HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-22 Phase I Survey
PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
FOR THE BARTONSVILLE EXPANSION ENERGY
FACILITY, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
JANUARY 2022
PREPARED FOR
Bartonsville Energy Facility II, LLC
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
FOR THE BARTONSVILLE EXPANSION ENERGY FACILITY,
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
VDHR No. 2020-0368
Prepared for
Bartonsville Energy Facility II, LLC
939 Pearl Street, Suite 210
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Attn: Wes Andrews
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
80 Emerson Lane, Suite 1306
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania 15017
www.swca.com
Written by:
Jonathan R. Libbon, RPA
Benjamin Demchak, RPA
Zack Whalen
SWCA Project No. 00070225-000
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 21-706
January 2022
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
i
ABSTRACT
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey on behalf of
Bartonsville Energy Facility II, LLC (Bartonsville Energy), for the proposed Bartonsville Expansion
Energy Facility (project) in Frederick County, Virginia. The project is located in the southern portion of
Frederick County, west of Stephens City, Virginia, south of Marlboro Road. The area of potential effects
(APE) for the project is 467 acres (189 hectares [ha]). The project is located on the 1986 Stephens City
and the 1999 Middletown, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles.
Bartonsville Energy 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 (DHR).
Dutton and Associates established a scope of work for the project in June 2021 (Gryctko 2021). The
scope of work outlined the methodology to be used during the cultural resource field surveys, established
an archaeological probability assessment for the project area, and conducted a review of cartographic
sources depicting the historic landscape of the project area. Since the submission of the work plan, the
project area has been reduced from 639.6 acres (258.8 ha) to 467 acres (189 ha).
Following consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and DHR, it was
determined that 32 acres (13 ha) within the APE has a high probability of containing archaeological
resources, and the entirety of that area would require archaeological survey. A total of 24 acres (10 ha) is
considered to have a moderate probability of containing archaeological sites, 25 percent of which would
require survey (6 acres [3 ha]), and the remainder of the APE, including the areas formally used as
orchards, is considered to have a low probability of containing archaeological sites, and a 10 percent
sample (41 acres [17 ha]) required survey.
Utilizing the June 2021 work plan, SWCA conducted a site visit between November 3 and 5, 2021, and
the Phase I archaeological fieldwork for the project between November 29 and December 9, 2021. During
the course of the survey, investigators identified four precontact isolates and three low-density precontact
lithic scatters (44FK1053, 44FK1054, and 44FK1055). Due to the limited assemblages, the lack of
diagnostic artifacts, and the lack of intact archaeological deposits (i.e., features), no further work is
recommended at the seven archaeological resources within the project area, as all seven resources are
recommended not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The artifacts
recovered from the resources identified within the project area will be returned to the landowner, per their
request.
In addition to the archaeological investigation, SWCA conducted a historic architecture reconnaissance
survey between November 3 and 5, 2021, and in conjunction with the archaeological fieldwork conducted
on November 29 and December 9, 2021. A review of historic cartographic sources and modern aerials
indicated there are 23 properties that are historic age (i.e., 45 years old or older) within 0.8 kilometer [km]
(0.5 mile) of the project APE. There is one newly documented historic aged property (034-5400) located
within the project area. Additionally, a review of the Virginia Cultural Resource Information System
indicated there are 36 properties previously documented within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the APE. Per DHR
guidelines, if a property was surveyed in the last 5 years, it was not resurveyed during the current effort
and the NRHP status of the resource is assumed to be still valid. Of the 60 properties, seven resources
(034-0080, 034-0083, 034-0084, 034-1003, 34-1004, 034-0300, and 034-1078) have been determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP or are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP by SWCA.
Additionally, three previously recorded properties (034-0141, 034-1020, and 034-1405) whose NRHP
eligibility is undetermined could not be documented from public right-of-way. As such, SWCA assumes
these resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP for the purposes of this project and has completed an
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
ii
assessment of effect of the project on the three resources. It is SWCA’s recommendation that of the 10
properties eligible for listing in the NRHP, the project will have no effect on nine of them. For the
remaining property, Cherry Dale (034-0300), SWCA recommends that the project will have an adverse
effect on the resource. Appropriate mitigation measures are being established in consultation with DHR
and other project stakeholders. The results of the historic architecture survey as well as the mitigation
effort for the project’s effect on Cherry Dale will be discussed in an addendum report. The following
document outlines the background research, methodology, and results of only the archaeology survey.
Field notes, maps, correspondence, and background research are on file at SWCA’s office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
iv
CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 11
Environmental Context ............................................................................................................................ 12
Physiography ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Flora ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Fauna .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Current and Past Land Use ................................................................................................................... 14
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Culture History ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Paleoindian Period (11,500–8000 B.C.) ........................................................................................ 18
Archaic Period (8000–1200 B.C.) ................................................................................................. 18
Woodland Period (1200 B.C.–A.D. 1600) ..................................................................................... 19
Settlement to Society (A.D. 1607–1750) ....................................................................................... 21
Colony to Nation (A.D. 1750–1789) ............................................................................................. 21
Early National Period (A.D. 1789–1829) ...................................................................................... 21
Antebellum Period (A.D. 1830–1860) ........................................................................................... 22
Civil War (A.D. 1861–1865) ......................................................................................................... 22
Reconstruction and Growth (A.D. 1866–1916) ............................................................................. 24
World War I to World War II (A.D. 1917–1945) .......................................................................... 24
The New Dominion (A.D. 1946–Present) ..................................................................................... 24
Previous Research ................................................................................................................................ 24
Previously Recorded Sites ............................................................................................................. 27
Previously Conducted Surveys ...................................................................................................... 27
Historic Map Review ............................................................................................................................ 28
Archaeological Site Potential ................................................................................................................... 31
Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 32
Field Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................................................. 32
Precontact Artifacts ........................................................................................................................ 33
Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 33
44FK1053 (Bartonsville 3) ................................................................................................................... 37
Description ..................................................................................................................................... 37
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation ................................................................. 38
44FK1054 (Bartonsville 5) ................................................................................................................... 38
Description ..................................................................................................................................... 38
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation ................................................................. 39
44FK1055 (Bartonsville 6) ................................................................................................................... 39
Description ..................................................................................................................................... 39
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation ................................................................. 40
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
v
Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 41
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendices
Appendix A. Project Conceptual Design
Appendix B. Resumes of Key Project Staff
Appendix C. Shovel Test Location Map
Appendix D. Soil Profiles
Appendix E. Site Maps
Appendix F. VCRIS Site Forms
Appendix G. Artifact Catalogs
Appendix H. Artifact Photographs
Figures
Figure 1. Map showing the proposed location of the project. ....................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Project overview map. ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Aerial imagery showing APE. ..................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Example of racking being driven into the ground by a pile driver during construction. ............. 11
Figure 5. Example of trenching associated with the electrical collection system. ...................................... 12
Figure 6. Overview of fallow field in the project area, facing northwest. .................................................. 15
Figure 7. View of forest/scrub growth within the APE, facing north. ........................................................ 15
Figure 8. View of agricultural debris associated found throughout the project area, facing north. ............ 16
Figure 9. Overview of existing orchard in the APE, facing south. ............................................................. 16
Figure 10. View of active agricultural field within the APE, facing west. ................................................. 17
Figure 11. VCRIS map of previously recorded resources and surveys in proximity to the project. ........... 25
Figure 12. Approximate project location shown on the 1885 Atlas of Frederick County. Buildings
within and adjacent to the project area are circled in blue. ...................................................... 29
Figure 13. Approximate project location shown on the 1942 Winchester and 1943 Middletown
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. Buildings within and adjacent to the project
area are circled in blue. ............................................................................................................ 30
Figure 14. Approximate project location shown on the 1972 Stephens City and 1972 Middletown
USGS aerial photographs. Location of building shown on 1943 map circled in blue. ............ 31
Figure 15. Probability areas within the APE. .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 16. Archaeological resources within the project area. ..................................................................... 36
Figure 17. Overview of 44FK1053, facing south. ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 18. Overview of 44FK1054, facing north. ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 19. Overview of 44FK1055, facing northeast. ................................................................................ 40
Tables
Table 1. Soils within the Project Area ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 2. Previously Documented Archaeological Resources within 1.6 Kilometer (1 Mile) of the
APE .......................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Investigations within 1.6 Kilometer (1 Mile) of the APE ..................... 26
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
7
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey on behalf of
Bartonsville Energy Facility II, LLC (Bartonsville Energy), for the proposed Bartonsville Energy
Expansion Facility (project) in Frederick County, Virginia (see Appendix A for a concept design plan of
the facility). The project will consist of the construction of a 70-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy
generation facility located south of Marlboro Road, 1.6 kilometers [km] (1.0 mile) west of the town of
Stephens City, Virginia (Figures 1–3). The area of potential effects (APE) for the project is 467 acres
(189 hectares [ha]). In total, 79 acres (32 ha) were surveyed for archaeological sites.
The Phase I investigation was conducted in accordance with the Guidelines for Conducting Historic
Resources Survey in Virginia established by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) (DHR
2017). The cultural resource survey was undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality’s Small Renewable Energy Projects (Solar) Permit by Rule
Process. All work was conducted according to the standards of the Department of the Interior (48 Federal
Register 48:44738-9) and overseen or completed by professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archeology (Federal Register 48:44716-44742, September 29, 1983).
