Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
20120905
WASHINGTON 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 September 5, 2012 7:00 P M REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - 7:00 PM A. Call to Order & Roll Call B. Minutes —May 2, 2012* C. Communications & Bills 1. MAHDC Newsletter* D. Unfinished Business E. Budget F. New Business 1. Permit # 2012-03261, 14134 Windy Haven Road, covered front porch and rear deck addition, Ringgold Rural Village.* 2. Permit # 2012-03575, 17702 Spielman Road, 864 square foot storage building, Fairplay Rural Village* 3. Yale Drive Extended, comments on effect on historic resources * G. Other Business. H. Closed Session I. Adjournment * = written material enclosed \HDC\asept2012.DOC NOTICE IS GIVEN TEAT 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 W ASIIINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CONTACT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT (240) 313-2430 VOICEI TDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TG TIIE MEETING. Www.washco-md.net RECYCLED PAPER WASHINGTON COUNTY BUILDING & ZONING PERMIT ,4Q41w� IVR/Activity No: 2012-03575 Applied: 08/30/2012 Project No: P2012-0926 Approved: Permit Type: RES-NEW Status: PENDING Inspector Area: B5 District/Acct No: 12010079 Job Address: 17702 SPIELMAN ROAD FR Location: S-92-147 17702 SPIELMAN ROAD Parcel No: 067-02-0353-00000 Zoning Dist: RURAL VILLAGE Floodplain: Applicant: Phone Number: Owner: Contractor: Phone Number: Contractor Lic. No: SNYDER GREGORY L & ANNA M 17702 SPIELMAN RD FAIRPLAY, MD 21733 301-582-4866 SNYDER GREGORY L & ANNA M Description: 864 SQ FT PRE -FABRICATED STORAGE BUILDING TO REAR OF DWELLING, WOOD FLOOD BARBARA RYAN, LOT 1 Foundation Size: 24X36 Type of Heat...: Public Sewer...: Public Water...: Gas............: N Electric.......: N Exterior Finish: VINYL SIDING Air Conditioning: N Septic .....................EXISTING EXISTING Time Existed: Well.......................: EXISTING Time Existed: Construction Type: STOR Construction Valuation: $0.00 Code Enforced: 2012 INT'L RESIDENTIAL CODE Setbacks Lot Tract Area Lot Area Per Family Front Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Left Side Setback Right Side Setback Lot Width Proposed 2.38 ACRES 2.38 ACRES 0 310 0 30 0 No. Of Bathrooms: No. of Half Bathrooms: 0 No. of Bedrooms: 0 Minimum Reauired 40,000 SQ FT 40,000 SQ FT 0 15 0 15 0 This permit has been reviewed by the Washington County Division of Plan Review and Permitting office and meets all applicable local and state codes and ordinances. Should you have any questions, please contact our department at 240-313-2460 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: 240.313-2460 Fax: 240-313.2461 47 P.41 P44 93.26A P.17 48 P 170 P.8fl 2 hti ' 46 P166 P.266 2 0A 9 38 J'. J2q P40 '.46 P.83 26 s1 45 _ 37 vy_.: we 42 36 :..34 h.. aY P'4 P/0 P.417 40 9 19 43 ,35 17 P,164 f. $ P316 P.42 44 9N 16 41 R 4A P.431 24 32 31 38 20 4 a �P.414 P.167 1 28 27 y 382 22 + r3 39},. ° P.393 r 2 25 23 P.347 Pass 17702 Spielman Road 24 12 6066 25 P417 2 10 P.423 e P.362 7 5 P428 259 PF117t1 FAIRY 4 8 2 1�i t I !I�'!• f 4 .... A. P90 nY e, J 5 P407 t rl i r ,.i P394 s P.409 P.342 3 3 P296 q _� 3 Rh i f�.. h2d s yy P.13 PIO P4071�8S1!11 4. P.156 SPI L NRDI ) 1 I { iiii iP22 tl� 7 4 �� �. 1�. F . P408 5 5 .427 { /OP.400 f 3�', S P.400 3 � P.426 P.426 5J156I,j{ � I, P ee P.380 P.44 3 0 1P7 n 84d 4�7i•'i 1 I{{ lli �}1 1�.�$�f]]p�p ]lE P1 PA9B Q r1� ,i��Fp X13 P.42 ti!!° . OPEN SPACE r5 re Zss FAIRPLAY RURAL VILLAGE ,. 11 25 P286 P26 P21 I PARCELA 20 2763 27 27A P.326 SURVEYORS CERT/F/CAT/ON TO.' HEREBY CERT/FY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN LOCATED By ANS r//, PRISM AND TAPE SURVEY•• THAT NO CERTIFICATION /S MADE TO THE, THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EV/OENCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT or SU/LD/NOS ACROSS THE LOT LINES UNLESS SHOWN. EASEMENTS EXCEPT AASSHOWN RIGHT AND THAT NOTES' 1, R//S PLAT IS OF BENENT TO A CONSUMER ONLY /NsoFAR AS IT lS 2EOU/REO BY A LENDER OR ARE /NSUNWCf COA/pA.yy OR l!S' ?. AA' TPLA% SNNOJATO BE RE//ED UPON/Avp NE ESA9 1/NA/IC/N0 OORL2RRgNjQUNC,ON °P fENCE OR SUA/RE /A/Nor T /EN!$ J. MIS PIAT DOES NOJ PDNOE FVR 'NE ACCURM)(' IOEN//D�J/� OF PROPER)Y BO ( f• T� Be REOU/REa FOR 'NE g + 1�BU/GOINGS, OR OA/ER EX/SANG TRANSFER OF AAf OR SECURING RNANC-NO OR REEINANC pgqyj ("fe��1�A9, �"l /OENAFICgNON ANY Nor NOTE /MPROV EMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SURVAREEY ARE AS OF \S� k qI l ;Im C I toT EX. FENCE l A£X, LAVE ILTAL ' I DOl-�l<0/NC 1� I NE - I X 10.000 51,R/ 1'OOB I BEPAC SHED RfseRI•E g�wARA / FISH E ; POND I 1 l SB7'3700'1Y O I ° e'\o\/ 15.43' 7 UI O RESytpe AREA RESE/! SCRI' £ sa /: IO' BRL- - AREI r v I o, Ex 40 MBSL vcte vr„g ti NOTE �b , MB.St. DENOTES MINIMUM BU/CO/NC SETBACK /5'4) d NBT37'OO"E LINE S100'E 19.00' 12.0 j NOTE.' PARCEL SHOWN HEREON BE/NC ALL OF LOT I AND PARCELS A&B AS SHOWN ON A PREC/M/NARY/FINAL P/AT OF LOT 1 FOR BARBARA RYAN HOUSE L OCq T/ON FOLIO RECAND RECORRDE C �AAIO FOR THE LAND MORTGLI GE NTY, WARY/AND, NOTE.' INSPECTION FOR PARCEL SHOWN HEREON /S NOT °' WITHIN ANY 700 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AS SHOWN ON WASH/NCTON COUNTY y,/,,,Y��/ / .�,„, .,, `-�i EGOR,��* � '�/1�1/7� �rpn Vd Ji �.�/�'�" }- FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 240070-0755-A SITUATE AT 17702 SPIEL1AAN ROAD DRAWN BY: DATE: WA SHINGTON COUMAY(A NTY, RNO T� CHECKED BY: DATE: 7 CC 1. OX & ' -413 ASSOCIATEST I INC. DISTRICT RET 6-13-07 ENGINEERS 0 SURVFYn Rc ° Of AAlnlr'n.. ■ 0 Co Lid ci ci- DC ci it Li LI ( Lsz Li J 00 C \i ci DC DC OX 0 Li iOW ILL - Li Cl DC Li DC DC Li Li DC Li DC DC Li m S H d Li W Li « S U- Li - DC Lii CC LiL DCCI z 0' -1 Ww } N W 2 OQZ J 24 Po .nv ¢ W u V 3 WRN z w u. 2 at R z•+ qw zW[p Q , Zro W JtU,1¢� JF 9FZ-i ONt°J 2' o ¢!ry Owrzi¢� �� ENO u_Co U0 VON N 3UJWNFN V qq 3 UJz CrR 'w-^'2^PogWWwq wo¢aA�ar "2'a a�zF 9,�j `�oQ � V W O�'JWO`¢fUv�'yUN�wW}J6QZ f3¢JQFvgJ~662~WW0 0 u_Ca F t N �J�¢U4'SWSSryKNLi S¢0 OCJ C>'�M1Rw !�4 0 ¢FRZWgK4- WZNWJwa WJHWrw=V +1 N N zdx QIJ Hf~mw¢Ww Vi 4�WopF40ti 0000 0000 NN o zu 0 0 L II W 0000 z 0000 010 W Ti LL LJ 0 cc Q M2 O vE O rN EO W zn }¢LvNE 1-zxa�wNN 11/ LL Co 03J15 q�rZn0nln� zJ 2-� nyj m£x¢L3 O q > W N �� u �N w FzW 60� z q q W ❑x. zwo3J m wao a q W WWr 8 wzwzwxz owz�w Wz z2~U0L.J VVoLJ >4 Ra VHF ma HaoWR pNR 3ti+mi wcnz2 a W oxz R ozao Li w'J wWR('IG, w z m)cww'-'wFawU 3q0 NwK2�wgKRNo4d NRK o_0_ wDWI-wO gwoo x3�n 3,n'^wmOWZs�-z 3 FdRmgj 6KWZF626U'KZR r 26 CKK wrwyrW "r3- �" WFOUOK PJ. INN Um<0i0PwqR ®1 SV 0 In W w Z D z ¢ o G LII L 5 H 3 ti w a W C tt NC J YW n'l J Ja N W p ttpamm 0 wdmm o W Im WJWnh A W J0nn w ML> ll G '^r 0 .4O26< 3 W w q> ^ '—I b ; <ez H A a N � OI_ R6 q � C 3ZO �� O ryE J o>-n� co m n E U zw 3aoYoc 1111 zx°'Y° ¢.m.ozy�va n V aw zonv�i�v (1/ SJ xwWn - w i IJ_ F 2 ((-19 �PJm2 c(3 © LI�NSd4Y 3 N oN ru w.. Fzx DO-' FLrJ;rv� tom`.SArr.;c�� WASHINGTON COUNTY TY BUILDING & ZOM INO PERMIT IVR/Activity No: 2012-03261 Project No: P2012-0854 Permit Type: RES-ADD Inspector Area: B2 Job Address: 14134 WINDY HAVEN ROAD SM Location: LOR 14134 WINDY HAVEN ROAD Parcel No: 027-01-0285-00000 Zoning Dist: RURAL VILLAGE Floodplain: Applicant: DIEHL DENNIS ROBERT 22841 RINGGOLD PIKE HAGERSTOWN, MD 21742 Phone Number: 301-824-4311 Owner: WARD RALPH T JR & Contractor: DIEHL DENNIS ROBERT Phone Number: 301-824-4311 Contractor Lic. No: MHIC-29544 Description: 6808O FT COVERED FRONT WRAP AROUND PORCH, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, SHED ROOF, CONCRETE WITH VINYL HANDRAILS, WITH 432 SQ FT OPEN DECK TO REAR OF DWELLING U Q U ATTACHED TO PORCH, PRESSURE TREATED FRAME WITH COMPOSITE DECKING AND VINYL HANDRAILS, STEPS TO GRADE Applied: 08/08/2012 Approved: Status: PENDING District/Acct No: 14000658 RECEIVED AUG 08 201Z WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Foundation Size: 680 SF Exterior Finish: CONCRETE/COMPOST 432 SF Air Conditioning: N Type of Heat...: Septic....................: EXISTING Public Sewer...: Time Existed: Public Water...: Well.......................: EXISTING Gas .............N N Time Existed: Electric.......: N Construction Type: PDS Construction Valuation: $30,000.00 Code Enforced: 2012 INT'L RESIDENTIAL CODE Setbacks Lot Tract Area Lot Area Per Family Front Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Left Side Setback Right Side Setback Lot Width Proposed 5.23 ACRES 5.23 ACRES 54 230 410 330 0 No. Of Bathrooms: No, of Half Bathrooms: ?? No, of Bedrooms: 0 Minimum Required 40,000 SQ FT 40,000 SQ FT 25 25 8 8 0 This permit has been reviewed by the Washington County Division of Plan Review and Permitting office and meets all applicable local and state codes and ordinances. Should you have any questions, please contact our department at 240-313-2460 between the hours of 7:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phone: 240.313-2460 Fax: 240-313-2461 P.IY2 7I10k P31 PI 60 .06 P3 Historic Ringgold i— P10i zln., P24 nw Doom ..<---->< % \ P93 P9 , re iia P e xb P3d9 y,j M oQ� Pss RINGGOLD RURAL VILLAGE �Ow P399 px° jg� ;_ P3d9 4(" edei mma a� ' P�95 P31 P B6B %392 d 4 d d xxPin ui i� <j 2�rP395 -' .406 A3A� ea9"? P340 14134 Windy Haven Road P3e53 a P34J P89 P]63 N e xan Y" P49 � PU0 P1 nes P344 We nx.wro P3)TL PJ0 P319 P346 ]kl i;I � P: 002 Sgoj'SI124"t 22t&,1 al / 3 At / U C -1M ^7 r hN SS"'21' 015' Op MOUSE LOCATION SURVEY FOR RALPH T. AND BARBARA S. WARD LOCATED AT 14134 WINDY HAVEN ROAD SMITHSBURG, MD iJ NOTE: Dwelling does net lie in the 100 year flood plain per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 240070 0125A, dated May 1,1978, Flood Zone C. 7O Parcel shown on a plat of parcel to be conveyed by John R. Martin et.ux. and recorded in. Liber 543, folio 78 and 79 among the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the dwelling and/or improvements shown hereon are within the metes and bounds of the lands conveyed to David H. Bloom and Doris J. Bloom,, his wife by David H. Bloom by deed dated October 7, 1982 and recorded in the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland in Liber 733, folio 1035 and that the improvements shown hereon were located by accepted field practices and include permanent' visib structures and surface encroachments if any that exist on the subject property at the date of survey dated February 18, 2000. This plat is not for determining property lines, but prepared for exclusive use of present owners of property and also those who purchaae, mortgage, or guarantee the title thereto at this time of settlement and as to them I warrant the a5Curacy of Chi:: plat. No title pepart furnished, " 7 FIF193 ,12 2 906 , f f,_ C ' THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR THE SOLE BENERT AND USE OF THE PARTIES.NAMED HEREIN AND IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OR RECORDED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF FREDERICK, SEIBERT AND ASSOCIATES INC. TAX MAP 2-j-1-265 DISTRICT DRAWING NUMBER 1 OF. AJ rm DY, DATA 'taH 2-22.- JtL? CHZCX6'D DY: DATE ate.(_. Z-ZZ.'LooJ SCADS: IN - \_x) FREDERICK S EIBERT & T ' A SSOCIATES, INC. u1 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND PLANNERS pJ 128 SOUTH POTOMAC STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 (ml) 'II -36:0 (301) 410-'4? '3 II) ]3P1... •(3 10 WEST BALTIMORE STREET, GREENCASTLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17225 Ion 011-1007 WASHINGTON COUNTY DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown MD 21740-6003 Telephone 240.313.2400 / fax 240.313.2401 / TDD/Hearing Impaired 711 August 17, 2012 @,a I @4 ED Mr. Charles Stewart, Chairman AUG 2 0 2012 Washington County Historic District Commission WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County Administrative Annex PLANNING DEPARTMENT 80 W. Baltimore Street, Room 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Attention: Mr. Stephen Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RE: Yale Drive Extended Dear Mr. Stewart: The Washington County Division of Public Works proposes to construct Yale Drive Extended, a roadway project that will connect Yale Drive near the Meritus Regional Medical Center with Hawk Drive at Hagerstown Community College (see attached concept plan and drawings). The purpose of the project is to relieve traffic congestion on Robinwood Drive and facilitate commercial development opportunities within the Mt. Aetna Farm property. The County is working with Frederick, Seibert & Associates to complete the design. Construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2013. The project will utilize federal funding through the Appalachian Regional Commission and is subjected to cultural resources review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) has provided initial comments as detailed in their letter sent to the County dated July 5, 2011 (see attached). According to the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, two historic properties are located in the project area: Antietam Hall (MIHP No. WA -I-065) and a Late 19'I' Century Brick House (MHIP No. WA -I-439). Paula Reed was hired to identify and illustrate the Area of Potential Effect for the project. This information was submitted to MHT for review (see attached inventory dated January 17, 2012 and the response letter from MHT dated February 14, 2012). Also, a Phase I Archaeology Survey dated March 2012 was completed by Elizabeth Anderson Comer Archaeology and submitted to MHT for review (see attached). The survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the proposed alignment and MHT responded with a letter dated April 25, 2012 that mentioned further archaeological investigations are not warranted. Yale Drive Extended Page 2 of 2 In order to make an informed assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources and take into account the project's effect on historic properties, MHT has requested comments from the Historic District Commission. Please provide any written comments to me by November 1, 2012 so that I can work with MHT, to satisfy their request. Sincerely, sr�Go��l`l�l1-L Scott Hobbs, P.E. Chief, Engineering Design cc: Tim Tamburrino, MHT Pam Mohn, FSA , •ec , , it , r w�tn`3.s Tts( rs a�' Jk ,�+t ,tia .t C. Ffr C i**HH � WC � ' /�� qµ C`dq t vY F m �t rc o.Ir y}r ey { ka [ �� !t" °-��',1 � �� "`t°�' �₹�M1 r�4T� a 4� 4 µ•�� f �q �i�:i�bJ r py`a' qX �({ltdh �y�tl � }��4`�w`V" v �4 o c :.' � ,'ll'' �f�; fig, i�lmy�� F a ft ; �� a' A �i� T[ si ja hl 4%I'� nr�'���)lr �tj 1 i ..,Y tl '� i ® [xs. •. c:. _ �''' i �'$��� �„q�"'t�'T� u33o[m ;;y .� s ��� 4��"{v1�`@v��' rn um'F: ' vsi YI P t d�1` [xty s 7��Ixga'G..r ��f"�''s%F t rrr.t`ka v�jdl'4�'t _µ CLpA�•fv (s •;s?}+[°6 f �' .F.fy, i n�i�i. m I�t 1s {' i��w^''4 t�,°M 'm}�� b�'.`7.` W'r4,,.N+.ii.s+ 5 t �L... ., €. o .....G 4„G� Bp`9';� �4' 4'S[a�:t -w4g4YL4rL,. 3 !.�.t34'•li �E%nILm9!...'a..yih�.YtA„ "' J Y p3x $'<£ W m SYd a15 8o Sj 3? .. 5. iE d £ s 2 � a o K pe@ LL aa5 3 �� x �no^o^ova p er a 3a Bil Xv, €5 teat' 5 a3 f3 �u'a§Z f{' _up* aB.SVPS 5„.n^. iY "ya ib C 3� a E Sgg H 4Y i 9� O 2�k ` a tl 4P5�g 98y SS CON _c$@i $ t `mac �® O eYc �q2 p Ye �e df A � G�6 as W U a pW� ,� yq m .z - li Li za.3sa @�@ d `' - n fi�d S 4I:HuIi! OM 9y ie UK z ®z fir y p. b o f i3 3 t 'dt Z c _ 8y Ifl{{$ �SJF dye2 Sr U qf' df G �t 9 ® K~ Q W •] rj E 6 jjjp ' d o p - It i pg`gyg J ( 5 3S YE 8 t dg 9 I} pep ( j y �! I, :�`... ..1 3"", �,w: ivala igruiwiea rwitari`+�m:rgri.5rsori mu np/g w}e�iNWVV AIUNwIfui5e1A NHId OIiJ13W030 y5 a 4s � c I Ir +e "ON 'SWYIOOSS V NOLL7fILISNN 3'JNiL93NIDN3 74'S i,d';,�9.,,.4n 1f1x, ,�+ J,�f1��je y 81N3013S 'ID ONYIALVW=A1Nf1Q�Ng1.DNMSVA\ Q3cuI9,LXHV1RLQ,V7Vd .•.