ML20072S853
| ML20072S853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1982 |
| From: | Struthers T, Zatz K JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072S809 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8304070367 | |
| Download: ML20072S853 (49) | |
Text
- - ._ . '
g n _ .. . .
3asure,we.c s,.assssetsuussm.us.sursnamsmg. s,. . , . . c.. c , .
- j. g ., . ~ .m . ., . .. . ~ m vers s y.. sisroa,e Er 1
i.
- l. . i-
- ,.m sg .
n -
.'.~s. . .
.u m p .
p
'BJ i ..
ai I '. 1
'1 3 a ,.
- /
l k.1 a. lI
.f.U. !T w
s.
. n. .s
>gl' -
r n
lin p 1g L
- a I.r .
2.. lh i4 L n
= ,
x' lL L2i
.a 1.:
a g...
I,E ,
.Q .y e l E.
9.. ^ . ' : --
m.
t e
yj 3
e! _
a l7
, .- s.-
is JohnMilnerAssociates !!
ie jji
- e -
l
- G2 ik j
.' k
. .n . .
s t-
- E! .5
- t.'3 -
- m -
8304070367 930404 PM ADOCK 05000 A
M g ,gIgsf7gggy-gg-- -
, ._ --_ . c. . _ _ ~':~~ _ _ . _ . . - 222 ---
~~
~ ~ ~
-O An Investigation of Potential Visual Affects Upon Previously Recorded Historic Sites
. in the Vicinity of
. Proposed Limerick Transmission Lines, Montgomery and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania l
submitted to Philadelphic Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101
(.~
s._
l by
' Thomas L. Struthers Karyn L. Zatz John Milner Associates Inc.
309 North Matlack Street West Chester, PA 19380
., 1982 ou
-"i- -- - - + -- - - - - --
. _ . . , .. _ . . . - - - . ~ . . . -, -- - - - - ~ ~ ~ -
( ..A. .. ..
.. .. . . .. . .... ...--._ . ~ . . . . . . _ _ . . . - . . ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS C-s Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . ...................... ii I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Goals and Scope of the Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Description of the Pdposed Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 3 III. METH005 0F DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION
, ............. 6 Current Condi tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Expected Ciia nges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Evaluation of Expected Change: ................... 7 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . ...................... 8
~
t
(.. Cu rren t Co nd i ti o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 8 Expected Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Evaluation of Expected Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 V.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 VI. SIM4ARY OF THE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 VII. REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TABLES P
FIGURES 1
I O
_ - A- ; _ - ; - . _ _,___.__-
._ i LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sites Not Visually Affected l.1 Limerick-Cromby 1.2 Cromby-Plymouth Meeting 1.3 Cromby-North Wales l 1.4 Limerick-Whitpai.n Table 2. Sites Potentially Visually Affected l 2.1 L1meri::k-Cromby l
2.2 Cromby-Plymouth Meeting 2.3 Cromby-North Wales 2.4 Limerick-Whitpain
(( .
i l
I l
l
-_- ^T ; _. . . - .- : - . . .- . .- . - . .. - . .-.
ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Proposed Limerick-Cromby Transmission Lines and Historic Sites Figure 2 Proposed Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Transmission Lines and Historic Sites Figure 3 Proposed Cromby-North Wales Transmission Lines a.,d Historic Sites Figure 4 Proposed Limerick-Whitpain Transmission Line and Historic Sites Figure 5 Proposed Limerick-Cromby Support Structures Figure 6 Proposed Limerick-Cromby Supr. ort Structures Figure 7 Proposed Limerick-Cromby Support Structures Figure 8 Proposed Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Support Structures Figure 9 Proposed Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Support Structures Figure 10 Prt40 sed Cromby-Nortn *4cles Support Structures Figure 11 Proposed Cromby-North Wales Support Structures Figure 12 Proposed Limerick-Whitpain Support Structures
( Figure 13 Proposed Limerick-Whitpain Support Structures T
9 0
i
~
^ '
-._--- . ; - ...- L -- _7 ^- - - L:
i i
1 I. INTRODUCTION C.-
As part of its proposal to construct additional' power transmission lines in i
southeastern Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) has petitioned the Fennsylvania Public Utility Comission (PUC) regarding certain l siting review requirements. In that petition, previously recorded historic sites within two railes of the proposed routes were listed and identified on '
maps prepared by FECO. The PUC has requested additional information regarding the nature and severity of . visual impacts' expected to result from construction of the lines upon those historic sites. The investigation herein was conducted by John Milner Associates. Inc. to assist PECO in responding to the PUC in-quiries. '
, Goals and Scope of the Inv*stigation The objective of the investigation is to provide a discussion of potential visual impacts upon the historic sites that are expected.tc result from pro-
~
posed construct 1on. Towards this end, project goals included determination of current ar.d expected viewing conditions and view sheds in order to define I .
the anticipated visual changes, and evaluation of anticipated changes as positive or negative. The identification of unrecorded historic sites and the definition of significant characteristics of the recorded sites were not included in the scope of this investigation. The following report sections briefly oescribe the proje:.t arsa, with e@hasis on characteristics important to the visual assessment, and detail the investigations, methods, and resuli.:.
First however, it is necessary to briefly identify the proposed transmission line routes.
r l
Description of the Proposed Routes The five proRosed transmission lines traverse portions of Montgomery and Chester Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. They are briefly described as follows:
- 1. Limerick-Cromby (Figure 1): Two lines, one on each side of the Schuylkill River, are proposed from Limerick Unit No.1 to the existing Cromby generating station. The route on the easterly side of the. river lies within an existing Conrail right-of-way, which approximately parallels the
~
. - - - ,_. : ; . L z
2 river for a distance of 7.4 miles. It then leaves the 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 between Limerick and Cromby. The rights-of-way vary in width but are a minimum of 60 feet wide.
( 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meeting (Figure 2): The alternate preferred by PECO occupies 8.4 miles of PECO's existing right-of-way and 5.1 miles of Conrail right-o#-wy ?cr a total distance of 13.5 miles. PECO's right-of-way varies in width from 80 to 120 feet and the Conrail right-of-way is a minimum of (J feet wide. The lice generally follows the northern side of the Schuylkill and crosses two ox-bow bends. i l
- 3. Cromby-North Wales (Figure 3): The proposed line occupies.approximately l 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 i
direction, and traverses uplands for most of its length. l 0 -
- 4. Limerick-Whitpain (Figure 4): The proposed line extends from Limerick Unit No. 2 across uplands to the existing Whitpain Substation, a distuce of approximately 16.5 miles. It occupies existing PECO right-of-way for the entire length, with widths ranging between 300 and 520 feet. ,
l l
4
{ ,
i l
I l
t l
F"-- * ^ - = -
-7 - - - - m - y , , , ,9~_, , - _ ..
i
- 3 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
- f. '. ,
The project area, a fou'r mile wide corridor (2 miles either side of the right-of-way center line) along each of the previously identified proposed routes, lies within Montgomery and Chester Counties in southeastern Pennsyl-vania. It is included in the following six U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic maps: Phoenixville, Collegeville, Lansdale, Malvern Norristown, and Valley Forge.