Jonathan Libbon, RPA, served as Principal Investigator and was responsible for project management and
report preparation. Benjamin Demchak, RPA, and Zack Whalen assisted with report preparation.
Benjamin Demchak, Zack Whalen, Jake Brine, Sydney Swierenga, Evan Flannery, Corry Laughlin, and
Scott Gajewski conducted the archaeology fieldwork between November 29 and December 9, 2021.
Resumes for key project staff are provided in Appendix B.
This report outlines the archaeological background research assembled for the project, the methodology
used to conduct the Phase I archaeological fieldwork and analysis, and the results of the survey.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
8
Figure 1. Map showing the proposed location of the project.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
9
Figure 2. Project overview map.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
10
Figure 3. Aerial imagery showing APE.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed facility will primarily consist of photovoltaic panels producing direct current (DC)
electricity mounted on single-axis tracking structures, allowing the panels to track the sun’s movement.
The panels will reach a maximum height of 9 feet (2.7 meters [m]). Inverters will be placed throughout
the facility to convert the DC electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity. From the inverters, a
medium-voltage collection system will be used to collect the AC output and transfer it to a substation
where the total output of the facility will be collected and the voltage will be increased by step-up
transformers to the necessary transmission line voltage.
While expansive, ground disturbance will largely be limited to the racking being driven into the ground
by a pile driving machine (Figure 4) and minor trenching associated with the electrical collection system
(Figure 5). In areas where grading is necessary, topsoil shall be stored separately and during the
restoration phase of the project returned to areas of disturbance. Native grass species will then be planted
and maintained underneath and around the panels throughout the life of the project. The racking will be
driven down to a secure depth based on localized soil and geological factors and the trenching depth will
be approximately 3 feet (1 m). Bartonsville Energy is committed to minimizing soil disturbance
associated with the project as a way to minimize impacts to cultural resources.
Figure 4. Example of racking being driven into the ground by a pile driver
during construction.1
1 Photo Credit: Power Technology (https://www.power-technology.com/)
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
12
Figure 5. Example of trenching associated with the electrical collection system.2
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
within the APE.
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
(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 2021) identified multiple soil series within the
APE (Table 1). The predominant soil unit within the APE (52.8 percent) is Oaklet silt loam, which is
characterized as being well drained and typically found on hills. Oaklet silt loam typically demonstrates
the following profile:
• Ap: 0 to 18 centimeters (cm) (0 to 7 inches), silt loam
• Bt: 18 to 229 cm (7 to 90 inches), clay
2 Photo Credit: Hirons Cable Ploughing & Trenching (https://www.pjhironstrenching.co.uk/cable_ploughing.htm)
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
13
Table 1. Soils within the Project Area
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Percentage
of APE Landform Drainage Class Parent Material
5B Carbo silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
3.3% Hills Well Drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
5C Carbo silt loam, 7 to 15
percent slopes
1.8% Hills Well Drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
6C Carbo-Oaklet, very rocky
silt loams, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
17.4% Hills Well Drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
7C Carbo-Oaklet-Rock outcrop
complex, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
4.3% Hills Well Drained Residuum weathered from
limestone
8B Chilhowie silty clay loam, 2
to 7 percent slopes
0.8% Hills Well Drained Residuum from limestone
14B Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 2 to 7 percent
slopes
7.2% Hills Well Drained Residuum from limestone
14C Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 7 to 15 percent
slopes
10.8% Hills Well Drained Residuum from limestone
14D Frederick-Poplimento
loams, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
0.5% Hills Well Drained Residuum from limestone
17E Frederick-Poplimento-Rock
outcrop complex, 15 to 45
percent slopes
<0.1% Hills Well Drained Residuum from limestone
32B Oaklet silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes
45.8% Hills Well Drained Residuum derived from limestone
32C Oaklet silt loam, 7 to 15
percent slopes
7.0% Hills Well Drained Residuum derived from limestone
40B Timberville silt loam, 2 to 7
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
1.2% Drainageways Well Drained Local alluvium derived from
limestone over residuum
weathered from limestone
Source: NRCS (2021)
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 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).
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
14
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).
Hydrology
In the western portion of the APE there is a prominent ridge that divides the drainage pattern within the
project area (see Figure 2). The majority of the project area, located east of the ridge drains into Stephens
Run, which flows to the southeast, eventually joining Crooked Run and then the North Fork of the
Shenandoah River, near Front Royal, Virginia. The western portion of the APE drains to the west into
Meadow Brook, which is a tributary of Cedar Creek, which is located south of the project area. Cedar
Creek joins the North Fork of the Shenandoah River near Strasburg, Virginia.
The project area lacks substantial perennial streams. Several ephemeral/intermittent drainages are present
within the project area. These drainages have been heavily channelized or even dammed to form ponds in
historic and modern times. There is no evidence of karst hydrological features, such as sink holes or
sinking or rising streams within the APE.
Current and Past Land Use
The project area is currently 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 and Middletown Virginia, aerial imagery, but have since been cleared for the planting of more
traditional row crops. Background research shows a prevalence of orchard agriculture in Frederick
County as well as the northern Shenandoah Valley in the historic and early modern period. It is likely the
majority of the APE used as orchards. There is no evidence the quarry activity that is present to the
northeast of the project area ever extended into the APE. Nor is there any evidence of extensive ground
disturbance besides routine agricultural activities, such as the installation of drainage tiles. The majority
of the scattered forested sections of the APE are composed of exposed bedrock and are thus cannot be
farmed and allowed to become new growth forests. Figures 6–10 depict the current land use of the project
area.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
15
Figure 6. Overview of fallow field in the project area, facing northwest.
Figure 7. View of forest/scrub growth within the APE, facing north.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
16
Figure 8. View of agricultural debris associated found throughout the project area,
facing north.
Figure 9. Overview of existing orchard in the APE, facing south.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
17
Figure 10. View of active agricultural field within the APE, facing west.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following section establishes a cultural context for the project area and provides an overview of the
previous archaeological work conducted in proximity to the APE. Additionally, a detailed review of
historic maps and atlases was 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 DHR’s Guidelines for Conducting
Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (DHR 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 precontact 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 (DHR 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.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
18
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 east
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 that 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 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 (8000–6500 B.C.), the Middle Archaic
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
19
(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 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 contained 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; Yarnell 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.–A.D. 1600)
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
increase in social stratification, and the nucleating of populations. Like the Archaic period, archaeologists
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
20
have divided the Woodland Period into three subperiods: the Early Woodland (1200 B.C.–A.D. 300), the
Middle Woodland (A.D. 300–1000), and the Late Woodland (A.D. 1000–1606).
The Early Woodland period (1200 B.C.–A.D. 300) 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, 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.–A.D. 1000) 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 (A.D.
1000–1606) 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
ceramics, is found in rockshelters and a relatively low number of open-air sites, but the most common
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
21
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 (A.D. 1607–1750)
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. These changes in
ownership 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 Ridge 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 (A.D. 1750–1789)
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 (A.D. 1789–1829)
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 I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
22
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 (A.D. 1830–1860)
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 (A.D. 1861–1865)
The physical and economic advantages that made the town of 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.
As a result, several major battles took place in Frederick County: First, Second, and Third Battles of
Winchester, the First and Second Battles of Kernstown, and Cedar Creek. The closest battle to the project
area were the battles of Kernstown. While multiple battles took place in vicinity of the project area, 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 or adjacent to it. Stephens City, known as Newtown during the Civil
War, was considered “between the lines.” While the Union nominally controlled Newtown, plenty of
Confederate partisan activity took place. No major battles were fought within Newtown or as evidence
suggests within the project area, multiple skirmishes occurred there as they did throughout the Valley
region during the Civil War. On May 24, 1862, Union General George Henry Gordon of the Second
Massachusetts Infantry ordered his troops to make a stand to General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s
advance northward through the Valley. The skirmish resulted in Gordan’s men being able to hold off the
assault long enough to protect the retreating Union forces. Both sides claimed victory. Another notable
event took place in May of 1864. Major Joseph K. Stearns of the 1st New York Cavalry arrived at
Newtown with his men carrying orders to burn the town. However, once Major Stearns arrived in
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
23
Newtown he found himself surrounded by women, children, and the elderly with pleas not to burn down
their town. In exchange for not burning down the town, Major Stearns required the people of Newtown to
take an oath of allegiance to the Union (Newtown History Center 2022).
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 in what would become known
as the Valley Campaign (Morton 1925:154). The project area lies south and west of the area determined
to be potentially eligible for the NRHP and the Study Area and is southwest of the closest Core Area
according to the American Battlefield Program (ABPP). 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 on May 25 and caught the fleeing
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.
Camp Russell (44FK0111) is located approximately 3.25 miles (5.23 km) to the northeast of the project
area. Camp Russell is one of three major fortifications built as what was the eastern end of a complex
defensive system constructed as part of the Union Army’s Winchester defenses in the winter of 1864. The
camp consists of a large earthwork/fortification with multiple linear entrenchments and a gun
emplacement (VCRIS 2021). Camp Russell has not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
24
Reconstruction and Growth (A.D. 1866–1916)
The heavy fighting and the multiple shifts between Union and Confederate forces resulted in a landscape
that was devastated. The loss of life and 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 (A.D. 1917–1945)
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).
