Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101103WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION A Washington County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003 Telephone: 240-313-2430 FAX: 240-313-2431 Deaf 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 NOVEMBER 3, 2010 6:00PM M (NOTICE THE TIME CHANGE) A. Call to Order & Roll Call B. Minutes — Not available C. Communications & Bills 1. SHA Historic Highway Bridge Inventory(Changes in National Register Elibility)* D. Unfinished Business 1. Design Review Guidelines (Continued) E. Budget F. New Business 1. Potential Cell Tower — 2367 Harper's Ferry Road meeting) G. Other Business H. Closed Session I. Adjournment * = written material enclosed \HDC\allov10.DOC (additional information supplied during 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 ® RECYCLED PAPER MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC BRIDGES MIFF No. WA -I-735 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/ MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST SHA Bridge No. 21026 Bridge name MD 62 over Little Antietam Creek LOCATION: Street/Road name and number [facility carried] MD 62 City/town South of Leitersburg Vicinity County Washington This bridge projects over. Road_ Railway Water X Land Ownership: State X County Municipal Other HISTORIC STATUS: Is the bridge located within a designated historic district? Yes No X National Register -listed district National Register -determined -eligible district _ Locally -designated district Other Name of district BRIDGE TYPE: Timber Bridge Beam Bridge Stone Arch Bridge Metal Truss Bridge Movable Bridge Swing Vertical Lift Metal Girder Rolled Girder Plate Girder Metal Suspension Metal Arch Metal Cantilever Truss -Covered _ Trestle _ Timber -And -Concrete Bascule Single Leaf_ Retractile Bascule Multiple Leaf Pontoon Rolled Girder Concrete Encased Plate Girder Concrete Encased Concrete X Concrete Arch Concrete Slab X Concrete Beam _ Rigid Frame Other Type Name ?a8 wfl ] 735 DESCRIPTION: Setting: Urban Small town Rural X Describe Setting. Bridge No. 21026 carries MD 62 over Little Antietam Creek in Washington County. MD 62 runs north -south. Little Antietam Creek flows east -west. The area immediately around the bridge is wooded and sparsely developed. The bridge is located south of Leitersburg. Describe Superstructure and Substructure: Bridge No. 21026 is a three span, two-lane, concrete slab bridge built in 1931. The spans measure 24'-0", 25'-6', and 24'-1'/i', and the total length is 76'-7yz'". The bridge has open parapets with six panels, an articulated concrete coping stone, and end blocks. It has concrete abutments and flared concrete wingwalls. Both the piers and the wingwalls have molded chamfering which looks like stone. The 1994 inspection of this bridge reported it to be in satisfactory condition. According to the inspection report: Two of the spans have a few 1'xl'x2' spalls with rusted rebar exposed. There is efflorescence exudation, and there are a few 2'x2' spalls still in place with open cracks around the area deck. All three spans have fine map cracking. The parapets have several 8"x6"x2" spalls with rusted rebar exposed. There are several open vertical cracks and large areas of light to moderate scaling, mostly on balustrade caps. The abutments have small areas of light scaling, a few fine vertical cracks, and a few 1'x2"x'h" spalls. There are also pop outs with rusted rebar exposed. The pier caps are solid. However, both piers have stains, efflorescence, and fine vertical cracks. One of the piers has a 1'x6' area of medium scaling with heavy efflorescence exudation along the top edge adjacent to the deck. Discuss Major Alterations: Maryland State Highway Administration has inspection reports from 1982 to 1994 which consistently rate Bridge No. 21026 in satisfactory or good condition. In addition, these reports do not describe or mention any major alterations or repairs undertaken for this bridge. HISTORY: WHEN was the bridge built (actual date or date range) 1931 This date is: Actual X Estimated Source of date: Plaque _ Design plans _ County bridge files/inspection form Other (specify) Maryland State Highway Administration bridge files WHY was the bridge built? Unknown WHO was the designer? - Unknown WHO was the builder? Unknown WHY was the bridge altered? Has undergone no major alterations Was this bridge built as part of an organized bridge -building campaign? Unknown 709 JF1 J 13c SURVEYOR/HISTORIAN ANALYSIS: This bridge may have National Register significance for its association with: A - Events B- Person C- Engineering/architectural character X Was the bridge constructed in response to significant events in Maryland or local history? Reinforced concrete slab bridges are a twentieth century structure type, easily adapted to the need for expedient engineering solutions. Reinforced concrete technology developed rapidly in the early twentieth century with early recognition of the potential for standardized design. The first U.S. attempt to standardize concrete design specifications came in 1903-04 with the formation of the Joint Committee on Concrete and Reinforced Concrete of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Maryland's road and bridge improvement programs mirrored economic cycles. The first road improvement program of the State Roads Commission was a 7 year program, starting with the Commission's establishment in 1908 and ending in 1915. Due to World War!, the period from 1916 -1920 was one of relative inactivity; only roads of first priority were built. Truck traffic resulting from war -related factories and military installations generated new, heavy traffic unanticipated by the builders of the early road system. From 1920 to 1929, numerous highway improvements occurred in response to the increase in Maryland motor vehicles from 103,000 in 1920 to 320,000 in 1929, with emphasis on the secondary system of feeder roads which moved traffic from the primary roads built before World War I. After World War I, Maryland's bridge system also was appraised as too narrow and structurally inadequate for the increasing traffic, with plans for an expanded bridge program to be handled by the Bridge Division, set up in 1920. In 1920 under Chapter 508 of the Acts of 1920 the State issued a bond of $3,000,000.00 for road construction; the primary purpose of these monies was to meet the state obligations involving the construction of rural post roads. The secondary purpose of these monies was to fund [with an equal sum from the counties] the building of lateral roads. The number of hard surfaced roads on the state system grew from 2000 in 1920 to 3200 in 1930. By 1930, Maryland's primary system had become inadequate to the huge freight trucks and volume of passenger cars in use, with major improvements occurring in the late 1930s. Most improvements to local roads waited until the years after World War II. With a diverse topographical domain encompassing numerous small and large crossings, Maryland engineers quickly recognized the need for expedient design and construction. In the early years, there was a need to replace the numerous single lane timber bridges. Walter Wilson Crosby, Chief Engineer stated in 1906, "The general plan has been to replace these [wood bridges] with pipe culverts or concrete bridges and thus forever do way with the further expense of the maintenance of expensive and dangerous wooden structures". Within a few years, readily constructed standardized bridges of concrete were being built throughout the state. The creation of standard plans and a description of their use was first announced in the 1912-15 Reports of the State Roads Commission whereby bridges spanning up to 36 feet were to use standardized designs. Published on a single sheet, the 1912 Standard Plans included those structures that were amenable to such an approach: slab spans, (deck) girder spans, box culverts, box bridges, abutments, and piers (State Roads Commission 1912). Slab spans, with lengths of 6 to 16 feet in two foot increments, featured a solid parapet that was integrated into the slab, with a roadway of 22 feet. 7/0 In the Report for the years 1916-1919, a revision of the standard plans was noted: During the four years covered by this report, it has been found necessary to revise our standard plans for culverts and bridges, to take care of the increased tonnage which they have been forced to carry. Army cantonments... increased their operations several hundred per cent, and the brunt of the enormous truck traffic resulting therefrom, was borne by the State Roads of Maryland. In addition to these war activities, freight motor lines from Baltimore to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and