Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

8/10/2019 Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

1/94

APPENDIXE

Standing

Structures

Report


2/94

F I N A L R E P O R T

NATIONAL HISTORICPRESERVATION ACT SECTION106 CONSULTATION FOR MARCNORTHEAST MAINTENANCEFACILITY, PERRYVILLE, CECIL

COUNTY, MARYLAND

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENTREPORT: ABOVE-GROUND HISTORICPROPERTIES

Prepared forMaryland Transit Administration6 St. Paul StreetBaltimore, Maryland, 21202-1614

July 2014

URS Corporation12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150Germantown, MD 20876Project Number 20836023


3/94

Table of Contents

17-JUL-14\\i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. vi

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................. 1-11.1.1 Description of the Undertaking.................................................... 1-11.1.2 Purpose of the Report................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 1-3

SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-12.1 Background Research .............................................................................. 2-12.2 Fieldwork ................................................................................................. 2-32.3 Evaluation of NRHP Eligibility............................................................... 2-4

SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 3-13.1 Exploration and Colonization .................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Farming and Industry............................................................................... 3-43.3 Revolutionary War and Religion ............................................................. 3-73.4 War of 1812 ............................................................................................. 3-93.5 Agrarian Reform...................................................................................... 3-93.6 Industrial Prosperity and Transportation Expansion.............................. 3-123.7 Post-Civil War Cecil County ................................................................. 3-133.8 Twentieth Century Cecil County ........................................................... 3-14

SECTION FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS......................................................................................................4-14.1 Delineation and Justification of Above-Ground Historic Properties

Area of Potential Effects.......................................................................... 4-14.2 National Register of Historic Places Properties in the

Above-Ground Historic Properties APE.................................................. 4-34.2.1 Properties Not Listed in the NRHP or Considered

Eligible for Listing....................................................................... 4-34.2.2 Properties Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible

for Listing................................................................................... 4-114.2.3 Summary of Properties in the Above-Ground Historic

Properties APE........................................................................... 4-12

SECTION FIVE: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS....................................................................................5-15.1 The Anchorage (CE-1230)....................................................................... 5-25.2 Crothers House (CE-1566) ...................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Lindenwood (CE-700) ............................................................................. 5-75.4 The Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145).................................. 5-105.5 Other Indirect Effects............................................................................. 5-235.6 Summary of Effects on Above-Ground Historic Properties .................. 5-24

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 6-1

SECTION SEVEN: BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................7-1


4/94

Table of Contents

17-JUL-14\\ii

Attachments

Attachment 1 Federal Transit Administration Section 106 Initiation Letter

Attachment 2 MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Open House, October 2013,

Presentation Materials

Attachment 3 Resumes of Key Personnel

Attachment 4 Woodland Farm, 1940 Appraisal

Attachment 5 Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Forms andMaryland Inventory of Historic Properties Forms

The Anchorage (CE-1230)

Baker House (CE-1561)

Baker-Howe House (CE-1569)

Bromwell House (CE-1564)

Crothers House (CE-1566)

Lindenwood (CE-700)

Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (CE-1562)

Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying ChesapeakeView Road (CE-1565)

Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (CE-1563)

Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (CE-1568)

Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (CE-1567)

Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145)

Figures

Figure 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project location........................................... 1-18

Figure 2: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project ................................................. 1-19

Figure 4: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment withSusquehanna Figure 1612 (north is right side of image) ........................................... 3-1

Figure 5: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670by Augustine Herman, Published by Augustine Herrman and ThomasWithinbrook, 1673 ..................................................................................................... 3-3

Figure 6: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673 .................................... 3-4

Figure 7: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay......................................... 3-7

Figure 8:Embankments: High and other land, to prevent them from being inundatedby land-floods, or tide(Farmers Register, 1838:429).......................................... 3-10

Figure 9: Woodlands Farm, haying ........................................................................................... 3-11


5/94

Table of Contents

17-JUL-14\\iii

Figure 10: Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington Railroad Systems andConnections, January 1, 1904 (northern half of map) ............................................. 3-15

Figure 11: Woodlands Farm Property of Coudon Estate, June 1940..................................... 3-16

Figure 12: Atlas Powder Company............................................................................................ 3-17Figure 13: Surveyed Properties in the Above-Ground APE........................................................ 4-2

Figure 14: Baker House, facing north.......................................................................................... 4-4

Figure 15: Baker-Howe House, facing north............................................................................... 4-5

Figure 16: Bromwell House, looking west .................................................................................. 4-6

Figure 17: PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85, looking southwest .................................................... 4-7

Figure 18: PW&B Railroad Bridge 58-34, looking southeast ..................................................... 4-8

Figure 19:PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View Road, looking

northwest.................................................................................................................... 4-9Figure 20: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, looking east................................... 4-10

Figure 21: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, looking south ................................ 4-11

Figure 22: Above-Ground historic properties APE showing NRHP listed or eligiblebuildings/structures and non-NRHP eligible buildings/structures........................... 4-13

Figure 23: The Anchorage, main house faade, facing northeast................................................ 5-3

Figure 24: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area................................. 5-4

Figure 25: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area, withcomputer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-4

Figure 26: Crothers House faade facing southeast..................................................................... 5-5

Figure 27: View from Crothers House facing southwest toward the project area....................... 5-6

Figure 28: View from Crothers House, facing southwest toward the project area withcomputer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-6

Figure 29: Lindenwood, facing northwest ................................................................................... 5-8

Figure 30: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward project area........................................ 5-9

Figure 31: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward the project area withcomputer simulated building silhouette ..................................................................... 5-9

Figure 32: Woodlands Farm North Complex ............................................................................ 5-12

Figure 33: Woodlands Farm South Complex ............................................................................ 5-12

Figure 34: Farm Fields 1 and 2 (North Complex) and Farm Fields 3 and 4 (SouthComplex) within the Woodlands Farm Historic District......................................... 5-13

Figure 35: Woodlands Main House faade and east elevation, facing northeast ...................... 5-15

Figure 36: Woodlands Main House west elevation, facing east................................................ 5-16


6/94

Table of Contents

17-JUL-14\\iv

Figure 37: Bank barn and loafing sheds, north complex south elevation, facingnortheast................................................................................................................... 5-16

Figure 38: Implement shed and granary, south complex south and east elevations,facing northwest....................................................................................................... 5-17

Figure 39: Springhouse, south complex north and west elevations, facing southeast............... 5-17

Figure 40: Locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion ofMARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the WoodlandsFarm Historic District .............................................................................................. 5-19

Figure 41: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion ofthe MARC improvements superimposed, on aerial map of the southcomplex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District boundary.................................. 5-20

Figure 42: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion ofthe MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the south

complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, showing buildings to bedemolished highlighted............................................................................................ 5-21

