Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040901`'o WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION •d County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street - J Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 FAX: 240-313-2431 NDeaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay AGENDA HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND CONFERENCE ROOM 1A & B WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX 80 WEST BALTIMORE STREET September 1, 2004 7:00PM M A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Minutes — June "g 2004 D. Communications & Bills E. Unfinished Business 1. Draft Design Guidelines (distributed during meeting) F. Budget G. New Business 1. Interstate 81 widening 2. Reappointments or recommendations for new members H. Other Business I. Executive Session J. Adjournment * = written material enclosed 'IIDC\ASEPT4.DOC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MAY MEET IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.508, STATE GOVERNMENT ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND. INDIVIDUALS REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CONTACT PERMITS DEPARTMENT AT (301) 791-3065 VOICE/TDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. www.washco-md.net RECYCLEDPAPER MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY JUNE 2, 2004 A and B: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Due to the absence of Chairman Michael Gehr, the regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order by staff member Steve Goodrich on Wednesday, June 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex Building. Members present included Frank Artz, Don Corbett, Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Merry Stinson and Carla Viar. Also present was Dori Nipps, County Commissioner and staff member Debra Eckard. C. MINUTES The minutes from the May 5, 2004 meeting were presented. A motion was made by Frank Artz to approve the minutes as presented and seconded by Jane Hershey. The minutes were unanimously approved without any corrections. D. COMMUNICATION AND BILLS — None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinary Maintenance and Definitions Steve Goodrich asked for comments and suggestions for the Ordinary Maintenance and Definitions articles that will be incorporated into the Washington County Historic District Guidelines. An outline and glossary was distributed at the May 5`s meeting. No comments or suggestions were forthcoming at this time. This item will be discussed again at the July 7a' meeting. F. BUDGET There are no budget items to discuss at this time. G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposed Telecommunication Tower (Hagerstown Fairgrounds) Steve Goodrich presented a letter, photographs and maps from BL Companies for a proposed telecommunications tower to be constructed at the City of Hagerstown Fairgrounds Park which is located within the Hagerstown City limits. BL Companies asked for comments regarding the project's potential adverse effects on this and surrounding historic properties. After review and a discussion of the documentation, Eleanor Lakin made a motion to recommend that the Historic District Commission's comment is that this is an inappropriate site for a cell tower due to its location in the middle of an historic community park and within the viewshed of three historic districts. The motion was seconded by Merry Stinson. Motion was passed by unanimous vote. County Commissioner Dori Nipps suggested that copies of the recommendation be sent to the Hagerstown City Council and the Hagerstown Historic District Commission. 2. Demolition Permit #2004-04595 Steve Goodrich presented a demolition permit for property located at 17042 Castle Hill Road. A map showing the location of the property, a house location survey and an Inventory Form for State Historic Sites Survey from the Maryland Historical Trust were also presented. Owners of the property, Mr. Brian Hamilton and Ms. Christi Geisbert were present at the meeting and presented photographs of the structure (a 40'x 80' barn) proposed for demolition. Mr. Hamilton stated that he has several years of experience in the construction field and has worked on many historical preservation projects in the City of Frederick. The owners purchased the property in February with the intent of restoring the barn, which is dated 1904, to use for their horses. After further inspection of the barn, Mr. Hamilton found that the 10' x 10' beams that hold up the peaks of the roof are completely broken in half and the main supports to hold the rafters in place are completely rotted. The owners are concerned with safety issues since the barn is located in close proximity to the road and also because they have six children. The owners are planning to keep the 40' x 40' wagon shed portion of the barn and intend to use lumber from the existing barn in their restoration efforts to save some of the integrity and historical value of the remaining barn. Carla Viar made the motion not to oppose the demolition since neglect and damage to the structure is beyond a reasonable effort to restore and because of the owner's attempts to document the historical value of the structure and to reuse lumber to restore the remaining portion. The motion was seconded by Jane Hershey. Those in favor of the motion were Frank Artz, Don Corbett, and Eleanor Lakin. Merry Stinson was opposed to the motion. Motion carried. Steve Goodrich will forward the recommendation to the Washington County Permits Department. H. OTHER BUSINESS — None I. EXECUTIVE SESSION There were no items to discuss at this time. J. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Jane Hershey, seconded by Carla Viar and approved unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Senior Planner STG/dse o6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 41 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Gregory I. Snook, President ° Washington County Administration Building William J. Wivell, Vice -President 100 West Washington Street, Room 226 James F, Kercheval Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4735 John C. Munson Telephone: 240-313-2200 Doris J. Nipps FAX: 240-313-2201 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call: 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay August 2, 2004 Stephen Goodrich Washington County Planning Department 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Dear Mr. drich Q -- This is to remind you that the terms of Michael Gehr, Frank Artz, Merry Stinson, Carla Viar, Eleanor Lakin, and Donald Corbett on the Historic District Commission are due to expire on October 31, 2004. Please advise me as soon as possible if they wish to be considered for reappointment to this board. If they do not wish to be reappointed, or are not eligible for reappointment having already served two consecutive terms, then the Commission may send recommendations to the County Commissioners for their consideration. Sincerely, Joni L. Bittner, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND :jb RECYCLED PAPER www.washco-md.net Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, U. Governor Robert L. Flanagan, Secretary Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation Mr. J, Rodney Little State Historic Preservation Officer Maryland Historical Trust 100 Community Place Crownsville MD 21032-2023 Dear Mr. Little: July 8, 2004 Re: Project No. WA128B11 I-81: WV to PA State Lines Washington County, MD USGS Williamsport, Hagerstown and Mason-Dixon 7,5" Quadrangles RECEIVED WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. Introduction and Project Description This letter serves to inform the Maryland Historical Trust (MITT) of changes to the proposed improvements to I-81 between the West Virginia and Pennsylvania state lines in Washington County: This project was previously coordinated with the MET on September 10, 2001 regarding standing structures, and on September 29, 2003 regarding Phase I archeological survey. Since that time, the project has been extended southward to include the inside -widening of the 1965 State Highway Administration (SHA) Bridge No. 21078 over the Potomac River and the potential construction of toll collection facilities. Furthermore, we request your concurrence in SHA's determination that the project will have no adverse effects on historic properties. Project plans for the proposed toll facilities and bridge widening are included as Attachment 1. Major changes since our last correspondence include four options for toll facility placement involving various combinations of four proposed potential Toll Areas A, B, C, and D (Attachment 2). Toll Areas A and B occur to the east and west of I-81 between the C&O Canal National Historical Park (C&O Canal) and the MD 68 interchange. Areas C and D occur east and west of I-81 in the vicinity of the Hagerstown Airport. Currently, SHA is coordinating with West Virginia on the construction staging area, as the SHA would prefer to stage the equipment on the southern side of the Potomac River in West Virginia. Ownership of land under the existing I-81 bridge in the area of the C&O Canal has not been clearly established to date, although it is believed that SHA owns the land on which the existing bridge piers are located. SHA is currently investigating ownership issues with the National Park Service (NPS). We anticipate that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) may be needed for this project. My telephone number/toll-free number is Maryland Relay Service for Impaired Hearing or Speech 1.800.735.2258 Statewide Toll Free StreetAddress: 707 North Calvert Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21202 • Phone 410.545.0300 • www.marylandroads.com Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Two Funding Federal funds are anticipated for this project. Alternates Description The Alternates Retained