=,.,`f "� NDiL3aaaj SAIIOMJI"IQfjJJONOISIAIQ / e 1111111 of /_' w! ax q�e YggB�?a° '1 § alp '/ qd! Ad a Y �� ii[t:i:ii ro � w Y y ' ' --�/ 9P 1 1 a a k i d m- R5gs 1 2 a oa w P 93 9gi j cj 9; u3i6yyy5y: [5SS J OOSo LLL:iI Lpu�.,w; Nb'ld ORi13W030;3}', file gg;;}}--JHBQ38JS)RIOA0SIAI;�Y�?z�� V N01n3O3Nj SHtlOh1 JI']£[l1d :10 NOISIAIQ Q.1QniLLXY ¶luuQ •'77d�# I S § d 55L OFii II IIe"'3i II Sw F 33 a$ L Maryland Department of Planning Martin O h1a11ry Rkhard fherhart Hall Gorenwr Maryland Historical Trust &attary A,ubony G. Brown MaethewJ. Power It. Gown,or Deputy&ewary July 5, 2011 Mr. Robert P. Mandley Hagerstown -Washington County Economic Development Commission 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: Yale Drive Extension — Phase I Hagerstown, Washington County Clearinghouse State Application Identifier: MD20110513-0308 Dear Mr. Mandley: In response to a request from the Maryland State Clearinghouse, the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) reviewed the above -referenced undertaking to identify potential effects on historic properties In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. We understand that the project will receive funds from the Appalachian Regional Commission while the Maryland State Highway Administration will administer the project and the Federal Highway Administration will serve as the lead federal agency. The undertaking Involves the construction of a new two-lane roadway through the Mt. Aetna Farm to connect the new Meritus Regional Medical Center with the Hagerstown Community College. The roadway Is intended to provide commercial development opportunities within the Mt, Aetna Farm, We are writing to provide information on known cultural resources within the project area and to provide direction for continuing consultation with our office in order to comply with federal preservation law, Archeology. Although the Trust's Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties does not record any known archeological sites in the immediate study area, the area has never been professionally surveyed to locate and document its archeological resources, The study area may contain archeological resources associated with its former prehistoric and historic occupation that have not yet been identified. We recommend that a Phase I archeological survey of the proposed project area be conducted early in the planning process, In order to identify and evaluate any archeological resources that may be impacted by the project. The survey should be performed by a qualified professional archeologist, and conducted in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Colo 1994). A copy of the draft survey report should be submitted to the Trust for review. Based upon the survey results, we will be able to determine if any additional investigations are necessary. If the project will affect significant archeological resources we will make appropriate recommendations regarding measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate any effects. Historic Built Environment: According to the Trust's Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, two historic properties are located in the project area: Antietam Hall and a Late 19" Century Brick House. Antietam Hall (MIHP No. WA -I-065), located at 525 Indian Lane, is an architecturally significant 18'h century farmhouse that was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. The 41.66 acre -National Register boundary includes the residence, secondary buildings, barn and surrounding farmland. The Late 19il' Century Brick House (MIHP No. WA -1-439) is located east of the new Medical Campus Road. This property has not been evaluated /00 Community Place Crowetville, Maryland 21032-2023 Telephone: 410.514,7600 Fax: 410.987.4071 Toll Free: 1.800.756.0119 TTY Usem- Maryland Relay Internet•. wwru.ofarylandhirtoricaltruct,rtet Mr. Robert P. Mandley Yale Drive Extension— Phase I Hagerstown, Washington County for listing in the National Register. The proposed alignment for the extension of Vale Drive appears to pass through the historic farmland associated with these two resources. Furthermore, the goal of developing the land along extension of Yale Drive certainly has the potential to adversely impact these two historic farms. Additional investigations are required to allow consultation to proceed on this undertaking. In order to make an informed assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources, make appropriate recommendations and take into account the project's effects on historic properties, we request that Washington County (or its designee) complete the following tasks: • identify and clearly illustrate the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and provide justification for that delineation. An APE is defined as the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties; • Please provide our office more detailed project plans when they are available; • In addition to Antietam Hall and the Late 19"' Century Brick House, all properties containing structures fitly years old and older within the APE must be identified; • A qualified cultural resources professional will need to complete Determination of Eligibility (DOE) forms for the Late 19'h Century Brick House (MIHP No. WA -f-439) and any other structures 50 years old and older. The DOES must be prepared in accordance with the Trust's Standards and Guidelines/or Architectural and star/cal Investigations in Maryland. Please refer to the Trust's Guidelines and Resources for Compliance -Generated Determinations ofEligibility (DOE) for guidance in determining appropriate survey treatments, These guidelines, along with electronic database forms and instructions for completing determinations of eligibility, can be accessed at the Trust's website www.mht maryland uov; • Please provide our office with the results of a Phase I archeological survey prepared in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cote 1994); Provide copies of any comments or requirements that the Washington County Historic Preservation Commission has placed on the project; • Discuss of what efforts have been taken to seek and consider public comments on the project, specifically with regards to historic properties; and • Provide any other relevant information regarding the proposed treatment of historic properties for this project. Have any provisions been made in the development plans for the proposed business park to retain the historic structures? Once we have received the additional information requested in this letter, the Trust will continue its review of the undertaking and provide appropriate comments and recommendations. If you have questions or requite further assistance, please contact me (for the historic built environment) at 410-514-7637 / ttamburrino(flmdp state.md.us or Beth Cole (for archeology) at 410-514-7631 / bcole a dp state.md.its. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Tim Tamburrino Preservation Officer 201102076 Cc: Bob Rosenbush (MDP) Scott Hobbs (Washington County Division of Public Works) Julie Schablitsky (SHA) Kristl Hewlett (SHA) Al Feldstein (MOP) Guy Winterbcrg (Tr -County Council for Western Maryland) FEB 15 M [� 2012 J ?R. co. CA TA; P'h Martin ernpr leyr `i .. ;., Anthony G. Brown Lt. Governpr February 14, 2012 Mr. Scott Hobbs Washington County Division of Public Works Engineering and Construction 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740-4748 nd Department of Planning aryland Historical Trust RE: Yale Drive Extension — Phase I Hagerstown, Washington County Clearinghouse State Application Identifier: MD20110513-0308 Dear Mr. Hobbs: Richard Eberhart Hall Secretary Matthew J Power Deputy Secretary Thank you for providing the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) with additional information regarding the above - referenced project as requested in our letter dated 5 July 2011. We have reviewed the materials in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and we are writing to provide our comments. The proposed undertaking involves the construction of a two-lane roadway through the Mt. Aetna Farm to connect the new Meritus Regional Medical Center with the Hagerstown Community College. The roadway is intended to provide commercial development opportunities within the Mt. Aetna Faun. On behalf of the Washington County Division of Public Works, Paula S. Reed and Associates delineated an area of potential effects (APE) and conducted an investigation of the historic built environment. The fieldwork identified two properties containing structures 50 years old or older: Antietam Hall (MIHP No. WA -I-065) and Mt. Aetna Farm (MIHP No. WA -I-439). Antietam Hall is an architecturally significant 18th century farmhouse that was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. The 7 -acre National Register boundary includes the residence, secondary buildings and barn. A Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Form for the Mt. Aetna Farm was prepared to assess the property's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The property was recommended eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C as an intact example of an early 20th century farm and building complex. However, the Trust believes that the abandoned farmstead possesses marginal integrity due material alterations, poor condition and loss of support buildings. Since the property is an undistinguished example of a common type, the Trust has determined that the Mt. Aetna Farm is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ongoing Section 106 Consultation: The Antietam Farm is the only historic component of the built environment within the APE for this undertaking. Although the 7 -acre National Register boundary for Antietam Farm is outside of the limits of disturbance for the proposed roadway, the Trust requests the opportunity to review detailed roadway plans, when available, to assess the potential for indirect effects on this property. We urge Washington County to establish an appropriate buffer surrounding Antietam Farm when contemplating commercial development opportunities along Yale Drive. We also look forward to receiving the Phase I archeological survey of the proposed project area as requested in our earlier letter. 100 CPmntunity Place Crownsville, Maryland 21032,2023 Telephone: 410.5147600 -- Fax: 410.987.4071 . Toll Free. 1.800.756 0112 . TTY Users: Maryland Relay ............ c....tt_. e.,........t.., a_... Mr. Scott Hobbs Yale Drive Extension — Phase I Hagerstown, Washington County Once we have received the additional information requested in this letter, the Trust will continue its review of the undertaking and provide appropriate comments and recommendations. If you have questions or require further assistance, please contact me (for the historic built environment) at 410-514-7637 / ttamburrin mdp state and us or Beth Cole (for archeology) at 410-514-7631 / bcole amdp.state.md.us. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Tim Tamburrino Preservation Officer 201200264 Cc: Bob Rosenbush (MDP) Kristi Hewlett (SHA) Paula Reed (Paula S. Reed & Associates) Steve Goodrich (Washington County HDC) Guy Winterberg (Id -County Council for Western Maryland) Addendum to Inventory No. WA -I-065 Maryland Historical Trust Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form Page 1 of 1 Name of Property: Antietam Hall Location: 525 Indian Lane, Hagerstown, MD This addendum is to update information on Antietam Hall, which was listed in the National Register in 1979. As of January 2012, Antietam Hall is located within an Area of Potential Effect for the Yale Drive Extension —Phase I project. Currently Yale Drive runs northeasterly, from Mt Aetna Road to Medical Campus Drive. The proposed extension continues Yale Drive in a northeasterly direction to the west side of the Hagerstown Community College campus. The proposed route of the extension passes through lands historically associated with Antietam Hall, and the seven -acre Antietam Hall National Register nominated area lies about 1500 feet north of the proposed route. In 2012, Antietam Hall appears much as it did when it was nominated to the National Register in the 1970s. Some changes have taken place: The early 20th century across -the -front porch has been removed from the main house, and the secondary house which was in very deteriorated condition in 1974 when photographed for the MIHP, has been rehabilitated and is currently used as a residence. A new brick two story brick addition was attached to the east end wall of the secondary house. The addition was constructed to be reminiscent of a mid -19th century farmhouse and is easily distinguishable from the original secondary dwelling, yet compatible with regional construction. The secondary house which utilizes Flemish bond brickwork at the front elevation and has front and rear watertables appears to be contemporary with the main house. Antietam Hall continues to maintain historic and visual integrity and continues to retain the qualities of distinctive design and workmanship as well as associations with the past that make it worthy of listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Date: 1117/12 Prepared by: Paula Reed, PhD WA -I-065 Antietam Hall 525 Indian Lane Hagerstown, Washington County, MD Yale Drive Extension, Phase I Digital Photo Log HP 100 Gray Photo Cartridge HP Premium Plus Photo Paper WA-I-065_2012-01-10_01.tif. Overall view of secondary house, main house, and barn, view NW. WA -I-065 2012-01-10_02.tif: Main house, NE elevation, view SW. WA -I-065 2012-01-10_03.6£ Main house, SW and SE elevations, view N. WA -I-065 2012-01-10_04.tif: Secondary house, SE and NE elevations, view NW. WA -I-065 2012-01-10_05.ti£ Secondary house, NW and SW elevations, view SE. WA -I-065 2012-01-10_06.tif: Barn, SE and NE elevations, view NW. Phase I Archeological Survey for the Proposed Extension of Yale Drive, Hagerstown Vicinity, Washington County, Maryland By Tery Harris, M.A Project Archaeologist Elizabeth Comer Project Principal Elizabeth Anderson Corner Archaeology 4304 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD Prepared for Paula Reed and Associates, Inc. Hagerstown MD Draft March 2012 ABSTRACT EAC/A, Inc. completed surface examination and subsurface testing within a roughly 4,500 -foot long alignment 100 -foot wide east of Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland. Most of the testing area consisted of actively used agricultural fields between crops, a small segment at the eastern end of the alignment is covered with regrowth forest. The remainder of the approximately 4,900 -foot full project alignment has already been extensively disturbed, and was exempted from testing. Survey testing included 168 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) excavated at 50 foot intervals, and recovered only minimal cultural material. Seven test locations produced at total of 10 items, including four pieces of modem fabric, a wire nail, a wire or wire nail fragment, a partial alloy handle, a piece of coal slag, and two redware sherds. All recovered material is interpreted as field scatter. As no intact resources were identified during the present study, no further archeological work is recommended. Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Project Location and Environmental Setting................................................................................4 ResearchDesign..........................................................................................................................6 Background and Archival Research.........................................................................................6 FieldMethodology..................................................................................................................6 LaboratoryMethods................................................................................................................6 Background and Archival Research...........................................................................................13 Resources Previously Registered in the Project Vicinity........................................................13 Previous Cultural Resource Studies in the Project Vicinity....................................................13 DevelopmentContext................................................................................................................19 PrehistoricContext................................................................................................................19 HistoricContext....................................................................................................................21 Historic Development of the Specific Study Area..................................................................24 FieldResults.............................................................................................................................26 Stratigraphy within the Study Area........................................................................................26 Recovered Cultural Material..................................................................................................33 Summary and Interpretation......................................................................................................33 ReferencesCited.......................................................................................................................34 ii List of Figures Figure 1, Project Location on the 1985 Funkstown, MD and 1985 Hagerstown, MD 7.5 Minute USGSQuadrangles.....................