ML20071C048
| ML20071C048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1982 |
| From: | Raymond Hoffman, Struthers T JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071C036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303010439 | |
| Download: ML20071C048 (46) | |
Text
^
[
- f. mc. c , m.-,- ~ wwe.e==paspp.e4 a==c=r == ,c. y -;, f : ; . -- r ; nv ~ .-
. . e *. m-7 me,
--===
-ga sue m.se , .s f
~,
- IES,
. , ,: . .. w.e w. .
,..- ,,,,,,,,m
) L '- - I
$ ' ~[f h.r-
... \' r : .-..'~ w O kobkN( .M@lg[. i .
3 ,.m. p- g . .v w. .; . .
' + ~, .
= ...a.. -
. we. e - - t- 4. ? . .s - -
y-m. 3 .- - . ,. -
.[.
J J.. ..#
, ' f *. -.< . b, . ' ' .- %. ae . ., ,,. g. . r ;h
},
. 1
., v.9- . .i .a.: ,.u .s. . z. . ..
}
m + -
s . * - J - 1.m ;
v.,.s + ,. [ [ U *
...,- 'k.
}
.sn
- %. * ;. ,,r, m. ~
ic<
1
J
- l' t
+ '
..n, ,g. # '* \
. . , 4 ,
{e J -
r ,,..,.....' ,.
--,9' ", e" 3 - ., 1s,
.. e, ' ., _ ; 6 J ..s - -
. . . r,. * . 7*
' - . .w, s +
.., . *= % : ;;_,. .y . . *
.,.a..,{
- . s , ,
.~-s -
Q,.,.
gs .*. J v -
.Q .* N ' '
- .~ . .
';- r. , .. ** -* C'? - ^'h.
1- . . , . ** . . .. . .
4 - .,.-+(*=,%",,.e - J'O, - '
V[;
. .. : ? . . . *-
1 . ~ .* . . ., 'c W ~
J p ., .~,e.m n. .
- iX .- %V..e . .h ^ -- - ".-
- t s
., , . , .. 7
~ -
E %. *' k*
b.1.. ,~t f~?
.d. * *'
. y.s. , . )N ' ' '
.. . < .- . - ~
w -
. , r*, .
. - . ~
,m,.,
- s. L.
r.' s
.. , . % ,3 .
, , , ,,4*,*.
.' a . p L s, p .
1 .. - .J. '
"- g.
J ., , , - - h, .. ;[ ~-- , ','
.'q.
r , .
- g ,
? .
.< a V 6
, g
-x.
} . , ,. ,
,g
$It 1
4 *v.
",- ., .8. . . . . '
.s ,
J Y. .*
4 . - -
. t ; - - . - ** J. ?
..'..^'u :* 3. s[ .' ( :-.;,
3 'i ..* ,
<;?
...r. f.- , d '" L '.;. . <~,;; Y a$g
. f- - .
. - . * ,,..* . - : ?"<. r s ? --
. .- * ; =\.},,u. , w. , .;T.
l:*{,;-;" Q i_' 's *- '
~
- ;.. ?
. <L'.,_c . ;- ,
t
.,c ' .k d,4.( :
- f/vd*
3 . g 's'. f., ,
.f 0%,
,;. ,' - A ?*J'. *~ ^ f' f
1 !s J . ' 'l .^. , , E': =
? . .?
.-..,,-.s-e.
- 4..f.
. .' & {f K .;u .c,-^
'b[ *
%* q ua ~. ~.:M ;3
- e ~
J . % , +.. < g .;g ; *. . N ff ~. ..
.a.ny . .
,'u ,
s
. .m .
.,s. 4..7,y,,.,,$ W .
^
l ., -', N / .; . # @44.*g-*gy.e. sE ' ' '} ./ ,., _
gl
.'c;Q&.*.le.p&,p,p
\
}
.. .. ,;.,.. E . .
,~
w; ..
4 peryfg.d='rejO%l'\.y&
Q , .
h.,.t.,& . N~7 ... m m . W.n.-l;. y :v:..> W. . W .
=
.-'..+,,,..m.'-
~ . * ..s+
- m,t,* ea m. "-' .: '.w. -m . m. . . .., . w wm. .: .
1s.'n
- g. , ...A *r .
m
._#,,c , ,. .J. ' .,. ..
.-. a r.4 =. . m- -
a 1 .
..w.. a g. m ,. e. .
... * .a. . . w ,. r ,
- p. . .
- m. ., ~ w. -
- 11 _ w .c . . wn..
. .: w #w,, . . ,,w.s .e . A ,,,y m . x . w- - .. ; ,.
. ; . .. m.
J . _. . .- 1 q . . .- ; y ,. -
.. . . , ' . . <a -
- . ss
.. .. ... ,; m;.. .-Aw
~ n., J, ., , .y,.-*t.
>cq A .a. --*+W,,. .g;f' t;.,,+.m.
f
. . .- .'. _, *:r . e4
..s 4 . .j r-2 g i,..
<J
,y
-/Z.ef.. 'taq; .12x % -W6e%.KW.ek.,f a'p, j.' ~ ,3 nf"4' ,' - - ', .r.,u *
.'"..s j -
, e.. . . ' ; rr,, a. , s e-
- % gr.. . a'.2 ' 1.qt,f. *.Q u.s .::4 ?I 11 K, ' e&-M e 1 - '
- 'J'.
My ..* .y'-' ' , +
.r -
.. .'i, , ' -
d
-*,.*s.T;*'< 6 . 4,f,/ '7 ? d '. '" ,
t l
& %.! ? n n .r. . .";;.3,fy , - * * =' . Q . -i
,.3. r
( .. . mm '; i " 4.? ' ,
..i
, ,, , -7, , ys '.- .- ' 'y= g ..
g <,-w , '. N.j~._ . _
. y ,3 . .
. p , ,. - t m y n . m . M g,.u.E" , ; m,f.*t.,f.m.: m.'.,'v{.w.ur f74,.py:
1 . wyypegWu v=m . s
- .q.; n mp. m,.: n 1
1 - -
~ . . -.
- m mg.m ;~ a k w . pJ n
- ~- ~ay m.:, . .
. m
.3,, 3, 3 .g; y.
u.e-
+ . .
x
] -.n.
-., , , .e. c _. 2 - -w .p : q m.. o g,~+,TC'C.p&e ;ky -wr. ... s.. r.. %y., m. - .-,n w m m . ,,...-..._,.,-
.s.<~
. r, .
. ?.a #. - - y r &
j . .c.w Sww.s w w. m. c .- ; Ee MSW
' ^
j e -
is
} a_;.,s.x.w. .
- < ;~ R. , Q4s.r.w Ma Q>,B.c .u. .m. m.
- ~p w.a,j.
.,s.r. fG,. <e+
m y y+ ?..m#
. .>. m,m- ,... , ,.
~..;.4:v. . && _W G .. .
4 .; ~
+ , . . .
+ - + , .
4 .
w +.. w. .r.s..,,.. - wwwp um,-..~.m.?_,g.yg m :: nm
.. . ... c. ~-
.e 3 , , .
.,s , :~ . a << ,A n -
u,,,
l 1 < --
s l' S E f. . ' "s .'
. .t
,,,;. .w.e.,w
. ll Sr gi, *,:';h ..:G e' ...
ls,* 4 ;* ~
- e e' es ',
.-j.g,, .,.; . -- 9.;. i c : L. o.c
.<1 d
- L
- y. , :. ;
- J ,.
,=- . .
N. r
. - r. .
n .
.+
. x.,2 * - ' . ',,t. ,, f r g 2.,I: ~ "
f }' ..af * .* :,,' ?~< $h y'8..m[,* ',*, "* .r.,Il:" [,,",q A ..
p.K'.' i ; * . . . 'i '. '
.~ m, . ~ . vo. , s -.
. %. ,- ./ n; e : j .w m -w~f,.
7 ,u. . ~-...;.+-
.s C.,
}<
-. 9, - .
,v -a..
,n,,,.-.:.. n. . a,.n.s .: m.. .. m/ s. mc.! .p .: -~ .e . . .
. -. . n.
.i J
a %;
~.. -
. .cc, .
3 .a . , . . + . m., . -.v ec.. eg+g; .
.w~ . s. .. .; ny . d
_ . 1ner SS.O. ClateS 3
.; 2.x,.c.p. . ..m., ...+
. v.. + ... n. .g .y .u.;w.,...e. : ,y;y ;w.33 3
g.y -
- D.rd,r;a.s--n 7 . . .
. ,' Y m
m ,s g-i f. . . g.MJJM 0.Cs%..Wg*%d 7,,.- e ;. ;f,c.
@ii
. , ~ ,, w. . <.e:
.) % -
. .w. y , - ~ y . . v. -
e, .- .
,. c.
..,,..w..
..m..
?. : - ,
a g
- .3 . ... .
3 3'
r f'-
- w ,%..:.c.:x mpmh w3,.45.tc"c.g.g m :, a.w:
- g& m y,ru..u
,- r; .. .;m : .ve.: _.,cc ;y c.
..n ,,.- .
[W., , .
.s. s
.~e 's }. . 4 ; .Lp s ,-t y .*
.-c. ,iy+*E','.* V.9 a jg ' ',;l ! " E. k }. *.* % .* k *
, w. [e! .'
N ?;, i'.. U .q:. W & ' W. M:bh;W.%t.-
. .~ .
