Bergoffen, Celia 2004a Archaeological Assessment Report - Phase IA, Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning: Part I, Historical Background. Prepared for Philip Habib Associates, Inc. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 133

2004b Archaeological Assessment Report - Phase IA, Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning: Part II, Lot Histories - Summary Data. Prepared for Philip Habib Associates, Inc. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

Berman, Bruce D. 1972 Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press Incorporated. Boston.

Bernstein, D. 1993 Prehistoric Subsistence on the Southern New England Coast: the Record from Narragansett Bay. Academic Press, San Diego.

Boesch, Eugene 1994 Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Submitted to New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Archeological report #665. Available online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/arch_reports.shtml.

1996 Key: Previously recorded Native American Sites in the Borough of Queens. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

1997 Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of the Prehistoric and Contact Period Aboriginal History of the Borough of Queens, New York City. Submitted to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Breiner, Sheldon 1973 Applications for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics, Sunnyvale, California.

Bromley, G. W. (pub) 1880 Atlas of the Entire City of Brooklyn (Part of Ward 18). Plate 30. New York Public Library Digital map collection.

Brooklyn (Daily) Eagle 1870a Our Albany Correspondence: Newtown Creek. January 15, p. 2. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1870b Our Albany Correspondence: Newtown Creek. March 10, p. 2. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1872 Local Improvements. June 12, p. 3. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1876 A Big Blaze on Newtown Creek. May 13, p. 6. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1880 The Concourse. January 26, p. 10. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1884 The Commercial Importance of Newtown Creek (Editorial). April 12, p. 4. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 134

1884 A Midnight Explosion. Fire in an Agitator at the Brooklyn Oil Works. August 6, p. 4. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1885 Large Enterprises. January 31, p. 6. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1889 An Old Historic Town, June 2. Accessed online at www.queensnewyork.com/1889.html.

1890 Harbor Work. July 12, p. 6. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1891 (no title). October 20. Long Island City Vertical File. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library. Jamaica.

1896 Five Big Factories were Burned to the Ground. July 1, p. 2. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1930 Standard Oil Fights Newtown Creek Widening. April 18. Obtained online at http://eagle.BrooklynPublicLibrary.org/archive/skins/BE.

1946 Historic and Beautiful Brooklyn: Bushwick. Accessed online at http//www.bklyn- genealogy-info.com/Town/Bushwick.

Brooklyn Times 1889 An Old Historic Town. June 2. Accessed online at www.queensnewyork.com/1889.

Brooklyn Union Gas Company 2012 History, accessed online December 2012, www.fundinguniverse.com/company- histories/BROOKLYN-UNION-GAS-company-History.html.

Ceci, L. 1979 Maize Cultivation in Coastal New York: The Archaeological, Agronomical, and Documentary Evidence. North American Archaeologist 1(1):45-74.

1982 Method and Theory in Coastal New York Archaeology: Paradigms of Settlement Pattern. North American Archaeologist 3:5-36.

Cox, J. Lee 2010 Side Scan Sonar Report: Gowanus Canal Preliminary Bulkhead Study, Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Prepared for HDR, Inc., Pearl River, NY, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, New York. Dolan Research, Inc., Newtown Square, PA.

CR Environmental, Inc. (CR) 2012 Bathymetric and Geophysical Surveys, Newtown Creek Phase 1 Remedial Investigation Study Area Brooklyn and Queens, New York. Prepared for Anchor QEA, Seattle, Washington.

Cravens, Curtis, Tina Chiu, Katherine Gray, and Paul Parkhill 2000 Copper on the Creek. Place in History, New York.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 135

Dankaerts, Jaspar and Peter Sluyter 1867 Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour in Several of the American Colonies in 1679-80. Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society, Vol. I. Edited by Henry C. Murphy. Long Island Historical Society, Brooklyn.

Department of Defense (DOD) 2006 Seawalls, Bulkheads and Quaywall, MIL-HDBK-1025/4. Preparing Activity: Navy-YD (Project FACR-2007-026).