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Project Location Within Maryland Archeological Research Units...............................3 Figure 3. NRCS Soil Mapping, Project Alignment and Vicinity.................................................5 Figure 4. Testing locations and exempted areas..........................................................................7 Figure 5. Surveyor's stake, Station 81+00 looking southwest from circa 2010 roadway and parking area, Hagerstown Community College (HCC)................................................................8 Figure 6. View of new roadway and new parking area, looking southeast towards the main campus........................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 7. View looking west along south edge of LOD from Station 44+00 towards disturbed western portion of proposed alignment........................................................................................9 Figure 8. View looking north from center line at roughly Station 41+00, towards bulldozed dirt pilesnorth of LOD......................................................................................................................9 Figure 9. View looking east along tree -line between properties and agricultural fields. Proposed center -line stakes follows this tree -line between roughly Stations 40+50 and 44+00..................10 Figure 10. Disturbance at Station 40+50 and west, looking west...............................................10 Figure 11. LOD north and west of center -line at Station 40+50 ................................................11 Figure 12. View looking east from end of existing Yale Drive, over artificial topography exemptedfrom testing...............................................................................................................1 l Figure 13. View looking north from between Yale Drive and Tranquility Circle, at area of artificial topography exempted from testing..............................................................................12 Figure 14. 1859 Taggert and Downin A Map of Washington County, Maryland .......................25 25 Figure 15. Proposed Alignment on the 1912 (1908,1910) USGS Hagerstown, MD 15 Minute Quadrangle................................................................................................................................27 Figure 16. Testing locations, Stations 81+00 to 65+00, eastern stretch of proposed alignment..28 Figure 17. Testing locations, Stations 65+00 to 48+00, central stretch of proposed alignment ..29 Figure 18. Testing locations, Stations 48+00 to 40+50, western stretch of proposed alignment..30 Figure 19. 1959 USGS Aerial photograph of Hagerstown vicinity, Washington County, Maryland...................................................................................................................................31 Figure 20. 1971 USGS Aerial photograph of Hagerstown vicinity, Washington County, Maryland...................................................................................................................................32 iii List of Tables Table 1. Previously registered archeological sites within a two-mile radius of the study area.....14 Table 2. Registered architectural resources within a two-mile radius of the study area..............15 List of Appendices Appendix I: Qualification of Investigators Appendix II: Artifact Catalog Appendix III: STP Logs iv Introduction EAC/Archaeology, Inc., as a subcontractor to Frederick, Seibert, and Associates and Paula S. Reed and Associates, conducted Phase I archeological survey investigations of the proposed alignment for the extension of Yale Drive, east of Hagerstown in Washington County, Maryland. This Washington County project will utilize federal funding through the Appalachian Regional Commission, and is thus subject to cultural resources review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The project area is located roughly two miles southeast of the historic core of Hagerstown, Maryland, in Washington County (Figure 1). This falls within Council for Maryland Archeology Maryland Archeological Research Unit 19, the Antietam Creek-Conococheague Creek Drainage, within the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province (Figure 2). The proposed project involves construction of approximately 3,400 feet of a four -lane roadway and approximately 1,500 feet of two-lane roadway. As this project is in early planning stages, no design plans were available for review, but a 100 -foot Limit of Disturbance has been assumed for the full proposed alignment. Subsurface impact has been assumed for the entire proposed alignment. The survey area consists of roughly 11.3 acres, or 4.6 hectares. As no engineering plans were available for use, all testing was conducted based on the pre -staked, surveyed centerline for the proposed alignment. All report graphics are based on the alignment and station markings from that survey, as supplied by Frederick, Seibert, and Associates. Archival research was conducted during the two weeks field work was also completed, between January 24 and February 2, 2012. Additional archival research was conducted afterwards as scheduling allowed. Ms. Elizabeth Comer served as Project Principal for the project. Tery Harris served as Project Archaeologist and primary archival researcher the project. Ms. Megan Berry, Mr. Joseph Clemens, Mr. Norm Charles, and Mr. Lucas Bowman served as field technicians. Ms. Harris prepared the artifact catalog, completed all GIS graphics, and authored the report. The qualifications of the primary investigators are presented in Appendix I. This report follows the outline presented in the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994). 1 Figure 1. Project Location on the 1985 Funkstown, MD and 1985 Hagerstown, MD 7.5 Minute USGS Quadrangles. s � f a � s � Cd .0 'c o F7 .�7 a N U w Project Location and Environmental Setting The survey area is located in Washington County, within the Council for Maryland Archeology Archeological Research Unit 19. This region is part of the Great Valley, an area underlain by early Paleozoic strata composed primarily of limestone and dolomite. The predominance of limestone, a material that has a relatively solubility in ground water, has resulted in karst topography in the region, evidenced by sinkholes and caves and deranged surface drainage patterns. The survey alignment crosses over several ridges overlooking Antietam Creek, which is less than a mile to the north and west of the project area. Elevations vary from 520 feet amsl to 580 feet amsl, with the highest ridge near the eastern terminus. The alignment crosses one intermittent or seasonal first order tributary flowing northwest into Antietam Creek. Currently, the majority of the study area consists of agricultural fields. The eastern terminus is within the Hagerstown Community College Campus, and crosses across a short area of regrowth forest before coming out into the agricultural fields. The western roughly 500 feet of the proposed alignment passes through an area of artificial mounds presumed to be associated with construction of the adjacent Meritus Medical Center and Robinwood retirement communities. Soils in the study area vicinity include primarily Duffield silt loams, Ryder -Duffield channery silt loams, Ryder -Rock outcrop complex, and Duffield -Rock outcrop complex (Figure 3). All of the soils represent well or moderately well drained soils. The small areas of greater than 8% slope generally exhibit eroded soil profiles. Duffield series soils are very deep, well -drained upland soils formed in residuum from impure limestone. A typical profile includes a plowzones of brown silt loam to a depth of roughly twelve inches over a brownish yellow silt loam upper B Horizon. Lower subsoil horizons exhibit increasing clay content with depth and colors in the 7.5YR and 1 0YR color sequence. Ryder series soils are moderately deep, well drained upland soils formed in residuum derived from calcareous shale limestone. A typical profile includes a shallow dark grayish brown silt loam A0 in areas of undisturbed soil, and a brown channery silt loam plowzone in agricultural fields. Where present, there is a thin, five inch E Horizon of light yellowish brown silt loam. Below roughly 12 inches in depth, the B Horizon in a yellowish brown silt loam grading to silty clay loam with depth. The C Horizon is generally encountered above three feet in depth, and consists of a mottled yellowish brown and strong brown channery silt loam. 4 l +1 a \. ME o Research Design The primary objective of the Phase I study was to determine if there were undocumented prehistoric or historic archeological resources within the defined project Limit of Disturbance (LOD). Given the survey areas placement on ridges over -looking a major water course (Antietam Creek), and the presence of a small first order tributary, the area was considered to have a moderate to high potential for small prehistoric campsites. Background and Archival Research Background research to review information about known archeological resources in the area and previous studies in the vicinity, was undertaken utilizing the site files and reports available at the Maryland Historic Trust Library. Additional archival work was conducted during and after field work was completed, which included review of published nineteenth century histories of the region, examination of the vertical files of the Western Maryland Room of Hagerstown Free Library, and assorted cartographic resources available through the United States Geological Survey, the Library of Congress, and Johns Hopkins University. Field Methodology To adequately identify any potential resources, EAC/A used a research strategy which combining surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing at 50 -foot intervals matching the surveyor's center -line stakes. The survey utilized two transects, each offset 25 feet from the center -line (Figure 4). Shovel Test Pits (STPs) averaged 40 centimeter wide. All test locations were designated by the Station mark and the direction of 25 -foot displacement (north or south of the center -line). Testing began at Station 81+00, the eastern most surveyor's stake, and proceeded west until it reached Station 40+50, after which the proposed alignment passed through deeply disturbed and mounded soils (Figures 5 to 13). Radial test locations were placed at 12.5 -foot intervals off positive test locations. Radials were not placed off modern materials or suspected fencing materials. A total of 168 test locations were excavated during this study: 160 primary transect locations and 8 ancillary radial test locations. An additional three primary transect locations were planned, but exempted in the field as they represented sites of localized disturbance or impervious impediments (log and stone piles). All excavated soils were screened through '/-inch hardware cloth mesh, and all artifacts were retained for subsequent lab processing. Cultural material was bagged by horizontal and vertical provenience and further distinguished by feature number, if pertinent. Laboratory Methods All artifacts that were collected were washed and catalogued, in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Schaffer and Cole 1994) and Collections and Conservation Standards (Maryland Historical Trust [MHT] 2005). A complete catalog is presented in Appendix II. As all materials recovered are interpreted as field scatter or isolated finds, it is anticipated that no artifacts from this project will be curated. 6 II i i�� Figure 13. View looking north from between Yale Drive and Tranquility Circle, at area of artificial topography exempted from testing. The present end of Yale Drive is visible in the background. 12 Background and Archival Research Resources Previously Registered in the Project Vicinity Review of the archeological site files on record with MHT indicate that there are only five registered archeological sites and one quad note on record that are located within a two mile radius of the study area. Table 1 presents basic information about these sites. Three sites represent historic sites (two dating from the late 18`h Century, and one from the 19`h Century). The two prehistoric sites reported consist of undatable sites known primarily from advocational collections. The one quad note, Quad Note 7, marks the presumed location for site reported by a William Davis in 1997, but provides no additional information. None of the reported sites are within a half -mile of the proposed alignment. Most previously registered sites are associated with Antietam Creek, including historic sites. A review of MHT historic structure files was also conducted, in order to provide information on general settlement patterns during the historic period. This review identified 83 previously identified resources within a two-mile radius of the study area. Table 2 lists these historic resources. These resources reflect historic settlement in the immediate project vicinity, which dates from the mid -eighteenth century and continued through the later nineteenth century. Overall there are 21 resources dating from the eighteenth century, 19 resources from the first half of the nineteenth century, 28 from the last half of the nineteenth century, 14 from the twentieth century, and two resources registered, for which there is no information on file. The majority of eighteenth century resources are north of the present project alignment, associated with Hagerstown, Antietam Creek, and present Jefferson Boulevard (Route 64). Early nineteenth century resources are roughly evenly distributed within the two-mile research radius, and later nineteenth century resources exhibit clustering around both older roadways and Antietam Creek. Previous Cultural Resource Studies in the Project Vicinity Review of the cultural resource survey maps maintained by MHT indicated no previous cultural resource study had included the present project area. Five studies have been conducted within a two-mile radius of the present study area (Epperson 1979, Verrey and Otter 1983, Fehr et al. 2000, Schopp and Lawrence 2007, and Workman et al. 2008). The closest of these studies (Epperson 1979) was conducted along a portion of the Antietam Creek valley, more than half -a - mile to the west. Terrance Epperson conducted an archaeological reconnaissance in 1979 as part of the relocation of MD Route 60 on the east side of Hagerstown, in an area which encompassed both sides of Antietam Creek (Epperson 1979). That study examined only 10-20% of the defined study area, of much of that was subject only to intensive surface examination. Very limited subsurface testing was conducted. The study reported five archaeological sites and seven previously unrecorded archaeological fmds with insufficient artifact density or depositional integrity to be considered a site. Identified sites included two small prehistoric lithic scatters (18WA138 and 140), a small Woodland Period campsite (18WA141), an historic mill and farm complex (18WA139), and a small mid -18a' century farmstead site (18WA142). The 1983 Thunderbird Archeological Associates study examined the proposed tower sites for a new electrical transmission line. This study also consisted primarily of surface examination, and subsurface testing was restricted to the limited number of proposed tower sites which were considered to have high potential for archaeological resources and exhibited less than 50% 13 H 7 tl.