~ . : ' . = :dW.2d%,. . d.,W .n ... .. . . .. . . .
1 1 ,.
f;U A. t . * ~. & .. ... . .. Gl l 8303010439 830225 @ 74; ,L:;f ~.%.a.V '.C :
l PDR ADOCK 05000352 *e <. .r . . m > - >> M. '
- by A PDR t ~n %'-u%,M./.. .M%. . g". .. - n
. .. . .,m
? ::.*: C a1 u- c.n v*' , x Jl . ..s,..
.- m. m; ,M'w*-~..:'y ;,. .. :;;',: %. .5: p~~.=*.& : 2.t ' .-- * '+ .-
- - r > ' ?-'
. - '~n -
(3.J, O .
si.
c,, ..u. . ..4.
..: 4
-.m ,,~,v...,., w av w m w..) w . m.m:... - : .s.
.ww kin
..b:n., n.:.~ .n~ _ a....,~b' m< an .~.-
- - - .~ ,. w ..
,; 8 q.. -
l 2
An Investigation of Previously Recorded Prehistoric Archeological Sites Associated with Proposed Limerick Transmission Lines,
}
Montgomery and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania
?
.i 7;
il .
0 5
p submitted to g
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street .
, Philadelphia, PA 19101 a
5, .
Pe by g-. ,
'. Thomas L. Struthers .
Robert F. Hoffman
~6, John Milner Associates. Inc.
~ '
309 North Matlack Street West Chester, PA 19380
.1 1982 j
me =m w - = =-= = - - * - * -**
e e y-~ = - -,, ,- y--,9-- m --gy-e, -g-W er e---n-- ,-ve-r - --
~.. ~-
=4 E'
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS l Page LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. INTRODUCTION ........................... I Description of the Proposed Routes ................ I Goals and Scope of the Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 m . WEw0oS OF OATA REC 0vERv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 PASS Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 inte, ie.
' ............................ 4 .
Field Reconnaissance ....................... 4 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
} 6
- c. Li me ri ck- Cromby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
. Si tes Wi thin the Ri ghts-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
, Sites of Undetermined Proximity ................ 7 Sites Outside the Rights-of-Way ................ 7 Cromby-Plymouth Weeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l Sites Within the Right-of-Way ................. 9 Sites of Undetermined Proximity ................ 9 3
Sites Outside the Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cromby-North Wales and Limerick-Whitpain ............. 10 f
2 V.
d DISCUSSIONS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Recorded Sites in or Near the Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 _
~
I; Other Areas of Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
'VI. MITIGATIVE OPTIONS ........................ 16
! VII. REFERENCES CITED ......................... 17 j FIGURES APPENDIX A - ARTIFACT INVENTORY i
.b ab
.. T -
l
I i
e
! LIST OF FIGURES - 1 1 Figure 1 Limerick-Cromby Figure 2 Cromby-Plymouth Meeting T
Figure 3 Cromby-North Wales Figure 4 Limerick-Whitpain E
I E
C 5
~
l n
I
_ -....=-4 - - * " " * *
' 4 T
I. INTRODUCTION.
As part of its proposal to construct additional power tiansmission lines in southeastern Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) has peti-tioned the Pennsylvania Public Utility Connissien (PUC) regarding certain siting review requirements. . In that petition, previously recorded prehistoric archeological sites within two miles of the proposed routes were listed and
~] identified on maps prepared by PECO. The PUC has requested additional infor-mation regarding the proximity of sites to the rights-of-way, impacts to sites expected to result from construction, and measures to be employed to mitigate l potential adverse impacts. The investigation reported herein was conducted y by John Milner Associates, Inc. to assist PECO in responding to the PUC inquiries.
j The report is ~ divided into sections providing background information, outlining the methods of data recovery, and describing the results. The significance of h archeological sites is discussed, and expected effects on sites within the rights-of-way follow, and form the basis of recommendations to mitigate poten-
)> tial adverse effects. -
_ Description of the Proposed Routes '
The five proposed transmission lines traverse portions of Montgomery and Chester g Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. They are briefly described as follows:
i il
!' 1.. Limerick-Cromby (Fioure 1): Two lines, one on each side of the Schuylkill N River, are proposed from Limerick Unit No.1 to the existing Cromby generat-b ing station. The route on the easterly side of the river lies within an p existing Conrail right-of-way, which approximately parallels the rivei for U a distance of 7.4 miles. It then leaves tne railroad right-of-way and joins
, an existing PECO right-of-way to cross the river and enter Cromby. The line
] on the westerly side of the Schuylkill occupies an existing Conrail right-of-way, which generally follows the river and extends for 8.63 miles betwen Limerick and Cromby. The easterly route will require approximately 59 support structures and approximately 68 structures will be required on the westerly route. The rights-of-way vary inwidth but are a minimum of 60 feet wide.
g 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meeting (Figure 2): The alternate preferred by PUC occupies 3
8.4 miles of PECO's existing right-of-way and 5.1 miles of Conrail right-of-q way for a total dist'ance of 13.5 miles. PECO's right-of-way varies in width 4
_t l'
l
- -- =-_ : _ : : _ _.
,4 2
A: ,
, from 80 to 120 feet and the Conrail right-of-way is a minimum of 60 feet j wide. The line generally follows the northern side of the Schuylkill and crosses two ox-bow bends. Approximately 122 support structures are required.
I l 3. Cmmby-North Wales (Figure 3): The proposed line occupies approximately 16 miles of existing PECO right-of-way, with a width varying from 150 to 450 feet. It leaves the Schuylkill River in a northerly and easterly ~
direction, and traverses uplands for'most of its length. Approximately 93 support structures are required.
- 4. Limerick-Whitpain (Figure 4): The proposed line extends from Limerick L
_ Unit No. 2 across uplands to the existing Whitpain Substation, a distance of approximately 16.5 miles. It occupies existing PECO right-of-way for the entire length, with widths ranging between 300 and 520. feet. Approx-imately 86 support structures are required.
{j Goals and Scope of the Investigation
~
As indicated above, the archeological investigation was undertaken to obtain additional information about pmviously recorded sites which may be affected by 7 construction of the proposed lines. Specific goals.of the project were to de-fine the proximity of sites to the rights-of-way, to further document the nature and condition of the sites, to determine the potential inpacts expected to result from construction, and to offer options for mitigating those impacts. Subsurface testing, either to locate additional sites or to allow further evaluation of
- i known sites, was specifically excluded from the project scope. The methods and results of the investigation are detailed following a brief deicription of the project area.
}]'.
r LJ E
E l 7, J
[i l
- l
_--,.w--me.-.- . . + - - - ..m--se -- .. - -, - . . . --
. , = ,
3 s .
'I II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA -
2 i The project area, a four mile wide corridor (2 miles either side of the right-d of-wat center line) along each of the previously described proposed routes, lies within Montgomery and Chester Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania.
It is included in the following six U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic maps:
Phoenixville, Collegeville, Landsdale, Malvern, Norristown, and Valley Forge.
s Situated in the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Fenneman and Johnson 1946) topographic features of the project area include low rolling hills interspersed 4
with floodplains in the interior, and floodplains, terraces, and bluffs over-9 looking the Schuylkill River. The area is well watered by such streams as the Perkiomen and Skippack Creeks and innumerable smaller streams which eventually feed into the Schuylkill River. The topography of the area and the dendritic -
drainage pattern present today are the residual result of the several episodes of glaciation, the last of which, the Wisconsin, ended some 12,000 years ago.
The flora and fauna of the area have changed over the last 12,000 years due
, to climatic changes associated with the glacial retreat and culminated in the dominance of the northern forest association of oak, hickory, and chestnut
, found in the area today.
The soils of the area are deep to moderately deep, well drained, and part of the R Lansdale-Penn-Readington Association and the Reaville-Penn-Klinesville Association b (Kunkle 1963; Smith 1967). These soils are well suited to agriculture, which is g the primary occupation of the present inhabitants. In addition to farming, heavy r.; and light industry are present, primarily along the banks of the Schuylkill River which, historically, served as a major transportation link between Philadelphia l
y and points west. m I
! B i
i
, .- . .. N ? . . -
4
- o III. METHODS OF DATA RECOVERY -
J Data for this investigation were obtained from three primary sources: the Pennsylvania Archeological Sites Survey (PASS) files maintained by the Penn-l sylvania Historical and Museum Connission (PHMC) in Harrisburg, interviews with avocational archeologists knowledgeable. about sites in the project area, I
and brief field reconnaissance of selected sites. Data pertaining to pre-y historic archeological sites"only was gathered. The techniques employed and t )
3 types of data obtained are outlined as follows:
- 1. PASS Files: Review of the PASS files indicated the presence of 61 previously recorded sites within the project area. The vast majority of these sites ;
g were recorded by three members of the Schuylkill Valley Chapter of the l Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. Although the quantity and quality l '.
of recorded data varies, the site forms generally include locations, de- .,
N scriptions of some artifacts, and in some cases, presumed cultural affilia-
. tions. Information from the site forms was recorded and site locations were -l j plotted onto U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic nsaps. Namer and addresses of local informants were also obtained from the site' files.
i .
1
, 2. ' Interviews: Of the three avocational archeologists noted above only one, Mr. Arthur 'Krasley, remains active in the area. His collection of artifacts from sites within the project area was examined and photographed, and informa-tion concerning the sites' conditions, exact locations, and other specific
[ information was obtained. Landowners in the project vicinity were also queried as to their knowledge of local sites. Mr. John Neidley's extensive y artifact collection from the Fricks Lock area has been reported by Holzinger and J Hugreville (1972).
rT U
- 3. Field Reconnaissance: Twenty-four of the 61 recorded sites were determined to be in or in close proximity to the proposed construction rights-of-way.
