HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20 Phase 1A Archaelogical Survey
PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSACNE FOR THE
BARTONSVILLE ENERGY FACILITY,
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FEBRUARY 2020
PREPARED FOR
Bartonsville Energy Facility, LLC
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE
FOR THE BARTONSVILLE ENERGY FACILITY,
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Prepared for
Bartonsville Energy Facility, LLC
939 Pearl Street, Suite 210
Boulder, CO 80302
Attn: Sam Gulland
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
201 Chatham Street, Suite 3
Sanford, NC 27330
919.292.2200
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 059169.00
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 20-1
February 2020
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
i
ABSTRACT
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a Phase IA archaeological reconnaissance on
behalf of Bartonsville Solar Facility, LLC (Bartonsville Solar), for the proposed Bartonsville Solar
Project (project) in Frederick County, Virginia. The project consists of the development of 756 acres
(306 hectares) located west of Stephens City, Virginia. The area of potential affects (APE) for the project
area is 756 acres (306 hectares). The project is located on the 1986 Stephens City, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5-minute Quadrangle.
Bartonsville Solar is seeking to develop the project area into a solar facility. The project requires
compliance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Solar Permit by Rule process,
and thus requires consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
SWCA conducted the Phase IA Reconnaissance in December 2019. The reconnaissance consisted of
background research into the project area and a site visit with limited subsurface testing. The goal of the
Phase IA is to determine if a Phase IB survey is necessary and, if necessary, establish a probability
assessment of the project area to guide the Phase IB survey.
SWCA recommends that a Phase IB survey be conducted to determine if archaeological sites are present
within the project area. Specifically, the Phase IB survey should focus on areas in proximity to water
sources, as well as the location of buildings depicted in historic cartographic sources.
SWCA also recommends a historic architectural survey of the two properties within the project area and
within 0.5 mile of the project area of potential effects (APE) to determine if the project will have a visual
effect on any historic resources. SWCA also recommends that the project’s visual impact on the Mary
Stephens House be simulated to determine if the project will have an adverse effect on the historic
property.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
iii
CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... i
Contents ...................................................................................................................................................... iii
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Figures ................................................................................................................................................... iv
Tables .................................................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Environmental Context .............................................................................................................................. 4
Physiography .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Flora ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Fauna ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Current Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 7
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Culture History ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Paleoindian Period (11,500–8000 B.C.) ........................................................................................ 12
Archaic Period (8000–1200 B.C.) ................................................................................................. 12
Woodland Period (1200 B.C.–1600 A.D.) ..................................................................................... 13
Settlement to Society (1607–1750 A.D.) ....................................................................................... 15
Colony to Nation (1750–1789 A.D.) ............................................................................................. 15
Early National Period (1789–1829 A.D.) ...................................................................................... 15
Antebellum Period (1830–1860 A.D.) ........................................................................................... 16
Civil War (1861–1865 A.D.) ......................................................................................................... 16
Reconstruction and Growth (1866–1916 A.D.) ............................................................................. 17
World War I to World War II (1917–1945 A.D.) .......................................................................... 17
The New Dominion (1946 A.D.–Present) ..................................................................................... 18
Previous Investigations ......................................................................................................................... 18
Historic Map Review ............................................................................................................................ 23
Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 24
Survey Area 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Survey Area 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Archaeological Site Potential ................................................................................................................... 27
Precontact Site Potential ....................................................................................................................... 27
Historic Site Potential ........................................................................................................................... 28
Overall Archaeological Site Potential .................................................................................................. 28
Historic Resource Potential ...................................................................................................................... 28
Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 31
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 32
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
iv
Appendices
Appendix A. Resumes of Key Project Staff
Appendix B. Historic Mapping
Appendix C. Project Photograph
Appendix D. Shovel Test Pit Profiles
Figures
Figure 1. Map showing the proposed location of the project. ....................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Project overview map. ................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Aerial imagery showing APE. ....................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4. Overview of an agricultural field in the APE, facing north. .......................................................... 7
Figure 5. Overview of an orchard in the APE, facing south. ........................................................................ 8
Figure 6. Overview of slope and an area once used as an orchard in the APE, facing west. ........................ 8
Figure 7. Overview of typical rock outcropping in the APE, facing northeast. ............................................ 9
Figure 8. Overview of a drained pond, located in the northern portion of the APE, facing north. ............... 9
Figure 9. Overview of typical slope and wooded area in the APE, facing east. ......................................... 10
Figure 10. Overview disturbances associated with the construction of a buried water line in the
APE, facing northeast. ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 11. Overview of pasture in the APE, facing southwest. .................................................................. 11
Figure 12. VCRIS map of previously recorded resources and surveys in proximity to the project. ........... 19
Figure 13. Approximate project location shown on 1885 Frederick County Atlas. Buildings within
project area are circled in red. Generation Tie-in in the southern portion of the project
area is not shown. ..................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14. Overview of the results of the site reconnaissance. ................................................................... 25
Figure 15. Overview of archaeological probability within the project area. ............................................... 29
Figure 16. Overview of archaeological probability within the project area, as seen on the 1977
Stephens City, and Middletown, Virginia, USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. ........ 30
Tables
Table 1. Soils within the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Previously Documented Archaeological Resources within 1 Mile of the APE ............................ 19
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Investigations within 1 Mile of the APE .............................................. 21
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a Phase IA archaeological reconnaissance on
behalf of Bartonsville Solar Facility, LLC (Bartonsville Solar), for the proposed Bartonsville Solar
Facility Project (project) in Frederick County, Virginia. The project consists of the development of
756 acres (306 hectares) located to the north and south of Springdale Road, 4.9 miles (7.9 kilometers
[km]) southwest of the town of Winchester, Virginia (Figures 1–3). The project area of potential effects
(APE) is 756 acres (306 hectares). The Phase IA reconnaissance was conducted in December 2019, with a
site visit occurring on December 12 and 13, 2019.
Jonathan Libbon, RPA, served as Principal Investigator and was responsible for project management and
report preparation. Benjamin Demchak, RPA, assisted with report preparation and oversaw the site visit,
accompanied by Zack Whalen. Resumes for key project staff are provided in Appendix A. The goal for
the Phase IA was to identify the testable and untestable portions of the project area and assess the
probability of the project area to contain archaeological resources. Special attention was also given to
structures and buildings within the project area to determine if a historic architecture survey is necessary.
This report outlines the methodology used during the Phase IA, as well as the results of the background
research, site visit, and analysis conducted by SWCA in response to the proposed project.
Figure 1. Map showing the proposed location of the project.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
2
Figure 2. Project overview map.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
3
Figure 3. Aerial imagery showing APE.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
4
METHODOLOGY
The goal of the Phase IA reconnaissance was to evaluate the project area for the likelihood of
encountering archaeological sites and historic buildings and structures, and if necessary, develop a
strategy to further investigate the project area in accordance with the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources (VDHR), published in Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia
(2017) and other relevant federal and state guidelines and regulations.
A staged approach was undertaken to develop a probability assessment of the project area. Investigators
initially reviewed the environmental setting of the project to identify key locales within the project that
may influence the presence of archaeological sites (e.g., stream confluences, alluvial soils) as well as
environmental and past land use that could influence preservation of archaeological deposits (e.g., upland
soils, timbering of the project area). After the review of the environmental setting was established for the
project area, a literature review was undertaken. The literature review focused on identifying previously
recorded cultural resources and previous cultural resources survey within or directly adjacent to the
project area. Settlement patterns for pre-contact and historic groups were also reviewed for the piedmont
and coastal plain regions of Virginia.
Following the completion of the background research, SWCA undertook a site visit. Prior to the
mobilization, survey targets were identified within the project area. Survey targets consisted of areas
within the project that contained past ground disturbance that should be verified, landforms that have a
high potential to contain archaeological resources, previously recorded archaeological sites, buildings and
structures within the project area, and other cultural and natural features that could help guide the
determination of archaeological probability within the project area. Investigators photographically
documented the survey targets and conducted limited subsurface testing to ascertain the soil profile
present within the project area. Subsurface testing, in the form of judgmental shovel tests, consisted of
cylindrical holes, 38 cm (15 inches) in diameter and were excavated by natural stratigraphic sequence
10 cm (4 inches) into culturally sterile subsoil. All excavated material was screened through ¼-inch
hardware mesh. Shovel test pit (STP) information (i.e., strata, soil type, Munsell color, depths,
disturbances, and cultural material, if recovered) was recorded on standard field forms. Each STP location
was recorded with a handheld GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. Shovel tests were not excavated
within or directly adjacent to previously recorded archaeological sites.
After the completion of the site visit, all data was analyzed, and a probability assessment was formulated
based on the results of the background research and site visit.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
This section presents the factors of the environment that have influenced the historic and precontact
occupation of the project area. A discussion of relevant factors such as physiography, soils, flora, fauna,
hydrology, and current and past land use will help provide an understanding of the local environment.
This information will then be synthesized with the literature review, provided in the following section,
to guide the site reconnaissance and the development of probability areas within the APE.
Physiography
The proposed project is located in the Middle Section of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic province of
the Appalachian Highlands, which is characterized by long, parallel, narrow, even-crested ridges rising
above intervening valleys of varying size, the largest and easternmost of which is the Valley of Virginia
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
5
(Great Valley). The Ridge and Valley province is the most extensive of the Appalachian provinces in
Virginia, covering about 25 percent of the state (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
[Virginia DCR] 2016). The folded and faulted areas of parallel ridges and valleys are carved out of
anticlines, synclines, and thrust blocks (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2006:485).
The geology of the area was developed from slightly older rocks deposited in the same Paleozoic basin
that formed the Cumberland and Allegheny Mountains (Virginia DCR 2016). The ridge crests are
primarily made up of resistant sandstone and conglomerate bedrock, while the valleys are made up of less
resistant shales and limestone (NRCS 2006:485).
Soils
A search of the NRCS Web Soil Survey database (NRCS 2019) identified multiple soil series within the
APE (Table 1). The majority of the APE (69.4 percent) is located in Frederick-Poplimento loams, which
is characterized by well-drained hill soils that have residuum from limestone. Frederick-Poplimento
loams soil typically demonstrates a profile of Ap: 0 to 23 centimeters (cm) (0 to 8 inches), silt loam; Bt1:
23 to 46 cm (8 to 18 inches), silty clay; Bt2: 46 to 89 cm (18 to 35 inches), clay; Bt3: 89 to 130 cm (35 to
51 inches), clay; and Bt4: 130 to 183 cm (51 to 72 inches), clay (NRCS 2019).
Soils associated with floodplains are limited within the APE (3.6 percent). The prominent soils series
associated with floodplains in the APE is classified as Timberville silt loam, which is characterized by
well-drained soils that have a local alluvium derived from limestone over residuum weathered from
limestone. Timberville silt loam soil typically demonstrates a profile of Ap: 0 to 23 cm (0 to 9 inches), silt
loam; Bw: 23 to 56 cm (9 to 22 inches), gravelly silt loam; Bt1: 56 to 76 cm (22 to 30 inches), silty clay
loam; and Bt2: 76 to 152 cm (30 to 60 inches), clay loam (NRCS 2019).
Multiple soils series within the APE are associated with rock outcrops. The majority of the soils
associated with rock outcrops in the APE (1.4 percent) are located in Frederick-Poplimento-Rock outcrop
complex. Frederick-Poplimento-Rock outcrop complex soil typically demonstrates a profile identical to
Frederick-Poplimento loams (NRCS 2019).