Figure 43: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District, next to Main House facingsoutheast toward the project area ............................................................................. 5-22

Figure 44: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District next to Main House facingsoutheast, toward project area with computer-simulated building silhouette.......... 5-22

Figure 45: Location of NRHP listed and eligible approximate property boundaries andfootprint of MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project elements (red)........... 5-26

Tables

Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix ......................................... 1-4

Table 2: Repositories and Research ............................................................................................. 2-2

Table 3: U.S. Non-population Census, Products of Agriculture: Selected Totals,Average, and Coudon Farms, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District, 1860............. 3-11

Table 4: NRHP Determinations for Historic Properties in the Above-Ground APE ................ 4-14

Table 5: NRHP Listed or Eligible Properties within the Above-Ground HistoricProperty APE Evaluations for Criteria of Adverse Effect ......................................... 5-2

Table 6: Contributing and non-contributing resources, north and south complex,

Woodlands Farm Historic District ........................................................................... 5-14

Table 7: Recommended Determination of Effects for the MARC NortheastMaintenance Facility on Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties....................... 5-24


7/94

Acronyms and Abbreviations

17-JUL-14\\v

APE Area of Potential Effects

APG Aberdeen Proving Grounds

BMP Best Management Practices

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CA Critical Area of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

DOE Determination of Eligibility

EA Environmental Assessment

EUL Enhanced Use Lease

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIDS Forest Interior Dwelling Species

FTA Federal Transit Administration

MARC Maryland Area Regional Commuter

MHT Maryland Historical Trust

MIHP Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

MOW Maintenance of Way

MTA Maryland Transit Administration

NEC Northeast Corridor

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NPL National Priorities ListNRA National Recovery Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

PW&B Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad

SEI Straughan Environmental, Inc.

URS URS Corporation

U.S.C. U.S. Code

VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs


8/94

Executive Summary

17-JUL-14\\vi

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a Maryland AreaRegional Commuter (MARC) maintenance facility in Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. The

proposed project will address MARC needs on the Penn Line, one of three MARC operatingcommuter lines, which stretches from Washington D.Cs Union Station to Perryville, MD.

The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that would efficiently serve operation,maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. A new facility wouldaccommodate current operational needs and projected ridership growth, and allow for futureexpansion. The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project would address four specificneeds:

Need for additional MARC Penn Line train storage

Need to consolidate maintenance and storage functions for the current MARC system

Need to support ridership growth expected by 2035 and system expansion north of theSusquehanna River

Because of shared infrastructure, need to support Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC)

growth plan and planned expansion of high speed rail

Site selection criteria for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility were developed to evaluatepotential sites. Eleven sites were evaluated based on each sites ability to provide optimalacreage, engineering feasibility, systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrakconnection requirements, and environmental considerations. MTAs preferred location,Perryville A, is located in Perryville, MD south of Principio Furnace Road between FirestoneRoad and Principio Station Road. The other sites were determined not to meet the projects

purpose and need and/or contain significant environmental, socioeconomic or construction andoperational constraints.

The project will use both state and federal funding. Because federal funding is involved, the

proposed project is subject to a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The

Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of

Federal undertakings through consultation among Federal agencies and other parties with an

interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of

project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected

by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse

effects on historic properties.

The above-ground historic properties within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site were identified

and evaluated for their potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

The below-ground historic properties were evaluated in a separate study.

A survey of the project area resulted in the identification of 12 properties that dated back to the

early 19th century, and these properties were evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The evaluation

indicated that eight were not considered eligible for NRHP listing. Three properties, The


9/94

Executive Summary

17-JUL-14\\vii

Anchorage, Crothers House, and Lindenwood, were considered NRHP eligible for their

association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history

(Criterion A) and/or for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction or for possessing high artistic values (Criterion C).

The last property, Woodlands Farm, was listed in the NRHP in 1979. The evaluation of

Woodlands Farm (outlined herein) has resulted in a recommendation that the property be

expanded into a larger NRHP Historic District.

The project was evaluated for its potential to adversely affect the NRHP-listed property and the

three NRHP-eligible properties, and it was determined that the project will have an indirect

adverse effect on The Anchorage, as well as significant direct adverse effects and indirect

effects on the Woodlands Farm Historic District. MTA consultation with the Maryland

Historical Trust, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation regarding the adverse effects on historic properties will be required.

The results of the Section 106 review will be used in the Environmental Assessment that is being

developed for the project.


10/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-1

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) Northeast Maintenance Facility in Perryville,Cecil County, Maryland (project), will provide the MARC Penn Line with a maintenance andstorage facility that will accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth, and

planned system expansion.

The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that will efficiently serve operation,maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. The new facility wouldaccommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth on the MARC Penn Line,and allow for expansion in the future.

1.1.1 Description of the Undertaking

Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within anapproximately 60-acre footprint and would include:

Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit andmulti-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pitwill be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather

Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables

At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance andinspection personnel

Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesellocomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the

proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes

Parking area Fueling and sanding pad

Commercial power substation

Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery padwith spill containment

Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as accessroadways within the facility

Stormwater management facility

Activities to be performed at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would requirea workforce of 90 during construction of the facility and approximately 30 employees during

operation of the facility for jobs including train crew members, inspectors, car cleaners,administrative staff, and shop and maintenance staff. During operation, the facility would operate24 hours per day with peak operations during nighttime hours. Activities would include:

Daily and periodic inspections and servicing of locomotives and coaches, includinginspection of wheels and brakes, cab signals and sanders of locomotives,dumping/servicing of on-vehicle toilet systems, and replenishing potable water supplies

Daily locomotive fueling and sanding and inspection of cab signals and brakes


11/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-2

Maintenance for coaches such as; interior coach cleaning, replenishing of consumablesand periodic emptying of on-board wastewater treatment systems

Daily inspections of brakes, wheels and truck frames on coaches

Longer period inspections will be done at 180- and 365-day intervals for coaches and

30-, 180- and 365-day intervals for locomotives. Mid-day Storage for trainsets receiving inspection and servicing

Overnight storage of trainsets

Daily assignments of train crews

Periodic deliveries of diesel fuel, sand, parts, supplies and consumables

1.1.2 Purpose of the Report

The proposed project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) because the project will use federal funds. ASection 106 initiation letter is provided in Attachment 1. The purpose of Section 106 is to

determine whether a proposed project will have any effect on historic properties. Theimplementing regulations for Section 106 are set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection ofHistoric Properties. As part of the planning process and environmental review for the proposedMARC Northeast Maintenance Facility, MTA contracted URS Corporation (URS) to provideSection 106 consultation services. MTA is a division of the Maryland Department ofTransportation.