various points throughout Maryland, and the weight of many of these trucks when loaded, was in excess of the loads for which our early bridges were designed (State Roads Commission 1920:56). Published on separate sheets, the new standard plans (State Roads Commission 1919) for slab bridges reveal that the major changes was an increase in roadway width from 22 feet to 24 feet and a redesign of the reinforcement. The slab spans continued to feature solid parapets integrated into the span. The range of span lengths remained 6 to 16 feet, but the next year (1920) witnessed the issue of a supplemental plan for a 20 foot long slab span (State Roads Commission 1920). The 1924 standard plans remained in effect until 1930, when the roadway width for all standard plan bridges was increased to 27 feet in order to accommodate the increasing demands of automobile and truck traffic (State Roads Commission 1930). The range of span lengths remained the same, but there were some changes designed to increase load bearing capacities. The reinforcing bars were increased in thickness. Visually, the 1930 design can be distinguished from its predecessors by the pierced concrete railing that was introduced at this time. Bridge No. 21026 is similar to SHA designs from 1930, but it does not appear to conform to SHA Standard Detail Sheets. Built for local transportation needs over a wide crossing, it is possible this bridge design was modified from SHA designs for use at this site. When the bridge was built and/or given a major alteration, did it have a significant impact on the growth and development of the area? Unknown. Is the bridge located in an area which maybe eligible for historic designation and would the bridge add to or detract from the historic/visual character of the potential district? No. Bridge No. 21026 is not located in an area which is eligible for historic designation. Is the bridge a significant example of its type? Yes. Bridge No. 21026 is a potentially significant example of a multiple -span concrete slab bridge. Of the extant bridges surveyed, the bridge is unusually large, extending at least 73' in length; in comparison to other extant concrete slab bridges constructed in Maryland from 1920 to 1940, it is quite decorative in its design. The open parapets have six panels and an articulated coping stone. The end blocks are scored, and both the piers and wingwalls have been chamfered to give the appearance of natural stone. Finally, this bridge is in good condition and retains a high degree of material and design integrity. Does the bridge retain integrity of important elements described in Context Addendum? Yes, this bridge retains a high degree of material and design integrity. Is the bridge a significant example of the work of a manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer? Unknown. 7// Should the bridge be given further study before an evaluation of its significance is made? Yes, further evaluation is necessary to determine National Register significance. Moreover, additional research concerning the history of this bridge and its relationship to the surrounding landscape may be useful in providing a more complete picture of the bridge's background. BIBLIOGRAPHY: County inspection/bridge files SHA inspection/bridge files X Other (list): SURVEYOR: Date bridge recorded August 1995 Name of surveyor Adrienne Beaudet Cowden w n n____ n_!._—_____. wn..._l.-______- .____.._ Maryland 21204 Phone number 410-296-1635 FAX number 410-296-1670 7/2 Maryland Bridge BLUEGRASS ESTATES °_ �� LERERSBURG ,tLL of nmm � 1c e / 62 1 4 .O.o 11 LMf �YV Em C WINDING e' - CREEK SOUTH .ANo+` .. ._i'.s:_...... z - LANE PSYCH NTHIC CENTER C �- ----OLD MITHSB Pop. 1.221) ELEYENTwnY JCNOOL Yy W ER: . P.p fi rt MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC BRIDGES MHT No. WA -III -121 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/ MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST SI-IA Bridge No. 21047 Bridge name MD 858 (Main Street) over Little Antietam Creek LOCATION: Street/Road name and number [facility carried] MD 858 (Main Street in Rohrersville) City/town Rohrersville Vicinity County Washington This bridge projects over. Road_ Railway Water X Land _ Ownership: State X County Municipal Other HISTORIC STATUS: Is the bridge located within a designated historic district? Yes No X National Register -listed district National Register -determined -eligible district Locally -designated district Other Name of district BRIDGE TYPE: Timber Bridge Beam Bridge Truss -Covered _ Trestle _ Timber -And -Concrete _ Stone Arch Bridge Metal Truss Bridge Movable Bridge _ Swing Bascule Single Leaf_ Bascule Multiple Leaf Vertical Lift Retractile Pontoon Metal Girder Rolled Girder Rolled Girder Concrete Encased Plate Girder - Plate Girder Concrete Encased Metal Suspension Metal Arch Metal Cantilever Concrete X Concrete Arch Concrete Slab Concrete Beam _ Rigid Frame Other X Type Name Combination concrete slab and T -beam 72/ cc A T!A I Setting: Urban Small town X Rural Describe Setting: Bridge No. 21047 carries MD 858 (Main Street) over Little Antietam Creek in Rohrersville, Washington County. MD 858 runs in a generally north -south direction at this location. Little Antietam flows generally east -west through the town. The bridge is located at the northern end of MD 858 (Main Street) in Rohrersville, a small rural town, which is predominately surrounded by undeveloped land and farms. Describe Superstructure and Substructure: Bridge No. 21047 is a two-lane combination concrete slab and concrete T -beam bridge, one lane being a slab and the other a T -beam structure. The slab portion of the bridge is estimated in SHA files to have been built in 1922 and forms the west half of the bridge. The remaining elements of the original slab appear to correspond with SHA Standard Detail Sheets from 1922. The 1 -beam is estimated in SHA files to have been constructed in the 1930s, and it forms the east half of the bridge. This single span bridge has a 15 degree skew, a clear span of 18'-2"+, and a total length of 21'. The structure carries a 20'-0" roadway over Little Antietam Creek, and it has a clear roadway width of 23'-5". The out to out width is 25-1 ", with the slab portion of the bridge measuring 11-4" and the beam measuring 13'-9" of that length. The bridge has an asphalt wearing surface, and there is a sharp horizontal curve at the north approach. There are guardrails at all but the northeast corner. The bridge has solid concrete panelled parapets with a simple concrete coping stone. The west parapet is straight while the east parapet curves away from the road. Each of the reinforced concrete wingwalls is flared to varying degrees. The bridge is not posted. Undermining and heavy scour of the north abutment has been noted in all inspection reports since 1986. This condition is the direct result of the stream channel alignment. Upstream, the channel has shifted to the west, causing undermining on the north abutment. In addition to scour, the inspection report from 1995 describes the bridge's condition as follows. The slab part of the bridge is hollow out to 5' from the bridge railing. There are numerous pop -outs under the slab portion of the bridge with exposed rebar. The slab also has light cracking with efflorescence and stalactites. The beam has many irregular cracks with hollow sounding areas, efflorescence and stalactites. In addition, the south abutment has areas of honeycombing, and the north abutment shows heavy scaling at and below the water line. The north wingwall has heavy deterioration at the end with hollow sounding areas, and all the wingwalls have scaling at the bottom. Discuss Major Alterations: The Maryland Department of Transportation files indicate that scour protection was approved in 1995. The original concrete slab was constructed in 1922, and the remaining elements of this bridge indicate it corresponded to SHA Standard Detail Sheets. The concrete T -beam was added sometime in the 1930s. SHA files contain no further records of repairs or alterations made to this bridge. HISTORY: WHEN was the bridge built (actual date or date range) The concrete slab was constructed in circa 1922. The concrete T -beam addition was built in the 1930s. This date is: Actual Estimated X Source of date: Plaque Design plans X County bridge tides/inspection form Other (specify) Maryland State Highway Administration bridge files. WHY was the bridge built? Local transportation needs. 