HRAB 09-21-21 Meeting Agenda1.Review of a Conditional Use Permit for Bartonsville Energy Facility - Phase 2
1.A.Review of a Conditional Use Permit for Bartonsville Energy Facility -
Phase 2
This CUP is for the expansion of the Bartonsville Energy utility scale solar project and
consists of 636 acres. The entirety of Phase 1 and Phase 2 consists of 1,160 acres.
AGENDA
HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
6:00 PM
FIRST-FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
HRAB09-21-21CUPBartonsvilleEnergyFacilityPhase2.pdf
HRAB09-21-21Phase1CulturalResourceSurvey.pdf
1
Historic Resources Advisory Board
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: September 21, 2021
Agenda Section: Review of a Conditional Use Permit for Bartonsville Energy
Facility - Phase 2
Title: Review of a Conditional Use Permit for Bartonsville Energy Facility - Phase 2
Attachments:
HRAB09-21-21CUPBartonsvilleEnergyFacilityPhase2.pdf
HRAB09-21-21Phase1CulturalResourceSurvey.pdf
2
Item # 1
Conditional Use Permit for the Bartonsville Energy Facility Phase 2
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a review agency comment
pertaining to the Bartonsville Energy Facility (Torch Clean Energy) Phase 2 Conditional Use Permit
application. This application seeks to expand the site area of a previously approved conditional use
permit. The Phase 2 site area consists of 636 acres; the total site area is 1,160 acres. The Project will
consist of rows of ground-mounted photovoltaic modules, commonly known as solar panels. The site
is located north and south of Marlboro Road and west of the Town of Stephens City; Phase 1 is north
of Marlboro Road and Phase 2 is south of Marlboro Road. The HRAB commented on the original CUP
in June of 2020 (see attached comment letter).
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources identifies the following on or near the Phase 2 area:
• #034-1078 Cherry Dale (Mary Stephens House) – located within the Phase 1 area
▪ Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
• #034-1401 – Kent Barley Orchard House – Located on site
• #034-300 - Family Drive – Eligible
• #034-0083 - Carter Hall – Eligible
• #034-141 – Waveland
• #034-84 – Pleasant Green – Potentially Eligible
• #034-1004 – Grand View
• #034-69 – LaGrange– Potentially Eligible
With this application, a Phase 1A has not been provided, only a scope or work. The Applicant has
prepared a Phase I survey for the Phase 1 study area previously reviewed by the HRAB (attached).
Representatives of the Applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional
information on the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB
on the historical elements possibly impacted by the proposed development. The comments will be
included in the Conditional Use Permit application package. Should you have any questions prior to
the meeting please forward them to Staff and they will be relayed to the Applicant.
Please find the following attachments for your information:
• Geographical Map from the Rural Landmark Survey
• HRAB & CUP Application
• Scope of Work Plan – Expansion
• Historic Features Exhibits
• Photographs and DHR Surveys
• Concept Plan
• HRAB June 2020 Comment Letter
• Phase I Survey (Phase 1 study area)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
June 18, 2020
Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Ln
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments
Conditional Use Permit – the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Utility Scale Solar Project
Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District
Magisterial District: Back Creek
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced
Conditional Use Permit application during their meeting on June 16, 2020. The HRAB reviewed
information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and information
provided by the Applicant. This application seeks to construct a utility scale solar project located
on 68 parcels of land that total 957 acres. The project will consist of rows of ground-mounted
photovoltaic modules, commonly known as solar panels. The site is located along Passage Road
and Springdale Road, west of the CSX corridor and the Town of Stephens City.
Historic Resources Advisory Board Comments:
The following historic resources are located on the subject site:
• #034-1078 Cherry Dale (Mary Stephens House) – located on site – 74-A-20
Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
• Survey Area 2 has a structure (labeled building 1) that is not mapped.
o Building 1 is located in the southern portion of the APE and consists of a series of
collapsed buildings. Investigators did identify a potential residence, barn, and
several collapsed outbuildings. The property is in the relative mapped location of
the building attributed to R. R. Turner on the 1885 atlas (see Figure 13). No
evidence of the adjacent building depicted on the early twentieth century
quadrangles was noted during the reconnaissance. (Phase 1A survey - see page
22 for text and appendix C for photograph).
The following historic resources are located adjacent or within the vicinity of the subject
site (buffer area as described in the Applicant’s Phase 1A survey):
82
Historic Resources Advisory Board
CUP Comments – Bartonsville Energy Facility
June 18, 2020
Page 2
• #034-0071 – Rice Robinson House
• #034-0083 - Carter Hall
Eligible for listing in the NRHP
Located adjacent to the area of potential affect (APE)
• #034-1044 – Willow Grove
Located adjacent to the area of potential affect (APE)
• #034-0007 – Kernstown Battlefield
Eligible for listing in the NRHP
After reviewing the information provided, the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB)
recommended approval of the CUP with the following comments:
• The buffers around the historic resources should contain a mixture of evergreen plant
species to ensure a natural appearing vegetative buffer.
• An enhanced buffer along Carter Hall should be provided; similar to the buffer
surrounding the proposed substation.
• A Phase 1 Archeological Survey will be completed as part of the permitting of this
project. This survey should document the collection of historic structures on and
around this development.
o This survey should determine if the structures onsite (Building 1 and
associated structures within survey area 2) are potentially significant.
o This survey should determine if this area would qualify as a rural historic
district.
Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA,
Assistant Director
CEP/pd
cc: Chris Oldman, HRBA Chairman,
Tyler Klein
83
Revised > MArch 2021
PREPARED FOR >
Torch Clean Energy
PREPARED BY >
Dutton + Associates, LLC
Dutton + Associates
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
REPORT >
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the
±381.38-Hectare (±942.4-Acre)
Bartonsville Solar Project Area
LOCATION > Frederick County, Virginia
84
85
PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF THE
±381.38-HECTARE (±942.4-ACRE) BARTONSVILLE SOLAR PROJECT AREA
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PREPARED FOR:
BARTONSVILLE ENERGY FACILITY, LLC
230 COURT SQUARE, SUITE B102
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
PREPARED BY:
DUTTON + ASSOCIATES, LLC
1115 CROWDER DRIVE
MIDLOTHIAN, VIRGINIA 23113
804.897.1960
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
DAVID DUTTON, M.A.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST:
LAUREN GRYCTKO, M.A.
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN:
ROBERT TAYLOR, M.A.
MARCH 2021
86
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
87
ABSTRACT
i
ABSTRACT
In September and October of 2020, Dutton +Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a Phase I cultural
resource survey (Phase I) of the ±381.38-Hectare (±942.4-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area.
The effort involved both archaeological and architectural investigations of the property to confirm
the presence or absence of cultural resources located within the project area and assess their
potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The project
area is located in Stephens City, Virginia, and it is roughly bound by Passage Road, and
Springdale Road; Deer Lane and Carrollton Lane extend into the project area.
A total of 450 shovel tests was excavated throughout the project area. This subsurface testing
revealed that soils were typical of agricultural fields located in a Valley and Ridge physiographic
region, consisting of shallow topsoils and plowzones which came down to extremely rocky subsoils
and in many cases, bedrock. Approximately 94.5 hectares (232.9 acres) of the project area was
subjected to systematic pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey was conducted where soils
had recently been plowed and between rows of planted corn where plowed soils were visible.
Three new sites were identified through systematic pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. Site
44FK1012 was identified via systematic subsurface and pedestrian survey and consists of 6
structures in various stages of dilapidation, one brick lined cistern, a total of eight (8) collected
artifacts and a total of 4 artifacts which were not collected. Artifacts include: the base and body
of a medicine bottle, colorless vessel glass, polished bone, coal, and a machine cut or wire nail.
This site likely corresponds to an 1885 map projected structure labeled R.R. Turner. Due to the
fact that the main structure is still standing and that there are relatively few diagnostic artifacts
which were collected or identified during survey of this site, further subsurface excavation would
likely reveal little new information about this site. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP.
Site 44FK1013 was identified via systematic subsurface survey and consists of a cluster of surface
features including a cellar, stone pile, well, and concrete slab, along with a stone foundation south
of this cluster of these features and a total of 50 artifacts, including, wire nails, whiteware, brick,
plastic, twine, rubber sheet, colorless window glass, milk glass lid liner, lime, plaster, aqua
window glass, hard sheet metal, light blue vessel glass, and aqua vessel glass. This site likely
corresponds to the 1885 map projected structure labeled Hugh Bradley. The presence of modern
cultural material such as twine, sheet metal, plastic, and rubber sheet suggest that this site has
been in use well into the twenty-first century. This is confirmed by aerial imagery from the early
21st century which shows the still standing structures. Due to the long occupation date range,
D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Site 44FK1014 was identified via systematic pedestrian survey of a planted corn field which
surrounded a ruinous log structure, a well, and a basin. Additionally, two grids were placed south
of the log structure, on the wooded slope which abuts the structure to the south. To the north, east,
and west of the structure, land had to been plowed, planted with corn and harvested, and soils
were exposed at approximately 80 percent; and as such, were subjected to pedestrian survey in
lieu of subsurface testing. Subsurface testing within the wooded, sloped portion of the site,
combined with the three judgmental shovel test pits which were excavated within the site produced
88
ABSTRACT
ii
87 artifacts from 17 shovel test pits. The structures and features, along with a scatter of early to
mid-20th century artifacts collected during pedestrian survey, and a total of 87 artifacts which
were collected from the 17 positive shovel test pits comprise Site 44FK1014. Historic artifacts
collected from the shovel test pits include: redware, colorless vessel glass, aqua window pane
glass, fragments of an iron lid, whiteware, amber bottle glass, wire nails, a machine cut nail or
wrought nail, milk glass, metal sheet, coarse earthenware, ironstone, and folded iron fragments
and brick. During pedestrian survey of the exposed plowed fields north, east, and west of the log
structure, diagnostic artifacts which were collected include: Majolica which dates to c. 1876-1910,
whiteware, ironstone, yellowware, stoneware, a mother of pearl button, and cobalt blue vessel
glass, and a piece of clear vessel glass. Artifacts suggest that this site relates to the occupation of
the unnamed structure(s) on the 1885 and 1937 maps. The presence of wire nails, sheet metal,
folded iron fragments and milk glass demonstrate a wide occupation range. Due to the wide
occupation date range for this site, D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion
in the NRHP.
There are four previously recorded sites which VCRIS records project to be located on the eastern
edge of the project area (Sites 44FK0166-68 and 44FK0163). Site 44FK0168 is a possibly
unfinished stone fence which was built along a property line. Site 44FK0167 consists of a Native
American site with 1 chert biface fragment, chert pieces, and cortical flakes. Site 44FK0166 is a
check dam and pond. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit with debris including bottle
glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin. These sites were subjected to pedestrian
and/or subsurface survey as appropriate. Site 44FK0166 was identified further northeast than it
is projected to be located in VCRIS. Site 44FK0168 was re-identified in its VCRIS projected
location. The stone wall was re-mapped and documented, no other features were identified with
the wall, and it is thought to, indeed, represent a property line. Subsurface testing was conducted
at the projected location of Site 44FK0167, no shovel test pits were positive for cultural material,
and the site was not re-identified. The projected location of Site 44FK0163 was visually inspected
for evidence of the twentieth century trash pit. No evidence of this site was identified. Due to the
fact that these sites are projected so close to the boundary of the project area, it is likely that the
sites which were not identified are in actuality located to the west of the project area boundary.
D+A recommends that Sites 44FK0163, and 44FK0166 through 44FK0168 are not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.
Overall, the newly identified sites located within the project area represent typical farmstead sites
dating to the late nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century. The previously
recorded Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, and 44FK0168 also represent agricultural activity and
domestic dumping. Site 44FK0167 – a Native American lithic scatter – was not re-identified and
is most likely located outside of the project area. D+A recommends that no further archaeological
work be conducted on this project area.
The architectural resources survey for the Bartonsville Solar Project resulted in the identification
and recordation of fifty-seven (57) architectural resources greater than 50 years of age
(constructed in 1970 or earlier) located within the one-half mile architectural survey area, two of
which are located directly within the project area. Of the surveyed resources, twenty-nine (29)
were previously recorded (VDHR# 034-0028, 034-0071, 034-0083, 034-1010/1015, 034-1039,
034-1044, 034-1045, 034-1061, 034-1062, 034-1077, 034-1078, 034-1398, 034-1402, 034-1408,
89
ABSTRACT
iii
034-1409, 034-1423/1429, 304-0189, and 304-5007) and twenty-eight (28) were newly recorded
during this Phase I Survey (VDHR# 034-5327/5354). One of the previously recorded resources
was previously noted as having been demolished (VDHR# 034-1039), and three additional
previously recorded resources were found to have been demolished since they were last surveyed
(VDHR# 034-1061, 034-1426, and 034-1427). The resources within the survey area and
documented as part of this effort consist primarily of domestic buildings and farmsteads from the
late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, as well as a smaller number of earlier and later homes,
several twentieth century industrial buildings, and two nineteenth century cemeteries.
Of the surveyed resources, three are considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. These
properties, which are farm dwellings from the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century, are
all considered eligible for architecture as good examples of regional forms and styles, in addition
to their retention of intact historic agricultural complexes. The rest of the surveyed resources are
primarily modest frame and masonry dwellings from the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century
that reflect common forms and types found throughout the region from that time period. None of
these appear to reflect any unique or significant design or historical associations, and as such, all
are considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or collectively.
The three NRHP-eligible resources were assessed for impacts brought about by the project
through inspection of existing conditions and viewshed analysis. This effort found that the rolling
terrain and existing vegetation patterns between them and the project area generally inhibit wide
or uninterrupted visibility of the project area. The retention of existing vegetation, couple with
proposed supplemental landscape buffer to be planted around the perimeter of the project area
will provide further screening, and as such, it is anticipated that the project area and solar arrays
within it will not be visible from the resources themselves or most public vantage points near them.
A separate, discontiguous component of the project, consisting of a substation and interconnect
outside of the main array area is currently partially visible from one of the eligible resources,
however, topography in the area provides screening from most public vantage points. This
substation site is to be further screened by proposed landscape buffer to be planted around the
perimeter. This screening will inhibit visibility of the substation and is anticipated to blend in to
the existing treeline immediately behind it. As such, any substantially new or incompatible features
from the project are anticipated to be minimized. As such, the Bartonsville Solar project is
recommended to pose no more than a minimal impact to either NRHP-eligible resource.
Table of NRHP-eligible architectural resources with recommendations of project impacts
VDHR ID# Resource
Name/Address Year Built NRHP Eligibility Project Impacts
034-0071
Old Rice Property,
4253 Middle Road c.1800
Treated as NRHP-
Eligible Minimal Impact
034-0083
Carter Hall, 310
Carters Lane 1830 NRHP-Eligible Minimal Impact
034-1078
Cherry Dale, 557
Marlboro Road c.1797 NRHP-Eligible Minimal Impact
90
ABSTRACT
iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
2.SURVEY AREA .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
3.RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 3-1
4.ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 4-1
Physical Description and Location ........................................................................................ 4-1
Geology and Topography ...................................................................................................... 4-2
Hydrology .............................................................................................................................. 4-3
Pedology ................................................................................................................................ 4-3
5.PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................... 5-1
Previous Surveys Relevant to the Site ................................................................................... 5-1
Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within One Mile ............................................... 5-1
Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within One Mile .......................................... 5-7
6.CULTURAL CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Paleoindian Period (Prior to 8000 b.c.) .................................................................................. 6-1
Archaic Period (8000 to 1200 b.c.) ........................................................................................ 6-2
Woodland Period (1200 b.c. to 1600 a.d.) ............................................................................. 6-4
Settlement to Society (1607 – 1750) ...................................................................................... 6-6
Colony to Nation (1750 – 1789) ............................................................................................ 6-8
Early National Period (1789 – 1830) ................................................................................... 6-10
Antebellum period (1830 – 1860) ........................................................................................ 6-12
Civil War (1861 – 1865) ...................................................................................................... 6-13
Reconstruction and Growth (1865 – 1917) .......................................................................... 6-15
World War I to World War II (1917 – 1945) ....................................................................... 6-17
New Dominion (1945 – Present) ......................................................................................... 6-19
7.EXPECTED RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 7-1
8.FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 8-1
Archaeological Field Results ................................................................................................. 8-1
Pedestrian Survey ............................................................................................................. 8-1
Subsurface Testing and Systematic Pedestrian Survey ................................................... 8-5
Area A ........................................................................................................................ 8-7
Systematic Pedestrian Survey .................................................................................. 8-14
Grid A ...................................................................................................................... 8-15
Site 44FK1012 ......................................................................................................... 8-16
Area B ...................................................................................................................... 8-17
Grid B....................................................................................................................... 8-23
Site 44FK1013 ......................................................................................................... 8-24
Area C ...................................................................................................................... 8-27
Systematic Pedestrian Survey .................................................................................. 8-36
Grid C....................................................................................................................... 8-37
Grid C2..................................................................................................................... 8-37
Grid C3..................................................................................................................... 8-39
Site 44FK1014 ......................................................................................................... 8-40
Site 44FK0166 ......................................................................................................... 8-41
Area D ...................................................................................................................... 8-43
92
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
Systematic Pedestrian Survey .................................................................................. 8-44
Grid D1 .................................................................................................................... 8-45
Grid D2 .................................................................................................................... 8-46
Area E ...................................................................................................................... 8-46
Grid E1 ..................................................................................................................... 8-49
Grid E2 ..................................................................................................................... 8-49
Grid E3 ..................................................................................................................... 8-50
Area F....................................................................................................................... 8-50
Grid F1 ..................................................................................................................... 8-53
Area G ...................................................................................................................... 8-55
Grid G1 .................................................................................................................... 8-56
Area H ...................................................................................................................... 8-57
Grid H1 .................................................................................................................... 8-59
Area J ....................................................................................................................... 8-60
Grid J1 ...................................................................................................................... 8-62
Site 44FK0163 ......................................................................................................... 8-63
Site 44FK0168 ......................................................................................................... 8-64
Area K ...................................................................................................................... 8-65
Grid K1 .................................................................................................................... 8-67
Area L ...................................................................................................................... 8-68
Grid L1 ..................................................................................................................... 8-70
Area M ..................................................................................................................... 8-71
Systematic Pedestrian Survey .................................................................................. 8-72
Area N ...................................................................................................................... 8-72
Systematic Pedestrian Survey .................................................................................. 8-75
Architectural Field Results .................................................................................................. 8-76
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 9-1
10. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 10-1
APPENDIX A: RESUMES .............................................................................................................. A-1
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT INVENTORY ........................................................................................ B-1
APPENDIX C: V-CRIS FORMS ................................................................................................... C-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: General location of the project area. ......................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2: Aerial view of project area shown in red. Source: Google Earth 2019 ................... 1-3
Figure 2-1: Bartonsville Solar Project Area with archaeological (orange) and architectural
(yellow) survey areas. ...................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 4-1: Aerial view of the project area (red). Source: Google Earth 2020 ......................... 4-2
Figure 4-2: Soil Survey of the project area showing soil types. Source: USDA ........................ 4-4
Figure 5-1: Previous surveys (gray hatched) conducted within 1.0 mile (blue) of the project area
(orange). Source: V-CRIS ................................................................................................ 5-1
Figure 5-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (blue) of the project
area (orange). Source: V-CRIS ........................................................................................ 5-2
93
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
Figure 5-3: Detail of previously recorded sites (red) located on the edge of the project area
boundary (orange). Source: V-CRIS................................................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-4: Map detailing all architectural resources (blue hatched) within 1.0 mile (red) of the
project area (orange). Source: V-CRIS ............................................................................ 5-8
Figure 6-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress ....................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761,
depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress .................................................. 6-9
Figure 6-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia,
by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress .. 6-11
Figure 6-4: Detail of Frederick County, by Wood in 1820, depicting the project area. Source:
Library of Congress ....................................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 6-5: Sketch of the Battle of Kernstown depicting the area of battle. The project area is
outside of the image frame. Source: Library of Congress ............................................. 6-14
Figure 6-6: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. Source:
Historic Map Works ....................................................................................................... 6-17
Figure 6-7: Detail of the 1942 and 1943 topographic maps, Winchester and Middletown,
depicting the project area. Source: USGS ...................................................................... 6-19
Figure 6-8: Detail of the 1966 topographic maps, Middletown and Stephens City, depicting the
project area. Source: USGS ........................................................................................... 6-20
Figure 6-9: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth ............... 6-21
Figure 7-1: 1997 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are
currently, apple orchards. Source: Google Earth ............................................................. 7-3
Figure 7-2: 2003 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are
currently, apple orchards. Source: Google Earth ............................................................. 7-3
Figure 7-3: 2008 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are
currently, apple orchards. Source: Google Earth ............................................................. 7-4
Figure 7-4: 2020 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are
currently, apple orchards. Source: Google Earth ............................................................. 7-4
Figure 7-5: Archaeological probability. Source: Google Earth 2020. ......................................... 7-1
Figure 8-1: Typical terrain of the project area, showing exposed rocks in places, facing south. 8-2
Figure 8-2: Typical pastural land and planted corn located in the southeasternmost portion of the
project area, facing east. ................................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8-3: Exposed, plowed soils in the southeasternmost corner of the project area, facing
north. ................................................................................................................................ 8-3
Figure 8-4: Example of apple orchards located in the project area, facing east. Photo taken in the
northwestern portion of the project area. ......................................................................... 8-4
Figure 8-5: View of woods in the western center portion of the project area, facing south. ....... 8-4
Figure 8-6: Aerial map of project area with topographic overlay. .............................................. 8-6
Figure 8-7: Aerial map of Area A with topographic overlay. ...................................................... 8-7
Figure 8-8: Detail of structures associated with the homestead located within the center of Area
A. ...................................................................................................................................... 8-8
Figure 8-9: Main house, facing southwest. .................................................................................. 8-9
Figure 8-10: Shed northwest of main house, facing northwest. .................................................. 8-9
Figure 8-11: Barn, facing northeast. Blanketed in heavy vegetation. ........................................ 8-10
Figure 8-12: Shed/barn facing northeast. ................................................................................... 8-10
94
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
Figure 8-13: Garage, facing west. .............................................................................................. 8-11
Figure 8-14: Shed northwest of main house, facing southwest. ................................................ 8-11
Figure 8-15: Brick lined cistern. ................................................................................................ 8-12
Figure 8-16: Overview of wooded portion of the area, facing east. .......................................... 8-13
Figure 8-17: Grassland in Area A, facing north. ....................................................................... 8-13
Figure 8-18: Corn in Area A, facing east. .................................................................................. 8-14
Figure 8-19: Artifacts identified during pedestrian survey. ....................................................... 8-15
Figure 8-20: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2. .............................................................................. 8-16
Figure 8-21: Artifacts collected at Site 44FK1012 .................................................................... 8-17
Figure 8-22: Aerial map of Area B with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-18
Figure 8-23: Overview of the stone lined cellar, facing west. ................................................... 8-19
Figure 8-24: Detail of stone line cellar, facing south. ................................................................ 8-19
Figure 8-25: Stone pile, facing southwest. ................................................................................. 8-20
Figure 8-26: Concrete pad, facing southeast. ............................................................................. 8-20
Figure 8-27: Covered well, facing west. .................................................................................... 8-21
Figure 8-28: Stone foundation, facing east. ............................................................................... 8-21
Figure 8-29: Typical terrain and vegetation around .................................................................. 8-22
Figure 8-30: Grassland in Area B, facing north. ........................................................................ 8-23
Figure 8-31: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2, showing potential feature. ................................... 8-24
Figure 8-32: Soil profile of Shovel Test D1, showing burned material. .................................... 8-24
Figure 8-33: Soil profile of Shovel Test (-)A2. ......................................................................... 8-24
Figure 8-34: Artifacts collected at Site 44FK1013. ................................................................... 8-25
Figure 8-35: 2003 aerial imagery, showing standing structures (orange outline) in the location of
Site 2. Source: Google Earth. ......................................................................................... 8-26
Figure 8-36: 2005 aerial imagery, showing demolished structures (orange outline) in the location
of Site 2. Source: Google Earth. .................................................................................... 8-26
Figure 8-37: Aerial map of Area C with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-28
Figure 8-38: Center of Area C, showing location of map projected structure (field identified
structure is shown in the left of this photo and an associated well is shown in the right of
this photo), which is surrounded by planted corn, and exposed ground surface. .......... 8-29
Figure 8-39: Aerial map of Area C with topographic overlay, showing pedestrian surveyed
portion of Site 44FK1014, grided portions of the area, and overall location of Site
44FK1014. ..................................................................................................................... 8-30
Figure 8-40: Overview of log structure facing south. ................................................................ 8-30
Figure 8-41: Log structure facing east. ...................................................................................... 8-31
Figure 8-42: Well, facing north. ................................................................................................ 8-31
Figure 8-43: Concrete and stone basin, facing northeast. .......................................................... 8-32
Figure 8-44: Overall view of the well and concrete and stone basin, facing northeast. ............ 8-32
Figure 8-45: Mid-twentieth century trash pile south of the log structure, facing east. .............. 8-33
Figure 8-46: Stone pile, facing south. ........................................................................................ 8-33
Figure 8-47: Sloped land directly south of the log structure, facing south. ............................... 8-34
Figure 8-48: Vegetation around the stone pile, facing east. ...................................................... 8-35
Figure 8-49: Corn in Area C, facing south. ............................................................................... 8-35
Figure 8-50: Approximate location of mapped structure shown by red star, located within
frequently flooded land (40B) just north of land which slopes between 15 to 25 percent
(14D). For full details see Figure 4-2 in Environmental Context section of report. ...... 8-36
95
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ix
Figure 8-51: Soil profile of A1. ................................................................................................. 8-37
Figure 8-52: Soil profile of C1. .................................................................................................. 8-38
Figure 8-53: Soil profile of judgmental shovel test pit 1. .......................................................... 8-38
Figure 8-54: Soil profile of judgmental shovel test pit 2. .......................................................... 8-39
Figure 8-55: Soil profile of Judgmental 3. ................................................................................. 8-39
Figure 8-56: Soil profile of A1. ................................................................................................. 8-40
Figure 8-57: Representative assemblage of artifacts collected at Site 44FK1014. .................... 8-41
Figure 8-58: Pond associated with dam, facing west. ................................................................ 8-41
Figure 8-59: Berm associated with the dam, facing northeast. .................................................. 8-42
Figure 8-60: Aerial map of Area C, showing location of dam. Left to right: 1997 aerial, 2007
aerial, 2018 aerial image, 2020 aerial. Source: Google Earth. ...................................... 8-42
Figure 8-61: Aerial map of Area D with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-43
Figure 8-62: Typical terrain and vegetation in Area D, showing recently cut hay and plowed field
in the background, facing east. ...................................................................................... 8-44
Figure 8-63: Exposed, plowed soils which comprise the center strip of Area D, facing north. 8-45
Figure 8-64: Soil profile shovel test pit B3. ............................................................................... 8-46
Figure 8-65: Aerial map of Area E with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-47
Figure 8-66: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area E, facing west. ......................................... 8-48
Figure 8-67: Stone pile, facing north ......................................................................................... 8-48
Figure 8-68: Soil profile of Shovel Test D3. ............................................................................. 8-49
Figure 8-69: Soil profile of Shovel Test E3. .............................................................................. 8-50
Figure 8-70: Soil profile of Shovel Test J2. ............................................................................... 8-50
Figure 8-71: Aerial map of Area F with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-51
Figure 8-72: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area F, facing east. .......................................... 8-52
Figure 8-73: Showing ground surface in Area F, facing west. .................................................. 8-52
Figure 8-74: Natural rock outcrop located within the area. ....................................................... 8-53
Figure 8-75: Soil profile of Shovel Test A5. ............................................................................. 8-53
Figure 8-76: Projected location of Site 44FK0167. ................................................................... 8-54
Figure 8-77: Soil profile of Shovel Test B1. .............................................................................. 8-55
Figure 8-78: Aerial map of Area G with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-55
Figure 8-79: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area G, facing east. .......................................... 8-56
Figure 8-80: Soil profile of Shovel Test E2. .............................................................................. 8-56
Figure 8-81: Aerial map of Area H with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-57
Figure 8-82: In use dwelling in center of the area, taken from shovel test pit C4, facing west. 8-58
Figure 8-83: Shed associated with in use dwelling in center of the area, facing west. .............. 8-58
Figure 8-84: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area H, facing east. .......................................... 8-59
Figure 8-85: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2. .............................................................................. 8-59
Figure 8-86: Aerial map of Area J with topographic overlay. ................................................... 8-60
Figure 8-87: Terrain and typical exposed soils on the knoll which comprises Area J, facing south.
........................................................................................................................................ 8-61
Figure 8-88: Judgmental shovel test pit 1. ................................................................................. 8-62
Figure 8-89: Soil profile of Shovel Test A1. ............................................................................. 8-62
Figure 8-90: Stone field wall, facing east. ................................................................................. 8-63
Figure 8-91: Projected location of Site 44FK0163, facing west. ............................................... 8-64
Figure 8-92: Site 44FK0168, facing north. ................................................................................ 8-65
Figure 8-93: Aerial map of Area K with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-66
96
TABLE OF CONTENTS
x
Figure 8-94: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area K, facing south. ....................................... 8-67
Figure 8-95: Gravel road on which tie-in runs just north of shovel test pit K14, facing north. 8-68
Figure 8-96: Soil profile of Shovel Test J1. ............................................................................... 8-68
Figure 8-97: Aerial map of Area L with topographic overlay. .................................................. 8-69
Figure 8-98: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area L, facing east. .......................................... 8-70
Figure 8-99: Soil profile of Shovel Test G3. ............................................................................. 8-70
Figure 8-100: Aerial map of Area M with topographic overlay. ............................................... 8-71
Figure 8-101: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area M, facing west. ...................................... 8-72
Figure 8-102: Aerial map of Area N with topographic overlay. ................................................ 8-73
Figure 8-103: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area N, showing apple orchards and corn rows,
facing north. ................................................................................................................... 8-74
Figure 8-104: Detail of exposed ground between corn rows in Area N. ................................... 8-74
Figure 8-105: Location of surveyed architectural resources in relation to the project area
(northern portion) ........................................................................................................... 8-79
Figure 8-106: Location of Old Rice Property in relation to the project area showing direction of
representative and viewshed photos ............................................................................... 8-85
Figure 8-106: View 1- View of the Old Rice Property and the project area (partially visible) from
the end of the driveway, facing southeast ...................................................................... 8-86
Figure 8-106: View 2- View from Old Rice Property driveway towards the project area (partially
visible), facing south ...................................................................................................... 8-86
Figure 8-106: View 3- View from shared driveway towards the project area (partially visible),
facing southeast .............................................................................................................. 8-87
Figure 8-106: View 4- View from farm stand parking lot towards the project area (partially
visible), facing east ........................................................................................................ 8-87
Figure 8-111: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating existing and supplemental vegetative
screening in the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source: Torch Clean Energy ............... 8-88
Figure 8-112: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around project area in
the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source: Torch Clean Energy ................................... 8-88
Figure 8-113: Location of Carter Hall in relation to the project area showing direction of
representative and viewshed photos ............................................................................... 8-91
Figure 8-114: View 1- View of the Carter Hall setting from Carters Lane, facing northeast ... 8-92
Figure 8-115: View 2- View from Carters Lane towards the project area (not visible- beyond
ridge and treeline), facing north ..................................................................................... 8-92
Figure 8-116: View 3- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by building complex and treeline beyond), facing north ................................ 8-93
Figure 8-117: View 4- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by building complex and treeline beyond), facing northeast .......................... 8-93
Figure 8-118: View 5- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by treeline and wooded area), facing east ....................................................... 8-94
Figure 8-119: View 6- View from Carters Lane towards the project area (not visible - screened
by ridge and treeline), facing north ................................................................................ 8-94
Figure 8-120: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating supplemental vegetative screening in the
vicinity of Carter Hall. Source: Torch Clean Energy .................................................... 8-95
Figure 8-121: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around project area in
the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source: Torch Clean Energy ................................... 8-95
97
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xi
Figure 8-122: Location of Cherry Dale in relation to the project area showing direction of
representative and viewshed photos ............................................................................. 8-109
Figure 8-123: View 1- View of the Cherry Dale setting from Marlboro Road, facing southwest 8-
110
Figure 8-124: View 2- View from Marlboro Road towards the substation site (visible), facing
southeast ....................................................................................................................... 8-110
Figure 8-125: View 3- View from the Marlboro Road towards the substation site (not visible -
screened by topography), facing southeast .................................................................. 8-111
Figure 8-126: View 4- View from Marlboro Road towards the project area (not visible - screened
by development and vegetation), facing northwest ..................................................... 8-111
Figure 8-127: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating supplemental vegetative screening
around substation site. Source: Torch Clean Energy ................................................... 8-112
Figure 8-128: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around proposed
substation in the vicinity of Cherry Dale. Source: Torch Clean Energy ..................... 8-113
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: Unit summary of soils within the project area. Source: USDA ................................ 4-5
Table 5-1: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Those resources highlighted orange are located at the edge of the project area. ............. 5-3
Table 5-2: Previously identified architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project
area. Those resources in bold font are listed in or eligible for the NRHP. ...................... 5-8
Table 8-1: Surveyed Architectural Resources. Bold font denotes resource is NRHP-eligible.
Orange highlight denotes resource is located directly within the project area. ............. 8-77
Table 9-1: Table of NRHP-eligible architectural resources with recommendations of project
impacts ............................................................................................................................. 9-3
98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
99
INTRODUCTION
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
In September and October of 2020, Dutton +Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a Phase I cultural
resource survey (Phase I) of the ±381.38-Hectare (±942.4-Acre) Bartonsville Solar project area in
Frederick County, Virginia. The Phase I was conducted for planning purposes in order to confirm
the presence or absence of cultural resources located on the property. Background research and
field reconnaissance were used to develop an appropriate survey strategy, which was then
implemented. The results of the survey include recommendations regarding potential National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of identified resources. The project area located in
Stephens City, Virginia, and it is roughly bound Passage Road, Springdale Road; Deer Lane and
Carrollton Lane extend into the project area (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
David H. Dutton, M.A. served as the Principal Investigator and prepared the research design.
Lauren Gryctko, M.A., served as the Project Archaeologist and coauthored the report. Robert
Taylor, M.A., oversaw architectural survey and coauthored the report. Dara Friedberg, M.S.,
conducted background research and coauthored the report. Copies of all field notes, maps,
correspondence, and research materials are on file at D+A’s main office in Midlothian, Virginia.
100
INTRODUCTION
1-2
Stephens City Frederick County
Figure 1-1: General location of the project area.
101
INTRODUCTION
1-3
Figure 1-2: Aerial view of project area shown in red. Source: Google Earth 2019
102
INTRODUCTION
1-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
103
SURVEY AREA
2-1
2. SURVEY AREA
For the purposes of this project, the survey area was established to define the area in which the
project may result in impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources. Impacts considered include
“direct”, in which project construction, components, or other aspects may physically alter a
cultural resource. “Indirect” impacts are those which may introduce features, qualities, or other
characteristics into the setting of a cultural resource. In the case of solar projects, direct impacts
are typically introduced by the location of proposed arrays, access roads, fence lines, and utility
easements. Indirect impacts are typically limited to the introduction of visual features.