The information obtained during the reviews that were conducted as part of the Section 106consultation process will also be used in the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA),under the authority of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in accordance with NEPA, theCouncil on Environmental Qualitys NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and theFTAs Environmental Impact and Related Procedures at 49 CFR Part 622.

The Section 106 consultation process was initiated in December 2013 with a letter from FTA tothe Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), which functions as Marylands State Historic PreservationOffice (Attachment 1). The letter provided an overview of the proposed undertaking, researchand site investigation methodology for above-ground historic and archaeological resources, and adraft schedule for Section 106 consultation.

This report presents the results of the identification and evaluation of above-ground historicproperties and the determination of effects of the proposed undertaking on these historicproperties. An undertaking is defined in36 CFR Part 800as a project, activity, or programfunded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, includingthose carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial

assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit license or approval. (36 CFR Part 800, Section16:15). A report with the results of the archaeological analysis has been submitted separately tothe MHT.


12/94


13/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-4

Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix

NewBengies

Site (Site 1)

Chesapeake(Site 2)

Prologis(south of

Trimble Rd)

Aber deenProvingGround

(Superfundsite)

ChelseaRoad Site

(Site 3)

PerrymanSite (Site 4)

Opus(south ofMaryland

Blvd inPerryman)

PerryvilleA

(Coudon)

Perryville B(Adjacentto Amtrak

M-O-W)

CarpentersPoint (Site 5)

Mason-Dixon Site

(Site 6)

Providesadditional MARCtrain storage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

AllowsConsolidation ofMaintenance &Storage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Supportsexpectedridership growth,NEC growth plan,& is located northof SusquehannaRiver

Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Impacts toprotected Zones

No No No No No No Yes No No No No

Impacts towetlands (acres)

4.4 4.6 21-Nov 3.3 1.1 3.7 No 1.2 No 0.2 15.9

Superfund Site No No No yes No No No No No No No

Site can bedouble ended

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Interferes withAmtrakoperations

Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Impacts toHydrology

(streams &wetlands)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes

Impacts toforests (acres)

43.9 52.7 8.2 25.1 25.8 5.9 3.4 4.4 2.3 52.7 32

Impacts toculturalresources

No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No

Significant soilcontaminationpresent

No Potentially Potentially Yes No No Potentially No Potentially No Potentially

Impacts to Rare,Threatened, orEndangeredSpecies - FIDSHabitat (acres)

51.3 47.3 No 13.4 19.2 1.2 No No No 53.4 59

Impacts toCritical Area(acres)

No 12.2 No No 52.7 No No No 1 No No

Impacts to 100year Floodplains(acres)

No 21.9 4.5 1.8 1.3 No No No No No No

Significant NoiseImpacts

No No Potentially No No No No No No No No


14/94


15/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-6

Although the Opus Site has the appropriate acreage required for the MARC Maintenance

Facility, the site location (south of the Susquehanna River) does not meet the projects stated

purpose and need, there are engineering issues adding significant cost to the project,

unacceptable safety and operational problems with Amtrak operations on the NEC, and the

project would result in severe environmental impacts and would be incompatible with Wellfield

Zoning restrictions (Table 1).

Aberdeen Proving Ground

The APG Edgewood Site is located on the south side of the NEC, north of Magnolia Road

(MD 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD 24). The site is approximately 6,800 feet long and

ranges from approximately 30 feet wide on the railroad tracks to approximately 800 feet wide

and has a total site of approximately 74.1 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by

MTAs facility would be approximately 59 acres. The proposed site is located entirely within

APG, which is federal land and currently under military use. The APG Site would require

construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in MAGNOLIA Interlocking. The APG

Site is located within the vicinity of military/industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous

materials subsurface contamination risk. The APG Site is listed on the National Priorities List

(NPL) Database as a Superfund cleanup location.

The site would require 60 acres from APG through an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL). This process

would require coordination with an approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,

construction time is unknown. As a tenant of a superfund site, the MTA may be subject to

liability concerns. An additional 15.1 acres of land would be acquired for utility relocations and

1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to develop

this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is $529 Million, not including right-of-waycosts.

Additional potential environmental impacts would include impacts to hazardous materials;

wetland areas; 100- and 500- year floodplains; 25.1 acres of forested area (requiring 25.4 acres

of reforestation); and 13.4 acres of Forest Interior Dwelling Species habitat (Table 1).

Although the APG Site has the appropriate acreage, there are engineering issues adding

significant cost to the project and it causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected

under Federal statutes, including Superfund hazardous materials concerns. In addition, the

location is not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically being located south of

the Susquehanna River.

Prologis

The Prologis Site is located on the north side of Amtraks NEC and approximately 1,800 feet

south of Trimble Road in the City of Edgewood, Maryland. The site is approximately 8,200 feet

long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad tracks to 1,300 feet wide

with a total site area of approximately 73 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by


16/94


17/94


18/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-9

costs. The addition of new, electrified track along the existing Northeast Corridor is estimated to

be approximately $25 Million to $33.33 Million per mile.

There is an existing highway bridge MD Route 43 (Whitemarsh Boulevard) that crosses over the

NEC tracks within Site 1. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the leadtracks and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Further, this site is constrained to

the north by a large building currently under construction. If Amtrak would allow the lead tracks

to be connected to Track 3, the layout would require modification in order to provide a direct

connection.

Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 44 acres

of forested area, 4 acres of wetlands, and 51 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts of this

magnitude would require the MTA to comply with the Maryland Forest Conservation Act.

Approval would be contingent upon providing adequate forest mitigation, which is likely 50 to

60 acres. Mitigation costs for large tracts of forest impacts often include the purchase of land for

mitigation and planting or payment into a forest conservation bank.

Construction of a maintenance facility at this site would result in approximately 0.4 acres of

residential property impacts. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army

Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment. Mitigation costs for these

impacts would likely cost approximately $100,000 per acre, for a total of approximately

$500,000 for this site, not including costs for design or property acquisition.

This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a

maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be

in the future, the southbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of

Track 4 and potential reconstruction of a highway bridge would result in engineering issues

adding significant cost to the project. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to

environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests and wetlands.

Construction of this site for the maintenance facility would also result in impacts to residential

properties.

Chesapeake (Site 2)

The Chesapeake Site (Site 2) is located south of the Susquehanna River, on the east side of the

NEC, just north of where it crosses the Gunpowder River and south of Hoadley Road in

Edgewood, Maryland. This site is part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground and is currently owned

by the US Government.

Access to this site is provided through the APG property. Negotiations regarding access rights

with APG could delay the project for an extended period of time. This site would not be

compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan and the stated purpose and need for the project, in

that the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak

Track 2 in a curve which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak


19/94


20/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-11

was previously considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was

eliminated.


maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 which is, and will bein the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the future

4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 1

where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track

1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC, causing safety concerns.

