The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPCWorkSessionAgenda2024December18Call to Order Discussion Item(s) Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) Submitted to rezone approximately +/- 91.7-acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with proffers to enable the development of up to 303 single-family dwelling units. The properties are located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road, Winchester and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Adjourn AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024 6:00 PM THE BOARD ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PC12-18-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ10-24_Redacted.pdf PC12-18-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ10-24_HRABLetter_PH1Study_TIA_TTA.pdf 1 Planning Commission Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: December 18, 2024 Agenda Section: Discussion Item(s) Title: Rezoning #10-24 for Winchester East at Opequon Creek (L. Riggleman-Gross, R. Cussen, T VA Winchester II LLC) - (Mr. Klein) Attachments: PC12-18-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ10-24_Redacted.pdf PC12-18-24ApplicationBriefing_REZ10-24_HRABLetter_PH1Study_TIA_TTA.pdf 2 REZONING #10-24 Winchester East at Opequon Crossing (Riggleman-Gross) Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: December 10, 2024 Staff Contact: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner Executive Summary: Meeting Schedule Planning Commission: 12/18/2024 Planning Commission: 01/15/2025 Action: Work Session Action: Pending Board of Supervisors: 02/12/2025 Action: Pending Property Information Property Identification Number (PIN) 65-A-194B & 65-A-195 Address 2737 & 2747 Senseny Road, Winchester Magisterial District Red Bud Acreage +/- 91.7-acres Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Residential/Agricultural Proposed Zoning RP (Residential Performance) District Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use North: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential/Open Space South: Rural Areas (RA) District Land Use: Residential East: Clarke County Land Use: Clarke County West: RP (Residential Performance) District Land Use: Residential (single-family detached) Proposed Use This is a request to rezone two (2) parcels totaling +/-91.7-acres from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District with proffers to develop up to 303 single-family residential units. Positives Concerns The proposed rezoning “generally” implements Plan policy specific to residential land uses on portions of the property west of future Route 37. A significant portion of the site around the Opequon Creek is designated for open space Proffer 2 should be further revised to specify a public use dedication of recreational amenities within the Opequon Creek watershed. 3 Page 2 of 11 and recreation (trail). This serves to provide a natural buffer to rural areas in Clarke County to the east and implements Plan policy specific to natural resource conservation and preservation. The rezoning promotes a portion of a more near-term solution to circulation and the future transportation network between Senseny Road and Route 7 that is supported recommended in the draft Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS). Proffer 3 includes a $4,299.89 per unit credit (totaling $1,216,869) for dedication of future Route 37 right-of-way. This would result in a reduction of monetary contributions to offset capital impacts to County services, particularly public schools, and would not fully implement Capital Impact Model (CapIM) outputs for single-family residential development. Proffer 7 requires several clarifications regarding approval of engineering for design of public roadways, access to the proposed major collector roadway, points-of-access to the development from adjoining properties and roadways, construction access, and 10’ wide shared use trail location. Clarity is needed to ensure orderly and timely development of transportation improvements and achieving desired circulation and access. The proposed two-lane section of the future major collector roadway is only to be provided to the intersection serving the residential land bays within the development and not to the limits of development adjoining the Opequon Crossing community. This leaves a significant gap to create/complete a road connection between Senseny Road and Hallowed Crossing Lane (and ultimately Route 7) as identified in the Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study. 4 Page 3 of 11 Review Agency Comments: Review Agency Comment Date Comment Summary Status Frederick County (FC) County Attorney October 25, 2024 See attached letter. Legal form. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) November 26, 2024 See attached letter. Comments addressed. FC Public Works September 30, 2024 “A comprehensive review shall be performed if a site plan is submitted in the future.” FC Fire Marshal October 1, 2024 “All fire department access roads, fire lane markings, water supply needs, and other applicable development shall meet the criteria of the current addition of the Frederick County Fire Prevention Code in future developments.” Frederick Park & Recreation October 1, 2024 “Referenced recreation areas are not shown on GDP. A shared use path (10’) along Senseny Road frontage and a recreation trail providing creek access along Opequon Creek are recommended.” Comments partially addressed. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) October 18, 2024 See attached letter. Comment addressed. Frederick County Public Schools September 3, 2024 See attached letter. Frederick-Winchester Health Department September 26, 2024 “This office has no objections to the proposed rezoning.” Clarke County – Department of Planning October 8, 2024 See attached letter. Comments partially addressed. 5 Page 4 of 11 Planning & Zoning Staff Analysis: Comprehensive Plan Conformance: The Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 2021) and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan (SEFUAP) provide guidance on the future development of the subject property. The Plan identifies the subject properties as “residential” and “rural areas.” The subject properties are also within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Area Plan states: “Outside of the urban centers described above, the residential land uses in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick study area are defined in three main categories: x R4 – these are generally reflective of our existing residential densities at approximately 4 units per acre. x R6 – these are slightly higher residential densities at approximately 6 units per acre (this is generally attached house development). x Higher density residential – these are generally multifamily and a mix of other housing types with densities of approximately 12-16 units per acre (this density is necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth of the County within the urban areas and is essential to support the urban center concept identified in the Comprehensive Plan and this study). The residential land uses outside and east of Route 37 are envisioned to be rural area residential in character. Route 37, to the north and east of Route 50, may generally be considered as the boundary between the urban areas and rural areas within this study area. This provides a transition area to the Opequon Creek and to the well-established rural character of adjacent Clarke County.” The rezoning proposes “single family residential (attached and/or detached)” in areas identified for future “residential” land uses. However, the generalized development plan (GDP, dated 11/19/24) also identifies “single-family residential” in areas planned to remain “rural” (i.e. those areas east of future Route 37 and the planned transition area to the Opequon Creek and Clarke County. In this respect, the proposed rezoning is not fully consistent with the adopted Plan policy as it pertains to future land use compatibility east of future Route 37. However, it may otherwise be appropriate to develop the site as “residential” given the surrounding/existing residential neighborhoods to the north, west and south. The Area Plan also identifies “Natural Resources” around Opequon Creek. The Plan states: “Within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan, effort should focus on the creation of greenways, stream valley parks and stream buffers around waterways, while taking into account environmentally sensitive areas. Pedestrian facilities should be constructed that connect these features to other public facilities. Many such examples have been identified on the accompanying map. Environmental corridors should be incorporated with all development activities to ensure safe movement and protection of species and future development within the study area should take into account the natural resources located on and around their property.” 6 Page 5 of 11 The proposal includes the use of the Opequon Creek watershed for recreational purposes, including a 6-foot (FT) wide natural surface trail (Proffer 2.2 and GDP). Transportation & Site Access: The Plan identifies transportation improvements in the vicinity of the subject properties, including the future Route 37 bypass (“major arterial roadway”) which bisects the subject properties (north/south). Senseny Road (Route 657) is identified as an “improved major collector,” and future multi-use trails planned Senseny Road and Future Route 37. The proffer statement and the GDP include right-of-way (ROW) reservation for future Route 37 (104’), and construction of two (2) lanes as access to the residential land bays from Senseny Road. Additionally, the rezoning proposal addresses the future widening of Senseny Road to an “improved major collector” and the Plan identified 10’ multi-use trails are absent from the proposal. The applicant should further study if connections can be made to existing off-street trails in Senseny Glen and Twin Lakes subdivisions. The proposal generally implements Plan policy specific to future right-of-way dedication for Route 37 and improved Senseny Road. It is anticipated that development of up to 303 single-family residences will create additional vehicle traffic impacting on the existing network (Senseny Road, Greenwood Road, Channing Drive). However, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA, September 19, 2024) notes: “All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service and queues with and without the addition of the proposed development. Based on the capacity and queueing analysis results, the proposed development will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding transportation and roadway network. Therefore, no improvements are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development.” 7 Page 6 of 11 The TIA study intersections included Senseny Road and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive (existing), Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive (existing), and Senseny Road and proposed site entrance (future). The rezoning promotes a more near-term solution that is recommended in the draft Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study (EFCTS), which the Board of Supervisors has not yet endorsed (anticipated January 2025) but has been reviewed and endorsed by the Transportation Committee (TC) and the Planning Commission. A graphical representation of the project identified on the subject properties, projected costs, and project analysis taken from the study is included below for context. The development of access points on the parkway, envisioned by the EFCTS, should be minimized to the maximum extent reasonably possible to preserve future north south flows. However, this proposal while implementing a segment of the identified major collector roadway on the subject properties between Senseny Road and Route 7 (via Hallowed Crossing Way/Opequon Crossing) 8 Page 7 of 11 would still leave a significant gap in the transportation network between the northern limits of this development and the current terminus of Hallowed Crossing Way, and completion of the ultimate link between the two roadways. This segment would need to be completed by others, potentially Frederick County, and may require state and/or federal transportation dollars that are yet to be secured. The timeframe to secure funding, design and construct the reaming segment is estimated to be 6-8 years or more depending upon funding source and success of funding applications. Capital Impacts & Levels-of-Service (LOS): When evaluating capital costs of new residential development, the County projects per unit costs through the Capital Impact Model (CapIM). The model has been designed to project fiscal impacts that may result from land use change decisions. The Board of Supervisors updated the County’s adopted Capital Impact Model on October 9, 2024. Cash proffer categories (per the Code of Virginia) are limited to public safety facilities, school facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. Below is the projected capital impact by unit type from the County’s adopted Capital Impact Model (CapIM) for single-family detached and attached units. Single-Family Detached (SFD) Single-Family Attached (SFA 9 Page 8 of 11 The applicant has proffered $17,322 per single-family detached (SFD) unit less a credit of $4,299.89 for right-of-way (ROW) dedication for future Route 37 (or $13,092.11). The applicant has proffered $15,596 per single-family attached (SFA) unit less a credit of $4,299.89 for right- of-way (ROW) dedication for future Route 37 (or $11.366.11). This would ultimately result in a reduction of monetary contributions to off-set anticipated capital impacts to County services that can be collected through the cash proffer categories described above, particularly public schools and would not fully implement Capital Impact Model (CapIM) outputs for single-family residential development. This total monetary shortfall for the project would be approximately $1,216,869. The proposed 303-unit residential development is projected to generate 113 students (49 elementary school aged children; 26 middle schoolers and 38 high schoolers). The current public schools’ level of service (LOS, 2024) for facilities that would serve the proposed development are as follows: Public Schools Level of Service (LOS)* School Current Enrollment (2023) Program Capacity (2020) % (CapIM) % (with proposed development generated students)** Greenwood Mill Elementary School 590 696 84.63% 91.8% Admiral Richard E Byrd Middle School 817 900 90.44% 93.6% Millbrook High School 1,563 1,341 116.33% 119.4% *CapIM Output – October 2024 **Planning and Development staff generated Proffer Statement, Generalized Development Plan (GDP), & Impact Analysis: Proffer Statement (Dated 11/19/2024) Staff Comment Proffer 1 – Land Use No comments. Proffer 2 – Parks and Recreation Staff has concern that proposed recreation amenities within the designated Opequon Creek watershed may not otherwise be open to the “public” and recommends inclusion of a “public use dedication” provision. 10 Page 9 of 11 Proffer 3 – Proffer Payments Staff does not support a per unit credit of $4,299.89 for right-of-way dedication for future Route 37. This would result in a reduction of monetary contributions to offset capital impacts to County services, particularly public schools, and would not fully implement Capital Impact Model (CapIM) outputs for single-family residential development. One solution is to apply the credit towards a future project as local match to state or federal funding to connect the to-be-constructed two- lane segment of the major collector roadway and Hallowed Crossing Way. Proffer 4 – Creation of Homeowners’ Association No comment. Proffer 5 – Water and Sewer No comment. Proffer 6 – Historic Resources No comment. Proffer 7 - Transportation Proffer 7.1 and Proffer 7.6 should further specify final engineering of public roadways is also subject to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval. Proffer 7.2 should further specify access to Senseny Road (Route 637) is limited to one (1) entrance. The proffer could be further enhanced by limiting access to the development to three (3) entrances, as noted in the VDOT comment letter, from Senseny Road, from Canyon Road, and from Hallowed Crossing Way (future connection). Proffer 7.3 should be revised to specify when access to Canyon Road will be provided, for example occupancy of 50% of the residential units. The proffer should be further clarified to prohibit access to Canyon Road for construction vehicles and materials. Proffer 7.4 should further clarify that access to the “major collector road” should be limited to one (1) point of access for each residential land bay as shown on the GDP. 11 Page 10 of 11 Proffer 7.5 and the generalized development plan (GDP) should further extend the to-be constructed “two-lane section of a major collector roadway” beyond the proposed intersection and to the limits of the future bridge. A trigger should be included requiring the two-lane section of the major collector road to be completed prior to occupying the first residential unit. Staff are concerned that absent this trigger and implementation of the two-lane section, all new trips generated by the development would only have access from Canyon Road/Senseny Glen subdivision until the access road is complete. Proffer 7.8 should be revised to specify that the 10’ wide shared used path should continue to extend along the proposed two-lane section of the future connector road, and the GDP should be updated to reflect this trail section as well. Proffer 8 – Exclusion of Public Property from Proffers No comment. Proffer 9 – Severability No comment. Proffer 10 – Binding Effect No comment. Proffer 11 – Escalator Cause Staff could support a 12-month period before which escalator clause takes effect. 12 Page 11 of 11 The generalized development plan (GDP) dated November 19, 2024, is included below. The GDP depicts the future right-of-way for Senseny Road, future Route 37, the ½ section (two-lane) major collector roadway, shared 10’ shared use path, preserved open space, 6’ natural surface trail along Opequon Creek, and the proposed residential land bays. Following a public hearing, staff are seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this rezoning application. 13 TWIN LAKES OVERLOOK Subdivision OPEQUON CROSSING Subdivision CLARKE COUNTY VIRGINIA 65 A 194B 65 A 195 66 CK LL LN 166 TICK HILL LN 2830 SENSENY RD 2907 SENSENY RD 2729 SENSENY RD 2713 NSENY RD 691 ENY RD 224 ANYON RD 102 VALE CT 107 VALE CT 105 VALE CT 101 VALE CT 103 MBE DR 21 ON RD 225 CANYON RD 230 CANYON RD 233 CANYON RD 234 CANYON RD 304 SENSENY GLEN DR 238 CANYON RD 03 BE DR 305 SENSENY GLEN DR 309 SENSENY GLEN DR 304 CANYON RD 302 CANYON RD 08 BE DR 111 WHIPP DR 303 CANYON RD 10 MBE DR 17 PP DR 307 CANYON RD 308 CANYON RD 312 CANYON RD 116 HIPP DR 112 WHIPP DR 313 CANYON RD 316 CANYON RD 100 NORFOLK CT 106 NORFOLK CT 324 CANYON RD 108 NORFOLK CT 217 EATH CT 107 NORFOLK CT 215 EATH CT 211 ATH CT 334 CANYON RD 336 CANYON RD 47 ON RD 106 AULEE CT 340 CANYON RD 116 AULEE CT 118 AULEE CT 103 AULEE CT48 YON RD 113 AULEE CT 105 ATH CT 301 EDDYS LN 9 CT 109 AULEE CT 101 ATH CT 00 TH CT 175 MUNSEE CIR 155 MUNSEE CIR MUNSEE CIR LAKOTA ST COMBE DRNORFOLK CTAULEE CT SENSENYGLEN DR MUN S E E C I R WHIP P D R TICKHILL LNWAP P I N G E R T E R RMASCOUTEN ST SIOUX LOOP CANYONRDSENSEN Y R D Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Future Rt 37 Bypass μ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: December 6, 2024 L E H I G H D R LAKO T A ST COMBE DRNORFOLKCTMORNING GLORY DRSEN SENY GLEN DR GLENRIDGEDRHEATH CTTHOMPS ON CT SENSEN Y R DPANGBORNECT CANYONRD0 660 1,320330 Feet CLARKE COUNTY REZ # 10 - 24: Winchester East at Opequon Creek PINs: 65 - A - 195, 65 - A - 194B Rezoning from RA to RP Location Map REZ #10-24 REZ #10-24 14 TWIN LAKES OVERLOOK Subdivision OPEQUON CROSSING Subdivision CLARKE COUNTY VIRGINIA 65 A 194B 65 A 195 66 CK LL LN 166 TICK HILL LN 2830 SENSENY RD 2907 SENSENY RD 2729 SENSENY RD 2713 NSENY RD 691 ENY RD 224 ANYON RD 102 VALE CT 107 VALE CT 105 VALE CT 101 VALE CT 103 MBE DR 21 ON RD 225 CANYON RD 230 CANYON RD 233 CANYON RD 234 CANYON RD 304 SENSENY GLEN DR 238 CANYON RD 03 BE DR 305 SENSENY GLEN DR 309 SENSENY GLEN DR 304 CANYON RD 302 CANYON RD 08 BE DR 111 WHIPP DR 303 CANYON RD 10 MBE DR 17 PP DR 307 CANYON RD 308 CANYON RD 312 CANYON RD 116 HIPP DR 112 WHIPP DR 313 CANYON RD 316 CANYON RD 100 NORFOLK CT 106 NORFOLK CT 324 CANYON RD 108 NORFOLK CT 217 EATH CT 107 NORFOLK CT 215 EATH CT 211 ATH CT 334 CANYON RD 336 CANYON RD 47 ON RD 106 AULEE CT 340 CANYON RD 116 AULEE CT 118 AULEE CT 103 AULEE CT48 YON RD 113 AULEE CT 105 ATH CT 301 EDDYS LN 9 CT 109 AULEE CT 101 ATH CT 00 TH CT 175 MUNSEE CIR 155 MUNSEE CIR MUNSEE CIR LAKOTA ST COMBE DRNORFOLK CTAULEE CT SENSENYGLEN DR MUN S E E C I R WHIP P D R TICKHILL LNWAP P I N G E R T E R RMASCOUTEN ST SIOUX LOOP CANYONRDSENSEN Y R D Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Future Rt 37 Bypass RP (Residential Performance District)μ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: December 6, 2024 L E H I G H D R LAKO T A ST COMBE DRNORFOLKCTMORNING GLORY DRSEN SENY GLEN DR GLENRIDGEDRHEATH CTTHOMPS ON CT SENSEN Y R DPANGBORNECT CANYONRD0 660 1,320330 Feet CLARKE COUNTY REZ # 10 - 24: Winchester East at Opequon Creek PINs: 65 - A - 195, 65 - A - 194B Rezoning from RA to RP Zoning Map REZ #10-24 REZ #10-24 15 TWIN LAKES OVERLOOK Subdivision OPEQUON CROSSING Subdivision CLARKE COUNTY VIRGINIA 65 A 194B 65 A 195 66 CK LL LN 166 TICK HILL LN 2830 SENSENY RD 2907 SENSENY RD 2729 SENSENY RD 2713 NSENY RD 691 ENY RD 224 ANYON RD 102 VALE CT 107 VALE CT 105 VALE CT 101 VALE CT 103 MBE DR 21 ON RD 225 CANYON RD 230 CANYON RD 233 CANYON RD 234 CANYON RD 304 SENSENY GLEN DR 238 CANYON RD 03 BE DR 305 SENSENY GLEN DR 309 SENSENY GLEN DR 304 CANYON RD 302 CANYON RD 08 BE DR 111 WHIPP DR 303 CANYON RD 10 MBE DR 17 PP DR 307 CANYON RD 308 CANYON RD 312 CANYON RD 116 HIPP DR 112 WHIPP DR 313 CANYON RD 316 CANYON RD 100 NORFOLK CT 106 NORFOLK CT 324 CANYON RD 108 NORFOLK CT 217 EATH CT 107 NORFOLK CT 215 EATH CT 211 ATH CT 334 CANYON RD 336 CANYON RD 47 ON RD 106 AULEE CT 340 CANYON RD 116 AULEE CT 118 AULEE CT 103 AULEE CT48 YON RD 113 AULEE CT 105 ATH CT 301 EDDYS LN 9 CT 109 AULEE CT 101 ATH CT 00 TH CT 175 MUNSEE CIR 155 MUNSEE CIR MUNSEE CIR LAKOTA ST COMBE DRNORFOLK CTAULEE CT SENSENYGLEN DR MUN S E E C I R WHIP P D R TICKHILL LNWAP P I N G E R T E R RMASCOUTEN ST SIOUX LOOP CANYONRDSENSEN Y R D Application Parcels Sewer and Water Service Area Future Rt 37 Bypass Long Range Land Use B2 / B3 Residential, 4 u/a μ Frederick County Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 540 - 665 - 5651 Map Created: December 6, 2024 L E H I G H D R LAKO T A ST COMBE DRNORFOLKCTMORNING GLORY DRSEN SENY GLEN DR GLENRIDGEDRHEATH CTTHOMPS ON CT SENSEN Y R DPANGBORNECT CANYONRD0 660 1,320330 Feet CLARKE COUNTY REZ # 10 - 24: Winchester East at Opequon Creek PINs: 65 - A - 195, 65 - A - 194B Rezoning from RA to RP Long Range Land Use Map REZ #10-24 REZ #10-24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 S SENSENY GLEN SUBDIVISIONSITE TABULATIONS:TM : 65-A-195 = 73.53 ACRESTM : 65-A-194B = 18.17 ACRESTOTAL ACRES = 91.70 ACRESEX. ZONING: RAPROP. ZONING: RPTWIN LAKES SUBDIVISIONOPEQUON CROSSINGSUBDIVISION104' ROW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(ATTACHED AND/OR DETACHED)SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENTIAL(ATTACHED AND/ORDETACHED)PRESERVEDOPEN SPACEPRESERVEDOPEN SPACESENSENY GLENSUBDIVISIONTM # 65-A-195TM # 65-A-194BTWIN LAKESSUBDIVISIONOPEQUONCROSSINGSUBDIVISIONROUTE 37CONTINUATIONOPEQ U O N C R E E K LEGEND:ACCESS LOCATIONAPPROX. LOCATION OF SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIALPRESERVED OPEN SPACE -FEMA FLOODPLAINPROJECT BOUNDARYPARCEL LINESDEDICATED ROWPARCEL LINES57'PROP. 6' NATURALSURFACE TRAILPROP. 10'SHAREDUSE PATHGREENSPACEGREENSPACEGREENSPACEPROP. 57'ROW FROM CL(± 11,949 SFDEDICATION)SHARED USE PATHNATURAL SURFACE PATH104' ROW1/2 SECTION (2 LANE)MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD(SEE DETAIL)(± 2,228 LF)PROP. 6' NATURALSURFACE TRAIL104' DEDICATED ROW(FUTURE ROUTE 37)(± 7.8 ACRES)5'21'NOT TO SCALEVDOT U4D TYP. SECTION(35 MPH DESIGN SPEED)-2.00%-2.00%UD-4 UNDERDRAINCG-610' TRAIL-2.00%VARIES-2.00%18'MEDIAN9'9'13' THRU12' THRU2'8'3'PROP.ROW13' THRU12' THRU5'-2.00%2'1'STANDARDSIDEWALK-2.00%VARIES72'11'104' ROWBITUMINOUSCONCRETEBASE COURSESUBBASE COURSEPROP.ROWFUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY OTHERSINTERIMNORTHBOUNDLANEINTERIMSOUTHBOUNDLANE2'PROPOSED 1/2 SECTION12'-2.00%PAVED SHOULDERGENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLANRED BUD MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTFREDERICK COUNTY, VAWINCHESTER EAST AT OPEQUON CREEK6003000150300SCALE: 1" = 300'151 Windy Hill LaneWinchester, Virginia 22602Telephone: (540) 662-4185Fax: (540) 722-9528www.greenwayeng.comFND1971ENGINEERINGSHEET OFDESIGNED BY:FILE NO.SCALE:DATE:PROUDLY SERVING VIRGINIA & WEST VIRGINIAOFFICES IN: WINCHESTER, VA & MARTINSBURG, WV1" = 300'111/19/2024RK/KS18698EXHIBIT A24 PROJECT SUMMARY PAGECapital Impacts Model Frederick County, VirginiaSUMMARY OF PROJECT INPUTS SUMMARY OF PROJECT OUTPUTSProject NameWinchester East at Opequon CreekProject NameProject Location ParametersCAPITAL COST IMPACTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALGeneral Service AreaUrbanRESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTALSchool or School RegionElementary RegionUrban NorthHousing Units166166Middle School RegionUrbanProjected Population447447High SchoolUrbanProjected StudentsProjected Elementary School Students 27.1 27.1Fire & Rescue Service AreaGreenwood Projected Middle School School Students 14.1 14.1Projected High School Students 20.9 20.9Library RegionUrbanProjected Total Students62.162.1Nonresidential Sq. Ft.00Park RegionUrbanProjected Jobs00Number of Dwelling UnitsTotal for the Development ProposalFULL CAPITAL IMPACT CAPACITY TRIGGEREDSingle Family-Detached 166INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORYRESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTALSingle Family-Attached 0 *SCHOOLS$5,362,638 $0$5,362,638$2,255,916 $0$2,255,916Multifamily0*PARKS AND RECREATION$311,648 $0$311,648$42,738 $0$42,738Age-Restricted Single Family 0 *SHERIFF$92,032 $0$92,032$45,333 $0$45,333Age-Restricted Multifamily 0 *FIRE$531,383 $0$531,383$531,383 $0$531,383TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 166*ANIMAL PROTECTION$17,420 $0$17,420$0 $0$0LIBRARIES$51,973 $0$51,973$51,973 $0$51,973GEN. GOVT$122,026 $0$122,026$122,026 $0$122,026Amount of Nonresidential Square Footage (Gross)COURTS$63,275 $0$63,275$0 $0$0ENV. SRVCS.$21,769 $0$21,769$21,769 $0$21,769Retail0GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $6,574,164 $0$6,574,164$3,071,138 $0$3,071,138Office and Other Services 0Industrial0*CASH PROFFER CATEGORIES $6,315,121 $0$6,315,121$2,875,370 $0$2,875,370Institutional0* Cash proffer categories limited to public safety facilities, school facilities, and parks & rec facilitiesTOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE0Grand Total Capital Costs$39,603 $0 $18,501 $0Cash Proffer Categories$38,043 $0 $17,322 $0Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Developed by TischlerBise © 2024 Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Developed by TischlerBise © 2024Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Run on 9/24/2024Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Run on9/24/2024Average Cost Per UnitResidential, per unitNonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft.Winchester East at Opequon CreekFULL CAPITAL IMPACT CAPACITY TRIGGEREDResidential, per unitNonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft.DRAFT 2024_FredCo CapIM Model_09.23.24Printed on 9/24/2024Page 1 of 125 PROJECT SUMMARY PAGECapital Impacts Model Frederick County, VirginiaSUMMARY OF PROJECT INPUTS SUMMARY OF PROJECT OUTPUTSProject NameWinchester East at Opequon CreekProject NameProject Location ParametersCAPITAL COST IMPACTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALGeneral Service AreaUrbanRESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTALSchool or School RegionElementary RegionUrban NorthHousing Units117117Middle School RegionUrbanProjected Population315315High SchoolUrbanProjected StudentsProjected Elementary School Students 21.9 21.9Fire & Rescue Service AreaGreenwood Projected Middle School School Students 9.4 9.4Projected High School Students 12.9 12.9Library RegionUrbanProjected Total Students44.144.1Nonresidential Sq. Ft.00Park RegionUrbanProjected Jobs00Number of Dwelling UnitsTotal for the Development ProposalFULL CAPITAL IMPACT CAPACITY TRIGGEREDSingle Family-Detached 0INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORYRESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTAL RESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL TOTALSingle Family-Attached 117 *SCHOOLS$3,692,936 $0$3,692,936$1,388,107 $0$1,388,107Multifamily0*PARKS AND RECREATION$219,657 $0$219,657$30,123 $0$30,123Age-Restricted Single Family 0 *SHERIFF$64,865 $0$64,865$31,951 $0$31,951Age-Restricted Multifamily 0 *FIRE$374,529 $0$374,529$374,529 $0$374,529TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 117*ANIMAL PROTECTION$12,278 $0$12,278$0 $0$0LIBRARIES$36,631 $0$36,631$36,631 $0$36,631GEN. GOVT$86,006 $0$86,006$86,006 $0$86,006Amount of Nonresidential Square Footage (Gross)COURTS$44,597 $0$44,597$0 $0$0ENV. SRVCS.$15,343 $0$15,343$15,343 $0$15,343Retail0GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $4,546,842 $0$4,546,842$1,962,690 $0$1,962,690Office and Other Services 0Industrial0*CASH PROFFER CATEGORIES $4,364,265 $0$4,364,265$1,824,710 $0$1,824,710Institutional0* Cash proffer categories limited to public safety facilities, school facilities, and parks & rec facilitiesTOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE0Grand Total Capital Costs$38,862 $0 $16,775 $0Cash Proffer Categories$37,301 $0 $15,596 $0Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Developed by TischlerBise © 2024 Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Developed by TischlerBise © 2024Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Run on 9/24/2024Frederick County Capital Impacts Model Run on9/24/2024Average Cost Per UnitResidential, per unitNonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft.Winchester East at Opequon CreekFULL CAPITAL IMPACT CAPACITY TRIGGEREDResidential, per unitNonresidential, per 1,000 sq. ft.DRAFT 2024_FredCo CapIM Model_09.23.24Printed on 9/24/2024Page 1 of 126 WINCHESTER EAST AT OPEQUON CREEK IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT November 19, 2024 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the proffered rezoning of property identified as Tax Map Numbers 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B (collectively, the “Property”) to RP (Residential Performance). The subject parcel is situated on Senseny Road and is bounded by the Twin Lakes Overlook and the Senseny Glen subdivisions to the west and the Retreat at Winding Creek subdivision to the north. Opequon Creek, the Clarke County/Frederick County line, and property zoned RA (Rural Areas) are located on the eastern boundary of the Property. Senseny Road and property zoned RA (Rural Areas) is on the Property’s southern boundary. The property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). This application proposes to rezone the Property from RA to RP. The Property is currently used for residential and agricultural purposes. General Site Information Location: 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road Magisterial District: Red Bud District Tax Map Numbers: 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B Current Zoning: RA Current Use: Residential and Agricultural Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance with proffers Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision Total Rezoning Area: 91.70 +/- acres with proffers 27 Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek 2 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN Urban Development Area The Urban Development Area (UDA) defines the general area in which residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses and development are encouraged in the County. The subject acreage is located inside of the UDA. Sewer and Water Service Area The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) defines the areas of the County to which public water and sewer services may be extended. The Property is located inside of the SWSA. Comprehensive Plan Conformity The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Area Land Use Plan designates the subject acreage primarily for Residential (4 units per acre) with Rural Areas located on the easternmost portion of the Property. Given the adjoining residential uses, the subject acreage is ideally situated for a residential subdivision. The proposed concept plan for the subdivision includes a one hundred four-foot (104’) right-of-way for the future Route 37 bypass expansion as noted on the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan proposes single family detached units, green space and stormwater management areas on the eastern side of the future Route 37 bypass in conformance with the designated Rural Areas character of that portion of the Property. The western side of the future Route 37 bypass is proposed to single family attached and detached residential units in the area of the Property designated for residential density of four (4) units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development aligns with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, notably by maintaining residential uses in areas of the County designated for residential growth and by reserving a portion of the Property for the future Route 37 bypass. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject acreage fronts on Senseny Road. Access to the site will be provided via an entrance on Senseny Road. A two-lane section of a major collector road will be located within the portion of the Property reserved for the future Route 37 bypass. The proposed subdivision will also connect to Senseny Road via Senseny Glen Drive and Canyon Road, existing public rights-of-way in the adjoining Senseny Glen subdivision. A combination of public and private rights-of-way will provide internal access from Senseny Road to the residential units. A Traffic Impact Analysis is provided with the rezoning application. 28 Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek 3 Natural Resources The proposed development will include several recreation areas for the benefit of the residents of the subdivision, a six-foot wide natural surface trail adjoining Opequon Creek, and a ten-foot wide shared use path along Senseny Road. A stream buffer will be preserved immediately adjoining Opequon Creek to protect the viewshed from Opequon Creek and the proposed development. The recreation areas, buffers, natural surface trail, and shared use path comply with the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which focuses on the creation of greenways and stream buffers around waterways and encourages pedestrian facilities. Further, the location of the residential units, stormwater management areas, and recreation areas take into account the natural resources on the Property which is also in conformance with the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan. Acreage Contained in Flood Plains 11.5 acres Acreage Contained in Wetlands and Streams 0 acres (4,730 LF perennial and ephemeral streams) Acreage Contained in Other Environmental Features 8.05 acres x Flood Plains The subject acreage contains areas of floodplain per FEMA NFIP Map #51069C0240E Effective Date January 29, 2021. x Wetlands and Streams The subject acreage contains perennial and ephemeral streams as demonstrated on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map information or from information identified in the Frederick County GIS Database. x Other Environmental Features The subject acreage contains some areas of steep slope, lakes or ponds or natural stormwater retention areas as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Opequon Creek is on the eastern boundary of the Property. Development of the Property in this area will be managed during final engineering design in accordance with all applicable ordinances and regulations. x Soils/Geology As per the Frederick County GIS Database, the following soil types are present on the subject acreage: ClearBrook Channery silt loam; Zoar silt loam; Weikert-Berks Channery silt loams; and Wheeling loam. The characteristics of these soil types are manageable for development following the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control practices. 29 Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek 4 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES North: RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential South: RA, Rural Area District Use: Residential East: RA, Rural Area District Opequon Creek Clarke County, Virginia Use: Residential West: RP, Residential Performance District RA, Rural Area District Use: Residential TRANSPORTATION Access to the Property will be provided via one proposed full-movement entrance along Senseny Road, and one proposed full-movement entrance at the future fourth leg connection at Senseny Glen and Canyon Road. The subdivision is expected to generate approximately 151 new trips during morning peak hour, 180 new trips during evening peak hour, and 2,210 new daily trips on a typical weekday. Based on the capacity and queuing analysis results, the proposed development will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding transportation and road network. Therefore, no improvements are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development. Approximately 11,949± square feet of the Property will be dedicated to the County to achieve a fifty-seven-foot (57’) right-of-way from road centerline for the purposes of improving the portion of Senseny Road adjoining the Property. A ten-foot shared use path will also be constructed within the Senseny Road right-of-way for the use and benefit of the residents of the proposed development and of the County. Additionally, a 104-foot-wide portion of the Property shall be reserved for the future Virginia Route 37 which will be dedicated to the County, within which approximately 2,228 linear feet of a two-lane section of a major collector road will be constructed. Please also refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis Statement for Winchester East at Opequon Creek dated September 19, 2024 prepared by Gorove Slade. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area and is therefore entitled to be served by public water and sewer based on County Policy. Frederick Water is the provider of public water and sewer service within this area of the County. 30 Impact Analysis Statement Winchester East at Opequon Creek 5 SITE DRAINAGE Topographic relief on the Property generally follows a pattern that directs drainage towards the east of the Property. A complete stormwater management plan will be designed at the time of final engineering design. All associated stormwater quantity and quality measures will be designed in conformance with all applicable state and local regulations; therefore, site drainage and stormwater management impacts to adjoining properties and the community will be mitigated. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The subdivision will utilize private refuse collection services administered by the homeowners association, which will result in limited impacts to the Greenwood convenience center. HISTORICAL RESOURCES The Property is not located within and does not adjoin any existing or potential historic districts, Civil War Battlefields or sites, or landmarks, as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. A cultural resources survey of the Property will be conducted and presented to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for review and comment. The recommendations for development of the Property from the cultural resources study will be followed. There are prior historical studies of this Property dated October 15, 1991, March 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, and September 8, 2020. The bulk of the historic areas on the Property identified in these prior studies are located in areas of the Property that will not be disturbed. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Educational Facilities: The proffer statement submitted with this Impact Analysis Statement addresses impacts on Frederick County education facilities. Emergency Services: Police protection will be provided by the Frederick County Sheriff’s Department. The property is located in the first response area for the Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. Response times from the station to the site are reasonable. Parks and Recreation: The proffer statement submitted with this Impact Analysis Statement addresses impacts on Frederick County parks and recreation facilities. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Austin K. Cano Acting County Attorney (540) 722-8383 E-mail austin.cano@fcva.us October 25, 2024 VIA E-MAIL Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Re: Rezoning Application – T VA Winchester II LLC Tax Parcel Numbers 65-A-195 and 65-A-194B (the “Property”) Dear Mr. Lawson: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proffer statement (the “Proffer Statement”) for the proposed rezoning of the Property, 91.70± acres in the Red Bud Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District, with proffers. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement, and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: x REZONING – For consistency with usual form, addition of “District (91.70± acres)” after ‘(RA)’ and ‘(RP)’ such that the line reads “Rural Areas (RA) District (91.70± acres) to Residential Performance (RP) District (91.70± acres).” x Proffer 2.1 – Revising the second sentence in this proffer to add the italicized clause: “The recreation areas shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association , as described below in Proffer 4. CREATION OF A HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, for the property.” x Proffer 6.1 – Revising the second sentence in this proffer to add the italicized clause: “Applicant proffers to follow, completely or to the best of Applicant’s ability, the recommendations of the study for development of the Property.” I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. 47 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire October 25, 2024 Page 2 Sincerely, Austin K. Cano Acting County Attorney cc: John Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning & Development, Frederick County (via e- mail) Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Frederick County (via email) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 x Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϴ͕ϮϬϮϰ dŚŽŵĂƐDŽŽƌĞ>ĂǁƐŽŶ͕ƐƋƵŝƌĞ W͘K͘ŽǆϮϳϰϬ tŝŶĐŚĞƐƚĞƌ͕sϮϮϲϬϰ Z͗ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽĂƌĚ;,ZͿŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ tŝŶĐŚĞƐƚĞƌĂƐƚĂƚKƉĞƋƵŽŶƌĞĞŬZĞǌŽŶŝŶŐƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEƵŵďĞƌƐ;W/EƐͿ͗ϲϱͲͲϭϵϱΘϲϱͲͲϭϵϰ DĂŐŝƐƚĞƌŝĂůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͗ZĞĚƵĚ ĞĂƌDƌ͘>ĂǁƐŽŶ͗ dŚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĚǀŝƐŽƌǇŽĂƌĚ;,ZͿĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌKĐƚŽďĞƌϭϴ͕ϮϬϮϰŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĨŽƌƚǁŽƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŽƚĂůŝŶŐнͬͲ ϵϭ͘ϳϬĂĐƌĞƐ;WƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ/ĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶEƵŵďĞƌƐϲϱͲͲϭϵϱΘϲϱͲͲϭϵϰͿĨƌŽŵƚŚĞZ;ZƵƌĂůƌĞĂƐͿ ŽŶŝŶŐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŽƚŚĞZW;ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞͿŽŶŝŶŐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚǁŝƚŚƉƌŽĨĨĞƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐĂƌĞ ůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚĞƌŶƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚǇũƵƐƚŶŽƌƚŚŽĨ^ĞŶƐĞŶǇZŽĂĚŝŶƚŚĞZĞĚƵĚDĂŐŝƐƚĞƌŝĂů ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ &ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ,ZƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚƚŚĞƉƌŽĨĨĞƌĂƐǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚǇ;WŚĂƐĞϭƵůƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ/ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶͿĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘,ZƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǌŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞWŚĂƐĞϭƵůƚƵƌĂůZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ /ŶǀĞƐƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶďĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇŚŝƐƚŽƌǇ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂĐŚĂŝŶŽĨƚŝƚůĞ͕ĨŽƌƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƐĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϮϳϯϳ^ĞŶƐĞŶǇZŽĂĚ;,ZηϬϯϰͲϭϭϱϱͿ͘ dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐĂůůŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇ ƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ <ĂǇůĂWĞůŽƋƵŝŶ͕WůĂŶŶĞƌ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĐĐ͗>ƵĐĂƐŽŽŬ͕,ZŚĂŝƌŵĂŶ 55 56 Planning Office Wayne Lee, Coordinator of Planning and Development leew@fcpsk12.net 1415 Amherst Street https://www.frederickcountyschoolsva.net/ 540-662-3889 ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 October 15, 2024 Mr. Thomas Moore Lawson 120 Exeter Dr., Suite 200 P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Re: Winchester East at Opequon Creek rezoning application Dear Ty: Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Winchester East at Opequon Creek rezoning application. We offer the following comments: 1. We note that this proposed development would have as many as 283 residential units, which would increase the demand on the schools that would serve it. Those schools include Millbrook High School, Admiral Byrd Middle School, James Wood Middle School, Greenwood Mill Elementary School and Redbud Run Elementary School. Millbrook and James Wood Middle are currently over capacity. Redbud Run is 12 students under capacity. We project that Admiral Byrd will go over capacity in 2033, Greenwood Mill will remain under capacity, and Redbud Run will go over capacity in 2025. These projections do not include the impact of Winchester East at Opequon Creek. 2. The proposed development is split between attendance zones at the middle and elementary levels. FCPS may consider resolving these splits before residential units are occupied there, since one of our objectives is to avoid splitting neighborhoods. 3. We note the cash proffers, and that there are no proposed cash proffers for the 30 single family cluster homes. FCPS contributes to the development of the Frederick County Capital Impact Model (CapIM) and in turn supports the outputs of the model as it relates to the appropriateness of cash proffer amounts to mitigate impacts on our capital facilities. Please feel free to contact me at leew@fcpsk12.net or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions. Sincerely, K. Wayne Lee, Jr., ALEP Coordinator of Planning and Development cc: Dr. George Hummer, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Shane Goodwin, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Mr. Logan Sheppard, Director of Transportation Mr. Calvin Davis, Assistant Director of Transportation Mr. Wyatt Pearson, Director, Frederick County Planning Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Frederick County Planning 57 58 1 From:Spielman, Joseph (VDOT) <Joseph.Spielman@vdot.virginia.gov> Sent:Monday, October 21, 2024 4:00 PM To:Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq.; Tyler Klein; I81 Public131 Cc:Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT); Johnson, Joseph (VDOT); Carter, Edwin (VDOT) Subject:Winchester East at Opequon Creek Rezoning / VA Winchester II LLC Rezoning Application Mr. Lawson, VDOT has reviewed the Winchester East at Opequon Creek rezoning packet and have the following comment. x Please overlay the current limited access alignment of the future Rt. 37 Bypass on the submitted Generalized Development Plan so that access can be fully evaluated. x Please just send a revised .pdf of the GDP for review. Thanks Joseph Ryan Spielman Land Development Engineer / Edinburg Residency Virginia Department of Transportation 540-535-1829 joseph.spielman@vdot.virginia.gov 59 From:Johnson, Joseph (VDOT) To:Chris Mohn Cc:Tyler Klein; Patricia M. Taylor; Spielman, Joseph (VDOT); Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq.; "Wyatt Pearson"; Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) Subject:Re: "[External]"RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2024 4:06:23 PM Ty/Chris, VDOT has reviewed the rezoning application for the Winchester East at Opequon Creek project (TM#65-A-194, 195) located on Senseny Road (Route 657) and we are in agreement with the traffic analysis provided by the applicant dated 09/19/2024. This project represents a deviation from the limited access, grade-separated concept for Route 37 and instead provides for a four-lane divided roadway (U4D) in its place. The proposed alignment for Route 37, while a slight departure from the current plan, is not detrimental to the extension of Route 37 to the south. Please note that VDOT SSAR regulations require a minimum of three (3) based on the proffered number of dwelling units (303). Therefore, this project will require the following external connections: Senseny Road (south), Senseny Glen Road (west), a stub extended to the property line to the north. Please note that an additional connection to Senseny Road would not satisfy SSAR requirements for multiple connections in multiple directions. Joseph W. Johnson, PE Area Land Use Engineer / Edinburg Residency Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike / Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540.534.3223 josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov From: Chris Mohn <cmohn@greenwayeng.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:42 PM To: Johnson, Joseph (VDOT) <josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us>; Spielman, Joseph (VDOT) <joseph.spielman@vdot.virginia.gov>; Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM>; 'Wyatt Pearson' <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Subject: RE: '[External]'RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Joe, As discussed, attached is the updated proffer statement and GDP for the Winchester East at Opequon Creek rezoning application. These items along with other required materials were submitted to Frederick County Planning for public hearing on Friday, November 22nd. Also attached is an exhibit overlaying the current planned alignment of limited access Route 37 on the GDP (for clarity, the GDP elements are shown in greyscale, with the alignment depicted in red). 60 Anything you can do to expedite delivery of any additional comments to Frederick County Planning would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow up questions. Regards, Chris Christopher Mohn, AICP | Vice President / Director of Planning Phone: 540.662.4185 | Cell: 540.333.2392 | Email: cmohn@greenwayeng.com From: Chris Mohn Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:19 PM To: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM>; 'Wyatt Pearson' <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us>; josephw.johnson <josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov>; Spielman, Joseph (VDOT) <joseph.spielman@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: '[External]'RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Ty and Wyatt, I spoke with Joe Johnson and will be forwarding our updated GDP and proffer statement for his review and comment, to include a version of the proffered GDP overlaid with the alignment of limited access Route 37. I confirmed he had not seen these updated items. I will get this information to him ASAP. Chris Christopher Mohn, AICP | Vice President / Director of Planning Phone: 540.662.4185 | Cell: 540.333.2392 | Email: cmohn@greenwayeng.com From: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:45 AM To: 'Wyatt Pearson' <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us>; josephw.johnson <josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov>; Spielman, Joseph (VDOT) <joseph.spielman@vdot.virginia.gov>; Chris Mohn <cmohn@greenwayeng.com> Subject: RE: '[External]'RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Wyatt, We did receive initial comments from VDOT and we responded. I believe Chris will send additional information to you this morning for the file. Undoubtedly, as we go forward with the rezoning, I am sure there will be follow up with VDOT and probably several other review agencies. Thanks, Ty 61 Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire Thomas Moore Lawson, P.C. Of Counsel-Williams Mullen P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Ph: 540-665-0050 Fax: 540-722-4051 Email: tlawson@lsplc.com _______________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this message is information intended only for the use of individual or entity named above, and may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. From: Wyatt Pearson <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:17 AM To: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us>; josephw.johnson <josephw.johnson@vdot.virginia.gov>; Spielman, Joseph (VDOT) <joseph.spielman@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: Re: '[External]'RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Ty, Did you send the revised package to VDOT for them to use in their comment? In my opinion it is a substantially different proposal with some meaningful changes they need to be aware of if they are going to offer final rezoning comments. Thanks, Wyatt Pearson Planning Director Frederick County Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 From: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 4:08 PM To: Wyatt Pearson <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us> Subject: '[External]'RE: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Wyatt, 62 Thank you for your email. Let me check real quick with VDOT and report back to you. Thank you. Ty Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire Thomas Moore Lawson, P.C. Of Counsel-Williams Mullen P.O. Box 2740 Winchester, VA 22604 Ph: 540-665-0050 Fax: 540-722-4051 Email: tlawson@lsplc.com _______________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this message is information intended only for the use of individual or entity named above, and may be attorney/client privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. From: Wyatt Pearson <wyatt.pearson@fcva.us> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 3:14 PM To: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esq. <tlawson@LSPLC.COM> Cc: Tyler Klein <tklein@fcva.us>; Patricia M. Taylor <patricia.taylor@fcva.us> Subject: Winchester East At Opequon Creek Ty, I looked through the Winchester East at Opequon Creek filing your office dropped off today and unfortunately found it deficient for acceptance. I suspect you incidentally thought the VDOT email asking for additional information was a final comment but we have confirmed with them it was not. The packet is still with Patricia at our front desk for you to pick up at your convenience. Let me know if you have any questions, I am about to step out of the office but I left my cell number with your receptionist. Thanks, Wyatt Pearson Planning Director Frederick County Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Frederick Home Frederick County Virginia LIFE AT THE TOP Pay/Lookup Taxes Real Estate Ticket Detail Previous 2024 REAL ESTATE Dept/Ticket#RE2024 / 355020001 Frequency 1 Supplement#0 Name RIGGLEMAN LISA ANN Map#65 A 195 Account#8021387 Name 2 RIGGLEMAN MILDRED L Bill Date 04/15/2024 Acreage 73.530 Address 7000 BEN FRANKLIN RD Due Date 06/05/2024 Improvements $152,200.00 SPRINGFIELD VA Desc 73.53 ACRES Land Value $514,700.00 Land Use $104,600.00 Zip 22150 3014 Minerals $0.00 Penalty Paid $0.00 Interest Paid $0.00 Last Transaction Date 06/06/2024 Current Payment Status Original Bill Payments Principal Balance Due Penalty Interest Balance Due $654.84 ($654.84)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transaction History Date Type Transaction# Amount Balance 4/15/2024 Charge 0 $654.84 $654.84 5/18/2024 Principal Paid 5839 ($654.84) $0.00 5/24/2024 Returned Item 5839 $654.84 $654.84 6/5/2024 Principal Paid 21589 ($654.84) $0.00 Previous Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Pay FOIA Charges Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email 90 Frederick Home Frederick County Virginia LIFE AT THE TOP Pay/Lookup Taxes Real Estate Ticket Detail Previous 2024 REAL ESTATE Dept/Ticket#RE2024 / 355020002 Frequency 2 Supplement#0 Name RIGGLEMAN LISA ANN Map#65 A 195 Account#8021387 Name 2 RIGGLEMAN MILDRED L Bill Date 04/15/2024 Acreage 73.530 Address 7000 BEN FRANKLIN RD Due Date 12/05/2024 Improvements $152,200.00 SPRINGFIELD VA Desc 73.53 ACRES Land Value $514,700.00 Land Use $104,600.00 Zip 22150 3014 Minerals $0.00 Penalty Paid $0.00 Interest Paid $0.00 Last Transaction Date 04/15/2024 Current Payment Status Original Bill Payments Principal Balance Due Penalty Interest Balance Due $654.84 $0.00 $654.84 $0.00 $0.00 $654.84 Transaction History Date Type Transaction# Amount Balance 4/15/2024 Charge 0 $654.84 $654.84 Previous Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Pay FOIA Charges Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email 91 Frederick Home Frederick County Virginia LIFE AT THE TOP Pay/Lookup Taxes Real Estate Ticket Detail Previous 2024 REAL ESTATE Dept/Ticket#RE2024 / 88880001 Frequency 1 Supplement#0 Name CUSSEN REMINGTON J Map#65 A 194B Account#8028118 Name 2 Bill Date 04/15/2024 Acreage 18.170 Address 2613 NW 14TH TER Due Date 06/05/2024 Improvements $69,300.00 CAPE CORAL FL Desc 18.17 ACRES Land Value $208,300.00 Land Use $0.00 Zip 33993 4833 Minerals $0.00 Penalty Paid $0.00 Interest Paid $0.00 Last Transaction Date 05/06/2024 Current Payment Status Original Bill Payments Principal Balance Due Penalty Interest Balance Due $707.88 ($707.88)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transaction History Date Type Transaction# Amount Balance 4/15/2024 Charge 0 $707.88 $707.88 4/24/2024 Other 22414 ($450.00) $257.88 5/2/2024 Principal Paid 98669 ($257.88) $0.00 Previous Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Pay FOIA Charges Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email 92 Frederick Home Frederick County Virginia LIFE AT THE TOP Pay/Lookup Taxes Real Estate Ticket Detail Previous 2024 REAL ESTATE Dept/Ticket#RE2024 / 88880002 Frequency 2 Supplement#0 Name CUSSEN REMINGTON J Map#65 A 194B Account#8028118 Name 2 Bill Date 04/15/2024 Acreage 18.170 Address 2613 NW 14TH TER Due Date 12/05/2024 Improvements $69,300.00 CAPE CORAL FL Desc 18.17 ACRES Land Value $208,300.00 Land Use $0.00 Zip 33993 4833 Minerals $0.00 Penalty Paid $0.00 Interest Paid $0.00 Last Transaction Date 11/04/2024 Current Payment Status Original Bill Payments Principal Balance Due Penalty Interest Balance Due $707.88 ($707.88)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transaction History Date Type Transaction# Amount Balance 4/15/2024 Charge 0 $707.88 $707.88 6/14/2024 Principal Paid 26149 ($150.00) $557.88 7/3/2024 Principal Paid 28880 ($150.00) $407.88 8/10/2024 Principal Paid 34408 ($150.00) $257.88 9/19/2024 Principal Paid 37836 ($100.00) $157.88 10/8/2024 Principal Paid 39443 ($57.88) $100.00 11/2/2024 Principal Paid 42967 ($100.00) $0.00 Previous Payment Home Personal Property Real Estate Dog Tags Pay Parking Violation Pay FOIA Charges Other Payments ShoppingCart(0) Pin Options Change Email 93 THOMAS MOORE LAWSON, P.C. *OF COUNSEL - WILLIAMS MULLEN 120 EXETER DRIVE, SUITE 200 POST OFFICE BOX 2740 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 *THOMAS MOORE LAWSON • TLAWSON@LSPLC.COM TELEPHONE: (540) 665-0050 FACSIMILE: (540) 722-4051 MEMORANDUM VIA E-MAIL TO: Kayla Peloquin, Planner I Frederick County, Virginia Department of Planning and Development FROM: Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire DATE: November 15, 2024 RE: Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Historic Ownership of Property The Historic Resources Advisory Board requested additional research on the prior inhabitants and owners of the properties which are the subject of the Winchester East at Opequon Creek rezoning application. Below is a summary of the title search for each property based upon a review of the Frederick County land records: I. Tax Map No. 65-A-95 (the “Riggleman Property”) The Riggleman Property was originally part of a larger 409-acre tract of land owned by the Calmes family of Clarke County. A portion of the property was situated in Frederick County, and a portion was situated in Clarke County. In 1887, A. Moore Calmes, George Calmes, and W.B. Calmes recorded a Deed of Partition partitioning 165 acres from the larger tract of land and conveying that portion to W.B. Calmes (Deed Book 111, at Page 68). The 165 acres was still partially situated in both Frederick and Clarke Counties, and was devised to Harriet D. Calmes by W.B. Calmes’ will. Of interest, William Burgess Calmes, a son of W.B. Calmes and a Washington, DC resident, found himself the subject of divorce proceedings after his wife, Lucille Agniel Calmes, learned that he was ejected from a Washington, DC hotel for registering there with a woman who was not his wife. Mr. Calmes registered as “William B. Calmes and wife, Winchester, Va.” Per an article dated July 1, 1919 published in the Washington Times Herald, Lucille filed for divorce, alimony, and custody of their daughter after learning of the incident. They had been married for four years at the time of the lawsuit. The Riggleman Property was historically used for agricultural purposes. A deed dated February, 1908 conveying the property to a new owner reserved the right of the present tenant “to return thereon in the summer of the present year to cut and thresh the wheat crop now growing thereon 94 2 and to haul aways his share of same.” The new owner of the property would receive “the landlord’s share of wheat crop being two-fifths and is to pay her proportion (2/5s) of the fertilizer used thereon.” Below are the conveyances from the Calmes family to the current owners. October 6, 1904: The property was the subject of a foreclosure sale and conveyed to John M. Silver by the trustee of a deed of trust Harriet Calmes entered into in 1901 (Deed Book 125, at Page 223). February 12, 1908: John and Annie Silver conveyed the property to Sarah Orndorff (Deed Book 129, at Page 74). Sarah’s husband, William Orndorff, executed this Deed as well to give his consent to the conveyance of the property to his wife. March 14, 1908: William and Sarah Orndorff conveyed the portion of the property (70 acres) situated in Frederick County to Oliver H. Anderson (Deed Book 129, at Page 76). The Orndorffs retained the balance of the property situated in Clarke County. - “And it is understood that the center of the Opequon Creek as it now stands is to be the line between the property hereby conveyed and the remainder of said farm which is held by said Sarah Orndorff.” December 14, 1914: Newton and Mary Carpenter conveyed a 20-foot-wide strip of their property to Oliver Anderson to provide Anderson access from the 70-acre property to Senseny Road (Deed Book 137, at Page 345). March 15, 1915: O.H. and Annie Anderson conveyed the property to E.B. and M.G. Estes (Deed Book 138, at Page 11). November 10, 1921: E.B. and M.G. Estes conveyed the property to Ernest Clem (Deed Book 148, at Page 190). August 22, 1966: The heirs of Ernest Clem conveyed a one-half undivided interest in the property to G. Raymond and Hilda P. Patton, and a one-half undivided interest in the property to Vigil H. and Mernie A. Eskridge (Deed Book 325, at Page 148). October 16, 1974: Hilda Patton, widow, conveyed the one-half undivided interest in the property owned by herself and her husband, G. Raymond, deceased, to Virgil and Mernie Eskridge (Deed book 436, at Page 570). September 21, 1981: Virgil H. and Mernie A. Eskridge conveyed the property to Forest and Mildred Riggleman (Deed Book 541, at Page 124). October 7, 1983: Jean M. Cussen conveyed a 5.162-acre portion of her property to Forest and Mildred Riggleman which increased the acreage of the Riggleman Property 73.162 acres (Deed Book 566, at Page 728). 