Each of these sites was subjected to a brief field reconnaissance in order l
to more accurately ascertain its present condition and location relative to the area expected to be inpacted. A surface survey was conducted at each n relocated site and artifacts were collected from within the rights-of-way.
1 Artifacts observed outside the rights-of-way were recorded in a field journal but were left in situ. Notes were maintained for each site to document the Ii ,
I 1
I l ... _ - . - . . .
7
[. . .. - ._ a. _ . . . . _ . _ _ .
5 surficial boundaries (if they could be determined), existing field conditions -
~
and surface visibility, and the nature and extent of disturbances. A photo-1 gr6phic record was also made of each relocated site.
.i ~
'The remaining 37 recorded sites were determined to be outside of the proposed rights-of-way and, accordingly, are not expected to be affected by construction '
of the transmission lines. They were excluded from the field reconnaissance and j are not discussed further.
m b
in m
J
~
e s
a P*
i9 U
b l.
l
=
{
w -
i o,
. 6 s
~
IV. RESULTS J
As notco above 61 sites have been previously recorded in the project area, and 24 of these sites lie within, or in very close proximity to, the proposed con-struction rights-of-way. Results of the field reconnaissance of the 24 sites -
n are sunnarized in Table 1 and are detailed below. To facilitate nanagement decisions, they are organized by the proposed transmission lines. Site designa-h tions are abbreviated forms of the alpha-numeric system of nonmenclature in which "Ch" l refers to Chester County and "Mg" refers to Montgomery County. Cultural affilia-
- tions are noted', when possible, in terms of the following cultural traditions
- :
l 21 Paleo-Indian c.10,000 B.C. - c.7,000.B.C.
d Archaic c.7,000 B.C. - c.1.000 B.C. 4 g Transitional c.1,800 B.C. - c.800 B.C. -
i E Early-Middle Woodland c.800 B.C. - A.D.1000 Late Woodland c. A.D.1000 - A.D.1550 -
h Historic Contact A.D.1550 - A.D.1750
- 1. Limerick-Cromby (Figure 1): Seventeen of the 24 sites subjected to field reconnaissance are located along the Limerick-Cromby lines. One site, Ch-56, was found to extend into the right-of-way, and 11 sites were found to be '
totally outside of the rights-of-way. Surficial boundaries of the remaining l
five sites could not L determined due to very poor surface visibility, but they may also extend into the rights-of-way. These 17 sites are briefly described as follows:
- A. Sites Within the Rights-of-Way
9
% Ch-56, located east of Route 724, is a floodplain site which has been bisected by the Conrail right-of-way. Archaic and Early-Middle Woodland
, components have been recognized at the site. Artifacts appear to be con-
) centrated on the east side of the right-of-way, and include waste flakes l of argillite and quartz, biface fragments of quartz and quartzite, a fragmentary quartz unifacial scraper, and a quartz core. Although the site was undoubtedly disturbed by railroad construction, portions of it within the right-of-way may remain intact.
'l I
I
,,,,,4m_ - ,+
w v- M * *'M ' "' ' '
s 4
B. Sites of Undetermined Proximity: '
Ch-55 is located on'the west side of Route 724 and is currently in pasture. Krasley has reported Archaic and Late Woodland artifacts from the site, although no artifacts were observed during this re-a e connaissance due to severely limited surface visibility. The site may extend eastward into the right-of-way although it has been dis- ,
turbed by road and railroad construction. '
- Ch-105, located between Schuylkill Road and the right-of-way, is S
also currently in pasture and could not be successfully surface in-spected. Krasley has mcovered projectile points indicative of an i Archaic component.
m .
l
{. _Mg ,1_, located south of Linfield, was also not visible from the surface.
i It is recorded as a Late Woodland site on a terrace of the Schuylkill _
}
~
River. Although partially excavated by the Schuylkill Valley Chapter of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology in 1971, the msults of that work have not been reported. Disturbance from railroad construc-tion appears to have been severe.
~
Ma-37, located between the right-of-way and the Schuylkill River, is on a large floodplain, currently fallow with no surface visibility.
The site is recorded as Archaic, although according to the site form, triangular projectile points characteristic of Late Woodlar.d occupa-e.! tions were recovered during excavations conducted by the Hill School.
a
[; Mg-39 is mcorded on a terrace east of the right-of-way, northwest of Royersford. . The site is currently in pasture, affording no surface R visibility. The site's cultural affil'iation, integrity, or other U characteristics could not be ascertained.
C. Sites Outside the Rights-of-Way:
The remaining 11 sites were all found to be outside of the rights-of-way j proposed for construction.
i J
l y ,yy-_y__- ,,.p -
,w ,99 .- ,99,,.,.__.w
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ - . _ - - -
s .,
8 2
Ch-36, Ch-107, and Mg-14 have all been sevemly disturbed by housing -
developments, and am not proximate to the rights-of-way.
l Ch-37 is located south of Fricks Lock Road in an existing PECO right-of-way, which is not scheduled for additional construction as part of the project. Artifacts found on the site include jasper and quartz waste flakes and a flint projectile point tip. Other artifacts re-h ported from the site are celts and Jasper and argillite tools. The site is believed to span the Archaic through late Woodland periods, and appears to have been only minimally disturbed. ,
t J
q Ch-43 and Ch-111 appear to be separately recorded loci of the same 2
1.rge floodplain occupation area. Excellent surface visibility afforded p by recent plowing allow:d the observation of large amounts of waste ._
E flakes, tools, and pottery fragments. Krasley reports that the sites L have been intensively collected for at least a century, and that they '
3 have yielded artifacts spanning the ama's prehistory fmm Paleo-Indian through Late Woodland. The right-of-way in the vicinity of Ch-43 and
{
Ch-111 has Laen cut into a steep slope between the first and second river terraces and does not enemach upon the sites.
u Ch-47 occupies a hilltop location west of the Schuylkill River. Although surface visibility was poor, less than 20 percent, it was sufficient to
{
, t. - allow the identificatin of a small scatter of primarily quartz waste r flakes. Krasley has reported two Archaic projectile points also fmm
[ the site. No artifacts wem observed on the slope separating the site from the right-of-way.
2 Ch-103, reported by Krasley as a Transitional site, is currently planted
- in rye. Although waste flakes were observed on the site, no flakes or other artifacts were found within the right-of-way.
. I Ch-104, an Archaic through Middle Woodland site also reported by Krasley,
, was found to lie more than 900 feet from the right-of-way. It contained j flakes, cores, and fim-cracked rock.
i 7
- j -
g n.-, - - -._.m -.__ .q . .
-7m.- , - -
, 9 s .
{ Mg-15, located between the right-of-way and Major Hollow Road, .
+
produced fire-cracked rock and waste flakes fmm its flat areas.
'; No artifacts were observed on the steep slope between the site and 2
the right-of-way.
Mo-38, the final site, was identified on a small knoll approximately
, 450 feet east of its recorded location. The site is isolated from j the right-of-way by a steep slope devoid of artifacts.
- 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meeting (Figure 2): Seven sites on the proposed Cromby-
! Plymouth Meeting line were subject to field mconnaissance. Of these.
Tj .one was found to be r within the right-of-way, two were found to be' clearly -
U outside the right-of-way, a,nd the remaining four sites may extend into the g right-of-way, although poor surface visibility prevented precise definition .
E of their boundaries. These sites are briefly described as follows:
E Sites Within the Right-of-Way':
1 A.
l Ch-53 is a very large bluff-top site in an oxbow bend of the Schuylkill River. It is currently in c' rno stubble which afforded fair surface M
visibility of 20 to 40 percent. Thme quartz biface fragments, a uni-j facial scraper fragment of quartz, numerous quartz waste flakes, and a jasper side-notched projectile point were recovered during this investi-gation. Krasley has reported finding a considerable number of artifacts
{'
from this site representing every prehistoric tradition defined in south-T eastern Pennsylvania. Included in his collection from Ch-53 are two i
fluted projectile points, diagnostic of the Paleo-Indian Tradition, and g numerous bifurcate points indicative of Early Archaic occupation, in d addition to artifacts repmsenting subsequent cultural corrponents.
Disturbance to the site appears minimal.
l B. Sites of Undetermined Proximity:
Ch-110, located near Black Rock Tunnel, is currently in pasture and could not be sucessfully examined due to the absence of surface visibility.
J l
Ch-116, recorded as a large floodplain site, is currently a fallow field
- with no surface visibility. The recorded site boundaries include a
,- 2:. = ~ : ~ . . _ . . _ . n _ r_ - - ' - - - - ~ ~
"=-m~
10 portion of the right-of-way, although site boundaries could not be -
reaffirmed due to the. absence of surface visibility.
]
,Mg-8, west of a trailer park on the north side of the Schuylkill River, is currently fallow and affords no surface exposure. Accordingly, its a boundaries or cultural affiliations could not be determined through i
surface examination. C gin A'Dod 3k Mg-10, located at Port Indian, is occupied by a housing development with sod lawns, affording no surface exposure. As with other sites lacking surface visibility, further a'ssessment of its areal extent and potential significance could not be made at this time.hC Gurm.cu s /(b))
e C. Sites Outside the Right-of-Way: '
g ..