Construction of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly

as far as from existing BUSH Interlocking to the site of proposed BOOTH Interlocking, a

distance of approximately 4.4 miles. This would add approximately $110 Million to $147

Million project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Also, the north lead track would

require connection to Track 2 (or Track 1) in a curve, which would not be permitted due to the

superelevation of the tracks and the geometry of the turnout. The north lead track would have tobe extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach tangent track near Chelsea Road overhead

highway bridge.

Developing the Chelsea Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately

26 acres of forested area, 1 acre of wetlands, 19 acres of FIDS habitat, 1 acre within the 100-year

floodplain, and 53 acres within the CA. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require extensive

coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $400,000 for this site,

not including property acquisition.

Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and

Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetlandmitigation costs would be approximately $100,000 for this site, not including design or property

acquisition.

The addition of fill material in the 100-year floodplain would require a permit from the Maryland

Department of the Environment. Increases to elevations within the floodplain would require

extensive coordination with the FEMA and potentially the purchasing of floodplain easements.

Impacts within the CA of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination

with the Critical Area Commission, adherence to CA requirements, and may involve fee in lieu

or plantings to offset impacts.

It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need,as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not support system expansion

north of the River. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that

the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2

which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of

over four miles of Track 4 and an additional two miles to reach a tangent section of track would

result in engineering issues adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts


21/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-12

with safety and operations. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to

environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests, floodplain,

wetlands, and Critical Area. Site 3 is therefore not feasible and prudent and is eliminated because

it causes other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of

protecting the Section 4(f) properties.

Perryman (Site 4)

The Perryman Site is located, south of the Susquehanna River, on the west side of the NEC, near

Perryman and Canning House Roads just north of the Bush River. This site was previously

considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was eliminated.

There is an existing bridge crossing (Chelsea Road) that crosses over the NEC tracks within the

Perryman Site. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the lead tracks on

the northern end and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Perryman Road (MD

Route 199) would have to be relocated to skirt the proposed facility. This road relocation wouldbe approximately 7,000 feet in length and could displace residential properties at the south end of

the project.

There is no existing track connection to Amtraks NEC. A new interlocking plant will be

required on the NEC north of the site. The south lead track would enter the NEC within a curve

and would therefore require an approximately 4,800-foot extension southward to reach tangent

track and make a connection to the mainline at the existing Bush interlocking. The interlocking

additions would provide the necessary crossovers to make MARC train movements between any

main line track and a double-ended facility. However, Amtrak has stated it is not in favor of the

addition of a new interlocking in the section of track north of the site because the MARC train

crossover movements would slow Amtrak traffic in what is considered high speed track.

The above highway and track work would result in approximately $25.8 Million to $33.3 Million

in additional project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Developing the Perryman

Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 5.9 acres of forested

area, 3.7 acres of wetlands, and 1.2 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts would require

extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $90,000 for

this site, not including property acquisition. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with

the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint

Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetland mitigation costs would be approximately $400,000

for this site, not including design or property acquisition.

In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTA-VA-90-

1003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryman Site to identify potential noise

impacts. Cranberry Methodist Church is the only cultural resource identified by the MHT. It is

located north of the site, on the west side of Perryman Road (MD Route 159) and falls within the

screening distance and could be potentially impacted by noise. An industrial park is located east

of the site, across the existing Amtrak right-of-way and is currently under construction but would


22/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-13

not be considered noise sensitive. Single family residential properties are located adjacent to the

site boundary to the north. Approximately thirty two (32) residences fall within the screening

distance and could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Perryman Site.

Approximately twenty (20) of the potentially impacted residences are first-row. In the event

Perryman site is selected, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be

required to determine noise impacts to these residences and the Cranberry Methodist Church, and

to explore mitigation options if impacts occur.

While it is not quantifiable, development of this site can be expected to be opposed by the

residents of Perryman and the adjacent settlement of Michaelsville which straddles the NEC.

Recently the Michaelsville residents, the Bush River Community Council, and the Forest Greens

& Perryman Community Association raised concerns about the planned development by MRP

Industrial (MRP Realty) of the Mitchell farm property on the east side of the NEC that was the

site identified as the Opus Site in the site alternatives study for this project. Their stated concerns

essentially match those of the residents around the Perryville Site A.

Although the Perryman Site would avoid impacts to the cultural resources identified at Perryville

Site A, it is not feasible because 1) it is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of

the projects stated purpose and need, 2) it results in additional construction and mitigation costs

of an extraordinary magnitude, 3) Amtrak has stated that it is not in favor of the installation of a

new interlocking in this section of track due to the impact on train speeds and 4) the project

would result in severe environmental impacts.

Carpenters Point (Site 5)

This site is located north of the Susquehanna River, along the east side of the NEC in Perryville,

Maryland south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and east of the intersection of Principio

Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). The Carpenters Point Site would not be

compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that it is located adjacent to a portion of the two-

track section of the NEC, where both tracks are considered high-speed. The lead tracks to a

maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtraks Track 2 which is, and will

be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the

future 4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto

Track 1 where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC

yard. Track 1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction

of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly as far as from

existing BACON Interlocking to the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of

approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135 Million to $180 Million1 in additional project

costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million

to $213 Million in additional project costs).

At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks. The lead track

would have to be extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach a tangent to make the


23/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-14

connection to the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million) in additional project

costs. This would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of

(reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing

highway bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding

significant cost to the project.

The south lead track connection to either Track 2 or Track 1 would be made in the vicinity of the

future Amtrak FURNACE Interlocking. This may require additional future costs for relocation of

the MARC turnout to accommodate Amtraks track layout for the interlocking.

This property is currently zoned agricultural; however, the entire site is forested and

undeveloped. Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in 53 acres of forest

impacts and 53 acres of FIDS habitat impacts. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require

extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $750,000 to

$900,000 for this site, not including property acquisition.



in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of

Track 1, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, potential reconstruction of

two highway bridges, and relocation of the MARC turnout would result in engineering issues

adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations.

Development of this site would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under

other Federal statutes, including forests and FIDs habitat.

Mason-Dixon (Site 6)The Mason-Dixon Site is located north of the Susquehanna River in Perryville, Maryland along

Amtraks NEC, south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and just west of the intersection of

Principio Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). This site is part of the active

Mason-Dixon Quarry. The total site area needed for improvements to support a MARC

Maintenance Facility at this location is approximately 87 acres.

This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the site would not

have access to the proposed low-speed third track on the east side of the current two high-speed

tracks. The lead tracks would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be in the

future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to diverge from

125 mph track into low speed facilities, so they may require the construction of a 4th track

(Track 4) to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 4 to decelerate

to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track 4 would also serve as an

acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction of Track 4 would be costly due to

the length of track required, possibly from as far as the existing BACON Interlocking to the site

of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135

Million to $180 Million in additional project costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a


24/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-15

distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million to $213 Million in additional project costs).