95 3 II. Tax Map No. 65-A-194B (the “Cussen Property”) The Cussen Property was original part of a 75 to 77.35-acre tract of land bisected by Senseny Road. Early deeds for the property list improvements on the property, including a flour mill, and a saw mill. The legal description also describes the property as the Helm Mill property, Pleasant Valley Mills, and Renner’s Mill. October 1, 1857: William and Susan Ford conveyed the property Joseph Furr (Deed Book 83, at Page 522). July 6, 1866: Joseph and Mary Furr conveyed the property to Asa Renner (Deed Book 86, at Page 247). February 4, 1876: The property was sold at a foreclosure sale to Joseph Furr by the trustees to a deed of trust entered into by Asa Renner (Deed Book 92, at Page 358). August 25, 1877: Joseph and Mary Furr conveyed the property Thomas Rose of Fulton County, Pennsylvania (Deed Book 94, at Page 105). March 23, 1878: Thomas and Elizabeth Rose conveyed the property to John Ford (Deed Book 94, at Page 106). May 20, 1902: John and Mary Ford conveyed the property to N.H. Carpenter (Deed Book 122, at Page 410). January 6, 1916: Newton H. and Mary Katherine Carpenter conveyed the property to J. Wilmer Carpenter (Deed Book 138, at Page 478). At some time between 1916 and 1937, J. Wilmer Carpenter conveyed the property Edward W. Hinton. The And Being clauses in later deeds merely state that this deed is of record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia without a reference to a deed book and page. A review of the indexes during this time period were unsuccessful. August 27, 1937: Edward and Nannie Hinton conveyed the property to their daughters, Mary E. Feltner and Katie G. Harman (Deed Book 174, at Page 552). May 29, 1939: Thomas J. Trier acquired the property from George W. Edith M. Feltner (sometimes known as Mary E. Feltner) and F.C. and Katie G. Harman, although it does not appear that he resided there (Deed Book 178, at Page 275). Trier was the Superintendent of Water and Sewers for the City of Winchester circa 1914 and the City Manager for the City of Winchester circa 1919. In 1919, the Shenandoah Valley Apple Cider and Vinegar Company caught fire. Trier assisted firefighters and was nearly drained when he fell in a vat of vinegar. June 30, 1950: Special Commissioner Robert Woltz sold the property to Wilbur M. and Helen A. Feltner pursuant to a court-ordered sale in the matter of Annie M. Bell v. James M. Trier, et al (Deed Book 215, at Page 157). Annie Bell and James Trier were Thomas J. Trier’s siblings. Thomas Trier passed away in 1949, and Annie’s husband, Lawrence M. Bell, was the administrator 96 4 of Thomas’ estate. Wilbur Feltner was a recognized community leader in Clarke County, Frederick County, and the City of Winchester. He began his career in banking at Bank of Clarke County in 1938. In 1942, Feltner began work as a teller at Farmers & Merchants National Bank. He was appointed President of F&M National Bank in 1964 and Chairman and CEO in 1969. When F&M merged with BB&T in 2001, Feltner retired. His time at F&M was interrupted only by his service in the Army Air Corps during World War II. Feltner was also instrumental in relocating Shenandoah University from Dayton, Virginia to Winchester in 1960. He served on the university’s board of trustees from 1964 until 1992. After renovating the property located at 9 Court Square in downtown Winchester, Feltner’s Foundation donated the building to Shenandoah University in April 2011. June 30, 1960: Wilbur and Helen Feltner conveyed a 54.72-acre portion of the property to John F. Cussen (Deed Book 264, at Page 391). John Cussen, and his wife Jean Cussen, made multiple conveyances from 1970 through 1984 resulting in the 18.172-acre tract which exists today. 97 Winchester East at Opequon Creek Frederick County, Virginia WSSI #32927.01 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation September 2024 Prepared for: T VA Winchester II LLC 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600, PMB 1154 Alexandria, VA 22314 Prepared by: Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, and Brittany Vance 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: contactus@wetlands.com www.wetlands.com 98 99 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page i ABSTRACT A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites (44FK1086-44FK1091) were recorded as a result of this investigation. Additionally, five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155) were revisited during the study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II or avoidance. Sites 44FK1086, 44FK1087, 44FK1088, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091 were all interpreted as trash scatters dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Site 44FK1089 was interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. In our opinion, these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Sites 44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281 were previously recorded within the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University; none of the sites have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Site 44FK0277 represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner. Site 44FK0278 represents a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century. Site 44FK0280 represents a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. Site 44FK0281 represents a low- density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. In our opinion, these sites are not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period. Additional artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-, kitchen-, and tobacco-related artifacts; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. In our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development. Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority of the project area and is a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 that has been determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR. No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended. 100 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page ii 101 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ v LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................... 1 PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 3 CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 6 Prehistoric Overview .................................................................................................... 6 Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE) ........................................................................................ 6 Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE) ................................................................................................ 8 Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE) ............................................................................................ 10 Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE) ................................................................................................ 11 Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE) ...................................................................................... 13 Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE) ............................................................................................. 15 Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact) ................................................................ 17 Historic Overview ....................................................................................................... 21 PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ......................................................... 32 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................... 38 Research Objectives .................................................................................................... 38 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology ......................................... 40 Archeological Fieldwork Methodology ................................................................................................ 40 Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology ........................................................................................ 41 Laboratory Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 41 Research Expectations ................................................................................................ 42 RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................. 42 Site 44FK1086.............................................................................................................. 48 Site 44FK1087.............................................................................................................. 51 Site 44FK1088.............................................................................................................. 54 Site 44FK1089.............................................................................................................. 56 Site 44FK1090.............................................................................................................. 62 Site 44FK1091.............................................................................................................. 65 Site 44FK0277.............................................................................................................. 68 Site 44FK0278.............................................................................................................. 71 Site 44FK0279.............................................................................................................. 72 Site 44FK0280.............................................................................................................. 75 Site 44FK0281.............................................................................................................. 77 DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657) ..................................................... 79 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 80 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 87 PLATES ........................................................................................................................... 97 APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................. 117 Artifact Inventory ..................................................................................................... 117 APPENDIX II ................................................................................................................ 129 102 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page iv Staff Qualifications ................................................................................................... 129 APPENDIX III .............................................................................................................. 133 Cultural Resource Forms ......................................................................................... 133 103 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page v LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV ................................................. 4 Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery ...................................................................... 5 Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia ................................................................ 26 Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA ............................... 30 Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virgina (Opequon) - September 19, 1864 .... 33 Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV ............................................... 34 Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South) ............................................................... 43 Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central) ............................................................ 44 Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North) ............................................................. 45 Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area ............................................... 47 Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086 ........................................... 49 Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086 .......................................... 50 Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087 ........................................... 52 Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087 .......................................... 53 Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088 ........................................... 55 Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088 .......................................... 57 Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089 ........................................... 58 Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1089 .......................................... 60 Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090 ........................................... 63 Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090 .......................................... 64 Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281 ........................................................................................................................................... 66 Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091 .......................................... 67 Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277 ........................................... 69 Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277 .......................................... 70 Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279 ........................................... 73 Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279 .......................................... 74 Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0280 ............................................... 76 Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile at Site 44FK0281 ............................................... 78 Exhibit 30: Locations of Cultural Resources Within the Project Area ............................. 81 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites .......................................................... 36 Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources ................................................... 37 Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086 .......................................................... 51 Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087 .......................................................... 54 Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088 .......................................................... 56 Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089 .......................................................... 61 Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090 .......................................................... 62 Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091 .......................................................... 65 Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277 .......................................................... 71 Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279 ........................................................ 72 104 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01- September 2024 Page vi LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: Senseny Road ....................................................................................................... 99 Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area ....................................................... 99 Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation ........................................................................ 100 Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North) .......................... 100 Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South) ................. 101 Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope ..................................................................................... 101 Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond .................................................................. 102 Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut ........................................................................ 102 Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform ........................................................................ 103 Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads....................................................................... 103 Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek .......................... 104 Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek .......................... 104 Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) ............................... 105 Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) ............................... 105 Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L) ................................................................. 106 Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086 ............................................................................ 106 Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087 ............................................................................ 107 Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088 ............................................................................... 107 Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090 ............................................................................ 108 Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091 ............................................................................ 108 Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277 ............................................................................ 109 Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278 .................................................................... 109 Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278 .................................................. 110 Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279 ............................................................................ 110 Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280 .................................................................... 111 Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281 .................................................................... 111 Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155).......................................... 112 Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155) ........................................ 112 Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155) ......................................... 113 Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155) .......................................................... 113 Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155) .......................................................... 114 Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155).......................................... 114 Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155) ............................................................ 115 Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155) ..................................................................................... 115 105 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Phase I cultural resources investigation of the ±91.7- acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County (Exhibit 1). Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA, served as Principal Investigator and supervised all aspects of the investigation. The fieldwork was completed by Brittany Vance, Scott McElroy, Amelia Puchino, Jennifer Carroll, Macey Stearns, Andrew Lewis, Megan Bull, Jennifer Cullison, and Rebekah Thimlar. Elizabeth Waters Johnson, M.A., served as Laboratory Supervisor and conducted the artifact analysis with Amber Nubgaard, M.A., RPA. All artifacts, research data, and field data resulting from this project are currently on repository at the Thunderbird offices in Gainesville, Virginia. The fieldwork and report contents conformed to the guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for a Phase I identification level survey as outlined in their 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (DHR 2017), as well as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (DOI 1983). In general, at the time of the survey all aspects of the investigation were in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) (as amended). The purpose of the survey was to locate any cultural resources within the impact area and, insofar as possible at this level of investigation, to provide a preliminary assessment of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Place. If a particular resource was felt to possess the potential to contribute to the knowledge of local, regional, or national prehistory or history, then Phase II work was recommended. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Frederick and Clark Counties are encompassed by Valley and Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces. The Valley and Ridge province is characterized by a series of north-south trending ridges separated by river valleys and represents one portion of the Great Valley System of the Appalachian Mountains running from New York to Alabama. The Great Valley of Virginia, defined by limestone and dolostone (carbonate) bedrock, is bound by the Blue Ridge province to the east. The limestone in the area forms good agricultural lands with occasional karst formations. Sinkholes and caverns are common throughout the valley. Other dominant rock types in the region include sandstone, shale, and quartzite. 106 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_01_Vicinity.mxd 0 2,000 Feet Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map ®Source: World Street Map - ESRI Original Scale: 1 " = 2,000 ' Project Area: ±101.4 acres Frederick County VA Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 2 107 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 3 The Valley and Ridge province is divided into three sub-provinces: Ridge and Valley, Great Valley, and Massanutten Mountain (Exhibit 2). The project area lies in the Great Valley, where broad valleys with low to moderate slopes are underlain by carbonate rocks. Elevations range from 1,200 to 2,300 feet above mean sea level (a.m.s.l.). The project area is located on the eastern edge of a generally north-south-trending landform immediately above Opequon Creek (Exhibit 2). Drainage for the project area is to the east into Opequon Creek, which flows 26 miles to the north into the Potomac River. The vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous and evergreen forest, grassy pasture, and manicured lawns (Exhibit 3). PALEOENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The basic environmental history of the area has been provided by Carbone (1976) (see also Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson 1986). The following will present highlights from this history, focusing on those aspects pertinent to the project area. At the time of the arrival of humans into the region, about 11,000 years ago, the area was beginning to recover rapidly from the effects of the last Wisconsin glacial maximum of circa 18,000 years ago. Vegetation was in transition from northern dominated species and included a mixture of conifers and hardwoods. The primary trend was toward a reduction in the openness which was characteristic of the parkland of 14-12,000 years ago. Animals were undergoing a rapid increase in numbers as deer, elk and, possibly, moose expanded into the niches and habitats made available as the result of wholesale extinctions of the various kinds of fauna that had occupied the area during the previous millennia. The current cycle of ponding and stream drowning began 18-16,000 years ago at the beginning of the final retreat of the last Wisconsin glaciation (Gardner 1985); sea level rise has been steady since then. While the Shenandoah Valley was not subject to direct glaciation at this time the limestone formations provided a well-watered environment. These trends continued to accelerate over the subsequent millennia of the Holocene. One important highlight was the appearance of marked seasonality circa 7000 BCE. This was accompanied by the spread of deciduous forests dominated by oaks and hickories. The modern forest characteristic of the area, the mixed oak-hickory-pine climax forest, prevailed after 3000-2500 BCE. Continued forest closure led to the reduction and greater territorial dispersal of the larger mammalian forms such as deer. Sea level continued to rise, resulting in the inundation of interior streams. This was quite rapid until circa 3000-2500 BCE, at which time the rise slowed, continuing at a rate estimated to be ten inches per century (Darmody and Foss 1978). At about this time the North Fork of the Shenandoah had reached its present bend forming the current floodplains of today. Based on archeology (see Gardner and Rappleye 1979), it would appear that the mid-Atlantic migratory bird flyway was established circa 6500 BCE. Oysters had migrated to at least the Northern Neck by 1200 BCE (Potter 1982) and to their maximum upriver limits along the Potomac near Popes Creek, Maryland, by circa 750 BCE (Gardner and McNett 1971), with anadromous fish arriving in the Inner Coastal Plain in considerable numbers circa 1800 BCE (Gardner 1982). 108 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_02_USGS.mxd Exhibit 2: 2001 USGS Quadrangle, Stephenson, VA WV Latitude: 39°9'54"N Longitude: 78°5'13"W Project Area ®0 2,000 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 2,000 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 4 109 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_03_Nearmap.mxd Exhibit 3: June 2024 Natural Color Imagery Source: Nearmap® Project Area ®0 600 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 600 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 5 110 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 6 A warming trend that lasted for several centuries stalled by a cooling event around 1300 CE known as the Little Ice Age. This climatic event brought about more late spring frosts and early autumn frosts accompanied by cool and rainy summers (Rice 2009:30). During the historic period, circa 1700 CE, cultural landscape alteration becomes a new environmental factor (Walker and Gardner 1989). Around this time, Euro-American settlement extended into the Piedmont/Coastal Plain interface and later into the Shenandoah Valley. With these settlers came land clearing and deforestation for cultivation, as well as the harvesting of wood for use in a number of different products. At this time the stream tributaries to the Potomac, were broad expanses of open waters from their mouths well up their valleys to, at, or near their "falls" where they leave the Piedmont and enter the Coastal Plain. These streams were conducive to the establishment of ports and harbors, elements necessary to commerce and contact with the outside world and the seats of colonial power. Most of these early ports were eventually abandoned or reduced in importance, for the erosional cycle set up by the land clearing resulted in tons of silt being washed into the streams, ultimately impeding navigation. Widespread deforestation and cultivation led to erosion of topsoil within the Valley and siltation of streams while uplands suffered from deflation. The historic vegetation would have consisted of a mixed oak-hickory-pine forest. Associated with this forest were deer and smaller mammals and turkey. The nearby open water environments would have provided habitats for waterfowl year round as well as seasonally for migratory species. Elevation is an important characteristic in the Shenandoah Valley especially when discussing agricultural practices. Changes within elevation in the Valley produce abrupt seasonal transitions and also dictate the amount of precipitation in certain areas making the Valley floor drier than other higher elevations. CULTURAL HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Prehistoric Overview The following section provides a brief overview and context of the general prehistory of the region. A number of summaries of the archeology of the general area have been written (see Gardner 1987; Johnson 1986; Walker 1981); Gardner, Walker, and Johnson present essentially the same picture, with the major differences lying in the terminology utilized for the prehistoric time periods. The dates provided below for the three general prehistoric periods, and associated sub-periods, follow those outlined by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR 2017:107-108). Paleoindian Period (9500/10000-8000 BCE) The Paleoindian period corresponds to the end of the Late Pleistocene and beginning of the Early Holocene of the Late Glacial period, which was characterized by cooler and drier conditions with significantly less seasonal variation than is evident in the region today. The cooler conditions resulted in decreased evaporation and, in areas where 111 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 7 drainage was restricted by topography, could have resulted in the development of wetlands in further inland regions (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:P1-8). Generally speaking, the nature of the vegetation was marked by open forests composed of a mix of coniferous and deciduous elements. The individual character of local floral communities would have depended on drainage, soils, and elevation, among other factors. The structure of the open environment would have been favorable for deer, bear, moose, and, to a lesser degree, elk, which would have expanded rapidly into the environmental niches left available by the extinction and extirpation of the large herd animals and megafauna characteristic of the Late Pleistocene. The fluted projectile point is considered the hallmark of the Paleoindian lithic toolkit. Based on his work at the Flint Run Complex, Gardner identified three distinct sub-phases within the larger fluted point phase (Gardner 1974). The oldest of the Paleoindian sub- phases is identified by the now classic Clovis point, a large, bifacially flaked tool with a channel or flute removed from both sides of its base. Regionally, the widely accepted beginning date for Clovis type points is circa 9500 BCE; however, some data has suggested a pre-11,000 BCE beginning date for Clovis points (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; Johnson 1997). The Clovis sub-phase is followed in time by the Middle Paleo sub- phase, defined by smaller fluted points. The Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase is the final one of the period and is characterized by the minimally fluted Dalton and Hardaway projectile points. This three-period subdivision is well supported by stratigraphy. Associated with these projectile points are various other tools that usually cannot be taken by themselves as diagnostic Paleoindian indicators. Examples of such stone tools include end or side scrapers, bifaces, blades, and spokeshaves, which are all associated with the hunting and processing of game animals. While Clovis points have been found across North America, a significant concentration of them have been found in Virginia (Egloff and Woodward 2006:9). Possible evidence for pre-Clovis colonization of the Americas has been found at the Cactus Hill site (44SX0202) in Virginia, where an ephemeral component dating from 15,000 to 13,000 BCE included prismatic blades manufactured from quartzite cores and metavolcanic or chert pentagonal bifaces (Haynes 2002: 43-44; Johnson 1997; McAvoy 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Generally, lanceolate projectile points, prismatic blades, pentagonal bifaces, polyhedral blade cores, microflakes, and microlithic tools comprise possible pre-Clovis assemblages and a preference for cryptocrystalline lithic material such as chert and jasper is noted (Goodyear 2005). Cactus Hill and other reportedly pre-Clovis sites, including SV-2 (44SM0037) in Saltville, Virginia (McDonald 2000; McDonald and Kay 1999) and the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in western Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990; Adovasio et al. 1998), have been the subject of much controversy and no undisputed pre-Clovis sites or sites representing substantial pre- Clovis occupations have been identified in the region. Paleoindian archeological assemblages rarely contain stone tools specifically designed for processing plant material, such as manos, metates, or grinders. This general absence 112 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 8 or rarity of such tool categories does not mean that use of plant resources was unimportant; rather, it may suggest that a far greater emphasis was placed on hunting versus gathering, at least when viewed from the perspective of an assemblage of stone tools. For instance, carbonized plant materials have been found in Paleoindian contexts and plant remains have been recovered from some Paleoindian sites. The remains of acalypha, blackberry, hackberry, hawthorn plum, and grape were recovered from a hearth in the Paleoindian portion of the Shawnee-Minisink Site in eastern Pennsylvania (Dent 1991). The subsistence settlement base of Paleoindian groups in the immediate region likely focused on general foraging, drawing a comparison with the Shawnee-Minisink data, and certainly focused on hunting (Gardner 1989 and various). The settlement pattern of Paleoindian peoples has been described as being quarry-centered, with larger base camps being situated in close proximity to localized sources of high quality cryptocrystalline lithic raw materials, such as chert, jasper, and chalcedony. Smaller exploitative or hunting and/or gathering sites are found at varying distance from these quarry-centered base camps (Gardner 1980). This model, developed from Gardner’s work at the Thunderbird site complex in the Shenandoah River Valley, has wide applicability throughout both the Middle Atlantic region and greater Eastern United States. The extreme curation (or conservation) and reworking of the blade element exhibited by many stray point finds recovered throughout the Middle Atlantic region, especially specimens from Coastal Plain localities, is a strong argument supporting the quarry-base camp settlement model. Gardner has argued that once a tool kit has been curated to its usable limit, a return to the quarry-tied base camp would be made in order to replenish raw materials (Gardner 1974). The Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley produced evidence of the Paleoindian tool kit, along with food and resource processing activities demonstrating large social cooperation. The complex of sites within the surrounding area forms one of the most significant sites in North America, stratigraphically linking the Paleoindian period with the Early Archaic (Egloff and Woodward 2006:12). Early Archaic Period (8000-6500 BCE) The Early Archaic period coincides with the early Holocene climatic period. The warming trend, which began during the terminal Late Pleistocene and Paleoindian period, continued during the Early Archaic period. Precipitation increased and seasonality became more marked, at least by 7500 BCE. This period encompasses the decline of the open grasslands of the previous era and the rise of closed boreal forests throughout the Middle Atlantic region; this change to arboreal vegetation was initially dominated by conifers, but soon gave way to a deciduous domination. Arguably, the reduction of these open grasslands led to the decline and extinction of the last of the Pleistocene megafauna, as evidence suggests that the last of these creatures (e.g., mastodons) would have been gone from the area around the beginning of the Early Archaic period. Sea level throughout the region rose with the retreat of glacial ice, a process that led to an increase in the number of poorly drained and swampy biomes; these water-rich areas became the gathering places of large modern mammals. 113 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 9 Similar to the Paleoindian period, the subsistence settlement strategy of Early Archaic peoples was one focused on seasonal migration and hunting and gathering. Early Archaic humans were drawn to the wet biomes resulting from sea level rise because the abundant concentration of game animal, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and bear, made for excellent hunting. As the arboreal vegetation became more abundant and deciduous forests spread, the exploitation of newly available and abundant plant resources, such as fruits, nuts, and acorns increased among Early Archaic populations (Egloff and Woodward 2006:13-14). Although the manufacturing techniques of projectile points and the favored use of cryptocrystalline raw materials of the Paleoindian period remained unchanged throughout the Early Archaic period, stylistic changes in the lithic toolkit of Early Archaic peoples are evident. The switch from the fluting of projectile points to notching is generally considered to mark the end of the Paleoindian and the beginning of the Archaic period; examples of Early Archaic point types include Amos Corner Notched, Kirk and Palmer Corner Notched, Warren Side Notched and Kirk Stemmed varieties. Gardner has demonstrated that while corner notched and side notched points show a stylistic change from the earlier fluted varieties, they all occurred within a single cultural tradition (Gardner 1974). The transition from fluting to notching is not a radical change, but the gradual replacement of one attribute at a time. The fluting, which was nearly absent during the Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase, is replaced by corner notching, which is then gradually replaced by side notching in the Archaic sequence. The initial reason for the change in hafting and related modifications of the basal elements of Early Archaic points is likely related to the introduction of the atlatl or spear-thrower, which increased the accuracy and force with which spears could be thrown; the fluted forms may have been utilized mainly as thrusting tools, while the earlier notched forms may have been mounted onto a smaller lance with a detachable shaft and powered by the atlatl. As in the earlier Paleoindian period, stone tools designed for the processing of plant materials are rare in Early Archaic assemblages. Toward the close of the Early Archaic period, trends away from a settlement model comparable to the earlier Paleoindian quarry-focused pattern are evident. A major shift is one to a reliance on a greater range of lithic raw materials for manufacture of stone tools rather than a narrow focus on high quality cryptocrystalline materials. Lithic use was a matter of propinquity; stone available was stone used. However, extensive curation of projectile points is still evident up until the bifurcate phases of the subsequent Middle Archaic period. It may be that while a reliance on high quality lithic materials continued, other kinds of raw material were used as needed. This pattern is not readily documented during the earlier Paleoindian period. Johnson argues that the shift to a wider range of materials occurs in the gradual shift from the Palmer/Kirk Corner Notched phases of the Early Archaic to the later Kirk Side Notched/Stemmed or closing phases of the period (Johnson 1983; 1986:P2-6). Changes in lithic raw material selection are likely related to movement into a wider range of habitats coincident with the expansion of deciduous forest elements. Early Archaic period 114 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 10 sites begin to show up in areas previously not occupied to any great extent, if at all. Additionally, the greater number of sites can be taken as a rough indicator of a gradual population increase through time. Middle Archaic Period (6500-3000 BCE) The chronological period known as the Middle Archaic coincides with the appearance of full Holocene environments. Climatic trends in the Holocene at this time are marked by the further growth of deciduous forests, the continuing rise of sea levels, and warm and moist conditions. This change led to the spread of modern temperate floral assemblages (such as mesic hemlock and oak forests), modern faunal assemblages, and seasonal continental climates. The advent of such climates and related vegetation patterns allowed for the development of seasonally available subsistence resources, which led to base camps no longer being situated near specific lithic sources, but closer to these seasonal resources. This shift also led to an increase in the number of exploited environmental zones. The moist conditions favored the spread of swamps and bogs throughout poorly drained areas like floodplains, bays, or basins. Rising sea level and overall moist conditions helped form these swamps and basins; sea level had risen too rapidly to allow the growth of large, stable concentrations of shellfish. Estuarine resources were scarce, and the inhabitants relied on varied animal resources for sustenance. Essentially modern faunal species were spread throughout the various biomes, but their distributions would have been somewhat different than that known for today. The prevalent species included deer, turkey, and smaller mammals. The initial technological shift in lithic projectile points between the Early and Middle Archaic periods is generally considered to be marked by the introduction of bifurcate base projectile points, such as St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1975; Gardner 1982). Other researchers place the bifurcate phase within the Early Archaic period. The bifurcate points do not occur throughout the entire Middle Archaic period; however, they appear to be constrained to the earlier portion of the period and disappeared sometime before 5000 BCE (Chapman 1975, Dent 1995; Bergman et al. 1994). Several other marked changes occurred along with the onset of the bifurcate points. Ground stone tools, such as axes, gouges, grinding stones, and plant processing tools, were introduced along with bifurcate points (Chapman 1975, Walker 1981). These new tools are evidence for the implementation of a new technology designed to exploit vegetable/plant resources. Also, a shift to the use of locally available lithic raw material, which began during the closing phases of the Early Archaic, is manifest by the advent of the bifurcate phases. The major stemmed varieties of projectile point that follow the earlier bifurcate forms and typify the middle portion of the Middle Archaic period include the Stanly, Morrow Mountain I and Morrow Mountain II varieties. Coe (1964) documented a Stanly-Morrow Mountain sequence at the Doerschuk Site in the North Carolina Piedmont, and similar results were recorded at the Neville Site in New Hampshire (Dincauze 1976) and the Slade Site in Virginia (Dent 1995). The projectile points marking the latter portion of the 115 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 11 Middle Archaic period are the lanceolate shaped Guilford type and various side notched varieties (Coe 1964; Dent 1995). Halifax style points return to side notched formed projectile points and Shenandoah Valley sequences parallel typology progressions similar to the North Carolina Piedmont and along the Kanawha River in western West Virginia (Gardner 1986:53). The Rudacil and Fifty sites located near the project area have established projectile point sequences for the Valley (Gardner 1986). It is during the Middle Archaic period that prehistoric human presence becomes relatively widespread in a wide range of environmental settings (Gardner 1985, 1987; Johnson 1986; Weiss-Bromberg 1987). As far as the inhabitants of the Middle Archaic period are concerned, there is an increase in population, which can be seen in the sheer number of sites (as represented by the temporally diagnostic point types) throughout the Middle Atlantic region. With the increasing diversity in natural resources came a subsistence pattern that was predicated on the seasonal harvest of various nut species and other plant resources that characterized deciduous forest environments. Base camps were located in high biomass habitats or areas where a great variety of food resources could be found (Walker 1981). These base camp locations varied according to the season and were located on floodplains, interior fluvial swamp settings, and in some cases, within interior upland swamp settings. The size and duration of the base camps appear to have depended on the size, abundance, and diversity of the immediately local and nearby resource zones. Late Archaic Period (3000-1200 BCE) The rise in sea level continued during the Late Archaic period, eventually pushing the salinity cline further upstream and creating tidal environments; a corresponding movement of various riverine and estuarine species took place with the development of tidal conditions in the embayed section of the Potomac and its main tributary streams. Seasonal fish runs became increasingly reliable along the Shenandoah River as freshwater species travelled further upstream to spawn. Mussels were also prominent in the shallow rivers and streams. The development of brackish water estuaries occurred to the east of the Ridge and Valley including the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, and Hudson River estuaries. In general, climatic events approached those similar to modern times during the Late Archaic period. Throughout the Eastern United States, distinctive patterns of the Native-American landscape become evident by about 3000/2500 BCE, marking a significant shift with earlier Middle Archaic components. The Late Archaic period is characterized by an increase in population over that documented for the Early and Middle Archaic periods, based on an increase in both the number of identified sites dating to this period and in their size and widespread distribution. An increasingly sedentary lifestyle evolved, with a reduction in seasonal settlement shifts (Walker 1981; Johnson 1986:5-1). Food processing and food storage technologies were becoming more efficient, and trade networks began to be established. Settlement continued within the Ridge and Valley along high mountain meadows, in saddles, gaps, and hollows as people searched for game, useful plant species, and lithic materials (Egloff and Woodward 2006:25). 116 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 12 In parts of the Middle Atlantic region, the development of an adaptation based on the exploitation of riverine and estuarine resources is apparent. Settlement during the Late Archaic period shifted from the interior stream settings favored during earlier periods to the newly embayed stream mouths and similar settings (Gardner 1976). Although Late Archaic populations continued a foraging pattern linked to dense forests and their seasonally available plant resources, interior sites became minimally exploited, though not abandoned, sustaining smaller hunting camps and specialized exploitative stations; sites in these areas exhibit varying emphasis on procurement of locally available cobble or tabular lithic sources, such as chert, quartz, and quartzite, as well as a variety of plant species. In settlement-subsistence models presented by Gardner, this shift is linked with the development of large seasonal runs of anadromous fish. These sites tend to be concentrated along the shorelines near accessible fishing areas. The adjacent interior and upland zones become rather extensively utilized as adjuncts to these fishing base camps. The Late Archaic technological assemblage continued an emphasis on ground stone tools first noted in the Middle Archaic period. Steatite net weights and carved steatite bowls with lug handles, which would not break when heated during cooking, first appeared during this period and are common throughout the Eastern United States from Maine to Florida. The use of steatite bowls is often seen as an indicator of increased sedentism among Late Archaic populations, as the vessels would have been heavy and difficult to transport (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). In Virginia, outcrops of steatite have been identified in the eastern foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, though in limited numbers, from Fairfax County to Carroll County in southern Virginia. Archeologically, fragments of steatite bowls have been recovered in Late Archaic contexts in varying physiographic settings in the Middle Atlantic, often at great distances from steatite outcrops and quarry sites, which many have interpreted as evidence of widespread trading between Late Archaic peoples across the region. Kavanagh's (1982) study of the Monocacy River watershed in Maryland suggests that dug-out canoes were being produced during the Late Archaic period, based on the greater occurrences of gouges and adzes recovered from Late Archaic contexts (Kavanagh 1982:97); canoes would have allowed for increased mobility and facilitated trading among Late Archaic groups via the various rivers and streams in the region. The occurrence of steatite in the Piedmont meant that Late Archaic peoples within the Valley would have had to travel east to procure such material as trade networks increased during this time. While signs of increased sedentism occurred along the Atlantic coast and at the mouths of estuarine river and stream systems, the Shenandoah Valley was likely still inhabited more seasonally at this time for chestnut harvests (Gardner 1986:61). Excavations of these seasonal base camps have occurred in the Valley at the Corral site and the Peer site and have included projectile point typologies found below. The most easily recognizable temporally diagnostic projectile point in the Middle Atlantic region is the parallel stemmed, broad-bladed Savannah River point, which has a number of related cognate types and descendant forms, such as the notched broadspears, Perkiomen and Susquehanna, Dry Brook and Orient, and more narrow bladed, stemmed 117 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 13 forms such as Holmes. Defined by Coe based on work in the Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964), the Savannah River point represents what could be, arguably, a typological horizon throughout the Eastern United States east of the Appalachians, dating from about 2600 to perhaps as late as 1500 BCE. Gardner (1987) separates the Late Archaic into two phases: Late Archaic I (2500-1800 BCE) and Late Archaic II (1800-1000 BCE). The Late Archaic I corresponds to the spread and proliferation of Savannah River populations, while the Late Archaic II is defined by Holmes and Susquehanna points. The distribution of these two, Gardner (1982; 1987) suggests, shows the development of stylistic or territorial zones. The Susquehanna style was restricted to the Potomac above the Fall Line and through the Shenandoah Valley, while the Holmes and kindred points were restricted to the Tidewater and south of the Potomac through the Piedmont. Another aspect of the differences between the two groups is in their raw material preferences: Susquehanna and descendant forms such as Dry Brook and, less so, Orient Fishtail, tended to be made from rhyolite, while Holmes spear points were generally made of quartzite. Early Woodland Period (1200 BCE-300 CE) The Early Woodland period corresponds generally to the Sub-Atlantic episode, when relatively stable, milder, and moister conditions prevailed, although short-term climatic perturbations were present. By this point in time, generally, the climate had evolved to its present conditions (Walker 1981). The major artifact hallmark and innovation of the Early Woodland period is the appearance of pottery (Dent 1995; Gardner and McNett 1971). Archeologists believe that ceramic technology was introduced to Virginia from people living on the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, where pottery had been made by prehistoric populations since approximately 2500 BCE (Egloff and Woodward 2006:26). It is important to note that pottery underscores the sedentary nature of the local resident populations, as clay ceramics of the period would have been fragile and cumbersome to transport. Further evidence of this sedentism has been identified in the region in the form of subsurface storage pits (likely for foodstuffs), platform hearths, midden deposits, and evidence of substantial pole-constructed structures. This is not to imply that Early Woodland populations did not utilize the inner-riverine or inner-estuarine areas, but rather that this seems to have been done on a seasonal basis by people moving out from established bases; this settlement pattern is essentially a continuation of Late Archaic lifeways with an increasing orientation toward seed harvesting in floodplain locations (Walker 1981). Small group base camps would have been located along Fall Line streams during the spring and early summer in order to take advantage of the anadromous fish runs. In the Valley, semi-permanence or sedentism can be seen in storage pits located near hearths at the Corral site (Gardner 1986). In the Shenandoah Valley, as well as most of the surrounding Middle Atlantic region, the earliest known ceramics begin with a ware known as Marcey Creek. In chronological 118 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 14 terms, Marcey Creek likely falls within the first 200 years of the final millennium BCE, or roughly 1000 to 800 BCE. This ware is a flat-bottomed vessel tempered with crushed steatite or, in the Eastern Shore region, other kinds of crushed rock temper (Manson 1948). Based on vessel shape, this distinctive ware is interpreted as a direct evolution or development from the flat-bottomed stone bowls of the Late Archaic period. Vessels of this ware frequently exhibit the same lugs on the side walls as seen on Late Archaic steatite bowls. As a ceramic ware group, Marcey Creek is short lived in terms of its position in the chronological record. The earliest dates for Marcey Creek are 1200 BCE in the Northern Neck (Waselkov 1982) and 950 BCE at the Monocacy site in the Potomac Piedmont (Gardner and McNett 1971). Marcey Creek Pottery has been documented in the Valley at the Corral site, overlying a Susquehannah Broadspear occupation, as well as the earliest occupation levels at the Cabin Run excavations near Front Royal (Gardner 1986:65). Shortly after about 800 BCE, conoidal and somewhat barrel shaped vessels with cord marked surfaces enter the record in the Middle Atlantic region and greater Northeast; whether these evolved from the flat-bottomed Marcey Creek vessels or simply replaced them is unknown. In Maryland and Virginia such a ware has been designated Accokeek Cord Marked, first described from the Accokeek Creek Site in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Stephenson et al. 1963). Radiocarbon dates for Accokeek place it between approximately 750 BCE and 300/400 BCE, when it is superseded by net impressed varieties, including Popes Creek and related wares (Gardner and McNett 1971; Mouer et al. 1981; Mounier and Cresson 1988). Accokeek ware was tempered with both sand and crushed quartz, although any suitable stone may have been used for the grit source, including steatite. In many cases, temper selected for use by Accokeek potters appears to have been based on propinquity to specific resources. Crushed rock tempered ceramics (Albemarle) dominated in the successive Middle Woodland, with net marking and cord marking as the surface treatments; net marking was eventually replaced by fabric impression. Crushed rock tempering replaced the use of steatite in areas surrounding the Valley and nearby Pennsylvania known as Vinette. In the Coastal Plain settings of the Maryland and Virginia, Accokeek typically has a "sandier" paste and could be said to have sand as a tempering agent. However, when large enough sherds are analyzed, crushed quartz tempering is invariably found in this ware. Whether or not the paste of the vessel is sandy or more clayey in texture (or “feel”) depends on the clay source, either Piedmont or Coastal Plain. Clay sources from Coastal Plain settings usually contain greater amounts of sand. Some chronological frameworks for the Middle Atlantic region, particularly in Maryland, suggest a transitional ware, such as Selden Island (Slattery 1946), between Marcey Creek and Accokeek and its cognate wares. While this concept of a transitional ware has logical merit, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively with the evidence currently available. In many cases, the excavated sites show depositional contexts from this period with little vertical separation between Late Archaic and Early Woodland deposits. A more refined chronology that clarifies such issues of ceramic change still needs to be developed. The appearance of Marcey Creek pottery in the Potomac Piedmont is associated with the 119 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 15 arrival of Susquehanna populations when correlated with projectile point typologies. The appearance of small side notched points and similar pottery in the Valley suggests strong interactions between Susquehanna peoples and Savannah River Late Archaic groups. Generally, temporally diagnostic projectile points from the Early Woodland period include smaller side notched and stemmed variants such as Vernon and Calvert, and diagnostic spear points such as Rossville/Piscataway points. The lobate based Piscataway point has been associated archeologically with Accokeek pottery at a number of sites in the Middle Atlantic region; locally these points have been termed “Teardrop” points by Mounier and other investigators (Mounier and Cresson 1988). This point type has been found in association with Accokeek pottery at sites in New Jersey (Mounier and Cresson 1988; Barse 1991), in Maryland (Barse 1978), and in Virginia (Mouer et al. 1981; McClearen 1991). These points continue into the early phases of the Middle Woodland period and have been found in contexts containing Popes Creek, Albemarle, and early variants of Mockley ceramics along the Potomac River (Barse 2002). Middle Woodland Period (300-1000 CE) The Middle Woodland period is characterized by an increase in population size and increased sedentism. With the emergence of Middle Woodland societies, an apparent settlement shift occurred compared to those seen in the intensive hunter-gatherer-fisher groups of the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. In brief, it appears that a selection to broader floodplain localities and the development of larger storage facilities at base camp localities dominated settlement patterns at this time (Cross 1956). Some degree of seasonal occupation and migration centered on natural food resources still occurred; potentially the year was split between more permanent settlements located in the inner Coastal Plain region and the Piedmont uplands. In general, from 200 CE to approximately 900 CE, settlement in the Potomac Piedmont was sparse. Essentially all available food resources were now utilized, including freshwater aquatic species (i.e., mussels and fish), deer, turkey, and migratory waterfowl. People also began to intensively harvest and store a variety of locally available plants, seeds, and nuts, such as amaranth seeds, chenopod seeds, wild rice, hickory nuts, acorns, and walnuts. According to Gardner (1986:71) the most striking societal change in the Middle Woodland in the Valley is the appearance of stone burial mounds. These burials were cut into the earth and interred one to several individuals before the graves were filled in with earth and cobbles, then piles of earth and stone covered them. The burials often formed clusters of mounds with concentrations along the South Fork of the Shenandoah and South Branch of the Potomac. These areas could have been marked as boundaries for confederations or centers of polity between hamlets (Gardner 1986:72). The mound culture was influenced by western cultures, including the Adena of the Ohio Valley region. The Stone Mound Burial culture in the northern Shenandoah Valley further demonstrates the diversity of peoples within the Valley at this time, with the burials placed on ancient blufflike river terraces overlooking floodplains (Egloff and Woodward 2006:28). 