~
Mo-18 is located north of Barbadoes Island and is currently occupied by
~'
I ig a housing development. The entire area has been extensively graded and filled, precluding mlocation of the site. The severe disturbance and the site's distance from the right-of way make additional significant igacts unlikely. ( W C W N W s
, Mg-74, north of Valley Forge National Historical Park, is presently in
~ corn stubble. Surface visibility on the site and in the right-of-way
) was poor, but approached 20 percent in some areas. Waste flakes, cores, and fire-cracked rock'were observed on the site, but were approximately T 700 feet from the right-of-way.
2
- 3. Cromby-North Wales and Limerick-Whitpain (Figures 3 and 4): Both of these lines leave the Schuylkill River and traverse uplands for their lengths.
They both cross a large floodplain of the Perkiomen Creek near its confluence .
with several unnamed drainages. Holzinger and Hugreville surveyed the vici-nity of the PECO puging station for archeological resources in 1972, but l reported negative results. They documented extensive disturbance and deter-mined the presence of a marsh until geologically-recent downcutting of the Perkiomen channel. No other archeological surveys or sites have been re-
~
ported for the vicinity of either propos.ed Tine.
'l.j
- =f y MW= e * == <w a e N me ==*= -===yywo--,e.-e.u.- .-=.-.~em.- *=
_ a=-9==
11 r
To sununarize the results, 61 sites have been recorded in the project area. -
These sites are concentrated along the Schuylkill River and, consequently, are
]
limited to the Limerick-Cromby and Cromby-Plymouth Meeting lines. Field recon-naissance of 24 sites, selected on the basis of their proximity to the rights-q of-way, determined that site Ch-56 is within the Limerick-Cromby right-of-way e and site Ch-53 is within the Cromby-Plymouth Meeting right-of-way. Nine addi-tional sites may also extend into the rights-of-way, although surface visibility h was insufficient to determine site boundaries. The remaining 13 sites were p=
determined to lie completely outside the rights-of-way.
rn E
b
. =
il i.
L ..
(.
I_
r = * ~
- I J
l t>
l
12 i
Table 1. Site and Right-of-Way Proximity ~
In Undetermined- Out 9 1. Limerick-Cromby e
Ch-36 X Ch-37 X Ch-43 X 9 Ch-47 X a
e Ch-55 X q- Ch-56 X 0 Ch-103 X Ch-104 X Ch-105 h X Ch-107 X C Ch-111 X
.2
~~
Mg-1 X P Mg-14 X l- Mg-15 X
- u. Mg-37 . X
~
.. Mg-38 X Mg-39 X
- 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Ch-53 X Ch-110 X Ch-116 X f Mg-8 Mg-10 X
X Mg-18 X
Mg-74 X a
l n
/
u ,
i, ~
r
.._-......s. . - + ..e -** * " ' " ~ #
-13 1
V. DISCUSSIONS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTS ..
- 1. Recorded Sites In or Near the Rights-of-Way
- As reported above, two sites J were determined to be within the rights-of-way and nine additional sites may also extend into the rights-of-way. The maaining 50 sites are well removed from the rights-of-way, and are not expected to be affected by proposed construction. Before addressi.ng the potential impacts to the 13 -
3
" sites in or near the rights-of-way it is necessary'to discuss the concept ,
~
l of site significance as it relates to the deterrination of expected impacts.
l 5 i .!
~
Within the past fifteen years, a set of procedums for assessing igacts p to archeological resources has evolved in response to federal legislation U and policy. Although mandated for development projects with federal fund-ing, assistance, or licensing, the general framework is also applicable for addressing archeological resources pursuant to Pennsylvania's Historic Preservation Act of 1978 (P.L.78-273). In most instances, a two-phased a orogram of investigation is undertaken to first locate " potential archeo-logical resources, and, secondly, to evaluate their significance. Effects.
or impacts, from proposed projects are then considered for each significant site.
L.
The significance of archeological sites is normally evaluated in ' terms of g their ability to provide infonnation important in elucidating and under-12 standing an area's prehistory or history. Characteristics which contribute .
, to a site's significance,may include the presence of discrete cultural com-L ponents, undisturbed natural and cultural strata, or an abundance of floral or faunal remains, to name a few. In most instances the presenceor absence of such characteristics can be determined only through subsurface testing.
In areas of obscured surface visibility or buried cultural deposits, sub-surface testing is also necessary to adequately define the areal limits of sites and to define the types of data they are expected to contaan.
U
.. Currently available information is insufficient to detennine the significance, I
, and the need for further consideration, of.the two sites within the rights-j of-way, Ch-53 and Ch-56. If the two sites are assumed to be significant, it
, is also assumed that they will be adversely affected by proposed construction, j
7_
h _
._b- .- -
- . ~ - - - - -
_ _3 _ _
.- -- -.- .- e. - . . . - . e . -
14 s
Igacts expected include deep disturbance in the areas to be excavated for support structure anchors, and more extensive but shallow disturbance caused q by the movement of heavy equipment within the right-of-way.
Similarly, data obtained through subsurface testing are necessary to define ;
the significance and the areal extent of the 11 sites found to be near the rights-of-way, but which were obscured by groundcoveror are buried.
l 2. Other Areas of Potential Impact: This . investigation has considered the 61 )
i
{ sites previously recorded in the project area. As noted above, most of these sites are clustemd along the Schuylkill River and have been identified and t
]
recorded by local avocational archeologists. Despite the number of sites re-corded by these people, it is apparent that they concentrated their efforts g on the larger and more accessible sites along the Schuylkill River. The .
5 absence of recorded sites in the upland areas of the Cromby-North Wales and Limerick-Whitpain lines is believed to reflect the lack of systematic archeo- -
di logical surveys rather than the absence ' archeological sites. ,
( In his survey of Blue Marsh Lake; on the Tulpehocken Cmek in Berks County, Kinsey (1976) developed a predictive model of archeologica1' site locations.
- 3 Kinsey's model may be extrapolated to the upland portion of the project area due to their similar topographic and environmental settings. Kinsey (1976:
y 59-60) classified sites located during his survey based on five geomorpho-logical criteria: hilltop and hillside, swagy floodplains, dry floodplains, y terraces along the Tulpehocken, and terraces along tributaries of the Tulpe-
- u. hocken. He found that hilltop locations, most often associated with a nearby spring, cogrised the loci for 13 of 23 sites. Artifacts from these sites
( wem pmdominantly of quartzite, favored by Late Archaic inhabitants, and m-flected a high percentage of waste flakes. In contrast, floodplain sites
{- most often contained artifacts of jasper, chalcedony, and flint and yielded a greater proportion of finished tools. Kinsey (1976:65) hypothesized that the floodplain sites were transient cags occupied in the course of hunting and processing game, and that the drier hilltop sites wem loci of more ex-q tended occupation as seasonel base cans.
.I
, Although data pertaining to cultural.-historical traditions other than Late
]' Archaic were scarce in the project ama, Kinsey (1976) also formulated
! 17 I.
- m
- v w ee e eh m -*ey mm -
15 i
hypotheses about some aspects of earlier and later settlement patterns. He -
(Kinsey 1976:59) noted that jasper, favomd by Paleo-Indians, is availabb
] as outcrops in the Fleetwood-Bowers area between Allentown and Reading, and-I
. that Paleo-Indian base camps and food procurement camps would be expected g within a ten mile radius of these outcrops. Woodland sites were also quite hl rare in the project area, but Kinsey (1976:65) believed Woodland settlements l q might be concentrated in a few large semi-permanent villages in areas of y high agricultural potential along tributary streams.
To extend Kinsey's data to the present project area, the majority of sites within the uplands are expected to be small Late Archaic sites with low
~
artifact densities. Areas of highe site probability are flat hilltops asso-ciated with a nearby spring or other water source. Located on well-drained soils with slopes less than five percent, thess sites am expected to be .
seasonal base cegs oriented towards hunting and the exploitation of nearby riverine msources. Areas of medium site probability are frequently'inun- --
dated floodplains which are expected to contain transient camps and re-
, source procurement and processing sites. Areas of low site potential include hillsides with slopes in excess of ten percent.
]
Based on Kinsey's data, a number of unrecorded archeological sites are ex-
- , pected in the upland portions of the Cromby-North Wales and Limerick-Whitpain q lines. Additional sites may also be present in less accessible areas along the Schuylkill River. Although upland sites are probably smaller and contain
-t fewer artifacts than the Schuylkill River floodplain sites, they are neverthe-y less ~an important expression of aboriginal settlement and subsistence patterns.
Such sites may represent specialized resource procurement activities or cul-tural adaptations not evidenced on the riverine floodplain sites. Since up-land sites are often more shallow and closer to the surface than floodplain sites, they are especially sensitive to construction-related ground dis-turbance. It is concluded that construction in the upland areas may also igact significant archeological sites which have not yet been identified l
t or recorded. .
1 J l
- a
.. . ... - - = = * .
, w- h4 = =e Nm =- ** ^
16 41 VI. MITIGATIVE OPTIONS. ~
T As discussed in the pmceding section 13 s known sites and an unknown number of 1
unrecorded sites may be impacted by the proposed construction. Potential ad-p verse effects to archeological resources are most often mitigated through M avoidance or protective measures designed to preserve the data in, situ, or through centro 11ed data recovery designed to preserve the data but not the h actual site. Of these, in situ preservation is the preferred mitigative option.