Dillon, James T. 1983 Astral Apartments: Landmarks Designation Nomination (#LP 1194). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Dillon, James T., Andrew Dolkert, and Lisa Niven 1982 Greenpoint Historic District Designation Report. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Dincauze, D. F. 1990 A Capsule Prehistory of Southern New England. In The Pequots in Southern New England, edited by L. M. Hauptman and J. D. Wherry, pp. 19-32. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Disturnell, John 1876 New York as it was and as it is. D. Van Nostrand, New York.

Dripps, Matthew 1864 Map of the City of Brooklyn (being the former cities of Brooklyn and Williamsburgh). Privately published, Brooklyn. Original on file, Othmer Library of the Brooklyn Historical Society, Brooklyn.

Faden, William 1776 A plan of New York Island, with part of Long Island, Staten Island & east New Jersey, with a particular description of the engagement on the woody heights of Long Island, between Flatbush and Brooklyn, on the 27th of August 1776 between His Majesty's forces commanded by General Howe and the Americans under Major General Putnam, shewing also the landing of the British Army on New-York Island, and the taking of the city of New-York &c. on the 15th of September following, with the subsequent disposition of both the armies. Accessed online at American Memory, Library of Congress.

Federal Highway Administration 2008 List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System. Viewed online, http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways_list.asp.

Fehr, April L., Martha R. Williams, and David S. Robinson 1995 Stage IA Cultural Resources Reconnaissance in Support of a Shallow Draft Navigation Reconnaissance Study of Reynolds Channel and the New York State Boat Channel, Suffolk and Nassau Counties, New York. Prepared for United States Army Corps of

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 136

Engineers, New York District. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.

Felter, William L. 1919 Historic Green Point: A Brief Account of the Beginning and Development of the Northerly Section of the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, locally known as Green Point. Green Point Savings Bank, Brooklyn.

Filios, E. L. 1989 The End of the Beginning or the Beginning of the End: The Third Millennium B.P. in Southern New England. Man in the Northeast 38:79-93.

Flagg, Thomas 1988 Hunters Point Industrial Archaeology. Prepared for Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc., New York. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

1991 Cultural Resource Evaluation: Phelps Dodge Laurel Hill Copper Refinery Site, Queens County, New York. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

Flushing and NY and Flushing RR’s 2012 Website, accessed March 2012, www.lirrhistory.com/Flushing.html.

Google Earth 2011 Aerial Maps. Accessed online December 2011 through March 2012, www.google.com/earth.

2010 Aerial Maps. Accessed online, www.google.com/earth.

Green, Jeremy 1990 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. Academic Press, New York.

Grumet, R. S. 1995 Historic Contact: Indian People and Colonists in Today's Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hall, E. T. 1966 The Use of a Proton Magnetometer in Underwater Archeology. Archaeometry 9:32-44.

1970 Survey Techniques in Underwater Archeology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London A.269:121-124.

Hamboussi, Anthony 2010 Newtown Creek: A Photographic Survey of New York’s Industrial Waterway. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Harding, Virginia 1944 Memorable Green Point. Greenpoint Savings Bank (privately printed).

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 137

Harper’s Weekly Magazine 1881 Map of Hunters Point and Newtown Creek. August 6. (Photocopy). HDD.

Harrison, Tara 2009 Ridgewood North: Historic District Designation Report. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. 1994 Archeological Sensitivity Assessment: Proposed Solid Waste Processing Building, 322 Morgan Avenue, City of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Prepared for Shillinger, Salerni and Boyd, Inc. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

Haskett, William J. 1856 Haskett’s Marine Laws and Ordinances of New York. Privately published, New York.

Hawes, Elizabeth 1977 In Queens, A Blend of Class and Crass. New York Times (no date). Long Island City Vertical File. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica. Historic Aerials

1954, 1966, 1980, 2004, 2006 Accessed online December 2011 through March 2012, http://www.historicaerials.com.