4 Situated in the Piedmont, Physiographic Province (Fenneman and Johnson 1946) topographic features of the project area include low rolling hills inter-spersed 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 Schuylkill Rive.'.
i The proposed lines traverse similar areas of diverse land use and development comprised of farm land, urban and suburban residential areas, ar.d light
({ industrial and connercial enterprises. Historic settlement and development was oriented towards the Schuylkill River due to its navige!:ility and the presence of fords, and to the smaller creeks and streams which provided water power for early mills. This historic settlement pattern is reflected by the more intensive development currently evident along the river with the uplands
.being occupied by farms and more open land.
The presence of railroad rights-of-way ' paralleling the Schuylkill has maintained its importance as a transportation corridor and has encouraged more dense in-
! dustrial and residential development. Predominantly residential areas, w'ith some light industry and businesses, are situated along the smaller drainages, and farms and more recently developed residential areas are interspersed on the rich and well-drained soil between them. Major roadways Ridge Pike or Germantown Pike for example, have also strongly influenced the placement of residential and commercial developments.
~
t ,
- - - - - * ~ ~ ' -
. ~ . _-..-
. } -[__ :
y- --
4 As a result of such mixed land use and development, viewing conditions and
/' the nature of view sheds within the project area are quite diverse. In {
l general,- however, the existing and proposed lines located on the rolling hills and open fann land are both more visible and more out of character with the surrounding environment than are lines situated in areas dominated by 1 industrial and transportation developments. More specific descriptions of the proposed routes, with emphasis on fea'tures important to their visual
( qualities, are presented as follows: i
! ' l l 1. Limerick-Cromby (Figure 1): The study area along the northernmost two 1 miles of both Limerick-Cromby lines consists primarily of farmsteads and road-side residential areas. The open nature of this. segment increases i the line's visibility from more distant vantage points. Continuing south- ,
ward, the lines past through Spring City and Royersford, located on both 1 i
sides of the Schuylkill River and presenting the most densely developed .
areas along the Limerick-Cromby route:s. The remaining .cegment returns to a more open, predominantly residential, character into the Cronhy station on the outskirts of Phoenixville. ,
- 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meeting (Figure 2): Beginning at Cromby, the line passes north of Phoenixville, an urban area of mixed, tightly clustered residential, comercial, and industrial development including the Phoenixville In-dustrial Park. Two additional industrial parks, Valley Forge and King of Prussia, are also located within the study area. Eastward, the line traverses numerous residential communities with rapidly developing light industry, and it skirts the northern edge of Valley Forge National Historical Park.
The relatively undeveloped park area with woodlands and open rolling hills is in sharp contrast to the surrounding highly developed areas. Con-tinuing eastward along the Schuylkill, the line passes through the densely populated-Norristown-Bridgeport urban centers which encompass residential, comercial, and light and heavy industrial uses.
3.
Cromby-North Wales (Figure 3): The Cromby-North Wales line traverses less developed areas containing small farms interspersed with residential develop-ments and dispersed small businesses and light industries. The line will i
_ , - . - - - .-_y.ny. - - - . . - . .y . - . _ _ , . _ . - . _ . , . , - _ _ . _ . .,, __._ .- m.. _ _ _ _ _
5 occupy rolling hills and will cross the Perkiomen and Skippack Creeks,
/ ' and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension.
- 4. Limerick-Whitpain (Figure 4): Occupying a common corridor for approximately one quarter of their lengths, the Limerick-Whitpain and Cromby-North Wales lines cross areas of similar character. The area is primarily open farm land with residences and small businesses and industries encountered at mad crossings.
4 1
e d
e e
l l ~ ~
l 7- ; ._ . u . _ . - - - - _
. m. . -
_ . . =- ;b: -- l 6
I .II . METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION O
. The project was conducted in three primary stages including the definition
. of current view sheds and viewing conditions, the definition of changes in the view sheds anticipated to result from construction of the proposed lines, and the evaluation of identified changes as positive or negative. Sources of data and the methods employed for each stage are outlined as follows:
Current Conditions The initial data base included maps (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4) and listings of previously recorded historic sites within two miles of the proposed routes.
These data were prepared by PEC0 in consultation with the following agencies and inventories:
National Register of Historic Places National Register of Historic Landmarks Pennsylvania Register of Historic Sites
, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Montgomery county Planning Commission Chester County Planning Consiission
{~'
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Ccamission Pennsylvania State Archaeologist Sierra Club Keystone Trails Association Wissahickon Valley Watershed Association United States Geological Survey The data base included sites luteo or. national, state, and local inventories and, accordingly, contained a variety of site types exhibiting a wide range of documented and potential significance. It should be noted that numerous his-toric structures within the project area are of comparable significance to some of those listed, but have not been inventoried or recorded. Several of the re-l corded sites were found to have been destroyed or were located on corporate 1 l landholdings inaccessible to the public. )
l
., \
I l
l
7 {
i Data provided by the base maps and listings were supplemented with a field I p reconnaissance. As a general si.rotegy, an on-site inspection was made to !
further define the visibility of the rights-of-way from each site.
If the right-of-way was visible, a photograph was taken from the site towards the '
right-of-way. If the right-of-way could not be seen from the site, the I intervening obstruction was recorded photographically or in written field i notes. In cases where access to the site was denied, the view was defined <
l from the right-of-way towards the site or from the nearest accessible vantage l point. I
, \
l Expected Changes Based on data obtained through the above procedures, sites were divided into those from which the rights-of-way could not be seen and thcce which had ;
views of the rights-of-way. Sites in the fomer category will not be visually l affected by the proposed project and were not considered further. Sites in the latter category were sub-divided into those having high or low visibility of the rights-of-way. For these sites, additional infomation was obtained l
regarding the appearance of the proposed' lines whi:h w;11 fall into the site's
(. i I, view sheds. _ Photographs, drawings, maps, and narrative descriptions provided by PECO were used to identify the structure types proposed for each line.
Evaluation of tixpee.ted Changes l
l Information regarding the current conditions, degree of visibility, and pro-l posed structure types was analyzed to rate the expected visual changes as positive or negative. In addition, the nature of the expected changes was described to the extent possible. '
t l
~
l
- .::'~.
^^
KT- :. ~. . .. .. :.
^~
. u.--.. . . . ..- .. -. 7.~~ .. .
8 IV. RESULTS b ~~
Current Conditions
~
The curmnt visual conditions may be presented most efficiently in tabular form. Table l lists the sites investigated but' found to lie outside visual range of the rights-of-way. In these instances the sight lines from the sites to the rights-of-way were obstructed by natural or cultural features, most often by vegetative screens, terrain features, or surrounding commercial, industrial or residential structures. These sites will not be visually affected by the proposed lines, and, accordingly, were excluded from further evaluation.
Sites with view sheds which include portions of the rights-of-way are listed in Table 2 and the visibility of the right-of-way is indicated as high or low.
To facilitate management considerations, the sites are listed by proposed lines, and identification numbers correspond to those listed by PECO in its initial submittal to the PUC. Sites are listed under more than one line when separate lines are visible from the same site.
b Expected Changes As indicated in Table 2, each of the proposed lines is expected to intervene in the view sheds of a number of historic sites. Expected c.hanges in the view sheds are best defined by comparing the existing structures and lines with l
the proposed structures for each right-of-way.