Construction of a Track 4 may also be incompatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan track

configuration, and connections to Track 3 may not be possible in this area.

Amtraks NEC Master Plan shows that the two existing tracks are slated to become the highspeed tracks using the proposed new Susquehanna River Bridge. As part of that project, Amtrak

plans to add a third track, which would be an extension of Track 4 (the track to connect to the

maintenance facility). This would cut off access between the planned low-speed track and the

west side of the NEC.

At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks to make the

connections to the mainline. The lead track would have to be extended approximately 2 miles

northward to reach a tangent on the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million). This

would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of (reconstruction)

the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing highway

bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding significant cost to

the project.

There are unknown risks associated with an existing 750 foot-deep mineral extraction pit that

would require fill and other unknown refill areas on the site that may not be suitable for railroad

loading.

The site proposed is heavily forested with an excavated settling pond at the western end and an

open water area at the eastern end. Construction of a MARC Maintenance Facility at this site

would result in extensive environmental impacts including: 32 acres of forest impacts, 16 acres

of wetlands, 8,240 linear feet of waterways, and 59 acres of FIDS habitat. The extent of the

potential wetlands, waters, and forest impacts are so great the MTA may not be able to obtain the

necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maryland Department of the

Environment for construction on this site. In addition, mitigation for these impacts could be cost-

prohibitive. Preliminary costs for forest mitigation would be between approximately $450,000

and $600,000 and wetland mitigation would be between approximately $2,080,000 and

$8,320,000, not including land purchase and waterway mitigation.



in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of approximately five

to six miles of Track 4, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, and potentialreconstruction of two highway bridges would result in engineering issues adding significant cost

to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations. Development of this site

would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes,

including wetlands and waterways, forests and FIDs habitat. There are also unknown risks

associated with the existing mineral extraction site that would have to be filled to develop this

site into a maintenance facility.


25/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-16

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative proposes no new MARC maintenance facility along the NEC corridor.

This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of the proposed MARC Northeast

Maintenance Facility.

Build Alternative (Perryville A Site)

MTAs preferred location for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is located in Perryville,

Maryland, south of Principio Furnace Road between Firestone Road and Principio Station Road.

The EA considers the Perryville A site as the Build Alternative. The other alternatives studied in

the Site Selection Report were determined not to meet the projects purpose and need.

As shown in Figure 1, the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility will be north of an

existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base facility. Other surrounding land uses include

a large IKEA distribution center immediately west of the Amtrak facility. Northwest of the

IKEA facility is a community volunteer fire station, school, and suburban residential

development. A privately owned golf course is east of the proposed project site, and farmland

and rural development are north of the site.

Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within anapproximately 60-acre footprint and would include:

Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit and

multi-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pit

will be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather

Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables

At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance andinspection personnel

Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel

locomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the

proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes

Parking area

Fueling and sanding pad

Commercial power substation

Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery pad

with spill containment

Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as access

roadways within the facility

Stormwater management facility

The project (Figure 2) will support the existing eight trainsets currently operating on MARCs

Penn Line and include construction of the following:


26/94


27/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-18

Source:MTA

Figure1:MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectlocation


28/94

Introduction

17-JUL-14\\1-19

Source:MTA

Figure2:T

heMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityproject


29/94

Methodology

17-JUL-14\\2-1

SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY

MTA provided URS with background information on previous MTA-led cultural resource

investigations, documentation, and other project-related materials including photographs, maps,

and other information. URS and its Small Business sub consultant, Straughan Environmental,Inc. (SEI), reviewed existing background information relevant to this study, including the 1977

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) Form CE145 for Woodlands and

preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information provided by MTA.

The URS team that conducted this study consisted principally of historians and architectural

historians who exceed theSecretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards cited

in 36 CFR Part 61 in their respective disciplines.Project Manager Mark Edwards and Technical

Lead and Assistant Project Manager Jeff Winstel directed the team of URS Germantown cultural

resource management professionals. Architectural Historians Brian Cleven and Lorin Farris

assisted with research and completed site visits to survey and photo-document historic properties

in the Above-Ground Historic Properties Area of Potential Effects (APE) and developed theMHT MIHP forms for the surveyed properties and MHT National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) Determination of Eligibility (MHT DOE) forms. SEI Cultural Resource Specialist Sarah

Michailof conducted primary source and chain-of title-property research on the surveyed

properties. Copies of project staff resumes may be found in Attachment 3.

2.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Research methodologies targeted repositories with high potential for containing relevant

historical materials. Selection of repositories with the highest potential to contain useful

background information resulted from discussions with MTA staff, URS project staff, and local

property owners, and reviewing past reports and online research catalogs. Data collection

emphasized reviews of historical photographs, maps, accounts, and period descriptions to

document the design, setting, and alterations to the properties in the project area.

Research materials included MIHP forms, photographs, historical newspaper accounts, and

histories related to the project area and buildings or sites in the project area. URS and SEI

reviewed existing background information relevant to the study, including the 1977 Woodlands

MIHP Form CE145 and preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information

provided by MTA.

The methodology used to research, inventory, and analyze the property follows theSecretary of

the Interiors Guidelines for Historical Documentation(26 CFR 800.4) and the Standards and

Guidelines for Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland(MHT, 2000). Research

methods and the results of analysis have been incorporated into new or revised MIHP inventory

forms.

SEI and URS conducted original, primary, and secondary-source research at key historical

repositories in Cecil County, Baltimore, Annapolis, and other locations in Maryland and in


30/94


31/94

Methodology

17-JUL-14\\2-3

Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (MIHP CE-1563),

Woodlands Farm Lane South over railroad tracks

Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View

Road (MIHP CE-1565), Chesapeake View Road over railroad tracks

Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (MIHP CE-1562), 1350

Principio Furnace Road

2.2 FIELDWORK

On October 22-24, 2013 and November 12-13, 2013, URS conducted fieldwork consisting of

onsite pedestrian and windshield reconnaissance survey of the above-ground resources, within a

0.25-mile radius of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE to meet the following objectives:

Observe, identify, and selectively document the characteristics/character-defining

features of properties that appear 50 years or older located within the Above-Ground

Historic Properties APE

Observe, identify, and selectively document properties that are listed or appear to be

eligible for listing in the NRHP, including their existing condition and identifying

thresholds for NRHP integrity

Determine potential boundaries of NRHP-listed or eligible properties in the Above-

Ground Historic Properties APE

Identify contributing and non-contributing properties for NRHP listed or eligible

properties as needed

Property access was granted to URS by property owners for only a few properties, limiting the

amount of information that could be gathered. URS surveyors took photographs from the publicrights-of-way and used online visual information to complete the survey forms. MTA discussed

with the MHT the inability of URS to gather complete survey information, per MHT survey

guidelines, and the MHT concurred with this alternate approach.