As such, the archaeological survey area includes the footprint of the project property, workspaces,
access roads, and/or any other areas where ground-disturbing activities directly related to the
project may take place. Specifically, it includes those portions of the project area deemed suitable
for testing as outlined in the Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance For The Bartonsville
Energy Facility, Frederick County, Virginia (SWCA February 2020) along with the portions
which were added post-Phase IA survey.
The architectural survey area includes the project area property, as well as the geographic area
around the project within which the associated project components may be seen. The default
viewshed survey area for solar project according to the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Permit by Rule (PBR) for Solar Energy Projects is one-half mile, unless
topography, vegetation, or other aspects of the landscape warrant a more refined distance. In the
case of the Bartonsville Solar project area, a one-half mile survey area was deemed appropriate. A
map of the defined survey area for archaeological and architectural resources is illustrated in Figure
2-1.
104
SURVEY AREA
2-2
Figure 2-1: Bartonsville Solar Project Area with archaeological (orange) and architectural (yellow) survey
areas.
Archaeological
Survey Area
Architectural
Survey Area
105
RESEARCH DESIGN
3-1
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
The Phase I cultural resource survey of the Bartonsville Solar project area was undertaken in order
to confirm the existing condition of the property, note any surface evidence of cultural activity,
recommend and implement an appropriate survey methodology for the property based upon the
results of the background research and field reconnaissance, and identify the presence or absence
of cultural resources on the property. The background research, field reconnaissance, and field
survey methodologies are summarized below.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
In September 2020, D+A conducted background research with the goal of identifying all
previously recorded historic properties located within and in the vicinity of the project area in
accordance with VDHR’s guidance document titled Guidelines for Conducting Cultural Resources
Survey in Virginia (Revised October 2017). Background research was conducted at the VDHR and
on the internet and including the following sources:
➢ VDHR V-CRIS site files; and
➢ National Park Service, American Battlefield Protection Program, maps and related
documentation.
As part of this Phase I study, D+A checked resource data at each of the above sources to verify
accuracy and ensure the information was up to date at the time of the survey. In further preparation
for the Phase I survey, D+A conducted additional review of the following documents and sources
for information relative to unrecorded historic property locations in the project area:
➢ County Tax Assessors records;
➢ USDA Historic Aerial Imagery;
➢ U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps;
➢ Previous historic resource survey documents; and
➢ Local historical society archives.
The additional review conducted in support of the Phase I survey was designed to identify all
properties greater than 50 years of age located within the project area. Historic properties include
architectural resources, historic and cultural landscapes, battlefields, and historic districts.
CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT
Information from the literature review and background search was used in conjunction with
additional research to develop a cultural and historical context to place the project area and any
identified historic resources within their appropriate context for evaluations of historical
significance. This context was developed through review of previous cultural resource studies,
published and unpublished manuscripts, historic maps, aerial photographs, local histories, and a
variety of internet sources.
106
RESEARCH DESIGN
3-2
For the purposes of this effort, a comprehensive cultural context of Frederick County was prepared
summarizing general historical trends, settlement patterns, and development with a focus on the
vicinity of the project area. Further analysis and context development was undertaken for the
defined survey area so that newly recorded resources could be effectively evaluated.
FIELD SURVEY
Architectural Resources
The background research conducted in support of this effort was designed to identify properties
greater than 50 years of age located within the survey area. A reconnaissance field survey was
undertaken to identify and document all buildings, objects, structures, sites, and districts within
the survey area that were constructed in 1970 or earlier and meet (or will soon) the 50-year
threshold for NRHP-consideration. Construction dates for resources were established through a
combination of archival research, property records search, map analysis, and field inspection.
Properties that have been subject to previous Phase I survey within the last five years or determined
not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the VDHR within the last ten years were not subject to
survey as part of this effort.
For each surveyed resource, field forms were completed with information from site observations
including a physical description of the resource with information such as relationship to adjacent
buildings and structures, general condition, surrounding setting, description of exterior materials,
identifiable architectural or structural treatments, and retention of historic physical integrity. Site
plans depicting the built environment around each property were sketched. Each identified
resource was then marked on both USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle maps and current aerial
photographs. Representative digital photographs were taken to document each property’s existing
conditions, setting, and secondary resources.
All field survey identification and documentation were conducted from public ROW and included
exterior features only. No interior inspections were conducted as part of this effort. In cases where
a resource was not visible or accessible from the public ROW, the property was noted as such. All
field documentation was organized and labeled with a unique identification number. Previously
recorded resources subject to survey were numbered using their existing VDHR ID# while newly
recorded resources were assigned a field recorder number.
All buildings and structures surveyed as part of this study were documented in accordance with
VDHR’s standards and guidelines and evaluated to determine potential significance in accordance
with NRHP criteria. Concentrations of historic resources within or adjacent to the survey area were
assessed in terms of their potential for inclusion in historic districts. Each resource’s present
condition, location relative to other resources, and distinguishing neighborhood characteristics
were noted and photographed for an accurate assessment of NRHP Historic District eligibility.
From each resource deemed to be eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP, a
viewshed assessment was conducted from the property towards the project area. This assessment
included a visual inspection and photograph of the intervening landscape and vegetation to make
107
RESEARCH DESIGN
3-3
a recommendation as to the likelihood that any improvements related to the project may introduce
impacts to the resource.
Archaeological Resources
At the outset of field investigations, a pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted to
document existing conditions and to note surface evidence of cultural activity or material and
identify areas with the potential for intact subsurface archaeological resources. For any newly
encountered archaeological resources identified during the reconnaissance, photographs were
taken of the general vicinity and of any visible features. A field map was prepared showing feature
locations, permanent landmarks, topographic and vegetation variation, as well as sources of
disturbance. Sufficient information was included on the map to permit easy re-identification of the
resources.
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high
probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided in areas of documented or visible
significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or
water saturated soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-
meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet) apart. The soil excavated from
all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests
were approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical
limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the
distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each
direction were documented. Where 80 percent or more of soils were exposed, in lieu of shovel
testing, systematic pedestrian survey was conducted. This survey consisted of crew members
spaced at 15 meter (50 foot) transects, walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground for
cultural material. Where material was found, GPS points were taken, and diagnostic artifacts were
collected.
For any archaeological resources identified during the survey, photographs were taken of the
general vicinity and of any visible features. A field map was prepared showing site limits, feature
locations, permanent landmarks, topographic and vegetational variation, sources of disturbance,
and all surface and subsurface investigations. GPS coordinates for all identified site locations were
recorded and sufficient information was included on maps to permit easy relocation of sites. Notes
were taken on surface and vegetational conditions, soil characteristics, dimensions and
construction of features evident, and the amount and distribution of cultural materials present. All
subsurface archaeological excavations were backfilled and returned to pre-survey conditions.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
All artifacts generated in the course of the survey were provenienced in the field and recorded.
Following fieldwork, the artifacts were transported to the D+A laboratory facilities where they
were cleaned, sorted, and identified. After processing, all artifacts were inventoried using
Microsoft Excel. A computer-printed artifact inventory of prehistoric and historic artifacts is
included as an appendix to this report.
108
RESEARCH DESIGN
3-4
Identification of diagnostic artifacts was made by consulting existing comparative collections and
available regional literature regarding artifact types. Artifacts were assigned dates through the
comparison of identified artifacts with other material culture classes having documented use-
popularity patterns. Ceramics and glass provided primary chronological information. All artifacts
were placed in polyethylene re-sealable storage bags and placed in acid free boxes suitable for
permanent curation. At the conclusion of the survey, arrangements will be made with the client
regarding final deposition of the artifacts.
REPORT AND RECORD PREPARATION
Information from field survey was used in conjunction with background research and context
development to assess each identified cultural resource for potential NRHP-eligibility. A results
section was prepared that summarizes the field findings, assessment of significance and NRHP-
eligibility. The results of the study are accompanied by maps and photographs as appropriate and
were synthesized and summarized in this report along with the research design, archives search,
and cultural contexts. All research material and documentation generated by this project are on file
at D+A’s office in Midlothian, Virginia. VDHR site forms (Virginia Cultural Resources
Information System (V-CRIS) were completed for all cultural resources, 50 years of age or older,
identified during the survey. Site forms for archaeological sites are include as an appendix to this
report.
QUALIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS
The D+A personnel who directed and conducted this survey meet the professional qualification
standards of the Department of the Interior (48 FR 44738-9). All work was conducted in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation (Federal Register 48:44716-44742, September 29, 1983), and VDHR’s
Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Survey in Virginia (rev. 2017).
109
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-1
4.ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The project area consists of ±381.38-hectares (±942.4-acres) of land situated in the Valley and
Ridge physiographic region in Virginia (Figure 4-1). The project area is located in Stephens City,
Virginia, and it is roughly bound by Passage Road, and Springdale Road; Deer Lane and Carrollton
Lane extend into the project area. The project area consists of agricultural fields, woodlands, and
apple orchards. Runoff from the project area drains northeast into Opequon Creek and south into
unnamed tributaries of Stephen’s Run.
110
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-2
Figure 4-1: Aerial view of the project area (red). Source: Google Earth 2020
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The project area topography is characterized by several prominent landforms. Moderate relief and
rolling hills are associated with the Great Valley subprovince of the Valley and Ridge region. The
area is underlain by carbonate rocks. A trellised drainage pattern occurs throughout this region,
111
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-3
with tributaries running perpendicular to fast flowing major streams. The elevation of the project
area ranges from approximately ±226 meters (750 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL) to ±290
meters (950 feet) AMSL, with a general trend toward higher elevation in the northern and western
portions of the project area.
HYDROLOGY
The project area drains northeast into Opequon Creek and south into unnamed tributaries of
Stephen’s Run. Stephen’s Run drains into the Shenandoah River. The Shenandoah River and
Opequon Creek drain into the Potomac River, which drains into the Chesapeake Bay before
ultimately flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. Stephen’s Run
PEDOLOGY
The most prominent soil types within the project area are Frederick-Poplimetno loams (Figure 4-
2 and Table 4-1). A total of approximately 11 percent of the project area consists of land which is
listed as not prime farmland. Approximately 10 percent of the project area is listed as either very
rocky or as “rock outcrop”. All of the soils within the project area are well or moderately well
drained, with the exception of the 0.1 percent of land within the project area which is listed as
“Water”.
112
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-4
Figure 4-2: Soil Survey of the project area showing soil types. Source: USDA
113
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-5
Table 4-1: Unit summary of soils within the project area. Source: USDA
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(If text doesn’t end on an even page)
114
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
4-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
115
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-1
5. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
This section includes a summary of all the cultural resource management events that have taken
place within the project area registered at VDHR through November 2020. It also lists all
previously identified architectural resources and archaeological sites located within the project
area, as well as within one mile of the project area.
PREVIOUS SURVEYS RELEVANT TO THE SITE
Research at the VDHR reveals that five Phase I archaeological surveys have been conducted within
one mile of the project area (Figure 5-1). Of these, one crossed into the project area. This was an
Archaeological Survey of and Management Plan for Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of the
Upper Opequon Creek completed by James Madison University in 1991.
Figure 5-1: Previous surveys (gray hatched) conducted within 1.0 mile (blue) of the project area
(orange). Source: V-CRIS
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE
There are 86 previously recorded archaeological sites located within one mile of the project area
(Figure 5-2, Table 5-1). Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, 44FK0167, and 44FK0168 are all located on
the edge of the project area (Figure 5-3). Site 44FK0168 is a possibly unfinished stone fence which
was built along a property line. It consists of a wall which extends for 23 meters (75 feet) and in
many cases is identified as piles of rock. Site 44FK0167 consists of a Native American site with 1
116
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-2
grey chert biface fragment, 2 grey chert pieces, 1 grey chalcedony, 1 white chert, and cortical
flakes. Site 44FK0166 is a check dam and pond roughly 14 meters (45 feet) in length designed to
control runoff into perennial stream to the north. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit
with debris including bottle glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin. Included among
all of the previously recorded sites are camps, a cave, cemeteries, a church, a dam, dwellings,
farmsteads, military facilities, military camps, mills, outbuildings, quarries, a road, schools, trash
pits, and a warehouse. The sites date from the prehistoric to the twentieth century. None of the
sites have been formally evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP.
Figure 5-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (blue) of the project area
(orange). Source: V-CRIS
117
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-3
Figure 5-3: Detail of previously recorded sites (red) located on the edge of the project
area boundary (orange). Source: V-CRIS
Table 5-1: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Those
resources highlighted orange are located at the edge of the project area.
VDHR
ID# Site Type Cultural
Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status
44FK0005 No Data Native American Pre-Contact Not Evaluated
44FK0143 No Data Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0144 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0145 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0146 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0148 No Data Native American Late Woodland (1000 - 1606) Not Evaluated
44FK0150 Cave Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0151 School Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0152 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century
(1900 - 1999)
Not Evaluated
44FK0153 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0157 Other Euro-American 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated
44FK0160 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0161 Camp No Data No Data Not Evaluated
44FK0162 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American 18th Century: 2nd quarter (1725 - 1749) Not Evaluated
44FK0163 Trash pit Euro-American 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated
118
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-4
VDHR
ID# Site Type Cultural
Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status
44FK0164 Quarry Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0165 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0166 Other Euro-American Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated
44FK0167 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0168 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0169 No Data Native American Late Archaic (3000 - 1201 B.C.) Not Evaluated
44FK0170 Outbuilding Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century
(1900 - 1999)
Not Evaluated
44FK0171 No Data Native
American, Euro-
American
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899)
Not Evaluated
44FK0172 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0173 Farmstead Euro-American 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated
44FK0174 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0175 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century
(1800 - 1899)
Not Evaluated
44FK0176 Trash scatter Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0177 Military
base/facility,
Military
camp
Euro-American 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) Not Evaluated
44FK0178 Farmstead Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century
(1900 - 1999)
Not Evaluated
44FK0179 Dam, Mill Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0180 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0181 No Data No Data No Data Not Evaluated
44FK0182 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0191 Other, Road Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0193 Military
base/facility,
Military
camp
No Data No Data Not Evaluated
44FK0195 Other No Data No Data Not Evaluated
44FK0196 Outbuilding Euro-American 20th Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) Not Evaluated
44FK0197 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0198 Mill,
raceway
Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0199 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0200 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0222 Other, Trash
pit
Native
American, Euro-
American
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899)
Not Evaluated
119
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-5
VDHR
ID# Site Type Cultural
Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status
44FK0235 Trash pit Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century
(1900 - 1999)
Not Evaluated
44FK0236 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0237 Road Native
American, Euro-
American
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899)
Not Evaluated
44FK0238 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0239 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0240 No Data Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0257 Other Euro-American 19th Century (1800 - 1899) Not Evaluated
44FK0264 Other Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0265 Other Native
American, Euro-
American
Indeterminate, Prehistoric/Unknown
(15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0266 Other Native American Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.)
Not Evaluated
44FK0267 Other No Data No Data Not Evaluated
44FK0268 Other, Trash
pit
Native
American,
Indeterminate
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899)
Not Evaluated
44FK0269 Other Native
American, Euro-
American
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606
A.D.), 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th
Century (1900 - 1999)
Not Evaluated
44FK0271 Other Euro-American 20th Century (1900 - 1999) Not Evaluated
44FK0528 Dwelling,
single, Kiln,
pottery
Euro-American Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early
National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860)
Not Evaluated
44FK0547 Dwelling,
single, Kiln,
pottery
Euro-American Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early
National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860)
Not Evaluated
44FK0548 Dwelling,
single, Kiln,
pottery
Euro-American Early National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860)
Not Evaluated
44FK0549 Dwelling,
single, Kiln,
pottery
Euro-American Early National Period (1790 - 1829) Not Evaluated
44FK0565 Military
camp
Euro-American 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) Not Evaluated
44FK0604 Dwelling,
multiple,
Other
Indeterminate,
African
American, Euro-
American
Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early
National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to
World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Not Evaluated
44FK0607 Camp,
Camp,
temporary,
Native
American, Euro-
American
Late Archaic Period (3000 - 1201 B.C.),
World War I to World War II (1917 -
1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1988)
Not Evaluated
120
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-6
VDHR
ID# Site Type Cultural
Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status
Dwelling,
single
44FK0614 Trash scatter Native
American,
Indeterminate
Pre-Contact, Contact Period (1607 -
1750), Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789),
Early National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to
World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War
(1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0626 Outbuilding Euro-American 20th Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) Not Evaluated
44FK0652 Military
camp
Euro-American 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) Not Evaluated
44FK0716 Mill,
raceway
Euro-American 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) Not Evaluated
44FK0738 Farmstead Euro-American Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early
National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865)
Not Evaluated, Not
Extant
44FK0783 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Early National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to
World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War
(1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0784 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946
- 1988)
Not Evaluated
44FK0810 Warehouse Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Not Evaluated
44FK0813 School Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946
- 1991)
Not Evaluated
44FK0814 Church African
American
Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946
- 1991)
Not Evaluated
44FK0836 Cemetery Euro-American Early National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916)
Not Evaluated
44FK0837 Cemetery Euro-American Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916)
Not Evaluated
44FK0842 Cemetery Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945)
Not Evaluated
44FK0866 Quarry,
limestone
Euro-American The New Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post
Cold War (1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
121
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-7
VDHR
ID# Site Type Cultural
Designation Temporal Association NRHP Status
44FK0867 Quarry,
limestone
Euro-American World War I to World War II (1917 -
1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991),
Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0872 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction
and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I
to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War
(1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0880 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Colony to Nation (1751 - 1789), Early
National Period (1790 - 1829),
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to
World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War
(1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0883 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946
- 1991), Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0981 Outbuilding Euro-American World War I to World War II (1917 -
1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991)
Not Evaluated
44FK0982 Cemetery African
American
Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War II
(1917 - 1945), The New Dominion (1946
- 1991), Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK0983 Dwelling,
single
Euro-American Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil
War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and
Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to
World War II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold War
(1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
44FK1005 Outbuilding Euro-American World War I to World War II (1917 -
1945), The New Dominion (1946 - 1991),
Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Not Evaluated
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE
Review of VDHR records identifies 280 previously recorded architectural resources located within
one mile of the project area (Figure 5-3, Table 5-2). Two of these resources are partially located
within the project area. These are two single dwellings dating to the end of the eighteenth century
to the beginning of the nineteenth century (VDHR #034-0071 and 034-1078). One of these, Cherry
Dale (VDHR #034-1078) has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP; the other has not
been formally evaluated.
Included among the remaining resources, there is one listed in the NRHP (Stephensburg Historic
District, VDHR #304-0001). Additionally, VDHR has determined five resources to be eligible for
listing in the NRHP and two resources to be potentially eligible. The remaining resources have
either been determined not eligible for listing or have not been formally evaluated by VDHR.
122
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-8
Figure 5-4: Map detailing all architectural resources (blue hatched) within 1.0 mile (red) of the
project area (orange). Source: V-CRIS
Table 5-2: Previously identified architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Those
resources in bold font are listed in or eligible for the NRHP.
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
034-0007 Kernstown Battlefield (Historic/Current), Kernstown
Battlefield and Opequon Presbyterian Church (Historic),
Kernstown Battlefield and Pritchard House (Historic),
Kernstown Battlefield and Rose Hill Farm (Historic),
Kernstown II Battlefield (Historic)
DHR Staff: Eligible
034-1277 Copenhaver House (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated
034-0027 Farm, 3735 Middle Road (Route 628) (Function/Location),
Stoney Lonesome Farm (Current), Wilson-Magill-Madagan
House (Historic)
DHR Evaluation
Committee: Eligible
034-0028 House, 3924 Middle Road (Route 628) (Function/Location),
Neill-Huck House (Historic)
Not Evaluated
034-0029 Site of Fort Pickering (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated
034-0065 House, 5546 Valley Pike (Function/Location), Thornton,
Joseph, House (Historic), Zea House (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible, Not
Extant
034-0069 House, 5498 Valley Pike (Function/Location), LaGrange
(Current), M. Lewis Costello House (Historic), McLeod
House (Historic)
DHR Staff: Potentially
Eligible
034-0071 Allen-Streit-Chamberlin House (Historic), Old Rice Property
(Historic), Old Warren Rice Property (Historic), Rice-Robinson
House (Current)
Not Evaluated
034-0072 Miller, Dr. C., House (Historic), Solenberger House (Current),
Solenberger Place (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
123
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-9
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
034-0083 Carter Hall (Historic), Carter House (Current) DHR Staff: Eligible
034-0300 Family Drive In (Function/Location), Family Drive-in
(Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Eligible
034-0990 Buena Vista (Current), Monk House (Historic) Not Evaluated, Not Extant
034-0991 Evans-Walker House (Historic), Hastreiter House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-0992 Rittenouer-Boyer House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-0993 Schryock-Aylor House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-0994 Martin-Hollis House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-0995 Hinkle-Hollis House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-0996 Lewis House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-0997 Hovermale, Elsie, House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-0998 House, Route 11 South (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
034-0999 House, Route 11 South (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
034-1002 Combs, Donald House (Current), House, 5844 Valley Pike
(Function/Location), Orndorff (Historic)
Not Evaluated
034-1003 Boyer, Carmel, House (Historic), House, 5811 Valley Pike
(Function/Location), Sycamore Hill (Current)
DHR Staff: Potentially
Eligible
034-1006 Elaine Combs House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1007 Bartonville Post Office (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1008 Bowers, J.S., House (Historic), Hepler, Thomas, House
(Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1009 Bennington-Messick House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1010 Clark-Messick, Albert, House (Historic), Longcreek Farm
(Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1011 Carbaugh, S. House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1012 House, 1037 Springdale Road (Route 648) (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1013 Bungalow, Route 648 (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
034-1014 Hinkle, M., Dr., House (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated
034-1015 Bucher-Jones-Keyser-Messick House (Historic), Willows, The
(Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1016 Bowers' Mill (Historic), Shady Elm Woolen Factory, Site
(Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1038 Charles Metz-Hockman-Brown Farm (Historic), Meadow Brook
Farm and Orchard (Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1039 Hotsinpiller House (Historic), Hotsinpiller House Site
(Historic), Site, Hotsinpiller House (Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1040 Henry Carbaugh House (Current), Hockman House (Historic) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1041 Hedgebrook (Current), Kitty Hockman House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1042 House, 551 Shady Elm Road (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1043 Jenkins, Warden, House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1044 House, 285 Old Middle Road (Route 819) (Function/Location),
Will Grove House (Historic)
Not Evaluated
034-1045 Harrow-Dutton House (Historic), House, 171 Old Middle Road
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
034-1061 Princess Lodge (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1062 G.M.Lindamood House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1063 Loy-Carter-Peterson House (Current), Mauk Property (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1077 House, Route 629 (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
034-1078 Cherry Dale (Current), Henry Stephens House (Historic) DHR Board: Eligible
124
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-10
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
034-1205 House, 332 Town Run Lane (Function/Location), Virginia
Esteppe House (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1206 Amos Guard House (Historic), Atwald House (Historic), Guard-
Carbaugh House (Historic/Current), House, 419 Town Run
Lane (Function/Location), Preston Carbaugh House (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1398 Lindamood, B. F., House (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1401 Barley’s, Kent, Orchard House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1402 Barley, Glenn House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1403 Rinker, Ray House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1404 Craig-Miller House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1407 Fred W. Ridings House (Historic), Ridings Hill (Historic),
Ridings House (Current)
Not Evaluated
034-1408 Sunrise Cemetery (Current), Sunrise Church and Graveyard
(Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1409 House, Route 649 (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1423 Apple Grove Farm (Current), Woods, Daniel, House (Historic) Not Evaluated
034-1424 Racey-Gates House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1425 Malick House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1426 Chapman House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1427 Pifer's Store (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1428 Racey-White House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1429 Ginn House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1430 Fetzer House (Historic), Fetzer-Branner House (Current) Not Evaluated
034-1431 Branner's Grocery (Historic), Sour's Grocery (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1432 Branner, William, House (Historic), Miller-Branner House
(Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1433 Oakes, John, House (Historic), Smith-Johnson House (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1434 Relief School (Current), School No. 4 (Historic) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1435 Graves-Snapp House (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1437 Snapp-Massie House (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1438 Richards-Fauble House (Historic), Ridings, W.H., House
(Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-1439 Snap, Luther, House (Historic), Sunnyside Farm (Current) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-5023 Apple Pie Ridge/West Fort Parcel (Descriptive), Second
Winchester Battlefield (Historic)
DHR Board: Eligible
034-5218 Stephens City Mennonite Church (Current Name) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-5219 House, 5442 Valley Pike (US 11) (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-5220 House, 5610 Valley Pike (US 11) (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
034-5224 House, 349 Town Run Lane (Rt 1012) (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0001 Newton/Stephensburg Historic District (NRHP Listing),
Stephens City Historic District (Descriptive)
NRHP Listing, VLR Listing
304-0001-
0191
Lutheran Cemetery (Current Name) Not Evaluated
304-0003 House, 5440 Mulberry Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0004 House, 5206 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0005 House, 5212 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0006 House, 5220 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0007 House, 5226 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0008 House, 5240 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0009 House, 5252 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
125
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-11
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0010 House, 5256 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0011 House, 5260 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0012 House, 5266 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0013 House, 5280 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0014 House, 5286 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0015 House, 5288 Main Street (Function/Location), John Lemley
House, 5288 Main Street (Historic/Location), Sangster-Chipley
House (Historic), Spitzer's Storage (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0016 House, 5290 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0017 Commercial Building, 5294 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0018 House, 5296 Main Street (Function/Location), House, 5296B
Main Street (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0019 House, 5195 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0020 House, 5211 Main Street (Function/Location), Locust Hill
(Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0021 House, 5221 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0022 House, 5231 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0023 House, 5241 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0024 House, 5259 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0025 Church, 5263 Main Street (Function/Location), Stephens City
Freewill Baptist Church (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0026 House, 5267 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0027 House, 5271 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0028 Commercial Building, 5279 Main Street (Function/Location),
House, 5279 Main Street (Alleged)
Not Evaluated
304-0029 House, 5283 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0030 Church, 5291 Main Street (Function/Location), Stephens City
United Methodist Church (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0031 Dean House (Historic/Current), House, 5303 Main Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0032 House, 5327 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0033 House, 5331 Main Street (Function/Location), Mayer, G.F.,
House (Historic), Yancey Apartments (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0034 Commercial Building, 5335 Main Street (Function/Location),
Strosnider Real Estate (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0035 Commercial Building, 5337 Main Street (Function/Location),
Frederick County Edition Office (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0036 Commercial Building, 5339-5343 Main Street
(Function/Location), Store, 5339-5343 Main St.
(Historic/Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0037 Allamong-Milton B. Steele House (Historic), Allemong-Steele
House (Historic/Current), DHR Northern Region Preservation
Office (Current), House, 5353-5357 Main Street
(Function/Location), Steele-Grove House (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0038 Commercial Building, 5359 Main Street (Function/Location),
Stephens City Opera House (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0039 Gregory Apartments (Historic/Current), House, 5366 Main
Street (Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0040 Clem House (Current), House, 5364 Main Street
(Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0041 House, 5360 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
126
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-12
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0042 House, 5356 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0043 Driver-Webster House (Historic/Current), House, 5352 Main
Street (Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0044 House, 5342 Main Street (Function/Location), Lemely,
Eldridge, House (Historic/Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0045 Commercial, 5336-5338 Main Street (Function/Location), Kid's
Korner (Current), Van Zandt Place (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0046 House, 5332-5334 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0047 House, 5330 Main Street (Function/Location), Old Parsonage
(Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0048 House, 5326-5328 Main Street (Function/Location), Venable
House (Historic/Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0049 House, 5322-5324 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0050 Bucher-Lemley House (Current), House, 5369 Main Street
(Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0051 House, 5373 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0052 House, 5377 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0053 House, 5381 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0054 House, 5387 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0055 Commercial Building, 5395 Main Street (Function/Location),
People's Bank of Stephens City (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0056 House, 5382 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0057 Country Goose, The (Current), Harvey's Just-a-Shop (Historic),
House, 5378 Main Street (Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0058 Helsley Place (Current), House, 5372 Main Street
(Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0059 Gregory's Inc. (Current), Showroom, 5368 Main Street
(Function/Location), Theater, 5368 Main Street (Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0060 Commercial Building, 5405-5409 Main Street
(Function/Location), The Flower Center (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0061 Commercial Building, 5413 Main Street (Function/Location),
Equisite Ink (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0062 House, 5415 Main Street (Function/Location) DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0063 House, 5419 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0064 House, 5425 Main Street (Function/Location), Welch House
(Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0065 House, 5408 Main Street (Function/Location), Pittman-Richards
House, 5408 Main Street (Historic/Location), Stone House
Foundation Museum (Current), The Tavern (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0066 Garage, 5420A Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0067 Daniel Benzet House (Historic), George Cabbage House, 5420
Main Street (Historic/Location), House 5420 Main Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0068 Argenbright-Grove House (Historic), House, 5428 Main Street
(Function/Location), Steele-Grove House (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0069 Carbaugh Estate (Historic), Clevenger House (Current), House,
5436 Main Street (Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0070 Century 21 Office (Current), House, 5445 Main Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0071 House, 5465 Main Street (Function/Location), Peggy's Hair
Fashions (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0072 House, 5466 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
127
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-13
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0073 House, 5472 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0074 House, 5473 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0075 House, 5479 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0076 House, 5483 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0077 House, 5493 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0078 Church, 5488 Main Street (Function/Location), Glorious Church
of God in Christ (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0079 Stephens City Elementary School (Historic), Stephens City
Library (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0080 Stephens City Elementary School (Historic), Stephens City
High School (Historic), Stephens City School (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0081 Home Economics Building, Stephens City School
(Function/Location), Stephens City Agricultural School
(Historic/Current), Stephens City School Office Building
(Current Name)
Not Evaluated
304-0082 Stephens City Elementary School Cafeteria (Current Name),
Stephens City High School Cafeteria (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0083 House, 1033 Martin Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0084 House, 5480 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0085 Captain Newcomer House (Historic), House, 790 Fairfax Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0086 House, 5363 Main Street (Function/Location), Lemley House
(Historic)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0087 House, 5300 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), Samsell
House (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0088 Church, 5310 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), Orrick
Chapel United Methodist Church (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0089 House, 5324 Mulberry Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0090 House, 806 Martin Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0091 House, 5354 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), Seal House
(Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0092 House, 5364 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), House, 5368
Mulberry Street (Historic), House, 5368a Mulberry Street
(Alleged)
Not Evaluated
304-0093 House, 5357 Mulberry Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0094 Conner House (Current), House, 5734 Mulberry Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0095 House, 5384 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), Wise-Carver
House (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0096 Church, 810 Fairfax Street (Function/Location), Trinity
Lutheran Church (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0097 Old Town Cemetery (Current) Not Evaluated
304-0098 House, 5218 Germain Street (Function/Location), House, 5218
North Germain (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0099 House, 5275 Germain St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0100 Guard House #2 (Current), House , 5285 Germain Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0101 Guard House #1 (Current), House, 5297 Germain Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0102 House, 5306 Germain St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0103 House, 5311 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0104 House, 5317 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
128
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-14
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0105 House, 5334 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0106 House, 5335 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0107 House, 5355 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0108 House, 5360 South Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0109 House, 5370 South Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0110 House, 5385 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0111 House, 5393 Germain Street (Function/Location), Lemley's,
James, Blacksmith Shop (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0112 Baker House (Current), House, 5407 Germain Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0113 Carver House (Current), House, 5414 Germain Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0114 House, 5437 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0115 House, 5441 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0116 House, 5445 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0117 House, 1065 Green Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0118 House, 1025 Martin Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0119 House, 990 Martin Street (Function/Location), Lemley-Hartley
House (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0120 House, 940 Martin Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0121 House, 5336 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0122 House, 5330 Water Street (Function/Location), Mardeen House
(Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0123 Applegate Antiques and Art (Historic), House, 5155 North Main
Street (Function/Location), Rittenour-Miller House
(Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0124 Dr. John Walls House, 5056 Main Street (Historic/Location),
House, 5056 Main Street (Function/Location)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0125 Bank Building, 5511 Main Street (Function/Location), First
Virginia Bank (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0126 House, 5489 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0127 House, 5484 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0128 House, 5455 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0129 Commercial Building, 5460 Main Street (Function/Location),
Fox's Pizza Den (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0130 Commercial Building, 5444 Main Street (Function/Location),
Texaco Station (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0131 House and Apartments, 5437 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0132 Cardinal Electrical Supply (Current), Commercial Building, 850
Green Street (Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0133 House, 805 Fairfax Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0135 Fire Station, 5346 Mulberry Street (Function/Location),
Stephens City Fire Company, Incorporated (Current), Stephens
City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company, 5346 Mulberry Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0136 House, 5341 Mulberry (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0137 Bank, 5306 Main Street (Function/Location), Farmers and
Merchants Bank (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0138 Commercial Building, 5307 Main Street (Function/Location),
Spitzer's Furniture Company, 5307 Main St (Historic/Location)
Not Evaluated
129
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-15
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0139 Commercial Building, 5317 Main Street (Function/Location),
Suds Laundry (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0140 House, 904 Martin Street (Historic), House, 976 Martin Street
(Current Name)
Not Evaluated
304-0141 Commercial Building, 5187 Main Street (Function/Location),
Home Discount Tile (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0142 House, 5190 Main Street (Function/Location), Polk, Sidney,
House (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0143 House, 5194 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0144 Apartments, 857-895 Newtown Court (Function/Location),
Newtown Court Apartments (Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0145 House, 5227 Main Street (Function/Location), Ridgeway House
(Historic/Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0146 House, 102 Fairfax Street (Historic), House, 970-974 Fairfax
Street (Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0147 House, 5375 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0148 House, 5367 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0149 House, 5341 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0150 House, 5325 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0151 House, 1030 Martin Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0152 House, 1041 Martin Street (Function/Location), Watson House
(Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0153 Brooks House (Current), House, 5340 Water Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0154 House, 5324 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0155 House, 5316 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0156 House, 5265 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0157 House, 5262-5264 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0158 House, 5213 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0159 House, 5207 Germain Street (Function/Location), House, 5215
Germain Street (Alleged)
Not Evaluated
304-0160 House, 5080 Main Street (Function/Location), House, 5082
Main Street (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0161 House, 5066 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0162 House, 5085 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0163 House, Main Street (Function/Location), Shirley House
(Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0164 Enders Funeral Home (Current), House, 5095 Main Street
(Function/Location), Samsell Brothers Funeral Home (Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0165 House, 5103 Main Street (Function/Location), Kay Richards
School of Dance (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0166 House, 5111 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0167 House, 5132 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0168 House, 5148 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0169 House, 5156 Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0170 High Point Restaurant (Historic), High Point Truck Stop
(Current), Restaurant, 5106 Main Street (Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-0172 House, 720 Green Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0173 Funeral Home, 5485 Mulberry Street (Function/Location),
Stephens City Funeral Home (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0174 House, 970 School Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
130
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
5-16
VDHR ID# Resource Name NRHP Status
304-0175 House, 5466 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0176 Commercial Building, 965 Green Street (Function/Location),
Commercial Press (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0177 House, 960 Green Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0178 House, 5350 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0179 Duplex, 5310-5312 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0180 Duplex, 1032-1034 Locust Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0181 House, 5258 Germain Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0182 Apartments, 930-978 Filbert Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0183 Commercial Building, 747 Fairfax Street (Function/Location),
Lily Garden Restaurant (Current)
Not Evaluated
304-0184 House, 5368 Mulberry Street (Function/Location), House, 5368-
B Mulberry Street (Alleged)
Not Evaluated
304-0185 Commercial Building, 851 Green Street (Function/Location),
Mall on Green Street (Descriptive)
Not Evaluated
304-0186 House, 5376 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0187 House, 5384 Water Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-0188 Bell Air (Current), Driver, John W., House (Historic), House,
5246 Grove Street (Function/Location), Tilden, John B., House
(Historic)
Not Evaluated
304-0189 Houses, 5330-5360 Crooked Lane, 1106-1130 Rowe Lane
(Function/Location), Lime Kiln Houses (Current)
DHR Staff: Not Eligible
304-0190 House, 5416 Mulberry Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5001 Hopewell Log Cabin (Current) Not Evaluated
304-5002 Conner House (Historic), House, Main Street
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-5003 House, 5630 Valley Pike (US 11) (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5004 House, 5478 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5005 House, 5474 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5006 House, 715 Green St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5007 Green Hill Cemetery (Current Name) Not Evaluated
304-5008 House, 5296 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5009 House, 5290 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5010 House, 5280 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5011 House, 5261 Mulberry St. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5012 House, 5192 Steele Ct. (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
304-5016 Conner House (Current), House, 5658 Valley Pike
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
304-5017 Conner-Bolen House (Current), House, 5698 Valley Pike
(Function/Location)
Not Evaluated
131
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-1
6.CULTURAL CONTEXT
The following section provides a brief summary of the general overarching regional prehistoric
and historic themes relevant to Virginia and Frederick County. The primary emphasis of this
context focuses on the anthropological and material culture trends in prehistory and history, and
describes how people throughout time could have left their archaeological mark on the landscape
of the project area specifically. Prehistoric and historic occupation statistics and trends were
analyzed, as were historic maps and available first-hand accounts which aided in establishing the
appropriate cultural context for the project area as defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Virginia Department
of Historic Resources’ How to use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration,
Protection, and Treatment Projects (VDHR 2017).
PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (PRIOR TO 8000 B.C.)
Recent archaeological findings in Virginia have found the first Paleoindians are projected to have
arrived in southeastern North America between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago, or approximately
13000 to 9000 B.C. (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Three of the earliest archaeological sites
associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia are the Cactus Hill site (VDHR #44SX0202)
located along the Nottoway River in Sussex County, the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011)
in Warren County, and the Saltville site (VDHR #44SM0037) in Smyth County. These early
populations coincided with the late glacial era when sea levels were approximately 230 feet below
their present-day level (Anderson et al. 1996:3). The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered much of
northern North America, lowering temperatures in the region and creating an ideal environment
for a boreal forest (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Paleoindians apparently survived in this
environment through opportunistic hunting and gathering of smaller mammals, fish, and wild
plants (Anderson 2001). Seasonably mobile, these Paleoindians utilized different food sources at
different times of the year, an extensive subsistence pattern that required a large territory.
Accordingly, the Paleoindians may have maintained a central base camp located either in a diverse
ecozone where flora and fauna were easily procured or near lithic sources that contained
cryptocrystalline stone. Wider ranging satellite camps would then have been seasonally occupied
to exploit other natural resources, be they lithic material, flora, or fauna (Anderson et al 1996;
Daniel 1996; Binford 1980). Most Paleoindian sites are small and scattered, suggesting that the
groups lived in small familial bands distributed across the landscape. The lack of status items
among their archaeological remains suggests that these groups recognized little differentiation in
status, and probably employed an egalitarian social structure. Ethnographic analogies suggest that
Paleoindians might have maintained this rough equality by shunning aspiring leaders, and methods
of property redistribution.
The Paleoindians relied upon durable and easily-shaped cryptocrystalline materials such as chert
and jasper for their tools. They fashioned these rocks into a variety of instruments, among which
were scrapers, gravers, and adzes. Paleoindian projectile points tended to be fluted and bifacially
sharpened. Due to time and rising sea levels, many Paleoindian material culture finds are limited
to isolated projectile points. Researchers differentiate the Paleoindian Period into three smaller
132
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-2
periods reflecting changes in the morphology of projectile points. These periods include the Early
Paleoindian (9500-9000 B.C.), the Middle Paleoindian (9000-8500 B.C.), and the Late Paleoindian
(8500-8000 B.C.).
During the Early Paleoindian, Paleoindians produced large fluted Clovis points, a style widespread
throughout North America, which could be affixed to a spear shaft. Sites from this period are
found throughout the eastern seaboard in very low densities. Regions depicting greater
concentrations of these sites are in Tennessee, the Cumberland and Ohio River Valley, western
South Carolina, the northern Piedmont of North Carolina, and southern Virginia (Anderson
1990:164-71; Daniel 1996; Ward and Davis 1999).
The Middle Paleoindian saw a modification of Clovis points, such as the disappearance of the
fluting in some cases and the addition of “ears” at the base of the point. The appearance of these
new types, such as the Cumberland, Simpson, Clovis variants, and Suwanee points, might reflect
changes in subsistence patterns as the result of rising global temperatures. During this time, it is
theorized that American Indians began to radiate out from their previous range of occupation to
exploit resources from more distant environments (Anderson 1990; Anderson et al. 1996; Ward
and Davis 1999:31).
Changes to the projectile points intensified during the final centuries of the Paleoindian Period
resulting in an increased number of changes in projectile point morphology. The Dalton and
Hardaway types and other variants allowed late Paleoindian peoples to hunt new species.
The Paleoindian’s scattered settlement pattern and simple culture contribute to the limited number
of associated sites in the region, fewer than 75 sites have been identified in present-day Virginia
and only 25 have been positively identified in the entire Chesapeake (Turner 1989; Dent 1995).
Those Paleoindian sites that have been located tend to be quarry sites, which groups frequently
visited and areas where several bands gathered (Meltzer 1988; McAvoy 1992). Many sites were
likely destroyed when warming global temperatures melted the glaciers and inundated the low-
lying Paleoindian settlements.
ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 TO 1200 B.C.)
Dramatic climatic changes beginning about 10,000 years ago prompted a reconfiguration of
prehistoric people’s subsistence strategies and social organization. Specifically, global
temperatures began rising with the dawn of the Holocene geological period, simultaneously
shrinking the glaciers and raising sea levels. In North America, the Laurentide Ice Sheet gradually
receded northward, making the southeastern portion of the modern-day United States warmer and
drier. The boreal forest of the Pleistocene era slowly gave way to a mixed conifer and northern
hardwood forest. The area began to assume its modern-day climate and floral and faunal species.
This warming also resulted in dramatic hydrological changes for coastal Virginia. As the sea level
gradually climbed, the land was flooded; as a result, the lower reaches of the Susquehanna River
flooded to form the Chesapeake Bay.
These climatic changes created new food sources for prehistoric people. The warmer, drier climate
led to a greater biodiversity, especially floral, as spruce and fir forests gave way to nut- and fruit-
133
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-3
bearing trees (Aaron 2009:17). This allowed humans to rely more heavily on gathering wild plants,
nuts, and berries. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered tools, such as nutting stones and pestles,
for processing vegetable materials. The creation of the Chesapeake Bay, furthermore allowed
Archaic people to exploit seafood, such as anadromous fish and shellfish. The appearance of shell
middens during the period testifies to the importance of mollusks to the Archaic diet (Dent 1995).
To exploit these new resources, Archaic people likely intensified their seasonal movement,
splitting their time between a semi-permanent base camp and smaller, dispersed hunting and
gathering camps. Bands of as many as 30 people may have gathered in the base camp for part of
the year, and then dispersed into “microbands,” composed of a single family or two, in other
seasons (Griffin 1952; Anderson and Hanson 1998; Ward and Davis 1999). The range of band
movement would have occurred over relatively large regions. These larger base camps are
theorized to have been located along rich environmental areas near the Fall Line or along main
rivers.
New subsistence patterns also required new technologies and the adaption of existing technologies
to be suitable to existing game. “The spear thrower [called an atlatl] added range and power to the
hunter’s arm. The axe enabled people to fell trees. The mortar and pestle made it easy to pound
and grind nuts, seeds, and roots” (quoted in Aaron 2009:18). With new technologies, smaller game
could be more easily hunted and plants could be processed more effectively. The resulting products
of these technologies differentiate the Archaic Period into three smaller periods. The period also
saw innovations in projectile point manufacturing. In a further divergence with the Paleoindians
who relied heavily on cryptocrystalline lithics, Archaic people utilized more materials, such as
quartzite and quartz.
The Early Archaic (8000-6500 B.C.) is characterized by projectile points with corner and side-
notches, rather than hafting the points to a wood shaft by fluting as the Paleoindians did. The
resulting points, such as the Kirk Stemmed and Notched, Palmer Corner-Notched, Fort Nottoway,
Kessell, Charleston, and Amos, are thus readily distinguishable from Paleoindian points (Custer
1990). Early Archaic people hunted caribous, elk, moose, deer, and bear (Egloff and Woodward
1992:12). Additionally, there appears to be an increase in population at this time.
The Middle Archaic (6500-3000 B.C.) is defined primarily by the appearance of stemmed
projectile points which were fitted into a hold in the spear shaft. Therefore, points such as the
LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford are diagnostic of Middle Archaic assemblages.
Some evidence also points to the use of grinding technology to make atlatls in this period. Mortar
and pestles also began to appear during the Middle Archaic, as did axes. The ability to more easily
clear forests, resulted in a change in hunting as deer, bear, turkey, and other animals came to the
cleared land to eat the new, low-lying growth (Egloff and Woodward 1992:14-15).
Researchers have also pointed out that contexts from this period contain a larger amou nt of
“expedient” stone tools, owing in part to the rapid environmental changes of the Climatic
Optimum, which dates from 6000 to 2000 B.C. (Wendland and Bryson 1974; Claggett and Cable
1982; Ward and Davis 1999). These tools were makeshift and less formal, allowing their owners
to use them for a wider variety of activities than tools designed for specific uses. The greater
134
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-4
density and disbursement of archaeological sites from this period indicates a consistent rise in
American Indian populations.
By the Late Archaic (3000-1200 B.C.), a more congenial climate and more abundant food sources
led to dramatic population increases, there are estimates of tens of thousands of Virginia Indians
during this time (Egloff and Woodward 1992:20). To be certain, this apparent increase might be
exaggerated because Late Archaic people had a richer material culture than previous peoples and
hence left more archaeological evidence of their existence (Klein and Klatka 1991). Nonetheless,
the greater number of Late Archaic sites relative to earlier periods suggests that the human
population did in fact expand over the course of the Archaic Period. According to Barber et al.
(1992), Late Archaic sites were more than twice as numerous as Middle Archaic sites. As humans
occupied the land more densely, they also became more sedentary and less mobile, perhaps owing
to the greater reliance on plant-based food resources compared to hunting and fishing. Late Archaic
people settled along fertile flood plains (Egloff and Woodward 1992:20).
American Indians from this region may also have begun to domesticate plants such as goosefoot,
squash, and gourds (Yarnell 1976:268; Chapman and Shea 1981:70). They also used squash and
gourds for food storage, in addition to earthen pits (Egloff and Woodward 1992:22). The projectile
point technology of the Late Archaic Period is dominated by stemmed and notched point forms,
many with broad blades, likely used as projectiles or knives. These points diminish in size towards
the latter portion of this period (Dent 1995; Justice 1995).
It should also be noted that prehistoric sites that consist of lithic debitage, no diagnostic artifacts,
and an absence of ceramic artifacts likely date to the Archaic Period. These sites are described in
the records as “Prehistoric/Unknown,” however they are most likely to date to this period despite
not having a specific temporal designation.
WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 B.C. TO 1600 A.D.)
The American Indians of the Woodland Period began to maintain a greater reliance on horticulture
and agriculture based on the cultivation of maize, imported from Mesoamerica via the Mississippi
Valley, as well as squash, beans, and other crops. This increased sedentism and the nucleating of
societies (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Populations during this time began to consolidate
into villages near rivers and floodplains with fertile soil, favorable terrain, and access to fauna.
Satellite procurement camps are far less frequent than in the Archaic Period.
The Woodland Period is defined foremost by the development of a ceramic technology for storing
and cooking food. Although Archaic people had carved out vessels from soft soapstone,
prehistoric Americans did not begin shaping ceramic vessels until around 1200 B.C. The earliest
pottery produced on the coastal plain, the Marcey Creek Plain, and other types, in fact resembled
those soapstone vessels, suggesting that they were used for similar purposes. Woodland peoples,
however, modified the square- or oval-shape soapstone inspired vessels. They began decorating
the pieces with cord and tempering them with soapstone and other types of grit to make them
stronger. Examples include Selden Island ceramics (tempered with soapstone) and Accokeek
pieces (which used sand and grit for tempering). Anthropologists divide the period up into smaller
periods based on changing projectile points and ceramics, as well as settlement patterns.
135
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-5
The beginning of the Early Woodland (1200 B.C.-A.D. 300) is defined by the appearance of
ceramics from prehistoric archaeological context. Ceremonialism associated with the burial of the
dead also appears at about 500 B.C. with stone and earth burial cairns and cairn cluste rs in the
Shenandoah Valley (McLearen 1992; Stewart 1992). Early Woodland settlements in the Piedmont
region of Virginia are located along rivers as well as in interior areas and there is evidence to
suggest the Piedmont areas developed a more sedentary lifestyle during this time (Klein and Klatka
1991; Mouer 1991). Many Early Woodland sites in the Piedmont are permanent or semi-
permanent villages that are large and intensively occupied. This corresponds with the
domestication of weedy plants such as the goosefoot and sunflower along intentionally cleared
riverine areas.
During the Middle Woodland (A.D. 300-1000), there is an increase in sites along major trunk
streams and estuaries as people move away from smaller tributary areas and begin to organize into
larger groups (Hantman and Klein 1992). The Middle Woodland diet becomes more complex as
people begin to exploit nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds in addition to fish, deer, waterfowl,
and turkey. Corn by this time had transformed into the large ears familiar today. The bow and
arrow replaced spears for hunting (Egloff and Woodward 1992:25). With more specialized crafts
and increased trade came status. Evidence of rank societies emerges more clearly with the
spreading of religious and ritual behavior including symbols and regional styles apparent in
ceramic styles and other sociotechnic and ideotechnic artifacts.
Variance in ceramic manufacture is a hallmark of the Middle Woodland Period. Pope’s Creek
ceramics are associated with the beginning of this period, and Mockely ceramics with the later.
Pope’s Creek ceramics are tempered with medium to coarse sand, with occasional quartz
inclusions, and interior scoring has also been recorded (Stephenson 1963:94; McLearen and Mouer
1989). The majority of Pope’s Creek ceramics have net-impressed surfaces (Egloff and Potter
1982:99; McLearen and Mouer 1989:5). Shell-tempered Mockley ceramics first appeared around
200 A.D. in Virginia to southern Delaware. There was a variation in surface treatments for
Mockley that included plain, cord-marked, and net-impressed (Egloff and Potter 1982:103; Potter
1993:62).
By the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 1000-1606), the use of domesticated plants had assumed a
role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The arrival and cultivation of beans
joined corn and squash as the three major crops (Egloff and Woodward 1992:26). The adoption
of agriculture represented a major change in the prehistoric subsistence economy and settlement
patterns. Expanses of arable land became a dominant settlement factor, and sites were located on
fertile floodplain soils or, in many cases, on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them.
Virginia Indians became more settled and developed strong identities to their local settings. They
began to organize into villages and small hamlets with more substantial housing that may have
been placed in rows around a plaza (Egloff and Woodward 1992:26). These villages were highly
nucleated and occasionally fortified with palisades. The fortifications demonstrate inter-group
conflict.
136
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-6
SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607 – 1750)
By the seventeenth century, the largest village sites within the northern Virginia region were along
the Potomac River including Namassingakent, near present-day Mount Vernon, Assaomeck, on
the south side of Hunting Creek, and Namoraughquend, near present-day Roosevelt Island. The
Manahoacs occupied the region of northern Virginia east of the Blue Ridge Mountains. When
Captain John Smith explored the region in the early seventeenth century, he stated that the “valley
beyond the mountains was densely populated by agricultural peoples, but did not provide detailed
descriptions of the inhabitants” (Eyewitness Accounts 2012). Dominant American Indian tribes in
the Shenandoah Valley included the Delaware, Catawba, Iroquois, Cherokee, Susquehannock, and
Shawnee (Lehman c.1989).
The first English settlement in what is now the United States began at Jamestown on the James
River. The English then slowly explored and settled the colony, following its navigable waterways.
The remoteness of the project area delayed its exploration and settlement though Jesuit
missionaries may have entered the wilderness of the Shenandoah Valley as early as 1632. Though
European ownership of land encompassing Frederick County was originally by the Virginia
Company, the Crown took it in 1624 and in 1649 King Charles II granted nearly 5,282,000 acres
of land to a wealthy group of English investors (History of Frederick County n.d.). This consisted
of all land between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and from there extended westward into
much of northern Virginia, over the Alleghenies into present-day West Virginia (Parsons and
Ravenhorst 2002:2). By 1681, Thomas, the Second Lord Culpeper, owned most of this original
land grant; after his death, his land would pass to his daughter’s husband Thomas, the Fifth Lord
Fairfax (History of Frederick County n.d.).
Explorers, traders, and trappers slowly pushed west into the Shenandoah Valley from the north
and east. In an attempt to speed up settlement, thereby forming a buffer between American Indians
and more established English settlements to the east, in 1716, Lieutenant Governor Alexander
Spotswood and his survey party crossed the Shenandoah River and surveyed the Blue Ridge (G&P
1997:24). The colony of Virginia began to argue that Fairfax’s land did not extend west of the
Blue Ridge Mountains and began issuing grants of up to 1,000 acres to encourage settlements.
Each parcel would revert to Virginia unless settled with a house and orchard within two years
(History of Frederick County n.d.). For additional enticement, the colonial governor allowed
Quakers, Lutherans, and other Protestants to practice their faiths without joining the Church of
England (Parker 2006:7).
In 1722, governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York undertook treaty
negotiations with the Iroquois. The result of the 1722 Treaty of Albany in Virginia was that the
American Indians would not occupy settlements east of the Blue Ridge. The colony later
interpreted the treaty to mean that the Iroquois had ceded claims to the Shenandoah Valley
(Grymes n.d.a). Settlement of the future Frederick County began in 1729 (History of Frederick
County n.d.).
The 1730s saw the arrival of several groups traveling south from Pennsylvania along an established
American Indian path in the valley that became known as the Great Wagon Road (G&P 1997:24;
History of Frederick County n.d.). This included Germans, such as Jost Hite and those that
137
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-7
accompanied him. They would form the Opequon Settlement, a loose group of homesteads south
of what would become Winchester (Town History n.d.). In 1731, Hite acquired 40,000 acres of
land in the vicinity of present-day Bartonville, land that would also be claimed by Lord Fairfax.
With this dispute, Hite initiated a lawsuit which would not be settled until 1786, after the deaths
of both Hite and Fairfax (Klimm et al. 2002:31). Hite’s fort was constructed in 1734 and he likely
erected a mill on Opequon Creek c.1738, a requirement for a new settlement (C&DC 1927;
VHLCS 1981). This would eventually become known as the Springdale Mill Complex (VHLCS
1981). South of Bartonville, Peter Stephens, who had traveled into the region with Hite, settled in
what would become Stephens City in 1732 (Kalbian 1991:38).
To the west, David Logan acquired 860 acres on the “west side of Buffalow Meadow” in 1742
(Cartmell 1909:16). This marshy area became known as Buffalo Marsh and was known for the
slightly salty water that was frequented by buffalo in the eighteenth century (Cartmell 1909:280).
The settlement patterns of the region were influenced by the land policies of the colonial
government, which encouraged settlers to disperse across the landscape and establish small
farmsteads (G&P 1997:25).
In 1738, the colony’s House of Burgesses created Frederick County from western Orange County
and named it after the Prince of Wales (History of Frederick County n.d.). Because of its sparse
settlement, however, the county’s government was not organized until 1743 (G&P 1997:24).
Multiple counties would be formed from Frederick County between 1753 and 1836.
James Wood, County Surveyor for Orange County, platted the county seat midway between the
early settlements of Opequon and Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). The land that he chose was 1,300
acres of wilderness that he believed to be owned by Virginia. Wood planned 26 half-acre lots and
named the county seat Winchester after his birthplace, though it was known as Fredericktown
before that (History of Frederick County n.d.). A c.1747 map illustrates Winchester in the
Shenandoah Valley with a number of early paths extending out from the settlement (Figure 6-1).
At this time, owners of merchant mills generally took ownership and responsibility of roadways.
This map also depicts Fort Loudoun in the general vicinity; this fort is believed to have been
constructed during the French and Indian War.
Also in 1747 the new county court admitted that the land did belong to Lord Fairfax and in 1749
Fairfax moved to Frederick County and built his home, Greenway Court, at White Post, in present-
day Clarke County east of the project area (History of Frederick County n.d.).
138
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-8
Figure 6-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress
COLONY TO NATION (1750 – 1789)
The western frontier of the colonies witnessed the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763.
As the French and British struggled for control of territory in North America, the northern
Shenandoah Valley region became an important foothold for the English and multiple forts and
stockades were constructed in Frederick County (G&P 1997:25; Parker 2006:7). The largest of
these forts was the previously mentioned Fort Loudoun in Winchester. This fort was designed and
built under the guidance of George Washington who would come to serve as Commander in Chief
of the colonial forces with his headquarters in Winchester. Following the war, Washington was
elected to his first public office representing Frederick County in the House of Burgesses in 1758
and 1861 (History of Frederick County n.d.).
The construction of forts led to an increase in population in Frederick and in the vicinity of
Winchester with the presence of soldiers and families seeking protection. This created an increase
in the demand for food and supplies and led to an expansion of wheat production in the area.
Frederick County’s economy was based on agriculture and by 1760 the primary focus was the
commercial production of wheat. This was in stark contrast to Piedmont and Tidewater Virginia
where the early agricultural economy was based on tobacco. Wheat grew well in eastern Frederick
where there were fertile limestone soils and land was cleared to create additional farmland. In the
western portion of the county, where the soil was underlain by shale, and grains did not grow as
well, mills and pastures were more common. To its north, David Brown purchased Hite’s mill in
1772 and erected a new mill in 1788. The mill provided the local community with a facility to
grind and store flour (VHLCS 1981). Besides grist mills, ironworks were another industry present
Project Area Vicinity
139
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-9
in the county by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. In the 1760s, Isaac Zane founded the
Marlboro Iron Works in Marlboro. By the 1770s, the manufactory was producing four tons of bar
iron and two tons of casting per week which were exported outside of the region (Kalbian
1992:87). The large number of goods produced in the region also led to an increased number of
roads and improvement of existing roads leading to Winchester (Figure 6-2).
Winchester became the primary market town in the region and in the 1750s the town began to
change; it was incorporated in 1779 (Norris 1890:147). To its south, Stephensburg, now Stephens
City, was also growing. Chartered in 1758 by Lewis Stephens, son of the original European settler
in the area, the community was centered on the important crossroads of Valley Pike (Route 11)
and the Old Dutch Wagon Road (Route 277). With this focus on transportation, the Newtown
wagon was produced there. It became well-known for its ruggedness and sturdiness (Kalbian
1991:40).
Following the French and Indian War in the mid-eighteenth century, England passed laws and
instilled taxes upon the colonists in order to pay its war debts. The result was increased tension
between England and the colonies. In response, the 1774 Virginia Convention adopted resolves
against the importation of British goods and the importation of slaves. The Convention also
required each county to form a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry. From eastern Frederick
County (now Clarke County) came Gen. Daniel Morgan and his “Long Rifles”. Additionally,
citizens furnished the troops with food and supplies, including Isaac Zane who supplied the army
with ammunition made at his ironworks in Marlboro, near the Frederick-Shenandoah border.
County residents also supplied food (Kalbian 1992:22). While no military engagements took place
in Frederick County, many prisoners of war were held in the county. Originally, prisoners were
placed in Fort Loudoun, however their numbers grew to the point that new facilities were
necessary. A barracks was built four miles west of Winchester; by 1781 there were 1,600 prisoners
(History of Frederick County n.d.).
Figure 6-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress
Project Area Vicinity
140
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-10
EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1789 – 1830)
Following the American Revolution, Frederick County’s strong agricultural economy based on
grains and livestock continued to grow and insulated farmers from the economic depression
experienced by tobacco farmers. While tobacco was raised in some eastern portions of the county
where Tidewater planters had relocated, it was not a driving force in the economy. In addition to
tobacco, Tidewater planters brought with them a plantation system operated by forced slave labor.
Despite the presence of these plantations, there were fewer slaves and more free blacks in the
Shenandoah Valley compared with other areas of Virginia. Farmsteads were often run by family
members or temporarily hired help (G&P 1997:26). Despite the decreased enslaved labor, some
wealthy families held many in bondage. Just south of the project area, William Arthur Carter built
Carter Hall (VDHR #034-0083) circa 1830. On his 1,300-acre plantation, were 99 enslaved
African Americans (V-CRIS #034-0083).
With sustained peace in the new nation, Winchester flourished and by 1810 had about 2,000
residents (Norris 1890:170). South of the project area, Dr. Peter Senseney purchased land in the
vicinity of today’s Middletown between 1776 and 1787. Though he moved back to Winchester,
his family established farming, hide tanning, and merchant mill operations. In 1794, Virginia’s
General Assembly established Middletown. The village would stabilize and slowly become a
thriving community with a number of businesses, churches, and schools (Klimm et al. 2002:30-
32).
Early nineteenth century maps depicts the project area between Stephensburg, Middletown, and
Marlboro Iron Works (Figures 6-3 and 6-4). Stephensburg was continuing to grow as is evidenced
by a petition for the first increase of the town’s boundaries (Town History n.d.). Dwellings were
constructed within the town and in its general vicinity. South of the project area, Cherry Dale
(VDHR #034-1078) was built circa 1797 (V-CRIS #034-1078). As previously noted the Carter
family also built their home just south of the project area.
The 1809 map also illustrates the network of roads extending out from Winchester. One such road
that has been on maps throughout the eighteenth century was the Great Wagon Road. This began
to be known as the Valley Turnpike and generally follows the modern alignment of U.S. Route 11,
east of the project area; it connected Pennsylvania with North Carolina. As early as 1797
stagecoaches were running on the Valley Pike (Lehman c.1989). Carter was one of the local men
that promoted the improvement of the turnpike. Extending through Stephensburg, the town
continued to thrive as a freight town (V-CRIS #034-0083). Beginning in 1824, macadam was used
to pave many of the major roadways in Virginia, including the Valley Turnpike (G&P 1997:27).
In an effort to avoid paying the toll on this road, however, locals would follow the driveway
through Carter Hall, likely through the project area, and on to Winchester (V-CRIS #034-0083).
Throughout the county, residents worked in an assortment of industries including a variety of mills
(grist, saw, oil, paper, and fulling), leather tanneries, breweries and liquor distilleries, blacksmiths
and coopers (G&P 1997:26). In 1820, there were 54 mills in Frederick County along with
numerous sawmills, tanneries, and other business activities (History of Frederick County n.d.).
Many of these mills were south and east of Winchester, including along Opequon Creek.
141
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-11
Figure 6-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle
and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress
Figure 6-4: Detail of Frederick County, by Wood in 1820, depicting the project area. Source: Library
of Congress
Project Area
Project Area
142
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-12
ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1830 – 1860)
Frederick County continued to prosper during this period with an economy based on agriculture
and life was centered in Winchester and other smaller towns where there were craftsmen and
merchants (G&P 1997:27; History of Frederick County n.d.). The transportation corridors leading
to these towns, especially Valley Turnpike, were a major driver in their growth. Activity associated
with this road made Winchester one of the largest towns in western Virginia (History of Frederick
County n.d.).
Additional roads and modes of transportation came to Frederick during this period further
increasing growth in the county. Like many places in the country and state, the region received a
major boon with the coming of the railroad. In 1826, the Virginia legislature authorized the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O RR) to operate in Virginia (G&P 1997:27). This led to the
creation of the Winchester & Potomac Railroad (W&P RR) linking Winchester and the port of
Baltimore through Harper’s Ferry. Connection to this large port and Baltimore merchants
improved the farming economy of the valley (Grymes n.d.b). Furthermore, two major roadways
added to the transportation network in the region. These were the Winchester & Berryville
Turnpike, now following the general alignment of Route 7, and the Front Royal Turnpike, now
Route 522 (G&P 1997:27).
The region continued to flourish. Middletown was becoming a busy small trading center and
Stephensburg continued to grow and was known as New Town by the mid-nineteenth century
(Klimm et al. 2002:34; Kalbian 1991:38). The wagon building industry, begun in the previous
century, continued to grow and by 1835 there were at least nine such establishments. In 1845, New
Town was described as “a neat & thriving village” (quoted in Town History n.d.).
The quiet, peaceful life experienced by residents of Frederick County soon began to change. The
first tastes of violence regarding the institution of slavery occurred in 1859. On October 16, John
Brown conducted a raid on Harpers Ferry to liberate and arm area slaves and form an autonomous
realm for them in the mountains of Maryland and western Virginia, where there were few
slaveholders. Frederick County had about 2,300 slaves out of a population of about 16,000, or 14-
percent of the population (Holsworth 2011). While any number of enslaved people is too many,
by comparison, counties continuing to heavily cultivate tobacco had a much higher proportion; for
example Mecklenburg County had a total population of 20,096, 62-percent of which was made up
of enslaved people (USCB).
As the initial public response to the raid ran its course in Frederick, the sentiment grew more
cautious given the strong economic ties that the county had to the northeastern markets (Duncan
2007:4). When Virginia held its secessionist convention in 1861, the four lower Valley counties
(Frederick, Clarke, Berkeley, and Jefferson) sent a strongly anti-secessionist delegation. Strong
Union sympathies would lead to the two northern most counties (Berkeley and Jefferson) to join
the new state of West Virginia (G&P 1997:28). Frederick County was given the option of joining
West Virginia and voting was conducted in 1863, however no votes were reported (Grymes n.d.c).
143
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-13
CIVIL WAR (1861 – 1865)
There were military campaigns throughout the Civil War to gain control of the strategically
important Shenandoah Valley. The valley supplied food, livestock, horses, and soldiers to the
southern cause and it was also important because of its strategic location in relation to Washington,
D.C. (History of Frederick County n.d.). The gently rolling hills provided cover for advancing
troops and the roadways provided access into the interior; Winchester in particular was surrounded
on all sides by low hills that hid the approach of armies (G&P 1997:29; Fordney 1996).
While railroad lines were important during the war throughout the south, the W&P RR was not as
important as others. In early 1861, the W&P RR supported the Virginia move to capture Harper’s
Ferry and removed Confederate supplies when that position was evacuated. However, the line’s
weak construction, its orientation to Union territory, and proximity to the Potomac River made it
of little use to the Confederacy after early 1862 (Winchester & Potomac n.d.). The line was
damaged and repaired multiple times throughout the war (Lehman c.1989).
Winchester, however, was a strategic prize during the Civil War. With its excellent roads north
and east, in Confederate hands it was a serious threat to the supply lines of the Union armies trying
to reach Richmond. In the hands of the Union army, Winchester made Confederate raids and
invasion of the north risky and opened a protected avenue for Union troop movements south
through a valley from which they could attack on the flanks and rear of Lee’s main armies (History
n.d.). Because of this it is believed that the town of Winchester changed hands between the two
sides during the war about 70 times, though it was probably closer to 14 (History of Frederick
County n.d.; Fordney 1996). Occupiers of the town found it almost impossible to mount a defense,
so they usually had to flee quickly, sparing the town from prolonged, destructive sieges (Fordney
1996). During the Civil War, multiple forts were built in the vicinity of Winchester (Lehman
c.1989). With its proximity to Winchester, Newtown became somewhat of a no-mans-land (Town
History n.d.).
In addition to occupation of Winchester, six major battles were fought on Frederick County’s land.
These include: the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester, the First and Second Battles of
Kernstown, and Cedar Creek. The closest battle to the project area were the battles of Kernstown.
In the spring of 1862, Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was carrying out his campaign in the
Shenandoah Valley to relieve pressure on Confederate troops near Richmond who were facing
McClellan on the Peninsula. In March 1862, Jackson wrongly believed his army to be larger than
the Union forces in Winchester and he moved to strike which led to the Battle of First Kernstown.
On March 23rd there was skirmishing in Kernstown, the opening conflict o the Valley Campaign.
This battle took place west of Kernstown, north of Opequon Creek (Figure 6-5). Outnumbered and
out of ammunition, the Confederates withdrew. During the brief battle, the Federals had 590
casualties and the Confederates lost 718 (Salmon 2001:35). Though the Confederates lost the
battle, concerned by the potential threat to Washington, D.C. from the Valley, President Lincoln
had more than 35,000 forces redirected to the Valley depriving Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan of
reinforcements (NPS 1992). The project area lies south of the area determined to be potentially
eligible for the NRHP, core area, and the study area for the battle as determined by the American
Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). In May 1862, as Jackson’s forces were advancing north
144
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-14
on the Valley Pike, there was a skirmish at New Town with Union Gen. George H. Gordon’s
infantry (Town History n.d.).
Figure 6-5: Sketch of the Battle of Kernstown depicting the area of battle. The project area is outside
of the image frame. Source: Library of Congress
145
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-15
While Gen. Lee had Union forces embroiled in combat in Petersburg in 1864, he sent Lt. Gen.
Jubal A. Early and his Army of the Valley on a campaign through Shenandoah Valley hoping to
force Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to divide his army (Adelman n.d.). Following the Battle at Cool
Spring on July 17-18, 1864, Early’s army withdrew south. Believing him to be no longer a threat,
Union Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright abandoned his pursuit and sent the bulk of his forces back to
Washington, D.C. leaving Winchester with a diminished capacity. Gen. Lee ordered Early to
prevent those Federal reinforcements from going to Washington from where they would be sent
to Petersburg. The Confederate cavalry drove away the Federals that had been occupying
Newtown on July 23rd, only to be pushed back themselves (Salmon 2001:353).
On July 24th, Early marched north again and faced Brig. Gen. George Crook at Pritchard’s Hill
near Kernstown (CWT n.d.a). At Bartonville, Early divided his force to strike the Union army
(Salmon 2001:353). This battle took place at Middle Road and the Valley Turnpike at Kernstown.
Early won a decisive victory as Crook retreated across the Potomac River (NPS 1992). The
Federals witnessed approximately 1,200 casualties, while the Confederates lost about 600 (Salmon
2001:355). Buoyed by the victory, Early’s army continued north and burned Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania at the end of July (CWT n.d.). The project area lies south of the area determined to
be potentially eligible for the NRHP, core area, and the study area for the battle as determined by
the ABPP.