Historical Perspectives, Inc. 1986 Phase IA Archaeological Sensitivity Report on the Resource Recovery Project, Maspeth, Queens. Prepared for Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglass. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

1988 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Report for the Hunters Point Site, Queens, New York. Prepared for Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc., New York. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

1989 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Report for the Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrading, Greenpoint, New York. Prepared for Greeley and Hansen, Inc., New York. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

1990 Archaeological Assessment of the Hunters Point Project Secondary Study Area. Prepared for ARKF, Inc., New York. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

1996 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment, NYC Department of Environmental Protection, Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. Prepared for Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc., New York. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

2006 Addendum: Stage IA Archaeological Assessment MTA/Long Island Railroad East Side Access Project Loop Track Portal. Prepared for Metropolitan Transit Authority and Long Island Railroad. Westport, CT.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 138

Hunter Research, Inc., Raber Associates, and Northern Ecological Associates, Inc. 2004 Draft Report: National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluation and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Gowanus Canal, Borough of Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, in connection with the Proposed Ecosystem Restoration Study. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York.

Hyde, E. Belcher 1912 Miniature Atlas of the Borough of Brooklyn, Vol 1. E. Belcher Hyde, Inc. Publisher, New York City, New York.

1928 Atlas of the Borough of Queens, City of New York, Volume 1: Long Island City, Ward One. E. Belcher Hyde, Inc. Publisher, New York City, New York.

1928-1946 City of New York Atlas, Volume I: Long Island City, Ward One. E. Belcher Hyde, Inc. Publisher, New York City, New York.

1929-1946 Atlas of the Borough of Queens, Volume 2A: Lower Half of 2nd Ward. E. Belcher Hyde, Inc. Publisher, New York City, New York.

1928 Desk Atlas Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. E. Belcher Hyde, Inc. Publisher, New York City, New York.

Jackson, Thomas and Richard Melnick 2004 Images of America: Long Island City. Arcadia Press, Charleston, SC.

James, Stephen 1999 Cultural Resources Survey, New York Harbor Collection and Removal of Drift Project, Arthur Kill, New York Reach; Arthur Kill, New Jersey Reach; and Kill Van Kull, New York Reach (Vol II: Appendices). Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Panamerican Consultants, Memphis.

Johnston, Henry P. 1878 Memoirs: The campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn. Long Island Historical Society, Brooklyn.

Kearns, Betsy, Cece Kirkorian, and Martha Cobbs 1991 New York City Long Range Sludge Management Plan, Generic Environmental Impact Statement III: Maspeth, Queens: Stage IA Archaeological Assessment. Prepared for Allee King Rosen and Fleming, Inc. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

Kearns, Betsy, Cece Kirkorian, and Vincent Seyfried 1988 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment Report for the Hunters Point Site, Queens, New York. Prepared for Allee, King, Rosen, and Fleming, New York. Historical Perspectives, Inc., Westport, CT. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml. Kelsey, J. S. 1896 History of Long Island City, New York: A Record of its Early Settlement and Corporate Progress. Long Island Star Publishing Company, NY.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 139

Lavin, L. 1988 Coastal Adaptations in Southern New England and Southern New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16:101-120.

Leahy, Jack 1981 “Bridge Building Going Well.” Daily News, Queen Public Library, Long Island Collection, bridges vertical file.

Lindsley, Charles E. 1886 Pelham. In History of Westchester County, New York Edited by J. Thomas Scharf. L. E. Preston & Company, Philadelphia.

Locke, W. W. 1896 Map of Newtown Creek and Vicinity. Department of Health, Brooklyn, NY. (Digital image #1692889: New York Public Library).

Lockwood, Gus 1936 “Traffic in Newtown Creek is Heavy But the Smell! Gas Masks, Please.” Long Island Daily Press, 1 October.

Long Island Daily Press 1936 The Lot of Friends. August 9. Maspeth History Vertical File, pp. 35-36. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Long Island Star Journal 1950 Newtown Creek Made Navigable by $767,000 Dredging Work by Army. July 7.