URS prepared written notes, digital photographs, and global positioning system (GPS)

coordinates sufficient to meet MHTs requirements for MIHP form documentation. Photographs

from the NRHP-listed or eligible properties within the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE

were taken toward the project site and from the project site towards the historic properties.

Because of the lack of approval received by URS from property owners to access their

properties, written descriptions of architectural resources cover only exteriors of all buildings

and structures surveyed. URS has produced one set of archival, black and white prints fromdigital images, consistent with MHTsStandards for Submission of Digital Images to the

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties(MHT, 2008).

URS used information from the 1977 MIHP form for Woodlands (CE-145), additional materials

provided by MTA, and other existing information, including previously conducted research and

surveys to develop a historical context to better understand and evaluate the potential historical


32/94

Methodology

17-JUL-14\\2-4

significance of surveyed resources. The historical context allowed URS to identify and

investigate important themes and overarching economic and social systems that coherently unite

the area. For each surveyed property, work resulted in the following:

A summary Statement of Significance A determination of period(s) of significance

A recommendation of the NRHP eligibility of each surveyed historic property under

applicable criteria and aspects of integrity

This study was undertaken to determine the NRHP eligibility of buildings and structures

included within the boundaries of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE. All work

complies with theSecretary of the Interiors Standards for the Identification of Historic

Properties,MHT Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigation in

Maryland(MHT, 2000), andGeneral Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of

Eligibility(MHT, 2009) for documentation as noted above.

2.3 EVALUATION OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY

With the information gathered from background research and site visits, URS evaluated the

historic properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE for their NRHP eligibility.

The National Register Criteria for significance define the scope of the NRHP; they identify the

range of resources and kinds of significance that will qualify properties for listing in the National

Register and are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties associated

with history and prehistory (National Park Service, 2002:1).

Properties can be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A if they are associated with an event ora series of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Properties may be eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion B if they are associated with the

lives of persons significant in our past. Properties may be NRHP eligible under Criterion C if

they embody the distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction;

represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Properties may be

eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield,

information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most often applied to

archaeological districts and sites, although it can apply to buildings or structures that contain

important information.

Carrying equal weight with the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation is the propertys historic integrity,

which is defined as the ability of a property to convey its historic significance. The National

Register recognizes the following seven aspects of historic integrity: integrity of location, design,

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Eligibility for listing in the NRHP

requires that a property retain most if not all of the aspects of integrity, depending on the

application of the criteria.


33/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-1

SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT

3.1 EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION

In 1608, when Captain John Smith explored the upper Chesapeake Bay for the VirginiaCompany of London, the area that is now Cecil County was under the dominion of the

Susquahannocks, a subset of the Algonquians. Captain John Smith wrote that the warriors wore

wolf skins and lived in palisaded villages (Carter, 2006). Other sources commented on their large

size and reputation as capable hunters and fierce warriors (Figure 4).

Source: National Park Service (http://www.smithtrail.net/captain-john-smith/smiths-maps/)

Figure 3: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment with Susquehanna Figure1612 (north is right side of image)

In 1632, King Charles I of England presented Cecil Calvert with a charter and ownership of

more than approximately seven million acres of land in the Maryland colony (Weissman, 1986).

In 1633, William Clayborn established the first European settlement in Cecil County at the

Approximate location of the

Upper Chesapeake Bay,

Susquehanna River, and othernorthern tributaries


34/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-2

mouth of the Susquehanna River near Perryville (Johnston, 1881). The next year, the Calvert

family began promoting settlement of the area through the headright system. This system granted

small tracts of water accessible land to colonists who paid for their own passage across the

Atlantic Ocean. The amount of land was typically 50 acres a head (Hunter, 1979).

The Susquehannocks were at their zenith in the 1640s when their population is estimated to have

exceeded 6,000 (Carter, 2006). European explorers, including Captain John Smith, described

them as capable of quickly amassing a large group of warriors. The Susquehannocks were almost

constantly in conflict during most of the 16th century. The Iroquois were often raiding their

settlements, and Susquehannocks fought with the Swedes in Delaware, often armed by the Dutch

in New York (Youssi, 2006).

After a number of skirmishes with settlers in Maryland, war between the English settlers and

Susquehannocks ensued, ending with a treaty in 1652. The treaty provided the Susquehannocks

ammunition, cannon, and men in exchange for their lands west and north of the Chesapeake Bay

including lands eastward from the Choptank to the Elk Rivers (Johnston, 1881). By 1675, the

tribe was decimated by disease, particularly smallpox, and fighting with the Iroquois. The

Iroquois captured and assimilated the last of the Susquehannocks by the end of the century

(Youssi, 2006).

By the 1670s, other Europeans began settling in Cecil County, including Dutch, Finnish, and

Swedish immigrants. Under the leadership of Governor Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam, the

Dutch disputed the boundary between Maryland and Delaware. Augustine Herman was

instrumental in resolving this dispute by producing a detailed map of the region in 1673

(Johnston, 1881). The map drawn by Herman (Figure 5) contains the following description of the

area where the Susquehanna River enters into the Chesapeake Bay:

The great Sufsquahana [sic] River runs up Northerly to the Sinnicus [Senacas]

above 200 miles with diverse Rivers and Branches on both sides to the East and

Welt [sic] full of falls and Mes [sic] until about 10 or 12 miles above the

Susquahanna fort and it runs cleare [sic] but Down wards not Navigable but with

great dangers with Indian Canoos [sic] by Indian Pilots (Herman, 1673).

In return for his mapping services, Herman received 4,000 acres along the eastern shore of the

Chesapeake. These tracts of were called Bohemia and Little Bohemia (Johnston, 1881).

Herman ultimately possessed title to approximately 30,000 acres, primarily in the southern part

of the county. Throughout the 17th century, the region became increasingly settled. In 1674,Cecil County was created out of Baltimore County.


35/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-3

Source: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division

Figure 4: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670 by Augustine Herman,

Published by Augustine Herrman and Thomas Withinbrook, 1673

In 1680, George Talbot, cousin of the second Lord Baltimore, was granted 32,000 acres innorthern Cecil County and parts of Chester County in Pennsylvania in exchange for securing the

border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881). His land was known as

Susquehanna Manor. A condition of Talbots land grant required him to import 640 people over

12 years. Most of these people were of Scots-Irish descent and were recruited from northern

Irelands Ulster Plantation.