- 1. Limerick-Cromby (Figures 5, 6, and 7): As noted previously, two lines, one on each side of the Schuylkill River, are proposed from Limerick Unit l No. I to the existing Cromby generating station. The route on the easterly side of the river lies within an existing Conrail right-of-way which
! approximately parallels the river for a distance of 7.4 miles. It then leaves the railroad right-of-way and joins an existing PECO right-of-way l to cross the river and enter Cromby. The railroad right-of-way contains two to four tracks, depending upon location, and includes a comunication and signal system in the form of underground cable, aerial cable, or open
[ ,
wires, also depending upon location. An existing transmission line,
[ ._.._
i 9
supported by lattice structures . lies within or adjacent to the railroad p right-of-way from Limerick for approximately two miles, and an additional line begins in Royersford and follows the railroad for approximately 1.5 miles into Cromby.
The line on -the wenwly side of the Schuylkill River will cross PECO property, and the river, to join an existing Conrail right-of-way which it follows for 8.63 miles into Cromby. An existing transe.13sion line is within, or adjacent to, the railroad right-of-way between Cromby and Dunlop Road in Spring City. Double wooden poles which current,1y support the line will be removed as part of the proposed construction. The railroad rights-of-way to be utilized are cleared and graded, and are generally at a lower grade than the surrounding terrain.
l Support structures proposed for both linas are tubular tapered steel ooles which will primarily use horizontal vee suspension assemblies mounted in vertical or delta configurations. Most of the stnictures will be vertical in order to accommodate the numerous curves along the railroad, and wil1
(; vary jn height from-100 to 160 feet. Double circuit tubular poles with vertical configurations will be used for about 1.8 miles on the western line to support the existing transmission line in addition to the proposed line. Delta configuration tubular steel' poles, which vary in height from 82 to 103 feet, will also be used for portions of the lines. Vertical vee assemblies will be used on several structures to match other structures in the nearby area. Thirty-six. vertical and 20 delta structures are proposed for the eastern line, and 56 -vertical and 10 delta structures are anticipated for the western line. Structures for both lines will be rust color brown, and will be 600 to 700 feet apart. The river crossing of the ,
eastern line will be accomplished by using two three-pole tubular steel deadend structures which are approximately 80 feet tall.
In addition to visual changes resulting from the structures and lines, trees more than 15 feet in height will be trinned or removed. Overhanging branches and trees which conflict with structure sites or conductors will I also be trinned or removed.
i
'e ,
. . - . . , . .. ,_m_..._.. . .
. ~___ _ _
mf i
_ ., 1_ _
r-- - - - - - - -
10
- 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meetino (Fioures 8 and 9): The 8.4 miles of PECO's right-of-way currently contains a twin circuit transmission line supported by lattice structures which would be replaced by lower,less obtrusive pole structures. It also contains a wooden pole distribution line between Cromby and Port Providence Road. The Conrail right-of-way contains one or two tracks, depending upon location, and is electrified for approximately one mile.
Proposed support structures for the PECO right-of-way are tapered tubular steal poles with horizontal vcs suspension assemblies in delta configura-tion, except for a 1.8 mile segment near the northern edge of Vailey Force National Park. In agreement with the Park, a low profile (83 feet average i
height) type structure of two tubular tapered steel poles with vertical vee suspensions in horizontal configuration will be used to reduce the line's visibility. Tubular steel poles with horizontal vee suspension assemblies in delta configuration will also be used along the railroad right-of-way except for approximately two miles where Conrail's catenary structures will be used. Poles will be gray on the PECO right-of-way and rust color brown
(;,
along the railroad. They will vary from 600 to 800 feet apart.
3.
Cromby-North Wales (Fioures 10 and 11): The proposed line will occupy approximately 16 miles of PECO right-of-way which crosses the Schuylkill River and extends northerly and easterly into North Wales. The right-of-way currently contains a lattice tower transmission line for its entire length and an additional line at certain points for approximately 3.6 miles.
The river crossing will be accomplished by a three-pole tubular steel, horizontal deadend structure approximately 80 feet tall on either side of
- the river. East of the river, tubular steel delta structures varying in height from 91 to 166 feet will be used to a point approximately 1.6 miles from Cromby where the line will change to a vertical configuration. Eight vertical deadend structures are required to accomodate sharp turns in the right-of-way. Two, two-pole tubular steel horizontal structures, one 82 feet high and the other 58 feet high, will be used at crossings of two existing' transmission lines. A double circuit delta configurat bn 159 feet high is f
e e
,mw.--,-,--.g.,. -my.,,,.,. r-.- -
,,.,n- nw-c_n--,-,r,,_,,,,...n,-. , - , , _ . , , . , , . , , - - + - - __ ,.- ___ _ ____ _ _ _
o .
- - - . = . = .::=---- .- : = T.d - :- ~
=- ~~ ~ ~'~' ~ ~ '"
11 required to accomplish a line crossing six structures away from the North p'
Wales Substation. The next four structures will be double circuit vertical ,
poles 119 feet high to support both the existing and the proposed lines.
Structures will be gray and will vary from 900 to 1,100 feet apart de-pending upon terrain.
I
- 4. Limerick-Whitpain (Ficures 12 and 13): Existing PECO right-of-way is proposed to carry this line from Limerick Unit No. 2 to the existing Whitpain Substation, a total distance of approximately 16.5 miles. All or parts of the rignt-of-way are currently occupied by the following transmission lines:
Cromby-North Wales 3.6 miles Whitpain-Buxmont 1.4 miles Peach Bottom-Whitpain 16.5 miles.
Whitpain-Elroy 1.8 miles l Suppcrt structures will be conventional lattice type, basically of the same design as those of the e.vtant Peach Bottom-Whitpain line, and will
(- be located at a'djacent points along the right-of-way to present a sym-metrical appearance. Structures will average 105 feet high, will be steel
! gray, and will average 1,000 feet apart.
Evaluation of Expected Changes (Refer to Table 2)
- 1. Limerick-Cromby: The two sites to be visually affected by the proposed Limerick-Cromby lines currently have full views of the Limerick generating plant and existing lattice structure and wooden pole lines. The proposed tapered steel pole structures are of modern design and are less obtrusive than the existing lattice structures. Although the current view shed is dominated by the cooling towers and existing lines, additional lines will present additional visual intrusions and are considered negative.
- 2. Cromby-Plymouth Meetino: The majority of sites to be visually affected by the Cromby-Plymouth Meeting line are in Norristown. Situated on an abmpt bluff overlooking the Schuylkill River and bisected by Stoney Creek and Saw Mill Run, the irregular topography of Norristown presents a variety t
, _ . . _ - , , - -- ~
~
l _ . . . . . . . - u.1 - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12 of vistas. Dense residential, commercial, and industrial development
'O further adds to the pattern of disrupted and irregular view sheds. As a result, adjacent sites often have very different views depanding upon their particular topographic position and the nature of surrounding structures. Unobstructed sight lines down the north-south trending streets provide a clear view of the right-of-wcy, while sites located in mid-block are often screened from the right-of-way by facing buildings. Proposed railroad overbuild in Norristown will raise the height of support structures
- approximately 50 feet, significantly increasing their visibility. Accordingly, l
the expected visual change is considered negative.
The Valley Forge National Historical Park will also be affected by the Cromby-Plymouth Meeting lines. In the Park vicinity, the existing lattice l stmetures, averaging 94 feet in height, will be replaced by more aesthetic tapered tubular steel structures and will average approximately 82 feet high.
The lower height will reduce the line's visibility from within the Park, and from the Fatland site, and the less obtrusive structures will further reduce the visual impacts. Expected visual changes are therefore con-([. sidered positive.