It may be accomplished by locating support structures outside of defined site
{ boundaries, and by restricting vehicle operation within site boundaries. In some cases, sites may also be pmserved in, situ by placing protective fill over them prior to construction.
When avoidance is not feasible due to engineering or other environmental con- .
siderations, inpacts may be successfully mitigated by mtrieving the data prior to construction disturbance. Such data recovery is normally accomplished through controlled archeological excavations guided by a research design or set of re-
, search questions developed for the spe'cific site under consideration. Careful excavations, recording, analysis, and reporting are necessary to complete the mitigation through data recovery.
E More detailed definition of potential impacts and. specific mitigation measures
[ require further detenninations of site boundaries and significance. Necessary data for such detenninations may be obtained through subsurface testing coupled with existing information.
1 0
f
. ...+ ==e.,e .
m.m=a .he
- ep h me
17 s
VII. REFERENCES CITED -
a 7 Fenneman, Nevin M. and Douglas W. Johnson 1946 Physicat Divisions of the thited States, United States Geological Survey, Physiographic Committee.
Holzinger, Charles.H. and James A. Humpreville
$ 1972 Archeological Report, Limerick Generating Station Site, L Montgomery and Chester Counties Pennsylvania. Ms. prepared for Philadelphia Electric Conpany by Buchart-Horn.
h Kinsey, W. Fred III 5 1976 Archeological Survey and Evaluation of Blue Marsh Lake, Pennsylvania.
e North Musewn Publication No. 3.
Kunkle, W. Merrill )
1963 Soit Surve Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania.
U.S.D.A., Conservation Service.
j Smith, Robert V.
- 1967 Soit Survey of kntgomery County, Pennsylvania. U.S.D. A. , Soil Conservation Service.
E I _
a
~.
.p.
J l
E
] .
. ewe . g g e e se - e= en - enei e- a===- * * ' = * * - - *
- 7y--+ '
~ - - - - -
I O
9 9
3 e
u -
E D
i a
B FIGURES 4 .
59
(
a 8
A um M
o J
[
I t
1 I
.3 8
. -- - -.~ . - . _ . . . . .
' .e.-
a e, es -- ee-,-
= +-
g 9' 9
9 9
I i,
=
?
d E
5 .
8 J
a l .
APPENDIX A h ARTIFACT INVENTORY F
i D. .
7 l
J e
[ -
g
~
'9 N
a
-*Cee i e'-m-ene* e r4 e.--a m-we.,--o-mwm-- e,.n.,,- + - ' + --e w w +- -e-- e e
eme >=h rhme-gui gam * -Me--mmee- w += =ene - - + =mena+ . w
~~
lIg s
LIMERICK TRANSMISSION LINES .
ARTIFACT INVENTORY SHEET
,; Site: 36-Ch-37 Provenience: Surface I Item Description Quantity Flakes, quartz 3 Flakes, jasper _1 h Fragmentary Jasper unifacial scraper 1 Fragmentary point (flint tip) 1
~
l J _
I i
w 3
54.
1 :
P d .
l l
7 J
7 I Page 1 of 1 1
1
- - -- . -. _ .e_.
=-NW..,, -
- - -- == ,- -w---
ll%
k LIMERICK TRANSMISSION LINES .
ARTIFACT INVENTORY SHEET -
Site: 36-Ch-53 Prevenience: Surface Fragmentary quartz bifaces 3 _
Fragmentary quartz unifacial scraper 1
=
} Quartz flakes 13
,5
, Side-notched point (jasper) .
1 D -
1 J
I .
8 9
J 5 Page 1 of 1 l.
o
.._~..-._
---y-- -
__~._-- 7--~--- __--- --*
- r *__~r _T:*2 '__lLL L _-__.____.--3
- s LIMERICK TRANSMISSION LINES
~
ARTIFACT INVENTORY SHEET T
,g Site: 36-Ch-56 Provenience: Surface I Ii.em DescrTption Quanti ty Flakes, argilite
} 3 Flakes, quart'z 1 Core quartz 1 Fraomentary biface auartz 1 Fragmentary biface quartzite
- 1 Fraomentary cuartz unifacial scraper 1 5
t .
l l
8 1
l l
7 J
B -
n a -
k i .I Page I of I 7,
- --e =ene === .wn, - e=====
. . , , -1+?"'= 'MFM"_Mes'"'**'69'mT$WABW e, 'j"" fr'5""*s. ~ "'Tt4MGMs % 2 *Ps.s's .M% 6 h4P ' T'N J--$DPW TV TT-W F + OW GAG e e W MON"
~'
DOCUV ENT '
. PAGE .
l PU_LE3 ANO.mee NO. OF PAGES .
REASON O PAGE ILLEGIB2.
OTHER J 1 D BETTER Cort R60 VESTED ON _
MAGE 100 LARGE 10 RLM.
c, AHARDcor<naoat OTHER coR -
D FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO DD/ 3f-O/ $(rp oY
1 3 *E
~ ~ -
~ r*" MMONWEALTH OF PENNGYLV ' ~ 'IA
~'
.. PEN N DYLV. 41A HIGTOCICAL AND MUCEUM .QMMIUCION Wibbl. PINN M3M318AL MUc3MM AND AICMtV3h Jibc8MB sex insa nameeseues. Pawwov6vansa 37 so -
,g g
, 3 0 sll202 3 3$f. W !iCliJa ;
C CUWSKy ;
L. r- nhanLwas eb nn i*iffEnggy4'Z'.,
- '~" .j 26, 1982 January m 2- w .
3 g .7. / g ,
- 24. . g,,,1~
Mr. George N. DeCowsky * .)"'
- A i a I' -' : ,... ,g .i.... , ,. 4 . , . ,
Chief Electrical Engineer-
~
- Philadelphia Electric Company l
2301 Market Street P.O. Box 8699 Re: Proposed 230 kV line from proposed Philadelphia, PA 19101 Limerick Generating Station to Cronby Generating Station, Montgomery & Chester Counties, File No. ER 82 042M 0047
Dear Mr. DeCowsky:
The above named application has been reviewed by the Bureau for t Historic Preservation in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593 and the '~
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). a
- ^
. There is a high probability that archeological resources may be affected by this project. A survey or limited testing of the atea should
, be undertaken to locate potentially significant archeological resources.
Cuidelinea and instructions for this phase are avai3able from this offi.:e.
If you have any questions, please call Kurt Carr at (717) 783-5216.
Sincerely, Brenda Barrett Director j' Bureau for Historic Preservation (717) 783-8947 WG.amtwwa '
FEB 2 - 1982 .
, G.D. PARADis i
e 8 . .
ee e* - e m .-h- **a4-mew-- -g*e
--w@ -me-* -%
e y p_.. *WWyMTgw s"ak'sMM M M'Aa4Wff'M
4
) .
e COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTOR8 CAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION wiLLAupawwwaa9on AL wussum amo Answevse suecoiwe g.c, rer. . A:, c. . i t .. . . " ,
eensome IkDW" ':I. i:;I. !!.1 L;;U MAmasseums, pswwev6vaws.;. iviso I. " ' ~'t.T C t.
SEP 9 -1982 September 3, 1982 ria,,cs
~P_ vsnuena ansen Philadelphia Electric Company SEP 0- 1982 2301 Market Street i Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 G. D. PARADIS l I
l Re: New Cable Line for Cromby Station, ER 82-012M-0047 1
Dear Sir:
l It has come to our attention that you are planning a new 1 cable lins from your Cromby Station, south into Montgomery County and then west back into Chester County. ;
)
Significant archeological sites are located in or near your project area & others are likely to exist. These resources )
could be adversely affected by project activities. Intensive testing of the archeological resources will be needed to determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For assistance in developing the necessary
. scope of work, please contact Kurt Carr of the Division of Planning & Protection, Bureau for Historic Preservation, '
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The sites and ,
areas that concern us are listed below. -
ch 53 Sincerely,
- C QW-9 Rams-ty, Chief Division bf Planning C' Protection Bureau for !!istoric Preservation (717) 783-8947 GR/vms c: Public Utility Commission Kurt Carr o \
/ (
l#,W sl{.
s (q ^ t l
) ,
ffe'
- \
== :: -. . .;=. --
_ _au- . aa- _ a - - . ..L. - -i. 4 ---4 -. - _m A e t
/Y s fV.Q//l.,6 September 17, 1942 .
Hr. G. aamsey, Chief Division of Planning and Protection sureau for Ristoric Preservation som 1026 Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Subjects New Cable Line for Cromby Station ER 42-042M-0047
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
^
Your latter to Philadelphia Elmotric Company dated 56ptember 2, 1982 was referred to me for reply. ,
' on January 13, 1982 a letter was sont to Mrs. Frank Piaseeki, Chairposson, Pennsylvania Historical and Manaus Commission advising the Commission that a petition, Docket 7 810309, was filea by Phila-delphia Electric Company before the W ~17ania Public Utility Com-mission. A copy of that petition was mailed to Mrs. Piasecki on January 22, 1982. ,
( On January 26, 1982 I received a letter from Ms. Brenda narrett, l Director, aureau for Eistoric Preservation. We have since retained John Milner Assooiates of West Chester, Pa. to prepare two reports, one on historio sites and the sooond on ar*1~;ioal sites.