120 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 16 The earliest radiocarbon dates for the Shenandoah Valley mounds come from the Thunderbird Ranch site and places the beginning of the mound building at 420 BCE (Gardner 1986:72). Later accretional mound burial continued throughout the period into the Late Woodland period atop the original stone mound burials, as more recent excavated examples in the Valley demonstrate (Dunham et al. 2003). Grave goods included in these burials were less extravagant than western examples, but included Great Lakes copper, Ohio cherts, and Carolina slates (Gardner 1986:72). Middle Woodland ceramics are typified by crushed rock temper as opposed to sand which dominated the Early Woodland period. One notable addition to ceramic technology, and one clearly widespread throughout the Middle Atlantic region, is the inception of vessels exhibiting net impressed surface treatments. A wider range of vessel forms and sizes also can be documented compared to earlier vessel assemblages. The net impressed surfaces and greater variation in vessel size and shape represent a significant change used for defining the Middle Woodland period in the Middle Atlantic region from areas south of the James River through the Chesapeake region and into the lower Susquehanna and Delaware River drainages. Accokeek and related wares of the Early Woodland period gradually developed into what has become known as the Albemarle ware group, commonly found in the Piedmont of Virginia and, perhaps, Pennsylvania and Maryland; it does not appear to be present in the Delaware Valley area. Based on work in the lower Potomac River Valley and the upper Delaware River Valley, net impressed ceramics enter the chronological record around 500 BCE (Gardner and McNett 1971). More recently, AMS dating on carbon taken from a sherd of Popes Creek recovered in Charles County, Maryland returned a slightly younger date of 2235 ±100 B.P., or 285 ±100 BCE (Curry and Kavanagh 1994). In the upper Delaware River area, Broadhead net impressed ceramics, which have been considered as a northern Popes Creek cognate, have been dated to 480 ±80 BCE in New Jersey (Kinsey 1972:456). Other similar wares include the net impressed varieties of Wolf Neck and Colbourn ceramics from the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Delaware. Comparisons could also be extended to the Prince George Net Impressed ceramics from southern Virginia and the Culpepper ware in the Triassic Lowlands of the Piedmont; Culpepper ware is a sandstone tempered ceramic occasionally found in the Piedmont and is recognized by some archeologists working in Fairfax County but has not been clearly defined in the literature. These wares or ware groups are circum-Chesapeake Bay in their geographic distribution, pointing to close interrelationships between the societies making these wares. All of these groups were undoubtedly participating in a growing Middle Woodland interaction sphere widespread throughout the Shenandoah, James, Potomac, lower Susquehanna, Delaware, and even lower Hudson River Valleys. Popes Creek ceramics developed into the shell tempered Mockley ceramics, a ware that has both net impressed and cord marked surfaces. Many, if not most, radiocarbon dates associated with Mockley ceramics bracket the ware between about 250/300 CE to approximately 800 CE, after which it develops into the Late Woodland Townsend Ware. Why the shift from sand to shell tempering occurred is unknown, although it was 121 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 17 widespread in the Middle Atlantic region. In the lower Potomac Valley, Mockley may have been tied to the intensive exploitation of oyster beds, a phenomenon first manifested in the earlier Popes Creek phase of the Middle Woodland period. Mockley ware exhibits relationships with the earlier Popes Creek ceramics and its cognate wares in basic attributes such as rim form, vessel shapes, and the range of vessel sizes (Barse 1990). Further into the interior reaching the Ridge and Valley net marking on pottery halted along with the burial mound tradition around 200 CE and was replaced by fabric impression, which was brought from southwestern Virginia and Tennessee (Gardner 1986:75). Popes Creek and Mockley ware ceramics are not as common in Piedmont settings as they are in Coastal Plain settings where they are prevalent. Albemarle ceramics, bearing mostly cord marked exterior surfaces that show continuity with the earlier Accokeek ware, are commonly found in Middle Woodland contexts in the Potomac Piedmont. This ware was found associated with Mockley ceramics at the Fletchers Boathouse site in pit contexts (Barse 2002) along with small quantities of Mockley and Popes Creek ceramics. Radiocarbon dates from several of the large pits at this site fall between 100 BCE and 100 CE, suggesting that Popes Creek was in the process of being replaced by the shell tempered Mockley ceramics. Albemarle is considered to be contemporary with both, though more commonly found in the Piedmont; as a ware it continued up to and perhaps into the Late Woodland period. Gardner and Walker (1993:4) suggested that fabric impressed wares become more common toward the end of the Middle Woodland period. This surface treatment is restricted to Albemarle wares though and does not really occur on Mockley ceramics. Fabric impressing on shell tempered ceramics by default is identified as Townsend ware. Lithic artifacts associated with Middle Woodland occupations frequently include side notched and parallel stemmed points manufactured from rhyolite, argillite, and Pennsylvania jasper. Such points are known as Fox Creek in the Delaware Valley and Selby Bay in the Chesapeake region. The Middle Woodland people also manufactured and used a stone axe called a celt, used for woodworking. The celt differed from the earlier axes because it was not grooved; rather, it was hafted into a socketed wooden handle. Late Woodland Period (1000-1606 CE/European Contact) The Late Woodland period begins around 900 CE, the result of a culmination in trends concerning subsistence practices, settlement patterns, and ceramic technology. A trend toward sedentism, evident in earlier periods, and a subsistence system emphasizing horticulture eventually led to a settlement pattern of floodplain village communities and dispersed hamlets reliant on an economy of both hunting and the planting of native cultigens. Migrations into the Middle Potomac and the major stream and river valleys feeding the Potomac, including the Shenandoah, around 1000 to 1300 CE has been defined by 122 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 18 northern groups entering the area bringing new ceramic traditions and settlement patterns. Excavated examples of Late Woodland Villages such as the Rostenstock Site on the Monocacy River have drawn parallels with Owasoco ware cultures from New York (Curry and Kavanagh 2004). These new groups expanded into the region corresponding with the introduction of corn into the region and climatic change. The Montgomery Complex had no precursor in the region, as there was likely a lack of a resident group in the Piedmont during the Middle Woodland period; however, a replacement culture following this influence is known as the Luray Complex beginning from 1300 to 1400 (Curry and Kavanagh 2004). In the Potomac Piedmont, the crushed rock wares are replaced by a shell tempered ware that spread out of the Shenandoah Valley to at least the mouth of the Monocacy River at about 1350-1400 CE. Shell tempered Keyser ceramics, a downstream variant of the Late Woodland Monongahela ware common in the Upper Ohio River Valley, extend nearly to the Fall Line, although they are not found in Coastal Plain settings. Triangular projectile points indicating the use of the bow and arrow are often considered diagnostic of this period as well. However, triangular projectile points have also been recovered from well- defined and earlier contexts at regional sites such as the Abbot Farm site in central New Jersey, the Higgins site on the Inner Coastal Plain on Maryland's Western Shore, and the Pig Point site in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Stewart 1998; Ebright 1992; Luckenbach et al. 2010). Additionally, triangular points have been found in context with Savanah River points in Fairfax County, although the context appears to have been mixed (Christopher Sperling, personal communication 2015). Other examples of the Montgomery Complex can be found at the Kerns Site along the Shenandoah River. The influence from the north from Iroquoian cultural groups seem to have influenced one migration, while influences from the west is evident in later occupations. The Biggs Ford Site is a good example of the replacement Luray Complex, containing smoothed ceramics, both tempered with crushed river mussel shell, related to Keyser-cord marked ceramics from the Upper Ohio River Valley (Bastian 1974:4). While occupation levels with the Keyser Ware at the Biggs Ford Site define the later occupations between 1300 and 1500 CE (Bastian 1974:6). The Late Woodland period is also marked by an increase in ceramic decoration. Most of the motifs are triangular in shape and applied by incising with a blunt-tipped stylus. The marked increase of ceramic decoration and the various design motifs on Late Woodland pottery compared to earlier periods likely reflect the need to define ethnic boundaries and possibly smaller kin sets. Neighboring groups that may have been in low level competition for arable riverine floodplains may have used varied embellishments of basic design elements to set themselves apart from one another. Additionally, in a noncompetitive setting, ceramic designs simply may have served to distinguish between individual social groups, as the region now sustained the highest population level of the prehistoric sequence. As such, ceramic design elements functioned as a symbolic means of communication among groups, serving as badges of ethnic identity or, perhaps, smaller intra-group symbols of identity. 123 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 19 As noted above, Late Woodland societies were largely sedentary with an economy relying on the growth of a variety of native cultigens. Late Woodland settlement choice reflects this horticultural focus in the selection of broad floodplain areas for settlement. This pattern was characteristic of the Piedmont, as well as the Coastal Plain to the east and the Shenandoah Valley to the west (Gardner 1982; Kavanagh 1983). The uplands and other areas were also utilized, for it was here that wild resources would have been gathered. Smaller, non-ceramic yielding sites are found away from the major rivers (Hantman and Klein 1992; Stevens 1989). Most of the functional categories of Late Woodland period sites away from major drainages are small base camps, transient, limited purpose camps, and quarries. Site frequency and size vary according to a number of factors, e.g., proximity to major rivers or streams, distribution of readily available surface water, and the presence of lithic raw material (Gardner 1987). Villages, hamlets, or any of the other more permanent categories of sites are rare to absent in the Piedmont inter-riverine uplands. Perhaps after 1400 CE, with the effects of the Little Ice Age, an increased emphasis on hunting and gathering and either a decreased emphasis on horticulture or the need for additional arable land required a larger territory per group, and population pressures resulted in a greater occupation of the Outer Piedmont and Fall Line regions (Gardner 1991; Fiedel 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.). The 15th and 16th centuries were a time of population movement and disruption from the Ridge and Valley to the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. There appears to have been shifting socio-economic alliances over competition for resources and places in local exchange networks. Factors leading to competition for resources may have led to the development of more centralized forms of social organization characterized by incipiently ranked societies. Small chiefdoms appeared along major rivers at the Fall Line and in the Inner Coastal Plain at about this time. A Fall Line location was especially advantageous for controlling access to critical seasonal resources, as well as being points of topographic constriction that facilitated controlling trade arteries (Potter 1993; Jirikowic 1999; Miller and Walker n.d.). Migrations into and out of the Shenandoah Valley are made through assumptions based on the geographic dispersal of different ceramic traditions and projectile point typologies. Ablemarle ceramics were developed in the Valley using crushed rock tempering. Radford or Page ceramics spread north from southwestern Virginia and used crushed limestone temper. Potomac Creek dominated the Potomac Piedmont. This shows greater trade networks and movement of peoples. Gardner describes four major documented population movements between 900 and 1400 CE that affected the Valley: 1) Groups from the southwestern Virginia Piedmont moved north and west through the New and Roanoke River Valleys, then north along the eastern side of the Great Valley to the James River valley; 2) Groups moved up the central and western parts of the Great Valley from southwestern Virginia; 3) Eastward from the southern Shenandoah and the northern James River drainage, groups travelled 124 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 20 through the James River corridor into the western Piedmont; and 4) An eastward dispersal of people from the Potomac Piedmont traveled into the northern Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1986:79). New migrations and influences entering the Valley from West Virginia into the branches of the Potomac included the New River series known as Keyser in the Shenandoah and Potomac Valleys. By 1500 CE the Keyser series dominated the Valley and is associated with palisaded villages, likely a sign of consolidation of power and warfare between rival groups (Gardner 1986:89). Further influences from the Ohio River Valley spread the Earthen Mound Burial culture, which began in the Shenandoah Valley around 950 CE and continued to contact with Europeans (Egloff and Woodward 2006:40). Studies on accretional burial mounds in Virginia identified a mound group composed of 13 accretional mounds dotting the Roanoke, James, Rivanna, Rapidan, and Shenandoah Rivers, all dating to the Late Woodland period (Dunham et al. 2003). The 13 identified mounds are the remnants of what was a much larger complex that was found across central Virginia at the time of European contact but have essentially disappeared from the visual landscape due to agricultural practices and erosion of river terraces (Dunham et al. 2003:111). The mounds not only provide valuable bioarcheological information, but they represent burial practices outside of the eastern extent of Mississippian mound burial distributions and west of Coastal Plain ossuary burials. Mound burials of these types contained primary and secondary burials including massive collective burials of many individuals represented as large clusters of bone and sub-mound pit burials predating the later earthen mound burials. At Rapidan Mound an estimated 1,000-2,000 individuals were buried over the course of several centuries with as many as 28 to 32 individuals represented in collective burial features (Dunham et al. 2003:120). The appearance of accretional mound burials on large floodplains and river terraces (on the best agricultural land) within the Ridge and Valley suggest that agriculture played an intense role during this period and counters early colonial perspectives of a region as an unused frontier (Dunham et al. 2003:124). The mounds were monuments to ancestors built in prominent places marking territory of different peoples who lived within the area. The Monacans and Mannahoacs have been attributed with occupying the area between the James, Rivanna, Rappahannock, and Rapidan Rivers since first documented in 1607 by John Smith (Dunham et al. 2003:112). Other groups that would have occupied the area at the time of European contact in the eastern Valley have been described as Eastern Siouans and Algonquians associated with shell-tempered Keyser series ceramics (Gardner 1986:92). In the early 1600s, Captain John Smith made contact with local populations in the Upper Potomac Coastal Plain and Henry Fleet lived among and traded with the Native Americans on the Chesapeake. Based on their comments, the upper Potomac may have served as a gateway location where Native Americans from diverse regions came to trade 125 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 21 (see Potter 1993). Native Americans along the Potomac appear to have adopted a range of social strategies during this period based on varying archeological evidence for European trade goods in aboriginal household assemblages and interpretations of how such goods were incorporated into traditional practices and social relations (Gallivan 2010). Following his voyage up the Potomac in 1608, Captain John Smith described several substantial aboriginal occupations within the interior of Virginia along the major river systems including the Monacans, Mannahoacks, and Massowomecks. Hamlets and villages are noted throughout the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions but at this time the Shenandoah Valley was unexplored by Europeans. The Valley was outside of the direct influence of the Powhatan Confederacy and other coastal Algonquian speaking peoples but would have been in contact with northern Iroquoian peoples and Algonquians in the nearby Piedmont. In 1706 a French Swiss traveler by the name of Louis Michel travelled up the Shenandoah River to present day Edinburg, southwest of the current project area, and reported that the Valley was sparsely populated with only Shawnee, Susquehannock, and Iroquois parties moving through (Egloff and Woodward 2006:63). The early history of the Valley would be characterized by constant settler conflicts with these peoples. Initially early conflicts between the Susquehannock and Shawnee over the European fur trade were witnessed by settlers. Historic Overview In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh obtained a license from Queen Elizabeth of England to search for “remote heathen lands” including a right to a deed to all the land within two hundred leagues of any settlement he made on these lands. After some unsuccessful attempts to settle a colony on Chesapeake Bay, Sir Raleigh granted Thomas Smith and others the liberty to trade to “his new country.” Sir Walter Raleigh was attained, or lost all his civil rights, in 1603. King James I of England thereafter granted to Sir Thomas Gates and others of “The Virginia Company of London “ the right to establish a new settlement in the Chesapeake Bay region of North America (Tucker 1969). The charter to the Virginia Company of London was reaffirmed by King James I by a second “Ancient Charter” dated 23 May 1609 (Hening 1823:88). Three ships--the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery --under the command of Captains Newport, Gosnold, and John Smith sailed from England to the Chesapeake shortly after Christmas in 1606 (Kelso 1995:6), reaching Cape Henry in the lower Chesapeake Bay on 16 April 1607 (Weinert and Arthur 1989:1-3). The first settlement in Virginia in 1607 was made on Jamestown Island 60 miles up the James River (Kelso 1995:7). Until 1692, all properties obtained by settlers in Virginia Colony were issued by the governor of the colony as Virginia Land Grants. In 1618, a provision of one hundred acres of land was made for “Ancient Planters,” or those adventurers and planters who arrived as permanent settlers prior to 1618. Thereafter, Virginia Land Grants were issued 126 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 22 by the “headright” system by which "any person who paid his own way to Virginia should be assigned 50 acres of land...and if he transported at his owne cost one or more persons he should...be awarded fifty acres of land" for each person (Nugent 1983:XXIV). During the mid-17th-century Civil Wars in England, King Charles I was beheaded in January 1648/9. His son, Prince Charles II, was crowned King of England by seven loyal supporters, including two Culpeper brothers, during his exile near France in September 1649. For their support, King Charles granted his loyal followers “The Northern Neck,” or all that land lying between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers in Virginia colony; the grant was to expire in 1690. King Charles II was restored to the English throne in 1660. Early white traders and trappers were in the Shenandoah Valley by the 1670s, over a half century prior to serious early settlement along the Shenandoah River and its branches. The earliest European to have seen the Shenandoah Valley was German explorer John Lederer, who sought a passage across the mountains based on his belief that “the Indian Ocean does stretch an Arm or Bay from California into the Continent as far as the Apalataean Mountains” (Lederer 1672:23). Lederer entered the Valley in the vicinity of Strasburg or Front Royal in late August of 1670 during his third expedition into the interior of Virginia. Lederer referred to the Valley as the “Savanae,” which he described as a vast open plain abounding in large herds of red deer (Lederer 1672:25). Seeing no possibility of ascending and passing through what we now know as the Allegheny front, Lederer journeyed no farther to the west and turned back “without making any further Difcovery” (Lederer 1672:23). In 1677, Thomas, Second Lord Culpeper, became successor to Governor Berkeley in Virginia, and by 1681 he had purchased the Northern Neck interests of all the other proprietors. In petitioning for a renewal of the Northern Neck grant, which was to expire in 1690 according to the original grant by Charles I, the grant was reaffirmed in perpetuity to Lord Culpeper in 1688. Lord Culpeper died in 1689, and four-fifths of the Northern Neck interest passed to his daughter, Katherine Culpeper, who married Thomas, the fifth Lord Fairfax, in 1690. The Northern Neck thus became vested, and was affirmed to Thomas, Lord Fairfax, in 1692 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:5-9). Thomas, the fifth Lord Fairfax, leased his Northern Neck interests by appointing agents in the colony to manage and lease the properties and to collect the yearly quit rents. However, the western extent and boundaries of the Northern Neck were not established until two separate surveys of the Northern Neck were carried out, beginning in 1736 and finalized in 1745-1747 (Kilmer and Sweig 1975:13-14). Northern Neck Land Grants escheated to the Commonwealth of Virginia during the War of the Revolution as the heirs of the Northern Neck were aliens residing in England. Persons in possession of Northern Neck lands at the time the Fairfax lands escheated were granted certificates following a “Northern Neck Survey” of their property, paying a small fee for a certificate, or deed in fee simple, to the coffers of the Virginia Commonwealth. 127 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 23 By 1705, the governing council of Virginia had offered incentives to explorers willing to cross the Blue Ridge mountains. A monopoly on trade was offered to individuals or companies who would “make discovery of any town or nation of Indians, situating or inhabiting to the westward of, or between, the Appalatian [sic] Mountains” (Wayland 1980:48). The explorer Louis Michelle and his company may have ventured into the vicinity of Mount Jackson in 1707. Having come out of Powell's Fort in the Massanutten Mountains, they followed the North Fork of the Shenandoah River as far as present-day Woodstock or Edinburg (Wayland 1980). Settlement had only begun to be promoted in the early 1730s by large land speculators such as the Van Meter brothers, William Russell from New Jersey/Delaware, and Jost Hite from Pennsylvania (McKay 1951:1632; Magin 1991:8). At the time of the initial European settlement of the area, the Valley is described as having been: …one vast prairie and...afforded the finest possible pasturage for wild animals. The country abounded in the larger kinds of game. The buffalo, elk, deer, bear, panther, wild cat, wolf, fox, beaver, otter, and all other kinds of animals, wild fowl, &c., common to forest countries, were abundantly plenty. (Kercheval 1986:69) By an Act of the Virginia Legislature passed in November 1738 for strengthening the frontier of Virginia and inducing settlers to settle on the northwest side of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the county and parish of Frederick was created from the parent county of Orange (Hening 1819a:78-80). The Town of Frederick, later to be renamed Winchester, is located within a Northern Neck Land Grant of 1,116 acres granted to James Wood in 1735. The Northern Neck land grant to James Wood, discussed in the following text, was first surveyed in 1752 and recorded in 1753 (Northern Neck Land Grants H:307-308). The establishment of Frederick Town (Winchester) was approved in 1744 by the Frederick County Justices and was to be laid out on 30 lots of land owned by James Wood. One frame or squared (hewn) log dwelling at least 20 x 16 feet was required to be built on the individual lots within two years of sale by the owners or occupants of each lot (Quarles 1986:1). James Wood (1707-1759), born in England in 1707, was appointed surveyor of Orange County, Virginia on 1 January 1734/35 (Orange County, Virginia Court Minutes 1:2). In about 1735, he married Mary Rutherford. In 1742, James Wood was commissioned by the Orange County Court as “Colonel of Horse and Foot,” and in 1743 he was appointed the first clerk of Frederick County. The first court in Frederick County “met at his surveying office beside his home” on 11 November 1743. John Wood's residence, named “Glen Burnie,” was located near the springhead of Town Run on Amherst Street (Frederick County Board of Supervisors 1989: Chapter 45; Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society 1980:6). In 1749, the first year that a list of tithables are available for Frederick County, there were 1,586 white males above the age of 16 within the county. Dunmore County (current Shenandoah County) to the south and Berkeley and Hampshire Counties to the north and 128 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 24 west, now in West Virginia, were also a part of Frederick County at this time, and settlers in these counties are included in the 1749 tithe list. In 1755, there were 2,173 white males and 340 slaves in Frederick County. By 1783, when the first available tithable list specifically for Shenandoah County was published, the county had a total number of 7,908 white persons and 347 slaves (Greene 1932:150, 153). Conflicts between northern Iroquoian tribes and tribes within the Valley prior to European settlement played a role in the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744. The first treaty affecting settlement is the region was the Treaty of Albany in 1722, opening the Loudoun Valley to German immigrants from Pennsylvania. When the Treaty of Lancaster took place, the tribes representing the Iroquois Confederation were acknowledged as those having rights over the Valley. The subsequent treaty led to an increased colonization of the Valley by white settlers coming from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and parts of Virginia. By an Act of the Virginia Assembly passed in February 1752 (Chap. XXVI), an addition to Frederick Town, now to be called Winchester, consisting of 11 acres (18 lots) of the land of James Wood and 492 acres (116 lots), including “Common's” or “outlots,” located on the lands of Lord Fairfax, were surveyed and laid out adjoining the southeast, north, and northeast sides of the original town of Frederick. Lord Fairfax (6th Baron of Cameron) was appointed by the Virginia Assembly at this time to lay out the town of Winchester in such a manner as he “shall think fit” (Hening 1819b:268). Thomas, the 6th Lord Fairfax, 1693-1781, was the only Fairfax proprietor to reside in the colony of Virginia. Conditions set forth by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, were that the dwelling houses built on the lots “shall be no less than sixteen by twenty feet with a chimney of brick or stone.” The five-acre Commons Lots, which were separate lots to the north of Winchester, and not contiguous to the town lots, were required by Lord Fairfax to “remain a part of the parcel forever” (Northern Neck land Grants H:307-397). In order to increase the trade of the fledgling town of Winchester, the Virginia Assembly decided that: ...two fairs shall and may be annually kept, and held, in the said town of Winchester, on the third Wednesday in June, and the third Wednesday in October, in every year, and to continue for the space of two days, for the sale and vending all manner of cattle, victuals, provisions, goods, wares, and merchandizes, whatsoever; on which fair days, and two days next before, and two days next after, the said fairs, all persons coming to, being at, or going from the same, together with their cattle, goods, wares and merchandizes, shall be exempted, and privileged, from all arrests, attachments, and executions, whatsoever, except for capital offences, breaches of the peace, or for any controversies, suits or quarrels, that may arise and happen during the said time....(Hening 1819b:268-269) Winchester, in the fall of 1753, had “about sixty houses rather badly built” (Abbott 1983:263). A recruited soldier of Braddock's army in the early stages of the French and 129 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 25 Indian War, noted in 1755 that Winchester “is very Smalle...[consisting] of four cross streets and for its defence it have four pieces of cannon of twelve poundus [sic] Placed in the Center of the town” (Abbott 1983:263). The last remaining Indians living in the Shenandoah Valley are said to have disappeared around the year 1754, when an oral tradition has it that emissaries from western tribes came to invite the local Indians westward across the Alleghenies to escape the increasing European presence in the Valley (Kercheval 1986). The Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia of 1755 shows several roads in the vicinity of the project area, with two generally following the modern-day alignments of Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Millwood Pike (Route 50); no other cultural features are recorded within the immediate vicinity of the project area, though a grist mill is recorded to the north of the project area along modern-day Route 7 (Exhibit 4). This map also shows several other mills, ordinaries, ferries, and dwellings associated with European names farther afield from the project area; Frederick Town or Winchester is shown to the west. In March of 1756, the Virginia General Assembly found that it was “... necessary that a fort should be Immediately erected in the town of Winchester, in the county of Frederick, for the protection of the adjacent inhabitants from the barbarities daily committed by the French and their Indian allies...” (Hening 1820:33). Fort Loudoun was subsequently built on the north fringes of the original town of Winchester, on a five-acre outlot (Commons Lot. No 49), conveyed to Isaac Parkins (Perkins) in 1753 (Ansel 1984:122; Northern Neck Land Grants H:349). In May of 1756, Colonel George Washington, commander of the First Virginia Regiment, began directing the erection of Fort Loudoun which, in addition to providing defensive works, was to serve as his headquarters. Major Joseph Stevens of the Caroline County militia oversaw the construction of Fort Loudoun until 1 August 1756; however, the General Assembly lost interest in the fort, and it was never completed. A garrison was maintained at Fort Loudoun, and the fort served as a staging area for troops as well as being a depot for military supplies. Fort Loudoun never came under Indian attack during the French and Indian Wars. At the end of December of 1758, George Washington resigned his command and married Martha Dandridge Custis on 6 January 1759 (Tinling 1977:607; Reese 1980:158, 159n2). Very few improvements were made to Fort Loudoun after 1758 and by 1775, “the outer walls of the old fort had begun to crumble.” However, prisoners captured during the Revolutionary War were housed in the barracks at Fort Loudoun during this time, and the fort was visible as late as 1838 (Ansel 1984:125-126). Portions of the fort are still visible today, although most of it has been destroyed. By the middle of the 18th century, tobacco was the major crop of the region and colony. At this time small industries like tanneries, lumber mills, and iron furnaces began to develop within the Valley, and trade by way of wagon and river barges began to be 130 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_05_1755_FryJefferson.mxd Exhibit 4: 1755 Fry-Jefferson Map of Virginia Source: Fry, Joshua, Approximately, Peter Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferys. A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole province ofMaryland with part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina. [London, Thos. Jefferys,1755] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/74693166/. Vicinity of Project Area ®Original Scale: 0 5 Miles 1 " = 5 miles Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 26 131 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 27 established to the major shipping ports to the north and east. The barge traffic utilized a series of dams to ease them down the river. Other marketable produce from the Valley included cattle, poultry, flour, cornmeal, and cured pork. Iron furnaces that supplied a major source of pig iron for iron forges in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia began operating in the region in the 1740s and lasted until the early 1900s (Magin 1991:8). In the midst of the French and Indian Wars, an Act of the Virginia Assembly in September of 1758 authorized enlarging the town of Winchester, adding 106 acres (158 lots) of contiguous land owned by James Wood (Hening 1820:234-235). The following year, in 1759, 139 acres (203 lots) were added by Thomas, Lord Fairfax, to the town of Winchester (Quarles 1986:8). One of the prisoners captured during the Revolutionary War and housed at the barracks of Fort Loudoun in 1777 was Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold, of the Hesse-Cassel Regiment, who was captured at the Battle of Trenton on 26 December 1776. A map of the town of Winchester sketched by Lieutenant Andreas Weiderhold in 1777 shows the location of Fort Loudoun to the north of Winchester. An English translation of Lieutenant Weiderhold's “Plan” in the lower right-hand corner of the map reads: of the small town of Winchester, located in Friedrichs County in Virginia, which was founded only about 25 years ago, at a time when there was still war with the Indians. From that time can still be seen he remains of the fort where General Washington, then Colonel, commanded and himself defended. A. English Church. B. Court House. C. Market House. D. German Lutheran Church. E. German Reform Church. F. Public Jail. By 1760, the town of Winchester is reported as having 800 residents compared to Williamsburg's, the capital of Virginia during that period, 1,000 residents (Morton 1925:85). Soon after the end of the French and Indian Wars, minds turned to thoughts of the Revolution, and the town of Winchester saw increased activity associated with movement of supplies and militia, first to Boston and then to the coast of Virginia (Morton 1925: 87- 89). During the Revolutionary War, no military battles occurred within the Shenandoah Valley. A committee of resolutions to prepare for military assistance and a committee of defense met in Woodstock on 16 June 1774, with the Reverend Peter Muhlenburg presiding as the moderator and chairman. As a result, the "German Regiment," organized under Peter Muhlenburg, later Major-General Muhlenburg, was organized in 1776 at Woodstock. The German Regiment fought at the Battle of Brandywine Creek in Pennsylvania, northwest of Wilmington, Delaware, in 1776, and in the “successful defense of Charleston” then known as Charles Town, South Carolina in 1780 (Wayland 1976:145, 149; Smith 1976:949, 1083). During the Revolution, Winchester was chosen to be the site of a prisoner-of-war camp. The town's distance from the Virginia coast and its wilderness surroundings contributed 132 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 28 to its suitability as a station for British prisoners (Morton 1925:88). While numerous prisoners were housed and worked on local farms, others were housed in a sparse camp located four miles west of the town (Morton 1925:89). Winchester prospered in the post-Revolution period; taverns and hotels were established, and roads were built, some of which were paved. Fairs where goods were traded, debts were paid, and games of chance were prevalent were held periodically in the town of Winchester (Morton 1925:111-112). An 1833 description of the town cites a total of “4000 residents, 30 to 40 retail stores, six or seven large warehouses…many lawyers and doctors, several taverns confectionaries, and merchant tailors…and every kind of business found in a seaport occurs here” (Morton 1925:112). In addition to paved roads, railroads made their appearance in the Winchester area during the early 1800s as well. The Baltimore and Ohio (historically Winchester and Potomac) Railroad was in place by the middle of the 19th century, originally terminating at Harpers Ferry in 1834, and later extending to the town of Winchester in 1836 (Morton 1925: 128-129). The Valley Turnpike Company was incorporated on March 3, 1834, and authorized to build a pike from Winchester to Harrisonburg. This pike ran approximately the same course as the present Route 11. The charter instructed the company to make use of as much of the old stage road, which was believed to follow an older Indian trail, as they deemed fit. A sum of $250,000 was authorized for the construction of the pike, and shares in the company were sold for $25 each. When three-fifths of the $250,000 had been subscribed by private citizens, the remainder would be allotted on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the State Board of Public Works. On March 24, 1838, the Virginia General Assembly authorized the Valley Pike to be paved with macadam from Winchester, the Frederick County seat, south to the town of Staunton in Augusta County, Virginia (Commonwealth of Virginia 1838:129-130); Macadam, introduced by John Macadam in England in about 1815, consists of small stones and pebbles held together by dust and water (Rouse:1973:218). The Turnpike was completed as far as Staunton by 1840 (Magin 1991). Martin's Gazetteer of Virginia from 1836 describes the land in the Shenandoah Valley as: …well adapted to the cultivation of wheat, rye, Indian corn and oats and is divided into small farms. Its staple articles are flour, bacon, beef, butter and iron [with] 34 manufacturing flour mills, 2 furnaces and 4 forges, for the manufacturing of pig metal into bar iron.... (Martin 1836:445) In 1836, Clarke County was created from a portion of Frederick County and Warren County was derived from portions of Frederick and Shenandoah Counties (Hiden 1957:61, 62). Frederick County attained its current configuration at this point. Following the occupation of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, on 26 December 1860, the Commonwealth of Virginia joined other southern states in seceding from the United States on 17 April 1861 (Boatner 1991:729). The ordinance of 133 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 29 secession was ratified by the voters of Shenandoah County in a referendum held on May 23 of that year. The vote was 2,500 to 5 in favor of secession; however, it is believed that many of those opposed to secession may have refrained from voting for fear of reprisal. Winchester, Stephenson, and their vicinities were focal points of the Civil War in Virginia. Winchester's position along the Valley Turnpike (Route 11) at the northern end of the Shenandoah Valley, an area known as the “eastern breadbasket of the Confederacy,” made the already prosperous city a strategic location important to both the Confederate and Union Armies (Beck and Grunder 1988:v). The railroads were used to move large amounts of wheat produced within the Valley during the Civil War and the productivity of the region made it a focal point for numerous campaigns to dominate and secure supply lines. Additionally, Saltpeter Cave, north of Mount Jackson, was mined for saltpeter for the manufacture of gunpowder during the war (Wayland 1980). A dwelling is recorded within the project area on the 1863 Macomb Map of the upper Potomac River region (Exhibit 5). An unnamed road following the general alignment of Senseny Road is shown to the south; other unnamed roads and dwellings are recorded in the greater vicinity. Winchester served as a battleground, hospital, and staging area throughout the Civil War, with both Union and Confederate troops occupying the City of Winchester and the surrounding vicinity during the war. Several battles and conflicts occurred within the vicinity of Winchester during the Civil War, including but not limited to The First and Second Battles of Kernstown (respectively fought March 23, 1862 and July 24, 1864), the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester (respectively fought May 25, 1862, June 13-15, 1863, and September 19, 1864), the Battle of Rutherford’s Farm (fought July 20, 1864, and the Battle of Belle Grove/Cedar Creek (fought October 19, 1864. The Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area is not located within the limits of any Civil War-era battle; however, the easternmost portion of the Third Battle of Winchester battlefield is located approximately 3,000 feet to the north of the project area. A brief synopsis of the Third Battle of Winchester is presented below. General Philip Sheridan’s arrival in the Shenandoah Valley following the Union loss at Kernstown in July brought a large number of Union troops to the region with the mission to end Confederate General Jubal Early’s control of the Valley. However, Sheridan began his campaign cautiously, aware that a major military setback could spell disaster for Lincoln, and therefore the war effort, in the upcoming presidential election (Noyalas 2020). Through August and early September, the armies clashed in several smaller battles, but the Union force did not commit to a concerted effort to take the fight to Early, who once again occupied Winchester while Sheridan headquartered in Berryville, about nine miles to the east. On 16 September Sheridan received a critical piece of intelligence provided by two local Union sympathizers; an enslaved man from Millwood named Thomas Laws and a young 134 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_06_1863_Macomb_Shenandoah.mxd Exhibit 5: 1863 Macomb Map, Upper Potomac Region, MD & VA Source: United States Army. Corps Of Engineers, J. N Macomb, and D. H Strother.Upper Potomac from McCoy's Ferry to Conrad's Ferry and adjacent portions of Marylandand Virginia. Washn., D.C., Lith. by J. F. Gedney, 1863. Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99447368/. Vicinity of Project Area ®0 3,000 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 3,000 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 30 135 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 31 Quaker woman from Winchester, Rebecca Wright. Laws carried a message from Wright to Sheridan that an infantry division and a large amount of artillery had recently left Early’s army bound south for Richmond and Petersburg. Knowing that Early’s forces were reduced, Sheridan began to plan an attack on Winchester (Noyalas 2020; National Park Service 2020). On 17 September, Sheridan’s scouts informed him that Early had split his diminished force further, sending three divisions under Generals John Gordon, Robert Rodes, and John Breckinridge north to Martinsuburg, West Virginia to attack the B&O Railroad, leaving only General Stephen Ramseur’s division for the defense of Winchester. Sheridan readied an attack, hoping to push west and crush Ramseur’s division and take Winchester before help could arrive from the scattered Confederate force. However, Early realized his vulnerability and called back the troops he had sent north (Beck 2015). The morning of the 19th, Sheridan’s main force pushed west, crossing Opequon Creek and along the Berryville Pike through the long ravine known as Berryville Canyon. Meanwhile, two cavalry divisions under Generals Wesley Merritt and William Averell crossed the Opequon farther north, moving toward Stephenson’s Depot. Early managed to recombine his forces and the Union met a Confederate line of battle that stretched across the mouth of the Berryville Canyon from the Pike north to Red Bud Run (American Battlefield Trust 2020). Breckinridge’s division remained in the vicinity of Stephenson’s Depot but would be called to Winchester to reinforce the Confederate line before the Union cavalry arrived there that afternoon. Both sides were resolute, and after an initial series of pushes the lines became static, although the intensity of the firing did not decrease. Sheridan’s superior numbers allowed him to send two divisions commanded by Colonels Joseph Thoburn and Isaac Duval down Red Bud Run to attack the Confederate left flank. The attack was a success, although the rebel forces contracted their lines, moving westward and reinforcing their left flank to protect from further attack from the north rather than breaking. Fort Collier, a small redoubt located just east of the Valley Pike, provided cover for the west end of the new north-facing flank (Beck 2015). As evening approached, Sheridan sent orders to Averell and Merritt’s cavalry divisions at Stephenson’s Depot to attack the Confederate left flank. The two divisions formed a massive line of battle and advanced south along the Valley Pike, culminating in a charge that overran Fort Collier and the Confederate left flank. Sheridan called for the rest of his troops to attack and the rebel line disintegrated, with troops fleeing south through the streets of Winchester echoing the flight of the Union troops north through the city following the battle Kernstown two months prior. Early managed to prevent the Federals from pursuing his routed troops all the way to Strasburg by fighting delaying actions in Winchester (Beck 2015). The Battle of Opequon/Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the Shenandoah Valley. Union losses approximated 700 killed, 4,000 wounded, and 350 136 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 32 missing or captured. The Confederates lost 225 killed, 1,500 wounded, and just under 2,000 missing or captured (Beck 2015). Although the Union lost more men, their greater numbers and ability to be reinforced made the losses easier to absorb. Early could expect little reinforcement or support from Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, who were committed to the south around Richmond and Petersburg. Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign would end a month later with the defeat of Early at Cedar Creek. A map showing troop positions during the Third Battle of Winchester shows the 1st and 2nd Divisions of Union Brigadier General George Crook’s Army of West Virginia to the north of the project area along Berryville Pike (modern-day Route 7) (Exhibit 6). A dwelling associated with S. Robinson is shown within the northern project area and a dwelling associated with Lafayette Henry is shown in the vicinity; a ford is shown at the intersection of Senseny Road and Opequon Creek to the east. The end of the Civil War brought freedom to enslaved African Americans, leaving plantations without sufficient labor to plant and harvest crops. Consequently, the economy of Clarke County went into a decline. A common practice during this period was for former slave owners to offer a tract of land for sale which could be purchased only by freed enslaved laborers. One of the most tragic natural disasters to occur in the Shenandoah Valley was the great flood of 1870. On Wednesday, September 28, the rain began. It continued throughout the following day and by Friday the destruction had reached its maximum. As many as sixty people were killed throughout the Valley, and there were massive losses of houses, barns, livestock, and property (Couper 1952). Frederick and Clarke Counties, including the vicinity of the project area, remained mostly rural throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the cultivation of apples, and the associated production of vinegar, was an economic boom in the greater Valley, along with an increase in flour milling, dairying, and the quarrying of limestone and manufacture of lime (Magin 1991; Kalbian 1999:143-144). Farther south, the Shenandoah National Park opened in the 1930s. Expansion and development have greatly accelerated in cardinal directions around Winchester during the middle and late 20th century. A dwelling is recorded within the south-central portion of the project area on the 1938 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Winchester, VA-WV quadrangle (Exhibit 7). Development in the project area vicinity is generally sparse, with few dwellings recorded along the various roadways in the vicinity. PREVIOUS ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH The following inventory of previously recorded cultural resources within and near the project area was established by using the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ 137 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_06_1873_Battle_of_Winchester.mxd Exhibit 6: 1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Virginia (Opequon) - September 19, 1864 Gillespie, G. L. Battle field of Winchester, Va. Opequon. [S.l, 1873] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/99446372/. Vicinity of Project Area ®0 1,000 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 1,000 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 33 138 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.01_10_1938_Quad_Winchester.mxd Exhibit 7: 1938 USGS Quadrangle, Winchester, VA-WV Latitude: 39°9'54"N Longitude: 78°5'13"W Project Area ®0 2,000 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 2,000 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 34 139 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 35 (DHRs) online Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS), as well as examining cultural resource files and reports at the Thunderbird Archeology office in Gainesville, Virginia. According to V-CRIS, two cultural resources investigations intersect the project area. • The entire project area was previously included within the limits of a much larger cultural resources inventory study conducted in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University in association with a Survey and Planning Grant awarded by the DHR to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia (Hofstra et al. 1992). A review of the report indicated that an unknown portion of the project area was subjected to subsurface testing, as mapping detailing subsurface testing occurred was not presented; rather, the report only defined areas where “surface conditions allowed evaluation of soil contents and/or [were] shovel test pitted,” while others were identified as being subjected to “careful visual reconnaissance only.” As such, the study does not comply with current DHR standards. • A small portion of the project area was previously subjected to Phase I cultural resources investigation in 1997 by Gray & Pape, Inc. in association with the proposed Route 37 project in Frederick County, Virginia (Botwick et al. 1997). While this study appears to generally comply with current DHR standards, due to its age the area was subjected to Phase I testing during the current study. Five archaeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281) and one architectural resource (034-1155) have been previously recorded within the project area. None of the previously recorded archeological sites have been evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by DHR staff; however, the one architectural resource has been determined not eligible for listing. • Site 44FK0277 is located in the southern project area and represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was identified through surface collection and shovel testing. • Site 44FK0278 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century. The site was identified through surface collection only. • Site 44FK0279 is located in the northwestern project area and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century, with a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing. • Site 44FK0280 is located in the northeastern project area and is recorded as a possible trash dump dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only. 140 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 36 • A portion of Site 44FK0281 extends into the northeastern project area and is recorded as a low-density (n=3) precontact site dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only. • DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) encompasses the majority of the project area and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920. In addition to the resources discussed above, 31 archeological sites and 13 architectural resources have been previously recorded within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1: Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area DHR SITE NUMBER SITE TYPE TEMPORAL AFFILIATION NRHP ELIGIBILITY 44FK0038 Temporary Camp; Trash Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0039 Camp; Trash Scatter Late Archaic, Early Woodland; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0040 Temporary Camp; Trash Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0274 Possible Confederate Fortification 19th Century: 3rd quarter Not Evaluated 44FK0275 Earthwork Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0276 Mill, Raceway 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0277 Lithic Scatter; Trash Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; 20th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0278 Trash Scatter 20th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0279 Lithic Scatter; Farmstead Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0280 Lithic Scatter; Possible Trash Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0281 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0282 Artifact Scatter 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0283 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0284 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0285 Camp; Artifact Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0286 Artifact Scatter 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0287 Artifact Scatter 19th Century, 20th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated 44FK0288 Mill, Raceway 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0289 Camp; Artifact Scatter Early Archaic; Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0291 Lithic Scatter; Historic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown; Historic Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0292 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated 141 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 37 Table 1 (continued) DHR SITE NUMBER SITE TYPE TEMPORAL AFFILIATION NRHP ELIGIBILITY 44FK0293 Single Dwelling 20th Century: 2nd quarter Not Evaluated 44FK0294 Farmstead 19th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated 44FK0297 Boundary Line 18th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0299 Foundations 20th Century: 2nd Half Not Evaluated 44FK0300 Farmstead 19th Century, 20th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0301 Lithic Scatter; Camp Prehistoric/Unknown; 19th Century: 3rd Quarter Not Evaluated 44FK0308 Mill 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0311 Mill 19th Century: 1st half Not Evaluated 44FK0312 Depression Historic/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0313 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric/Unknown Not Evaluated 44FK0318 Single Dwelling 19th Century, 20th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0325 Trash Scatter 20th Century: 3rd Quarter Not Evaluated 44FK0327 Ford 18th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0329 Ford 18th Century, 19th Century Not Evaluated 44FK0378 Property Corner 18th Century: 2nd Half Not Evaluated *Sites in bold are within the project area Table 2: Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the Project Area DHR RESOURCE NUMBER RESOURCE NAME TYPE TEMPORAL AFFILIATION NRHP ELIGIBILITY 021-0041 Helmley Single Dwelling Ca 1732 Eligible 021-0467 Opequon View Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Evaluated 034-0108 Valley Mill Farm Single Dwelling Ca 1820 NRHP Listing, VLR Listing 034-0396 House, Route 659 Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Eligible 034-0397 Adams Farm Single Dwelling Ca 1880 Not Eligible 034-0398 Haggerty House Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible 034-0423 Brathwaite House Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible 034-0456 Third Battle of Winchester Battle Site 1864 Eligible 034-1150 Carter-Lee-Damron House Single Dwelling Ca 1890 Not Eligible 034-1152 Outbuildings, Route 657 Barn Ca 1920 Not Eligible 034-1155 House, off Route 657 Single Dwelling Ca 1920 Not Eligible 034-1562 Carper House Single Dwelling Post 1800 Not Evaluated 034-1563 Tick House Single Dwelling Ca 1910 Not Evaluated 034-5316 House, 233 Eddys Lane Single Dwelling Ca 1946 Not Evaluated *Resources in bold within the project area None of the previously recorded archeological sites within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. Two 142 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 38 of the architectural resources within an approximate one-mile radius have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff (021-0041 and 034-0456) and one is listed in the NRHP and the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) (034-0108). DHR Resource 021-0041 (Helmley) is located about 3,300 feet to the southeast and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1732. DHR Resource 034-0456 (Third Battle of Winchester) is a large Civil War-era battlefield that is located to the north and west of the study area; the nearest portion of the battlefield to the study area is about 3,000 feet to the north. DHR Resource 034-0108 (Valley Mill Farm) is located about 2,500 feet to the north and is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1820. RESEARCH DESIGN Research Objectives The purpose of the survey was to locate and record any cultural resources within the impact area and to provide a preliminary assessment of their potential significance in terms of eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, individually and as part of a district if possible. As codified in 36 CFR 60.4, the four criteria applied in the evaluation of significant cultural resources to the NRHP are: A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Association with the lives of significant persons in or past; or C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master; or D. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. Seven types of properties are ordinarily not considered for listing; however, they may qualify if part of a district or if they meet one of the following criteria considerations: a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or c. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; or e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or 143 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 39 f. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or, g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. In addition to demonstrating significance under National Register criteria, a property must also retain integrity in order to be listed in the NRHP, i.e., a property must possess the ability to convey its significance. According to the National Park Service (Andrus 1997:44- 45), there are seven aspects or qualities that define integrity: • Location, i.e., “the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;” • Design, i.e., “the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;” • Setting, i.e., “the physical environment of a historic property;” • Materials, i.e., “the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;” • Workmanship, i.e., “the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;” • Feeling, i.e., “a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time;” • Association, i.e., “the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.” Any architectural resources identified as result of this investigation were subjected to a Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey only, unless otherwise indicated; this includes preliminary assessments of the resource’s eligibility for the NRHP and of the potential direct and indirect adverse effects on the resource that may be caused by the proposed undertaking. Typically, architectural resources recorded at the Phase I reconnaissance-level are evaluated using Criterion C only; however, evaluation under Criteria A, B, and/or D was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions, characteristics, and/or contexts. Archeological sites are commonly evaluated under Criterion D and must show enough integrity to be able to yield significant information and answer research hypotheses in history and/or prehistory. The evaluation of archeological sites under Criteria A, B, and C was considered if necessitated by specific site conditions, characteristics, and/or contexts. Cemeteries and individual graves, if identified, were recorded as either archeological sites or architectural resources with the DHR, depending on specific field conditions. Burial places evaluated under Criterion D for the importance of the information they may impart do not need to meet the requirements for the Criteria Considerations but should have the potential to yield significant information through archeological excavation and analysis of the human remains (Potter and Boland 1992). 