The Calvert family was Roman Catholic, and the official church of the Maryland Colony was

Anglican. Other forms of Christianity also existed in the county because of settlement patterns

and land ownership disputes. The Jesuits established themselves at Hermans Bohemia Manor in

1704. In 1745, these Jesuit missionaries established a secondary school that is thought to be the

predecessor of Georgetown University (Johnston, 1881). By 1720, Talbot had attracted enough

Scot-Irish settlers that a Presbyterian Church was established in Little Elk Valley.

In 1723, an Anglican missionary complained that the area was filled with a greater number of

dissenters than ever, by reason of these fresh recruits sent up of late from the North of Ireland

(Johnston, 1881:435). A 1737, the Anglican clergy of Maryland presented a petition to the King

of England stating that Marylands Quakers were not satisfied with the established church, and

Approximate location

of Susquehanna

River


36/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-4

that they had induced some of the inhabitants of Maryland to transfer the acknowledgement of

the right of their lands from Maryland to Pennsylvania (Johnson, 1881:435). The Anglicans in

Maryland were asking for clergy to reside on the border to prevent a recurrence of this trouble

(Johnson, 1881:435). Although the Christian population of the county had become somewhat

diverse, Anglicans retained the social and economic power in the county, including control of the

county courts, prior to the Revolutionary War (Blumgart, 2010).

Source: Penn State University (http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Claimed%20land.png)

Figure 5: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673

The struggle to define the northern border of Maryland with Pennsylvania continued into the

18th century (Figure 6). William Penn had received the charter for Pennsylvania in 1681 and the

charter for Delaware in 1682. The Calverts had claimed Delaware for themselves prior to Penns

claim (Johnston, 1881). Penn began issuing patents for land to loyal Pennsylvania settlers and

encouraged them to settle in Talbots land. Both sides continued to attempt to undermine the

other in this manner until the King and the Chancellery Court ultimately became involved. In

1760, an agreement was reached by commissioning Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon tosurvey the line. They finished their work in 1766 and established the Mason-Dixon Line, which

remains the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881).

3.2 FARMING AND INDUSTRY

Cecil County attracted farming during the early Colonial era with its fertile soil, well-drained

pastureland, and access to markets due to water transport (Lutz, 1975). Early Cecil County


37/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-5

residents, like many Eastern Shore settlers, cultivated tobacco, hoping to realize substantial

profits from the volatile European markets. In 1679, Jasper Danckaerts, a traveler through the

upper part of the Eastern Shore peninsula noted that the principal crop was tobacco (Blumgart,

2010). Sixty-five years later, Dr. Alexander Hamilton found that British grain, as wheat, barley

and oats characterized the farming operation in the area (Lutz) La Rochefoucauld observed By

1760 the northern winter wheat had become famous. This they sent to the Brandywine Mills in

Philadelphia and to Baltimore (Lutz, 8-1).

The English colonized the Eastern Shore and Southern areas of Maryland and grew tobacco.

Germans from Pennsylvania and New York settled in the Piedmont Plateau. While the English

established manors and plantations, the Germans were known for keeping livestock and building

barns to store feed (Trimmer, 1944:7). Records of the Cecil County Orphans Court contain

descriptions of late 18th century farms and plantations. A c. 1790 description of the estate of

Benjamin Walmsley included the following improvements: one log kitchen, one quarter, one

corn house, one old tobacco house, one granary, and one hen house. The old tobacco house isdescribed as with weather boarding off and part on the granary roof in bad repair, the corn

crib in tolerable repair and the hen house in good repair (Blumgart, 2010:249-50).

Descriptions of these estates written between 1785 and 1800 make clear that by the number of

granaries and corn houses, compared to the number of tobacco houses, that agriculture in Cecil

County was predominately grain, rather than tobacco based (Blumgart).

Cecil County also developed an industrial economy with the 1724 start of production at the

Principio Furnace, the first iron furnace in Maryland and one of the first in the country. The

Principio Furnace produced an estimated 25,000 tons of pig iron exported to England between

1718 and 1755 (Parish, 1971: 8-1). By 1726, the Principio Company expanded its operations to

Virginia through an agreement with Augustine Washington (President Washingtons father)

regarding the supply and shipment of ore from his Virginia Plantation near Accokeek. The

company also built the Kingsbury Furnace in Baltimore and the Lancashire Furnace on the

Patapsco. A description of the 1751 holdings of the company included slaves and livestock [sic]

in abundance; their tracts of land, chiefly woodland, for coaling, were of vast extent, amounting

in the aggregate to nearly 30,000 acres in Maryland (Parish, 8-3).

Another early industry associated with Cecil County was milling. The flow and drop of water in

streams was the principal source of mechanical power in industry until about 1870, when steam

engines began replacing the water wheel. Water milling was typically a rural enterprise that

linked two vital components: a productive agricultural or woodlot area and watercourses fortransporting processed goods to larger population centers for consumption or further processing.

Cecil County straddles the fall line between the coastal plain and the piedmont, and its north-

south waterways are fast-running and suited to producing power for milling (Blumgart, 2010).

Eighteenth century Cecil county residents who took advantage of the emerging grain markets

and the locally abundant supply of water found milling to be a profitable venture. Grist and

merchant mills were constructed throughout the county especially in the southern section

(Parish).


38/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-6

Grain was a high-value product that was easier to transport then lumber. The value of grain

increased with high-quality milling, so farmers preferred to take grain to a well-equipped mill

run by a competent miller (Gordon and Malone, 1994: 75). A Cecil County history, published in

1807 and credited to Joseph Scott, stated that Cecil County had 50 saw mills, along with 53 grist,

4 fulling, 2 oil mills, 4 forges, and several rolling and slitting mills. Big Elk and Little Elk Creeks

provided some of the best waterpower in the country, and the area was noted for its numerous

mills (Ewing, 1974).

Merchant John Bateman first patented the land that contains and surrounds the current Coudon

family farm, Woodlands (CE-145). In 1659, Woodlands was part of a 2,200-acre tract. The tract

included Perry Point (where the Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center

campus is presently located) and Perry Neck, the historical name of the peninsula of land that is

east of Perry Point between Mill and Principio Creeks (Miller, 1949).

The tract changed hands numerous times during the 18th century, with little indication when

improvements occurred that are apparent in the 1799 Hauducoeur map (Figure 7). In 1710,

Captain Richard Perry of London purchased the tract, and in 1728, ownership transferred to John

Perry, George Perry, Ann Templer, and Dorothy Barren (nephews and nieces of Richard Perry).