722 WHO was the designer? State Roads Commission WHO was the builder? State Roads Commission WHY was the bridge altered? The bridge was altered to widen it. Was this bridge built as part of an organized bridge -building campaign? Yes. This bridge was constructed as part of post World War I improvements to secondary roads. SURVEYOR/HISTORIAN ANALYSIS: This bridge may have National Register significance for its association with: A- Events B- Person C- Engineering/architectural character Was the bridge constructed in response to significant events in Maryland or local history? Reinforced concrete slab bridges are a twentieth century structure type, easily adapted to the need for expedient engineering solutions. Reinforced concrete technology developed rapidly in the early twentieth century with early recognition of the potential for standardized design. The first U.S. attempt to standardize concrete design specifications came in 1903-04 with the formation of the Joint Committee on Concrete and Reinforced Concrete of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Maryland's road and bridge improvement programs mirrored economic cycles. The first road improvement program of the State Roads Commission was a 7 year program, starting with the Commission's establishment in 1908 and endingin 1915. Due to World War I, the period from 1916 -1920 was one of relative inactivity; only roads of first priority were built. Truck traffic resulting from war -related factories and military installations generated new, heavy traffic unanticipated by the builders of the early road system. From 1920 to 1929, numerous highway improvements occurred in response to the increase in Maryland motor vehicles from 103,000 in 1920 to 320,000 in 1929, with emphasis on the secondary system of feeder roads which moved traffic from the primary roads built before World War I. After World War I, Maryland's bridge system also was appraised as too narrow and structurally inadequate for the increasing traffic, with plans for an expanded bridge program to be handled by the Bridge Division, set up in 1920. In 1920 under Chapter 508 of the Acts of 1920 the State issued a bond of $3,000,000.00 for road construction; the primary purpose of these monies was to meet the state obligations involving the construction of rural post roads. The secondary purpose of these monies was to fund [with an equal sum from the counties] the building of lateral roads. The number of hard surfaced roads on the state system grew from 2000 in 1920 to 3200 in 1930. By 1930, Maryland's primary system had become inadequate to the huge freight trucks and volume of passenger cars in use, with major improvements occurring in the late 1930s. Most improvements to local roads waited until the years after World War II. With a diverse topographical domain encompassing numerous small and large crossings, Maryland engineers quickly recognized the need for expedient design and construction. In the early years, there was a need to replace the numerous single lane timber bridges. Walter Wilson Crosby, Chief Engineer stated in 1906, "The general plan has been to replace these [wood bridges] with pipe culverts or concrete bridges and thus forever do way with the further expense of 723 the maintenance of expensive and dangerous wooden structures". Within a few years, readily constructed standardized bridges of concrete were being built throughout the state. The creation of standard plans and a description of their use was first announced in the 1912-15 Reports of the State Roads Commission whereby bridges spanning up to 36 feet were to use standardized designs. Published on a single sheet, the 1912 Standard Plans included those structures that were amenable to such an approach: slab spans, (deck) girder spans, box culverts, box bridges, abutments, and piers (State Roads Commission 1912). Slab spans, with lengths of 6 to 16 feet in two foot increments, featured a solid parapet that was integrated into the slab, with a roadway of 22 feet. In the Report for the years 1916-1919, a revision of the standard plans was noted: During the four years covered by this report, it has been found necessary to revise our standard plans for culverts and bridges, to take care of the increased tonnage which they have been forced to carry. Army cantonments... increased their operations several hundred per cent, and the brunt of the enormous truck traffic resulting therefrom, was borne by the State Roads of Maryland. In addition to these war activities, freight motor lines from Baltimore to Washington, Philadelphia, New York, andvarious points throughout Maryland, and the weight of many of these trucks when loaded, was in excess of the loads for which our early bridges were designed (State Roads Commission 1920:56). Published on separate sheets, the new standard plans (State Roads Commission 1919) for slab bridges reveal that the major changes was an increase in roadway width from 22 feet to 24 feet and a redesign of the reinforcement. The slab spans continued to feature solid parapets integrated into the span. The range of span lengths remained 6 to 16 feet, but the next year (1920) witnessed the issue of a supplemental plan for a 20 foot long slab span (State Roads Commission 1920). The first portion of Bridge No. 21047 was constructed in 1922, apparently using SHA Standard Detail Sheets. Without original or as built plans, however, this supposition can not be confirmed. For reasons unknown the bridge was later altered to include a concrete T -beam. The T -beam portion of the bridge was constructed at a time when more refined methods of reinforcement had become available. Early concrete bridge design included experimentation with different forms of steel reinforcing. Bar reinforcement became the predominant type in the early twentieth century, and is the reinforcement type encountered today; however, the predominant type through the end of the nineteenth century employed beams rather than bars. Scientific testing of materials in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries lead to the understanding that beam reinforcement required an inordinate amount of steel, and bar reinforcement began to be explored as a more efficient use of material. When the bridge was built and/or given a major alteration, did it have a significant impact on the growth and development of the area? Unknown. 724 Is the bridge located in an area which may be eligible for historic designation and would the bridge add to or detract from the historic/visual character of the potential district? Yes. Bridge No. 21047 is located in an area which may be eligible for historic designation. The bridge would not detract from and has the potential to add to the historic and visual character of the potential historic district of Rohrersville. Is the bridge a significant example of its type? No. This bridge is not a significant example of either a concrete slab or a concrete T -beam. The structure does not retain the integrity of its original design, and many of the character defining elements of the substructure are in a deteriorated state. Does the bridge retain integrity of important elements described in Context Addendum? No. This bridge does not retain the integrity of its original design, but the addition of a concrete T -beam portion in the 1930s occurred in the historic period; the character defining elements from each construction phases are intact. A number of the elements are in a deteriorated state. Is the bridge a significant example of the work of a manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer? There are no state records which indicate this is a significant example of the work of a manufacturer, designer, or engineer. Should the bridge be given further study before an evaluation of its significance is made? No further evaluation is necessary to determine the National Register significance of the bridge. Although it does reflect the expansion of secondary roads in Maryland after World War I, the condition of the bridge has placed its integrity in doubt. However, additional research concerning the history of the bridge and its relationship to the surrounding landscape would be useful in providing a more complete picture of the bridge's background and potential significance. Moreover, the town of Rohrersville should be evaluated as a potentially significant district. BIBLIOGRAPHY: County inspection/bridge files Other (list): SURVEYOR: SHA inspection/bridge files X Date bridge recorded August 1995 Name of surveyor Adrienne Beaudet Cowden Organization/Address P.A.C. Spero & Company; 40 West Chesapeake Avenue. Suite 412; Baltimore. Maryland 21204 Phone number 410-296-1635 FAX number 410-296-1670 725 1120 �70p. 77.40'O0 _ To' PC County it LOCUST O a / GROVE © C. Highway PARK HALL MOUNTAIN OY u GMu TREGO I '""' STATE s; COMM BLDG. ROHRER$% 726 BEELERS SUMMIT SOUTH PARK I-! BENT tJLLOW } FARMS Z F {¢ X d � f✓M3���f.t t ,y, z ry. If J F jrc✓L Yy i,.