The New Dominion (A.D. 1946–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 an important role in the local community, with Frederick County
producing 40 percent of all apples grown in Virginia, but 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 Research
A cultural resources records search was conducted using the Virginia Cultural Resource Information
System (VCRIS) on November 1 and December 21, 2021 (Figure 11). The records search indicated that
29 archaeological sites are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE (Table 2). Further review of the
VCRIS indicated that eight previous surveys have been conducted within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the APE
(Table 3). There are no previously recorded archaeological sites or previous surveys within the APE.
Additionally, no portion of the APE is within the ABBP Civil War Battlefield Boundaries.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
25
Figure 11. VCRIS map of previously recorded resources and surveys in proximity to the project.
Table 2. Previously Documented Archaeological Resources within 1.6 Kilometer (1 Mile) of the
APE
Site Number Site Type National Register Eligibility
44FK0005 Precontact Not Evaluated
44FK0528 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0547 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0548 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0549 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0604 Historic Dwelling, Other Not Evaluated
44FK0607 Late Archaic Camp, Historic Dwelling, Single Not Evaluated
44FK0614 Precontact Camp, Historic Trash Scatter Not Evaluated
44FK0720 Historic Kiln Not Evaluated
44FK0738 Historic Farmstead No Longer Extant
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
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
26
Site Number Site Type National Register Eligibility
44FK0836 Historic Cemetery Not Evaluated
44FK0837 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
44FK1005 Historic Outbuilding Not Evaluated
44FK1011 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Eligible
44FK1012 Historic Dwelling, Single Not Eligible
44FK1025 Historic Kiln Not Evaluated
Source: DHR (2021a)
Table 3. Previous Archaeological Investigations within 1.6 Kilometer (1 Mile) of the APE
DHR Report Number Survey Name Conducted by
FK-009 Phase I Archeological Investigations: Meadowbrook
Substation
Thunderbird Archaeological
Associates, 1985
FK-070 A Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Oxford Village Development Site in Stephens City, Virginia
Thunderbird Archaeological
Associates, 1992
FK-114 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey VA State Line -
Meadowbrook Substation and Meadowbrook Substation -
Appalachian Trail Segments of the Trans-Allegheny
Interstate Line (TrAIL) Project, Frederick and Warren
Counties, Virginia
GAI Consultants, Inc., 2008
FK-125 A Phase I Investigation of a Portion of the James T. Wilson
Property, Stephens City, Virginia
Thunderbird Archaeological
Associates, 2004
FK-126 A Phase I Archeological Investigation of Lots 48, 49 and 50
of the Stone House Foundation Property, Stephens City,
Virginia
Thunderbird Archaeological
Associates, 2004
FK-163 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±381.38-Hectare
(±942.4-Acre) Bartonsville Solar Project Area, Frederick
County, Virginia
Dutton + Associates, 2020
FK-164 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the ±255 Hectare
(±630 Acre) Foxglove Solar Project Area, Fredrick County,
Virginia
Dutton + Associates, 2020
WR-073 Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey Report VA State
Line-Meadowbrook Substation and Meadowbrook
Substation-Appalachian Trail Segments of the Trans-
Allegheny Interstate Line (TrAIL) Project, Frederick and
Warren Counties, Virginia
GAI Consultants, Inc., 2010
Source: DHR (2021a)
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
27
Previously Recorded Sites
There are several trends in the 29 archaeological sites located within 1.6 km (1-mile) of the APE. The
majority are located within or adjacent to Stephens City and all but three consist of historic period
archaeological sites. Due to the dissimilarity of land use patterns between the APE and Stephens City,
SWCA undertook additional research to better inform the Phase I archaeological fieldwork. Research was
conducted to better understand how precontact groups utilized karst features, which were prominent
locales in the precontact landscape of the Great Valley region. Additionally, research was conducted into
previously recorded archaeological sites associated with the Civil War, due to their significance.
Two previously recorded archaeological resources (44FK0005 and 44FK0150) are in proximity to the
project and are associated with karst features. Site 44FK0005 is a locally well-known site located
approximately 0.65 miles (1.05 km) east of the project area on the bank of Stephens Run. The site
consists of a high-density precontact site containing both Archaic and Woodland components. The site is
centered around Stephens Run and a substantial spring. Due to the lack of surface water in the karst
landscape of the Great Valley region, features such as large springheads were important within the
precontact landscape. The other karst related site, 44FK0150, consists of a vertical cave/shaft located
approximately 1.4 miles (2.25 km) northeast of the project area. The site is situated in a limestone
outcropping situated above an east-trending perennial tributary of Opequon Creek. According to local
informants, the site was historically used for the storage of goods, including during the Civil War, but
likely has a precontact component. Site 44FK0150 has not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP
(VCRIS 2022).
Research in VCRIS was conducted to determine the prevalence of Civil War era sites in proximity to the
project. There are 14 archaeological sites that have an identified component associated with the Civil War
(A.D. 1861-1865) within 3.2-km (2-mile) of the project area. Only one resource is directly associated
with military engagements, the Lakeside Earthwork (44FK0106). The Lakeside Earthworks were part of a
series of fortifications constructed by Union forces during the winter of 1864-1865 north of modern-day
Stephens City in proximity to Opequon Creek (Newtown History Center 2022). Referred to as Camp
Russell, there are several large Civil War archaeological sites (44FK0101, 44FK0102, 44FK0193,
44FK0270, and 44FK0654) as well as archeological remains of the fortifications (44FK0063, 44FK0066,
44FK0134, 44FK0111, 44FK0450). Besides the earthworks, which are 2.9 km (1.8 miles) northeast of the
project, the rest of the associated sites with Camp Russell are over 3.2 km (2 miles) to the northeast of the
project. There is no evidence in the documentary record that Camp Russell or the associated fortifications
constructed extended to the west side of Stephens City, where the project is located. There are no military
sites or sites directly related to the Civil War within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project.
Previously Conducted Surveys
The eight previously conducted surveys within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area range in size and
intensity. As described below, the surveys of the Bartonsville Solar Project (FK-163) and the Foxglove
Solar Project (FK-164) can provide a direct comparison to the Phase I archaeological survey of the
current project.
Conducted in 1985, survey FK-009 is a Phase I survey conducted for the Meadow Brook Substation
located approximately 1.45 km (0.9 mile) southwest of the APE. In total, three multicomponent resources
were identified in the project’s study area. None of the identified resources were recommended as eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Survey FK-070 is a Phase I survey located approximately 1.29 km (0.8 mile) east of the APE. Conducted
in 1992 by Thunderbird Archaeological Associates, the cultural resources survey consisted of the survey
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
28
of 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) of land for the Oxford Village Development project. No archaeological sites were
identified.
Survey FK-114 consists of a northwest-southeast–trending corridor located approximately 1.29 km (0.8
mile) southwest of the APE. The Phase I survey was conducted by GAI Consultants, Inc. (GAI), in 2008
for segments of the proposed Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line. The survey identified one Late Archaic
isolate and 110 architectural resources within the 1.6-km (1.0-mile) study corridor buffering the project.
In 2004, Thunderbird Archaeological Associates conducted a Phase I survey (FK-125) of the James T.
Wilson property in Stephens City, Virginia, approximately 0.97 km (0.6 mile) east of the APE. The
survey identified one multi-component archaeological site (44FK614). Site 44FK614 was recommended
for further work to determine eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. The site was revisited and reported on
in 2015 by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Chapter of the Archeological Society of Virginia. However,
no additional recommendations regarding 44FK614’s eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP resulted from
the additional survey and the site is considered unevaluated.
Survey FK-126 is another Phase I survey conducted by Thunderbird Archaeological Associates in 2004.
The survey consisted of the investigation of three lots owned by the Stone House Foundation located
within the Newtown/Stephenson Historic District (304-001-0191) east of the APE. The Stone House
(circa 1761), also known as the Argenbright-Grove House, and the oldest brick structure in the Historic
District (circa 1819) are located within the survey’s study area. One archaeological site (44FK604) was
identified during the course of the survey and has not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP.
In 2020, Dutton and Associates conducted a Phase I survey (FK-163) associated with the Bartonsville
Solar Project. The southern extent of project area terminates just north of the APE, near its eastern extent.
The survey identified three historic archaeological sites considered not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Additionally, the survey identified 57 architectural resources and recommended three as being considered
as potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The remaining 54 architectural resources identified are
considered not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Due to the proximity, scale, and similar landforms in
the survey area, the results of this survey are comparable to the results from the current survey. A
comparison of both surveys is provided in the discussion portion of the Results section below.
Dutton and Associates conducted another Phase I survey in 2020 (FK-164) for the proposed Foxglove
Solar Project located approximately 1.57 km (0.97 mile) west of the APE. The 630-acre (255-ha) survey
identified two historic archaeological sites. One of the sites (44FK1010) is considered potentially eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP; the remaining site is considered not eligible. The survey identified 37
architectural resources, with seven of these resources considered as eligible or potentially eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. Similar to the Bartonsville Solar Project, the results of this survey can be used as
a comparison to the current survey results.
In 2010, GAI conducted a Phase I survey (WR-073) associated with their previous 2008 survey (FK-114)
of segments of the proposed Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line. The survey is located approximately 1.29
km (0.8 mile) southwest of the APE and slightly expands the area surveyed in 2008. One archaeological
site containing evidence of an Early, Middle, and Late Woodland occupation was identified (44WR0448)
and is considered as potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Historic Map Review
A review of historic maps, atlases, and photographs was undertaken to supplement the review provided in
the 2021 work plan for the project (Gryctko 2021). The goal of this review is to compare the current
extent of the project to historic cartographic references. In general, according to the documentary record,
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
29
the project’s APE has largely been undeveloped land or agricultural land throughout the historic past.