1951 World’s Most Important Waterway. August 16.

Maspeth Chamber of Commerce 1999 History of Maspeth. In Newtown Creek-Brooklyn Waterfront Historical Cruise (Guide). September 26. Newtown Creek Vertical File (p. 62). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

2010 History of Maspeth. Accessed online at www.maspethchamberofcommerce.org.

Maymon, Jeffrey H., Martha R. Williams, Jean B. Pelletier, Larkin Post, Sarah M. Post, Brian Cleven, Scott Meacham (contributions by David J. Bernstein and Daria E. Merwin) 2000 Supplemental Cultural Resource Survey of the Throgs Neck Alternative for the Proposed Eastchester Marine Pipeline, Suffolk and Nassau Counties, New York. Prepared for ENSR International, Willington, CT. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.

McMillan, Francis D. 1929 Up Turbid and Congested Newtown Creek. New York Times, February 3, p. 86. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times.

McNett, Charles (editor) 1985 Shawnee Minisink:A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic Press, Orlando.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 140

Merchants’ Association of New York (MNY) 1921 The Newtown Creek Industrial District of New York City. Industrial Bureau. New York. Accessed online at http://books.google.com.

Miner, Dorothy, Julie Foster, Kristina Nugent, Tara Rasheed, Caroline Stephenson, Rosalind Streeter 2008 Gowanus Canal Corridor. Prepared as studio project for Columbia University Master of Science program in Historic Preservation. Viewed online, March 2012, issuu.com/proteusgowanus/docs/2008_gowanus_corridor_historic_buildings_-_columbi.

Morison, Samuel Eliot 1971 The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages. Oxford University Press, New York.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin.

1985 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin.

Newman, W. S. 1977 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction: Some Contradictions from Western Long Island, New York. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:545-570.

New York Archaeological Council 1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York State. Adopted by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.

New York Archaeological Council Standards Committee 2000 Guidance for Understanding and Applying the New York State Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations. October.

New York City Building Department 2011 Property Profile Overview, accessed online January-February 2012, a810- bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyProfileOverview.

New York City Department of Docks and Ferries 1904 Annual Report. Accessed online at http://books.google.com.

New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) 2012 Bridges: Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/faqs/faqs_bridge.shtml.

New York City Bridge Centennial Commission (NYC BCC) 2010a Hunters Point Avenue Bridge. Accessed online at http://www.nycbridges100.org/events.

2010b Borden Avenue Bridge. Accessed online at http://www.nycbridges100.org/borden- ave.php.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 141

New York City, Department of City Planning 1992 New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan: Reclaiming the City’s Edge. NCY DCP 92-97.

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (NYC LPC) 1968 Hunters Point Historic District, Borough of Queens (LP #0450). Designation report obtained online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/designation reports.shtml.

New York City Office of Emergency Management (NYC OEM) 2012 New York City Hurricane Evacuation Zones. Accessed on March 13, 2012 at: www.nyc.gov/html/oem/downloads/pdf/hurricane_map_english.pdf.

New York State Department of Transportation (NY DOT) 2008 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for P.I.N. X729.77, Kosciuszko Bridge Project Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (I-278) from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway (I-495) in Queens, Kings and Queens Counties, New York. Accessed March 12, 2012 online at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/projects/kbridge/eis/feis.

New York State Department of Parks and Recreation 2010 New York State Museum Site Files. Division of Historic Preservation. Watertown, NY.

New York Times 1869 Another Petroleum Fire. May 26, p. 1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times.

1900 Nine Acres Ravaged by Fierce Flames. April 10, p.2. Obtained from ProQuest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times.

1912 Newtown Creek Traffic. November 17. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012 Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (AWOIS). Region 4: New York City and Northern New Jersey. Office of Coast Survey. Electronic document, http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/AWOIS.php?region=4; accessed 27 February 2012.

NOAA Office of Coast Survey (OCS) 2011 Field Procedures Manual (FPM). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coast Survey. Electronic document, http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/fpm/fpm.htm; accessed 1 March 2012.

O’Gorman, William 1880 Notes on Newtown, Long Island (Scrapbook). Original document on file, New York Historical Society, New York.

Parkhill, Paul 2010 Backyard New York. In Newtown Creek: A Photographic Survey of New York’s Industrial Waterway, pp. 430-431. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 142

Parsons Corporation, Louis Berger Group, EHT Traceries, Inc., and Versar, Inc. 2007 Archaeological and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project, Brooklyn and Queens, New York. Prepared for the New York State Museum.