for Detailed Study (ARDS) have remained constant since our last coordination and are summarized below and more fully developed in the May 26, 2004 Informational Public Workshop brochure (Attachment 3): Alternate 1, the No Build Alternate, involves no work in the I-81 corridor other than normal maintenance activities. Alternate 2, Interchange Improvements, involves upgrading the existing roadway and interchanges. The mainline roadway would remain at four lanes with improvements made at the various interchanges in the 12 mile corridor. Improvements to the I-81 at MD 68 interchange would provide an acceleration lane for traffic coming from Concocheague Street to I-81 southbound. Alternate 2A, Interchange Improvements with Shortened and Modified Collector -Distributor Roads, involves the interchange improvements as described in Alternate 2. In addition, a two- lane collector distributor road would be constructed from the I-70 interchange to the Halfway Boulevard interchange. Alternate 3, Inside Widening, involves widening of the I-81 corridor on the inside toward the existing median to provide for three 12 -foot travel lanes. Alternate 3A, Inside Widening with Collector -Distributor Roads Alternate consists of widening 1-81 on the inside toward the median along with the construction of a two-lane collector - distributor road between the 1-70 and Halfway Boulevard interchanges. Alternate 3B, Inside Widening with Collector -Distributor Roads, includes the same improvements as in Alternate 3A with the exception that I-81 would not be widened to three lanes between the I-70 and Halfway Boulevard interchanges. In addition to Alternates 1, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, and 3B, there are four toll options which may be chosen in conjunction with any of the Alternates. Each of the toll options would require the widening of Bridge No. 21078 over the Potomac River. Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Three Option 1 (Areas A and B) involves the construction of toll plazas in both directions along I-81 near the southern terminus of the project between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street. Both high speed and cash toll lanes through the toll areas would be provided in each direction along the mainline to accommodate the high traffic volumes. Under this option, drivers would pay tolls as they enter and exit Maryland near the West Virginia state line. Option 2 (Areas A and D) involves the construction of a toll plaza along southbound I-81 between Showalter Road and Mason Dixon Road, and along northbound I-81 between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street. Both high speed and cash toll lanes would be provided on I-81 through both toll areas, and only those drivers entering Maryland would pay tolls. Option 3 (Areas C and B) involves the construction of a toll plaza along northbound 1-81 between Showalter Road and Mason Dixon Road, and along southbound I-81 between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street. Both high speed and cash toll lanes would be provided on I-81 through both toll areas, and only those drivers exiting Maryland would pay tolls. Option 4 (Areas A, B, C and D) involves the construction of toll plazas in both directions along I-81 between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street and between Showalter Road and State Line Road. Through the toll areas, both high speed and cash toll lanes would be provided in each direction along the mainline to accommodate the high traffic volumes. Under this option, drivers would pay tolls as they enter and exit Maryland near both the West Virginia and Pennsylvania state lines. Bridge Widening: With the proposed construction of the Toll Options, Bridge No. 21078 on I-81 would be widened. The 1965 steel girder dual bridge is 1,177 feet long and provides a 30 -foot clear roadway for both the northbound and southbound roadways. Based on the width of the existing bridges, the addition of a third lane to each bridge will require significant widening to bring the bridges up to current standards. The existing section provides for two lanes at 12 feet and 3 -foot wide shoulders on each side, which is substandard by present design standards. The proposed typical section would be a 10 - 12 -foot outside shoulder, three lanes at 12 feet and a 10 -foot median shoulder for a clear roadway width of 56 - 58 feet. Due to the age of the bridge, the existing deck would need to be replaced and new piers and footings would be required for the widening. Widening of the I-81 bridge over the Potomac River would occur to the inside and would create three lanes in each direction and shoulders. Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project remains at 200 feet to either side of the I-81 corridor between the Potomac River at the southern limit north to State Line Road at the northern project limit and is indicated on the attached State Highway Administration quadrangle maps for Williamsport, Hagerstown, and Mason Dixon. (Attachment 4). Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Four The study area for archeological purposes consists of the worst case limits of disturbance (LOD) for Alternate 3A Modified which encompasses the LOD for all other alternates, as well as all four Toll Options, and construction easements and staging areas on both sides of the Potomac River and in the river bed. Identification Methods and Results Potentially significant architectural and archeological resources were both researched as part of the historic investigation instigated by the proposed improvements to I-81 in Maryland. Architecture: SHA Architectural Historian Becky Kermes consulted previous project correspondence, the SHA-GIS Cultural Resources Database, and made a field trip to the project corridor on June 17, 2004. The APE for this project is the I-81 corridor plus 200 feet to either side to accommodate the various Alternates and Options and interchange improvements. This APE has not changed significantly since SHA's initial correspondence in 2001. Within the APE, SHA has identified one new resource, the Mylin Horst property. The Horst farmstead is considered not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Form cites a lack of integrity by loss of original building materials, feeling and association (Attachment 5). Two other previously identified eligible and/or listed resources within the APE include the Garden of Eden (WA -I-377) and the C&O Canal. SHA is also submitting a revised DOE Form for the Garden of Eden. During research for this phase of the project, it was noted that a large cargo container and truck facility is located immediately behind the main house and barn of the Garden of Eden. Even though this facility was in service in 2001 when the original DOE was submitted, that submission did not discuss this intrusion on the property, nor was it visible on the SHA-GIS aerial view of the property. Visually, this cargo container facility is somewhat screened, yet the screening, as well as the facility itself actually serve as a barrier between the house and barn from the woods located to the rear of the property. SHA is proposing that the NRHP boundary be revised to a visual boundary which would include the house, the barn, and associated fields on the north side of the property (Attachment 6). Alternate 1, the No Build Alternate, would not impact the Garden of Eden or the C&O Canal. Alternate 2, Interchange Improvements, involves upgrading the existing roadway and interchanges. The mainline roadway would remain as four lanes with improvements made at the various interchanges in the 12 mile corridor. Improvements to the I-81 at MD 68 interchange Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Five would provide an acceleration lane for traffic coming from Concocheague Street to I-81 southbound. This improvement mainly takes place on Concocheague Street and is not in close proximity to the Garden of Eden or C&O Canal; therefore, neither resource would be impacted by this alternate. Alternate 2A, Interchange Improvements with Shortened and Modified Collector - Distributor Roads, involves the interchange improvement $ as described in Alternate 2. In addition, a two-lane collector distributor road would be constructed from the I-70 interchange to the Halfway Boulevard interchange. Since this collector -distributor road is located farther north of the Garden of Eden and C&O Canal, neither would be impacted by Alternate 2A. Alternate 3, Inside Widening, involves the widening of the I-81 corridor on the inside toward the existing median to provide for three 12 -foot travel lanes. Since these improvements are within existing right-of-way and do not involve substantial visual changes, the Garden of Eden and C&O Canal would not be impacted by Alternate 3. Alternate 3A, Inside Widening with Collector -Distributor Roads, consists of widening I- 81 on the inside toward the median along with the construction of a two-lane collector -distributor road between the I-70 and the Halfway Boulevard interchanges. Since the widening is within the existing right-of-way, and proposed improvements to the corridor are far to the north of the resources, the Garden of Eden and the C&O Canal would not be impacted by Alternate 3A. Alternate 3B, Inside Widening with Collector -Distributor Roads, includes the same improvements as in Alternate 3A with the exception that I-81 would not be widened to three lanes between the I-70 and Halfway Boulevard interchanges. Since the widening is within the existing right-of-way and the proposed collector -distributor roads are located far to the north of the Garden of Eden and C&O Canal, neither resource would be impacted by Alternate 3B. In addition to Alternates 1, 2, 2A, 3, 3A, and 3B, there are four toll options which may be paired with any of the alternates. With the proposed construction of the toll options, SHA Bridge No. 21078 on I-81 over the