�o0� bacoco N b0 2 Co o y b rob N Gj o1ro ."TH b s7 �.. b W a� T ti .fl r o O m q icl O A ti p q' 22 oti.Emow^ f� y`�Y y0 O N O YO � � p N �'U L�� ❑q Cl) Q-oOcdDc1r o,11,-1 o b b v W a V qq� G q� G V O p C., y Op U p a l 2 20 0 o a, w o ro 3o do �7 �U °U.1NU P: , v ti i7 p i� O hi Cd bA C C y 37, 0 0 30 00 w q eo0:.% 3�0 (ID xx Uci p ogp VI {si �i3 oy a V M m -. Cl00 Y 3 3 3 3 3 VD q CC 00 00 Table 2. Registered architectural resources within a two-mile radius of the study area Designation Common Name NR Period Comments Roughly 220 contributing resources dating WA -I-529 Funkstown HD Y 1767-1950 from the late 18th to the mid -20th centuries. Main house stone, pyramidal -roofed stone HAG -093 Graystone Manor Early 19th outbuilding HAG -155 Fox-decieved Farm Late 18th Also Old Stonebraker Farm. Includes over 2000 structures, most described HAG -158 Hagerstown HD Y 1762 to Early 20th as late 19th.and early 20th century Potomac -Broadway Just under 200 structures, primarily dating HAG -159 HD 18th to Early 20th from 1870 to 1930. HAG -161 570 Jefferson St Late 18th -Early 19th Rubble stone house. HAG -162 523 Jefferson St Mid -19th One storey brick on stone foundation. 7.5 acre public park, with formal garden, pond HAG -176 Pangborn Park 1939 and stone pavilion, fields, and picnic facilities. Brick farmhouse, pyramical-roof brick Howell Rd outbuilding, frame bank barn on stone HAG -177 Farmstead Mid -to Late 19th foundation. Late 18th to Early HAG -190 Andrew Hager Mill 19th 3.5 storey stone mill Miller's House in HAG -191 Hager Park c. 1791, Late 19th 2.5 storey brick. Pangborn blasting and dust control equipment HAG -212 Corporation c.1920 facturer Alt 40 over Antietam Creek e arch bridge, modified with reinforced WA -I-029 (Bridge 21018) 1823, 1931 ete and stone farmhouse with log WA -I-030 Warrenfeltz Farm 19th ilding WA -I-031 Alter Farm Mid -19th ey brick on stone. M Smauel McCauley Farm, 2 Storey brick tone, 2 storey brick tenant house, and WA -I-032 Melrose Manor 1850 outbuildingsrey brick on stone, stone smoke house,WA-I-062 FunkHouse 1831 the Warvel Farm. 2 storey stone house,WA-I-063 The Snavely Farm Mid -19th arn,and other outbuildings. 2 storey brick on stone. Possible ford and Mill WA -I-064 Hidden Hill Early 19th location near property. 2 storey brick on stone. Barn, outbuildings, WA -I-065 Antietam Hall Y Late 18th and possible tenant house also on property. Brick -cased log WA -I-066 house 19th, Late 19th 2 storey brick -cased log on stone. WA -I-067 Stone building 18th 1 storey stone. North American Also the Ground Farm. 2 storey brick on WA -I-068 Rod and Gun Club Early -to -mid 19th stone, remains of stone springhouse. Also Rowland Farm. 2 storfDn stone, WA -I-069 Mayes Farm 1850s stone outbuilding, dated out1811Part of a large modernizcomplex including a secondary housed as a garage but dated 1818, riginally WA -I-070 Jacob Rohrer House c. 1752, 1802, 1922 recorded included a walled c Also Rohrer's Mill. Stone grist mill, also WA -I-071 Trovinger Mill c.1771 second later mill at site. Remants of mill race 15 Designation Common Name NR Period Comments present when originally recorded. The Lester Line WA -I-072 House Early 19th 1.5 storey stone. WA -I-073 Joseph Bingham Early 19th, 1910 2 storey stone. Brick -cased log 2 storey brick on stone, rebuilt stone WA -I-074 house Early -to -mid 19th outbuilding, and barn. Also the Hamilton Michael Farm. 2 storey WA -I-075 The Snavely Farm 18th, 19th brick on stone, stone end bank barn. 2 storey stuccoed stone, brick pyramidal roof WA -I-093 Stone Court Manor 1782, possible 19th springhouse. Historically included mill seat. Brick house on WA -I-094 Antietam Creek Mid -19th 1.5 storey brick on stone. WA -I-107 Rock Hall Late 18th -Early 19th Also Shenafield Farm. 2 and 2.5 storey stone, Also Funk Farm or Davis House. 2 storey stone, log outbuilding, 1.5 storey stone house WA -I- 116 Rockland Farm 1773 (WA -I-117). Also part of Rockland Farm. 1.5 storey stone WA -I-117 Wolfinger House 18th, 19th and frame. 1.5 storey log on stone. Possibly worker's WA -I-118 Dayhoff House Later 19th housing from Antietam Paper Mill. 1.5 storey log on stone and concrete. Possibly WA -I-119 The Souders House Later 19th worker's housing from Antietam Paper Mill. 1.5 storey log on stone. Possibly worker's WA -I-120 The HIick House Later 19th housing from Antietam Paper Mill. 1.5 storey brick on stone. Originally a double house, possibly worker's housing from WA -I-121 Ridenour House Later 19th Antietam Paper Mill. WA -I-122 Small Stone House Early 19th Varies between f and 3 stories, stone. Hagerstown Paint and Glass Company Also Antietam Paper Mills, Schmidt & Ault WA -I-123 Warehouse 1874 Paper Company. Brick industrial. 2 storey stone. May also include an earlier WA -I-124 1774 Stone House 1774 stone house foundation on site. 2 storey stone. Stone barn foundation also WA -I-125 1794 present on site. Original site of the church and churchyard, congregation moved in 1787. No surface WA -I-126 Antietam Church 18th indications of cemetery. 1.5 storey brick on stone. Possibly worker's WA -I-127 Small Brick House Later 19th housing from Antietam Paper Mill. 1.5 storey brick on stone. Possibly worker's WA -1-128 Small Brick House Later 19th housing from Antietam Paper Mill. WA -I-129 Log House 18th, 19th 2 storey log house. WA -I-132 Loose Farm Late 18th -Early 19th 1.5 storey stone. 2 storey log on stone, with several WA -I-133 Loose Farm 19th outbuildings. 2.5 storey log house, frame outbuildings, and stone end bank barn across the road dating to WA -I-178 Large Log House Early 19th 1850. Gypsy Tea Room WA -I-283 and Gas Station Early 20th 1 storey frame. 2 storey stone house with 2.5 storey wing, WA -I-371 Winders farm Early 19th stone end bank barn (Swisser Barn). Samuel Baker's Also Baker -Hebb Farm, 2 to 3 storey stone WA -I-431 Home PlaceBaker- Early 19th house, stone bank barn, and stone summer 16 Designation Common Name NR Period Comments Hebb Farm kitchen. Turn of the Century 2 storey log and frame, frame bank barn. WA -I-433 Farmstead c. 1900 Dating based on exterior treatments. 2 storey brick house, frame barn boned in WA -I-434 Brick Farmhouse Mid -19th 1975. 2 storey stone house, stone end bank barn, and WA -I-435 Landis Farm Early 19th stone outbuildings. WA -I-436 Hager's Mill Bridge 1848, 1909 Stone arch bridge, modified with concrete 2 storey frame. Dating based on exterior WA -I-437 Large Frame House Early 20th treatments. Demolished Log 2 storey weatherboarded log house and large WA -I-438 House 19th brick on stone bank barn. Demolished in 1975. 2 storey brick house, frame bank barn, frame outbuildings. Additional research has Late 19th Century identified this as the circa 1905 Jospeh Young WA -I-439 Brick House Late 19th Mt Aetna Farm. WA -I-440 Sheather Log House Late 19th Log on stone, stoune outkitchen, Melrose Manor (Secondary WA -I-441 dwelling) 19th 1.5 storey log on stone. Sided House with Exposed Chimney WA -I-442 Back Early 19th 2 storey log or frame, brick smokehouse. Part of Madcap's WA -I-449 Meadow Early 19th 2 to 3 storey stone, stone outkitchen. Small Brick 1.5 storey brick cased log or frame with frame WA -I-450 Veneered House 19th addition. WA -I-463 Yellow Brick House c.1900 2 storey brick duplex with additions. Brick House with WA -I-464 Two Tier Porch c.1880 2.5 storey brick. Charles Hykes WA -I-465 Huose c1890-1910 2 storey frame. 2 storey brick on stone with addtion, frame Garling-Spessard bank barn, brick outbuilding, and frame WA -I-474 Farm c.1860 slaughterhouse. Ernest L. Smith WA -I-475 House Late 19th 2 storey frame on stone. WA -I-476 Dayhoff Barn Late 19th Frame on stone bank barn. Doughboy Bronze statuary and granite base, monument WA -I-527 Monument 1921 to WWI soldiers and subsequent additions. US 40 over Branch of Antietam (Bridge WA -I-730 21013) 1941 reinforced concrete. Jefferson St Bridge WA -I-733 of Hamilton Run No documentation on file. WB US40 Bridge WA -I-842 21014 1936 Concrete arch bridge. MD 64 over Antietam (Bridge WA -I-843 21028) 1934 Concrete arch bridge. 1.5 storey frame bungalow with craftsment detailing, concrete foundation. Found not WA -I-870 368 Pangborn Blvd Mid -20th eligible in 1996. 2.5 storey American four-square frame WA -I-871 371 Pangborn Blvd Early 20th structure. Found not eligible in 1996. 17 Designation Common Name NR Period Comments 1.5 storey frame bungalow. Found not eligible WA -I-872 374 Pangbron Blvd 1929 in 1996. No record on file, number reserved for WA -I-885 USACOE. Ditto Farm Regional Park. 2 storey brick on Henry McCauley stone, stone end frame bank barn, brick WA -II -092 Farm Y Early 19th outkitchen. Barn dated 1833. 2 storey stuccoed stone, frame bank barn. WA -H-135 Landis -Helm Farm 1861 18th century cemetery on site. 2 storey frame with stone addition which may WA -II -137 Price Farm Early 20th be older. surface visibility. The study identified no new sites, and the only resources noted (a 19th Century cemetery and three isolated finds) were well outside the present project area. The 2000 Hagerstown Streetscape Project consisted solely of construction monitoring within the historic core of the Hagerstown Historic District (Fehr et at 2000). The only archaeological resources encountered consisted of brick arch drains associated with earlier street configurations, and a ceramic connecting pipe. The Chewsville Streetscape study in contrast included subsurface testing of high potential areas along the main street (Twin Springs Drive), determined by predictive modeling (Schopp and Lawrence 2007). This project identified one small lithic scatter (18WA552), a relatively dense Middle Woodland site.(18WA553), and a early 19th Century deposits within the parcel holding a late nineteenth century structure (WA -I-098). No site number seems to have been assigned to this last resource. The final study was conducted at the site of the proposed Hagerstown Light Business Park, falling within the boundaries of the earlier Epperson study (Workman et al. 2008). This 29 acre study conducted controlled surface collection over roughly half of the study area, and subsurface testing along 20 meter intervals within wooded areas. The area of the previously reported Loose Farm was both surface collected and subject to subsurface testing. Despite the recovery of more than 500 historic artifacts from the mid -19th to the early 20t' centuries, the authors concluded that past disturbance and low artifact densities made the two defined concentrations poor candidates for further study, and found the sites not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It is assumed that the site has since been destroyed. 18 Development Context Prehistoric Context The Mid -Atlantic region was occupied for 10,000 years or more by small populations who lived a relatively mobile life, based on hunting and gathering wild resources. These early populations left generally small sites in locations associated with environmentally productive areas. Archaeologists divide this time span into a number of periods (typically encompassing the Paleoindian, Archaic, and earlier Woodland Period). Starting about 1,000 years ago, larger and more sedentary populations developed, enabled at some point in this time span by the introduction of domesticated plants such as corn, beans, and squash. Most of these larger, semi- permanent villages were located near major rivers in the Piedmont or along the shores of the Coastal Plain. The following context provides a generalized model of settlement and subsistence during the various sub -periods of prehistory. The Paleoindian Period At the end of the Pleistocene, approximately 10,000 years ago, the melting glaciers began to raise world sea levels. The environment at this time was quite different from the modern one. The Atlantic coastline was over 40 miles east of its present location (Kraft 1976). During this period of glacial warming, the climate was probably three to eight degrees colder than at present, and the vegetation consisted of spruce, pine, fir, and alder (Brush 1986:149, Leedecker and Holt 1991:72). The Paleoindian Period is considered to have been based on big game hunting, particularly of now -extinct species, and is characterized by distinctive fluted projectile points. Although no Paleoindian artifacts associated with extinct species have been found in the east, excavations such as those at the Shawne-Minisinlc Site have recovered some evidence that the eastern Paleoindian populations utilized many of the plant resources important in later prehistoric periods and may have begun to utilize fish as a resource (Dent 1985, McNett 1985). These early hunter -gatherers probably traveled long distances to obtain food and the raw material for tool production, as has been shown by studies of lithic procurement systems centered on the Thunderbird site in Virginia and other Mid -Atlantic sites (Gardner 1977, Custer 1984). Within the Great Valley, Stewart noted seven sites. yielding Paleoindian diagnostics, three of which occurred along the St. James/Marsh Run drainage (Stewart 1980:320). However, he also notes that, due to the ready availability of chert across the Great Valley and its unpredictable quality, it is unlikely that major base camps and quarry sites are present within the Valley. He instead proposes that primary Paleoindian utilization consisted of hunting stations and camps, representing small group or even individual forays into the Hagerstown Valley. These sites appear to be closely associated with floodplains, alluvial fans, or low terraces of third and higher order streams, and typically possess a southern exposure (Stewart 1980:325). The St. James Run sites, specifically, he associates with the marl forming ponds and marshes of the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene. The Archaic Period By 8,000 B.C., there was a change in tool varieties, with stemmed and side -notched projectile points replacing the earlier fluted varieties. Virginia Deer were the primary large game animal 19 hunted, although bones of a number of other smaller animals recovered archeologically show that a wide variety of species were successfully hunted. The appearance of mortars and pestles suggests that vegetable foods assumed greater importance. These changes have been interpreted as a shift in subsistence strategies towards a broad-spectrum adaptation, utilizing a number of species of animals and plants, rather than focusing primarily on large animals. New evidence from Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites suggests that the transition from the Paleoindian way of life in the east was not a sharp break, but rather a gradual transition. In the Mid -Atlantic, Archaic sites are much more numerous, larger, and richer in artifacts than the earlier Paleoindian sites (Hudson 1976, Funk 1978). They represent a series of adaptations that were increasingly sedentary and focused on large rivers and major tributaries. Other, often smaller, sites located away from the main streams probably represent seasonal or other specialized activities. Increasing territoriality and regional diversity are reflected in the varieties of artifacts, especially projectile points, through the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic periods. Archaic assemblages are characterized by the predominance of rhyolite. The primary deposits utilized by prehistoric populations in the Valley lie in the Catoctin Mountains, adjacent to the northeast edge of the Hagerstown Valley. Early Archaic sites demonstrate a gradual transition from a preference for cryptocrystalline lithic resources to a preference for rhyolite and a concomitant change in lithic technologies. By the Late Archaic, rhyolite dominates the lithic assemblages (Stewart 1908:351-352). The preference for rhyolite resources may be a factor in the higher incidence of Early and Middle Archaic sites in the eastern portion of the Valley, especially along the Antietam Creek and St. James/Marsh Run complex drainages (Stewart 1980:328-349). Environmental setting appears to remain the primary factor in settlement patterning throughout the Archaic. As absolute population numbers went up, the resulting number of sites and the degree of site revisitation increased. Within the Valley, the same ecological niches were preferentially exploited, while new ecological niches opened by the Boreal Period climate changes were incorporated, into an opportunistic subsistence pattern in the Early and Middle Archaic, and into the seasonal pattern in the Late Archaic (Stewart 1980:336-349, 355-356). Revisited and short term camps continued to be associated with higher order stream junctions and floodplains. Specifically, the marsh environments within the St. James/Marsh Run drainage continued to be foci of settlement. The Woodland Period It was previously thought that the cultural break around 1,500 B.C. represented the introduction of horticulture. It is now believed that cultivated foods played a relatively small role in prehistoric diets during the Early Woodland. Caldwell has suggested that a very efficient hunting and gathering system may have made the acceptance of cultigens slow at first (Caldwell 1958). Only after new cultigens, associated with groups from the south and west, were introduced did agriculture begin to assume the central role that was observed at the time of European contact (Fitting 1968). 