Mr. E. Beobtel of this ocupany has met twice with Mr. Eurt Carr of your Bureas. A copy of the two reports mentioned above were given to him. Philadelphia Electric Company will work with your Bureau to resolve any concerns that any esist.
l Very truly yours, l
. A.??Adk G. N. Decousky
@g,3 A Chief Electrical Engineer AutivLa ec secretary, PUC G. Gornish E. J. Bradley D. S. Frieman
, B. R. Stowell
.-.,,.-,,-..,,.-.-..--.-=,,-w.--m..
= - - + + < * * -we a_m.,,
- - - - - - , ,.--_my. _ , - , . - - _ . - , . _ +- - _ _ _ , _ _ _ _
l COMMONWEALTH Ofr PENNEYLVANIA PENNEYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUEEUM COMMISSION WILLIAM PENN MENORIAL MUSEUM AND ARCHIVES Sull.DtNG SOX 1036 MARRISSURS. PENNSYLVANIA 17130 l 007 N!
September 27, 1982 ,I - C, , bj.
~~:. ___
Harry Becktel L.u.r. ? r 7;G Philadelphia Electric Company : 4 2301 Market Street J .__. . ]
l Philadelphia, Pennsyvlania 19101 l Re: An Investigation of Preciously Recorded Prchistoric.
l Archeological Sites Associated with Proposed Lime:;ick i
1 Transmission Lines, Montogomery and Chester Countics, Pennsylvania, by T.L. Struthers and R.F. Hoffman, 1982 i File No. ER 82-042M-0047
Dear Mr. Becktel:
The Bureau.for Historic. Preservation has reviewed the above titled report and there appears to be a misunderstanding. We felt this report resulted from a complete on ground survey of the entire project area. This is not the case and, as recommended by Struthers and Hoffman, a complete survey identifying all sites to be impacted by this project should be undertaken. A recommended scope of work for this survey has been enclosed. Once this work has been completed this office will need to review the results to
- determine which sites may be eligible to the Nati al Register of Historic Places and will require investigation. discussed in the report, our general recommendation will be t avoid all signi- g ficant sites. This may not always be possible s measures will :
be required to mitigate the effects.of construct ~ ion and maintance. l At this point we can say that due to the extremo age.of CH53, . 4 this site may meet National Register criteria. If this site can ;
not be avoided, an investigation will be required.to gather the .
l significant information contained by this assuming the. site has '
been previously distrurbed site. As mitigation we, recommend that j the entire right-of-way be plowed and disked and,that% controled '
surface collection be performed. The collected artidcts should 1 be maped and analyzed to determine what horizontal erns are '
present. Based on the surface collection a series f two meters i squares should be excavated to examine high densi reas and search for subsurface features. The Pennsylvania storical and Museum Commission reserves the right of first refusal to all arifacts and records resulting from this investigation.
J l
l
. - - - - . . - - - - - - ~ " * *
- m. . , , . r,.,e e, v . - -
? .
It is not possible to assess the significance of CH56 at this time, although the topographic situation and some of the artifacts indicate that further investigation may determine that it is eligible. To make this determination, we suggest a series of two meter squares down the center of the right of way to establish if any significant data is present.
We hope the above has been helpful in outlining the pro-cedures which will be required to avoid adversely effecting significant cultural resources. Enclosed you will find a list of archeological contractors who do this type of work in Pennsylvania. We suggest that you request proposals from several of these groups to perform the investigations outlined above.
The one you accept should be sent to this office for review.
If we can be of further assistance please contact Kurt W.
Carr (717) 783-5216.
Sincerel n
G reg R sey, Chief ivisi of Planning Protection -
Bure for Historic Preservation Enclosure GR/vms cc: Public Utility Commission
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - . - - ' = = ^~
- *i
- PHASE II ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUGGESTED SCOPE OF WORK The following are a set of guidelines recommended by the State Bureau _
for Historic Preservation for the examination of possible cultural resources which may be adversely impacted by this project. The goal of this survey is to locate all cultural resources (both historic and prehistoric) within the project area and develop a preliminary statement concerning their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. If no sites are located which may be eligible to the Register, ,
the construction project will proceed. Any sites which are located and may be significant to our understanding of past lifeways will be first evaluated by the Bureau for Historic Preservation and Dr. Barry i
Kent (State Archeologist) before a determination of the sites eligibility is prepared. A plan for mitigation will then be developed in conjunction with our office.
The methods to be used in this survey will proceed in a four stage process. -
They are based on several concerns of this office. First, we-need to be supplied with enough data to evaluate both the effectiveness of the survey and the significance of any resources located by that survey. Second, there is a desire to provide some standardization of procedures so that the results of surveys may be more easily evaluated. Third, it is our opinion that the use of a predictive model is the most cost efficient method for locating cultural resources, especially prehistoric resources, and we strongly suggest the use of a field testing methodology based on a model. Iri the following outline we make several recommendations con-cerning the size and spacing interval of test units for the testing of differential probability areas. These are guidelines and may be revised according to the investigators research experience. .However, any major l revisions should be discussed with this office and supported in the final report. ,.
Y,.,. ' '
Methodology Themehhodstobeusedinthissurveywillproceed'inafourstageprocess.
The first stage will involve a literature search and informant interviews.
l The literature search will include an examination of general county ,
history, insurance maps.and county atlases. Manuscripts dealing with previous surveys or archeological excavations in or near the project area should be consulted along with our office and the State Archeologist.
5 .
-. a - .- ..
- n . - - . .
+
.y--~-____ _ --+-nm-. - mm ew m e-n -r - ,e m m + e s- -,,. n - m .m e ~-m ---,- - -n --
.2 . . .
b .
Page Two ,
Finally, information concerning the environment of the region and .
l
.specifically the project area should be collected so an ecological I analysis can be developed. Informant interviews should include professional and avocational historians and archeologists. An attempt to contact the local residents who have lived within the project area for the longest period of time should also be made.
Based on the results of the above research a predictive model
. concerning the location of cultural resources within-t he sro i j t ec This model should generally i .
right-of-way should be developed.
be based on the investigators knowledge of historic an'd pre-historic _
The. project lifeways and the resources which these people utilized. ~ ~
area should be divided into zones of high and low probability for .
. historic and pre-historic resources. We suggest the following 2- assumptions so that certain areas can be eliminated from the .
~
investigation. -
- 1) Areas under or adjacent to paved roads or their shoulders have ,
been severely impacted resulting in the destruction or near destruction l
- of'all cultural resources. ,
- 2) Road cuts or areas of road build up have resulted in the loss of significance of any cultural resources present.
- 3) Areas situated on a slope of 15h or more are inhospitable areas for habitation arid do not contain sign'ificant pre-historic resources.
- The third stage of this investigation is the field reconnaissance.
All areas which have not been eliminated by the mode'l will be walked and carefully examined for remains. In high probability areas where plowing has recently occured and there is no possibility of buried ,
(sub A horizon) cult' ural remains, a surface examination is all that
- ~ - - - . . - --- -- . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
- - - _--,m_
_, __ .---.~w_v.-_- _ = _ . . _ . . -. . ~ , -
. - _ - - . ~ . . . _ _ - - - - - . - -
~ 1 ~~
P2gd * *N...rso '
L .
.~
In areas that do not consist of bare ground, .
is recommended. h ld be one meter square test units at ten meter intervals s ou These should be excavated to the placed along the right-of-way.
and all soil should De base of the I horizon (at least 15cm) If cuftural remains ;
smaller.
' screened using 3/8 inch mesh or ,
below the 5 horizon are believed possible, the depth should be ~
increased accordingly. When artifacts are encountered in test,
units the interval should be reduced to five meters it and an . ,- at to define the limits of thd site should be made (as they ex s within the right-of-way) . b bility areas .
' Alternatives to the above guidelines for high pro a d at such as.the use of a large diameter power soil auger be and use
- shorter intervals or the plowing of the right-of-way would
~
A backhoe is suggested for areas where artifacts are
, considered. .
deeply buried. (although Zow probability areas require a less intensive examination ter test units placed at 100
,a walkover is required) with one meIf cultural remains meter intervals. i five meter ,
the limits of this site should be defined by us ng .
intervals. f the field The final stage of this investigation is the analysis o rces -
reconnaissance .
data and an evaluation of any cultural resou In considering these remains a special which may,have M en located. In evaluating emphasis should be placed on chronology and ffunction. features the significance of sites, the possibility of sub-sur ace should be addressed.
~
~~~
g-. -
wi > .
The final report for this survey should include the following topics:
- r .
. 2. Regional Environmental Background . .,
A. Ecology of Project Area B. Historic Background *
, 1. Surveys and Excavations in or near project area l C., Pre-historic Background
- 1. Surveys and Excavations in or near project area II. Predictive Model for Project Area -
l A.
l
' Map Showing Areas of High and Iow Probability
- ZII. Field Methods *
. . ~.
~
.A. Map Locating All Test Units '
IV. Results of Field Survey .
~
A. Soil Profiles .
- B.
Artifacts From Each Test Unit C.- Maps Iocating Sites .
. D. Evaluation of Sites -
E. Recommendations Concerning Significance .,
Appendices " '#
~
- 1) Site Forms , ,
- 2) Literature censulted .-
~
- 3) Informants
- The final. depository of artifacts from this survey will be l l
determined by the Office of Historic. Preservation and the State .. . -
\
Archeologist.
l 1
j t . 1
- - - . .. I
. .. ....u..
l
._. .. -_=_= = - . . - = . -- - - - - - -
j
i , , ,
a -
b -
CONTRACTORS . .