Potomac River would be widened on the inside. The steel girder bridge was constructed in 1965 and is not eligible for the NRHP. Toll Option 1 consists of tolling both directions of I-81 between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street. Bridge No. 21078 would be widened on the same alignment with approach lanes to the toll facility fanning out to a total of 8 lanes at the facility, then tapering off to two or three lanes (depending on which Alternate is chosen). An administration building would be constructed on the each side of I-81, just north of the C&O Canal. The C&O Canal would incur some visual impacts associated with the widening of the bridge, and construction of Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Six the widened highway, toll facility, and administration buildings. Since bridge plans have not been completely formulated at this time, the exact extent of any physical and visual impacts to the C&O Canal is uncertain. At this time, it is believed that the proposed widening would occur in existing right-of-way with staging to occur from the up -slope portions near the existing bridge. The widening of the I-81 corridor, construction of the toll facility, and construction of the administration facility on each side of I-81 would add to the audible and visual landscape. The noise impacts are expected to increase by 3 dBA at the C&O Canal, but this small increase does not qualify for the further consideration of noise barriers. Additionally, this small increase in noise level does not diminish the contributing characteristics of the C&O Canal as a NRHP property. Visually, the construction of the administration buildings on each side of I-81 would add new visual elements into the landscape. However, since the C&O Canal lies approximately 20 feet below the I-81 corridor, this new construction would not adversely impact the character defining features of the C&O Canal. Therefore, SHA has determined that no adverse impacts would occur to the C&O Canal from Toll Option 1 as long as the C&O Canal is not physically impacted by the bridge widening and the amount of vegetation removal required for the bridge work is strictly limited. Toll Option 1 would also visually impact the Garden of Eden. Currently, the Garden of Eden is located just south of the I-81 and MD 63 interchange and is screened from 1-81 through vegetation. The required widening to accommodate the needed lanes for the toll booths occurs south of the proposed revised NRHP boundary. The construction of the administration building would introduce a new visual element into the landscape. However, this new visual addition would not adversely impact the character defining features of the Garden of Eden. Toll Option 2 consists of tolling southbound I-81 between Showalter Road and State Line Road and northbound I-81 between the Potomac River and Conococheague Street. Toll Option 2 would require the widening of Bridge No. 21078, and like Toll Option 1, would have the same impacts to the C&O Canal. The I-81 corridor would be widened to eight lanes in the northbound direction only to accommodate the toll facility and one administration building would be constructed east of northbound I-81. These work items would introduce new visual elements in the area of the C&O Canal, but this visual change would not adversely impact the C&O Canal for the same reasons as Toll Option 1. Toll Option 2 would have the same impacts to the Garden of Eden as Toll Option 1, in that the required widening and construction of the toll facility and administration building would not adversely impact the character defining features of the Garden of Eden. Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Seven Toll Option 3 consists of tolling northbound I-81 between Showalter Road and State Line Road and southbound 1-81 between the Potomac River and Concocheague Street. Toll Option 3 would require the widening of Bridge No. 21078, widening of the 1-81 approach lanes to the toll facility and construction of the administration facility, all on the west side of I-81. Toll Option 3 would have the same impacts to the C&O Canal as Toll Option 1. Toll Option 3 would have the same impacts to the Garden of Eden as Toll Options 1 and 2, in that the required widening and construction of the toll facility and administration building would not adversely impact the character defining features of the Garden of Eden with the revised historic boundary. Toll Option 4 consists of tolling both directions of I-81 between Showalter Road and State Line Road, as well as both directions between the Potomac River and Concocheague Street. Toll Option 4 consists of the same scope and work items to the southern limit of the project as Toll Option 1 and the impacts to the C&O Canal and the Garden of Eden would be the same as in Toll Option 1. As currently designed, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on historic structures. Once more exact information is known about