Depictions of Frederick County from the early nineteenth century show Stephens City as part of the
developing transportation network centered on the town of Winchester, Virginia. Stephens City was
approximately a one-day journey south of Winchester, setting the precedent for similarly spaced
developments along the Great Valley Road (DHR 2021b). The 1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, &
Jefferson Counties in the State of Virginia depicts the project area as being undeveloped, with the closest
building being attributed to “L. Stephen.” east of the northern extent of the project’s APE. There are no
roads or structures depicted within the project area on the 1809 map.
The first map to show the project in detail is the D. J. Lake & Co 1885 An Atlas of Frederick County,
Virginia (Figure 12). The 1885 atlas shows the APE as largely undeveloped land. According to the 1885
atlas, there is one building within the project area, and several directly adjacent to it. The property
potentially within the project area is attributed to J. A. Downing and is located in the southeastern portion
of the project. This building likely correlates to the abandoned residence currently in the same
approximate location (recorded as DHR# 034-5400 during the current survey). In proximity to the project,
there is a property attributed to “Strode”, and one to “C. B. Warren”. The Strode is presumably the
namesake for Strode McLeod Lane, which is an unimproved road that runs through the project area. The
building attributed to Strode likely correlates to Barley’s Orchard House (DHR# 34-1401), which is
adjacent to the northwestern portion of the APE. The second building in proximity to the project area is
attributed to “C. B. Warren” and is likely the property known as Cherry Dale (DHR# 034-0300), which is
located to the north of the APE. The 1942 Winchester and 1943 Middletown USGS 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles continue to depict the APE as being undeveloped land (Figure 13).
Figure 12. Approximate project location shown on the 1885 Atlas of Frederick County. Buildings
within and adjacent to the project area are circled in blue.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
30
Figure 13. Approximate project location shown on the 1942 Winchester and 1943 Middletown
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. Buildings within and adjacent to the project area are
circled in blue.
The 1943 map depicts for the first time a building potentially in the western portion of the APE. The
building is not shown on the 1966 Middletown USGS quadrangle or any other map or aerial photograph
from the late twentieth century. This likely indicates that it was demolished sometime between 1943 and
1966. Additionally, Strode Mcleod Lane no longer extends to the west on the 1978 Stephens City USGS
quadrangle, and no building is shown on the 1972 Stephens City and 1972 Middletown USGS aerial
photographs of the area (Figure 14).
In summary, between 1885 and the mid- to late twentieth century, there has only been scattered
residential development within the project area. The still-standing building in the southwestern portion of
the project area and a second building potentially located in the western portion of the APE, which was
demolished sometime between 1943 and 1966, are the only mapped documented buildings within the
project area. For much of the historic past (i.e., pre-1885), it is likely that the project area served as
agricultural fields for one of the landowners in or adjacent to the project area. Historic research shows that
Cherry Dale (034-0300), which fronts Marlboro Road and is adjacent to the project area, is likely one of
the earliest farmsteads (circa 1797) in proximity to the project area, and much of the project area was
likely associated with this resource or properties of similar age to the south.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
31
Figure 14. Approximate project location shown on the 1972 Stephens City and 1972 Middletown
USGS aerial photographs. Location of building shown on 1943 map circled in blue.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE POTENTIAL
Archaeological site potential was previously established for the project in the 2021 work plan (Gryctko
2021). It was determined in the 2021 work plan that “There is a high to moderate potential for prehistoric
sites to be located within the project area at confluences and terraces within the project area…V-CRIS
records indicates that all prehistoric sites recorded within a 1.6 km (1 mile) buffer overlook Stephen’s
Run” (Gryctko 2021:10). There are no confluences within the current boundaries of the APE, and only a
relatively minor terrace along the western boundary of the APE, adjacent to Meadow Brook (see Figure
2). The only hydrologic features of note are the unnamed tributary of Meadow Brook located near the
western edge of the APE and a minor spring associated with the head waters of Stephens Run in the
northern portion of the APE. As such, the potential for intact precontact resources is relatively low, based
on what is known of the surrounding area. Additionally, the lack of karst features, such as caves,
sinkholes, rising or sinking streams, or other such features limits the likelihood that the project area would
be considered a high-value locale in the precontact landscape.
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. These areas are
identified by the presence of map-documented buildings or structures, such as the two buildings depicted
on the late nineteenth to twentieth century cartographic sources reviewed above. While not mentioned in
the 2021 work plan, there is a low potential for sites related to the Civil War. The APE is located
southwest of Core Areas and southwest and west of Potential National Register Areas and Study Areas
associated with the Battles of Kernstown as determined by the American Battlefield Protection Program.
As discussed in the culture history section, troops likely moved through the project area as they
maneuvered toward or retreated from engagements at Kernstown and Winchester, as well as took part in
the multiple skirmishes at New Town (modern day Stephens City). There is no evidence in the
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
32
documentary record that any skirmishes were fought within the project area, or the project area served as
an encampment for either Confederate or Union forces. While due to the importance of Valley Pike,
modern day Route 11, as a transportation corridor, it is potential that troops did use the project area as a
brief stopping point or brief encampment. The archaeological signature associated with such a brief stay
would be virtually invisible, and the fragile nature of any remains would have been heavily impacted
routine agricultural activities.
METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology and research design used during the Phase I survey of the project.
The methodology utilized for the survey focused on the identification of archaeological sites within the
APE, based on the probability analysis established in the scope of work (Gryctko 2021) and the
methodology for Phase I identification surveys, as directed by the DHR (2017).
Field Methods
The entire APE was subjected to visual inspection to ensure that no aboveground features, including karst
features such as sinkholes and caves, or artifacts were present. In the high probability areas, as well as a
25 percent sample of the moderate probability areas and a 10 percent sample of the low probability areas,
systematic shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated to test for subsurface cultural deposits. Cylindrical
STPs were excavated at 15-m (50-foot) intervals in these areas. Whenever saturated soils or subsurface
disturbance was encountered in an STP, excavation of that STP ceased. STPs were excavated by natural
stratigraphic layers and extended at least 10 cm (4 inches) into culturally sterile subsoil. STPs measured
38 cm (15 inches) in diameter. All excavated sediment was screened through ¼-inch hardware mesh.
The location of each STP was plotted using a handheld GPS unit capable of submeter accuracy and
recorded on appropriate field forms. When steep slope (greater than 15 percent) was identified within the
testing areas, the areas were visually documented, but no excavation was undertaken.
If an STP contained cultural material, radial STPs were excavated around the initial find to determine the
site boundaries. Each STP containing artifacts was delineated with two negative STPs in a cruciform
pattern at 5-m and 10-m (16-foot and 33-foot) intervals. If two adjacent STPs contained artifacts, radial
shovel testing was not conducted between the STPs. A site boundary was defined by the presence of two
subsequent STPs that did not contain artifacts. When cultural material was recovered, a sequential field
site number was assigned. Artifacts were then collected and bagged according to their spatial
provenience. All sites were digitally photographed to augment the field maps and document the
landscape.
Laboratory Methods
Cultural material and associated documents were transported to the SWCA Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
office for processing and analysis. Recovered cultural material was recorded on a standard bag log prior
to cleaning and cataloging. Precontact lithic materials were washed and dried. Precontact pottery was dry-
brushed to remove sediment necessary to conduct a thorough analysis. Historic artifacts were cleaned
following a similar procedure, with the exception of metal artifacts, which were dry-brushed to prevent
corrosion. Once the artifacts were cleaned and dried, they were placed into clean plastic bags and
recorded in a Master Artifact Catalog.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
33
Precontact Artifacts
After the cleaning and initial cataloging of precontact cultural material, all artifacts were separated into
analytical class (e.g., bone, pottery, lithic). The lithic assemblage from the site was further separated
based on material class (e.g., hafted biface, biface, debitage, shatter) and raw material. Debitage was
classified to better understand the reduction sequence taking place at the site and was conducted based
on the percentage of cortex present. Referred to as the Triple Cortex Approach (Andrefsky 1998), this
method was designed to analyze the amount of cortex on the dorsal side of the flake in order to place the
individual artifact in the reduction sequence. Primary flakes, considered the earliest stage of the lithic
reduction sequence, have cortex covering 50 to 100 percent of the dorsal side of the flake, secondary
flakes have cortex present on less than 50 percent of the dorsal side of the flake, and tertiary flakes have
no cortex present. Hafted bifaces were analyzed and placed into existing typologies, where feasible.
RESULTS
SWCA completed the archaeology fieldwork between November 3 and November 5, 2021, and between
November 29 and December 9, 2021. All fieldwork was conducted in accordance with DHR guidelines
(DHR 2017) and the probability assessment (Figure 15) established for the project (Gryctko 2021).
During the initial mobilization in early November 2021, the lead archaeologist investigated the project
area for key factors that may influence archaeological site locations that were not incorporated into the
desktop probability assessment established for the project. These factors include karst features, such as
caves, sink holes, rising or sinking streams, or similar hydrologic features that may have been key
locations in the precontact landscape of the region. Additionally, during the early November 2021
mobilization, SWCA visually inspected the unimproved Strode McLeod Lane that runs through the
project area for house sites, outbuildings, or other historic-aged resource that may be associated with the
historic roadway. None were identified.