Pickman, Arnold 1982 Phase IA Cultural Resource Survey, Bay Park/Cedar Creek Sludge Transmission Main Rehabilitation, Nassau County, New York. Prepared for Consoer, Townsend, & Associates, New York. On file. Nassau County Museum, Sands Point Preserve, Port Washington.

Platt, E. J. 1997 Reconstructing Prehistoric American Indian Cultures on Western Long Island, New York. Internet text sponsored by the New York Institute of Anthropology, Bayside, New York. Accessed at http://www.hoflink.com/~bayside/nyia/nyiatext.html.

Presa, Donald G. 2000 Stockholm Street: Historic District Designation Report. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

2007 Eberhard-Faber Pencil Company: Historic District Designation Report. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

QueensBorough 1918 Newtown Creek. March issue. Newtown Creek Vertical File (p. 61). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Queens Chamber of Commerce, New York 1920 Queens Borough, New York City, 1910-1920: the borough of homes and industry. Accessed online at http://books.google.com.

Queens Public Ledger 1976 Maspeth After the Civil War. July 1. Maspeth History Vertical File (p. 78). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Queens Borough Public Library 2010a Maspeth History, 1884-1987: Vertical files. Long Island Collection, Jamaica.

2010b Long Island City History, 1870-1986: Vertical file. Long Island Collection, Jamaica.

2010c Newtown Creek: Vertical file. Long Island Collection, Jamaica.

Rakos, Lynn 2012 US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Personal communication, January 13.

Rattray, Jeannette E. 1976 Perils of the Port of New York: Maritime Disasters from Sandy Hook to Execution Rocks.

Reier, Sharon 2000 The Bridges of New York. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 143

Reiss, Marcia 2005 Greenpoint Neighborhood History Guide. Brooklyn Historical Society, Brooklyn, NY.

Riker, James 1852 Annals of Newtown in Queens County, New York. Reprinted 1982. Hunterdon House, Lambertville, NJ.

“Rise and Fall of Greenpoint Avenue Bridge” 1984 ca Queen Public Library, Long Island Collection, bridges vertical file.

Ritchie, William A. 1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, NY.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum & Science Service Memoir 20. State Education Department, University of the State of New York, Albany.

Roberts, Anthony 2008 Great Republic: A Historical and Archaeological Analysis of a Pacific Mail Steamship. M. A. Thesis, Texas A & M University. Accessed online at http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/Roberts-MA2008.pdf.

Robinson, E. 1886 Atlas of Kings County. Robinson and Pidgeon, Philadelphia.

Salwen, Bert 1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 160-176. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Sanders, John E. and Charles Merguerian 1994 Fitting Newly Discovered North-shore Gilbert-type Lacustrine Deltas into a Revised Pleistocene Chronology of Long Island. Geology Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. Accessed at http://www.dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/-/-/-/- /sande200.94.

Sanborn Map Company 1887 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1888 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1898 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1902 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 144

1905 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1907 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1911 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Publishing Company, New York.

1914 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1914-1950 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1914-1971 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1914-1982 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1914-1985 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1936 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1947 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1950 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1970 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1979 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1915-1986 Insurance Maps of Borough of Queens, City of New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1916 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1916-1942 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1916-1965 Insurance Maps of Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 145

1933 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1933-1965 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1933-1978 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1933-1986 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1933-1990 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 9. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1991 Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York, Vol. 4. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1985 Insurance Maps of Queens, New York, Vol. 1. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

1988 Insurance Maps of Queens, New York, Vol. 3. Published by the Sanborn Map Company, New York.

Saxon, W. 1973 The Paleo-Indian on Long Island. New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 57:1-11.

Seyfried, Vincent 1961 Maspeth in the Old Days. Queens Ledger, October 26. Maspeth Vertical File (p. 54). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

1984 300 Years of Long Island City, 1630-1930. Queens Community Service, Edgian Press, Inc.