the proposed bridge widening, the conditional no adverse impact finding may be revised in consultation within the MHT. Archeology: SHA Archeologist Carol A. Ebright assessed the archeological potential of the various project areas for proposed toll facilities and construction staging locations for the Potomac River bridge widening, through consultation of the SHA-GIS Cultural Resource Database, site forms from West Virginia and Maryland, historic mapping and aerial photographs, various secondary sources, and various field visits. A team meeting with the NPS was held on June 22, 2004 to discuss potential impacts to the C&O Canal. Construction Staging Areas in West Virginia: The proposed construction staging areas in West Virginia were restricted to 300 feet north and south of the existing bridge, extending 350 feet back from the edge of the Potomac River. The 300 by 350 foot rectangle south of the bridge is largely intact, aside from disturbance caused the construction of the bridge abutment. The southern rectangle occupies a section of essentially level, relatively wide floodplain, adjacent to the confluence of a Potomac River tributary. These settings have high potential for multicomponent prehistoric sites that may be both deeply buried and stratified. Early historic sites may also occur in these settings, which contain arable lands easily accessed from the river. On April 13, 2004, the West Virginia SHPO also noted via email that the area on the south side of the bridge had a high probability for archeological sites, based on the presence of recorded sites in nearby, similar settings (Attachment 7). Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Eight In contrast, the 300 foot by 350 foot rectangle north of the bridge has been substantially disturbed by both the original construction of the bridge abutment and by the construction of adjacent large industrial waste ponds (Attachment 8). The northern staging area has very low archeological potential, and could be used without requiring any additional archeological work. Consequently, SHA will conduct all staging on the West Virginia side from the north side of the I-81 bridge; provided that appropriate agreements with Allegheny Power Company are obtained. Construction Staging Areas in Maryland: A previously recorded fish weir in the Potomac River bed is located near the I-81 bridge (18WA196). There is contradictory information on file about the exact location of this feature, placing it both in the project area or slightly upstream from it (cf. MHT site form, MD site location mylars, SHA GIS aerial photograph, Guzy 1999, Stewart 1997). This site appears to be the same as the weir documented by West Virginia as 46BY157, whose location is also noted to be imprecisely recorded. Fortunately, a 1989 USGS aerial photograph clearly shows the fish weir during a low-water period further upstream from both recorded locations in the Maryland and West Virginia files. A labeled version of the photograph is enclosed (Attachment 8). The weir is well outside the worst case limits of disturbance and will not be impacted by this project. A field visit to the C&O Canal on June 14, 2004 indicated that the towpath is directly adjacent to, and substantially above, the Potomac River bed in the project vicinity. There is no intervening floodplain. The canal prism lies adjacent to steep slopes which terminate in a high terrace above the Potomac River. Only the terrace tops have archeological potential, primarily for prehistoric resources. There are no recorded archeological sites in this area, nor has it been previously surveyed. However, Sharf (1881) specifically noted American Indian antiquities, including mounds, in similar settings along the Potomac River. Existing bridge abutments for each bridge occur high up on the slope and in the river bed adjacent to the towpath (Attachment 9). Neither the existing piers nor the proposed widened piers would directly impact the canal prism or towpath. Due to topographic limitations below the bridge, construction staging on the Maryland side of the river would occur from the terrace top, solely from the I-81 median. Since none of the adjoining intact terrace tops will be impacted, no further archeological work is warranted inside the C&O Canal. However, should any access to the C&O Canal underneath the bridge be required, this would occur via the towpath, with access gained from an Allegheny Power Company road. With the exception of a waste weir on the towpath between the access road and the I-81 bridge, no ancillary canal -related features are present. Both the canal prism and towpath are being treated as elements of the historic built environment rather than as archeological sites. Any archeological work that would become necessary as a result of the further development of design plans would be covered by a stipulation in a MOA. Mr. J, Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Nine Proposed Toll Facilities: None of the