�i a MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NAME AND SHA NO.: 21017 LOCATION Road Name and Number. US 40 over Little Beaver Creek City/Town: Wagners Crossroads X vicinity County: Washington Ownership: X State _ County _ Municipal _ Other Bridge projects over. — Road — Railway L Water — Land Is bridge located within designated district?: — yes X no _ NR listed district _ NR determined eligible district _ locally designated _ other Name of District _ MHT NO. WA -H-1115 BRIDGE TYPE — Timber Bridge — Beam Bridge — Truss -Covered — Trestle — Timber -and -Concrete — Stone Arch Bridge — Metal Truss Bridge _ Moveable Bridge _ Swing — Bascule Single Leaf — Bascule Multiple Leaf _ Vertical Lift _ Retractile — Pontoon _ Metal Girder _ Rolled Girder _ Rolled Girder Concrete Encased Plate Girder Plate Girder Concrete Encased — Metal Suspension _ Metal Arch _ Metal Cantilever X Concrete _ Concrete Arch — Concrete Slab X Concrete Beam — Rigid Frame Other Type Name — 863 MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES MHT NO. WA -11-1115 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST DESCRIPTION Describe the Setting: Bridge 21017 carries US 40 over Little Beaver Creek in the eastern part of Washington County. US 40 runs in an east -west direction at this location; Little Beaver Creek flows north -south. The bridge is located in a rural area within the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province, which includes the mountainous region of western Maryland. Situated in a largely undeveloped area, several residences stand near both ends of the bridge. Describe the Superstructure and Substructure: (Discuss points identified in Context Addendum, Section C) Bridge 21017, a single -span concrete girder bridge, has a clear span length of 23' and an overall bridge length of 29'. Inspection reports indicate that although construction details of the bridge closely match the 1933 standard, additional concrete girders were added to the bridge's superstructure which employs 8 beams to support the concrete deck. The asphalt roadway has a 40' width and carries two lanes of traffic. The original concrete parapets have been removed and steel W -beam guardrails run along the outer edges of the bridge. The substructure consists of striated concrete abutments and wing walls. Recent inspection reports indicated the need for scour protection for the abutments and wing walls. A survey of historic concrete beam bridges undertaken by the Maryland State Highway Administration in the Fall of 1995 identified 113 bridges of that type located throughout the state. Slightly more than two-thirds (76) of that total were single -span bridges. Discuss major alterations: According to an inspection report dated 1978, the bridge was widened in 1949. The original parapets were removed from the curbline up and replaced with guardrail sometime before 1988. HISTORY When Built: 1936 Why Built: Statewide road improvement programs and local transportation needs Who Built: State Roads Commission of Maryland Who Designed: Unknown Why Altered: Widening 864 MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES MET NO. WA -H-1115 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Was this bridge built as part of an organized bridge building campaign?: Yes Beginning in 1935, the State Roads Commission outlined plans to construct US 40 westward from Baltimore to Frederick, by extending the existing US 40, which ran eastward from Baltimore towards Philadelphia, in order to create a modern, dual -lane divided highway across Maryland. Following the pattern set by the earlier segment of the new road, the western portion was to be constructed on an entirely new alignment bypassing established towns and railroad crossings. Several new bridges, including 21017, became part of the highway as it extended further west through the mountainous region of the state. SURVEYOR ANALYSIS This bridge may have NR significance for association with: X A (Events) — B (Person) — C (Engineering/Architectural Character) Was this bridge constructed in response to significant events in Maryland or local history? Erected in 1936, Bridge 21017 formed part of the modem US 40 built in response to increased automobile use on state roads and the growing inadequacy of the original road system improved by the State Road Commission (SRC) to handle larger traffic volumes. The SRC's major building effort during the 1930s, and one of the first on a new alignment designed to bypass towns and railroads slowing traffic movement, construction of the road marked a transition from the improvement of earlier roads and turnpikes characterizing the SRC's operations during the early twentieth century to an organization of highway and transportation planners. When the bridge was built, and/or given a major alteration, did it have a significant impact on the growth and development of the area? Yes. Construction of US 40 provided entry to previously sparsely populated areas in the western portion of the state and promoted commercial development along its route. Is the bridge located in an area which may be eligible for historic designation, and would the bridge add or detract from the historic and visual character of the possible district? Bridge 21017 may contribute to a potential historic district encompassing resources related to development along US 40 after its initial construction in the 1930s. Replacement of the parapet and widening in 1949, however, may render this bridge a non-contributing resource to this potential district. MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES MET NO. WA -H-1115 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Is the bridge a significant example of its type? No, due to the widening in 1949 and the removal of its parapet, this bridge does not stand as a significant example of its type. Does the bridge retain integrity of the important elements described in the Context Addendum? No, this bridge does not retain integrity of its character defining elements. Recent reports indicate that the structure was widened in 1949 and the parapet was replaced with a steel W -beam guardrail. Is the bridge a significant example of the work of the manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer, and why? No, this bridge is not a significant example of the work of the manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer. This bridge was most likely built to standard state specifications, which corresponded to the structure's span length and year. Should this bridge be given further study before significance analysis is made, and why? Yes. Further study may indicate whether a linear historic district encompassing resources associated with the construction of US 40 during the 30s and the surrounding area's subsequent development may exist. BIBLIOGRAPHY Crosby, Walter Wilson 1906 First Report on State Highway Construction (May 1905 January 1906). The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1908 Second Report on State Highway Construction (January 1906 -January 1908). The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Johnson, A.N. 1903 Third Report on the Highways of Maryland (1902-1903). The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. LeViness, Charles T. 1958 A History of Road Building in Maryland. State Roads Commission of Maryland, Baltimore. 866 MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES MET NO. WA -E-1115 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Maryland State Highway Administration 1987-93 Bridge inspection reports. Located in the files of the Office of Bridge Development, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore. P.A.C. Spero and Company and Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1994 Historic Bridges in Maryland: Historic Context Report. Prepared for Maryland State Highway Administration, Maryland State Department of Transportation, Baltimore. State Roads Commission of Maryland 1930 Reports of the State Roads Commission of Maryland for the Yews 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930. State of Maryland, State Roads Commission, Baltimore. 1958-78 Bridge inspection reports. Located in the files of the Office of Bridge Development, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore. SURVEYOR INFORMATION Name: Margaret A. Bishop and Michelle M. Lupien Date: 13 May 1996 Organization: KCI Technologies. Inc. Telephone: (717) 691-1340 Address: 5001 Louise Dr.. Suite 201 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 867 f K -&-c K E.E. F.AN HHEY' KEEOY MEM. HOME Maryland Historic Highway Bridges Bridge Type Map County 1 1Lc4 �S Bridge # and Name 0 nr` Lrrl c4✓f FSlf ,IAIt l' Abe << BAGTOWN N 11/ ' EIOrN1. L MELL..R GREENBRIER 0 ■ PARK ' k iy s �+. S A £ 2 ? t `M.a a Y fr �. tit, lbw rx• 1 �,� + s r ., �1 Ll Vt 3v �'• N SyE ar e1s .y tt Ls� �'a �1 >«y-,`. st L Tit W I...Y "GREENBRIERt'_ f.Jr. td k &:L . A y f .t i.; .r 4-c. x ;.