In 1864, Grant made Philip Sheridan commander of the new Army of the Shenandoah and set him
on the task of rendering the Valley useless to Confederates. On September 19, 1864, Early’s 14,000
soldiers and Sheridan’s 39,000 clashed at the Third Battle of Winchester, also called the Battle of
Opequon (Adelman n.d.). Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign also included the systematic
destruction of Valley farms, mills, crops, and livestock and anything else that might have aided
the Confederate army (G&P 1997:28). For three weeks in 1864 from late September to early
October, they burned 2,000 barns, 120 mills, and a half a million bushels of grain and confiscated
50,000 head of livestock in the Valley. Virginia’s richest valley was left desolate (History of
Frederick County n.d.).
RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH (1865 – 1917)
The Civil War affected Virginia severely resulting in a heavy loss of life, devastated economy, and
destruction of farms. With the long occupation of Winchester by both armies, the town and its
surroundings were impacted. With the destruction witnessed throughout Virginia, the region
slipped into a depression (G&P 1997:29). As with much of the rest of Virginia, economic realities
following the end of the Civil War resulted in slow redevelopment of the area’s agricultural and
industrial capabilities. Road and railway infrastructure was slowly rebuilt as industry and
agriculture struggled to gain a foothold in the post-Civil War south and towns attempted to re-
establish themselves.
Transportation, which had previously helped the valley to flourish, also aided in its recovery.
During Reconstruction the W&P RR was operated by the B&O RR; afterwards, W&P RR
stockholders regained control and leased the line to the B&O RR which became the Harpers Ferry
Valley Branch of the B&O RR (G&P 1997:27). This line would link the rail hubs of Winchester
and Strasburg (Klimm et al. 2002:34). A station opened at Newtown.
146
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-16
With the presence of the railroad, the communities planned for growth. In the 1890s, the
Middletown Land Improvement Company formed to make plans for the expansion of the town.
Unfortunately, expansion efforts soon fizzled (Klimm et al. 2002:35). Alternatively, to the north,
Newtown did grow. A new charter was granted in 1879 and the town was known as Newtown-
Stephensburg. By 1887, it had become Stephens City (Kalbian 1991:38).
An 1885 map of the county also depicts additional development within and around the project area
(Figure 6-6). Families and/or individuals within the project area or in its general vicinity include
A. Carbaugh, Mrs. E.R. Chamberlain, R.R. Turner, and Hugh Bradley. There was an Alexer
Carbaugh in the Opequon District of Frederick in 1870. On his farm he raised some animals
(horses, milk cows, cattle, sheep, and swine); grew wheat, corn, oats, peas and beans, swe et
potatoes, garden produce, and hay; and produced honey (USCB AS 1870). In 1880, there was an
Elizabeth Chamberlain in the Opequon District of the county whose occupation was listed as
farmer (USCB 1880). In 1880, there was a Robert Turner, African American, in this district
working as a farmer and living his wife and nine children (USCB 1880). In 1900, Bradley,
originally from Ireland, lived on his farm with his wife Ellen (USCB 1900).
Frederick County’s grain and livestock production recovered and they were back to pre-war levels
by the 1880s. Unfortunately, the region had a new competitor in the Great Plains where massive
amounts of grain were cultivated. This competition would lead the county to diversify its economy
into fruit production. Farmers began to plant orchards, specifically apple orchards, in the fertile
limestone soils and by the turn of the century, apples would become the major growth industry in
the region with the largest percentage increase in production occurring between 1910 (351,490
bushels) and 1920 (1,019,546 bushels) (G&P 1997:29). By 1909, an estimated 2,000 acres were
planted with apples (Cartmell 1909:510).
Other early twentieth century crops included corn, potatoes, oats, hay, buckwheat, rye, and peaches
and livestock such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, the quarrying of limestone
emerged in the early twentieth century with several kilns opening along the B&O RR. The poorer
shale soils of the county were largely abandoned for agricultural pursuits during this time and
many reverted back to forest land (G&P 1997:29). At Stephens City, the two large industries were
the Stephens City Milling Company and the M.J. Grove Lime Works, west of the town (Town
History n.d.). Important mineral resources to Frederick County throughout its history are
manganese ore and iron ore, limestone and dolomite, silica sand, clay, and shale (Butts and
Edmundson 1966:1).
147
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-17
Figure 6-6: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. Source: Historic
Map Works
WORLD WAR I TO WORLD WAR II (1917 – 1945)
The production of apples began in the late nineteenth century with the first large scale orchard
planted in 1871 (Hanson 1969). Frederick began the Apple Blossom Festival, in Winchester, in
1924 and the area became known as one of the leading apple producing areas of the state, earning
it the moniker of “Apple Capital”. Businesses related to the production, storage, packing, and
shipping of apples have developed throughout the area (G&P 1997:30). The ease of transportation
of this product was facilitated by the road network around Winchester and the B&O RR and CVRR
which, by 1919, was the Pennsylvania Railroad.
In 1918, Virginia’s General Assembly established the first state highway system, a network of
4,002 miles of roadway. Among the roads to be included was the old Valley Turnpike between
Winchester and Staunton, which still was being operated as a toll road in 1918. As late as 1926, it
remained the only hard-surfaced road of much distance (VDOT 2006:27).
Project Area
148
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-18
Typically in rural counties of Virginia, where agriculture is the primary driver of the economy,
population fell during the Great Depression and World War II as residents relocated to urban
centers in search of work. In Frederick County, however, population increased by nearly 41-
percent as it grew from 12,461 residents in 1920 to 17,537 in 1950 (USCB). In addition to the
hardships during this time, Stephens City witnessed a destructive fire that enveloped the section
of town that had grown around the railroad depot (Town History n.d.).
A 1943 topographic map depicts the homes along the county’s roadways including within the
project area (Figure 6-7). Aside from the construction, it appears that the project area consisted of
farmland. The quarry is identified at the southern end of the project area.
149
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-19
Figure 6-7: Detail of the 1942 and 1943 topographic maps, Winchester and Middletown, depicting the
project area. Source: USGS
NEW DOMINION (1945 – PRESENT)
In the second half of the twentieth century, much of northern Virginia changed quickly as it
developed into a metropolitan suburb. While much of Frederick County remains fairly rural,
Winchester and its surroundings have achieved a more suburban atmosphere in the last decades of
the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Between 1950 and 2000 the population of
Project Area
150
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-20
Frederick more than tripled from 17,537 residents to 59,209 (USCB). The apple industry continues
to be a large part of the local economy however, there is growing employment among
manufacturing, retail, and service jobs (G&P 1997:30). Other industries, including limestone
quarries, manufacturing corporations, construction and light industrial parks, are thriving in the
county (G&P 1997:30; Parker 2006:7). As growth continues in the county, many apple orchards
are being replaced by new roads, homes, shopping centers, and institutions (Parker 2006:7). The
quarry at the southern end of the project area grew and multiplied.
These changes in the rural landscape are evident in the area surrounding Winchester and, to a
slightly less extent, Stephens City. Between 1970 and 1990, the population of Stephens City nearly
doubled (Kalbian 1991:42). The construction of Interstate 81, extending north-south on the eastern
side of the town, in the 1960s is largely responsible for this growth. The boundaries of th e town
grew and the southern end of the project area came within its limits. Topographic maps and aerials,
however, continue to depict a project area that was largely unaltered (Figures 6-8 and 6-9).
Figure 6-8: Detail of the 1966 topographic maps, Middletown and Stephens City,
depicting the project area. Source: USGS
Project Area
151
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-21
Figure 6-9: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth
Project Area
152
CULTURAL CONTEXT
6-22
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
153
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-1
7. EXPECTED RESULTS
A number of factors must be considered in determining the types of sites that can reasonably be
expected to be found in the course of an archaeological testing program. Environmental data such
as geology and hydrology along with historic data including transportation routes and proximity
to settled areas can provide indications about general use and settlement. In addition to background
research, data on previously identified sites can shed light on the types of resources one might
expect to find. The following section summarizes the types of cultural resources expected to be
present within the project area following a review of these factors.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Prior to modern disturbances the character and type of soil would have had a direct effect on the
kind of vegetation and hydrology of the area and on the potential for human habitation and usage.
There is a strong correlation between settlement density and soil fertility. A well-known study of
settlement patterns in relation to soil types (Lukezic 1990) indicates that historic settlement is
closely correlated with the location of prime farmland, and Native Americans during the late
prehistoric period also appear to have had preferences for specific site locations and soil types
(Rountree and Turner 2002:69).
The topography is characterized by a series of upland ridges separated by drainages and swales. A
total of approximately 11 percent of the project area consists of land which is listed as not prime
farmland. Approximately 10 percent of the project area is listed as either very rocky or as “rock
outcrop”. All of the soils within the project area are well or moderately well drained, with the
exception of the 0.1 percent of land within the project area which is listed as “Water”. There is a
lack of major waterways within the project area.
MAP PROJECTED SITES
Historic documents, maps, and literature provided some evidence on the likelihood for the project
area to contain prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. As illustrated earlier in the cultural
context section of this report, historic roads have run through this project area since the 1800s. The
1885 map depicts a road running through the center of the project area along with a few driveways
which extend to marked dwellings. An 1885 map of the county also depicts additional development
within and around the project area. Families and/or individuals within the project area or in its
general vicinity include A. Carbaugh, Mrs. E.R. Chamberlain, R.R. Turner, and Hugh Bradley. A
1942 map shows the same depicted dwellings as the 1885, with an additional dwelling in the
southern center.
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES
While documentary sources have bias and often are limited in their attention to detail, information
on previous surveys and recorded resources in the vicinity of the project area, as well as regional
settlement models offer additional information and perspective on the project area’s potential to
contain intact significant archaeological deposits.
154
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-2
Review of the VDHR VCRIS records shows three historic sites and one prehistoric site located on
the edge of the project area boundary. These sites include Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, 44FK0167,
and 44FK0168. Site 44FK0168 is a possibly unfinished stone fence which was built along a
property line. It consists of a wall which extends for 23 meters (75 feet) and in many cases is
identified as piles of rock. Site 44FK0167 consists of a prehistoric site with 1 grey chert biface
fragment, 2 grey chert pieces, 1 grey chalcedony, 1 white chert and cortical flakes. Site 44FK0166
is a check dam and pond roughly 14 meters (45 feet) in length designed to control runoff into
perennial stream to the north. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit with debris including
bottle glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin.
Two architectural resources area recorded within the project area boundaries; these are two single
dwellings date to the end of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century
(VDHR #034-0071 and 034-1078). One of these, Cherry Dale (VDHR #034-1078) has been
determined eligible for listing in the NRHP; the other has not been formally evaluated.
PREHISTORIC SITE POTENTIAL
There is low potential for prehistoric sites to be located within the majority of the project area. As
indicated in the Phase IA report titled Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the
Bartonsville Energy Facility (SWCA 2020), the project area lacks landforms and features which
are typically associated with substantial precontact sites in the Valley Region, such as rivers,
perennial streams, confluences, and/or well-established terraces. The Phase I survey subsurface
testing strategy should focus along the small unnamed tributary of Opequon Creek, as well as
around the ephemeral drainages located on the knolls and hills within the project area. The location
of Site 44FK0167 should be treated as high potential for a prehistoric site.
HISTORIC SITE POTENTIAL
An 1885 map shows the location of three dwellings. An additional dwelling is shown on the 1942
map. These locations have high potential for historic sites. Three historic sites are located within
the project area near the project area border. The projected location of these sites should be
considered high potential for historic sites. Likewise, the location of map projected structures
should be considered high potential for historic sites.
An 1885 map also depicts several roads and driveways running through the project area which
lead to the abovementioned dwellings. Aerial imagery demonstrates that over time these roads and
driveways have been improved and maintained and are still active today. These roads should be
driven and walked during Phase I survey.
SUMMARY OF SITE POTENTIAL
While D+A used the Phase IA report titled Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the
Bartonsville Energy Facility (SWCA 2020) as guidance for developing a testing strategy, upon
pedestrian survey of the project area, D+A developed an updated probability map. This map took
into account a boundary change which added an approximate 59 hectares (146 acres) to the project
area boundary. Additionally, the subsurface damage caused by apple orchards and the presence of
155
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-3
exposed rock outcrops and lack of topsoil in wooded areas was accounted for. The apple orchards
were not subjected to subsurface testing, as the maintenance of apple orchards involves periodic
stump removal with the use of heavy equipment, followed by the flattening and smoothing of the
ground. Approximately 75.4 hectares (186.3 acres) of the project areas was deemed to have no
potential for archaeological sites due to the present or past use of the land as an apple orchard
(Figures 7-1 through 7-4).
Figure 7-1: 1997 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are currently,
apple orchards. Source: Google Earth
Figure 7-2: 2003 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are currently,
apple orchards. Source: Google Earth
156
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-4
Figure 7-3: 2008 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are currently,
apple orchards. Source: Google Earth
Figure 7-4: 2020 aerial depicting the project area (blue) and areas which have been or are currently,
apple orchards. Source: Google Earth
A total of 290 hectares (717 acres) of the project area were deemed to have low potential for
archaeological sites. Ten percent –29 hectares (71.7 acres) – should be subjected to systematic
shovel test pitting or, when approximately 80 percent of more of plowed soils are exposed on the
ground surface, these areas will be subjected to systemic pedestrian survey.
Due to proximity to water or to a standing dwelling, a total of 4.25 hectares (10.5 acres) of the
project area were deemed to have moderate potential for archaeological sites. In order to account
157
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-5
for a 25 sample of these portions of the project area, a total of 1 hectare (2.6 acres) will be
subjected to systematic shovel test pitting.
Due to the presence of map projected dwellings or VCRIS projected previously identified sites, a
total of 4.6 hectares (11.31 acres) have been deemed to have high potential for archaeological sites.
The locations of Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, and 44FK0168 are recorded as high potential but,
according to VCRIS records consist of surface expressions or features. These three sites will be
subjected to visual reconnaissance. Due to the fact that the previously identified sites were
identified nearly 30 years ago, pedestrian survey will be conducted at the location of these sites in
order to confirm that the sites are mapped in the correct location. Similarly, as the sites have not
been subjected to survey in nearly 30 years, if the sites are located within the project area, they
should be re-identified and subjected to further survey, including mapping and photographing. Site
44FK0167 will be subjected to subsurface testing in order to attempt to relocate the site. If the site
is located within the project area, then subsurface testing will be used to delineate the site and
analyze the eligibility of the site.
Elsewhere, high probability areas will be subjected to approximately 100 percent testing.
A total of approximately 34.65 hectares (85.61 acres) of the project area should be subjected to
systematic pedestrian survey or systematic shovel test pitting (Figure 7-5).
158
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
159
EXPECTED RESULTS
7-1
Figure 7-5: Archaeological probability. Source: Google Earth 2020.
Low probability, test 10%
Moderate probability, test 25%
High probability, test 100%
Previously recorded site
Location of 1885 map projected structure
Location of 1943 map projected structure
160
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-1
8. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
September 2020, D+A conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey of the ±381.38-hectare
(±942.4-acre) Bartonsville Solar project area in Frederick County, Virginia. In addition to a
pedestrian survey of the project area, subsurface testing was conducted to determine the presence
of archaeological resources. Much of the project area consists of recently plowed fields which are
comprised of exposed soils. The portions of the project area that consisted of exposed soils on the
surface were subjected to systematic pedestrian survey as opposed to subsurface testing.
Architectural resources older than 50 years of age within the project area were also surveyed. The
work was completed at the request of the VDHR and in accordance with their guidelines for
conducting historic resources survey in Virginia. The results of the survey are summarized below.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD RESULTS
Prior to initiating archaeological testing of the project area, a systematic pedestrian survey was
undertaken in order to assess existing conditions and the potential for archaeological deposits or
other historic landscape features to be present. Following the pedestrian survey, a plan for
systematically testing the project area was implemented. In assessing locations which required
subsurface testing or systematic pedestrian survey, the document titled Phase IA Archaeological
Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility (SWCA Environmental Consultants 2020)
which assessed the prehistoric and historic site potential of the project area was utilized where
deemed appropriate. The above section titled “Expected Results” was also utilized. The results of
both the pedestrian and subsurface testing are provided below.
PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
At the outset of the field effort a pedestrian survey was conducted throughout the project area. The
project area lies in Frederick County, Virginia. Background research and field reconnaissance were
used to develop an appropriate survey strategy, which was then implemented. The results of the
survey include recommendations regarding potential National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility of identified resources. The project area is located in Stephens City, Virginia, and it is
roughly bound by Passage Road, and Springdale Road; Deer Lane and Carrollton Lane extend into
the project area. The project area consists of agricultural fields, woodlands, and apple orchards.
The roads which are depicted on the 1885 map are still in use today, these roads were used as
access roads for the project area and as such, were driven, walked, and inspected. Pedestrian survey
of the project area as a whole confirmed the environmental factors detailed in the environmental
context: the terrain consisted of gentle, rolling hills (Figure 8-1). Vegetation included corn fields,
freshly plowed fields, hay fields and pastures, apple orchards, and deciduous woodlands (Figures
8-2 through 8-5). The apple orchards were not subjected to subsurface testing, as the maintenance
of apple orchards involves periodic stump removal with the use of heavy equipment, followed by
the flattening and smoothing of the ground. Therefore, land use within active and inactive apple
orchards has resulted in these sections of the project area to have no potential for archaeological
sites.
161
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-2
Several standing and dilapidated structures along with stacked stone piles were identified across
the project area, these will be discussed below in their appropriate area subsection, as they are
relevant to subsurface and systematic pedestrian survey testing.
Figure 8-1: Typical terrain of the project area, showing exposed rocks in places, facing south.
162
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-3
Figure 8-2: Typical pastural land and planted corn located in the southeasternmost portion
of the project area, facing east.
Figure 8-3: Exposed, plowed soils in the southeasternmost corner of the project area, facing
north.
163
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-4
Figure 8-4: Example of apple orchards located in the project area, facing east. Photo taken
in the northwestern portion of the project area.
Figure 8-5: View of woods in the western center portion of the project area, facing south.
164
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-5
SUBSURFACE TESTING AND SYSTEMATIC PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
Following the initial pedestrian survey, a plan for systematically testing the project area was
implemented. The project area was divided into ten areas based on terrain and disturbance labeled
A through N (excluding I) in the order they were surveyed (Figure 8-6). Areas A, C, D, F, J, M,
and N consisted of portions of land which had recently been plowed. For this reason, these Areas
were subjected to a mixture of subsurface testing as well as systematic pedestrian survey. In total,
approximately 94.5 hectares (232.9 acres) were tested through systematic pedestrian survey.
A total of 450 shovel tests was excavated in the entire project area. Through systematic pedestrian
survey and subsurface testing, a total of three (3) new sites were identified. These sites will be
discussed below as they relate to their respective area. The locations of the four (4) previously
identified sites, Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, 44FK0167, and 44FK0168 which are located on the
edge of the project area boundary were subjected to pedestrian and/or subsurface survey as
appropriate. Site 44FK0166 was identified further northeast than it is projected to be located in
VCRIS. Site 44FK0168 was re-identified in its VCRIS projected location. The stone wall was re-
mapped and documented, no other features were identified with the wall, and it is thought to,
indeed, represent a property line. Subsurface testing was conducted at the projected location of
Site 44FK0167, no shovel test pits were positive for cultural material, and the site was not re-
identified. The projected location of Site 44FK0163 was visually inspected for evidence of the
twentieth century trash pit. No evidence of this site was identified. Due to the fact that these sites
are projected so close to the boundary of the project area, it is likely that the sites which were not
identified are in actuality located to the west of the project area boundary.
165
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-6
Figure 8-6: Aerial map of project area with topographic overlay.
166
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-7
Area A
This area is located in the southeastern quarter of the project area. It consists of ridge, its slopes,
and draws (Figures 8-7). Deer Lane extends east into the area and terminates at a cluster of standing
structures. It is bounded to the north and south by the project area boundary, to the east by pastural
land, and to the west by planted apple trees. The area is being utilized as pastural land and
agricultural fields. The center of this area was deemed high potential due to the presence of an
1885 map projected structure. Visual inspected demonstrated that a homestead complex sits in the
center of Area A (Figure 8-8).
Figure 8-7: Aerial map of Area A with topographic overlay.
167
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-8
Figure 8-8: Detail of structures associated with the homestead located within the center of Area A.
The homestead consisted of a total of six (6) structures and a surface feature in the form of a
cistern (Figures 8-9 through 8-15).
168
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-9
Figure 8-9: Main house, facing southwest.
Figure 8-10: Shed northwest of main house, facing northwest.
169
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-10
Figure 8-11: Barn, facing northeast. Blanketed in heavy vegetation.
Figure 8-12: Shed/barn facing northeast.
170
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-11
Figure 8-13: Garage, facing west.
Figure 8-14: Shed northwest of main house, facing southwest.
171
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-12
Figure 8-15: Brick lined cistern.
Around the house complex the land is wooded, consisting of ash, maple, pine, and some locust
trees. There is sparse undergrowth in this area (Figure 8-16). Elsewhere, corn fields and a grass
pasture make up the majority of the area (Figures 8-17; 8-18).
172
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-13
Figure 8-16: Overview of wooded portion of the area, facing east.
Figure 8-17: Grassland in Area A, facing north.
173
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-14
Figure 8-18: Corn in Area A, facing east.
Systematic Pedestrian Survey
Between the planted rows of corn, there was high surface, with the ground consisting of
approximately 80 percent of exposed, plowed soils. For this reason, corn fields were subjected to
systematic pedestrian survey consisting of crew members spaced at 15 meter (50 foot) transects,
walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground for cultural material. Figure 8-7 shows the extent
of the pedestrian survey. Approximately 15.8 hectares (39 acres) were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey.
During pedestrian survey, a small scatter of historical artifacts including three pieces of whiteware
and a piece of clear vessel glass was identified during pedestrian survey (Figure 8-19). These
artifacts were not collected. These artifacts were included in Site 44FK1012, along with the
standing structures, surface features, and artifacts collected during subsurface testing. This site will
be discussed below.
174
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-15
Figure 8-19: Artifacts identified during pedestrian survey.
Grid A
In addition to the pedestrian survey, the portion of Area A on which the homestead sits was
subjected to subsurface excavation. A grid of 84 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 7 transects labeled A through G. A total of 14 shovel test pits were left unexcavated
due to disturbance, proximity to structures, or slope. A total of 8 shovel tests were positive for
artifacts. Six of these positive shovel tests were designated Site 44FK1012, along with the
abovementioned structures and surface artifacts, which is described in greater detail below. Shovel
test pits A2, A2.5 and C3 are not included in the site, as A2 contained concrete and A2.5 contained
a modern bullet slug.
Soils in the transects were variable in depth but showed the typical signs of pastural land in the
Valley and Ridge physiographic region, consisting of typically shallow A-horizon which came
down to rocky subsoil. Most shovel test pits excavated in this area contained rock inclusions.
Depths of A-horizon ranged from 2 to 21 cm. A typical profile representative of the natural
stratigraphy in Area A consisted of 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down
to 7.5YR 5/8 strong brown clay with 20 percent rock inclusions (Figure 8-20).
175
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-16
Figure 8-20: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2.
Site 44FK1012
Site 44FK1012 consists of 6 structures in various stages of dilapidation, one brick lined cistern, a
total of eight (8) collected artifacts and a total of 4 artifacts which were not collected. Artifacts
include: metal hardware, a 5x2x2cm square body medicine bottle. Manufactured by Owens-
Illinois glass company in 195x (the last digit missing from maker's mark) in Gas City, IN (Plant
#12), coal, bone fragment, rose colored vessel glass, aqua vessel glass, and a nail which is either
machine cut or wire. (Figure 8-21). The main structure associated with this site is a 1900 dwelling.
It is oriented approximately south-north and measures 14.6 meters in length by 4.9 meters in width
(48 feet in the length and 30 feet in width). The cistern is approximately 1.7 meters (5.5 feet) in
width and length, the shed just northwest of the main house is approximately 3 meters by 2.4
meters (10 feet by 8 feet), the barn is approximately 12 meters by 4.9 meters (40 feet by 16 feet),
the shed/barn is approximately 6 meters by 7.3 meters (20 feet by 24 feet), the garage is
approximately 11.5 meters by 6 meters (38 feet by 20 feet), and the smaller shed further away from
the main house is approximately 1.7 meters by 1.7 meters (5.5 feet by 5.5 feet).
The location of this site corresponds to the 1885 map projected structure labeled R.R. Turner, who
is likely Robert Turner, an African American farmer who lived with his wife and nine children.
Due to the fact that the main structure is still standing and that there are relatively few diagnostic
artifacts which were collected or identified during survey of this site, further subsurface excavation
would likely reveal little new information about this site. D+A recommends that this site is not
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
10YR 4/6 silty loam
0-13 cm
7.5YR 5/8 clay with
20% rock inclusions
13-20 cm
176
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-17
Figure 8-21: Artifacts collected at Site 44FK1012
Area B
This area is located in the center of the project area. It consists of the northern tip of a ridge, its
slopes, and a swale (Figure 8-22). Carrolton Lane extends south into the area and runs north-south
through the area. This area is bounded to the north by the project area. Elsewhere, pastural land
and soybeans bound the area. The center of this area was deemed high potential for historic sites
due to the presence of an 1885 map projected structure labeled Hugh Bradley.
177
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-18
Figure 8-22: Aerial map of Area B with topographic overlay.
At the projected location of the structure labeled Hugh Bradley, a stone lined cellar, a stone pile,
a concrete slab, and a well were identified. Just south of these features, a stone foundation was
identified (Figures 8-23 through 8-28).
178
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-19
Figure 8-23: Overview of the stone lined cellar, facing west.
Figure 8-24: Detail of stone line cellar, facing south.
179
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-20
Figure 8-25: Stone pile, facing southwest.
Figure 8-26: Concrete pad, facing southeast.
180
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-21
Figure 8-27: Covered well, facing west.
Figure 8-28: Stone foundation, facing east.
181
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-22
Around the stone lined cellar, stone pile, concrete slab, and well is wooded, consisting of maple,
mulberry, ailanthus, and some locust trees. There is sparse undergrowth in this area (Figure 8-29).
Elsewhere, soy fields and a grass pasture make up the majority of the area. The stone foundation
sits at the tip of a ridge in a grass pasture (Figure 8-30).
Figure 8-29: Typical terrain and vegetation around
182
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-23
Figure 8-30: Grassland in Area B, facing north.
Grid B
The portion of Area B on which the cellar, stone pile, well, and concrete slab sit was subjected to
subsurface excavation. Likewise, the flat land around the stone foundation was subjected to
subsurface excavation. This was all treated as one grid, although a gap of unexcavated land was
left south of transects A through C in order to avoid a drainage. Transects A through C are
concentrated around the cluster of surface features to the north, while transect D is located on the
top of the ridge on which the stone foundation sits. A grid of 16 shovel tests was laid out at 15-
meter (50-foot) intervals in 4 transects labeled A through D. A total of 8 shovel test pits were left
unexcavated due to slope or the presence of features. A total of 7 shovel tests were positive for
historic artifacts. These artifacts in the positive shovel tests were designated Site 44FK1013, along
with the abovementioned structures, which is described in greater detail below.
Soils in the transects were variable in depth and showed signs of cultural activity, includin g a
possible feature in shovel test pit C2 which included fill with glass and iron which covered a brick
at the base of the shovel test pit (Figure 8-31). Likewise, shovel test pit D1, near the stone
foundation, consisted of burned material and fill, suggesting that the stone structure burned as
some point (Figure 8-32). Shovel test pits which did not exhibit signs of cultural activity consisted
of about 20 cm of 7.5YR 5/6 strong brown silty loam which came down to 7.5YR 6/8 reddish
yellow clay (Figure 8-33).
183
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-24
Figure 8-31: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2, showing potential feature.
Figure 8-32: Soil profile of Shovel Test D1, showing burned material.
Figure 8-33: Soil profile of Shovel Test (-)A2.
Site 44FK1013
Site 44FK1013 consists of a cluster of surface features including a cellar, stone pile, well, and
concrete slab, along with a stone foundation south of this cluster of these features. The stone lined
cellar measures 4.9 meters north-south by 6 meters east-west (16 feet north-south and 20 feet east-
west). The well measures approximately 2.4 meters by 2.4 meters (8 by 8 feet). The stone pile
measures approximately 4.5 meters by 3 meters (15 feet by 10 feet), and the concrete slab measures
4.3 meters north-south by 3 meters east-west (14 feet north-south by 10 feet east-west). The
remains of the stone foundation consist of a southern wall which runs east-west and western wall
10YR 5/4 silty loam
0-12 cm
10YR 5/4 silty loam
22-36 cm
10YR 6/8 loam
12-22 cm
7.5YR 3/1 loam mottled
with 7.5YR 5/8 clay with
charcoal inclusions
0-37 cm
7.5YR 5/6 silty loam
0-20 cm
7.5YR 6/8 clay
20-30 cm
184
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-25
which runs north-south. A small, more ruinous portion of the northern wall which would have ran
east west exists, consisting of stone rubble. The western wall measures 17 meters (56 feet), and
the southern wall measures 12 meters (40 feet). The stone foundation is nestled in a low spot on
the terrain and is to the north and south by slope. Due its location on sloped land, which is not
ideal for dwellings, it is likely that this stone foundation is the remains of a barn.
A total of 56 artifacts were collected from 9 shovel test pits. Artifacts include: wire nails,
whiteware, earthenware with polychrome exterior dating to 1795 to 1830, lime , safety glass,
brick, a fountain pen cap which dates post 1944, plastic, light blue milk glass, milk glass lid liner,
twine, burned wood, rubber sheet, a metal hardware, colorless window glass, milk glass, aqua
window glass, hard sheet metal, light blue vessel glass, and aqua vessel glass, and plaster (Figure
8-34) (For a full list of artifacts see Appendix B). This site likely corresponds to the 1885 map
projected structure labeled Hugh Bradley. As mentioned in the cultural context section, in 1900,
Bradley, originally from Ireland, lived on his farm with his wife Ellen.
Figure 8-34: Artifacts collected at Site 44FK1013.
The presence of modern cultural material such as twine, sheet metal, plastic, and rubber sheet
suggest that this site has been in use well into the twenty-first century. This is confirmed by the
fact that aerial imagery shows both structures still standing on the 2003 aerial. By 2005, according
to aerial imagery, the two structures had been demolished (Figures 8-35; 8-36).
185
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-26
Figure 8-35: 2003 aerial imagery, showing standing structures (orange outline) in the
location of Site 2. Source: Google Earth.
Figure 8-36: 2005 aerial imagery, showing demolished structures (orange outline) in the
location of Site 2. Source: Google Earth.
Soil stratigraphy is intact and there is evidence of subsurface features such as the burning event
which appears to be associated with the destruction of the stone foundation along with the potential
brick fill feature in shovel test pit C2. However, the amount of surface features present on the
landscape provide ample information regarding the use and occupation of the landscape. Likewise,
as aerial imagery demonstrates, destruction of the structures associated with this site happened less
than 20 years ago. Therefore, all destruction related features, represent modern disturbance. D+A
recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in NRHP.
186
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-27
Area C
This area is located in the northern tip of the project area. It consists of the tips of two ridges and
the drainage between these ridges (Figure 8-37). This area is bounded to the west and north by the
project area, and to the northeast and southeast by wooded vegetation and consists of plowed
agricultural land. The center of Area C was deemed high potential for historic sites due to the
presence of an unnamed 1885 and 1937 map projected structure. The most recent available aerial
maps show the projected location of this unnamed structure as wooded, however, during Phase I
survey, it was confirmed that the center of the area, like the majority of the area, consisted of
planted corn (Figure 8-38).
The location of Site 44FK0166 was also deemed high potential, but due to the fact that Site
44FK0166 consists of surface features, the projected location of the site was subjected to visual
inspection only. Site 44FK0166 is recorded as a check dam and pond roughly 14 meters (45 feet)
in length designed to control runoff into a perennial stream to the north.
187
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-28
Figure 8-37: Aerial map of Area C with topographic overlay.
188
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-29
Figure 8-38: Center of Area C, showing location of map projected structure (field identified
structure is shown in the left of this photo and an associated well is shown in the right of
this photo), which is surrounded by planted corn, and exposed ground surface.
At the location of the unnamed 1885 and 1937 map projected structure, a log structure, a well, and
a basin were identified (Figures 8-39 through 8-44). A mid-twentieth century refuse dump is
situated just south of the log structure (Figure 8-45). Additionally, north of this cluster of structures
and features, a linear rock pile was identified (Figure 8-46).
189
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-30
Figure 8-39: Aerial map of Area C with topographic overlay, showing pedestrian surveyed
portion of Site 44FK1014, grided portions of the area, and overall location of Site
44FK1014.
Figure 8-40: Overview of log structure facing south.
Refuse dump
190
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-31
Figure 8-41: Log structure facing east.
Figure 8-42: Well, facing north.
191
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-32
Figure 8-43: Concrete and stone basin, facing northeast.
Figure 8-44: Overall view of the well and concrete and stone basin, facing northeast.
192
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-33
Figure 8-45: Mid-twentieth century trash pile south of the log structure, facing east.
Figure 8-46: Stone pile, facing south.
193
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-34
Although aerial images show that the area around the log structure is wooded, to the north, west,
and east the land has been plowed and corn has been planted and harvested nearly directly up to
the log structure, as demonstrated in Figures 8-38 and 8-41. Likewise, as demonstrated by Figures
8-42 through 8-44, the land which surrounds the well and basin has been plowed, planted, and
harvested, thus leaving exposed soils directly abutting these features. To the south of the log
structure, land slopes up (Figure 8-47). Vegetation south of the structure on the sloped area consists
of ailanthus trees.
Figure 8-47: Sloped land directly south of the log structure, facing south.
The area around the stone pile is a walnut grove (Figure 8-48). Elsewhere, vegetation consists of
corn fields (Figure 8-49).
194
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-35
Figure 8-48: Vegetation around the stone pile, facing east.
Figure 8-49: Corn in Area C, facing south.
195
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-36
Systematic Pedestrian Survey
Between the planted rows of corn, there was high surface visibility, with the ground consisting of
approximately 80 percent of exposed, plowed soils, as shown in Figures 8-38, 8- 40, 8-47 and 8-
50. For this reason, corn fields were subjected to systematic pedestrian survey consisting of crew
members spaced at 15 meter (50 foot) transects, walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground
for cultural material. Figure 8-37 shows the extent of the pedestrian survey, which totaled to 65
hectares (160 acres) of land. Much of this pedestrian surveyed land was surveyed as part of the
project area deemed to have moderate potential for prehistoric sites due to proximity to the
intermediate water sources and moderate potential for historic sites due to the unnamed 1937 and
1885 map projected structure.
The center of the project area which was deemed to have high potential for historic sites, was also
subjected to systematic pedestrian survey in order to account for testing around the ruinous log
structure. This area of high potential is situated in a portion of the project area which is frequently
flooded, according to USGS soil survey, as shown in the Environmental Context of this report
(Figure 8-50). Here, plowed land with planted corn nearly directly abutted the structure on the
north, east, and west side of the structure, while the land that sloped up to the south was wooded.
The area behind the log structure was subjected to subsurface testing and will be discussed below.