It was concluded from the site visit conducted in early November 2021 that the project area is largely
devoid of hydrologic features. There is no evidence of karst features that were prominent in the precontact
landscape of the Great Valley. The small spring heads visible on the USGS quadrangles for the area are
accounted for by the probability assessment for the project. The tree clusters contain areas of exposed
bedrock which could not be plowed or contain debris from the recent transition from orchards to row crop
agriculture. The forested areas within the APE consisted of areas of similar exposed bedrock as the tree
clusters located in farm fields, making them not ideal for agricultural purposes. No evidence of any
buildings or structures along Strode McLeod Lane were observed, and due to the rolling nature of the
landscape within the project area, steep slope (i.e., slope greater than 15 percent) was present within the
APE.
Based on the early November 2021 reconnaissance, SWCA formulated a survey plan that followed the
previously prepared probability assessment and took into account the data generated from the early
November 2021 site visit. Due to the widespread occurrence of Oaklet and Carbo series soils (81 percent
of the APE; see Table 1 for the exact breakdown by soil unit), the lack of hydrologic features in low
probability areas, and the limitations imposed by the presence of standing corn, block survey was
conducted in low probability areas.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
34
Figure 15. Probability areas within the APE.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
35
In total, 1,446 STPs were excavated within the APE (see Appendix C). Shovel testing identified a soil
profile that was consistent with the NRCS mapped soil units for the area. SWCA identified two typical
soil profiles within the APE (Appendix D). The first, and most widespread, consisted of one stratum over
subsoil. Stratum I consisted of a brown (10YR5/3) silt loam typically found between 25 and 30 cm below
ground surface. This stratum was typically found in active agricultural settings and was interpreted as an
Ap-horizon. Subsoil consisted of a yellowish brown (10YR5/4) clay loam. The second soil profile
identified within the project area was typically found outside of active agricultural settings and consisted
of two strata over subsoil. Stratum I consisted of a darky grayish brown (10YR4/2) silt loam and was
found on average to between 10 and 23 cm below ground surface. This stratum was underlain by a light
gray (10YR7/2) silty loam, which was found on average to 32 cm below ground surface. Subsoil for these
areas typically consisted of a strong brown (7.5YR5/6) clay loam. This soil profile is interpreted as
containing an A/Ap-horizon overlaying an E-horizon, overlaying subsoil, which is considered to be a Bt-
horizon.
During the course of the field survey, four precontact isolated finds and three precontact archaeological
sites were identified within the project area (Figure 16 and Appendix E and F). The first isolated find
consists of a gray chert tertiary flake found within Stratum I, the Ap-horizon, in a shovel test located in
the central portion of the project area within a low probability area within an active agricultural field.
Investigators excavated eight radials in a cruciform pattern around the initial find location. No additional
cultural material was recovered. The second isolated find consists of a gray chert flake fragment identified
in Stratum II, the E-horizon, in a shovel test located in the western portion of the project area. The isolate
was recovered from a high probability area. Radial shovel testing (n=8) did not result in the recovery of
additional cultural material. The third isolate consists of a gray chert tertiary flake. The isolated artifact
was recovered from the Ap-horizon in a shovel test in a harvested agricultural field in the northeastern
portion of the project area. The tertiary flake was recovered from a high probability area. Investigators
conducted radial shovel testing, per DHR guidelines. No additional cultural material was recovered. The
fourth isolated find consisted of a quartz flake fragment. The artifact was identified in a shovel test in a
high probability area in the northern portion of the project area. Radial shovel testing around the shovel
test containing the isolated find did not identify any additional artifacts.
Besides the four isolated finds, SWCA identified three precontact archaeological sites within the APE
(Appendix E). The following section will detail the three sites and provide management recommendations
for each of the sites. All artifacts recovered from the APE will be returned to the landowners, per their
request. Documents associated with the project will be maintained at SWCA’s Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
office.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
36
Figure 16. Archaeological resources within the project area.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
37
44FK1053 (Bartonsville 3)
Landform: Upland Estimated site size: 41 × 20 m (0.06 ha)
Soil: Oaklet silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Extends beyond survey area? No
Site type: Precontact Prehistoric artifacts: 4
Temporal affiliation: Precontact–Undefined Historic artifacts: 0
NRHP eligibility recommendation: Not Eligible Total artifacts: 4
NRHP justification: Low density of artifacts and lack of internal patterning and diagnostic artifacts
Management recommendations: No further work
Description
44FK1053 is a 0.15-acre (0.06-ha) low-density precontact lithic scatter located in a low probability area
in the southern portion of the project area (see Figure 16). The site was identified within an agricultural
field approximately 0.91 km (0.57 mile) east of an unnamed tributary of Meadowbrook and
approximately 175 m (574 feet) south of Strode McLeod Lane (Figure 17). The site was identified in four
STPs (Appendix E), and the site boundary was further defined through radial shovel testing (n=23). The
soil profile identified at the site was consistent with the primary soil profile identified throughout the
project area: one stratum over subsoil. The artifacts from the site were recovered from Stratum I, the Ap-
horizon.
Figure 17. Overview of 44FK1053, facing south.
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of two metavolcanic tertiary flakes, one gray chert tertiary
flake, and one quartzite primary flake (Appendix G and H). Artifact density was uniform across the site,
with one artifact found per shovel test.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
38
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation
No further work is recommended at 44FK1053, due to the low density of material culture recovered from
the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
44FK1054 (Bartonsville 5)
Landform: Upland Estimated site size: 74 × 30 m (0.15 ha)
Soil: Oaklet silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Extends beyond survey area? No
Site type: Precontact Prehistoric artifacts: 5
Temporal affiliation: Precontact–Undefined Historic artifacts: 0
NRHP eligibility recommendation: Not Eligible Total artifacts: 5
NRHP justification: Low density of artifacts and lack of internal patterning and diagnostic artifacts
Management recommendations: No further work
Description
44FK1054 is a 0.38-acre (0.15-ha) low-density precontact lithic scatter located in a high probability area,
approximately 280 m (919 feet) northwest of a spring that forms a headwater to Stephens Run and
approximately 321 m (1,053 feet) southeast of the intersection of Marlboro Road and Strode McLeod
Lane (see Figure 16). The site is located in an agricultural field near the northern extent of the APE in a
high probability area (Figure 18). Investigators identified the site by the presence of artifacts in four STPs,
and the boundary of the site was further defined through the excavation of 20 radial shovel testing (see
Appendix D). The STPs excavated at the site had a similar soil profile that matched both the NRCS soil
unit for the area and the primary soil profile observed elsewhere in the APE: one stratum over subsoil.
The artifacts from the site were recovered from Stratum I, the Ap-horizon.
Figure 18. Overview of 44FK1054, facing north.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
39
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of four gray chert tertiary flakes and one gray chert flake
fragment (see Appendix G and H). Artifact density was relatively even across the site, with 3 STPs
continuing 1 artifact each, and the remaining STP (STP A912) containing 2 artifacts.
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation
No further work is recommended at 44FK1054, due to the low density of material culture recovered from
the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
44FK1055 (Bartonsville 6)
Landform: Upland Estimated site size: 25 × 21 m (0.04 ha)
Soil: Carbo-Oaklet, very rocky silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes Extends beyond survey area? No
Site type: Precontact Prehistoric artifacts: 3
Temporal affiliation: Precontact–Undefined Historic artifacts: 0
NRHP eligibility recommendation: Not Eligible Total artifacts: 3
NRHP justification: Low density of artifacts and lack of internal patterning and diagnostic artifacts
Management recommendations: No further work
Description
44FK1055 is a 0.1-acre (0.04-ha) low-density precontact lithic scatter located in a high probability area,
approximately 270 m (886 feet) northwest of a spring that forms an unnamed tributary of Stephens Run
and approximately 360 m (1,181 feet) southeast of the intersection of Marlboro Road and Strode McLeod
Lane (see Figure 16). The site is located in an agricultural field approximately 50 m (164 feet) east of site
46FK1054 in a high probability area near the northern extent of the APE (Figure 19). Investigators
identified the site by the presence of artifacts in three STPs, the boundary of the site was further defined
through the excavation of 15 radial shovel tests (see Appendix E). The soil profile identified through STP
excavation matched both the NRCS soil unit for the area and the primary soil profile observed elsewhere
in the APE: one stratum over subsoil. The artifacts from the site were recovered from Stratum I, the Ap-
horizon.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
40
Figure 19. Overview of 44FK1055, facing northeast.
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of two gray chert tertiary flakes and one ground stone tool
(see Appendix G and H). Artifact density was even across the site with each of the artifacts found in a
separate STP.
National Register of Historic Places Recommendation
No further work is recommended at 44FK1055, due to the low density of material culture recovered from
the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
Discussion
Archaeological survey of the APE identified three low-density precontact lithic scatters and four
precontact isolates. In review of the probability assessment prepared for the project, two of the sites
(44FK1054 and 44FK1055) and three of the precontact isolates were found in high probability areas,
while the remaining site and isolate were identified in low probability areas. Further analysis shows a
clustering of two of the sites in the northern portion of the APE, in proximity to the unnamed tributary of
Stephens Creek, but not directly adjacent to it. It is unclear why precontact groups would not focus
directly on the springhead, but the landscape in this portion of the project may have been altered during
the historic or modern period to channelize the spring, and the overall low density of artifacts recovered
from both sites shows limited function beyond basic lithic reduction. As such, further conclusions
regarding precontact landscape utilization are limited.