- 3. Cromby-North Wales: Although the entire right-of-way currently contains
! lattice type structures, the addition of lines supported by tubular steel structures will increase the density of lines withi~n the right-of-way and will cause it to be somewhat more visible. Increased visibility will also result in areas 2.::re higher structures are required to accommodate sharp turns and crossings with other extant lines. The~ expected visual change is therefore negative.
i 4. Limerick-Whitpain: Similarly, the addition of lattice structures next to i
! extant lattice structures will increase the de.1sity of the transmission corridor and will increase its visibility from the historic sties. Al-though the structures and lines will present a synenetrical appearance, the increased density is considered a negative change.
==
. - ~ - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - ,__...-,----m. - - , - - -
- _. . . . . - - . . . ..-._ - L. ;-
~'
13 V.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL VISUAL EFFECT5 p.
Previous report sections have identified 52 sites from which the proposed lines will be visible, have described the expected visual changes, and have evaluated those changes as positive or negative. This section presents a discussion of visual impacts, or effects, from the proposed lines upon the historic sites. First, hawever it is necessary to discuss the particular relationships between visual characteristics and historic sites. This dis-cussion is based upon the framework for assessing effects to cultural re-sources which has developed in response to federal legislation and policy.
Although mandated for development projects with federal funding, assistance, or licensing, the general framework is also applicable for addressing cultural resources pursuant to Pennsylvania's Historic Preservation Act of 1978 (P.L.78-273). In most instances a two-phased program of investigation is under-taken to first locate potential historic resources, and secondly, to evaluate their significance. Effects, or impacts, from proposed projects are then considered in relation to specific characteristics which contribute to a site's significance.
Visual c' haracteristics are'of concern in' both significance evaluations and deteminations of,effect.
Historic sites are considered significant, for purposes of National Register
' eligibility, if they retain " integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association" (National Park Service 1976), and if they also meet at least one of the following criteria:
' (a) That are. associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or i (b) that are associated with the lives or persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess
' high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 1::dividual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yiold, infonnation important in prehistory or history.
(National Park Service 1976)
- ~
3- g; _- -
J .= - = -
i e
_. 14 It should be noted that the above criteria are applicable to sites of local
, b and state importance as well as to sites of nation-wide importance. In addition, cemeteries and churches are ncrmally not considered significant unless they specifically meet the criteria of association, distinctive characteristics, or if they contain the graves of people of outstanding historical importance. A property's visual elements are considered in evalua-tion of the site's integrity, and may also be considered in defining the l specific characteristics which contribete to the site's significance. For example, a site's visual qualities. may have strongly influenced the location of buildings on the property, or may include historic sight lines and vistas which are related to significant events that occurred on the' property or that provide a visual link with other significant features of the landscape. In l
such instances, a property's visual elements may be integral to the charac-
- teristics which define its significance. Just as the degree of significance l may vary from one site to another, the importance of visual elements may also vary. from site to site.
Unlike significance, which is defined independently from anticipated project l {e activities, effects or' impacts are evaluated regarding specific characteristics of the historic sites. A project is considered to have an effect when it "causes or may cause any change, beneficial or adverse," (ACHp 1979) in the characteristics which qualify the property as significant. Whether or not the effect is adverse is determined by applying the criteria of adverse Effect as promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (1979). Two of criteria specifically :ddress visual elements:
(2) " Isolation from or alteration of the property's surrounding environment; (3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that cre out of character with the property or altsr its setting;" :
C From the above discussion it is seen that the presence or absence of effects
- and adverse effects is dependent upon particular characteristics of the historic site in question. Although the expected visual changes from the proposed lines have been cvale.ated as positiver or negative, determinations of effect and ad-verse effect cannot be maJe without regard to independently defined cnarac-
~
teristics of significance for each site. Although such definition of
,~~.. . . . . _ _l1~~.Z 1 ZZ.1 ---. f ~ 1.- i
~
1-.1--- --
15 significance is beyond the scope of this investigation, a general discussinn n of expected visual effects is in order.
A primary consideration in assessing the visual effects of the proposed trans-mission lines is their location along existing utility corridors. Although additional visual intrusions may occur, the effect is much less than if these same elements were introduced into a previously undeveloped area. In other words, changes within the rights-of-way may be adverse, but are much less severe than would be the establishment of new corridors. .In addition, the use of modern, aesthetic structures and design criten-ia outlined in PECO's (1968)
Policy and Program for improving the appearance of overhead transmission lines also serve to reduce adverse visual effects to historic sites.
In regard to specific sites, the Valley Forge National Historic Park is probably the most sensitive site considered in this investigation. Its sensitivity stems from its national significance and from the historic importance of its visual elements as they influenced selection of the site as an easily de-fensible position. As reported in the previous section, proposed construction
(" in the Valley Forge vicinity will reduce the right-of-way's visibility by re-placing existing structures with lower and less obtrusive ones. The current' l
proposal ,'vas selected from fear options considered by PECO ara has the con-currence of Valley Forge National Historical Park (Abell 1980).
Norristown is also considered especially sensitive due to the density of historic sites and the negative visual changes expected to result from the use of railroad overbuild structures. Negative visual' changes, although to a lesser degree, are also expected for the remaining sites within visual range of the proposed lines. The extent to which these negative visual changes'will produce adverse effects to the historic sites depends upon the particular visual elements of each site and their relationship to the site's significance.
O l
_ _ ;_ y
~ . . . . _ _ _
16 VI.
SUMMARY
OF THE INVESTIGATION O
Of 279 site to right-of-way view sheds considered, 227 were found to be out-side visual range of the proposed lines. These sites will not be visually
~
- affected by construction. Of the remaining sites, the rights-of-way are highly visible from 30 sites and slightly or moderately visible from 21 sites.
The visual changes expected to accompany constmetion were evaluated as posi-tive for two sites. Valley Forge National Park and Fatland, and negative for the remaining sites. Although negative changes are expected for the view sheds of 49 sites, the number and severity of adverse visual e'ffects, or impacts,:can only be detenmined in conjunction with statements of significance and identifi-cation of historically important visual elements of each site.
, s. , ..-
7 -
- t.
(; . .
l 9
qN
, -. . , -- . - - - - . _ . . . . - , - . - _ . . ~ _ _ _ , _ _ , - ,_ _ , . . . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . , , - . _ _ . . . . _ _ . .._.--__. . - _ _ , . , _ . - - _ . - - , - _ , -.- _. .--
. . ~ . -
L..-.-,. . .-
._ 2 17 VII. REFERENCES CITED
~
p
Abell, Arthur J.
~
1980 Letter of concurrence dated May 8,1980 from Arthur J. Abell, Acting Superintendent, Valley Forge National Historical Park
.to Vincent S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Philadelphia Electric Company.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1979 Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, Final Amend-ments. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter VIII, Part 800. Fede m t Register, 44(2):6068-6080.
Fenneman, Nevin M. and Douglas W. Johnson t
1946 Physical Divisions of the united States. United States Geological Survey, Physiographic Committee.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior 1976 National Register of Historic Places. Code of Federal Regulations,
. Title 36, Chapter I, Part 60. FedemI Register, 41(6):1590-1597.