Table 1. Soils within the Project Area
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Percentage
of APE Landform Drainage
Class Parent Material
6C Carbo-Oaklet, very rocky
silt loams, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
0.6 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
7C Carbo-Oaklet-Rock outcrop
complex, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
0.3 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
14B Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
22.2 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
14C Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
35.9 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
14D Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
11.3 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
16C Frederick-Poplimento very
rocky loams, 7 to 15
percent slopes
5.1 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
6
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Percentage
of APE Landform Drainage
Class Parent Material
16D Frederick-Poplimento very
rocky loams, 15 to
25 percent slopes
1.9 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
17C Frederick-Poplimento-Rock
outcrop complex, 2 to
15 percent slopes
1.8 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
17E Frederick-Poplimento-Rock
outcrop complex, 15 to
45 percent slopes
1.4 Hills Well drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
32B Oaklet silt loam, 2 to
7 percent slopes
11.2 Hills Well drained Residuum derived from limestone
32C Oaklet silt loam, 7 to
15 percent slopes
4.4 Hills Well drained Residuum derived from limestone
33C Opequon-Chilhowie, very
rocky silty clays, 3 to
15 percent slopes
0.1 Hills Well drained Residuum derived from limestone
34 Pagebrook silt loam 0.1 Floodplains Moderately well
drained
Clayey alluvium derived from
limestone or interbedded limestone,
shale, siltstone, and sandstone
40B Timberville silt loam, 2 to
7 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
3.5 Drainageways,
floodplains,
depressions
Well drained Local alluvium derived from
limestone over residuum weathered
from limestone
W Water 0.2 N/A N/A N/A
Source: NRCS (2019)
Flora
The APE lies within the Oak-Chestnut Forest Region, as defined by Braun (1964). The natural vegetation
of the Oak-Chestnut Forest Region was formerly characterized by a various mixture of oaks and
American chestnut, with smaller inclusions of mixed mesophytic forests, high-elevation forests, oak-pine
woodlands, and various specialized non-forest vegetation types. After the elimination of the American
chestnut as an overstory tree by the Chestnut Blight Fungus around 1940, the region is now mostly
described as containing Appalachian oak, oak-pine, or oak-hickory-pine forest (Virginia DCR 2016).
The modern forest is composed of diverse tree species. White oak, red oak, black oak, hickories, and
associated upland hardwoods are the major species. Scarlet oak, chestnut oak, hickories, and scattered
Virginia pine, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, and eastern white pine are common on the shallower soils.
Yellow-poplar, red oak, red maple, and other species that require more moisture grow in sheltered coves
and on footslopes (NRCS 2006:486).
Fauna
Ample resources, combined with a wide range of topographic and geological conditions, have created an
abundance of endemic species and a great diversity of wildlife in the Oak-Chestnut Forest Region.
The major wildlife species in the region include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, gray squirrel, cottontail
rabbit, raccoon, red fox, gray fox, ruffed grouse, and woodchucks. In the larger warm-water streams,
smallmouth bass, rock bass, sunfish, catfish, and suckers are common. Suitable cold-water streams are
stocked with trout. Native brook trout inhabit many of the smaller streams (NRCS 2006:486).
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
7
Current Land Use
The project area is currently primarily in an agricultural setting consisting of active agricultural fields and
an active orchard. Several portions of the project area were once active orchards as observed on the 1972
Stephens City, West Virginia, aerial imagery, but have since been cleared for other agricultural purposes
as observed by modern aerial imagery and SWCA’s field visit. Lesser portions of the project area are
found in pasture, fallow fields, and secondary growth mixed deciduous woods. Sparse residential
development in the project area has taken place. The project area contains multiple driveways and
farm/access roads to facilitate access to residences and agricultural activities. Heavy disturbances
associated with the installation of a northwest/southeast trending water line just south of Carrolton Lane
were observed during SWCA’s field visit. Additionally, several drained ponds were observed in the
project area. The project area is used for hunting game as observed by multiple deer stands observed in
agricultural fields and wooded areas. Figures 4-11 depict the current land use of the project area.
Figure 4. Overview of an agricultural field in the APE, facing north.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
8
Figure 5. Overview of an orchard in the APE, facing south.
Figure 6. Overview of slope and an area once used as an orchard in the
APE, facing west.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
9
Figure 7. Overview of typical rock outcropping in the APE, facing northeast.
Figure 8. Overview of a drained pond, located in the northern portion of the
APE, facing north.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
10
Figure 9. Overview of typical slope and wooded area in the APE, facing east.
Figure 10. Overview disturbances associated with the construction of a
buried water line in the APE, facing northeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
11
Figure 11. Overview of pasture in the APE, facing southwest.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following section will establish a cultural context for the project area and provide an overview of the
previous archaeological work conducted in proximity to the APE. Additionally, a detailed review of
historic maps and atlases is undertaken to help identify the historic occupation of the APE and summarize
the historic land use of the project area.
Culture History
Data gathered by previous compliance surveys, research projects, and landowner or informant interviews
can be used to investigate trends for a given region and make specific predictions for identifying cultural
resources within the project area. Based on guidance provided in the VDHR’s Guidelines for Conducting
Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (2017) an examination of trends within the project area and in the
surrounding region is undertaken. These trends include technological innovation, subsistence strategies,
climatic change, and population, to name a few. The following is a chronological discussion of the
prehistoric and historic occupation of the Valley Geographic and Cultural Region.
The Valley Geographic and Cultural Region is defined as the area that lies between the Blue Ridge
Mountains to the east and the border with West Virginia (VDHR 2017). The project area is located near
the northernmost extent of this region, but shares similarities with the entire region. The north-south
orientation of the valley has facilitated a movement of people and ideas that has shaped a unique cultural
landscape for the region.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
12
Paleoindian Period (11,500–8000 B.C.)
Native American occupation of eastern North American dates to at least 13,450 calendar years ago
(approximately 11,500 B.C.), which marks the conventional temporal boundary associated with the
Clovis tradition (Anderson et al. 2007; Goodyear 2006). Although there is increasing evidence of an
earlier occupation in the region, the few sites that have been reported to contain early deposits, often
referred to as ‘Pre-Clovis’, have come under fierce scrutiny by the archaeological community. Monte
Verde, in South America, represents one of the oldest generally accepted sites in the Western Hemisphere
(Dillehay 2000:160-168). The Pre-Clovis discussion in eastern North America has focused on a handful
of sites. Meadowcroft Rockshelter in southwestern Pennsylvania is considered by many archaeologists to
be a Pre-Clovis site (Carr and Adovasio 2002:4). The Cactus Hill site in Sussex County, Virginia,
recovered lithic artifacts such as bifaces, polyhedral cores, and prismatic blades below intact Clovis
horizons as early as 17,000 radiocarbon years before present, significantly earlier than the conventional
Clovis temporal boundary. Additionally, the Topper site in South Carolina’s Piedmont region has also
produced evidence of Pre-Clovis occupation below Clovis-age sediments (Goodyear 1999, 2000).
The Cactus Hill and Topper sites both have the potential to be considered Pre-Clovis and could show that
early groups were in the general region of the project, but further work on these sites is still needed to
verify Pre-Clovis claims. Increased programs of survey and testing of landforms with Pleistocene-aged
deposits are still needed in the region to better understand the Pre-Clovis tradition (Goodyear 2006).
The first widely accepted Paleoindian occupation of Virginia was by groups using a distinctive fluted
projectile point (i.e., the Clovis type) (Griffin 1967; Justice 1987). These points are generally scarce and
often occur as isolated finds in disturbed surface contexts. Geographic concentrations of fluted points,
including the Clovis type and related Paleoindian projectile points, such as Cumberland, occur in the
eastern half of the United States. Nearly 1,000 fluted projectile points have been reported from Virginia
(Anderson and Faught 1998; Anderson et al. 2010). Other Paleoindian projectile point types found in
Virginia are Mid-Paleo, Dalton, Hardaway-Dalton, and a type with affinities to Folsom (Barber and
Barfield 1989; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McCary 1996). In Virginia, the majority of these points
were manufactured from cryptocrystalline lithic material. Tools associated with the Paleoindian period
include scrapers, gravers, wedges, unifacial tools, hammerstones, abraders, and a variety of “banging,
smashing, chopping, and hacking tools” (Gardner 1989:18).
Stratified sites containing Paleoindian occupations are relatively rare. In Virginia, the Williamson site and
the Thunderbird and Fifty sites of the Flint Run Complex in the Shenandoah Valley provide a unique
picture of life during Paleoindian times (Barber and Barfield 1989; Carr 1975; Gardner 1974; Johnson
1996; McAvoy and McAvoy 2003). Research at these sites resulted in the development of the Flint Run
Lithic Deterministic Model. The model focuses on high-quality lithic quarries that drove Paleoindian and
Early Archaic groups settlement patterns (Anderson and Sassaman 1996:23). The model was based on the
assumption that there was a correlation of mobility ranges to the distribution of lithic raw material.
Gardner (1974, 1977), who established the model, showed Paleoindian groups in the Shenandoah Valley
were tethered to lithic quarries and returned to them as part of a cyclical pattern. Due to the common
presence of high-quality lithic materials in Paleoindian artifact assemblages, the model has been utilized
by researchers throughout Virginia and much of the Eastern Woodlands.
Archaic Period (8000–1200 B.C.)
The Archaic period in Southern Coastal Plain of Virginia is characterized by groups adapting to a
changing climate and new Holocene biotic communities. The Archaic period was a time of major climatic
change. Holocene environments continued to expand until the start of the Hypsithermal Climatic period
(6000 B.C.), at which point the modern environment of the region was almost fully developed.
Traditionally, the Archaic period has been divided into three sub-periods, the Early Archaic (8000–
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
13
6500 B.C.), the Middle Archaic (6500–3000 B.C.), and the Late Archaic (3000–1200 B.C.), although
there is major continuity between all three periods. Major themes in the Archaic period consist of a
diversification of the resource base, increase in sedentism, especially in riverine locations, and like much
of the Eastern Woodlands, the advent of regionally specific trends in material culture and the antecedents
to horticulture.
The Early Archaic period (8000–6500 B.C.) is largely thought to be a continuation of the Paleoindian
period, with groups following similar settlement and subsistence patterns (Claggett and Cable 1982).
The main difference between the Paleoindian period and the subsequent Early Archaic period is that
archaeologists have identified an increase in site size, an increase in the number of Early Archaic sites in
the Valley Region, and an increase in material culture associated with Early Archaic occupations in
comparison to Paleoindian artifact assemblages. A review of Early Archaic sites at the Flint Run Complex
shows that the general toolkit identified at these sites remains the same between the Early Archaic period
and the Paleoindian period, with corner-notched projectile points (e.g., Palmer Corner-Notched and
Kirk Corner-Notched) slowly being replaced by stemmed points (Geier 1990).
Following the Early Archaic period, groups in the Middle Archaic period (6500–3000 B.C.) shared many
of the lifeways that defined the Early Archaic, such as a similar dispersed settlement system and a
reliance on a broad spectrum of resources (Mouer 1991). Some changes that took place during the Middle
Archaic period in the Valley Region, potentially related to the climatic events associated with the
Hypsithermal Climatic period, include the occupation of upland settings, specifically the foothills and
saddles at higher elevations, with a preference near upland water sources (i.e., bogs and spring heads)
(Foss 1983; Tolley 1983). The Middle Archaic lithic toolkit with the use of hafted end scrapers and other
formal tools such as perforators, drills, and gravers (Coe 1964). Diagnostic artifacts for the period include
Stanly Stemmed, Morrow Mountain I and II Stemmed, Guilford Lanceolate, Halifax Side-Notched,
St. Albans, LeCroy Bifurcated Stem, and Kanawha Stemmed hafted bifaces.