proposed Toll Areas contain previously recorded archeological sites, nor were they covered in the recently completed Phase I archeological survey for improvements to I-81 in Maryland (Millis 2003). All four areas are characterized by karst topography characteristic of the Great Valley, and have fertile soils. A field visit was made on October 28, 2003. Area A is located adjacent to the revised boundary of the Garden of Eden (WA -I-377), a NRHP property eligible under Criteria A and C. The former plantation is north of the C&O Canal. As presently defined, Area A is wooded, containing deep, well -drained soils. Area B is likewise wooded and located on the high terrace above the Potomac River. Historic maps from 1859 (Taggart), maps from the Civil War period, and 15 minute topographic maps from 1912 and 1944 show no evidence of prior structures in Areas A and B. In 1859 and in the early 1860's both Areas A and B are owned by "O. Williams," descendant of Otho Williams, the founder of Williamsport. The 1912 topographic map suggests that presently wooded tracts in both areas were at least partly in agricultural use in the early 20th century. Given the location on the terraces above the Potomac River, both Areas A and B are considered to have high potential for both prehistoric and historic archeological resources. Area C is a rectangular tract consisting of agricultural land now surrounded by airport facilities. Area D is a triangular cultivated tract bounded by I-81 and Maughansville Road. Soils in both Areas C and D appear to be intact and are mapped as deep, and moderately drained to well -drained. An unnamed watercourse lies a short distance north of both areas, and is a headwater tributary of Toms Run. A headwater of a tributary to Rush Run lies just to the south. Both streams ultimately join Conococheague Creek. In 1859, both Areas C and D appear to have been located within a parcel that was traversed by Maughansville Road, and that was owned by "L. T. Brien" (Taggart 1859). No structures are shown in either Area C or D in 1859, or on subsequent 15 minute USGS topographic maps from 1912 and 1941. Maughansville Road is shown on Griffith's 1795 Map of Maryland, and early historic sites are likely along its corridor. Prehistoric potential is considered high in both areas. Phase I Archeological Survey: SHA contracted with TRC Garrow Associates to conduct Phase I archeological survey of potential Toll Areas A, B, C, and D. Shovel testing at a 20 m interval located two flakes in adjacent test pits at the south end of Area A, one from the A horizon and the other from the B horizon. Additional radial shovel tests yielded no additional artifacts. An isolated fmd number, 18WAXI10, was assigned. In addition, the consultant was requested to conduct follow-up deed research on properties in the vicinity of a potential cemetery site in the vicinity of the Showalter Road interchange, that was reported by a private citizen in a detailed interview (Millis 2003). This supplementary research yielded no evidence that a cemetery is located within SHA right-of-way for this project. Prior shovel testing also yielded no evidence of burials. Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Ten Enclosed for your review and comment is one copy of the draft report Phase I Intensive Archeological Survey for Proposed Toll Facilities Along I-81, Washington County, Maryland by Heather Millis and Deborah Joy (Attachment 10). We have only very minor editorial comments on the report and agree with the consultant that no further archeological work is warranted for any of the proposed toll facilities. Summary: Phase I archeological survey of the proposed toll facilities yielded only two flakes, recorded as isolated find 18WAX110, at the southern end of Area A. No other archeological resources were located in Areas A, B, C or D. Aerial photographs demonstrate that the fish weir in the bed of Potomac River (18WA196 and 46BY157) is a sufficient distance upstream from the I-81 bridge that it will not be impacted by this project. Currently proposed construction staging areas on the West Virginia side of the Potomac will be confined to the north side of the bridge, in an area heavily disturbed by the original construction of the bridge and adjacent industrial waste ponds. No further archeological work is warranted for this area. If any construction staging areas in the C&O Canal are proposed, they will not impact any areas with high archeological potential. Review Request Please examine the attached maps, plans, photographs, and the Eligibility and Effects Table (Attachment 11). We request your concurrence by August 2, 2004 that there would be no adverse effects on historic properties by the proposed widening and toll options in the I-81 corridor between the Potomac River and State Line Road. By carbon copy, we invite the Washington County Historic District Commission, Washington County Historical Trust, and the National Park Service at the C&O Canal National Historical Park to provide comments and participate in the Section 106 process. Pursuant to the requirements of the implementing regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800, SHA seeks their assistance in identifying historic preservation issues as they relate to this specific project (see 36 CFR 800.2 (c) (4) and (6), and 800.3 (f) for information regarding the identification and participation of consulting parties, and 800.4, and 800.5 regarding the identification of historic properties and assessment of effects). For additional information regarding the Section 106 regulations, see the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's website, www.achp.