� t � C v . 4: x I•--:' # • E EVILLE }[}[}[}[}(}( w+ 5o�d ,� : t' ; •• ^ +4a! 4vt Y } 'Sjl Q. `' 4tc. �' r 86& ae.ou p. of • - _ Y.,,"4. � STATE :-, u := 3 �. LINT SANT Martin O'Malley Governor Anthony G. Brown Lt. Governor October 1, 2010 Dr. Julie Schablitsky Assistant Division Chief Environmental Planning Division State Highway Administration P.O. Box 717 Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0717 Maryland Department of Planning Maryland Historical Trust Re: SHA Historic Highway Bridge Inventory Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation and Bridge Management Plan Statewide Maryland Dear Dr ttsky: Richard Eberhart Hall Serrewry Matthew f. Power Deputy Secretary RECEIVED OCT - 6 2010 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Thank you for providing the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) with the latest documents prepared as part of SHA's ongoing historic bridge inventory efforts. SHA's submittal included a reevaluation of 78 concrete beam, concrete slab and metal girderbridges that were first inventoried and evaluated as part of SHA's 1809-1947 Historic Highway Bridge Inventory in the 1990s. We also received and reviewed a copy of SHA's Management Plan for Historic Highway Bridges (Management Plan) prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc and TranSystems/Lichtenstein in April 2010. We appreciate SHA's extensive endeavors, over nearly two decades, to develop a comprehensive program for Maryland's historic highway bridges. The Trust remains committed to working with SHA to formulate a long term treatment plan for Maryland's historic bridges that integrates appropriate preservation and management practices while fulfilling SHA's mandates to provide safe, functional, and responsive transportation facilities. We offer the comments presented below and in the attachments to this letter regarding the inventory efforts, the Management Plan, and suggested programmatic solutions to addressing Section 106 compliance for projects involving SHA's historic bridges. Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation: Previous inventory and evaluate Maryland's historic bridges resulted in the determination that 180__s _tate-owned bridges are eligibTa for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). SHA undertook the reevaluation of 78 National Register -eligible bridges taking into consideration �1ian�s in condition and any new information that has become available since SHA's original evaluations of significance. Of the 78 bridges, SHA concluded that 69 are no longer National Register -eligible, while 9 r in ' ible. Condition, lack of significance and the ubiquitous nature of the examined bridges are among SHA's Justifications for seeking to reverse the National Register eli ibili Staff from the Trust's Project Review and Compliance uhit, in close coordination with our National Register Administrator, carefully reviewed the submitted Determination of Eligibility (DOE) forms and accompanying attachments for the 78 bridges subject to reevaluation. The Trust concurs with SHA that the following 9 bridges remain eligible for the National Register: • SHA Bridge No. 0100800, MD 36 over Jennings Run (MIHP No. AL -V -A-3 14); • SHA Bridge No. 0307100, Glyndon Bridge (MD 128 over WMRR) (MIHP No. BA -2070); • SHA Bridge No. 0601800, MD 86 over Branch of Gunpowder Falls (MIHP No. CARR-1469); I 100 Community Place • Gvwnsville, Maryland 2 1 032-2 023 Telephone: 410.514.7600 • Fax: 410.987.4071 • Toll Free: 1.800.756.0119 • TTY Users. Maryland Relay Internet: www.marylandhistoricaltrust.net Dr. Julie Schablitsky Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation and Bridge Management Plan October 1, 2010 Page 2 of 5 • SHA Bridge No. 1200100, US I over Susquehanna River/Conowingo Dam (MIHP No. HA -1971); • SHA Bridge No. 1303400, US 40 over Forest Road Underpass (MIHP No. HO -656); • SHA Bridge No. 1603800, MD 212 over Indian Creek (MIHP No. PG: 61-27); SHA Bridle No. 2112400. US 522 over MD • SHA Bridge No. 2201400, MD 347 over Quantico Creek (MIHP No. WI -340); • SHA Bridge No. 2300604, US 50 WB over Herring Creek (MIHP No. WO -482). Based on the information provided, the Trust agrees that the following 9 bridges have deteriorated to such an extent that they no longer possess sufficient integrity to represent their bridge type and are no longer eligible for the National Register: • SHA Bridge No. 0303300, MD 37 over CSX Railroad (MIHP No. BA -2702); • SHA Bridge No. 0303400, US 40 over Little Gunpowder Falls (MIHP No. BA -2665); • SHA Bridge No. 0304000, US 40 over Red House Creek (MIHP No. BA -2668); • SHA Bridge No. 0310000, MD 165 over Little Gunpowder Falls (MIHP No. BA -2721); • SHA Bridge No. 1009000, MD 464 over Little Catoctin Creek (MIHP No. F-2-93); • SHA Bridge No. 1200800, MD 7 over Gray's Run (MIHP No. HA -1861); • SHA Bridge No. 1100900, MD 42 over Glade Run (MIHP No. G -II -A-361); • SHA Bridge No. 1606100, MD 382 over Charles Branch (MIHP No. PG:82B-39); and • SHA Bridge No. 2101700, US 40 over Little Beaver Creek (MIHP No WA -11-11151. We have added the updated DOE forms for the bridges listed above to our Inventory records. For the remaining 60 bridges, we do not believe that SHA has developed sufficient justification to demonstrate the bridges' ineligibility for the National Register based on a lack of historic or engineering significance or loss of integrity. The original eligibility determinations for these bridges were carefully considered by the Historic Highway Bridge Interagency Committee (Committee) and guided by the historic context report: Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960. The Committee and MHT staff provided a statewide and holistic perspective in the evaluation of the historic bridge inventory efforts that was not possible by the various consulting firms tasked to conduct the field survey, research and documentation efforts. Therefore, many of the final eligibility determinations differ from the consultant's recommendations on the original inventory forms. Ultimately, these bridges are associated with the important design and development of standardized bridge plans. Those bridges that exemplify the trend of standardization and retain the integrity of their "character -defining elements" as defined in the historic context report were considered eligible for listing in the National Register. For these bridges, SHA has not presented evidence that the original rationale for significance within the historic context is no longer valid. In addition, the structural condition of these bridges has not deteriorated to such a degree that necessitates the reevaluation of their eligibility. Thus, it is our opinion that the 60 reevaluated bridges listed in Attachment I remain eligible or ii rluthminjhe National Register. Although it is the Trust's opinion that these 60 bridges continue to qualify for listing in the National Register, the reevaluation effort generated useful documentation on the resources and identified a category of bridges potentially suitable for streamlined consultation. While these 60 bridges still meet the criteria for eligibility in the National Register, we acknowledge t, at the,y do not necessarily warrant the same level of treatment or consideration as the Preservation Priority Bridges or other eligible bridges and suggest that SHA place them in a category called "Non- Dr. Julie Schablitsky Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation and Bridge Management Plan October 1, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Priority Historic Bridges." We offer recommendations for streamlined and standardized management of these Non - Priority Historic Bridges in the Management Plan and the Programmatic Agreement sections below. The DOE forms SHA produced for these 60 bridges contain valuable documentation on the history and current conditions of these historic bridges. Since the Trust does not concur with SHA's determinations of ineligibility for the National Register, we do not plan to integrate the DOE forms into the Trust's Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) records and are returning the documentation to SHA. With minor modifications, SHA may convert the information on the existing DOE forms into the Trust's MIHP Addendum Sheet format and resubmit the documentation to the Trust to fulfill mitigation requirements for future adverse effects to these Non -Priority Historic Bridges, discussed in greater detail below. Attachment 2 presents an outline of the recommended conversion of the documentation from DOE form