20 Changes in settlement and subsistence strategies between Late Archaic and Early Woodland populations in the Hagerstown Valley can be seen more clearly in artifact assemblages, rather than in environmental settings: The range of environmental setting in which Early Woodland sites are found are almost exactly the nature and distribution of Late Archaic sites. With the exception of first order stream environments, site with Late Archaic components generally always possess an Early Woodland component. (Stewart 1980:371-372) Early Woodland tool kits demonstrate even greater preference for rhyolite than preceding periods did. This may reflect the development of full modern climatic conditions, the increased subsistence viability of mountain and intermontane settings containing these lithic resources, and adoption of seasonal rotations that included the utilization of these resources (Stewart 1980:371). Middle and Late Woodland assemblages demonstrate decreased rhyolite use, lower than in any of the preceding periods. Middle Woodland settlement patterns mirror Early Woodland environmental preferences, but represent more consistent use of base camps in floodplains and stream junctures and more intermittent use of high terrace settings. Use of first order stream valleys appears to be minimal during the later Middle Woodland (Stewart 1980:382). Late Woodland patterns represent an intensification of Middle Woodland trends, with base camps and revisited procurement stations focusing on fifth and higher order streams. Infrequently used upland zones appear to represent opportunistic forays out of favored base camps, rather than revisited locations that formed part of the seasonal rotation (Stewart 1980:396). When Europeans arrived, the region was claimed by the Seneca, a group of Iroquois speakers (Abler and Tooker 1978). Stewart notes that this area was a meeting of several tribal areas, with Shawnee settlements to the west, and Tuscarora to the east, while the intervening area represented lands "controlled" by the Iroquois Five Nations (referred to as the Seneca by the Maryland settlers) and used as an access route between the more northern settlements and their enemies to the south (Stewart 1981:44-46). Scharf, writing in the late nineteenth century, noted the Shawnee in Allegany County to the west and the Seneca and the Tuscarora (as part of the Iroquois Nation) as their neighbor (Scharf 1968: 46-51, 53-54). These groups shared similar subsistence patterns. They lived most of the year in settled villages and had hereditary leaders. Their seasonal subsistence cycle included cultivation of beans, corn, and squash, while deer were the most important faunal resource (Stephenson and Ferguson 1963, Humphrey and Chambers 1985). The introduction of European diseases, deforestation, and competition from other indigenous groups, as well as European military and civil conflict, all played important roles in the reduction and eventual migration of the Native populations from Western Maryland (Bedell et al. 2009). Historic Context Organized European settlement of Western Maryland began in the early eighteenth century (Scharf 1882:58-69). The majority of these settlements began near the Potomac River or major tributaries. Settlement in the early eighteenth century was sparse and somewhat intermittent. By the mid -eighteenth century, the population in Western Maryland was large enough to motivate 21 the formation of Frederick County, which at• the time extended as far west as modern Garrett County. The influx of settlers continued through the late eighteenth century, especially once the eastern tobacco land was taken up and subsequently exhausted, and, in 1776, the region was divided again. The northwestern portion of the then -Frederick County became Washington County. Washington County remained unchanged until 1789, when it was split again, and Allegany County was divided off to the west. Permanent European settlement of the territory that is now Washington County started with large land patents to early landholders, such as the 1736 patent of at least 10,000 acres to Lord Baltimore as "Conococheague Manor". While some of these large holdings were acquired for speculation and remained dormant or were sold intact to other large land holders, most patents were intended to provide incomes for their holders and to be improved by small land holders living as tenants of the patentee. Lord Baltimore, for example, used his large tract, Conococheague Manor, to provide smaller grants to attract settlement to region, granting 200 acre tracts to families willing to setting within his boundaries (Bedell et al. 2009:72). By the late 1700s, commercial centers had been established at Hagerstown (first called Elizabeth Town), near Antietam Creek and Williamsport on the Potomac, and the county population had exceeded 18,000 in 1800 (Scharf 1882:974). Population growth had its last big jump between 1810 and 1820, and thereafter population increased at a modest, but steady, rate through most of the nineteenth century. Many of the late eighteenth century settlers in the Hagerstown Valley were Germanic immigrants coming into Maryland through the Pennsylvania settlements in Adams, Somerset, and Franklin Counties to the north: Religious refugees, their groups included splinter sects such as Seventh Day Baptists and Dunkers (Church of the Brethren), as well as more common groups such as Lutheran, Mennonite, and German Reformed congregations. Other early immigrants included representatives of established Maryland gentry and Scotch -Irish immigrants. The county economy was based on agriculture. Although some areas of the county were suitable for tobacco farming, such as many of the broader stream valleys in the Hagerstown Valley, the great topographic relief and the mix of ethnic affiliations resulted in more mixed agricultural uses. The Germanic groups, especially, were culturally conditioned to favor mixed agricultural production, favoring grains (primarily wheat) over tobacco and including orchards and well - husbanded livestock as important components of their farm production. A few early industries were also present, such as Fort Frederick Forge, Mount Aetna Furnace, and Great Rock Furnace, all located within 10 miles of Hagerstown. Smaller industries, such as a nail factory in Hagerstown and numerous mills along the Conococheague and Antietam, and even a rope walk outside Hagerstown, also contributed to the non-agricultural economy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Early transportation development was also a major component of historic development in Washington County. The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was constructed through the region in the early 1800s and was carrying freight along the side of the Potomac by the 1830s. A 1797 Assembly Act authorized the creation of a turnpike from Baltimore through Frederick, Elizabeth Town (Hagerstown), and Williamsport (Scharf 1882:996). The Westminster to Hagerstown Turnpike was constructed between 1812-1816, forming part of the eventual National Turnpike to 22 the west (Scharf 1882:997). At least four other turnpike companies were in operation between 1805 and 1825. Regular stage service between Hagerstown and Baltimore was active by 1797, and regular mail stages were established in 1803 (Scharf 1882:1001-1002). Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the population of Washington County continued to increase slowly, both through natural increase and immigration. Many of the large land grants were subdivided by the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and the remaining unclaimed land was taken up in smaller grants. Larger land holdings were subdivided between multiple children, and, overall, the size of the average land holding probably started falling in the mid -nineteenth century. The Louis Berger study of the C&O Canal found that by the niid- nineteenth century, most of the dense settlement was inland, and the average land holding had been reduced to "...middle-sized family farms" (Bedell et al. 2009:109), while many county inhabitants were tenants. By the advent of the Civil War, Washington County had reached a population of over 31,000 people. The Hagerstown Valley suffered serious depredations during the Civil War. In addition to crop and livestock loss to army requisition, the Valley itself was a natural route north out of Virginia and was the location of one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War: Antietam. Union troops were occupying countryside camps as early as June of 1861. Stonewall Jackson marched troops through Boonsboro and Williamsport en route to his victory at Harpers Ferry in 1862, and troops likely moved through, camped, and were treated in temporary field hospitals after Antietam, also in 1862. Even Lee's army spent some time camped east of Williamsport, during his retreat after Gettysburg in 1863. Finally, Confederate troops under General Jubal Early marched on Boonsboro and occupied Hagerstown under Brigadier General McCausland in 1864. Even settlements not directly impacted by military engagements or "requisition" demands would still have experienced the effects of the War in the form of a severely reduced work force and an influx of wounded from both sides. After Appomattox, Washington County began the work of rebuilding its infrastructure and economy and returned to its primarily agricultural, rural focus. Although some portions of the population choose to migrate west to states such as Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, the overall population continued to grow, passing 34,000 residents by 1870. Agriculture continued to be the primary contributor to the county economy, with a strong focus on grains, especially wheat. Transportation networks, especially interior roads, continued to proliferate during the later nineteenth century. Completion of the southern alignments of the Cumberland Valley Railroad, originally charted in Pennsylvania in the 1830s, saw construction as far as Hagerstown under the name of the Franklin Railroad and was transferred to the Cumberland Valley Railroad sometime between 1859 and 1865 (Scharf 1882:1005, Becher et al. 2000:11). During the Civil War, the Cumberland Valley Railroad carried Union provisions; after the war, it carried grain, flour, livestock, and iron products from the Hagerstown Valley north to Harrisburg and Philadelphia (Becher et al. 2000:11). Access to the faster, and less punishing, transport of freight cars allowed larger scale commercial production of more perishable agricultural products, such as milk and tree fruits, which, in turn, affected farming patterns within the County. The rail line also carried passengers, with station stops at a number of small communities along the valley. 23 Patterns of agricultural production, land ownership, and settlement probably changed very little during the end of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. The next period of substantial change was most likely associated with the widespread adoption of the automobile, necessitating further infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased traffic, as well as changing the rhythm of farm marketing, since truck transport allowed the individual farmer greater control of the destination and timing of delivery of his product. By the mid -twentieth century, technological improvements and social and economic changes resulting from two world wars began to reach into even the predominately rural western Maryland counties. As more residents acquired commercial or clerical jobs, county land records indicate that many former farms were subdivided into smaller two or three acre lots, to be developed as purely residential lots. By the 1960s and 1970s, interstate highways were beginning to play a significant role in American commuter patterns. While commuter trains do not appear to have played a significant role in late nineteenth and early twentieth century county development, easy automobile access to Frederick and Baltimore, via US 70 and US 40, encouraged suburbanization of both Frederick (as a suburb of the Washington metropolitan area) and Hagerstown (as a suburb of Frederick). By the end of the twentieth century, far fewer county residents depended on agricultural production for their income, and many worked in commercial, professional, or service jobs associated with larger urban settlements to the east. Although several large tracts of land in the county are preserved, especially in the southern portion surrounding the Antietam Battlefield, the primary development pattern for much of current Washington• County. is increased suburban development, with new commercial •centers and residential clusters of development readily observable off of the US Route 70 and Route 40 corridors. Historic Development of the Specific Study Area The project alignment appears to run through the mid -eighteenth century Brother's Request patent of Ignatius Perre or Perry. Research of the Mt Aetna Farm tract (WA -I-439 to the south) compiled by Paula Reed Associates indicates that Perry subsequently subdivided his original 500 acre tract, and in 1765 sold just over 200 acres to Martin Rohrer, renamed Rohrer's Industry. Martin Rohrer's 204 acre tract become part of several parcels he acquired from the original Brother's Request grant, and upon which he developed Antietam Hall (WA -I-065 to the north) in the later eighteenth century (Dickey 1974). By his death in 1806, Rohrer had increased his land holding back to 500 acres. The property passed to his son-in-law Christian Newcomer, passed through several owners, and was eventually purchased by Frederick Bryan in 1847. The 1859 Taggert Map of Washington County clearly shows the Frederick Bryan holding and Antietam Hall north of the proposed. alignment (Figure 14). The Bryan family continued to develop Antietam Hall, with the property passing to Otho Bryan in 1871. Upon Otho Bryan's death in 1900 the tract was subdivided by the estate, with the northern parcel (containing Antietam Hall) passing to his son Frederick Bryan (II), and the southern 218 acres sold to Joseph Young in 1903. By 1908 Bryan was forced to sell the Antietam Hall parcel to Jacob Lemen to satisfy outstanding debts. 