¢ov, or contact the Maryland State Highway Administration or the Maryland Historical Trust.) If no response is received by August 2, 2004, we will assume that these offices" decline to participate. Please call Ms. Becky Kermes at 410-545-2884 or email at bkermes(a)e,sha.state.md.us with questions regarding standing structures for this project. Ms. Carol Ebright may be reached at 410-545-2879 or email at cebright@sha.state.md.us with concerns regarding archeology. Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Eleven Very truly yours, Cynthia D. Simpson Deputy Director Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering by: /t -J Bru M. Grey Deputy Division Chief Project Planning Division Attachments: 1) Project Plans 2) Summary of Toll Facility Options 3) Informational Packet for the Information Public Workshop 4) Map of the APE 5) Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) 6) West Virginia SHPO Comments. 7) Aerial Photograph of Fish Weir 8) Canal, Towpath; and Setting under Bridge No. 21078 9) Phase 1 Intensive Archeological Survey 10) Eligibility and Effects Table cc: Ms. Mary F. Barse, SHA—PPD Mr. Don Brinser, Washington County Historical Trust, Inc (w/Attachments) Ms. Carol Ebright, SHA-PPD (w/Attachments) Mr. Steven Goodrich, Washington County Historic District Commission (w/Attachments) Ms. Becky Kermes, SHA-PPD (w/Attachments 5 and 10) Ms. Cynthia D. Simpson, SHA-OPPE Mr. Donald H. Sparklin, SHA-PPD Ms. Lorraine Strow, SHA-PPD Ms. Nicole Washington, SHA-PPD Ms. Lynn WigfieId, C&O Canal National Historical Park (w/Attachments) Mr. J. Rodney Little I-81: WV to PA State Lines Page Twelve Concurrence with the MID State Highway Administration's Determination(sl of Eligibility and/or Effects Project Number: WA128B11 MHTLog No.__ Project Name: I-81 from West Virigina Line to Pennsylvania State Line County: Washington County, MD Letter Date: July 8, 2004 The Maryland Historical Trust has reviewed the documentation attached to the referenced letter and concurs with the MD State Highway Administration's determinations as follows: Eligibility (as noted in the Eligibility Table [Attachment 11]): [] Concur [] Do Not Concur Effect (as noted in the Effect Table [Attachment 11]): [] No Properties Affected [] No Adverse Effect [] Conditioned upon the following action(s) (see comments below) [ ] Adverse Effect Agreement with FHWA's Section 4(f) criteria of temporary use (as detailed in the referenced letter, if applicable): [] Agree Comments: By: MD State Historic Preservation Office/ Maryland Historical Trust Date Return by U.S. Mail or Facsimile to: Mr. Bruce M. Grey, Deputy Division Chiet Project Planning Division, MD State ffighway Administration, P.O. Box 717, Baltimore, MD 21203-0717 Telephone: 410-545-8540 and Facsimile: 410-209-5004 1111111111 iuiimiu 1LVE14EIlIII!U it 'I {i Il]""ll rJ IElIflU'� H1llIIIIIII r r �wc'ir'1 ±i1iillhIII �rrJ� tilillilli ciiiw UllllII ticK r l � a o- ��I7" V1lllW r-� :21liIIIr t1 t1 1111111 iUiiiiii. r . 1DIIIIIi Attachment 11 Hybrid Eligibility/Effects Table Project Name: I-81 West Virginia State Lin T Resource- Type SHA Dot SHP0, Opinion Impact SHPO Concur.. Impact SHPO Concur__ Impact = - SHPA Concur Impact t7P0 Concur _ act ' Impact .. =`S PO .- Concur Impact `_ SHPO PNR _ :' Concur Impact -- P Sii$0.- Conch Impact j S >'9 Concur Attach- mutt= Remarks Mylin Horst House S X Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 . None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 5 C&O Canal Historical Park nD NRL None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 Garden of Eden WA -1-377 S NR Requested 07/2004 (B) None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/2004 None Requested 07/ 2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 No Adverse Requested 07/2004 5 Revised NRHP Boundary' Effect NPA 07/2004 NPA 07/2004 NPA 07/2004 NPA 07/2004 NPA 07/2004 NAE 07/2004 NAE 07/2004 NAE 07/2004 NR Determination: ND (Not Determined), X (Not Eligible), NR (Eligible), NRL (Listed), NHL (Landmark) SHPO Opinion: (B) designates opinion regarding boundary, Code following date signifies SHPO opinion Impact: None, No Adverse, Adverse Effect: NPA (No Properties Affected), NAE (No Adverse Effect), AE (Adverse Effect) Bold rows indicate review action requested