144 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 40 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Methodology Archeological Fieldwork Methodology The conventional Phase I field methodology included both the use of surface reconnaissance and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. The surface reconnaissance consisted of walking over the area and examining all exposed areas for the presence of artifacts. Exposed areas included cut banks, tree falls, machinery cuts, soils exposed by erosion, etc. The surface reconnaissance was also used to examine the topography of specific areas in order to determine the probability that they contain archeological sites. All high and moderate probability areas, i.e., areas that were well drained and possessed low relief, were tested at 50-foot intervals. High probability areas also included historic structure areas identified through surface reconnaissance or through archival review of historic maps. In accordance with DHR guidelines for conducting a Phase I identification level survey, an approximately 10% sample of areas considered low probability for the presence of archeological sites were also subjected to shovel testing at 50-foot intervals (DHR 2017:45); in general, the low probability areas were those that were significantly sloped, poorly drained, or that have been disturbed. Additional shovel tests were excavated at 25-foot intervals in a cruciform pattern around positive shovel tests, as necessary, to delineate artifact concentrations and to define archeological site boundaries. Shovel test pits measured at least 15 inches in diameter and were excavated in natural or cultural soil horizons, depending upon the specific field conditions. Excavations ceased when gleyed soils, gravel, water, or well-developed B horizons too old for human occupation were reached. All excavated soils were screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens and were classified and recorded according to standard pedological designations (A, Ap, B, C, etc.); excepting the terms Fill and Fill horizon, which are used to describe culturally modified, disturbed, or transported sediments and soils. The use of these terms is consistent with use in standard geomorphological studies and recordation of geo-boring profiles in environmental studies. Soil colors were described using Munsell Soil Color Chart designations and soil textures were described using the United States Department of Agriculture soil texture triangle. Artifacts recovered during Phase I shovel testing were bagged and labeled by unit number and soil horizon. No subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek within the project area. However, the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian reconnaissance. The location of each shovel test pit was mapped; unless otherwise noted, the graphic representation of the test pits and other features depicted in this report are not to scale and their field location is approximate. 145 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 41 Architectural Reconnaissance Methodology Phase I reconnaissance-level architectural survey included recordation of resources that are 45 years of age or older, or are of exceptional merit regardless of age, to provide a preliminary assessment of their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. If a resource was previously recorded within the last five years, the survey form was not updated, per DHR guidelines; the survey form was updated if significant changes to the resource were observed. Phase I recordation included a site plan identifying primary and secondary resources and the location and limits of the property; a full description of the resource, including the historic and/or current name of the property, a classification of the resource type, exterior description of the primary resource, date or period of construction, alterations and dates or periods of alterations, physical condition; possible threats to the resource, etc.; photographs of the resource, including exterior photographs of the front, rear, and side elevations and oblique views of the resource, close-up photographs of architectural and/or construction details, etc.; and a preliminary summary statement of significance for the resource, including recommendations for additional work at the intensive level and recommendations concerning the potential NRHP eligibility of the resource, either individually or as part of a historic district. Laboratory Methodology All recovered artifacts were cleaned, inventoried, and curated. Historic artifacts were separated into four basic categories: glass, metal, ceramics, and miscellaneous. The ceramics were identified as to ware type, method of decoration, and separated into established types, following South (1977), Miller (1992) and Magid (1990). All glass was examined for color, method of manufacture, function, etc., and dated primarily on the basis of method of manufacture when the method could be determined (Hurst 1990). Metal and miscellaneous artifacts were generally described; the determination of a beginning date is sometimes possible, as in the case of nails. Any recovered prehistoric artifacts were classified by cultural historical and functional types and lithic material. In addition, the debitage was studied for the presence of striking platforms and cortex, wholeness, quantity of flaking scars, signs of thermal alteration, size, and presence or absence of use. Chunks are fragments of lithic debitage which, although they appear to be culturally modified, do not exhibit clear flake or core morphology. Recovered artifacts were entered into a Structured Query Language (SQL) Server database in order to record all aspects of an artifact description. For each artifact, up to 48 different attributes are measured and recorded in the database. Several pre-existing report templates are available, or users can create custom queries and reports for complex and unique analyses. The use of a relational database system to store artifact data permits a huge variety of options when storing and analyzing data. A complete inventory of all the artifacts recovered can be found in Appendix I of this report. 146 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 42 Research Expectations The following presents an assessment of the probability that archeological sites will occur within the project area based on topography, drainage, the presence of roads and historic map projection. The probability for locating precontact sites generally depends on the variables of topography, proximity to water, and internal drainage. Sites are more likely on well- drained landforms of low relief in proximity to water. The project area is considered to have a moderate to high probability of containing precontact cultural resources due to several precontact sites previously recorded in the vicinity, the presence of low-relief topography and previously recorded precontact artifacts within the project area, and due to the immediate proximity of Opequon Creek to the study area. The probability for the occurrence of historic period sites largely depends upon the historic map search, the history of settlement in the area, the topography, and the proximity of a particular property to historic roads. However, the absence of structures on historic maps does not eliminate the possibility of an archeological site being present within the property as it was common for tenant, slave, and African American properties to be excluded from these maps. The project area is considered to have a high probability of containing historic cultural resources due to dwellings recorded within the study area on examined 19th- and 20th-century maps and the presence of previously recorded historic period archeological sites and artifacts dating to the 19th and 20th centuries within the project area. RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS The project area consists of approximately ±91.7 acres located directly to the north of Senseny Road (Route 657) (Plate 1) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia (Exhibits 8- 10). The project area included rolling topography and is located on the eastern edge of a generally north-south-trending landform immediately above Opequon Creek; topographic elevations within the project area range between about 638 feet a.m.s.l. in the uplands to 518 feet a.m.s.l. in the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek. Drainage for the project area is to the east into Opequon Creek (Plate 2), which flows 26 miles to the north into the Potomac River. The vegetation of the project area consists of a mix of deciduous and evergreen forest, grassy pasture, and manicured lawns (Plates 3-5). Disturbances and limitations within the project area were moderate and included steep slopes in excess of 15%, drainage swales and cuts, low and wet areas, and disturbances associated with the active use of the property as a farmstead including constructed farm ponds, gravel farm roads, and livestock paddocks and pens (Plates 6-10). Additionally, no subsurface testing was conducted within the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek; the floodplain was subjected to pedestrian reconnaissance only (Plates 11and 12). 147 TICK HILL LNSENSENY GLEN DR SENSE N Y R DVALE CTCANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 8: Overview of Phase I Testing (South) Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 43 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 250 Original Scale: 1" = 250' Project Area Boundary Previously Recorded Archeology Site 8 910 343 1 2 3 352 114 224 168 233 159 231 221 Gravel Driveway 93 64 Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Pond Low Slope Slope Slope Slope Disturbed Slope Slope Disturbed Drainage Swale Utility Slope Slope Slope Gravel Driveway Disturbed Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Gravel Dri v e w a y Drainage Swale Slope Slope Slope Opequon Creek Matchline Exhibit 9 SlopeDisturbed 44FK1089 (see Exhibit 18) 44FK1087 (see Exhibit 14) 44FK1086 (see Exhibit 12) 44FK1088 (see Exhibit 16) See Exhibit 24 44FK0277 Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site #Building -- Field Verified Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Drainage S w al e 148 NORFOLK CTCANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 9: Overview of Phase I Testing (Central) Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 44 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 250 Original Scale: 1" = 250' Matchline Exhibit 8 Matchline Exhibit 10 Project Area Boundary Previously Recorded Archeology Site Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site #Building -- Field Verified Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 1 2 3 352 7 6 5 4 Pond Pond Pond Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope SlopeLow Slope Disturbed Slope Gravel Dri v e w a y Slope Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Low Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Drainage SwaleSlope Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Slope Slope Slope SlopeSlope Drainage Swale Slope Slope Gravel RoadOpequon Creek 44FK1089 (see Exhibit 18) 44FK1090 (see Exhibit 20) 44FK0279 (see Exhibit 26) 44FK0278 Drainage Swale Low Slope Slope Low 149 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 10: Overview of Phase I Testing (North) Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 45 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 250 Original Scale: 1" = 250' Slope Slope Slope Slope Drainage Swale Drainage Swale 44FK0278 Low Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Drainage Swale Dense BrushSlope Matchline Exhibit 9 Opequon Creek 44FK1091 (see Exhibit 22) 44FK0281 (see Exhibit 22) 44FK0280 (see Exhibit 22) Project Area Boundary Previously Recorded Archeology Site Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 150 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 46 Ten buildings or structures (Buildings 1-10) are extant within the project area. Buildings 1-7 are associated with DHR Resource 034-1155, which was previously recorded encompassing the majority of the project area; the resource is discussed below under a separate heading. Buildings 8-10 are located in the southern project area and are all associated with the extant dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road (Building 8). Building 8 is a prefabricated house set on piers, with vinyl siding and a side-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles (Plates 13 and 14); according to Frederick County tax records, Building 8 was constructed in 1990 and is not historic. Buildings 9 and 10 are both sheds that are contemporaneous with the 1990 dwelling. Building 9 is a frame shed set on wooden piers clad with T1-11 siding, with a shed roof clad in ribbed metal sheeting (Plate 15). Building 10 consists of two parts, with both portions being frame sheds clad with a mixture of T1-11 siding and plywood sheeting; the southern portion of the building has a shed roof clad with corrugated metal sheeting, while the northern portion has a collapsed shed roof clad with asphalt shingles (see Plate 15). A total of 1,018 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals. The majority of STPs excavated exhibited a plowed stratum (Ap), overlying subsoil (B horizon), similar to the profile of STP 343 (Exhibit 11). Numerous STPs exhibited shallower or truncated Ap strata. STP 343 Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 3/4] dark yellowish brown silt loam B horizon: 0.7-1.0 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite A total of 473 artifacts were recovered as a result of the Phase I shovel testing program (see Appendix I), resulting in six new archeological sites (44FK1086, 44FK1087, 44FK1088, 44FK1089, 44FK1090, and 44FK1091) being recorded with the DHR; these sites are discussed below under separate headings. Additionally, the locations of five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277, 44FK0278, 44FK0279, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281) were revisited, and the limits of one (44FK0277) were expanded; these sites are also discussed below under separate headings. Nine STPs not included within the limits of the above sites also yielded artifacts (see Exhibits 8-10; see Appendix I). STP 64 was excavated in the southwestern portion of the project area and yielded one fragment of automatic bottle machine glass (1910-present). STP 93 was excavated in the southwestern project area and yielded an aluminum bottle cap. STP 114 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic clear bottle glass. STP 159 was excavated in the southcentral project area one fragment of slag. STP 168 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic light aqua glass. STP 221 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded the proximal ends of one quartz primary reduction flake and one rhyolite primary reduction flake. STP 231 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of amber automatic bottle 151 Ap: 10YR 3/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite STP 343 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 11: Representative Soil Profile from Project Area Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 47 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 152 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 48 machine glass (1907-present). STP 233 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of clear automatic bottle machine glass (1907-present) and the medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake. STP 242 was excavated in the southcentral project area and yielded one fragment of light aqua bottle glass (1850s- 1930s). Finally, STP 352 was excavated in the northcentral project area and yielded one fragment of clear bottle automatic bottle machine (1938-1980). The artifacts from these STPs were not found in the requisite quantities, were not temporally or functionally related, and/or were not found in the request proximity to other finds to meet the definition of an archeological site, based on DHR guidelines. As such, these artifacts are interpreted as isolated finds that likely represent casual discard associated with the 20th- century use of the properties. No further work is recommended for the artifacts in these STPs. Site 44FK1086 The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 19,217 feet²/0.44 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 12); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 12 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward- trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, with topographic elevations ranging between approximately 618 feet a.m.s.l. in the eastern portion of the site to about 634 feet a.m.s.l. in the west. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via an unnamed tributary to the north of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest within the northern portion of the site and grasses within the southern portion of the site, which is within a maintained utility corridor (Plate 16). A total of 24 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, nine of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 34 (Exhibit 13). STP 34 Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 25% saprolite A total of 224 artifacts, consisting predominantly of fragments of post-1907 automatic bottle machine glass (n=210), were recovered from plowed contexts within the site (Table 3; see Appendix I); 186 of the artifacts were recovered from a single provenience (STP 21) in the western end of the site. Other finds included four fragments of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass and one fragment unidentifiable glass, one ferrous metal bolt, two wire nails (post-1890), one piece each of unidentified brass and unidentified ferrous metal, three pieces of slag, and one slate pencil. 153 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 12: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1086 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 49 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 50 Original Scale: 1" = 50' Project Area Boundary 9 10 21 21b 33 33c 34b 34c 37 34d 34 Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site #Building -- Field Verified Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Disturbed/ Push Pile Disturbed Disturbed Slope Slope Slope SENSENY ROAD Utility Gravel Driveway Disturbed Slope Slope Slope Mobile Home 154 STP 34 Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 25% saprolite L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 13: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1086 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 50 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 155 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 51 Table 3: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1086 Artifact Description Ap Glass bottle, bottle/jar, jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 210 bottle/jar, tableware 4 unidentified glass 1 Metal ferrous metal bolt 1 nail, wire (post-1890) 2 unidentified brass 1 unidentified ferrous metal 1 Miscellaneous slag** 3 slate pencil 1 Total Site 44FK1086 224 * automatic bottle machine ** discarded Based on the types of artifacts and lack of functional diversity in the recovered assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1087 The site is located within the southwestern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 3,179 feet²/0.07 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 14); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 14 are approximate. The site is situated along an eastward- trending ridge of a larger north-south-trending landform, at an elevation of approximately 640 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via roadside drainage ditches to the south of the site. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 17). A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 52 (Exhibit 15). 156 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 14: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1087 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 52 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 30 Original Scale: 1" = 30' Project Area Boundary 52 52b Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test PitGravel Driveway157 Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite STP 52 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 15: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1087 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 53 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 158 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 54 STP 52 Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam B horizon: 0.5-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite A total of nine artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 4; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of five fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic glass, two pieces of slag, and the proximal end of a chert primary reduction flake dating to an unknown precontact period. Table 4: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1087 Artifact Description Ap Glass tableware 1 bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 5 Miscellaneous slag** 2 Precontact chert primary reduction flake 1 Total Site 44FK1087 9 * automatic bottle machine ** discarded Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the single precontact artifact is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1088 The site is located within the southeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 2,711 feet²/0.06 acres (see Exhibit 8; Exhibit 16); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 16 are approximate. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform, sitting at an elevation between 632 and 628 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous and evergreen forest (Plate 18). 159 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 16: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1088 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 55 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 20 Original Scale: 1" = 20' 171 171c Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 160 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 56 A total of six STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, two of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 171c (Exhibit 17). STP 171c Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam B horizon: 0.4-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite A total of seven artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 5; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of four fragments of post-1907 glass, one fragment of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, the proximal end of a chert biface thinning flake, and the medial portion of a chert biface thinning flake; the two pieces of chert debitage date to an unknown precontact period. Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1088 Artifact Description Ap Glass bottle/jar 1 bottle/jar, (ABM)* (post-1907) 4 Precontact chert biface thinning flake 2 Total Site 44FK1088 7 * automatic bottle machine Based on the lack of functional diversity in the historic artifacts recovered, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Similarly, the two precontact artifacts are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1089 The site is located within the central portion of the project area, surrounding the extant farmstead complex at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) (see Exhibit 9; Exhibit 18); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 18 are approximate. The site encompasses an area of approximately 112,771 feet²/2.59 acres, situated along a generally north-south-trending landform; topographic elevations within the site range 161 STP 171c Ap: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 17: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1088 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 57 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 162 CANYON RDL:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 18: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1089 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 58 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 100 Original Scale: 1" = 100' 7 5 4 3 2 1 301 301a 301b 302 314a 314b 314c 317a 317 314 317d 352 368 369 370 411 420 424 849 882 883 Utility Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed No Dig (Landowner Request) Disturbed Disturbed Gravel Driv e w a y Gravel DrivewayGravel Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Drainage Swale Slope Pond Drainage Swale Drainage SwaleGravel/Dirt Farm RoadLow Low Project Area Boundary Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site #Building -- Field Verified Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 163 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 59 between 634 and 598 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via drainages and unnamed tributaries located to the east. The vegetation within the site consists primarily of grassy lawn and pastureland (see Plates 4 and 5). Five standing buildings are located within the site and are associated with previously recorded DHR Resource 034-1155, a circa 1920 farmstead; the farmstead and its buildings are discussed below under a separate heading. Disturbances within the site were moderate and were associated with the active use of the site location as a working farm. A total of 73 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, of which 20 yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 314b (Exhibit 19). Several STPs within the site in the vicinity of extant buildings exhibited varying degrees of disturbance, including STPs containing a disturbed Fill overlying a B horizon, similar to STP 302, and others with one or more disturbed Fill layers overlying a buried Ap stratum (Apb) over a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 849. STP 314b Ap: 0-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 4/4] dark yellowish brown silt loam B horizon: 0.7 - 1.0 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty clay loam STP 302 Fill: 0-0.9 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown loam with 5% saprolite B horizon: 0.9 - 1.2 feet below surface - [10YR 6/4] light yellowish brown silty clay with 30% saprolite STP 849 Fill 1: 0-0.2 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam Fill 2: 0.2-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/6] dark yellowish brown silty clay loam with about 5% gravel Apb: 0.4-0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] brown silt loam B horizon: 0.8-1.1 feet below surface - [10YR 5/6] yellowish brown silty clay loam A total of 175 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 6; see Appendix I). As seen below, about 50% (n=86) of the recovered assemblage consists of fragments of post-1907 glass and other temporally non-diagnostic glass; about 13% (n=23) consists of kitchen- related post-1820 ceramics and sherds dating to the late 19th/early 20th century; about 16% (n=28) consists of post-1890 wire nails, aluminum foil fragments and a pull tab dating to the second half of the 20th century, and/or other temporally non-diagnostic metallic fragments, hardware, and fasteners; and about 21% (n=38) consists of miscellaneous finds including fragments of temporally non-diagnostic asphalt, bone, brick, coal, oyster shell, plastic, and slag and a bone button, a plastic toy, and a shoelace. 164 Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam STP 314b Fill 1: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam STP 849 Fill 2: 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam with about 5% gravel Apb: 10YR 4/3 brown silt loam Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown loam with approximately 5% saprolite B horizon: 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silty clay loam STP 302 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 19: Representative Soil Profiles from Site 44FK1089 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 60 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 165 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 61 Table 6: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FX1089 Artifact Description Fill Ap Ceramics hard paste porcelain 1 whiteware (1820-1900+) 3 17 redware 1 stoneware (late 19th-early 20th century) 1 Glass bottle, bottle/jar, tableware 1 32 bottle, bottle/jar, jar (ABM)* (post-1907) 7 10 unidentified glass 4 32 Metal aluminum foil** (post-1947) 2 aluminum pull tab** (post-1962) 1 brass 7mm cartridge casing 1 ferrous metal hinge 1 ferrous metal screw 1 ferrous metal screw cap 1 ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890) 2 nail, wire (post-1890) 1 13 unidentified ferrous metal 5 Miscellaneous asphalt** 1 bone 1 bone button 1 brick** 1 coal** 6 oyster shell** 1 plastic** 19 plastic toy 1 shoelace 1 slag** 6 Total Site 44FK1089 26 149 * automatic bottle machine ** discarded Considering the generally low quantities of 20th-century domestic, architectural, and miscellaneous artifacts recovered from across the approximately 2.5-acre site, with no concentrations indicating any loci of significant activities associated with the occupation observable, the site presents as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR 166 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 62 Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Site 44FK1090 The site is located along a farm access road within the northcentral portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 18,476 feet²/0.42 acres (see Exhibit 9; Exhibit 20); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 20 are approximate. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally northwest-southeast-trending landform, sitting at an elevation between 604 and 584 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale located to the southeast of the site. The vegetation within the site consists predominantly of grassy pasture, with a few evergreen trees adjacent to the farm road (Plate 19). A total of 19 STPs were excavated within the site at 25-/50-foot intervals, seven of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 801 (Exhibit 21). STP 801 Ap: 0-0.5 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty clay B horizon: 0.5 - 0.8 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty clay A total of 12 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 7; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered assemblage consists of nine fragments of temporally non-diagnostic glass, one shard of post-1907 glass, one shard of post-1940 glass, and one fragment of ferrous metal wire. Table 7: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1090 Artifact Description Ap Glass bottle, bottle/jar 9 bottle, (ABM)* (post-1907) 1 bottle, duraglas (post-1940) 1 Metal ferrous metal wire 1 Total Site 44FK1090 12 * automatic bottle machine 167 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 20: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK1090 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 63 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 60 Original Scale: 1" = 60' 760 785d 785 Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit Pond Drainage Swale Pond Drainage Swale Disturbed Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Slope Slope Drainage Swale Drainage Swale Gravel/Dirt Farm RoadGravel/Dirt Fa r m R o a d 801 801c 805 805b Disturbed Disturbed 168 STP 801 Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 21: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1090 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 64 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 169 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 65 Based on the lack of functional diversity in the recovered assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1091 The site is located within the northeastern portion of the project area and encompasses an area of approximately 7,530 feet²/0.17 acres (see Exhibit 10; Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site is situated along the southern edge of a north-south-trending toe landform immediately above the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequeon Creek at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pasture (Plate 20). A total of ten STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site, four of which yielded artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 446 (Exhibit 23). STP 446 Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface - [7.5YR 4/2] brown loam B horizon: 0.6-1.0 feet below surface - [5YR 5/4] reddish brown clay loam with approximately 3% saprolite A total of five artifacts were recovered from four STPs (Table 8; see Appendix I). As seen below, the recovered artifacts included two sherds of post-1820 whiteware ceramic, two shards of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass, and one fragment of coal. Table 8: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK1091 Artifact Description Ap Ceramics whiteware (1820-1900+) 2 Glass bottle/jar 2 Miscellaneous coal* 1 Total Site 44FK1091 5 * discarded 170 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 22: Detail of Phase I Testing within Sites 44FK1091, 44FK0280, and 44FK0281 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 66 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 60 Original Scale: 1" = 60' 446 446c 442 452 447 446d Project Area Boundary Previously Recorded Archeology Site Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 44FK1091 44FK0281 44FK0280 171 STP 446 Ap: 7.5YR 4/2 brown loam B horizon: 5YR 5/4 brown clay loam with approximately 3% saprolite L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 23: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK1091 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 67 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 172 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 68 Based on the low density of artifacts recovered and the lack of functional diversity in the assemblage, the site does not appear to represent a significant locus of human activity or occupation; rather, the site presents as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK0277 Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 8) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was originally identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs excavated at the DHR-recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs excavated on the northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries to include the recovered artifacts. The site is situated along a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation of approximately 638 feet a.m.s.l. The expanded limits of the site encompass an area of approximately 14,045 feet²/0.32 acres and include the previously recorded DHR location of the site as originally defined through surface collection and shovel testing (Exhibit 24); the site limits shown on Exhibits 8 and 24 are approximate and have not been survey located. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of scrub vegetation and evergreen trees, with grassy pasture in the southern portion of the site (Plate 21). A total of 14 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site boundary, with only two yielding artifacts. The majority of STPs exhibited a stratigraphic profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 236 (Exhibit 25). STP 236 Ap: 0-0.6 feet below surface - [10YR 3/3] dark brown silt loam B horizon: 0.6-0.9 feet below surface - [10YR 7/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite A total of two artifacts were recovered from two STPs (Table 9; see Appendix I). As seen, the recovered artifacts included one shard of temporally non-diagnostic bottle glass and the proximal end of one chert biface thinning flake. 173 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 24: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0277 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 69 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 60 Original Scale: 1" = 60' 114 242 168 233 236 245 159 Slope Slope Slope Slope Previously Recorded Archeology Site Field Sketch Boundary of Archeological Site (Extension) Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 174 STP 236 Ap: 10YR 3/3 dark brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 7/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 5% saprolite L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 25: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0277 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 70 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 175 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 71 Table 9: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0277 Artifact Description Ap Glass bottle 1 Precontact chert biface thinning flake 1 Total Site 44FK0277 2 The artifacts recovered from the site environs during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992), consisting of both 20th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Site 44FK0278 Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibits 9 and 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was identified through surface collection only. The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As recorded with the DHR, the site encompasses an area of about 20,107 feet²/0.46 acres at an elevation between 552 and 526 feet a.m.s.l. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of mixed deciduous forest (Plate 22). As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location (Plate 23), similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. 176 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 72 Site 44FK0279 Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 9) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing, and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the DHR site form, the farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on a 19th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester (see Exhibit 6). The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. A total of 38 STPs were excavated at 25-/50-foot intervals within the site boundary, of which six yielded artifacts within its limits (Exhibit 26); the site limits shown on Exhibits 9 and 26 are approximate. The site is situated along the top of a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation between approximately 636 and 624 feet a.m.s.l. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 73,435 feet²/1.68 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland (Plate 24). The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 634 (Exhibit 27). STP 634 Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/4] dark brown silt loam B horizon: 0.4-1.2 feet below surface - [10YR 7/6] yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite A total of 27 artifacts were recovered from the site (Table 10; see Appendix I). Table 10: Artifacts Recovered from Site 44FK0279 Artifact Description Ap Ceramics kaolin pipe stem 3 whiteware (1820-1900+) 7 redware 1 Glass bottle, bottle/jar 3 unidentified glass 2 Metal nail, cut (post-1790) 3 Miscellaneous brick* 8 Total Site 44FK0279 27 * discarded 177 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 26: Detail of Phase I Testing within Site 44FK0279 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 73 ThunderbirdArcheology N EW S Feet 0 60 Original Scale: 1" = 60' 634 631 Project Area Boundary Previously Recorded Archeology Site Negative Phase I Shovel Test Pit Positive Phase I Shovel Test Pit 631c 631d 634a 634c Slope Slope Slope Slope 178 Ap: 10YR 4/4 dark brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 7/6 yellowish brown clay loam with approximately 20% saprolite STP 634 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 27: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0279 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 74 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 179 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 75 As seen above, the recovered artifacts included architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), indicating a 19th-century date for the site; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Based on the artifacts recovered from the site during this investigation, along with those recovered in 1991/1992, the site presents as the former location of a domestic dwelling and occupation dating to the 19th century, likely that of S. Robinson whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on 19th-century mapping (see Exhibit 6). Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th- century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development. Site 44FK0280 The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. The site is situated along the eastern edge of a generally east-west-trending landform at an elevation of approximately 532 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 6,494 feet²/0.15 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek. The vegetation within the site consists of grassy pastureland and forest edge (Plate 25). A total of four STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 447 (Exhibit 28). STP 447 Ap: 0-0.4 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark yellowish brown silty clay loam B horizon: 0.4 - 0.7feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown clay loam 180 Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown clay loam STP 447 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 28: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0280 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 76 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 181 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 77 None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR- mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK0281 The site was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Exhibit 10) (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation. The site is situated along a generally east-west- trending landform at an elevation of approximately 530 feet a.m.s.l. (see Exhibit 22); the site limits shown on Exhibits 10 and 22 are approximate. The site as recorded with the DHR encompasses an area of approximately 7,231 feet²/0.17 acres. Drainage for the site is to the east into Opequon Creek via a drainage swale and unnamed tributary to the north and a drainage swale to the south. The vegetation within the site consists of dense hardwood saplings (Plate 26). A total of two STPs were excavated at 50-foot intervals within the site boundary. The STPs excavated within the site exhibited a profile consisting of a shallow plowed Ap stratum overlying a B horizon, similar to the profile of STP 452 (Exhibit 29). STP 452 Ap: 0-0.3 feet below surface - [10YR 4/3] dark brown silt loam B horizon: 0.3-0.7 feet below surface - [10YR 5/4] yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 10% saprolite None of the STPs excavated within the DHR-recorded limits of the site yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. 182 Ap: 10YR 4/3 dark brown silt loam B horizon: 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam with approximately 10% saprolite STP 452 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\CADD\03-ARCH\20240809_ARCH_EXHIBITS_II.dwg Exhibit 29: Representative Soil Profile from Site 44FK0281 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 78 ThunderbirdArcheology Feet 0 1 Original Scale: 1" = 1' 183 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 79 DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, off Route 657) DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded in 1992 and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The resource was revisited during a Phase I architectural survey in 2020; however, it appears that the property was not accessed during the survey and observations were made from the public right-of-way. Seven buildings (Buildings 1-7; see Exhibits 8-10) associated with the resource were documented during this investigation; a description of the buildings is presented below. The DHR Architectural Survey Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this investigation. Building 1 is the primary resource and is a two-and-a-half story, single dwelling built using the American Foursquare form (Plates 27 and 28). The house is covered by an asphalt shingle hipped roof with a gable dormer on the south elevation and a central, interior chimney. A full width shed roof extends from the south elevation and covers an entry porch. Two additions extend off the main body of the dwelling: a garage on the east elevation and an enclosed room on the west elevation. An asphalt shingle shed roof extends from the west elevation to cover the garage addition to the dwelling. An asphalt side-gable roof extends eastward to cover the enclosed room addition to the dwelling; the roof is cut by a stretcher bond brick chimney on the northern slope. The entire building is covered in white vinyl siding. One-over-one vinyl double hung windows are the primary window type for the dwelling. According to previous V-CRIS records, Building 1 was constructed circa 1920 and is historic. Building 2 is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 29). The barn is covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed with concrete blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding doors are located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half- story on the east elevation. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 2 replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic. Building 3 is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of Building 1 (Plate 30). The chicken coop appears to be a small shed which was adapted for animals. Building 3 is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to Building 1, and covered with a metal gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that Building 3 was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. Building 4 is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 31). Building 4 is clad is plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A metal shed roof covers Building 4. A review of aerial imagery indicates that Building 4 was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic. 184 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 80 Building 5 is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been converted into a workshop and is located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 32). The east and west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the north and south elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal gable roof with open eaves covers Building 5 and is broken by a common bond brick chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof extends north from the north elevation of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed wooden windows are the primary window type for Building 5 and can be found on both the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination of aerial imagery indicates Building 5 was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to Building 5 appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop. Building 6 is a wood frame animal shelter located northeast of Building 1 (Plate 33). The animal shelter is clad in vertical wood siding and covered with a flat metal roof. The shelter is not historic and is currently being used as a pig pen. Building 7 is a standing common bond brick chimney located northeast of Building 1 and southwest of Building 5 (Plate 34). Examination of aerial imagery indicates the chimney was once located on the west elevation of a dwelling constructed prior to 1958 and removed from the property, either intentionally or unintentionally, sometime between 1964 and 1982. No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Phase I cultural resources investigation was conducted of the ±91.7-acre Winchester East at Opequon Creek project area, located at 2737 and 2747 Senseny Road (Route 657) in eastern Frederick County, Virginia near its boundary with Clarke County. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia conducted the study described in this report for T VA Winchester II, LLC of Alexandria, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in August of 2024. Six new archeological sites (44FK1086-44FK1091) were recorded as a result of this investigation (Exhibit 30). Additionally, five previously recorded archeological sites (44FK0277-44FK0281) and one previously recorded architectural resource (034-1155) were revisited during the study; one of these sites (44FK0279) is recommended for Phase II or avoidance. 185 44FK1087 44FK1088 44FK0277 44FK1089 44FK1090 44FK1091 44FK1086 44FK0279 44FK0280 44FK0278 44FK0281 034-1155 L:\32000s\32900\32927.01\GIS\ARCH\ArcMap\32927.32_CulturalResourcesWithin.mxd Exhibit 30: Cultural Resources Within the Project Area Latitude: 39°9'54"N Longitude: 78°5'13"W Project Area ®0 1,000 Feet Original Scale: 1 " = 1,000 ' Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 81 Archeological Resource Architectural Resource 186 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 82 Site 44FK1086 is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1087 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1088 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century and is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1089 is interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034-1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Site 44FK1090 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK1091 is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site 187 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 83 would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK0277 was previously recorded in the southern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site represents a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, with a low-density (n=3) precontact component dating to an unknown period; no precontact artifacts were recovered from the site by the recording surveyor, but three projectile points were reportedly recovered from the vicinity by the landowner, according to the DHR site form. The site was originally identified through surface collection and shovel testing and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site limits were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, only two of the 14 STPs excavated at the DHR- recorded location of the site yielded artifacts. One of these STPs excavated on the northwestern boundary of the site resulted in the expansion of the site boundaries to include the recovered artifacts. The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Site 44FK0279 was previously recorded in the northwestern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site 188 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 84 was identified through surface collection, historical map projection, and shovel testing, and is recorded as a farmstead dating to the 19th century that includes a low-density (n=1) precontact component dating to an unknown period; according to the DHR site form, the farmstead may be associated with S. Robinson, whose dwelling is recorded in the vicinity on a 19th-century map of the Third Battle of Winchester. The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post- 1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), suggesting a 19th-century date for the site; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th- century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development. Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that 189 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 85 which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Finally, DHR Resource 034-1155 (House, 2737 Senseny Road) was originally recorded in 1992 and encompasses the majority of the project area. The primary resource is recorded as a single dwelling constructed circa 1920 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff in October of 1992. The DHR Architectural Survey Form for the resource was also updated as a result of this investigation. No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended. 190 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 86 191 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 87 REFERENCES CITED Abbott, W. W. [editor] 1983 The Papers Of George Washington. Colonial Series. I. 1748-August 1855. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity (55):348-54. Adovasio, J.M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist (19):317-41. Ansel, William H. 1984 Frontier Forts Along The Potomac And Its Tributaries. McClain Printing Company, Parsons, West Virginia. Barse, William P. 1978 Preliminary Notes on the West Shore Site, 18AN219. Archeological Society of Maryland Newsletter, January 1978. 1990 A Trial Formulation of Vessel Shapes for the Early and Middle Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. Paper presented at the 21st Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland. 1991 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at 28GL209, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Report prepared for Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation by Louis Berger & Associates. 2002 An Archeological Survey, Inventory and Evaluation Study, and Data Recovery for the Fletchers Boathouse Site (51NW13) C&O Canal National Historical Park, Washington, D.C. Report submitted to the National Capital Region, National Park Service. Bastian, Tyler 1974 Preliminary Notes on the Biggs Ford Site, Frederick County, Maryland. Manuscript on file at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory. Beck, Brandon H. 2015 “The Third Battle of Winchester.” Electronic document, https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/the-third-battle-of-winchester/, accessed 11 November 2020. Beck, Brandon H. and Charles S. Grunder 1988 Three Battles of Winchester: A History and Guided Tour. The Civil War Society, Special Edition. The Country Publishers, Inc. Berryville, Virginia. 192 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 88 Bergman, Christopher A., John F. Doershuk and Joseph Schuldenrein 1994 A Young Archaeologist’s Summary Guide to the Deeply Stratified Sandts Eddy Site, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. In Recent Research into the Prehistory of the Delaware Valley, edited by Christopher A. Bergman and John F. Doershuk, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 10. Boatner, Mark M. III 1991 The Civil War Dictionary. Vantage Books, New York, New York. Botwick, Brad and Ashley M. Neville 1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Virginia. Gray & Pape, Inc, Richmond, VA. Prepared for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Broyles, Bettye J. 1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 3. Carbone, Victor A. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Chapman, Jefferson 1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. Knoxville, University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology. Coe, Joffre L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54 (5), Philadelphia. Commonwealth of Virginia 1850 Acts Of The General Assembly Of Virginia, Passed At The Extra And Regular Sessions In 1849 & 1850, And In The Seventy-Third And Seventy-Fourth Years Of The Commonwealth. William F. Ritchie, Richmond, Virginia. Couper, William 1952 History of the Shenandoah Valley. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc. New York. Cross, Dorothy 1956 Archeology of New Jersey, Volume 2: The Abbot Farm. Trenton: Archeological Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Museum. Curry, Dennis and Maureen Kavanagh 1994 A New Radiocarbon Date for Popes Creek Ware. Maryland Archeology 30(1):29- 32. 193 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 89 Darmody, R.G. and J.E. Foss 1978 Tidal Marsh Soils of Maryland. Maryland Agricultural Experimental Station Publication 930:1-69. Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Virginia State Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Dent, Richard J. 1991 Deep Time in the Potomac Valley – Thoughts on Paleoindian lifeways and revisionist archeology. Archeology of Eastern North America 19:23-41. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. Dincauze, Dena 1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody Museum Monographs Number 4, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dunham, Gary H., Debra L. Gold, and Jeffrey L. Hantman 2003 Collective Burial in Late Prehistoric Virginia: Excavation and Analysis of the Rapidan Mound. American Antiquity 68(1): 109-128. Ebright, Carol A. 1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archeological Investigations at the Higgins Site. Maryland State Highway Administration Archeological Report Number 1. Report prepared for the Maryland State Railroad Administration. Egloff, Keith and Deborah Woodward 1992 First People: The Early Indians of Virginia. Second Edition. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. University of Virginia Press. Charlottesville, Virginia. Fiedel, Stuart J. 1999 Connecting Late Prehistoric Ceramic Lineages with Early Historic Ethnic- Linguistic Groups: Prospects and Problems. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Frederick County Board of Supervisors 1989 The Story of Frederick County. Frederick County Board of Supervisors, Winchester, Virginia. Gallivan, Martin 2010 “The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations.” Springer Science+Business Media. http://www.springerlink.com/content/54k17240122u2k5k/. 194 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 90 Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: Report on the 1971-1973 Seasons. Occasional Publication 1, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. 1976 Excavations at 18PR141, 18PR142 and 18PR143 Near Piscataway, Maryland. Report submitted to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. 1980 The Archaic. Paper presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. 1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Archeology: Methods and Interpretations, pp. 53-86, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Occasional Paper Number 3, American Indian Archeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut. 1985 Prehistoric Site Distribution in the Greater Washington, D.C. Area. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Society, Washington, D.C. 1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery: Traces of Indians in the Shenandoah Valley. Thunderbird Museum Publication. 1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Vol. 3, pp. 49-80, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Archeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200-6800 B.C.) In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 5- 51, J. Mark Wittkofski and T.R. Rhinehart, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 19. The Dietz Press, Richmond. 1991 Notes for the Territory Presentation. Presented at the 1991 Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference. Gardner, William M. and Charles W. McNett, Jr. 1971 Early Pottery in the Potomac. Proceedings of the Second Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference. Washington, D.C. Gardner, William M. and Lauralee Rappleye 1979 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment of the Proposed Additions to the Mount Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant, Shenandoah County, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia. Gardner, William M. and Joan M. Walker 1993 A Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Mitchell Substation and Mitchell Transmission Line in Culpeper County, Virginia. Report prepared for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, Fredericksburg, by the Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc., Woodstock, Virginia. 195 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 91 Goodyear, A.C 2005 “Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States.” Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. R. Bonnichsen, B. Lepper, D. Stanford, M. Waters (eds.) pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. Greene, Evarts B. 1932 American Population Before the Federal Census of 1790. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. Hantman, Jeffrey L. and Michael J. Klein 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137-164, Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 29. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: the Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. Hening, William Waller 1819a The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume V. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia. 1819b The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VI. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia. 1820 The Statutes at Large; Being A Collection Of All The Laws Of Virginia, From The First Session Of The Legislature, In The Year 1619. Volume VII. Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia. Hiden, Martha W. 1957 How Justice Grew. Virginia Counties: An Abstract of Their Formation. Third printing 1980; Jamestown Booklet No. 2. The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Hofstra, Warren R. 1986 A Separate Place, The Formation of Clarke County, Virginia. Clarke County Sesquicentennial Committee, White Post, Virginia. Hofstra, Warren R., Clarence Geier, et. Al. 1992 The Abrams Cree-Redbud Run Project: A Cultural Resource Inventory Study of Archaeological Sites in the Shale Area of East Winchester, Virginia. Shenandoah University and James Madison University, Virginia 196 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 92 Hurst, Gwen J. 1990 U.S. Bottle Chronology. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. Jirikowic, Christine 1999 Keyser Ware Ceramics at the Hughs Site and in the Potomac Basin. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Johnson, Michael 1983 The Evolution of the Bifurcate Hunting System in the Interior Piedmont of Fairfax County, Virginia. In Piedmont Archeology, pp. 55-73, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle E. Browning, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Richmond, Virginia. 1986 Fairfax County Archeological Overview. Heritage Resources Branch, Fairfax, Virginia. 1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter—ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J.M. McAvoy and L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia. Kalbian, Maral S. 1989 Clarke County Rural Reconnaissance Survey. Report prepared for Clarke County, Virginia. 1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, Winchester Printers, Inc. Kavanagh, Maureen 1982 Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archaeology, File Report #164. 1983 Prehistoric Occupation of the Monocacy River Region, Maryland. In Piedmont Archeology, pp. 40-54, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle E. Browning, editors. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 10. Richmond, Virginia. Kercheval, Samuel 1986 A History of the Valley of Virginia. Seventh Edition. C.J. Carrier Company, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Kinsey, W.F. III 1972 Archeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Museum and Historical Commission, Anthropological Series 2. 