24 C J Joseph Young renamed his 218 acre farm Mt Aetna Farm, and appears to have operated it as one of several tenant farms ((Paula Reed, personal communication 2012). The farmhouse is visible on the 1912 Hagerstown, Maryland 15 -minute quadrangle, south of the proposed alignment (Figure 15). Joseph Young, and subsequently his son Russell Young, appear to have concentrated their efforts on dairy farming throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Although the Young family appears to have sold the farm for subsequent development in the 1980s or 1990s, the fields through which the proposed alignment is routed have remained in agricultural use up to the present date. Field Results All testing was conducted by following the surveyor's staked centerline, and offsetting testing locations at 90 degrees to the relative north and south of the stakes set at 50 -feet station intervals (Figures 16 to 18). A total of 168 STPs were excavated during field investigations for this study, including eight ancillary radial locations. An additional three test locations were planned but subsequently exempted from testing due to visible disturbance (bulldozed push piles) or physical obstacles (piled trees and large waste stone). All test excavations were carried at least 10 centimeters into sterile subsoils, unless blocked by rock outcrops. A table with all excavation profiles is provided in Appendix III. Stratigraphy within the Study Area Test excavations within the study area encountered two distinct stratigraphic sequences. By far the most common was simple plowzone over subsoil stratigraphy, which was encountered in all agricultural fields: In forested areas, which were restricted to the eastern alignment terminus and several tree lines preserved between fields, the typical stratigraphic profile included a thin A0 Horizon of darker organic rich soils over the A Horizon, with subsoil appearing between 35 and 50 centimeters beneath the surface, according to the topographic setting. The absence of observable interfaces suggest that the stratigraphy here may represent older plowzones which have subsequently developed after reforestation. Aerial photographs from 1959 and 1971 confirm this interpretation, as the area appears to be in field in 1959, and under very sparse •regrowth in 1971 (Figures 19 and 20). Only STY 71+00 N exhibited a possible interface, in this case between 19 and 30 centimeters and below the plowzone, and consisted of a mottling of the overlying plowzone dark yellowish brown silt clay loams with the yellowish red silty clay subsoil. However the appearance of sand in the soil texture of this layer, which appears neither above nor below this stratum, suggests this may also represent past soil disturbance. At the far western alignment terminus, fills and disturbed soil were encountered in two test locations adjacent to both established residential development and on -going earthmoving activities. STP 41+50 S, located adjacent to an obviously filled and terrace area off Tranquility Circle, exhibited two thin layers of fills over a deep plowzone (base at 55) and subsoil. STP 42+00 N exhibited three dark loamy layers which may represent deeper soil deposition or disturbance from adjacent earthmoving activities. Both of these test locations were sterile. 26 a C U C) J J C J a J J Recovered Cultural Material 161 of the 168 excavated test locations were sterile. Seven test locations produced cultural material, one of which (54+00 N) produced only modern field trash of synthetic cloth. Three other test locations represented widely separate field scatter: 61+50 S produced a single piece of coal slag, 48+00 S produced a fragment of wire or wire nail, and 43+50 N produced a partial squared alloy handle. All of this material was recovered from the plowzone. At the eastern end of the alignment, one test location (78+00 S) produced a single redware sherd from the A Horizon (possible historic plowzone). Two radials also produced material: the south radial of 78+00 S produced an additional piece of redware, while a misplaced southern radial at 78+50 N yielded a wire nail from the same stratum. All other radials were negative. Given a density of two sherds within a 25 -foot radius, or three artifacts within a 75 -foot radius, this material is not interpreted as an archaeological site, but most likely also represents field scatter in old, now reforested agricultural fields. One test location, 79+00 N produced a possible piece of debitage, but after cleaning in the laboratory it was determined to be non -cultural siltstone and discarded. Summary and Interpretation EAC/A, Inc. completed surface examination and subsurface testing within a roughly 4,500 -foot long alignment 100 -foot wide east of Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland. Most of the testing area consisted of actively used agricultural fields between crops, a small segment at the eastern end Iof the alignment is covered with regrowth forest. The remainder of the approximately 4,900 -foot full project alignment has already been extensively disturbed, and was exempted from testing. All agricultural fields exhibited the anticipated plowzone stratigraphy, and no deep stratigraphy with undisturbed or buried A Horizons were encountered. Forested areas at the eastern terminus and between defined agricultural fields exhibited similar stratigraphy, with the additional of a surface A0 Horizon. Transitions to subsoils in these areas was generally abrupt and without interface zones, and mid -twentieth century aerial photographs confirm that the eastern terminus area was also in use as a plowed field as recently as 1959. A large areas of modern disturbance were identified at the western terminus, associated with the adjacent retirement community to the south, and earthmoving activities to the north and west. Survey testing included 168 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) excavated at 50 foot intervals, and recovered only minimal cultural material. Seven test locations produced at total of 10 items, including four pieces of modern fabric, a wire nail, a wire or wire nail fragment, a partial alloy handle, a piece of coal slag, and two redware sherds. All recovered material is interpreted as field scatter, as most were widely separated. The only two adjacent positive test locations produced a single historic artifact each, a very low density inconsistent with domestic sites of the historic period, but consistent with intermittent field scatter. As no intact resources were identified during the present study, no further archeological work is recommended. 33 References Cited Abler, Thomas S. and Elisabeth Tooker 1978 Seneca. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Becher, Matthew, Rita Walsh, and Cindy Miller 2000 Phase I Cultural resources Inventory of Cultural resources Associated with the Proposed Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Williams Communications, Inc„ Fiber Optic Line and Regeneration Station, Washington County, Maryland. Grey and Pape, Inc. Cincinnati, OH. Submitted to Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Atlanta GA and Williams Communicaitions, Inc. Tulsa, OK. Bedell, John, Charles LeeDecker, Stuart Fiedel, and Jason Shellenhamer 2009 Through the Great Valley and into the Mountains Beyond: Archeological Identification and Evaluation Study of Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Sandy Hook to Hancock (Mile Markers 59 to 123). Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Brush, Grace S. 1986 Geology and Paleoecology of the Chesapeake Bay: A Long -Term Monitoring Tool for Management. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36:146-160. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 88, Menasha, Wisconsin. Dent, Richard J. 1985 Amerind Society and the Environment: Myth, Reality, and the Upper Delaware Valley. In Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleo-indian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, pp. 123-164. Edited by Charles McNett. Academic Press. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. Dickey, Paula Stoner 1974 Maryland Inventory of Historic Places recording form for Antietam Hall. Copy on file at MHT Library. Epperson, Terrence 1979 Archeological Reconnaissance ofMaryland Route 60 Relocated, from Route 40 to Marsh Pike, Hagerstown By -Pass, Washington, County, Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology File Report 151. Submitted to the Maryland State Highway Administration. Typescript on file at MHT Library. (unpaginated) 34 Fehr, April Ellen Saint-Onge, and Carol Ebright 2000 Archeological Monitoring for the Hagerstown Streetscape Project, US 40, Potomac Street to Cannon Avenue, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland. SHA Archeological Report Number 214. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc. Frederick MD. Prepared for Maryland State Highway Administration Project Planning Division, Environmental Planning Section. Fitting, Robert E. 1978 Regional Cultural Development, 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Funk, Robert E. 1978 Post -Pleistocene Adaptations. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Gardner, William M. 1977 Flint Run Paleo-Indian complex and its implications for eastern North American prehistory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:257-263. Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Humphrey, Robert L. and Mary Elisabeth Chambers 1985 Ancient Washington: American Indian Cultures of the Potomac Valley. Cultural Resource Management Series No. 9, Shepherd College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Kraft, John C. 1976 Geological Reconstructions of Ancient Coastal Environments in the Vicinity of the Island Field Archaeological Site, Kent County, Delaware. In Transactions of the Delaware Academy of Science 5, edited by John C. Kraft, pp. 83-118. The Delaware Academy of Science, Newark. Kraft, Joseph 2001 Soil Survey of Washington County, Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland; Washington County Soil Conservation District; and Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station (University of Maryland). Leedecker, Charles H., and Cheryl A. Holt 1991 Archaic Occupations at the Indian Creek V Site (18PR94), Prince George's County, Maryland. Journal ofMiddle Atlantic Archaeology 7:67-90. J 35 Maryland Historical Trust 2005 Collections and Conservation Standards; Technical Update No. 1 to the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. McNett, Charles W. (editor) 1985 Shawnee-Minisink: A Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic Stratified Site in the Upper Delaware Valley. Academic Press, New York. Reed, Paula 2012 Personal Communication. "WA -I-439 Context and History". Electronic summary file provided for joint project purposes. Scharf, J. Thomas 1882 History of Western Maryland. L.H. Everts, Philadelphia. 1968 History of Western Maryland. Reprint by Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. Schopp, Paul and John W Lawrence 2007 Phase I Archeological Survey, Chewsville Streetscape Project, MD 804B/62 (Twin Springs Drive) from MD 62 (Little Antietam Road) to MD 64 (Jefferson Boulevard), Washington County, Maryland. SHA Archeological Report Number 364. A.D. Marble and Company, Owings Mills, MD. Prepared for Maryland State Highway Administration Project Planning Division, Environmental Planning Section. Shaffer, Gary and Elizabeth Cole 1994 Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust, Technical Report No.2, Office of Archeology and Office of Preservation Services, Maryland Historical Trust, Department of Housing and Community Development. Stephenson, Robert L. and Alice L.L. Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No.20. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Stewart, R. Michael 1980 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns and Testing of Predictive Site Location Models in the Great Valley of Maryland. PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. Taggart, Thomas and S.S. Downin 1859 A Map of Washington Co., Maryland. Exhibiting the farms, election districts, towns, villages, roads, etc.. L. McKee and C.G. Robertson. In the collection of the Library of Congress, Map and Geography Reading Room. G3843.W3 1859 .T3 36 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1912 Hagerstown, Maryland 15 Minute Quadrangle 1985 Funkstown, Maryland 7.5 Minute Quadrangle 1985 Hagerstown, Maryland 7.5 Minute Quadrangle October 19, 1959 Aerial Photograph of Hagerstown Maryland, Frame 409. Available through http://earthexplorer. usgs, eov/ March 25, 1971 Aerial Photograph of Hagerstown Maryland, Frame, 3-587. Available through http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ Vicinity, Washington County, on-line data request from Vicinity, Washington County, on-line data request from Verrey, Robert A. and Edward C. Otter 1983 A Report of an Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed East Hagerstown Loop, 138 kV Transmission Line, Washington County, Maryland. Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc. (Front Royal). Prepared for Allegheny Power Service Corporation, Greensburg, PA. Typescript on file with MHT library. Workman, Nathan, Heather McMahon and Joshua Roth 2008 Cultural resource Investigations for the Proposed Hagerstown Light Business Par/c, Washington County, Maryland. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc. Frederick Maryland. Prepared for JBD, LLC, Hagerstown, MD. 37 APPENDIX I Qualification of Investigators ELIZABETH ANDERSON COMER EAC/Archaeology Elizabeth A. Comer is the sole proprietor and principal at Elizabeth Anderson Comer/Archaeology, a certified HUB -Zone MBEIWBE which performs historical research, historical and prehistoric archaeological assessment, survey, testing, and excavation projects within the Mid -Atlantic area. She serves as Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the company and has successfully completed more than 150 archaeology projects including historic and prehistoric, transportation, Civil War, urban, maritime, underwater, African -American, landscape, and industrial sites as well as archival and architectural studies. Ms. Comer has kept all of these projects on schedule and within budget. Ms. Comer is particularly involved in public archaeology and has conducted heritage tourism development research and implementation studies such as Carrying Capacity Studies for historic and cultural sites. Recent studies have included the Annapolis Historic District, Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Riversdale Mansion National Historic Landmark, and Londontown House and Gardens National Historic Landmark. Professional Background 1987 - Present Principal EAC/Archaeology Baltimore, Maryland 1983-1987 City Archeologist and Director of The Baltimore Center for Urban Archeology, City of Baltimore 1981-1983 Area Vice -President, Soil Systems, Inc. (SSI) 1975-1981 Archeologist EDUCATION B.A. in History and Political Science, Hood College, Frederick, Maryland 1977 University of London, Richmond College, London, England 1975-1976 M.A. in Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 1981 Ph.D (in progress), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland TEACHING Adiunct Professor, University of Maryland College Park, POSITIONS Historic Preservation Program, 1996 - present Courses Taught: "Management of Cultural Heritage Sites: Tourism, Archaeology & Preservation in the Postmodern World" Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Baltimore County, (UMBC), 1987 AFFILIATIONS US/ICOMOS Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archeology American Anthropological Association Society for Historical Archeology The National Trust for Historic Preservation Council for Northeast Historical Archeology Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference Archeological Society of Maryland Council for Maryland Archeology Maryland Historical Society Asia Society SELECTED PROJECTS 8/00 Archaeological Literature Search and Historic Structures Evaluation for Hemlock Overlook Regional Park and Outdoor Education Center, Clifton, Virginia. Prepared for Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority. 2/01 Archaeological Monitoring Plan, Stabilization and Repair of Northwest Demi-Bastion Wall, Fort Washington (FOWA), National Capital Parks - East, Prince George's County, Maryland. Prepared for United States National Park Service, National Capital Region. 