In comparing the results to the 2020 surveys of the Bartonsville Solar Project (Dutton et al. 2021) and the
Foxglove Solar Project (Smith et al. 2020), it is possible to better understand how the results of the
current survey fit in with survey in the region. All three projects consist of large Phase I surveys that
investigated areas determined by modern parcel boundaries as opposed to topographic or hydrological
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
41
boundaries. The surveys utilized a similar methodology, including a pre-field probability assessment. One
major difference is that the surveys for the Bartonsville Solar Project and the Foxglove Solar Project
tested the low probability area based on the wide distribution of shovel tests across the project area,
seemingly based on the different landforms present, while SWCA conducted random sampling of the low
probability areas. Additionally, both the Bartonsville Solar Project and the Foxglove Solar Project utilized
pedestrian survey to examine the project area. Due to poor ground visibility, systematic pedestrians
survey was not possible during the survey of the project area. The survey of the Foxglove Solar Project
and the Bartonsville Solar Project recorded historic period sites, including 44FK1010, a potentially
eligible early to mid-nineteenth century domestic site associated with a standing architectural resource,
the Miller House (DHR# 034-0524). Neither project identified any precontact resources, which is
surprising as Marsh Run forms the western boundary of the Foxglove Solar Project and large portions of
the Bartonsville Solar Project drain directly in to Opequon Creek, both relatively large drainages for the
immediate area. The current survey’s documentation of two precontact sites in proximity to a springhead
that drains into Stephens Creek matches what is known about precontact site placement in the larger
region but contradicts the results of the other two surveys, which investigated similar locales but did not
identify any precontact resources. This could relate to the role of Stephens Creek in the larger landscape,
differential preservation across the area, and a variety of other factors. The low density of precontact
material culture recovered from the precontact sites identified in the APE limits the conclusions and
comparisons that can be drawn.
Regarding the lack of historic period sites within the project area. SWCA did investigate the area
surrounding the still existent building in the southeastern portion of the project area (DHR# 034-5400).
Investigators did not identify any historic period material culture, but modern refuse was noted in
proximity to the building. The site may have been altered when the area was converted from domestic
space to active agricultural fields, thus limiting the potential for archaeological deposits to be present.
As the results of the current survey are limited, placing them in the larger context of the archaeology of
the Ridge and Valley region is problematic. As none of the resources identified within the project area
contained diagnostic material culture, it is not possible to place the resources in a settlement system
related to a specific sub-period. In general, the overview for precontact settlement systems in the Ridge
and Valley region and Shenandoah Valley specifically applies to the current project. In looking at the
correlation between the landscape and precontact occupation, Christopher Egghart draws two conclusions
for the region. First, precontact settlement is heavily focused on stream and river settings, and second,
“Surface water can be at a premium and active spring locations appear to have been a settlement draw”
(Egghart 2020:16). These conclusions from the larger region are applicable to the current project area,
with the overall low density of precontact resources present, and where present, located in close proximity
to the water resources. Overall, the general pattern of site location observed in the project area appears to
be one that is present throughout the region.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report details the background research and methodology of the Phase I archaeological survey
conducted in support of the proposed Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility, a 467-acre (189-ha) solar
facility in Frederick County, Virginia. The entire APE was visually inspected, and 79 acres (32 ha) were
systematically surveyed. During the archaeological survey, SWCA identified 44FK1053, 44FK1054, and
44FK1053, as well as four precontact isolated finds. The isolated finds identified within the APE
consisted of non-diagnostic precontact lithic debitage. Site 44FK1053, which is located in the low
probability area in the southern portion of the APE, consists of precontact non-diagnostic lithic debitage
(n=4). There is no discernable patterning in the distribution of artifacts at the site, and due to the low
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
42
density of material culture recovered, the site is unlikely to provide any additional information regarding
the precontact past. SWCA recommends that 44FK1053 is not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Site 44FK1054 is located adjacent to a spring which forms part of the headwaters of Stephens Run. The
site consists of non-diagnostic lithic debitage (n= 5). While the overall location of the site in the
landscape provides evidence of larger precontact settlement patterns in the northern Shenandoah Valley,
further work at the site is unlikely to result in significant information regarding the precontact past.
SWCA recommends that 44FK1054 is not eligible for listing on the NRHP.
Site 44FK1055, located to the east of 44FK1054, contains a similar distribution of artifacts as 44FK1054
as well as a ground stone tool. The tool does not contain any temporally diagnostic markers. Due to the
low density of material culture recovered 44FK1055, it is not possible to infer site function or assign the
site to a specific temporal period in the precontact past. Further work at 44FK1055 is unlikely to provide
significant information regarding the precontact past. SWCA recommends that 44FK1055 is not eligible
for listing on the NRHP.
In summary, no further work is recommended at the three archaeological sites identified within the
project area. SWCA recommends no further archaeological work for the project.
An addendum report is being prepared outlining the historic architecture survey as well as the mitigation
measures being undertaken on the previously documented NRHP eligible historic property, Cherry Dale
(034-1078).
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
43
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:
https://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/nhleam/index.htm. Accessed December 20, 2021.
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.
Andrefsky, William, Jr.
1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York,
New York.
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 I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
44
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.
D. J. Lake & Co.
1885 An Atlas Frederick County, Virginia. D.J. Lake & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Digital
image on file at Historic Map Works.
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atlas/US/27841/Frederick+County+1885+Copy+1/.
Accessed January 5, 2022.
Dillehay, Thomas D.
2000 The Settlement of the Americas. Basic Books, New York.
Dutton, David, Lauren Gryctko, and Robert Taylor
2021 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the +/- 381.38 Hectare (+/-942.4 acre) Bartonsville
Solar Project Area. Manuscript on file at the Department of Historic Resources, Richmond,
Virginia.
Egghart, Christopher
2020 Physiographic and Environmental Overview of the Commonwealth. In The Archaeology of
Virginia’s First Peoples, edited by Elizabeth A. Moore and Bernard K. Means, pp 3-16.
Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.
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 21, 2021.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleoindian to Early Archaic. In The
Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-1973 Seasons, edited by W. M.
Gardner, pp. 5–47. Catholic University of America, Department of Anthropology,
Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper 1. Washington, D.C.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
45
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 Culture 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, p. 5–52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
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.
Gryctko, Lauren
2021 Proposed Scope of Work and Plan for Phase I Identification Survey of the ±258.8 Hectare
(±639.6 Acre) Bartonsville Solar Expansion in Frederick County, Virginia. Manuscript on
file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
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.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
46
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 H. Kennedy, ed. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York.
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, Archaeological Society of
Virginia, Charles City, Virginia.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
47
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.
Newtown Historical Society
2022 Civil War, 1861-1865. Available at: https://newtownhistorycenter.org/town-history/civil-war-
1861-1865/. Accessed January 4, 2021.
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 21, 2021.
2021 Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Accessed December 21, 2021.
Smith, Hope, Lauren Gryctko, and Robert J. Taylor
2020 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the +/- 255 Hectare (+/-630 acre) Foxglove Solar
Project Area. Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
Richmond.
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.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
48
Varle, Charles, and Benjamin Jones
1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Map retrieved from the Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2008621756/. Accessed January 5, 2022.
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 23, 2021.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR)
2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. DHR, Richmond.
2021a Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS). Electronic GIS maintained by the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. Accessed December 21,
2021.
2021b Stephens Family. Available at: https://vcris.dhr.virginia.gov/HistoricMarkers/. Accessed
December 22, 2021.
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 I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility DHR No. 2020-0368
49
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A
Project Conceptual Design
TRANSMISSION
LINE
RAILROAD
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
MAIN SITE
ENTRANCE POI ACCESS
ROAD
POI
ARRAY ACCESS
ROAD
SOLAR ARRAY
ARRAY FENCE
ARRAY ACCESS
ROAD
ARRAY FENCE
TBD
TBD
ISSUED FOR CLIENT USE A
Bartonsville
1/11/21
JJ
1/11/2021
#DESCRIPTIONDATE
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NUMBER:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVISIONS
12345678910
12345678910
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
CLIENT:
ENERGY
SERVICES
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT NAME:
12800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 250
Minnetonka, MN 55343
www.myrgroup.com
001
TBD
TBD
Bartonsville
Energy Facility II,
LLC
OVERALL
SITE PLAN
JJ
APPENDIX B
Resumes of Key Project Staff
Resume
Page | 1
JONATHAN LIBBON, M.A., RPA, ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Jonathan is an archaeologist with over 14 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 Section 106 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, generation, 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)
Sidney Green Plains Project – Phase II Evaluation, New York. As part of flood control
measures, SWCA conducted Phase II excavations on a deeply buried prehistoric site.
Fieldwork consisted of geophysical survey, geomorphological assessment, and test unit
excavation. Role: co-Principal Investigator. Project Responsibilities included logistics planning,
methodology coordination, establishment of Phase II workplan, and general consultation.