197 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 93 Lederer, John 1672 The Discoveries of John Lederer, In three feveral Marches from Virginia, To the Weft of Carolina, And other parts of the Continent: Begun in March 1669, and ended in September 1670. Together with a General Map of the whole Territory which he traverfed. Printed by J.C. for Samuel Heyrick, at Grays-Inne-gate in Holborn. London, England. Lindsey, Bill 2024 Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website. Society for Historical Archeology. Electronic document, https://www.sha.org/bottle, accessed September 11, 2024. Luckenbach, Al, Jessie Grow, Shawn Sharpe 2010 Archaic Period Triangular Points From Pig Point, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archeology, Volume 26, pp. 1-15, Roger W. Moeller, editor. Archeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut. Magid, Barbara H., editor 1990 Alexandria Archaeology Artifact Code Books. Alexandria Archaeology Publications Number 11. Alexandria Archaeology Office of Historic Alexandria, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Magin, Irvin D. 1991 Shenandoah County Gazetteer & Historical Geography. Commercial Press, Stephens City, Virginia. Manson, Carl 1948 Marcey Creek Site: An Early Manifestation in the Potomac Valley. American Antiquity 12(3):223-227. Martin, Joseph 1836 A New And Comprehensive Gazetteer Of Virginia, And The District Of Columbia: Containing A Copious Collection Of Biographical, Statistical, Political, Commercial, Religious, Moral, And Miscellaneous Information, Collected And Compiled From The Most Respectable, And Chiefly From Original Sources. Moseley & Tompkins, Charlottesville, Virginia. McAvoy, J.M. 1997 Addendum: Excavation of the Cactus Hill Site, 44SX202, Areas A-B, Spring 1996: Summary Report of Activities and Findings. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J.M. McAvoy and L.D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia. 198 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 94 McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy (editors) 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond, Virginia. McClearen, Douglas C. 1991 Phase III Archeological Investigations of the "522 Bridge Site" (44WR329) Warren County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University, Archeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. McDonald, J.N. 2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr BP. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, Virginia. McDonald, J.N. and M. Kay 1999 Pre-Clovis Archaeology at SV-2, Saltville, Virginia. In Abstracts of the Society for American Archaeology 64th Annual Meeting, p. 196. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. McKay, Hunter Branson 1951 Fairfax Land Suit. Transcript Of Copy In The British Museum Being An Extract From. Privately Published, Belmont, Massachusetts. Miller, George 1992 Refinement of South's Types and Median Dates. Manuscript at University of Delaware Center for Archeological Research, Newark. Miller, Glenda F. and Joan M. Walker n.d. Competing Agendas: The Fur Trade and Native Americans. Morton, Frederic 1925 The Story of Winchester in Virginia: The Oldest Town in the Shenandoah Valley. Shenandoah Publishing House, Strasburg, Virginia. Mouer, Daniel, Robin L. Ryder and Elizabeth G. Johnson 1981 The Elk Island Tradition: An Early Woodland Society in the Virginia Piedmont. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 36:49-76. Mounier, Alan and Jack Cresson 1988 A Case of Lachrymose Archeology in Southern New Jersey. Archeological Society of New Jersey Newsletter 146:5-8. Norris, J.E. 1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley, Counties of Frederick, Berkely, Jefferson, and Clarke. A. Warner and Col., Publishers, Chicago, Illinois and Virgnia Book Company, Berryville, Virginia. 199 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 95 Potter, Stephen R. 1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. Dissertation on file, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 1993 Commoners, Tribute and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Quarles, Garland R. 1986 The Streets of Winchester, Virginia: The Origin and Significance of Their Names. Prepared for The Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Virginia. Reese, George 1980 The Official Papers of Francis Fauquier Lieutenant Governor of Virginia 1758- 1768. Volume I 1758-1760. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Rice, James D. 2009 Nature & History in the Potomac Country: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Age of Jefferson. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. Rouse, Parke Jr. 1973 From Philadelphia To The South. The Great Wagon Road. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. Slattery, Richard G. 1946 A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36 (8):262-266. Smith, Page 1976 A New Age Now Begins. A People's History of the American Revolution. Volume Two. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, St. Louis and San Francisco. South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. Ferguson and Henry G. Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers (20) Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Stevens, J. Sanderson 1989 Environmental Site Predictors and Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Central Piedmont of Virginia. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. 200 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 96 Stewart, R. Michael 1998 Archaic Triangles at the Abbott Farm National Landmark: Typological Implications for Prehistoric Studies in the Middle Atlantic Region. Paper accompanying Exhibit at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Cape May, New Jersey. Tinling, Marion [editor] 1977 The Correspondence of The Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia 1684- 1776. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. United States Department of Interior (DOI) 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48 (190):44716-44742. Walker, Joan M. 1981 A Preliminary Report on the Prehistory of Prince William County, Virginia. Report prepared for the County of Prince William by the Thunderbird Research Corporation, Woodstock, Virginia. Walker, Joan M. and William M. Gardner 1989 Phase I Archeological Survey, Telegraph Woods Sanitary Sewer Line, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Report prepared by Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc. for Paciulli, Simmons and Associates, Ltd., Fairfax, Virginia. Waselkov, Gregory A. 1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archeology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Wayland, John W. 1976 Twenty-Five Chapters On The Shenandoah Valley To Which is Appended A Concise History Of The Civil War In The Valley. Second Edition. C. J. Carrier Company, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 1980 A History of Shenandoah County Virginia. Second (Augmented) Edition. Regional Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. Weiss-Bromberg, Francine 1987 Site Distribution in the Coastal Plain and Fall Zone of the Potomac Valley from ca. 6500 B.C. to A.D. 1400. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society 1980 Images Of The Past. A Photographic Review of Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia. 201 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 97 PLATES 202 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 98 203 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 99 Plate 1: Senseny Road View to Southwest Plate 2: Opequon Creek – Northeast of Project Area View to Northeast 204 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 100 Plate 3: Example of Forested Vegetation View to East Plate 4: Example of Pastureland/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (North) View to North 205 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 101 Plate 5: Example of Manicured Lawn/Overview of Site 44FK1089 (South) View to Northeast Plate 6: Example of Steep Slope View to West 206 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 102 Plate 7: Example of Constructed Farm Pond View to North Plate 8: Example of Drainage Swale/Cut View to West 207 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 103 Plate 9: Example of Artificial Landform View to North Plate 10: Example of Gravel Farm Roads View to South 208 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 104 Plate 11: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek View to South Plate 12: Example of 100-Year FEMA Floodplain of Opequon Creek View to Southeast 209 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 105 Plate 13: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) View to North Plate 14: Oblique of Building 8 (Dwelling at 2747 Senseny Road) View to Southeast 210 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 106 Plate 15: Building 9 (R) and Building 10 (L) View to North Plate 16: Overview of Site 44FK1086 View to East 211 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 107 Plate 17: Overview of Site 44FK1087 View to Southeast Plate 18: Vicinity of Site 44FK1088 View to South 212 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 108 Plate 19: Overview of Site 44FK1090 View to South Plate 20: Overview of Site 44FK1091 View to Northeast 213 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 109 Plate 21: Overview of Site 44FK0277 View to Northeast Plate 22: DHR Location of Site 44FK0278 View to South 214 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 110 Plate 23: Example of Surface Trash at Site 44FK0278 View to Northwest Plate 24: Overview of Site 44FK0279 View to North 215 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 111 Plate 25: DHR Location of Site 44FK0280 View to West Plate 26: DHR Location of Site 44FK0281 View to North 216 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 112 Plate 27: Building 1, South and East Elevations (034-1155) View to Northwest Plate 28: Building 1, North and West Elevations (034-1155) View to Southeast 217 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 113 Plate 29: Building 2, West and south Elevations (034-1155) View to Northeast Plate 30: Building 3, North Elevation (034-1155) View to South 218 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 114 Plate 31: Building 4, North Elevation (034-1155) View to South Plate 32: Building 5, South and East Elevations (034-1155) View to Northwest 219 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 115 Plate 33: Building 6, East Elevation (034-1155) View to West Plate 34: Building 7 (034-1155) View to Southeast 220 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 116 221 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 117 APPENDIX I Artifact Inventory 222 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 118 223 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 119 WINCHESTER EAST PHASE I ARTIFACT INVENTORY Isolated Finds STP 064, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996) STP 093, Ap Metal 1 aluminum bottle cap (discarded in field) STP 114, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated STP 159, Ap Miscellaneous 1 slag fragment, 1.5 grams STP 168, Ap Glass 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, ribbed interior STP 221, Ap Precontact 1 quartz primary reduction flake, proximal 1 rhyolite primary reduction flake, proximal STP 231, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) STP 233, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996) Precontact 1 chert biface thinning flake, medial STP 242, Ap Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle sherd, club sauce lip finish (1850s- 1930s, Lindsey 2024) STP 352, Ap Glass 1 clear square/rectangular bottle sherd, base fragment, base embossed "9/9/...ADE IN USA", Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation maker's mark, automatic bottle machine (1938-1980, Lindsey 2024) 224 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 120 Site 44FK0277 STP 236, Ap Glass 1 light green cylindrical bottle sherd, base fragment, base embossed "...XAN.../VA", scratched STP 245, Ap Precontact 1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal Site 44FK0279 STP 631, Ap Ceramics 1 whiteware sherd, blue hand painted decoration interior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate rim diameter (1820- 1900+, South 1977; 1830-1860+, Miller 1992) Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Metal 1 cut nail fragment (post-1790) Miscellaneous 3 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams STP 631c, Ap Ceramics 1 redware sherd, dark brown glazed, indeterminate vessel shape Glass 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Metal 1 cut nail fragment (post-1790) 1 cut nail fragment, unidentified head (post-1790) Miscellaneous 4 brick fragments (discarded in lab), 3.3 grams STP 631d, Ap Glass 1 olive amber cylindrical bottle sherd, molded, patinated STP 634, Ap Ceramics 3 kaolin pipe stem fragments (mend) 2 whiteware sherds, mulberry transfer printed decoration, indeterminate vessel shapes (1820-1900+, South; 1825-1875+, Miller 1992) 3 whiteware sherds, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shapes (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) Miscellaneous 1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 2.1 grams 225 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 121 STP 634a, Ap Glass 1 olive green cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated STP 634c, Ap Ceramics 1 whiteware sherd, mulberry spatter/sponge decoration interior, hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) Site 44FK1086 STP 021, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) 2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds (mend), base fragment, embossed "1269/...16", Tygart Valley Glass Company maker's mark, automatic bottle machine (1927-1959, Lindsey 2024) 170 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, base fragments, automatic bottle machine, scratched (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 4 clear cylindrical jar sherds, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 2 clear cylindrical tableware sherds (mend), patinated Metal 1 ferrous metal bolt fragment 1 unidentified brass fragment, hollow Miscellaneous 1 slate pencil fragment STP 021b, Ap Miscellaneous 1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 5.0 grams STP 033, Ap Glass 1 unidentified clear sherd, flat, ribbed interior STP 033c, Ap Metal 1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present) STP 034, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded 11 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 226 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 122 STP 034b, Ap Miscellaneous 1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 3.6 grams STP 034c, Ap Glass 7 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) STP 034d, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, small mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) Miscellaneous 1 slag fragment (discarded in lab), 4.9 grams STP 037, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated 6 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) Metal 1 unidentified ferrous metal fragment 1 wire nail fragment (1890-present) Site 44FK1087 STP 052, Ap Glass 2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) Precontact 1 chert primary reduction flake, proximal STP 052b, Ap Glass 3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated Miscellaneous 2 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 8.7 grams Site 44FK1088 STP 171, Ap Precontact 1 chert biface thinning flake, medial 1 chert biface thinning flake, proximal 227 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 123 STP 171c, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, base fragment, base embossed "1249/...0" 4 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) Site 44FK1089 STP 301, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated 1 cobalt cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated STP 301a, Fill Ceramics 1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, base fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate base diameter (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) 2 whiteware sherds, undecorated, hollow vessels (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) Glass 2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, heat melted Metal 1 ferrous metal screw fragment 2 ferrous metal wire staples Miscellaneous 1 bone fragment, 5.5 grams STP 301b, Fill Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996) STP 302, Fill Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated 1 unidentified white milk glass sherd, heat melted STP 314, Ap Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical jar sherd, large mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996) STP 314a, Ap Miscellaneous 1 plastic screw top (discarded in field) 228 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 124 STP 314b, Ap Metal 1 wire 8d nail (1890-present) 1 wire nail fragment, clinched (1890-present) STP 314c, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, molded, stained 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Miscellaneous 1 asphalt fragment (discarded in lab), 23.1 grams STP 317, Ap Ceramics 1 redware sherd, unglazed, hollow vessel Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated 10 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated STP 317a, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated Metal 1 brass 7mm cartridge casing, headstamp "IMI/7/20", manufactured by Israel Military Industries 1 wire 6d nail (1890-present) STP 317d, Fill Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) 2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, automatic bottle machine (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 2 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated STP 368, Ap Glass 3 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, patinated STP 369, Ap Ceramics 1 buff bodied coarse stoneware sherd, Bristol slipped interior and exterior, hollow vessel (late 19th/early 20th century) STP 370, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, base fragment, molded 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated 229 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 125 STP 411, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, automatic bottle machine (1910- present, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated 1 unidentified light aqua sherd, flat, patinated Miscellaneous 1 shoelace fragment STP 420, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, unidentified embossing, automatic bottle machine (1907-present, Hurst 1996) STP 424, Ap Glass 1 clear tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated STP 849, Fill Metal 1 wire 12d nail, pulled (1890-present) Miscellaneous 6 slag fragments (discarded in lab), 5.8 grams STP 882, Ap Ceramics 3 hard paste porcelain sherds (Continental European) (mend), gilt- edge decoration exterior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, 2 inch rim diameter, stained (1880-1920, MACL 2018) 7 whiteware sherds (mend), molded rim decoration interior, scalloped rim fragment, hollow vessel, stained (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) 7 whiteware sherds, molded decoration interior, hollow vessels, stained (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) Glass 1 7-up® green cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (post-1934, Hurst 1996) 1 clear cylindrical bottle sherd, small mouth external thread lip finish, automatic bottle machine, patinated (1910-present, Hurst 1996) 3 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, applied color labels, automatic bottle machine, patinated (post-1934) 23 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, heavily patinated 1 clear cylindrical tableware sherd, rim fragment, patinated 16 unidentified light aqua sherds, flat, heavily patinated Metal 2 aluminum foil fragment (post-1947, Miller 2000) (discarded in field) 1 aluminum pull tab (post-1962, Miller 2000) (discarded in lab) 230 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 126 1 ferrous metal hinge fragment 1 ferrous metal screw cap fragment 5 unidentified ferrous metal fragments 3 wire 2d nails (1890-present) 3 wire 6d nails (1890-present) 4 wire nail fragments (1890-present) Miscellaneous 1 bone two- hole sew through button- 1.2 cm diameter 1 brick fragment (discarded in lab), 14.1 grams 6 coal fragments (discarded in lab), 41.1 grams 1 oyster shell fragment (discarded in lab), 3.2 grams 1 plastic toy fragment, porky pig head 18 unidentified plastic fragments (discarded in lab) STP 883, Ap Ceramics 1 hard paste porcelain sherd (Continental European), black transfer printed decoration interior, rim fragment, hollow vessel, indeterminate rim diameter Site 44FK1090 STP 760, Ap Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, scratched STP 785, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, duraglas stippling, automatic bottle machine (1940-present) 2 amber cylindrical bottle sherds, patinated 2 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherds, patinated STP 785d, Ap Metal 1 ferrous metal wire fragment, insulated, curved STP 801, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, scratched 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated STP 801c, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, automatic bottle machine (1907- present, Hurst 1996) STP 805, Ap Glass 1 amber cylindrical bottle sherd, patinated 231 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 127 STP 805b, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, patinated Site 44FK1091 STP 442, Ap Ceramics 1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, indeterminate vessel shape (1820- 1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) STP 446, Ap Glass 1 clear cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated Miscellaneous 1 coal fragment (discarded in lab), 1.6 grams STP 446c, Ap Ceramics 1 whiteware sherd, undecorated, hollow vessel (1820-1900+, South 1977; Miller 1992) STP 446d, Ap Glass 1 light aqua cylindrical bottle/jar sherd, molded, patinated 232 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 128 233 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 129 APPENDIX II Staff Qualifications 234 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 130 235 Jeremy Smith, MSc, RPA Firm Association Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI) Direct Phone Line (703)679-5648 Project Assignment Principal Investigator Years of Experience With this firm: 18 With other firms: 1.75 Education MSc/European Archaeology/The University of Edinburgh Registrations & Certifications 2024/Register of Professional Archaeologists 2014/HAZWOPER Hazardous Materials Technician Training 2024/HAZWOPER 8-Hour Review Principal Archeologist (Principal I) Jeremy Smith has over 19 years of professional experience in archeological research and fieldwork in the Middle Atlantic Region with a specialization in cultural resource management. He has participated in archeological research on diverse prehistoric and historic period archeological sites, including lithic quarries and reduction stations, Archaic camps, Woodland Period villages, Civil War battlefields and campsites, historic cemeteries, and numerous late 18th- through 20th-century domestic sites. He is proficient in field and laboratory techniques, technical report writing, and AutoCAD mapping. Mr. Smith’s current responsibilities as a Principal Archeologist include the management of projects from the proposal stage to the completion of final reports, client and agency interaction, the management and supervision of archeological field crews conducting Phase I, II, and III investigations, and the preparation and editing of technical reports associated with historic and archeological research and fieldwork. He has conducted all phases of archeological research for Section 106 and Section 110 compliance projects, as well as those required for county comprehensive plans or proffers and local ordinances. Ramsey Homes, (44AX0160), City of Alexandria, VA Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase I/II investigations of Site 44AX0160 and as a Principal Investigator during the Phase III Data Recovery in the City of Alexandria, Virginia. Additionally, Mr. Smith was co-author of the data recovery treatment plan approved by DHR and all consulting parties and a primary author of the Phase III data recovery report. The work at Site 44AX0160 identified numerous cultural features that likely date to the 19th century; archeological evidence of the Civil War-era military occupation and pre-war domestic occupations of the site were also found. Inova Center for Personalized Health (44FX2429), Fairfax County, VA Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase III Data Recovery of Site 44FX2429, in Fairfax County, Virginia, and as a primary author of the report. Intact historic features and artifact deposits indicated the locations of the stone-lined cellar of a dwelling, a detached kitchen or dependency, and a possible smokehouse associated with a circa 1766 to 1810 occupation. Lyndam Hill II Property (44FX0223), Fairfax County, VA. Mr. Smith served as Field Director during the Phase II evaluation and Phase III data recovery of Site 44FX0223, a circa 1720 to 1769 outlying farm quarter site in Fairfax County, Virginia, and served as a co-author for the Phase II and Phase III reports describing the results of the investigations. Intact historic features and artifact deposits indicated the locations of an overseer’s house and a dwelling for enslaved laborers of African descent, a unique and rarely identified site type in Virginia. Major research issues in the archeology of regional slavery including the lifeways and material culture of the enslaved and overseers, ethnicity, agency, and plantation provisioning were re-considered in view of findings at the site. 236 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 132 237 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 133 APPENDIX III Cultural Resource Forms 238 Winchester East at Opequon Creek - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation WSSI #32927.01 - September 2024 Page 134 239 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1086 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx1 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.440 Landform:Ridge Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 240 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1086 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 210 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 4 bottle/jar, tableware 1 unidentified glass Metal 2 nail, wire (post-1890) 1 ferrous metal bolt 1 unidentified brass 1 unidentified ferrous metal Miscellaneous 3 slag (discarded) 1 slate pencil Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a trash scatter dating to the 20th century, likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 241 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1087 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx2 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.070 Landform:Ridge Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 242 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1087 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 4 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 6 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 tableware Miscellaneous 2 slag (discarded) Precontact 1 chert primary reduction flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; one precontact artifact was also recovered from plowed contexts that is likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 243 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1088 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 5 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx3 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.100 Landform:Ridge Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Component 2 Category:Indeterminate Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Native American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 244 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1088 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 6 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 4 bottle/jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 bottle/jar Precontact 2 chert biface thinning flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century and is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property; two precontact artifacts were also recovered from plowed contexts that are likely associated with ephemeral use of the site location during an unknown precontact period, due to a lack of additional finds in the vicinity. Considering this, and that the precontact artifact was recovered from plowed contexts, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 245 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 7 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Farmstead Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx4 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:2.580 Landform:Ridge Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Farmstead Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 246 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 8 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Farmstead 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Ceramics 20 whiteware (1820-1900+) 1 hard paste porcelain 1 redware 1 stoneware Glass 36 unidentified glass 33 bottle, bottle/jar, tableware 18 bottle, bottle/jar, jar, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) Metal 14 nail, wire (post-1890) 5 unidentified ferrous metal 2 aluminum foil (post-1947) (discarded) 2 ferrous metal wire staple (post-1890) 1 aluminum pull tab (post-1957) (discarded) 1 brass 7mm cartridge casing 1 ferrous metal hinge 1 ferrous metal screw 1 ferrous metal screw cap Miscellaneous 18 plastic (discarded) 6 coal (discarded) 6 slag (discarded) 1 asphalt (discarded) 1 bone 1 bone button 1 brick (discarded) 1 oyster shell (discarded) 1 plastic screw top (discarded) 1 plastic toy 1 shoelace Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: 247 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1089 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 9 of 13 Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as casually discarded refuse associated with the long-term occupation of the extant circa 1920 dwelling and farmstead at 2737 Senseny Road (DHR Resource 034- 1155) and the associated use of the property into the modern era. Based on the period of occupation and the long manufacturing and use dates for the bulk of the artifacts in the assemblage, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 248 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1090 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 10 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx5 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.420 Landform:Saddle Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 249 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1090 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 11 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Road 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Glass 9 bottle, bottle/jar 1 bottle, automatic bottle machine (post-1907) 1 bottle, duraglas (post-1940) Metal 1 ferrous metal wire Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard along a farm road associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 250 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1091 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 12 of 13 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):No Data Site Type(s):Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:Site 44FKxxx6 Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.170 Landform:Ridge Toe Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Antebellum Period, Civil War, Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 251 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1091 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 13 of 13 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: Ceramics 2 whiteware (1820-1900+) Glass 2 bottle/jar Miscellaneous 1 coal (discarded) Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:This site is interpreted as a low-density trash scatter dating to the 20th century that is likely the result of casual discard associated with the 20th-century occupation and use of the property. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. Therefore, in our opinion the site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 252 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 16 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E, 1900 - 1999 Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Trash pit Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:No Data Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.320 Landform:Other Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Indeterminate Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Native American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact Start Year:-15000 End Year:1606 Comments:October 1991 Component 2 Category:Domestic Site Type:Trash pit Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:1900 End Year:1999 Comments:October 1991 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 253 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 16 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 2024 Glass 1 bottle Precontact 1 chert biface thinning flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:2024 The artifacts recovered from the environs of Site 44FK0277 during the current study, though minimal, were similar to those reported in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University, consisting of both 20th-century refuse and precontact materials; however, the absence of any significant quantities of historic or precontact artifacts recovered from the site location during this investigation suggests that the past use of the site was likely ephemeral. As such, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 254 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0277 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 3 of 16 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Staff/Notes: leader- Hofstra Project Review File Number:AC-7; WH10/15A Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey Survey Date:10/15/1991 Survey Description: Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance and shovel test pitting (28 STPs). Located in overgrown pastureland showing localized evidence of fill dumping and resident gardening. Appears disturbed by acitvities associated with modern construction and gardening. The site is situated on the face of a high, waethered SE trending upland ridge whose eastern face serves as the valley wall to Opequon CReek. Deeply entrenched ravines enclose the aite area to the SW and north. Site includes a modern scatter of waste debris. Prohistoric indicators are of uncertain age and implication. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Pasture No Data No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: modern glassware, rubber gasket parts, 7 pieces of slag, 13 pieces of clear pane glass, 1 possible square cut nail. Several pieces of small and large cut limestone were observed pushed off the SE end of the lobe. Appears to have been included in fill soils deposited in that area. Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: 3 projectile points were reported by landowner and found in the garden area within the site loacle. Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC Photographic Media:No Data Survey Reports:No Data 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 255 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 4 of 16 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):1900 - 1999 Site Type(s):Trash pit Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:No Data Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.460 Landform:Other Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Domestic Site Type:Trash pit Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Post Cold War, Reconstruction and Growth, The New Dominion, World War I to World War II Start Year:1900 End Year:1999 Comments:waste dump ---------------------- October 1991 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 256 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 5 of 16 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, 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:No Data Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:2024 Site 44FK0278 was previously recorded in the northeastern project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a modern domestic dump site dating to the 20th century and was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The site location was revisited through pedestrian reconnaissance during the current investigation. However, as the site is recorded within a drainage swale surrounded by steep slopes it was not subjected to subsurface testing, in accordance with DHR guidelines; the site extends into the 100-Year FEMA floodplain of Opequon Creek, which was excluded from subsurface testing during the current investigation. As no shovel testing was conducted at the site during this study, no artifacts were recovered. However, dumped refuse was observed on the ground surface at the site location, similar to the 1991/1992 study that recorded it. Considering the site represents an area of secondarily deposited refuse dumping, within a drainage swale and low floodplain, in our opinion it lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended for the site. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 257 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0278 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 6 of 16 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Staff/Notes: led by Whitley Project Review File Number:AC-9 Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey Survey Date:10/15/1991 Survey Description: Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance. Site is loacted in an overgrown pioneer forest and consists of waste debris scattered on the floor and both sides of a small, SE trending erosional ravine that enters Opequon Creek from the NW. Artifacts include and undocumented scatter of modern glass, metal, and other waste debris. Site is a modern domestic dump site. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest No Data No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategies:Observation 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 Data 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 258 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 7 of 16 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E Site Type(s):Farmstead, Other Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:No Data Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:1.680 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 Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact Start Year:-15000 End Year:1606 Comments:October 1991 Component 2 Category:Transportation/Communication Site Type:Other Cultural Affiliation:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:No Data Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:Native American component ---------------------- October 1991 Component 3 Category:Domestic Site Type:Farmstead Cultural Affiliation:No Data Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:No Data 259 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 8 of 16 Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:October 1991 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 260 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 9 of 16 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:0-24% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, Subsurface Testing Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 2024 Ceramics 7 whiteware (1820-1900) 3 kaolin pipe stem 1 redware Glass 3 bottle, bottle/jar 2 unidentified glass Metal 3 nail, cut (post-1790) Miscellaneous 8 brick (discarded) Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Permanent Curation Repository:Frederick County Repository Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:2024 The artifacts recovered during the current investigation included architecture-related brick and nails, kitchen-related ceramics and glass, and tobacco-related kaolin pipe stem fragments. Temporally diagnostic artifacts in the recovered assemblage included post-1790 cut nails (n=3) and post-1820 whiteware sherds (n=7), suggesting a 19th-century date for the site; no definitively 20th-century or modern artifacts were recovered. Considering the temporal affiliation of the site, the functional diversity in the recovered artifacts and those reported in 1991/1992, and the absence of any definitively 20th-century/modern artifacts in the assemblage, in our opinion the site has the potential to yield significant research data regarding the lifeways of the residents of Frederick County, Virginia in the 19th century and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Phase II archeological evaluation 261 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0279 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 10 of 16 of Site 44FK0279 is recommended if the site cannot be avoided by the proposed development. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended for Further Survey Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Staff/Notes: led by Frye Project Review File Number:AC-10; RAF10/15A Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey Survey Date:10/15/1991 Survey Description: Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance, archival map evaluation, and shovel test pitting. Site is in a mowed hatfield bounded on the east and north by stand of oaks, pines, cedar, and hickory. Artifacts are scattered but soil profiles show no clear evidence of deep plowing. The site covers a high knob that dominates a heavily weathered east trending upland ridge that descends into a complex of terraces west of Opequon Creek. The slopes of a deeply entrenched east trending feeder stream lie to the north of the site. Available Civil War maps (Gillespie) identify this as the home of S. Robinson who was in place at the time of the battle of third Winchester. An early road passed north to the west of this site from Senseny Road towards Abrams CReek. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Forest No Data No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategies:Historic Map Projection Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 1 fragment of a hand-forged cauldron/kettle; 13 small pieces of tempered handmade brick; 3 pieces cut limestone; 1 piece brown lead glazed red earthenware; 1 piece amber and 1 piece pale blue bottle glass; 5 pieces of pale blue pane glass; 1 piece pearlware, 1 piece whiteware; 4 square machine cut nails; 1 black chert acortical flake Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC Photographic Media:No Data Survey Reports:No Data 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 262 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 11 of 16 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E Site Type(s):Artifact scatter, Trash pit Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:No Data Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.140 Landform:Other Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Indeterminate Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Native American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact Start Year:-15000 End Year:1606 Comments:October 1991 Component 2 Category:Domestic Site Type:Trash pit Cultural Affiliation:Euro-American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Indeterminate Start Year:No Data End Year:No Data Comments:October 1991 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 263 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 12 of 16 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:25-49% of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, 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:No Data Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:2024 Site 44FK0280 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site was recorded as a possible waste disposal area dating to an unknown historic period, with a low-density precontact component (n=2) dating to an unknown period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations at the site would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR- mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 264 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0280 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 13 of 16 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Staff/Notes: led by Frye Project Review File Number:AC-11; RAF10/15B Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey Survey Date:10/15/1991 Survey Description: Site surveyed bu visual reconnaissance. Located on a dry weathered pasture with good ground surface visibility. No artifact concentration. The site is situated oh the face of a south trending first terrace lobe overlooking the flow of Opequon Creek. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Pasture No Data No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategies:Observation Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 2 gray chalcedony acortical flakes, 4 pieces of clear bottle glass, 5 pieces clear pane/flat glass, shell, 2 pieces creamware; 1 piece refined earthenware of uncertain type Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC Photographic Media:No Data Survey Reports:No Data 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 265 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 14 of 16 Snapshot Date Generated: September 16, 2024 Site Name:No Data Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air Year(s):15000 B.C.E - 1606 C.E Site Type(s):Artifact scatter Other DHR ID:No Data Temporary Designation:No Data Site Evaluation Status Not Evaluated Locational Information USGS Quad:STEPHENSON County/Independent City:Frederick (County) Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge Elevation:No Data Aspect:No Data Drainage:Potomac Slope:No Data Acreage:0.160 Landform:Other Ownership Status:Private Government Entity Name:No Data Site Components Component 1 Category:Indeterminate Site Type:Artifact scatter Cultural Affiliation:Native American Cultural Affiliation Details:No Data DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact Start Year:-15000 End Year:1606 Comments:Native American component ---------------------- October 1991 Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Informant Data: No Data 266 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 15 of 16 CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Review File Number:No Data Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Investigator:Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Date:8/19/2024 Survey Description: The Phase I field methodology included one hundred percent pedestrian reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance, and shovel testing to locate and define boundaries of archeological sites. Shovel testing was done at 25 to 50 foot intervals with all excavated soils screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth screens following the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Guidelines (Revised 2017). Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Agricultural field 9/11/2024 12:00:00 AM No Data Threats to Resource:Development Site Conditions:Unknown Portion of Site Destroyed Survey Strategies:Observation, 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:No Data Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI Photographic Media:Digital Survey Reports:Yes Survey Report Information: Winchester East Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation August 2024 Prepared by Alison Hodges, MS, RPA Survey Report Repository:Thunderbird/WSSI DHR Library Reference Number:No Data Significance Statement:2024 Site 44FK0281 was previously recorded in the northeastern corner of the project area in 1991/1992 by James Madison University and Shenandoah University (see Hofstra et al. 1992). The site straddles the current project area boundary and represents a low-density (n=3) lithic scatter dating to an unknown precontact period. The site was identified through surface collection only and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by DHR staff. The DHR-recorded limits of the site within the project area were subjected to Phase I testing during the current investigation; however, none of these STPs yielded artifacts. This suggests that either the site is inaccurately mapped within the project area or that its occupation was so ephemeral that it could not be identified with 50-foot shovel testing. Considering this, it is unlikely that additional excavations of the portion of the site within the current project area would yield any significant research data above that which is already known. In our opinion, the DHR-mapped location of the site lacks research potential and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. No further work is recommended. Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations, :No Data Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data 267 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK0281 Archaeological Site Record Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 16 of 16 Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Staff/Notes: led by Frye Project Review File Number:AC-12; RAF10/15C Sponsoring Organization:No Data Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Investigator:JMU- Abrams Creek Arch. Survey Survey Date:10/15/1991 Survey Description: Site surveyed by visual reconnaissance. Located in a weathered pasture with good ground visibility. The site is located on the center of a high east trending first terrace south of the point where an unnamed east trending stream joins Opequon Creek. Current Land Use Date of Use Comments Pasture No Data No Data Threats to Resource:No Data Site Conditions:Site Condition Unknown Survey Strategies:Observation Specimens Collected:Yes Specimens Observed, Not Collected:Yes Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics: 1 gray quartzite and one large red banded gray chert acortical flake; 1 large acortical gray chert flake scraper Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected: No Data Current Curation Repository:JMU-ARC Permanent Curation Repository:No Data Field Notes:Yes Field Notes Repository:JMU-ARC Photographic Media:No Data Survey Reports:No Data 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 268 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 1 of 6 Property Information Property Names Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 2737 Senseny Road Current House, off Route 657 Property Addresses Alternate - Route 657 Current - 2737 Senseny Road County/Independent City(s):Clarke (County), Frederick (County) Incorporated Town(s):No Data Zip Code(s):22602, 22611 Magisterial District(s):No Data Tax Parcel(s):No Data USGS Quad(s):STEPHENSON Property Evaluation Status DHR Staff: Not Eligible Additional Property Information Architecture Setting:Rural Acreage:No Data Site Description: September 2020: The House at 2737 Senseny Road is located in a rural agricultural and residential area in Winchester in the eastern part of Frederick County. The property, located on the north side of Senseny Road, is bounded by the Senseny Glen residential subdivision on the west, Opequon Creek and Clarke County on the east, and other agricultural properties to the north and south. The resource, concentrated in the western portion of a 73.53-acre tract, is set among a concentration of buildings surrounded by agricultural fields. A wooded area is located along the eastern boundary which follows Opequon Creek and in the southeast corner of the property. A small pond, is situated north of the group of buildings. The property is accessed via a long gravel driveway that leads from Senseny Road along the west side of the tract and continues north through the grouping of buildings and terminates just north of the pond. The resource consists of a dwelling, a secondary dwelling, and at least three outbuildings according to current online aerials. This property was heavily marked with no trespassing signs and was not visible from the public right-of-way. September 2024: The resource is located on a large parcel containing primarily agricultural and wooded vegetation. All but one of the six secondary resources on the property are associated with agriculture; one chimney feature remains from a no-longer extant structure. Surveyor Assessment: Example of American Four square style dwelling w/ several alterations. September 2020: According to the previous record, the House at 2737 Senseny Road is a two-and-a-half-story, hip-roofed, single-family dwelling built around 1920 in the American Foursquare form. DHR staff determined the resource not eligible for the NRHP in 1992. The resource was inaccessible during the time of survey; and therefore, could not be assessed for its NRHP eligibility. September 2024: No new data was obtained during the current study that would contradict the previous determination by the DHR that the resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. In our opinion, the resource is a typical, unremarkable example of an American Foursquare dwelling dating to the first quarter of the 20th century. None of the buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in history or with known individuals of transcendent historical importance. Therefore, in our opinion, DHR Resource 034-1155 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or C. No further documentation is recommended. Surveyor Recommendation:Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category:Domestic Resource Type:Single Dwelling NR Resource Type:Building Historic District Status:No Data 269 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 2 of 6 Date of Construction:Ca 1920 Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) Historic Context(s):Domestic, Subsistence/Agriculture Other ID Number:No Data Architectural Style:Other Form:American Four-Square Number of Stories:0.0 Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, March 1992: American Four Square September 2020: According to the previous record, the House at 2737 Senseny Road is a two-and-a-half-story, hipped-roof, single-family dwelling built around 1920 in the American Foursquare form. The resource was barely observed during the current survey; only the western addition was partially visible. This house is covered by a hipped roof with a dormer on the south elevation and an interior, brick chimney. A full-width, shed- or hipped-roof porch lines the south elevation. Addition extends from the northwest and northeast corners. The northwest addition clad in an indiscernible siding and covered by an asphalt-shingled gabled roof was partially visible. A stretcher-bonded brick chimney pierces the northern roof slope. September 2024: This is a two-and-a-half story, single dwelling built using the American Foursquare form. The house is covered by an asphalt shingle hipped roof with a gable dormer on the south elevation and a central, interior chimney. A full width shed roof extends from the south elevation and covers an entry porch. Two additions extend off the main body of the dwelling: a garage on the east elevation and an enclosed room on the west elevation. An asphalt shingle shed roof extends from the west elevation to cover the garage addition to the dwelling. An asphalt side-gable roof extends eastward to cover the enclosed room addition to the dwelling; the roof is cut by a stretcher bond brick chimney on the northern slope. The entire building is covered in white vinyl siding. One-over-one vinyl double hung windows are the primary window type for the dwelling. According to previous V-CRIS records, the resource was constructed circa 1920 and is historic. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Porch 1-story, 3-bay Wood Posts, Turned Windows Sash, Double-Hung Wood Other Structural System and Exterior Treatment Frame Wood Siding, Aluminum Chimneys Central interior Brick No Data Roof Gable No Data Other Roof Other No Data Other Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Barn Date of Construction:1964Ca Date Source:Map Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s):Domestic, Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: Architecture Summary, Marc 1992: concrete block 270 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 3 of 6 September 2020: A barn located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. The building is covered by a metal-clad, gabled roof and a shed lean-to lines the north elevation. September 2024: This is a one-and-a-half story, concrete block and wood frame barn located northeast of the primary resource. The barn is covered with a metal gambrel roof; a metal broken-gable roof extends north from the gambrel roof. All elevations are constructed with concrete blocks, except for the upper half-story and west elevation which are constructed with a wood frame and vertical wood siding. Several sliding doors are located on the west and east elevations. Additionally, a sliding hay loft door is in the half-story on the east elevation. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that the barn replaced an older building sometime between 1958 and 1964 and is historic. Number of Stories:1.5 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Gambrel Metal No Data Structural System and Exterior Treatment Wood Frame No Data Vertical Board Structural System and Exterior Treatment Masonry Concrete Block Secondary Resource #2 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Outbuilding Date of Construction:2000Ca Date Source:Map Historic Time Period:Post Cold War (1992 - Present) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Good Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is covered with a shed roof. September 2024: This is a two-bay, wood frame run-in animal shelter located northeast of the primary resource. The animal shelter is clad is plywood siding an supported by vertical wood posts. A metal shed roof covers the shelter. A review of aerial imagery indicates that the shelter was constructed circa 2000 and is not historic. Number of Stories:1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment Wood Frame No Data No Data Roof Shed Metal No Data Secondary Resource #3 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Outbuilding Date of Construction:1958Ca Date Source:Map Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: September 2020: An outbuilding located east of the dwelling and was observed on current online aerials. It is surrounded by vegetation and 271 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 4 of 6 details were indiscernible from the aerials. September 2024: This is a single-story, wood frame chicken coop located southeast of the primary resource. The chicken coop appears to be a small shed which was adapted for animals. The coop is clad in white vinyl siding, similar to the primary resource, and covered with a metal gable roof. The north elevation hosts a wood door and a one-over-one double hung vinyl window. An examination of aerial imagery indicates that the coop was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. Number of Stories:1 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment Wood Frame Vinyl Siding Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Secondary Resource #4 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Outbuilding Date of Construction:1958Ca Date Source:Map Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: September 2020: An outbuilding located north of the dwelling and south of the pond; it was observed on current online aerials. It covered by a metal-clad shed roof and a shed lean-to spans the east elevation. A small area to the south is fenced in, indicating this is some sort of animal shelter and pen. ---------------------- September 2020 --------------------- September 2024: This is a two-story, concrete block and wood frame dwelling that has been converted into a workshop and is located northeast of the primary resource. The east and west elevations are constructed with a wood frame and horizontal wood siding, while the north and south elevations are constructed and clad with concrete block siding. A metal gable roof with open eaves covers the structure and is broken by a common bond brick chimney that rises from the interior of the roof’s northern slope. A metal shed roof extends north from the north elevation of the dwelling and covers a three-bay-wide machine shed addition that is clad with vertical metal sheets. Three-over-one, fixed wooden windows are the primary window type for the structure and can be found on both the main dwelling and the machine shed addition. Examination of aerial imagery indicates the structure was constructed prior to 1958; however, a more exact construction date is difficult to determine due to lack of earlier imagery. The machine shed addition to the structure appears to have been added sometime between 1964 and 1982 and likely marks when the dwelling was converted into a workshop. Number of Stories:2 Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Structural System and Exterior Treatment Masonry Concrete Block Structural System and Exterior Treatment Wood Frame No Data No Data Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Chimneys Interior Slope No Data American/Common Bond Secondary Resource #5 Resource Category:Agriculture/Subsistence Resource Type:Pen Date of Construction:2000Ca Date Source:Site Visit Historic Time Period:Post Cold War (1992 - Present) Historic Context(s):Subsistence/Agriculture Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Fair 272 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 5 of 6 Threats to Resource:None Known Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: September 2024: This is a wood frame animal shelter located northeast of the primary resource. The animal shelter is clad in vertical wood siding and covered with a flat metal roof. The shelter is not historic and is currently being used as a pig pen. Secondary Resource #6 Resource Category:Unknown Resource Type:Chimney Date of Construction:1982Ca Date Source:Map Historic Time Period:The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s):Domestic Architectural Style:No discernible style Form:No Data Condition:Fair Threats to Resource:Erosion, Neglect Cultural Affiliations:Indeterminate Cultural Affiliation Details: No Data Architectural Description: September 2024: This is a standing common bond brick chimney located northeast of Building 1 and southwest of the workshop. Examination of aerial imagery indicates the chimney was once located on the west elevation of a dwelling constructed prior to 1958 and removed from the property, either intentionally or unintentionally, sometime between 1964 and 1982. Historic District Information Historic District Name:No Data Local Historic District Name:No Data Historic District Significance:No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Brttany Vance Organization/Company:Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:8/27/2024 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: Jeremy Smith MSc, RPA and Brittany Vance Project Bibliographic Information: Winchester East at Opequon Creek, Prince William County, Virginia - Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Adriana Moss Organization/Company:Dovetail CRG 273 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 034-1155 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data September 16, 2024 Page: 6 of 6 Photographic Media:Digital Survey Date:9/8/2020 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Frederick County, Virginia 2020 Interactive Maps. Electronic document, https://www.fcva.us/departments/geographic-information-systems/interactive-maps, accessed September 2020. Moss, Adriana T. 2020 Phase I Architectural Survey of the Opequon Crossing Project, Frederick County, Virginia. Prepared for D.R. Horton Capital Division, Annapolis, Maryland. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) n.d. Historic Aerial Mosaic Frederick County, Virginia. Electronic document, historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed September 2020. Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID:034-1155 Staff Name:Mitchell, Bryan H. Event Date:10/1/1992 Staff Comment No Data Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number:No Data Investigator:Kalbain, Maral; Perkins, J.A.H. Organization/Company:Unknown (DSS) Photographic Media:No Data Survey Date:3/1/1992 Dhr Library Report Number:No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: September 2020: Property was inaccessible during the time of survey due to being posted heavily. 274 Traffic Impact Analysis Winchester East at Opequon Creek Frederick County, Virginia September 19, 2024 Prepared for: T VA Winchester II LLC c/o Terra Foundry Partners 1800 Diagonal Road Alexandria, VA 22314 9/19/2024 275 Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20036 T 202.296.8625 4114 Legato Road Suite 650 Fairfax, VA 22033 T 703.787.9595 225 Reinekers Lane Suite 750 Alexandria, VA 22314 T 703.721.3044 4951 Lake Brook Drive Suite 250 Glen Allen, VA 23060 T 804.362.0578 www.goroveslade.com This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the spe cific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. 276 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 3 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Descriptions of Proposed Development ................................................................................................................................... 6 Principal Findings and Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Overall Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Background Information: Proposed Development (Site & Nearby) .............................................................................................. 9 Descriptions of the Existing Site ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Descriptions of Geographic Scope of Study and Limits of the Study Area ............................................................................... 9 Analysis of 2024 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................................... 14 Existing Roadway Network ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Existing Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis........................................................................................................... 17 Analysis of 2027 Future Conditions Without Development ......................................................................................................... 19 Future without Development Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 19 Future without Development Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis ............................................................................ 26 Analysis of 2027 Future Conditions with Development .............................................................................................................. 28 Site Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Projected Site Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Distribution and Assignment of Site Traffic ............................................................................................................................. 28 Future with Development Traffic Volume ............................................................................................................................... 28 Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis ................................................................................. 34 Preliminary Left and Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessments ..................................................................................................... 36 Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 36 Access Management Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Analysis Components ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Overall Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 40 277 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 4 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix A – Scoping Document Appendix B – Existing Traffic Count Data Appendix C – Level of Service & Delay Definitions Appendix D – Analysis Worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions Appendix E – Background Traffic Impact Studies Appendix F – Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions without Development Appendix G – Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions with Development Appendix H – Turn Lane Warrants 278 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 5 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location and Parcel Map ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Regional Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Frederick County Zoning Map ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Study Intersections ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: 2024 Existing Conditions – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices ........................ 15 Figure 6: 2024 Existing Conditions – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 16 Figure 7: 2024 Existing Conditions – Level of Service Results .................................................................................................. 18 Figure 8: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2024 to 2027) ......................................................................... 22 Figure 9: Location of Background Development ........................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 10: Background Development Traffic Assignment .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes ............................................ 25 Figure 12: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Level of Service Results ................................................................ 27 Figure 13: Generalized Development Plan ................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 14: Direction of Approach (Site Trip) ............................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Site Generated Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 17: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes ................................................. 33 Figure 18: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Level of Service Results ..................................................................... 35 Figure 19: Proposed Intersection Spacing ................................................................................................................................. 38 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Existing Roadway Network ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: 2024 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ............................................................................. 17 Table 3: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ............................................. 26 Table 4: Site Trip Generation (Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street; ITE 11th Ed.) ......................................................................... 28 Table 5: 2027 Future Conditions with Development– Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ................................................... 34 Table 6: Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Results (2027 Future Conditions with Development) ......................................... 36 Table 7: Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Results (2027 Future Conditions with Development) ....................................... 36 Table 8: VDOT Minimum Intersection Spacing Requirements for Commercial Entrances, Intersections, and Median Crossovers (RDM, Appendix F, Table 2-2) ................................................................................................................................................... 37 279 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 6 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Winchester East at Opequon Creek development (the Site / the Development) which is generally situated north of Senseny Road (Route 657), west of Opequon Creek, and east of Canyon Road in Frederick County, Virginia. This study was developed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) transportation impact analysis guidelines. The document was prepared in accordance with the best professional practice and standards that assess the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. Traffic impact analysis involves the evaluation of anticipated roadway conditions with and without the proposed development and recommends transportation improvements to offset both the impacts of the increase in future traffic volumes and the changes in traffic operations due to the development. The analysis assists public officials and developers to balance interrelations between efficient traffic movements with necessary lane access. Descriptions of Proposed Development The site is situated on two parcels that can be identified on Frederick County Tax Maps with the following Tax PIN #s: 65 A 194B and 65 A 195. The property area is approximately 91.7 acres and is currently zoned as RA (Rural Area District). The Applicant is proposing to rezone the site to RP (Residential Performance District) in order to construct approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units. The development is anticipated to be complete and occupied by 2027. Access to the site will be provided via one proposed full-movement entrance along Senseny Road, and one proposed full- movement entrance at the future fourth leg connection at Senseny Glen and Canyon Road. Principal Findings and Conclusions Discussions regarding the study assumptions and relevant background information were held with VDOT and the County on July 23, 2024. This scope details the study assumptions and relevant background information discussed in the meetings and correspondence. A copy of the scoping document is included in Appendix A. The analysis contained herein presents the 2024 Existing Conditions, 2027 Future Conditions without Development, and 2027 Future Conditions with Development. The analysis presented in this report supports the following assumptions and major findings: Analysis Components • 2024 existing peak hour volumes were derived via turning movement counts collected at intersections within the study area on Thursday, May 23, 2024, and Tuesday, August 20, 2024. • The trip generation associated with the Site was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition publication. • Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed for all analysis scenarios at the study area intersections during the weekday morning (AM), and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology and analysis guidelines provided in VDOT’s Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM) (version 2). The analysis herein includes the level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning movements analyzed. 280 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 7 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Analysis Results 2024 Existing Conditions • Based on the capacity analysis of the 202 4 Existing Conditions, all approaches at all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that are accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. 2027 Future Conditions without Development • Based on the capacity analysis of the 2027 Future Conditions without Development, all approaches at all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that can be accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. 2027 Future Conditions with Development • The proposed development will consist of approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units and is anticipated to generate approximately 151 new trips during the AM peak hour, 180 new trips during the PM peak hour, and 2,210 new daily trips on a typical weekday. The development is anticipated to be complete by 2027. • Based on the capacity analysis of the 2027 Future Conditions with Development, all approaches at all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that can be accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. Overall Conclusion All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service and queues with and without the addition of the proposed development. Based on the capacity and queueing analysis results, the proposed development will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding transportation and roadway network. Therefore, no improvements are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development. It is understood that the County is in the process of evaluating the future Virginia Route 37 in order to right -size its functionality to future needs. The draft Proffer Statement for the Property includes right -of-way dedication for the future Virginia Route 37. The Applicant shall reserve a portion of the Property that is 104 feet wide for the future Virginia Route 37 and dedicate right -of- way that is consistent with the outcome of the County’s studies. 281 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 8 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Introduction This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Winchester East at Opequon Creek development which is generally situated north of Senseny Road (US Route 657), west of Opequon Creek, and east of Canyon Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The Development site is currently vacant, and spans two parcels of land, totaling approximately 91.7 acres that can be identi fied on Frederick County Maps with PIN #s 65 A 194B and 65 A 195. The Applicant is proposing to rezone the RA (Rural Area District) parcels to RP (Residential Performance District) in order to construct approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units. The development is anticipated to be complete and occupied by 2027. Access to the site will be provided via one proposed full-movement entrance along Senseny Road, and one proposed full- movement entrance at the future fourth leg connection at Senseny Glen Drive and Canyon Road. The following tasks were completed as part of this study effort: • Scoping discussions were held with VDOT and the County on the parameters of this study as well as any relevant background information on July 23, 2024. A copy of the scoping document is included in Appendix A. • Existing conditions were observed in the field to verify roadway geometry, pedestrian infrastructure, and traffic flow characteristics. • In order to determine the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement traffic volumes, turning movement counts (TMC) traffic counts were conducted on Thursday, May 23, 2024, and on Tuesday, August 20, 2024. • The 2027 Future Conditions without Development scenario was projected based on the existing traffic volumes, an inherent growth rate to account for regional growth on the roadway network, approved background developments, and roadway improvements. • Proposed site traffic volumes were derived based on the methodology outlined in ITE ’s Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, publication and were assigned to the road network based on the agreed-upon direction of approach discussed during the aforementioned scoping meeting. • The 2027 Future Conditions with Development scenario was projected based on the existing traffic volumes, regional growth, approved background developments, roadway improvements, and plans for the proposed development. • Intersection capacity and queueing analyses were performed at the study intersections for the 2024 Existing Conditions, 2027 Future Conditions without Development, and 2027 Future Conditions with Development scenarios during the weekday morning (AM), and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hours. • Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed using Synchro, version 11, with results based on the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition (HCM 6) methodology and in following VDOT’s Traffic Operations and Safety Manual (TOSAM) (version 2). Sources of data for this study include the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), VDOT, and the office files and field reconnaissance efforts of Gorove Slade. 282 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 9 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Background Information: Proposed Development (Site & Nearby) Descriptions of the Existing Site Site Location and Description of the Parcel The proposed development is generally situated north of Senseny Road (Route 657), west of Opequon Creek, and east of Canyon Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed development consists of two parcels with the following Tax PIN #s: 65 A 194B and 65 A 195, totaling approximately 91.7 acres. An aerial of the study vicinity of provided in Figure 1. A description of the proposed development is provided in the Introduction section of this report. Location within Jurisdiction and Region The location of the site with respect to the surrounding area is presented in Figure 2. Existing Zoning and Future Land-Use The Site is currently zoned as RA (Rural Area District) and the Applicant is proposing to rezone it to RP (Residential Performance District). The existing zoning is presented in Figure 3. Descriptions of Geographic Scope of Study and Limits of the Study Area The geographic scope of the study area was developed in accordance with VDOT and the County. The vehicular study area includes the following two existing intersections and one future intersection. The study intersections are as follows: Intersection 1: Senseny Road (US Route 657) and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive [Existing full-movement, unsignalized] Intersection 2: Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive [Existing full-movement, unsignalized] Intersection 3: Senseny Road (US Route 657) and Future Site Driveway [Future T-intersection, unsignalized] Study intersection 3 will provide full movement access to the proposed development. In addition, Senseny Glen Drive will be extended to the east of Canyon Road in order to provide full movement access to the development on the west frontage of the site. The Senseny Glen Drive and Canyon Road intersection is not included in the capacity analysis that follows. An aerial of the study intersections is provided in Figure 4. 283 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 10 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 1: Site Location and Parcel Map (Source: Frederick County Tax Mapper https://fredcogis.fcva.us/FrederickCountyGIS/) 284 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 11 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 2: Regional Location 285 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 12 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 3: Frederick County Zoning Map (Zoning Source: https://fredcogis.fcva.us/PlanningAccessTerminal/) 286 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 13 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 4: Study Intersections 287 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 14 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Analysis of 2024 Existing Conditions Existing Roadway Network A description of the major roadways within the study area is presented below in Table 1. Table 1: Existing Roadway Network Roadway RTE # VDOT Classification Lanes Legal/Design Speed Limit (mph) AADT (vpd) Road Segment Between: k- factor Senseny Road 657 Major Collector 2 45 2,200 736 Rossum Lane Clarke County 11.7% Channing Drive 1554 Local 2-4 35 1,800 657 Senseny Road 659 Valley Mill Road - Senseny Glen Drive 867 Local 2 25 1,000 657 Senseny Road 1407 Canyon Court - Twinbrook Circle 867 Local 2 25 520 Dead End 657 Senseny Road - Woodrow Road 1380 Local 2 25 740 1387 Dots Way 1554 Channing Drive - Canyon Road 1407 Local 2 25 280 Dead End 657 Senseny Road - Note: Based on VDOT Historical Traffic Data from 2021. Existing Traffic Volumes In order to determine the weekday morning (AM) and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hour turning movement traffic volumes, turning movement counts (TMC) were collected at the study intersections on Thursday, May 23, 2024 (Study Intersection 1) and on Tuesday, August 20, 2024 (Study Intersection 2). The referenced weekday turning movement counts were collected from the hours of 5:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM: • Study Intersection 1: Senseny Road (US Route 657) and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive • Study Intersection 2: Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive The TMCs at the study intersections were reviewed for consistency, and adjusted if needed, using existing TMCs for other intersections along Senseny Road, including Senseny Road and Channing Drive. From the turning movement counts, the following system peak hours were determined. • AM Peak Hour: 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM • PM Peak Hour: 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM The 2024 existing road network configuration is presented in Figure 5. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the existing study intersections are shown in Figure 6. The ADT volumes, depicted in Figure 6 and subsequent volume graphics, were calculated based on VDOT published k-factors from 2021, if available, or assumed k-factors per approach of 0.10 and the PM peak hour volumes. The raw existing traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. 288 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 15 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 5: 2024 Existing Conditions – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices 289 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 16 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 6: 2024 Existing Conditions – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes 290 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 17 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Existing Intersection Capacity and Queueing Analysis Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed for the 202 4 Existing Conditions scenario at the study area intersections during AM and PM peak hours, in accordance with VDOT’s TOSAM (version 2) guidelines. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodology and include the level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning movements analyzed. Lane configurations at study intersections along the road network were field-verified, and the existing traffic volumes discussed in the aforementioned section as well as other relevant data were entered into the analysi s models. For this analysis, the existing peak hour factors (PHF) utilized in the analysis of existing conditions were based on the tra ffic count data collected and were modeled in the Synchro network on a by-intersection basis. PHF in the range of 0.85 to 1.00 was used for the existing scenario, consistent with VDOT analysis guidelines. The heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) utilized per movement were based on existing traffic count data for each lane group. Per the scoping meeting with VDOT and the County staff, it would be considered acceptable to achieve an approach LOS C or better for traffic operations, using HCM methodology. The results of the intersection capacity from Synchro are presented in Table 2 and graphically in Figure 7. The results are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds per vehicle) for overall signalized/all- way stop control intersections and per approach and lane group for all study intersections. The 95th percentile queues were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet. The description of different LOS and delays are included in Appendix C. The detailed analysis worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions are contained in Appendix D. Table 2: 2024 Existing Conditions – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results No. Intersection (Movement) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Effective Storage LOS Delay 95th % LOS Delay 95th % Length (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue [1] Synchro Synchro 1 Senseny Road (Rte 657) (E/W) at Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach A 0.6 A 2.1 Eastbound Left/Thru A 7.4 0 A 7.7 0 Eastbound Right 215 - - 0 - - 0 Westbound Approach A 0.0 A 0.5 Westbound Left/Thru A 0.0 0 A 7.5 0 Westbound Right 70 - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Approach B 10.8 B 11.8 Northbound Left/Thru/Right B 10.8 8 B 11.8 8 Southbound Approach A 9.4 A 9.6 Southbound Left/Thru/Right A 9.4 5 A 9.6 5 2 Woodrow Road/Canyon Road (E/W) at Channing Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach B 11.9 B 13.1 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right B 11.9 13 B 13.1 13 Westbound Approach B 10.2 B 10.6 Westbound Left/Thru/Right B 10.2 10 B 10.6 10 Northbound Approach A 0.3 A 1.1 Northbound Left 175 A 7.5 0 A 7.7 0 Northbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Right 135 - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Approach A 1.5 A 1.9 Southbound Left 190 A 7.6 3 A 7.7 3 Southbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Right 120 - - 0 - - 0 NOTES: [1] Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines. Based on the capacity analysis, all approaches at all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during all peak hours. Based on the queuing analysis performed for the 2024 Existing Conditions, all turning movements at the study intersections have 95th percentile queues that are accommodated within the available storage lengths of the turn bays. 291 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 18 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 7: 2024 Existing Conditions – Level of Service Results 292 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 19 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Analysis of 2027 Future Conditions Without Development For this study, the development is anticipated to be constructed by 2027; this scenario analyzes the future without development conditions for the year 2027. Future without Development Traffic Volumes The derivation of future without development traffic volumes was based on assumptions and parameters discussed with VDOT during the scoping process for this study. The future conditions include anticipated inherent regional growth, any potential background developments around the vicinity of the site, and any anticipated roadway improvements. Inherent Regional Growth In order to account for the increased demand on the traffic network between 2024 and 2027, an inherent growth rate was applied to future scenarios. This inherent growth was anticipated to account for regional development within the at-large area, which would ultimately result in increased roadway demand. Furthermore, the inherent growth was anticipated to account for any potential background developments unaccounted for within the vicinity of the study area. As agreed, upon in the scope of this study, to account for 2027 future conditions, an inherent growth rate of 1.0%, (compounded annually) over three years, between 2024 to 2027 (totaling 3.03% growth of the existing volumes) was applied to mainline through movements at the intersection of Senseny Road and Senseny Glen Drive and at the intersection of Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive. The inherent regional growth volumes (for the period between 2024 and 2027) are illustrated in Figure 8. Potential Transportation Improvements in the Study Area Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study Frederick County is currently studying transportation challenges and viable solutions for the area situated to the east of th e City of Winchester. The purpose of this study is to identify and document specific transportation needs for the study area as well as implementable transportation improvements. Acknowledging previous efforts to pursue a Route 37 bypass around Winchester, a bypass will be considered during the conceptual solution development and analysis process. Related to the Winchester East at Opequon Creek development, the preliminary alignment for the Route 37 bypass from previous studies shows a section of the roadway running in the vicinity of the project site. However, the Eastern Frederick County Transportation Study is in its early stages and no specific plans for the Route 37 bypass are expected before the Winchester East at Opequon Creek development is complete in 2027. Future Virginia Route 37 It is understood that the County is in the process of evaluating the future Virginia Route 37 in order to right -size its functionality to future needs. The draft Proffer Statement for the Property includes right -of-way dedication for the future Virginia Route 37. The Applicant shall reserve a portion of the Property that is 104 feet wide for the future Virginia Route 37 and dedicate rig ht-of- way that is consistent with the outcome of the County’s studies. Potential Background Development In addition to the applied inherent regional growth reflecting increased regional traffic demand, background developments wit hin the vicinity of the site, with their location depicted in Figure 9, were identified in the meeting with VDOT for inclusion in this study. The background developments included are as follows: Senseny Village • Located generally south of Senseny Road (Route 657), north of Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655), and west of Opequon Creek. The entirety of the property spans two parcels, totaling approximately 73.79 acres. 293 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 20 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com • Based on design plan for the site, approved by Frederick County in January, 2022, the trip generation for the project was calculated using a development program consisting of 108 single-family detached homes (ITE LUC 210) and 40 townhomes (ITE LUC 230), for a total of 148 residential units. • When complete, this background development is expected to generate a total of approximately 95 net new trips during the AM peak hour, 127 net new trips during the PM peak hour, and 1,216 net new daily trips during a typical weekday. • As of August 2024, a large portion of the site has been already developed, and several homes have been occupied. For this reason, it is assumed that 50% of the trips generated by this background development are being captured in existing conditions, and the remaining 50% of the trips will be included as background traffic in the future conditions scenarios. • As part of the Senseny Village project, the eastbound approach at the Senseny Road (US Route 657) and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive intersection was improved to include an exclusive right -turn lane into Twinbrook Circle. This improvement has already been implemented and is considered in the existing conditions analysis scenario. Rossum Crossing • Located generally south of Senseny Road (Route 657), north of Mason Street, east of Broad Avenue, and west of Rossum Lane. The entirety of the property spans one parcel, totaling approximately 1.94 acres. • Based on site plan for the site, approved by Frederick County in January, 2022, the trip generation for the project was calculated using a development program consisting of 18 townhomes (ITE LUC 230). • When complete, this background development is expected to generate a total of approximately 4 net new trips during the AM peak hour, 7 net new trips during the PM peak hour, and 82 net new daily trips during a typical weekday. • There are no improvements at the study intersections that are associated with this background development. Winchester Landing • Located generally north of Senseny Road (Route 657), south of Farmington Boulevard, east of Greenwood Road (Route 656), and west of Channing Drive. The entirety of the property spans one parcel, totaling approximately 33.61 acres. • Based on site plan for the site, approved by Frederick County in July, 2022, the trip generation for the project was calculated using a development program consisting of 40 single-family detached homes (ITE LUC 210), 81 single- family attached homes/townhomes (ITE LUC 230), and 48 multi-family units (ITE LUC 221) for a total of 169 residential units. • When complete, this background development is expected to generate a total of approximately 78 net new trips during the AM peak hour, 106 net new trips during the PM peak hour, and 1,184 net new daily trips during a typical weekday. • As of August 2024, a large portion of the site has been already developed, and several single-family homes have been occupied. For this reason, it is assumed that 50% of the trips generated by the single -family uses of this background development are being captured in existing conditions, and the remaining 50% of the trips will be included as background traffic in the future conditions scenarios. The multi-family buildings have not been constructed as of August 2024 so 100% of the trips generated by this use will be included as background traffic in the future conditions scenarios. • There are no improvements at the study intersections that are associated with this background development. To include the potential impacts of the background developments in future scenarios, the anticipated trips and roadway improvements associated with these background developments were taken into consideration. The assignment of the total 294 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 21 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com background trips to the road network is depicted in Figure 10. Additional information related to the background traffic impact study is included in Appendix E. Future without Development Traffic Volumes In order to forecast future roadway traffic volumes for the year 2027, the 2024 existing traffic volumes were combined with t he inherent regional growth traffic volumes, and background development traffic volumes. The 2027 Future without Development traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 11. 295 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 22 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 8: Projected Inherent Regional Growth Traffic Volumes (2024 to 2027) 296 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 23 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 9: Location of Background Development 297 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 24 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 10: Background Development Traffic Assignment 298 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 25 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 11: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes 299 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 26 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Future without Development Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Intersection capacity and queueing analyses were performed for the 2027 Future Conditions without Development scenario at the study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, in accordance with VDOT’s TOSAM (version 2) guidelines. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on TRB’s HCM 6th Edition methodology and include LOS, delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning movements analyzed. For this analysis, the intersection PHF utilized in the analysis of future conditions was determined based on the 2024 existing traffic counts, with a minimum of 0.92. The HV% were based on the existing traffic count data. As mentioned previously, it would be considered acceptable to achieve an approach LOS C or better for traffic operations using HCM methodology. The results of the intersection capacity and queuing analyses from Synchro are presented in Table 3 and graphically in Figure 12. The results are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds per vehicle ) for overall signalized intersections and per approach and lane group for all study intersections. The 95th percentile queues were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet. The detailed analysis worksheets of the 2027 Future Conditions without Development are contained in Appendix F. Table 3: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Intersection Capacity Analysis Results No. Intersection (Movement) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Effective Storage LOS Delay 95th % LOS Delay 95th % Length (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue [1] Synchro Synchro 1 Senseny Road (Rte 657) (E/W) at Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach A 0.6 A 2.0 Eastbound Left/Thru A 7.4 0 A 7.8 0 Eastbound Right 215 - - 0 - - 0 Westbound Approach A 0.1 A 0.6 Westbound Left/Thru A 7.5 0 A 7.6 0 Westbound Right 70 - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Approach B 10.7 B 11.9 Northbound Left/Thru/Right B 10.7 8 B 11.9 8 Southbound Approach A 9.4 A 9.7 Southbound Left/Thru/Right A 9.4 5 A 9.7 5 2 Woodrow Road/Canyon Road (E/W) at Channing Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach B 12.3 B 14.1 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right B 12.3 13 B 14.1 13 Westbound Approach B 10.4 B 11.0 Westbound Left/Thru/Right B 10.4 10 B 11.0 10 Northbound Approach A 0.3 A 1.0 Northbound Left 175 A 7.5 0 A 7.8 0 Northbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Right 135 - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Approach A 1.4 A 1.6 Southbound Left 190 A 7.7 3 A 7.8 3 Southbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Right 120 - - 0 - - 0 NOTES: [1] Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines. Based on the capacity analysis, all approaches at all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service during all peak hours. Based on the queuing analysis performed for the 2027 Future Conditions without Development, all turning movements at the study intersections have 95th percentile queues that can be accommodated within the available storage lengths of the turn bays. 300 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 27 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 12: 2027 Future Conditions without Development – Level of Service Results 301 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 28 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Analysis of 2027 Future Conditions with Development For this study, the Development is anticipated to be constructed by 2027 and this scenario analyzes the future with development conditions for the year 2027. Site Description The Site is generally situated to the north of Senseny Road (Route 657), west of Opequon Creek, and east of Canyon Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed development consists of two parcels with the following Tax PIN #s: 65 A 194B and 65 A 195, totaling approximately 91.7 acres. The Applicant is proposing to rezone the RA (Rural Are a District) portion of the parcel to RP (Residential Performance District) in order to construct approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units. The development is anticipated to be complete and in operation by 2027. The Generalized Development Plan for the Site is illustrated in Figure 13. Access to the site will be provided via one future full-movement entrance along Senseny Road and one future full-movement entrance at the future fourth leg connection at Senseny Glen and Canyon Road. Projected Site Trip Generation In order to calculate the trips generated by the proposed development, the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, the publication was used to determine the total trips going into and out of the subject study site during the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well as the typical number of weekday daily trips. The projected trip generation for the proposed development is depicted in Table 4. There is no internal capture and Pass-by allowance Reduction associated with this site. Table 4: Site Trip Generation (Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street; ITE 11th Ed.) Land Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k d a y ------ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Ou t Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS) 210 30 DU 6 19 25 20 12 32 333 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS) 215 253 DU 31 95 126 87 61 148 1,877 Total 37 114 151 107 73 180 2,210 As illustrated in the table above, the site in total is expected to generate approximately 151 new trips during the AM peak hour, 180 new trips during the PM peak hour, and 2,210 new daily trips on a typical weekday. Distribution and Assignment of Site Traffic The distribution and assignment of the site-generated trips were based on the existing traffic patterns, engineering judgment, and the nature of the proposed development, and determined with the guidance and input from VDOT and County staff. The site direction of approach is illustrated in Figure 14. Future with Development Traffic Volume The 2027 future road network configuration is presented in Figure 15. In order to project future traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity of the development, trips generated from the development were assigned to the road network based on the previously mentioned direction of approach. The primary site traffic assignme nt is illustrated for the AM and PM peak hours in Figure 16. The 2027 Future with Development traffic volumes is illustrated in Figure 17. 302 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 29 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 13: Generalized Development Plan 303 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 30 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 14: Direction of Approach (Site Trip) 304 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 31 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 15: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Roadway Network Geometric Configuration and Traffic Control Devices 305 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 32 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 16: Site Generated Trip Assignment 306 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 33 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 17: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Peak Hour Vehicular Traffic Volumes 307 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 34 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Future with Development Intersection Capacity and Queuing Analysis Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed for the 2027 Future Conditions with Development scenario at the study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, in accordance with VDOT’s TOSAM (version 2) guidelines. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on TRB’s HCM 6th Edition methodology and include LOS, delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning movements analyzed. For the purposes of this analysis, the intersection PHF utilized in the analysis of future conditions was determined based on the 2024 existing traffic counts, with a minimum of 0.92 as agreed to in the scoping document. The HV% were based on the existing conditions scenario, with any new approaches based on the existing counts and the Site truck trip generation. As mentioned previously, it would be considered acceptable to achieve an approach LOS C or better for traffic operations using HCM methodology. The results of the intersection capacity and queuing analyses from Synchro are presented in Table 5 and graphically in Figure 18. The results are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds per vehicle) for overall signalized in tersections and per approach and lane group for all study intersections. The 95th percentile queues were also determined from Synchro and are expressed in feet. The detailed analysis worksheets of the 2027 Future Conditions with Development scenario are contained in Appendix G. Table 5: 2027 Future Conditions with Development– Intersection Capacity Analysis Results No. Intersection (Movement) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Effective Storage LOS Delay 95th % LOS Delay 95th % Length (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue (ft.) (sec/veh) Queue [1] Synchro Synchro 1 Senseny Road (Rte 657) (E/W) at Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach A 0.5 A 1.6 Eastbound Left/Thru A 7.5 0 A 7.8 0 Eastbound Right 215 - - 0 - - 0 Westbound Approach A 0.1 A 0.5 Westbound Left/Thru A 7.6 0 A 7.7 0 Westbound Right 70 - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Approach B 11.4 B 13.0 Northbound Left/Thru/Right B 11.4 8 B 13.0 8 Southbound Approach A 9.8 B 10.0 Southbound Left/Thru/Right A 9.8 5 B 10.0 5 2 Woodrow Road/Canyon Road (E/W) at Channing Drive (N/S) Eastbound Approach B 13.5 C 16.4 Eastbound Left/Thru/Right B 13.5 20 C 16.4 20 Westbound Approach B 10.8 B 11.2 Westbound Left/Thru/Right B 10.8 13 B 11.2 13 Northbound Approach A 0.3 A 1.0 Northbound Left 175 A 7.5 0 A 7.8 0 Northbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Northbound Right 135 - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Approach A 2.0 A 2.5 Southbound Left 190 A 7.7 3 A 7.9 3 Southbound Thru - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Right 120 - - 0 - - 0 3 Senseny Road (E/W) at Site Access Eastbound Approach A 0.8 A 2.5 Eastbound Left/Thru A 7.4 0 A 7.8 3 Westbound Approach A 0.0 A 0.0 Westbound Thru/Right - - 0 - - 0 Southbound Approach A 9.3 B 10.1 Southbound Left/Right A 9.3 8 B 10.1 5 NOTES: [1] Effective storage length is based on the storage length plus one-half of the taper length per TOSAM guidelines. Based on the capacity analysis of the 2027 Future Conditions with Development, all approaches at all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the queuing analysis performed for the 2027 Future Conditions with Development, all turning movements at the study intersections have 95th percentile queues that can be accommodated within the available storage lengths of the turn bays. Therefore, no improvements are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development. 308 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 35 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 18: 2027 Future Conditions with Development – Level of Service Results 309 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 36 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Preliminary Left and Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessments Left and right turn lane warrants are based on VDOT’s Road Design Manual (RDM), Appendix F. In order to determine the need for exclusive left or right turn lanes at the site access along Senseny Road, the traffic data and anticipated development program provided in the Analysis of 2027 Future Conditions with Development section were utilized. Additional graphics and information regarding the methodology used to determine the turn lane warrants are provided in Appendix H. Warrants for right‐turn storage lanes on two‐lane highways at intersections are based on Figure 3‐26 in Appendix F of VDOT’s RDM. This figure provides a graphical representation for determining the necessity of a right turn lane by comparing the total volumes of a given approach with their respective right turn volumes. Warrants for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3 -5 to Figure 3-21 in Appendix F of VDOT’s RDM. The figures provide graphical representations for determining the necessity of a left turn lane by comparing the advancing volumes of a given approach and the respective opposing volumes with respect to the percentage of left turning vehicles of the advancing volumes and the design speed of a given roadway. Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Table 6 shows that per VDOT RDM, a left turn lane is not warranted on the eastbound approach at the site access along Senseny Road given the opposing volume, advancing volume , and the left turning volume for the 2027 Future with Development conditions. Table 6: Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Results (2027 Future Conditions with Development) Input VDOT Calculated Thresholds Study Scenario Opposing Vol. (VPH) Advancing Vol. (VPH) Left Turn Vol. (VPH) Left Turn % Minimum Opposing Threshold (VPH) VDOT RDM F Figure Treatment INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF AM Peak 82 177 19 10.73% 765 Fig. 3-12 Not Warranted INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF PM Peak 213 169 55 32.54% 493 Fig. 3-15 Not Warranted Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Table 7 shows that per VDOT RDM, a right turn lane is not warranted on the westbound approach at the site access along Senseny Road, given the right turning volume, approach volume , and the minimum right turn lane and taper thresholds. Table 7: Right Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Results (2027 Future Conditions with Development) Study Scenario Approach Volume Right Turn Volume Minimum Right Turn Taper Threshold Minimum Right Turn Full Lane Threshold Treatment INT 3 - WBR - TF (AM) 82 4 62 107 Not Warranted INT 3 - WBR - TF (PM) 213 11 49 90 Not Warranted 310 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 37 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Access Management Assessment The minimum spacing standards for the Commonwealth of Virginia are specified in VDOT’s Road Design Manual (RDM). Appendix F of the RDM focuses primarily on access management practices. The minimum spacing standard is specified in Table 2-2 through Table 2-4. Table 2-2 provides guidance on the minimum spacing standard for commercial entrances, intersections, and median crossovers, and is based on a roadway’s speed limit and functional classification. Senseny Road in the vicinity of the proposed development is classified by VDOT as a major collector roadway. The speed limit on the roadway segment in the vicinity of the study area is 45 mph. The applicable intersection spacing requirements (centerline-to-centerline) per RDM Appendix F Table 2-2 are illustrated in Table 8. This section evaluates the minimum spacing requirements at the proposed site. The proposed intersection spacings by roadway are illustrated in Figure 19. Table 8: VDOT Minimum Intersection Spacing Requirements for Commercial Entrances, Intersections, and Median Crossovers (RDM, Appendix F, Table 2-2) Figure 19 shows the intersection spacing requirements and the measured intersection spacing relative to the new access proposed on Senseny Road. 311 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 38 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Figure 19: Proposed Intersection Spacing 312 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 39 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Conclusions This report presents the findings of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Winchester East at Opequon Creek development which is generally situated north of Senseny Road (Route 657), west of Opequon Creek, and east of Canyon Road in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is situated on two parcels that can be identified on Frederick County Tax Maps with the following Tax PIN #s: 65 A 194B and 65 A 195. The property totals approximately 91.7 acres and is currently zoned as RA (Rural Area District). The Applicant is proposing to rezone the parcel s to RP (Residential Performance District) in order to construct approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units. The development is anticipated to be complete and occupied by 2027. Access to the site will be provided via one proposed full-movement entrance along Senseny Road, and one proposed full- movement entrance at the future fourth leg connection at Senseny Glen Drive and Canyon Road . Analysis Components • 2024 existing peak hour volumes were derived via turning movement counts collected at intersections within the study area on May 23, 2024 and August 20, 2024. • The trip generation associated with the Site was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition publication. • Intersection capacity and queuing analyses were performed for all analysis scenarios at the study area intersections during the weekday morning (AM), and weekday afternoon (PM) peak hours. Synchro, version 11, was used to analyze the study intersections with results based on the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology and analysis guidelines provided in VDOT’s Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM) (version 2). The analysis herein includes the level of service (LOS), delay, and queue length comparisons for the turning movements analyzed. Analysis Results 2024 Existing Conditions • Based on the capacity analysis of the 2024 Existing Conditions, all approaches at all study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95th percentile queue lengths that are accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. 2027 Future Conditions without Development • Based on the capacity analysis of the 2027 Future Conditions without Development, all approaches at all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95 th percentile queue lengths that can be accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. 2027 Future Conditions with Development • The proposed development will consist of approximately 30 single-family detached units and 253 single-family attached units including 117 townhouses and 136 duplexes/small lot units and is anticipated to generate approximately 153 new trips during the AM peak hour, 182 new trips during the PM peak hour, and 2,237 new daily trips on a typical weekday. The development is anticipated to be complete by 2027. 313 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – Traffic Impact Analysis September 19, 2024 Page 40 4114 Legat o Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com • Based on the capacity analysis of the 2027 Future Conditions with Development, all approaches at all study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours. • Based on the queueing analysis, all turning movements have 95 th percentile queue lengths that can be accommodated within the available storage length of the turn bays. • All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service and queues with and without the addition of the proposed development. Therefore, no mitigation measures were recommended. Overall Conclusion All study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service and queues with and without the addition of the proposed development. Based on the capacity and queueing analysis results, the proposed development will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding transportation and roadway network. Therefore, no improvements are recommended to mitigate the traffic generated by the proposed development. It is understood that the County is in the process of evaluating the future Virginia Route 37 in order to right -size its functionality to future needs. The draft Proffer Statement for the Property includes right -of-way dedication for the future Virginia Route 37. The Applicant shall reserve a portion of the Property that is 104 feet wide for the future Virginia Route 37 and dedicate rig ht-of- way that is consistent with the outcome of the County’s studies. 314 Transportation Technical Appendix Winchester East at Opequon Creek Frederick County, Virginia September 19, 2024 315 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com CONTENTS (Note: Click on heading to navigate directly to each section of the Technical Attachments) A. Scoping Document B. Existing Traffic Count Data C. Level of Service & Delay Definition D. Analysis Worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions E. Background Traffic Impact Studies F. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions without Development G. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions with Development H. Turn Lane Warrants 316 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com A. Scoping Document 317 It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. THIS IS NOT A CHAPTER 870 STUDY PRE-SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Information Consultant Name: Tele: E-mail: Kevin D Sitzman, Gorove Slade Associates, Inc. 703-787-9595 ksitzman@goroveslade.com Developer/Owner Name: Tele: E-mail: Terra Foundry Partners tom@terrafoundrypartners.com Project Information Project Name: Opequon Creek Locality/County: Frederick County Project Location: (Attach regional and site specific location map) The proposed Opequon Creek development site is located north of Senseny Road in Frederick County, Virginia. Submission Type Comp Plan REZ/SUP Site Plan Subd Plat Project Description: (Including details on the land use, acreage, phasing, access location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary) The proposed development will be on two (2) parcels of approximately 91.7 acres in Frederick County, Virginia. The specific parcel can be identified by PIN 65 A 195 and PIN 65 A 194B in the Frederick County Tax Map. The current zoning designation for the parcel is RA (Rural Area District). Development Details: The proposed development consists of 31 single-family detached units and 255 single- family attached (townhouses/duplexes) units. The anticipated build-out year for the project is 2027. Site Access: The development will have access points through: • One proposed access point off of Senseny Road • One proposed access point off of Canyon Road (the 4th leg connection at Sensory Glen Drive and Canyon Road) Proposed Use(s): (Check all that apply; attach additional pages as necessary) Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other Residential Uses(s) • ITE LU Code(s): 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing Number of Units: 31 Commercial Use(s) 318 It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. • ITE LU Code(s): 215 – Single-Family Attached Housing Number of Units: 255 Other Use(s) ITE LU Code(s): NA Square Ft or Other Variable: NA Total Peak Hour Trip Projection: Less than 100 100 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 or more Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions Study Period Existing Year: 2024 Build-out Year: 2027 Design Year: Study Area Boundaries (Attach map) North: Woodrow Road/Canyon Road South: Senseny Road West: Channing Road East: Sensory Glen Drive External Factors That Could Affect Project (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Route 37 Improvements Consistency With Comprehensive Plan (Land use, transportation plan) Yes, per Frederick County Long Range Land Use Map identifies the portion of the parcel to be for Residential use. Available Traffic Data (Historical, forecasts) VDOT Historical AADT Data (2018-2022) 2024 turning movement counts. Trip Distribution (Please refer to attached Figure 2 in Supplement) Road Name: NA (to/from the South) – NA Road Name: Channing Road (to/from the North) – 40% Road Name: Senseny Road (to/from the West) – 50% Road Name: Senseny Road (to/from the East) – 10% Annual Vehicle Trip Growth Rate: (See Note 10.) 1.0%/yr. (2024-2027) Peak Period for Study (check all that apply) AM PM SAT Peak Hour of the Adj. (to be used in study) AM: 153 / PM: 182 / Daily: 2,237 Study Intersections and/or Road Segments (Attach additional sheets as necessary) (Please refer to attached Figure 1.) 1. Senseny Road and Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive 7. 2. Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive 8. 3. Senseny Road and Future Site Driveway 9. 4. 10. 5. 11. 6. 12. 319 It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting. Trip Adjustment Factors Internal allowance Reduction: Yes No Pass-by allowance Reduction: Yes No Software Methodology Synchro HCS (v.2000/+) SIDRA CORSIM Other Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected (Analysis software to be used, progression speed, cycle length) Analysis Software: Synchro version 11 Results: HCM 6 methodology Improvement(s) Assumed or to be Considered Route 37 Improvements Background Traffic Studies Considered Senseny Village, Rossum Crossing, Winchester Landing Plan Submission Master Development Plan (MDP) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues to be Addressed Queuing analysis Actuation/Coordination Weaving analysis Merge analysis Bike/Ped Accommodations Intersection(s) TDM Measures Other (_________________________) 320 Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A1 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Synchro files/signal timings will be obtained from VDOT. 2. The scenarios to be included in the study are Existing Conditions (2024), Future without Development (202 7), and Future with Development (2027). The study will analyze AM and PM peak hours. 