2/01 Phase I Archaeological Survey Northwest Regional Park, Owings Mills, Baltimore County, Maryland. Prepared for Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks. 11/01 Phase I Archaeological Investigation for the Gwynns Falls Trail, Phase 3, Baltimore City, Maryland. Prepared for City of Baltimore Department of Recreation and Parks. 12/01 Phase II and III Archaeological Investigations: Ulster Bridge, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 12/01 Phase I Archaeological Investigation: Proposed Substation/SEDC and South Utility Building Sites, Washington Dulles International Airport, Virginia. Prepared for Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. 10/02 Architectural Evaluation and GIS of the MAGLEV Alignment in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland. Prepared for Maryland Mass Transit Administration. Tery Harris Project Archaeologist Education 1992 M.A., Anthropology, Brandeis University 1988 B.A., Anthropology, University of Maryland Experience Ms. Harris has over 20 years experience working in all phases of archaeological investigations in the Mid -Atlantic region. Her work experience includes all levels of expertise from field crew to Principal Investigator. Her responsibilities have included field and laboratory work and supervision, artifact analysis, archival research, report writing, and public education and interpretation. Ms. Harris is a specialist in Historical Archaeology, with experience in both historic and prehistoric field investigations. She also has related experience in historical documentation and archival research in the Mid -Atlantic and New England regions. Professional.Experience 2005 -present Project Archaeologist, EAC/Archaeology, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 2003-2005 Principal Investigator, ARCH2, Inc., Metuchen, NJ. 1996-2002 Project Archeologist, Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. Baltimore, MD. 1995 Archeologist, Baltimore Center for Urban Archeology, Baltimore, MD. 1994-1995 Field Director, Kemron Environmental Sciences, Inc., McLean, VA. 1994 Excavator, Queen St. Burying Grounds, Alexandria Archeology, Alexandria, VA 1993-1994 Greenhome and O'Mara, Inc., Greenbelt, MD (field technician, laboratory technician, crew chief) 1992-1993 Ed Otter, Rockville, MD (field technician, laboratory technician, researcher) 1988 Historic Annapolis, Inc., Annapolis, MD (field technician) Selected Project Experience Project Archaeologist, Phase I and Phase II Investigations for the Proposed Outfall Rehabilitation Work, North Design Project, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fairfax and Arlington Counties, VA. (EAC/A). • Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Assessment for the Cooperative Development of the Arlington County North Tract Park, Including the NPS Roaches Run and Gravelly Point Park Properties. (EAC/A). • Project Archaeologist, Phase I Identification Survey for the Proposed Extension Of Runway 161/34R and Taxiway B, Manasass Regional Airport, City of Manassas, Prince William County, VA. (EAC/A). • Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Assessment for the Proposed MidCounty Highway Project, Gaithersburg, Middlebrook, and Clarksville, Montgomery County, MD. (EAC/A). • Project Archaeologist, Phase I and Phase II Investigations of the Proposed Improvements to the Fairfax County Parkway, Herndon and Chantilly, Fairfax County, VA. (EAC/A). • Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Monitoring and Resource Treatment of Streetscape Improvements within the Church Hill Historic District, Church Hill, MD. (EAC/A). • Report Author, Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the proposed Mount Vernon Trail Extension, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fairfax and Arlington Counties, VA. (EAC/A). • Field Director, Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the proposed North Design Improvements, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Fairfax and Arlington Counties, VA. (EAC/A). • Field Director and researcher, Food and Drug Administration Facilities Assessments: San Juan, Puerto Rico, Dauphin Island AL, Beltsville, MD, Allans Harbor, RI, Irvine, CA, Winchester and Woburn, MA, and Pine Bluff, AR. (EAC/A). • Field Director, Phase I Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements, Fountain Rock County Park, Walkersville, Frederick County, Maryland. (EAC/A). • Field Director and Researcher, Phase IA Assessment of Archaeological Potential for the REDDI Project, Gettysburg, PA. (EAC/A) • Project Archaeologist and Principal Author, Phase I Archaeological Survey for the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. (EAC/A). • Field Director, Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey of the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Oak Hill Youth Center, Laurel, MD. (EAC/A). • Principal Investigator, Phase IA Archaeological Assessment and Phase IB Identification Survey for Randolph Mountain Residential Development project, Randolph Township, Morris County. (ARCH2, Inc.). • Project Archeologist, Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III investigations of the site of proposed BWI Facilities expansion near Hanover, Maryland. (Joseph , Hopkins Associates, Inc. for the Maryland Aviation Administration). • Project Archeologist, Phase I survey, National Business Park Project, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. (Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. for Constellation Real Estate, Inc.). • Project Archaeologist, Phase II investigations, Choptank Route 404 Project, Caroline County, Maryland. (Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. for SHA). • Archeological Monitor, Utilities Upgrade Project, Big Meadows, Lewis Mountain, and Skyland, Shenandoah National Park. (Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. for the National Park Service). • Project Archeologist, Phase I and Phase II investigations of the proposed Honeygo Run Sewer Interceptor, Baltimore County, Maryland. (Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. for Spotts, Stevens, and McCoy Inc.). • Project Archeologist, Phase II investigations, Martin State Airport Project, Baltimore County, Maryland. (Joseph Hopkins Associates, Inc. for Edwards and Kelcey, Inc. and the Maryland Aviation Administration). • Project Archeologist, Phase I survey, Flintstone Park and Ride Project, Allegany County, Md. (Joseph Hopkins and Associates, for SHA.) • Project Archeologist, Phase I and Phase II investigations of the Poulson-Englar House (18CA238), Carroll County, Md. (Joseph Hopkins and Associates, for The Arundel Corporation) • Project Archeologist, Phase I and Phase II investigations of the proposed Stoney Run Industrial Park Project, Anne Arundel County, Md. (Joseph Hopkins and Associates, for Patton Consultants Ltd.) • Project Archeologist, Cockey Family Cemetery Relocation Project. (Joseph Hopkins and Associates, for the Cockey family and Genstar Inc. .) • Project Archaeologist, Phase I field survey and Phase II archival investigation of the proposed Lund Landfill, Washington County, Md. (Joseph Hopkins and Associates, for John E. Harms Jr, and Associates.) • Research Director and Project Archaeologist: Phase I archival assessment and Phase II field investigations, 18 BC Ill Hampstead Hill Site, Baltimore, MD. (Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology, Baltimore City Life Museums, for the Johns Hopkins Hospital Facilities Department.) • Field Director: Phase I and II investigations at the National Emergency Training Center, Emmitsburg, MD. (Kemron Environmental Services, for the National Emergency Training Center and the Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Division.) • Field Director: Phase I and II investigations of the proposed Belmont Center, Woodbridge, VA. (Kemron Environmental Services, for Belmont Development Associates, Inc.) • Field Director: Phase II investigations at the Ben Lomond House, Manassas, VA. (Kemron Environmental Services, for the Prince William County Park Authority.) APPENDIX II Artifact Catalog o §) , U \.\ (\ziul- ((\ : o \(\ o 11 § I \ )) �! § `§ / ! ` ix !� aLL o §;!\/; ! ; U(\\§(w) ow 3 \\/}\\§\ APPENDIX III STP profiles Yale Drive Extension STP Log STP Designation Layer # Basal Depth Soil Description Stratum/ Horizon Comments 40+50 N _.. 1 ...._ 2 18 ----- 30 10YR4/6 silty clay loam -- 7.5YR5/8 clay PZ --._ B NCM .._______--------- NCM 40+50 N 40+50 S 40+505 1 2 40 50 10YR4/4 silty loam 7.5YR5/8 silty clay PZ B NCM NCM 41+00 N 1 21 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 41+00 N 2 31 10YR6/6 silty clay loam B NCM 41+00 S 1 41 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 41+00 S 2 53 7.5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 41+50 N 1 32 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 41+50 N 41+50 S 2 1 45 5 7.5YR5/8 silty clay 10YR3/4 silt loam B Fill NCM NCM 41+50 S 2 8 7.SYR5/8 silty clay Fill NCM 41+50 S 3 55 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM ---- 41+50 S ------- 4 65 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 42+00 N 1 22 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 42+00 N 2 45 10YR5/4 silt loam A2 NCM 42+00 N 3 57 10YR3/3 silt loam Ab NCM, channery 42+00 N 4 67 10YR6/6 silty clay loam B NCM, wet 42+50 N 1 14 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 42+50 N 2 28 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 42+50,S 1 24 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ_ NCM _ - 42+50 S _ 2 36 7.5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 43+00 N 1 13 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 43+00 N 2 23 10YR6/6 silty clay loam B NCM, very wet 43+00 S 1 20 10YR4/4 silty loam PZ NCM 43+00 5 2 30 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 43+50 N 1 13 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ HANDLE FRAGMENT (LEVEL NOT RECORDED Assumed PZ) 43+50 N 2 27 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B _ NCM -_-- —_ 43+50 S 1 15 - _ 10YR4/4 silty loam PZ NCM --------- 43+50 S 44+00 N 2 1 ----- 30 16 ------ 7.5YR5/8 silty clay _ - 10YR4/4 silt loam ------- B PZ NCM NCM 44+00 N 2 26 10YR6/6 silty clay loam B NCM 44+00 S 1 50 10YR4/4 silty clay loam _ PZ -- NCM -------- ------ --------------------- 44+005 44+50 N 44+50 N 44+50 S 2 1 2 1 627.5YR5/8 27 37 25 -- clay loam 10YR4/4 silt loam 10YR6/6 silty clay loam 10YR4/4 silt loam B PZ B PZ B PZ B PZ B PZ NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM 44+50 S 45+00 N 45+00 N 45+00 S 45+00 S 45+50 2 1 2 1 2 1 35 25 36 19 33 19 7.SYR5/8 silt clay 10YR4/6 silty clay loam 7.5YR5/8 silty clay 10YR4/4 silty clay loam 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam 10YR5/6 silty clay loam 45+50 45+505 45+505 2 1 2 1 2 31 16 28 18 28 7.5YR5/8 silty clay 10YR4/4 silty clay loam 7.SYR5/8 silty clay loam 10YR5/6 silt loam 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B PZ B PZ ------._.....--- B NCM NCM NCM NCM, channery,_compacted NCM, channery, compacted 46+00 N 46+00 N 46+00 S 46+00S 1 2 20 30 10YR4/4 silt loam 7.SYR5/8 silt clay PZ B NCM NCM Yale Drive Extension STP Log STP Designation Layer # Basal Denth p Soil Description Stratum/ Horizon Comments 46+50 N 46+50 N 1 2 34 44 10YR5/6 silt loam 7.SYR5/8 silty clay loam PZ B NCM, channery NCM, channery 46+505 46+50 S 1 2 20 30 -_ 10YR4/4 silt loam 7.SYR5/8 silt clay PZ B NCM NCM 47+00 N 1 17 10YR5/6 sandy clay loam PZ NCM 47+00 N 2 27 SYRS/6 sandy clay B NCM 47+00 S 1 20 silt loam PZ NCM 47+00 S 2 30 _10YR4/4 7.SYRS/8 silt clay B NCM 47+50 N 1 14 10YR5/6 silt loam PZ NCM, channery 47+50 N 2 24 7.5YRS/8 silty clay loam B NCM, channery 47+50 S -__ 1 15 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 47+50 S 2 30 7.SYR5/8 silt clay B NCM - _ 48+00 S 1 22 _-- 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ wire, some gravel 48+005 2 41 7.SYR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 48+00 N 1 19 10YR5/6 sandy clay loam PZ NCM __________ 48+00 N 2 30 7.5YR5/8 sandy clay B NCM _ 48+50 1 20 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 48+50 2 30 7.5YR5/8 silt clay B NCM 48+50 N 1 21 10YR5/4 silt loam PZ NCM, channery 48+50 N 2 31 SYRS/8 silty clay loam B NCM 49+00 N 1 16 10YR5/6 sandy clay loam PZ NCM 49+00 N 2 31 7.5YR5/8 sandy clay B_ NCM 49+00 S 1 25 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 49+00 S 1 14 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, some gravel inclusions 49+00 S 2 35 10YR6/8 silty clay B NCM' 49+00 S 2 26 7.SYR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 49+50 N 1 23 10YR5/4 silt loam PZ NCM, channery 49+50 N 2 33 SYRS/8 silty clay loam B NCM 50+00 N 1 33 10YR4/6 sandy clay loam PZ NCM 50+00 N 2 45 7.5YR5/8 sandy clay B NCM___ 50+00 S 1 40 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 50+00 S 2 50 7.5YR4/6 silty clay B NCM 50+50 N 1 30 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 50+50 N 2 40 7.SYR4/6 silty clay B NCM 50+50 S — 1 _ - 16 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, rock and gravel inclusions 50+50 S 2 37 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam _— - B NCM, rock and gravel inclusions 51+00 N 1 46 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM 51+00 N 2 62 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM, channery and wet 51+00 N 51+00 S 3 1 72 7.SYR4/6 silty clay loam_ B NCM, channery 62 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, rock and gravel inclusions 51+00 S 2 81 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B ._- NCM, rock and gravel inclusions 51+50 N 1 30 10YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 51+50 N 2 40 7.SYRS/8 silty clay. _ B NCM 51+505 1 25 _ 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, rock and gravel inclusions 51+505 2 42 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM, rock and gravel inclusions Yale Drive Extension STP Log P ignation Layer # Basal Depth Soil Description Stratum/ Comments Horizon [52+00 1 _ 22 10YR4/4 silt loam NCM , angular pebbles and cobbles 00 N 2 32 7.5YR5/8 mottled with 7.5YR7/6 silty clay loam _PZ NCM 52+00 S 1 19 10YR4/4 silty clay loam _ PZ NCM 52+005 2 32 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 52+50 N 1 2510YR3/6 silt loam PZ NCM 52+50 N 2 40 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 52+50 S 52+50 S 53+00 N 1 __ 2 1 2310YR4/4 33 23 silt loam 7.SYR5/8 mottled with 7.5YR7/6 silty clay loam 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZNCM, _angular pebbles and cobbles --- B NCM PZ NCM 53+00 N 2 35 7.5YR5/8 sandy clay B NCM 53+00 S 1 _--- 24 10YR4/4 silt loam PZ NCM, angular pebbles and cobbles 53+005 2 _ 37 7.5YR5/8 mottled with 7.5YR7/6 silty clay loam B NCM 53+50 N 1 19 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 53+50 N 2 30 7.5YR5/8 sandy silty clay_ B NCM 53+50 S 1 32 __ 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 53+50 S 2 43 7.SYR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM54+00 N 10 10YR3/4 silt loam PZ Modern cloth fragments 54+00 N _ _1 2 15 10YR3/6 silt loam A NCM 54+00 N _ 3 _ 37 7.5YR5/8 sandy silty clay with 2.5YR4/8 sandy inclusions B NCM 54+00 S 54+00 S 1 2 17 27 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, angular pebbles _ 7.5YR5/6 silty clay loam B NCM 54+50 N 1 19 10YR4/6 sandy loam PZ NCM 54+50 N 2 30 7.SYR4/4 sandy clay J B NCM 54+505 1 — 20 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, angular pebbles 54+50 S 2 30 7.5YR5/6 silty clay loam B NCM 55+00 N 1 22 10YR4/6 sandy loam PZ NCM 55+00 N 2 32 7.SYR4/4 sandy clay B NCM 55+00 S 1 24 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM, angular pebbles 55+00 S 55+50 N 2 1 30,4/6 - 25 silty clay loam JB NCM 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ NCM 55+50 N 2 38 7.5YR4/4 silty clay JjB NCM 5550S 1 5 10YR3/3 silt loam jo NCM 55+50 S 2 24 10YR4/4 silty clay loam A NCM, angular pebbles 55+50 S 56+00 N 3 1 34 2.5YR4/6 5 10YR4/4 silty clay loam B NCM silty clay loam PZ NCM 56+00 N 56+00 S 56+00 S 2 1 2 5 7 10YR3/3 23 10YR5/6 [2c[2c I silt loam