Solar Development Project, Halifax County, Virginia. Critical issues analysis for a large
solar development in southern Virginia. Role: Principal Investigator. Duties consisted of
research through the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Cultural Resource GIS,
establishing an archaeological probability model for the project, and providing guidance on the
cultural resources regulatory framework the project would need to comply with.
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.
Confidential Solar Development, Edgecombe County, North Carolina. In response to
proposed development of a 750-acre parcel, conducted a Phase I Survey, which recorded
30 archaeological sites, and Phase II testing at 6 of the 30 newly recorded sites.
Role: Principal Investigator and Project Manager. Duties include extensive coordination with
the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, creating and implementing the research
design for the Phase II evaluations, oversaw field surveys, and worked with agencies and
stakeholders to meet an aggressive project schedule.
Blue Line Metro Flood Plain Mitigation Site – Phase II Evaluation; Minnesota. In
response to the construction of a light rail system in Minneapolis, Minnesota, SWCA designed
a Phase II evaluation of an urban industrial train yard, utilized in the early twentieth century.
The site was heavily contaminated and required extensive safety coordination. Role: Principal
Investigator. Project responsibilities include project management, design of the Phase II
approach, background research, technical guidance, reporting, and consultation.
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
14
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
REGISTRATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS
Registered Professional Archaeologist
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, Register of Professional
Archaeologists; 2011-present
Resume
Page | 2
Sandy Run Road Placement, West Virginia. Project consisted of a road upgrade that would result in the demolition of a historic hotel in the
town of Shirley, West Virginia. Role: Project Manager. Project responsibilities included coordination with project team, development of approach
for the recordation of the proposed building that would be demolished, consultation with the West Virginia SHPO, and technical review.
Northampton Business Center Phase I; Pennsylvania. SWCA conducted an archaeological Phase I survey for a proposed industrial
complex in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The project identified several Transitional Period archaeological sites, that required a nuanced
approach to recordation and reporting. Role: Principal Investigator. Project responsibilities include consultation with the Pennsylvania SHPO,
field crew coordination, development of technical approach, artifact analysis, and reporting.
Enable Gas Gathering Oklahoma Expansion Projects, Kingfisher, Canadian, Grady, Garvin, Carter, and Stephens Counties,
Oklahoma. Large (115 mile) multi-project expansion of Enable Gas’ existing infrastructure in central and southern Oklahoma. Role: Principal
Investigator. Oversaw the development of the methodology, OAS consultation, day to day management of archaeological portion of the project,
report production, and technical guidance for the client.
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.
∗Line 5B Looping Project; Greene, Wayne, and Johnston Counties, North Carolina. An approximately 29-mile-long natural gas pipeline
project around the city of Goldsboro, North Carolina. Role: Principal Investigator. Accountable for directing and managing field studies; worked
with client to successfully identify and test reroutes, consulted with North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office / Office of State
Archaeology, established and implemented a testing strategy for two Phase II Evaluations, determined National Register eligibility for both sites,
oversaw data analysis, and authored reports.
∗US 158 Widening; Northampton County, North Carolina; North Carolina DOT. A 32.5 miles of newly proposed road, and 15 miles of
widening existing facilities. Role: Project Archaeologist. Lead field crews during Phase I survey and Phase II evaluations, recorded, mapped
and excavated complex civil war earthworks and associated battlefield. Conducted background research and prepared report.
∗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.
*Rives Road/US-301 Widening, Petersburg, Virginia, Survey and consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for the
expansion of Rives Road between US-95 and US-301. Project’s location on the Petersburg battlefield required consultation with the National
Park Service, as well as local stake holders. Responsibilities included leading fieldwork, background research, and report preparation.
∗I-84 Newtown Resurfacing and Safety Improvements; Newtown, Connecticut; Connecticut Department of Transportation. Upgrade of
four miles of highway in Newtown, Connecticut. Role: Principle 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. Served as Principle Investigator for the proposed construction of a natural gas storage
facility in Schuyler County, New York. Responsibilities included background research, leading field crews, lead author on the report, and
agency/New York SHPO consultation.
∗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.
Resume
Page | 3
∗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
∗Utopia Pipeline Project; Various Counties, Ohio. Approximately 225-miles ethane and ethane-propane pipeline project through northern
Ohio. Role: Senior Archaeologist. Responsibilities include oversight of cultural resource studies, staffing coordination, environmental permitting,
planning and implementation of archaeological testing strategy, and report preparation.
∗Western Kentucky Lateral Project; Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. An approximately 22-mile-long FERC 7(c) natural gas pipeline project
near Greensboro, Kentucky. Role: Principle 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.
∗H-312 Pipeline Project; Harrison County, West Virginia. An approximately 9-mile natural gas pipeline in central West Virginia.
Role: Principle 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.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
2018: From the Hills of Appalachia to the Shores of Lake Erie: Landscape Archaeology in Northern Ohio. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Washington D.C.
2016: “A Pillar of Cloud by Day and of Fire by Night: A Landscape Study of the Harrisburg Nail Works. In Pennsylvania Archaeologist 85(2):
2-17.
2015: The Smoke of Industry Hovering as a Blessing over the Village: Landscape Archaeology at the Harrisburg Nail Works. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology in Bethlehem, PA.
2015: The Smoke of Industry Hovering as a Blessing Over the Village: The Study of a Landscape of Control in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology in Seattle, WA.
2014: Work by the Creek: Archaeology at the Harrisburg Nail Works. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology in Greensburg, PA.
2014: Crossing the Neuse: Navigating a Complex Section 106 Process under Tight Time Restrictions. Presentation madeat the Southern
Gas Association’s Technical Conference on Environmental Permitting & Construction.
2013: Rediscovering the Neuse: The Results of a Large Phase I Survey Across the Neuse River Basin, Near Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) in Tampa, FL.
2012: Consumption in the Lab: A Study of the Effect of Economic Stress on Individuals during the Great Depression. Paper Presented
during the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology in Baltimore MD.
2012: “We Had Everything but Money: A Study of Buying Strategies at a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp in the Allegheny National
Forest”. In Pennsylvania Archaeologist 82(2):54-63.
2011: Work and Identity: Archaeological Investigations at a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp in the Allegheny National Forest. Paper
Presented at the Annual Society for Historical Archaeology meeting in Austin, TX, January
2010: Life in the Woods: A Study of Material Culture and the Documentary Record from a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp in the
Allegheny National Forest. Paper presented at the Eastern States Archaeology Federation Annual meeting in Williamsburg, VA,
October.
APPENDIX C
Shovel Test Location Map
Virginia
0 125 250
Meters
0 500 1,000
Feet
1:12,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed December 2021
Updated: 12/29/2021
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP_Index
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0813°N 78.2424°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Shovel Test Pit
Location Map
Index
Map Sheet 8
Map Sheet 1
Map Sheet 5
Map Sheet 6 Map Sheet 7
Map Sheet 2
Map Sheet 3
Map Sheet 4
Map Sheet
Project Area
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0841°N 78.2523°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Isolated Find
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Sample of Medium
probability Area
High Probability
Area
Project Area
Page 1 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0794°N 78.2486°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Negative STP
Sample of Low
Probability Area
Disturbed
Steep Slope -
Greater than 15%
Project Area
Page 2 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0754°N 78.2437°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
44FK1053
Negative STP
Positive STP
Site
Sample of Low
Probability Area
High Probability
Area
Project Area
Page 3 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0787°N 78.2387°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Negative STP
Sample of Medium
probability Area
High Probability
Area
Project Area
Page 4 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0828°N 78.2423°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Negative STP
Sample of Low
Probability Area
Sample of Medium
probability Area
High Probability
Area
Steep Slope -
Greater than 15%
Project Area
Page 5 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0847°N 78.2368°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Isolated Find
Isolated Find
Isolated Find
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Sample of Low
Probability Area
High Probability
Area
Disturbed
Project Area
Page 6 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0847°N 78.232°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Negative STP
Sample of Medium
probability Area
Project Area
Page 7 of 8
0 30 60
Meters
0 120 240
Feet
1:3,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: STP
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0886°N 78.2371°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
STP Location
Map
Isolated Find
Isolated Find
44FK105544FK1054
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Site
High Probability
Area
Project Area
Page 8 of 8
APPENDIX D
Soil Profiles
0 cm
0 cm
30 cm
45 cm
Brown
(10YR5/3)
Silt Loam
Yellowish Brown
(10YR5/6)
Silty Clay Loam
Shovel Test A895
Shovel Test A429
*Not to Scale
*Not to Scale
Dark Grayish Brown
(10YR4/2)
Silt Loam
Yellowish Brown
(10YR5/4)
Clay Loam
25 cm
38 cm
0 cm
0 cm
23 cm
32 cm
Dark Grayish Brown
(10YR4/2)
Silt Loam
Light Gray
(10YR7/2)
Silty Loam
Shovel Test A81
Shovel Test A486
*Not to Scale
*Not to Scale
Dark Grayish Brown
(10YR4/2)
Silt Loam
Light Yellowish Brown
(10YR6/4)
Silt Loam
13 cm
30 cm
48 cm
Strong Brown
(7.5YR5/6)
Clay Loam
Light Brown
(7.5YR5/6)
Clay Loam
40 cm
APPENDIX E
Site Maps
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Sites
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0889°N 78.2379°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Archaeological
Site 44FK1054
44FK1055
44FK1054
Negative STP
Positive STP
Site
Project Area
High Probability Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Sites
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0892°N 78.2372°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Archaeological
Site 44FK1055
44FK1055
44FK1054
Negative STP
Positive STP
Site
Project Area
High Probability Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Isolated Finds
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.084°N 78.2367°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Isolated Find 1
Isolated
Find 1
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Project Area
Sample of Low Probability Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Isolated Finds
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0856°N 78.2511°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Isolated Find 2
Isolated
Find 2
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Project Area
High Probability Area
Sample of Medium probability
Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Isolated Finds
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.087°N 78.2375°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Isolated Find 3
Isolated
Find 3
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Project Area
High Probability Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
0 10 20
Meters
0 40 80
Feet
1:1,000
±
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online,
accessed January 2022
Updated: 1/5/2022
Project No. 70225
Layout: Isolated Finds
Aprx: 70225_BartonsvilleSolar_CR
Frederick County, VA
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle:
Middletown, VA, 39078-A3
Stephens City, VA, 39078-A2
NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
39.0857°N 78.2377°W
BARTONSVILLE SOLAR
EXPANSION FACILITY
Isolated Find 4
Isolated
Find 4
Negative STP
Positive STP
Isolated Find
Project Area
High Probability Area
Marlboro Rd
CSK Railroad
APPENDIX F
VCRIS Site Forms
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1053
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 2
Snapshot Date Generated: January 05, 2022
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:10-15%
Acreage:0.150
Landform:Sideslope
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Detail:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1053
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 2
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
The project consists of Phase I archaeological survey of a proposed solar facility located in Frederick County, west of Stephens City. The survey was
conducted based on a probability assessment established for the project with input from DEQ and DHR.