During pedestrian survey, a scatter of historical artifacts was identified. A sample of the diagnostic
artifacts was collected. These artifacts are part of Site 44FK1014 and will be discussed further
below.
Figure 8-50: Approximate location of mapped structure shown by red star, located within
frequently flooded land (40B) just north of land which slopes between 15 to 25 percent (14D). For
full details see Figure 4-2 in Environmental Context section of report.
196
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-37
Grid C
As there was no exposed ground surface on the flat land on which the rock pile sits, this area was
subjected to subsurface excavation. A grid of six (6) shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 2 transects labeled A through B. None of these shovel test pits were positive.
The stone pile measures 15 meters north-south by 1.2 meters east-west (50 feet north-south by 4
feet east-west). This stone pile has characteristics of those which are found along agricultural field
edges, as it is on the edge of a landform and in the Valley and Ridge physiographic region which
is characterized by rocky soils. This stone pile is most likely the result of soils being pushed to the
edge of the ridge at some point during land maintenance.
Soils in the shovel test pits were approximately 20 cm to 26 cm to subsoil and consisted of about
26 cm of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down to 7.5YR 5/8 strong brown
silty clay (Figure 8-51). No shovel test pits within the grided area were positive for cultural
material.
Figure 8-51: Soil profile of A1.
Grid C2
As there was little exposed ground surface on the sloped land south of the log structure, this area
was subjected to subsurface excavation. A grid of 53 shovel tests was laid out at 7.5-meter (25-
foot) intervals in four (4) transects labeled A through D. Three judgmentals were excavated within
the vicinity of the log structure. Judgmental 1 was excavated just south of the log structure.
Judgmental 2 was excavated within the plowed area in order to demonstrate stratigraphy within
the plowed portion of the site, and Judgmental 3 was excavated between the well and the basin, in
the small section of unplowed land between these two features. Only one judgmental could fit
within the unplowed land here. Eighteen of these shovel test pits were positive. Eleven shovel test
pits were left unexcavated due to the presence of exposed rock. Artifacts collected from the shovel
test pits include: redware, colorless vessel glass, aqua window pane glass, fragments of an iron lid,
whiteware, amber bottle glass, wire nails, machine cut nail or wrought nail, milk glass, metal sheet,
coarse earthenware, ironstone, and folder iron fragments and brick. These artifacts, along with the
well, basin, and log structure, are part of Site 44FK1014 and will be discussed below, along with
the artifacts which were collected on the exposed surface of the plowed field north, east, and west
of the log structure.
10YR 4/4 silty loam
0-26 cm
7.5YR 5/8 silty clay
26-37 cm
197
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-38
Soils in the shovel test pits were approximately 33 cm to 12 cm to subsoil, with the majority of the
shovel test pits coming down to bedrock or rocky subsoil. A representative shovel test pit
excavated consisted of 18 cm of 7.5YR 4/3 brown silty loam which came down to 5YR 4/4 reddish
brown silty clay (Figure 8-52).
Figure 8-52: Soil profile of C1.
Judgmental 1 which was excavated within the vegetation directly south the log structure consisted
of 22 cm of 10YR 2/2 very dark brown silty loam which came down to 10YR 2/2 very dark brown
silty loam with 50% bedrock inclusions (Figure 8-53). This shovel test pit was positive for historic
artifacts. All artifacts were included in Site 44FK1014, along with the structures and features. This
site will be discussed below.
Figure 8-53: Soil profile of judgmental shovel test pit 1.
Judgmental 2 which was excavated within the plowed corn field, and consisted of hydric soils
which are most likely the result of plowing in the low area which, as shown by the USGS soil
survey map, is frequently flooded. Judgmental 2 consisted of 24 cm of 5YR 4/1 dark gray silty
loam over 7 cm of rocky 5YR 4/2 dark reddish gray silty clay loam which came down to 2.5Y 5/1
gray clay. This shovel test pit was positive for historic artifacts, which were recovered from the
Strat I. All artifacts were included in Site 44FK1014, along with the structures and features. This
site will be discussed below.
7.5YR 4/3 silty loam
0-18 cm
5YR 4/4 silty clay
18-28 cm
10YR 2/2 silty loam
0-22 cm
10YR 2/2 silty clay
with 50% rock
inclusions
22-32 cm
198
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-39
Figure 8-54: Soil profile of judgmental shovel test pit 2.
Judgmental 3 which was excavated between the well and the basin in the small patch of land which
did not consist of plowed agricultural field. This location was the only area near the well and basin
which did not consist of plowed land with high surface visibility. The shovel test pit consisted of
63 cm of 10YR 2/2 very dark brown silty loam mottled with 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silty
clay fill which came down to rock (Figure 8-55). This shovel test consisted entirely of fill, perhaps
associated with the construction of the well. No artifacts were recovered.
Figure 8-55: Soil profile of Judgmental 3.
Grid C3
Grid C3 was placed just south of Grid C2 in order to ensure that the boundaries of Site 44FK1014
had been determined. This grid is located on the tip of the ridge which overlooks the slope which
leads down to the log structure. A grid of ten shovel tests was laid out at 7.5-meter (25-foot)
intervals in 4 transects labeled A through D. No shovel test pits were positive for artifacts.
Soils in the shovel test pits were approximately 21 cm to 12 cm to subsoil, with all shovel test pits
coming down to bedrock. A representative shovel test pit excavated consisted of 12 cm of 7.5YR
4/3 brown silty loam which came down bedrock (Figure 8-56).
10YR 2/2 brown silty
loam mottled with 10YR
4/6 silty clay fill
0-63 cm
Rock
5YR 4/1 silty loam
0-24 cm
2.5YR 5/1 clay
32-43 cm
5YR 4/2 silty clay
with 50% rock
inclusions
24-32cm
199
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-40
Figure 8-56: Soil profile of A1.
Site 44FK1014
Site 44FK1014 consists of a ruinous log structure, a well, and a basin. The log structure measures
4.9 meters north-south by 7.6 meters east-west (16 feet north-south by 25 feet east-west), the
cement basin measures 4.3 meters north-south by 1.2 meters east-west (14 feet north-south by 4
feet east-west). There is a pile of bricks just north of the log structure – most likely a chimney fall.
In addition to these features and structures, Site 44FK1014 consists of a cluster of artifacts
identified and collected during pedestrian survey of the corn fields which surround the cluster of
structures and features. In addition to the pedestrian survey (which was conducted within the
exposed ground surface to the north, east, and west of the log cabin), where ground surface was
not visible to the south of the log structure, two grids were placed on the slope which extends up
from said structure. Grid C2 consists of 53 shovel tests laid out at 7.5-meter (25-foot) intervals in
four (4) transects labeled A through D. Grid C3 consists of a grid of ten shovel tests laid out at 7.5-
meter (25-foot) intervals in 4 transects labeled A through D. No shovel test pits in Grid C3 were
positive for artifacts. Three judgmentals were excavated within the vicinity of the log structure, as
well. Eighteen of these shovel test pits were positive for historical artifacts. One isolated
prehistoric flake was recovered, as well. Historic artifacts collected from the shovel test pits
include: redware, colorless vessel glass, aqua window pane glass, fragments of an iron lid,
whiteware, amber bottle glass, wire nails, machine cut nail or wrought nail, milk glass, metal sheet,
coarse earthenware, ironstone, and folded iron fragments and brick. During pedestrian survey of
the exposed plowed fields north, east, and west of the log structure, diagnostic artifacts which were
collected include: Majolica which dates to c. 1876-1910, whiteware, ironstone, yellowware,
stoneware, a mother of pearl button, and cobalt blue vessel glass, and a piece of clear vessel glass
was identified during pedestrian survey (Figure 8-57). Artifacts suggest that this site relates to the
occupation of the unnamed structures on the 1885 and 1937 maps. The presence of wire nails,
sheet metal, folded iron fragments and milk glass demonstrate a wide occupation range, Due to
the wide occupation date range for this site, D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.
7.5YR 4/3 silty loam
0-12 cm
Bedrock
200
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-41
Figure 8-57: Representative assemblage of artifacts collected at Site 44FK1014.
Site 44FK0166
Site 44FK0166 is recorded in VCRIS as a check dam and pond roughly 14 meters (45 feet) in
length designed to control runoff into perennial stream to the north which is projected to be located
on the edge of the eastern boundary of the project area. As this site consists of surface expressions,
the location of said site was subjected to pedestrian survey as opposed to subsurface excavation.
Since this site was identified nearly 30 years ago, pedestrian survey was conducted at the location
of this site in order to confirm that the site was mapped in the correct location. While this site was
not re-identified in its mapped location, the remains of a dam were identified during Phase IA
survey. This dam was re-identified during Phase I and is most likely Site 44FK0166 (Figures 8-58
8-59). Aerial imagery depicts the dam over the years (Figure 8-60). D+A recommends that Site
44FK0166 is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Figure 8-58: Pond associated with dam, facing west.
201
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-42
Figure 8-59: Berm associated with the dam, facing northeast.
Figure 8-60: Aerial map of Area C, showing location of dam. Left to right: 1997
aerial, 2007 aerial, 2018 aerial image, 2020 aerial. Source: Google Earth.
202
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-43
Area D
This area is located in the southeastern edge of the project area. It consists of the eastern edge of a
knoll (Figure 8-61). This area is bounded to the north, south and east by the project area, and to
the west by a line of trees associated with a modern pasture fence line. This area consists of plowed
agricultural land and pastural land. This area was deemed low potential for archaeological sites.
Approximately 4.84 hectares (12 acres) of plowed agricultural field was subjected to pedestrian
survey as a sample testing of the low probability areas within the project area. Likewise, in order
to account for low probability testing, two grids – covering approximately 1 hectare (2.5 acres)
were placed in Area D.
Figure 8-61: Aerial map of Area D with topographic overlay.
The center of the area consists of recently plowed soils. To the west and east of the plowed soils
are hay fields which have just been cut (Figure 8-62).
203
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-44
Figure 8-62: Typical terrain and vegetation in Area D, showing recently cut hay and plowed
field in the background, facing east.
Systematic Pedestrian Survey
Within the plowed portion of Area D there was high surface visibility, with the ground consisting
nearly 100 percent of exposed, plowed soils (Figure 8-63). For this reason, the agricultural field
was subjected to systematic pedestrian survey consisting of crew members spaced at 15 meter (50
foot) transects, walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground for cultural material. Figure 8-
61 shows the extent of the pedestrian survey, which totaled to 4.86 hectares (12 acres) of land.
This pedestrian surveyed land was surveyed as the 10 percent sample of the portions of the project
area deemed to have low potential for sites.
204
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-45
Figure 8-63: Exposed, plowed soils which comprise the center strip of Area D, facing north.
Two surface finds were identified during pedestrian survey: an earthenware ceramic fragment and
a brick fragment. These two artifacts do not constitute a site.
Grid D1
Grid D1 is located in the northwestern quarter of the area on slightly sloping terrain which is
blanketed in recently cut hay. A grid of 20 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals
in 4 (four) transects labeled A through D. No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Soils in the shovel test pits were approximately 17 cm to 36 cm to subsoil and consisted of about
23 cm of 7.5YR 5/6 strong brown clay loam which came down to 7.5YR 6/8 reddish yellow clay
(Figure 8-64).
205
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-46
Figure 8-64: Soil profile shovel test pit B3.
Grid D2
Grid D2 is located in the southeastern quarter of the area on a small knoll which is bounded to the
east and south by the project area boundary. A grid of 20 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-
foot) intervals in 4 (four) transects labeled E through J (Excluding I). One shovel test pit contained
brick; however, this brick was in a disturbed stratum and lacked context and was not collected. No
other artifacts were identified. No further work is recommended for this area.
Shovel test pits in D2 ranged from approximately 22 cm to 26 cm and had soil profiles which were
similar to those in Grid D1.
Area E
This area is located in the center of the project area, just east of the western boundary of the project
area. It consists of a ridge which extends north-south to overlook a tributary which is located
outside of the project area to the north (Figure 8-65). This area is bounded to the north, south, and
west by the project area, and to the east by slope. The ridge was deemed to have moderate potential
for prehistoric sites due to its proximity to water.
7.5YR 5/6 clay loam
0-23 cm
7.5YR 6/8 clay
23-29 cm
206
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-47
Figure 8-65: Aerial map of Area E with topographic overlay.
Vegetation in Area E consists of a hardwood forest with white oaks, red oaks, and hickories. In
some locations, undergrowth was thick (Figure 8-66). At the very northern tip of the ridge, a linear
stone pile measuring approximately 12 meters (40 feet) long and 1.5 meters wide (5 feet) and
running northeast-southwest was identified (Figure 8-67). This stone pile has characteristics of
those which are found along agricultural field edges, as it is on the edge of a landform and in the
Valley and Ridge physiographic region which is characterized by rocky soils. This stone pile is
most likely the result of soils being pushed to the edge of the ridge at some point during land
maintenance. Across the landform visual evidence of rocky soils was present.
207
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-48
Figure 8-66: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area E, facing west.
Figure 8-67: Stone pile, facing north
208
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-49
Grid E1
On the northernmost tip of the ridge, overlooking a drainage to the north of the project area, a grid
of 16 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals in 4 transects labeled A through D.
This grid is located just southeast of the stone pile.
Soils in the transects ranged between 9 cm to 20 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 8 cm
of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down to 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow
silty clay (Figure 8-68). Most shovel test pits were extremely rocky. No shovel test pits were
positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-68: Soil profile of Shovel Test D3.
Due to the rocky, shallow soils which were visually apparent, this area was divided in to three
small grids, concentrating on portions of the landform which appeared to have more topsoil. A
total of 1 hectare (2.5 acres) was subjected to subsurface excavation. These grids will be discussed
individually below.
Grid E2
In the center western edge of the ridge, overlooking a drainage to the north, grid of 12 shovel tests
was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals in 4 transects labeled E through H.
Soils in the transects ranged between 8 cm to 17 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 10
cm of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down to 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow
silty clay (Figure 8-69). Most shovel test pits were extremely rocky. No shovel test pits were
positive for cultural material.
10YR 4/4silty loam
0-8 cm
10YR 6/6 silty clay
8-16 cm
209
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-50
Figure 8-69: Soil profile of Shovel Test E3.
Grid E3
On the highest portion of the ridge, a grid of 12 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 4 transects labeled J through M.
Soils in the transects ranged between 9 cm to 20 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 13
cm of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down to 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow
silty clay (Figure 8-70). Most shovel test pits were extremely rocky. No shovel test pits were
positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-70: Soil profile of Shovel Test J2.
Area F
This area is located in the northeastern quarter of the project area. It consists of an irregularly
shaped landform from which ridges extend to the northeast, north, and south (Figure 8-71). This
area is bounded to the east and south by the project area. The ridge was deemed to have moderate
potential for archaeological sites according to the Phase IA report titled Phase IA Archaeological
Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility (SWCA 2020). During visual inspection
conducted prior to Phase I subsurface excavation, D+A determined that, due to lack of map
projected structures and relative distance to water, the landform presented qualities of one with
low probability for archaeological sites. The exception to this, is the location of previously
recorded site 44FK0167 which is located on the edge of the project area boundary. Site 44FK0167
10YR 4/4silty loam
0-10 cm
10YR 6/6 silty clay
10-18 cm
10YR 4/4silty loam
0-13 cm
10YR 6/6 silty clay
13-26 cm
210
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-51
consists of a Native American site with 1 grey chert biface fragment, 2 grey chert pieces, 1 grey
chalcedony, 1 white chert, and cortical flakes
Figure 8-71: Aerial map of Area F with topographic overlay.
Vegetation in Area F consists of a deciduous hardwood forest with moderate undergrowth (Figure
8-72). In many cases, the forest floor was exposed, and there was exposed rock on the surface of
the ground (Figure 8-73; 8-74).
211
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-52
Figure 8-72: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area F, facing east.
Figure 8-73: Showing ground surface in Area F, facing west.
212
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-53
Figure 8-74: Natural rock outcrop located within the area.
Grid F1
In the southeastern center of the ridge, a grid of 7 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 1 transects labeled A. A total of 0.18 hectares (0.45 acres) was subjected to subsurface
excavation.
Soils in the transects ranged between 14 cm to 29 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 20
cm of 7.5YR 4/6 strong brown silty loam which came down to 2.5YR 5/8 strong brown silty clay
(Figure 8-75). No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-75: Soil profile of Shovel Test A5.
7.5YR 4/6 silty loam
0-20 cm
7.5YR 5/8 silty clay
20-40cm
213
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-54
Site 44FK0167 is recorded to be located on the edge of the eastern project area boundary and
consists of a Native American site with 1 grey chert biface fragment, 2 grey chert pieces, 1 grey
chalcedony, 1 white chert, and cortical flakes.
Vegetation at the location of the site consists of hardwood trees with thick undergrowth (Figure 8-
76).
Figure 8-76: Projected location of Site 44FK0167.
44FK0167 was subjected to subsurface testing in order to attempt to re-identify the site. At the
projected location of Site 44FK0167, a grid of 4 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 1 transects labeled B. Approximately 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres) was subjected to
subsurface testing.
Soils in the transects ranged between 20 cm to 25 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 22
cm of 7.5YR 4/6 strong brown silty loam which came down to 7.5YR 5/8 strong brown silty clay
and rock (Figure 8-77). No artifacts were found and this site was not re-identified. This is likely
due to the age of the survey, that the mapped location of the site is not accurate, and the resource
may be outside of the project area. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP.
214
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-55
Figure 8-77: Soil profile of Shovel Test B1.
Area G
This area is located within the center of the project area on a flat, broad landform. The area is
bounded to the east and west by soybean fields, to the north by Springdale Road, and to the south
by Carrollton Lane (Figure 8-78). The ridge was deemed to have low potential for archaeological
sites. Approximately 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) were subjected to subsurface testing in order to test
a 10 percent sample of the portions of the project area deemed to have low potential for sites.
Vegetation in Area G consists of pastural grass (Figure 8-79).
Figure 8-78: Aerial map of Area G with topographic overlay.
7.5YR 4/6 silty loam
0-22 cm
7.5YR 5/8 silty clay
22-31cm
215
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-56
Figure 8-79: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area G, facing east.
Grid G1
In the southeastern center of the ridge, a grid of 55 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 6 (six) transects labeled (-)B through E.
Soils in the transects ranged between 16 cm to 37 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 37
cm of 2.5YR 3/6 dark red silty clay loam which came down to 2.5YR 4/8 red silty clay (Figure 8-
80). No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-80: Soil profile of Shovel Test E2.
2.5YR 3/6 silty clay loam
0-37 cm
2.5YR 4/6 clay
37-47 cm
216
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-57
Area H
This area is located within the center of the project area on the northern half of a long ridge.
Carrollton Lane runs along the southern edge of the area and then turns north to extend up to, and
past, an in-use homestead (Figures 8-81; 8-82). The area is bounded to the south and west by
soybean fields, to the east by a portion of Carrollton Lane, and to the north by a change in elevation.
The ridge was deemed to have moderate to high potential for archaeological sites due to the
presence of a complex of standing structures. Some of these structures may be represented on 1942
map of Winchester (Figure 8-83). Approximately 0.30 hectares (0.75 acres) were subjected to
subsurface testing. Excavation closer to the standing structures was not permitted by the current
occupant of the standing dwelling. Vegetation in Area H consists of pastural grass with a small
number of deciduous trees scatter across the landscape (Figure 8-84). A small garden of corn is
located to the north of the main dwelling.
Figure 8-81: Aerial map of Area H with topographic overlay.
217
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-58
Figure 8-82: In use dwelling in center of the area, taken from shovel test pit C4, facing west.
Figure 8-83: Shed associated with in use dwelling in center of the area, facing west.
218
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-59
Figure 8-84: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area H, facing east.
Grid H1
In the southern center of the area, east of the main dwelling, a grid of 12 shovel tests was laid out
at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals in 6 (six) transects labeled A through C.
Soils in the transects ranged between 11 cm to 21 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 12
cm of 7.5YR 4/4 brown clay loam which came down to bedrock (Figure 8-85). All shovel test pits
contained a large percentage of rock. No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-85: Soil profile of Shovel Test C2.
7.5YR 4/4 clay loam
0-12 cm
219
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-60
Area J
This area is located in the northeastern tip of the project area. It consists of a large knoll, and
corresponding drainages (Figure 8-86). This area is bounded to the east and southeast by the project
area and to the northwest and southwest by change in elevation. The ridge was deemed to have
moderate potential for archaeological sites according to the Phase IA report titled Phase IA
Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility (SWCA 2020). During visual
inspection conducted prior to Phase I subsurface excavation, D+A determined that, due to
unexpected level of disturbed soils, this area had low probability for archaeological sites. The
exception to this, is the locations of previously recorded Sites 44FK0163 and 44FK0168 which
are located on the edge of the project area boundary. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash
pit with debris including bottle glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin. Site
44FK0168 is listed as a possibly unfinished stone fence which was built along a property line. It
is recorded as consisting of a wall which extends for 23 meters (75 feet) and in many cases is
identified as piles of rock.
Figure 8-86: Aerial map of Area J with topographic overlay.
220
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-61
Vegetation in Area J consists of a deciduous hardwood forest with minimal undergrowth. This
forest showed signs of animal disturbance including turkey nesting. In many cases, the forest floor
was bare of undergrowth or leaves, leaving the ground exposed (Figure 8-87). On top of the knoll,
turkey scratching which was present during the time of the survey had reached subsoil,
demonstrating how shallow topsoil was in these woods.
Figure 8-87: Terrain and typical exposed soils on the knoll which comprises Area J, facing
south.
A judgmental shovel test pit was excavated on the highest, flattest portion of the knoll in the center
of the prominent landform where ground surface was exposed and visual inspection demonstrated
that the area had been disturbed by turkey nesting. This shovel test pit was excavated in order to
confirm the apparent lack of topsoil within the area.
Judgmental shovel test pit 1 consisted of about 14 cm of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty
loam which came down to 7.5YR 6/8 reddish yellow silty clay (Figure 8-88).
221
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-62
Figure 8-88: Judgmental shovel test pit 1.
Grid J1
Along the eastern edges of the knoll, in the southeastern corner of the area, a grid of 9 shovel tests
was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals in 1 transect labeled A. A total of 0.22 hectares (0.56
acres) was subjected to subsurface excavation.
Soils in the transects ranged between 10 cm to 20 cm in depth and typically consisted of about 10
cm of 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam which came down to 7.5YR 6/8 reddish yellow
silty clay (Figure 8-89). No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-89: Soil profile of Shovel Test A1.
A stone wall was identified running southwest-northeast along the northern edge of the area
(Figure 8-90). This stone wall measures 91 meters (300 feet) in length. This wall represents the
remains of a field wall and indicates that the field which comprises Area J, and that which is to the
north of J has been in use as an agricultural field for some time. No further work is recommended
for this area.
10YR 4/4 silty loam
0-10 cm
7.5YR 6/8 silty clay
10-20 cm
10YR 4/4 silty loam
0-14 cm
7.5YR 6/8 silty clay
14-24 cm
222
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-63
Figure 8-90: Stone field wall, facing east.
Site 44FK0163
Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit with debris including bottle glass, metal pieces
and other waste which, as of 1991 were listed to be “of modern origin”. The vegetation in the
location of Site 44FK0163 consists of hardwood trees with an open understory (Figure 8-91).
223
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-64
Figure 8-91: Projected location of Site 44FK0163, facing west.
Due to the fact that this modern landscaping dump had surface expressions when it was identified
in 1991, the location of the site was subjected to visual inspection. Due to the fact that this site was
identified nearly 30 years ago, pedestrian survey was conducted at the location of this site in order
to confirm that the site was mapped in the correct location. This site was not re-identified. This is
likely due to the age of the survey, that the mapped location of the site is not accurate, and the
resource may be outside of the project area. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.
Site 44FK0168
Site 44FK0168 is listed as a possibly unfinished stone fence which was built along a property line.
It is recorded in VCRIS as consisting of a wall which extends for 23 meters (75 feet) and in many
cases is identified as piles of rock. It is located on the eastern edge of the project area boundary.
Due to the fact that the site consists of surface features, this portion of Area J was subjected to
pedestrian survey in attempts to re-identify the site. Due to the fact that this site was identified
nearly 30 years ago, pedestrian survey was conducted at the location of this site in order to confirm
that the site was mapped in the correct location. Vegetation at the location of the site consists of
hardwood trees with moderate undergrowth (Figure 8-92). This site was re-identified. The stone
wall was redocumented and mapped. Re-documentation of the wall demonstrates that the wall
measures 34 meters (112 feet) in length and is oriented at a southwest-northeast angle, and directly
following the project area boundary. No other features were identified with the wall, and it is
thought, as stated in the current VCRIS forms, to represent a property line. D+A recommends that
this site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
224
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-65
Figure 8-92: Site 44FK0168, facing north.
Area K
This area is located in the southern most end of the project area, within the vicinity of the proposed
subsurface distribution power line which will tie into the electrical grid. The area consists of a
knoll and a strip of land which runs southwest-northeast from that knoll to the bulk of the project
area (Figure 8-93). The location of the proposed distribution line crosses the eastern boundary of
the Mary Stephens House property (VDHR #034-1078). The resource consists of a single-dwelling
two-story farmhouse (circa 1757) and six associated outbuildings. The Mary Stephens House is
classified as eligible for listing in the NRHP.
225
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-66
Figure 8-93: Aerial map of Area K with topographic overlay.
Vegetation on the knoll in Area K consists of pastural land (Figure 8-94). The tie-in runs
southwest-northeast through a patch of wooded land and pastural land. Just north of the knoll, a
small tributary extends southeast through the tie-in. The entirety of the area is within the vicinity
of the architectural resource VDHR #034-1078.
226
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-67
Figure 8-94: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area K, facing south.
Grid K1
A grid of 77 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals in 10 transects labeled A
though K (excluding J). While A though J ran roughly east-west, extending west from the tie-in,
transect K extended roughly north-south along the tie-in. One shovel test pit was left unexcavated
due to disturbance. A total of 1.9 hectares (4.8 acres) was subjected to subsurface excavation. Just
north of shovel test pit K14, there is gravel road which runs southwest-northeast along the proposed
location of the tie-in (Figure 8-95). At the presence of this gravel road, subsurface testing ceased.
227
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-68
Figure 8-95: Gravel road on which tie-in runs just north of shovel test pit K14, facing north.
Soils in the transects ranged between 9 cm to 31 cm in depth and typically terminated at bedrock.
A typical shovel test pit profile consisted of about 27 cm of 7.5YR 3/3 dark brown loamy clay
which came down to bedrock (Figure 8-96). No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-96: Soil profile of Shovel Test J1.
Area L
This area is located within the center of the project area on a knoll. The area is bounded to the
south by planted apple trees, to the west by Carrollton Lane, to the north by a change in slope, and
to the east by planted corn and a fallow field from which apple trees were just removed (Figure 8-
97). The knoll was deemed to have low potential for archaeological sites. Approximately 0.77
hectares (1.9 acres) were subjected to subsurface testing in order to test a 10 percent sample of the
7.5YR 3/3 loamy clay
0-27 cm
228
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-69
portions of the project area deemed to have low potential for sites. Vegetation in Area L consists
of pastural grass, and the area is currently being utilized as a cattle pasture (Figure 8-98). Rock
outcrops pepper the landscape, and trees have been left standing in the locations of the larger
outcrops.
Figure 8-97: Aerial map of Area L with topographic overlay.
229
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-70
Figure 8-98: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area L, facing east.
Grid L1
In the southeastern center of the ridge, a grid of 31 shovel tests was laid out at 15-meter (50-foot)
intervals in 6 (six) transects labeled A through H. A total of three (3) shovel test pits were left
unexcavated due to disturbance.
Soils in the transects ranged between 3 cm to 22 cm in depth. More shallow shovel test pits were
disturbed due to cattle activity. Most shovel test pits reached bedrock, and typically consisted of
about 12 cm of 5YR 3/4 dark reddish brown clay loam which came down to bedrock (Figure 8-
99). No shovel test pits were positive for cultural material.
Figure 8-99: Soil profile of Shovel Test G3.
5YR 3/4 clay loam
0-12 cm
230
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-71
Area M
This area is located at the northern tip of the project area on the eastern slope. The area is bounded
to the north and east by the project area boundary and to the south and west i n a change in slope
(Figure 8-100). An unnamed road extends into the area from the west. This area was deemed low
potential for archaeological sites. Approximately 8.78 hectares (21.7 acres) were subjected to
subsurface testing in order to test a 10 percent sample of the portions of the project area deemed
to have low potential for sites. Vegetation in Area M consists of rows of planted corn (Figure 8-
101). Between the rows of planted corn ground the plowed ground was exposed, as such, Area M
was subjected to pedestrian survey. A total of 8.78 hectares (21.7 acres) was subjected to
systematic pedestrian survey.
Figure 8-100: Aerial map of Area M with topographic overlay.
231
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-72
Figure 8-101: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area M, facing west.
Systematic Pedestrian Survey
Between the planted rows of corn, there was high surface, with the ground consisting of
approximately 80 percent of exposed, plowed soils. For this reason, corn fields were subjected to
systematic pedestrian survey consisting of crew members spaced at 15 meter (50 foot) transects,
walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground for cultural material. Figure 8-100 shows the
extent of the pedestrian survey, which totaled to 8.78 hectares (21.7 acres) of land. This pedestrian
surveyed land was surveyed as part of the project area deemed to have low potential for
archaeological sites.
Area N
This area is located at the northwestern tip of the project area. The area consists of a series of ridges
dissected by small drainages in the westernmost half of the area, and of flat, lowland in the eastern
half. It is bounded to the north and west by the project area boundary and to the south by Springdale
Road, and to the east by a dirt road (Figure 8-102). Approximately 28 hectares (69 acres) of this
area has been utilized as apple orchards or is currently being utilized as such. Approximately 17
hectares (42 acres) consist of planted corn (Figure 8-103). Between the rows of planted corn, the
plowed ground was exposed, as such, this portion of Area N was subjected to pedestrian survey.
Approximately 17 hectares (42 acres) was subjected to systematic pedestrian survey (Figure 8-
104).
232
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-73
Figure 8-102: Aerial map of Area N with topographic overlay.
233
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-74
Figure 8-103: Typical vegetation and terrain in Area N, showing apple orchards and corn
rows, facing north.
Figure 8-104: Detail of exposed ground between corn rows in Area N.
234
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-75
Systematic Pedestrian Survey
Between the planted rows of corn, there was high surface, with the ground consisting of
approximately 80 percent of exposed, plowed soils. For this reason, corn fields were subjected to
systematic pedestrian survey consisting of crew members spaced at 15 meter (50 foot) transects,
walking the fields, inspecting the exposed ground for cultural material. Figure 8-93 shows the
extent of the pedestrian survey, which totaled to 17 hectares (42 acres) of land. This pedestrian
surveyed land was surveyed as part of the project area deemed to have low potential for
archaeological sites. No artifacts were features were identified. No further work is recommended
for this area.
235
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-76
ARCHITECTURAL FIELD RESULTS
The architectural resources survey for the Bartonsville Solar project resulted in the identification
and recordation of fifty-seven (57) architectural resources greater than 50 years of age (constructed
in 1970 or earlier) located within the one-half mile architectural survey area, two of which are
located directly within the project area. Of the surveyed resources, twenty-nine (29) were
previously recorded (VDHR# 034-0028, 034-0071, 034-0083, 034-1010/1015, 034-1039, 034-
1044, 034-1045, 034-1061, 034-1062, 034-1077, 034-1078, 034-1398, 034-1402, 034-1408, 034-
1409, 034-1423/1429, 304-0189, and 304-5007) and twenty-eight (28) were newly recorded
during this Phase I Survey (VDHR# 034-5327/5354). One of the previously recorded resources
was previously noted as having been demolished (VDHR# 034-1039), and three additional
previously recorded resources were found to have been demolished since they were last surveyed
(VDHR# 034-1061, 034-1426, and 034-1427). VCRIS site file forms were prepared or updated
for each recorded resource.
The 53 extant resources within the survey area and documented as part of this effort consist
primarily of domestic buildings and farmsteads from the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century,
as well as a smaller number of earlier and later homes, several twentieth century industrial
buildings, and two nineteenth century cemeteries.
The survey area occupies a mostly rural area of southern Frederick County, just west of Stephens
City. It is composed of multiple large tracts of land generally set along Springdale Road and
Passage Lane, north of Marlboro Road and south of Middle Road. Most of the project area is
undeveloped agricultural land characterized by a mix of cultivated field, open pasture, orchard,
and woodland. There are two farm complexes set centrally within the project area that each include
a dwelling and a collection of barns or outbuildings.
Most development within the area consists of single family dwellings and farmsteads set along the
roads that cross through the area. Most are set near the road with associated property to the sides
and rear, although there are several homes and farms set further back from the road on larger
properties. The majority of development within the survey area dates from the late-nineteenth to
mid-twentieth century although there are several earlier properties as well. Five properties are
believed to date from the early National period of late-eighteenth century to the turn of the
nineteenth century, with two additional properties from the Antebellum period of the 1830s-40s.
The majority of recorded homes date from the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century. Just as the
earlier homes, these all tend to reflect vernacular forms and influences; the most prominent being
two-story I-houses, although there are limited examples of Craftsman-influenced homes as well.
Most surveyed resources include a variety of barns, agricultural buildings, and other outbuildings
from throughout the nineteenth century to the modern day. There are several large barns with
subtle architectural distinction, but most are modest frame utilitarian structures.
Of the surveyed resources, three are considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. These
properties, which are farm dwellings from the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century, are all
considered eligible for architecture as good examples of regional forms and styles, in addition to
their retention of intact historic agricultural complexes. The rest of the surveyed resources are
primarily modest frame and masonry dwellings from the late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century
236
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-77
that reflect common forms and types found throughout the region from that time period. None of
these appear to reflect any unique or significant design or historical associations, and as such, all
are considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or collectively.
Provided in the following pages are a table of all surveyed resources (Table 8-1), a map with the
location of each resource surveyed (Figure 8-105), and descriptive narratives and photographs of
each of the identified historic resources. Resource narratives include a physical description,
discussion of history, integrity, and NRHP-eligibility. For those resources considered NRHP-
eligible, an assessment of project impacts is also provided.
Table 8-1: Surveyed Architectural Resources. Bold font denotes resource is NRHP-eligible. Orange highlight
denotes resource is located directly within the project area.