Philadelphia Electric Company
- (- 1968 Policy and' Program for Improving Appearance of Overhead Trans-mission Lines. Report available at Philadelphia Electric Company.
l l
l
{
I e
i
/
n . - ~ . - _ . - . ....._ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ __, _ _ . _
-.. . . .. _ _ .. - ___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . . _ _ , _ _ _ , , , . , _ _ j]' , _
O s.
i TABLES I
a.
e Y
F i
i l
l I
i .
l
TABLE 1 - SITES NOT VISUALLY.AFFECTED Identification Location Registration Number Name Township County Federal State Local Table 1.1 - Limerick-Cromby
'2 Parker's Crossing Limerick Montgomery X 3 St. James Church Limerick Montgomery X 4 Lakeside Inn Limerick Montgomery X 5 Wentz Farm , Limerick Montgomery X l 231 Rapps Covered East Pikeland Chester X Bridge .
240 Hare's Hill Road East Pikeland Chester X Bridge
- 241 Starr House Phoenixville Chester X 243 Royersford Post Royersford Montgomery X Office Table 1.2 - Cromby-Plymouth Meeting 1 Starr House Phoent.vville Chester X
[ 2 3
' Rossiter House Rapps Covered Schuylkill Chester X East'Pikeland' Chester X Bridge
- 4 Moore Hall Schuylkill Chester X 10 Browning Ed. Tredyffrin Chester X Cabin 11 Cornwallis' Tredyffrin Chester X Quarters 12 Cressbrock Farm Upper .% ricn Montgomery X
! 13 Davis, Lowellin Charlestown Chester X House '
16 Deterick, Fre- West Pikeland Chester X
' derick House 21 Knyphausen & Tredyffrin Chester X Woodford Quarters 22 Loch Aerie East Whiteland Chester X 23 Pennsylvania RR Phoenixville Chester X Bridge i
w e. - - - . > -
,.,.-.--.. -~ .---. -. - . - . . . . . - , ... _ ..
Identiffcation Location Registration Number- Name Township County Federal State Loca Table 1.2 (continued) i
[ 25. Fetters, George Charlestown Chester X and Catherine i 29 Hartman, Peter East Pikeland Chester X 32 Hipple, Henry East Pikeland Chester X House 37 Mt. Vernon S'chool West Pikeland Chester X House 38 Pennypacker, West Pikeland Chester X David House 43 Singing Wods East Whiteland Chester X 45 Stonorov, Oskar East Pikeland Chester X House 49 Wells Mill Charlestown Chester X Property 50 Bodley Rapps Charlestown Chester X House l 51 Wells Olwine Charlestown Chester X C 74, White Horse Tavern East Whiteland Chester X 77 Lightfoot Property East Pikeland Chester X 78 Lilly, Mary Alice East Pikeland Chester X 79 Greeley Charlestown Chester -
X 80 Disque Phoenixville Chester X 81 Barnes K-Fell West Pikeland Chester X 82 Cross Roads West Pikeland Chestes' X 83 Canal Master's Upper Provi- Montgomery X House dence 1
84 Casselberry Upper Provi- Montgomery X Residence dence 85 -
Catfish Dam Lock West Norriton Montgomery X House 86 Cherry St. School Norristown Montgomery X 87 Coates Dwelling Upper Merion Montgomery X 90 Dyer House Norristown Montgomery X 92 Fatland Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence
)
1 Identification Location Registration
,m Number Name Township County Federal State Loca!
Table 1.2 (continued) l 93 First Presbyterian Norristown Montgomery X 95 Gold Starr Tavern Norristown Montgomery 96 . Holstein Family Upper Merion Montgomery X Dwelling 97 House - Nordix Upper Provi- Montgomery X Plant dence 98 King of' Prussia Upper Merion Montgomery X Inn 100 Montgomery County Norristown Montgomery X Bank.
l l 101 Montgomery County Norristown Montgomery X
! Courthouse 102 Montgomery County Norristown Montgomery X Prison 103 Morrison, L. W. Upper Merion Mcntgomery X House l 105 Morris Hall We:;t !!orriton Montgomery X
('l 106 - Norristown Borough Norristown Hall and Market Montgomery X j Place -)
107 Norristown Norristown Montgomery X !
Friends Meeting !
House i
110 Old 8etzwood West Norriton Montgomery X Bridge 111 Old Roberts Upper Marion Montgomery X School 112 Old Swedes Church Upper Merion Montgomery X 114 Peacock Gardens Upper Merion Montgomery X l
1 116 Phillips, Samuel Upper Merion Montgomery X j
. House j
117 Port Providence Upper Provi- Montgomery X ,
dence 119 Richardson House Upper Provi- Montgomery X dance 120 Roberts, Jonathan Upper Merion Montgomery X House l
. : . . . - ~ . . . . . . . - - , . . - . :
l Identification Location Registration l Number Name Township County Federal State Loca f
Table 1.2 (continued)
! 122 The Green Tree Upper Provi- Montgomery X
( Cnurch of the dance Brethren l 124 Schuler, Harry J. Upper Merion Montgomery X 125 Selma Norristown Montgomery X 126 Simpson Mill Norristown Montgomery X 128 St. Paul's Ger- Norristown Montgoinery X man Lutheran Church 129 Stoney Creek Norristown Montgomery X l Whms 130 Sudofsky Resi- Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance dence 132 Weber House Upper Merion Montgomery X
! 135 - Meeting House Upper Provi- Montgomery X Providence Friends dence 136 Walker House Upper Provi- Montgomery X dence C. 137 McDale Farm House Upper Provi- Montgomery '
X dence 138 Sowers House Upper Provi- Montgomery X dence 139 Wall Property Upper Provi- Montgomer'/ X dence l 140 Neebor Lee Upper Provi- Montgomery X (Gumbes Home) dance 141 St. Paul's Epis- Upper Provi- Montgomery X copal Church dance 142 Rose Lawn Upper Provi- Montgomery
- X l dence 143 Audobon Sunday Lower Provi- Montgomery X School dance ,
144 Audobon Inn Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance 145 Bud's Bar Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence t
- I
~
_ _.m._ _
_ ._._ '1_ ..__..._i . _ . -
Identification Location Reaistration Number Name Township County Federal State Log Table 1.2 (continued) 146 Union Church Lower Provi- Montgomery X
, dence 147 Mill Grove Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence 149 Keysers Mill Upper Provi- Montgomery X dence 150 Residence Upper Provi- Montgomery X dence
- 152 Private Residence Upper Merion Montgomery X Henderson Road 153 Mulenberg HQ Upper Marion Montgomery X 155 Potters HQ Tredyffrin Chester X 156 Poor's HQ Tredyffrin Chester X Table 1.3 - Crosby-North Wales 8 Firecroft Ha11 Lower Provi- Montgomery X
("' (MainStreet) dence
. 9 Andrew Todd Lower Provi- Montgomery X
! Homestead (Main dence j Street)
I i
10 Fetteroff House Lower Provi- Montgomery X (MainStreet) dence' 11 Penn. Female Lower Provi- Montgomery X i
College Monument dance (Glenwood Ave.)
12 Perkiomen Bridge - Lower Provi- Montgomery X (U. S. 422) dence 13 Perkiomen Bridge Lower Provi- Montgomery '
X Hotel dence 14 Old Toll-Gate Trappe Boro Montgomery X House (14 Main St.)