In the Valley Region, the Late Archaic Period (3000–1200 B.C.) archaeological sites are typically defined
by the presence of distinctive projectile points/hafted bifaces, such as the broad-bladed Savannah River
point. These points in the Valley Region are typically made of local quartzite (McLearen 1991). Other
aspects of the Late Archaic toolkit include stemmed and notched knife and spear points, with some
similarity to points found in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by the presence of Susquehanna Complex
projectile points and hafted bifaces being found throughout the Valley Region (McLearen 1991).
Late Archaic sites are commonly found in riverine contexts, with smaller sites found in a wide variety of
ecological niches across the landscape (Hodges 1991; Klein and Klatka 1991; Stevens 1991). It is
theorized that there was a population increase during the Late Archaic, as evidenced by the increase in the
number of sites relative to earlier periods. This settlement system is theorized to revolve around a central
base camp and shows evidence of some regionalization and interaction with other groups (Mouer 1991).
Elsewhere in Virginia, these base camps were substantial sites, and potentially focused on anadromous
fish runs. In the Valley Region, Late Archaic base camps appeared to not reach the size of Late Archaic
sites elsewhere in Virginia, potentially due to the lack of seasonal fish runs (Gardner 1982). Across the
Eastern Woodlands there is evidence of Late Archaic groups practicing plant domestication and a
rudimentary form of horticulture (see Chapman and Shea 1981; Leithoff and Brady 2017; Yarnel 1976).
There is limited archaeological evidence that Late Archaic groups in Virginia were actively cultivating
plants (Blanton 2003; Mouer 1991).
Woodland Period (1200 B.C.–1600 A.D.)
The Woodland period is defined by an increase in sedentism, improvements in pottery technology,
increased use of groundstone tools, the development of or an increase in the use of horticulture, an
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
14
increase in social stratification, and the nucleating of populations. Like the Archaic period, archaeologists
have divided the Woodland Period into three subperiods: the Early Woodland (1200 B.C.–300 A.D.), the
Middle Woodland (300–1000 A.D.), and the Late Woodland (1000–1606 A.D.).
The Early Woodland period (1200 B.C.–300 A.D.) in the Valley Region is typically defined
archaeologically by the presence of early pottery and the emergence of substantial sites in the
archaeological record that likely correlate to the beginning of sedentary lifeways. In the Valley Region,
steatite tempered Marcey Creek and then Seldon Island pottery are the first to be used. These early wares
were constructed using slabs, and by the Middle Woodland period, the construction technique had
changed from slab to coil techniques; with the shift came the introduction of cord marking, net
impression, and other surface treatments (McLearen 1991). Early Woodland groups abandoned the broad
blade Late Archaic knives and projectile points in favor of stemmed, notched, and lanceolate projectile
points, such as Small Savannah River, Calvert, and Piscataway (McLearen 1991).
Archaeologists have identified small Early Woodland hamlets, typically found in or adjacent to riverine
settings, consisting of a few houses (Gardner 1982). In Dennis Blanton’s review of Early and Middle
Woodland settlement patterns in the Blue Ridge, which forms the eastern edge of the Valley Region, he
points out that there is an overall decrease in site density in relation to Late Archaic sites, that there is
evidence of utilization of portions of the landscape previously overlooked by Archaic populations, and
that a wider range of site types characterize the Early and Middle Woodland settlement system (Blanton
1992:87).
Groups in the Valley Region during the Middle Woodland Period (300 B.C.–1000 A.D.) underwent a
variety of technological, subsistence, and cultural changes (Gardner 1982; McLearen 1992).
The triangular projectile points typically associated with the adoption of bow and arrow technology
become common in the archaeological record of the Middle Woodland Period. In the northern Valley
Region, where the project is located, pottery tempering switches from sand to crushed rock (Gardner
1982). Common surface treatments on Middle Woodland pottery include fabric impression, cord-marked,
and net-impressed.
It is during the Middle Woodland period that interaction on a regional level starts to take shape, social
ranking starts to form, and evidence of rituals/ceremonialism is observable in the archaeological record.
Archaeologists have identified stone and earth cairns built by Middle Woodland groups throughout the
Shenandoah Valley. These cairns, which have been found as isolated features or part of a larger group of
stone burials, have been interpreted to be the initial appearance of elaborate burial ceremonialism in
Virginia, and could be the easternmost reach of the Adena and Hopewell societies that dominated the
Ohio Valley during this time (McLearen 1992). In the vicinity of the project area, the Middle Woodland
group responsible for the establishment of these stone burials has been labeled the Burial Mound culture,
and has been identified as having constructed stone burial mounds overlooking major rivers, such as the
Shenandoah, as well as smaller tributaries and creeks in the Valley Region (Leithoff and Brady 2017).
The Late Woodland period in the Valley Region is not well understood. It is inferred based on evidence
from elsewhere in Virginia that the increase in regional interaction, social ranking, and other advances
that took place during the Middle Woodland period accelerated during the Late Woodland period (1000–
1606 A.D.) in the Valley Region. During the first half of the Late Woodland period, groups in the Valley
Region started using limestone-tempered Page series pottery. Sometime during the middle of the fifteenth
century, in the northern portion of the Valley Region, where the project is located, Page series pottery was
replaced with Keyser series pottery, which is shell-tempered. Page series pottery, as well as limestone-
tempered Radford pottery and shell-tempered New River pottery, has been found elsewhere in the Valley
Region (Walker and Miller 1992). A review of Late Woodland sites in the Blue Ridge Mountains, which
form the eastern edge of the Shenandoah Valley, show that Late Woodland material culture, specifically
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
15
ceramics, is found in rockshelters and a relatively low number of open air sites, but the most common
manifestation of the period in the archaeological record consists of triangular points, tools, and lithic
debitage (Barber 1983:118; Leithoff and Brady 2017).
Settlement to Society (1607–1750 A.D.)
Due to the distance from the Chesapeake Bay and the rugged terrain of the Blue Ridge Mountains,
sustained European settlement of the region did not occur until the eighteenth century. French Jesuits did
reach the Valley Region as early as 1632 but left little account of what they saw within the valley (Leham
1989). Early European settlement in the region did not identify any evidence of native groups, which by
that time are thought to have been either displaced by other hostile groups in the region competing for
European trade or ravaged by Old World diseases (Hodges 1993).
Throughout the seventeenth century various royal institutions, such as the Virginia Company and the
Crown, owned the area that would become Frederick County. The change in ownership reflected the
turbulent seventeenth century in England, and the fledgling English Colony in Virginia had little impact
on the settlement of the area. In 1681, the Fifth Lord Fairfax, Thomas, took over ownership of what
would become Frederick County. In 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood entered the valley and
returned to provide accounts of excellent land. Throughout the early eighteenth century, settlers from the
Coastal Plain and Piedmont region, as well as from Pennsylvania in the north, would settle in the Valley
Region. In 1732, Jost Hite along with 16 families constructed a fort in Bartonsville, just east of the project
area. Lord Fairfax intended the area to follow a model of development that was prevalent in the Coastal
Plain region which consisted of relatively self-dependent large plantations (Frederick County n.d.).
The Virginia Government was eager to settle the region, as it would act as a natural buffer between the
core of the colony on the Coastal Plain and in the Piedmont, and hostile native groups to the west.
The Virginia House of Burgesses on December 21, 1738, created Frederick County from the western
portion of Orange County, and argued that Lord Fairfax’s land ended at the Blue Mountains and that the
land beyond belonged to Virginia. This was later challenged in court and reversed in 1743. Between the
two decisions, Virginia offered 1,000 acres per family, if within 2 years a house and orchard were
established on the parcel. This incentive and the increasing cost of land in Pennsylvania and the Virginia
Piedmont, spurred growth throughout the Valley Region. Frederick County was named after Frederick
Louis, the Prince of Wales. The town of Winchester was established as the county seat.
Colony to Nation (1750–1789 A.D.)
Through the turbulent years of the mid- and late eighteenth century, Frederick County would provide
much-needed supplies and ammunition to American forces during the Revolution but did not see any
direct military action during the war. Due to Frederick County’s location removed from the area of
engagement, it was a perfect location to house British prisoners of war. In 1781, a new prison was
constructed west of Winchester to accommodate up to 1,600 prisoners.
George Washington was heavily associated with Frederick County, having a surveyor’s office in
Winchester between 1748 and 1765, which also served as his headquarters when he was made
Commander in Chief of the colonial forces during the French and Indian War. Additionally, he
represented Frederick County in the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758 and 1761.
Early National Period (1789–1829 A.D.)
After the revolutionary war, the economy of Frederick County would be focused on small, family-owned
and family-operated farms. This model of agriculture never reached the size or profitability of the
plantation style farms that dominated counties in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions, nor was there a
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
16
focus on a single crop, like tobacco. Farmers in Frederick County during this period grew grain,
specifically wheat, for export along with some small-scale livestock production. This agricultural focus
spurred the establishment of mills and tanneries, as well as other business enterprises. It was also during
this period that the town of Winchester developed, as did smaller towns, including Stephens City,
Middletown, Kernstown, Gainesboro, and Gore. The county’s location along the Great Wagon Road,
which was previously a Native American trail, brought an influx of settlers from Pennsylvania.
Winchester became a major stopping point for groups settling the valley and points to the west.
Antebellum Period (1830–1860 A.D.)
In 1831, the Virginia General Assembly chartered the Winchester and Potomac Railroad, which extends
from Harper’s Ferry to Winchester. Shortly thereafter a charter was given to establish a turnpike between
Martinsburg and Winchester and significantly improve the Great Wagon Road, which would eventually
become U.S. Route 11. This rapid increase in transportation improvements was mirrored across Virginia
and throughout the East Coast. The connection of Frederick County to regional markets would spur
development throughout the Valley Region. Winchester became a manufacturing center for the Valley
region, and although it was relatively small-scale, in comparison to major East Coast cities and ports it
held an important role in the economy of the Valley Region.
Slavery in Frederick County never reached the levels found elsewhere in Virginia, nor was it as heavily
engrained into society as areas where mono-culture plantations dominated the social, physical, and
cultural landscapes. The low level of slavery in Frederick County was partially due to the lack of need for
a large labor force, as the economy during the Antebellum Period was largely based on small-scale
farming, as well as most residents of the county being Scots and Germans who originated in Pennsylvania
and lacked the social ties to eastern Virginia. These reasons were also why the residents of Frederick
County were apprehensive to join the Confederate cause during the Civil War.
Civil War (1861–1865 A.D.)
The physical and economic advantages that made Winchester and Frederick County important during the
early nineteenth century also made a key strategic objective for both Confederate and Union Forces.
Union high command was concerned about Confederate forces utilizing the Valley Region as a base to
launch an attack on Washington, D.C. Confederate forces relied on the agricultural output of the Valley to
supply them throughout Virginia. Several major battles would take place in proximity to the project area
and throughout the Valley Region. The APE is not within the boundaries of any battlefield, and there are
no resources associated with the Civil War recorded within the project area.
Numerous conflicts would take place in Frederick County, including the First and Second Battles of
Kernstown and the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester. The First Battle of Kernstown, which
occurred in March of 1862, was the first major battle to occur in the region and consisted of General
Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s only defeat, which would become known as the Valley Campaign
(Morton 1925:154). Jackson’s actions during the First Battle of Kernstown would cause Union forces to
heavily reinforce the Valley Region. Three months later, during the First Battle of Winchester in May of
1862, Jackson would demonstrate a tactical genius that would make him one of the best generals in the
Confederacy.