Silka, Henry 2006 Shipbuilding and the nascent community of Greenpoint, New York: 1850-1855. The Northern Mariner//Le marin du nord. Canadian Nautical Research Society and the North American Society for Nautical Research. XVI (2):15-52.

Silver, A. L. 1981 Comment of Maize Cultivation in Coastal New York. North American Archaeologist 2(2):117-130.

Sirkin, L. 1996 Western Long Island Geology with Field Trips. The Book and Tackle Shop, Watch Hill, Rhode Island.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 146

Smith, M. Elizabeth 1940 Greenpoint: A Neighborhood Study. (Report prepared for Brooklyn Council for Social Planning). Ms. On file, New York Historical Society, New York.

Snow, D. R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.

Solecki, Ralph 1983 The Columbia University Archaeological Investigations at the Onderdonk House in Ridgewood, Queens: 1980-1982. Prepared for Greater Ridgewood Historical Society. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

STV Incorporated (and others) 1997 Draft Cultural Resources Appendix: Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Island Transportation Corridor, Long Island Railroad East Side Access Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Transit Authority and Long Island Railroad, New York. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown.

Tidlow, Evelyn 1991 New York City Department of Environmental Protection Proposed Bureau of Water Supply and Sewers Facility: Railroad Place, Maspeth, Queens. Prepared for New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed online at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/archaeology_reports.shtml.

Tite, M. S. 1972 Methods of Physical Examination in Archeology. Seminar Press, New York.

Travellog 1997 Maspeth, Oldest Deed on Long Island. Accessed online at www.queensnewyork.com/maspeth/history.html.

Turner, Leo 1951 The Port of Queens. Long Island Star, August 16. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Turner, Tom 1974 Let’s have 332 long cheers for Maspeth. Maspeth Vertical File, p. 6. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1890 “Pierhead and Bulkhead Lines from Newtown Creek, New York, from Whale Creek Canal to Metropolitan Aven on both branches of the creek as recommended by the New York Harbor Line Board appointed for the establishment of the harbor lines of New York harbor and its adja. waters by Special Order No. 49 cbd, Qrs, Corps of Engineers, U.S.A., Washington, D.C. Oct. 5, 1888, in accordance with Section 12 Act of August 11, 1888.”

1883 Newtown Creek from its Mouth to Metropolitan Ave. Bridge, Brooklyn. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 147

1915 Newtown Creek, Long Island, New York. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

2002 Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying. EM1110-2-1003. Ch. 3 Corps Accuracy Standards, Quality Control, and Quality Assurance Requirements. Washington, D.C.

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1874 Navigation Chart (#369) for New York Bay and Harbor. Accessed online at http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

1924 New York Harbor, NY (Navigation Chart #369). Accessed online at http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

1952 Newtown Creek. Nautical Chart 275. NOAA’s Historical Map & Chart Collection, accessed online, http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

1967 Newtown Creek. Nautical Chart 275. NOAA’s Historical Map & Chart Collection, accessed online, http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

1979 Newtown Creek. Nautical Chart 12338. NOAA’s Historical Map & Chart Collection, accessed online, http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

2006 Newtown Creek. Nautical Chart 12338. NOAA’s Historical Map & Chart Collection, accessed online, http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1989 CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II. Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/G-89/009. OSWER Directive 92.34. 1-02. August.

United States Geological Survey 2012 New York Bight Apex: Geologic Setting. Woods Hole Science Center. Accessed online at http://www.woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/newyork/geologicbkgrnd.html.

United States Department of Commerce 1918 Fiftieth Annual List of Merchant Vessels of the United State .for the Year Ending 1918. Bureau of Navigation. Government Printing Office, Washington.

United States Geological Survey 1977 Brooklyn 7.5 minute quadrangle map.