3. Existing peak hour factors will be based on the traffic counts and utilized on a by-intersection basis. Peak hours factors by intersection in the range of 0.85 to 1.00 will be used for the existing scenario. Peak hour factors of 0.92 will be used for all future scenarios if the existing peak hour factor by intersection is less than 0.92. 4. Heavy vehicle percentages (HV%) will be based on count data. For any new intersection, the HV% will be based on a default Synchro value of 2.0% per movement on new approaches and the HV% on existing approaches will be based on the truck volumes of the adjacent intersections. 5. For any approach, a level of service (LOS) C or better would be considered as acceptable/desirable for traffic operations. For all approaches, the projected future conditions without development LOS and delay will be maintained in the future with development conditions. Will show intersection, approach, and movement LOS. 6. 95th percentile queues will be provided from Synchro. 7. HCM 6 methodology will be utilized where applicable; HCM 2000 methodology will be utilized if HCM 6 methodology is not applicable for a certain location. 8. Preliminary Access Management/Intersections Spacing will be provided. 9. Turn Lanes requirements will be evaluated for the site entrances. 10. An inherent growth rate of 1% (compounded annually) for the period 2024-2027 will be applied to mainline thru movements at the intersection of Senseny Road and Senseny Glen Drive and the intersection of Woodrow Road/Canyon Road and Channing Drive, which will be balanced as through movements at the adjacent intersection. SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: 09/06/2024 Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: ______________ Applicant or Consultant SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: VDOT Representative PRINT NAME: ____________________________ VDOT Representative SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: Prince William County Representative PRINT NAME: _____________________________ Prince William County Representative 321 Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A2 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com Table 1: Historic Growth (Based on VDOT Traffic Data) Figure 1: Site Location and Study Intersection Growth Rate Road Segment From To 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018-2022 Senseny Road 34-736 Rossum Lane Clarke County Line 2,100 2,100 1,900 2,200 2,177 0.90% 322 Opequon Creek Development – Scoping Document Supplement Page A3 Gorove/Slade www.goroveslade.com Figure 2: Direction of Approach Table 2: Trip Generation – Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street (ITE 11th Edition) In Out Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 31 DU 6 20 26 21 12 33 344 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 255 DU 32 95 127 88 61 149 1,893 Total 38 115 153 109 73 182 2,237 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ Land Use ITE Code Size 323 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com B. Existing Traffic Count Data 324 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Senseny Glen Dr -- Senseny Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16634503 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, May 23 2024 56 15 44 1 11 150 12 3 72 128 0.880.88 69 151 11 0 150 37 0 11 12 48 Peak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AMPeak-Hour: 7:15 AM -- 8:15 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 1.8 0 0 0 9.1 4 0 0 6.9 3.9 7.2 4.6 18.2 0 4 2.7 0 0 16.7 2.1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 5:30 AM 3 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 19 5:45 AM 6 0 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 6:00 AM 3 0 4 0 5 1 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 6 0 0 37 6:15 AM 4 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 0 18 1 0 0 3 0 0 41 120 6:30 AM 6 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 1 28 1 0 0 10 0 0 60 161 6:45 AM 4 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 1 24 0 0 0 5 0 0 45 183 7:00 AM 7 0 4 0 6 0 5 0 0 28 0 0 0 14 0 0 64 210 7:15 AM 9 0 2 0 3 0 12 0 2 38 2 0 0 13 0 0 81 250 7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 1 0 17 0 3 25 2 0 0 9 1 0 74 264 7:45 AM 12 0 3 0 4 0 8 0 2 34 3 0 0 25 2 0 93 312 8:00 AM 3 0 3 0 3 1 7 0 5 31 4 0 0 22 0 0 79 327 8:15 AM 6 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 9 34 3 0 1 14 0 0 79 325 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 48 0 12 0 16 0 32 0 8 136 12 0 0 100 8 0 372 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 12 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 5/29/2024 8:18 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 325 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Senseny Glen Dr -- Senseny Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16634504 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Thu, May 23 2024 35 72 32 0 3 213 50 22 194 97 0.900.90 160 188 41 12 110 21 0 10 53 31 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PMPeak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:15 PM -- 4:30 PM 0 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 0 4.5 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.6 2.4 0 3.6 4.8 0 20 1.9 9.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Senseny Glen DrSenseny Glen Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Senseny RdSenseny Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 3:00 PM 11 0 4 0 1 1 14 0 9 18 7 0 1 27 2 0 95 3:15 PM 3 0 3 0 1 2 10 0 6 30 8 0 0 26 2 0 91 3:30 PM 4 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 13 22 7 0 2 26 1 0 84 3:45 PM 4 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 9 22 4 0 1 44 3 0 98 368 4:00 PM 6 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 12 23 11 0 4 39 5 0 111 384 4:15 PM 3 0 2 0 1 0 9 0 20 22 8 0 2 52 6 0 125 418 4:30 PM 4 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 8 26 8 0 4 24 5 0 90 424 4:45 PM 8 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 10 26 14 0 2 45 6 0 122 448 5:00 PM 8 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 6 25 12 0 3 39 2 0 106 443 5:15 PM 7 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 8 20 9 0 3 26 3 0 83 401 5:30 PM 6 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 13 20 3 0 2 33 3 0 89 400 5:45 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 9 12 3 0 2 28 2 0 65 343 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 12 0 8 0 4 0 36 0 80 88 32 0 8 208 24 0 500 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 5/29/2024 8:18 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 326 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Channing Dr -- Woodrow Rd/Canyon Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16713301 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Tue, Aug 20 2024 130 248 9 95 26 19 40 89 106 3 0.900.90 4 65 22 13 34 6 119 5 130 130 Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AMPeak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AMPeak 15-Min: 7:30 AM -- 7:45 AM 1.5 2.8 0 1.1 3.8 5.3 2.5 3.4 2.8 33.3 0 3.1 0 0 8.8 16.7 2.5 20 0.8 3.8 2 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Channing Dr Channing Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Channing Dr Channing Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 5:30 AM 0 8 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 22 5:45 AM 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 26 6:00 AM 1 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 43 6:15 AM 0 12 1 0 2 15 0 0 9 2 1 0 1 0 8 0 51 142 6:30 AM 0 15 0 0 4 17 1 0 5 2 2 0 1 1 17 0 65 185 6:45 AM 0 22 0 0 3 21 3 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 71 230 7:00 AM 2 30 1 0 5 19 0 0 9 1 2 0 2 0 20 0 91 278 7:15 AM 0 32 2 0 3 21 0 0 11 1 6 0 3 4 26 0 109 336 7:30 AM 2 27 0 0 7 24 2 0 17 1 9 0 4 0 27 0 120 391 7:45 AM 2 30 2 0 11 31 7 0 3 0 5 0 4 0 16 0 111 431 8:00 AM 0 24 1 0 3 32 1 0 6 2 3 0 3 1 11 0 87 427 8:15 AM 2 20 1 0 5 28 2 0 6 1 5 0 2 1 6 0 79 397 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 8 108 0 0 28 96 8 0 68 4 36 0 16 0 108 0 480 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 12 Buses Pedestrians 16 0 0 4 20 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 8/21/2024 10:35 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 327 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: LOCATION: Channing Dr -- Woodrow Rd/Canyon Rd QC JOB #: QC JOB #: 16713302 CITY/STATE: CITY/STATE: Frederick, VA DATE: DATE: Tue, Aug 20 2024 227 214 34 138 55 65 28 49 64 4 0.850.85 5 45 13 10 75 26 137 16 161 179 Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PMPeak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PMPeak 15-Min: 4:45 PM -- 5:00 PM 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.6 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-Min Count15-Min CountPeriod Period Beginning AtBeginning At Channing Dr Channing Dr (Northbound)(Northbound) Channing Dr Channing Dr (Southbound)(Southbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Eastbound)(Eastbound) Woodrow Rd/Canyon RdWoodrow Rd/Canyon Rd (Westbound)(Westbound)TotalTotal HourlyHourlyTotalsTotalsLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU 3:00 PM 1 20 3 0 13 24 5 0 5 0 3 0 4 2 5 0 85 3:15 PM 4 23 3 0 13 32 2 0 6 2 5 0 5 2 6 0 103 3:30 PM 5 26 5 0 14 30 9 0 5 1 8 0 2 0 11 0 116 3:45 PM 6 30 5 0 13 29 7 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 7 0 105 409 4:00 PM 9 41 2 0 14 27 4 0 4 1 4 0 1 1 12 0 120 444 4:15 PM 3 52 4 0 12 31 7 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 9 0 125 466 4:30 PM 5 24 2 0 12 30 6 0 6 1 5 0 2 2 7 0 102 452 4:45 PM 5 40 5 0 18 44 7 0 9 1 5 0 5 3 9 0 151 498 5:00 PM 9 30 3 0 11 35 7 0 7 1 3 0 3 0 8 0 117 495 5:15 PM 2 30 4 0 13 25 10 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 13 0 104 474 5:30 PM 10 37 4 0 13 34 10 0 8 1 4 0 1 2 19 0 143 515 5:45 PM 3 20 1 0 17 27 8 0 4 1 4 0 2 0 11 0 98 462 Peak 15-MinPeak 15-MinFlowratesFlowrates NorthboundNorthbound SouthboundSouthbound EastboundEastbound WestboundWestbound TotalTotalLeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUULeftLeftThruThruRightRightUU All Vehicles 20 160 20 0 72 176 28 0 36 4 20 0 20 12 36 0 604 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 8/21/2024 10:35 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 1 328 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com C. Level of Service & Delay Definition 329 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Subject: Level of Service Definitions Introduction The purpose of this memorandum is to define the level of service (LOS) metric that commonly used as a measure of effectiveness (MOE) for traffic operations. All capacity analyses are based on the procedures specified by the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which is currently on its sixth edition. Level of service ranges from A to F. A brief description of each level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections is provided below. Signalized Intersections Level of service is based upon the traffic volume present in each lane on the roadway, the capacity of each lane at the intersection and the delay associated with each directional movement. The levels of service for signalized intersections are defined below: •Level of Service A describes operations with very low average delay per vehicle, i.e., less than 10.0 seconds. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop. Short signal cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. •Level of Service B describes operations with average delay in the range of 10.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. •Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. This is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in rural areas. •Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high traffic volumes as compared to the roadway capacity. Many vehicles are required to stop and the number of vehicles that do not have to stop declines. Individual signal cycle failures, where all waiting vehicles do not clear the intersection during a single green time, are noticeable. This is generally considered the lower end of the range of the acceptable level of service in urban areas. •Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high traffic volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS E has been set as the limit of acceptable conditions. •Level of Service F describes operations with average delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, i.e., when traffic arrives at a flow rate that exceeds the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volumes with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute to such delays. 330 Level of Service Definitions Page 2 4114 Legato Road / Suite 650 / Fairfax, VA 22033 / T 703.787.9595 goroveslade.com Unsignalized Intersections At an unsignalized intersection, the major street through traffic and right-turns are assumed to operate unimpeded and therefore receive no level of service rating. The level of service for the minor street and the major street left-turn traffic is dependent on the volume and capacity of the available lanes, and, the number and frequency of acceptable gaps in the major street traffic to make a conflicting turn. The level of service grade is provided for each conflicting movement at an unsignalized intersection and is based on the total average delay experienced by each vehicle. The delay includes the time it takes a vehicle to move from the back of a queue through the intersection. The unsignalized intersection level of service analysis does not account for variations in driver behavior or the effects of nearby traffic signals. Therefore, the results from this analysis usually indicate worse levels of service than may be experienced in the field. The unsignalized intersection level of service descriptions are provided below: •Level of Service A describes operations where there is very little to no conflicting traffic for a minor side street movement, i.e., an average total delay of less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service B describes operations with average total delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service C describes operations with average total delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 second per vehicle. •Level of Service D describes operations with average total delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service E describes operations with average total delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0 seconds per vehicle. •Level of Service F describes operations with average total delay of 50 seconds per vehicle. LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to cross safely through or enter a major street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident from extremely long total delays experienced by side street traffic and by queuing on the minor approaches. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal driver behavior. 331 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com D. Analysis Worksheets of 2024 Existing Conditions 332 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 128 11 0 69 3 37 0 11 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 140 11 0 69 3 0 48 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1892 1615 0 1900 1615 0 1764 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 839 0 1900 0 576 0 1729 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) 8.8 16.9 NA NA 10.5 11.3 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 16.9 4.4 10.0 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 20.9 8.7 14.2 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 8.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 8.1 0.0 4.4 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 8.9 8.9 4.4 4.4 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 12.9 12.9 8.7 8.7 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 20.9 14.2 Split Option (s) 21.6 16.4 Minimum (s) 20.9 14.2 35.1 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.7 12.9 Combined (s) 24.7 29.7 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 333 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 89 6 119 5 26 95 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 106 0 6 119 5 26 95 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1651 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 7.5 1.5 1.7 6.0 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 13.7 11.1 8.0 10.6 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 507 0 1669 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 15.6 0.0 8.3 6.0 7.5 25.9 6.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 1900 0 1900 Reference Time B (s) 10.7 12.7 8.9 16.3 8.4 7.5 9.7 6.0 Reference Time (s) 12.7 8.3 7.5 9.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 13.7 13.7 14.1 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 8.3 0.4 7.5 1.7 6.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 7.5 1.7 6.0 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 8.3 8.3 7.5 7.5 6.0 6.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 10.6 10.6 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 21.7 Permitted Option (s) 17.2 14.1 Split Option (s) 24.2 24.4 Minimum (s) 17.2 14.1 31.3 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 13.7 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 30.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 334 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 97 41 12 160 22 21 0 10 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 147 41 0 172 22 0 31 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1868 1615 0 1893 1615 0 1747 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 298 0 940 0 376 0 1662 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 59.3 0.0 22.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA 8.8 18.9 9.4 10.1 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 59.3 18.9 9.9 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 63.3 22.9 13.9 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.4 0.0 10.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 6.1 0.8 10.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 9.4 9.4 10.9 10.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.4 13.4 14.9 14.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 63.3 13.9 Split Option (s) 28.3 16.0 Minimum (s) 28.3 13.9 42.2 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 14.9 13.4 Combined (s) 30.9 29.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.2% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 335 Intersection Capacity Utilization Existing (2024) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 49 26 137 16 55 138 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 64 0 26 137 16 55 138 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1669 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 8.7 1.8 3.7 8.7 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 13.8 9.8 8.0 12.7 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 590 0 1686 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 9.2 0.0 4.9 25.9 8.7 54.8 8.7 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 12.9 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 9.2 4.9 25.9 54.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.7 9.9 29.9 58.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 4.9 1.7 8.7 3.7 8.7 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 8.7 3.7 8.7 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 4.9 4.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 13.8 13.8 12.7 12.7 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 21.8 Permitted Option (s) 13.7 58.8 Split Option (s) 18.7 26.5 Minimum (s) 13.7 21.8 35.4 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 9.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 26.6 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 336 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com E. Background Development Trip Generation Senseny Village Rossum Crossing Winchester Landing In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 108 DU 20 60 80 67 40 107 1,083 56 47 103 1,034 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 40 DU 4 11 15 12 8 20 254 8 8 16 182 Total 24 71 95 79 48 127 1,337 64 55 119 1,216 Land Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k e n d ------ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Saturday Peak Hour Sat Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 18 DU 1 3 4 4 3 7 87 3 4 7 82 Land Use ITE Code Size ------ W e e k e n d ------ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Saturday Peak Hour Sat Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ In Out Total In Out Total Total Single-Family Detached Housing (EQUATIONS)210 40 DU 8 24 32 26 16 42 434 Single-Family Attached Housing (EQUATIONS)215 81 DU 9 27 36 27 18 45 567 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (Apartments, Townhomes, Condo; max 10 floors; Not Close to Rail Transit)221 48 DU 2 8 10 12 7 19 183 Total 19 59 78 65 41 106 1,184 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily ------ W e e k d a y ------ Land Use ITE Code Size 337 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -WardProperty Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscap e Architects. P 208Church Street, S.E. Leesburg, Virginia 20175 7703.777.3616 F703.777.3725 November 29, 2004 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 338 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Han Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert-Ward Property to be located along the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), east of Greenwood Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 285 residential units (145 single family detached and 140 townhouse) with access to be provided along Senseny Road viaRossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle, respectively. The development is tobebuilt -outinasingle transportation phase bytheyear 2010. PHR +Ahasprovided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Lambert -Ward Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology Thetraffic impacts accompanying theLambert -Ward Property development were obtained through a sequence of' activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation oftrip generation fortheproposed Lambert-Ward Property development, Distribution and assignment of the Lambert -Ward Property generated trips onto the study area roadway network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, forexisting and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections: Senseny Road /Greenwood Road, Senseny Road /Rossum Lane and Senseny Road Twinbrook Circle inFrederick County, Virginia. Inorder todetermine theADT Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a conservative `k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3shows therespective existing lane geometry and AM /PM peals hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 1 339 rN No Scale rFigure 1 \ 11 Vicinity Map Lambert -Ward Property A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page2 340 P Existing ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1-0 Page 3 341 SignalizedIntersection LOS =B(B) Al 13)B.c, A Unsignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection NoScale 0 0 UV Figu 030 R SITE DenotesUnsignalizedCriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page4 342 Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PMPeak Hour In Out Total ADT Butcher Property 210 Single Family Detached 69units 14 43 58 43 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Red -Bud Run 210 Single Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Fieldstone 210 Single Family Detached 63units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Misc Other Developments along Channing Drive* 210 Single- Family Detached 1,164 units 206 618 824 615 361 976 11,640 230Townhouse /Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 323 739 1,063 1,004 753 1,757 20,416 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHRA 1 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR +A increased the existing traffic volumes along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road using aconservative growth rate offive percent (5 per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR +A utilized thefollowing reports toincorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site: Traffic Impact Analysis ofFieldstone, byPHR +A, dated January 16, 2004 and ATraffic Impact Analysis of Butcher Property, by PHR +A, dated September 8, 2004. Using the 7 Edition oftheInstitute ofTransportation Engineers' (1TE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Includes Giles Form, Toll Brotlic Abrams' Po Table 1 2010 "OtherDevelopments" Trip Generation Summary Coventry Court and miscellaneous resi dentia Figure 4shows the 2010 background ADT and AM /PMpeak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page5 343 No Scale i1/4 66(1 01) 551(475) r- 12(50) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) rverage Dady PHRAFigure42010 Background ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 6 344 r No Scale SignalizedIntersection LOS =B(C) U Al Signalized Ime rsectian LOS =C(C) Unsignalized Intersection c7 UnsignalizedIntersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AMPeakHour (PMPeakHour) PHAFigure5 P 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert-Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page7 345 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION TheLambert -Ward Property istoinclude atotal of285 residential units with145as single- family detached and 140 as townhouses. The number of trips entering and exiting the site were determined using the 7 Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers' ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2summarizes the tripgeneration results for the proposed Lambert-Ward Property. Table 2 Lambert -WardProperty Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak (lour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single Family Detached 145units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse /Condo 140 units 11 56 6S 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR =Autilized thetripdistribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Lambert-Ward Property trips (Table 2) through the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development generated AM /PM peak hour tripsandADTassignments. 2010BUILD -OUTCONDITIONS TheLambert-Ward Property assigned trips (Figures 7) were added tothe2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the studyarea. Figure 9shows the corresponding 2010 build -outlane geometry and AM /PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets areincluded inthe Appendix section ofthisreport. ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page 8 346 Trip Distribution Percentages ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page9 347 AMPeakHour(PMPeakHour) verageiDaily Development- Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page10 348 NoScale s N P NNJ 94(118) JIL 12235 9614 logs, 6248 490 247)103648)232.0 66)52'nt 593(500)33(62) Os R 0181 442 61ti SITE k 4) o N s 444)13 110.1% (379) 41267V 3)32 ,11 r ti P roe o JG U c5 AMPeakHour(PMPeakHour) verage1•aIlyrTrips Figure 8 2010 Build -out ADT and AM /PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P ATrafficImpactAnalysisoftheLambert -WardProperty November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1-0 PageI1 349 No Scale Signalized o Intersection 3 LOS =B(C) d U5 SignalizedIntersection LOS C(C) Unsignalized Intersection bl" J UnsignalizedIntersection 00 0 O Ro Unsignalized d "Suggested IntersectionImprovements" rx ( 1 EB Right) SITE DenotesUnsignalized CriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service ATraffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert-Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303 -1 -0 Page12 350 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property are acceptable and manageable. All intersections, assuming the addition of an eastbound right turn lane attheintersection ofSenseny Road /Twinbrook Circle, willmaintain levelsof service of "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The right -turn lane at the intersection ofSenseny Road/ Twinbrook Circle would be designed perthe Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number. 13303 -1 -0 Page13 351 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by theTransportation Research Board (TRB) inconjunction with theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members ofthetransportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TWSC At an unsignalized two -way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of agap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the trafficflow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks single unitandtractor trailer), busesandmotorcycles. ThelevelofserviceforTWSC intersections isdetermined onlyforindividual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehiclestopsattheendofthequeue untilthevehicle departs fromthestopline; thistime includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in- queueposition. Average Total Delay Level @'of Service= (sec / veh)oeTWSC' Iittersections 5 5 and < 10'l0and < 2020'‘and 53030''and < 45 352 UNSIGNALIZEDINTERSECTIONSAWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver isrequired tostop, thejudgment astowhether toproceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, adriver proceeds only after determining that therearenovehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. Theanalysis takes into account theproblem ofdetermining, undercapacity conditions foragiven approach, thefactors thatinfluence therateatwhich vehicles candepart successfully fromthe STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks single unit and tractor trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in- queueposition. verage Total Delay sec /seh) 5 5and <10. 10 and <20 20and <30'. 30 and 545 45 Level of Service, Criteria. for AWSC Intersections 353 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. Intheanalysisofsignalizedintersections, twotermsareimportant: volumetocapacity ratio v /c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, theavailable green time (often expressed asG /C), andthetraffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cyclelength, qualityofprogression onthearterialandavailable greentimeoneach approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed andusedwhenever possible. Whenfuturesignalsarebeingevaluated, an "optional" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and fortheintersection asawhole. Based onextensive researchstudies, themaximumdelay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined astheupperlimitonthepossible rangeofdelay /levelofservicecriteria. Thefollowing criteria describethefullrangeoflevelofservice: Level ofService Criteria or Signalized Intersections Stopped'Delay erVeliicle 100 and _20.0 20.0 and <35.0 35:0 and' 55.0 and' <80.0` 80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 354 Level of Service Description A B C D E F Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression isextremely favorable, andmostvehiclesarriveduringthegreen phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 andupto20scepervehicle. Thislevelgenerally occurswith goodprogression, shortcyclelengths, orboth. Morevehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result fromfairprogression, longercyclelengths, orboth. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping issignificant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes morenoticeable. Longerdelaysmayresult from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, orhighv/cratios. Manyvehicles stop, andtheproportion ofvehicles notstopping declines. Individual cyclefailures are noticeable, Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agenciestobethelimitofacceptabledelay. Thesehighdelay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and highv/cratios. Individual cyclefailuresarefrequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 secpervehicle. Thislevel, considered tobeunacceptable tomost drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels, 355 TWO -WAYSTOPCONTROL SUMMARY GeneralInformation SiteInformation Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2004 Existing Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Possum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh /h)0 107 6 1 95 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 a95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 112 6 1 100 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Median type Undivided RTChannelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h)17 0 10 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 17 0 10 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ControlDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)1 27 Capacity, c (vph)1470 824 v/c ratio 0.00 0.03 Queuelength (95 0.00 0.10 ControlDelay (s /veh)7.5 9.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 1urL file: /C:ADocuments %20and %20Settings \Boyap ally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 356 LOS A I A I I I Approach delay s /veh) 9.5 ApproachLOS A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1wU- vv ay a Up LARIUM HCS2000 FM Ccpyright (02003 Univer ity of Florida, All Rights Reserved rage 6et 2 Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %2oSettings\Boyapally\ Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 357 TWO -WAYSTOPCONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004ExistingConditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property EasUWest Street: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)0 112 13 10 180 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 117 13 10 189 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)14 0 4 0 0 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 14 0 4 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)10 18 Capacity, c (vph)1455 702 v/c ratio 0.01 0.03 Queue length (95 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s /veh)7.5 10.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 101 4 file: /C:A Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17D1.tmp 11/9/2004 358 LOS A I 8 Approach delay s /veh)10.3 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WU VY 0.y J LVf) %_,WILLU1 HCS2000T I Cpyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage LOIL Version 4, Id file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17D1.tmp 11/9/2004 359 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number oflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)75 73 39 9 192 48 33 53 10 59 79 120 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) oractuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, I,2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unitextension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 ParkingGrade /Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GG 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G=G=G=G= 39.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, C 88.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 79 118 9 253 35 67 62 209 Lanegroupcapacity, c459 783 562 800 499 805 589 751 v/cratio, X 0.17 0.15 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lc ia!icu ncpuiL rage 101 L file: /C: Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 360 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 14.8 14.6 13.7 15.9 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delaycalibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 14.9 147 13.8 16.1 14.1 14.2 144 15.8 LanegroupLOS 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 B Approach delay 148 16.0 14.2 15.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 B 8 Intersectiondelay 15.3 X 0.30 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tic tat tcu nc [iuit rage L01 Z ICS2.000 Copyright 20 0 University or Florida, All Ri hts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 361 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty VolumeandTimingInput EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)179 162 49 37 144 72 75 107 43 52 142 164 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, 1 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension ofeffective green, e 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timefopedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G=G=G=G= 41.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 188 223 39 228 79 158 55 322 Lanegroupcapacity, c467 779 471 767 414 812 557 780 v/c ratio, X 0.40 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1l4L0.111.LL 1N.cpUL L rage 101 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 362 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 17.5 16.5 15.0 16.6 146 14.6 14.0 16.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 18.1 16.7 15.1 16.8 14.8 14.8 140 16.8 Lane group LOS 8 B 8 8 8 8 B 8 Approachdelay 173 16.6 148 16.4 Approach LOS B 8 8 B Intersectiondelay 16.4 X 0.41 Intersection LOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1l l.LQllliu 1'A }JU1 rage L 01 L Hcs2000 Copyright 'J2000 University ofFlorida, All Rihts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 363 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GeneralInformation SiteInformation Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert WardProperty East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes andAdjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R plume (veh /h)10 100 14 2 77 8 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 10 105 14 2 81 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)22 1 15 15 1 19 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 a95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 23 1 15 15 1 20 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LaneConfiguration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph)10 2 39 36 Capacity, c (vph)1506 1469 778-838 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.04 Queue length (95 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.13 Control Delay (s /veh)7.4 7.5 9.9 9.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ay L)LL' 1.rdgc 1 01 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 364 LOS A A 1 A I I A Approach delay s /veh) 99 9 5 Approach LOS A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WU vv ay OLLJ L. /uuvt ab'C G Ul 4. f/CS Copyright 2003 University of Florida, All Righis Reserved Version 4.1d file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 365 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod PMPeak Hour ProjectDescription LambertWardProperty East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes andAdjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh /h)33 90 38 20 154 28 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 34 94 40 21 162 29 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 2 Mediantype Undivided RTChannetized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (vehlh)32 1 4 3 1 24 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 33 1 4 3 1 25 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade 0 0 Hared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ControlDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph)34 21 38 29 Capacity, c (vph)1383 1451 540 812 v/c ratio 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue length (95 0.08 0.04 0.23 0.11 ControlDelay (s /veh)7.7 7.5 12.2 9.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vvv Vv ay Jwh LAJIIu VI ragc 1UlL file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17ED.tmp 11/9/2004 366 LOS A A 1 I I A Approach delay s /veh)12.2 9.6 Approach LOS 8 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i v- vv ay itt*, L.v iv HCS2000 Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage z01 L Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k17ED.tmp 11/9/2004 367 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR +q Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt657ChanningDrive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)122 156 152 53 128 294 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, I,2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration ofAnalysis, T 0.25 CycleLength, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 128 164 160 24 374 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/cratio, X 0.28 0.16 0,28 0.05 0.69 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, d 26.9 9.3 23.4 21.7 26.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q5L 1 v1 L file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17F8.tmp 11/9/2004 368 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1. 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 Incremental delay, d 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 Initialqueue delay, d Control delay 27.2 9.3 23.6 21.7 30.5 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 172 23.4 30.5 ApproachLOS 8 C C Intersectiondelay 24.4 X 0.43 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LLL41Il.LL 1 \L JVll HCS2000TMM Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved rage L1) Version 4.1e file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally\ Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k17F8.tmp 11/912004 369 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A AgencyorCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt657CharmingDrive AreaType All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)387 170 265 168 122 282 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 250 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 27.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T a25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 407 179 279 145 354 Lane group capacity, c 492 1097 580 492 502 v/cratio, X 0.83 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.30 Uniform delay, d 30.5 8.4 25.1 23.5 28.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ra8c 1 Vl G file: /C:ADocuments %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 370 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d 11.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 4.5 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 41.7 8.5 25.7 23,8 32.4 Lane group LOS D A C C C Approachdelay 31 5 25.1 32.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersectiondelay 29 Xc0.67 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vaiicu iwpvi rage L OI L HCS2000 M Copyright 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and °l %0Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 371 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wv V r uy 1.)1A-IF LVUU VI General Information Lambert TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ward PropertyProjectDescription East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West Site Information North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 rase 1 VL L Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 2 T 276 0.95 290 1 0 3 R 8 0.95 8 0 0 TR Westbound 4 L 1 0.95 1 2 0 LT 5 T 182 0.95 191 1 0 6 R 0 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Northbound 7 L 23 0.95 24 2 0 8 T 0 0. 95 0 0 N 0 0 LR 9 R 13 0.95 13 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB WB 4 LT 1 1263 0.00 0.00 Northbound 7 8 LR 37 598 0.06 0.20 9 Southbound 10 11 12 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 Rt 657 Rossum Lane Analyst PHR +A Intersection Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 wv V r uy 1.)1A-IF LVUU VI General Information Lambert TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ward PropertyProjectDescription East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West Site Information North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 rase 1 VL L Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 2 T 276 0.95 290 1 0 3 R 8 0.95 8 0 0 TR Westbound 4 L 1 0.95 1 2 0 LT 5 T 182 0.95 191 1 0 6 R 0 0.95 0 Undivided 0 0 Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Northbound 7 L 23 0.95 24 2 0 8 T 0 0. 95 0 0 N 0 0 LR 9 R 13 0.95 13 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB WB 4 LT 1 1263 0.00 0.00 Northbound 7 8 LR 37 598 0.06 0.20 9 Southbound 10 11 12 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 372 Control Delay (s /veh)7.9 11.4 LOS A I 8 I I I Approachdelay s /veh) 11.4 Approach LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wv vv ay JLLJ L/M it /I ra'e z01L HCS2000 NI Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida. AllRights Reserved Version 4.Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 373 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jay 'J ,W General Informat ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ion Site Information Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 Undivided Northbound 7 L 19 0.95 20 2 0 EB 1 2 T 275 0.95 289 1 0 8 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach Movement Lane Configuration olume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) c ratio Queue length (95 WB 4 LT 13 1255 0.01 0.03 North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 17 0.95 17 0 0 TR 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LR 25 411 0.06 0.19 Westbound 4 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 9 5 T 414 0.95 435 1 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 10 6 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 11 12 Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West rage 1 VI file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt657 Rossum Lane Analyst PHR+A Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A Analysis Year 2010Background Conditions Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jay 'J ,W General Informat ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ion Site Information Eastbound 1 L 0 0.95 0 0 Undivided Northbound 7 L 19 0.95 20 2 0 EB 1 2 T 275 0.95 289 1 0 8 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach Movement Lane Configuration olume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) c ratio Queue length (95 WB 4 LT 13 1255 0.01 0.03 North /South Street: Rossum Lane Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 17 0.95 17 0 0 TR 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LR 25 411 0.06 0.19 Westbound 4 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 0 0.95 0 0 0 9 5 T 414 0.95 435 1 0 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 N 0 0 10 6 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 12 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 11 12 Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West rage 1 VI file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 374 Control Delay (slveh)7.9 14.3 LOS A I 8 I I Approach delay s /veh)14.3 ApproachLOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 11 1 1 1 1 wU Qy 1.)ragc L01 L Ci pyright l9 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4,1d file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 375 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type Allother areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)103 220 52 12 551 66 44 74 13 83 115 167 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -up lost time, I 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension ofeffective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGrade/ Parking/0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mintimefopedestrians, GG 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G=G=G=G= 30.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 CycleLength, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 108 287 13 649 46 92 87 297 Lane group capacity, c 281 1005 573 1018 277 607 433 566 v/cratio, X 0.38 0.29 0.02 0.64 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rage 1tit 1. file: /C :ADocuments% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 376 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 11.3 10.6 9.0 13.8 21.2 21.1 21.4 24.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 Incremental delay, d 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 12.2 10.7 9.0 151 21.5 21.2 21.7 25.1 LanegroupLOS 8 8 A B C C C C Approach delay 11.1 15.0 21.3 24.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 C C Intersection delay 16.8 X0.60 Intersection LOS B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L0. G VI G CS2000 Copyright 200University orFlorida, AllRihtsReserved Version 4.1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 377 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency orCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear2010BackgroundConditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lanegroup L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)247 604 66 50 475 101 101 153 58 73 196 224 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start -uplosttime, I 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 NN 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, GG 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 14.0 G= 36.0 G=G=G= 30.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 CycleLength, C 920 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjustedflowrate, v 260 685 53 575 106 204 77 371 Lane group capacity, c 374 1024 255 730 217 601 356 579 v/c ratio, X 0.70 0.67 0.21 0.79 0.49 0.34 0.22 0.64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ..t..... file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 378 Totalgreenratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, d 16.5 14.1 17.7 23.7 23.9 22.6 21.6 25.4 Progressionfactor, PF1.0001.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.24 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 Incremental delay, d 5.5 1.7 0.4 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 2.4 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 22.1 15.8 18.1 29.4 25.6 22.9 21.9 27.8 LanegroupLOS C B 8 C C C C C Approach delay 17.6 28.5 23.8 26.8 ApproachLOS 8 C C C Intersectiondelay 23.1 X c 0.81 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ucrnooTM Copyright 20 0 University or Florida, All Ri hts Reserved aE,c c vi Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 379 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 1 0 Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 19 0.95 20 0 0 Westbound 4 L 3 0.95 3 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Northbound 7 L 29 0.95 30 2 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 9 R 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 12 R 25 0.95 26 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 WB 4 LT 3 1260 0.00 0.01 Northbound 7 8 LTR 52 541 0.10 0.32 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 48 622 0.08 a 25 12 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Analyst PHR +A Jurisdiction Agency /Co.PHR +A AnalysisYear 2010 Background ConditionsDatePerformed11/2/2004 AnalysisTimePeriod AM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement olume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 1 0 Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 19 0.95 20 0 0 Westbound 4 L 3 0.95 3 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Northbound 7 L 29 0.95 30 2 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 9 R 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 0 Southbound 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 12 R 25 0.95 26 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 WB 4 LT 3 1260 0.00 0.01 Northbound 7 8 LTR 52 541 0.10 0.32 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 48 622 0.08 a 25 12 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 380 Delay (s /veh)7 1 1OSrolII Approach delay s /veh)12.4 11.3 Approach LOS 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv u ry ay .3 wN '_JIM vt HCS?000 Copyright 2003 Unive city orFlorida, AllRights Reserved rcL8C G ul G Version 4.Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 381 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv kJ- rr ay IJ LAJIJ li VIM v1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 Undivided 0 LTR 7 L 43 0.95 45 2 0 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 3 R 51 0.95 53 0 0 Northbound 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Westbound 4 L 27 0.95 28 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 WB 4 LT 28 1249 0.02 0.07 Northbound 7 8 LTR 51 261 0.20 0.71 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 549 0.07 0.22 12 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %2oSettings Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle Analyst PHR +A Jurisdiction Agency /Co,PHR +A Analysis Year 2010Background ConditionsDatePerformed11/2/2004 AnalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vv kJ- rr ay IJ LAJIJ li VIM v1 General Information Project Description Lambert Ward Property East /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement Volume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 Undivided 0 LTR 7 L 43 0.95 45 2 0 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 3 R 51 0.95 53 0 0 Northbound 9 R 5 0.95 5 2 0 0 0 Westbound 4 L 27 0.95 28 2 0 LT Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, c (vph) v/c ratio Queue length (95 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 WB 4 LT 28 1249 0.02 0.07 Northbound 7 8 LTR 51 261 0.20 0.71 9 Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 549 0.07 0.22 12 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %2oSettings Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 382 Delay (s /veh)7.9 122.1 I 1LOSrol83AII11 I Approach delay s /veh) 221 12.0 Approach LOS C 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V v V VCU L+ wY UtUU yr HCS2000 Copyright 2003 University ofFlorida, All Rights Reserved 1 0.bG G Vl G Version 4.Id file /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 383 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Numberoflanes, N 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)122 181 242 81 136 294 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) oractuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, I 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike 1RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ParkingGradeParking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnlyThruRT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= Duration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determina 'on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 191 255 54 382 Lanegroupcapacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.18 0.44 0.11 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, d 26.9 9.4 24.7 22.1 26.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. U5. 1 VL file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings Temp \s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 384 Progressionfactor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 27.2 9.5 25.3 22.2 31.1 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 166 24.7 31.1 Approach LOS B C C Intersectiondelay 24.6 X 0.49 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ACS2000 Copyright m2000 University or Florida, All Righ sReserved Version 4.1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 385 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency orCo. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property VolumeandTimingInput EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number oflanes, N1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanegroup L T T R LR Volume, V (vph)387 266 318 185 152 282 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A)A A A A A A Start -uplosttime, I,2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extensionofeffectivegreen, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initialunmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time fo pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru RT 03 04 SBOnly 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 25.0 G=G=G= 29.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 407 280 335 163 386 Lane group capacity, c 511 1056 518 440 542 v/c ratio, X 0.80 0.27 0.65 0.37 0.71 Totalgreenratio, g/C 0.29 0.57 0.28 0.28 0.32 Uniform delay, d 29.6 9.9 28.6 26.2 26.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "b' 1 ul c file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings Temp \s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 386 Progressionfactor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.28 Incremental delay, d 8.6 0.1 2.8 0.5 4.4 Initial queue delay, d Control delay 38.2 10.1 31.4 26.7 31.2 LanegroupLOS D 8 C C C Approach delay 26 7 29.9 31.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 28.8 X 0.72 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCS2000 Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved 1 ue. a Lit Version 4.1e 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 387 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a6c i kJ L file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapaliy \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road North /South Street:Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West StudyPeriod (hrs):0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments MajorStreet Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L-T R L T R olume (veh /h)0 290 28 1 230 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 0 305 29 1 242 0 Proportionofheavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Mediantype Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h)92 0 13 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 96 0 13 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ControlDelay, QueueLength,LevelofService Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph)1 109 Capacity, c (vph)1225 507 v/c ratio 0.00 0.21 Queue length (95 0.00 0.81 Control Delay (s /veh)7.9 14.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a6c i kJ L file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapaliy \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 388 LOS A I 8 Approach delay s /veh) 14.0 ApproachLOS 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 may ,r 1 a8t...' U1 HCS2000 Cpyright ©2003 Univer iryofFlorida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. Id file: /C:A Documents %20and %20Settings \Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 389 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Rossum Lane Agency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions AnalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/WestStreet: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street:Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs):0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)0 327 91 13 443 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h) 0 344 95 13 466 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 2 Mediantype Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)60 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 HourlyFlowRate veh /h) 63 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flaredapproach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized?0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LaneConfiguration LT LR Volume, v (vph)13 68 Capacity, c (vph)1121 325 v/c ratio 0.01 0.21 Queuelength (95 0.04 0.78 Control Delay (s /veh)8.2 19.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 390 LOS A I C I 1 I Approach delay s /veh) 19.0 Approach LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iwu- vv ay LI up U HCS2000 Copyright O2003University ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved 1 aSlr L V L Version 4.Id file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k 11/9/2004 391 Analyst PHR +A Intersection Rt657 Twinbrook Circle Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction FnencytoPerformed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions alysis Time Period AM Peak Hour 1 10.5c L U1 6 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ineral Information SiteInformation ject Description Lambert Ward PropertyIst /West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East -West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments jorStreet Movement Ilume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) jo portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Inj Channelized? Lanes 1 nfigurationstreamSignal Eastbound 1 L 13 0.95 13 2 0 LTR 2 T 267 0.95 281 0 3 R 32 0.95 33 0 0 Westbound 4 L 9 0.95 9 2 0 LT 5 T 158 0.95 166 1 0 6 R 11 0.95 11 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street l vement Volume (veh /h) 13k-hour factor, PHF urlyFlowRate (veh /h) Proportionofheavy cles, PHv rcentgrade Flared approach StorageChannelized? es 1nfiguration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service proachivemenl LaneConfiguration fume, v (vph) pacify, c (vph) ratiocuelength (95 Control Delay (s /veh) 1S Northbound 7 L 78 0.95 82 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 13 1399 0.01 0.03 7.6 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR WB 4 LT 9 1246 0.01 0.02 7.9 A 9 R 41 0.95 43 2 0 0 Northbound 7 8 LTR 126 512 0.25 0.96 14.3 B 10 L 20 0.95 21 2 0 0 9 Southbound 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 0 1 LTR 10 12 R 25 a95 26 2 0 0 Southbound 11 LTR 48 592 0.08 0.26 11.6 B 12 fl: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12BC.tmp 11/22/2004392 1 pproachdelay (s /veh) proach LOS H. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U47tVe I I 14.3 11.6 8 r u6e.2. u1 2. Copyright 2003 University of Florida, AllRights Reserved Version 4.1 fi: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12BC.tmp 11/22/2004393 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY laneral Information Site Information ject Description Lambert Ward Propertyist/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 025 hide Volumes and Adjustments I jor Street Mo Fume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF f urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Channelized? Lanes nfiguration stream Signal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LTR 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 0 Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street vement Volume (veh /h) factor, PHF F urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHv cent grade Flared approach I torogeChannelized?0 L es CInfiguration roach emvement Lane Configuration ume, v (vph) pacity, c (vph) ratioleue length (95 Control Delay (s /veh) L,S Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 1 1 LTR WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 LTR 93 245 0.38 1.69 28.4 0 Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 0 N 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR 38 524 0.07 0.23 12.4 B 6 /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004 PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.irnalyst PHR +A Jurisdiction toPerformed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2010 Bu /dout Conditions nalysisTimePeriod PM Peak Hour TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY laneral Information Site Information ject Description Lambert Ward Propertyist/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Intersection Orientation: East West North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 025 hide Volumes and Adjustments I jor Street Mo Fume (veh /h) Peak -hour factor, PHF f urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy vehicles, PHv dian type Channelized? Lanes nfiguration stream Signal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LTR 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 0 Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 Undivided 0 1 R Minor Street vement Volume (veh /h) factor, PHF F urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHv cent grade Flared approach I toroge Channelized?0 L es CInfiguration roach emvement Lane Configuration ume, v (vph) pacity, c (vph) ratioleue length (95 Control Delay (s /veh) L,S Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 EB 1 LTR 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 N 1 1 LTR WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 LTR 93 245 0.38 1.69 28.4 0 Southbound 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 0 N 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0.95 33 2 0 0 Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR 38 524 0.07 0.23 12.4 B 6 /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004394 1 pproach delay (s /veh) proachLOS 12000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 2 Copyright 2003 Univc sity of Florid 12.4 8 II Rights Reserved Version 4.Id fil: /C:A ocuments %20and %20SettingsvGiangrandeA ocal %20Setty ingsvTempvu2k12B7.t p 11/22/2004395 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT Ineral Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A ency or Co. PHR +A to Performed 11/2/2004 nePeriod AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear201CBuildoutConditions ProjectID LambertWardProperty flume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Umber of lanes, NUmber 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 group L TR L TR L TR L TR plume, V (vph)103 232 52 33 593 94 44 74 19 91 115 167 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ak -hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 50.95 timed (P) oractuated (A)A A A A A A A A A A A A ort -uplosttime, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 tension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 lit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1ne width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Irkingmaneuvers, N Uses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I\ time for pedestrians, GI\3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 EW Perm 02 03 04 NSPerm 06 07 08 ming G= 48.0 G=G=G=G= 32.0 G=G=G= Y= 5 Y=Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= ration of Analysis, T 0.25 Cycle Length, C 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Contro Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Ad flow rate, v 108 299 35 723 46 98 96 297 t 'ustedegroupcapacity, c 201 966 533 973 306 642 459 603 v/cratio, X 0.54 0.31 0.07 0.74 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.49 lal green ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Uniform delay, d 13.7 11.7 10.2 16.2 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.7 I gression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 iu55L. 1 fil: /C:ADocuments% 20and% 20Settings \GiangrandeALocal %20Settings \Temp \s2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004396 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Initial queue delay, d intro) delay 16.6 11.9 10.2 19.4 20.0 19.9 20.4 23.3 Lane group LOS 8 8 8 8 8 8 C C 1proach delay 13.2 18.9 19 9 22.6 proachLOS 8 8 8 C ersectiondelay 18.5 X 0.64 Intersection LOS 8 1 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4,1 fl: /C:vDocuments %20and %20SettingsvGiangrandev Local %20SettingsvTempvS2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004397 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR +A Agency or Co. PHR +A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 Rt 656 AreaType Allother areas Jurisdiction AnalysisYear2010BuildoutConditions ProjectID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph)247 648 66 62 500 118 101 153 80 102 196 224 Heavyvehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated A)A A AA A AA A AA A A Start up lost time, l 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrivaltype, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped Bike RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking Grade Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, N Buses stopping, N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. timeforpedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EBOnly EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 50.0 G=G=G= 28.0 G=G=G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= 5 Y=Y=Y= DurationofAnalysis, T0.25 CycleLength, C 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determinat on EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 731 65 619 106 227 107 371 Lane group capacity, c 353 1106 274 958 165 525 282 512 v/cratio, X 0.74 0.66 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.43 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 file: /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings\Boyapally \Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 398 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d 13.2 12.6 12.2 16.2 29.1 27.1 26.6 30.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.29 0.24 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.29 Incremental delay, d 7.9 1.5 0.4 1.5 8.2 0.6 0.9 5.1 Initial queue delay, d Controldelay 21.1 14.1 12.6 17.7 37.4 27.7 27.5 35.1 LanegroupLOS C 8 8 8 D C C D Approach delay 159 17.2 30.8 33.4 ApproachLOS 8 8 C C Intersection delay 21.6 Xc 0.74 Intersection LOS C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F /CS2000 Copyright 2000 University ofFlorida, AllRdhts Reserved Version 4.1 file: /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \Boyapally\Local %20Settings \Temp \s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 399 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information SiteInformation alyst PHR +A Intersection Rt657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Year 2010 Bulldout Conditions alysis Time Period AM Peak Hour jectDescription Lambert WardProperty -WithRoadwayImprovements EastNVest Street: Rt657SensenyRoad North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle I ersection Orientation: East -West StudyPeriod (hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments for Street Eastbound Westbound ivement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h)13 267 32 9 158 11 ak -hourfactor, PHFlurly 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urlyFlowRate (veh /h)Flow Rate (veh/h)1313 281281 3333 99 166166 1111 Proportion ofheavy ICles, PHV 2 2 NWdian type Undivided RT Channelized?0 0 es 0 1 1 0 1 1 C, nfiguration LT R LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 orStreet Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R III ume (veh /h)78 1 41 20 1 25 eak -hour factor, P 0 .95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urlyFlowRate (veh /h)82 1 43 21 1 26 portion of heavyivIcles, PHV 2 2 2 2 2 2 centgrade 0 0 FP^red approach N N Storage 0 0 FM Channelized?0 0 Liles 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, Level of ServiceIrtrotroachEB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L e Configuration LT LT LTR LTR Voume, v (vph)13 9 126 48 Csacity, c (vph)1399 1246 525 592 vratio 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.08 Queuelength (95 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.26 lCtrol Delay (s /veh)7.6 7.9 14.0 11.6 A A B B delay (s /veh)14.0 11.6 Aaroachroach LOS 8 8 iCS2000TM Copyright 2003 Unive'sity ofFlorida, AllRights Reserved Version 4 Id fi /C:A Documents% 20and% 20Settings \GiangrandeALocal %20Settings \Temp \u2k2E.tmp 11/29/2004400 Ialyst PHR +A Intersection Rt 657 Twinbrook Circle ency /Co.PHR +A Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/2/2004 AnalysisYear 2010 Buildout Conditions lalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information jectDescription Lambert WardProperty -WithRoadwayImprovements SiteInf East/West Street: Rt 657 Senseny Road Itersection Orientation: East -West ehicle Volumes and Adjustments jorStreetivement Volume (veh /h) lak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) Proportion of heavy icles, PHvLiontype RT Channelized? es nfi guration iill streamSignal Eastbound 1 L 44 0.95 46 2 0 LT 2 T 246 0.95 258 1 0 North /South Street: Twinbrook Circle Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 R 103 0.95 108 0 1 R Westbound 4 L 49 0.95 51 Undivided 2 0 LT 5 T 379 0.95 398 1 0 6 R 38 0.95 40 0 1 R 0 or Street Novement jume (veh /h) eak -hour factor, PHF urly Flow Rate (veh /h) portion of heavy v icles, PHv P t dcentgrade ed approach Storage Channelized? Les Configuration Northbound 7 L 71 0.95 74 2 0 0 8 T 1 0.95 1 2 Y 1 1 LTR 9 R 18 0.95 18 2 0 0 10 L 4 0.95 4 2 0 Southbound 11 T 1 0.95 1 2 Y 1 1 LTR 12 R 32 0. 95 33 2 0 0 0 trotDelay, QueueLength, LevelofService A roach M tvemen eConfiguration Volume, v (vph) C c (vph) vratio Queue length (95 Ciro! Delay (s /veh) L roach delay (s /veh) roach LOS EB 1 LT 46 1122 0.04 0.13 8.3 A WB 4 LT 51 1193 0.04 0.13 8.2 A Northbound 7 8 LTR 93 277 0.34 1.43 24.4 C 9 24.4 C Southbound 10 11 LTR 38 751 0.05 0.16 12.2 8 12.2 8 12 vcs200o Copyright 2003 University orFlorida. All Rights Reserved rage 101 Version 4.1 d fi /C:\ Documents %20and %20Settings \Giangrande \Local %20Settings \Temp \u2k31.tmp 11/29/2004401 15Minim BeginingIIPeriod FR: Le11 ROUTE 657 ITntRleftle WW Lell R053 E 657 ThyRigOsTotal N LII ROUTE 656 9TmRightTo SB: ell R0Ur2656 lLmRight TmulYSE.J. W 15MinPeriod Oegining 7.00 6 0 6 26 3 36 9 48 9 0 16 9 9 21 39 129 7:00 5 12 6 12 40 5 41 1 57 12 1 21 14 12 22 53 121 7:15 0 16 4 10 40 50 9 61 15 0 20 10 17 36 63 186 290 5 59 9 9 46 I 52 I 64 16 2 26 I8 21 33 72 208 2:45 0 22 6 II d9 4 49 4 67 12 3 22 16 24 27 67 205 000 5 10 7 9 44 2 44 1 52 II 1 19 l9 18 29 60 180 9 :15 8.30 16 21 II 46 47 61 I 14 4 29 11 16 32 59 192 9 :30 6:45 15 19 7 41 3 42 2 52 9 12 26 16 20 30 66 192 9,45 A.M. To 126 132 76 334 23 361 86 472 66 106 13 165 108 132 234 419 1420 A Total 31 39 12 92 2 22 11 35 12 21 10 43 9 20 22 51 211 6 -00 34 18 10 92 3 27 16 46 14 26 8 48 52 24 27 63 40 6 :15 32 39 8 84 7 52 19 57 18 24 11 53 11 33 33 77 391 6:30 44 43 11 101 11 40 15 66 21 23 14 56 12 36 41 69 314 645 j 48 36 15 101 8 41 21 70 20 29 10 59 12 40 48 105 335 2:00 50 42 12 104 11 31 16 60 16 31 6 55 9 33 42 92 306 935 40 59 9 96 6 33 54 53 12 23 9 49 12 26 35 25 265 230 32 41 11 64 35 11 51 8 22 11 41 14 21 31 66 745 P.M. Tole'316 329 91 736 53 261 IN 438 121 204 91 406 99 235 299 651 P. elm 1Hoc Eft ROUTE 657 W 0.ROUTE 657 Na 600T9 656 50:ROUTE 656 period N.S.Period BoginingLelllLmRIOuTotalLeoT6ntRighttotalLeaT.hmRiglpFO1alLeflT6ntRigIstTotal deuining 2:00 55 59 38 152 12 179 39 210 32 32 3 62 51 59 12 222 696 7.00 7:15 69 65 41 125 12 192 44 249 22 55 6 93 56 74 23 255 293 2.1e 2:30 75 66 36 129 10 195 44 249 31 54 6 91 58 60 24 262 281 7:30 145 25 93 39 182 9 191 40 249 33 53 10 96 59 79 20 259 790 7:45 8 71 73 39 182 II 102 49 242 34 54 10 96 52 28 I2 2 224 3:00 1600 146 169 44 359 23 121 60 204 65 94 43 202 44 113 23 260 1045 g 16J5 163 168 47 370 29 140 70 239 23 102 43 219 52 133 49 034 1169 16J01 129 162 49 390 32 144 22 253 75 102 45 225 52 142 61 356 5226 16:45 182 162 50 394 36 145 69 149 69 III 41 121 53 132 166 356 1220 12:00 170 160 42 329 30 140 64 234 56 110 39 201 122 156 323 1148 I Hour Ed ROUTE 652 WB:ROUS 0057 NB:ROUTE 656 513:0013TE 65n 1HOU4 Period F3,Jellied Reining Le 11 1luU Rielo Toul Leg Taro Tile) 11 TOn0 Lell Thy Rippl Toial Lea Thy R;ehl Total E3 W 9egining JS 23 39 192 9 192 46 249 03 53 l0 59 29 120 250 290 7:45 AM. Pe'tk PHE 095 PH?093 PHP063 PHF 090 095 AM. Peak 14:3 179 162 49 390 37 144 3 253 25 10 2 43 a 5 5_142 164 356 1226 16:30 P.M. Peek PI41 0.94 PH? .9 090 P115—095 PH? .9 095 091 P.M. Ptak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interseclioo: E -WN -S Lwwtior Rowe 657OUFE656 Winc5c55er 7 WeacherCountBy Conn Date DryTil 9099.9699 file NaoselP:9ProjeclS 13303A1.0ATtunspol lul 8400m Ward [1330391 -01 AExcellPUblishe4 Paul' COUno5RT6S6 &RT62xis1putByLOG 402 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Location M. PEAL( FLOUR7,45- 8:45 1DIRE 657 Route 657ROUTE656 WIncLUtgVA 345tat 75 —1 187 73 ti 39 am22.17%32 Noah 2433% South 5629%.100% ROUTE 656 1258 (27%) 1 176 120 79 59 J1L 11 r J) 53 10 1271 04 96 ROUTE 656 PEAK HOUR16901730 350 (29945 358 r— 38352 179 390 162 ROUTE 657 ul r 05 107 43 225 1 (IS 2251 WeatherCountBy Count Dam Dry 10/IW19/L00a t 43 r— 192 C 9 ROUTE 656 ROUTE 657 ta— 24925 I42 164 1 52 JROUTE 657 4__. 72 r— 144 4— 253 37 (21257 ROUTE 656 Fat NamclP:Wrojccl)13303)1 UTranaponatiantambut Ward (1))03-IOyExcHPu61 InputByLOG Datn)TnOic Coun T6562RT657 .xls 403 Imersectian: 6 SENSENY RD Weathcr DAY Pil Ndme'P. \ProlccllI 330311-05Tran5po no nteri Word( N -0'.RO55UAI LA Count By 01P Iput 135111P Location Winchesier.vA Count Date 9(594690 15NlinuePeriod Beginmg E SENSENY RD I. gThorkitTotal WI3: SENSENY RD mL01NRight 'Total 2: ROSSUM LA L1t Thnl Right Total S LgTlwRightTm1EW Ainiod Begining 7.005 10I> 10 8,308.45. 15 0 15 19 1 20 21 1 25 27 0 27 25 7 226127 29 3 32 24 I 25 17 12 22 22 23 23242 342326E620 22 22 21 21 3 5 2 6 44 4 42 10 3 07 4056 5561 5862 53 Total 189 9 196 178 179 1 3 21 57 430 A.M. Total 18 2 20 21 1 22 22 4 26 20 3 31 30 3 33 2 9 5 34 2 2 27 24 3 27 0 33 33 1 30 39 41 41 46 40 48 50 45 49 41 43 36 37 4 1 50 4 3 60 n 2 74 3 0 82 5 1 1 49 2 07 4 1 75 4 0 60 I 10001015 16301645 17:0017.15 17:3017:45 P.M. 1'olul 197 23 220 I 3 0 340 31 0 10 41 0 0 0 0 601 1 P.6I.Total 1HourPeriod Begininn Eli SENSENY RD LB1 '1161RightTotal W13. SENSENY RD Legihm0:030Total NB. ROSSUM LA tea Thru Right Total 50: LollThruRightTotalN.S.LW 1HourPeriod Begthg10 7'00 I7167107 :45 9:00 0 85 2 87 0 95 4 99 0 102 4 106 0 107 6 113 0 104 7 111 0 56 0 66 1 92 0 93 I 96 0 97 I 95 0 96 1 9 0 93 13 0 10 23 17 0 11 20 16 0 11 27 17 0 10 27 19 0 11 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196220 230236 234 7007.15 7.307.45 4:00 16 00 I161516001645 17:00 0 89 10 99 0 101 11 112 0 109 15 124 0 112 13 125 0 100 13 121 3 153 0 161 5 173 0 178 0 100 0 108 10 ISO 0 190 9 170 0 179 16 0 6 22 17 0 6 23 15 0 5 20 14 0 4 13 15 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282313 332333 319 8 IHourProud Begining 004 SENSENY RD Lett 'Dial 011411 rolal WB. SENSENY RD LogThorRightTotal 6B: 000.0U0 LA Leg Thru Right Tolvl SB: Left 'I11mRight TolnlY.S.BW 1HourFetilvl Bcginiryr 745A.M. Peak 0 107 6 113PHP060 I 95 0 96 PHF 092 I7 0 10 27PHF063 0 0 0 0 0116 2360.95 7:45 A Peak 16:451 2. P.M.Peak 0 112 13 12PHP= 092 10 100 0 190 PHF- 0.95 14 0 4 10PHP° 075 0 0 0 0 PHF=all0.94 1645P.2a1.Peak 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3303- 1 -0)AExce8Publiehcd DaMTmITcCountsSENSENYR055UM..xls 404 1 1 71 P M. PEAK HOUR 1 1645 1745 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A PEAK HOUR 1 ]: J5 -845 4— 111ux) 115 1 NSENY RD 194am%) 155 IISENY RD 1F.`D1.:...., E.MISE.NSENY RD N-5: N-5:I RO55U.41 LA laation Winchefta.VA 0 23 10 0 0 J1[ 11 r 17 0 10 7%1 n 1 1 J 1 L 1 1 r 11654 is 5'0NaIDRY Coon BV IIP Count Dai0 050500805 04) 1 n ROSSUM LA L0 4-- 95 ROSSUM L5 t' 1 0 SENSE NY RD 4-- 9645'%) 11] 5EN5ENY RD 4 0180 4— 190 10 l06w1116 FileNanelP ^Frojacv1550311-0Tnmporution` 14mbmWard (I)103-I- 0) EaiSnfc Counu6ENS0NVRO55UM xb Input Brl11P 405 sn. 0 -0:Wcathal RAIN Fil Nana IPIProjcos \133031LU11'runsP r54 on \Laobvl Wa d 1 TWI]'RROOK CIR Count BV 319 Ipu'BvFJ3P Location Winchster.VA Cams Dne 10 -10-04 InglePeriod Beginigg EB: SENSENY RD Le56 Din Right Total WB: SBSSENV RD Lell 'DNu Ri¢bt Toul NB: TWINBROOK CIR Lell Tlvu Right Total Se SENSENY GLEN DR Lell Tau Right Total N,S,EW 156110Pnsod Begning 10715 7.30745 8.00B:15 8,309:45 ssss8 I 19 19 0 21 23 3 26 35 1 20 2 22 2 4 20 36 2 26 33 2 24 30 0 14 1 15 1 16 17 0 19 19 0 21 22 1 19 20 0 20 22 I 17 22 0 21 23 2 6 5 4 7 3 7 5 11 5 7 7 12 5 0 3 0 6 4 0 8 4 0 7 3 0 8 5 1 10 3 0 10 4 0 8 3 0 7 5962 6566 7575 68AM. Tout I 109 20 234 3 146 10 159 17 3 29 60 29 I 04 Total I6006 :156 :30 6.45100 IS3:30 345 9 13 11 32 9 17 A 34 8 19 11 38 6 24 9 39 II 20 10 37 0 21 P 37 6 16 6 16 25 28 4 36 2 30 39 4 36 4 4 4 5 42 5 52 7 41 10 58 4 35 9 48 E 31 6 39 5 26 34 J 0 5 9 0 P 3 0 10 10 0 1 10 60 0 099 10 0 12930 405 00 0 86 0 6 I 00 0 9 109 6 12E U 4 97 0 fi5 5] 0 ]I P.M.TosI 61 152 02 280 31 269 49 349 59 1 11 ]I 1 45 54 750 P.M.Total 1HowPeriod Binning EB: SENSENY RD Lei TLry Right Total WB: SENSENY RD Loll Thm Right Total FB: TW10BROOK CM Lell Thm Right Total SR. SENSENY GLEN DR hellThmRight total0.3.E &54 IHcuePeon) Detaining 7.007:15 7 :307:45 8:00 5 99 6 100 6 93 7 106 10 100 9 119 9 100 I] 12 10 500 H 124 I 69 2 72 74 1 1 78 3 82 7 00 9 87 50 I 14 30 18 1 17 36 I] H l3 20 16 37 Ii 33 14 0 15 29 16 1 16 33 15 I I9 35 IS 20 Jn IS 19 )5 231253 200281 301 W7:15 33N5 A 00 160016 :15 16'1016'43 17.00 31 73 39 143 34 00 39 155 33 90 39 161 31 as 33 151 30 79 28 Iii 15 136 19 170 18 149 25 192 20 154 29 20E 19 149 30 197 16 033 30 1]9 23 0 6 33 31 0 0 37 32 I 4 5 37 34 1 39 P_ 1 Jfl 5 0 N 20 4 I 25 30 J I 34 28 J I 24 29 3 1 31 25 375417 00415 I79 le001615 10'.431045 I7.0') IHowPeriod Repining EB: SENSENY RD T Right Total 1011: SENSENY RD Lea TItu Right Total 00: I'WINBROO6 CIR L Tl Right T3 30 SENSENY GLEN DR Ttm Ri Total N.S,F.& W 1HourPeio4 B 6I F 1010 1000 I0o 6 P3 77277 0 87 PI 2.02 222 1 IS .8 0 PUP 0 55lIS 19o 35 P V 08.00 4 90 hlA. Pcuk IPOP.M. 30PPeal. Peal.33 YO 161161P000HF .g. 0.96 20 ISJ 4028 202YIIFO9) 32 1 4 39Pt1F0.93 3 24 28PRE089 28028099 1 .P55P.N. Peant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1330.1 -0IIEVCAWUb]ished DaloVTnllic Caunu0SENSEN1'TW NBROOK.Js 406 1 1 1 1 1 LL 3657•%.7705% Wnh 10 01% Swab nl5•: I 1110% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m. E-W :SEVSLNYR0 N- 97WINBROOK CIR A.M. PEAK HOUR I em.ew INSENY SD IUoAianIWin<balco.VA Count Dale 10-20-04 110113X1 10 —t 114 100 7 210 lo1 —11. I .NSENY RD 33 t 9039 SENSENY GLEN OR IT1 (1.3.901 39 SENSESYG EN DR 59 135 (16901 i 19 11 r 11190, 37 Wt@eeRAIN COw19r11P t 8 77 TWINORCOK CIR N PEAK 35I1116EIJO1 20 (II':) 62 TWINBROOKCIR SENSENY RD 4 87938 %.1139 SENSENY RO 4— 28 f— 154 1— 201 r 20 (35•%)97FJe Nnm0IP.ProjecNI330311.0TmnsportmenL ,ben WadIIJ303- I -0p(ocel'.Pub)ishN046,T,4060CounuaSENSEN IN BROOKxis1401 MIA? 407 0 0 0 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Wayne L. Hill The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division 4100 Monument Corner Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Eng neer s. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Ar chi tech. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007PHWilliamsport. Maryland 21795 T 301 .223.4010 • F 301 .223.6831 November 18, 2008 408 0 n LJ IJ 0 OVERVIEW Report Summary 6 Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development located along the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Valley Mill Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include 155 single - family detached units and 170 townhouse units. Access will be provided via a sole site- driveway to be located along the west side of the proposed Haggerty Connector Road. The proposed Haggerty Connector will serve as the connection between the site and Route 7. The development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2010. PHR+A has provided Figure I to illustrate the location of Opequon Crossing with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology All methodology utilized in this report was based upon the December 11, 2007 scoping meeting (in Edinburg, VA) with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Frederick County staff. The traffic impacts accompanying the Opequon Crossing development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document. Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Opequon Crossing development, Distribution and assignment of the Opequon Crossing development - generated trips onto the study area roadway network, Analysis of capacity and levels of service for existing and future conditions using Synchro 7. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to determine the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed Haggerty Connection, PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route 7Nalley Mill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR +A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 7.70 % based upon Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed location of the Haggerty Connection. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry along Route 7. Traffic count data worksheet is included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Daffic /mnac( Anal vdis of (he Opequon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1-0 November 18, 2008 Page I 409 0 6 i 0 No Scale frpFactory z f jlea ciao r C Llfl ds =Rd? SITE' ' f Lly4, \ Q { hw ' li7 J, P1 r A F1 "N-1 V Figure I Vicinity Map: Opequon Crossing, in Frederick County, Virginia P ATm(dc Impact Anakvi.s of die OPeaann Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 2 410 C No Scale SITE r AM Peak HOur(Pil4 Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions P A Trn(rc Impact Analvsi.s oldie Opeouon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2003 Pagc 3 411 r C J 0 No Scale 40 SITE Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service P A Dalpc Impel Ann(FSi.s of the Oncnuon Crossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November IS, 2008 Page 4 412 0 0 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR +A increased the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 using a growth rate per the December 11, 2007 seeping meeting) of two percent (2 %) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR +A included all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site. Based upon the Th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report Table 1 is provided to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Table 1 Other Developments" 2010 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Twin Lakes Phase 10 230 Townhouse/Condo 71 units 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Total 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Haggerty Properly 210 Single - Family Detached 76 units 16 47 63 53 31 84 760 230 Townhouse/Condo 224 units 26 87 113 94 53 147 1,466 Total 42 134 176 147 84 231 2,226 Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 7/Haggerty Connector Road. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and levels of service. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 is provided to show the 95 percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 background conditions. A Tm(Rc Impact Ann(vsis o te ec N umber: 2617 -1-0 H Novanbe Crossinq Project umber i 18, 2 008 1-0 r 18, 2 Page 5 413 0 No Scale 0 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions P RA A Traffic /nroacl Anal v.Vis of the Ooeauon Cro.ssinc Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 6 414 0 0 0 0 J Figure 5 2010 , Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service P HA A Daffic lnu>acl Anahsis of the Oneauon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Paec 7 Signaliud'. 'Sex' Intersection Inlcn,`cti.n" No Scale A)q 7 UnsignalindIntersection y i Yi `9 lt'JP P 7 c Go` SITE C• N G 3 art O s i y 4 Un51gnalized Intersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement T T A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) J Figure 5 2010 , Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service PHA A Daffic lnu>acl Anahsis of the Oneauon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Paec 7 415 Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Background Conditions J Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length L Table 2 Opequon Crossing Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Back of ueue LOS Back of Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T B 331.D A 96.0 EB/TR EB LOS B A WB/L A 25.0 A 26.0 WB/T -Lapel A 97.0 B 391.0 WB/T -Lane2 WB LOS A B NB/LR B 72.0 B 46.0 NB LOS B B Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway / Iaggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR Haggerty Road &gg Y Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB /LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thm, R: Right PHA A Traffic hnnact Analysis of the Oneguon Cwssinp Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 8 416 0 0 0 TRIP GENERATION PHR +A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' ITE) Trip Generation Report as well as using the rates provided by VDOT Staunton District for ITE Code 230. Table 3 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development. Table 3 Proposed Development: Opequon Crossing Trin Generation Summar Code Land Use Amount In ANI Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out 'Total ADT 210 Single- Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 59 159 1,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,1w Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,658 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR +A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Opequon Crossing trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated AMIPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS C The Opequon Crossing assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. PHR +A has provided Table 4 to show the 95 percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build -out conditions. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A 7 naf6c hnoact Anolvsis of (he Onequon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 9 417 i No Scale ke 7 4 Goc y 6Oz SIT b ~ O f O ! C PtLd N`ti Q . Pf fy D n n Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage P ATraffic /ngmc(AardvsP ofdie N umber: 12617 -1-0Projectumber12617 -1 -0 November I8, 2008 Paoe 10 418 0 0 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development- Generated Trip Assignments PH ATra((ic Impact AnahwP oect N umber: 1 2617 - 1 -0R+A Project umber: 12617 -I -0 November 18, 2008 Page I I 419 9 E No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 0 Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions PHA A Tragic /mI)acl Analysis of the Onenuon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -U November 18, 2WS Page 12 420 0 sigoahzzd '. °New lnterseUion,` Intersection" i),LOS B(B) 14 No Scale i e• ; rg r 47 Unsignalized Intersection 7 lp P "tiOC c` G S ITE e SIT b 36 5C P O UHF L d J N 0Qc e Go yJ UnsignahzedIntersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) D A Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service P A Dallic Gnyact Analvsis of die Onegoon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 19. 2008 Page 13 421 0 Table 4 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS ac o ueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EWT C 462.0 A 146.0 EB /TR EB LOS C A WB/L B 38.0 B 83.0 WB/T -Lanel B 141.0 B 426.0 WB T -Lane2 WB LOS B B NB/LR C 170.0 C 161.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway /Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB /LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SBIfR Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 0 Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right P HA A Traffic Impel Analysis of (he Oneguon Cro.ssinu Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 14 422 u u E CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analv.eis o(Me Oueuuon Crossing Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 15 423 11 0 E 0 SIX -YEARS AFTER" DEVELOPMENT 2016 TRAFFIC IMPACTS PHR +A applied an annual growth rate of 2% to the existing traffic volumes through Year 2016. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included. The trip generation for the background development remains consistent with the Table I of "2010 background conditions" (Page 5). The Opequon Crossing development assigned trips (Table 3) were then added to the 2016 background conditions to obtain 2016 build -out conditions. Figure 10 shows the 2016 build -out ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 11 shows the respective 2016 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. Table 5 is provided to show the 95' percentile back of queue and levels of service for each Zane group during 2016 build -out conditions. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. P A Traffic Impact Anal"is of the Oneouon C ossink Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 16 424 0 11 No Scale e ? e 09 )1S2 r 3x(181912)511 8(133) s 9 S` 7J lya'j z G S•^ •^ SITE . rs a P P I O s AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 17 T) . A Figure 10 2016 Build -out Traffic Conditions P A 7rafOc 6nimei Analysis of the Oueguon Oossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18. 2008 PaPc 17 425 0 Signaliixd "New Intersection' Intence[ion" No Scale B(C) lg1C - 7 a Unsigmalized Intersection P c G gC SITE Q v O O PO a POy X 4J .l P, 1(y d ` s G Unsignalizad Intersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T7 T_), A H1.1. Figure 11 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service P ATrnffic /mpacr Anahais of the Oneouon Crossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 18 426 0 Ci Table 5 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2016 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Croup/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS ac o Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T C 567.0 A 168.0 EB/TR EB LOS C I A WB /L C 41.0 C 122.0 WB/I -Lapel B 166.0 C 570.0 WB/T-Lane2 WB LOS B C NB /LR C 182.0 C 103.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS C C Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway/Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB /LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB /LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR SB /LT A 25.0 A 25.0 Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, W B = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:'I'hru, R: Right P A Daffic bnnnct Anuh•sis of the Ooegtum Gossine Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 19 427 0 0 2016 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2016 build -out conditions. PHA AfgiffL ],POuct Analy -io ofthe Onegu 000055111¢ Project Number: 12617 -1 -0 November 18, 2008 Page 20 428 0 0 Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 0 jjjj Virginia Department PRE -SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM ofTransportation Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for having this form completed and returned to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a completed form is !not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Consultant Name. _'. Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Michael Glickman Tele..,! (301) 223-4010 E-mail' Michael.Glickman @phra.com DeveloperjOw'netName: , "'I Wayne L. Hill, The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division 4 n isProjectInformation fr Project Name .. ; ' „Opecluon Crossing Protect Location °:Project is located south of Route 7 along the proposed HaggertyAttachregionalandsite) ,.Connection Road in Frederick County, Virginiaspecificlocationma Project "Description _. -. Including type of application _ rezoning; subdivision site The Project includes 155 units of Single Family detached and 170 units of plan), businesssquare .Townhouse /Condo.ft, number of dwelling units - access,location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary Locality /County..Frederick County Proposed =Use . ` Check'all that apply „attach • .Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other additional pagesas necessa ' Residential # of Units:Mixed Use: ITE LU Code(s):Res. Units: ITE LU Code(s): 210 Single Family Detached (155 units) 230 Townhouse /Condo (170 units)Commercial Use Scl Ft: ITE LU Code(s): Commercial Use Scl Ft: Other: ITE LU Code(s): Paee I of 6 429 U Administrative Guidelines Ah IMF 4 January 29, 2008 t t L } l FJn6 ..."0t.`.j. a F TrafFc Im ct =Anal sisi ...a id { A'ssum tions.. ,: •_.., r,_,:. •,......_ _. il Study, Period Existing Year: 2008 Build -out Year: 2010 Design Year: 2016 Study Area Boundaries North: Route 7 (Berryville Pike)South: attach map) ° ;.East: Haggerty Connection West: 1xter ha Factors Thatr.: Could: Affect. Project," Planned: road improvements,_ other nearbyAevelopments) Consistency Wlth Compreiens(ve Plan ` Available Traffic 'Data f z: Historical, "forecasts) Trip Distribution: `.Road Name: Berryville Pike N %S %E40%W 60 % Attach sketch) Road Name:N %S %E %W Road Name:N %S %E %W Road Name:N _%S %E_%W Annual.Vehlcle Trip Peak Period for'.:PM Growth" Rate .. 2 °11 Study Circle all that a' ' I' `7 9) (4 6)10 1. Route 7 /Proposed Haggerty 5 ' Connection Road. 2• Haggerty Connection Road /Haggerty 6StudyIntersection`s "' and /or`RoadSegments:Driveway #2/Site-Drivewa Attach additional she1et,s!as ..3. Haggerty Connection Road /Haggerty necessary) -Drivewa #1 7 4.8. Trip Adjustment "Internal allowance: Yes 0 No Pass -by allowance: Yes 2 No Factors `Reduction: % trips Reduction: % trips Software Methodology 0 Synchro HCS (v.2000 / +) El aaSIDRA El CORSIM El Other 7raffi 61 Signal, Proposed or Affected = Analysis'software to be_used, '.. progressionspeed }'cycle: ' length) Page 2 of 6 430 Administrative Guidelines Haggerty Property, Twin Lakes development. January 29, 2008 Plan Submission'El Master Development Plan (MDP) El Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues.fo be 0 Queuing analysis Weaving analysis Merge analysis addressed =` Intersection(s) TDM Measures Other NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: 0 0 SIGNED: DATE: 01 /29/2008 Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: Michael Glickman, PE Applicant or Consultant Page 3 of 6 431 0 0 Administrative Guidelines No Scale t January 29, 2008 Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Village at Opequon in Frederick County, Virginia J Page 4 0l' 6 432 0 l J Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 No Scale 0 e 7 I Goc et` SITE 0 c 0 2 n4- Psi n D A Figure 2 Trip Distribution Percentage Page 5 of 6 433 Administrative Guidelines Table 1 Proposed Development: Village at Opequon January 29, 2008 irm t,eneranon !)ummar J Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Sin-le- Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 1 59 1 159 1.550 230 Townhouse /Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,108 Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,658 0 Page 6 of 6 434 Intersecrion' ° Intersection" LOS4(B) No Scale (A)g 7 E G +L SITE 0 y AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2010 Build -out L ane Geometry and Level of Service Figure 1 Revised Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service T T 435 0 11 Table 1 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS uk LOS ac Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/'F-Lane 1 B 425.0 B 218.0 217.0 EB/T -Lane 2 EB/R A 25.0 A 1 49.0 EB LOS B B WB /L D 56.0 C 134.0 WB/I -Lane 1 A 102.0 B 388.0 WB /T -Lane 2 WB LOS A B NB/L D 173.0 C 115.0 NB /R A 1 48.0 A 26.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R Right Table 2 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2016 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PMIPeak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS I ac o Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T -Lane 1 B 516.0 B 1 218.0 EB/T -Lane 2 EB /R A 25.0 A 43.0 EB LOS B B WB/L D 56.0 D 138.0 WB /T -Lane 1 A 112.0 B 424.0 WB/T -Lane 2 WB LOS A B NB/L D 187.0 D 122,0 NB/R A 50.6 A 29.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Assulllcu 25 fum v cuwic ,cugw EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right u 436 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paramount Development Corporation 607 Briarwood Drive, Suite 5 MyrtleBeach, South Carolina 29572 Preparedby: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc End neers. Surveyors. Planners. Lmdsccpe Architects. PHRA 300FoxcroftAvenue, Suite200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 7 304.264.2711 F304.264.3671 October 11, 2005 437 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) has prepared this document to present thetraffic impacts associated with theproposed Orrick Property development located along the east side of Route 656 (Greenwood Road), north of Route 657 (Senseny Road) inFrederick County, Virginia. The proposed project iscomprised of75age restricted detached residential units, 100 age- restricted attached residential units, a 6,000 square foot day care facility, 25,000 square feet of office, 80,200 square feet of retail, a 15,000 square foot pharmacy with drive -thru, a 6,000 square foot bank and two (2) 6,000 square foot restaurants. Access is to be provided via three (3) site driveways located to the east of Greenwood Road, north of Senseny Road and south of Farmington Boulevard Extended, respectively. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. Inorder toconsider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR +A assumed partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended bythe Year 2008. Figure 1isprovided toillustrate the location of the proposed Orrick Property development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying theOrrick Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: Assessment ofbackground traffic including other planned projects inthe areaof impact, Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development, Distribution and assignment of the Orrick Property development generated trips onto the completed roadway network, Analysis ofcapacity andlevel ofservice using thelatest version ofthe highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 1 438 Vicinity Map: Orrick Property in Frederick County, VA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 1I, 2005 Page 2 439 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR +A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the following intersections: Senseny Road/Greenwood Road, Senseny Road/Channing Drive Greenwood Drive /Greenpark Drive and Greenwood Road/Farmington Boulevard. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Trips) along the study area roadway links, a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24 -hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2shows theexisting ADTand AM/PM peakhourtraffic volumes atkey locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lanegeometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS -2000 levels ofservice. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 3 440 Existing Traffic Conditions ATraffic Impact Analysis oftheOrrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 4 441 NoScale Signalize Intersection LOS-13(B) B(B) Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) rFigure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels ofService A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 5 442 2008BACKGROUNDCONDITIONS In order to determine the 2008 background traffic conditions, PHR +A utilized the methodology provided in the report titled: ATraffic Impact Analysis ofLambert -Ward Property, by PHR +A, dated November 04, 2004. Accordingly, the existing traffic counts wereincreased byapplying afivepercent (5 annual growth ratetotheexisting traffic volumes along Route 656 (Greenwood Road) and Route 657 (Senseny Road) (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2008 base conditions. In order to consider future roadway networks within the study area, PHR +A assumed the partial completion of Channing Drive and Farmington Boulevard Extended by the Year 2008. Additionally, PHR +A included specific future developments located within the vicinity ofthe proposed site. Using the 7 Edition oftheInstitute ofTransportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +Ahas provided Table 1to summarize the 2008 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 3athrough Figure 3fareincluded intheAppendix section toillustrate thetraffic volumes /assignments relating toeach ofthebackground developments. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes atkey Locations throughout the study area. Figure 5shows thecorresponding 2008 build out lane geometry and levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided intheAppendix section ofthisreport. P ATragic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 6 443 Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour In Out Total PM Peak Hour In OutTotalADT Butcher Property 210SingleFamilyDetached65units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210SingleFamilyDetached63units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210SingleFamilyDetached145units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse /Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 Abrams Pointe 210 Single- Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brairwood III 210SingleFamilyDetached69units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 MiscOtherDevelopmentsalongCharmingDrive* 210Single- FamilyDetached870units 155 464 618 473 278 751 8,700 230 Townhouse /Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 272 585 857 862 670 1,532 17,476 P Table1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential In 2008 traffic analyses only 65% of the total trips g nerated along Channing Drive are eonsiderd. ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 7 444 Average "DailygTrips 2008 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 8 445 PFFigure5 No Scale Suggested Improvements"Signalaation SB -1 Left Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotes traffic signal control DenotesUnsignalizedCriticalMovement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) P 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service ATraffic Impact Analysis ofthe Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 9 446 Code Land Use Amount AMPeak Hoar In Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 251 Elderly Housing Detach 75units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive -in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11,789 TRIP GENERATION 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Orrick Property development. Site layouts of residential and commercial developments are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 2008ProposedDevelopment: OrrickParamount TripGenerationSummary TRIPDISTRIBUTIONANDTRIPASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR +A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Orrick Property development trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development generated AM /PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. The Orrick Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added tothe2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM /PM peak hour levels ofservice. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included intheAppendix section ofthisreport. 4 Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 10 447 Trip Distribution Percentages ATragic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 11 448 PRR- Fi 7 Development- Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 12 449 PHRA Figure 8 No Scale Average ttDaily` AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2008 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 13 450 PHI 9 ri No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS =C(D) T R(D) New Intersection" NewIntersection" New Intersection" Gr3enparkD Slgn uliad: "Suggested Intersection Improvement" 1056(G) WB 1 Right UC Vf pej way SITE Set, oC oad 94 Signulized Int necti9l14110S(C)LOSB(:r Suggested Improvement"Signalization SB I Left Denotesstopsigncontrol Denotestrafficsignalcontrol Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 14 451 OptionB: 2008Build -outTrafficConditions 452 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS =B(C)- Suggested Improvements" Signalization NB 1 Right Greenpark D Site Driveway g1 Two -Way Left Turn Lane Denotestrafficsignalcontrol Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) SITE P 2 OptionB: 2008Build -outLaneGeometry andLevelsofService P. t4a 453 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Orrick Property development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming the improvements shown in Figure 4 and Figure 9, all intersections except Greenwood Road/Site Driveway #1 will maintain levels of service to "C" or better during 2008 background and build -out conditions, respectively. The intersection ofGreenwood Road/Site- Driveway #1would maintain levels ofservice to D" or better during 2008 build -out conditions. The following reiterates the off -site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study area intersections: Senseny Road (a, Charming Drive: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require signalization and a southbound left -turn lane in 2008 background and build -out conditions. The developer is not responsible for this improvement. Senseny Road (cry Greenwood Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require a westbound right -turn lane in 2008 build -out conditions. This improvement is currently proffered by others. Greenwood Road (a, Site- Driveway #1: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. Senseny Road n, SiteDriveway #2: Inorder toachieve acceptable levels ofservice, this intersection should beasignalized intersection with southbound left and right -turn lanes in 2008 build -out conditions. The developer would be responsible for the design and installation. Farmington Boulevard (a Site Driveway #3: This intersection will be constructed by the developer with unsignalized (STOP sign) traffic control. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Orrick Property Project Number: 13783 -1 -0 October 11, 2005 Page 15 454 MUT MIT Rorsi n Patton Herr/5 Run 8Ruoclal•s Engineer.. Surveyors. Planner.. Landscape Architect. RA HT .....n. T WS/21T F 54.060103 LOCATION MAP ORRICK CEMETERY FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA CMSMONDE. 2065 FRE MO. 455 N/! CREENVOO9VOLVN]ECR PRE CO ORRICKOUTPARCEL A 1.53 ACRES OWNEDBYOTHERS 76 ACRES 4/- WWI Mri t NEW INC TAPER Jr OWNED I itiv O'HEIM ORRICK I 1 OUTPARCEL 11 i OWNED 1]4 ACRES I IBYOTHERSII !I 1 NEW I.uxo 1 iy x_iw xurL 1 rtt PO >0 4 ORRICKOUTPARCEL #2 1.2 ACRES ORRICKOUTPARCEL #5 2.0 ACRES #1- ORRICKOUTPARCEL R6 2.26 ACRES i/- FUTURE OFFICE MEDICAL VICINITYPLAN ORRICKOUTPARCEL 17 1.3 ACRES I 1 ORRICKOUTPARCEL a4 1 0.94 ACRE +/y 04 -79 0479091 5171UN SP -1 456 FOOD LION SHOPPING CENTER WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA al! NM 441401-1;41-11471 PARAMOUNTDEVELOPMENT MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA NEUHOFF TAYLOR ARCHITECTS, P.C. C HATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 457 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com F. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions without Development 458 Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 135 11 1 72 3 37 0 15 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 147 11 0 73 3 0 52 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1892 1615 0 1899 1615 0 1753 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 863 0 1591 0 612 0 1707 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 20.5 0.0 5.5 0.0 10.2 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) 8.8 17.3 NA NA 10.5 11.6 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 17.3 5.5 10.2 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 21.3 9.9 14.4 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 8.5 0.1 4.5 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 9.3 9.3 4.6 4.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.3 13.3 9.0 9.0 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 21.3 14.4 Split Option (s) 22.3 16.4 Minimum (s) 21.3 14.4 35.7 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 9.0 13.3 Combined (s) 25.0 30.1 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 459 Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 89 6 152 5 26 107 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 106 0 6 152 5 26 107 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1651 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 1.5 1.7 6.8 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.3 11.1 8.0 11.4 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 507 0 1669 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 15.6 0.0 8.3 6.0 9.6 25.9 6.8 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 1900 NA NA Reference Time B (s) 10.7 12.7 8.9 16.3 8.4 9.6 NA NA Reference Time (s) 12.7 8.3 9.6 25.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 13.7 15.3 29.9 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 8.3 0.4 9.6 1.7 6.8 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 9.6 1.7 6.8 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 8.3 8.3 9.6 9.6 6.8 6.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 13.7 13.7 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.3 Permitted Option (s) 17.2 29.9 Split Option (s) 24.2 26.6 Minimum (s) 17.2 23.3 40.4 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 13.7 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 30.4 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 460 Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 102 41 16 169 22 21 0 12 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 152 41 0 185 22 0 33 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1869 1615 0 1892 1615 0 1739 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 307 0 834 0 396 0 1655 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 59.5 0.0 26.6 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA 9.1 19.7 9.4 10.3 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 59.5 19.7 10.0 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 63.5 23.7 14.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 9.8 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 6.4 1.1 10.7 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 9.8 9.8 11.7 11.7 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.8 13.8 15.7 15.7 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 63.5 14.0 Split Option (s) 29.5 16.0 Minimum (s) 29.5 14.0 43.5 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 15.7 13.8 Combined (s) 31.7 29.8 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 461 Intersection Capacity Utilization Background (2027) 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Opequon Creek Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 49 26 162 16 55 176 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 64 0 26 162 16 55 176 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1669 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.2 1.8 3.7 11.1 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.1 9.8 8.0 15.1 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 590 0 1686 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 9.2 0.0 4.9 25.9 10.2 54.8 11.1 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 12.9 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 9.2 4.9 25.9 54.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 13.7 9.9 29.9 58.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 4.9 1.7 10.2 3.7 11.1 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 10.2 3.7 11.1 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 4.9 4.9 10.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.1 Permitted Option (s) 13.7 58.8 Split Option (s) 18.7 30.2 Minimum (s) 13.7 23.1 36.8 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 9.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 26.6 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 462 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com G. Analysis Worksheets of 2027 Future Conditions with Development 463 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 12 154 11 1 129 3 37 0 15 11 1 44 Pedestrians 1 1 1 1 Ped Button Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 166 11 0 130 3 0 52 0 0 56 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1893 1615 0 1899 1615 0 1753 0 0 1660 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 922 0 1714 0 612 0 1707 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 21.6 0.0 9.1 0.0 10.2 0.0 3.9 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA NA NA 10.5 11.6 8.7 12.0 Reference Time (s) 21.6 9.1 10.2 3.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 25.6 13.3 14.4 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 10.5 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 0.8 9.7 0.1 8.1 2.5 0.0 0.7 0.1 Reference Time (s) 10.5 10.5 8.2 8.2 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 14.5 14.5 12.5 12.5 8.4 8.4 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 25.6 14.4 Split Option (s) 27.0 16.4 Minimum (s) 25.6 14.4 40.0 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.4 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 12.5 14.5 Combined (s) 28.5 31.3 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 464 Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 3 22 13 4 135 6 152 5 41 107 9 Pedestrians 2 5 9 6 5 9 6 2 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 65 0 0 152 0 6 152 5 41 107 9 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1748 0 0 1640 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.06 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 1.5 2.7 6.8 0.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.3 11.1 8.0 11.4 8.8 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 410 0 1658 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 19.2 0.0 11.7 6.0 9.6 40.9 6.8 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 0 0 0 1900 NA NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 8.9 19.8 8.4 9.6 NA NA Reference Time (s) 19.2 11.7 9.6 40.9 Adj Reference Time (s) 23.2 16.5 15.3 44.9 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 11.8 0.4 9.6 2.7 6.8 Ref Time Seperate (s) 2.7 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.4 9.6 2.7 6.8 Reference Time (s) 4.7 4.7 11.8 11.8 9.6 9.6 6.8 6.8 Adj Reference Time (s) 10.4 10.4 16.6 16.6 15.3 15.3 11.4 11.4 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 23.3 Permitted Option (s) 23.2 44.9 Split Option (s) 27.0 26.6 Minimum (s) 23.2 23.3 46.5 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 11.1 8.8 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 10.4 16.5 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Combined (s) 29.5 33.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 465 Intersection Capacity Utilization 3: Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek AM Opequon Creek 12:00 am 05/23/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 19 158 78 4 12 57 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 177 82 0 69 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.85 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1890 1886 0 1650 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 731 1886 110 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 29.1 5.2 75.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.3 19.2 NA NA Reference Time (s) 19.2 5.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 23.2 9.2 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 11.2 5.2 5.0 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.3 10.0 5.0 0.9 Reference Time (s) 11.2 11.2 5.2 5.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 15.2 15.2 9.2 9.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 23.2 Err Split Option (s) 24.5 9.0 Minimum (s) 23.2 9.0 32.3 Right Turns Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.9% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 466 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1: Twinbrook Circle/Senseny Glen Drive & Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 157 41 16 206 22 21 0 12 3 0 32 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 207 41 0 222 22 0 33 0 0 35 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1877 1615 0 1893 1615 0 1739 0 0 1632 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time (s) 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 399 0 924 0 396 0 1655 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 62.2 0.0 28.8 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B (s) NA NA NA NA 9.4 10.3 8.2 10.6 Reference Time (s) 62.2 28.8 10.0 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 66.2 32.8 14.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 13.2 0.0 14.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.6 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.3 9.9 1.1 13.0 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Reference Time (s) 13.2 13.2 14.1 14.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 17.2 17.2 18.1 18.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 66.2 14.0 Split Option (s) 35.3 16.0 Minimum (s) 35.3 14.0 49.3 Right Turns EBR WBR Adj Reference Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.0 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 18.1 17.2 Combined (s) 34.1 33.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 467 Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: Channing Drive & Canyon Road/Woodrow Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 4 13 10 5 78 26 162 16 99 176 34 Pedestrians 2 5 3 2 5 3 Ped Button Yes Yes Yes Pedestrian Timing (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 45 0 0 93 0 26 162 16 99 176 34 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1761 0 0 1652 0 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.2 1.8 6.6 11.1 2.5 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.1 9.8 10.6 15.1 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 467 0 1673 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 11.6 0.0 7.0 25.9 10.2 98.7 11.1 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B (s) 9.9 11.1 8.7 15.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time (s) 11.1 7.0 25.9 98.7 Adj Reference Time (s) 15.5 11.9 29.9 102.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 3.1 0.0 7.1 1.7 10.2 6.6 11.1 Ref Time Seperate (s) 1.9 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 10.2 6.6 11.1 Reference Time (s) 3.1 3.1 7.1 7.1 10.2 10.2 11.1 11.1 Adj Reference Time (s) 8.8 8.8 11.9 11.9 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Summary NW SE NE SW Combined Protected Option (s) NA 25.7 Permitted Option (s) 15.5 102.7 Split Option (s) 20.7 30.2 Minimum (s) 15.5 25.7 41.2 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time (s) 9.8 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 8.8 11.9 Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 10.6 8.0 Combined (s) 29.2 27.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 468 Intersection Capacity Utilization 3: Senseny Road 09/16/2024 Opequon Creek PM Opequon Creek 4:02 pm 08/21/2024 Future (2027) Synchro 11 Report Gorove Slade Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 55 114 202 11 7 37 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing (s) Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length (s) 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 169 213 0 44 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.98 0.99 0.85 0.87 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1869 1885 0 1647 0 Ped Intf Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time (s) 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 309 1885 110 Reference Time A (s) 0.0 65.5 13.6 48.1 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA 1885 NA Reference Time B (s) NA NA 13.6 NA Reference Time (s) 65.5 13.6 Adj Reference Time (s) 69.5 17.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined (s) 0.0 10.9 13.6 3.2 Ref Time Seperate (s) 3.7 7.2 12.9 0.5 Reference Time (s) 10.9 10.9 13.6 3.2 Adj Reference Time (s) 14.9 14.9 17.6 8.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option (s) NA NA Permitted Option (s) 69.5 Err Split Option (s) 32.4 8.0 Minimum (s) 32.4 8.0 40.4 Right Turns Adj Reference Time (s) Cross Thru Ref Time (s) Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) Combined (s) Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. 469 Winchester East at Opequon Creek – TIA Technical Appendix September 19, 2024 goroveslade.com H. Turn Lane Warrants 470 AASHTO/VDOT Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Background: Project Information: Project: Project ID: Intersection(s) and Movement(s): Scenario: Analysis: Design Speed (mph):50 (40, 50, or 60?) Assessment Summary: Study Scenario Opposing Vol. (VPH) Advancin g Vol. (VPH) Left Turn Vol. (VPH) Left Turn % Minimum Opposing Threshold (VPH) VDOT RDM F Figure Treatment INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF AM Peak 82 177 19 10.73%765 Fig. 3-12 Not Warranted INT 3 - EBL - 2027 TF PM Peak 213 169 55 32.54%493 Fig. 3-15 Not Warranted Input VDOT Calculated Thesholds Left Turn Lane Warrant Assessment Opequon Creek 3392-002 3 - Senseny Road at Site Entrance (EBL) Gorove Slade 2027 Future Conditions with Development Warrants for left-turn storage lanes on two-lane highways at unsignalized intersections are based on Figure 3-4 to Figure 3-21 in Appendix F of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Road Design Manual (RDM). The figures provide a graphical representation for determining the necessity of a left turn lane by comparing the advancing volumes of a given approach and the respective opposing volumes and are differentiated by design speed and percent left turning volume. Two-Lane Highways Based on AASHTO / VDOT RDM Appendix F Gorove Slade 471 INT 5 -WBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -940ln(x) + 5831.6 R² = 0.9991 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-11 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 10% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted 472 INT 3 -EBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -2E-05x3 + 0.0255x2 -11.57x + 2151.1 R² = 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-12 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 15% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted 473 INT 3 -EBL -2027 TF PM Peak INT 5 -WBL -2027 TF AM Peak y = -0.0002x3 + 0.1083x2 -28.786x + 3002 R² = 0.9998 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000V0, Opposing Volume (VPH)VA, Advancing Volume (VPH) VDOT RDM-F Figure 3-15 Warrant for Left Turn Storage Lanes on 2-Lane Highways at 50-mph & 40% Left Turns Not Warranted Warranted 474