to MIHP Addendum Sheet format. SHA's Management Plan for Historic Highway Bridges: Of the 180 bridges that were originally determined eligible for listing in the National Register as part of SHA's Historic Highway Bridge Inventory efforts, SHA selected 17 brid es that it considers "Preservation Priorities" in the Management Plan. These structures comprise the most istorically significant bridges in Maryland that can feasibly be preserved. We commend SHA for its efforts to assign a defensible and responsible assemblage of historic bridges to the Preservation Priority level. These bridges represent a broad span and geographic distribution of Maryland's important bridge types. This designation will assist SHA in securing appropriate resources to ensure the long term preservation of these resources. To guide the stewardship effort for these bridges, the Management Plan includes a useful preservation plan for each Preservation Priority Bridge and a guide for the maintenance and repair of historic bridges titled, Maryland Best Maintenance & Conservation Practices for Older Bridge Types (TranSystems January, 2010). These documents will provide useful information to guide future bridge treatment and management decisions by SI-IA and other owners of historic bridges in Maryland. The Management Plan includes a listing of another 80 bridges, called' ible Bridges," that SHA considers eligible for the National Register but not worthy of designation as a Preservation Priority. SHA will continue to preserve and maintain these bridges, but since they may not be ideal candidates for long-term preservation in place, SI-IA will manage these structures on a case -by -case basis. Rehabilitation, adaptive use, relocation and demolition are possible treatment options for this bridge category. The Trust suggests that this category of bridges be designated `Eligible Historic Bridges'. Please be sure to,add the nine bridges lute hove that_remain eligible for listing in the National Register to this category. As noted in the above section, the Trust believes that 60 concrete beam, concrete slab and metal girder bridges reevaluated by SHA remain eligible for listing in the National Register. While these structures possess sufficient integrity and significance to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, they may be considered redundant and representative examples of their type. Through the development of a Programmatic Agreement, alternative streamlined project planning and consultation processes could be applied to this category of bridges when preservation, maintenance or rehabilitation of these structures is no longer feasible. The DOE documentation prepared as a result of the reevaluation effort could be utilized, with slight modification, to mitigate the loss of these bridges if major alteration or demolition is necessary. The Trust suggests that this category of bridges be called `Non -Priority Historic Bridges'. Dr. Julie Schablitsky Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation and Bridge Management Plan October 1, 2010 Page 4of5 The Trust has a few minor comments on the Management Plan itself, listed in Attachment 3. We ask SHA to address these items in the preparation of a final Management Plan for use by SHA, the Trust, and other entities that own or manage historic bridges in Maryland. Gify, rammatic A reement: SHA has expended considerable effort and made substantial progress in its initiative to evaluate, and prioritize historic bridges in Maryland. We acknowledge SHA's desire to limit the number of historic bridges under its stewardship to the most important examples to ease the potential challenges and cost considerations of managing a large pool of historic properties. The positive benefits of the historic bridge program, from both a preservation and project planning perspective, will be fully realized once SHA, FHWA, the Trust, and other involved parties have negotiated a programmatic agreement (PA) for the management of historic highway bridges in Maryland. The PA will establish a streamlined and predictable process for the administration of Maryland's SHA-owned historic bridges — through standardized treatments, menus of acceptable mitigation options, streamlined consultation, preservation commitments, involvement of interested parties and the public, and stewardship. We remain confident that our agencies will be able to execute a comprehensive solution that appropriately balances transportation needs and preservation responsibilities and provides stewardship in the public interest. Utilizing the PA initially drafted by SHA in 2008, we have revised the document to serve as a working draft to facilitate discussion among the consulting parties in the negotiation of the PA. We added several sections establishing defined consultation processes for selecting appropriate treatment outcomes based on the three preservation levels for historic bridges, including opportunities to streamline consultation for bridge projects that meet certain circumstances. The revised draft PA is included as Attachment 4 to this letter. We welcome your comments and suggestions on the PA and hope that SHA, FHWA and the ACHP will share our view that executing the bridge PA is a priority for all our programs. We look forward to working with all parties to reach a successful conclusion to this long term initiative. We appreciate this opportunity to share our comments to help facilitate the ongoing dialogue on the management of Maryland's historic bridges. If you have questions or require additional assistance, please contact Beth Cole at 410- 514-7631 / bcoleQa mdp.state.md.us or Tim Tamburrino at 410-514-7637 / ttamburrino@md.state.md.us. Sincerely, J. Rodney Little Director / State Historic Preservation Officer JRL/EJC/TJT 20 100 1192/20 1002555 List of Attachments: Attachment I — Non -Priority Historic Bridges - 60 Bridges that MHT Has Determined Remain Eligible for the National Register Attachment 2 — Conversion of DOE form documentation to MIHP Addendum Sheet Format Attachment 3 — Trust Comments on SHA's Management Plan for Historic Bridges Attachment 4 — Revised Draft Programmatic Agreement for Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland Dr. Julie Schablitsky Historic Bridge Inventory Reevaluation and Bridge Management Plan October 1, 2010 Page 5 of 5 cc: Letter and All Attachments Bruce Grey (SHA) Don Sparklin (SHA) Anne Bruder (SHA) Jeanette Mar (FHWA) Carol Legard (ACHP) Letter and Attachment I Only David Hayes (NPS National Capital Region) Donna Hole (Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation, Inc.) Kathleen Kotatba (Baltimore City Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation) Karin Brown (Baltimore County Office of Planning) Kirsti Uunila (Calvert County Planning Department) Kimberly A. Millender (Carroll County Historic District Commission) Cathy Thompson (Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management) Janet Davis (Frederick County Historic Preservation Commission) Elmina J. Hilsenrath (Howard County Department of Planning & Zoning) Zan Koldewey (Howard County Historic District Commission) Scott Whipple (Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission) Gail Rothrock (Prince George's County Historic Preservation Commission) Steven Goodrich (Washington County Historic District Commission) Karen Jennings Crooms (Anacostia Trails Heritage Area) Bradley Farrar (Redevelopment Authority of Prince George's County) Donna Dudley (Four Rivers Heritage Area) Bill Pencek (Baltimore City Heritage Area) Richard Pfefferkorn (Canal Place Heritage Area) Natalie Chabot (The Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area) Elizabeth Scott Shatto (Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area) Sharon Scheuer (Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area) Mary Ann Lisanti (Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway) Peggy Erickson (Montgomery County Heritage Area) Roz Racanello (Southern Maryland Heritage Area) Ms. Elizabeth Watson (Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area) Attachment 1 Non -Priority Historic Bridges Bridge Name SHA Bridge Number MIHP Number County Bridge Type MD 36 overJennings s Run 0100700 AL -V -B-312 Allegany Concrete Beam MD 935 over Georges Creek 0101900 AL -VI -C-327 Allegany Metal Girder MD 51 over Saw it Run 0104600 AL -II -B-146 Allegany Concrete Slab MD 170 over Severn Run 0204400 AA -21 19 Anne Arundel Concrete Beam MD 25 over George's Run 0301900 BA -2783 Baltimore Concrete Beam MD 25 over Jones Falls 0302700 BA -2663 Baltimore Concrete Beam US 40 over Gunpowder Falls 0303500 BA -2720 Baltimore Metal Girder US 40 over Whitemarsh Run 0303700 BA -2666 Baltimore Concrete Beam MD 150 over MD 