15 Keystone Grange Trappe Boro Montgomery X Hall (192 Main St.)
16 St. Lukas U.L.L. Trappe Boro Montgomery .X (202 Main Street) 17 Willard House Trappe Boro Montgomsry X (212 Main Street) 18 Henry Prizer House Trap'pe Boro Montgomery X (360 Main Street)
+
. ~. . .. .
Identification : Location
- Registration Number Name Township CC,unty Teaeral State Loca Table 1.3 (continued) 18 Henry Prizer Trappe Boro Montgomery X Scnool House (360 Main St.)
20 Trappe Tavern Trappe Boro Montgomery X (418 Main St.)
21 Abraham Treichler Trappe Boro Montgomery X House (504 Main St.)
22 Washington Hall Trappe Boro Montgomery X (550 Main St.)
23 Old Trappe House Trappe Boro Montgomery X l-(704 Main St.)
24 Lamb Tavern Trappe Boro Montgomery X (724 Main St.)
27 George Hagey House Trappe Boro Montgomery (412 Main St.)
Daniel Fry Store 29 Trappe Boro Montgomery X and Homestead
, {, (Route 113) -
Henry Melchior 30 Trappe Boro Montgomery X Muhlenberg House 7 (201 Main St.)
31 Frederick Augustus Trappe Boro Montgomery X Muhlenberg House and Store 33 Muhlenberg Farm- Trappe Boro Montgomery X stead l 34 Leonard Spare Trappe Boro Montgomery X Homestead (East 34th Street) ,
i 36 William Buckwalter Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance (Evans-j . burg) l 37 George coulter Lower Provi- Montgomery X House der.ca(Evans-burg).. .
39 Evansburg Metho- Lower Provi- ;4ontgomery X dist Church dance (Evans-burg) l
= '
Identification Location Registration p Number N_asjv Townshio County Federal State Local Table 1.3 (continued) 40 Evansburg Metho- Lower Provi- Montgomery X dist Church House dence burg) (Evans-53 Ann Casselbury Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance (Evans-burg) 54 Derrick Cassel- Lower Provi- Montgomery X bury dance (Evans-burg) 55 The S.P.G. School / Lower Provi- Montgomery X Library dance (Evans-burg) 56 Daniel Croll Fann Lower Provi- Montgomery dance (Evans-bury) 57 Keyser's Mill lower Provi- Montgomery X dance (Evans- .
burg)
- 58 Peter Williams Lower Provi- Montgomery . X
(~- Tavern dance (Evans-burg) 59 Hayward Brown Skippack Montgomery X Property (Mill Rd.)
60 John Umstat House Skippack Montgomery X (Evansburg Road) 61 Hyser nomestead Skippack Montgomery X (Twp. Line Rd.)
62 Peter Bon Home- Skippack Montgomery X stead (Old Mill Rd.)
63 Josephine McDon- Skippack Montgomery X nell Farn 64 Joseph Peters Skippack Montgomery X
. (Kuster's Filling Mill) 65 Jero Donath Pro- Skippack Montgomery X party (Mill Rd.)
68 Warren Cole Pro- Skippack Montgomery X party (Skippack.
Pike) 69 Jacob Allenback Skippack Montgomery X is (Old Forty Foot Rd.)
.' _ } . _ . . _ _ . . .
s .. . _1..
l _.
l Identification Location Reaistration C Number Name Township County Federai State Loca Table 1.3 (continued) 70 Jack Hetherington Skippack Montgomery X Property 71 Old Mill Farm Worcester Montgomery X (Markel Estate) 74 Farmer: Union Hall Worcester Montgomery X (Skippack Pike) 75 Two Houses Worcester Montgomery X (Skippack Pike) l 76 Peter Wentz Home- Worcester Montgomery X l
stead (Schultz Road) 77 Hance Supplee Worcester Montgomery X Homestead (Bethel Road) 78 Private Residence Worcester Montgomery X (1834 House).
79 Private Residence Worcester Montgomery X (1848 House) k,- ' Old Log Cabin 84 . Whipain Montgomery X j '(Yost Road) l 92 Private Residence Towamencin Montgomery X (Kerr Road) 93 Helen J. and A. Towamencin Montgomery X Stanton Moe (Kerr Road) 94 G. S. Longwell Towamencin Montgomery X (KerrRoad) 192 Kenneth Anderson Lower Provi- Montgomery X l House dance ,
194 George Baltz Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dence
, 210 11erz-Williams Lower Provi- Montgomery X
! House dance 214 Croll-Thompson Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance 21 5 Wagner-LAnstadt Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance 21 6 Weaver Cassel- Lower Provi- Montgomery X bury House dance i t i
.=e==.m%= + * - = -e ea= . . - e e..e-e-, I - - - - . . - s Identification -
Location Registration p Number Name Township County Federal State Loca Table 1.3 (continued) 229 Funkite Cemetery Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance 234 St. James Church Lower Pmvi- Montgomery ~X dence 244 Skippack Bridge Lower Provi- Montgomery X on Route 422 dance Table 1.4 - Limerick-Whitoain 2 Parker's Crossing Limerick Montgomery X (Linfield and e Bethel Roads)
! 8 Firecroft Hall Lower Provi- Montgomery X (Main Street) dence 9 Andrew Todd Home- Lower Provi- Montgomery. X stead (Main St.) dence i 10 Fetteroff House Lower Provi- Montgomery X
, (Main Street) 11 Penn. Female Lower Provi- Montgomery X College Monu- dance -
ment (Glenwood Avenue) '
12 Perkiomen Bridge Lower Provi- Montgomery X (U.S. 422) dence 13 Perkiomen Bridge Lower Provi- Montgomery X Hotel (U.S. 422) dance 14 Old Toll-Gate Trappe Boro Montgomery X l
House (14 Main St.)
15 Keystone Grange Trappe Boro Montgomery X Hall (192 Main St.)
16 St. Lukes U.L.L. Trappe Boro Montgomery X (202MainSt.)
17 Willard House Trappe Boro Montgomery X (212 Main St.)
18 Henry Prizer Home Trappe Boro Montgomery X (360 Main St.)
19 Henry Prizer Trappe Boro Montgomery X Schoolhouse (360 Main St.)
( -
^
. _ _ _ _ _____-.._.___m- - . - - -
. ~ . . ~ . . . .
\
Identification location Registration '
O- Number h u_ne Town-hip County Federal State Loca; Table 1.4 (continued)
~
20 Trappe Tavern Trappe Boro Montgomery X -
(418 Main Street) 22 Washington Hall Trappe Boro Montgomery X (550 Main Street) 23 Old Trappe House Trappe Boro Montgomery X (704 Main Street) 24 Lamb Tavern Trappe Boro Montgomery ~ X (724 Main Street) l 27 George Hagey House Trappe Boro Montgomery X
- (412 Main Street) l 29 Daniel Fry Store Trappe Boro Montgomery X i
and Homestead (Route 113) 30 Henry Melchior Trappe Boro Montgomery X Muhlenberg House (201 Main Street) -
31 -Frederick Augustus Trappe Boro Montgomery X
- Muhlenberg House -
t
(;, and Store 33 Muhlenberg Farm- Trappe Boro Montgomery X stead (E. 7th St.)