Project Review File Number:2020-0368
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:SWCA Environmental Consultants
Investigator:Jonathan Libbon
Survey Date:11/29/2021
Survey Description:
The survey consisted of a visual inspection of the full area of potential effects, and shovel testing of the entire high probability area, a 25 percent
sample of the moderate probability area, a ten percent sample of the low probability area (including the "No Subsurface Testing Area" per Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Historic Resources' request).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 12/3/2021 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:No Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of two metavolcanic tertiary flakes, one gray chert tertiary flake, and one quartzite primary flake.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:SWCA Pittsburgh Archaeology Lab
Permanent Curation Repository:Landowner requested artifacts to be returned
Field Notes:No
Field Notes Repository:No Data
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
2021 Libbon, Jonathan and Benjamin Demchak Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility, Frederick County
Virginia.
Survey Report Repository:VDHR
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No further work is recommended due to the low density of material culture recovered from
the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1054
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 2
Snapshot Date Generated: January 05, 2022
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:2-6%
Acreage:0.380
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Detail:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1054
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 2
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
The project consists of Phase I archaeological survey of a proposed solar facility located in Frederick County, west of Stephens City. The survey was
conducted based on a probability assessment established for the project with input from DEQ and DHR.
Project Review File Number:2020-0368
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:SWCA Environmental Consultants
Investigator:Jonathan Libbon
Survey Date:11/29/2021
Survey Description:
The survey consisted of a visual inspection of the full area of potential effects, and shovel testing of the entire high probability area, a 25 percent
sample of the moderate probability area, a ten percent sample of the low probability area (including the "No Subsurface Testing Area" per Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Historic Resources' request).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 12/6/2021 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:No Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of four gray chert tertiary flakes and one gray chert flake fragment.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:SWCA Pittsburgh Archaeology Lab
Permanent Curation Repository:Landowner requested artifacts to be returned
Field Notes:No
Field Notes Repository:No Data
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
2021 Libbon, Jonathan and Benjamin Demchak Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility, Frederick County
Virginia.
Survey Report Repository:VDHR
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No further work is recommended due to the low density of material culture recovered from
the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1055
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 1 of 2
Snapshot Date Generated: January 05, 2022
Site Name:No Data
Site Classification:Terrestrial, open air
Year(s):No Data
Site Type(s):Artifact scatter
Other DHR ID:No Data
Temporary Designation:No Data
Site Evaluation Status
Locational Information
USGS Quad:STEPHENS CITY
County/Independent City:Frederick (County)
Physiographic Province:Valley and Ridge
Elevation:No Data
Aspect:No Data
Drainage:Potomac
Slope:0-2%
Acreage:0.100
Landform:Other
Ownership Status:Private
Government Entity Name:No Data
Site Components
Component 1
Category:Indeterminate
Site Type:Artifact scatter
Cultural Affiliation:Native American
Cultural Affiliation Detail:No Data
DHR Time Period:Pre-Contact
Start Year:No Data
End Year:No Data
Comments:No Data
Bibliographic Information
Bibliography:
No Data
Informant Data:
No Data
Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 44FK1055
Archaeological Site Record
Archaeological site data is protected under the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA 1979).Page: 2 of 2
CRM Events
Event Type: Survey:Phase I
Project Staff/Notes:
The project consists of Phase I archaeological survey of a proposed solar facility located in Frederick County, west of Stephens City. The survey was
conducted based on a probability assessment established for the project with input from DEQ and DHR.
Project Review File Number:2020-0368
Sponsoring Organization:No Data
Organization/Company:SWCA Environmental Consultants
Investigator:Jonathan Libbon
Survey Date:11/29/2021
Survey Description:
The survey consisted of a visual inspection of the full area of potential effects, and shovel testing of the entire high probability area, a 25 percent
sample of the moderate probability area, a ten percent sample of the low probability area (including the "No Subsurface Testing Area" per Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Historic Resources' request).
Current Land Use Date of Use Comments
Agricultural field 12/6/2021 No Data
Threats to Resource:Development
Site Conditions:No Surface Deposits but With Subsurface Integrity
Survey Strategies:Subsurface Testing
Specimens Collected:Yes
Specimens Observed, Not Collected:No
Artifacts Summary and Diagnostics:
The artifact assemblage from the site consists of two gray chert tertiary flakes and one ground stone tool.
Summary of Specimens Observed, Not Collected:
No Data
Current Curation Repository:SWCA Pittsburgh Archaeology Lab
Permanent Curation Repository:Landowner Requested artifacts to be returned
Field Notes:No
Field Notes Repository:No Data
Photographic Media:Digital
Survey Reports:Yes
Survey Report Information:
2021 Libbon, Jonathan and Benjamin Demchak Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Bartonsville Expansion Energy Facility, Frederick County
Virginia.
Survey Report Repository:VDHR
DHR Library Reference Number:No Data
Significance Statement:No further work is recommended at due to the low density of material culture recovered
from the site and the lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts and spatial patterning present.
Surveyor's Eligibility Recommendations:Recommended Not Eligible
Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations:No Data
Surveyor's NR Criteria Considerations:No Data
Appendix G
Artifact Catalogs
Isolates
Isolate Name FS SPC Shovel Test #Strat Depth (cmbgs)QTY Artifact Category Artifact Type Artifact Sub-Type Raw Material/Temper
Bartonsville 1 1 1 A222 I 0-22 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
Bartonsville 2 1 1 A486 II/E 13-30 1 Lithic Debitage Flake Fragment Gray Chert
Bartonsville 4 1 1 A876 I 0-20 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
Bartonsville 8 1 1 A953 I 0-28 1 Lithic Debitage Flake Fragment Quartz
44FK1053 - Bartonsville 3
FS SPC Shovel Test #Strat Depth (cmbgs)QTY Artifact Category Artifact Type Artifact Sub-Type Raw Material/Temper
1 1 A568 I 0-20 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Metavolcanic
2 1 A567 I 0-25 1 Lithic Debitage Primary Flake Quartzite
3 1 A568 5W I 0-27 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Metavolcanic
4 1 A568 5W 10N I 0-33 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
44FK1054 - Bartonsville 5
FS SPC Shovel Test #Strat Depth (cmbgs)QTY Artifact Category Artifact Type Artifact Sub-Type Raw Material/Temper
1 1 A895 I 0-30 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
2 1 A899 I 0-30 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
3 1 A903 I 0-23 1 Lithic Debitage Flake Fragment Gray Chert
4 1 A912 I 0-26 2 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
44FK1055 - Bartonsville 6
FS SPC Shovel Test #Strat Depth (cmbgs)QTY Artifact Category Artifact Type Artifact Sub-Type Raw Material/Temper
1 1 A939 I 0-25 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
2 1 A939 5S I 0-22 1 Lithic Debitage Tertiary Flake Gray Chert
3 1 A939 10E I 0-25 1 Ground Stone Tool Sandstone
Appendix H
Artifact Photographs
Photograph 1. Artifacts from 44FK1053, from left to right, metavolcanic tertiary flake,
quartzite primary flake, metavolcanic tertiary flake, and gray chert tertiary flake.
Photograph 2. Artifacts from 44FK1054, from left to right, gray chert tertiary flake, gray
chert tertiary flake, gray chert flake fragment, gray chert tertiary flake, and gray chert
tertiary flake.
Photograph 3. Artifacts from 44FK1055, from left to right, gray chert tertiary flake, gray
chert tertiary flake, and sandstone ground stone tool.
Photograph 4. Artifact from isolated find (Bartonsville 1), gray chert tertiary flake.
Photograph 5. Artifact from isolated find (Bartonsville 2), gray chert flake fragment.
Photograph 6. Artifact from isolated find (Bartonsville 4), gray chert tertiary flake.
Photograph 7. Artifact from isolated find (Bartonsville 8), quartz flake fragment.