VDHR ID# Resource Name/Address Year
Built NRHP Eligibility
034-0028 House, 3924 Middle Road c.1790 D+A: Not Eligible
034-0071 Old Rice Property, 4253 Middle Road c.1800
D+A: Treated as Potentially
Eligible
034-0083 Carter Hall, 310 Carters Lane 1833
VDHR: Eligible (1993)
D+A: Eligible
034-1010 House, 839 Springdale Road c.1916 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1011 House, 1037 Springdale Road 1891 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1012 House, 1037 Springdale Road c.1891
VDHR Not Eligible 2020
D+A: Not Eligible
034-1013 House, 662 Passage Lane 1925 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1014 House, 634 Springdale Road c.1790 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1015 House, 834 Shady Elm Road c.1891 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1039 House, Shady Elm Road c.1770
VDHR: Previously
demolished
034-1044 House, 285 Old Middle Road c.1870 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1045 House, 171 Old Middle Road c.1890 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1061 House, 121 Rubinette Way 1956 D+A: Demolished
034-1062 House, 4101 Middle Road c.1910 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1077 House, 173 Carters Lane 1870 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1078 Cherry Dale, 557 Marlboro Road c.1797
VDHR: Eligible (1993)
D+A: Eligible
034-1398 House, 1690 Springdale Road c.1900
VDHR: Not Eligible (1993)
D+A: Not Eligible
034-1402 House, 868 Marlboro Road 1885 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1408 Sunrise Cemetery, Germany Road c.1889 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1409 House, 1783 Springdale Road 1903
VDHR: Not Eligible (2013)
D+A: Not Eligible
034-1423 House, 4536 Middle Road 1910 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1424 House, 4701 Middle Road 1904 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1425 House, 4685 Middle Road 1938 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1426 House, Middle Road c.1880 D+A: Demolished
034-1427 Commercial Building, Middle Road c.1880 D+A: Demolished
034-1428 House, 4661 Middle Road 1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-1429 House, 110 Barley Lane c.1840 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5327 House, 4556 Middle Road 1956 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5328 House, 4555 Middle Road 1950 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5329 House, 4639 Middle Road 1952 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5330 House, 4668 Middle Road 1930 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5331 House, 296 Carrollton Lane 1910 D+A: Not Eligible
237
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-78
VDHR ID# Resource Name/Address Year
Built NRHP Eligibility
034-5332 House, 249 Passage Road c.1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5333 House, 743 Carters Lane 1921 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5334 House, 225 Serviceberry Court 1885 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5335 House, 962 Marlboro Road 1891 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5336 House, 950 Carters Lane 1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5337 House, 5145 Passage Lane 1850 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5338 House, 5140 Passage Lane 1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5339 House, 818 Marlboro Road 1700 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5340 House, 837 Marlboro Road 1891 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5341 House, 713 Marlboro Road 1901 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5342 House, 660 Marlboro Road 1911 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5343 House, 641 Marlboro Road 1935 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5344 House, 532 Marlboro Road 1911 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5345 House, 1469 Fairfax Street 1874 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5346 House, 1453 Fairfax Street 1951 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5347 House, House, 1441 Fairfax Street c.1950 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5348 1442 Fairfax Street c.1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5349 House, 1434 Fairfax Street c.1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5350 Industrial Building, 1431 Fairfax Street c.1900 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5351 House, 147 Chipley Drive 1941 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5352 Industrial Building, 1250 Fairfax Street 1970 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5353 House, 1160 Fairfax Street 1931 D+A: Not Eligible
034-5354 House, 1110 Fairfax Street 1931 D+A: Not Eligible
304-0189
Workers Housing, 5330-5360 Crooked Lane and
1106 Rowe Lane c.1910 D+A: Not Eligible
304-5007 Greenhill Cemetery Fairfax Street c.1862 D+A: Not Eligible
238
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-79
Figure 8-105: Location of surveyed architectural resources in relation to the project area (northern portion)
239
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-80
RESOURCE NARRATIVES
240
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-81
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
241
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-82
VDHR# 034-0028
House, 3924 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1790 according to previous study and exhibits a Vernacular
style. The two-story building has a three-bay, double-pile form. The log structural system is clad
with vinyl siding and rests on a coursed stone foundation. It is topped by a side-gable roof covered
with asphalt shingles that is flanked at each end of the ridge by exterior end, coursed stone
chimneys with brick caps. There are central entries on both the front and back of the building,
sheltered by a full-width one-story porch and a one-bay portico respectively. Fenestration consists
of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with boxed cornices, gable
returns, and window shutters.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Middle Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a slight angle to the road. It rests on a partially cleared slope facing down to
a small creek. The yard is mostly grassy with trees and landscaping scattered throughout. A
driveway extends from the road to the rear of the house. A twentieth century garage is set across
the driveway to the rear.
This property is an example of a typical late-eighteenth century rural dwelling in the region.
According to previous study, the building reflects a three-room "Penn Plan" with corner chimneys
in 2 rooms and 1 in the room one enters from both the front and back doors. The building has been
renovated with a variety of modern materials and the only extant outbuilding is a twentieth century
garage. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or
unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known
significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic
resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis
or as part of a historic district.
242
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-83
VDHR# 034-0071
Old Rice Property, 4253 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1800 according to previous study and exhibits a Federal style.
The two-story home has a three-bay central passage form. The wood frame structural system is
clad with clapboard and rests on a coursed stone English basement foundation. It is topped by a
side-gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is flanked at each end of the ridge by exterior
end brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and sheltered by a one-story,
one-bay shed roof portico. Fenestration consists of two-over-two double-hung sash windows. The
building is minimally ornamented with wide brick chimneys, window shutters, and an entry
transom.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a large rural property. The building
sits far back from the road on a small grassy yard with some mature trees scattered throughout.
The homesite is approached by a long gravel driveway that is shared with an adjacent farm market
property. The driveway extends past the side of the house to a modern garage to the north. To the
south of the house, within the grassy yard, are two historic outbuildings including what is believed
to be a former kitchen, as well as a second building of unknown use. To the rear of the homesite,
across an agricultural field, are two barns, including a large nineteenth century barn with a gambrel
roof. The building complex is bordered by large agricultural fields.
This property is an example of a typical early-nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The home reflects subtle influences of the Federal style. According to previous study,
portions of the home may date to as early as circa 1800, although its current form is believed to
date from the 1830s or 1840s, and reflects a “very unusual Federal style”. It includes several
contemporary outbuildings as well as a later nineteenth century barn. The property was not
accessible for detailed inspection, and therefore confirmation of existing conditions could not be
performed, however, because of its age and previous notation of unusual stylistic features for the
period, the resource will be treated as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP for the purposes
of this effort.
243
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-84
As an NRHP-eligible resource, an assessment was conducted to determine whether the project
may pose any impacts to its eligibility. Improvements related to the Bartonsville Solar project are
proposed to take place within the landscape to the rear and side of the Old Rice Property. The
project area immediately borders the property, although the house sits centrally in the property
roughly 250 feet away. The entry to the property and the nearest publicly accessible location is
nearly 650 feet away (Figure 8-106). The landscape of the property and the adjacent portion of the
project area is generally characterized by gently rolling terrain with a mix of agricultural field,
orchard, treelines, and larger patches of woodland.
To assess whether the project or any associated components may pose an impact to the resource,
a viewshed assessment was conducted. Access to the property was not possible, so inspection was
performed and photographs taken from the public right-of-way in front of the property and in the
vicinity to document existing setting, visibility, and lines of sight (Figures 8-107 through 8-110).
This assessment found that the historic rural landscape around the resource is generally intact,
although there is a large modern farm market and restaurant just uphill to the front of the property.
The Old Rice Property house itself sits back from the road at the end of a driveway shared with
the adjacent farm market. The home rests within a small grassy yard with several associated
outbuildings, and a number of mature shade trees. The home is oriented to the west, with the project
area bordering the property to the side and rear. Set between the side of the house and the project
area is agricultural field, mostly recently planted in corn. Set between the rear of the house and the
project area is a separate complex of barns and outbuildings associated with the property and a
wooded area with an orchard beyond. Inspection from the end of the driveway in front of the house
revealed that a small portion of the project area that borders the side of the property is visible
beyond the house and outbuildings, however, the rolling terrain inhibit wide or deep views of most
of the project area beyond. Likewise, a small portion of the project area to the rear of the property
can be seen, although a ridge just behind the barn screens wide or distant views. A wide patch of
wooded area also provides screening of a large swath of the project area. Inspection from the
shared driveway, closer to Middle Road revealed narrower vistas of the project area revealed more
inhibited views of the project area as a result of rolling topography between the property and the
road. The widest views of the project area are from the elevated ridge on which the modern
farmstand is sited, just to the west of the property. From this location, small portions of the project
area can be seen to the side and rear of the property, although the topography and existing wooded
areas still screen wider or more distant views.
While a portion of the wide wooded area to the rear of the property will be cleared for project
development, a swath of it bordering the property, as well as the existing treeline along the side of
the property will be retained. This will be supplemented by additional planted landscape buffer
proposed along both edges of the project area bordering the Old Rice Property (Figures 8-111 and
8-112). The supplemental vegetation will consist of a double row of staggered evergreen trees set
on 15-foot centers to be planted along the outer edge of a 100-foot project improvement setback.
As only small portions of the project area immediately bordering the property are currently visible,
and all project improvements are to be low to the ground, it is anticipated that the retention of
existing vegetation coupled with supplemental landscape buffer will mostly to completely screen
the project from the property, as well as publicly-accessible vantages in the vicinity. As such, the
Bartonsville Solar project is recommended to pose no more than a minimal impact on the Old Rice
Property.
244
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-85
Figure 8-106: Location of Old Rice Property in relation to the project area showing direction of
representative and viewshed photos
View 3
View 4 View 1, 2
245
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-86
Figure 8-107: View 1- View of the Old Rice Property and the project area (partially visible) from the
end of the driveway, facing southeast
Figure 8-108: View 2- View from Old Rice Property driveway towards the project area (partially
visible), facing south
General location of the
project area (partially visible)
General location of the
project area (partially visible) General location of the
project area (screened by
woodland and topography)
General location of the
project area (screened by
woodland)
246
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-87
Figure 8-109: View 3- View from shared driveway towards the project area (partially visible), facing
southeast
Figure 8-110: View 4- View from farm stand parking lot towards the project area (partially visible),
facing east
General location of the
project area (partially visible)
General location of the
project area (partially visible)
General location of the
project area (screened by
woodland and topography)
General location of the
project area (partially visible)
General location of the
project area (screened by
woodland and topography)
247
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-88
Figure 8-111: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating existing and
supplemental vegetative screening in the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source:
Torch Clean Energy
Figure 8-112: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around
project area in the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source: Torch Clean Energy
248
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-89
VDHR# 034-0083
Carter Hall, 310 Carters Lane
This single dwelling was built circa 1833 according to previous study and exhibits a Greek Revival
style. The original block has two-story building has a three-bay, double-pile form although there
is a large addition connected by a central hyphen to the rear. The masonry structural system
consists of brick laid in a Flemish Bond on the front, a 5:1 American Bond on the sides, and rests
on a continuous foundation. It is topped by a hipped roof covered with slate shingles that rises to
a balustrade widow’s walk at the peak. The front and rear slopes are each pierced by a pair of
interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and sheltered by a one-
story, one-bay pedimented portico. Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash
windows. The building is ornamented with a variety of Greek Revival features, including Ionic
columns, pedimented portico, dentils, fine door surround with fluted pilasters; tracery in transom
and sidelights.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Carters Lane on a large rural property. The building
sits near the road on a knoll overlooking the rest of the property. It rests on a grassy and manicured
homesite with mature trees and landscaping scattered throughout. The home is approached by a
tree-lined gravel driveway beginning at a wrought-iron gate along the road. Set just to the side of
the house is a contemporary two-story brick slave quarters. Set to the opposite side of the house is
a large bank barn. The building complex is enclosed by a post and rail fence and is bordered by
open pasture to three sides.
Carter Hall was originally built by William Arthur Carter and his wife Mary Pitman Carter between
1833 and 1835. At that time, the property included a 1,300 acre plantation located between
Marlboro, the earliest settlement in Frederick County and Stephens City, at that time called New
Towne. William Carter was one of the charter members of the company that built the Valley Toll
Pike built from Staunton to Winchester. At this time, the home retains much of its original
character and features. It also retains a contemporary slave quarters, as well as a nineteenth century
249
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-90
bank barn. As such, it remains as an elaborate and intact example of an early Greek Revival
plantation home in the region. In 1993, VDHR determined the resource eligible for listing in the
NRHP at the local level in the area of Architecture. At this time, the home appears to retain similar
integrity as at that time, and continues to represent a fine example of Greek Revival architecture
and is therefore still considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.
As an NRHP-eligible resource, an assessment was conducted to determine whether the project
may pose any impacts to its eligibility. Improvements related to the Bartonsville Solar project are
proposed to take place within the landscape to the north of the Carter Hall property. The project
area immediately borders the northern edge of the Carter Hall property, although the house sits
centrally in the property roughly 500 feet away. The entry to the property and the nearest publicly
accessible location is nearly 900 feet away (Figure 8-113). The landscape of the property and the
adjacent portion of the project area is generally characterized by rolling terrain with a mix of open
pasture, treelines, and patches of woodland.
To assess whether the project or any associated components may pose an impact to the resource,
a viewshed assessment was conducted. Inspection was performed and photographs taken from the
public right-of-way in front of the house to document existing setting, visibility, and lines of sight
(Figures 8-114 through 8-119).
This assessment found that the historic rural landscape around the resource is generally intact,
although there are a number of nonhistoric homes set on small subdivided lots along the road in
front of the Carter Hall property. Carter Hall itself sits back from the road on a slight knoll within
a copse of trees. The home is oriented sideways from the road with the project area to the opposite
side. Set between the house and the road is a historic slave quarters building and to the opposite
side of the house, between it and the project area, is a large nineteenth century barn. The edge of
the property abutting the project area is lined by treeline with another treeline across a small field
to the rear of the house and a thick wooded area across a field to the front of the house. Inspection
from the road in front of the house revealed that the rolling terrain and intervening treeline inhibit
views of the project area beyond. The wooded area to the front and treeline to the rear also inhibit
views of the project area in those directions. Inspection from other points along the road bordering
the Carter Hall property revealed similar views with the project area screened by intervening
treelines and patches of woodland.
The wooded areas and treelines that screen visibility of the project area are all within the Carter
Hall property and therefore will not be cleared as part of this project. To further ensure adequate
screening, additional supplemental landscape buffer is proposed to be planted along the edge of
the project area bordering the Carter Hall property. The supplemental vegetation will consist of a
triple row of staggered evergreen trees set on 15-foot centers to be planted along the outer edge of
a 100-foot project improvement setback (Figures 8-120 and 8-121). As the project area is not
currently visible, and all project improvements are to be low to the ground and screened by existing
and supplemental vegetative buffer, the project is not anticipated to introduce any substantially
new or incompatible features into the viewshed from the property. As such, the Bartonsville Solar
project is recommended to pose no more than a minimal impact on Carter Hall.
250
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-91
Figure 8-113: Location of Carter Hall in relation to the project area showing direction of representative and
viewshed photos
View 3, 4, 5
View 6
View 1, 2
251
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-92
Figure 8-114: View 1- View of the Carter Hall setting from Carters Lane, facing northeast
Figure 8-115: View 2- View from Carters Lane towards the project area (not visible- beyond ridge
and treeline), facing north
General location of the project
area (Beyond ridge and treeline)
252
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-93
Figure 8-116: View 3- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by building complex and treeline beyond), facing north
Figure 8-117: View 4- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by building complex and treeline beyond), facing northeast
General location of the project
area (Beyond ridge and treeline)
General location of the project
area (Beyond ridge and treeline)
253
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-94
Figure 8-118: View 5- View from the Carter Hall driveway towards the project area (not visible -
screened by treeline and wooded area), facing east
Figure 8-119: View 6- View from Carters Lane towards the project area (not visible - screened by
ridge and treeline), facing north
General location of the project
area (Beyond ridge and treeline)
General location of the project
area (Beyond ridge and treeline)
254
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-95
Figure 8-120: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating supplemental vegetative screening in the vicinity of
Carter Hall. Source: Torch Clean Energy
Figure 8-121: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around
project area in the vicinity of Old Rice Property. Source: Torch Clean Energy
Carter Hall
255
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-96
VDHR# 034-1010
House, 839 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1916 according to previous study and exhibits a Craftsman
style. The two-story building has an American Foursquare main block with a one-story rear ell.
The frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous concrete foundation.
It is topped by a hipped roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced on the front slope
by a hipped dormer. An exterior brick chimney extends up the side of the building. The main
entrance is offset on the front and sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists
of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with boxed cornices, a
projecting bay window on the side, and square columns on brick pier porch supports.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Springdale Road on a large rural property. The
building sits near the road on a grassy yard with trees and landscaping scattered throughout. Set
behind the house at the edge of a field is an historic vehicle shed. Set to the side of the house is a
complex of agricultural buildings set around a gravel driveway. This includes a large historic
garage and a barn, as well as several nonhistoric barns. Bordering the building complex are large
agricultural fields.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a typical Craftsman style with little architectural distinction. It also
includes a typical collection of historic and nonhistoric barns and outbuildings. Overall, the
property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural
or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical
associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
256
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-97
VDHR# 034-1011
House, 1037 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built in 1891 according to local records and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing. The
frame structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on an obscured foundation. It is topped
by a side gable roof with central front cross gable covered with standing seam metal. The roof is
pierced at the ridge by two central interior brick chimney flues. The main entrance is set centrally
on the front and sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Two additional entrys are sheltered
by a full-depth two-story porch along the side of the rear wing. Fenestration consists of one-over-
one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with gable returns, and entry
sidelights and transom.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Springdale Road on a large rural property. The
building sits back from the road on a small grassy yard. The home is approached by a long gravel
driveway from Springdale Road that extends past the house and meets Passage Road to the east.
Set across the driveway from the house is a large historic barn. To the side of the house are two
modern silos and a modern barn. Beyond the modern barn is a tenant house that is recorded
separately at 034-1012. The rest of the property is agricultural field.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a typical Folk Victorian style with little architectural distinction. It
also includes a typical collection of historic and nonhistoric barns and outbuildings. Overall, the
property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural
or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical
associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
257
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-98
VDHR# 034-1012
House, 1037 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1891 according to local records and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing. The
frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on an obscured foundation. It is topped
by a side gable roof covered with asphalt shingles that is pierced at the ridge an interior end brick
chimney flue. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and sheltered by a one-bay shed roof
portico. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is
minimally ornamented with gable returns.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Springdale Road on a large rural property shared with
another home. This home is believed to originally have been a tenant house to the larger home on
the property. The building sits back from the road on a small grassy yard to the west of the main
house. The home is approached by a long gravel driveway from Springdale Road that extends past
the house and to the main house before meeting Passage Road to the east. Set in the yard to the
side of the house are three nonhistoric prefabricated sheds. The main house set to the east of this
home is recorded separately as 034-1011.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural tenant house in the region.
The building reflects a typical Folk Victorian style with little architectural distinction that is more
subdued than that on the extant main house nearby. This tenant house does not have any of its own
secondary resources. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess
significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed
no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous
historic resources, and was previously determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the
VDHR in 2020. At this time, it is still considered not eligible.
258
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-99
VDHR# 034-1013
House, 662 Passage Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1925 according to local records and exhibits a Crafstman style.
The one-and-a-half-story building has a rectangular Bungalow form with a partial-width rear one-
story rear ell. The frame structural system is clad with stucco and rests on a continuous concrete
foundation. It is topped by a hipped roof covered with slate shingles that is pierces on the front and
side slopes by hipped window dormers. The roof is further pierced at the ridge by a central interior
brick chimney flue. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width
integral roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The
building is ornamented with wide overhangs, exposed raftertails, heavy window frames, and
arched porch bays.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Passage Lane on a large rural property. The building
sits near the road on a raised grassy yard with ornamental landscaping along the front and
throughout. A gravel driveway extends uphill past the side of the house and leads to a
contemporary garage set to the rear. The homesite is bordered by agricultural field and orchards
to all sides.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a typical Craftsman style with little architectural distinction. A single
historic garage is the only outbuilding on the property. Overall, the property does not embody
distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and
reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building
is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible
for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
259
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-100
VDHR# 034-1014
House, 634 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1790 according to previous study and exhibits a Vernacular
design. The one-and-a-half-story building has a rectangular form with a one-story addition to the
side. The frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on an obscured foundation. It
is topped by a side gable saltbox roof covered with standing seam metal that is flanked at one end
of the ridge by an exterior end brick chimney. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and
is sheltered by a full-width shed roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung
sash windows. The building is simple and unornamented.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Springdale Road on a large rural property. The
building sits far back from the road in a cluster of agricultural buildings. It is approached by a long
gravel driveway that continues past the house as a farm lane. Set to the front of the house are two
large, modern pole barns. Set to the side is a cluster of grain silos, and an historic pole barn is
located uphill to the rear. Several additional buildings can be seen on aerials but are not visible
from the road.
This property is an example of a typical late-eighteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. According to previous study, the building is a vernacular log dwelling with a variety of
additions and alterations. It is now set on a large agricultural property with numerous nonhistoric
barns and outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or
possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
260
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-101
VDHR# 034-1015
House, 834 Shady Elm Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1800 according to previous study, however, local records
identify the construction date as 1891. The building exhibits a Vernacular design. The two-story
building has an I-house form. The log structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a
continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal
that is flanked at each end of the ridge by exterior end stone chimneys with brick caps. The main
entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration
consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with molded
cornices and gable returns.
This dwelling is located on the west side of Shady Elm Road on a large rural property. The building
sits far back from the road in the middle of an open agricultural field. It rests within a fenced
homesite with a small historic outbuilding, that may be a smokehouse set to the rear. It is
approached by a long gravel driveway that extends through a suburban neighborhood along the
road to the front. The homesite is bordered by large open pasture.
This property is an example of a typical nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the region.
According to previous study, the building is a vernacular log dwelling, although detailed inspection
and assessment were not possible at this time. The home is set on a large agricultural property,
although it appears that it has just one small domestic outbuilding. Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
261
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-102
VDHR# 034-1039
House Site, Shady Elm Road
This resource was previously recorded as the foundation of a circa 1770 dwelling. At that time, all
that remained was a stone-lined cellar. Close inspection could not be performed at the time of this
survey to note existing conditions.
This site is located on the west side of Shady Elm Road on a large rural property. The previously
mapped location of the foundation is within an open field bordering a small creek. At this time,
the field is still open with no evidence of aboveground features, however, aerial imagery suggests
a generally square feature on the landscape.
This property was previously recorded as a stone-lined cellar from a circa 1770 dwelling. No other
aboveground features remain. While the site may have archaeological potential, no investigation
has been conducted and evaluation of the resource under Criterion D was beyond the scope of this
effort. The resource is therefore considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual
basis or as part of a historic district at this time.
262
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-103
VDHR# 034-1044
House, 285 Old Middle Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1870 according to previous study, and exhibits a Folk
Victorian style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story wing.
The frame system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is
topped by a side gable roof with central cross gable covered with standing seam metal that is
pierced near each end of the ridge by interior end brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally
on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-
one double-hung sash windows. The building is elaborately ornamented with molded cornices,
brackets, gable returns, molded window frames and lintels, gingerbread porch brackets, scrollwork
balustrade, window shutters, and entry sidelights and transom.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Old Middle Road on a large rural property. The
building sits near the road on a raised grassy homesite. A post and rail fence encloses the yard
around the house. A gravel driveway extends uphill to the side of the house. Set across the
driveway to the side of the house are a large historic barn and two-story outbuilding of unknown
function. Bordering the building complex are open agricultural fields and pasture.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a relatively ornate Folk Victorian style. It includes two historic
outbuildings including a barn and shed. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
263
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-104
VDHR# 034-1061
House, 121 Rubinette Way
Previous survey recorded this resource as a circa 1921 Colonial Revival dwelling. This building
is no longer present and is assumed to have been demolished.
The building was located on the north side of Middle at the intersection with Rubinette Way. The
lot on which the building sat is now cleared grass lawn associated with a modern dwelling to the
rear.
This dwelling has been demolished and is therefore considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of an historic district.
264
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-105
VDHR# 034-1062
House, 4101 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1910 according to previous study, and exhibits a Craftsman
style. The two-story building has Bungalow form with a full-width one-story rear ell. The frame
system is clad with weatherboard on the first floor and wood shingles on the second, and rests on
a continuous rusticated concrete block foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof pierced on the
front slope by a gabled window dormer. The main entrance is offset on the front and is sheltered
by a full-width integral roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash
windows. The building is ornamented with a variety of Craftsman details including wide
overhangs with exposed rafter tails, knee braces, wood shingle cladding, and an integral roof porch
with square columns set on brick piers.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a raised grassy homesite. A gravel driveway approaches the home from the
side and makes a loop to the side of the house. To the sides and rear of the house are open fields.
No outbuildings were observed on the property.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Craftsman style with little architectural distinction. All previously recorded
outbuildings are no longer extant. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics
or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
265
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-106
VDHR# 034-1077
House, 173 Carter’s Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1870 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with a central two-story rear wing and
one-story additions attached to the sides of the wing. The front block is clad with brick laid in a
5:1 American bond, although may be a later facing over a frame structural system. The rear wing
is clad with vinyl siding. The overall structure rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped
by a side gable roof pierced at each end of the ridge by interior end brick chimneys. The main
entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by one-bay flat roof portico. Fenestration
consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with
bullseye corner blocks on the window frames and a Neoclassical influenced hexagonal portico
with Doric columns.
This dwelling is located on the west side of Carter’s Lane on a small rural lot. The building sits
near the road on a grassy yard with vegetative screening along the road. A gravel driveway extends
past the side of the house and makes a loop in front of two historic outbuildings set to the rear.
This property is an example of a typical late-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Folk Victorian style with little architectural distinction that has a variety of
nonhistoric alterations. It includes a small collection of typical rural outbuildings. Overall, the
property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural
or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical
associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
266
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-107
VDHR# 034-1078
Cherry Dale, 557 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1797 according to previous study, and exhibits a Vernacular
design. The two-story building has an L-shaped form composed of an original log structure with
later additions attached circa 1840 and circa 1890. The log and wood frame structural systems are
clad with weatherboard and rest on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a hipped roof
covered with standing seam metal pierced at the ridge by two interior brick chimneys. The main
entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by full-width wraparound hipped roof porch.
Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented
with boxed cornices, window shutters, and Doric porch columns.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Marlboro Road on a large rural property. The building
sits far back from the road on a grassy homesite with a number of other buildings. The homesite
is enclosed by a post and rail fence and is shaded by a number of mature trees scattered throughout.
Set near the house is a large garage, two large barns, and a number of other agricultural buildings,
some of which could not be seen at the time of this survey. Bordering the building complex are
large agricultural fields and pasture.
This property is a good example of a late-eighteen century rural dwelling and farm in the region.
The building reflects a Vernacular form with a later historic additions, but overall retains high
historical integrity. In addition to the house, the property retains a number of historic domestic and
agricultural outbuildings including a large bank barn with ornate cupolas. Because of its excellent
representation of regional architecture, the resource was determined eligible for listing in the
NRHP by the VDHR in 1991. At this time, the home and outbuildings generally appear to retain
similar integrity and continue to convey their historic character. As such, this property continues
to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP.
267
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-108
As an NRHP-eligible resource, an assessment was conducted to determine whether the project
may pose any impacts to its eligibility. Improvements related to the Bartonsville Solar project are
proposed to take place within the landscape to the north and to the east of the Cherry Dale property.
The primary project area is set across the road to the north of the Cherry Dale property, roughly
1,000 away at its nearest point, although the house sits centrally within the project nearly 1,800
feet away. A discontiguous portion of the project area, representing the location of a substation
and interconnect immediately borders and partially overlaps the eastern edge of the Cherry Dale
property, roughly 1,000 feet from the house (Figure 8-122). The landscape of the property and the
adjacent portions of the project area are generally characterized by rolling terrain that is mostly
open pasture with clusters of vegetation and treelines.
To assess whether the project or any associated components may pose an impact to the resource,
a viewshed assessment was conducted. Inspection was performed and photographs taken from the
public right-of-way in front of the house to document existing setting, visibility, and lines of sight
(Figures 8-123 through 8-126).
This assessment found that the historic rural landscape around the resource is generally intact,
although there are a number of nonhistoric homes set on small subdivided lots along the road to
front of the Cherry Dale property, and there is a large quarry operation across a railroad corridor
to the east of the property. The Cherry Dale house itself sits back from the road on a slight knoll
within a copse of trees and a cluster of outbuildings. Set across the road to the front of Cherry
Dale, between it and the primary project area are several modern homes bordered by treelines.
Along the eastern edge of the property in the vicinity of the proposed substation and interconnect
is a treeline extending along the railroad corridor with a parallel existing transmission line. Beyond
the transmission line and railroad is a large modern quarry operation. Inspection from the road in
front of the house revealed that the rolling terrain, modern homes, and intervening treelines inhibit
all views of the primary project area to the north. Inspection towards the substation site to the east
revealed relatively unobstructed visibility of the project area in front of the existing treeline,
transmission line, and quarry. Inspection from further down the road to the west found that the
substation site becomes screened by the rolling topography of the property, however, the existing
transmission line to the rear can still be seen above the horizon.
The development and treelines that screen visibility of the project area to the north are all on private
property not included in this project, and will therefore continue to provide screening of that
portion of the project from Cherry Dale. The substation and interconnect site to the east is visible
from public vantage points to the front of the property and is likely also visible from the house.
However, it is seen in front of a treeline, and in conjunction an existing transmission line and tall
quarry operation structures beyond. To limit visibility of this project component, supplemental
landscape buffer is proposed to be planted around the front and sides of the substation which will
provide screening from the house as well as public vantage points along the road. The supplemental
vegetation will consist of a double row of staggered evergreen trees set on 15-foot centers to be
planted along the outer edge of a 100-foot project improvement setback (Figures 8-127 and 8-128).
This screening will inhibit visibility of the project components and will blend in to the existing
treeline. As such, any substantially new or incompatible features from the project are anticipated
to be minimized. As such, the Bartonsville Solar project is recommended to pose no more than a
minimal impact on Cherry Dale.
268
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-109
Figure 8-122: Location of Cherry Dale in relation to the project area showing direction of representative and
viewshed photos
View 3
View 1, 2, 4
269
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-110
Figure 8-123: View 1- View of the Cherry Dale setting from Marlboro Road, facing southwest
Figure 8-124: View 2- View from Marlboro Road towards the substation site (visible), facing southeast
General location of the
substation site (visible in front
of treeline)
270
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-111
Figure 8-125: View 3- View from the Marlboro Road towards the substation site (not visible -
screened by topography), facing southeast
Figure 8-126: View 4- View from Marlboro Road towards the project area (not visible - screened by
development and vegetation), facing northwest
General location of the project
area (Beyond vegetation)
General location of the
substation site (not visible
behind ridge)
271
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-112
Figure 8-127: Detail of conceptual site plan illustrating supplemental vegetative screening around substation
site. Source: Torch Clean Energy
Cherry Dale
272
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-113
Figure 8-128: Detail of supplemental vegetative screening to be planted around
proposed substation in the vicinity of Cherry Dale. Source: Torch Clean Energy
273
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-114
VDHR# 034-1398
House, 1690 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1900 according to previous study, and exhibits a Vernacular
design. The building was not accessible and could not be seen for existing conditions at the time
of this survey, but is previously recorded as a two-story, side-passage home typical to other homes
in the region from that period.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Springdale Road on a small rural lot. The building
sits far back from the road on a long private driveway that leads through other properties along the
road. Wooded areas along the road screen visibility of the home. Aerial photography reveals it
remains present within a cluster of other outbuildings.
This property was previously recorded as an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural
dwelling in the region. The building reflects a Vernacular form with little architectural distinction.
As such, it was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the VDHR in 1993. Although
it could not be fully surveyed and evaluated at this time, available information suggests it remains
similar to when previously recorded, and is therefore still considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP.
274
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-115
VDHR# 034-1402
House, 868 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1885 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with a central two-story rear wing. The wood
frame structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is
topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal pierced at the ridge by two central
interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-
width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The
building is minimally ornamented with boxed and molded cornices, gable returns, window
shutters, and an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road on a large rural property. The building
sits back from the road on a shaded grassy homesite with a large front yard. A stone wall extends
along the road at the front of the property. A gravel driveway loops past the front of the house with
an extension to the rear. Set along the driveway to the rear of the house is a complex of historic
barns and outbuildings. Bordering the building complex is a wooded area to one side and an open
agricultural field to the other.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Vernacular I-house form with little architectural distinction. It
includes a typical collection of barns, sheds, and other outbuildings. Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
275
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-116
VDHR# 034-1408
Sunrise Cemetery, Germany Road
This small cemetery has approximately 50 marked graves. Most of the graves are marked with
granite headstones. The earliest marked grave is from an 1889 burial. The graves are aligned in
multiple rows within a small clearing, and appear to be clustered in family plots. The cemetery is
open with no fencing or enclosure. It appears to be maintained but no longer in use.
This cemetery is set on the west side of Germany Road just across from the intersection with
Springdale Road. It is set adjacent to the road in a small clearing bordered by woods to three sides.
There is a grass shoulder along the road, but no designated pull-off or parking. The stone
foundation of the historically associated church that is previously recorded was not seen at this
time.
The cemetery is an undistinguished example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural church
cemetery and does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique
architectural or design features. The associated church is no longer extant. The cemetery therefore
does not meet NRHP Criterion Consideration D and was determined not eligible for listing in the
NRHP by the VDHR in 1993. At this time, the cemetery appears similar to when previously
evaluated, and therefore continues to be considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
276
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-117
VDHR# 034-1409
House, 1783 Springdale Road
This single dwelling was built in 1903 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing and a one-
story addition to the side. The wood frame structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests
on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam
metal pierced at the ridge by two central interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally
on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of two-over-
two double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with boxed and molded cornices,
gable returns, Doric porch columns, and an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Springdale Road on a small rural property. The
building sits near the road on a grassy yard enclosed by an iron fence. A gravel driveway extends
past the side of the house to a cluster of outbuildings set to the rear including a modern workshop
and a historic vehicle shed. To the side of the building complex is an open field.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular I-house form with little architectural distinction. It includes a small
collection of typical rural outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
277
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-118
VDHR# 034-1423
House, 4536 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1910 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with a central two-story rear wing. The
wood frame structural system is clad with aluminum siding and rests on a continuous stone
foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof with central cross gable covered with asphalt shingles
and pierced at the ridge by two central interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally
on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of two-over-
two double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with boxed and molded cornices,
gable returns, turned porch posts with scrollwork brackets, a bay window, window shutters, and
an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Middle Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard with landscaping scattered throughout. A paved driveway
extends past the side of the house and makes a loop around a historic garage and spring house.
Bordering the building complex is a large manicured lawn.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Folk Victorian style as applied to an I-house with little architectural distinction.