34 Leonard Spare Trappe Boro Montgomery X Homestead (East 34thStreet) 36 William Buckwalter Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance (Evans-burg) 37 George Coulter Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance (Evans-burg) 38 Jacob Zo11ers, Lower Provi- Montgomery X Plasterer dance (Evans-burg) -
39 Evansburg Metho- Lower Provi- Montgomery X dist Church dance (Evans-burg) l 40 Evansburg Metho- Lower Provi- Montgomery X l dist Church House dance I
burg) (Evans-41 Abraham Harman Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dence (Evans-burg)
~ ^ ~ ^ "' ^
l~
Identification Location Registration Number Name Township County Federal State _ Local
' Table 1.4 (continued) 53 Ann Casselbury Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence(Evans-j burg) 54 Derrick Cassel- Lower Provi- Montgomery
- X bury dance (Evans-burg) 55 The S.P.G. School / Lower Provi- Montgomery X Library dence (Evans-burg) 56 Daniel Croll Farm Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence (Evans-burg) 57 Keyser's Mill Lower Provi- Montgomery X dence (Evans-burg) 58 Peter Williams - Lower Provi- Montgomery X Tavern dence (Evans-burg) 59 Hayward Brown Pro- Skippack Montgomery X
, party.(Mill Road)
(~-}
~60 John Umstat House Skipoack Montgomery X (Evansburg Road) 61 Hyser Hoxstead Skippack Montgomery X (Twp. Lino 3d.)
62 Peter Bon Home- Skippak Montgomery X stead (Old Mill Rd.) ;
65 Josephine McDon. Skippack Montgomery X nell Farm i
64 Joseph Peters Skippack Montgomery X (Kuster's Filling Mill) t 65 Jero ponath rm- Skippack Montgomery X party (Mill Road) ,
68 Warren Cole Pro- Skippack Montgomery X perty (Skippack Pike) 69 Jacob Allenback Ski Montgomery X (Old Forty Foot Road) ppack 70 Jack Hetherington Skippack Montgomery X Property w..., , ., , . .,
, . - . . - - , _ . - ,.,_--,--n. - _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _
- - - - _ . - _ _ _ _ - - - - ~
Identification Location Registration Number Name TownsM p County Federal State Local Table 1.4. (continued) 71 Old Mill Fars Worcester Montgomery X (Markel Estate) 72 Wentz United Worcester. Montgomery X Church of Christ 74 Farmers Union Hall Worcester Montgomery X (SkippackPike) 75 Two Houses Worcester Montgomery X (SkippackPike) 76 Peter Wentz Home- Worcester Montgomery X l stead (Schultz Rd.)
77 Hance Supplee Worcester Montgomery X Homestead (Bethel Rd.)
78 Private Residence Worcester Montgomery
- X (1834 House) 79 Private Residence Worcester Montgomery X (1848 House) 84 Old Log Cabin Whitpain Montgomery X (Yost Road) 92 Private Residence Towamencin Montgomery X ff (Kerr Road)
L' 93 . Nelen J. and A. Towamencin Montgomery X '
Stanton Moe ( ' '
(Kerr Road) 94 Towamencin Montgomery X G.
(Kerr S. Road Longw) ell 192 Kenneth Anderson Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dcnce 194 George Baltz- Lower Prvvi- Montgomery X House dance 21 0 Merz-Williams Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dance -
214 Croll-Thompson Lower Provi- Montgomery X Ncuse dance 21 5 ' Wagner-Umstadt Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dence 216 Weaver Casselbury Lower Provi- Montgomery X House dence 229 Funkite Cemetery Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance
1 l
Identification Location Registration ,
Number Name Township County Federal State Loca I Table 1.4 { continued) l 234 St. James Church Lower Provi- Montgomery X dance 244 Skippack Bridge Lower Provi- Montgomery X on Route 422 dence 245 Worcester Men- Worcester Montgomery X nonite Church and Cemetery i I 246 Carter Fara East Norriton Montgomery X 1 247 Trimble House East Norriton Montgomery X j 248 Fryer's Auction East Norriton Montgomery X l l
I i
C .
?
L f
i o n -
O ' -
l TABLE 2 - SITES POTENTIALLY VISUALLY AFFECTED Identification Location- Registration Visibility Number Name Township County Federal State Local (+ or -)
H M Low Evaluation, Table 2.1 - Limerick-Cromby 1
t 1 Coch Home Limerick Montgomery X X -
239 River Bend Farm East Coventry Chester X X -
i
- Table 2.2 - Cromby-Plymouth Meeting
- l 88 Corson House Norristown Montgotary X X -
i i
89 DeKalb Street Norristown t Montgomery X X M111s -
i ;
91 Farm House West Norriton Montgomery X X -
,. 94 Fisher House Norristown Montgamary X X .
99 Masonic Hall Norristown Montgonery X X -
104 Montgomery Cemetary West Norriton Montg';mery X X -
108 NorristownJunction Norristown
' Montgomery X Railroad X -
109 Odd Fellows House Norristown Montgomery X X -
113 Opera House Norristown Montgomery X X -
115 Philadelphia and Norristown Montgomery X X Western Railroad -
118 Public Square Norristown Montgomery X X -
- ' 121 Thaddeus Lowe Norristown Montgomery House X -
123 Trinity Luth ~eran Norristown Montgomery '
Church X. X -
127 St. John's Church Norristown' Montgomery X X -
131 Swedes Ford Norristown Montgomery X. U -
( Q;
- Q '
l Identification Location l Number Name Registration Visibility Township County i Federal State Local !!13tt& Evaluation.
133 Winfield Hancock Norristown Montgomery X X House -
134 Yongaari Armory Norristown Montgomery X X -
148 Fatland Lower Montgomery X X + -
Providence 151 Eastburn Residence Upper Merion Montgomery X X -
154 Shannon Mansion East Norriton Montgomery X X -
o 157 Valley Forge Park Upper Merion Montgomery X X +
tower Providence 158 Main Street Bridge Norristown Montgomery X X -
Table 2.3 - Croubly-North Wales 1
- a is Farm 6 Du' Perkiomen Montgomery X X -
25 Jacob Garber House Trappe Montgomery X X -
26 Old Trappe Church Trappe ,
Montgomery X X -
28 David Dewees Trappe Montgomery X X Mansion - -
32 Senator Lewis Trappe Montgomery X X !
Roer House -
66 Lesher Property Skippack Montgomery X X - '
67 Skippack Mennonite Skippack Montgomery X X '
Meeting -
80 Bethel Hill Worcester Montgomery X X Methodist Church -
Dairy Farm 81 -
Worcester . Montgomery X X -
82 Church and Cemetary Worcester Montgomery
! X X -
83 Bean (Bien) House ' Worcester Montgomery X X -
221 Kuster Hill Lower Providence Mnntonmerv Y v
d O
( '
Ci 0
- Identification Location Registration j Number Name Visibility Township County ,.
, Federal State Local M Low Evaluation e
- Table 2.4 - Limerick-Whltpain Coch-Home !
1 Limerick Montgomery X X -
3 St. James Church Limerick Montgomery X X -
4 Lekeside Inn Limerick Montgomery X X -
5 E:ntz House Limerick Montgomery X X - i 6 Dobots Farm Perkiomen Montgomery X X - -
25 Jacob Garber House Trappe Montgomery X X -
26 Old Trappe House Trappe Montgomery X X -
28 David Dewees Trappe Montgomery Mansion i
32 Senator Lewis Trappe Montgomery X X -
Royer House
! 66 Lesher Property Skippack Montgomery X X - !,
67 Skippack Meanonite Skippack Montgomery X X -
Meeting 80 Bethel Hill Worcester Montgomery X X -
Methodist Church ,
81 Dairy Farm Worcester Montgomery X X -
82 Chorch and Cemetary Worcester Montgomery X X -
83 Bean (Bien) House Worcester Montgomery X X -
221 Kuster Mill Lower Montgomery X X -
Providence 6
(
4
' ~
.mse . . _ ,
I .