With Union forces focused on the Peninsula Campaign and elsewhere, Jackson utilized a swell in
Confederate recruits from the Valley Region and neighboring areas to attack Union forces and take
control of key points in the Shenandoah Valley. The First Battle of Winchester started at Front Royal,
south of the project area in Warren County, Virginia. Jackson overwhelmed Union Forces holding the
area and forced them to retreat to the north. Jackson split his forces and on May 25 and caught the fleeing
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
17
federal troops in the southern portion of Winchester (Kennedy 1998). The first Battle of Winchester was
an overwhelming Confederate victory, with union forces losing a third, or 2,000 men, in the engagement.
The Second Battle of Winchester would occur on June 13–15, 1863. Confederate forces led by Major
General Richard Ewell engaged entrenched Union forces in a series of fortifications on a series of ridges
northwest of Winchester. Ewell would break the Union entrenchments and capture approximately
4,000 federal soldiers. The major strategic victory of the second Battle of Winchester was that it removed
Union forces that could potentially flank Confederate General Lee’s advance into Pennsylvania, which
culminated in the Battle of Gettysburg in early July 1863.
In July 1864, Confederate General Jubal Early marched against Union forces under the command of
Brigadier General George Crook, who was charged with holding Winchester. General Early easily
defeated the Union forces and forced a Union Route all the way to the Potomac.
The Third Battle of Winchester would take place on September 19, 1864, along the northern and
northeastern edges of Winchester. Union General Philip Sheridan was attempting to retake Winchester
from Confederate forces commanded by General Jubal Early. Union actions elsewhere in Virginia,
specifically the siege of Petersburg, had reduced Confederate forces within the Valley Region to
12,500 men. General Sheridan engaged the Confederates under Early with a force of 40,000 union troops,
in what would be the last major battle of the Civil War in the Valley Region. Union forces used cavalry to
flank entrenched infantry positions and force a Confederate retreat. Winchester was retaken in a clear
Union victory and Confederate forces were routed. More than 5,000 Union soldiers were slain, compared
to the 3,600 soldiers lost by the Confederates.
Reconstruction and Growth (1866–1916 A.D.)
The heavy fighting and the multiple shifts between Union and Confederate forces resulted in a landscape
that was devastated. The loss of life, property, and the destruction of the regional transportation network
would cause massive disruption to the cultural and social fabric of Frederick County. This destruction
caused a general depression and resulted in land values dropping by 80 to 90 percent (Kaplan 1993).
The depression in the land market in Frederick County was so bad that the Virginia General Assembly
passed a law preventing the sale of land for less than 75 percent of its assessed value.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the area had rebound. Farmers started to plant apple orchards, which
quickly became the key agricultural output from Frederick County during this period. Additionally, the
industrial revolution that was taking place throughout the country in the late nineteenth century spurred
the development of a variety of factories, mills, and other industrial interests in Winchester.
World War I to World War II (1917–1945 A.D.)
While the rise of industrial manufacturing in Winchester secured the city’s place as a regional hub,
Frederick County was still largely rural. The apple industry that had started during the previous period
accelerated and made Frederick County Virginia’s largest apple producer. The high density of productive
apple orchards spurred secondary industries into the region and created a new vibrant sector of the
economy.
During this time, limestone was commercially quarried and used for the spike in road building associated
with the widespread adoption of the automobile, as well as agricultural products. By the 1930s, sand,
sandstone, limestone, and magnesium were actively quarried (Kalbian 1999).
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
18
The New Dominion (1946 A.D.–Present)
In the post-war years, Frederick County experienced an explosion in population. The population in 1940
of Frederick County was 14,008, and in 2010 the population had grown to 78,305. This growth trend was
largely seen throughout northern Virginia, as the expansion of the federal government during these years,
as well as the establishment of modern roadways, allowed for bedroom communities and the creation of
suburban areas. Agriculture still plays and important role in the local community, with Frederick County
producing 40 percent of all apples grown in Virginia, the manufacturing and service industries dominate
the economy. The large and available tracts of land in the early post-war years attracted national
manufacturing companies who wanted to be near Washington D.C., and other major East Coast cities.
The area’s bucolic nature is still retained from its past, but now the landscape is dotted with commercial
and industrial development.
Previous Investigations
A cultural resources records search was conducted using the Virginia Cultural Resource Information
System (VCRIS) on December 30, 2019 (Figure 12). The records search indicated that 85 archaeological
sites are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE (Table 2). All of the 85 archaeological sites except
for 44FK0738 are classified as not evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Site 44FK0738 is no longer extant. Four of the archaeological sites (44FK0163, 44FK0166,
44FK0167, and 44FK0168) are partially within the eastern portion of the APE. Additionally, a total of
278 architectural resources are also located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE. One architectural
resource (034-1078) is within the APE, and two architectural resources (034-0083 and 034-1044) are
adjacent to the APE. Further review of the VCRIS indicated that two previous surveys (FK-019 and FK-
070) have been conducted within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE (Table 3). One of these surveys (FK-019)
overlaps the northeastern portion of the APE. Additionally, no portion of the APE is within the American
Battlefield Protection Program Civil War Battlefield Boundaries (2009).
The four archaeological sites (44FK0163, 44FK0166, 44FK0167, and 44FK0168) partially within the
eastern portion of the APE are in proximity to one another. Site 44FK0163 is a twentieth century trash pit
identified by James Madison University (JMU) in 1991. JMU conducted a visual reconnaissance and six
shovel test pits within the site boundary. Investigators observed debris consisting of bottle glass, metal
pieces, and other debris of modern origin. Site 44FK0163 has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP.
Site 44FK0166 is a historic site consisting of a small check dam designed to control runoff into a
perennial stream to the north and to provide water for livestock. The site was identified in 1991 by JMU
by means of visual reconnaissance. The dam is a slightly curved earthwork roughly 45 feet (14 m) in
length and stands 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 2.4 m) tall. Site 44FK0166 has not been evaluated for listing in the
NRHP.
Site 44FK01067 is a precontact site identified by JMU in 1991. JMU conducted a visual reconnaissance
and five shovel test pits within the site boundary. Investigators recovered one grey chert biface fragment,
three chert flakes and, one calcedony flake. Site 44FK0167 has not been evaluated for listing in the
NRHP.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
19
Figure 12. VCRIS map of previously recorded resources and surveys in proximity to the project.
Table 2. Previously Documented Archaeological Resources within 1 Mile of the APE
Site Number Site Type NRHP Eligibility
44FK0005 Archaic, Woodland Not Evaluated
44FK0143 Historic, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0144 Historic, Stone Fence-line Not Evaluated
44FK0145 Historic, Stone Fence-line Not Evaluated
44FK0146 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0148 Multicomponent, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0150 Historic, Cave Not Evaluated
44FK0151 Historic, School Not Evaluated
44FK0152 Historic, Spring Feeder Not Evaluated
44FK0153 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0157 Historic, Agricultural Dump Not Evaluated
44FK0160 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0161 Prehistoric, Camp Not Evaluated
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
20
Site Number Site Type NRHP Eligibility
44FK0162 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0163 Historic, Trash Pit Not Evaluated
44FK0164 Prehistoric, Quarry Not Evaluated
44FK0165 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0166 Historic, Check Dam Not Evaluated
44FK0167 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0168 Historic, Rock Wall Not Evaluated
44FK0169 Late Archaic, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0170 Historic, Outbuilding Not Evaluated
44FK0171 Multicomponent, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0172 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0173 Historic, Farmstead Not Evaluated
44FK0174 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0175 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0176 Historic, Trash Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0177 Historic, Military Base/Facility, Military Camp Not Evaluated
44FK0178 Historic, Farmstead Not Evaluated
44FK0179 Historic, Dam, Mill Not Evaluated
44FK0180 Historic, Rock Wall Not Evaluated
44FK0181 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0182 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0191 Historic, Road, Stone Fence-line Not Evaluated
44FK0193 Historic, Military Base/Facility, Military Camp Not Evaluated
44FK0195 Multicomponent, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0196 Historic, Outbuilding Not Evaluated
44FK0197 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0198 Historic, Mill, Raceway Not Evaluated
44FK0199 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0200 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0222 Multicomponent, Trash Pit, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0235 Historic, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0236 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0237 Multicomponent, Road Not Evaluated
44FK0238 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0239 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0240 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0257 Historic, Stone Fence-line Not Evaluated
44FK0264 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0265 Multicomponent, Rock Pile, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0266 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
21
Site Number Site Type NRHP Eligibility
44FK0267 Prehistoric, Lithic Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0268 Multicomponent, Trash Pit, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0269 Multicomponent, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0271 Historic, Irrigation Not Evaluated
44FK0528 Historic, Dwelling, Single, Industry/Processing/Extraction Not Evaluated
44FK0547 Historic, Dwelling, Single, Industry/Processing/Extraction Not Evaluated
44FK0548 Historic, Dwelling, Single, Industry/Processing/Extraction Not Evaluated
44FK0549 Historic, Dwelling, Single, Industry/Processing/Extraction Not Evaluated
44FK0565 Historic, Military Camp Not Evaluated
44FK0604 Historic, Dwelling, Multiple Not Evaluated
44FK0607 Historic, Late Archaic, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0614 Multicomponent, Artifact Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0626 Historic, Outbuilding Not Evaluated
44FK0652 Historic, Military Camp Not Evaluated
44FK0716 Historic, Mill, Raceway Not Evaluated
44FK0738 Historic, Farmstead Not Evaluated
44FK0783 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0784 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0810 Historic, Warehouse Not Evaluated
44FK0813 Historic, School Not Evaluated
44FK0814 Historic, Church Not Evaluated
44FK0836 Historic, Cemetery Not Evaluated
44FK0837 Historic, Cemetery Not Evaluated
44FK0842 Historic, Cemetery Not Evaluated
44FK0866 Historic, Quarry Not Evaluated
44FK0867 Historic, Quarry Not Evaluated
44FK0872 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0880 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0883 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0981 Historic, Outbuilding Not Evaluated
44FK0982 Historic, Cemetery Not Evaluated
44FK0983 Historic, Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
Source: VCRIS (2019)
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Investigations within 1 Mile of the APE
DHR Report Number Survey Name Conducted by
FK-019 An Archaeology Survey of and Management Plan for Cultural
Resources in the Vicinity of the Upper Opequon Creek
James Madison University, 1991
FK-070 A Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Oxford Village Development Site in Stephens City Virginia
Thunderbird, 1992
Source: VCRIS (2019)
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
22
Site 44FK0168 is a historic stone wall identified by JMU in 1991. The stone wall extends for 75 feet
(23 m) and in many cases is identified as piles of rocks. JMU noted that the wall may be unfinished and
was possibly in the process of manufacture when abandoned. JMU also noted an old road that runs toward
Stephens City is situated on the east side of the stone wall and a second road crossing and going towards
the Middle Road at the northern end of the stone wall. According to JMU, the stone wall is placed along
an earlier defined property line that dates to the eighteenth century. Site 44FK0168 has not been evaluated
for listing in the NRHP.
The architectural resource within the APE is the Mary Stephens House (034-1078). The project will
require a subsurface distribution power line to tie into the electrical grid. The proposed distribution line
will cross the eastern boundary of the Mary Stephens House property. The resource consists of a single-
dwelling two-story farmhouse (circa 1757) and six associated outbuildings. The farmhouse has not been
remodeled since the early to mid-twentieth century The Mary Stephens House is classified as eligible for
listing in the NRHP.