It includes a small collection of typical rural outbuildings. A barn historically associated with the
house has now been subdivided from the property and is associated with another house. Overall,
the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique
architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant
historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
278
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-119
VDHR# 034-1424
House, 4701 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1904 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has a double-pile main block with an offset two-story rear wing and
a one-story addition to the side. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and
rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing
seam metal pierced at each end of the ridge by interior end brick chimneys. The main entrance is
set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists
of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with gable
returns and turned porch posts with scrollwork brackets.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
near the road on a raised grassy yard a flight of concrete stairs that lead down to street level. A
paved driveway extends to the side of the house where a nonhistoric garage with integral workshop
is located.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Folk Victorian style as applied to a Vernacular form with little architectural
distinction. The only visible outbuilding is a nonhistoric garage. Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
279
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-120
VDHR# 034-1425
House, 4685 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1938 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The two-story building has an I-house form with a central two-story rear wing and one-story
additions to both sides. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a
continuous concrete block foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with asphalt
shingles flanked at the ridge by an exterior end concrete block chimney. The main entrance is set
centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of
one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is simple and unornamented.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
near the road on deep grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends uphill to the side of the house with
a small parking area to the rear. Set at the end of the driveway is a prefabricated modern storage
shed. Set in the back yard to the rear of the house is a larger historic barn. The back yard is enclosed
by a chain link fence.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style with little architectural distinction. It also includes a small
collection of typical rural outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
280
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-121
VDHR# 034-1426
House, Middle Road
Previous survey recorded this resource as a circa 1880 two-story vernacular dwelling. This
building is no longer present and is assumed to have been demolished.
The building was located on the north side of Middle Road on a raised homesite. The lot on which
the building sat is now cleared grass lawn associated with a modern dwelling to the rear.
This dwelling has been demolished and is therefore considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of an historic district.
281
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-122
VDHR# 034-1427
Commercial Building, Middle Road
Previous survey recorded this resource as a circa 1880 one-and-a-half story commercial building.
This building is no longer present and is assumed to have been demolished.
The building was located on the south side of Middle Road near the road. The lot on which the
building sat is now cleared grass lawn with a modern manufactured home.
This commercial building has been demolished and is therefore considered not eligible for listing
in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of an historic district.
282
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-123
VDHR# 034-1428
House, 4661 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1900 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The two-story building has an I-house form with a central two-story rear wing. The wood frame
structural system is clad with aluminum siding and rests on a continuous concrete block
foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal flanked at the ridge
by an exterior end concrete block chimney. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is
sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung
sash windows. The building is ornamented with turned porch posts.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
back from the road on deep grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends uphill to the side of the house
with a small parking area to the rear. Set at the end of the driveway are three small historic sheds.
Set to the rear of the house is a historic garage and aerial photography reveals several barns set in
a field to the rear of the house, but could not be seen at the time of this survey.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style with little architectural distinction. It also includes a
collection of typical rural barns and outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody
distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and
reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building
is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible
for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
283
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-124
VDHR# 034-1429
House, 110 Barley Lane
This single dwelling was built circa 1840 according to previous study, and exhibits no discernable
style. The two-story building has central passage, double-pile form with a large central two-story
rear wing addition. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on an
obscured foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal pierced
at each end of the ridge by interior end brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the
front and is sheltered by a full-width wraparound porch. Fenestration consists of six-over-six
double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with gable returns, window shutters, and
turned porch posts.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Middle Road at the intersection with Barley Lane on
a small rural lot. The building sits near the road and is oriented towards Middle Road. It rests on
grassy yard enclosed by a post and rail fence. A gravel driveway extends uphill to the side of the
house with a small parking area to the rear. A gravel driveway extends past the side of the house
to a historic garage set to the side. Set to the rear of the house are an additional historic barn and a
nonhistoric stable set along the edge of a fenced riding rink.
This property is an example of a typical mid-nineteenth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style and has been subject to extensive addition and alteration. It
includes two twentieth century barns as well as a modern stable. Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
284
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-125
VDHR# 034-5327
House, 4556 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1956 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The one-story building has a rectangular form. The masonry structural system is clad with brick
laid in a stretcher bond and rests on a continuous foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof
covered with asphalt shingles pierced at the ridge by a central interior brick chimney flue. The
main entrance is set centrally on the front and is unsheltered. Fenestration consists of six-over-six
double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with a plain frieze board and
brick window sills.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Middle Road at the intersection with Lickskillet Lane
on a small rural lot. The building sits near the road on a grassy yard with large hedges along the
front. A gravel driveway approaches the rear of the building from the side street. Set to the rear of
the house is a contemporary two-car brick garage.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style with little architectural distinction. It includes a typical
garage as the only outbuilding. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics
or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
285
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-126
VDHR# 034-5328
House, 4555 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1950 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The one-story building has a rectangular form. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl
siding and rests on a continuous concrete foundation. It is topped by a front gable roof covered
with standing seam metal pierced at the ridge by a central interior brick chimney flue. The main
entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration
consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with
window shutters.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
near the road on a small clearing bordered by wooded areas. A small grassy side yard is enclosed
by a post and rail fence. A gravel driveway leads around the yard to two nonhistoric sheds set to
the rear.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style with little architectural distinction. It includes a typical
collection of rural outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics
or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
286
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-127
VDHR# 034-5329
House, 4639 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1952 according to local records, and exhibits a Minimal
Traditional style. The one-and-a-half story building has an irregular form with an offset front wing,
an addition to the side, and a full-width rear ell. The wood frame structural system is clad with
aluminum siding and rests on a continuous concrete foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof
covered with asphalt shingles that is flanked on the front slope by an exterior end brick chimney.
The main entrance is set on the side of what appears to be an enclosed front porch. Fenestration
consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with
a heavy shouldered chimney and a brick knee wall around the enclosed front porch.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
back from the road on a large grassy front yard. A gravel driveway extends uphill past the side of
the house to a large nonhistoric garage set to the rear. Set in a field to the side of the house is
another nonhistoric vehicle shed.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Minimal Traditional style with little architectural distinction. It includes a
typical collection of rural outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
287
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-128
VDHR# 034-5330
House, 4668 Middle Road
This single dwelling was built in 1930 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The building has a one-story original block with a mid-twentieth century two-story addition to the
side. The wood frame structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a continuous
concrete block foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal that
is pierced at the ridge by a central interior brick chimney flue. A concrete block chimney extends
up the rear wall of the two-story addition on the rear. The main entrance is offset on the original
block and is sheltered by a full-width shed roof porch. Fenestration consists of two-over-two
double-hung sash windows. The building is simple and unornamented.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Middle Road on a small rural lot. The building sits
near the road on a small clearing bordered by woods to all sides. A gravel driveway extends past
the side of the house and makes a loop in front of a historic barn and shed. A historic garage and
second shed are set to the rear of the house in the treeline.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular design with little architectural distinction that has been further
altered by nonhistoric addition. It includes a small collection of typical rural outbuildings. Overall,
the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique
architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant
historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
288
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-129
VDHR# 034-5331
House, 296 Carrollton Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1910 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing. The
wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous stone foundation.
It is topped by a side gable roof with central cross gable covered with asphalt shingles that is
pierced at the ridge by two central interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on
the front and is sheltered by a partial-width shipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-
one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with gable returns, hexagonal bay
windows, turned porch posts with scrollwork brackets, and entry sidelights and transom.
This dwelling is located at the terminus of Carrollton Lane on a large rural property. The building
sits far back from the road on a knoll surrounding by open agricultural fields and pasture. The
home rests within a small grassy yard enclosed by a wire fence. Two small historic sheds are set
within the yard to the rear of the house. Set to the side of the yard at the end of the driveway is a
historic garage. To the opposite side of the home are three larger outbuildings including two
historic vehicle/equipment sheds and a modern barn.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Folk Victorian style similar to others in the area, with little
architectural distinction that has been further altered by nonhistoric addition and alterations. It
includes a typical collection of rural barns and outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody
distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and
reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building
is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible
for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
289
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-130
VDHR# 034-5332
House, 249 Passage Road
This single dwelling was built circa 1900 according to site survey, and exhibits no discernable
style. The building appears to have been vacant for an extended period of time and remains in a
deteriorated condition. The two-story building has an L-shaped form with an offset rear wing and
a one-story rear ell attached to that. The wood frame structural system is clad with weatherboard
and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a cross gable roof covered with standing
seam metal that is pierced at the ridge by a central interior brick chimney. The main entrance is
offset on the front and is unsheltered, although there is evidence of a former porch roof now
collapsed. Fenestration consists of two-over-two double-hung sash windows. The building is
ornamented with boxed and molded cornices with gable returns.
This dwelling is located on the west side of Passage Lane on a large rural property. The building
sits far back from the road at the end of the private Deer Lane on a knoll surrounded by open
agricultural fields and pasture. The homesite is now overgrown with trees and vegetation. The
farm lane extends past the side of the house to a small complex of outbuildings set to the rear.
Immediately to the rear of the house is a small domestic outbuilding. Further to the rear are an
historic poultry house and a barn. A larger barn at the rear of the complex is in ruins.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Vernacular design similar to others in the area, with little
architectural distinction that now remains in a deteriorated condition. It includes a small collection
of typical rural barns and outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
290
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-131
VDHR# 034-5333
House, 743 Carters Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1921 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has a T-shaped form composed of a central rear wing with additions
appended to both sides. The wood frame structural system is clad with aluminum siding and rests
on a continuous concrete foundation. It is topped by a cross gable roof covered with standing seam
metal that is pierced at the ridge by interior end brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally
on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one
double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with boxed cornices with gable returns,
window shutters, and Doric porch columns.
This dwelling is located on the west side of Carters Lane on a small rural property. The building
sits back from the road on an open knoll with a large grassy front yard. Set in the fenced back yard
is a prefabricated nonhistoric storage shed. A second prefabricated shed is set in the side yard.
Bordering the homesite are open fields and pasture.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Vernacular design similar to others in the area, with little
architectural distinction. It includes a small collection of nonhistoric outbuildings. Overall, the
property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural
or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical
associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
291
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-132
VDHR# 034-5334
House, 225 Serviceberry Court
This single dwelling was built in 1885 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing and a
two-story addition to the side. The masonry structural system is clad with brick veneer laid in a
stretcher bond and rests on a continuous foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof with central
cross gable covered with standing seam metal that is pierced at the ridge by interior end brick
chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped
porch. Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The building is
ornamented with boxed cornices with gable returns, a plain frieze, window shutters, and scrollwork
on the porch posts.
This dwelling is located at the terminus of Serviceberry Court on a small rural property. The
building sits back from the road on a large grassy yard. A gravel driveway approaches the home
from a cul-de sac and extends past the front of the house to outbuilding to the side that is likely a
garage, but could not be seen at the time of this survey. Set to the rear of the house is a small
historic outbuilding of unknown function. The property is bordered by woods to three sides and
modern suburban development to the front.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Folk Victorian style with little architectural distinction. It includes a small
collection of typical outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics
or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
292
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-133
VDHR# 034-5335
House, 962 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1891 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset one-story rear wing. The wood
frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is
topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced at the ridge by two
central interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by
a full-width shed roof porch. Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The
building is minimally ornamented with turned porch posts.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road at the intersection with Carters Lane
on a small rural property. The building sits back from the road on a large grassy yard. A tree-lined
gravel driveway approaches the home from the side and makes a loop in front of a historic poultry
house.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular form with little architectural distinction. It includes a single historic
outbuilding. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess
significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed
no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous
historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual
basis or as part of a historic district.
293
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-134
VDHR# 034-5336
House, 950 Carters Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1900 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with a long, offset two-story rear wing. The
wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous stone foundation.
It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced at the ridge by
exterior end brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a
full-width hipped roof porch. A full-depth one-story porch also extends along the side of the rear
wing. Fenestration consists of two-over-two double-hung sash windows. The building is
minimally ornamented with window shutters, turned porch posts, and an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Carters Lane on a small rural lot. The building sits
back near the road on a grassy yard. A gravel driveway ends at a loop to the side of the house. No
outbuildings were observed on the property.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular form with little architectural distinction. Overall, the property does
not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design
features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations.
The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered
not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
294
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-135
VDHR# 034-5337
House, 5145 Passage Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1850 according to local records, and exhibits a Greek Revival
influence. The two-story building has a Georgian form with a full-width one-story rear ell. The
wood frame structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a continuous stone
foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal. The main entrance
is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a one-bay gabled portico. Fenestration consists of
two-over-two double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with portico
details including curved corner brackets and a rising sun motif in the pediment, as well as an entry
transom.
This dwelling is located on the west side of Passage Lane on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard with a hedge-lined walkway leading to the road. A garden plot
is set in the yard to the side of the house with a twentieth century shed set to the rear. A gravel
driveway makes a loop to the opposite side of the house with a nineteenth century barn and a
twentieth century equipment shed and storage building. To the rear of the building complex is
open agricultural field.
This property is an example of a typical mid-nineteenth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects subtle influences of the Greek Revival style, although has been altered
with later modifications and additions. It also includes a small collection of typical nineteenth and
twentieth century barns and outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
295
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-136
VDHR# 034-5338
House, 5140 Passage Lane
This single dwelling was built in 1900 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house main block with a full-width two-story rear ell. The wood
frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous brick foundation. It is
topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal. Exterior end brick chimneys extend
up the side wall at the ridge and on the side of the rear ell. The main entrance is set centrall y on
the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of two-over-two
double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with window shutters and
turned porch posts.
This dwelling is located on the east side of Passage Lane on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends to a small parking area on the side
of the house. Across the driveway within a grassy area three nonhistoric sheds. To the opposite
side of the house is a small garden plot with a prefabricated modern shed.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Vernacular design with little architectural distinction. It also
includes a small collection of typical nonhistoric rural outbuildings. Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
296
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-137
VDHR# 034-5339
House, 818 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1700 according to local records, however, if any part of the
building is that old it is concealed by what appears to be a circa 1900 structure. It exhibits a
Vernacular design with subtle Folk Victorian influences. The two-story building has rectangular
main block with an offset two-story rear wing. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl
siding and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with
standing seam metal that is pierced at the ridge by a central interior brick chimney. The main
entrance is offset on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration
consists of multi-light tracery windows. The building is minimally ornamented with square porch
columns.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road on a large rural property. The building
sits back from the road on a grassy yard in a copse of trees enclosed by a wire fence. The homesite
is approached by a long gravel driveway that makes a loop to the side of the house. Set at the end
of the driveway is a nonhistoric two-car garage with living space above. Set to the rear of the
garage is a nonhistoric barn. Set outside of the fenced yard within a field to the side is a twentieth
century pole barn.
This property is recorded in local records as being an eighteenth-century dwelling, although
appears to be an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the region.
The building reflects a Vernacular design with little architectural distinction. It also includes a
small collection of typical nonhistoric outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody
distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and
reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building
is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible
for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
297
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-138
VDHR# 034-5340
House, 837 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1891 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has rectangular main block with a central two-story rear wing and one-
story additions to both sides. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests
on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with asphalt shingles
that is pierced on the rear slope by a central interior brick chimney. The main entrance is set
centrally on the front and is sheltered by a one-bay gabled portico. Fenestration consists of one-
over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with window shutters
and turned porch posts.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Marlboro Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a raised yard with a flight of steps that lead down to street level. It rests on a
grassy yard with shade trees scattered around. A gravel driveway approaches the home from the
side and extends around the rear. A modern prefabricated storage shed is set behind the house. The
homesite is bordered by woods to the rear and agricultural fields to the sides.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular design with little architectural distinction. Overall, the property does
not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design
features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations.
The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered
not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
298
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-139
VDHR# 034-5341
House, 713 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1901 according to local records, and exhibits a Free Classic style.
The two-story building has gable and wing form that extends to the rear. The wood frame structural
system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a cross
gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced on the rear ridge by a central interior
brick chimney. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width
hipped roof wraparound porch. Fenestration consists of two-over-two double-hung sash windows.
The building is ornamented with gable returns and Doric porch columns.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Marlboro Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road within a chain link fence enclosed yard. A gravel driveway extends past the side
of the house to a nonhistoric two-car garage. Set to the rear of the house and the garage is a
nonhistoric mobile home. Set further to the rear in a treeline is a historic barn.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Victorian style with little architectural distinction. It includes a
small collection of typical historic and nonhistoric rural outbuildings Overall, the property does
not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design
features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations.
The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered
not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
299
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-140
VDHR# 034-5342
House, 660 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1911 according to local records, and exhibits a Folk Victorian
style. The two-story building has an L-shaped form with an offset rear wing and a one-story
addition further to the rear. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests
on an obscured foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal.
The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch.
Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented
with window shutters, bullseye corner blocked window frames, decorative porch brackets, and a
Neoclassical inspired entry architrave.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends to a small parking area along the
side of the house. To the opposite side is a large yard enclosed by a post and rail fence. Set within
the fenced side yard are a historic shed, equipment shed, and modern prefabricated shed.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Victorian style with little architectural distinction. It includes a small collection
of typical historic and nonhistoric rural outbuildings Overall, the property does not embody
distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and
reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building
is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible
for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
300
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-141
VDHR# 034-5343
House, 641 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1935 according to local records, and exhibits a Craftsman style.
The one-and-a-half-story building has a rectangular Bungalow form with a full-width one-story
rear ell. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous
concrete block foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with asphalt shingles that is
pierced on the front slope by a shed dormer. The roof is further pierced by a central interior brick
chimney at the ridge. The main entrance is offset on the front and is sheltered by a full-width
integral roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows that are set
in pairs. The building is ornamented with wide roof overhangs, window shutters, and square porch
columns.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road on a small rural property. The building
sits near the road on a raised grassy yard with a concrete retaining wall along the front. A gravel
driveway extends past the side of the house to a historic garage and workshop set just to the rear.
Set in an open field to the rear of the house are two historic barns.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Craftsman style with little architectural distinction. It includes a
small collection of typical historic rural barns and outbuildings Overall, the property does not
embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features
and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The
building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not
eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
301
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-142
VDHR# 034-5344
House, 532 Marlboro Road
This single dwelling was built in 1911 according to local records, and exhibits a Free Classic style.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with a central two-story rear wing and a one-
story addition to the rear. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on
a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with slate shingles that is
pierced at the ridge by two central interior brick chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on
the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one
double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with boxed cornices and gable
returns, window shutters, Doric porch columns, and an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Marlboro Road on a large rural property. The building
sits near the road on a large grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends past the side of the house as a
farm lane leading to a cluster of barns and outbuilding to the rear. Set within the yard to the side
of the house is a small modern shed. Set further to the rear are a historic barn, stable, and several
smaller outbuildings. The entire building complex is enclosed within a post and rail fence with
open pasture beyond.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century rural dwelling and farm in the
region. The building reflects a Free Classic influence typical to many others in the area, and has
little architectural distinction. It includes a collection typical historic and nonhistoric barns and
outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess
significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed
no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous
historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual
basis or as part of a historic district.
302
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-143
VDHR# 034-5345
House, 1469 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built in 1874 according to local records, and exhibits a Vernacular design.
The two-story building has an I-house front block with an offset two-story rear wing and a one-
story addition to the rear. The wood frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on
a continuous stone foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof with central cross gable covered
with standing seam metal that is pierced at each end of the ridge by interior end brick chimneys.
The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-width hipped roof porch.
Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The building is ornamented with
gable returns, a louvered gable vent, window shutters, and entry sidelights.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Fairfax Street on a large suburban lot. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard enclosed by a post and rail fence. A gravel driveway extends
around the side of the house and to a nonhistoric garage set to the rear.
This property is an example of a typical late-nineteenth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects a Vernacular form and has little architectural distinction. It includes a nonhistoric
garage as the only outbuilding. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics
or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research
revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of
discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP
on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
303
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-144
VDHR# 034-5346
House, 1453 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built in 1951 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The one-story building has a Bungalow form with an offset rear ell. The masonry structural system
is clad with stucco and rests on a continuous foundation. It is topped by a front gable roof covered
with asphalt shingles that is pierced on the side slope by a central interior metal flue. The main
entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a partial-width gable roof porch.
Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The building is minimally
ornamented with window shutters.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Fairfax Street on a small suburban lot. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard. A gravel driveway extends past the side to two historic sheds
set to the rear.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction. It includes two
small historic sheds as the only outbuildings. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
304
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-145
VDHR# 034-5347
House, 1441 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built circa 1950 according to site survey, and exhibits no discernable
style. The one-story building has a compound form created by multiple apparent additions to the
front and sides of the original block. The masonry structural system is clad with brick laid in a
stretcher bond and rests on a continuous concrete foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof
covered with standing seam metal that is flanked by an exterior end brick chimney on the side.
The main entrance is now set on the side of what appears to be a large addition to the side of the
house and is sheltered by a partial-width inset porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-
hung sash windows, although many windows are boarded. The building is simple and
unornamented.
This dwelling is located on the south side of Fairfax Street on a small suburban lot. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard. A gravel driveway makes a loop to the side of the house. Set
uphill to the rear of the house are two historic sheds. Set along the driveway to the side of the
house is a nonhistoric garage. There is also a permanently parked RV with a deck to the rear of the
house.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction with extensive
nonhistoric alteration. It includes a small collection of typical domestic outbuildings. Overall, the
property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural
or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical
associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is,
therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
305
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-146
VDHR# 034-5348
House, 1442 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built circa 1900 according to site survey, and exhibits no discernable
style. The building appears to have recently experienced severe fire damage and is now vacant and
deteriorated. The two-story building has an addition to the side as well as a one-story addition to
the rear. The frame structural system is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a continuous concrete
foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced by
two central interior concrete chimneys. The main entrance is set centrally on the original block
and is sheltered by a partial-width shed roof portico. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-
hung sash windows. The building is minimally ornamented with window shutters.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Fairfax Street on a small suburban lot. The building
sits near the road on a grassy yard enclosed by a picket fence. A gravel driveway shared with an
industrial operation to the rear extends past the house and connects to a short driveway and parking
area behind the house. No outbuildings were observed on the property.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction with recent fire
damage. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or
unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known
significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic
resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis
or as part of a historic district.
306
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-147
VDHR# 034-5349
House, 1434 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built circa 1900 according to site survey, and exhibits a Vernacular
design. The one-story building has a hall and parlor form with an offset rear ell. The frame
structural system is clad with weatherboard and rests on a continuous stone foundation. It is topped
by a side gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is pierced on the rear slope by a central
interior concrete chimney. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and is sheltered by a full-
width integral roof porch. Fenestration consists of six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The
building is simple and unornamented.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Fairfax Street on a small suburban lot. The building
sits near the road on a small grassy yard. A paved pull-off extends next to the house. Set to the rear
of the house and oriented towards the adjacent railroad corridor is a historic secondary dwelling
and a nonhistoric carport.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects a Vernacular form and has little architectural distinction. It includes a
contemporary secondary dwelling that may or may not have historically been associated. Overall,
the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique
architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant
historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and
is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a
historic district.
307
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-148
VDHR# 034-5350
Industrial Building, 1431 Fairfax Street
This industrial building was built circa 1900 according to site survey, and exhibits no discernable
style. The building appears to have been vacant for an extended period of time and remains in a
deteriorated condition. The one-story building has a rectangular form. The frame structural system
is clad with weatherboard and rests on an obscured foundation. It is topped by a side sloping shed
roof. There is a single entry located on the front end that is unsheltered. All other fenestration
appears to be boarded. The building is simple and unornamented.
This industrial building is located on the south side of Fairfax Street on an industrial property
bordering the west side of the railroad corridor. The building sits near the road in an overgrown
cluster of trees. It appears to face sideways towards a gravel lot between it and the railroad. No
other outbuildings were observed on the property.
This property is an example of a typical early-twentieth century industrial building in the region.
The building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction. It has been vacant
for an extended period of time and remains in a deteriorated condition. Overall, the property does
not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design
features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations.
The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered
not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
308
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-149
VDHR# 034-5351
House, 147 Chipley Drive
This single dwelling was built in 1941 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable style.
The one-story building has an L-shaped form with a side wing. The frame structural system is clad
with bricktex and rests on a continuous concrete foundation. It is topped by a cross gable roof
covered with standing seam metal. The main entrance is offset on the front and is sheltered by a
partial-width gable roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows.
The building is minimally ornamented with board and batten in the gable end.
This dwelling is located at the terminus of Chipley Drive on a small rural lot. The building sits far
back from the road in an open grassy field. A gravel driveway extends uphill to the house and ends
at a historic garage set to the side. The property is bordered by industrial properties to the front.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century rural dwelling in the region. The
building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction. It includes a
contemporary garage as the only outbuilding. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
309
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-150
VDHR# 034-5352
Industrial Building, 1250 Fairfax Street
This industrial building was built in 1970 according to local records, and exhibits no discernable
style. A large section of wall is missing and the building appears to be vacant. The large one-story
building has a complex form with a variety of extensions and blocks connected to the main
building. The concrete block structural system is exposed and rests on a continuous foundation. It
is topped by a barrel vaulted roof covered with rubber membrane. There are multiple doorways
and garage bays along the front, including several along a raised loading dock at the east end of
the building.
This industrial building is located on the north side of Fairfax Street on a small industrial property.
The building sits near the road with a gravel driveway and parking lot along the front. The gravel
extends around both sides and the rear of the building. Set to the rear is a historic storage shed.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century industrial building in the region.
The building reflects no discernable style and has little architectural distinction. It includes a
historic shed as the only outbuilding. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive
characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-
level research revealed no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an
area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the
NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
310
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-151
VDHR# 034-5353
House, 1160 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built in 1931 according to local records, and exhibits a Dutch Colonial
Revival influence. The one-and-a-half-story building has compound form with what appears to be
multiple additions to several sides. The frame structural system is clad with asbestos shingles and
rests on an obscured foundation. It is topped by a gambrel roof covered with standing seam metal
that is pierced by a shed dormer on the side slope. The roof is further pierced by two interior brick
chimneys on the slopes. The main entrance is set on a side wing and is sheltered by a partial-width
wraparound hipped roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows.
The building is ornamented with window shutters and arched porch bays.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Fairfax Street at the intersection with Crooked Lane
on a small suburban lot. The building sits back from the road on a large grassy yard set on an angle
to the street. A gravel driveway extends to and ends at the front of the house. Set beside the
driveway in front of the house is a modern prefabricated carport. Set in the yard to the si de of the
house is a nonhistoric secondary dwelling. An additional carport and prefabricated shed are set
behind the secondary dwelling.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects subtle Dutch Colonial Revival influences and has little architectural
distinction. It includes a small collection of nonhistoric outbuildings. Overall, the property does
not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique architectural or design
features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known significant historical associations.
The building is located in an area of discontiguous historic resources, and is, therefore, considered
not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis or as part of a historic district.
311
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-152
VDHR# 034-5354
House, 1110 Fairfax Street
This single dwelling was built in 1931 according to local records, and exhibits a Craftsman style.
The one-story building has a Bungalow form with an offset rear ell. The frame structural system
is clad with stucco and rests on a continuous foundation. It is topped by a side gable roof covered
with asphalt shingles that is pierced by a shed dormer on the rear slope. The roof is further pierced
by an exterior brick chimney on the side. The main entrance is set centrally on the front and
sheltered by a partial-width gable roof porch. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung
sash windows. The building is ornamented with wide roof overhangs, exposed purlins and
raftertails, heavy square porch columns set on brick piers, and an entry transom.
This dwelling is located on the north side of Fairfax Street at the intersection with Grove Street on
a small suburban lot. The building sits back from the road on a grassy yard with a concrete retaining
wall along the front. A concrete walkway with steps leads to the front of the house. The driveway
leads to the rear of the house from Grove Street. At the end of the driveway is a contemporary one-
car garage.
This property is an example of a typical mid-twentieth century suburban dwelling in the region.
The building reflects a Craftsman style with little architectural distinction. It includes a
contemporary garage. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess
significant or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed
no known significant historical associations. The building is located in an area of discontiguous
historic resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual
basis or as part of a historic district.
312
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-153
VDHR# 304-0189
Workers Houses, 5330-5360 Crooked Lane and 1106 Rowe Lane
This cluster of workers houses consists of five nearly identical single dwellings built circa 1910
according to previous study. The buildings are each two-story Vernacular I-houses, although each
has been enlarged with various additions to the rear. The frame structural systems are mostly clad
with vinyl siding although one house is clad with bricktex. Each rests on a continuous concrete
foundation. They are topped by side gable roofs covered with either standing seam metal or asphalt
shingles, and are pierced by central interior brick chimneys. The main entrances are set centrally
on the front and most are sheltered by partial-width shed roof porches, although several of these
porches have been enclosed. Fenestration consists of one-over-one double-hung sash windows.
The buildings are simple and unornamented, although window shutters have been added to several.
This complex of workers houses is located on the block bound by Grove Street and Rowe Lane.
Four of the houses are set in a line facing Grove Street while one is set separately facing Rowe
Street. Each is set near the road on small suburban lots. Driveways extend past the side of each
house into the back yard. Several have sheds set in the back yard.
This property is an example of a cluster of typical early-twentieth century suburban dwellings in
the region. The buildings reflects a Vernacular form with little architectural distinction. Each of
the five former workers houses are nearly identical with subtle differences made as a result of later
alteration. Overall, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant
or unique architectural or design features and reconnaissance-level research revealed no known
significant historical associations. The complex is located in an area of discontiguous historic
resources, and is, therefore, considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP on an individual basis
or as part of a historic district.
313
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-154
VDHR# 304-5007
Greenhill Cemetery, Fairfax Street
This large cemetery dates from approximately 1862 and has approximately 1754 graves dating
from the late nineteenth century to the early twenty-first century. Most internments date from the
early to mid-twentieth century. Early markers are comprised of limestone and cast concrete
markers in the shape of arches or rectangles. Several granite obelisks are located throughout the
cemetery. Newer markers are comprised of polished granite headstones.
This cemetery is set on the north side of Fairfax Street and bordered by Water, Grove and Martin
streets. It is enclosed with a wrought iron fence and the entry is marked by stone piers with the
name of the cemetery engraved in concrete. It is situated on gentle hills with a mortared stone
retaining wall running along Fairfax Street at the southeast corner of the cemetery.
The cemetery is an undistinguished example of a typical late-nineteenth century small town
cemetery and does not embody distinctive characteristics or possess significant or unique
architectural or design features. The cemetery therefore does not meet NRHP Criterion
Consideration D and is considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
314
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
8-155
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
315
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9-1
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
September and October of 2020, Dutton +Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a Phase I cultural
resource survey (Phase I) of the Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±381.38-hectare (±942.4-
acre) Bartonsville Solar project area. The effort involved both archaeological and architectural
investigations of the property to confirm the presence or absence of cultural resources located
within the project area and assess their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). The project area is located in Stephens City, Virginia, and it is roughly
bound by Passage Road, and Springdale Road; Deer Lane and Carrollton Lane extend into the
project area.
As part of the archaeological survey, a total of 450 shovel tests was excavated throughout the
project area. This subsurface testing revealed that soils were typical of agricultural fields located
in a Valley and Ridge physiographic region, consisting of shallow topsoils and plowzones which
came down to extremely rocky subsoils and in many cases, bedrock. Approximately 94.5 hectares
(232.9 acres) of the project area was subjected to systematic pedestrian survey. Systematic
pedestrian survey was conducted where soils had recently been plowed and between rows of
planted corn where plowed soils were visible.
Three new sites were identified through systematic pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. Site
44FK1012 was identified via systematic subsurface and pedestrian survey and consists of 6
structures in various stages of dilapidated, one brick lined cistern, a total of eight (8) collected
artifacts and a total of 4 artifacts which were not collected. Artifacts include: the base and body of
a medicine bottle, colorless vessel glass, polished bone, coal, and a machine cut or wire nail. This
site likely corresponds to an 1885 map projected structure labeled R.R. Turner. Due to the fact that
the main structure is still standing and that there are relatively few diagnostic artifacts which were
collected or identified during survey of this site, further subsurface excavation would likely reveal
little new information about this site. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion
in the NRHP.
Site 44FK1013 was identified via systematic subsurface survey and consists of a cluster of surface
features including a cellar, stone pile, well, and concrete slab, along with a stone foundation south
of this cluster of these features and a total of 50 artifacts, including, wire nails, whiteware, brick,
plastic, twine, rubber sheet, colorless window glass, milk glass, aqua window glass, hard sheet
metal, light blue vessel glass, and aqua vessel glass. This site likely corresponds to the 1885 map
projected structure labeled Hugh Bradley. The presence of modern cultural material such as twine,
sheet metal, plastic, and rubber sheet suggest that this site has been in use well into the twenty-
first century. This is confirmed by aerial imagery from the early 21st century which shows the still
standing structures. Due to the long occupation date, D+A recommends that this site is not
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Site 44FK1014 was identified via systematic pedestrian survey of a planted corn field which
surrounded a ruinous log structure, a well, and a basin. Additionally, two grids were placed south
of the log structure, on the wooded slope which abuts the structure to the south. To the north, east,
and west of the structure, land had to been plowed, planted with corn and harvested, and soils were
exposed at approximately 80 percent; and as such, were subjected to pedestrian survey in lieu of
316
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9-2
subsurface testing. Subsurface testing within the wooded, sloped portion of the site, combined with
the three judgmental shovel test pits which were excavated within the site produced 87 artifacts
from 17 shovel test pits. The structures and features, along with a scatter of early to mid-20th
century artifacts collected during pedestrian survey, and a total of 87 artifacts which were collected
from the 17 positive shovel test pits comprise Site 44FK1014. Historic artifacts collected from the
shovel test pits include: redware, colorless vessel glass, aqua window pane glass, fragments of an
iron lid, whiteware, amber bottle glass, wire nails, machine cut nail or wrought nail, milk glass,
metal sheet, coarse earthenware, ironstone, and folded iron fragments and brick. During pedestrian
survey of the exposed plowed fields north, east, and west of the log structure, diagnostic artifacts
which were collected include: Majolica which dates to c. 1876-1910, whiteware, ironstone,
yellowware, stoneware, a mother of pearl button, and cobalt blue vessel glass, and a piece of clear
vessel glass. Artifacts suggest that this site relates to the occupation of the unnamed structure(s)
on the 1885 and 1937 maps. The presence of wire nails, sheet metal, folded iron fragments and
milk glass demonstrate a wide occupation range. Due to the wide occupation date range for this
site, D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
There are four previously recorded sites which VCRIS records project to be located on the eastern
edge of the project area (Sites 44FK0166-68 and 44FK0163). Site 44FK0168 is a possibly
unfinished stone fence which was built along a property line. Site 44FK0167 consists of a Native
American site with 1 chert biface fragment, chert pieces, and cortical flakes. Site 44FK0166 is a
check dam and pond. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit with debris including bottle
glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin. These sites were subjected to pedestrian
and/or subsurface survey as appropriate. Site 44FK0166 was identified further northeast than it is
projected to be located in VCRIS. Site 44FK0168 was re-identified in its VCRIS projected
location. The stone wall was re-mapped and documented, no other features were identified with
the wall, and it is thought to, indeed, represent a property line. Subsurface testing was conducted
at the projected location of Site 44FK0167, no shovel test pits were positive for cultural material,
and the site was not re-identified. The projected location of Site 44FK0163 was visually inspected
for evidence of the twentieth century trash pit. No evidence of this site was identified. Due to the
fact that these sites are projected so close to the boundary of the project area, it is likely that the
sites which were not identified are in actuality located to the west of the project area boundary.
D+A recommends that Sites 44FK0163, and 44FK0166 through 44FK0168 are not eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP.