4 FIGURES C:.
W 1
i 9
l 1
(.
s _ __ . . _
RE. LOCATED REl.0CATED PRdPOSEO REl.0CATED 27010 5 0'29 5031 3010 LIME LIME LIME. L14E.
35 ' 3(4o'__55'
._ 3d,,, i 4o_',' 55' l 55' 2.5'- t." Y--) - _
Eoc,E - -
me A x a A 0 F R M ,) w Y '
( ) f,V EDGE CF RjN
- 1 N 4
. i 16' _
_g00
- _
pro' _ _ Ilo* _' g 2t* ,
$20'
(.b -
REtoc4E0 PROPOSIED ' RE. LOCATED METi%
5o29 505l Solo 2. t o t o LINE Lik12, LINE LIN E.
_3*i 36' 4o' 35' 3./g E' _ z M' _ Ss'1M' ?$42N' h wv m AA -h erE' r -
V V5/ Ad EDGE o
.N ,,
e ,
e E.DGE.
OF R/W m 0F R/W m
4 o a
-95' _ _ ito' _ _ t to'. ._
9'2 5'_g,.
',. 416' Figure 13 Proposed Limerick-Whitpain Support Structures.
(.
e_
O...
PROPOSE.D . EKIST.
5031 LINE Solo uuL 35' 65' Ao' 35' 35' A A. A s
""I ,
.::L . soss
- s R/ M
. g) oF R/W b
9'5
- _l t i c' i 95' i- .
500' l
l - .
C,. .
l FRofosED T20 to2.
- 1.\H L
! 611SI.
, PRoPoSto EXIST. - - -
110 10 5051 LINE 5010 LINE, LIMG.
.W SS 4o' 3(g M $4TI Sex a A x --
'A # I rVY <> '
- E _
o,DG
- am E . - . ,. soc.e o
r-S
- OF R/W ,
\
1 l 45' _ ilo ' ,_ __
its' .L_ sd 2,_ so' .,
l 45o.'.
(--
l Figure 12 Proposed Limerick-Whitpain Support Structures.
G .
l l
1
4 a _. m
' " ' ~ *
-s,m W" a
- _
1
\:
/ /
b: 'hr I
'a w I
( "*
s-A . .
i f 4 h J'l'l' f*{ Wf N "
-x 'R C (*
~-
'g 4 N
. ys.~ .
s N. N. N
,e l: .
g
'/ / J/ -,
D N. s . ,,
f
. N D2R 4
JS
/ ,.,.
i
-s. _ -
l
.____._.c>_,_.
~ ' ' .~. "
'~ ~
_ Z. _ ._ . ' J . _ _. . . _ _ ._ . _ .
W t
.. gx l t p
N. &! .
7 N '
\ \
4 A )
\. @
g
~
,, S y R 2 J~ " ( ,-
.w O
i % -
f i
\\- G
$ T 6 g
2
.1 .
s
(*:*. 2"F
[
) b
- 3 -
% s 9 1
i.
4, ,,
,E C
K ;
N.
r V. -
a 4
.N , , c VT e ,
a f- *- 4 y
1 5"
k ..g 4 ,
I 4
+
---,,,-,p---m--wawu ww - ----w -- -=--N
( .~
l r
- its' .,
( m i <
g%ydje f . . .
i A x-x, .i;N~nz f_rs - "
i 1 l\
3 l
l 1. 1/.t .l \ F. l.
. .I s- 1 l
r
\ fe 4,
\ f. '
,s ( 9
/
N/
yy_ . __, =_
l
' ' " - " - " ~
315' P. E. C O. R. O , w-C ohlR N L R.O.W.
4 Figure 9 Proposed Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Support Structures.
s
! i t
e . .
(. e
'- a r's zu zu
,u _,;-y s
O' ._ %.
T,-
-1 ., \../ \../__? \../
- o
- 4,
.e
.. O .
.i TT, 4 .
'O l R0 W yftOTH VARIES
". 12. E ll
_l l rs.o.w. ,
, , y,, _ ,,,
. . . ... P '
~l T u t.ot t-R STcht TvF E ST RUCT u R E, TL E UL A.R. ' s 7 EEL TYPk ST RUCTb T W-iCA. 4 4 ~;.102 9'T 11 0.* 1 TY PIC AL HE.t G l . 95*1
. !!O'
(.. . m l
h P. E. Co. f g,. \ **
l E%T EMS 10N 1
'N # ,a EY.lS T IN Cs
/ \ b l STRU C.T U RE (1 1
l ,
~ ~ 7 ST REET , ,,/
STREET l
1 RAtLRO AD OVE.RButto T y ;- s c. At suic4T ino' :
l Q Figure 8 Proposed Cromby-Plymouth Meeting Support Structurcs.
l l
~ ~~ ~ ~
l -
1 . _1 . ._.i ._
24' la' d
n
-- > r' a
Y .
e i
1 S \[~ "
y i .
e i:
w V -- ;
[U .
p+
3 -
o P-
[ ,
R.O.W. WlDTM VAR \ES -
. . . . o u TUBU LA,R, STE EL TN PE STR.OCTURE
/$\ OELTA. COuF 16 O R AT \ OM
( M .T. S . )
{: - 13.5' y
me o - >
- G
- 'u ~
k c-
.. /.
i- .
2 ou o td a . ,
\ -
r td g-)$
f $V "
x0 o I
'" 3 8 5-J ....
w4 -
g r-y-
y
'O R.o.W. wsoM l wRsa s =
0 . . .
" i TUBULAR STEEL TYPE STRUCTU RE g -
DELTA CONFIGURATIOkl s M.T. S.)
s .
Figure 7 Proposed Limerick-cromby Support Strucutres.
. = _ . . . ._. .
._. _ . _ . . _ ~ . _ -. . _ . _ . _ _ ._ _ _._ .,
0 l
l 13 . 5 '_-
- D' i
a N a
- I
, /!
l 4
l r
( .. i
' s, b
~
( .'. u db i
m 4
b*
l i
_ R. O. W. WlOTH VARIES _
,r , , J, 1 TUBUL AR STEEL TYPE STRuc.TURE
,.h
. VE RT I C AL CONFIGUR ATION ,
(u.T.S.)
l Figure 6 Proposed Limerick-Cromby Support Structures.
s..
1
~--,.,w -
gn r
' 15' 2 5' C
(s ,-
\;
i u' f e k r
, M '
f \ /-
i 1 'o
'm i
% l &) #
I o y : -
THREE POLE DEADENc STRUCTURE
/$\ HOR 1'I.Oh1TAL CONF \GORATiOM (M .T. 5.3 l .s c.f _
-n' l
< t w =, a s
j a !
o m
9 -
~ / '
b o
R.O.N. WtoTH NARIES
.. .9 '
r TOButh,R STEEL P ob.E
{ / NERT) CAL COMFiGiuR ATIOM Do uBLE C\ RCu\T
, (M .T.5. )
Figure 5 Proposed 1.imerick-Cromby Support Structures.
~
,, ,- _ _% _ w _- ,,,y..,r.,._,,-w