jA0 NCM silty clay loam A NCM 56+00 S 3 33 2.SYR4/6 silty clay loam B NCM 56+50 N 56+50 N 1 2 30 10YR4/6 41 7.5YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM silty clay B NCM 56+50 S 56+50 S 1 2 4 10YR3/3 20 10YR5/6 silt loam A0 NCM silty clay loam A NCM Yale Drive Extension STP Log STP Designation Layer # Basal Depth Soil Description Stratum/ Horizon Comments 56+505 57+00 N 3 1 30 24 2.5YR4/6 silty clay loam 7.5YR4/6 silty clay loam B PZ NCM NCM 57+00 N 57+00 S 2 1 63 33 7.5YR5/8 silty clay 10YR4/4 silt loam B PZ NCM. NCM _ 57+00 S 2 43 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM — 57+50 N 1 21 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 57+50 N 2 59 7.5YR4/6 silty clay loam A2 NCM 57+50 N 3 _ -_ 70 5YR3/2 sandy clay? B NCM 57+50 S 1 13 10YR5/4 silt loam PZ NCM 57+50 S 2 62 10YR5/6 silt loam A2 NCM 57+50 S 3 69 10YR3/2 silt loam Ab NCM, angular pebbles 57+50 5 4 82 5YR5/6 silty clay loam B NCM 58+00 N 1 24 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 58+00 N 2 347.SYR5/8 silty clay B NCM___ 58+005 1 —__ 9 IOYR4/3 silt loam A _—_ NCM 58+00 S 2 19 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 58+50 N _ 1 19 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ NCM 58+50 N 2 32 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 58+505 1 8 10YR4/3 silt loam A0 NCM 58+505 2 25 10YR5/4 silt loam A NCM, angular pebbles 58+505 3 28 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 58+505 4 28 bedrock —_____ 59+00 N 1 13 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 59+00 N 2 31 7.5YRS/8 clay B NCM 59+00 S 1 25 10YR5/4 silt loam mottled with 7.SYR5/8 silty clay PZ NCM 59+00 S 2 35 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM 59+50 N 1 16 10YR4/6 and 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam PZ NCM, compacted 59+50 N 2 24 7.5YR5/8 clay B NCM, compacted 59+50 S 1 18 10YR5/4 silt loam mottled with 7.5YR5/8 silty clay PZ NCM 59+50 S 2 28 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam B NCM _ 60+00 N 1 0 under logs and rock spoil unexcavated 60+00 S 60+50 N 1 1 0 25 under logs and rock spoil 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ unexcavated NCM 60+50 N 2 38 5YR5/8 clay loam — B NCM 60+50 S 1 23 10YR4/6 and 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam PZ NCM — 60+50 S 2 _._ 36 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 61+00 N 1 21 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM _ --_--_ 61+00 N. 2 _ _._ 34 _ 10YR5/6 silty clay loam _— B NCM 61+00S 1 2910YR5/4 sandy loam PZ - _ NCM 61+00 S 2 39 7.5YR5/8 sandy loam B? NCM 61+50 N _ 1 25 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ__. NCM 61+50 N 61+505 2 1 - _ 37 27 10YR5/6 silty clay loam 10YR4/6 silty clay loam B PZ NCM COAL SLAG Yale Drive Extension STP Log STP Designation Layer # Basal Depth I- oi1 Description 1 Stratum/ Horizon Comments 61+503 62+00 N f _- 2 40 ft 19 7.SYR5/6 silty clay 10YR4/4 silty clay loam B PZ NCM NCM 62+00 N j 2J 34 1 22 10YR5/6 silty clay loam 10YR4/6 silty clay loam B PZ NCM NCM 62+003 J_ 62+00 5 2j 35 7.5YR5/6 silty clay B NCM 62+50 N 1 12 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 62+50 N I 2 26 10YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 62+50 S 1 23 10YR4/3 silt clay loam PZ NCM 62+50 S -- 63+00 N 63+00 N 2 ----- --- 1 2 36 -- — 8 8 10YR5/8 silty clay B -- NCM 10YR4/4 silty clay loam bedrock -- PZ -------- NCM 63+003 63+00 S 1 2 20 32 10YR4/3 silt clay loam 10YR5/8 silty clay PZ B NCM NCM 63+50 N 1 15 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 63+50 N 2 27 10YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 63+50 S 1 23 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 63+50 S 2 34 7.5YR5/8 sandy clay B NCM 64+00 N 1 26 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 64+00 N 2 38 10YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 64+00 S 1 26 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 64+00 S -_ 2 38 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B —�-- NCM ----- 64+50 N _ 1 28 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM NCM 64+50 N _ 2 42 7.SYR5/8 clay loam B 64+50 S 1 21 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 64+50 S 2 32 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 65+00 N 1 31 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ NCM 65+00 N 2 47 10YR5/6 silty clay loam B NCM 65+00 S _ 1 - 39 10YR4/4 silty clay loam PZ NCM 65+00 S 2 55 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 65+50 1 29 10YR4/4 silty clay loam _ PZ NCM 65+50 65+50 S 65+50S -- 66+00 N N -- _ _ 2 1 _--- 2 _ 1 — _ - 44 33 445YR5/8 17 - 10YR5/8 silty clay loam - 10YR4/3 silty clay loan silty clay - 10YR4/4 silty clay loam -- B PZ B - ---- PZ NCM NCM NCM NCM 66+00 N 2 30 7.5YR5/8 clay loam ------ B --------------- NCM 6—..- 6+00 S 1 39 10YR4/6 silt loam PZ NCM 66+00 S 66+50 N +50 N 2 1 21 52 7.SYR5/6 --. 21 10YR4/6 32 10YR5/6 sandy clay - silty clay loam silty clay loam B PZ B NCM NCM NCM 66+50 S 66+505 67+00 67+00 1 2 1 2 23 10YR4/6 40 7.SYR5/6 20 7.SYR4/6 30 7.5YR5/8 silty clay loam PZ NCM sandy silty clay silty clay loam PZ silty clay B B NCM NCM NCM 67+00 S 67+00 S 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 - _ 26 10YR4/6 43 5YR5/8 20 10YR4/6 35 5YR5/8 34 1oYR4/6 47 5YR5/8 25 7_5YR4/6 35 7.SYR5.8 silty clay loam PZ silty clay loam B silty clay loam PZ clay --- B silty clay loam PZ B siltyclay loam PZ silty clay B NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM NCM _ NCM NCM 67+50 N 67+50 N 67+503 67+505 68+00 N 68+00 N Yale Drive Extension STP Log Basal Stratum/ Comments STP - Layer # Depth Soil Description Horizon _ — Designation LcmL -- 15 7.SYR4/6 silty clay loam P .._. __. NCM 68+003 -- _- - - 1 _ 3-- -- _—._ 30 75y5.s silty clay -- NCM 68+003 2 __. — 1 — 21 10YR3/6 silty clay loamP " _ --� NCM -- __--_— ----- NCM, 10%sandstone peebles 68+50 N _ . 8 37 7.SYR5/6 silty clay -- — 68+50 N 2 . _ — — 18 10YR4/6 silty clay loamPZ NCM 68+50 S _ 1 B 5YR5/8 silty clay NCM __--- - 68+503 2 —__29 29 10YR3/6 silty clay loam_— pZ NCM 69+00 N _ 1 silty clay —_ ------ 31 7 B NCM ._____—_------- 69+00 N _ 2 —__ .SYR5/8 ? 43 7.5YR3/3 silty loam - A? — NCM NCM, broken qtz inclusions 69+00 N _ __. _3 —__ 24 10YR4/6 silty clay loam___ P 69+00 S _ __ 1_-- 8----- 36 5YR5J8 silty clay loam NCM___--__-- 69+00 S _ --_,__ 2 PZ —"— 28 10YR4/6 silty clay toam — _ _CM _ _--___ __— 69+50 N _ 1 Pz--- 29 10YR3/6 silt clay loam NCM 69+50 N __ _ B 39 5YR5/8 silty clay loam ----" NCM _—__--_-- 69+50 N — 2 44 7.5YR5/6 sandy clay — BPZ -- 2 —_ 20 7.SYR4/6 silty clay loam_ NCM ______ --- 69+50 S _1 —_ 30 5YR5/6 silty clay 8 69+50 5 ._2 25 7.5YR4/6 silty clay loam B? _.------ 70+00 S 1 _ _. 35 5YR5/6 silty clay BPZ NCM 70+00 S 2 __ 23 10YR4/6 silt_ y cl-----lay loam--- --- NCM 70+50 N 1 — _ B 25 5YR5/8 silty ays NCM -- 70+50 N — 2 _ PZ 15 7.5YR4/6 silty clay loam NCM _ 70+50 S 1 _ 25 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B -- NCM _---- 70+50 S 2 PZ 19 10YR4/6 silty clay loam NCM------- 71+00 N 1 10YR4/6 sandy clay loam- NCM, 10% sandstone peebles 71+00-N 2 Int 30 with 25% SYR�—._— -- NCM, 10%sandstone peebles, highly compacted — 71+00 N B B --- 41 5YR5/8 silty clay y — NCM 1 20 7.SYR4/6 silty clay loam _ PZ -- _----- NCM 71+00 S B -- 30 7.5YR5/8 silt__ y clay _ _------- 71+00 S 2 _ _ BZ 14 10yR4/6 silty cla— NCM -- - 71+50 N - 28 5YR5/8 silty clay loam B — 71+50 N _ __ 2 15 7.SYR4/6 silty clay loam _ 2 NCM —_ — 71+50 S — 1 B 5YR5/8 silty clay 71+50 S _ — 2 —_40 _—_ 17 10YR4/6 silty clay loam P—� 72+00 N — — —_ 1 25 10YR4/4 sandy clay loam E? _— NCM —_---- — 72+00 N __—.? --- B 39 5YR5/8 sandy clay -- -- -- NCM ---- 72+00 N _— 3 7.5yR3/4 silty loamy clay BZ--- NCM — 72+00 S _ 1 --20 30 7.5YR5/8 NCM —_ ---- 72+ S — 2 .--1 --- 15 10YR4/6 silty — NCM — 72+55 0 N _ 1 ----g4 more calcified NCM, mineralized, soil, decaying ferrigi 72+50 N 2 26 10YR4J6 sandy clay loam _ E? NCM 3 37 5YR5/8 sandy clay � NCM -- 72+50 N _ —_ 1 — PZ 7.5YR3/4 silty loamy clay _ —_-- B NC_M 72+50 S -- - — ---20 30 7.5YR5/8 silty clay __ 72+50 S — ._ 2 25 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ __ - NCM —_ 73+00N____ 1 -- 8 lo . - 35 5YR5/8 silty clayam — 73+00 N — _ 2. -____ — PZ 13 7.SYR3/4 silty loamy clay - NCM — - 73+00 S _ -- - 30 7.SYR4/6 silty clay_ NCM ----- NC 73+005 — - _ _ 2 , 30 10YR4/6 silty clay loam PZ NCM Yale Drive Extension STP Log uesignation Layer # Depth 73+50 N - Lcm] 73+5Q5 2 44 --- 1 74+00 N h2L-------q 30 7. 1t --- 74+00 S -------1 -_ 30 7.P 74+50 N — ----.----? 74+50 N --- --- l ----_-.-24 5YR — 74+50 S -------- _ _ 40 5YR --- - -- - 74+50 S --'-- 1 --__• 35 l0YF 45 7/SY 10YR 75+00S —_-- 2 -__ 11 bedre 75+00 s — —_ 42 ioyk- 75+50 N_ ---- 2 ___ 55 7/5YR 75+50 N — ---_J 7SYR: 75+505 --- 3 ---- 38 5YR5/8 75+5o S 1 --____ 20 10YR3/ 65 7.5YR3/ 76+00 N ----1 ---_ 21 10YR4/E 76+00S --------------2-----_ 327 76+00 S — l ---__ 8 10YR3/3 10YR4/4 5YR5/8 cl 76+50 N -- 1 -- 8 7.4YR3/4 - 76+50 N -- 2 ---_-26 5YR4/4 ch 76+50 S ---_.---- 3 .-- 36 5YR5/8 cla 76+50 S -- 1 --__ 17 10YR4/6 si _ 77+00_ -----� --- 32 7.SYR5/8si 77+00 ---- l -__ 21 10YR4/6/6 sit 77+00 N ----_-_--- [j-___.34 5YR5/8 clay 77+00 N -------- -- 2 7.5YR2.5/2 77+00 N --- —2 ----- 30 10YR4/6 silt ---- 77+50 N _- 40 7-.5YR5/8 silt — 77+50 N ----- _ _ 10_ 7.SYR_ 2.5/2 silty lay loam_ 7.5YR3/4 77+50 N clay loam mottled ----- 19 withsuubsoil 77+�S_N_._.-------- 3 clay 30 5YR5/8 -- loam 77+50 2 —_ 8 10YR2/2 silt loam 77+50 S --- ------------- ---- -- -----___39 1.0YR4/6 silt clay 78+00 N_ __------ ------ -- B 3 --__.___53 5YR5%8 clay loam 1 78+00 N --------_ silty clay loam ------ _n . -_ ---- 2 Description Stratum/ Horizon It clay- --- B ----_ 3/4 silty loamy clay PZ 4/6 silty ----- clay loam n I n 3 is harderzone at 10-15 cmhc NCM, includes a—-- land withinmore compact the PZ S A0 Yale Drive Extension STP Log STP Designation Layer # Basal Depth Soil Description Stratum/ Horizon Comments 78+00 S 78+00 S RE 3 1 40 3 Rock impass 10YR3 2 silt loam A0 NCM NCM 78+00 S RE 2 3 22 33 10YR4/4 silty clay loam 5YR4/6 clay loam A B NCM NCM 78+00 S RE 78+00 S RN 1 25 7.5YR3/3 silty loamy clay A NCM 78+00 S RN 2 35 7.5YR5/8 silty clay _ B NCM 78+00 S RS 1 24 7.5YR3/3 silty loamy clay A redware__ 78+00 S RS 2 _ 35 7.5_YRS/8 silty clay _ B NCM 78+00 S RW 1 5 10YR3/3 silty clay loam A0 NCM 78+00 S RW 2 23 7.5_YR4/4 silty clay loam A NCM 78+00 S RW 3 41 5YR4/6 clay loam_ B NCM__ 78+50 N RE 1 35 7.5YR3/3 silty loamy clay A NCM 78+50 N RE 2 45 7.SYR5/8 silty clay B NCM 78+50 N RN 1 5 10YR3/3 silty clay loam A0 NCM 78+50 N RN 2 25 7.5YR4/4 silty clay loam A NCM 78+50 N RN 3 40 5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 78+50 N RS 1 _ 7 10YR3/3 silty clay loam A0 NCM 78+50 N RS 2 24 7.5YR4/4 silty loamy clay A corroded nail 78+50 N RS 3 46 SYRS/8 clay loam B NCM 78+50 N RW 1 22 10YR4/6 silty clay loam A NCM 78+50 N RW 2 36 5YR4/6 clay loam B NCM 78+505 1 4 10YR2/2 silt loam A0 NCM 78+50 S 2 19 10YR4/6 silty clay loam A NCM 78+50 5 3 _ 37 5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 78+S0N 1 2 7.5YR2.5/2 loam A0 _ NCM 78+50N 2 29 10YR4/6 silty clay A NCM 78+50N 3 40 7.SYR5/8 silty clay B NCM 79+00 N 1 5 5YR4/3 silty clay loam A0 NCM 79+00 N _ _2 25 10YR4/6 silty clay A NCM 79+00 N 3 40 ___ 5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 79+00S 1 2 7.5YR2.5/2 loam A0 NCM 79+00 S 2 29 10YR4/6 silty clay A NCM 79+00 S 3 42 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 79+50 N 1 2 7.SYR2.5/2 loam A0 NCM 79+50 N 2 31 10YR4/6 silty clay A NCM 79+50 N 3 46 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 79+50 S 1 - 4 10YR2/2 silt loam A0 NCM 79+505 2 36 10YR4/6 silty clay loam A_____ NCM, multiple root inclusions 79+50 S 3 48 5YR5/8 clay loam _ B NCM 80+00 N 1 6 7.5YR2.5/2 silty clay loam A0 NCM ___ 80+00 N 2 27 10YR4.6 silty clay A NCM 80+00 N 2 45 5YR5/8 clay loam B NCM 80+005 1 2 7.5YR2.5/2 loam A0 NCM 80+00 S __- _ 2 32 10YR4/6 silty clay A NCM 80+00 S 3 47 7.5YR5/8 silty clay B NCM 80+50 N 80+50 N 80+50 N 1 2 3 3 29 48 5YR5/8 _— 10YR2/2 silt loam 10YR4/6 silty clay loam A clay loam B _ A0 NCM NCM NCM 80+505 1 3 7.5YR2.5/2 loam A0 NCM 80+50 S 2 45 10YR4/6 silty clay IA INCM 11 Yale Drive Extension Si]' Log STP I Designation Layer # Y Basal I De th P Soil Description Stratum/ Horizon Comments 1 1 3 0 7 40 Y road fill/embankment 5YR4/3 silty clay loam 5YR5/8 clay loam g _.. Fill A0 B NCM not excavate _ - __._._ NCM 81+00 N 81+00 S 81+00 S 12 MD? Maryland Department of Planning Martin OMahey Maryland Historical Trust Rlehard Eetrary tHall Governor SepeMry Anthony G, Brown MatthfwJ. Power Lt. Governor Deputy Secretary April 25, 2012 Mr. Scott Hobbs cif l9 u v L Washington County Division of Public Works V` Engineering and Construction 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740-4748 WASH. CQ, CAPITAL PROJECTS RE: Yale Drive Extension — Phase I �• -- Hagerstown, Washington County Clearinghouse State Application Identifier: MD20110513-0308 Dear Mr. Hobbs: Thank you for providing the Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) with additional information regarding the above - referenced project. We have reviewed the materials in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and we are writing to provide our comments. The proposed undertaking involves the construction of a two-lane roadway through the Mt. Aetna Farm to connect the new Meritus Regional Medical Center with the Hagerstown Community College. The roadway is intended to provide commercial development opportunities within the Mt. Aetna Farm. Archeology: Trust staff reviewed the following report on the Phase I archeological survey conducted of the proposed new roadway corridor: Phase (Archeological Survey for the Proposed Extension of Yale Drive, Hagerstown Vicinity, Washington County, Maryland (Harris 2012). Elizabeth Anderson Comer Archaeology completed the survey and prepared the report on behalf of the County. The report provides succinct documentation on the survey's goals, methods, results, and recommendations. The document meets the reporting requirements specified in the Trust's Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994). The survey did not identify any archeological resources within the proposed alignment. Thus, we agree that further archeological investigations are not warranted for the project as currently planned and believe that the proposed roadway will not impact any archeological resources. We accept the current report as the final version for our Library. Ongoing Section 106 Consultation: Cultural resources studies for this undertaking identified one historic property within the APE for this undertaking, the Antietam Farm located at 525 Indian Lane. As noted in our previous letter, the 7 -acre National Register boundary for Antietam Farm is outside of the limits of disturbance for the proposed roadway; however, we request the opportunity to review roadway plans, when they are available, to assess the potential for indirect effects on this property. We. urge Washington County to establish an appropriate buffer surrounding Antietam Farm when contemplating commercial development opportunities along Yale Drive. 100 Community Place . Crownsville, Maryland 2103,$-2023 Telephone; 410.,514.7600 . Fgx: 410.987.4071 . Toll Free: 1.800.756,, 0112 e TTY t4erq Maryland Belay Internet: http://mht.maryland.Aoa Mr. Scott Hobbs Yale Drive Extension — Phase I Hagerstown, Washington County Page 2 of 2 Once we have received the project plans requested in this letter, the Trust will continue its review of the undertaking and provide a final determination of project effects. If you have questions or require further assistance, please contact me (for the historic built environment) at 410-514-7637 / ttambun'ino(cilmdp.state.md.us or Beth Cole (for archeology) at 410-514-7631 / bcolec@imdp state.md.us. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Tim Tamburrino Preservation Officer 201201853 Cc: Bob Rosenbush (MDP) Kristi Hewlett (SHA) Pamela Mohn (Frederick, Seibert & Assoc., Inc.) Paula Reed (Paula S. Reed & Associates) Elizabeth Comer (Elizabeth Anderson Comer Archaeology) Steve Goodrich (Washington County HDC) Guy Winterberg (Tri-County Council for Western Maryland)