The first architectural resource adjacent to the APE is Carter Hall (034-0083). The resource is located
adjacent to the APE’s southwestern extent. The resource consists of a single-dwelling, two-story, three-
bay, Greek Revival farmhouse (circa 1833) and two associated outbuildings. One of the outbuildings is a
bank barn, and the other outbuilding is what was once slave quarters built at the same time as the
farmhouse. Carter Hall was built by William Arthur Carter and his wife Mary Pitman Carter.
The farmhouse originally presided over a 1,300-acre plantation with 99 slaves. While no major Civil War
battles were fought on the lands of Carter Hall, stray bullets embedded in the farmhouse’s front porch
columns indicate that smaller skirmishes took place in the area. Carter Hall is classified as eligible for
listing in the NRHP.
The second architectural resource adjacent to the APE is Will Grove House (034-1044). The resource is
located adjacent to the APE’s northeastern extent and consists of a single-dwelling two-story farmhouse
(circa 1870) and four associated outbuildings. The Will Grove House has not been evaluated for listing in
the NRHP.
The remaining 275 architectural resources within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the APE are primarily
scattered throughout the 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) surrounding the APE; however, the area southeast of the
APE contains the highest density of architectural resources identified. The majority of the architectural
resources identified southeast of the APE are clustered in Stephens City, within the Newton/Stephensburg
Historic District (304-0001), which is listed in the NRHP. Besides the Mary Stephens House (034-1078)
and Carter Hall (034-0083), four other architectural resources (034-0007, 034-0027, 034-300, and 034-
5023) that have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are within the buffer surrounding the
APE. Additionally, two architectural resources (034-0069 and 034-1003) within the buffer surrounding
the APE are classified as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Of the two surveys in proximity to the project, the one conducted by JMU in 1991 recorded the majority
of resources in the area and overlapped the northeastern portion of the current project area. The 1991
survey resulted in the identification of 147 prehistoric archaeological sites. Of these prehistoric sites,
76 were isolated finds. An additional 161 sites were found to possess historic components.
The other survey located within 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) of the APE was conducted by Thunderbird in
1992. The survey is located approximately 1.05 kilometers (0.65 mile) east of the APE. No cultural
resources were identified during the survey.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
23
Historic Map Review
A review of historic maps, atlases, and photographs shows that the project area has largely been
undeveloped land/agricultural throughout the historic past (Appendix B). Depictions of Frederick County
from the early nineteenth century show a developing transportation network centered on the town of
Winchester, Virginia. The 1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson Counties in the State of Virginia
and the 1820 Frederick County map depict a series of mills, along Opequon Creek, which is located less
than 0.5 mile to the northwest of the project area (see Appendix B). There are no roads or structures
depicted within the project area on either of these maps.
The first map to show the project in detail was D. J. Lake & Co 1885 An Atlas of Frederick County,
Virginia (Figure 13). The atlas depicts the project area as largely being undeveloped land, although the
modern road system is portrayed. The 1885 Atlas shows three buildings located within the project area.
The first, located south of Springdale Road, is attributed to Hugh Bradley. The second, located in the
southern portion of the project area, is attributed To R. R. Turner. The third, located in the northern
portion of the APE, does not have a name associated with it on the atlas, potentially indicating that it was
vacant in 1885 or the owner was unknown.
The first USGS quadrangles to depict the project area are the 1937 Middletown and 1938 Winchester
quadrangles, with the majority of the project area on the 1938 USGS quadrangle and only the very
western portion on the 1937 Middletown Quadrangle (see Appendix B). The quadrangles depict four
buildings within the project area. Two of the four buildings, the one located in the northern portion of the
APE that was not attributed to anyone on the 1885 map is present, as well as the building in the south
attributed to R. R. Turner. The building adjacent to Springdale Road is no longer shown. The two new
buildings on this map consist of a building southwest of Springdale Road, in the center portion of the
APE, and a second building in the southern portion of the project area, south of the structure attributed to
R. R. Turner on the 1885 atlas (see Appendix B).
The 1972 Stephens City USGS aerial imagery depicts the majority of the project area and shows that by
the mid-twentieth century much of the modern landscape of the project area has been established,
including the modern tree line of many of the agricultural fields within the project area. Out of the
buildings depicted on the early twentieth century quadrangles, only two are depicted on aerial
photography. The first is located in the southern portion of the project area, and the second is located in
the central portion of the project area. Large portions of the project area are depicted in the 1972 aerial
photograph as being active orchards, especially in the northern portion of the APE, while the land use in
the southern portion of the APE consists of more traditional agriculture.
Modern aerial imagery shows that the landscape between 1972 and present day has remained relatively
static. The two buildings depicted in the project area are present today, and organization of the fields has
remained largely the same. The only major difference is the reduction in the size of the orchard in the
northern portion of the project area.
In summary, a review of historic cartographic sources for the project area indicates that the overall
landscape has changed little since the mid- to late nineteenth century. Prior to that period, the exact nature
of the project area is unknown, as mapping from that period does not provide enough detail to understand
change at the local level. Two buildings depicted on the 1885 Atlas and early twentieth century
quadrangles are no longer present within the APE. As such, there is a potential for historic archaeological
sites to be present at these locations. The only major disturbance within the project area, according to the
cartographic sources reviewed, is the reduction of the orchard located within the northernmost portion of
the project area.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
24
Figure 13. Approximate project location shown on 1885 Frederick County Atlas. Buildings within
project area are circled in red. Generation Tie-in in the southern portion of the project area is not
shown.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SWCA undertook a site visit on December 12 and December 13, 2019, to determine the existing
conditions within the project area, document the locations of the buildings identified during the literature
review, and conduct limited subsurface testing to better understand the soil profile present within the
project area. Subsurface testing did not identify any cultural material. Photographs of the APE are
provided in Appendix C. An overview of the shovel testing conducted within the project era is provided
in Appendix D.
To better facilitate the site visit, investigators divided the project area up into survey areas. Survey Area 1
consisted of the APE to the north of Springdale Road. Survey Area 2 consisted of the APE south of
Springdale Road (Figure 14).
Survey Area 1
Within Survey Area 1, investigators revisited four previously recorded archaeological sites (44FK0163,
44FK0166, 44FK0167, and 44FK0168), the remains of a wooden building, a large stone field wall, and
several smaller disarticulated rock piles likely associated with agricultural practices, such as field
clearing.
The four previously recorded archaeological sites were revisited to assess if any disturbances may have
impacted the sites since their recordation and to document any aboveground features or material culture
on the ground surface that may be present. Subsurface testing was not undertaken at these sites.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
25
Figure 14. Overview of the results of the site reconnaissance.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
26
The mapped location of 44FK0166, an indeterminate historic site recorded in 1991 consisting of a check
dam, was revisited. Investigators did not identify any material culture or disturbance at the mapped
location of the site. It is possible that the dam in reference was located to the northeast of the site. Site
44FK0163, a twentieth century trash pit recorded in 1991, was also revisited. No evidence of disturbance
was found, nor was evidence of the material culture associated with the site identified. The mapped
location of site 44FK01067, a precontact site consisting of a lithic scatter recorded in 1991, was also
revisited, but no evidence of the site was visible on the surface. The final site that was revisited was
44FK168, a nineteenth century site consisting of a stone fence. Investigators could not relocate the stone
fence or any nineteenth century material culture. No evidence of disturbance was identified within or
adjacent to the mapped location of the resource. Systematic survey of the mapped location of each site
may identify associated artifacts, although due to the age of the survey that recorded the sites, it is
possible that the mapped location is not accurate, and the resources may be outside of the project area.
The reconnaissance of Survey Area 1 also identified the remains of an old dam, near the eastern edge of
the APE. The dam no longer retains water, and due to the small size of the unnamed tributary of Opequon
Creek that feeds the dam, it was likely used for agricultural purposes, as opposed to serving as a source of
power for a mill or similar structure. Besides the dam, investigators identified a field stone wall that
roughly follows the tree line of forested area in the northeastern portion of the project area. The wall
consists of disarticulated fieldstones piled in a roughly linear fashion. Investigators did not identify any
material culture associated with the piled fieldstone wall. The several other disarticulated rock piles
identified in Survey Area 1 are most likely the result of agricultural practices associated with clearing
fields of stone to facilitate plowing. Investigators did not identify any cultural material associated with the
identified disarticulated rock piles.
During the reconnaissance of Survey Area 1, investigators identified the remains of a wooden building.
The building was heavily collapsed but appears to have been a one-story rectangular building with rough-
hewn log walls with portions overlain with wooden slats. It is unclear if the building served a domestic
purpose or was an agricultural outbuilding. The location of the building roughly matches the mapped
location of the building depicted on the 1885 atlas in the northern portion of the APE. No material culture
was visible on the ground surface, although ground visibility was heavily obscured by undergrowth.
In general, Survey Area 1 consists primarily of agricultural fields. Along the western border of Survey
Area 1, a large amount of earth disturbance was present associated with the construction of a subsurface
waterline. The wooded portions of Survey Area 1 contained a high degree of slope. Shovel testing in
Survey Area 1 identified a soil profile consistent with NRCS mapped upland soil profiles for the area and
typically contained one stratum over subsoil. Stratum I, the Ap Horizon, consisted of a brown (10YR4/3)
silt loam found on average to a depth of 38 cm (15 inches) below ground surface. Subsoil for Survey Area
1 typically consisted of a strong brown (7.5YR5/8) silty clay loam. Subsurface testing within the
established orchard along the northern edge of the APE identified a heavily disturbed soil profile, likely
related to the planting and care of the trees.
Survey Area 2
During the reconnaissance of Survey Area 2, investigators identified two buildings with associated
outbuildings, as well as a stone foundation. Building 1 is located in the southern portion of the APE and
consists of a series of collapsed buildings. Investigators did identify a potential residence, barn, and
several collapsed outbuildings. The property is in the relative mapped location of the building attributed
to R. R. Turner on the 1885 atlas (see Figure 13). No evidence of the adjacent building depicted on the
early twentieth century quadrangles was noted during the reconnaissance.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
27
Building 2 is located in the northern portion of Survey Area 2, and fronts Carrollton Lane. The property
consists of a residence clad in white wood weatherboard. Several associated agricultural outbuildings of
various ages were observed in proximity to Building 2 (see Appendix B). The property is in the mapped
location of the building first depicted on the 1930s USGS quadrangles and, based on the architectural
style of the residence, likely dates to the early twentieth century.
The foundation identified by investigators consisted of a dressed stone foundation built into a slight rise
in elevation. The foundation is at ground level of Carrollton Lane, which the building once likely faced.
A pile of cut wooden timbers and build material is present adjacent to the foundation and likely
represented the actual building that was once atop the foundation. Based on the nature of the building
material, the overall size and thickness of the foundation, and the raised entrance to the building, it is
likely that the building was once a barn potentially associated with Building 2.
In general, Survey Area 2 had a similar land use as Survey Area 1, consisting of agricultural fields broken
up with tree lines and small wooded areas, typically on rises and knolls. At the time of the survey, the
majority of the agricultural fields consisted of harvested corn fields. Shovel testing within Survey Area 2
identified a soil profile that consisted of brown (7.5YR4/3) silty clay loam Ap-horizon found to a depth of
23 cm (9 inches) below ground surface. Subsoil consisted of a yellowish red (5YR5/6) clay loam. The soil
profile observed in Survey Area 2 is consistent with NRCS mapped soil unit for the area and upland soil
profiles throughout the region.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE POTENTIAL
The goal of the Phase IA reconnaissance was to evaluate the project area for the likelihood of
encountering archaeological sites and historic buildings and structures. The results of this evaluation are
presented below. In general, the project area is unlikely to contain significant cultural resources, as key
features in the landscape that are typically associated with substantial archaeological sites (e.g., major
rivers, established terraces, key historic transportation routes) are not present within the APE.