In 1729, the land transferred to Phillip Thomas, in 1763 to Phillips son Samuel, and in 1784 to

Richard Thomas (Miller, 1949; Archives of Maryland, 2005). At the time of the first federal

census in 1790, Richard Thomas is listed as a resident of North Susquehanna (Hundred) in Cecil

County. It is unknown whether he resided at Perry Point or elsewhere on his property, but the

census records note that his household includes 9 free white persons and 51 slaves. Phillip

Thomas constructed the mansion known as Perry Point in 1750. The mansion still stands on

the VA campus (Miller, 1949).

The 1799 Map of the Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River is the earliest map of southern

Cecil County that provides information on land ownership and land use. Along Perry Point and

Perry Neck, the Hauducoeur map indicates that R. Thomas is the owner of land. The 1799 map

indicates the location of Post Road as well as New Road, which forms a shorter, northern cut off

Post Road. This map indicates that the area was farmed, with cultivated fields located south of

the Post Road and three structures located in the general vicinity of the present Coudon family

farm complex. In 1800, John Stump purchased Perry Point and Perry Neck from George Gale

(Land Records of Cecil County, 1821-1822).


39/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-7

Source: C. P. Hauducoeur (John Carter Brown Library, Brown University

(http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~2851~101317)

Figure 6: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay

3.3 REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND RELIGION

Cecil County participated in the Revolutionary War by forming the Bohemia, Susquehanna, and

Elk Battalions (Cecil County History, n.d.). Because of the countys location at the head of the

bay, it was strategically important. General Washington passed through Cecil County on August

25, 1777, to observe the situation in the area, knowing that the English were sailing up the bay.

In 1777, 300 English ships, carrying 15,000 soldiers commanded by General Howe, landed at

Elk River. They made camp at Elkton and outnumbered all of Cecil Countys citizens. People

hid their horses, cattle, and valuables in the woods. After a few days of stocking up on

provisions, the British marched northward to Brandywine and Philadelphia.

Colonel Henry Hollingsworth, in the prime of his life during the Revolutionary War, arranged

for munitions to be manufactured in Cecil County to supply the Continental Army (Johnston,

1881). The Head of the Elk was regarded as a midpoint between the northern and southern

colonies, and Hollingsworth performed the function of commissary when the troops marched

through the village (Johnston). Congress authorized Hollingsworth to manufacture gun barrels

and bayonets and advanced him 500 pounds. Johnson credits Hollingsworth with being the first

Approximate Area

of Perry Neck


40/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-8

person that engaged in the manufacture of warlike munitions in this State for the use of its

soldiers (Johnston, 323). Edward Parker, another resident of the county, was commissioned to

supply the army with linen and woolen goods and had 5 looms constantly employed in

manufacture (Johnston, 323).

During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, being pacifist, did not fight, although this made

some doubt their patriotism. Presbyterians, however, were known for being on the side of the

colonists against the mother country. Johnstons 1881 county history states that:

Their form of church government was eminently democratic, and most, if not all

of them, were the descendants of those who, in some form, had suffered for

conscience sake on the other side of the Atlantic. Hence, it was not strange that

they joined the crusade for liberty, and denounced the encroachments of the

British Parliament with an eloquence and vehemence that would have done credit

to their founder (Johnston, 1881: 438).

Soon after the Revolutionary War, the Coudon family name begins to appear in local histories.

In 1781, Joseph Coudon was appointed lay reader of the North Elk vestry and was chosen curate

of the North Elk Parish in 1785. At that time, Reverend Coudon resided at the plantation near

Elkton (Johnston, 362). The town of Elkton lacked a church, the old chapel being in disrepair,

and the previous cleric preached in a tent erected next to the old chapel. Reverend Coudons

written plea for funds to build a church provides the following description of the town of Elkton.

It has been too long remarked by the numerous travelers that pass through our

village, as well as regretted by the friends of it, that notwithstanding the rapidly

growing importance of the placethe various scenes of industry and exertions it

is noted foramidst the many building that are daily saluting our eyes, and risingand about to rise to viewthere is no appearance of even an humble building

dedicated to worship and service of the supreme ruler of the universe on whom

we depend for all we have or can hope to enjoy (Johnston).

Coudon was suggesting residents and friends purchase 3-pound subscriptions to fund the church.

The decision of what society of professing Christians it shall principally be appropriate (what

would be the Christian denomination of the church) determined by a vote of subscribers

(Johnston, 364). Johnston writes that Coudons enterprise was a failure owing to the

unpopularity of most of the clergy of the Episcopal church, and the fact that Methodism

prevailed to some extent in the surrounding country (Johnston). The same year an Anglican

churchman published a pamphlet stating, Churchmen not only exclaim against the impositions

of the late establishment, whereby parsons were erected into little popes about the country, but

they still see nothing sacred in the clerical character (Johnston, 437).

Reverand Coudon was ordained in 1787 and installed as rector of the parish. In 1788 he labored

part of the time in St. Augustine parish and in Appoquinimink, Delaware. He had charge of St.


41/94

Historic Context

17-JUL-14\\3-9

Augustine Church in North Elk and St. Anns near Middleton from 1789 to 1792, when he died

(Johnston).

3.4 WAR OF 1812

Similar to many Maryland counties and towns on the Chesapeake Bay, Cecil County was

invaded by the British as part of their Chesapeake Bay campaign. England declared the bays of

the Cheseapeake and Delaware under blockade in December 1812 (Johnston). Admiral Cockburn

commenced with pillaging and plundering the towns along the coasts of the Chesapeake Bay.

Although most of the men in the county had been called up for service in Baltimore, the

remaining men in Cecil County tried to mount defenses, including an observation camp at the top

of Bulls Mountain with a line of military posts that extended to Elkton (Johnston).

In 1813, Admiral Cockburns squadron succeeded in invading and burning Frenchtown,

followed by the destruction of Fredericktown and Georgetown. The British attack on Havre de

Grace across the water resulted in the burning of two-thirds of the towns buildings and rampantplunder. Fearing the arrival of the French in the upper bay, the British made their way to the

southern areas of the Chesapeake Bay, but people in the northern areas continued to fear

attackes. When news of the Treaty of Ghent reached the area, many of the countys citizens

celebrated (Johnston, 422).

3.5 AGRARIAN REFORM

By the early 19th century, the land in Cecil County was losing nutrients. Destructive farming

methods and slopes of three to nine feet induced erosion and the occasional formation of gullies.

Maryland Governor Thomas Johnson, writing to George Washington in 1791, described the

ravages that common farming methods brought to once-fertile lands:

It has been generally tended that the first two years in tobacco, the third Indian

corn, and sown down in wheat. After this destructive course the land is often

again planted the next year with Indian corn, and sown down again with wheat or

rye, without any assistance. The crops accordingly lessen, till the land becomes so

exhausted that its produce sparely pays for the ploughing [sic] (Blumgart, 2010:

249).

One contemporary commentator blamed grain as much as tobacco for the conditi

Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

Documents