United States Treasury Department 1888 Nineteenth Annual List of Merchant Vessels of the United States . for the Year Ending 1887. Bureau of Navigation Document #1042. Government Printing Office, Washington.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 148

URS Corporation 2008 Phase IB Archaeological Investigations for Sunnyside/Queens Rail Complex (Queens Area 12), MTA/LIRR East Side Access Project, Queens, New York. Prepared for Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York Transit, New York. On file, New York State Historic Preservation Office, Watertown. van der Donck, A. 1841 A Description of New Netherlands Together with Remarks on the Character and Peculiar Customs of the Savages or Natives of the Land (1656). Collections of the New York Historical Society, Second Series, 1:125-242.

Von Zielbauer, Paul 2008 Officials Lash Out at Abandonment of Barge in New York Waters. New York Times. August 5. Newtown Creek Vertical File. Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Waxman, Mitch 2011 ca Newtown Creek for the Vulgarly Curious. Self-published.

Wells, James L., Louis F. Haffen, and Josiah A. Briggs (editors) 1927 The Bronx and Its People: A History, 1509-1927. Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc., New York.

Weymouth, John W. 1986 Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. In Advances in Archaeological Method and reviewed the plans Theory, vol. IX. Academic Press, New York.

Wilford, Sarah 1935 A Bustling but Very Dirty Waterway. Long Island Daily Press. October 2.

1936 Ships Once Unloaded Cargo in Maspeth. Long Island Daily Press. September 26. In Maspeth History Vertical file (p. 37). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Wilson, Linda (processor) 2005 Guide to the USS Monitor Design and Construction Collection. Library of the Mariners’ Museum, Newport News.

Wolley, C. 1902 A Two Years’ Journal in New York and Part of its Territories in America (1701). Edited by Edward G. Bourne. Burrows Brothers, Cleveland.

Works Progress Administration (WPA) 1939 The WPA Guide to New York City (excerpts). Reproduced in Newtown Creek-Brooklyn Waterfront Historical Cruise (Guide), September 26, 1999. Newtown Creek Vertical File (p. 62). Long Island Collection, Queens Borough Public Library, Jamaica.

Wyatt, Ronald 1994 Personal communication. Nassau County Museum, Sands Point Preserve, Port Washington, NY.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 149

Young, Larry 2012 US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. Personal Communication. January 31; February 14, 28.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 150

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., personnel comprise the data analyses and dissemination team for these investigations:

R. Christopher Goodwin, Ph.D. Director of Research Kathryn M. Kuranda, M. Arch. Hist. Principal Investigator James S. Schmidt, M.A. Co-Principal Investigator David A. McCullough, Ph.D. Project Manager/Nautical Archeologist Kathryn A. Ryberg, M.Sc., Archeologist/Remote Sensing Specialist Martha R. Williams, M.A., M.Ed. Senior Historian (Maritime) Katherine Grandine, M.A. Senior Historian/Senior Project Manager (Architectural) Benjamin M. Riggle, M.A. Architectural Assistant Kevin F. May, M.A., GISP GIS Specialist

The following CR Environmental Inc. personnel comprised the field investigation team and data post processing:

John H. Ryther, Jr. Manager of Oceanographic Operations Eli J. Perrone Senior Oceanographic Technician

The authors would also like to thank Barbara Bundy, PhD. RPA, Jim Quadrini, PE, BCEE, James Keithly, and Joseph R. Pursley, at Anchor QEA for their insightful comments and suggestions. A special note of thanks goes to Sven van Batavia, Vice President, Miller Marine, Inc., and Miller’s Tug & Barge, Inc., for operating Julia Miller during the boat-based survey. For insightful guidance during the boat- based survey, we would like to thank John Vetter, Ph.D., USEPA Archaeologist. Thanks goes out to Ms. Cece Saunders and her staff at Historical Perspectives, Inc., for their assistance in identifying New York City research institutions and archival sources helpful for the background historical research. Others whom rendered particularly valuable assistance include:

 Douglas Mackey, Dan Bagrow and Brian Yates, New York State Division for Historic Preservation  Lynn Rakos, Project Archeologist, USACE, New York District  Eric Robinson, Research Assistant, New York Historical Society

A special note of thanks and gratitude is extended to the staffs of all the public agencies, public libraries, historical societies, and other repositories used during the background research and archival investigations.

December 2012 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage 1A Report, Newtown Creek RI/FS Page 151