700 0309500 BA -2724 Baltimore Metal Girder MD 404 Alternate over Tuckahoe Creek 0501700 CAR -297 Caroline Concrete Beam MD 31 over Dickerson Run 0600700 CARR-1557 Carroll Concrete Beam MD 31 over Sams Creek 0600800 CARR-1468 Carroll Concrete Slab MD 850 over Talbot Branch 0604200 CARR-1473 Carroll Concrete Slab MD 7 over Stoney Run 0700800 CE -1489 Cecil Concrete Slab MD 272 SB over North East Creek 0703700 CE -1469 Cecil Concrete Slab MD 5 SB over Zekiah Swamp 0800200 CH -487 Charles Concrete Beam MD 5 SB over Zekiah Swamp 0800300 CH -488 Charles Concrete Beam MD 6 over Nanjemoy Creek 0801500 CH -387 Charles Concrete Slab MD 224 over Reeders Run 0801800 CH -381 Charles Concrete Beam MD 806A over Little Hunting Creek 1000700 F-6-107 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 85 over Branch of Monocacy River 1001300 F-1-81 Frederick Concrete Slab MD 28 over Branch of Potomac River (Rocky Fountain Branch) 1001500 F-1-82 Frederick Concrete Slab US 40 over Branch of Little Catoctin Creek 1003300 F-4-102 Frederick Concrete Beam US 40 WB over Rock Creek 1003400 F-3-49 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 75 over Branch of Bennett Creek 1004600 F-7-125 Frederick Concrete Slab MD 77 over Owens Creek 1005300 F-6-1 15 Frederick Metal Girder MD 140 over Flat Run 1006200 F-6-111 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 140 over Middle Creek 1006300 F-6-112 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 478 over unnamed tributary of Potomac River 1008800 F-2-92 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 17 over Catoctin Creek 1017600 F-4-41 Frederick Metal Girder MD 17 over Catoctin Creek 1017700 F-4-112 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 478 over Branch of the Potomac River 1008900 F-2-92 Frederick Concrete Beam MD 828 over Youghiogheny River 1101100 G -II -A-366 Garrett Metal Girder MD 135 over CSX RR 1101600 G -IV -B-271 Garrett Metal Girder MD 136 over Big Branch 1203000 HA -1977 Harford Concrete Beam MD 136 over Falling Branch 1203100 HA -1866 Hanford Concrete Beam MD 176 over Deep Run (aka MD 103?) 1304100 HO -650 Howard Concrete Beam MD 291 over Cypress Creek 1401500 K-675 Kent Concrete Beam MD 28 over the Little Monocacy River 1500100 M: 12-47 Montgomery Concrete Beam MD 97 over Hawlings River 1501100 M: 23-125 Montgomery Concrete Beam MD 650 over Hawlings River 1501700 M: 23-127 Montgomery Concrete Beam MD 117 over Bucklodge Branch 1501800 M: 18-46 Montgomery Concrete Slab MD 547 over Rock Creek 1506200 M: 31-16 Montgomery Concrete Beam MD 978 over Collington Branch 1604800 PG: 74B-21 Prince George's Concrete Slab MD 382 over Mataponi Creek 1606200 PG: 86A-28 Prince George's Concrete Slab MD 410 over Sligo Creek 1606700 PG: 65-20 Prince George's Concrete Beam Bridge Name SHA Bridge Number MIHP Number County Bridge Type MD 213 over Gravel Run 1702000 QA -480 Queen Anne's Concrete Slab MD 405 over Southeast Creek 1703300 QA -479 Queen Anne's Concrete Beam MD 456 over Branch of Wye River 1703500 QA -482 Queen Anne's Concrete Slab MD 6 over Lockes Swamp Creek 1801200 SM-515 St. Mary's Concrete Slab MD 6 over Persimmon Creek 1801300 SM-516 St. Mary's Concrete Slab MD 244 over Poplar Hill Creek 1802400 SM-506 St. Mary's Metal Girder MD 471 over St. Mary's River 1802900 SM-514 St. Mary's Concrete Beam MD 303 over Norwich Creek 2001000 T-947 Talbot Concrete Slab MD 662C over Potts Mill Creek 2002200 T-942 Talbot Concrete Slab MD 62 over Little Antietam Creek 2102600 WA -I-735 Washington Concrete Slab MD 858 over Little Antietam Creek 2104700 WA -III -121 Washington Concrete Slab MD 353 over Burnt Mill Branch 2201800 WI -220 Wicomico Concrete Slab MD 354 over Tilghman Race 2301100 WO -489 Worcester Concrete Beam US 113 SB over Corkers Creek 2302300 WO -486 Worcester Concrete Slab Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties MHT Number WA-HAN-349 Historic Bridge Inventory Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland Historical Trust Name and 5114 No. US 522 over MD 144 and Tonoloway Creek/21124 (2112410) Location: Street/Road Name and Number: US 522 City/Town: Hancock Vicinity — County: Washington Ownership: x State —County —Municipal —Other This bridge projects over: _Road Railway x Water Land Is the bridge located within a designated district:._yes x no _NR listed district_NR determined eligible district _locally designated_other Name of District Bridge Type: _Timber Bridge _Beam Bridge_Truss-Covered_Trestle _Timber -and -Concrete _Stone Arch _Metal Truss _Movable Bridge _Swing _Bascule Single Leaf Bascule Multiple Leaf _Vertical Lift _Retractile_Pontoon x Metal Girder _Rolled Girder _Rolled Girder Concrete Encased x Plate Girder Plate Girder Concrete Encased _Metal Suspension 1059 W4 -MW- Al -3 q9 _Metal Arch _Metal Cantilever _Concrete _Concrete Arch _Concrete Slab_Concrete Beam _Rigid Frame _Other Type Name Description: Describe Setting:Bridge 21124 (2112410) carries US 522 over MD 144 and Tonoloway Creek in Washington County, Maryland. US 522 runs north -south at this location; Tonoloway Creek and MD 144 run east -west. The bridge is located in an urban setting, with 19th and 20th century structures in view. Describe Superstructure and Substructure:Bridge 21124 (2112410) is a four span combination riveted plate girder and steel truss, with a concrete deck. There is a concrete and steel rail barrier wall on both sides of the entire length of the deck, and there are W -beam guardrails on both sides of both approaches. The substructure is three steel beam rhomboid trusses resting atop 3 concrete piers, and concrete abutments and wing walls. Discuss Major Alterations:This structure was rehabilitated in 1980. At this time the deck was removed and replaced, and the barrier wall and guardrails were replaced. There were also repairs made to the beams, piers and abutments. History: When Built:1937 Why Built:local transportation needs Who Built:State Roads Commission Why Altered:structural and safety improvements Was this bridge built as part of an organized bridge building campaign:yes Surveyor Analysis: This bridge may have NR significance for association with: _A Events _B Person _C Engineering/Architectural Was this bridge constructed in response to significant events in Maryland or local history:no When the bridge was built and/or given a major alteration, did it have a significant impact on the growth and development of the area:no 1060. W'r+-1r4 3` 7 Is the bridge located in an area which may be eligible for historic designation and would the bridge add to or detract from historic and visual character of the possible district:no Is the bridge a significant example•of its type:It is possible that this bridge may be considered a significant example of a combination plate girder and deck truss bridge, and should be compared to other local examples of its type. Does the bridge retain integrity of the important elements described in the Context Addendum:There were major alterations made to the deck and floor system, considered secondary and tertiary CDE's, in 1980. Other than these modifications, there is no indication that any of the other important elements of the original structure have been altered. Therefore, the substructure may retain its integrity. Is the bridge a significant example of the work of -the manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer and why:This bridge may be considered a significant example of the work of the State Roads Commission in the early 20th century, because of it's unique substructure construction. It should be compared to other local examples of its type. Should this bridge be given further study before significance. analysis is made and why:This bridge warrants further study before determination as to it's integrity can be made. 1061 Wf- zq? Bibliography: Greiner, Inc. 1995 Historic Bridge Inventory Form. Spero, P.A.C. & Company, and Louis Berger & Associates 1994 Historic Bridges in Maryland: Historic Bridge Context. State Highway Administration v.d. Bridge Inspection Files. United States Geological Survey 1951 7.5' Hancock Quadrangle, photorevised 1971. Surveyor: Name: Stephanie L. Bandy Date:September 1995 Organization: State Highway Admin. Telephone: (410) 321-2213 Address: 2323 West Joppa Road Brooklandville, MD 21022 C 1062 LINE NO. In NO. IVlarylanu nisionc mgllwaf'olluges 127 Bridge Type Metal Girder Map A-6 Hancock s County Washington W - -54'( 70 Bridge # and name 211241U8 522 over MD 144 and Tonoloway Creek szz I ROAD a Hot J J 16 C . Sn .LANDFILL .L.. .'. 4 I JN PARK �: Jo CSp° KIRK •o ?` ° Nt 70 WOODS PARK ME ALE x' °Jr Q`P csy L_) F°°y IRVIEW !If .. IDMEreR wyx a s° pr vARK T E u : G ANCO s`.. N pD D*A " Pop. 1,928 LA y y1° HANCOGK ELEMENTARY MU y xe - • S M.HA. FMS P SCHOOL rva IS NAW ..