Cultural Heritage Research' Services Dr. Monald Michael F.O. Box 67 Department of Anthropology New Castle, DE 19720 California State College California, PA 15419 302-429-0711 __
~
Bome: 412-438-0686 GAI Consultants, Inc. Office: 412-938-4042" 570 Beatty Road Pittsburgh, ,
Mid-Atlantic Archeological Resources,,Tnc.
Monroeville, PA 15146 . Mr. Bonald Thomas .
412-856-640 F.0. Box 676
- Eavark, Delaware 19711 Gove Associates 302-368-5777 1601 Portage Street '
l i
E=1====oo, Michigan 49001 John Milner Associates QT.Tc.,
616-385-0011 North Matlack Street ,
t Chester, PA 19380 Townsend, Daniel Rober'es).'
Dr.' James Hatch ' 4-Department of Anthropology t15-436-9000i Pennsylvania State University .
University Park, PA 16802 M eh=*1 Parrington 4625 Spruce Street Bone: 814-238-1680 -
Office: 814-863-0562 Philadelphia, PA 19104
. 215-747-8438 Mr. Richard W. Hunter '
Archeologist, MA, SOPA, AFFA Public Archeology Facility 113 Rileyville Road- State University of New York
. Hopewell, NJ 08525 . Binghamton, NY 13901 609-466-0025 607-798-478((,
Dr. Richard Jordan Dr. James Richardson f Carnegie Museum i Department of Anthropology ,
Bryn Mawr College Pittsburgh, PA 15211 l v . University of Pitt:
Bryn Mawr, PA ,
215-LA5-1000 Ext. 359 412-624-4096 Dr. Susan Kardas Dr. Robert Schuyler, Managing Director Dr. Edward Larrabee Museum Institute for Conservation Archeology Historic Sites Research University Museum, University of Pa.
86 Snowden Lane Philadelphia, PA 19104 Princeton, NJ 08540 / 215-243-6981 609-921-8109 Mr.. Mike Steward .
'. Route _1, Box 2 Dr. W. Pred Kinsey._. _
North Museum
-Wayneaboro, PA 17268 Franklin & Marshall College 717-762-9715 Iancaster, PA 17604 717-291-3943 UAPORA 5700 Hillside Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45233 Dr. Barbara Ligget ,
116 West Gravers Lane Philadelphia, PA 19118 Dr. Renata Wolynec, Dept. of Anthropology 215-242-3599 Edinboro 5 tate College -
Edinboro, PA 814-732-2573 e
==****.- . .. .~ _ _ _ ,,,, _,
- - ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~-- - - -
,,,______,;7=w--= -
3' ..
Contractern .
Page 2 '
'$ oil Systems Inc Dr. Jay Custer 5201 Governor Prints Boulevard Dept. of Anthropology Wilmington, DE 19809 University of Delaware 302-762-2965 Newark, DE 19711 302-738-2821
.Cisrk Sykes Director Gilbert / Commonwealth Office of Public Archaeology Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Boston University -
209 East Washington Avenue Archaeological Studies Program Jackson, Michigan 49201 525E-232 Bay' State Road Boston, Massachusetts 02215 -
Dr. William Gardner i 617-353-3415 Thunderbird Archeology Associates, Inc.
Route One Box 532
- Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. Pront Royal, Virginia 22630 100 Halsted Street 703-635-3860 East Orange, New Jersey 07019 ,
~
Alex H. Townsend Paul D. Marshall & Associates, Inc. ConsultingArcheolod Suite 406 39 South New Street -
1033 Quarrier Street West Chester, PA 19380 Charleston,. West Virginia 25301 Conran Alexander Hay Dept. of Anthropology a Pennsylvania State University e i 409 Carpenter Building University Park, PA 16802 l 814-863-2301 l '
Richard. Hunter Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. ,
100 Halsted Street -
East Orange, New Jersey 07019 ,
201-678-1960 a-Edward P. Heite
- P.O. Box 53 Camden-Wyoming, Delaware 19934 (302) 697-1789 John R. Karn, Ph. D. '
Henager, Cultural Resources
- Gilbert / Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
209 East Washington Avenue '
Jackson, MI 49201 517-788-3560 e
un , w -
. 4 .a- o s %.ee. - e. . +--..se.o.- aw E '-
= : . ==_:
l < _ _.
h COMMONWEALTH OF PENNDYLVANIA PENNEYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUEEUM COMMISSION
- _ _g -_ wlLUAM ,ENN MEMORIAL MUSEued AND ARCNIVER BulLDtNG SOX 1036 G. fi. DeCOWSKY NAaaismuna. ,ENNayLvAN A ivisa CHIEF ELECTRICAL ENGINEER NOV221982 November 16, 1982
~ ~
ped LLECTRICAL ErddlNT.ERING '
werred to M -? IE!.h$iM0:1 & CI!T. [tl3. $[Clia L,r ?!WILTON G.N. DeCowsky Chief Electircal Engineer ! NOV 301982 Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street l Referred; gjp P.O. Box 8699 '
Philadelphia, PA Re: New Cable Line for%,.
3 Cromby Station.l(trcr,7 {' , ~.
ER82 042M 0047 I ,
i .' .' 9 y '. ' N.N
Dear Mr. DeCowsky:
j G. O, PAfggI.g l
.> o The study "An Investigation of Potential Visual Effects N' Upon Previously Recorded Historic Sites in the Vicinity of Proposed Limerick Transmission Lines, Montgomery and Chester Counties" concludes with the statement that "the number and severity of adverse visual effects, or impacts, can only be determined in conjunction with statements of significance and identification of historically important visual elements of each site". Please indicate whether it is PECO's in-tention to conduct additional studies which would further analyze and eliminate or reduce negative changes to the view-sheds of the 49 sites identified and/or whether meecings or field views are anticipated to explore thia issue. It is our opinion that the above referenced study leaves several issues unresolved. ;
) Si erel
$b (WR I
-- treg R sey, Chief '
i Division of Planning and Protection Bureau for Historic Preservation GR:sk cc: PUC w r,e e---- --
' ' s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101 sesAs. EsTAfs psysosom December 1, 1982 Mr. Greg Ramsey, Chief .
Division of Planning and Protection Bureau for Historic Preservation Wm. Penn Memorial Museum and Archives Bldg.
l Box 1026 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 i
Dear Mr. Mamocy:
With reference to your letter to Harry Bechtel of this office, dated September 27, 1982, we regret that there was a misunderstanding of tlw scope of
( archaeological work necessary prior to consencing construction of tranumluulon liswn i associated with Limerick Generating Station.
Of the five transmission lines involved (see Exhibit I), lines 1, 2 and 3 are uclwduled for construction beginning in early 19483. The significant amuunt us additional work required could have a potentially severe impact on this construction schedule. With this fact in mind, we began, immediately following receipt of your letter, to develop a program which we have confidence will meet the needs of all concerned without delaying approvals
.- I - A predictive site location model (see Exhibit II) has been developed by our consultant, John Milner Assoc., West Chester, Pa. Each of the transmission lines has been evaluated on the basis of the model, with areas of high, moderate and low site probability defined; II - A Phase I survey of the transmission line routes was begun on November 3, and is expected to be completed by December 15. The survey methodology being used includes a thorough survey of areas having high and moderate site potential, and minimal survey in areas deemed to be low in potential. All sites discovered under this Phase I survey will be recorded on standard State (PASS) forms; III - Once Phase I is completed, a Phase II survey will begin. Sites to be subjected to Phase II survey will be chosen based upon surficial evidence, studios of existing collections, site reports and projected adverse affect. The Phase II survey will initially concentrate on the first three lines to be constructed. T! woo linco scheduled for later construction will be done last; t
[. .~... $ [
~
' ~'
_'.'. 7 ~.
._ ._; _ _ :.. ~
_~
' " ~ " ' ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' '
. . = _ = =. .
<--.=4' -
- . - = , . . - -
b e
/
Mr. Greg Ramsey page 2 December 1, 1982 l
j IV - It is anticipated 'that a number of potentially significant sites will be disc >vered during Phases I and II in addition to soveral sitos already recorded (known sites having potential significance, and which may be affected, include CR 53 and CH 103) . Phase II excavations are already underway on CH 103.
1 CH 53 will also be subjected to' Phase II investigation. Potential significance of siten, and the affects of the project on those sitos, will bo discucced with the State, and on those significant sites where adverse affect is projected, mitigativo measures agreeable to you and us will be implemented.
V - On November 9, 1982, a meeting was hold in the officou of the State Archaeologist. Those preser.t were B. Mont and Kurt Carr of PHMC, W. Payne and G. Paradis of PE Co. and D. Roberts of J. Milner Associates. At this meeting, the tightness of our construction schedule was pointed out, the Phase I model was discuuuod with nu discernable objections and the above program wau disuuuuod. ThG following items were agreed upon: ,
A - Two of the first three lines to be cons,tructed (Lines 1 and 2, Exhibit I) are almost compk tely within railroad rights-of-way.
The other three lines are entirely on existing transmission line rights-of-way. It was agreed that large portions a of the lines within the railroad rights-of-way would be approved based upon the Phase I survey; B - It was also agreed that due to the tight construction schedule, an abbreviated report would be sufficient for approval. The abbreviated report will follow HCRS Guidelines for Management Summaries (Exhibit III). Both PECD personnel and representativos of J. Milner Assoc. will be readily available for consultation following
, submission of the abbreviated report. A full report, in accordance with SNPO guidelines, will be submitted at the earliest opportunity; C - It was indicated that approval for all five lines will be given to the PUC subject to PECO agreeing to follow the above described program for all lines; D - It was agreed that in those areas where PE03 utilizes existing access roads, no mitigative measures will be required.