Precontact Site Potential
A review of sites in proximity to the project area and general trends of precontact settlement systems in
the Valley Region of Virginia have identified several trends that can help identify probability areas within
the APE. Environmental factors such as proximity to water, the presence of well-drained soils, slope,
general topography, and other such variables have been found to correlate strongly with the presence of
precontact sites. Further analysis of sites in proximity to the project and their location on the landscape
allows for a probability assessment of the project area to be developed.
In general, the project lacks key landforms and features in the landscape that are typically associated with
substantial precontact sites in the Valley Region, such as major rivers, perennial streams, confluences of
streams, and/or well-established terraces. A review of the 32 precontact sites within 1 mile of the project
shows that the typical precontact site consists of an ephemeral scatter of artifacts, typically lithic debitage
found in an agricultural context. There are exceptions to this closer to Opequon Creek, and at other key
points in the landscape. The relatively uniform nature of the APE in regard to environmental factors and
proximity to water should be considered a key indicator of precontact probability. The Phase IB survey
should focus along the small unnamed tributary of Opequon Creek that drains the central portion of
Survey Area 1, as well as around the small intermittent/ephemeral drainages located on the knolls and
hills within the APE.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
28
Historic Site Potential
Historic period site location influences follow similar parameters as precontact sites, with some additional
influences. Proximity to water sources in early historic times would influence the locations for
settlements. As time progressed, the availability of water transport allowed for expansion away from
perennial water sources. In the historic period, people commonly settled along roadways and at
intersections after they were constructed. These early roadways created high traffic areas where other
structures, including hotels, taverns, and stores, were built. Based on the review of the historic context of
the project area and the historic map review, there are several areas within the APE that have the potential
to contain historic period sites.
High to moderate probability areas for historic period archaeological sites within the APE consist of the
areas adjacent to Building 1 and Building 2, the foundation, and south of Springdale Road, at the mapped
location of Hugh Bradley residence on the 1885 Atlas. In Survey Area 1, the collapsed log building
should be investigated with subsurface testing around the building to determine if an archaeological site is
associated with the aboveground remains. The four previously recorded sites (44FK0163, 44FK0166,
44FK0167, and 44FK0168) should be tested with close-interval shovel tests, and updated site forms
should be prepared outlining the results. Additionally, the rock walls identified within the project area
should be documented and mapped.
Overall Archaeological Site Potential
The project APE is considered to have a moderate potential for intact archaeological deposits associated
with the precontact occupation of the area, although substantial precontact sites are unlikely to be present.
The portions of the APE with the highest probability of containing precontact sites are those in proximity
to water.
Occupation of the project area in the historic period can be traced through the documentary record from
the mid-nineteenth century. Although it is highly likely that historic period inhabitants occupied the APE
throughout the nineteenth century, and potentially earlier. As such, the project area has a moderate to high
probability of containing archaeological sites associated with the historic period.
It is likely that portions of both the historic and precontact high to moderate probability areas have been
disturbed in the recent past with the removal of the orchards in the late twentieth century in the northern
portion of the APE and the construction of a water line along the western edge of the project area.
A visual inspection of the entire APE will be undertaken in conjunction with the testing of the moderate
to high probability areas. Additionally, a 10 percent sample of the low probability areas will be
undertaken to verify the probability assessment of the project. The proposed sample areas were placed in
areas distant from water sources, and on landforms or in portions of the project area with a different land
use than the high probability areas (see Figure 15 and 16). An analysis of the probability assessment and
suggestions for future refinement for projects within the general vicinity of the APE will be provided in
the Phase IB report.
HISTORIC RESOURCE POTENTIAL
During the site reconnaissance, SWCA identified two properties (Buildings 1 and 2) within the project
area, as well as one previously recorded resource, Mary Stephens House (034-1078). It is recommended
that the two unrecorded properties be recorded with the VDHR. Additionally, it is recommended that the
project’s visual impact on the NRHP listed Mary Stephens House be simulated to determine if the project
will have an adverse effect on the historic property.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
29
Figure 15. Overview of archaeological probability within the project area.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
30
Figure 16. Overview of archaeological probability within the project area, as seen on the 1977
Stephens City, and Middletown, Virginia, USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
31
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In support of the Bartonsville Energy Facility Project in Frederick County, Virginia, SWCA undertook a
Phase IA reconnaissance to determine the likelihood of the project area containing archaeological
resources and provide guidance for further cultural resources studies. The results of the reconnaissance
indicated that the project area has a moderate probability of containing both precontact and historic
archaeological resources. A total of 170 acres (69 hectares) has a high to moderate potential to contain
intact archaeological resources. As such, SWCA recommends that a Phase IB survey of this area, in
addition to a 10 percent sample (i.e., 59 acres [24 hectares]) of the low-probability area, be undertaken to
determine if archaeological sites may be present within the APE. These areas should be surveyed using
systematic shovel testing or surface survey, depending on ground visibility. In areas that are either
nonagricultural or have ground visibility below 50 percent, it is recommended that systematic shovel
testing be conducted at 15-meter (50-foot) intervals. Shovel tests should be cylindrical holes no smaller
than 38 cm (15 inches) in diameter and all sediment screened through quarter-inch mesh. In the moderate
to high probability areas and the sample of the low probability area located in agricultural fields that have
been recently plowed and ground surface visibility is greater than 50-percent, it is recommended that
controlled surface collection be conducted at 5-meter (16-foot) intervals. Additionally, SWCA
recommends that a historic architecture survey be conducted for the two unrecorded properties within the
project area, and the project’s effect on the NRHP listed Mary Stephens House be determined.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
32
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, David G., David S. Brose, Dena F. Dincauze, Michael J. Shott, Robert S. Grumet, and Richard
C. Waldbauer
2007 The Earliest Americans Theme Study. Archaeology Program, National Park Service, United
States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Available at:
http://nps.gov/history/archaeology/PUBS/NHLEAM/index.htm. Accessed December 31,
2019.
Anderson, David G., and Michael K. Faught
1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 26: 163-187.
Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, J. Christopher Gillam, Erik N. Johanson, Derek
T. Anderson, Albert C. Goodyear, and Ashley M. Smallwood
2010 PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 38: 63-90.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Barber, Michael B.
1983 Archaeological Perspective of the Northern Blue Ridge. In Upland Archaeology in the East:
A Symposium, pp. 116-129. U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
Barber, Michael B., and Eugene B. Barfield
1989 Paleoindian Chronology for Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis,
edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 53-70. Special Publication No. 19 of the
Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Blanton, Dennis B.
1992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Period
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 65-96.
Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
2003 Late Archaic in Virginia: An Updated Overview. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society
of Virginia 58(4):177–206.
Braun, E. Lucy
1964 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. 2nd ed. Hafna, New York, New York.
Carr, Kurt C.
1975 The Analysis of a Paleoindian Site in the Shenandoah Valley with an Emphasis on
Chronology and Function. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
33
Carr, Kurt, and James Adovasio
2002 Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania. Bureau of Historic
Preservation and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Chapman, J., and A. Brewer Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee
River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist VI(1):61-84.
Claggett, Stephen, and John S. Cable (assemblers)
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, Vol. 54, No.5. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dillehay, Thomas D.
2000 The Settlement of the Americas. Basic Books, New York.
Foss, Robert W.
1983 Blue Ridge Prehistory: A Perspective from the Shenandoah National Park. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: A Symposium, pp. 91-103. U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
Frederick County
n.d. History of Frederick County. Available at: http://www.co.frederick.va.us/visit/history-
offrederick-county. Accessed December 30, 2019.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo-Indian to Early
Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons,
edited by W. M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Department of Anthropology, Archaeology Laboratory,
Occasional Publication 1, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
1977 Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and Its Implication for Eastern North American Prehistory.
In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by Walter
Newman and Bert Salwen, pp. 257-263. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288,
New York, New York.
1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing
Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by R. W. Moeller, pp. 53-
86. Occasional Paper Number 3, American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington,
Connecticut.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski
and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of
Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
34
Geier, Clarence G.
1990 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods: Material Culture and Technology. In Early and
Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N.
Hodges, pp. 81-98. Special Publication Number 22 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Goodyear, Albert C., III
1999 Results of the 1999 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 4(1-3):8-13.
2000 Topper Site: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 5(2):18-26.
2006 Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley P. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael A. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Center for the Study of the First
Americans and Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Hodges, Mary Ellen N.
1991 The Late Archaic and Early Woodland Periods in Virginia: Interpretation and Explanation
Within an Eastern Context. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia:
A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M.E.N. Hodges, pp. 221-242. Special Publication
Number 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
1993 The Archaeology of Native American Life in Virginia in the Context of European Contact:
Review of Past Research. In The Archaeology of Seventeenth-Century Virginia, edited by
T. R. Reinhart and D. J. Pogue, pp. 1-66. Special Publication Number 30 of the
Archeological Society of Virginia, Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Johnson, Michael F.
1996 Paleoindians Near the Edge: A Virginia Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp.187-212. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Kalbian, Maral S.
1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick County
Historical Society, Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, Winchester, Virginia.
Kaplan, Barbara Beigun
1993 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Cadmus
Fine Books, Richmond, Virginia.
Kennedy, Frances H.
1998 The Civil War Battlefield Guide. Second Edition. Frances, E. Kennedy, ed. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
35
Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. In Late Archaic
and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E.
Hodges, pp. 139-184. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Leham, Sam (editor)
1989 The Story of Frederick County. As quoted in Rural Landmarks Survey Report of Frederick
County, Virginia by Maral S. Kalbian, Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society,
Winchester, Virginia.
Leithoff, Aimee J., and Ellen M. Brady
2017 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 6.66 Acres Associated with the Bufflick
Road Rebuild Project in Frederick County, Virginia. Stantec. Manuscript on file with the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
2003 The Williamson Clove Site, 44DW1, Dinwiddie County, Virginia: An Analysis of Research
Potential in Threatened Areas. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report
Series No. 13, Richmond.
McCary, Ben C.
1996 Survey of Virginia Fluted Points. Special Publication No. 12, Archeological Society of
Virginia.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges,
pp. 89-138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp. 39-64.
Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Morton, Frederick
1925 The Story of Winchester, Virginia: The Oldest Town in the Shenandoah Valley. E. E. Keister,
Reprint, Heritage Books, Bowie, Maryland.
Mouer, Daniel
1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp.1-88. Special
Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
36
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2006 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean,
and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. Washington
D.C. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050898.pdf. Accessed
December 30, 2019.
2019 Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Accessed December 17, 2019.
Stevens, J. Sanderson
1991 A Story of Plants, Fire, and People: The Paleoecology and Subsistence of the Late Archaic
and Early Woodland in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia:
A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 185-220. Special Publication
23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Tolley, George A.
1983 Blue Ridge Prehistory: Perspective from the George Washington National Forest. In Upland
Archaeology in the East: A Symposium, pp. 104-115. U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (Virginia DCR)
2016 Overview of the Physiography and Vegetation of Virginia. Virginia DCR Natural Heritage
Program, Richmond. Available at: https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-
communities/document/ncoverviewphys-veg.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2019.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)
2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. VDHR, Richmond,
Virginia.