Overall, the newly identified sites located within the project area represent typical farmstead sites
dating to the late nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth century. The previously
recorded Sites 44FK0163, 44FK0166, and 44FK0168 also represent agricultural activity and
domestic dumping. Site 44FK0167 – a Native American lithic scatter – was not re-identified and
is most likely located outside of the project area. D+A recommends that no further
archaeological work be conducted on this project area.
The architectural resources survey for the Bartonsville Solar project resulted in the identification
and recordation of fifty-seven (57) architectural resources greater than 50 years of age (constructed
in 1970 or earlier) located within the one-half mile architectural survey area, two of which are
located directly within the project area. Of the surveyed resources, twenty-nine (29) were
previously recorded (VDHR# 034-0028, 034-0071, 034-0083, 034-1010/1015, 034-1039, 034-
1044, 034-1045, 034-1061, 034-1062, 034-1077, 034-1078, 034-1398, 034-1402, 034-1408, 034-
317
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9-3
1409, 034-1423/1429, 304-0189, and 304-5007) and twenty-eight (28) were newly recorded
during this Phase I Survey (VDHR# 034-5327/5354). One of the previously recorded resources
was previously noted as having been demolished (VDHR# 034-1039), and three additional
previously recorded resources were found to have been demolished since they were last surveyed
(VDHR# 034-1061, 034-1426, and 034-1427). The resources within the survey area and
documented as part of this effort consist primarily of domestic buildings and farmsteads from the
late-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century, as well as a smaller number of earlier and later homes,
several twentieth century industrial buildings, and two nineteenth century cemeteries.
Of the surveyed resources, three are considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP (Table
9-1). These properties, which are farm dwellings from the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth
century, are all considered eligible for architecture as good examples of regional forms and styles,
in addition to their retention of intact historic agricultural complexes. The rest of the surveyed
resources are primarily modest frame and masonry dwellings from the late-nineteenth to mid-
twentieth century that reflect common forms and types found throughout the region from that time
period. None of these appear to reflect any unique or significant design or historical associations,
and as such, all are considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or collectively.
The three NRHP-eligible resources were assessed for impacts brought about by the project through
inspection of existing conditions and viewshed analysis. This effort found that the rolling terrain
and existing vegetation patterns between them and the project area generally inhibit wide or
uninterrupted visibility of the project area. The retention of existing vegetation, couple with
proposed supplemental landscape buffer to be planted around the perimeter of the project area will
provide further screening, and as such, it is anticipated that the project area and solar arrays within
it will not be visible from the resources themselves or most public vantage points near them. A
separate, discontiguous component of the project, consisting of a substation and interconnect
outside of the main array area is currently partially visible from one of the eligible resources,
however, topography in the area provides screening from most public vantage points. This
substation site is to be further screened by proposed landscape buffer to be planted around the
perimeter. This screening will inhibit visibility of the substation and is anticipated to blend in to
the existing treeline immediately behind it. As such, any substantially new or incompatible features
from the project are anticipated to be minimized. As such, the Bartonsville Solar project is
recommended to pose no more than a minimal impact to either NRHP-eligible resource.
Table 9-1: Table of NRHP-eligible architectural resources with recommendations of project impacts
VDHR ID# Resource
Name/Address Year Built NRHP Eligibility Project Impacts
034-0071
Old Rice Property,
4253 Middle Road c.1800
Treated as NRHP-
Eligible Minimal Impact
034-0083
Carter Hall, 310
Carters Lane 1830 NRHP-Eligible Minimal Impact
034-1078
Cherry Dale, 557
Marlboro Road c.1797 NRHP-Eligible Minimal Impact
318
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
319
REFERENCES
10-1
10.REFERENCES
---
2012 Eyewitness Accounts to Early Indian Settlements in Shenandoah Valley. Access
Genealogy. Available online at https://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/eyewitness-
accounts-to-early-indian-settlements-in-shenandoah-valley.htm.
n.d.History. Old Town Winchester. Available online at
http://oldtownwinchesterva.com/about-old-town/history/.
n.d.History of Frederick County. Frederick County, Virginia: Life At The Top. Available
online at http://www.fcva.us/visit/history-of-frederick-county.
n.d.Town History. Newtown History Center. Available online at
https://newtownhistorycenter.org/town-history/.
n.d.Winchester & Potomac CSA Railroads. Available online at http://www.csa-
railroads.com/Winchester_and_Potomac.htm.
Aaron, Larry G.
2009 Pittsylvania County Virginia: A Brief History. The History Press, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Adelman, Garry
n.d. The Third Battle of Winchester. Civil War Trust. Available online at
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/third-battle-winchester.
Anderson, David G.
2001 Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America.
Archaeology of Eastern North America. 29, 143-186.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of the Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States. Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North America.
Edited by K.B. Tankersley and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic Anthropology,
supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen, and Kenneth Sassaman
1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast. Edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. 3-15. The University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson
1998 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River. American Antiquity, 53:262-286.
320
REFERENCES
10-2
Barber, Michael B., J. Mark Wittkofski, and Michael F. Barber
1992 An Archaeological Overview of Stafford County, Virginia. Preservation Technologies,
Roanoke, Virginia.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity, 45.
Butts, Charles and Raymond S. Edmundson
1966 Geology and Mineral Resources of Frederick County. Bulletin 80. Virginia Division of
Mineral Resources. Department of Purchases and Supply, Richmond, Virginia.
Cartmell, T.K.
1909 Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants: A History of Frederick County,
Virginia. T.K. Carmell. Available online at
https://archive.org/details/shenandoahvalle00cartgoog.
Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea Brewer Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little
Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist VI(1):61-84.
Civil War Trust (CWT)
n.d. Second Battle of Kernstown. Civil War Trust. Available online at
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/civil-war/battles/second-battle-kernstown.
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Report R-2386. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan.
Conservation & Development Commission (C&DC)
1927 House of First Settler. Historical highway marker, A-12_1.
Custer, Jay F.
1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity. Early and
Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and
Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the
Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
D. J. Lake & Co.
1885 An Atlas Frederick County, Virginia. D.J. Lake & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Digital image on file at Historic Map Works.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1996 “Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast,” The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. ed. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E.
Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
321
REFERENCES
10-3
Delcourt, H., and P. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present. Geobotany: an
Integrating Experience. Edited by R. Romans, pp. 123-66. Plenum Press, New York, New
York.
Dent, Richard J., Jr.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York, New
York.
Duncan, Richard R.
2007 Beleaguered Winchester: A Virginia Community at War, 1861-1865. Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter
1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America
10:95-117.
Egloff, Keith and Deborah Woodward
1992 First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Fordney, Chris
1996 Winchester, Virginia: A Town Embattled During America’s Civil War. Civil War Times.
February 1996. Available online at http://www.historynet.com/winchester-virginia-a-
town-embattled-during-americas-civil-war.htm.
Google Earth
1997 USGS aerial. 39° 6'33.10"N, 78°14'28.74"W. Historical imagery layers, 1990-2015, 23
March 1997.
Gray & Pape Inc. (G&P)
1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Virginia.
March 1997. Prepared for Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Manuscript on file at the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. Archeology of Eastern United
States. Edited by James B. Griffin, 352-64. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Grymes, Charlie
n.d.a Key Treaties Defining the Boundaries Separating English and Native American
Territories in Virginia. Virginia Places. Available online at
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/treaties.html.
n.d.b Railroad Across the Blue Ridge, In the Shenandoah Valley – and Why Isn’t Harrisonburg
on the Main Line? Virginia Places. Available online at
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/rail/valleyrail.html.
322
REFERENCES
10-4
n.d.c Virginia-West Virginia Boundary. Virginia Places. Available online at
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/wvboundary.html.
Hanson, Raus McDill
1969 Virginia Place Names: Derivation Historical Uses. McClure Press, Verona, Virginia.
Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Michael J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N.
Hodges, pp. 137-164. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Holsworth, Jerry W.
2011 Civil War Winchester. The History Press, Charleston, South Carolina.
Hotchkiss, Jedediah
1862 Sketch of the Battle of Kernstown, Sunday, March 23d. Map retrieved from the Library of
Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/2005625007/.
Justice, Noel D.
1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Kalbian, Maral S.
1991 Newtown/Stephensburg Historic District. 28 October 1991.
1992 Rural Landmarks Survey Report of Frederick County, Virginia. Prepared for the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Kitchin, Thomas
1761 A new map of Virginia from the best authorities. London Magazine, London. Map
retrieved from the Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/2001627679/.
Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. Late Archaic and
Early Woodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and
Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 139-183. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological
Society of Virginia.
Klimm, Tess, Helen Lee Fletcher, and Guy M. Jones
2002 Middletown Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. 8
November 2002. Prepared by Middletown Heritage Society.
Lehman, Sam
c.1989 The Story of Frederick County. Winchester, Virginia.
323
REFERENCES
10-5
Lukezic, Craig
1990 Soils and Settlement Location in Eighteenth-Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia.
Historical Archaeology 24(1).
McAvoy, J.M.
1992 Nottaway River Survey, Part I. Clovis Settlement Patters: The 30-Year Study of a Late Ice
Age Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special
Publication No. 28 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
McAvoy, J.M and L.D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of the Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
VDHR Research Report Series No. 8, VDHR, Richmond
McLearen, Douglas C.
1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N.
Hodges, 39-64. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of
Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
McLearen, Douglas C. and L. Daniel Mouer
1989 Middle Woodland II Typology and Chronology in the Lower James River Valley of
Virginia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological
Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory, 2: 1-52.
Mouer, L. Daniel
1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-
88. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The
Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
National Park Service (NPS)
1992 Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. September 1992.
Available online at https://www.nps.gov/abpp/shenandoah/svs0-1.html.
Norris, J.E., editor
1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson and
Clarke. A. Warner & Co., Chicago, Illinois.
Parker, Kathryn
2006 Images of America: Winchester. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
324
REFERENCES
10-6
Parsons, Mia T. and John W. Ravenhorst, eds.
2002 Archeological Resource Study and Clearance for the Discovery Center Project at the
Henry House, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. Report prepared
for the Archeology Program, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park for Manassas National
Battlefield Park.
Potter, Stephen
1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac
Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Rountree, Helen C and Randolph Turner
2002 Before and After Jamestown: Virginia’s Powhatans and Their Predecessors. University
Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
Salmon, John S.
2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.
Stephenson, Robert L.
1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological
Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann Arbor.
Stewart, R. Michael
1992 Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region
Perspective. Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by
Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-38. Council of Virginia
Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Turner, E. Randolph, III
1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. Paleoindian
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart, 53-70.
Special Publication No. 19 of the Archaeology Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
United States Census Bureau
Various years Federal Census.
1870 Agricultural Schedule.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1943 Middletown Quadrangle. Topographical Map, Scale 1:62500.
1966 Middletown Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series, Topographical Map, Scale 1:24000.
1966 Stephens City Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series, Topographical Map, Scale 1:24000.
325
REFERENCES
10-7
1942 Winchester Quadrangle. Topographical Map, Scale 1:62500.
Varle, Charles, and Benjamin Jones
1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2008621756/. Accessed 24 July 2020.
Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS)
n.d.034-0083, Carter Hall.
n.d.034-1078, Henry Stephens House, Cherry Dale.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)
2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Virginia Department
of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
2006 A History of Roads in Virginia: “The Most Convenient Wayes”. Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. Available online at
http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/historyofrds.pdf.
Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Staff (VHLCS)
1981 Springdale Mill Complex. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination
Form. March 1981. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Warner, John, and Thomas Fairfax
1747 A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, being the lands belonging to the Rt.
Honourable Thomas Lord Fairfax Baron Cameron, bounded by & within the Bay of
Chesapoyocke and between the rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack: With the courses
of the rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack, in Virginia, as surveyed according to order
in the years& 1737. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/item/99446122/.
Wendland, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson
1974 Dating Climatic Episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research, 4: 9-24.
Wood, John
1820 Frederick County. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2012589212/.
Yarnell, Richard A.
1976 Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. Culture Change and Continuity. Edited
by C. Cleland, 265-273. Elsevier Science & Technology Books, Orlando, Florida.
326
REFERENCES
10-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
327
APPENDIX A
A-1
APPENDIX A: RESUMES
328
APPENDIX A
A-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
329
APPENDIX A
A-3
330
APPENDIX A
A-4
331
APPENDIX A
A-5
332
APPENDIX A
A-6
333
APPENDIX A
A-7
334
APPENDIX A
A-8
335
APPENDIX A
A-9
336
APPENDIX A
A-10
337
APPENDIX B
B-1
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT INVENTORY
338
APPENDIX B
B-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
339
APPENDIX B
B-3
Provenience Stratigraphy Main Material,
Subtype,
Decoration and
Color
Qty. Part Notes
Area A
A2.5 I Slag N/A Fragment Not collected
A3 I Concrete N/A Fragment Not collected
C3 I Metal, hardware 1 Fragment Possibly a
modified chain
link; teardrop
shape
DE9 I Glass, colorless
vessel, medicine
bottle
1 Base and
body
5x2x2cm square
body medicine
bottle.
Manufactured by
Owens-Illinois
glass company in
195x (last digit
missing from
maker's mark) in
Gas City, IN
(Plant #12), mold
#2
DE9 I Coal 1 Fragment 1g; vitreous luster
DE9 I
Bone
1 Fragment Two edges show
evidence of
butcher marks
and cross cuts.
E8 I
Glass
N/A Fragment Modern, Not
collected
E9 I Glass, aqua
vessel
1 Body Light patina
E9 I Glass, rose
colored vessel
1 Base Light patina
F8.5 Surface Glass N/A Fragment Not collected
F8.5 Surface Glass, milk
glass
N/A Fragment Not collected
F9 I Coal or burned
wood
1 Fragment <1g
F9 I Nail, machine
cut or wire
1 Whole Corroded and
unidentifiable
Area B
A1 I Refined
earthenware,
1 Body
340
APPENDIX B
B-4
Whiteware,
undecorated
A3 I Glass, colorless
window
8 Pane
A3 I Glass, colorless
safety glass
3 Fragment
A3 I Brick 1 Fragment <1g
A3 I Plastic 1 Fragment Black
A3 I Lime 2 Fragment 3g
A4 I Iron, Large flat
fragment.
N/A Fragment Not collected,
could not be
removed.
B2 I Glass, aqua
window
2 Pane
B2 I Glass, colorless
window
4 Pane
B2 I Glass, green
fragment
1 Fragment Historic, light
green.
B2 I Nail, wire 5 Whole
B2 I Nail, wire 2 Shank Broken; corroded
B2 I Nail, wire 1 Whole Head is narrow;
T-shaped
B2 I Brick 2 Fragment 3g
B2 I Mortar 3 Fragment 3g
B2 I Twine 6 Fragment
B2 I Burned wood 5 Fragment
B2 I Rubber, sheet 1 Fragment Synthetic
material,
deliberately cut,
fringe along
bottom
B2 I Metal, washer
or small chain
link
1 Washer Corroded
B2 I Plastic 2 Fragment Orange fragment
with lined marked
along exterior
B2 I Plastic 1 Fragment Red
B2 I Plastic, plate or
toy embossed "-
X-Y-Z"
1 Fragment Pink
B3 I Glass, colorless
window
1 Pane Melted and
cracked
341
APPENDIX B
B-5
B3 I Glass, colorless
window
1 Pane
B3 I Glass, brown
vessel
1 Body Modern
B3 I Mortar 1 Fragment <1g. Some blue
paint adhered.
C2 I Glass, milk
glass lid liner
1 Lid Textured surface
C2 I Glass, aqua
vessel
1 Body
C2 I Glass, amber
vessel
1 Body
C2 I Glass, colorless
vessel
2 Base
C2 I Glass, colorless
vessel, molded
screw top
threads
2 Rim
C2 I Glass, colorless
window
1 Pane
C2 I Metal, hardware 1 Fragment Small strap
hardware, likely
machine,
construction, or
furniture part
C2 I Coal 1 Fragment 3g
C2 I Mortar 1 Fragment 1g
C3 I Glass, light blue
milk glass
vessel
1 Body
C3 I Metal, pen cap,
Wearever brand.
1 Cap Clip reads
"WEAREVER
USA", post 1944
fountain pen cap
likely belonging
to the pacemaker
line.
C3 I Lime 1 Fragment 5g
D1 I Coarse
earthenware,
redware
1 Fragment
D1 I Refined
earthenware,
hand painted
polychome
1 Body c.1795-1830
342
APPENDIX B
B-6
exterior, floral
motifs
D1 I Glass, aqua
vessel, molded
2 Body
D1 I Glass, aqua
vessel, molded
"PE…M"
1 Body
D1 I Glass, aqua
vessel
9 Body
D1 I Glass, aqua
vessel
1 Body Melted
D1 I Glass, aqua
vessel
2 Body Interior cracking
and breakage
D1 I Glass, colorless
vessel
4 Body Interior cracking
and breakage
D1 I Glass, colorless
vessel
1 Base
D1 I Glass, milk
glass lid liner
1 Lid
D1 I Plaster, finish
coat
10 Fragment 3g
D1 I Nail, machine
cut or wire
1 Shank Corroded and
unidentifiable
D1 I Metal, hardware 1 Hardware Small strap
hardware, likely
machine,
construction, or
furniture part
D1 I Metal, hardware 1 Hardware Small circular
disk, 4cm
diameter, likely
machine or
furniture part
D1 I Cement
structural
material.
6 Fragment 268g; plaster on
outside of some
fragments.
D1 I Plaster, finish
coat
10 Fragment 3g
D2 I Glass, colorless
window
1 Pane
D2.5 I Glass, dark
green vessel
1 Body
D2.5 I Nail, wire 1 Whole Bent
Grid C1
Site
44FK1014
343
APPENDIX B
B-7
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Porcelain, hard
paste. Blue
transfer print,
oriental motifs
1 Foot
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Refined
earthenware,
Whiteware, blue
hand painted
design
1 Body
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Ironstone,
scalloped and
molded rim
1 Rim
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Ironstone,
teacup. Green
floral transfer
print
1 Rim
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Coarse
earthenware,Yel
lowware with
rust-red and
blue bands,
molded
1 Body Likely from a
utilitarian vessel
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Stoneware,
white salt glaze,
undecorated
1 Rim Top of rim not
glazed; utilitarian
vessel
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Refined
earthenware,
Majolica,
molded
leaves/grass
exterior with
green glaze,
lavender tin-
glazed interior
1 Body c. 1876-1910
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Button, mother-
of-pearl
1 Button
Surface
Collection 1
Surface Glass, cobalt
blue vessel
1 Rim Surface has
rainbow
patina/reflection
Grid C2
Site
44FK1014
A-1 I Redware body
sherd, clear lead
glaze
1 Body
344
APPENDIX B
B-8
A-1 I Redware base
sherd, clear lead
glaze
1 Base
A-1 I Glass, colorless
fragment
1 Fragment
A1 I Refined
earthenware,
whiteware rim
1 Rim
A2 I Glass, colorless
vessel body
with stippled
exterior
1 Body
A2 I
Glass, colorless
vessel body
2 Body One thin,
potentially
drinking vessel
A2 I Glass, Aqua
window pane
1 Pane
A3 I Glass, aqua
window pane
1 Pane
A3 I Glass, colorless
vessel body
1 Body
A3 I Iron, lid
fragments
5 Lid
A4 I
Refined
earthenware,
whiteware body 1 Body
A4 I
Redware body
sherd, light
brown glaze 1 Body
A4 I
Redware body
sherd, brown
interior glaze 1 Body
A4 I
Redware body
sherd, dark
brown lead
glaze 1 Body
A4 I
Glass, colorless
fragment 1 Fragment
A4 I Brick fragment 1 Fragment Approx. 3g
A5 I Refined
earthenware,
whiteware body 1 Body
A6 I
Redware body
sherd, unglazed 1 Body
A7 I Coarse
earthenware
1 Rim
345
APPENDIX B
B-9
rim, dark brown
lead glaze with
molded groove
on exterior
A7 I Redware body
sherd, unglazed
1 Body
A7 I Hard paste
porcelain rim,
molded wave on
exterior
1 Rim
Potentially
printed design
beneath molding
A7 I
Glass, amber
bottle body
5 Body Rainbow patina
on all pieces.
Historic.
A7 I Glass, aqua
vessel body
6 Body Rainbow patina
on exterior
A7 I Glass, aqua
window pane
1 Pane
A7 I Nail, wire 2 Whole
A7 I Iron fragment 1 Fragment Cap or seal
A8 I
Refined
earthenware,
whiteware body 1 Body
A8 I
Glass, colorless
fragment 1 Fragment Lightly solarized
B-1 I
Refined
earthenware,
whiteware body
with blue
transferprint
design 1 Body
B-1 I
Redware body
sherd, clear lead
glaze 1 Body
B-1 I
Redware body
sherd, red lead
glaze 1 Body
B-1 I
Refined
earthenware,
unglazed 1 Body
Potentially local
mineral
B-1 I
Nail, machine
cut and hand
headed, or
wrought 1
Head,
Shank
B-1 I Nail, wire 1 Whole
346
APPENDIX B
B-10
B-1 I
Flake, siltstone
or similar
material 1 Flake
Secondary or
Tertiary
B-1 I Brick Fragment 3 Fragment Approx. 4g
B1 I
Redware body
sherd, clear lead
glaze 1 Body
B1 I
Redware body
sherd, red lead
glaze 4 Body
B1 I
Redware body
sherd, black
metallic glaze 1 Body
B1 I
Redware body
sherd, burned 1 Body
Potentially local
mineral
B1 I Brick Fragment 1 Fragment Approx. 3g
B9 I
Coarse
Earthenware,
dark brown lead
glaze with
molded groove
on exterior 1 Body
B9 I
Glass, milk
glass vessel
body 1 Body
Likely small bowl
or dish
B9 I
Glass, aqua
fragment 1 Fragment
B9 I
Glass, aqua
window pane 2 Pane
B11 I
Redware body
sherd with
brown lead
glaze. 1 Body
C1 I
Redware body
sherd, interior
black glaze 3 Body All three mend
D3 I
Redware body
sherd, red glaze 1 Body
D5 I
Redware body
sherd, interior
black metallic
glaze 1 Body
Judgmental
1
I Brick 1 Fragment 2g
Judgmental 1 I Metal, sheet 2 Fragment Corroded and
unidentifiable
347
APPENDIX B
B-11
Judgmental 1 I Glass, colorless
vessel
1 Base
Judgmental 1 I Glass, colorless
window
5 Pane
Judgmental 1 I Coarse
earthenware,
gray bodied
1 Body Glaze and
decoration not
visible
Judgmental 1 I Ironstone, black
transfer print
text
1 Body Partial maker's
mark, text reads
"-'S "
Judgmental 1 I Coarse
earthenware,
gray bodied,
unglazed
1 Rim
Judgmental
2 I
Stoneware body
sherd, black
glazed interior
with white
glazed exterior 1 Body
Judgmental 2 I
Ironstone plate
sherd, white
glaze 1
Rim, Lip,
Base
Judgmental 2 I
Iron, folded
fragment 1 Fragment 8.6cm x 3.1cm
348
APPENDIX B
B-12
349
APPENDIX C
C-1
APPENDIX C: V-CRIS FORMS
350
APPENDIX C
C-2
351
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1012
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 2
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1917 - 1945
Site Type(s):Dwelling, single
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:820 feet
Aspect:Facing East
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:2-6%
Acreage:1.830
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Dwelling, single
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
DHR Time Period:World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945)
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
352
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1012
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 2
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 9/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Surface Features, Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
Collected artifacts include metal hardware, a 5x2x2cm square body medicine bottle. Manufactured by Owens-Illinois glass company in 195x (last
digit missing from maker's mark) in Gas City, IN (Plant #12), coal, bone fragment, rose colored vessel glass, aqua vessel glass, and a nail which is
either machine cut or wire.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
Surface artifacts which were not collected include: modern glass and milk glass.
Current Curation Repository:D+A
Permanent Curation Repository:to be determined by the client
Field Notes:No
Field Notes Repository:No Data
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:The location of this site corresponds to the 1885 map projected structure labeled R.R.
Turner. R.R. Turner, is likely Robert Turner, who was an African American farmer who
lived with his wife and nine children. Due to the fact that the main structure is still standing
and that there are relatively few diagnostic artifacts which were collected or identified
during survey of this site, further subsurface excavation would likely reveal little new
information about this site. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
353
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1013
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1917 - 1945
Site Type(s):Dwelling, single
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:832 feet
Aspect:Facing East
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:2-6%
Acreage:1.710
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Dwelling, single
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
DHR Time Period:World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945)
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
354
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1013
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Surface Features, Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
A total of 56 artifacts were collected from 9 shovel test pits. Artifacts include: wire nails, whiteware, earthenware with polychrome exterior dating to
1795 to 1830, lime , safety glass, brick, a fountain pen cap which dates post 1944, plastic, light blue milk glass, milk glass lid liner, twine, burned
wood, rubber sheet, a metal hardware, colorless window glass, milk glass, aqua window glass, hard sheet metal, light blue vessel glass, and aqua
vessel glass, and plaster
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
a large flat fragment of iron was identified in shovel test pit A4, but was not collected.
in addition to the above listed artifacts, this site consists of a cluster of surface features including a cellar, stone pile, well, and concrete slab, along
with a stone foundation south of this cluster of these features. The stone lined cellar measures 4.9 meters north-south by 6 meters east-west (16 feet
north-south and 20 feet east-west). The well measures approximately 2.4 meters by 2.4 meters (8 by 8 feet). The stone pile measures approximately 4.5
meters by 3 meters (15 feet by 10 feet), and the concrete slab measures 4.3 meters north-south by 3 meters east-west (14 feet north-south by 10 feet
east-west). The remains of the stone foundation consist of a southern wall which runs east-west and western wall which runs north-south. A small,
more ruinous portion of the northern wall which would have ran east west exists, consisting of stone rubble. The western wall measures 17 meters (56
feet), and the southern wall measures 12 meters (40 feet). The stone foundation is nestled in a low spot on the terrain and is to the north and south by
slope. Due its location on sloped land, which is not ideal for dwellings, it is likely that this stone foundation is the remains of a barn.
Current Curation Repository:D+A
Permanent Curation Repository:to be determined by the client
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:D+A
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:Soil stratigraphy is intact and there is evidence of subsurface features such as the burning
event which appears to be associated with the destruction of the stone foundation along with
the potential brick fill feature in shovel test pit C2. However, the amount of surface features
present on the landscape provide ample information regarding the use and occupation of the
landscape. Likewise, as aerial imagery demonstrates, destruction of the structures associated
with this site happened less than 20 years ago. Therefore, all destruction related features,
355
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1013
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
represent modern disturbance. D+A recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in
NRHP.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
356
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1014
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1866 - 1916, 1917 - 1945
Site Type(s):Dwelling, single
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:775 feet
Aspect:Facing North
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:2-6%
Acreage:1.940
Landform:Ridge
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Dwelling, single
Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate
DHR Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945)
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
357
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1014
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Surface Features, Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing, Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
In addition to the pedestrian survey (which was conducted within the exposed ground surface to the north, east, and west of the log cabin), where
ground surface was not visible to the south of the log structure, two grids were placed on the slope which extends up from said structure. Grid C2
consists of 53 shovel tests laid out at 7.5-meter (25-foot) intervals in four (4) transects labeled A through D. Three judgmentals were excavated within
the vicinity of this site, as well. Eighteen of these shovel test pits were positive for historical artifacts. One isolated prehistoric flake was recovered, as
well. No artifacts were recovered in grid C3. Historic artifacts collected from the shovel test pits include: redware, colorless vessel glass, aqua window
pane glass, fragments of an iron lid, whiteware, amber bottle glass, wire nails, machine cut nail or wrought nail, milk glass, metal sheet, coarse
earthenware, ironstone, and folded iron fragments and brick. During pedestrian survey of the exposed plowed fields north, east, and west of the log
structure diagnostic artifacts which were collected include: Majolica which dates to c. 1876-1910, whiteware, ironstone, yellowware, stoneware, a
mother of pearl button, and cobalt blue vessel glass, and a piece of clear vessel glass. Artifacts suggest that this site relates to the occupation of the
unnamed structures on the 1885 and 1937 maps.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
Site 44FK1014 consists of a ruinous log structure, a well, and a basin. The log structure measures 4.9 meters north-south by 7.6 meters east-west (16
feet north-south by 25 feet east-west), the cement basin measures 4.3 meters north-south by 1.2 meters east-west (14 feet north-south by 4 feet east-
west). There is a pile of bricks just north of the log structure – most likely a chimney fall. In addition to these features and structures, Site 44FK1014
consists of a cluster of artifacts identified and collected during pedestrian survey of the corn fields which surround the cluster of structures and
features.
Current Curation Repository:D+A
Permanent Curation Repository:to be determined by the client
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:D+A
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:The presence of wire nails, sheet metal, folded iron fragments and milk glass demonstrate a
wide occupation range. Due to the wide occupation date range for this site, D+A
recommends that this site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
358
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1014
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
359
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0166
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Other
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:No Data
Acreage:0.480
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Transportation/Communication
Site Type:Other
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
DHR Time Period:Historic/Unknown
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:irrigation - check dam and pond
----------------------
March 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
360
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0166
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Surface Features
Survey Strategies:Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
Site 44FK0166 is recorded in VCRIS as a check dam and pond roughly 14 meters (45 feet) in length designed to control runoff into perennial stream
to the north which is projected to be located on the edge of the eastern boundary of the project area. As this site consists of surface expressions, the
location of said site was subjected to pedestrian survey as opposed to subsurface excavation. Since this site was identified nearly 30 years ago,
pedestrian survey was conducted at the location of this site in order to confirm that the site was mapped in the correct location. While this site was not
re-identified in its mapped location, the remains of a dam were identified during Phase IA survey. This dam was re-identified during Phase I and is
most likely Site 44FK0166. This dam measures approximately 102 meters (335 feet in length). It is likely that the dam has been altered for agricultural
purposes since since it was last documented.
Current Curation Repository:NA
Permanent Curation Repository:NA
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:D+A
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:D+A recommends that Site 44FK0166 is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, as further
exploration of the dam is unlikely to yield significant information.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
361
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0166
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:OPQ 139
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU-McReynolds, Geier, etal
Survey Date:3/2/1991
Survey Description:
Visual reconnaissance. Roughly 45 feet in length and exhibits a slight curve to the length of the earthwork. Stands 6 to 8 feet in height. Small check
dam designed to control runoff into perennial stream to the north. Also provided water for livestock.
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
362
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0168
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1790 - 1829, 1830 - 1860, 1861 - 1865, 1866 - 1916
Site Type(s):Wall/Fence
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:No Data
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:No Data
Slope:No Data
Acreage:No Data
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Landscape
Site Type:Wall/Fence
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
DHR Time Period:Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865),
Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916)
Start Year:1800
End Year:1899
Comments:stone property fence
----------------------
March 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
363
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0168
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Surface Features
Survey Strategies:Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
This site was re-identified. The stone wall was redocumented and mapped. Re-documentation of the wall demonstrates that the wall measures 34
meters (112 feet) in length and is oriented at a southwest-northeast angle, and directly following the project area boundary. No other features were
identified with the wall, and it is thought, as stated in the current VCRIS forms, to represent a property line
Current Curation Repository:NA
Permanent Curation Repository:NA
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:D+A
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:This site consists of a stone fence which represents a property boundary, Further
examination would not likely lead to significant archaeological information. This site is
recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
364
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0168
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
No Data
Project Review File Number:OPQ 142
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU-McReynolds, Geier, etal
Survey Date:3/2/1991
Survey Description:
Visual reconnaissance. Wall extends for 75 feet and in many cases is identified as piles of rock. Possibly unfinished and in process of manufacture
when abandoned. An old road towards Stephens City lies on the east side of the feature, with a second road crossing and going towards the Middle
Road at the north end of the fence. Placed along earlier defined land property which dates into the 18th century. Terrain placement varies along
length. Possible unfinished stonefence being built along property line.
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
365
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0167
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):No Data
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:No Data
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:No Data
Slope:No Data
Acreage:No Data
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:No Data
Site Type:No Data
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:-15000
End Year:1606
Comments:March 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
366
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0167
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:NA
Permanent Curation Repository:NA
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:D+A
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:Due to the fact that this site is projected so close to the boundary of the project area, it is
likely that the site is in actuality located to the west of the project area boundary.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:OPQ 141
367
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0167
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU-McReynolds, Geier, etal
Survey Date:3/2/1991
Survey Description:
Visual reconnaissance and close interval shovel test pitting (5).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Pasture No Data No Data
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
1 grey chert biface fragment, 2 grey chert, 1 grey chalcedony, and 1 white chert acortical flakes
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:JMU
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
368
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0163
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 3
Snapshot Date Generated: March 10, 2021
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):1866 - 1916, 1917 - 1945, 1946 - 1991, 1992 - ?
Site Type(s):Trash pit
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:No Data
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:No Data
Slope:No Data
Acreage:No Data
Landform:Ridge, Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Domestic
Site Type:Trash pit
Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American
DHR Time Period:Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945), The New Dominion
(1946 - 1991), Post Cold War (1992 - Present)
Start Year:1900
End Year:1999
Comments:landscape - dump
----------------------
March 1991
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
369
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0163
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 3
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:No Data
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Dutton + Associates, LLC
Investigator:Lauren Gryctko
Survey Date:9/29/2020
Survey Description:
Following the pedestrian survey, systematic shovel testing was conducted throughout the high probability sections, with shovel test placement avoided
in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance, slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated
soils at the time of the survey. Shovel tests were excavated at a maximum of 15-meter (50-foot) intervals along transects spaced 15 meters (50 feet)
apart. The shovel test interval may be extended in areas where soils and topography indicate that the potential for archaeological deposits to be present
was considered low. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed through 0.63-centimeter (1/4-inch) mesh screen and all shovel tests were
approximately 0.30 meters (1 foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Isolated positive shovel tests were
bracketed with radial shovel tests (half the distance to the next shovel test in all four directions) until two negative shovel tests in each direction were
documented. A large portion of this project area consisted of recently plowed fields. Where appropriate, these fields were subjected to systematic
pedestrian survey. Systematic pedestrian survey consisted of crew members walking and inspecting the ground at 15 meters (50 foot) spaced transects
across exposed fields.
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Forest 10/1/2020 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed
Survey Strategies:Surface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:No
Field Notes Repository:No Data
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±309-Hectare (±764-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area. D+A. 2020
Survey Report Repository:D+A
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No evidence of this site was identified. Due to the fact that this site is projected so close to
the boundary of the project area, it is likely that the site is in actuality located to the west of
the project area boundary.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance
Project Staff/Notes:
No Data
Project Review File Number:OPQ 135
370
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0163
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 3
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS)
Investigator:JMU-Hofstra, Wood, etal
Survey Date:3/2/1991
Survey Description:
Visual reconnaissance, 6 shovel test pits. Debris consisted of bottle glass, metal pieces and other waste of modern origin.
Threats to Resource:No Data
Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:No
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
No Data
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
[see survey description above]
Current Curation Repository:No Data
Permanent Curation Repository:No Data
Field Notes:Yes
Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC
Photographic Media:No Data
Survey Reports:No
Survey Report Information:
No Data
Survey Report Repository:No Data
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No Data
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
371