We feel confident that this program will meet with your approval. We look forward to cooperating with you on this and future projects.
Very truly rs,
-- s D. S. Prieman WCPalb Manager ocs 3. Eent K. Carr D. Roberts w.w-w,ww-gwwy,-agy ,y y - -
- . . , - , , , , , . - - + . .
,,,e.,
s ,
a PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATIONAL MODEL FOR PROPOSED LIERICK TRANSMISSION LINES.
MONTGOMERY A*1D CHESTER COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA The following locational model is based on.several factors, which include geology, drainage, soils, and present land use. The study area under con-sideration is comprised of four proposed transmission line rights-of-way located in Montgomery and Chester counties. The rights-of-way extend cast
! and southeast of the Limerick nuclear power plant, cover a distance of 68.3 miles, and range from a minimum of 80 feet to a maximum of 520 feet in width. The study area is situated in the Piedmont Physiographic Pro-vince (Fenocman and Johnson 1946), and is comprised of low, rolling hills interspersed with floodplains in the interior, and floodplains, terraces, ,
and bluffs overlooking the Schuylkill River. The area is well watered by -
such streams as the Perkiomen and Skippack Creeks and innumerable smaller
, streams which eventually feed into the Schuylkil1 (Struthers and llulfman 1982).
Each of the four proposed transmission lines have been evaluated using the factors discussed above, and areas of high, moderate, and low site proba-bility have been defined using these factors. The areas of high site pruba-bility include upland areas such as hilltops, hillsides, terraces, and bluffs near major watercourses. Areas of moderate , site prol ability in-clude upland areas near minor watercourses and floodplains. Areas of low site probability include areas having slope in excess'of 15 percent and previously disturbed areas such as housing subdivisions, industrial parks, road and railroad rights-of-way.
The first survey seUnent extends southeast from Lincrick to Cromby on the east and west banks of the Schuylkill over a distance of 16 miles. This survey segment is located in a highly developed area and, as a result, 10.5 miles of the segment are rated low, 4.3 miles have moderate potential, and 1.2 miles have high potential (See Table 1). The second survey seguent extends cast fmm Cromby to Plymouth Meeting over a distance of 20.7 miles.
This segment is also located in an' area of heavy development, and 10.3 miles of the seguent was rated low, three miles has moderate potential, and 7.4 EXHIBtT E
l .
miles has high potential (Table 1). The third segment extends from Cromby to North Wales over a distance of 15.4 miles. The survey segment is located in a rural setting where disturbance is minimal, and 6.2 miles of this segment has been rated as having moderate potential and 9.2 miles high potential. The last segment extends from Limerick to Whitpain over a distance of 16.2 miles. This survey segment is also primarily rural in character and disturbance is minimal. The segment has been rated as having 1.8 miles of low site potential, 6.3 iailes of moderate potential, and 8.1 miles of high potential.
Based on known site densities in similar envimnmental settings, it is estimated that areas of hight site potential will pmduce 1 to 1.5 sites per mile and areas of moderate potential are expected to produce .5 to 1 site per miles. Given these expectations, the survey should result in the location of a minimum of 36 sites and a maximum of 59 sites. The exact number of sites which will be located as a result of the survey cannot be f
predicted due to severa111miting external factors, .shich include the exist-l ing limited data base, and the conditions under which the survey is con-ducted.
The survey methodology being proposed includes a 100 percent survey of those areas rated as having high and moderate site ' potential, and minimal survey in those areas rated as having low potential. Survey in low potential areas will consist of vehicular and pedestrian survey in order to assess and confirm the unsuitability of the terrain for habitation or the dis-turbances caused by prior development. Survey in the moderate and high potential areas will consist of surface reconnaissance in those areas where surface visibility is sufficient for cultural resource asses:.wnt, and subsurface testing where visibility is inadequate or in areas where the possibility of deeply buried deposits exists. Survey procedures and results will be documented using field notes, drawings, and photographs.
~ ' ~ ' * * - - . . + _ . . , , _ , , ,
I TA8LE 1 - SITE POTENTIAL SITE POTENTIAL SURVEY SEGiENT LOW MODERATE HIGH TOTALS Limerick-Cromby 10.5 mil,es 4.3 miles 1.2 miles 16 miles Cromby-Plyucuth Mocting 10.3 miles 3.0 miles 7.4 miles 70.7 miles Cromby-North Wales --
6.2 miles 9.2 miles 15.4 miles Limerick-Whitpain 1.8 miles 6.3 miles 8.1 miles 16.2 miles TOTALS 22.6 miles 19.8 miles 25.9 miles 68.3 miles REFERENCES CITED Fenneman, Nevin M. and Douglas W. Johnson 1946 Physical Divisions of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Physio-graphic Conmittee.
Struthers. Thomas L. and Robert F. Hoffman 1982 An Investigation of Previously Recorded Prehistoric Archeological Sites Associated with Proposed Limerick Transmission Lines, Montgomery and Chester Counties. Pennsylvania. Report- submitted to Philadelphia Electric W En5*
l l
l l
. . . . - . . . . - - - . - - - . . - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - . ~ ------~-
~'
- p _. . -_ _ ._.
]
.s o
GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT SUMMARIES .
I. Introduction A. b:lef description of who, what, dere, den, ny of project.
II. Work gaecuted A. 3rief, general indication of people or places contracted for information. .
B. Brief explanation of field strategy.
- 1. % of surf ace collection attempted.
- 2. Were site dimensions defined by shovel testing or by estimating varying density of surface artifacts?
- 3. How was site significance or insignificance determined 7 ,
l III. Results (can be given in tabular form) '
A. Site informatica.
- l '. Type of site - lithic scatter, quarry, structure, etc.
- 2. Site sise. .
- 3. Cultural asseciation, if known.
- 4. Presence or absence of stratigraphy. .
B. Success of field strategy. -
- 1. Were there problems in project implementation which would af feet agency compliance or planning? .
IV. Recommendations A. National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
- 1. Which sites eligible and why.
- 2. Which sites need additional testing.
I 3. Recommendations for further work, if necessary (limit discussion to sites requiring attention rather than giving a budget estimate and detailed plan).
Most '
I NOTE: Mangement Samsary is not meant to be a lengthy interim report.
l summaries can be complete in approximately five (5) pages. These summaries are planning aids sad a means of disseminating information immediately.
e l
I ExdtBIT III.
il- - -- ...._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _
_ . _ _ . , _ _ _ _. ((_77~ * ~ ~ ~ E~ ~_~~7-, -r ~C ' : ~ ~ ~ 1 '~'
-- ~ - - - -
- ~~
f . . - -
l it a Ji ,
W O D D 'l l .
,y - ,- -,
8 -
I E' Rg:
l ! II ;52l 13 E
.' ~= 8 $ 5 l ,
I } . ,.
g } - a
{ d l
= l
'\
g_-
I /r il g!a 8! L \~A !
ig:i li .
- i. AI - i' .
y l9 __
g
- 9 h s
-, II* m
- 325 @
l
(('
^ N h \ .
9 i
- s"l$
d' s !
' J.
l'g.
, F '.
. E Np J L. :
- . 1 g -
- ~
E e s snai / tij . .
jihi
~ '
- CGI siggs J
!. !' ( r
+ ~ .
,c _
r -
- s-- ,
g- !!! a
- x L gt ,A. -
I.,
,,j !i !!'
, n .
'\ ,
j {- )
ii li l ,-
, 1 l
i
!~
e
) 5 .I .- '
u '
i l} '
\' h ..
" " t
= a \
.e. ,
3 15 ,
l !
1
_! r- -
s 3 g g e/g~ ---
- 5; l
as ,
i
.f - i 8 .
l A -i $2 - (
{ g g /r . - - . -
1
_q ,, -
, y o l/ .-- l
! A
- }-}l l ' l l ,- i y ,
$j s
lg 1 1 - .
I l
c e s w l d l v, . 1 n
l i H a
1; .
d.
'I d
. s a l
I
> - W.
z',.*
e N. O l O
[
1 1 . _ - - - . . __ . _ . _ . _ .._..___ __._ _ ._
l * *
- g COMMONWEALTH OF PENNEYLVANIA PENNEYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUEEUM COMMISSION WILLIAM PENN MEMORIAL MUSEUM AND ARCNIVES SUILQ1NO '
SDX1036 HAmelSSURO. PENNSYLVANIA 17130 December 8, 1982 D.S. Frieman, Manager Philadelphia Electric Co.
2301 Market St.
P.O. Box 8699 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Ret ER82-042M-0047
Dear Mr. Frieman:
We agree with the procedure concerning the management of archeological resources outlined in your letter of December 1, 1982 for the transmission associated with the .~
Limerick Generating Station. If this program is followed, this project will adequately consider cultural resources and there should be no adverse effect on these resources. ..
Sincerely, G eg Ramsey, Chief ivisionfof Planning & Protection Bureau for Historic Preservation GR:sk .
. )P -
[ft g}Qn F'
Rf a
/ .
I
/
-e w =-+-mehemsw-- +e we- - - *=w*
%,-g e