� !•. C\O _ !' w«rp It: - aRF sr OR! C� HANCOCK rah 'RESCUE NDa ., °Sezoe, 3: �...:• 744 aOUt ( .m._ ax n lzr;... ...\_. Ap° _ p M\c! - - D°fi ,__-:t.. °a" AREA REDROOK LocaNY% flap Site Number :110373 I0 2310) f �a roer s Ferry N rIS ,I foni /nv parr S ' EC Site Number :111763ite Number :110374 ) Rf 2 W / oplpos�RD P MOUNT LOCK cANA D � , ` boo P N' roc EC xfrr Site Number:111041 RB-E Site r 6/ RV/ IG4O Site Number EC\ / / /P EC MARYLAND COMPREHENSIVE HISTORIC Geographic Region: Eastern Shore (a Western Shore (A P Piedmont (B F X Western Maryland (A II. Chronological/Developmental Pert Paleo-Indian Early Archaic Middle Archaic Late Archaic Early Woodland Middle Woodland Late Woodland/Archaic Contact and Settlement Rural Agrarian Intensification _ Agricultural -Industrial Transition -X Industrial/Urban Dominance Modern Period Unknown Period ( _ prehistoric III. Prehistoric Period Themes: Subsistence Settlement Political Demographic Religion Technology Environcnental Adaption V. Resource Type: Category: Building Historic Environment: Rural Historic Function(s) and Use(s): Known Design Source: PKESEHVAI IUN II Eastern Shore counties, and Cecil) nne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, rince George's and St. Mary's) a ltimore City, Baltimore, Carroll, rederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery) llegany, Garrett and Washington) m 10000-7500 B.C. 7500-6000 B.C. 6000-4000 B.C. 4000-2000 B.C. 2000-500 B.C. 500 B.C. - A.D. 900 A.D. 900-1600 A.D. 1570-1750 A.D. 1680.1815 A.D. 1815-1870 A.D. 1870-1930 A.D. 1930 -Present historic) iv. Historic Period Themes: X Agriculture X Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Community Planning _ Economic (Coanerci a( and Industrial) Government/Lau Military Religion Social/Educational/Cultural Transportation INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY/DISTRICT MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST INTERNAL NR -ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM Property/District Name: 2815 Limekiln Road Survey Number: WA- Project: FmHA Rehabilitation (9200909) Agency: Washington County Site visit by MHT Staff: X no _ yes Name Date Eligibility reconmerded Eligibility not recoamended X Criteria: _A _B _C _D Considerations: _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _None Justification for decision: (Use continuation sheet if necessary and attach map) According to the information presented by Washington County and Located in -.the project files, this two-story frame house sided in asbestos shingles with front porch ring from the late 19th century does not meet the Criteria for individual Listing in the National Register, nor is it Located in a NR eligible historic district. It is located to the south of the Antietam Iron Works village, but is not part of the village. Documentation on the property/district is presented in: review and canDLiance files Prepared by: Debbie nS. Yost, Washington County Housing and Commnit Development viewer, ffice of Preservation Services r Date program c rr nce:es — no _ not applicable eviewer, NR program Date WA -II -374 Distr=ct 1 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Map 83 Parcel 6 MAGI 9355904 INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY NAME HISTORIC AND/OR COMMON Log House ©LOCATION STREET & NUMBER Harpers Ferry Road CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT land IFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE DISTRICT —PUBLIC —OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM X.BUILDING(SI PRIVATE X —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL .PARK _STRUCTURE _BOTH _WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL _PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE -ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _OBJECT _IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED _GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED _YES: UNRESTRICTED JNDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION X —NO _MILITARY X OTHER: Not in DOWNER OF PROPERTY Use. NAME Eileen 0. Parker Telephone #: STREET& NUMBER Route # 1 CITY. TOWN STATE , zip code Harpers Ferry _ VICINITY OF West Virginia 25425 ©LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Liber #: 176 COURTHOUSE. Folio #: 276 REGISTRY OFDEEDS.ETC. Washington County Court House STREET& NUMBER West Washington Street CITY. TOWN STATE REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE _FEDERAL ._STATE _COUNTY -LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS i.Jk-7.L•3�i DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _EXCELLENT )LDETERIORATED )-UNALTERED }LORIGINAL SITE -G000 -RUINS _ALTERED -MOVED DATE _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBETHE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE This one and a half story, three bay log house is vacant and in deteriorated condition. Its age cannot be determined without a more thorough observation of the building. CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY SIGNIFICANCE w4%37N PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE --CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW .PREHISTORIC __ARCHEOLOGY -PREHISTORIC -COMMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -RELIGION _14001499 --ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC -CONSERVATION _LAW _SCIENCE _1500-1599 __AGRICULTURE -ECONOMICS -LITERATURE _SCULPTURE -1600-1699 KARCHITECTURE _EDUCATION _MILITARY _SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN -17001799 -ART _ENGINEERING _MUSIC _THEATER x.1800.1899 _COMMERCE _EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY -TRANSPORTATION -1900- _COMMUNICATIONS -INDUSTRY POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _OTHER ISPECIFY) _INVENTION SPECIFIC DATES BUILDER/ARCHITECT STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE This house would appear to be a typical vernacular structure of the region. Log houses were a prominent form of construction during the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY WA 1L-37tj QMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES CONTINUE ON $ERARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY Ci GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY 43 3/8 acres VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY COUNTY PREPARED BY NAME / TITLE Paula Stoner Architectural Historian ORGANIZATION DATE June 1978 STREET&NUMBER TELEPHONE 109 West Main Street, Box 202 301-432-5466 CITY OR TOWN STATE Sharpsburg Maryland 21782 The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 1974 Supplement. The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringe- ment of individual property rights. RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust The Shaw House, 21 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301) 267-1438 PS. 1 M! ,. ,.: .. s: s.. �. �. �.: '. �:: :. .:. ACER ASSOCIATES, LLC. October 13, 2010 Mr. Steven Goodrich, Senior Planner Washington County Historic District Commission, County Planning Office 100 W. Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 RECEIVED OCT 19 2010 WASHINGTON COUNTY RE: NEPA Survey — Proposed Cellular Antenna Site PLANNING DEPARTMENT Site Name: Rivergate Site Address: 2367 Harpers Ferry Road, Sharpsburg, Washington County, MD 21782 Mr. Steven Goodrich: Acer Associates, LLC (ACER) has submitted documentation on behalf of AT&T to the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) to review and provide comment for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act prior to the construction of a wireless tower at the above - referenced property. In accordance with requirements of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) regulations, Protection of Historical Properties, 36 CFR 800, 800.2(d), and 800.2(3)(e)(f), ACER is contacting potentially interested parties that may desire to participate in the consultation process. The project will consist of constructing a 150 foot monopole and associated 50 foot X 50 foot fenced compound at the above referenced site. An 11.5 foot X 20 foot equipment shelter is proposed to be placed within the compound. The site will be accessible via a proposed improvement of an existing access road off Mountain Lock Hill Road. If you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed activities, please contact our office within 30 days. The MHT will be provided with documentation regarding the proposed activities. Attachment cc: File Sincerely, cer Associates, LLC ---- -- Joy a Caldwell Environmental Scientist 403 Bloomfield Drive, Unit 2, West Berlin, New Jersey 08091 Telephone: (856)-809- 1202 Fax: (856)-809-1203 r:1 11 1 I1 11 1 :1 11 1 11 11 ■'IL1. 144 '1(fl rmi/4 1 1 I...11 11 1 :1 11 1 ` . 11 11 • 1