2019 Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS). Electronic GIS maintained by the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Accessed December 30,
2019.
Walker, Joan T., and Glenda F. Miller
1992 Life on the Levee: The Late Woodland in the Northern Great Valley of Virginia. In Middle
and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N.
Hodges, pp. 165-185. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Yarnell, R. A.
1976 Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In Cultural Change and Continuity:
Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, Academic Press,
New York.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility
37
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
Resumes of Key Project Staff
Resume
Page | 1
BEN DEMCHAK, M.A., ARCHAEOLOGIST
Mr. Demchak has more than 14 years of archaeology and cultural resource management experience focusing in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. He has assisted with surveys, excavations in all phases of field work,
laboratory analysis, public outreach, and report writing. He is a seasoned crew chief and field leader with a strong
work ethic and a problem -solving attitude. His expertise of North American History and focus on the Ohio River Valley
broadens his understanding of the cultural resources he encounters in the region. He is also an active member of
several historical and archaeological associations, including Peters Creek Historical Society, The Society for
Pennsylvania Archaeology, The Archaeology Society of Ohio, and West Virginia Archaeological Society, who has
been invited to present at a variety of cultural resources conferences. Additionally, Mr. Demchak was a 2015 recipient
of a peer-nominated and corporate-granted safety award for his dedication to safety in the field.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Cultural Resource Services for Multiple Well Pads, Well Sites, Pipelines, and Access
Roads; Multiple Counties; Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia; Confidential
Clients. SWCA has provided consulting and engineering services for numerous well pad and
pipeline development projects throughout the United States. The projects consists of land
survey, environmental, engineering, geotechnical, and construction oversight services
associated with the permitting and construction of proposed well pads and waterlines. Role:
Cultural Resources Specialist.
Burlington Mill Creek Bridge Replacement Environmental Assessment; Mineral County,
West Virginia; West Virginia Department of Transportation. SWCA developed a Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). The EA provided an analysis of potential effects for the Burlington Mill Creek Bridge
replacement and included an analysis of six alternative road/bridge alignments for public
comment and FHWA review. Analysis included historic properties within the Burlington
Historic District. Role: Cultural Resources Specialist.
Logan County Phase I Cultural Resources; Logan County, West Virginia; West Virginia
Department of Transportation. SWCA is completing cultural resources investigations at a
20-acre area to be used by the WVDOH for maintenance building and storage. Tasks include
conducting background research, field work and inspections, and an historic properties
analysis. SWCA conducted analysis on all materials found during trenching efforts and
conducted additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
regarding the finds. Role: Cultural Resources Specialist.
Kinder Morgan Utopia Pipeline Projects; Fulton and Harrison Counties, Ohio; Kinder
Morgan Cochin LLC. SWCA is currently providing wetland, threatened and endangered
species, and cultural resources inventories for a 220-mile pipeline in Ohio. The project
involves background research, Phase I archaeological survey, Phase II testing, and above-
ground property survey of the area of potential effect (APE) for the construction of an
underground pipeline to convey natural gas product. SWCA is managing the environmental
process of the project for Kinder Morgan. Other services provided include Indiana and
Northern long-eared mist net inventories. Role: Cultural Resources Specialist.
* Phase III Data Recovery Rockies Express (REX) Pipeline; Bellaire, Ohio. A data
recovery on an early 19th-century Swiss Farmstead in response to proposed natural gas
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
14
EXPERTISE
Meets the Secretary of Interior’s
Qualifications for an Archaeologist
Archaeology
Archival Research
Amerindian Warfare
Ethnohistory
Field Management
Forensic Anthropology
Historic/Prehistoric Artifact Analysis
Military History
Ohio River Valley History/Prehistory
Settlement Patterns
EDUCATION
B.A., Anthropology c: Archaeology;
California University of Pennsylvania,
California, PA; 2005
The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic
Science and Law; Duquesne University
School of Law, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; 2006
M.A., North American History; Norwich
University, Northfield, VT; 2018
TRAINING
First Aid/CPR/AED, American Red
Cross; 2017
Section 106 Training, 2017
OSHA Training; 2012
Construction Site Safety Training,
MarkWest; 2013
Safety Training, Williams; 2013
Resume
Page | 2
development. Responsibilities included technical excavation, mapping, artifact analysis, implementation of testing methodology, and fieldwork.
* Environmental Construction Monitoring of the Carrie Furnace Historical Site; Pennsylvania. Client: Allegheny County. Mr. Demchak
supervised and monitored construction activities at the NRHP Listed Historic Site Carrie Furnace. Role: Archaeological Monitor.
* GAI Consultants, Environmental Construction Monitoring in the city of Pittsburgh; Pennsylvania. Mr. Demchak supervised and
monitored construction activities in an urban setting in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Role: Archaeological Monitor.
* GAI Consultants, Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Delaware & Hudson Canal; Port Jervis; New York. Mr. Demchak performed
a Phase I Archaeological Survey in keeping with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1969 and New York’s Bureau
of Historic Preservation requirements that searched for subsurface deposits associated with the Delaware & Hudson Canal along with extensive
mapping of the canal’s above-ground components. Role: Crew Chief.
* GAI Consultants, Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Cemetery Mapping; Akron; Ohio. Mr. Demchak performed a Phase I
Archaeological Survey in keeping with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1969 and Ohio’s Office of Historic
Preservation requirements for a pipeline project in Ohio. The project involved extensive mapping and analysis of an existing cemetery in Akron
Ohio. Role: Crew Chief.
* Pan Cultural, Environmental Construction Monitoring of Water Station Locations along the Susq uehanna River; Pennsylvania. Mr.
Demchak monitored various construction sites in an urban setting along the Susquehanna River for private gas and oil companies’ con struction
water stations. He also monitored construction activities in the event of disturbances to in-tact archaeological resources. Role: Archaeological
Monitor.
Confidential Pipeline Project Environmental Services; Multiple Counties, Pennsylvania; Confidential Client. SWCA performed a Phase
Ia/I Archaeological Survey in keeping with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1969 and the Pennsylvania Bureau
of Historic Preservation requirements for a 40-mile pipeline project located in Pennsylvania. Role: Archaeologist and Field Director.
Kinder Gulf Coast Piggable Upgrade Permitting; Multip le Counties, Indiana and Illinois; Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
For various pipeline class upgrades, anomaly replacements, and facility and pipeline maintenance-type projects, SWCA conducts natural and
cultural resource services for pipelines throughout northern Illinois and Indiana. Standard, ongoing services in this program include conducting
endangered species, avian, wetlands, and cultural resources surveys; obtaining clearances and concurrences from regulatory agencies; and
obtaining federal, state, and local permits, as necessary. Additional services include routing and feasibility studies and ensuring environme ntal
compliance with permit conditions and mitigation measures during construction and operation. Role: Cultural Resources Specialist.
Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys; Multiple Locations, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana; Multiple Clients.
Role: Field Director. Participated in multiple Phase I surveys for proposed compressor stations and transmission lines throughout West Virginia,
Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana. Conducted Phase I reconnaissance surveys in Marshall County, West Virginia and Greene County, Pennsylvania.
Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys; Appalachian, Scranton, and Mansfield, Pennsylvania. Role: Field Director. Phase I Survey of
construction area for proposed work. Supervised and managed several crews while coordinating scope of work with land agents , land owners,
and clients.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey; Ohioville, Pennsylvania. Role: Crew Chief. Supervised crew in Phase I Survey of stream crossings,
wetlands, and construction area for proposed work. Worked continuously with Land Agents and Project Coordinator to make sure crew was on
proper land tracts.
Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys; Melber, Kentucky; New Philadelphia, Ohio; Parkersburg, West Virginia; DuBois, Pennsylvania.
Role: Field Director. Phase I Survey of stream crossings, wetlands, and construction area for proposed work. Worked continuou sly with Land
Agents and Project Coordinator to make sure crews were on proper land tracts.
Phase I Cultural Resource Surveys; Various locations, Pennsylvania. Role: Crew Chief. Phase I Survey of stream crossings, wetlands, and
construction area for proposed work. Supervised and managed several crews while coordinating scope of work with land agents, land owners,
and clients.
Resume
Page | 3
Multiple CRM Phase I-III Surveys, Excavations, and Mitigation; Multiple locations throughout the Mid -Atlantic. Role: Archaeologist.
Phase I-III Survey, Excavation, and Mitigation of proposed construction areas. Surveyed stream crossings, wetlands, and construction area for
proposed work.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey Tappan Lake Region; Ohio. Role: Crew Chief. Supervised crew in Phase I Survey of stream crossings
and wetlands. Worked continuously with Land Agents and Project Coordinator to make sure crews were on proper land tracts.
Resume
Page | 1
JONATHAN LIBBON, M.A., RPA, ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Jonathan is an archaeologist with over 11 years of experience in Cultural Resource Management. He meets the
Secretary of Interior’s qualifications for an archaeologist and is a member of the Register of Professional
Archaeologists (RPA). Mr. Libbon has extensive experience in the application of cultural resource laws with various
federal, state, and local agencies and entities. He has assisted a variety of industries with their Section 106
requirements, including energy infrastructure, electrical transmission, transportation, federal and private development,
and telecommunications throughout the eastern United States. His direct involvement in these projects has given him
experience in field survey, data analysis, report production, and overall project management. Mr. Libbon is currently
serving in leadership roles for a number of regional and national archaeological societies. As a Principal Investigator
at SWCA Environmental Consultants, Mr. Libbon provides archaeological project guidance, oversees agency and
stakeholder consultation, manages fieldwork/data analysis/report preparation, and provides cultural resource project
support for a variety of clients and industries.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE (∗ DENOTES PROJECT EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO
SWCA)
Simmonsville Bridge Replacement Project, Providence, Rhode Island. The replacement
of a two lane bridge over Simmons Brook, in the town of Johnston, Rhode Island. Role:
Principal Investigator. Responsible for coordination with Rhode Island Department of
Transportation staff, technical guidance to the project team, development and implementation
of fieldwork methodology, and report preparation.
Hamburg Commerce Park Project, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Large land development
project (200 acres) located south of the town of Hamburg. Role: Principal Investigator. Duties
consisted of coordination with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) cultural resource
personal, development of probability testing strategy, fieldwork, reporting, and consultation
with the Pennsylvania SHPO and the USACE.
Mount Joy Safety Improvement Project, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Cultural
resource coordination for proposed safety improvements (i.e., sidewalks) along Marietta Ave
(SR 0772) in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. Role: Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included
overseeing geophysical survey and associated ground truthing, Phase I survey coordination,
consultation with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation cultural resource staff, and
report preparation
Langley Airforce Base MILCON Sites Phase I Survey, Langley, Virginia. Phase I survey
for 250 acres of proposed military development on Langley Airforce Base. Role: Principal
Investigator. Coordinated with Joint Base Langley-Eustis Environmental staff and Virginia
Department of Historic Resources Staff, conducted desktop review of project area, prepared
research design, determined testing strategy, and prepared report.
Route Development and Cultural Resources Support for Natural Gas Infrastructure
Projects, Tyler, Doddridge, and Harrison Counties, West Virginia. Cultural resource
survey, reporting, and consultation services for a variety of natural Gas mid-stream and
upstream facilities. Role: Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included technical guidance,
report preparation, fieldwork and managing field crews, and overseeing SHPO consultation.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
10
EXPERTISE
Cultural Resource Management
Meets the Secretary of Interior’s
qualifications for an Archaeologist
Section 106 laws
Project Management
EDUCATION
M.A., Applied Archaeology; Indiana
University of Pennsylvania; 2011
B.A., Anthropology / Religion; University
of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 2007
TRAINING
Section 106 Essentials Course,
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Environmental Review and Compliance
for Natural Gas Facilities, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
MEMBERSHIPS
President, Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology; 2011-present
Member, Society for Historical
Archaeology; 2010-present
Society for American Archaeology;
2008-present
Council for Northeastern Historical
Archaeology; 2013-present
Resume
Page | 2
Cultural Resource Due Diligence Reviews, Confidential Solar Clients, Central Massachusetts. Environmental due diligence
documentation for various proposed solar fields throughout Massachusetts. Role: Principal Investigator. Duties consisted of background
research, a desktop review of cultural (historic and archaeological) resources within and adjacent to the proposed development, and a creation
of an archaeological sensitivity ranking of the project area.
Utopia Pipeline Project; Various Counties, Ohio. Approximately 225-miles ethane and ethane-propane pipeline project through northern
Ohio. Role: Senior Archaeologist. Responsibilities included oversight of cultural resource studies, staffing coordination, environmental
permitting, planning and implementation of archaeological testing strategy, and report preparation.
∗Long Rifle Road and Gypsy Hill Road Intersection Improvement Project; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Cultural resource studies
necessitated by the improvement of an intersection and the realignment of associated roads. Role: Principal Investigator. Duties consisted of
client coordination, land access, field survey, report preparation, and SHPO consultation.
∗Mission Pump Station Project; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. A proposed relocation of a pump station and associated infrastructure.
Role: Principal Investigator. Responsible for fieldwork, including deep testing, management of sub-consultants, background research and report
preparation. Also worked with client to ensure that consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO was efficient and thorough.
∗I-84 Newtown Resurfacing and Safety Improvements; Newtown, Connecticut; Connecticut Department of Transportation. Upgrade of
four miles of highway in Newtown, Connecticut. Role: Principal Investigator. Project responsibilities included consultation with the Connecticut
Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Planning, fieldwork, and report preparation.
*U.S. Salt Mine Project, Schuyler County, New York., Proposed natural gas Storage Facility in Schuyler County, New York. Responsibilities
included background research, leading field crews, authoring the report, agency/SHPO consultation.
*Pawtucket Falls Overlook, Lowell, Massachusetts. A 0.6-mile multi-use path along the north shore of the Merrimack River in downtown
Lowell. Role: Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included consultation with the Lowell Historic Preservation Review Board, and the National
Park Service/Massachusetts Historical Commission.
∗Milford Meter Station Project, Pike County, Pennsylvania. Construction of a meter station on a FERC regulated natural gas pipeline. Role:
Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included overseeing fieldwork, data analysis, background research, reporting, and SHPO consultation for
a natural gas meter station in Pike County, Pennsylvania.
∗Confidential Residential Client; Hartford County, Connecticut. A large proposed residential development project in central Connecticut.
Role: Principal Investigator. Duties included identifying and testing high probability areas within the 500+ acre project area, providing cultural
resource guidance to the project team, field support, artifact analysis, GIS analysis, and report production.
∗Susquehanna Gathering System; Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. A gathering system of 16-inch pipelines connecting approximately
50 natural gas wells and three compressor stations. Role: Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included overseeing fieldwork, leading field
crews, client updates, report preparation, and state consultation.
∗Hemlock Pipeline Project; Lycoming and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania. Approximately 8 miles of mainline natural gas pipeline,
associated gathering/water lines, and well laterals. Role: Lead Author and Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included the direction of field
crews, report preparation, and state consultation.
∗Western Kentucky Lateral Project; Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. An approximately 22-mile-long FERC 7(c) natural gas pipeline project
near Greensboro, Kentucky. Role: Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included report production, coordinating field surveys and client
updates, background research, consultation with the Kentucky Heritage Council, the Kentucky Office of State Archaeology, and Native
American Tribes.
∗Pipeline Route Development Projects; Carroll, Jefferson, Harrison Counties, Ohio. Environmental team that assessed numerous pipeline
routes though-out eastern Ohio as part of the Utica Shale Play Development. Role: Cultural Resource Lead. Duties included preliminary
assessment of cultural resource concerns in the general Project area, assessment of USACE permit areas, preparation of Cultural Resources
Due Diligence Review documents and Phase I reporting.
Resume
Page | 3
∗H-312 Pipeline Project; Harrison County, West Virginia. An approximately 9-mile natural gas pipeline in central West Virginia. Role:
Principal Investigator. As principal investigator, responsibilities included directing and managing field crews, report preparation, background
research, consultation with the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, and preparation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) documentation. Fast mobilizations, reporting, and consultation were often needed because of complex and unforeseen project
constraints.
∗H-305 Pipeline Project; Greene County, Pennsylvania. An approximately 3-mile natural gas pipeline in southwestern Pennsylvania. Role:
Principal Investigator. Responsibilities included report preparation, data analysis, consultation with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic
Preservation, and managing field crews. Worked with construction managers to account for archaeological resources within the proposed
project right-of-way.
∗Belmont Mix-Use Development Project; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. A Phase II Evaluation of 36LA1102, a late nineteenth/early
twentieth century historic site associated with a lime quarry and kiln. Role: Principal Investigator. Project responsibilities included, preparation of
Phase II work plan, leading fieldwork, consultation with stake holders, data analysis, reporting, and consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO.
Worked with client to incorporate archaeological data into overall site plan.
∗TGP FAC 6019 Interconnect Project, Madison County, New York. Served as cultural lead for the proposed construction of a pipeline
interconnect in Madison County, New York. Duties included conducting a desktop review and consultation
∗Meadows Curation; Pennsylvania. The curation of a large urban site dating from the seventeenth to the twentieth century. Role: Lab
Technician. Was responsible for artifact identification, coding, labeling, and processing, according to the Pennsylvania Historic Museum
Commission Standards.
∗Section II of the Coalfields Express Way; Wise, Dickenson, and Buchanan Counties, Virginia; Virginia DOT. Survey of 26.6 miles of
new mainline roadway. Role: Project Archaeologist. Responsibilities during the Project included coordinated with client to get shape files of
APE, created maps of project area, conducted background research, led crew in survey, analyzed results, wrote report, and submitted to client
for review.
*ATC Hopkington Project, Merrimack County, New Hampshire. Principal investigator for the construction of a telecommunication tower and
associated compound. Responsibilities include fieldwork, report preparation and associated FCC forms, extensive tribal consultation, and
project management.
*Telecommunication Cultural Resource Services; New York. Principal investigator for four new build telecommunication sites, and several
compound expansion projects throughout New York. Project Responsibilities included client coordination, fieldwork, report preparation,
SHPO/FCC/Tribal consultation.
∗Belmont Mix-Use Development Project; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. A Phase II Evaluation of 36LA1102, a late nineteenth/early
twentieth century historic site associated with a lime quarry and kiln. Role: Principal Investigator. Project responsibilities included, preparation of
Phase II work plan, leading fieldwork, consultation with stake holders, data analysis, reporting, and consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO.
Worked with client to incorporate archaeological data into overall site plan.
∗Geophysical Investigations at Staple Bend Tunnel; Allegheny Portage National Historic Site. Conducted a ground penetrating radar
survey, and processed and analyzed the results. Contributed to a report submitted to the National Park Service, and presented findings at the
Society for American Archaeology Conference.
∗Historic Structure Survey of Northeast Venango County; Venango County, Pennsylvania. An above ground resources survey of
northeast Venango County. Role: Field Director and Lead Author. Responsibilities included directing the field crew, filling out Historic Resource
Survey Forms, analyzing the results, and giving planning recommendations to county commissioners.
APPENDIX B
Historic Mapping
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix B
Figure 1. Approximate project location shown on 1820 Frederick County Map.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix B
Figure 2. Approximate project location shown on 1938 Winchester, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey
Quadrangle (Right) and the 1937 Middletown, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle (Left).
Buildings in the Project area indicated with red arrows.
*Generation Tie-in, located in the southeastern corner of the LOD is not depicted
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix B
Figure 3. Approximate project location shown on 1972 Stephens City, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey
Aerial Imagery. Buildings within project area are circled in red.
*Generation Tie-in, located in the southeastern corner of the LOD is not depicted
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX C
Project Photographs
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 1. Overview of harvested agricultural field and sloping landform
within the APE, facing west.
Photo 2. Overview of harvested agricultural field within the APE, facing
east.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 3. Overview of an upland deciduous forest within the APE, facing
north.
Photo 4. Overview of active orchard field and sloping landform within the
APE, facing east.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 5. Overview of cleared trail within woodland area in the APE, facing
southwest.
Photo 6. Overview of dense woodland and potential high probability
landform within the APE, facing north.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 7. Overview of pond within deciduous woodland in the APE, facing
north.
Photo 8. Overview of previously recorded site, 44FK0167, within the APE,
facing west.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 9. Overview of a drained pond within the APE, facing west.
Photo 10. Overview of pasture and tree line within the APE, facing
northwest.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 11. Overview of a gravel driveway disturbance within the APE, facing
east-southeast.
Photo 12. Overview of gently rolling landscape and agricultural field within
the APE, facing northwest.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 13. Overview of previously recorded site location, 44FK0166, within
the APE, facing east.
Photo 14. Overview of a dam within the APE, facing east. The dam is
possibly associated with 44FK0166.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 15. Overview of previously recorded site, 44FK0163, within the APE,
facing east.
Photo 16. Overview of previously recorded site, 44FK0168, within the APE,
facing east.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 17. Overview of Building 1 within the APE, facing east.
Photo 18. Overview of outbuilding associated with Building 1 within the
APE, facing northeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 19. Overview of collapsed outbuilding associated with Building 1
within the APE, facing northwest.
Photo 20. Overview of outbuilding associated with Building 1 within the
APE, facing northeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 21. Overview of outbuilding associated with Building 1 within the
APE, facing east.
Photo 22. Overview of Building 2 within the APE, facing northeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 23. Overview of outbuildings associated with Building 2 within the
APE, facing northeast.
Photo 24. Overview of wooden building within the APE, facing northeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 25. Overview of wooden building within the APE, facing south.
Photo 26. Overview of dressed stone foundation within the APE, facing
southeast.
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Appendix C
Photo 27. Overview of dressed stone foundation within the APE, facing
northwest.
Photo 28. Overview of debris pile associated with the dressed stone
foundation within the APE, facing south.
APPENDIX D
Shovel Test Pit Profiles
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Shovel Test Profiles
0 cm
0 cm
38 cm
Brown
(10YR 4/3)
Silt Loam
Strong Brown
(7.5YR 5/8)
Silty Clay Loam
Shovel Test A1
Shovel Test A2
*Not to Scale
*Not to scale
Yellowish Red
(5YR 5/6)
Clay Loam
32 cm
50 cm
Brown
(7.5YR 4/3)
Silty Clay Loam
23 cm
Phase IA Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Bartonsville Energy Facility – Shovel Test Profiles
0 cm
0 cm
12 cm
Dark Gray
(10YR 4/1)
Silt Loam
Strong Brown
(7.5YR 5/8)
Clay Loam
Shovel Test A4
Shovel Test B2
*Not to Scale
*Not to scale
Red mottled with Dark Brown
(2.5YR 5/8, 10YR 3/3)
Silty Clay
15 cm
35 cm
Dark Brown
(10YR 3/3)
Silt Loam
10 cm
Brown mottled with Red
(10YR 4/3, 2.5YR 5/8)
Silty Clay Loam
25 cm